Friday, March 20, 2009
Friday, March 6, 2009
False Positive Drug Tests from Police Field Kits
Citing Startling Research on False Positive Drug Tests, Researchers Call for Moratorium on Field Drug Test Kit Testing
from Drug War Chronicle, Issue #575, 3/6/09
As a lab-coated and rubber glove wearing researcher from the South Carolina Center for Biotechnology dumped a sample of oregano into a field test kit, Mintwood Media's Adam Eidinger produced a positive test result for cocaine with another kit simply by exposing it to the atmosphere. "This is just air," Eidinger said, opening up a test and waving it as the reagent turned orange, indicating a positive result. (See the YouTube video here.)
The testing done at the press conference replicated that done earlier by the researchers, who found that a surprisingly large number of common substances generated false positive results for the presence of drugs. "While testing the specificity of the KN Reagent test kits with 42 non-marijuana substances, I observed that 70% of these tests rendered a false positive," said Dr. Omar Bagasra, director of the Center for Biotechnology, who conducted the experiments.
field test generating false positive from mere air""That's just outrageous," exclaimed Eidinger.
That research came as part of new report, False Positives Equal False Justice, by forensics expert John Kelly in collaboration with former FBI chief scientist and narcotics officer Dr. Frederick Whitehurst. In the report, the pair uncovered "a drug testing regime of fraudulent forensics used by police, prosecutors, and judges which abrogates every American's constitutional rights," as Kelly wrote in the executive summary.
"Law enforcement officials, forensic drug analysts, and prosecutors knowingly employ the flawed Duquenois-Levine and KN Reagent tests as well as mere conclusory police reports to wrongfully prosecute and convict millions of individuals for anti-marijuana law violations," Kelly wrote. "These wrongful prosecutions and convictions violate Supreme Court rulings which prohibit the use of inaccurate, nonspecific tests and/or conclusory reports because they do not prove the presence of marijuana in a seized substance. In other words, millions of people have been, and continue to be, prosecuted and convicted of marijuana charges without proof that they possessed marijuana."
Dr. Bagasra testing the field test on chocolateBoth Kelly and MPP executive director Rob Kampia used the report's findings to call for a moratorium on the use of field drug testing kits. "It is imperative that law enforcement agencies take notice and voluntarily end the use of these flawed drug tests. The essential need of protecting the innocent must outweigh the convenience of a field drug test that only gives accurate information some of the time," wrote Kelly.
"In terms of policy recommendations, it's real simple, no one should be using these faulty field tests, they should be thrown out and the company that's making them should probably be put out of business," Kampia told the press conference. "Natural soap, chocolate and newspaper, among other household items, all will test positive for marijuana and other drugs such as GHB, yet these kits continue to be used in both arrests and prosecutions nationwide. In our society we have the principle that you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. These tests turn that on its head."
ODV, a subsidiary of Forensic Source, manufactures the NIK Narco Pouch 908 and 909 tested by the researchers. The company did not respond to requests for comment by day's end on Thursday. The tests' packaging warns that they can produce false positives, but does not mention that most of their positives are false.
common items that generate false positives (Katie Schuler, bellvisuals.com)False positive field drug tests can ruin your day. Ask Don Bolles, drummer for the punk band The Germs. He was arrested and jailed for three days in April 2007 because a field test said the Dr. Bronner's Magic Soap he had with him tested positive for GHB. That field test was done with the NarcoPouch 928, another in the ODV line. Later testing revealed the 928 would generate false positives with a wide variety of natural soaps, as well as soy milk.
Bryn Mawr honor student Janet Lee was another victim of inaccurate field drug test kits. As she prepared to fly home for Christmas break in 2003, she was arrested at the Philadelphia airport after three condoms filled with flour (she said she squeezed them for stress relief) came up as cocaine on a cobalt thiocyanate (C-T) field test. She spent three weeks in jail facing charges that could net her 20 years in prison before an attorney demanded the drug be retested. Lee collected $180,000 from the city two years later to settle a lawsuit, but still suffered the Kafkaesque nightmare of being jailed.
