More reasons to legalize the sale of marijuana
Vancouver Sun
October 7, 2010

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The International Centre for Science in Drug Policy (ICSDP) today released a new research report that demonstrates the clear failure of U.S. marijuana prohibition and supports calls for evidence-based models to legalize and regulate the use of cannabis.

http://www.icsdp.org/media/press_releases/pressrelease-failureofcannabisprohibition.aspx

The Wall Street Journal
October 6, 2010

Democrats Look to Cultivate Pot Vote in 2012

Party Considers Legalization Efforts in Swing States Amid Signs California Measure Is Exciting Young, Liberal Voters

By PETER WALLSTEN

Democratic strategists are studying a California marijuana-legalization initiative to see if similar ballot measures could energize young, liberal voters in swing states for the 2012 presidential election.

Some pollsters and party officials say Democratic candidates in California are benefiting from a surge in enthusiasm among young voters eager to back Proposition 19, which would legalize marijuana in certain quantities and permit local governments to regulate and tax it.

Party strategists and marijuana-legalization advocates are discussing whether to push for similar ballot questions in 2012 in Colorado and Nevada-both expected to be crucial to President Barack Obama's re-election-and Washington state, which will have races for governor and seats in both houses of Congress.

Already, a coalition of Democratic-leaning groups has conducted a poll in Colorado and Washington to test the power of marijuana measures to drive voter turnout.

Ballot measures typically don't increase turnout on a mass scale. Still, strategists in both parties argue certain ballot measures can help activate targeted groups of voters and campaign volunteers in numbers that can be significant in close elections.

Democratic strategists liken the marijuana effort to the 2004 ballot drives to ban gay marriage in Ohio and 10 other states. Whether those measures helped then-President George W. Bush win that year remains a point of debate, as turnout was high even in states without the issue on the ballot. But many conservatives say the measure drove thousands to the polls in Ohio, the election's central battleground, where Mr. Bush won by just two percentage points, or about 118,000 votes.

Now, some Democratic strategists say marijuana legalization could do the same for their party. Should they move forward in 2012, they likely would have the backing of liberal philanthropist Peter Lewis, chairman of Progressive Insurance Cos.

Mr. Lewis said through a spokesman that changing marijuana laws is "emerging as one of the leading national issues in the coming years....Change is inevitable and my priority is to make that change positive."

Anna Greenberg, a Democratic pollster, conducted a survey in late August to test the effect of the California measure on voter turnout. In her poll, a quarter of Democrats said they were "extremely interested" in voting in this year's elections for governor and senator. When told about the marijuana measure, the number jumped to 38%, she said. She found no effect on Republican turnout.

"Moving forward, these kinds of initiatives could have a coattail effect for Democratic candidates," she said. She declined to say who hired her to test on the marijuana issue, saying just that it was a pro-Democratic group.
[MARIJUANA]

Surveys by the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling suggest California voters under 30 years old are more likely to vote this year than their counterparts in other states. People in that age group make up 11% of California voters likely to turn out in November-compared with 8% of the likely electorate or less in Illinois, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Michigan, all of which have competitive statewide elections. In the last midterms, in 2006, voters under 30 were 6.5% of the California electorate, according to data compiled for the non-partisan Field Poll.

Tom Jensen, polling director for PPP, said the results suggest the marijuana initiative is driving voter interest among those under 30. He said the interest may be boosting Democratic candidates, particularly Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.), who has built a lead over GOP challenger Carly Fiorina recently.

The trend was identified in recent days by Jon Walker, an analyst at the liberal blog Fire Dog Lake, which has been pushing for marijuana legalization. Mr. Walker wrote that "the evidence is strong" that Proposition 19, not California Democratic candidates, was mobilizing young voters.

Blair Butterworth, a Democratic consultant in Washington state who works with legalization advocates, estimated a pot ballot measure could drive up youth turnout by two to four percentage points-enough to influence a tight race. "It's not like a home run. But with elections being so close these days, it's a big difference," he said.

