Law The Cannabis Chronicles - Misc Cannabis News

[Baron23]

Watch: Seniors Becoming Fastest Growing Marijuana Users

Seniors are becoming as the fastest growing segment of the marijuana industry.

According to a national survey, usage among adults 65 and older is up 250 percent, while adults 50-65 have also increased usage nearly 58 percent.

“I’ve generally felt that recreational drugs of any kind were no nos, and I still do,” says 91-year-old Duane Kaniebs. “Cannabis seems to be somewhere in between.”

Kaniebs was part of a standing room-only meeting in Louisville meant to educate seniors on marijuana as a treatment for chronic pain.

The World War II veteran who suffers from chronic foot pain says his opinion of marijuana has changed dramatically.

“All of these years I thought it was in the same category of any other recreational drug”

Stratos, a Colorado-based cannabis manufacturer, is trying to reach out to skeptical seniors about using marijuana as a way to treat pain.

“I think they have tried a lot of pharmaceuticals and they’re looking to improve their quality of life,” says Kate Heckman, a Stratos spokesperson. “It really appeared there was a gap in education for seniors.”

Go, you old fuckers, you! Wait, I'm an old fucker. Well, go you! LOL

 

[Baron23]

Latino Lawmakers Endorse Legalizing Marijuana

By Tom Angell | August 09, 2017

A group representing Latino state legislators across the U.S. just endorsed legalizing marijuana and says current prohibition laws are part of a decades-long racist attack on their communities.

“Decriminalization of recreational marijuana will ease the burden off the criminal justice system and law enforcement agencies, allowing police officers, judges, and prosecutors to focus on violent offenses and other criminal activity more deserving of priority, and freeing-up space in prisons and decreasing the budgetary impact from keeping marijuana users incarcerated,” reads a resolution adopted on Wednesday by the National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators (NHCSL). “Regulated marijuana retailing greatly hinders black-market drug dealers, prevents marijuana’s (unproven but widely alleged) use as a gateway drug, and directs much-needed revenue to legal business owners, states and local governments instead of organized crime.”

The resolution zeros in on the racist origins of marijuana prohibition.

“During the 1920’s and 1930’s, when it was first penalized in various states, cannabis use was portrayed as a cultural vice of Mexican immigrants to the United States, and racist and xenophobic politicians and government officials used cannabis prohibition specifically to target and criminalize Mexican-American culture and incarcerate Mexican-Americans and, therefore, the prohibition of cannabis is fundamentally rooted in discrimination against Hispanics,” it says.

While the NHCSL measure uses the words “cannabis” and “marijuana” interchangeably throughout, it does highlight the apparent negatively intended implications of the latter term by those who championed prohibition last century. “The racist politicians who first criminalized cannabis, used the term ‘marijuana’ (sometimes spelled ‘marihuana’) to refer to it, precisely because they wanted to underscore that it was a Latino, particularly Mexican ‘vice,’ and that word, with all its implications, has become the most common names for cannabis in the United States today,” it reads.

NHCSL is calling on the federal government to enact “legislation to federally decriminalize marijuana whether for medical or recreational uses” and is asking states to pass bills to “decriminalize marijuana, provide for the of sealing of records for drug convictions for underlying behavior that is legalized and enact responsible and appropriate policies, should a jurisdiction decide to regulate its sale as a legitimate article of commerce, to prevent youth access and curtail cartel and criminal activity.”

The measure also argues that cannabis prohibition is unconstitutional due to its discriminatory enforcement and origins.

“Marijuana policy in this country has disproportionately targeted Latinos from the start,” NHCSL President and Pennsylvania State Representative Ángel Cruz (D) said in a press release. Research shows that the benefits of legalizing cannabis range from taking advantage of its medicinal benefits, increasing tax revenues for health and education, to lowering crime while at the same time reducing disproportionate incarceration of minorities. NHCSL believes that our laws should focus on ending the current lawlessness of the black market and allow sound public policy based on scientific evidence to prevail on the issue of cannabis.”

Colorado State Representative Dan Pabón (D), the sponsor of the resolution, added, “In Colorado, we have successfully legalized cannabis and we have been able to reduce crime by 10.1%, increase revenues by more than $300 million that we dedicated to our schools, and have a new thriving industry that creates jobs… Smart decriminalization and tough regulations also allow our youth to thrive instead of subjecting many of them to unfair and discriminatory treatment by law enforcement. This is a civil rights issue and we urge our fellow lawmakers to view it as such and act accordingly.”

The adoption of NHCSL’s resolution comes just two days after a broader group, the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), passed a measure calling on the federal government to remove marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act.

“The Controlled Substances Act should be amended to remove cannabis from scheduling thus enabling financial institutions the ability to provide banking services to cannabis related businesses,” reads the NCSL resolution adopted on Monday.

Last week, U.S. Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) introduced a bill to deschedule cannabis and to encourage states to enact legalization laws.

The growing push for reform from federal and state lawmakers comes amid growing concern and uncertainty about the Trump administration’s position on state marijuana laws.

While Trump repeatedly pledged to respect state marijuana laws during the campaign, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is a longtime vocal opponent of legalization.

Sessions received recommendations on marijuana enforcement policy and other criminal justice issues from a Justice Department late last month, but did not release them publicly. Last week, the Associated Press reported that the task force’s report, which it obtained, provided the attorney general with no ammunition to support a cannabis crackdown, instead suggesting that he continue to evaluate whether to keep in place an Obama-era memo that generally lets states set their own laws without federal interference.

In a related development, news also broke last week that Sesssions sent letters to the governors of a number of states with legalization, expressing concern with the implementation of those policies. And, federal agency representatives recently held secret meetings about marijuana policy with state and local officials in Colorado.

See below for the full National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators resolution:

Calling for the Decriminalization, Commercialization and Taxation of Cannabis
Sponsored by: Rep. Dan Pabon (CO)

WHEREAS, according to the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, recreational marijuana has been used by nearly 100 million Americans, and some 25 million have smoked marijuana in the United States in the past year; and,

WHEREAS, during the 1920’s and 1930’s, when it was first penalized in various states, cannabis use was portrayed as a cultural vice of Mexican immigrants to the United States, and racist and xenophobic politicians and government officials used cannabis prohibition specifically to target and criminalize Mexican-American culture and incarcerate Mexican-Americans and, therefore, the prohibition of cannabis is fundamentally rooted in discrimination against Hispanics; and,

WHEREAS, the racist politicians who first criminalized cannabis, used the term “marijuana” (sometimes spelled “marihuana”) to refer to it, precisely because they wanted to underscore that it was a Latino, particularly Mexican “vice,” and that word, with all its implications, has become the most common names for cannabis in the United States today; , and,

WHEREAS, the first commissioner of the U.S. Treasury Department’s Federal Bureau of Narcotics, Harry Jacob Anslinger, a cannabis prohibition activist, testified before Congress in 1937 in support of federal restrictions on marijuana in part by reading a letter addressed to him by the then City Editor of The Alamosa (Colorado) Daily Courier which stated that, “I wish I could show you what a small marihuana cigaret can do to one of our degenerate Spanish-speaking residents. That’s why our problem is so great; the greatest percentage of our population is composed of Spanish-speaking persons, most of who (sic) are low mentally, because of social and racial conditions;” and,

WHEREAS, Mr. Anslinger’s testimony to Congress also included an anecdotal scaremongering report from the then Commissioner of Public Safety of New Orleans, Louisiana, who called marijuana “a more alarming menace to society than all other habit forming drugs” stating, among other things that, “we find then that Colorado reports that the Mexican population there cultivates on an average of 2 to 3 tons of the weed annually. This the Mexicans make into cigarettes, which they sell at two for 25 cents, mostly to white high school students.” That report further cited a St. Louis Star Times article, which in turn quoted a statement supposedly given to a Louisville, Kentucky newspaper by an unnamed so-called “gentleman of the byways” saying that “The worst thing about that loco weed is the way these kids go for them. Most of them, boys and girls, are just punks and when they get high on the stuff you can write your own ticker.” All of this shows that the basis for the so-called “danger” was shoddy, anecdotal, and uncorroborated, relying on prejudice, xenophobia, and unnamed sources; and,

WHEREAS, Mr. Anslinger’s testimony further included a report entitled “Marihuana as a Developer of Criminals” from Eugene Stanley, district attorney of New Orleans, Louisiana, which was suffused with intrinsic bias and xenophobia targeting many groups. Against Hispanics in particular, it included a heading stating that “Marihuana is the Mexican term for Cannabis Indica.” But its bias did not stop there. It also stated that, “in the South, amongst the Negroes, it is termed ‘mooter,’” and later, to underscore the attack on African Americans, it stated that “it is popularly known amongst the criminal element as ‘muggles’, or ‘mooter,’” implicitly linking African Americans with criminal behavior. In fact, both Mr. Stanley’s report and Mr. Ansingler’s main testimony to Congress blamed marijuana for the “numerous acts of cruelty” of the ancient cult of Assassins, with Mr. Anslinger going so far as to state that “it is said the Mohammedan leaders, opposing the Crusaders, utilized the services of individuals addicted to the use of hashish for secret murders,” in a thinly veiled religious attack against Muslims; and,

WHEREAS, Mr. Anslinger’s testimony led directly to the enactment of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937; and,

WHEREAS, prior to the passage of the Marihuana Tax Act in 1937, the word marijuana (or marihuana) was sparsely used by English language speakers in the United States and was not included in U.S. English dictionaries but became commonly included after passage of that Act, showing how its enactment entrenched bias and discrimination into the language; and,

WHERAS, the United States Supreme Court found the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 unconstitutional in Leary v. United States, 396 U.S. 6 (1969), because it exposed persons to the risk of self-incrimination, not because of its racist basis which was not brought as an argument before the Court; and,

WHERAS, the U.S. Congress shortly thereafter repealed the Marihuana Tax Act and replaced it in 1970 with the Controlled Substances Act which is still the law today (as amended) and which inherited the same intrinsically racist, xenophobic and anti-Hispanic bias of the original Marihuana Tax Act regarding cannabis; and,

