Sponsored by

VGoodiez 420EDC
  • Welcome to VaporAsylum! Please take a moment to read our RULES and introduce yourself here.
  • Need help navigating the forum? Find out how to use our features here.
  • Did you know we have lots of smilies for you to use?

Law The Cannabis Chronicles - Misc Cannabis News

Personally, I think Timbs is not a good example for why this outrageous seizing of private property needs to be crushed by the SCOTUS. There are many more examples where no drugs were found but the cops kept the cash that was found. No drugs, no crime, but they kept the cash.

This is outright thievery by our state and local law enforcement organizations and is supported by that "how can he be wrong on EVERY issue) Jeff Sessions (almost reason enough there to ban the practice...I mean, if ole' El Jeffe likes it, it must be fucked up and fascist in nature).


He Sold Drugs for $225. Indiana Took His $42,000 Land Rover.

WASHINGTON — Tyson Timbs would like his Land Rover back.

The State of Indiana took it, using a law that lets it seize vehicles used to transport illegal drugs. Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether the Constitution has anything to say about such civil forfeiture laws, which allow states and localities to take and keep private property used to commit crimes.

Mr. Timbs bought the Land Rover after his father died. The life insurance money amounted to around $73,000, and he spent $42,000 of it on the vehicle. He blew most of the rest on drugs.

“Unfortunately, I had a whole bunch of money, which isn’t a good idea for a drug addict to have,” Mr. Timbs recalled the other day. “I used a lot, and eventually the money ran out. It was an addict’s life.”

Mr. Timbs’s habit started with an opioid addiction and progressed to heroin. He used his Land Rover to get drugs and, on at least two occasions, to sell them. The buyers were undercover police officers.

Mr. Timbs pleaded guilty to one of the drug sales, in which $225 had changed hands, and he was sentenced to a year of house arrest followed by five years of probation. He also agreed to pay an array of fees and fines adding up to about $1,200.

But Indiana wanted more. Using the civil forfeiture law, it took the Land Rover.

Mr. Timbs, 37, has put his life back together, but it has not been easy. “I have to go to meetings, to counseling, to probation appointments,” he said, making clear that he was not complaining.

“They want you to get a job,” he said. “It’s hard to do without a vehicle. Plus, I was a felon, which makes it even harder to find a job.”

He found work as a machinist in a factory some 40 minutes from his home in Marion, Ind., where he lives with his aunt. He borrows her car to get to work, and he feels guilty about that.

“She has to take a bus back and forth to her kidney dialysis appointments,” he said.

As Justice Clarence Thomas explained last year in an opinion urging the Supreme Court to examine civil forfeiture laws, government seizures of property used to commit crimes have become worrisomely popular.

“Forfeiture has in recent decades become widespread and highly profitable,” Justice Thomas wrote. “And because the law enforcement entity responsible for seizing the property often keeps it, these entities have strong incentives to pursue forfeiture.”

Image
26dc-bar2-articleLarge.jpg

Justice Clarence Thomas urged the court to examine civil forfeiture laws in an opinion last year.CreditJonathan Ernst/Reuters
“This system — where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use — has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses,” he wrote, citing excellent reporting from The Washington Post and The New Yorker.

The burdens of civil forfeiture fall disproportionately on the poor, said Wesley P. Hottot, a lawyer with the Institute for Justice, which represents Mr. Timbs.

“Tyson’s case illustrates how civil forfeiture makes it harder for people who have made mistakes to correct those mistakes and re-enter society,” Mr. Hottot said. “It shouldn’t take the United States Supreme Court to make clear that you don’t take everything from a person who’s facing the kinds of challenges Tyson is.”

Mr. Timbs won the early rounds in Indiana’s lawsuit seeking to take his vehicle, based on the Eighth Amendment, which says that “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

Judge Jeffrey D. Todd, of the Grant County Superior Court, said the amendment’s second clause — the one barring “excessive fines” — protected Mr. Timbs. The Land Rover, the judge wrote, was worth about four times the maximum fine Mr. Timbs could have been ordered to pay, which was $10,000. It was also worth more than 30 times the fines that were actually imposed.

“The amount of the forfeiture sought is excessive and is grossly disproportional to the gravity of the defendant’s offense,” Judge Todd wrote.

An appeals court agreed. In dissent, Judge Michael P. Barnes wrote that civil forfeiture laws can be abused but that Mr. Timbs should lose the vehicle.

“I am keenly aware of the overreach some law enforcement agencies have exercised in some of these cases,” Judge Barnes wrote. “Entire family farms are sometimes forfeited based on one family member’s conduct, or exorbitant amounts of money are seized. However, it seems to me that one who deals heroin, and there is no doubt from the record we are talking about a dealer, must and should suffer the legal consequences to which he exposes himself.”

The Indiana Supreme Court ruled against Mr. Timbs, on interesting grounds. It said the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of excessive fines did not apply to ones imposed by states.

This is, surprisingly, an open question. The Bill of Rights originally restricted the power of only the federal government, but the Supreme Court has ruled that most of its protections apply to the states under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, one of the post-Civil War amendments.

But there are a few exceptions, and the Supreme Court has been inconsistent about where it stands on the excessive fines clause. Mr. Timbs’s case is poised to resolve the question. It will be argued in the fall.

In the meantime, Mr. Timbs sometimes lapses into frustration and bitterness.

“I don’t deserve this,” he said. “Nobody does. It’s an unnecessary stressor. I struggle with more than addiction. I struggle with anxiety and depression. I don’t feel like much of a man, because I don’t have a vehicle.”
 
Momentum builds in congress to lift federal restrictions on marijuana

Forty-six states currently have marijuana legalization laws. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana, while seventeen states have allowed access to certain strains for some medical purposes. More recently, nine states and the District of Columbia have legalized it for recreational use. As states continue to move forward with efforts to legalize marijuana, momentum is building in Congress to lift related federal restrictions.

Given recent signs of support from President Donald Trump, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), there is an opportunity to lift the federal ban on marijuana, which could significantly change the legal landscape for the marijuana industry and other key stakeholders.

Enforcement Uncertainty Regarding Federal Restrictions on Marijuana
Despite state laws providing for some form of legal use of marijuana, its manufacture, distribution, possession, and use are largely prohibited under federal law. Marijuana is currently classified as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which places controlled substances into five schedules based on their potential for abuse, medical use, and safety or dependence liability. As a Schedule I drug, marijuana is considered to have a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use, similar to heroin and LSD. Importantly, because of its classification as a Schedule I drug, marijuana is prohibited at the federal level and punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. Further, because marijuana is illegal under the CSA, depository institutions, which are required under banking laws to report activities that appear to be violations of federal law, are reluctant to accept deposits from marijuana businesses.

Given the conflict between state and federal law, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and federal banking agencies have issued guidance on the enforcement of these federal restrictions. In 2013, the DOJ issued a memo allowing for prosecutorial discretion in states that have legalized marijuana and implemented strong regulatory systems. Moreover, in 2014, the Department of the Treasury issued guidelines clarifying that financial institutions could provide services to marijuana businesses without being subject to liability for aiding and abetting a crime and money laundering under the CSA and federal banking laws in certain circumstances.

In January 2018, however, Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded the 2013 DOJ guidance and directed U.S. Attorneys to enforce federal law, calling the shift “a return to the rule of law.” Although the guidelines issued by the Department of the Treasury have not been rescinded to date, there is uncertainty regarding the enforcement of federal restrictions on marijuana and the ability of financial institutions to provide services to marijuana businesses without liability.

Current Efforts in Congress to Lift Federal Restrictions on Marijuana

Policymakers in both chambers of Congress have responded to this enforcement uncertainty by introducing legislation that would lift federal restrictions on marijuana. On June 7, 2018, Senators Cory Gardner (R-CO) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), along with Representatives David Joyce (R-OH) and Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), introduced the bipartisan Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States (STATES) Act (S.3032/ H.R.6043), which would amend the CSA so it does not apply to persons or entities acting in compliance with state laws allowing for the manufacture, production, possession, distribution, and delivery of marijuana generally. In order to address concerns from the financial services industry, the STATES Act also provides that such compliant transactions will not amount to trafficking or an unlawful transaction.

Last year, Representatives Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) and Denny Heck (D-WA) introduced the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act (H.R. 2215), which would allow marijuana businesses to access the banking system in states that allow the cultivation, production, manufacture, sale, transportation, distribution, or purchase of marijuana generally. Notably, a bipartisan group of senators introduced a companion bill (S. 1152) and, earlier this year, a group of 19 state attorneys general sent a letter to congressional leaders urging the passage of H.R. 2215.

Although more limited in scope, the Compassionate Access, Research Expansion, and Respect States (CARERS) Act (S.1764/H.R.2920) would ensure that the CSA does not apply to persons or entities that act in compliance with state laws permitting marijuana specifically for medical purposes. Other bills focused on medical marijuana include H.R. 2020, which would reclassify marijuana to a Schedule III drug under the CSA and facilitate research into its medical benefits.

Stakeholder and Policymaker Support for Lifting Federal Restrictions
There is broad stakeholder and policymaker support for lifting federal restrictions on marijuana. Notably, a majority of Americans support the legalization of marijuana. According to a recent poll conducted by Quinnipiac University, approximately 63 percent of American voters support full legalization, while 93 percent support legalizing marijuana for medical purposes. The marijuana industry has also come out in strong support, along with financial services institutions that wish to provide services to marijuana businesses without fear of liability.

