Latin America: Mexico Drug War Update
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/631/mexico_drug_war_update
by Bernd Debusmann, Jr.
Mexican drug trafficking organizations make billions each year smuggling drugs into the United States, profiting enormously from the prohibitionist drug policies of the US government. Since Mexican president Felipe Calderon took office in December 2006 and called the armed forces into the fight against the so-called cartels, prohibition-related violence has killed over 19,000 people, with a death toll of nearly 8,000 in 2009 and over 3,000 so far in 2010. The increasing militarization of the drug war and the arrest of several high-profile drug traffickers have failed to stem the flow of drugs -- or the violence -- whatsoever. The Merida initiative, which provides $1.4 billion over three years for the US to assist the Mexican government with training, equipment and intelligence, has so far failed to make a difference. Here are a few of the latest developments in Mexico's drug war:
Saturday, May 1
In Miguel Aleman, Tamaulipas, three people, including a man and woman were found dead in a car on a rural highway outside the city. The incident came just hours after two grenade attacks occurred in Reynosa's red light district. One of the grenades exploded near a police station in Reynosa's "zone of tolerance," where prostitution and retail-level drug trafficking are allowed to flourish. Earlier in the week, police closed a bridge to allow them to clear explosives that had been left there.
Sunday, May 2
In Chihuahua, 24 people were murdered over the weekend in various parts of the state. Eight of the killings occurred in Ciudad Juarez, ten occurred in the city of Chihuahua, five in Cuauhtémoc, one in the town of Parral. The five men killed in Cuauhtémoc were killed after gunmen entered a bar and opened fire. All the dead were young males between the ages of 18 and 25. According to Chihuahua State attorney general spokesman Carlos Gonzalez, most of the killings are believed to be related to the ongoing struggle between the Sinaloa and Juarez Cartels for control of the Juarez drug trafficking corridor.
Monday, May 3
In Acapulco, gunmen shot and killed eight men as they played soccer in the early afternoon. The gunmen, who arrived in a convoy of 14 vehicles, were reportedly opening fire throughout the neighborhood for some 40 minutes, terrorizing the local population. In addition to the five men who were left dead on the soccer field, three of the bodies were picked up and taken away by the gunmen. The Acapulco area has seen an upswing in violence over the last few months as rival factions of the Beltran-Leyva cartel fight each other for the leadership of the organization.
In Nuevo Leon, a mother and her daughter were killed and disappeared after being caught in a gun battle between suspected rival drug trafficking groups. The incident was reported by the woman's husband, who claims that the car in which the family was traveling was caught in a firefight on the highway. The car was struck by several bullets, killing the woman and the child. The husband was wounded, but managed to take refuge in a nearby house. When he returned to his vehicle, the bodies of his wife and daughter had vanished.
In Sinaloa, four people were killed in different incidents across the state. In one incident, the bullet riddled bodies of two men were found on the side of the Culiacan-Las Brisas highway. In another incident, an unidentified man was killed after gunmen ambushed him as he drove in the Emiliano Zapata neighborhood of Culiacan.
Tuesday, May 4
In Tabasco, three women were killed in a parking lot in the municipality of Cardenas. The three women, none of whom have been identified, were beaten and abused before being killed.
Wednesday, May 5
In Mexico, El Universal reported that it is now estimated that there are 35 illegal firearms for every one policeman in the country. This figure comes from reports from Oxfam, Amnesty International, and the Collective for Security, Democracy and Human Rights. According to these figures, there are now at least 15 million illegal firearms in Mexico, and 426,800 federal, local, and state law enforcement officers.
In Cuernavaca, a new cartel claimed responsibility for the ambush of a high ranking police official in the city last Monday. The Cartel de Pacifico Sur (CPS) left signs on several bridges and overpasses in the city, claiming that they carried out the attack on Preventive Police Special Operations chief Jose Luis Arragon, which killed a woman who was riding in the car with him. Little is known about the relatively new CPS Cartel, but it is thought to be a faction of the Beltran-Leyva Cartel, which was left leaderless in December after Mexican naval commandos killed boss Arturo Beltran-Leyva. Many of the signs left by the group threaten American-born trafficker Edgar Valdez Villareal, aka "El Barbie", who is currently battling Hector Beltran-Leyva for control of the organization.
In Durango, a high-ranking police official was ambushed and killed by a group of armed men on highway 66. A bodyguard was also killed in the attack.
[Editor's Note: Due to a glitch last week at El Universal, on whose body count we rely, the running total was misreported. This week's total reflects the accurate number.]
Total Body Count for the Week: 109
Total Body Count for the Year: 3,233
Total Body Count since Calderon took office: 19,560
Monday, May 10, 2010
Obama's First National Drug Strategy from Drug War Chronicle
Obama's First National Drug Strategy -- The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/631/2010_obama_national_drug_control_strategy_good_bad_ugly
A leaked draft of the overdue 2010 National Drug Strategy was published by Newsweek over the weekend, and it reveals some positive shifts away from Bush-era drug policy paradigms and toward more progressive and pragmatic approaches. But there is a lot of continuity as well, and despite the Obama administration's rhetorical shift away from the "war on drugs," the drug war juggernaut is still rolling along.
That doesn't quite jibe with Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP -- the drug czar's office) director Gil Kerlikowske's words when he announced in April 2009 that the phrase "war on drugs" was no longer in favor. "Regardless of how you try to explain to people it's a 'war on drugs' or a 'war on a product,' people see a war as a war on them. We're not at war with people in this country."
The leak was reported by long-time Washington insider and Newsweek columnist Michael Isikoff, who mentioned it almost off-handedly in a piece asserting "The White House Drug Czar's Diminished Status." Isikoff asserted in the piece that the unveiling of the strategy had been delayed because Kerlikowske didn't have the clout to get President Obama to schedule a joint appearance to release it. His office had been downgraded from cabinet level, Isikoff noted.
That sparked an angry retort from UCLA professor Mark Kleiman, a burr under the saddle to prohibitionists and anti-prohibitionists alike for his heterodox views on drug policy. In a blog post, Kleiman seemed personally offended at the leak, twice referring to the leaker as "a jerk," defending the new drug strategy as innovative if bound by interagency politics, and deriding Isikoff's article as "gossipy."
Kleiman also suggested strongly that the leaker was none other than former John Walters on the basis of an editing mark on the document that had his name on it. But Walters has not confirmed that, and others have point out it could have been a current staffer who is using the same computer Walters used while in office.
On the plus side, the draft strategy embraces some harm reduction programs, such as needle exchanges and the use of naloxone to prevent overdoses, although without ever uttering the words "harm reduction." There is also a renewed emphasis on prevention and treatment, with slight spending increases. But again reality fails to live up to rhetoric, with overall federal drug control spending maintaining the long-lived 2:1 ration in spending for law enforcement, eradication, and interdiction versus that for treatment and prevention.
The strategy also promotes alternatives to incarceration, such drug courts, community courts and the like and for the first time hints that it recognizes the harms that can be caused by the punitive approach to drug policy. And it explicitly calls for reform of the sentencing disparity for crack and powder cocaine offenses.
It sets a number of measurable goals related to reducing drug use. By 2015, ONDCP vows to cut last month drug use by young adults by 10% and cut last month use by teens, lifetime use by 8th graders, and the number of chronic drug users by 15%.
The 2010 goals of a 15% reduction reflect diminishing expectations after years of more ambitious drug use reduction goals followed by the drug policy establishment's inability to achieve them. That could inoculate the Obama administration from the kind of criticism faced by the Clinton administration back in the 1990s when it did set much more ambitious goals.
The Clinton administration's 1998 National Drug Control Strategy called for a "ten-year conceptual framework to reduce drug use and drug availability by 50%." That didn't happen. That strategy put the number of drug users at 13.5 million, but instead of decreasing, according to the 2008 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse and Health, by 2007 the number of drug users was at 20.1 million.
While Clinton took criticism from Republicans that his goals were not ambitious enough -- Newt Gingrich said we should just wipe out drugs -- the Bush administration set similar goals, and achieved similarly modest results. The Bush administration's 2002 National Drug Control Strategy sought a 25% reduction in drug use by both teenagers and adults within five years. While teen drug use declined from 11.6% in 2002 to 9.3% in 2007, then drug czar Walters missed his goal. He did less well with adult use almost unchanged, at 6.3% in 2000 and 5.9% in 2007.
The draft strategy, however, remains wedded to law enforcement, eradication, and interdiction, calls for strong federal support for local drug task forces, and explicitly rejects marijuana legalization. It also seeks to make drugged driving a top priority, which would be especially problematic if the administration adopts per se zero tolerance measures (meaning the presence of any metabolites of a controlled substance could result in a driver's arrest whether he was actually impaired or not).
Still, while the draft strategy is definitely a mixed bag, a pair of keen observers of ONDCP and federal drug policy pronounced themselves fairly pleased overall. While still heavy on the law enforcement side, the first Obama national drug strategy is a far cry from the propaganda-driven documents of Bush era drug czar John Walters.
The Good
"This is somewhat of a surprise, because for the first time they have included reducing the funds associated with the drug war in their strategy, although not in a big way, they're calling for reform of the crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity, and they are calling for the reform of laws that penalize people," said Bill Piper, national affairs director for the Drug Policy Alliance. "This is the first time they've included anything recognizing that some of our policies are creating harm," he added.
"The stuff about syringe exchange and naloxone for overdose prevention is pretty good. It's the first time they've embraced any part of harm reduction, even though they don't use that name," Piper noted.
"I'm also impressed with the section on alternatives to incarceration," said Piper. "They basically said most drug users don't belong in jail, and a lot of dealers don't, either. It's still wedded to the criminal justice system, but it's good that they looked at so many different things -- drug courts, community courts, Operation Highpoint (warning dealers to desist instead of just arresting them as a means of breaking up open-air drug markets), programs for veterans. They seem interested in finding out what works, which is an evidence-based approach that had been lacking in previous strategies."
The Status Quo
"Drug war reformers have eagerly been waiting the release of President Obama's first National Drug Control Strategy," noted Matthew Robinson, professor of Government and Justice Studies at Appalachian State University and coauthor (with Renee Scherlen) of "Lies, Damned Lies, and Drug War Statistics: A Critical Analysis of Claims Made by the ONDCP." "Would it put Obama's and Kerlikowske's words into action, or would it be more of the same in terms of federal drug control policy? The answer is yes. And no. There is real, meaningful, exciting change proposed in the 2010 Strategy. But there's a lot of the status quo, too," he said.
"The first sentence of the Strategy hints at status quo approaches to federal drug control policy; it announces 'a blueprint for reducing illicit drug use and its harmful consequences in America,'" Robinson said. "That ONDCP will still focus on drug use (as opposed to abuse) is unfortunate, for the fact remains that most drug use is normal, recreational, pro-social, and even beneficial to users; it does not usually lead to bad outcomes for users, including abuse or addiction," he said.
"Just like under the leadership of Director John Walters, Kerlikowske's ONDCP characterizes its drug control approaches as 'balanced,' yet FY 2011 federal drug control spending is still imbalanced in favor of supply side measures (64%), while the demand side measures of treatment and prevention will only receive 36% of the budget," Robinson pointed out. "In FY 2010, the percentages were 65% and 35%, respectively. Perhaps when Barack Obama said 'Change we can believe in,' what he really meant was 'Change you can believe in, one percentage point at a time.'"
There is also much of the status quo in funding levels, Robinson said. "There will also be plenty of drug war funding left in this 'non-war on drugs.' For example, FY 2011 federal drug control spending includes $3.8 billion for the Department of Homeland Security (which includes Customs and Border Protection spending), more than $3.4 billion for the Department of Justice (which includes Drug Enforcement Agency spending), and nearly $1.6 billion for the Department of Defense (which includes military spending). Thus, the drug war will continue on under President Obama even if White House officials do not refer to federal drug control policy as a 'war on drugs,'" he noted.
The Bad
"ONDCP repeatedly stresses the importance of reducing supply of drugs into the United States through crop eradication and interdiction efforts, international collaboration, disruption of drug smuggling organizations, and so forth," Robinson noted. "It still promotes efforts like Plan Colombia, the Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy, and many other similar programs aimed at eradicating drugs in foreign countries and preventing them from entering the United States. The bottom line here is that the 'non war on drugs' will still look and feel like a war on drugs under President Obama, especially to citizens of the foreign nations where the United States does the bulk of its drug war fighting."
"They are still wedded to interdiction and eradication," said Piper. "There is no recognition that they aren't very effective and do more harm than good. Coming only a couple of weeks after the drug czar testified under oath that eradication in Colombia and Afghanistan and elsewhere had no impact on the availability of drugs in the US, to then put out a strategy embracing what he said was least effective is quite disturbing."
"The ringing endorsement of per se standards for drugged driving is potentially troubling," said Piper. "It looks a lot like zero tolerance. We have to look at this also in the context of new performance measures, which are missing from the draft. In the introduction, they talk about setting goals for reducing drug use and that they went to set other performance measures, such as for reducing drug overdoses and drugged driving. If they actually say they're going to reduce drugged driving by such and such an amount with a certain number of years, that will be more important. We'll have to see what makes it into the final draft."
"They took a gratuitous shot at marijuana reform," Piper noted. "It was unfortunate they felt the need to bash something that half of Americans support and to do it in the way they did, listing a litany of Reefer Madness allegations and connecting marijuana to virtually every problem in America. That was really unfortunate."
More Good
There are some changes in spending priorities. "Spending on prevention will grow 13.4% from FY 2010 to FY 2011, while spending on treatment will grow 3.7%," Robinson noted. "The growth in treatment is surprisingly small given that ONDCP notes that 90% of people who need treatment do not receive it. Increases are much smaller for spending on interdiction (an increase of 2.4%), domestic law enforcement (an increase of 1.9%), and international spending (an increase of 0.9%). This is evidence of a shift in federal drug control strategy under President Obama; there will be a greater effort to prevent drug use in the first place as well as treat those that become addicted to drugs than there ever was under President Bush."
Robinson also lauded the Obama administration for more clarity in the strategy than was evident under either Clinton or Bush. "Obama's first Strategy clearly states its guiding principles, each of which is followed by a specific set of actions to be initiated and implemented over time to achieve goals and objectives related to its principles. Of course, this is Obama's first Strategy, so in subsequent years, there will be more data presented for evaluation purposes, and it should become easier to decipher the ideology that will drive the 'non war on drugs' under President Obama," he said.
But he suggested that ideology still plays too big a role. "ONDCP hints at its ideology when it claims that programs such as 'interdiction, anti-trafficking initiatives, drug crop reduction, intelligence sharing and partner nation capacity building... have proven effective in the past.' It offers almost no evidence that this is the case other than some very limited, short-term data on potential cocaine production in Colombia. ONDCP claims it is declining, yet only offers data from 2007 to 2008. Kerlikowske's ONDCP seems ready to accept the dominant drug war ideology of Walters that supply side measures work -- even when long-term data show they do not."
Robinson also lauded ONDCP's apparent revelation that drug addiction is a disease. "Obama's first strategy embraces a new approach to achieving federal drug control goals of 'reducing illicit drug consumption' and 'reducing the consequences of illicit drug use in the United States,' one that is evidence-based and public health oriented," Robinson said. "ONDCP recognizes that drug addiction is a disease and it specifies that federal drug control policy should be assisted by parties in all of the systems that relate to drug use and abuse, including families, schools, communities, faith-based organizations, the medical profession, and so forth. This is certainly a change from the Bush Administration, which repeatedly characterized drug use as a moral or personal failing."
While the Obama drug strategy may have its faults, said Robinson, it is a qualitative improvement over Bush era drug strategies. "Under the Bush Administration, ONDCP came across as downright dismissive of data, evidence, and science, unless it was used to generate fear and increased punitive responses to drug-related behaviors. Honestly, there is very little of this in Obama's first strategy, aside from the usual drugs produce crime, disorder, family disruption, illness, addiction, death, and terrorism argument that has for so long been employed by ONDCP," he said. "Instead, the Strategy is hopeful in tone and lays out dozens of concrete programs and policies that aim to prevent drug use among young people (through public education programs, mentoring initiatives, increasing collaboration between public health and safety organizations); treat adults who have developed drug abuse and addiction problems (though screening and intervention by medical personnel, increased investments in addiction treatment, new treatment medications); and, for the first time, invest heavily in recovery efforts that are restorative in nature and aimed at giving addicts a new lease on life," he noted.
"ONDCP also seems to suddenly have a better grasp on why the vast majority of people who need treatment do not get it," said Robinson. "Under Walters, ONDCP claimed that drug users were in denial and needed to be compassionately coerced to seek treatment. In the 2010 Strategy, ONDCP outlines numerous problems with delivery of treatment services including problems with the nation's health care systems generally. The 2010 Strategy seems so much better informed about the realities of drug treatment than previous Strategy reports," he added.
