• Focus Alerts

    #388 Repealing Today’s Failed Prohibition

    Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008
    Subject: #388 Repealing Today’s Failed Prohibition

    REPEALING TODAY’S FAILED PROHIBITION

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

    DrugSense FOCUS Alert #388 – Sunday, 7 December 2008

    Syndicated columnist Froma Harrop wrote the column, below, which ties
    the ended Prohibition 75 years ago this past week to the modern
    version – the war on drugs.

    The column is worthy of your letters to the editor. Newspapers that
    have printed the column are shown as December 2008 news clippings at:

    http://www.mapinc.org/author/Froma+Harrop

    Please also contact your local newspapers and ask them to publish the
    column. Just tell the newspapers that the column is by Froma Harrop
    and is available from Creators Syndicate. The newspapers will know how
    to obtain the column for publication.

    The reason for the column and the quotes from Law Enforcement Against
    Prohibition http://www.CopsSayLegalizeDrugs.com/ and Criminal
    Justice Policy Foundation http://www.cjpf.org/ is because of their
    new joint effort “We Can Do It Again: Repealing Today’s Failed Prohibition.”

    Please go to the website to help with this effort http://www.WeCanDoItAgain.com/

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

    Froma Harrop’s syndicated column is copyrighted by Creators Syndicate.
    The text of the column is as follows.

    America ended Prohibition 75 years ago this past week. The ban on the
    sale of alcohol unleashed a crime wave, as gangsters fought over the
    illicit booze trade. It sure didn’t stop drinking. People turned to
    speakeasies and bathtub gin for their daily cocktail.

    Prohibition — and the violence, corruption and health hazards that
    followed — lives on in its modern version, the so-called War on
    Drugs. Former law-enforcement officers gathered in Washington to draw
    the parallels. Their group, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (
    LEAP ), has called for nothing less than the legalization of drugs.

    And before you say, “We can’t do that,” hear the officers out. They
    have an answer for every objection.

    Doesn’t the War on Drugs take narcotics off the street, raising their
    price beyond most Americans’ means?

    Obviously not. The retail price of cocaine is now about half what it
    was in 1990. When the value of something goes up, more people go into
    the business.

    In some Dallas junior high schools, kids can buy two hits of “cheese”
    – — a mix of Tylenol PM and heroin — for $5, Terry Nelson, a former
    U.S. Customs and Border Patrol officer, told me. Lunch costs more.

    Wouldn’t legalizing drugs create new users? Not necessarily. LEAP
    wants drugs to be regulated like alcohol and cigarettes. Regulations
    are why it’s harder to buy alcohol or cigarettes in many schoolyards
    than drugs. By regulating the purity and strength of drugs, they
    become less deadly.

    Isn’t drug addiction a scourge that tears families apart? Yes, it is,
    and so are arrests and incarceration and criminal records for kids
    caught smoking pot behind the bleachers. There are 2.1 million people
    in federal, state and local prisons, 1.7 million of them for
    non-violent drug offenses.

    Removing the stigma of drug use lets addicts come out into the open
    for treatment. We have treatments for alcoholism, but we don’t ban
    alcohol.

    LEAP’s members want to legalize drugs because they’re tired of being
    shot at in a war they can’t win. They’re tired of making new business
    for dealers every time they arrest a competitor. They’re are tired of
    busting people in the streets of America’s cities over an ounce of
    cocaine, while the Andean region produces over 1,000 tons of it a
    year. They’re tired of enriching terrorists.

    “In 2009, the violence of al-Qaida will be financed by drug profits,”
    said Eric Sterling, head of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation,
    which joined the call for legalization. As counsel to the House
    Judiciary Committee in the 1980s, Sterling helped write the anti-drug
    laws he now opposes.

    Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron estimates that legalizing drugs would
    save federal, state and local governments $44 billion in enforcement
    costs. Governments could collect another $33 billion in revenues were
    they to tax drugs as heavily as alcohol and tobacco.

    No one here likes drugs or advocates putting heroin on store shelves
    alongside ibuprofen and dental floss. Each state or county could set
    its own rules on who could buy which drugs and where and taxes levied
    – — as they now do with alcohol.

    What about taking gradual steps — say, starting with marijuana. And
    couldn’t we first try decriminalization — leaving users alone but
    still arresting dealers? Those were my questions.

    The LEAP people want the laws gone, period. “We’re whole hog on it,”
    Nelson said. Keeping the sale of drugs illegal, he said, “doesn’t
    take the cartels out of it.”

    Ending this “war” won’t be easy. Too many police, drug agents,
    bureaucrats, lawyers, judges, prison guards and sprayers of poppy
    fields have a stake in it. But Prohibition was repealed once.
    Perhaps it can happen again.

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

    Prepared by: The MAP Media Activism Team www.mapinc.org/resource

    =.

  • Focus Alerts

    #387 The Observer Prints A Series: ‘Drugs Uncovered’

    Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008
    Subject: #387 The Observer Prints A Series: ‘Drugs Uncovered’

    THE OBSERVER PRINTS A SERIES: ‘DRUGS UNCOVERED’

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

    DrugSense FOCUS Alert #387 – Sunday, 16 November 2008

    It is rare for any newspaper to print a multi-page series of articles
    about almost all aspects of the drug war. Today the British newspaper
    The Observer published an exceptional series of articles under the
    overall title of ‘Drugs Uncovered.’

    The Observer is a major British newspaper with an average daily
    readership of about 1,342,000 readers.

    The Observer’s email address for LTEs is letters@observer.co.uk The
    Observer asks that you please insert Letters to the Editor in subject
    field. Please note that LTEs The Observer prints are short, usually
    under 100 words. It is very, very rare for the newspaper to print a
    letter from anybody outside the United Kingdom.

    Below is a list of the articles in the series listed in the printed
    page order.

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

    The Agony and the Ecstacy http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08.n1035.a01.html

    The Facts: Cannabis http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08.n1035.a02.html

    The Observer Drugs Poll 2008 http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08.n1035.a03.html

    The Legal Landscape http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08.n1035.a04.html

    Is This the Answer? http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08.n1035.a05.html

    The Dog Handler http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08.n1036.a01.html

    The Facts: Ecstacy http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08.n1036.a02.html

    Danger All Ways http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08.n1036.a03.html

    A Global Business http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08.n1036.a04.html

    Coming Clean http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08.n1036.a05.html

    The Counsellor http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08.n1036.a06.html

    Talking to Goats http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08.n1037.a01.html

    Drugs in Literature: A Brief History
    http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08.n1037.a02.html

    The Legaliser http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08.n1037.a03.html

    Cradle of a Cash Crop http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08.n1037.a04.html

    The Facts: Cocaine http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08.n1038.a04.html

    Chemical Bonds http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08.n1037.a06.html

    The Facts: Heroin http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08.n1038.a05.html

    The Right Stuff? http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08.n1038.a01.html

    Frankly, the Ads Don’t Work – They Just Make It Worse
    http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08.n1038.a02.html

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

    Prepared by: Richard Lake, Senior Editor www.mapinc.org

    =.

  • Focus Alerts

    #386 Milestones

    Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008
    Subject: #386 Milestones

    MILESTONES

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

    DrugSense FOCUS Alert #386 – Tuesday, 11 November 2008

    Today is Remembrance Day in Australia and Canada and Veterans Day in
    the United States.

