but remember
green flag compliance training is not legal marijuana advocacy
green flag compliance guidelines are strict
green flag rules MUST be followed to obtain legal privilege

if you decide to accept the privilege
you must accept the responsibility

Advocacy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Advocacy is the pursuit of influencing outcomes — including public-policy and resource allocation decisions within political, economic, and social systems and institutions — that directly affect people’s current lives. (Cohen, 2001)

Therefore, advocacy can be seen as a deliberate process of speaking out on issues of concern in order to exert some influence on behalf of ideas or persons. Based on this definition, Cohen (2001) states that “ideologues of all persuasions advocate” to bring a change in people’s lives. However, advocacy has many interpretations depending on the issue at stake, which can be different from this initial value-neutral definition.

//

Forms of advocacy

There are several forms of advocacy, which each represent a different approach in the way change is brought into society. One of the most popular forms is social justice advocacy.

Although it is true, the initial definition does not encompass the notions of power relations, people’s participation and a vision of a just society as promoted by social justice advocates. For them, advocacy represents the series of actions taken and issues highlighted to change the “what is” into a “what should be”, considering that this “what should be” is a more decent and a more just society (ib., 2001.) Those actions, which vary with the political, economical and social environment in which they are conducted, have several points in common (ib., 2001.) They:

• question the way policy is administered
• participate in the agenda setting as they raise significant issues
• target political systems “because those systems are not responding to people’s needs”
• are inclusive and engaging
• propose policy solutions
• open up space for public argumentation.

Some of the other forms of advocacy include:

• Ideological advocacy: in this approach, groups fight, sometimes during protests, to advance their ideas in the decision-making circles.
• Mass advocacy: is any type of action taken by large groups (petitions, demonstrations, etc.)
• Interest-group advocacy: lobbying is the main tool used by interests groups doing mass advocacy. It is a form of action that does not always succeed at influencing political decision-makers as it requires resources and organisation to be effective.
• Bureaucratic advocacy: people considered “experts” have more chance to succeed at presenting their issues to decision-makers. They use bureaucratic advocacy to influence the agenda, however at a slower pace.
• Legislative advocacy: legislative advocacy is the “reliance on the state or federal legislative process” as part of a strategy to create change.(Loue, Lloyd and O’Shea, 2003)
• Media advocacy: is “the strategic use of the mass media as a resource to advance a social or public policy initiative” (Jernigan and Wright, 1996.) In Canada for example, the Manitoba Public Insurance campaigns illustrate how media advocacy was used to fight alcohol and tobacco-related health issues. We can also consider the role of health advocacy and the media in “the enactment of municipal smoking bylaws in Canada between 1970 and 1995.” (Asbridge, 2004)
• Budget advocacy: Budget advocacy is another aspect of advocacy that ensures proactive engagement of Civil Society Organizations with the government budget to make the government more accountable to the people and promote transparency. Budget advocacy also enables citizens and social action groups to compel the government to be more alert to the needs and aspirations of people in general and the deprived sections of the community.

Different contexts in which advocacy is used:

• In a legal/law context: An ‘advocate’ is the title of a specific person who is authorized/appointed (in some way) to speak on behalf of a person in a legal process. See advocate.
• In a political context: An ‘advocacy group’ is an organized collection of people who seek to influence political decisions and policy, without seeking election to public office. See interest group.
• In a social care context: Both terms (and more specific ones such as ‘independent advocacy’) are used in the UK in the context of a network of interconnected organisations and projects which seek to benefit people who are in difficulty (primarily in the context of disability and mental health).
• In the context of inclusion: Citizen Advocacy organisations (citizen advocacy programmes) seek to cause benefit by reconnecting people who have become isolated. Their practice was defined in two key documents: CAPE, and Learning from Citizen Advocacy Programs. See Citizen Advocacy organisations.

Advocacy groups

Advocacy is led by advocates or, when they are organized in groups as is the case most of the time, advocacy groups. Advocacy groups as defined by Young and Everritt (2004, 5) are different from political parties which “seek to influence government policy by governing.” They are “any organization that seeks to influence government policy, but not to govern.” This definition includes social movements, sometimes network of organizations which are also focused on encouraging social change. Social movements try to either influence governments or, like the environmental movement, to influence people’s ideas or actions.

Today, advocacy groups contribute to democracy in many ways (ib., 2004.) They have five key functions:

• Give a voice to (misrepresented) citizen interests
• Mobilize citizens to participate in the democratic process
• Support the development of a culture of democracy
• Assist in the development of better public policy
• Ensure governments’ accountability to citizens.

In comparison to other countries and other the last thirty years, an increasing number (40 percent) of the Canadian population is member of an organization which has had an advocacy role and has tried to achieve political change. Such a level of participation is a positive indicator of the health of the democracy in Canada (ib., 2004.)

