420 Use and Health

[Crow]

Washington (US)

Bill expected soon from state Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles

Source: Cannabis Defense Coalition (CDC)

"We met last week with state Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles, who outlined the components of a bill she intends to sponsor this legislative session. The bill seeks to address concerns of cities and towns that want "clarity" in the law and "flexibility" to regulate medical cannabis access points. It would allow for large nonprofit access points in counties with more than 200,000 people, meaning King, Pierce, Snohomish, Spokane and Thurston counties. Towns and cities in these five counties would be forced to allow medical cannabis access points, unless the town or city voted to "opt out" of the law. In counties with less than 200,000 people, jurisdictions could choose to "opt in" to the law and allow medical cannabis access points.

Local authorities would be given express permission by the state government to regulate access points, something many local jurisdictions still feel they do not have the legal authority to do, and for which many of them are clamoring. Conversely, it may provide authority for the local moratoriums on medical cannabis access points and collective gardens which proliferated after Governor Gregoire's disastrous swiss-cheese veto of medical cannabis legislation last session. Currently, we believe most of these medical cannabis moratoriums overstep the legal authority of the jurisdictions enacting them, and we fear this legislation may provide the authority for the medical cannabis moratoriums.

The bill would also fund the state Department of Health to create a government registry for medical cannabis patients. Ever independent, Washington State is one of the few medical cannabis jurisdictions that do not have government registration for medical cannabis patients.

This outline is based on what Senator Kohl-Welles told us last Thursday. She has indicated that she will provide us with a draft copy of the bill by next Monday, and at that time we can analyze the actual text of the bill instead of providing this hearsay."

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Petition Hearing Announcement on adding 'ADD' and 'OCD' to the state's medical cannabis law

A committee of the Medical Quality Assurance Commission and the Board of Osteopathic Medicine and Surgery will conduct a hearing at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January 11, 2012.

The Medical Quality Assurance Commission received petitions to add Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), type 3, 4 and 5, and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) to the medical conditions for which medical marijuana would be beneficial and that are permitted under state law RCW HU69.51A.010U (6). The Medical Commission in consultation with the Osteopathic Board will determine whether the medical conditions submitted by the petitioners will be added to the Medical Marijuana Law.

The Medical Commission and the Osteopathic Board committee invite written information from members of the public who are for or against adding the medical conditions to the Medical Marijuana Law. Written comments are to be submitted to the Medical Commission’s office no later than close of business on December 16, 2011, and will be provided to the committee for consideration prior to the January 11, 2012 hearing date. Written comments will be accepted by email at medical.commission@doh.wa.gov, by mail or in person at the Medical Commission’s office in Tumwater.

Oral testimony will be heard January 11, 2012, at 7:00 p.m. from members of the public who are for or against adding the conditions of ADD (type 3, 4 and 5) and OCD as conditions for which medical marijuana would be beneficial and that are permitted under state law HURCW 69.51A.010H(6). The length of oral testimony may be limited by the committee.

The committee will deliberate in closed session after the hearing to consider oral and written testimony. The committee will make a recommendation to the Medical Quality Assurance Commission and the Board of Osteopathic Medicine and Surgery to accept or deny the petitioners’ requests to add additional medical conditions to the Medical Marijuana Law. The Medical Commission and the Osteopathic Board will consider the committee’s recommendation and make a decision to accept or deny the petition. The decision will be announced at a later date due to the need for both the Medical Commission and the Osteopathic Board to discuss the hearing panel’s recommendation.

For more information, please email: Hmedical.commission@doh.wa.gov

Hearing Location:

Holiday Inn Seattle-Renton
One South Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98057
(425) 226-7700

Mailing Address:

Maryella Jansen, Executive Director
Medical Quality Assurance Commission
P.O. Box 47866
Olympia, Washington 98504-7866

Physical Address:

Maryella Jansen, Executive Director
Medical Quality Assurance Commission
243 Israel Road SE
Tumwater, Washington 98501

[Crow]

Colorado (US)

Congressman Polis’ Grills Attorney General Holder About Fed’s Medical Marijuana Policies

By: Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director

I’ve spoken to two reporters today inquiring about Colorado Congressman Jared Polis’ medical cannabis-related questions to Attorney General Holder at a congressional committee hearing that was otherwise a ‘bloodbath’ for Holder—getting grilled about the guns and Mexico fiasco—when Polis, who is not a member of the Judiciary Committee, was allowed to ask Holder two questions about medical cannabis enforcement.

