For the first time in 41 years, the annual Hash Bash rally in Ann Arbor boasts a marijuana reform community who are not only angry but motivated, organized, and—here’s the important part–on the offense.

Yes, there will be plenty of folks who show up to “blaze one,” (or two) and have a great time. After all, the act of civil disobedience on the University of Michigan’s campus every first Saturday in April is part of the tradition, along with theater, music and the party after the rally—the Monroe Street Fair.

But the driving force behind the rally this year—and every year since 1971—is outrage over the devastating consequences of marijuana prohibition.

The Hash Bash rally on the University of Michigan Diag began in 1972, after cultural activist John Sinclair was sentenced to ten years on prison for giving two joints to an undercover narcotics agent. After the rally, the Michigan Supreme Court declared the law used to convict Sinclair unconstitutional. Since then, the annual rally focuses on the goal of reforming federal, state, and local marijuana laws.

Longtime Hash Bash coordinator Adam Brook is incarcerated, so this year Hash Bash is organized by three drug policy reform activists: longtime Ann Arbor activist and Safer Michigan coordinator Chuck Ream, President of University of Michigan Students for Sensible Drug Policy Nick Zettell, and Michigan Moms United to End the War on Drugs founder and Committee for a Safer Michigan Media Director Charmie Gholson (Disclosure: Gholson is also editor of The American Cultivator).

“The inclusion and expanded role of the students this year is especially exciting to me,” Gholson says. “Social justice reform is a relay marathon race, and we’re going to be handing the baton to these young activists. They’re already earned their place; they’re young, hungry, motivated, organized and brilliant. I’m thrilled to be working with the SSDP students, and with Chuck Ream.”

Gholson and Ream will co-MC the event, which features an additional 30 minutes, an expanded speakers list that includes more women, people of color and young activists.

Highlights of the rally include:

-A performance of The Star Spangled Banner by blues musician Laith Al Saadie to kick things off.
-The first Michigan marijuana legalization effort is in full swing. Volunteers will be collecting signatures to amend Michigan’s Constitution and repeal marijuana prohibition for adults 21 and older. The ballot initiative is a direct response to the refusal of state officials to implement the Michigan Medical Marihauna Act, as well as increased police aggression towards patients and caregivers—the very people the law was meant to remove from harms way.

-Steve DeAngelo, President and Founder of the world’s largest dispensary (Harborside Health Center, Oakland CA.) and star of the “Weed Wars” TV show is flying in from California to address the expected 6,000 attendees of HB.

-Also: a letter from Adam Brook read by Richard Clement Sr., John Sinclair, representatives of five local initiatives intended to create “lowest law enforcement priority laws, a former Detroit Police officer, medical marijuana patient testimonials and a tribute to drug war victims

Adam Brook assumed a leading role in Hash Bash during the 1980s and began emceeing the event. Brook told MLive last year that Hash Bash has evolved from a party into a political event. He said the rally came under attack in the 1990s when U-M launched its own police force and began aggressively enforcing state marijuana laws on campus.

“All you had to do was show up on the Diag and smoke weed,” Brook said, “It wasn’t a problem.”

“You have to understand that Hash Bash is a smoke-in. People are going there to smoke a joint,” Brook said. “Now, why do we warn people that it’s not the place to smoke a joint? Well, because the university now has their own police force, and they’ll arrest you for smoking a joint, and that is how Hash Bash has changed. But for years we didn’t even need a permit.

Diane Brown, a spokeswoman for the U-M Department of Public Safety, also told MLive, “if people think Hash Bash is some sort of amnesty day where campus police will look the other way, they’re wrong — pot smoking won’t be tolerated on campus.”

Brown should tell that to the nearly 5,000 people who attended last years rally and openly smoked on campus, or the estimated 6,000 people who plan to attend this year. Realistically, what are a few deputized police going to do when faced with thousands of people committing civil disobedience?

Despite 70+ years of criminal prohibition, banning marijuana has had very little effect on its use. According to The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, over 102 million Americans (41 percent of the U.S. population) admit to having used marijuana during their lifetimes, 26 million used it in the past year, and over 15 million admit that they regularly consume marijuana.

