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

Roger Stone Pens Op-Ed to Defend His Place in the Fight for Marijuana Legalization
The provocative political figure suggests that no matter how much the cannabis industry hates his involvement, he’s not going anywhere.

Sunday 10/8/2017
by Mike Adams


Although some members of the cannabis community do not believe it is appropriate to allow political strategist Roger Stone, a man they claim is “racist,” “misogynistic,” and simply in poor taste, to become part of the movement to legalize marijuana in the United States, no number of rebukes has prevented the “dirty trickster” from doing everything in his power to show that his position as an activist is stronger than ever.

On Thursday, High Times published an op-ed written by Stone, in which he attempts to defend himself against an article ran earlier this year by the same legendary magazine, suggesting that he was nothing more than an “attention whore” with no legitimate interest in the reform of the nation’s cannabis laws.

The previous article, entitled “The Lesson of Roger Stone: The Weed World Was Hustled, Don’t Let It Happen Again,” was penned by freelancer Chris Roberts and labeled Stone a racially insensitive opportunist who is now leaning on the popularity of marijuana in order to stay relevant.

“Roger Stone doesn’t care about legalization, any further than he cares about how he can use legalization to make himself relevant,” Roberts wrote. “He certainly doesn’t care about black and brown people being let out of prison. He definitely doesn’t care about police or prison reform—all threads with which marijuana legalization is woven.”

However, Stone, a man who cut his teeth on the guts of American politics by serving while serving as an advisor for President Nixon, says this evil depiction of him is not accurate.


“I am not a newcomer to this cause,” he wrote for HT. “I have written, spoken, marched and rallied for drug law reform for 20 years. I spoke at a “Countdown to Justice” rally along with Russell Simmons and Rev. Al Sharpton demanding reform of New York’s draconian Rockefeller drug laws, among the most racist in the nation. I actively wrote and spoke for reforms to the New York law in 2006 and 2008. Those who sneer that I am a racist or other sort of bigot don’t know me and can rely on no facts to support this slur.”

Last month, a group of cannabis industry leaders threatened to boycott the Cannabis World Congress & Business Expo if Stone was allowed to deliver the keynote speech at the Los Angeles event. Lead by the Minority Cannabis Business Association, boycotting groups cited Stone’s close relationship with Trump and a long, still standing, history of racist and sexist social media posts in their reasoning. Although organizers, at first, said they had no plans to remove Stone from the roster; his performance was eventually canceled.

In his piece, Stone says that while the cannabis industry would like to think that his connection to Nixon - the president responsible for initiating the war on drugs - automatically makes him an enemy, he notes that he has been in favor of marijuana legalization for decades, remaining “sharply critical… of [Nixon’s] disastrous launch of the War on Drugs.”

Stone says it was cancer that led to him becoming a cannabis advocate.

“I watched both my father and grandfather suffer and perish from terminal cancer,” he wrote. “Cannabis was the one thing that alleviated my father’s agony, so I made sure that he had access to it, an act of mercy that turned me into a violator of prohibition law. Without hesitation, I would do it again, because at the core of this cause are compassion and a desire to see all human beings afforded the dignity and the essential right of self-determination, especially in the most personal of health and lifestyle choices.

“My support for cannabis freedom has since been animated by much more than my long-held, live-and-let-live libertarian idealism,” Stone continued. “Now it is compelled by my firm conviction that freeing this plant from the tentacles of police state coercion is not just a societal imperative but also necessary to secure an essential human right that must no longer be suppressed by misguided government paternalism.”

Earlier this year, Stone launched a lobbying group called the United States Cannabis Coalition, which he says was created to pressure the government from the top down to legalize marijuana nationwide.

In his op-ed, Stone credits the organization for helping to persuade Congressional leadership as well as President Trump to allow the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment to be included in a recent appropriations agreement intended to provide emergency funds for those affected by Hurricane Harvey. Those protections are now in place until at least December.

He also claims to have been in communication with President Trump over the past couple of weeks, to which “[Trump] reaffirmed his support for state legalized medicinal marijuana.”

“The president must be reminded to keep his pledge to protect access to state legalized marijuana by millions of Americans including veterans who use it every day,” he wrote.

While it is evident that U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions wants to dismantle important marijuana protections, like Rohrabacher-Farr and the Cole Memo, Stone says “when it comes to the imperative of liberating our country, and if possible the world, from the scourge that is cannabis prohibition and the racist, reactionary, exorbitantly-wasteful, ignominious failure that is America’s “War on Drugs,” we cannot afford to be aiming fire at allies and friendlies.”

But even if the cannabis community insists on projecting their “narrow political and economic self-interests,” Stone indicated that he intends to keep doing the work he says they have failed to accomplish on their own.