Generally written…

Polis first wanted assurances that Colorado’s medical cannabis dispensaries/cultivation centers compliant with state laws—unlike California’s medical cannabis businesses that are not regulated by the state—are not a Department of Justice (DOJ) target. Holder affirmed the basic tenets of the previous Ogden and Cole memos, and wouldn’t provide assurances, but, re-iterated the DOJ stance that enforcing medical cannabis laws, notably in a state like Colorado with its rules and regulations, and with limited federal resources at hand, is a low law DOJ enforcement priority.

The second Polis question was about banking and medical cannabis businesses in Colorado, where he pushed Holder to acknowledge that the DOJ is not placing a priority on interfering with state compliant medical cannabis businesses and banking concerns.

I assume there will be news and industry coverage later today and tomorrow about this unexpected, but informative exchange between Representative Polis and Attorney General Holder.

Article with linked content available at: http://blog.norml.org/2011/12/08/con...uana-policies/

-----------------------------------

Update: video

[Crow]

Previous article continued...

3. Dispensary cases.

Given California state law, prosecution of marijuana stores or “dispensaries” purporting to comply with state law face additional challenges. Federal prosecution of a case involving a marijuana store should generally involve a) provable sales through seizures or records of over 200 kilograms or 1000 plants per year. b) sales clearly in violation of state law, eg sales to persons without legitimate doctors’ recommendations, side-sales occurring outside of the store or shipping to persons outside of California (Note—selling for profit, though a violation of state l aw, typically alone will not alone satisfy this requirement), and c) additional factors that reflect a federal interest in prosecution. Set forth below is a non-exhaustive list of such additional factors. Nothing herein should be taken as a limitation on investigation by federal law enforcement to determine the existence of these factors. However, search warrants or other more intrusive investigative techniques directed at marijuana stores should be closely coordinated with the USAOs.

*Marijuana “inventory” obtained from cultivation on federal or tribal land.

*Targets involved in cultivation or distribution outside of the dispensary that merits federal prosecution based on consideration of factors set forth in sections 1 and 2 above.

*Targets using profits from the dispensary to support other criminal activity.

*Store linked to physician providing marijuana recommendations without plausible legitimate justification, eg doctor on site providing recommendation with no on-site examinations or legitimate medical procedures.

*Targets have significant prior criminal histories.

*Targets have provable ties to a street gang that engages in drug trafficking involving violent conduct.

*Store operations involve the use or presence or firearms or other dangerous weapons including cases that would support charges under 18 USC 924.

*Store generates significant profits that are used/concealed in ways that would support charges for federal financial crimes such as tax evasion, money laundering or structuring. Note–generation of significant profits alone generally will not be viewed as a factor weighing in favor of federal prosecution

*Store operations in conjunction with other federal crimes involving violence or intimidation.

*Store employs minors under 18 and/or sells a significant portion of marijuana to minors under the age of 21 especially where evidence that minors aren’t using for medical purposes

4. Civil forfeiture.

The USAOs general preference is to pursue forfeiture through criminal forfeiture or civil forfeiture filed in parallel with a criminal case. Nevertheless circumstances may arise in which civil forfeiture alone is the best option. Those cases will generally involve one or more of the following:

*Significant forfeitable assets clearly traceable to marijuana trafficking in violation of federal criminal law that would merit federal prosecution based on consideration of factors set forth in sections 1-3 above.

*Significant forfeitable assets clearly traceable to non-marijuana related violations of federal law such as structuring or money-laundering. Large scale “medical marijuana” cultivation operations that 1) are operating in violation of state law 2) involve real property that has been the subject of a warning letter or similar prior notice or 3) involve real property that has been the subject of a prior forfeiture proceeding arising from marijuana cultivation or a property owner who has been a claimant in such proceedings or individual targets not subject to criminal prosecution eg fugitives or persons whose involvement in marijuana trafficking is too marginal to justify criminal prosecution including off-site land lords and non-resident owners falsely claiming ignorance of tenant’s marijuana trafficking.

http://blog.norml.org/2011/12/07/fed...uana-industry/

[Crow]

I'm not sure how Allen obtained this memorandum, but I applaud him for discovering this:

California (US)

Fed’s Criterion For Busting Medical Marijuana Industry

By: Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director

[Allen St. Pierre: Hah! Also, this memo is only applicable in California---not Colorado, New Mexico and Maine, where these states regulate the medical cannabis industry (whereas California does not, arguably opening the door to federal incursions and prosecutions).]

