I just returned from taping my second show with Oregon NORML Presents on Cable Access. It looks like I’ll be a regular contributor, so I’ve posted the show dates over there on the right sidebar.
Madeleine Martinez (Executive Director of Oregon NORML) has the day off today, so the show was just me and our man with the Legal 411, attorney Paul Loney. We spent the first fifteen minutes discussing recent cannabis law news then took live calls for the rest of the show. (To our crank callers: #1 – I watched the tape; we do not suck. There was absolutely no moment on that tape where there was any sucking. You’re looking for The Hot Network; it’s in the 800’s somewhere on your dial. #2 – you can’t say that word on live cable access! To both of you: you’ve proven you know how to use a phone. Put it to a more productive use, like calling and harassing congressmen for their lousy prohibitionist attitudes, instead of calling and harassing a long-haired lawyer and a bald-headed hippie who are just trying to educate and inform.)
More details after you click here to continue…
First of all, Oregon’s Attorney General, Hardy Myers, issued his long-awaited opinion on how the Supreme Court’s decision in Gonzalez v. Raich would affect Oregon’s state-approved medical marijuana program. (Radical Writ readers will remember discussions, threats, and protests about how Oregon ceased issuing new medical marijuana cards for fear of federal persecution prosecution.)
On Friday, Attorney General Myers released this statement of opinion (emphasis mine):
ATTORNEY GENERAL ISSUES ADVICE ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA PROGRAM
Attorney General Hardy Myers today released legal advice to the Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS) as to the effect of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, Gonzales v. Raich, on the operation of the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program. The advice, which responds to questions asked by the Public Health Director in DHS, states that the decision has no legal impact on the operation of Oregon’s program. It further states that DHS may resume application review and issuance of registry identification cards to qualified applicants.
Below is a summary of the responses to the questions. The advice can be viewed in its entirety at www.doj.state.or.us.
1. Does Gonzales v. Raich invalidate the Oregon statutes authorizing the operation of the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program?
No. Raich does not hold that state laws regulating medical marijuana are invalid nor does it require states to repeal existing medical marijuana laws. Additionally, the case does not oblige states to enforce federal laws. The practical effect of Raich in Oregon is to affirm what the Attorney General understood to be the law since the adoption of the Act. The Act protects medical marijuana users who comply with its requirements from state criminal prosecution for production, possession, or delivery of a controlled substance. However, the Act neither protects marijuana plants from seizure nor individuals from prosecution if the federal government chooses to take action against patients or caregivers under the federal Controlled Substances Act.
2. Should there be operational changes to the program in light of Raich?
Since the Raich case does not invalidate the Act, the state has no legal mandate to change the program.
(a) May the program resume issuing registry identification cards?
Yes. The Oregon Medical Marijuana Act remains valid state law. As a result, DHS continues to be responsible for maintaining a program for the issuance of the cards pursuant to the terms of the Act.
(b) Does the decision require alteration of the program’s current procedures for communicating with local, state and federal law enforcement?
No. Since the Act remains valid there is no reason to alter current procedures. Depending upon the person or entity seeking information from the program, the information that is sought and the actual text of the request, the information may be subject to full disclosure, partial disclosure or no disclosure.
(c) Does the program have a legal duty to communicate to registrants or applicants that state law does not protect patients from potential federal prosecution?
No. Neither federal nor state laws require such notification to program participants. It is the Attorney General’s belief that the vast majority of patients and caregivers already knew, before Raich was decided, that the Act did not protect against possible federal prosecution. Nevertheless, in consultation with DOJ, DHS may want to consider again communicating to registrants and applicants that federal law continues to treat the manufacture, distribution and possession of marijuana as a crime and that compliance with the Act does not immunize individuals against possible federal prosecution.
In other news, we discussed how Oregon’s SB 772-4 (redefining OMMA limits) and SB 294 (legal industrial hemp) look to be dead for this session. This may be a good thing, in light of the “-4” part of the SB 772. It’s amazing what happens to a bill from the moment it is introduced until the time it gets voted on. Wording gets changed, deals get made, amendments get added, and before you know it, something that started out good often turns out bad. (They say making laws is like making sausage; it’s better if you don’t know how either are really made!) The amendments added on to 772 were going to take away the affirmative defense for medical marijuana patients. Paul could explain the legalese better than I can, but I take it to mean that if you’re busted with marijuana and you’re not a cardholder, and affirmative defense is the ability to say, “well, I was really sick and this medicine is all that would help me, please don’t sentence me too harshly!” in court in your defense.
