Homeless in Arizona

Government bureaucrats love Christmas and New Years because they literally raise millions of dollars busting people for DUI crimes.

The legal limit of .08 is so low that any petite woman who weighs 100 pounds or less is legally drunk after 1 beer or drink.

When they lowered the legal limit from .10 to .08 I became legally drunk after 2 beers instead of 3 beers.

And the fines have been jacked up too. I think the minimum fine is now around $2,000. For extreme DUI of .15, which used to be the normal standard for DUI the fines are often $5,000 or more.

When ever Governor Jan Brewer and the police tell you not to drink and drive you have to remember they have their fingers crossed and really love drunk drivers for all the revenue they bring in.

This year the cops will probably arrest 3,000+ people for DUI, which will bring in a minimum of $6 million in fines and probably a lot more when you throw in the extreme DUI fines.

By Grant Francis The Arizona Republic-12 News Breaking News Team Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:04 PM

DUI task forces across Arizona are preparing for what they call their most intense week, authorities said.

Twelve task forces have been organized this year to help curb a growing number of DUI and extreme DUI arrests, according to the Arizona Governor’s Office of Highway Safety.

“The next five days will be very intense,” said Alberto Gutier, director of the Office of Highway Safety.

Gutier said the number of DUI related arrests increases significantly during the holiday season, which begins the day after Thanksgiving, and lasts through New Year’s Day.

“We go very big during the holidays,” he said about this year’s task forces, which consist of 40 to 100 officers and are made up from more than 70 law enforcement agencies across the state working with the Office of Highway Safety.

In Arizona, law enforcement rarely employs the DUI checkpoint method, Gutier said. Instead, officers are organized into patrols and target different areas, he said.

Officers are gathered at several “command centers” around the Valley and briefed on their assigned areas before going out on patrol.

“The message we’re trying to get out there, is that we’re everywhere,” Gutier said.

While the number of overall DUI’s during the holidays has increased since 2011, Gutier says he is more concerned with the number of extreme DUI’s, which can occur when a suspect’s blood alcohol content is over .150 percent.

Extreme DUI arrests rose from 788 in 2011 to 888 in 2012, according to statewide DUI enforcement statistics.

Total DUI arrests, which includes extreme, aggravated, misdemeanor and arrests with priors, rose from 2,888 in 2011 to 3,353 in 2012, the statistics show.

“It’s so easy to have a designated driver, or just ask a friend to drop you off and call a cab when you’re done,” he said.

Congress repeals 4th Amendment??? - Again

Federal Power to Intercept Messages Is Extended

WASHINGTON — Congress gave final approval on Friday to a bill extending the government’s power to intercept electronic communications of spy and terrorism suspects, after the Senate voted down proposals from several Democrats and Republicans to increase protections of civil liberties and privacy.

The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 73 to 23, clearing it for approval by President Obama, who strongly supports it. Intelligence agencies said the bill was their highest legislative priority.

Critics of the bill, including Senators Ron Wyden of Oregon, a Democrat, and Rand Paul of Kentucky, a Republican, expressed concern that electronic surveillance, though directed at noncitizens, inevitably swept up communications of Americans as well.

“The Fourth Amendment was written in a different time and a different age, but its necessity and its truth are timeless,” Mr. Paul said, referring to the constitutional ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. “Over the past few decades, our right to privacy has been eroded. We have become lazy and haphazard in our vigilance. [We haven't become anything. Congress has become tyrannical] Digital records seem to get less protection than paper records.”

The bill, which extends the government’s surveillance authority for five years, was approved in the House by a vote of 301 to 118 in September. Mr. Obama is expected to sign the bill in the next few days. [Obama isn't a freedom fighter anymore then Hitler or Stalin was!!!]

Congressional critics of the bill said that they suspected that intelligence agencies were picking up the communications of many Americans, but that they could not be sure because the agencies would not provide even rough estimates of how many people inside the United States had had communications collected under authority of the surveillance law, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The inspector general of the National Security Agency told Congress that preparing such an estimate was beyond the capacity of his office.

The chief Senate supporter of the bill, Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California and chairwoman of the Senate intelligence committee, said the proposed amendments were unnecessary. Moreover, she said, any changes would be subject to approval by the House, and the resulting delay could hamper the government’s use of important intelligence-gathering tools, for which authority is set to expire next week.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was adopted in 1978 and amended in 2008, with the addition of new surveillance authority and procedures, which are continued by the bill approved on Friday. The 2008 law was passed after the disclosure that President George W. Bush had authorized eavesdropping inside the United States, to search for evidence of terrorist activity, without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying.

Senator Mark Udall, Democrat of Colorado, said that he and Mr. Wyden were concerned that “a loophole” in the 2008 law “could allow the government to effectively conduct warrantless searches for Americans’ communications.”

James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, told Congress, “There is no loophole in the law.”

By a vote of 52 to 43, the Senate on Friday rejected a proposal by Mr. Wyden to require the national intelligence director to tell Congress if the government had collected any domestic e-mail or telephone conversations under the surveillance law.

The Senate also rejected, 54 to 37, an amendment that would have required disclosure of information about significant decisions by a special federal court that reviews applications for electronic surveillance in foreign intelligence cases.

The amendment was proposed by one of the most liberal senators, Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, and one of the most conservative, Mike Lee, Republican of Utah.

The No. 2 Senate Democrat, Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, said the surveillance law “does not have adequate checks and balances to protect the constitutional rights of innocent American citizens.” [Yea, but the 4th Amendment does, and the law flushes the 4th down the toilet]

“It is supposed to focus on foreign intelligence,” Mr. Durbin said, “but the reality is that this legislation permits targeting an innocent American in the United States as long as an additional purpose of the surveillance is targeting a person outside the United States.”

However, 30 Democrats joined 42 Republicans and one independent in voting for the bill. Three Republicans — Mr. Lee, Mr. Paul and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — voted against the bill, as did 19 Democrats and one independent.

Mr. Merkley said the administration should provide at least unclassified summaries of major decisions by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

“An open and democratic society such as ours should not be governed by secret laws,” Mr. Merkley said, “and judicial interpretations are as much a part of the law as the words that make up our statute.”

Mrs. Feinstein said the law allowed intelligence agencies to go to the court and get warrants for surveillance of “a category of foreign persons,” without showing probable cause to believe that each person was working for a foreign power or a terrorist group.

Mr. Wyden said these writs reminded him of the “general warrants that so upset the colonists” more than 200 years ago. [Gasp - Are they saying the American government has become tyrannical and needs to be overthrown like the British tyrants were??? - Probably]

“The founding fathers could never have envisioned tweeting and Twitter and the Internet,” Mr. Wyden said. “Advances in technology gave government officials the power to invade individual privacy in a host of new ways.”

First Annual Medical Marijuana Report

One question I have is how much has the crime rate increased since medical marijuana was legalized for medical purposes?

Before the election our government propaganda spin masters which includes the politicians and cops told us that every day hundreds of old ladies would be mugged and raped as they went out to pick up their newspaper on the driveway by insane marijuana drug addicts if Prop 203 passed.

Last time I checked I have not heard a single word about Prop 203 increasing the crime rate by the cops, so I suspect the crime rate has not changed because medical marijuana was legalized.

In the report I also noticed that medical marijuana is a PROFIT center for the government nannies at DES.

In one Appendix A near the end of the report on page 33 they showed some financial figures.

The state of Arizona collected almost $8 million in revenue from medical marijuana licenses and only spent about $2 million running the program. That left the state of Arizona with a profit of about $5.5 million from the medical marijuana program.

I kind of view the medical marijuana program as a $1 a day tax to keep people from being arrested for smoking pot.

If you spend $150 to visit your pot doctor and another $150 to pay the crooks at the state of Arizona for your medical marijuana license that is a total of about $300. That works out to cost you about $.82 or 82 cents a day to keep you from getting arrested for smoking pot.

Personally I don't think you should have to pay some government nanny $150 a year to smoke pot.

Nor do I think you should have to pay some government nanny a tax every time you buy pot. Kyrsten Sinema 300 percent tax on medical marijuana was an outrageous attack on medical marijuana users.

City Council members use discretionary accounts to rip off taxpayers???

A Phoenix councilman [Phoenix Vice Mayor Michael Johnson who is a former Phoenix Police Officer] used more than $20,000 to attend conferences.

A West Valley councilwoman [Glendale Councilwoman Norma Alvarez] used $18,000 to pave a road in her district.

A small-city mayor [Surprise Mayor Lyn Truitt] spent nearly $70 to buy shirts and monogram “mayor” on them.

All three tapped so-called discretionary funds, public money that is spent at a council member’s discretion with little public scrutiny.

In the last two years, 10 Valley cities have spent $1.2 million in taxpayer funds for meals, travel, construction projects and iPads, an investigation by The Arizona Republic has found.

The money also was used to pay for more run-of-the-mill expenses like photos, picture frames, candy for a parade and appreciation plaques. [Stuff that is really needed by the taxpayers - at least that's what these royal rulers say]

These purchases were made as recession-battered cities have cut jobs, delayed maintenance and asked residents to cope with fewer services.

Supporters of discretionary funds say they are a useful tool and can pay for neighborhood projects, charity donations, lobbying trips and training for newly elected leaders. [And increasing their income without the taxpayers finding out, well except when articles like this are published]

Critics worry that the main beneficiaries are council members themselves. [and the critics are right] While the funds are just a sliver of a multimillion-dollar city budget, local politicians can use the money to take pricey trips or raise their profile by splurging on favored projects in their districts, some say.

Despite city leaders’ best intentions, discretionary funds are ripe for misuse or even abuse, according to ethics experts and some city leaders.

“You can spend on just about anything you want,” said Surprise City Councilman Mike Woodard, who has been critical of the funds and helped change how they are handled in his city.

A discretionary account is a pool of money, often taken from a city’s general fund, that is set aside for an individual council member to use at his or her discretion. It’s a common practice among city councils around the country. In the Valley, 10 cities, including Phoenix, Peoria, Glendale, Mesa, Chandler and Avondale, maintain discretionary funds, which range from $500 to more than $30,000 a year.

Council members vote on the amount they are allowed to spend each year. In some cities, mayors receive more than other council members. [If a council member votes themselves a $5,000 pay raise everybody finds out about it. If instead they vote themselves a $5,000 increase in discretionary money nobody finds out.]

Although the amounts are outlined in the city budget, details on how the money is spent is not discussed in public meetings.

Still, most communities have discretionary-fund policies, though they vary widely in the level of oversight. Some cities won’t cut a check unless an expense meets discretionary-fund rules. Others merely ask council members to provide receipts.

Avondale’s policy, for example, is informal. “Council member discretionary funds ... can be used for any legal public purpose such as official City travel, educational opportunities such as training or conferences, support of non-profit organizations, etc.,” it states. [And the taxpayers rarely find out when they are used for illegal purchases]

Several cities allow council members to “roll over” unused dollars to the next year or to borrow money from council colleagues when they run out of cash. [Sounds more like an illegal slush fund then a discretionary fund!!!]

The Phoenix council has an executive assistant who acts as a gatekeeper approving each expense. [Yea, an executive assistant that works for the person spending the money. Ask an accountant if this is a good "internal control" to keep the money from being used illegally and they will tell you it isn't!!!!]

Tracking the spending often falls to a city administrator, who can’t hold a public official accountable, said Judy Nadler, a senior fellow in government ethics at Santa Clara University, in Santa Clara, Calif.

The Republic examined council and mayor discretionary funds with travel and capital spending for fiscal years 2010-11 and 2011-12.

Other Valley city councils without discretionary funds pay for these expenses through the budget process. The Republic did not examine those budgets.

The Republic analysis shows that about 15 percent of discretionary funds were spent on travel and conference-related expenses in 2010-11 and 2011-12. [So it's really travel and party money, that is kept secret from the taxpayers???]

Officials in Valley cities without discretionary funds also use taxpayer money to travel but do it through the budget process, allowing public input.

Local leaders who support the out-of-town trips say they help cement federal support for local programs. Conferences help council members learn how to better represent their constituents. [These guys were elected to city government officers, there is no need for them to hobnob with government officials in Washington D.C.]

The benefits of such travel, supporters and critics agree, can be hard to quantify. [And that's why city council members love these discretionary accounts]

Phoenix Vice Mayor Michael Johnson spent more than $22,000 in discretionary funds on conference-related hotels and travel. He spent more discretionary funds on hotels and travel than any other council member or mayor in the Valley. That included hotel bills for National League of City conferences totaling more than $5,000 for two stays at the Washington Marriott Wardman Park Hotel. [Wow! I wonder when he has time to work at his real job in Phoenix as a Phoenix Council member]

For those conferences, he stayed in the hotel for at least a week, said Johnson, who serves on the Advisory Board of the National League of Cities. He was also the president of the National Black Caucus of Local Elected Officials, a group within the league.

The benefits to the city of his trips far exceed the money he spent on travel, Johnson added. [Of course he didn't give the Arizona Republic any hard numbers] In addition to attending the conferences, he met with the state’s congressional delegation and had a sit-down meeting with President Barack Obama.

However, it is difficult to calculate how many dollars exactly those trips brought to Phoenix, Johnson said. “It’s hard to say, ‘Well, can you tell me the exact amount you were responsible for?’ That would be difficult to say,” he said.

Those meetings helped Phoenix get utility subsidies for the poor and allowed the city to keep its share of Community Development Block Grants, a federal program that aims to spur development in low-income neighborhoods, the councilman said. The trips also helped bring the league’s 2011 Congress of Cities conference to Phoenix, which generated $4.5 million in direct spending, Johnson said.

Avondale Mayor Marie Lopez Rogers, who is president of the National League of Cities, said conferences are valuable for new and experienced city leaders alike. At league conferences, council members learn about open-meeting laws, new technological advances and how to handle the relationships between city leaders and city employees, Rogers said. She used discretionary funds for her travel to conferences but was reimbursed for most of it by the national league.

But Phoenix City Councilman Sal DiCiccio said he doesn’t see the value in extensive conference attendance. “Quite frankly, if it was that important for someone to go, you don’t have to have more than one person go to those things to represent your city,” DiCiccio said.

And in the age of teleconferencing, such travel can be reduced, said Kevin McCarthy, president of the Arizona Tax Research Association.

But Rogers said that in politics a conference call is not always as effective as an in-person visit. When Goodyear and Litchfield Park needed to prod federal officials about polluted groundwater or when federal grants to cities were on the chopping block, local leaders had to travel to Washington, she said. [Of course the city council members will use any lame excuse they can to take the money and run.]

“Certainly we can use technology,” she said. “We use technology as much as we can, but politics is about relationships, and if you don’t build those face-to-face contacts, you lose something.”

Some city leaders pour discretionary funds into neighborhoods, using it to pay for projects that might not otherwise receive funding but also to bolster council members’ political profiles. The money can pay to stucco old walls, paint graffiti-covered fences, and help local homeowners associations pay for improvements. For example, Peoria City Councilwoman Joan Evans spent $1,275 for community-pool improvements at Lake Pleasant Estates.

Council members say this is often an ideal way to spend the money, making small, badly needed upgrades in their community. [So if the money is spent this way it means the normal way government operates isn't working???]

Ethics experts warn that this kind of spending may encourage council members to use the money for political advantage.

