Indiana lawmaker to introduce marijuana decriminalization bill

Sep 22, 2012
Indiana Sen. Brent Steele said pot decriminalized in other states didn’t cause problems.
Written by
Associated Press

Indiana Sen. Brent Steele said pot decriminali-zation in other states didn't cause problems.INDIANAPOLIS — An influential Indiana lawmaker intends to sponsor a bill in the next session that would reduce penalties for people found in possession of small amounts of marijuana.

State Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford, said his legislation would make possession of 10 grams or less of marijuana an infraction rather than a criminal misdemeanor. Ten grams is about one-third of an ounce, roughly enough to make 20 to 30 marijuana cigarettes.

Steele, chairman of the Senate committee on Corrections, Criminal and Civil Matters, noted that many other states and college campuses already ticket offenders for possessing small amounts of pot instead of arresting them.

“Society didn’t melt down, and we didn’t turn into a drug-crazed culture as a result of it,” he told the Indianapolis Business Journal.

His support for decriminalization could be a turning point for Indiana, which only began considering the issue in 2011. Sen. Karen Tallian, D-Portage, pushed for a summer study group in 2011 and this year introduced a bill that would have decriminalized possession of a larger amount, 3 ounces. Tallian’s bill received a hearing in the Senate but was not brought to a vote.

Currently, possessing 30 grams or less of marijuana is a Class A misdemeanor on the first offense. Possession of more than 30 grams is a Class D felony, which is the lowest level of felony.

Steele said he’ll include the marijuana provision in a bill that revises the Indiana criminal code. The Criminal Code Evaluation Commission, which is in its fourth summer of work, is looking to align charges and sentencing in proportion to the offenses.

In addition to driving up costs in the judicial system, Steele said, a lack of “proportionality” in the criminal code is unfair to young offenders.

He said he knows a man who stole gas out of a farmer’s tank when he was 19 and ended up with a felony on his record.

“His family had a lesser standard of living for years as a result of the stupid decision he made when he was 19,” Steele said.

The long-term consequences of harsh sentencing laws are starting to gain attention in the business community, especially as cities like Indianapolis deal with the employment challenges of ex-offenders.

Indianapolis Democratic City-County Councilor Vop Osili is trying to establish a bipartisan study commission on ex-offender re-entry, and the Greater Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce is surveying its members on how they treat criminal records in the hiring process.

CONTINUE…

Advertisements

A convicted drug trafficker will get a new trial after a state appeals court overturned his conviction

 

Man Central To Supreme Court Case Wins Trial

Posted: Sep 30, 2012 4:29 PM

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) – A convicted drug trafficker from Honduras who won a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling will get a new trial after a state appeals court overturned his conviction because his attorney gave bad advice about deportation.
The Kentucky Court of Appeals on Friday ordered a new trial for Jose Padilla, a native of Honduras and permanent legal resident of the United States. Judge Kelly Thompson wrote for a three-judge panel that Padilla’s attorney improperly told him that deportation wouldn’t be a concern when he pleaded guilty to transporting 1,000 pounds of marijuana.
Thompson concluded that because Padilla wasn’t properly informed about possible deportation, his decision to accept a guilty plea and five-year prison sentence wasn’t rational.
“There was substantial evidence that had Padilla been properly informed that if he pleaded guilty he faced mandatory deportation, he would have insisted on going to trial,” Thompson wrote. “Under the circumstances, his decision would have been rational.”
The attorney’s advice became central to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in 2010, in which it concluded that the attorney’s advice was unconstitutionally bad. The case has made an impact on plea agreements and immigration cases around the country.
The high court at the time did not decide whether the ruling would apply retroactively, sending the case back to Kentucky for a determination about whether Padilla would be allowed to benefit from the case.
Padilla, a U.S. military veteran who received an honorable discharge after serving in Vietnam, was driving 32,000 pounds of cargo from California to Illinois. For unexplained reasons, he passed through Kentucky and was stopped in Hardin County, near Elizabethtown. A police search of his truck turned up 23 boxes of marijuana stacked near the rear of his load.
After being told that deportation wasn’t an issue, Padilla agreed to the guilty plea. Only later, after being paroled from state prison, did Padilla learn he was going to be returned to Honduras.
Hardin Circuit Judge Kelly Easton ruled that Padilla made a reasonable decision to take a plea, despite the errant advice from his attorney. Padilla appealed, hoping to withdraw the guilty plea and work out a deal that wouldn’t result in deportation.
Thompson found that Padilla had several valid defenses he could have used with proper attorney advice. Thompson ruled that Padilla could still be convicted and deported to Honduras, which would take him away permanently from family living in California.
“However, for Padilla, exile is a far worst prospect than the maximum ten year sentence,” Thompson wrote.
______
Follow Associated Press reporter Brett Barrouquere on Twitter: http://twitter.com/BBarrouquereAP

