In State v. Berringer, (online here: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A137186.htm) the Oregon Court of Appeals held that Oregon was not required to give a California patient’s status as a patient ‘full faith and credit’ (reasoning that that status created an affirmative defense within CA only) and that the California patient’s federal constitutional right to travel did not protect this patient from being prosecuted and convicted under Oregon Law.  Although not a part of the holding, the Court also concluded that the application requirements of the law was ambiguous, and resolved that ambiguity by concluding that the law permits out of state patients to register here.
Initially, the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program (OMMP), acting on advice of its counsel, the Oregon Attorney General, refused to process out of state patient applications.  But, on June 14, 2010, the Oregon Attorney general issued an opinion (online here: http://www.doj.state.or.us/agoffice/agopinions/op_2010_2.pdf) concluding that:  “(1) The OMMA contains no Oregon residency requirement for obtaining an Oregon registry identification card; and, (2) the Oregon legislature could limit eligibility for Oregon registry identification cards to Oregon residents without violating the federal constitutional right to travel.”
In response, the OMMP has issued (http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/ommp/333-008-0020_TEMP.pdf) temporary administrative rules (http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/ommp/333-008-0020_TEMP_text.pdf) amending Oregon Administrative Rule 333-00800020) to facilitate the processing of out of state applications.
Tawana Nichols, the Program Director of the OMMP is quoted in The Oregon Politico
(http://theoregonpolitico.com/blog/2010/07/08/medical-marijuana-no-longer-restricted-to-oregon-residents/) acknowledging this change in policy.
Out of state patients who register with the OMMP will still have to have written documentation from an Oregon attending physician (MD or DO) and will have to designate an Oregon location as their grow site (as with Oregon patients, whether they have one or not).

New York, NY-(ENEWSPF)-July 9, 2010. Experienced marijuana consumers exhibit nominal changes in cognitive performance after inhaling cannabis, according to clinical trial data published online this week in the journal Pharmacology, Biochemistry, and Behavior.
Investigators at Columbia University in New York and the San Francisco Brain Research Institute assessed acute marijuana-related effects on cognitive functioning in 24 volunteers who reported consuming the drug at least 24 times per week.
Researchers determined that participants’ overall performance accuracy on episodic memory and working memory tasks “was not significantly altered by marijuana.”
Authors concluded: “The present findings show that smoked marijuana produced minimal effects on episodic and spatial working memory of near-daily smokers. The overall response accuracy on the word recognition and working memory tasks was unaffected by marijuana, although smoked marijuana did increase the amount of time participants needed to complete these tasks.
“This pattern of effects is consistent with results previously reported by other researchers studying the acute effects of marijuana on cognitive performance of regular users. … The finding … stands in contrast to previous findings in occasional smokers who showed reduced accuracy on these same tasks after marijuana. … The observation that frequent users’ response accuracy is not altered after marijuana smoking to the same extent it is for infrequent users … suggests that near-daily marijuana smokers may have developed tolerance to some marijuana-related behavioral effects.”
http://www.enewspf.com/index.php/latest-news/health-and-fitness/17452-experienced-marijuana-consumers-exhibit-virtually-no-change-in-cognitive-task-performance-after-smoking-study-says-

KALAMAZOO — Twenty years ago, Julie Falco was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis.