In February, Glendale Councilwoman Norma Alvarez paid Vulcan Materials Co. $18,138 from her discretionary account to provide asphalt for repairs to Griffin Lane, a quarter-mile-long, dead-end neighborhood street. City workers paved the road. [I bet everybody on that block voted to reelect Glendale Councilwoman Norma Alvarez. Of course she will say the $18,138 wasn't used to buy votes]

It was legitimate discretionary spending: Glendale’s policy allows each council member to spend up to $15,000 on construction or equipment. [Legitimate doesn't mean ethical. ]

Alvarez said that south Glendale is not the city’s priority but that the repaving was something constituents wanted. The city could not otherwise have afforded it at a time when Glendale was cutting library services and recreation programs. [Well if the city couldn't have afforded it she shouldn't have spent the money]

“The project was needed,” she said. “I was told I had miscellaneous money to go to conferences and so forth. ... I have spent all the money in the neighborhoods.”

Stuart Kent, Glendale executive director of public works, said Griffin Lane was on a list of streets identified as below standards and in need of work. City employees repaved the road at Alvarez’s request, he said.

In Peoria, Vice Mayor Ron Aames spends almost 75 percent of his discretionary funds on neighborhood-improvement projects, [buying votes in his district??? I'm sure he will have a lame excuse to deny that] some of which he features prominently in newsletters he sends to constituents. The articles feature photographs of Aames and residents smiling in front of the improvements such as neighborhood-entry signs.

Aames, who was unopposed in his bid for a second term in the November 2010 election, said he isn’t campaigning using discretionary funds. He defended the newsletters, saying his constituents have a right to know what he is doing. [But he didn't say it's a lot cheaper to spend the taxpayers money to get himself reelected, then spending his own money]

“Communication is important,” he said. “I do it primarily so people know who I am and are aware that they can make such requests, and we do this in the district.”

It is difficult to say whether officials are touting such projects to lay the groundwork for their next election, said James Svara, a professor in the School of Public Affairs at Arizona State University. “Is that a project of sufficient importance that it warrants being done, compared with other uses that money could be put to?” he asked. [Then if this stuff is so questionable, then it probably shouldn't be done]

Aames said the projects return tax money to citizens. [Liar, liar, pants on fire???] Using discretionary funds allows him to work directly with residents, instead of directing them to a city program. [And it sure buys a lot of votes when it comes to getting reelected]

Another popular, and significant, discretionary expenditure is donating money to charity. [There is nothing I hate more then charity at gun point. That's when our government rulers tax you so they can give YOUR money to THEIR favorite charity.]

Especially in bad economic times, discretionary money helps non-profits provide valuable services to residents, council members say. But the donations can raise questions about relationships between city leaders and those who benefit from the gift.

Phoenix City Councilwoman Thelda Williams spent almost $3,000 at Turf Paradise for a dance and dinner to raise money for the Pioneer Arizona Living History Museum and Village, a city park in her district. She said the Pioneer ball raised $15,000 for the museum. [Maybe, since the party was pay with taxpayer money, the public should have been invited to attend it free of charge. But Phoenix City Councilwoman Thelda Williams probably wouldn't like that!!]

“I do an annual fundraiser for them, and we do it there, because they give us the best price,” she said of Turf Paradise, a horse-racing track, which isn’t in her district.

Williams received a $430 campaign donation from Ronald Simms, a co-owner of Turf Paradise. But Williams said the donation had nothing to do withher choosing the racetrack for the event. “You’re talking horses. It’s in the pioneer theme,” she said. [Honest, it's not a bribe. Honest, it's not a bribe]

In 2010, Woodard, the Surprise councilman, donated $1,200 to a holiday-lights extravaganza at a private home known as the “Christmas House.” Woodard said he was criticized for giving money to private citizens, and people speculated that he bought decorations for the house or paid the electric bill. Rather, the money paid for toys to give to hundreds of children who came to see the house, Woodard said.

“I would do it again given the opportunity, but the way it is now, it would have to be approved by the council,” he said.

Another Surprise politician, former Mayor Lyn Truitt, made several unusual purchases using discretionary funds. While Truitt was mayor, the council bought iPads using the funds. He said council members had a choice between iPads or laptops. Other cities have purchased iPads for council members but went through the public budgeting process to buy them.

Truitt also spent $68 on shirts and a jacket, which he had embroidered with his title and name. That way, residents and visitors who didn’t know him could identify him, he said. “I believe it was an appropriate council expenditure,” he said. [and the rest of us believe that he ripped off the taxpayers]

While some city leaders are uneasy about how discretionary funds are being spent, few outside groups monitor them.

The money is a small fraction of overall city budgets. For example, in Phoenix, City Council and mayoral discretionary spending totals about $80,000 annually, while the city budget is $3.5 billion. [I think what they are saying is since the city of Phoenix annually spends $3.5 billion it's no big deal if the members of the Phoenix city council rip off the taxpayers for $80,000 annually???]

In Surprise, Woodard has successfully pushed for change. This year, the council agreed to cut its discretionary budget and pool the money in a community-outreach pot. Any spending from the community-outreach fund requires a council vote.

Earlier this month, Glendale’s City Council offered to reduce each council member’s discretionary fund from $33,000 to $9,000 annually. The decision comes as city leaders consider eliminating 64 full-time positions to save $6 million during the next fiscal year.

Nadler, the university ethics fellow, said she doesn’t see any movement across the country to end discretionary funds or revise how they are handled. But, she said, given cities’ financial struggles, the time has come to do so. “We’ve reduced police forces. We’ve reduced the hours at the library,” she said.

“So we cannot afford to waste one dime on expenses that are not legitimate and that do not advance the work elected officials are charged to do on behalf of the public,” Nadler said.

Phoenix: Spending limit not exceeded - Honest that's what the mayor says!!!!

Former Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon overspent his discretionary funds while he was in office.

City figures show that in fiscal year 2010-11 Gordon spent $17,000 more than the $5,000 limit on the taxpayer-funded account. [I'm sure he will say that this looks bad, but honest, he didn't rip off the taxpayers for $12,000]

A city spokeswoman sees it differently. [Well let's say a city spokeswoman that works for Mayor Gordon and is paid by Mayor Gordon, and is only accountable to Mayor Gordon sees it differently] Since Gordon’s total spending that year was lower than his total $1.6 million mayoral budget, it’s not important if the former mayor overspent in one category.

The Arizona Republic requested discretionary-fund spending data from 10 cities — including Phoenix — that have such accounts for city-council members. The other cities are Glendale, Peoria, Mesa, Avondale, Chandler, Tolleson, Litchfield Park, Goodyear and Surprise.

The funds are supposed to be spent on expenses that ultimately help residents. In many cities, council members and mayors must follow some guidelines. For some, however, there is little oversight and city leaders spend the money as they see fit.

Toni Maccarone, a Phoenix spokeswoman, said Gordon’s total office budget in fiscal year 2010-11 was $1,588,202. His year-end actual spending was $1,338,332, she said.

“That is what is important for the overall city budgeting process, not whether one particular line item in the budget was over or under, because departments can make up for it with underspending in other areas of their budgets,” Maccarone said.

In Phoenix, the mayor’s and council members’ budgets are divided into several categories, said Mario Paniagua, Phoenix budget and research director.

Gordon’s overall $1.6 million budget included discretionary funds as well as money for personnel services that covered staff costs, contractual services and office supplies.

The discretionary budget is for the mayor and council’s miscellaneous expenses including constituent services, outreach and travel, Paniagua said.

In an interview, Gordon said he filled out proper paperwork for the discretionary-account expenses, which were approved.

According to city documents, Gordon spent $14,085 of his discretionary funds over the two fiscal years on conferences and business travel.

The rest of his discretionary money paid for event-support services and office supplies.

In addition to the taxpayer-funded money, Gordon controlled an account that was funded by donations from developers and other political supporters.

“What I call my discretionary funds, I raised all privately and had the downtown partnership oversee that,” he said.

Valley officials' purchases using discretionary funds

In the last two years, 10 Valley cities have spent $1.2 million in taxpayer funds for meals, travel, construction projects and iPads, an investigation by The Arizona Republic has found.

Phoenix City Councilwoman Thelda Williams spent almost $3,000 at Turf Paradise to help pay for a museum fundraiser. The horse-racing track is co-owned by a campaign donor.

Glendale Councilwoman Norma Alvarez paid more than $18,000 to repave a road. Without her help, she says, the road would have remained a low city priority.

Former Surprise Mayor Lyn Truitt bought an iPad with discretionary funds. He said the council chose to purchase iPads because they are less cumbersome than laptops and help with constituent email and keeping a city calendar.

Truitt also spent $68 on shirts and a jacket, which he had embroidered with his title and name. He said that helped residents because people who didn’t know him were able to identify him when he was in public and could approach him. [Sorry Mayor Truitt a 50 cent name tag would have been a lot cheaper!!!]

Phoenix City Councilman Michael Nowakowski paid $5,822 over two years to a children’s inflatable bounce house business to rent a screen and projector used for a movies in the park program in Southwest Phoenix.

Former Surprise Councilman Mike Woodard, a foe of most discretionary spending, donated $1,200 to the “Christmas House” which featured many holiday lights. Woodard was criticized by residents for giving money to private citizens. He said the money was used to buy toys for children, and he would do it again.

Mayoral and city council discretionary fund spending

A discretionary account is a pool of money, often taken from a city’s general fund, that is set aside for an individual council member to use at his or her discretion. The use of discretionary funds is a common practice among city councils around the country.

In the Valley, 10 cities, including Phoenix, Peoria, Glendale, Mesa, Chandler and Avondale maintain discretionary funds. Funds across the Valley range from $500 a year to $33,000.

Some cities allow their councils and mayors to roll over unspent discretionary funds into next year's budgets. Peoria, Glendale and Avondale all allow for this. Avondale and Goodyear allows council members to give some of their discretionary budget to other members.

The following individuals spent more than their budgets in either Fiscal Year 2011 or Fiscal Year 2012: Avondale Mayor Marie Lopez Rogers went over $500 in FY 2012 and Vice Mayor Stephanie Karlin went over her FY 2011 budget by $872.

[To see the graphs that came with this article check out the original article in the Arizona Republic here]

Ole Miss home to medical marijuana lab

OXFORD, Miss. -- The only reason 73-year-old Elvy Musikka still has her sight, she says, is she's been smoking pot for the last 30 years.

"In 1975, my doctor told me if I didn't start using marijuana, I'd go blind," said Musikka. "Shortly thereafter I found out that, indeed, it was the only thing that would help me with my glaucoma."

Musikka is one of only four people still enrolled in the federal government's Investigational New Drug program, which allows a small number of patients to use medical marijuana grown at the University of Mississippi. The program stopped accepting new participants in 1992 but allowed patients already in the program to continue receiving their prescriptions. At its peak, the program provided pot for 30 patients.

"All of us admitted in the program were required to prove to the FDA, DEA and NIDA that marijuana was the safest and most efficient treatment available for us," she said. "The bottom line for me was that I was losing my sight."

For more than 30 years Musikka has had glaucoma, a disease that causes a gradual increase in eye pressure and can ultimately lead to blindness. Pot relieves pressure in the eye caused from glaucoma and has been shown to occasionally reverse some of the damage caused by the disease.

Musikka recently moved from Florida to Oregon to enroll in a state-run medicinal marijuana program but said she found it to be very expensive. Now that Colorado and Washington have legalized the drug, Musikka thinks access to medical marijuana may be easier and that the marijuana may be cheaper.

"There is no state, no place, where people do not seriously need this medicine. There is public support for all of us, everywhere," she said.

Inside the marijuana research lab at Ole Miss, the potent smell of marijuana lingers in the air. The grow room, housing plants that are up to six feet tall, buzzes with the sound of heat lamps and ventilation systems. The entire complex is surrounded by multiple guard towers, two enormous barbed wire fences and countless security cameras.

Ole Miss was selected in 1968 as the United States' first, and only, legal marijuana farm since the drug became illegal in 1937 under the Marijuana Tax Act. The pot was grown for research being done by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and was supplied to a small number of patients who were able to prove marijuana was the only therapeutic drug that would alleviate symptoms from their varying illnesses.

Acceptance of marijuana for medical use has come a long way since 1968. Currently, 18 states and Washington D.C. all offer prescription pot. The change has been slow, yet gradual, over recent years.

Arkansas came incredibly close to becoming the 19th state last month by trying to legalize marijuana for medicinal use. The measure, known as Issue 5, would have made medical marijuana legal for the first time in a Southern state. The initiative was voted against by 51 percent.

Mahmoud ElSohly, the head of the marijuana research program since 1981, said he doubts the new laws in Washington and Colorado will make a big difference to his work, but he said it may cause an increase in drug abuse, particularly among young people.

"The danger of high-potency marijuana is not necessarily with people that are chronic users of the drug. They probably know how to limit themselves to the right amount of smoke. The problem is with young people who are trying marijuana," ElSohly said. "The psychoactivity of high-potency marijuana is really not a pleasant thing. People get paranoid and very irritable, almost violent sometimes. [Give me a break!!! That sounds like a line out of "Reefer Madness"] They get the opposite of the activities sought by the user."

While high-potency marijuana can be dangerous for some, Musikka believes it's the only reason she still has her vision. She said one of the main reasons she moved to Oregon was to have access to stronger marijuana.

ElSohly is concerned about the unregulated market for marijuana. He said that without some type of regulation in place people are subjected to dangerously high levels of THC, the main psychoactive chemical in marijuana. [Huh!!! Usually when a dealer gets some really, really potent weed he jacks the price up a bit. You are not going to get good weed like that by accident!!! And of course if you do get really good weed you don't have to smoke the whole joint or pipe full. Just take a few hits like when you smoke hashish!]

"They get something off the street without knowing the potency of what they are smoking, and before they realize they've had too much, it's already too late."

ElSohly said it's also important to remember marijuana is still illegal on the federal level.

"The United States government is obligated under national treaty to treat marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug," he stated. "We have to make the distinction that this is an approval by referendum, rather than an approval by regulatory testing and due process."

"The people that are pro-legalization, they don't want that, they just want to grow their own stuff and smoke it and be happy. That's it," ElSohly said.

Michael Wigginton Jr., former DEA agent and professor of Criminal Justice at Ole Miss, isn't sure that legalization on a federal level will ever happen, much less anytime soon.

"Federal law is supreme in the United States, it will always override state and local law. [That is 100 percent BS. Read the 10th Amendment which I threw in at the end of this article] Despite Oregon and Washington having legalized and decriminalized possession of marijuana, it doesn't negate federal policy," Wigginton said.

"I don't see any of these legalization measures making any major inroads anytime soon. I don't think the American public as a whole would want to entertain that."

ElSohly and his team at Ole Miss are working on a new method of administering THC, the main therapeutic component in marijuana. They hope the new approach will decrease some of the unwanted psychological effects and offer a safer way to attain the therapeutic effects of pot, without having to inhale smoke.

"What we are working on right now is a transmucosal — a small patch that will be put inside the mouth above the gum line. We have support from the National Institute of Health and also from my private lab," he said. "We've concluded the first couple phases, and we are working on releasing it soon with a pharmaceutical partner."

Right now, an estimated more than 1 million Americans have legal prescriptions for pot, and ElSohly said attitudes about medical uses of marijuana do appear to be changing.