“I will not be buffaloed or intimidated or silenced by disingenuous partisan zealots, laughably posing as social justice crusaders, while cynically employing exclusionary tactics and sowing distrust and division at a time when unity is so critical,” Stone wrote.
 
Hi @momofthegoons - well, I have to say that I actually don't give a flying fuck about anybody's political or cultural litmus test for 'approval' as a MJ activist. I'm tired of the labeling and people trying to tell me who I should and should not talk to, support, provide a platform for, or any of the rest of that crap.

Who the fuck is "freelancer Chris Roberts" and why should I care what the fuck HE thinks.

Do I think that MJ prohibition laws are more draconianly enforced in predominantly black urban areas (but predominantly Hispanic urban areas also) and that sentencing is much harsher for minorities. Well, yeah, absolutely and its a travesty and a stain on our society and an injustice to many individuals.

Per this guy Roberts, Stone: “(sic) certainly doesn’t care about black and brown people being let out of prison.

Well, but guess what....as stated above as a broad general principle,...well, that's not one of my militant hot buttons either.

If Stone can be useful, then use him. My activist interest is in MJ legalization, period and that's not particularly 'woven' through anything.
 
Who’s in charge of federal weed policy right now?
Who are the big guns in federal weed policy right now?

People will tell you different things, but in my opinion the three most important executive chairs governing weed law and policy, aside from President Trump, are 1) the attorney general of the Department of Justice (DOJ), 2) the administrator of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), and 3) the secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). Number 1 is, of course, Jeff Sessions, but as of last week, numbers 2 and 3 on that list are goners, which makes the federal landscape for weed stranger than ever.

The DEA chief who just resigned was a former FBI agent named Chuck Rosenberg. Rosenberg was an Obama appointee, but he was pretty awful as far as weed goes. That said, he wasn’t as awful as his predecessor, who maintained that weed is as bad as heroin and was forced out after some DEA sex parties with Columbian cartel ladies.

But Rosenberg was pretty bad. He kicked off his tenure by calling medical marijuana “a joke,” which resulted in 160,000 signatures calling for his head, and then opined that marijuana was only “probably not” as dangerous as heroin. Rosenberg had to walk that one back, but he proceeded to say and do other unhelpful things. I won’t try to squeeze them all into this cozy space.

The HHS administrator, of course, was Tom Price, who spent $400,000 flying around on jets while trying to sabotage healthcare. Price had a brutal voting record on weed: Unlike most Republicans, he voted six times against amendments to prevent the DOJ from interfering with state medical cannabis laws, and three times to block Veterans Affairs doctors from recommending cannabis to veterans for medical use. Price, to be sure, was no friend to weed.

So why are the DEA and HHS administrator jobs so important? As to the former, the DEA administrator runs the chief US agency for federal drug law enforcement. The DEA is an agency that sits downline from the Attorney General and arrests lots and lots of people for cannabis crimes, partly through its “Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program.”

The HHS administrator, on the other hand, helps make all of that possible. HHS has safeguarded “marijuana” on Schedule 1 of the federal Controlled Substances Act for decades and oversees other prohibitionist agencies like the Food and Drug Administration, which advised last year that marijuana is too dangerous to reschedule. So DEA is action, and HHS is policy.

Right now, nobody is home at either DEA or HHS—just interim administrators whom Trump will replace with sufficiently lousy candidates, on no particular timeline. The confirmation hearings for those individuals may serve as referenda on US law and policy regarding weed, much like the Jeff Sessions hearings in January.

In all, this is not a bad time for the cannabis industry and consumers: Any potential crackdown is looking muddled, disjointed, and further away. Meanwhile, states’ rights and cannabis are full speed ahead, including California licensing just around the corner.
 
Can You Get Evicted for Legally Using Cannabis?

Where can you legally smoke cannabis? Most often, the answer is within a private residence where you’re out of view of the general public. But what if you’re a renter of your “private residence?” This creates a confusing dilemma for those who are trying to abide by the regulations of the state but don’t want to risk eviction from their residence.

If you rent your home or apartment and are wondering if you can legally smoke in it, the answer isn’t simple or straightforward. When it comes down to landlord-tenant rights, obligations, and insurance policies, it’s less about your landlord’s feelings on the topic and a lot more about the legal contract you sign when you move into a new rental.

Leafly reached out to Rabin Nabizadeh, a
criminal defense attorney with Summit Defense based out of California, to get the full legal scoop on the particular ins, outs, and legal rights pertaining to the complex nature of consuming cannabis while renting or leasing a property.

Lease Agreements and Binding Legal Contracts
“To begin,” Nabizadeh explained, “there is a fundamental legal principle at play here that will shed some light on these issues: Contracts can and often do prohibit legal acts. A violation would not be criminal, but will be a breach of contract and will lead to remedies in civil court.”