Our last three presidents have admitted using marijuana, which illustrates that if marijuana users live productive lives in society. They have jobs. They pay their bills. They parent their children. That is, unless you get caught

According to drugsense.org police arrested an estimated 858,408 people for cannabis violations in 2009. Of those charged with cannabis violations, approximately 89 percent were charged with possession only. Simply put, an American is arrested every 30 seconds for violating our country’s marijuana laws.

Adam Brook was raided in 2011 by the Oakland County Narcotics Enforcement Team and initially charged with eight felony charges. Four of the charges were dropped, but he was sentenced to two years in prison.

“He’s a political prisoner,” Missy Griggs told TAC from her home in Clinton Township, “and we’re not suppose to have political prisoners in this country. Oakland county prosecutor Jessica Cooper laughed when asked about him being a political prisoner, but Adam had sued the city of Royal Oak for passing that law banning medical marijuana.”

“He dropped that lawsuit after the raid, obviously.”

The community is outraged that Brook is in prison, away from his family. His wife is pregnant and will give birth while he’s there. She was the only one home when the SWAT team raided her house and is struggling with anxiety as a result of that the raid.

The irony of one of the leading organizers against marijuana prohibition being incarcerated isn’t lost on supporters, who have organized letter writing campaigns to send Brook money and support. Griggs is selling T-shirts donated by, “an anonymous compassionate person,” with all proceeds going to Brook and his family, and reports his health is deteriorating due to the refusal of prison authorities to treat his chronic issues.

Griggs says Brooks has Lymph edema, caused by an allergic reaction to an antibiotic. He was under the care of four or five specialists before going to prison, in fact he was at a physical therapy appointment when he was arrested.

“His legs are so swollen, he doesn’t even have ankles,” Griggs says, who visits Brook as often as she can. “His skin is splitting open from the swelling, and fluid is leaking out. When I saw him the wounds were open and there was no bandaging. Diseases and infections are rampant in that institutional environment. You can’t put that many guys in that small of a space and expect them to stay healthy.”

Meanwhile back in Ann Arbor, the city that hosts Hash Bash and has boasts the most liberal marijuana policies in the state for decades, is taking a careful, thoughtful approach to regulating medical marijuana despite ongoing difficulty with the city attorneys office.

A five-member medical marijuana licensing advisory board sent a letter on March 2^nd to the Ann Arbor City council members, saying the city attorney’s office seems to be aggressively trying to shut down dispensaries while the board tries to license them. The board went so far as to ask the council to, “tell the city attorney to stop enforcement activities against dispensaries until you have had time to look over the advisory board resolutions.”

Ann Arbor City Attorney Steven Postema sent cease and desist letters to all Ann Arbor dispensaries after the August 2011 Michigan Court of Appeals decision, which said many medical marijuana dispensary models were illegal. The ruling effectively shut down most dispensaries in the state, with the exception of Washtenaw and Genesee Counties, but that case is being appealed and is headed to the Supreme Court.

After the cease and desist letters, Postema’s office sent letters to the ten Ann Arbor dispensaries asking for their business model.

“We ignored them,” Ream says of the cease and desist letters, “because we have the citizen advisory board working at the same time and we believe in that committee. We’d rather follow their recommendations than do what Postema says. The review board was appointed by the city council.”

The review board is holding up their commitment to intelligently research, analyze and offer reasonable assessment in order to license dispensaries.

“What business,” the letter sent to the city council asks, “is it of the City to require a business plan of any business?”

The letter also makes a case for the legitimacy of dispensaries in Ann Arbor and argues for medical benefits. Members of the licensing board toured local dispensaries and said they were impressed with the consistent level of professionalism, privacy and security provided to patients.

“We saw remedies for pain, anxiety, appetite stimulators, and more, and recently learned of one dispensary offering a salve for arthritis pain,” the letter reads. “This may work better than traditional chemical medicine in the blood because our blood doesn’t flow through our joints. Anyway, patients claim it works better.”

As of this writing, Ann Arbor City Council members have postponed action on the resolution asking the city attorney’s office to cease enforcement against dispensaries.

WRITE TO ADAM BROOK

Adam Brook, #816462
Parnall Correctional Facility (SMT)
1780 E. Parnall
Jackson, MI 49201

Hash Bash Rally

University of Michigan Diag

12noon- 1:30pm

The Monroe Street Fair

The party after the rally

Monroe Street between Tappan and Oakland

1pm-6pm

The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled February 10 that the Detroit Election Commission violated its “clear legal duty” to give voters the opportunity to vote on a proposal in November 2010 that would have amended the city code to legalize possession of less than an ounce of marijuana by adults on private property.
A 2-1 majority of the appeals court panel said Detroit did not have the authority to thwart the proposal by Coalition for a Safer Detroit, which had collected sufficient petition signatures to force a vote. The commission’s decision was backed by Wayne County Circuit Court.