Transnational advocacy

Advocates and advocacy groups represent a wide range of categories and support several issues as listed on World Advocacy. The Advocacy Institute, a US-based global organization, is dedicated to strengthening the capacity of political, social, and economic justice advocates to influence and change public policy (Cohen, de la Vega & Watson, 2001.)

The phenomenon of globalization draws a special attention to advocacy beyond countries’ borders. The core existence of networks such as World Advocacy or the Advocacy Institute demonstrates the increasing importance of transnational advocacy and international advocacy. Transnational advocacy networks are more likely to emerge around issues where external influence is necessary to ease the communication between internal groups and their own 1 government. Groups of advocates willing to further their mission also tend to promote networks and to meet with their internal counterparts to exchange ideas (Keck and Sikkink, 1998.)

See also

• Ban Advocates – Cluster bomb victims advocating for a ban on cluster munitions
• Budget advocacy

References

• Asbridge, M. 2004. Public place restrictions on smoking in Canada: assessing the role of the state, media, science and public health advocacy. Social science & medicine 58(1):13-24.
• Cohen, D., R. de la Vega, G. Watson. 2001. Advocacy for social justice. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press Inc.
• Jerningan, D.H. and P. Wright. 1996. Media advocacy: lessons from community experiences. Journal of Public Health Policy Vol.17, No.3: 306-330.
• Keck, M.E. and K. Sikkink. 1998. Activists beyond borders: advocacy networks in international politics. Baltimore, MD: Cornell University Press.
• Loue, S., L.S. Lloyd, D. J. O’shea. 2003. Community health advocacy. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
• Young, L. And J. Everitt. 2004. Advocacy groups. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press

External links

• Public Affairs World The world’s first global news and information site on the subject of lobbying.
• Public place restrictions on smoking in Canada: assessing the role of the state, media, science and public health advocacy.
• How to advocate for yourself

Regulatory compliance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regulatory compliance describes the goal that corporations or public agencies aspire to in their efforts to ensure that personnel are aware of and take steps to comply with relevant laws and regulations.

Contents 1 International Compliance 2 Compliance in the USA 3 Compliance in Australia 4 Compliance in the UK 5 Definitions Related to Compliance 6 See also 7 External links

// <![CDATA[//

International Compliance

The International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) produces international standards such as ISO17799. The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) produces international standards in the electrotechnology area.

Compliance in the USA

In general, compliance means conforming to a specification or policy, standard or law that has been clearly defined.

Corporate scandals and breakdowns such as the Enron case in 2001 have highlighted the need for stronger compliance regulations for publicly listed companies. The most significant regulation in this context is the Sarbanes-Oxley Act developed by two U.S. congressmen, Senator Paul Sarbanes and Representative Michael Oxley in 2002 which defined significant tighter personal responsibility of corporate top management for the accuracy of reported financial statements.

Compliance in the USA generally means compliance with laws and regulations. These laws can have criminal or civil penalties or can be regulations. The definition of what constitutes an effective compliance plan has been elusive. Most authors, however, continue to cite the guidance provided by the United States Sentencing Commission in Chapter 8 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

On October 12 2006, the U.S. Small Business Administration re-launched Business.gov which provides a single point of access to government services and information that help businesses comply with government regulations.

There are a number of other regulations such as GLBA, FISMA, and HIPAA. In some cases other compliance frameworks (such as COBIT) or standards (NIST) inform on how to comply with the regulations.

Compliance in Australia

Standards Australia revised the standard titled "AS 3806 - Compliance Programs". While many aspects of the original standard produced in 1998 standard appear in the 2006 version there are additional principles covered. The regulators in Australia continue to endorse and encourage (by regulation) the use of the standard when establishing a compliance framework.

The regulators are the Australian Securities and Investment Commission and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA).

Compliance demands in the superannuation industry continue to increase due to the new licensing regime implemented by APRA. The new licensing regime requires trustees of superannuation funds to demonstrate to APRA that they have adequate resources (human, technology and financial), risk management systems and appropriate skills and expertise to manage the superannuation fund. The licensing regime has lifted the bar for superannuation trustees with a significant number of small to medium size superannuation funds exiting the Industry due to the increasing risk and compliance demands.

Compliance in the UK

There is considerable regulation in the UK, some of which is from EU legislation. Various areas are policed by different bodies, such as the FSA (Financial Services Authority), Environment Agency and Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Information Commissioner's Office and others.

Important compliance issues for all organisations large and small include the Data Protection Act 1998 and, for the public sector, Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Combined Code issued by the London Stock Exchange (LSE) is the Sarbanes-Oxley equivalent in the UK.