Democratic pollster Andrew Myers found in a December 2009 survey in Colorado that 45% of Obama "surge voters"-people voting for the first time in 2008-said they would be more interested in turning out again if marijuana legalization were on the ballot. "If you are 18 to 29, it's far and away the most compelling reason to go out and vote," Mr. Myers said.

Still, these conclusions are under debate, even among Democrats. Roger Salazar, a Democratic consultant advising police chiefs and businesses on an anti-legalization campaign, called the evidence for increased turnout "largely anecdotal." "There are a lot of pot-smoking voters-but not that many," he said.

Few political candidates support marijuana legalization. In California, the Democratic and Republican candidates for Senate and governor oppose Proposition 19. Mr. Obama opposes legalization and would face political pressure to challenge the law if Proposition 19 passes.

A recent Field Poll said Proposition 19 was favored by 49% of likely voters and opposed by 42%.

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

Guardian blog
Tuesday 5 October 2010

Drugs are a development issue - which is why we should legalise them

Since drug prohibition deeply affects some of the world's poorest people, the development community must back legalisation calls

Jonathan Glennie

If there is a "war on drugs", this is it. Mexico is undergoing worse violence than has been seen in Latin America in decades. President Felipe Calderon's decision to take the fight to the narcos has been returned with drug gang brutality on a massive scale. If any good is to come out of the tragedy afflicting Mexico, it is that the misguided global approach to drug regulation will be challenged and may, eventually, be changed.

In 2009, the former presidents of Brazil, Colombia and Mexico made a very public call for legalisation in a high-profile paper. That in itself was a significant milestone. But now a sitting president, Calderon, has said that it is time seriously to debate the idea of legalisation (although he says he opposes it). This is unprecedented.
Sitting presidents are expected simply to toe the US line and support the war. But events in Mexico are so exaggerated that, for once, domestic reality appears to have trumped international realpolitik.
Calderon's predecessor and fellow conservative, Vicente Fox, has also now come out pro-legalisation.

At the same time, more articles than usual are appearing in the drug-consuming west, across the political spectrum, calling for a rethink of this ridiculous "war", prompted by concerns about failed strategies in their own societies. But where are the voices of the development community? While we recognise that conflict and instability are the enemies of development and poverty reduction, we tend to stay silent when it comes to international crime. We separate it off as an area for the police, or the army, or for experts on money laundering.
But the criminal production and trading of drugs deeply affects the poorest and most marginalised communities.

How? In producer countries like Afghanistan and Colombia, violent conflicts are fuelled by drugs money as gangs, guerrilla and army fight for the most lucrative land and trade routes. At a local level, farmers not already growing coca, opium poppies or marijuana for simple reasons of economic survival (they can make a lot more money growing drugs than onions), come under pressure from armed groups to get involved or face the consequences (harassment, threat and displacement - as this report by ABColombia demonstrates). Then the police or army swoops, and drug zones become war zones. The families caught up in this nightmare are the victims of an unworkable "war on drugs".

At a national level, prohibition is putting money in the pockets of criminals and armed groups. Profits from the illegal trade in drugs are not only used to buy guns, they also buy police chiefs and judges.
Corruption is off the scale and, as it grows, democratic accountability, the key plank necessary for poor people to access and defend their rights, is progressively eroded.

This is a development issue. The tax campaigns gaining ground in some charities, and supported by some G20 countries, are possibly the best way in. The complex web of tax havens that has been allowed to grow up around the world serves no purpose except to hide money - handy if you are an international criminal.

But the development community needs to go further. I think it should consider actively advocating legalisation, on the basis of the harm prohibition does to the poorest. Astonishingly, over 60 % of Mexican drug gangs' profits comes from marijuana sold to the US. Marijuana. I know people that smoke marijuana with their kids but won't let them drink until they are 21. Human beings have always taken drugs and always will. Marijuana can do harm, yes, but banning it is doing much more. Our response for the last few decades has been based on transient cultural emotions rather than evidence and an understanding of history. It has been a disaster for some of the most marginalised communities in the developing world.

