Posts Tagged ‘PROP 215’

California To Bunch Pot Farmers & Grape Farmers Together?

Pot Farmers Bunched Together With Grape Farmers?Pot Farmers Bunched Together With Grape Farmers?

The Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Act isn’t made up from a novel but an actual initiative supporters are collecting signatures for to be placed on the upcoming ballot in California. Co-author of the measure is Steve Kubby, who also helped draft and promote Proposition 215, California’s first medical cannabis law. Basically the measure amends decriminalization for marijuana in California for those over the age of 21 and exemption from permitting fees of growing and cultivation of up to 12 plants per land parcel using grape and wine industry standards. Growers selling cannabis products would be taxed and regulated under state rules that currently apply to wine. An exception was made for hemp products with no hallucinogenic properties.

If you’re going to treat it like wine, you have to have an exemption for people who make their own wine or make their own cannabis,” Kubby said. “Now, if they sell it, then they have to pay tax on it. The intent really is for your own stash at home.”

What’s cool about this initiative is the state tells the federal government if they want to go after anyone on marijuana charges, it will be all by themselves. We know federal law will always trump state laws but the Feds will have to go in front of a jury of Californians to get any convictions which might prove costly and difficult.

While The Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Act prohibits commercial advertising for the sale or use of marijuana, it exempts medical cannabis. The initiative explicitly states that it would “not repeal, modify, or change” Prop. 215 or any related laws.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office said that depending on the response of the federal government, the proposed law could save tens of millions of dollars annually by lowering incarceration rates and raise hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes.

Californians have until December 9th to collect the half million signatures needed to add the measure to the ballot. If added, voters could decide marijuana’s fate in California in November 2012 elections.

Scooby Doo Bong

This bong is so rad.

How do we make one or get one?

Activist Steve Kubby Wants to Regulate Marijuana Like Wine in California

CANNABIS CULTURE – Long-time pot activist Steve Kubby is back with a new marijuana ballot initiative for California. In this interview with Cannabis Culture, he explains why the Golden State should regulate marijuana like wine.

Proposition 19, the ballot initiative to legalize marijuana in California, was narrowly defeated during the November 2010 election. At the time, we figured tenacious activists would start building the next legalization campaign right away. We were right.

Steve Kubby, one of the activists responsible for the successful Proposition 215 that legalized medical marijuana in California in 1996, is back with a new initiative that is already gaining support and making headlines, thanks to the help of some big-name supporters like former US Judge Jim Gray.

In July, Kubby and his team were cleared to begin circulating ballot petitions after the title and summary of their new initiative, The Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Act of 2012, was accepted by the California secretary of states’s office.

Cannabis Culture Editor Jeremiah Vandermeer is pleased to present this interview with Steve Kubby, recorded on Thursday, July 28, 2011.

Cannabis Culture: Great to see all of the positive media attention payed to your proposed initiative in recent weeks. This must be giving the campaign quite a boost.

Steve Kubby: Were pretty happy – I mean we were in USA Today, The Washington Post. I saw a report in Turkey. We were even on a Spanish-language channel in Southern California, so we know there’s a pretty high level of interest.

CC: Does submitting early give you guys an advantage over other ballot initiatives?

SK: We planned all along to submit an initiative in August. I was concerned about how the attorney general would respond to an initiative, and what kind of language they would use, so we submitted this version and sure enough they tried to change our “regulation” initiative to a “legalization” initiative. We know “legalization” doesn’t test at all as high as “regulation”, so we’re going to go back and make sure they give us “regulation”. We’re going to change some terms in our initiative so that it’s more clear-cut that it’s going to be regulated by California’s Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, just as wine is regulated. So it was really very shrewd of us to submit early. We will file early in August which means will be done by the middle of February and the election cycle doesn’t really begin until March. We want to end right there because after March the price for signatures can double and even triple.

Right now if we can complete by March we know that we’ll pay $1.86 a signature, which comes to $1.4 million. We’d rather pay that than $3 or $4 each, which we could get stuck with if we started too late. At the same time we need time to wrap up our fundraising. We have a signed contract with one of the top political fundraisers on the West Coast, we’ve got the Libertarian party helping out, and we’ve got our own network of individuals who believe in our kind of politics.

CC: Have you been in touch with Richard Lee and the activists who ran the Prop 19 campaign? What are their thoughts?

