Press Release

PRESS RELEASE Americans for Safe Access For Immediate Release: December 1, 2008 U.S. Supreme Court: State Medical Marijuana Laws Not Preempted by Federal Law / Medical marijuana case appealed by the City of Garden Grove was denied review today Washington, DC -- The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a landmark decision today in which California state courts found that its medical marijuana law was not preempted by federal law. The state appellate court decision from November 28, 2007, ruled that "it is not the job of the local police to enforce the federal drug laws." The case, involving Felix Kha, a medical marijuana patient from Garden Grove, was the result of a wrongful seizure of medical marijuana by local police in June 2005. Medical marijuana advocates hailed today's decision as a huge victory in clarifying law enforcement's obligation to uphold state law. Advocates assert that better adherence to state medical marijuana laws by local police will result in fewer needless arrests and seizures. In turn, this will allow for better implementation of medical marijuana laws not only in California, but in all states that have adopted such laws. "It's now settled that state law enforcement officers cannot arrest medical marijuana patients or seize their medicine simply because they prefer the contrary federal law," said Joe Elford, Chief Counsel with Americans for Safe Access (ASA), the medical marijuana advocacy organization that represented the defendant Felix Kha in a case that the City of Garden Grove appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. "Perhaps, in the future local government will think twice about expending significant time and resources to defy a law that is overwhelmingly supported by the people of our state." California medical marijuana patient Felix Kha was pulled over by the Garden Grove Police Department and cited for possession of marijuana, despite Kha showing the officers proper documentation. The charge against Kha was subsequently dismissed, with the Superior Court of Orange County issuing an order to return Kha's wrongfully seized 8 grams of medical marijuana. The police, backed by the City of Garden Grove, refused to return Kha's medicine and the city appealed. Before the 41-page decision was issued a year ago by California's Fourth District Court of Appeal, the California Attorney General filed a "friend of the court" brief on behalf of Kha's right to possess his medicine. The California Supreme Court then denied review in March. "The source of local law enforcement's resistance to upholding state law is an outdated, harmful federal policy with regard to medical marijuana," said ASA spokesperson Kris Hermes. "This should send a message to the federal government that it's time to establish a compassionate policy more consistent with the 13 states that have adopted medical marijuana laws." Further information: Today's U.S. Supreme Court Order denying review: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/Kha_USSC.pdf Decision by the California Fourth Appellate District Court: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/GardenGroveDecision.pdf Felix Kha's return of property case: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/article.php?id=4412 # # #

NEWS ADVISORY: November 24, 2008 CONTACT: Tom Angell, LEAP - (202) 557-4979 or [email protected] Cops Say Legalizing Drugs Can Boost Economy by Billions 75th Anniversary of Alcohol Prohibition's End Inspires Modern Effort WASHINGTON, D.C. - On Tuesday, December 2, a group of law enforcers who fought on the front lines of the "war on drugs" and witnessed its failures will commemorate the 75th anniversary of alcohol prohibition's repeal by calling for drug legalization. The cops, judges and prosecutors will release a report detailing how many billions of dollars can be used to boost the ailing economy when drug prohibition is ended. "America's leaders had the good sense to realize that we couldn't afford to keep enforcing the ineffective prohibition of alcohol during the Great Depression," said Terry Nelson, a 30-year veteran federal agent and member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP). "Now, cops fighting on the front lines of today's 'war on drugs' are working to make our streets safer and help solve our economic crisis by teaching lawmakers a lesson from history about the failure of prohibition. We can do it again." WHO: Federal agents, street cops, detectives, corrections officials and a Harvard economist WHAT: Release of "We Can Do It Again" report on benefits of repealing drug prohibition WHEN: Tuesday, December 2, 2008 @ 10:00 AM WHERE: National Press Club; Zenger Room; 529 14th Street, NW; 13th Fl.; Washington, DC ***phone press conference also available*** "We Can Do It Again: Repealing Today's Failed Prohibition," highlights how the "war on drugs" - just like alcohol prohibition - subsidizes violent gangsters, endangers public health and diminishes public respect for the rule of law. The report also details how the newer prohibition comes with the much graver threat of international cartels and terrorists who profit from illegal drug sales. Yet, it leaves readers on a hopeful note. "We're starting to see an emerging consensus that drug prohibition just doesn't make sense," said Seattle's retired Police Chief Norm Stamper, a LEAP member. "Three out of four Americans now say the 'war on drugs' has failed, and so do the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Black Caucus of State Legislators and the National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators. Now, it's up to the new administration and Congress to follow through." More information about LEAP and a copy of the report will be uploaded at http://www.WeCanDoItAgain.com/ # # #