To: DEA, HIDTA, Federal task force partners in California for internal law enforcement use only. Not for public use or circulation.

From: California United States Attorneys

This memorandum outlines factors that all four California U.S. Attorneys Offices (the USAOs) agree may render a particular marijuana case suitable for federal prosecution. Identification of these factors is intended to assist federal, state and local law enforcement agencies in determining whether a particular marijuana case has significant potential for federal prosecution and conducting investigations in a manner that develops the best evidence to support federal prosecution (Footnote 1). The USAOS will consider for federal prosecution cases investigated by federal, state or local law enforcement agencies that implicate federal interests as reflected in the factors. Cases investigated by federal agencies will generally be given priority over cases adopted from state or local investigations. The factors listed below are relevant to the USAOs consideration of whether a marijuana case should be prosecuted federally but the presence or absence of one or more of the factors will not guarantee or preclude federal prosecution in any case. In general the federal interest will be greater in prosecuting leaders and organizers of the criminal activity as opposed to lower level workers.

The memorandum is intended as prospective guidance only, is not intended to have the force of law and is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied on to create any right, privilege or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any person or entity against any type of the USAOs, DOJ or the United States.

1) Domestic distribution cases.

Federal prosecution of a case of domestic distribution of marijuana should generally involve at least 200 or more kilograms of marijuana and also include additional factors that reflect a clear federal interest in prosecution (Footnote 2—This guidance for domestic distribution cases does not apply to cases involving distribution within or smuggling into a federal prison.18 USC 1791). Typically the more marijuana above 200 kilograms the better the potential for federal prosecution. Domestic distribution cases involving quantities of marijuana below 200kilograms should demonstrate an especially strong federal interest or should not be prosecuted with marijuana distribution as the sole federal charge. Set forth below is a non-exhaustive list of factors that USAOs believe indicate a federal interest in a domestic distribution case.

*Distribution by an individual or organization with provable ties to an international drug cartel or a poly-drug trafficking organization.

*Distribution of significant quantities to persons or organizations outside California.

*Distribution by individuals with significant prior criminal histories.

*Distribution by individuals with provable ties to a street gang that engages in drug trafficking involving violent conduct.

*Distribution for the purpose of funding other criminal activities.

*Distribution near protected locations or involving underage or vulnerable people (e.g. in violation of 21 USC 859 persons under 21, 860 near schools, playground and colleges, 861 employment of persons under 18).

*Distribution involving the use or presence of firearms or other dangerous weapons including cases that would support charges under 18 USC 924c.

*Distribution generating significant profits that are used or concealed in ways that would support charges of federal financial crimes such as tax evasion, money laundering or structuring. Note: Generation of significant profits alone generally will not be viewed as a factor weighing in favor of federal prosecution.

*Distribution in conjunction with other federal crimes involving violence or intimidation.

2. Cultivation cases.

Federal prosecution of a marijuana case involving cultivation on non-federal or non-tribal land, indoor or outdoor, should generally involve at least 1,000 marijuana plants so that the quantity necessary to trigger the ten-year mandatory minimum sentence can be clearly proven and also include additional factors that reflect a clear federal interest in prosecution. Typically, the more marijuana above 1,000 plants, the better the potential for federal prosecution. Non-federal or non-tribal land cases involving quantities below 1,000 plants should demonstrate an especially strong federal interest or should not be prosecuted with marijuana cultivation as the sole federal charge. Federal prosecution of a marijuana case involving cultivation on federal or tribal land should generally involve at least 500 marijuana plants and also include additional factors that reflect a clear federal interest in prosecution. Cases on federal or tribal land involving quantities below 500 plants will be considered if they demonstrate a strong federal interest, if the cultivation has caused significant damage to federal or tribal lands or has occurred in an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction (Footnote 3– The USAOs will consider the totality of circumstances with respect to all marijuana plant quantities in these guidelines. For example, the presence of especially mature, large or robust plants will generally weigh in favor of prosecution while the presence of seedlings or immature plants will generally weigh against prosecution). Set forth below is a non-exhaustive list of factors that the USAOs believe indicate a federal interest that may justify federal prosecution of a marijuana case involving cultivation whether on federal, tribal or other lands.

