In a trial that garnered national attention because of the conflict between state and federal marijuana laws, a federal jury in Los Angeles Tuesday convicted the owner of a Morro Bay medical mariju

Calif. Appellate Court Upholds Medical Marijuana Law

ASA Defeats County Challenge; San Diego Wants Supreme Court Review

An appeals court has ruled that California's medical marijuana laws must be implemented. A handful of counties had challenged the ID card program the state legislature established, saying that federal prohibition trumped state law. That challenge was rejected by a judge in 2006 and again by an appeals court this month. In both instances, the courts sided with attorneys from Americans for Safe Access, the ACLU and the California Attorney General's office, who all argued that federal and state laws can exist side by side.

ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford

In a unanimous opinion, the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled that federal law does not preempt the state's medical marijuana program. Nonetheless, San Diego County supervisors have voted to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court.

"This is a huge win for medical marijuana patients, not only in California, but across the country," said Joe Elford, Chief Counsel of Americans for Safe Access, who argued before the appellate court on behalf of patients. "This ruling makes clear the ability of states to pass medical marijuana laws with an expectation that those laws will be upheld by local and state, if not federal, officials."

San Diego County officials filed suit against the state in 2006, hoping to avoid implementing the medical marijuana ID card program mandated by state law. They were originally joined by Merced and San Bernardino counties in arguing that California's medical marijuana laws were not valid because federal laws prohibiting all marijuana use supercede any state law. Merced abandoned the challenge and began implementation after losing in superior court later that year.

In rejecting that argument, Justice Alex McDonald wrote for the court that the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) "signifies Congress's intent to maintain the power of states to elect 'to serve as a laboratory in the trial of novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country' by preserving all state laws that do not positively conflict with the CSA."

ASA argued on behalf of the interests of patients in the original case and the appeal, filing briefs along with the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project. Officials from the City of San Diego broke with their county counterparts and filed an amicus 'friend of the court' brief in the appeal, siding with the Attorney General and medical marijuana patient advocates.

"More than eleven years after the passage of Proposition 215, it's about time that we all got on the same page with regard to medical marijuana and the protections afforded by California law," said Elford. "With two appellate court decisions clearly stating that federal law should not be an excuse to avoid enforcing state law, it is now time for full implementation in California."

In March, the California Supreme Court denied review of City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court, another appellate court case that found the state's medical marijuana law was not preempted by federal law.

ASA will be launching a campaign soon to educate elected officials across the state about their obligation to implement state law, in particular the state ID card program, and the benefits of doing so for both law enforcement and medical marijuana patients.

Federal Legal Confusion Yields Conviction

Dispensary Owner Obeyed State and Local Laws but Faces Five Years in Prison

The closely watched federal trial of a California medical marijuana dispensary owner has resulted in guilty verdicts on all counts. Charlie Lynch, 46, faces a minimum of five years in prison, even though he operated his dispensary legally under state law, complied with regulations set by Morro Bay city officials, and contacted federal authorities about his plans.

Charlie Lynch cutting the ribbon on opening day

Lynch, a successful software developer with no prior criminal record, sought and received a business license from the city and was welcomed to the local Chamber of Commerce. Central Coast Compassionate Caregivers was open for 11 months before federal agents raided it on March 29, 2007.

"It is a huge waste of taxpayer resources for the federal government to spend millions of dollars attacking someone who was abiding by local and state law in every respect," said ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford. "It is shameful and a tragedy for Mr. Lynch and his patients."

Federal medical marijuana trials typically forbid any mention of state or local laws, or even the medical conditions of the patients. But attorneys' for Lynch persuaded the judge to allow limited testimony from the Morro Bay mayor and city attorney, as well as Lynch's own account of attempts he made to operate within the law.

Lynch testified that he called federal authorities on four occasions to find out if he could legally open a dispensary. He claims a DEA agent told him it was up to state and local laws, and he has the phone records to prove that he at least made the call. Lynch's federal public defenders argued that this amounted to a legal assurance, and that the jury should find that any violations of federal law were the result of entrapment.

But the jury foreman told an ASA volunteer that jury was not persuaded by Lynch's contact with the DEA because he could not provide names of the people he spoke with. Lynch's discussed those conversations with an attorney before opening the dispensary, but the attorney was not allowed to testify.

During the week-long trial, Lynch testified that he did everything he could to make sure his activities were within the law. His federal public defenders introduced evidence showing that he maintained scrupulous records and enforced an uncompromising ethical code of conduct for his employees. Federal prosecutors allege that he was concerned only with profits and that some of the patients to whom he sold marijuana were under 21, an offense that carries federal sentencing enhancements.

