Sponsored by

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

Law The Cannabis Chronicles - Misc Cannabis News

Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment extended until December

A key federal law protecting the medical marijuana industry from interference by the U.S. Department of Justice has been extended until Dec. 8 under the provisions of an emergency aid package approved Friday by Congress, Marijuana Business Daily has learned.

The Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment – which has had to be renewed annually by Congress and was formerly known as Rohrabacher-Farr – was set to expire Sept. 30.

However, it will now remain in place for at least several more months. The amendment prohibits the U.S. Department of Justice from using federal funds to interfere with state medical marijuana programs, or from prosecuting MMJ businesses compliant with state law.

“That’s right … extended through Dec. 8,” a spokeswoman for U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, one of the sponsors of the amendment, wrote to Marijuana Business Daily in an email.

The amendment’s future was thrown into doubt this week when the House Rules Committee blocked the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment – along with several other cannabis amendments – from receiving floor votes.

But an emergency aid package for victims of Hurricane Harvey also extended the current federal budget, meaning that the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment has received at least a stay of execution.

President Donald Trump signed the package into law Friday.

Amendment’s third reprieve

This is the third time the amendment has remained in place by default because Congress has kicked the can down the road on the federal budget: It survived two previous expiration dates in April and May, also without being voted on apart from the entire federal budget.

That, however, means the amendment’s future is still in doubt, said Massachusetts-based cannabis attorney Bob Carp.

“I do think it’s a coin flip. It’s only a three-month extension,” Carp said. “It makes me a bit uneasy.”

In the face of such federal uncertainty, and with a U.S. attorney general who is openly anti-marijuana, the marijuana industry must “start circling the wagons,” Carp added.

Time to ‘join forces’

“We need, really, to join forces. There are too many disparate groups,” he continued. “If we pooled the money, lobbied and did what tobacco and some of the other successful vice interests have done, I think marijuana would have a far better chance.

“Right now, we’re fractured, with people representing their own interests. And it’s dangerous to the entire industry.”

Bill Piper, senior director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance, wrote in an email to Marijuana Business Daily that “this is good news, but we have to win the fight in December.

“We also need real reform – an actual change in federal law, so we don’t have to have this fight every few months.”

Marijuana Policy Project’s executive director, Rob Kampia, added via email that “If any allies out there are celebrating, they shouldn’t be.”

Kampia said the fate of the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment is now going to be in the hands of a joint House-Senate conference committee charged with reconciling differences between the two chambers’ federal budget bills. So the amendment is still very much in danger.

“Now we must pray that one of the four good guys on that conference committee will promote our marijuana amendment,” Kampia said, and called the situation “the nightmare scenario we’ve been scrambling to avoid since May.”
 
Again, note the comment about back room deals as a metaphor for what went on in the rules committee. McCain wants to go back to 'regular order" which means that all legislation comes out of majority party run committees and further empowers committee chairmen who can dictate what the Congress in general (you know, those people we sent to DC to represent us) can and cannot debate and vote on. I say, FUCK THAT. THAT is exactly how we got this amendment quashed for debate and vote on the House floor. Yes, regular order allows party leadership to better manage their agenda, but at a terrible price to democracy and its not worth it IMO. Regular order can be viewed as the equivalent of machine party politics at its worst.

JIM MCGOVERN, SMOKIN' MAD
You're not really in the marijuana business if you haven't, at some point, Googled everything President Donald Trump has ever said about pot. And if you have, well, you know it's hard to draw any conclusions from his characteristically all-over-the-map comments on the subject or to reconcile them with the unambiguous, hardline stance of his Attorney General, Jeff Sessions.

Now, the GOP has further muddied the federal waters, as Republicans on the House Rules Committee blocked votes on a series of proposed marijuana-friendly add-ons to the budget. The procedural move could have killed the so-called Rohrabacher -Blumenauer amendment, a bipartisan measure in place for several years that essentially blocks the Department of Justice from enforcing federal prohibition against state-authorized medical marijuana operations. Then, Trump upended everything with his surprise budget deal with Democrats, which extends the Rohrabacher protections into December. But the amendment is clearly in a tenuous position.

Jim McGovern, a 20-year congressman from Massachusetts and member of the rules committee, is getting increasingly frustrated with the uncertainty hanging over marijuana's legal status.

In an interview, an animated McGovern told TWIW that while marijuana has not historically been a top-of-mind issue for him, he's ready to fight any GOP or Trump administration attempts to roll back voter-approved legalization efforts, especially in his home state.
2b95fdbf-2266-4582-b02e-b96a55a6b8af.jpg

Here's a lightly condensed version of our conversation:

TWIW: Did your Republican colleagues tell you why they blocked votes on the proposed marijuana protections?

JM: They didn't give us a reason. I can only assume the [Trump] administration weighed in and said they didn't want this in the bill, and the Republicans on the committee thought it would pass if it was brought to the floor. I have no doubt it would pass if brought to a vote. This is not a new idea. It's been there for a while.

TWIW: What was your reaction when you learned a vote on the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer amendment had been blocked?

JM: It's frustrating. We're supposed to be a deliberative body. We're supposed to embrace the concept of democracy. You had a bipartisan amendment, but then a unilateral decision is made in some back room that the membership can't even debate it.

More and more states are passing referendums and changing their laws, not only in regards to medical marijuana but also the recreational use of marijuana. And there's confusion, given the comments from the DOJ, in which the implication is that the Trump administration may crack down on those states. People are trying to get clarity, and they're not getting it from the administration. These amendments were trying to make sure it's clarified in the law. The bottom line is, we don't want federal monies used to crack down on states that comply with their own laws, that are trying to follow through on what their voters want.

Whatever you think about whether marijuana should be legal, these are issues that should be resolved by the whole House.

TWIW: Do you think it's likely the administration will crack down on marijuana?

JM: This administration is so dysfunctional that you don't know whether what you hear from the DOJ is actually reflective of what the president wants, and vice versa. What really is their policy? What happens if [the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer amendment] expires? It means the administration could use federal funds to go after states, but will they? I know where Sessions stands, but not the president.

It's like when the president wanted to overturn DACA [the Obama-era immigration policy protecting people who came to the US illegally as children from deportation]. He had Sessions give this hardline presentation. But then he says, "I don't know, maybe if Congress doesn't act, I'll do something." I can't figure out what's going through this guy's brain.

TWIW: Why do you support the amendment?

JM: Do we want the DOJ using money to go after states complying with their own laws or using it to go after criminals and protecting our homeland? Is marijuana really the priority? We've had states doing this for quite some time, and you're going to do an about-face now? From a practical point of view, it makes no sense, but then again, we're dealing with an administration that is not averse to doing things that make absolutely no sense.

TWIW: Earlier this summer, Sessions' own panel of experts essentially recommended maintaining the current hands-off policy...

If we had a thoughtful, rational Attorney General, you'd think those recommendations would matter. But sometimes when the facts don't support something the administration wants to do, they just come up with alternative facts. You'd hope those recommendations would matter. I think the evidence tells Sessions he should leave this alone.

If I were the people in Massachusetts overseeing this program, I'd be pulling the hair out of my head. I think the federal government ought to let the states proceed in the way they want to proceed.

TWIW: Speaking of Massachusetts, did you support legalization here? If so, why?

JM: I voted for the referendum. You look at the inequities in criminal justice system and the very discriminatory way drug laws are enforced, and also the reality out there as to how easy it is for people to get access to it, and it seemed to me to make sense. The effort to stamp out marijuana has been a miserable failure and a waste of money. That's where I came down on it.

TWIW: Have you ever smoked?

JM: A long time ago.

TWIW: In college?

JM: Yeah. Maybe I ought to go back to it, given the administration we're dealing with here. It's not really my thing, though.

TWIW: Does your personal experience — that you were able to use it and go on to have a successful career — inform your views on it now?

JM: Not really. My views are more informed by what I've observed over the years. Alcohol's a pretty potent drug, too, and it's legal. Some people can handle it and some people can't. It's similar with marijuana. And on the medical side, people have testified that they have gotten incredible relief while dealing with some pretty terrible illnesses. If it helps people not suffer, that's fine with me. On the recreational side, it seems to me that if we move towards legalization, we have more control over it and who gets access to it. Obviously, the devil's in the details in terms of how it's all overseen.