CONTINUE READING…

Justice Department uses prosecutorial discretion to seek decades in prison for legal Michigan cultivators

 

By ASA, Fri, September 28, 2012

Justice Department uses prosecutorial discretion to seek decades in prison for legal Michigan cultivators

 

article image

 

Detroit, MI — Five medical marijuana patients and caregivers will be sentenced in federal court next week, highlighting the human cost of the federal government’s intolerance for state medical marijuana laws.
Two medical marijuana caregivers from Monroe County who were convicted earlier this year in federal court will be sentenced at 3pm Monday, October 1st before U.S. District Court Judge David M. Lawson (231 W. Lafayette Blvd, Detroit). Gerald Lee Duval Jr., 52, and his son, Jeremy Duval, 30, were raided by Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents in 2011 and charged with felony cultivation, maintaining a place to cultivate marijuana, and conspiracy to distribute. In April, the Duvals were convicted at trial, the expected result of federal laws that prohibit any medical defense or reference to state law in front of juries.
“The Duvals’ case is another tragedy from President Obama’s war on medical marijuana,” said Steph Sherer, Executive Director of Americans for Safe Access (ASA), the country’s leading medical marijuana advocacy group. “This type of enforcement is completely discretionary, unnecessary and far from the public health approach that medical marijuana patients deserve.” The Duvals face decades in prison despite no evidence of state law violations.
Days later, three more medical marijuana patients and caregivers will be sentenced in federal court in Michigan. Around the same time federal agents were raiding the Duvals, officers with the Central Michigan Enforcement Team (CMET) and the Mecosta County Sheriff’s Department raided the Austin Township home and other property of John Marcinkewciz, 42, and Shelley Waldron, 42. Marcinkewciz, Waldron and Jaycob Montague, 26, were originally charged under state law with cultivation and conspiracy to cultivate, but prosecutors soon turned their cases over to the federal Justice Department, where the three had no chance of defending themselves against federal law. Marcinkewciz, Waldron and Montague all subsequently took plea bargains in May.
Waldron and Montague are scheduled to be sentenced at 8:45am on October 4th before Judge Robert Bell in U.S. District Court at 110 Michigan Street NW, Grand Rapids. Marcinkewciz is scheduled to be sentenced at 8:45am on October 5th before the same judge. In spite of the plea bargains, the three medical marijuana providers still face decades in prison.
“The federal raids and prosecutions in Michigan are unfortunately only an example of the broader aggressive campaign by the Obama Administration to undermine state medical marijuana laws,” continued Sherer. As with the Duval raid, DEA agents commonly burst onto the scene wearing full body armor and wielding machine guns in a clear attempt to intimidate. Despite claims by the president that he was “not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws,” Obama’s Justice Department has conducted more than 200 SWAT-style raids and indicted well over 70 medical marijuana patients and providers since he took office.
A federal lawsuit to force the DEA to reclassify marijuana for medical use will be heard by the D.C. Circuit on October 16th. The case Americans for Safe Access v. DEA is bringing the science of medical marijuana into federal court for the first time in nearly 20 years. If marijuana were reclassified, the five people being sentenced in Michigan would be entitled to a medical defense, a right they are now denied.

 

CONTINUE READING…

OIG releases an audit of DEA adoptive seizure process and equitable sharing requests. On September 27, 2012, in Drug War, federal, states, by Scott Alexander Meiner

 

image

 

The Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) released an audit of Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) adoptive seizure process and equitable sharing requests. A couple of quick notes:

1.) Of instances involving federal adoption of assets seized, 65% of reported samples [41 of the 63 examined samples] required DEA headquarter approval to adopt the seizure because the instance lacked all of the following criteria:

  1. the seizure was based on a federal or state judicial seizure warrant;
  2. an arrest was made for a felony violation of the Controlled Substances Act or an equivalent state felony charge that would be a felony if pursued under federal law; and/or
  3. drugs or other contraband associated with a federal felony drug offense were also confiscated at the time of seizure.