Lynch attempted to call one of those patients to the stand as a character witness. Owen Beck, a 17-year old bone cancer survivor, appeared in court with his parents, who had always accompanied him on his visits to the dispensary, per city regulations. But after hearing that the marijuana Beck bought was being used on the advice of his Stanford oncologist, Judge George Wu ruled his testimony inadmissible. Beck's father told reporters that Lynch had never asked for or received payment for the cannabis he provided Owen.

Though Lynch was in full compliance with state and local law, the federal investigation against Lynch was supported by San Luis Obispo Sheriff Pat Hedges. Hedges is being sued by a former patient of Lynch's for seizing her medical records in the raid.

Soon after the raid, Lynch reopened his dispensary. The next month, Lynch's landlord was threatened by the DEA with forfeiture of his property unless he evicted Lynch, leading to the dispensary's closure in May 2007.

Lynch was found guilty of conspiracy to possess and possession with intent to distribute marijuana and concentrated cannabis, manufacturing marijuana, knowingly maintaining a drug premises, and sales of marijuana to a person under the age of 21.

Lynch is currently scheduled to be sentenced on October 20. For more on the Lynch case and what you can do about it, see ASA's blog at www.AmericansForSafeAccess.org/Lynchblog.

Marijuana's incredible medical potential becomes increasingly clear with every new study:

Raymond DuBois and colleagues at the University of Texas in Houston discovered that a key receptor for cannabinoids, which are found in marijuana, is turned off in most types of human colon cancer.

Without this receptor, a protein called survivin, which stops cells from dying, increases unchecked and causes tumour growth.

To better understand the role that the receptor, called CB1, plays in cancer progression, the researchers manipulated its expression in mice that had been genetically engineered to spontaneously develop colon tumours.

"When we knocked out the receptor, the number of tumors went up dramatically," says DuBois. Alternatively, when mice with normal CB1 receptors were treated with a cannabinoid compound, their tumours shrank. [New Scientist]

The body of evidence showing that THC may effectively treat tumors is already extensive, so there's nothing particularly surprising about this latest research. Rather, it provides yet another opportunity to point out just how much damage our government has done in the course of its relentless and fraudulent campaign to convince everyone that the marijuana plant is incredibly dangerous rather than incredibly helpful.

Imagine what we might have achieved if our nation's efforts over the past thirty years had been focused on identifying the plant's benefits rather than exaggerating its harms and vilifying its users.

Washington state has a medical marijuana law, and the city of Seattle has an ordinance making marijuana offenses the lowest law enforcement priority, but that didn't stop Seattle police from raidin

The Washington Supreme Court ruled July 17 that police cannot arrest passengers simply for being in a car that smells of marijuana.

Scientists at the University of Milan have published a study finding that whole-plant marijuana extracts provide better reli

Deputy Drug Czar Scott Burns visited Arcata, CA last week to see "America’s grow house capitol" firsthand. After meeting with local authorities and accompanying police on a few marijuana raids, he said this:

…regarding enforcement, Burns seemed to offer a mixed message. While unyielding in asserting that federal law holds marijuana illegal under all circumstances and trumps all state and local medical cannabis laws, Burns nonetheless advised Arcatans to “defer 100 percent good judgment of the people who have been elected and appointed” while motioning to those present in the APD conference room. But most of them are working on guidelines under which medical marijuana may be safely cultivated and dispensed. [Arcata Eye]

I just cannot possibly point out often enough that the conflict between state and federal drug laws doesn't marginalize the value of state-level reforms. The deputy drug czar doesn’t arrive in California with a convoy of DEA super-narcs to slash and burn everything in sight. He can't do that and he knows it, as his remark clearly illustrates.

The federal war on medical marijuana is a political strategy designed to create the appearance of chaos in order to deter other states from implementing medical marijuana laws. Medical marijuana is more available than ever before, notwithstanding sporadic DEA activity in California. Yet we still hear folks suggesting that "the DEA will just swoop in and ruin everything" if we pass new marijuana reforms at the state-level. To be clear, the DEA has ruined many lives, but it has not ruined California's medical marijuana law. That should be obvious to all of us.

The DEA cannot overcome the will of voters and I'm tired of seeing the press and even some reformers helping them pretend they can.