"In the past, companies were kind of shying from the idea because it was associated with marijuana, and marijuana is a 'bad word,' so nobody was actually getting into that," he stated.

As for Musikka, her hope is attitudes about the use of medical marijuana are changing, too.

"We have five generations of lies and misinformation keeping us incapable of rendering rational decisions as individuals, or as a nation, on this issue," she said.

TUCSON — An effort to raise money for a gun buyback program in Tucson is prompting questions about a change in state law.

Councilman Steve Kozachik is raising $5,000 so Tucson residents may have a way to dispose of unwanted firearms while making money in the process.

“With the success other cities have had with voluntary gun buybacks, I want to test the water to see how Tucson residents respond,” Kozachik told the Arizona Daily Star. “The rules are simple: Bring in your gun on a totally voluntary basis, no questions asked, and you’ll trade it for a Safeway $50 gift card.”

But Todd Rathner, a member of the National Rifle Association’s board of directors, said any buyback program would be meaningless since the police department would be required to return or resell the weapons under a change made earlier this year to state law.

“The police would have to take the guns and run them through the national database. If they are stolen, they are returned to the owner,” he said. “If they are not stolen, (the Tucson Police Department) is mandated by state law to sell them to the public.”

The police department checks every gun it receives to ensure they aren’t stolen or have been used to commit a crime. Spokeswoman Sgt. Maria Hawke said the department holds several “destruction boards” throughout the year to dispose of things such as illicit drugs and guns and the same process would hold true for guns purchased through a buyback program.

Hawke said the department is researching how the statute applies to its practices regarding the disposal of firearms.

Rathner contends that destruction of firearms would put the department in violation of the law.

“If they are in violation of state law, we will see them in a courtroom or we will change the law and have them sanctioned financially,” he said.

City Attorney Mike Rankin believes the law is intended to apply to guns seized by police, not those firearms voluntarily surrendered by their owners.

Kozachik said he doesn’t understand why the NRA would oppose a voluntary program like the one he’s proposing.

Ken Rineer, president of Gun Owners of Arizona, said he has reservations over losing guns committed during a crime, people unwittingly selling antique firearms and the legal issues regarding who is a licensed gun dealer when large numbers of weapons are purchased.

“I don’t know if these issues can be laid to rest if they follow the no-question policy,” Rineer said. He added that buyback programs work well as symbolism but have minor impacts in the real world.

Reasonable Restrictions on your First and Second Amendment rights

Imagine that the First Amendment is subject to just a few 'reasonable restrictions.'

Nearly 29 percent of high schoolers smoke marijuana

Close to one out of every eight high schoolers who admitted to smoking marijuana recently say they got it from a medical marijuana cardholder.

The biennial study done by the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission found that nearly 29 percent of students in grades 10 through 12 admitted to having smoked marijuana at some point. And more than 14 percent said they had inhaled in the last 30 days. [About the ONLY person I have ever heard who claimed to smoke marijuana but didn't inhale was President Clinton]

Not surprisingly, the vast majority said they had obtained the drug from a friend, with family and relatives also a major source. [Duh! Where else are you going to get it? From an enemy? From the police? From Attorney General Tom Horne? From Governor Jan Brewer?]

But 11.6 percent said they got the marijuana from one of the more than 33,000 individuals who have the state's permission to legally grow or purchase marijuana for their own medical conditions. Because the survey allows multiple responses, that could include friends and family members.

Deputy Pima County Attorney Rick Unklesbay said the response could have been foretold.

"I don't think people should be surprised by the fact that easier access to marijuana by medical card holders will lead to easier abuse by minors,'' he said.

Maricopa County Attorney Bill Mongtomery, who is trying to shut down the whole program, concurred.

"When you wind up with a purported medical marijuana system that in reality is a recreational use system, I would say that this is a foreseeable consequence,'' he said. And Montgomery said he believes that Arizona will see the same sort of increase in unauthorized teen use that has been recorded in other states with medical marijuana laws.

Cory Nelson, a deputy assistant director of the Arizona Department of Health Services which administers the medical marijuana program, said his agency is paying attention to the numbers of teens who said they got the drugs from a cardholder. But Nelson said people should not lose sight of other numbers in the report.

"We've got almost 80 percent who say they're getting it from friends, and another 15 percent that say they're getting it from family,'' he said. "So we need to make sure we are looking at all those areas and not just the one.''

"If people are giving away their marijuana, they certainly are committing a crime ... in providing that substance to somebody that's not authorized to have it.''

Montgomery said one thing he would be interested in learning is whether the cardholder who is providing the marijuana is a fellow teen or an adult.

In general, the 2010 Arizona law allows adults who have a doctor's recommendation to get a state-issued ID card allowing them to obtain up to 2 1/2 ounces of marijuana every two weeks. But the law also allows parents or guardians to obtain a recommendation for a minor child, albeit with some additional hurdles.

The question that remains is whether police or prosecutors can do much about this aspect of the problem.

"When you have a juvenile who is in possession of marijuana, it's not a standard course of questioning to ask, 'Where did you get it from?' '' Montgomery said. [That is a bold face lie!!! It is routine for the police to ask people who are arrested for possession of illegal drugs where they got the drugs. In fact the government routinely drops some or all of the charges when people snitch and tell the police where they got their drugs.] "You'd have to have someone volunteer information about where they procured the marijuana.''

Unklesbay said that arrests of individuals for having small amounts of marijuana are rare.

He said some people get charged with possession if they're already being arrested for something else and the marijuana charge "just gets tacked on.'' In other circumstances, though, if someone is found with a small amount of the drug, it is likely to result in nothing more than a citation to show up in city court "and no follow-up investigation is done.''

Unklesbay said it is up to police to find out why a minor has marijuana and whether they got it from a legal cardholder.

"They can use the juvenile's statement to go after the adult who transfers it,'' he said. "I think they'd be interested in that kind of abuse of the medical certificate.''

Nelson said that, aside from criminal penalties, any cardholder who gives away or sells marijuana to someone not authorized to have it faces loss of the card. He acknowledged, though, that can require a full-blown hearing.

Repeated calls to Joe Yuhas, spokesman for the Arizona Medical Marijuana Policy Project, the group that pushed the 2010 initiative, were not returned. Neither were calls to the national Marijuana Policy Project which provided some of the funding for the campaign.

Attorney General Tom Horne, who also opposes the law, said the findings in the report about teen use and where they get it is consistent with other information about the medical marijuana program.

"The number of young males with medical cards is all out of proportion to the number of young males that suffer from the kinds of ailments that we're supposed to be giving cards for,'' he said, calling the law "badly abused.'' [I suspect Attorney General Tom Horne will use any lame excuse to give him the opportunity to throw harmless pot smokers in prison]

Figures from the health department show nearly three-fourths of all cardholders are male, with nearly half of cardholders younger than 40.

Close to 90 percent of patients approved for use of the drug are complaining of chronic pain; the closest second is nausea at 7.5 percent.

Drug companies say opiates are not addictive

Rising painkiller addiction shows damage from drugmakers’ role in shaping medical opinion

Portsmouth, Ohio — Over much of the past decade, the official word on OxyContin was that it rarely posed problems of addiction for patients.

The label on the drug, which was approved by the FDA, said the risks of addiction were “reported to be small.”

The New England Journal of Medicine, the nation’s premier medical publication, informed readers that studies indicated that such painkillers pose “a minimal risk of addiction.”

Another important journal study, which the manufacturer of OxyContin reprinted 10,000 times, indicated that in a trial of arthritis patients, only a handful showed withdrawal symptoms.

Those reassuring claims, which became part of a scientific consensus, have been quietly dropped or called into question in recent years, as many in the medical profession rediscovered the destructive power of opiates. But the damage arising from those misconceptions may have been vast.

The nation is confronting an ongoing epidemic of addiction to prescription painkillers — more widespread than cocaine or heroin — that has left nearly 2 million in its grip, according to federal statistics.

“It turns out that the doctors didn’t know what they were talking about,” said Barbara Howard, whose daughter Leslie, a home-care nurse, died of an overdose in 2009 in this small Appalachian town devastated by the epidemic. She had developed a habit after knee surgery. She left behind a 9-year-old son.

“Leslie trusted the doctors. We thought the doctors knew what was best. But they didn’t. We — and lots of the other victims — had no warning.”

A closer look at the opioid painkiller binge — retail prescriptions have roughly tripled in the past 20 years — shows that the rising sales and addictions were catalyzed by a massive effort by pharmaceutical companies to shape medical opinion and practice.

Opioids are a class of powerful drugs, often used for pain, that includes morphine, heroin and brand names such as OxyContin, Vicodin and Percocet.

For years, doctors had been cautious about prescribing opioids to anyone except patients with cancer or in acute pain.

But drug manufacturers and some pain specialists helped create a body of scientific research assuaging the long-standing worries about opioids and pushed to expand the use of the drugs in people with chronic pain — bad backs, arthritis, sore knees.

Their studies reported minimal risks of addiction and dependence. These, in turn, were accepted by the FDA and the nation’s medical journals. State medical boards made their rules for prescribing opioids more liberal. Academic and industry articles dismissed the old fears as “opiophobia.”

These reports reached doctors through marketing efforts and told them that there were few risks in using opioids to treat chronic pain.

But according to a Washington Post examination of key scientific papers, a court document and FDA records, many of those claims were developed in studies supported by Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, or other drug manufacturers. In addition, the conclusions they reached were sometimes unsupported by the data, and when the FDA was struggling to come up with an opioid policy, it turned to a panel populated by doctors who had financial relationships with Purdue and other drugmakers.

●A review of 16 key clinical trials on the subject shows that five were funded by Purdue and an OxyContin distributor, two were co-authored by Purdue employees, and two were sponsored by other drug companies making different opioids. None of the 16studies showed clear warnings about the addiction dangers or the physical dependence generated by the drugs. The low rate of addiction reported in these studies is at odds with more recent findings indicating that diagnoses of addiction are common in opioid patients.

●Internal company documents indicate that one of the key published studies sponsored by Purdue — the one reprinted 10,000 times — omitted suspected cases of withdrawal symptoms. The published paper offered assurance that only two of more than 100 OxyContin patients had withdrawal symptoms; the internal documents showed that at least 11 exhibited possible signs of withdrawal, and some experts say it is likely that at the doses given, most of the patients would have experienced withdrawal.

●To refine its policy on opioids, the FDA convened a key meeting in 2002 and invited 10 outside experts for advice. Five of them reported having served as speakers or investigators for Purdue. Three others reported working as speakers for or as advisers and consultants to other pharmaceutical companies.

One of those FDA advisers, Russell Portenoy, who was then the chair of the Department of Pain Medicine and Palliative Care at the Beth Israel Medical Center in New York, has since expressed regret for his evangelism on behalf of opioids.

He was “trying to create a narrative so that the primary care audience would . . . feel more comfortable about opioids,” Portenoy said in a 2010 interview with Andrew Kolodny, the chief of a group seeking to rein in drug use, Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing. “Because the primary goal was to destigmatize [opioids], we often left evidence behind. . . .

“To the extent that some of the adverse outcomes now are as bad as they have become in terms of endemic occurrences of addiction and unintentional overdose deaths, it’s quite scary to think about how the growth in that prescribing driven by people like me led in part to that occurring.”

Through a spokesman, Portenoy declined to comment for this report, but he has said that he continues to believe that many patients with chronic pain can benefit from opioids, though the estimates of how many patients may become addicted are larger than previously thought.

At the time of the 2002 FDA meeting, Portenoy reported being a speaker for Purdue Pharma. He also reported involvements on contracts and grants with Parke-Davis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Elan, Ortho Biotech, Endo, Ametek, Medtronic, Purdue Pharma, Pfizer, Janssen, Abbott, Curatech, Ortho-McNeil and Searle.

James Heins, a spokesman for Purdue, said that “it is implausible that our marketing caused an upsurge in overall prescriptions of opioids or in the incidence of abuse” because the company commands only a small portion of the painkiller market.

Moreover, he said, the notion that the risk of addiction was small was “not based on studies funded by Purdue but rather on the larger body of medical literature and clinical experience.”

Even today, he said, it is difficult to say exactly how many people who are prescribed opioids become addicted.

In few places are the effects of the opioid epidemic clearer than in Portsmouth, a town near Ohio’s borders with West Virginia and Kentucky. About 10 percent of babies are born addicted to opioids. At one point, nine “pill mills” operated out of this region of 80,000 people. About 20 people a year die of drug overdoses. Last year, for every resident, more than 100 doses of opioids were prescribed and dispensed.

Ask someone here whether the risks of opioid addiction are minimal, and some snort or roll their eyes.

“Around here, we call it ‘pharmageddon,’ ” said Lisa Roberts, the public health nurse for the town, whose primary job is to reduce the fatalities associated with drug use. “This has been absolutely devastating to Appalachia. From what we’ve seen, the risks of addiction were tremendous.”

For decades, many doctors had been wary of prescribing opioids except for use by cancer patients and the terminally ill.

In 1992, for example, a survey of state medical board members, most of them physicians, found that only 12 percent described prescribing opioids for an extended period for chronic pain as a “lawful and generally acceptable medical practice.”

Advocates for opioid prescription, backed in part by drugmakers, set about seeking to change those attitudes. More than 20 states changed their rules. And in December 1995, these marketing efforts surged as Purdue Pharma introduced OxyContin, a controlled-release form of the opioid oxycodone.

From 1996 to 2000, the company doubled its sales force from 300 to 671, according to a 2003 report by what was then the General Accounting Office. The amount of sales bonuses Purdue Pharma offered tied to OxyContin grew from $1 million a year to $40 million a year. It sponsored pain-related Web sites, advertised in medical journals and paid influential doctors such as Portenoy to talk to other physicians.

As the number of overdoses and reports of addicts rose in the early 2000s, key questions arose. How were the addicts becoming addicted? Was it by going to the doctor with a legitimate pain and getting a legitimate prescription? Or was it just people seeking a high and buying the prescription drugs off the street?

If it was only the latter, limiting prescriptions might have little direct effect on the problem and could penalize pain sufferers.

But it was both. Although many addicts started on opioids just to get high, experts say, a good portion arrived at their habits after coming into contact with opioids after a doctor’s visit for a legitimate pain. That’s how Leslie Cooper came to the drug, and it is reportedly the way some celebrities became addicted: Rush Limbaugh, Matthew Perry, Cindy McCain.

Other trials have reported that significant numbers of pain patients are addicted. In one review out of Yale School of Medicine, investigators found that diagnoses of addiction are “common” in patients given opioids for back pain, with as many as 24 percent engaging in “aberrant” or peculiar ways of taking the pills.

Early on, officials at the Drug Enforcement Administration perceived the danger to patients.

“The company’s aggressive methods, calculated fueling of demand and the grasp for major market share very much exacerbated OxyContin’s widespread abuse and diversion,” a November 2003 memo from the agency said. “The claim in Purdue’s ‘educational’ video for physicians that opioid analgesics cause addiction in less than one percent of patients is not only unsubstantiated but also dangerous because it misleads prescribers.”

But amid the marketing blitz, concerns about addiction in patients appear to have faded from the medical profession.

The FDA, which must approve drug labels, allowed Purdue to say on its label: “The development of addiction to opioid analgesics in properly managed patients with pain has been reported to be rare.”

