Michigan to begin marijuana program

thoughts from the maji-

“The vague nature of the way that the initiative was written allows for law enforcement and government officials to control the rate at which the program deploys, the same thing was done here in California.. The answer to this?  STARK Raving and Rabid prescience and tenacity when it comes to communicating and pressuring officials to adapt the initiative to accomplish the true goal of balancing the health of the State.

HASSLE them until they do not want to hassle you anymore and are SICK of the issue, and just want to be left alone again in their tired little deadend lives….  this is the latest big chance to have the public’s attention on them, let’s make the attention uncomfortable, let them remember that their positions in government and law enforcement are not theirs to use for power-mongering, influence-peddling, or personal political agendas.  It is time for All Americans not just Michiganers to take back their personal Constitutions and in the process the collective Constitution will be restored… Not rocket science here folks, just have to step up and show for yourselves with courage, tenacity and steadfastness.

Thousands of people expected to sign up starting today
DETROIT (AP) — The first wave of what could be tens of thousands of people signing up for Michigan’s medical-marijuana program is expected in Lansing today.
For Greg Francisco, of Paw Paw, who is organizing the mass submission in the state capital, it will be a sweet moment after a decade of working to legalize medical marijuana.
“In a year, we’re going to look back and say, ‘What was the fuss all about?'” said Francisco, executive director of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association. “People have been using medical marijuana in this state all along. All this does is give them some legal protection.”
Rules for Michigan’s medical-marijuana program went into effect Saturday, and the state begins taking applications today. The first cards will be issued to patients later this month. But questions linger about how the program will work in practice, and resolving all the confusion may require additional legislation or intervention by the courts.
Michigan residents can get a doctor’s recommendation to use marijuana to relieve pain and other symptoms. Patients can register with the state and receive a card protecting them from arrest for growing, using or possessing the drug, which remains illegal under federal law.
Twelve other states have similar programs.
An analysis by the House Fiscal Agency estimates between 2,000 and 55,000 patients may sign up for Michigan’s program.
John Hazley, 39, plans to register “as soon as possible.” The Detroit man says he smokes marijuana to relieve pain in his knee and back from old injuries, and worries about becoming dependent on pain pills.
“Usually when I take the pills, I’m tired and sleepy, and when I take the marijuana it gives me a boost,” Hazley said.
In the five months since voters approved the measure, there’s been confusion about what the law will mean for police, prosecutors and patients.
For instance, Michigan’s law doesn’t say how patients will obtain marijuana or seeds to grow their own, nor does it address whether employers can enforce drug-free workplace rules if workers are registered to legally use marijuana. It also leaves unsaid how police will enforce the limit of 12 mature plants and 2.5 ounces permitted each patient.
Advocates and officials say many of those issues may end up in court. The state legislature also can modify the law with a three-quarters vote in each chamber.
“There’s going to be a lot of litigation here, there’s going to be a lot of court time … to answer these unanswered questions and put some solid color in those gray areas,” said James McCurtis, spokesman for the Department of Community Health, which runs the program through its Bureau of Health Professions.
State officials initially sought to head off many of those questions by writing some of the strictest rules in the nation for patients in the program, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press under the state’s Freedom of Information Act.
Among the proposals were random inspections of growing sites, mandatory inventories of marijuana grown by patients or their designated caregivers and allowing the release of patients’ names and other information to law-enforcement agencies. Many of the rules went beyond the law approved by voters.
The officials drafting the rules were trying to plug perceived holes in the law, said Rae Ramsdell, director of licensing for the department’s Bureau of Health Professions.
“You’re trying to anticipate what kind of problems you’re going to have and address those problems before they happened,” she said.
In an internal e-mail two days after the Nov. 4 election, one official described the law as “a hopelessly short-sighted and simple-minded ballot initiative” with “some really poorly worded language.”
McCurtis said the official, Kurt Krause, then-acting director of the Office of Legal Affairs and now deputy director of the department, was referring to areas of confusion in the legislation and was concerned about the department seeming to offer legal advice to the public.
When draft rules for the program were released last December, there was an immediate backlash from patients and their advocates. Many turned out for a public hearing in January to blast the proposed rules.
A review by the State Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules dated Dec. 1, 2008, also determined a number of early rules “exceed that which is required” under the law. It called one on denying incomplete applications “somewhat harsh” and another “arbitrary and capricious.” Random inspections of growth sites were deemed a possible violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure.
“The comments from all the different groups made us go back and re-examine what the law said, and looking at what the law said drove the decisions to remove a lot of the enforcement-type language and not to try to anticipate the problems that might come up, but to work within the very tight statute that we had,” Ramsdell said.
The final draft of the rules, unveiled in February, pulled back on almost every point of contention.
“We had to kind of go away from the enforcement perspective and think about how we could get these people registered and use marijuana for medical purposes,” Ramsdell said. “That for us is a huge shift because we are used to enforcing laws that are put into place. And in this case, all we are responsible for doing is putting into place a registry.”