Cal NORML Release - Nov. 24, 2008 Cal Supreme Court Rules Prop 215 Caregivers Must Do More Than Just Supply Marijuana In a blow to medical marijuana providers, the California Supreme Court ruled that defendants are not entitled to a defense as Prop 215 caregivers if their primary role is only to supply marijuana to patients. The court unanimously overruled an appellate court decision in the case People v Roger Mentch", writing: "We hold that a defendant whose caregiving consisted principally of supplying marijuana and instructing on its use, and who otherwise only sporadically took some patients to medical appointments, cannot qualify as a primary caregiver under the Act and was not entitled to an instruction on the primary caregiver affirmative defense. We further conclude that nothing in the Legislature's subsequent 2003 Medical Marijuana Program (Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.7 et seq.) alters this conclusion or offers any additional defense on this record." Full text of the decision may be found at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S148204.PDF Prop 215 defines primary caregiver to be the "individual designated by the [patient]... who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that person." According to the Court, these words " imply a caretaking relationship directed at the core survival needs of a seriously ill patient, not just one single pharmaceutical need." The Court concluded, " a defendant asserting primary caregiver status must prove at a minimum that he or she (1) consistently provided caregiving, (2) independent of any assistance in taking medical marijuana, (3) at or before the time he or she assumed responsibility for assisting with medical marijuana." The Court's ruling effectively limits the caregiver defense to relatives, personal friends and attendants, nurses, etc. In particular, it excludes its use by medical marijuana "buyers' clubs," retail dispensaries and delivery services. The remaining legal defense for medical marijuana providers is to organize as patient cooperatives and collectives, which are legal under SB 420. "The Mentch decision highlights the inadequacy of California's current medical marijuana supply system," said Cal NORML coordinator Dale Gieringer. "The law needs to allow for professional licensed growers , as with other medicinal herbs." - D. Gieringer Cal NORML -- Dale Gieringer - [email protected] California NORML, 2215-R Market St. #278, San Francisco CA 94114 -(415) 563- 5858 - www.canorml.org

Dutch MP Boris van der Ham buys a bag of weed of the "regulated market" A glance of the future after the ban on cannabis has been abolished On Thursday 27 November, at 09.15 hs, Dutch Member of Parliament of left liberal party D66 will buy a bag of cannabis at coffeeshop "Cremers ", Prinsestraat 84 in The Hague. The owner of this coffeeshop, Gerard Smit, will provide him with this bag and inform him extensively on the origin of this cannabis, the methods of cultivation, the effects of it and the way in which the price has been determined. In this way it becomes clear how the cannabis market could be regulated in the future, when the ban on cannabis cultivation has been abolished. Coffeeshops could then get their cannabis in a legal way from growers who would spend attention to quality and public health aspects. Before buying his product, the customer can be fully informed on the exact and expected effects of the substance. The visit of Boris van der Ham to coffeeshop Cremers takes place in the framework of the Cannabis Tribunal , that takes place on Monday 1 and Tuesday 2 December in Nieuwspoort, The Hague. This tribunal deals with the question what should be the direction of Dutch lenient cannabis policy, that allows sale of personal quantities to adult persons in coffeeshops, but bans the cultivation of cannabis, for example to provide these shops. The press is very welcome to attend this visit. For more details, please contact the organisers. The press release is sent by: Encod: Joep Oomen, email: [email protected]. Stichting Drugsbeleid: Freek Polak, email: [email protected] Cannabis College: Job Joris Arnold, email: [email protected]

For Immediate Release: November 19, 2008 Medical marijuana lawsuit filed against Department of Motor Vehicles Americans for Safe Access fights baseless revocation of patient's driver's license Merced, CA -- A lawsuit was filed today by medical marijuana advocacy organization Americans for Safe Access (ASA) against the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) on behalf of Rose Johnson, a 53-year-old patient from Atwater. Despite Ms. Johnson's clean driving record, not having caused an accident in 37 years of driving, the DMV revoked her license on July 26, 2008 because of her status as a medical marijuana patient. The DMV refused to renew Ms. Johnson's license only after obtaining her medical records and finding out that she was a qualified medical marijuana patient. According to the DMV, Ms. Johnson's license was revoked "because of...