TWIW: What would you do if the administration does initiate some kind of crackdown?

JM: If the Trump administration decides that it is going to overreach and go into these states and shut down medical marijuana dispensaries, or try to punish states that have legalized it I'm going to find a way to protect my state, and the people in my state. This is an administration that talks all the time about state's rights, and here they are basically saying, on this one, we're not going to respect your rights. Massachusetts is trying to do this in a sensible, thoughtful, responsible manner.
 

Blumenauer and Rohrabacher: “We Need Permanent Protections!”


U.S. Representatives Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), co-chairs of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, issued a press release on Tuesday clarifying the importance of extending the existing safeguards that currently protect medical marijuana states and their patients into FY 2018.

Last Wednesday, Congress voted to protect medical marijuana through Dec. 8, 2017 – effectively blocking the Department of Justice (DOJ) from prosecuting medical marijuana patients and businesses that lawfully operate in states where the medicinal herb is legal.

Though Rep. Blumenauer and Rohrabacher welcomed the passage of the debt limit deal, which included their provision, they were disappointed the bill passed by Congress didn’t grant the long-term protection many advocates had hoped for.

Made possible by the stunning compromise struck last week between President Donald J. Trump and the Democratic Congressional leaders, the fiscal sanctuary for medical marijuana states and their patients has been extended through Dec. 8, 2017.

Per the Blumenauer and Rohrabacher press release:

“While this action provides a measure of certainty for the millions of medical marijuana patients and the clinics and business that support them, much more needs to be done. More than 95 percent of Americans now have state-legal access to some form of medical marijuana. The American people have spoken, and Congress needs to hear them. Ultimately, we need permanent protections for state-legal medical marijuana programs, as well as adult-use. Prohibition is a failed policy resulting in nothing more than wasted resources and lives.”

As funding for FY 2018 remains up in the air, Blumenauer and Rohrabacher have worked diligently to solidify long-lasting protection for medical marijuana states and their patients in the upcoming budget.
 
GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch Pushes Medical Marijuana As Opioid Alternative
A conservative Republican U.S. senator plans to speak about the "possible benefits of medical marijuana as an alternative to opioids" on the Senate floor on Wednesday afternoon, and is introducing bipartisan legislation aimed at expanding cannabis research.

960x0.jpg

Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Sen. Orrin Hatch, who has represented Utah in Congress since 1977, has historically not been a champion of marijuana law reform, and continues to oppose full recreational legalization.

But according to prepared remarks distributed by his office, he plans to say in a speech that "in our zeal to enforce the law, we too often blind ourselves to the medicinal benefits of natural substances like cannabis."



"While I certainly do not support the use of marijuana for recreational purposes, the evidence shows that cannabis possesses medicinal properties that can truly change people’s lives for the better," the senator will say. "And I believe, Mr. President, that we would be remiss if we threw out the baby with the bathwater."

Hatch's new bill, the Marijuana Effective Drug Study (MEDS) Act of 2017 would ease researchers' access to marijuana for studies on its medical benefits and would require the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) to develop recommendations for good manufacturing practices for growing and producing cannabis for research.

In a pun-filled statement about the legislation, Hatch said it is "high time to address research into medical marijuana, adding:

"Our country has experimented with a variety of state solutions without properly delving into the weeds on the effectiveness, safety, dosing, administration and quality of medical marijuana. All the while, the federal government strains to enforce regulations that sometimes do more harm than good. To be blunt, we need to remove the administrative barriers preventing legitimate research into medical marijuana, which is why I’ve decided to roll out the MEDS Act.”

Sens. Brian Schatz (D-HI) Chris Coons (D-DE), Cory Gardner (R-CO) and Thom Tillis (R-NC) are initial cosponsors of the bill.

In his draft floor remarks, Hatch spotlights impediments to research that currently exist because of marijuana's status under federal law.

"We lack the science to support use of medical marijuana products like CBD oils not because researchers are unwilling to do the work, but because of bureaucratic red tape and over-regulation," he will say. "Under current law, those who want to complete research on the benefits of medical marijuana must engage in a complex application process and interact with several federal agencies. These regulatory acrobatics can take researchers over a year, if not more, to complete. And the longer researchers have to wait, the longer patients have to suffer."

Cannabis is currently classified under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. That's the most restrictive category, and is supposed to be reserved for drugs with no medical value and a high potential for abuse. Researchers have long complained that the classification creates additional hurdles that don't exist for studies on other substances.

The Senate Appropriations Committee issued a report last week expressing concern about Schedule I's research roadblocks.

There are several other pending marijuana bills in the Senate that would change federal laws to allow protections to people who use medical cannabis legally in accordance with state laws, but Hatch has not yet added his name as cosponsor of any of them. One such comprehensive bill has three Republican and three Democratic cosponsors.

Activists in Hatch's home state of Utah are currently collecting signatures to qualify a medical cannabis ballot initiative for 2018. A recent poll found that 79% of the state's likely voters support the concept.
 
Sen. Orrin Hatch, who has represented Utah in Congress since 1977, has historically not been a champion of marijuana law reform, and continues to oppose full recreational legalization.

But according to prepared remarks distributed by his office, he plans to say in a speech that "in our zeal to enforce the law, we too often blind ourselves to the medicinal benefits of natural substances like cannabis."
Wow. I feel like I need to pinch myself....

Could it be that the overwhelming evidence is starting to get to the right eyes?
 
Good for the AL. Stick it to them, and break it off, Dr. Sisley and Ms. Rohan.

American Legion calls for ‘direct involvement’ from VA Secretary for federally-approved cannabis PTSD study

The powerful veterans group says lack of support puts pioneering, federally approved study in jeopardy


The American Legion is calling on the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to clear roadblocks threatening completion of a groundbreaking clinical study on the use of medical marijuana to treat post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in U.S. military veterans.

The federally-approved study is being administrated by Dr. Sue Sisley, site principal investigator with the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), at the Scottsdale Institute outside of Phoenix, Arizona. The project is one of nine medical marijuana studies funded by historic grants from Colorado’s Health Department.

Scientists have almost completed research with 22 veterans and now need to screen 6,000 to 8,000 vets to enroll an additional 54 qualifying PTSD patients in order to move the study forward, The Cannabist reported at the end of August. However, Sisley and her colleagues say the Phoenix VA Health Care System obstructing patient recruitment efforts putting the future of the study in serious jeopardy.

On Tuesday Denise Rohan, the Legion’s national commander, sent a letter to VA Secretary Dr. David Shulkin, calling for his “direct involvement” in ensuring “this critical research is fully enabled.”

Related stories
Despite federal approval, “the Phoenix VA has not allowed Dr. Sisley to communicate with their staff or veterans receiving PTSD care at the Phoenix facility to recruit for her clinical research,” said Joe Plenzler, the Legion’s media liaison. “Without the direct involvement of the VA, this important research is in jeopardy of not recruiting enough patients to complete the trial.”

Sisley welcomed the Legion’s latest letter. For months she has been warning that without some level of cooperation from the Phoenix VA the clinical study will be unable recruit qualified participants. In August, she was also unsuccessful in her attempts to speak in person to Secretary Shulkin at the American Legion’s national convention in Nevada.

“The American Legion is one of the most powerful/respected veterans’ organizations in the country,” said Dr. Sisley said in a written statement to The Cananbist, “Having their endorsement of our cannabis clinical trials is a wonderful gift. We hope this will resonate with the Phoenix VA hospital and they will finally agree to start cooperating with the FDA-approved study and sharing information with appropriate veterans who many want to volunteer.”

In her letter to Shulkin, Rohan emphasizes the VA’s “statutory” medical research mission, as well as its involvement in many historic medical breakthroughs and discoveries. The letter reads in part:

The research being conducted by the Scottsdale Institute is the first cannabis based research of its kind in The United States and could potentially produce scientific evidence that will enhance, improve and save the lives of veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Many veterans have approached us to tell us that access to cannabis has materially improved their health and well-being. While their stories are very compelling, we need clinical evidence to have a fact-based discussion on the future of cannabis policy.