    The symbol of the day is the poppy that grows in Flanders’ Fields.
    Service members of our three countries are serving today in
    Afghanistan, a country where a different kind of poppy, the one which
    is the source of opium and heroin is intertwined with the war – and
    drug policy – as noted in these news clippings http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Afghanistan

    It is a week since a milestone election in the United States. By now
    you are probably aware of how the election results have and could
    possibly in the future impact drug policy. We are starting to see that
    reflected in some of the news clippings here http://www.mapinc.org/topic/United+States

    Reflecting on the election results we have updated our Questions for
    Our “Leaders” webpage http://www.mapinc.org/questions.htm

    Last Friday marked a milestone for the Media Awareness Project. On
    that day our two hundred thousandth news clipping was posted. The news
    clipping was ‘Pot Activist Loses Bid To Have Charges Stayed’ at
    http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n1011/a01.html

    We thank you for your support of our efforts. Without you we could not
    have reached this milestone.

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

    Prepared by: Richard Lake, Senior Editor www.mapinc.org

    =.

  • Focus Alerts

    #385 The 7 State Ballot Propositions And Proposals

    Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008
    Subject: #385 The 7 State Ballot Propositions And Proposals

    THE 7 STATE BALLOT PROPOSITIONS AND PROPOSALS

    ********************PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE************************

    DrugSense FOCUS Alert #385 – Tuesday, 30 September 2008

    Voters in California, Oregon, Massachusetts, and Michigan will all
    vote Tuesday, November 4th on issues – a total of seven – which will
    if passed change laws which impact those arrested for the use of
    currently illegal drugs. The following highlights these issues.

    CALIFORNIA:

    PROPOSITION 5, the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act (NORA) –
    This measure (1) expands drug treatment diversion programs for
    criminal offenders, (2) modifies parole supervision procedures and
    expands prison and parole rehabilitation programs, (3) allows inmates
    to earn additional time off their prison sentences for participation
    and performance in rehabilitation programs, (4) reduces certain
    penalties for marijuana possession, and (5) makes miscellaneous
    changes to state law related mainly to state administration of
    rehabilitation and parole programs for offenders.

    Perhaps the least understood Proposition 5 change is the marijuana
    possession change. Here is what California’s nonpartisan Legislative
    Analyst’s Office (LAO) has published on the issue:

    Change in Marijuana Possession Penalties

    Current state law generally makes the possession of less than 28.5
    grams of marijuana by either an adult or a minor a misdemeanor
    punishable by a fine of up to $100 (plus other penalties and fines
    that can bring the total cost to as much as $370) but not jail.
    Possession of greater amounts of marijuana, or repeat offenses, can
    result in confinement in jail or a juvenile hall, greater fines, or
    both. Revenues generated from these fines (including the additional
    penalties) are distributed in accordance with state law to various
    specified state and county government programs.

    Penalties for Marijuana Offenses Would Become Infraction

    This measure would make the possession of less than 28.5 grams of
    marijuana by either an adult or a minor an infraction (similar to a
    traffic ticket) rather than a misdemeanor. Adults would be subject, as
    they are today, to a fine of up to $100. However, the additional
    penalties of any kind would be limited under this measure to an amount
    equal to the fine imposed. (For example, imposition of the maximum
    $100 fine could result in an additional $100 in penalties.) Persons
    under age 18 would no longer be subject to a fine for a first offense,
    but would be required to complete a drug education program. Also,
    under this measure, fines collected for marijuana possession would be
    deposited in a special fund to provide additional support of the new
    youth programs created by this measure.

    The LAO analysis of Proposition 5 is at http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2008/5_11_2008.aspx

    Please see the YES on Prop. 5 website http://www.prop5yes.com/

    The influential Orange County Register recently supported Proposition
    5 in an editorial http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n901/a06.html

    PROPOSITION 6 – Makes some 30 changes to state criminal laws. The
    measure requires that Youthful Offender Block Grant funds–provided by
    the state to house, supervise, and provide various types of treatment
    services to juveniles–be distributed to county probation offices and
    eliminates existing provisions that permit these funds to be provided
    directly to drug treatment, mental health, or other county
    departments. Defines possession of methamphetamines as a felony – this
    crime currently can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor or a felony – but
    it does not change eligibility for some offenders for drug treatment
    diversion under Proposition 36.

    The LAO analysis of Proposition 6 is at http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2008/6_11_2008.aspx

    PROPOSITION 9 – This measure amends the State Constitution and various
    state laws to (1) expand the legal rights of crime victims and the
    payment of restitution by criminal offenders, (2) restrict the early
    release of inmates, and (3) change the procedures for granting and
    revoking parole.

    The LAO analysis of Proposition 9 is at http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2008/9_11_2008.aspx

    The Los Angeles Times recently opposed all three propositions in
    editorials http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n895/a03.html

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

    MASSACHUSETTS: QUESTION 2 – This proposed law would replace the
    criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana
    with a new system of civil penalties, to be enforced by issuing
    citations, and would exclude information regarding this civil offense
    from the state’s criminal record information system. Offenders age
    18 or older would be subject to forfeiture of the marijuana plus a
    civil penalty of $100. Offenders under the age of 18 would be
    subject to the same forfeiture and, if they complete a drug awareness
    program within one year of the offense, the same $100 penalty.

    Offenders under 18 and their parents or legal guardian would be
    notified of the offense and the option for the offender to complete a
    drug awareness program developed by the state Department of Youth
    Services. Such programs would include ten hours of community service
    and at least four hours of instruction or group discussion concerning
    the use and abuse of marijuana and other drugs and emphasizing early
    detection and prevention of substance abuse.

    The penalty for offenders under 18 who fail to complete such a
    program within one year could be increased to as much as $1,000,
    unless the offender showed an inability to pay, an inability to
    participate in such a program, or the unavailability of such a
    program. Such an offender’s parents could also be held liable for
    the increased penalty. Failure by an offender under 17 to complete
    such a program could also be a basis for a delinquency proceeding.

    The proposed law would define possession of one ounce or less of
    marijuana as including possession of one ounce or less of
    tetrahydrocannibinol (“THC”), or having metabolized products of
    marijuana or THC in one’s body.

    Under the proposed law, possessing an ounce or less of marijuana
    could not be grounds for state or local government entities imposing
    any other penalty, sanction, or disqualification, such as denying
    student financial aid, public housing, public financial assistance
    including unemployment benefits, the right to operate a motor
    vehicle, or the opportunity to serve as a foster or adoptive
    parent. The proposed law would allow local ordinances or bylaws that
    prohibit the public use of marijuana, and would not affect existing
    laws, practices, or policies concerning operating a motor vehicle or
    taking other actions while under the influence of marijuana, unlawful
    possession of prescription forms of marijuana, or selling,
    manufacturing, or trafficking in marijuana.

    The money received from the new civil penalties would go to the city
    or town where the offense occurred.

    The YES on Question 2 website is at http://sensiblemarijuanapolicy.org/

    Many, but not all, of the newspaper clippings about Question 2 may be
    found at http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Committee+for+Sensible+Marijuana+Policy

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

    MICHIGAN: PROPOSAL 1: The proposed law would:

    Permit physician approved use of marijuana by registered patients with
    debilitating medical conditions including cancer, glaucoma, HIV, AIDS,
    hepatitis C, MS and other conditions as may be approved by the
    Department of Community Health.

    Permit registered individuals to grow limited amounts of marijuana for
    qualifying patients in an enclosed, locked facility.

    Require Department of Community Health to establish an identification
    card system for patients qualified to use marijuana and individuals
    qualified to grow marijuana.

    Permit registered and unregistered patients and primary caregivers to
    assert medical reasons for using marijuana as a defense to any
    prosecution involving marijuana.

    The YES on Proposal 1 website is at http://stoparrestingpatients.org/

    Most, but not all, of the newspaper clippings about Proposal 1 may be
    found at http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Michigan+Coalition+for+Compassionate+Care

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

    OREGON:

    MEASURE 57 – Increases sentences for drug trafficking
    (methamphetamine, heroin, “ecstasy,” cocaine), theft against elderly
    and specified repeat property and identity theft crimes; requires
    addiction treatment for certain offenders.

