LONDON: A group of senior British scientists has condemned the government’s push to toughen the penalties for possessing marijuana, saying in a letter published Tuesday the move ignores scientific evidence.

Britain’s House of Lords voted to reclassifying the drug Tuesday, and the House of Commons, Britain’s powerful lower house, already approved the measure earlier this month and the Lords’ vote is seen as a formality.

The Home Office said it expected the change to come into effect in January.

In Britain, drugs are classified into three different categories with "Class A" the most dangerous. Marijuana is currently classified as a "Class C" drug and the change will upgrade it to "Class B" ? something the government argues is necessary in part because of the increasing potency of some cannabis varieties.

The change would reverse the relaxation of British cannabis laws in 2004 and ignore the recommendations of a government drug advisory council.

In a letter published in The Guardian newspaper, 10 scientists said the reclassification could be "very damaging" because it sends a confusing message to the public about the true dangers of other "Class B" drugs.

The letter’s signatories include Michael Rawlins, former head of the advisory council, and two former chief scientific advisers to the government, David King and Robert May.

"Cannabis use has fallen in recent years, especially following the downgrading to Class C in 2004, and its obviously unwise to risk reversing that trend," the letter said. It said reclassification "would send out an ambiguous message about the dangers of current Class B drugs."

Marijuana would join amphetamines, Ritalin and pholcodine as "Class B" drugs whose unlawful possession could result in up to five years in prison.

Marijuana possession is currently punishable by up to two years in prison, although users aren’t typically arrested or prosecuted until after their third offense.

The Home Office has said it wants to send a message to marijuana users that possessing the drug is a serious crime. It said the evidence about the risks of marijuana use was more uncertain now than it had been in the past.

On the Net:

Class A, B and C drugs | Home Office

Advertised as an effective drug control policy, America’s harsh drug laws only give the illusion of progress. Two recent reports show, once again, that the arrest and incarceration of hundreds of thousands of nonviolent adult drug offenders have done little to stem the use and trafficking of illicit drugs.

Drug Use. A senior fellow at the George Mason University School of Public Policy, Dr. Jon Gettman’s recent study, Consistent, Persistent and Resistant, Marijuana Use in the United States - funded by the Marijuana Policy Project Foundation - finds that the "Bush Administration anti-drug policies have been unsuccessful in reducing the demand for and use of marijuana and other illegal drugs."

Further, Gettman reports, the government’s own Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) did not come close to reaching its recent goal: the reduction in the use of illicit drugs among adults 18 years and older by 25 percent between 2002 and 2007. After five years of effort and many millions of tax dollars, illicit drug use among adults declined by less than one percent.

Of the six tax-funded programs designed by the ONDCP to reach its 25 percent reduction goal, the Bush Administration’s Office of Management and Budget found that only one program rated an "adequate" grade. The other five were rated "ineffective" or "results-not-demonstrated."

Drug Trafficking. In its new report, Correcting Course: Lessons from the 1970 Repeal of Mandatory Minimums, the Washington advocacy organization, Families Against Mandatory Minimums, finds that, to date, "No conclusive studies demonstrate any positive impact of federal mandatory minimum sentences on the rate at which drugs are being manufactured, imported, and trafficked throughout the country."

The U.S. Congress first enacted mandatory sentences for drug offenses in 1951 only to repeal the law in 1970 because it was not reducing drug use. Then, in 1986, the Congress set new mandatory sentences aimed at locking up big-time drug traffickers and, in 1988, expanded the law to apply to simple possession of crack cocaine.

By 2008, more than one-half of the 200,000 federal prisoners were serving time for drug offenses. But instead of filling federal prisons with drug kingpins, 66 percent of crack cocaine offenders in 2005 were low-level street dealers, lookouts and couriers and only 33 percent were higher-level suppliers. Instead of ending the drug war, mandatory sentences promise to keep prisons full of nonviolent, low level offenders, while drug use continues unabated.

Setting goals in the absence of any reasonable means to achieve those goals is plain dumb, except in Washington. Perhaps the non-performing drug war programs are not really expected to deliver on their publicly stated goals, but continue because they serve a very different purpose. They give the politically useful illusion of "controlling" crime and allow morally righteous members of society to impose their values on the actions of others.

Instead of ending the drug war, each year Washington drug warriors issue a new round of optimistic forecasts to keep the illusion alive, to justify another round of funding from American taxpayers.

In the absence of a strategy that can both win the drug war and pass Constitutional and affordability tests, police departments, prison operators and hundreds of thousands of prison guards keep themselves busy wasting money on non-performing programs and arresting more low level drug offenders.

Forget pie-in-the-sky government promises that build false expectations. When the toughest action governments can take to change individual behavior - sending its citizens to prison - doesn’t work, it is time to try another approach. Building more prisons will not reduce drug use in America. Instead, across America, let’s build thousands of down-to-earth education and health programs that can actually help individuals in your hometown and mine make informed life-style choices.

Medicinal marijuana caregivers may be prosecuted as drug dealers, according to a state Supreme Court ruling issued Monday.

