Skip to main content

Marijuana Policy

Marijuana Policy Subtopics:
Hemp
Medical Marijuana
Marijuana Industry

Letter from the Drug Czar: Don't help the Marijuana Policy Project

[Courtesy of MPP] Dear MPP Supporter: Now that most of the 50 state legislatures are back in session — and many are considering marijuana-related bills — I’ve decided it’s time for me to lay down the gauntlet. I'm concerned. Last year, you and MPP made my life difficult by making Rhode Island’s medical marijuana law permanent and expanding the medical marijuana law in Vermont. Unfortunately, there’s an even bigger explosion of legislative activity in the state legislatures this year. So I’m ordering you not to make a monthly credit card pledge to MPP to support the following state lobbying activities this year: MPP has retained professional lobbyists to pass medical marijuana bills in Illinois, Minnesota, and New York — something my office isn’t permitted to spend money on. And in California, MPP’s Sacramento lobbyists and a wide coalition of medical marijuana supporters are working to pass legislation that would prevent local and state law enforcement officials from cooperating with the DEA in its raids on medical marijuana patients and providers. Worse yet, MPP is spending your money to pass marijuana decriminalization bills in New Hampshire and Vermont. Local press reports have been favorable to the efforts and — outrageously — the Vermont Judiciary Committee passed the decrim bill by a 4-1 vote just five days ago! In Ohio and Kansas, recipients of MPP grant money are working to pass medical marijuana bills in both states. And other horrible — you would probably call them “good” — marijuana-related bills are also pending or imminent in Missouri, Illinois, and Tennessee. Some people say that I’ve been lying, propagandizing, and illegally spending taxpayer money for the seven years I’ve been in charge of the federal government’s drug war. But how could these claims even be true, given that MPP has continued to have success after success with a much smaller budget? This must stop now. It’s vitally important that you not join MPP’s monthly pledge program. With candor, honesty, and love, John Walters P.S. I was especially upset that MPP’s Rob Kampia referred to me as an "ugly man with a cold heart" in his interview with the Austin Chronicle in August. Who the heck does Mr. Kampia think he is? ========================================================= The Marijuana Policy Project hopes that each of the 180,000 subscribers on our national e-mail list will make at least one financial donation to MPP's work in 2008. Please visit http://www.mpp.org/donate to donate now. MPP will be able to tackle all of the projects in its 2008 strategic plan -- http://www.mpp.org/2008plan -- if you and other allies choose to fund our work.

Resolution Calling on Dutch Government to Resolve the Contradictions in the Netherlands Cannabis Policy

Participants argued that the Netherlands, in cooperation with other nations, should aim to revise the current framework of international law in order to achieve a more credible and effective alternative that is not just based on repression for the existing cannabis policy at the national level. The signatories of this resolution, I. concluded that the current cannabis policy: A. is based on an outdated international law framework created in the 1960s which is not appropriate to tackle contemporary problems resulting in a stagnation of the development of just and effective policies; B. is being implemented by a policy of tolerance (“gedogen”) on the basis of a justified lenient interpretation of the current international law framework and that this policy of tolerance is a practical solution but at the same time temporary response which on the long term will discredit the credibility of public authorities; C. is inconsistent and difficult to explain to citizens because use and sale of small quantities are not prosecuted in practice while production and large scale distribution are still prosecuted; is also inconsistent with policies regarding substances with a similar health risk such as alcohol and tobacco; D. is ineffective in several aspects: despite positive facets such as the separation of markets between soft and hard drugs and the limited involvement of criminals in the retail market, other policy options such as legal possibilities to control the quality of cannabis (THC content and pollution) and other measures to reduce health risks are lacking in the current system, which is still facilitating significant illicit gains at the level of production and wholesale and is encouraging in-house cannabis growing; E. is causing considerable and unbalanced administrative and judicial burdens and continuous criticism of some countries and UN drug control agencies. II. concluded furthermore that: A. attempts by the Dutch parliament and local authorities to address the inconsistencies in the current tolerance policy – such as proposing to tolerate production of cannabis for the supply of coffee shops – have been rejected by subsequent national governments on account of incompatibility with international agreements; B. there is a need for an international debate to explore the possibilities for an international framework that allows more room for manoeuvre by national governments to execute a consistent policy; C. more and more countries feel the need to reformulate their policies to achieve better protection of public health and combat organized crime; D. cannabis is grown and commercialised worldwide and is used by over 170 million people, consequently the production and distribution is a common problem for the international community; E. the 10-year review of the 1998 United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on drugs and the Ministerial meeting in 2009 devoted to this evaluation, offer an excellent possibility to put the issue on the international agenda. III. urge the Dutch government to: A. start an international debate with other likeminded countries in order to work out a credible and effective alternative for the current policy on cannabis; B. promote actively with those likeminded countries the formulation of proposals that can be presented in the context of the upcoming UNGASS evaluation; C. provide for human and financial resources to implement these efforts; The Hague, 31 October 2007 signed by * Mr. A.A.M. van Agt, former Prime minister 1977-1982 * Dr. E. Borst-Eilers, ex-minister of Health, Welfare and Sport * Drs. A. Apostolou, former member of Parliament * Kathalijne Buitenweg, MEP GroenLinks * Mr. R. Dufour, president Stichting Drugsbeleid * Drs. G.B.M. Leers, mayor of Maastricht * Dr. R.L. Vreeman, mayor of Tilburg * Mr. Th. C. de Graaf, mayor of Nijmegen * J.A.H. Lonink, mayor of Terneuzen * Dr. J.P. Rehwinkel, mayor of Naarden * W.J.M. Velings MOI, chief of police, region Limburg Zuid * F.J. Heeres MPSM, chief of police, region Midden- en West Brabant * Mr. A.D.J. Keizer, former policy official of the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport * Mr. drs. V. Everhardt, drugs and alcohol prevention expert * Dr. M. Jelsma, Drugs & Democracy Programme, Transnational Institute

