Technorati : cairo, civil unrest, egypt, hillary clinton, john mccain, mubarak, state department, united states

Call it the Pot Shot Heard ‘Round the World.

Oh, wait. Somebody already did that.

The Examiner online news site – one of many news organizations that picked up on the story of a Missoula jury pool that dug in its heels last month at the prospect of trying a case involving “a couple of buds” of marijuana – put a variation of that headline on its story.

Others likewise had fun with it. “The Great Montana Marijuana Mutiny,” the Wall Street Journal’s legal blog termed it.

“Where There’s Smoke, There’s Change,” pronounced the Toronto Star.

And Huffington Post declared in a possible first that “Sanity Broke Out in Missoula, Montana, Today.”

Headline hijinks aside, the jury pool’s action – and the reaction to it – has serious ramifications for continued prosecution of low-level nonviolent drug crimes, not just in Missoula County but around the country.

“It was almost like a slap in the face to the system,” said John Zeimet, of the moment on Dec. 16 when he watched his fellow prospective jurors, one after another, tell Missoula County District Judge Dusty Deschamps that not only were they disinclined to convict, but wondered aloud why taxpayer money was being wasted on the case.

“The people stood up and spoke out.”

The story “hit a nerve” around the country, said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the national Drug Policy Alliance that advocates drug law reform.

“It shows the emperor-has-no-clothes dimension to what happened. It’s an expression of what many people feel – that marijuana possession should no longer be illegal,” he said.

A Gallup Poll released Oct. 28 showed 46 percent of all Americans favor legalizing marijuana use. “A new high,” Gallup called it, representing a huge generational shift from the 1960s and ’70s, when 8 in 10 people queried by Gallup opposed its legalization.

In the 2010 poll,

58 percent of those in the western United States support legalization. The poll has a margin of error of 4 percentage points.

Count Deschamps among that 58 percent.

The judge and former Missoula County attorney said he’s “more or less” convinced that marijuana should be legalized in some form, despite being “much alarmed at what I consider to be rampant abuse of what I think was a well-intentioned initiative” – that being the 2004 statewide voter initiative that legalized medical marijuana in Montana. Deschamps also voted for that initiative.

“We’ve seen some downside in the medical marijuana thing, but I’m reasonably convinced that, over the years, I haven’t seen very many criminals go out and commit horrible crimes under the influence of marijuana. Alcohol is 10 times the problem marijuana is, a hundred times.”

Zeimet, a 53-year-old truck driver from Huson, also thinks marijuana ought to be legalized, and – like many other members of the Dec. 16 jury pool – objected to the expense of trying Teuray Cornell on a drug possession charge.

“It upset a lot of people,” he said. “You’re wasting the people’s time and the city’s time and money to do something silly and stupid like this.”

*****

CONTINUE READING THRU THIS LINK

Technorati : cannabis, federal, hemp, jury, jury nullification, marijuana, mutiny, prop 19, state

Newshawk: Herb
Pubdate: Sat, 25 Dec 2010
Source: Missoulian (MT)
Copyright: 2010 Missoulian
Contact: oped@missoulian.com
Website: http://www.missoulian.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/720
Author: Charles S. Johnson

INTERIM LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE’S PROPOSALS TO CHANGE MEDICAL MARIJUANA
LAW WIDE-RANGING

HELENA – Here are the highlights of an interim legislative
committee’s major proposal to revise the state’s Medical Marijuana
Act and create a regulatory structure for the industry.

Rep. Diane Sands, D-Missoula, has introduced the bill on behalf of
the Children, Families, Health and Human Services Interim Committee
that she chaired. Here are its key provisions, according to a summary
by legislative researcher Sue O’Connell:

. Creates a state licensing and regulatory structure for medical
marijuana businesses.

The Revenue Department would be in charge of regulation, while the
Department of Public Health and Human Services would continue to
register patients qualified to use medical marijuana.

Parolees, probationers and individuals under youth court supervision
may not receive cards.

. Creates a tiered licensing system for people growing and selling
medical marijuana.

A provider would be an individual who grows or obtains medical
marijuana for registered cardholders and is limited to working with
five or fewer cardholders.

A medical marijuana dispensary may sell marijuana to more than five
cardholders.

A medical marijuana-infused products manufacturer may make products,
such as edible products or tinctures.

A medical marijuana grower may grow marijuana for a dispensary or
infused products manufacturer. This grower must also have a license
for one of those other businesses.

. Establishes requirements for people applying for a license to grow
and sell medical marijuana. Applicants must submit fingerprints for a
national criminal history background check. They may not have felony
convictions of any kind, nor be on probation or parole or be under
youth court supervision.

Applicants may not be licensed if they owe taxes, child support or
student loans.

Applicants must disclose the names of all people affiliated with the
business and those with financial interests in the business.

The bill would require regular monitoring of license holders.
Licensees must provide quarterly reports on sales, revenues and other
items. The Revenue Department may inspect the business premises and
audit its records.

. Gives local government the authority to regulate. A local
government may establish zoning regulations, business licensing
requirements and building codes and standards, but may not ban
medical marijuana within its boundaries.

. Establishes new requirement for physicians. It creates a definition
of standard of care and requires physicians to meet the standard when
providing a written certification for use of medical marijuana. They
must have an office in the state and not located where medical
marijuana is grown, stored or distributed.

It prohibits physicians from having any financial ties to a medical
marijuana business if they provide written certifications for medical
marijuana.

. Revises the existing law to clean up gray areas. It requires that
applicants for medical marijuana registry cards and business licenses
be Montana residents. A proof of residency would be required for
applicants using medical marijuana cards. There would be a two-year
residency requirement for people applying for licenses to grow or
sell the product.

Two physician certifications are necessary to get a card for chronic
pain. A person with cancer, glaucoma, HIV or AIDS may receive a card
when the symptoms of the condition are seriously affecting the
person’s health status.

It increases from 1 ounce to 2 ounces the amount of usable marijuana
a person may possess, but caps purchases at 2 ounces per month. The
current law has no limits on the frequency of purchases.

It prohibits the smoking of medical marijuana in public.

It repeals the so-called “affirmative defense” that people could
raise in court, even if they weren’t registered to use or grow
medical marijuana or had more than the allowable amount.

For News, Recipes, and Medical Info
Come visit us at http://www.letfreedomgrow.com

Technorati : Diane Sands, cannabis, hemp, marijuana, medical marijuana, regulatory structure of dispensaries

A funny thing happened on the way to a trial in Missoula County District Court last week.

Jurors – well, potential jurors – staged a revolt.

They took the law into their own hands, as it were, and made it clear they weren’t about to convict anybody for having a couple of buds of marijuana. Never mind that the defendant in question also faced a felony charge of criminal distribution of dangerous drugs.

The tiny amount of marijuana police found while searching Touray Cornell’s home on April 23 became a huge issue for some members of the jury panel.

No, they said, one after the other. No way would they convict somebody for having a 16th of an ounce.

In fact, one juror wondered why the county was wasting time and money prosecuting the case at all, said a flummoxed Deputy Missoula County Attorney Andrew Paul.

District Judge Dusty Deschamps took a quick poll as to who might agree. Of the 27 potential jurors before him, maybe five raised their hands. A couple of others had already been excused because of their philosophical objections.

“I thought, ‘Geez, I don’t know if we can seat a jury,’ ” said Deschamps, who called a recess.

And he didn’t.

During the recess, Paul and defense attorney Martin Elison worked out a plea agreement. That was on Thursday.

On Friday, Cornell entered an Alford plea, in which he didn’t admit guilt. He briefly held his infant daughter in his manacled hands, and walked smiling out of the courtroom.

“Public opinion, as revealed by the reaction of a substantial portion of the members of the jury called to try the charges on Dec. 16, 2010, is not supportive of the state’s marijuana law and appeared to prevent any conviction from being obtained simply because an unbiased jury did not appear available under any circumstances,” according to the plea memorandum filed by his attorney.

“A mutiny,” said Paul.

“Bizarre,” the defense attorney called it.

In his nearly 30 years as a prosecutor and judge, Deschamps said he’s never seen anything like it.

*****

“I think that’s outstanding,” John Masterson, who heads Montana NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws), said when told of the incident. “The American populace over the last 10 years or so has begun to believe in a majority that assigning criminal penalties for the personal possession of marijuana is an unjust and a stupid use of government resources.”

Masterson is hardly an unbiased source.

On the other hand, prosecutor, defense attorney and judge all took note that some of the potential jurors expressed that same opinion.

“I think it’s going to become increasingly difficult to seat a jury in marijuana cases, at least the ones involving a small amount,” Deschamps said.

The attorneys and the judge all noted Missoula County’s approval in 2006 of Initiative 2, which required law enforcement to treat marijuana crimes as their lowest priority – and also of the 2004 approval of a statewide medical marijuana ballot initiative.

And all three noticed the age of the members of the jury pool who objected. A couple looked to be in their 20s. A couple in their 40s. But one of the most vocal was in her 60s.

“It’s kind of a reflection of society as a whole on the issue,” said Deschamps.

Which begs a question, he said.

Given the fact that marijuana use became widespread in the 1960s, most of those early users are now in late middle age and fast approaching elderly.

Is it fair, Deschamps wondered, in such cases to insist upon impaneling a jury of “hardliners” who object to all drug use, including marijuana?

“I think that poses a real challenge in proceeding,” he said. “Are we really seating a jury of their peers if we just leave people on who are militant on the subject?”

Although the potential jurors in the Cornell case quickly focused on the small amount of marijuana involved, the original allegations were more serious – that Cornell was dealing; hence, a felony charge of criminal distribution of dangerous drugs.

Because the case never went to trial, members of the jury pool didn’t know that Cornell’s neighbors had complained to police that he was dealing from his South 10th Street West four-plex, according to an affidavit in the case. After one neighbor reported witnessing an alleged transaction between Cornell and two people in a vehicle, marijuana was found in the vehicle in question.

The driver and passenger said they’d bought it from Cornell, the affidavit said. A subsequent search of his home turned up some burnt marijuana cigarettes, a pipe and some residue, as well as a shoulder holster for a handgun and 9mm ammunition. As a convicted felon, Cornell was prohibited from having firearms, the affidavit noted.

Cornell admitted distributing small amounts of marijuana and “referred to himself as a person who connected other dealers with customers,” it said. “He claimed his payment for arranging deals was usually a small amount of marijuana for himself.”

Potential jurors also couldn’t know about Cornell’s criminal history, which included eight felonies, most of them in and around Chicago several years ago. According to papers filed in connection with the plea agreement, Cornell said he moved to Missoula to “escape the criminal lifestyle he was leading,” but he’s had a number of brushes with the law here.

Those include misdemeanor convictions for driving while under the influence and driving with a suspended license, and a felony conviction in August of conspiracy to commit theft, involving an alleged plot last year to stage a theft at a business where a friend worked, the papers said. He was out on bail in that case when the drug charges were filed.

In sentencing him Friday, Deschamps referred to him as “an eight-time loser” and said, “I’m not convinced in any way that you don’t present an ongoing threat to the community.”

Deschamps also pronounced himself “appalled” at Cornell’s personal life, saying: “You’ve got no education, you’ve got no skills. Your life’s work seems to be going out and impregnating women and not supporting your children.”

The mother of one of those children, a 3-month-old named Joy who slept through Friday’s sentencing, was in the courtroom for Friday’s sentencing. Cornell sought and received permission to hug his daughter before heading back to jail.

Deschamps sentenced Cornell to 20 years, with 19 suspended, under Department of Corrections supervision, to run concurrently with his sentence in the theft case. He’ll get credit for the 200 days he’s already served. The judge also ordered Cornell to get a GED degree upon his release.

“Instead of being a lazy bum, you need to get an education so you can get a decent law-abiding job and start supporting your family,” he said.

Normally, Paul said after the sentencing, a case involving such a small amount of marijuana wouldn’t have gone this far through the court system except for the felony charge involved.

But the small detail in this case may end up being a big game-changer in future cases.

The reaction of potential jurors in this case, Paul said, “is going to be something we’re going to have to consider.”

Reporter Gwen Florio can be reached at 523-5268 or at gwen.florio@missoulian.com.

Posted in Local, Medical_cannabis on Sunday, December 19, 2010 6:30 am Updated: 7:23 am. | Tags: Medical Cannabis, Missoula County, Cannabis, Law, Missoula County District Court, Marijuana, Crime,

Posted by ShereeKrider

Friday, 17 December 2010 20:53

Legal Times of Washington

December 16, 2010

D.C. Court Upholds Arrest of Protesters at Supreme Court

The District of Columbia’s highest court today unanimously upheld the conviction of six protesters who were arrested in January 2007 on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court for unfurling a 30-foot banner that said, “STOP EXECUTIONS!”

The six protesters who challenged the prosecution had unfurled the banner while they were waiting in line the morning of Jan. 17, 2007, to attend an argument session in the high court. The demonstration marked the 30-year anniversary of the execution of Gary Gilmore, the first person put to death since the reinstatement of capital punishment in 1976.

The demonstrators, according to court records, chanted: “What do we want? Abolition. When do we want it? Now.” The chief of the Supreme Court police issued two verbal warnings that the protesters were violating a law that prohibits parades and banner displays in the Supreme Court and on the Court’s grounds, according to court records. A Superior Court judge found the protesters guilty at a non-jury trial.

In the D.C. Court of Appeals, a court-appointed lawyer argued the arrest of the protesters violated the First Amendment expression right because the authorities did not tell the demonstrators about an alternative location for the group to carry and display the banner.

A three-judge appellate panel—Chief Judge Eric Washington, Judge Inez Smith Reid and Senior Judge John Terry—today unanimously affirmed the convictions. The judges said in their ruling that the Supreme Court plaza is a “non-public forum for First Amendment purposes.” The court’s opinion is here.

The Supreme Court itself has ruled that the prohibition on processions that applies to the plaza in front of the high court does not apply to the sidewalk adjacent to it, the appellate judges noted in their opinion.

The appellate judges said there is no case law supporting the argument that the authorities need to inform protesters about an alternative location to demonstrate. “To the contrary, controlling precedent—and common sense—make clear that such a warning is not required,” the D.C. Court of Appeals said.

The panel judges said Supreme Court police gave the protesters “ample opportunity to move to the sidewalk, or any other place where they might have chosen to voice their concerns legally, by issuing multiple warnings to them over a period of several minutes before any arrests were made.”

The lawyer for the protesters, Mark Goldstone, a solo practitioner in Washington, argued the arrests were unlawful based on the language of the statute itself. The statute prohibits banners in the Supreme Court “building and grounds.”

Goldstone argued the conjunction “and” means the protesters could only be arrested for displaying a banner both in the court and on the court grounds. An earlier version of the statute include the word “or.”

The appeals court said a review of legislative history showed no intent to change the substance or scope of the statute from its earlier version.

More photos from the protest after the jump.

Photos by National Law Journal photographer Diego M. Radzinschi

By Rob Hotakainen

McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — The cannabis industry has flexed its muscles in 15 states where it’s legal to smoke marijuana for medical purposes. Now the industry is ready to go to work in Washington.

A new trade group, called the National Cannabis Industry Association, is an attempt to bring together sellers, growers and manufacturers and to promote pot on Capitol Hill.

“Our intent is to be the go-to organization in Washington for this industry,” said Aaron Smith, the group’s executive director.

For the past five years, Smith worked as the California director of the Marijuana Policy Project.

“Coming out of California and expanding into this national field is pretty exciting,” he said. “There’s been a lot of enthusiasm…. It’s pretty clear that the medical marijuana industry is becoming recognized more and more by the mainstream as a fully legitimate part of the economy.”