Lee was lucky. A jail guard recognized her as a volunteer and beat the bushes for a good attorney. It is unknown how many others like her there are who, lacking such resources, either were found guilty or plea bargained to crimes of which they were innocent because of deceptive field drug tests.
the fraudulent field test packetsAnother widely publicized incident of bad field drug tests occurred in August, when Ron Obadia and Nadine Artemis were arrested, handcuffed to a chair, and interrogated for hours at the Toronto Airport after their raw chocolate tested positive for hashish with the Duquenois-Levine color chemical test. They were placed in separate rooms and were told that they faced "life in prison" unless they confessed. Each of them was also told that the other already had confessed.
Later lab testing proved it was indeed chocolate, not hash, and the pair were sent on their way. They also accumulated a $20,000 legal bill. To add insult to injury, when the couple tried again to fly to the US three weeks later with their raw chocolate, it again tested positive on the field test kit. This time, Obadia was arrested and charged with hash possession.
Bookmark/Search this post with: digg reddit
Drug War Issues Marijuana - Cocaine
Politics & Advocacy State & Local Executive Branches - Executive Branch
email this page
from Drug War Chronicle, Issue #575, 3/6/09
As a lab-coated and rubber glove wearing researcher from the South Carolina Center for Biotechnology dumped a sample of oregano into a field test kit, Mintwood Media's Adam Eidinger produced a positive test result for cocaine with another kit simply by exposing it to the atmosphere. "This is just air," Eidinger said, opening up a test and waving it as the reagent turned orange, indicating a positive result. (See the YouTube video here.)
The testing done at the press conference replicated that done earlier by the researchers, who found that a surprisingly large number of common substances generated false positive results for the presence of drugs. "While testing the specificity of the KN Reagent test kits with 42 non-marijuana substances, I observed that 70% of these tests rendered a false positive," said Dr. Omar Bagasra, director of the Center for Biotechnology, who conducted the experiments.
field test generating false positive from mere air""That's just outrageous," exclaimed Eidinger.
That research came as part of new report, False Positives Equal False Justice, by forensics expert John Kelly in collaboration with former FBI chief scientist and narcotics officer Dr. Frederick Whitehurst. In the report, the pair uncovered "a drug testing regime of fraudulent forensics used by police, prosecutors, and judges which abrogates every American's constitutional rights," as Kelly wrote in the executive summary.
"Law enforcement officials, forensic drug analysts, and prosecutors knowingly employ the flawed Duquenois-Levine and KN Reagent tests as well as mere conclusory police reports to wrongfully prosecute and convict millions of individuals for anti-marijuana law violations," Kelly wrote. "These wrongful prosecutions and convictions violate Supreme Court rulings which prohibit the use of inaccurate, nonspecific tests and/or conclusory reports because they do not prove the presence of marijuana in a seized substance. In other words, millions of people have been, and continue to be, prosecuted and convicted of marijuana charges without proof that they possessed marijuana."
Dr. Bagasra testing the field test on chocolateBoth Kelly and MPP executive director Rob Kampia used the report's findings to call for a moratorium on the use of field drug testing kits. "It is imperative that law enforcement agencies take notice and voluntarily end the use of these flawed drug tests. The essential need of protecting the innocent must outweigh the convenience of a field drug test that only gives accurate information some of the time," wrote Kelly.
"In terms of policy recommendations, it's real simple, no one should be using these faulty field tests, they should be thrown out and the company that's making them should probably be put out of business," Kampia told the press conference. "Natural soap, chocolate and newspaper, among other household items, all will test positive for marijuana and other drugs such as GHB, yet these kits continue to be used in both arrests and prosecutions nationwide. In our society we have the principle that you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. These tests turn that on its head."
ODV, a subsidiary of Forensic Source, manufactures the NIK Narco Pouch 908 and 909 tested by the researchers. The company did not respond to requests for comment by day's end on Thursday. The tests' packaging warns that they can produce false positives, but does not mention that most of their positives are false.
common items that generate false positives (Katie Schuler, bellvisuals.com)False positive field drug tests can ruin your day. Ask Don Bolles, drummer for the punk band The Germs. He was arrested and jailed for three days in April 2007 because a field test said the Dr. Bronner's Magic Soap he had with him tested positive for GHB. That field test was done with the NarcoPouch 928, another in the ODV line. Later testing revealed the 928 would generate false positives with a wide variety of natural soaps, as well as soy milk.