There are certain circumstances under which courts may not enforce contractual terms:

  • If the terms are illegal (using racially biased terms, etc.)
  • If the terms are unintelligible or vague
  • If the terms are unconscionable
Whether or not cannabis is legal, decriminalized, or legalized for medical use in the state where the lease agreement is signed can make a difference, but it all comes down to that one, binding legal document. Nabizadeh likened the legal use of cannabis in contractual terms to the use of tobacco—also a legal substance, but prohibited in some leases.

“The focus isn’t criminal statutes, or even landlord-tenant law,” he said. “The lease is the controlling legal document. Many leases will prohibit smoking in general, and that will likely encompass marijuana smoke. It is unclear whether that would include other types of use such as vaping.”

What About Medical Marijuana?
Nabizadeh clarified the legal perspective on medical marijuana. “Judges generally don’t view medical marijuana [recommendations] as valid, despite the clear legislative intent. Still, there is a question of whether contractual terms barring [the] use of marijuana despite medical need is considered unconscionable,” he pondered.

Therefore, a patient with a written recommendation based on state law and a legitimate medical need may be able to make a case in court that the risk posed by cannabis use is so minute that it would be unconscionable to deny use for medical treatment, especially for severe qualifying conditions.

If a resident has a disability as defined by the Fair Housing Act, particularly one that is considered a qualifying condition in a medical marijuana state, they could try to make the claim that the use or cultivation of cannabis in their residence should be considered a “reasonable accommodation.” However, since the Fair Housing Act is a federal law and cannabis is still illegal under the federal government, without an official prescription from a physician (which doctors are currently prohibited from doing; instead, they authorize “recommendations”), housing providers would beunder no obligation to allow it.

“I would anticipate,” Nabizadeh told us, “that in states where marijuana is legal, commonly used leases will begin adding a specific clause for marijuana use.”

What Can Your Landlord Do?
Landlords are required to uphold the contractual obligations set forth in the lease both parties have signed. If you have violated the terms of your lease by smoking marijuana and it escalates to the point that your landlord has been notified, you will not immediately face eviction.

According to Nabizadeh, “Like any unlawful detainer or eviction notice, the landlord will have to take certain very rigid steps after the initial eviction notice. Assuming the parties are unable to resolve the issue, the landlord would be forced to file action in court and prove the violation to a court.”

As a tenant, what can you do? “Of course, tenants have rights,” Nabizadeh said. “Upon a notice of eviction, [tenants] can argue their case in court. The landlord would be tasked with proving a breach of the lease terms, which may difficult in these cases compared to unauthorized tobacco use since there will likely be far less evidence of use, especially in the case of smokeless [cannabis] use.”

Worth noting as well: “The landlord can permit marijuana use, so long as it is legal in the state.”
 
5 States angling to put recreational marijuana on the ballot in 2018

Sure, it's the pun of all puns, but the marijuana industry really is growing like a weed. According to cannabis research firm ArcView, the North American legal-cannabis market saw sales increase by 34% in 2016 to $6.9 billion, and they're liable to grow by an average of 26% a year through 2021. That's a nearly $22 billion market up for grabs, and investors certainly want a piece of that pie.

Though Mexico legalized medical cannabis in June, and Canada may be on the verge of green-lighting recreational weed by July 2018, it's still the U.S. market that's viewed as the greatest opportunity for the legal cannabis industry. Since 1996, 29 states have legalized medical cannabis, with an additional eight states having legalized recreational pot since 2012. With recreational weed the greatest source of growth potential for the legal marijuana industry, all eyes are on which states could be next to legalize recreational pot.

voting-booths-getty_large.jpg


As we look toward mid-term elections in 2018, the following five states already have one, or in some cases far more than one, initiative or amendment lined up to legalize marijuana for adult use. The big question is whether or not these pieces of legislation will make it onto the ballot.

Arizona

Of all the states to consider legalizing recreational cannabis in 2018, Arizona is the most logical. Arizona put a recreational-weed measure on the Nov. 2016 ballot, and it wound up failing to pass by a mere 2%. We've seen some of the most progressive states, such as Oregon and California, fail to pass a recreational-pot initiative on their first try, so focused efforts by pro-legalization groups may be able to sway voters to pass such a measure in 2018.