Government kills medical marijuana cancer patient

[Courtesy of Marijuana Policy Project]

The story I’m about to share with you sickens me. It’s a story of how our government turns the prohibition of medical marijuana into an excuse for murdering a cancer patient.

Dallas resident Stephen Thorton was a thyroid cancer survivor who used marijuana to control chronic pain, eliminate nausea, and gain weight. In 2005, a federal court in Texas convicted Thorton of “possession of a firearm by an unlawful user of a controlled substance and for distributing marijuana and marijuana plants.”

In other words, this cancer patient faced a federal prison sentence for having a gun that would have been legal except for the presence of marijuana, which he was using to treat a life-threatening illness.

Thorton fled Texas in late 2005, fearing that his prison term would undermine his battle against cancer — and in the process became a fugitive who was wanted by the U.S. Marshals Service. He took up residence in Raleigh, North Carolina, where he continued to grow his medical marijuana. Last week, he was shot and killed by law enforcement officers in a drug raid at his home.

Investigators said they thought Thorton was the “kingpin” of a marijuana manufacturing ring.

You can read more about this latest victim of our government’s war on marijuana users here.

While this story is outrageous, it isn't unique. On MPP’s Web site, you can read a whole series of stories about other drug war victims.

Please help end marijuana prohibition — and the frightening police actions that accompany it — by making a financial contribution today. We cannot keep fighting the federal government — including lobbying Congress to pass legislation to end the federal government’s raids on medical marijuana patients — without the generosity of people like you.

Thank you. I’m grateful for anything you can do to help end the government’s cruel war on the sick.

Sincerely,
Kampia signature (e-mail sized)
Rob Kampia
Executive Director
Marijuana Policy Project
Washington, D.C.

Press Release: Marijuana is Quickest Path to Millions - The New California Gold Rush

