Medical marijuana becomes key issue in Ore. race

Originally printed at http://www.katu.com/politics/Medical-marijuana-becomes-key-issue-in-Ore-race-149405175.html

By JONATHAN J. COOPER, Associated Press April 28, 2012

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Of the thousands of laws that Oregon’s attorney general enforces or interprets, the one allowing medical marijuana has lit up the campaign for that office more than any other.

In a Democratic primary where the candidates agree on many things, their differences over marijuana stand out.

It’s anyone’s guess whether the pot vote will be enough to tip the scales. But no Republicans are seeking the job, so Democrats alone will choose the state’s top lawyer in the May 15 primary.

Former federal prosecutor Dwight Holton has called Oregon’s marijuana law a “train wreck,” and he was the U.S. Attorney for Oregon when federal agents raided marijuana farms that were legal under state law.

His rival, retired Court of Appeals judge Ellen Rosenblum, has staked out a mellower view, saying she’ll make marijuana enforcement a low priority.

She’s hammered Holton over the issue with the help of a political action committee that wants to legalize the drug.

“Mr. Holton is out of step with his own party on this issue,” said Bob Wolfe, director of Citizens for Sensible Law Enforcement. “He’s trying to climb the career ladder on the backs of medical marijuana patients, and I don’t find that acceptable.”

Wolfe’s committee was fined last week for allegedly violating initiative laws while gathering signatures for a ballot measure to legalize marijuana. He disputes the allegation.

There are 55,000 registered medical marijuana users in Oregon, and countless others who smoke weed illegally.

Holton has established himself as a tough-on-crime supporter of law enforcement, and touts endorsements from most of Oregon’s sheriffs and district attorneys. He’s long complained that Oregon’s lax marijuana regulations make it too easy to get a card and give traffickers cover to grow marijuana that ultimately ends up on the black market.

Oregon allows medical marijuana patients to grow their own pot or to designate someone to grow it for them. Unlike many other medical marijuana states, Oregon doesn’t allow dispensaries that distribute weed.

“I would welcome a conversation about how to do this better, how to meet the will of the voters better,” Holton said. “But I’ll gladly enforce the law.”

He slams Rosenblum for telling marijuana advocates she’ll make pot enforcement a low priority.

The tough talk aside, Rosenblum, like Holton, sees deficiencies in the law. She described it as “an adolescent with growing pains.” Rather than a train wreck, it’s “a bumpy ride,” she said, and the law could use a look at improving the way patients get access to their marijuana.

She said she can’t recall if she voted for the 1998 ballot measure that legalized medical marijuana, or for a 2010 initiative funded by pro-marijuana groups that would have allowed marijuana dispensaries.

“We have a lot of pioneering laws in this state. And this is one of them,” Rosenblum said, citing Oregon’s first-in-the-nation assisted-suicide law and a bottle-recycling program that’s been replicated globally.

Holton, 46, was a federal prosecutor for 15 years, first in Brooklyn before transferring to Portland in 2004 and, later, running the U.S. Attorney’s Office for Oregon on an interim basis for nearly two years. Before becoming a lawyer, he worked on presidential campaigns — Michael Dukakis’ in 1988 and Bill Clinton’s in 1992 — and in the Clinton White House.

Holton’s father, Linwood Holton, was a Republican governor of Virginia, elected in 1969, and his brother-in-law, Tim Kaine, is a former Democratic governor of Virginia and chair of the Democratic National Committee.

Rosenblum, 61, has emphasized her Oregon roots and portrayed Holton as an outsider, pointing out that he joined the Oregon State Bar just three years ago. She joined in 1975.

She was a federal prosecutor in Eugene and Portland for nine years before she was appointed a trial-court judge in 1989. She became an Oregon Court of Appeals judge in 2005 and stepped down from the bench earlier this year.

Follow AP writer Jonathan J. Cooper at http://twitter.com/jjcooper.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press.