"The strategy also repeatedly calls for meaningful change in areas such as alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent, low-level drug offenders; drug testing in courts (and schools, unfortunately, in spite of data showing it is ineffective); and reentry programs for inmates who need help finding jobs and places to live upon release from prison or jail. ONDCP also implicitly acknowledges that that federal drug control policy imposes costs on families (including the break-up of families), and shows with real data that costs are greater economically for imprisonment of mothers and foster care for their children than family-based treatment," Robinson noted.
"ONDCP makes the case that we are wasting a lot of money dealing with the consequences of drug use and abuse when this money would be better spent preventing use and abuse in the first place. Drug policy reformers will embrace this claim," Robinson predicted.
"The strategy also calls for a renewed emphasis on prescription drug abuse, which it calls 'the fastest growing drug problem in the United States,'" Robinson pointed out. "Here, as in the past, ONDCP suggests regulation is the answer because prescription drugs have legitimate uses that should not be restricted merely because some people use them illegally. And, as in the past, ONDCP does not consider this approach for marijuana, which also has legitimate medicinal users in spite of the fact that some people use it illegally," he said.
The Verdict
"President Obama's first National Drug Control Strategy offers real, meaningful, exciting change," Robinson summed up. "Whether this change amounts to 'change we can believe in' will be debated by drug policy reformers. For those who support demand side measures, many will embrace the 2010 Strategy and call for even greater funding for prevention and treatment. For those who support harm reduction measures such as needled exchange, methadone maintenance and so forth, there will be celebration. Yet, for those who support real alternatives to federal drug control policy such as legalization or decriminalization, all will be disappointed. And even if Obama officials will not refer to its drug control policies as a 'war on drugs,' they still amount to just that."
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/631/2010_obama_national_drug_control_strategy_good_bad_ugly
A leaked draft of the overdue 2010 National Drug Strategy was published by Newsweek over the weekend, and it reveals some positive shifts away from Bush-era drug policy paradigms and toward more progressive and pragmatic approaches. But there is a lot of continuity as well, and despite the Obama administration's rhetorical shift away from the "war on drugs," the drug war juggernaut is still rolling along.
That doesn't quite jibe with Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP -- the drug czar's office) director Gil Kerlikowske's words when he announced in April 2009 that the phrase "war on drugs" was no longer in favor. "Regardless of how you try to explain to people it's a 'war on drugs' or a 'war on a product,' people see a war as a war on them. We're not at war with people in this country."
The leak was reported by long-time Washington insider and Newsweek columnist Michael Isikoff, who mentioned it almost off-handedly in a piece asserting "The White House Drug Czar's Diminished Status." Isikoff asserted in the piece that the unveiling of the strategy had been delayed because Kerlikowske didn't have the clout to get President Obama to schedule a joint appearance to release it. His office had been downgraded from cabinet level, Isikoff noted.
That sparked an angry retort from UCLA professor Mark Kleiman, a burr under the saddle to prohibitionists and anti-prohibitionists alike for his heterodox views on drug policy. In a blog post, Kleiman seemed personally offended at the leak, twice referring to the leaker as "a jerk," defending the new drug strategy as innovative if bound by interagency politics, and deriding Isikoff's article as "gossipy."
Kleiman also suggested strongly that the leaker was none other than former John Walters on the basis of an editing mark on the document that had his name on it. But Walters has not confirmed that, and others have point out it could have been a current staffer who is using the same computer Walters used while in office.
On the plus side, the draft strategy embraces some harm reduction programs, such as needle exchanges and the use of naloxone to prevent overdoses, although without ever uttering the words "harm reduction." There is also a renewed emphasis on prevention and treatment, with slight spending increases. But again reality fails to live up to rhetoric, with overall federal drug control spending maintaining the long-lived 2:1 ration in spending for law enforcement, eradication, and interdiction versus that for treatment and prevention.
The strategy also promotes alternatives to incarceration, such drug courts, community courts and the like and for the first time hints that it recognizes the harms that can be caused by the punitive approach to drug policy. And it explicitly calls for reform of the sentencing disparity for crack and powder cocaine offenses.
It sets a number of measurable goals related to reducing drug use. By 2015, ONDCP vows to cut last month drug use by young adults by 10% and cut last month use by teens, lifetime use by 8th graders, and the number of chronic drug users by 15%.
The 2010 goals of a 15% reduction reflect diminishing expectations after years of more ambitious drug use reduction goals followed by the drug policy establishment's inability to achieve them. That could inoculate the Obama administration from the kind of criticism faced by the Clinton administration back in the 1990s when it did set much more ambitious goals.
The Clinton administration's 1998 National Drug Control Strategy called for a "ten-year conceptual framework to reduce drug use and drug availability by 50%." That didn't happen. That strategy put the number of drug users at 13.5 million, but instead of decreasing, according to the 2008 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse and Health, by 2007 the number of drug users was at 20.1 million.
While Clinton took criticism from Republicans that his goals were not ambitious enough -- Newt Gingrich said we should just wipe out drugs -- the Bush administration set similar goals, and achieved similarly modest results. The Bush administration's 2002 National Drug Control Strategy sought a 25% reduction in drug use by both teenagers and adults within five years. While teen drug use declined from 11.6% in 2002 to 9.3% in 2007, then drug czar Walters missed his goal. He did less well with adult use almost unchanged, at 6.3% in 2000 and 5.9% in 2007.
The draft strategy, however, remains wedded to law enforcement, eradication, and interdiction, calls for strong federal support for local drug task forces, and explicitly rejects marijuana legalization. It also seeks to make drugged driving a top priority, which would be especially problematic if the administration adopts per se zero tolerance measures (meaning the presence of any metabolites of a controlled substance could result in a driver's arrest whether he was actually impaired or not).
Still, while the draft strategy is definitely a mixed bag, a pair of keen observers of ONDCP and federal drug policy pronounced themselves fairly pleased overall. While still heavy on the law enforcement side, the first Obama national drug strategy is a far cry from the propaganda-driven documents of Bush era drug czar John Walters.
The Good
"This is somewhat of a surprise, because for the first time they have included reducing the funds associated with the drug war in their strategy, although not in a big way, they're calling for reform of the crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity, and they are calling for the reform of laws that penalize people," said Bill Piper, national affairs director for the Drug Policy Alliance. "This is the first time they've included anything recognizing that some of our policies are creating harm," he added.
"The stuff about syringe exchange and naloxone for overdose prevention is pretty good. It's the first time they've embraced any part of harm reduction, even though they don't use that name," Piper noted.
"I'm also impressed with the section on alternatives to incarceration," said Piper. "They basically said most drug users don't belong in jail, and a lot of dealers don't, either. It's still wedded to the criminal justice system, but it's good that they looked at so many different things -- drug courts, community courts, Operation Highpoint (warning dealers to desist instead of just arresting them as a means of breaking up open-air drug markets), programs for veterans. They seem interested in finding out what works, which is an evidence-based approach that had been lacking in previous strategies."
The Status Quo
"Drug war reformers have eagerly been waiting the release of President Obama's first National Drug Control Strategy," noted Matthew Robinson, professor of Government and Justice Studies at Appalachian State University and coauthor (with Renee Scherlen) of "Lies, Damned Lies, and Drug War Statistics: A Critical Analysis of Claims Made by the ONDCP." "Would it put Obama's and Kerlikowske's words into action, or would it be more of the same in terms of federal drug control policy? The answer is yes. And no. There is real, meaningful, exciting change proposed in the 2010 Strategy. But there's a lot of the status quo, too," he said.
"The first sentence of the Strategy hints at status quo approaches to federal drug control policy; it announces 'a blueprint for reducing illicit drug use and its harmful consequences in America,'" Robinson said. "That ONDCP will still focus on drug use (as opposed to abuse) is unfortunate, for the fact remains that most drug use is normal, recreational, pro-social, and even beneficial to users; it does not usually lead to bad outcomes for users, including abuse or addiction," he said.
"Just like under the leadership of Director John Walters, Kerlikowske's ONDCP characterizes its drug control approaches as 'balanced,' yet FY 2011 federal drug control spending is still imbalanced in favor of supply side measures (64%), while the demand side measures of treatment and prevention will only receive 36% of the budget," Robinson pointed out. "In FY 2010, the percentages were 65% and 35%, respectively. Perhaps when Barack Obama said 'Change we can believe in,' what he really meant was 'Change you can believe in, one percentage point at a time.'"
There is also much of the status quo in funding levels, Robinson said. "There will also be plenty of drug war funding left in this 'non-war on drugs.' For example, FY 2011 federal drug control spending includes $3.8 billion for the Department of Homeland Security (which includes Customs and Border Protection spending), more than $3.4 billion for the Department of Justice (which includes Drug Enforcement Agency spending), and nearly $1.6 billion for the Department of Defense (which includes military spending). Thus, the drug war will continue on under President Obama even if White House officials do not refer to federal drug control policy as a 'war on drugs,'" he noted.
The Bad
"ONDCP repeatedly stresses the importance of reducing supply of drugs into the United States through crop eradication and interdiction efforts, international collaboration, disruption of drug smuggling organizations, and so forth," Robinson noted. "It still promotes efforts like Plan Colombia, the Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy, and many other similar programs aimed at eradicating drugs in foreign countries and preventing them from entering the United States. The bottom line here is that the 'non war on drugs' will still look and feel like a war on drugs under President Obama, especially to citizens of the foreign nations where the United States does the bulk of its drug war fighting."
"They are still wedded to interdiction and eradication," said Piper. "There is no recognition that they aren't very effective and do more harm than good. Coming only a couple of weeks after the drug czar testified under oath that eradication in Colombia and Afghanistan and elsewhere had no impact on the availability of drugs in the US, to then put out a strategy embracing what he said was least effective is quite disturbing."
"The ringing endorsement of per se standards for drugged driving is potentially troubling," said Piper. "It looks a lot like zero tolerance. We have to look at this also in the context of new performance measures, which are missing from the draft. In the introduction, they talk about setting goals for reducing drug use and that they went to set other performance measures, such as for reducing drug overdoses and drugged driving. If they actually say they're going to reduce drugged driving by such and such an amount with a certain number of years, that will be more important. We'll have to see what makes it into the final draft."
"They took a gratuitous shot at marijuana reform," Piper noted. "It was unfortunate they felt the need to bash something that half of Americans support and to do it in the way they did, listing a litany of Reefer Madness allegations and connecting marijuana to virtually every problem in America. That was really unfortunate."
More Good
There are some changes in spending priorities. "Spending on prevention will grow 13.4% from FY 2010 to FY 2011, while spending on treatment will grow 3.7%," Robinson noted. "The growth in treatment is surprisingly small given that ONDCP notes that 90% of people who need treatment do not receive it. Increases are much smaller for spending on interdiction (an increase of 2.4%), domestic law enforcement (an increase of 1.9%), and international spending (an increase of 0.9%). This is evidence of a shift in federal drug control strategy under President Obama; there will be a greater effort to prevent drug use in the first place as well as treat those that become addicted to drugs than there ever was under President Bush."
Robinson also lauded the Obama administration for more clarity in the strategy than was evident under either Clinton or Bush. "Obama's first Strategy clearly states its guiding principles, each of which is followed by a specific set of actions to be initiated and implemented over time to achieve goals and objectives related to its principles. Of course, this is Obama's first Strategy, so in subsequent years, there will be more data presented for evaluation purposes, and it should become easier to decipher the ideology that will drive the 'non war on drugs' under President Obama," he said.
But he suggested that ideology still plays too big a role. "ONDCP hints at its ideology when it claims that programs such as 'interdiction, anti-trafficking initiatives, drug crop reduction, intelligence sharing and partner nation capacity building... have proven effective in the past.' It offers almost no evidence that this is the case other than some very limited, short-term data on potential cocaine production in Colombia. ONDCP claims it is declining, yet only offers data from 2007 to 2008. Kerlikowske's ONDCP seems ready to accept the dominant drug war ideology of Walters that supply side measures work -- even when long-term data show they do not."
Robinson also lauded ONDCP's apparent revelation that drug addiction is a disease. "Obama's first strategy embraces a new approach to achieving federal drug control goals of 'reducing illicit drug consumption' and 'reducing the consequences of illicit drug use in the United States,' one that is evidence-based and public health oriented," Robinson said. "ONDCP recognizes that drug addiction is a disease and it specifies that federal drug control policy should be assisted by parties in all of the systems that relate to drug use and abuse, including families, schools, communities, faith-based organizations, the medical profession, and so forth. This is certainly a change from the Bush Administration, which repeatedly characterized drug use as a moral or personal failing."
While the Obama drug strategy may have its faults, said Robinson, it is a qualitative improvement over Bush era drug strategies. "Under the Bush Administration, ONDCP came across as downright dismissive of data, evidence, and science, unless it was used to generate fear and increased punitive responses to drug-related behaviors. Honestly, there is very little of this in Obama's first strategy, aside from the usual drugs produce crime, disorder, family disruption, illness, addiction, death, and terrorism argument that has for so long been employed by ONDCP," he said. "Instead, the Strategy is hopeful in tone and lays out dozens of concrete programs and policies that aim to prevent drug use among young people (through public education programs, mentoring initiatives, increasing collaboration between public health and safety organizations); treat adults who have developed drug abuse and addiction problems (though screening and intervention by medical personnel, increased investments in addiction treatment, new treatment medications); and, for the first time, invest heavily in recovery efforts that are restorative in nature and aimed at giving addicts a new lease on life," he noted.
"ONDCP also seems to suddenly have a better grasp on why the vast majority of people who need treatment do not get it," said Robinson. "Under Walters, ONDCP claimed that drug users were in denial and needed to be compassionately coerced to seek treatment. In the 2010 Strategy, ONDCP outlines numerous problems with delivery of treatment services including problems with the nation's health care systems generally. The 2010 Strategy seems so much better informed about the realities of drug treatment than previous Strategy reports," he added.
"The strategy also repeatedly calls for meaningful change in areas such as alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent, low-level drug offenders; drug testing in courts (and schools, unfortunately, in spite of data showing it is ineffective); and reentry programs for inmates who need help finding jobs and places to live upon release from prison or jail. ONDCP also implicitly acknowledges that that federal drug control policy imposes costs on families (including the break-up of families), and shows with real data that costs are greater economically for imprisonment of mothers and foster care for their children than family-based treatment," Robinson noted.
"ONDCP makes the case that we are wasting a lot of money dealing with the consequences of drug use and abuse when this money would be better spent preventing use and abuse in the first place. Drug policy reformers will embrace this claim," Robinson predicted.
"The strategy also calls for a renewed emphasis on prescription drug abuse, which it calls 'the fastest growing drug problem in the United States,'" Robinson pointed out. "Here, as in the past, ONDCP suggests regulation is the answer because prescription drugs have legitimate uses that should not be restricted merely because some people use them illegally. And, as in the past, ONDCP does not consider this approach for marijuana, which also has legitimate medicinal users in spite of the fact that some people use it illegally," he said.
The Verdict
"President Obama's first National Drug Control Strategy offers real, meaningful, exciting change," Robinson summed up. "Whether this change amounts to 'change we can believe in' will be debated by drug policy reformers. For those who support demand side measures, many will embrace the 2010 Strategy and call for even greater funding for prevention and treatment. For those who support harm reduction measures such as needled exchange, methadone maintenance and so forth, there will be celebration. Yet, for those who support real alternatives to federal drug control policy such as legalization or decriminalization, all will be disappointed. And even if Obama officials will not refer to its drug control policies as a 'war on drugs,' they still amount to just that."
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Two Pasadena Narcotics Officers Indicted from Houston Chronicle
Two Pasadena narcotics officers indicted
By BRIAN ROGERS Copyright 2010 Houston Chronicle
April 29, 2010, 2:16PM
Two Pasadena police officers have been suspended with pay after being indicted on charges stemming from two separate incidents involving narcotics investigations.
Raymond Garivey, 39, was indicted on two counts of filing a false report, a class B misdemeanor, court records show.
He is accused of lying to a Harris County prosecutor by denying the existence a witness in a case. The witness, according to the Pasadena Police Department, had given information leading Garivey to arrest a suspect in possession of a large quantity of cocaine.
David Leal, 35, was indicted on two 2nd degree felony charges of tampering with a government record.
Charges against Leal focus on written statements in official documents about the circumstances surrounding Leal’s arrest of a suspect found with about three pounds of marijuana, according to the police department.
Both incidents were investigated by the Harris County District Attorney’s Office and Pasadena police internal affairs. Their cases were taken directly to the grand jury by prosecutors from the office’s public integrity division.
brian.rogers@chron.com
By BRIAN ROGERS Copyright 2010 Houston Chronicle
April 29, 2010, 2:16PM
Two Pasadena police officers have been suspended with pay after being indicted on charges stemming from two separate incidents involving narcotics investigations.
Raymond Garivey, 39, was indicted on two counts of filing a false report, a class B misdemeanor, court records show.
He is accused of lying to a Harris County prosecutor by denying the existence a witness in a case. The witness, according to the Pasadena Police Department, had given information leading Garivey to arrest a suspect in possession of a large quantity of cocaine.
David Leal, 35, was indicted on two 2nd degree felony charges of tampering with a government record.
