Sierra Leone: Rastafarians Want Marijuana Decriminalised

By Mohamed Massaquoi

The Rastafarian Movement in Sierra Leone yesterday presented a position paper to the Constitutional Review Committee (CRC), urging the 80-man body chaired by retired Justice Edmond Cowan to decriminalize the use of marijuana in the country.

Popular broadcaster and a member of the movement, Theophilous Sahr Gbenda, who acted as their spokesman during the presentation, said part of their position paper includes the inclusion of their religious persuasion as one of the official religions in the Country and the decriminalisation of marijuana because of its economic benefit to the government and people of Sierra Leone.

He said their members had given due consideration to, and brainstormed on the two issues before they reached a conclusion that it was erroneous and deliberate on the part of the state to have listed marijuana among harmful drugs like cocaine and heroin .

Though a secular country, Sierra Leone only recognises Christianity and Islam as the official religions, with Muslims accounting for approximately sixty percent of the population.

However, an insignificant minority observes the Rastafarian Movement which draws inspiration from the former Emperor of Ethiopia, Haile Selassie, and the late Jamaican singer Bob Marley. 

Marijuana is among the banned substances in the country, although it is popular with many youths and the small Rastafarian community.

Gbenda, who wears a dreadlocks, told the CRC that the Sierra Leone Rastafarian Movement is a socio-religious movement that was established in 1989 with a broad objective of ensuring positive transformation of the mindset of ill-influenced youth and to spread the teachings of the Holy Bible as well as values and morals of 'His Imperial Majesty, Emperor Hail Silassie'.

He said Rastafarians around the world share a personal relationship with marijuana and have been very concerned about its categorisation as a banned drug, and its misuse.

"We have a special sentimental attachment to marijuana in our spiritual worship; we consider marijuana as the Holy Sacrament, just in the same way as Christians consider the Holy Communion as the body of Christ in their belief and worship.

"The constitution of the land makes it very clear that no one shall be discriminated because of his or beliefs. Condemnations of marijuana are based mainly on ignorance and disrespect for Jah's creation. For these reasons and others, we are calling on the reviewers of the present constitution of the land to look at marijuana from a broader perspective and ignorance creating the myths around it," noted the broadcaster.

He added that: "Often and again marijuana is associated with crime and violence; this is not generally the case as evidence by the fact that those people who after smoking marijuana run into violence are most likely to have mixed it up with actual drugs like cocaine, brown-brown [heroin] and others."

He claimed that marijuana could be used for medical purpose, adding "medical marijuana refers to the use of cannabis as a physician's recommended herbal therapy as well as synthetic" and that they wanted the laws of Sierra Leone to guarantee the judicious use of marijuana.

CRC chairman Justice Edmond Cowan thanked members of the Movement for presenting their position paper to the committee, adding that their mandate was not tasked to rewrite the constitution but to review it, which involves collecting information from the people which could be included in the new constitution.

He recalled that when President Ernest Bai Koroma was launching the review process, he had called on members of the committee to ensure the process was people friendly, adding that the 1991 constitution made provision for religious associations and that he is not aware of any ban on the Rastafarian Movement in the country.

"I want to assure you that your document will be seriously looked into, but I want you as well to understand that after the first exercise, this document will be taken again to the people for referendum for the people to decide what should be in the new constitution," he concluded.

O cannabis

Photo by Stuart Dee/Stockbyte/Getty Images

With the Trudeau government set to legalize marijuana, it’s time for a truly sober look at the pros and cons of pot

By Pieta Woolley

It’s lunchtime at Vancouver’s marijuana-friendly New Amsterdam Cafe. But no one is eating lunch. Instead, the customers — entirely male, it should be noted — have gathered around the long counter at the back. They’re vaping: smoking pot though an e-cigarette-like device, to keep the dense, weedy aroma at bay.

They’re a quiet bunch, enjoying their herb and watching post-season baseball on TV. A few let out a lethargic cheer when the Blue Jays win a midday game.

Behind another counter, general manager Mike Dobbs shows off a well-lit selection of striped and swirly blown-glass bongs, vapes, pipes and other paraphernalia, as colourful and shiny as candy. Dobbs, a former corporate salesperson, believes this is the new normal. And why not? For the 30-or-so regulars and a few drop-ins here, smoking marijuana is a peaceful, social activity.