President Trump recently signaled that he would support Senator Gardner’s STATES Act despite Attorney General Sessions’ stance on the issue. President Trump has changed his position over time, pledging to respect state laws providing for the legalization of marijuana, while also criticizing its legalization during his campaign. However, his most recent position has been viewed as a compromise with Senator Gardner, who has held up several DOJ nominees since Attorney General Sessions announced that he would rescind the 2013 DOJ guidance.

Senate Majority Leader McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Schumer have also signaled possible support for lifting federal restrictions on marijuana. The Senate Majority Leader not only attended the Senate Agriculture Committee mark-up of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, but he also helped secure language from the Hemp Farming Act (S. 2667) as part of the bill, which the committee approved on June 13. The language would remove low-THC cannabis from marijuana regulation under the CSA. In addition, the Senate Minority Leader has recently announced plans to introduce legislation to decriminalize marijuana at the federal level.

Admittedly, there is concern that support from President Trump and Senate leaders may not be sufficient to get these efforts across the finish line. In particular, there is concern that there may not be enough support among House Republicans. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and other key Republican policymakers have consistently opposed related measures. However, there is hope that former Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) may help garner support. Former Speaker Boehner, who at one point claimed to be “unalterably opposed” to marijuana legalization, recently joined the board of one of the largest cannabis corporations in the country and has been outspoken about his evolving views on marijuana.

While the STATES Act may need a political lift, the SAFE Banking Act could be a candidate for enactment by the end of the year if it gains more bipartisan support. On June 13, the House Appropriations Committee rejected an amendment to the FY19 Financial Services funding bill that would have prevented the Department of the Treasury from taking action against financial institutions that provide services to marijuana businesses acting in compliance with state law. However, the SAFE Banking Act could gain support among House Republicans over time if they see similarities between the financial institutions that are trying to cater to the marijuana industry and the frustration with Operation Choke Point, an Obama administration initiative to crack down on fraud that drew criticism because of its negative impact on legal businesses.

In the meantime, appropriators in both chambers have inserted language in their FY19 Commerce-Justice-Science spending bills to prevent the DOJ from interfering with states that have legalized medical marijuana. The Senate Appropriations Committee included the protection as part of its initial measure, which the committee approved on June 14. Last month, the House Appropriations Committee included a similar measure as an amendment, which was approved by voice vote. A similar measure was included in the spending bill Congress passed in March, but the protections expire on September 30, 2018, and need to be renewed for FY19.

Conclusion
As states move forward with the legalization of marijuana, it will become increasingly important to address the conflict between marijuana-related state and federal laws. Given the broad bipartisan support in both chambers for lifting federal restrictions, along with President Trump’s support of key measures, there is an opportunity to lift the federal ban on marijuana, which could change the legal landscape for the marijuana industry and other stakeholders.
 
YOu really need to read the article below in detail to understand just what a lying mofo this lady is. This type of outright exaggeration and lies is what we face with the antis.

Its a good thing she's the EX police chief. Otherwise, I suspect the city council would have her ass on a hot grill for presenting this crap.


"Late last year, members of the San Diego chapter of Americans for Safe Access, a medical marijuana advocacy group, filed a public records request for details of the 272 radio calls that Zimmerman cited. At the group’s request, Diane Goldstein, a retired Redondo Beach police lieutenant, analyzed the records, which were made available on the city’s website in March. She concluded that the Police Department’s presentation was “sloppy, unprofessional and based on ideology.”
Read it and weep for the loss of integrity in public office in our country these days.

Ex-Police Chief Cited Misleading Stats When Lobbying Against Pot Facilities

Former Police Chief Shelley Zimmerman warned the San Diego City Council last year not to expand the number of marijuana licenses, citing crime stats from existing dispensaries. Documents reveal those stats included police calls to nearby businesses and other unrelated incidents. Yet Zimmerman’s testimony is now being used to dissuade other governments from allowing marijuana storefronts in their communities.


settlement-0007.jpg


Every municipality in San Diego County that limits or bans the sale of marijuana has cited public safety as the justification without much detail.

That’s what made Shelley Zimmerman’s testimony in September 2017 unique.

San Diego’s police chief at the time, Zimmerman urged the City Council against allowing cultivation, manufacturing and distribution facilities. The negative consequences would be “enormous,” Zimmerman argued. She cited 272 police radio calls for “burglaries, robberies, thefts, assaults and shootings, just to name a few,” at medical marijuana dispensaries over a two-and-a-half-year period as evidence of the kind of activity such facilities invite on a neighborhood.

“Some of you have said that public safety is also your No. 1 priority,” she told the City Council. “I hope you do keep that in mind when you cast your vote today.”

Although the City Council ultimately voted to allow the facilities, Zimmerman’s testimony influenced at least one dissenting Council member.

It was also misleading. And it’s now being used across the region to dissuade other governing bodies from allowing marijuana businesses in their communities.

Earlier this month, Zimmerman’s stats appeared in a memo written by Oceanside Police Chief Frank McCoy to the City Council, which decided — against the recommendations of a subcommittee — not to allow retail shops. Her remarks were also cited by anti-pot activists in Imperial Beach who helped slow down marijuana regulations there.

Tom Hetherington, a San Diego resident who owns an apartment building in Imperial Beach, warned that City Council about what a marijuana storefront would do to real estate values and summarized Zimmerman’s testimony.

“There is a real issue of policing,” he said, “and I’m concerned about that, and I am an investor.”

Late last year, members of the San Diego chapter of Americans for Safe Access, a medical marijuana advocacy group, filed a public records request for details of the 272 radio calls that Zimmerman cited. At the group’s request, Diane Goldstein, a retired Redondo Beach police lieutenant, analyzed the records, which were made available on the city’s website in March. She concluded that the Police Department’s presentation was “sloppy, unprofessional and based on ideology.”

“This is their way of trying to undermine the passage of Proposition 64,” said Goldstein, who chairs Law Enforcement Action Partnership, a national group that opposes the war on drugs.

Zimmerman declined an interview. “I’m really not interested in talking to you,” she said when reached by phone, and hung up.

Voice of San Diego independently reviewed the reports, which provide basic information about the time and location of 911 calls and brief descriptions of how officers responded. The address listed on more than a quarter of those reports were to neighboring business, not a marijuana facility. Several of the city’s legal dispensaries existed then — as they still do — within shopping malls or office complexes.

THCSD-800x533.jpg

An office complex in Mission Valley, where The Healing Center San Diego, or THCSD, marijuana dispensary operates. / Photo by Adriana Heldiz

For instance, the medical marijuana dispensary Healing Center San Diego, or THCSD, is located inside a medical office building on Camino del Rio South in Mission Valley. On May 1, 2017, a woman fell in the parking lot and was having trouble breathing, possibly suffering a stroke. The address on the report belonged to a nearby pain management center. Yet the call was among those cited by Zimmerman as evidence that medical marijuana facilities attract crime.

Harbor Collective, another dispensary, sits on a street in Barrio Logan near the shipyards. On Feb. 27, 2017, police officers received a report of a fuel tank driver who was driving recklessly on the freeway and met the caller, another driver, on the same block as the dispensary to get more information. That call, too, was included in Zimmerman’s statistics.

On Aug. 30, 2016, police got a report of a man digging through a dumpster behind a shopping center in San Ysidro. He’d threatened to shoot another person, but left by the time officers arrived. Zimmerman’s presentation suggests the dispensary Southwest Patient Group is to blame for that.

And so on.

Many of the reports do not list the specific suite number of a dispensary. Instead, they offer the general address of a shopping mall or office complex, so it’s difficult to tell whether a dispensary employee or customer was the reason for a police response. The stats also include dozens of crank payphone calls to 911 operators made in the parking lot of complexes that house dispensaries and other businesses, dozens of false security alarms and even a couple requests to tow automobiles.

Only a fifth of the total reports reviewed by Voice actually cite a dispensary as the location of a potential crime — some of which were undoubtedly serious offenses. A Mankind Cooperative security guard broke up a fight between several people on June 13, 2017. A Torrey Holistics employee was robbed at gunpoint on Sept. 15, 2016, possibly while making a delivery.

Other reports are mundane. They include things like graffiti and vandalism complaints, water leaks and men being refused service because they couldn’t bring a dog inside the shop.

During her testimony to the City Council, Zimmerman noted that there’d been shootings at medical marijuana dispensaries in San Diego between 2015 and 2017. In the data, Voice found three reports of weapons being discharged.

In one instance, a Harbor Collective employee thought a bullet had been responsible for a broken window, but it was a rock. In another instance, a security guard accidentally fired a gun while cleaning it. And in the third instance, a security guard appears to have fired at a group of burglars in the middle of the night.

In April, the Oceanside City Council approved permits for marijuana businesses that produce and distribute marijuana products, and agreed to give law enforcement more time to research the possible effects of a walk-in dispensary. Disappointed by the compromise, a regional marijuana trade group has renewed work on a ballot measure that would legalize recreational dispensaries and more.

Last week, the Oceanside City Council revisited the topic again and this time agreed to allow two companies to deliver to medical marijuana patients, the Union-Tribune reported.

McCoy, the police chief, asked for more time so that he could capture more information from other cities. He didn’t give a deadline but noted in a June 13 memo to the City Council, “At that time, our Department can then return with meaningful recommendations to ensure that any dispensaries opened in our City will be able to meet the needs of those desiring Medical Marijuana, as well as address the overall safety of our community.”

McCoy rounded up crime stats from several California cities, and his memo briefly mentions a homicide in San Diego. Although McCoy’s office did not respond to an interview request, it’s likely the police chief was referring to a 2014 shootout inside an illegal medical marijuana dispensary in North Park, where an armed robber was shot and killed by a security guard.

