Suddenly Righteous Dudes
Posted by CN Staff on July 27, 2009 at 04:28:43 PT
By Karl Vick, Washington Post Staff Writer
Source: Washington Post
cannabis Fort Bragg, Calif. -- The steel-haired old hippies who grow the finest marijuana in the world began taking over Mendocino County four decades ago.
"Going back to the '60s, early '70s in Mendocino County, land was cheap," said Tony Craver, twice elected sheriff, now retired. "Thirty-five hundred square miles, only three population centers, very little law enforcement. . . . The hippies, if you will, moved in and started growing pot. The hippies became the establishment."
Democratic government serves at the consent of the governed; in this jurisdiction, enforcement of marijuana laws would be lax at best. A "grow" became an accepted component of the homesteads established by the back-to-the-land transplants who made their way across the Golden Gate Bridge, past the vineyards of Sonoma and into the woods. At Area 101, a club named for the highway lined with billboards for hydroponics and fertilizer, December brings the Emerald Cup, a public competition for the "best bud" in the county, if not the world.
"It's so a part of Mendocino County," said K.C. Meadows, managing editor of the Ukiah Daily Journal. "There are fairly large businesses in this town that got their start with marijuana money. And that's okay with people."
How, then, to explain what happened to arrests here last year? Pot busts up 60 percent.
And what could account for the vote to roll back the nation's first law ordering police to make enforcement of marijuana laws their very lowest priority?
A paradox indeed: The clampdown was set in motion by the entire state of California barreling down the path Mendocino blazed. In a Rube Goldberg sequence of cause and effect, growing acceptance of marijuana elsewhere in the Golden State unleashed a confluence of demand, tolerance and legal ambiguity rooted in political cowardice.
The result set in motion forces that seriously harshed the mellow here and brought the "war on drugs" to the one place in America it had never really reached.
Pebbles Trippet arrived in Mendocino in 1970, escaping the drug laws of New York state. "California beckoned," said Trippet, an activist, columnist and grower who has been heard to ask, "Can I pay you in bud?"
The year she arrived, Congress passed the Controlled Substance Act, which ranked all drugs by capacity for harm. Marijuana landed alongside PCP and heroin on "Schedule 1," a ranking even the establishment found reason to revisit just two years later. A commission appointed by President Richard Nixon recommended lightening up.
"Damn near puked," Nixon said of this on the White House tapes, where he was heard ordering up a pot law "that just tears the [posterior] out of them." Meaning the longhaired, antiwar, free-love counterculture that was as much the object of the original war on drugs as any substance was.
But in the years ahead more and more Americans sampled marijuana, and the republic remained standing. Then doctors defied the premise of the Schedule 1 holding of "no medicinal value" by reporting that marijuana alleviated conditions from glaucoma to asthma.
Today, Trippet, 66, is president of the Mendocino Medical Marijuana Patients Union, a title that tidily sums up the current state of play on the issue: In 1996 California's voters passed Proposition 215, legalizing pot for medical use.
Lawmakers in Sacramento took a few years to gauge the politics of the required implementing legislation. When they finally did, it was a wink: They decreed in 2003 that marijuana could be used to treat "any . . . illness."
And if that wasn't clear enough, the bill was numbered SB420 -- 420 being a code phrase in the pot subculture. 420 Magazine competes with High Times.
In May, the U.S. Supreme Court endorsed the new reality: Anyone with a doctor's card can smoke dope. What remains woefully unclear is where they are supposed to find it. Mendocino was an obvious place to look.
In 2001, two years before the wink from Sacramento, Mendocino residents approved Measure G, permitting the holder of a medical card to grow 25 plants.
It was a strong signal to city dwellers hard-pressed for the space to grow their own. Indeed, the county's growers were superbly positioned. Aside from the let-it-grow culture, the high-end strains originally cultivated in Mendocino became the preferred stock for the storefront "dispensaries" that began opening elsewhere in the state.
"Things just took off," Trippet said. "Just about everyone felt they could grow. By then it was half the county. Now it's probably two-thirds."
The money was easy. At the service window of a dispensary, patients page through binders of bagged snippets of Purple Kush and Train Reck. The tag says $50 for an eighth of an ounce. Growers could expect $4,000 for a pound, and get four harvests a year, growing indoors.
"What a difference a couple of years make!" proclaimed the emcee at the Emerald Cup. "We all have medical permits. Everyone grows in the full sun. Marijuana is blooming right into mainstream America. The judging gets harder every year. And it's only going to get better!"
But it didn't.