Bryn Mawr honor student Janet Lee was another victim of inaccurate field drug test kits. As she prepared to fly home for Christmas break in 2003, she was arrested at the Philadelphia airport after three condoms filled with flour (she said she squeezed them for stress relief) came up as cocaine on a cobalt thiocyanate (C-T) field test. She spent three weeks in jail facing charges that could net her 20 years in prison before an attorney demanded the drug be retested. Lee collected $180,000 from the city two years later to settle a lawsuit, but still suffered the Kafkaesque nightmare of being jailed.
Lee was lucky. A jail guard recognized her as a volunteer and beat the bushes for a good attorney. It is unknown how many others like her there are who, lacking such resources, either were found guilty or plea bargained to crimes of which they were innocent because of deceptive field drug tests.
the fraudulent field test packetsAnother widely publicized incident of bad field drug tests occurred in August, when Ron Obadia and Nadine Artemis were arrested, handcuffed to a chair, and interrogated for hours at the Toronto Airport after their raw chocolate tested positive for hashish with the Duquenois-Levine color chemical test. They were placed in separate rooms and were told that they faced "life in prison" unless they confessed. Each of them was also told that the other already had confessed.
Later lab testing proved it was indeed chocolate, not hash, and the pair were sent on their way. They also accumulated a $20,000 legal bill. To add insult to injury, when the couple tried again to fly to the US three weeks later with their raw chocolate, it again tested positive on the field test kit. This time, Obadia was arrested and charged with hash possession.
Bookmark/Search this post with: digg reddit
Drug War Issues Marijuana - Cocaine
Politics & Advocacy State & Local Executive Branches - Executive Branch
email this page
Monday, March 2, 2009
Police State Under Bush
Print
Back to story
Obama releases secret Bush anti-terror memos
By DEVLIN BARRETT and MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writers Devlin Barrett And Matt Apuzzo, Associated Press Writers 1 hr 38 mins ago
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration threw open the curtain on years of Bush-era secrets Monday, revealing anti-terror memos that claimed exceptional search-and-seizure powers and divulging that the CIA destroyed nearly 100 videotapes of interrogations and other treatment of terror suspects.
The Justice Department released nine legal opinions showing that, following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush administration determined that certain constitutional rights would not apply during the coming fight. Within two weeks, government lawyers were already discussing ways to wiretap U.S. conversations without warrants.
The Bush administration eventually abandoned many of the legal conclusions, but the documents themselves had been closely held. By releasing them, President Barack Obama continued a house-cleaning of the previous administration's most contentious policies.
"Too often over the past decade, the fight against terrorism has been viewed as a zero-sum battle with our civil liberties," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a speech a few hours before the documents were released. "Not only is that school of thought misguided, I fear that in actuality it does more harm than good."
The Obama administration also acknowledged in court documents Monday that the CIA destroyed 92 videos involving terror suspects, including interrogations — far more than had been known. Congressional Democrats and other critics have charged that some of the harsh interrogation techniques amounted to torture, a contention President George W. Bush and other Bush officials rejected.
The new administration pledged on Monday to begin turning over documents related to the videos to a federal judge and to make as much information public as possible.
The legal memos written by the Bush administration's Office of Legal Counsel show a government grappling with how to wage war on terrorism in a fast-changing world. The conclusion, reiterated in page after page of documents, was that the president had broad authority to set aside constitutional rights.
Fourth Amendment protections against unwarranted search and seizure, for instance, did not apply in the United States as long as the president was combatting terrorism, the Justice Department said in an Oct. 23, 2001, memo.
"First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully," Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo wrote, adding later: "The current campaign against terrorism may require even broader exercises of federal power domestically."
On Sept. 25, 2001, Yoo discussed possible changes to the laws governing wiretaps for intelligence gathering. In that memo, he said the government's interest in keeping the nation safe following the terrorist attacks might justify warrantless searches.
That memo did not specifically attempt to justify the government's warrantless wiretapping program, but it provided part of the foundation.
Yoo, now a professor at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law, did not return messages seeking comment.
The memos reflected a belief within the Bush administration that the president had broad powers that could not be checked by Congress or the courts. That stance, in one form or another, became the foundation for many policies: holding detainees at Guantanamo Bay, eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without warrants, using tough new CIA interrogation tactics and locking U.S. citizens in military brigs without charges.
Obama has pledged to close the Guantanamo Bay prison within a year. He halted the CIA's intensive interrogation program. And last week, prosecutors moved the terrorism case against U.S. resident Ali Al-Marri, a suspected al-Qaida sleeper agent held in a military brig, to a civilian courthouse.