This is not the first time the Legion has appealed to the VA on the issue of veterans and medical marijuana, but it is their most direct appeal in a year-long campaign to convince the department to support and enable scientific research on the medicinal value of cannabis.

Last April, the Legion sent a letter to the White House, requesting that President Donald Trump reschedule marijuana to permit research into its medical efficacy for treating vets suffering from traumatic brain injury and PTSD.

“We’re bringing the conversation up to a national level now,” Plenzler told The Cannabist. “The VA has done a lot of great research over the years. We’re counting on them to continue to back research to improve the lives of our veterans.”
 
Republicans and Democrats come together to sponsor new medical marijuana bill
MICHAEL MEEKS | PUBLISHED 09/20/17 12:21AM

U.S. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-NC, along with four other Republican and Democratic senators, co-sponsored the Marijuana Effective Drug Study Act of 2017.

The legislation, introduced Sept. 13, seeks to ease the process of conducting scientific research on the use of marijuana as a medical treatment. The North Carolina General Assembly has already considered the use of cannabinoids, substances extracted from marijuana. The act would expand marijuana research.

Tillis said in a press release the act is a common-sense bipartisan effort to remove unnecessary barriers and will give scientists the ability to study the biochemical processes, impact, dosing, risks and possible benefits of cannabidiol and other components of the marijuana plant.

"When it comes to our nation's efforts to cure diseases and improve the quality of life for people suffering from ailments, burdensome government regulations shouldn't be an impediment to legitimate and responsible medical research," he said.

Justin Strekal, political director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said he is excited to see this new legislation supported by such prominent Republican senators.

“(This is) yet another demonstration of the growing bipartisan consensus that we need to address our federal marijuana laws and end the prohibition of marijuana and move us closer to sensible policies that don't treat marijuana consumers like second class citizens,” he said.

Strekal said the issue he sees with current marijuana policy is the tension between federal and state policy.

“If a doctor believes that marijuana needs to be incorporated into a treatment program, then that doctor should be able to lawfully do so,” he said.

According to NORML's website, 29 states have legalized medical marijuana, but only 22 have implemented a program to allow doctors to prescribe it. Seven states have passed laws allowing medical marijuana but haven't implemented a program yet.

Carla Lowe, founder and co-chairperson of Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana, said marijuana is not a medicine.

"It was always marketed as a medicine, but the intention was that it would be the red herring to give marijuana a good name," she said. "It's not an FDA-approved drug."

Lowe said there are some components of the cannabis plant that have potential for good.

"(For now), it's not a medicine, and it's the cause for all the problems we're facing in California," she said.

Strekal said marijuana needs to be removed from the Controlled Substances Act to ensure that we no longer discriminate against doctors' abilities to decide health care treatment programs for their patients.

"If a doctor believes that marijuana needs to be incorporated into a treatment program, then that doctor should be able to lawfully do so and that patient should be able to have access to high quality and affordable marijuana that will alleviate their suffering," he said.
 
No Orrin, its not a "gateway" drug...a fake term ginned up by the drug cold warriors (and Nancy "fucking red dress wearing" Regan. But, Sen Hatch is 83 so perhaps he should get a pass for being a bit of an antediluvian dinosaur)

Why Medical Marijuana Research Is Gaining Support From the GOP
Members of Congress from across the political spectrum are pushing for pot research – but can they change Jeff Sessions' mind?

Some Utah residents are working overtime to get medical marijuana on the state’s ballot next year. They seem to have just gotten a surprising new Republican ally in their effort – Senator Orrin Hatch.

Related

How Booming Israeli Weed Industry Is Changing American Pot

U.S. medical marijuana companies are setting up shop in Israel, where fewer roadblocks mean better research – and faster results

The state's senior senator – an octogenarian who is third in line for the presidency – publicly broke ranks with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, GOP leaders and many of his Mormon constituents when he endorsed medicinal marijuana last week. When I caught up with him on an elevator on the Capitol grounds, surrounded by his ever-present security detail, I asked what brought about his evolution on the issue.

"There's no transformation. I've always been for any decent medicine," Hatch replied without hesitation. "I know that medical marijuana can do some things that other medicines can't. I'm for alleviating pain and helping people with illness."

Hatch is among a frustrated set of the nation's policy makers who are up in arms over a Washington Post report that Sessions' Justice Department is blocking the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) from approving about two dozen proposals for experts to research the effects of marijuana. Not to legalize weed. Not to sell it. Not even to smoke it. Merely to study it – just as is allowed with deadly and highly addictive opioids, booze and even cigarettes – to find out if 38 states and the District of Columbia have made grave mistakes by allowing marijuana to be used either medicinally or recreationally, or whether those states are actually on to something.

At 83, Hatch agrees with his former Senate colleague Jeff Sessions on much of his prohibitionist stance on weed – but he says the attorney general and his DOJ are basically out of touch when it comes to medicinal marijuana, which can be ingested as an oil or a baked good or even developed into high-grade pharmaceuticals.

"I think it's a mistake. We ought to do the research," Hatch continues. "They're worried about a widespread abuse of the drug, which is something to worry about because it is a gateway drug that's a very big problem. But there's a difference between smoking marijuana – using it illegally – and using it to alleviate pain and suffering."

Pot remains listed by the DEA as a Schedule I drug, which is a classification that by definition means the government sees no medicinal benefit to it, along with the likes of LSD, ecstasy and peyote. But now 30 states have embraced marijuana for a varying degree of medicinal purposes, but there isn't good, peer reviewed research on it because many researchers don't want to risk a DEA raid or being cut off from future federal grants.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers on the Senate Appropriations Committee are working to enact what eventually could become a national standard for marijuana quality, and they want to start by allowing testing of pot already seized by the DEA. That's why a handful of lawmakers are trying to pressure Sessions into relaxing his own personal war on marijuana that seems to be tying the hands of officials at the DEA.

"There's really only one reason to sit on a request: Because you suspect that perhaps the science will show that medical marijuana does have some therapeutic benefit and therefore disprove the need for the failed war on marijuana," Colorado Democrat Jared Polis tells Rolling Stone.

Polis offered an amendment earlier this year to prohibit taxpayer dollars from being used to pay the salary of anyone at the DEA or DOJ who is blocking research on cannabis. Republican leaders in the House wouldn't allow it to come to the floor for a vote even though it has broad bipartisan support.

"I would hope that regardless of people's opinion about it, everybody should be about peer-reviewed studies and science about whether there's any therapeutic benefit or whether there's any side effects. That's all these studies would do," Polis continues. "For people to be able to show what medical marijuana might work for, we need to allow those studies to occur. And that's what our amendment would have done."

republican-senator-orrin-hatch-medical-marijuana-c21fa78a-025b-45d5-a098-2319f003e73a.jpg

Senator Orrin Hatch is the latest Republican to publicly support medical marijuana research. Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg/Getty Images
A bipartisan group of lawmakers has repeatedly affirmed a policy that blocks the Department of Justice from using its resources to go after legal medicinal marijuana business owners or users in states that have passed laws antithetical to the federal prohibition on pot.

The department denies the Post's report. "The Department of Justice is committed to controlled substances research," a Department of Justice official who asked to not to be identified told Rolling Stone in an email. "Indeed just a few months ago it worked with DEA on rescheduling Syndros, a THC-based drug that went through the FDA process. The Department is trying to do this in a thoughtful way that complies with treaty obligations and other laws. The Department is not 'blocking' anything, but is instead carefully reviewing the policy and its implementation."

But lawmakers accuse the agency of slow walking the process, which they say is effectively blocking research.

"It's just insane," Oregon Representative Earl Blumenauer, a Democrat, tells Rolling Stone. "It is the most visible manifestation of how incoherent our policies are and that the federal government is the biggest impediment to not having the information that people say they want."

"There's no reason to not move forward on this. The federal government for years has made it artificially difficult," Blumenauer adds before lamenting that the blockade on marijuana research is occurring at the same time the opioid, heroin and fentanyl crisis is ripping through basically every community in the nation. "People deserve answers, and there's no good reason to stand in the way of having thoughtful research. The irony is there's pretty clear evidence that in those communities that have access to legal, medical marijuana they prescribe fewer pills – fewer people die."