WHEREAS, in 1994, years after he left office, counsel and Assistant to President Nixon for Domestic Affairs John Ehrlichman revealed that the intention behind the War on Drugs was that, “we knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the [Vietnam] war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities,” Ehrlichman said. “We could arrest their leaders. Raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did;” and,

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has stated that animus, private biases, hostility, animosity, prejudice and fear cannot serve as the basis for government acts and that legislation enacted with such bases is unconstitutional. See United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ____, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013); Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996); Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528 (1973); Palmore v. Sidotti, 466 U.S. 429 (1984); and City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985); and,

WHEREAS, marijuana is in fact not toxic, cannot cause death by overdose and, conversely, has shown health benefits; and,

WHEREAS, the use of cannabis has specifically been shown to slow of the advance of Alzheimer’s disease in patients, ease multiple sclerosis pain, relieve arthritis pain, and aid in controlling epileptic seizures; and,

WHEREAS, research is ongoing internationally regarding even more potential medicinal uses of cannabis; and,

WHEREAS, despite the above, the Controlled Substances Act classifies marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug, stating that marijuana holds great potential for abuse, and has no medicinal value, which is scientifically false; and,

WHEREAS, scheduling marijuana with narcotics such as heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), 3,4-methlenedioxymenthamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote, results in the enforcing of the harshest federal penalties, and presents a bureaucratic hindrance for researchers who wish to study marijuana because the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) controls all the sources of research cannabis, dispensing it only to whom it deems fit and then only with a quality that is wholly subpar to the market quality; and,

WHEREAS, marijuana was originally classified into Schedule 1 as a placeholder while more information was gathered; and President Richard M. Nixon created the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, led by then Pennsylvania Governor Raymond P. Shafer which later concluded that “the Commission recommends … [that the] possession of marijuana for personal use no longer be an offense, [and that the] casual distribution of small amounts of marihuana for no remuneration, or insignificant remuneration, no longer be an offense;” , and,

WHEREAS, the DEA admits that marijuana use has resulted in no overdose deaths, as compared to excessive alcohol consumption in which the CDC approximates to have resulted in 88,000 deaths from 2006 – 2010; and,

WHEREAS, over $10 billion of taxpayer money is used to fund the enforcement of anti-marijuana laws nationwide; and,

WHEREAS, since the State of Colorado legalized recreational marijuana in 2012, the overall crime rate has decreased by 10.1%, while violent crime rate dropped by 5.2%, homicide rates dropped to less than half by 2014, and motor vehicle theft dropped by 33% by 2014; and,

WHEREAS, taxation of legal recreational marijuana generated $76 million dollars in tax revenue, licenses and fees for the State of Colorado in just the year 2014; and,

WHEREAS, decriminalization of recreational marijuana will ease the burden off the criminal justice system and law enforcement agencies, allowing police officers, judges, and prosecutors to focus on violent offenses and other criminal activity more deserving of priority, and freeing-up space in prisons and decreasing the budgetary impact from keeping marijuana users incarcerated; and,

WHEREAS, regulated marijuana retailing greatly hinders black-market drug dealers , prevents marijuana’s (unproven but widely alleged) use as a gateway drug, and directs much-needed revenue to legal business owners, states and local governments instead of organized crime; and,

WHEREAS, not decriminalizing and fomenting medical research on cannabis places United States pharmacological businesses and potential cannabis patients suffering from myriad conditions at a disadvantage to those in other countries.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators strongly condemns the racist, xenophobic, anti-Minority and, specifically, anti-Latino animus and scaremongering that led to the prohibition of, and the national crusade against, cannabis/marijuana in the first place, which makes the prohibition unconstitutional; and,

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators authorizes that its name be used in, or in support of, an appropriate lawsuit or lawsuits, as determined by the officers, to address and redress the unconstitutional nature of this prohibition; and,

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators advises President Donald J. Trump and Members of Congress to enact and sign legislation to federally decriminalize marijuana whether for medical or recreational uses; and,

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the NHCSL advises state legislators to enact legislation to decriminalize marijuana, provide for the of sealing of records for drug convictions for underlying behavior that is legalized and enact responsible and appropriate policies, should a jurisdiction decide to regulate its sale as a legitimate article of commerce, to prevent youth access and curtail cartel and criminal activity.
​

Oh yeah, living la vida loca. Interesting history lesson from another perspective, though. ​

 

[Baron23]

Gubernatorial Candidates Make Marijuana A 2017 Campaign Issue

In a sign of marijuana law reform’s growing political traction, major candidates in gubernatorial elections in states across the country are making legalization, decriminalization and medical cannabis centerpieces of their campaigns.

This is especially true of Democratic candidates, perhaps a reflection of the fact that polls show that their party’s voters are generally much more likely to support marijuana policy reform than are Republicans. But some GOP contenders are also calling for changes to cannabis laws.

There are two gubernatorial races taking place in 2017 — in New Jersey and Virginia — and the Democratic nominees in both have repeatedly pushed for big marijuana law reforms, with their Republican opponents expressing openness to more moderate changes.

And, candidates in several of the many 2018 governors races are already talking about cannabis.

First, a look at the two 2017 races:

In New Jersey, Democratic nominee Phil Murphy, a former U.S. ambassador to Germany, called for legalization during his primary election night victory speech in June.

“The criminalization of marijuana has only served to clog our courts and cloud people’s futures, so we will legalize marijuana,” he said. “And while there are financial benefits, this is overwhelmingly about doing what is right and just.” He also pledged in the speech to end mass incarceration and “eliminate prisons for profit.”


Murphy’s campaign website says that if elected he will “legalize marijuana so police can focus resources on violent crimes.”

He has also tweeted about the issue several times.

On Marijuana legalization: "I believe it's important as a social justice issue." #murphy4nj pic.twitter.com/hlNQsNjEZv

— Phil Murphy (@PhilMurphyNJ) April 27, 2017

Murphy’s Republican opponent, Lt. Gov. Kim Guadago, doesn’t support legalization, but has called for decriminalization and expansion of the state’s existing medical cannabis program.

“I have personal experience about what exactly happens to somebody who drives while they’re high, which is why I would oppose legalization of marijuana,” she said during a primary debate earlier this year.

“Having said that, however, I completely agree that we should decriminalize it,” she continued. “Because no one should suffer because of the color of their skin or because of their social background or because they were picked up with a small quantity.”


The lieutenant governor also suggested she supports adding new qualifying conditions for medical cannabis. Saying she wants to “streamline” the program, Guadago argued the state should “make it easier for people that have doctors’ notes to get it.”

Current Gov. Chris Christie (R) is one of the nation’s most ardent marijuana law reform opponents in elected office. During the course of his failed 2016 Republican presidential primary campaign he repeatedly pledged that if elected he would vigorously enforce federal prohibition in legalization states, and has been seen as perhaps the sole roadblock to further reform in the Garden State.

State legislative leaders in New Jersey have indicated that they are ready to pass a marijuana legalization bill shortly after a new governor is seated early next year.

In Virginia, Democratic nominee Ralph Northam, currently the state’s lieutenant governor, has made a push to decriminalize cannabis a central part of his campaign messaging, often putting the issue in stark racial justice terms.

“We need to change sentencing laws that disproportionately hurt people of color,” Northam wrote in a blog post. “One of the best ways to do this is to decriminalize marijuana. African Americans are 2.8 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession in Virginia. The Commonwealth spends more than $67 million on marijuana enforcement — money that could be better spent on rehabilitation.”

Northam has taken to twitter to discuss cannabis issues on numerous occasions.

Decriminalizing marijuana would be a good step toward helping to correct systematic racism in our justice system. https://t.co/5R7YxBJi10

— Ralph Northam (@RalphNortham) July 27, 2017

A medical doctor, Northam also wrote that he’s become “increasingly convinced by the data showing potential health benefits of marijuana,” suggesting he’d sign a comprehensive medical cannabis bill into law.

His campaign even launched an ad about how he helped at least one of his own patients access medical cannabis oil.

As Haley's doctor, Ralph knew that access to medical marijuana was one of her best chances at a better life. pic.twitter.com/03WaKSYWLc

— Ralph Northam (@RalphNortham) April 19, 2017

This week, the Democrat penned a letter to the Virginia State Crime Commission, which is currently undertaking an examination of potential decriminalization.

“Virginia spends $67 million on marijuana enforcement – enough to open up another 13,000 pre-K spots for children,” he wrote. “African Americans are nearly 3 times as likely to get arrested for simple possession of marijuana and sentencing guidelines that include jail time can all too often begin a dangerous cycle of recidivism.”

Northam also pushed decriminalization and medical cannabis in a recent debate with his opponent, former Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie.


Gillespie does not support making changes to the state’s marijuana laws at this time but his spokesman said he is “exploring reforms to make sure that penalties align appropriately to the offense committed.”

The Republican also supports industrial hemp, with his campaign saying it is “a cash crop and can be found in a variety of products such as paper construction materials, food, personal care items, rope, canvas and nutritional supplements.”

And, in a Facebook Live chat he said he hasn’t “reached any final conclusions” about medical cannabis but is studying it “very carefully” and is “going to have a policy that I’m going to announce this summer on it.”

“I think there has been a growing case for tightly regulated, strictly regulated medicinal marijuana,” he said.

Unlike Murphy in New Jersey, Northam wouldn’t necessarily find a state legislature that is willing to work with him to pass bold marijuana reforms if he is elected.

The Virginia House of Delegates has a strong Republican majority and, while the partisan divide in the Senate is much narrower, the GOP currently controls that body as well. Marijuana decriminalization legislation was introduced this year, but did not advance. Lawmakers did, however, pass bills to remove the threat of automatic driver’s license suspension for marijuana possession and to allow for in-state production of CBD medical cannabis oil.

Next week, we’ll have a separate post looking at several 2018 candidates who are already making marijuana law reform central to their efforts to get elected to governors’ mansions.

 

[Baron23]

One year ago today:

The Obama administration said it had decided marijuana would remain on the list of most dangerous drugs, rebuffing growing support across the country for broad legalization, but said it would allow more research into its medical uses.