According to Ballotpedia, there are five marijuana-based initiatives in 2018, including one for industrial hemp and the expansion of medical-marijuana access. Perhaps the most intriguing, though, is the Arizona Marijuana Legalization Initiative. This aggressive piece of legislation aims to allow for the possession and use of weed by adults 21 and over, and would allow for the cultivation of up to 48 plants (yes, 48!) with more than a 0.3% THC level. It would also forbid local jurisdictions from passing laws that would keep legally operating weed businesses out. It's unclear if this initiative has a shot at passing, but it's among the most progressive this country has ever seen.

marijuana-joint-over-cannabis-leaf-pot-weed-legalize-getty_large.jpg


Florida

It took Florida till the second try before it was able to successfully pass a medical-marijuana amendment in Nov. 2016. In Florida, passing marijuana legislation requires changes to the state's constitution. Therefore, a simple majority vote won't work. Instead, a majority vote of 60% is required for amendments to pass. In November 2014, Florida's medical-cannabis amendment fell 2% short of the required vote. However, with pro-legalization groups focusing their efforts on Florida in 2015 and 2016, it passed with ease this go around (71% yes, 29% no).

Now, it looks as if pro-legalization groups are aiming to garner support in Florida for recreational legalization. There are four measures currently be considered for the ballot, although it'll still require a 60% vote to alter the Florida constitution. For instance, the Florida Cannabis Act would legalize possession of up to an ounce of marijuana for adults 21 and up, and also allow residents to grow up to six plants per household. However, only three of those plants could be mature or flowering under this legislation. These plants would also need to be in an enclosed and secure space, so as to keep them away from adolescents.

Michigan

Michigan has long been a state rumored to have a shot at passing a recreational legalization bill. Back in 2016, pro-legalization groups attempted to get a recreational-cannabis bill on the ballot, but fell well short of the required signatures needed to do so. The grassroots effort just wasn't there last year, but with time and money pouring into the state in 2017, there seems to be a reasonable shot at a recreational initiative making the ballot in the upcoming year.

For example, the Michigan Marijuana Legalization Initiative would allow adults ages 21 and up to possess, use, or transport up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana, or 15 grams of marijuana concentrate, and grow up to 12 cannabis plants in their residences for personal use. What might be more exciting is that this initiative would also green-light industrial hemp, which could itself be a multibillion-dollar industry.

If passed, consumers could be facing a 10% excise tax, which comes on top of the state's existing 6% sales tax. Tax revenue collected would primarily head to schools and Michigan's state transportation fund for repair and maintenance of roads and bridges.

Missouri

Missouri might be angling to do something that Ohio attempted in 2015 and failed miserably: legalizing recreational and medical cannabis at the same time. Currently, it's one of 21 states not to have legalized medical pot, and while there are a handful of medical-cannabis initiatives vying for a spot on the ballot in 2018, half pertain to recreational weed or industrial hemp.

The Missouri Marijuana Legalization Initiative aims to remove marijuana from the states' list of controlled substances, allow for its sale to medical and recreational users, and immediately releases prisoners incarcerated for non-violent marijuana-related crimes. It would also forbid the state from using funds to enforce federal marijuana laws. As a reminder, cannabis is a Schedule 1 substabne, and ergo illicit, at the federal level.

I suspect such an aggressive measure that would release non-violent offenders would face a lot of pushback within the state, and I wouldn't necessarily count on seeing a dual medical-recreational bill make it on to the ballot in Missouri.

man-holding-and-smelling-marijuana-cannabis-weed-pot-plant-getty_large.jpg


Nebraska

By a similar token, Nebraska may also be thinking about a dual-legalization effort. Nebraska, along with Missouri, hasn't legalized medical cannabis. In fact, Nebraska and Oklahoma wound up suing Colorado based on allegations that recreational weed in Colorado would be trafficked into their neighboring states. This suit, which the Supreme Court denied in 2016, makes the idea of Nebraska's angling for a dual legalization a complete head-scratcher.

Nonetheless, there's at least a slim chance that the Nebraska Right to Cannabis Initiative makes it onto the ballot in 2018. This measure would create a constitutional right for people aged 21 and up to consume, manufacture, and distribute cannabis for personal or commercial purposes. It'd also allow those under 21 to possess and consume medical cannabis with the written permission of a guardian, and a written recommendation from a licensed physician. Still, I doubt this measure will make it on to the ballot.
 
Only one group says yeah or nay on cannabis.

For the rest of us...

Just follow the money.

Peace!

2b81bcb8200216adb1aa19ff109425eb.jpg
 
Only one group says yeah or nay on cannabis.

For the rest of us...

Just follow the money.

Peace!

View attachment 978
You know the famous line: Good people don't smoke pot!

STEVE JOBS, BILL MAHER, GEORGE CLOONEY, OWEN WILSON; SNOOP DOG; JOE ROGAN; WIILIE NELSON; BRAD PITT,
SAHARA SILVERMAN, AMY POULLER, WOODY HARRISON, WIZ KALIFIA? R smart and rich?

Good is for food!