    MEASURE 61 – Creates mandatory minimum prison sentences for certain
    theft, identity theft, forgery, drug, and burglary crimes.

    Please see this website for additional details http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/nov42008/meas.html

    If both measures pass, the one with more votes becomes law. Most of
    the newspaper editorial page statements from Oregon newspapers have
    opposed both measures or recommended Measure 57 as the better choice.

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

    Prepared by: Richard Lake, Senior Editor www.drugnews.org

    =.

  • Focus Alerts

    #384 Presidential Leadership Needed

    Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008
    Subject: #384 Presidential Leadership Needed

    PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP NEEDED

    ********************PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE************************

    DrugSense FOCUS Alert #384 – Sunday, 7 September 2008

    “What if major party nominees Barack Obama and John McCain were
    pressed to state their positions on drugs and incarceration?” writes
    syndicated columnist Neal Peirce.

    Please raise the issue with those running for public office and by
    sending letters to the editor. Please ask your local newspapers to
    print the column below.

    As MAP’s volunteer activists find this column printed in other
    newspapers they will be listed at the top of this webpage
    http://www.mapinc.org/author/Neal+Peirce

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

    Contact: opinion@seattletimes.com

    Pubdate: Sun, 7 Sep 2008
    Source: Seattle Times (WA)
    Copyright: 2008 Washington Post Writers Group
    Author: Neal Peirce, Syndicated Columnist

    REAL COMMANDER NEEDED FOR THE WAR ON DRUGS

    Will America’s ill-starred “war on drugs” and its expanding prison
    culture make it into the presidential campaign?

    Standard wisdom says “no way.”

    We may have the world’s highest rate of incarceration — with only 5
    percent of global population, 25 percent of prisoners worldwide. We
    may be throwing hundreds of thousands of nonviolent drug offenders,
    many barely of age, behind bars — one reason a stunning one out of
    every 100 Americans is now imprisoned. We may have created a huge
    “prison-industrial complex” of prison builders, contractors and
    swollen criminal justice bureaucracies.

    Federal, state and local outlays for law enforcement and incarceration
    are costing, according to a Senate committee estimate, a stunning $200
    billion annually, siphoning off funds from enterprises that actually
    build our future: universities, schools, health, infrastructure.

    We are reaping the whirlwind of “get tough” on crime statutes ranging
    from “three strikes you’re in” to mandatory sentences to
    reincarcerating recent prisoners for minor parole violations. And
    every year we’re seeing hundreds of thousands of convicts leave prison
    with scant chances of being employed, no right to vote, no access to
    public housing, high levels of addiction, illiteracy and mental
    illness. Overwhelmed by the odds against them, at least 50 percent are
    rearrested within two years.

    A serious set of problems, a shadow over our national future? No
    doubt. But do our politicians talk much about alternatives? No way —
    they typically find it too risky to be attacked as “soft on crime.”

    But let’s imagine — what if major party nominees Barack Obama and
    John McCain were pressed to state their positions on drugs and
    incarceration?

    I’ve combed through statements by both men. My early reading is that
    with McCain, there’d be a thin chance of reform, but under Obama, much
    brighter prospects.

    It is true that both men favored — Obama actually co-sponsored — the
    federal Second Chance Act, passed this year, which provides up to $360
    million to support job training, mentors and counseling for inmates
    released from custody.

    But McCain has been routinely “hawkish” on drug policy, endorsing
    higher penalties for drug-selling, supporting the death penalty for
    drug kingpins, and opposing any softening of laws forbidding marijuana
    use, which he characterizes as a dangerous “gateway drug.”

    Obama, by contrast, expresses serious concern that at 2 million-plus
    inmates, “we have by far the largest prison population, per capita, of
    any place on earth.” He endorses full justice and imprisonment for
    dangerous criminals but a far more nuanced approach to drug cases in
    particular.

    “Anybody who sees the devastating impact of the drug trade in the
    inner cities, or the methamphetamine trade in rural communities, knows
    that this is a huge problem,” he recently told a Rolling Stone
    interviewer. “I believe in shifting the paradigm, shifting the model,
    so that we can focus on a more public-health approach.”

    During the primary season Obama spoke with special concern about
    nonviolent drug offenders, many as young as 18 to 20: “The worst thing
    we can do is to lock them up for a long period of time, without any
    education if they’re functionally illiterate, without any skills or
    training. They’re now convicted felons” — perhaps 25 or 26 years old
    — “out on the streets and can’t be hired by anybody.”

    His conclusion: The more focus put on diversion programs, drug courts,
    treatment of substance abusers, and “encourage training and skills and
    literacy … the more effective we are in reducing recidivism rates.”

    Obama is clearly not yet willing to discuss lifting prohibitions on
    marijuana or other drugs. But he would seem open to lead the country
    in a serious debate about our drug and incarceration policies — a
    dramatic break from recent presidencies, both Republican and Democratic.

    Arguably, that’s precisely the discussion the nation needs. America’s
    prisoner total has tripled over the last two decades, with systems
    bursting at the seams — California, for example, at 175 percent of
    capacity, Alabama at 200 percent. Yet North Carolina anticipates 1,000
    more prisoners a year; Pennsylvania, 1,500; Arizona, 2,200; Florida
    3,000.

    Small wonder major prisoner re-entry and diversion facilities for less
    serious offenders are being set up in Kansas, Michigan, Georgia and
    other states. California this November votes on a landmark “nonviolent
    offender rehabilitation” initiative designed to divert thousands from
    the state’s bloated $10-billion-a-year prison system.

    It’s high time, says Georgia Corrections Commissioner Jim Donald, “to
    differentiate between those offenders we are ‘afraid of’ and those we
    are just ‘mad at.’ ”

    Talk about a serious national issue on which we could use some
    presidential leadership — not dictating precise answers, but moving
    us to debate alternatives. It’s been 20 years since drugs and prisons
    have even been mentioned in the televised presidential debates. Maybe
    not just Obama but McCain too could surprise us with some fresh ideas
    and promise of leadership as president. But we probably won’t hear
    this unless reporters press the issue.

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

    Additional suggestions for writing LTEs are at our Media Activism Center:

    http://www.mapinc.org/resource/#guides

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

    PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER

    Please post a copy of your letter or report your action to the sent
    letter list ( sentlte@mapinc.org ) if you are subscribed, or by
    emailing a copy to heath@mapinc.org if you are not subscribed. Your
    letter will then be forwarded to the list so others may learn from
    your efforts.

    Subscribing to the Sent LTE list ( sentlte@mapinc.org ) will help you
    to review other sent LTEs and perhaps come up with new ideas or
    approaches as well as keeping others aware of your important writing
    efforts.

    To subscribe to the Sent LTE mailing list see http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm#form

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

    Prepared by: The MAP Media Activism Team www.mapinc.org/resource

    =.

  • Focus Alerts

    #383 Brown’s Rules On Medical Marijuana

    Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008
    Subject: #383 Brown’s Rules On Medical Marijuana

    BROWN’S RULES ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA

    ********************PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE************************

    DrugSense FOCUS Alert #384 – Wednesday, 27 August 2008

    Monday California Attorney General Jerry Brown issued “Guidelines for
    the Security and Non-Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use”
    that may be read at http://drugsense.org/url/kKMJR2lu

    Today California’s two largest newspapers printed opinions about the
    guidelines, below. Both are worthy targets for letters to the editor.

    Newspaper clippings about the guidelines appear, and will be added in
    the days ahead, to the top of this list:

    http://www.mapinc.org/people/Jerry+Brown

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

    You may use the newspaper’s webform at http://drugsense.org/url/bc7El3Yo
    to send letters or email them to letters@latimes.com

    Pubdate: Wed, 27 Aug 2008
    Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
    Section: Editorials
    Copyright: 2008 Los Angeles Times

    BROWN’S RULES ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA

    New Guidelines on Legal Pot Use Are a Welcome Shield for Californians
    With Medical Needs.