Its good to keep a bit of a historical perspective, yeah?

 

[Baron23]

How to kill the marijuana black market

Pueblo authorities seized 79 marijuana plants at a home inhabited by two Russian immigrants, Olga Berina and Evegnly Groshikov, who recently moved to southern Colorado.
By Jeffrey Miron | Guest Commentary
PUBLISHED: August 11, 2017 at 2:56 pm | UPDATED: August 11, 2017 at 4:09 pm

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., has recently introduced legislation to legalize marijuana at the federal level. His bill will no doubt inspire the standard criticisms, one of which is that legalization does not eliminate the black market. Kevin Sabet, director of the Drug Policy Institute, claims that “[e]ven under legalization, there’s a black market.” This view contains a kernel of truth, but it misses the bigger picture.

Most consumers prefer, other things equal, to purchase from legal suppliers. This allows them to resolve disagreements about quality, service, and payment with lawsuits or by reporting to private and public watchdogs; it facilitates repeat shopping from a high-quality seller, and it avoids the risks of adulterated or excessively potent goods. Thus despite the costs created by regulation and taxation for most legal goods, black markets do not often arise.

Instead, black markets arise only when government policy forces markets underground by outlawing them or by imposing excessive regulation or taxation. After the United States repealed Alcohol Prohibition in 1933, most of the market returned to the legal sphere, except in states that continued prohibition or imposed excessive taxes.

One obstacle to moving the marijuana market fully above ground is that all state legalizations to date — and the regulatory frameworks imposed at the state or city level — impose substantial restrictions on the marijuana market. Details vary, but regulations generally limit the number of retail outlets, the specific products they can sell, the amount customers can purchase per visit, and the location of stores. Much regulation also restricts or bans home delivery, bars some individuals from obtaining retail licenses, and imposes a minimum purchase age of 21. Apart from this over-regulation, some states impose a tax burden that prices legal marijuana well above illegal marijuana.

A different obstacle to eliminating the black market is ongoing federal marijuana prohibition. Federal authorities can, and do, conduct busts and buys, prosecute violations of federal prohibition, and imprison those convicted. Moreover, federal banking regulation keeps marijuana businesses from operating legally, even in legalized states. The federal tax code also bars standard expense deductions for businesses that are illegal under federal law; this means that marijuana businesses face highly punitive tax rates. According to Fortune Magazine, a legal marijuana business owner can pay an effective tax rate as high as 90 percent.

Additionally, regulation currently protects those lucky enough to already have licenses. In Oregon owners of legitimate marijuana businesses are losing customers to the black market. They blame “delays in the state’s permitting process for new entries into the recreational marijuana market, which acts as an artificial control on supply, which… in turn pushes customers to explore cheaper options.”

All these factors encourage continued black markets even under legalization.

The critics are therefore right that partial legalization will not eliminate the black market, but the solution is trivial: full legalization. Most importantly, federal law must legalize marijuana so that marijuana businesses can access the legal banking sector and comply with federal tax codes without putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage.

More broadly, the desire to control the marijuana market via regulation is misguided.

If regulation is mild, it has no meaningful effect. Consider a rule that limits purchases to one ounce per customer per month. For most users an ounce lasts at least a month anyway. And consumers who want more can purchase at multiple stores or have friends or family purchase for them

If regulation is instead strict, it promotes continuation of the black market. Consider a requirement for registration of every purchase and enforcement of the rule of only one ounce per month across all stores in a state. This would be expensive and would place real barriers to using retail stores, ultimately resulting in less tax revenue, more need for enforcement, and perpetuation of the illegal market.

Thus legalization without excessive regulation or taxation is the only way to eliminate the black market. And this approach has the added virtue of maximizing tax revenue from legalized sales, minimizing enforcement costs, and respecting the freedom of those who wish to consume marijuana.

The truth of this is evident in much of our history with other substances. Ole' Jeffe ain't ever going to understand this, however.

 

[Baron23]

Judge Halts Feds’ Cannabis Case, Citing Rohrabacher-Blumenauer

Still need a reason to care about that obscure federal spending provision known as the Rohrabacher–Blumenauer amendment? Here’s one: The congressional measure, currently set to expire next month, may be the only thing keeping a pair of California cannabis growers out of prison.

Federal prosecutors filed criminal charges against the growers, Anthony Pisarski and Sonny Moore, after raiding their Humboldt County property in 2012. But during the evidentiary process, the two argued that their operation followed California law and thus should be protected from federal prosecution under Rohrabacher–Blumenauer.

A quick refresher: Formerly known as Rohrabacher–Farr, Rohrabacher–Blumenauer is an amendment to a federal appropriations bill that bars the Justice Department from using resources to prosecute state-legal cannabis. In August 2016, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals—which includes cannabis-legal states of California, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Arizona, Montana, and Hawaii—ruled that the provision also protects individual businesses that comply with state law.


RELATED STORY
Federal Court Bars Justice Department From Prosecuting Medical Cannabis
“If DOJ wishes to continue these prosecutions,” the court wrote in the 9th Circuit case, US v. McIntosh, “Appellants are entitled to evidentiary hearings to determine whether their conduct was completely authorized by state law.”

Which brings us back to the Humboldt growers. Following an evidentiary hearing, US District Judge Richard Seeborg determined that Pisarski and Moore were indeed compliant with state law. “Their conduct strictly complied with all conditions imposed by California law on the use, distribution, possession and cultivation of marijuana,” Seeborg wrote. Earlier this week, he halted the federal government’s case against the growers, citing McIntosh.

The defense attorney for the pair, Beverly Hills-based Ronald Richards, told the LA Weekly that the decision was unusual—and may help other cannabis entities going forward. “This is the first time in my 23-year career I’ve had a case stopped because of an appropriations rider,” he said. “It opens the door for people not to get scared.


RELATED STORY
In White House’s Quest to End Opioid Crisis, Where’s Cannabis?
Tamar Todd, director of the Drug Policy Alliance’s office of legal affairs, told the Weekly that the court’s stay of the case “shows that you can prevail—defendants in federal court could have their prosecutions halted.”

“It’s very encouraging,” she added. “It gives a lot of teeth to Rohrabacher–Farr.”

But while the case is closed for now, the government could seek to reopen it. Judge Seeborg’s stay of the case could be undone if Congress fails to renew Rohrabacher–Blumenauer next month.

US Attorney Jeff Sessions, a strict anti-drug advocate, asked lawmakers in May to end the protection, calling it “unwise for Congress to restrict the discretion of the [Justice] Department to fund particular prosecutions, particularly in the midst of an historic drug epidemic and potentially long-term uptick in violent crime.” But in late July a Senate Committee OK’d the amendment, adopting it as part of an appropriations bill set for discussion next month.


RELATED STORY
In Rebuke to Sessions, Senate Committee OKs Medical Marijuana Protections
Crucially, Rohrabacher–Blumenauer in its current form protects only medical cannabis programs—it offers no protection for adult-use cannabis. A nonbinding Justice Department memo issued under the Obama administration says prosecutors won’t interfere with state cannabis systems, but Sessions has said his office is reviewing that guidance.

Sessions also recently sent letters to state officials in Washington, Colorado, and Oregon in what appears to be an effort to show those states’ systems are failing to adequately regulate cannabis markets. Some state officials have since pushed back, accusing the statistics of having been cherry-picked in a deliberate attempt to mislead.

“Honestly it’s hard to take him seriously if he relies on such outdated information,” Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson told the Seattle Times.


RELATED STORY
State Leaders Respond to Sessions’ Criticism of Legal Cannabis
One Colorado state senator went further.

“Jeff Sessions needs to keep his reefer madness paranoia in Washington DC and let us handle a decision we’ve made,” Sen. Michael Merrifield told a local ABC affiliate. “I think these numbers are exaggerated or pulled out of somebody’s hat.”

hehehehe...well, this court just kicked ole' Jeffe right in the umpa lumpa's. I predict that the Rohrabacher–Blumenauer will be extended so hopefully Jeffe will get those little dingle berries of his kicked some more. One can only hope.

 

[Baron23]

FDA Declares CBD ‘Beneficial,’ Wants Your Input ASAP

The United Nations is trying to figure out how to categorize cannabidiol (CBD), a non-psychoactive and medically beneficial cannabinoid contained in cannabis. And UN officials, through the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), are asking for your help.

The FDA declared that 'CBD has been shown to be beneficial.' Now the agency needs your comments to back it up.
FDA officials put out a call for comments in this morning’s Federal Register, seeking information about CBD and how the UN’s World Health Organization (WHO) should designate it under the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances. In doing so, the FDA acknowledged the ‘beneficial’ effects CBD has shown in patients with neurological disorders.

All those who have information on, or experience with, the use of CBD as a healing substance are encouraged to comment at this federal website. Sept. 13 is the deadline for public comment, and no input will be considered after that date.

CBD is one of 17 substances currently under scheduling review by the WHO. This process affects only the WHO and the United Nations. It does not directly deal with the status of CBD under the federal Controlled Substances Act—but it could have an indirect effect by influencing the outcome of the conflict over the federal categorization of cannabidiol.


RELATED STORY
CBD vs. THC: Why Is CBD Not Psychoactive?
FDA Deputy Commissioner Anna K. Abram, who sent out the notice this morning, acknowledged that “CBD has been shown to be beneficial in experimental models of several neurological disorders, including those of seizure and epilepsy.”

That puts the FDA at odds with the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), which late last year attempted to declare CBD a Schedule I substance. Schedule I drugs, by definition, have “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.”

The other drugs under consideration by the UN include six types of the synthetic opioid fentanyl, five synthetic cannabinoid agonists (of the K2 and Spice type), and the psychoactive muscle relaxant ketamine.

 

[grokit]

Are we ready for our first "pot president"?
I think so!


Marijuana politics emerge as 2020 flash point
The debate over legalization is about to receive a full airing on the presidential campaign trail.

Democratic New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker (left) and Democratic New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (center) have already signed on to a bipartisan medical marijuana bill, and Republican Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul has called for a repeal on the pot prohibition.

SAN FRANCISCO
Marijuana legalization just moved from the fringes of the last presidential campaign to center stage in 2020.