CANNABIS is safe?

DREAM QUEEN + UFO + SMALL MOUTHPIECE + VAPORIZER = BETTER than GOOD!
 
You know the famous line: Good people don't smoke pot!

STEVE JOBS, BILL MAHER, GEORGE CLOONEY, OWEN WILSON; SNOOP DOG; JOE ROGAN; WIILIE NELSON; BRAD PITT,
SAHARA SILVERMAN, AMY POULLER, WOODY HARRISON, WIZ KALIFIA? R smart and rich?

Good is for food!

CANNABIS is safe?

DREAM QUEEN + UFO + SMALL MOUTHPIECE + VAPORIZER = BETTER than GOOD!
The one percent are absolutely, positively...

NOT CIVILIZED.

:cool:

Peace!
 
After the 60 Minutes/WoPo article, he was done and that's all for the good. We have no yet seen the end of the fallout over this report and the venal acts of self-serving politicians. If you have not read it, you absolutely should:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/investigations/dea-drug-industry-congress/


Trump’s drug czar nominee withdraws after big pharma flap

By Darlene Superville and Matthew Daly, The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Rep. Tom Marino, President Donald Trump’s nominee to be the nation’s drug czar, is withdrawing from consideration following reports he played a key role in weakening the federal government’s authority to stop companies from distributing opioids.

Trump announced on Twitter Tuesday that the Republican Pennsylvania congressman “has informed me that he is withdrawing his name.” He praised Marino as “a fine man and a great congressman.”

Trump had raised the possibility Monday of withdrawing Marino’s nomination after reports by The Washington Post and CBS’ “60 Minutes.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said confirming Marino as the nation’s drug czar would be like “putting the wolf in charge of the henhouse.”

Related stories
“The American people deserve someone totally committed to fighting the opioid crisis, not someone who has labored on behalf of the drug industry,” Schumer said.

Sen. Joe Manchin, whose home state of West Virginia has been among the hardest-hit by the opioid epidemic, said he was horrified at the accounts of the 2016 law and Marino’s role in it.

The Post reported Sunday that Marino and other members of Congress, along with the nation’s major drug distributors, prevailed upon the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Justice Department to agree to an industry-friendly law that undermined efforts to restrict the flow of pain pills that have led to tens of thousands of deaths. President Barack Obama signed the law in April 2016.

The industry worked behind the scenes with lobbyists and key members of Congress, including Marino, pouring more than a million dollars into their election campaigns, the newspaper reported.
 
Peace!

That's some funny sh*t, @Baron23 .

Like Sen. Jeff Sessions, who as a member of various Senate intelligence committees helped the world's largest drug traffickers, the C.I.A., flood American inner cities with crack.

Because we want a return to the "rule of law", he says. The good old days, huh?

Oh man we're really, really stupid...

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5961748

And our opinions and health of NO consequence to politicians.

They see cannabis only in the light of how it can or can't benefit themselves politically.

So we have to get in their faces online and through organizations until they change because it's too politically difficult not to. Squeaky wheel and all that.

Perseverance wins.

Every. Time.

Peace!
 
Peace!

That's some funny sh*t, @Baron23 .

Like Sen. Jeff Sessions, who as a member of various Senate intelligence committees helped the world's largest drug traffickers, the C.I.A., flood American inner cities with crack.

Because we want a return to the "rule of law", he says. The good old days, huh?

Oh man we're really, really stupid...

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5961748

And our opinions and health of NO consequence to politicians.

They see cannabis only in the light of how it can or can't benefit themselves politically.

So we have to get in their faces online and through organizations until they change because it's too politically difficult not to. Squeaky wheel and all that.

Perseverance wins.

Every. Time.

Peace!
We have EVOLVED to a new form!
Don't lie to us it doesn't work for some of us?

TRUTH = CIVILIZATION
CANNABIS = HOLY GRAIL

DEVICES?
POLITICS?

TRENCH PARTNER = @Baron23
 
We all do understand, do we not, that when McCain, Schumer, et al advocate for return of "regular order" in Congress what they are advocating is returning a GREAT deal of power to committee chairman like Pete Sessions (CHMN of Rules Committee) who single handedly, and with no obvious recourse allowed to dissenters, decided to NOT allow the House to debate and vote on the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer amendment that prevents DOJ from spending money prosecuting MMJ in legal states. Just cock blocked the entire rest of the House of Representatives.....jerk off that he is.

Regular order is another term for backroom dealing by party leaders immune to much in the way of pressure from peers or the electorate.

Fuck Pete Sessions and I hope he loses his next campaign (and I hope he has flat tires on cold rainy nights! LOL)


Pro-Legalization Congressman To Target Anti-Cannabis Lawmakers

One of Congress’s leading champions for marijuana law reform is going beyond just trying to pass legislation to push back against federal prohibition and is now actively working to defeat fellow lawmakers who are standing in the way of those bills.