Lawmakers are now banding together and wondering how they can best get Sessions and his DOJ to loosen up on their prohibitionist stance on marijuana.

"I think we need to give them some directive," Republican Rand Paul tells Rolling Stone. He supports efforts to reschedule weed so that researchers don't need DEA approval to study it. "I would be in favor of that. I don't know if we can get it out of Congress."

With voices like Senators Paul and Hatch – representing the libertarian and deeply religious wings of the far right – now in lock step with the growing number of pro-pot progressives on this issue, Washington has witnessed a sea change on the issue of medical marijuana, especially efforts to study the plant. But the expanding chorus of weed supporters – at least those curious enough to want experts to actually study its properties – still seem to be locked out of the Trump administration's powerful Department of Justice.
 
This is the same person who, while fighting for anti-2nd amendment gun control, was no at all discomforted by having a concealed carry permit herself. Time to go, Dianne....just go.

The Dianne Feinstein Mystery: Why Is She California's Last Prohibitionist?

In November 2016, California’s Proposition 64, a measure to legalize the adult use of cannabis, looked to be cruising to victory. The initiative, led by then-Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, attracted few high-profile opponents—with one notable exception.


San Francisco created the modern medical marijuana movement. So why is the city's iconic leader California's last drug warrior?
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California’s powerful US Senator, high-ranking Democrat, and revered San Francisco icon, blasted the measure early and remained an unrelenting opponent. She signed a ballot statement accusing cannabis companies of plotting to lure “millions of children and teenage viewers” with television ads.

The Prop. 64 campaign spokesman called the statement “reminiscent of the ‘reefer madness’-style disinformation campaigns that subverted honest dialogue around this issue for decades.”

Feinstein’s opposition was hardly a surprise. For decades, the San Francisco Democrat has opposed nearly all forms of drug reform, from medical marijuana in the 1990s to California’s adult use measure in 2016. In recent years she’s been a key ally of Iowa’s Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, the two elder senators working together to block Congressional measures aimed at drug reform in the age of medical and adult-use legalization.

In 2015, the Feinstein-Grassley tandem warned that America was losing its will on drug enforcement as new states legalized cannabis for recreational or medical use. “We’re already seeing signs that the United States’ position on drug control issues is weakening,” Feinstein and Grassley wrote in a letter to then-Attorney General Eric Holder.

Many national observers on cannabis policy remain perplexed by Feinstein’s unchangeable position. For decades, San Francisco’s iron lady has stood against her city and state’s famously tolerant views on marijuana.

To many of her constituents, though, Feinstein’s anti-reform position has long been accepted as an odd curiosity, a minor disagreement on a low-priority issue. But lately it’s become something more. With California’s adult-use cannabis industry set to open in three months, the 84-year-old politician’s intransigence is now seen as a potential vulnerability—a symbol of a Senator and her state moving in opposite directions.

Feinstein's prohibitionist stance may finally catch up to her in 2018.
Dianne Feinstein emerged from the same traumatic era in San Francisco as Dr. Donald Abrams, one of the world’s most renowned medical cannabis researchers.

Both were shaped by the city by the bay, and helped transform it as front-line protagonists who rose to face the challenges of the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s and 1990s.

Abrams treated AIDS patients at San Francisco General Hospital and became a leading researcher in identifying the human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV. Feinstein rallied logistical efforts to expand medical care for patients and, for a time, her administration allocated more money for AIDS response in San Francisco than the federal government did for the entire nation.

What was once prized as Feinstein's old-fashioned common sense now risks being seen as just old-fashioned—and out of step with California voters.
But by March 2012, Abrams and Feinstein traveled in decidedly different circles on cannabis policy. At a reception for the Senator at the French Tudor estate of political strategist and former Democratic Assemblyman Rusty Areias, Abrams attended as the guest of a Feinstein donor. He wasn’t there to wax nostalgic. Abrams and a cadre of cannabis activists hoped to buttonhole Feinstein about medical marijuana. They hoped to convince her to back off on prohibitionist policies that kept alive the threat of DEA agents raiding medical marijuana dispensaries and gardens.

Michael Backes, a partner in marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles and Sacramento, was standing nearby as Abrams alone approached Feinstein not long after she arrived.

“Donald took Feinstein to task quickly and expertly for her rigid opposition to the medical use of cannabis,” said Backes, author of the medical marijuana guidebook, Cannabis Pharmacy. “She gave him the micro-stump speech to justify her stance. Abrams wasn’t having it and insisted she look at the evidence.”


Backes said the senator stiffened and turned to walk away. Fred Gardner, editor of the cannabis journal O’Shaughnessy’s who wrote about the exchange based on an account from Abrams, said Feinstein waved her hand to signal the conversation was over.

“Well,” Feinstein said, “we will just have to agree to disagree.”

Steve DeAngelo, co-founder of Oakland’s Harborside Health dispensary, also attended the event. He took offense as the Senator began her remarks to the crowd by poking fun at the doctor who had challenged her on the science of medical marijuana. (Feinstein’s office declined an interview request.)

“This was the number one researcher in double blind cannabis trials,” DeAngelo fumed. “And she was openly contemptuous.”


Shaped by San Francisco
To many in California, Dianne Feinstein will always be the face of calm and courage amid unspeakable tragedy.

In November, 1978, she was the president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors when Dan White, an ex-firefighter and cop, quit the board in a huff over clashes with Harvey Milk and other supervisors. Later he wanted his job back.

Feinstein saw White walk past her office and called out to him. Mayor George Moscone was going to appoint someone else to the seat and it was up to her to let him know. But White headed away. She didn’t know he already gunned down Milk and the mayor.

Soon Feinstein went to Milk’s office and saw her fallen colleague. She grabbed Milk’s wrist to feel for a pulse. Her finger slid into a bullet wound.

Later, her clothing spotted with blood, Feinstein faced television cameras in the City Hall rotunda.

“As president of the Board of Supervisors,” she said, in a voice anguished but unbreaking, “it is my duty to make this announcement: Both Mayor Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk have been shot and killed.” There were gasps and screams. She paused and went on: “The suspect is Supervisor Dan White.”


“It was the defining moment in her political career,” said Bob Shrum, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California. “She took a terrible tragedy and handled it effectively and with empathy. Without that moment, I’m not sure she would be where she is today.”

Feinstein succeeded Moscone as mayor and ended the 1980s with a reputation as one of the nation’s most effective city leaders. The video footage from 1978 would be used in a 1990 Feinstein gubernatorial campaign commercial that emphasized her role in guiding San Francisco back from the horrible event. She lost to Republican Pete Wilson but was elected two years later to Wilson’s open seat in the U.S. Senate.

'Dianne was, and is, always will be pro-police. It is said that Dianne never met a uniform she didn’t like.'
John Lovell, California law enforcement lobbyist
John Lovell, a powerful Sacramento capitol lobbyist for police organizations including the California Narcotics Officers Association, says he wonders if the tragedy cemented Feinstein’s resolve as a tough-on-crime politician. He says she is “easily the most law enforcement-supportive member of the United States Senate.”

“She dealt with a double homicide up close and in-person,” Lovell said. “Crime is not abstract at that point. It’s not a question for a sociological discussion. Two people in professional lives were snuffed out. Those are searing moments.”

Early Influence: Parole Board Experience
Feinstein’s opposition to marijuana reform was set early. A few years ago she told an Associated Press reporter that while serving on the state parole board for women in the 1960s, she saw too many criminals who “began with marijuana and went on to hard drugs.”

69fein.jpg

Early days: Buying into the gateway theory.
Jerry Roberts, former managing editor of the San Francisco Chronicle and author of an unauthorized 1994 biography, Dianne Feinstein: Never Let Them See You Cry, said Feinstein seemed uncomfortable with cannabis on a visceral level. Though she came of age politically in the era of Haight-Ashbury hippies, Roberts said, Feinstein neither cared for the Summer of Love nor the smoke wafting from Golden Gate Park.