News Release FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 10, 2007 Web Site: http://MarijuanaBusinessNews.com Contact: Clifford Schaffer Email: [email protected] Number: 661-268-0442 Marijuana is Quickest Path to Millions: The New California Gold Rush The quickest and most reliable way to make a million dollars is currently the marijuana business, and thousands are rushing to cash in, according to research conducted by MarijuanaBusinessNews.com. In 1996, California passed Proposition 215, which legalized marijuana for medical use. The only requirement was that users obtain a recommendation from a doctor. In the following years hundreds of thousands of people have obtained recommendations for medical marijuana. Along with them came an entirely new kind of business – the marijuana compassion clubs. What started as a few small patient’s clubs in the San Francisco Bay area has grown to the point where there are estimated four hundred medical marijuana outlets openly operating in the City of Los Angeles alone. Statewide, there may be as many as a thousand – not counting delivery services. While the legalities surrounding these clubs are uncertain, the profits are not, according to Clifford Schaffer, Editor of MarijuanaBusinessNews.com. He says that the number of new millionaires being created dwarfs the California lottery. “The California lottery is advertising that they will make five new millionaires on New Year’s Day. According to our research, the marijuana business does that about twice a week in California,” said Schaffer. “The marijuana business is in absolutely phenomenal shape right now. It is the equivalent of being able to grow solid gold in your closet. It is the new California Gold Rush, and it is way bigger than the last one.” The time to make a million can be extremely short. “Our research shows that a smart operator can be a millionaire after taxes in less than a year,” said Schaffer. . “That’s not just our guess. We have found numerous examples where it already happened.” To prove the point, MarijuanaBusinessNews.com features two pages that show how fast someone can make a million dollars. One page allows users to calculate how money they will make growing marijuana, while another page gives estimates for retail sales. Users enter their basic business assumptions and the web pages show the financial results before and after taxes. Schaffer says that the opening up of the medical marijuana market has also produced a change in the kind of people in the business. “We are finding more and more small entrepreneurs going into the business,” said Schaffer. “The new entrepreneurs are not the thugs and professional criminals that have dominated the industry in the past. The majority of the people running these operations are natural-born US citizens who are both patriotic and law-abiding – with the exception of the marijuana business, of course. Except for the fact that they are in the marijuana business, they are no different than the people running any other legitimate small business. They are no different than the people you knew in high school.” As for the risks of getting busted, Schaffer says the research shows that the risk of being put out of business by law enforcement is low. “Proposition 215 removed much of the threat from local law enforcement,” said Schaffer, “and the Federal Government doesn’t have the resources. The DEA has been reduced to sending letters to landlords and throwing temper tantrums.” Schaffer points to a number of recent instances in which the DEA has raided marijuana stores but haven’t arrested anyone. “They just take all the cash and marijuana and trash the place,” said Schaffer. “They just loot the places because they don’t have the resources to do anything else. They don’t even bother to account for the money they take.” “Marijuana is de facto legal in California,” said Schaffer, “and all the king’s horses and all the king’s men are not going to change it. Economics has won. The entrepreneurs have effectively negated government policy.” Clifford A. Schaffer Editor, Marijuana Business News http://www.MarijuanaBusinessNews.com 661-268-0442

Canadians Unite Against Bill C-26 - Ask MPs "Why Prohibit Marijuana?"

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 3, 2007 CONTACTS: Jacob Hunter, National Event Coordinator, [email protected] or 604-803-4085, Kirk Tousaw, 604-836-1420, [email protected]. Canadians Unite Against Bill C-26 - Ask MPs "Why Prohibit Marijuana?" An exciting new grass-roots political campaign is beginning to grow across Canada. In response to the Americanization of Canadian drug policy by the Conservative Party of Canada, ordinary Canadians are standing up to ask a simple question: Why? On November 20th, 2007 the Conservative government of Canada introduced Bill C-26, imposing mandatory minimum jail sentences for cannabis (marijuana) offences in an attempt to appear "tough" on crime. In reality, the government's own experts have said time and again - most recently in the Department of Justice analysis accompanying the CPC's other "get tough" crime bill - that these extreme measures simply don't work. This American-style legislation has been met with sweeping condemnation from experts and members of the public across Canada. At noon on December 17, 2007, ordinary Canadians will be gathering at their local Member of Parliament's office to ask their MPs to vote against Bill C-26 and to force them to justify any continued support for the failed and harmful policy of marijuana prohibition. "Mandatory minimums have already failed to curb drug use and sales in the US and simply ended up filling their jails to brimming with non-violent marijuana offenders" said Kirk Tousaw, a Vancouver criminal defence lawyer that has practiced on both sides of the border, "Worse, the evidence on marijuana is pretty unequivocal: prohibition is causing more harm than it prevents. So the question for Parliament is why? Why does marijuana prohibition have the support of the House of Commons?" Tousaw, whose UBC Master's in Law thesis examined Canadian cannabis policy, said: "Cannabis and cannabis policy has been studied extensively and thoroughly by our government and many others. The conclusions are unequivocal. Prohibition doesn't reduce use or supply. Prohibition supports organized crime by providing criminals with constant revenues. Prohibition creates dangerous black markets with no controls and causes people to grow marijuana in suburban basements instead of on farms and in greenhouses. And marijuana itself is far safer than virtually all of our legal drugs, including alcohol, tobacco, prescription and over-the-counter medications. The public understands this perfectly - 63% support legalization. Yet Parliament has ignored all of this. Why?" To find out the answer, on December 17, 2007 Canadians will meet at MP's offices across Canada. Starting at noon, these citizens will ask their representatives to meet and explain what the MP's marijuana position is. If the MP supports prohibition, he or she will be asked why. Event organizer Jacob Hunter put it this way, "We want them to tell us what their reasons are. Virtually all the reasons I ever hear given to support prohibition are at odds with the scientific and expert evidence, but I think many of the MPs may simply not understand the issue well enough. It seems that our government is more willing to listen to the Bush administration than to the evidence and the Canadian public. I want to know why."