The Austrian parliament approved a bill July 9 that allows for the cultivation of marijuana for medical and scientific purposes,

• read full post
• add comment

Seattle police who acted after a bicycle officer smelled marijuana seized files on nearly 600 medical marijuana patients Tuesday, the

• read full post
• 7 comments

Debate rages nationwide over the use of marijuana for pain relief: http://www.rl.tv/VIEWPOINT/.

Hope Unlimited San Diego Cannabis Support Group is proud to welcome Jeff W.

Oregon has already decriminalized marijuana possession and enacted the second-largest state medical marijuana program in the country, and now some Oregon activists are ready to move to the next lev

For most drug policy reformers, the answer is probably an exasperated "duh," but a fascinating piece at Huffington Post from NORML's Paul Armentano raises some very plausible doubts about the popular theory that the pharmaceutical industry is pushing pot prohibition to kill competition.

I highly recommend reading the whole thing before forming an opinion, but here are the basic points as I understand them:

1. Pharmaceutical companies are vigorously pursuing patents on various marijuana components and derivatives for a great variety of potential medical applications. Given the rigorous and heavily politicized FDA approval process they'll ultimately need to pass, there's no sense in indulging anti-marijuana hysteria within the government bureaucracy.

2. These products will ultimately be marketed to a populace that has been spoon-fed mindless anti-pot propaganda for decades. Since the origins of the coming generation of marijuana-based medicines will be widely known, their manufacturers have an interest in marijuana being trusted, rather than feared, within the marketplace.

3. Pharmaceutical companies understand that marijuana can never live up to its reputation as a panacea that can replace modern medicine. This is true because most people don't smoke it, and most people don’t want their medicines grown on a tree. Conditions in places where medical marijuana is currently widely available demonstrate this.

4. Government bureaucrats, police and prison lobbies, and voters who've succumbed to drug war propaganda are the real forces behind marijuana prohibition.

Paul also observes the important role marijuana reform efforts have played in fostering a climate in which marijuana-based medicines have become recognized as viable. Only by breaking down bit by bit the barrier of hysteria surrounding marijuana have we been able to set a tone in which medical marijuana research can be discussed rationally in the public domain. There are exceptions, of course, but now that the science and the will of the voters can speak for themselves, corporate profiteers associate marijuana with dollar signs, not reefer madness.

It has also been proposed by some in the reform movement that pharmaceuticalized marijuana may lead to a crack down on the medical use of herbal marijuana, as corporate profiteers pressure police to purge their most obvious competitor. I reject that notion for a couple reasons: 1) the marketing of new marijuana-based medicines will have a trickle-down effect of politically legitimizing pre-existing medical marijuana activity. 2) We can't afford to bust 'em now, we won't be able to afford to bust 'em then. 3) The risk of jury nullification when bringing medical marijuana cases to trial is substantial and will remain so.

Finally, though Paul doesn't address this, many people have cited instances of pharmaceutical companies supporting organizations like Partnership For a Drug Free America as evidence of their complicity in the war on marijuana. I've attempted to research this in the past and couldn't find anything worth our time. The story died on my desk. To the extent that pharmaceutical companies fund so-called "anti-drug" advocacy, I now believe it has nothing to do with marijuana, but rather with a desire to proactively cover their asses for the destructive effects of the legal drugs they themselves manufacture and market.

So, I believe Paul's analysis should probably replace much of the conventional wisdom that currently exists on this issue. Unless other evidence emerges, or other experts of Paul Armentano's caliber (few exist), emerge to convincingly challenge his assertions, the burden of proof placed on those blaming Big Pharma for marijuana prohibition has been raised several notches today. If this helps us to refocus our advocacy towards other more demonstrable, palatable, and persuasive arguments for reform, that would be a good thing.

Richard Eastman, along with Making Social Change, is planning a medical cannabis rally and march, under the name Democrats for Safe Access at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Co.

The required permits were applied for some time ago and were initially denied. However, after some persistence and assistance from the ACLU, the necessary permits were issued for a demonstration up to 10,000 people.

We invite you to come and join us in asking the next presidential nominee of the Democratic Party for his support. We seek the support of a unified Party to require their candidate, if elected President, to stop federal criminalization of medical cannabis.

We urge any and all groups who have an interest in this cause (i.e.: political watchdogs, patient advocates, voter's rights, associated industries, etc.) and individuals alike to provide whatever assistance they can through sponsoring and/or volunteering. Please contact Duke Smith, Event Chairman, at (818) 914-9560 to coordinate efforts.

Democrats for Safe Access
4848 Lexington Ave., Suite 109, Hollywood, CA 90029
Tel: 323-474-4602, Fax: 323-882-6263