California Patrol Won't Seize Marijuana

  California Patrol Won't Seize Marijuana

Posted by CN Staff on August 30, 2005 at 07:09:54 PT
By Dean E. Murphy 
Source: New York Times 

Oakland, Calif. -- In a turnaround, one of the state's biggest law enforcement agencies says it is taking a hands-off approach to the possession and use of marijuana for medical purposes.The new policy, by the California Highway Patrol, states that an "individual is to be released and the marijuana is not to be seized" if the person qualifies under state law to possess marijuana for medicinal purposes. It also says that officers "shall not conduct traffic enforcement stops for the primary purpose of drug interdiction" involving the authorized use of medical marijuana. 
Though data on arrests is incomplete, medical marijuana advocates say the highway patrol had been responsible for more arrests of patients and caregivers than any other agency in the state.A spokesman for the highway patrol said on Monday that the new rules were issued last week in response to a ruling by the United States Supreme Court in June and legal action by Americans for Safe Access, an advocacy group based here in Oakland that sought a court order against the highway patrol's previous policy of arresting patients and confiscating their marijuana."There were numerous field inquiries in response to the Supreme Court ruling," said the spokesman, Lt. Joe Whiteford. "They wanted clarification of the law, and we wanted to make sure all of our officers are on the same page."At a news conference here called by Americans for Safe Access, patients and their advocates described the policy change as a breakthrough and predicted other law enforcement agencies would follow suit."It gives us renewed confidence that it is appropriate to bring these cases to court and that good things can come from doing so," said Joe Elford, a lawyer for Americans for Safe Access, adding that the group would file more lawsuits if the highway patrol "model is not replicated" across the state.The Supreme Court, in Gonzales v. Raich, declared in June that medical marijuana patients are subject to federal prosecution even if they live in a state that allows medicinal uses of marijuana. The decision dealt a blow to medical marijuana users around the country, but it did not overturn laws in 12 states, including California, that allow some uses of marijuana.Though voters approved California's medical marijuana law in 1996, it was only after the Supreme Court ruling that the highway patrol got sufficient legal guidance from the state to relax its enforcement, Lieutenant Whiteford said."There was a lot of ambiguity in the law," he said, "so basically it made it a little tough for law enforcement to come up with a solid policy to enforce it."A spokeswoman for Attorney General Bill Lockyer said Mr. Lockyer sent memorandums to law enforcement agencies throughout the state reminding them "that California law still stands."Under the California law, people can possess up to eight ounces of marijuana for medicinal purposes on the recommendation of a doctor. So-called caregivers are also permitted to possess and cultivate the marijuana for sick people."It was Lockyer's intention to help guide local agencies in looking at their internal policies," said the spokeswoman, Teresa Schilling.The highway patrol's 7,100 sworn officers are responsible for enforcing traffic laws on state and county roads.Lieutenant Whiteford said officers would still stop people if there was a "reasonable suspicion" of illegal drug activity, including driving under the influence of marijuana.Complete Title: California Patrol Won't Seize Marijuana Used as MedicineSource: New York Times (NY)Author: Dean E. MurphyPublished: August 30, 2005Copyright: 2005 The New York Times Company Contact: letters Website: Related Articles & Web Site:Americans For Safe Access Revises Policy on Pot Seizures Sues State To Stop CHP Pot Confiscations

