Blog Voices from the Frontlines

Nov 282007

ASA Weighs in on DEA Rescheduling - Americans for Safe Access

  • November 28, 2007 10:06 AM
From our friends at MAPS:
In late September, DEA proposed a new rule that would effectively place dronabinol (the active chemical in MARINOL) in Schedule III. Wait a second, isn't MARINOL already in Schedule III? It is. When MARINOL was first marketed, it was placed in Schedule II. Once DEA was shown that it had a low potential for abuse, they agreed to place it in Schedule III. But the narrow language only places in Schedule III MARINOL's specific formulation (synthetically derived dronabinol, suspended in sesame oil). All other formulations remain in Schedule I.
Marinol's patent is almost up, which will open up the market to generic dronabinol, as long as the rule change goes through. ASA submitted a Public Comment in support of the proposed rule change. Here are some highlights:
Primarily, the proposed rule is a positive step because in it, the DEA acknowledges, only for the second time (Marinol was the first in 1986), the obvious medical benefits of THC/dronabinol.  These proposed changes also represent progress because they implicitly recognize the value of whole-plant cannabis and its capacity to extract naturally occurring THC that is bioequivalent to synthetic THC... This proposed change is also a positive development because its will likely result in greater access for patients to less expensive, naturally derived cannabis-based drugs in the short term... Generic drugs, drugs that are produced and distributed without patent protection (and approved by the FDA under 21 U.S.C. 355 § 505(j)), are generally much cheaper than brand-name drugs, such as Marinol.
We go on to argue that the rule change does not go far enough, and that the DEA needs to consider rescheduling other cannabinoids:
...the DEA should initiate another proposed rule change that reschedules a wide array of natural, non-psychoactive phytocannabinoids to support the research and development of a wider variety of cannabis-based medicines.  Research suggests that the beneficial therapeutic effects of cannabis may result from the interaction, or synergy, among various cannabinoids. This helps to explain why medicines developed from whole-plant extracts may be more effective than single cannabinoid drugs developed from synthetic compounds.  For instance, Sativex is a cannabis-based medicine, which combines both THC and CBD to produce an entirely different therapeutic potential than THC alone, has been developed by UK-based GW Pharmaceuticals, and has been approved for use in Canada and is undergoing clinical trials in Europe and the United States...
And we further argue that the DEA should end the obstructions to medical cannabis research:
...the DEA should accept the opinion of its own U.S. Department of Justice-appointed Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mary Ellen Bittner, who urges the DEA to grant a license to Professor Lyle Craker to cultivate research-grade cannabis for distribution exclusively to federally approved researchers, which would greatly facilitate research on the therapeutic value of cannabis and access to its naturally derived constituent cannabinoids, specifically THC.
Please read ASA's full comment and MAPS' comment.
Nov 212007

California Weekly Round Up - Americans for Safe Access

  • November 21, 2007 9:59 AM
ASA & Local Advocates Prevail in Orange County! From California Campaign Director, Don Duncan Supervisor Bates has pulled her motion to deny collectives and cooperatives licenses from the Board’s agenda. The decision stems from input from ASA and her constituents at and following the October 30th Board of Supervisor’s meeting. This is great news for patients in that traditionally underserved county, and it also keeps the statewide momentum flowing towards regulating safe access – not preventing it. Thanks to all the patients and concerned citizens who chimed in to make a difference! We must all stay vigilant in case another threat pops up… so keep your eyes on the Orange County Board of Supervisors and other local government. Check out my November 5 blog on the last minute campaign to stop this ban at http://AmericansforSafeAccess.org/OrangeCountyBlog DEA Raids Long Beach Dispensary DEA agents raided Long Beach Compassionate Cooperative yesterday. ASA is awaiting further details on the raid. A patient that was there claims that DEA raided LBCC 5 minutes after they opened yesterday morning. DEA took the medicine and harassed the volunteers, but we still have not heard of any arrests. Please post any news on the raid at our forum, http://www.AmericansforSafeAccess.org/LongBeachRaid Tom Kikuchi Sentenced to Two Years in Federal Prison Tom Kikuchi, co-defendant along with Stephanie Landa and Kevin Gage, was sentenced yesterday to two years in a federal prison for violating the conditions of his federal supervised release. Tom Kikuchi, Stephanie Landa, and Kevin Gage, a noted Hollywood actor, accepted a plea agreement in 2003. This case drew attention because San Francisco police apparently turned her and two others over to federal prosecutors. The three had met with the city’s district attorney and police officials before beginning cultivation. For more information about the case and Tom Kikuchi's hearing, read Vanessa Nelson's article at: http://www.medicalmarijuanaofamerica.com/content/view/166/111/
Nov 162007