Between a sweeping new package of legislation introduced last week by one of the top Democratic presidential prospects and, on the other end of the spectrum, Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ vigorous opposition to recreational use of marijuana, the debate over legalization of cannabis is about to receive a full airing on the presidential campaign trail.

While Bernie Sanders also supported medicinal use of marijuana and the decriminalization of recreational marijuana, drug policy stayed on the outskirts of the 2016 presidential debate, and growing action at the state level was barely acknowledged.

Tom Angell, chairman of Marijuana Majority, a bipartisan nonprofit advocacy group, said New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker’s introduction of “the farthest-reaching bill ever proposed” will have a catalytic effect on the politics of legalized marijuana and the myriad criminal justice issues related to it.

“Booker is getting a ton of fantastic press about this,’’ he said. “And other candidates will notice that and will want to say, 'I agree — and I want to introduce a bill of my own.'”

Booker’s rollout of the Marijuana Justice Act — introduced to a wide audience via Facebook Live — was more than just a call for legalizing marijuana at the federal level. The measure also addresses withholding federal funds for the construction of jails and prisons from states whose pot laws are shown to disproportionately incarcerate minorities; expunging federal convictions for cannabis use; and mandating sentencing hearings for prisoners now serving time for pot offenses.

“You see these marijuana arrests happening so much in our country, targeting certain communities — poor communities, minority communities — targeting people with an illness,” Booker, the former mayor of Newark, said.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/13/marijuana-legalization-2020-elections-241576

 

[Baron23]

Now ain't this a hell of a quandary.....who do you cheer on?? Rosenberg as opposed to Sessions??? Wow, I find both of them completely contemptible. Talk about a Solomon like decision.


Justice Department at odds with DEA on marijuana research, MS-13

The Justice Department under Attorney General Jeff Sessions has effectively blocked the Drug Enforcement Administration from taking action on more than two dozen requests to grow marijuana to use in research, one of a number of areas in which the anti-drug agency is at odds with the Trump administration, U.S. officials familiar with the matter said.

A year ago, the DEA began accepting applications to grow more marijuana for research, and as of this month, had 25 proposals to consider. But DEA officials said they need the Justice Department’s sign-off to move forward, and so far, the department has not been willing to provide it.

“They’re sitting on it,” said one law enforcement official familiar with the matter. “They just will not act on these things.”

As a result, said one senior DEA official, “the Justice Department has effectively shut down this program to increase research registrations.’’

DEA spokesman Rusty Payne said the agency “has always been in favor of enhanced research for controlled substances such as marijuana.’’ Lauren Ehrsam, a Justice Department spokeswoman, declined to comment.

The standoff is the latest example of the nation’s premier narcotics enforcement agency finding itself in disagreement with the new administration. While President Trump and Sessions have vowed a crackdown on drugs and violent crime, DEA officials have publicly and privately questioned some of the administration’s statements and goals.

Late last month, Acting DEA Administrator Chuck Rosenberg wrote in an email to staff members that President Trump had “condoned police misconduct” in remarking to officers in Long Island that they need not protect suspects’ heads when putting them into police vehicles. The DEA administrator said he was writing his employees “because we have an obligation to speak out when something is wrong.” After public criticism, White House officials said the president was joking.

DEA officials say Sessions and his Justice Department have pressed the agency for action specifically on MS-13, despite warnings from Rosenberg and others at the DEA that the gang, which draws from Central American teenagers for most of its recruits, is not one of the biggest players when it comes to distributing and selling narcotics.

Mexican cartels, DEA officials have warned, will use any gang to sell their drugs, and DEA leaders have directed those in their field offices to focus on the biggest threat in their particular geographic area. In many parts of the country, MS-13 simply does not pose a major criminal or drug dealing threat compared to other groups, these officials said.

The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity, because they could face professional consequences for candidly describing the internal disputes.

Payne, the DEA spokesman, said, “Mexican cartels, Mexican transnational organizations are the greatest criminal threat to the United States. There’s no other group currently positioned to challenge them. Whenever drug investigations that we do involve MS-13, we respond, but right now the No. 1 drug threat in the U.S. is the Mexican cartels.’’

Sessions frequently speaks harshly about marijuana use, and Justice Department officials have been reviewing the policy of his predecessor when it comes to enforcing federal laws on marijuana in states where the drug is legal. Sessions, too, has called medical marijuana “hyped, maybe too much,” and signaled that he is skeptical about benefits of smoking it.

“Dosages can be constructed in a way that might be beneficial, I acknowledge that, but if you smoke marijuana, for example, where you have no idea how much THC you’re getting, it’s probably not a good way to administer a medicinal amount. So forgive me if I’m a bit dubious about that,” Sessions said earlier this year.

The DEA is no shrinking violet when it comes to marijuana enforcement. Last year, Rosenberg declined to lessen restrictions on its use, maintaining its classification as a Schedule 1 controlled substance — which means it has no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.

But Rosenberg wrote at the time that the DEA would “support and promote legitimate research regarding marijuana and its constituent parts.” The DEA, he wrote, already had approved such research, registering 354 people and institutions to study marijuana and related components, including the effects of smoked marijuana on humans.

The DEA indicated at the time it was willing to see those studies expand, asking for applications from people who wanted to grow marijuana to be used for research. The only source of marijuana for researchers then was — and is — the University of Mississippi, which has permission to grow and distribute the drug for research.

One still-waiting applicant is Lyle Craker, a professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Craker has spent years seeking approval to do research into whether other parts of marijuana plants have medicinal value.

“I’ve filled out the forms, but I haven’t heard back from them. I assume they don’t want to answer,’’ said Craker. “They need to think about why they are holding this up when there are products that could be used to improve people’s health. I think marijuana has some bad effects, but there can be some good and without investigation we really don’t know.’’

Craker submitted his latest application Feb. 14, and after getting additional questions from the DEA in March, supplied additional information in April.

Brad Burge, spokesman for the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, said the federal government for years has prevented important research into marijuana.

Checkpoint newsletter

Military, defense and security at home and abroad.



“That’s a sad state of affairs,’’ he said, adding, “if the DEA is now asking for permission to say yes, then the resistance is now further up the chain of command.’’

Rosenberg indicated in a call with The Washington Post that he still would support more marijuana research.

“I stand by what I wrote,” he said.

Tension between Rosenberg and Trump is perhaps unsurprising. Rosenberg was appointed during the Obama administration, and he had served as chief of staff and senior counselor to James B. Comey, who was the FBI director until Trump fired him earlier this year.

The Justice Department has not rejected any of the 25 people whose applications to grow marijuana the DEA is considering. Rather, the department is not taking any action at all, officials said. Before approving such applications, DEA officials have to assess each applicant and determine whether their facility is secure and whether they had previously been complying with federal law.

 

[Baron23]

As a first principal, its is indeed states rights and Federalism that should be the bedrock of this legal debate, IMO.

Will marijuana make federalism go up in smoke?

During the campaign, Donald Trump endorsed medical marijuana and said pot legalization “should be a state issue, state-by-state.” Attorney General Jeff Sessions, on the other hand, is a fierce opponent of marijuana and has opposed measures that would limit the federal government’s ability to interfere with state decriminalization efforts. Last month, Sessions reiterated the federal government’s authority to enforce federal drug laws “regardless of state law,” and some fear he will resist congressional efforts to protect medical marijuana from federal drug laws. Yet Sessions is not the greatest threat to continuing state-level marijuana reform efforts.

Lawmakers and citizen initiatives have successfully reformed marijuana laws in a majority of states. Twenty-nine states allow for the medical use of marijuana, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Eight have legalized marijuana possession and use altogether, allowing for recreational use. At least a dozen more states have effectively decriminalized possession of marijuana in small amounts. Yet marijuana use and possession remains illegal under federal law, even in small amounts or for medical purposes.

As a practical matter, the federal government has neither the interest in policing nor the ability to police low-level infractions of federal drug laws. Limits on federal law enforcement resources mean that the Drug Enforcement Administration focuses its efforts on larger dealing and trafficking operations. This policy approach was formalized during the Obama administration in the Cole Memorandum, which clarified that the Justice Department has little interest in going after marijuana possession or sale that is compliant with state law and is not linked to interstate trafficking or sales to minors. Nonetheless, the federal prohibition casts a shadow over marijuana-related businesses and activities that have been legalized under state law.

To protect state-level reforms, Congress has enacted appropriations riders that bar the DEA from spending funds to “interfere” with state laws authorizing the cultivation, use, possession or distribution of marijuana for medical purposes. Despite Sessions’s opposition, such a rider was included in the most recent spending bill that provides funding through Sept. 30.

The Appropriations Rider sends an important signal that Congress wants to allow states to allow medical marijuana, but it only goes so far. While the rider limits what the DEA can do, and was successfully invoked as a defense against prosecution in a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, marijuana use and possession remain illegal under federal law, and this has far-reaching implications. Marijuana reform advocates spend lots of time worrying that Sessions will find a way around the appropriations rider or depart from the set of priorities outlined in the Cole Memo. This threat is real, but other threats are greater.

The fact that marijuana possession remains illegal under federal law has far-reaching implications whether or not the DEA can raid medical marijuana dispensaries. For one thing, it means that banks cannot lawfully service marijuana businesses, as doing so means servicing a criminal enterprise. The result is that marijuana sales are conducted almost exclusively on a cash basis. (For more on the banking angle, see this excellent paper by Alabama law professor Julie Hill.) This cannot be fixed through an appropriations rider.


A bigger potential threat comes from the fact that marijuana possession and distribution are predicate offenses under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). This means that those who produce or sell marijuana are potentially subject to civil RICO suits, whether or not such activities are legal under state law. So held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit earlier this year. A federal judge once described RICO as “the monster that ate jurisprudence.” Barring real reform at the federal level, it could be the monster that ate marijuana federalism, too. Here again, an appropriations rider is insufficient.