SK: The old Prop 19 folks have created a new organization called the Coalition for Cannabis Policy Reform. We’ve been in touch with them and we’re looking forward to working with them. They have informed us that none of the funders seem interested in funding a California initiate again; they want to put their money in Colorado and Washington. They’re going after the old funders that I was the first one to get when I ran the Proposition 215 campaign in 1996 and I’ve gone on to other funders. We have our own circle of funders and were not under the same restraints that the other reformed organizations are all under.

CC: Why is the wine regulation model the best one suited for regulating cannabis in California?

SK: First and foremost, wine is something that people understand that can be used in moderation and doesn’t automatically lead to violence or impairment. People are used to the idea of a group getting together, having some wine and then going home or whatever else they’re going to do. So we wanted to put it on that level because that, in fact, is how cannabis is used as well.

If you were an alien from another planet and you came to earth and you suck people doing different activities you would classify pot smoking and wine drinking as highly social interactions with a low potential for violence or injury. So we wanted to put it in that context because that’s where it belongs. It doesn’t need to be regulated like nuclear plutonium. Plutonium is probably easier for researchers to get than marijuana. We didn’t want to put it in the category of hard booze because that would be wrongfully portraying what cannabis is all about – and it would be opening us up to attacks as another form of teenage drinking and abuse. So out of those possibilities, treating it like wine makes the most sense.

In addition to that, Judge Gray and deputy police chief Steven Downing from the LAPD told me their buddies are all telling them privately, “why don’t you just regulate it like booze”. They understand this. Well we compromised and said “how would you feel if we treated it like wine” and Judge Gray and chief Downing agreed. So that was the great unification model for bringing police, judges and activists together.

David Malmo-Levine has done an absolutely fantastic job for us and has published a comprehensive article comparing the California wine and cannabis industries. He has helped to educate Judge Gray and Chief Downing. Chief Downing even told him how much he had learned reading his paper. David is our official online director of communications and we all really appreciate having him on our team.

CC: Has the acceptance of the title and summary boosted the campaigns credibility? How much do public perceptions play into things at this stage and are you being taken more seriously?

SK: I probably have the best track record of anyone in town because I’ve only worked on the successful Prop 215 campaign. Of course, when we started that up, not only were people convinced that we wouldn’t succeed, but nobody, not even the sleaziest sex tabloid, would agree to use the term medical marijuana. They wouldn’t print it and wouldn’t say it. Absolutely wouldn’t tolerate it. So when we finally qualified for the ballot I remember getting some of the staff together and sitting down in front of the television. I remember saying “they’re going to have to say it, they’re going to have to say medical marijuana”. We were all just kind of transfixed about the possibility they would actually say that on television. So they did Prop to 213 and 214 and when they got to 215 they said “medical marijuana” – and then they said it again and again and again. They said it like it was just a regular word and our jaws were on the floor. We were just staring at the TV. Ever since, of course, it’s become an everyday word. But there was that day that it went from the taboo word to the everyday word. So I’ve seen firsthand how people’s perceptions can change once you qualify something for the ballot.

And certainly we are very grateful for all the hard work and trail-blazing that Prop 19 has done for us, because they have paved the way. When we came out, we didn’t qualify for the ballot, we just qualified for the title and summary. That should be a non-event but 260 different media outlets picked it up. We were in all of the media we wanted to be and we are now being taken very seriously.

CC: How does the Regulate Marijuana Like Wine initiative differ from others like Prop 19?

SK: Everything the reform movement is currently working on is limited to one ounce. Washington: one ounce. Colorado, recreational legalization: one ounce. California – I’ve seen the draft that one of the reform organizations is working on and honest to God, they are going for one ounce again. Now, one ounce in California is currently an infraction. Who the Hell is going to raise millions of dollars to turn an infraction into a non-infraction for just an ounce? We have no limit on how much pot is legal. It’s all legal. There’s is a 12-plant limit on growing indoors, but that is it – and no criminal penalties for cultivation, period.

CC: And dried personal amounts?

SK: We’re not even getting into that. We don’t want anyone coming around measuring dried amounts. It’s all legal under our system -– or regulated, as we like to call it. The only way you can screw up is if you sell marijuana and don’t pay the regular sales tax, like you do on anything else that you sell. Unlike Prop 19, we don’t invent any new laws or any new taxes. Sales tax is already in place so there is no need to introduce a new tax.

It’s light-years beyond everybody else but it really sounds reasonable when you read it.

CC: Right now, what’s the best way for people to help you?

SK: Everyone wants to get an initiative petition and start signing up people right away, but we are still 60 days away from that stage. When we’re ready to get signatures, we’re not going to have any volunteer signatures. A very painful lesson that I learned during the Prop 215 campaign is that volunteer signature-gathering does not work. Professional signature gatherers are a must.