As growers lost sight of limits, things somehow got worse. The money changed people.
Now some growers planted in town, considered declasse because flowering buds put up a powerful stink. In Ukiah, the county seat, a man was shot after climbing into a fenced pot patch. Another suffered a heart attack halfway over.
"It's a huge problem in our schools," said Meredith Lintott, the district attorney. "Children come in reeking of marijuana."
Worse, outsiders poured in, some armed. In September, three carloads of men aged 18 to 24 arrived from Sacramento carrying guns, radios and pruning shears. They had read about Mendocino in High Times. Home invasions rose to 40 from 24 the previous year.
None of this was the Mendocino way. Mexican cartels grow pot in Northern California, but off in the national forests in huge grows that produce inferior herb. Locals brought a specific sensibility to their work, one in the spirit of the "New Settlers" who produced the nation's first organic commercial wine, at Frey Vineyards, and the first organic microbrew, at Ukiah Brewing Co.
The outsiders, "these are people who had no pride of ownership," said Tom Allman, who was elected sheriff amid the tumult. "They don't care what they do to our land. A guy with a Caterpillar took off tops of two hills. . . . This is where government has to step in and do compliance checks."
"I think after 2007, people started to look around and say, you know what? This isn't great the way it is going down," said Scott Zeramby, who runs a small garden supply store in Fort Bragg. "We've all seen it go from back-to-the-landers, where people wanted to get away from it all, to people who came here to get it all. Property values got so high, the only way you could afford it was to break the law."
And so, in November, a measure passed to scale back Mendocino's legal limit to the state's suggested six-plant minimum. The sheriff sensed a mandate. Tips rolled in, and deputies saddled up.
On Feb. 20, they busted the younger sister of a student shot dead at Kent State in 1970. Allison Krause was the young woman who said of the flowers in the barrels of the National Guardsmen who would shoot her and four others: "Flowers are better than bullets."
"I thought this was a community that was forward-thinking, progressive -- that thought marijuana was a good thing!" said Laurel Krause, who was accused of having too many plants.
Her doctor's card recommended pot to alleviate post-traumatic stress disorder occasioned by Allison's death.
The social dynamics of small towns played a role in the backlash. Krause, who arrived from Silicon Valley, counts as an outsider. Her 24 plants grew under lights in a shipping container -- outsized PG&E bills are a reliable tip-off to cultivation -- but it vented onto the land of a neighbor, who called the sheriff.
"They'd be growing 75 plants in their back yard," Craver said. "It'd be stinking -- and it does in the summer, while your neighbor's trying to have a barbecue."
But there are greater forces at work as well. When state lawmakers legalized medical marijuana, they left the supply chain in the shadows. Drug dealers got to call themselves dispensary operators. But what were growers?
Baffled.
"When you come out, you have confused notions about what's possible," said Trippet, who grew 100 plants on her property a couple of years ago, but is down to 60 out of prudence. "You're not used to working at this end of the envelope. Many didn't know about the limits."
Jerry Brown, known as Gov. Moonbeam in the '80s, is California's attorney general. His office last year took a stab at the open question of supply, publishing guidelines for enforcement of SB420. The guidelines hewed to the notion that suppliers of medical marijuana are "caregivers" and allowed "patients" to organize themselves as collectives.
"The AG's new guidelines basically require the industry be vertically integrated. And to do that, you've got to get big. And that comes with risks," said a Fort Bragg resident, hollow-eyed from lack of sleep after her arrest. She was swept up with her boyfriend's huge grow, taken down even though it was supplying dispensaries.
"I wouldn't have gotten involved if I didn't think it was legal," she said.
A San Francisco Assembly member, Tom Ammiano, has introduced a bill taking what he calls the logical next step: legalizing marijuana, regulating it and taxing it. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger urged a serious debate, now unfolding in the state's media.
"If everybody doesn't do it together -- state, federal, county -- it doesn't work," said Zeramby, the garden shop owner. "The communities with the most liberal standards are going to be inundated with the most opportunistic people."
Legalization might well serve the consumer. "There is no way it costs $3,000 to $4,000 a pound to cultivate marijuana," said Keith Faulder, a former prosecutor who now defends pot cases in Ukiah. "These are the costs of keeping it underground."
Growers, however, may well prefer the status quo, even with the risks. That would put them in a rare alliance with the police and prosecutors who back in 1996 campaigned against Proposition 215, warning against precisely what has come to pass.