A trend of violent robberies that the Sheriff’s Department identified last year stemmed from the region’s unlicensed dispensaries, which operate underground and without the security protocols mandated by the city and state. Legal dispensaries in San Diego are required to keep two licensed, armed security guards during business hours and at least one around the clock. A third-party company monitors the alarm systems. There are sensors mounted around the facility to detect motion, lights, the opening of doors and windows.

Alex Scherer, who founded the Southwest Patient Group and co-founded the United Medical Marijuana Coalition trade group, said he’s always shocked to hear law enforcement throw out stats, because the numbers conflict with his own impressions of what’s happening inside his store and others. It’s led to a sense among the licensed shop owners, he said, that reporting minor problems to police may be counterproductive, because those calls will later be used against them.

Many of the calls to the city’s dispensaries between 2015 and 2017 could have come from just about any retail business, Scherer said. “It’s not a consequence of us being a dispensary, but just the way things are.”
 
How the New FDA-Approved Pot Medication Could Change Legal Weed

The CBD-based medication will help people with severe epilepsy – but it could also open doors for real scientific testing of marijuana in the U.S.

fda-approves-first-cbd-medication-e265b434-1629-4cf2-bc6f-e3b3bc82b1ef.jpg

What will the FDA ruling mean for medical marijuana?

Despite a large body of research documenting cannabis’ effectiveness in treating epilepsy, there has yet to be a cannabis-based anti-seizure medication introduced on the U.S. pharmaceutical market – until this week.

On Monday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved a epilepsy drug utilizing plant-derived cannabidiol (CBD), a common non-psychoactive cannabinoid found in the Cannabis sativa plant. It’s the first time the regulatory body had greenlit a medication based on natural – not synthesized – CBD, and some experts are hailing this approval as a major step forward for the medical cannabis industry.

“It’s fantastic. This has been a complete tipping point,” says George Scorsis, CEO of Liberty Health Sciences, the U.S. branch of Aphria, Inc., a Canada-based medical cannabis firm. “It rapidly destigmatizes what cannabis can do.”

Epidiolex, manufactured by U.K.-owned GW Pharmaceuticals, targets two forms of severe epilepsy, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome. These rare conditions are often difficult to treat because they’re resistant to most anti-seizure drugs.

That’s why GW Pharmaceuticals is thrilled by the FDA approval, says Steve Schultz, GW Pharmaceuticals’ vice president of Investor Relations. Clinical trials show that Epidiolex significantly reduces seizure frequency – Dravet patients saw a 39 percent drop in convulsive seizures, while people with LSG experienced a decrease between 37 to 41 percent in drop seizures, depending on dosage.

“Patients that are suffering from these treatment-resistant epilepsies will now have an additional option that they can utilize,” Schultz, tells Rolling Stone. “That’s the most important facet of this exciting approval.”

There’s only one hitch: The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has classified all marijuana-extracted cannabinoids, including CBD, as a Schedule I substance, which means the agency finds the compounds to not have any medicinal benefit, despite years of research suggesting otherwise. In order for Epidiolex to even be put on the U.S. market, the DEA would need to reclassify CBD – a process that will take at least 90 days. (This won’t affect hemp-derived CBD, which is exempt from the Controlled Substances Act under the Farm Bill.)

How the DEA will reschedule this form of CBD is too early to predict, some experts say. The agency could reclassify plant-derived CBD as a legal pharmaceutical – but not a legal recreational drug – under Schedule II or III, while keeping cannabis a Schedule I drug. Or the DEA could deschedule cannabis entirely – though experts consider that option far less likely. (Dozens of cannabis-related
bills are floating around Congress, including several that would decriminalize marijuana, though at this point none of them have the votes to pass.)

“There are so many things that are happening within this realm right now. We’re not sure at what level they’re going to go,” Scorsis says. “Ultimately anything outside of what it is today would be a major leap forward for the entire industry.”

Rolling Stone reached out to the DEA for comment, but did not hear back in time for publication.

At its core, the FDA’s approval of Epidiolex validates what the public has said for decades, says NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano: That cannabis has tremendous therapeutic and medicinal benefits. But, Armentano continues, the DEA’s impending decision is just one variable among many that will determine the impact Epidiolex’s approval will have on the medical cannabis industry – if it does at all.

“People are downplaying these variables,” Armentano tells Rolling Stone. “There’s still a lot we don’t know.”

ap_17143772523848-0a81ccf0-aff6-49be-a467-887e0590da47.jpg


Think of it this way: Federal law bars U.S.-based pharmaceutical companies from legally cultivating marijuana for scientific research. Scientists in the United States could apply for a license to conduct research on Schedule I drugs, but that’s often a convoluted and frustrating process.

“That’s why Epidiolex was developed in Britain,” Armentano says, “because GW Pharmaceuticals got the OK it needed from its federal government.”

It’s true rescheduling cannabis-derived CBD may potentially loosen those regulations. But, some experts say, the shift would hardly be significant enough to bring on a revolution where medical cannabis research is concerned.

Plus, Epidiolex is not the first cannabis-based medicine approved by the FDA, though it’s the first plant-derived one. In the mid-1980s, the regulatory body had rubber-stamped Marinol (dronabinol) and Cesamet (nabilone), two anti-nausea and anti-vomiting pills utilizing synthetic forms of tetrahydrocannabinol — better known as THC — the active psychoactive compound in cannabis. In 2016, the FDA approved Syndros, another medication based on synthesized cannabinoids that’s used to treat AIDS-related anorexia.

The DEA had classified nabilone and the liquid synthetic THC found in Syndros as Schedule II substances, while dronabinol is listed as a Schedule III substance, according to NORML. That means these synthesized compounds are, under the Controlled Substances Act, legal medical treatments.

Yet, experts say, none of these drugs have led to any significant shake-ups within the pharmaceutical world. “The approval of Epidiolex may not impact the medical cannabis industry any more than Marinol did, particularly if its use is limited to pediatric epilepsy patients,” says Dennis Hunter, co-founder of CannaCraft, a California-based cannabis manufacturing firm.

That brings up another variable: How comfortable will doctors feel prescribing Epidiolex for off-label use?

GW Pharmaceuticals’ drug takes two very specific, rare epileptic conditions, which means that a relatively small number of people will have access to the drug. That means that the broader impact of the FDA approval may, in part, depend on whether or not physicians use Epidiolex to treat other non-FDA-sanctioned ailments, experts say.

“The primary area that will continue to advance the use of CBD products and the level of education in terms of how to prescribe it,” Scorsis tells Rolling Stone.

Schultz tells Rolling Stone that GW, and its U.S. subsidiary, Greenwich Biosciences, have other CBD-based drugs in the pipeline – either in development or undergoing clinical trials – that tackle a broader range of neurological and muscular disorders. Epidiolex, though, should only be prescribed for the two epileptic disorders for which it’s approved, he says.

Then, there’s the price point. Schultz tells Rolling Stone that the company has yet to set cost for Epidiolex, but, according to the New York Times, analysts expect the drug to run $2,500 to $5,000 a month. As the Times pointed out, that’s considerably more money than most therapeutic CBD products out there.

If Epidiolex is priced that high, the drug may be out of reach for the very people it intends to help, Armentano says.

In the end, the implications of Epidiolex’s FDA approval for the medical cannabis industry are still unclear, though state-regulated cannabis markets will likely remain unaffected, experts tell Rolling Stone. There are just too many factors to consider.

But one thing is clear, Hunter says: “The approval of Epidiolex underscores the absurdity of classifying cannabis as an illegal substance.”
 
But one thing is clear, Hunter says: “The approval of Epidiolex underscores the absurdity of classifying cannabis as an illegal substance.”

THIS ^^ in big capital letters
 
analysts expect the drug to run $2,500 to $5,000 a month.

Whoa...missed this the first time. $2,500-5,000!!! :yikes::idon'tknow::shakehead::scream::smackdown::BangHead:

This sort of redefines moneylenders in Solomon's temple. What the fuck.

Just keep making it at home or buy from MJ industry. There ain't NOTHING in there that can't be had elsewhere, right?
 
The website address is : https://www.cannabisvoter.info/#bb07f41

This new website tells you where every politician stands on marijuana


2018 is a major election year in the United States as Democrats try to retake control of Congress to stop President Donald Trump's agenda. But now a new website will help you see where politicians stand on a more important issue: Marijuana, writes Joseph Misulonas.

The Cannabis Voter Project is a website that helps track the marijuana views of members of Congress as well as governors for every state. All you have to do is click on the state you're interested in and it will show you all of the elected officials from that state and what their stances are on marijuana. For members of Congress, it shows how the politician voted on cannabis-related bills and for governors it shows both their statements about marijuana as well as legislation related to the issue.

cannabis-politicians-map.png


You can also click on each state to see how marijuana will be on the ballot this November. For instance, if you click on Michigan it will tell you about the ballot initiative to legalize recreational cannabis. Or clicking on Illinois will tell you that Democratic nominee for governor J.B. Pritzker supports recreational marijuana.

The website also includes links for people to help register to vote as well as links to organizations that support marijuana causes and are trying to help cannabis win at the ballot box this November.

Perhaps if more organizations like this begin sprouting up, marijuana will be legalized in all 50 states sooner than we think.
 
Sabet is a tool...a real tool.


Five years into marijuana legalization: What didn’t happen


Prohibitionists’ fears about legal weed didn’t materialize. In January of 2013, Kevin Sabet was facing a new dilemma.

Never before had any prohibitionist had to fight back against an actual legalization regime. For years, Sabet and his kind had issued dire forecasts of the bleak hellscape America would become under the seductive addiction to the devil’s lettuce. Now those predictions would be put to the test in the real world.

So, let’s take a look back to those halcyon days of 2013 when weed had barely been legalized and was not yet legally sold (that didn’t happen until 2014), to see how Sabet’s predictions panned out.

FEAR: “[Legalization of marijuana] would open the floodgates to more addiction.”
FACT: Legalization of marijuana has led to lower use rates among teens, less opioid addiction and death.

Sabet opined in an October 2013 op-ed at CNN that “legality means commercialization, normalization and wider access and availability that lead to more use and addiction.”

According to the 2015-2016 State-Level Estimates contained in the National Survey of Drug Use & Health, marijuana use has increased in Colorado and Washington following their legalization. However, the increase is found mostly among the adults who are now legally able to use marijuana.

five-years-marijuana-legalization-what-didnt-happen-1.jpg


Use among people aged 12-17 has actually declined since those states began legal marijuana sales in 2014. That’s despite the other parts of Sabet’s prediction coming true. In 2015-2016, far fewer teens in Colorado and Washington believed monthly marijuana use was risky and disapproved of peers’ marijuana use.

FEAR: “[Marijuana] users will incur a huge cost to society.”
FACT: Tax revenue from legal marijuana has topped well over $1 billion.

Story Continues Below



“We know, for example, that every $1 gained in alcohol and tobacco tax revenue costs society $10,” Sabet warned GoLocal Worcester in Massachusetts. “Why should we expect marijuana—which combines the intoxicating properties of alcohol with the lung damage associated with smoking—to be any different?”

Maybe because alcohol and tobacco are both toxic and addictive, while marijuana is not? Maybe because people swapping productivity-killing pills for medical marijuana are better workers?

By Sabet’s reckoning, Colorado and Washington should have incurred over $10 billion in social costs from legal weed—something even he won’t try to claim. Instead, they’re using pot money for public benefit, like building schools.

FEAR: “Marijuana intoxication doubles your car crash risk.”
FACT: Colorado and Washington traffic fatalities, non-fatality crashes, and marijuana DUI charges remained steady or declined since legalization.

five-years-marijuana-legalization-what-didnt-happen-2.png


Sabet told Gov. Jennifer Granholm on Current TV back in 2013 that the British Medical Journal published a study showing double the car crash risk for drivers who test positive for THC.

But other studies have shown that if you adjust for age, gender, and alcohol use, positive THC detection has no bearing whatsoever on crash risk.

“One possibility is that people who smoke marijuana share qualities—being young, male, and risk-taking,” wrote researchers back in 2009, “that would increase their risk of road traffic accidents even in the absence of marijuana use.”

“For marijuana, the unadjusted odds ratio was 1.25, but after statistically adjusting for gender, age, race/ethnicity, and driver alcohol concentration,” the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration confirmed in 2017, “there was no significant contribution to crash risk from any drug.”

FEAR: “Today’s marijuana is 10 times more dangerous than the marijuana of the ‘60s that many parents smoked in their dorm rooms.”
FACT: Nobody’s parents were smoking 1-to-3 percent THC marijuana back in college!

Sabet told Salon that whopper based on federal potency data from the 1970s that sampled dried-out ditchweed sitting in hot evidence lockers. That data does not show any THC values above 3 percent until 1994, with values as low as 1.38 percent.

Yes, marijuana is stronger these days, but it’s not as if Cheech & Chong in the 1970s or Snoop & Dre in the 1990s were smoking schwag. As I’ve shown above, those “dangers” Kevin Sabet predicted—greater addiction, social costs, and car crashes from today’s legal not-your-parents’-Woodstock-Weed—just didn’t materialize.

Sabet told me personally as he toured Oregon during our 2014 legalization push that the more the public sees of the results of marijuana legalization, the more their opinions will change.

Given that national public support for legalization is at 68 percent and Oklahoma just passed California-style medical marijuana, I guess we’ll have to give him that one.
 
How cheap can legal marijuana get?


Submitted by Marijuana News on Thu, 07/05/2018 - 09:08
legal-mj.jpg

The laws of supply and demand are creating the cheapest marijuana in North America… but is that good for the long-term viability of the industry?

When legal recreational marijuana sales began in the Pacific Northwest in 2014, prices were as high as $30 per gram for flower.

“My hope is on my home state of Oregon to ramp up production and bottom-out prices,” I wrote for High Times. “I want to see a $50 legal ounce before 2020, dammit!”

That is exactly what has happened. The picture above is a billboard on the boulevard near my home, Delta-9 House & Studios, here in Portland, Oregon.

You read that right. $5 per eighth – not $5 per gram. We’re talking about a store where you may walk in and purchase a $40 ounce of Oregon-grown cannabis
flower.
how-cheap-can-legal-marijuana-get-1.jpg


Just eight blocks from my home, there is an electronic billboard for another cannabis shop. It is advertising flower starting at $10 per eighth, up to $24 per eighth.

So, even the top-shelf flower here is coming in at $192 per ounce.

Keep in mind, these are prices that are including 20 percent in taxes. That means the $5 eighth is actually priced three cents less than $4.20.

how-cheap-can-legal-marijuana-get-2.jpg


The crashing flower prices also mean cheaper concentrates. That same electronic billboard is advertising shatter starting at $10 per gram.

The crashing price is due to factors you may have learned in Economics 101 – supply and demand.

According to an article in the Bend Bulletin, the state’s cannabis regulatory agency says it has logged over one million pounds of flower grown by licensed growers.

That’s five ounces of weed for every adult in the state. A little over 100,000 pounds were sold in the state’s licensed shops in 2017, so there are about 900,000 pounds of legal pot waiting to be sold or processed into concentrates and edibles.

Why so much? Oregon, unlike other legal states, set no limits on the number of producer licenses or the statewide-aggregate canopy space growers may produce.

“Our agency doesn’t have the authority to limit the number of licenses,” says Oregon Liquor Control Commission spokesman Mark Pettinger. “It’s the responsibility or authority of the Legislature.”

Oregon also makes it easy to get in the business of growing weed. The producer license fee starts at just $1,000 at the “Micro Tier I” level (625 sq. ft. indoors / 2,500 sq. ft. outdoors) and the largest “Tier II” license (10,000 sq. ft. indoors / 40,000 sq. ft. outdoors) only costs $5,750.

“There weren’t a whole lot of barriers to entry,” explained Beau Whitney, senior economist for New Frontier Data, in Willamette Week. “The OLCC basically issued a license to anyone who qualified.”

This led to now over 1,000 licensed growers all in a fierce competition to sell their crop.

“With outdoor flower, you’re seeing $300 to $600 pounds; for indoor, between $600 to $1,600,” says Lindsey Rinehart, a sales rep with Hoodview Cannabis Distribution, one of the state’s licensed wholesalers.

The flood of product here has also caused an economic upheaval, both for legal operators who sunk thousands into new businesses that are struggling to survive and for the underground growers who must undercut the legal price to stay in business.

Rinehart thinks the growers are slowly adapting to the new economy.

“Across the board we’re hearing producers are reducing planting or haven’t planted,” she says. “Down in Southern Oregon we’re seeing less pots and less plots, when they would’ve been planted by now in years before.”

Cannabis consumers, however, are wondering how low prices can go? Since we beat my $50-ounce deadline by two years, should we dare to dream of the $20-ounce by 2020?
 
This article could have gone in the Canada or Michigan legal thread but since it pertains to any U.S. state that borders Canada this seemed like the best place for it....

Canada's legal weed not welcome in U.S

PORT HURON, Mich. — Marijuana will be legal nationwide in Canada on Oct. 17, but don't expect a grassroots tourism effort to put a dent in the balance of trade or even chill out a simmering trade war between the two countries.

Authorities do not expect a major flow of Americans over the Blue Water Bridge in Ontario looking for a legal high.

And they warn that people who try to bring in a souvenir of their stay in Canada, or who come back to the United States with a buzz on, could be subject to criminal charges if they're caught.

Provincial and federal governments in Canada still are ironing out the details of how legalized marijuana will work. Ontario has set up the Ontario Cannabis Retail Corporation, which holds a monopoly on legal recreational marijuana sales.

According to information on the OCRC website, the locations of the first four stores were announced as being in Guelph, Kingston, Toronto and Thunder Bay.

Chatham-Kent, London and Windsor are among the first 29 municipalities selected for stores.

According to information about marijuana tourism in Canada posted on the Potent website:

  • The stores will not sell edible marijuana products until the federal government begins regulating them.
  • Only people 19 and older can buy and consume cannabis and only in private homes.
  • People won't be allowed to use marijuana in public, at work, or in cars, trucks and boats.
  • Motorists who drive stoned could face stiffer fines and more jail time.
  • Up to 30 grams (about one ounce) of cannabis can be carried without penalty.
Regardless of what goes on in Canada and in some states, however, marijuana remains illegal under U.S. federal law.

"U.S. Customs and Border Protection enforces the laws of the United States," said Customs and Border Patrol spokesman Gregory Welch in an email statement.

"Although medical and recreational marijuana may be legal in some U.S. states and Canada, the sale, possession, production and distribution of marijuana all remain illegal under U.S. federal law. Consequently, crossing the border with marijuana is prohibited and could potentially result in seizure, fines, and apprehension," he said.

636326193642835410-PTH0611-MEDICAL-MARIJUANA01.jpg

A medical marijuana plant is seen growing at Tom Owens' secured growing facility Friday, June 9, 2017 in Maple Valley Township. (Photo: JEFFREY M. SMITH, TIMES HERALD)


He said CBP officers will be alert for people potentially driving under the influence of marijuana.

"CBP works closely with state and local law enforcement partners," he said in the statement. "If an individual is suspected of driving under the influence, CBP will coordinate response with the proper local authorities.

"CBP officers are highly trained to detect the illegal importation of narcotics. CBP’s mission to prevent this illegal importation will remain unchanged."

Capt. Mat King of the St. Clair County Sheriff's Office said there are concerns about people consuming cannabis legally in Canada, then driving stoned to the U.S.

"Certainly there is the potential because they are free to smoke it recreationally there," he said. "The worries are that they feel it's OK to drive home.


"We've seen an uptick over the years, because of medical marijuana, of people driving under the influence of marijuana.

"It's not legal to drive while under the influence of marijuana," he said.

He said the sheriff's office has officers trained to recognize the physical indications that someone is under the influence of drugs such as eye movement and pupil dilation. An officer can ask a suspect to consent to a blood test, he said, or can seek a warrant for a blood test if the consent is not given.

"If you purchase it legally in Canada, it doesn't make it legal for you to have it over here," King said. "Different countries, different laws."


Michigan voters, however, will have the chance on Nov. 6 to vote to legalize recreational marijuana, which would render moot trips across the border for a legal high.

According to a Detroit Free Press article, people would have to be 21 or older to to smoke, consume or apply cannabis products.

The proposal would:

  • Legalize the possession and sale of up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana for personal, recreational use for people over the age of 21. A person could keep up to 10 ounces of marijuana at home.
  • Tax marijuana sales with a 10 percent excise tax at the retail level as well as the state's 6 percent sales tax.
  • Split those revenues, with 35 percent going to K-12 education, 35 percent to roads, 15 percent to the communities that allow marijuana businesses in their communities and 15 percent to counties where marijuana business are located.
  • Allow communities to decide whether they’ll allow marijuana businesses in their towns.
  • Require testing and safe transportation of marijuana in the state.
  • Allow for three categories of marijuana grow operations: up to 500 plants, up to 1,000 plants or up to 2,000 plants.
  • Have the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs set the rules surrounding recreational use of marijuana and take the lead in handing out licenses. Under the current medical marijuana law, a five-member board appointed by the governor, Senate majority leader and speaker of the House award licenses to medical marijuana businesses.
In states that allow recreational marijuana sales and use, people still can face discipline or termination if they fail an employer's drug test.
 
May 24, 2018...

This morning, the cannabis industry has entered into the old guard New York Stock Exchange with the market debut of Canopy Growth Corp (CGC), the largest provider of medical marijuana in Canada. Investors clambered to get a piece of the biggest pot stock in the world now that it’s more widely available to Americans. Over a million shares traded in the first hour after market open, as shares fell from an opening price of $30.85. But price wasn’t the most important indicator of the day, experts said, as much as the mere fact of the debut.
“An event like this is massive,” said Jason Spatafora of MarijuanaStocks.com. “When a company like Canopy goes to the New York Stock Exchange, it shines a big spotlight on this industry that’s still so young.” Two days ago on the Toronto Stock Exchange, said Spatafora, Canopy shares traded $216 million Canadian: “It pretty much already traded that in the first hour and a half on the NYSE.” Canopy founding chairman and CEO Bruce Linton told TheStreet.com that while the stock performance was a little disappointing, “we didn’t go there for one day of trading.”

Industry players explained why Canopy’s move to the big board–the world’s oldest and largest stock exchange– matters to the wider mainstream acceptance of the business.


“The ability for cannabis to access real capital and markets has never happened,” said Joshua Laterman, chief executive of the National Association of Cannabis Businesses. “The industry has been historically unable to access capital because cannabis is federally illegal. This is going to bring in capital. With institutional money, comes intelligence and acceptance.” It might also goad federal lawmakers to step up on the issue of national regulation, he said.

Canopy’s already attracted mainstream attention in the form of a $245 million investment by publicly traded beverage giant Constellation Brands last fall. Now, Canopy isn’t the first Canadian cannabis company to go public on the US markets. Medical marijuana provider Cronos Group Inc. (CRON) debuted on the NASDAQ exchange in late February, marking the first time US investors could grab a direct piece of the $30 billion dollar Canadian pot industry.

Other Canadian publicly traded companies are growing, like Aurora Cannabis, which announced the acquisition ten days ago of MedReleaf. US-based MedMen is poised for a reverse takeover which will allow it to debut on the Canadian markets. This company’s parent, High Times Holding Corporation, is itself preparing for an IPO later this year.


North of the border, news coverage of pot has become routine, said consultant Steven Feldman of Canada Pot Stocks, though that was hardly the case four years ago.

Owning a piece of the pot business is its own form of activism, he explained: “People feel they’re participating in a political movement by being a shareholder in a cannabis industry.”

The business news comes as Canada poises for a major vote on the legal cannabis industry, set to take place on June 7th. Legal recreational weed sales could start as early as late summer, which some say could boost sales by $5 billion. Said industry analyst Feldman of pot’s road to acceptance, “At the end of the day, it’s always about money.”

https://hightimes.com/news/canadian-cannabis-giant-canopy-growth-debuts-on-wall-street/
 
This really shouldn't come as much of a surprise, I think, as the one thing you can count on politicians doing is ANYTHING that will perpetuate their career at the public trough. So, at some point they will all scramble to lead from behind on a populist issue like MJ and especially MMJ.

Red states are embracing cannabis legalization, expanding access


Last month’s vote in Oklahoma to legalize medical marijuana caught a lot of people by surprise. Who knew such a deeply red state would embrace cannabis in a 57% landslide?

But it was no fluke. Yesterday we got two more indications that legalization has passed some sort of ideological tipping point in historically law-and-order states.

In North Dakota, leaders of the North Dakota Marijuana Legalization Initiative delivered more than 18,000 signatures to the secretary of state’s office in Bismarck. If state officials verify at least 13,482 of those autographs (and barring a legal challenge), voters will decide in November whether to legalize cannabis for adults 21 and older.

Surprised? Don’t be. Less than two years ago, North Dakota voters caught national legalization advocates off-guard when they passed a medical legalization measure.

An even bigger win came last night in Maine, where state legislators vigorously overrode Gov. Paul LePage’s veto of a medical marijuana bill. With a nearly unanimous vote, the Maine Legislature eliminated qualifying conditions altogether (leaving it entirely up to the physician’s discretion), allowed dispensaries to operate as for-profit enterprises (like drug stores and pharmacies), and increased the allowed possession limit for patients from 2.5 ounces of cannabis to 8 pounds.

With a nod to local control, the new law allows new medical cannabis dispensaries only in municipalities that vote to allow such stores. The law will become effective 90 days after the legislature’s current special session ends.

Maine has voted Democratic in presidential elections since the 1990s, but the state’s famously independent-minded residents installed LePage, an erratic Tea Party Republican, in the governor’s mansion in 2010—and re-elected him in 2014. LePage is a die-hard cannabis prohibitionist, but the same voters who put him in office just keep on legalizing despite the governor’s best efforts to hold back the tide of change.

Utah, Missouri Are on the Way
Meanwhile, Utah’s campaign to legalize medical marijuana hums quietly along, surviving every legal challenge the state’s prohibitionists lob at it. Barring anything unexpected, voters will have their say come November. And in Missouri, there are at least three (and maybe four) active medical marijuana initiatives aiming to make November’s ballot.

Those fighting the losing battle are increasingly tossing up Hail Mary attempts to discredit the growing evidence on medical cannabis. “Medical marijuana activists, just drop the charade of pretending there is a shred of science backing this medicine-via-pot-shops model,” Maine prohibitionist Scott Gagnon recently tweeted.

The science backing the cannabis-as-medicine model, in fact, can be found in a number of reputable journals. They include The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, reports by the World Health Organization, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and papers published by the London School of Economics.

The steady march toward legalization by red states—and in particular, by citizen voters—is yet another sign that the partisan divide on cannabis is disappearing. While Republican voters might side with legalization for slightly different reasons than their Democratic neighbors, the gap between them is closing. Rather than cling to Drug War era propaganda, elected officials would do well to respond to their constituents’ evolving views.
 
at some point they will all scramble to lead from behind on a populist issue like MJ and especially MMJ.

But then their is old Ted Cruz being the exception to the rule. haha


Marijuana on the midterms: Where Ted Cruz stands on cannabis legalization



With the 2018 Congressional primary season approaching, you might be wondering where Rafael "Ted" Cruz (R-TX) stands on cannabis legalization, writes Melissa Sherrard.

In short, the junior United States Senator from Texas is personally opposed to legalizing cannabis, but he has long maintained that marijuana reform should be left to the states to decide, and he has been a vocal supporter of upholding the decisions of voters from other states.

Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, his mother an American computer programmer and his father a Cuban immigrant, but the family soon moved to Texas and Cruz was raised in Houston. Cruz was elected to the Senate to represent Texas in 2012, after what The Washington Post called the biggest primary election upset of the year, and he has developed the reputation among his supporters of being a staunch defender of the Constitution.

Even though there are rumors that Cruz smoke marijuana in his youth, he has always held a zero-tolerance position when it comes to cannabis, and he often criticized the Obama Administration for not intervening to stop the implementation of marijuana legalization in the states where the citizens vote to allow either medicinal or recreational marijuana. In April of 2016, Cruz told radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt:

“When it comes to a question of legalizing marijuana, I don’t support legalizing marijuana. If it were on the ballot in the state of Texas, I would vote no. But I also believe that’s a legitimate question for the states to make a determination…I think it is appropriate for the federal government to recognize that the citizens of those states have made that decision, and one of the benefits of it, you know, using Brandeis’ terms of laboratories of democracy, is we can now watch and see what happens in Colorado and Washington State.”

However, he seems to be playing up his state's right's stance on the issue now as he faces Democrat Beto O'Rourke, who is openly supportive of ending marijuana prohibition, this November. Just this past May, Cruz said to reporters in San Antonio:

"I don’t support drug legalization. I think drug legalization ends up harming people. I think it particularly hurts young people. It traps them in addiction. I’ve always said that should be a question for the states. I think different states can resolve it differently. So in Texas — if we were voting on it in Texas — I would vote against legalizing it. But I think it’s the prerogative of Texans to make that decision, and I think another state like Colorado can make a very different decision."

Our Grade: C-

While it's clear that Cruz would rather maintain the status quo when it comes to prohibiting cannabis and keeping it illegal, it's commendable that he is voicing support to protect the decisions of states where citizens vote to legalize marijuana in some form.
 
Need to tiptoe around this a bit as I certainly wouldn't want to offend anyone's political sensibilities, but it occurs to me that not only are there differences between the two major parties (in general) on MJ, there are differences within each part with more extreme wings trying to pull their respective parties with them. Cuomo and Nixon in NY is a good case in point as is perhaps Dana Rohrabacher and a number of people in the GOP.




Could Legal Marijuana Tip the Senate for Democrats?
Cautious incumbents are using it to shore up support from progressive voters and challengers are seizing on the issue’s high popularity to knock conservatives.

When Senator Bill Nelson came out squarely in favor of Floridians’ right to smoke medical marijuana, it surprised many political observers in the Sunshine State. Nelson, a conservative Democrat who promotes his reputation as a ramrod former astronaut, has mostly kept out of the fray during the years-long battle over medical marijuana—both before it passed in 2016 with 71 percent of the vote and in the year and half since, as supporters have battled the state’s Republican leadership over how to implement the new law. “It’s just not in Bill’s constitution,” one marijuana advocate and former Nelson staffer had told me just the day before the senator’s big reveal.

But the timing of Nelson’s endorsement—as quintessentially stiff as it sounded: “I support, and have with my vote, medical marijuana recommended by a physician”—perhaps should not have been so surprising. Less than a week earlier, a judge ruled the state’s ban on smokable medical marijuana was unconstitutional. Governor Rick Scott, who is running to unseat Nelson in November, quickly appealed the judge’s ruling, placing him on the opposite side of 6.5 million Florida voters, 1.9 million more than had voted for President Donald Trump. Even Republicans in Florida saw the potential advantage that this could give Nelson.


“Any politician who thinks they can alienate over two-thirds of the voting public and win, is kidding themselves,” Stephani Scruggs Bowen told me. She’s the wife of Michael Bowen, who uses medical marijuana to treat his epilepsy and was one of the plaintiffs who sued to overturn the legislature’s ban on smokable marijuana. Stephani Bowen served as Trump’s Florida director of field operations in 2016. “Rick Scott has been a great governor, but if he wants to beat Bill Nelson, he needs to obey the Constitution … and stop trying to get in between a doctor and his or her patients.”

So in late May, Nelson, perhaps thinking about two recent polls that had for the first time showed his supremely well-funded opponent in the lead, tried to put some daylight between himself and the governor.

“I think what it means is how far along this issue has evolved just over the last couple of years,” said Ben Pollara, a Democratic strategist who has worked for Nelson on his last two campaigns and served as campaign manager for the medical marijuana initiative since 2014. “It’s gotten to a point where somebody on the moderate-conservative end of the Democratic spectrum like Bill Nelson is not just coming out for medical marijuana but getting involved in a political fight and saying people ought to be able to smoke this stuff. It is no longer an issue with political downside; it’s an issue with almost entirely political upside.”

That’s a calculation that is playing out in a handful of tight Senate races this year, where an issue that has 68 percent support (for full legalization; 91 percent for medical marijuana) offers a way for cautious moderates in red states—Democratic Senators Claire McCaskill in Missouri and Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota, for example, both of whom could share the ballot with marijuana initiatives in November—to shore up support from the liberal wing of their party. In states like Nevada, where marijuana is already fully legal, it gives Democratic challengers like Jacky Rosen a ready coalition of bipartisan supporters.

Anti-marijuana activists scoff at the notion that legal cannabis mobilizes voters. “I highly doubt marijuana is going to be a determinative factor for enough voters to change an election,” Kevin Sabet, the founder of anti-legalization group Smart Approaches to Marijuana, told me by telephone from his new office in Manhattan. “And really, it’s a minority of people, like a big minority of people. … I’ve never seen marijuana swing any kind of election. It’s such a low priority vote.” Indeed, marijuana does not rank among Gallup’s “most important problem facing the country today” as of May 2018.

But those who back legalization measures say the continuing and vocal hostility of Attorney General Jeff Sessions toward marijuana, despite its popularity among groups as varied as military veterans and parents with sick children, not to mention its surging economic impact, provides all the motivation that they need to bring their constituency to the polls.

“I don’t believe [Sabet]. It does, in fact, motivate voters,” Rep. Earl Blumenauer, founding member of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, told me. “You look at Conor Lamb’s election in Pennsylvania. Conor was very supportive of medical marijuana, and it didn’t have to influence very many people to be the margin in a district that was decided by fewer than 1,000 votes.” He also pointed to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s shocking upset of Rep. Joe Crowley in New York. “She embraced this issue and ran on it; she beat this drum loudly. I’m convinced that contributed to some of the energy and the brand that she’s developing. And you’re going to see more. … In a close race, [marijuana] could absolutely determine the outcome.”

Stephani Bowen, arguing from the opposite side of the political divide, agrees with the Oregon congressman. “It absolutely will [tip a race] in states where it's on the ballot as medical marijuana because every family knows someone: whether it’s a cancer patient, or a dementia patient, a veteran struggling with [traumatic brain injury], or an epileptic patient—everybody knows someone who needs medical marijuana, and they’re desperate to get them the help they deserve.”

***

Not every state is Florida, where the issue has remained front of mind for years thanks to a combative and deep-pocketed campaign led by a wealthy and very vocal trial attorney named John Morgan. Morgan has almost single-handedly propelled legalization across the line in Florida and has kept the fight going when the state legislature backpedaled on how to implement the new constitutional amendment.

In West Virginia, where voters went harder for Trump than in any state except Wyoming, Senator Joe Manchin has struggled to find his voice on the issue. Facing a stern challenge from state Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, Manchin has been wary of creating unnecessary separation from the policies of the Trump administration despite his state’s legislature passing a medical marijuana bill in 2017. In fact, it’s the author of that bill, state Senator Richard Ojeda, who has shown how to use medical marijuana as an effective campaign issue; Ojeda, a Democrat, is now leading in his bid for West Virginia’s 3rd Congressional District seat, in part because of the appeal to veterans and injured blue-collar workers of medical marijuana as an alternative to highly addictive opioids that have ravaged the state. “Richie’s going to win, and he doesn’t do anything quietly,” Blumenauer told me. “Manchin ignores this at his peril.”

Morgan expressed some sympathy for Manchin’s position: “Politicians like Joe Manchin, they’ve got to walk a political tightrope. He’s in a state that Trump won by 40 points. So I give those types of politicians a pass.” Morgan compared the marijuana politics to same-sex marriage, and how politicians were the last ones to the party: “Obama was not for same-sex marriage, Hillary Clinton wasn’t for same-sex marriage. And then all of a sudden, one day they were. And you’re like, ‘When did that happen?’ And that’s what’s going to happen here with marijuana. Claire McCaskill will put her toe in the water, and then later you’ll hear, ‘Well, I was always for it!’ And we will be like, ‘Well, no you weren’t, but we’re glad you are now.’”

McCaskill has indeed stuck her toe in the water, but maybe just a toe. When I asked for her current position on marijuana, her campaign referred me to her two-sentence comment in January: “I support medical marijuana in Missouri. I think it’s the right way to go,” she said on KMOV, the St. Louis CBS television affiliate. Her opponent, Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley, has mentioned marijuana even less than she has. His campaign did not respond to two requests for comment.

McCaskill and Hawley will share the ballot in November with a voter referendum to legalize medical marijuana, yet neither candidate’s website mentions the word “marijuana,” even as McCaskill struggles to connect with black voters, who tend to support legalization in higher numbers than other racial groups. A poll in Missouri conducted by PPP in July 2016 showed that 62 percent of registered voters said they would vote yes on a ballot issue that would legalize marijuana for medical purposes, including 44 percent of Republicans.

Blumenauer told me he believes that medical marijuana “just might be the margin of victory for Claire McCaskill. She will benefit from it being on the ballot. That just drives particularly young people to vote. But as we move closer to Election Day, I make a prediction that Claire becomes more and more comfortable and probably outspoken—especially when it comes to medical marijuana and veterans.”

In North Dakota, where Trump won by 35.8 points in 2016, voters this November will likely decide on their second marijuana initiative in two years, this time on the question of full legalization. A poll by the Kitchens Group showed that full legalization does not have the same level of support as medical marijuana, which won nearly 64 percent of the vote in 2016. Forty-six percent of North Dakotans favor allowing recreational use, with 39 percent against and 15 percent undecided. For now, Heitkamp is fighting a tough reelection race against Congressman Kevin Cramer, who has modest pro-marijuana bona fides: He voted in favor of Rohrabacher-Farr (an amendment that protected state-legal programs from federal interference) and co-sponsored the Hemp Farming Act. Both Heitkamp and Cramer frame the issue as a matter of states’ rights. Heitkamp, though, will actually talk about marijuana with a reporter (Cramer declined two requests for comment).

The Heitkamp campaign told me that she was the better candidate for marijuana voters in North Dakota because “on this issue, Senator Heitkamp has not only spoken out about it and urged the AG to respect the will of ND voters, but she also voted against Jeff Sessions when he was nominated to be Attorney General.”

When asked whether Sen. Heitkamp would support the recreational legal marijuana ballot initiative should it get on the ballot, her Senate office said in part, “Senator Heitkamp believes that these types of decisions are best left to the states and their citizens—and once made, that state laws should be protected.”

***

The reluctance to seize the issue may have something to do with a lack of party leadership. When asked for a comment for this story, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee offered a terse statement: “It's another example of GOP candidates aligning themselves with Washington ahead of the voters in their states—and that's a problem for their campaigns.” The problem for the DSCC is that, much like Claire McCaskill’s campaign website, the organization tasked with getting Democrats elected to the Senate is still afraid to use the word “marijuana.” That discomfort extends down to the campaign level as well, says Pollara.

“The natural tendency of consultants [is] to try and fit 30-second ads into as broad a box of poll-tested messages as possible,” Pollara told me. “Every media consultant knows how to do a health care ad, jobs ad, climate change ad … [but] marijuana requires a level of public opinion research to do right that simply doesn’t fit into the standard polling and focus grouping that candidates do. … There’s no readily available research like there is on health care, jobs, etc., to say ‘OK, marijuana polls well, and here’s how to message it so it moves votes for a candidate.’”

Blumenauer agreed: “The people who handle politicians—campaign managers, consultants, pollsters—they’re risk-averse. It’s a new issue and they don’t think they have to deal with it, and it’s just stupid.”

In Nevada, where voters legalized recreational marijuana with 54.5 percent of the vote (it received 90,405 more votes than Trump), no one needs to tell Rosen what to say. She knows that her opponent, Republican Senator Dean Heller, is not a fan of the issue, and she’s eager to remind voters.

Rosen supported the legalization effort, and she co-sponsored a number of pro-marijuana bills in Congress, including the House version of the Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States Act—or STATES Act—which would reverse Sessions’ repeal of the Cole Memo and make it permanent law that the federal government couldn’t interfere with state-legal marijuana programs. In May, she made a campaign stop at a legal Las Vegas dispensary to meet with workers there.

“Senator Heller’s record has put him on the wrong side of this issue,” a Rosen campaign spokesperson told me. “From his vote to confirm Jeff Sessions as attorney general to his refusal to take action protecting Nevada’s marijuana industry from the threat of federal intervention, it’s clear that Senator Heller puts his loyalty to Washington Republicans ahead of what’s best for Nevada workers and business owners. While Jacky Rosen is fighting for bipartisan bills to protect our marijuana industry and defend the will of Nevada voters, Senator Heller has been cowering in silence on the sidelines.”

Heller opposed the ballot measure that legalized recreational marijuana; he voted to confirm Sessions as attorney general; he refused to criticize Sessions after Sessions repealed the Cole Memo, the document that instructed Department of Justice officials to avoid making marijuana cases in states where the drug had been legalized; and he hasn’t responded well to the press on this subject. When asked for a statement on his current position on marijuana for this story, a Heller spokesman told POLITICO Magazine: “While Senator Heller is personally opposed to recreational marijuana, he respects the will of Nevada voters and the outcome of the 2016 ballot initiative. He has worked closely with Senator Gardner [a co-sponsor of the STATES Act] and a group of bipartisan senators to ensure the rights of states like Nevada are protected.”

Despite his statement of solidarity with Gardner, Heller is not currently a co-sponsor of the STATES Act, although Nevada’s junior senator, Catherine Cortez Masto, a Democrat, is a co-sponsor.

Tick Segerblom, the Nevada state senator who led the legalization campaign, told me the Nevada Senate race could be the most clear-cut example yet of marijuana voters deciding a statewide election. “Nevada could be the classic case because it could come down to 1 percent, and clearly marijuana is an issue here. Jacky Rosen is perceived by the marijuana community as very strong and supporting, while Dean Heller has consistently been opposed to marijuana. … There’s a lot of people here who are single-issue voters. The industry’s got 5,000 employees, and trust me, every marijuana employer is going to be telling their employees, ‘You’ve got to vote for Rosen.’ The funny part is, at least in Nevada, the industry is owned by Republicans. The people who work there are not, but the money behind it is all Republican.”
 
Last edited:
“Most voters don’t understand that legalization actually means commercializing edibles, pot candies, pot concentrates that are 99 percent THC,” Sabet"


Marijuana politics evolving in red states


Supporters and opponents of legalizing marijuana are preparing to fight over ballot measures in half a dozen states this year, shifting the political battleground away from traditionally liberal states and into some of the country’s most conservative areas.

Two measures are already scheduled to appear on November ballots: Michigan voters will decide whether to become the ninth state to legalize marijuana for recreational purposes, while the electorate in Utah will choose whether to join 22 other states by legalizing pot for medical use.

In Missouri, as many as three separate measures could make the ballot. Supporters have submitted signatures for both medical and recreational regimes that will now be inspected by the secretary of state’s office.

Oklahoma, which voted last month to legalize medical marijuana, could see a ballot measure to approve a recreational scheme as well. Legalization measures are also circulating in Arizona, Nebraska and North Dakota. Supporters in Ohio are trying for a second time to qualify for the ballot, in 2019.

The rush toward legalization comes after a relatively slow start in liberal or libertarian-leaning states. Washington and Colorado were the first to legalize recreational marijuana, in 2012. Alaska, Oregon and Washington, D.C., followed in 2014, and voters in California, Maine, Massachusetts and Nevada backed legalization in 2016.

After almost a dozen increasingly expensive and high-profile campaigns since 2012, both sides say they have honed their messaging in hopes of appealing to a broader swath of voters. Those pitches offer a preview of the millions of dollars in campaign advertising both sides are likely to spend this year.

Supporters say they will focus on the benefits of creating a regulatory and taxation system for a market that would otherwise be controlled by cartels and street dealers.

“We’re careful to talk about it as creating a regulatory framework,” said Martin Hamburger, a Democratic strategist who has crafted campaign advertisements for previous marijuana measures and who will work this year on the efforts in Michigan and Missouri. “Regulate it and tax it. And that frame of creating regulation so it can be used responsibly by adults 21 and over is pretty important.”

Hamburger said legalization campaigns have also made inroads among minority communities by talking about decriminalizing marijuana sales, something that resonates in areas where authorities prosecute people on minor possession charges.

“We often find that there’s sort of a social justice message there,” Hamburger said. “One arrest for marijuana can ruin your life and give you a felony, and it’s on your mark forever. A stupid mistake as a 19-year-old shouldn’t mess up your life.”

Marijuana legalization has also meant a business boom for companies that are able to enter the market soon after regulatory schemes are enacted. Opponents of legalization have cast those businesses as Big Marijuana — a boogeyman as threatening to public health, especially children’s health, as Big Tobacco in earlier times.

Increasing access to marijuana products, especially edibles like candies and chocolates, that might tempt children is something that can move voters away from legalization, said Kevin Sabet, who runs Smart Approaches to Marijuana, a group that opposes legalization.

“Most voters don’t understand that legalization actually means commercializing edibles, pot candies, pot concentrates that are 99 percent THC,” Sabet said, referring to the main psychoactive component of marijuana. “What voters think it’s about, and what the pro-legalization side has been good about framing, is going to jail for a joint.”

Casting marijuana as a get-rich-quick business for Wall Street hedge funds helped the legalization opponents notch their most notable win at the ballot box: Voters in Ohio three years ago resoundingly rejected a legalization measure, by an almost 2-to-1 margin. Even proponents of legalization grimaced at that campaign, where backers rolled out an ill-advised mascot named Buddie to greet voters.

“We won in Ohio by a 2-to-1 margin because the singular message was about the marijuana monopoly, not whether marijuana is bad or good,” Sabet said.

As campaigns for and against marijuana legalization have become more sophisticated, costs have risen, too. Supporters have outspent opponents; in California, $25 million poured into the campaign in favor of legalization, while opponents spent $2 million. In Massachusetts, supporters outspent opponents by a margin of $6.8 million to $3 million. And in Maine, where a legalization initiative passed by 4,000 votes, backers outspent opponents more than 10-to-1.

This year, supporters in Michigan had raised $1.6 million to back their measure, through last week. Opponents had pulled in $280,000, though Sabet said he expected the opposition campaign to have a seven-figure budget.

The shifting battlefield, away from liberal coastal states and into more traditionally swing and red states like Michigan, Ohio and Oklahoma, illustrates the unusual coalitions of support on which each side relies. Far from the traditional conservative-liberal split that divides modern politics, older men and younger progressives tend to favor legalization, while women with children — typically guaranteed Democratic voters — tend to harbor doubts.

“Democrats and progressive women with children are our swings,” Hamburger said. “They’re the ones we can lose. So a lot of our messaging are about regulations, how to prevent kids from getting it.”

“The swing voters are basically 35- to 55-year-old women,” Sabet said. “That is going to be key for us. We know that we’re not going to get a majority of 18- to 34-year-olds.”

“It’s really going to be those moms” who decide whether legalization passes or fails, he added.

Both sides are already exploring another new way to appeal to that swing demographic: the opioid crisis. Supporters hope to convince voters in states hit hard by opioids, including heroin and fentanyl, that marijuana can act as a substitute, something to ease pain that might otherwise only be stopped by a powerful pill. Opponents say marijuana is a gateway drug that can lead to more serious addictions.

Whether either is the case is unclear. The national rate of opioid overdoses has spiked, especially since 2012, but overdose rates in Washington have been flat since legalization took effect and they have risen in Colorado.

Between 2016 and 2017, the overdose rate dropped or held relatively steady in five of the eight states where marijuana is legal for recreational purposes. Overdose rates rose substantially in Washington, D.C., and by smaller though still significant margins in Colorado and Maine. Overdose rates rose by a smaller amount in Nevada.

Opponents of legalization have had more success in state legislatures, which have proven reluctant to pass anything beyond measures decriminalizing marijuana. Vermont’s legislature legalized pot this year, though without a regulatory structure that would allow its commercial sale. Legislators in Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, New Hampshire and New Jersey have all voted down or killed legalization measures.

“This is very much an uphill battle,” Sabet said. “They are trying to act like this is totally inevitable, that the battle is over. That’s not the case.”
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As I have often stated, no political parties are clean in the MJ prohibition game and no political party wears the white hat on this issue, IMO. You just need to take the time to look a bit at the history (oh, heaven forbid we learn anything from the past) to see that the current stampede to support legalization has WAY more to do with partisan positioning and politics than for any real support of legalization. Everything is just a card to be played for power and continuance of political careers.

I love this one:

"Even Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has evolved this year"

If that was evolution, then Darwin is spinning in his grave. haha


Democrats still haven't figured out that legal weed is a winning issue

Every Democratic U.S. senator rumored to be considering a 2020 presidential run supports marijuana legalization. So do 77% of Democratic voters. The party's 2016 national platform backs states’ rights on cannabis and calls for a "reasoned pathway for future legalization."

So why is the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee — the entity charged with winning back control of the U.S. House — attacking a Republican congressman over his support for marijuana reform? And why is it citing a right-wing magazine to make the case?

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Costa Mesa) has a "cult-like fixation on marijuana," said a National Review article excerpt the Democratic committee highlighted in a tweet posted Monday. The party organ said the GOP congressman's cannabis advocacy is one reason "why [Democratic nominee] @HarleyRouda needs your help flipping this seat...from #RedToBlue."

Rohrabacher has played a leadership role in beating back the federal government's outdated and harmful marijuana prohibition policies, serving as the chief sponsor of a successful amendment that since 2014 has prevented the Department of Justice from arresting cancer patients who use medical cannabis under state laws.


Democratic leaders need to take a look in the mirror and recognize that their own members broadly support marijuana legalization.

There are a lot of reasons why Democrats and progressives would wish for Rohrabacher to lose his reelection fight, aside from the fact that “flipping this seat from red to blue” could make the difference in determining which party controls the House come January. But marijuana is not one of them.

The Democratic committee could have highlighted Rohrabacher's position that homeowners should have the right to refuse to sell property to gay people — something mentioned by National Review in the same sentence as that cannabis quip. Or his position on climate change. Or healthcare. Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), who has cosponsored many marijuana measures with Rohrabacher, told me in an emailed statement that the campaign committee’s tweet was "stupid," adding that he expressed those sentiments directly to the organization itself.

The problem goes beyond a “stupid” tweet. While Democrats in Congress are more likely to back marijuana reform than Republicans, party leadership has been slow to embrace the movement to end prohibition.

In 2016, Hillary Clinton didn’t endorse legalization, instead adopting the Obama administration’s “hands off states” approach. It’s worth pointing out that Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson and Green Jill Stein — who both campaigned on legalization — earned more votes than the margin between Clinton and Donald Trump in key states Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. During San Francisco Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s four years as House speaker, moreover, Democrats only allowed one floor vote on Rohrabacher’s medical cannabis amendment. Republicans, on the other hand, allowed annual votes in the four preceding years and after regaining control of the chamber in 2014 and 2015. (They have since moved to block nearly all marijuana measures from consideration).

The future of marijuana is legalization, in more states and federally. It’s a galvanizing issue for either party that fully embraces it first. Attacking opponents for their efforts to reform cannabis laws might have been a shrewd tactic in 1988 or 1994, but it’s a political loser in 2018. It will alienate the young, progressive voters Democrats need to form a blue wave in November. Millennials overwhelmingly support legalization.

But it's not just young voters, or Democrats. California's marijuana legalization measure, Proposition 64, passed in Rohrabacher’s Orange County congressional district by a 54.1% to 45.9% margin in 2016.

Nationally, 57% of Republicans back legalization, as do 62% of independents, according to an online poll by the Center for American Progress and GBA Strategies. Rohrabacher’s challenger, Harley Rouda, doesn't seem to fully grasp the new politics of marijuana, either. The only two times he has tweeted about cannabis were to attack Rohrabacher's advocacy.

He did, however, write a Facebook post on the 4/20 unofficial cannabis holiday, saying that "people should not be going to prison for possession or use of marijuana." Notably, that post linked an article about historically drug-war-loving Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) announcing his intent to file a far-reaching marijuana bill.

Now that even Schumer and Republican Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado — who is responsible for his party's 2018 effort to defend GOP Senate control — are on board, it would be a mistake for Democrats not to go all-in on cannabis.

Enter the Fray: First takes on the news of the minute from L.A. Times Opinion »
Surely the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee isn’t trying to send the message to voters that President Trump, who announced his support last month for cannabis legislation filed by Gardner and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), is more progressive on marijuana than a leading Democratic political organization?

Even Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has evolved this year — amid a reelection challenge — from vigorously campaigning against medical cannabis in 1996 and opposing state protections in Congress to finally supporting the right of Californians to get high without fear of harassment by the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Democratic leaders need to take a look in the mirror and recognize that their own members broadly support marijuana legalization. And then they need to look at the polls and realize that attacking Republicans for supporting cannabis reform is a great way to remain the minority party.

Tom Angell is publisher of Marijuana Moment, a cannabis news site and newsletter.
 
This is NOT marijuana, people. Its hemp....its rope, its cloth, its fiber....but its NOT MARIJUANA! Its hemp, a commercial farm commodity product. This is like saying anybody with a prior conviction can't grow fucking carrots! sigh

“It’s not perfect; it’s a compromise,” Whaling said of the bill.

Its certainly not perfect, it may or may not be be a Machiavellian compromise to move the legislation forward, but most certainly is rank STUPIDITY.




Farm Bill language bans drug felons from hemp industry

A lifetime ban on drug felons in the hemp industry could result from a pending bill to remove hemp from the Controlled Substances Act.

The 2018 Farm Bill has been roundly praised by hemp activists because the Senate version would give hemp-derived CBD new legal protections and would make hemp eligible for crop insurance and federal water rights.

But the bill has another provision that isn’t as pleasing to hemp entrepreneurs – a lifetime ban on anyone “convicted of a felony related to a controlled substance under state or federal law.”

Out of business

The felon ban has some of hemp’s most seasoned entrepreneurs warning that the Farm Bill could undercut the existing hemp industry even as it expands market access to others.


“It’s completely discriminatory,” said Veronica Carpio, who has been growing hemp in Colorado since 2013, a year before the Farm Bill that authorized states like Colorado to permit hemp production.
Carpio, who also owns a Denver pizza restaurant that puts CBD in its pies and paninis, said she would no longer be able to grow hemp because of a prior marijuana-related conviction.

“This is going to deny a ton of opportunity to people getting in the hemp business,” she told Hemp Industry Daily.

The felony language was added to an original hemp amendment from Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentuckian who has been a strong advocate for expanding production of the plant.

McConnell’s office did not return a call from Hemp Industry Daily seeking clarification on the proposal.

‘It’s a compromise’

According to Geoff Whaling, head of the National Hemp Association, the felon amendment was intended to address concerns from hemp skeptics that the 2018 Farm Bill would give illegal marijuana producers access to a nationwide commodity market before regulators could figure out how to check a new crop for THC levels.

Whaling, who was involved in negotiations over the bill’s felon language, told Hemp Industry Daily the ban was necessary to reduce opposition to the overall hemp expansion.

Without it, he said, Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley and others could have fought the amendment’s inclusion.

“People have to remember that the legislative process is a negotiating process,” Whaling said. “There is give and take on all sides.”

Whaling conceded that the felon ban could remove opportunities for many interested hemp producers, including folks who are already in the business, like Carpio.

“It’s not perfect; it’s a compromise,” Whaling said of the bill.

Still, the felony amendment has some pushing for the final 2018 Farm Bill to undergo more work before it heads to President Donald Trump’s desk.

“This is a terrible amendment and one the industry needs to unite against and have removed from the bill,” said Morris Beegle, president of the Colorado Hemp Co.

The Senate has passed the hemp expansion (including the felon ban) through its version of the Farm Bill. But the House version of the same bill makes no mention of the plant.

The two chambers will have to hammer out a compromise version before sending it to the president for final approval.

Congress has until the end of September to negotiate on the Farm Bill. If the House and Senate can’t agree by then, the existing hemp pilot-project language could expire.

Next steps

While hemp entrepreneurs interviewed by Hemp Business Daily said they support expansion even with the felon ban, they believe the industry should push for the ban language to be removed from the final version.

“It makes no sense,” said Rick Trojan, a Colorado hemp grower who also has ownership stakes in hemp production projects in Kentucky, North Carolina, Oregon and Vermont.

“This would be disallowing felons from something they could’ve been doing a month ago,” Trojan said. “You could’ve been growing cannabis illegally a month ago, got caught, and now you can’t grow cannabis anymore now that it’s legal.”
 

Sponsored by

VGoodiez 420EDC
Back
Top