The New York Times Endorses Medical Marijuana For New York

By Morgan Fox

Earlier this week, I wrote about the trend in journalism to blame marijuana for the violent outbursts of murderous youth. While this unscientific blame game will probably continue in the foreseeable future, it’s nice to see that the primary target of my wrath in this instance, The New York Times, has redeemed itself.

On Wednesday, the juggernaut of journalism on the East Coast wrote an editorial urging New York’s Governor Cuomo to follow the lead of New Jersey and allow seriously ill New Yorkers to use marijuana to treat their illnesses. Coming from a publication of their size and prominence, this is a fairly significant statement, and hopefully one that will garner a lot of support for medical marijuana in the near future.

Here is the editorial in its entirety:

There is no good reason to deprive patients with cancer or H.I.V. or Lou Gehrig’s disease of the relief from pain or extreme nausea that could come from using marijuana.

Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, who once opposed his state’s medical marijuana law, has changed his mind, deciding earlier this month to allow six alternative treatment centers to begin dispensing the drug to those in need, possibly by early next year. Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York needs to change his mind as well.

Governor Cuomo said during his 2010 campaign that he opposed legalization of medical marijuana. Recently, he said he was still opposed but that he was “reviewing” the issue and “we’re always learning and listening, talking and growing. We hope.” It shouldn’t take much more personal growth to make the right call.

Governor Cuomo should ask Governor Christie about how he resolved his own doubts. Mr. Christie could explain how his law is the nation’s most restrictive and how the federal Justice Department has indicated that its agents will rightly direct their energies in New Jersey to go after big-time marijuana traffickers, not doctors or alternative centers helping the desperately ill.

Under New Jersey’s law, doctors can recommend that a patient suffering from a specific disease or condition use marijuana of limited strength. Patients cannot grow their own, and they can only purchase 2 ounces every 30 days. Physicians must register to recommend the marijuana use, and patients and caregivers must undergo background checks to get ID cards.

Mr. Cuomo should champion a similar and humane system and ensure that New York’s residents coping with illness have the same chance at relief.

 

Good recovery, NYT. Please keep it coming!

Texas Judge Wants Harsher Pot Punishment For Willie Nelson

Photo: Hudspeth County, Texas

Vengeful Judge Becky Dean-Walker, who evidently gets her hair done at Trailer Park Skanks R Us: “If Willie Nelson gets off with nothing, I’m not going to be part of it.”

​A proposed plea deal in music legend Willie Nelson’s marijuana possession case has been rejected by a vengeful Texas judge who said she wants harsher punishment for the 77-year-old singer.

Nelson was arrested last November by the U.S. Border Patrol when they found several ounces of weed on his tour bus, reports Justin Harp at Digital Spy.

The bust went down at the Sierra Blanca, Texas checkpoint after Nelson’s tour bus pulled in and a Border Patrol officer smelled marijuana through the vehicle’s open door.

Willie had reportedly agreed to plead “no contest” to a charge of misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia, as well as pay a $500 fine and $280 in court costs, with the presiding Hudspeth County Judge Becky Dean-Walker initially indicating her agreement.

The country icon had faced up to two years in prison for the marijuana charges.

Rod Aydelotte/Waco Tribune Herald

Willie Nelson needs harsher punishment, according to a Texas judge.

​ But the judge has now reversed her decision and will deny the plea agreement, citing a desire to avoid any accusations of favoritism due to Nelson’s star status.

The judge claimed she had “accidentally” signed off on the paperwork approving the plea deal for Nelson, then crossed out her signature, reports Dave Itzkoff of The New York Times.

“I did sign it before I realized,” Dean-Walker said. “I flipped it over and I said, ‘Oh, no.’ “

“I’m not going to be guilty of signing something because someone is a celebrity,” Judge Dean-Walker said. “Everybody should be treated the same in my court.”

Nelson’s case was handed back to County Attorney C.R. Bramblett, who has been tasked with deciding on a harsher punishment for Willie.

“He’s supposed to file the charge he feels is appropriate,” Judge Dean-Walker told The New York Times in a telephone interview. “Not what he feels he should do for his favorite singer. It is up to the judge to agree or not.”

The judge said on Tuesday that Bramblett previously asked to have Nelson’s charge reduced to a Class C misdemeanor and that she had refused. She attitudinally added that Bramblett “has made a habit of speaking with the press before anything has been resolved.”

Bramblett hasn’t yet commented on whether he will pursue the matter, or simply drop the case entirely.

Bramblett had previously suggested the marijuana possession charge against Nelson could be dismissed if the singer would agree to perform his 1975 hit “Blue Eyes Crying In The Rain” before the court. But Judge Dean-Walker quickly slapped down that idea, saying there would be no singing in her courtroom. Bramblett later tried to claim he had just been kidding.

Nelson has long advocated the legalization of marijuana, even co-chairing the advisory board of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML).

Judge Dean-Walker said she was “not concerned” that the disagreement over Nelson’s plea was denying the singer his due process.