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

Comment #38 posted by Hope on September 01, 2005 at 15:34:22 PT
Hey, Jose.
Glad to hear from you. I was gettin bout ready to go looking for you.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #37 posted by jose melendez on September 01, 2005 at 08:02:10 PT
China and Canada are allowed to grow, why not US?
Re: Comment#36Article 28CONTROL OF CANNABIS1. If a Party permits the cultivation of the cannabis plant for the production of cannabis or cannabis resin, it shall apply thereto the system of controls as provided in article 23 respecting the control of the opium poppy.2. This Convention shall not apply to the cultivation of the cannabis plant exclusively for industrial purposes (fibre and seed) or horticultural purposes.3. The Parties shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to prevent the misuse of, and illicit traffic in, the leaves of the cannabis plant.Article 29MANUFACTURE1. The Parties shall require that the manufacture of drugs be under licence except where such manufacture is carried out by a State enterprise or State enterprises.2. The Parties shall:  (a) Control all persons and enterprises carrying on or engaged in the manufacture of drugs;  (b) Control under licence the establishments and premises in which such manufacture may take place; and  (c) Require that licensed manufacturers of drugs obtain periodical permits specifying the kinds and amounts of drugs which they shall be entitled to manufacture. A periodical permit, however, need not be required for preparations.3. The Parties shall prevent the accumulation, in the possession of drug manufacturers, of quantities of drugs and poppy straw in excess of those required for the normal conduct of business, having regard to the prevailing market conditions.Article 30TRADE AND DISTRIBUTION1.   (a) The Parties shall require that the trade in and distribution of drugs be under licence except where such trade or distribution is carried out by a State enterprise or State enterprises.  (b) The Parties shall:    (i) Control all persons and enterprises carrying on or engaged in the trade in or distribution of drugs;    (ii) Control under licence the establishments and premises in which such trade or distribution may take place. The requirement of licensing need not apply to preparations.  (c) The provisions of subparagraphs (a) and (b) relating to licensing need not apply to persons duly authorized to perform and while performing therapeutic or scientific functions.2. The Parties shall also:  (a) Prevent the accumulation in the possession of traders, distributors, State enterprises or duly authorized persons referred to above, of quantities of drugs and poppy straw in excess of those required for the normal conduct of business, having regard to the prevailing market conditions; and  (b) (i) Require medical prescriptions for the supply or dispensation of drugs to individuals. This requirement need not apply to such drugs as individuals may lawfully obtain, use, dispense or administer in connexion with their duly authorized therapeutic functions; and    (ii) If the Parties deem these measures necessary or desirable, require that prescriptions for drugs in Schedule 1 should be written on officials forms to be issued in the form of counterfoil books by the competent governmental authorities or by authorized professional associations.3. It is desirable that Parties require that written or printed offers of drugs, advertisements of every kind or descriptive literature relating to drugs and used for commercial purposes, interior wrappings of packages containing drugs, and labels under which drugs are offered for sale indicate the international non-proprietary name communicated by the World Health Organization.4. If a Party considers such measure necessary or desirable, it shall require that the inner package containing a drug or wrapping thereof shall bear a clearly visible double red band. The exterior wrapping of the package in which such drug is contained shall not bear a double red band.5. A Party shall require that the label under which a drug is offered for sale show the exact drug content by weight or percentage. This requirement of label information need not apply to a drug dispensed to an individual on medical prescription.6. The provisions of paragraphs 2 and 5 need not apply to the retail trade in or retail distribution of drugs in Schedule II.Article 31SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO INTERNATIONAL TRADE1. The Parties shall not knowingly permit the export of drugs to any country or territory except:  (a) In accordance with the laws and regulations of that country or territory; and  (b) Within the limits of the total of the estimates for that country or territory, as defined in paragraph 2 of article 19, with the addition of the amounts intended to be re-exported.2. The Parties shall exercise in free ports and zones the same supervision and control as in other parts of their territories, provided, however, that they may apply more drastic measures.3. The Parties shall:  (a) Control under licence the import and export of drugs except where such import or export is carried out by a State enterprise or enterprises;  (b) Control all persons and enterprises carrying on or engaged in such import or export.4.   (a) Every Party permitting the import or export of drugs shall require a separate import or export authorization to be obtained for each such import or export whether it consists of one or more drugs.  (b) Such authorization shall state the name of the drug, the international non-proprietary name if any, the quantity to be imported or exported, and the name and address of the importer and exporter, and shall specify the period within which the importation or exportation must be effected.  (c) The export authorization shall also state the number and date of the import certificate (paragraph 5) and the authority by whom it has been issued.  (d) The import authorization may allow an importation in more than one consignment.5. Before issuing an export authorization the Parties shall require an import certificate, issued by the competent authorities of the importing country or territory and certifying that the importation of the drug or drugs referred to therein, is approved and such certificate shall be produced by the person or establishment applying for the export authorization. The Parties shall follow as closely as may be practicable the form of import certificate approved by the Commission.6. A copy of the export authorization shall accompany each consignment, and the Government issuing the export authorization shall send a copy to the Government of the importing country or territory.7.  (a) The Government of the importing country or territory, when the importation has been effected or when the period fixed for the importation has expired, shall return the export authorization, with an endorsement to that effect, to the Government of the exporting country or territory.  (b) The endorsement shall specify the amount actually imported.  (c) If a lesser quantity than that specified in the export authorization is actually exported, the quantity actually exported shall be stated by the competent authorities on the export authorization and on any official copy thereof.8. Exports of consignments to a post office box, or to a bank to the account of a Party other than the Party named in the export authorization, shall be prohibited.9. Exports of consignments to a bonded warehouse are prohibited unless the Government of the importing country certifies on the import certificate, produced by the person or establishment applying for the export authorization, that it has approved the importation for the purpose of being placed in a bonded warehouse. In such case the export authorization shall specify that the consignment is exported for such purpose. Each withdrawal from the bonded warehouse shall require a permit from the authorities having jurisdiction over the warehouse and, in the case of a foreign destination shall be treated as if it were a new export within the meaning of this Convention.10. Consignments of drugs entering or leaving the territory of a Party not accompanied by an export authorization shall be detained by the competent authorities.11. A Party shall not permit any drugs consigned to another country to pass through its territory, whether or not the consignment is removed from the conveyance in which it is carried, unless a copy of the export authorization for such consignment is produced to the competent authorities of such Party.12. The competent authorities of any country or territory through which a consignment of drugs is permitted to pass shall take all due measures to prevent the diversion of the consignment to a destination other than that named in the accompanying copy of the export authorization unless the Government of that country or territory through which the consignment is passing authorizes the diversion. The Government of the country or territory of transit shall treat any requested diversion as if the diversion were an export from the country or territory of transit to the country or territory of new destination. If the diversion is authorized, the provisions of paragraph 7 (a) and (b) shall also apply between the country or territory of transit and the country or territory which originally exported the consignment.13. No consignment of drugs while in transit, or whilst being stored in a bonded warehouse, may be subjected to any process which would change the nature of the drugs in question. The packing may not be altered without the permission of the competent authorities.14. The provisions of paragraphs 11 to 13 relating to the passage of drugs through the territory of a Party do not apply where the consignment in question is transported by aircraft which does not land in the country or territory of transit. If the aircraft lands in any such country or territory, those provisions shah be applied so far as circumstances require.15. The provisions of this article are without prejudice to the provisions of any international agreements which limit the control which may be exercised by any of the Parties over drugs in transit.16. Nothing in this article other than paragraphs 1 (a) and 2 need apply in the case of preparations in Schedule III. also: - - -"The Government of the People's Republic of China has reservation to paragraph 2 of Article 48 of the Convention.Within the above ambit, the Government of the People's Republic of China will assume the responsibility for the international rights and obligations that place on a Party to the Convention."from: 48DISPUTES1. If there should arise between two or more Parties a dispute relating to the interpretation or application of this Convention, the said Parties shall consult together with a view to the settlement of the dispute by negotiation, investigation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, recourse to regional bodies, judicial process or other peaceful means of their own choice.2. Any such dispute which cannot be settled in the manner prescribed shall be referred to the International Court of Justice for decision. - - -ARTICLE 1Amendments to article 2, paragraphs 4, 6 and 7 of the Single Convention PROTOCOL AMENDING THE SINGLE CONVENTION ON NARCOTIC DRUGS, 1961Creation Date: 1972/01/01"6. In addition to the measures of control applicable to all drugs in Schedule I, opium is subject to the provisions of article 19, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (f), and of articles 21 bis, 23 and 24, the coca leaf to those of articles 26 and 27 and cannabis to those of article 28."7. The opium poppy, the coca bush, the cannabis plant, poppy straw and cannabis leaves are subject to the control measures prescribed in article 19, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (e), article 20, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (g), article 21 bis and in articles 22 to 24; 22, 26 and 27; 22 and 28; 25; and 28, respectively."ARTICLE 12Amendment to article 22 of the Single Convention Article 22 of the Single Convention shall be amended to read as follows:" 1. Whenever the prevailing conditions in the country or a territory of a Party render the prohibition of the cultivation of the opium poppy, the coca bush or the cannabis plant the most suitable measure, in its opinion, for protecting the public health and welfare and preventing the diversion of drugs into the illicit traffic, the Party concerned shall prohibit cultivation." 