Charges against Leal focus on written statements in official documents about the circumstances surrounding Leal’s arrest of a suspect found with about three pounds of marijuana, according to the police department.
Both incidents were investigated by the Harris County District Attorney’s Office and Pasadena police internal affairs. Their cases were taken directly to the grand jury by prosecutors from the office’s public integrity division.
brian.rogers@chron.com
First Drug User Union Forms in San Francisco from Drug War Chronicle
First Drug User Union Forms in San Francisco
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/630/san_francisco_drug_user_union
Thanks to the on-the-ground efforts of local harm reductionists and the funding largesse of the Drug Policy Alliance, San Francisco is now the home of only the second drug user union in the United States. The nascent effort is just getting off the ground, but plans to follow in the footsteps of Canada's Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users (VANDU) and the New York City VOCAL drug user union affiliated with the NYC Aids Housing Network.
While self-identified drug user unions are rare in the US, they have a history dating back to the Dutch "junkiebund" of the 1970s. The movement is currently spreading internationally, with affiliates of the International Network of People Who Use Drugs (INPUD) operating in Europe, North America, South America, and Asia. And while medical marijuana patients did not refer to themselves as drug users, they have done similar organizing based on their use of the weed.
"We gave a $35,000 grant to the Harm Reduction Therapy Center to organize drug users in San Francisco, said Laura Thomas, DPA California state deputy director. "It is an annual grant, and future funding depends on HRTC re-applying for the funds. We have funded VOCAL in New York for several years."
DPA sees drug user groups as a key component in efforts to reduce the harms of both drug use and prohibitionist drug policies, said Thomas. "We hope that drug users in San Francisco will have a voice in policy decisions that affect them," she said. "We hope that they will become an active and organized part of efforts to reduce the harm related to both drugs and the war on drugs in San Francisco. The group is still in the process of forming and determining what their priority issues are, so I can't speak for what they are going to be working on."
"While we haven't quite chosen our main campaign, we've been talking about what we would ideally like San Francisco to look like, about having a safe place to inject, and about having a safe place to consume other drugs, too," said Alexandra Goldman, the organizer for the group. "Within a couple of months, we will choose our first official campaign," she vowed.
"We are also interested in working to decrease the stigma, both within and outside the drug using community," Goldman added. "We're trying to work with health care providers to make it a more positive experience. Our people tend to wait until they are very seriously ill because they are not treated very well. In our meetings, I'm hearing about how people don't get the prescribed pain medications they need because the doctors don't like them."
The group has already been active, joining in protests against the city's proposed ordinance barring people from sitting or lying on public sidewalks. Homeless people in neighborhoods like Haight-Asbury have roused the ire of business owners with their presence, but activists say they have no place to go and should not be criminalized.
The SF Drug User Union participation in the sit/lie protests makes sense given that many of its members are homeless and that its meetings are generally being held in homeless drop-in centers in the Tenderloin and the Mission. The group boasts about 25 members, with an emerging core group of 10 or 12, but is looking to expand by working with lower income communities and people involved in local harm reduction networks.
"We plan to be active consumers, giving our opinions and our voice on issues and policies that affect us," said Isaac Jackson, the other paid staffer for the union. "People are already asking us for our expertise."
So who can join the union? Anyone who identifies as a drug user, past or present, organizers said. Defining members in that manner allows people to get active without necessarily outing themselves as current users.
"There is no piss test to get into this group," said Jackson. "We have heroin users, speed users, people who drink, pot smokers. Some people think pot's not a big issue, but anyone who wants to work with us, we say 'right on.' We support the legalization campaign and we support medical marijuana. That's a success story, and so is needle exchange, and we'll be trying to learn from those."
The only rule at meetings is no drug dealing, said Jackson. "We don't want people to deal drugs at the meeting or endanger other people in the group by that kind of activity, but if people are carrying, so what? Some people have showed up tweaking. We don't want to say they can't come because they're too high. We want people to feel welcome whatever their level of sobriety."
Forming a drug user union in San Francisco has been an idea that's been batted around for at least a couple of years, but it took some cold, hard cash to make it happen. "There were some attempts to organize drug users in the past, and I was involved in those, but they didn't stick because people had other jobs," said Goldman. "But once that Drug Policy Alliance grant came in, I got hired in November and we had our first meetings in February."
"I worked at a small health agency working with homeless people with substance use here in the Tenderloin, and was also working with some people with the Youth Homeless Alliance in the Haight," said Jackson. "A lot of people said we ought to do something like VANDU. We had a conference here a couple of years ago to try to jump-start a safe injection site, but that was mostly health care providers, not drug users."
San Francisco has one of the highest rates of drug use per capita in the country, Jackson noted. "Since there is so much civil disobedience going on already -- the laws are wrong, when you have thousands of people doing something for a long period of time, it's like passive civil disobedience -- there was an opportunity there to give drug users a voice in a more organized way. We're consumers of all these services -- treatment, law enforcement, the whole drug industrial complex -- we're consumers and have no voice. The time was right for it to start here."
San Francisco organizers took advantage of last fall's DPA conference to learn from existing drug user groups on the continent. "I met with Ann Livingston from VANDU and I got in touch with some of the folks from VOCAL," Goldman said. "They work on stuff around syringe exchange, trying to pass statewide ordinances to keep police from hassling people with needles, things like that. And, of course, they're subject to the same ridiculous drug laws we are."
"Drug user groups such as VOCAL in New York, VANDU in Vancouver, and hopefully this group in San Francisco play an important role in drug policy change and ending the war on drugs," Thomas said. "Drug users are usually the people most directly affected by bad drug policies, and the least likely to have a voice in debates. Drug users as active participants in the political process also helps reduce the stigma that is attached to drug use and makes people reconsider their prejudices about what they think 'drug users' are like. The drug policy reform conversation can only benefit from the active participation of drug user groups."
Separate drug user union meetings are taking place every three weeks in the Tenderloin and Mission districts. For more information about joining the union, send an email to sf.users.union@gmail.com.
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/630/san_francisco_drug_user_union
Thanks to the on-the-ground efforts of local harm reductionists and the funding largesse of the Drug Policy Alliance, San Francisco is now the home of only the second drug user union in the United States. The nascent effort is just getting off the ground, but plans to follow in the footsteps of Canada's Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users (VANDU) and the New York City VOCAL drug user union affiliated with the NYC Aids Housing Network.
While self-identified drug user unions are rare in the US, they have a history dating back to the Dutch "junkiebund" of the 1970s. The movement is currently spreading internationally, with affiliates of the International Network of People Who Use Drugs (INPUD) operating in Europe, North America, South America, and Asia. And while medical marijuana patients did not refer to themselves as drug users, they have done similar organizing based on their use of the weed.
"We gave a $35,000 grant to the Harm Reduction Therapy Center to organize drug users in San Francisco, said Laura Thomas, DPA California state deputy director. "It is an annual grant, and future funding depends on HRTC re-applying for the funds. We have funded VOCAL in New York for several years."
DPA sees drug user groups as a key component in efforts to reduce the harms of both drug use and prohibitionist drug policies, said Thomas. "We hope that drug users in San Francisco will have a voice in policy decisions that affect them," she said. "We hope that they will become an active and organized part of efforts to reduce the harm related to both drugs and the war on drugs in San Francisco. The group is still in the process of forming and determining what their priority issues are, so I can't speak for what they are going to be working on."
"While we haven't quite chosen our main campaign, we've been talking about what we would ideally like San Francisco to look like, about having a safe place to inject, and about having a safe place to consume other drugs, too," said Alexandra Goldman, the organizer for the group. "Within a couple of months, we will choose our first official campaign," she vowed.
"We are also interested in working to decrease the stigma, both within and outside the drug using community," Goldman added. "We're trying to work with health care providers to make it a more positive experience. Our people tend to wait until they are very seriously ill because they are not treated very well. In our meetings, I'm hearing about how people don't get the prescribed pain medications they need because the doctors don't like them."
The group has already been active, joining in protests against the city's proposed ordinance barring people from sitting or lying on public sidewalks. Homeless people in neighborhoods like Haight-Asbury have roused the ire of business owners with their presence, but activists say they have no place to go and should not be criminalized.
The SF Drug User Union participation in the sit/lie protests makes sense given that many of its members are homeless and that its meetings are generally being held in homeless drop-in centers in the Tenderloin and the Mission. The group boasts about 25 members, with an emerging core group of 10 or 12, but is looking to expand by working with lower income communities and people involved in local harm reduction networks.
"We plan to be active consumers, giving our opinions and our voice on issues and policies that affect us," said Isaac Jackson, the other paid staffer for the union. "People are already asking us for our expertise."
So who can join the union? Anyone who identifies as a drug user, past or present, organizers said. Defining members in that manner allows people to get active without necessarily outing themselves as current users.
"There is no piss test to get into this group," said Jackson. "We have heroin users, speed users, people who drink, pot smokers. Some people think pot's not a big issue, but anyone who wants to work with us, we say 'right on.' We support the legalization campaign and we support medical marijuana. That's a success story, and so is needle exchange, and we'll be trying to learn from those."
The only rule at meetings is no drug dealing, said Jackson. "We don't want people to deal drugs at the meeting or endanger other people in the group by that kind of activity, but if people are carrying, so what? Some people have showed up tweaking. We don't want to say they can't come because they're too high. We want people to feel welcome whatever their level of sobriety."
Forming a drug user union in San Francisco has been an idea that's been batted around for at least a couple of years, but it took some cold, hard cash to make it happen. "There were some attempts to organize drug users in the past, and I was involved in those, but they didn't stick because people had other jobs," said Goldman. "But once that Drug Policy Alliance grant came in, I got hired in November and we had our first meetings in February."
"I worked at a small health agency working with homeless people with substance use here in the Tenderloin, and was also working with some people with the Youth Homeless Alliance in the Haight," said Jackson. "A lot of people said we ought to do something like VANDU. We had a conference here a couple of years ago to try to jump-start a safe injection site, but that was mostly health care providers, not drug users."
San Francisco has one of the highest rates of drug use per capita in the country, Jackson noted. "Since there is so much civil disobedience going on already -- the laws are wrong, when you have thousands of people doing something for a long period of time, it's like passive civil disobedience -- there was an opportunity there to give drug users a voice in a more organized way. We're consumers of all these services -- treatment, law enforcement, the whole drug industrial complex -- we're consumers and have no voice. The time was right for it to start here."
San Francisco organizers took advantage of last fall's DPA conference to learn from existing drug user groups on the continent. "I met with Ann Livingston from VANDU and I got in touch with some of the folks from VOCAL," Goldman said. "They work on stuff around syringe exchange, trying to pass statewide ordinances to keep police from hassling people with needles, things like that. And, of course, they're subject to the same ridiculous drug laws we are."
"Drug user groups such as VOCAL in New York, VANDU in Vancouver, and hopefully this group in San Francisco play an important role in drug policy change and ending the war on drugs," Thomas said. "Drug users are usually the people most directly affected by bad drug policies, and the least likely to have a voice in debates. Drug users as active participants in the political process also helps reduce the stigma that is attached to drug use and makes people reconsider their prejudices about what they think 'drug users' are like. The drug policy reform conversation can only benefit from the active participation of drug user groups."
Separate drug user union meetings are taking place every three weeks in the Tenderloin and Mission districts. For more information about joining the union, send an email to sf.users.union@gmail.com.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Drug Czar Gets Grilled on "New Directions in Drug Policy" from Drug war Chronicle
Drug Czar Gets Grilled on "New Directions in Drug Policy" By Skeptical Solons, Activists, and Academics
Gil Kerlikowske, head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP -- the drug czar's office), testified on Capitol Hill Wednesday that the Obama administration is seeking "a new direction in drug policy," but was challenged both by lawmakers and by a panel of academics and activists on the point during the same hearing. The action took place at a hearing of the House Domestic Policy Subcommittee in which the ONDCP drug budget and the forthcoming 2010 National Drug Strategy were the topics at hand.
The hearing comes in the wake of various drug policy reforms enacted by the Obama administration, including a Justice Department policy memo directing US attorneys and the DEA to lay off medical marijuana in states where it is legal, the removal of the federal ban on needle exchange funding, and administration support for ending or reducing the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine offenders.
But it also comes in the wake of the announcement of the ONDCP 2011 drug budget, which at $15.5 billion is up more than $500 million from this year. While treatment and prevention programs got a 6.5% funding increase, supply reduction (law enforcement, interdiction, and eradication) continues to account for almost exactly the same percentage of the overall budget -- 64%--as it did in the Bush administration. Only 36% is earmarked for demand reduction (prevention and treatment).
Citing health care costs from drug use and rising drug overdose death figures, the nation "needs to discard the idea that enforcement alone can eliminate our nation's drug problem," Kerlikowske said. "Only through a comprehensive and balanced approach -- combining tough, but fair, enforcement with robust prevention and treatment efforts -- will we be successful in stemming both the demand for and supply of illegal drugs in our country."
So far, at least, when it comes to reconfiguring US drug control efforts, Kerlikowske and the Obama administration are talking the talk, but they're not walking the walk. That was the contention of subcommittee chair Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and several of the session's panelists.
"Supply side spending has not been effective," said Kucinich, challenging the budget breakdown.
"Supply side spending is important for a host of reasons, whether we're talking about eradication or our international partners where drugs are flowing," replied the drug czar.
"Where's the evidence?" Kucinich demanded. "Describe with statistics what evidence you have that this approach is effective."
Kerlikowske was reduced to citing the case of Colombia, where security and safety of the citizenry has increased. But he failed to mention that despite about $4 billion in US anti-drug aid in the past decade, Colombian coca and cocaine production remain at high levels.
"What parts of your budget are most effective?" asked Kucinich.
"The most cost-effective approaches would be prevention and treatment," said Kerlikowske.
"What percentage is supply and what percentage is demand oriented?" asked Rep. Jim Jordan (D-OH).
"It leans much more toward supply, toward interdiction and enforcement," Kerlikowske conceded.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) was more old school, demanding a tougher response to Mexico's wave of prohibition-related violence and questioning the decision not to eradicate opium in Afghanistan. "The Southwest border is critical. I would hope the administration would give you the resources you need for a Plan Colombia on steroids," said Issa.
"There is no eradication program in Afghanistan," Issa complained. "I was in areas we did control and we did nothing about eradication."
"I don't think anyone is comfortable seeing US forces among the poppy fields," Kerlikowske replied. "Ambassador Holbrooke has taken great pains to explain the rationale for that," he added, alluding to Holbrooke's winning argument that eradication would push poppy farming peasants into the hands of the Taliban.
"The effectiveness of eradication seems to be near zero, which is very interesting from a policy point of view," interjected Rep. Bill Foster (D-IL).
Kucinich challenged Kerlikowske about harm reduction. "At the UN, you said the US supported many interventions, but you said that, 'We do not use the phrase harm reduction.' You are silent on both syringe exchange programs and the issue of harm reduction interventions generally," he noted. "Do you acknowledge that these interventions can be effective in reducing death and disease, does your budget proposed to fund intervention programs that have demonstrated positive results in drug overdose deaths, and what is the basis of your belief that the term harm reduction implies promotion of drug use?"
Kerlikowske barely responded. "We don't use the term harm reduction because it is in the eye of the beholder," he said. "People talk about it as if it were legalization, but personally, I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about whether to put a definition on it."
When challenged by Kucinich specifically about needle exchange programs, Kerlikowske conceded that they can be effective. "If they are part of a comprehensive drug reduction effort, they make a lot of sense," he said.
The grilling of Kerlikowske took up the first hour of the two-hour session. The second hour consisted of testimony from Drug Policy Alliance executive director Ethan Nadelmann, Brookings Institute foreign policy fellow and drugs and counterinsurgency expert Vanda Felbab-Brown, former ONDCP employee and drug policy analyst John Carnevale, and University of Maryland drug policy expert Peter Reuter. It didn't get any better for drug policy orthodoxy.
"Let me be frank," said Nadelmann as he began his testimony. "We regard US drug policy as a colossal failure, a gross violation of human rights and common sense," he said, citing the all too familiar statistics about arrests, incarceration, the spread of HIV/AIDS, and drug overdose deaths. "All of these are an egregious violation of fundamental American values."
"Congress and the Obama administration have broken with the costly and failed drug war strategies of the past in some important ways," Nadelmann. "But the continuing emphasis on interdiction and law enforcement in the federal drug war budget suggest that ONDCP is far more wedded to the failures of the past than to any new vision for the future. I urge this committee to hold ONDCP and federal drug policy accountable to new criteria that focus on reductions in the death, disease, crime and suffering associated with both drugs and drug prohibition."
Nadelmann identified four problems with current drug strategy:
The drug war's flawed performance measures;
The lop-sided ratio between supply and demand spending in the national drug budget;
The lack of innovation in the drug czar's proposed strategies;
The administration's failure to adequately evaluate drug policies.
"They want to move toward a public health model that focuses on reducing demand for drugs, but no drug policy will succeed unless there are the resources to implement it," said Carnevale. "Past budgets emphasizing supply reduction failed to produce results, and our drug policy stalled -- there has been no change in overall drug use in this decade."
