Press Release

[Courtesy of DPA] FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 28, 2008 CONTACT: Jennifer Kern, DPA (415) 373-7694 or Zeina Salam, ACLU (904) 391-1884 White House Pushes Controversial Student Drug Testing Agenda at Summit in Jacksonville on January 29 Largest Study, Leading Associations Call Random, Suspicionless Drug Testing Harmful and Ineffective Concerned Citizens to Provide Educators with Missing Information; Experts Available for Interviews Jacksonville, FL — The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) is conducting a series of regional summits designed to convince local educators to start drug testing students -- randomly and without cause. This policy is unsupported by the available science and opposed by leading experts in adolescent health. The third summit of 2008 takes place on Tuesday, January 29th in Jacksonville at the Jacksonville Marriott, 4670 Salisbury Road at 8:30 a.m. The Drug Policy Alliance and American Civil Liberties Union are providing attendees with copies of the booklet Making Sense of Student Drug Testing: Why Educators Are Saying No, which presents research showing that such testing is ineffective and provides resources for effective alternatives. Studies have found that suspicionless drug testing is ineffective in deterring student drug use. The first large-scale national study on student drug testing, which was published by researchers at the University of Michigan in 2003, found no difference in rates of student drug use between schools that have drug testing programs and those that do not. A two-year randomized experimental trial published last November in the Journal of Adolescent Health concluded random drug testing targeting student athletes did not reliably reduce past month drug use and, in fact, produced attitudinal changes among students that indicate new risk factors for future substance use. “Drug testing breaks down relationships of trust,” said Jennifer Kern, Drug Testing Fails Our Youth Campaign Coordinator at the Drug Policy Alliance. “All credible research on substance abuse prevention points to eliminating, rather than creating, sources of alienation and conflict between young people, their parents and schools.” A group of concerned citizens will also attend to provide educators with important information missing from the summit, such as the objections of the National Education Association, the Association of Addiction Professionals and the National Association of Social Workers to testing. These organizations believe random testing programs erect counter-productive obstacles to student participation in extracurricular activities, marginalize at-risk students and make open communication more difficult. A December 2007 policy statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Substance Abuse and Council of School Health reaffirmed their opposition to student drug testing, holding: “Physicians should not support drug testing in schools … [because] it has not yet been established that drug testing does not cause harm.” Schools in Florida have so far rejected the policy. In November 2006 the Citrus County School Board turned down a $317,000 federal drug testing grant, as board members were not convinced that testing would discourage drug use. Members felt subjecting students to drug testing was a misuse of authority and objected that the grant made them test subjects as part of a federal study of student drug testing. The following month the Hernando County School Board rejected a federal drug testing grant of at least $183,289. “Subjecting students to unsubstantiated searches makes a mockery of the values taught in our nation’s classrooms, undermining respect for the Constitution among its future caretakers,” said Zeina Salam, ACLU of Florida Northeast Regional Staff Attorney. “Random drug testing must not become a rite of passage for America’s youth.” Making Sense of Student Drug Testing: Why Educators are Saying No can be found online at www.safety1st.org. An excerpt from the booklet is included below: Comprehensive, rigorous and respected research shows there are many reasons why random student drug testing is not good policy: - Drug testing is not effective in deterring drug use among young people; - Drug testing is expensive, taking away scarce dollars from other, more effective programs that keep young people out of trouble with drugs; - Drug testing can be legally risky, exposing schools to potentially costly litigation; - Drug testing may drive students away from extracurricular activities, which are a proven means of helping students stay out of trouble with drugs; - Drug testing can undermine trust between students and teachers, and between parents and children; - Drug testing can result in false positives, leading to the punishment of innocent students; - Drug testing does not effectively identify students who have serious problems with drugs; and - Drug testing may lead to unintended consequences, such as students using drugs (like alcohol) that are more dangerous but less detectable by a drug test.