OUR MEXICAN DRUG POLICY REPEATS THE SORRY STORY OF PROHIBITION

Bruce Mirken, Alternet – Like it or not, marijuana is a massive industry. Some 100 million Americans admit to government survey-takers that they’ve used it, with nearly 15 million acknowledging use in the past month.

That’s a huge market — more Americans than will buy a new car or truck this year, or that bought one last year. Estimates based on U.S. government figures have pegged marijuana as the number one cash crop in America, with a value exceeding corn and wheat combined.

Our current policies are based on the fantasy that we can somehow make this massive industry go away. That’s about as likely as the Tooth Fairy paying off the national debt.

We haven’t stopped marijuana use — indeed, federal statistics show a roughly 4,000 percent rise since the first national ban took effect in 1937 — but we have handed a virtual monopoly on production and distribution to criminals, including those brutal Mexican gangs. . .

We’ve seen this movie before. During the 13 dark years of alcohol Prohibition, ruthless gangsters like Al Capone and “Bugs” Moran had a monopoly on the lucrative booze market. So lucrative, in fact, that these scoundrels would routinely gun each other down rather than let a competitor share their territory. Sound familiar?

Today, the bloodbath is taking place in cities like Tijuana and Juarez, Mexico, but it’s beginning to spill across our border. Prohibition simply doesn’t work – not in the 1930s and not now. . .

The situation is so intolerable that three former presidents of Mexico, Colombia and Brazil have recently joined the chorus calling for a shift in U.S. marijuana policy.

There is no reason to believe that our nation’s current marijuana policies are reducing the use and availability of marijuana. Indeed, in the Netherlands — where, since the mid 1970s, adults have been permitted to possess and purchase small amounts of marijuana from regulated businesses — the rate of marijuana use is less than half of ours, according to a recent World Health Organization study. More importantly, the percentage of teens trying marijuana by age 15 in the Netherlands is roughly one-third the U.S. rate.

By taking marijuana out of the criminal underground and regulating and taxing it as we do beer, wine and liquor, we can cut the lifeline that makes these Mexican drug gangs so large and powerful. And at the same time we’ll have a level of control over marijuana production and distribution that is impossible under prohibition.

Rumor Update of the Week-HR 875

The following note is typical of the calls and e-mails Organic Consumers Association has been receiving this week:famer-jail

“Do you know anything about HR 875, a ‘food safety’ bill that was written by Monsanto, Cargill and ADM? I’ve heard a few individual activists scream about this as the death of farmers markets, CSAs and local organic food, yet have seen no alerts from any of the reliable groups, including OCA. Any idea what’s up with this?”

For the record, Organic Consumers Association does have an alert out on HR875. As OCA points out in our Action Alert, we cannot support a “food Safety” bill unless it provides protection or exemptions for organic and farm-to-consumer producers and cracks down on the real corporate criminals who are tampering with and polluting our nation’s food supply— such as Monsanto.

Having said that, OCA supports aspects of HR875 that call for mandatory recalls of tainted food, increased scrutiny of large slaughterhouses and food manufacturers, and hefty fines against companies that send poisonous food to market. The now discredited ultra-libertarian notion that companies or the “market” will regulate themselves is not only ludicrous, but dangerous, whether we are talking about the banking system or the food and farming sector.

Of course, Monsanto and large corporate agribusiness are out to destroy traditional farming. Unfortunately, while many people have been distracted by HR 875, the biotech companies have been hard at work pushing their agenda: Monsanto’s gene-altered (so-called) drought-resistant corn, Epitopix’s E. coli vaccine, and the ban on rBGH-free labeling that Monsanto’s successor Eli Lilly is trying to push through the Kansas legislature. We need to keep working together to work towards positive alternatives, such as organic agriculture and the green economy.

Learn more

CONGRESS BANNED RESELLING CHILDREN’S BOOKS PRINTED BEFORE 1985

Washington Post – Legislation passed by Congress last August in response to fears of lead-tainted toys imported from China went into effect last month. Consumer groups and safety advocates have praised it for its far-reaching protections. But libraries and book resellers such as Goodwill are worried about one small part of the law: a ban on distributing children’s books printed before 1985.

According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the agency charged with enforcing the act, lead in the books’ inks could make its way into the mouths of little kids. Goodwill is calling for a change in the legislation even as it clears its shelves to comply, and libraries are worried they could be the next ones scrubbing their shelves. . .

Scientists are emphatic that lead, which was common in paints before its use was banned in 1978, poses a threat to the neural development of small children. But they disagree about whether there is enough in the ink in children’s books to warrant concern. Some even accuse the safety commission of trying to undermine the law by stirring up popular backlash. . .

“On the scale of concerns to have about lead, this is very clearly not a high priority,” said Ellen Silbergeld, a MacArthur scholar and professor of public health at Johns Hopkins University who is considered one of the leading experts on lead poisoning.

