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

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

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.

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

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

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

In Drug War, Tribe Feels Invaded by Both Sides from The New York Times

January 25, 2010
War Without Borders
In Drug War, Tribe Feels Invaded by Both Sides
By ERIK ECKHOLM
SELLS, Ariz. — An eerie hush settles in at sundown on the Tohono O’odham Nation, which straddles 75 miles of border with Mexico.

Few residents leave their homes. The roads crawl with the trucks of Border Patrol agents, who stop unfamiliar vehicles, scrutinize back roads for footprints and hike into the desert wilds to intercept smugglers carrying marijuana on their backs and droves of migrants trying to make it north.

By the bad luck of geography, the only large Indian reservation on the embattled border is caught in the middle, emerging as a major transit point for drugs as well as people.

A long-insular tribe of 28,000 people and its culture are paying a steep price: the land is swarming with outsiders, residents are afraid to walk in the hallowed desert, and some members, lured by drug cartel cash in a place with high unemployment, are ending up in prison.

“People will knock on your door, flash a wad of money and ask if you can drive this bale of marijuana up north,” said Marla Henry, 38, chairwoman of Chukut Kuk district, which covers much of the border zone.

The tightening of border security to the east and west, which started in the 1990s and intensified after the Sept. 11 attacks, funneled more drug traffic through the Tohono O’odham reservation, federal officials said, and especially more marijuana, which is hard to slip through vehicle crossings because of its bulk.

A record 319,000 pounds of marijuana were seized on the reservation in 2009, up from 201,000 pounds the previous year, along with small amounts of cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine.

Hundreds of tribal members have been prosecuted in federal, state or tribal courts for smuggling drugs or humans, taking offers that reach $5,000 for storing marijuana or transporting it across the reservation. In a few families, both parents have been sent to prison, leaving grandparents to raise the children.

“People are afraid that if they say no, they’ll be threatened by the cartel,” Ms. Henry said.

If residents of remote villages tried to call the police, she said, help might not arrive for two hours or more.

At the same time, some residents are angry at the intrusion of hundreds of federal agents, including some who stay for a week at a time on bases in remote parts of the reservation. The surge in agents who cruise the roads has meant more checkpoints and tighter controls on a border that tribal members, 1,500 of whom live in Mexico, once freely crossed.

The once-placid reservation feels like a “militarized zone,” said Ned Norris Jr., the tribal chairman, who also says the tribe must cooperate to stem the cartels. “Drug smuggling is a problem we didn’t create, but now we’re having to deal with the consequences.”

Many residents say they live in fear of the smugglers and hordes of migrants who lurk around their homes, and also of being subjected to a humiliating search by federal agents.

The elderly avoid the desert, even in the daytime, because they might stumble upon a cache of marijuana or drug “mules” hiding in desert washes until dark.

“We can’t even go out to collect wood for the stove,” said Verna Miguel, 63, who was traumatized three years ago when a group of migrants forced her to stop on a road, beat her and stole her vehicle.

“We’ve always picked saguaro fruits and cholla buds,” Ms. Miguel said, using such desert products for consumption and rituals. “But now we don’t dare do that.”

Until recently, the reservation’s international border was porous, defended by three strands of barbed wire. Over the last two years, it has been lined with metal posts and Normandy-style barriers to stop the trucks that used to barrel through and head for Phoenix.

Federal officials describe the rise in drug seizures on the reservation as a sign of growing success on what had long been a vulnerable section of border. Barriers and surveillance have forced most of the smugglers to enter on foot rather than in vehicles and spend hours or days sneaking through the reservation, making them more vulnerable to detection, said Agent Robert Gilbert, chief of the Tucson sector of the Border Patrol.

But the large busts, here and elsewhere on the border, are also a measure of the continued trade and profits reaped by the cartels.

“The cartels use the profit from marijuana to purchase cocaine in Colombia and Peru and the ingredients for meth and heroin from other regions,” said Elizabeth W. Kempshall, special agent in charge of the Arizona office of the Drug Enforcement Administration. “So marijuana is the catalyst for the rest of the drug trade.”

