Bid to legalize marijuana in California takes key step

Friday, January 29, 2010 | | 0 comments

Los Angeles Times
January 29, 2010

Bid to legalize marijuana in California takes key step

Supporters gather what is likely to be enough signatures to put their measure on the state ballot in November.

By John Hoeffel

Proponents of an initiative to make California the first state to legalize marijuana have collected about 693,800 signatures, virtually guaranteeing that the measure will appear on a crowded November ballot.

"This is a historic first step toward ending cannabis prohibition," said Richard Lee, the measure's main backer.

Advocates, trailed by television cameras and photographers, dropped off petitions with elections officials in the state's largest counties, including Los Angeles, where organizers said 143,105 voters signed.

Lee, a successful Oakland marijuana entrepreneur, bankrolled a professional signature-gathering effort that circulated the petition in every county except Alpine, which only has about 800 registered voters.

The initiative would make it legal for anyone 21 and older to possess an ounce of marijuana and grow plants in an area no larger than 25 square feet for personal use. It would also allow cities and counties to permit marijuana to be grown and sold, and to impose taxes on it.

Four legalization initiatives have been proposed, but Lee's is the only one that is likely to make the ballot. To qualify, it needs 433,971 signatures. Elections officials have to validate the signatures, a process that will take at least six weeks.

Polls have shown growing support nationwide for legalization. In California, a Field Poll taken in April found that 56% of voters in the state and 60% in Los Angeles County want to make pot legal and tax it.

Mark DiCamillo, the poll's director, gave the initiative 50-50 odds. But he said the state's endless financial woes could make a difference. "The voters are going to be looking for any way to minimize the pain with budget cuts," he said.

He also said baby boomers could play a crucial role. "They grew up with marijuana and, in many respects, don't believe as much all the horror stories," he said.

The initiative's supporters are counting on this formula, but they are not taking chances. Lee hopes to raise $10 million to $15 million. His firm has already spent more than $1 million on the measure.

Lee owns half a dozen mostly pot-related businesses in Oakland, including Coffeeshop Blue Sky, a medical marijuana dispensary, and Oaksterdam University, which offers popular classes on marijuana.

Some prominent marijuana legalization advocates have questioned Lee's decision not to wait until 2012, a presidential election year likely to draw more liberal voters, but most are nonetheless supportive.

The Drug Policy Alliance helped draft the measure and could raise substantial money. George Soros, the billionaire investor who donated heavily to help pass the state's 1996 medical marijuana initiative, is one of its most prominent supporters. "We all have the same goal, which is to end prohibition as quickly as possible. We just haven't determined whether this campaign in this particular year is the vehicle," said Stephen Gutwillig, the alliance's California director.

Lee has hired political professionals and is relying on Web technology from Blue State Digital, the firm Barack Obama used to run his vaunted Internet operation during the presidential race. The campaign raised $10,000 from the Web in the last month.

"You've got a very active, committed online force," said Dan Newman, a political strategist working with the campaign. "We're confident that we're on the road to having the resources needed to win."

Foes also have started to organize. Paul Chabot, founder of the Coalition for a Drug Free California, said teachers, youth activists, religious leaders, small-business men, law enforcement personnel and elected officials are putting together a coalition. "We're going to fight them head on; we're not going to go away," he said. "We're looking forward to victory in California and spreading that message like a tidal wave across the United States."

john.hoeffel@latimes.com

_______________________________________________
Dd-world mailing list
https://lists.tni.org/mailman/listinfo/dd-world

Drug dependence isn't a moral issue

| | 0 comments

The Phnom Penh Post
Friday, 29 January 2010

Drug dependence isn't a moral issue

Joe Amon

The glossy brochure from Cambodia's national drugs authority is reassuring. Drug use causes social instability and blocks national development, it explains, but the ultimate solution is to encourage people who use drugs to seek support. Friends and family must "avoid discrimination, intolerance and violence" toward people who use drugs and help them "find the necessary services for people to stop using drugs".

If only they could. The brochure does not mention that the Cambodian government's principal strategy to address drug dependence is not treatment, but detention. Each year, more than 2,000 people pass through the 11 drug detention centres around the country, usually detained for three to six months. The "treatment" and "rehabilitation" these centres provide? Military drills, hard labor and forced exercise. Beatings are common. These centres offer no medically appropriate treatment, such as cognitive behavioral therapy, psychosocial support (counseling, for
example) or opiate substitution therapy. As one former detainee explained, his centre was "not a rehab centre but a torture centre".

His appraisal was borne out by Human Rights Watch's own research, published in a new report, Skin on the Cable. Former detainees reported that they were shocked with electric batons, whipped with twisted electrical wire, regularly beaten and chained standing in the sun. Some told us of being raped by centre staff or coerced into donating their blood. Many reported swelling and numbness in their limbs - symptoms of nutritional deficiencies.

Given its stated commitment to helping people stop using drugs, why hasn't Cambodia invested in effective drug treatment rather than detention?

One reason may be that the centres are a convenient means to hold people when police and municipal authorities "clean" the streets before national festivities or visits by high-ranking foreign officials. Drug detention centres are frequently used not just to hold those dependent upon drugs, but also street children, people with apparent mental illnesses or casual drug users.

Another explanation lies in the money these centres can generate.
Although Cambodian law requires the government to offer free treatment to drug users, drug detention centres often accept fees from families to take in their relatives. It is unlikely that the family members are aware that the approach in these centres is "spare the electric baton and spoil the child".

Ultimately, the driving factor behind Cambodia's drug detention centres is a dangerously simplistic understanding of drug dependence: It's considered a matter of having drugs in the body as a consequence of an individual's moral weakness. Hence "treatment" requires locking people up, forcing them to sweat to remove drugs from their systems and beating them to strengthen their resolve to stay off drugs. As one former detainee explained, "The big boss [of the centre] said, 'Doing exercise will make you sweat, and the addictive substance will come out through sweat.' [Each morning] we had to do 50 to 100 push-ups. If you couldn't do this, you were beaten."

Cambodia is not the only country in the region to consider detention an appropriate form of drug treatment. In Thailand, since 2003, people who use drugs have been considered "patients, not criminals". But in practice each year thousands of people needing drug treatment are held in prison for "assessment" for extended periods. Then they are put into "drug treatment" centres, often run by the Thai armed forces, where military drills are a key component of so-called "treatment".

In China, an estimated 350,000 drug users are held for up to seven years in centres where they can be held without due process and subjected to forced labour and psychological and moral re-education. In Vietnam, between 50,000 and 60,000 people are detained in 109 detention centres for drug treatment, with sentences as long as five years.

It is easy to see drug dependence as a moral issue. But it is not. As a chronic relapsing medical condition, dependence on drugs cannot be addressed by locks and chains, push-ups or police batons. Treatment should be provided only for those who are dependent, drug dependency services should be run by healthcare professionals and not public security forces, and therapy should be tailored to the individual needs of the patient. Compulsory drug detention centres that deny effective treatment to drug users and rely upon beatings, forced labour and exercise should be closed, and voluntary, in-community treatment options should be supported. This is the only way we can guarantee the "treatment" for drug dependence is not worse than the disease.

Joe Amon is director of the Health and Human Rights Division of Human Rights Watch _______________________________________________
Dd-world mailing list
https://lists.tni.org/mailman/listinfo/dd-world

HRW slams rehab centres

| | 0 comments

The Phnom Penh Post
Monday, 25 January 2010

HRW slams rehab centres

Irwin Loy and Chhay Channyda

DRUG users sent to Cambodia's government-run rehabilitation centres live under threat of beatings, sexual violence and arduous forced labour, all while being deprived of effective treatment that could help them overcome their addictions, according to a report set to be released today by Human Rights Watch.

Drawing on interviews conducted last year with 74 people, including 53 current or former drug users who have been held at least once, the report details what it calls instances of "sadistic violence"
experienced by detainees at centres throughout the country.

"All of them told us the same story of outrageous abuses and horrible conditions," said Joe Amon, HRW's director of health and human rights.