"It's going, definitely, in a direction that I don't believe in," said Ron Brooks, president of the National Narcotics Officers' Associations' Coalition. His last, best case against: "Even if it's no worse than alcohol, we all know of people who lost their livelihood and their lives. Why would we admit legal respectability to another powerful drug?"
In Mendocino, though, the quest is only for the clarity ducked by lawmakers, and emerging from courts at a pace that does little to help Sheriff Allman. Constituents pepper him with questions.
Down at the courthouse, the district attorney sighs.
"It's extremely confusing, even for those who work in it every single day," Lintott said. "Clearly when the law was passed the cover was cancer, glaucoma -- real distinct health issues. We're not there anymore."
She sagged a bit behind her desk.
"Quite frankly, I might benefit from a card. This is a high-stress job. It would probably do me good to go home and smoke some pot in the evening."
Source: Washington Post (DC)
Author: Karl Vick, Washington Post Staff Writer
Published: Monday, July 27, 2009
Copyright: 2009 Washington Post
Contact: letters@washpost.com
URL: http://drugsense.org/url/jYDKVAa2
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
CannabisNews -- Cannabis Archives
http://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml
Rx215.com Prop. 215 and SB-420 Online! We are patients helping patients!!
Friday, July 31, 2009
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Judge Sonia Sotomayor
Dear MoveOn member,
Today, President Obama nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be the next U.S. Supreme Court justice. Of course, the Right is already fighting against her confirmation—so we need to get the facts out about her impressive qualifications and background.
Below is a list of 10 key things about Sonia Sotomayor that you might not know. Can you check it out and send it to 10 friends today? If each of us forwards the list, we can start to get the word out about Judge Sotomayor, and help to ensure that she gets a speedy and fair confirmation process.
Ten Things To Know About Judge Sonia Sotomayor
1. Judge Sotomayor would bring more federal judicial experience to the bench than any Supreme Court justice in 100 years. Over her three-decade career, she has served in a wide variety of legal roles, including as a prosecutor, litigator, and judge.
2. Judge Sotomayor is a trailblazer. She was the first Latina to serve on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and was the youngest member of the court when appointed to the District Court for the Southern District of New York. If confirmed, she will be the first Hispanic to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.
3. While on the bench, Judge Sotomayor has consistently protected the rights of working Americans, ruling in favor of health benefits and fair wages for workers in several cases.
4. Judge Sotomayor has shown strong support for First Amendment rights, including in cases of religious expression and the rights to assembly and free speech.
5. Judge Sotomayor has a strong record on civil rights cases, ruling for plaintiffs who had been discriminated against based on disability, sex and race.
6. Judge Sotomayor embodies the American dream. Born to Puerto Rican parents, she grew up in a South Bronx housing project and was raised from age nine by a single mother, excelling in school and working her way to graduate summa cum laude from Princeton University and to become an editor of the Law Journal at Yale Law School.
7. In 1995, Judge Sotomayor "saved baseball" when she stopped the owners from illegally changing their bargaining agreement with the players, thereby ending the longest professional sports walk-out in history.
8. Judge Sotomayor ruled in favor of the environment in a case of protecting aquatic life in the vicinity of power plants in 2007, a decision that was overturned by the Roberts Supreme Court.
9. In 1992, Judge Sotomayor was confirmed by the Senate without opposition after being appointed to the bench by George H.W. Bush.
10. Judge Sotomayor is a widely respected legal figure, having been described as "...an outstanding colleague with a keen legal mind," "highly qualified for any position in which wisdom, intelligence, collegiality and good character would be assets," and "a role model of aspiration, discipline, commitment, intellectual prowess and integrity."
Judge Sotomayor is an historic, uniquely qualified nominee to the Supreme Court. Let's get the word out and make sure we get a prompt, fair confirmation on her nomination.
Thanks for all you do,
–Nita, Kat, Daniel, Ilyse and the rest of the team
Sources for each of the 10 things:
1. White House Statement, May 26, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51451&id=16226-15051278-AINKo7x&t=1
2. White House Statement, May 26, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51451&id=16226-15051278-AINKo7x&t=2
3. Cases: Archie v. Grand Cent. Partnership, 997 F. Supp. 504 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) and Marcella v. Capital Dist. Physicians' Health Plan, Inc., 293 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2002).
4. Cases: Flamer v. White Plains, 841 F. Supp. 1365 (S.D.N.Y. 1993), Ford v. McGinnis, 352 F.3d 382 (2d Cir. 2003), and Campos v. Coughlin, 854 F. Supp. 194 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).