2. A Party prohibiting cultivation of the opium poppy or the cannabis plant shall take appropriate measures to seize any plants illicitly cultivated and to destroy them, except for small quantities required by the Party for scientific or research purposes."from: Above was apparently not signed by China or Canada - - -"The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs adopted at New York on 30 March 1961 does not prohibit in a mandatory manner the production, distribution and use of cannabis drugs. Cannabis, cannabis resin and extracts and tinctures of cannabis are included in schedule I of the Convention, which means that they are subject to all measures of control applicable under the Convention in the same manner as, for example, morphine and pethidine. Cannabis and cannabis resin, however, are also included in schedule IV of the Convention and parties undertake (1) to adopt any special measures of control which in their opinion are necessary because of the particularly dangerous properties of these drugs, and (2) to prohibit, except for research purposes, production, manufacture, export and import of, trade in, possession and use of these drugs, if in their opinion the existing conditions in their countries make it the best means of protecting public health and welfare."from:
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #36 posted by ekim on August 31, 2005 at 20:38:53 PT
Lets have hope and give Art a try
who knows what each of us can do. GCW is right about finding some good from a low point.
the shiver part rocked. and good leap story.Howard Wooldridge had a good write up while in Hastings MI which goes like this. Wooldridge spent most of his years as a police officer pushing a patrol car around Bath and Dewitt townships near Lansing. Like every officer, he quickly learned that alcohol killed and injured more people than all the illicit drugs combined.and like. Wooldridge said th knew that somthing was wrong with law enforcement priorities from the beginning. Many of his fellow officers spent most of thier time searching cars in order to seize marijuana.and lastly. The goal of legal distrbution is to destroy the black market.and the point reasearching Cannabis and the farmers not being able to grow Cannabis and we must import needs repeting. China and Canada are allowed to grow why not use the cellulose plastics now? why because we have not had the leaders come before the people and call for it.Garry Hart said the dems must get a spine. 
someone must point to the fact that as bad as ethanol from corn is the new cellulose processes will no doubt be used at exsisting refinerys. to grind up and use the whole stalk and the fact that ethanol refinerys have been made has helped the gas companys as they have need for all the help they can get. 
and the need for local gov't to fund studies that will see if growing hemp say for a closing Menasha cardboard mill near Otsego MI to replace high cost tree pulp.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #35 posted by charmed quark on August 31, 2005 at 14:56:14 PT
Runderwo - Impaired driving
Most states do have laws against driving impaired by legal OTC or prescription drugs. The penalities are MUCH lower than for driving under the influence of recreational drugs like alchohol. I'm assuming the same laws as for prescription drugs would apply to medical marijuana. If not, I'd like to know why. Something that might have to be fought at the state Supreme Court level.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #34 posted by Hope on August 31, 2005 at 13:45:44 PT
beginning to suspect 
that Mr. Garfunkel is far too elegant to get his hands dirty in this struggle for justice and common sense, even though he knows cannabis use should not fall in the realm of a crime. He knows millions, sucked from the working man and woman's wages, are spent by the government each year on prohibition of cannabis. Surely he knows that cannabis demonization and prohibition was and is based in racism and ungrounded, government induced and produced hysterical fears. Surely, he knows that there are people being persecuted, harassed, and imprisoned over cannabis production, delivery, and use.Mr. Garfunkel can afford the luxury of simply looking away, and therefore the problem is gone and he can go on with his life. He never committed a felony after all. Those "other guys" are the ones who did the felonious stuff. He doesn't want to think about who got his personal cannabis to him and at what risk.Best wishes, Mr. Garfunkel.We will proceed to a better way, with or without your help or the help of others that share your apparent attitude.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #33 posted by ekim on August 31, 2005 at 10:53:31 PT
Have all info ------thanks Hope---
 & thanks to all that have responded. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #32 posted by Hope on August 31, 2005 at 09:29:56 PT
"9 years to start obeying the law"
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #31 posted by Dankhank on August 31, 2005 at 09:22:07 PT
A cop is not qualified to decide if Cannabis impairment is sufficient to affect driving abilityZero-tolerance will not accurately tell if impairment exists.The bulk of DOT driving studies declare that cannabis-only users are safe drivers.Marinol is generally accepted to cause a much more intense high than vaporised Cannabis. Here's what marinol-maker UNIMED says about Marinol and driving/using complex machinery:WARNINGS
181 Patients receiving treatment with MARINOL® Capsules should be specifically warned not to drive, operate machinery, or engage in any hazardous activity until
it is established that they are able to tolerate the drug and to perform such tasks safely.
-----------------------------------------------------Hey, CHP ... leave tham boys and girls alone ...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #30 posted by FoM on August 31, 2005 at 07:49:39 PT