Posted in July 2011 | Leave a comment

Gun Violence Kills 7 as Feds Target Medical Cannabis in Oakland

Gun Violence Kills 7 as Feds Target Medical Cannabis in Oakland =- April 2, 2012 — Ever since the launch of the resurgent campaign against medical cannabis, I and other movement leaders have warned that limited federal law enforcement resources should be devoted to real crime, not medical cannabis. Today, the City of Oakland suffered a terrible example of what will happen when those warnings are not heeded. At the same time dozens of federal agents were raiding Oaksterdam University, in a different part of the city seven people lost their lives in another act of gun violence (Oikos Christian University, near the airport). We will never know whether the manpower and resources used to investigate and raid Oaksterdam U could have prevented this particular incident of gun violence. But there is no question that the federal government could have substantially reduced the number of guns on Oakland streets, if they devoted the same resources to that problem as they have to medical cannabis.

Harborside Health Center made a commitment to our patients when we opened our doors five years ago, to provide them the best cannabis medicine, in the safest possible manner. We have no plans to close, and intend to continue providing safe access to cannabis medicines for our more than 100,000 patients. The voters of the City of Oakland have repeatedly affirmed their support for the regulated distribution of medical cannabis. In response, elected officials and city staff developed the most successful model of cannabis regulation in the state.

This system stands in stark contrast to the failed policies of the federal government. Oakland’s successful system has provided safe access for patients, created hundreds of well-paying jobs, generated millions of dollars of tax dollars, and reduced the burden on law enforcement. It is a system that has benefited all Oaklanders, not just those who rely on cannabis for medicine. In contrast, if the US Attorneys are successful in their nationwide campaign, millions of patients will be taken out of safe facilities and returned to street dealers, tens of thousands of well-paying jobs will be destroyed, hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue destroyed—and all those assets will be returned to the criminal underground. It is a policy with all downsides and no upsides; it’s a policy which hurts all Americans, not just those who rely on cannabis for medicine.

Medical cannabis patients and their supporters should express their outrage directly to the US Attorneys, who have initiated and are continuing to prosecute this vicious campaign to suffocate safe access.

– Steve DeAngelo, Executive Director of Harborside Health Center

To schedule an interview with Steve DeAngelo, please contact Gaynell Rogers at 415.298.1114 or gaynellrogers@gmail.com.

Posted in July 2011 | 1 Comment

ATTORNEY GENERAL KROGER ACCUSED OF PROFESSIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

THE OREGON ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH PROFESSIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN A LETTER SENT MONDAY BY THE STATE’S ADVISORY COUNCIL ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA.  ACMM MEMBER EUGENE ATTORNEY BRIAN MICHAELS ADVISED KROGER THAT HE “HAS A PROFESSIONAL OBLIGATION TO REPRESENT AND ADVISE EACH DEPARTMENT IN THE STATE OF OREGON GOVERNMENT EQUALLY”

 

THE LETTER ASSERTS THAT KROGER HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST BY CONTINUING TO CHARGE FEES FOR PROVIDING LEGAL ADVICE “CONTRARY TO THE ADVOCACY OF THIS PROGRAM…IN FAVOR OF THOSE OTHER AGENCIES WHO VIEW THIS PROGRAM WITH DISFAVOR” AND “IN WAYS THAT SUPPRESS, REDUCE, AND IN ALL WAYS FURTHER RESTRICT THE PROGRESS AND EXPANSION OF THIS PROGRAM (OMMP), IN FAVOR OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES. “

 

KROGER’S MOST RECENT ADVICE INSTRUCTS OFFICERS NOT TO RETURN OMMP PATIENTS ILLEGALLY SEIZED MARIJUANA MEDICINE.  THE LETTER ALSO DOCUMENTS OTHER CASES OF UNFAIR LEGAL INTERPRETATIONS INCLUDING THE ATTY GENERALS ADVICE FOR THE OMMP TO REVOKE A PATIENT’S MEDICAL MARIJUANA CARD WITHOUT HEARING OR DUE PROCESS WHEN ENTERING INTO A DUII DIVERSION PROGRAM;

 

THE ACMM’S LETTER TO KROGER SUGGESTS THAT THE OMMP BE PROVIDED WITH INDEPENDENT COUNCIL TO REPLACE MR KROGER AND ASKS GOVERNOR KITZHAUBER TO HELP WITH THIS ENDEAVOR.

