Dear ASA Supporter,

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a landmark decision yesterday in which California state courts found that its medical cannabis law is not preempted by federal law. The Supreme Court’s decision in Garden Grove v. Superior Court means that federal law does not prevent state and local governments from implementing medical cannabis laws adopted by voters or state legislatures. In short: federal law does not override state law on medical cannabis!

Yesterday’s decision follows three years of strategic legal work by Americans for Safe Access (ASA) in a California case involving the return of wrongfully confiscated medicine. ASA needs your help to keep doing important work like this. Please take a moment to make a special contribution to ASA today.

The Court’s decision has broad implications for medical cannabis patients in the 13 states where medical cannabis is legal, and signals a sea change in the impasse between state and federal laws. Better adherence to state medical cannabis laws by local police will result in fewer needless arrests and other problems for patients, allowing for better implementation of medical cannabis laws in all states that have adopted them.

Medical cannabis advocates should be encouraged by opportunities for change in federal policy with a new Presidential Administration and shift in Congress. But until now, federal pre-emption has haunted patients whose state laws allow for medical cannabis use. This decision further clears the way for state implementation and adds new urgency to ASA’s work in the nation’s capitol, where we have been working full-time to change federal policy since 2006.

ASA is working in the courts and in the halls of Congress to protect and expand patients’ rights – and we are making a difference. We have won important victories in court, made significant inroads in Congress, and helped reframe the national debate about medical cannabis. But we need your help to carry on. Please make a contribution to support ASA today.

Thank you,

Steph Sherer
Executive Director
Americans for Safe Access

P.S. Read more about the Supreme Court decision at www.AmericansForSafeAccess.org/USSCKha.

Dear friends:

The Georgetown chapter of Students for Sensible Drug Policy is hosting a debate between MPP assistant director of communications Dan Bernath and White House Office of National Drug Control Policy chief counsel Ed Jurith at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, December 3. The debate will take place at The Georgetown University Law Center in McDonough Hall. The topic of the debate will be medical marijuana.

Attendance is free and open to the public. Attendees must bring a valid photo ID. After the debate, there will be a question and answer session with the audience.

WHAT: Medical marijuana debate between MPP assistant director of communications Dan Bernath and ONDCP chief counsel Ed Jurith
WHEN: 6:30 pm on December 3, 2008
WHERE: The Georgetown University Law Center in McDonough Hall (600 New Jersey Ave NW), room 203

In 1998, 69% of Washington, D.C., voters supported an initiative to allow sick and dying patients to use medical marijuana. However, Congress has prevented the law from being implemented, so seriously ill District residents are still subject to arrest and prosecution for using medical marijuana. If you live in the District, please take a moment now to urge your councilmembers to pass a resolution calling on Congress to respect the will of D.C. voters and allow the medical marijuana law to take effect.

Thank you for supporting MPP. I hope you will be able to attend the debate on Wednesday evening.

Sincerely,

Zane Hurst
Legislative Analyst
Marijuana Policy Project

PRESS RELEASE
Americans for Safe Access
For Immediate Release: December 1, 2008

U.S. Supreme Court: State Medical Marijuana Laws Not Preempted by Federal Law / Medical marijuana case appealed by the City of Garden Grove was denied review today

Washington, DC -- The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a landmark decision today in which California state courts found that its medical marijuana law was not preempted by federal law. The state appellate court decision from November 28, 2007, ruled that "it is not the job of the local police to enforce the federal drug laws." The case, involving Felix Kha, a medical marijuana patient from Garden Grove, was the result of a wrongful seizure of medical marijuana by local police in June 2005.

Medical marijuana advocates hailed today's decision as a huge victory in clarifying law enforcement's obligation to uphold state law. Advocates assert that better adherence to state medical marijuana laws by local police will result in fewer needless arrests and seizures. In turn, this will allow for better implementation of medical marijuana laws not only in California, but in all states that have adopted such laws.

"It's now settled that state law enforcement officers cannot arrest medical marijuana patients or seize their medicine simply because they prefer the contrary federal law," said Joe Elford, Chief Counsel with Americans for Safe Access (ASA), the medical marijuana advocacy organization that represented the defendant Felix Kha in a case that the City of Garden Grove appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. "Perhaps, in the future local government will think twice about expending significant time and resources to defy a law that is overwhelmingly supported by the people of our state."