2.) The OIG report notes “for the period of October 1, 2000, through September 30, 2011, the DEA and other federal agencies processed over 150,644 seized assets valued at about $9.2 billion of which $5.5 billion (60 percent) originated from seizures processed by the DEA and $3.7 billion (40 percent) originated from seizures processed by other federal agencies.” [Another $522 million in DEA seizured assets was noted but omitted from analysis for a lack of equitable sharing requests.]

3.) The OIG report features a disturbing trend line and reproduces a misguided–but revealing–definition of forfeiture:

The DOJ Criminal Division defines forfeiture as “the taking of property derived from a crime, involved in a crime, or that which makes a crime easier to commit or harder to detect without compensating the owner.”

THIS LINK TO PDF PUBLICATION

THIS LINK TO WEBSITE

Five Stages of Impunity for Torture

By: Kevin Gosztola Saturday September 22, 2012

 

One hallmark of the administration of President Barack Obama has been the commitment of the administration to move forward and not look back—to, as a Democratic Party operative only concerned with election results might say, not re-litigate the eight years of the administration of George W. Bush. This means no accountability for those responsible for committing torture. It means no justice for torture victims.

Professor Alfred W. McCoy, author of Torture and Impunity: The U.S. Doctrine of Coercive Interrogation, was on “Democracy Now!” on Friday to talk about his book. Host Amy Goodman played a clip of President Obama in his first prime-time press conference giving a slick, calculated but somewhat banal comment on whether the administration would have a truth and reconciliation commission examine the past years of the Bush administration.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: My administration is going to operate in a way that leaves no doubt that we do not torture, that we abide by the Geneva Conventions, and that we observe our traditions of rule of law and due process as we are vigorously going after terrorists that can do us harm. And I don’t think those are contradictory. I think they are potentially complementary. My view is also that nobody is above the law, and if there are clear instances of wrongdoing, that people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen, but that, generally speaking, I’m more interested in looking forward than I am in looking backwards.

McCoy reacted to this clip saying what Obama said was an example of “the third stage of impunity.” He then went through the stages of impunity, a “universal process” that he argues “happens in countries emerging from authoritarianism that have had problems with torture.”

Step one, McCoy stated:

…is blame the bad apples. Donald Rumsfeld did that right after the Abu Ghraib scandal was exposed in 2004.

Step two is saying that it was necessary for our national security—unfortunate, perhaps, but necessary to keep us all safe. That was done very articulately by former Vice President Cheney at the time, and he continues to make that argument. He claims that these “enhanced techniques,” as he calls them, i.e. CIA torture, saved thousands, sometimes tens of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of lives. OK?

The third step is the step we just witnessed in President Obama, saying that, well, whatever might have happened in the past, we need unity as a nation, we need to move forward together into the future. So, the past isn’t germane. We need to put it behind us, not investigate, not prosecute. And that was the position he was taking there.

In the fourth stage, those implicated in acts of torture seek not only exoneration for their crimes but also vindication. For example, former Bush administration officials argued “enhanced interrogation under the Bush administration led the Navy SEALs to Osama bin Laden,” despite there being no evidence for the claim. They created pressure on Attorney General Eric Holder to not investigate torture and drop investigations into torture, which appears to have worked.

“The fifth and final stage,” according to McCoy, is “rewriting the history, rewriting the past, ripping it apart, without respect to the truth of the matter, and reconstructing it in a way that justifies the torture.” Vice President Dick Cheney’s appearances on news television have frequently been utilized for this purpose—to make it seem as if torture was effective in getting suspected terrorists to talk so that plots could be disrupted.

Like the Party slogan in George Orwell’s 1984, “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past,” The Party controls the records, which allows it to control all memories. That allows the Party to control the past.

This is but another vile aspect of President Barack Obama, his administration, the Democratic Party leadership’s fealty to the mantra of moving forward and not looking back now enshrined in the messaging of the Obama 2012 campaign with the simple word, “Forward.” It is but another despicable aspect of members of Congress, especially Democrats, and supporters of Obama and Democrats’ refusal to raise their voice to take issue with the administration’s inaction and active refusal to prosecute individuals for torture.

