For those that do not know...my halfway house burned down in June. Well, not all the way down, but a 4 alarm fire caused pretty extensive damage. I have been put back home on the ankle monitor and have had a nice summer around the house with the kids. It is uncertain if I will have to report back to 111 Taylor after the repairs are complete. I would assume they are pretty backed up, as they are one of the only re-entry facilities in the area, so hopefully my low priority will make them want to keep me on home confinement. But I am not holding my breath. Just a few months of consinement left in any regard. I am supposed to have another knee surgery and am waiting to find out what the next move is before i schedule that, so keep your fingers crossed. 

On March third 2.5 years of my 5 year probation will be completed and I plan to apply for early termination. It would be nice to get back to a life where this is behind me and my family is no longer burdened with visits from POs and I do not have to ask permission to go on a family vacation. So, while 2010 has been somewhat of an exciting bummer thus far, 2011 could be cause for real celebration. That is where I am looking to for inspiration these days.

Federal Judge Suggests Reclassifying Medical Marijuana

Los Angeles, CA -- Federal District Court Judge George H. Wu issued a 41-page written sentencing order yesterday, stating that medical marijuana provider Charles C. Lynch was "caught in the middle of the shifting positions" on the issue and that, "Much of the problems could be ameliorated...by the reclassification of marijuana from Schedule I." Lynch gained notoriety as a federal medical marijuana defendant, who was prosecuted and convicted in 2008, under the Bush Administration, then sentenced after President Obama signaled a change in federal enforcement policy.

Judge Wu's call for the reclassification of marijuana comes as the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is considering a petition, filed in 2002 by the Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis. After a years-long review by the Department of Health and Human Services, the petition was recently sent to DEA, the final stage of the process. Acting DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart, who still must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate, has the authority to grant or deny the rescheduling petition.

"Yet another federal judge has called on the government to reconsider the current status of marijuana as a dangerous drug with no medical value," said Joe Elford, Chief Counsel with Americans for Safe Access, the country's largest medical marijuana advocacy organization. "Judge Wu's sentencing order also begs the question of why the federal government is still prosecuting medical marijuana cases." Elford argued before Judge Wu last year that Lynch should be shown leniency as no state laws had been violated.

It has been more than ten months since Judge Wu sentenced Lynch to one year and a day, and four years of supervised release, despite the 5-year mandatory minimum being sought by the Justice Department. Four months after the June 11th sentencing hearing, the Justice Department issued a directive in October to U.S. Attorneys, discouraging them from arresting and prosecuting medical marijuana patients and providers. Lynch remains released on bail pending his appeal, but cannot use medical marijuana according to the terms of his release.

Before his medical marijuana dispensary was raided by Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents in March of 2007, Lynch had operated for 11 months without incident, and with the blessing of the Morro Bay City Council, the local Chamber of Commerce, and other community members. Two months after Lynch closed his dispensary, Central Coast Compassionate Caregivers, he was indicted and charged with conspiracy to possess and possession with intent to distribute marijuana and concentrated cannabis, manufacturing more than 100 plants, knowingly maintaining a drug premises, and sales of marijuana to a person under the age of 21. None of the federal charges Lynch was convicted of constituted violations of local or state law.

Currently, patients and providers are prevented from using a medical necessity or a state law defense in federal court. The Justice Department policy has failed to deter the prosecution of more than two dozen pending federal cases. In response, ASA is advocating for the passage of Congressional legislation -- HR 3939, the Truth in Trials Act -- which would give state law-compliant defendants a fighting chance in federal court.

Further information:
Federal Judge George Wu's Sentencing Order:http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/Lynch_Sentencing_Order.pdf
Friends of Charles C. Lynch website: http://www.friendsofccl.com

Losing the Drug War in California

Opponents of the proposed law to legalize and tax marijuana need better arguments, because just saying they're concerned that kids will start driving high is sending the debate up in smoke

By: John H. Richardson

To greet the news about California's ballot initiative to legalize and tax marijuana this November, which proponents say could raise as much as $1.4 billion a year, the New York Times ran a story with comments from the president of the California Peace Officer's Association, John Standish. "We just don't think anything good will come of this," he said. "It's not going to better society. It's going to denigrate it."