[an] addiction to, or habitual use of, [a] drug," thereby rendering her unable to safely operate a motor vehicle, even though no evidence existed to substantiate this claim. "The DMV cannot simply disregard California's medical marijuana law," said ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford, who is representing Ms. Johnson in her claim against the DMV. "When the voters of California enacted the Compassionate Use Act, they never intended to authorize the DMV to strip medical marijuana patients of their drivers' licenses," continued Elford. "The DMV should not be in the business of revoking the licenses of drivers like Ms. Johnson simply because she is a medical marijuana patient." Advocates assert that the DMV policy of suspending and revoking the licenses of medical marijuana patients is widespread, occurring in at at least 8 California counties, including Alameda, Butte, Contra Costa, Glenn, Merced, Placer, Sacramento, and Sonoma. License revocations by the DMV, which have been based on a person's status as a medical marijuana patient, are often rationalized by calling the drivers "drug abusers" despite no evidence of the claim. In 2007, Merced -- the county in which Ms. Johnson lives -- implemented a police policy that instructed its Sheriff deputies to respect state law and not to cite medical marijuana patients or seize their medicine. "The DMV is not under a different set of requirements than local police in California," said Elford. "The failure to uphold California's medical marijuana law is entirely inappropriate for any local or state agency." The lawsuit filed today by ASA is expected to be heard in Merced Superior Court in the next few months. The lawsuit against the DMV is part of a campaign by ASA to fully implement California's medical marijuana laws. Further information: ASA's lawsuit against the DMV: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/DMV_Writ.pdf # # #

[Courtesy of Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation (SAFER) and Sensible Colorado] For Immediate Release: November 13, 2008 More Than 250 Citizens From Across Colorado to Attend "Marijuana Boot Camp" at Regis University in Denver This Saturday (11/15) Current and future activists from every region -- Durango to Greeley, Gunnison to Aurora -- expected to converge on "Ground Zero for Marijuana Policy Reform" for massive grassroots training Denver groups coordinating the event to offer panels featuring elected officials, policy wonks, journalists, and professional advocates DENVER -- This Saturday, November 15, hundreds of current and future marijuana activists from across Colorado will gather in the Main Dining Hall of the Regis University Student Center for a first-of-its-kind "Marijuana Boot Camp." The free daylong training event is open to the public and will serve as a launching pad for citizen activism and reform efforts throughout the state in 2009. Denver-based groups Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation (SAFER) and Sensible Colorado are co-hosting the event -- officially titled the "2008 Colorado Marijuana Reform Seminar & Activist Boot Camp" -- and will provide attendees with grassroots training and materials they can take home and implement in their communities. Sessions and panels will focus on strategy, communications, citizen lobbying, grassroots outreach, the media, and the nature of state and local marijuana laws. Panelists from around Colorado will include state and local elected officials, policy analysts from "left-" and "right-wing" organizations, print and on-line journalists, advocacy and communications professionals, and a biology professor/researcher. "The 2008 campaign season only just ended for most people," said SAFER Executive Director Mason Tvert. "But for the growing number of Coloradans committed to reforming state and local marijuana laws, the 2009 campaign season has already begun. Our first goal -- to disprove the myth that marijuana makes people less motivated -- has clearly already been accomplished." The event will build on the 630,000-plus Colorado voters who supported a 2006 initiative to remove all state penalties for private adult marijuana possession, as well as the growing majorities that approved two similar initiatives in the state's capitol. Several Colorado organizations have also become more vocal in their support for reform, and some -- such as the ACLU of Colorado -- are participating in Saturday's Marijuana Boot Camp. "A coalition of Colorado citizens, organizations, businesses, and elected officials has begun to emerge," Tvert said, "and an army of supporters is forming around the state. Its mission: educate Colorado communities about the fact that marijuana is safer than alcohol, and build support for laws that reflect that fact." "Colorado is already far ahead of the national curve when it comes to our citizens' attitudes and efforts surrounding marijuana law reform," Tvert said. "This event will expand on those positive attitudes, fuel even more efforts across the state, and quicken the pace toward safer, more sensible marijuana laws in Colorado and beyond." WHAT: 2008 Colorado Marijuana Reform Seminar & Activist Boot Camp WHEN: This Saturday, November 15, official welcome at 9:45 a.m., culmination at 5 p.m. WHERE: The Main Dining Hall in the Student Center, Regis University, 3333 Regis Blvd., Denver (Student Center is on west edge of campus -- See Building "N" at: http://www.regis.edu/regis.asp?sctn=loc&p1=lc&p2=parking ) WHO: More than 250 current and future activists from across Colorado have registered to attend