Even though California voters last month rejected a ballot initiative to legalize marijuana for all adults, Smith said it was just a matter of time before the drug was fully legalized.

“Legalization is looking inevitable,” he said. “It didn’t happen in 2010, but it’s likely to happen in 2012…. It’s going to be relatively soon we’re going to see states move from medical marijuana into broader legal markets. And the federal government needs to catch up. Frequently the American people are ahead of the Congress.”

But Smith will have a hard time finding many

marijuana advocates in Congress.

On Wednesday, the House of Representatives voted 400-4 to back a resolution sponsored by California Republican Rep. Wally Herger that calls on authorities to get tougher with those who cultivate marijuana on federal land.

In a speech on the House floor, Herger said the presence of Mexican marijuana cartel operations in national forests in Northern California “poses a serious threat to our public safety and use of our public lands.”

Democratic Rep. Steve Kagen of Wisconsin called medical marijuana “a misnomer,” adding: “There is nothing safe about smoking. There is nothing safe about smoking an illicit product called marijuana.”

Smith said the association officially formed this month, putting together a 23-member board that includes leaders in the cannabis industry, who represent dispensaries, operators, publications and insurance providers, among others.

The association’s first target will be a federal law that prohibits marijuana use even if states have legalized it. The law has resulted in confusion amid overlapping jurisdictions, with state authorities enforcing state laws and federal officials enforcing federal laws.

But President Obama’s administration has been easing up. Last year, Attorney General Eric Holder ordered federal prosecutors to back away from cases against medical marijuana patients and to focus on higher-level traffickers or money launderers.

“I’d like to see that codified by Congress, to become the law of the land, not just an executive order,” Smith said. “This industry’s biggest challenges are the obstacles presented by federal law, so that’s why we’re focusing on the change to federal law first and foremost.”

With Republicans poised to take control of the House, Smith said: “I can’t say that I’m super optimistic, but we’ll definitely be pushing the message of federalism, which the Republicans should listen to. All we’re really asking for is to allow the states to essentially make up their own minds on marijuana policy.”

Smith noted that the issue of medical marijuana has bipartisan appeal: Republican candidates won a clean sweep in Arizona last month, but voters still approved the use of medical marijuana.

“This is not a left issue,” he said. “This is a mainstream issue, and Republicans should embrace it.”

Read more: http://www.kansas.com/2010/12/13/1631040/medical-pot-industry-sets-its.html#ixzz18P0oNofX

Mission Incomplete Veterans Speak Out Against DADT »

Judge Andrew Napolitano & Rob Kampia: Federal Government & Marijuana Legalization

By jr

This entry was posted on December 13, 2010 at 2:05 am and is filed under

 andrew napolitano, medical marijuana, news, politics, video.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Posted on December 12, 2010 by Beyond The Curtain

Daniel Tencer
The Raw Story

Legalization ‘looking inevitable,’ spokesman says

If there’s one group of people who get their way in Washington, it’s lobbyists.

Now, advocates of marijuana legalization may have a reason to cheer that political reality: They’re getting their own marijuana lobby group.

And just Big Pharma and Big Oil lobby for greater leeway for their businesses, so too will Big Marijuana push for their industry to be given the freedom to succeed.

Aaron Smith, executive director of the newly formed National Cannabis Industry Association, says that marijuana legalization is “looking inevitable.”

Smith told McClatchy news service: “It’s pretty clear that the medical marijuana industry is becoming recognized more and more by the mainstream as a fully legitimate part of the economy.”

Legalization “didn’t happen in 2010, but it’s likely to happen in 2012,” he added. “It’s going to be relatively soon we’re going to see states move from medical marijuana into broader legal markets. And the federal government needs to catch up. Frequently the American people are ahead of the Congress.”

The NCIA notes that 15 states have now legalized medical marijuana, providing the lobby group with a legal base from which to operate and collect funding. And just as Big Pharma and Big Oil frame their demands through the prism of American jobs, so too will the National Cannabis Industry Association argue that legalizing marijuana will put thousands of Americans to work.

“The ever-expanding list of state-sanctioned medical cannabis providers and ancillary businesses have easily become a multi-billion dollar industry in the United States, generating thousands of good jobs and paying tens – if not hundreds – of millions in taxes,” Smith said in a statement last month. “These businesses have clearly earned the right to strong representation on the national stage and recognition as a true force for economic growth.”

According to McClatchy, the lobby group’s first target will be a federal law that upholds marijuana prohibition in states that have legalized it. But the news service notes it could be an uphill battle: By a margin of 400 to 4, House representatives recently voted in favor of a resolution calling for tougher laws against those who grow pot on federal land.

And the US’s most high-profile political battle for marijuana legalization — California’s Proposition 19 — lost by a margin of 57 to 43 in last month’s vote. The defeat for pot activists came after US Attorney General Eric Holder said he would continue enforcing federal marijuana laws in the state regardless of how Californians voted.

Smith sounded an ambivalent note about his lobby group’s prospects in the coming Republican-dominated House, suggesting that framing the argument as a states’ rights issue — each state should decide its own pot policies — should appeal to federalist Republicans.

“I can’t say that I’m super optimistic, but we’ll definitely be pushing the message of federalism, which the Republicans should listen to,” he told McClatchy. “All we’re really asking for is to allow the states to essentially make up their own minds on marijuana policy.”

Back in the early 1980s, I interviewed an old rancher who lived in Dragoon, Arizona for a feature story about rural Cochise County.

His 1800s stone ranch house was decorated with rustic furniture, a smattering of family heirlooms, and a large collection of old glass bottles. Being somewhat of an antique buff myself, I remarked at the variety of old bottles he had collected. As I photographed him, his house, and the bottle collection, I asked where he had gotten them all.

“This house is on the Mormon Trail,” he explained. “I found them all on my property.”

“The Mormon Trail?” I inquired– thinking it was a migration route like the Oregon Trail or Cornado’s Trail.

The grizzled old rancher chuckled, “The Mormon Trail is the route the Mormons took from St. David to the bars in Willcox. They didn’t want their family members or church elders in St. David to know they had been drinking in Willcox, so they dropped the evidence– the alcohol bottles– along the Mormon Trail as they rode their horses back home.”

I was reminded of the old rancher’s story this morning when I read Mesa seeks to seclude shops selling medical pot in today’s Arizona Daily Star.

In an attempt to legislate morality and control the temptation of the evil weed– even though it has been approved only for medical purposes– Mesa’s city council is considering highly restrictive zoning laws. Here is an excerpt from the Star (with emphasis added).

Mesa won’t let medical-marijuana shops open in most of its commercial districts, with city leaders saying they don’t want the substance sold near neighborhoods or in prominent locations.

Instead, the shops will be forced to industrial areas and just one kind of commercial use.
The city is taking a different approach from most other Arizona cities, which so far have been restricting the shops to commercial zones. The city staff had proposed that kind of regulation, but members of the City Council feared that would put the stores at the corner of major intersections.

The stores will be restricted from most areas in the city, as they must be at least a mile from each other, 2,400 feet from rehab facilities, 1,200 feet from churches and schools, and 500 feet from day-care facilities or preschools.

A map prepared by the city shows only slivers of land where the shops could open.

This is folly, and obviously another example of Arizona’s nanny state leanings. Once the Arizona Department of Health Services sets up the system for licensing dispensaries, caregivers, and medical providers, medical marijuana sales will begin in Arizona. It will be legal– even for Mesans– to purchase medical marijuana with a doctor’s recommendation.

The Mesa city fathers should learn a lesson from the Mormon Trail story. If people want or need drugs– legal or otherwise– they will find a way to obtain then, even if it means driving to an industrial district of their lily-white city or (heaven forbid) driving into Phoenix.

This entry was posted on Saturday, December 11th, 2010 at 10:38 am and is filed under 2010 elections, Arizona, Drugs, medical marijuana, nanny state. Tags for this post: Arizona, medical marijuana, Mesa, nanny state. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.