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

Marijuana legalization

expected to go to ballot in California

Opponents of a plan to legalize marijuana for personal possession in California have conceded that supporters of the measure are likely to get their proposal on a statewide ballot, the New York Times revealed in a longer story about possible legalization Wednesday.

California lawmakers are taking up a bill that would legalize, tax and regulate marijuana, a first in the United States. Officials estimate the bill could bring in an additional $1.4 billion a year, a huge sum of money in a state bedeviled by financial woes.

While the “legislature is uncertain, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, has indicated he would be open to a “robust debate” on the issue,” the Times wrote.

Perhaps equally important, the paper adds:

California voters are also taking up legalization. Three separate initiatives are being circulated for signatures to appear on the ballot next year, all of which would permit adults to possess marijuana for personal use and allow local governments to tax it. Even opponents of legalization suggest that an initiative is likely to qualify for a statewide vote.

All of us in the movement have had the feeling that we’ve been running into the wind for years,” said James P. Gray, a retired judge in Orange County who has been outspoken in support of legalization. “Now we sense we are running with the wind.”Proponents of the leading ballot initiative have collected nearly 300,000 signatures since late September, supporters say, easily on pace to qualify for the November 2010 general election. Richard Lee, a longtime marijuana activist who is behind the measure, says he has raised nearly $1 million to hire professionals to assist volunteers in gathering the signatures.

“Voters are ripping the petitions out of our hands,” Mr. Lee said.

Despite widespread support, however, the bill would almost certainly run into thorns with federal law, which classifies marijuana as an illegal substance. Some supporters are encouraged, though, by the Obama Administration’s announcement that they will not prosecute those involved in the medical marijuana trade.

Lee, the organizer, says he intends to spend $20 million on a campaign to win passage of the measure.

Numerous states have already decriminalized personal possession of small amounts of marijuana, though none have legalized it.

certified dealer education

California marijuana

legalization debate at Capitol

//

// 0){
document.getElementById(‘articleViewerGroup’).style.width = requestedWidth + “px”;
document.getElementById(‘articleViewerGroup’).style.margin = “0px 0px 10px 10px”;
}
// ]]>SACRAMENTO — Marijuana legalization advocates and law enforcement officials duked it out in a three-hour legislative hearing Wednesday on whether making the drug legal under state law would be good public policy.

Advocates said legalization and regulation could bring as much as $1.4 billion in state and local excise and sales tax revenue per year; control the drug’s potency; do more to keep it out of children’s hands; and end a centurylong double standard in which alcohol and tobacco — which they say are more harmful — are legal while marijuana isn’t, leading to a war on drugs particularly destructive to people of color.

Law enforcement officials testified the harms caused by marijuana legalization would far outweigh whatever tax revenue it might bring — more, not less, use by children; more people driving under the influence, causing more injuries and deaths; decreased worker productivity that could hurt the economy; and a still-thriving black market.

The hearing was convened by Assembly Public Safety Committee Chairman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, who earlier this year introduced a bill to legalize and tax marijuana under a system not unlike that used for alcohol. Even as several proposed ballot measures for legalization seek to qualify for next year’s ballot, Ammiano is rewriting his bill to bring it forward again in January, and Wednesday’s hearing was supposed to help him gather input for that revamp. First up Wednesday were the Legislative Analyst’s Office, which said state and local law enforcement could save “several tens of millions of dollars each year” by no longer pursuing marijuana cases, and the Board of Equalization, which has estimated $1.4 billion in annual revenue from taxes on legalized marijuana.

Then came the lawyers. Drug Policy Alliance staff attorney Tamar Todd and American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Allen Hopper testified California is free to criminalize or not criminalize whatever it wants, and can and should chart its own course as a laboratory for new social and economic policy.

But Martin Mayer, general counsel to the California Peace Officers’ Association and the California Police Chiefs Association, underscored there would be no protection from federal law enforcement agencies arresting, charging and prosecuting Californians for violating the federal marijuana ban.

California Peace Officers’ Association President John Standish said there’s “no way marijuana legalization could protect or promote society — in fact, it radically diminishes it” by impairing educational ability, worker productivity, traffic safety and drug-related crime rates.

Ammiano asked whether police resources now used to fight marijuana would be better spent fighting harder, more harmful drugs such as methamphetamine.

“That’s like, ‘When did you stop beating your wife?’”‰” Standish replied, calling marijuana and methamphetamine “both equally critical problems our society needs to address.”

Sara Simpson, acting assistant chief of the state Justice Department’s Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement, said much of California’s major marijuana cultivation is run by Mexican drug cartels on remote public lands, and she recited a litany of violent and deadly clashes with armed guards at such sites. Such growing operations also are environmentally devastating, she said, and produce marijuana far more potent than that used just years ago. There’s no reason to believe the cartels would adhere to state laws on cultivation, potency and taxation any more than they adhere to prohibition now, she said.