Without accountability or justice, those who were at the center of acts of torture may work to clear their name, as if they never committed any wrong. They are able to suggest that if what they had done was criminal, they would have been put on trial. They would have been charged with committing a crime, but there are no prosecutions so all the civil liberties and human rights advocates and the antiwar or peace activists may just be part of focus groups, which happen to be deluded.

No justice gives former officials license to argue there was no torture. No convictions gives former officials the conviction and brass to sit before a television camera, write a memoir or pen an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal and assert what they did was for Americans’ protection and it is wrong for them to be scrutinized or questioned.

This does a great disservice to the victims of torture, especially those still indefinitely imprisoned in Guantanamo; but it is the inevitable byproduct of the Obama administration’s complicity in allowing officials responsible for torture to walk free. To the extent that the Obama administration continues to subject prisoners to torture and outsource torture to allies in the “war on terrorism,” it is worse than complicity. It is a coverup—an act to conceal and ensure the national security state can continue to be purveyors of violence and torture against those the US contends it has a right to indefinitely hold in detention without charge or trial, without judicial or due process.

CONTINUE READING AND TO SEE FILM….

CA scientists prove marijuana fights aggressive cancers, human trials soon

Cancer survivor says medical marijuana saved her

A pair of scientists at San Francisco’s California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute are preparing to release research data which proves cannabidiol (CBD) – a marijuana compound – has the ability to “turn off” the activity of a gene which causes cancers to metastasize.

“The preclinical trial data is very strong, and there’s no toxicity. There’s really a lot of research to move ahead with and to get people excited,” said Sean McAllister, who along with scientist Pierre Desprez, has been studying the active molecules in marijuana – called cannabinoids – as potent inhibitors of metastatic disease for the past decade, according to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Marijuana is already proven to alleviate nausea and pain related to cancer therapies, but these recent findings indicate a much more vast use for the natural plant which has been vilified by politicians and U.S. laws for decades.

Marijuana a vital tool in fighting many cancers.

Marijuana a vital tool in fighting many cancers.

Photo credit: 

Photo by David McNew/Getty Images

McAllister’s previous research has shown marijuana has anti-cancer properties as well.

The implications of further scientific research are staggering, yet severely limited, given current federal prohibition of the cannabis plant.

After seeing the initial results of testing cancer cells with the CBD compounds found in marijuana, Desprez and McAllister wondered if they’d made an error, so they repeated the tests again and again, each time receiving the same result: the cancer cells not only stopped acting “crazy” but reverted to a normal, healthy state.

“It took us about 20 years of research to figure this out, but we are very excited,” said Desprez to The Huffington Post. “We want to get started with trials as soon as possible.”

Desprez hopes the human clinical trials will start without delay.

In an article posted on NBC Bay Area website, “‘If this plant were discovered in the Amazon today, scientists would be falling all over each other to be the first to bring it to market,’ said Dr. Donald Abrams, chief of oncology at the University of California San Francisco, which has also found science behind marijuana’s efficacy.”

Marijuana advocates have suspected these truths for decades but have found themselves widely shunned or ignored by U.S. lawmakers.

Dr. T.G., an oncologist who wishes to remain anonymous, told Examiner.com that her practice encourages early-stage cancer patients to use marijuana in an effort to slow cancer progression.

“I’ve treated patients dealing with cancers for nearly thirty years and I am convinced even consuming cannabis-laced edibles can have a noticeable effect in reduction of cancer cell growth over the long-term. Although cannabis flowers themselves don’t contain enough of the CBD component to have the same effects as those in the California study, it is clear intensive research and human trials are warranted,” said Dr. T.G. “But it would be much more efficient if all cancer research laboratories could test cannabis and, with federal restrictions on cannabis cultivation, that level of research is not viable.”

With healthcare occupying a large segment of the 2012 election focus, President Obama and GOP candidate Mitt Romney may want to consider the continued wisdom of marijuana prohibition.

By publicly calling for marijuana/cannabis to be rescheduled as Schedule II under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, marijuana will be recognized as having medicinal efficacy and would then be available not only for those 17 states which already have medical marijuana laws in place, but would make the plant available for further clinical research.