A criminal prosecutor is wrapping up an investigation of the destruction of the tapes of interrogations.
Monday's acknowledgment of videotape destruction, however, involved a civil lawsuit filed in New York by the American Civil Liberties Union.
"The CIA can now identify the number of videotapes that were destroyed," said the letter submitted in that case by Acting U.S. Attorney Lev Dassin. "Ninety-two videotapes were destroyed."
It is not clear what exactly was on the recordings. The government's letter cites interrogation videos, but the lawsuit against the Defense Department also seeks records related to treatment of detainees, any deaths of detainees and the CIA's sending of suspects overseas, known as "extraordinary rendition."
At the White House, press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters he hadn't spoken to the president about the report, but he called the news about the videotapes "sad" and said Obama was committed to ending torture while also protecting American values.
ACLU attorney Amrit Singh said the CIA should be held in contempt of court for holding back the information for so long.
"The large number of videotapes destroyed confirms that the agency engaged in a systematic attempt to hide evidence of its illegal interrogations and to evade the court's order," Singh said.
CIA spokesman George Little said the agency "has certainly cooperated with the Department of Justice investigation. If anyone thinks it's agency policy to impede the enforcement of American law, they simply don't know the facts."
The details of interrogations of terror suspects, and the existence of tapes documenting those sessions, have become the subject of long fights in a number of different court cases. In the trial of Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, prosecutors initially claimed no such recordings existed, then acknowledged after the trial was over that two videotapes and one audiotape had been made.
The Dassin letter, dated March 2 to Judge Alvin Hellerstein, says the CIA is now gathering more details for the lawsuit, including a list of the destroyed records, any secondary accounts that describe the destroyed contents and the identities of those who may have viewed or possessed the recordings before they were destroyed.
But the lawyers also note that some of that information may be classified, such as the names of CIA personnel who viewed the tapes.
The separate criminal investigation includes interrogations of al-Qaida lieutenant Abu Zubaydah and another top al-Qaida leader. Tapes of those interrogations were destroyed, in part, the Bush administration said, to protect the identities of the government questioners at a time the Justice Department was debating whether or not the tactics used during the interrogations were legal.
Former CIA director Michael Hayden acknowledged that waterboarding — simulated drowning — was used on three suspects, including the two whose interrogations were recorded.
John Durham, a senior career prosecutor in Connecticut, is leading the criminal investigation, out of Virginia, and had asked that he be given until the end of February to wrap up his work before requests for information in the civil lawsuit were dealt with.
___
Associated Press Writers Pamela Hess and Philip Elliott contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service
Copyright/IP Policy
Back to story
Obama releases secret Bush anti-terror memos
By DEVLIN BARRETT and MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writers Devlin Barrett And Matt Apuzzo, Associated Press Writers 1 hr 38 mins ago
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration threw open the curtain on years of Bush-era secrets Monday, revealing anti-terror memos that claimed exceptional search-and-seizure powers and divulging that the CIA destroyed nearly 100 videotapes of interrogations and other treatment of terror suspects.
The Justice Department released nine legal opinions showing that, following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush administration determined that certain constitutional rights would not apply during the coming fight. Within two weeks, government lawyers were already discussing ways to wiretap U.S. conversations without warrants.
The Bush administration eventually abandoned many of the legal conclusions, but the documents themselves had been closely held. By releasing them, President Barack Obama continued a house-cleaning of the previous administration's most contentious policies.
"Too often over the past decade, the fight against terrorism has been viewed as a zero-sum battle with our civil liberties," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a speech a few hours before the documents were released. "Not only is that school of thought misguided, I fear that in actuality it does more harm than good."
The Obama administration also acknowledged in court documents Monday that the CIA destroyed 92 videos involving terror suspects, including interrogations — far more than had been known. Congressional Democrats and other critics have charged that some of the harsh interrogation techniques amounted to torture, a contention President George W. Bush and other Bush officials rejected.
The new administration pledged on Monday to begin turning over documents related to the videos to a federal judge and to make as much information public as possible.
The legal memos written by the Bush administration's Office of Legal Counsel show a government grappling with how to wage war on terrorism in a fast-changing world. The conclusion, reiterated in page after page of documents, was that the president had broad authority to set aside constitutional rights.
