The consensus thinking among libertarians is that the standard by which people should judge any law or government program is whether the benefits of that law or government program outweigh the costs associated with its enactment or enforcement.
With that in mind, can anybody name for me any example from history when any government of any kind has ever been able to prevent its citizens from partaking of any vice by prohibiting that behavior? No? Then explain how the United States Federal Government intends to stop the use of a substance that can be routinely cultivated in an average person’s closet.
The prohibition of marijuana can never be successful.
Knowing that there is zero possibility of success in its prohibition, the question each of us must ask is whether the benefits of limiting the use of marijuana as a drug outweigh the costs associated with combating it.
How effective has prohibition been in reducing marijuana usage? Not very effective.
The 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health reports that the number of people over the age of 12 who admitted to using cannabis within the past month rose from 6.2 percent in 2002 to 6.6 percent in 2009.
However, keep in mind that these numbers are survey-based and, since illegal drug use is unquantifiable in any exact sense, there is every reason to believe the real numbers are far higher. Reason.com columnist Jacob Sullum uses data from the FBI and the National Survey on Drug Use and Health in a Sept. 16 blog post to highlight the fact that while arrests for marijuana crimes have roughly tripled since the early 1990’s, use has not only remained constant, but has actually risen slightly. Since the government can only ever hope to reduce usage and it hasn’t even done that, then the only question left to answer is whether the costs of prohibition outweigh its nonexistent success.
Even a cursory glance at those costs indicates that they far exceed the benefits. For example, The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) claims that in 1997 “only 1.6 percent of the state inmate population had been convicted of a marijuana only crime, including trafficking.” This was before many states began legalizing medical marijuana, which resulted in a federal crackdown on trafficking and use, but let’s assume that the same percentage holds true today at both the state and federal level.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) reported that in 2006, there were 1,569,945 federal and state prison inmates. At a rate of 1.6 percent, that means over 25,000 of them were incarcerated for marijuana crimes. BJS statistics on corrections expenditures indicate that these 25,000 inmates represent a cost of just over $1 billion that year. This is just the cost for the incarceration of these inmates, which number does not even include all those who violated other laws as a result of being involved in the criminalized economy of marijuana. To me, this represents a minimum of 25,000 people and $1 billion too many.
Then there is the cost imposed by prohibition on hemp cultivation. Hemp is one of the most useful crops mankind has ever cultivated. It was so crucial to the colonial economy that many areas, including Mass., required farmers to dedicate some portion of their acreage to its cultivation. Despite the fact that it had been criminalized in 1937, the U.S. government initiated the “Hemp for Victory” program during World War II to encourage farmers to grow the crop for use in making rope and other products for the war effort. Today, rather than cutting down trees, which remove carbon from the atmosphere and are at best a semi-renewable resource, we could be making paper (and cloth and plastic and myriad and other useful items) from a crop that generates less pollution in the manufacturing process, grows in almost any climate region and is completely renewable.
So, is there some other proven method for reducing the use of a harmful substance? Remarkably, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the government’s own data shows that we have had far more success reducing the prevalence of smoking than we have in reducing the use of cannabis. Through aggressive education and prevention programs, not to mention increasingly heavy doses of taxation, the percentage of adults who smoke in the U.S. has declined from 24.7 percent in 1997 to 20.6 percent in 2009.
In fact, the number of adult smokers had dropped to only 19.7 percent in 2007 before the recent recession began at the end of that year, once again proving the correlation of rising vice to periods of economic distress.
Besides, I don’t know about you, but I would really look forward to seeing what MTV would do with their “Shards ‘O Glass” anti-smoking commercials to refocus them on reducing youth pot smoking.
I’m not going to tell you that legalization is the only solution to our marijuana issues, but as these facts prove beyond any doubt, the current situation causes more harm than good. Prohibition is not working, so let’s find something that will.