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

 

The United Nations on drugs: Alice in Wonderland revisited
By Neil Boyd
Vancouver Sun
October 4, 2010

 

Hi all,

 

How do you think that drugs should be regulated?  Take the survey at www.markhaden.com (go to survey tab) to share your views and then check the results to see how you compare with everyone else.  Enjoy!!!!!

Thanks,

Mark Haden

 

 

 

The Associated Press
Friday, October 1, 2010

Pot possession in Calif now like speeding ticket

By MARCUS WOHLSEN

SAN FRANCISCO -- A new law makes possessing up to an ounce of marijuana in California no more serious than getting a speeding ticket - a development both sides battling over a marijuana legalization ballot measure hope to exploit with the vote just a month away.

The law signed late Thursday by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger reduces possession of an ounce or less of pot from a misdemeanor to an infraction with a maximum punishment of a $100 fine.

Even as a misdemeanor, possession of up to an ounce was still punishable only by a $100 fine and no jail time. But offenders also faced arrest, a possible court appearance and a criminal record.

Schwarzenegger reiterated his opposition to the ballot measure known as Proposition 19 when he signed Senate Bill 1449 but said the new law would save the state courts money.

"In this time of drastic budget cuts, prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement and the courts cannot afford to expend limited resources prosecuting a crime that carries the same punishment as a traffic ticket," the governor said in a statement.

Other opponents of Proposition 19 said the new law helped their cause by negating the argument that legalizing pot would let police focus on more dangerous crimes, said Roger Salazar, a spokesman for the No on Prop 19 group.

"From our perspective it takes away the last reason anyone would have to vote for Proposition 19," Salazar said.

Meanwhile, backers of Prop 19 called the new law a step in the right direction but said the ballot measure was still needed.

"So long as there are any penalties on marijuana users, and so long as the production and sale of cannabis are illegal, we can't rest," Jeff Jones, a spokesman for the Yes on 19 campaign, said in an e-mail to supporters.

Proposition 19 would more or less make the new law irrelevant by legalizing possession of up to an ounce for personal use for adults 21 and older.

The ballot measure also would allow small marijuana gardens on private property and let local governments set rules for taxing and selling the drug.

The bill making possession an infraction was authored by San Francisco Democratic Sen. Mark Leno and supported by the Judicial Council of California - the official policymaking body of the court system - and by the California District Attorneys Association.

California's major police associations all opposed the legislation.
Those groups said reducing possession to an infraction would discourage people cited for the offense from seeking state-funded drug treatment as provided for drug offenders under a ballot measure passed in 2000.

Other marijuana advocates praised the change made by the law as they pointed to the spike in misdemeanor marijuana arrests in the state in recent years.

"Californians increasingly recognize that the war on marijuana is a waste of law enforcement resources," said Dale Gieringer, director of the California chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws and co-author of the state's landmark medical marijuana law.

Authorities made more than 61,000 arrests for marijuana-related misdemeanors in 2008, the latest year for which data exists, California Department of Justice records show.

In the prior decade, such arrests averaged about 48,000 until 2006, when the figure exceeded 50,000 for the first time.

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

Bill to Decriminalize Minor Pot Possession Offenses Signed by Governor Schwarzenegger

 

Sacramento, Sept 30th: A bill to downgrade the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana from a misdemeanor to an infraction was signed into law by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The bill, SB 1449 by Sen. Mark Leno, will spare petty pot offenders  the necessity for a court appearance and criminal arrest record while saving the state millions of dollars in court and prosecution expenses. The bill treats petty possession like a traffic ticket punishable by a  simple $100 fine and no arrest record.

 

"Gov. Schwarzenegger deserves credit for sparing the state's taxpayers the cost of prosecuting minor pot offenders,"  said California NORML director Dale Gieringer, "Californians increasingly recognize that the war on marijuana is a waste of law enforcement resources."

 

The new law, which takes effect on Jan 1, 2011, will have an effect even if Californians vote to legalize marijuana by passing Prop 19.

 

Prop 19 leaves misdemeanor possession penalties in place for public use and smoking in the presence of kids;  under SB 1449, these offenses would be simple infractions.

