Quoting John Wilson (john@blueskin.biz):
NOTE: BEING WILLING TO HELP THESE GROUPS OUT IN NO WAY STATES THAT YOU ARE (OR HAVE BEEN) A RECREATIONAL DRUG USER YOURSELF.
suggesting otherwise is a smoke screen. Spin!!!
My boss has opined that reform of marijuana laws depends primarily on people like me, who are very obviously _not_ recreational drug users and who can argue rationally and credibly for why making drugs usage criminal is a dumb idea. FWIW, my native state of California came quite close to making marijuana completely legal for personal use and commercial production in 2010: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_19_(2010) Subsequent that that, possession of personal-use quantities was decriminalised: On September 30th, 2010, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law CA State Senate Bill 1449, effectively reducing the charge of possession of up to one ounce of cannabis from a misdemeanor to a infraction, similar to a traffic violation, with a $100 fine and no mandatory court appearance or criminal record.[3] The law became effective January 1, 2011. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_California Residents who want to avoid even the possibility of what is functionally equivalent to a parking ticket can get a prescription for 'medical marijuana' made possible by 1996's Prop. 215 / Compassionate Use Act[1], on any of a variety of fairly flimsy pretexts and then buy it at a retail 'clinic' set up for that purpose.[2] The net effect of these changes by the voters, state Senate, and former (Republican!) governor is that the stuff is widely available without fear of prosecution, and social conservatives have started noticing that the sky didn't fall. So, even though Prop. 19 failed by a narrow margin two years ago, it's widely predicted that public opinion has been swinging further in the direction of ending the legal idiocy. Also, various state and local police departments and prosecutors have developed a de-facto policy of not going after users. There have been two bits of fallout from the California experience on a national level: (a) Other states have, disappointingly, tried to avoid the 'California model' in their own reform efforts, seeing my beloved state as an appalling example of decriminalisation gone wrong, whereby not only cancer and glaucoma patients but functionally anyone at all can get marijuana lawfully. (A majority of California residents beg to differ:
From our perspective, societal acceptance of decriminalisation is a good thing even if it comes about through a medical subterfuge.)
(b) Federal law enforcement have sometimes carried out raids of lawful growers and of medical-marijuana clinics in California during the Bush Administration (as the Federal nationwide ban of marijuana as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 still exists). One of Obama's changes was to have Attorney General Holder announce starting March 2009 that Drug Enforcement Agency raids in California would cease. I told my co-workers that I'd actually try a sample of the stuff if Prop. 19 passed (which it didn't). Not smoked, though, as I rather like my lungs. Anyway, no Alice B. Toklas brownies for me yet. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_215_%281996%29#Implemen... [2] Some friends who need the stuff for pain-relief or asthma-relief purposes tell me they generally prefer to buy marijuana in a technically-illegal fashion than with a prescription for two reasons: (1) That way, there's no official record of their being a medical-marijuana customer, which might be handy if public opinion swings the other way or other complicating factors develop. (1) Fees for doctor consultation to get the prescription cost about the same as a fine, if not a bit more.