[Courtesy of Americans for Safe Access] For Immediate Release: January 24, 2008 Contact: ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford (415) 573-7842 or ASA Media Liaison Kris Hermes (510) 681-6361 CA Supreme Court Denies Medical Marijuana Patients' Right to Work Advocates to call on state legislature to prevent discrimination Sacramento, CA -- The California Supreme Court ruled against medical marijuana patient Gary Ross today in his fight against employment discrimination. In a 5-2 decision, the Supreme Court claimed that Ross could not rely on the Fair Housing and Employment Act or the state's medical marijuana law to prevent discrimination at the workplace. The Court did indicate in its decision that the state legislature had not adequately clarified employment rights of medical marijuana patients. "Obviously, we are very disappointed by today's decision," said Joe Elford, Chief Counsel of Americans for Safe Access (ASA), the medical marijuana advocacy organization that argued the case. "However, we remain hopeful that the legislature will come to the aid of patients by preventing the sort of discrimination that is likely to occur from such a decision." The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Joyce L. Kennard, stated that the ruling "has seriously compromised the Compassionate Use Act, denying to those who must work for a living its promised benefits." Despite a clearly worded amicus "friend of the court" brief filed in support of Ross in July 2006 by all of the original co-authors of SB 420 (state legislation that helped to define the rights of medical marijuana patients), the Supreme Court failed to believe that it was the intent of the entire legislature. Advocates assert that they will seek a different response from the state legislature in the form of a bill introduced in the next few weeks. Gary Ross, a 45-year old disabled veteran and a medical marijuana patient living in Carmichael, California, is at the forefront of a landmark employment case, with significant ramifications for patients in California and across the country. Ross was fired in September 2001 for failing an employer-mandated drug test while working as a systems engineer for RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc. "All I am asking is to be a productive member of society," said plaintiff Gary Ross. "I was not fired for poor work performance, but for an antiquated policy on medical marijuana,” continued Ross. “This practice allows employers to undermine state law and the protections provided for patients.” Ross's physician recommended cannabis for chronic back pain that resulted from injuries sustained during his military service. But Ross's employer, RagingWire Telecommunications, refused to make an exception to its policy of terminating anyone testing positive for marijuana. Ross filed suit after he was fired in 2001, arguing that RagingWire illegally discriminated against him because of his condition. However, a Sacramento Superior Court, and then the Third Appellate District Court both rejected his argument. In October 2005, ASA appealed to the California Supreme Court on behalf of Ross. Strong public support has been shown for Ross and the plight of California patients to seek and maintain employment. Since it began recording instances of employment discrimination in 2005, ASA has received hundreds of such reports from across California. Companies that have either fired patients from their job, threatened them with termination, or denied them employment because of patient status or a positive test for marijuana, include Costco Wholesale, UPS, Foster Farms Dairy, DirecTV, the San Joaquin Courier, Power Auto Group, as well as several construction companies, hospitals, and various trade union employers. Further information: Today's California Supreme Court decision: http://www.safeaccessnow.org/downloads/Ross_Ruling.pdf Photo of Gary Ross: http://safeaccessnow.org/img/original/Ross_pic3.jpg Legislative-based amicus brief: http://www.safeaccessnow.org/downloads/ross_legislative.pdf Review legal briefs and more about the Ross v. RagingWire case here: http://www.safeaccessnow.org/Ross

[Courtesy of Drug Policy Alliance] For Immediate Release: January 23, 2008 For More Info: Tony Newman (646) 335-5384 or Ethan Nadelmann (646) 335-2240 Governor Spitzer Proposes Tax Stamp on Illegal Drugs Statement from Ethan Nadelmann, Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance “I have my doubts regarding Gov. Eliot Spitzer's proposed bill to require all marijuana and other controlled substances in the state to have a tax stamp. “On the one hand, it seems perfectly reasonable to require people and businesses to pay taxes on the revenue earned from selling products of any sort, whether they are legal or illegal. Indeed, in the dozen states where marijuana has been legalized for medical purposes, many of those who sell marijuana to patients are willing and even eager to pay taxes on their revenue. “On the other hand, these tax stamp bills and laws smack of the gratuitous piling on of punitive sanctions that permeates the overall drug war. The United States already locks up people who violate the drug laws more readily, more frequently and for longer periods of time than in almost any other country – at a national cost of tens of billions of dollars per year. We also subject drug law violators to civil and criminal asset forfeiture and deprive them of all sorts of rights and privileges after they have served their sentences - - to an extent far greater than in almost any other country. More than half a million people come out of prison each year but face daunting prospects getting a fresh start, in part because they are obliged to pay fines – like this tax stamp – that end up causing far more harm than good. “The Governor could accomplish far greater tax savings for New York taxpayers if he would move forward on his campaign commitments regarding reform of the Rockefeller drug laws. The modest reforms of 2004 and 2005 already have saved the state tens of millions of dollars – but far greater savings could be attained, with no risk to public safety, if he were to support the drug law reforms passed by the Assembly in recent years. “And, quite frankly, New Yorkers would most benefit from a serious proposal to tax, control and regulate marijuana more or less like alcohol is today. Even though New York decriminalized marijuana possession in the 1970s, it still arrests people for that offense more frequently than most states that never decriminalized it. New Yorkers spend many tens of millions of dollars per year for this foolish excess, when instead the state could earn even greater amounts from taxing this ever popular consumer product. Overall consumption would likely rise only modestly given the widespread and easy availability of marijuana today notwithstanding its illegality. Virtually all New Yorkers – both those who like marijuana and those who have no interest in it – would benefit.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, January 22, 2008 Contact: LaWanda Johnson (202) 558-7974 x308 WASHINGTON - Community-based substance abuse treatment reduces crime rates and helps states reduce corrections costs, according to a new policy brief released today by the Justice Policy Institute (JPI). The Substance Abuse Treatment and Public Safety brief found that the sooner substance abuse is treated, the bigger the long-term cost savings and increases in public safety. At a time when some have raised concerns about the release of people convicted of drug offenses from federal prison due to U.S. Sentencing Commission reforms, the research shows that substance abuse treatment helps individuals transition successfully from the criminal justice system to the community. "This new report confirms that investing in drug and alcohol treatment is both socially responsible and fiscally prudent and should be a top public policy priority," said Maryland Delegate Bill Bronrott, chair of the House Committee on Drug and Alcohol Abuse. "The report documents the tangible results of treatment, such as cutting crime, reclaiming lives, and making healthier families and safer communities. More investments in these lifesaving and cost-effective services are needed now to expand the benefits of treatment that this report so clearly demonstrates." The policy brief--the last in a series that examines the impact of positive social investments on public safety--found that: Increases in admissions to substance abuse treatment are associated with reductions in crime rates. Admissions to drug treatment increased 37.4 percent and federal spending on drug treatment increased 14.6 percent from 1995 to 2005. During the same period, violent crime fell 31.5 percent. In California, where Proposition 36 diverted thousands of people from prison and jail to treatment, violent crime fell at a rate that exceeded the national average. In Maryland, where policymakers have been working to implement various approaches to diverting prison-bound people to treatment, the counties that relied on drug treatment were more likely to achieve significant crime rate reductions than those that relied on drug imprisonment. Increased admissions to drug treatment are associated with reduced incarceration rates. States with a higher drug treatment admission rate than the national average send, on average, 100 fewer people to prison per 100,000 in the population than states that have lower than average drug treatment admissions. California, in particular, experienced decreases in incarceration rates when jurisdictions increased the number of people sent to drug treatment. Substance abuse treatment prior to contact with the justice system yields public safety benefits early on. Research has shown that drug treatment programs improve life outcomes for individuals and decreases the likelihood that a drug-involved person will be involved in the criminal justice system. Substance abuse treatment helps individuals transition successfully from the criminal justice system to the community. Community-based drug treatment programs reduce the chance that a person will become involved in the criminal justice system after release from prison. Substance abuse treatment is more cost-effective than prison or other punitive measures. The Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) found that community-based drug treatment is extremely beneficial in terms of cost, especially compared to prison. Every dollar spent on drug treatment in the community is estimated to return $18.52 in benefits to society in terms of reduced incarceration rates and associated crime costs to taxpayers. "If lawmakers invest in community-based substance abuse treatment--instead of prison beds--for people living with addiction, our communities will reap tremendous benefits," says JPI Executive Director Sheila Bedi. "Crime rates will decrease, families will remain intact and since treatment is less expensive than incarceration, state budget dollars can be redeployed to meet education, housing, infrastructure and other pressing needs. " For more information on this or other research, contact LaWanda Johnson at 202-558-7974 ext. 308.

