MARIJUANA POLICY PROJECT (MPP)

http://www.mpp.org/
MPP Mission Statement

In the United States, more than 70 million people have tried marijuana, and millions of adults still consume it on a regular basis.

Almost everyone has a friend, relative, neighbor, or co-worker who consumes marijuana. Because of the widespread economic and criminal justice ramifications of the illicit marijuana market and of Marijuana Prohibition, the marijuana phenomenon touches nearly everyone's life.

All drugs are potentially harmful; marijuana is no exception -- and the entire range of marijuana policies, from total prohibition to total legalization, has drawbacks as well as benefits.
As with alcohol and tobacco, there is no simple solution.

The Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) understands that no one policy will solve all problems.

Each potentially harmful effect of marijuana consumption and the myriad public and private marijuana control efforts must be thoroughly evaluated.

Each policy option should be judged according to whether the overall harm is reduced or increased.

Furthermore, public policies must be grounded in the reality that marijuana consumption is already widespread despite the present prohibition laws.

A "marijuana-free America" has been proven to be an unrealistic goal.

The Marijuana Policy Project's purpose is to develop and promote policies to minimize the harm associated with marijuana.

Accordingly, MPP ...

* researches the public health, economic, social, criminal justice, and other effects of marijuana consumption and the prohibition thereof;

* formulates realistic, utilitarian marijuana-related regulations and policies;

* works with the appropriate agencies, such as Congress, the executive branch, the courts, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, and other government bodies to implement such policies and to amend those to the contrary; and

* increases public confidence in such policies through speaking engagements, educational seminars, the mass media, and other means.

MPP has identified the following issues that must be addressed with appropriate public policies:

Issue #1: Public Health Effects

Goal #1: An individual's marijuana consumption must not harm or threaten the health and safety of others. For example, operating motor vehicles while impaired, subjecting others to unwanted second-hand smoke, engaging in hazardous cultivation practices, and distributing marijuana to minors must be discouraged and/or prohibited.

Goal #2: Some individuals (e.g., minors) should not consume marijuana.

Goal #3: Misuse and abuse must be discouraged. Honest, realistic, and effective education must be promoted, and appropriate treatment programs must be made available.

Goal #4: Marijuana consumers should not be subjected to extraneous health hazards. Individuals who already consume marijuana, despite the present laws, should not be unnecessarily exposed to adulterated or impure marijuana, nor should they be forbidden to use devices that reduce potential harms, such as water pipes that cool and filter smoke.

Goal #5: Links between marijuana and other drugs should be minimized. Mixed drug markets and dishonest drug education increase the likelihood that marijuana consumers will abuse harder drugs.

Goal #6: Medicinal uses of marijuana must not be suppressed.

Goal #7: Sound research must be promoted.

Issue #2: Economic Effects

Goal #1: Efficiently utilize limited public funds. Scarce public resources should not be wasted on "feel-good" policies that cause more harm than good.

Goal #2: Keep money in the legitimate U.S. economy. Minimize international marijuana trafficking and money laundering.

Goal #3: Raise revenue by taxing marijuana businesses.

Goal #4: Permit domestic cultivation of industrial/environmental hemp. Allow fair marketplace competition with other sources of paper pulp, fiber, fuel, and food.

Issue #3: Societal Effects

Goal #1: Require responsibility for actions. Marijuana consumers must be held fully accountable for any crimes or other anti-social activities in which they engage.

Goal #2: Reduce crime. Adopt prudent marijuana policies to reduce the amount of organized crime, violence, and other predatory crime.

Goal #3: Reduce impairment on the job and in the classroom.

Goal #4: Reduce symbolic generational conflicts and foster respect for authority among youths.

Issue #4: Criminal Justice System Effects

Goal #1: Uphold law and order. Increase the likelihood that policies and laws will be known, understood, accepted, and fairly and consistently enforced.

Goal #2: Foster respect for and cooperation with law-enforcement authorities.