[Courtesy of The European Coalition for Just and Effective Drug Policies] The Hague, 13 November 2008 - Three organisations that advocate for the emancipation of the use of the cannabis plant will present the first Netherlands Cannabis Tribunal, to be held on December 1st and 2nd in Nieuwspoort, the International Press Centre in The Hague. To conclude the first day of hearings, a debate on Dutch cannabis policies will be moderated by Frans Weisglas, former speaker of the Dutch Parliament. The three government ministers responsible for Dutch drug policy have been invited to this political debate, to defend current cannabis policies. They are: Guusje ter Horst (PvdA) of Home Affairs, Ernst Hirsch Ballin (CDA) of Justice and Ab Klink (CDA) of Public Health. Spokespersons on drug policy from the Dutch Parliament have also been requested to make a contribution to this debate. The Cannabis Tribunal is being organised by Cannabis College, the Dutch Drug Policy Foundation and Encod, the European Coalition for Just and Effective Drug Policies. During the debate they will challenge all Dutch MP's to provide conclusive evidence in opposition to the proposition: The ban on cannabis has more negative than positive effects. The political party that succeeds in providing such proof will receive an award of 200.000 euros. The reason for organising the Tribunal is the fact that, more than thirty years after the introduction of liberal cannabis policies in the Netherlands, a drastic reform is urgently needed. During past years, many representatives of municipalities, police, justice, community organisations and involved citizens have called for a renewal of policy regarding cannabis in the Netherlands. This may be total prohibition or legalisation, as long as the law is clear. In the mean time, government and parliament have repeatedly postponed a decision on the subject. The Cannabis Tribunal wants to find out the reasons for this inaction and delay. The events of past weeks confirm this tendency. Early in November, the city councils of Roosendaal and Bergen op Zoom (close to the Belgian border) announced their decision to close down all coffeeshops in their cities. Lord Mayor Leers of Maastricht then called for a National Cannabis Summit in order to agree on a coordinated policy in the frontier region. Saturday November 8th the political leader of the Christian Democrat Party (CDA), Mr. Pieter van Geel, said that all coffeeshops in the Netherlands should be closed. Lord Mayor Van Gijzel of Eindhoven then replied saying he wanted more coffeeshops in the region, and that they should be provided with cannabis through legal channels. The organisers of the Cannabis Tribunal propose that politicians should live up to their responsibilities of office. 'Whoever calls for a total ban on cannabis must show that this would lead to a benefit for Dutch society as a whole. If Mr. Pieter van Geel can prove that a ban is the best solution, then let him do this at the Tribunal. An amount of 200.000 euros is waiting for him. If he refuses to respond to the challenge, then by default he obviously must agree with our proposition", says Joep Oomen, spokesperson of the Cannabis Tribunal. Programme of the Cannabis Tribunal Monday December 1st The Cannabis Tribunal will kick off with a series of hearings. In each of them, two experts will present opposing testimony on a given issue. In chronological order, the topics to be discussed will be: Health aspects of cannabis, the coffeeshops, the role of the media, the moral justification of the ban on cannabis. Law philosopher Hendrik Kaptein of the Leiden University will be moderator and judge for these hearings at the Cannabis Tribunal. At the end of the first day of hearings, there will be a concluding debate moderated by Frans Weisglas. Tuesday, December 2nd The morning programme will deal with the image of Dutch cannabis policy abroad. The promise of industrial applications of the hemp plant for paper, food, textiles and fuel will also be dealt with. From 12.30 to 13.30 the organisers will present the conclusions of the Cannabis Tribunal at a press conference in Nieuwspoort. Subsequently, these conclusions will also be presented to the members of the Dutch parliament. The working language is Dutch. Links: www.cannabistribunaal.nl www.encod.org www.drugsbeleid.nl www.cannabiscollege.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November, 13, 2008 CONTACT: Adam Eidinger at 202-744-2671 or [email protected], or Tom Murphy at 207-542-4998 or [email protected] Licensed Hemp Farmers Heard by US Court of Appeals Decision in Lawsuit Could Bring Back Hemp Farming in US ST. PAUL, MN – Two North Dakota farmers, who filed a lawsuit in June of 2007 to end the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) ban on commercial hemp farming in the U.S., were heard yesterday, November 12, 2008, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The oral arguments before the three judge panel centered on the farmer’s assertion that because there is no possibility the hemp crop could be diverted into the market for drugs, the Commerce Clause does not allow DEA to regulate industrial hemp farming in North Dakota. If successful, the landmark lawsuit will lead to the first state-regulated commercial cultivation of industrial hemp in over fifty years. The court’s decision is not expected until next year. The farmers, North Dakota State Rep. David Monson and seed breeder Wayne Hauge, are appealing a decision by the U.S. District Court of North Dakota on a number of grounds; in particular, the District Court ruled that hemp and marijuana are the same, as DEA has wrongly contended. In fact, scientific evidence clearly shows that not only are oilseed and fiber varieties of Cannabis genetically distinct from drug varieties, but there are absolutely no psychoactive effects gained from eating it. All court documents related to the case can be found online (http://www.VoteHemp.com/legal_cases_ND.html). Representative Monson observed oral arguments made on his behalf by attorneys Joe Sandler and Tim Purdon. In court Mr. Sandler argued, “Given North Dakota’s unique regulatory regime, nothing leaves the farmer’s property except those parts of the plant Congress has already decided should be exempt from regulation: hemp stalk, fiber seed and oil. The question is whether there is any rational basis for Congressional regulation of the plant itself growing on the farmer’s property. The answer is no — because industrial hemp is useless as drug marijuana and there’s no danger of diversion, so there’s no possible impact on the market for drug marijuana.” The government’s arguments centered on the idea that the plaintiffs should apply to the DEA for permission to grow hemp and that the court didn’t have jurisdiction over the issues raised by the farmers. “The plaintiffs should await the DEA’s decision on their application,” said Melissa Patterson on behalf of the government. In response, Judge Michael Milloy asked, “Isn’t it true the DEA will not rule on the farmer’s applications to grow hemp, you’ve had eleven months?” Ms. Patterson answered, “The DEA has not replied out of respect to the pending proceedings.” In response to the jurisdictional objections made by the DEA, Judge Lavenski Smith said, “When there is a legitimate constitutional issue brought before us we can hear the case.” Background In 2007 the North Dakota Legislature removed the requirement that state-licensed industrial hemp farmers first obtain DEA permits before growing hemp. The question before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals will be whether or not federal authorities can prosecute state-licensed farmers who grow non-drug oilseed and fiber hemp pursuant to North Dakota state law. Vote Hemp, the nation's leading industrial hemp advocacy group, and its supporters are providing financial support for the lawsuit. If it is successful, states across the nation will be free to implement their own hemp farming laws without fear of federal interference. Learn more about hemp farming and the wide variety of non-drug industrial hemp products manufactured in the U.S. at www.VoteHemp.com and www.TheHIA.org. # # #

For Immediate Release: November 7, 2008 For more info: Gabriel Sayegh at (646) 335-2264 or Tony Newman at (646) 335-5384 Gov. Paterson Announces $8.6 Million in Cuts to Drug Treatment in Response to Budget Crisis Advocates: Gov. Paterson Should be Doing the Opposite and Expanding Cost-Effective Treatment With Democrats in Control of Senate and Assembly, Gov. Paterson Should Keep His Pledge and Reform Draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws with Treatment to Save Lives and Money Health advocates and treatment providers were shocked to learn that New York Governor Paterson is cutting $8.6 million from its substance abuse programs in response to the state's current budget crisis. "This is penny wise and pound foolish and exactly the opposite of what the governor should be doing," said Howard Josepher, President of the Exponents treatment programs. "Treatment is less expensive and more effective than the lock-them-up strategy that costs taxpayers $29,000 per person to incarcerate someone with an addiction. Treatment also offers a better opportunity to prevent recidivism" The Rockefeller Drug Laws have been a miserable failure. These draconian laws have not delivered on their promise to rid our streets of drugs or keep people from using them, but they have drained New York of hundreds of millions of dollars and destroyed tens of thousands of lives. Treatment providers, family members, policy experts and newspaper editorials have been calling for change for years but have been stifled due to Republican control of the State Senate and the lack of leadership from Governors Pataki and Spitzer. When Gov. Paterson took over there was an expectation that there might be reform of these laws as the governor has been a long-time voice for change of the laws. "The time is right to move from away from inhumane, costly and ineffective mass incarceration to a health approach to our drug problems," said Gabriel Sayegh of the Drug Policy Alliance. "The Democrats have a majority of the Senate, Assembly and the Governorship. Helping people with drug problems get community based treatment instead of jail does not cost money, it saves money. The governor is in the difficult position of needing to cut programs and costs. Reforming the drug laws is a rare win-win: you can save hundreds of millions of dollars and help keep families together."