Fourth Amendment protections against unwarranted search and seizure, for instance, did not apply in the United States as long as the president was combatting terrorism, the Justice Department said in an Oct. 23, 2001, memo.
"First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully," Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo wrote, adding later: "The current campaign against terrorism may require even broader exercises of federal power domestically."
On Sept. 25, 2001, Yoo discussed possible changes to the laws governing wiretaps for intelligence gathering. In that memo, he said the government's interest in keeping the nation safe following the terrorist attacks might justify warrantless searches.
That memo did not specifically attempt to justify the government's warrantless wiretapping program, but it provided part of the foundation.
Yoo, now a professor at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law, did not return messages seeking comment.
The memos reflected a belief within the Bush administration that the president had broad powers that could not be checked by Congress or the courts. That stance, in one form or another, became the foundation for many policies: holding detainees at Guantanamo Bay, eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without warrants, using tough new CIA interrogation tactics and locking U.S. citizens in military brigs without charges.
Obama has pledged to close the Guantanamo Bay prison within a year. He halted the CIA's intensive interrogation program. And last week, prosecutors moved the terrorism case against U.S. resident Ali Al-Marri, a suspected al-Qaida sleeper agent held in a military brig, to a civilian courthouse.
A criminal prosecutor is wrapping up an investigation of the destruction of the tapes of interrogations.
Monday's acknowledgment of videotape destruction, however, involved a civil lawsuit filed in New York by the American Civil Liberties Union.
"The CIA can now identify the number of videotapes that were destroyed," said the letter submitted in that case by Acting U.S. Attorney Lev Dassin. "Ninety-two videotapes were destroyed."
It is not clear what exactly was on the recordings. The government's letter cites interrogation videos, but the lawsuit against the Defense Department also seeks records related to treatment of detainees, any deaths of detainees and the CIA's sending of suspects overseas, known as "extraordinary rendition."
At the White House, press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters he hadn't spoken to the president about the report, but he called the news about the videotapes "sad" and said Obama was committed to ending torture while also protecting American values.
ACLU attorney Amrit Singh said the CIA should be held in contempt of court for holding back the information for so long.
"The large number of videotapes destroyed confirms that the agency engaged in a systematic attempt to hide evidence of its illegal interrogations and to evade the court's order," Singh said.
CIA spokesman George Little said the agency "has certainly cooperated with the Department of Justice investigation. If anyone thinks it's agency policy to impede the enforcement of American law, they simply don't know the facts."
The details of interrogations of terror suspects, and the existence of tapes documenting those sessions, have become the subject of long fights in a number of different court cases. In the trial of Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, prosecutors initially claimed no such recordings existed, then acknowledged after the trial was over that two videotapes and one audiotape had been made.
The Dassin letter, dated March 2 to Judge Alvin Hellerstein, says the CIA is now gathering more details for the lawsuit, including a list of the destroyed records, any secondary accounts that describe the destroyed contents and the identities of those who may have viewed or possessed the recordings before they were destroyed.
But the lawyers also note that some of that information may be classified, such as the names of CIA personnel who viewed the tapes.
The separate criminal investigation includes interrogations of al-Qaida lieutenant Abu Zubaydah and another top al-Qaida leader. Tapes of those interrogations were destroyed, in part, the Bush administration said, to protect the identities of the government questioners at a time the Justice Department was debating whether or not the tactics used during the interrogations were legal.
Former CIA director Michael Hayden acknowledged that waterboarding — simulated drowning — was used on three suspects, including the two whose interrogations were recorded.
John Durham, a senior career prosecutor in Connecticut, is leading the criminal investigation, out of Virginia, and had asked that he be given until the end of February to wrap up his work before requests for information in the civil lawsuit were dealt with.
___
Associated Press Writers Pamela Hess and Philip Elliott contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service
Copyright/IP Policy
Sunday, March 1, 2009
California Assemblyman Announces Bill to Tax Marijuana
Assemblyman Tom Ammiano Introduces Bill that Would Decriminalize and Tax Marijuana for Adults
By Mechanic
California Assemblyman introduces bill to decriminalize and tax marijuana.
Assemblyman Ammiano says AB 390 will help state's economic downturn.