 

- 30 -

 

FOR FURTHER PRESS INQUIRIES CONTACT:

CHRISTINE MCGARVIN, CHAIR OF THE ACMM OUTREACH COMMITTEE

PHONE:  541-210-5540  MESSAGE:  541-690-7276

EMAIL: c_mcgarvin@hotmail.com

Website:  www.ictoregon.com

 

Posted in July 2011 | Leave a comment

Delayed-notice Search Warrants Unfair to Citizens

The following article on paramilitary police practices was written by:

Tom Angell, Media Relations Director – Law Enforcement Against Prohibition  *Visit LEAP’s *NEW* website: http://www.CopsSayLegalizeDrugs.com phone: (415) 488-6615 or (202) 557-4979

New York/ magazine reported some telling figures <http://nymag.com/news/9-11/10th-anniversary/patriot-act/> last month on how delayed-notice search warrants — also known as “sneak-and-peek” warrants — have been used in recent years. Though passed with the PATRIOT Act and justified as a much-needed weapon in the war on terrorism, the sneak-and-peek was used in a terror investigation just 15 times between 2006 and 2009. In drug investigations, however, it was used more than 1,600 times during the same period.

It’s a familiar storyline. In the 10 years since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, the government has claimed a number of new policing powers in the name of protecting the country from terrorism, often at the expense of civil liberties. But once claimed, those powers are overwhelmingly used in the war on drugs. Nowhere is this more clear than in the continuing militarization of America’s police departments.

*POLICE MILITARIZATION BEFORE SEPTEMBER 11*
The trend toward <http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6476> a  more militarized domestic police force began well before 9/11. It in fact began in the early 1980s, as the Regan administration added a new dimension of literalness to Richard Nixon’s declaration of a “war on drugs.” Reagan declared illicit drugs a threat to national security, and once likened America’s drug fight to the World War I battle of Verdun.

But Reagan was more than just rhetoric. In 1981 he and a compliant Congress passed the Military Cooperation with Law Enforcement Act, which allowed and encouraged the military to give local, state, and federal police access to military bases, research, and equipment. It authorized the military to train civilian police officers to use the newly available equipment, instructed the military to share drug-war–related information with civilian police and authorized the military to take an active role in preventing drugs from entering the country.

A bill passed in 1988 authorized the National Guard to aid local police in drug interdiction, a law that resulted in National Guard troops conducting drug raids on city streets and using helicopters to survey rural areas for pot farms. In 1989, President George Bush enacted a new policy creating regional task forces within the Pentagon to work with local police agencies on anti-drug efforts. Since then, a number of other bills and policies have carved out more ways for the military and domestic police to cooperate in the government’s ongoing campaign to prevent Americans from getting high. Then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney declared in 1989, “The detection and countering of the production, trafficking and use of illegal drugs is a high priority national security mission of the Department of Defense.”

The problem with this mingling of domestic policing with military operations is that the two institutions have starkly different missions. The military’s job is to annihilate a foreign enemy. Cops are charged with keeping the peace, and with protecting the constitutional rights of American citizens and residents. It’s dangerous to conflate the two. As former Reagan administration official Lawrence Korb once put it, “Soldiers are trained to vaporize, not Mirandize.” That distinction is why the U.S. passed the Posse Comitatus Act more than 130 years ago, a law that explicitly forbids the use of military troops in domestic policing.

Over the last several decades Congress and administrations from both parties have continued to carve holes in that law, or at least find ways around it, mostly in the name of the drug war. And while the policies noted above established new ways to involve the military in domestic policing, the much more widespread and problematic trend has been to make our domestic police departments more like the military.