The Coalition For a Safer Detroit leader Tim Beck called the ruling “a great day for voters rights” and predicted Detroiters would approve the marijuana measure.

Becks group collected more than enough signatures to put the proposal on the ballot, however,  the Detroit Election Commission rejected it in August of 2010, suggesting the city cannot allow a behavior that state law prohibits.

“They basically used junk law to keep us off the ballot,” Beck told MLive.com. “We dotted every “I”. Crossed every “T.” We had almost double the amount of signatures we need, and they said they weren’t going to do it, that in essence rule of law does not apply to things they don’t like.”

Krystal Crittendon, corporation counsel for the Detroit law department, says the city plans to file an appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court, likely delaying attempts to place the measure on the August primary ballot.

The city had argued that they could not enact an ordinance that conflicts with state law and, therefore, could not place the “symbolic” initiative on the ballot.

“We respectfully disagree with the Court of Appeals,” Crittendon told MLive.com just five days after the ruling, noting that a trial court judge previously upheld the city’s position.

By Charmie Gholson

Doctor, my eyes, tell me what is wrong

Was I unwise to leave them open for so long?

Not even 24 hours after my friend Chuck Ream told me I should take better care of myself I had a total meltdown. “Charmie you simply cannot do everything yourself,” he said, “because, you know, I’ve been doing this stuff for 45 years and I’ve seen people literally kill themselves doing this work.”

I agreed at the time, thanked him. But the next day I was a complete mess: clumsy and desperate, yelling at people, angry and anxious. I was talking out loud to myself and telling others, “I’m doing everything I can and people are still suffering!” as if I’m personally responsible for not ending the drug war.

It took a few more days to sort out what was happening. I was experiencing activism burn out.

Although I’ve been working with drug war victims for years, I’m not formally trained to help people in trauma. But in the past six months here in Michigan, police raids on patients and caregivers have escalated. Parents call me, desperate for help after their children are taken from them and increasingly, activists I work with are targeted for technical violations of the medical marijuana law.

On February 3, a Crawford County Sheriff deputy accompanied Child Protective Services and a Grayling police officer into Will Reddie’s apartment to serve an emergency warrant and remove his three-year old son from the home. Why?

Police said they thought they smelled marijuana and claimed Will was “agitated and uncooperative.” Will was shot in the chest by the county deputy, who said he produced a pocketknife and lunged at them. He was killed in front his boy, who was immediately placed in foster care.

Will’s family is desperately trying to obtain custody of the child, but CPS is refusing, threatening them. They won’t allow them to see him.

I’ve been trying to help this family. I thought it was this most recent drug war horror that was the final straw for me, but it isn’t the endless stream of tragedies that has me tearing out my hair and shouting to the skies; it’s self-neglect.

When Will We Win?

Ira Glasser, President of the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), gave a presentation at the 2011 bi-annual DPA conference, answering the question, “when will we win?”

“It’s often said the fight for social justice is not a sprint; it’s a marathon. But it’s more than a marathon, it’s a marathon relay race,” he told the crowd.
“You can’t see where the track ends. You can just take the baton and run as hard as you can, and as far as you can, and as strategically as you can, and as smart as you can, for as long as you can, and then you hand the baton to the next person. And that’s how you do a movement.

Time never runs out. We just get to keep fighting and running and there’s no time clock. There is only our own suffering, and our commitment to end that suffering and we get to go on fighting.”

High stress levels and burnout are very common among activists, and are obviously unhealthy for us, our family, folks we work with and for the movement overall. Cynicism and negativity are side effects of chronic stress, and it’s not unusual for activists who’ve worked many years to privately suffer serious anguish and long-term physical, emotional and spiritual effects from their work. We are deeply dedicated people.

Jack Cole, founder and former executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) told me that he has to counsel his staff to, “take time off and not extend their work day past the required time. Of course they don’t listen. Sometimes I feel I need to get a stick to drive them out of the office in the evening. They are so dedicated.”

But highly stressed people are ineffective. They can also often create conflict, contribute to low morale and make the work look so unattractive that it discourages other folks from joining the cause, which is really bad because we need to hand over that baton to the next generation at the end of our run. We don’t want to scare them away.

The ACLU has an excellent guide to identifying, managing, preventing or rectifying activism burn out. Below is an excerpt from that article. It’s a comparative list between people who actively manage their stress, and those who remain passive, victimized, if you will.

Taking care of the one thing we have control over—ourselves—will help prevent spinning out of control, just like Chuck said. It is, I’m finding, a vital part of activism to shift our attention to stress management. It’s just like an airplane emergency; please put your own oxygen mask on first, before assisting others.

Thanks for reading. I’ll see you in the trenches.

ACTIVE STRESS MANAGER 

Puts Energy into areas that can be managed

Anticipates and plans for the future

Has a reservoir of time, energy for the unexpected, unplanned and crisis events

Accurate perception of both threats and support from the environment

Takes time to evaluate alternative strategies

Adopts a strategy to reduce stress directly

Takes care of self and body.

Avoids overloading capacity by pacing and relaxing

Seeks help and support as much as possible

Manages time by focusing on priorities

PASSIVE VICTIM OF STRESS 

Leaves many things to fate or chance

Does not think ahead and does not set clear priorities

Faces deadlines by cramming at the last minute

Sees environment as threatening

Lets problems accumulate

Compulsive, stereotyped responses to all threatening, stressful situations. Increases level of stress with his or her reaction

Lack of pacing, self-care or diversion

Works alone and does not call on help or outside resources

Takes on tasks that cannot be completed or are overwhelming

For more resources visit

http://action.aclu.org/site/PageServer?pagename=AS_burnoutprevention

The legislator generated Bills currently being considered in the House of Representatives and the Senate are designed to alter our medical marijuana act or other associated laws governing patients and caregivers. The impact of this pending legislation has been blunted by the efforts of the medical marijuana community, the organizations that support the cause, and the families that love them.

The House Judiciary Committee is chaired by Rep. Walsh, R-Livonia, and it is this body that has handled the majority of the recent legislative actions. In 2011 a package of 8 proposed Bills was introduced amidst much fanfare- and much criticism. The Bills were, in some cases, far-reaching and overstepped the constraints of law on such issues as controlling advertising and creating a parallel registry database held by the Michigan State Police.

Cannabis activists were quick to point out the flaws in these arguments, and in some cases logic won the day. Over the next half-year a sub-Committee was formed amongst the Judiciary committee members to investigate suggested changes to the medical marijuana laws. This group was headed by Reps. Horn, R-Frankenmuth, and Cavanagh, D-Redford.

The sub-Committee took input from various groups during their deliberations, including the Michigan State Police and the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan. Lobbyists from several cannabis-oriented groups were present, at least for some of the discussions, but no individual patients or caregivers were allowed to voice an opinion. What was deliberated, what was said, no one is telling.

The conversations that were taking place during that time were happening in offices, in coffeehouses, and on the airwaves across the state. Horn, Cavanagh, Reps. Irwin, D-Ann Arbor, and others were either seeking input from the community or were inundated with it. Patients and caregivers rallied on September 7^th in Lansing, and the show of support was staggering. During that rally, legislators attended several different meetings with several different groups of community representatives.

After the rally the pressure continued. Letters were written to Congresspersons and office visits were made. Lobby days, where groups of citizens with a common goal gather to meet with as many legislators as possible, were carried out. Website addresses were circulated so mass emails could be sent. When Representatives had open office hours in their local community, residents made their opinions known.

During the latter portions of 2011 and early into 2012, some legislators agreed to be interviewed on radio programs about the proposed changes to the law. In a series of conversations carried out on both the Medical Marijuana Radio Show and the Planet Green Trees Show, Reps. Walsh, Meadows, and the above-mentioned Reps fielded questions from the on-air staff and phone in callers. Conversations shed a light on the path the proposed changes had gone through, and opened the eyes of the legislators to potential consequences these laws present.

When viewed through the lens of the Horn/Cavanagh workgroup and with light created by these personal interactions, many of the proposed Bills were discarded outright and others were modified. What remained was presented to the Judiciary in a series of Hearings that began in February 2012 and concluded in March. The workgroup presented the remaining Bills, their current format, and the proposed Amendments originating from the workgroup.

Weighing in after the workgroup were other interested parties, those that had interactions with the workgroup and other informed associations. The law enforcement agencies were turned to law creation agencies through their influence over these Bills. Logical and reasonable arguments against some of the aspects of these Bills, and the changes they represent to patients, were presented by activists and attorneys alike.

On the third day, patient testimony began. For every legal citation and common-sense argument there was an emotional plea from a patient. The mixture of messages made the members of the House take note, and emotion crept into some of their faces while stories were shared. There is no doubt that the Representatives who were paying attention were informed, educated, and influenced.

Patient testimony only brings the issue into focus, it does not create law. Legislators look for hand-delivered solutions: legally-prepared and properly-structured amendments to laws that they can read, understand, and vote on without doing the creating themselves. Hearing the stories of abuses in the law may not have motivated the Representatives  to write an amendment to the proposed Bills-that will have to come from our community-but it may stay their hand in a vote where the faces of the sick are still fresh in their memories.

Coalition to President Obama: “It is time for a new approach on marijuana policy.” 

Apr 04, 2012 by Aaron Houston

Six National Drug Policy Organizations Call on President Obama to End Unnecessary Assault on Medical Marijuana Providers

Coalition to President Obama: “It is time for a new approach on marijuana policy.”

Contact: Aaron Houston, (202) 455-5869

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In the wake of recent attacks on medical marijuana providers and patients by multiple branches of the federal government, including Monday’s raids on Oaksterdam University in Oakland, CA, a coalition of six national drug policy reform organizations is appealing to President Obama and his administration to follow its own previously stated policies respecting state medical marijuana laws. In the letter, posted in full below, the organizations call on the Obama administration to bring an end to the federal government’s ongoing campaign to undermine state efforts to regulate safe and legal access to medical marijuana for those patients who rely on it.

The Obama Administration’s National Drug Control Strategy Report 2012, reportedly being released in the coming days, is expected to cling to failed and outdated marijuana policies which further cement the control of the marijuana trade in the hands of drug cartels and illegal operators, endangering both patients in medical marijuana states and citizens everywhere. The members of this coalition stand together with members of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, current and former Latin American leaders whose countries are being ravaged by drug cartels, state officials from five medical marijuana states, and tens of millions of Americans in their call for a more rational approach to marijuana policy.

THE LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA:

April 4, 2012

President Barack Obama

The White House

Washington D.C. 20500

Via Fax: 2024562461

Dear Mr. President:

Our coalition represents the views of tens of millions of Americans who believe the war on medical marijuana patients and providers you are fighting is misguided and counterproductive. As your administration prepares to release its annual National Drug Control Strategy, we want to speak with one voice and convey our deep sense of anger and disappointment in your lack of leadership on this issue.

Voters and elected officials in sixteen states and the District of Columbia have determined that the medical use of marijuana should be legal. In many of these states, the laws also include means for providing medical marijuana patients safe access to this medicine. These laws allowing for the cultivation and distribution of medical marijuana actually shift control of marijuana sales from the criminal underground to state-licensed, taxed, and regulated producers and distributors.

Instead of celebrating – or even tolerating – this state experimentation, which has benefited patients and taken profits away from drug cartels, you have turned your back as career law enforcement officials have run roughshod over some of the most professional and well-regulated medical marijuana providers. We simply cannot understand why you have reneged on your administration’s earlier policy of respecting state medical marijuana laws.

Our frustration and confusion over your administration’s uncalled-for attacks on state-authorized medical marijuana providers was best summed up by John McCowen, the chair of the Mendocino County (CA) board of supervisors, who said, “It’s almost as if there was a conscious effort to drive [medical marijuana cultivation and distribution] back underground. My opinion is that’s going to further endanger public safety and the environment – the federal government doesn’t seem to care about that.”

The National Drug Control Strategy you are about to release will no doubt call for a continuation of policies that have as a primary goal the ongoing and permanent control of the marijuana trade by drug cartels and organized crime. We cannot and do not endorse the continued embrace of this utterly failed policy. We stand instead with Latin American leaders, members of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, and the vast majority of people who voted you into office in recognizing that it is time for a new approach on marijuana policy.