“It is culturally foreign to her,” Roberts told me recently. “She was always opposed to it. And Dianne was, and is, always will be pro-police. It is said that Dianne never met a uniform she didn’t like. And I don’t think this [cannabis reform] is anything she has ever felt any compelling reason to revisit.”


A City Changed, a Leader Did Not
Few American politicians have had more opportunity to revisit the issue. California’s medical marijuana movement was born in the 1980s in the city she led. As the AIDS crisis devastated San Francisco, many patients discovered cannabis as a healing medicine. Those fighting Kaposi’s sarcoma, a deadly cancer associated with AIDS, used cannabis to tamp down the nausea caused by chemotherapy. Others fighting AIDS wasting syndrome relied on it to stimulate their appetites. Mary Jane Rathbun, aka “Brownie Mary,” became a local folk hero by offering cannabis-infused brownies to AIDS patients at San Francisco General Hospital.

In 1991, Dennis Peron and other activists led a campaign to pass Proposition P, which made medical marijuana legal within the city limits. For years, Peron had been providing cannabis to patients out of his house in San Francisco’s Castro neighborhood.

San Francisco’s experience with medical marijuana led to California’s Proposition 215, a statewide version of the city measure. As most voters in her home city came to embrace—or at least allow—medical marijuana, Feinstein’s opposition only hardened.

During the 1996 campaign, when Feinstein served as California’s senior US Senator, she loudly and publicly opposed Prop. 215. Feinstein joined law enforcement groups in arguing that the initiative was a ruse for legalizing pot. “You’ll be able to drive a truckload of marijuana through the holes in it,” she declared.

As polls showed her constituents as souring on the War on Drugs, Feinstein resisted nearly every effort to dismantle it.
Even as polls showed her constituents as souring on the War on Drugs, Feinstein has resisted nearly every effort to dismantle it. In 2008, she led the opposition to defeat Proposition 5, a statewide initiative that would have expanded treatment programs, in lieu of prison, for drug crimes.

Two years later she served as the chairwoman of the campaign to defeat California’s Proposition 19, which would have legalized cannabis for adult use.

In 2014, Feinstein campaigned against weakening a mandatory 25-years-to-life “Three Strikes” sentencing law and fought a successful initiative, Proposition 47, that reduced many non-violent felonies to misdemeanors.

Dennis Peron, who’s been battling Feinstein over cannabis issue since the 1970s, doesn’t see her changing anytime soon. “She ran against it” decades ago, he said, “and has been opposing marijuana for a generation.”

A Moderate ‘San Francisco Liberal’
Though conservatives in the rest of the country love to mock “San Francisco liberals,” Dianne Feinstein has been revered—and re-elected—for a quarter-century precisely because she’s not an extreme liberal. Feinstein has always been an old-school Democratic centrist: Pro-police, pro-environment, and anti-drugs. California voters perceived her, perhaps above all else, as a moderate who offered competence and the ability to get things done.

Feinstein survived and thrived as a moderate Democrat – pro-police, pro-environment, anti-drug – in a politically diverse state.
In recent months, though, Californians have seen growing signs that Feinstein may face a challenge from the left if she seeks a sixth Senate term in 2018. What was once prized as old-fashioned common sense now risks being seen as just old-fashioned—and out of step with the state’s voters.

Despite her age, she remains tough to beat, with the state’s open primary system seen as diluting potential Democratic opposition. But her prospects for a smooth run may have ended after recent conciliatory remarks about Donald Trump.

During an event at San Francisco’s Commonwealth Club on Aug. 29, Feinstein said of Trump: “I just hope he has the ability to learn and change. And if he does, he can be a good president.”

The crowd responded with boos.

Senate leader Kevin de Leon, one of a host of candidates eying Feinstein’s seat, reacted immediately. In a state Hillary Clinton won by 61.6 percent to 32.8 percent, de Leon said Democrats should “not be complicit” in the “reckless behavior” of President Trump.

gan during the 2016 fight over Proposition 64, which Feinstein opposed like a 1980s drug warrior.

“It is one more thing that suggests a notion that she is out of touch,” said Sacramento political consultant Steve Maviglio. “And that’s the last thing she needs right now. If someone brings that up as a campaign issue, it might have some legs. She is seen as being old school and this is one of those issues that could be worrisome.”


A Break With Her Protégé
Her hard stance against Prop. 64 illustrated the depth of Feinstein’s commitment to prohibition. The face of the Proposition 64 campaign was Gavin Newsom, California’s lieutenant governor and Feinstein’s political protégé. “She was his mentor,” said political consultant Jason Kinney, who worked on the Yes on 64 campaign.

Gavin Newsom, Feinstein's fast-rising political protégé, was the face of California's legalization campaign.
If anyone could sway Feinstein’s mind on legalization, it seemingly would be Newsom, her own brilliant apprentice. But there was no such transformation. “This,” the Senator told the Sacramento Bee, “may be one of the few issues I disagree with Gavin on.”

Newsom said he understood Feinstein was unlikely to come around. “She has a grandchild and she probably thinks this will normalize it,” he told the Bee last year. “I don’t know that it’s not already normalized.” He started to suggest he represented a different era than his political idol but stopped himself.

“I don’t want to say ‘generational’ because I don’t want to say that,” he said. “So I’m not going to say that.”


To call the 84-year-old Feinstein’s position ‘generational’ might be too easy a pass. Plenty of her generational peers have evolved their thoughts on cannabis, starting with her closest political contemporary in California: Gov. Jerry Brown.

The 79-year-old Brown worried about adult-use legalization on Meet the Press in 2014:

“The problem with anything, a certain amount is OK. But there is a tendency to go to extremes. And all of a sudden, if there’s advertising and legitimacy, how many people can get stoned and still have a great state or a great nation? The world’s pretty dangerous, very competitive. I think we need to stay alert, if not 24 hours a day, more than some of the potheads might be able to put together.

Despite those reservations, Brown has moved medical marijuana forward over the past decade. As attorney general in 2009, he drafted guidelines that offered a legal argument for dispensaries to distribute marijuana as medical collectives under Proposition 215 and 2003 state legislation, Senate Bill 420. As governor in 2015, Brown signed sweeping regulations to govern – and legitimize – the medical marijuana industry. And when voters passed Prop. 64, Brown moved quickly to implement the law.


Voting Her Fears, Even Against MMJ
Feinstein, by contrast, cast votes in the Senate in 2015 and 2016 against the Rohrabacher-Farr budget amendment, which prevents federal authorities from prosecuting medical marijuana patients who follow state law.

During the Proposition 64 campaign, Feinstein signed an opposition statement that warned of Big Marijuana luring children with television ads for legal weed. Kinney, the Prop 64 campaign spokesman, erupted over the opposing argument that “Proposition 64 will allow marijuana smoking ads in prime time, and on (television) programs with millions of children and teenage viewers.”



“These aren’t evidence-based arguments – they are scare tactics,” Kinney said, arguing that such ads were federally prohibited.

Nearly a year after voters approved Proposition 64, Kinney had no cross words for Feinstein. He was onto trying to elect her apprentice, Newsom, governor in 2018.

“The (Prop 64) campaign is over,” Kinney said. “The question was asked and answered by one of the largest margins in the country. I don’t think I am interested in throwing another log on that fire.”


Unchanged, Undeterred, and Still Formidable
Rusty Areias, the political strategist and former lawmaker who hosted the senator at his estate in 2012, says Feinstein remains a formidable and respected leader in California. He said she is unlikely to be toppled over cannabis or any single issue.

“Dianne is a force whether you agree with her or don’t agree with her,” Areias said. “She starts her position emphatically and she has also been a powerful force for moderation over the years. And once she makes up her mind, it is tough to change her.”

'I would campaign against Dianne Feinstein.'
Steve DeAngelo, Co-founder, Harborside Health Centers
Areias suggested that Feinstein’s cannabis critics take note of her pro-death penalty speech she made before a chorus of jeers at the state Democratic convention in 1990 and then used the footage in a campaign commercial.

“Dianne is one of a kind, a very good politician,” Areias said. “If you’re a single-issue person, maybe you ought to find someone else. But you can’t judge a politician on one issue.”