“I’ve been working to try and give you a better Congress,” Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) said at a cannabis industry event on Tuesday night. “One of the other things we are doing is not just helping friends, but to help people who are against us find something else to do with their time.”

His first target is Congressman Pete Sessions (R-TX). As chairman of the powerful House Rules Committee, Sessions, who is not related to U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, has played a key role in preventing marijuana legislation from advancing.

In that capacity, Sessions has blocked a number of cannabis measures from even being considered on the House floor, including ones to protect state laws from federal interference, facilitate marijuana businesses’ access to banking services and allow Washington, D.C. to set its own legalization policies.

Perhaps Sessions’s most egregious move, in the eyes of advocates, was when he disallowed a vote on a measure to let military veterans get medical cannabis recommendations through the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

“We’re going to be putting up some billboards in Pete Sessions’s district. It’s going to feature a veteran and ask the question why Pete Sessions doesn’t want him to have access to his medicine,” Blumenauer said. “We’re going to make the point that there are consequences. This is not a free vote. People are going to take a position one way or another. And if they are going to be part of an effort to deny people access to medicine that can be transformational…this is going to be part of the political landscape this year.”

Video captured by activist and journalist Russ Belville.

Blumenauer will pay for the billboards using funds from a new political action committee, called the Cannabis Fund, that he recently founded. In addition to going after marijuana reform opponents, the congressman said that the PAC will also proactively work to elect candidates who support cannabis issues on the federal, state and local levels.

“I don’t care where they are, who they are, what the district is,” he said. “There is part of the agenda that you care about that they ought to be able to support.”

Blumenauer was speaking at a National Cannabis Industry Association event in Portland, Oregon, an area he represents in Congress.

In the speech, he referred to one marijuana law reform opponent who no longer has a job on Capitol Hill. Last year, then-Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) spoke out against efforts to increase medical cannabis access for military veterans.

“I don’t think we have too few high veterans out there,” he said at the time.

Blumenauer argued that partially as a result of those “disparaging comments not just about medical marijuana but our veterans who need and depend upon it,” Kirk is now “now ex-Senator Kirk.”

Looking ahead, when it comes to his PAC’s first target of Sessions, Blumenauer said the billboards and other efforts should “make his life interesting.”

Later in the speech to the gathered cannabis industry leaders, Blumenauer said that the marijuana business will be “bigger than the NFL in five to ten years,” and decried how the league is “still is suspending people who self-medicate with medical marijuana to deal with the punishment that they go through” on football fields.
 
Gosh is that all you wish? :lol:


Well, I hope he has flat tires on rainy nights and I drive by and splash him as he tries to change it. How's that....better than hoping I clip him on the side of the road, yeah? LOL
 

Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals Hears Hemp Case


BY MONTEREY BUD ON OCTOBER 19TH, 2017

The Department of Defense (DOD) seemingly has an issue with their enlisted personnel eating healthy foods – and that had an onerous effect for one Air Force major that led to his general court-martial.

Now before the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, the nation’s highest military court is contemplating the effectiveness of the Air Force’s ban on consuming any snacks containing hemp seeds or products that were made from hemp seed oil.

Joseph Pugh, the Air Force major convicted of dereliction of duty by a panel of officers at a general court-martial for eating a Strong & Kind granola bar, had his case heard by the Court of Appeals on Oct. 11 in Washington, D.C.

Per DOD regulations, all service members are prohibited from using any controlled substances. Those “controlled substances” included marijuana and synthetic cannabinoids – but not hemp-based products.

Less than consistent, or easy to comprehend, each branch of the armed services has their own pet peeve.

Which Branch Bans What?
  • Air Force – Hemp Oil/Seeds/Products
  • United States Army — Hemp Oil/Seeds/Products
  • United States Coast Guard – Hemp Oil/Seeds/Products
  • United States Navy – No Formal Hemp Policy
  • The United States Marine Corps – No Formal Hemp Policy
Ubiquitously available in an expansive list of health food products, snacks made from hemp seeds or its oil can be purchased in grocery stores from coast-to-coast … and even at commissaries operated by the Defense Commissary Agency. A popular plant-based protein source for health-conscious individuals, hemp-based products raked in approximately $688 million in 2016.

At the root of this hemp case is the potential confusion of a false-positive during a DOD drug test and whether the military services should ban the consumption of all hemp-based products.

In the original court-martial case, the judge granted the defense’s motion to dismiss the charges after conviction. Explained in his ruling, the judge stated, “there is simply no credible evidence to believe that these legal, commercially available products pose the slightest threat to the integrity of the Air Force’s drug testing program.”