California medical marijuana patient Felix Kha was pulled over by the Garden Grove Police Department and cited for possession of marijuana, despite Kha showing the officers proper documentation. The charge against Kha was subsequently dismissed, with the Superior Court of Orange County issuing an order to return Kha's wrongfully seized 8 grams of medical marijuana. The police, backed by the City of Garden Grove, refused to return Kha's medicine and the city appealed. Before the 41-page decision was issued a year ago by California's Fourth District Court of Appeal, the California Attorney General filed a "friend of the court" brief on behalf of Kha's right to possess his medicine. The California Supreme Court then denied review in March.

"The source of local law enforcement's resistance to upholding state law is an outdated, harmful federal policy with regard to medical marijuana," said ASA spokesperson Kris Hermes. "This should send a message to the federal government that it's time to establish a compassionate policy more consistent with the 13 states that have adopted medical marijuana laws."

Further information:

Today's U.S. Supreme Court Order denying review:
http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/Kha_USSC.pdf
Decision by the California Fourth Appellate District Court:
http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/GardenGroveDecision.pdf
Felix Kha's return of property case:
http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/article.php?id=4412

# # #

Buoyed by this month's election results and jazzed by the prospects for change with a new administration in Washington, some 450 student activists converged on the University of Maryland campus in

The US Justice Department announced Tuesday that President Bush Monday had commuted the sentences of two peop

With drug czar John Walters’ term coming to an end shortly, we’re beginning to see some really strange stuff coming from his office. Pete Guither and Bruce Mirken both have good examples. Are they getting careless over there?

You Can Make a Difference

Dear friends,

You have an opportunity right now to influence one of the most important choices President-elect Obama will make. The media is reporting that he is considering nominating Republican Congressman James Ramstad (MN/3rd) to be his “drug czar”. It’s easy to understand why. Rep. Ramstad is in recovery from substance abuse (alcohol) and has a long track record in support of increasing access to drug treatment. Ramstad, however, is still mostly wedded to the failed punitive drug war policies of the last 30 thirty years.

For instance, Ramstad has voted against medical marijuana five times. He has voted against making sterile syringes more available to reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS three times. Even though his colleagues are increasingly supporting sentencing reform, including eliminating the crack/powder sentencing disparity, he hasn’t stood up on the issue.

In other words, Rep. Ramstad does not appear to be committed to the kind of change President-elect Obama has said he will bring to our nation’s drug policies. 

Obama needs to hear from you, and is making it easy for you to contact him through his website. Will you take a minute today to urge Obama to choose a drug czar who will champion reform?

The Drug Policy Alliance believes our nation’s next drug czar should be chosen based on the following criteria:

1. Are they committed to enacting and supporting evidence-based policies? ONDCP should make decisions based on science, not politics or ideology.
2. Are they committed to reducing the harms associated with both drugs and punitive drug laws? We need a new bottom line for U.S. drug policy.
3. Do they think drug use should be treated as a health issue not a criminal justice issue? To paraphrase former Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke, we need a surgeon general not a military general or police officer.
4. Do they welcome and encourage debate and research? We need a drug czar who is open-minded and willing to consider every alternative.
5. Are they committed to reducing the number of nonviolent offenders behind bars? Our country’s next drug czar should be fully committed to major sentencing reform.

Who President-elect Obama chooses as his drug czar will affect everyone. DPA is working over-time to influence that decision but we need your help. Please let Obama know that you want him to nominate a drug czar who supports marijuana law reform, syringe availability and treatment-instead-of-incarceration. 

Sincerely,

Bill Piper
Director, National Affairs
Drug Policy Alliance Network

Like other interest groups, the drug reform movement has the Obama transition under a microscope, searching for clues on the new administration's intentions as it scrutinizes those appointments for

Bolivian President Evo Morales said at a Monday news conference at the UN that he would like to improve t

American hemp consumers still can't grow their own, but as of this week, they now have one more choice of where to import it from.

Obama’s selection of federal prosecutor Eric Holder to serve as attorney general has provoked concern among reformers, namely due to Holder’s calls for increased marijuana enforcement and harsher sentences in Washington, D.C. during the mid-90’s.

U.S. Attorney Eric H. Holder Jr. said in an interview that he is considering not only prosecuting more marijuana cases but also asking the D.C. Council to enact stiffer penalties for the sale and use of marijuana.