Definitions Related to Compliance

Compliance data is defined as all data belonging or pertaining to enterprise or included in the law, which can be used for the purpose of implementing or validating compliance. It is the set of all data that is relevant to a governance officer or to a court of law for the purposes of validating consistency, completeness, or compliance

See also

• Chief Compliance Officer
• Compliance and ethics program
• Business Motivation Model. A standard for recording governance and compliance activities
• Enforcement
• Law enforcement agency
• Call Report
• Category:Law enforcement templates by country or region
• Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics
• Health Care Compliance Association

External links

• Business.gov, Official U.S. Government Portal for Complying with Regulations.
• RCA, RCA is a nonprofit-organization that provides firms with an all inclusive resource to effectively manage the escalating Operational Risk Management and Compliance environment.
• Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics (SCCE)
• Health Care Compliance Association (HCCA)
• Open Compliance & Ethics Group (OCEG), OCEG is a nonprofit organization that provides numerous resources for corporate governance, risk management, compliance and business ethics.
• European Project COMPAS, European Project COMPAS - Compliance-driven Models, Languages, and Architectures for Services; funded by the EU 7th Framework Programme Information and Communication Technologies Objective.
• Microsoft Resources, Microsoft resources for corporate governance, risk management, compliance.
• International Association of Risk and Compliance Professionals (IARCP), The International Association of Risk and Compliance Professionals (IARCP).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_compliance"

Categories: Regulatory compliance

compliance brings privilege

Now that the Obama administration says it won’t arrest medical marijuana patients and suppliers who are following their own state laws, a Northern California congressman wants the same leeway for those who are already being prosecuted.

Currently, someone who’s charged in federal court with growing or selling marijuana can’t argue that he or she was just doing what’s allowed by the law of California or one of the 13 other states that recognize the medical use of cannabis. A bill introduced Tuesday by Rep. Sam Farr, D-Monterey, would change that.

Farr’s H.R. 3939 wouldn’t legalize medical marijuana under federal law. But it would require a not-guilty verdict if the defendant was complying with state law, even if a future presidential administration repealed the guidelines announced by Attorney General Eric Holder earlier this month.

“This bipartisan bill is about compassion and states’ rights,” said Farr.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach, a co-sponsor, said, “The federal government should never have overridden state law on this issue to begin with, and this legislation will prevent them from doing it again.”

It’s yet another attempt to get Congress to soften the federal law that prohibits all possession, cultivation and transfer of marijuana and has been used by successive administrations to go after medical pot suppliers in California.

A group of Democrats and libertarian Republicans has been trying for years to get the feds to lay off marijuana dispensaries and growers in states where they operate legally. They’ve been beaten back by law enforcement interests and presidential drug czars who argue that medical pot is a myth and a smokescreen for legalization.

Whether the Obama administration follows the same course remains to be seen.

In Sacramento, meanwhile, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano’s bill to legalize marijuana for personal use in California in being heard this morning before the Assembly Public Safety Committee. If the San Francisco Democrat’s AB390 becomes law, or voters approve any of the circulating legalization initiatives next November, get ready for another state-federal drug war.

Bob Egelko covers legal issues for The Chronicle. E-mail him at begelko@sfchronicle.com.

Posted By: Michael Collier (Email) | October 28 2009 at 11:33 AM

compliance brings privilege

kamala

make this the green flag rules for california

as the next attorney general

jerry

support these green flag rules

in your unofficial run for govenor

++++++++++++++++++++++++

amend the 2010 california attorney general

compassionate care guidelines to read:

make all compassionate care participants take

green flag rules compliance education training annually

like this dmv list of  schools for car dealer pre-licensing

make all caregivers hold a green flag rules license

like this dmv licensed salesperson required in the car sales industry

make all green flag caregivers post a bond

like this bond requirement for licensed car dealers

make all green flag caregivers submit fingerprints

like this fingerprint requirement for dmv licensed salespersons

make all green flag caregivers obtain local zoning approval

like this property use verification form from the dmv

green flag rules will generate green flag compliance

plus a whole network of folks

to monitor and teach green flag compliance

as a matter of fact

why not just add it to the dmv with special green flag funding

from obama and holder

a model green flag rules compliance program

for the nation to follow

you might need a willis to see which way this wind will blow

gina

green flag compliance = certified dealer

//

MARINA DEL REY, CA — 10/21/09 — Medical Marijuana, Inc. (PINKSHEETS: MJNA) is currently offering Informational Seminars in Mendocino County, CA. These one hour seminars will culminate in an initial series of two day paid seminars beginning November 6 &7, 2009 at the Discovery Inn in Ukiah, California hosted by MMI CEO and King of Pot, Bruce Perlowin, who was featured in CNBC’s most watched television documentary “Marijuana Inc.”Among significant topics to be covered are clarification of State, City and County laws and ordinances governing Medical Marijuana collectives in regard to dispensaries and cultivation. This is tied into Medical Marijuana, Inc.’s transparent patent pending Tax Remittance and Closed Loop Inventory Tracking Systems to ensure total compliance. Also discussed are the cottage industries that will sprout from the core medical marijuana industry beyond cultivation and collectives; cannabis kitchens and bottling companies, testing facilities, distribution and logistics, delivery services, security and more.

