Medical Marijuana Advocates Get Calif. DMV Change Qualified Patients No Longer Subject to Arbitrary License Revocation

The ASA legal team saw the fruits of another big victory for patients in March, when the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) issued a new policy on driver’s licenses that ends discrimination against state medical marijuana patients.

ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford
As of March 2, the DMV Driver Safety Procedure Manual now says that “use of medicinal marijuana approved by a physician should be handled in the same manner as any other prescription medication which may affect safe driving.” The change means that medical marijuana use now “does not, in itself, constitute grounds for a license withdrawal action,” as it had in the past.

The change in DMV policy stems from a lawsuit filed by ASA on behalf of Rose Johnson, 53, whose driving license was revoked because she uses medical marijuana on the advice of her doctor. Despite having driven for 37 years without an accident or a ticket, the DMV revoked Johnson’s license last July. According to the DMV, Johnson was no longer able to safely operate a motor vehicle “because of…[an] addiction to, or habitual use of, [a] drug.” Their evidence? Her doctor’s recommendation for medical marijuana.

ASA filed suit on Johnson’s behalf in November, and DMV announced their new policy in January, before her case was heard. Johnson was given a driving test, which she passed, and DMV reinstated her license.

“The new DMV policy is a significant change,” said ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford, who handled the action. “Drivers will no longer have their licenses suspended or revoked simply because of their status as medical marijuana patients.”

ASA had reports that the DMV had targeted medical marijuana patients in at least eight California counties, including Alameda, Butte, Contra Costa, Glenn, Merced, Placer, Sacramento, and Sonoma. License suspensions and revocations by the DMV were done under cover of calling the drivers “drug abusers,” though they were based on nothing more than the person’s status as a state-qualified medical marijuana patient.

“This DMV policy change represents a victory for patients, which puts us closer to full implementation of California’s medical marijuana law,” said Elford.

THUNDERGRO™ IS MAKING SOME BIG IMPRESSIONS

The new soil and hydro super charger formula by Living Organic Vitality Enterprises LLC,  of Rapid City Michigan THUNDERGRO™ is making a big impression on the medical marijuana producers in many areas of California and Michigan, as trials are underway to attempt to get a handle on what we can realistically expect from this ‘Physics-based’ formula. Thundergro is not a nutrient formula. It contains Minerals, Water and Electricity, and Humates. The way this formula is vibrating is one of the secrets to its ability to bring soil back to life, and the ionized silver in the formula helps to sustain this vibrational frequency. The Humates are wonderful for bringing the conditions back that invite micro-organisms and other life in the soil to flourish. The formula also derives paramagnetic force from another component  and this force is very important for all living things. Pay visit over to THUNDERGRO.COM and you can get more information.

California: Oakland Voters Approve Nation’s First Marijuana Business Tax

Oakland, CA: Municipal voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved the nation’s first ever business tax on retail marijuana sales.

Approximately 80 percent of Oakland voters approved the new tax (which appeared on the ballot as Measure F), which imposes an additional tax for “cannabis businesses” of $18 for every $1,000 of gross receipts beginning January 1, 2010.

Presently, Oakland’s medicinal cannabis dispensaries are taxed at the same rate as other retail sales businesses ($60 per year for the $50,000 of gross receipts, plus $1.20 for each additional $100,000).

Four dispensaries are licensed by the Oakland City Council to sell and dispense medical marijuana.

According to a financial analysis by the Oakland City Auditor, Oakland’s new cannabis business tax will generate an estimated $300,000 in additional annual tax revenue. Other proponents have estimated that the new tax could yield up to a million dollars yearly.

Representatives from the Oakland City Council, the California Nurses Association, and the dispensary community publicly advocated for the new tax, which had no formal opposition.

“The passage of this first-in-the-nation tax further legitimizes cannabis-based enterprises in Oakland and elsewhere,” NORML Executive Director Allen St. Pierre said. These outlets are contributing to the health and welfare of their local communities, both socially and now economically. At a time when many municipalities are strapped for tax revenues and cutting public services it is likely that public officials in other cities will begin considering similar proposals.”

City officials in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Berkeley may also impose a cannabis-business tax on certain retail dispensaries.

For more information, please contact either Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director, at (202) 483-5500, or Dale Gieringer, California NORML Coordinator at: (415) 563-5858.

An exchange between My Senator and I about GMOs and food safety..

On May 28, 2009, at 6:31 AM, <senator@feinstein.senate.gov> <senator@feinstein.senate.gov> wrote:

Dear Mr. Saunders:

Thank you for writing to express your views on the “Global Food Security Act of 2009” (S. 384). I appreciate hearing from you on this legislation and welcome the opportunity to respond.

Like you, I believe that Congress must maintain its commitment to a robust foreign aid package designed to help develop and maintain effective food security programs worldwide. Please know that I understand and have noted your concerns about the development of genetically modified food as a means to provide for global food security.

As you may know, on March 31, 2009 the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations favorably reported S. 384 to the full Senate for consideration. Be assured that I have noted your views on how best to further global food security, and will keep your views in mind should the Senate have the opportunity to debate this bill.

Again, thank you for writing. I hope that you will continue to write on matters of importance to you. Should you have any further comments or questions, please feel free to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841. Best regards.

Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

Further information about my position on issues of concern to California and the Nation are available at my websitehttp://feinstein.senate.gov/public/. You can also receive electronic e-mail updates by subscribing to my e-mail list at http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ENewsletterSignup.Signup.