"We have too long taken the view that what we would term to be minor crimes are not important," Holder said, referring to current attitudes toward marijuana use and other offenses such as panhandling. [Washington Post]

There’s nothing good to be said about that, but it’s incomplete in terms of giving us a sense of what Holder’s overall drug policy priorities may be. 3 years later, Holder was sounding a bit more reasonable on the issue of drug sentencing:

QUESTION: In the last couple of weeks there has been renewed dialogue about mandatory minimum sentences. Some conservative groups and some traditionally thought of as liberal groups are both saying that the mandatory minimums are not working, they are filling jails unnecessarily. Is the administration fairly well satisfied that mandatory minimums are good idea? Or will you try -- will this administration try again in the coming Congress to take another look at mandatory minimums?

MR. HOLDER: Well, I do not think that we should ever foreclose the possibility that we take a look at how the laws that we have passed are working. I tend to think that mandatory minimum sentences that deal with people who commit violent crimes are almost always good things. I think the concerns are generally raised about mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug offenders. And I think there are some questions that we ought to ask.

I do not go into it with a presumption that they're necessarily bad, but we ought to look at the statistics and see, are we putting in prison, are we using our limited prison space for the kind of people that we want to have there? Are the sentences commensurate with the kind of conduct that puts people in jail for these mandatory minimum sentences?

Those are the kinds of questions I think that we ought to ask. And as thinking legislators on both sides, Republicans and Democrats, liberal and conservative, I would hope that we would ask those questions and then go into it with an open mind.

Almost a decade later, the disastrous consequences of mandatory minimum sentencing are more evident than ever and even notorious drug warriors like Joe Biden have pushed drug war posturing aside to begin addressing the problem. As the political landscape surrounding drug sentencing continues to evolve, Holder’s "open mind" along with Obama’s concerns about over-incarceration of non-violent drug offenders could provide a positive climate for sentencing reform.

Beyond that, we just don’t have a great deal of evidence to draw upon. I haven’t seen any public statements from Holder regarding medical marijuana and other top drug policy reform issues. Realistically, it may be a best-case scenario that we’re faced with a long-time U.S. attorney who appears viable and at least lacks a lengthy track record of drug war grandstanding. The totality of Holder’s scary drug policy demagoguery potentially falls far short of what we might hear from others with his background. Silence on most of our issues is arguably the best reformers can hope for when it comes to selecting the next head of the DOJ.

At this point, I know nothing about Eric Holder that would indicate opposition to the drug policy reforms Obama endorsed on the campaign trail. Holder enters office fully cognizant of Obama’s perspective on the war on drugs and I remain hopeful that he’ll become a critical figure in moving forward the reforms we’ve been told to expect from this administration.

The drug czar's recent claim that there are more medical marijuana dispensaries than Starbucks stores in San Francisco has finally achieved the level of public embarrassment it so thoroughly deserved.

San Francisco's Department of Public Health, which issues permits for medical marijuana dispensaries, is also befuddled by the federal data.

"It was extremely incorrect," said Larry Kessler, a senior health inspector at the department. "I don't know how they got that." [San Francisco Chronicle]

SF Chronicle obtained the alleged dispensary list from ONDCP and found double listings, closed businesses, and even a business in Los Angeles. With their fraud fully exposed, ONDCP has issued a totally bizarre reply saying it's "good news" that their story got press.

It’s straight-up insane. By the time you get to the part about how many Taco Bells there are in San Francisco, you’ll join me in hoping Sarah Palin is the next drug czar so we can at least get MSNBC to give these clowns the daily fact-checking they deserve.

Pete Guither has the details. I agree with Pete that we’re just not going to know who the next drug czar is for a while still, but it’s worth noting that none of the names circulating thus far are very encouraging.

If we end up disappointed, it will be our own fault for thinking Obama’s nominee wouldn’t completely suck.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November, 13, 2008
CONTACT: Adam Eidinger at 202-744-2671 or adam@votehemp.com, or Tom Murphy at 207-542-4998 or tom@votehemp.com

Licensed Hemp Farmers Heard by US Court of Appeals
Decision in Lawsuit Could Bring Back Hemp Farming in US

ST. PAUL, MN – Two North Dakota farmers, who filed a lawsuit in June of 2007 to end the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) ban on commercial hemp farming in the U.S., were heard yesterday, November 12, 2008, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The oral arguments before the three judge panel centered on the farmer’s assertion that because there is no possibility the hemp crop could be diverted into the market for drugs, the Commerce Clause does not allow DEA to regulate industrial hemp farming in North Dakota. If successful, the landmark lawsuit will lead to the first state-regulated commercial cultivation of industrial hemp in over fifty years. The court’s decision is not expected until next year.