And for years after her diagnosis, she tried 30 different prescription medications to ease the pain and discomfort of the disease, with little to no success.
But in 2004, she tried medical marijuana, and she started to feel better. Her mood improved, as well as her mobility. The pain lessened considerably.
Since 2007, medical marijuana is the only drug she uses.
“I got off everything,” said Falco, 45, of Chicago. “Now I feel better than ever.”
Falco was one of about 50 people who attended the first day of the two-day “Science and Compassionate Care Seminar,” put on by 420 University at the Radisson Plaza Hotel & Suites in downtown Kalamazoo.
The seminar features several workshops on a wide variety of medical marijuana issues, from how to properly cultivate marijuana plants to the therapeutic value of the drug to understanding Michigan’s medical marijuana law.
Video cameras hooked-up to computer equipment broadcasted the seminar around the world in the form of an Internet stream.
One of the first speakers Saturday was Robert J. Melamede, president and chief executive officer of Cannabis Science Inc., associate professor at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs and nationally recognized expert on the science of marijuana.
Melamede said that the human brain contains what’s called the endocannabinoid system, a series of receptors that are involved with a variety of physiological processes ranging from memory to mood to appetite, among several others.
“It’s like a thermostat that regulates the body,” he said.
And it’s also a system that can be heightened by the use of marijuana, he said, which he called “an essential nutrient” that provides anti-aging properties by “smoothing out” free radicals in the body, which contribute to a host of diseases.
Apart from the therapeutic use of marijuana by those like Falco, or others with a wasting disease, cancer or AIDS, Melamede touted the use of marijuana — “a puff or two a day” — by healthy people as a way to live a longer, more healthful life.
Marijuana — and more specifically the cannabinoids in it — staves off inflammation, delays the onset of auto-immune diseases, inhibits the formation of Alzheimer’s disease and can help treat or even cure some types of cancer, he said.
“Cannabinoids have curative or at least palliative properties,” Melamede said. “It should be the first line of treatment.”
But even though Michigan and several other states have medical marijuana laws that enable those who qualify to possess and use the drug to treat a host of illnesses, the drug is still illegal.
And for Melamede, that’s not just a problem, it’s negligent considering the myriad positive properties of the drug, he said.
“The fact that we have an anti-aging drug that kills cancer is proof of their (the government’s) incompetence” in terms of marijuana still being illegal, he said.
This weekend’s seminar is the first for 420 University, said Michelle Martin, vice president for development for the university. It is planning seminars in Chicago and cities in Wisconsin in coming months, spreading its message of the benefits of marijuana.
And the group believes it can make an impact.
“It gives people more confidence that marijuana is useful as they speak to people who have been in the industry for a long time,” Martin said. “We’re starting to build a platform for a discussion of the issues.”
http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2010/07/marijuana_is_anti-aging_and_cu.html

Alice Huffman’s explanation of the California NAACP’s endorsement of Proposition 19, the state initiative calling for the regulated legalization and taxation of marijuana, was well reasoned and smartly put. But she was promptly pounced upon, smeared by a collection of out-of-touch, fear-mongering detractors, including “more than 20 African American religious and community leaders” headed by one Bishop Ron Allen.
Mr. Allen’s statement was illogical, and insulting and condescending to the multitudes of African American civic leaders, including law enforcement officers and members of the clergy, who are working to end a drug war that has had devastating effects on communities of color.
Young black men have been hit particularly hard. As a new study by the Drug Policy Alliance points out, young blacks consume marijuana at rates lower than young whites. Yet in the 25 largest counties of California where blacks constitute 7 percent of the population, African American men are being arrested at double, triple, or even quadruple the rates for whites. This is not accidental.
Born of bigotry and sourced in fear, U.S. drug policy began with conveniently legalized discrimination against the Chinese, then Latinos, and finally African Americans.
That many of today’s law enforcement officers deny overt racism in enforcing drug laws, that they claim they’re simply responding to citizen complaints of street corner dealing and open-air drug markets, makes the practice no less ruinous to the lives of young black men.
As Huffman points out, ending the drug war — or, more modestly, bringing a halt to the indisputable madness of marijuana prohibition — is imperative if we are to help halt the institutionalized denial of civil rights and civil liberties in African American communities.
Yet, speaking as “President and CEO” of the “International Faith-Based Coalition,” a pro-drug war organization that seems to have sprung up out of nowhere to combat Proposition 19, Bishop Allen addressed a news conference on the steps of the state capital. “Why would the NAACP advocate for blacks to stay high?” he said. “It’s going to cause crime to go up,” he said. “There will be more drug babies,” he said. Huffman “must resign,” he said.
Stop and think, Mr. Allen: Huffman was hardly urging blacks to “stay high,” or even to pick up a single joint; marijuana legalization will cause crime to go down, not up; and there will be fewer drug babies.
How do we know this? History, science, and common sense. Between 1920 and 1933, alcohol prohibition produced an explosion of violent crime, drive-by shootings, overdose deaths (think bad bathtub gin), and obscene profits for bootleggers — yesteryear’s drug cartels and street dealers. It took only 13 years for Americans to come to their senses and repeal the Volstead Act. In so doing, we put the skids to an illicit industry whose monopolized commerce had guaranteed street violence. Alcohol was “re-legalized,” its wholesaling and retailing “re-regulated.” Taxes, once again, were collected. Crime went down.
And that feckless comment about “more drug babies”? Ponder this, Mr. Allen. If a parent chooses not to consume marijuana solely because it is illegal, is that really the kind of law-abiding, conscientious parent who, under a newly legalized system, would put his or her baby at risk?
The great majority of today’s 25 million or so regular marijuana consumers don’t drive stoned, beat their partners, rob convenience stores, or feed THC-laced brownies to their toddlers. They’ve simply chosen to consume an illegal drug that they know to be demonstrably safer and healthier than alcohol, with far fewer harmful effects than tobacco.
Of course, some consume too much marijuana. In Mr. Allen’s words, they “stay high.” But under a system of regulated legalization, these individuals would be treated as medical patients, not law-breakers. With no criminal stigma attached they’d be more likely to seek help for their affliction. And, under a public health vs. criminal justice orientation, they would be more likely to get that help.
Why continue to criminalize behavior we know, scientifically, to be safer than today’s legal, commercially marketed alcohol and tobacco products? Why force millions of Americans to rely on a distribution system that cannot guarantee quality, a product free of dangerous additives? Why feed the self-perpetuating violence and greed machine that is the current “cartel” and street-gang system? Why suffer year after year the loss of tax revenues (pot’s the country’s top cash crop) that the government could be using to fund public safety, abuse prevention, education, and drug treatment?
Fortunately, Huffman, a tough woman with no quit in her when it comes to justice, has made it clear she’s not backing off. She’s received strong support from other notable black leaders, including a former chairman of the national NAACP. Julian Bond told her that, “…you and the California NAACP are as right as you can be. The war on drugs is an absolute failure. It targets black people.”
The black community has from the beginning suffered far more drug war casualties than any other segment of our society. Who, ultimately, will capture the larger African American community’s imagination when it comes to future drug policy? An angry, ill-informed man of the cloth whose “lock ’em and throw away the key” strategy promises to make matters worse?
Or Alice Huffman, whose spirit of logic, compassion and courage promises to rally support for the passage of Proposition 19?
Legalized marijuana, taxed, regulated, and controlled, would go a long way toward ending a uniquely destructive form of American racism and discrimination.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/norm-stamper/the-politics-of-cannabis_b_641955.html