Less than pleased by the outcome of the first trial, the United States Government appealed the initial decision under Article 62 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, arguing the initial judge “abused his discretion by dismissing the Additional Charge and its Specification, when he found that Air Force Instruction (AFI) 90-507, Military Drug Demand Reduction Program, which bans the ingestion of hemp seeds, is overly broad, serves no valid military purpose, and did not have a sufficient nexus between military necessity and the duty the AFI sought to impose.”

To ban or not to ban hemp … that is the appellate court question.

Potentially setting future policy for the armed services, the appellate court has been tasked with deciding whether or not the lower court’s ruling – dismissing the original charge – was erred. While a ruling in favor of Major Pugh would establish a legal precedent for future cases, the court has the option of ruling in favor of the major without addressing the Air Force’s hemp seed ban.
 
A guide to federal drug rescheduling (and what it means for cannabis)

Could the US ever legalize cannabis federally? The simple answer is yes, but the reality is far more complex. The reason laws and regulations around cannabis are so complicated leads back to the federal government – more specifically, the Controlled Substances Act, Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.





A Little History About the Controlled Substances Act
The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) was signed into law by President Richard Nixon on October 27, 1970. The act divides all known medicines, substances, or drugs into various categories based on their potential for abuse, medical applications and known benefits, and safety considerations. The Drug Enforcement Agency is tasked with enforcing the inventory management, records, and security of controlled substances, and individuals who order, handle, store, and distribute must be registered with the DEA.

The CSA has been amended many times over the years. For example, it’s been changed to abide by the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, to include anabolic steroids at Schedule III in 1990, and to help divert methamphetamine trafficking in 1993.

Scheduling Controlled Substances
The tiers of drugs range from Schedule V – considered the least dangerous and therefore, requiring the least amount of regulations – all the way up to Schedule I, a tier that is considered the most dangerous, with the strictest regulations and “no medical benefit,” which includes LSD, heroin, and cannabis.

In order to be categorized as a Schedule I substance, the drug must meet three criteria:

  • The drug has a high potential for abuse
  • The drug has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States
  • There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug under medical supervision
Drugs may be rescheduled at a lower level or removed entirely from the list of Controlled Substances, but the process is rigorous and the criteria is incredibly restrictive.

Petitions to Reschedule Cannabis
The first petition to reschedule cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule II was filed in 1972 by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), but the petition was not given a hearing for fourteen years. In 1986, the petition was finally considered by the DEA, but the debate continued for years.

It was during this trial that DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis L. Young concluded that marijuana is “one of the safest therapeutically active substances. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within a supervised routine of medical care… The overwhelming preponderance of the evidence in this record establishes that marijuana has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States for nausea and vomiting resulting from chemotherapy treatments in some cancer patients. To conclude otherwise, on this record, would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious.”

Despite Young’s conclusion, the DEA Administrator at the time, John Lawn ultimately rejected the petition 22 years after it was first filed.

In 1995, High Times and former NORML Director Jon Gettman filed another rescheduling petition, using studies of the endocannabinoid system conducted by the National Institute of Mental Health between 1988 and 1994. The DEA officially denied the petition on April 18, 2001, a decision upheld by the US Court of Appeals in May of 2002.

Another petition was filed by Americans for Safe Access and the Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis in 2002, but was ultimately denied in 2011. Americans for Safe Access filed an appeal in January 2012, which led to a hearing in October, before another rejection on January 22, 2013.

Who Holds the Power?
There are only a few select entities with the power to make such a big change at a federal level. Cannabis may be rescheduled through Congressional legislation; an example of this is the CARERS Act, repeatedly proposed by Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), to no avail.

  • Cannabis may also be rescheduled at the executive level by the President of the United States.
  • The Controlled Substances Act also provides a process for which the US Attorney General may reschedule cannabis legislatively.
  • The Drug Enforcement Administration evaluates all petitions to reschedule cannabis.
  • The Department of Health and Human Services, however, also carry as great deal of power in the rescheduling decision process.
The DEA must first accept the petition, which is no small feat, as illustrated by past attempts to reschedule cannabis. The Health and Human Services Secretary must then submit a “scientific and medical evaluation, and his recommendations, as to whether such drug or other substance should be so controlled or removed as a controlled substance.” The HHS Secretary has the power to reschedule cannabis in their own right, if they so choose.

In order to classify a drug or consider whether a substance should be rescheduled or decontrolled, the determining factors are as follows:

  • Its actual or relative potential for abuse.
  • Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known.
  • The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug or other substance.
  • Its history and current pattern of abuse.
  • The scope, duration, and significance of abuse.
  • What, if any, risk there is to the public health.
  • Its psychic or physiological dependence liability.
  • Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled.
The President, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and Congress all have the power to reschedule cannabis.

