The consumption of cannabis, even long-term, poses few adverse effects on cognitive performance, according to clinical trial data to be published in the scientific journal Addiction.

Investigators at the University of Melbourne and the Australian National University, Center for Mental Health Research assessed the impact of cannabis use on various measures of memory and intelligence in over 2,000 self-identified marijuana consumers and non-users over an eight-year period. Among cannabis consumers, subjects were grouped into the following categories: ‘heavy’ (once a week or more) users, ‘light’ users, ‘former heavy’ users, ‘former light’ users, and ‘always former’ — a category that consisted of respondents who had ceased using marijuana prior to their entry into the study.

Researchers reported: “Only with respect to the immediate recall measure was there evidence of an improved performance associated with sustained abstinence from cannabis, with outcomes similar to those who had never used cannabis at the end point. On the remaining cognitive measures, after controlling for education and other characteristics, there were no significant differences associated with cannabis consumption.”

They concluded, “Therefore, the adverse impacts of cannabis use on cognitive functions either appear to be related to pre-existing factors or are reversible in this community cohort even after potentially extended periods of use.”

Separate studies have previously reported that long-term marijuana use is not associated with residual deficits in neurocognitive function. Specifically, a 2001 study published in the journal Archives of General Psychiatry found that chronic cannabis consumers who abstained from the drug for one week “showed virtually no significant differences from control subjects (those who had smoked marijuana less than 50 times in their lives) on a battery of 10 neuropsychological tests. … Former heavy users, who had consumed little or no cannabis in the three months before testing, [also] showed no significant differences from control subjects on any of these tests on any of the testing days.”

Additionally, studies have also implied that cannabis may be neuroprotective against alcohol-induced cognitive deficits. A 2009 study by investigators at the University of California and San Diego reported that binge drinkers who also used cannabis experienced significantly less white matter damage to the brain as compared to subjects who consumed alcohol alone.

For more information regarding the impact of cannabis on brain function, see NORML’s factsheet ‘Cannabis and the Brain: A User’s Guide,’ here.

Medical Marijuana School Is Snuffed Out! State Orders Greenway University To Stop Teaching, Refund Students

DENVER — The nation’s first-ever state certified medical marijuana training school has been suspended. Greenway University in Denver offered courses covering everything from growing to selling medical marijuana. On Tuesday the Colorado Department of Higher Education ordered Greenway to stop teaching and to give students their money back. The decision to suspend Greenway was made by the board for the Colorado Department of Higher Education Division of Private Occupational Schools. That’s the same group that granted approval for Greenway to offer courses and certifications in medical marijuana. “The Division of Private Occupational Schools is not an academic accrediting body in any way, shape or form,” said Chad Marturano, spokeman for the Colorado Department of Higher Education. “Greenway University went through the process just like any other occupational school where they submitted an application detailing what they were going to provide.” State Says Application Paperwork Had False Information The deputy director of the CDHE told 7NEWS that the application to operate Greenway University led to the school’s suspension to operate. The application was an affirmed/sworn public record signed and submitted by the owner and chief executive officer of Greenway, Gus Escamilla. 7NEWS obtained a copy of the application and signed affidavit. The application asked, “Has any principal owner(s), officer(s), or any person in a management capacity: Ever been convicted of or pled to a felony or are charges pending?” Escamilla answered, “No.”