"People described being beaten, whipped with electrical cables, electrical shocks or raped. They were forced to work and exercise to the point of collapse, even when they were sick and malnourished. These are supposed to be treatment centres. They're not."

The report aims to provide a glimpse inside the controversial facilities, where drug users, homeless people, sex workers and beggars are often taken after being caught up in police street sweeps. Rights groups have long criticised the centres, citing frequent allegations of violence and forced detention, and UN health officials have questioned the effectiveness of treatment programmes, assuming they are provided.

Violence in detention

The HRW report says that more than 2,000 people were detained in Cambodian drug-treatment centres in 2008 - the vast majority involuntarily.
The report identifies 11 such facilities currently operating where people are detained for three months at a time or longer.

The "overwhelming majority" of detainees interviewed for the report said they had experienced violence directly or witnessed it firsthand.

"Sadistic violence, experienced as spontaneous and capricious, is integral to the way in which drug detention centres operate," the report states.

One former detainee, a 16-year-old identified in the report as M'noh, describes seeing staff members at a rehabilitation centre for youth in Phnom Penh's Choam Chao district using electrical wire to whip people.

"He had three kinds of cable, made from peeling off the plastic from an electrical wire," M'noh says of one staffer in the report. "One cable was the size of a little finger, one is the size of a thumb and one is the size of a toe. He would ask you which you prefer. On each whip the skin would come off and stick on the cable."

A detainee identified as Thouren reported that staff members shocked him with electric batons when he was caught smoking at Orgkas Khnom, a rehabilitation centre in the capital's Russey Keo district.

"It's like a burning sensation, real pain, you are shaking. It made me fall down to the ground," Thouren is quoted as saying in the report.
"You get it for smoking, arguing, fighting. They have a couple of batons they leave on a wall charging."

In recent interviews with the Post, former detainees reported similar allegations of violence, forced confinement and crowded, unsanitary living conditions.

One former detainee, who said he had been held "six or seven times" at various centres throughout the Kingdom, including Orgkas Khnom and the youth centre in Choam Chao, told of severe beatings administered by guards. Former detainees as well as HRW say that the guards are often detainees themselves who are hand-picked by staff members to act as supervisers.

"In every last one you get beat up," said the former detainee, who asked that he not be identified.

Minor transgressions were met with violence, he said.

"If you get caught smoking, if you're not running fast enough, you get beaten. If you line up wrong, you get slapped," he said.

"You've got to look the guard in the eyes and do what he says. If he wakes up in a bad mood, you get beaten."

In one instance, he said, a detainee who tried to escape was tied to a flagpole in the sun while red ants were poured onto his legs. Others were forced to remove their clothing and roll in gravel until they bled, he said.

The former detainee said he, too, engaged in violence when he was chosen to be a guard during his last stint in a detention centre two months ago.

"You've got nothing but drug users as guards. They take advantage of you," he said. "I was beaten. So what I did, it was like payback."

Another former detainee, who is not a drug user, told the Post that police seized her and her three children when she was begging on the street and brought her to Choam Chao. At the time, she was pregnant with her fourth child.

"I didn't have enough rice to eat," she said. "When [the guards] give us food, they put rice in a plastic bag and then they throw it at us. They treat us like dogs."

She said she and her children slept on the floor in packed rooms, brushing up against dozens of other detainees.

One of her daughters, who was 6 when she was in the centre, was given reading lessons during her stay. She said the guards generally allowed her to avoid the gruelling military-style drills other detainees were subjected to.

"I was pregnant," she said. "Maybe they took pity on me."

The former detainee said she now runs from police officers every time she sees them to avoid being brought back to the facilities.

"The sign outside says 'Rehabilitation Centre'. But if you go inside, you will see. It's like a prison," she said.

Treatment questioned

In addition to the allegations of violence and forced confinement, the HRW report also attacks the efficacy of drug treatment at the facilities.

Any available treatment and rehabilitation in the centres, the report contends, is "ethically unacceptable, scientifically and medically inappropriate and of miserable quality".

"Sweating while exercising or labouring appears to be the most common means to cure drug dependence," the report states.

An unpublished 2007 report produced by the National Authority for Combating Drugs, the Ministry of Health and the World Health Organisation, which was based on visits to six treatment centres in operation at the time, suggests that authorities were aware of shortcomings in the treatment available at the facilities.

That report, which was obtained by the Post earlier this month, found that most centres had no doctors or nurses available.

None of the facilities employed trained psychologists or counsellors, offered any "evidence-based treatment" for addictions or conducted assessments for drug dependency when clients were admitted - meaning authorities were unsure whether clients being held at the facilities were even addicted to drugs.

"It is likely that some of the people residing in these centres are not dependent on illicit drugs, but have been incarcerated in the centre because they are homeless, because they are orphans or other street-living children, or because they are suffering [from] mental illness and are suspected to be drug users," the unpublished report stated.

Decentralised authority

The 11 drug-treatment centres identified by HRW fall under the watch of a range of authorities, with local government officials, the Ministry of Social Affairs, civilian police and military police all controlling specific facilities. Officials reached by the Post all denied allegations of violence.

"We do not like these allegations," said Khieu Sopheak, spokesman for the Ministry of Interior. The ministry oversees a civilian police force that operates at least two facilities - one in Battambang province and one in Siem Reap province.

"The government does not expect to get good reports from [HRW]. It is their profession to criticise us."

Huot Sokhom, the deputy chief of the civilian police-run rehab centre in Siem Reap, also denied the allegations.

"We have never beaten them or used violence on them," he said.

Huot Sokhom also denied that detainees were sent to the centres against their will.

"Those vagrant people we collect from the streets volunteer to come with us," he said. "We do not force them."

Sao Sokha, deputy commander in chief of the Royal Cambodian Armed Forces and the national military police commander at the Ministry of Defence, said allegations of violence at centres run by the military police - HRW identified five such facilities in its report, with a collective capacity of 400 people - are also untrue.

"Those centres are under my control. There are no threats or violence.
The information that Human Rights Watch gets is not true," Sao Sokha said.
"Everything we do is to respond to the needs of parents of drug users in the name of humanity to help those who are victims of drugs," he said.
"We do not put them in prison."

Sao Sokha questioned what would happen if the government-run centres were to close.

"There are hundreds, thousands of drug-dependent people on the street,"
he said. "Who will be responsible for helping those people? Human rights NGOs or the Cambodian people?"

Moek Dara, secretary general of the NACD, also denied reports of beatings and forced detention.

"There is no violence. They accuse us without proof," he said.

The NACD does not officially operate any of the rehabilitation centres, but the Post has previously reported on plans to open a national facility that would fall under the NACD's jurisdiction in Preah Sihanouk province's Stung Hav district.

These official denials aside, HRW is calling for authorities to shut down the drug rehabilitation facilities in Cambodia.

"The government should immediately close all drug detention centres,"
Amon said. "These centres are illegal, abusive and ineffective. The government should investigate and hold accountable detention centre staff who have been responsible for the abusive treatment of those held in these centres."

Map: Rehab centres across the country:
http://www.phnompenhpost.com/images/stories/news/national/2010/100125/100125_02.jpg
_______________________________________________
Dd-world mailing list
https://lists.tni.org/mailman/listinfo/dd-world

in the news

Thursday, January 28, 2010 | | 0 comments

 Medical Marijuana Finally Heads for D.C.
Sam Jewler
Time
January 27, 2010

Please do your dying elsewhere
Federal interference threatens safe-injection facility, again
Tomas Borsa
The Sheaf : University of Saskatchewan Student Newspaper
January 27, 2010 

Medical Marijuana Finally Heads for D.C.

| | 0 comments

TIME
Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Medical Marijuana Finally Heads for D.C.

By Sam Jewler

It has been years in the making, derailed by Congress three times in about as many years, but medicinal marijuana could soon be heading to the nation's capital.

In 1998, voters in Washington put themselves near the forefront of the budding medical-marijuana movement when they voted nearly 7 to 3 for doctor-prescribed dope - a greater majority than those in any of the other eight statewide ballot initiatives that have passed around the country.