My favorite definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. When Reagan started the drug war back in the 80’s, he should have been smacked upside the head with a book that talked about the problems brought on by Prohibition. Because, thanks to Reagan, we’ve wasted hundreds of billions of dollars and countless lives fighting a war that is unwinnable.
As Prohibition showed us, if people want to use drugs (and alcohol is a drug), they’re going to find a way to do it. And according to the Declaration of Independence, if they think it will make them happy, and they’re not violating anyone else’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then they have the right to use their drug of choice!
It’s complete and utter insanity to keep drugs illegal. Below, I’ve compiled just a few of the reasons why we should legalize all drugs.

1. It would save tens of billions of dollars every year trying to prevent the flow of drugs into the US.
2. It would free up jail space so we can keep the really harmful criminals like child molesters and rapists and murderers in jail.
3. It would free up the court system, which is bogged down by so many drug trials it’s ridiculous. Estimates are that about 50% of judicial case loads now are drug cases. And 50% of inmates are there on drug charges.
4. It would preserve families. Mothers/fathers who go to jail can’t take care of their kids.
5. It would lessen the welfare load. People who go to jail or get a criminal record even if no jail time is served have a hard time getting a job when they get out. As a result, they end up working for minimum wage and can’t support themselves and end up on welfare.
6. It would create a huge new tax revenue. It could be taxed as outrageously high as cigarettes and we’d make tens of billions of dollars every year.
7. It could be regulated and therefore accidental overdoses from stuff that’s too pure or stuff that’s been cut with rat poison or some other lethal chemical won’t cause any harm to users.
8. It will slow the spread of HIV, hepatitis and other blood-born diseases that pass from IV drug user to IV drug user and their intimate partners and even to their children if a pregnancy results.
9. It will remove the power that gangs and drug cartels hold nowadays. If it’s legal, gangs don’t have turf to fight over. Drug cartels can’t wield the power and fear that they have now. Getting rid of gangs and drug cartels removes a whole host of OTHER problems as well.
10. Farmers who are now being paid to keep from planting their fields can now grow crops like pot. Hemp plants are very useful not only for the leaves but for rope and a whole host of other products that can be made from hemp. It is one of the most versatile and useful plants on the planet.
11. If drugs are legal, the stigma associated with getting help for being an addict is lessened. Some of the money from taxing the drugs can be used for effective treatment facilities for those who want to quit.

We’ve now spent more than 20 years trying to stem to flow of drugs into the US and it’s not working. And yet we keep pouring money into this black hole called the war on drugs. Not only money but lives of police officers killed trying to stop the drug traffickers, innocent civilians caught in the crossfire of drug wars, the children and families of not only the addicts but those killed in this insane war…
It’s time to try something new.

Despite the city’s enforcement and court moves against Lake Forest Wellness Center, the medical marijuana dispensary has kept it doors open through the ongoing appeals process–and was able to celebrate at least a partial victory as the last of 21 clinics in town still in operation.
Now, the dispensary has competition again.

Illustration by Jay Brockman

Like Lake Forest Wellness Center, Vale Tudu Café is on the receiving end of a stay granted by Santa Ana’s Fourth Appellate District of the state Court of Appeal, which at least temporarily halts a preliminary injunction by a Superior Court judge that shut down the dispensary.
Joining Vale Tudu Café in reopening its doors is Care Mutual (formerly GGECO) in Foothill Ranch, which is within Lake Forest city limits.
“I look at this as a great opportunity for the city and collectives to sit down and work out a plan for peaceful co-existence,” attorney Christopher Glew, who represents the two dispensaries, tells the Orange County Register. (He previously chatted up our Nick Schou here.)
“It’s one thing to extend the olive branch when we’re on the losing end,” Glew continues, “but we continue to extend it, even when we’re winning. It’s obvious our true intent is to find a way to co-exist without further litigation. We want regulation, patient access and everyone to be happy.”
Harshing his mellow is Jeffrey Dunn, the attorney representing the city of Lake Forest, which sought the Superior Court relief to shut dispensaries down in town.
“This has been an important issue to the city,” Dunn tells the Reg‘s Erika I. Ritchie. “They [dispensaries] create a whole host of problems for the city. They are not and never have been an allowable use.”
It’s too bad Dunn represents the powers-that-be and not the actual people. People like Molly Sanders, a 28-year-old Rancho Santa Margarita resident who was diagnosed with breast cancer eight months ago and uses medical marijuana to deal with extreme nausea brought on by her twice-weekly chemo therapy treatments.
She was one of the first people at Care Mutual’s door when it reopened yesterday, Ritchie reveals.
“It’s a blessing they’re open again,” Sanders reportedly said. “This is the only thing that helps me with my nausea. I didn’t know how to get the medical marijuana when they were closed.”

By John Richardson
Staff Writer

Maine’s Department of Health and Human Services has selected three licensees to operate Maine’s first six medical marijuana dispensaries.
A group with California roots, Northeast Patients Group,  was chosen to operate the dispensary in Cumberland County. That group also will operate three of the state’s other dispensaries.
None of the six applicants for a York County dispensary were considered qualified under the state’s scoring criteria, so the state is reopening the application proicess for that license.
The selected operators will now begin applying for local operating permits and growing  supplies of the medication.
The successful applications may be viewed and scoring summaries are available on the DHHS website.
Here is the full news release.
AUGUSTA- The Division of Licensing and Regulatory Services (DLRS) in the Department of Health and Human Services announced the selection of three non-profit corporations to dispense marijuana under Maine’s Medical Use of Marijuana Act.
A dispensary system has been established to assist registered patients whose physicians believe they will benefit from the medical use of marijuana for certain serious medical conditions.
A total of 27 applications were reviewed by a four-member panel. They were scored based on criteria outlined in the application instructions, including their plan to operate as a non-profit corporation long-term, convenience of location, prior business experience, patient education, record-keeping, inventory, and quality control.
Those who obtained the highest scores in their Districts and met the required minimum score of 70 were:
District 2 (Cumberland County): Northeast Patients Group
District 3 (Franklin, Oxford, Androscoggin): Remedy Compassion Center
District 4 (Waldo, Lincoln, Sagadahoc, Knox): Northeast Patients Group
District 5 (Somerset, Kennebec): Northeast Patient Group
District 6 (Piscataquis, Penobscot): Northeast Patient Group
District 8 (Aroostook): Safe Alternatives of Fort Kent
In District 1 (York County) and District 7 (Washington, Hancock Counties), no applicants reached the minimum score needed to be considered for selection.  There were six applicants in District 1 and two applicants in District 7.
“We are re-opening the application process in these Districts,’ said Cathy Cobb, Director of the DLRS. “Those who were not selected can make changes to their plans and re-apply.” Cobb said the deadline to re-apply will be August 20 and that details can be found on the DLRS web site.
DHHS Commissioner Brenda Harvey commended the committee for its dedication and thorough review.
“I appreciate the many hours that the panel and our licensing staff have dedicated to this work and to adhering to this aggressive time schedule,’’ Harvey said.
Cobb said that she will be meeting with the dispensaries chief executives to review their applications and to discuss next steps. She anticipates it will take between two and four months for a dispensary to be open to patients.
http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/State-chooses-marijuana-dispensaries.html

The Denver City Council amendment that essentially zoned Altitude Organic Medicine out of existence was fast-tracked due to what most observers interpret as a state moratorium on approving new medical marijuana businesses until July 2011.
But Boulder assistant city attorney Kathy Haddock believes the legal language allegedly establishing this moratorium is so muddy that her community won’t enforce it.

For Haddock, the problems pertain to contradictions in HB 1284, a measure signed into law by Governor Bill Ritter that’s intended to regulate Colorado’s medical marijuana industry.
“In part 1a, it implies that after July 1, 2010, no licenses will be granted,” she notes. Here’s the pertinent section:

12-43.3-103. Applicability. (1) (a) ON JULY 1, 2010, A PERSON WHO IS OPERATING AN ESTABLISHED, LOCALLY APPROVED BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CULTIVATION, MANUFACTURE, OR SALE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA OR MEDICAL MARIJUANA-INFUSED PRODUCTS OR A PERSON WHO HAS APPLIED TO A LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO OPERATE A LOCALLY APPROVED BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CULTIVATION, MANUFACTURE, OR SALE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA OR MEDICAL MARIJUANA-INFUSED PRODUCTS WHICH IS SUBSEQUENTLY GRANTED MAY CONTINUE TO OPERATE THAT BUSINESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY APPLICABLE STATE OR LOCAL LAWS. “ESTABLISHED”, AS USED IN THIS PARAGRAPH (a), SHALL MEAN OWNING OR LEASING A SPACE WITH A STOREFRONT AND REMITTING SALES TAXES IN A TIMELY MANNER ON RETAIL SALES OF THE BUSINESS AS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO 39-26-105,C.R.S., AS WELL AS ANY APPLICABLE LOCAL SALES TAXES.

However, Haddock continues, “subsection b talks about cities issuing licenses after August 1, 2010.” That paragraph reads:

(b) TO CONTINUE OPERATING A BUSINESS OR OPERATION AS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH (a) OF THIS SUBSECTION (1), THE OWNER SHALL, ON OR BEFORE AUGUST 1, 2010, COMPLETE FORMS AS PROVIDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND SHALL PAY A FEE, WHICH SHALL BE CREDITED TO THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA LICENSE CASH FUND ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12-43.3-501. THE PURPOSE OF THE FEE SHALL BE TO PAY FOR THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS OF THE STATE LICENSING AUTHORITY AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF APPLICATION PROCEDURES AND RULES NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THIS ARTICLE. PAYMENT OF THE FEE AND COMPLETION OF THE FORM SHALL NOT CREATE A LOCAL OR STATE LICENSE OR A PRESENT OR FUTURE ENTITLEMENT TO RECEIVE A LICENSE. AN OWNER ISSUED A LOCAL LICENSE AFTER AUGUST 1, 2010, SHALL COMPLETE THE FORMS AND PAY THE FEE PURSUANT TO THIS PARAGRAPH (b) WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF ISSUANCE OF THE LOCAL LICENSE. IN ADDITION TO ANY CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR SELLING WITHOUT A LICENSE, IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL TO CONTINUE OPERATING A BUSINESS OR OPERATION WITHOUT FILING THE FORMS AND PAYING THE FEE AS DESCRIBED IN THIS SUBSECTION (b), AND ANY VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE PRIMA-FACIE EVIDENCE OF UNSATISFACTORY CHARACTER, RECORD, AND REPUTATION FOR ANY FUTURE APPLICATION FOR LICENSE UNDER THIS ARTICLE.