As we become increasingly environmentally conscious, we are forced to ask the question, is there anything hemp can;t do? Through its many incarnations, hemp has now become a green construction option. Dozens of hemp homes have already been built in Europe over the last two decades, and they are starting to cross the pond, with a hemp walled home recently built in Asheville, North Carolina.
Peter Ashley, director of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control, explains that hemp has a place on the construction market because “There is a growing interest in less toxic building materials.”
In fact, a recent study of a Seattle public housing complex reported that resident health improved after their homes got a green makeover. The many unhealthy living spaces that exist may be symptomatic of the fact that the US government historically hasn;t taken an interest in studying chemicals found in the home until problems begin to arise. Such has been the case with lead, arsenic, formaldehyde and asbestos, a toxic mineral known to cause asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma, a rare cancer of the lining of the chest and abdomen.
Thus far, green construction has focused mostly on the health of the environment and not specifically on the health of the residents, but it;s likely that what benefits one will benefit the other. Although asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral, its use has been banned in construction, as its devastating health effects have long been known. Every year, approximately 2000 Americans discover they have contracted mesothelioma because of asbestos exposure, a bleak diagnosis, as even with aggressive mesothelioma treatment, including surgery, chemo and radiation, sufferers rarely live beyond 18 months. Asbestos cancer has no known cure.
Industrial hemp is imported because it cannot be grown legally in the U.S. Yet its use reflects an increasing effort to make American homes both energy-efficient and healthier.

A convention that made headlines and drew thousands of people to the Cow Palace in Daly City a few months ago lit up the Bay Area again this weekend.

The International Cannabis and Hemp Expo had such great success in April that it made a return trip, complete with an area for card-carrying medical pot patients to, well, medicate.

Crowds were large Saturday and Sunday.  The only surprise of the weekend is that a lot of those who came  out spoke words of disapproval of California‘s Proposition 19, which would legalize pot for recreational  use.  A new poll shows Prop. 19 ahead, but it looks like that approval is coming from people who can’t currently use it for medical purposes.

Reporters covering the Daly City event said they found it hard to find any Prop. 19 love at the Cow Palace.

Cannabis Cup Cake Anyone?

LOOK

Cannabis Cup Cake Anyone?

Tour Oakland’s Pot-Growing Megastore

LOOK

Tour Oakland’s Pot-Growing Megastore

Mobile Marijuana Operation For Sale

LOOK

Mobile Marijuana Operation For Sale

The event is a chance for the public to learn from vendors and speakers and see 100,000-square feet of displays showing off products to grow and ingest marijuana. Bands and musical acts will entertain. One of the goals of this weekend’s expo is to showcase the job industry the cannabis field has opened. Legal experts will also on hand to help explain the rules of the “canna-business” and guide people interested in getting into the industry.

Marijuana won’t be sold at the event but there will be a “Prop 215 tent” designated for legally-certified medical cannabis patients to consume their own.

An estimated 15,000 people attended the event in April — about half of them were medical marijuana patients. This weekend’s expo could draw an even bigger crowd.

From birth to toilet training, a baby goes through an average of 8000 diaper changes. This sheer volume of diapers makes one thing clear: Your choice of diaper – cloth or disposable – has a tremendous impact on the welfare of your baby and the planet.
To help you decide what’s best for your family, here are some things you should know.

Diapers and Health
Since babies have diapers touching delicate areas 24 hours a day, it’s no surprise that health concerns have arisen.
1. Diaper rash.
Cloth diapers tell kids and parents when they’re wet, while disposables may feel dry because the absorbent materials pull wetness into the middle of the diaper. This often means fewer diaper changes and possibly increased diaper rash. Therefore, regardless of the type of diaper used, it is important to change them frequently, every 2-3 hours, even if they feel dry.
2. Synthetic chemicals.
Parents are largely in the dark about the chemicals used to make the disposable diapers their children wear. Diaper manufacturers are not required to divulge what’s in their products and very little scientific literature exists on the chemicals diaper manufacturers use. Here are some of the most common concerns:

• VOCs – One oft-cited study, conducted by Anderson Laboratories in 1999 and published in the Archives of Environmental Health, found that conventional disposable diapers do release chemicals called volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene and dipentene. All of these VOCs have been shown to have toxic health effects with long-term or high level exposure.