The only way to protect state-level marijuana reform efforts is to change federal law, either by ending federal marijuana prohibition or expressly allowing state reforms to proceed. Outright federal legalization of marijuana is unlikely — and might not be a good idea insofar as state-level reform efforts generate useful information about the best way for reforms to occur. Allowing different states to adopt different policies encourages policy experimentation and produces knowledge about the pros and cons of different legal regimes.

The end of federal alcohol prohibition provides a potential model for how state-level marijuana reform efforts could be allowed to proceed. After adoption of the 21st Amendment, federal law continued to prohibit the sale and distribution of alcohol where such activities remained illegal under state law. Put another way, possessing, transporting and distributing alcohol in violation of state law was itself a federal offense. This remains true today. Thus, if a business produces alcohol in one state with the intention of exporting it to another state in violation of either state’s laws, it has committed a federal crime. In this way, the federal government allows each state to make its own choices with regard to alcohol policy and limits the effect one state’s choices can have on its neighbors. There’s no reason a similar approach would not work for marijuana.

Some opponents of state-level marijuana policy reform fear that legalizing marijuana in one state necessarily harms others. Such concerns are likely overstated, as Alabama argued in its powerful Gonzales v. Raich amicus brief, but can be addressed by limits on interstate trafficking, as has been done with alcohol. Marijuana would not be the first product to be legal in some states but not in others, and there’s no reason the traditional federalism principles are not equally applicable here. Perhaps Congress should give it a try.

Note: For those interested in this issue, I’ll be participating in a panel on Wednesday in Burlington, Vt., “Has Federalism Gone to Pot?” sponsored by the Federalist Society. Here also is my Introduction to a 2014 symposium on the subject, published in the Case Western Reserve Law Review.

 

[Baron23]

This: "Taylor believes marijuana smuggling will continue because of the profit incentive, which will end only if the drug is legalized across America." is the crux of the matter.

Legal marijuana states try to curb interstate smuggling to fend off feds
Seed-to-sale tracking is so far the main protective measure in Oregon, Washington and Colorado


By Andrew Selsky, The Associated Press

PORTLAND, Ore. — Well before Oregon legalized marijuana, its verdant, wet forests made it an ideal place for growing the drug, which often ended up being funneled out of the state for big money. Now, officials suspect weed grown legally in Oregon and other states is also being smuggled out, and the trafficking is putting America’s multibillion-dollar marijuana industry at risk.

Related: Recent busts highlight issue of interstate smuggling from legal marijuana states

In response, marijuana-legal states are trying to clamp down on “diversion” even as U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions presses for enforcement of federal laws against marijuana.

Tracking legal weed from the fields and greenhouses where it’s grown to the shops where it’s sold under names like Blueberry Kush and Chernobyl is their so far main protective measure.

In Oregon, Gov. Kate Brown recently signed into law a requirement that state regulators track from seed to store all marijuana grown for sale in Oregon’s legal market. So far, only recreational marijuana has been comprehensively tracked. Tina Kotek, speaker of the Oregon House, said lawmakers wanted to ensure “we’re protecting the new industry that we’re supporting here.”

“There was a real recognition that things could be changing in D.C.,” she said.

Related stories

• 2-ton takedown: Greek officials stop yacht smuggling from European weed hotbed
• Recent busts highlight issue of interstate smuggling from legal marijuana states
• 71-year-old Californian arrested in North Dakota with 183 pounds of weed
• More smuggled weed found with new cars shipped from Mexico
• 180 kilos of weed found in new Ford Fusions shipped from Mexico

The Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board says it’s replacing its current tracking Nov. 1 with a “highly secure, reliable, scalable and flexible system.”

California voters approved using a tracking system run by Lakeland, Florida-based Franwell for its recreational marijuana market. Sales become legal Jan. 1.

Franwell also tracks marijuana, using bar-code and radio frequency identification labels on packaging and plants, in Colorado, Oregon, Maryland, Alaska and Michigan.

“The tracking system is the most important tool a state has,” said Adam Crabtree, who runs Denver-based Nationwide Compliance Specialists Inc., which helps tax collectors track elusive, cash-heavy industries like the marijuana business.

But the systems aren’t fool-proof. They rely on the users’ honesty, he said.

“We have seen numerous examples of people ‘forgetting’ to tag plants,” Crabtree said. Colorado’s tracking also doesn’t apply to home-grown plants and many noncommercial marijuana caregivers.

In California, implementing a “fully operational, legal market” could take years, said state Sen. Mike McGuire, who represents the “Emerald Triangle” region that’s estimated to produce 60 percent of America’s marijuana. But he’s confident tracking will help.

“In the first 24 months, we’re going to have a good idea who is in the regulated market and who is in black market,” McGuire said.

Oregon was the first state to decriminalize personal possession, in 1973. It legalized medical marijuana in 1998, and recreational use in 2014.

Before that, Anthony Taylor hid his large cannabis crop from aerial surveillance under a forest canopy east of Portland, and tended it when there was barely enough light to see.

“In those days, marijuana was REALLY illegal,” said Taylor, now a licensed marijuana processor and lobbyist. “If you got caught growing the amounts we were growing, you were going to go to prison for a number of years.”

Taylor believes it’s easier to grow illegally now because authorities lack the resources to sniff out every operation. And growers who sell outside the state can earn thousands of dollars per pound, he said.

Still, it’s hard to say if weed smuggling has gotten worse in Oregon, or how much of the marijuana leaving the state filters out from the legal side.

Chris Gibson, executive director of the federally funded Oregon-Idaho High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program, said the distinction matters less than the fact that marijuana continues to leave Oregon on planes, trains and automobiles, and through the mail.

“None is supposed to leave, so it’s an issue,” Gibson told The Associated Press. “That should be a primary concern to state leadership.”

On a recent morning, Billy Williams, the U.S. attorney in Oregon, sat at his desk in his office overlooking downtown Portland, a draft Oregon State Police report in front of him. Oregon produces between 132 tons (120 metric tons) and 900 tons (816 metric tons) more marijuana than what Oregonians can conceivably consume, the report said, using statistics from the legal industry and estimates of illicit grows. It identified Oregon as an “epicenter of cannabis production” and quoted an academic as saying three to five times the amount of cannabis that’s consumed in Oregon leaves the state.

Sessions himself cited the report in a July 24 letter to Oregon’s governor. In it, Sessions asked Brown to explain how Oregon would address the report’s “serious findings.”

Pete Gendron, a licensed marijuana grower who advised state regulators on compliance and enforcement, said the reports’ numbers are guesswork, and furthermore are outdated because they don’t take into account the marijuana now being sold in Oregon’s legal recreational market.

A U.S. Justice Department task force recently said the Cole Memorandum , which restricts federal marijuana law enforcement in states where weed is legal, should be reevaluated to see if it should be changed.

The governors of Oregon, Colorado, Washington and Alaska — where both medical and recreational marijuana are legal — wrote to Sessions and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin in April, warning altering the memorandum “would divert existing marijuana product into the black market and increase dangerous activity in both our states and our neighboring states.”

But less than a month later, Sessions wrote to congressional leaders criticizing the federal government’s hands-off approach to medical marijuana, and citing a Colorado case in which a medical marijuana licensee shipped weed out of state.

In his letter, Sessions opposed an amendment by Oregon Democratic Rep. Earl Blumenauer and California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher that prevents the Justice Department from interfering with states’ medical marijuana. Congress is weighing renewing the amendment for the next fiscal year.

In a phone interview from Washington, Blumenauer said the attorney general is “out of step” with most members of Congress, who have become more supportive “of ending the failed prohibition on marijuana.”

“Marijuana has left Oregon for decades,” Blumenauer said. “What’s different is that now we have better mechanisms to try to control it.”

Taylor believes marijuana smuggling will continue because of the profit incentive, which will end only if the drug is legalized across America. U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, a New Jersey Democrat, introduced a bill in Congress on Aug. 1 to do just that.

 

[Baron23]

I think this, however, is complete and utter BS: “I don’t think that anybody can expect a state legislature to just jump in and know everything about an issue, so I think these kinks that need to be worked out are nothing more than that,” said Jesse Kelley of Marijuana Policy Project. “It took the legislators a little while to get on board with what the people wanted. Now that they had their special session and passed the bill, it’s a good start, they’re on the right track to getting what the amendment asked for.”

I read the amendment. If you aren't illiterate, its abundantly clear that the people via the amendment demanded (this ain't an "ask" situation IMO).


Marijuana's Momentum: Legal weed on a winning streak

Americans’ cultural attitudes toward legal use are changing at an incredible pace, and laws around the country are starting to reflect that shift.

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. (WTSP) – To put it bluntly: weed is on a winning streak in the United States.

Americans’ cultural attitudes toward legal use are changing at an incredible pace and laws around the country are already starting to reflect that shift.

Five years ago, recreational marijuana wasn’t legal anywhere in the U.S. Today, you buy a joint just like a bottle of wine in eight states and Washington D.C. Medicinal use of marijuana is now legal in 29 states, that’s more than half the country.

A 2016 Quinnipiac poll found that 56 percent of Florida voters are in favor of legalized use and possession of marijuana for adults. Nationwide, Americans’ support for full marijuana legalization has skyrocketed from less than 20 percent to more than 50 percent in just the last 20 years,

RELATED: Timeline of U.S. marijuana laws

That has been a tough pill to swallow for anti-drug organizations like the Drug Free America Foundation.

“It’s never fun to work in drug prevention,” said Drug Free America’s Deputy Director Amy Ronshausen. “There are a lot of states that are ignoring our federal law, ignoring our international drug treaties, bypassing the FDA system, and that does make it very hard.”


Drug Free America is not pleased with the trend towards legalization, saying states are ignoring federal laws.

Federal lawmakers are starting to follow the shift in their constituents’ views as well. This month, Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey introduced the Marijuana Justice Act, which would fully legalize adult use of marijuana at the federal level. The bill also tries to mitigate the circumstances imposed on citizens who have been caught up in the criminal justice system because of marijuana-related charges.

“People are churned into the criminal justice system, tagged with charges for non-violent drug use, with using marijuana in a nation where our lawmakers and our legislators have been using drugs,” Booker said when he introduced the bill on Aug. 1.