“And then,” Haddock goes on, “section 103, part two, says local governments can regulate the licensing and sale of medical marijuana prior to July 1, 2011.” Here’s that passage:

(2) (a) PRIOR TO JULY 1, 2011, A COUNTY, CITY AND COUNTY, OR MUNICIPALITY MAY ADOPT AND ENFORCE A RESOLUTION OR ORDINANCE LICENSING, REGULATING, OR PROHIBITING THE CULTIVATION OR SALE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA. IN A COUNTY, CITY AND COUNTY, OR MUNICIPALITY WHERE SUCH AN ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION HAS BEEN ADOPTED, A PERSON WHO IS NOT REGISTERED AS A PATIENT OR PRIMARY CAREGIVER PURSUANT TO SECTION 25-1.5-106, C.R.S., AND WHO IS CULTIVATING OR SELLING MEDICAL MARIJUANA SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 14 OF ARTICLE XVIII OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION UNLESS THE PERSON IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE COUNTY OR MUNICIPAL LAW.

On top of that, Haddock counts “nineteen specific references in the statute” to local governments being able to enact their own rules when it comes to medical marijuana businesses.
“Putting all these things together, I don’t know how the state can say local governments have to stop issuing licenses. Plus, for a moratorium, there usually has to be some kind of emergency. At least there does for local governments. And I don’t recall anything in the discussion about why there needs to be a moratorium, and there’s no explanation of why one is needed in the statute. If they explained a reason for the moratorium, it would at least be a declaration of why it was necessary. But the specific language in the statute still says local governments can issue licenses.”
Just as problematic from her perspective, “we’ve had no guidance about what the state’s going to do when cities exercise local control.”
Presumably, many of these issues are being addressed by folks at the Department of Revenue, who are currently trying to put rule-making meat on HB 1284’s bones. In the meantime, though, what are would-be entrepreneurs to do?
Medical marijuana attorney Danyel Joffe is advising her clients to treat the moratorium as genuine even if there are questions about it, since it may take legal action to clear up the confusion. That makes sense to Haddock.
“The state can kind of do what it wants,” she says. “So I don’t know what I would do if I was in business. They’re in a very difficult position.”
Nonetheless, Boulder’s official view is that it can continue issuing licenses, moratorium or no. If the result is a lawsuit from an entrepreneur approved by Boulder but spurned by the state, “city council would have to decide what to do,” Haddock allows. “If the city was named, we’d defend it, but if it was just between the dispensary and the state, it would be up to the council.”
Haddock laments that the final piece of legislation was so unclear in so many ways. “This bill kept being rewritten substantially until very late in the process,” she points out, adding, “I would love to have some answers to these things.”
And in less than a year.

July 8, 2010 /EIN Presswire/ — Some say the legalization of marijuana in the U.S. would help curb the horrific drug-cartel violence just over the border in Mexico. Others say legalizing marijuana is a way to raise much needed tax revenue, especially in currently economically challenged California. The head of the California NAACP, however, says marijuana should be made legal in order to stop civil rights violations and discriminatory law enforcement practices.
CA NAACP President Alice Huffman recently threw her organization’s weight behind California Proposition 19, the Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative to legalize marijuana, because marijuana laws are disproportionately applied to African-Americans.
A recently released study by the Drug Policy Alliance, “Targeting Blacks for Marijuana: Possession Arrests of African Americans in California, 2004-08,” says that in California’s largest counties, “blacks are arrested for marijuana possession at higher rates than whites, typically at double, triple or even quadruple the rate of whites.” This despite the fact, the study says, that “U.S. government studies consistently find that young blacks use marijuana at lower rates than young whites.”
http://uspolitics.einnews.com/pr-news/95614-legalization-of-marijuana-a-civil-rights-issue-ca-naacp-chief-says-yes

Smell of marijuana and the sight and smell of 20 air fresheners hanging from the top of the cab weren’t enough to justify warrantless search, court finds

Michael Booth

New Jersey Law Journal

July 08, 2010