The researchers also discovered that mice exposed to the chemicals emitted by disposable diapers were more likely to experience irritated airways than mice exposed to emissions from cloth diapers. The authors suggested that disposable diapers may cause “asthma-like” reactions and urged more study into a possible link between diaper emissions and asthma. (Cloth diapers and one brand of disposables had low emissions – unfortunately, due to the nature of the study, brand names weren’t revealed.)

• SAP – The main absorbent filler in disposable diapers, sodium polyacrylate (SAP), could cause respiratory, as well as skin, irritations in occupational settings where exposures are at much higher levels than occurs with diaper use. (Note that the gel used in disposable diapers today is not the same as that used in super absorbant tampons, linked with toxic shock syndrome, a number of years ago.) In fact, SAP has been rigorously tested and it has been concluded that it is completely safe and non-toxic. In fact, MBDC, which is the leading US-based design chemistry firm, has assessed SAP as GREEN, which is the safest assessment a chemical or material can receive. Safe for your baby, safe for the planet.
• Dioxins – Most diapers, whether or not disposable, are bleached white with chlorine. As a result, there have been claims that diapers may contain trace amounts of dioxin, a highly carcinogenic byproduct of chlorine bleaching. Since the diapers come into contact with the genitals, some parents worry about potential reproductive cancers. Currently, there is no evidence that this is the case. According to a study by the US EPA, “exposure to dioxins from the diet is more than 30,000-2,200,000 times the exposure through diapers.” So, diapers aren’t a main exposure route, but if they’re bleached, they are creating dioxin pollution – which ends up in food – which ends up in us. (Read more below.)

Others? Without an ingredients list, products can vary. But, according to an article in the CBC News, “Diapers can also contain polyurethane, adhesives, inks used to create the cartoon images found on many disposable diapers, and lotions used to coat the diaper liner. These lotions often include petrolatum, essentially the same substance as Vaseline, which has the potential to be contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), cancer-causing chemicals found in crude oil, according to the U.S. Environmental Working Group, an organization that devotes itself to educating consumers about health hazards posed by a variety of products. Other common diaper substances include lotions containing almond oil or Jojoba, which can also lead to skin reactions in allergic children. Many disposables also add fragrance to their diapers to mask fecal odors or chemical odors, which in many cases contain phthalates, the class of chemicals known to disrupt the endrocrine system. That’s the strong smell that diapers often give off when newly opened.”
Diapers and Our Natural Resources
Many natural resources must be used to produce diapers. Disposable diapers use 1.3 million tons of wood pulp — a quarter-million trees — each year, along with plastics, which are made from petroleum resources. Both types of diapers also consume energy and water in their manufacturer and, in the case of cotton diapers, cleaning.
It has been argued — primarily by the makers of disposable diapers — that the production and cleaning of cloth diapers requires more energy and water and generates more water pollution than the production of disposables.
Mothering magazine estimates that washing cloth diapers at home uses the same amount of water as flushing the toilet five to six times a day — which is what your child will be doing once she’s potty trained. Diaper services wash in high volume, which is more energy- and water-efficient.
POLLUTION
Use of both disposable and cloth diapers can cause harm to the environment, but in different ways.

• Disposal

The basic problem with disposable diapers is disposal. Disposable diapers are made of paper, plastic and the absorptive gel, sodium polyacrylate. These materials don’t biodegrade well, which means disposable diapers, like diamonds, are forever. Most go straight into landfills at the rate of 3.3 million tons —a whopping 18 billion diapers! — per year, according to EPA estimates. However, experts in waste management say that most things fail to biodegrade — even natural materials — in the environment of a landfill because of the lack of oxygen and water.
Proper use of disposables includes dumping fecal matter into the toilet before putting the soiled diaper in the trash. In practice, however, most parents don’t take that extra step. The smell and bacteria can create public health hazards. Fecal matter also carries live viruses that could potentially be released into the environment through leaking landfills. Yet, there are now hybrid disposable diapers like those made by gDiapers that are actually flushable which eliminates this problem.
The biggest environmental plus for cloth diapers is that they can be reused between 100 to 150 times. This also lowers their environmental impact per diaper, as compared to disposables.