The main culprit was a 1994 law authorizing the Pentagon to donate surplus military equipment to local police departments. In the 17 years since, literally millions of pieces of equipment designed for use on a foreign battlefield have been handed over for use on U.S. streets, against U.S. citizens. Another law passed in 1997 further streamlined the process. As /National Journal/ reported in 2000, in the first three years after the 1994 law alone, the Pentagon distributed 3,800 M-16s, 2,185 M-14s, 73 grenade launchers, and 112 armored personnel carriers to civilian police agencies across America. Domestic police agencies also got bayonets, tanks, helicopters and even airplanes.

All of that equipment then facilitated a dramatic rise in the number and use of paramilitary police units, more commonly known as SWAT teams. Peter Kraska, a criminologist at the University of Eastern Kentucky, has been studying this trend since the early 1980s. Kraska found that by 1997, 90 percent of cities with populations of 50,000 or more had at least one SWAT team, twice as many as in the mid-1980s. The number of towns with populations between 25,000 and 50,000 with a SWAT team increased 157 percent between 1985 and 1996.

As the number of SWAT teams multiplied, their use expanded as well. Until the 1980s, SWAT teams were used almost exclusively to defuse immediate threats to the public safety, events like hostage takings, mass shootings, escaped fugitives, or bank robberies. The proliferation of SWAT teams that began in the 1980s, along with incentives like federal anti-drug grants and asset forfeiture policies, made it lucrative to use them for drug policing. According to Kraska, by the early 1980s there were 3,000 annual SWAT deployments, by 1996 there were 30,000 and by 2001 there were 40,000. The average police department deployed its SWAT team about once a month in the early 1980s. By 1995, it was seven times a month. Kraska found that 75 to80 percent of those deployments were to serve search warrants in drug investigations.

*TERROR ATTACKS BRING NEW ROUND OF MILITARIZATION*

The September 11 attacks provided a new and seemingly urgent justification for further militarization of America’s police departments: the need to protect the country from terrorism. Within months of the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, the Office of National Drug Control Policy began laying the groundwork <http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising/ondcp-ties-terrorism-drugs-54080> with a series of ads (featured most prominently during the 2002 Super Bowl) tying recreational drug use to support for terrorism. Terrorism became the new reason to arm American cops as if they were soldiers, but drug offenders would still be their primary targets.

In 2004, for example, law enforcement officials in the New York counties of Oswego and Cayuga defended their new SWAT teams as a necessary precaution in a post–September 11 world. “We’re in a new era, a new time,” here,” one sheriff told the /Syracuse Post Standard/. The bad guys are a little different than they used to be, so we’re just trying to keep up with the needs for today and hope we never have to use it.”

The same sheriff said later in the same article that he’d use his new SWAT team “for a lot of other purposes, too … just a multitude of other things.” In 2002, the seven police officers who serve the town of Jasper, Florida — which had all of 2,000 people and hadn’t had a murder in more than a decade — were each given a military-grade M-16 machine gun from the Pentagon transfer program, leading one Florida paper to run the headline, “Three Stoplights, Seven M-16s.”

In 2006 alone, a Pentagon spokesman told the Worcester,  Massachusetts /Telegram & Gazette/, the Department of Defense “distributed  vehicles worth $15.4 million, aircraft worth $8.9 million, boats worth $6.7 million, weapons worth $1 million and ‘other’ items worth $110.6 million” to local police agencies.

In 2007, Clayton County, Georgia — whose sheriff once complained that the drug war was being fought like Vietnam, and should instead be fought more like the D-Day invasion at Normandy — got its own tank through the Pentagon’s transfer program. Nearby Cobb County got its tank in 2008 http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/cobb/stories/2008/10/10/police_tank.html>.
In Richland County, South Carolina, Sheriff Leon Lott procured <http://reason.com/archives/2008/11/01/the-peacemaker> an M113A1 armored
personnel carrier in 2008. The vehicle moves on tank-like tracks, and features a belt-fed, turreted machine gun that fires .50-caliber rounds, a type of ammunition so powerful that even the military has restrictions on how it’s used on the battlefield. Lott named his vehicle “The Peacemaker.” (Lott, is currently being sued
<http://www.thestate.com/2009/02/13/682695/7-charged-as-evidence-sought-on.html> for sending his SWAT team crashing into the homes of people who appeared in the same infamous photo that depicted Olympic gold-medalist swimmer Michael Phelps smoking pot in Richland County.) Maricopa County,
Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio also has a belt-fed .50-caliber machine gun, though it isn’t connected to his armored personnel carrier.