So what can people do? They can go to our website and they’ll see we have installed the sign-up form where we can get basic information on them and then there in the system. Then they’ll get the latest updates and can take part in our proactive system. What can they do once their in? Well, this is all about money – I’m sorry but that’s just the reality.

What they can do is help us raise the money. Every $1.80 buys a signature – a validated signature. That’s someone who doesn’t just get the signature but also validates that it’s a registered voter. We need 800,000 signatures, so do the math. We need to raise $1.4 million.

We’ve got the big money coming in later on, but right now it’s really critical that the media sees how much money we can raise each day. Giving us money now in the first few weeks of this campaign is going to determine how respectful and interested the mainstream media is going to be in this campaign. If you don’t send any money later but can just send money in the next week or so, you’ve made the biggest impact you could possibly make. The biggest bang for the buck. And what you’ll be making is a contribution to history.

Read the The Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Act of 2012

Read the CC article “Crystal Clear Glasses and Unbleached Rollies”, a comprehensive comparison and contrasting of the California wine and California cannabis industries by activist David Malmo-Levine.

Stay tuned to Cannabis Culture for more information about the Regulate Marijuana Like Wine initiative in California.

Jeremiah Vandermeer is editor of Cannabis Culture. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

International Cannabis & Hemp Expo Coming To Oakland!

International Cannabis & Hemp Expo 3International Cannabis & Hemp Expo 3

CANNABIS EXPO INNOVATOR “TAKING IT TO THE STREETS”

OF OAKLAND PRESENTING LANDMARK EVENT

Saturday & Sunday, September 3rd and 4th

Oakland, Ca. – Cannabis activist and CEO of the International Cannabis & Hemp Expo (INTCHE) Kim Cue is proud to announce that the 2011 expo will be held out in the open on the streets of downtown Oakland on Saturday and Sunday, September 3rd and 4th from 12pm-8pm.  The area between 14th St., Clay St. and San Pablo Ave including Ogawa Park will be blocked off for this celebration of education, awareness, and advancement of the cannabis movement.  Located directly in front of City Hall will be the designated  “215 Area” for patients to medicate. INTCHE was the first event to have an approved onsite medicating area for patients, and it was the first to bring the cannabis community together with the hemp industry to educate the general public on the 2 related plants and their individual benefits to the populace.  Since the debut of the first INTCHE, many other producers have created events to try to capitalize on the emerging industry – but without a solid agenda of professionalism, education and advancement of the political movement for patients of medical cannabis.

The agenda for the 2-day event includes speaker’s panels debating current cannabis and hemp issues.  One of those will be a discussion of the upcoming 2012 initiative to put legalization on the ballot in California.  This topic holds significance because Colorado and Washington State have already put plans in motion to put it on the 2012 ballot as well.  Historically initiatives have a greater chance of passing in presidential election years and when they have 60% support going into the race.  Colorado is already at 80% approval.   Passage of legalization propositions in any or all of these states will force a showdown with the Feds over States’ rights.  The Gallup National Poll in October of 2010 showed 46% of Americans now would vote for full legalization, and that number continues to grow.

In addition to the panels there will be over 300 vendors with information about how to obtain a recommendation for medical use, new products, growing techniques, locations of dispensaries, etc.  There will be live entertainment and a complimentary hash bar in the 215 Area.  A variety of food and nonalcoholic beverages will be available at the event.  Surrounding restaurants and bars outside the event will be open for business.

Judges who have purchased the $300 VIP ticket will receive a SWAG Bag with over 320 samples the week prior to the event.  This will include 120 strains of cannabis, 40 hashes, 40 oils, 40 waxes, and a variety of edibles.  The VIP ticket includes 2 days all access, a catered buffet including an array of cannabis infused foods, live entertainment on a private stage in the tented VIP area, a celebrity meet and greet, vapor lounge, and 2 hash bars. A limited number of these tickets are being offered.  Over 50% of these have already been sold.   These tickets are only available at:  Angels Care in San Jose, Sonoma Patients Group in Santa Rosa, and 7 Stars in El Sobrante.  Judges will cast their ballot at the event and winners will be announced at 4:20pm on Sunday.

Up to date information and advance ticket sales are available at www.intcheevents.org.

Signature Campaign Begins To Bring Marijuana Legalization To California

marijuana CaliforniaThe California secretary of state’s office on Monday cleared a group to begin circulating ballot petitions to bring marijuana legalization to a state wide vote in 2012.