 

In his signing statement, the Governor said he opposes decriminalization of recreational use of marijuana and opposes Prop 19, but "in this time of drastic budget cuts, prosecutors defense attorneys, law enforcement and the courts cannot afford to expend limited resources" prosecuting petty pot offenses.

 

<http://dl5.activatedirect.com/fs/distribution:letterFile/yvcee9xanplikz_files/z65ij4mzqc9pon?&_c=d%7Cyvcee9xanplikz%7Cz65p1zm6c0d0km&_ce=1285912730.7ee1305853a4e425a94c9e30d2a561fb>        

 

Misdemeanor possession offenses have mounted  to new highs in recent years, reaching 61,164 in 2009  (see http://www.canorml.org/news/2009arrests.html).

         

California NORML  originally  called for making petty possession an infraction when the state passed its landmark decriminalization law in 1975, but the legislature made it a minor misdemeanor punishable by a maximum $100 fine.  This marks the tirst time in 35 years that penalties for non-medical use of marijuana have been reduced in California.

 

Text of SB 1449:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_1401-1450/sb_1449_bill_20100405_amended_sen_v98.html

 

--

****************************************************************************

JOIN CA NORML AND HELP US REFORM MARIJUANA LAWS IN CALIFORNIA.

See http://www.canorml.org/canormlmission.html

 

MAPS mission is to treat conditions for which conventional medicines provide limited relief, such as PTSD & anxiety associated with life-threatening illnesses, by developing psychedelics & marijuana into prescription medicines. New: The Pot Book, Edited By Julie Holland M.D. September 28, 2010 Dear Rielle, We are excited to announce the release of a special MAPS edition of The Pot Book: A Complete Guide to Cannabis, edited by Julie Holland M.D. This book is brand new and has contributions from more than 50 leading experts on the science, history, politics, medicine, and potentials of cannabis. Among the contributors are MAPS Executive Director Rick Doblin, Ph.D. Lester Grinspoon, M.D., Michael Pollan, Allen St. Pierre, Andrew Weil, M.D., Ethan Nadelmann, Ph.D., Lyle Craker, Ph.D., and Andrew Tartarsky, Ph.D. If you purchase this book from MAPS (as opposed to Amazon or other vendors) you will be contributing to MAPS' research. This 550 page book encompasses the broad spectrum of marijuana knowledge from stoner customs to scientific research. This book investigates the top ten myths of marijuana; its physiological and psychological effects; its risks; why joints are better than water pipes and other harm-reduction tips for users; how humanity and cannabis have co-evolved for millennia; the brain’s cannabis-based neurochemistry; the complex politics of cannabis law; its potential medicinal uses for cancer, AIDS, Alzheimer’s, multiple sclerosis, and other illnesses; its role in creativity, business, and spirituality; and the complicated world of pot and parenting. As legalization becomes a reality, this book candidly offers necessary facts and authoritative opinions in a society full of marijuana myths, misconceptions, and stereotypes. We encourage you to purchase your copy today.        ~MAPS

 

Cannabis Culture
Thursday, September 30, 2010

Ignatieff Says Liberals Will Reintroduce Marijuana Decriminalization Bill

By Jeremiah Vandermeer

Canadian Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff says his party will reintroduce legislation to "decriminalize" small amounts of marijuana for recreational use.

On September 27 in Montreal, the first night of his cross-country Open Mike tour, the Opposition Leader told an audience of over 200 people that the Libs would bring back Martin Cauchon's decrim bill that would eliminate criminal penalties for possession of under 15 grams of cannabis and replace them with fines.

Liberal Critic for Justice, Montreal MP Marlene Jennings, who joined Ignatieff at the event, added that she will push for Health Canada to streamline the process of granting medical marijuana permits.

Introduced in 2003, the original Cauchon bill would have lessened or removed penalties for possession of small amounts or cultivation of under 25 plants, but increased penalties for growing more than 25 plants.