But that the Industrial Hemp bill is stalled is truly a shame. Our farmers could really use a good renewable cash crop that requires no pesticides, grows anywhere, and has so many uses. In a time when 1700 of our soldiers have died to secure our source of SUV-juice, it’s a shame that our legislature wouldn’t turn to the hemp crop that could provide cheap, safe, clean biodiesel. If it’s good enough for Willie Nelson, it’s good enough for me.
One bill to watch out for, we also mentioned, is Oregon’s HB 2693 (Employer’s right to fire medical marijuana patients). This is an awful bill that needs to be put out of our misery. It would allow employers to fire employees who test positive for marijuana on a pee test, despite that employee’s participation in a legal medical marijuana program. Can you believe that? If you use Vicodin for pain treatment after a surgery, your employer isn’t going to test for and fire you for that, but if you use marijuana for chronic disease or injury, you could lose your job for using the medicine you and your doctor find best for your situation. And of course, marijuana is detectable for weeks, so a pee test doesn’t prove intoxication at all. Your chemo treatment could have been two weeks ago, you smoked a joint to relieve nausea, then you’re fired today for testing positive on a pee test.
We also discussed the votes we’ve picked up on Hinchey-Rohrabacher Amendment (it would have barred DEA from using taxpayer funds to harass state medical marijuana patients.) It failed in a 161-264 vote, but it failed before with only 148 & 152 votes the last times it was offered. We’ve changed 13 minds that count and of those minds was Rep. David Wu, who had voted against the amendment the last two years, but voted for it this time around. (He voted against it before he voted for it? Republicans would sneer, “typical Democrat”. I’d say, “typical of an honorable person who realized he made a mistake.”)
It goes to show that YOU can make a difference, to your friends, family, co-workers, and even your government. Nothing changes until PEOPLE make it change. We’re fighting against nearly 100 years of effective propaganda that equates a healing plant with a narcotic drug. 70 years of mainstream depictions of shiftless, lazy, amotivated stoners. Countless ads and politicians telling the people that marijuana leads to crime and hard drugs and immorality and eggs in frying pans. I tell everyone involved that our system was set up to change very slowly and only with much effort on purpose, so that no crazed leader with radically dangerous ideas in a time of crisis could fundamentally alter our system of self-governance. Unfortunately, all the checks and balances weren’t enough to stop government from making the same mistake a second time — prohibition — even after learning the devastating effects from alcohol prohibition.
Some other tips we laid out to our callers:
1) We’re not experts on how to grow marijuana. Books by Ed Rosenthal and others are a great place for that information. You’ll learn more from them than I could possibly tell you; my focus is on changing minds and marijuana politics, Paul’s focus is on changing laws and marijuana news.
2) Personal testimonials are great, as is frustration with the idiocy that is current marijuana prohibition. But why are you telling us and our audience? Most in our audience will agree with you, as will Paul & I. Call your representatives and tell them your story. They can do something about protecting your privacy and medical rights.
3) Get to the point and/or the question as quickly as you can. Believe me, if anyone needs this advice, it is me! There’s so much wrong with marijuana prohibition that I sometimes don’t know where to start and once started don’t know when to stop. But it’s worse on a live call-in show. The phones have been ringing off the hook for the past couple of shows and we want to get as many callers in as possible. We have to remember your question, think of some answers while listening to you and watching a producer give us the “wind it up” hand signal.
4) If you’re watching live while calling in, turn down your TV volume. That’s where we get most of that audio feedback.
5) If you actually disagree with what we’re saying, you’ve got to come with a stronger case than “you suck” or an expletive. I promise I will give any anti-drug speaker a fair shot at a reasonable debate, primarily because the truth is on my side and my position is unloseable.
If you have questions or comments for the show, leave them by using the “comments” link below. I’ll see you on-air again on July 17.