Just a Comment
I haven't found any news to post so far and we are watching the news and talking about the Hurricane. Are they going to try to rebuild New Orleans if they can? I don't think New Orleans can be fixed after this. Where will all the people live now? When will politicians except the fact that global warming is causing this? What city by the sea will be next? How much money will this disaster cost us all? Will musicians and celebrities try to do a concert for them? I'm not sure. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #29 posted by runderwo on August 31, 2005 at 06:56:09 PT

"I hope California uses some sort of impairment test - if you are pulled over and are found too impaired to drive safely AND yhat impairment is due to medical marijuana - then you could be charged."Only if that same criterion is also applied to Nyquil, sleep aids, prozac, etc. If they are going to discriminate against marijuana and not be consistent when it comes to other impairing medications, I'd rather they just held the person and let them go when they sobered up somewhat instead of pressing charges.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #28 posted by goneposthole on August 31, 2005 at 06:03:15 PT

President Bush takes positive action (finally)
He is dipping into the strategic petroleum reserve to ease the madness in the oil market.There should be a strategic cannabis reserve; about 10,000 pounds should be shipped immediately to Baton Rouge and distributed to the refugees fleeing New Orleans.New Orleans should just become the Venice of North America. It would be a groovy place.America will press on and move forward.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #27 posted by charmed quark on August 31, 2005 at 04:58:52 PT

Only 9 years for police to obey law
Wow - things sure move fast when you are in pain. It just took them 9 years to start obeying the law. Interesting that they said the Supreme Court ruling initiated this change.I am curious about "drugged driving" by medical patients. Many would probably test positive anytime they were tested. Some states have said that any measurable metabolites count as "drugged driving". I hope California uses some sort of impairment test - if you are pulled over and are found too impaired to drive safely AND that impairment is due to medical marijuana - then you could be charged.Regarding employers firing medical marijuana patients - the 9th circuit has made a number of rulings that imply this would violate the Americans with Disability Act. And the remedy is lawsuits. Of course, this doesn't apply to people who work for the Feds. And there is some question about private employers who receive federal funds and must maintain a "drug free" workspace. THAT would make an interesting legal case.-CQ
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #26 posted by potpal on August 31, 2005 at 04:02:58 PT

Or should it be 'carfunkled'?Cheers.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #25 posted by potpal on August 31, 2005 at 04:01:55 PT

new verb
Ok, now whenever someone gets pulled over by a cop and gets nabbed for using cannabis on the go, we can say they've been 'garfunkled'...Plant seeds.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by OverwhelmSam on August 31, 2005 at 03:16:41 PT

In Retrospect
I guess the Supreme Court decision DID uphold states' rights after all. I wonder if the DEA has figured out they've been back doored yet? Activists should now sue for damages and PUNITIVE DAMAGES the employers who fire medical marijuana patients when the patients come up positive on a drug test. If employers can't fire people for marijuana use, the federal government's little scheme goes up in smoke. Go for the jugular and gut the ignorant marijuana laws. The only reason the DEA is focusing on marijuana now is because more and more people are using it, and we'll change the law and end their hateful careers. I can not think of a more sorry excuse for human beings.No matter how they try to propagandize and paint Cannabis as a dangerous drug (without ever really saying why it's dangerous) arresting people for marijuana use or possession is a cruel and unusual punishment and unconstitutional. Oh they say it's stronger, I say moderation is the key; they say it temporarily impairs cognitive skills; I say that's why I use it - to relax and let go of my petty issues for a while; they say it's a gateway drug, I say regulate it and get it off the streets.It's time to change the laws and allow adults to use marijuana in the privacy of their own homes if they so choose.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by Jim Lunsford on August 31, 2005 at 01:18:53 PT