The drug smugglers, mainly working for the Sinaloa Cartel, officials said, place scouts for days at a time on mountainsides, with night-vision goggles to monitor movements of the Border Patrol. The scouts communicate with Mexican or Indian guides using cellphones or two-way radios with rolling codes that cannot be intercepted, said Sgt. David Cray of the tribal police force, which has spent major amounts of money on border issues. During the day, the scouts hide in caves or under camouflage.

The Border Patrol has its own spotters and trucks with infrared video cameras that detect heat miles away. The tribe has agreed to electronic surveillance towers that in coming years will make a “virtual fence” across their lands.

Many agents spend their nights “cutting for sign,” a tracker’s term, making slow drives on dirt roads in search of footprints.

One recent chilly night, a Border Patrol spotter detected eight white dots on his screen moving steadily north, not meandering the way cows or wild mules do. With a laser beam he fixed their coordinates at a spot five miles from his mountaintop post.

Two agents in four-wheel-drive vehicles set out over a rutted ranch track, then hiked through half a mile of mesquite, cholla and prickly pear to intercept the group. Six escaped, but two Mexican men were captured with seven burlap packs, each filled with 50 pounds of marijuana that sells wholesale for $500 or more per pound.

For the agents, it was a good night’s work. “This is what we live for, stopping drugs,” said an agent who hiked in shortly after the bust to help bring in the smugglers and the contraband.

But many tribal members see the federal presence as a mixed blessing at best.

Ofelia Rivas, 53, of Meneger’s Dam Village is an Indian rights advocate and a rare border resident who agreed to speak to a reporter. She said that most families in border villages, including her own, had had a relative imprisoned for drug offenses, but that such individuals should not be blamed for the lack of legal jobs. Ms. Rivas has criticized tribal leaders for acquiescing to what she calls an oppressive federal occupation.

Federal law officials praise the tribe for its cooperation, and the Border Patrol has fielded community relations officers to minimize frictions.

Even Mr. Norris, the tribal chairman, said he had been stopped and questioned. “Quite frankly, the people are getting sick of it,” he said of the heavy outside presence. But he added that the smuggling was beyond the tribe’s ability to control.

“I hope in my lifetime we can go back to the way it used to be,” Mr. Norris said, “where people could go and walk in the daylight on our own land.”



Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company

This Week's Corrupt Cops from Drug War Chronicle

from Drug War Chronicle, Issue #616, 1/15/10
A sticky-fingering, meth-snorting cop goes away for awhile, and a trio of jail guards get in trouble. Let's get to it:

In Glendora, California, a former Glendora police officer was sentenced Tuesday to six months in jail, three years of probation, and a 24-month drug rehabilitation program after pleading no contest to grand theft and methamphetamine possession charges. Timothy Radogna, 34, was arrested in May in an "integrity sting" after superiors received reports he was failing to book drugs and cash into evidence. Police left meth and $1,000 in cash in a bait car, and Radogna took the bait. He could have gotten up to nine years.

In Beaumont, Texas, a former Texas Department of Corrections guard pleaded guilty Monday to trying to smuggle drugs and a cell phone into the Stiles Unit in his lunchbox. Eric Talmore, 25, copped pleas to bribery and having a prohibited substance in a correctional facility. He got busted with tobacco in his socks, rolling papers in his underwear, and marijuana and a cell phone hidden inside a container of fried rice. He faces up to 30 years in prison when sentenced on February 16, but his attorney is asking for probation.

In Manchester, Kentucky, a Clay County Detention Center guard was arrested Sunday on charges she smuggled drugs to inmates in the jail. Guard Dawn Hayes, 31, fell prey to an undercover investigation by the County Sheriff's Office, taking drugs to be smuggled into the jail from a confidential informant. Hayes is currently residing at her place of employment.