• Pesticides

Since cloth diapers are made from cotton, pesticide use is a major pollution issue. Cotton crops use more pesticides than any other crop. (Note: Conventionally grown cotton fabric does NOT have pesticide residues. Learn more.)

• Wastewater

Conventional diaper production (both cotton and disposable) causes the release of dioxin, a potent carcinogen and hormone disruptor, in wastewater due to chlorine bleaching of cotton and wood pulp. Dioxin tends to persist for many years and can cause reproductive effects in wildlife. It also accumulates in animal and human tissue. Humans are exposed to dioxin through food that has been contaminated through environmental pollution.
Along with dioxin, wastewater produced by the manufacture of wood pulp, paper and plastics in disposables can contain solvents, sludge and heavy metals.
Diapering in the 21st Century
The diaper debate is sure to rage on, but consider one final factor: cost. Grist writer Anna Fahey says, “[r]eusable diapers (cloth or otherwise) are easier on the wallet. During the 2.5 years a child might be using diapers, reusables would cost between $400 and $1,700 for diapers, laundry supplies, water, and electricity. Over the same period, disposables would set you back $2,500 or so. If you pass the cloth diapers along to another child, the cost savings of reusables is even greater. A diaper service costs about the same as or a little less than disposables. (Everything you could possibly want to know about diaper costs is laid out here.)”
And, thank your lucky stars for ample choices. Beyond simply cloth vs. disposable, today’s parents have a slew of organically grown, unbleached cotton products in addition to hemp and bamboo alternatives. There’s also an ever-expanding market of eco-friendly disposable diapers including Tushies, Seventh Generation, Nature Boy and Girl, and Mother Nature.. They vary considerably, so do some homework before you choose. And, one last option to consider which allows you to avoid every single issue listed above: elimination communication – diaper-free living!
Did we miss anything? Where do you fall in the diaper debate?

By THOMAS J. MORGAN
JOURNAL sTAFF wRITER PAWTUCKET — The City of Pawtucket has agreed to apologize to one of its employees and to pay her legal fees after she sued over its drug-testing policy.
Romana Ramos, a police matron and interpreter for 17 years, contended that she was unlawfully required to submit to a random urine test for drugs and a chemical breath test for alcohol. The penalty for refusal was a 30-day suspension. Both tests proved negative, according to the Rhode Island affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union.
The ACLU on Thursday announced the settlement of the case, which was handled by volunteer attorney Richard A. Sinapi.
The ACLU said that state law allows drug testing in the workplace, but reasonable suspicion is required. Random testing is not allowed, the organization said in a news release.
In the settlement, the ACLU said, the city agreed to pay $5,000 in legal costs and to take steps to bring its testing policy into line with state law.
Sinapi said that the ACLU will take action against other employers if they require testing not approved by state law.

by Phillip Smith

One of outgoing Gov. Jon Corzine’s last acts before leaving office in January was to sign New Jersey’s Compassionate Use Act Medical Marijuana Act, allowing qualified patients in the Garden State to use medical marijuana. The law was supposed to go into effect on July 1, and if Corzine had remained governor, most everyone involved in the process agrees that would have happened.

