Photo: Ryan Bushby, Wikimedia Commons

A Gallup poll conducted at the beginning of October shows that more Americans support the legalization of marijuana than ever before — even if the majority still think it should be illegal.

Forty-four percent of Americans said they think marijuana should be legal, while 54 percent said it should stay illegal. The number who support legalization has doubled in the last 20 years, whereas in the late 1980s only 23 percent supporting legalization.

A majority of respondents living in the West said they would approve of marijuana being legal in their state (53 percent to 46 percent) while the Midwest residents showed the largest disapproval of having marijuana legal in their state with 64 percent rejecting it.

Photo by Neeta Lind

The law enforcement lobby has been conducting a full-court press in editorial pages and in legislative committees against a medical marijuana bill that may end up on Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s desk. And it seems to be working. Pawlenty has cited the opposition of law enforcement to the bill as his motivation for making sure the bill never becomes law.

Pawlenty waded into the debate recently when he was filling in for a conservative Christian talk radio host on KKMS. “I don’t like it,” he said of medical marijuana. “Is it really the only thing that can give [patients] relief?”

He said it was law enforcement officials who informed his opinion of medical marijuana and inspired him to veto the bill if it passes. “Law enforcement, in the form of county attorneys and the sheriffs, have great concerns about it from a law enforcement standpoint,” Pawlenty said. “I have come down on the side of saying I stand with law enforcement on this issue.“

But the claims made by Minnesota law enforcement officials are at best half-truths and exaggerations, and in some cases directly contradict government data.

Claim: Medical associations don’t support it

Dakota County Attorney James Blackstrom, representing the County Attorneys Association, the Minnesota Police & Peace Officers Association, the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association, the Minnesota Sheriffs Association and the Minnesota State Association of Narcotics Investigators, penned a recent editorial to virtually every newspaper in the state against the bill. Among the reasons he cited was that major medical associations don’t endorse medical marijuana.

“[I]t is important to keep in mind that the use of marijuana has not been endorsed by the major medical organizations representing the groups of patients proponents say need it the most, including the American Cancer Society, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society and the American Academy of Ophthalmology,” he wrote. “The Minnesota Department of Human Services and the Minnesota Society of Addiction Medicine also oppose the passage of this law.”

But the American Cancer Society does support medical marijuana research, even if it doesn’t recommend it as a treatment. “The ACS [American Cancer Society] is supportive of more research into the benefits of cannabinoids. Better and more effective treatments are needed to overcome the side effects of cancer and its treatment,” says the group’s position. “The ACS does not advocate the use of inhaled marijuana or the legalization of marijuana.”

The National Multiple Sclerosis Society (NMMS) similarly says it doesn’t advocate medical marijuana because there hasn’t been enough study, but it remains open to it.

“The National MS Society is funding a well controlled study on the effectiveness of different forms of marijuana to treat spasticity in MS, and established a task force to examine the use of Cannabis in MS to review what is currently known about its potential,” says the group’s statement on the issue. “This task force had made specific recommendations on the research that still needs to be done to answer pressing questions about the potential effectiveness and safety of marijuana and its derivatives in treating MS.”

NMSS also acknowledged the benefits of inhaled marijuana versus pill form. “Because inhaled smoked cannabis has more favorable pharmacokinetics than administration via oral or other routes, research should focus on the development of an inhaled mode of administration that gives results as close to smoked cannabis as possible.” The group also acknowledges benefits to marijuana. “There are sufficient data available to suggest that cannabinoids may have neuroprotective effects.”

While Blackstrom cherry-picks organizations that haven’t endorsed medical marijuana, he leaves out many of the groups of patients and physicians who have endorsed it. The American College of Physicians, the second largest physicians’ group in the nation, endorsed medical marijuana in 2008. Other groups that have endorsed include the American Academy of HIV Medicine (AAHIVM), the American Nurses Association (ANA), the American Public Health Association (APHA), the Arthritis Research Campaign, the HIV Medicine Association of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Lymphoma Foundation of America (LFA), The National Association for Public Health Policy, Minnesota Nurses Association, Minnesota Public Health Association and the Minnesota AIDS Project.

Claim: Medical use leads to use by children

Perhaps the most popular refrain from law enforcement is that the legalization of medical marijuana will entice children to start smoking it. Blackstrom mentioned this in his editorial. “Legalizing marijuana for medical purposes sends a message to our children that it is safe to use when it is clearly not,” he wrote.