California Weekly Round Up - Americans for Safe Access

  • November 16, 2007 12:13 PM
ASA Chief Counsel, Joe Elford, Argues in Federal Court on the Data Quality Act Case This week, ASA's Chief Counsel, Joe Elford, gave oral arguments in front of Federal Court Judge William Alsup in San Francisco.  Mr. Elford gave arguments seeking an answer from the HHS regarding the Data Quality Act petition.   ASA filed a Data Quality Act (DQA) petition on October 4, 2004, requesting that HHS correct its information being disseminated regarding the medical use of marijuana. The DQA requires federal agencies, like HHS, to ensure that the information it distributes is fair, objective and meets certain quality guidelines.  After numerous delays, HHS denied ASA’s petition on April 20, 2005. ASA quickly filed an appeal, and after even more delays, on July 12, 2006, HHS denied the appeal. Having exhausted its administrative remedies, ASA filed a lawsuit on February 21, 2007, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming HHS and FDA, and challenging the government’s violation of the Data Quality Act. An amended complaint was subsequently filed on August 17, 2007.  Mr. Elford's arguments called for an answer from HHS in a timely manor.  We expect a ruling from Judge Alsup within a few weeks. Mendocino County Supervisors Send Medical Marijuana Regulations Back to Committee This week, Mendocino County Supervisors voted to send the proposed medical marijuana regulations back to committee.  The proposed dispensary regulations which were sent back to committee put a cap on only 2 dispensaries in the large county.  It has also been criticized as having unattainable regulations which will put up roadblocks for providers and patients.  The current draft of the regulations will be amended in the Criminal Justice Committee. Just two months ago, the CJ committee made recommendations to limit the number of plants a patient is allowed to have.  In response, the same Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance calling for the county to honor the voters' wishes as specified in measure G and to keep the guidelines at 25 plants per patient. The Board of Supervisors rejected the Criminal Justice committee's recommendation to lower the County's limits to 6 mature and 12 immature plants. Activists in Mendocino County are hoping the Criminal Justice committee scraps the regulations all together.  To find out how you can help in Mendocino County and ensure safe access, please contact Bruce at:  MendoBruce@yahoo.com.
Nov 102007

Fate of Medical Marijuana Patients' Right to Work Rests with the California Supreme Court - Americans for Safe Access

Analysis of oral arguments before the California Supreme Court in Ross v. RagingWire on 6 November 2007 Unfortunately, I was not able to attend Tuesday's oral arguments before the California Supreme Court (CSC) on whether employers like RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc. have the right to discriminate against medical marijuana patients like Gary Ross. At the time the CSC granted review in November 2006, I was the Legal Campaign Director at Americans for Safe Access (ASA). Without a doubt, it was a proud day for me and everyone else at ASA to have this case finally get heard. I was equally excited, in my new role as Media Liaison at ASA, to see the extent of news coverage on this important issue, with articles in AP, SF Chronicle, Sacramento Bee, The Recorder, and FindLaw. When I viewed the oral arguments after the fact, on the California Channel, which ran a live feed from the courtroom, I was left with much optimism for a ruling that favors Ross's struggle to be free from discrimination. The three areas I felt the court focused on most were: whether RagingWire, the employer, would be unreasonably inconvenienced to be required to hire or continue to employ medical marijuana patients; whether federal law somehow prevented RagingWire from hiring or continuing to employ medical marijuana patients; and whether the People of California or the State Legislature intended to exclude medical marijuana patients from the workforce. It was my impression that ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford and attorney Stewart Katz, each acting as co-counsel arguing before the court, nailed each of those issues extremely well, while opposing counsel for RagingWire foundered and failed to provide solid responses to the court. I will attempt to detail each of the three issues below. Regarding unreasonable inconvenience, Elford rightly claimed that concerns over unlikely interference by federal law enforcement at the workplace, or elsewhere, did not rise to the level of needing to carve out a large exception to the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) simply to allow employers to discriminate in this way. Nor did it rise to the level of forcing more than 200,000 medical marijuana patients in California from the workplace and denying them a right to thrive. Elford also points out that some of the existing accommodations required of employers by FEHA (he used the example of ramps for wheelchair-bound workers) far surpass any inconvenience that might be posed by accommodating the productive employment of medical marijuana patients. The Compassionate Use Act (or Proposition 215) is pretty clear in conferring "the right" to "seriously ill Californians" to "obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes." To have any meaning, this "right" must not prevent patients from earning a living. Regarding the issue of supposed state-federal conflict, it was amply answered that there is none. By granting Ross, who is a productive, disabled veteran, the same right to work as others in his field, the employer is in no way violating federal law. The Drug-Free Workplace laws pertain only to on-the-job intoxication, possession, or distribution of illegal substances. As offensive as many drug-testing requirements are, the federal government never meant Drug-Free Workplace laws to reach into the homes of productive workers. The specter of losing federal contracts is also a red herring, since such forms of punishment absent of wrongdoing (under state or federal law) by the worker(s) and employer would be unjustified and arguably illegal. Regarding the intent of the legislature, Ross wins hands down. The fact that the California Legislature only implied the right to work by indicating that employers need not accommodate on-the-job medical marijuana use compelled the court to ask multiple questions on the matter. That the legislature made note of employment in the Medical Marijuana Program Act but failed to provide employers with a blanket right to discriminate against patients speaks volumes to their right to work. However, we don't even need to go there. There should be no question as to the intent of the legislature, since an amicus 'friend of the court' brief was filed by all five of the original co-authors detailing their intent to provide medical marijuana patients the same discrimination-free opportunities as other productive workers in California. The CSC will decide this case on or before February 5, 2008. The livelihood of literally hundreds of thousands of patients is now in the delicate hands of the court. However, regardless of the outcome, the strong conviction of a majority of Californians voters and a legislature that endorsed the rights of medical marijuana patients will continue to compel us to strive for justice. For more information, see ASA's web page on the Ross v. RagingWire case, which is also located on ASA's Brief Bank page.
Nov 092007