Dear Senator,

Thanks for your reply.
As for your statement which I am perceiving as a “hinting” without verbally committing to the position of being in SUPPORT of Genetically Modifying Organisms in dangerous and wreckless ways before feeding them to ourselves despite scientific evidence and a great deal of it that suggests that it is endangering to human health and safety to do so? As a public leader it seems that you hold a tenuous position of balance between individual human rights concerns and corporate interests, and possibly without enough time to fully research the information required to make a fully responsible decision about the issue, you have my empathy on that if it is the case. It is on this issue that I urge you to draw the line on the side of human rights concerns, many of your constituency have researched enough to know that GMOs for food is a dangerous proposition, and only valuable to those who would seek to harm human life, justifying the act with statistics, and junk-science. When this comes up on the floor for debate, what will your position be on the issue of GMO’s? You reply that you have noted mine, and neglected to inform me of your position. Am I mistaken in my assumption that you and I have differing views on this issue?

As always, I appreciate you and your efforts,

Stephen Saunders

California: Assemblyman Introduces Measure To Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Proposal Will Raise Over $1.3 Billion Per Year, State’s Tax Collection Agency Says

San Francisco: State Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) introduced legislation this week to legalize and regulate the commercial production and sale of cannabis for adults age 21 or over. The proposal – Assembly Bill 390: The Marijuana Control, Regulation and Education Act – is the first bill ever to be introduced in the California legislature that seeks to tax and control the sale of cannabis.

Ammiano introduced AB 390 at a press conference Monday. Joining the assemblyman in support of the measure were Betty Yee, Chairwoman of the California Board of Equalization (Taxation), Oakland City Council member Rebecca Kaplan, Orange County Superior Court Judge James P. Gray (retired), and Dale Gieringer, Coordinator of California NORML, which provided legislative text and financial analysis for the bill.

“With the state in the midst of an historic economic crisis, the move toward regulating and taxing marijuana is simply common sense,” Ammiano said. “This legislation would generate much needed revenue for the state, restrict access to only those over 21, end the environmental damage to our public lands from illicit crops, and improve public safety by redirecting law enforcement efforts to more serious crimes. California has the opportunity to be the first state in the nation to enact a smart, responsible public policy for the control and regulation of marijuana.”

Local news anchors from CBS, ABC, NBC, and PBS television covered the press conference. National stories regarding Ammiano’s bill have appeared in USA Today, as well as on Air America and CNN.

As introduced, AB 390 would raise over $1.3 billion in annual revenue by taxing the retail production and sale of marijuana, according to financial estimates provided by the California Board of Equalization. An economic analysis by California NORML estimates that a legal, statewide retail market for cannabis could generate additional revenues totaling some $12 to $18 billion dollars per year.

The noncommercial cultivation of marijuana for personal use – defined as ten plants or fewer – would not be subject to taxation under the proposal. In addition, AB 390 would not alter existing legislation on the use of medicinal cannabis, nor would it impose new taxes or sanctions on the medical cultivation of cannabis.

A recent Zogby poll of 1,053 likely voters, commissioned by California NORML and Oaksterdam University, reported that nearly six out of ten respondents on the west coast favor taxing and legally regulating cannabis like alcohol.

“This bill is a winning proposition for California taxpayers,” Gieringer said. “It’s time that California stops wasting resources trying to enforce marijuana prohibition, and instead realizes the tax benefits derived from a legal, regulated cannabis market.”

For more information, please contact Dale Gieringer, California NORML Coordinator, at (415) 563-5858, or Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director, at: paul@norml.org. Additional information on AB 390, as well as contact information for the California Assembly, is available at: http://capwiz.com/norml2/issues/alert/?alertid=12758896.

California May Be Forced to Release Up to a Third of All Prisoners

February 10th, 2009
How will the private prison companies manage?

Via: Reuters:

Federal judges on Monday tentatively ordered California to release tens of thousands of inmates, up to a third of all prisoners, in the next three years to stop dangerous overcrowding.

As many as 57,000 could be let go if the current population were cut by the maximum percentage considered by a three-judge panel. Judges said the move could be done without threatening public safety — and might improve a public safety hazard.

The state immediately said it would appeal the final ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Trend-setting California, the Golden State, has an immense prison system responsible for nearly 170,000 inmates, and their care has become a major political and budget issue as officials weigh multibillion costs of improved facilities against death and illness behind bars.

Rocket Fuel in California Drinking Water? No Thank You!

The drinking water of between 15 and 20 million Californians is contaminated with perchlorate, a salt that is the primary component of solid rocket fuel. Help us convince Governor Schwarzenegger to protect our health from this dangerous chemical.

Perchlorate reduces the thyroid’s ability to take up iodide and produce thyroid hormone. Even a short term reduction in thyroid hormone can irreparably impair brain development in fetuses and infants, and impact people with thyroid problems.

Despite these serious health impacts, there is no federal drinking water standard for perchlorate thanks to pressure from the White House and polluters such as the Department of Defense.

California is one of only two states that have set a drinking water standard for perchlorate. The California standard is based on a 2004 public health goal of 6 parts per billion (ppb) established by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). State law requires that this goal be set at the level at which no adverse health impacts are expected.

Since 2004, however, research has confirmed that the 6 ppb drinking water standard will not adequately protect our vulnerable populations. Clean Water Action wants the state to lower the goal to reflect this research.

Recently, OEHHA announced that they will reevaluate the perchlorate public health goal in 2009. Clean Water Action has met with OEHHA staff to encourage them to lower the public health goal. But we need your help to turn up the pressure.

Take action now by e-mailing Governor Schwarzenegger. Tell him that you do not want rocket fuel in your drinking water and that you support lowering the perchlorate public health goal.