The farmers, North Dakota State Rep. David Monson and seed breeder Wayne Hauge, are appealing a decision by the U.S. District Court of North Dakota on a number of grounds; in particular, the District Court ruled that hemp and marijuana are the same, as DEA has wrongly contended. In fact, scientific evidence clearly shows that not only are oilseed and fiber varieties of Cannabis genetically distinct from drug varieties, but there are absolutely no psychoactive effects gained from eating it. All court documents related to the case can be found online (http://www.VoteHemp.com/legal_cases_ND.html).

Representative Monson observed oral arguments made on his behalf by attorneys Joe Sandler and Tim Purdon. In court Mr. Sandler argued, “Given North Dakota’s unique regulatory regime, nothing leaves the farmer’s property except those parts of the plant Congress has already decided should be exempt from regulation: hemp stalk, fiber seed and oil. The question is whether there is any rational basis for Congressional regulation of the plant itself growing on the farmer’s property. The answer is no — because industrial hemp is useless as drug marijuana and there’s no danger of diversion, so there’s no possible impact on the market for drug marijuana.”

The government’s arguments centered on the idea that the plaintiffs should apply to the DEA for permission to grow hemp and that the court didn’t have jurisdiction over the issues raised by the farmers. “The plaintiffs should await the DEA’s decision on their application,” said Melissa Patterson on behalf of the government. In response, Judge Michael Milloy asked, “Isn’t it true the DEA will not rule on the farmer’s applications to grow hemp, you’ve had eleven months?” Ms. Patterson answered, “The DEA has not replied out of respect to the pending proceedings.” In response to the jurisdictional objections made by the DEA, Judge Lavenski Smith said, “When there is a legitimate constitutional issue brought before us we can hear the case.”

Background

In 2007 the North Dakota Legislature removed the requirement that state-licensed industrial hemp farmers first obtain DEA permits before growing hemp. The question before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals will be whether or not federal authorities can prosecute state-licensed farmers who grow non-drug oilseed and fiber hemp pursuant to North Dakota state law. Vote Hemp, the nation's leading industrial hemp advocacy group, and its supporters are providing financial support for the lawsuit. If it is successful, states across the nation will be free to implement their own hemp farming laws without fear of federal interference. Learn more about hemp farming and the wide variety of non-drug industrial hemp products manufactured in the U.S. at www.VoteHemp.com and www.TheHIA.org.

# # #

If there is one man who symbolizes and epitomizes the federal war on drugs, it is the head of the White House Office of National Drug Co

The US Supreme Court Monday heard oral arguments in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (No.

A pair of North Dakota farmers who want to be able to grow hemp were in US 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Paul, Minnesota, Wednesday to argue their case.

The political landscape in Washington, DC, is undergoing a dramatic shift as the Democratic tide rolls in, and, after eight years of drug war status quo under the Republicans, drug reformers are no

President-elect Obama’s selection of Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff is hardly a good sign for reformers. As Jacob Sullum points out, he’s a complete nightmare when it comes to drug policy:

"We are going to continue to find ways within the administration to fight legalization and the notion of legalization," Rahm Emanuel, a key Clinton drug-policy adviser, said yesterday. "We're against the message that the initiative sends to children. Marijuana does not come cost-free. It is illegal and it is dangerous."

Of course, that was more than 10 years ago, when even Bob Barr was still in full-blown drug war demagogue mode. Has Emanuel improved? Unfortunately not, and if anything he’s gotten worse as demonstrated by this totally deranged attack on former AG Alberto Gonzalez for saying the war on drugs wasn’t a "real" war:

"Thanks for the white flag. From the United States' most senior law enforcement official, the man who should be leading the war on drugs, this white flag of surrender will not be reassuring to the millions of parents trying to protect their kids."

This full-scale war mentality regarding drug policy is about as bad as it gets and I just shudder to think this is the guy who’ll have the president’s ear on a daily basis. Obama has called for "shifting the paradigm" with regards to the war on drugs, only to then surround himself with the worst drug warriors in the democratic party.

It’s too soon to call this a betrayal of anything Obama has pledged regarding reform; I doubt drug policy was a factor in Emanuel’s or Biden’s selection. But it’s a harsh reminder that vehement support for the war on drugs continues to thrive on both sides of the aisle. Reform won't come easily for Obama even if he's completely serious about changing our approach to the war on drugs.