Rosalie Pacula, co-director of the Drug Policy Research Center at renowned think-tank RAND Corp., said prohibition has kept marijuana prices high, and legalization with heavy taxation that elevates marijuana’s price far above the cost of its production will lead to a thriving black market.

But Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice Executive Director Dan Macallair said arrest statistics from the past 20 years show California law enforcement is far more focused on prosecuting simple possession and use than cultivation and sales. Various counties are more or less tolerant of marijuana use, he said, a lack of consistency and continuity that could be solved by regulation.

And retired Orange County Superior Court Judge Jim Gray said the state can allow and regulate marijuana without condoning its use just like alcohol and tobacco, but any legalization legislation must ban advertising lest marijuana use become glamorized.

green flags rules will bring green flag compliance

 

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

//

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

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.

From Obama,

sanity on marijuana policy

Steve ChapmanOctober 22, 2009

In 1973, Robert Randall was going blind from glaucoma when he discovered that smoking marijuana seemed to help his condition. That didn’t matter to police when they found the Washington, D.C., resident growing cannabis and arrested him. Preferring to keep his sight, Randall sued the federal government, arguing that he was entitled to smoke pot as a “medical necessity.”

It was a far-fetched argument — but it worked. In 1976, a court ruled in Randall’s favor. Before long, the federal government found itself in the strange position of supplying marijuana to him and a handful of other patients under a “compassionate use” program.

The compassion didn’t go very far. President George H.W. Bush stopped the acceptance of new patients into the program in 1992 rather than admit all those annoying AIDS victims, insisting that it sent a dangerous message to young people.

The real danger, of course, was the message that government policy on cannabis was ignorant and irrational. But since then, one president and one drug czar after another has furiously resisted efforts to allow therapeutic use of the drug no matter how helpful it may be to the sick and dying.

Until now. This week, the Justice Department kept a promise made by candidate Barack Obama when it announced that henceforth, “it will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws on medical marijuana.”

The change is not only historic but humane and intelligent, two adjectives rarely applied to federal drug policy. Science has established that cannabis has useful properties for the treatment of various diseases, countless physicians have endorsed it, and 14 states have allowed sick people access to marijuana. But for three decades, the people in charge of drug policy in the federal government didn’t give a rat’s bottom.

In 1996, after California voters approved a medical marijuana law, President Bill Clinton’s administration fought it every step of the way — filing lawsuits to close cannabis buyers clubs, threatening to strip the licenses of doctors who recommended marijuana to patients and denouncing the entire program as “a Cheech and Chong show.”

President George W. Bush’s administration stuck to the same course. It raided California dispensaries and went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in a successful effort to crush the notion — the conservative notion, come to think of it — that states should have the power to set their own policy on pot.

But before long, the idea had caught on not just in hippy-dippy California but in less fashionable places like Alaska, Maine, Michigan and Montana. Some 75 percent of Americans think doctors should be permitted to prescribe cannabis. The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws reports that in 33 state referendums since 1992, voters have embraced liberalization 30 times.

Most of the time, the two major parties are about as different as Coke and Pepsi. But last year, they presented a stark contrast on this issue. Republicans denounced the use of marijuana as medicine, while Democrats lined up to criticize the prevailing federal policy. Obama took a clear position, declaring it “entirely appropriate” for physicians to prescribe cannabis and pledging, “What I’m not going to be doing is using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue.”

But as opponents of the Iraq war, “don’t ask don’t tell” and Guantanamo know, a promise made by Obama is not exactly money in the bank. This time, though, he deserves full credit for doing what he said he would do, repudiating a bipartisan legacy of pigheaded stupidity.

What’s more, Obama may not stop there. Some reformers expect the administration to agree to let a scientist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst grow cannabis for research on its medical potential — something the Bush administration opposed, lest the research contradict its ideology.

During the campaign, Obama also indicated he favors scrapping a 21-year-old policy that forbids cities from using federal money to finance needle-exchange programs to block the spread of AIDS, and the House voted last summer to lift the ban. The White House drug czar has even solicited advice from critics of the drug war, whom previous drug czars saw as deranged.

Robert Randall, who died in 2001, might have been surprised to hear the federal government admit the possibility that it was wrong about marijuana. He probably wouldn’t have been surprised that it took 33 years.

Steve Chapman is a member of the Tribune’s editorial board and blogs at chicagotribune.com/chapman

schapman@tribune.com

compliance brings privilege

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

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

certified dealer education