In Chesterton, Indiana, an Indiana State Prison guard was arrested January 2 for trying to smuggle tobacco and marijuana into the prison. Barb Roseborough, a nine-year veteran, got caught when prison staff found a package wrapped in electrical tape hidden in the lining of her bag as she reported for work. A second package was later found hidden on her person. She has been charged with trafficking with an offender and felony marijuana possession. She faces from two to eight years on the first count and up to three years on the second. At last report, she was being held at the LaPorte County Jail.


PERMISSION to reprint or redistribute any or all of the contents of Drug War Chronicle (formerly The Week Online with DRCNet) is hereby granted. We ask that any use of these materials include proper credit and, where appropriate, a link to one or more of our web sites. If your publication customarily pays for publication, DRCNet requests checks payable to the organization. If your publication does not pay for materials, you are free to use the materials gratis. In all cases, we request notification for our records, including physical copies where material has appeared in print. Contact: StoptheDrugWar.org: the Drug Reform Coordination Network, P.O. Box 18402, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 293-8340 (voice), (202) 293-8344 (fax), e-mail drcnet@drcnet.org. Thank you.

Articles of a purely educational nature in Drug War Chronicle appear courtesy of the DRCNet Foundation, unless otherwise noted.

StoptheDrugWar.org • 1623 Connecticut Ave., NW, 3rd Floor, Washington DC 20009
Phone (202) 293-8340 Fax (202) 293-8344 drcnet@drcnet.org • Privacy Policy

McGwire Admits That He Used Steroids from New York Times

January 12, 2010
McGwire Admits That He Used Steroids
By TYLER KEPNER
Mark McGwire, whose inflated statistics and refusal to address his past came to symbolize a synthetic era in baseball history, acknowledged on Monday that he used steroids through the 1990s.

McGwire has been out of baseball since retiring after the 2001 season, making few public appearances besides his infamous performance before Congress in 2005, when he dodged questions about steroid use. He starts next month as the hitting coach for the St. Louis Cardinals, and said he needed to make the admission to move forward.

“It’s something I’m certainly not proud of,” he said in an interview with The New York Times. “I’m certainly sorry for having done it. Someday, somehow, somewhere I knew I’d probably have to talk about this. I guess the steppingstone was being offered the hitting-coach job with the Cardinals. At that time, I said, ‘I need to come clean about this.’ ”

It was an orchestrated confession by McGwire, who first released a statement to The Associated Press, then conducted one-on-one interviews with several news outlets, including The Times. He also gave his first televised interview on the subject — to Bob Costas on the MLB Network.

McGwire and the Chicago Cubs’ Sammy Sosa captivated baseball in the summer of 1998 as they chased Roger Maris’s record of 61 home runs in a season. McGwire was the first to pass Maris and finished with a record of 70, the high point of a four-year stretch in which he bashed 245 home runs.

In the Costas interview, in which his voice cracked and his eyes watered several times, McGwire said he called Pat Maris, Roger Maris’s widow, on Monday and apologized.

“I think she was shocked that I called her,” McGwire said. “I felt that I needed to do that. They’ve been great supporters of mine. She was disappointed, and she has every right to be. I couldn’t tell her how so sorry I was.”

Still, McGwire told Costas he “absolutely” could have broken the record without using steroids, pointing to his home run prowess going back to Little League. “That’s why it’s the most regrettable thing I’ve ever done in my life,” McGwire said.

McGwire denied that he routinely injected steroids with Jose Canseco, his former Oakland teammate, as Canseco claimed in his 2005 book, “Juiced.” McGwire said he briefly tried steroids after the 1989 season but did not begin using them regularly until the winter after the 1993 season, when he was mired in a painful period of his career that included repeated trips to the disabled list, partly because of injuries to both heels.

During that time, he said, he began using steroids regularly. He told Costas that the drugs were readily available at gyms and that he took them orally and by injection. But he said he did not remember the name of the drugs.

In The Times interview, McGwire also cited health factors, saying: “In the winter of ’93, ’94, it was brought to my attention, ‘Have you ever thought of steroids or HGH; it can help speed up the healing process of injuries.’ ”

McGwire recalled a conversation with his father in 1996, when he was sidelined with another heel injury. “I remember telling him, ‘I want to retire,’ ” he told The Times. “ ‘I want to get away.’ At the time I knew my swing was developing, but I couldn’t get away from the injuries. I seriously thought about retiring, but my dad talked me out of it.”

McGwire kept playing but said he took steroids so he could stay on the field.

“I used very, very low dosages,” he said. “There’s no way I wanted to look like Lou Ferrigno or Arnold Schwarzenegger.”

He added: “I don’t want to use it as a crutch, but there was no drug testing. I didn’t use it for strength. I used it to help me recover from injuries.”

McGwire said he called Cardinals Manager Tony La Russa and Commissioner Bud Selig on Monday to tell them about his admission. In an interview with ESPN, La Russa defended the Athletics’ and Cardinals’ training programs as “100 percent legit” and said McGwire worked hard in the weight room.

“I didn’t know anything,” La Russa said of McGwire’s drug use. “Mark and I never confronted it, and he never told me until this morning.”

Selig said in a statement that he was pleased McGwire had “confronted his use of performance-enhancing substances as a player,” and said that the steroid era had come to an end.

“The use of steroids and amphetamines amongst today’s players has greatly subsided and is virtually nonexistent, as our testing results have shown,” Selig said. “The so-called steroid era — a reference that is resented by the many players who played in that era and never touched the substances — is clearly a thing of the past, and Mark’s admission today is another step in the right direction.”

McGwire’s refusal to talk about the past before Congress in 2005 subjected him to widespread ridicule, but he told Costas that he actually wanted to come clean at that point. He said his lawyers warned him he could subject himself to prosecution or a grand jury hearing if he admitted using steroids, although as users, rather than traffickers, athletes have rarely been charged in cases involving performance-enhancing drugs.

“My lawyers were downstairs trying to get immunity for me,” McGwire said. “I wanted to talk. I kept telling myself, ‘I want to get this off my chest.’ Well, we didn’t get immunity. So here I am in a situation, where I have two scenarios: a possible prosecution or possible grand-jury testimony.”

McGwire continued: “Well, you know what happens when there’s a prosecution? They bring in your whole family, they bring in your whole friends, they bring in ex-teammates, coaches, anybody that’s surrounding you. How the heck am I going to bring those people in for some stupid act that I did? So you know what I did? We agreed to not talk about the past. And it was not enjoyable to do that.”

McGwire said he was devastated to hear the moans in the room when he repeatedly declined to talk about his steroid use. But he said he had to protect his friends and family, based on the legal guidance he received.

“I was not going to lie,” McGwire added. “I wanted to tell the truth.”

Since then, McGwire has been roundly rejected by Hall of Fame voters despite having the best ratio of home runs to at-bats in baseball history, with one homer per 10.6 at-bats. He is tied with another admitted steroids user, Alex Rodriguez, for eighth on the career home run list, with 583.

In four appearances on the ballot, McGwire has never collected more than 25 percent of the voters. Candidates need 75 percent for election. Some voters, like Tom Haudricourt of The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, had said they would not consider voting for McGwire until he addressed his past.

“I think his vote totals will go up now, but I’ve got to think about it,” Haudricourt said. “Should we be voting guys in who admit to doing it? The sticky wicket just got stickier.”

McGwire said he had not been in exile, but had simply been enjoying retirement and starting a family. He said that no family members had ever directly asked if he had used steroids, and that he first told his father on Sunday.

“It hasn’t been easy,” he said. “I’m sure I’ll get through it. It’s just something I look back now and it’s so regrettable, so ridiculous.”

Karen Crouse contributed reporting.

Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company

Corrupt Cops: Texas Trifecta for Christmas from Drug War Chronicle

from Drug War Chronicle, Issue #614, 12/29/09
It's a Texas trifecta for Christmas, plus an Alabama jail guard. Let's get to it:

If we can't keep drugs out of the prisons, how can we keep them out of the country?In San Antonio, the FBI is investigating the Bexar County Sheriff's Department's narcotics unit over allegations that some deputies unlawfully took evidence or stole money and property from people they detained or arrested. The probe has been going on for two years and has expanded from allegations of civil rights violations into investigating deputies who appear to be living beyond their means. Among accusations aimed at some members of the dope squad are that they used excessive force and threats and that they shook people down at apartment complexes where they worked private security jobs. The investigation began when a childhood friend of one of the deputies was arrested in Arkansas with 15 pounds of cocaine, and the deputy intervened, filing a report claiming the man was his informant. He wasn't.

In Kerrville, Texas, the former 198th District DA was indicted December 17 for misusing asset forfeiture funds. Former DA Ron Sutton is charged with two counts of misapplication of fiduciary property. The Sutton indictment comes after District Judge Karl Prohl resigned in September after a defense attorney complained to the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct that Prohl was being biased in the DA's favor because he was benefitting from the DA's largesse with seized funds. Prohl had received $14,500 in checks from Sutton for training, equipment, and to attend a conference, as well as part of another $21,000 check for conferences in Hawaii, and a $6,000 check to cover per diem expenses during those same conferences. As presiding judge, Prohl approved all expenditures from the asset forfeiture fund. Prohl agreed to resign his judgeship "in lieu of disciplinary action" by the commission.

In Lubbock, Texas, a former chief deputy sheriff pleaded guilty December 20 for his role in a methamphetamine trafficking ring. Former Hockley County chief deputy Gordon Bohannon, 53, copped to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and now faces up to 10 years in federal prison. He was one of 28 people named in a July indictment alleging a motorcycle gang was running cash to Modesto, California, and returning to West Texas with the speed. Also indicted was another Hockley County deputy, Jose Jesus Quintanilla, who pleaded guilty last month to misprision of a felony. Both deputies provided information to the bikers that hindered efforts to shut down the ring.

In Guntersville, Alabama, a Marshall County jail guard was arrested Wednesday on drug charges. Guard Jeremy Wade Sanders, 32, was being held at his place of employment on charges of marijuana possession, attempt to promote prison contraband, and attempt to commit controlled substance crime.

PERMISSION to reprint or redistribute any or all of the contents of Drug War Chronicle (formerly The Week Online with DRCNet) is hereby granted. We ask that any use of these materials include proper credit and, where appropriate, a link to one or more of our web sites. If your publication customarily pays for publication, DRCNet requests checks payable to the organization. If your publication does not pay for materials, you are free to use the materials gratis. In all cases, we request notification for our records, including physical copies where material has appeared in print. Contact: StoptheDrugWar.org: the Drug Reform Coordination Network, P.O. Box 18402, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 293-8340 (voice), (202) 293-8344 (fax), e-mail drcnet@drcnet.org. Thank you.


StoptheDrugWar.org • 1623 Connecticut Ave., NW, 3rd Floor, Washington DC 20009
Phone (202) 293-8340 Fax (202) 293-8344 drcnet@drcnet.org • Privacy Policy

More U.S. States Weigh Marijuana Reform

High expectations? States weigh marijuana reform
By RACHEL LA CORTE, Associated Press Writer Rachel La Corte, Associated Press Writer
Mon Dec 28, 9:39 am ET

OLYMPIA, Wash. – Washington is one of four states where measures to legalize and regulate marijuana have been introduced, and about two dozen other states are considering bills ranging from medical marijuana to decriminalizing possession of small amounts of the herb.

"In terms of state legislatures, this is far and away the most active year that we've ever seen," said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the New York-based Drug Policy Alliance, which supports reforming marijuana laws.

Nadelmann said that while legalization efforts are not likely to get much traction in state capitals anytime soon, the fact that there is such an increase of activity "is elevating the level of public discourse on this issue and legitimizing it."