Senator Bill Ingebrigtsen, R-Alexandria, in a recent column in the Alexandria Echo Press, echoed that concern. “I’m worried about the message this will send to our young people,” he said. “If our society equates marijuana with just another painkiller, you send the message to our youth that they’re doing nothing more than abusing over-the-counter drugs such as aspirin or Tylenol, and nothing could be further from the truth.”

Dennis J. Flaherty, the executive director and chief lobbyist of the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, wrote a similar editorial last week. “Legalizing it for medical purposes will create a perception among many, especially our children, that marijuana is a good thing, when we all know that it is not.”

With more than a dozen states allowing patients to possess medical marijuana, research has begun to address the question of the effects of legalization (at the state level, anyway) on children.

The only published study to date (PDF) comes from the Marijuana Policy Project, a group that advocates for medical marijuana.

Drawing on federal and state government surveys of adolescent drug use, the group looked at data from states that have legalized medical marijuana and found that in the majority of states, teen marijuana use dropped after medical marijuana was legalized.

California saw a 47 percent drop in monthly teen marijuana use between legalization (1996) and 2004. Washington state surveys saw anywhere from a 25- to 50-percent decrease in teen use from legalization (1998) to 2006. Teens in Hawaii, Vermont, Nevada, Maine, Alaska, Rhode Island and Montana all described a decline in use of marijuana after passage of medical marijuana laws.

It’s important to note that over a similar time frame, the national numbers for teen marijuana use also declined. In California, Alaska, Washington, Hawaii, Nevada and Rhode Island, however, teens reported much larger decreases in marijuana use than the national average. In Vermont and Oregon, the results were mixed, with some indicators showing a larger decrease than the national average and other indicators showing smaller decreases. Only Oregon lagged significantly behind the nation.

Claim: Patients could grow up to 30 pounds of marijuana a year

Another part of the argument against medical marijuana is that the bill allows a patient, or a nonprofit acting on behalf of the patient, to grow too much marijuana. The current bill reduced the number of plants a patient could possess from 6 to 12.

Blackstrom in the Star Tribune wrote, “ [The bill] allows for the growing of far more marijuana than a legitimate patient would ever need for medical purposes (up to 12 plants per patient, which can produce 12-30 pounds of marijuana per year — excess quantities create incentives for drug ‘rip-off’ robberies and organized crime involvement).”

But whether marijuana plants can yield an average of 1 to 3 pounds per plant is in dispute. Most studies on the matter have been done by law enforcement, but some have been done outside the United States where marijuana isn’t as taboo.

The American Academy of Forensic Sciences published a study about indoor marijuana yields in the Netherlands, a country with very lax marijuana laws. Researchers found that “for the median Dutch grow room, the predicted yield of female flower buds at the harvestable developmental stage… was 33.7 g/plant.” That’s less than a pound for 12 plants.

For outdoor growing, the DEA conducted two studies. In controlled growing situations, marijuana plants averaged between 215 grams and 1,015 grams per plant, or between a quarter of a pound and two pounds. The DEA also surveyed seized plants from 15 states and found that the average yield was 1 pound.

A cursory survey of online marijuana seed suppliers shows these clandestine operations claim yields similar to those reflected in the research. Seeds from an Amsterdam supplier are touted as providing 500 grams per plant outdoors for their products. Other seed suppliers tout between 400 and 700 grams for outdoor cultivation depending on variety — between less than a pound to a pound and a half per plant.

Even Blackstrom has backed off his early claims of very high yields. He told Minnesota Public Radio’s “Midday” in March 2007 that “one plant can yield anywhere from one to five pounds of marijuana, depending on the potency of the plant.” Five pounds would be 2,268 grams, well above what most experts agree would be a typical yield from one marijuana plant.

Is 12 pounds of marijuana per year necessary for a patient? In 1978, the federal government launched the Compassionate Investigational New Drug program that provides marijuana to patients. It was discontinued in 1992, but four patients are still grandfathered in and receive between 320 and 360 grams of federally grown marijuana monthly. That’s 9.5 pounds per year. More than the current bill would allow but less than the 12-plant limit originally contained in the bill.

Claim: Marijuana is medically unsafe

Blackstrom also says that marijuana hasn’t gone through the proper scrutiny. “The FDA has stated that ‘medical’ marijuana laws are ‘inconsistent with efforts to ensure that medications undergo the rigorous scientific scrutiny of the FDA approval process and are proven safe and effective.’ No medicine in America is delivered via smoking for obvious health-related reasons (and marijuana contains three to five times more tar and 50 percent to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke).”

But the FDA has refused to study it and in the few instances they have allowed research to continue, the DEA has blocked it. The DEA prevented Massachusetts researchers from using non-government grown marijuana and also blocked California researchers who wanted to conduct studies on vaporizing marijuana to eliminate inhaled smoke.

The FDA said in 2004, “Current marijuana research has not progressed to Phase 2 of the clinical trials because current research must use smoked marijuana, which ultimately cannot be the permitted delivery system for any potential marijuana medication due to the deleterious effects and the difficulty in monitoring the efficaciousness of smoked marijuana.”

Ironically, the only federally endorsed (and FDA-approved) medical marijuana under the Compassionate Investigational New Drug program is smoked marijuana. The remaining patients in the program are given pre-rolled joints by the FDA — for smoking.

The debate over medical marijuana is a passionate one, but not all arguments made by law enforcement officials — and decisions made by Gov. Pawlenty — appear to be based on solid facts.

Pawlenty may have to make that decision soon. The Minnesota Senate recently passed the bill, and it could appear for a vote in the House in the next week.

Photo: Ryan Bushby, Wikimedia Commons

A bill to allow the seriously ill to use medical marijuana passed the state House Public Safety Policy and Oversight Committee on Tuesday, but not before fireworks erupted between law enforcement officials and Rep. Tom Rukavina, DFL-St. Louis, the bill’s author.

Bob Bushman, from the Statewide Gang and Drug Task Force, began his testimony by calling bill proponents liars when they said that law enforcement had not met with them to discuss concerns over the bill.

“You’ve likely heard over the last several weeks that us in law enforcement have not been willing to share our concerns with proponents of this legislation, that we have not been willing to meet with them and that they have made almost all the changes we recommended and we still won’t support the bill,” he said.

“This is too important of an issue and bill to let these misstatements stand. The fact of the matter is that our coalition did meet with the author of this bill last year. We articulated almost two dozen concerns that we had with the bill, of which only three were actually addressed, and since that time proponents have said they have fixed all of our concerns.

“This is not only flat-out wrong. It is a distortion of the truth.”

After law enforcement testified, Rukavina bucked committee procedure and turned to the crowd in the committee room, which included the testifiers. Looking at Bushman, he said, “I want him to look me in the eye and ask if he has ever talked to me in his entire life.”

“No member of your coalition has ever talked to me about this bill. Has anyone in this room ever talked to me about this bill?” he asked the crowd.

No one, including members of law enforcement, responded that they had talked to him about the bill.

“No one has ever asked me to since I became the chief author of this bill. No one,” Rukavina said.

“So, Mr. Bushman, what you said was not true.”

The bill passed 9-6 and will next be heard in the House Finance Committee. Voting aye: Republican Tim Kelly and DFLers Debra Hilstrom, Karla Bigham, Gail Kulick Jackson, Sheldon Johnson, Michael Paymar, Paul Rosenthal, Sandra Masin and Joe Mullery. Voting no: DFLer Kory Kath and Republicans Bruce Anderson,Tony Cornish, Steve Drazkowski, Paul Kohls and Ron Shimanski.

Photo by Caitlinator

A bill offered by Sen. Juliane Ortman, R-Chanhassen, and Rep. Dave Olin, DFL-Thief River Falls, would recriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana and increase penalties for possession of large amounts of marijuana and possession of marijuana plants. Minnesota decriminalized “small amounts” of marijuana in 1976, making the punishment for possession on par with a traffic violation.

Under HF1596 and SF1683, a “small amount” would mean 14 grams instead of 42.5 grams. Fourteen grams is the amount contained in a typical $20 bag of marijuana. More than 14 grams but less than 42.5 grams would constitute a misdemeanor crime under the new bill.

The bill lowers the threshold for felony marijuana possession. Possession of between 42.5 grams and 1 kilogram would be a fifth-degree drug crime of less than five years in prison. Current law says that threshold is 10 kilograms.

Under the bill, 1 kilogram or more would land you in prison for two to 30 years. The current law says 10 kilograms or more is the threshold for a third-degree drug felony.

This bill would also lower the threshold for a second-degree drug felony from 50 kilograms to 12.5 kilograms. That’s 25 years or less in prison and a $500,000 fine.

Twenty kilograms or more would be a first-degree drug felony punishable by four to 40 years and up to a $1 million fine. Currently that threshold is 100 kilograms.

The recriminalization of marijuana might be seen as a measure that would have law enforcement support, but Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s commissioner of public safety, Michael Campion, praised the current marijuana laws when he testified against medical marijuana.

“Some 20 years ago, I think this Legislature took a very balanced approach in terms of marijuana,” said Campion. “Most people probably don’t know, but a small amount of marijuana is not a crime. Anything under an ounce and a half is not a crime.”

The bill also adds a law prohibiting the possession of marijuana plants. The medical marijuana bill currently working its way through the Minnesota Legislature would allow patients to grow their own plants if they do not live in close proximity to a licensed nonprofit marijuana dispensary.

Photo: Ryan Bushby, Wikimedia Commons

While legislators debate making marijuana legal for individuals suffering from debilitating illness, law enforcement has testified that medical marijuana would post a risk to public safety. But as the Humphrey Institute’s Smart Politics reports, Minnesota law enforcement has scaled back its marijuana enforcement efforts significantly in the last few years.

Marijuana arrests per 100,000 residents dipped from a high of 227.5 in 2002 to 171.8 in 2007. At the same time, marijuana use among Minnesotans appears to have remained the same, with 11 percent reporting at least annual use between 2005 and 2006.

Minnesota already has one of the nation’s most relaxed marijuana laws. Possession of a small amount (less than 1.5 ounces) is treated like a traffic offense, with confiscation, a fine of $200 and possible drug treatment courses.

Related: Medical marijuana bill advances in Senate with moving testimony

[Updated] St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman’s office issued a statement this morning announcing that the city attorney won’t prosecute journalists who were cited by authorities at the Republican National Convention (RNC) with “presence at an unlawful assembly,” a misdemeanor charge.

That pertains specifically to the journalists who were swept up in the massive arrests during protests in St. Paul on the convention’s first and last days (including MnIndy’s Paul Demko, who was arrested on the last night of the RNC).

How many people that might include hasn’t been tallied yet, but nearly 50 of the more than 800 people arrested or detained were onsite to cover the RNC, according to a MnIndy analysis (see comments for additions to our original list). Their cases will be individually reviewed according to this policy, according to City Attorney John Choi.

In other news related to RNC journalist arrestees, it should be noted that the pending charges against “Democracy Now!” host Amy Goodman and two of her producers are being dropped. Choi explained that his office is declining prosecution in Goodman’s case, “because the facts and circumstances related to Amy Goodman fell outside of our charging policy for obstruction of legal process cases,” which is what she was cited for.

Choi explained that, “In conjunction with the police department and community activists, the City Attorney’s Office has developed a more conservative approach to handling obstruction of legal process cases. We felt that same policy should apply to this case.”

Further, after reviewing the facts, circumstances and video evidence, pending unlawful assembly charges against the show’s two producers are also being cleared.

Choi said the decision doesn’t necessarily mean the arrests were improper. “What defines probable cause for an arrest is different from what defines probable cause for a charge. … We have to look at whether we can succeed at court,” he said.

Minneapolis attorney John Lundquist, who represented Goodman on the matter, said, “Obviously we’re very happy that [the city attorney] made the right call in declining the charges. It was a little slow in coming, but I agree that it was correct to dismiss it. Clearly there was never any prosecutable case.” Further, “I strongly disagree there was ever any probable cause for the arrests in the first place.”

Mayor Coleman said in the prepared statement about the policy decision made concerning journalists at the RNC, “This decision reflects the values we have in St. Paul to protect and promote our First Amendment rights to freedom of the press. … A journalist plays a special role in our democracy and that role is just too important to ignore.” While police carried out their charge to protect public safety, “we are serving the public’s interest to maintain the integrity of our democracy, system of justice and freedom of the press.”

The statement acknowledges the “growing media profession in print, broadcast and the Internet, the city attorney’s office will use a broad definition and verification to identify journalists who were caught up in mass arrests during the convention.”

They say that a best line of defense is a full body armor suit, complete with a bulletproof chest protector, a riot baton with pinpoint jabbing action and a Darth Vader helmet. Boy, they aren’t lying.

With Denver gearing up for the Democratic National Convention Aug. 25-28, the feds are shelling out 50 Really Big Ones to pay for all types of security control and dispersal products available in today’s law enforcement marketplace. Today let’s take a look at the body armor and shields for sale by law enforcement free-marketeers.

Body Armor: A veritable cornucopia of options is available: full-body suits, chest protectors of both the bulletproof and non-bulletproof varieties, knee and elbow pads, shin guards, etc. Some of the chest guards even come with a built-in CamelBak to keep you hydrated as you thwack anarchists.

Those riot cops who don’t want bruises to brag about later will choose the RedMan DRS 360 (pictured left) available for a cool $1,200.  Do NOT dry clean your body armor.

Continued: Click “Read more”Clubs and Batons: For the law enforcement officer looking to get a little closer to the action, nothing beats a baton. ASP brand batons are “the first choice of the world’s most tactically advanced law enforcement agencies.” Telescoping batons are the tool of choice for U.S. police forces. Average baton sizes (extended) range from 16 inches to 31 inches. The 36-inch Monadnock riot baton comes with “aluminum balls embedded in each end for pinpoint jabbing action.”

Shields: Today’s riot cop has a dazzling array of shield options. There are big shields and little shields, round shields and square shields, light shields and heavy shields, clear shields and opaque shields, electrified shields and inert shields.

The expensive ($595 a pop) but awesome Stinger shield can be used as a standard shield or can be activated to deliver a special surprise. The shields are constructed of 1/4-inch polycarbonate Lexan and feature nine sparking display points on the front to provide a visible deterrent. The N.Y. Department of Corrections uses it at Riker’s Island.

The much more cost effective ($95) Clear Capture shield is a roughly rectangular two-handed shield with a special curve to allow an officer to effectively squash and detain an unruly protester against a wall.

Ballistic shields are way more expensive ($1,200-$3,500) than riot shields but they’re what you want when the bullets start to fly.

Helmets & Gas Masks:

Like riot shields, riot helmets are generally not bulletproof. They’ll do a terrific job of protecting a riot cop from flung feces, rubber chickens and baby-doll parts, though. A discerning police department will choose just how scary it wants its riot cops to look – from the fairly innocuous GI Joe to the full-on Darth Vader.

Next up: Going directly to jail.

In addition to $5 million for heavy equipment that is sure to add a certain je ne sais quoi to this August’s Democratic National Convention, the Denver City Council has given the nod to another $3.4 million for a cop SWAT vehicle and other stuff like “communication equipment,” an “interagency communication system” and an “amplification system.” So far officials have refused to disclose details, but they’ve got $41.6 million left over to buy all kinds of police goodies.

After the jump, let’s check out the possibilities…SWAT Vehicles: SWAT vehicles can take many forms — They can be armored or non-armored, and they can have external fixtures such as turrets, or internal features ranging from ambulance facilities to communications equipment.

The average SWAT vehicle seems geared toward being able to deliver 10 to 12 SWAT team members to their destination, regardless of obstacles.

High Tech Vehicle-Mounted Weapons Tools

Pain Beam (Active Denial System):
This is a “non-lethal” weapon that uses microwaves to cause burning pain.

Given that ADS may pose some risk to eyesight and has caused second-degree burns when a human target has been “overexposed” (as revealed in a Penn State evaluation of a USM Marine Corps study on human effects PDF), it seems somewhat unlikely that Denver will trot this one out for the Democratic National Convention.

Sonic Laser (Medium Range Acoustic Device — MRAD):
This device uses magnets to convert electrical pulses into narrow, directed sound waves that can reach thousands of feet. At close range, it can cause pain and disorientation. Used in New Orleans and Los Angeles for crowd control purposes, the LRAD/MRAD has also been deployed in New York City; Broward County, Fla.; and Boston.

These sonic lasers emit what has been described as a horrible shrieking noise (check out this video of a protest in the country of Georgia. According to the New York Times:

The acoustic devices work by focusing a strong, narrow beam of sound over distances as great as half a mile — for riot control, the beam is a painfully shrill noise akin to a hugely amplified smoke alarm, which will pound the ears of those caught in it but be hardly audible to anyone else. At close range of 100 yards or less, it’s said to be excruciating.

Manufacturers say the noise is only intended to be used for a few seconds at a time, and that there should be no lasting effects from brief exposure — but the machines are more than strong enough to permanently damage the hearing of someone hit longer than that at close range.

Closer to the gr…ound action, an astounding array of Handheld Crowd Control and Dispersal products are available on the market.

Stun Guns and Tazers are always at the top of every law professional’s wish list: But, as our intrepid researcher observes, like Jack Nicholson at the Oscars… no introduction is necessary.

So let’s move on to a few lesser-known (at least right now) options for the well-equipped and eager law enforcement professional:

Handheld Riot Control Launchers: There are several launcher options, but most are built to fire either 37mm or 40mm rounds. There are single-shot launchers and multi-shot launchers. The multi-shot launchers generally have a five-round capacity. There are also “less-than-lethal” ammunition options for standard 12-gauge shotguns.

Riot Control Rounds: Among the possible projectiles for large-gauge riot control launchers:

The Stinger round is like a giant shotgun shell stuffed with more than 100 rubber balls. When skip-fired at medium range (i.e., shot at the feet of a crowd), the Stinger provides “impressive sting to the non-aggressive but non-compliant crowd.”

The 40mm Direct Impact