NJ patients share victory hug after medical marijuana bill passes, January 2010 (courtesy cmmnj.org)

But New Jersey voters chose to replace the Democrat Corzine with Republican Gov. Chris Christie, who has been dragging his feet. This summer, Christie asked for a six to 12-month delay in implementing the bill. The legislature gave him three months, until October 1.
That means only that the state Department of Health will then begin drafting regulations. It will have another 90 days after that to do so, pushing the law’s effective date to January 1. But even that date is a chimera; given that registered patients will have to get their medicine from a state-licensed dispensary, or alternative treatment center, and given that marijuana takes a minimum of roughly three months to grow, even if potential dispensary operators are ready to go on January 1, it will be sometime in the spring of 2011 at the earliest before New Jersey patients are able to take advantage of the law.
Christie has also been floating proposals to change various aspects of the law. Last month, he proposed making Rutgers University the monopoly supplier. That proposal disturbed patients and advocates, but ultimately went nowhere when Rutgers declined the invitation, citing concerns about federal law. Christie has also raised concerns about New Jersey suffering the same allegedly dire experience California has gone through with its Wild West medical marijuana experience.
But the New Jersey law is already one of the strictest in the nation. It limits access to medical marijuana to people with a specified list of diseases, it limits the amount of marijuana patients can possess to two ounces per month, and it does not allow patients or their caregivers to grow their own medicine. Instead, at least six state-licensed alternative treatment centers, two in each region of the state, will grow and distribute medical marijuana.
Patients and advocates are watching uneasily as the state moves at a leisurely pace toward implementation. They are not happy with the tightness of the law, they are not happy with the delays, and they are casting a suspicious eye on Christie.
“Even in a best case scenario, patients won’t be getting medical marijuana in New Jersey until maybe March or April of 2011 from these alternative treatment centers,” said Ken Wolski of the Coalition for Medical Marijuana-New Jersey, the primary patient advocacy group in the state.
“Christie has been dragging his feet,” said Wolski. “He had to appoint a new health commissioner, so he asked for a six to 12-month delay. He said he doesn’t want New Jersey to turn into California, but we don’t see how that could happen because the New Jersey law is so tight and the alternative treatment centers will be so strictly regulated by the Department of Health. A majority of the legislature accepted his reasons, but only gave him three months.”
“The governor asked for an extension of six months to a year, and we fought that off,” said Roseanne Scotti of the Drug Policy Alliance New Jersey office, which also lobbied for passage of the bill. “There was talk then of other changes; Christie was saying he needed changes in the law to be able to let Rutgers do it, and we’ve heard rumors of other changes. But our sponsor, Sen. Scutari, has been very adamant. The law doesn’t need any more changes. It is the law, and they need to implement it,” she said.
“We did not support the idea of a monopoly at Rutgers or anywhere else, and that continues to be our position,” said Scotti. “When we talked to the health department, they seemed to be leaning toward trying to limit it in some way, which we are fighting against. You can’t just decide on your own you’re going to limit the people who do this.”
The Teaching Hospitals of New Jersey floated a proposal in which they would become the sole dispensers of medical marijuana. The Drug Policy Alliance also opposed that.
“We met with them and asked them how they think they could legally do that, since they would be violating federal law,” said Scotti. “They didn’t have any answer for that. If they want to be a dispensary, even if they want to open several, we are not opposed to that, but we are not in favor of any kind of monopoly.”
While the Christie administration talks about opening six dispensaries across the state, there is no limit on the number of dispensaries potentially allowed. The bill specifies only at least six.
“We’re advocating that competition is good, that anyone who is capable of producing a good product and meeting the understandable security needs of the state should be able to provide services to patients in need,” said Scotti. “The Christie administration seems to be latching onto the six, but that isn’t the law.”
Marta Portuguez of Roselle Park is one of the law’s potential beneficiaries. The 49-year-old woman suffers from 10 different illnesses, including gastroparesis, fibromyalgia, and chronic fatigue syndrome. Her symptoms include muscle spasms, attacks of nausea, and severe pain.
“The diseases are my constant companions,” she said. “I’m on pain medications, and the doctors don’t allow me to work. Not that I could — I find it impossible to sit for more than half an hour.”