*Cultivation causing significant environmental damage, risk to human health or interference with particularly sensitive land or significant recreational interests, ie damage to wilderness area or wildlife, danger to innocent families using a recreation area or use of toxic or dangerous chemicals.

*Cultivation by an individual or organization with provable ties to an international drug cartel or poly-drug trafficking organization.

*Cultivation of significant quantities on behalf or persons or organizations outside California.

*Cultivation by individuals with significant prior criminal histories.

*Cultivation by individuals with provable ties to a street gang that engages in drug trafficking involving violent conduct.

*Cultivation for the purpose of funding other criminal activities.

*Cultivation near protected locations or involving under-age or vulnerable people (eg, in violation…

*Cultivation involving the use or presence of fire-arms, booby traps or other dangerous weapons including cases that would support charges under 18 USC 924c.

*Cultivation generating significant profits that are used or concealed in ways that would support charges for federal financial crimes such as tax evasion, money laundering or structuring. Note—generation of significant profits alone will not be viewed as a factor weighing in favor of federal prosecution.

*Cultivation in conjunction with other federal crimes involving violence or intimidation

[Crow]

Washington (US)

"Gregory Carter, Providence Hospital Doctor, Goes to Bat for Medical Marijuana"

By Nina Shapiro, Seattle Weekly

In the never ending debate about marijuana, it's usually activists on one side and law enforcement on the other, with a smattering of politicians weighing in. But marijuana, at least in part, is supposed to be a medical issue. So where are the doctors?

"There's a lot of ignorance," explains Gregory Carter ([pictured at link below]), a rehabilitation medicine specialist who works at Providence Hospital in Olympia and Centralia. Like the general public, he says, many docs believe there isn't a lot of research on the subject, when in fact there's a ton--some of it done by him.

He says that's why he spent months working on Governor Chris Gregoire's petition, released Wednesday, asking the the feds to reclassify marijuana as a legal drug.

"There are now literally thousands of peer-reviewed papers," Carter says. Nearly 50 reach what is considered the "gold standard" of research: double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in which patients don't know whether they're getting cannabis, a placebo or a different type of medication. These have shown marijuana to be helpful for alleviating chronic pain--specifically nerve pain-- and other symptoms such as nausea. (For a listing of papers, see the exhibits in the governor's petition.)

More than a decade ago, before medical became legal in this and other states, Carter knew next to nothing about the medicinal uses of marijuana. Much of the early scientific literature on pot, based on recreational rather than medical use, was negative. In his practice, though, he sees a lot of patients with Lou Gehrig's disease, and one told Carter he was finding pot helpful.

"I was shocked," the doctor says. "In fact, I didn't really believe him."

But after medical marijuana become legal here in 1998, more patients starting coming in saying the same thing. Carter started keeping track of his patients' experiences with marijuana, and in 2001 published a seminal paper that he says started a body of research looking at cannabis' potential use in neurodegenerative diseases.

Carter, who also holds a position at the University of Washington, has continued researching cannabis as well. (See, for instance, this paper with Carter's graduate student. [available at link below]) But it has not been easy. Because marijuana is illegal, the feds as well as UW require exhaustive paperwork before they will authorize its use in research. To get approval for a recent study using human subjects, Clark says he had to hire a lawyer. The process took six months.

And that's just the barriers for research. Doctors thinking about whether to recommend marijuana for patients have something more serious to think about: punishment from the feds. Carters points out that the DEA can take away a doctor's ability to prescribe drugs like morphine, which can put a physician out of business.

That helps explain why most of the doctors signing off on marijuana authorizations are affiliated, not with mainstream practices, but dispensaries or other pot businesses.

Carter, however, does give such authorizations. He says he protects himself by following the state law. And, he says, "I try to keep a low profile." With his participation in the governor's petition, though, his profile just got a lot higher.

Linked content at: http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/daily...dence_hosp.php

[WolfenJack]

Damn--you beat me to posting the Vermont article. I thought I was going to be so clever. Oh well, I am in the Green Mountain State and pretty happy with Gov. Shumlin right now.

[Crow]

Vermont (US)

Gov. Shumlin Supports Doctors Prescribing Pot

MONTPELIER, Vt. -- A spokeswoman for Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin says the governor supports and will sign on to an effort to allow doctors to prescribe medical marijuana and pharmacists to fill the prescriptions.