But no celebratory smoke-outs have followed - not yet, at least.
Instead, poll workers spent that election night obscuring the results of the vote, in deference to a last-minute congressional amendment pulling funds from D.C. for the processing of any drug-legalization initiative.
(Ballots had been printed prior to the ban, but the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics decided that to follow the intent of the law it had to withhold the results after the votes had been cast.) "I know of no case where a federal entity has told another entity they cannot even announce the results," says WTOP analyst Mark Plotkin. "We're not even talking about the implementation of the law."

Twelve years later, the political landscape appears to be profoundly changed. The sponsor of the 1998 congressional ban, Bob Barr, has gone from a drug hawk to a libertarian, legalize-it presidential candidate - even lobbying against the law he once wrote. Fourteen states have legalized medical marijuana in the 14 years since California became the first to do so; several more are working on legislation now.

In December 2009, a Congress dominated by Democrats quietly lifted the Barr Amendment, giving the city an opportunity to enact its old dope law.

A few weeks later, city council member David Catania moved to do just that, introducing a bill that would implement Initiative 59, with the co-sponsorship of nine of the 13 council members. Don't ask him if there are more serious issues he should be working on. "Every time someone says that, I think my head should explode," he says. "As far as I'm concerned, this is an important issue. The evidence I've seen certainly suggests a powerful medicinal use for marijuana that can stimulate appetite and can reduce pain and suffering. So frankly that's my decision, and I'm capable of doing more than one thing at a time, as are my colleagues and as is this government."

Catania acknowledges that the policy details still have to be worked out - how many dispensaries to allow, whether they'll be nonprofit or private, for which diseases prescription pot will be available, where the stuff will be grown. He leans toward more restrictive implementation, knowing that any legal-weed law can be struck down by future governments. "The voters approved the medical use of marijuana, not the recreational use of marijuana," he says. "The more professional and controlled and evidence-based our system is, the greater likelihood it will be sustained going forward."

Such a system, Catania says, might create five to 10 nonprofit dispensaries around the city, which would have to be at least 1,000 feet away from places like schools, parks and other dispensaries. In contrast, for years Los Angeles has had hundreds of dispensaries, privately owned, with a 500-foot rule. But its city council passed a revised dope law just hours after D.C. outlined its own, adopting D.C.'s 1,000-foot rule and cutting the number of dispensaries allowed to around 150.

A spokesman for the D.C. city council says the bill is likely to get through the council by the end of the spring, and may be approved in Congress by the end of summer.

Studies have found medical cannabis to be effective in mitigating nausea, stimulating needed appetite in AIDS and cancer patients and acting as a general pain reliever, among other effects. The American Medical Association "calls for further adequate and well-controlled studies of marijuana and related cannabinoids in patients" in a policy statement that takes a cautious position on the issue.

Some of the leading activists for Initiative 59 are equally ambivalent, even as they reach what appears to be light at the end of the tunnel.
"It's a victory, but it's not something that I really feel like celebrating," says Wayne Turner, whose partner Steve Michael originally sponsored Initiative 59 before dying in the months leading up to its vote. "Democracy has been denied for over 10 years, and we've lost a lot of people along the way."

The voting bloc of recreational weed smokers is likely to be even less enthusiastic if Catania gets his way. "I do not see this as the camel's nose under the tent to the broad legalization of marijuana, nor the recreational use, nor do I ever envision supporting the use of marijuana for anxiety or hangnails," he says. "This is for people who are profoundly sick."


(Watch a video about medical-marijuana home delivery.) http://www.time.com/time/video/player/0,32068,28761858001_1909195,00.html

(Watch a video about taxing marijuana in California.) http://www.time.com/time/video/player/0,32068,45923784001_1931759,00.html

(See a brief history of medical marijuana.) http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1931247,00.html

--
Drugs & Democracy Info <drugs@tni.org>
Transnational Institute (TNI)
De Wittenstraat 25 | 1052 AK Amsterdam (The Netherlands) Tel +31-20-6626608 | Fax +31-20-6757176 http://www.tni.org/drugs http://www.ungassondrugs.org/ _______________________________________________
Dd-world mailing list
https://lists.tni.org/mailman/listinfo/dd-world

L.A. City Council finally passes medical marijuana ordinance

| | 0 comments

Los Angeles Times
January 27, 2010

L.A. City Council finally passes medical marijuana ordinance

After years of debate, the city will drastically limit the number of dispensaries and restrict where they can operate. Advocates are threatening to challenge the law in court.

By John Hoeffel

The Los Angeles City Council, without debate, gave final approval Tuesday to a medical marijuana ordinance that will impose some of the toughest rules in the state but was assailed by advocates who said the law will drastically restrict access to the drug.

The measure, which was finally passed more than 4 1/2 years after the council started to discuss the issue, will do little to calm the contentious debate over how Los Angeles should restrain a dispensary boom that has seen hundreds of pot stores cluster on the city's major boulevards.

At least two organizations representing dispensaries are deciding whether to sue the city; one of them is also weighing whether to collect signatures for a referendum. The city attorney, who says state law does not allow collectives to sell marijuana, continues to press a lawsuit against an Eagle Rock dispensary in a bid to get the courts to decide the issue. And the Los Angeles County district attorney is prosecuting dispensary operators.

The ordinance, which aims to erase the carnival-esque image of Los Angeles as the capital of a weed resurgence, will allow city officials to shut down hundreds of dispensaries. But it will also impose restrictions on where they can be located, limits that operators say will eliminate most sites outside of isolated industrial parks.

"It's a disaster for patients," said James Shaw, director of the Union of Medical Marijuana Patients.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa plans to sign the ordinance because it reduces the number of dispensaries and keeps them 1,000 feet from schools and places of worship.

"This legislation isn't perfect, but the mayor feels it is a step in the right direction, and it's time to focus our attention on other pressing issues," spokeswoman Sarah Hamilton said.

The 9-3 vote was the second on the ordinance, which fell short last week of the unanimous tally needed to pass a law on the first vote. Bernard C. Parks, Jan Perry and Bill Rosendahl voted against it both times.

After the vote, council members expressed relief that an ordinance would be in place soon, even if it draws legal challenges.

"I knew we'd get here eventually; I just didn't think it would take so long," said Councilman Dennis Zine, who raised the issue in May 2005 when there were just four storefront dispensaries. "We're doing an ordinance that we believe is lawful and that we believe can withstand lawsuits. They've threatened lawsuits for many, many years, so whatever we did in an ordinance we were going to be sued."

Councilman Ed Reyes, who led the effort to draft the ordinance, acknowledged it may need changes. "We tried to interpret the state law for the way it was written," he said.

The law will not take effect until the City Council approves the fees that dispensaries will have to pay to cover the cost of registration, a process that could take at least another 30 days, according to city officials.

The ordinance caps the number of dispensaries at 70, but makes an exception for those that registered with the city clerk in 2007 and remain in their original locations or moved just once after their landlords were threatened with federal prosecution. City officials believe there are about 150 such dispensaries.

Among other restrictions aimed at ending L.A.'s late-night pot scene, dispensaries will be required to close by 8 p.m., marijuana use will not be allowed at the stores, and patients will be restricted to one collective. The 17-page ordinance also imposes controls aimed at preventing collectives from making profits, which are illegal under state law.

Neighborhood activists, who have been vastly outnumbered at every City Council meeting, urged the lawmakers to act quickly to enforce the ordinance. Lisa Sarkin, with the Studio City Neighborhood Council, noted that there were 13 dispensaries in the area. "I can't imagine how this could be necessary," she said.

Residents have complained about the over-concentration and have worried about crime. As if to underscore that concern, the Los Angeles Police Department sought the public's help Tuesday to apprehend a suspect who robbed and shot an employee Jan. 8 at a dispensary on Reseda Boulevard in Northridge.

Hundreds of dispensaries opened in L.A. as the council slowly debated its proposed ordinance and failed to enforce a moratorium on dispensaries. City officials believe upward of 500 will be required to close.

Once the ordinance takes effect, the city attorney's office will send a series of letters to landlords and operators, a process that Special Assistant City Atty. Jane Usher estimated would take about 45 days.
Based on past experience, the office expects at least a third to shut down. The city would take the others to court.

"The smoke should clear six months from the effective date of the ordinance," she said.

Most of the allowed dispensaries will have to move within six months to comply with the land-use restrictions. But operators are panicked because the ordinance appears to give them just weeks to tell the city where they are moving.

The ordinance requires dispensaries to be at least 1,000 feet from other dispensaries and sites with so-called sensitive uses, such as schools, parks and libraries. In a last-minute addition, the City Council also restricted them from operating adjacent to or across a street or alley from residential properties. This requirement, operators said, eliminates most commercial streets, such as Melrose Avenue and Pico and Ventura boulevards, where alleys separate stores from homes.

Operators who have started to scour the rental market say there are few locations that will work and that landlords, aware such properties are scarce, are demanding exorbitant rents.

Barry Kramer, who runs California Patients Alliance, a registered dispensary on Melrose Avenue in the Beverly Grove neighborhood, said he has looked at six locations.

"We're scrambling right now," he said. "No, we have not found anything."

Kramer said he had anticipated the 1,000-foot restrictions and was careful to look for space far from sensitive uses before he opened 2 1/2 years ago. It took him eight months to find one. But the alley restriction will force him to move from a location where he says he has operated discreetly with no complaints from neighbors.

"The frustration is that we've tried to work so hard, 2 1/2 years of working with everything that they've brought down," he said. "Now, all those good operators are going to be cast aside."

Kramer belongs to an organization representing medical marijuana collectives that are registered with the city. The group, which has tried for years to work with the council, is now looking to hire a well-connected lobbyist to press for changes and a lawyer to investigate whether to file a lawsuit.

The hundreds of dispensary operators who are not registered or who opened in the last several years are also exploring whether to sue the city or collect the 27,425 valid signatures needed to force a referendum.

"We are prepared to go forward and stop this ordinance," said Dan Lutz, who runs the Green Oasis dispensary on the Westside and has organized a group of operators. "I regret that we have to go this route."

john.hoeffel@latimes.com
_______________________________________________
Dd-world mailing list
https://lists.tni.org/mailman/listinfo/dd-world

The Forfeiture Racket: Police and prosecutors won't give up their license to steal

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 | | 0 comments

The Forfeiture Racket: Police and prosecutors won't give up their license to steal

in the news

| | 0 comments

in the news

Tuesday, January 26, 2010 | | 0 comments

Los Angeles City Council passes medical marijuana dispensaryordinance

| | 0 comments

Los Angeles Times
January 19, 2010

Los Angeles City Council passes medical marijuana dispensary ordinance

Hundreds would have to close; those remaining would operate under tight restrictions. Budget constraints could make enforcement a challenge.
Medical marijuana dispensaries

By John Hoeffel

The Los Angeles City Council voted Tuesday to adopt a comprehensive medical marijuana ordinance that clamps strict controls on dispensaries, which have spread with a velocity that stunned city officials and angered some residents.

Settling the last controversial issue on its list, the council decided to require the stores to locate at least 1,000 feet from so-called sensitive uses, such as schools, parks, libraries and other dispensaries. The decision to reject a 500-foot setback reflected the council's intent to write the most restrictive rules that would still allow dispensaries.

The ordinance, which emerged after 2 1/2 years of debate, will be one of the toughest in the state. It could douse the city's vivid anything-goes pot culture, which has been both celebrated and excoriated. The ordinance bans consumption at dispensaries, requires them to close by 8 p.m. and outlaws the ubiquitous neon cannabis-leaf signs.

Council members acknowledged that the ordinance is not perfect and is likely to please no one.

"It's going to be a living ordinance," said Council President Eric Garcetti, predicting that the body will have to tinker with the provisions. "I think there is much good in it. I think nobody will know how some of these things play out until we have them in practice, and we made a commitment to make sure that we continue to improve the ordinance."

Although some council members attempted to reopen debate on some contentious aspects and medical marijuana advocates urged a few last-minute alterations, council members pressed for a vote.

"Our moment is now. Our moment is today," Councilman Herb Wesson said.
"We've been discussing this for two-plus years. It's time for action."

The council's languorous approach since the issue was first raised in
2005 left a vacuum that allowed entrepreneurs drawn to the lucrative cash-based business to establish Los Angeles as the epicenter of a marijuana boom.

The ordinance caps the number of dispensaries at 70 but makes an exception for those that registered with the city in 2007 and are still in business. That means L.A. could have about 150 stores.

Hundreds of other dispensaries will have to close, but some are already laying the groundwork to challenge the ordinance. Dan Lutz, a co-founder of the Green Oasis dispensary in Playa Vista, heads an organization that is weighing a lawsuit or referendum to force the council to put the ordinance before voters. "We're ready on two fronts," he said.

Medical marijuana advocates would have to collect just 27,425 valid signatures to force a referendum.

Garcetti said he expected there would be lawsuits because state law, on which the ordinance is based, is murky and because L.A., as the state's largest city, is an obvious target.

"Small ones have gotten away with it under the radar. But now that we're the big one, I think a lot of court cases will come out of it," he said.

But Garcetti said the city had to move forward to assert control over the medical marijuana outlets. "There's finally some tools for enforcement to shut down bad dispensaries that don't play by the rules,"
he said.

It could be a while before city officials can move to close dispensaries.

The council will vote a second time on the ordinance next Tuesday because the 11-3 tally fell short of the unanimous result needed to pass a law on the first vote. (Council members Bernard C. Parks, Jan Perry and Bill Rosendahl voted against the measure.) And it will not take effect until the council approves fees that collectives will have to pay to cover the city's costs to monitor them, which could take several weeks.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's office would not say whether he would sign the ordinance, but Sarah Hamilton, his press secretary, said he supports a cap on dispensaries and buffer zones that will "help protect the safety of our communities while ensuring that those who truly need medical marijuana have safe and accessible places to get it."

It was May 2005 when Councilman Dennis Zine, a former L.A. police officer, first raised the issue, introducing a motion that asked the Police Department to investigate dispensaries. Two months later, the department reported that there were just four outlets but recommended that the council adopt tight controls on where they could locate.

Two years later, the City Council approved a moratorium on new dispensaries; and 186 registered to stay open. In October, a judge ruled that the moratorium was invalid, leaving the city almost powerless over dispensaries. That spurred the council to accelerate a process Zine called a "merry-go-round that wasn't stopping."

With the vote likely, Tuesday's debate drew a crowd. About 50 people spoke for nearly an hour.

Medical marijuana advocates pressed the council to relax the location restrictions. They believe a rule that dispensaries cannot be across an alley from a residential lot will make it almost impossible to find sites. Several asked the council to create an exception to the buffer zones for dispensaries that can show they are good neighbors.

"I am urging you to make sure that the good dispensaries are allowed to stay open," said Richard Eastman, an AIDS patient who has addressed the council on the issue for years in his boombox voice.

The restrictions adopted by the council could prove difficult for dispensaries. A city analysis showed that with a 1,000-foot setback from sensitive uses, most that meet the criteria to stay open will have to find new locations within six months.

But neighborhood activists, including Eagle Rock's Michael Larsen, asked the council to stick with the most restrictive approach. "I'm very relieved that it is pretty much over because it's been a long road," he said later.

The vote, which followed a thunderclap that briefly stilled debate, came almost as an anticlimax. It was celebrated with just a smattering of applause, and Garcetti swiftly moved the council on to other business.

Councilman Ed Reyes, who has overseen the drafting of the ordinance, said he believed the council would have to return to some issues, such as controls over cultivation. "I don't think we are there yet," he said.

The ordinance, which grew from five pages to 17, goes much farther than others in California to regulate the internal operations of collectives.
It bars them from operating for profit, requires them to pay employees "reasonable wages and benefits" and rules out bonuses. It requires them to maintain extensive records and to submit an annual accountant-verified audit. It prohibits operators from running more than one dispensary. And it allows people buying marijuana to join only one collective, though it provides no mechanism to enforce that rule.

The LAPD, already staggered by budgetary constraints, will have to scrutinize the books to ensure that operators are not making a profit but just covering their costs. The department has estimated that it would cost $1.3 million to monitor 70 collectives and would require a lieutenant, 11 detectives, an auditor and a clerk to do the job.

Once the ordinance takes effect, the city attorney's office will launch enforcement efforts.

"Our focus will be closing the rogue operators," said Jane Usher, a special assistant city attorney.

Usher said the city attorney's office would send letters to those dispensary operators telling them they must close. She said that based on experience, her office expects that at least a third will voluntarily comply.

The city could then take the holdouts to court, a process that could prove time-consuming and costly.

john.hoeffel@latimes.com

_______________________________________________
Dd-world mailing list
https://lists.tni.org/mailman/listinfo/dd-world

Drugs: toward a global tolerance regime

Monday, January 25, 2010 | | 0 comments

OpenDemocracy
22 January, 2010

Drugs: toward a global tolerance regime
Mick Moore
http://www.opendemocracy.net/mick-moore/drugs-towards-global-tolerance-regime

The once closed debate on drugs policy shows signs of opening up. But liberalisation would require the international restrictions on narcotics which do untold harm to the developing world to be relaxed

About the author
Mick Moore is a Professorial Fellow at the Institute of Development Studies, and specialises in issues of governance in poorer countries.

Real movement on drugs policy is in prospect. /The Economist/ highlighted this in November 2009, running a story <http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14845095>
that pointed out that 'In many countries, full jails, stretched budgets and a general weariness with the war on drugs have made prohibition harder to enforce.' Over the past year the American government has reduced sanctions on personal drug use through low profile administrative decisions. Mexico has decriminalised possession of small amounts of any drug, to allow the authorities to focus more on large scale trafficking. Several countries in Latin America are headed in a similar direction.

A small news item this month may eventually lead to big changes in Britain - a country where the actual treatment of drug use and personal possession is already very liberal. A young City of London hedge fund manager is putting up close to half a million pounds of his own money to fund an Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs. This will be chaired by Professor David Nutt, who was sacked as chair of the official British government's Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs last October for pointing out publicly <http://www.opendemocracy.net/marta-cooper/david-nutt-and-drugs-debate>
that alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than some illegal drugs.

Why is this move so significant? Because to date the public sector has enjoyed a near monopoly on the employment of the professionals who have expertise on drugs. Nearly all of the senior medics, civil servants, policy advisers, social workers, academic researchers, customs officials, judges, lawyers, and police, prison and army officers who should be contributing to the policy debate are either employed directly by government or depend on it for funding. The Nutt affair seemed to confirm the long-established principle that they put their careers at risk by speaking openly against the absurdities of prohibition.
Politicians, fearful of a media drubbing and punishment at the polls, were always poised to come down on them like a ton of bricks.

Professor Nutt received his ton of bricks, but seems to be emerging all the better for the experience. He will now be able to present his views, as a professional scientist, without fear of retribution. The prohibition on open debate has not yet disappeared, but it is likely steadily to crumble. It is hard to envisage any future government being in a position to prevent high profile professionals from joining in the debate on drugs policy.

We should welcome that, for two reasons. The first is simply the absurdities and costs of prohibition, and the need to find less damaging ways of dealing with the inevitability of drug consumption and trading.
The second is that we are likely to get a much more sensible debate if the professionals play a major role. The combination of prohibition and intimidation by government means that, to date, the public case for reform has been made principally by libertarians. They frame it in terms of 'legalisation'. The language is wrong. The implication that governments might actively give legal blessing to chemicals that clearly do often damage human health and welfare can only solidify support for prohibition.

The options for reform need to be framed in more pragmatic terms, with much more focus of the responses of the police, doctors, prison officers, judges, customs officers and social workers to the cases they confront. Even among European countries, the actual treatment of drug users differs more widely than the formal provisions of national law. In you are found in possession of small quantities of drugs in the Netherlands, you face a significant chance of imprisonment, and the near-certainty of punishment of some kind, including a fine or community service. In Britain or Portugal, you have an 80% chance of avoiding punishment entirely, and receiving a warning, a treatment order or a suspended prosecution. The important policy question is not whether certain drugs should be 'legal', but what kind of drug trade and use is /tolerable/, and how could it be adequately/ regulated/?

/After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation <http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0955642817?ie=UTF8&tag=opendemocra0e-21&linkCode=as2&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=0955642817>
/ (Transform, Bristol, 2009) explains in impressive detail how Britain could manage more open tolerance of drug use. We have plenty of working models available from our much tried and tested systems for regulation of the supply and use of alcohol and tobacco and treatment of alcohol and tobacco addicts. We could formally decriminalise and tolerate drug use while also doing our best to limit it and treat addictions as the social and medical problems that they are. A number of other European countries are similarly well placed. Once the retailing of drugs is in public hands, the business might easily generate enough profit to cover the costs of regulation and treatment.

So far, so good. We can imagine a regime of drug tolerance in Britain, and perhaps indeed the whole of the European Union, that would cost governments nothing. Indeed, once we take into account the policing, court, prison and social work resources that might be freed up, the taxpayer might well end up better off. And we should certainly be able to reduce the frequency of drug-driven crime. But there is a large blank space in this cheerful scenario. Except for a little cannabis and a few more complex manufactured chemicals, most drugs consumed in Europe are based on cannabis, cocaine or opium imported from poorer part of the world, especially the Andean region, Afghanistan, and North Africa.

It is inconceivable that our hypothetical National (or European) Drugs Procurement Board would purchase from illicit international supply chains. A sensible policy can only be practiced within Britain if it is possible to purchase openly and legally from the countries of origin.
But Britain, like the rest of Europe and virtually every country in the world, is signed up to a number of UN-brokered international treaties that prohibit all international trade in drugs, except for tiny quantities grown under licence for medical uses.

The prohibition on international trade leads to further absurdities.
Opium production for pharmaceutical purposes has long been licensed in Australia, India and Turkey. Yet the National Health Service is so short of morphine that in 2008 the British government began quietly licensing the production of the opium poppy by British farmers. Many commentators have asked how this can be squared with expensive, politically damaging British military efforts to destroy standing poppy crops in Afghanistan.

The poorer half of the world has little access to affordable pain-relieving medication, in part because prohibition makes it difficult for the pharmaceutical industry to conduct research on opiates. The adulteration that inevitably accompanies the illegality of the long international drug supply chains poses major health risks for users. The increasing potency and hazardousness of cannabis, cocaine, opium and their derivatives stem directly from illegality.

For cocaine and opium, the economic pressures have been towards more elaborate, capital-intensive processing to produce goods with a high value-to-bulk ratio that can be smuggled more cheaply across international borders. As cannabis production simultaneously has moved indoors to escape aerial detection, and shifted more to the rich consuming countries, large investments have been made in heating, lighting and hydroponics. From an agronomic perspective, the rate of increase in plant productivity has been astounding. From a public health perspective, the result is a much more potent and potentially dangerous product, with unusually high levels of THC.

The technical progress that prohibition has stimulated cannot be reversed. However, a regime of regulated tolerance should shift the economic incentives toward the supply of less potent, less dangerous products.

Both domestically and internationally, a regime of regulated tolerance makes sense. However, the political obstacles are as strong internationally as domestically. The United Nations agency that leads on drugs issues, the Vienna-based United Nations Office for Drugs Control and Crime (UNODC), is militantly prohibitionist. It exhibits a belligerence that is rare within an organisational system better known for circumlocution, discretion and caution. In the eyes of UNODC, and occasionally on its website, proponents of reform are demonised as the 'pro-drug lobby'. Why are the UNODC, and its sister organisation, the International Narcotics Control Board, so uncompromising? There are several potential explanations.

Jobs in the UN system are very well remunerated; employees cling to them. Organisations that have developed around one narrowly defined mission tend to resist a serious challenge to that mission. The US and prohibitionist Sweden are major funders of the UN system. Do drugs traders pay sufficient protection money to political elites in enough poorer, smaller countries in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, Latin America and Oceania to motivate a voting bloc in the UN keen to maintain profitable prohibition policies?

There does seem to be a perverse problem arising from pride in the historical record of UN and international cooperation in drugs control.
It is exactly 100 years since the first international initiative, the establishment in 1909 of the International Opium Commission in Shanghai.
This quickly achieved its objective of quashing a long-standing trade of importing large quantities of opium into China from South and Southeast Asia. During the Cold War years, when the UN struggled hard to transcend East-West rivalry and to find an effective independent role, it successfully brokered a series of international arrangements aimed at eradicating drug trade and use. These arrangements were agreed with a high degree of unanimity, widely incorporated into national legislation, and implemented to the extent that governments could enforce them. In historical terms, drug control is one of the UN's flagships. It may be difficult for an organisation that is now struggling even harder for respect and authority to admit that one of its flagships is leaking badly.

The prohibitionism of the UN system is especially perverse. The people in Africa, Asia and Latin America tend to think of the UN as 'their'
organisation, as opposed to bodies like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund or the World Trade Organisation, that they associate with the wealthy parts of the globe. Yet the costs of the illegality of the drug trade fall dominantly on those poor people from Africa, Asia and Latin America.

Let us not delude ourselves that the poor farmers who produce the drugs at least get a good income. They don't. At the farm gate, prices of raw material just after harvest are very low. The price only starts to inflate as drugs cross a national border; international smuggling is a risky, expensive business. Poor farmers receive very little for their labour. They typically live in remote, conflict-ridden areas from which the processors and traffickers exclude normal development activities like schools, road-building, banks and agricultural advisers.

The traffickers can be more confident of a reliable, cheap supply of coca leaf and poppy if government employees, honest politicians and armies can be kept at bay, if farmers have little access to alternative sources of credit, and if they have to pay high prices to transport fertiliser or to ship bulkier non-narcotic crops to market. The processors and traffickers prefer that there be little economic infrastructure in producing areas. They want and create weak states and misrule. They finance separatist and insurgent armies to keep the government at bay, and simultaneously buy off politicians, police, armed forces and customs officers. The illegality of drugs makes it rational for traffickers to lock producing areas - and sometimes whole countries - into multi-dimensional underdevelopment. The same corrosive consequences for governance, public authority and democracy are replicated as traffickers tranship heroin and cocaine through the Caribbean, Central America, Central Asia and, increasingly, West Africa.

Increased tolerance and decriminalisation of drugs use within the main consumer markets of Europe and North America would do nothing to alleviate these upstream effects of illegality in the producing and transhipment countries. We need a simultaneous shift toward a more tolerant, effectively regulated regime on both the supply and the demand side of the business.

It is no longer utopian to talk of substantial policy change within a few years. Where and how will it come about? There are clear, strong links between prohibition and the growing likelihood of defeat for the Western military forces in Afghanistan. But a certain kind of puritan populism is so well entrenched in American electoral politics that it would be very hard for the Obama administration overtly to promote significant policy change, domestically or internationally.

The prospect of reducing public expenditure on the 'war on drugs' and generating public revenue from a system of regulated tolerance may have some traction in all those OECD countries facing large fiscal deficits, government spending cuts and higher taxes. Latin America is likely to become a major source of reformist pressure. The 'war on drugs' launched along the US-Mexico border by President Calderon of Mexico has generated many deaths, revealed even more clearly the extent of penetration of the state apparatus by the narco-gangs, but approached nothing resembling victory. In March 2009 the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy, chaired by three distinguished former presidents of Brazil, Colombia and Mexico, published a report telling the US that 'your war on drugs is killing our democracy.'

In the non-democratic parts of the world, concerns about national security might become significant. One of the main forces behind the establishment of the International Opium Commission in 1908 was long-standing Chinese nationalist concern that the use of opium, reportedly by up to a quarter of the adult male population, was weakening China militarily and morally when it was facing repeated challenges from European imperial powers. Two powerful undemocratic countries, Iran and the Russian Federation, currently face epidemics of heroin use. Because of official intolerance there are very few facilities to support or treat addicts, and no needle exchange programmes. The incidence of HIV/AIDS infections resulting from needle-sharing is fast increasing in both countries, with over a million HIV positive drug injectors in the Russian Federation alone.

It will be easier for everyone if the first moves were to be made in Western Europe, by countries like Britain that already have learned how to cope with problems caused by alcohol, tobacco and the other drugs that are not going to go away. We have relatively extensive and sophisticated networks of organisations and procedures that make sterile needles consistently and easily available to injectors, support addicts, encourage them to seek health treatment and other advice, provide them with less damaging drugs substitutes, and make it possible for them to find a livelihood without resorting to crime. We could be practically very helpful to many poorer countries by assisting them in developing equivalent systems of their own. If we could combine that with helping to lift the curse of the illegal international drug trade, then we should really have made our contribution the well-being of the world's poor, and done ourselves a large favour in the process.

--
Read and Participate in "Drogas y conflicto en Colombia"
the Drugs programme's weblog in Spanish.
http://colombiadrogas.wordpress.com/

Lee y participa en "Drogas y conflicto en Colombia", el blog del Programa Drogas.
http://colombiadrogas.wordpress.com/

--
Drugs & Democracy
Transnational Institute (TNI)
De Wittenstraat 25
1052 AK Amsterdam (The Netherlands)
Tel +31-20-6626608
Fax 6757176
http://www.tni.org/drugs/
http://colombiadrogas.wordpress.com/

_______________________________________________
Dd-world mailing list
https://lists.tni.org/mailman/listinfo/dd-world

Could a united nations organization lead to a worsening of drug related harms

Friday, January 22, 2010 | | 0 comments

See attached article by wood and kerr

getting smart on drug policies

| | 0 comments


Getting smart on drug policies
Times Colonist
January 21, 2010

Illicit Drug Policy through the Lens of Regulation - IJDP 2010 in press

Thursday, January 21, 2010 | | 0 comments

 

UK- Home Office report released today under FOI

| | 0 comments

 
Dear Colleague
 
After withholding this report for two years, the Home Office finally released this report today.
 
It's innocuousness betrays the Home Office's desperation to keep evidence away from populist rhetoric at all costs.
 
 
Best
Danny
 
Danny Kushlick
Head of Policy and Communications
 
Transform Drug Policy Foundation
Easton Business Centre
Felix Road
Easton
Bristol BS5 0HE
 
tel: +44 (0)117 941 5810
email: danny@tdpf.org.uk
web: www.tdpf.org.uk
To subscribe to Transform's newsletter visit: <http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tdpf_news-l>
 
 
 

Macleans on Insite

| | 0 comments



 

Insite, foresight, hindsight

The B.C. Court of Appeal’s ruling on Vancouver’s Insite shooting gallery for heroin addicts makes for interesting reading. We are all so busy arguing over the merits of harm reduction, and the wisdom of the Harper government’s attempt to shut down the clinic, that it is easy to forget the big constitutional issue that was the chief concern of the court here [Macleans, Canada]

 

War on drugs is a war on people

Monday, January 18, 2010 | | 0 comments

 

FW: Globe & Mail Editorial on BC Supreme Court Decision on INSITE

| | 0 comments

Courageous Court, Obtuse Government

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/courageous-court-obtuse-government/article1433602/

 

BTW in case you didn’t open the link in the note I sent on Friday, the video there is not an interview with Michael Chartrand as it appears, but a video of the editor of the Vancouver Sun’s editorial board, Fazil Mihlar interviewing Sun columnist Peter McKnight about the INSITE, the judgement and what the Federal government may do.  Here is the link again...

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/court+rules+Vancouver+Insite+safe+injection+site+stay+open/2446233/story.html

 

 

 

GILLIAN MAXWELL

Project Director – SafeGames

Keeping the Door Open Society,

604.253.7792

604.728.7792 cel

Enjoy the Games. Enjoy them Safely.

http://www.safegames2010.com/

 

 

cid:image001.gif@01CA976B.4ECC30E0

FW: Clean Needles Save Lives - film

| | 0 comments

 
Subject: Clean Needles Save Lives - film

Dear Colleagues,

HCLU posted a new YouTube movie about how needle and syringe exchange programs protect publich health and communities in the US: 


Please help us to distribute the movie in your area! 

Best regards,

Peter Sarosi
Drug Policy Program Director
Hungarian Civil Liberties Union
Tel.: +36 1 279 2236
P please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

in the news

| | 0 comments



B.C. court rules Vancouver's Insite safe injection site can stay open
By Neal Hall
Vancouver Sun
January 15, 2010



Courageous court, obtuse government
Globe and Mail
January 16, 2010

 


BC Court of Appeal upholds ruling in favour of Vancouver's supervised injection facility AND court decision attached - sorry for cross postings..

Friday, January 15, 2010 | | 0 comments

More information.  Today the British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld a lower court ruling from last year that granted Vancouver’s supervised injection facility an ongoing exemption from certain provisions of Canada’s drug laws (prohibiting possession and trafficking of controlled substances) and that also declared those provisions of Canada’s law constitutionally invalid insofar as they apply to the users and site operators of Insite.

 

See:  http://www.vancouversun.com/news/court+rules+Vancouver+Insite+safe+injection+site+stay+open/2446233/story.html

 

Also see attached the Court Decision Document. 

 

In plain language the PHS's Cross Appeal, to see INSITE as a jurisdictionally Provincial issue rather than Federal, WON.

Because of this decision, they didn't have to make a ruling on the Federal Appeal on the Constitutional issue, (it becomes irrelevant)... 

One of the three judges disagreed with jurisdictional decision, which likely explains why it took so long.

 

The decision was 2-1 that the province has jurisdiction over INSITE.

 

However all three agreed that the Fed government’s arguments based on the Constitution could not be upheld.   Even though they did not consider the Constitutional arguments as the jurisdiction decision took precedence, if they had gone there, all three would have dismissed the Federal government appeal on all counts. 

 

J

 

GILLIAN MAXWELL

Project Director – SafeGames

Keeping the Door Open Society,

604.253.7792

604.728.7792 cel

Enjoy the Games. Enjoy them Safely.

http://www.safegames2010.com/

 

 

 

 

FW: Copy of Insite Court Decision Attached

| | 0 comments

 


Canada: Insite wins at BC Court of Appeal!

| | 0 comments

 


From: Gillian Maxwell [mailto:gillianmaxwell@telus.net]
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 10:18 AM
To: "undisclosed-recipients:"@vanhosp.bc.ca
Subject: Canada: Insite wins at BC Court of Appeal!

Breaking news from the courthouse this morning – the BC Supreme Court upheld the Judge Pitfield’s decision, and dismissed the Federal Government’s appeal.

 

No news on what Mr. Harper’s intentions are now.

 

Enjoy the moment.

 

GILLIAN

 

 

2010 Canada-US Gang Summit - March 24-26, Toronto

| | 0 comments

Friends...

 

If you can promote internally, please see our upcoming event, 2010 Canada-U.S. Gang Summit. See www.gangsummit.com . Brochure is also attached. 

 

We are bringing to Toronto some of North America’s leading gang intervention and reintegration experts. Highlights include Father Gregory Boyle of Homeboy Industries, world’s leading gang researcher Dr. Irving Spergel, Leena Augimeri of Child Development Institute and three leaders with National Exhoodus Council – all former gang leaders and prison inmates who operate gang intervention programs in 50 America cities. 12 speakers total have “done time” in the gang in Canada or US.

 

Anything you can do to spread the word internally or to your network of contacts would be most appreciated!

 

Michael Chettleburgh

Chair, 2010 Canada-US Gang Summit

 

 

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

ASC

Michael C. Chettleburgh

President and CEO

Astwood Strategy Corporation

10660 Yonge Street, Box 30608

Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada, L4C 4H0

Tel:  (905) 884-1938  

Fax: (905) 884-8272

Cell: (416) 568-2564

www.astwood.ca

 

Author, Young Thugs: Inside the Dangerous World of Canadian Street Gangs (HarperCollins Canada, 2007)

Author, Gladiator School:  Life Inside Canadian Prisons (HarperCollins Canada, 2011)

 

NEW!  Check out Ozzy's Garage Youth Mentorship Program

 

canada flag_email

 

 

in the news

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 | | 0 comments


New drugs chief Les Iversen said cannabis 'safer'
BBC News
January 13, 2010

SAMHSA finds retirement living doesn't rule out marijuana use
By Francis Ma
RetirementHomes.com
January 12, 2010


Editorials / Éditoriaux

New heroin giveaway project gears up for rigged game
SALOME chief will copy Insite's 'research' model in Downtown Eastside
By Mark Hasiuk
Canada.com
January 13, 2010

 

in the news

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 | | 0 comments

 

B.C. turns profit from crime proceeds
CBC News
January 11, 2010

N.J. lawmakers approve bill legalizing medical marijuana
By Trish G. Graber
New Jersey
January 11, 2010

Should Marijuana Laws in Washington Be More Lenient?

Monday, January 11, 2010 | | 0 comments

Subject: ARO: Q13 FOX News: Should Marijuana Laws in Washington Be More Lenient?

http://www.q13fox.com/news/kcpq-011010-potforumpreview,0,1748896.story

Includes video.

OLYMPIA - This week lawmakers will consider big changes to Washington Marijuana laws. Bills in the House and Senate would downgrade possession from a criminal violation to a civil infraction. That means getting a ticket instead of jail time.

Rep. Brendan Williams is sponsoring House Bill 1177 "it would decriminalize the possession of up to 40 grams." "You would still pay a civil fine, if you were caught; it's just making not so much of a priority for law enforcement"
Williams added.

Marijuana possession would still be a crime for those under 18, but many believe decriminalization would free up police to focus on more serious crimes. It also has the potential to save a huge amount of money.

The American Civil Liberties Union is among those supporting the legislation. ACLU Drug Policy Director Alison Holcomb says "the state of Washington would save $16 million in court costs, prosecution costs and public defense costs." Holcomb also believes "it addresses the disproportionate treatment of African-American people that we see in Washington State."

But not everyone agrees; Attorney General Rob McKenna doesn't support making it available without a prescription. Last month he told reporters "I think it makes it harder for us to make the case for other illegal substances." He also worries it will trigger an increase in use "and given the potency of marijuana, I don't think that's a good thing, personally."

Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles is sponsoring the senate bill and disagrees with McKenna's assessment. "I don't buy that there's been nothing to show that that's been the case in the over two dozen states that enacted the policy into law over the last three decades."

Seattle's new mayor, Mike McGinn, has made it clear he wants less focus on marijuana enforcement. "It's a low priority and it's not a good use of resources" McGinn said shortly after he took the oath of office.

There is another bill in the legislature that would legalize and regulate marijuana, but many say that may be too much, too soon. "I don't think we want to move so far that the public becomes uncomfortable, let's try decriminalization and see how that works" Williams said.

Kohl-Welles says she supports legalization "I think eventually, yes, we should have full legalization but I don't think our state is ready for that, yet."

The ACLU is hosting a forum for these lawmakers and the public to talk about the current legislation and the future. The forum is set for Tuesday, January 12th at the Capitol Theater in Olympia.

Alison Holcomb
Drug Policy Director

ACLU OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION
705 2ND AVENUE, 3RD FL.
SEATTLE, WA 98104
T/206.624.2184 et. 294
holcomb@aclu-wa.org
www.aclu-wa.org

Legalisation debate on Radio 4

| | 0 comments

 
 
______________________________________________
From:    Danny [mailto:danny@tdpf.org.uk]
Sent:   Monday, January 11, 2010 7:15 AM
To:     danny@tdpf.org.uk
Subject:        Legalisation debate on Radio 4
 
Dear Colleagues
 
Well worth a listen.  Paul Mendelle QC is very good.
 