Gus Escamilla

“You checked ‘No’ in the box when in fact you should have checked ‘yes’ instead?” 7NEWS asked Escamilla. “That’s a true statement,” responded Escamilla. 7NEWS obtained court documents from California, where in 2000, Escamilla pleaded guilty to felony grand theft by embezzlement. “We were aware of the prior conviction, but we also were under the impression that they were expunged,” said Escamilla. That wasn’t the only discrepancy. According to the CDHE, Marc Kent was listed as a chancellor at Greenway, but the application did not disclose the fact that Kent pleaded guilty to mail fraud in federal court. “I take full responsibility. It’s my job. I should’ve double-, triple-, quadruple-checked and I defer no judgment. I defer absolutely no responsibility to anyone other than myself to have known,” said Escamilla. Future of School Uncertain “What does this do for Greenway University’s credibility?” 7NEWS asked Escamilla. “You know, I would only hope that our good will and all the students that have gone through could share the great experiences they’ve had and that can stand on its own,” Escamilla responded. The school plans on appealing to the state to re-open. “Whatever the board’s decision is we respect and we’ll continue to honor any and all decisions they make,” said Escamilla. For now, classes at Greenway are not in session. It’s a lesson Escamilla learned the hard way. “My responsibility as a leader is I have to take responsibility, and I’m willing to do that,” said Escamilla. Recourse For Greenway Students On Tuesday Greenway University was served a “Notice of School Suspension to Operate.” The notice includes this message for students: “Caution: There currently is no individual authorized by the state of Colorado to recruit students for or to continue training on behalf of this school.” Students currently enrolled during the suspension along with those who pre-paid money to Greenway for training that has not started are instructed to call the CDHE Division of Private Occupational Schools at: (303) 866-2723

THE BIG APPLE, May Be Next To Legalize Medical Marijuana

By Cara Matthews, Gannett News Service Source: Press & Sun Bulletin medical Albany, N.Y. — After a legislative session with no progress on legalizing medical marijuana, advocates are hoping that the New Jersey governor’s actions this week and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s statement that he is studying the issue will lead to success. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican, said his state would move forward with its medical-marijuana act, a reversal from his position last month. He said at the time he was concerned that the state legislation conflicts with federal law and practice. The U.S. Justice Department said earlier this month that it is focused on large-scale commercial providers. Cuomo, a Democrat, has not supported medical marijuana in the past, and he said this week that he has not changed his position. He did, however, leave the door open on the issue. “We’re talking to both sides of the issue, if you will, and we’re reviewing it, but we don’t have a final position,” he said. The governor said that though he hasn’t changed his stance, “We’re always learning and listening and talking and growing, we hope.” New Jersey became the 16th state to legalize medical marijuana under legislation signed by Christie’s predecessor. In New York, legislation to allow patients with debilitating illnesses to use marijuana if they are registered with the state and receive a prescription from their physician has passed the Assembly before, but never the Senate. Under the most recent version of the bill, sponsored by Assemblyman Richard Gottfried and Sen. Thomas Duane, both Manhattan Democrats, hospitals and pharmacies would do the bulk of the dispensing. The maximum amount that could be dispensed would be 2.5 ounces. “The big obstacle continues to be getting a couple more votes in the state Senate to enable it to pass,” Gottfried said. The Democrat-controlled Assembly didn’t vote on the bill this year. Getting the support of the governor would help immensely, said Gottfried, adding that he has spoken with members of Cuomo’s administration who are reviewing the issue. “My gut feeling or prediction is that when that’s done he will support legislation because I think the merits are overwhelmingly in support and I think certainly, to the extent he relies on health (professionals’) viewpoints, I think it’s a very clear decision,” Gottfried said. He said the governor should “focus on the thousands of New Yorkers who are needlessly suffering from life-endangering and debilitating conditions whose lives could be made more tolerable and longer if we would join the other states that allow medical use.” If the governor were to get behind medical marijuana, “it can make all the difference in the world,” said Gabriel Sayegh, New York director of the Drug Policy Alliance. Sen. Diane Savino, D-Staten Island, penned a letter to Cuomo this week, asking him to support the legislation. “Anyone who has watched a loved one struggle with a debilitating illness would do almost anything to help alleviate their pain,” she said in a statement. “New Jersey showed real compassion for Garden State residents who are suffering from cancer, multiple sclerosis and other life-threatening diseases.” But the legislation has significant opponents, including the Conservative Party, which in the recent Senate vote to approve same-sex marriage threatened not to re-endorse any Republicans who voted yes. Four of them did so anyway. “I don’t see how marijuana helps anybody with any kind of sickness,” said Michael Long, head of the Conservative Party. “There’s plenty of prescribed drugs that people can take when they are critically ill.” He said a state medical marijuana law would be in conflict with federal law, and that legalization would only add to law enforcement problems. “I am telling you that it will create an enforcement nightmare. There’ll be no control over it,” Long said. Gottfried said he thinks Christie’s move confirms what has been clear since the Bush administration: “that entities that produce or dispense in clear compliance with state law are not going to be interfered with by the federal government, and the federal government has never gone after individual patients.” Sayegh said if the legislation were passed as is, New York would have one of the most conservative medical marijuana laws in the country. Source: Press & Sun Bulletin (NY) Author: Cara Matthews, Gannett News Service

