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

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

 

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo.--(Business Wire)--
Cannabis Science Inc. (OTCBB: CBIS) an emerging pharmaceutical cannabis company
is very pleased to announce that has added four prominent attorneys, who
specialized in marijuana-related cases, to its Policy Advisory Board, as medical

marijuana legalization moves closer with President Obama`s New Medical Marijuana
Policies and initiatives.

Cannabis Science Inc., President & CEO, Dr. Robert Melamede Ph.D., stated, "We
will continue to add teams of industry experts to our Company. We are honored

that our Policy Advisory Board is expanding with some of the nation`s top
medical marijuana attorneys. Obviously, we are operating in an area where the
laws are evolving very rapidly, and we are pleased to have so many experienced

attorneys on board, helping steer the company through these complex and evolving
opportunities for us. More professionals will be added who are expert in other
relevant fields, such as FDA procedures and state and federal laws. These new

outstanding additions to the CBIS team will provide the Company with an expanded
base of knowledge to build on. As noted yesterday, the new policy means that
state compliant intrastate research in Colorado, California and other states

with medical marijuana laws are now protected from federal prosecution."

The four new additions to the Cannabis Science Policy Advisory Board

Robert Raich

Robert A. Raich practices law in Oakland, California, and is a graduate of

Harvard University and the University of Texas School of Law. He is one of the
most respected attorneys in the area of medical marijuana. He is General Counsel
of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, and was one of the attorneys in the

U.S. Supreme Court case, United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop. and
another federal medical cannabis case. He is a member of the California Attorney
General's Medical Marijuana Task Force (Chairman, Caregiver Issues

Subcommittee).

Sean T. McAllister

Sean T. McAllister is a public interest attorney with offices in Denver and
Summit County. Sean has been involved with drug policy reform efforts for over a
decade. He serves as the Chair of the Board of Directors of Sensible Colorado.

Sean is a lifetime member of the NORML Legal Committee. He is a member and Board
member of the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar. He helped start the Colorado Bar
Association Criminal Sentencing Project in 2005 to focus on criminal justice and

drug policy reform. Recently, Sean was appointed to the Governor`s Drug Policy
Task Force, which is working on reducing drug-sentencing laws to save the state
money while maintaining public safety. Along with Brian Vicente, Sean recently

founded the Canna-Business Institute designed to educate dispensary owners and
caregivers on how to legally operate medical marijuana businesses in Colorado.

Warren Edson

Warren Edson is an experienced criminal defense lawyer in Colorado, having taken

part in over 1,000 trials. He is also one of the organizers of Colorado's
Medical Marijuana Law, Amendment 20, and is a Lifetime Member, NORML Legal
Committee, and is a member, Colorado Criminal Defense Bar, and the National

Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and is a Board Member, Colorado NORML.

Robert J. Corry, Jr.

Robert J. Corry, Jr. is a Denver-based civil rights and criminal defense
attorney, specializing in medical marijuana, who has successfully litigated

several high profile cases around the country. He is admitted to the bars of
Colorado, California, and Washington, D.C., federal courts in these
jurisdictions, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Corry earned his law

degree from Stanford University.

About Cannabis Science, Inc.

Cannabis Science, Inc. is at the forefront of medical marijuana research and
development. The Company works with world authorities on phytocannabinoid

science targeting critical illnesses, and adheres to scientific methodologies to
develop, produce, and commercialize phytocannabinoid-based pharmaceutical
products. In sum, we are dedicated to the creation of cannabis-based medicines,

both with and without psychoactive properties, to treat disease and the symptoms
of disease, as well as for general health maintenance.

This Press Release includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of

Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Act
of 1934. A statement containing works such as "anticipate," "seek," intend,"
"believe," "plan," "estimate," "expect," "project," "plan," or similar phrases

may be deemed "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Some or all of the events or results
anticipated by these forward-looking statements may not occur. Factors that

could cause or contribute to such differences include the future U.S. and global
economies, the impact of competition, and the Company's reliance on existing
regulations regarding the use and development of cannabis-based drugs. Cannabis

Science, Inc. does not undertake any duty nor does it intend to update the
results of these forward-looking statements.

Cannabis Science Inc.
Dr. Robert J. Melamede, President & CEO, 1-888-889-0888
info@cannabisscience.com

www.cannabisscience.com
or
Peter Glaser, Investor Relations, 1-954-687-3717
info@cannabisscience.com
www.cannabisscience.com

certified dealer education

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

Congratulations!

The New Federal Guidelines

are a Victory for Patients

This morning, the U.S. Department of Justice issued new guidelines on medical marijuana. These guidelines are a big victory for medical marijuana patients. There is still much more work to be done, but this is a great step in the right direction.

The Federal guidelines are directed at U.S. Attorneys in states that have adopted medical use laws. In the words of US Attorney General Eric Holder:

“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, but we will not tolerate drug traffickers who hide behind claims of compliance with state law to mask activities that are clearly illegal.”

Thank you for helping make this happen. Your emails, phone calls, and activism helped shift the debate in America!

For the first time, the US Department of Justice is formally advising prosecutors not to interfere with medical marijuana patients in medical marijuana states. This is a big deal.

We will continue to work with President Obama, the Justice Department, and the U.S. Congress to establish a comprehensive national policy, but it’s good to know that in the meantime states can implement medical marijuana laws without interference from the federal government.

It is worth remembering that during the Bush Administration, there were more than 200 federal raids in California alone. Even now, the federal government is prosecuting more than two dozen medical marijuana cases in which defendants are prevented from using medical evidence.

There is much more work to be done. But thank you for helping us get this far.

Sincerely,

Steph Sherer
Executive Director
Americans for Safe Access

P.S. As we continue our work, we could use your help. Consider making a contribution to ASA today.

certified dealer education

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

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??

compliance brings privilege

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

hello, introducing

gina our automated mom

for green flag rules compliance

we make it simple for you

our blog assists you to gain complete legal standing

for any position within the compassionate care field

comprehensive compassionate care training

from experienced online instructors

we make it simple for you

please visit our green flag training websites:

howtobecomeapotdealer.com

420professor.com

grow420.net