“Hopefully, we’ll have a New Amsterdam in every city across Canada,” Dobbs says, mentioning that the café, which is attached to Cannabis Culture magazine upstairs and the British Columbia Marijuana Party headquarters, has developed a complicated détente with the Vancouver Police Department over the last 15 years. “But no one wants to put money into a store that will get shut down by the cops.”

This dimly lit bar is Canada’s epicentre for the fight for legal marijuana — a fight that, with the election of Justin Trudeau’s Liberals, has probably been won. Former prime minister Stephen Harper stood strong against recreational drugs throughout his almost decade-long term. Trudeau, however, ran on the polar opposite platform: “To ensure that we keep marijuana out of the hands of children, and the profits out of the hands of criminals, we will legalize, regulate, and restrict access to marijuana.” 

Legalizing marijuana would put Canada in the same camp as four American states: Washington, Oregon, Colorado and Alaska. It would end a 92-year-old prohibition — laws that were in part popularized by the United Church’s founding denominations through the temperance movement. At that time, sobriety was about social justice — avoiding family violence and poverty. Drugs, including marijuana and cocaine, were lumped in with alcohol as sources of social ills.

In 1922, for example, Emily Murphy wrote The Black Candle, a temperance tome that included a chapter about “marahuana.” Murphy, one of the “Famous Five” who fought for women to be included as “persons” under the law, quotes a police chief who says marijuana users “become raving maniacs and are liable to kill or indulge in any form of violence to other persons, using the most savage methods of cruelty without, as said before, any sense of moral responsibility.” The next year, marijuana was outlawed in Canada under the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act.

And so, here we are.
 

The United Church has made no statements concerning marijuana specifically, though on the books, the church is still pro-abstinence regarding alcohol (while acknowledging moderate use). Research, however, suggests Murphy was way off in her assessment of marijuana’s evils. Long-term regular use, according to Health Canada, can cause memory loss, a decrease in mental ability including decision-making and concentration, and may trigger schizophrenia. But violence? No.

In fact, legalizing the drug may decrease gang violence in Canada, according to Stop the Violence BC, a coalition that includes Ross Lander, a former B.C. Supreme Court judge. Marijuana also helps addicts of violence-triggering drugs such as crystal meth to exit their habits gently, according to a 2011 study by the Centre for Addictions Research of BC.

While some doctors support marijuana use for various ailments, the College of Family Physicians of Canada’s policy for prescribing the drug extends only to chronic pain and anxiety, “pending the development of formal guidelines.” The Canadian Medical Association, however, “still believes there is insufficient scientific evidence available to support the use of marijuana for clinical purposes.”

So is pot prohibition just something mainline Protestants were fundamentally wrong about? Is all this sobriety denying us something elemental and delightful? Or is there an unknown lurking in the post-legalization future that should give abstinence-advocating denominations pause?

“Hey, man. Would you like to take a rocket ship right into the heart of God?” Well, who wouldn’t?

Seven years ago, Martin Ball picked up a vaporizer during a ceremony at Oregon’s Temple of Awakening Divinity. Before he had even finished inhaling, “I immediately knew this is it,” says the now-adjunct professor of religious studies at Southern Oregon University.

“This explosion of pure love erupted in my heart. . . . Within seconds, I was saying, ‘Thank you, God! Thank you, God!’ For 40 minutes, I was laughing and crying. . . . It was direct and immediate. I was encountering a self-aware being and an infinite source of love. Oh my God. This is what I had been looking for my entire life, but I didn’t know it was there. It completely transformed my life.”

Before anyone gets too excited, Ball wasn’t smoking pot. He had just tried an extract of the South American Anadenanthera peregrina seeds. The experience sent the former spiritual seeker and sort-of Buddhist on a new academic adventure.

Now, he teaches about drug use in religion. In October, Ball presented at the fifth annual Spirit Plant Medicine Conference at the University of British Columbia, alongside noted Canadian doctor Gabor Maté, who spoke about the psychedelic experience.

Substance-aided spirituality may be trendy in contemporary North America, but mind-altering plant substances have been a part of religious practice since ancient times, Ball says, citing Hinduism, Sufism, some First Nations faith practices and even Jesus-era Judaism as examples.