Later he was quoted again: "We have a hard enough time now with drunk drivers on the road. This is just going to add to the problems — I cannot think of one crime scene I've been to where people said, 'Thank God the person was just under the influence of marijuana.'"

My jaw dropped. That's it? That's the best you've got? For that, thousands of people die every year in the drug war? For that, we arrest more than seven hundred thousand Americans a year? For that, we spend hundreds of billions of dollars on police, prisons, and international eradication efforts?

Besides, I've got two kids. To the point of driving them crazy, I tell them over and over to drive sober and stick to the speed limit. But I would five thousand times rather see them drive stoned than drunk — and I don't believe Mr. Standish could produce a single parent who feels differently.

So I called Standish. Surely the Times failed to quote his good arguments?

He told me: "The CPOA is a professional law enforcement association that develops leaders — there are four thousand members, police chiefs, sheriffs, command staff, and first-line supervisors, so all of the law enforcement associations in California are against this ballot initiative."

Also, "It's kind of misleading in that California can't legalize marijuana — state law cannot trump federal law." Then he repeated verbatim the "we don't think anything good is going to come of this" and added two more arguments: that Denmark thinks making pot semi-legal is the worst decision they ever made, and Mexico is "not going to sit idly by if we legalize it."

Then he had to rush off, so I didn't get a chance to ask him about what happened in Portugal (according to a study by the super-conservative Cato Institute) in the first five years since they legalized all drugs:

"Lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1 to 10.6 percent; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5 to 1.8 percent (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17 percent between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well."

A few hours later I got a call from the CPOA spokesman, John Lovell, a pleasant man who also represents the police chiefs' and narcotics officers' associations. These are the arguments he came up with:

"First off, the figure of seven hundred thousand arrested is factually inaccurate — people do not get arrested for simple possession. The most that happens is they're given a citation and release. In California, the penalty for simple possession is $100 fine."

In other words, pot isn't all that illegal, which strikes me as a weird argument for keeping the drug war going full tilt. It also suggests they don't take the stoned driver problem as seriously as their rhetoric suggests.

"Second, I think what John was trying to say is that the burden of proof is on the legalizers, because right now what you have is serious public safety problems caused by alcohol abuse, pharmaceutical abuse, tobacco that kills people. Given all that, the question is, What is the public policy good of adding another substance that alters their minds?"

Also, "this substance is a registered carcinogen."

Also, the initiative is badly written. "It may make it impossible for California institutions and businesses and governments to receive any federal funding." This is because the details of the initiative make it impossible to observe the standards of a "drug-free workplace," which is required by federal law for groups that get federal grants. This could cost California billions in Washington cash, he said.

Also, the ballot does not provide for a state marijuana tax, just city and county taxes. "It authorizes 420 cities to make their own laws, each with their own regulations." (My rule against drug-war-trivializing Cheech & Chong jokes forbids me to take note of that number, although I will say that later, Lovell unilaterally upped the number of cities in California to 450).

Also, pot use doubled in Alaska when they decriminalized. And the ballot doesn't forbid people with criminal records from distributing. And it doesn't specify if your license to sell is statewide or limited to a given city. And the Mexican government, mired in its war with the drug cartels, has expressed deep concern that legalizing pot will hurt their efforts to fight the drug cartels.

At that point, I had to stop him and ask the obvious question: Isn't the drug war exactly like Prohibition? Didn't the legalization of booze make Al Capone's mobsters pack their Tommy guns back in their cello cases so semi-law-abiding citizens like Joseph P. Kennedy could take over the liquor "cartels."

"That's a theoretical argument," he said.

"But isn't it true? Didn't the mobsters all go away?"

"You need to get your history from other than movies," he said. "What did happen after Prohibition is that the mob simply moved in to the legal liquor distributorships all over the country. All that came out in the Kefauver Commission in the 1950s."