Portuguez turned to medical marijuana on the advice of a family member who knew someone very ill whose doctor had recommending trying it. “I didn’t really know anything about it, but the more research I did, the more clear it became that it would be a great help. My stomach is dead, and I needed medication I don’t have to take orally,” she explained.
“They brought some to me and it was like a miracle,” Portuguez exclaimed. “I went from horrific pain 24-7 even with morphine, to almost no pain, almost immediately. I could be rolled up in a ball shaking and puking my guts out, and when I use it, that immediately starts dissipating. It’s quite remarkable. I can sit down with my husband and children and enjoy a movie. I have a little bit better quality of life; I’m not always so sick.”
But because marijuana is illegal, Portuguez is unable to get regular access to it. “I don’t have it all the time,” she said. “It’s sporadic. I’m not comfortable with the fact that it’s illegal, that’s why it’s so important for it to be legalized. It’s about compassion and helping your fellow human beings.”
Portuguez has been waiting for the law to be implemented, and when informed that it would be next spring at the earliest before medical marijuana would be available in New Jersey, she didn’t take the news well.
“I think that’s outrageous,” she said, her voice quivering. “I get very upset. The governor is not doing the right thing. I understand that there are things that need to be followed, but how can somebody get up there and say he’s going to try to stop the law we passed? How can they keep delaying and not consider the suffering they are making people go through? I think he’s doing it because he doesn’t have anyone ill in his family. Then, and only then, will he really understand. It’s the Compassionate Use Act, but they’re not acting very compassionate.”
While the delay in implementing the law is painful, it is not a surprise, said Scotti. Nor is it a surprise that patients and advocates are keeping the heat on.
“I’ve seen lots of regulations in New Jersey and other states take this long,” she said. “It’s not unusual, but we are constantly checking in with the health department and with legislators and talking to Sen. Scutari about keeping the pressure on. Our patients are very vocal and active.”
Although patients and advocates are pushing hard to get the Compassionate Use Act up and running, they are also quick to point out its flaws. “While we’re happy that marijuana is officially recognized as medicine in the Garden State, the law has a lot of shortcomings,” said Wolski. “The legislature was very wary of allowing medical marijuana in New Jersey and went with the most restrictive law in the nation.”
“The main problem is that home cultivation was taken out, which means that patients are unable to grow their own like they are in the 13 other states,” said Wolski. “We see that as an important part of health care reform. Home cultivation would take the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries out of the equation and empower patients to help themselves.”
Wolski also cited the quantity limits as inadequate for some patients. “The two ounce a month limit will be adequate for maybe half the patients,” he said. “Hospice patients have tremendous needs for the constant medical care marijuana can bring to them, and limiting chronic pain patients to two ounces a month is not enough.”
The number of conditions qualifying for medical marijuana use has shrunk, too, Wolski explained. While the final version of the bill includes seizure sufferers, cancer patients, glaucoma patients, HIV/AIDS sufferers, and people with multiple sclerosis and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gerhrig’s Disease), it does not include other neurological disorders, nor does it cover mental or emotional conditions.
“The Assembly Health Committee limited the law to three neurological conditions, but if medical marijuana is neuroprotective, it should be neuroprotective for all neurological conditions,” said Wolski, a registered nurse. “And bipolar disease, ADHD, PTSD, anxiety disorders, they don’t qualify, and that’s a real shame. I think the Department of Health will address the issue of qualifying conditions, but we have our work cut out for us.”
“Our fondest hope is that the law will be implemented the way it was written, and that the Department of Health’s regulations will reflect the wording of the law to establish at least six nonprofit alternative treatment centers,” said Wolski. “Our expectation is that this is what’s going to happen, but there are fears the governor is trying to take over the medical marijuana industry,” he said, alluding to Gov. Christie’s abortive plan to have Rutgers University monopolize production.
New Jersey has a medical marijuana law. It may not be the best medical marijuana law, but it is a medical marijuana law and it will provide protection to at least some patients. Warts and all, New Jersey patients and advocates are working as hard as they can to get it up and running as soon as they can.