Shumlin is joining an effort by Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee and Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire to petition the federal Drug Enforcement Administration to change marijuana's current status as illegal under federal law to prescribe or dispense for medical use.

Vermont's current medical marijuana law requires the small number of very sick people the state makes eligible to receive it to register with the Department of Public Safety and sets up other special procedures for them to get the drug.

The governors' proposal would make medical marijuana much like other prescription drugs.

http://www.wptz.com/news/29896343/de...#ixzz1fK16g6IZ

-------------------------------------

Wisconsin (US)

Medical Marijuana Bill Introduced in Wisconsin

MADISON — At a press conference [yesterday], Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Madison) announced the introduction of the “Jacki Rickert Medical Marijuana Act,” which would let seriously ill Wisconsin residents use marijuana to treat their illnesses. The bill would allow patients to grow small amounts of marijuana to treat a specific set of conditions, as well as permit the establishment of regulated and licensed cultivation and distribution centers within the state. A similar bill was introduced last session but was not passed. Rep. Pocan was joined today by patients and medical professionals who support medical marijuana rights.

“This is an issue where people are clearly way ahead of the policy makers,” Rep. Pocan said. “The Wisconsin Legislature needs to catch up with the public and pass this bill because making medical marijuana legal is the right and compassionate thing to do for patients in pain.”

“It is wonderful that there is such a consistent effort to enact compassionate legislation in Wisconsin,” said Robert Capecchi, legislative analyst for the Marijuana Policy Project. “The vast majority of Americans support allowing sick people to use marijuana to treat their illnesses, and more and more states are taking steps that reflect that. Plenty of evidence already exists proving the relative safety and efficacy of marijuana when used to treat a variety of ailments, and more studies on the potential benefits of marijuana treatments are being released regularly. The system proposed by this bill would make sure that qualified patients have safe access to the medicine that works best for them while protecting them from arrest. No one should be treated like a criminal just for trying to live a normal life.”

Currently, 16 states and the District of Columbia allow the use of medical marijuana, including Michigan. Nearby Illinois and Iowa are also considering medical marijuana bills this year, as are several other states around the country. A CBS News poll released November 18 showed that 77% of voters nationwide think medical marijuana should be legal.

http://www.mpp.org/media/press-relea...uana-bill.html

---------------------------------------------

California (US)

Judge won't halt federal medical pot crackdown

A judge has rejected a request from medical marijuana suppliers to bar federal prosecutors from filing charges against them or seizing their property.

U.S. District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong in Oakland said the medical marijuana collectives had failed to show they would suffer "immediate, irreparable harm" without a court order.

"The court is sensitive to the desires of individuals to use medical marijuana with a doctor's recommendation, as permitted by California law," Armstrong wrote in a 27-page ruling filed this week. "Nonetheless, marijuana remains illegal under federal law, and in Congress' view, it has no medicinal value."

In rejecting the advocates' request for temporary injunctions, the judge also said she doubted they would prevail in lawsuits seeking to halt the Obama administration's campaign to shut down their dispensaries.

Marijuana suppliers, patients and property owners filed lawsuits in each of the state's four federal districts last month, accusing the Justice Department of violating an agreement to leave them alone if they complied with California law.

The department had said "those who possess, grow and distribute medical marijuana in compliance with state law will not be prosecuted nor their property seized," the plaintiffs' lawyers said.

They argued that the federal government had made a binding commitment to follow that policy in settling a suit last year by a marijuana collective in Santa Cruz. The government is breaching that settlement, and breaking the law, with its strategy of going after marijuana dispensaries by threatening to prosecute their landlords, the plaintiffs' lawyers said.

The Justice Department announced its new policy at an October news conference with the four federal prosecutors in California. It has denied it broke any legal commitments to the courts or promises to the public.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...#ixzz1fK0qrt9m

[Crow]

Washington (US)

"Gregoire to DEA: make marijuana a legal drug"

by Jonathan Martin, Seattle Times

A decades-long effort by marijuana activists to allow cannabis to be prescribed and sold in pharmacies gained allies in governors' mansions for the first time Wednesday.

Gov. Chris Gregoire, joined by Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee, petitioned the Drug Enforcement Administration to reclassify marijuana, recognize that it has therapeutic value and allow it be treated as a prescription drug.