Yet political pundits are already speculating on potential challengers from the left, including Senate leader de Leon, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, state secretary Alex Padilla, Democratric House members Adam Schiff and Eric Stalwell and entrepreneur Joseph Sanberg, co-founder of the socially-conscious investment firm, Aspiration.com. “It could be a feeding frenzy,” said Maviglio, the Sacramento political consultant.



Fifty percent of voters view Feinstein favorably vs. 36 percent who disapprove, according to a poll released by Sept. 14 by the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California. That margin tightens 45 to 41 percent on the question of her re-election.

And Steve DeAngelo of Oakland’s Harborside dispensary is itching for a fight.

“I would campaign against Dianne Feinstein,” he said. “I don’t know how anyone in favor of cannabis reform would consider voting for her…The critical issue for democratically elected office holders in California is whether they are going to have respect for the voters who elected them or for a Justice Department headed by Jefferson Beauregard Sessions.”

Yet Lynette Shaw, an historic figure in the California medical marijuana movement who started working at Dennis Peron’s San Francisco Cannabis Buyers Club amid the AIDS crisis, isn’t sure she won’t end up marking her ballot for Feinstein.

Feinstein's long track record on other issues still gives many pro-cannabis voters pause. Some just can't vote against her.
Shaw founded one of California’s pioneering marijuana dispensary, the Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana, months before California voters passed Proposition 215.

Five years later, in 2001, Shaw led a recall campaign against the Marin County district attorney, Feinstein ally Paula Kamena, alleging the D.A. still unfairly prosecuted medical marijuana cases. Feinstein ripped cannabis advocates as making exaggerated attacks. “She was furious we would recall Paula,” Shaw said. The recall was crushed by a 6-to-1 margin.


In 2011, the Marin Alliance was shuttered by a Justice Department property seizure order. But in October 2015, Shaw won a court battle restoring her right to distribute cannabis. U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer in San Francisco ruled that an injunction that kept the dispensary from reopening was rendered moot by the Farr-Rohrabacher Amendment against federal interference, which Feinstein opposed.

“Despite her closed-mindedness, people in California still voted to legalize marijuana” with Propositions 215 and 64, said Shaw, a long time Democrat who ran as a Libertarian for lieutenant governor in 2006 on a platform of “marijuana peace, not war.”

But Shaw is skeptical a pro-cannabis Democrat can sneak past the leading Republican candidate in California’s open primary to face Feinstein in the 2018 November runoff.

“She has been good on other issues, particularly with AIDS, and I have to applaud her for that,” Shaw said. “Dianne Feinstein has done a good job on everything but marijuana. I would rather have her than a Trump Republican.” So, after everything, she expects to vote for the senator.
 
Ding, dong, the witch is dead, the wicked witch.....ok, so we don't know what kind of ass-hat will take his place, but I don't care, Rosenberg is a Nazi fascist prick....he even looks like one. Go way, Chucky....go far away.

DEA administrator plans to step down



AP_456305234517-0750.JPG

Chuck Rosenberg, the acting head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, told staff members on Sept. 26 that he is planning to step down from his post. (Alex Brandon/AP)
By Devlin Barrett and Matt Zapotosky September 26 at 5:09 PM

Acting Drug Enforcement Administration head Chuck Rosenberg, a veteran attorney and law enforcement official who has found himself at odds with the Trump administration in recent months, told staff members Tuesday he is planning to step down from his post in less than a week.

Rosenberg, an Obama administration holdover, said he would resign as acting administrator on Oct. 1. In an email to his staff, Rosenberg said he was proud to have led the “remarkable agency.”

“The neighborhoods in which we live are better for your commitment to the rule of law, dedication to the cause of justice, and perseverance in the face of adversity,” he wrote. “You will continue to do great things. I will continue to root for you, now from the sidelines.”

His departure is not completely surprising; President Trump has always been expected to nominate someone of his own choosing to lead the nation’s premier agency on narcotics enforcement.

Rosenberg, who had been running the agency in an acting capacity since 2015, had earned a reputation as someone willing to put himself at odds with his bosses in the White House and the Justice Department.


A former U.S. attorney and senior counselor to then-FBI Director James B. Comey, Rosenberg garnered attention in July when he wrote an email to DEA personnel rejecting Trump’s comments suggesting criminal suspects might be treated roughly when being put into police vehicles. “We have an obligation to speak out when something is wrong,’’ he wrote in the email.

It was not immediately clear who would replace Rosenberg, although people with knowledge of internal discussions said Col. Joseph R. Fuentes, the head of the New Jersey State Police, was thought to be a leading contender. A state police spokesman declined to comment. Other s have also been discussed, according to people familiar with the deliberations.

According to two officials familiar with the matter, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein had previously asked Rosenberg if he would be interested in serving as the presidentially appointed head of the DEA, and Rosenberg declined. Because Rosenberg was considered a career Justice Department employee, one of the officials said, Rosenstein then asked if he would be interested in another Justice Department job, and Rosenberg said he would not.

A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment, and a White House spokeswoman did not return a message seeking comment. Some at the DEA expressed surprise at how suddenly Rosenberg would be leaving his post.

Whoever Trump nominates will inherit primary responsibility for handling the DEA’s response to the opioid crisis, along with thorny issues involving marijuana enforcement and research.


Rosenberg also has been at loggerheads with Justice Department leaders over marijuana research. The department, according to officials, has effectively blocked the DEA from taking action on more than two dozen requests to grow marijuana to use in research — to the dismay of Rosenberg and others.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has taken a hard line against marijuana and is generally opposed to easing restrictions on the drug. Rosenberg and Sessions also have different views on the Central American gang MS-13. Sessions has called combatting the gang a major priority for federal law enforcement, while DEA officials have cautioned that other gangs — such as Mexican drug cartels — are far more dangerous when it comes to distributing and selling narcotics because of their financing and organization.

Fuentes is a career law enforcement officer who has led the New Jersey State Police since 2003. He harshly criticized the Obama administration for striking a deal with Cuba to restore diplomatic relations with that country without addressing the question of long-sought fugitives, including one who killed a New Jersey state trooper in 1973.

“We approach the next presidential administration with a renewed sense of optimism and moral superiority that justice will prevail,’’ Fuentes said in a statement in January.
 
Trump DEA Pick Advocated for Racial Profiling in Policing

President Donald Trump's likely pick to head the Drug Enforcement Administration once championed racial profiling as a helpful policing tactic and accused civil rights activists of being “professional race baiters” who "scapegoated" cops.

In 2000, Joseph Fuentes, then an officer with the New Jersey State Police, made the comments in a lengthy reseach paper that defended “suspect profiling” in the context of controversial law enforcement tactics in the state, including one featuring Newark hotel desk clerks who were trained to report guests who were “suspicious” because they spoke Spanish or had dreadlocks.

And beyond his support for profiling, he also blamed activists for opposing it.

“Because of the disproportionate involvement of minorities in these ... arrests, civil rights groups have branded the whole process of highway drug enforcement as racist,” he wrote in the 47-page paper.

Fuentes's paper also defended a state police superintendent who had been fired a year earlier for telling the New Jersey Star-Ledger that some crimes were more routinely committed by certain racial and ethnic groups.

“It would be naive to think race is not an issue in drug trafficking,” said the superintendent, Carl Williams.

Details of Fuentes's paper, “Valor Scorned: The Disarming of Highway Drug Interdiction in America,” which Fuentes co-wrote with Raymond Guidetti, were revealed after Fuentes was tapped by then-New Jersey Governor James McGreevy to head the State Police in 2003.

During a rocky two-month-long confirmation process, Fuentes ended up disavowing the comments, saying the views he expressed only three years earlier had evolved.

"I was never an apologist for [racial profiling]," he said during questioning by the New Jersey Senate, which eventually confirmed him for the job. He still holds that job and is one of the longest-serving superintendents ever of the New Jersey State Police.

His co-author, Guidetti, remains deputy superintendent of investigations for the same police department.

As superintendent, Fuentes continued to make headlines. In 2014, he was accused by Gerald Lewis, a black police official, of a racially motivated effort to push Lewis out of the department. The suit was eventually dismissed.