California State Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) has recently introduced Assembly Bill 390: The Marijuana Control, Regulation and Education Act, the first bill of its kind in the state of California that would decriminalize recreational marijuana use and set up the framework to regulate the sale and taxation of marijuana.
Under the bill, wholesalers of marijuana would pay an initial $5,000 licensing fee with a $2,500 annual renewal fee. Wholesalers are then able to sell marijuana to licensed retailers who would pay a "Marijuana Supplemental Fee" of $50 per ounce of marijuana sold to the public. This fee, officially the Marijuana Supplemental Fee Law, would be used to fund drug education and awareness programs but would not be applied to medical marijuana patients. The proposed bill would also restrict persons under 21 years of age from having "access to marijuana during receiving, processing, packing, storage, and delivery or at any other time," and restricts the consumption of marijuana on the property of wholesalers.
Financial Benefit
The announcement of the bill comes in the midst of tough economic times, both at the state and national level. Assemblyman Ammiano argues, "With the state in the midst of an historic economic crisis, the move toward regulating and taxing marijuana is simply common sense," he added, "This legislation would generate much needed revenue for the state, restrict access to only those over 21, end the environmental damage to our public lands from illicit crops, and improve public safety by redirecting law enforcement efforts to more serious crimes. California has the opportunity to be the first state in the nation to enact a smart, responsible public policy for the control and regulation of marijuana."
A study by the California State Board of Equalization estimated that taxing marijuana could generate 1.3 billion annually and a separate study conducted by California NORML estimated that the California cannabis industry to be worth between 12-18 billion dollars. A 2006 study conducted by Jon Gettman found that between 2003 and 2006, marijuana was America's #1 cash crop, marijuana production is California outpaced both vegetables and grapes, and estimated it's worth in the billions of dollars. Ammiano said, "I think the outcome would be very healthy for California and California's economy." A study by Harvard in 2005 estimated that by legalizing marijuana the federal government would save 7.7 billion dollars in prohibition enforcement and could generate taxes in between 2.4 and 6.2 billion dollars annually.
Medical Marijuana Vs. The Federal Government
In 1996, California voters approved Proposition 215, making California the first state in the United States to allow marijuana use for medical purposes. This put the state of California at odds with the Federal government's stance that marijuana is illegal to use, even for medical use, and would often make California's medical marijuana providers the subject of DEA raids. Under the 1970 Controlled Substance Act, marijuana is classified as a Schedule 1 narcotic (no medical benefit) despite numerous medical studies outlining marijuana's medical potential. Since the 1996 passing of Prop. 215, fifteen additional states have approved state medical marijuana legislation.
Proponents of the bill, including Assemblyman Ammiano, admit that one obstacle for the success of the bill is the federal ban on marijuana. However, recent polls suggest that Americans are growing more in favor of decriminalizing marijuana and even the federal government hinted that it may stop DEA raids on medical marijuana providers. Ammiano is hopeful, "We could in fact have the political will to do something, and certainly in the meantime this is a public policy call and I think it's worth the discussion."
Mixed Reactions
Marijuana activist groups like the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), and The Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), have received the announcement of the bill with open arms, but opponents are not receiving the bill so well. In the few days since the announcement of the bill, a fierce debate has already developed. In what be a surprise to some, Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco, has spoken out against the measure. The LA Times published an editorial calling the bill an "ill advised tax scheme," on one hand but urges the government to review it's policies on marijuana because "it's the right thing to do". With advocates citing financial and practical benefits and opponents citing health concerns, only time will determine the outcome.
Sources:Assemblyman Ammiano's WebsiteAB 390 Text; Feb. 2009NORML; Feb. 2009CA NORML; Feb. 2009Marijuana Production in US, Jon Gettman, Drug Science, 2006About Jon Gettman, Drug Science, 200640% Say Marijuana Should Be Legalized, Rasmussen Reports, Feb. 2009State by State Laws(CA), NORML, 2008WAMM.org, 2002Therapeutic Effects, Medboardwatch.com, 2002US to yield marijuana jurisdiction to states, SF Chrnoicle, Feb. 2009Legal pot is not mayor's cup of tea, SF Chronicle, Feb. 2009Reefer Tax Madness, LA TImes, Feb. 2009
2009 © Associated Content, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy Terms of Use
By Mechanic
California Assemblyman introduces bill to decriminalize and tax marijuana.