But... doesn't John McCain own a beer distribution business. Are you saying that John McCain is a mobster?

"Of course not," Lovell said. "But let's not get into philosophical issues. What voters are going to be voting on isn't some philosophical debate — what they're voting on is a specific proposal. I think it's possible for the voter to say, philosophically, this should be legal, but this measure is wrong."

Then he went back to the regulatory problems. Under the terms of the initiative, 450 different cities could have 450 different rules. That means a city could make it legal to grow pot in public parks. And look at how upset the Los Angeles City Council got when a thousand medical marijuana clinics bloomed — they capped the number of permits at 70. And what if you run a bike shop and can't promise a drug-free workplace? Won't your insurance company raise your rates?

But all laws have problems, and none of this stacks up very impressively against the thousands of lives and billions of dollars. Isn't the solution to pass the damn law and fix the tangles as they come up? Just as the Los Angeles City Council did when they limited clinics?

"The initiative has a provision in it — it can only be amended to advance its purpose. That means, because one of the purposes of the initiative is local control and local taxation, you cannot change that."

So we're going to sacrifice thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of drug-war dollars so that California's cities and counties don't hog all the marijuana tax money?

"This could cost the state billions in federal money," he repeated. Really? With California on the ropes, cutting school budgets and releasing prisoners, is the federal government really going to slash its grant money over pot?

I don't buy it.

"For sure, it's going to cost every employer more in insurance," he said. "If you look at section 11340C, the only thing an employer can do is address consumption issues of an employee that actually affect their workplace performance — if you're in possession, an employer can't take any action. If you test dirty, the employer can't do anything."

So you can only punish an employee for something that "actually affects his workplace performance" – these are his words, folks. In other words, if a person gets stoned on Saturday night and comes in Monday morning 100 percent sober, there's no way to punish him? And the problem with this is?

"Tell that to the federal government when they deny your request to make bicycles for the Army."

Even if it's a perfectly good bicycle?

"Go read the drug-free workplace act of 1988," he said. Let me see if I follow this — the argument is that marijuana should be illegal because it is illegal?

What I'm saying to you is, irrespective of our differing points of view, if you read this initiative, it doesn't make sensible public policy."

By that point, we were going in circles — until he came up with one completely new argument. "In Mendocino county, the heart of the emerald triangle, there was last year — I'll have fun with it — a 'grass roots' effort that put a measure on the ballot to roll back Mendocino's liberal medical marijuana laws."

A Cheech & Chong joke! From the drug warrior's drug warrior! If you need any more evidence of how completely mainstream marijuana has become, this is it. This war is lost. The only question now is how much more blood and treasure we're going to waste before we all admit it.

P.S. If all of this makes your head hurt, relieve your stress with the best anti-drug song of modern times, Gotta Try. The band is Fifth Nation, which sounds kinda like Jeff Buckley meets Erykah Badu and includes a person who actually appears to have listened to me (see above) when I told her never to drive high. This is how they describe the song: "In a numbed culture, it's tremendously empowering not to get fucked up all the time." You can listen to it here.

Thoughts on legalizing marijuana? Tips? Click here to e-mail John H. Richardson about his weekly political column at Esquire.com.

Find this article at: http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson-report/california-legalize-pot-040610

Marijuana Legalization on the CA Ballot: Separating Fact from Fiction

By Stephen Gutwillig

Brace yourself for a blast of alarmist hot air from the drug war status quo, a nine-month onslaught of distortions, half-truths and real whoppers.

March 26, 2010  |  

With a historic marijuana legalization initiative certified for November's general election, California is ground zero for a growing national debate. No matter what you think about regulating marijuana for adult consumption, brace yourself for a blast of alarmist hot air from the drug war status quo, a nine-month onslaught of distortions, half-truths and real whoppers. Marijuana offenses account for over half of all drug arrests nationwide. No wonder the law enforcement lobby is furiously digging in its heels at the prospect of "losing marijuana." Here are three commonsense reasons to dump decades of failed marijuana prohibition. (Spoiler alert: Billions of dollars in new state revenue isn't one of them. That's just gravy.)