Carnevale noted that the 2011 ONDCP budget gave the largest percentage increase to prevention and treatment, but that its priorities were still skewed toward supply reduction. "The budget continues to over-allocate funds where they are least effective, in interdiction and source country programs."
"The drug trade poses multiple and serious threats, ranging from threats to security and the legal economy to threats to legality and political processes," said Felbab-Brown, "but millions of people depend on the illegal drug trade for a livelihood. There is no hope supply-side policies can disrupt the global drug trade."
Felbab-Brown said she was "encouraged" that the Obama administration had shifted toward a state-building approach in Afghanistan, but that she had concerns about how policy is being operationalized there. "We need to adopt the right approach to sequencing eradication in Afghanistan," she said. "Alternative livelihoods and state-building need to be comprehensive, well-funded, and long-lasting, and not focused on replacing the poppy crop."
"Eradication in Afghanistan has little effect on domestic supply and reduction," said Kucinich. "Should these kinds of programs be funded?"
"I am quite convinced that spending money for eradication, especially aerial eradication, is not effective," replied Carnevale. "The point of eradication in Colombia was to reduce the amount of drugs coming into the US, but I see no such effect."
"We're dealing with global commodity markets," said Nadelmann. "If one source is knocked out, someone else will pop up. What's missing is any sort of strategic analysis or planning. If you accept that these drugs are going to be produced, you need to manage it to reduce the harms."
"The history of the last 20 years of the cocaine and heroin trade shows how much mobility there is in cultivation and trafficking," said Reuter. "What we do has a predictable effect. When we pushed down on trafficking in Florida, that lead to increases in Mexico. The evidence is striking that all we are doing is moving the trade."
Times are changing in Washington. What was once unassailable drug war orthodoxy is not under direct assault, and not just from activists and academics, but among members of Congress itself. But while the drug czar talks the happy talk about "new directions in drug policy," the Obama administration -- with some notable exceptions -- looks to still have a drug policy on cruise control.
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/628/drug_czar_ondcp_kerlikowske_testimony_nadelmann_felbab_brown_carnavale_reuter_kucinich
Monday, March 22, 2010
Ex-Offenders and the Vote from NY Times
March 22, 2010
Editorial
Ex-Offenders and the Vote
Millions of ex-offenders who have been released from prison are denied the right to vote. That undercuts efforts to reintegrate former prisoners into mainstream society. And it goes against one of democracy’s most fundamental principles: that governments should rule with the consent of the governed.
Congress held hearings last week on a bill, the Democracy Restoration Act, that would allow released ex-felons to vote in federal elections. It would also require the states, which administer elections, to give them appropriate notice that this right has been restored.
Voting rights are largely set by state law, and many states prohibit people who have been convicted of crimes from voting in state and federal elections.
Currently, about four million Americans who have been released from prison are disenfranchised in federal elections by laws barring people with felony convictions from voting.
Many of the laws disenfranchising former criminals date back to the post-Civil War era and were used to prevent freed slaves from voting. These laws still have a significant racial impact. About 13 percent of black men in this country are denied the right to vote by criminal disenfranchisement laws, more than seven times the rate for the population as a whole.
There is no good reason to deny former prisoners the vote. Once they are back in the community — paying taxes, working, raising families — they have the same concerns as other voters, and they should have the same say in who represents them.
Disenfranchisement laws also work against efforts to help released prisoners turn their lives around. Denying the vote to ex-offenders, who have paid their debt, continues to brand them as criminals, setting them apart from the society they should be rejoining.
Although elections are generally considered state matters, the federal government has a proud tradition of enacting laws, like the Voting Rights Act of 1965, when states wrongly deprive some of their citizens of the franchise. For reasons of both principle and sensible social policy, Congress should step in and give ex-offenders the right to vote.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company
Friday, February 26, 2010
Mexican Drug Kingpin Sentenced to 25 Years in Secret Hearing in Houston from New York Times
February 25, 2010
Mexican Drug Kingpin Sentenced to 25 Years in Secret Hearing
By JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.
HOUSTON — One of the most brutal and feared drug kingpins in Mexican history was sentenced this week to 25 years in prison during a highly secretive hearing here that was closed to the public to protect the lives of everyone involved, according to a court transcript unsealed Thursday.
Osiel Cárdenas Guillén, the head of the Gulf Cartel, which controls much of the cocaine traffic across the border in South Texas, has agreed to cooperate with the federal government, according to the transcript. Mr. Cárdenas pleaded guilty to five counts in a lengthy indictment, including drug dealing, money laundering and the attempted murder and assault of federal agents. He also forfeited $50 million in assets.
The sentencing took place in a federal courtroom in Houston behind locked doors and armed guards before Judge Hilda G. Tagle, who granted the government’s request to bar the public. Only two members of Mr. Cárdenas’s family and a handful of federal agents were present.
Judges often seal particular documents in drug and terrorism trials to protect informants or continuing investigations, but it is highly unusual to seal a sentencing hearing for security reasons.
“I apologize to my country, Mexico, to the United States of America, my family, to my wife especially, my children, for all the mistakes I made,” Mr. Cárdenas, 42, said in court. He added, “I am remorseful.”
Judge Tagle said people she had encountered whose lives had been ruined by the drug trade and the violence it generated had weighed heavily in her mind in deciding whether to accept the prosecutor’s recommendation of 25 years.
“Kidnappings, extortion, gun battles in the streets, a desperate economy, innocence lost — that is your legacy to your country, to our communities on both sides of the border, and to society,” the judge told Mr. Cárdenas, according to the transcript.
Before his arrest in Mexico in March 2003, Mr. Cárdenas ran a small empire of drug smugglers and gunmen in his home state, Tamaulipas, moving tons of cocaine every year into the United States. Law enforcement authorities on both sides of the border said he was famed for vicious violence against his enemies and for recruiting former military commandos to serve as his gunmen, known as Zetas.
Even from his Mexican jail cell, he continued to oversee the cartel’s operations, law enforcement officials say. But in 2007, President Felipe Calderón of Mexico, having begun an offensive against drug dealers, broke with policy and extradited Mr. Cárdenas along with 14 other major figures from the Mexican underworld.
Since then, Mr. Cárdenas has been cooperating with the United States authorities, as his organization has been weakened by arrests and by a lack of strong leadership at the top, experts on Mexican drug cartels said.
The Zetas, meanwhile, have broken off and became a separate criminal operation that now controls the lucrative crossing at Laredo, Tex. In recent weeks, there have been a series of gun battles between the Zetas and the remnants of Mr. Cárdenas’s organization in towns along the Texas border as they vie for turf.
“Ever since he’s been in the United States, he’s been cooperating,” said George W. Grayson, a professor at the College of William & Mary who studies the Mexican cartels. “He may be more inclined to talk about the Zetas given the hammer-and-tong conflict between them and the Gulf Cartel.”
The sentencing and the two years of legal maneuvering before it were handled with the utmost secrecy. At the request of prosecutors, Judge Tagle sealed dozens of documents in the case, from those related to Mr. Cárdenas’s plea agreement to descriptions of his assets.
The final hearing on Wednesday was not even put on the court’s docket until hours after it was over. In the transcript, the judge explained that the United States Marshals Service had asked to keep the public from witnessing the hearing because it would jeopardize the safety of Mr. Cárdenas. The threat was never explained in court, and the affidavit requesting the unusual level of secrecy was itself sealed.
Judge Tagle agreed to the request, saying there was a good chance, if she opened the hearing, that “the defendant, court personnel, United States marshal personnel, other courthouse personnel and the general public will be placed in imminent danger.”
Several experts on criminal law said it was extremely rare for a judge to bar the public from the sentencing of an organized crime figure. It is more often the case that a judge will seal some documents related to a criminal’s plea agreement on the theory it could upend an investigation.
And in some cases, a judge will close a sentencing hearing if the defendant is going to talk about his cooperation with investigators. But even in cases involving terrorists and American mobsters, most sentencing proceedings are public.
Rachel Marcus contributed reporting.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Why Mexico's Drug War May Become Its Iraq from Time Magazine
Feb. 21, 2010
Why Mexico's Drug War May Become Its Iraq
By Ioan Grillo / Mexico City
The no-nonsense government ads flash onto prime-time Mexican TV between soccer games and steamy soap operas. Bullet-filled corpses are shown sprawled on the concrete; ski-masked special forces are seen storming down residential streets; and bearded bulky capos are dragged before the cameras in handcuffs. "Today these killers are behind bars," says a booming voice-over. "We work using force for your security."
But while the spots boast of victories and progress, a rising chorus of voices across Mexico is complaining that the military approach to Mexico's crime problem is not bearing fruit. Leftists and human-rights groups have slammed the central role of the army and paramilitary police since President Felipe Calderón took office in 2006 and ordered 50,000 troops to fight the drug gangs. But in recent weeks, critics have been joined by some of the government's key allies, including members of Calderón's conservative National Action Party, regional business lobbies and the Roman Catholic Church. Such pressure could affect how the President sees through the drug war during the second half of his term, which ends in 2012. (See the siege of Ciudad Juarez.)
Most criticism centers on the relentless gang-related violence, which has only worsened, even as thousands of traffickers are jailed or extradited to the U.S. In total, there have been more than 16,000 murders that appear to be drug related since Calderón kicked off the crackdown, with this January being the bloodiest month yet. Doubters now say soldiers may be inflaming the gang killings rather than diminishing them. "Security is not directly or principally related to the ability to use force, the number of police officers, the degree of militarization or the purchasing of weapons," the Mexican bishops conference said in a Feb. 15 letter to the government. "With the passage of time, the participation of the armed forces in the fight against organized crime has provoked uncertainty in the population." (See pictures from inside Mexico's drug tunnels.)
Others argue that the violence has mushroomed because the army is directing its attacks at certain cartels, a tactic that only strengthens the rivals of those gangs. Representative Manuel Clouthier, who hails from a prominent National Action Party family, lashed out in a series of interviews this week that the omnipotent Sinaloa cartel of his native state has not been targeted. "In some places they have hit the gangsters. But in my state, everyone can see that the bad guys are being allowed to work," he told TIME. "There is a mafia cabal of criminals, politicians and businessmen and it has simply not been touched." Much of the bloodshed in Mexico is blamed on the efforts of this Sinaloa cartel to expand into new territories. Party leaders and officials swiftly hit back, saying that all criminal groups have been equally attacked.
There are also signs the Mexican public is losing its stomach for the fight. A Feb. 15 survey by Buendía & Laredo found that 50% of respondents thought the government offensive against drug traffickers has made the country more dangerous, while only 21% thought it had made it safer. Another 20% said it had had no effect and 9% gave no comment. Half of respondents also said they personally felt threatened by criminal violence, up from 35% who said they felt threatened in a 2008 survey.
These doubts come as the U.S. continues to throw its weight behind the campaign. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano signed an agreement for enhanced cooperation in the Mexican capital this week, declaring that "the collaboration between Mexico and the United States has never been stronger." The latest accord follows a hike in funding for the so-called Mérida Initiative to beef up Mexican security forces. In total, the U.S. has pledged $1.6 billion worth of equipment and training for its neighbor, including eight Black Hawk and 13 Bell helicopters for Mexico's army and federal police.
Whatever the criticism, Calderón himself insists that he will not steer away from his military strategy. Since taking power, he has identified with the fight against cartels as his personal battle more than any other Mexican President, breaking with tradition to don a green army uniform in one address to frontline soldiers. On Feb. 19, he went to the top military school to praise the efforts of the troops. "To confront these criminals without scruples, the presence of the armed forces has been and is fundamental," he said. It would also be tough for Calderón to send the soldiers back to the barracks while the violence is worsening for fear it would concede a defeat. This quandary has led critics here to regularly compare the conflict to the Iraq war in Bush's second term; it is a war in which the President cannot claim victory, cannot pull out of, and which only gets worse.
Read "Drug-Dealing for Jesus: Mexico's Evangelical Narcos."
See pictures of Mexico's drug wars.
Click to Print Find this article at:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1966880,00.html
Copyright © 2010 Time Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.Privacy Policy|Add TIME Headlines to your Site|Contact Us|Customer Service
Friday, February 19, 2010
14 Legal Medical Marijuana States
14 Legal Medical Marijuana States
Laws, Fees, and Possession Limits
I. Fourteen states have enacted laws that legalized medical marijuana: State Year Passed How Passed
(Yes Vote) ID Card Fee Possession Limit Accepts other states' registry ID cards?
1. Alaska 1998 Ballot Measure 8 (58%) $25/$20 1 oz usable; 6 plants (3 mature, 3 immature) Unknown *
2. California 1996 Proposition 215 (56%) $66/$33 8 oz usable; 18 plants (6 mature, 12 immature)** No
3. Colorado 2000 Ballot Amendment 20 (54%) $90 2 oz usable; 6 plants (3 mature, 3 immature) No
4. Hawaii 2000 Senate Bill 862 (32-18 House; 13-12 Senate) $25 3 oz usable; 7 plants (3 mature, 4 immature) No
5. Maine 1999 Ballot Question 2 (61%) *** 2.5 oz usable; 6 plants Yes
6. Michigan 2008 Proposal 1 (63%) $100/$25 2.5 oz usable; 12 plants Yes
7. Montana 2004 Initiative 148 (62%) $25/$10 1 oz usable; 6 plants Yes
8. Nevada 2000 Ballot Question 9 (65%) $150 + 1 oz usable; 7 plants (3 mature, 4 immature) No
10. New Jersey 2010 Senate Bill 119 (48-14 House; 25-13 Senate) **** 2 oz usable Unknown
9. New Mexico 2007 Senate Bill 523 (36-31 House; 32-3 Senate) $0 6 oz usable; 16 plants (4 mature, 12 immature) No
11. Oregon 1998 Ballot Measure 67 (55%) $100/$20 24 oz usable; 24 plants (6 mature, 18 immature) No
12. Rhode Island 2006 Senate Bill 0710 (52-10 House; 33-1 Senate) $75/$10 2.5 oz usable; 12 plants Yes
13. Vermont 2004 Senate Bill 76 (22-7) HB 645 (82-59) $50 2 oz usable; 9 plants (2 mature, 7 immature) No
14. Washington 1998 Initiative 692 (59%) ***** 24 oz usable; 15 plants No
[Editor's note: All 14 states require proof of residency to be considered a qualifying patient for medical marijuana use. Karen O'Keefe, JD, Director of State Policies for Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), told ProCon.org in a Jan. 19, 2010 email that "Patients and their caregivers can cultivate in 13 of the 14 states. Home cultivation is not allowed in New Jersey and a special license is required in New Mexico."]
II. Two states have passed laws that, although favorable towards medical marijuana,
did not legalize its use:
State Year Passed Provision
1. Arizona 1996 Allows physicians to prescribe marijuana (federal law prohibits physicians from prescribing Schedule I drugs)
2. Maryland 2003 Allows medical use defense in court
I. State Laws That Legalized Medical Marijuana Use
State Program Details Contact and Other Info
1. Alaska Ballot Measure 8 -- Approved Nov. 3, 1998 by 58% of voters
Effective: Mar. 4, 1999
Removed state-level criminal penalties on the use, possession and cultivation of marijuana by patients who possess written documentation from their physician advising that they "might benefit from the medical use of marijuana."
Approved Conditions: Cachexia, cancer, chronic pain, epilepsy and other disorders characterized by seizures, glaucoma, HIV or AIDS, multiple sclerosis and other disorders characterized by muscle spasticity, and nausea. Other conditions are subject to approval by the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services.
Possession/Cultivation: Patients (or their primary caregivers) may legally possess no more than one ounce of usable marijuana, and may cultivate no more than six marijuana plants, of which no more than three may be mature. The law establishes a confidential state-run patient registry that issues identification cards to qualifying patients.
Amended: Senate Bill 94
Effective: June 2, 1999
Mandates all patients seeking legal protection under this act to enroll in the state patient registry and possess a valid identification card. Patients not enrolled in the registry will no longer be able to argue the "affirmative defense of medical necessity" if they are arrested on marijuana charges.
Update: Alaska Statute Title 17 Chapter 37 (36 KB)
Creates a confidential statewide registry of medical marijuana patients and caregivers and establishes identification card.
Alaska Bureau of Vital Statistics
Marijuana Registry
P.O. Box 110699
Juneau, AK 99811-0699
Phone: 907-465-5423
BVSSpecialServices@health.state.ak.us
AK Marijuana Registry Online
Information provided by the state on sources for medical marijuana:
None found
Fee:
$25 new application/$20 renewal
Accepts other states' registry ID cards?
Unknown *[Editor's Note: Four phone calls made Jan. 5-8, 2010 and an email sent on Jan. 6, 2010 by ProCon.org to the Alaska Marijuana Registry have not yet been returned and the information is not available on the state's website (as of Jan. 11, 2010).]