Fuentes's past will be a prologue to his next step: The Washington Post reported that he will be tapped by Trump to run the Drug Enforcement Administration after the abrupt resignation announcement of Obama-appointee Chuck Rosenberg this week.

Fuentes grew up in working-class neighborhoods of New Jersey, and his father’s family was from Spain, but Fuentes never learned Spanish. His wife, Eileen Fuentes, worked for the FBI.

The New Jersey State Police Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The White House did not respond to a request for comment. Gerald Lewis did not respond to a request for comment.
 
So its a big FUCK YOU to ole Jefferson, the dinosaur drug warrior. We, the American people, don't give a shit about your antediluvian and just plain erroneous views of MJ. America says, "bite me, Sessions".

3 Out of 4 Americans Oppose Federal Crackdown on Legal Cannabis
"Aren’t you worried about your job?”

Friends and relatives started asking me that question late last year. I still get it a couple times a month.

The subtext is unspoken: You know, what with Jeff Sessions ready to destroy the legal cannabis industry and all.

With each passing day, polls show more Americans opposing Jeff Sessions' position on legal cannabis.
This is what I tell them: “My worry shrinks with every passing day.”

The decline of my anxiety doesn’t rely solely on the passage of time. It’s backed by data. Seemingly every season, more and more Americans come to oppose the cruel and wrongheaded cannabis position of our attorney general.

In early 2017, a Quinnipiac University poll found that 71% of Americans opposed any sort of federal intervention in states where voters approved legal marijuana. By late summer, that number had grown to 75%. Three out of four Americans now believe the federal government should leave states alone when it comes to cannabis.

HAY-2.0.006-1024x768.jpeg


In that same period, the percentage of Americans who support a federal crackdown moved from 22% to 20%—numbers that fall into tinfoil-hat territory. (A little context can be clarifying. 18% of Americans think the sun revolves around the Earth. 15% believe the government sends mind-control technology via TV broadcast signals. 7% believe the moon landing was faked. 7% also think that chocolate milk comes from brown cows.

These Are Astonishing Numbers
The latest Quinnipiac numbers on cannabis didn’t get much play when they came out last month, largely because they were buried under sexier news—namely, the historically high (84%) disapproval rating Americans gave to Congress. The data came to light during a presentation by political consultant Celinda Lake, founder of Lake Research Partners, at a political conference organized by NORML earlier this month in Washington, DC.

The figures Lake flashed on the screen in a conference room of the Capital Hilton were astonishing. 61% of Americans now think the adult use of cannabis should be made legal in the United States. 94% of Americans believe doctors should be able to legally prescribe, or recommend, medical cannabis to their patients.

Here’s how that looks in a pie chart. (Because both Jeff Sessions and I love pie.)

Jeff Sessions vs. America on medical marijuana:


HAY-2.0.004-1024x768.jpeg




“This thing is more popular than the Fourth of July,” Lake said about medical cannabis. Medical legalization “isn’t even an issue anymore,” she added. “The public’s done with that debate.”

As for support for adult use: Expect it to continue to rise as Americans age. Check out this Lake Research graphic charting the generational differences in support:



Slide06.jpg




A strong majority of Americans age 18 to 64 now support legalization. More than three in four voters age 18 to 34 support adult use. The floor, among those 18 to 64, is now 60%. Only Americans age 65 and older oppose it. And they oppose it strongly—look at that free-fall from 60% to 37% support.

Why the generation gap? I have a theory.

Something happened to cannabis in America between 1968 and 1971. It blew up on college campuses across the nation.

Four Years That Changed Everything
In the spring of 1967, only 5% of college students said they’d tried marijuana.. Two years later, that figure was 22%. By the fall of 1971, 55% of all college students were experienced with cannabis. Nearly one-third said they consumed at least once a month.

HAY-2.0.007-1024x768.jpeg


Let’s connect some dots. A college freshman in 1967, when cannabis was rare, is now 68 years old. A freshman in 1971, when cannabis was common, is now 64. The huge legalization support gap we’re seeing in today’s polls may rest in part on a difference in personal experience and a cannabis comfort level that was established nearly 50 years ago. In 1967, the Beatles dropped psychedelic rock on the world with Sgt. Pepper. By 1971, the Fab Four had disbanded and John Lennon was going full primal-scream with the Plastic Ono Band. A hell of a lot changed in those four years.

A Male-Female Split in Opinion
Americans over 65 remain skeptical of adult-use legalization, but they’ve changed their minds on medical use—many because of personal experience. More women (35%) than men (32%) oppose adult-use legalization, but more men (7%) than women (2%) oppose medical use.

Here’s a graphic from Lake Research, working with a recent CBS News poll:

Slide17.jpg


On that male-female split, I have a hypothesis I call the Healing Cranky Husbands theory. Older men tend to be stubborn about their health. They’d rather bitch and moan than actually do something about their pain and restless nights. Their wives eventually get fed up and pick up a tincture, vape pen, or edible for their husbands. Dammit Ed, shut up and suck on this pen for a few seconds. See what it does for ya.

Women who speak out are the most powerful force in the legalization movement.
Also, it’s not right or fair, but more women than men bear the burden of family caregiving. They’re more likely to have ground-level experience with the necessity of compassion.

They’re also a powerful political force. Moderate and conservative voters tend to discount medical marijuana advocacy when it comes from the mouths of men, who are too easily stereotyped and dismissed as stoners. Women—especially mothers of medical marijuana patients, and older family caregivers—are almost impossible to dismiss on this issue. Look at the progress that MMJ leaders like Christine Stenquist and Enedina Stanger have achieved in Utah; what Renee Petro and Jacel Delgadillo did for Florida; what Heather Shuker and others continue to do in Pennsylvania.

So yes, the data give me a growing confidence. 94% of Americans are backing medical marijuana patients against Jeff Sessions. Perhaps more importantly, women like Shuker, Stenquist, Stanger, Petro, and Delgadillo are out front, giving the issue a courageous and politically powerful face. Am I worried about my job? No. But Jeff Sessions should be worried about his
 
@Baron23 some really interesting statistics in that article. :thumbsup:

One I found especially interesting was his theory on why people over 65 are opposed:

Let’s connect some dots. A college freshman in 1967, when cannabis was rare, is now 68 years old. A freshman in 1971, when cannabis was common, is now 64. The huge legalization support gap we’re seeing in today’s polls may rest in part on a difference in personal experience and a cannabis comfort level that was established nearly 50 years ago.
And it makes perfect sense. Never thought of it in those terms before.

But my favorite paragraph from the whole article?

On that male-female split, I have a hypothesis I call the Healing Cranky Husbands theory. Older men tend to be stubborn about their health. They’d rather bitch and moan than actually do something about their pain and restless nights. Their wives eventually get fed up and pick up a tincture, vape pen, or edible for their husbands. Dammit Ed, shut up and suck on this pen for a few seconds. See what it does for ya.

:dog: Yup.
 

Israel Classifies Medical Marijuana Cultivation as “Farming”


BY JON HILTZ ON SEPTEMBER 28TH, 2017 AT 9:55 AM


The Israeli agricultural ministry will classify medical marijuana cultivation as farming, effectively granting cannabis cultivators a slew of government benefits and support.

This shift to the agricultural sector will provide assistance to at least 15 cannabis farmers in the Middle Eastern nation. The perks will include government aid such as grants, water quotas, and cannabis cultivation training.

The decision to add marijuana production to the farming sector further indicates Israel’s intention to become a global player in medical marijuana exports. Prognosticators within the agricultural ministry believe exports in medical cannabis could amount to over $1.1 billion annually.

“It appears that the use of cannabis for medical purposes is gaining popularity in many countries,” stated Israel’s Ministry of Agriculture. The ministry added that an increasing number of studies confirm the positive effects of cannabis.

Concurrently, during this reclassification of medical marijuana cultivation in Israel, legislation to decriminalize adult-use marijuana is awaiting approval from the attorney general. In March, the Isreali government voted yes on replacing criminal sanctions for pot possession with fines.
 
Marijuana Prohibition Turns 80
  • by NORMLOctober 2, 2017

Eighty years ago, on October 2, 1937, House Bill 6385: The Marihuana Tax Act was enacted as law. The Act for the first time imposed federal criminal penalties on activities specific to the possession, production, and sale of cannabis – thus ushering in the modern era of federal prohibition.