5a. "Sotomayor's Notable Court Opinions and Articles," The New York Times, May 26, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51454&id=16226-15051278-AINKo7x&t=3
5b. Cases: Bartlett v. N.Y. State Board, 970 F. Supp. 1094 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), Greenbaum v. Svenska Hendelsbanken, 67 F.Supp.2d 228 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), Raniola v. Bratton, 243 F.3d 610 (2d Cir. 2001), and Gant v. Wallingford Board of Education, 195 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 1999).
6. "Sonia Sotomayor: 10 Things You Should Know," The Huffington Post, May 26, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51452&id=16226-15051278-AINKo7x&t=4
7. "How Sotomayor 'Saved' Baseball," Time, May 26, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51455&id=16226-15051278-AINKo7x&t=5
8. "Sotomayor's resume, record on notable cases," CNN, May 26, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51453&id=16226-15051278-AINKo7x&t=6
9. "Sotomayor's resume, record on notable cases," CNN, May 26, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51453&id=16226-15051278-AINKo7x&t=7
10a. Judge Richard C. Wesley, a George W. Bush appointee to the Second Circuit.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51451&id=16226-15051278-AINKo7x&t=8
10b. "Sotomayor is Highly Qualified," The Wall Street Journal, May 9, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51456&id=16226-15051278-AINKo7x&t=9
10c. Honorary Degree Citation, Pace University School of Law, 2003 Commencement.
Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our 5 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.
PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
Today, President Obama nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be the next U.S. Supreme Court justice. Of course, the Right is already fighting against her confirmation—so we need to get the facts out about her impressive qualifications and background.
Below is a list of 10 key things about Sonia Sotomayor that you might not know. Can you check it out and send it to 10 friends today? If each of us forwards the list, we can start to get the word out about Judge Sotomayor, and help to ensure that she gets a speedy and fair confirmation process.
Ten Things To Know About Judge Sonia Sotomayor
1. Judge Sotomayor would bring more federal judicial experience to the bench than any Supreme Court justice in 100 years. Over her three-decade career, she has served in a wide variety of legal roles, including as a prosecutor, litigator, and judge.
2. Judge Sotomayor is a trailblazer. She was the first Latina to serve on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and was the youngest member of the court when appointed to the District Court for the Southern District of New York. If confirmed, she will be the first Hispanic to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.
3. While on the bench, Judge Sotomayor has consistently protected the rights of working Americans, ruling in favor of health benefits and fair wages for workers in several cases.
4. Judge Sotomayor has shown strong support for First Amendment rights, including in cases of religious expression and the rights to assembly and free speech.
5. Judge Sotomayor has a strong record on civil rights cases, ruling for plaintiffs who had been discriminated against based on disability, sex and race.
6. Judge Sotomayor embodies the American dream. Born to Puerto Rican parents, she grew up in a South Bronx housing project and was raised from age nine by a single mother, excelling in school and working her way to graduate summa cum laude from Princeton University and to become an editor of the Law Journal at Yale Law School.
7. In 1995, Judge Sotomayor "saved baseball" when she stopped the owners from illegally changing their bargaining agreement with the players, thereby ending the longest professional sports walk-out in history.
8. Judge Sotomayor ruled in favor of the environment in a case of protecting aquatic life in the vicinity of power plants in 2007, a decision that was overturned by the Roberts Supreme Court.
9. In 1992, Judge Sotomayor was confirmed by the Senate without opposition after being appointed to the bench by George H.W. Bush.
10. Judge Sotomayor is a widely respected legal figure, having been described as "...an outstanding colleague with a keen legal mind," "highly qualified for any position in which wisdom, intelligence, collegiality and good character would be assets," and "a role model of aspiration, discipline, commitment, intellectual prowess and integrity."
Judge Sotomayor is an historic, uniquely qualified nominee to the Supreme Court. Let's get the word out and make sure we get a prompt, fair confirmation on her nomination.
Thanks for all you do,
–Nita, Kat, Daniel, Ilyse and the rest of the team
Sources for each of the 10 things:
1. White House Statement, May 26, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51451&id=16226-15051278-AINKo7x&t=1
2. White House Statement, May 26, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51451&id=16226-15051278-AINKo7x&t=2
3. Cases: Archie v. Grand Cent. Partnership, 997 F. Supp. 504 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) and Marcella v. Capital Dist. Physicians' Health Plan, Inc., 293 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2002).
4. Cases: Flamer v. White Plains, 841 F. Supp. 1365 (S.D.N.Y. 1993), Ford v. McGinnis, 352 F.3d 382 (2d Cir. 2003), and Campos v. Coughlin, 854 F. Supp. 194 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).