“It doesn’t take a tremendous amount of intelligence to figure out what the highest-risk sources of lead are,” Silbergeld said. “This is a way of distracting attention from their failure to protect children from the clear and present dangers of lead. I think this is just absurd, and I think it’s disingenuous.” She said that toys, poorly made jewelry and other trinkets were cause for much more alarm.

US Government: Nearly Four In Ten Admitted To “Treatment” For Marijuana Haven’t Used Pot

Rockville, MD: Nearly four in ten individuals admitted to substance abuse treatment programs for cannabis have not used the drug in the month prior to their admission, according to data provided by the US Department of Health and Human Services.

According to federal figures, over 37 percent of the estimated 288,000 thousand people who entered drug treatment for pot in 2007 had not reported using it in the 30 days previous to their admission. Another 16 percent of those admitted said that they’d used marijuana three times or fewer in the month prior to their admission.

Commenting on the statistics, NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano said: “These statistics make it clear that it is not marijuana use per se that is driving these treatment admission rates; it is marijuana prohibition that is primarily responsible. These people for the most part are not ‘addicts’ in any true sense of the word. Rather, they are ordinary Americans who have experienced the misfortune of being busted for marijuana who are forced to choose between rehab or jail.”

According to state and national statistics, between 60 percent and 70 percent of individuals enrolled in substance abuse ‘treatment’ for cannabis are referred there by the criminal justice system.

By contrast, fewer than 15 percent of marijuana treatment admissions are voluntary.

For more information, please contact Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director, at (202) 483-5500 or Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director, at: paul@norml.org. Full text of the report, “Highlights of the 2007 Treatment Episode Data Sets,” is available online at: http://oas.samhsa.gov/TEDS2k7highlights/TOC.cfm.

Researchers: Even “Organically Raised” Cows Are a “Climate Bomb” by Stephanie Ernst Published February 25, 2009 @ 07:42AM PST

Researchers: Even “Organically Raised” Cows Are a “Climate Bomb”

by Stephanie Ernst

Published February 25, 2009 @ 07:42AM PST

OK, I wish the title of “The Cow Is a Climate Bomb” had been worded differently. Cattle themselves are not at fault here. Animal agriculture and humans are, for forcing into existence so very, very many of them, just so that we can then kill, eat, and wear them. But still, this study and article are saying what most people have been refusing to acknowledge: “Whether cattle are reared organically or with conventional farming methods, the end effect is bad for the environment, according to a new German consumer report.”

-Read on after the jump for more on this important, first-of-its kind study-

California: Assemblyman Introduces Measure To Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Proposal Will Raise Over $1.3 Billion Per Year, State’s Tax Collection Agency Says

San Francisco: State Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) introduced legislation this week to legalize and regulate the commercial production and sale of cannabis for adults age 21 or over. The proposal – Assembly Bill 390: The Marijuana Control, Regulation and Education Act – is the first bill ever to be introduced in the California legislature that seeks to tax and control the sale of cannabis.

Ammiano introduced AB 390 at a press conference Monday. Joining the assemblyman in support of the measure were Betty Yee, Chairwoman of the California Board of Equalization (Taxation), Oakland City Council member Rebecca Kaplan, Orange County Superior Court Judge James P. Gray (retired), and Dale Gieringer, Coordinator of California NORML, which provided legislative text and financial analysis for the bill.

“With the state in the midst of an historic economic crisis, the move toward regulating and taxing marijuana is simply common sense,” Ammiano said. “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. 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.”

Local news anchors from CBS, ABC, NBC, and PBS television covered the press conference. National stories regarding Ammiano’s bill have appeared in USA Today, as well as on Air America and CNN.

As introduced, AB 390 would raise over $1.3 billion in annual revenue by taxing the retail production and sale of marijuana, according to financial estimates provided by the California Board of Equalization. An economic analysis by California NORML estimates that a legal, statewide retail market for cannabis could generate additional revenues totaling some $12 to $18 billion dollars per year.

The noncommercial cultivation of marijuana for personal use – defined as ten plants or fewer – would not be subject to taxation under the proposal. In addition, AB 390 would not alter existing legislation on the use of medicinal cannabis, nor would it impose new taxes or sanctions on the medical cultivation of cannabis.

A recent Zogby poll of 1,053 likely voters, commissioned by California NORML and Oaksterdam University, reported that nearly six out of ten respondents on the west coast favor taxing and legally regulating cannabis like alcohol.

“This bill is a winning proposition for California taxpayers,” Gieringer said. “It’s time that California stops wasting resources trying to enforce marijuana prohibition, and instead realizes the tax benefits derived from a legal, regulated cannabis market.”

For more information, please contact Dale Gieringer, California NORML Coordinator, at (415) 563-5858, or Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director, at: paul@norml.org. Additional information on AB 390, as well as contact information for the California Assembly, is available at: http://capwiz.com/norml2/issues/alert/?alertid=12758896.