With approximately 50,000 people dead in Mexico over the past five years as the result of drug war-related violence, we hope that you will immediately reconsider your drug control strategy and will work with, not against, states and organizations that are attempting to shift control of marijuana cultivation and sales, at least as it applies to medical marijuana, to a controlled and regulated market.

Sincerely,

Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP)

Drug Policy Alliance (DPA)

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP)

Marijuana Policy Project (MPP)

National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA)

National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML)

cc:  Eric Holder, Attorney General, Department of Justice

James Cole, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice

Gil Kerlikowske, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy

By Syndy Sweeney

When Senior Airman Michael Krawitz was severely injured in 1984 in Guam he didn’t think he’d survive. Not only did he survive, but 30 years later he’s a nationally and internationally recognized leader in movement to allow medical marijuana safe access for veterans. He’s now the Executive Director of Veterans for Medical Cannabis Access (VMCA), and Krawitz uses his experiences to help veterans on similar paths.

Krait’s journey began on the way home from dinner in what the military determined to be an “unavoidable accident” on a dangerous road “in the line of duty.” Pins were inserted into his right hip, a plate was put into his left arm, he lost a portion of his intestines, his pancreas was cut, and when a secondary infection occurred, doctors delayed closing his stomach for two months. Krawitz says, “My mom and dad were worried I wasn’t going to make it. It was that bad.”

Halfway through his recuperation, a recruiter passed him the remains of a marijuana cigarette. When he smoked it in the bathroom he had an epiphany. “Much to my amazement, it didn’t have the same kind of effect that you would have expected it to in high school. It made me feel better. Almost instantly, it changed my perspective on my condition.” It also motivated him. Caught smoking cannabis by a nurse and told to take it outside, Krawitz asked orthopedics to attach a cane to the cast on his left arm. With his right leg also in a cast, Krawitz slowly made his way out to the parking lot to medicate. Each day he walked a bit further. He says, “I don’t know that I would’ve ever recuperated or even survived my injuries were it not for cannabis.”

Now a disabled veteran whose access to marijuana became “hit-or-miss,” Krawitz realized cannabis helped him manage his pain much better than the 30 different opiate-based pain medications prescribed by VA doctors. His stomach couldn’t tolerate them and they failed to alleviate his pain. Frustrated, Krawitz began researching the history of cannabis and discovered 100 years ago it was legally prescribed by doctors. “I’m having to go through all these horrible other medicines with all of these horrible other problems,” he says about the discovery, “It really made me mad. And it continues to make me mad…that’s what turned me into an activist.”

The acceptance of cannabis as medicine and the ability to safely acquire it is the cornerstone of Krawitz’ activism. He also stressed that not all medicines work the same for everyone. “The same medicine that would make you sick and make you very uncomfortable might be the only thing that gives me relief.” But in a federally run VA system, veterans face denied access to the pain medicine. Bowing to DEA pressure, the VA requires veterans to sign pain contracts. Tantamount to a threat, a pain contract is an administrative denial of pain medication if veterans test positive for illegal drugs. Krawitz refused to sign his own pain contract and believes they’re unethical; especially because until recently, veterans legally registered in state-sponsored medical marijuana programs could also be denied their other pain medications.

According to Krawitz, before Michigan passed its medical marijuana law in 2008 Michigan activist Martin Chilcutt of the VMCA, “hounded the media about veterans being denied access to medical marijuana.” When the law was passed, Chilcutt’s advocacy prompted the media to ask the VA in Michigan for its view on medical marijuana. Hospital directors told the media that VA General Counsel Will Gunn had issued a policy saying that veterans who were compliant with state marijuana laws “wouldn’t run afoul of VA policies.”

This did not make sense to Krawitz. His own research revealed there was no proof that Gunn had ever spoken on this issue. Krawitz contacted Chilcutt. Acting on behalf of the VMCA, Krawitz wrote to Gunn who reported he had never made such a policy and wouldn’t.

In a March 2010 letter, Gunn stated, “The question of whether it is safe and appropriate to continue to prescribe opiates for pain to a patient who is also using marijuana is a medical issue rather than a legal issue. “ Gunn then referred the matter to Dr. Robert Petzel, the Under Secretary for Health of the VA. Petzel wrote Krawitz in July 2010, saying “If a Veteran obtains and uses medical marijuana in a manner consistent with state law, testing positive for marijuana would not preclude the Veteran from receiving opioids for pain management in Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facility.”

