Medical marijuana v. recreational use: NORML controversy, Colorado connection
Original LISTSERV document:
Hello James,Kicking my friends or encouraging them to please wake up from their hazy field of dreams?
Defending the 'medical' cannabis industry is so yesterday (unless you've been hired to legally defend a dispensary or to establish one...). Why not acknowledge the political and legal farce it is and focus on the REAL problem at hand...ending Cannabis Prohibition?
The law and court precedents are fairly clear here....self-preservation (yes)....large scale cultivation and sales (no).
It is just this simple.
The numerous actions by the feds and state govts in the last two weeks make this abundantly clear:
*ATF memo (no Second Amendment rights for patients)
*Feds crack down on banks doing business with CBCs
*Feds send forfeiture notice to CBC landlords
*Feds send warnings to local CBCs that they must move or shut because they're within 1,000 of federally subsidized school
*IRS 280E decision against HHC (can the current retail industry survive this blow?)
*Feds send shut down notices to 25% of the CBCs in San DiegoAnd what MORE re-assertion of primacy will we get today from the feds?
If this were the 1920s, your advocacy of the 'medical' cannabis industry of today would sound like a lawyer back then fronting for the legal sellers of 'prescription' alcohol during Alcohol Prohibition (who, of course, opposed actual legalization...just like last year's Prop 19 was opposed by the pot prohibition profiteering communities in the state's northern 'grow' counties).
Prescriptive alcohol was a sham then, the 'medical' cannabis industry (not medical cannabis itself) is largely a sham now.
Is this news? NORML, and lawyers like Bill Panzer, have been warning ganjapreneurs and their legal counsel at our seminars and conferences about this political and legal box canyon since at least 2002.
Cannabis consumers, who NORML represents, want good, affordable cannabis products without having to go through the insult and expense of having to 'qualify' as a 'medical' patient by paying physicians and/or the state for some kind of 'get out of jail free' card.
How intellectually honest is all of this?
James, you can certainly choose to defend a system that benefits those who are largely gaming the system, however, NORML prefers to take a more honest and transparent approach that advocates that cannabis should be legal for all adult consumers, including healthy ones.
;D)
KIND regards,
-- Allen
NORML
The Celebstoner version:
"Allen St. Pierre on Medical Marijuana"Defending the "medical" cannabis industry is so yesterday. Why not acknowledge the political and legal farce it is and focus on the real problem at hand: ending cannabis prohibition?
The law and court precedents are fairly clear here. Self-preservation (yes), large-scale cultivation and sales (no). It's just this simple. The numerous actions by the Feds and state governments over the last few months make this abundantly clear:
• ATF memo (no Second Amendment rights for patients)
• Feds crackdown on banks doing business with CBCs (cannabis buyers' clubs)
• Feds send forfeiture notices to CBC landlords
• Feds send warnings to local CBCs that they must move or shut because they're within 1,000 feet of a federally subsidized school
• IRS 280E decision against Harborside Health Center
• Feds send shutdown notices to 25% of the CBCs in San DiegoAnd what more re-assertion of primacy will we get from the Feds today?
If this were the 1920s, advocacy of today's "medical" cannabis industry would sound like a lawyer back then fronting for the legal sellers of "prescription" alcohol during Prohibition. The med-pot industry, of course, opposes actual legalization, such as last year's Prop 19, which was also opposed by the profiteering communities in the state's northern "grow" counties.
Prescriptive alcohol was a sham then, and the "medical" cannabis industry (not medical cannabis itself) is largely a sham now. Is this news? NORML, and lawyers like Bill Panzer, have been warning ganjapreneurs and their legal counsel at our seminars and conferences about this political and legal box canyon since at least 2002.
Cannabis consumers, who NORML represents, want good, affordable cannabis products without having to go through the insult and expense of "qualifying" as a "medical" patient by paying physicians and/or the state for some kind of get-out-of-jail-free card. How intellectually honest is all of this?
NORML prefers to take a more transparent approach, advocating that cannabis should be legal for all adult consumers, including healthy ones.
Allen St. Pierre is the executive director of NORML
The Norm Kent essay:
"Regarding the Medical Marijuana Movement: Don't Blame NORML, Part 2"By Norm Kent
My thought today is to expand the discussion I engaged a week ago. One subsequent posting by my colleague from the left coast, Bill Panzer, suggested that I believed the medical cannabis movement has been a mistake from its inception. No, I did not say that. I would like to think no one has read it that way. That is also not the position of NORML. Bill, my friend, it seems you were perhaps indulging in a new strain, Instigator Indica.
Let me say again that it was my intention to draft a polemic pointing out that there are many responsible persons in the anti-prohibition movement who have suggested 'regulation by medicalization' is a false panacea. Whether or not the mechanisms of any system embracing that concept is utopian or dysfunctional is an entirely distinct and separate issue. That was my point.
What spurred these discussions was controversy generated by Allen St. Pierre's comments denigrating the California system as a 'sham'. My feeling is that he has wrongfully been tarred and feathered for it. Mind you, I am not saying that his choice of words was the most prudent thing to say in his capacity as the leader of a national marijuana reform organization, but let's try looking at it clinically, rather than emotionally.
Calling to task flaws in an operational system does not correspondingly mean you intended to harm its inventors or practitioners, its assemblers or architects. You in fact may be the heroic lineman warning about the dangers ahead on the track, telling everyone to jump before the cars derail and crash. You may even be a weatherman knowing which way the wind blows.