After 9/11, police departments in some cities, including Washington, D.C., also switched to battle dress uniforms (BDUs) instead the traditional police uniform. Critics says even subtle changes like a more militarized uniform can change both public perception of the police and how police see their own role in the community. One such critic, retired police sergeant Bill Donelly, wrote in a letter to the editor of the /Washington Post/, “One tends to throw caution to the wind when wearing ‘commando-chic’ regalia, a bulletproof vest with the word ‘POLICE’ emblazoned on both sides, and when one is armed with high tech weaponry.”

Departments in places like Indianapolis and some Chicago suburbs also began  acquiring machine guns from the military in the name of fighting terror.  Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick actually suspended the Pentagon program in his state after the /Boston Globe/ reported that more than 80 police departments across the state had obtained more than 1,000 pieces of military equipment. “Police in Wellfleet, a community known for stunning beaches and succulent oysters, scored three military assault rifles,” the /Globe/ reported
<http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/06/15/details_emerge_on_distribution_of_military_weapons_in_mass/>.

“At Salem State College, where recent police calls have included false fire alarms and a goat roaming the campus, school police got two M-16s. In West Springfield, police acquired even more powerful weaponry: two military-issue M-79 grenade launchers.” September 11 also brought a new source of funding for military-grade
equipment in the Department of Homeland Security. In recent years, the agency has given <http://jalopnik.com/5720776/why-do-americas-police-need-an-armored-tank> anti-terrorism grants to police agencies across the country to purchase armored personnel carriers, including such unlikely terrorism targets <http://www.theagitator.com/2006/08/13/more-bearcats-2/> as Winnebago County, Wisconsin; Longview, Texas; Tuscaloosa County, Alabama; Canyon County,  Idaho; Santa Fe, New Mexico; Adrian, Michigan <http://www.lenconnect.com/features/x1270133240/County-commission-to-decide-fate-of-sheriff-s-department-tank>; and Chattanooga, Tennessee. When the Memphis suburb of Germantown, Tennessee — which claims to be one of the safest cities in the country — got its APC in 2006, its sheriff told the local paper that the acquisition would put the town at the “forefront” of homeland security preparedness.

In Eau Clare County, Wisconsin, government officials told the /Leader Telegram/ that the county’s new APC would mitigate “the threat of weapons or explosive  devices.” County board member Sue Miller added, “It’s nice, but I hope we never have to use it.” But later in the same article, Police Chief Jerry Matysik says he planned to use the vehicle for other purposes, including “drug searches.” It may not be necessary, Matysik said, “But because it’s available, we’ll probably use it just to
be cautious.”

The DHS grants are typically used to purchase the Lenco Bearcat <http://www.swattrucks.com/#>, a modified armored personnel carrier that sells for $200,000 to $300,000. The vehicle has become something of a status symbol
<http://www.officer.com/article/10249002/chariots-under-fire> in some police departments, who often put out press releases with photos of the purchase, along with posing police officers <http://reason.com/blog/2008/09/01/sheriff-lotts-new-toy> clad in camouflage or battle dress uniforms.

HuffPost sent a Freedom of Information Act request to the Department of Homeland Security asking just how many grants for the vehicles have been given out since September 11, how much taxpayer money has been spent on them, and which police agencies have received them. Senior FOIA Program Specialist Angela Washington said that this information isn’t available.

