I oppose the decriminalization of marijuana. This is a question of public safety and public health."
--Launch speech, Jan. 20, 2004

Allow terminally and seriously ill patients who find relief from marijuana to use it with their doctors' approval.

Protect these seriously ill patients from arrest and prosecution for the simple act of taking their medicine.

Permit qualifying patients or their caregivers to cultivate their own marijuana for their medical use, with limits on the amount they could possess.

Create registry identification cards, so that law enforcement officials could easily tell who was a registered patient, and establish penalties for false statements and fraudulent ID cards.

Allow patients and their caregivers who are arrested to discuss their medical use in court.

Keep commonsense restrictions on the medical use of marijuana, including prohibitions on public use of marijuana and driving under the influence of marijuana.

"Abuse and dependence rise as pot becomes more potent," (oh, really?)

None of these stories chose to mention a salient fact: The "potent pot" hypothesis is pure speculation. As Mitch Earleywine, University of Southern California associate professor of psychology and author of "Understanding Marijuana" ( Oxford University Press, 2002 ) notes, there is no scientific evidence that marijuana that is more potent leads to greater levels of dependence. Indeed the JAMA article makes no claim that any such evidence exists.

What is striking about all of these stories is their similarity to the National Institute on Drug Abuse's press release. None of these esteemed newspapers or wire services chose to quote even a single expert or advocate skeptical of the government line. None of them seems to have considered the possibility that our government might spin the data in order to match its Drug War policies.

The national organization supporting the Arkansas Alliance for Medical Marijuana announced last week that it's pulling out of the state effort, citing the slim chances that a proposed initiative would qualify for the ballot.

But state supporters, dismayed by a costly campaign that may have produced fewer petition signatures than needed, announced Monday they'll pick up where the national campaign left off.

"We can't stop now. This is farther than we've ever been before," said Denele Campbell of West Fork, treasurer for the alliance.

The alliance turned in about 67,000 signatures on July 2 to get the proposed law on the Nov. 2 ballot. With at least 64,456 signatures of registered voters needed to qualify, national organizers said it seemed unlikely that enough valid signatures would be identified in the batch already submitted.

So Campbell said the alliance will use the time remaining -- at least a month -- to try to come up with 20,000 or 30,000 more signatures to replace any that may be deemed invalid. She said she remains convinced that, if given the chance, voters would approve the initiative that would legalize marijuana use for people with "debilitating medical conditions."

the respondents show that the state law can be used to define a sub-class of activity which is outside the reach of the federal government, and therefore the state law becomes the valid one in that clearly defined sub-class.

Ginsburg: If we rule for you, why wouldn’t our ruling cover someone in a neighboring state who grew their own marijuana for medical use even though the state had not authorized it?

Barnett: There are two differen answers to this question. First, assuming this Court does not create an “essential to a broader regulatory scheme” exception to Lopez and Morrison, then your ruling would reach noneconomic medical use in states that have not authorized medical cannabis use. Second, if you do recognize the “essential to a broader regulatory scheme” exception, then the question is whether the lack of authorization makes a difference. California, for example, will issue ID cards that will help to isolate medical use from the interstate market.

Ginsburg: But there are no ID cards now.

Barnett: But the Court should trust the state to take those measures necessary so that the state authorization serves its intended purpose.

Scalia: If there had been an interstate connection in Lopez, wouldn’t we come out
there other way?

Barnett: But here there is no interestate connection.

Scalia: That sounds like Wickard v. Filburn, where the family was eating the wheat they grew on their own farm.

Barnett: If the only activity relating to wheat on the Filburn farm was eating it at the family dinner table, the case would never have been brought.

Scalia: Isn’t that exactly what Wickard v. Filburn was about? I don’t think you’ve characterized that case fairly.

Barnett: The phrase “home consumed” in context meant consumed on the farm, by feeding to livestock, etc.

Breyer: But wasn’t homegrown and consumed wheat still regulated, irrespective of the particular use? The question was whether it “exerted substantial economic effect”.

Barnett: At that time, the Court was using the narrower definition of “commerce” that Justice Thomas has argued for. What we would call it today is “economic activity.” Filburn was engaged in economic action as part of a commercial farming enterprise.

Scalia: So why isn’t this economic activity?

Barnett: In Wickard v. Filburn the wheat was grown as part of a commercial enterprise and fed to livestock sold on the market.

Justice Rehnquist is hard to call. We didn’t hear from him. One suspects he is both pro-federalism/state power and pro-federal regulation of drugs.

I beseech you all to think about these women -- to encourage the American people to ask for reforms, both in sentencing guidelines, in length of incarceration for nonviolent first-time offenders, and for those involved in drug-taking. They would be much better served in a true rehabilitation center than in prison where there is no real help, no real programs to rehabilitate, no programs to educate, no way to be prepared for life "out there" where each person will ultimately find herself, many with no skills and no preparation for living.

After sifting through 6, 343 Canadian drug policy articles for 2004, it was obvious The Trouble with Interesting Headlines., is they relate far more to selling papers than telling the truth. The repetition of some headlines, topics and other reefer madness over the years is certainly not a figment of anyone's imagination.

http://www.mapinc.org/find Title search

* Up In Smoke Found 200+
* Going to Pot Found 115
* Reefer Madness Found 200+

The search was requested by the U.S. government through the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, a federal law administered by the Department of Justice.

The warrant was authorized Thursday in B.C.'s Supreme Court, based on an affidavit provided by a Vancouver police officer.

U.S. authorities say the warrant was the result of an 18-month investigation of Emery's international seed-selling business.

During his legal career, Pakenham became something of a legend, and, 25 years on, accounts of his exploits are still current. During his appearance before an irascible and unpopular judge in a drugs case, the evidence, a bag of cannabis, was produced. The judge, considering himself an expert on the subject, said to Pakenham, with whom he had clashed during the case: "Come on, hand the exhibit up to me quickly." Then he proceeded to open the package. Inserting the contents in his mouth, he chewed it and announced: "Yes, yes of course that is cannabis. Where was the substance found, Mr Pakenham?" The reply came swiftly, if inaccurately: "In the defendant's anus, my Lord."

Pakenham's final appearance in court has been variously recorded. As defence counsel in a complicated fraud case, he was due to address the court during the afternoon session, and had partaken of a particularly well-oiled lunch.

"Members of the jury," he began, "it is my duty as defence counsel to explain the facts of this case on my client's behalf; the Judge will guide you and advise you on the correct interpretation of the law and you will then consider your verdict. Unfortunately," Pakenham went on, "for reasons which I won't go into now, my grasp of the facts is not as it might be. The judge is nearing senility; his knowledge of the law is pathetically out of date, and will be of no use in assisting you to reach a verdict. While by the look of you, the possibility of you reaching a coherent verdict can be excluded." He was led from the court.

The cartels dispatch their troops down isolated roads in steep terrain in February and March. Growers bushwhack a couple of miles into the woods, carrying 25-pound tanks of propane, 50-pound sacks of fertilizer, pesticides and hoes. Periodic food drops supplement poached animals. The farmers clear the understory of foliage, leaving a canopy for camouflage; they cut terraces in the slopes, run irrigation hoses from creeks and rivers for miles and carve out a sprawling camp. For every five acres of marijuana, a grower will develop 180 acres of wilderness.

It was clear the potential penalties were severe if I were to be extradited and prosecuted in the US, probably a life imprisonment. Under Drug Kingpin legislation, selling over 60,000 seeds qualifies for the death penalty in the United States. The manufacture or distribution of 60,000 kilograms of marijuana, 60,000 plants or 60,000 seeds all are included in death penalty provisions of the medieval law passed by a Newt Gingrich congress. I would be the first person under this recent law who could qualify to be executed for the activity I have clearly done with the tacit approval of everyone in Canada.

Eric Footer, a 39-year-old real estate consultant, was pulled over by city police and cited under state law for possessing less than an ounce of cannabis. Footer allowed the cops to search his car, even though he knew he had a small amount of marijuana in his possession because he thought Denver voters had made it legal to possess a small amount. While most people would simply pay the fine, Footer contacted Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation (SAFER), the organization that got the initiative on the ballot to begin with, and asked them for help in fighting the charges.

Marijuana advocates vowed from the Capitol steps Wednesday to put a statewide measure legalizing adult pot possession on Colorado's November ballot and mobilize an army of voters to pass it.

The statewide campaign is fueled by outrage over Denver authorities' rejection of Initiative 100, said Mason Tvert, campaign director for the initiative's sponsor, Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation.

Now, Tvert already appears to be reaching out to Colorado's more conservative voters outside Denver by pitching the statewide measure as "a big issue of local rights and home-rule. If this initiative passes, it's not going to suddenly make marijuana completely legal for all adults in Colorado," Tvert stressed. "All home-rule cities and towns in Colorado, which is about 90 percent of the state's population, will have the ability to fine or penalize marijuana users if that's what they want to do. But in cities such as Denver, where . . . voters have chosen to allow residents to make the rational decision to use marijuana instead of alcohol, state law will no longer force police and prosecutors to punish marijuana users," he added.

"Sorcery is a religious system of control and exploitation which operates by restricting knowledge of and access to drugs to a ruling priesthood. This ruling class uses its secret knowledge not to protect the people and culture, as is supposed, but rather to maintain power and to exploit unwary believers. In order to maintain power they must institute certain laws, called taboos, which prevent the common people from gaining free access to certain herbs, drugs, and knowledge. In order to maintain power this ruling class must eliminate those who do not believe in their power or submit to their rules. It is this system of exploitation and control that is referred to in the Bible as sorcery. Almost no modern-day Christians are aware that the name of their faith makes reference to a psychoactive topical ointment that was rich in cannabis, or that many early Christians used a variety of other entheogens to achieve spiritual ecstasy."

Research on the medicinal benefits of marijuana may depend on good gardening--and some say Uncle Sam, the country's only legal grower of the cannabis plant, isn't much of a green thumb.

By Jessica Winter | May 28, 2006

LYLE CRAKER HAS a number of plants on his mind. An agronomist and professor in the Department of Plant, Soil & Insect Sciences at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, he's currently analyzing the active ingredients in black cohosh, which is used to alleviate symptoms of menopause. He is also studying goldenseal, a native American plant that shows promise as a treatment for some skin irritations, and exploring the possibility that certain Chinese medicinal plants could be cultivated in Massachusetts for research purposes.
Article Tools

There is another medicinal plant that Craker would like to grow and study, but in this instance, his prospects will be determined in a courtroom. Since 2001, Craker has been seeking a license from the Drug Enforcement Administration to establish a medical-marijuana growth facility at UMass-Amherst. It would be the second such facility in the US; at present, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, a federal agency, produces the only legal supply of cannabis in the country at the University of Mississippi.

The DEA lists cannabis as a Schedule I drug, meaning that it has a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical uses. However, marijuana is unique on the Schedule I roster-which also includes cocaine, LSD, and MDMA (Ecstasy)-as the only substance that is not available from multiple independent producers for clinical research purposes.

``There are two issues here: quality and access," says Rick Doblin, the Belmont-based founder and president of the nonprofit Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), which is sponsoring Craker's suit against the DEA. The government holds that its Mississippi operation obviates the need for a second crop. Craker and MAPS counter that NIDA cultivates a product of poor quality and does not make it readily available to qualified researchers, and point to NIDA's previous refusals to supply cannabis to two scientists with FDA-approved protocols as grounds for establishing an independent facility.

On April 20, the Food and Drug Administration released a controversial statement declaring that marijuana ``has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States." The outcome of Craker's case-especially if it reaches federal court, as is likely-could realign the terms of the national debate over medical marijuana. For now, the suit, which has the expressed support of Senators Edward Kenedy and John Kerry, as well as 38 members of the House of Representatives, is in the hands of DEA Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen Bittner, who's expected to make her recommendation to the agency on the application sometime this summer. Final briefs were filed on May 8.

There is abundant anecdotal evidence and personal testimony to support myriad uses of cannabis to treat symptoms of cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, and other ailments. As the FDA reiterated in its statement, however, scant clinical evidence exists to back these claims-or, for that matter, to contradict them. Paradoxically, the controls on official research of cannabis in America undermine both the medical-marijuana movement's efforts to prove the drug's benefits and the government's assertions of its dangers. Strangely enough, the case for pharmaceutical cannabis may, in the end, come down to good gardening-and may depend on whether the government is willing to give up its monopoly on marijuana.

. . .

Cannabis sativa was once widely recommended by American physicians as a mild sedative, much as the popular herbal treatments valerian and camomile are used today. By 1937, however, the drug had been effectively outlawed by the Marihuana Tax Act. The Federal Bureau of Narcotics had aggressively pursued this ban with Congress, and cited marijuana's perceived popularity as a smoked narcotic among Mexican farm laborers, hysterical tabloid reports on its deranging effects, and results from tests on canine subjects.

Punishments for pot-related offenses remained light into the 1980s, and President Carter favored decriminalization. It wasn't until the War on Drugs gathered momentum midway through the Reagan administration that penalties became fearsome enough to drive marijuana growers indoors-which, it turned out, was the best possible place for a cannabis plant to thrive. In ``The Botany of Desire: A Plant's Eye View of the World" (2001), author Michael Pollan has an epiphany while visiting a ``grow room" run by an acquaintance. ``[I]t dawned on me," he writes, ``that this was what the best gardeners of my generation had been doing all these years: They had been underground, perfecting cannabis."

From the standpoint of both the scientist and the connoisseur, perfect cannabis can be achieved with unseeded, genetically identical female plants. The original crop is harvested from seeds, and subsequent generations are bred from cuttings. Characterized by the ``buds" from which marijuana derives one of its many slang names, these virgin female plants carry high levels of molecules unique to the cannabis plant, called cannabinoids. The two most well-understood cannabinoids are THC and CBD, which many physicians and patients believe can alleviate nausea, stimulate appetite, ease pain and anxiety, and lessen the muscle stiffness and spasms associated with MS.

In the UK, the GW Pharmaceuticals company has a government license to grow cannabis under highly regulated conditions. At a secret location in southern England, in greenhouses that are computer-controlled for temperature, humidity, and light, the GW research team has compiled a veritable library of plant strains, with precisely determined ratios of cannabinoid content.

The upshot is Sativex, a liquid extract of equal parts THC and CBD that is sprayed under the tongue to treat neuropathic pain. Britain permits the use of Sativex in MS patients, and the drug has been approved for marketing in Canada. Cannabinoids also have a presence on the US market, in the recently approved Cesamet, a synthetic cannabinoid, and in Marinol, a THC extract in pill form that the FDA approved back in 1985. But Marinol contains no CBD, and ingested THC is metabolized differently from smoked marijuana-the palliative effects take much longer to kick in, and the psychoactive effects are far stronger.

Craker's intentions for a Massachusetts site are similar to the GW template: an indoor facility housing female clones, with strains made to order for researchers according to exact cannabinoid content. In contrast to the methods practiced by GW and by America's outlaw gardeners, however, NIDA grows the majority of its marijuana outdoors, under conditions that result in unwanted pollination and, according to some users, a harsh product. The Institute harvested its most recent marijuana crop in Mississippi in 2002, and stockpiled the supply in vaults and freezers. Cannabinoid content of NIDA pot is highly variable, and a THC potency of 6 to 8 percent is about as high as researchers can hope for. By contrast, Canada distributes medical marijuana to patients at 12.5 percent, and medical marijuana in the Netherlands ranges from 13 to 18 percent potency.

``I've spoken to patients who have used [NIDA marijuana], and they've said it's everything from worthless to other descriptions I should not use," Craker says. ``The patient has to smoke one cigarette after the other to get any effective relief from pain." Ethan Russo, a neurologist and now a senior medical adviser to GW Pharmaceuticals, conducted patient studies with NIDA marijuana and reported, ``A close inspection of the contents of NIDA-supplied cannabis cigarettes reveals them to be a crude mixture of leaf with abundant stem and seed components.. . .The resultant smoke is thick, acrid, and pervasive."

Then again, it's not in NIDA's job description-or even, perhaps, in NIDA's interests-to grow a world-class marijuana crop. The institute's director, Nora Volkow, has stressed that it's ``not NIDA's mission to study the medicinal use of marijuana or to advocate for the establishment of facilities to support this research." Since NIDA's stated mission ``is to lead the Nation in bringing the power of science to bear on drug abuse and addiction," federally supported marijuana research will logically tilt toward the potential harms, not benefits, of cannabis.

Under these circumstances, evidence in support of medical marijuana tends to materialize as a byproduct, not a primary goal, of official research. For example, Donald Tashkin of UCLA intended to demonstrate via a NIDA-supported study that marijuana smoke increases the risk of lung and upper-airways cancer. But the findings of the study, announced this past week, indicate that heavy marijuana smokers actually show lower cancer rates than tobacco smokers, indirectly supporting claims by medical-marijuana proponents for the tumor-inhibiting properties of cannabinoids.

. . .

At the moment, federal law prohibits pot cultivation even in those states (11 at last count) that have passed medical-marijuana referenda. In 1996, Californians voted in favor of the Compassionate Use Act, also known as Proposition 215, which permitted the use and cultivation of marijuana by qualified patients. According to the act, patients with a referral from a physician can obtain medical marijuana from one of some 200 dispensaries or ``buyers' clubs," which procure their high-grade stock from tucked-away farms and discreet greenhouses. Despite the ever present threat of a crackdown from the federal government, these companies are thriving-some clubs even offer their employees healthcare benefits and 401(k) plans-and have created a market for medical marijuana.

``For evidence in support of the healthy competition fostered by a marketplace economy, you need only to look at the quality of marijuana available in California," says Mark Blumenthal, who directs the nonprofit American Botanical Council of Austin, Texas. ``Pluralism and economic competition are good for the consumer. We generally don't allow and empower monopolies in our culture-it's contrary to the tenets of our economic system."

The invocation of a government monopoly on marijuana helps to explain the strange bedfellows on the pro-cannabis side of this issue. The conservative historian Richard Brookhiser and the late Reagan aide Lyn Nofziger both spoke out in favor of medical marijuana, and supporters of Craker's suit against the DEA include not only several nurses' associations and the United Methodist Church but Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and a staunch defender of small government and an unfettered free market.

``The use of controlled substances for legitimate research purposes is well-established, and has yielded a number of miracle medicines widely available to patients and doctors," Norquist wrote in his letter of support. ``This case should be no different. It's in the public interest to end the government monopoly on marijuana legal for research."

Given Norquist's many successes on the lobbying circuit, perhaps all medical marijuana needs is a new pitch man.

Things could change if a measure passed by legislators in Sacramento and now on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s desk becomes law. [The bill reached Mr. Schwarzenegger last week; he has 30 days to sign or veto it.] Seven states have passed bills supporting the farming of industrial hemp; their strategy has been to try to get permission from the Drug Enforcement Administration to proceed. But California is the first state that would directly challenge the federal ban, arguing that it does not need a D.E.A. permit, echoing the state’s longstanding fight with the federal authorities over its legalization of medicinal marijuana. The hemp bill would require farmers who grow it to undergo crop testing to ensure their variety of cannabis is nonhallucinogenic; its authors say it has been carefully worded to avoid conflicting with the federal Controlled Substances Act.

Advocates are now facing a legal battle with state Attorney General Larry Long and Secretary of State Chris Nelson, arguing that the ballot language describing the pot proposition is discriminatory and contains demonstrably false information seemingly crafted to thwart its passage. In addition to the basic explanatory language, Nelson's office has included three additional notes: two are clearly over the top – that the law would authorize "any" adult "or child" to use medi-pot, and that pot would still remain illegal and patients still subject to arrest by federal narcos – and the third, that physicians who write prescriptions for medi-pot patients "may be subject to losing their federal license to dispense prescription drugs," is a flat-out lie. Indeed, former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft's attempt to punish docs for discussing pot with patients was shot down by the federal courts as a violation of free speech.

Valerie Hannah, a medi-mari patient and 10-year U.S. Army veteran who resigned her post as a medic because of poor health related to exposure to serin nerve gas while serving in Iraq, has filed suit against Long and Nelson to block the proposed language from appearing on the ballot, charging that including both blatantly false and clearly misleading information regarding a ballot proposition is a violation of state law, punishable by up to 30 days in the county pokey and/or up to a $200 fine. Nelson should have narrowed the language to explain the ballot and its effect on state law only, Hannah's attorney Ron Volesky told the Associated Press last week. The editorial asides, he said, are "beyond the scope of his authority." Meanwhile, Hannah's lawsuit has, reportedly, teed Nelson, who told the AP that it's interfering with his ability to get the ballots printed and sent out to county election officials. Yet amazingly, Nelson also publicly blames Hannah for not having filed suit sooner – the language at issue, he said, has been set for several weeks: "The timing of these lawsuits is just absolutely irresponsible," he said. Perhaps he should have thought about that before putting his ballot-writing pen to paper.

A circuit judge told South Dakota officials on Friday to make substantial changes in the language that will appear on the November ballot to explain a proposal that would legalize the use of marijuana for medical purposes.

Voters in November will decide whether to legalize marijuana for people who have certain medical conditions such as cancer, AIDS or chronic pain. The ballot explanation by Attorney General Larry Long will guide voters.

In a ruling issued Friday, Circuit Judge Max Gors of Pierre gave Long the option of either using a new explanation written by the judge or making substantial changes to the explanation Long had written.

Sponsors of the medical marijuana measure argued in an Aug. 17 hearing that Long's explanation went too far because it said even if South Dakota legalizes marijuana for medical purposes, it would still be illegal under federal law. The attorney general had said that could lead to federal prosecution for possession or use of marijuana for medical use, and doctors could be prosecuted or lose their federal licenses to dispense prescription drugs if they recommend that patients get marijuana.

Gors said the explanation should tell voters that marijuana use would be still be illegal under federal law even if the South Dakota measure passes, but the statement should be made only once. The judge said the attorney general's explanation went too far because it repeated that message several times.

Those statements and other features of Long's explanation appeared to be biased, the judge said.

"The whole impression leads one to believe that the attorney general wants voters to reject the initiative. The attorney general should confine his politicking to the stump and leave his bias out of the ballot statement that is supposed to be objective," Gors wrote.

Long said he was still studying the judge's ruling late Friday afternoon and did not know whether he would rewrite his original explanation or use the one written by the judge.

However, the attorney general said state officials will not appeal to the South Dakota Supreme Court because ballots need to be printed by Sept. 1 so soldiers and other people living overseas can return their ballots by the November election.

If enough voters support Initiative 2 in November's general election, the measure would lean on local law enforcement to make “citations, arrests, property seizures and prosecutions for adult marijuana offenses Missoula County's lowest law enforcement priority,” according to the proposal. “Initiative 2 will create a citizen oversight committee that would annually track and report to taxpayers how much local government time and money are being spent on adult marijuana offenses as compared to other law enforcement issues,” said Angela Goodhope, a spokeswoman for the group. Goodhope said Initiative 2 mimics a similar measure that's been successful in Seattle for three years.

As the Camera reported last month, DEA agent Michael Moore has sent an e-mail soliciting help in finding a campaign manager to help defeat Amendment 44. Moore notes that the group has raised $10,000 to fight the initiative, and he asks those interested in helping to call him at his DEA office.

The e-mail, which was sent from a private account, lists his work phone number and government e-mail address.

Under Colorado law, state workers may not may not campaign for or against any ballot issue or candidate on the job, and they may not use public resources such as government phone lines and e-mail accounts for political advocacy.

But federal law gives greater leeway for federal employees. The Hatch Act of 1939 bars employees from campaigning in partisan politics, but allows them to campaign for or against non-partisan ballot issues. It also prohibits federal employees from using "his or her official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election."

A federal agent who uses the imprimatur of his office — and his government phone number and e-mail address — to solicit help in defeating a state ballot issue would be apparently violating the rule against using "official authority" to affect an election. But there are exceptions to the rule, and the DEA appears to be exploiting one.

Jeff Sweetin, the special agent in charge of the DEA's Denver office, told the Camera that voters are entitled to change drug laws. At the same time, he argued, the DEA is entitled to inform people that marijuana should remain an illegal drug.

"My mantra has been, 'If Americans use the democratic process to make change, we're in favor of that," he said. "We're in favor of the democratic process. But as a caveat, we're in favor of it working based on all the facts. ...

"The American taxpayer does have a right to have the people they've paid to become experts in this business tell them what this is going to do," he said. "They should benefit from this expertise."

That argument would be more compelling if it were more germane. No one argues that Agent Moore, Special Agent Sweetin should not express their expert opinions on Amendment 44. That is their right under federal law and the U.S. Constitution.

The question is whether it is proper for a federal worker to invoke his employer's name and use a government phone line and e-mail account to try to defeat a citizen initiative. And the answer is "no."

On its face, there seems to be no logical reason to oppose this. What we have are two recreational substances. The difference is that alcohol is more addictive and more toxic. It is also associated with aggression and violence, which means it is far more likely to lead to the harm of someone other than the user. The marijuana debate has been framed the wrong way in the minds of Americans for too long. When asked to think about the subject, the first reaction for many is, "Why should we add another vice?"

The opponents of marijuana legalization have helped create this mindset by exaggerating and distorting the harms associated with marijuana. The list of discredited assertions about marijuana - from the "gateway" theory to a causal relationship with violence to links to lung cancer - is too long to review in this column.

Accepting marijuana for the relatively benign recreational substance it is, the appropriate question is not, "Why add a vice?" Instead, the question is, "Why prohibit a safer alternative for adults?" Our opponents have no answer to this direct question. This is because it is not possible to defend allowing adults to use alcohol but not marijuana. One would have to call for a return to alcohol prohibition to make a rational argument against our initiative.

The Drug Enforcement Administration is the last place on earth that anyone should turn to for accurate information on marijuana. The DEA and its predecessor agencies like the Bureau of Narcotics have a 70-year record of brazenly lying about marijuana. Here are a few of the lies the agency and its predecessors have told since 1937:

*Marijuana causes people generally and Blacks and Hispanics in particular to become violent. When it comes to inducing violence, alcohol is drug of choice.
*Marijuana is an addictive drug. The truth is marijuana is among the least addictive drugs known to man.
*Marijuana causes cancer. Dr. Donald Tashkin of UCLA, who has spent a lifetime trying to prove that marijuana causes cancer but who is an honest scientist, found no link between marijuana use and cancer.
*Marijuana is a “gateway drug” that leads to harder drug use. No it isn't. However - and this is important - illegal marijuana use is the principal gateway to illegal drug use. The way to close that particular gate is to make pot use lawful.
*Today's marijuana is much stronger than the marijuana of the 1960s. It isn't, but even if it was so what? If it was, all it would mean is that people would smoke less of it to get stoned.
*Legalizing marijuana would send the “wrong message” to our kids. Keeping pot illegal when it's clearly less harmful than the legal recreational drugs is the wrong message.

Here, we demonstrate that the active component of marijuana, ¢9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), competitively inhibits the enzyme
acetylcholinesterase (AChE) as well as prevents AChE-induced amyloid â-peptide (Aâ)
aggregation, the key pathological marker of Alzheimer’s disease. Computational modeling of
the THC-AChE interaction revealed that THC binds in the peripheral anionic site of AChE, the
critical region involved in amyloidgenesis. Compared to currently approved drugs prescribed
for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, THC is a considerably superior inhibitor of Aâ
aggregation, and this study provides a previously unrecognized molecular mechanism through
which cannabinoid molecules may directly impact the progression of this debilitating disease.

If marijuana were to be legalized and regulated, what would be the economic impact of such a change?

Present channels of sales and distribution would likely disappear. Prices also would likely plummet, even if the product was, like tobacco, heavily taxed.

Thousands of individuals would lose a substantial portion of their income.

If, as Crowley’s model suggests, the marijuana trade is responsible for more than a thousand jobs in the Pikes Peak Region, the economic impact of legalization would be comparable to the closure of a manufacturing business employing a thousand people.

“We’d be out of business — just like the bookies and numbers runners went broke when Lotto came in,” said “Gary,” a former hippie and now a successful Springs businessman. “Back then, there weren’t so many gamblers, the odds were better, and it was a nice, quiet little business — so there’d be a lot more stoners, bad dope and nobody would make any money.

“But”, he added, brightening, “I guess the cops would be out of work, too.”

The first reaction to the thriving marijuana plant encased in Plexiglas in a San Francisco art gallery is to its pungent odor. The pot plant, accompanying photos of another plant, and buds encased in resin and mounted in petri dishes, as well as Pred's grower's permit and medical marijuana identification card, are part of the "Who's Afraid of San Francisco" exhibit, which includes installations on gay marriage, immigrants, anti-war movements and racial justice by artists from Oakland and elsewhere.

San Francisco — Kevin Reed launched his medical marijuana business two years ago, armed with big dreams and an Excel spreadsheet.

Happy customers at his Green Cross cannabis club were greeted by "bud tenders" and glass jars brimming with high-quality weed at red-tag prices. They hailed the slender, gentle Southerner as a ganja good Samaritan. Though Reed set out to run it like a Walgreens, his tiny storefront shop ended up buzzing with jazzy joie de vivre. Turnover was Starbucks-style: On a good day, $30,000 in business would walk through the black, steel-gated front door.

Today, the 32-year-old cannabis capitalist is looking for a job, his business undone by its own success and unexpected opposition in one of America's most proudly tolerant places. Critics in nearby Victorian homes called Reed a neighborhood nuisance. Although four of five San Francisco voters support medical marijuana, the realities of dispensing the contentious medicine have proved far more controversial.

Drug enforcement agents raided the Everett headquarters of an advocacy group for medical marijuana patients, confiscating what police documents say was more than 1,000 plants and computers that the owners say contain personal information of about 200 men and women authorized to use the drug for medicinal purposes.

Long a thorn in the side of law enforcement for his vocal, thumb-in-the-eye advocacy style, Sarich, 56, insists that the government is merely harassing patients -- himself included -- who have a legitimate right to use the drug for managing pain due to multiple sclerosis, cancer and a host of other illnesses.

That’s where the Pot Provost comes in. Let’s call him Roland, a composite of several helpful young men (and the occasional woman) I’ve had the pleasure to meet here at the Farm (only for research, officer, I swears it). If Roland were lazy, which comes with the territory, then he’d have been kicked out of several dorms for stupid mistakes (“That? That’s just a lamp.”), whipslashed from Roble to Cedro to Manzanita, perhaps even expelled for a year. If Roland were greedy, he’d have moved from semi-legal drugs to quite illegal drugs (the kind that gives you nosebleeds and supplements anorexia), smoked-snorted-ingested his own stash, become paranoid that the cops are onto him — which they are. But Roland is smart, kind, quick to grin. He only sells to his friends, and you are his friend, because to know Roland is to love him. Calling him a drug dealer seems so drab; calling him a criminal is simply bad manners. For a hyperactive, heavily-caffeinated, type-A culture like ours, Roland is Doctor Feelgood, giving you a mandatory dosage of Chill-The-Fu¢k-Out. Unlike Santa Claus (that fascist), Roland doesn’t care if you’ve been naughty or nice. Roland, like anyone with half a brain, knows that the good things in life come in shades of gray.

In 1996, California passed the Compassionate Use Act (Proposition 215), granting physicians the authority to recommend weed for "any . . . illness for which marijuana would provide relief." For eight years, the typical state-sanctioned cannabis consumer, of whom there were about 30,000, was a gravely ill patient. But no longer. Thanks to recent clarifications of Prop 215 (and a U.S. district court injunction protecting pot docs), the threat of arrest has nearly vanished. Since 2004, an estimated 250,000 new "patients" have discreetly boarded the brownie bus, many of them enthusiasts who pay up to a few hundred dollars a year for doctor's notes that permit them to buy rarefied weed at a cannabis club. The doctors' "recommendations" ostensibly combat such ailments as insomnia and headaches. One pioneering pot doc wrote notes to "treat" stuttering, writer's cramp, and corns.

For pot smokers with careers to protect, the license to ward off cops (and bypass dealers) is a strong incentive to buy doctor's notes. "I'm too old to start a police record," says "Chris," a 35-year-old e-commerce senior developer. "A lot of my close friends now have the get-out-of-jail-free card."

"It used to be that physicians only wanted the wheelchair patients," says Jean Talleyrand, 39, an Ivy League–educated pot doc in the Bay Area. "But now that the movement has gained traction, the landscape is different. A surprising number of our patients are highly successful young professionals who would simply rather sidle up to a bong than a bottle."

U.S. drug agents launched raids on 11 medical-marijuana centers in Los Angeles County. The U.S. attorney's office says they violated the laws against cultivation and distribution of marijuana. Whatever happened to America's federal system, which recognized the states as "laboratories of democracy"? The U.S. government says its drug laws trump the states' laws, and in 2005, the Supreme Court agreed. This is not the way it was supposed to work. The constitutional plan presented in the Federalist Papers delegated only a few powers to the federal government, with the rest reserved to the states. The system was hailed for its genius. Instead of having decisions made in the center -- where errors would harm the entire country -- most policies would be determined in a decentralized environment. A mistake in California would affect only Californians. New Yorkers, Ohioans, and others could try something else. Everyone would learn and benefit from the various experiments. It made a lot of sense. It still does. Too bad the idea is being tossed on the trash heap by big-government Republicans and their DEA goons. Drug prohibition -- like alcohol prohibition -- is a silly idea, as the late free-market economist Milton Friedman often pointed out. Something doesn't go away just because the government decrees it illegal. It simply goes underground. Then a black market creates worse problems. Since sellers cannot rely on police to protect their property, they arm themselves, form gangs, charge monopoly prices, and kill their competitors. Buyers steal to pay the high prices.

James and Lisa Masters were preparing to take their daughters fishing on the morning of Aug. 2, 2006, when two social workers and two police officers knocked on their door.

"We were just finishing folding laundry, getting ready for the day," says James, "and we had just recently medicated."

They had picked a bad time to take their medicine. Both of the Masterses are medical marijuana patients, whose doctors recommend they get high to treat various physical and neurological illnesses.

The social workers raised allegations of child abuse and neglect toward the Masterses' daughters, ages 4 and 6. The police officers, who the Masterses were told came along in case the parents got violent — perhaps in a fit of reefer madness — smelled the weed.

Inside, the Masterses had 18 marijuana plant clones and an imminent harvest of 12 2-foot-high, bud-laden plants, which they say were for people suffering from glaucoma, cancer, HIV, multiple sclerosis and other crippling diseases.

The Masterses' home was serving as the Larimer County chapter of the Colorado Compassion Club, a statewide network whose members provide quality weed for medical marijuana patients, including themselves. Though the couple had doctors' recommendations for the medicinal crop, as allowed through a state constitutional amendment, the Larimer County Drug Task Force snagged the pot — and Child Protection Services snagged the Masterses' daughters. They were separated from their parents for nearly two months before being returned with no neglect or abuse charges.

[Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles', D-Seattle' Senate Bill 6032] would permit patients or caregivers to pool resources in growing marijuana ("We could have a P-patch"). She would ensure that patients who are able to produce authorizing paperwork would not be arrested. She would add conditions, including Hepatitis C, where marijuana can be prescribed.