Dr. T.G. stated, “In light of emerging evidence and millions of patients who’ve received benefit from cannabis, there is no logical reason to avoid a federal reversal of prohibition.”

It may irritate politicians and prohibitionists nationwide, but it turns out the potheads of the world were right all along…

CONTINUE READING…

New Hampshire Jury Nullifies Major Felony Marijuana Case

Marijuana

 

Written by  Alex Newman

Following the adoption of a new state law on jury nullification in June, a New Hampshire jury nullified its first major felony marijuana case on September 14 when jurors decided to free Doug Darrell, a 59-year-old father of four grown children who was growing illegal plants in his backyard. Activists hailed the decision as a significant victory for the jury nullification movement, which aims to revive awareness about the power inherent in juries to protect citizens from overzealous prosecutors and bad laws by nullifying cases.  
Darrell, a Rastafarian piano tuner and woodworker who has been married for almost four decades, was arrested after a National Guard helicopter spotted some marijuana plants on his property in Barnstead. State prosecutors charged him with cultivation, a felony that could have carried up to seven years in prison.
It was clear that he had been growing the marijuana — nobody disputed that. Eventually Darrell was offered a deal that would have allowed him to avoid jail time and fines in exchange for a misdemeanor guilty plea. He refused, however, citing his religion and its view that marijuana is a sacrament. So the case went to trial.
Jurors, led by liberty-minded activist Cathleen Converse of the Free State Project, decided Darrell should be set free. “Mr. Darrell is a peaceful man, he never deals with the darker elements of society and he grows for his own personal religious and medicinal use,” Converse said during an exclusive interview with Free Talk Live, a freedom-oriented talk-radio program. “I knew that my community would be poorer rather than better off had he been convicted.”
So, to prevent that, she helped convince other jurors to do as the defense suggested: vote their conscience and declare Darrell a free man. “Many of us wondered what kind of precedent this would set,” Converse continued. “But after chewing on all of the possibilities and re-reading the definition of nullification, we all decided that the only fair thing to do was to vote with our consciences and acquit the defendant of all charges.”
Jury nullification, of course, is a time-tested practice that goes back to before the American Declaration of Independence. Essentially, it occurs when members of a jury decide to free somebody even though prosecutors prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did indeed violate a criminal statute.
Juries have historically relied on nullification for various reasons including to reject unjust or unconstitutional laws, to free defendants in cases where laws have been misapplied by overzealous officials, and more. During alcohol prohibition it became commonplace as jurors refused en masse to convict their compatriots for drinking illegal substances.
Before that, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay informed a jury in 1794 that jurors have “a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.” Numerous other Supreme Court justices and Founding Fathers have touted the practice, too. And despite being largely overlooked today, activists across America are trying hard to build awareness about it.   
In June, those nullification advocates secured a major victory. New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch signed HB 146 into law allowing defendants to inform jurors about the jury’s “right to judge the application of the law in relationship to the facts in controversy.” That law does not officially take effect until January, but it has already made waves throughout the state’s judiciary system.
“It’s a really important development,” Darrell’s defense attorney Mark Sisti told the New Hampshire Union Leader, adding that most state residents have no problem with moderate marijuana use by adults and that legislatures across America are rethinking their laws on the controversial plant. “We’re moving along a path we should have been on years ago.”
Sisti acknowledged, though, that the judge’s decision to instruct the jury about nullification was crucial to the victory. Judge James O’Neill, following the state’s model jury instruction on nullification, told jurors that “even if you find that the State has proven each and every element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, you may still find the defendant not guilty if you have a conscientious feeling that a not guilty verdict would be a fair result in this case.”
While warning that jury nullification is not a “get-out-of-jail-free card,” Sisti celebrated the ruling and the clearing of his client. “Cases like this shouldn’t be brought,” he was quoted as saying. “And when they are brought, I think that safety valve, that nullification safety valve, is very important. Other states had better start waking up, because without it, people are going to be convicted of very serious charges through hypocrisy. The jury’s going to think they can’t do anything else, and that’s wrong.”
The prosecutor who brought charges against Darrell for his illegal plants also admitted that the judge’s decision to instruct the jury on nullification was key to the government’s defeat, but she tried to downplay its effect going forward. “I don’t see it as being that significant in changing our practice and the practice of the court,” the prosecutor told the Union Leader
Cathleen Converse, the juror who reportedly helped push the case for nullification, however, is among a growing number of Americans who believe that there should be a victim for something to be considered a crime. “Mr. Darrell seemed to be the only victim here,” she explained after the acquittal. “Almost everyone said this just shouldn’t have happened to these peaceful people.”
In New Hampshire — the official state motto is “Live Free or Die” — such views have become increasingly influential. That’s in part due to the birth of the Free State Project, an ongoing plan to have thousands of liberty-minded people from across America move to the Granite State to build a more libertarian society. FSP activists have already elected more than a few lawmakers, and their influence continued to grow.
“So far, over 12,750 participants have pledged to relocate to the state, and more than 1,000 have already moved, over a dozen of which are currently elected members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives,” said Free State Project President Carla Gericke in a press release touting the acquittal. “Once here, participants are free to pursue their own causes and I’m excited to see that progress is being made.”
While the Darrell case probably will not be shutting down the unconstitutional, trillion-dollar federal drug war anytime soon, analysts said it was an important milestone in several respects. For one, it illustrates the growing opposition to imprisoning people for drug use, which has been a key contributor to the fact that the United States has far more prisoners per capita than any other nation in the world. Well over a dozen states have already nullified federal marijuana laws
More importantly, perhaps, the acquittal of Doug Darrell represents a significant revival of jury nullification. The centuries-old practice has always been a critical tool in the fight against government tyranny. So, with the victory in New Hampshire and many more anticipated in the near future, liberty-minded activists across America are hoping the trend spreads quickly to other states.
Related articles:
New Hampshire Passes Jury Nullification Law
Former Drug Warrior Persecuted for Activism Uses Arrest to Push Jury Nullification
Judge Sentences Politically Incorrect Juror to More Jury Duty
State Lawmakers Blast Obama’s War on Medical Marijuana
A Brilliant Exposition on the Effectiveness of Nullification
Drug War a “Failure,” Says N.J. GOP Gov. Chris Christie
The Other Unconstitutional War