[Courtesy of Vote Hemp] FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 12, 2007 CONTACT: Adam Eidinger: 202-744-2671, [email protected] or Tom Murphy 207-542-4998, [email protected] North Dakota’s Licensed Hemp Farmers Appeal Federal Court Decision BISMARCK, ND – Two North Dakota farmers, who filed a federal lawsuit in June to end the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) ban on commercial hemp farming in the United States and had their case dismissed on November 28, have filed a notice of appeal today in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Lawyers working on behalf of the farmers, Representative David Monson and Wayne Hauge, are appealing a number of issues. In particular, the lower court inexplicably ruled that hemp and marijuana are the “same,” as the DEA has contended, and thus failed to properly consider the Commerce Clause argument that the plaintiffs raised — that Congress cannot interfere with North Dakota’s state-regulated hemp program. Scientific evidence clearly shows that industrial hemp, which includes the oilseed and fiber varieties of Cannabis that would have been grown pursuant to North Dakota law, is genetically distinct from the drug varieties of Cannabis and has absolutely no recreational drug effect. Even though the farmers' legal battle continues, the lawsuit prompted the DEA to respond to the North Dakota State University (NDSU) application for federal permission to grow industrial hemp for research purposes, which has languished for nearly a decade. University officials, however, say it could cost them more than $50,000 to install 10-foot-high fences and meet other strict DEA requirements such as high-powered lighting. NDSU officials are reviewing the DEA’s proposal, and Vote Hemp is hopeful that an agreement can be reached before planting season gets under way. If an agreement between the DEA and NDSU is reached and ultimately signed, it would pave the way for agricultural hemp research and development in North Dakota. Such research is key to developing varieties of industrial hemp best suited for North Dakota’s climate. “We are happy this lawsuit is moving forward with an appeal,” says Eric Steenstra, President of Vote Hemp, a non-profit organization working to bring industrial hemp farming back to the U.S. “We feel that the lower court’s decision not only overlooks Congress’s original legislative intent, but also fails to stand up for fundamental states’ rights against overreaching federal regulation. Canada grows over 30,000 acres of industrial hemp annually without any law enforcement problems. In our federalist society, it is not the burden of North Dakota’s citizens to ask Congress in Washington, D.C. to clear up its contradictory and confusing regulations concerning Cannabis; it is their right to grow industrial hemp pursuant to their own state law and the United States Constitution,” adds Steenstra. Vote Hemp, the nation's leading industrial hemp advocacy group, and its supporters are providing financial support for the lawsuit. If it is ultimately successful, states across the nation will be free to implement their own hemp farming laws without fear of federal interference. More on the case can be found at: http://www.VoteHemp.com/legal_cases_ND.html.