Assemblyman Ammiano says AB 390 will help state's economic downturn.
California State Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) has recently introduced Assembly Bill 390: The Marijuana Control, Regulation and Education Act, the first bill of its kind in the state of California that would decriminalize recreational marijuana use and set up the framework to regulate the sale and taxation of marijuana.
Under the bill, wholesalers of marijuana would pay an initial $5,000 licensing fee with a $2,500 annual renewal fee. Wholesalers are then able to sell marijuana to licensed retailers who would pay a "Marijuana Supplemental Fee" of $50 per ounce of marijuana sold to the public. This fee, officially the Marijuana Supplemental Fee Law, would be used to fund drug education and awareness programs but would not be applied to medical marijuana patients. The proposed bill would also restrict persons under 21 years of age from having "access to marijuana during receiving, processing, packing, storage, and delivery or at any other time," and restricts the consumption of marijuana on the property of wholesalers.
Financial Benefit
The announcement of the bill comes in the midst of tough economic times, both at the state and national level. Assemblyman Ammiano argues, "With the state in the midst of an historic economic crisis, the move toward regulating and taxing marijuana is simply common sense," he added, "This legislation would generate much needed revenue for the state, restrict access to only those over 21, end the environmental damage to our public lands from illicit crops, and improve public safety by redirecting law enforcement efforts to more serious crimes. California has the opportunity to be the first state in the nation to enact a smart, responsible public policy for the control and regulation of marijuana."
A study by the California State Board of Equalization estimated that taxing marijuana could generate 1.3 billion annually and a separate study conducted by California NORML estimated that the California cannabis industry to be worth between 12-18 billion dollars. A 2006 study conducted by Jon Gettman found that between 2003 and 2006, marijuana was America's #1 cash crop, marijuana production is California outpaced both vegetables and grapes, and estimated it's worth in the billions of dollars. Ammiano said, "I think the outcome would be very healthy for California and California's economy." A study by Harvard in 2005 estimated that by legalizing marijuana the federal government would save 7.7 billion dollars in prohibition enforcement and could generate taxes in between 2.4 and 6.2 billion dollars annually.
Medical Marijuana Vs. The Federal Government
In 1996, California voters approved Proposition 215, making California the first state in the United States to allow marijuana use for medical purposes. This put the state of California at odds with the Federal government's stance that marijuana is illegal to use, even for medical use, and would often make California's medical marijuana providers the subject of DEA raids. Under the 1970 Controlled Substance Act, marijuana is classified as a Schedule 1 narcotic (no medical benefit) despite numerous medical studies outlining marijuana's medical potential. Since the 1996 passing of Prop. 215, fifteen additional states have approved state medical marijuana legislation.
Proponents of the bill, including Assemblyman Ammiano, admit that one obstacle for the success of the bill is the federal ban on marijuana. However, recent polls suggest that Americans are growing more in favor of decriminalizing marijuana and even the federal government hinted that it may stop DEA raids on medical marijuana providers. Ammiano is hopeful, "We could in fact have the political will to do something, and certainly in the meantime this is a public policy call and I think it's worth the discussion."
Mixed Reactions
Marijuana activist groups like the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), and The Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), have received the announcement of the bill with open arms, but opponents are not receiving the bill so well. In the few days since the announcement of the bill, a fierce debate has already developed. In what be a surprise to some, Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco, has spoken out against the measure. The LA Times published an editorial calling the bill an "ill advised tax scheme," on one hand but urges the government to review it's policies on marijuana because "it's the right thing to do". With advocates citing financial and practical benefits and opponents citing health concerns, only time will determine the outcome.
Sources:Assemblyman Ammiano's WebsiteAB 390 Text; Feb. 2009NORML; Feb. 2009CA NORML; Feb. 2009Marijuana Production in US, Jon Gettman, Drug Science, 2006About Jon Gettman, Drug Science, 200640% Say Marijuana Should Be Legalized, Rasmussen Reports, Feb. 2009State by State Laws(CA), NORML, 2008WAMM.org, 2002Therapeutic Effects, Medboardwatch.com, 2002US to yield marijuana jurisdiction to states, SF Chrnoicle, Feb. 2009Legal pot is not mayor's cup of tea, SF Chronicle, Feb. 2009Reefer Tax Madness, LA TImes, Feb. 2009
2009 © Associated Content, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy Terms of Use
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