State lawmakers in Florida, on the other hand, have been slower to react. Legislators needed a special session to get a constitutional amendment written allowing the use of medical cannabis in the state, and they went out of their way to keep the smoking of medical marijuana illegal despite the fact that voters approved the measure with more than 70 percent of the vote.

“Our Legislature does not care about the will of the people, they do not think they will be voted out and, from my perspective, they basically spat on us and stuck their noses at us and said, ‘We don’t care what you voted on’,” said Michael Minardi, campaign manager for Regulate Florida, an organization working to put full adult recreational legalized use of cannabis on the 2018 ballot in the state.


Regulate Florida, which is pushing for legal pot, says legislators are dragging their heels on the issue.

Meanwhile, national advocates are less concerned about the way Florida lawmakers have taken on medical marijuana because they know the trends in public opinion on the issue are in their favor.

“I don’t think that anybody can expect a state legislature to just jump in and know everything about an issue, so I think these kinks that need to be worked out are nothing more than that,” said Jesse Kelley of Marijuana Policy Project. “It took the legislators a little while to get on board with what the people wanted. Now that they had their special session and passed the bill, it’s a good start, they’re on the right track to getting what the amendment asked for.”

“We’re destroying our communities by continuing to keep this illegal and we’re creating cartels and illegal enterprises to be able to profit off of this when our businesses and people who want to do this right, keep it away from children, are being forced out of this market,” said Minardi.

“We’re going to see a further push for full legalization, full adult use, which is actually a product of… the red tape and all the problems we’re having in the legislation, people aren’t able to get their medicine,” said Peter Sessa, co-founder of the Florida Cannabis Coalition. “There has to be a way to figure how to make money off this, the right people, the most influential people, how to make money off this before we’re going to see any real legislation at the federal level, and I think we’re very close.”

 

[Baron23]

Sabet is a fucking tool and his trying to soft sell his position is crap. He's the original reefer madness warrior. I hope news continued legalization actions grind his nuts every day. You want to know who your enemy is, MJ users.....he is it.

Meet Kevin Sabet, USA's Most Influential Critic of Marijuana Legalization

Kevin Sabet, the president and CEO of Virginia-based Smart Approaches to Marijuana, has become arguably the most influential critic of marijuana legalization in the United States. But in an extended interview on view below, he fights against the perception that he's a one-dimensional prohibitionist along the lines of U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Sabet stresses that he and his organization, shorthanded as SAM, take what he sees as a sensible approach to cannabis by arguing in favor of treatment rather than jail time for users in trouble and advocating for greater study of the substance to determine the best ways to utilize it medically.

We first spoke to Sabet in January 2013, just prior to SAM's launch in Denver, when he appeared alongside co-founder Patrick Kennedy, a former congressman from Rhode Island and a member of the Kennedy political dynasty. Sabet's background is similarly stocked with connections to heavyweights. The author of Reefer Sanity: Seven Great Myths About Marijuana, he served stints in the Clinton and Bush administrations and spent two years as senior adviser to President Barack Obama's drug-control director before taking on the SAM cause. In the more than four years since then, he's made countless media appearances while lobbying behind the scenes to try and stop the momentum generated by the pot legalization bandwagon.

Related Stories

• Marijuana: Project SAM touts public-health approach to pot in fighting legalization
• Marijuana legalization's biggest enemies -- and their Colorado ties
• Is Congressional Threat to Medical Pot Biz Protection Real or a "Nothingburger"?

Sabet, who says SAM's funding mainly comes from small donors and grants as opposed to hard-core drug-war groups or Big Pharma, doesn't think it's too late to accomplish this goal, in part because only a relatively small percentage of the populace actually uses marijuana. Moreover, he feels that plenty of those who abstain will more actively fight against pot's normalization if public use (and its attendant smoke and scent) becomes more prevalent in cities such as Denver, which he sees as having been demonstrably harmed by legalization. He blames cannabis for turning the 16th Street Mall into a homeless haven that visitors actively avoid and suspects that in his heart of hearts, Governor John Hicklenlooper knows legalization was a terrible mistake but can't admit it publicly because the right to toke is enshrined in the state constitution.

Likewise, Sabet considers it inarguable that the marijuana industry is targeting young people with colorfully packaged pot edibles and argues that simply keeping cannabis away from kids isn't enough. He cites studies showing that the brains of 25-30 year olds are still developing — and can still be harmed by weed.

Continue to learn more about Sabet's cause and the arguments he makes to support it.

Westword: SAM recently put out a release about the amount of tax revenue Colorado has collected as a result of the marijuana industry [in reference to a VS Strategies report estimating that the state has generated more than $500 million in cannabis revenue since legalization]. In it, you talk about how drug use and its consequences cost taxpayers $193 billion per year, with Colorado's annual share being approximately $3.3 billion. But that's for all drugs, correct?

Kevin Sabet: Oh, yeah, absolutely. But you need to look at the fact that marijuana is used far more than any of the other drugs, and look at the costs associated with driving, crashing, mental illness — and long-term costs we're not able to account for. Marijuana isn't correlated with mental illness overnight. If often takes time. And so the cost of that can't be calculated in any way. There was a study done a few weeks ago by the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse and Addiction finding that just in Canada alone, a much smaller country than the U.S. in population, marijuana-related car crashes cost a billion dollars. That's just the car crashes, and those were directly related to marijuana. And the report came from a government think tank, not any kind of anti-drug group.

I honestly think it isn't surprising coming from this group [VS Strategies]. It's an industry group that wants to basically make money from marijuana — much more money than the State of Colorado will make after you account for costs. When you look at the actual number and context of just education alone, the marijuana revenue is barely newsworthy. The Department of Education in Colorado says they need $18 billion in capital construction funds alone. The reality is, the Colorado budget deficit is actually rising, not falling. This isn't plugging a hole in the deficit. It's actually costing money. There's one area where I'd agree with [former Colorado Director of Marijuana Coordination] Andrew Freedman: You don't do this for the money. But it's a great talking point, and it polls well, just like the talking point of it being safer than alcohol polls well. This polls well, too, so you're going to have an industry group that thrives off commercialization touting the numbers. That's not surprising at all.

Kevin Sabet, lower left, with SAM forces from Ohio and Kentucky circa 2015.
Facebook
SAM is usually described as an anti-marijuana organization. Is that an accurate description from your viewpoint? Or is it pejorative in some way?

I wouldn't necessarily say it's pejorative, but I think it's overly simplistic. It's true that we don't want to see the legalization of another illegal substance. We think that our experience with pharmaceuticals, which are, of course, legal, as well as alcohol and tobacco, has been an utter disaster from a public cost and public-policy point of view. We've never regulated those drugs in a responsible way. Lobbyists and special interests own the rule-making when it comes to these drugs. And what we're saying is, do we really want to repeat history once again? It just happens to be marijuana. It really could have been any substance. And we will be talking about the legalization of other drugs if marijuana goes through. Because it doesn't stop with marijuana in terms of the policy goals of many of these organizations. So I think it is overly simplistic. And we're very concerned about commercialization.

Also, we don't want to see a return to an enforcement-heavy policy that throws everybody behind bars or saddles young people, especially, with criminal records that prevent them from getting a job or being able to access public benefits or being able to go to school. We want to see people given another chance. But we also want to see this treated as a health issue, and you don't treat marijuana as a health issue by ignoring it or facilitating its use. You do brief interventions if they're needed, treatment if it's needed. I don't think everyone who uses marijuana needs treatment, just like everyone who drinks or uses other drugs doesn't need treatment. But some people are using it in a way that is problematic, and they need an early intervention, perhaps, to prevent them from moving on to a substance-use disorder — or they need more intense treatment. It really just depends.

We also want to see research into components of marijuana that may have therapeutic value. We don't want to see people needlessly suffering. But if Perdue Pharma or Pfizer said tomorrow that they have a new blockbuster drug but they don't want it to go through the FDA and instead want to put it up to a vote, we'd be up in arms. And rightfully so. Everybody would be up in arms. And we don't think marijuana should get a free pass because there are stories of it helping people. I don't doubt that it helps some people — things like cannabidiol oil, etc., or even smoking marijuana to relieve pain. I don't doubt that it helps some people. But we don't want to turn back the clock to pre-FDA days, where we had snake-oil salesmen and wild claims about drugs. We want to put it through the same system, and if that system is problematic and difficult, then let's look at what those barriers are and resolve them.

So I think we are a sensible organization that takes our cues from science. That's why, on our board, you don't see people benefiting from the policy position that we take. If anything, people like the doctors from Boston Children's Hospital who are on our advisory board, or Harvard professors, they're going to have more business if marijuana is legal, because they're going to have people with more problems. We're working counter to their self-benefit, if you think about it. That's why we're led by the science. And the reason we started this.... I left the White House and saw there was a huge disconnect between the public's understanding of marijuana and what was being told to them by various sources, and we're trying to bridge that gap.

Many of the things you just touched upon are on the four items in the "What We Do" section of your website. But some things, such as "To promote research on marijuana in order to obtain FDA-approved, pharmacy-based cannabis medications," we don't hear your organization talking about very often. Is that the fault of the media, because they're only focusing on the legalization-is-bad angle? Are you giving equal weight to some of these other goals?

I think that's just people looking through the glasses they want to look through. I think the legalization groups are threatened by a sensible organization led by Harvard doctors that doesn't want to put people in prison, so they want to paint us as the most irrational dinosaurs from the Stone Age on these issues. The reality is, we spend a lot of our time on all of these issues. In fact, we have released the most comprehensive document that any policy organization has released, I think, on the hurdles of medical marijuana research. That's right on our website — the six-point plan. And we've also done a CBD guide — everything you need to know about CBD. After the guide to everything you need to know about CBD, we did a report on research barriers, and we got a lot of people from both extremes that didn't like it. John Walters, my former boss, wrote a scathing editorial, saying we were off the mark in calling for more research. When we get criticized from multiple angles, I think people can decide for themselves whether that's credible or not....