The ruling upholds a Santa Cruz County Superior Court jury decision that found medicinal marijuana user Roger Mentch, 53, guilty of cultivating and possessing marijuana for sale.

Mentch, who was arrested by sheriff’s deputies in 2003, claimed he was a caregiver for five medicinal marijuana patients. He also opened the Hemporium, a medicinal marijuana collective in Felton, where he sometimes sold the pot he grew.

"I was a caregiver with honest intent," Mentch said.

When jurors found him guilty and he was sentenced to three years probation, Mentch appealed the decision on several points, including that jurors were not properly instructed about medicinal marijuana caregivers. The three-member 6th District Court of Appeals agreed with him and overturned the jury’s ruling.

However, the seven justices on the state Supreme Court reached a different conclusion. The court ruled primary caregivers must have an established care-giving relationship with the patient prior to providing that patient with medicinal marijuana, according to the decision.

Also, primary caregivers can only provide pot to those patients, not sell the drug to other medicinal users or collectives.

Therefore, Mentch’s sales to the Hemporium and another collective in the county amounted to dealing drugs on a street corner, according to the court ruling.

The court stated that those acts "do nothing to insulate from prosecution for his cultivation of and sale of marijuana for those for whom he did not provide shelter or nonmarijuana-based health care… nor would it protect him from prosecution for cultivating marijuana and providing it to cannabis clubs."

Santa Cruz attorney Ben Rice, who is representing Mentch in a 2006 marijuana cultivation and sales case, said the court ruling is unfortunate because it makes it harder for medicinal marijuana patients who have a valid medical recommendation to obtain pot.

California voters approved Proposition 215 in 1996, giving ill people the right to use marijuana legally as long as they have a prescription from a doctor. However, the law did not outline how medicinal marijuana could be distributed.

"There’s no direction in the law, no explanation as to how people are supposed to get their medicine if they can’t grow it themselves," Rice said. "It’s an unworkable situation."

The Mentch decision narrowly defines the role of caregiver, but does not affect cooperatives, including the Hemporium and the Wo/Men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana in Santa Cruz, according to local medicinal marijuana advocates.

Valerie Corral, one of the co-founders of WAMM, supported the court decision.

"It further defines the role of caregivers and makes it clear. It’s a great way for people to understand our roles as caregivers and how we have to assume something more," Corral said.

WAMM, a collective of patients and caregivers, provides medicinal marijuana to ill patients. But Corral said WAMM goes beyond picking up a patient’s medicine by providing a community of support for ill members.

"We’re at people’s bedsides," she said.

Mentch, who continues to operate the Hemporium, said he still has hope his case will turn out differently. The court system apparently only addressed three of 10 issues brought up on appeal and he believes the case will be returned to a lower court for further analysis.

[There is a comments section available for this article.]

This month’s national elections are over, but marijuana reformers in Colorado are taking no breaks. Just 11 days after red state Colorado turned dramatically blue, nearly 300 activists and would-be activists gathered last Saturday morning at Regis University in Denver for the marijuanabootcamp.com/” target=”_blank”>2008 Colorado Marijuana Reform Seminar and Activist Boot Camp, designed to make them more effective and to pave the way for more marijuana law reform in the Rocky Mountain State.

Photo courtesy of StoptheDrugWar.org

There is plenty to build on. Colorado has been a medical marijuana state since 2001 and a decrim state since the 1970s. In the past few years, activists like Mason Tvert of SAFER (Safer Alternatives for Enjoyable Recreation) and Brian Vicente of Sensible Colorado have been building an impressive movement for a new set of reforms. In 2005, SAFER won a Denver vote to legalize marijuana possession, and after that was ignored, came back in 2007 with a winning lowest law enforcement priority initiative in Denver.

But while Denver appears ready to embrace legal weed, the rest of the state is not quite there yet, and a 2006 statewide legalization initiative ultimately came up short with 41% of the vote. A big part of the focus of the boot camp was to ensure that next time a legalization initiative appears on the ballot, it goes over the top.

To that end, SAFER and Sensible Colorado assembled a series of panel for the day-long seminar. Beginning with "Colorado’s Marijuana Laws: Past, Present & Future," and "Everyone Can Agree: Colorado Needs Reform," "Citizen Lobbying: Reaching & Influencing Elected Officials," "The Media: How It Works, How We Can Use It, & Why It Matters," and culminating with "Taking Action: Building Support & Maintaining Momentum," organizers created a very full plate indeed for the assembled activists. The panels featured scientists, liberal and conservative public policy analysts, media representatives, and seasoned activists.

One big catch for the boot camp was House Majority Leader Paul Weissman (D-Louisville), who explained the necessity and the how-to of lobbying elected officials to bring change. "We frankly just listen to each other unless there’s an effort for people to get a hold of us," Weissmann said. It is more effective to build long-term relationships with elected officials than to make a campaign donation, he said. "The people who I remember more aren’t folks who wrote a check, but the people who went door-knocking," he said.

"The 2008 campaign season only just ended for most people," said SAFER executive director Mason Tvert. "But for the growing number of Coloradans committed to reforming state and local marijuana laws, the 2009 campaign season has already begun. Our first goal — to disprove the myth that marijuana makes people less motivated — has clearly already been accomplished."

The boot camp filled an identifiable need among Colorado activists, said Tvert. As groups who had led campaigns and garnered considerable notoriety, it fell on SAFER and Sensible Colorado to address that need, he said.

"Because of all the work we’ve done around the state and all the media coverage we’ve received, we frequently hear from people who want to get involved; there are some every week," Tvert explained. "We wanted to find productive things for these people to do and we wanted to create a more supportive environment for ballot measures, so we identified areas where people can make a difference and developed materials so they can do things more effectively and understand the whys and wherefores," he explained. "The boot camp brought everyone together to provide them with the materials and some training. The point of the panels was to give them first-hand information that will help them be better, more effective activists," he added.

Photo courtesy of StoptheDrugWar.org

"We didn’t realize it would garner this much interest," said a clearly pleased Tvert. "We got people from all around the state. There were students, there were professionals, there were retirees. There were medical marijuana people there, but this wasn’t about medical marijuana; it was about broader marijuana policy reform."

"The boot camp was an unqualified success," declared Sensible Colorado’s Brian Vicente. "We thought we might pull in 75 people on a Saturday morning, but I think we actually had 283 register. That shows there is an overwhelming interest in this issue in Colorado. We had lots of people from the Front Range because that’s where most of the people are here, but we also had dozens of people from areas considered less friendly, like Colorado Springs and out on the West Slope."

That’s important because even in unfriendly environments, votes matter, he said. "Whether it’s someplace friendly, like Boulder or Fort Collins, or someplace unfriendly, if we can pick up even a couple of percentage points, that’s can make the difference in a statewide vote," he said.

"It was really inspiring to see everybody there focusing on the same goal, even people who don’t necessarily smoke marijuana, but see it as a civil rights issue and want to help out victims," said Andrew Stephens, a 20-year-old student at Fort Lewis College in Durango, a seven-hour drive over the mountains from Denver. "I was outraged watching those federal raids on the California dispensaries — that’s what motivated me to get involved — so I started a NORML chapter this year to work with other organizations and chapters to change marijuana policies."

Stephens said he was going to apply some of what he learned at the boot camp back home in Durango. "I’m interested in getting a lowest law enforcement priority initiative passed in Durango like there is in Denver," he said. "That would help give law enforcement more resources and time to spend on more important matters and lift a burden on college students who face persecution from law enforcement," he added, practicing his talking points.

Panelist Pam Clifton, outreach director for the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition, also called the event a success. "It was really well attended, people were really excited, and people stayed put in their seats," said Clifton. "It was a great event, very diverse, and there was a lot of energy in the air."

For Clifton, marijuana law reform is part of a broader criminal justice agenda. "We’re about working to stop mass incarceration in Colorado, and recidivism and drug policy are really driving a lot of that, so a lot of our fight is about stopping the drug war," she said. "We want people to make the connection between how a marijuana conviction can affect the rest of their lives and changing those laws, and since we do a lot of grassroots activism, this event gave us an opportunity to reach out to these people."

The interest in last weekend’s Marijuana Boot Camp may reflect not only the years of activism by the likes of Tvert, Vicente, and their allies, but also changing Colorado demographics and political attitudes. For the first time in decades, Colorado voted for the Democratic presidential candidate this year.

"You’re certainly seeing more progressives and Democrats getting into power here, and that bodes well for marijuana reform," said Sensible Colorado’s Vicente. "Also, Colorado had a very strong grassroots machine in place that helped Obama win a traditionally red state, so there’s something to be said for people power. And the fact that almost 300 people showed up on a Saturday morning a week after the election to talk marijuana reform politics is also a very good sign."

"The atmosphere has really changed quite a bit," said Clifton. "We’re really blue these days. Last year, the legislature passed an act creating a governmental commission on criminal justice. They have to reduce the prison population in this state, so they looked at recidivism, next is some juvenile justice stuff, and then sentencing. But measures to reduce the prison population are the low-hanging fruit. I think only after that we will have a real opportunity to make changes around the marijuana and other drug laws."

Part of what makes marijuana law reform a relatively lower priority, said Clifton, is that Colorado’s marijuana laws are already quite liberal for simple possession. Under current state law, possession of less than an ounce is already decriminalized with a maximum sentence of a $100 fine.

But the fact that Colorado has relatively progressive marijuana laws already is no reason to slow down down, said Tvert. "Whether it’s more local initiatives or another statewide one in 2010 or 2012, we want to get these people active in their communities spreading our message," said Tvert. "We made 25,000 four-page business cards with our marijuana is safer than alcohol message on one page, that it should be treated that way on the next, how to contact elected officials on the third, and lastly, how to contact us."

While the legislature and other sections of the criminal justice reform community may have their attention elsewhere, an army of activists is now haunting the streets of Denver and Boulder, the high plains of Eastern Colorado, and the snowy peaks of the Rockies, laying the groundwork to take it to the next level.