The post-September 11 era has also seen the role of SWAT teams and paramilitary police units expand to enforce nonviolent crimes beyond even the drug war. SWAT teams have been used to break up <http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/05/poker-raid-turns-into-gunfight> neighborhood poker games <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6eqrio1j1A>, sent into bars and fraternities suspected of allowing underage drinking <http://www.examiner.com/civil-liberties-in-national/swat-raid-for-underage-drinking-at-washington-state-university>, and even to enforce alcohol <http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/13/the-swat-team-would-like-to-se> and occupational licensing <http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-11-07/health/os-illegal-barbering-arrests-20101107_1_criminal-barbering-licensing-inspections-dave-ogden> regulations. Earlier this year <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56530.html>, the Department of Education sent its SWAT team to the home of someone suspected of defrauding the federal student loan program.

Kraska estimates the total number of SWAT deployments per year in the U.S. may now top 60,000, or more than 160 per day. In 2008, the Maryland legislature passed a law requiring every police department in the state to issue a bi-annual report on how it uses its SWAT teams. The bill was passed in response to the mistaken and violent SWAT raid on the home of Berwyn Heights, Maryland mayor Cheye Calvo, during which a SWAT team shot and killed his two black labs. The first reports showed an average of 4.5 SWAT raids per day in that state alone.

Critics like Joseph McNamara, who served as a police chief in both San Jose, California, and Kansas City, Missouri, worry that this trend, now driven by the war on terror in addition to the war on drugs, have caused police to lose sight of their role as keepers of the peace. ”Simply put, the police culture in our country has changed,” McNamara wrote in a 2006 article for the /Wall Street Journal/
<http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB116476867027935258-lMyQjAxMDE2NjI0OTcyNjk4Wj.html>. ”An emphasis on ‘officer safety’ and paramilitary training pervades today’s policing, in contrast to the older culture, which held that cops didn’t shoot until they were about to be shot or stabbed.” Noting the considerable firepower police now carry, McNamara added, “Concern about such firepower in densely populated areas hitting innocent citizens has given way to an attitude that the police are fighting a war against drugs and crime and must be heavily armed.”

In 2009, stimulus spending became another way to fund militarization, with police departments requesting federal cash <http://www.theagitator.com/2009/02/09/any-taxes-you-pay-can-and-will-be-used-against-you/> for armored vehicles, SWAT armor, machine guns, surveillance drones, helicopters, and all manner of other tactical gear and equipment.

Like McNamara, former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper finds all of this  troubling. “We needed local police to play a legitimate, continuing role in furthering homeland security back in 2001,” says Stamper, now a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. “After all, the 9/11 terrorist attacks took place on specific police beats in specific police precincts. Instead, we got a 10-year campaign of increasing militarization, constitution-abusing tactics, needless violence and heartache as the police used federal funds, equipment, and training to
ramp up the drug war. It’s just tragic.”

Posted in July 2011 | Leave a comment

Local war veteran wants marijuana to be legalized

Legalize pot: It’ll dry up drug cartels’ market, save forests

December 18, 2011

By Bill Varble  for the Mail Tribune

Sheriff Mike Winters frowned as he showed a reporter a stack of photographs documenting Mexican drug cartels’ marijuana-growing operations on federal land in Southern Oregon. The photos showed filthy camps, nitrogen-loaded chemical fertilizers, garbage tumbling into a stream.

“These grow sites are a disaster for the public,” Winters said. “You can’t believe what you see until you get into one.”

It was the first time in memory a Republican has fretted so about the environment.

Of course, there is a sure-fire way to end the reach of drug gangs into Oregon’s forests: End pot prohibition. Just declare defeat in the pot theater of the War on Drugs and move on.

This has been clear to a growing number people for a long time, but now it’s truly an idea whose time has come. In a Gallup poll in October, 50 percent of Americans said pot should be legal, up from 46 percent last year. Forty-six percent favored keeping it illegal.

It’s been trending this way for more than 40 years. In 1969, 12 percent of Americans favored legalizing pot, and 84 percent were opposed. The legalize-it sentiment hit the mid-20s in the conservative 1980s, passed 30 percent in 2000 and was 40 percent in 2009.