The agency warned that drug abusers and addicts might try to obtain the drugs, but it indicated that the risks seemed minor for patients: “We do not know how often patients with continuing (chronic) pain become addicted to narcotics, but the risk has been reported to be small.”

By 2008, the claims that the risks of addiction in patients were small were removed from the OxyContin label, after “extensive negotiations” with Purdue, an FDA spokeswoman said.

“The labeling information, including language regarding addiction, has evolved over time as data has become available,”Morgan Liscinsky said.

The FDA did not say what evidence led the agency to allow the previous claims or what new findings led it to ask for the removal of those claims.

Early on, however, the agency relied on industry experts for advice. In the 2002 FDA meeting, for example, eight of the 10 invited experts had connections with pharmaceutical companies. Of those, five had served as speakers, consultants or investigators for Purdue, including Portenoy and Kathy Foley, a neuro-oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Together, Portenoy and Foley had published a key study on opioids in 1986 that found that only two of 38 patients seemed to abuse the drugs and that both had histories of substance abuse.

“Their past work with industry should not preclude them from sharing their expertise with government agencies or their peers in the medical community,” Heins, the Purdue spokesman, said.

The FDA and doctors also could turn to a spate of other trials that seemed to suggest there was little reason to worry that chronic pain patients could get addicted to opioids.

Take, for example, a 2003 report in the New England Journal of Medicine, which reviewed the conclusions from several studies.

“The general finding is that patients with chronic pain . . . can achieve satisfactory analgesia . . . with a minimal risk of addiction,” it said, while questioning the use of high doses.

What may be most striking about the paper, though, is that its lead author has become one of the top critics of opioid prescribing habits. But Jane Ballantyne, a pain specialist at the University of Washington, said that at the time there were very few clinical trials that showed any sign of an addiction risk.

“There were very few studies then that suggested that any more than 8 percent of people on prescription opioids exhibited addiction-type behaviors,” Ballantyne said. Now, she said, the understanding is that the number may be as high as 50 percent.

How did all these studies — co-authored by doctors with university affiliations and published in academic journals — lead to conclusions that now are in dispute?

One reason, according to critics, is that most of the studies were conducted by drug companies.

“A pharmaceutical company that has a vested interest in promoting their product should not be seen as a reliable source of safety information,” said Orman Hall, director of the Ohio Department of Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services. “Some of those estimates are ludicrous.”

Consider the 16 clinical trial reports that Ballantyne highlighted and used in her article, which reflect the medical literature at the time. Her summary did not discuss sponsors of the studies. But of those 16, six were sponsored by Purdue Pharma or co-authored by its employees, one was sponsored by Mundipharma, which distributed OxyContin and other opioids, and two were sponsored by another drug company or co-authored by drug company employees.

In the trials, patients were given an opioid for pain, but in most, there were no systematic checks for withdrawal symptoms or addiction. Instead, in most of the trials, regardless of whether they were sponsored by drug companies, the investigators generally found that the benefits of pain relief outweighed the risks of side effects such as constipation and dry mouth.

If investigators were looking for signs of addiction, they weren’t looking hard.

“In the absence of rigorous evaluation and surveillance, it’s hard to know whether the low levels of addictive behavior reported in those studies are accurate,” said David A. Fiellin, a professor of medicine at Yale with an expertise in addiction.

Fiellin noted that the design of a study can dramatically change the results and that entrusting the design to scientists with conflicts of interest could introduce bias. What patients are admitted to the trial? How are side effects measured? How large are the doses?

“All of those are scientific decisions that should be made by people without any regard for how the findings will affect the company’s bottom line,” Fiellin said, adding that the government could play a larger role in funding.

In one of the studies sponsored by Purdue that Ballantyne covered, and that played a large role in the marketing of OxyContin, there appear to have been significant discrepancies between the data that were gathered and those that were published.

A March 2000 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine published a study that followed 106 arthritis patients treated with OxyContin for several months.

Remarkably, according to doctors who study addiction and dependence, there were no reports of withdrawal during those respites.

Two patients had withdrawal problems, but one was at the end of the study, and the other had simply run out of the medication.

“Withdrawal syndrome was not reported as an adverse event for any patient during the scheduled respites,” the authors reported.

The trial also showed that the drug was effective and was embraced by the Purdue marketing team, which ordered 10,000 reprints to distribute to its sales staff, with instructions to highlight the finding on withdrawal.

But according to company documents disclosed in a court case, the paper left out several cases of withdrawal.

Inside Purdue, supervisors and employees reviewed a more complex set of data, according to a document signed by company attorneys and prosecutors, which accompanied a 2007 settlement in which federal prosecutors charged Purdue with misbranding the drug.

“Multiple” patients, a company review said, “directly stated or implied that an adverse experience was due to possible withdrawal symptoms.”

Eleven study patients “reported adverse experience due to possible withdrawal symptoms during these periods,” according to the court document.

One of the authors of the Archives article, Roy Fleischmann, a clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, said the authors were given the data by Purdue.

He said the discrepancy may have arisen because some of the side effects — such as insomnia, nausea and anxiety — were not characterized by Purdue “as withdrawal symptoms, although, in retrospect, they probably were,” he said in an e-mail.

Doctors who have treated OxyContin addicts, and some former addicts, moreover, say that considering the doses given to the patients in the trial and its duration, even the internal document undercounted patients reporting withdrawal symptoms. They say the majority of patients were likely to have suffered withdrawal symptoms when the drug was cut off.

At the doses given in the trial, most patients are “pretty consistently” going to have withdrawal symptoms, said Phillip Prior, a board-certified addictionologist in the Portsmouth area who has treated thousands of patients addicted to opioids.

He said the lower estimates are “flawed conclusions from a very flawed study.”

“I’ve never seen anyone come off of them and not get withdrawal,” said Billie Taylor, 42, a former addict who works at a treatment center in Portsmouth. “I would have quit a lot earlier if it had not been for the withdrawal. You feel like you want to die. Even if you take them at prescribed levels, you get withdrawal.”

“You could say these marketing tactics are merely concerning,” Prior said. “But I think of them as satanic. What the data are telling us is that these drugs are ruining people’s lives.”

Members-only marijuana clubs open in Colorado

DENVER - Recreational marijuana clubs opened Monday in Colorado, less than a month after the state governor signed into law a constitutional amendment allowing recreational pot use.

With a reggae soundtrack and flashing disco-style lights, Club 64 in an industrial area just north of downtown Denver opened Monday afternoon, with some 200 people signed up. The opening came less than 24 hours after club organizers announced they would charge a $29.99 admission price for the bring-your-own pot club.

New Club 64 members were firing up bongs and exchanging hugs before the sun set Monday, and they also planned to ring in the new year together.

“Look at this!” an excited Chloe Villano exclaimed as the club she created over the weekend opened. “We were so scared because we didn’t want it to be crazy. But this is crazy! People want this.”

Colorado’s marijuana amendment prohibits public consumption, and smoke-free laws also appear to ban indoor smokeouts. But Club 64 attorney Robert Corry, who cut a ribbon at 4:20 p.m. for the new club, said private pot dens are permissible because marijuana isn’t sold, nor is it food or drink. Villano, the club owner, said the pot club would meet monthly at different locations, with the $29.99 membership fee good for only one event.

On Monday, the pot club was meeting in a hemp-based clothing store near downtown. Hooded sweatshirts and backpacks were shoved to a corner. In the main area, a few small tables sat next to a screen showing “The Big Lebowski.”

A bar decorated with blue Christmas lights handed out sodas and Club 64’s official snacks — Goldfish and Cheetos. The snacks were inspired by Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, who warned marijuana users the night of the marijuana vote, “don’t break out the Cheetos or Goldfish too quickly.” Club 64 gets its name from the number of the amendment.

The Denver Post reported that a similar pot club opened earlier Monday in the small southern Colorado town of Del Norte (del-NORT’).

Corry said the pot clubs are intended for people who can’t use marijuana at home because of local ordinance or because their landlords threaten eviction.

“It’s just a place for adults to exercise their constitutional rights together,” Corry said. “We’re not selling pot here.”

Among the new Club 64 members planning to ring in the New Year was Joe Valenciano of Denver. He heard about Club 64 yesterday and signed up immediately.

An hour after opening, no police were seen outside Club 64. Villano said the club wanted to open symbolically at 4:20 p.m., but that the party wouldn’t get going until about 9 p.m., when DJs were scheduled to start as members prepared for pot-filled countdown to burn in the New Year.

Using highly paid cops to do the work of garbage collectors???

Even if you agree with the insane and unconstitutional "drug war", which I don't, one question is why are they paying cops who probably make between $25 and $50 an hour do do this work, when it could be done by low income labors who would be paid $10 or $15 an hour or less???

It's a waste of our tax dollars to cops who make big bucks to do this work instead of hiring low income laborers to do it.

Santa Clara County deputies clear tons of gear from remote pot growing operations

Dangling on ropes suspended from a helicopter, sheriff's deputies were dropped into eight rough and remote Santa Clara County locations last week to dismantle clandestine marijuana operations and haul out environmentally unfriendly gear.

That included miles of black plastic irrigation tubing, propane tanks, car batteries, camping supplies and gardening equipment, along with food wrappers and other trash. Deputies found a Honda muffler on an isolated mountainside that they believe was used to cut down noise produced by a generator.

All told, the efforts by the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office Marijuana Eradication Team and several state Department of Fish and Game wardens cleared four tons of material from marijuana fields off Pacheco Pass Highway, Croy Road, Casa Loma Road, Gilroy Hot Springs Road and areas inside Henry W. Coe State Park.

No arrests were made, but officials hope it will deter future fields from springing up as well as prevent pollutants from entering creeks and tributaries.

"It's amazing just how much damage the unlawful marijuana cultivators cause to the environment, and the amount of trash they bring to these pristine locations in our county," stated Detective Jeff Puente, a full-time member of the sheriff's Marijuana Eradication Team, in a news release. "As an avid outdoorsman it saddens me to think of the amount of time it will take for these areas to fully recover."

The crews are taken to the sites -- which would likely be a four- or five-hour hike -- via "short hauling," or hanging from 100-foot lines dangling from a helicopter.

Sheriff's spokesman Sgt. Jose Cardoza said the operations are found in various ways -- sometimes from a tip, other times by authorities seeking them out, including from the air.

According to the release, it is "a common method used which allows for less time hiking into the site and easier removal of the garbage," which would otherwise take days to pull out.

In 2012, the Marijuana Eradication Team removed more than 91,000 plants and 500 pounds of marijuana at various grow operations, 22 of them outdoors and seven indoors. They made 21 arrests and confiscated nine guns.

The sheriff's office receives grant money from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency to fund eradication and environmental cleanup operations.

Simple Things to Protect Your Privacy

Over the weekend, I wound up at Washington, D.C.’s Trapeze School with a group of friends. Before one of them headed up a ladder to attempt a somersault landing from the trapeze bar, she handed me her phone and asked me to take photos. “What’s the password?” I asked. “I don’t use one,” she replied. My jaw dropped as it often does when someone I know tells me they’re choosing not to take one of the very simplest steps for privacy protection, allowing anyone to snoop through their phone with the greatest of ease, to see whichever messages, photos, and sensitive apps they please.

So this post is for you, guy with no iPad password, and for you, girl who stays signed into Gmail on her boyfriend’s computer, and for you, person walking down the street having a loud conversation on your mobile phone about your recent doctor’s diagnosis of that rash thing you have. These are the really, really simple things you should be doing to keep casual intruders from invading your privacy.

1. Password protect your devices: your smartphone, your iPad, your computer, your tablet, etc. Some open bookers tell me it’s “annoying” to take two seconds to type in a password before they can use their phone. C’mon, folks. Choosing not to password protect these devices is the digital equivalent of leaving your home or car unlocked. If you’re lucky, no one will take advantage of the access. Or maybe the contents will be ravaged and your favorite speakers and/or secrets stolen. If you’re not paranoid enough, spend some time reading entries in Reddit Relationships, where many an Internet user goes to discuss issues of the heart. A good percentage of the entries start, “I know I shouldn’t have, but I peeked at my gf’s phone and read her text messages, and…”

If a police officer stops you and wants more information about you in addition to illegally searching you, your car and your home, they almost always will grab your cell phone and attempt to steal all the data on it. Password protecting your cell phone will usually prevent officer unfriendly from doing this. And don't use your birth date, middle name or any other information the police officer can steal from you for your password.

Remember the police officer has your driver's license which contains your birth date and you middle name.

And don't voluntarily give your cell phone password to the police officer as many people do according to this article.

You are under no obligation to tell the police anything including the password to your phone or the combination to your safe. Take the 5th Amendment and refuse to tell anything to the police.

Many of our ancestors died fighting to give us our 5th Amendment rights. Don't give us that right just because some crooked police officer threatens you.

2. Put a Google Alert on your name. This is an incredibly easy way to stay on top of what’s being said about you online. It takes less than a minute to do. Go here. [ http://www.google.com/alerts ] Enter your name, and variations of your name, with quotation marks around it. Boom. You’re done.

3. Sign out of Facebook, Twitter, Gmail, etc. when you’re done with your emailing, social networking, tweeting, and other forms of time-wasting. Not only will this slightly reduce the amount of tracking of you as you surf the Web, this prevents someone who later sits down at your computer from loading one of these up and getting snoopy. If you’re using someone else’s or a public computer, this is especially important. Yes, people actually forget to do this, with terrible outcomes.

4. Don’t give out your email address, phone number, or zip code when asked. Obviously, if a sketchy dude in a bar asks for your phone number, you say no. But when the asker is a uniform-wearing employee at Best Buy, many a consumer hands over their digits when asked. Stores often use this info to help profile you and your purchase. You can say no. If you feel badly about it, just pretend the employee is the sketchy dude in the bar.

And don't voluntarily give your cell phone password or any other information to the police. Many people do according to this article do.

The Fifth Amendment says you don't have to give ANYTHING to the police. If you don't use it, you will lose it.

5. Encrypt your computer. The word “encrypt” may sound like a betrayal of the simplicity I promised in the headline, but this is actually quite easy to do, especially if you’re a MacHead. Encrypting your computer means that someone has to have your password (or encryption key) in order to peek at its contents should they get access to your hard drive. On a Mac, you just go to your settings, choose “Security and Privacy,” go to “FileVault,” choose the “Turn on FileVault” option. Boom goes the encryption dynamite. PC folk need to use Bitlocker [ technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc766295%28v=ws.10%29.aspx ].

And don't give the password to a police officer if he asks you! Take the 5th Amendment! It's your RIGHT.

Also remember cryptology experts can sometimes decrypt the data on you computer. If you are a big enough fish the police will call in the cryptology experts

If you don't want somebody to know about something it probably shouldn't be on your computer.

6. Gmailers, turn on 2-step authentication in Gmail. The biggest takeaway from the epic hack of Wired’s Mat Honan was that it probably wouldn’t have happened if he’d turned on “2-step verification” in Gmail. This simple little step turns your phone into a security fob — in order for your Gmail account to be accessed from a new device, a person (hopefully you) needs a code that’s sent to your phone. This means that even if someone gets your password somehow, they won’t be able to use it to sign into your account from a strange computer. Google says that millions of people use this tool, and that “thousands more enroll each day.” Be one of those people. The downside: It’s annoying if your phone battery dies or if you’re traveling abroad. The upside: you can print a piece of paper to take with you, says James Fallows at the Atlantic. Alternately, you can turn it off when you’re going to be abroad or phone-less. Or you can leave it permanently turned off, and increase your risk of getting epically hacked. Decision’s yours.