Many people say Allen should not have used words that could later be used by others to haunt us. They say that those words could set back our movement, and he should have known better. Point taken; move on. This song is not about Allen. It is about our movement to reform marijuana laws.
However, for those of you who still want a pound of flesh, understand exactly what it is you are asking for. You are saying Allen should have spoken more like a dishonest politician then a true reformer. His 'gaffe' was daring to speak a blunt truth instead of furthering a blatant lie. The California system may not be a sham, but it is shamelessly flawed. Own up to it.
I am entirely grateful that California has paved the way in leading the country to a path of legalization. I proudly hold a dual residency between California and Florida, and show my medical card from Cali to envious compatriots in Fort Lauderdale all the time. But the truth is I acquired my last card for fifty bucks by walking into a mobile RV that was parked at a metered spot adjacent to a medical marijuana festival, without ever documenting my medical history. I earned my card with a year of chemotherapy and cancer, but my partner got one too, and he is a fit 25-year-old college graduate, whose worst ailment in life has been an extended case of athlete's foot.
The truth is that card is a ticket to freedom I should already have had. That is why I have fought in this movement for forty years, from the days Stuart Mott held parties for us in Washington, D.C., when Ramsey Clark was Attorney General. That was a time, I think, when some of us thought marijuana would be legal by 1980. We know in our hearts that the hand was never theirs to give and the arm is rightfully ours. I should not have to tell my government in 2012 that I want a license to use a medicine that kept me alive when I had cancer in 1999; that I used comfortably as a college student in 1969.
I am supportive of each and every person who wants to use marijuana medicinally or recreationally. The point I raise for your consideration is that many honorable reformers who wholeheartedly believed in unfettered legalization may have unintentionally compromised their principles when they enthusiastically endorsed medical marijuana initiatives.
By submitting to a regulatory authority supervising the dispensation of marijuana in a controlled environment, we did not stand our ground and insist that responsible adults be allowed to freely acquire cannabis without restrictions, regardless of whether they were ill or not. We instead accepted what the government gave us, because decent and honorable reformers saw the medical programs achieving two goals.
First, they were fulfilling a legitimate need while being responsive to a demanding public. We wanted cannabis accessible medically, and we grasped for it, at any price or cost.
Second, these noble experiments were excellent stepping-stones that we all hoped would logistically facilitate knocking the government out of the marijuana regulation business entirely. We chose medical because it was expedient and would push the needle our way. Now we can all have our medical cards, but look at the hand we have dealt ourselves. Instead of using marijuana privately in our homes, we have told the government where they can find us. That is pretty ironic in and of itself, isn't it?
Sadly, the reality now is that the process of medical regulation by state agencies is threatened by increased federal law enforcement. Worse, everyone is blaming the permissive flaws in the California system for creating stringent controls in their own. This does not mean the cause was a mistake or the goals were not honorable. It means we may have to explore alternative avenues and new roads. California dispensaries were raided last month, Colorado ones this week. What does this tell you?
As I write this morning, there are proposals before the Los Angeles City Council to authorize a ban on medical dispensaries. Have we all sold our clients a bill of goods? Have we encouraged them to open up clinics and comply with state licensing laws only to see the cities shut them down while the federal government seizes their properties corporately and prosecutes them individually? What did Edison say: "Is this what God hath wrought?" Is this what we intended when we began the fight to allow patients to acquire marijuana medicinally?
We call our organization the 'National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.' A few years ago we debated changing our name to the 'National Organization for Responsible Marijuana Laws'. Some have suggested we call ourselves the 'National Organization for the Legalization of Marijuana'. We have never been, and should never allow ourselves to become 'The National Organization for the Administration of State Regulated Medical Marijuana.'
NORML is more than willing to assist states seeking to make cannabis more accessible to its citizens, and we will endorse, support and speak out on behalf of those who fight for the same. Where necessary, NORML will find lawyers and go to court at our expense to fight for consumer rights. Look at the NORML website, and you can see it is populated with cogent information on statewide medical marijuana laws. Like others, I wish we could have done more. There is always more all of us could have done.
Last month's ABA Health Lawyer Newsletter, published a marvelous article entitled 'The Cannabis Conundrum: Medication vs. Regulation." Basically, it said we are dealing with an ideological dance between adversaries seeking to expand access to marijuana versus those seeking to control it. The article by Moira Gibbons reached a conclusion that "the ability to satisfy all stakeholders in the medical marijuana juggernaut seems largely illusory...but as traditional medications fail patients who have serious or debilitating illnesses, and no other viable treatment options are available, providing access to marijuana for medical purposes is humane and arguably a form of public health protection."
Somewhere in these threads I read, in the last 24 hours, a comment that marvelously brought cohesion to the issue.
When we debate methods of regulation, supervision, or control of cannabis, we can easily become divided. When we advocate for responsible adult access and a corollary end to prohibition, we are united. When we have intelligent discussions, we can come up with rational solutions.
We have been brothers and sisters in arms in a global struggle against prohibition. Let's keep it that way.
Norm Kent
Attorney at Law
110 SE 6th Street
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Follow and like the Michael Roberts/Westword Facebook page.
More from our Marijuana archive: "4/20 in Boulder preview: 'An orgasm of cannabis consumption.'"
Email to Friend
Write to Editor
Print Article