——–———-

Like other interest groups, the drug reform movement has the Obama transition under a microscope, searching for clues on the new administration’s intentions as it scrutinizes those appointments for positions that are going to be key to advancing the cause. Some of the Obama transition team’s early moves have some drug reformers sounding alarm bells, but other reformers — not so much.

Photo courtesy of StoptheDrugWar.org
Eric Holder — not the reformer’s dream pick

Drug reformers were not particularly enthralled with Obama’s vice-president selection, Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), who made a career authoring drug war legislation. Biden can rightfully claim to be the father of the drug czar’s office, he was a big fan of harsh sentencing laws, he crafted the horrid RAVE Act. Never encountering a "drug problem" that couldn’t be fixed with another federal criminal law, Biden most recently authored a bill that would criminalize being on board a home-made submarine carrying drugs.

While Biden may have begun to see the light in recent years — he is author of one of the best bills seeking to address the crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity (which he helped create) — drug reformers remain deeply suspicious of a man who built a political power base on the shoulders of the assembled ranks of law enforcement.

Nor did the appointment of Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) as White House chief of staff alleviate concerns. While the sharp-elbowed political operative has not been a leading drug warrior, neither has he shied from using drug war discourse as a weapon against his political foes.

One oft-cited example of Emanuel’s penchant for drug war rhetoric came a decade ago, when he defended the Clinton administration’s unconstitutional effort to punish physicians who recommended medical marijuana to patients. "We are going to continue to find ways within the administration to fight legalization and the notion of legalization," he said in an interview. "We’re against the message that [California's medical marijuana initiative] sends to children," Emanuel demagogued. (Emanuel, now a member of Congress, did vote for the pro-medical marijuana Hinchey amendment in July of last year.)

This week’s announcement that former Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder would be nominated for the Attorney General post did little to allay mounting fears that Obama was filling key positions for drug policy with Clinton-era drug war holdovers. Some were quick to point to Holder’s time as US Attorney for the District of Columbia, when he pushed through changes in DC’s marijuana laws that made sales a felony instead of a misdemeanor.

As the Washington Post reported:

In addition, US Attorney Eric H. Holder Jr. said in an interview that he is considering not only prosecuting more marijuana cases but also asking the DC Council to enact stiffer penalties for the sale and use of marijuana. "We have too long taken the view that what we would term to be minor crimes are not important," Holder said, referring to current attitudes toward marijuana use and other offenses such as panhandling.

Holder said he hopes to discourage some of that activity by being tougher on marijuana crimes. New guidelines should be in place by the end of the month, he said, noting that the District could learn from New York’s "zero-tolerance" policy. There, crime plummeted when police aggressively enforced quality-of-life crimes, including panhandling and public drinking, which gave officers an opportunity to check for drugs, guns and outstanding warrants.

That same year, he told the Washington Times he was considering proposing a mandatory-minimum 18-month sentence for any marijuana sales. That, at least, didn’t happen.

Drug reformers took some small solace, however, from Holder’s comments on mandatory minimum sentencing in a 1999 interview. Responding to a question about whether it was time to review mandatory minimums, Holder said:

I do not think that we should ever foreclose the possibility that we take a look at how the laws that we have passed are working. I tend to think that mandatory minimum sentences that deal with people who commit violent crimes are almost always good things. I think the concerns are generally raised about mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders. And I think there are some questions that we ought to ask.

I do not go into it with a presumption that they’re necessarily bad, but we ought to look at the statistics and see, are we putting in prison, are we using our limited prison space for the kind of people that we want to have there? Are the sentences commensurate with the kind of conduct that puts people in jail for these mandatory minimum sentences?

Those are the kinds of questions I think that we ought to ask. And as thinking legislators on both sides, Republicans and Democrats, liberal and conservative, I would hope that we would ask those questions and then go into it with an open mind.

With drug war cheerleaders like Biden and Emanuel and professional drug warriors like Holder being invited to join the Obama team, drug reformers are understandably skittish. But most are taking a wait and see attitude, even as they bemoan some of Obama’s choices.

"Some of the appointments, such as Holder, are certainly concerning," said Bruce Mirken, communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project. "There is some problematic stuff in the past, yes, but people do change and learn. Who would have thought that a drug warrior like Bob Barr would end up as a Libertarian?" Mirken asked. "I don’t think that because somebody said or did something we disagreed with a decade ago, he is necessarily bound to those same positions now, but we will be watching closely. If the time comes to freak out, we will, but it’s premature to freak out now."

The reform community should not be freaking out, agreed Eric Sterling, who served as counsel to the House Judiciary Committee in the 1980s and now heads the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation. Instead, it should be trying to flex its muscles.

"I think the reform community is way overreacting and, more importantly, not taking the initiative," he said "Reform leaders ought to be asking themselves what letters they’ve written to President-elect Obama, what letters to the editor they’ve penned, what op-eds they’ve submitted. Is the movement doing anything other than passively reacting?" he asked.

"Our movement has been under such assault for the past eight years that we’re really out of practice in being effective political actors," Sterling argued. "I just contacted [the left-leaning magazine] In These Times suggesting an article about taxing marijuana as a way to prevent the lay-off of public employees. Our movement should be reaching out to people like the public employee unions, maybe buying ads saying ‘No teacher should be fired until the legislature tells us how many legal marijuana could pay for.’"

