Archive for July, 2011

A Cynical Shift in Prohibitionist Rhetoric

July 18th, 2011

In the beginning (of the 2011 legislative session), prohibitionist rhetoric concerning medical marijuana was alarming, even hysterical, completely over the top. A few examples:

Senator Essman, speaking in support of the repeal bill: “The greater good here is not losing a generation of young people, and that is why I am voting yes on this repeal bill.”

Representative Milburn, speaking in support of repeal: “This is rampant, it’s permeating through our society, it’s into our schools and families, it’s individual degradation, it’s causing huge problems…the tragic events taking place in Montana, changing society, changing culture.”

And of course, the instant classic from Representative Howard: “It’s poison, a kind of poison. It’s kind of like taking arsenic with Valium®, you’re going to feel good until it kills you…. it is affecting our schools and work, every facet of our life in Montana, and it is slowly but surely dragging us down. It is a drug induced society…. it’s a scourge.”

As a parenthetical aside, what exactly is a scourge?

scourge  (skûrj)
n.
1. A source of widespread dreadful affliction and devastation such as that caused by pestilence or war.
2. A means of inflicting severe suffering, vengeance, or punishment.

Recently, the rhetoric of our opposition has shifted away from the scourge, to focus on the state/federal conflict in marijuana law.

Senator Shockley claimed last week: “The Legislature realized the tough situation that federal law enforcement was put in by the current law, and the risk to Montana citizens who wished to benefit from medical marijuana, either as a grower or a medical user. The Legislature was attempting to limit production in a way that would not attract federal attention.”

Essman, too: “The Legislature was grappling with trying to conform the law to a series of letters from U.S. attorneys that indicated a commercial business model would still be prosecuted…So that’s why we voted for that approach.”

With a slippery sidestep, now they’re saying they were just trying to protect us from federal law enforcement. Their absurd hyperbole didn’t work, so they’ve shifted gears to try and get us to believe that they were trying to protect…. brace yourself… people who grow marijuana. Does anyone else find that hard to believe?
Most Montanans recognized the earlier prohibitionist statements as ridiculous lies.

Most Montanans acknowledge that marijuana has been around a long time, lots of people have tried it, some people like it, and some people derive real therapeutic benefits from it.

We don’t have to lie. We have truth, liberty, and justice on our side, so we can simply continue telling the truth.

This Federal Bullshit Has Got To Stop

July 6th, 2011

Dear President Obama,

You have better things to do.

Here we go again. Montana marijuana farmers facing 40 years in federal prison. Here’s some more. And there are more, all over.

The famed “Holder memo“, expertly crafted to  raise hopes and then destroy lives, has now been clarified, to ensure everyone understands that the United States federal government will attack anyone who tries to run a responsible and ethical business that involves farming and selling cannabis. They say it’s a bad use of “resources” to go after patients dying of cancer and AIDS (who could disagree?), but anyone who grows and sells risks the full and violent force of the DEA, IRS, FBI, etc.

Meanwhile, 58% of voters in the West believe marijuana should be legal for grown-ups, Montanans consume 30,000 pounds a year, and are generally eager to be taxed for the privilege of “getting legal” and diverting their financial support of the criminal black market to legitimate local businesses.

If I was king for a day? First, I’d direct the feds (with their 104,000 cops in 80 agencies) to focus our tax dollars on some other categories of crime:

That’s a short list I came up with in 15 minutes. There are proper, useful, just roles for federal law enforcement. I want my tax dollars to fight these crimes.

Arresting and incarcerating cannabis farmers providing an agricultural commodity to responsible adults doesn’t make the list. So, stop, please.

Agree? The audience for our objections includes several elected officials. Please give them a (polite) piece of your mind, and ask them to stand up for Montanans who have participated responsibly in the Montana medical marijuana marketplace. Ask Denny Rehberg (our federal Representative, call (202) 225-3211 right now) to support  HR 2306, which would end federal marijuana prohibition.

Ask Baucus and Tester (call both right now), our Montana Senators, to pressure the Department of Justice and the Obama administration to leave Montana alone when it comes to marijuana. We’re Montanans, we’ll figure it out, please give us the freedom to do so without your federal guns blazing.

And tell the Obama administration: After your statements during the campaign, Montanans are deeply disappointed in your hypocrisy. Stop it.

The federal/state conflict question is an important one, and now that our neighbors continue to be rounded up and threatened with being carted off to federal prison, now’s the time for you to speak up. Please take action, now.

Independence and Unity in Cannabis Politics

July 4th, 2011

“Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice.”

- Thomas Paine

All our activism is undergirded by principles, a “constitution” of moral values that inspires us to action, and identifying those can help clarify strategy and tactics in the battle to end cannabis prohibition. For NORML, the end goal is legalization.

A recent essay by a cannabis publishing entrepreneur in Montana alleges the legalization movement will “sink” medical marijuana. (The essay then argues that the author’s advertising-supported trade magazine is superior to its competitors. It may be, and I don’t intend to critique that portion of the essay here.)

But right at the outset, the essay makes a specific attack on what the author refers to as the “Culture Club”. Perhaps this is an admonition to never admit that marijuana can be enjoyable, enhance experiences of art and philosophy and sex, and has a tangible influence on music and culture. Or perhaps it’s a specific criticism of a competitor’s publication which bills itself as a “cannabis lifestyle magazine”. Or maybe it’s intended to chastise anyone who uses advocacy rhetoric inconsistent with the tired (but true) “precious medicine for the sick and dying” theme.

Regardless, it’s a divisive approach, and more damaging than advocating for systems other than medical-use only (which, in my view, is a flawed policy).

Today is Independence Day, and while for some it means flag waving and parades and burgers and fireworks, I prefer to recognize the patriotism inherent in our work in cannabis politics. Consider these words, which should sound familiar to Americans:

…all men are created equal, that they are endowed… with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…. Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it

Cannabis prohibition is destructive to liberty and happiness, that’s for sure. And we’re all working hard to alter or abolish it.

Cannabis activists are by their very nature an eclectic, iconoclastic bunch of “outlaws”, with a passion for action and a healthy distrust of authority. We’re “independent-minded”, to be sure. So we’re going to come at this battle from different angles. We’ll all have an opinion about the perfect strategy.

What unites us is a fundamental principle:  that the government is lying about  this plant, and it’s wrong to put people in jail for it.

What flows from that principle is a policy proposal: end cannabis prohibition, and create a legal system for all responsible adults to have safe access if they want to.

In the West, the public will support such a proposal if it’s framed well.

As for me — I wrote a few months back about the reasons for medical marijuana patients to support policies expanding legal access to all responsible adults, and I sincerely hope that patients will take those words to heart. After all, legalization will be the best thing for patients.

I welcome your thoughtful critique.

 

Montana’s New Medical Cannabis Law — For Now

July 1st, 2011

Recently we posted a bullet-list summary of the implications of SB 423, if it were to become law. The MTCIA lawsuit succeeded in blocking some of the most onerous portions of the law yesterday. Here is what remains (new info in bold):

Patients

  • Your existing card is still valid until it expires (unless you are on probation, in which case your card may offer no protection. The judge suggested that courts decide whether probations should be eligible on a case-by-case basis); eligible patients will be able renew under the new rules.
  • The same medical conditions will continue to qualify you, but if your diagnosis is “severe chronic pain”, the new law is much more strict. The pain must be persistent and of severe intensity, and objectively proven by an X-ray or MRI, or a second physician must confirm the diagnosis after a physical exam.
  • You must be a Montana resident.
  • Once you have your card, if you do not choose a provider, you’ll be able to possess 12 seedlings, 4 mature flowering plants, and 1 ounce of usable marijuana. By choosing a provider, you give up your right to grow for yourself.
  • Failure to notify the state of a change of address within 10 days voids your card.
  • You must carry your medical marijuana card with you at all times.
  • Parents wishing to register their minor children need a second doctor’s recommendation, must submit fingerprints for an FBI background check, and agree that the minor will never smoke marijuana, only use infused products.
  • People under department of corrections supervision are not eligible.
  • Gardens may not be combined and shared, unless you are relatives by blood or marriage.
  • Drivers may be compelled via search warrant to provide a blood sample.  5ng/ml is cause for a DUI charge.
  • If your drivers license is revoked for DUI, your medical marijuana card must be surrendered.
  • Your out of state recommendation offers no protection.

Caregivers

  • Anyone who wishes to grow marijuana for someone else will be subject to a fingerprint background check by the FBI (as of October 1st), as well as a financial background check (unpaid taxes, student loans, child support).
  • If you do not get one of the new cards in June, you must bring in all your plants and product to local law enforcement for destruction before July 1st.
  • You may choose to register as a “marijuana-infused products manufacturer” instead of, or in addition to, registering as a “provider” (grower).
  • If approved, providers will be allowed to grow 4 mature plants and 12 seedlings each for up to 3 unlimited patients.
  • Nobody can sell anything to anyone. No money, nothing of value may be exchanged for marijuana, except that the patient may reimburse the provider for the state application fee.
  • Infused product manufacturers must use separate cookware from that which they prepare “normal” food, and are subject to local health department food preparation rules.
  • You must carry your provider card with you at all times.
  • Law enforcement will be automatically notified of the location of your garden. You may have only one. Law enforcement can conduct unannounced inspections during business hours.
  • Gardens cannot be combined or shared.
  • Must keep a complete set of records showing all transactions with cardholders (by name and ID number), open for inspection by law enforcement at any time during business hours.
  • Advertising of any kind is prohibited, including via electronic media (websites, email). This provision is effective upon passage — mid-May.

Doctors

  • Must describe in writing the medical condition, why it is debilitating, and the extent to which it is debilitating.
  • Must confirm that they have assumed primary responsibility for caring for the patient.
  • Must describe the range of other medications and treatments used to treat the condition.
  • Must confirm that they have reviewed all other medications and supplements and considered their possible interaction with marijuana.
  • Must confirm they have explained the potential risks of marijuana.
  • May not affiliate in any way with providers or infused products manufacturers.
  • May not examine patients where marijuana is being grown.
  • May not offer a discount or incentive to a patient for choosing a particular provider.
  • Will be reported to the Board of Medical Examiners if they recommend for more than 25 patients in a year. This will trigger a formal review of the physician’s practices, for which the physician will be responsible for the costs.
  • Telemedicine recommendations will constitute “unprofessional conduct” under 37-1-316.

Next step? The referendum to block all of SB 423 until it can be voted on by the people in 2012.