This time they will argue that pot growers should be treated the same as vineyard owners or microbrewers, according to AP reports. Those who grow marijuana for their own use would not be taxed, but those who sell it would be regulated by the state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.

On Monday, the secretary of state’s office said proponents can begin gathering the 504,760 signatures they’ll need to collect by Dec. 19 to put the initiative on the June or November ballots next year. The timing depends on how quickly the signatures are submitted and verified, although Kubby said proponents plan to submit revisions that would likely push the measure to the November general election.

Proposition 19, which fell 6 percentage points short of the majority vote it needed last November, would have potentially created a patchwork of marijuana policies by letting local governments permit and tax commercial cultivation and sales.

Kubby’s proposal would require statewide regulation.

It also directs the state and local governments to avoid assisting the federal government in prosecuting marijuana crimes and seeks to remove marijuana from the federal government’s list of controlled substances.

Kubby is joined by retired Orange County Superior Court Judge James P. Gray as chief proponent. The third listed proponent is William R. McPike, the Fresno-area attorney who represented Kubby as he fought drug charges.

Kubby, the 1998 Libertarian candidate for governor, helped write the state’s medical marijuana law, approved by voters in 1996.

 

Text of the proposal:

This Act shall be known as “The Marijuana Regulation and Tax Act of 2012.”

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, recognizing that it is time to tax marijuana and to regulate its use, hereby repeal all California state laws that prohibit marijuana possession, sales, transportation, production, processing, and cultivation by people 21 years of age and older, and thereby remove marijuana from any other statutes pertaining to the prohibition, regulation and scheduling of controlled substances, whether now existing or enacted in the future, except those related to driving a motor vehicle under the influence of marijuana; using or being under the influence of marijuana in public or in the workplace; smoking marijuana in the presence of, or providing, transferring or selling marijuana to, a person under the age of 21; the use, possession, cultivation, sales, transporting, or storing on premises of marijuana by people under the age of 21; and medical marijuana statutes as set forth in California Proposition 215 and its progeny.  This act adopts the definition of marijuana as it is presently set forth in Health and Safety Code section 11018.

The People further direct and order the California state legislature to enact reasonable regulations and establish reasonable taxes for the establishment of the farming, industry, distribution, and sales of marijuana with a THC level of 0.3 percent or higher, using the grape winery industry as a model, as long as the results support these intentions, purposes and goals; and to provide for the farming, industry, distribution, and sales of industrial hemp, which is hereby defined as marijuana with a THC level of below 0.3 percent, using the cotton and paper products industries as a model.  However, the effect of this act and its direction is to be liberally construed to favor individuals, and business entities regarding the following:

(a) No taxes, fees, laws, rules, regulations, or local city and county zoning requirements can be adopted or enacted to defeat these commercial, agricultural and industrial purposes or those individual civil rights set forth in Civil Code section 54, Food and Agricultural Code sections 54033 through 54035, inclusive, and Civil Code 52.1, and all medical conditions as stated in Health and Safety Code section 11362.5. Any individual, association, or collective group not producing more than 99 plants or 50 pounds of marijuana per year shall be exempt from any winery model regulations, fees and taxes, except for income taxes and state sales taxes, if they apply, and

(b) No regulations, taxes or fees shall be enacted or imposed which are more severe or restrictive than those for comparable and reasonable usage in the commercial wine grape farming and winery industry model, including for farming, planting, cultivating, irrigating, harvesting, processing, brokering, selling, distributing, and establishing of cooperatives or collective associations.

The People further direct and order all state and local government elected, appointed and hired employees, officers and officials to refuse to cooperate with federal officials, or operate under U.S. contract or arrangement, to defeat this act directly or indirectly, or to follow or abide by any federal laws or regulations that are in conflict with this act. Further, no such person acting alone, or with any other person or legislative body, may contract or agree to cooperate with federal officials, employees, agencies or departments to obtain any money, property, gain or advantage by the arrest, prosecution, conviction or deprivation of property of anyone acting within the provisions of this act.  Any such governmental or public person who knowingly and intentionally violates these provisions shall forfeit their government employment and office.

The People further direct and order that within 30 days of passage, both the state Attorney General and the Department of Health Services shall inform the United States Department of Human and Health Services, Attorney General, Congress, and Food and Drug Administration that in 1996 California recognized that using marijuana can have some positive medical effects, and for that reason demand that marijuana no longer be listed as a Schedule 1 drug.