Cannabis was probably in the anointing oils of the Old and New Testaments, he says, referring to an ingredient called kaneh-bosm in the ancient Hebrew. It’s mentioned in the books of Exodus, Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Many scholars, including etymologists, linguists, anthropologists and botanists, agree the substance refers to cannabis.

These days, drugs enhance prayer and meditation in Rastafarianism, the Brazilian Santo Daime church (a blend of Catholicism and Indigenous shamanism), the United Church of Cannabis (an actual church in Indiana), the Christian Church of Marijuana in Cochrane, Alta., and Toronto’s Church of the Universe, as well as among the spiritual-but-not-religious set. Mind-altering substances are not evil, Ball argues. They’re spiritual tools.

“The focus of American Protestantism is on worship and obedience and punishment,” he says. “It’s like people are standing around, banging their heads against the wall wondering why God won’t talk to them, why they’re suffering. They think [by resisting drugs] they’re doing something they need to do. I just want to tell them, ‘Change your perspective. Stop banging your head.’”

Ball isn’t asking Christians to ride the rocket ship. Rather, he wants them to recognize that sister faiths use marijuana and other plant-based drugs. For the sake of religious freedom and equality, he wishes Christians would join the fight for legalization or decriminalization (fines, rather than jail time for possession of small amounts of pot) — or at least advocate for religious exemptions.

Marc Emery, Canada’s “Prince of Pot” and the founder of the New Amsterdam Cafe, would also like the church onside. He says he’s been jailed 23 times in Canada on marijuana-related charges, and has been held or jailed in six American states. You can buy “Free Marc Emery” T-shirts at the café. u

Yes, he’s a provocateur. But he’s far from alone in prison. In Canada, he says, more than two million marijuana arrests have been made in the past 45 years. Of those, about half resulted in convictions, and hundreds of thousands of people have spent time in jail because of marijuana. According to Statistics Canada, marijuana still accounts for more drug offences in this country than any other illegal substance.

Emery thinks that’s something Christians should care about. “Canadian churches have been mostly silent on marijuana. . . . They see it as a moral failing.” But pot is harmless, he says. When he takes too much, as he has done many times over the past 30 years, he says he simply falls asleep.

The Church Council on Justice and Corrections, of which the United Church is a member, hasn’t spoken out on marijuana, according to education manager Kathryn Bliss. In the 1970s, this was the Christian coalition that helped shut down Canada’s death penalty. “We’ve always been on the forefront of pushing for evidence-based policy,” says Bliss, declining to comment directly on marijuana. “We want to know: What will increase community safety? What will prevent future crimes? It usually doesn’t mean putting people in jail and leaving them there.”

Even if Murphy got it wrong on marijuana’s connection to violence, pot is associated with other ills. Research indicates that in large quantities over time, marijuana can trigger anxiety and depression and, among teens, undermine scholastic achievement. The average age Canadians try pot for the first time is 16, according to 2013 statistics from the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.

A recent study reveals that two U.S. states where cannabis is newly legal have seen a dramatic increase in the relationship between fatal car accidents and marijuana. In Washington, 12 percent of drivers involved in fatal crashes tested positive for marijuana use, up from six percent before legalization. In Colorado, the number jumped to 19 percent from 10 percent.

But you don’t need to look south for a sample of users. About 2.3 million Canadians say they use marijuana regularly, according to a University of Ottawa estimate. A Forum Research poll last month suggested pot use would increase by 10 percent if it were legal. I asked my Facebook network for stories about how pot has affected their lives already. This anecdotal survey revealed a range of complex experiences.

Take Mike (all of these names have been changed), who grew up a United Church kid in small-town Ontario, getting high as a teenager and watching the 1982 cult movie Pink Floyd The Wall. After his father died of cancer, he started smoking every day, up to six times a day. 

He says he lost a decade of his life. “I could function daily but had no other motivation to do anything other than work enough to buy food and drugs and entertainment.” He now suffers from paranoia and depression, which he associates with his years of heavy use. Mike doesn’t think the drug should be legalized.

On Haida Gwaii in north coastal B.C., Jennifer makes herself a batch of pot cookies weekly. She eats one right before she goes to bed each night to alleviate her chronic Achilles tendinitis. That’s it. Growing up in suburban Vancouver, she says, smoking pot was the only thing to do. Because she had a daughter when she was just 20, she gave up smoking the drug before most of her peers. She now describes herself as a sober person — the bedtime cookie notwithstanding.

“It bothered me that they couldn’t have fun without it,” she says, pointing out that in B.C., marijuana is everywhere. At birthday parties she attends with her daughter, the parents often vape in another room. She isn’t comfortable sending her daughter to some of her friends’ houses because she knows the parents toke and drive. It’s uncomfortable. But she does support legalization and taxation.

In Saskatoon, Anna stopped smoking pot in her 20s; she’s in her 40s now. But her husband smokes about 10 times a day, on the back porch. He works from home.

“The first time I saw him smoke, he said a blessing,” she says. “I thought, this is so New Age and dumb. He’s not Rastafarian. He’s Jewish. So I rolled my eyes. I didn’t realize the extent of the habit.”

Since then, they’ve had two kids — who Anna thinks are learning to associate the smell of pot with “Daddy.” They’ve fought; she’s delivered ultimatums. It’s an addiction, she says. So now, she wilfully ignores the marijuana in the house. “From a logical place, it’s not a big deal,” Anna says, acknowledging that he is basically the same person when he smokes as when he doesn’t. “It’s so much less of an issue than alcoholism or hard drugs or sex addiction. But in my own life, I have a visceral dislike of it.”

Rebellion. Postmodernism. Pleasure. It’s all supposed to intersect and transcend here, at the New Amsterdam Cafe. High ceilings, exposed brick, psychedelic murals, T-shirts hung up the walls, each sporting the New Amsterdam logo, a sexy art deco-inspired design featuring a full-lipped woman and an elegant halo of cannabis leaves. Everything this café could possibly do to make its mission seem cool has been done, with flair.

In the mainstream media and general population, interest in the legalization of marijuana is building. Emery compares it to religious fervour, a sense of coming “liberation.” But there’s little of that at the New Amsterdam; the laid-back vibe here is about as exciting as an old futon.

The final push for legal marijuana is coming from Canada’s most powerful Catholic: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. He’s placed mainline Protestants in an awkward position. Falling in line behind the new prime minister would mark a monumental shift from nearly a century of advocating abstinence. Standing pat could suggest that liberal Protestants are out of step with public opinion, although that has never stopped them before.

“Onward temp’rance soldiers, bravely onward go,” read the lyrics from an early 1900s songbook of the Ontario Women’s Christian Temperance Union, set to the tune of Onward Christian Soldiers. “We must free our country from this awful foe; Let there be no quarter given, but, with joy, This destroying demon utterly destroy.”

Has the time come for the church to change its tune?

Judge rules marijuana’s not proof that someone is actually impaired

By Howard Fischer 
People with marijuana in their system can escape being convicted of drugged-driving charges if they can show they weren’t “high” enough to be impaired, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Nov. 20.

The justices rejected a claim by two individuals that the fact they have a state-issued card allowing them to ingest the drug automatically means they can never be charged with driving while impaired. Chief Justice Scott Bales, writing for the unanimous court, said nothing in the 2010 voter-approved law allowing the medical use of marijuana provides such immunity.

But Bales said the presence of marijuana is not proof that someone is actually impaired.

Last week’s ruling creates what is called an “affirmative defense” for those charged with driving with drugs in their system.

In essence, they can still be charged with violating the law. And all prosecutors have to prove is that they did, in fact, test positive for marijuana or one of its metabolites, the chemicals caused when the drug breaks down in the body.

But Bales said defendants can escape conviction if they can prove to a court “that the concentration of marijuana or its impairing metabolite in their bodies is insufficient to cause impairment.”

The decision is a mixed bag for prosecutors.

On one hand, they praised the fact the high court did not say medical marijuana users can drive without fear of being stopped or prosecuted.

“This is a very welcome ruling in today’s culture where the small minority of individuals who use marijuana seek to reorganize Arizona’s laws to protect their use to the detriment of the public’s safety,” said Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk.

But they were upset that the justices effectively voided the state law which makes it a crime for individuals to operate a vehicle “while there is any drug defined in (state law) or its metabolite in the person’s body.”

Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery said that law is plain on its face: If a motorist tests positive for marijuana, he or she is guilty, period. He said that differs from other statutes where prosecutors have to specifically prove someone was impaired.

Bales conceded that point. And he said there apparently was a purpose behind that statute.

“The Legislature, in seeking to combat the serious problem of impaired driving, recognized that for certain drugs it may be difficult to identify concentrations that definitely establish whether a defendant is impaired,” Bales wrote.

But he said there’s another law at play: the one voters approved in 2010 allowing those with certain medical conditions to legally possess and use marijuana. And that law spells out that a patient “shall not be considered to be under the influence of marijuana solely because of the presence of metabolites or components of marijuana that appear in insufficient concentration to cause impairment.”

Bales said those two statutes, read together, give medical marijuana patients the chance to argue that they cannot be convicted because they were not impaired.

Montgomery said there’s one big practical problem with that: There are no scientific studies which show at what level of marijuana in the blood someone becomes impaired.

That’s far different than laws dealing with drunk driving. Lawmakers have enacted statutes saying that someone who has a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more is presumed to be driving while intoxicated.

What that potentially leaves, said Montgomery, is having defendants themselves testify that they were not impaired.

For example, he said an individual could say he uses marijuana for back pains but still had a spasm, which is what resulted in the car jerking, which is why the officer pulled the person over in the first place.

“I’m going to declare from my personal testimony I wasn’t impaired, I drive like this all the time,” Montgomery said the testimony might go.

He pointed out the ruling says that question of impairment is determined by the “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning whether something is more likely than not. And Montgomery said that could mean a defendant would be acquitted unless a prosecutor could find some way — he’s not sure how — to rebut the driver’s self-proclaimed claim that he or she was not impaired.

The Nov. 20 ruling extends even farther the legal protections the state Supreme Court provided last year for marijuana users charged with drugged-driving.

In that case, the justices threw out a conviction where the evidence against the driver was a specific metabolite, carboxy-THC. Justice Robert Brutinel, writing for the court, said there was no evidence that metabolite — the one that police routinely tested for — means someone was impaired.

More to the point, he said allowing that to become the test would be unfair.

“Because carboxy-THC can remain in the body for as many as 28 to 30 days after ingestion, the state’s position suggests that a medical-marijuana user could face prosecution for driving anytime nearly a month after they had legally ingested marijuana,” Brutinel wrote. “Such a prohibition would apply even when the driver had no impairing substance in his or her body.”

Polk said the ruling will have even more far-reaching implications if voters approve the initiative now being proposed for the 2016 ballot to allow the recreational use of marijuana.

With the question of what is “impaired” muddied by the ruling, Polk said one alternative would be for the Legislature to set a presumptive limit in statute on what automatically constitutes impairment, similar to the 0.08 standard for alcohol.

But she said one provision of that proposal says that an individual cannot be penalized for any action solely based on the presence of marijuana or metabolites. Polk said that would forever bar lawmakers from setting such a standard, even if medical science could come up with a figure.

“This is a vital tool in keeping our roadways safe and discouraging impaired drivers from getting behind the wheel,” Polk said. “Given the rising accidents and fatalities involving marijuana in Colorado and Washington, the protections for marijuana-impaired drivers written into the proposed initiative to legalize marijuana should be highly concerning to Arizonans.”

ASU Writing Instructor Describes Her Cannabis "Overdose"

By Ray Stern

StOrmz

Elizabeth Ferszt, an Arizona State University English instructor, writes in a recent blog post how a small dose of THC edibles reduced to her to babbling, convulsing mess one afternoon a few weeks ago in Los Angeles.

The short, dramatic narrative is peppered with information she researched afterward and concludes that not only are warning labels with dosage information needed, but also "a warning for first time, legal users:

Beware of use! Do not use if unsure of tolerance to THC extract! Dosage not exact per amount consumed!"

"I saw myself below myself, and felt a nothingness and a whiteness."

 

Ferszt, a New Times fan who uses the paper's covers as wall art in her ASU office, says she wanted to bring attention to her October 10 experience after reading New Times' November 24 article about the alleged harms of cannabis.

Her bad trip was akin to a poisoning: The 50-something Ph.D from Wayne State University in Detroit didn't know she had consumed cannabis. She recovered the same day and published her blog post eight days later. But at the time, as she told New Times, she thought she was having "a heart attack, stroke, or other catastrophic physical event."

Ferszt had been visiting one of her adult sons and his girlfriend in California, and they had decided to tour the Getty Villa museum of ancient Greek and Roman art. When she complained of a headache, her thoughtful son handed her a tin of dark-chocolate coffee beans. He told her the only active ingredient was caffeine but to just take one. She took two. Now, she says, their relationship isn't quite on "functional" terms.

Strolling among the gardens and marble statues on a hot day about noon, perhaps a touch dehydrated after having had a few drinks the night before, Ferszt wrote in her blog post that she began sweating and trembling. Her son brought her out to a bench to lie down.

She claims she had several seizures, was rambling incoherently, and passed out at least twice during the ordeal. But that wasn't all.

She wrote in her post:

"Eventually, after a few more episodes of convulsive twitching and jerking and passing out, including one period of unresponsiveness where I thought I might have died, I saw myself below myself, and felt a nothingness and a whiteness. I thought it might be good to die at the Getty. I heard my son say, “She’s okay, she’s still breathing.” 

Then several people lifted me onto something and the next thing I knew I was in the back of an LAFD [Los Angeles Fire Department] ambulance. It was here that I heard that I had likely overdosed, unknowingly taking a double dose of edible marijuana, thinking it was just chocolate covered coffee beans."

Her son persuaded the paramedics to unload his mom, and the three drove away. She suffered a final freak-out at the sight of the Petersen Auto Museum, she wrote, momentarily confusing the building's stylized exterior for a roller coaster in Cedar Pointe, Ohio. The delusion was followed by "a brief period of hilarity in the car, where I apparently thought everything was funny and I could speak lucidly."

Elizabeth Ferszt

As New Times' feature article explained last week, in the last couple of years, millions of THC-infused edibles have been consumed in pot-friendly states such as Arizona, which has a medicinal program with 80,000 patients. Problems have been relatively minimal and certainly don't add up to the the disaster predicted by pot prohibitionists.

But in July, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a bulletin about the death of 19-year-old college student Levi Pongi Thamba, who jumped from a fourth-floor Colorado hotel balcony on March 11, 2014, after eating a THC-infused cookie. Colorado authorities told New Times the case remains the only death directly linked to the consumption of marijuana.

The article mentioned that "intense paranoia and scattered thoughts can occur in novice users with ingestion of a relatively small amount of cannabis" and that calls to poison-control centers and hospital visits in Arizona and Colorado concerning marijuana have increased in the last few years. The difference between marijuana and other substances, though, is that none of the calls — whether about babies, toddlers, teens or adults — resulted in a reported death or serious injury. That's not even true of caffeinated drinks.

Without question, caution is warranted with edibles because of their innocuous appearance. Ferszt's experience was unusual, not just in her reaction but because of the minuscule serving that sparked it.
Each of the coffee beans Ferszt ate contains a mere 5 milligrams of THC. A dose of 10 milligrams is considered standard. Thamba's 65-milligram cookie, for instance, contained 6.5 servings, according to the label. But Ferszt says she's proof that an "overdose" can occur with just 10 milligrams.

Tucson Criminal Defense Lawyer James Nesci Discusses Arizona DUI Laws and AMMA

Tucson Criminal Defense Lawyer James Nesci of Nesci & St. Louis, PLLC recently offered insight on Arizona DUI laws and the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act.

Tucson DUI Lawyer James Nesci

Tucson DUI Lawyer James Nesci says, "It’s time to scrap the DUI laws in their entirety and rewrite them with an eye toward simplicity and justice."

Tucson, AZ (PRWEB)

According to Tucson DUI Lawyer James Nesci, across the country, the courts have to deal with new and different issues regarding drug possession and use. Years ago it was simple: possession and use of certain drugs was illegal. But now that we have recreational marijuana and medical marijuana, the legal landscape has become more complicated. 

Nesci says that DUI laws are no exception to the increasing complexity. Driving under the influence of drugs was always an afterthought to driving under the influence of alcohol laws, which is why most DUI/Drugs laws conflict with other laws and common sense. For example, in Arizona it is illegal to drive while any drug or its metabolite listed in A.R.S. 13-3401 is present in your body. A.R.S. 13-3401 includes testosterone. That’s because the Arizona Legislature was too lazy and/or uninformed to do the research that was necessary to craft meaningful laws. They simply referred to the A.R.S. 13-3401, which defines drugs and said “that’s good enough.”

Nesci explains that in Arizona, the AMMA (Arizona Medical Marijuana Act) allows certain people to possess and use specified quantities of marijuana. But medical marijuana cardholders are not insulated from DUI charges as are other people using prescription medications. That’s because you cannot have a prescription for medical marijuana—you can only have a doctor’s recommendation. Thus, cardholders were faced with the choice: stop using medical marijuana or stop driving.

Then, on November 20th, 2015, the Arizona Supreme Court handed down the decision in Dobson v. McClennan (No. CV-14-0313-PR) which says that if you are a cardholder and you are charged with DUI A.R.S. 28-1381(A)(1) and DUI A.R.S. 28-1381(A)(3), you now have a defense.

A.R.S. 28-1381(A)(1) makes it illegal to drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs if you are impaired to the slightest degree by use of the alcohol or drugs.

A.R.S. 28-1381(A)(3) makes it illegal to drive with the active ingredient of marijuana in your body, no matter the amount.

The Arizona Supreme Court wrote: “We today hold that the AMMA does not immunize a medical marijuana cardholder from prosecution under § 28-1381(A)(3), but instead affords an affirmative defense if the cardholder shows that the marijuana or its metabolite was in a concentration insufficient to cause impairment.” 

Nesci says, in other words, if you are charged with the (A)(3) charge, and the State proves that you were driving with THC in your system, if you can show some credible evidence that it was too little to cause impairment, the State must then show by proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it did cause impairment—which is the same thing as the (A)(1) charge.

He further explains, with so little literature as to what amount causes impairment, and with no real definition of “impairment,” these cases have become the most complex that can be tried. Additionally, each trial judge will have to determine what “some credible evidence” actually means. Every defendant will be at the mercy of the judge’s predilections. Is the judge pro-marijuana-use or hard-core anti-drug? Will the underlying medical condition of the defendant be mistaken for impairment? Will people be acquitted of the (A)(3) charge, but convicted of the (A)(1) charges because the jury did not understand what they were supposed to do?

Nesci says that it’s time to scrap the DUI laws in their entirety and rewrite them with an eye toward simplicity and justice. 

James Nesci is a partner at the premier law firm in Arizona for DUI Defense, Nesci & St. Louis, PLLC. He obtained his J.D. from The University of Arizona College of Law. Nesci has been recognized as one of the “Best Lawyers in America” by Woodward/White. He is also rated AV Preeminent by Martindale-Hubbell, the highest attainable rating an attorney can achieve. 

Nesci's publications include: " Nesci's Arizona DUI Defense, The Law and Practice, 4th Edition," "Arizona DUI Defense: The Law & Practice, Third Edition," "MedicoLegal Aspects of Alcohol," and "How to Beat a DUI.” For over 15 years, Nesci has been Sustaining Member of The National College for DUI Defense and also serves on the college's Board of Regents.

About Nesci & St. Louis, PLLC:

The law firm of Nesci & St. Louis, PLLC is located in Tucson, Arizona. The firm exclusively handles criminal law cases including those pertaining to: DUI's, drug offenses, aggravated assault, domestic violence, armed robbery, felony theft, and homicide.

The Arizona criminal defense law firm represents clients located in Maricopa, Cochise, Graham, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, and Yuma counties.

Dutch cannabis grower revels in court victory

(REUTERS) Once in his greenhouse in a remote Dutch village, Doede de Jong proudly nurtured a thriving cannabis crop to sell to local users. Now only five plants remain, after the police moved in.

 

Yet the 66-year-old Dutchman remains unbowed after winning a symbolic court victory despite deliberately flouting the country's liberal drugs laws.
In a verdict that could have major implications for cannabis growers in The Netherlands, a court last month found De Jong guilty of breaking the law, which allows individuals to grow a maximum of only five plants each.
 
But the judges refused to hand down a sentence, arguing that the goal of this self-described hippie was quite distinct from that of real criminals who rake in huge, illicit profits from drugs sales.

"I did it out of principle because I believe in the recreational and medicinal uses of weed," De Jong told AFP, standing among the tomatoes that flourish now where for four decades marijuana plants grew.

"This is the first time that a judge has shown respect for what I am doing. It's a great victory." De Jong, who also produces cannabis oil, moved to the isolated northern village of Appelscha to live in a farm surrounded by fields "to be closer to nature".

He only recently had running water installed. And he insists he was a small-scale organic grower, with just a few hundred plants, supplying one local coffee shop.

The Netherlands decriminalised the sale of small amounts of cannabis - less than five grams - and allowed each person to legally grow five plants for personal use in 1976.

Now the country has about 600 so-called "coffee shops" where people can legally buy dope while enjoying a cup of coffee - no alcohol is served.

But the wholesale growing and sale of marijuana remains banned, forcing legal coffee shop owners to buy from criminals to meet the demand.

De Jong's case has been welcomed by the Dutch association for the legalisation of cannabis, VOC, which hopes it may herald longer-term changes to the law.

"We are very happy with this evolution as there is a real issue on the table. Does the cultivation of cannabis fit within the framework of the law? We think it does," said VOC spokesman Derrick Bergman.

Drug law expert Deborah Bruin, from the university of Amsterdam, said the decision by the Leeuwarden appeals court "is very interesting. But it's too early to know if it will become a trend." Supporters of the cannabis laws say regulating growers would allow better quality control, reduce the risk of fires linked to illegal plantations and raise money in the form of taxes.

Several places, including big cities like Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Utrecht, have signed a so-called "Joint Declaration" calling for local authorities to be allowed to regulate growers.

The move was narrowly defeated in May by the parliament in The Hague, with 75 MPs voting against and 70 in favour.

But on Monday, the association of municipalities renewed their appeal, saying the current laws were "unsustainable" and they should be allowed to licence growers in order to break "the grip" of criminal gangs on marijuana production.

The government insists however that regulating cannabis growing would do nothing to stop the criminals as most production is destined for export.

The Dutch policy grew up in the years of the hippie movement and had been intended to allow a limited supply of dope for a local market.

"It was only later that it turned into this huge business for the coffee shops with the corresponding demand for production," said Bruin.

Today's coffee shops generate millions of euros annually, and in major hubs they have proven a huge draw for some of the millions of tourists who visit the country every year.

The Leeuwarden court appeared sympathetic to De Jong's arguments, saying it believed "the defendant did not act in order to get rich." In another case last year in northern Groningen, judges returned a similar verdict, but openly criticised the law and refused to impose a penalty on the defendant.

The judges insisted the growers had always been open about their intentions and had even declared their revenue to the government.

But their decision was overturned on appeal and the growers were given three-month suspended sentences.
In Appelscha pottering among his denuded greenhouse and garden where he once grew some 20 cannabis varieties, De Jong has no regrets.

"I was a hippie, and to some extent I still am," he said, with a rueful smile


(REUTERS) Doede de Jong cultivated hundreds of cannabis plants to supply a local coffee shop.

Gatineau judge calls Canada’s marijuana laws “antiquated and ridiculous”

By Terry Dawes

A judge in Gatineau, Quebec has imposed a fine of $1.30, “one dollar fine and 30 cents surcharge”, to an Outaouais man arrested for possession of 30 pot plants, adding that he is tired of having to deal with Canada’s “antiquated and ridiculous” marijuana laws.

The prosecution had demanded a sentence of 90 days detention and a $250 fine for the accused, reports La Presse.

Judge Pierre Chevalier added that, in light of the fact that half of Canadians had used pot, and not only for medicinal use, it was a safe bet that many of the lawyers, judges and court officials in the court system had already used marijuana themselves, with no legal consequences.

The accused was Mario Larouche, a 46-year-old man suffering from the physical aftereffects of a road accident, had tried unsuccessfully in the past to apply for a medical marijuana prescription.

The judge appeared exasperated not only at having his and the court’s time wasted, but also decided to comment on the overall hypocrisy inherent in a system that’s simultaneously tough on crime and blind to the fact of widespread use.

“If the accused had met with a responsible doctor, he would probably now have his prescription,” said Judge Chevalier. “He wouldn’t be in front of this tribunal today. The gentleman is caught up in a completely mixed up system that does not allow access to a natural medicine going back centuries, or millennia.”

Picking up on signals sent by the Liberal government, which intends to legalize marijuana and tax the proceeds, Judge Chevalier continued, “And I think that society is becoming less naive on this subject, or at least the politicians are. We’ve got one now with a responsible attitude who isn’t afraid to go in that direction,” presumably referring to Prime Minister Trudeau.

“We have been stagnating in Canada, because politically people probably weren’t ready for the laws to evolve on this,” added Chevalier. “Irresponsible politicians have simply let these things rot because they thought it would lose them votes.”