<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Drug Policy Blog &#187; marijuana</title>
	<atom:link href="http://drugpolicyblog.com/tag/marijuana/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://drugpolicyblog.com</link>
	<description>Just Say Know!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:30:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Vermont Supreme Court Affirms Privacy Rights</title>
		<link>http://drugpolicyblog.com/2008/04/07/vermont-supreme-court-affirms-privacy-rights/</link>
		<comments>http://drugpolicyblog.com/2008/04/07/vermont-supreme-court-affirms-privacy-rights/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2008 03:25:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Drug war]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marijuana]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vermont]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://drugpolicyblog.com/vermont-supreme-court-affirms-privacy-rights/2008_04_07/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Vermont Supreme court has affirmed the right of citizens to be free from intrusive government aerial surveillance, and overturned the conviction of a marijuana cultivator. The ruling establishes that Vermonters enjoy a right to privacy that &#8220;that ascends into the airspace above their homes and property&#8221;.  Associate Justice Marilyn Skoglund wrote in her majority opinion: With [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Vermont Supreme court has affirmed the right of citizens to be free from intrusive government aerial surveillance, and overturned the conviction of a marijuana cultivator. The ruling establishes that Vermonters enjoy a right to privacy that &#8220;that ascends into the airspace above their homes and property&#8221;.  Associate Justice Marilyn Skoglund wrote in her majority opinion:<br />
<blockquote>With technological advances in surveillance techniques, the privacy-protection question is no longer whether police have physically invaded a constitutionally protected area. Rather, the inquiry is whether the surveillance invaded a constitutionally protected legitimate expectation of privacy.    </p></blockquote>
<p>In writing a partial dissent, Associate Justice John Dooley wrote:<br />
<blockquote>The essential question is when aerial surveillance will be considered a search. We do not serve the public interest if the answer to that seemingly simple question can be determined only in hindsight, after evaluating myriad factors.    </p></blockquote>
<p>It seems that a reasonable expectation of privacy is in the same realm of &#8220;myriad factors&#8221; that police deal with everyday when considering suspicious activity and alleged crimes. The Burlington Free Press published an <a href="http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080404/OPINION/804040303/1006/RSS06">editorial applauding the decision</a>, calling it a common sense ruling and including the following apt comparison:<br />
<blockquote>If someone were to climb on a ladder to peer over a fence into our yard, we would consider that an invasion of our privacy. Looking down into the yard from a helicopter hovering 100 feet above would be taking the act of peeking over the fence to the nth degree.   </p></blockquote>
<p>source:<a href="http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080329/NEWS/80328021/-1/NEWS05">Burlington Free Press</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://drugpolicyblog.com/2008/04/07/vermont-supreme-court-affirms-privacy-rights/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>American College of Physicians Calls for Research of Medical Marijuana</title>
		<link>http://drugpolicyblog.com/2008/02/16/the-american-college-of-physicians-supporting-research-into-the-therapeutic-role-of-marijuana/</link>
		<comments>http://drugpolicyblog.com/2008/02/16/the-american-college-of-physicians-supporting-research-into-the-therapeutic-role-of-marijuana/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Feb 2008 22:34:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marijuana]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://drugpolicyblog.com/the-american-college-of-physicians-supporting-research-into-the-therapeutic-role-of-marijuana/2008_02_16/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On February 8, the American College of Physicians (ACP) issued a position paper calling for additional research into the therapeutic role for marijuana. The ACP, a national organization of internists &#8211; physicians who specialize in the prevention, detection and treatment of illnesses in adults &#8211; is the largest medical-specialty organization and second-largest physician group in [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On February 8, the American College of Physicians (ACP) issued a position paper <a href="http://www.acponline.org/acp_news/medmarinews.htm">calling for additional research into the therapeutic role for marijuana</a>. The ACP, a national organization of internists &#8211; physicians who specialize in the prevention, detection and treatment of illnesses in adults &#8211; is the largest medical-specialty organization and second-largest physician group in the United States.The ACP notes:</p>
<blockquote><p>Marijuana has been smoked for its medicinal properties for centuries. Preclinical, clinical, and anecdotal reports suggest numerous potential medical uses for marijuana. Although the indications for some conditions have been well documented, less information is available about other potential medical uses.</p></blockquote>
<p>The position paper makes five position statements including:</p>
<blockquote><p>Position 4: ACP urges review of marijuana&#8217;s status as a schedule I controlled substanceand its reclassification into a more appropriate schedule, given the scientific evidenceregarding marijuana’s safety and efficacy in some clinical conditions.</p></blockquote>
<p>It goes on to explain:</p>
<blockquote><p>The concern that marijuana is a “gateway” drug also hinders opportunities to evaluate itspotential therapeutic benefits. However, the IOM concluded that marijuana is a gateway drugonly in the sense that its use normally precedes, rather than follows, initiation of other illicitdrugs. Marijuana has not been proven to be the cause or even the most serious predictor ofserious drug abuse.</p></blockquote>
<p>The report conclusion holds that &#8220;[e]vidence not only supports the use of medical marijuana in certain conditions but also suggests numerous indications for cannabinoids&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://drugpolicyblog.com/2008/02/16/the-american-college-of-physicians-supporting-research-into-the-therapeutic-role-of-marijuana/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