With each new Congressional bill proposed, with each new politician that recognizes the therapeutic value of cannabis, with each new state that embraces medical cannabis, with each new voice speaking out in favor of cannabis, the US grows ever closer to legalization.
 
Ex-Surgeon General, SAMHSA Director Call for Federal Legalization
A newly formed group of physicians that include former US Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders and former director of the US Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Westley Clark believe “organized medicine” should be open to federally legalizing and regulating cannabis.


Elders and Clark co-authored an editorial published online recently in the American Journal of Public Health on behalf of the new group, Doctors for Cannabis Regulation. David Nathan, the group’s board president and a New Jersey-based psychiatrist, also contributed to the editorial.


RELATED STORY
Federal Gov’t: Teen Cannabis Use Rate Drops to 20-Year Low

The editorial’s publication marks the first time “a major American medical journal has ever run a pro-marijuana opinion by an organization of prominent physicians,” according to a press release issued by the group.

In the piece, Elders, Clark, and Nathan called on professional medical groups—including powerful advocacy associations like the American Medical Association and American Academy of Pediatrics—to take several actions regarding cannabis.

First, support the federal legalization and regulation of cannabis for adults.

“The government should oversee all cannabis production, testing, distribution, and sales,” the authors wrote. “Cannabis products should be labeled with significant detail,” including CBD and THC levels, other ingredients, and dosing instructions.


RELATED STORY
World Anti-Doping Agency Removes CBD From Banned Substances List

“We need to make sure this drug is regulated properly,” David Nathan said in an interview with Leafly.

Second, the group wants medical groups to lobby Congress and state lawmakers.

“We cannot abstain from the discussion,” the authors wrote. “The cannabis industry now advises lawmakers on cannabis regulation, and doctors must do so as well.”

“So far a lot of organized medicine has turned away, sticking to the dogma and pseudo-science of the 1930’s that got us to where we are now” Nathan said. “We are trying to break the stigma of speaking out in favor of legalization, and convincing other doctors you don’t have to be pro-marijuana to oppose its prohibition.”

“If nothing else, it would be important for these organizations to not oppose legalization.”

The group also suggested taking specific federal regulatory actions, including restrictions on marketing to minors, child-resistant packaging, as well as punishment for adults distributing to minors. These are all current features of state-regulated cannabis systems in Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, and other adult-legal venues.


RELATED STORY
Personalization Marketing for Cannabusinesses

The authors also called for taxation to fund research, education, prevention and substance abuse treatment. Those programs, they wrote, “should include public information for adults on the use and misuse of cannabis, and youth programs that emphasize the risks of underage cannabis use.”

“Prohibition sends the message that marijuana is dangerous for everyone, because it is illegal for everyone,” they wrote, “and children know that it is not true.”

“If we want our children to believe us when we say that cannabis can be harmful for them, our laws should reflect the difference in health effects of underage and adult use.”

They added that it’s high time for change. “The unjust prohibition of marijuana has done more damage to public health than has marijuana itself…The prohibition of alcohol was a success compared with our war on marijuana.”

“Fundamentally,” said Nathan, “prohibition was always a bad idea.”

Elders and other leaders formally launched the group last year to help doctors advocate against prohibition and for legal regulation. They publicly lobbied the National Football League to allow players to consume cannabis. Many former players have acknowledged the use of cannabis as a common practice to manage the pain that comes from playing one of the world’s most violent collision sports.


RELATED STORY
NFL Offers to Work With Players Union to Study Cannabis

Former NFL player Eugene Monroe serves as the group’s ambassador to the sports world.

Clark and Elders are both honorary board members. Last year Elders, Surgeon General under President Bill Clinton from 1993-1994, endorsed a proposal to remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act.

Clark led the treatment center for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) from 1998-2014.

The group pitched their editorial to the American Journal of Public Health—as opposed to, say, The New York Times—because “we really needed to reach doctors in a very direct way,” Nathan said, “and in a way that physicians will respect and relate to.”

“Doctors for Cannabis Regulation is on the right side of history,” he added. “We are right and we know we are right.”
 
Peru legalises medical marijuana in move spurred by mother's home lab
Proposal to decriminalise the drug came after police raided a makeshift laboratory where a group of women made cannabis oil for their sick children



A woman gives a child a marijuana oil to soothe the symptoms of a disease during a protest in support of legal medical marijuana in Lima, Peru. Photograph: Guadalupe Pardo/Reuters

Lawmakers in Peru have voted overwhelmingly in favour of a bill to legalise medical marijuana, allowing cannabis oil to be locally produced, imported and sold.


With a vote of 68-5, