Marijuana News

Here is something on my personal hero, the mighty and indefatigueable Carl Olsen: Medical Marijuana and Iowa Law The law in the state of Iowa is simple; if you're caught using or selling marijuana you will be punished. A Des Moines is challenging that law and trying to add Iowa to the list of states allowing medical marijuana. Elias Johnson Reporter June 1, 2009 Carl Olsen has never been shy about his feelings towards marijuana. "This is something that's a civil rights issue," Olsen said. When he met a man at the capitol in 1990, his fight to legalize the controlled substance took a big step forward. "I met a medical user there, George McMahon, who is a plaintiff in this case and he had gotten a license to use marijuana. He was smoking at the capitol and I said "aren't you afraid of getting arrested?" and he said "I have a federal license; I'm legal to smoke marijuana." I thought this guy won, here's the living proof right here in front of me," Olsen said. Six years later California voters approved the Compassionate Act which allowed the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Since then twelve others states have passed similar laws. This past April a Polk county judge ruled the Iowa board of Pharmacy to review if the drug is mis-classified in Iowa. "I'm willing to look at the scientific evidence," said pharmacist and IBP board member, "Both pro and con." Monday the board discussed the issue at a public hearing and echoed similar thoughts. "I think that was not addressed appropriately throughout the court," said pharmacist and IBP board member Susan Frey. "The fact that the other states have done this does not mean Iowa has to follow suit," pharmacist and IBP board member Edward Maier. "If all your friends jumped of a bridge does that mean you should jump off too?" said pharmacist and IBP board member Deeann Wedemeyer-Olesen. Despite the board's comments, Olsen is unfazed "It is always helps when you're on the right side of the issue to have them on the wrong side and have them look vigorously mean and bad. The board effectively did that today and I would like to thank them for doing that," said Olsen. He promises to continue his fight. Our boy Carl was popped for twenty tons awhile back and did a fed stint. I love this guy!!

Yep, the fear and greed level is not only measured by the VAX, but also by the incredible crushing power of murdering debate on a publically valuable subject right here in America. What's the VAX? it is a stock price that literally provides a measure of fear and greed to us stock investors. How is it that a super stoner like your humble narrator, SuckmeBush, would ever ever know about such a thing what with all that reduction of IQ and the onslaught of a-motivational syndrome that comes of smoking pot? and the VAX is very scared right now, isn't it? oh, you don't know? what drug are You on? heh heh. shows what happens when you read stoner thoughts, you get smarter! how do we keep on getting smarter? we READ. so... get your toke on and read the following: City Council Upholds Mayor's Veto After Hint of Losing Funds FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 14, 2009 El Paso, TX -- On Tuesday the El Paso City Council voted, 4-4, to sustain the mayor's veto of a resolution calling for a national debate on drug legalization as a solution to the cartel violence problem plaguing sister city Cuidad Juarez, just across the Mexico border. Three of the four council members voting to uphold the mayor's silencing of the discussion said on the record during council deliberations that they did so only because Congressman Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) and the city's state legislative delegation sent letters raising the possibility that El Paso would lose federal and state money should it continue insisting that legalization is a debatable solution to illegal drug trade violence. Councilman Beto O'Rourke, who championed the legalization debate resolution, said it is "a sad day in America when you're threatened if you want to have an open and honest debate about an issue that affects your community." Rep. Reyes, who sent his deputy chief of staff to testify at Tuesday's council meeting, also canceled a scheduled breakfast with O'Rourke on Monday, instead meeting with Mexican President Felipe Calderon, who successfully requested $1.4 billion in U.S. anti-drug aid in 2008, and who also met with President-elect Barack Obama on Monday. "This level intervention in quashing a spirited debate about a serious policy conundrum is chilling," said Terry Nelson, a 30-year veteran federal anti-drug agent and a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a 10,000-member organization representing police, prosecutors, judges and others who fought on the front lines of the "war on drugs" and now support legalization and regulation. "With so many killings and kidnappings by the illegal drug cartels, we just can't afford to keep avoiding an important discussion about the failures of our decades-long 'war on drugs.' We're looking forward to seeing U.S. Sen. Jim Webb's recently announced blue ribbon commission on high incarceration rates taking a good, hard look at why so many nonviolent drug offenders fill our prisons." Rep. Reyes and state legislators haven't yet detailed the specifics of any funding threats against El Paso they've been warned about or from where they came. The states legislators' and congressman's letter are online at http://www.elpasotexas.gov/muni_clerk/agenda/01-13-09/011309ADD2B1.pdf and http://www.elpasotexas.gov/muni_clerk/agenda/01-13-09/011309ADD2B2.pdf respectively. Six votes were needed to override the mayor's veto of the resolution calling for the national debate to continue. For more information, please visit http://www.CopsSayLegalizeDrugs.com or contact Tom Angell at (202) 557-4979 or media@leap.cc. Just exactly like the LEAP cops tell us all: Al Capone and Pablo Escabar... same problem, same solution. And senator grassley? surrender in the war on drugs and shut the living hell your lying mouth up. you are a horrible embaressment to the people of Iowa! the bush!

Personally, I am defo convinced that far more peeps are in need of medication than know they need it. Medication from cannabis is going to become far more "normal" in the future once we scientifically demonstrate that pot is a vital food for brain and body cells, that is. Then, I believe, we will be giving our children cannabis-extract oil in candy flavored chews for the kids as well as us older kids. But, we aren't there yet. Fortunately we have these helpers in uniform because we have created this tremendous, false scarcity by condemning pot as a terrible narcotic like our moron senator Chaz Grassley here in Iowa insists we keep going on with. I say "fortunately" because they are helping break up the phony prohibition. Unfortunately, they are drug dealers, probabo, anyways. These folks are charging way too much for pot and that will always have a bush bitchin everytime lol Welp, here's a story on our latest helper: ST. LOUIS (AP) — Sheriff Raymond M. Martin has been the law for nearly 20 years in a struggling southern Illinois county. But federal prosecutors say he's been breaking it lately by peddling pounds of pot, some seized by his own department, often in uniform and from his patrol vehicle. Authorities on Monday led away a handcuffed Martin, 46, from his small Shawneetown office after his arrest on federal drug trafficking charges accusing him of supplying a dealer he threatened to kill when that man said he wanted out. The Gallatin County sheriff also allegedly pledged to use his authority to shut down rival drug traffickers. "It's almost beyond belief," said Doug Maier, the sheriff in neighboring White County. Maier called Martin "a pretty low-key guy." He continued, "Obviously, there was a different side that I've never observed." Martin was jailed pending a Wednesday detention hearing on three counts of marijuana distribution and two counts of carrying a firearm, his service weapon, while trafficking drugs. He could not be reached for comment Tuesday. A woman who answered his home telephone refused to comment, and Martin's court-appointed public defender did not immediately return messages. Martin's job status was unclear Tuesday. Calls to Gallatin County Chairman Randy Drone rang unanswered, while calls to the sheriff's department rolled over to a neighboring dispatch center, which regularly answers calls when no deputies are in Martin's office. No one would say the exact size of Martin's department, other than to say it's small. Martin's popularity in the county surrounding Shawneetown — boasting little more than a courthouse, a couple of convenience stores and Rudy's barbecue restaurant — swept the Democrat to re-election four times since he took office in 1990. A criminal complaint accuses him of distributing more than two pounds of marijuana between April 27 and May 11. But an affidavit by Glenn Rountree, an investigator with the Drug Enforcement Administration, suggests Martin's dealings were many times that total. In a blow-by-blow account painting a picture of a good cop gone bad, Rountree wrote that Martin hatched a marijuana-dealing scheme in November with the drug dealer who later got cold feet. At that time, Martin handed the dealer, unidentified in court papers, two pounds of pot and asked if the man could "get rid of that" for the sheriff, who promised he'd use his power to protect him if he ever got caught selling. If the dealer didn't comply, Rountree wrote, Martin said he could "make up" a crime against him. From then until early last month, Martin brought 1- or 2-pound amounts of marijuana on average once every couple of weeks to a rural, secluded meeting spot, Rountree wrote. But the sheriff twice brought 10 pounds and brought 20 pounds another time, according to the affidavit. The meetings between the two were arranged by cell phone, with the dealer using vague code words Martin supplied to confuse possible eavesdroppers, including investigators, Rountree wrote. The dealer grew unsettled over time and wanted out, but Martin would have none of that, Rountree wrote. At least twice, the sheriff pulled his service revolver and insisted emphatically to the dealer that making him "disappear" would be "that easy," according to the affidavit. Rountree suggested the twitchy dealer went to investigators April 9. Over the next several weeks, authorities taped the dealer's conversations with Martin and tracked the sheriff's county-issued Ford Expedition. At least once, Rountree alleged, the sheriff gave the informant marijuana seeds, saying he could pare his debt to the sheriff by growing pot plants for him. And the sheriff dispensed advice, cautioning the man that it'd be "silly" for the dealer to get drunk or use pills and "mess it up" because "we got a good thing going." "(You) won't even have to work and stuff," Rountree said Martin once told the snitch. Such profit could be particularly attractive in Gallatin County, where the population has slowly eroded in recent decades as many of the region's coal mines closed. Its 9 percent unemployment rate is typical in the region. The median household income, according to 2000 Census Bureau figures, is $26,118. Martin's county salary was not immediately available, but he received his $6,500 annual stipend from the state this month. The area received statewide attention in 2005, when a story by the (Arlington Heights) Daily Herald noted that the tiny county with little violent crime was getting more homeland security funding per person — more than $300,000 — than any other in Illinois. The article noted Martin spent "most days battling a thriving methamphetamine trade." Allegations that Martin himself was dabbling in drugs left locals rattled, in many cases leaving them publicly reticent Tuesday. Still, many there remained in Martin's camp. "I thought the world of that boy," said Roberta Tarrence, a 78-year-old widow with a quilting business near the county courthouse. "I've known him all of his life, and I know he was a good sheriff." Shhee-it yeah, he was! Hit me up, Sparky! I feel a deep medical need coming on!

One of the very most vile things the foolish waste our drug war generates is the tremendous hatred and ill will among the people the cops are supposed to be protecting and the cops doing the protecting. This is a great, historic evil we are doing to ourselves and urging onto other nations, as well. Dis-Gusting!! Not all cops agree with this stupidity from the prosecutor side. Some are smarter and more in tune with the will of the people and they are not all silent. Take this retired Seatle police chief right here. He has something very useful for our whole nation to tell us. Go for it! Leap.cc WWW From Norm Stamper's Huffington Post blog: Dear Gil: Congratulations on your confirmation as director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy( Yuk!) . Bit of an irony, isn't it? Two Seattle police chiefs on opposite sides of the drug war? As "drug czar" (please retire that ill-begotten label), you are responsible for advising the president and vice president on drug control programs, and for coordinating drug policies among all federal agencies. I, on the other hand, as a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, am devoted to ending the drug war, along with the prohibition model on which it's based. But how far apart are we, really? During your tenure as police chief you either championed or tolerated sensible policies such as methadone treatment, clean needle exchanges, medical marijuana, and a Seattle voter initiative requiring you and the city attorney to make simple adult marijuana possession your lowest enforcement priority (lower, indeed, than jaywalking). You also continued the practice of assigning police officers to Hempfest, knowing your cops would make no arrests for possession of marijuana, thus ensuring a safe and peaceful event. These modest steps represent progress, and they position our former city as a leader in local reform. But I'd be less than honest if I didn't point to some genuinely worrisome positions you've taken recently. In responding to written interrogatories from Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee you claimed there is no scientific consensus supporting medicinal marijuana; announced your opposition to legalizing marijuana; and defended the classification of pot, along with heroin, PCP, and GHB, as a "Schedule 1" drug--which means, I guess, that you believe it is highly addictive and possessed of no medical value. Sadly, these views put you in league with your ONDCP predecessor, John Walters--he of the magnificent obsession with "killer weed"--who during his tenure silenced science, lied habitually, and refused to debate those with opposing views. How much of your stance on these issues falls into the category of confirmation politics? How much represents your true feelings? Either way, your early public comments are disconcerting, coming from an administration headed by a president who's proclaimed the drug war an "utter failure," and who has advocated more of a public health approach to drug control. Still, you did stand up to the shriller apostles of the drug war. You wrote, for example, that needle exchanges are "not a cause of significant public safety problems," that they are part of a "comprehensive approach for drug abuse prevention, treatment, and care, including efforts to reduce the transmission of HIV/AIDS and other blood-borne diseases." You share Obama and Biden's position that sentencing guidelines for crack vs. powder forms of cocaine are "wrong and should be eliminated." And I loved your reply to Senator Grassley's question of whether marijuana is a gateway drug: "Often, marijuana is the first illicit drug that young people use. I support efforts to educate young people about the dangers of illicit drugs, including marijuana." In other words, Senator: No. Pot is not a "gateway" drug. Likewise, your answer to the Iowa lawmaker's I( you mean our very own iowa puke senator, pot nazi grassley? he will never surrender in the drug war because he does not use nor need science to form an opinion to steal children with and don't you ever forget it because grassley really is a puke! believe it! I rant the bastard every month and I intend to keep on doing it, too. see the preceeding blog ha ha ha)query about whether the medical marijuana case of Gonzales v. Raich was a proper decision. "...the Supreme Court's decision...is the current law of our land. As a result...I am duty bound to honor it and so I [will] until such time as the supreme law of our land on this subject changes." The "subject," simplified, refers to whether the federal government should trump the states on marijuana enforcement. Sounds like another "no" to me. You oppose "mandatory minimums" which have resulted in millions of nonviolent drug offenders going to prison for very long stretches. "...I understand and respect the ability of states, under the longstanding principles of federalism," you wrote, "to make state policy decisions within the scope of their authority and jurisdiction." Sounds like you're fully on board with the president and Attorney General Holder in calling off the DEA raids on medical marijuana dispensaries. (Federalism. Smart invocation, Gil. Appeals to many Americans, including thoughtful conservatives of a "dual federalist" stripe.) So, how open will you be to new ways of looking at old, disastrous drug policies? You claim to support "evidence-based," data-driven solutions. You have, in your own words, "long recognized that to be successful as a police chief you have to rely on and work collaboratively with...other governmental and non-governmental entities." You pledged to "re-establish valid working relationships with non-governmental entities and stakeholders." Drug policy reformers, mushrooming in strength and number every day, are committed to sensible drug laws, Gil. We will support your every worthy incremental step on the road to rational government policies. Of course, some of us, like LEAP members, will not be content with anything less than an end to the drug war, and the replacement of prohibition with a regulatory model based on sound public health principles. But that shouldn't stop you from making a place for us at the table. We are, after all, stakeholders too. Finally, as we begin this new era of drug policy debate, is it too much to ask that you vanquish the vocabulary of "war"? We all know that when Richard Nixon labeled drugs "public enemy number one" and vowed all-out war on them he was in truth declaring war on us, the citizenry of the United States--especially the young, the poor, and people of color. In an April 20, 2009 proposal to end the drug war, the Drug Policy Alliance urged us to recognize that while "DPA's work is all about drugs on the surface, dig down a little deeper and one finds it's not really about drugs at all." It's about "much larger struggles in American and international society--over the extent and limits of individual freedom, what it means to be a free society, and how we deal with both phantom and real threats to health, life, and security." You have been given what DPA calls a "once-in-a-generation opportunity" to help us reclaim our freedom as Americans, and to live safer, healthier lives. Please don't blow it, Gil. Warm regards, Norm Norm Stamper was Gil Kerlikowske's immediate predecessor as Seattle's chief of police, having served from 1994-2000. Dedicated to our departed colleagues who courageously spoke out about the destructive policy of Drug Prohibition Eleanor Schockett Gil Puder Whitman Knapp John Perry Ralph Salerno Bob Owens Eddie Ellison Martin Haines

High Friends! "It's Still Cool" if we go along with the article, anyway. Sorry to be all scarce and shit, but I have been all consumed with the personal life boolshit lately. But I am still with the land of the living, damages not withstanding. I came accross this article that sort of summed up Obama for me because I am trying to be optimistic as well as agree with the facts presented below. When Obama surrounded himself with pot nazis like joe biden and his chief of staff I really began to lose heart for him. Pot nazis and your humble narrator not being on the same page and all. Well, not with me rolling up blunts with the pages, anyways. lol here yez goes: Source: Stanford Progressive California -- Many advocates of legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana feel Obama has abandoned them. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is a consistent warrior against decriminalization. Attorney General Eric Holder has a history of opposing drug policy reforms and considers the adult use of marijuana equivalent to public nuisance. Even Joe Biden, when asked about pain management and medical cannabis, responded that “there's got to be a better answer than marijuana.” But the reality is that the Obama administration has turned the tides in favor of legalization and decriminalization in a much stronger and subtler way than open rhetorical endorsements. Optimism for drug reform began when Obama ended federal raids on cannabis dispensaries in states which allow medical marijuana. What marijuana advocates fail to realize is that with this the Obama administration initiated a small but extremely important step towards legalization. More importantly, it has done so in a way to insulate itself from Republican attacks and attempts to distract the public. At the heart of the marijuana debate is federalism, the separation of state and national governmental power. For most of America's history, marijuana was treated as a crop subject to state regulation. However, the national government justified regulating marijuana through a variety of means, mainly the Commerce Clause of the Constitution which gives Congress power to regulate inter-state trade. This line of reasoning was forcefully used by the John Ashcroft in 2001 to enforce federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries. When a state legalizes marijuana, medical or otherwise, state law is in contradiction with federal law. This grey area leads to very confusing legal proceedings. For instance, if a state patrolman finds a medical marijuana patient in possession of marijuana, nothing happens. However, if a federal officer found a medical marijuana patient in possession of the same amount of marijuana, the federal officer can and usually will arrest