"I would say that we are close to the tipping point," he said. "At this point they are still seen as symbolic bills to get the conversation going, but at least the conversation can be a serious one."

Opponents of relaxing marijuana laws aren't happy with any conversation on the topic, other than keeping the drug illegal.

"There's no upside to it in any manner other than for those people who want to smoke pot," said Travis Kuykendall, head of the West Texas High Intensity Drug-Trafficking Area office in El Paso, Texas. "There's nothing for society in it, there's nothing good for the country in it, there's nothing for the good of the economy in it."

Legalization bills were introduced in California and Massachusetts earlier this year, and this month, New Hampshire and Washington state prefiled bills in advance of their legislative sessions that begin in January. Marijuana is illegal under federal law, but guidelines have been loosened on federal prosecution of medical marijuana under the Obama administration.

Even so, marijuana reform legislation remains a tough sell in some places. In the South, for example, only Mississippi and North Carolina have decriminalization laws on the books.

"It's a social and cultural thing," said Bruce Mirken, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project, a Washington, D.C.-based marijuana advocacy group. "There are some parts of the country where social attitudes are just a little more cautious and conservative."

Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson, a Seattle Democrat who is sponsoring the legalization bill in Washington state, said that she "wanted to start a strong conversation about the pros and cons of legalizing marijuana."

Under her bill, marijuana would be sold in Washington state's 160 state-run liquor stores, and customers, 21 and older, would pay a tax of 15 percent per gram. The measure would dedicate most of the money raised for substance abuse prevention and treatment, which is facing potential cuts in the state budget. Dickerson said the measure could eventually bring in as much to state coffers as alcohol does, more than $300 million a year.

"Our state is facing a huge financial deficit and deficits are projected for a few more years," Dickerson said, referring to the projected $2.6 billion hole lawmakers will need to fill next year. "We need to look at revenue and see what might be possible."

Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said that tough economic times across the country have lawmakers looking at everything, and may lead even more states to eventually consider the potential tax value of pot.

"The bean counters are now reporting back to their elected officials how much money is being left off the table," he said, adding that billions of dollars worth of pot is going untaxed.

Ron Brooks, president of the National Narcotics Officers' Associations' Coalition, said that he feared that, if legalized, marijuana would contribute to more highway accidents and deaths, as well as a potential increase in health care costs for those who smoke it.

State lawmakers, he said, need to ask themselves "if they believe we really will make all that revenue, and even if we did, will it be worth the suffering, the loss of opportunities, the chronic illness or death that would occur?"

Legalization isn't the only measure lawmakers across the country are weighing. About two dozen states, including Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Wisconsin, are considering bills ranging from medical marijuana to decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana, St. Pierre said. Washington state is among the states that are considering decriminalization, with a bill that would reclassify adult possession of marijuana from a crime with jail time to a civil infraction with a $100 penalty.

Fourteen states, including Washington state, already have medical marijuana laws, and 13 have decriminalization laws on the books, St. Pierre said. About two dozen cities across the country, including Seattle, make marijuana offenses a low law-enforcement priority.

Marijuana advocates said that while increased activity in the statehouse is heartening, change most likely will come at the ballot box through voter-driven initiatives.

"Inevitably, the politicians are going to be behind the curve on this stuff," Nadelmann said, noting that almost all of the medical marijuana laws came about by initiative.

This month, a group campaigning to put a marijuana legalization measure before California voters said it had enough signatures to qualify for the 2010 ballot.

That proposal would legalize possession of up to one ounce of marijuana for adults 21 and older. Residents could cultivate marijuana gardens up to 25 square feet. City and county governments would determine whether to permit and tax marijuana sales within their boundaries. And in Nevada earlier this month, backers of a move to legalize marijuana there filed paperwork creating an advocacy group aimed at qualifying an initiative for the 2012 election.

Copyright © 2008 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. Questions or Comments Privacy Policy Terms of Service Copyright/IP Policy