HMMPG.org Rotating Header Image

New Vaporizers at the HMMPG

Recently the HMMPG has received several manufacturer donated vaporizers.  Vaporization is a healthy alternative to inhaling your medication.  Donated units include the digital Arizer – Q and the non-electric Labworx-Skillet .  Both of these units are available to try by local medical marijuana patients by contacting the HMMPG.  We are also awaiting the arrival of a German manufactured digital unit that includes the benefit of a side water chamber.  We will post an announcement when the Areomed has arrived and is ready for demonstration and use.

We are planning to have all three units demonstrated and available for patient use and trial at the next HMMPG meeting which is now being planned for the second half of June.  When we have the meeting solidified we will post an announcement in town and here online.

CA Supreme Court Throws Out Medical Marijuana Limits | Cannabis Culture Magazine

CA Supreme Court Throws Out Medical Marijuana Limits | Cannabis Culture Magazine.

Local Ordinances Attack Patients’ Right to Grow | California NORML

Local Ordinances Attack Patients’ Right to Grow | California NORML.

Arizer – Extremte Q

Arizer – Extremte Q – The extreme Q is the only digital vaporizer that offers the convenience of a remote control in addition to a large array of other convenient feature like interchangeable mouth pieces for multiple users, a vap bag or tube smoking options, precise temperature control and temp recall and presets that could come in handy for those who vacillate between ingesting THC and TBC. Like the famous ‘volcano’ but much better and a much better price to boot.

Aeromed

Aeromed – The folks at Aeromed have a very patient friendly philosophy that they pair with science and technology to produce one the most advanced digital vaporizers available. Key features include the ability to process vapor through an attached water chamber, lab grade glass hardware and the hot air is provided by an energy saving ultraviolet-free halogen light bulb that is controlled by a precise microprocessor. The company is also researching ‘group vaporization’ in theory and practice as they advance a new aeromat concept.

Labworx Skillet

Labworx Skillet – The labworx Skillet is the answer for patients who lack electricity or want a vaporization technology that can be tailored to your existing glass bong or water pipe. This innovative approach to vaporization allows the user to use a clean manual heat source and allows for vaporization on the go or at home in your cabin. Made specifically for use with medicinal concentrates this might be the best choice if you are medicating with inhaled concentrates.

A great choice for people in the local area who do not have electricity or are living with solar power! And those who need to inhale concentrates to medicate on the go.

Medical Marijuana Memo – Memo Describing Obama Administration Policy on Medical Marijuana Raids

MEMORANDUM FOR SELECTED UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS

FROM: David W. Ogden, Deputy Attorney General

SUBJECT: Investigations and Prosecutions in States Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana

This memorandum provides clarification and guidance to federal prosecutors in States that have enacted laws authorizing the medical use of marijuana. These laws vary in their substantive provisions and in the extent of state regulatory oversight, both among the enacting States and among local jurisdictions within those States. Rather than developing different guidelines for every possible variant of state and local law, this memorandum provides uniform guidance to focus federal investigations and prosecutions in these States on core federal enforcement priorities.

The Department of Justice is committed to the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act in all States. Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug, and the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime and provides a significant source of revenue to large-scale criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels. One timely example underscores the importance of our efforts to prosecute significant marijuana traffickers: marijuana distribution in the United States remains the single largest source of revenue for the Mexican cartels.

The Department is also committed to making efficient and rational use of its limited investigative and prosecutorial resources. In general, United States Attorneys are vested with “plenary authority with regard to federal criminal matters” within their districts. USAM 9-2.001. In exercising this authority, United States Attorneys are “invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of such authority.” Id. This authority should, of course, be exercised consistent with Department priorities and guidance.

The prosecution of significant traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijuana, and the disruption of illegal drug manufacturing and trafficking networks continues to be a core priority in the Department’s efforts against narcotics and dangerous drugs, and the Department’s investigative and prosecutorial resources should be directed towards these objectives. As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana. For example, prosecution of individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or those caregivers in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law who provide such individuals with marijuana, is unlikely to be an efficient use of limited federal resources. On the other hand, prosecution of commercial enterprises that unlawfully market and sell marijuana for profit continues to be an enforcement priority of the Department. To be sure, claims of compliance with state or local law may mask operations inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of those laws, and federal law enforcement should not be deterred by such assertions when otherwise pursuing the Department’s core enforcement priorities.

Typically, when any of the following characteristics is present, the conduct will not be in clear and unambiguous compliance with applicable state law and may indicate illegal drug trafficking activity of potential federal interest:

  • unlawful possession or unlawful use of firearms;
  • violence;
  • sales to minors;
  • financial and marketing activities inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of state law, including evidence of money laundering activity and/or financial gains or excessive amounts of cash inconsistent with purported compliance with state or local law;
  • amounts of marijuana inconsistent with purported compliance with state or local law;
  • illegal possession or sale of other controlled substances; or
  • ties to other criminal enterprises.

Of course, no State can authorize violations of federal law, and the list of factors above is not intended to describe exhaustively when a federal prosecution may be warranted. Accordingly, in prosecutions under the Controlled Substances Act, federal prosecutors are not expected to charge, prove, or otherwise establish any state law violations. Indeed, this memorandum does not alter in any way the Department’s authority to enforce federal law, including laws prohibiting the manufacture, production, distribution, possession, or use of marijuana on federal property. This guidance regarding resource allocation does not “legalize” marijuana or provide a legal defense to a violation of federal law, nor is it intended to create any privileges, benefits, or rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any individual, party or witness in any administrative, civil, or criminal matter. Nor does clear and unambiguous compliance with state law or the absence of one or all of the above factors create a legal defense to a violation of the Controlled Substances Act. Rather, this memorandum is intended solely as a guide to the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion.

Finally, nothing herein precludes investigation or prosecution where there is a reasonable basis to believe that compliance with state law is being invoked as a pretext for the production or distribution of marijuana for purposes not authorized by state law. Nor does this guidance preclude investigation or prosecution, even when there is clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law, in particular circumstances where investigation or prosecution otherwise serves important federal interests.

Your offices should continue to review marijuana cases for prosecution on a case-by-case basis, consistent with the guidance on resource allocation and federal priorities set forth herein, the consideration of requests for federal assistance from state and local law enforcement authorities, and the Principles of Federal Prosecution.

HMMPG Spring 2010 Meeting