On the hurrican and oil companies
Found this little gem of an article in the Boston Globe. It tells the real name of the horrible hurricane that has devastated this country. That we could cut our oil use by the needed 70% with the legalization of cannabis shows the criminality of our government. Read at your own leisure.ROSS GELBSPAN
Katrina's real name 
By Ross Gelbspan | August 30, 2005THE HURRICANE that struck Louisiana yesterday was nicknamed Katrina by the National Weather Service. Its real name is global warming.Article Tools
Printer friendly 
E-mail to a friend 
Op-ed RSS feed 
Available RSS feeds 
Most e-mailed 
Globe Editorials / Op-Ed | 
Globe front page | 
Sign up for: Globe Headlines e-mail | Breaking News Alerts When the year began with a two-foot snowfall in Los Angeles, the cause was global warming.When 124-mile-an-hour winds shut down nuclear plants in Scandinavia and cut power to hundreds of thousands of people in Ireland and the United Kingdom, the driver was global warming.When a severe drought in the Midwest dropped water levels in the Missouri River to their lowest on record earlier this summer, the reason was global warming.In July, when the worst drought on record triggered wildfires in Spain and Portugal and left water levels in France at their lowest in 30 years, the explanation was global warming.When a lethal heat wave in Arizona kept temperatures above 110 degrees and killed more than 20 people in one week, the culprit was global warming.And when the Indian city of Bombay (Mumbai) received 37 inches of rain in one day -- killing 1,000 people and disrupting the lives of 20 million others -- the villain was global warming.As the atmosphere warms, it generates longer droughts, more-intense downpours, more-frequent heat waves, and more-severe storms.Although Katrina began as a relatively small hurricane that glanced off south Florida, it was supercharged with extraordinary intensity by the relatively blistering sea surface temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico.The consequences are as heartbreaking as they are terrifying.Unfortunately, very few people in America know the real name of Hurricane Katrina because the coal and oil industries have spent millions of dollars to keep the public in doubt about the issue.The reason is simple: To allow the climate to stabilize requires humanity to cut its use of coal and oil by 70 percent. That, of course, threatens the survival of one of the largest commercial enterprises in history.In 1995, public utility hearings in Minnesota found that the coal industry had paid more than $1 million to four scientists who were public dissenters on global warming. And ExxonMobil has spent more than $13 million since 1998 on an anti-global warming public relations and lobbying campaign.In 2000, big oil and big coal scored their biggest electoral victory yet when President George W. Bush was elected president -- and subsequently took suggestions from the industry for his climate and energy policies.As the pace of climate change accelerates, many researchers fear we have already entered a period of irreversible runaway climate change.Against this background, the ignorance of the American public about global warming stands out as an indictment of the US media.When the US press has bothered to cover the subject of global warming, it has focused almost exclusively on its political and diplomatic aspects and not on what the warming is doing to our agriculture, water supplies, plant and animal life, public health, and weather.For years, the fossil fuel industry has lobbied the media to accord the same weight to a handful of global warming skeptics that it accords the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- more than 2,000 scientists from 100 countries reporting to the United Nations.Today, with the science having become even more robust -- and the impacts as visible as the megastorm that covered much of the Gulf of Mexico -- the press bears a share of the guilt for our self-induced destruction with the oil and coal industries.As a Bostonian, I am afraid that the coming winter will -- like last winter -- be unusually short and devastatingly severe. At the beginning of 2005, a deadly ice storm knocked out power to thousands of people in New England and dropped a record-setting 42.2 inches of snow on Boston.The conventional name of the month was January. Its real name is global warming.Ross Gelbspan is author of ''The Heat Is On" and ''Boiling Point." Rev JimHave you planted your vote today?Was it in their face?Vote with a real "Victory Garden"Save the world by waging peace© Copyright 2005 Globe Newspaper Company.

[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by FoM on August 30, 2005 at 21:55:17 PT

More News on Art Garfunkel
One More Drug Offense Could land Garfunkel in Jail By Hallie Arnold, Freeman StaffAugust 31, 2005
WOODSTOCK - Singer Art Garfunkel, charged with marijuana possession on Sunday for the second time in 19 months, faces a fine of only $200 if convicted but could be sent to jail if arrested and convicted a third time. Garfunkel, 63, half of the folk music duo Simon and Garfunkel, was charged after a state trooper pulled him over for running a stop sign at state Routes 375 and 212 in Woodstock and detected a "strong odor" of marijuana in the 2005 Buick the singer was driving, according to the police report.A search of the car turned up a marijuana cigarette in the ashtray, police said. It was Garfunkel's second arrest in Ulster County for marijuana possession, which is classified as a criminal violation.In January 2004, he was charged after the limousine in which he was riding was pulled over for speeding on state Route 28 in Hurley and a trooper, smelling marijuana, found a small amount of the drug in Garfunkel's jacket pocket. Garfunkel, who lives on East 79th Street in Manhattan, pleaded guilty in that case and paid a $100 fine and a $100 surcharge. The lawyer who represented Garfunkel in that case, Michael Federoff, did not return a call about the singer's latest arrest.Ulster County District Attorney Donald A. Williams said because Garfunkel has a previous conviction for marijuana possession, he faces a $200 fine if found guilty this time.But "I don't believe fining Art Garfunkel $200 will serve as a tremendous deterrent," Williams said.A third offense, however, could result in up to 15 days in jail, Williams said. Garfunkel is due in Woodstock Town Court at 6 p.m. Sept. 22. Copyright: Daily Freeman 2005
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by lombar on August 30, 2005 at 20:56:19 PT

Sorry:Off Topic
Opera has turned 10 years old today. They are giving away free registration codes 'while the party lasts'. Opera is faster than firefox for rendering pages. It's worth a spin and it usually costs $39!!!
Free Opera Reg Codes.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by FoM on August 30, 2005 at 20:17:52 PT

I agree. I think both Simon and Garfunkel are both very strong willed people. That's probably why they fight. The Old Friends Concert was good and Simon talked during the concert about their strong wills and bullheadedness. Everyone laughed.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by Hope on August 30, 2005 at 20:13:57 PT

Art Garfunkel
He always, somehow, maybe it was my imagination, came across as somewhat haughty and arrogant.

[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by Hope on August 30, 2005 at 20:08:32 PT

I found a supposed address for him last time Garfunkel was charged. I searched fan sites, among other things, and found one that had an "official" email address they said he checked in on. (Well...Gene Pitney does it...answers posts at his I thought Garfunkel might be interested that there were people who would like to see him stand up against the injustices that happen to some people in the war on drugs. But he could afford the easy way out and he took it. He'paid the fine and went his way'.)Writing him, at that address, at least once...if not twice, or three times about it, I never got a response to any of the emails.I always liked Simon better.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by ekim on August 30, 2005 at 19:44:01 PT

good one dongenero-- anyone --know Arts addy
Oh THAT Art. Well, get me the contact info and I'll reach out to him.
Mike Mike Smithson
speakers bureau coordinator
LEAP: Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
131 Flint Path, Syracuse, NY 13219-3403
cell: 315-243-5844 fax: 315-488-3630
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by FoM on August 30, 2005 at 18:28:03 PT

He Should've Hid The Joint in His Hair
Mayan that made me laugh!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by mayan on August 30, 2005 at 18:18:12 PT

He should've hid the joint in his hair. The cop would've never found it! THE WAY OUT IS THE WAY IN...9/11 was an INSIDE JOB : Everything else is a Distraction, The BRAINWASHING of the American people: Things We Now Know Four Years After 9/11: to broadcast the entirety of the McKinney congressional Briefing on 9/11 - Wednesday And Friday!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by FoM on August 30, 2005 at 18:09:15 PT

I do? Well golly I guess that's good for me! LOL!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by Dankhank on August 30, 2005 at 17:41:41 PT

email ...
FoM, you get way cooler email than I ...continue to share all that are of interest ...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by potpal on August 30, 2005 at 16:23:02 PT

couple thoughts
So what does this say about 'drugged driving'? If you have an ID card you drive better than those that don't? I think it concedes that driving while using cannabis is acceptable. Personally, I driven coast to coast, north to south, smoking el mucho marijuana. Prescription drugs get away with the scrunity in regards to operating an automobile...lil' warning on the label. Thought of a political cartoon, everyone (iraqis, generals, media etc.) hundled around in the attempt to write an Iraqi constitution in one room, split view, the US Supremes shredding our constitution in the other room...can anyone draw?Sow seeds.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by FoM on August 30, 2005 at 15:55:21 PT

Something To Check Out
I found this in my e-mail and thought others might want to check it out. It's different.Drugs In Your Head:
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by FoM on August 30, 2005 at 12:50:39 PT

Press Release from The Drug Policy Alliance
Landmark Victory for Medical Marijuana Patients in CaliforniaTuesday, August 30, 2005The California Highway Patrol (CHP) has abandoned its policy of arresting drivers in possession of marijuana for medical use, a victory many are calling one of the most significant achievements for patients since the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.Americans for Safe Access (ASA), an organization that advocates for patients' access to medical marijuana, spent the past year collecting reports from nearly 500 patients and caregivers who have been arrested or had their medical marijuana seized by law enforcement. With this material in hand, ASA brought suit against the CHP. More than a quarter of California’s medical marijuana patients have been arrested or had their medicine seized even in cases where the patient produced a doctor’s recommendation or medical marijuana ID card.CHP's policy change in response to the suit brings the agency in line with the state's determination that Californians should be protected under state laws, regardless of the Raich Supreme Court decision earlier this year.ASA still has a long road ahead, working to establish legal recourse for patients in case the CHP fails to adhere to its new policy. ASA is also working to pressure local police departments and county sheriffs to bring their policies into line with that of the CHP.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by dongenero on August 30, 2005 at 11:15:36 PT

media = fear
Corporate media is terrified of the issue of drug reform much as are the politicians.They fear loss of market share. They fear criticism. Corporate media has to be as benign as possible. Taking up controvesial cultural and societal issues is not safe marketing for them.It is not just too low on the radar. I saw continued coverage of the obese man walking across the country to lose weight.The media are afraid of the issue of drug reform.The Daily Show should give Howard a forum in New York.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by ekim on August 30, 2005 at 10:39:47 PT

            real horse and pony show
Howard Wooldridge is coming to New York if Art and others would do a benefit on Leaps behalf the National Media would be forced to cover it. Howard has ridden close to 3000 miles on horse back to bring attention to the failed drug war, with no National Media. If such a benefit were to occur Montel, David Letterman, Today Show, ect would be lining up for interviews with Howard and Misty and Sam.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by FoM on August 30, 2005 at 10:13:48 PT

You are so right. Maybe he will help out now since this is the second time in just a little over a year.We all wish that we could be feelin' groovy.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by ekim on August 30, 2005 at 10:11:32 PT

"The Sound of Silence," 
just think of all the good that people like Art and hundreds of others like him could do to help end this unjust war on a plant.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Max Flowers on August 30, 2005 at 09:26:42 PT

Who am I kidding...
It was probably the lawsuit and only the lawsuit that did it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Max Flowers on August 30, 2005 at 09:14:57 PT

It wouldn't surprise me to find out that all the comments made here on CNews about CHP may have had some influence. Whether someone from CHP was reading it, or word just spread that people were angry that they were not honoring state law, I don't know... but I think it's possible.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Dankhank on August 30, 2005 at 08:43:34 PT

Amazed ...
am I still at what the CHP is doing. Delighted as well, while shaking my head to verify what is happening.A major move toward sanity ...Poor ol' Art. He shoulda ate the doobie and run all the windows down ...Kudu's to the CHP ... It seems that they have finally declared their allegience to the citizens of California. We'll see how they are, though, in the coming months ...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by FoM on August 30, 2005 at 07:49:58 PT

AP: Art Garfunkel Charged with Pot Possession
August 30, 2005WOODSTOCK, N.Y. - Singer Art Garfunkel, who pleaded guilty last year to pot possession in upstate New York, was charged again Sunday after a marijuana cigarette was allegedly found in the ashtray of his car, state police said.The 63-year-old Garfunkel, who lives in Manhattan, was charged after being pulled over for failing to stop his vehicle at a stop sign, The Daily Freeman of Kingston reported Tuesday.Upon approaching Garfunkel's car, a trooper noticed a strong odor of marijuana and a subsequent search turned up a joint in the ashtray, the newspaper reported. He was issued a ticket and is due back in Woodstock Town Court on Sept. 22.In January 2004, Garfunkel was charged with marijuana possession after state police stopped his limousine for speeding in the Ulster County town of Hurley, which is near Woodstock some 55 miles southwest of Albany. During that stop, police found a small amount of pot in Garfunkel's jacket.The next month, he pleaded guilty and paid $200 in fines.Garfunkel, who with Paul Simon made up the legendary duo Simon and Garfunkel, produced a string of hits in the 1960s, including "The Sound of Silence," "Mrs. Robinson," "Old Friends" and "The 59th Street Bridge Song (Feelin' Groovy)." 
Copyright: 2005 Associated Press

[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by FoM on August 30, 2005 at 07:34:24 PT

Related Article from The SFC
CHP Won't Confiscate Medical Marijuana Lockyer reiterates that Prop. 215 permits usage Patrick Hoge, Chronicle Staff WriterTuesday, August 30, 2005 To the delight of medical marijuana supporters, the California Highway Patrol has agreed to stop taking cannabis from motorists in routine traffic stops who have a doctor's recommendation. The latest move in the legal battle over medical marijuana in the state came in response to a lawsuit by an advocacy group and statements by Attorney General Bill Lockyer affirming that medical marijuana use is sanctioned by California law despite a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling. "This is a huge victory for the medical marijuana movement,'' Kris Hermes, the legal campaign director of Americans for Safe Access, said at a news conference Monday. The Oakland group sued the CHP in February over its policy requiring officers to seize marijuana regardless of whether motorists presented a physician's note or an identification card from a local health agency. An Aug. 22 memo from CHP headquarters ordered officers not to cite motorists or seize their drugs if they carry up to eight ounces of marijuana, or six mature or 12 immature plants, as long as they possess a valid state or local government medical marijuana patient or primary caregiver identification card or a signed recommendation from a physician. "Those people will not have their marijuana seized,'' CHP Lt. Joe Whiteford said Monday. Some counties have higher possession limits than the state, and in those jurisdictions the higher limits would apply, Whiteford said, but people from those places cannot carry more than eight ounces when traveling in other areas or they will be cited, and their marijuana will be taken. Snipped:URL: 
[ Post Comment ]

  Post Comment