Another portrait of Kevin Sabet.
Courtesy of Smart Approaches to Marijuana
It's just not sexy, though. I can't remember the last time that someone from USA Today or Huffington Post said, "Oh, we want to cover the fact that you released a wonky policy document aimed at FDA senior scientists with ten letters after their name." They're not banging on the door to get that story. Instead, they're banging on the door to say, "The governor of Nevada has just declared a state of emergency on pot. What do you think?"

I'm not going to say it's the fault of the media. I think that's overused these days. But we're doing our best, and whether it's noticed by USA Today or the Huffington Post or the Washington Post or not, that doesn't matter as much. We're getting it out there, and I know that hundreds of lawmakers have read it. In fact, three out of our six recommendations have been adopted since we released that report. I don't think we're the only reason they've been adopted, but I think us pushing and prodding and putting it down on paper gave some political cover to some people who may not have supported it in the past, and I'm very proud of that. I know it doesn't satisfy Medical Marijuana Inc. or these hundreds of CBD manufacturers who are selling God knows what because they don't get it looked at by the FDA; they're not going to be happy about that. But I think the science speaks for itself, and scientists and others have noticed. That's why they've asked to join my advisory board — top researchers who want to be part of this team not because we're zealots, but because we look at the science and are able to get it out there....

Another of the talking points on your website says, "Alcohol is legal. Why shouldn't marijuana be legal?" How do you answer that question?

To me, saying, "Alcohol is bad and it's legal, so why shouldn't marijuana be legal?" is like saying, "My headlights are broken, so why don't we break the taillights, too?" It doesn't make much sense. First of all, alcohol and marijuana are apples and oranges in many ways. They're different just because of their biology and their pharmacology, but they're also different in their cultural acceptance and prevalence in Western society. Alcohol has been a fixed part in Western civilization since before the Old Testament. The reason alcohol prohibition didn't work — and that's debatable....

What's the debate?

If you look at scholars who studied Prohibition much more than I have, there is a vigorous debate. Alcohol use fell during Prohibition, harm fell as well. Cirrhosis of the liver, which is a top-ten killer of white men, wasn't a top-ten killer. Organized crime had been in place, and obviously it was strengthened from Prohibition, although it isn't like it caused it, and it certainly didn't go away when Prohibition ended.... But it's very difficult to prohibit something that 60 to 70 percent of the population are doing on a regular basis. Marijuana is still used by fewer than 10 percent of the population monthly, and so the idea that it's the same in terms of acceptance is wrong. Right now, those 10 percent of users have convinced 55 percent of Americans that this is a good idea.

If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
SHOW ME HOW
That also points to the fact that I think support for marijuana is very soft. I think the industry has overplayed its hand about things like public nuisance, public use, secondhand smoke, car crashes. Once these things become greater in prevalence, which they inevitably will if more states legalize and commercialize, then I think you're going to have the backlash I think will come, and it will come because of the increased problems....

Alcohol is such an accepted part of society. We accept the negative consequences. Alcohol is not legal because it's safe. Alcohol isn't legal because it's so good for you. Alcohol is legal because it's been a fixed part of Western civilization for millennia. Marijuana has not been. Of course it was used thousands of years ago. Was it used by certain cultures? Absolutely. But there's no comparison, complete apples and oranges, when it comes to alcohol's culture acceptability. So that's why alcohol is legal — not because we love the effects it has on society. No parent, no teacher, no police officer, says, "I'd be better if I was drinking all the time." No police officer says, "Man, I wish more people drank." No parent says, "I wish my kid drank more." That's not why it's legal, because it's so great.

And alcohol has done very little for our tax base. One of the reasons Prohibition was repealed was because the industrialists were convinced that it would help eliminate or mitigate the corporate tax or even the personal income tax. That's laughable today. It doesn't do that at all. Instead it costs us way more money than any revenue we bring in. I think marijuana would be the same story. It affects our bodies differently. Alcohol affects the liver, marijuana affects the lungs. Alcohol is in and out of your system quite rapidly, but marijuana lingers in the system longer, and according to studies, the effects also linger for longer. They affect different parts of the brain. So they're different in many ways, but in some respects, they're the same. They're both intoxicants, and unlike tobacco, they specifically cause changes in behavior. And that's a difference with tobacco, another legal drug. Tobacco isn't correlated with paranoia or obsessiveness or mental illness and car crashes, and obviously, marijuana is. In some ways, legal drugs offer an interesting example. I think they offer an example of the sort of social and financial consequences that would come with legalizing other drugs.

 

[Baron23]

Federal Laws Must Change For A Sustainable Future In Cannabis

Jeff Sessions is not actually the biggest threat to the industry.

In his campaign rhetoric, Donald Trump said flat out that marijuana should be a state by state issue. Then he hired Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who abhors the plant, likening it as only “slightly less awful than heroin.” Sessions has gone against measures to continue limiting the federal government’s ability to interfere in compliant medical marijuana operations and has repeatedly said that the federal government has every right to interfere, regardless of state laws. This has naturally led to a level of anxiety for cannabis activists and anyone else who utilizes the herb. However, Sessions may not be the main problem.

With 29 states having medicinal laws and and nine having gone the full legalization route (with limits, state by state), plus another baker’s dozen having decriminalized the plant, one would think the community would be breathing easy. Yet cannabis remains a Schedule I drug and federally illegal.

Encouragingly, law enforcement doesn’t actually have the people power to crack down on all legal states or interfere in small scale operations. They focus on interstate trafficking and the sale of marijuana to minors, but not on Mr. and Mrs. Doe, who have their four state legalized plants and keep them discrete. Still, pot remains federally illegal. We cannot reiterate this important fact enough.

It doesn’t just mean that theoretically Sessions could come down hard and try and wipe out the programs we’ve put in place, it means that practical matters can’t be addressed and then become dangerous. Perhaps the best example of this is in the world of banking. Because of the federally illegal aspect, banks can’t and won’t work with cannabis businesses, which pulled in over six billion in revenue in 2016. That’s a lot of cash floating around and a lot of trouble that can bubble to the top. Not the least of which is personal safety and potential robberies.

A hanger on from the Obama era of presidency is the infamous Cole Memo, which basically tells Feds to cool their heels regarding state approved medical marijuana facilities and persons and to focus on those bigger issues like smuggling and sales to minors. However, even with the Cole Memo, federal law has the trump card and federal law says cannabis has no medical use and is classified as dangerous a drug as heroin.

In a spark of hope, Congress enacted appropriation riders to keep the DEA from spending its funding on cracking down on medical states. Sessions’ opinions be damned, one such rider was passed in the most recent spending bill that is valid through September 30th.

A bigger threat than even not being able to use a bank and having a cash only business is that possession and distribution of cannabis is also illegal under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). This means that whether or not state law says we can build cannabis houses and smoke them in public, all marijuana activities are illegal and subject to civil RICO suits. And the appropropriations rider is null here.

It seems the only two options that are safe for the cannabis community are federal legalization or the actual letting alone of state’s rights. Though federal legalization is ideal, leaving the laws up to states has many benefits, one of which is the weighing of what works. Each legal and medical state has their own sets of regulations and so far, though they’re all for the most part functioning, there are some sets of guidelines that are working better than others. Some that bring in more taxes and state revenue and some that are simply keeping communities and patients safer.

 

[Baron23]

What Every Cannabis Entrepreneur Needs to Understand About the Cole Memo

Attorney General Jeff Sessions might be seeking to resume enforcement of federal cannabis laws without changing Justice Department policy.

The Cole memorandum pops up frequently in media reports and discussions about the legal marijuana industry. This is especially true in recent days, when it appears it could be under attack by the Trump Administration.

But just what is the Cole Memo? Simply put, it’s all that stands between legal adult-use marijuana businesses and getting arrested by federal agents. Consequently, it’s the most important document in the legal marijuana industry.

It’s even more important now. In recent days, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has sent letters to Colorado, Oregon and Washington indicating he believes the states may not stand in compliance with the memo.

Cole Memo Overview
As states began legalization of adult-use marijuana, the federal government under then-President Barack Obama faced a challenge. With states legalizing marijuana, how should the federal government go about enforcing federal laws? Marijuana was, and still is, a Schedule I illegal drug under federal law.

Cracking down on marijuana sales would impede the rights of those who had voted for its use in those states. It also would violate the doctrine of states’ rights. In an attempt at compromise, Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole wrote a memorandum in 2013 calling for the Justice Department to not enforce federal law on marijuana against cannabis businesses operating legally under state law.

However, the memo stands on the idea that states will enact regulatory framework that tracks marijuana from seed to sale. The memo also requires states to work for prevention of:

• Distribution to minors
• Marijuana profits from going to criminal enterprises
• Marijuana being distributed from a legal state to an adjacent state where it’s illegal
• Legal marijuana providing cover for the sale of other, illegal drugs
• Violence or firearms becoming involved in the marijuana industry
• Drugged driving or other negative impact on public health
• The growing of marijuana on public lands
• The possession of marijuana on public lands

Why it’s a bigger deal now
In recent weeks, Sessions has sent letters to leaders in Colorado, Oregon and Washington asking for detailed reports on how they are adhering to the memo. He also apparently repeated that the federal government plans to enforce laws against marijuana, which he called a “dangerous drug.”

For some, this signals he might be looking at violations of the memo’s “prevention of” section. Meanwhile, the Associated Press obtained portions of a report that a committee formed by Sessions delivered last month.

The Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety apparently developed no new policies for Sessions to implement. According to the Associated Press, the group “largely reiterates the current Justice Department policy on marijuana.”

Given that, Sessions focus on the Cole memo may indicate a new approach. While to this point it’s been all talk, the cannabis industry will continue paying very close attention to Sessions in case talk turns to action.

 

[Baron23]

Now, this is interesting and worth reading. Should be a hoot to see Morgan and Stone go to work! LOL


United States Cannabis Coalition: Stone and Morgan Cultivate Bipartisan Group

If nothing else, there’s one thing that Roger Stone and John Morgan agree on…

President Trump should absolutely keep his 2016 pledge to support a state’s right to legalize medicinal cannabis.
On Wednesday, Roger Stone and John Morgan issued a press release announcing the creation of a bipartisan coalition – with one primary goal:

“To urge President Trump to honor the pledge he made during the 2016 campaign to support the states’ authority to legalize possession and distribution of cannabis.”