Goal #3: Reduce corruption of law-enforcement and other criminal justice system officials.

Goal #4: Minimize underhanded law-enforcement practices, such as the use of informants, whose mission is to create trust for the purpose of betraying it.

Goal #5: Safeguard civil liberties and personal freedom.

The Marijuana Policy Project believes that the best interim policy --
and an essential element of any successful long-term strategy --
is to allow responsible adults to cultivate small amounts of marijuana in their homes for personal use, subject to appropriate regulations and restrictions.

The Marijuana Policy Project evaluates current marijuana policies and all newly proposed policies in light of the aforementioned issues and goals.

Policies incompatible with these goals are actively opposed.

Policies in accordance with these goals are refined and actively promoted.

The Marijuana Policy Project serves primarily as a lobbying organization.

http://www.mpp.org/
About the Marijuana Policy Project

With more than 19,000 dues-paying members and more than 100,000 e-mail subscribers, the Marijuana Policy Project is the largest marijuana policy reform organization in the United States.
Incorporated as a nonprofit organization in 1995, MPP works to minimize the harm associated with marijuana -- both the consumption of marijuana and the laws that are intended to prohibit such use.

MPP believes that the greatest harm associated with marijuana is prison.
To this end, MPP focuses on removing criminal penalties for marijuana use, with a particular emphasis on making marijuana medically available to seriously ill people who have the approval of their doctors.

MPP's major accomplishments include:

January 2006 — The Rhode Island Legislature overwhelmingly overrode the governor's veto of MPP's bill to protect medical marijuana patients from arrest — making Rhode Island the 11th state where medical marijuana use, possession, and cultivation is legal. This was the first state medical marijuana law to be enacted over the veto of a governor.

June 2005 — Following an intensive MPP lobbying campaign, MPP helped to garner 161 votes in the U.S. House of Representatives to stop arresting medical marijuana patients — an all-time record of support for medical marijuana access.

June 2005 — The Rhode Island General Assembly overwhelmingly approved MPP's bill to protect medical marijuana patients from arrest. After the governor vetoed the bill, the Senate voted 28-6 to override the veto. If the House follows suit, the bill will be enacted into law.

November 2004 — MPP funded and ran the campaign that succeeded in passing a statewide medical marijuana initiative in Montana with 62% of the vote—the highest margin of victory for any of the medical marijuana initiatives that have passed in eight states since 1996. MPP also provided the majority of funding for an initiative to regulate marijuana in Alaska, which failed with 44% of the vote (but still set the record for the largest vote to end marijuana prohibition in any state).

November 2004 — The MPP grants program funded 13 of the 16 local marijuana-related initiatives that passed in California, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Missouri.

November 2004 — U.S. Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL), with the assistance of MPP, drafted and introduced the first-ever medical marijuana bill in the U.S. Senate.

September 2004 — The Alaska Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling (issued one year before) that permits adults aged 21 and older to use and possess up to four ounces of marijuana in the privacy of the home—maintaining Alaska as the only state where the non-medical use of marijuana is legal in any context. The MPP grants program funded this litigation.

May 2004 — At the conclusion of MPP’s intensive, three-year lobbying campaign, Vermont became the ninth state to enact a medical marijuana law—and only the second state to do so through its legislature, rather than through a ballot initiative.

April 2004 — MPP Executive Director Rob Kampia testified before the U.S. House subcommittee on drug policy, attacking the federal government’s medical marijuana policies, as well as subcommittee Chairman Mark Souder (R-IN)—one of the House’s most vehement opponents of medical marijuana. Kampia was the only anti-prohibitionist to testify at the hearing.

January 2004 — In the months leading up to the New Hampshire Democratic primary election, MPP helped persuade a majority of the Democratic presidential candidates, including John Kerry, to pledge to end the arrest of patients in states with medical marijuana laws.