Marijuana policy at the International Drug Policy Reform Conference

[Courtesy of MPP] 

I hope I’ll see you at the 2007 International Drug Policy Reform Conference in New Orleans next week! MPP is a co-host of the conference, which is run by the Drug Policy Alliance.

Following is a brief listing of marijuana policy reform sessions at the conference. Please visit the conference Web site for detailed descriptions and presenters.

Thursday, December 6
1:30 - 3:00 p.m.
Reefer Madness: Cannabis Law Enforcement Around the U.S.

Friday, December 7
9:30 - 11:00 a.m.
Marijuana & Health

2:30 - 4:00 pm
Medical Marijuana Implementation State-to-State

4:30 - 6:00 pm
National Marijuana Policy: New Directions

Saturday, December 8
10:00 - 11:30 am
Northern Exposure: Cutting-Edge Medical Cannabis Research and Legal Reform in Canada

12:00 - 1:30 pm
The DEA War on Medical Marijuana

I and many others from the MPP staff will be in attendance, and we are looking forward to seeing you there.

Sincerely,

Rob Kampia
Executive Director
Marijuana Policy Project
Washington, D.C.

Signature drives completed in Massachusetts and Michigan!

[Courtesy of MPP] 

Last week, the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy (CSMP) and MPP's Michigan Coalition for Compassionate Care (MCCC) both completed their signature drives to place marijuana-related initiatives on the November 2008 ballot in Massachusetts and Michigan, respectively.

On Tuesday — after six months of petitioning — MCCC turned in nearly 500,000 signatures to qualify a medical marijuana measure for the November 2008 ballot in Michigan. On the same day — after only two months of petitioning — CSMP turned in more than 100,000 signatures to qualify a marijuana decriminalization initiative for the November 2008 ballot in Massachusetts.

I'd like to thank all the hard-working petitioners in Michigan and Massachusetts who helped MCCC and CSMP realize these achievements.

Would you please consider making a contribution to the campaigns in Michigan and Massachusetts to ensure passage of both measures next year?

Both initiatives are crucial to advancing marijuana policy reform in this country. Passage of MPP's Michigan initiative would mean that almost one-quarter of the nation would live in states with medical marijuana laws. Michigan would become the 13th medical marijuana state — joining Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington — and the first medical marijuana state in the Midwest.

In Massachusetts, turning in this first round of signatures means we are one step closer to the first time in history that an initiative to decriminalize marijuana will be placed on any statewide ballot. In the spring, if the state legislature does not enact the initiative into law itself, CSMP will have to collect an additional 11,099 valid signatures in order to place the decriminalization initiative on the November 2008 ballot. But that will be relatively easy compared to the first — much larger — round of signature-gathering that was just completed in Massachusetts.

MPP is currently working closely with MCCC and CSMP to pass both ballot initiatives, and we need your help. Will you please visit www.StopArrestingPatients.org or www.SensibleMarijuanaPolicy.org to donate $10 or more today?

Thanks for your help in making these exciting initiatives a reality.

Sincerely,

Rob Kampia
Executive Director
Marijuana Policy Project
Washington, D.C.

3 of 8 Democratic candidates would end criminal penalties for marijuana

[Courtesy of MPP]

Marijuana policy reform made a brief appearance during last week's televised debate among the Democratic presidential candidates. When moderator Tim Russert asked for a show of hands to indicate which candidates disagreed with Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd's support for marijuana decriminalization, all the candidates except Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich raised their hands. (Former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel — who supports legalizing marijuana — was excluded from the debate.)

When asked why he wouldn’t support decriminalization, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards pulled out an old saw: “Because I think it sends the wrong signal to young people. And I think the president of the United States has a responsibility to ensure that we're sending the right signals to young people.”

You can watch the short exchange here.

While the candidates are behind the curve on that aspect of marijuana policy, the good news is that they're with us (and the majority of Americans) on medical marijuana.

MPP has secured promises from all eight Democratic candidates — as well as two of the eight Republican candidates — to end the federal raids on medical marijuana patients in the 12 states where medical marijuana is legal.