MarijuanaArrestsTimeline.jpg

“The ongoing enforcement of marijuana prohibition financially burdens taxpayers, encroaches upon civil liberties, engenders disrespect for the law, and disproportionately impacts young people and communities of color,” said NORML Executive Director Erik Altieri, “It makes no sense from a public health perspective, a fiscal perspective, or a moral perspective to perpetuate the prosecution and stigmatization of those adults who choose to responsibly consume a substance that is safer than either alcohol or tobacco.”

Congress held only two hearings to debate the merits of the Marihuana Tax Act, which largely consisted of sensational testimony by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics Director Harry Anslinger. He asserted before the House Ways and Means Committee, “This drug is entirely the monster Hyde, the harmful effect of which cannot be measured.” His ideological testimony was countered by the American Medical Association, whose legislative counsel Dr. William C. Woodward argued that hard evidence in support of Anslinger’s hyperbolic claims was non-existent.

Woodward testified: “We are told that the use of marijuana causes crime. But yet no one has been produced from the Bureau of Prisons to show the number of prisoners who have been found addicted to the marijuana habit. … You have been told that school children are great users of marijuana cigarettes. No one has been summoned from the Children’s Bureau to show the nature and extent of the habit among children. Inquiry of the Children’s Bureau shows that they have had no occasion to investigate it and know nothing particularly of it.” He further contended that passage of the Act would severely hamper physicians’ ability to prescribe cannabis as a medicine.

Absent further debate, members of Congress readily approved the bill, which President Franklin Roosevelt promptly signed into law on August 2, 1937. The ramifications of the law became apparent over the ensuing decades. Physicians ceased prescribing cannabis as a therapeutic remedy and the substance was ultimately removed from the US pharmacopeia in 1942. United States hemp cultivation also ended (although the industry was provided a short-lived reprieve during World War II). Policy makers continued to exaggerate the supposed ill effects of cannabis, which Congress went on to classify alongside heroin in 1970 with the passage of the US Controlled Substances Act. Law enforcement then began routinely arresting marijuana consumers and sellers, fueling the racially disparate, mass incarceration epidemic we still face today.

Despite continued progress when it comes to legalizing or decriminalizing the adult use of marijuana, data from the recently released Uniform Crime Report from the FBI revealed that over 600,000 Americans were arrested for marijuana offenses in 2016.

After 80 years of failure, NORML contends that it is time for a common sense, evidence-based approach to cannabis policy in America.

“Despite nearly a century of criminal prohibition, the demand for marijuana is here to stay. America’s laws should reflect this reality and govern the cannabis market accordingly,” stated NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano, “Policymakers ought to look to the future rather than to the past, and take appropriate actions to comport federal law with majority public opinion and the plant’s rapidly changing legal and cultural status.”

80new.jpg
 
WORLD ANTI-DOPING AGENCY REMOVES CBD FROM PROHIBITED SUBSTANCES LIST

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) removed CBD from its 2018 prohibited substances list and wisely added synthetic cannabinoids, such as Spice.

“Cannabidiol is no longer prohibited. Synthetic cannabidiol is not a cannabimimetic; however, cannabidiol extracted from cannabis plants may also contain varying concentrations of THC, which remains a prohibited substance,” the document states.

This is where athletes have to be very careful: the source of their CBD. They would be wise to have their CBD products tested to ensure that no THC remains.

The Nevada Athletic Commission and WADA’s threshold for THC is 150 nanograms per milliliter of blood.

This would, hypothetically, eliminate positive tests for people who had used marijuana in the weeks leading up to the games. During the London games in 2012, only four tests came back positive for marijuana during competition.

“Our information suggests that many cases do not involve game or event-day consumption. The new threshold level is an attempt to ensure that in-competition use is detected and not use during the days and weeks before competition,” said former WADA spokesperson Ben Nichols.

Last year, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency investigated Ultimate Fighting Championship star Nate Diaz after he appeared at a post-fight press conference puffing on a CBD vape pen.

“It’s CBD,” Diaz said at the time. “It helps with the healing process and inflammation, stuff like that. So you want to get these for before and after the fights, training. It’ll make your life a better place.”

WADA’s view of recreational drugs has shifted over the years.

“It’s a very active process that…is always open to debate and is discussed regularly,” Dr. Alan Vernec, the agency’s medical director, told the Los Angeles Times.

Unlike performance-enhancers in the “Prohibited At All Times” category, substances classified as “in-competition” can be used during periods of training.

Athletes are penalized only if too much of the drug shows up in their systems at a meet or tournament.
 
Justice Department names new acting head of drug enforcement agency
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department said on Tuesday it tapped Robert Patterson, a career investigator, to temporarily lead the Drug Enforcement Administration, after the drug office’s previous acting chief stepped down.

Patterson, considered the highest-ranking special career agent at the DEA, has been serving as the agency’s principal deputy administrator since November 2016.

He started his DEA career in the New York Division in 1988.

Chuck Rosenberg, a holdover from Democratic President Barack Obama’s administration, left his job on Sunday. His departure came two months after he criticized Republican President Donald Trump for telling law enforcement officers not to be “too nice” to suspects.

It is unclear who will ultimately be named to permanently lead the DEA. Trump has yet to put forth a nomination.

Rosenberg had led the DEA as acting administrator since 2015. Prior to that, he was chief of staff to former FBI Director James Comey, whom Trump fired in May.

The United States is facing a major opioid drug epidemic and the Justice Department has been stepping up efforts to police it.

There are also questions about whether the Justice Department will take a more aggressive approach toward enforcing federal laws prohibiting the use of or distribution of marijuana.
 
Psychologists Group Slams Barriers To Marijuana Research

The U.S.’s largest organization of psychology professionals is urging the federal government to stop making it so hard for researchers to study marijuana.

“Major barriers to research are preventing scientists from pursuing the full range of research that is needed to understand the impacts of recreational and therapeutic use of cannabinoids,” the American Psychological Association (APA) said in a recent advocacy briefing. “Marijuana and its constituent compounds are categorized as Schedule I (having no Food and Drug Administration-approved therapeutic use), and all research conducted with marijuana requires that investigators register with the DEA.”

APA, which represents more than 115,000 scientists, clinicians and educators, pointed out that the process to register to study cannabis “can take more than a year to complete and creates administrative burdens that serve as significant disincentives to pursuing research” and that Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) oversight “involves redundant scientific protocol review.”

The Controlled Substance Act’s Schedule I — the most restrictive category — is supposed to be reserved for drugs with no medical value and a high potential for abuse. Researchers have long complained that marijuana’s classification there creates additional hurdles that don’t exist for studies on other substances.

Heroin and LSD are also in Schedule I alongside cannabis, yet cocaine and methamphetamine are classified in the less-restrictive Schedule II category.

While APA isn’t calling for changes to marijuana’s criminal penalties, its criticism of the roadblocks to marijuana research created by the drug’s current federal classification adds to a growing consensus that something needs to change.

The U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee called on federal agencies last month to prepare a report on the ways Schedule I limits cannabis research.

Also last month, California lawmakers passed a joint resolution calling for federal marijuana rescheduling.

APA, in its advocacy briefing, pointed out that DEA’s role in the marijuana research process creates unnecessary confusion.

“Investigators often report that the guidance they receive is unclear and that DEA inspections, security requirements and variable experiences with state DEA field offices add to the obstacles they face,” the organization said.

The organization, working in a coalition with other groups — including leading prohibitionist outfit Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) — is supporting a new bipartisan Senate bill to remove some of the barriers to cannabis research.

That legislation was filed last month by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and an initial list of four cosponsors. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) added her name to the bill on Monday.

“By creating an exception for marijuana from the current obstacles of Schedule I registration and review procedures, the bill provides a sensible streamlined approach for the review of applications and granting of registrations to conduct research with marijuana,” APA, SAM and other groups including the American Pain Society, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Society of Addiction Medicine wrote in their sign-on letter.
 

Sponsored by

VGoodiez 420EDC
Back
Top