REVENUE

The seminar series signals a significant new revenue stream for MMI as schedules will expand to the other 13 states where Medical Marijuana use is legal. In addition to the fees earned initially at the 2 day seminar, MJNA will continue to earn income as these attendees go on to open collectives and use the MJNA tax collection and tracking systems.

An additional revenue stream that MMI will offer is turnkey solutions to those interested in going on to the next step. Paramount to the turn key solution is the ability to cultivate. To that end, MMI will offer grow solutions in part or whole including hydroponic and airponic indoor systems and peripherals. MMI’s paid seminar attendees are likely to take advantage of in-house expertise and materials.

MEDICAL MARIJUANA, INC.’S TURNKEY COLLECTIVE SOLUTION

Medical Marijuana, Inc.’s Turnkey Collective Solution ensures that collectives operate within the guidelines of all laws and regulations regarding the tracking of the marijuana from grow cycle to final distribution. By employing Medical Marijuana, Inc.’s closed loop tracking system, it can be shown to authorities and collectives alike that the source of their supply was an active member of the collective. Medical Marijuana, Inc.’s Regulatory Module provides officials with a comprehensive reporting tool that allows them to remotely audit the industry in real time to ensure regulations are being properly followed. This audit function can be performed online and remotely from the regulators desktop anywhere in the world, making the process more efficient and cost effective for governments to monitor and regulate the industry. Medical Marijuana, Inc. believes that tools to regulate the industry and collect tax revenue are necessary to gain nationwide acceptance and legalization of medical marijuana. Further, Medical Marijuana’s Tax Remittance Platform could not only cost-effectively implement the necessary infrastructure to collect on every sale made within city limits by licensed collectives and collect those taxes on a daily basis, but eliminate the cash problem by using a tax remittance, credit, debit, or proprietary card. The POS system automatically recognizes the collective’s tax ID number, state and local tax rates and then provides Automated Clearing House settlement of the taxes and routes the amount to the City’s appointed financial institution. Taxes can be collected on a daily basis, providing an economic windfall for the city of Los Angeles and any other municipality recognizing the advantages of this model.

Tax Collection

The Stored Value Platform System will provide verifiable solutions to manage the difficult task of revenue and taxation collection. The customers of the dispensary are issued a plastic debit card or medical revenue card. The ease of access to certifiably secure transactions lessens the risk of loss at each level of the transaction.

Internal Management

All collectives/dispensaries in the U.S. are cash businesses. This presents a number of challenges. Dispensary owners risk employee theft and possible competition for sales with unsupervised employees. Our stored value system also eliminates the legal and practical risks of carrying cash.

Solutions

Medical Marijuana, Inc. is developing a suite of solutions to deliver an efficient and secure infrastructure for the Medical Marijuana Industry that will provide the tools to industry operators to effectively manage their businesses with the confidence that they are in full compliance.

ABOUT MEDICAL MARIJUANA, INC.

Medical Marijuana, Inc. is the first public company to recognize the vast and unequaled opportunities that exist in the rapidly expanding medical marijuana industry. The scientific recognition of marijuana as a powerful medicine, and as an effective, non-narcotic pain reliever, has brought legalized marijuana use to the forefront of mainstream discussion thus opening the door for safe and lucrative investment opportunities.

certified dealer education

Medical Pot: Don’t Forget the Pain

My Turn
By Diana L. Chapman

On the marijuana front – it’s so strange to say that because in my lifetime I never thought I’d be defending its use – I received e-mails from Santa Barbara to Arizona.

Defending pot was not one of my priorities – until I got sick.  Now I understand the need and chided two of our Los Angeles attorneys, City Attorney Carmen Trutanich and  the County District Attorney Steven Cooley  last week for spending a fortune to start to seize and shut down outlets claiming they were illegal operations under federal law – even though the state has approved it. Those who emailed ran the gamut, complaining that dispensaries handed out marijuana willy-nilly or others contended it should be legalized  to cut down on illegal sales in the brutal drug world.

Both points are valid.

So I need to make this clear – I only defend the herb’s legalization for medicinal reasons which I wrote about in one of my earlier CityWatch column.   I know what it means to be attacked by a chronic illness and why some would want to use the herb to reduce debilitating symptoms that box them around daily.

President Barack Obama last week unofficially told federal prosecutors and agents to back off the dispensaries that are legally dispensing under state laws.