Currently, in the U.S., 29 states have exerted their 10th Amendment right to legalize medicinal cannabis to “various degrees,” and these two political heavyweights want those state rights preserved and protected.

Stone and Morgan come from different sides of the political aisle. Stone, a Republican, has long been an advisor to Pres. Trump; John Morgan, a Democrat, is credited with successfully helping to pass Florida’s constitutional amendment to legalize medicinal marijuana.

Reschedule, legalize, and prescribe
Now on the same team – legal marijuana – this bipartisan odd couple has just rolled out the United States Cannabis Coalition.

According to the press release, “Both Stone and Morgan said the new coalition which includes a cross section of Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals, Libertarians, and Progressives would also urge the President to change the classification of marijuana from a Schedule 1 drug where it is currently grouped with LSD and heroin. Such a move would allow doctors to prescribe it for patients who they believe would benefit.”

Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Chief of Staff John Kelly

Adamant that legalization would equate to national madness, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Chief of Staff John Kelly have both lobbied for “a crackdown on marijuana and resumption of the enforcement of Federal laws prohibiting marijuana possession and distribution in the states that have legalized cannabis.” A move of that nature would directly contradict the stated position of candidate Trump during the 2016 campaign.

“In terms of marijuana and legalization, I think that should be a state issue, state-by-state.” ~ Donald J. Trump, Reno, Nevada, 2016 campaign stop

Morgan noted, “The Obama Administration wisely suspended aggressive enforcement of federal laws regarding marijuana possession and distribution,” explaining that, “Attorney General Eric Holder’s directive on the subject chose to respect states’ rights. Unbelievably, now Sessions and Kelly, egged on by the likes of Governor Chris Christie and the new FBI Director, want to void the Holder directive, revive the war on drugs.”

United States Cannabis Coalition
The following is a partial list of individuals who have joined the United States Cannabis Coalition:

• Randy Credico, US Senate Candidate (D-NY)
• Jeff Brandes, Senator (R-St. Petersburg)
• Omar Navarro, Congressman (R- Congress 43rd District)
• Norm Kent Chairman (NORML)
• Matt Gaetz, Congressman (R- Fla.)
• Diane Savino, NY State Senator (D-Bronx)
• Christian Josi, former Executive Director American Conservative Union
• Ron Castorina, Assemblyman Chairman Staten Island Republican Committee
• Jeff Doctor, Director of the National Indian Cannabis Coalition
• Jim Gray, former 2012 Libertarian Party candidate for Vice President
• Elizabeth Everett, Texans for Trump
• Deroy Murdock, columnist and activist
• Mark Burns, Pastor, Easley S.C.
• Doug Bandow, CATO Institute Scholar
• Shamed Dogan, State Rep. (R- MO)
• Curtis Sliwa, Guardian Angels Founder
• Sgt. Gary Wiegert, St. Louis Police Dept
• Ethan Orr, State Rep. (R-Tucson)
• Judge Andrew Napolitano

Intended to rally the troops and mobilize “millions of pro-cannabis voters,” Morgan concluded, “in the event that the Trump administration does not keep faith with the millions of voters whose medicinal marijuana he promised to protect, we are prepared to take our bi-partisan effort to both houses of Congress to legalize cannabis and its sale federally.”

 

[Baron23]

This is actually very important as this ruling came out of a Federal District Court and not just a state level court.

Court: Marijuana's Schedule I Status Does Not Justify Workplace Discrimination Against State-Qualified Patients

Thursday, 17 August 2017


Hartford, CT: A federal district court judge has determined that marijuana's illicit status under federal law does not preempt statewide protections explicitly prohibiting qualified medical cannabis patients from facing discrimination in the workplace.

The defendant in the case, Bride Brook Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, argued that marijuana's classification as a Schedule I drug under the US Controlled Substances Act provided a legal basis for its decision to rescind a job offer to a would-be employee after she failed a drug screen. United States District Court Judge Jeffrey Alker Meyer disagreed.

He wrote: "This lawsuit calls upon me to decide if federal law preempts Connecticut law. In particular, I must decide if federal law precludes enforcement of a Connecticut law that prohibits employers from firing or refusing to hire someone who uses marijuana for medicinal purposes. I conclude that the answer to that question is 'no' and that a plaintiff who uses marijuana for medicinal purposes in compliance with Connecticut law may maintain a cause of action against an employer who refuses to employ her for this reason."

The ruling follows that of a similar decision in Massachusetts in July which determined that state-registered medical cannabis patients may sue a private employer for discrimination if they are fired for their off-the-job marijuana use.

The case is Noffsinger v. SSC Niantic Operating Company, LLC.

 

[Baron23]

This is also important for the same reason....this is a Federal court blocking a Federal prosecution. Very good, IMO

Court Blocks Federal Prosecution of California Pot Growers

A U.S. District Court this week blocked federal prosecutors from moving forward with their conspiracy case against a pair of Northern California cultivators because the duo was determined to be in compliance with Golden State medical marijuana laws.

Humboldt County growers Anthony Pisarski and Sonny Moore had already pleaded guilty to federal allegations (conspiracy to manufacture and possess with intent to distribute) but sought an evidentiary hearing based on legislation, first enacted in 2014, that prohibits the U.S. Department of Justice from cracking down on cannabis suspects who are otherwise following their state laws. The Rohrabacher-Farr amendment is a budget rider, co-authored by SoCal U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, that prevents enforcement and prosecution in medical marijuana states by stripping funding for such endeavors.

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Seeborg on Tuesday stayed the prosecution, so the case is closed unless the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment expires and fails to be re-enacted and federal prosecutors want to resume their case. The defendants' Beverly Hills attorney, Ronald Richards, says: "This is the first time in my 23-year career I've had a case stopped because of an appropriations rider.

Related Stories

• Law Would Force Feds to Let Veterans Get Medical Marijuana
• Americans Are Down With California-Style Pot Legalization
• Court to Federal Anti-Pot Crusaders: STFU

"What the court did in this case may be used as a blueprint for other cases," he says. "It opens the door for people not to get scared."

The judge cited United States v. McIntosh, a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision last year that affirmed a medical marijuana defense for defendants facing federal prosecution in medical states. But experts say that United States v. Pisarski, et al. could help establish such a defense even further.

"It's significant that a federal court ruled that people targeted by feds and in compliance with California's medical marijuana laws ruled in the defendants' favor," says Dale Gieringer, director of California NORML. "This is the first case I'm aware of where McIntosh was cited and used to full effect."

Pisarski and Moore owned a property raided by feds in July 2012. Authorities said they found 327 marijuana plants, $416,125 in cash, and guns. But during the evidentiary process, the duo argued they were abiding by California laws and that federal prosecutors had no right to continue spending cash on their prosecution under Rohrabacher-Farr.

They argued that the weed was being sold to legit collectives. Judge Seeborg agreed, writing: "Their conduct strictly complied with all relevant conditions imposed by California law on the use, distribution, possession and cultivation of medical marijuana."

Tamar Todd, director of the Drug Policy Alliance's office of of legal affairs, said the ruling could have ripple effects throughout the West.

"This shows that you can prevail — defendants in federal court could have their prosecutions halted," she says. "It's enjoining the prosecution from being able to spend any more money on this case. It's very encouraging. It gives a lot of teeth to Rohrabacher-Farr."

 

[momofthegoons]

This is also important for the same reason....this is a Federal court blocking a Federal prosecution.

Both the above are huge. The fact that a Federal court has made these determinations is very promising.

 

[Baron23]

More on Stone and Morgan....who are rapidly becoming two of my most admired people. LOL

Roger Stone and John Morgan Pressure Trump To Legalize Marijuana

The newly formed United States Cannabis Coalition will twist arms in the nation’s capital to keep the marijuana movement moving forward.

The push to legalize marijuana at the federal level, or at least get the Department of Justice to maintain the Status Quo, may finally have the support it needs to be taken seriously.

It seems that master political strategist Roger Stone, who has deep roots in the Trump administration, and Orlando attorney John Morgan, the man who bankrolled the bulk of the campaign to legalize medical marijuana in Florida (a rumored gubernatorial candidate), have officially launched a bi-partisan group called the United States Cannabis Coalition, which they will use to persuade the federal government to reverse federal cannabis prohibition.

In a recent press release, the two, high-profile cannabis advocates said the primary goal of the new coalition, which consists of Democrats, Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives, is to ensure that President Trump respects the marijuana laws passed in over half the nation. The group will also pressure Trump to remove the cannabis plant from its Schedule 1 classification under the DEA’s Controlled Substances Act.

Stone, who has had the power to bend Trump’s ear for the past four decades, says he is confident the group can convince the President to move forward with marijuana reform – not take it backwards.

“It is our intention to press the Trump Administration from the top down to recognize the medicinal value and economic potential of cannabis,” Stone said. “We have an innovative, outside the box strategy to win this important fight and I am confident that with our support, the president will ultimately keep his word and do the right thing.”

However, if President Trump fails to do the right thing, the group plans to infiltrate both chambers of Congress.

“In the event that the Trump administration does not keep faith with the millions of voters whose medicinal marijuana he promised to protect, we are prepared to take our bi-partisan effort to both houses of Congress to legalize cannabis and its sale federally.” Morgan said.

“With a coalition of Libertarian-minded Republicans and progressive Democrats we will succeed. At least one member of the Senate has already introduced legislation that would legalize cannabis entirely,” he added.

The United States Cannabis Coalition has so far attracted a broad legion of supporters to serve on its advisory board. Fox News Legal Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano, NY State Senator Diane Savino, and Guardian Angels Founder and Chairman of The New York State Reform Party Curtis Sliwa have all signed on to be part of this movement.

Although President Trump said throughout his campaign that he supports medical marijuana “100 percent,” he has not taken a solid stance in support of the issue since taking office. What’s worse is his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, has been taking steps to ensure statewide marijuana legalization travels a hard road. He asked Congress earlier this year to eliminate the medical marijuana protections known as the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment, and he recently insinuated through a series of letters that legal marijuana states were spiraling out of control.