Please check out our report card on the presidential candidates here.

Reps. Kucinich, Ron Paul (R-Texas), and Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), as well as former U.S. Sen. Mike Gravel (D-Alaska) and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D), have all garnered “A+” grades for their excellent positions on medical marijuana.

For more information on these candidates, visit their campaign sites:

• Mike Gravel for President 2008
• Kucinich for President 2008
• Ron Paul 2008 — Hope for America
• Richardson for President
• Tancredo for a Secure America

Thank you for your support of MPP’s efforts to make medical marijuana a major campaign issue in 2008. Together we will end the federal government’s war on the seriously ill.

Sincerely,

Rob Kampia
Executive Director
Marijuana Policy Project
Washington, D.C.

Want to work at the Marijuana Policy Project?

[Courtesy of MPP] 

I'm writing to you because MPP currently has several D.C.-area job openings that I'm hoping you or someone you know might be interested in.

Additionally, if you'd like to be notified about future job opportunities at MPP, please subscribe to our job notices e-mail list, by visiting www.mpp.org/jobs and following the subscription instructions toward the top of the page.

Membership Assistant

MPP is seeking a Membership Assistant to research prospective donors, which involves substantial Internet research, and to keep MPP's database up-to-date. This is an excellent opportunity for a meticulous, detail-oriented person to play a crucial and responsible role in a successful nonprofit organization.

State Policies Intern

MPP is also seeking a part-time intern to work in our State Policies Department, which is devoted to reforming marijuana laws on the state level through direct lobbying. The intern will monitor news for marijuana-related articles, post relevant news articles on each of MPP's state Web pages, and assist in various administrative tasks. This is an unpaid internship for 10-20 hours per week.

Temps

Additionally, MPP is always seeking people interested in doing temp work. Temps are paid $9/hour and have flexible schedules. Responsibilities include data entry, stuffing envelopes, and other administrative tasks.

Candidates should visit www.mpp.org/jobs for detailed job descriptions and instructions for applying. (Interviews are being conducted on a rolling basis, so interested applicants should apply as soon as possible.)

Please forward this message to anyone who you think might be interested as well. Thank you!

Press Release: Denver Marijuana Initiative Wins 57-43

[Courtesy of SAFER] For Immediate Release: November 8, 2007 Contact: Mason Tvert, SAFER, 720-255-4340 Denver Marijuana Initiative Wins 57-43 Mayor John Hickenlooper says the city will follow the new law and create city panel to implement it DENVER -- Election officials have finished counting the votes and an initiative making adult marijuana possession the city's lowest law enforcement priority -- Initiated Question 100 -- has been approved 57-43. In light of the city's overwhelming support for the measure, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper announced yesterday that he would appoint a Marijuana Policy Review Panel to ensure that the new ordinance is implemented to the greatest extent possible, as well as to study and report on its effects. The 11-member panel will include: • One (1) at-large member of the Denver City Council • One (1) representative of the Denver Police Department • One (1) representative of the Denver County District Attorney's Office • One (1) representative of the Denver City Attorney's Office • Three (3) criminal defense attorneys, one of whom shall be a public defender • Two (2) residents of the City of Denver, as selected by the petitioner committee that initiated this ordinance • One (1) drug/alcohol abuse prevention counselor • One (1) member of the Denver Metro Domestic Violence Fatality Review Committee who is not also a member of law enforcement Statement from Mason Tvert, the lead proponent of Initiated Question 100: "We are glad to see our mayor and city officials will be respecting the will of the voters, and we look forward to working with them toward a more sensible marijuana policy in the City of Denver. Although these officials say adult marijuana possession is already a low priority, it could undoubtedly be lower. For example, the City of Seattle, which adopted a very similar lowest law enforcement priority measure in 2003, handled just 125 cases of adult marijuana possession in 2006, whereas Denver -- a city with fewer residents -- handled nearly 1,400. As an example, one can look to Missoula, Montana. There, a similar lowest law enforcement priority measure was approved by voters last year. Just a couple weeks ago officials there adopted an official policy directing police to stop arresting adults for simple marijuana possession and make such cases the absolute lowest priority for prosecutors. We strongly believe Denver policies should reflect the fact that every objective study on marijuana has concluded that it is far less harmful than alcohol to both the user and to society. As we have said repeatedly, there is no logical reason why adults should punished for making the rational, safer choice to use marijuana instead of alcohol."
Subscribe to Marijuana Policy