Petzel followed that letter with Directive 2011-0004, which officially states, “…patients participating in State marijuana programs must not be denied VHA services.”

While this directive could be considered a good first step, it also raises questions. Veterans cannot possess marijuana on VA grounds and are “at risk for prosecution under the Controlled Substances Act.” For veterans in long-term or residential care, will the threat of prosecution ultimately deny them their cannabis? The directive specifically prohibits “VA providers from completing forms seeking recommendations or opinions regarding a Veteran’s participation in a State marijuana program.”

If VA doctors cannot fill out forms or discuss cannabis with their patients, are the doctors themselves being denied Freedom of Speech? And if they can’t discuss the best medicine options with their patients, are they in violation of their Hippocratic Oath? Finally, if veterans living in states without medical marijuana laws are drug tested and reveal marijuana in their systems, these veterans can be refused VHA services. How ethical is it to deny veterans their pain medication because they live in the wrong state? While VA doctors are caught between providing individualized care to their patients and the government that regulates them, Krawitz hopes the ethical questions raised by the directive will urge doctors in the VA to stand up for the best interest of their patients.

Krawitz has filed a petition on www.whitehouse.gov to allow veterans access to medical marijuana to treat PTSD. While the petition received nearly 7700 signatures, no governmental action has been taken on it. In the meantime, Krawitz continues to advocate for legitimate research, as well as safe and legal access to marijuana as medicine. However he can, he holds true to his commitment to help his fellow veterans.

For more information about VMCA (also called Veterans for Medical Marijuana Access), please visit www.veteransformedicalmarijuana.org. The VMCA does not dispense medical advice or medical cannabis but if you or a loved one is a veteran having problems with access or receiving pain medication from the VA, please contact the VMCA; it may be able to help.

In the past year, an alarming legal argument has been put forward in California by opponents of medicinal cannabis, and it’s being used to deprive qualified individuals of the right to present a medical defense to criminal charges in our courts. They are attacking our right to form Associations (organizations made up of patients and their support networks). This is meant to deprive whole communities of safe access to cannabis. It is imperative that our movement, both here in California, as well as in Michigan, confront this legal strategy head on, in our criminal and civil courts.

Our opponents have completely misread the Medical Marijuana Program Act (a.k.a. SB420) and are asserting that California law allows qualified individuals (patients, their primary caregivers and personal assistants) to associate together merely for the purpose of cultivation, but not for the purposes of harvesting/processing, providing a space, transporting, storing, using, distributing or even possessing our cannabis!

Our ability to form collectives and cooperatives was directly addressed in Section 11362.775 of California’s Health and Safety Code, which states that “Qualified Individuals who associate within the State of California in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate (cannabis) for medical purposes, shall not solely on the basis of that fact be subject to state criminal sanctions…”. The only single fact that could reasonably be inferred from this Section of the Statute is that qualified individuals are protected from Sanctions that are based on their formation of such Associations. The operative words here are really that “qualified (individuals) who associate in the state of California…shall not solely on the basis of that fact be subjected to criminal sanctions.”

We have qualified immunity from seven entire statutes, yet only one of those protections (cultivation) is mentioned in the first part of the sentence, as a reason for qualified patients to associate together. The Compassionate Use Act (a.k.a. Proposition 215) protects qualified individuals from sanctions for the cultivation and possession of cannabis. It is absurd to suggest that our second cannabis law (the M.M.P.A.), listing seven statutes that qualified individuals are exempt from, must somehow be construed to only exempt us from criminal charges for cultivation, and not for the other listed statutes.
Another tactic used by prosecutors is to paint all cannabis farmers and distributors as “profiteers”. California laws include language regarding the reimbursement of “primary caregivers.” Prosecutors and law enforcement officers are mistakenly assuming that Collectives and Cooperatives do not already possess legal methods of seeking reimbursement for their operating expenses. In order to apply this logic, prosecutors have lately relied on some very strange hypothesis. Namely, that Collectives must be communist-run farms in order to qualify…or that the staffing of any non-profit or not-for-profit associations can never be paid positions…or that labor is not an operating expense, when applied to cannabis farms or dispensaries that operate in a collective or cooperative manner. All three of these assertions are patently absurd, yet they are being argued in courtrooms across California, as we speak.

Some of these cases are winding their way through the appeals court process. However, whenever local judges buy into this flawed legal argument, most qualified patients cannot afford to appeal their rulings and are effectively being denied their rights of Due Process. Additionally, many cities and counties have mistakenly defined associations to mean only “dispensaries”, and when applied to matters involving the licensing or zoning requirements of dispensaries, they are actually restricting patients’ rights to associate for any purposes whatsoever. Our rights to associate together, for any purposes (including the cultivation, procurement or uses of cannabis), must be acknowledged and protected. In California, we’re asking for the sponsors of the M.M.P.A. to release a new congressional letter of intent, to clarify these matters so that legitimate associations of qualified individuals can exercise their rights under our State laws, without running afoul of the criminal justice system. We must not allow our opponents to reverse the meaning of the laws that we have voted to change. We must not allow democracy to fail.

Jason Browne serves as an expert witness and courtroom investigator, educator and consultant to the medical cannabis industry. His firm is based in California, and they are now expanding to provide services throughout the U.S.A. www.fullcirclecannabis.com

By Samantha Miller

The current cannabis laboratory environment is unregulated so consumers have to be savvy. Knowing what questions to ask a prospective cannabis lab is key.  To help the process a group of laboratory service providers* from various states along with an international advisor compiled a list of 10 questions to ask a cannabis scientist. This can act as a quick reference guide for those looking for a qualified laboratory partner.

10 Questions to ask your cannabis scientist

1. What training or expertise do you have to be able to perform cannabis analysis?

2. Which cannabinoids do you test for? Do you have reliable reference standards for all of them?

3. How is CBN related to THC, and why is it important to test for it?

4. What kind of samples do you test (flowers, edibles, tincture)? Have you optimized your extraction and analysis protocol for each kind of sample?

5. What do you do with left-over samples?

6. Are you aware of acidic cannabinoids? In samples such as edibles and tincture they can be present at high levels. How do you deal with that?

7. What is your analytical methodology for testing cannabis (HPLC [liquid chromatograph], GC [gas chromatograph], TLC, other)? What are the limitations of your selected method?

8. What is the average THC/CBD content your lab has measured?

9. Did your lab ever test the same cannabis twice, with very different results? What was the explanation for that, and what has been changed to prevent it from happening again?

10. Analytical methods need to be ‘validated’ before you can be sure they are fully reliable. Have you done this already, and how did you do this.  Did it include a third party?  If you didn’t do it yet, how can I be sure my results will be accurate?

“Policymakers weighing the pros and cons of legalization should consider… that (these) laws may lead to fewer suicides among young adult males”

Bonn, Germany: The enactment of statewide laws allowing for the limited use of cannabis therapeutically is associated with reduced instances of suicide, according to a discussion paper published in January by the Institute for the Study of Labor in Bonn, Germany.

Researchers at Montana State University, the University of Colorado, and San Diego State University assessed rates of suicide in the years before and after the passage of statewide medical marijuana laws.

Authors found, “The total suicide rate falls smoothly during the pre-legalization period in both MML (medical marijuana law) and non-MML states. However, beginning in year zero, the trends diverge: the suicide rate in MML states continues to fall, while the suicide rate in states that never legalized medical marijuana begins to climb gradually.”

They reported that this downward trend in suicides in states post-legalization was especially pronounced in males. “Our results suggest that the passage of a medical marijuana law is associated with an almost 5 percent reduction in the total suicide rate, an 11 percent reduction in the suicide rate of 20- through 29-year-old males, and a 9 percent reduction in the suicide rate of 30- through 39-year-old males,” they determined.

Authors theorized that the limited legalization of cannabis may “lead to an improvement in the psychological well-being of young adult males, an improvement that is reflected in fewer suicides.” They further speculated, “The strong association between alcohol consumption and suicide-related outcomes found by previous researchers raises the possibility that medical marijuana laws reduce the risk of suicide by decreasing alcohol consumption.”

They concluded: “Policymakers weighing the pros and cons of legalization should consider the possibility that medical marijuana laws may lead to fewer suicides among young adult males.”

Full text of the discussion paper, “High on Life: Medical Marijuana Laws and Suicide,” is available online at: http://ftp.iza.org/dp6280.pdf.

For more information, please contact Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director, at (202) 583-5500 or Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director, at: paul@norml.org.