7. Pay in cash for embarrassing items. Don’t want a purchase to be easily tracked back to you? You’ve seen the movies! Use cash. One data mining CEO says this is how he pays for hamburgers and junk food these days.

8. Change Your Facebook settings to “Friends Only.” You’d think with the many Facebook privacy stories over the years that everyone would have their accounts locked down and boarded up like Florida houses before a hurricane. Not so. There are still plenty of Facebookers that are as exposed on the platform as Katy Perry at a water park. Visit your Facebook privacy settings. Make sure this “default privacy” setting isn’t set to public, and if it’s set to “Custom,” make sure you know and are comfortable with any “Networks” you’re sharing with.

9. Clear your browser history and cookies on a regular basis. When’s the last time you did that? If you just shrugged, consider changing your browser settings so that this is automatically cleared every session. Go to the “privacy” setting in your Browser’s “Options.” Tell it to “never remember your history.” This will reduce the amount you’re tracked online. Consider a browser add-on like TACO to further reduce tracking of your online behavior. [If the police arrest you or get a search warrant they will definitely look at your browser history. Erase it to make life difficult for police who want to make life difficult for you. Also remember that even if you erase your browser history, many web sites keep logs showing each time you visited their sites. ]

10. Use an IP masker. When you visit a website, you leave a footprint behind in the form of IP information. If you want to visit someone’s blog without their necessarily knowing it’s you — say if you’re checking out a biz competitor, a love interest, or an ex — you should consider masking your computer’s fingerprint, which at the very least gives away your approximate location and service provider. A person looking at their analytics would notice me as a regular visitor from Washington, D.C. for example, and would probably even be able to tell that I was visiting from a Forbes network address. To hide this, you can download Tor [ https://www.torproject.org/ ] or use an easy browser-based option.

These are some of the easiest things you can do to protect your privacy. Ignoring these is like sending your personal information out onto the trapeze without a safety net. It might do fine… or it could get ugly. These are simple tips for basic privacy; if you’re in a high-risk situation where you require privacy from malicious actors, check out EFF’s surveillance self-defense tips [ https://ssd.eff.org/ ].

How do you spell revenue - DUI tickets

I suspect that means at least 47,000 people were stopped illegally, without probable cause by the police in their effort to raise all this DUI revenue.

With a DUI ticket being minimum fine of $2,000 the cops raised at least $8.8 million in revenue with those 4,400 tickets.

But when you throw in the 450 aggravated DUI tickets which can be over a $5,000 fine the cops probably raised another $1.35 million in fines bring the total up over $10 million in fines.

Sadly these DUI task forces have everything to do with raising revenue and almost nothing to do with safety.

Currently the legal limit is .08, at that level a petite 100 pound woman is legally drunk after having less then 1 beer or drink. I suspect most people are not even close to being drunk at the .08 level.

When DUI was first invented in the early 1900's the legal limit was .15, which I suspect most people are too intoxicated to drive safely.

But over the years, all the states first reduced the legal limit to .10 and then to .08. The states reduced the legal limit because the Federal government bribed them with money.

Nearly 4,400 people statewide were arrested on suspicion of DUI between Thanksgiving and New Year’s Eve by officers participating in regional saturation enforcements, according to the Arizona Governor’s Office of Highway Safety.

Officers arrested 4,371 people between Nov. 24 and Jan. 1, including 1,098 people on suspicion of extreme DUI, 450 on suspicion of aggravated DUI, and 934 DUI drug arrests, according to GOHS. Of the 81,934 total people stopped, there were 1,964 designated drivers, and 34,974 non-DUI citations were handed out.

The average blood-alcohol content of those arrested was 0.15 percent. The legal limit is 0.08 percent.

The totals continued an upward trend over the last three years in several areas, including extreme DUI, seat-belt citations and child-restraint violations. During the same period last year, police arrested 4,058 people, and in 2010 arrested 3,880. The number of designated drivers also has increased, from 1,391 in 2010 and 1,927 in 2011.

A cumulative total of 2,247 officers participated in the multiple DUI task force deployments between Thanksgiving and New Year’s Eve. [Cops also love these DUI sweeps because they are paid lots of overtime.]

From Jan. 1, 2012 through Jan. 1, 2013, officers working on the task forces arrested 27,710 people on suspicion of DUI, including 8,080 on suspicion of extreme DUI, 3,275 on suspicion of aggravated DUI and 3,919 drug DUI arrests. Officers also handed out 338,101 non-DUI citations among the 787,946 people stopped. There were 6,242 designated drivers.

Highway Safety Office Director Alberto Gutier said the goal of the DUI task forces is “to reduce crashes, fatalities and injuries on our streets and highways by enforcing DUI and traffic laws in our state.” [Yea, and Alberto Gutier forgot to say the MOST IMPORTANT GOAL - to raise REVENUE]

NYC cops lose evidence, but ask courts to convict!

Perched on a narrow crook of land jutting into New York Harbor, the Erie Basin auto pound and evidence warehouse seems a logical place to store hundreds of seized cars, thousands of guns and 9,846 barrels of evidence containing sensitive DNA material.

It is easy for the New York Police Department to safeguard the secluded bunker, in Red Hook, Brooklyn, from potential thieves.

As Hurricane Sandy lashed the city, the surge breached the warehouse’s roll-top doors and hurtled hundreds — perhaps thousands — of its barrels into the wet muck. The storm wreaked similar havoc at another Police Department warehouse by the water, along Kingsland Avenue in Greenpoint, Brooklyn.

In at least six criminal trials in recent weeks, a police official has had to testify that evidence was inaccessible, but still existed, said Paul J. Browne, the chief spokesman for the Police Department.

Prosecutors and defense lawyers said they were concerned that many more cases could emerge. “This is likely to be the tip of the iceberg,” said Steven Banks, chief lawyer for the Legal Aid Society.

A defendant in Brooklyn, Manuel Castro, was one of the first people convicted of a crime based, in part, on DNA evidence destroyed during Hurricane Sandy. A jury found him guilty of robbery and attempted assault after a judge allowed testimony on evidence — a jacket and boots — that could not be produced in court because both articles had been at the Greenpoint warehouse, Mr. Banks said.

“We believe the ruling that permitted the evidence to come in was incorrect and we are appealing,” Mr. Banks said, adding that the situation was “a recipe for wrongful convictions.”

Police officials have responded to the storm’s destruction by seeking advice from one of the only departments in the country with recent experience in this area: the New Orleans police.

Since Hurricane Sandy hit on Oct. 29, Phil T. Pulaski, the chief of detectives, and others in New York have been in phone contact with counterparts in the South, said Lt. Scott Lindsly, who helps oversee property and evidence for the New Orleans Police Department.

Mounds of waterlogged evidence bags continue to cause headaches in New Orleans more than seven years after Hurricane Katrina, pointing to the difficulty of preserving DNA evidence after flooding.

“If you don’t keep it properly stored, you’re affecting somebody’s life,” said Robbie Keen, who directs a federally financed DNA project in New Orleans that is still trying to recover evidence.

Ms. Keen said some of the damaged biological evidence from Hurricane Katrina had been successfully tested, but some had been lost.

The New York Police Department has assigned 20 officers, 6 civilians and a captain to recover evidence at the two warehouses, under the supervision of Robert S. Martinez, director of the department’s Support Services Bureau, Mr. Browne said. The department may also hire a private contractor to help with the cleanup of damaged documents, as New Orleans did.

Mr. Browne said an occupational safety team within the Police Department determined that the two warehouses had been contaminated, with substances including raw sewage, and that they had to be closed to workers. It was not clear when they would be safe to enter.

Longstanding problems in the vast police storage system have compounded the storm’s effects.

While the department now puts bar codes on evidence, it relied on paper records until a few years ago. The antiquated system still provides the only way to track millions of items in the department’s 11 storage areas.

“It was all piles — piles, piles, piles,” said John W. Cassidy, a retired officer who spent more than a decade in the property division. “It’s not like it was organized. You could have 50 vouchers on one pile.”

Before bar codes were used, important pieces of evidence could occasionally go missing, “despite extensive search efforts by the N.Y.P.D.,” according to the Innocence Project, an organization dedicated to using DNA evidence to exonerate the wrongfully convicted.

A month before Hurricane Sandy, the United States Justice Department gave $1.25 million to the Police Department and the Innocence Project to go back and organize DNA evidence that might help overturn wrongful convictions.

Since August, the Police Department has been considering consolidation of its five evidence warehouses — including the two that flooded — into a single, new warehouse, Mr. Browne said. He said there were no plans to repair the damaged warehouses. Instead, evidence recovered from Greenpoint and Erie Basin is to be transferred to an interim site in Brooklyn until the single evidence bunker is built.

In addition to the nearly 10,000 barrels kept at Erie Basin, Mr. Browne said there were an additional 1,177 barrels of DNA evidence at the Kingsland Avenue location. Each barrel could contain a single piece of evidence — like a bloody blanket — or many smaller items in individual paper bags or envelopes. (Paper is favored over plastic, which can hasten bacterial contamination.)

Roughly 5,000 “narcotics items” and 3,250 firearms were also stored at the Erie Basin warehouse, Mr. Browne said.

Evidence for a coming rape trial in Manhattan — the so-called rape kit — had been stored at the Greenpoint location, the defense lawyer in the case said. The lawyer, Edward V. Sapone, said prosecutors told him that the kit might have been damaged in the storm.

Mr. Sapone said he had been concerned because he believed the evidence stored inside would help prove his client’s innocence.

It turned out that one element in the kit — a pubic hair — had not been at the warehouse during the storm because it was being tested.

Mr. Sapone said he received a message on Monday that the prosecutor was going to recommend dismissal of the case because the hair did not match Mr. Sapone’s client’s.

But without a trial, the effect of the storm on the rest of that rape kit — and possibly others — will not be made public in court hearings.

In New York State, evidence in criminal cases is not presented until a trial begins. And if a plea bargain is offered and accepted beforehand, it is not presented at all.

“The government may well be fashioning plea deals based upon the lack of underlying evidence,” Mr. Banks, of Legal Aid, said. “We can ask if it’s there, but they don’t have to tell.”

Best Buds: The Top Ten Strains of 2012

Pot possession used to be a binary thing: you either had it or you didn’t. No longer.

Cannabis strain reference site leafly.com lists more than 500 validated strains and climbing. Marijuana is a multi-billion dollar, globalized industry, with the market providing strong incentives for international breeders from the Netherlands to South Africa to come up with their own stable of “brands”.

Dozens of pot competitions each year help sort through all the innovation, with the best strains standing out. In turn, growers purchase winning seeds and clones for the most in-demand and hence valuable flowers.

The average cannabis neophyte might not notice the difference, but bud shape, density, color, smell, and structure are all dead giveaways to its parentage and effect. In states where medical marijuana is legal, expert dispensary buyers can tell the difference between an OG Kush and Grand Daddy Purple from across the room.

Below we pick the top ten cannabis strains of 2012 — a collection of Cannabis Cup winners, and dispensary menus hits. Please enjoy responsibly.

Medical marijuana: let’s just be honest about it

So now comes a report that says Arizona middle and high schoolers are getting their pot from so-called medical marijuana patients.

Like you, I’m just stunned that all those desperate people suffering from chronic pain would sell their “medicine” to mere kids looking for a toke.

Arizona voters were sold on allowing “medical marijuana” in 2010, after being repeatedly regaled with stories about how it would relieve granny’s glaucoma and help suffering cancer patients who are undergoing chemotherapy.

Two years later, nearly 34,000 Arizonans now hold cards giving them permission to smoke or grow weed, according to the Department of Health Services. Of them, 3.76 percent use marijuana to ease the symptoms of cancer. Another 1.53 percent suffer from glaucoma.

Meanwhile 89.8 percent – 30,203 people – are seeking relief for “severe and chronic pain”.

Nearly 73 percent of Arizona’s medical marijuana card holders are men and the people most likely to seek relief from their pain are 18 to 30 years old. More than 26 percent of card holders are 18-30, while 13 percent are over 60.

Comes now an Arizona Criminal Justice Commission study that says one in nine kids in grades 8, 10 and 12 who used pot in the last 30 days got it from ….. drumroll please….

Can you imagine a cancer patient giving away his chemo drugs? Can you imagine granny willingly letting go of something that would relieve her glaucoma?

One wonders what is so different, then, about these poor souls who are in chronic pain, people willing to forgo their “medicine” for the benefit of others. Giants, really, in their generosity toward others.

Attention all potheads: if you want to legalize marijuana, just be honest about your intentions. Go ahead and ask the voters straight up to legalize your stash. Arizona may well be willing to go the way of Colorado and Washington, which legalized pot in November. Then, at least, we could tax it, as we do with cigarettes, and put the cartels out of the pot smuggling business.

If we really want to have marijuana as medicine, there is a proper way to do it. Simply get the U.S. attorney general to reschedule marijuana as a schedule 2 drug under the Controlled Substances Act, allowing it physicians to prescribe it, just like morphine or oxycodone.

Until then, could we please stop with the fairytale? All this winking and the nodding is beginning to give me a chronic headache.

A good reason to password protect your cell phone!!!!!

Here is another interesting article from the police magazine Law and Order which encourages cops to search the cell phones of everybody they stop.

Again that is a good reason to password protect your cellphone and refuse to give the cops your password. Take the 5th Amendment. It's your right!!!!!

Mesa police on Tuesday arrested a 21-year-old Mesa man on suspicion of possession of marijuana for sale after they found six baggies containing marijuana and a digital scale in his vehicle while conducting a traffic stop, according to a court document.

On Jan. 1, police conducted a traffic stop on a vehicle at about 11:55 p.m. in reference to a missing headlight at 1200 W. Main St. in Mesa, according to police.

While contacting the driver, Robert Palmer IV, police reportedly smelled the odor of marijuana coming from inside the vehicle, police said.

Upon conducting a license check, police learned that Palmer’s license was suspended and called to impound the vehicle, according to a court document.

Police, while searching the vehicle prior to it being impounded, found six baggies containing a green-leafy substance, later confirmed by police to be marijuana, a digital scale and drug paraphernalia, according to police.

Police also searched Palmer’s cellphone and found text messages that police said revealed suspected drug deals, police said.

Palmer told police that the bag was his and that he owned the marijuana and paraphernalia inside, according to a court document. He said he did not sell marijuana, according to police.

Palmer was arrested on suspicion of possession of marijuana for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia , according to a court document.

Rep. John Kavanagh hopes to repeal medical-marijuana law

A state lawmaker wants to repeal Arizona’s controversial medical marijuana law, which allows people with certain medical conditions to legally grow, sell and use the drug.

Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills is a tyrant who wants to repeal Prop 203 which is Arizona's medical marijuana law

Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, on Thursday filed a bill that would refer the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act back to the ballot in November 2014. House Concurrent Resolution 2003 would require the Legislature’s approval, but not Gov. Jan Brewer’s signature. The upcoming legislative session begins Jan. 14.

Kavanagh told The Arizona Republic that voters deserve the right to rethink whether the law, approved by voters in 2010, should have passed in the first place. [Translation - Kavanagh hates marijuana and will use any lame excuse to make it illegal again]

He said new findings that some teens were obtaining pot from medical marijuana cardholders “was the last straw.” That survey information was included in the biennial study by Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, which found nearly one out of every nine students in Grades 8, 10 and 12 who responded to a survey said they got the drug from patients or caregivers who are legally allowed to use marijuana. [I suspect the only reason the biennial study by Arizona Criminal Justice Commission was done was to give the members of the government who hate medical marijuana a lame excuse to make it illegal again]

“This simply lets the voters rethink a decision they made on faulty — and absent —information,” Kavanagh said. “Nobody ever dreamed they’d (medical marijuana cardholders) be supplying school children.” [That is a lie. Prop 203 specifically makes it illegal for patients to give their marijuana to non-patients. Anybody who thought that a few patients wouldn't break the law is dreaming.]

Arizona voters approved the medical marijuana law in 2010 by a narrow margin of about 4,300 votes.

“This measure barely passed at the polls … and people were misled to believe that its recipients would be cancer patients on chemotherapy and glaucoma sufferers — but now they represent a fraction of the users,” Kavanagh said. [That is a bold faced lie. Prop 203 clearly says patients can get medical marijuana for SEVERE AND CHRONIC PAIN, and that's what most people get medical pot for!]

Nearly 34,000 Arizonans are allowed to smoke or grow marijuana, according to the state Department of Health Services. Of them, 3.76 percent use marijuana to ease cancer symptoms; less than 2 percent cite glaucoma. The overwhelming majority — 90 percent — cite severe and chronic pain.

Kavanagh thinks he’ll have “overwhelming support” by the Legislature, which “was cool on the idea to begin with.” [And sadly I think he is right. The Legislature is out of touch with the people]

Kavanagh, like many other Republicans, is also concerned that the state's medical marijuana law conflicts with federal drug laws.

Arizona Republic hates medical marijuana!!!

The handful of people who might really benefit from unproven medical benefits of a street drug were destined to be far outnumbered by the potheads who no longer need to buy the drug on the street. Always.

The latest evidence that this hoax is a hoax? An Arizona Criminal Justice Commission survey in which 11.6 percent of eighth-, 10th- and 12th-grade students who smoked pot in the past 30 days said they got it from somebody with an approved Arizona medical-marijuana user card.

Voters were misled in 2010 when they passed the medical-marijuana initiative. Medicine is prescribed by doctors and picked up at pharmacies. It doesn't come through pot docs operating out of glammed-up head shops.

The long and expensive war on drugs has proved to be unwinnable. [True] But the solution is an honest discussion about where we go from here. [Wrong. This is just another lame excuse to continue the insane war on drugs which the author of this article just admitted is a dismal failure]

The answer was not the dishonest effort at back-door legalization that pretends cannabis is medicine.

LAPD narcotics agents forced sex acts on women???

Two Los Angeles Police Department officers are under investigation for allegedly preying on women over a period of five years, luring them into an unmarked car and forcing them to perform sex acts, according to court records.

Detectives from the LAPD's internal affairs unit suspect that Officers Luis Valenzuela and James Nichols targeted at least four women whom they had arrested previously or who worked for them as informants, according to a search warrant reviewed by The Times.

The pair repeatedly used the threat of jail to get women into their car and drove them to secluded areas where one of the officers demanded sex while the other kept watch, the warrant alleges.

Valenzuela and Nichols worked together until recently as narcotics officers in the Hollywood Division. Investigators have identified four women who encountered the pair and made similar independent accusations against them.

The warrant cites sexually explicit text messages that one alleged victim claims she exchanged with the officers after their encounters. Last month, investigators obtained the woman's cellphone and computers in hopes of finding the messages the officers are alleged to have written. The department has yet to examine the electronic devices, a police official said.

Investigators had planned to confront the officers in a surprise operation early next week, but were forced to accelerate those plans Thursday, when one of the women unexpectedly filed a lawsuit against the officers. Fearing that Valenzuela and Nichols might destroy evidence, investigators rushed to sequester the officers and seize their computers and phones, police confirmed.

LAPD Chief Charlie Beck emphasized Thursday that the investigation was ongoing, but added he was "saddened by the allegations. If they are true, it would be horrific," he said.

Valenzuela, a 15-year department veteran, and Nichols, a 12-year veteran, were expected to be assigned to their homes pending the outcome of the probe, the head of the internal affairs group said. The officers could not be reached for comment.

The first woman to accuse Valenzuela and Nichols came forward in January 2010, when she told a supervisor in their narcotics unit that the officers had stopped her more than a year earlier, according to the warrant. The woman, who worked as a confidential informant for the narcotics unit and knew the men, said they were dressed in plain clothes and driving a Volkswagen Jetta. Valenzuela threatened to take the woman to jail if she refused to get in the car, then got into the back seat with her and exposed himself, telling the woman to touch him, the warrant said.

An investigation into the woman's claim went nowhere when the detective assigned to the case was unable to locate her, according to the warrant.

A year later, however, another woman demanded to speak to a supervisor after being arrested and taken to the LAPD's Hollywood station. Sometime in late 2009, according to the warrant, two officers driving a Jetta pulled up alongside her as she was walking her dog in Hollywood. The officers, whom she recognized as the same cops who had arrested her in a previous encounter, ordered her into the car, the woman recounted. It is not known why she was arrested.

Believing that the officers were investigating a case, the woman said she felt compelled to comply. Valenzuela then got into the back seat with the woman and handed her dog to Nichols, who drove the car a short distance to a more secluded area. "Why don't you cut out that tough girl crap," the woman recounted Valenzuela saying as he "unzipped his pants and forced [her] head down toward his lap and physically held her head down" as he forced her to perform oral sex on him, according to police records contained in the warrant.

The woman said she didn't report the incident immediately because she felt humiliated, thought no one would believe her and feared for her safety. Police noted that the woman displayed erratic behavior while recounting the events. Later, she made violent threats while in custody and was transported to a hospital.

Based on this allegation, the department reopened the investigation into the pair. The investigator assigned to the case interviewed this second accuser and managed, as well, to find the first woman who had come forward the year before. She, too, gave a statement, saying she had refused Valenzuela's commands to fondle him.

For reasons not explained in the warrant, the department's investigation made little progress for the next 18 months. During this time, police records show, the officers were transferred, with Valenzuela being reassigned to the Olympic Division and Nichols to the Northeast Division. (Nichols was involved in the high-profile arrest last year of Brian C. Mulligan, an executive at Deutsche Bank, who alleged he was the victim of excessive force. Police contend that Mulligan, while deranged on drugs, charged at Nichols and suffered injuries while Nichols and his partner took him into custody).

Cmdr. Rick Webb, who heads the LAPD's internal affairs group, declined to comment on the specifics of the probe, but said such cases are often difficult to complete.

The case picked up steam again in July 2012, when a man left a phone message for the vice unit at the Northeast station, saying he was a member of the Echo Park neighborhood watch and had been told by a prostitute that patrol officers in the area were picking up prostitutes and letting them go in exchange for oral sex, the warrant said.

Two more months passed before a third internal affairs officer was assigned to look into the Echo Park claim. The investigator was aware of the earlier allegations against Valenzuela and Nichols and "thought the circumstances and location were very similar."

It is not clear how, but the investigator identified another two women who reported encounters in which Nichols and Valenzuela had sought sexual favors in exchange for leniency.

One said Nichols had detained her in July 2011, handcuffed her and driven her to a quiet location. Removing the restraints, Nichols exposed himself and said, "You don't want to go to jail today, do you?" the woman recalled. Fearing she would be arrested, the woman performed oral sex on Nichols, who then released her, she said. She said Nichols had done the same thing to her six years earlier.

The other woman discovered by the internal affairs investigator alleged that she became a confidential informant for Valenzuela and Nichols after she was arrested, according to the warrant. Valenzuela, she said, told her that having sex with him would help her avoid jail, according to the warrant. She alleged that she had sex with the officer twice, once when he was off duty at her apartment in Los Angeles, and the second time in the back seat of an undercover police car while he was on duty. She said she was afraid he would send her back to jail if she refused.

She said Nichols contacted her in January 2011 and told her he would cancel her obligation to inform for him if she would have sex with him.

The woman filed a lawsuit against the city on Wednesday, alleging that the officers forced her to have sex with them several times in exchange for keeping her out of jail. The Times in general does not name the victims of alleged sex crimes.

That lawsuit was first reported by City News Service. Despite the officers' promises, the woman was sentenced to jail in April 2011 and remains there, the lawsuit alleged. A district attorney's spokeswoman said the woman is serving more than seven years in jail for possession of cocaine with intent to sell and identity theft.

Fired State Trooper Accused of Faking DUI Arrests

A class-action lawsuit has been filed against a former Utah Highway Patrol trooper and her superiors alleging that she filed false DUI charges during her career.

The department fired Lisa Steed in November for alleged misconduct related to her duties.

Attorney Michael Studebaker, who is one of the lawyers leading the class-action lawsuit, says he has been contacted by at least 40 people claiming Steed wrongfully arrested them on DUI or drug charges.

"Culture of corruption. The stories are just rampant," said Studebaker, who filed the lawsuit Dec. 14 in District Court in Salt Lake County.

Lawyers have yet to determine exactly how much the plaintiffs will seek in monetary damages.

One of the alleged victims was Michael Choate, who says Steed pulled him over for speeding with his wife in the car.

"She said she clocked me at 73. I said as fastest I was going was about 62," Choate said.

Choate was arrested and charged with DUI, but the charge was reduced to having an open container of alcohol in the car after a blood test showed he was not drunk. Choate says he was forced to pay $3,000 in fines to get his car back.

Choate was also upset that his wife was forced to find her own way home after his arrest.

"They dropped her off at a Burger King," he said. "She didn't have any money, she didn't have her cellphone with her. She had to borrow a quarter from a lady to make a phone call."

Steed and her attorney have not responded to requests for comment. Utah Highway Patrol says it cannot comment on pending litigation.

Studebaker also cites a dashcam video from a 2011 traffic stop that he says shows Steed's pulling over a woman driver. The video shows the driver performing a series of sobriety tests. Studebaker says the unidentified woman passed all the tests with flying colors but was still arrested for DUI.

Charges were later dropped after a blood test found no alcohol in her system, Studebaker says. The driver has since joined the lawsuit against Steed.

Steed was named Utah Highway Patrol's "Trooper of the Year" in 2007 for making more than 200 DUI arrests, a reward that Studebaker says should be taken away from her.

Steed herself has admitted in the past that she did not follow proper protocol while administering a DUI check. At a court hearing in May 2012, Steed admitted that, while she was administering a blood-alcohol test on Theron Alexander March 2010, she removed her microphone in order to perform an unauthorized action.

An attorney representing Alexander told ABC News last year that Steed's actions could call all her cases into question.

"The cumulative facts may well have a significant ripple effect across every case she's touched," Salt Lake City attorney Joseph Jardine said in March. "This could become the basis for overturning multiple convictions in the past."

Steed's attorney, Greg Skordas, has said he does not believe that the incident is any reflection of his client's credibility.

"It doesn't affect her credibility. It affects the way she does things, her ability to follow instructions," Skordas told ABCNews.com in March. "It doesn't mean she's dishonest."

In 2009, dashcam video showed Steed stun-gunning Ryan Jones, a motorist who was later determined to be sober.

The case was settled in November 2011 when the state paid Jones $40,000 without admitting wrongdoing.

When asked about that case, Skordas said, "She took her lumps, she was reprimanded and we move on."

Medical-pot patients decry how state bans home-growing within 25 miles of dispensaries

Medical-marijuana patients and advocates are decrying state health officials’ interpretation of a rule that bans growth of the plant within 25miles of an operating dispensary.

Authors of the state’s medical-marijuana law intended to limit home growers by forcing people to buy at dispensaries. But amid prolonged legal battles over the law, no dispensaries opened and home-growing flourished.

But the opening of four medical-marijuana dispensaries in Phoenix, Tucson and Cochise County have brought the 25-mile rule to the forefront.

Over time, the vast majority of patients who live within 25miles of dispensaries will not be permitted to legally cultivate pot. The Arizona Department of Health Services, which oversees the program, issues cards that allow patients to use medical marijuana, grow it or both. Those cards must be renewed each year, and those who live within 25miles of an operating dispensary will not be allowed to grow the plant.

But how the distance is calculated, whether it’s “as the crow flies” or “as the car drives,” is a key point of controversy.

State health officials interpret the rule as the area within a 25-mile radius of a dispensary.

Many patients and advocates, however, say the rule should be interpreted as driving distance — actual mileage measured on an odometer driving from one location to another. They argue that the state’s interpretation unfairly covers too much ground and bans too many people from growing in their homes.

New figures obtained by The Arizona Republic from the ADHS show that 64 percent of the state’s population lives within a 25-mile radius of a dispensary.

The agency reports that nearly 49 percent of Arizonans are within 25 miles of the Glendaledispensary; less than half of a percentage point of Arizonans live within 25miles of the Cochise County dispensary; and nearly 15percent of state residents live within 25miles of the two Tucson-area dispensaries.

Within the medical-marijuana community, controversy over the 25-mile rule has dominated discussion.

Lately, it has fired up the audience on WeEducated, a Web talk show about medical marijuana in Arizona, said Kristie Austin, 31, a show host.

“It should be measured by roads — like via MapQuest. If you live on the other side of a mountain range, and it takes two hours to get to a dispensary, that’s ridiculous.”

Austin is a medical-marijuana cardholder who uses the drug to ease pain brought on by endometriosis.

Like many other medical-marijuana patients, Austin also argues that the 25-mile rule places unfair burdens on patients who either can’t drive or must leave their neighborhoods to get their medicine.

Patients also argue that the rule forces them to pay more for their medicine. It’s cheaper to grow the plant at home rather than spend hundreds of dollars each month at dispensaries for their supplies, they say.

Will Humble Director of Arizona Department of Health Services is a drug war tyrant who is trying to prevent people from using medical marijuana and trying to flush Prop 203, which is Arizona's medical marijuana law down the toilet.

Those arguments don’t sway state ADHS Director Will Humble, who stands by his agency’s interpretation of the rule.

He pointed out that the rule was written into the voter-approved law and, therefore, his agency is required to implement it.

The Legislature could alter the rule with a three-quarters vote, or voters could amend the law.

Humble said that when the agency in 2011 decided to interpret the 25-mile rule “as the crow files,” there was “hardly any feedback” from the public. In recent months, the agency has received some complaints from cardholders, he said.

“One of the things you have to do, when writing the rules, is you need to make it generally applicable — so, 25miles means 25miles,” he told The Republic. “Roads change over time. Sometimes, there’s dirt roads, washes. ... Roads get graded, they become impassable. Sometimes, local jurisdictions change roads and make them dead-ends. There’s just so many variables if you were to try to measure by roads.”

If dispensaries continue to open at the current pace, legal home cultivation of marijuana will be virtually non-existent, Humble said.

That doesn’t sit well with patients like Richard Kline, a Glendale resident who uses medical marijuana for the chronic pain from neck and back injuries caused by motorcycle wrecks and getting dragged by a truck.

Kline said he and his wife, also a medical-marijuana patient, will struggle to pay for their medicine once they renew their medical-marijuana cards.

The couple live about 5 miles from a dispensary in Glendale, which opened last month.

“This rule and how the state is reading it — as the crow flies — is just outrageous,” Kline said.

Make medical pot illegal because kids get it from patients????

The organization that funded Arizona's 2010 medical marijuana initiative says lawmakers who now want voters to scrap the program are missing the point of a study on teen use.

Morgan Fox, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project, acknowledged Friday that the report by the Criminal Justice Commission shows more than one out of every nine high school students who regularly use the drug said they got it from a legal medical marijuana user.

But Fox pointed out that overall teen marijuana use last year is lower than it was in 2010 when the initiative was approved. All that's changed, he said, is where the students are getting it.

In fact, Fox said, an argument could be made that every teen who gets it from a medical marijuana user -- the report does not say when it was given to them, sold or stolen -- may mean a teen who was not having to buy the drug from a dealer, someone who might be selling more dangerous drugs and is involved with organized crime.

The group is fighting back following publication of the latest ACJC study about teen use of everything from tobacco and alcohol to marijuana, prescription drugs and heroin.

One question specifically added this year, though, was asking teens where they got their marijuana, something not asked before.

The overwhelming majority of high schoolers who admitted to having smoked in the last 30 days said they got the drug from friends. But 11.6 percent said it came from someone who has a state-issued card allowing them to obtain and possess up to 2 1/2 ounces of marijuana every two weeks.

"We definitely don't think that this abuse (of marijuana by teens) is something that should be laughed off or that it's not important,'' Fox said. "But it's certainly not important enough to rise to the level of denying qualified patients their ability to use this medicine.''

And Fox said it's wrong to link legalizing marijuana for medical use with teen abuse.

"Increased available of marijuana to qualified patients is not causing an increase in marijuana use, which is pretty much what everyone is alleging here,'' he said.

The latest ACJC report puts the number of teens using marijuana in the last 30 days at 14.3 percent. That compares with 14.8 percent in 2010, though it is higher than the 12.5 percent from the 2008 report.

But Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, said none of that deters him from pushing his proposal, introduced earlier this week, to ask voters in 2014 to repeal the 2010 initiative.

Kavanagh said he was already questioning the program before the ACJC report, saying that the program is not what was sold to voters. He said only a small minority of the more than 33,000 who hold state-issued medical marijuana cards report suffering from cancer or glaucoma, with most saying they were suffering from "subjective back pain.''

What the report showed -- and added to his desire to repeal the program -- was that some of the marijuana earmarked for patients is being diverted to minors.

"Whether it's responsible for an increase or a decrease (in teen use) is totally irrelevant,'' Kavanagh said.

Fox, however, said that is precisely should be the focus for lawmakers when they consider repealing the medical marijuana initiative -- and, ultimately, voters if the Kavanagh proposal gets that far.

"Teens have always thought that marijuana was a lot easier to get than alcohol,'' he said.

"The fact that this substance is more widely available for qualified patients I'm not sure is really increasing the availability,'' Fox continued. "Teenagers are going to find marijuana, one way or the other.''

It was Fox's organization that put up close to $469,000 of the nearly $800,000 spent in 2010 to promote Proposition 203. Fox said, though, that no decision has been made whether the Marijuana Policy Project will get involved with any campaign to defeat a repeal measure if that gets on the 2014 ballot.

Rep. John Kavanagh wants to ban medical marijuana

PHOENIX -- Saying voters have seen enough, a veteran lawmaker wants to give them a chance to repeal the state's 2-year-old medical marijuana program.

The proposal by Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, would repeal the entirety of Proposition 203 approved in 2010. Kavanagh said the measure, which passed by just 4,340 votes out of nearly 1.7 million ballots statewide, has proven to be a failure.

Kavanagh likely could get the 16 votes in the Senate and 31 in the House he needs to put the issue back before voters. But he still could have an uphill fight at the ballot box despite the narrow margin of support in 2010.

The trend nationwide at the ballot box has been in the other direction. And voters in two states -- Colorado and Washington -- actually agreed last year to make possession of small amounts of the drug legal, even without a medical reason.

Kavanagh said he never was a fan of Proposition 203 which allows those with a doctor's recommendation to get a card from the state allowing them to obtain up to 2 1/2 ounces of marijuana every two weeks. But it was a recent story, first reported last week by Capitol Media Services, that got his attention.

"The revelation ... that one out of nine school children who smoke marijuana illegally acquire it from cardholders to me was the last straw,'' he said.

Kavanagh acknowledged that the report, prepared by the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, was not confined to what percentage of high schoolers got their marijuana from cardholders.

It also revealed that about one in six said they got their alcohol from a parent or guardian, with about an equal number saying they got it from another family member. And close to 30 percent who used prescription drugs to get high -- and not for medical reasons -- said they obtained them from the home medicine cabinet.

But Kavanagh said those facts do not mean the state should not do what it can to shut off the supply of marijuana where it can.

"Let's crack down on parents and people who provide the other substances to kids,'' he said. "Let's not simply add a third item and make it even more available to children.''

Kavanagh said the fact that cardholders are selling or giving away some of their marijuana should not be a surprise. He pointed out that the amount of the drug people can obtain legally adds up to close to four pounds a year.

During the 2010 election, Andrew Myers, campaign manager for the medical who managed the medical marijuana initiative, acknowledged that the amount might seem excessive at first glance. But he said that is based on the idea that everyone with a prescription will smoke it.

He said ingesting marijuana is "the easiest route'' for many people, including including the vulnerable and frail, to get its effects. Myers said that, quite simply, it takes more marijuana being eaten or put into tea to get the same effect as lighting it up.

Misuse by cardholders aside, Kavanagh said the experience with the law, which first took effect in 2011, shows it has not lived up to its promotion.

"The voters were sold a bill of misinformation,'' Kavanagh said. "They were led to believe that the users would be sympathetic cancer victims on chemotherapy and glaucoma sufferers when, in reality, they're only a small part of the users.''

Data from the state Department of Health Services, which administers the program, show that nearly three-fourths of the more than 33,000 cardholders are male, with nearly half of them younger than 40. And close to 90 percent of patients approved for use of the drug are complaining of chronic pain; the closest second is nausea at 7.5 percent.

While backers of the medical marijuana initiative needed to gather about 150,000 valid signatures to put the issue on the 2010 ballot, Kavanagh's proposal has a much smaller hurdle: He needs the backing of just 31 representatives and 16 senators to put the question of repeal back before voters in 2014; it does not even require the signature of Gov. Jan Brewer.

Kavanagh conceded that there was no well-funded campaign against Proposition 203 in 2010. Proponents spent close to $795,000; the foes had less than $25,000.

But Kavanagh said he is hoping those against the proposal come forward this time -- assuming his measure is approved by the Legislature -- to provide the financing for a campaign.

Proposition 203 actually was defeated in 12 of the state's 15 counties. But that was more than countered by very strong support in Pima and Coconino counties; it also was approved in Santa Cruz County.

Mexico considers marijuana legalization after ballot wins in U.S.

So now the United States, which has spent decades battling Mexican marijuana, is on a legalization bender?

The same United States that long viewed cannabis as a menace, funding crop-poisoning programs, tearing up auto bodies at the border, and deploying sniffer dogs, fiber-optic scopes and backscatter X-ray machines to detect the lowly weed?

The success of legalization initiatives in Colorado and Washington in November has sparked a new conversation in a nation that is one of the world's top marijuana growers: Should Mexico, which has suffered mightily in its war against the deadly drug cartels, follow the Western states' lead?

Mexico's new president, Enrique Peña Nieto, opposes legalization, but he also told CNN recently that the news from Washington and Colorado "could bring us to rethinking the strategy."

Such rethinking has already begun. Shortly after the approval of the U.S. ballot measures, the governor of Colima state, Mario Anguiano, floated the idea of a legalization referendum for his small coastal state. In the Mexican Congress, Fernando Belaunzaran, a lawmaker with the left-wing Democratic Revolution Party, has introduced a national legalization bill. The cartels probably derive 20% to 25% of their drug export revenue from marijuana, and Belaunzaran contends that legalization will eat into profit that allows the cartels to buy the advanced weapons that are the cause of much bloodshed.

"It's a matter of life or death," Belaunzaran said in a recent news conference. "And after 60,000 deceased" — an estimate of the death toll in the six-year war against the cartels — "no one can say that it isn't essential to Mexicans' lives."

Mexico City Mayor Miguel Angel Mancera called for a national legalization forum a month before the Colorado and Washington votes. Since then, a number of prominent Mexican voices have questioned the wisdom of following the strict prohibitionist policies still favored by the U.S. government when many Americans at the state and local levels have rejected those policies at the ballot box.

In Mexico City's centrist Reforma newspaper, columnist Sergio Aguayo called the broadening legalization movement in the United States a "slap in the face" to former Mexican President Felipe Calderon, who had vigorously pursued the cartels for the bulk of a term that ended Dec. 1.

Although the fight did little to stop the flow of drugs, Aguayo said, Calderon declined to substantively challenge the zero-tolerance line coming from Washington, D.C.

"He had an ethical responsibility to lead the search for alternatives," Aguayo wrote. "He did not do that, despite the evidence that was accumulating that history was passing him by."

Columnist Claudio Lomnitz struck a giddier tone in the liberal paper La Jornada, imagining a future in which Mexican artisanal pot is marketed much like fine tequila. He even suggested future brand names for Mexican cannabis strains, based on the Cold War-era gringo counterculture the stuff helped fuel: On the Road, perhaps, or Howl.

At this point, there is limited public support for legalization here. A poll released in November showed that 79% of Mexicans remained opposed to the idea. By comparison, a Gallup poll released last month showed 50% of U.S. residents against legalization and 48% in favor.

The fact that the Mexican public is generally less buzzed about legalization comes as no surprise to Isaac Campos, a historian at the University of Cincinnati, who said conservative attitudes on drug use have deep roots in Mexico.

Mexico, he says in a book published in April, outlawed marijuana in 1920, 17 years before the U.S. did, and Mexican newspapers of the era pushed the idea that marijuana smokers were mentally unstable and prone to violence.

In recent years, however, the idea of legalization has been moving closer to the mainstream, said Jorge Hernandez, president of Mexico's Collective for a Comprehensive Drug Policy, which supports the loosening of marijuana laws.

In 2009, the Mexican legislature decriminalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana and hard drugs. But Hernandez said the conversation remains "immature" in Mexico, "in the sense that the people use emotions and moral questions to debate it, and haven't had a real technical-regulatory debate."

The national legalization bill will probably face stiff opposition in Congress. Hernandez has his own issues with the bill, but said that even if it fails, it may end up "opening a space" for further discussion.

Peña Nieto has used similar language, although what the new president means by a "space for rethinking" drug war policy, while opposing legalization, is anyone's guess. He might be waiting to see whether polls in Mexico move in a Colorado-like direction.

But even then, endorsing legalization could risk damaging Mexico's relationship with the U.S., and jeopardize the millions of drug war dollars Washington pours into the country.

Although President Obama recently said he would not make it a priority to go after recreational pot smokers in Colorado and Washington state, he reiterated that he does not support legalization, and the sale, possession and cultivation of the plant remain illegal under federal law.

In recent months, Latin American leaders have grown bolder in challenging the U.S. position. Uruguay's parliament was poised to pass a sweeping pot legalization measure, but President Jose Mujica recently asked lawmakers to wait because polls there also show that the public is reluctant to legalize.

Mexico's Calderon said in September somewhat cryptically that "market alternatives" might be one solution to the hemispheric drug problem. A number of other current and former heads of state have been more direct in their support for legalization, or at least a serious debate on the topic.

A study released by the Mexican Competitiveness Institute in October estimated that legalization measures in Colorado, Washington and Oregon (where legalization failed) would mean that American consumers would enjoy less expensive and higher-quality U.S. weed, eating into Mexican drug cartel profit, creating "the most important structural shock that narco-trafficking has experienced in a generation."

But what if Mexico were to legalize weed? Reforma columnist Ximena Peredo contends that it would "open the doors to enormous possibilities for growth" in Mexico, though Alejandro Hope, coauthor of the Competitiveness Institute's report, is not so sure. The risks involved in getting marijuana to market are what makes it so expensive, he said, and legalization could cause prices to plummet.

Moreover, the drug cartels, facing increased heat in the drug market, have already branched out to kidnapping, extortion and human trafficking. Would shutting down their pot operations just push the cartels into even more acts of violent crime?

Marijuana is "part of our patrimony," said Adrian Vaquier, a 37-year-old cellphone service salesman who was walking outside Hernandez's Mexico City drug legalization office. It was smoked by Pancho Villa's peasant soldiers in the Mexican Revolution and mentioned prominently in the famous corrido "La Cucaracha," he said.

At the same time, he said, the current strategy isn't working while making the cartel leaders rich: "Just like Al Capone."

Court rejects SF plan on chronic drinkers

San Francisco's four-month effort to get chronic drinkers into treatment by threatening them with jail for contempt when they repeatedly fail to appear in court has been brought to an abrupt end by a state appeals court.

A day after Thursday's ruling by the First District Court of Appeal, a Superior Court judge withdrew other pending contempt cases and District Attorney George Gascón said he would probably start using criminal charges to pressure chronic inebriates to get off the streets and into treatment.

Mayor Ed Lee was more noncommittal. Spokeswoman Christine Falvey said resorting to criminal prosecutions would lead to "costly trials and clogging up the courts," but city officials will consider all options.

Since September, Lee, Gascón and police have tried a new approach against offenders, many of them homeless, who fail to show up in court after being cited numerous times for public drunkenness and similar low-level offenses.

Those with more than 20 such charges were arrested, jailed for several days, then told by a judge that they would be held in contempt for breaking a promise to appear in court, which they had signed on the back of each citation. Threatened with five days in jail for each violation, most of them entered treatment, Falvey said.

But in Thursday's ruling, the court said civil contempt - which, unlike a criminal charge, does not entitle a defendant to a trial - can be imposed only on someone who disobeys a "lawful judgment, order or process of the court."

That doesn't cover a defendant who merely violates his own promise to appear, even if it's recorded on a citation approved by the court, the three-judge panel said. The court noted that failure to appear is also a crime punishable by up to six months in jail, but Gascón's office hasn't filed criminal charges in those cases. Public defender's challenge

Public Defender Jeff Adachi's office had brought the challenge on behalf of Warren Morris, 53, who had been cited 22 times for various minor offenses, some involving alcohol, between June 2010 and June 2012 and had never shown up in court.

He was not prosecuted in any of those 22 cases but was cited for contempt, threatened with 110 days in jail and held in custody for about a week, Adachi said. He said Morris appeared in court Friday and heard his contempt case dismissed.

"We must provide effective substance-abuse treatment that does not come at the expense of constitutional rights of citizens," including the right to a trial, Adachi said in response to the ruling. He said the Chronic Inebriate Court, as the city's program was called, "attempted to do an end-run around this right."

Of the first nine defendants threatened with contempt, Adachi said, at least three were sober and were already undergoing treatment on their own. He said San Francisco should follow the example of San Diego, which gives such defendants the choice of criminal prosecution or treatment.

Gascón said he's prepared to try that approach, "recognizing that in some cases we probably will have to go to trial. It seems to be the only tool that we have available." Court's proposal

The Superior Court's presiding judge, Cynthia Ming-mei Lee, said the court last fall proposed prosecutions for defendants who failed to appear on alcohol-related charges, but Gascón turned the suggestion down.

Falvey, the mayor's spokeswoman, said city officials "have never looked at this as stepping over anybody's rights."

"The mayor is disappointed in the ruling," she said. "It's not going to stop us from identifying other steps to make sure that people who are living in crisis on our streets get immediate services."

Bob Egelko is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: begelko@sfchronicle.com

Doctor wants to do research on marijuana at University of Arizona

A University of Arizona physician has taken the first political steps in her bid to do medical marijuana research at state-run schools.

Sue Sisley, a specialist in internal medicine and psychiatry, has formed Americans for Scientific Freedom, which she will chair. The filing with the Secretary of State's Office will allow her to collect donations for political purposes.

But Sisley told Capitol Media Services the committee is not designed to elect legislators who support research or defeat those who oppose it. Instead, she wants to lobby lawmakers to change the law to let her do her work at the UA.

Potentially more significant, she also is looking at changes to the law to let the state health department fund medical marijuana research.

Legislation approved last year was designed to close what some lawmakers saw as a loophole in the state's 2010 medical marijuana law. That initiative allows those with a doctor's recommendation to possess and use up to 2 1/2 ounces of marijuana every two weeks.

While the measure banned the drug on public school campuses, it was silent on the question of state-run universities and community colleges.

Rep. Amanda Reeve, R-Phoenix, said university officials told her they thought that loophole would run afoul of federal regulations governing universities which require they forbid students from having illegal controlled substances. Reeve said schools that fail to comply faced loss of federal funding and financial assistance for students.

The problem, said Sisley, is the UA is now interpreting that law to ban her on-campus research.

Sisley said she gained approval nearly two years ago from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to conduct a study to determine whether marijuana, in various dosages and methods of administration, can help combat veterans with post traumatic stress syndrome.

"It's the first randomized control (study) that would be done in Arizona,'' she said.

Sisley said her proposal already had been approved by the UA's Institutional Review Board which must give the go-ahead for research on live subjects. What's next, she said, is getting approval from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration to sell her the drugs for study.

"Before the governor signed that ban about marijuana on campus, we were assuming that our study was going to be conducted on the university campus, which is the only real safe and appropriate forum for that,'' Sisley said. "I need to be in a place where my patients and my staff can feel safe.''

"Our policy is to comply with state law, which would prohibit conducting research using medical marijuana on institutional property,'' said UA spokesman Johnny Cruz.

Reeve called that position is a surprise, saying she talked with university officials while her measure was being considered last session.

"They said this doesn't impact medical research or studies being done,'' she told Capitol Media Services. "It only impacts the use of it.''

Katie Paquet, spokeswoman for the state Board of Regents, which lobbied for the measure, said she could not comment on what was or was not told to Reeve. But Paquet echoed Cruz' position that the law, unless changed, makes on-campus research unacceptable.

Gubernatorial press aide Matthew Benson said his boss is willing to take another look at the issue. "If there is legitimate, federally approved research that would be hampered by this law, the governor is willing to consider changes to the statute this session,'' he said.

Clearing up the question of where Sisley can do the research is only part of the problem. She still is looking for the approximately $250,000 she needs, most to pay what the DEA charges researchers for marijuana.

The Department of Health Services is required every year to consider petitions to expand the list of medical conditions for which marijuana can legally be recommended. Health Director Will Humble weighed a half-dozen of them last year -- including one supported by Sisley for adding PTSD -- but rejected all of them after concluding there is insufficient professional research on whether marijuana is an effective treatment. [Will Humble says no new uses of medical marijuana will be allowed unless medical research proves marijuana is works for the new illnesses. Of course Will Humble has created a Catch 22 here, because for all practical purposes the DEA has made medical research on marijuana illegal, which means drug war tyrannt Will Humble will NEVER approve any new uses of medical marijuana]

Humble said he would like to have good research. [That sounds like a bold faced lie. Will Humble and his boss Arizona Governor Jan Brewer are both marijuana haters and will do anything to continue the insane and unconstitutional war on drugs] And he said his agency has about $5 million in the medical marijuana fund, money left over after processing all the applications for dispensaries and user cards.

But the health director questioned whether the 2010 law lets him to use any of that to fund the research he needs to review the petitions.

Humble said the best bet would be for Sisley and others to get lawmakers to allow him to give up to $1 million a year to the Arizona Biomedical Research Commission which already provides medical research grants. Humble said the law could be altered to permit research into whether there are legitimate medical uses for marijuana.

The Arizona Constitution prohibits lawmakers from repealing or making major changes in any voter-approved law. That is why Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, is proposing to put the Medical Marijuana Act back on the 2014 ballot to see if voters are willing to repeal it.

But the Constitution does permit lawmakers to make changes that "further the purpose'' of the underlying measure. And a case could be made that doing research into what medical conditions can be helped by marijuana fits that requirement.

He noted that every time someone buys a controlled substance like an opiate from a drug store, there's a record made. There also are similar records for medical marijuana sales from dispensaries.

Humble said he wants to see if people who complain of chronic pain who now can buy marijuana reduce the amount of opiates they buy. He said that should provide some evidence of whether marijuana, generally considered less dangerous, may be a better alternative.

But Humble said current law prohibits anything in those purchase records from being disclosed, even to his own researchers. He said the statute should be amended to permit such work.

Similarly, Humble wants access to the centralized trauma registry to determine if those who use medical marijuana are more or less likely to get into car accidents.

Arizona Criminal Justice Commission study is just a shame

Lately I have been noticing a lot of news items concerning our state's medical-marijuana law -- repeal efforts by legislators, court challenges, editorial comments by our media sources.

Now, I see a study by the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, which cites surveys showing that 11.6 percent of eighth- to 12th-grade students illegally receiving drugs from medically approved users. What I'm not seeing in the media, (maybe I'm not turning to the right page, or the right channel at the right time) are stories of arrests concerning these obvious lawbreakers.

Could we have descended into "Reefer Madness" hysteria already? You remember all the unsubstantiated stories of madness and sociopathic behavior foisted by government officials in an attempt to sway public opinion and dissuade marijuana use.

It seems to me that if there were solid evidence of this blatant abuse, arrests would have been made in very public ways to impress upon the public that this is indeed happening.

Court weighs warrantless blood tests in DUI cases

Sadly Emperor Obama supports the police taking these blood tests. That's the same Emperor Obama that claims he supports the people and the Bill of Rights.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is considering whether police must get a warrant before ordering a blood test on an unwilling drunken-driving suspect.

The justices heard arguments Wednesday in a case involving a disputed blood test from Missouri. Police stopped a speeding, swerving car and the driver, who had two previous drunken-driving convictions, refused to submit to a breath test to measure the alcohol level in his body.

The justices appeared to struggle with whether the dissipation of alcohol in the blood over time is reason enough for police to call for a blood test without first getting a warrant.

In siding with defendant Tyler McNeely, the Missouri Supreme Court said police need a warrant to take a suspect’s blood except when a delay could threaten a life or destroy potential evidence.

The state court upheld an order throwing out the results of the blood test, which showed that McNeely’s blood-alcohol content was .154 percent, well above the .08 percent legal limit.

Lawyers for Missouri and the Obama administration urged the justices to reject the state court decision and allow police to forgo a time-consuming process. In 2010, the administration said, more than 10,000 people died in crashes involving alcohol-impaired drivers, an average of one death every 51 minutes.

“Here, police are facing the certain destruction of blood-alcohol evidence,” Justice Department lawyer Nicole Saharsky said.

But several justices suggested that law enforcement officers should at least usually try to obtain a warrant. “Why shouldn’t the determination be made case to case?” Justice Antonin Scalia asked.

All 50 states have laws requiring drivers who are arrested on suspicion of driving while drunk to consent to a blood alcohol test, and refusal to submit to the test generally leads to suspension of a driver license. In addition, prosecutors can use the refusal against a defendant at trial. [So I guess that means the 4th and 5th Amendments are null and void]

In Missouri, a driver who won’t agree to either a breath or blood test can have his license suspended for a year. The American Civil Liberties Union, representing McNeely, said that the suspension is only 30 days for drivers with no previous convictions who take the test and are found to be impaired.

But McNeely may have had more reason than most to object to taking the test. Missouri said McNeely faced a felony charge with a maximum prison term of four years because of his two prior convictions.

He failed several field sobriety tests and the arresting officer, Cpl. Mark Winder of the Missouri State Highway Patrol, said McNeely’s speech was slurred and he was unsteady on his feet. [Failing a field sobriety test doesn't mean anything. Any defense attorney will tell you the tests are subjective and meaningless. In fact one public defender told us she asked the police who made DUI arrests to take the test in the courtroom and that despite being stone cold sober the cops routinely had difficulties passing their field sobriety tests]

There seemed little dispute that Winder had enough evidence to get a warrant for a blood test, but chose not to. Instead, he drove McNeely to a hospital. A technician drew blood from McNeely, who was handcuffed throughout the process. Winder’s decision set in motion the Supreme Court case.

AZ Republic wants to expand the insane "War on Drugs"

In Yavapai County, smart law enforcement won a significant victory against an insidious foe, but the Legislature needs to give communities across the state better tools to combat synthetic psychoactive drugs.

Sold openly as “spice” or “bath salts,” these substances are designed to mimic marijuana or methamphetamine highs. Users, who may be reassured by the fact the poisons are sold legally, have suffered serious mental and physical harm, including death.

State law bans the sale of specific formulas of these poisons, but the chemists who design them need only make a few tweaks to get around that. Lawmakers resisted a more comprehensive ban that would have allowed law enforcement to act quickly against new formulations. The stuff remains widely available in stores and on the Internet.

Enter Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk. She made the case in court that these poisons are a public nuisance.

After issuing a preliminary injunction in September, Yavapai Superior Court issued a permanent injunction in late December to ban all known retailers in Yavapai County from selling synthetic psychoactive drugs.

Yavapai County Superior Court Judge Michael Bluff’s order gave a hair-curling description of the proven dangers of these designer drugs, which cause even more intense and unpredictable reactions than the illegal substances they mimic.

Users can suffer “increased heart rate, possible stroke and cardiovascular collapse, seizures, and in some cases death,” the judge wrote.

“Users often suffer from delusions and hallucinations, exhibiting signs of severe psychosis, paranoia and anxiety. Users ... will often engage in aggressive acts of violence against medical and law enforcement personnel trying to assist them, and innocent bystanders. Users will often suffer long-term effects from the drugs such as psychosis, insomnia and self-mutilation,” Bluff wrote.

Polk credits her deputy prosecutor, Scott Blake, for coming up with the unique approach of tagging these poisons as a public nuisance. Polk gets credit for using her office wisely to pursue a good idea to great effect.

“While this solution is working thus far for Yavapai County,” Polk said in an e-mail, “the Legislature needs to act this session to protect other communities across the state.”

Polk’s injunction applies to known retailers in Yavapai County. Identifying and monitoring such shops is easier in a rural county than it would be in more urban settings. What’s more, Polk is attempting to stop Internet vendors from sending synthetic psychoactive drugs to her county. The ease of buying these drugs online — and the profitability of selling them — makes this a challenge across the state.

In 2010 and 2011, the Legislature banned the original two designer drugs by formula. But the chemists merely altered the formula and put the poisons back on the market. This time, lawmakers need to pass a bill that can “keep up with the ever-changing formulas in the world of synthetic drugs,” Polk said.

Polk offered a model for going after these substances. It is smart and creative.

The Legislature needs to make the push against these insidious drugs even more comprehensive.

Boneheads at FDA require lower dosages for sleeping pills???

The Food and Drug Administration said Thursday it will require manufacturers of popular sleep drugs such as Ambien and Zolpimist to scale back their recommended dosages — particularly for women — in light of data showing that some people remain dangerously impaired into the morning hours, even as they climb behind the wheel of a car.

The new edict applies to drugs that contain zolpidem, a widely-used ingredient in sleep aids. It will force drug makers to slash the recommended doses by half for women, in hopes that if patients have less of the drug in their systems in the morning, it will reduce the risk of impaired driving.

Because women’s bodies eliminate zolpidem more slowly than men, the FDA told manufacturers to lower recommended doses for women to 5 milligrams from 10 milligrams for immediate-release products such as Edluar, Zolpimist and Ambien. Dosages for extended-release products would drop from 12.5 milligrams to 6.25 milligrams, officials said. The agency also said drug makers should consider lowering recommended dose for men.

“To decrease the potential risk of impairment with all insomnia drugs, health care professionals should prescribe, and patients should take, the lowest dose capable of treating the patient’s insomnia,” Ellis Unger, director of the FDA’s Office of Drug Evaluation, said in a statement. “Patients who must drive in the morning or perform some other activity requiring full alertness should talk to their health care professional about whether their sleep medicine is appropriate.”

The agency said the new requirements came after driving simulation and laboratory studies submitted to the FDA showed that 8 hours after taking zolpidem, as many as 15 percent of women and 3 percent of men still had enough of the drug in their blood to impair their driving “to a degree that increases the risk of a motor vehicle accident.” Even higher-percentages of patients experienced potential impairment the morning after using extended-release zolpidem products.

Officials cautioned that even people with high levels of zolpidem in their blood could remain impaired even if they feel wide awake.

“All insomnia drugs are potent medications, and they must be used carefully,” Russell Katz, M.D., director of FDA’s Division of Neurology Products, said in a statement.

According to the agency, doctors dispensed about 39 million prescriptions for zolpidem products in 2011, and about 9 million patients received zolpidem products from U.S. outpatient retail pharmacies. Sixty-three percent of those were female.

FDA said it will continue to evaluate the risk of next-morning impairment with other insomnia drugs.

Yuma Police ordered to return marijuana they stole from California woman

The Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled the Yuma County Sheriff’s Office must give back marijuana that was seized from a California woman who had permission to use the drug for medical purposes.

Valerie Okun was stopped in 2011 at a Border Patrol checkpoint near Yuma. Authorities seized marijuana and other contraband from her car. She was cited for violating Arizona drug laws and the case was turned over to Yuma County officials. The charges were dismissed after she showed she was authorized to possess marijuana under California law.

The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act honors other states’ medical marijuana cards and allows them to possess up to 2 1/2 ounces of the drug.

After the charges were dropped, Okun asked sheriff’s officials to return her marijuana, and the Superior Court granted her request. But the Yuma County sheriff argued he could not return the pot because doing so may violate the federal Controlled Substances Act, which makes possession, sale or use of marijuana a crime.

The appellate court affirmed Thursday the Superior Court’s ruling and required the sheriff to return the marijuana to Okun, saying it was not subject to forfeiture under state law.

“Moreover, the Sheriff is immune from prosecution under the federal law for acts taken in compliance with a court order,” the three-judge panel wrote.

The appellate court would not consider the state’s argument that the state’s medical marijuana law is pre-empted by federal law, “We do not question the general proposition that when federal law actually conflicts with state law, federal law controls,” the opinion said.

A spokesman for the Yuma County Sheriff's Office said officials are reviewing the opinion.

Voters in 2010 passed the medical-marijuana measure to allow people with certain debilitating medical conditions — including chronic pain, cancer and muscle spasms — to use marijuana. They must obtain a recommendation from a physician and register with the state Department of Health Services, which oversees the program and issues identification cards to qualified patients and caregivers.

Patients are limited to purchasing 2 1/2 ounces every two weeks. More than 33,000 people have permission to use medical marijuana in Arizona.