The People further direct and order the Attorney General of California to protect the provisions of this act from any and all attacks, whether from individuals, cities, counties, or the state or federal governments.

This Act expressly enjoins the arrest and imposition of any criminal or civil penalties for people 21 years of age and older who are acting within the provisions of this act, including all California penal and nuisance marijuana laws, penalties, and zoning regulations, except for those affecting medical marijuana at Health & Safety Code sections 11362.5, and 11362.7 et seq.

This Act expressly enjoins any and all commercial advertising of the sales, distribution and use of marijuana, except for medical marijuana and products made from industrial hemp, as defined herein, and this injunction shall be enforced by penalties as shall hereafter be set forth by the legislature.

This Act expressly does not repeal, modify or change any present laws or regulations prohibiting the driving of a motor vehicle while impaired by marijuana; the use or being under the influence of marijuana in the workplace; the providing, transferring or selling marijuana to, a person under the age of 21; the use, possession, cultivation, sales, transporting, or storing on premises of marijuana by people under the age of 21; or medical marijuana statutes as set forth in California Proposition 215 and its progeny.

The legislature shall not modify, change, add to or subtract from, or amend any part of this Act, and if any part of this Act is found by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or void, that finding shall not affect any of the remaining provisions.

-Link-

Ohio Could Be The Next Medical Marijuana State

Email

ohio marijuana

by Phillip Smith

Ohio could be a major medical marijuana battleground next year, as two different initiative efforts aimed at the November 2012 ballot are getting underway and a bill is pending in the state legislature. If Ohio climbs on the medical marijuana bandwagon, it would be the second Midwest state to do so, after Michigan, which approved it via the initiative route in 2008.

Two different initiative efforts are underway in Ohio, and there’s pending legislation, too. (image via Wikimedia)

A medical marijuana bill, House Bill 214, was introduced in April and has been assigned to the Committee on Health and Aging, but given that a decade’s worth of efforts to get a medical marijuana bill out of the legislature have yet to bear fruit, patients and advocates are moving forward with efforts to put the matter directly before the voters.

One initiative, the Ohio Alternative Treatment Amendment(OATA), was submitted to state officials Wednesday with more than twice the 1,000 signatures needed for the Attorney General to take the next step, approving the measure’s summary language. That will take place in 10 days.

Organizers are already setting their sights on gathering the 385,000 thousand valid voter signatures needed to qualify for the 2012 ballot. They have until May to turn them in.

The Ohio Medical Cannabis Act of 2012The OATA would modify the state constitution to allow doctors in a bona fide relationship with patients to recommend medical marijuana and offers protections to patients, caregivers, and physicians alike. Patients or caregivers could grow up to 12 plants and possess up to 200 grams of processed marijuana. Multiple caregivers could store their product in a “safe access center,” and growers would be allowed to receive some compensation.

The second initiative getting underway, the Ohio Medical Cannabis Act of 2012 (OMCA) would modify the state constitution to establish government agencies to regulate medical marijuana “in a manner similar to the system that has successfully overseen vineyards and adult beverages,” according to OMCA press release. The campaign has yet to turn in the initial 1,000 signatures and win approval of its summary language, but has delayed because although it has already gathered more than 2,500, it is making final changes in the initiative’s language, said campaign spokesperson Theresa Daniello.

“Over the past few days, we’ve spent hours and hours Skype conferencing and going over the language,” said Daniello. “There were things like if the police came in with a warrant, we want to make sure they check with the medical marijuana enforcement division to make sure no one in that house is a patient.”

Getting it right was worth the delay, the Cleveland patient and mother of five said. “We’re not in a huge rush.” Organizers would probably hand in the signatures in a week or two, she added.

The OMCA would apply already familiar regulations, such as licensing, local option laws, and HIPAA patient privacy rules to medical marijuana.  It would create an Ohio Commission of Medical Cannabis Control, which, like its counterparts in liquor control, would be charged with enforcing regulations and preventing diversion.

“The state of Ohio has a 77-year-old proven regulatory system under our liquor control laws that is one of the most effectively run in the country,” said Daniello. “There are only 470 liquor stores in the state, one per county, and one more for each additional 30,000 residents, and counties can opt out, like dry counties do for alcohol. It would be like that. It’s our goal that no patients be arrested,” she added. “We want it out of the hands of the police and handed over to the division. We don’t need guns, we need people who are educated.”

Under the OMCA, patients with qualifying medical conditions who get a physician’s recommendation would be able to possess up to 200 grams of medical marijuana and up to 12 mature and 12 immature plants. Patients would be registered with the state and provided with ID cards. Patients would be able to designate caregivers to grow for them.

“Both models are good,” said medical marijuana patient and activist Tonya Davis. “Ohio patients want a safer alternative. The models are different, but we figure that between the bill at the legislature, and the two initiatives submitting language, we can come up with something that serves patients.”

marijuana medicine“We’re trying to work together to keep the energy going the right way,” said Daniello.

That would be great for patients like Chad Holmes, who underwent chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery for colon cancer, resulting in the removal of much of his digestive tract. He used medical marijuana to counter the side effects of nausea and severe pain, and found it to be the only medicine that allowed him to eat, maintain his strength, and function.

“Medical marijuana didn’t cure me, but it allowed me to survive the cure long enough for it to work,” he said. He has now been cancer free for over six years.

“Ohioans like Mr. Holmes face a terrible choice,” said Daniello. “They can choose to suffer with the horrible, debilitating effects of their illness, or risk arrest and years in prison for using medical marijuana to relieve their pain and suffering.”

But if either the legislature or the voters act, that dilemma for medical marijuana patients will be resolved. Look for a lot of action on medical marijuana in the Buckeye State in the next few months.

Money will be key. Peter Lewis, founder of Cleveland-based Progressive Insurance and a significant drug reform funder, issued a request for proposals for action on medical marijuana in May, but neither group appears to have offered one. Day said she thought Lewis had turned his attention elsewhere, while Daniello said her campaign would likely contact him later.

“We’re accepting support,” Daniello said. “We had less than a week to respond to Peter Lewis’s call for a request for proposals, and we decided that wasn’t enough time. We need to show that we can act in a professional manner before we go back.”

National presidential election year politics could help stir major funder interest, Daniello suggested. “2012 is a presidential year, and, as they say, as goes Ohio, so goes the nation,” she said. “If the proper people realize that, the funding will come in.”

It will have to for either of these initiatives to have a serious chance of making it to the ballot.

Artilcle From StoptheDrugWar.org – Creative Commons Licensing

Judges Snuffing Out Probationers’ Medical Marijuana

ADRIAN, Mich. —

Medical marijuana users who run afoul of the law are discovering probation is an antidote to their
certification cards.

An Adrian man was warned against applying for a medical marijuana card when he was placed on probation Thursday for a cocaine offense. Growing and using marijuana is still against federal law, said Lenawee County Circuit Judge Timothy P. Pickard. And the state medical use program does not seem to be restricting certification to the seriously ill.

“I don’t buy it,” Pickard said during the sentencing. “It seems to be an excuse for everybody to light up and smoke dope.”

Pickard, Lenawee County’s chief judge, said Friday the courts have no policy ruling out all use of medical marijuana for people on probation. But he has to be convinced there is a legitimate need, he said.

Regulations written by the state after a medical marijuana ballot proposal was passed by voters in 2008 do not require a prescription. Citizens can apply for certification cards with only a signed statement from a physician saying it may benefit their medical condition.

Probation terms can restrict otherwise legal behavior, Pickard said, such as drinking alcohol or associating with people having felony records. And it would be difficult to excuse violating federal law by growing and using marijuana while on probation.

Pickard said he will still consider approving medical marijuana use for probationers whose convictions are not drug-related and who can show evidence of a serious medical condition that can be treated with marijuana.

If those conditions are met, “I’m fine with it,” Pickard said. “That doesn’t seem to be the case. I haven’t seen that yet.”

A similar approach is being followed in district court, where offenders frequently are required to surrender medical marijuana cards as a condition of probation.

Chief probation officer Tony Gonzalez said district court has no written probation policy on medical marijuana. Judges review it on a case-by-case basis, he said.

“We’re taking a hard stance on it,” Gonzalez said. “If they’re just going out shopping for it, we tell them no.”

The Michigan Depart­ment of Corrections also has no written policy on how medical marijuana should be addressed for offenders placed on probation, said department spokesman Russ Marlan.

“We certainly would never make a recommendation that somebody do that,” Marlan said. But it is left to local judges to decide if medical marijuana is prohibited as a probation term.

There is a policy banning medical marijuana for offenders released from prison on parole, Marlan said. It is standard condition that parolees cannot use controlled substances or possess drug paraphernalia.

Department staff are also prohibited by policy from applying for medical marijuana cards and using medical marijuana, he said.

“There’s alternative forms of medical treatment,” he said.

%d bloggers like this: