Another Study Finds Dispensaries do not Impact Area Crime

Despite the factors that would lead one to believe that medical marijuana dispensaries breed lawbreaking, yet another study raised questions with regards to the link between crime and the establishments, the L.A. Times reports.

Nancy Kepple and Bridget Freisthler from UCLA's Luskin School of Public Affairs published a study in the July issue of Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. The pair studied Sacramento in 2009, mapping all 40 dispensaries in the city.

While traditional factors — such as unemployment, commercial zoning and a high proportion of young adults — correlated with higher crime rates, pot shops did not. Kepple and Freisthler seem to not want to believe the findings of their own data.

They stated: "the density of medical marijuana dispensaries may not be associated with neighborhood-level crime rates."

This is not the first time a report with findings contrary to the conventional wisdom that medical marijuana shops equal rampant crime. A report drafted by the RAND Corporation, a think tank that tackles issues as far ranging as international policy, retracted a report that studied Los Angeles dispensaries in Oct. 2011 with similar conclusions.

Like all wars, one of the casualties in the drug war is truth.

I-502's DUI Provision: A Look At The Facts And FAQs

One of the most controversial provisions of New Approach Washington’s I-502 is its per se DUI limit of 5 nanograms of active THC metabolite per milliliter of blood. It's a limit that some critics have dubbed “unscientific” and “draconian.” Others claim that it is not a measure of impairment and would threaten the driving rights of every medical cannabis patient in Washington State.

These are serious criticisms. So how does New Approach Washington defend its 5 nanogram provision?

When 502 was filed with the Secretary of State's office in June 2011, the New Approach Washington website listed one study to justify the 5 nanogram limit. It was a meta-study (or survey) of many dozens of currently existing studies and was authored by Grotenhermen, Leson and others. Here's what NAW said of the study at the time:

A meta-analysis of 90 experimental studies of the impact of smoked and oral marijuana on driving, and comparison with the results of a meta-analysis on alcohol and driving, suggest that a THC concentration of 5 ng/mL whole blood corresponds approximately to 0.08 BAC.

What did the study itself say? It's a lengthy study and it made many interesting observations, including this telling one:

The crash risk apparently begins to exceed that of sober drivers as THC concentrations in whole blood reach 5–10 ng/mL (corresponding to about 10–20 ng/mL in blood serum or plasma). Because recent studies involved only a few drivers with THC concentrations in that critical range, a reliable assessment of the associated crash risk is still lacking.

Translation: scientists think there's some statistical noise between active THC concentrations of 5 to 10 nanograms, but there's not enough evidence to reach firm conclusions. It's telling that NAW no longer includes the claim that the above study asserts that 5 nanograms “corresponds approximately to 0.08 BAC” on its DUI FAQ sheet.

Instead, NAW now uses the same Grotenhermen study to back its assertion on its FAQ sheet that “THC impairs driving skills, and the impairment can last for a few hours after smoking or consuming marijuana.” This, despite the fact that the same exact study states, as I quoted above, “a reliable assessment of the associated crash risk is still lacking.”

NAW's DUI FAQ sheet now leans heavily upon yet another meta-study from which the 502 group plucks a graph showing that automobile crash risk begins to double at 5 nanograms of active THC metabolite. But in using this graph, NAW is being deceptive.

The 5 ngs doubles crash risk figure touted by NAW is taken from crash data gathered in Australia. A graph of the data is reproduced on NAW's DUI FAQ sheet and the group claims “Studies of marijuana use and driving suggest that THC levels exceeding 5 ng/mL are associated with increased risk of accidents.”

Why would data from Australian drivers be used to impose DUI limits on American drivers? I don't even have a guess, but it does strike me as highly unusual to impose driving standards on an American state based upon crash results from an entirely different country with different driving standards—in Oz, they drive on the other side of the road, after all—and what is likely to be a different driving culture.

Besides, this same meta-study—which examines a dizzying range of studies—also points to many studies that show no link (or weak links) between cannabis use and accidents. NAW simply chose to pick one single study from one single section of the meta-study to buttress its case for 5 nanograms. Picking evidence in this fashion is not a good way to set public policy, especially when one of the final points of the study is this:

Overall, though, case-control and culpability studies have been inconclusive, a determination reached by several other recent reviewers. Similar disagreement has never existed in the literature on alcohol use and crash risk.

(BTW, an interesting fact that I ran across recently is that a Canadian study finds a 70 percent increase--so almost a doubling of crash risk--in the risk of traffic accidents when it is raining. Do we automatically hand drivers a DUI for driving in the rain? Do we call them impaired because they are driving in the rain? Of course not.)

NAW also uses one other study to support its 5 nanogram limit. It's a study by a National Institute on Drug Abuse researcher named Erin Karschner. In it, 25 chronic daily cannabis users were put into a locked facility and abstained from cannabis use for seven days. Their blood levels were taken at regular intervals to measure for active THC metabolite among other things. NAW uses this study to assert that “Even heavy marijuana users like medical marijuana patients should have their THC levels drop below

5 ng/mL if they wait a few hours before driving.”

But that's not an accurate representation of what the study concluded. Here's what Karschner wrote:

Substantial whole blood THC concentrations persist multiple days after drug discontinuation in heavy chronic cannabis users. It is currently unknown whether neurocognitive impairment occurs with low blood THC concentrations, and whether return to normal performance, as previously documented following extended cannabis abstinence, is accompanied by removal of residual THC in brain.

And here's another finding from the study that NAW fails to mention and it's something that should make most frequent cannabis users feel real concern:

For the first time to our knowledge, negative whole blood specimens were found interspersed between positive samples.

In other words, some of the study subjects would test positive for THC metabolite on admission to the study and then test negative a bit later—only to test positive again after that. Regardless of the reason for such fluctuations or at what nanogram level they occur, how can NAW claim measuring active THC metabolite is an appropriate measure of anything, much less impairment, when its presence varies so widely? Would jurors believe a prosecutor who said a set of fingerprints matched a suspect one day, but then didn't the next day, until they were tested a third time when they again matched? Probably not.

And, in case you were wondering, that positive-negative fluctuation has been confirmed by a second study, one I'll soon discuss.

It is clear from a hard look at NAW's defense of its 5 nanogram limit that it is playing loose with the facts and cherry-picking studies in order to justify this provision. Is that any way to appropriately set public policy?

I-502: Tax Revenue at the Expense of Affordable Patient Access

     Supporters of I-502 boast of projected state tax revenues of more than $500 million annually.  During tough economic times, this fiscal boost appears encouraging, but at what cost to medical cannabis patients?

     Patients currently pay sales tax on medical cannabis, despite the fact that “prescribed” medicines, like antibiotics, insulin and oxycodone, are exempt from sales tax.  I-502, unfortunately, goes a step further, and in addition to sales tax, imposes a 25% excise tax (“cannabis tax”) on every transaction involving cannabis.  Thus, tax is imposed on each wholesale purchase and every retail purchase of cannabis. This “pyramiding” of the cannabis tax is unlike sales tax, which is generally imposed only on the final retail transaction.   

So why is this pyramiding of the tax so significant?  I-502 sets up a licensing structure for the production, processing, and sale of cannabis, resulting in potentially three transactions of cannabis from the grower to the patient: (1) grower à processor; (2) processor à retailer; (3) retailer à patient.  For example, assuming a gram of cannabis is priced at $5/gram by growers; $10/gram by processors; and $15/gram at retail, the total cannabis tax paid is $7.50.[*]  

Sale	Price per Gram	Cannabis Tax	Sales Tax
1stSale: Producer/Grower to à Processor	$5/gram	$1.25
2nd Sale: Processor à Retailer	$10/gram	$2.50
3rd Sale: Retailer à Consumer	$15/gram	$3.75	$1.78
Total Tax		$7.75	$1.43

Total State Tax = $8.93.  This total does not include other applicable state and local taxes, including business and occupation tax.

      Although I-502 moves in the right direction with regard to the decriminalization of cannabis, its taxing scheme is harmful to patients.  The 25% cannabis tax is ultimately passed on to patients by way of higher prices for medicine.  Washington voters passed laws permitting the medical use of cannabis out of compassion for the sick and disabled.  This taxing scheme flies in the face of that compassion.  At the very least, I-502 should have include tax relief for medical cannabis patients.   An open and honest discussion on the impact of this onerous taxing scheme on medical cannabis patients must join the discussion on the implications of I-502.

---

[*] Purchase and resale by an independent processor may be excluded, reducing the total cannabis tax paid to the state.

Pro-Pot Former Judge Clinches Democratic Nom for Oregon's AG Post, Defeats Drug Warrior

Ellen Rosenblum, a former judge who campaigned on a pro-marijuana platform, defeated an outspoken anti-pot former U.S. attorney for the Democratic nomination for Oregon attorney general The Raw Story and the Seattle Times reports.

Rosenblaum, bolstered by more than 50,000 registered marijuana smokers in the state, snatched the election from Dwight Holton. Advocates of marijuana piled on contributions to Rosenblaum.

An outspoken critic of Oregon's medical marijuana laws, Holton had also overseen raids on medical marijuana growers during his tenure as interim U.S. attorney.

The former judge's website stated: "I do not believe that prosecuting people for possessing small amounts of marijuana represents the best use of our resources. A better use of those resources is providing more treatment options for people with drug and alcohol addiction. As Attorney General, I will make marijuana enforcement a low priority, and protect the rights of medical marijuana patients."

"Which Way, L.A.?" Interviews Councilmen Huizar and Koretz

"Which Way, L.A.?" a Los Angeles public affairs show broadcast by public radio station KCRW featured the two Councilmembers in the center of a possible medical marijuana dispensary ban.

Jose Huizar, the councilman whose proposal to shutter dispensaries in favor of three-person collectives, is interviewed as well as Paul Koretz, the councilman who floated an alternative proposal to keep 100 dispensaries open. Ultimately, Huizar's proposal won out against Koretz's plan.

Huizar, and by extension the L.A. City Council's Planning and Land Use Management Committee that unanimously approved his proposal, came off as bureaucrats attempting to cover their asses rather than fulfilling the will of the people that voted to allow medical marijuana to begin with.

Koretz's solution, while not perfect, attempts to preserve the intent of the law and at least tries to do something, rather than just roll over because taking a stand would be difficult.

http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/ww/ww120530competing_medical_ma

L.A. City Council Ignores Koretz Proposal, Moves for Total Dispensary Ban

The Los Angeles City Council's Planning and Land Use Management Committee advanced a complete ban on dispensaries in the city. Councilman's Jose Huizar proposal would only limit collectives to three or fewer people, allow them to grow pot and transport it.

Huizar and Councilmembers Ed Reyes, chairman of the committee, and Mitch Englander disapproved of an alternate proposal from Studio City Councilman Paul Koretz to allow 100 dispensaries to remain open until lawsuits regarding medical marijuana laws are settled.

Dispensary supporters included attorney Steven Lubell, who said, "You're cutting off access to the patients, which is against what Proposition 215 says. Instead of totally banning and waiting for the supremes to rule, have some form of regulation that works in the interim."

Others told the council that cultivating medical-grade marijuana took years of education and was a skill most patients simply do not have.

However, the pro-pot testimony was drowned by the rhetoric of the councilmembers.

Englander: "You tell us there are a few bad apples ruining it for everyone, but from what I've seen, there are more bad apples than good ones out there." And separately: "People have gotten hurt, people have gotten killed, women have been raped."

Reyes: "We tried to cooperate but it all ended up blowing in our faces."

The Public Safety Committee, headed by Englander, may take up the proposal next week. If it passes, it will be considered by the full council. 

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-la-pot-ban-20120530,0,3547975.story 

http://www.dailynews.com/breakingnews/ci_20736005/city-panel-urges-complete-ban-all-medical-marijuana 

http://studiocity.patch.com/articles/committee-approves-complete-ban-of-marijuana-dispensaries-full-council-to-take-next-step

Colorado Medical Access Group Attempts to Add Marijuana for Treating Vets' PTSD

Denver medical marijuana advocates are taking up the cause for the use of pot in the treatment of post-traumatic stress syndrome — again, according to the Denver Westword. Though Colorado has a medical marijuana law in place, it does not recognize its use in treating PTSD.

Though the face of the initiative, Kevin Grimsinger, was found to have lied about his military service and the cause of the amputations of his legs in 2010, Sensible Colorado is revisiting the issue with three vetted vets. Joseph Hatcher, a former Army scout with a cavalry unit, retired Air Force major Robert Wiley and Wanda James, a retired Navy lieutenant.

Sensible Colorado's Executive Director, Brian Vicente, said of Hatcher: "He's going to be talking about his experiences there, and the resulting PTSD that he and fellow veterans suffer from — and how medical marijuana can be used to treat that condition, even though currently its use is illegal under state law. That's what we're trying to change."

IRS Still Denies Dispensaries Deductions from Marijuana Sales, but Care Giving is Legal, Court Decides

The pressure that the feds are putting on dispensaries to close is nothing new. However, a crack may have appeared in the monolith that is federal law enforcement.

Most dispensaries are now becoming acquainted with Section 280E of the tax code. It's the piece of law that the IRS uses to deny collectives and any other business associated with medical marijuana the deductions afforded to any other businesses.

It was originally drawn up to prevent drug dealers from claiming those deductions (on the off chance they felt like paying income taxes), which the feds feel medical marijuana dispensaries are, regardless of the laws of their state.

However Forbes reports that the U.S. Tax Court has found that while any income derived from marijuana sales are covered by Section 280E, but expenses associated with caregiving are perfectly legal. In the case of Californians Helping to Alleviate Medical Problems Inc. v. Commissioner, only 10 percent of the Harborside Health Center (the dispensary that brought the suit) was dedicated to marijuana, making the other 90 percent of its rent deductible.

The article urges dispensary owners to keep records of everything.

"A large expense for a dispensary is normally inventory costs–buying product for resale. Despite the prohibition on deductions, it appears that the cost of goods sold–even marijuana–can be claimed. Again, good records are key."

California House of Representative Hopeful Promises to Smoke it Up on the Steps of Congress if Elected

Politicians come and politicians go, but one thing's a constant: campaign promises.

While most promises fade into the background din of cutting the debt, better education and how much more one guy loves America more than the other guy, Andy Caffrey, a candidate for the House of Representatives in California’s 2nd Congressional District promises to light up a joint on the steps of Congress, if he's elected the Independent Voter Network reports.

Caffrey, a Democrat, intends his toking to be an act of civil disobedience. He expects to be arrested by Capitol Police and intends to use the attention to put the spotlight on the larger attention of federal marijuana policy.

While Caffrey would be a fringe candidate anywhere else — including much of California — his district encompasses a very liberal swath of real estate from the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco to Humboldt County to the Oregon boarder.

In his own words: "We have to redirect trillions of dollars away from war, away from the war on drugs, and we have to get it back from the rich to rebuild our infrastructure all over the country. We have to become locally sustainable. We have to look at food security, water security, and we have to have a safety net that’s going to take care of everybody."

Despite Sympathy for Medical Pot Users, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds Anti-Dispensary Laws

The bans on medical marijuana in the California cities of Irvine and Lake Forest, both located in Orange County, have been upheld by The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.

Opponents of the law challenged it on the grounds of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ADA classifies users of an illegal drug for an ailment as disabled and protected against discrimination. However, that protection only applies if the drug is taken under supervision by a licensed health care professional, or obtained by other uses authorized by law.

The court agreed that the law could be interpreted to cover medical marijuana users who use the drug with their doctor's approval — but it would undermine existing federal anti-drug laws.

The judges were sympathetic for the case of medical pot, but Judge Raymond Fisher in the majority opinion wrote, "for now, Congress has determined that, for purposes of federal law, marijuana is unacceptable for medical use."

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Marsha Berzon stated the ADA does show an intent to allow doctor-approved use of marijuana, but the anti-dispensary laws probably are not discriminatory.

Pro-Marijuana Candidate Wins Oregon's Democrat Attorney General Ticket, Pot Groups Take Credit

While getting tough on drugs is a tried and true strategy to winning an election, pro-marijuana groups are being credited for playing a decisive role in the primary victory of Democrat Ellen Rosenblum for Oregon's attorney general race.

Rosenblaum, a former judge, promised to prioritize enforcement of marijuana laws at the bottom of Oregon's law enforcement duties. Her opponent, former U.S. Attorney Dwight Holton, called the state's medical marijuana laws a "train wreck" and shut down growers and collectives.

Pro-marijuana organizations, such as the Drug Policy Alliance and Citizens for Sensible Law Enforcement, contributed to Rosenblaum's campaign war chest.

Holton was an early favorite for the nomination, but Rosenblaum pulled in 64 percent of the vote, compared to Holton's 36 percent. Rosenblaum downplayed the role of the pro-marijuana groups, though The Seattle Times reports they were ecstatic with the results.

Ethan Nadelmann, executive director Drug Policy Alliance and its campaign branch, Drug Policy Action, said, "What we're hoping, and what we assume, is that any U.S. attorney who's thinking of running for statewide office in a Democratic Primary anywhere in the country is going to think twice now before adopting a highly aggressive posture toward the medical marijuana law."

L.A. City Council Shoots Down Koretz Plan to Keep Dispensaries Open

The Los Angeles City Council sent a medical marijuana proposal that would have left about 100 dispensaries open back to two committees, and advanced a competing proposal that would ban dispensaries outright.

Councilman Paul Koretz proposed to place regulations as to where and when dispensaries could operate as well as require tight security for the shops. The plan was praised by The Greater Los Angeles Collective Alliance said Koretz's eleventh hour plan was a "miracle" and they were grateful for his actions.

However, the council advanced a plan by Councilman Jose Huizar that allowed cultivation and direct distribution by "caregivers" but that would ban dispensaries. The plan was agreed upon in a closed session several weeks ago.

Koretz described Huizar's proposal to Patch.com as a "vicious, heartless ban that would close all dispensaries and force the seriously ill and suffering patients to buy their medical marijuana on the black market if they're not able, which most would not be, to grow it in their homes." http://northhollywood.patch.com/articles/city-council-moves-forward-with-gentle-ban-on-medical-marijuana

L.A. City Council to Offer Limited Immunity to Select Collectives in 'Gentle Ban' as Alternative to Outright Ban

The Los Angeles City Council will take up a proposal to offer limited immunity to some medical marijuana collectives on Wednesday May 16.

The measure, introduced by council members Paul Koretz and seconded by Herb Wesson Jr., will have the city attorney draft a "gentle ban" on medical marijuana dispensaries, reports pro-pot advocate Brett Stone.

The proposal states: "The City has strived for more than seven years to strike a balance between carefully regulating medical marijuana facilities and assuring patient access to medication. The "gentle ban" would eliminate all medical marijuana dispensaries while still providing for distribution by licensed health care facilities and for home-based cultivation by patients and care-givers. This approach may result in a hardship for seriously ill patients who cannot cultivate at home and who lack access to a licensed health care provider or a care-giver who will cultivate for them."

The limited immunity of the Koretz proposal would apply to a group of collectives that met certain qualifications. However, failure to keep up with those conditions would forfeit the right for the collective to remain open.

It would also be applicable for a limited number of collectives and until certain court cases are decided and the ordinance is amended.

Sarah Armstrong, legal liaison for The Greater Los Angeles Collective Alliance. stated in an email to Stone that they were "over the moon" about the development.

"To have Koretz come in at the eleventh hour with a motion to put an ordinance back on the table is nothing short of a miracle and we are deeply grateful to him," she added. "Below is the motion. Note the language '...an ordinance implementing that approach be presented to the Council as an alternate to the ban approved by the City Planning Commission.' (emphasis added)"

Insurer Terminates Lawyer's Coverage Because of Medical Marijuana Ties

After several years of representing clients who are and were in the medical marijuana industry, Denver-based attorney Ann Toney was informed her insurer would no longer cover her for malpractice.

The Hanover Insurance Group, the company that covers Toney, told her the termination was because of her involvement with medical marijuana. The Medical Marijuana Business Daily speculates that this may have a similar, chilling effect on other professionals who provide services for medical marijuana clients, such as other lawyers, other insurers and accountants.

This action comes at a time when banks are skittish handling similar transactions and U.S. Attorneys are stepping up raids on dispensaries in states that have legalized pot for medical use.

The Medical Marijuana Business Daily quotes Brian Vicente, another Denver medical marijuana attorney as saying:

I’m concerned that this could spread, as insurance carriers can be very risk averse at times. However, there are many (lawyers) out there who represent the mob and child molesters, and the fact that (an insurance company) would say that’s OK and medical marijuana isn’t doesn’t make sense.

Insurance for Growers, Dispensaries Covers Fires, Theft and (Some) Law Enforcement Seizures

If you don't need more proof of the growing acceptance and tolerance of medical marijuana, consider that this formerly outlaw product is now being covered by the most pedestrian of industries — insurance.

Oregon's KOMO reports that insurance agents are now offering coverage to dispensaries and growers to cover the usual concerns of any business owner, such as fire, wind, rain and theft. But the policies also include coverage from law enforcement raids...though not all kinds of raids.

 Seizures by local and state law enforcement are covered under the policies, but raids by federal agencies are not. The reasoning is that marijuana is still illegal under federal law, and paying growers and dispensaries for losses incurred by the DEA would be aiding and abetting.

The policies run about $1,200 to $2,000 a year with a $5,000 deductible.

Medical Marijuana is Reimbursable, Louisiana Appeals Court Decides

Risk & Insurance may not be the periodical of choice for most, but an interesting case was posted among its otherwise staid coverage of deductibles, collision coverage and actuary tables.

An appeals court in Louisiana (Creole Steel, Inc. v. Stewart, No. WCA 11-1285 for you lawyer types) found that a "worker" was entitled to reimbursement medical marijuana costs he paid out of pocket.

A summary of the case details that the worker injured his spine while working. A doctor visit uncovered that he was using marijuana and the doctor warned he could no longer treat the worker if he continued its use.

Explaining that the cannabis enabled him to sleep and that it gave him some relief from his pain, the doctor prescribed it to him. However, his employer challenged its use as a "reasonable medical necessity of the prescription."

A workers' compensation judge found that the doctor could continue while pursuing other treatments.

After a trial, the workers' compensation judge concluded that the doctor could proceed with his recommendation that the worker use medical marijuana while investigating other treatment alternatives.

The Louisiana Court of Appeal ultimately sided with the worker, and ruled that the medical marijuana expenses were reimbursable.

Banks Shut Doors on Dispensaries

Like Michael Corleone, medical marijuana dispensaries are having problems going legit.

Never mind that 16 states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical use. Banks and other financial institutions are treating anything that has to do with the medical marijuana industry like six year olds and the cooties.

Threats by the U.S. Attorneys to treat the revenues of medical marijuana businesses as monies raised by criminal enterprises and that the IRS is not allowing regular business deductions for collectives have caused banks to reconsider their relationships with anything that has to do with medical marijuana.

The collectives want to have the bank accounts and paper trails of other businesses, but banks either refuse to allow them to open an account or freeze their assets after they've been doing business. This drives many collectives and dispensaries to a cash-only model.

"I have a business license and federal tax ID number, but not a bank account," Laura Healy, co-founder of Walla Walla, Wash. collective Green Hope told The Seattle Times. On one hand they treat her like a normal businesses, she added, then treat her like a criminal with the other.

Amsterdam's Famous Coffee Shops May be Closed for Tourists

The coffee shops in Amsterdam and in other cities of The Netherlands, known for sales of legal recreational marijuana, will be illegal for tourists if a recent court decision stands.

The country's coffee shops challenged a law that would only allow citizens and permanent residents access to recreational pot on the grounds that it would be illegal under Dutch anti-discrimination laws. The rational for the new drug law was an uptick in crimes linked to cannabis. There would be no exceptions to the new law.

The shops have vowed to take the case to higher court.

About 23 percent of Amsterdam's tourists make a stop at the city's coffee shops and the potential loss in revenue has its mayor, Eberhard van der Laan, scrambling to forge a compromise with the national government. However, with the collapse of the conservative-led government, new elections are scheduled for September, putting those plans in limbo.

"We have tourists that just want to have a smoke," said Michael Velig, owner of the 420 Café told The Washington Post. "If they're not going to get it, they will ask Dutch people who actually have a pass for the coffee shop to buy it. Or they fall in hands of the illegal street sellers."

After Years of Dodging Questions About Legalization, Medical Use, Obama Goes on Record — And it's Not Pretty

President Obama began his administration giving proponents of medicinal marijuana and legalization proponents hope that this commander-in-chief would be different.

Keep in mind that this president fessed up to smoking pot (and that he inhaled) and doing a little coke while he attended Punahou, a very exclusive private school in Honolulu. Presidential candidate Obama also promised that he wouldn't dedicate Justice Department resources to prosecute medical marijuana cases in states that OK'd it.

Of course, we all know how political promises turn out, don't we? States that legalized medical marijuana now have U.S. Attorneys shutting down dispensaries and collectives despite the will of its citizens. Though Obama's been one of the most accessible presidents via the Internet, he's never answered questions about legalization and medical use, never mind that those questions are always one of the most frequently asked — until now.

He recently told talk show host Jimmy Fallon, "We’re not going to have legalized weed anytime soon."

He said even more during a Rolling Stone interview, though it sounded like political newspeak:

"What I specifically said was that we were not going to prioritize prosecutions of persons who are using medical marijuana. I never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana — and the reason is, because it’s against federal law. I can’t nullify congressional law.

"I can’t ask the Justice Department to say, ‘Ignore completely a federal law that’s on the books. What I can say is, ‘Use your prosecutorial discretion and properly prioritize your resources to go after things that are really doing folks damage. As a consequence there haven’t been prosecutions of users of marijuana for medical purposes."

Well, gee — that's not disingenuous or confusing at all!

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2012/04/25/president-obama-no-legalized-weed/ 

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2012/04/25/obama-not-going-“to-turn-the-other-way”-on-medical-marijuana-dispensaries/

California State Senator Moves to Protect Collectives, Dispensaries from Federal Prosecution

A California senator is proposing legislation to shield medical marijuana collectives and dispensaries from federal prosecution.

California law currently protects primary caregivers — those who grow, buy or distribute marijuana for medical use — from federal charges. However, Marin County Senator Mark Leno is proposing that protection extend to collectives, dispensaries, storefronts and delivery services, NPR affiliate KPCC reports.

Los Angeles State Senator Curren Price of Los Angeles and Senator Ron Calderon of Montebello both voted for Leno's measure.

 The bill comes at a time when U.S. Attorneys around the country are bringing charges against businesses involved in medical marijuana in states where it's legal. California Attorney General Kamala Harris has also asked the state legislature to clarify the state law regarding medical marijuana.