December 2003 — MPP funded, through its grants program, litigation that led to a precedent-setting decision by the largest federal appeals court in the country, which ruled that federal laws against marijuana do not apply to sick people who use medical marijuana with the approval of their physicians in states where medical marijuana is legal. This decision was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2005.

July 2003 — Fully 152 members of Congress voted for the “Hinchey Amendment” to the spending bill for the U.S. Justice Department. The legislation, co-written by MPP, would have prevented the DEA from spending any money to raid or arrest medical marijuana patients and caregivers in states that have medical marijuana laws.

May 2003 — Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich (R) became the first Republican governor to sign medical marijuana legislation. MPP lobbied the Maryland Legislature for four years to pass the bill, which now protects medical marijuana patients from imprisonment.

April 2003 — MPP worked with members of the U.S. House of Representatives to write and introduce the “Truth in Trials Act” in response to the federal trial and conviction of medical marijuana provider Ed Rosenthal, who was not allowed to introduce evidence at trial that he acted in compliance with California state law.

November 2002 — Despite being defeated by Nevada voters by a 61% to 39% margin, MPP’s high-profile ballot initiative to remove criminal penalties for adult possession of marijuana generated more public support, dues-paying members, and positive news coverage than any other project in MPP’s history. The coverage of the campaign culminated in a front-page story in the November 4 issue of Time magazine.

March 2001 — MPP Executive Director Rob Kampia testified before the U.S. House subcommittee on drug policy, arguing that a medical marijuana case before the U.S. Supreme Court was limited in scope and did not affect the ability of states to determine their own medical marijuana laws. Hostile subcommittee members argued with Kampia, and one called him “an articulate advocate for an evil position.”

June 2000 — Hawaii Gov. Ben Cayetano (D) signed MPP’s medical marijuana legislation into law, making Hawaii the first state to pass a medical marijuana law through its legislature, rather than through a ballot initiative.

April 2000 — President Bill Clinton (D) signed into law an asset forfeiture reform bill, sponsored by U.S. Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL). MPP generated grassroots lobbying pressure in support of the legislation, which makes it more difficult for the government to seize the property of marijuana users, as well as alleged and suspected marijuana users.

March 1999 — The National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine (IOM) issued its landmark medical marijuana report, finding that “…there are some limited circumstances in which we would recommend smoking marijuana for medical uses.” In early 1998, MPP coordinated the testimony of dozens of medical marijuana patients and researchers at IOM’s hearings.

November 1998 — MPP worked with local AIDS activists to pass a medical marijuana initiative that the activists had placed on the local ballot in Washington, D.C. Though Congress blocked the city from counting the votes for 10 months, a lawsuit brought by the ACLU revealed that 69% of city voters approved the initiative. Unfortunately, Congress continues to prevent the law from taking effect.

December 1997 — The American Medical Association’s House of Delegates voted to adopt a report that (1) recognized the existence of scientific research showing marijuana’s medical value, (2) recommended that doctors and patients should not be punished for discussing marijuana as a treatment option, and (3) urged the federal government to expedite medical marijuana research. MPP worked for months to persuade the AMA to adopt these improvements to a policy that had been fairly hostile to medical marijuana.

April 1995 — The U.S. Sentencing Commission voiced its unanimous approval of an amendment to the federal sentencing guidelines, which established shorter sentences for people convicted of cultivating marijuana. MPP was helpful in persuading the commission to vote 7–0 in favor of the penalty reduction, which took effect on November 1, 1995. A subsequent 7–0 vote on September 6 made the change retroactive, resulting in the early release of an estimated 950 federal marijuana prisoners.

These accomplishments and other MPP projects have been featured on the cover of Time magazine; in articles in TheNew York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, the Associated Press, and Reuters; and in appearances on The O’Reilly Factor, Crossfire, NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, and CNN Headline News.

http://www.mpp.org/

MPP UPDATE #11
- "When do you think they'll legalize marijuana?"
2006-01-04
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
by Rob Kampia

I can't count the number of times I've been asked,
"When do you think they'll legalize marijuana?"

There are two problems with this question.

First, the use of the word "they" is disempowering, as it implies that the future of marijuana policy reform is in someone else's hands.
Who will be the ones leading the charge to end marijuana prohibition, anyway? Government officials? The silent majority? Anonymous citizens?
The answer is “us,” meaning Marijuana Policy Project and our many allies across the U.S.

The second problem with the question is that the word "legalize" has no clearly defined meaning.
Worse yet, MPP's polling shows that the word “legalization” is the worst possible word to use when describing the idea of reforming our nation's marijuana laws.
This is because many people think "legalizing" marijuana means making it legally available with no controls, or possibly selling marijuana like cigarettes out of vending machines -- or possibly selling marijuana like tomatoes.

Rather than using unpopular, confusing code words like “legalization,” let’s just say what we mean:
We want to tax and regulate marijuana similarly to alcohol.

In any case, my response to the question in the first paragraph above is this:

"I expect that we -- meaning you, me, and others who care about the future of this country -- will succeed at changing federal law with respect to medical marijuana in about five years.

And we'll succeed at changing federal law to allow states to tax and regulate marijuana about five years after that."

Both parts of my answer surprise people.
Inevitably, they respond by asking, "How could it be that soon?
Have you been making a lot of progress on the marijuana issue that I'm not aware of?"

Clearly, the answer to that question is "yes."
MPP and the marijuana policy reform movement at large consistently exceed people's expectations.

Consider these perspectives:

- After a majority of voters in California and a handful of other states passed medical marijuana ballot initiatives from 1996 to 2000, many experienced activists and attorneys said we wouldn't be able to pass similar measures through state legislatures.
Why not?
“Because state legislators won't vote to legalize medical marijuana in contradiction of federal law," they said.
Yet in June 2000, MPP and the Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii persuaded the Hawaii Legislature to pass medical marijuana legislation, which the governor promptly signed into law. Since then, the Maryland, Vermont, and Rhode Island Legislatures have also passed medical marijuana laws in 2003, 2004, and 2006, respectively.

- On June 7th, the day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Angel Raich on her medical marijuana case, White House Drug Czar John Walters boldly proclaimed, "This is the end of medical marijuana as a political issue."
Many reporters and pundits suspected he was correct.
But, just the next day, the Rhode Island Senate voted 28-6 to overturn their governor's veto of MPP's medical marijuana bill, and the House followed suit by voting 59-13 on January 3, 2006. Once again, we exceeded expectations. And, better yet, we made history, as this is the first time that a state legislature has overridden a governor's veto in order to enact a medical marijuana law!

- The MPP grants program continues to fund local ballot initiative campaigns to reduce or eliminate penalties for the adult, non-medical use of marijuana, and the campaigns keep winning -- in Seattle in 2003 ... in Oakland and Columbia, Missouri in 2004 ... and in Denver in 2005.

In November 2006, MPP has plans to pass its landmark ballot initiative to tax and regulate marijuana for the first time ever in any state -- Nevada.
And the MPP grants program is funding local ballot initiatives similar to the Oakland initiative in Santa Cruz, Santa Barbara, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood.

Who says we -- as a movement -- can't win all five
........................
Rob Kampia is executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, D.C., www.mpp.org.

Great post IM~
I started giving my donation funds to MPP several years ago, when I had a rather unpleasant experience with NORML.

Although there's always room for improvement, if you're considering donating funds to the "Cause", this is the place instead of NORML.

Thanks for this post IM~ It's a good one.

thankyou I.M. we need more posts like this. so many of us, including me, thought for years that norml was our only voice.

if we could only get behind just one organization(MPP) and have all the others join in then we would be much stronger. in another thread we were talking about the NRA as being a great example of what we could be. how powerful is the NRA?

there's no reason we couldn't unite some day.....

Count me in. Nothing cures despair better than activism.