Obama’s Decrim Flip-Flop

Steve Bloom

While campaigning for the Senate in 2004, Pres. Obama said, “We need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws.” On Friday, at a town hall meeting at the Univeristy of Maryland, he stated, “Am I willing to pursue a decriminalization strategy as an approach? No.”For years I said people have been asking Obama the wrong question. Don’t ask if he would legalize marijuana, ask if he would support decriminalizing it. Now we know. The flip-flop is pretty much complete. Obama’s answer on Friday was to a question about ending the war on drugs.

He offered predictable rhetoric about treatment and prevention:”I have stated repeatedly – and it’s actually reflected in our most recent statement by our Office of Drug Policy – that we need to have an approach that emphasizes prevention, treatment, a public health model for reducing drug use in our country. We’ve got to put more resources into that. We can’t simply focus on interdiction because, frankly, no matter how good of a job we’re doing when it comes to an interdiction approach, if there is high demand in this country for drugs, we are going to continue to see not only drug use but also the violence associated with the drug trade.” Watch the clip here.Treatment and prevention for marijuana? Please.Then he added: “Just to make sure that I’m actually answering your question, am I willing to pursue a decriminalization strategy as an approach? No.”

Who Are America’s Medical Marijuana Patients

Analysis by California NORML coordinator Dale Gieringer, Ph.D An interesting new study of the California medical cannabis user population by Prof. Craig Reinarman et al. appears in the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 43(2) Apr-Jun, 2011: “Who Are Medical Marijuana Patients? Population Characteristics from Nine California Assessment Clinics”. Noteworthy findings: *Medical cannabis use is higher than average among Blacks and Native Americans, lower among Latinos and Asians. *73% of patients are male. *Use is heaviest in the 25-44 year age group. *Leading indications: 82.6% for pain 70.7% to improve sleep 55% for “relaxation” 41% for muscle spasms 41% for headaches 38% for anxiety 28% for nausea 26% for depression 51% use as a substitute for prescription medication (showing that medical cannabis may offer significant health cost savings) Medical cannabis users report significantly lower alcohol & cocaine use than the average population, supporting the substitution theory that more cannabis use may lead to less abuse of other drugs. Abstract – Marijuana is a currently illegal psychoactive drug that many physicians believe has substantial therapeutic uses. The medical literature contains a growing number of studies on cannabinoids as well as case studies and anecdotal reports suggesting therapeutic potential. Fifteen states have passed medical marijuana laws, but little is known about the growing population of patients who use marijuana medicinally. This article reports on a sample of 1,746 patients from a network of nine medical marijuana evaluation clinics in California. Patients completed a standardized medical history form; evaluating physicians completed standardized evaluation forms. From this data we describe patient characteristics, self-reported presenting symptoms, physician evaluations, other treatments tried, other drug use, and medical marijuana use practices. Pain, insomnia, and anxiety were the most common conditions for which evaluating physicians recommended medical marijuana. Shifts in the medical marijuana patient population over time, the need for further research, and the issue of diversion are discussed.

Reality series to focus on Oakland medical marijuana facility


By Chuck Barney
Contra Costa Times

The Discovery Channel announced today that it will produce a reality series about Oakland’s Harborside Health Center, the nation’s largest medical cannabis dispensary.

“Weed Wars,” scheduled to premiere this fall, “fearlessly pulls back the curtain on a once illegal and still controversial world,” according to a press release issued by Discovery.

In 2004, Oakland became the first city to license medical cannabis outlets. Harborside, founded by Steve DeAngelo, serves over 80,000 patients. It recently extended its reach with a second location in San Jose.

In addition to DeAngelo and his staff, “Weed Wars” will follow the journey of the plant itself — from seed germination to harvesting, profiling growers and farmers along the way.

Nancy Daniels, executive vice president of production and development for Discovery Channel, said her network was interested in doing the series because “this is a business that is at the forefront of a movement and an industry that is coming out of the shadows.

“It’s fascinating to get a glimpse into this once-illegal world,” she said in an e-mail interview. “And we’ve also found in Harborside some great real-life characters who are building their family business. It’s got drama, stakes, compelling characters and an unexplored world.”

Production crews have been shooting in the Bay Area for six months, a Discovery spokesperson said. A premiere date for the series has yet to be announced.

Marijuana Can’t Kill, But Marijuana Prohibition Certainly Can

Today’s New York Times City Blog features an article about a court settlement between New York City and Jamie Rutkowski. Who is Jamie Rutkowski? Until New York City police decided to arrest her for minor cannabis possession—in a city that is supposed to be issuing civil tickets— locking her up in police detention, creating a health hazard for the young woman with diabetes and ultimately paying her 25,000 in damages, no one knew who she was.

Now, all cannabis consumers in the United States—notably in municipalities and states that have reformed their cannabis laws with decriminalization laws and patient protections for medicinal use—should cite Ms. Rutkowski’s case settlement as precedent against overzealous law enforcement agencies who choose to physically arrest and detain minor cannabis offenders, rather than issue them a civil fine, similar to a speeding or parking ticket.

Kudos to Ms. Rutkowski and her attorney Joel Berger for 1) challenging the NYC police department’s infamous practice of arresting and detaining for many hours minor cannabis offenders and 2) for making it ironically clear that even an arrest on minor cannabis charges can create serious health concerns whereby an adult who chooses to consume a non-toxic and relatively safe recreational drug like cannabis (or, has the drug recommended to them to consume medically by their physician) can quite literally be placed into a life or death situation.

“They could have killed me over a joint,” Ms. Rutkowski said. “Something needs to be done.”

After thousands of years of human use, there is little-to-no scientific evidence that moderate cannabis use is harmful to the individual consumer or society in the whole. However, there is overwhelming and abundantly clear evidence that Cannabis Prohibition can be deadly for individual consumers, law enforcement personnel and those involved in the currently illegal and untaxed businesses of cultivating, transporting and selling cannabis.

Disgustingly, in a city that, since the late 1970s, is supposed to have true ‘decriminalization’ laws for cannabis possession cases, New York City continues to nearly lead the nation in per capita arrests for simple cannabis possession cases (approximately 43,000 cannabis possession arrests annually; constituting nearly five percent of all annual cannabis arrests nationwide) as well as having one of the most racially imbalanced arrest rates for minorities (approximately nine out of ten cannabis arrests in NYC are made against minorities).

Remember Prohibition? It still doesn’t work.

by Byron Andrus, NORML Foundation legal intern and second year law student at George Mason University School of Law

Recently, NORML supported the efforts of Congressmen Ron Paul (R-TX) and Barney Frank (D-MA) in their sponsorship of H.R. 2306, ‘Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011’, a House bill which seeks to remove federal penalties for marijuana offenses and thus allow for the individual states to set their own marijuana policies. While the bill will likely fail to reach even a committee hearing due to the efforts of another Texas Republican and Judiciary Committee Chairman, Lamar Smith, its introduction has raised some interesting constitutional questions and has given more food for thought to legal scholars interested in the oft-forgotten 10th Amendment.

The 10th Amendment reads rather plainly: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” Essentially, this means that the powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, which are very limited in number, are left to the state legislatures. This may seem obvious, but judges and constitutional scholars have continuously debated about what “the powersnot delegated to the United States” are.

Controversially, the power of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce granted to it by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that the feds may regulate nearly anything that has an effect on interstate commerce. In the landmark case of Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court ruled that a woman who grew marijuana plants on her property for her own medical use was participating in “interstate commerce.” Justice Clarence Thomas, in his dissent, astutely observes, “no evidence from the founding suggests that “commerce” included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.” This common sense reading of “interstate commerce” would prevent the federal government from harassing peaceful citizens who are in compliance with state laws, and is a good example of a “10th Amendment” approach to the issue of marijuana legalization.

The Founding Fathers took great pains to choose carefully the words they inserted into the text of the Constitution. Nowhere in the document is the federal government granted the power to regulate intrastate commerce (commerce within one state). Furthermore, “commerce” refers to transactions in which goods or services are exchanged. Ms. Raich did not intend to buy, sell, trade, or give away her marijuana, she only intended it to be used for her own medical purposes—despite this and the clear omission by the founders of a federal primacy regarding states’ economies under the 10th Amendment. The real world application of the Gonzales decision means that those with serious illnesses like Ms. Raich are not legally permitted to grow and consume their own medicine—even if state laws allow for such.

The Commerce Clause has also been invoked when armed federal agents decide to raid dispensaries in states where medical marijuana is legally permitted to be sold. The latest memo from the Department of Justice, known as the ‘Cole Memo’, suggests that the federal government will continue to raid dispensaries, even ones that are operating in accordance with state laws. This contradicted a 2009 memo written by the former Deputy Attorney General David Ogden, in which he suggested that federal resources should not be wasted on marijuana enforcement as long as dispensary owners remained in “clear and unambiguous” compliance with state law. This reversal in policy now suggests that the federal government can target those involved in the medical marijuana industry, even those in compliance with state law.

In addition to the constant threat of arrest and prosecution, the potential loss of one’s business creates a great deal of uncertainty in the markets of states where medical marijuana is legal. Investing in a dispensary has become a risky proposition, and it has led to dispensary owners already heavily invested in the business to wonder whether or not they will be able to open their doors. This uncertainty causes patients to go without their medicine and causes business owners to flounder under unclear regulations. Removing the federal penalties for marijuana offenses by passing H.R. 2306 would completely eliminate this problem, as patients and business owners would simply need to comply with state laws, no longer having to worry about getting their doors kicked in by federal agents. A “10th Amendment” approach to marijuana policy would finally ease the fear and uncertainty that are part and parcel of federal Marijuana Prohibition.

An expansive reading of the federal government’s ability to regulate interstate commerce seems to be at odds with the 10th Amendment. Since the federal government may not regulate intrastate commerce, it follows that this is a right reserved to the states. The division of powers in our federal system was intended to prevent an overreach of federal power. Unfortunately, the ever-expanding federal government now sees fit to regulate everything from the amount of water you can have in your toilet to what kind of light bulbs consumers can buy to what plants you may grow on your property—the laws of the states be damned if necessary.

H.R. 2306 puts forth the common sense proposition, consistent with the 10th Amendment, that it should be the prerogative of each state to determine for itself whether or not to legalize marijuana for either medical or recreational purposes—a tried and true, and constitutionally sound approach that previously worked to end the folly of another federal government overreach, Alcohol Prohibition. A return by federal judges to interpreting the plain meaning of “interstate commerce,” coupled with an emphasis on the 10th Amendment, would mark an excellent starting point in getting the federal government out of the way and allowing state governments to make their own informed decisions on marijuana policy.

Organizer of ‘cannabis caravans’ now going for online ‘teleclinics’

By GWEN FLORIO – Missoulian

Montana’s tough new medical marijuana law was supposed to end the phenomenon of assembly-line doctor appointments or online recommendations for therapeutic cannabis.

It didn’t.

While some medical marijuana businesses have shut down during the legal wrangling over the new law, others are staging one-day clinics where people can get a doctor’s recommendation for marijuana.

And Jason Christ, the Missoula medical marijuana entrepreneur who staged the roaming “cannabis caravans” that signed up hundreds of patients at a time, announced last week that he’s reviving his online “teleclinics.”

“We are seeing patients for their mmj cards by the hundreds,” brags the website for CarePlus+, the new name for Christ’s business that gained notoriety as the Montana Caregivers Network and, later, CannabisCare.

Christ’s email announcing the service touted “visits on your computer with a Montana-licensed physician,” as well as in-person visits “with our traveling doctors.”

That’s exactly what the new state law aimed to stop. The law was passed by the 2011 Legislature without Gov. Brian Schweitzer’s signature. Portions of it were struck down by District Court Judge James Reynolds of Helena a day before it went into effect.

“I don’t think there’s an argument that the former teleclinic/traveling model is permitted,” said Sen. Jeff Essmann, R-Billings, who sponsored the law restricting the 2004 voter initiative that legalized the medical use of marijuana. “The intention to prohibit the traveling clinics was quite clear.”

The new law went into effect July 1. The CarePlus+ website lists clinics in Missoula on July 21 and July 23, one in an unspecified area in the Flathead on July 30 and one in Helena on July 31, as well as a Missoula teleclinic July 17.

Another business, The Healing Center, offers clinics in Bozeman July 25-26 and in Butte on July 27.

“Walk-ins welcome,” says the website, which lists a series of one-day clinics in Montana, Arizona and Alaska. “All patients will qualify (as per state law).”

Mike Smith, executive director of The Healing Center, said about 40 to 50 people are seen at each of the clinics in a business model he plans to take nationwide. He bristled at any comparison to Christ’s caravans.

“We do not do it like Jason Christ,” he said. “We see every patient, one at a time, in a doctor’s office.”

The new law mandated an automatic review — at the physician’s cost — by the state Board of Medical Examiners of any doctor recommending medical marijuana for more than 25 patients within a year. State health statistics show a single, unnamed physician signed recommendations for more than one in five of Montana’s 30,000 registered medical marijuana users. But that requirement was among the provisions blocked by Reynolds.

Still, the Legislature wanted all doctor’s recommendations for medical marijuana to come from “a bona fide legitimate patient relationship,” Assistant Attorney General Jim Molloy said. “The intent therefore was to make it unlawful to recommend medical marijuana by the use of traveling or temporary medical clinics.”

Tom Charlton said he’s “trying to toe the line” when it comes to the new law.

“We’re continuing business as before, even though it’s not like before,” said Charlton, who was a caregiver for medical marijuana patients as part of his M4U business in the North Reserve Business Park in Missoula.

Along with another nearby medical marijuana business, M4U staged a three-day clinic over the weekend so that Charlton’s old patients could designate him as their medical marijuana provider. Another two-day clinic is set for next month. All of M4U’s clinics take place in Missoula, he said.

Under the old law, Charlton was a caregiver, permitted to grow six marijuana plants for each of an unlimited number of patients. The new law requires him to re-register as a provider. It limited providers to three patients, but that portion was temporarily blocked by Reynolds.

The law also mandates that patients using medical marijuana for chronic pain — who make up two-thirds of those with medical marijuana cards — bring X-rays or MRI scans from their primary physician to support their claims, and to obtain a recommendation from a second doctor.

Charlton said the rule at M4U’s clinic is simple: no records, no recommendation.

The Healing Center’s website notes that “since our doctors are consulting about a patient’s eligibility to acquire their medical cannabis ID card we require that all of our patients have at least one other current physician.”

And Christ’s email said CarePlus+ could refer patients to “outside services” for lab work, X-rays and MRIs.

Christ told the Missoulian last October that nearly all Montana Caregiver Network recommendations were made via online Skype video appointments. At the time, he boasted that MCN had signed up 80 percent of the state’s then-23,000 medical marijuana cardholders.

The state Board of Medical Examiners ruled in November that online visits could only be used for medical marijuana card renewals. Christ’s note about the CarePlus+ services said the teleclinic visits included “follow-up recommendations,” but didn’t specify that online visits were limited to renewals.

Debate over the new state law, along with a series of federal raids on several medical marijuana businesses around the state this spring, cast a pall over Montana’s booming medical marijuana industry. Many in the business openly criticized Christ for provoking the law that they say is destroying their livelihoods.

Christ had assumed a considerably lower profile in the last year after a series of lawsuits and counter-suits involving former employees and business partners, as well as a pending felony intimidation charge that stems from an alleged bomb threat against a Missoula Verizon store.

So his email last week appeared to signal what some see as an unwelcome return to prominence.

“The damn teleclinics,” Smith called them. “He’s already pissing people off.”

Dr. John Stowers, a plaintiff in the suit filed against the new law, dashed off a furious email in response after Christ announced CarePlus+.

“So here we go again! You stupid arrogant (expletive),” Stowers wrote. “Haven’t you figured out that you created the majority of the problems in the first place.”

Essmann chose his words more diplomatically.

“Mr. Christ’s problem ultimately is going to be with federal law enforcement,” he said. “… Mr. Christ is definitely facilitating the distribution of a controlled substance, as are the physicians he’s affiliated with. At some point, some aggressive young prosecutor is going to issue a subpoena to obtain that doctor’s name and have a visit with Mr. Christ.”

Rodney King DUI Arrest: “I Had Medical Marijuana in me”


Charged with DUI on Tuesday, Rodney King claims he was under the influence of medical marijuana, not alcohol. “I had marijuana in me that I take to deal with migraine headaches and pain in my lower extremities,” says King, adding: “Although I should not have been driving.”

King’s vehicle was stopped by police in Moreno Valley, California. “A preliminary evaluation of the driver indicated he was possibly driving while impaired,” Riverside Sheriff spokeswoman Courtney Donowho  alleges. He was released after several hours.


Rodney King, whose videotaped beating by cops became a symbol of police brutality and ultimately sparked the 1992 Los Angeles riots, was busted for driving under the influence.

Cops watched King, 46, commit “several traffic violations” while behind the wheel of a 1994

Mitsubishi before pulling him over on Tuesday afternoon, Moreno Valley, Calif., police said.

King was arrested and booked on suspicion of driving under the influence.

Cops said it wasn’t clear whether King was drunk or high on drugs.

In 1991, King was viciously beaten by Los Angeles police officers after a high-speed chase through the San Fernando Valley, leaving him with skull fractures and brain damage.

A bystander filmed the assault, and four officers were indicted. After a controversial trial, all four were acquitted, sparking riots across L.A. that killed 55 people and caused more than id=”mce_marker” billion in property damage.

Two of the officers were later found guilty of federal civil rights violations; two were acquitted. King was awarded $3.8 million in damages. He became engaged last year to a juror from the federal trial.

King has had several scrapes with the law in the 20 years since the incident, and has publicly struggled with his addictions by appearing on the reality shows “Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew” and “Sober House.”

He was arrested in 1995 for allegedly running over his wife with a car and eventually served 90 days in jail for hit and run.

In September 2001, he was busted on drug charges after cops alleged he was high on PCP.

He was also arrested in 2003 for ramming his car into a house while driving drunk, and again in 2005 for threatening his daughter and ex-girlfriend.

In 2007, he told police that he had been sprayed by shotgun pellets by a man and a woman who tried to steal his bike. No one was arrested in that incident.

Most recently, King was cited in March for driving with an expired license.