Louisiana

[palmspringsbum]

Cannabis: A token issue no longer

Joseph Ruchalski
Posted: 11/14/06
The Daily Reveille

This past Tuesday was sort of depressing, not because of the election results; but studying for two exams the following day meant I could not participate in any planned election night drinking hijinks or dull my pain each time CNN saw fit to "check in on the bloggers." Adding to that pain was the major media outlets' coverage of Amendment 44 in Colorado, Question 7 in Nevada and Initiative 4 in South Dakota which with the usual array of bad puns and metaphors: they went up in smoke, voters just say "no," a hazy issue, a pipe dream, etc.

<table class=posttable align=right width=300><tr><td class=postcell><img class=postimg width=300 src=bin/colorado_ad_bush.jpg></td></tr></table>These ballot initiatives asked voters to legalize the possession of marijuana in some way. South Dakotans were asked to decide whether they should become the 12th state in the Union to allow medical marijuana. That amendment failed to pass by four percent. Colorado sought to fully decriminalize possession of 1 oz. or less by individuals over the age of 21 in a state where simple possession already garners a petty fine. That amendment failed by a much wider 20 percent margin. The most ambitious of the amendments was Nevada's, asking voters to not only decriminalize but fully regulate and tax the sale of marijuana like alcohol or tobacco. That question failed as well by 12 percent. Clearly, it was a defeat all around for marijuana advocates and their grass-roots campaigns this year at the ballot box.

The media's tone of coverage effectively pigeonholes an important issue affecting all Americans today. Patients, researchers and ordinary citizens are all deprived of meanginful discussion involving the historical, philosophical and scientific perspectives that surround this issue.

But that doesn't mean advocates are not gaining traction with the public and lawmakers. Since the 1970s, decriminalization and medical marijuana efforts have made a lot of progress, given America's culture of prohibition and the political forces that shaped it in the 1920s and '30s.

Harry J. Anslinger, the nation's first "drug czar," wrote for the American Magazine, using gory, unsubstantiated tales of marijuana-induced murders and racial rhetoric of "colored students partying with [white] female students, smoking marijuana and getting their sympathy with stories of racial persecution" to successfully spearhead the enactment of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Its overriding purpose was not generating revenue, instead it enacted harsh federal penalties for failure to obtain a tax stamp for an already illegal substance. The use of "marihuana" by Mexican migrants, who were flooding the Depression-era job market with cheap labor, allowed southern states to fast-track their deportation on counts of tax evasion.

After professor Timothy Leary, a noted LSD advocate and counterculture icon, successfully challenged the tax act on fifth amendment constitutional grounds, Congress crafted the Controlled Substance Act (CSA) of 1970. In classifying narcotics in a tiered fashion, placed in certain "schedules," substances would be evaluated on their potential for abuse, possible medical applications and general safety in a scientific way. For the most part, this system has worked. Substances such as cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine are correctly placed in the first two, most restrictive schedules for their high potential of abuse, highly physically addictive nature and ease of overdose. But when substances such as MDMA (ecstasy), cannabis and psilocybin are included in the first schedule, it casts doubt on the integrity of the entire system by placing politics before science.

Efforts to reschedule cannabis have been ongoing since 1972, when the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) petitioned the Drug Enforcement Administration to move the substance out of Schedule I so physicians could legally prescribe it. Sixteen years later, the hearings were complete, and then DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Francis L. Young ruled marijuana no longer qualified as a Schedule I drug. After declaring cannabis to be "one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man," he was roundly ignored by John Law, then-DEA administrator, and overruled.

<table class=posttable align=right width=150><tr><td class=postcell><img class=postimg src=bin/ruchalaski_joseph.bmp></td></tr></table>Despite a multitude of scientific studies showing cannabis's lack of physically addictive properties, medical applications and non-carcinogenic delivery methods such as vaporization, the DEA has clearly shown a staggering lack of movement in properly scheduling this substance. While the agency's official rationale relied on abiding by international treaties and legal acrobatics in parsing the CSA's three criteria for classification, the actual reason likely has to do with increased budgetary appropriations from asset seizures and job expansion for bureaucrats. Whatever the case, the national media failed to address, credit or discredit any such claim.

A sound framework to control narcotics-including marijuana-is already in place. All that needs to done is for the DEA, the Department of Health and Human Services and Congress to put science before politics. On April 3, 2003, the DEA accepted the latest petition to appropriately reschedule cannabis. If all the science is to be acknowledged, the only correct course of action would be to move marijuana to Schedule V, alongside most over-the-counter medications, or remove it from scheduling all together. In the meantime, the media can do a better job informing the public without all the clichés.


-----
Contact Joseph Ruchalski at
jruchalski@lsureveille.com

[palmspringsbum]

Medical-marijuana case set for trial in Lafourche Parish

By Raymond Legendre | Houma Today

Published: Friday, October 16, 2009 at 12:00 p.m.

THIBODAUX — A California man who says Louisiana’s marijuana laws need to be changed to accommodate medical users like him will get his day in court next March.

Matthew Zugsberger, 33, is adamant about his desire to make case law in Louisiana that would allow people with serious medical conditions to possess marijuana with a doctor’s prescription.

State Police arrested Zugsberger on June 19, 2008, for allegedly possessing more than two pounds of medical marijuana he says a California doctor prescribed him to fight pain caused by a spinal injury he suffered in 2005 while working as a deep-sea diver.

Zugsberger’s case for possession with intent to distribute marijuana will go to trial March 22, Lafourche Parish District Judge John LeBlanc announced Thursday afternoon.

LeBlanc set the date after rejecting defense attorney Jerri Smitko’s request to have the case thrown out based on evidence that her client had a prescription for his drugs. Smitko, a Houma-based attorney, said she plans to file an appeal with the First Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

Zugsberger previously stated he believed Lafourche District Attorney Cam Morvant II was stalling his case in an attempt to prevent him from making case law. His view changed following Thursday’s hearing, although he remained confident he would ultimately be found innocent.

“He’s not going to offer me a plea deal or nothing,” Zugsberger said of Morvant. “He’s going to take it straight to trial. He’s making me his top priority.”

While Zugsberger said he believes his case will act as a landmark test for Louisiana’s marijuana laws, Morvant does not share the defendant’s point of view.

“This is not the laws of Louisiana being put on trial,” Morvant said. “This defendant is being put on trial for violating the laws of Louisiana.”

Morvant further explained that Zugsberger’s case was given first priority for the week of March 22-26 because of the length it has spent on the court docket. It has nothing to do with Zugsberger’s prior comments about the District Attorney’s Office stalling, Morvant said.

Thirteen states have medical -marijuana laws. California allows patients to possess a maximum of five pounds.

Louisiana does not. However, Revised Statute 40:1046 mentions the use of marijuana for therapeutic reasons by patients suffering from glaucoma, undergoing chemotherapy or having spastic quadriplegia. Prescriptions must come from a physician licensed in the state and one licensed to prescribe Schedule I substances.

Zugsberger does not have one of the three conditions recognized under state law, nor does he have a prescription licensed by a Louisiana physician.

But Smitko argued passionately Thursday that Zugsberger’s possession of marijuana does fit Louisiana law.

She pointed to a portion of Revised Statute 40:966 that states “it is unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess a controlled dangerous substance classified in Schedule I unless such substance was obtained directly, or pursuant to a valid prescription or order, from a practitioner.”

Zugsberger did obtain a valid prescription from a practitioner, Smitko said on three separate occasions. The last time drew the ire of Judge LeBlanc, who by that time had already decided against the motion.

Before referring to state law, Smitko offered into evidence a medical-consent form signed by doctor Milan Hopkins and a California-issued card identifying Zugsberger as an authorized medical-marijuana patient. She pointed to the documents as proof Zugsberger meets Louisiana’s standards based on R.S. 40:966.

First Assistant District Attorney Joe Soignet countered that Zugsberger lacks a prescription from a Louisiana doctor, which is required by R.S. 40:1046.

Staff Writer Raymond Legendre can be reached at 448-7617 or raymond.legendre@houmatoday.com. Follow him on Twitter @cometcrime.