Meanwhile, our local attorneys continue to wage a campaign against the number of pot outlets, somewhere in the neighborhood of 800 plus in Los Angeles County – and are working to shut them down. I argued  that they need to be concerned about those who need it. Santa Barbara resident Sharon Byrne e-mailed that “You missed the point why they are cracking down.”

A few emails later, we realized that somewhere in the middle lies the truth. For Sharon, an endless number of such dispensaries opened in her area and what’s driving her crazy are the youth bringing pot to school, telling administrators that it’s legal. Some are hanging out at dispensaries.

“Clearly, our dispensaries are not all about serving compassionate intent,” she wrote.

“We had a ‘marijuana mile’ march here three weeks ago, and we walked past seven dispensaries within one mile. At one of the dispensaries, the people working there littered the sidewalk with pro-pot flyers, and handed them to the kids and marchers as we passed. I thought it odd that they didn’t mention compassion, or the number of patients with dreaded diseases they’ve helped. No, they were simply pushing pot, and it is this I have a problem with.

“It’s unfortunate, but in the case of Los Angeles, and here in my hometown of Santa Barbara, dispensaries that promote recreational use do bring crime to their area,” she added. “There were 16 armed robberies at dispensaries in Los Angeles last month, and an armed extortion at a dispensary here. Cities are correct in watching out for their residents and nearby businesses if dispensaries opening in their vicinity cause issues.”

My Long Beach friend reported the opposite reaction to two marijuana outlets, that took over run-down liquor stores that often brought crime to her neighborhood. The marijuana dispensaries opened, fixed up the buildings and cleaned up the neighborhood, she said. As far as she concerned, it was refreshing.

The legalization of the drug makes complete sense, if you ask one Los Angeles attorney, who worked as a former probation officer. It’s the only way, he believes, to win against the mafia and gang members who sell these drugs underground – and make a fortune.

He further debated the wasteful spending that goes into prosecuting those caught with marijuana.

The attorney, who asked not to be named, currently represents a homeless man who had less than .06 of an ounce of marijuana – which was prescribed to sooth his mental illness. To prosecute him, the city ran up charges of $10,000, which points out the futility, the attorney said, when the real war is with the illegal drug trade.

“I only have two criminal cases right now,” he emailed. “One is a drug case for .06 ounces  of hash for a schizophrenic homeless person who had a medical Marijuana letter. The city and county has spent over $10,000 on this case if you add up the time of the courts, the Twin Towers, the DA.”

He added he was pleased that Los Angeles Judge James C. Chalfant struck down the city’s ban on new medical marijuana centers last week, citing that the city used an expired ordinance and failed to follow state laws.

“It is nice to hear that some law enforcement officers realize that the income from drugs benefits organized crime,” he continued. “Gangs like MS-13 are no longer mere gangs as we know gangs.  They are international crime syndicates, and Carmen T wants to help them keep their drug profits high.

When push comes to shove, Carmen T places his time and energy into supporting the profits of organized crime and does nothing to help kids. Make no mistake about it.   LA’s new war on pot will have one definite effect  — protecting the profits of organized crime.”

On one side of the coin (Oh, I love clichés), we are in the year 2009 – and conservatives need to accept that this plant has improved the life of those struck down with diseases. On the other side, eager entrepreneurs and those interested in having a free-for all use of the drug for fun need to get their feet planted firmly to the ground.

We need to make it a law that marijuana can only be used with a legal prescription to fix the current blurry lines of the laws that exist. Currently, a person only needs only a letter of recommendation.

Trutanich  and Cooley undergoing this war seems extraordinary considering the scores of much uglier issues that Los Angeles faces, such as foster children being murdered. Where are those attorneys to protect those children? I want to know.

To top it all, one resident in Arizona wrote thanking me for the defense for those who are ill.

”Thanks for such an insightful look into the benefits of marijuana use for medicinal purposes,” the writer emailed, asking not to be identified. “As a two-time cancer treatment patient, (once in 2001 and again in 2007) I don’t think anyone has any idea what we go through with the nausea thing.

“This last time around, surgery was not an option for me so the cancer had to be eradicated solely with chemo and radiation.  It wasn’t pleasant considering the tumor was at the base of my tongue.  My entire mouth, tongue, gums, throat and cheeks were burnt and swollen.  I lost almost 60 lbs.

We don’t have to mention pain, do we?”

(Diana L. Chapman was a journalist for 15 years with the Daily Breeze and the San Diego Union. She can be reached at

hartchap@cox.netorvisit

certified dealer education

// <![CDATA[//

Why Is L.A.’s District Attorney

Aiding and Abetting

Mexican Drug Cartels?

By Bruce Mirken, Daily News
http://www.alternet.org/story/143310/

Last week, Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley announced a sweeping new plan to boost the profits of Mexican drug cartels, a plan almost certain to increase the slaughter these vicious gangs are perpetrating on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border.

Of course, Cooley didn’t call it that. He claimed, on dubious legal grounds, that all medical marijuana dispensaries in the county are illegal and announced plans to crack down on them. While no one denies that L.A.’s attempts – or, more accurately, nonattempts – to regulate these operations have been a mess, Cooley’s crackdown is guaranteed to make a bad situation worse.

While state law is not as precise as it might be in setting legal parameters for dispensing medical marijuana, guidelines issued last year by state Attorney General Jerry Brown make clear that dispensing collectives are legal and can include storefront operations.

“It is the opinion of this Office that a properly organized and operated collective or cooperative that dispenses medical marijuana through a storefront may be lawful under California law,” the guidelines state, so long as other requirements are met.

It may well be that some are operating outside these guidelines, but until and unless Cooley closely inspects their operations, he is simply making things up. That’s not how law enforcement should operate.

But even if Cooley were right on legal grounds, as policy his stand borders on the insane.

California law unmistakably gives patients the right to use and possess marijuana for medical purposes when recommended by their physician. And a flood of medical research over the last several years – much of it conducted by the University of California – has confirmed that marijuana can indeed provide safe, effective relief for a number of conditions, including certain hard-to-treat types of excruciating nerve pain.

So the question facing local leaders is not whether patients can have medical marijuana, but how they will obtain it. Will it be from licensed businesses operating under appropriate rules and regulations, or from drug dealers on the streets? Does Cooley really believe it’s better for either patients or communities to have the state’s medical marijuana patients – who number more than 200,000 by most estimates – getting their medicine from street dealers?

Sending patients to the streets for their medicine is clearly dangerous, subjecting sick people to risky transactions in order to purchase medicine of unknown quality, purity and origin. But it’s the question of origin that should alarm all of us.

We know that a significant amount of street marijuana can be traced to the murderous Mexican cartels – vicious gangs who make around two-thirds of their profits from the illicit marijuana trade, according to U.S. and Mexican officials. We know that these gangs are operating in at least 230 U.S. cities, including Los Angeles, Hacienda Heights and Garden Grove.

A mass shutdown of medical marijuana dispensaries will simply hand these thugs a massive new pool of customers and millions of dollars in extra profits. There is a better way.

The experience of other cities, including Oakland and San Francisco, has shown that well-crafted regulations can allow medical marijuana patients to access their medicine safely, from well-run organizations that follow the law and respect their neighborhoods.

In San Francisco, medical marijuana dispensaries have simply ceased being controversial, as explained last year by C.W. Nevius, arguably the San Francisco Chronicle’s most conservative local columnist:

“Quietly, with little fanfare, San Francisco is on the way to becoming a model for medical marijuana clubs done the right way. Exploitative, profit-hungry drug clubs are being forced out and community-based, patient-friendly ones are becoming the norm. Neighbors have shut down dispensaries in school zones, and patient services have been increased.”

It’s long past time for California’s legislature to set clear, statewide standards and licensing rules for medical marijuana providers. But until then, local officials like Cooley need to use common sense and not pursue policies that will simply enrich murderous thugs.

Bruce Mirken is communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project.

green flags rules will bring green flag compliance

The Obama administration threw a bone to the lunatic, fringe left a few days ago. The memo to federal prosecutors in medical marijuana states has garnered hearty applause from Greenwald and the Marijuana Policy Project.

When elected, Obama said that federal raids on state-law legal marijuana cultivation and distribution would end. The didn’t, not by a long shot, and the reasoning was that the feds would continue to prosecute people who violated state and federal laws. That boils down to everyone, no matter their standing under state law. The latest memo simply tells prosecutors that it’s not a good use of their time to bring charges against those abiding by their State’s law.

So hold your applause. This memo amounts to nothing, which is precisely what’s it’s meant to amount to while simultaneously making Obama look like a good guy.

The Department of Justice is committed to the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act in all States. Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug, and the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime and provides a significant source of revenue to large-scale criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels. One timely example underscores the importance of our efforts to prosecute significant marijuana traffickers: marijuana distribution in the United States remains the single largest source of revenue for the Mexican cartels.

Note the Department’s commitment, “in all States”. I have to wonder what credentials Congress possess that enables it to determine how dangerous any drug is, as if that august body was known for its deep, careful thinkers and scientists. Furthermore, according to everything i’ve ever read, drug scheduling is under the purview of several departments that are all within the executive branch. That’s how Congress established the system when it determined which drugs were dangerous and which drugs weren’t. So the President could order the DEA, HHS and the FDA to review the scheduling of a drug and force Congress to be along for the ride.

Yes, marijuana trafficking is the single largest source of revenue for Mexican drug cartels. That’s because it’s illegal. I thought supply and demand was like the American catechism. Restricting supply only pushes prices, and hence profits, up. This idea that further restricting supply will somehow diminish cartel profits flies in the face of everything Ronald Reagan and common sense taught me…not that the two necessarily intersect.

As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities [catching druggies] should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana. …prosecution of commercial enterprises that unlawfully market and sell marijuana for profit continues to be an enforcement priority of the Department. To be sure, claims of compliance with state or local law may mask operations inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of those laws, and federal law enforcement should not be deterred by such assertions when otherwise pursuing the Department’s core enforcement priorities.

So according to the Obama administration, if you’ve got cancer or aids and your supplier is giving you marijuana for free that’s ok. But just because someone is in full compliance with his State’s law is no protection. In other words, “Hey, don’t make us look like assholes by arresting someone who’s got six months to live.”

The administration produces a list of characteristics that should suggest prosecution. Some of them make sense, but there’s always a catch. “Evidence of money laundering activity” makes the list. As any monetary gain from the sale of marijuana is criminal under federal law, just about any use of marijuana proceeds could be considered money laundering. And if you don’t think that the DEA won’t see that argument, you’re high.

This guidance regarding resource allocation does not “legalize” marijuana or provide a legal defense to a violation of federal law, nor is it intended to create any privileges, benefits, or rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any individual, party or witness in any administrative, civil, or criminal matter. Nor does clear and unambiguous compliance with state law or the absence of one or all of the above factors create a legal defense to a violation of the Controlled Substances Act.

Get the picture?

Nor does this guidance preclude investigation or prosecution, even when there is clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law, in particular circumstances where investigation or prosecution otherwise serves important federal interests.

It should be clear by now that there’s nothing in this memo worthy of applauding. Sure it’s a step in the right direction, but that only deserves the response, “It’s about damned time.”

The administration has the power to start the ball rolling on significant drug reform. Rescheduling would end the entire “debate”. Judging by election in results in states where a marijuana referendum was on the ballot in 2008, dope is a lot more popular than hope. There’s no political risk to Obama at the voter level. The voters who would be angered by the move won’t be voting Democratic before the second coming in any case. There are a at least few million who would probably vote for the politician who reforms marijuana laws regardless of anything else the politician does. The youth vote would basically deify such a politician.

Big time donors like the pharmaceutical industry wouldn’t like it, which might indicate who’s side the President is on, but see above and ask yourself if it would even matter for the one more election he can win.

But there almost certainly won’t be any movement on a relatively simple problem with a pretty straight-forward solution that would have positive benefits in other areas of concern like health care and the economy. With the ability to legally cultivate marijuana there are probably a lot of unemployed American facing foreclosure who might attempt an entrepreneurial response to the death of the American Dream. Places like Southeastern Kentucky would have a valuable cash crop, and they probably wouldn’t need so much tax-funded aid. Hell, folks in those places might even start thinking that Obama ain’t so bad after all.

Never mind the taxation question. Enforcing taxation will be even more difficult than enforcing criminalization. Let the money flow through the real economy and accept that it will trickle up. Smart states will establish retail distribution licensing similar to the existing structure for alcohol. It will raise local and state revenues; keep control over the retail sector; and be subject to sales tax. We’ll just have to take our chances on person-to-person transactions being claimed as miscellaneous income. Regardless, that money will be spent and serve the greater economy.

Plenty of savings can be found by not wasting tax dollars on prosecution and incarceration of marijuana cases. And i’ll bet that law enforcement will still have plenty to do.

The answer is simple and frankly, the question is stupid. So you’ll have to forgive me if i hold my applause until the end…though i might not be able to hold them if some intrepid journalist asks the President if he thinks it would have been better for the nation if he’d been convicted of his youthful indiscretions and never gotten to be President. Clearly you can smoke pot and grow up to be President, you just can’t get caught doing it.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/medical-marijuana-longer-federally-prosecuted-states-legal-obama/story?id=8912772

—————————–

certified dealer education

STEPHANOPOULOS: Another trigger, that’s exactly right. But before we go,
another decision I think did not get as much play as maybe it should have
this week, the Attorney General Eric Holder announcing that the federal
government would no longer prosecute marijuana cases in states that have
approved medical marijuana laws.

ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: We will not use our limited resources in the
fight against the marijuana trade against those people who are using it
consistent with state law and to fight serious illnesses, such as cancer or
other diseases.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Right now, 14 states have medical marijuana laws. A lot of
others considering it. So this is a significant announcement.

WILL: What he’s saying is we will not pre-empt state laws with federal
poweras we could. What that means is where medical marijuana laws are enforced,
doctors will advertise, as they’re doing in California, that they will give
a prescription for medical use.