A bill headed to the House floor today has drug law reformers in a tizzy. Critics of the ominously named Drug Trafficking Safe Harbor Elimination Act of 2010 argue that passage of the bill could require American citizens to cancel their drug-fueled visits to Amsterdam, and perhaps prevent them from sampling the rich oily hashish of Northern Morocco.
“[This bill] seeks to authorize U.S. criminal prosecution of anyone in the U.S. suspected of conspiring mwith one or more persons, or aiding or abetting one or more persons, to commit at any place outside the United States an act that would constitute a violation of the U.S. Controlled Substances Act if committed within the United States,” the Drug Policy Alliance wrote on its Facebook page. “These penalties apply even if the controlled substance is legal under some circumstances in the other country.”
The bill’s architects beg to differ.
“If you go to Amsterdam on vacation and smoke a doob, you’re fine,” a senior House Judiciary committee staffer told The Daily Caller. “So long as it’s legal in the country where you’ll be.”
Sponsored by hard-line drug warrior Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith, and cosponsored by California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, the Drug Trafficking Safe Harbor Elimination Act of 2010 will likely pass tomorrow despite the DPA’s argument that broad language in the bill could one day serve as an excuse to prosecute Americans for possessing drugs outside the U.S. The bill also has a counterpart in the Senate.
“An American treatment provider working with doctors in England, Denmark, Germany, or Switzerland to provide heroin-assisted treatment and sterile syringes to heroin users in those countries could face arrest. As could an otherwise law-abiding American planning with some friends to use marijuana legally in the Netherlands. Even though this bill references drug trafficking in the title, it also criminalizes conspiring to possess and use marijuana or other drugs in other countries if more than one person is involved — even if drug use is decriminalized in that country,” the DPA’s Facebook note warns.
The Judiciary Committee staffer says the DPA’s fears are overblown.
“So what? I say to someone, ‘I’m going to [possess] a dime bag of marijuana when I get to Amsterdam’?” the staffer said. “I can’t technically say that’s not within the four corners of the Controlled Substances Act. But how is a law enforcement officer supposed to know that?”