“At no point do I have to let him off,” the judge said, clearly relishing her power, along with the media spotlight. “If Willie Nelson gets off with nothing, I’m not going to be part of it.”

Former President Carter Urges Marijuana Legalization

Photo: Jimmy Carter Library & Museum

Former President Jimmy Carter: “Maybe the increased tax burden on wealthy citizens necessary to pay for the war on drugs will help bring about a reform of America’s drug policies”

​In a new op-ed published in The New York Timesto coincide with Friday’s 40th anniversary of President Nixon declaring “War On Drugs,” former President Jimmy Carter supports recent recommendations for countries around the world to try “models of legal regulation of drugs … that are designed to undermine the power of organized crime and safeguard the health and security of their citizens.”

In the New York Times op-ed, President Carter called the recommendations of the Global Commission on Drug Policy “courageous and profoundly important.”

“In a message to Congress in 1977, I said the country should decriminalize the possession of less than an ounce of marijuana, with a full program of treatment for addicts,” Carter wrote. “I also cautioned against filling our prisons with young people who were no threat to society, and summarized by saying: ‘Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself.’ “

“Those ideas were widely accepted at the time,” Carter wrote. “But in the 1980s President Ronald Reagan and Congress began to shift from balanced drug policies, including the treatment and rehabilitation of addicts, toward futile efforts to control drug imports from foreign countries.”

“One result has been a terrible escalation in drug-related violence, corruption and gross violations of human rights in a growing number of Latin American countries,” Carter wrote.

“Maybe the increased tax burden on wealthy citizens necessary to pay for the war on drugs will help bring about a reform of America’s drug policies,” Carter wrote. “At least the recommendations of the Global Commission will give some cover to political leaders who wish to do what is right.”

Obama Still Targeting Medical Marijuana Dispensaries

In 2009, the Obama Administration announced a new federal policy regarding marijuana in states in which medical marijuana has been legalized. The policy statement instructed federal prosecutors not to devote federal resources to prosecuting those who use or supply medical marijuana in strict compliance with state law. At the time, Ilya and I praised the new policy, though Ilya was quite skeptical it would make much difference.

Since the policy it was announced, it appears the policy has been difficult to maintain, and prosecutions of medical marijuana distributors has continued, largely because the federal government fears that some marijuana distributors are serving more than the medicinal marijuana market. As the NYT reports, federal prosecutors appear to be escalating efforts to go after marijuana distributors in medical marijuana states.

As some states seek to increase regulation but also further protect and institutionalize medical marijuana, federal prosecutors are suddenly asserting themselves, authorizing raids and sending strongly worded letters that have cast new uncertainty on an issue that has long brimmed with tension between federal and state law. . . .

Letters so far have gone out to governors in Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, prompting some states — including Rhode Island and Montana, in addition to Washington — to revise or back away from plans to make the medical marijuana industry more mainstream.

In Washington, Ms. Gregoire asked for guidance from the state’s two United States attorneys, Mike Ormsby and Jenny Durkan. In a reply to the governor last month, they said the federal government would prosecute “vigorously against individuals and organizations that participate in unlawful manufacturing and distribution activity involving marijuana, even if such activities are permitted under state law.”

The changes have angered supporters of medical marijuana, who say the federal government is sending mixed signals, even as they argue that it has not technically changed its position.

The Justice Department claims there has been no change in policy. Marijuana has remained illegal under federal law, and prosecutors have continued to pursue larger and more conspicuous dispensaries without much regard for state law, prompting increasing conflict with state officials. In the meantime, state level efforts to decriminalize medical marijuana continue apace. There’s now talk of a ballot initiative here in Ohio. So the federal state tension will continue.

Is there a better way? Yes, but it would be difficult to implement without legislation. Here’s what I suggested in 2009:

The Justice Department has to set prosecutorial priorities, as there are more federal crimes on the books than federal prosecutors can ever hope to prosecute. The aim should be to focus federal resources in those areas where there is a distinct federal interest, or where the federal government has a comparative advantage of state and local law enforcement. Where federal law conflicts with state law, prohibiting activities state laws allowed, federal efforts should still focus on those instances of alleged lawbreaking where there is a distinct federal interest, including spillover effects on neighboring jurisdictions.

The federal government has a legitimate interest in controlling interstate drug trafficking, but no particular interest in prosecuting those who seek to provide medical marijuana to local residents pursuant to state law. So it only makes sense for the Justice Department to tell federal prosecutors to focus their efforts on those who are not in compliance with state law, such as those who use medical marijuana distribution as a cover for other illegal activities, interstate drug trafficking in particular. California should be free to set its own marijuana policy, but the federal government retains an interest in preventing California’s choice from adversely affecting neighboring states.

Ideally, the federal government would treat marijuana like alcohol, retaining a federal role in controlling illegal interstate trafficking but leaving each state entirely free to set its own marijuana policy, whether it be prohibition, decriminalization, or somewhere in between.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/obama-still-targeting-medical-marijuana-dispensaries