Now medical use can be marijuana to cure anxiety, to cure insomnia, all the
rest. And you will have what you now have in California, where marijuana is
essentially legalized. We have legalized gambling in this country over two
generations. It used to be considered a sin and a crime. With no national
debate, and no decision moment, we just did it. We legalized prostitution as
anyone who opens a telephone book and looks under “escort” can tell
you. And we may be doing, probably in the process now of legalizing marijuana.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Good idea?

PODESTA: Well, I think that overstates the case. I think that what Eric
Holder did was to say look, we have scarce resources. We’re not going to go
after people with glaucoma or cancer or whatever on medical marijuana.
They’re still going with a vengeance really against the Mexican drug
cartels. So I think there’s — this is kind of a mixed bag. I think we
won’tsee a full legalization of marijuana until somebody figures out that if you
tax it, maybe you can pay for health care.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That might be what drives it.

WILL: Eighty percent of the revenue of the Mexican cartels is marijuana. If
you really want to go after the Mexican cartels and I’m not saying that is
the only criterion for public policy, you’d legalize marijuana.

STEPHANOPOULOS: We are seeing gradually the public more open to the idea of
legalization. It was in the 20 percent throughout the 1990s, hit 30 percent
around 2000. Now it’s well above 40.

INGRAHAM: Yes, I think all of us have either gone through cancer or family
members and it’s a terribly painful disease. I think you have a lot of
sympathy. There’s a lot of public sympathy for medical marijuana use.

I think George hit on it, though. It’s being prescribed for a whole
range of issues. Like if you have pain from Botox injection, you can get medical
marijuana. That means a lot of people in California must be toking up, OK?
No, I’m just teasing. Look, I just have one question, does this mean
brownies are going to be for sale at the CVS and Walgreens? Because that’s
always been a product that’s been missing.

STEPHANOPOULOS: In Los Angeles, I think it may be, that’s right.

HUNT: Well now that I no longer have a teenager, I have a little bit
different view, a bit more permissive. I don’t think it’s a great
utilization of scarce federal resources to be prosecuting pot. I am not sure
if it’s going to lead to what George suggests. I’m not sure that would
be a bad idea. But I was at the University of Mississippi a couple of years ago
and it’s interesting, they grow marijuana on the campus. So, times are
A-changing.

STEPHANOPOULOS: The times are changing. I was just thinking back, could you
imagine Janet Reno in 1995, announcing that I’m not going to prosecute
this,there would have been a massive uproar.

INGRAHAM: We had jobs.

WILL: There was one problem and that is we talked to the federal drug czar
which I have done, marijuana is getting much better. They’re growing and
making it better in the sense that the active ingredient is much stronger
than it used to be.

TUCKER: Well, I wished that I believed that this was going to lead to some
broader federal look at the whole futile war on drugs. But as John just
mentioned, Eric Holder followed that announcement with massive raids on drug
cartels, which isn’t a bad idea. I just don’t think that this is a
relook at the futility on the war on drugs. I really think instead of just acting in a
small way to say, marijuana isn’t such a bad thing. Let’s relook at
all ofour drug laws, the way we fight the so-called war on drugs, because it
isn’t working.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I think John may be right. What’s going to drive that in
the long run are budget issues. That’s all we have time for today. You guys
continue this in the green room. You all can catch it on ABCNews.com and get
political updates all week long from our daily newsletter which is also on
ABCNews.com.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003230573

********************

Sincerely,

Degé Coutee
Education & Advocacy Director
Patient Advocacy Network

www.CannabisSavesLives.com

our green flag pot dealer school is about understanding
the green flag compliance obligations as they evolve and develop

howtobecomeapotdealer.com
&
gotweed.org

will get you answers, vendors, resources,
and continual access to updates

our how to become a pot dealer school
certified version
will cost
$ 420 per person,
available to:

law enforcement, city county & state officials
caregivers, patients, doctors, dispencaries, growers
cooperative organizations, non-profits, compassionate care LLC’s

we provide a comprehensive
online compassionate care tutorial
unlike anything currently available
for medical marijuana compliance

we will make it simple for you

given the current state of green flag rules affairs
the growth of opportunity following the
obama states rights decision
the uncertainty of which
rules and guidelines to follow
the need for a certified pot dealer school
is more critical than ever

is $ 420. tuition too high
if it helps you get it right??

green flags rules will bring green flag compliance

is $ 420. tuition too high
if it helps you get it right??

should each state REQUIRE mandatory green flag compliance??
and each state then set their applicable green flag rules ??

or do we need federal green flag rules??

federal u s attorney general guidelines for medical marijuana
for green flag compliance standards seems a logical step

perhaps kamala can build a model
green flag rules compliance program
in california
as the next
california attorney general

until then

our how to become a pot dealer
online tutorial green flag compliance class
with help you bridge the green flag compliance information gap

we offer clear, concise, complete information

a place to ask questions

a list of green flag vendors & resources

we will make it simple for you

green flags rules will bring green flag compliance