by Phillip Smith,

Activists in Alabama have been trying for years to get a medical marijuana bill passed there. Last year, for the first time, a bill made it out of committee. Next year, they will try again, but even if they succeed, it will be too late for Michael Lapihuska.

Michael Lapihuska, facing camera, wearing Alabamans for Compassionate Care t-shirt

Lapihuska, cursed with depression and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), grew up in Alabama, but left the state after serving 13 months for possessing five grams of marijuana in 2003. The now card-carrying medical marijuana patient from California was arrested on marijuana possession charges again on December 15 in Anniston, Alabama, as he visited his family for the holidays.
Lapihuska was stopped by a police officer and accused of hitch hiking as he walked down a road. The officer demanded he be allowed to search Lapihuska, and he complied. The search came up with a prescription bottle containing one gram of marijuana. Lapihuska explained that he was a registered California medical marijuana patient and produced a patient ID card.
But Alabama justice doesn’t recognize medical marijuana, and Lapihuska was charged with his third marijuana possession offense, this one worth between two and 10 years in state prison. Under Alabama law, a first marijuana offense is a misdemeanor, but a second possession offense is a felony punishable by a year in prison. A third possession offense is a felony punishable by two to 10 years in prison.
“Alabama is a terrible, terrible place when it comes to drug laws,” noted Loretta Nall, a long-time Alabama drug reform activist and leader of Alabamians for Compassionate Care, a medical marijuana activist group that has taken up Lapihuska’s cause.
Lapihuska’s public defender is urging him to cop a plea in which he would be sentenced to one year, with the sentence suspended and two years probation. But that deal also includes drug testing, and that’s a deal-breaker for him. “Everyone says just take the probation, but if I did that, I’d end up in prison anyway for failing the drug test,” he said.
“This is Anniston, Alabama,” said Laiphuska. “There is no way I’m going to win this case. But my doctor told me this was my recommended medicine. If I was prescribed Oxycontin, or morphine, or Xanax and was walking down the road, they would have had to give my medicine back. I broke the law, but I think the law is wrong. I’m looking at two to 10 years for a gram of marijuana prescribed by my doctor?”
Lapihuska has been stuck in Alabama since December while awaiting trial. It hasn’t exactly been fun, he said. “I’ve been miserable and anxious. I just want to go someplace where my medicine is safe and legal and I’m not at risk for using the medicine that works best for me.”
In addition to repeated stints behind bars for using marijuana, Lapihuska has been hospitalized for mental health reasons 20 to 30 times, he said. “I’ve been on all sorts of medication. Most of my life has been eaten up with anxiety. They’ve tried Xanax, Thorazine, all kinds of things. They even gave me an anti-Parkinson’s disease medicine and told me I would have to take it the rest of my life. I would sleep 16 hours a day on those meds, I’d be shaking,” he recalled.
“But now, I feel better than I’ve ever felt,” he said. “I ride my bicycle 50 to 150 miles a day. And now they’re arresting me for the thing that cures me.”
Unless he or state prosecutors relent, Lapihuska goes to trial October 28. If it comes to that, the Alabama medical marijuana community will do what it can, just as it has been beating the bushes to publicize the case already.
“Here in Alabama, our only hope of helping Michael out if this goes to trial is to do some jury nullification work,” said Nall. “When he goes to trial, myself and other members of ACC will do some handouts at the courthouse to inform people about the true nature of the situation, that he was not just some guy smoking weed. We hope to find one person on the jury to vote to nullify.”
Nall and ACC, for whom Lapihuska has been volunteering while he awaits trial, have been laying the groundwork for that by getting the story out. “We got a great article in the Anniston Star,” she said. “That generated nothing but wonderful comments on the web site and three letters to the editor, all positive. We’ve been getting a lot of positive feedback on Facebook, too.”
Lapihuska’s plight may help the cause of advancing medical marijuana at the statehouse. Rep. Patricia Todd, sponsor of last year’s medical marijuana bill, said she would reintroduce it for the session that begins in March. She would try to make it more palatable to law enforcement, she said.
“I’ll pre-file the bill after the first of the year,” Todd said. “We plan to sit down with law enforcement and health people, and may make some changes to appease law enforcement. I think the bill will start out with three dispensaries around the state, to be regulated by the health department. I think patients being able to grow will be part of it. The main heartburn the health department has is how to regulate it, how to know who’s growing what.”
While movement on medical marijuana in the legislature has been painfully slow, Todd expressed guarded optimism that her bill would move next year. Last year, for the first time, it got out of a House committee. But much depends on the outcome of the November elections.
“If the Republicans take over the legislature, the bill is going nowhere,” she said. “If the Democrats keep control, it’ll still be an uphill battle. We got it out of committee last year; this year, I hope we can get it to a floor vote.”
“It should be coming up very early in the session,” Todd said. “Attitudes are changing. Legislators watch the news, and we have a pretty good grassroots effort going. The main fear last year was that we don’t want to be like California, with a dispensary on every corner, and I think we will have addressed that.
Todd said that had her bill passed last year, Lapihuska wouldn’t be facing the problems he is. “Our bill has the reciprocity clause in, and that would protect Michael and people like him,” she said.
“It’s totally ridiculous,” said Todd. “He had a card that identified him as being able to use medical marijuana. I’m trying to change this, but this is the Deep South,” she sighed.
If Lapihuska is sent to prison, it will be a tight squeeze. Alabama’s prisons are at 180% of capacity, Todd noted.
“Our corrections commissioner makes the point to the legislature each year that he wishes we would quit passing laws to incarcerate more people,” she said. “But I’m the only one who ever votes against them. Most of our elected officials are afraid they will be perceived as soft on crime, but the war on drugs isn’t working, we have more people addicted than ever before. I think marijuana should be legal, and I’ll keep on fighting.”
So, it appears, will Michael Lapihuska — unless he can persuade prosecutors to offer a sweeter deal. “I would accept two years of unsupervised probation in California, but for me to have to stay here and do drug rehab for my doctor approved medication, that’s ridiculous. And with drug testing, if I use my medicine, I violate probation.”