COTTONWOOD -- A former special agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration examined the language that would allow medical marijuana use under Proposition 203.
Douglas Hebert, who is now a board member for the Partnership for a Drug Free America /Arizona said the proposition text is 32 pages long and is a "vehicle to legalize marijuana." He spoke Thursday to a regular meeting of the MATForce in Prescott and Cottonwood.
Hebert says George Soros has been financing the medical marijuana initiatives around the county in an effort to "prey on voters sympathy." But, he notes, "make no bones about it, it is a stated intention to legalize marijuana."
The text of the proposition also would thwart efforts of law enforcement, prosecutors, the courts, state licensing entities and employers to enforce drug use.
He cites the American Medical Association, American Cancer Society and other such institutions would do not sanction "smoking marijuana as a medicine."
At the same time, Marinol, a prescription drug which contains the THC component of marijuana, has already been approved for medical use.
The new proposition would bypass the glitch that allowed the 1996 Arizona approval of medical marijuana, to be overturned through used the word "prescription." Federal law prohibits physicians from prescribing Schedule I drugs. Instead, a patient would need a "written certification" to become a "cardholder" for medical marijuana use.
Physicians, including osteopaths and naturopaths would be allowed to write the certifications. Even juveniles under 18 could receive a certification.
Consumption is limited to 2.5 ounces ever 14 days or an estimate of 100 to 200 cigarettes. If you live more than 25 miles from a dispensary, Hebert explains, you would be allowed to grow your own.
The former DEA agent warns that marijuana "grows" can become hazardous with fungicides, and pesticides. Colorado now trains firefighters to be aware of the electrical hazards that come with indoor grows.
Medical marijuana would come under the authority of the Department of Health Services in Arizona, according to Hebert and would not be subject to prosecution. DHS may only make an inspection with a "reasonable" advanced notice.
Additional restrictions, according to Hebert, disallow cardholders or physicians to be arrested. No school may refuse to enroll or landlord to lease to a cardholder and employers may not "discriminate" against a cardholder, even though medical marijuana may not be used on a work site or on school property, school bus, public transportation or in a public place.
In addition, he says, operating a vehicle, aircraft or motorboat with metabolites of marijuana is not considered "under the influence" if not in a sufficient concentration to cause impairment.
One woman in the Prescott audience who said she works for CPS worried that a staff member "entrusted with children could go off site and smoke medical marijuana" and still have charge of children.
Hebert says there are going to be a lot of questions about the workplace and around the state from the proposition.
Another audience member wondered if there would be any recourse for the unintended consumption of medical marijuana from second-hand smoke.
"I am sure that marijuana has been responsible for a number of traffic fatalities. We will have to be aware when driving down the road that there could be other drivers who are medical marijuana cardholders," said Hebert.
Fourteen states so far have approved medical marijuana provisions.
Hebert says groups who oppose the proposition have banded together to make the public aware of all the provisions of Proposition 203 at keepazdrugfree.com.
Posted: Wednesday, February 09, 2011
Article comment by:
Ida Goldberg
70% of drug cartels profits come from marijuana. Legalize and strangle the black market crime.
Posted: Wednesday, February 09, 2011
Article comment by:
Faithfull Patriot
Our nation drug control policy is nothing more or less than a price support mechanism for the drug cartels. It is also one of the corner stones of our evolving police state. We need a new policy founded on logic not fear.
Posted: Friday, August 27, 2010
Article comment by:
1 2
To serve and protect....our jobs.
Posted: Friday, August 06, 2010
Article comment by:
Well Mr. Geoff, why don't we make alcohol illegal then?
It sounds like you would support that...right?
Have fun taking away Billy Bob's beer and Wanda's wine.
That is the end play of your argument.
Posted: Thursday, August 05, 2010
Article comment by:
Mr. Geoff
Pot never killed anyone. Not until someone ingested it anyway. I know at least one fellow pushing daisies from failing to stop for a two-way stop sign and got broadsided. What if this fellow had been driving a school bus full of kids? Blood tests revealed high THC levels. I'm usually OK with the "don't mess with our personal freedoms thing", but why legalize another intoxicant when law enforcement already has their hands full with the problems of alcohol impaired drivers. Some of you really should throw those High Times magazines in the trash can. Note: I'll all for pot prescriptions for those with physician verified medical issues who seek to lesson the effects of nausea.
Posted: Thursday, August 05, 2010
Article comment by:
Tom Thumb
I posted this once before but with all the intentional misinformation being spread by the so-called experts, here we go again:
Nobody has ever died from marijuana. There have been no cases of lung cancer or other horrible diseases due to marijuana. Why? Because our government has known for 36 years that cannabinoids kill cancer.
A new study published in Nature Reviews-Cancer provides an historic and detailed explanation about how THC and natural cannabinoids counteract cancer, but preserve normal cells.
The study by Manuel Guzmán of Madrid Spain found that cannabinoids, the active components of marijuana, inhibit tumor growth in laboratory animals. They do so by modulating key cell-signalling pathways, thereby inducing direct growth arrest and death of tumor cells, as well as by inhibiting the growth of blood vessels that supply the tumor.
The Guzman study is very important according to Dr. Ethan Russo , a neurologist and world authority on medical cannabis: “Cancer occurs because cells become immortalized they fail to heed normal signals to turn off growth. A normal function of remodelling in the body requires that cells die on cue. This is called apoptosis, or programmed cell death. That process fails to work in tumors. THC promotes its reappearance so that gliomas, leukemias, melanomas and other cell types will in fact heed the signals, stop dividing, and die.”
“But, that is not all,” explains Dr. Russo: “The other way that tumors grow is by ensuring that they are nourished: they send out signals to promote angiogenesis, the growth of new blood vessels. Cannabinoids turn off these signals as well. It is truly incredible, and elegant.”
In other words, this article explains several ways in which cannabinoids might be used to fight cancer, and, as the article says, “Cannabinoids are usually well tolerated, and do not produce the generalized toxic effects of conventional chemotherapies.
Usually, any story that even suggests the possibility of a new treatment for cancer is greeted with headlines about a “cancer cure” – however remote in the future and improbable in fact it might be. But if marijuana is involved, don’t expect any coverage from mainstream media, especially since mainstream editors have been quietly killing this story for the past thirty years…
That’s right, news about the abilility of pot to shrink tumors first surfaced, way back in 1974. Researchers at the Medical College of Virginia, who had been funded by the National Institutes of Health to find evidence that marijuana damages the immune system, found instead that THC slowed the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice — lung and breast cancer, and a virus-induced leukemia.
The Washington Post reported on the 1974 study — in the “Local” section — on Aug. 18, 1974. Under the headline, “Cancer Curb Is Studied,” it read in part: “The active chemical agent in marijuana curbs the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice and may also suppress the immunity reaction that causes rejection of organ transplants, a Medical College of Virginia team has discovered.” The researchers “found that THC slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers, and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent.”
“News coverage of the Madrid discovery has been virtually nonexistent in this country. The news broke quietly on Feb. 29, 2000 with a story that ran once on the UPI wire about the Nature Medicine article,” complained MarijuanaNews.com editor Richard Cowan , who said he was only able to find the article through a link that appeared briefly on the Drudge Report Web page. “The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times all ignored the story, even though its newsworthiness is indisputable: a benign substance occurring in nature destroys deadly brain tumors,” added Cowan.
On March 29, 2001, the San Antonio Current printed a carefully researched, bombshell of a story by Raymond Cushing titled, “POT SHRINKS TUMORS GOVERNMENT KNEW IN ‘74.” Media coverage since then has been nonexistant, except for a copy of the story on Alternet.
It is hard to believe that the knowledge that cannabis can be used to fight cancer has been suppressed for almost thirty years , yet it seems likely that it will continue to be suppressed. Why?
According to Cowan, the answer is because it is a threat to cannabis prohibition . “If this article and its predecessors from 2000 and 1974 were the only evidence of the suppression of medical cannabis, then one might perhaps be able to rationalize it in some herniated way. However, there really is massive proof that the suppression of medical cannabis represents the greatest failure of the institutions of a free society, medicine, journalism, science, and our fundamental values,” Cowan notes.
Millions of people have died horrible deaths and in many cases, familes exhausted their savings on dangerous, toxic and expensive drugs. Now we are just beginning to realize that while marijuana has never killed anyone, marijuana prohibition has killed millions.
Posted: Thursday, August 05, 2010
Article comment by:
Frank Marcon
I went to high school in the seventies when everyone smoked weed and never imagined all the marvelous medical benefits we were getting. We just thought were trying to get high and we thought Acapulco Gold was some badass weed. I don't for one minute imagine that has changed. The thing that has changed for sure is that the potency of marijuana has significantly increased in that time and there are any number of "one hit wonders" strains that would make the old mary jane of my day seem like smoking rope. As a person who strongly believes in freedom and the right of everyone to be as stupid as they want to be I fully recognize that prohibition on marijuana use is useless and only serves the criminal element. However the current trend that "marijuana is medicine" will have equally undesired and unforseen consequences. There is no way that the tens of thousands of people who hold medical marijuana licenses in Colorado all have illness that benefits from pot smoke. What they do have is a strong desire to get a good buzz on. Of the several friends of mine who are "licensed" smokers every single one was acquired from a care giver who prescribed it after a cursorily dubious "exam" where the end result was, " You have the need for weed." Interestingly enough I'm sure they will never be cured and will continue to need their medicine indefinitely. So my question is this. When pot is medicine can I get my insurance to pay for it? Will the new health care bill allow me to get Uncle Sam to fund my treatment. Maybe not right away but soon I hope. All this thinking a has given me a headache and I need to "medicate".
Posted: Friday, July 30, 2010
Article comment by:
Annah Moore
Why would anyone, in their right mind, continue to support prohibition of drugs? Did we learn nothing from alcohol prohibition? That directly created people like Al Capone, who reaped millions of dollars hand-over-fist thanks to alcohol prohibition. Ending it was the only way to quell the violence caused, not because of the illicit alcohol industry initially, but as a direct result of prohibition. The reason there are criminals producing and distributing drugs are because they are the only types that can take that job - because it is illegal. And because it is illegal they cannot use the court system when they have business disputes, so they use violence. They are FORCED TO USE VIOLENCE BECAUSE OF PROHIBITION. The prohibitionists designed prohibition for this reason to make the industry look bad. Alcohol prohibition and legalization proves that drugs can be legalized, controlled and the criminal element removed from the equation.
Also, why would anyone believe liars like Doug Herbert? He and his constituents say they want to "protect the children" by keeping prohibition alive. That statement alone is a blinding indicator of their ignorance to the truth. Studies have shown that kids can get illegal drugs "within the hour" and often within minutes, if they want to. Why? Because there IS NO REGULATION OF ILLEGAL DRUGS except by the criminal dealers and kids who are selling them in our schools, on our playgrounds, in our streets. These people are unregulated, do not ask for ID, do not care how young your child is, and will sell them anything. In fact, the "gateway theory" is a direct result of prohibition because when people go to an unlicensed dealer to buy marijuana, that dealer often has drugs that actually are detrimental and addictive and destructive. The "gateway theory" is yet another nasty byproduct OF PROHIBITION.
There is only one way out of this ridiculous and insane mess that fools like Hebert continue to support: Legalization, regulation, and proper EDUCATION. We have had 70 years of misinformation, lies and deception from the US government, who profits wildly from prohibition (and YOU AND I PAY FOR IT WITH OUR TAXES!) and the "drug problem" has not gotten any better. In fact, the USA has a higher rate of incarceration per capita than ANY country, and that is BECAUSE OF THE WAR ON "DRUGS."
And for those who don't know this, marijuana was originally prohibited because of racism against Mexicans and Blacks. And any person supporting prohibition directly supports racism, as well as outrageous funding of non-tax-paying drug cartels (who are taking over Mexico and soon to take over the USA), as well as police and political corruption across the globe.
Prohibition is the most foolish thing humans have ever done in an attempt to control others. It is a mass failure. It has created more problems than it has solved because it was never intended or designed to solve any problems, only to control minorities. WAKE UP AMERICA. There is a better solution. Let's put an end to the DEA and drug cartel's monopoly on marijuana, stop ruining the lives of otherwise law-abiding citizens who prefer to imbibe in a safer alternative (to alcohol) and let's show some compassion and give people their rights to their bodies back.
THE DRUG WAR MUST BE STOPPED
Posted: Friday, July 30, 2010
Article comment by:
Mario John
Just because you see a news report about CA and Prop 215, do you really believed your informed? Take a trip to the Golden State and sit down with a cancer patient/card holder, and learn the truth for once. Aren't you tired off being a puppets? We are being told that a plant that naturally grows in soil on earth is "BAD" and a synthetic, lab-made pill is "GOOD". Please, the next time you get a prescription read the two-page risk sheet.
Posted: Friday, July 30, 2010
Article comment by:
Joe Miller
@ Sherry Miller...
I submit to you that even if your out-of-thin-air statistics were accurate if 98% of the patients currently using vicodin for headaches and hangnails vaporized cannabis instead, both their health and everyone elses overall health costs would be quite the better for it.
Hey, we aren't related are we?!!!
Posted: Friday, July 30, 2010
Article comment by:
Joe Miller
@ “Not for profit”…
Actually within the State of Arizona legislation is already in place to provide taxation on medical marijuana. Additionally, contrary to your claim that in States which have legalized medical marijuana there has been a rise in youth marijuana use rates- you are quite wrong.
More than a decade after the passage of the nation’s first state medical marijuana law, California’s Prop. 215, a considerable body of data shows that no state with a medical marijuana law has experienced an increase in youth marijuana use since their law’s enactment.
In fact, all states have reported overall decreases. In some cases these decreases have exceeded 50% in some age groups. The data strongly suggests that the enactment of state medical marijuana laws DOES NOT increase teen marijuana use.
One such study can be located at the following site…
“Marijuana Use by Young People: The Impact of State Medical Marijuana Laws”
Also of interest Joycelyn Elders, MD, former US Surgeon General, wrote in a Mar. 26, 2004 editorial published in The Providence Journal:
"That fear [that medical marijuana laws will increase teen use of marijuana] raised in 1996 when California passed the first effective medical-marijuana law, has not come true. According to the official California Student Survey teen marijuana use in California rose steadily from 1990 to 1996, but began falling immediately after the medical-marijuana law was passed.
Among ninth graders, marijuana use in the last six months fell by more than 40 percent from 1995-96 to 2001-02 (the most recent available figures)."
Posted: Thursday, July 29, 2010
Article comment by:
Joe Miller
It should also be noted that my editorial contribution to the Verde Independent n this topic represents MY opinion only and not necessarily the opinion of the agency for which I am currently employed or my co-workers.
Posted: Thursday, July 29, 2010
Article comment by:
Joe Miller
I'm a retired police officer currently employed as a probation officer within the State of Arizona. I do not receive funds from either George Soros OR the Partnership for a Drug Free America.
If former DEA special agent Douglas Herbert were truly concerned about minimizing the negative social, health, and personal costs of marijuana use- particularly as it relates to keeping drugs out of the hands of children, he would not support a prohibitionist policy which turns over the responsibility for the production and distribution of marijuana to criminal predators.
Ironically, about the only people currently benefitting from the prohibition of marijuana are folks like the DEA, the Partnership for a Drug Free America, and criminal drug cartels!
I don't mind cops playing doctors on internet editorial pages but Mr. Herbert's misrepresentation of the American Medical Association and other such organizations position's on the medical efficacy of marijuana use is a good example of why law enforcement should stick to discussing legal issues rather dispensing medical advice. Right now we have physicians across the country recommending that patients ingest marijuana to treat/mitigate various medical issues.
As it relates to the environmental impact of marijuana grows, one should also understand that even tomato farms could become 'hazardous with fungicides and pesticides' particularly so if forced to grow under black market conditions by the same criminal predators we currently reward for growing marijuana under prohibitionist policy. The Arizona Department of Health would be a welcome addition under a program of legalization compared to what we have going on right now with Mexican Drug Cartels calling the shots at many of the grow sites.
Mr. Herbert also states that 'operating a vehicle, aircraft or motorboat with metabolites of marijuana is not considered under the influence if not in a sufficient concentration to cause impairment'. Why should it be? If someone isn't under the influence or impaired while driving a motor vehicle or other form of transportation why should we arrest them? I wonder if that same CPS employee Herbert quotes as being concerned about co-workers 'entrusted with children' being under the influence of marijuana is just as concerned about those same co-workers being under the influence of alcoholic beverages or the myriad of legally prescribed drugs available to them. And if so I wonder if she supports a return to prohibitionist policy as it relates to alcohol too (and we all know how THAT worked out).
Mr. Herbert should also be aware that the fourteen states which have legalized medical marijuana did not likewise legalize driving under the influence! Driving under the influence of marijuana, even within those states, is still a serious criminal offense. Likewise it will remain so in Arizona even under the legalization of the medical use of the drug. You'll still earn a place in one of our prisons and/or on my case load.
Help keep drugs out of the hands of children and back alleyways and place it into the hands of medical patients who benefit from its use.
Support Proposition 203!
Posted: Thursday, July 29, 2010
Article comment by:
Ned Hoey
The only "disaster" is that cannabis was prohibited in the first place. Why do people think alcohol prohibition did not work but but drug prohibition does? It very obviously doesn't. If prohibition was good policy and worked to eradicate the prohibited substance from society, then alcohol would be illegal today and a distant memory. Oh yeah, it did not work and we ended it. The same is true today with drug prohibition especially cannabis.
If you think the current law means there are no cannabis using drivers on the road right now then you are quite ignorant of reality. Mr Herbert has nothing but scare tactics and lies to offer.
Posted: Thursday, July 29, 2010
Article comment by:
Carl Nye - Jerome
Note to D.C.: Have you seen this New York Times story? Here's the headline and first paragraph.
OAKLAND, Calif. � This city, which has been at the vanguard of medical marijuana legalization on everything from taxation to trade schools to the unionization of marijuana workers, voted Tuesday to permit industrial-size marijuana farms.
Doesn't sound to me like 'shutting down' is in Oakland's plans for the future.