The petition, citing hundreds of peer-reviewed research articles, adds political heft and urgency for the federal government to resolve what Gregoire called "chaos and conflict" among 16 states with laws recognizing medicinal use of marijuana and a federal law that does not.

"In the year 2011, why can't medical cannabis be prescribed by a physician and filled at the drugstore just like any other medication? The answer is surprisingly simple. It can. But only if the federal government stops classifying marijuana as unsuitable for medical treatment," Gregoire said.

The petition comes as America's attitudes toward marijuana are softening, but the Obama administration is cracking down on medical-marijuana dispensaries — in Washington and other states — at an unprecedented level. Governors in medical-marijuana states were briefed on the petition to the DEA last fall, Gregoire said, and some were alerted Wednesday. Gregoire said she also alerted the state's two U.S. attorneys and asked for their help expediting the petition.

At least one governor — Peter Shumlin of Vermont, a Democrat — endorsed the petition, said his spokeswoman, Sue Allen.

Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, is required by state law to file a reclassification request by the end of the month, but he did not sign onto Gregoire's petition. His spokesman, Eric Brown, said the petition raises "a valid conflict that needs to be resolved."

"I have every expectation you'll see other governors join us," Gregoire said.

Battle began in 1972

Marijuana, banned by federal law in 1937, is classified as Schedule I, a drug with no medical value, under the Controlled Substances Act along with LSD, heroin and methamphetamine. The petition filed Wednesday seeks to reclassify it to Schedule II, which would allow it to be prescribed with "severe restrictions," alongside cocaine and opiates.

National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) petitioned for reclassification in 1972, and advocates have been trying ever since. The most recent petition, filed in 2002 by advocates, was reviewed by federal health officials in 2006, but it wasn't officially denied until July, when the advocates sued.

The review found "a material conflict of opinion among experts precludes a finding that marijuana has been accepted by qualified experts, even under conditions where its use is severely restricted," DEA administrator Michele Leonhart wrote.

That finding ignores a huge volume of research, as well as the experience of "thousands and thousands of medical-marijuana patients who clearly benefit," said Joe Elford, chief counsel for Americans for Safe Access, a California-based advocacy group now appealing the denial.

Elford called the governors' petition "extremely significant," but cautioned a review likely would take years. If approved, marijuana would then need to undergo Food and Drug Administration approval and have restrictions on access imposed.

Response among advocates was mixed. Philip Dawdy of Washington Alternative Medicine Alliance, a state trade group of medical-marijuana organizations, said he appreciated the governors "giving political legitimacy to what medical cannabis patients and voters in this state have known for decades" but was skeptical the DEA would act quickly.

An act of "frustration"

Gregoire and Chafee, a Republican-turned-Independent, are unlikely proponents because both have faced criticism for this year killing proposals passed by their legislatures to legalize dispensaries.

Gregoire at the time said she feared that licensing dispensaries would put state workers at federal risk of criminal or civil penalties. That risk has not been realized in states, including Colorado, with regulatory schemes.

Gregoire acknowledged that her veto "resulted in considerable chaos around the state," with dispensaries flourishing in Seattle but banned in most municipalities. Recent federal raids on dispensaries across the state also motivated the petition, she said.

"We've done it out of frustration, frankly, seeing what's happening, seeing the abuses, seeing the crackdown," she said.

The 106-page petition seeks to debunk the DEA claim that medical authorities are split on the issue. The petition cites 34 national and international medical organizations that have issued statements in favor of reclassification, including the American Medical Association and American College of Physicians, the largest group of doctors of internal medicine.

Jason McGill, a Gregoire staff attorney, co-wrote the petition over the past three months with Dr. Gregory Carter of the University of Washington and Mitch Earleywine, a New York addiction specialist and member of NORML's advisory board.

McGill said he was "amazed" at the volume of marijuana research, with 2,389 papers published in peer-reviewed journals compared, for example, to 508 for hydrocodone.

Marijuana's therapeutic value for symptoms related to cancer, HIV/AIDS, Lou Gehrig's disease and others is "indisputable in the research," said McGill. "In terms of rescheduling this, you need one useful purpose."

Jonathan Martin: 206-464-2605 or jmartin@seattletimes.com. On Twitter @jmartin206.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ijuana01m.html

[Ansel]

Will smoking cannabis make my penis longer or enlarge my wife's breasts?

[Crow]

Very interesting!

Here's the complete documentary:

[Crow]

United States

Breaking News: Two Governors Petition Federal Government To Allow For Medical Marijuana

By: Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director

The governors of Rhode Island and Washington have both signed a petition asking the Obama Administration to re-schedule cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule II, effectively ending the federal government’s total prohibition on medical patients having lawful and controlled access to organic cannabis products.

“The situation has become untenable for our states and others. The solution lies with the federal government.”

Both Governors Lincoln Chafee and Christine Gregoire of Rhode Island and Washington respectively were, ironically, two state governors who chose to heed to the warnings issued by the federal government in a Department of Justice memo (known as the ‘Cole memo‘) and not move forward with otherwise popular medical cannabis law reforms in their states.

However, no more! These two governors’ action today is a very important turning point in the history of cannabis law reform in America.

Contrastingly, the governors of Colorado, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico and the city council of D.C. all largely ignored the federal government and moved forward with their states’ respective medical cannabis programs.

NORML began the entire legal and political debate about ‘medical marijuana’ in 1972 when it launched a 24-year re-scheduling effort, that is still laboring on all these years.

Therefore to finally witness governors so frustrated with the absurdly mis-scheduled cannabis plant as being dangerous, addictive and possessing no medical utility (wrongly grouped with heroin and LSD) that they are reaching out to the president to fix this clear injustice and warping of science is a clear demonstration that the friction between the federal government’s recalcitrance on accepting medical cannabis (or for that matter ending Cannabis Prohibition in total) and state politicians who can no longer justify towing the fed’s ridiculous ban on physician-prescribed cannabis to sick, dying and sense-threatened medical patients is coming to a dramatic conclusion in a government showdown, one that may bode well for the larger Cannabis Prohibition reforms needed, festering just below the surface of the public’s mass acceptance of medical access to cannabis.

http://blog.norml.org/2011/11/30/bre...cal-marijuana/

[heders]

Absolutely false. However, if you're already schizophrenic or suffer from severe mental illness; then it may have the potential to exacerbate symptoms. It also may have the potential to alleviate existing symptoms. It's not so much the substance, as it is the person's brain and how it's "wired".

Cannabis is not for everyone, and it's certainly not recommended for adolescents (as the brain is still developing). For a "totally healthy" adult, it is relatively safe to consume (when done properly).

Very interesting! I've Googled a little about this and some (often anti-drug propaganda websites or newspapers) say that one joint can make you schizophrenic or get you in to a life long psychosis even if you are completely healthy mentally. I've just dismissed this as bull shit, but some websites say that there is a slight connection between the too. For example, that people who start smoking in a young age can develop these mental illnesses strictly as a result of the cannabis smoking. That I have no idea about, but I can imagine if you have mental disorders and illnesses in your family, it may be that which makes it happen. Thank you for shining a light on this.

I also find it very strange alcohol is almost encouraged and widely accepted, and cannabis, in most of the world, is considered the worst of the worst. I have read quite a lot about it, and the only 'real' dangers seems to be the smoking (although I read that cannabis does not cause cancer in the lungs, throat or mouth), and the psychological addiction, which easily can lead to abuse; and abuse of any drug isn't good.

[Jimbob11]

Here's how I explain the difference between alcohol and marijuana:

If you're drunk, you might run a red light

If you're high, you might stop at a green light.

Both are dangerous but which is more dangerous? And I'm still waiting to hear about the guy that smoked a joint and then beat someone to death. It's so ridiculous that pot is vilified while alcohol is legal and supported. I'm fine with it being legal but it pisses me off that the collateral damage that it causes is too-often ignored.

[Crow]

Some say that cannabis can induce life long psychosis and schizophrenia in totally healthy people. What is the truth of that?

Absolutely false. However, if you're already schizophrenic or suffer from severe mental illness; then it may have the potential to exacerbate symptoms. It also may have the potential to alleviate existing symptoms. It's not so much the substance, as it is the person's brain and how it's "wired".

Cannabis is not for everyone, and it's certainly not recommended for adolescents (as the brain is still developing). For a "totally healthy" adult, it is relatively safe to consume (when done properly).

[heders]

Some say that cannabis can induce life long psychosis and schizophrenia in totally healthy people. What is the truth of that?