"What you can say about Emanuel and these other people is that they are political and will respond to pressure," said Sterling. "If Emanuel thought our issues were good politics, he would be standing on the ramparts, but it’s not good politics because we haven’t made it good politics. It’s not enough to mobilize the drug reform aficionados, we have to be working with much more powerful organizations and interest groups around issues they care about. The dire situation with the economy right now and the lack of revenues for state and local governments is a tremendous opportunity for us, exactly like 1933 in that sense. What did they do then? They ended Prohibition and taxed alcohol."

Marijuana does not enjoy the same cultural favor that alcohol did, Sterling noted, but that can be overcome. "We need to frame the issue in very stark economic terms. We need to be asking who is going to teach our kids? How are we going to pay for teachers? If the state taxing marijuana is the only way to pay for teachers, should we do it? That marijuana isn’t going anywhere. It’s still going to be smoked, whether we tax it or not. Why don’t we benefit from it?"

"Drug policy reform has its work cut out for it," said Kevin Zeese, a long-time reformer who doubts either major party is ready for fundamental change. "The best we can hope for is a little benign neglect, and that they not continue to waste law enforcement resources on medical marijuana providers in states that allow it."

Given the plateful of problems facing the incoming administration and the state of the drug reform movement, a big push on drug policy on the federal level is unlikely, Zeese argued. "We should be working locally to continue to build momentum and a real movement," he said, suggesting that "benign neglect" could come into play. "If the reform movement continues to push state and local initiatives, I think the Obama administration will stay out of those conflicts. I don’t think we’ll see the drug czar flying off to different states to campaign against initiatives, and that would be a good thing."

A big push for drug reform is not only unlikely, it may be unwise at this time, Zeese suggested. "The caution Obama brings to the job, and Biden and Emanuel’s histories present some room for us to maneuver, but it may be best not to poke the sleeping bear with a stick. We don’t want to wake up the criminal justice advocates in the federal government. Benign neglect is better than abuse. Perhaps we should just work under the radar and allow their political caution to work for us, instead of against us."

While Zeese could tick off the bad drug policy stances of some of Obama’s newly-forming inner circle, he suggested that those stances were based more on political calculations than ideological enthusiasm. "As chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Biden aligned himself with police and prosecutors — that is his criminal justice base, that’s where the power and safety is. Emanuel was a clear architect of the crime control acts under Clinton that increased police numbers and lengthened sentences. But both these guys are essentially political animals and will take what looks like a hard line to neutralize an issue."

One area that could be an early indicator of the Obama administration’s drug reform proclivities is the ongoing DEA raids against California medical marijuana providers. Obama vowed during the campaign to halt those raids. But the big news there could be that there is no news.

"We expect that Obama will keep his promise about ending the raids in California," said MPP’s Mirken. "There are plenty of reasons for him to do so, including Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Michigan — all states that had gone Republican, but that he carried. Whatever else you think about Obama and his team, they can count, and it’s hard for me to imagine that they think it is in their interest to continue a war against a quarter of the country, most of whom voted for him," he said.

"That doesn’t have to happen in dramatic fashion, you don’t have to hold a press conference, it could just be something that happens quietly," said Mirken. "It may be awhile before anyone really sees for sure that a change has occurred. And that’s fine — we don’t need a press conference as long as he stops arresting patients and caregivers."

"Obama is no doubt already thinking about a second term and doesn’t want to make drug policy reform an issue of conflict with Republicans," said Zeese. "He will play it safe, but there is some opportunity for us there, and I think ending the raids is one of the things he could make happen. He’d prefer not to have medical marijuana patients and advocates angry at him in places like California and Oregon."

"I think he will stop the raids," said Sterling. "I don’t see how the raids are helpful to him unless the Republicans are able to gin up some anger about providers, so it would be wise to stay low-key and continue to work with state and local officials so it is not controversial at the local level. But if it becomes controversial, and the Republicans are able to make it an issue, then Obama will be against us. We need to stay under the radar on this right now."

While reformers watch to see what does and doesn’t happen regarding the DEA raids — will they just quietly vanish into that long good night? — there is still plenty of work to do, said Sterling. "We have to build the movement. We keep seeing the same 300 people at the conferences, maybe 1,000 if you’re talking about the harm reduction conferences. No one is going door to door in the black community talking about how the drug war is undermining public safety and its relationship with the police. No one is talking to the unions. We’ve done well on the education part of our issue, but we haven’t done well in developing a political power base, and until we do that, we won’t get reform."

——–———-

marijuana-arrest_350.jpg” border=”0″ alt=”" />

An aspiring hip-hop artist and his business partner in a lucrative Modesto medical-marijuana operation were given lengthy prison terms Friday for violating federal drug laws.

Luke Scarmazzo was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Oliver W. Wanger to 21 years and eight months in prison, and Ricardo Ruiz Montes was given 20 years.

——-
Luke Scarmazzo———Ricardo Ruiz Montes

But as long as the sentences were for the two 28-year-old men, they could have been longer if Wanger had acceded to the wishes of federal prosecutors, who wanted 30 years for Scarmazzo and more than 24 years for Montes.

The case drew attention because of a controversial rap video titled "Business Man" that features a sneering, preening Scarmazzo who raises both middle fingers to the camera and says "[expletive] the feds."

Defense attorneys said the federal government went after Scarmazzo and Montes because the music video challenged law enforcement’s authority.

The video was played multiple times during the trial for both men, but prosecutor Kathleen Servatius — who participated in Friday’s hearing via telephone — said "we do not prosecute people because they sing songs; we prosecute people because they violate federal law."

The case also was closely watched because of the clash between state and federal marijuana laws.

To federal authorities, it was simple. Though California voters legalized the medical use of marijuana in 1996 under Proposition 215, federal law trumps state law and federal law views the drug — even when used for medical purposes — as illegal.

After the May 15 jury verdict, U.S. Attorney McGregor Scott said both men "were operating as drug dealers, plain and simple."

But on Friday, Scarmazzo cast himself and Montes as crusaders who went to trial rather than cut a plea deal with authorities, because they are fighting for the rights of medical-marijuana users.

Referring to himself and Montes as "political prisoners," he read a long statement to Wanger that touched on the nation’s separation of powers and mandatory minimum sentences. He said both men have been on a hunger strike at the Fresno County Jail to protest their prison sentences and the "injustice of [their] confinement."

In an interview after the hearing, Scarmazzo’s mother, June, said, "Luke is not a criminal. He is a political prisoner,"

Robert Forkner, who represented Montes, also expressed frustration in an interview.

From left, Luke Scarmazzo and Ricardo Montes,
with attorney Robert Foorkner in February, talk about the case.

"This is a sad day for all California voters and citizens who approved Prop. 215 by an overwhelming majority," he said. "Mr. Scarmazzo and Mr. Montes do not deserve 20 years in prison for operating a legally licensed business."

In September 2006, authorities raided the medical-marijuana dispensary, known as the California Healthcare Collective. During the trial, Servatius and co-prosecutor Elana Landau said the business raked in between $6 million and $9 million in less than two years of operation.

While Montes maintained a fairly low profile — which Wanger acknowledged Friday — Scarmazzo did the exact opposite.

He purchased Louis Vuitton handbags, Las Vegas hotel rooms and a $180,000 Mercedes-Benz automobile.

Still, both men maintained the business was a nonprofit venture, and Scarmazzo told prosecutors Friday that nonprofit groups still pay salaries to their top executives.

But federal authorities pointed out that for most of the time that the dispensary operated, it was a for-profit corporation, and even under California law, it is illegal to operate a cannabis club at a profit.

Both men faced 20-year mandatory minimum sentences after a federal court jury convicted them of operating a continuing criminal enterprise.

Defense attorney Anthony Capozzi, who represented Scarmazzo, already said he will appeal that conviction to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, because he said there was insufficient evidence to merit the continuing criminal enterprise verdict.

Should that charge be overturned, Scarmazzo would still face about 12 years in prison, and Montes 10, based on guilty verdicts for other drug charges associated with the medical-marijuana business.

With time credits, Scarmazzo could be released in 181/2 years, and Montes in about 17 years.

Advocates of a medical marijuana law in South Dakota, buoyed by 48 percent support for an initiated measure in 2006, are preparing to ask the next Legislature to debate the issue.

If the Legislature would take up the issue, its members would have an influence on the final form of a law allowing marijuana to be used by patients undergoing cancer treatment, dealing with glaucoma or experiencing severe or chronic pain or nausea, said Bob Newland of Hermosa.

If lawmakers don’t take advantage of the opportunity to help craft such a law, it likely will be taken to the ballot, where it lost in the 2006 general election by a 52.3 to 47.7 margin, Newland said.

"That 48 percent is a pretty big hammer to take to the Legislature," he said.

"They can be involved in writing the final law."

The 2005 Legislature killed a medical-marijuana bill. After that, Newland and others went to the ballot with an initiated measure in 2006.

The 2005 bill, sponsored by Rep. Gerald Lange, D-Madison, failed on an 11-1-committee vote.

Opposition from attorney general
Attorney General Larry Long’s staff opposed the bill in 2005, arguing that it would open the door for more illegal marijuana use and noting that even if South Dakota passed such a law, growth, possession and use of marijuana still would be illegal under federal law.

Asked on Friday for the attorney general’s current views on medical marijuana, Sara Rabern of Long’s staff said, "Larry said his opposition has not changed."

Newland said he’s convinced that if the issue returns to the ballot, voters will approve it. That makes it likely that legislators will be more receptive to a real debate over the issue than happened in 2005, he said. He also said in written updates on the issue that advocates will have "medical cannabis patients and their doctors ready to testify in legislative hearings.

Lange said he introduced the 2005 bill at the request of a constituent who failed to appear to testify.

"I was left hanging out to dry at the committee," Lange said. ‘

"At the time, I collected quite a bit of evidence about the issue. I’m not likely to invest a lot of time on it again … I think the mood (of legislators) is probably about the same as it was then."

Arguments for and against proposal
Under the proposal, a patient could use the substance if a doctor signed a recommendation saying that cannabis use would benefit the patient. The 2006 initiative limited a qualifying patient to no more than six marijuana plants and one ounce of usable marijuana.

During the 2006 campaign, a Hermosa woman and veteran of the Gulf War said marijuana relieved "the deep muscle pain that is caused by my exposure to nerve gas" during that war. Valerie Hannah wrote the ballot-pamphlet arguments in favor of the initiative. She said that complete protection from law enforcement wouldn’t be assured until federal law changed, but 99 percent of marijuana arrests are state or local, so the initiative would "almost completely remove the chance that patients will be imprisoned for treating our illnesses."

Hughes County Sheriff Mike Leidholt wrote the opposing arguments. He said surveys of New Jersey and California high-school students indicated 60 percent said fear of getting in trouble with the law was a major deterrent to drug use.

"There are many other options for pain management that are legal and have met the stringent standards of the FDA (Food and Drug Administration)," Leidholt wrote. "Any attempt to legitimize the use of marijuana for any purpose will cause more use and abuse of the drug and increases in the societal problems associated with drug use."

Newland sees the issue as one of giving suffering patients access to medication.

Albert Einstein is credited with making the observation that ?Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.?

That?s what the government appears to be doing with the War on Drugs as the nation?s drug problem worsens. The war was launched by U.S. President Nixon in 1971, and after 37 years of increasingly draconian punishment and confiscatory laws, we don?t seem to be any closer to winning. If anything, the problem has gotten worse, much worse.

The Drug War Clock (DrugSense: Drug Law Reform) notes the following facts:

The U.S. federal government spent more than $19 billion dollars in 2003 on the War on Drugs, at a rate of about $600 per second ? State and local governments spent at least another $30 billion.

Arrests for drug violations in 2008 are expected to exceed the 1,889,810 arrests of 2006. Law enforcement made more arrests for drug law violations in 2006 (13.1 percent of the total number of arrests) than for any other offense.

Police arrested an estimated 829,625 persons for cannabis violations in 2006, the highest annual total ever recorded in the United States, according to statistics compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Of those charged with cannabis violations, approximately 89 percent, 738,915 Americans were charged with possession only. An American is now arrested for violating cannabis laws every 38 seconds.

Since Dec. 31, 1995, the U.S. prison population has grown an average of 43,266 inmates per year. About 25 percent are sentenced for drug law violations.

Nearly 4,000 new HIV infections can be prevented before the year 2009 if the federal ban on needle exchange funding is lifted this year.

Property has often been confiscated and sold even though the owner was not involved in any way. They did not even have to be accused or charged with a crime. The police have been able to go to court and, without a trial, obtain a court order to confiscate and sell the property of someone who was suspected of a drug crime. The mere fact that the property was allegedly involved in some way has been sufficient.

The theory that makes forfeiture possible is based on a technicality in the law that allows the government to claim that it is suing only the item of property, not the property?s owner.

Congressman Henry Hyde noted in June 1993 that ?eighty percent of the people whose property (was) seized by the federal government under drug laws (were) never formally charged with any crime.? Research literature on the subject is replete with examples of American citizens whose property has been confiscated and sold by law enforcement officials at every level of government, federal, state and local, often without having been convicted of any crime, and between 1980 and 1985, incarceration for drug-law violations in the U.S. grew tenfold.

Dealing with America?s drug problem is complicated, involving such considerations as mandatory sentencing laws that incarcerate people for many years for nothing more than ?possession? to dealing with those who abuse destructive drugs, such as cocaine, crack, ecstasy, heroin, methamphetamines or morphine.

After the British relaxed the penalties for the possession of cannabis in January 2004, within three years the use of marijuana dropped to a 10-year low.

One of the consequences of keeping drugs illegal has been an increase in illegal production and distribution around the world, from the opium growers and processors in Afghanistan to the drug warlords in Mexico and Latin America, who corrupt governments and authorities, as happened in Columbia.

Perhaps it?s time to recognize that what we have been doing hasn?t worked and consider a new approach. People go ballistic when the idea of making drugs legal and taxing the products is broached, but it may have merit.

I know there are arguments that drug use is a slippery slope and opening the door will lead to using the really bad stuff, but why not give it a try?

At least the tax dollars generated could be used to treat users and pay the cost of policing, to say nothing of huge savings in the costs of incarcerating thousands of people whose only crime was simple possession.

Furthermore, we could change the U.S. farming industry in a major way by allowing farmers to grow and sell hemp, which our drug laws currently prevent because of the mistaken belief that it contains an ingredient that can be readily used as cannabis.

Alcohol use remains legal, in spite of the fact that abusing it often results in injury or death. It?s generally recognized as a health problem and treated accordingly. So, why not do the same with drugs?

But, that?s just my opinion.

On paper, Jim Ramstad — who is rumored to be Obama’s choice for drug czar — looks like the ideal man for the job . He’s a recovering alcoholic himself and a Congressman who championed legislation recently passed to provide equal insurance coverage for addictions and other mental illnesses.

Jim Ramstad

To top it off, he’s a Republican, giving Obama what looks like a relatively harmless way to make his cabinet more bipartisan. Choosing Ramstad would appear to make a powerful statement about addiction as a medical, not a moral issue.

Unfortunately, Ramstad may be a drug warrior in recovering person’s clothing. There is one issue that has consistently separated those who put science and saving lives in front of politics. That is needle exchange programs for addicts to prevent the spread of HIV and other blood borne illnesses.

Even President Clinton now says he was "wrong" when he ignored the recommendations of every scientific and medical organization in the world that has examined the question — from the AMA to the World Health Organization — and refused to lift the federal ban on funding.

Needle exchanges have been shown repeatedly to reduce HIV and contrary to the claims of opponents, they help addicts get into treatment.

But Bill Clinton had a drug czar — Barry McCaffrey — who said that needle exchange "sent the wrong message," and would make him seem soft on drugs. McCaffrey fought against it and Clinton now says he "regrets" caving in to drug war politics.

While Obama has said that he favors federal funding, the last thing we need is another drug czar to talk him out of it.

Ramstad looks like that person. I am awaiting comment from his office to see if he has changed his position, but his history on the issue isn’t good. In 1992, he said, "Federal funds should be used to get people off drugs not facilitate drug abuse…let’s support programs that save lives, not destroy lives." By then, dozens of studies from around the world already suggested that clean needle programs not only reduce HIV, but attract addicts into recovery.

When I was injecting drugs in the ’80s in New York, when 50% of IV drug users were HIV positive, a friend taught me to use clean needles. She probably saved my life — she certainly didn’t destroy it. I have now been free of cocaine and heroin for 20 years.

But people like Ramstad believe that it would have been better to deny me the information and equipment I needed to protect myself than to risk "enabling" my addiction. And they push this view that risks addicts’ lives regardless of evidence that shows that their fears are groundless!

In 1999 — with the data now overwhelming — Ramstad voted to prevent Washington DC from using its own money to fund syringe exchange.

DC has the country’s highest HIV rate. Not coincidentally, until after that provision was repealed late last year, it had no publicly funded needle exchange. African Americans have been the group most affected by the failure to prevent the spread of HIV amongst IV drug users, their partners and children.

New York, by contrast, started needle exchange relatively early and saw infection rates cut in half over the following years, according to a 1998 study.

Ramstad also — again, against the evidence — opposes medical marijuana and supports federal policing and prosecution of providers and patients in the states that have made it legal. These states have not seen the rise in teen drug use that opponents like the Congressman predicted.

The opposite, in fact, happened — as is the case in countries that have decriminalized marijuana like Holland. The UK’s "downgrading" of cannabis offense to a lesser status was also accompanied by a drop in use.

There’s simply no evidence that allowing sick people to get needed medication conflicts with helping addicts. Obama has said he does not support these prosecutions — will Ramstad push him in the wrong direction here, too? In an economic crisis, do we really want to spend federal time and money locking up medical marijuana providers and sick people?

While Ramstad has opposed some interdiction efforts and called for more treatment funding, someone who doesn’t even believe that addicts have a right to life if they aren’t in treatment is not the kind of recovering person that I want representing me as drug czar.

That’s not change, President Obama — that’s more of the same. Don’t make the mistake that Bill Clinton did and install a drug czar who will ignore science and push dogma.

While it’s great to have a recovering person as an example, just having a disease and talking with others who’ve recovered the same way you did does not make you an expert. We need someone who knows the science, recognizes that there are many paths to recovery — and understands that dead addicts can’t recover.

Most of the Dutch towns and cities with cafes that openly sell cannabis under licence are happy with the current policy of tolerating soft drugs and even want the government to regulate the production and supply, according to two surveys published on Wednesday.

This, say the councils, would put an end to the current anomaly in the system which turns an official blind eye to the sale and consumption of cannabis but bans the large-scale cultivation of marijuana plants and the wholesale trade.

One survey was carried out by the civil service magazine Binnenlands Bestuur and the other by the NRC newspaper.

Legalisation

Both surveys asked the mayors of towns with cannabis cafes, known as coffee shops, for their views on the country?s policy of tolerating soft drugs sales. The outcome is in marked contrast to calls at a national level for a more restrictive policy by the national government.

In total, coffee shops were identified in 109 different local authority areas and eighty-eight mayors took part in the magazine?s telephone survey. Of these 54 said they were in favour of legalising the entire soft drug supply chain including the mayors of Amsterdam, Maastricht, Haarlem and Hilversum.

Another 25 said were satisfied with the existing situation and nine said they would like coffee shops to be banned altogether.

Few want a ban

Of the 70 or so local councils that responded to the NRC questionnaire, over 75% said they want the national government to regulate the supply of cannabis to coffee shops and 14 want them closed down.

The number of cafes where cannabis is sold fell from 729 in 2005 to 702 last year, according to new statistics for the justice ministry published on Thursday. Nine years ago there were 846 so-called coffee shops nationwide.