5a. "Sotomayor's Notable Court Opinions and Articles," The New York Times, May 26, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51454&id=16226-15051278-AINKo7x&t=3
5b. Cases: Bartlett v. N.Y. State Board, 970 F. Supp. 1094 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), Greenbaum v. Svenska Hendelsbanken, 67 F.Supp.2d 228 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), Raniola v. Bratton, 243 F.3d 610 (2d Cir. 2001), and Gant v. Wallingford Board of Education, 195 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 1999).
6. "Sonia Sotomayor: 10 Things You Should Know," The Huffington Post, May 26, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51452&id=16226-15051278-AINKo7x&t=4
7. "How Sotomayor 'Saved' Baseball," Time, May 26, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51455&id=16226-15051278-AINKo7x&t=5
8. "Sotomayor's resume, record on notable cases," CNN, May 26, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51453&id=16226-15051278-AINKo7x&t=6
9. "Sotomayor's resume, record on notable cases," CNN, May 26, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51453&id=16226-15051278-AINKo7x&t=7
10a. Judge Richard C. Wesley, a George W. Bush appointee to the Second Circuit.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51451&id=16226-15051278-AINKo7x&t=8
10b. "Sotomayor is Highly Qualified," The Wall Street Journal, May 9, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51456&id=16226-15051278-AINKo7x&t=9
10c. Honorary Degree Citation, Pace University School of Law, 2003 Commencement.
Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our 5 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.
PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Friday, March 20, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Speaking at a press conference with DEA administrator Michelle Leonhart, Attorney General Eric Holder declared that ending medical marijuana raids
Speaking at a press conference with DEA
administrator Michelle Leonhart, Attorney General
Eric Holder declared that ending medical
marijuana raids "is now American policy."
A reporter asked, "shortly after the
inauguration there were raids on California
medical marijuana dispensaries...do you expect
these to continue?", noting that the President
had promised to end the raids in the campaign.
Holder responded, "What the President said
during the campaign...is consistent with what we
will be doing here in law enforcement. He was my
boss in the campaign....He is my boss now. What
he said in the campaign is now American policy."
!!!
The question appears about 25 minutes into the
press conference, which was devoted to an
operation against the Mexican Sinaloa drug cartel.
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-15821
administrator Michelle Leonhart, Attorney General
Eric Holder declared that ending medical
marijuana raids "is now American policy."
A reporter asked, "shortly after the
inauguration there were raids on California
medical marijuana dispensaries...do you expect
these to continue?", noting that the President
had promised to end the raids in the campaign.
Holder responded, "What the President said
during the campaign...is consistent with what we
will be doing here in law enforcement. He was my
boss in the campaign....He is my boss now. What
he said in the campaign is now American policy."
!!!
The question appears about 25 minutes into the
press conference, which was devoted to an
operation against the Mexican Sinaloa drug cartel.
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-15821
DMV Sued By Patient for Medical Marijuana
Have you had any issues with DMV????
Contact an attorney, tell us and we can help find the contacts...ASA, OMAR, JOE and others will help!!
Newshawk: The Source for Medicinal Marijuana News www.mapinc.org
Pubdate: Mon, 16 Feb 2009
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Copyright: 2009 Los Angeles Times
Contact: http://drugsense.org/url/bc7El3Yo
Website: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/248
Author: Maura Dolan, Reporting from San Francisco
Note: Times researcher Robin Mayper contributed to this report.
Cited: Americans for Safe Access http://www.americansforsafeaccess.org
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/California+Highway+Patrol
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Marijuana - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Americans+for+Safe+Access
DMV SUED OVER MEDICAL MARIJUANA
The Lawsuit Says Patients Are Unfairly Targeted for License Suspensions.
When Matt Vaughn was pulled over for speeding on Interstate 5 in Northern California early on a Sunday morning, he had a bag of marijuana on the passenger seat.
The California Highway Patrol officer smelled the weed, searched the car, took the marijuana and pipe and gave Vaughn a sobriety test, which he passed. An angry Vaughn showed the officer his doctor's recommendation to use marijuana for glaucoma. The officer was unimpressed.
"He said, in Glenn County, they don't recognize those kinds of things," said Vaughn, 55, who has a long ponytail, mustache and beard. "He was not very friendly about it."
The 2005 incident cost Vaughn a speeding ticket, his 1 1/4 ounce of pot and his driver's license -- and nine months of fighting the California Department of Motor Vehicles -- before he prevailed.
As a result of that and other encounters involving medical marijuana, an advocacy group has sued the DMV, asking for a written policy that says medical marijuana should be treated the same as prescription drugs.
The suit contends that the DMV has a pattern of investigating and suspending the driver's licenses of people who use pot on the recommendation of their doctors.
"It happens a disturbing amount," said Joseph D. Elford, chief counsel for Americans for Safe Access, which promotes legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes and research.
Elford said his Oakland-based group has received complaints about the DMV from patients in several Northern and Central California counties, though Elford and others involved in the issue said they were unaware of any Southern California cases.
The DMV can obtain medical information about someone if an investigation is launched into the person's fitness to drive.
In Vaughn's case, the CHP officer sent the DMV a report about Vaughn, along with a medical journal article saying marijuana was not the choice drug for treating glaucoma.
In another case, Rose Johnson, 53, the plaintiff named in the pending suit, used medical marijuana for back and neck injuries and lost her license after a DMV worker referred her for an investigation.
The worker had noted that Johnson had difficulty moving when she went in to renew her driver's license. Despite her perfect driving record, the DMV cited the Merced woman's marijuana use last year in revoking her license, the suit said.
Elford said the DMV also learns of medical marijuana patients from law enforcement officers who ask drivers if they have used drugs in the 24 hours before a traffic stop.
Medical marijuana users usually answer truthfully, thinking they are protected by law, Elford said. He added that he does not advise them to lie because defrauding a police officer is a misdemeanor in California.
State officials said in interviews that it is not their policy to take away licenses from marijuana patients.
DMV spokesman Armando Botello declined to comment on the lawsuit and said the office does not keep statistics on the number of licenses yanked as a result of medical marijuana. But he indicated the instances were probably isolated.
Although medicinal weed is not automatic grounds for revoking a license, conditions that impair safe driving, including "poor judgment, aggressive behavior, impaired decision making, slowed motor functions, impaired coordination . . . and drowsiness" could result in license removal, he said.
During a DMV investigation, the driver's doctor is asked to fill out a five-page questionnaire about the patient's medical condition and drug use.
Jaime Coffee, a spokeswoman for the CHP, said its policy is to comply with the state medical marijuana law, a policy that Americans for Safe Access won in an earlier suit. Officers are instructed not to confiscate marijuana from an unimpaired driver with a valid doctor's recommendation, Coffee said. She speculated that Vaughn's marijuana might have been confiscated because he did not have his license with him.
Vaughn, who operates a medical marijuana collective out of his home, said he had left the license in another pair of pants, had not smoked in several hours and was admittedly grouchy.
"I actually am very aggressive when I am not smoking," he said.
In fact, he was just about to pull off the freeway to smoke and rest on his long drive from Placerville to Vancouver, Wash., to visit family, he said.
Vaughn said he did not yell at the officer, "but I am able to push their buttons." The officer called for backup, and two other CHP cars arrived. After he was cited, Vaughn went home for more marijuana for his journey.
Vaughn does not work outside the marijuana collective.
"Essentially what I make is what I smoke, which is quite a bit," he said. "Generally my wife is the regular person with jobs and insurance."
Not even marijuana advocates recommend driving under pot's influence. California has convicted drivers of being under the influence of marijuana when they failed field sobriety tests, Elford said.
Studies on the effects of marijuana on driving have reached varying conclusions. Some found that experienced users are likely to compensate for their deteriorated state by being especially cautious -- but are prone to getting lost -- while others showed significant debilitating effects from THC, the main mind-altering ingredient in marijuana.
Vaughn said he drives well when he smokes but conceded that cannabis affects people differently.
After nine months of appealing the suspension of his license, Vaughn contacted Elford, who filed suit. Before trial, the DMV agreed to return his license and his marijuana and pipe. Vaughn said his DMV record had incorrectly shown a conviction for driving under the influence.
"How it got there was never discerned," he said.
Contact an attorney, tell us and we can help find the contacts...ASA, OMAR, JOE and others will help!!
Newshawk: The Source for Medicinal Marijuana News www.mapinc.org
Pubdate: Mon, 16 Feb 2009
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Copyright: 2009 Los Angeles Times
Contact: http://drugsense.org/url/bc7El3Yo
Website: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/248
Author: Maura Dolan, Reporting from San Francisco
Note: Times researcher Robin Mayper contributed to this report.
Cited: Americans for Safe Access http://www.americansforsafeaccess.org
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/California+Highway+Patrol
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Marijuana - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Americans+for+Safe+Access
DMV SUED OVER MEDICAL MARIJUANA
The Lawsuit Says Patients Are Unfairly Targeted for License Suspensions.
When Matt Vaughn was pulled over for speeding on Interstate 5 in Northern California early on a Sunday morning, he had a bag of marijuana on the passenger seat.
The California Highway Patrol officer smelled the weed, searched the car, took the marijuana and pipe and gave Vaughn a sobriety test, which he passed. An angry Vaughn showed the officer his doctor's recommendation to use marijuana for glaucoma. The officer was unimpressed.
"He said, in Glenn County, they don't recognize those kinds of things," said Vaughn, 55, who has a long ponytail, mustache and beard. "He was not very friendly about it."
The 2005 incident cost Vaughn a speeding ticket, his 1 1/4 ounce of pot and his driver's license -- and nine months of fighting the California Department of Motor Vehicles -- before he prevailed.
As a result of that and other encounters involving medical marijuana, an advocacy group has sued the DMV, asking for a written policy that says medical marijuana should be treated the same as prescription drugs.
The suit contends that the DMV has a pattern of investigating and suspending the driver's licenses of people who use pot on the recommendation of their doctors.
"It happens a disturbing amount," said Joseph D. Elford, chief counsel for Americans for Safe Access, which promotes legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes and research.
Elford said his Oakland-based group has received complaints about the DMV from patients in several Northern and Central California counties, though Elford and others involved in the issue said they were unaware of any Southern California cases.
The DMV can obtain medical information about someone if an investigation is launched into the person's fitness to drive.
In Vaughn's case, the CHP officer sent the DMV a report about Vaughn, along with a medical journal article saying marijuana was not the choice drug for treating glaucoma.
In another case, Rose Johnson, 53, the plaintiff named in the pending suit, used medical marijuana for back and neck injuries and lost her license after a DMV worker referred her for an investigation.
The worker had noted that Johnson had difficulty moving when she went in to renew her driver's license. Despite her perfect driving record, the DMV cited the Merced woman's marijuana use last year in revoking her license, the suit said.
Elford said the DMV also learns of medical marijuana patients from law enforcement officers who ask drivers if they have used drugs in the 24 hours before a traffic stop.
Medical marijuana users usually answer truthfully, thinking they are protected by law, Elford said. He added that he does not advise them to lie because defrauding a police officer is a misdemeanor in California.
State officials said in interviews that it is not their policy to take away licenses from marijuana patients.
DMV spokesman Armando Botello declined to comment on the lawsuit and said the office does not keep statistics on the number of licenses yanked as a result of medical marijuana. But he indicated the instances were probably isolated.
Although medicinal weed is not automatic grounds for revoking a license, conditions that impair safe driving, including "poor judgment, aggressive behavior, impaired decision making, slowed motor functions, impaired coordination . . . and drowsiness" could result in license removal, he said.
During a DMV investigation, the driver's doctor is asked to fill out a five-page questionnaire about the patient's medical condition and drug use.
Jaime Coffee, a spokeswoman for the CHP, said its policy is to comply with the state medical marijuana law, a policy that Americans for Safe Access won in an earlier suit. Officers are instructed not to confiscate marijuana from an unimpaired driver with a valid doctor's recommendation, Coffee said. She speculated that Vaughn's marijuana might have been confiscated because he did not have his license with him.
Vaughn, who operates a medical marijuana collective out of his home, said he had left the license in another pair of pants, had not smoked in several hours and was admittedly grouchy.
"I actually am very aggressive when I am not smoking," he said.
In fact, he was just about to pull off the freeway to smoke and rest on his long drive from Placerville to Vancouver, Wash., to visit family, he said.
Vaughn said he did not yell at the officer, "but I am able to push their buttons." The officer called for backup, and two other CHP cars arrived. After he was cited, Vaughn went home for more marijuana for his journey.
Vaughn does not work outside the marijuana collective.
"Essentially what I make is what I smoke, which is quite a bit," he said. "Generally my wife is the regular person with jobs and insurance."
Not even marijuana advocates recommend driving under pot's influence. California has convicted drivers of being under the influence of marijuana when they failed field sobriety tests, Elford said.
Studies on the effects of marijuana on driving have reached varying conclusions. Some found that experienced users are likely to compensate for their deteriorated state by being especially cautious -- but are prone to getting lost -- while others showed significant debilitating effects from THC, the main mind-altering ingredient in marijuana.
Vaughn said he drives well when he smokes but conceded that cannabis affects people differently.
After nine months of appealing the suspension of his license, Vaughn contacted Elford, who filed suit. Before trial, the DMV agreed to return his license and his marijuana and pipe. Vaughn said his DMV record had incorrectly shown a conviction for driving under the influence.
"How it got there was never discerned," he said.
Tom Ammiano Looking to Legalize and TAX CANNABIS
Tom Ammiano: Legalize Marijuana, Regulate It and Tax It
by: Robert in Monterey
Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 12:00:22 PM PST
A frequent topic of online discussion on the budget crisis in recent weeks has been a call to legalize and tax marijuana in order to help close the budget deficit. This would have two beneficial effects - reducing the prison population and increasing the revenue stream for state government. It was even the most popular question at Change.gov back in December.
Today Assemblymember Tom Ammiano announced he supports this basic concept, and to that end is introducing AB 390 - a bill number you'll be hearing a lot about in coming months. From a press release sent via email:
Today Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) announced the introduction of groundbreaking legislation that would tax and regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol. The Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education act (AB 390) would create a regulatory structure similar to that used for beer, wine and liquor, permitting taxed sales to adults while barring sales to or possession by those under 21.
"With the state in the midst of an historic economic crisis, the move towards regulating and taxing marijuana is simply common sense. This legislation would generate much needed revenue for the state, restrict access to only those over 21, end the environmental damage to our public lands from illicit crops, and improve public safety by redirecting law enforcement efforts to more serious crimes", said Ammiano. "California has the opportunity to be the first state in the nation to enact a smart, responsible public policy for the control and regulation of marijuana."
Ammiano estimates this will bring in $1 billion in annual revenue. That could double when considering the impact of savings on prison spending.
This is clearly an idea whose time has come. I do not know of any recent polling on the topic, but I have to believe that support for regulating marijuana like alcohol has risen in recent years. 2009 offers an interesting moment, where long-time legalization advocates can now ally with Californians who want to solve the budget crisis and can no longer afford to ignore the high costs of a failed marijuana policy.
Ammiano is also following in the footsteps of other San Francisco legislators. In 1975 then-State Senator George Moscone got a bill passed and signed by Governor Jerry Brown to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. Ammiano's proposed legislation is of a much larger scale, but it makes sense to treat marijuana, a drug that is already widely available in California, the same way we treat alcohol.
It's good to see someone in Sacramento stand up and point out that there's no reason we should maintain a policy that has failed so totally and completely, and at such an enormous cost, as marijuana prohibition.
by: Robert in Monterey
Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 12:00:22 PM PST
A frequent topic of online discussion on the budget crisis in recent weeks has been a call to legalize and tax marijuana in order to help close the budget deficit. This would have two beneficial effects - reducing the prison population and increasing the revenue stream for state government. It was even the most popular question at Change.gov back in December.
Today Assemblymember Tom Ammiano announced he supports this basic concept, and to that end is introducing AB 390 - a bill number you'll be hearing a lot about in coming months. From a press release sent via email:
Today Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) announced the introduction of groundbreaking legislation that would tax and regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol. The Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education act (AB 390) would create a regulatory structure similar to that used for beer, wine and liquor, permitting taxed sales to adults while barring sales to or possession by those under 21.
"With the state in the midst of an historic economic crisis, the move towards regulating and taxing marijuana is simply common sense. This legislation would generate much needed revenue for the state, restrict access to only those over 21, end the environmental damage to our public lands from illicit crops, and improve public safety by redirecting law enforcement efforts to more serious crimes", said Ammiano. "California has the opportunity to be the first state in the nation to enact a smart, responsible public policy for the control and regulation of marijuana."
Ammiano estimates this will bring in $1 billion in annual revenue. That could double when considering the impact of savings on prison spending.
This is clearly an idea whose time has come. I do not know of any recent polling on the topic, but I have to believe that support for regulating marijuana like alcohol has risen in recent years. 2009 offers an interesting moment, where long-time legalization advocates can now ally with Californians who want to solve the budget crisis and can no longer afford to ignore the high costs of a failed marijuana policy.
Ammiano is also following in the footsteps of other San Francisco legislators. In 1975 then-State Senator George Moscone got a bill passed and signed by Governor Jerry Brown to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. Ammiano's proposed legislation is of a much larger scale, but it makes sense to treat marijuana, a drug that is already widely available in California, the same way we treat alcohol.
It's good to see someone in Sacramento stand up and point out that there's no reason we should maintain a policy that has failed so totally and completely, and at such an enormous cost, as marijuana prohibition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)