That’s for recreational use. With medical marijuana it isn’t even close. More than 70
percent of Americans favor it. And the really bad news for those who still think cannabis is the devil’s weed is that the margin for legalization is bound to increase. Opposition was highest among those older than 65. Support was highest among those under 30. The only region in the country where a majority does not favor legalization is the South.

Cannabis is the third-most popular drug in America, trailing only alcohol and tobacco, both of which are infinitely more harmful. More than 100 million Americans ‘fess up to having used pot, and an estimated 20 million or so have used it in the past month. Some states have decriminalized possession of small amounts for personal use, and more than a dozen have legalized it for medical purposes. The benefits for cancer, glaucoma, AIDS and other conditions have been well-documented, and it doesn’t exhibit the toxicity of many of the common drugs in your medicine cabinet.

Nor is support for ending prohibition confined to aging hippies, dropouts, college kids and drug abusers. Former U.S. Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders has called for legalization, as has former Mexican President Vicente Fox.

In June, U.S. Reps. Barney Frank and Ron Paul introduced a bill to end federal prohibition and remove pot from the FDA’s Schedule 1 list (which is supposed to be for drugs that have no medical value, have a high risk of abuse and are extremely
harmful, such as meth and heroin). The odd couple — one of our most liberal
politicians and one of our most conservative — shows the breadth of anti-prohibition sentiment.

Paul is not alone on the Right. Conservative economist Milton Friedman, one of the chief architects of the “Reagan Revolution” and more than any other single person the father of the anti-regulatory fever (or at least its theoretical basis) that’s gripped the federal government for the last three decades, is a strong advocate for legalization.

“There is no logical basis for the prohibition of marijuana,” Friedman has written.
“It’s absolutely disgraceful to think of picking up a 22-year-old for smoking pot. More disgraceful is the denial of marijuana for medical purposes.”

Friedman was just one of more than 500 economists from around the U.S. who endorsed a Harvard Economist’s 2005 report on the costs of marijuana prohibition. The report said the U.S. would save almost $8 billion a year by ending prohibition — most of that at the state and local level — and could gain more than $6 billion a year in new tax revenue.

The Obama administration has been negative — or at best ambivalent — toward legalization proposals, and the feds are still spending millions busting medical marijuana growers. Legalization advocates, in turn, have noted that in the polls, pot is more popular than Obama.

The majority of the law enforcement community remains pro-prohibition for now, but a growing number of cops, such as former Seattle Chief of Police Norm Stamper, and Neill Franklin, a retired Baltimore, Md., narcotics officer, have joined the legalization movement.

“Legalizing these drugs will make our streets safer by reducing the crime and violence associated with their trade,” said Stamper, the director of the anti-prohibition organization Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, “just as when we
re-legalized alcohol.”

His reference was to the prohibition of alcohol nearly a century ago, which enriched the Mob and didn’t stop anybody from drinking. Our prohibition — the “war on drugs” created by President Richard Nixon in 1969, when the view of pot was  unrealistically negative — has led to millions of arrests (more than 800,000 in 2009), the waste of more than $1 trillion, and thousands of lives lost to the violence that accompanies any prohibition by making it a bonanza for bad guys. It’s also enriched multiple generations of mobsters.

The net result? Pot is more plentiful than ever. Any cop, or any kid on the street, will tell you that. Our ancestors tried prohibition and got the message that enough was enough after just 14 years. We’re at 42 years and counting. It’s time to move
on.

Bill Varble is a freelance writer living in Medford. If you have comments or suggested topics for the column, please send them to rogueviewpoint@gmail.com.

 

Posted in July 2011 | Leave a comment

Weed Wars: Reality TV and the O’Reilly Factor

CURRENT TV and THE O’REILLY FACTOR TONIGHT AIR INTERVIEWS
WITH STEVE and ANDREW DE ANGELO, STARS OF NEW DISCOVERY SHOW

 ”WEED WARS”

In anticipation of a huge audience response to the premiere of Discovery Channel’s “Weed Wars” on Thursday, December 1st  Current TV and The O’Reilly Factor will air interviews tonight with the stars of the reality mini-series  Steve DeAngelo, Executive Director of Harborside Health Center and Andrew DeAngelo, General Manager.

Current TV:  “The War on Weed,” on Vanguard airs locally at 6pm (PST)
Current takes a look at the battle being fought between  entrepreneurs and Federal agents in California’s legalized medical  cannabis industry.
The O’Reilly Factor:  Airs locally on Fox News at 8pm (PST)
Bill O’Reilly is known for hosting a rigidly enforced “No Spin Zone,” in a straightforward and provocative manner.  He invites guests with opposing viewpoints to comment on current day news and issues.

Posted in July 2011 | Leave a comment

Patients caught in the crossfire…

The state of Oregon doubled the costs to register for the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program effective Oct. 1, 2011

Then the Feds came in and destroyed the patients medicine.

Even in a small town like Medford, OR – the government has gone to far….  so a Protest Rally occured today walking and shouting rally slogans in front of Medford’s County Sheriff building, Medford City Police building, and the Federal building.

The local television news stations have been covering the DEA raids and the OMMP patients response to being caught in the crossfire between state and federal laws, with local law enforcement supporting the feds – not the people of this state.

All 3 tv news stations covered the protest,  Here is a link to one of them: http://localnewscomesfirst.com/index.php?option=com_seyret&Itemid=431&task=videodirectlink&id=10325

Posted in July 2011 | Leave a comment

“Send your patients to the blackmarket” – local sheriff

At last weeks Federal DEA/DOJ raid where approximately 500 cannabis plants were uprooted, a local county sheriff told the director of the local cannabis community center to “send your patients to the blackmarket.”

I am sad to report that another cannabis farm is being raided by feds as I write this.  This will make the fourth raid in Southern Oregon….affecting hundreds of patients whose medicine has been destroyed.

Other patients have come forward in the last two weeks to donate any excess cannabis medicine they have to resource centers to help the patients affected by the raids.

Posted in July 2011 | Leave a comment

Feds Bring War on Drugs to Southern Oregon

Legal medical marijuana growers in Southern Oregon are under attack beginning last week as hundreds of legal pot plants were confiscated from state authorized gardens.

Legal Cannabis patients must suffer yet another blow following the doubling of program fees for their cannabis ID card now that growers in Southern Oregon are having their plants pulled up by the hundreds, subjecting patients to a long winter without medicine.  Some speculate we may see the destruction of one more garden every week.  Rumor has it that local police and sheriff’s groups are working together with the Dept of Justice and the DEA to arrest people who are legal by state law, but illegal according to federal law.

Local cannabis resource agencies are reeling from the shock of how the War between Federal government controlled substance laws and Oregon’s State have put the patients in the middle of the crossfire.  Medical marijuana patients should check with their growers, and cannabis resource groups are accepting donations to help the needy.  In the meantime, patients are encouraged to make your current medicine last as long as possible.  It may be a very dry winter.

The question of the day: which rules govern what we do?  Federal Power or State Democracy?

See more at:  http://kdrv.com/page/226815  More news coverage will air tonight on local television:  KTVL (CBS) and KDRV (ABC).

 

Posted in July 2011 | Leave a comment

Southern Oregon Cannabis Community Center Director quoted on Prohibition

Lori Duckworth of Southern Oregon NORML said medical marijuana advocates
are eager to work with federal authorities to stop illegal sales, which can
jeopardize supplies that should be going to patients.

“Until cannabis prohibition ends and we get some kind of regulation system
in this country as a whole, we cannot stop the criminals, we can’t stop the
black market,” she said. “Patients are not criminals. But patients are being
punished for the actions of a few bad seeds.”

See full interview at:    http://www.chron.com/news/article/AP-Interview-Ore-medical-pot-widely-sold-2198194.php

The Institute for Cannabis Therapeutics is proud to have an office at the SO Cannabis Community Center where we all support the notion that PROHIBITION makes criminals, not cannabis.

Posted in July 2011 | Leave a comment