    They’re more than a decade overdue, but the guidelines on medical
    marijuana issued this week by California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown could
    finally help divide the gray area in which the state’s growers and
    dispensers operate into clearer shades of black and white.

    Brown’s 11-page directive is aimed at giving police the ability to
    distinguish between criminals and legitimate medical marijuana sellers
    under state law, as well as protecting patients from arrest. It won’t
    stop federal drug enforcement agents from raiding law-abiding
    dispensaries and prosecuting innocent business owners whenever they
    see fit, but it will make such raids harder to justify — and might
    ramp up the pressure for more sensible federal marijuana policies.

    When California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 215 in
    1996, allowing the sale and use of marijuana for people with
    demonstrated medical needs, it set off a host of consequences both
    positive and negative. As voters intended, thousands of people
    suffering from AIDS, glaucoma and other serious ailments now have
    access to a safe, legitimate treatment. Yet as voters didn’t intend,
    the state is now riddled with dispensaries that employ on-site doctors
    who will write a prescription to nearly anyone who walks through the
    door, while places such as Humboldt County have been invaded by
    criminal elements running underground grow houses to supply these middlemen.

    Most of the negative consequences can be attributed to the gap between
    state and federal marijuana laws. The fact that even sellers
    considered legitimate by the state can be prosecuted and ruined by
    federal agents encourages black-market dealers, who endanger their
    communities by ignoring fire codes, selling to healthy minors and
    fighting turf wars with other dealers. The centerpiece of Brown’s
    directive is its insistence that medical marijuana sellers must
    operate as nonprofit collectives or cooperatives, and the marijuana
    they sell must be grown by state-certified patients or caregivers.
    That will empower municipal police to weed out the bad guys.

    Overall, Proposition 215 has done more good than harm. In addition to
    marijuana’s medical benefits, its legitimate sale brings in $100
    million a year in tax revenues, and even though it can be abused by
    users, it isn’t demonstrably more dangerous to society than tobacco
    and alcohol. The state’s new guidelines will help reduce the measure’s
    harmful side effects, but the only long-term solution is for the feds
    to stop the medical marijuana raids and leave California law
    enforcement to California officers.

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

    Note: Below is the lead section of a longer column.

    Contact: letters@sfchronicle.com

    Pubdate: Wed, 27 Aug 2008
    Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
    Column: Matier & Ross
    Copyright: 2008 Hearst Communications Inc.
    Authors: Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross

    JERRY BROWN GETS TOUGH ON MEDICAL POT CLUBS

    California Attorney General Jerry Brown has ordered a crackdown on
    medical pot clubs that are selling the drug for big profits.

    The move puts the state a bit more in line with the feds in dealing
    with the explosion of questionable marijuana dispensaries since the
    passage of Proposition 215 more than a decade ago.

    The first target was Today’s Health Care club in Northridge (Los
    Angeles County), which agents from the state Bureau of Narcotic
    Enforcement raided over the weekend. The club owner and an alleged
    middleman were booked on drug-dealing charges.

    Brown said Tuesday he would “not be surprised” to see similar raids
    here in the Bay Area.

    “The voters wanted medical marijuana dispensaries to be used for
    seriously ill patients and their caregivers – not as million-dollar
    businesses,” Brown said.

    In recent years, pot club raids have been conducted mainly by federal
    authorities who don’t recognize Prop. 215, the initiative California
    voters passed in 1996 to let patients use cannabis to treat what ailed
    them. Although medical marijuana is still illegal under federal law,
    the feds say many of their targets were actually sham outfits that
    were dealing marijuana for, shall we say, nonmedicinal uses.

    This week, Brown issued an 11-page directive laying out guidelines
    that medical marijuana cooperatives must follow to comply with Prop.
    215.

    Among them: Sell only to legitimate patients. Operate as nonprofits.
    Buy pot only from fellow cooperative members at prices that cover
    cost, as opposed to professional growers out for big bucks.

    “We are not out to harass legitimate clubs,” Brown said. “The targets
    are those clubs that are part of a larger criminal operation where
    medical marijuana winds up being sold on the street and contributing
    to crime and violence.”

    Some medical marijuana dispensers, concerned that thuggish dope
    dealers are giving their business a bad name, welcomed Brown’s
    guidelines – and the state crackdown.

    “It’s something many activists have been looking for since the medical
    marijuana law passed,” said Kevin Reed of the Green Cross marijuana
    collective in San Francisco.

    He said his outfit had nothing to fear. “We are a nonprofit,” Reed
    said. “We only sell to patients. We only get our pot in small
    quantities from patients who grow it and sell it on
    consignment.

    “We’ve been on the front page of every major newspaper in the nation
    and have never been bothered by the feds, because we are an open
    book,” Reed said.

    As for how many of San Francisco’s 26 pot clubs might find themselves
    in hot water, Reed said: “I expect about 10 will not be with us within
    a year.”

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

    Additional suggestions for writing LTEs are at our Media Activism Center:

    http://www.mapinc.org/resource/#guides

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

    PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER

    Please post a copy of your letter or report your action to the sent
    letter list ( sentlte@mapinc.org ) if you are subscribed, or by
    emailing a copy to heath@mapinc.org if you are not subscribed. Your
    letter will then be forwarded to the list so others may learn from
    your efforts.

    Subscribing to the Sent LTE list ( sentlte@mapinc.org ) will help you
    to review other sent LTEs and perhaps come up with new ideas or
    approaches as well as keeping others aware of your important writing
    efforts.

    To subscribe to the Sent LTE mailing list see http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm#form

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

    Prepared by: The MAP Media Activism Team www.mapinc.org/resource

    =.

  • Focus Alerts

    #382 Medical Marijuana Pro-Con

    Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008
    Subject: #382 Medical Marijuana Pro-Con

    MEDICAL MARIJUANA PRO-CON

    ********************PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE************************

    DrugSense FOCUS Alert #382 – Monday, 18 August 2008

    Today the Los Angeles Times printed in its Monday Health Section four
    articles about medicinal marijuana, below.

    Yesterday the Los Angeles Times printed an OPED by Kenji Yoshino,
    Professor of Constitutional Law at New York University School of Law
    titled ‘Pot Power Play – Should State or Federal Law Prevail on
    Medical Marijuana?’ as featured in the alert at http://www.mapinc.org/alert/0381.html

    The weekday readership of the newspaper is slightly over two million
    people.

    The Los Angeles Times advises that published letters typically run 150
    words or less and may be edited.

    You may use the newspaper’s webform at http://drugsense.org/url/bc7El3Yo
    to send letters or email them to letters@latimes.com

    There are many sources of information about medicinal marijuana. One
    that makes the pro-con arguments far better than any newspaper could
    is at http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/

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

    Pubdate: Mon, 18 Aug 2008
    Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
    Copyright: 2008 Los Angeles Times
    Author: Jill U. Adams

    MEDICAL MARIJUANA: WHAT DOES SCIENCE SAY?

    A Look at the Pros and Cons of Medical Marijuana Use, a Topic That
    Inspires Strong Opinions on Both Sides.

    DEPENDING ON whom you ask, marijuana is a dangerous drug that should
    be kept illegal alongside heroin and PCP, or it’s a miracle herb with
    a trove of medical benefits that the government is seeking to deny the
    public — or something in between: a plant with medical uses and
    drawbacks, worth exploring.

    As the political debates over medical marijuana drag on, a small cadre
    of researchers continues to test inhaled marijuana for the treatment
    of pain, nausea and muscle spasms.

    All drugs have risks, they point out — including ones in most
    Americans’ medicine cabinets, such as aspirin and other pain-relievers
    or antihistamines such as Benadryl. Doctors try to balance those risks
    against the potential for medical good — why not for marijuana as
    well, they ask.

    The truth, these researchers say, is that marijuana has medical
    benefits — for chronic-pain syndromes, cancer pain, multiple
    sclerosis, AIDS wasting syndrome and the nausea that accompanies
    chemotherapy — and attempts to understand and harness these are being
    hampered. Also, they add, science reveals that the risks of marijuana
    use, which have been thoroughly researched, are real but generally
    small.

    Dr. Donald Abrams, chief of hematology and oncology at San Francisco
    General Hospital and professor of clinical medicine at UC San
    Francisco, says he sees cancer patients in pain, not eating or
    sleeping well, experiencing nausea and vomiting from treatment, and
    being depressed about their situation. He says he is glad that he
    lives in California, where use of medical marijuana is allowed by
    state law, although federal officials continue to raid cannabis
    dispensaries in the state and scrutinize practices of physicians who
    specialize in writing cannabis recommendations for patients.

    “I can talk to patients about medicinal cannabis [and] I’m often
    recommending it to them for these indications,” Abrams says.

    Read on to learn what science has to say about the medical pros and
    cons, and some mitigating factors, of Cannabis sativa.

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

    Pubdate: Mon, 18 Aug 2008
    Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
    Copyright: 2008 Los Angeles Times
    Author: Jill U. Adams

    PRO: MARIJUANA USE FOR CHRONIC PAIN AND NAUSEA

    Smoked Marijuana Can Bring Relief To Sufferers Of Neuropathic Pain
    Comparable To That Of Other Painkiller Drugs, Some Studies Show.

    Medical marijuana use has a history stretching back thousands of
    years. In prebiblical times, the plant was used as medicinal tea in
    China, a stress antidote in India and a pain-reliever for earaches,
    childbirth and more throughout Asia, the Middle East and Africa.

    In recent decades, medical researchers have investigated marijuana’s
    effects on various kinds of pain — from damaged nerves in people with
    HIV, diabetes and spinal cord injury; from cancer; and from multiple
    sclerosis. Marijuana has also been hypothesized to help with nausea
    induced by chemotherapy and antiretroviral therapy, and with severe
    loss of appetite as seen in people with the AIDS wasting syndrome.

    The weed’s actions are due to the active ingredients
    tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and some 60 other cannabinoids, which mimic
    the action of chemicals — known as endogenous cannabinoids — that
    exist naturally in the brain. Those cannabinoids activate receptors in
    our nerves, triggering physiological responses.

    A legal prescription form of THC (Marinol) exists, yet researchers say
    it’s far from a perfect drug. Taken orally, its absorption is highly
    variable and unpredictable and often delayed, says Dr. Igor Grant, a
    UC San Diego psychiatrist who directs the university’s Center for
    Medicinal Cannabis Research. “Smoking is a very efficient way to
    deliver THC,” he says.

    As a result of its federally illegal status, medicinal use of
    marijuana is restricted to carefully vetted clinical research studies
    or to patients in states such as California that have passed laws to
    allow for personal medical use. Research on the medicinal use of
    marijuana relies on government-issued marijuana cigarettes, which come
    in different strengths and are supplied by the National Institute on
    Drug Abuse.

    The UC Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research in San Diego helps
    coordinate clinical studies to investigate the safety and
    effectiveness of marijuana. Here’s what they’ve found.

    Neuropathic Pain

    Recent research suggests that marijuana can assuage this chronic-pain
    syndrome in which burning sensations occur and simple touch can feel
    like hurt. It is unaffected by aspirin-like drugs and fairly resistant
    to stronger analgesics such as opiates.

    In a 2007 study on neuropathic pain related to HIV infection, 50
    patients smoked marijuana cigarettes three times a day or marijuana
    cigarettes from which active ingredients had been extracted. Subjects
    then rated their pain on a scale ranging from “no pain” to “worst pain
    imaginable.” The results, published in the journal Neurology, showed a
    34% reduction in ratings of pain in the marijuana group compared with
    17% in the placebo group over five days of treatment.

    Another study in 44 patients reported in June in the Journal of Pain
    found that marijuana alleviated neuropathic pain arising from a
    variety of conditions, including spinal-cord injury and diabetes.
    Participants smoked marijuana on a set schedule — first two puffs,
    then three puffs an hour later, then four puffs an hour after that —
    from a single cigarette containing either 0%, 3.5%, or 7% THC. Average
    pain ratings before smoking were 55 on a 100-point scale and decreased
    by 46% in both treatment groups and by 27% in the placebo group one
    hour after the last puff.

    Analgesic drugs are often tested against experimentally induced pain.
    Such studies have been conducted for marijuana too. In one 2007 report
    in the journal Anesthesiology, 15 healthy volunteers received skin
    injections with capsaicin — the chemical behind that fiery spice in
    chile peppers — and then smoked different-strength marijuana
    cigarettes. The medium dose, with a 4% THC concentration, lessened the
    burning pain.

    These three pain studies all concluded that smoked marijuana can bring
    relief to sufferers of neuropathic pain comparable to other analgesic
    drugs. It is not a cure, Grant says: “It’s like other pain medicines,
    you have to keep taking it.”

    Study subjects did feel high, an effect that varied among individuals.
    Marijuana also affected thinking, shown as problems with tasks of
    memory and complicated reasoning after the strongest marijuana
    cigarettes were used. Potentially problematic, these effects were
    tolerated by subjects — no one opted out of the study because they
    couldn’t think straight.

    Grant says it’s important to have a choice of treatments because not
    everyone responds to or can tolerate the available drugs.
    Antidepressants are used for neuropathic pain but cause dry mouth,
    constipation and urinary problems, and must be avoided by people with
    conditions such as glaucoma. Others can’t take aspirin-like drugs.
    “Having an alternative compound is always good,” Grant says.

    Multiple Sclerosis

    Patients with multiple sclerosis suffer muscle spasms, pain and
    tremor. Anecdotal reports suggest that marijuana may be helpful, but
    controlled studies are few. One, presented at an April meeting, had 51
    multiple sclerosis patients smoke 0% or 4% THC marijuana cigarettes
    daily for three days. Intensity of spasms was reduced by 32% and pain
    ratings by 50% after smoking marijuana, compared with 2% and 22%
    reductions after placebo cigarettes. Five subjects withdrew, citing
    side effects: feeling too high, dizzy or fatigued.

    Other studies in patients with multiple sclerosis used a cannabis
    extract that can be taken orally. In a 2007 European Journal of
    Neurology study, nearly half of 184 patients experienced at least 30%
    improvement in muscle spasms.

    But a 2004 Neurology paper showed no reduction in objective measures
    of arm tremor with cannabis extract, although five subjects out of 13
    reported feeling improvement. This might have resulted from
    mood-altering effects of the drug or from some aspect of tremor not
    measured.

    Nausea

    A 2008 review published in the European Journal of Cancer Care
    analyzed 30 clinical studies using cannabinoid drugs synthesized in
    the lab and concluded that they were better than standard antinausea
    drugs in alleviating the nausea and vomiting that accompanies
    chemotherapy. One such drug is Marinol, a THC preparation approved by
    the Food and Drug Administration for precisely this purpose.

    Survey studies suggest that some people with HIV smoke marijuana to
    counteract nausea caused by antiretroviral therapy. Researchers at the
    UC Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research have tried to study the
    effect of smoked marijuana on nausea and vomiting in patients
    undergoing chemotherapy but have struggled to enroll enough subjects,
    Grant says.

    Bruce Mirken, director of communications for the Marijuana Policy
    Project — a group that lobbies for the decriminalization of marijuana
    — says he is all for research on the chemical components in marijuana
    with the goal of making more-purified and perhaps more-targeted drugs
    that do not deliver a “high,” but does not see “criminalizing use of
    that plant by people who are ill when you are making its main
    psychoactive ingredient legal in the form of a very expensive pill.”

    Tom Riley, a spokesman for the White House Office of National Drug
    Control Policy, says marijuana advocates are seeking a free pass.
    “They want to be exempted from the regular [drug] approval process,”
    he says.

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

    Pubdate: Mon, 18 Aug 2008
    Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
    Copyright: 2008 Los Angeles Times
    Author: Jill U. Adams

    CON: MARIJUANA’S DAMAGING EFFECTS

    Scientists Say Pot’s Health-Related Risks Are Real but Small in Some
    Instances.

    Marijuana is the most widely used illicit drug in the country — an
    estimated 25 million Americans smoked it within the last year and
    close to 100 million have smoked it at least once in their life,
    according to the most recent National Survey on Drug Use and Health by
    the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
    Administration.

    Rates and severity of marijuana addiction pale in comparison to that
    of legal addictive drugs, alcohol and nicotine, according to the
    Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, a panel of independent
    experts advising the British government, in a rare head-to-head,
    scientific comparison.

    Yet, the fact is, recreational use can lead to addiction, and inhaling
    marijuana smoke is unhealthful for the lungs. Some researchers argue
    that marijuana may predispose heavy users to mental illnesses such as
    psychosis and depression.

    How big are these risks and how should they be measured against health
    benefits? “The FDA has ruled that marijuana has no medical benefits,
    but its harms are well known and proven,” says Tom Riley, a spokesman
    for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, referring
    to an April 2006 statement released by the FDA and several other
    federal agencies concluding that smoking marijuana was not of
    medicinal use.

    For comparison’s sake, Riley cites the prescription drug Vioxx. The
    FDA, he notes, pulled Vioxx off the market in spite of its proven
    efficacy, because it created problems in a small number of people.

    Then, too, the number of people adversely affected by marijuana use is
    large, Riley says. “There are more teens in drug treatment for
    marijuana dependence than for alcohol or any other drug,” he says.

    Marijuana is a Schedule 1 drug by the Drug Enforcement
    Administration’s Controlled Substances Act, a classification reserved
    for drugs carrying the highest risk for addiction and no medical benefit.

    Scientists have reviewed the weed’s risks and find them to be real,
    but small. Ten years ago, the Institute of Medicine reviewed the
    scientific evidence about marijuana at the request of the Office of
    National Drug Control Policy. The 1999 report states that, “except for
    the harms associated with smoking, the adverse effects of marijuana
    use are within the range of effects tolerated for other
    medications.”

    In February, the American College of Physicians, the nation’s
    second-largest physicians group, released a position paper in support
    of medical-marijuana research, protecting doctors from criminal
    prosecution and rescheduling marijuana as a less harmful drug.

    A British advisory group this year found no evidence to reclassify
    cannabis as a more harmful drug in that country. In contrast to the
    U.S., the U.K. puts cannabis in the lowest category (Class C) in terms
    of criminal penalties for possession or sale, although government
    officials are campaigning to move it to Class B.

    To investigate the risks of marijuana, researchers typically use heavy
    marijuana smokers as subjects. Though such a study design may be
    convenient, it makes interpretation tricky because heavy users may
    have traits in common besides smoking pot. Thus, says psychologist and
    marijuana researcher Stanley Zammit of Cardiff University in Wales, it
    is not easy in these kinds of studies to separate out the contribution
    of marijuana to any measurable effect in the group.

    Psychosis

    Claims of a link between marijuana use and psychotic episodes came
    under scrutiny after the U.K. downgraded cannabis from Class B to
    Class C in 2004. In 2007, Zammit was asked by England’s Department of
    Health to survey the existing evidence to determine the long-term
    risks for mental illness from using cannabis. After researching the
    literature and including only those studies that satisfied certain
    criteria, he combined the results in a 2007 Lancet paper.

    He concluded that marijuana use was associated with an increased risk
    of psychosis — ranging from self-reported symptoms such as delusions
    or hallucinations to clinically diagnosed schizophrenia.

    The risk is small, he adds. Cannabis use was associated with a 40%
    increase in risk overall and up to a twofold increase in heavy users.
    Because the risk of any person developing psychosis in their lifetime
    is about 2% to 3%, cannabis use at worst increases that to 5%. “So 95%
    of the people are not going to get psychotic, even if they smoke on a
    daily basis,” Zammit says.

    Zammit adds that “the main limitations of these studies is that you
    can never be sure that it’s the cannabis itself that’s causing this
    risk.” Heavy users of marijuana may differ from nonusers in other
    traits — including those that lead independently to increased drug
    use and risk of psychosis. The studies he reviewed tried to take into
    account this possibility but could not rule it out entirely.

    The bottom line? “The evidence is probably strong enough that people
    should be aware of this risk,” he says.

    Even if it’s real, the risk of developing psychosis because of
    marijuana use is smaller than with use of some other drugs —
    including legal ones such as cigarettes, says Mitch Earleywine, a
    psychologist at the State University of New York University at Albany.

    Grant says that numbers of schizophrenia cases have not increased
    since before the 1960s, when widespread marijuana use began. “The data
    are variable to be sure, but most studies have found that over the
    years the rate of schizophrenia has been stable or even declining,” he
    says.

    Depression

    In an American Journal of Psychiatry study, 1,920 adults were assessed
    for marijuana use and depression and followed for 15 years. In those
    subjects who had no depressive symptoms at the study’s start,
    marijuana abusers were four times more likely to develop depressive
    symptoms down the road. But Zammit, who reviewed this paper and 23
    others in his 2007 Lancet paper, says the data overall are even
    murkier than for psychosis. Most of the studies he reviewed did not
    assess symptoms of depression before marijuana use, and so didn’t rule
    out the idea that depression makes someone more likely to smoke
    marijuana — and not the other way around.

    Thinking

    A review of the scientific literature published in the Journal of the
    International Neuropsychological Society in 2003 looked at whether
    marijuana smoking had lasting effects on cognition after THC has left
    the body. Marijuana use was found to have small effects on memory in
    long-term users — measured by asking subjects to recall words, for
    instance — but no differences were seen on attention, verbal skills
    and reaction time. “We were actually surprised,” says Grant, an author
    on the study. Even if the marijuana itself wasn’t causing such things,
    he expected marijuana users might have other less-than-healthful
    behaviors — they may drink a bit more, or use some other drugs, and
    “you might expect them to do a little worse.”

    A 2002 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Assn.
    found that a group of 51 heavy marijuana users (two joints per day)
    recalled two to three fewer words on average than nonusers in a memory
    test with a list of 15 words.

    A second study, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry in
    2001, found a similar deficit in 63 daily marijuana smokers who hadn’t
    smoked for up to a week. After 28 days of not smoking marijuana the
    effect disappeared.

    Children

    Studies on brain function and mental illness cited above were
    conducted in adult marijuana users. How the drug affects adolescents
    is not completely resolved, but the data are more troubling.

    A 2000 paper in the Journal of Addictive Diseases recruited 58
    marijuana users and found structural changes in the brains of those
    who had starting smoking marijuana before age 17 but not in those who
    didn’t start smoking until they were older.

    “There’s also a modest decrease in IQ if teens use heavily, though
    weekly users and folks who quit don’t seem to show it,” Earleywine
    says. Adolescence, he says, is a time when brain neurons are making
    oodles of new connections, and it’s possible that a psychoactive drug
    such as marijuana may adversely influence that process.

    Lungs

    Before it has any effect on the brain, marijuana smoke enters the body
    through the lungs. Dr. Donald Tashkin, professor of medicine at the
    UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine, has studied the pulmonary
    consequences of marijuana use for 25 years, recruiting a group of 280
    heavy habitual pot smokers in the early 1980s, including some who also
    smoked cigarettes. (Subjects averaged three joints per day for an
    average of 15 years.) For comparison, he also recruited cigarette
    smokers who didn’t use marijuana and people who didn’t smoke anything.

    Tashkin has done a number of studies over the decades comparing these
    groups. “I began with the hypothesis that regular smoking of marijuana
    would have an impact on the lungs qualitatively similar to the impact
    of regular tobacco smoking,” he says. That’s because the smoke of both
    plants are more similar than different.

    Tashkin and his colleagues did find symptoms of chronic bronchitis in
    his marijuana-smoking group. In a 1987 study in the American Review of
    Respiratory Diseases, they reported that incidence of chronic cough,
    sputum production and wheezing was similar to that in cigarette smokers.

    In a second study in the same subjects published in the American
    Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine in 1998, examination
    of the airways and the cells lining the airways found swelling,
    redness and increased secretions in marijuana users. Biopsies showed
    “extensive, widespread damage to the mucosa,” Tashkin says, similar to
    what was seen in tobacco users. “This is amazing, because the
    marijuana smokers average three joints a day, but the tobacco controls
    smoked 22 cigarettes, suggesting that on a cigarette-to-cigarette
    basis, marijuana may be more damaging.”

    But marijuana smokers differ from tobacco smokers in other,
    potentially more important ways, Tashkin adds. They do not seem to
    develop more serious consequences of cigarette smoking, namely chronic
    obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) — the fourth leading cause of
    death in the U.S., killing 130,000 people each year — or lung cancer,
    the most common cancer in Americans and responsible for an additional
    160,000 annual deaths, according to 2005 statistics from the Centers
    for Disease Control and Prevention.

    To study lung cancer, Tashkin looked at more than 600 lung cancer
    patients and more than 1,000 control patients matched for age,
    socioeconomic class, family history and other alcohol and drug use
    (along with many other potential influences).

    The results, published in a 2006 paper in Cancer Epidemiology
    Biomarkers and Prevention, found a large number of regular marijuana
    smokers were present in both groups, but statistically there were no
    more in the cancer group than control group, suggesting no association
    between marijuana use and lung cancer. Tobacco smokers, on the other
    hand, showed a dose-dependent increase in risk: with a 30%, 800% and
    2,100% increased risk of lung cancer in those who smoked less than a
    pack, one to two packs or more than two packs per day,
    respectively.

    Other studies have found increased cancer risk. A study of 79 lung
    cancer patients and 300 controls published in the European Respiratory
    Journal this year found a fivefold increased risk in the heaviest
    marijuana users (daily use for 10 years) and no effect in less heavy
    users.

    But Tashkin says this conflicting report was much smaller in scale,
    having fewer than 20 subjects in the group of heaviest marijuana
    users. “My critique would be: It’s a small study. I think that their
    small sample size is responsible for vastly inflated estimates,” he
    says.

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

    Pubdate: Mon, 18 Aug 2008
    Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
    Copyright: 2008 Los Angeles Times
    Author: Jill U. Adams

    VAPORIZERS CAN CUT MARIJUANA SMOKE, RETAIN SIMILAR MEDICAL EFFECTS

    Smoking anything is perceived as bad these days, says Dr. Donald
    Abrams, chief of hematology and oncology at San Francisco General
    Hospital and professor of clinical medicine at UC San Francisco. So he
    devised a pilot study to evaluate a novel inhalation method conducted
    in 18 otherwise-healthy subjects. “We used a device that heated
    cannabis below the point of combustion — basically, a heating element
    and a fan. The fan filled up a balloon from which the patients could
    inhale,” he says.

    The findings, published in Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics in
    2007, showed that levels of THC were “virtually identical,” as were
    patients’ reports of subjective “high.” No increase in exhaled carbon
    monoxide was observed with vaporized marijuana, as was the case with
    smoked marijuana, and patients preferred vaporization to smoking.

    “The fact is that whole marijuana, particularly when vaporized and not
    smoked, is a safe and effective delivery system,” says psychiatrist
    Dr. Igor Grant, director of the UC Center for Medicinal Cannabis
    Research in San Diego.

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

    Additional suggestions for writing LTEs are at our Media Activism Center:

    http://www.mapinc.org/resource/#guides

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

    PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER

    Please post a copy of your letter or report your action to the sent
    letter list ( sentlte@mapinc.org ) if you are subscribed, or by
    emailing a copy to heath@mapinc.org if you are not subscribed. Your
    letter will then be forwarded to the list so others may learn from
    your efforts.

    Subscribing to the Sent LTE list ( sentlte@mapinc.org ) will help you
    to review other sent LTEs and perhaps come up with new ideas or
    approaches as well as keeping others aware of your important writing
    efforts.

    To subscribe to the Sent LTE mailing list see http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm#form

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

    Prepared by: The MAP Media Activism Team www.mapinc.org/resource

    =.

  • Focus Alerts

    #381 Pot Power Play

    Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008
    Subject: #381 Pot Power Play

    POT POWER PLAY

    ********************PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE************************

    DrugSense FOCUS Alert #381 – Sunday, 17 August 2008

    Today the Los Angeles Times printed an OPED by Kenji Yoshino,
    Professor of Constitutional Law at New York University School of Law.
    Note that Professor Yoshino demolishes the “federal law supersedes
    state law” myth that is so often stated in the media as fact.

    The Los Angeles Times is Southern California’s Sunday newspaper – with
    a circulation of 1.1 million copies and 3.3 million readers.

    The Los Angeles Times advises that published letters typically run 150
    words or less and may be edited.

    You may use the newspaper’s webform at http://drugsense.org/url/bc7El3Yo
    to send letters or email them to letters@latimes.com

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

    Pubdate: Sun, 17 Aug 2008
    Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
    Copyright: 2008 Los Angeles Times
    Author: Kenji Yoshino

    POT POWER PLAY

    Should State or Federal Law Prevail on Medical Marijuana?

    Just because a majority of Californians voted to make marijuana
    available for medical purposes does not mean it is legal. Charles
    Lynch, the owner of a Morro Bay medical marijuana dispensary, learned
    this lesson the hard way on Aug. 5 when he was convicted of violating
    the federal Controlled Substances Act. His lawyers defended him in
    part by saying his business had the blessing of elected officials in
    Morro County. But the jury convicted him under federal drug laws; in
    October, he will be sentenced to a period of five to 85 years in
    prison, though he has vowed to appeal.

    Federal and state laws with respect to medical marijuana have been in
    tension for years. Under the federal Controlled Substances Act of
    1970, the distribution or possession of marijuana is a crime, with no
    exceptions for medical use. Under California’s Compassionate Use Act
    of 1996, however, individuals who meet certain criteria may distribute
    or use marijuana for medical purposes without running afoul of state
    law. In 2003, the Legislature further bolstered the medical marijuana
    movement with a law requiring counties to provide patients with an
    identification card that protects them from state prosecution.

    This places dispensers of medical marijuana, such as Lynch, in an
    untenable position. From the perspective of the federal government,
    they are no different from common drug dealers, susceptible to Drug
    Enforcement Administration busts and substantial prison sentences.
    From the perspective of the state government, they are running
    legitimate businesses that pay taxes and otherwise comply with
    California law.

    The courts have yet to resolve this controversy. Under the supremacy
    clause of the U.S. Constitution, federal law supersedes state law when
    the two conflict. But it is not as obvious as it might seem that they
    do. Language in the federal Controlled Substances Act specifies that
    it only preempts state laws that create a “positive conflict” with it.
    A court could find that because California law does not expressly
    prevent the federal government from enforcing its own drug law, the
    two sets of laws are consistent.

    Indeed, on July 31, the state’s 4th District Court of Appeal took a
    step in that direction. It held that the Controlled Substances Act
    does not preempt California’s requirement that counties give medical
    marijuana users identification cards. The court expressly declined to
    go any further, but proponents of medical marijuana rightly viewed the
    ruling to be a significant win. If the decision withstands appeals, it
    will ensure that federal law will not completely wash out the state
    program.

    But it seems unlikely that courtrooms are where this legal dissonance
    will be resolved. This is especially true since 2005, when the U.S.
    Supreme Court heard a federal constitutional challenge to the
    Controlled Substances Act. In that case, Californians sought to
    protect the use of medical marijuana by stating that it is a purely
    intrastate matter, and thus beyond Congress’ reach. The high court
    rejected that argument, ruling that, as a whole, the drug law was a
    proper exercise of Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce.

    After that decision, the legislative and executive branches of
    government are best equipped to make federal and state law consistent.
    The remaining question is which side — federal or state — should
    give way in this standoff.

    In this instance, the federal government should cede. Under our
    federal system, the states are supposed to serve as laboratories of
    experimentation (to paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis)
    that permit a variety of policy approaches that suit local mores.
    Moreover, the areas implicated by medical marijuana — crime and
    health — have traditionally been areas of state sovereignty. This
    perhaps explains why — flying in the face of the Controlled
    Substances Act — 13 states have passed some form of medical marijuana
    law.

    Under the Controlled Substances Act, marijuana is grouped with heroin
    and mescaline in the set of drugs subject to the most stringent
    regulation. Congress or the U.S. attorney general has the power to
    reclassify marijuana so it can be dispensed by a physician.
    Alternatively, the U.S. Department of Justice could use its discretion
    and stop prosecuting medical dispensation and use in states that have
    legalized it. California’s Legislature has supported both
    alternatives, and Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic
    presidential nominee, has expressed support for the latter. John
    McCain was equivocal early in the Republican primaries, but the
    candidate has since said he would not end the federal raids on medical
    marijuana dispensaries.

    State medical marijuana laws should not be seen as an attempt to flout
    the authority of the federal government. These laws are a proper
    exercise of a state prerogative to which the federal government should
    defer.

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

    Additional suggestions for writing LTEs are at our Media Activism Center:

    http://www.mapinc.org/resource/#guides

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

    PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER

    Please post a copy of your letter or report your action to the sent
    letter list ( sentlte@mapinc.org ) if you are subscribed, or by
    emailing a copy to heath@mapinc.org if you are not subscribed. Your
    letter will then be forwarded to the list so others may learn from
    your efforts.

    Subscribing to the Sent LTE list ( sentlte@mapinc.org ) will help you
    to review other sent LTEs and perhaps come up with new ideas or
    approaches as well as keeping others aware of your important writing
    efforts.

    To subscribe to the Sent LTE mailing list see http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm#form

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

    Prepared by: The MAP Media Activism Team www.mapinc.org/resource

    =.

  • Focus Alerts

    #380 Drug War Madness

    Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008
    Subject: #380 Drug War Madness

    DRUG WAR MADNESS

    ********************PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE************************

    DrugSense FOCUS Alert #380 – Monday, 11 August 2008

    Today the Los Angeles Times printed a superb OPED by Vera Leone, an
    Internet communications associate with the Drug Policy Alliance

    Homepage

    The OPED references a Los Angeles Times July 12th article
    ‘Strip-Searched Girl Wins Appeal’ http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n000/a067.html
    and a U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling which is at
    http://drugsense.org/url/SYiKN2It

    The country’s fourth largest circulation newspaper is always a worthy
    letter to the editor target. The Los Angeles Times advises that
    published letters typically run 150 words or less and may be edited.

    You may use the newspaper’s webform at http://drugsense.org/url/bc7El3Yo
    to send letters or email them to letters@latimes.com

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

    Pubdate: Mon, 11 Aug 2008
    Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
    Copyright: 2008 Los Angeles Times
    Author: Vera Leone

    DRUG WAR MADNESS

    Federal Courts Took Far Too Long to Rule That It’s Wrong to
    Strip-Search a 13-Year-Old Girl Suspected of Carrying Ibuprofen.

    She was a 13-year-old honor student. She may or may not have given her
    friend prescription-strength ibuprofen, though the girl certainly
    didn’t have any on her. An assistant principal, acting on the word of
    a scared fellow student, brought the eighth-grade girl into his office
    and subjected her to a strip search. In the presence of the school
    nurse and the assistant principal’s administrative assistant, this
    young woman was forced to strip off her clothes including her
    underwear, exposing first her breasts and then her pubic area, on the
    erroneous suspicion that she was hiding . . . ibuprofen. At this
    Arizona middle school, students are prohibited from carrying drugs —
    even over-the-counter medication — into school.

    Last month, The Times reported that a panel of judges on the U.S. 9th
    Circuit Court of Appeals overturned (in a 6-5 decision) previous
    rulings that condoned the actions of the assistant principal, who is
    now finally considered liable for damages.

    The student was searched by women, the nurse and the administrative
    assistant. It’s still abuse. I’ve been through these searches.
    Regardless of your gender or that of the people searching you, it’s a
    violation of your rights.

    I spent six months in federal prison for civil disobedience a few
    years ago. What vividly remains far and away the worst part of the
    experience was being strip-searched. After receiving a visit, I ran
    the random (sometimes not so random) risk of having to strip off all
    my clothes, including undergarments — just in the way this
    middle-school girl was forced to strip — and bend over and cough. As
    a survivor of sexual abuse, these strip searches were particularly
    traumatic. Given the percentage of incarcerated women who are also
    survivors of abuse, these strip searches were traumatic for most
    women. Some guards used their power punitively. Such searches can
    re-traumatize survivors, and even for women and girls on the outside,
    sexual abuse and assault are far too common.

    Until this recent successful appeal, school officials, supported by
    not one but two previous sets of judges, had (almost) gotten away with
    an unfathomable violation. In their zeal to completely eliminate
    student access to all drugs, in what will forever remain a failed
    endeavor (we can’t keep drugs out of prisons, so how can we keep them
    out of schools?) that neither teaches our children about fact-based
    decision-making nor builds trusting relationships with them, those
    fighting the drug war have unapologetically crossed a very serious
    line. There is no moral defense for their reprehensible actions. They
    were not protecting the safety of students. What are we doing to our
    students by treating them in such a manner? Why are we doing things to
    13-year-old girls that appear to be preparing them for prison?

    While the Arizona assistant principal might be exposed to a civil
    liability, it’s not nearly enough. Everyone who stood by should be
    fired for the unconscionable abuse of this student. Everyone who
    participated in this horrific violation — including the nurse and the
    secretary — deserves nothing short of being expelled from our public
    schools immediately. They should be nowhere near our children, ever —
    let alone responsible for their protection.

    Thanks to the drug war, middle-school administrators are behaving like
    prison guards — and that scares the hell out of me. It horrifies me
    that an assistant principal, his administrative assistant, a nurse,
    five of the 11 judges in this case and two previous sets of judges all
    thought this act was acceptable.

    Is no one — not even 13-year-old young women and their bodies — safe
    from drug war zealots?

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

    Additional suggestions for writing LTEs are at our Media Activism Center:

    http://www.mapinc.org/resource/#guides

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

    PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER

    Please post a copy of your letter or report your action to the sent
    letter list ( sentlte@mapinc.org ) if you are subscribed, or by
    emailing a copy to heath@mapinc.org if you are not subscribed. Your
    letter will then be forwarded to the list so others may learn from
    your efforts.

    Subscribing to the Sent LTE list ( sentlte@mapinc.org ) will help you
    to review other sent LTEs and perhaps come up with new ideas or
    approaches as well as keeping others aware of your important writing
    efforts.

    To subscribe to the Sent LTE mailing list see http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm#form

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

    Prepared by: The MAP Media Activism Team www.mapinc.org/resource

    =.