1. Regulation will help bring marijuana distribution under the rule of law.

Proponents for maintaining the marijuana ban claim that legalization would aid criminal markets. But it's prohibition that has ceded control to the black market; legalization and regulation would mean the opposite. Ending marijuana prohibition means ending the current state of chaos and implementing real controls on who has access to marijuana when and where.

Whether we like it or not, marijuana is a mainstream recreational drug and famously California's largest cash crop. Prohibiting a commodity that popular has simply fueled a massive, increasingly brutal underground economy. Criminal syndicates in Mexico reportedly derive at least 60% of their profits from marijuana sales alone. The horrifying carnage that's claimed 15,000 Mexican lives in three years isn't about drugs, of course, but the drug profits guaranteed by prohibition. While regulating marijuana in California won't single-handedly solve the problem, bringing the market for marijuana into the open will undermine the Al Capones and Pablo Escobars of today by ending the monopoly they currently enjoy over their most lucrative product.

2. Marijuana use has little to do with marijuana laws.

Drug warriors paint a dire picture of skyrocketing marijuana consumption, especially among young people, if the prohibition on adult use ended. But marijuana use isn't primarily impacted by criminal penalties. The U.S. has the highest rates of marijuana consumption in the Western world despite by far the most severe penalties. Among a stack of international studies of this question, the 2004 findings of the American Journal of Public Health "do not support claims that criminalization reduces cannabis use and that decriminalization increases cannabis use."

Adults consume marijuana in huge numbers regardless of its illegality, and American high school students consistently report marijuana is actually easier to buy than alcohol or tobacco. Nearly three times as many American teens under 15 have tried marijuana as teens in the Netherlands, where marijuana is openly sold to adults in coffee shops. Marijuana regulation lowers youth access, separates marijuana from harder drugs, and helps "make marijuana boring" to kids.

3. Regulation will make marijuana safer than ever.

Get ready for "Reefer Madness" 2.0 as drug warriors try to confuse an increasingly savvy electorate about the harms of marijuana. Since it's now so widely consumed, many people understand that marijuana is safer than alcohol or cigarettes and are increasingly skeptical of laws that treat them so differently. Science backs them up. Marijuana is far less addictive and typically consumed in much smaller amounts. It's impossible to die of a marijuana overdose. Crucially, marijuana lacks alcohol's noxious association with violence, accidents and reckless sexual behavior.

Reports that today's marijuana is more potent are often wildly exaggerated, and potency isn't even related to addiction or other health impacts. Nevertheless, the issue of what's in marijuana argues for regulation not against. Marijuana is consumed by nearly one in ten Californians annually. What they're consuming is of widely varying quality and may contain pesticides, contaminants, and unsafe adulterants. Regulation would provide a framework to control potency, provide for labeling and prohibit dangerous additives. Not only does prohibition provide no such protections, it drives consumers underground where the buyer must truly beware.

Advocates of a mythical "drug free" world may want to put the genie back in the bottle, but we simply can't pretend, ignore or arrest our way out of today's realities. As this country learned by banning alcohol sales in the 1920s and '30s, prohibition of a widely popular commodity will never work. Marijuana prohibition causes more social harm than good in the form of mass arrests, wasted criminal justice resources, out-of-control youth access, and unregulated products consumed by millions. It's time to regulate adult use of marijuana once and for all.

Stephen Gutwillig is the California state director of the Drug Policy Alliance.

Felony Marijuana Cases Getting Tossed Out Of Court

SAN FRANCISCO — Police in a northern California town thought they had an open-and-shut case when they seized more than two pounds of marijuana from a couple's home, even though doctors authorized the pair to use pot for medical purposes.

San Francisco police thought the same with a father and son team they suspected of abusing the state's medical marijuana law by allegedly operating an illegal trafficking operation.