Registration:
Mandatory
2. California Ballot Proposition 215 -- Approved Nov. 5, 1996 by 56% of voters
Effective: Nov. 6, 1996
Removes state-level criminal penalties on the use, possession and cultivation of marijuana by patients who possess a "written or oral recommendation" from their physician that he or she "would benefit from medical marijuana." Patients diagnosed with any debilitating illness where the medical use of marijuana has been "deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician" are afforded legal protection under this act.
Approved Conditions: AIDS, anorexia, arthritis, cachexia, cancer, chronic pain, glaucoma, migraine, persistent muscle spasms, including spasms associated with multiple sclerosis, seizures, including seizures associated with epilepsy, severe nausea; Other chronic or persistent medical symptoms.
Amended: Senate Bill 420 (70 KB)
Effective: Jan. 1, 2004
Imposes statewide guidelines outlining how much medicinal marijuana patients may grow and possess.
Possession/Cultivation: Qualified patients and their primary caregivers may possess no more than eight ounces of dried marijuana and/or six mature (or 12 immature) marijuana plants. However, S.B. 420 allows patients to possess larger amounts of marijuana when recommended by a physician. The legislation also allows counties and municipalities to approve and/or maintain local ordinances permitting patients to possess larger quantities of medicinal pot than allowed under the new state guidelines.
S.B. 420 also grants implied legal protection to the state's medicinal marijuana dispensaries, stating, "Qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, and the designated primary caregivers of qualified patients ... who associate within the state of California in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes, shall not solely on the basis of that fact be subject to state criminal sanctions."
**[Editor's Note: On Jan. 21, 2010, the California Supreme Court affirmed the May 22, 2008 Second District Court of Appeals ruling that the possession limits set by SB 420 violate the California constitution because the voter-approved Prop. 215 can only be amended by the voters. As of Dec. 22, 2009, the California Medical Marijuana Program was still operating under the guidelines in SB 420 because it had not received instruction otherwise, according to program representative Paula Sahleen-Buckingham in a phone interview with ProCon.org. We have not yet confirmed how the Jan. 21, 2010 ruling will affect the implementation of the medical marijuana program in California.]
Attorney General's Guidelines:
On Aug. 25, 2008, California Attorney General Jerry Brown issued guidelines for law enforcement and medical marijuana patients to clarify the state's laws. Read more about the guidelines here.
California Department of Public Health
Office of County Health Services
Attention: Medical Marijuana Program Unit
MS 5203
P.O. Box 997377
Sacramento, CA 95899-7377
Phone: 916-552-8600
Fax: 916-440-5591
mmpinfo@dhs.ca.gov
CA Medical Marijuana Program
Guidelines for the Security and Non-diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use (55 KB)
Information provided by the state on sources for medical marijuana:
"Dispensaries, growing collectives, etc., are licensed through local city or county business ordinances and the regulatory authority lies with the State Attorney General's Office. Their number is 1-800-952-5225." (accessed Jan. 11, 2010)
Fee:
$66 non Medi-Cal / $33 Medi-Cal, plus additional county fees (varies by location)
Accepts other states' registry ID cards?
No
Registration:
Voluntary
3. Colorado Ballot Amendment 20 -- Approved Nov. 7, 2000 by 54% of voters
Effective: June 1, 2001
Removes state-level criminal penalties on the use, possession and cultivation of marijuana by patients who possess written documentation from their physician affirming that he or she suffers from a debilitating condition and advising that they "might benefit from the medical use of marijuana." (Patients must possess this documentation prior to an arrest.)
Approved Conditions: Cancer, glaucoma, HIV/AIDS positive, cachexia; severe pain; severe nausea; seizures, including those that are characteristic of epilepsy; or persistent muscle spasms, including those that are characteristic of multiple sclerosis. Other conditions are subject to approval by the Colorado Board of Health.
Possession/Cultivation: A patient or a primary caregiver who has been issued a Medical Marijuana Registry identification card may possess no more than two ounces of a usable form of marijuana and not more than six marijuana plants, with three or fewer being mature, flowering plants that are producing a usable form of marijuana.
Patients who do not join the registry or possess greater amounts of marijuana than allowed by law may argue the "affirmative defense of medical necessity" if they are arrested on marijuana charges.
Not Amended
Medical Marijuana Registry
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
HSVR-ADM2-A1
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, CO 80246-1530
Phone: 303-692-2184
medical.marijuana@state.co.us
CO Medical Marijuana Registry
Information provided by the state on sources for medical marijuana:
"The Colorado Medical Marijuana amendment, statutes and regulations are silent on the issue of dispensaries. While the Registry is aware that a number of such businesses have been established across the state, we do not have a formal relationship with them." (accessed Jan. 11, 2010)
Fee:
$90
Accepts other states' registry ID cards?
No
Registration:
Voluntary
4. Hawaii Senate Bill 862 -- Signed into law by Gov. Ben Cayetano on June 14, 2000
Approved: By House, 32-18; by Senate 13-12
Effective: Dec. 28, 2000
Removes state-level criminal penalties on the use, possession and cultivation of marijuana by patients who possess a signed statement from their physician affirming that he or she suffers from a debilitating condition and that the "potential benefits of medical use of marijuana would likely outweigh the health risks." The law establishes a mandatory, confidential state-run patient registry that issues identification cards to qualifying patients.
Approved conditions: Cancer, glaucoma, positive status for HIV/AIDS; A chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition or its treatment that produces cachexia or wasting syndrome, severe pain, severe nausea, seizures, including those characteristic of epilepsy, or severe and persistent muscle spasms, including those characteristic of multiple sclerosis or Crohn's disease. Other conditions are subject to approval by the Hawaii Department of Health.
Possession/Cultivation: The amount of marijuana that may be possessed jointly between the qualifying patient and the primary caregiver is an "adequate supply," which shall not exceed three mature marijuana plants, four immature marijuana plants, and one ounce of usable marijuana per each mature plant.
Not Amended
Narcotics Enforcement Division
3375 Koapaka Street, Suite D-100
Honolulu, HI 96819
Phone: 808-837-8470
Fax: 808-837-8474
HI Medical Marijuana Application info
Information provided by the state on sources for medical marijuana:
"Hawaii law does not authorize any person or entity to sell or dispense marijuana... Hawaii law authorizes the medical use of marijuana, it does not authorize the distribution of marijuana (Dispensaries) other than the transfer from a qualifying patient's primary caregiver to the qualifying patient." (accessed Jan. 11, 2010)
Fee:
$25
Accepts other states' registry ID cards?
No
Registration:
Mandatory
5. Maine Ballot Question 2 -- Approved Nov. 2, 1999 by 61% of voters
Effective: Dec. 22, 1999
Removes state-level criminal penalties on the use, possession and cultivation of marijuana by patients who possess an oral or written "professional opinion" from their physician that he or she "might benefit from the medical use of marijuana." The law does not establish a state-run patient registry.
Approved diagnosis: epilepsy and other disorders characterized by seizures; glaucoma; multiple sclerosis and other disorders characterized by muscle spasticity; and nausea or vomiting as a result of AIDS or cancer chemotherapy.
Possession/Cultivation: Patients (or their primary caregivers) may legally possess no more than one and one-quarter (1.25) ounces of usable marijuana, and may cultivate no more than six marijuana plants, of which no more than three may be mature. Those patients who possess greater amounts of marijuana than allowed by law are afforded a "simple defense" to a charge of marijuana possession.
Amended: Senate Bill 611
Effective: Signed into law on Apr. 2, 2002
Increases the amount of useable marijuana a person may possess from one and one-quarter (1.25) ounces to two and one-half (2.5) ounces.
Amended: Question 5 (135 KB) -- Approved Nov. 3, 2009 by 59% of voters
List of approved conditions changed to include cancer, glaucoma, HIV, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, hepatitis C, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Crohn's disease, Alzheimer's, nail-patella syndrome, chronic intractable pain, cachexia or wasting syndrome, severe nausea, seizures (epilepsy), severe and persistent muscle spasms, and multiple sclerosis.
Instructs the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a registry identification program for patients and caregivers. Stipulates provisions for the operation of nonprofit dispensaries.
Question 5, approved by voters (59%) on Nov. 3, 2009, requires the state's Department of Health and Human Services to establish a registration program within 120 days.
Information provided by the state on sources for medical marijuana:
State licensing program in task force phase (as of Jan. 11, 2009)
Fee:
***No state registration program has been established
Accepts other states' registry ID cards?
Yes, but only for the conditions approved in Maine
Registration:
Program not yet established
6. Michigan Proposal 1 (60 KB) "Michigan Medical Marihuana Act" -- Approved by 63% of voters on Nov. 4, 2008
Approved: Nov. 4, 2008
Effective: Dec. 4, 2008
Approved Conditions: Approved for treatment of debilitating medical conditions, defined as cancer, glaucoma, HIV, AIDS, hepatitis C, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Crohn's disease, agitation of Alzheimer's disease, nail patella, cachexia or wasting syndrome, severe and chronic pain, severe nausea, seizures, epilepsy, muscle spasms, and multiple sclerosis.
Possession/Cultivation: Patients may possess up to two and one-half (2.5) ounces of usable marijuana and twelve marijuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility. The twelve plants may be kept by the patient only if he or she has not specified a primary caregiver to cultivate the marijuana for him or her.
Michigan Medical Marihuana Program (MMMP)
Bureau of Health Professions, Department of Community Health
611 W. Ottawa St.
Lansing, MI 48933
Phone: 517-373-0395
bhpinfo@michigan.gov
MI Medical Marihuana Program
Information provided by the state on sources for medical marijuana:
"The MMMP is not a resource for the growing process and does not have information to give to patients." (accessed Jan. 11, 2010)
Fee:
$100 new or renewal application / $25 Medicaid patients
Accepts other states' registry ID cards?
Yes
Registration:
Mandatory
7. Montana Initiative 148 (76 KB) -- Approved by 62% of voters on Nov. 2, 2004
Effective: Nov. 2, 2004
Approved Conditions: Cancer, glaucoma, or positive status for HIV/AIDS, or the treatment of these conditions; a chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition or its treatment that produces cachexia or wasting syndrome, severe or chronic pain, severe nausea, seizures, including seizures caused by epilepsy, or severe or persistent muscle spasms, including spasms caused by multiple sclerosis or Chrohn's disease; or any other medical condition or treatment for a medical condition adopted by the department by rule.
Possession/Cultivation: A qualifying patient and a qualifying patient's caregiver may each possess six marijuana plants and one ounce of usable marijuana. "Usable marijuana" means the dried leaves and flowers of marijuana and any mixture or preparation of marijuana.
Not Amended
Medical Marijuana Program
Montana Department of Health and Human Services
Licensure Bureau
2401 Colonial Drive, 2nd Floor
P.O. Box 202953
Helena, MT 59620-2953
Phone: 406-444-2676
medical.marijuana@state.co.us
MT Medical Marijuana Program
Information provided by the state on sources for medical marijuana:
"The Medical Marijuana Act... allows a patient or caregiver to grow up to six plants or possess up to one ounce of usable marijuana. The department cannot give advice or referrals on how to obtain a supply of marijuana... State law is silent on where grow sites can be located." (accessed Jan. 11, 2010)
Fee:
$25 new application/$10 renewal
(reduced from $50 as of Oct. 1, 2009)
Accepts other states' registry ID cards?
Yes
Registration:
Mandatory
8. Nevada Ballot Question 9 -- Approved Nov. 7, 2000 by 65% of voters
Effective: Oct. 1, 2001
Removes state-level criminal penalties on the use, possession and cultivation of marijuana by patients who have "written documentation" from their physician that marijuana may alleviate his or her condition.
Approved Conditions: AIDS; cancer; glaucoma; and any medical condition or treatment to a medical condition that produces cachexia, persistent muscle spasms or seizures, severe nausea or pain. Other conditions are subject to approval by the health division of the state Department of Human Resources.
Possession/Cultivation: Patients (or their primary caregivers) may legally possess no more than one ounce of usable marijuana, three mature plants, and four immature plants.
Registry: The law establishes a confidential state-run patient registry that issues identification cards to qualifying patients. Patients who do not join the registry or possess greater amounts of marijuana than allowed by law may argue the "affirmative defense of medical necessity" if they are arrested on marijuana charges. Legislators added a preamble to the legislation stating, "[T]he state of Nevada as a sovereign state has the duty to carry out the will of the people of this state and regulate the health, medical practices and well-being of those people in a manner that respects their personal decisions concerning the relief of suffering through the medical use of marijuana." A separate provision requires the Nevada School of Medicine to "aggressively" seek federal permission to establish a state-run medical marijuana distribution program.
Amended: Assembly Bill 453 (25 KB)
Effective: Oct. 1, 2001
Created a state registry for patients prescribed the drug by a licensed physician and the Department of Motor Vehicles would issue identification cards. No state money will be used for the program, which will be funded entirely by donations.
Nevada State Health Division
1000 E William Street
Suite 209
Carson City, Nevada 89701
Phone: 775-687-7594
Fax: 775-687-7595
NV Medical Marijuana Program (NMMP)
Information provided by the state on sources for medical marijuana:
"The NMMP is not a resource for the growing process and does not have information to give to patients."
Fee:
$150, plus $15-42 in additional related costs
Accepts other states' registry ID cards?
No
Registration:
Mandatory
10. New Jersey Senate Bill 119 (175 KB)
Approved: Jan. 11, 2010 by House, 48-14; by Senate, 25-13
Signed into law by Gov. Jon Corzine on Jan. 18, 2010
Effective: Six months from enactment
Protects "patients who use marijuana to alleviate suffering from debilitating medical conditions, as well as their physicians, primary caregivers, and those who are authorized to produce marijuana for medical purposes" from "arrest, prosecution, property forfeiture, and criminal and other penalties."
Also provides for the creation of alternative treatment centers, "at least two each in the northern, central, and souther regions of the state. The first two centers issued a permit in each region shall be nonprofit entities, and centers subsequently issued permits may be nonprofit or for-profit entities."
Approved Conditions: Seizure disorder, including epilepsy, intractable skeletal muscular spasticity, glaucoma; severe or chronic pain, severe nausea or vomiting, cachexia, or wasting syndrome resulting from HIV/AIDS or cancer; amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's Disease), multiple sclerosis, terminal cancer, muscular dystrophy, or inflammatory bowel disease, including Crohn’s disease; terminal illness, if the physician has determined a prognosis of less than 12 months of life or any other medical condition or its treatment that is approved by the Department of Health and Senior Services.
Possession/Cultivation: Physicians determine how much marijuana a patient needs and give written instructions to be presented to an alternative treatment center. The maximum amount for a 30-day period is two ounces.
S119 becomes effective six months after the law was enacted on Jan. 18, 2010. The program will be run by the Department of Health and Senior Services.
Information provided by the state on sources for medical marijuana:
The state will accept applications for alternative treatment centers, and approve a minimum of six.
Fee:
****Fee will be determined when the registration program is established
Accepts other states' registry ID cards?
Unknown
Registration:
Program not yet established
9. New Mexico Senate Bill 523 (71 KB) "The Lynn and Erin Compassionate Use Act"
Approved: Mar. 13, 2007 by House, 36-31; by Senate, 32-3
Effective: July 1, 2007
Removes state-level criminal penalties on the use and possession of marijuana by patients "in a regulated system for alleviating symptoms caused by debilitating medical conditions and their medical treatments." The New Mexico Department of Health designated to administer the program and register patients, caregivers, and providers.
Approved Conditions: The 15 current qualifying conditions for medical cannabis are: severe chronic pain, painful peripheral neuropathy, intractable nausea/vomiting, severe anorexia/cachexia, hepatitis C infection, Crohn's disease, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease), cancer, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, damage to the nervous tissue of the spinal cord with intractable spasticity, epilepsy, HIV/AIDS, and hospice patients.
Possession/Cultivation: Patients have the right to possess up to six ounces of usable cannabis, four mature plants and 12 seedlings. Usable cannabis is defined as dried leaves and flowers; it does not include seeds, stalks or roots. A primary caregiver may provide services to a maximum of four qualified patients under the Medical Cannabis Program.
New Mexico Department of Health
1190 St. Francis Drive
P.O. Box 26110
Santa Fe, NM 87502-6110
Phone: 505-827-2321
medical.cannabis@state.nm.us
NM Medical Cannabis Program
Information provided by the state on sources for medical marijuana:
"Patients can apply for a license to produce their own medical cannabis... Once a patient is approved we provide them with information about how to contact the licensed producers to receive medical cannabis." (accessed Jan. 11, 2010)
Fee:
$0
Accepts other states' registry ID cards?
No
Registration:
Mandatory
11. Oregon Ballot Measure 67 -- Approved by 55% of voters on Nov. 3, 1998
Effective: Dec. 3, 1998
Removes state-level criminal penalties on the use, possession and cultivation of marijuana by patients who possess a signed recommendation from their physician stating that marijuana "may mitigate" his or her debilitating symptoms.
Approved Conditions: Cancer, glaucoma, positive status for HIV/AIDS, or treatment for these conditions; A medical condition or treatment for a medical condition that produces cachexia, severe pain, severe nausea, seizures, including seizures caused by epilepsy, or persistent muscle spasms, including spasms caused by multiple sclerosis. Other conditions are subject to approval by the Health Division of the Oregon Department of Human Resources.
Possession/Cultivation: A registry identification cardholder or the designated primary caregiver of the cardholder may possess up to six mature marijuana plants and 24 ounces of usable marijuana. A registry identification cardholder and the designated primary caregiver of the cardholder may possess a combined total of up to 18 marijuana seedlings. (per Oregon Revised Statutes ORS 475.300 -- ORS 475.346) (52 KB)
Amended: Senate Bill 1085 (52 KB)
Effective: Jan. 1, 2006
State-qualified patients who possess cannabis in amounts exceeding the new state guidelines will no longer retain the ability to argue an "affirmative defense" of medical necessity at trial. Patients who fail to register with the state, but who possess medical cannabis in amounts compliant with state law, still retain the ability to raise an "affirmative defense" at trial.
The law also redefines "mature plants" to include only those cannabis plants that are more than 12 inches in height and diameter, and establish a state-registry for those authorized to produce medical cannabis to qualified patients.
Amended: House Bill 3052
Effective: July 21, 1999
Mandates that patients (or their caregivers) may only cultivate marijuana in one location, and requires that patients must be diagnosed by their physicians at least 12 months prior to an arrest in order to present an "affirmative defense." This bill also states that law enforcement officials who seize marijuana from a patient pending trial do not have to keep those plants alive. Last year the Oregon Board of Health approved agitation due to Alzheimer’s disease to the list of debilitating conditions qualifying for legal protection.
In August 2001, program administrators filed established temporary procedures further defining the relationship between physicians and patients. The new rule defines attending physician as "a physician who has established a physician/patient relationship with the patient;... is primarily responsible for the care and treatment of the patients;... has reviewed a patient’s medical records at the patient’s request, has conducted a thorough physical examination of the patient, has provided a treatment plan and/or follow-up care, and has documented these activities in a patient file."
Oregon Department of Human Services
Medical Marijuana Program
PO Box 14450
Portland, OR 97293-0450
Phone: 971-673-1234
Fax: 971-673-1278
OR Medical Marijuana Program (OMMP)
Information provided by the state on sources for medical marijuana:
"The OMMP is not a resource for the growing process and does not have information to give to patients." (accessed Jan. 11, 2010)
Fee:
$100 for new applications and renewals, $20 for applicants enrolled in the Oregon Health Plan or who receive federal Supplementary Social Security Income or monthly food stamp benefits
Accepts other states' registry ID cards?
No
Registration:
Mandatory
12. Rhode Island Senate Bill 0710 -- Approved by state House and Senate, vetoed by the Governor. Veto was over-ridden by House and Senate.
Timeline:
June 24, 2005: passed the House 52 to 10
June 28, 2005: passed the State Senate 33 to 1
June 29, 2005: Gov. Carcieri vetoed the bill
June 30, 2005: Senate overrode the veto 28-6
Jan. 3, 2006: House overrode the veto 59-13 to pass the Edward O. Hawkins and Thomas C. Slater Medical Marijuana Act (48 KB) (Public Laws 05-442 and 05-443)
June 21, 2007: Amended by Senate Bill 791 (SB 791) (30 KB)
Effective: Jan. 3, 2006
Approved Conditions: Cancer, glaucoma, positive status for HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis C, or the treatment of these conditions; A chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition or its treatment that produces cachexia or wasting syndrome; severe, debilitating, chronic pain; severe nausea; seizures, including but not limited to, those characteristic of epilepsy; or severe and persistent muscle spasms, including but not limited to, those characteristic of multiple sclerosis or Crohn’s disease; or agitation of Alzheimer's Disease; or any other medical condition or its treatment approved by the state Department of Health.
If you have a medical marijuana registry identification card from any other state, U.S. territory, or the District of Columbia you may use it in Rhode Island. It has the same force and effect as a card issued by the Rhode Island Department of Health.
Possession/Cultivation: Limits the amount of marijuana that can be possessed and grown to up to 12 marijuana plants or 2.5 ounces of cultivated marijuana. Primary caregivers may not possess an amount of marijuana in excess of 24 marijuana plants and five ounces of usable marijuana for qualifying patients to whom he or she is connected through the Department's registration process.
Amended: H5359 (70 KB) - The Edward O. Hawkins and Thomas C. Slater Medical Marijuana Act (substituted for the original bill)
Timeline:
May 20, 2009: passed the House 63-5
June 6, 2009: passed the State Senate 31-2
June 12, 2009: Gov. Carcieri vetoed the bill (60 KB)
June 16, 2009: Senate overrode the veto 35-3
June 16, 2009: House overrode the veto 67-0
Effective: June 16, 2009
Allows the creation of compassion centers, which may acquire, possess, cultivate, manufacture, deliver, transfer, transport, supply, or dispense marijuana, or related supplies and educational materials, to registered qualifying patients and their registered primary caregivers.
Rhode Island Department of Health
Office of Health Professions Regulation, Room 104
3 Capitol Hill
Providence, RI 02908-5097
Phone: 401-222-2828
RI Medical Marijuana Program (MMP)
Information provided by the state on sources for medical marijuana:
"The MMP is not a resource for marijuana and does not have information to give to patients related to the supply of marijuana." (accessed Jan. 11, 2010)
Fee:
$75/$10 for applicants on Medicaid or Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Accepts other states' registry ID cards?
Yes, but only for the conditions approved in Rhode Island
Registration:
Mandatory
13. Vermont Senate Bill 76 (45 KB) -- Approved 22-7; House Bill 645 (41 KB) -- Approved 82-59
"Act Relating to Marijuana Use by Persons with Severe Illness" (Sec. 1. 18 V.S.A. chapter 86 (41 KB) passed by the General Assembly) Gov. James Douglas (R), allowed the act to pass into law unsigned on May 26, 2004
Effective: July 1, 2004
Amended: Senate Bill 00007 (65 KB)
Effective: May 30, 2007
Approved Conditions: Cancer, AIDS, positive status for HIV, multiple sclerosis, or the treatment of these conditions if the disease or the treatment results in severe, persistent, and intractable symptoms; or a disease, medical condition, or its treatment that is chronic, debilitating and produces severe, persistent, and one or more of the following intractable symptoms: cachexia or wasting syndrome, severe pain or nausea or seizures.
Possession/Cultivation: No more than two mature marijuana plants, seven immature plants, and two ounces of usable marijuana may be collectively possessed between the registered patient and the patient’s registered caregiver. A marijuana plant shall be considered mature when male or female flower buds are readily observed on the plant by unaided visual examination. Until this sexual differentiation has taken place, a marijuana plant will be considered immature.
Marijuana Registry
Department of Public Safety
103 South Main Street
Waterbury, Vermont 05671
Phone: 802-241-5115
VT Marijuana Registry Program
Information provided by the state on sources for medical marijuana:
"The Marijuana Registry is neither a source for marijuana nor can the Registry provide information to patients on how to obtain marijuana." (accessed Jan. 11, 2010)
Fee:
$50
Accepts other states' registry ID cards?
No
Registration:
Mandatory
14. Washington Chapter 69.51A RCW (4KB) Ballot Initiative I-692 -- Approved by 59% of voters on Nov. 3, 1998
Effective: Nov. 3, 1998
Removes state-level criminal penalties on the use, possession and cultivation of marijuana by patients who possess "valid documentation" from their physician affirming that he or she suffers from a debilitating condition and that the "potential benefits of the medical use of marijuana would likely outweigh the health risks."
Approved Conditions: Cachexia; cancer; HIV or AIDS; epilepsy; glaucoma; intractable pain (defined as pain unrelieved by standard treatment or medications); and multiple sclerosis. Other conditions are subject to approval by the Washington Board of Health.
Possession/Cultivation: Patients (or their primary caregivers) may legally possess or cultivate no more than a 60-day supply of marijuana. The law does not establish a state-run patient registry.
Amended: Senate Bill 6032 (29 KB)
Effective: 2007 (rules being defined by Legislature with a July 1, 2008 due date)
Amended: Final Rule (123 KB) based on Significant Analysis (370 KB)
Effective: Nov. 2, 2008
Approved Conditions: Added Crohn's disease, Hepatitis C with debilitating nausea or intractable pain, diseases, including anorexia, which result in nausea, vomiting, wasting, appetite loss, cramping, seizures, muscle spasms, or spasticity, when those conditions are unrelieved by standard treatments or medications.
Possession/Cultivation: A qualifying patient and designated provider may possess a total of no more than twenty-four ounces of usable marijuana, and no more than fifteen plants. This quantity became the state's official "60-day supply" on Nov. 2, 2008.
[Editor's Note: On Jan. 21, 2010, the Supreme Court of the State of Washington ruled that Ballot Initiative "I-692 did not legalize marijuana, but rather provided an authorized user with an affirmative defense if the user shows compliance with the requirements for medical marijuana possession." State v. Fry (125 KB)
ProCon.org contacted the Washington Department of Health to ask whether it had received any instructions in light of this ruling. Kristi Weeks, Director of Policy and Legislation, stated the following in a Jan. 25, 2010 email response to ProCon.org:
"The Department of Health has a limited role related to medical marijuana in the state of Washington. Specifically, we were directed by the Legislature to determine the amount of a 60 day supply and conduct a study of issues related to access to medical marijuana. Both of these tasks have been completed. We have maintained the medical marijuana webpage for the convenience of the public.
The department has not received 'any instructions' in light of State v. Fry. That case does not change the law or affect the 60 day supply. Chapter 69.51A RCW, as confirmed in Fry, provides an affirmative defense to prosecution for possession of marijuana for qualifying patients and caregivers."]
Department of Health
PO Box 47866
Olympia, WA 98504-7866
Phone: 360-236-4700
Fax: 360-236-4768
MedicalMarijuana@doh.wa.gov
WA Medical Marijuana website
Information provided by the state on sources for medical marijuana:
"The law allows a qualifying patient or designated provider to grow medical marijuana. It is not legal to buy or sell it. The law does not allow dispensaries." (accessed Jan. 11, 2010)
Fee:
*****No state registration program has been established
Accepts other states' registry ID cards?
No
Registration:
None
[Editor's Note: Karen O'Keefe, JD provided the following information in a Jan. 11, 2010 email to ProCon.org about registering as a medical marijuana patient in states that have identification card programs:
"Affirmative defenses, which protect from conviction but not arrest, are or may be available in several states even if the patient doesn't have an ID card: Rhode Island, Montana, Michigan, Colorado, Maine, Nevada, and Oregon. Hawaii also has a separate 'choice of evils' defense. In California, ID cards are voluntary, but they offer the strongest legal protection.
The states with no protection unless you're registered are: Alaska (except for that even non-medical use is protected in one's home due to the state constitutional right to privacy); Vermont, New Mexico, and New Jersey."]
For more information about upcoming medical marijuana laws, visit our page on the 12 States with Pending Legislation or Ballot Measures to Legalize Medical Marijuana.
II. Other State Medical Marijuana Laws
State Program Details Contact Info
1. Arizona Ballot Proposition 200 -- Approved by 65% of voters on Nov. 5, 1996
Effective: Dec. 6, 1996 [Not Active]
Measure changed sentencing for drug offenders, requiring those who commit violent crimes to serve full sentences without parole, and diverting non-violent drug offenders into treatment. Prop 200 also permitted doctors to prescribe schedule I controlled substances, including marijuana, to treat a disease or to relieve pain and suffering in seriously ill and terminally ill patients. Under federal law, however, marijuana is considered an illegal drug and physicians are prohibited from writing prescriptions for illegal drugs. The use of the word "prescribe" instead of "recommend" is the reason that Prop 200 is not considered to make medical marijuana legal in Arizona.
Not Amended: House Bill 2518, which was signed by the governor on Apr. 21, 1997, sought to repeal Proposition 200’s medical marijuana provision by requiring the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to first approve marijuana before allowing state physicians to prescribe it. The bill was placed on the Nov. 3, 1998 ballot as a referendum, where voters rejected it by a vote of 57% to 43%.
No state program, no contact info
2. Maryland Senate Bill 502 (72 KB), The "Darrell Putman" Bill -- Resolution #0756-2003 -- Approved in the state senate by a vote of 29-17. Signed into law by Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr. on May 22, 2003
Effective: Oct. 1, 2003
The law allows defendants being prosecuted for the use or possession of marijuana to introduce evidence of medical necessity and physician approval, to be considered by the court as a mitigating factor. If the court finds that the case involves medical necessity, the maximum penalty that the court may impose is a fine not exceeding $100. The law, however, does not protect users of medical marijuana from arrest or establish a registry program.
Not Amended
No state program, no contact info
Last updated on: 1/26/2010 3:09 PM PST
©ProCon.Org, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit
All rights reserved
233 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200, Santa Monica, CA 90401
Tel: 310-451-9596 Fax: 310-393-2471
Laws, Fees, and Possession Limits
I. Fourteen states have enacted laws that legalized medical marijuana: State Year Passed How Passed
(Yes Vote) ID Card Fee Possession Limit Accepts other states' registry ID cards?
1. Alaska 1998 Ballot Measure 8 (58%) $25/$20 1 oz usable; 6 plants (3 mature, 3 immature) Unknown *
2. California 1996 Proposition 215 (56%) $66/$33 8 oz usable; 18 plants (6 mature, 12 immature)** No
3. Colorado 2000 Ballot Amendment 20 (54%) $90 2 oz usable; 6 plants (3 mature, 3 immature) No
4. Hawaii 2000 Senate Bill 862 (32-18 House; 13-12 Senate) $25 3 oz usable; 7 plants (3 mature, 4 immature) No
5. Maine 1999 Ballot Question 2 (61%) *** 2.5 oz usable; 6 plants Yes
6. Michigan 2008 Proposal 1 (63%) $100/$25 2.5 oz usable; 12 plants Yes
7. Montana 2004 Initiative 148 (62%) $25/$10 1 oz usable; 6 plants Yes
8. Nevada 2000 Ballot Question 9 (65%) $150 + 1 oz usable; 7 plants (3 mature, 4 immature) No
10. New Jersey 2010 Senate Bill 119 (48-14 House; 25-13 Senate) **** 2 oz usable Unknown
9. New Mexico 2007 Senate Bill 523 (36-31 House; 32-3 Senate) $0 6 oz usable; 16 plants (4 mature, 12 immature) No
11. Oregon 1998 Ballot Measure 67 (55%) $100/$20 24 oz usable; 24 plants (6 mature, 18 immature) No
12. Rhode Island 2006 Senate Bill 0710 (52-10 House; 33-1 Senate) $75/$10 2.5 oz usable; 12 plants Yes
13. Vermont 2004 Senate Bill 76 (22-7) HB 645 (82-59) $50 2 oz usable; 9 plants (2 mature, 7 immature) No
14. Washington 1998 Initiative 692 (59%) ***** 24 oz usable; 15 plants No
[Editor's note: All 14 states require proof of residency to be considered a qualifying patient for medical marijuana use. Karen O'Keefe, JD, Director of State Policies for Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), told ProCon.org in a Jan. 19, 2010 email that "Patients and their caregivers can cultivate in 13 of the 14 states. Home cultivation is not allowed in New Jersey and a special license is required in New Mexico."]
II. Two states have passed laws that, although favorable towards medical marijuana,
did not legalize its use:
State Year Passed Provision
1. Arizona 1996 Allows physicians to prescribe marijuana (federal law prohibits physicians from prescribing Schedule I drugs)
2. Maryland 2003 Allows medical use defense in court
I. State Laws That Legalized Medical Marijuana Use
State Program Details Contact and Other Info
1. Alaska Ballot Measure 8 -- Approved Nov. 3, 1998 by 58% of voters
Effective: Mar. 4, 1999
Removed state-level criminal penalties on the use, possession and cultivation of marijuana by patients who possess written documentation from their physician advising that they "might benefit from the medical use of marijuana."
Approved Conditions: Cachexia, cancer, chronic pain, epilepsy and other disorders characterized by seizures, glaucoma, HIV or AIDS, multiple sclerosis and other disorders characterized by muscle spasticity, and nausea. Other conditions are subject to approval by the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services.
Possession/Cultivation: Patients (or their primary caregivers) may legally possess no more than one ounce of usable marijuana, and may cultivate no more than six marijuana plants, of which no more than three may be mature. The law establishes a confidential state-run patient registry that issues identification cards to qualifying patients.
Amended: Senate Bill 94
Effective: June 2, 1999
Mandates all patients seeking legal protection under this act to enroll in the state patient registry and possess a valid identification card. Patients not enrolled in the registry will no longer be able to argue the "affirmative defense of medical necessity" if they are arrested on marijuana charges.
Update: Alaska Statute Title 17 Chapter 37 (36 KB)
Creates a confidential statewide registry of medical marijuana patients and caregivers and establishes identification card.
Alaska Bureau of Vital Statistics
Marijuana Registry
P.O. Box 110699
Juneau, AK 99811-0699
Phone: 907-465-5423
BVSSpecialServices@health.state.ak.us
AK Marijuana Registry Online
Information provided by the state on sources for medical marijuana:
None found
Fee:
$25 new application/$20 renewal
Accepts other states' registry ID cards?
Unknown *[Editor's Note: Four phone calls made Jan. 5-8, 2010 and an email sent on Jan. 6, 2010 by ProCon.org to the Alaska Marijuana Registry have not yet been returned and the information is not available on the state's website (as of Jan. 11, 2010).]
Registration:
Mandatory
2. California Ballot Proposition 215 -- Approved Nov. 5, 1996 by 56% of voters
Effective: Nov. 6, 1996
Removes state-level criminal penalties on the use, possession and cultivation of marijuana by patients who possess a "written or oral recommendation" from their physician that he or she "would benefit from medical marijuana." Patients diagnosed with any debilitating illness where the medical use of marijuana has been "deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician" are afforded legal protection under this act.
Approved Conditions: AIDS, anorexia, arthritis, cachexia, cancer, chronic pain, glaucoma, migraine, persistent muscle spasms, including spasms associated with multiple sclerosis, seizures, including seizures associated with epilepsy, severe nausea; Other chronic or persistent medical symptoms.
Amended: Senate Bill 420 (70 KB)
Effective: Jan. 1, 2004
Imposes statewide guidelines outlining how much medicinal marijuana patients may grow and possess.
Possession/Cultivation: Qualified patients and their primary caregivers may possess no more than eight ounces of dried marijuana and/or six mature (or 12 immature) marijuana plants. However, S.B. 420 allows patients to possess larger amounts of marijuana when recommended by a physician. The legislation also allows counties and municipalities to approve and/or maintain local ordinances permitting patients to possess larger quantities of medicinal pot than allowed under the new state guidelines.
S.B. 420 also grants implied legal protection to the state's medicinal marijuana dispensaries, stating, "Qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, and the designated primary caregivers of qualified patients ... who associate within the state of California in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes, shall not solely on the basis of that fact be subject to state criminal sanctions."
**[Editor's Note: On Jan. 21, 2010, the California Supreme Court affirmed the May 22, 2008 Second District Court of Appeals ruling that the possession limits set by SB 420 violate the California constitution because the voter-approved Prop. 215 can only be amended by the voters. As of Dec. 22, 2009, the California Medical Marijuana Program was still operating under the guidelines in SB 420 because it had not received instruction otherwise, according to program representative Paula Sahleen-Buckingham in a phone interview with ProCon.org. We have not yet confirmed how the Jan. 21, 2010 ruling will affect the implementation of the medical marijuana program in California.]
Attorney General's Guidelines:
On Aug. 25, 2008, California Attorney General Jerry Brown issued guidelines for law enforcement and medical marijuana patients to clarify the state's laws. Read more about the guidelines here.
California Department of Public Health
Office of County Health Services
Attention: Medical Marijuana Program Unit
MS 5203
P.O. Box 997377
Sacramento, CA 95899-7377
Phone: 916-552-8600
Fax: 916-440-5591
mmpinfo@dhs.ca.gov
CA Medical Marijuana Program
Guidelines for the Security and Non-diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use (55 KB)
Information provided by the state on sources for medical marijuana:
"Dispensaries, growing collectives, etc., are licensed through local city or county business ordinances and the regulatory authority lies with the State Attorney General's Office. Their number is 1-800-952-5225." (accessed Jan. 11, 2010)
Fee:
$66 non Medi-Cal / $33 Medi-Cal, plus additional county fees (varies by location)
Accepts other states' registry ID cards?
No
Registration:
Voluntary
3. Colorado Ballot Amendment 20 -- Approved Nov. 7, 2000 by 54% of voters
Effective: June 1, 2001
Removes state-level criminal penalties on the use, possession and cultivation of marijuana by patients who possess written documentation from their physician affirming that he or she suffers from a debilitating condition and advising that they "might benefit from the medical use of marijuana." (Patients must possess this documentation prior to an arrest.)
Approved Conditions: Cancer, glaucoma, HIV/AIDS positive, cachexia; severe pain; severe nausea; seizures, including those that are characteristic of epilepsy; or persistent muscle spasms, including those that are characteristic of multiple sclerosis. Other conditions are subject to approval by the Colorado Board of Health.
Possession/Cultivation: A patient or a primary caregiver who has been issued a Medical Marijuana Registry identification card may possess no more than two ounces of a usable form of marijuana and not more than six marijuana plants, with three or fewer being mature, flowering plants that are producing a usable form of marijuana.
Patients who do not join the registry or possess greater amounts of marijuana than allowed by law may argue the "affirmative defense of medical necessity" if they are arrested on marijuana charges.
Not Amended
Medical Marijuana Registry
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
HSVR-ADM2-A1
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, CO 80246-1530
Phone: 303-692-2184
medical.marijuana@state.co.us
CO Medical Marijuana Registry
Information provided by the state on sources for medical marijuana:
"The Colorado Medical Marijuana amendment, statutes and regulations are silent on the issue of dispensaries. While the Registry is aware that a number of such businesses have been established across the state, we do not have a formal relationship with them." (accessed Jan. 11, 2010)
Fee:
$90
Accepts other states' registry ID cards?
No
Registration:
Voluntary
4. Hawaii Senate Bill 862 -- Signed into law by Gov. Ben Cayetano on June 14, 2000
Approved: By House, 32-18; by Senate 13-12
Effective: Dec. 28, 2000
Removes state-level criminal penalties on the use, possession and cultivation of marijuana by patients who possess a signed statement from their physician affirming that he or she suffers from a debilitating condition and that the "potential benefits of medical use of marijuana would likely outweigh the health risks." The law establishes a mandatory, confidential state-run patient registry that issues identification cards to qualifying patients.
Approved conditions: Cancer, glaucoma, positive status for HIV/AIDS; A chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition or its treatment that produces cachexia or wasting syndrome, severe pain, severe nausea, seizures, including those characteristic of epilepsy, or severe and persistent muscle spasms, including those characteristic of multiple sclerosis or Crohn's disease. Other conditions are subject to approval by the Hawaii Department of Health.
Possession/Cultivation: The amount of marijuana that may be possessed jointly between the qualifying patient and the primary caregiver is an "adequate supply," which shall not exceed three mature marijuana plants, four immature marijuana plants, and one ounce of usable marijuana per each mature plant.
Not Amended
Narcotics Enforcement Division
3375 Koapaka Street, Suite D-100
Honolulu, HI 96819
Phone: 808-837-8470
Fax: 808-837-8474
HI Medical Marijuana Application info
Information provided by the state on sources for medical marijuana:
"Hawaii law does not authorize any person or entity to sell or dispense marijuana... Hawaii law authorizes the medical use of marijuana, it does not authorize the distribution of marijuana (Dispensaries) other than the transfer from a qualifying patient's primary caregiver to the qualifying patient." (accessed Jan. 11, 2010)
Fee:
$25
Accepts other states' registry ID cards?
No
Registration:
Mandatory
5. Maine Ballot Question 2 -- Approved Nov. 2, 1999 by 61% of voters
Effective: Dec. 22, 1999
Removes state-level criminal penalties on the use, possession and cultivation of marijuana by patients who possess an oral or written "professional opinion" from their physician that he or she "might benefit from the medical use of marijuana." The law does not establish a state-run patient registry.
Approved diagnosis: epilepsy and other disorders characterized by seizures; glaucoma; multiple sclerosis and other disorders characterized by muscle spasticity; and nausea or vomiting as a result of AIDS or cancer chemotherapy.
Possession/Cultivation: Patients (or their primary caregivers) may legally possess no more than one and one-quarter (1.25) ounces of usable marijuana, and may cultivate no more than six marijuana plants, of which no more than three may be mature. Those patients who possess greater amounts of marijuana than allowed by law are afforded a "simple defense" to a charge of marijuana possession.
Amended: Senate Bill 611
Effective: Signed into law on Apr. 2, 2002
Increases the amount of useable marijuana a person may possess from one and one-quarter (1.25) ounces to two and one-half (2.5) ounces.
Amended: Question 5 (135 KB) -- Approved Nov. 3, 2009 by 59% of voters
List of approved conditions changed to include cancer, glaucoma, HIV, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, hepatitis C, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Crohn's disease, Alzheimer's, nail-patella syndrome, chronic intractable pain, cachexia or wasting syndrome, severe nausea, seizures (epilepsy), severe and persistent muscle spasms, and multiple sclerosis.
Instructs the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a registry identification program for patients and caregivers. Stipulates provisions for the operation of nonprofit dispensaries.
Question 5, approved by voters (59%) on Nov. 3, 2009, requires the state's Department of Health and Human Services to establish a registration program within 120 days.
Information provided by the state on sources for medical marijuana:
State licensing program in task force phase (as of Jan. 11, 2009)
Fee:
***No state registration program has been established
Accepts other states' registry ID cards?
Yes, but only for the conditions approved in Maine
Registration:
Program not yet established
6. Michigan Proposal 1 (60 KB) "Michigan Medical Marihuana Act" -- Approved by 63% of voters on Nov. 4, 2008
Approved: Nov. 4, 2008
Effective: Dec. 4, 2008
Approved Conditions: Approved for treatment of debilitating medical conditions, defined as cancer, glaucoma, HIV, AIDS, hepatitis C, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Crohn's disease, agitation of Alzheimer's disease, nail patella, cachexia or wasting syndrome, severe and chronic pain, severe nausea, seizures, epilepsy, muscle spasms, and multiple sclerosis.
Possession/Cultivation: Patients may possess up to two and one-half (2.5) ounces of usable marijuana and twelve marijuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility. The twelve plants may be kept by the patient only if he or she has not specified a primary caregiver to cultivate the marijuana for him or her.
Michigan Medical Marihuana Program (MMMP)
Bureau of Health Professions, Department of Community Health
611 W. Ottawa St.
Lansing, MI 48933
Phone: 517-373-0395
bhpinfo@michigan.gov
MI Medical Marihuana Program
Information provided by the state on sources for medical marijuana:
"The MMMP is not a resource for the growing process and does not have information to give to patients." (accessed Jan. 11, 2010)
Fee:
$100 new or renewal application / $25 Medicaid patients
Accepts other states' registry ID cards?
Yes
Registration:
Mandatory
7. Montana Initiative 148 (76 KB) -- Approved by 62% of voters on Nov. 2, 2004
Effective: Nov. 2, 2004
Approved Conditions: Cancer, glaucoma, or positive status for HIV/AIDS, or the treatment of these conditions; a chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition or its treatment that produces cachexia or wasting syndrome, severe or chronic pain, severe nausea, seizures, including seizures caused by epilepsy, or severe or persistent muscle spasms, including spasms caused by multiple sclerosis or Chrohn's disease; or any other medical condition or treatment for a medical condition adopted by the department by rule.
Possession/Cultivation: A qualifying patient and a qualifying patient's caregiver may each possess six marijuana plants and one ounce of usable marijuana. "Usable marijuana" means the dried leaves and flowers of marijuana and any mixture or preparation of marijuana.
Not Amended
Medical Marijuana Program
Montana Department of Health and Human Services
Licensure Bureau
2401 Colonial Drive, 2nd Floor
P.O. Box 202953
Helena, MT 59620-2953
Phone: 406-444-2676
medical.marijuana@state.co.us
MT Medical Marijuana Program
Information provided by the state on sources for medical marijuana:
"The Medical Marijuana Act... allows a patient or caregiver to grow up to six plants or possess up to one ounce of usable marijuana. The department cannot give advice or referrals on how to obtain a supply of marijuana... State law is silent on where grow sites can be located." (accessed Jan. 11, 2010)
Fee:
$25 new application/$10 renewal
(reduced from $50 as of Oct. 1, 2009)
Accepts other states' registry ID cards?
Yes
Registration:
Mandatory
8. Nevada Ballot Question 9 -- Approved Nov. 7, 2000 by 65% of voters
Effective: Oct. 1, 2001
Removes state-level criminal penalties on the use, possession and cultivation of marijuana by patients who have "written documentation" from their physician that marijuana may alleviate his or her condition.
Approved Conditions: AIDS; cancer; glaucoma; and any medical condition or treatment to a medical condition that produces cachexia, persistent muscle spasms or seizures, severe nausea or pain. Other conditions are subject to approval by the health division of the state Department of Human Resources.
Possession/Cultivation: Patients (or their primary caregivers) may legally possess no more than one ounce of usable marijuana, three mature plants, and four immature plants.
Registry: The law establishes a confidential state-run patient registry that issues identification cards to qualifying patients. Patients who do not join the registry or possess greater amounts of marijuana than allowed by law may argue the "affirmative defense of medical necessity" if they are arrested on marijuana charges. Legislators added a preamble to the legislation stating, "[T]he state of Nevada as a sovereign state has the duty to carry out the will of the people of this state and regulate the health, medical practices and well-being of those people in a manner that respects their personal decisions concerning the relief of suffering through the medical use of marijuana." A separate provision requires the Nevada School of Medicine to "aggressively" seek federal permission to establish a state-run medical marijuana distribution program.
Amended: Assembly Bill 453 (25 KB)
Effective: Oct. 1, 2001
Created a state registry for patients prescribed the drug by a licensed physician and the Department of Motor Vehicles would issue identification cards. No state money will be used for the program, which will be funded entirely by donations.
Nevada State Health Division
1000 E William Street
Suite 209
Carson City, Nevada 89701
Phone: 775-687-7594
Fax: 775-687-7595
NV Medical Marijuana Program (NMMP)
Information provided by the state on sources for medical marijuana:
"The NMMP is not a resource for the growing process and does not have information to give to patients."
Fee:
$150, plus $15-42 in additional related costs
Accepts other states' registry ID cards?
No
Registration:
Mandatory
10. New Jersey Senate Bill 119 (175 KB)
Approved: Jan. 11, 2010 by House, 48-14; by Senate, 25-13
Signed into law by Gov. Jon Corzine on Jan. 18, 2010
Effective: Six months from enactment
Protects "patients who use marijuana to alleviate suffering from debilitating medical conditions, as well as their physicians, primary caregivers, and those who are authorized to produce marijuana for medical purposes" from "arrest, prosecution, property forfeiture, and criminal and other penalties."
Also provides for the creation of alternative treatment centers, "at least two each in the northern, central, and souther regions of the state. The first two centers issued a permit in each region shall be nonprofit entities, and centers subsequently issued permits may be nonprofit or for-profit entities."
Approved Conditions: Seizure disorder, including epilepsy, intractable skeletal muscular spasticity, glaucoma; severe or chronic pain, severe nausea or vomiting, cachexia, or wasting syndrome resulting from HIV/AIDS or cancer; amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's Disease), multiple sclerosis, terminal cancer, muscular dystrophy, or inflammatory bowel disease, including Crohn’s disease; terminal illness, if the physician has determined a prognosis of less than 12 months of life or any other medical condition or its treatment that is approved by the Department of Health and Senior Services.
Possession/Cultivation: Physicians determine how much marijuana a patient needs and give written instructions to be presented to an alternative treatment center. The maximum amount for a 30-day period is two ounces.
S119 becomes effective six months after the law was enacted on Jan. 18, 2010. The program will be run by the Department of Health and Senior Services.
Information provided by the state on sources for medical marijuana:
The state will accept applications for alternative treatment centers, and approve a minimum of six.
Fee:
****Fee will be determined when the registration program is established
Accepts other states' registry ID cards?
Unknown
Registration:
Program not yet established
9. New Mexico Senate Bill 523 (71 KB) "The Lynn and Erin Compassionate Use Act"
Approved: Mar. 13, 2007 by House, 36-31; by Senate, 32-3
Effective: July 1, 2007
Removes state-level criminal penalties on the use and possession of marijuana by patients "in a regulated system for alleviating symptoms caused by debilitating medical conditions and their medical treatments." The New Mexico Department of Health designated to administer the program and register patients, caregivers, and providers.
Approved Conditions: The 15 current qualifying conditions for medical cannabis are: severe chronic pain, painful peripheral neuropathy, intractable nausea/vomiting, severe anorexia/cachexia, hepatitis C infection, Crohn's disease, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease), cancer, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, damage to the nervous tissue of the spinal cord with intractable spasticity, epilepsy, HIV/AIDS, and hospice patients.
Possession/Cultivation: Patients have the right to possess up to six ounces of usable cannabis, four mature plants and 12 seedlings. Usable cannabis is defined as dried leaves and flowers; it does not include seeds, stalks or roots. A primary caregiver may provide services to a maximum of four qualified patients under the Medical Cannabis Program.
New Mexico Department of Health
1190 St. Francis Drive
P.O. Box 26110
Santa Fe, NM 87502-6110
Phone: 505-827-2321
medical.cannabis@state.nm.us
NM Medical Cannabis Program
Information provided by the state on sources for medical marijuana:
"Patients can apply for a license to produce their own medical cannabis... Once a patient is approved we provide them with information about how to contact the licensed producers to receive medical cannabis." (accessed Jan. 11, 2010)
Fee:
$0
Accepts other states' registry ID cards?
No
Registration:
Mandatory
11. Oregon Ballot Measure 67 -- Approved by 55% of voters on Nov. 3, 1998
Effective: Dec. 3, 1998
Removes state-level criminal penalties on the use, possession and cultivation of marijuana by patients who possess a signed recommendation from their physician stating that marijuana "may mitigate" his or her debilitating symptoms.
Approved Conditions: Cancer, glaucoma, positive status for HIV/AIDS, or treatment for these conditions; A medical condition or treatment for a medical condition that produces cachexia, severe pain, severe nausea, seizures, including seizures caused by epilepsy, or persistent muscle spasms, including spasms caused by multiple sclerosis. Other conditions are subject to approval by the Health Division of the Oregon Department of Human Resources.
Possession/Cultivation: A registry identification cardholder or the designated primary caregiver of the cardholder may possess up to six mature marijuana plants and 24 ounces of usable marijuana. A registry identification cardholder and the designated primary caregiver of the cardholder may possess a combined total of up to 18 marijuana seedlings. (per Oregon Revised Statutes ORS 475.300 -- ORS 475.346) (52 KB)
Amended: Senate Bill 1085 (52 KB)
Effective: Jan. 1, 2006
State-qualified patients who possess cannabis in amounts exceeding the new state guidelines will no longer retain the ability to argue an "affirmative defense" of medical necessity at trial. Patients who fail to register with the state, but who possess medical cannabis in amounts compliant with state law, still retain the ability to raise an "affirmative defense" at trial.
The law also redefines "mature plants" to include only those cannabis plants that are more than 12 inches in height and diameter, and establish a state-registry for those authorized to produce medical cannabis to qualified patients.
Amended: House Bill 3052
Effective: July 21, 1999
Mandates that patients (or their caregivers) may only cultivate marijuana in one location, and requires that patients must be diagnosed by their physicians at least 12 months prior to an arrest in order to present an "affirmative defense." This bill also states that law enforcement officials who seize marijuana from a patient pending trial do not have to keep those plants alive. Last year the Oregon Board of Health approved agitation due to Alzheimer’s disease to the list of debilitating conditions qualifying for legal protection.
In August 2001, program administrators filed established temporary procedures further defining the relationship between physicians and patients. The new rule defines attending physician as "a physician who has established a physician/patient relationship with the patient;... is primarily responsible for the care and treatment of the patients;... has reviewed a patient’s medical records at the patient’s request, has conducted a thorough physical examination of the patient, has provided a treatment plan and/or follow-up care, and has documented these activities in a patient file."
Oregon Department of Human Services
Medical Marijuana Program
PO Box 14450
Portland, OR 97293-0450
Phone: 971-673-1234
Fax: 971-673-1278
OR Medical Marijuana Program (OMMP)
Information provided by the state on sources for medical marijuana:
"The OMMP is not a resource for the growing process and does not have information to give to patients." (accessed Jan. 11, 2010)
Fee:
$100 for new applications and renewals, $20 for applicants enrolled in the Oregon Health Plan or who receive federal Supplementary Social Security Income or monthly food stamp benefits
Accepts other states' registry ID cards?
No
Registration:
Mandatory
12. Rhode Island Senate Bill 0710 -- Approved by state House and Senate, vetoed by the Governor. Veto was over-ridden by House and Senate.
Timeline:
June 24, 2005: passed the House 52 to 10
June 28, 2005: passed the State Senate 33 to 1
June 29, 2005: Gov. Carcieri vetoed the bill
June 30, 2005: Senate overrode the veto 28-6
Jan. 3, 2006: House overrode the veto 59-13 to pass the Edward O. Hawkins and Thomas C. Slater Medical Marijuana Act (48 KB) (Public Laws 05-442 and 05-443)
June 21, 2007: Amended by Senate Bill 791 (SB 791) (30 KB)
Effective: Jan. 3, 2006
Approved Conditions: Cancer, glaucoma, positive status for HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis C, or the treatment of these conditions; A chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition or its treatment that produces cachexia or wasting syndrome; severe, debilitating, chronic pain; severe nausea; seizures, including but not limited to, those characteristic of epilepsy; or severe and persistent muscle spasms, including but not limited to, those characteristic of multiple sclerosis or Crohn’s disease; or agitation of Alzheimer's Disease; or any other medical condition or its treatment approved by the state Department of Health.
If you have a medical marijuana registry identification card from any other state, U.S. territory, or the District of Columbia you may use it in Rhode Island. It has the same force and effect as a card issued by the Rhode Island Department of Health.
Possession/Cultivation: Limits the amount of marijuana that can be possessed and grown to up to 12 marijuana plants or 2.5 ounces of cultivated marijuana. Primary caregivers may not possess an amount of marijuana in excess of 24 marijuana plants and five ounces of usable marijuana for qualifying patients to whom he or she is connected through the Department's registration process.
Amended: H5359 (70 KB) - The Edward O. Hawkins and Thomas C. Slater Medical Marijuana Act (substituted for the original bill)
Timeline:
May 20, 2009: passed the House 63-5
June 6, 2009: passed the State Senate 31-2
June 12, 2009: Gov. Carcieri vetoed the bill (60 KB)
June 16, 2009: Senate overrode the veto 35-3
June 16, 2009: House overrode the veto 67-0
Effective: June 16, 2009
Allows the creation of compassion centers, which may acquire, possess, cultivate, manufacture, deliver, transfer, transport, supply, or dispense marijuana, or related supplies and educational materials, to registered qualifying patients and their registered primary caregivers.
Rhode Island Department of Health
Office of Health Professions Regulation, Room 104
3 Capitol Hill
Providence, RI 02908-5097
Phone: 401-222-2828
RI Medical Marijuana Program (MMP)
Information provided by the state on sources for medical marijuana:
"The MMP is not a resource for marijuana and does not have information to give to patients related to the supply of marijuana." (accessed Jan. 11, 2010)
Fee:
$75/$10 for applicants on Medicaid or Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Accepts other states' registry ID cards?
Yes, but only for the conditions approved in Rhode Island
Registration:
Mandatory
13. Vermont Senate Bill 76 (45 KB) -- Approved 22-7; House Bill 645 (41 KB) -- Approved 82-59
"Act Relating to Marijuana Use by Persons with Severe Illness" (Sec. 1. 18 V.S.A. chapter 86 (41 KB) passed by the General Assembly) Gov. James Douglas (R), allowed the act to pass into law unsigned on May 26, 2004
Effective: July 1, 2004
Amended: Senate Bill 00007 (65 KB)
Effective: May 30, 2007
Approved Conditions: Cancer, AIDS, positive status for HIV, multiple sclerosis, or the treatment of these conditions if the disease or the treatment results in severe, persistent, and intractable symptoms; or a disease, medical condition, or its treatment that is chronic, debilitating and produces severe, persistent, and one or more of the following intractable symptoms: cachexia or wasting syndrome, severe pain or nausea or seizures.
Possession/Cultivation: No more than two mature marijuana plants, seven immature plants, and two ounces of usable marijuana may be collectively possessed between the registered patient and the patient’s registered caregiver. A marijuana plant shall be considered mature when male or female flower buds are readily observed on the plant by unaided visual examination. Until this sexual differentiation has taken place, a marijuana plant will be considered immature.
Marijuana Registry
Department of Public Safety
103 South Main Street
Waterbury, Vermont 05671
Phone: 802-241-5115
VT Marijuana Registry Program
Information provided by the state on sources for medical marijuana:
"The Marijuana Registry is neither a source for marijuana nor can the Registry provide information to patients on how to obtain marijuana." (accessed Jan. 11, 2010)
Fee:
$50
Accepts other states' registry ID cards?
No
Registration:
Mandatory
14. Washington Chapter 69.51A RCW (4KB) Ballot Initiative I-692 -- Approved by 59% of voters on Nov. 3, 1998
Effective: Nov. 3, 1998
Removes state-level criminal penalties on the use, possession and cultivation of marijuana by patients who possess "valid documentation" from their physician affirming that he or she suffers from a debilitating condition and that the "potential benefits of the medical use of marijuana would likely outweigh the health risks."
Approved Conditions: Cachexia; cancer; HIV or AIDS; epilepsy; glaucoma; intractable pain (defined as pain unrelieved by standard treatment or medications); and multiple sclerosis. Other conditions are subject to approval by the Washington Board of Health.
Possession/Cultivation: Patients (or their primary caregivers) may legally possess or cultivate no more than a 60-day supply of marijuana. The law does not establish a state-run patient registry.
Amended: Senate Bill 6032 (29 KB)
Effective: 2007 (rules being defined by Legislature with a July 1, 2008 due date)
Amended: Final Rule (123 KB) based on Significant Analysis (370 KB)
Effective: Nov. 2, 2008
Approved Conditions: Added Crohn's disease, Hepatitis C with debilitating nausea or intractable pain, diseases, including anorexia, which result in nausea, vomiting, wasting, appetite loss, cramping, seizures, muscle spasms, or spasticity, when those conditions are unrelieved by standard treatments or medications.
Possession/Cultivation: A qualifying patient and designated provider may possess a total of no more than twenty-four ounces of usable marijuana, and no more than fifteen plants. This quantity became the state's official "60-day supply" on Nov. 2, 2008.
[Editor's Note: On Jan. 21, 2010, the Supreme Court of the State of Washington ruled that Ballot Initiative "I-692 did not legalize marijuana, but rather provided an authorized user with an affirmative defense if the user shows compliance with the requirements for medical marijuana possession." State v. Fry (125 KB)
ProCon.org contacted the Washington Department of Health to ask whether it had received any instructions in light of this ruling. Kristi Weeks, Director of Policy and Legislation, stated the following in a Jan. 25, 2010 email response to ProCon.org:
"The Department of Health has a limited role related to medical marijuana in the state of Washington. Specifically, we were directed by the Legislature to determine the amount of a 60 day supply and conduct a study of issues related to access to medical marijuana. Both of these tasks have been completed. We have maintained the medical marijuana webpage for the convenience of the public.
The department has not received 'any instructions' in light of State v. Fry. That case does not change the law or affect the 60 day supply. Chapter 69.51A RCW, as confirmed in Fry, provides an affirmative defense to prosecution for possession of marijuana for qualifying patients and caregivers."]
Department of Health
PO Box 47866
Olympia, WA 98504-7866
Phone: 360-236-4700
Fax: 360-236-4768
MedicalMarijuana@doh.wa.gov
WA Medical Marijuana website
Information provided by the state on sources for medical marijuana:
"The law allows a qualifying patient or designated provider to grow medical marijuana. It is not legal to buy or sell it. The law does not allow dispensaries." (accessed Jan. 11, 2010)
Fee:
*****No state registration program has been established
Accepts other states' registry ID cards?
No
Registration:
None
[Editor's Note: Karen O'Keefe, JD provided the following information in a Jan. 11, 2010 email to ProCon.org about registering as a medical marijuana patient in states that have identification card programs:
"Affirmative defenses, which protect from conviction but not arrest, are or may be available in several states even if the patient doesn't have an ID card: Rhode Island, Montana, Michigan, Colorado, Maine, Nevada, and Oregon. Hawaii also has a separate 'choice of evils' defense. In California, ID cards are voluntary, but they offer the strongest legal protection.
The states with no protection unless you're registered are: Alaska (except for that even non-medical use is protected in one's home due to the state constitutional right to privacy); Vermont, New Mexico, and New Jersey."]
For more information about upcoming medical marijuana laws, visit our page on the 12 States with Pending Legislation or Ballot Measures to Legalize Medical Marijuana.
II. Other State Medical Marijuana Laws
State Program Details Contact Info
1. Arizona Ballot Proposition 200 -- Approved by 65% of voters on Nov. 5, 1996
Effective: Dec. 6, 1996 [Not Active]
Measure changed sentencing for drug offenders, requiring those who commit violent crimes to serve full sentences without parole, and diverting non-violent drug offenders into treatment. Prop 200 also permitted doctors to prescribe schedule I controlled substances, including marijuana, to treat a disease or to relieve pain and suffering in seriously ill and terminally ill patients. Under federal law, however, marijuana is considered an illegal drug and physicians are prohibited from writing prescriptions for illegal drugs. The use of the word "prescribe" instead of "recommend" is the reason that Prop 200 is not considered to make medical marijuana legal in Arizona.
Not Amended: House Bill 2518, which was signed by the governor on Apr. 21, 1997, sought to repeal Proposition 200’s medical marijuana provision by requiring the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to first approve marijuana before allowing state physicians to prescribe it. The bill was placed on the Nov. 3, 1998 ballot as a referendum, where voters rejected it by a vote of 57% to 43%.
No state program, no contact info
2. Maryland Senate Bill 502 (72 KB), The "Darrell Putman" Bill -- Resolution #0756-2003 -- Approved in the state senate by a vote of 29-17. Signed into law by Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr. on May 22, 2003
Effective: Oct. 1, 2003
The law allows defendants being prosecuted for the use or possession of marijuana to introduce evidence of medical necessity and physician approval, to be considered by the court as a mitigating factor. If the court finds that the case involves medical necessity, the maximum penalty that the court may impose is a fine not exceeding $100. The law, however, does not protect users of medical marijuana from arrest or establish a registry program.
Not Amended
No state program, no contact info
Last updated on: 1/26/2010 3:09 PM PST
©ProCon.Org, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit
All rights reserved
233 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200, Santa Monica, CA 90401
Tel: 310-451-9596 Fax: 310-393-2471
Monday, February 1, 2010
California Tax and Regulate Marijuana Initiative from Drug war Chronicle
Legalization: California Tax and Regulate Marijuana Initiative Hands in Signatures
Drug War Chronicle, Issue #618, 1/29/10
The Oakland-based activists behind the Tax and Regulate Cannabis 2010 California marijuana legalization initiative Thursday handed in more than 700,000 signatures Thursday at county courthouses across the state. That number is well in excess of the 434,000 valid signatures needed to place the measure on the November ballot.
Richard Lee (courtesy cannabisculture.com)Advanced by medical marijuana entrepreneur and Oaksterdam University founder Richard Lee, the initiative would allow adults over 21 to possess up to one ounce of marijuana and have a grow space of up to 25 square feet without fear of criminal penalty. By local option, counties or municipalities could choose to tax and regulate commercial marijuana production and sales.
The initiative is one of at least three legalization initiatives being circulated in California this year, but it is the best financed and the only one to turn in signatures yet. A legalization bill passed an Assembly committee vote earlier this month before dying for the session. An April Field poll found support for legalization in California at 56%.
In an afternoon conference call Thursday, Lee and initiative campaign chief consultant Doug Linney said they hoped to raise around $10 million for the coming months. "We're working with Blue State Digital, Obama's internet team," said Lee. "If we get a little bit from a lot of people, we can raise that amount."
"We hope to raise $10 to $15 million to get our message to the voters," said Linney. "Between the cannabis industry -- it is California's number one cash crop -- and the national appeal of a movement like this, we're confident we can generate that money."
Nearly 80,000 Californians were arrested on marijuana charges in 2008, nearly 80% of them for misdemeanor possession.
StoptheDrugWar.org • 1623 Connecticut Ave., NW, 3rd Floor, Washington DC 20009
Phone (202) 293-8340 Fax (202) 293-8344 drcnet@drcnet.org • Privacy Policy
Drug War Chronicle, Issue #618, 1/29/10
The Oakland-based activists behind the Tax and Regulate Cannabis 2010 California marijuana legalization initiative Thursday handed in more than 700,000 signatures Thursday at county courthouses across the state. That number is well in excess of the 434,000 valid signatures needed to place the measure on the November ballot.
Richard Lee (courtesy cannabisculture.com)Advanced by medical marijuana entrepreneur and Oaksterdam University founder Richard Lee, the initiative would allow adults over 21 to possess up to one ounce of marijuana and have a grow space of up to 25 square feet without fear of criminal penalty. By local option, counties or municipalities could choose to tax and regulate commercial marijuana production and sales.
The initiative is one of at least three legalization initiatives being circulated in California this year, but it is the best financed and the only one to turn in signatures yet. A legalization bill passed an Assembly committee vote earlier this month before dying for the session. An April Field poll found support for legalization in California at 56%.
In an afternoon conference call Thursday, Lee and initiative campaign chief consultant Doug Linney said they hoped to raise around $10 million for the coming months. "We're working with Blue State Digital, Obama's internet team," said Lee. "If we get a little bit from a lot of people, we can raise that amount."
"We hope to raise $10 to $15 million to get our message to the voters," said Linney. "Between the cannabis industry -- it is California's number one cash crop -- and the national appeal of a movement like this, we're confident we can generate that money."
Nearly 80,000 Californians were arrested on marijuana charges in 2008, nearly 80% of them for misdemeanor possession.
StoptheDrugWar.org • 1623 Connecticut Ave., NW, 3rd Floor, Washington DC 20009
Phone (202) 293-8340 Fax (202) 293-8344 drcnet@drcnet.org • Privacy Policy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
