The American College of Physicians has endorsed easing restrictions on medical marijuana. From their webpage: "Additional research is needed to further clarify the therapeutic value of cannabinoids and determine optimal routes of administration. Unfortunately, research expansion has been hindered by a complicated federal approval process, limited availability of research-grade marijuana, and the debate over legalization. ACP believes the science on medical marijuana should not be obscured or hindered by the debate surrounding the legalization of marijuana for general use." The ACP's full position paper on the subject is available by clicking here.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Protest Planned Over Indictment Of Man Who Accidentally Killed Cop During SWAT Raid
A rally is planned for Feb. 23, 2008, in Chesapeake, VA, to protest the indictment of Ryan Frederick for the death of a police officer killed when a SWAT team raided Frederick's home. The raid was based on an informant's incorrect claim that Frederick was growing marijuana.
The Virginian-Pilot reported on Feb. 12, 2008 ("Frederick Supporters Plan Rally Outside Chesapeake Jail") that "Frederick has been held at the jail since his arrest following the Jan. 17 shooting of Detective Jarrod Shivers, 34, a father of three. He is charged with first-degree murder, use of a firearm and first-offense possession of marijuana, a misdemeanor. Shivers, an eight-year police veteran, was shot while executing a drug search warrant at Frederick's home in the 900 block of Redstart Ave., in the Portlock section of Chesapeake. Police said Shivers was attempting to enter the suspect's home when "shots were fired from inside the residence," striking the detective. Frederick, in a jail interview with The Virginian-Pilot, said he did not know it was a police kicking in his front door and fired his .380-caliber handgun at what he thought was an intruder. A special prosecutor from Northern Virginia has been appointed to handle the case. Paul Ebert, the commonwealth's attorney from Prince William County, was appointed when Chesapeake prosecutors removed themselves from the case to avoid any perceived appearance of bias."
According to the Virginian-Pilot, "Supporters of Ryan Frederick, the man accused of fatally shooting a city detective, are planning a march and rally Feb. 23 at the city jail where the 28-year-old is being held without bail. The rally is planned from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the Chesapeake Correctional Center, 400 Albemarle Drive. Frederick is expected to appear in Chesapeake General District Court two days before the planned rally for a bond hearing."
The case has had reverberations well beyond Virginia. As Victorville, CA Desert Dispatch noted in an editorial on Feb. 12, 2008 ("Unnecessary SWAT Raids Put All Parties At Risk"), "Right now, in Chesapeake, Va., Ryan Frederick is in jail, charged with murdering a police officer. On Jan. 17, a police SWAT team converged on Frederick's home after an informant told police he was growing marijuana, according to the Virginian-Pilot. Based on this information, the police organized an evening raid. Frederick, who was apparently asleep, said he thought somebody was trying to break into his home. The circumstances are not fully clear, but he ultimately shot one of the officers as they broke down his front door. The officer later died. The police did not find a marijuana-growing operation in Frederick's house. He was growing tree saplings in his garage apparently. He had a slight amount of marijuana for recreational use, a misdemeanor. His first one. According to the Virginian-Pilot, Frederick was afraid because somebody had broken into his garage three days before the police raid, which may well explain the source of the informant's claims. As a result, an officer is dead and a man who believed he was protecting his home from an intruder may stand trial for it. The community is coming out in support of Frederick, but it's a tragedy all around."
The Desert Dispatch wrote that "SWAT raids should be intended as a tool of last resort, when lives are endangered and there is no other way for authorities to safely enter a home or building. Even in the appropriate circumstances these raids can be deadly for all involved. A SWAT officer was killed last week in the Los Angeles area in a raid trying to stop an apparently mentally ill man who killed three members of his own family. When authorities misuse these raids – for whatever logical reason – to execute search warrants, they put themselves and sometimes innocent people at risk."
The Virginian-Pilot reported on Feb. 12, 2008 ("Frederick Supporters Plan Rally Outside Chesapeake Jail") that "Frederick has been held at the jail since his arrest following the Jan. 17 shooting of Detective Jarrod Shivers, 34, a father of three. He is charged with first-degree murder, use of a firearm and first-offense possession of marijuana, a misdemeanor. Shivers, an eight-year police veteran, was shot while executing a drug search warrant at Frederick's home in the 900 block of Redstart Ave., in the Portlock section of Chesapeake. Police said Shivers was attempting to enter the suspect's home when "shots were fired from inside the residence," striking the detective. Frederick, in a jail interview with The Virginian-Pilot, said he did not know it was a police kicking in his front door and fired his .380-caliber handgun at what he thought was an intruder. A special prosecutor from Northern Virginia has been appointed to handle the case. Paul Ebert, the commonwealth's attorney from Prince William County, was appointed when Chesapeake prosecutors removed themselves from the case to avoid any perceived appearance of bias."
According to the Virginian-Pilot, "Supporters of Ryan Frederick, the man accused of fatally shooting a city detective, are planning a march and rally Feb. 23 at the city jail where the 28-year-old is being held without bail. The rally is planned from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the Chesapeake Correctional Center, 400 Albemarle Drive. Frederick is expected to appear in Chesapeake General District Court two days before the planned rally for a bond hearing."
The case has had reverberations well beyond Virginia. As Victorville, CA Desert Dispatch noted in an editorial on Feb. 12, 2008 ("Unnecessary SWAT Raids Put All Parties At Risk"), "Right now, in Chesapeake, Va., Ryan Frederick is in jail, charged with murdering a police officer. On Jan. 17, a police SWAT team converged on Frederick's home after an informant told police he was growing marijuana, according to the Virginian-Pilot. Based on this information, the police organized an evening raid. Frederick, who was apparently asleep, said he thought somebody was trying to break into his home. The circumstances are not fully clear, but he ultimately shot one of the officers as they broke down his front door. The officer later died. The police did not find a marijuana-growing operation in Frederick's house. He was growing tree saplings in his garage apparently. He had a slight amount of marijuana for recreational use, a misdemeanor. His first one. According to the Virginian-Pilot, Frederick was afraid because somebody had broken into his garage three days before the police raid, which may well explain the source of the informant's claims. As a result, an officer is dead and a man who believed he was protecting his home from an intruder may stand trial for it. The community is coming out in support of Frederick, but it's a tragedy all around."
The Desert Dispatch wrote that "SWAT raids should be intended as a tool of last resort, when lives are endangered and there is no other way for authorities to safely enter a home or building. Even in the appropriate circumstances these raids can be deadly for all involved. A SWAT officer was killed last week in the Los Angeles area in a raid trying to stop an apparently mentally ill man who killed three members of his own family. When authorities misuse these raids – for whatever logical reason – to execute search warrants, they put themselves and sometimes innocent people at risk."
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Indiana Moves To Restrict Access To Treatment
The state of Indiana is considering restrictions which would limit access to effective drug treatment.
The Courier Journal reported on Feb. 12, 2008 ("Panel OKs Clinic Restrictions") that "Legislation to impose new restrictions on methadone clinics, including a requirement that patients be tested for marijuana and have a designated driver after appointments, cleared a House committee yesterday. The House Health Committee unanimously approved Senate Bill 157, but some members said they did so with reservations, particularly about the driving provision added yesterday. 'I'm concerned we'll lose people in treatment who are riding a bus or walking or don't have a designated driver,' said Rep. Carolene Mays, D-Indianapolis."
According to the Courier Journal, "The bill already has passed the Senate, although without the designated-driver requirement. It would require the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration to adopt new rules to regulate clinics and require state approval for all patients who would receive more than 14 take-home doses of the drug. The House committee approved another amendment yesterday requiring clinics to test patients for marijuana use."
The Courier Journal noted that "But the committee did not act on a proposed amendment by Rep. Terry Goodin, D-Crothersville, that would have banned patients from bringing children to treatment centers. Clark County Commissioner Michael Moore testified for the amendment. He told the committee that too many of the clinic's patients have their children with them when they come in early in the morning to receive treatments. Moore said many of those patients come to a restaurant he owns before or after their appointments and often fall asleep or act erratically. 'This is the kind of behavior that would make most social-service agencies jump in and act,' Moore said. But Rep. John Day, D-Indianapolis, said he was worried about a single mother who might have to miss an appointment if she couldn't bring her children."
The Courier Journal reported on Feb. 12, 2008 ("Panel OKs Clinic Restrictions") that "Legislation to impose new restrictions on methadone clinics, including a requirement that patients be tested for marijuana and have a designated driver after appointments, cleared a House committee yesterday. The House Health Committee unanimously approved Senate Bill 157, but some members said they did so with reservations, particularly about the driving provision added yesterday. 'I'm concerned we'll lose people in treatment who are riding a bus or walking or don't have a designated driver,' said Rep. Carolene Mays, D-Indianapolis."
According to the Courier Journal, "The bill already has passed the Senate, although without the designated-driver requirement. It would require the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration to adopt new rules to regulate clinics and require state approval for all patients who would receive more than 14 take-home doses of the drug. The House committee approved another amendment yesterday requiring clinics to test patients for marijuana use."
The Courier Journal noted that "But the committee did not act on a proposed amendment by Rep. Terry Goodin, D-Crothersville, that would have banned patients from bringing children to treatment centers. Clark County Commissioner Michael Moore testified for the amendment. He told the committee that too many of the clinic's patients have their children with them when they come in early in the morning to receive treatments. Moore said many of those patients come to a restaurant he owns before or after their appointments and often fall asleep or act erratically. 'This is the kind of behavior that would make most social-service agencies jump in and act,' Moore said. But Rep. John Day, D-Indianapolis, said he was worried about a single mother who might have to miss an appointment if she couldn't bring her children."
Marijuana and Gum Disease
New Zealand research shows a possible link between smoking marijuana and gum disease but notes other factors may be at play.
According to the February 6, 2008 Calgary Herald ("Pot-smoking linked to gum disease"), "The new study, published in this week's issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, included 903 people born in New Zealand between 1972 and 1973. The group reported their cannabis use during the previous year when they were 18, 21, 26 and 32, and had their teeth checked twice, when they were 26 and 32. Researchers assigned participants to one of three exposure groups: no exposure, some exposure (one to 40 occasions of cannabis use reported during the previous year) and high exposure (41 or more occasions of pot use)."
The Herald article stated, "Researchers found that young people who smoke cannabis 41 or more times per year -- or almost once a week -- are up to three times more likely than non-users to have serious periodontal disease by age 32. 'People lose the support around the bone, the support around their teeth and they may lose their teeth to periodontal disease,' says Dr. James Beck, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Dentistry."
The article noted, "When periodontal disease progresses, it destroys the ligament around the tooth and bone. Gum separates from the teeth, forming pockets that fill with plaque and infection, according to the American Academy of Periodontology. The amount of destruction is measured by sticking a probe between the gum and tooth to see how deep the pockets are. That's called attachment loss. After controlling for tobacco smoking, infrequent dental check-ups and plaque, compared with those who had never smoked cannabis, those in the highest using group had a 60 per cent increased risk for having one or more sites with four millimetres or greater pockets or attachment loss, and a three-times greater risk for having one or more sites with five millimetres or more attachment loss."
The article, "Cannabis Smoking and Periodontal Disease Among Young Adults," is available from the JAMA website.
According to the February 6, 2008 Calgary Herald ("Pot-smoking linked to gum disease"), "The new study, published in this week's issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, included 903 people born in New Zealand between 1972 and 1973. The group reported their cannabis use during the previous year when they were 18, 21, 26 and 32, and had their teeth checked twice, when they were 26 and 32. Researchers assigned participants to one of three exposure groups: no exposure, some exposure (one to 40 occasions of cannabis use reported during the previous year) and high exposure (41 or more occasions of pot use)."
The Herald article stated, "Researchers found that young people who smoke cannabis 41 or more times per year -- or almost once a week -- are up to three times more likely than non-users to have serious periodontal disease by age 32. 'People lose the support around the bone, the support around their teeth and they may lose their teeth to periodontal disease,' says Dr. James Beck, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Dentistry."
The article noted, "When periodontal disease progresses, it destroys the ligament around the tooth and bone. Gum separates from the teeth, forming pockets that fill with plaque and infection, according to the American Academy of Periodontology. The amount of destruction is measured by sticking a probe between the gum and tooth to see how deep the pockets are. That's called attachment loss. After controlling for tobacco smoking, infrequent dental check-ups and plaque, compared with those who had never smoked cannabis, those in the highest using group had a 60 per cent increased risk for having one or more sites with four millimetres or greater pockets or attachment loss, and a three-times greater risk for having one or more sites with five millimetres or more attachment loss."
The article, "Cannabis Smoking and Periodontal Disease Among Young Adults," is available from the JAMA website.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Plea Agreement Provision May Prevent Sentence Reductions
Federal rules now allow many who had been sentenced to harsh mandatory minimum sentences for crack to apply for a reduction in their sentences. A waiver of this potential right which had been routinely included in some federal plea agreements is expected to prevent some from applying.
The Buffalo News reported on Feb. 11, 2008 ("Battle Shapes Up Over Crack Sentences") that "Federal court officials took action last year to give a break to people convicted on federal crack cocaine charges. They enacted changes after years of complaints that crack sentences were exceptionally harsh and that African-Americans from poor, inner-city neighborhoods were the ones most likely to be convicted. But U.S. Attorney Terrance P. Flynn may oppose requests to reduce the sentences of previously convicted people, based on a legal waiver that is routinely included in federal plea agreements filed in Buffalo and Rochester. Dating to at least 1997, hundreds of federal drug offenders in the region have agreed to the waiver, promising that they would never ask for reduced sentences -- even if future changes in the law allowed them to do so. 'At this point, we haven't decided whether we will try to enforce the waiver,' said Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph M. Guerra III, Flynn's top aide for drug prosecutions. 'We've talked about the situation with [Justice Department] officials in Washington, and we're waiting for guidance or directives from them.'"
According to the News, "If Flynn's office decides to fight the requests for reduced sentences, that will upset many defense attorneys and Frank B. Mesiah, president of the Buffalo chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. By changing the guidelines, Congress and the U.S. Sentencing Commission have already made a clear statement that people convicted of crack cocaine crimes were being sentenced too harshly, Mesiah said. 'It would be wrong for [prosecutors] to challenge that,' Mesiah said. 'If the U.S. attorney follows that policy, he will be adding even more inequities to the system.' Similar comments came from Buffalo defense lawyers James P. Harrington, Mark J. Mahoney and Herbert L. Greenman, all of whom represent many local drug defendants. 'It would be unfair and unfortunate,' Harrington said. 'It would go against the spirit of what Congress and the sentencing commission were trying to do when they decided that these sentences should be reduced.' Harrington is the Buffalo representative on a national panel of attorneys who represent federal defendants who can't afford lawyers."
The News noted that "Ultimately, federal judges will decide on a case-by-case basis if defendants qualify for early release from prison. 'This issue [on the waivers] has not come before us yet. If it does come before us, we'll decide on it,' said Richard J. Arcara, chief U.S. district judge for Western New York. 'There are a lot of complicated issues surrounding the changes in the crack sentences. We're already looking at these issues, and we'll be deciding these cases as expeditiously and fairly as we can. It will be a high priority.' Judges will be looking at each individual's criminal history -- including the amount of drugs involved and whether any violent crimes were also involved -- before deciding whether to reduce sentences, Arcara said."
The Buffalo News reported on Feb. 11, 2008 ("Battle Shapes Up Over Crack Sentences") that "Federal court officials took action last year to give a break to people convicted on federal crack cocaine charges. They enacted changes after years of complaints that crack sentences were exceptionally harsh and that African-Americans from poor, inner-city neighborhoods were the ones most likely to be convicted. But U.S. Attorney Terrance P. Flynn may oppose requests to reduce the sentences of previously convicted people, based on a legal waiver that is routinely included in federal plea agreements filed in Buffalo and Rochester. Dating to at least 1997, hundreds of federal drug offenders in the region have agreed to the waiver, promising that they would never ask for reduced sentences -- even if future changes in the law allowed them to do so. 'At this point, we haven't decided whether we will try to enforce the waiver,' said Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph M. Guerra III, Flynn's top aide for drug prosecutions. 'We've talked about the situation with [Justice Department] officials in Washington, and we're waiting for guidance or directives from them.'"
According to the News, "If Flynn's office decides to fight the requests for reduced sentences, that will upset many defense attorneys and Frank B. Mesiah, president of the Buffalo chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. By changing the guidelines, Congress and the U.S. Sentencing Commission have already made a clear statement that people convicted of crack cocaine crimes were being sentenced too harshly, Mesiah said. 'It would be wrong for [prosecutors] to challenge that,' Mesiah said. 'If the U.S. attorney follows that policy, he will be adding even more inequities to the system.' Similar comments came from Buffalo defense lawyers James P. Harrington, Mark J. Mahoney and Herbert L. Greenman, all of whom represent many local drug defendants. 'It would be unfair and unfortunate,' Harrington said. 'It would go against the spirit of what Congress and the sentencing commission were trying to do when they decided that these sentences should be reduced.' Harrington is the Buffalo representative on a national panel of attorneys who represent federal defendants who can't afford lawyers."
The News noted that "Ultimately, federal judges will decide on a case-by-case basis if defendants qualify for early release from prison. 'This issue [on the waivers] has not come before us yet. If it does come before us, we'll decide on it,' said Richard J. Arcara, chief U.S. district judge for Western New York. 'There are a lot of complicated issues surrounding the changes in the crack sentences. We're already looking at these issues, and we'll be deciding these cases as expeditiously and fairly as we can. It will be a high priority.' Judges will be looking at each individual's criminal history -- including the amount of drugs involved and whether any violent crimes were also involved -- before deciding whether to reduce sentences, Arcara said."
Monday, February 11, 2008
Canada: Could Crime Bill Impasse Bring Down Harper Government?
The Conservative government of Stephen Harper is pushing crime policy to the forefront as it attempts to replicate a US-style drug war.
The Ottawa Citizen reported on Feb. 8, 2008 ("Pass Crime Bill or Go to Polls, Tories Say") that "Looking more and more like it is bent on an election, the Harper government set another potential trap for the Liberals yesterday, introducing a motion urging the Senate to pass the government's violent-crime bill by the start of next month, but the Liberals promptly dismissed the move as a "juvenile trick." The motion, expected to be put to a vote next week, calls on the Senate to pass the Tackling Violent Crime Act by March 1. The government has declared it a confidence motion, meaning an election could be triggered if the measure is defeated."
According to the Citizen, "There are now three potential triggers for a spring election in the next seven weeks. Besides the crime motion, the government will face confidence votes over the federal budget at the end of this month, plus a motion to extend the Afghanistan mission that is expected to be put to a vote in late March. However, it appeared yesterday that the crime motion would pass. NDP leader Jack Layton said his party would vote against the motion, but Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe said he had 'no problem' with it. Liberal leader Stephane Dion also vowed that his party would not fall for what he called a 'juvenile trick,' suggesting the Liberals will abstain from the vote. Mr. Dion accused the government of trying to engineer its own defeat before having to table the budget."
The Citizen noted that "Earlier, government House Leader Peter Van Loan warned there would be a "clear impasse" between the two chambers of Parliament if the Commons approved the motion, but the Senate doesn't pass the bill. If that happens, the prime minister could ask the Governor General to dissolve Parliament, thus triggering an election, on the grounds the Senate is preventing the government from carrying out its agenda. Experts debated whether such a move would be constitutional, especially since Parliament last year passed a bill setting fixed election dates. The next election is set for October 2009, unless the opposition defeats the government."
The Ottawa Citizen reported on Feb. 8, 2008 ("Pass Crime Bill or Go to Polls, Tories Say") that "Looking more and more like it is bent on an election, the Harper government set another potential trap for the Liberals yesterday, introducing a motion urging the Senate to pass the government's violent-crime bill by the start of next month, but the Liberals promptly dismissed the move as a "juvenile trick." The motion, expected to be put to a vote next week, calls on the Senate to pass the Tackling Violent Crime Act by March 1. The government has declared it a confidence motion, meaning an election could be triggered if the measure is defeated."
According to the Citizen, "There are now three potential triggers for a spring election in the next seven weeks. Besides the crime motion, the government will face confidence votes over the federal budget at the end of this month, plus a motion to extend the Afghanistan mission that is expected to be put to a vote in late March. However, it appeared yesterday that the crime motion would pass. NDP leader Jack Layton said his party would vote against the motion, but Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe said he had 'no problem' with it. Liberal leader Stephane Dion also vowed that his party would not fall for what he called a 'juvenile trick,' suggesting the Liberals will abstain from the vote. Mr. Dion accused the government of trying to engineer its own defeat before having to table the budget."
The Citizen noted that "Earlier, government House Leader Peter Van Loan warned there would be a "clear impasse" between the two chambers of Parliament if the Commons approved the motion, but the Senate doesn't pass the bill. If that happens, the prime minister could ask the Governor General to dissolve Parliament, thus triggering an election, on the grounds the Senate is preventing the government from carrying out its agenda. Experts debated whether such a move would be constitutional, especially since Parliament last year passed a bill setting fixed election dates. The next election is set for October 2009, unless the opposition defeats the government."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)