 
Best
Danny
 
Danny Kushlick
Head of Policy and Communications
 
Transform Drug Policy Foundation
Easton Business Centre
Felix Road
Easton
Bristol BS5 0HE
 
tel: +44 (0)117 941 5810
email: danny@tdpf.org.uk
web: www.tdpf.org.uk
To subscribe to Transform's newsletter visit: <http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tdpf_news-l>
 
 
 

the impact of legalizing syringe exchange program on arrests

Friday, January 8, 2010 | | 0 comments

while this research is from 2007 I thought it was interesting enough to circulate...
Cheers,
Mark

Should we legalize and regulate marijuana in California? Just say yes

| | 0 comments

 

 

Should we legalize and regulate marijuana in California? Just say ...
I am for re-legalization and regulation of cannabis for all adult usage; medical or recreational. I can't think of a single reason why adults should not be ...


 .

 

FW: [Transform News] December Newsletter

| | 0 comments

_______________________________________________
TDPF_News-L mailing list
Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tdpf_news-l
To unsubscribe, email tdpf_news-l-unsubscribe@gn.apc.org

 


From: tdpf_news-l-bounces@gn.apc.org [mailto:tdpf_news-l-bounces@gn.apc.org] On Behalf Of Monthly newsletter from Transform Drug Policy Foundation
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 8:28 AM
To: tdpf_news-l@gn.apc.org
Subject: [Transform News] December Newsletter

Having problems reading this? You can read all our newsletters online here: http://www.tdpf.org.uk/Newsletter.php

Transform Drug Policy Foundation
Transform News - December 2009 Briefings Support Donate Media Blog
" This is the most thorough, evidence-based, balanced discussion of how we might move towards a more rational drugs control policy that I have seen. It should be compulsory reading for all our policy makers. "
-- Rod Morgan, Professor Emeritus of Criminal Justice

Contents

1. Transform News
  • Reaction to the launch of 'Blueprint for Regulation: After the War on Drugs '
  • Hungarian Civil Liberties Union produces a short film about 'Blueprint'
  • Steve provides evidence to Home Affairs Select Committee
  • Steve speaks in the Netherlands
2. UK News
  • UK government made three more drugs illegal
  • The Economist highlights Home Office suppression of F.O.I. request
3. International News
  • US lifts ban on syringe exchange funding US
    House of Representatives establishes an independent commission on drug policy
4. Upcoming events
  • Danny to speak at Cumberland Lodge Conference

 

Transform News

International launch of ' After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation '

Transform Drug Policy Foundation held an international launch for the groundbreaking new book 'After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation' , on the 12th November 2009, in the House of Commons. The book was also launched in Scotland, the US, Australia and Mexico, and will be launched in Brazil later this year. Speakers at the House of Commons included: Ms. Robin Gorna, (Executive Director of the International AIDS Society), Professor Rod Morgan (former Chair of the Youth Justice Board) and Dr Ben Goldacre (Guardian 'Bad Science' Columnist). Attendees at the launch included academics, MPs, diplomats, and representatives of NGOs. Rod Morgan, Professor Emeritus of Criminal Justice, former HM Chief Inspector of Probation, and Chairman of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales put it: "This is the most thorough, evidence-based, balanced discussion of how we might move towards a more rational drugs control policy that I have seen. It should be compulsory reading for all our policy makers."

For the first time anywhere, ' Blueprint ' provides a detailed roadmap showing how currently prohibited drugs could be legally regulated. It proposes specific models of regulation, based on already existing models, for each drug preparation, coupled with the principles and rationale for doing so. The models include prescriptions, pharmacy sales, licensed premises and off-license sales. The book was received to critical acclaim and has gained a large volume of high quality media coverage in the UK and internationally, including CNN , BBC , the Guardian , the Independent and the Economist .




 

Steve Rolles, Caroline Pringle, Robin Gorna, Dr Ben Goldacre and Prof. Rod Morgan

 

The Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (HCLU) produces a short film about 'Blueprint'

Peter Sarosi from HCLU has produced this short film featuring Transform's new publication 'After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation', filmed at the recent DPA conference in Albuquerque.

Steve Rolles provided evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee hearing

Steve Rolles gave oral evidence at the Home Affairs Select Committee cocaine inquiry on 20th October. He appeared alongside Neil McKeganey from Glasgow University and was questioned by the committee on various aspects of cocaine production, supply and use.

Steve Rolles spoke in the Netherlands

Steve Rolles attended and spoke at the 7th Informal Drug Policy Dialogue in Amsterdam held between 10-12th December.

 

UK News

UK government makes three more drugs illegal

Three drugs were prohibited on 23 rd December; a synthetic cannabinoid often sold as 'spice', the synthetic stimulant benzylpiperazine ( BZP) , and the synthetic sedative gammabutyrolactone ( GBL) which also happens to be an industrial solvent. All have been brought within the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, GBL and BZP becoming class C drugs (subject to penalties of up to 2 years prison for possession or 14 years in prison for supply) whilst 'Spice' becomes a Class B (subject to up to 5 years in prison for possession or 14 years for supply). For more information read the Transform blog here .

The Economist highlights Home Office suppression of Transform's FOI request

The Economist magazine has printed Part V of Transform's long running campaign to force the Government to release its publicly funded research into the effectiveness of UK drug policy.

"After thinking about it for nearly two years and trying out various exemptions, the Home Office has refused to release a confidential assessment of its anti-drugs strategy requested by Transform. The reason is that next March the National Audit Office (NAO), a public-spending watchdog, is due to publish a report of its own on local efforts to combat drugs. The Home Office says that to have two reports about drugs out at the same time might confuse the public, and for this reason it is going to keep its report under wraps."

Sir Alan Beith, the chairman of the parliamentary Justice Committee, which oversees the FOI act, was sharply critical of the Home Office's excuse.

"That's really scraping the barrel. On those grounds you would have to ban the various hospital reports that are coming out at the moment because the public are confused about that too. It's not an argument for censorship, it's an argument for an even more open and clear debate." The Home Office was making "a quite ridiculous attempt to hide from freedom of information," he said.

 

International News

US lifts ban on funding of needle exchanges

On the 13th December, the US Senate passed a spending bill that will allow for federal funding of syringe exchanges for the first time since 1988. The bill also removed the restriction, proposed earlier in the year by the House, which would have prohibited provision of sterile syringes within 1,000 feet of a school or playground. For more information, click here .

US House of Representatives establishes an independent commission on drug policy

In December a bill in the US Congress made surprisingly smooth progress through the House of Representatives on its way to the Senate, where it is now under consideration. The bill establishes a Western Hemisphere Drug Policy Commission which will have two million dollars to investigate and research independently of the political process in order to, "review and evaluate United States policy regarding illicit drug supply reduction and interdiction". Danny also met with members of the Senate and the House of Representatives to discuss 'Blueprint'. For more information read our blog here .

 

Upcoming events

Danny to speak in Copenhagen

Danny was due to give a presentation to Danish parliamentarians, the Danish media and NGOs on 6th - 7th January. Due to the extreme weather he was unable to attend, but he gave his presentation by video instead. If anyone wants a copy of the presentation, contact us for a video version that can be emailed out.

Danny to speak at Cumberland Lodge Residential Conference

Danny has been invited to speak at the ' Drugs and Harm: A New Agenda for a New Government? ' conference held at Cumberland Lodge over 27 th - 29th January. The conference " will examine the question of how best to minimise the harm caused by the use of drugs in the UK ."

 

Unsubscribe

Transform Drug Policy Foundation, Easton Business Centre, Felix Rd, Bristol, BS5 0HE, Telephone: +44 (0) 117 941 5810
Transform Drug Policy Foundation is a registered Charity no. 1100518 and Limited Company no. 4862177