California Weekly Round Up - Americans for Safe Access

  • November 09, 2007 12:09 PM
ASA Fights in the California Supreme Court to Protect Patients' Rights to Work On Tuesday, November 6, Americans for Safe Access Chief Counsel Joe Elford argued an appeal of the discriminatory decision of September 7, 2005, when the Court of Appeals for the Third Appellate District denied a qualified medical marijuana patient any remedy for being terminated from his/her employment simply for testing positive for marijuana. In Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc., the court relied on federal law to defeat Gary Ross' state law causes of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy and employment discrimination in violation of California's Fair Employment and Housing Act. “Neither the People of California nor the state legislature intended to exclude medical marijuana patients from a productive workforce,” said Joe Elford. “California must continue its leadership role in protecting disabled workers,” continued Elford. “The Court must rule on the side of Ross, and on the side of thousands of California patients that risk discrimination on a daily basis.” After the lively hearing, Elford and Ross met with dozens of reporters outside of the courthouse. The Associated Press story was picked up by more than 200 papers nationwide. FindLaw and The Recorder offered legal analysis of the hearing, and Drug Law Blog posted YouTube clips of the highlights of the arguments. A ruling in the case will be issued within 90 days of the hearing. For further explanation and links to the legal briefs, go to ASA's Brief Bank page on Ross v. RagingWire. Federal Defendant Bryan Epis Remains Free Bryan Epis was the first medical marijuana patient convicted in federal court after the passage of California’s Proposition 215. Epis was arrested June 25, 1997, after Butte County sheriff's officers discovered marijuana plants growing in the basement of his home in Chico. After an incredibly lengthy federal trial process, on September 14, 2007, U.S. District Court Judge Frank C. Damrell sentenced Epis to 10 years in prison. Epis has been out on bail since August 9, 2004, pending his appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Judge Damrell denied the prosecution's request to imprison him immediately. Epis' attorney, Brenda Grantland, then filed a motion for continued bail pending his appeal, and after reading it, the U.S. Attorney conceded, and did not oppose the motion. In a piece of great news, this means that Epis will remain out of federal prison and home with his family for at least the next 18 months, which is the soonest he can expect a decision on his case from the Ninth Circuit. An in-depth report of Epis' sentencing hearing by Vanessa Nelson is available (with pictures) here. Congratulations again, Bryan, from ASA staff and membership!
Nov 072007

A Medical Marijuana Patient's Long Road to Victory - Americans for Safe Access

  • November 07, 2007 7:19 AM
Nate. R. is a medical marijuana patient living in Orange County, California who uses marijuana to treat clinical depression. I wanted to write this post to let others who are qualified patients know that the law is here to work for us. I found this out on October 29th, 2007 when I went to my preliminary hearing at the Harbor Justice Center courthouse in the City of Newport Beach to find that the District Attorney had dismissed charges of Possession of Concentrated Cannabis 11357 (A) of the Health and Safety code. Lets rewind this back to 5 months ago when the incident in question took place. I was arrested on May 5th 2007 in Newport Beach, Orange County, CA for being in possession of .2 grams of hashish. I was no stranger to medical marijuana and knew the laws that were put in place for us. I have read these numerous times and can recite them, I have also studied that Attorney General's opinion on concentrated cannabis and the conclusion that hashish as well as any other concentrated cannabis is protected under Prop 215 and SB 420. With this information in hand, I knew that this was covered and never thought twice about being in possession of hashish. As I found out the hard way, not all law enforcement agencies feel the same way. I was originally going to be cited for possession of marijuana since I also had 2.5 grams of marijuana, but once the officer noticed the hashish, he stated that it as well as marijuana is illegal under federal law. Knowing that city police officers were not under federal jurisdiction, I felt I should question the officer on this statement. I had asked the officer "Are you telling me that prop 215 and SB 420 are not valid laws?" To this the officer promptly replied "Under federal law possession is still illegal and we have been instructed to follow it as such". At this point the officer also informed me that possession of hashish is a felony and that he was placing me under arrest. I had to be bailed out of jail that night so I would be able to go to work the next day. Going to the first court date for arraignment I was not sure what was going to happen. I can honestly say I was scared. I have been a tax paying citizen of Orange County all my life and never once had I been in trouble with the law so this was all new to me. At court I was assigned a public defender to handle my case. While I was giving my interview to the public defender, he had asked for a copy of my recommendation so they could make copies. On my next court date that was my pre trial I find out that a new public defender had been assigned to my case and at that point got to meet her. As we were talking about the case she asked if I have a copy of my recommendation to which I responded that I had already given this to them. Come to find out they had lost my recommendation out of my file. Once again court dates pushed forward for another month. I show up to my next pre-trial date but this time with an attorney specializing in medical marijuana cases. Due to me getting a new attorney we once again had to push the court dates up yet another month. At this point it is starting to get ridiculous, not to mention costly. We show up for the next court date for my preliminary hearing this time to see if I am going to be bound over to the Superior Court for jury trial - keep in mind the whole time I am going through this the DA is wanting me to plead out and take a felony hit on my record all over .2 grams of hashish even though I am a qualified patient. We were in the middle of filing a motion for dismissal to the courts since the District Attorney was not willing to drop the case. Of course this prompted yet another court date which pushed it a month and a half later into October. Back to October 29th 2007, we are sitting in court waiting to be called and finally my name is called. The judge asked if we as well as the prosecutor were ready to which we both said we were. After waiting about 30 minutes the District Attorney comes into the court room and walks up to my attorney. She asks him if we have any witnesses to which he responded yes that we had two since I and another patient who was with me the night I was arrested were there to testify. The reason for the other patient to be there is due to the fact that my recommendation was taken from me that night and never returned, it was never entered into evidence nor was it placed into my property bag. This was brought up to the prosecutor and she was not sure how to handle it as she did not have any experiences with medical marijuana cases. Due to this she went downstairs to the District Attorney's office and spoke with another person that is well versed in the laws. After waiting 30 minutes the prosecutor walks upstairs to inform my attorney that they will not be proceeding with the case and were dismissing charges. This was the best news I had heard. I can for one speak on the fact that going through hearings and court is one of the most trying times that one can experience. I am thankful for the support of the medical marijuana community that has been shown to me. It is easy to lose faith and want to give up and it is so important to have a strong support group for the person going through something like this. I also would like to thank ASA as they have been there for me from the beginning to the end and assisted in every way they could.
Nov 052007

Advocacy in a Hurry - Americans for Safe Access

Sometimes, medical cannabis advocates have plenty of time to prepare in advance for an important vote at their City Council or County Board of Supervisors. We can write letters and make phone calls to elected officials, prepare a speech for public comments, and even rally the troops by inviting friends and loved ones to attend a meeting.

In other cases, however, you may have to jump and run when you learn about a challenge or opportunity in your community. That is exactly what happened last week in Orange County, when Supervisor Bates quietly introduced an ordinance that would have prohibited the County from issuing any licenses, permits, or allowances for an activity that violates local, state, or federal law. Nothing in her ordinance mentioned medical cannabis, but if adopted, it would have been a de facto ban on medical cannabis patients’ dispensaries in the unincorporated areas of Orange County. This is a tactic already used successfully in at least two Orange County cities.

County staff failed to realize the significance of Bates’ eleventh-hour proposal for medical cannabis patients until an alert aide in Supervisor’s Norby’s office realized what was about to happen – less than twenty-four hours before the vote! Supervisor Norby has always been a strong supporter of medical cannabis, and asked his staff to contact ASA right away. News reached our office at 3 PM on Monday, October 29. By that time, there were only two hours left in the workday before the Board convened to vote at 9 AM on Tuesday morning.

I left short telephone message for all five supervisors, then followed up with a longer email explaining that regulating collectives was a better option than banning them. I asked them to table the matter until they had a chance to read ASA’s report on the positive outcomes of regulations statewide and review LA County’s year-old ordinance. Then I called a handful of dedicated local advocates to invite them to speak at the Board meeting the next morning. Finally, I used ASA’s Southern California announcement list and new discussion forums to alert the grassroots of the challenge.

The other speakers and I were successful in persuading the Board to table the issue for more study, giving us the time we need to sell them on the benefits of regulation. I anticipate Orange County will now follow LA’s lead towards sensible regulations, instead of San Diego’s path of obstruction. That’s good news for patients in Orange County, and a strategic victory for the statewide campaign! As an added benefit, we were able to show some grassroots support for Supervisor Norby, who recently joined ASA in calling on Governor Schwarzenegger to stand up for patients.

The lesson from Orange County is to be prepared in advance to act quickly. Do you know where to find the telephone numbers and email addresses of your local representatives? Most cities and counties have web sites list this information. Do you know what to say if you have to speak at a meeting or to the media? (You can find talking points for issues like these on the ASA web site.) Do you know whom to call to help you out? You could organize a small group of advocates in your city to be a medical cannabis “strike force” that can act on short notice. Your local ASA Chapter is a great place to find your team.

Perhaps the most important thing to do is to make a personal commitment to act in your community when there is a challenge or an opportunity. The outcome in your city or county may depend on whether or not you and your neighbors are prepared to take responsibility for defending patients’ rights and safe access. So get prepared, stay alert, and take action… no matter how short the notice!

Nov 022007

California Weekly Round Up - Americans for Safe Access

  • November 02, 2007 12:54 PM
ASA and Orange County Medical Marijuana Activists Achieve a Victory for Safe Access! From ASA California Campaign Director, Don Duncan The Orange County Board of Supervisors decided this week to delay a vote on banning medical cannabis collectives after Americans for Safe Access (ASA) and local advocates expressed concern about the impact on patients and the process through which the item suddenly appeared on the Board’s agenda. Supervisor Bates’ eleventh-hour motion would have prohibited the county from issuing permits, licenses, or allowances for any activity that violates federal law, a back door approach to banning collectives already used in two Orange County cities. ASA and advocates did not get word of Supervisor Bates’ motion until the afternoon before the early morning hearing. I asked the Board to table the issue to allow more time to consider how other jurisdictions are regulating collectives, including neighboring Los Angeles County. I told the Board that concerns over abuse of the state’s medical cannabis laws are valid, but that regulations are the best tool for protecting patients and communities. I left each Board Member with a copy or our report on the outcomes of regulations for collectives in cities and counties all over California and some information about what the County and City of Los Angeles are doing to effectively regulate their facilities. You can read the report at http://www.AmericansForsafeAccess.org/DispensaryReport The Board also heard from William Britt of the Association of Patient Advocates. Mr. Britt told the Supervisors that banning collectives would harm patients and was inconsistent with the Board’s decision in April to issue Medical Cannabis ID Cards mandated under CA Health and Safety Code 11362.71 (SB-420). A local patient told the Board that there is insufficient access to affordable medicine in Orange County, and this motion would only make things worse. The Board voted unanimously to continue the motion until December 4. ASA will continue to educate the Board about compassionate and sensible alternatives before that vote. Congratulations to advocates for their quick and effective response to this unanticipated vote. DEA Strikes East Bay Collective and Facilities On Tuesday, the DEA raided the Compassionate Patients Cooperative of California (CPCC) in Hayward, arresting the two operators, Winslow and Abraham Norton. The raid began in the early morning on Tuesday with the DEA shattering the collective's patients intake center glass door and then moving on to the actual dispensary next door. During that time the Norton Brothers were arrested and their homes were raided. They were taken into custody and held overnight without bail. CPCC had a permit from Alameda County, authorized by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to operate. The permit required that they follow stringent regulations and allow the Sheriff's Department to conduct monthly inspections. They did not have any permit violations during their time of operation in Alameda County. ASA activists, patients, and staff received the news via ASA's Emergency Text Messaging System and sprung into action. While a handful of Oakland, Berkeley, and San Francisco activists came out to show their support, several CPCC collective members showed up to the collective with the intent of getting their medicine and stayed to protest the attack on safe access in Alameda County. The group of protesters drew a crowd of onlookers and local media. NBC 11, KTVU Channel 2, and the Daily Review were just a few of the many media outlets that covered the story. See video from the raid here: http://www.bayareanewsgroup.com/multimedia/iba/2007/player/?f=1030pot Alameda County Sheriff's officers were at the site of the raiding claiming to be there for "crowd control." The officers carried batons and weapons and stared the crowd down with only the yellow tape between them and the patients. The County police went so far as to post an officer on the roof of the collective with what appeared to be a tear gas gun. While the dispensary raid was happening, several other facilities in association with CPCC were raided by the DEA in a joint operation involving DEA, Berkeley PD, Oakland PD, and the Alameda County Sheriff's Department. Tuesday's raids in Hayward were the third major attack on patients and providers in the Bay Area in less than a month. Bay Area activists, patients, and providers will be continuing to bolster their emergency response plans to ensure large protests at future raids. To sign up for ASA's Emergency Raid Response Text Messaging System, go to www.AmericansforSafeAccess.org/RaidAlert ASA will report further details on the Norton brothers' status and the collective as information comes in. DEA Raids Orange County Collective and Operator's Home Yesterday, the DEA arrested Steele Smith at his home in Fullerton at 6:00 in the morning. At the same time, Smith's dispensary, C-3 Collective in Garden Grove, and one other home in association with the collective was raided. One of the collective's employees and Smith’s wife were arrested as well. They had a bail hearing today at 2:00pm in Los Angeles. ASA will continue to report further details as we receive them. Orange County ASA will be meeting on November 14th to discuss support for the Smiths and C-3 Collective. See "ASA Chapter and Affiliate Meetings" for more details.
Nov 022007

DEA Raids Hayward Dispensaries, but Activists Don't Stand Down - Americans for Safe Access

  • November 02, 2007 12:23 PM
Justin Alan Ryan is an independent professional and medical cannabis advocate, activist, and patient from Texas living and working in the San Francisco Bay Area. Beginning early in the morning, October 30, 2007, the DEA raided several locations connected to Compassionate Patients' Cooperative of California (CPCC). Medical Cannabis supporters from around the SF Bay trekked to a far southeast outpost of our thriving safe access community after receiving SMS messages from ASA's alert system. In addition to various federal agents, the Alameda County Sheriff's Department came in tow, at least twenty strong by noontime, though the facility being raided has been issued a license by the county. In contrast to a raid that occurred in LA the day of our mobilization to the governor's office, these officers were slightly more laid back, presented less of a unified front, and after some time in many cases were joking and laughing, maybe at us, who knows. A number of folks on our side of the tape observed that a small group of women present within the law enforcement faction were assigned the duty of sweeping up the broken glass from a door that probably could easily have been opened without force, which is perhaps representative of how out of date the opposition to our issue are in every aspect of existance. Due especially, I'm sure, to the time of day this raid was executed, at least a handful of patients joined the protest when they found they couldn't get any medicine at CPCC, and many apparent patients drove away without stopping, sporting alarmed and surprised looks. By the time we had been out for a couple of hours or more, the numbers of officers grew, eventually including a fellow proudly sporting an automatic teargas gun, roughly aimed at a group of less than ten nonviolent protestors, a staff member of a county supervisor, and a couple of television cameras. All in all, I'd say our community responded very well given the time of the raid, it's just a shame that having great community support won't increase the level of access for patients in this remote area of the SF Bay, our best hope for now is probably that it can keep the operators out of prison.
Nov 012007

Steph Sherer Shares Her Story with Drew Carey - Americans for Safe Access

  • November 01, 2007 8:09 AM
If you're familiar with ASA's work, you've probably heard a lot about our Executive Director, Steph Sherer. What you might not have know though is that she is a medical marijuana patient. Drew Carey recently interviewed Steph, as part of The Drew Carey Project, and she talked to him about her experiences as a patient and her inspiration to found Americans for Safe Access. Please watch the interview with Steph and Drew Carey's segment on medical marijuana: If you like what you saw, please help us spread the word by passing on a link to the video to your friends, co-workers and family: www.AmericansForSafeAccess.org/DrewCarey