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

[Courtesy of Union of Medical Marijuana Providers] One day after the Union of Medical Marijuana Providers filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court, Central District of California (case CV07-07951) challenging the DEA's tactic of sending threatening letters to hundreds of owners of Commercial Property who rent to Marijuana Providers, the House Judiciary Committee will question the agency about the practice. Los Angeles, CA (PRWEB) December 10, 2007 -- The DEA, who has declared war on California's Medical Marijuana Law, began the draconian tactic of sending letters to Commercial Property owners who rent to legally authorized Medical Marijuana Providers this summer. In the letter, the DEA informed the owners of these properties that if they continue to rent to dispensaries they may face federal prosecution which could result in a possible prison sentence for up to 20 years as well as seizure of their property. The Union of Medical Marijuana Providers which was formed in part, as a direct result of the DEA's letter writing campaign, as well as L.A.'s Arts District Healing Center, have been aggressively litigating this issue in both state and federal court for the past several months (state case in Los Angeles Superior Court, case 07K21837). Just yesterday, December 6, 2007 they filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Central District, which requested that the Court issue an injunction stopping the DEA from continuing to send these letters. "When I saw Representative Conyers statement regarding the DEA's abuse of their power in order to thwart California's law, I knew that our legal efforts were beginning to pay off," said James Shaw, Executive Director of the Union. "The DEA has alienated too many citizens with their heavy-handed 'above the law tactics' for too long. We welcome all the support we can find in our efforts to ensure our rights are protected." Steven Schectman, the Union's chief counsel said he has contacted Representative Conyers office today in order to provide his staff copies of the litigation that was filed in both state and Federal Court. "I am hopeful we can support the Judiciary Committee in any way possible. As a result of our research and investigation of the DEA's threatening letter campaign, in preparation of our litigation, we have become the most knowledgeable group, outside the DEA, who best understands the scope and import of their tactics. We are here to help." The Union of Medical Marijuana Providers (UMMP) is a legal advocacy group based in Los Angeles, California. The Union's membership comprises legally compliant cooperatives, collectives, and caregiver groups throughout the State of California. UMMP was founded in 2007 to address the shared concerns of legally compliant medical marijuana patient groups.

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."

[Courtesy of Americans for Safe Access] For Immediate Release: *November 28, 2007 Appellate Court Strongly Vindicates Patients Right to Medical Marijuana Seized by Police Ending years of dispute, court rules that police must enforce state and not federal law Santa Ana, CA: A California Appeals Court ruled today in favor of Felix Kha, a medical marijuana patient from Garden Grove seeking the return of his 8 grams of medical marijuana that was seized by police. In a ruling that rejects law enforcement's claim that federal law preempts the state's medical marijuana law, the court asserted "we do not believe the federal drug laws supersede or preempt Kha's right to the return of his property." The court further stated that, "it is not the job of the local police to enforce the federal drug laws..." After more than 2 years, the appellate court has answered a divisive question pitting the State Attorney General against the California Police Chiefs Association. Both filed "friend of the court" briefs in the case on opposite sides of the issue, with the Attorney General in support of Kha. "It should now be abundantly clear to law enforcement across the state that it is not acceptable to seize the medicine of seriously ill patients," said Joe Elford, who represented Kha as Chief Counsel with Americans for Safe Access (ASA), a national medical marijuana advocacy group. "And if, for whatever reason, a seizure occurs, the court has ensured that patients have a mechanism to get it back." Kha was cited for marijuana possession and had his medicine seized in June 2005, but after the case was dismissed in August 2005, an Orange County Superior Court judge ordered the return of his medicine. However, the City of Garden Grove not only refused to return Kha's unlawfully seized property, it also appealed the order, an unprecedented action by a California city. Americans for Safe Access (ASA) has compiled reports from nearly eight hundred patient encounters with local or state police during a period of more than two years. These reports show a glaring trend: more than 90% of all encounters result in medicine seizure by police regardless of any probable cause. According to reports received by ASA, rampant seizure of medical marijuana from qualified patients and primary caregivers has taken place in 53 of California's 58 counties. These violations of state law occur in both urban and rural locales, in the north as well as the south, and by both city and county law enforcement. The court's ruling also affirms a policy change by the California Highway Patrol (CHP), which until 2005 held the record for the worst violator of Proposition 215. The CHP's policy of mandatory seizure of medical marijuana was challenged in court by ASA, after which the state's top law enforcement agency amply modified its policy. "Both today's court ruling and the CHP policy should go a long way to restore patients' rights in California," continued Elford. For further information, refer to: Decision by the California Fourth Appellate District Court (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/G036250.PDF) Felix Kha's return of property case (http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=4412).