But both cases were tossed out along with many other marijuana possession cases in recent weeks because of a California Supreme Court ruling that has police, prosecutors and defense attorneys scrambling to make sense of a gray legal area: What is the maximum amount of cannabis a medical marijuana patient can possess?

No one can say for sure how many dismissals and acquittals have been prompted by the ruling, but the numbers are stacking up since the Supreme Court on Jan. 21 tossed out Patrick Kelly's marijuana possession conviction.

The high court struck down a 7-year-old state law that imposed an 8-ounce limit on the amount of pot medical users of marijuana could possess. The court said patients are entitled to a "reasonable" amount of the drug to treat their ailments.

Law enforcement officials say the ruling has made the murky legal landscape of marijuana policy in California even more challenging to enforce.

Since California voters legalized medical marijuana in 1996, there has been tension between local law enforcement officials and federal authorities, who view marijuana as absolutely illegal.

That tension is expected to become even more pronounced if the state's voters approve a November ballot measure legalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana.

"The way the law is now it puts law enforcement between a rock and a hard place," said Martin J. Mayer, a lawyer who represents California State Sheriff's Association, California Police Chief's Association and California Peace Officers' Association. "The measure, if it passes, will make it even more difficult. They just don't like being in the middle.

Prosecutors are backing away from some cases filed before the court ruling.

"Gray is not a good color for the law," said Shasta County District Attorney Gerald Benito, who dismissed a case earlier this month and is considering dropping several more because of the ruling. "It makes it very difficult for us to enforce the law – I think everyone is crying out for a clear line."

Benito cited the Supreme Court ruling in dropping charges on March 5 against James Bradley Hall, who was arrested in October and charged with growing 40 marijuana plants.

The next week, a San Francisco jury acquitted a father and son charged with growing three dozen plants. The lawyers for Thomas Chang, 62, and his son, Errol Chang, 30, based their defense on the Kelly case, arguing that the men needed that much pot to treat their medical conditions.

In Vacaville, located between San Francisco and Sacramento, prosecutors in February dropped their two-year pursuit of Johanna and Joe Azevedo, a husband and wife charged with possessing about two pounds of marijuana. Both sides agreed to put the Azevedo case on hold until the Supreme Court decided the Kelly case.

"Fighting this pretty well drained what little money we had," Johanna Azevedo said of her legal fight with Solano County prosecutors. "But it was a very happy day when the Kelly case was announced."

Still, not all defense attorneys and marijuana advocates are as content with the ruling as the Azevedos and others who had their criminal cases dropped.

Some argue that clear-cut limits actually would shield medical marijuana patients from law enforcement officials who have a strict interpretation of what constitutes a "reasonable" amount.

"I wish there was a bright line," said Bruce Margolin, one of the nation's most renowned marijuana defense attorneys. "It's the only protection against arrest."

A closely-watched Sacramento case was expected to help clarify what a reasonable amount of medical marijuana is. But it further muddied the question.

The jury acquitted Matthew Zugsberger of a felony possession charge but convicted him of a felony charge of marijuana transportation for trying to take three pounds of marijuana from the Sacramento airport to New Orleans in 2008. The jury, which deliberated for more than three days, also convicted Zugsberger of a misdemeanor possession charge. In the end, nothing was solved.

"The jury was absolutely confused," said his attorney Grant Pegg. "What is reasonable is an absolutely gray area."

Despite the confusion, there does not appear to be a political push to develop guidelines, which the Supreme Court said must be done by voters.

Law enforcement lobbying arms, such as the California District Attorney Association, steer clear of most medical marijuana issues because of the wide variety of views of the law.

"It is different than a lot of areas in criminal law where there is a consensus," said W. Scott Thorpe, chief executive of the district attorney's association. "There are varying approaches from county to county in the way law enforcement is dealing with medical marijuana laws."

Buy some candy from my kid so he can win a prize from his little league.... 

Chocolate bars. Four Flavors: Almond-Crisp-Milk-Caramel.

Delicious.

Box $40 local/ $50 w/shipping

PayPal: http://bit.ly/9BmOge