CONTINUE READING…

Libertarian Party Nominates Vice-Presidential Candidate Jim Gray

May 22, 2012

 

The following information was released by the campaign of Jim Gray for vice president.

Fresh from winning the Vice Presidential nomination at the Libertarian Party annual convention last weekend in Las Vegas, Newport Beach Judge Jim Gray returns home to begin his campaign for office with Presidential nominee Gov. Gary Johnson.

The Judge Gray Homecoming will be held on Saturday at 10 a.m. on the lawn of the historic Bowers Museum in Santa Ana, CA. For more information on the event, call 619.916-1249. A Question and Answer session will be held immediately following Gray’s address.

“I am proud. I am invigorated. I am excited. With Gov. Gary Johnson, I am determined to bring back prosperity and liberty to the United States of America.” Judge Gray said. “And, I am so grateful to all my friends, family and colleagues who have had a hand in this effort. And this was truly a team effort. It’s great to be home, but it probably won’t be for long,” he said smiling.

Judge Gray was declared the party’s Vice Presidential nominee after he won 59 percent of the vote, receiving 357 votes from the 600 delegates of the convention held at the Red Rock Resort in Las Vegas, NV.

A successful jurist who lives in Newport Beach, Calif. and presided over the Superior Court of Orange County, Judge Gray has been active in the Libertarian Party for several decades.

He was the 2004 Libertarian Party candidate for the U.S. Senate in California challenging incumbent U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer. He is also the chief proponent of a California ballot initiative called “Regulate Marijuana Like Wine” that, if passed, would decriminalize cannabis consumption and production.

As the Libertarian nominees, the Johnson/Gray ticket is expected to be on the ballot in all 50 states.

Accepting the nomination, Johnson said, “Millions of Americans want and deserve the opportunity to vote for a candidate in November who will get us out of the war in Afghanistan immediately, truly cut federal spending, end the failed war on drugs, repeal the Patriot Act, and support marriage equality. I am excited to offer that option: A proven fiscal conservative, a proven defender of civil liberties, and an advocate for social tolerance.”

Orange County Breeze

"Overgrowing the Government"

%d bloggers like this: