Survey on 2012 California State Initiative to legalize or regulate cannabis

Survey on 2012 California State Initiative to legalize or regulate cannabis


Highlights of this posting:

1. Survey on 2012 California State Initiative to legalize or regulate cannabis.
SURVEY IS AT BOTTOM OF THIS POSTING
This survey was created by attorney Joe Rogoway et al. at Cannabis Law Institute
I would love your input between now and Friday, when I will begin 3 days of meetings regarding the future of cannabis policy, and medical cannabis. Those responding will receive my summary of the results via email.
Please respond with your opinions asap.
Responses after that date are still welcome, of course.
See below.

2. I plan to post on my blog more frequently, but from now on, I am only going to send emails out occasionally.
To keep up on ALL future postings, and announcements of events I will host, as they are posted,
please SUBSCRIBE TO MY FREE BLOG at:
http://drfranklucido.blogspot.com/

3. Closed blog for AIMLegal PHYSICIANS ONLY (Association of Independent Medical-Legal Consultants )
http://aimlegal.blogspot.com/
This will be my online subscription course, a prerequisite to being listed on my AIMLegal physician locator at:
http://www.drfranklucido.com/pages/aimlegal.org-cannabis-physician-locator.php
"Expert Witness" quality physicians: Why not choose the best?

4. Links to my 2 most recent blogs postings
until now, only available to those who have signed up at: http://drfranklucido.blogspot.com/

January 19, 2011
Why doctors can’t work in/for dispensaries or cross-refer.
Conant v McCaffrey, Conant v Walters salient exerpts
http://drfranklucido.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-doctors-cant-work-infor.html
In short: By virtue of Conant, physicians are the only ones involved in medical cannabis who are legal federally, and then ONLY IF they are not aiding and abetting a patient in breaking federal law.

January 17, 2011
Civil disobedience vs civil obedience: when is each appropriate
Crossing the line, and knowing where the line is.
(Frank Lucido's personal experience with non-violent resistance against nuclear testing at the Nevada Test Site, and how this relates to the medical cannabis issue)
http://drfranklucido.blogspot.com/2011/01/civil-disobedience-vs-civil-obedience.html




Survey on next State Initiative to legalize or regulate cannabis (2012)
This survey was created by attorney Joe Rogoway et al. at Cannabis Law Institute
I would love your input between now and Friday, when I will begin 3 days of meetings regarding the future of cannabis policy, and medical cannabis. Responses after that date are still welcome, of course.
peace and health,
Frank Lucido MD

1. What elements are absolutely critical to include in the 2012 initiative?

2. What items should be specifically excluded from the language.

3. How should the issue of medical cannabis be addressed?

4. Should the penalties for violations of California's new cannabis
laws be criminal, civil, or both? Explain.

5. At what age should a person be able to lawfully participate in
cannabis related activities. Should the age differ depending on the
activity?

6. What limits, if any, should be placed on personal cannabis use and
cultivation?

7. How long should the initiative itself be?

8. How would you like to see the initiative campaign run?

9. How far should the initiative go regarding commercial/industrial activities.

10. What types if consumer protections, if any, should be included in
the initiative.

email your responses to me at: DrFrank@DrLucido.com
thanks!
Frank Lucido

Why doctors can’t work in/for dispensaries: Conant v McCaffrey, Conant v Walters salient exerpts

Why doctors can’t work in/for dispensaries or cross-refer.
Conant v McCaffrey, Conant v Walters salient exerpts

In short: By virtue of Conant, physicians are the only ones involved in medical cannabis who are legal federally, and then ONLY IF they are not aiding and abetting a patient in breaking federal law.


Conant v McCaffrey 9/7/00 Judge Alsop
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Full Text at:
http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/conant_courtdecision.pdf



Conant v Walters 10/29/02 Judge Schroeder
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Full text:
http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/conant_v_walters_final_decision.pdf


Walters and the ONDCP (Office of the National Drug Control Policy or “White House Drug Czar”) appealed this to the Supreme Court, who reviewed it and decided to let the lower court ruling stand.


Below are 3 salient quotes from Conant v McCaffrey, which was affirmed in Conant v Walters:



Contrary to the government's argument, it is not true that a mere recommendation will necessarily lead to the commission of a federal offense. To the contrary, such recommendations can lead to lawful and legitimate responses. First, a cancer or AIDS victim so advised may choose to honor the federal law but, armed with the doctor's recommendation, may urge the federal government to change that law. Petitioning Congress or federal agencies [*41] for redress of a grievance or a change in policy is a time-honored tradition. In the marketplace of ideas, few questions are more deserving of free-speech protection than whether regulations affecting health and welfare are sound public policy. In the debate, perhaps the status quo will (and should) endure. But patients and physicians are certainly entitled to urge their view. To hold that physicians are barred from communicating to patients sincere medical judgments would disable patients from understanding their own situations well enough to participate in the debate. As the government concedes, and as Mr. Vines exemplifies, many patients depend upon discussions with their physicians as their primary or only source of sound medical information. Without open communication with their physicians, patients would fall silent and appear uninformed. The ability of patients to participate meaningfully in the public discourse would be compromised. This factor alone persuades the Court that the balance of considerations ought to be struck firmly on the side of protecting sincere medical recommendations.

Second, a cancer or AIDS victim may well be able to obtain medical marijuana without [*42] violating federal law. There are three possible ways. One is to enroll in a federally-approved experimental marijuana therapy program. n6 Another is to travel to a country where marijuana is legally dispensed. Finally, the Ninth Circuit has recently recognized the "medical necessity" defense for cannabis-club distribution of marijuana to patients requiring marijuana as a medical necessity. n7 The point is that a recommendation for marijuana therapy does not translate, as night follows day, into a violation of federal law. To the contrary, a recommendation for marijuana may lead to actions by patients all of which are lawful under federal law and some of which are themselves protected, such as petitioning the government for a change in the prohibition itself, by the First Amendment.
......


When a doctor recommends marijuana, a patient who is accepting of the idea may well ask how to obtain it. Here, doctors must be honest. The First Amendment is not a license to circumvent the federal drug laws. If the doctor addresses the subject, he or she must be truthful and advise on the unavailability of marijuana under the present federal drug laws and on the availability of the federal experimental programs and overseas laws (to the extent [*46] the doctor is knowledgeable).
.....


The government is legitimately concerned that a physician might in bad faith issue recommendations that would then be used to enlarge the distribution of marijuana to those who really do not need it. From time to time, physicians registered under the Controlled Substances Act abuse their privileges, dispensing, for example, excessive controlled substances or otherwise circumventing the Act. See, e.g., United States v. Moore, 423 U.S. 122, 46 L. Ed. 2d 333, 96 S. Ct. 335 (1975). Physicians who issue insincere recommendations without a medical basis and with knowledge that they would be used to illegally obtain marijuana would be subject to DEA revocation. On the other hand, doctors are entitled to be confident that their good-faith recommendations based on honest medical judgments will not be the basis for DEA revocations even when they forsee their recommendations might be used by the patients to obtain marijuana from sources illegal under federal law.

Civil disobedience vs civil obedience: when is each appropriate

Civil disobedience vs civil obedience: when is each appropriate

Crossing the line, and knowing where the line is.



Wikipedia:

Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power. Civil disobedience is commonly, though not always, defined as being nonviolent resistance.





Daniel Ellsberg taught me about Non-Violent "Civil Disobedience",

Dr. Tod Mikuriya taught me the courage of "Civil Obedience", when the law IS on our side.





People often thank me for taking a courageous stand on the issue of medical cannabis,

but to me, this was just a natural extension of what I learned in my anti-nuclear activism or more correctly “actionism”.



My first anti-nuclear action was in January of 1991.

Some friends were going to Nevada for a special weekend seminar on nuclear testing held in Las Vegas, and culminating with a trip to the Nevada Test Site (NTS) 60 miles northwest of Las Vegas.



On the last evening in Las Vegas, Daniel Ellsberg was the speaker, and there was discussion of the actions to be undertaken the next day at the NTS. He then said something to the effect of “There is no more powerful feeling than taking your own freedom in your hands, and risking arrest for a cause you hold dear.”

He then followed with: “Of course, I warn you, it could be addictive. I’ve been arrested dozens of times.”



THAT intrigued me!



My First Arrest:

The day of the actions, I decided I would also cross the line.

During the anti-nuclear actions at the Nevada Test Site, some literally "cross the line," walk onto the Test Site, and voluntarily get arrested in non-violent action.



There is some ceremony and choreography to it.

First, a Western Shoshone elder makes a statement of how the test site is on native land, granted to his tribe by the Ruby Valley Treaty of 1863, and that the anti-nuclear protestors have his permission to be there, (while the Department of Energy and its representatives do not).

He then states that some of those present will risk arrest by walking onto the land.





If you plan to risk arrest at the NTS, you are advised to take the non-Violence course they teach the day before the actions. That way you and others protesting will be better prepared to minimize any harm to yourself or those around you, both legally, and physically.



Non-violence includes being verbally non-violent.

We are reminded that hateful, or unnecessarily negative language can affect the guards whose responsibility it is to arrest you, if, and when, you cross the line.

Believe me, you don’t want to scare people armed with guns.



My first act of civil disobedience went well. Some of crossed over the line, were arrested, placed in plastic handcuffs, and led onto waiting buses, for the 1 hour ride to Beatty, Nevada, where you were “cited” or given a ticket, and released. Part of the preparations for actions like this included having someone agree to be your spotter, to follow your bus to Beatty to pick you up and bring you back.





2nd Arrest:

By April 1992, I was more of an organizer, and took on responsibility for the medical services for a large event we called the Hundredth Monkey Project, in which we had a concert of 5,000 people outside of Las Vegas, then 500 of us commenced a 6 day walk to Peace Camp, near the Test Site, and then we had another weekend of music and actions at the gates of the Test Site. Because I was an organizer, and coordinating the medical team for this event, I didn’t intend to get arrested.



I also had a videocamera, and as a “legal witness,” I let the guards know I was watching, and videotaping any misbehavior on their part.

Apparently too much in their face…



Within minutes, I found myself PULLED over the line, and arrested!

Fortunately, I was able to hand my videocamera over the line to a friend, and was escorted to the “holding pen”.



Ah! A lesson to be learned:

Not only is it important to know where the line is, but it’s a good idea NOT to stand TOO CLOSE to the line, especially if you’re putting a camera in the authorities face. Real journalists often get arrested, and sometimes die, getting their stories at the front line!





Fast forward to 1996 to present:

14 years of medical cannabis law, and still enough unclarity because of the disparity between federal and state law.



The years have brought some important decisions that you may have heard me talk about before, like Raich v. Ashcroft, which reinforced that cannabis is still illegal under federal law,

and Conant v. Walters, which protects doctors FEDERALLY in making the recommedation, under certain circumstances: i.e.: they don’t “aid and abet” the patient in breaking federal law.

More on this later, especially for some of you doctors and dispensaries out there who still think it a great idea to collude to increase your profits!

You’re not protected either federally or by State law, but are actually now DEA targets.



That’s not only standing too close to the line, but actually crossing it and pretending you’re not.



That’s not civil disobedience, that’s ignorance and greed.





Frank Lucido MD has been practicing Family Medicine in Berkeley since 1979, and will continue to do so even after marijuana has been legalized.

In addition to his open blog

www.DrFrankLucido.blogspot.com

Dr Lucido now has an interactive subscription blog for physicians who wish to make use of Dr Lucido’s 14 years experience in medical cannabis practice, and over 15 years experience in Medical-Legal Consulting

Association of Independent Medical-Legal Consultants

http://aimlegal.blogspot.com/



Association of Independent Medical-Legal Consultants

AIMLegal Physician Locator:

http://www.drfranklucido.com/pages/aimlegal.org-cannabis-physician-locator.php




Frank H. Lucido MD
Family Practice since 1979
Medical Cannabis Consultation
Expert Witness
2300 Durant Avenue
Berkeley Ca 94704
510.848.0958 (by appointment only)
www.DrFrankLucido.com
(formerly MedicalBoardWatch.com)
www.AIMLegal.org
www.DrFrankLucido.blogspot.com
Michigan office: 877-787-6900
(24 hr message line)