Here's a breakdown of the original bill from a 2003 StoptheDrugWar.org
article:

* Possession of 15 grams or less is no longer a crime but a "contravention" (similar in seriousness to a traffic violation) punishable only by a fine. Fines increase from the set minimum according to whether "aggravating" factors, such as possession while driving or near a school, are involved.

* Possession of 15 to 30 grams may be charged as either a contravention or a criminal offense at the discretion of the officer involved. The same aggravating factors may be applied in making the charging decision.

* Penalties are lowered for the cultivation of three or fewer plants to a maximum of 18 months in jail and a $5,000 fine. Under current law, all cultivation is punishable by up to seven years in prison.

* Penalties are lowered for the cultivation of four to 25 plants to a maximum of 18 months and a $25,000 fine, but prosecutors have the option of charging cultivation in this range as an "indictable offense" (akin to a felony) punishable by up to five years in prison.

* Penalties are increased for the cultivation of more than 25 plants.
For 26-50 plants, the penalty is a maximum of 10 years in prison, plus fines, and for more than 50 plants, 14 years in prison, plus fines.

* Penalties for trafficking remain unchanged, with the maximum sentence remaining life in prison, although not even the largest hard drug trafficker has received more than a 20-year sentence in recent years.
Canadian drug trafficking laws do not differentiate between marijuana and other controlled substances.

* There are no provisions regarding medical marijuana.

The article notes, "While the Liberal proposal decreases formal sanctions for simple possession, in those considerable portions of Canada where possession busts are now not worth the bother for police, it potentially could actually increase enforcement."

Dana Larsen, former editor of Cannabis Culture, was quoted in the article (as the president of the BC Marijuana Party at that time) as tepidly supportive but skeptical: "Decriminalization is a small step forward, but this law will not make things easier for Canada's marijuana people. Here in Vancouver, now the police pretty much leave you alone or they just hassle you and take your stash. With the fines and ticketing, you end up with more punishment."

At the time, Cannabis Culture published an article critical of the bill called "Canada's decrim deception", where renowned Canadian pot-specialist lawyer John Conroy says "Decriminalization isn't the right word for the government's new pot legislation," and criticized the bill for deceptively continuing criminal records for pot offences.

The 2003 bill was never passed but similar legislation has been batted around by Liberal MP Keith Martin, and has also been criticized by some activists in the marijuana community and supported by others.

Ignatieff, has opposed marijuana policy reform in the past, saying in March of 2010 that "legalizing marijuana would create problems" with the United States and making this bizarre statement at another town-hall-stlye meeting:

"If I had to tell you as a parent or as someone who has spent his whole life working with young people, the last darn thing I want you to be doing is smoking marijuana. I want you to be out there digging a well, digging a ditch, getting a job, raising a family ... doing stuff, instead of parking your life on the end of a marijuana cigarette."

The Liberal leader noted at the time that he enjoys an occasional drink and didn't seem to mind if his anti-weed stance made him appear conservative.

At this point, it is impossible to say how future legislation from the Liberals will look, but now is the time to apply pressure for a better decriminalization bill. Contact Liberal Party Leader Michael Ignatieff and (politely) tell him that you support the FULL decriminalization or legalization of marijuana, but won't stand for sneaky, back-door legislation that may lead to increased enforcement - Email:
Ignatieff.M@parl.gc.ca or call (613) 995-9364 for his office in Ottawa.

Though Ignatieff's ideas for decrim may be just a small step forward or more of the same bad policies we already have, the Liberal's picture of Canada's future cannabis laws looks a lot prettier than Stephen Harper and the reigning Conservative government's vision, which would bring mandatory minimum sentences for marijuana offences to Canada for the first time.

Bill S-10, the proposed Conservative drug legislation, includes mandatory sentences of 9 months in jail for growing as few as 6 plants, and 18 months for making and sharing pot cookies, hash, or other extracts.

Join other activists, herb smokers, and lovers of liberty and freedom this SATURDAY, OCTOBER 2 at Member of Parliament's offices across the country for Canada-wide rallies against conservative drug laws to call attention to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative government's Bill S-10.
_______________________________________________
Dd-world mailing list
https://lists.tni.org/mailman/listinfo/dd-world