the patient and prosecute under federal law. This hypocrisy is at the base of the current trials going on against elderly medical marijuana patients. The Obama administration drastically changed this dynamic with just a slight alteration of criteria for federal intervention with marijuana dispensaries. Eric Holder announced that the federal government will no longer pursue medical marijuana dispensaries or patients unless they violate both federal and state laws. In the case of California, because medical marijuana is legal, federal intervention is no longer allowed in cases where California's medical marijuana laws are not broken. Thus, if California were to fully legalize marijuana, under current policy the federal government would not intervene. This leaves Republicans in a very tough spot. Small government is the bedrock foundation of the party. However, if a “liberal” state legalizes marijuana, the only tool left to combat the legalization of marijuana is for the federal government to extend power over state government. Obama's actions cannot be criticized as an attempt to “deregulate” marijuana. Instead, it is a triumph of state rights over federal intervention. More importantly, any attempt to fight state legalization of marijuana through suit automatically goes to the Supreme Court. This creates an opportunity to strike down previous legislation criminalizing marijuana as opposed to having the Democrats introduce a bill on the Senate floor to legalize pot. Consider the alternative strategy of legalizing marijuana on a national level first through Obama. In the current political environment, the leading accusations against the president range from terrorist to Marxist to illegal alien. Imagine the campaigns that could be waged if Obama so much as hinted that he wants to legalize marijuana. Not only would there be insinuations that Obama wants drugs for personal use, but inevitably racial dynamics and stereotypes would enter discourse. It would be the ultimate redirect from the economy. Instead of focusing on regulations and expenditures, emphasis would be on the president who is destroying traditional American values with reefer. If Obama or the Democrats proposed legalization, all the Republicans have to do is have several governors or senators who refuse to implement the federal law. This would frame the argument as Obama trying to extend the government's power to regulate what some consider the moral fabric of society. With just a few rhetorical shuffles, Obama's proposal could be linked to general monetary and budget extensions of power. This would be like the Republican's in the 30s arguing against the New Deal as a whole by linking it with a government proposal to force states to legalize prostitution. The Obama administration's public hesitation towards marijuana legalization is not only understandable but, considering the impact of the current economic legislation and programs the administration is endorsing, the most pragmatic and efficient route for the moment. Legalization and decriminalization advocates should focus efforts on state-wide legalization, not nation-wide. If states are challenged in lawsuits, than the Supreme Court will be forced to rule on whether legislation criminalizing marijuana should be struck down. This is preferable to the executive putting forward a proposal to legalize marijuana from the top down. When Obama tells the country that marijuana legalization is not the path he chooses for America, he means to say that the path must first be drawn by us. Source: Stanford Progressive (CA) Author: Ross Raffin Published: May 8, 2009 Contact: progressive.stanford@gmail.com URL: http://drugsense.org/url/DvS5QmCv Website: http://drugsense.org/url/IObEpTeH CannabisNews -- Cannabis Archives "At the heart of the marijuana debate is federalism, the separation of state and national governmental power." This is EXACTLY what I have said before in the Marijuana News months ago. The pot nazis are totally playing with fire and these control freak pukes are ultimately going to pay a very high price by creating a long lasting wound between the individual states here in our United States and the high-jacked federal government. This wound is a increased, even wary, distance between our federal and our state governments. This is Not all bad. The states are the real, true experimental governments envisioned by our constitutional framers. These fellows were generally far smarter than morons like senator grassley and that sell out tom harkin because, if for no other reason, they weren't influenced by murderers like the pharmaceutical corporations. What? these medicine makers are murderers??? did you just hear that from the Bush? You need to go read, The Power to Harm by John Cornwell. God Bless You, John. It happened to me about like it did to poor Joe Wessbecker and when I came back into my body covered with blood I was gone, folks. I was gone. The above is not a fabrication of any sort. Paxil and Tagamet will make you die. There is alot going on so stay tuned, brother and sister reefer growers! We are winning! Justice is real and we can work for it in the now. God Bless Your Gardens!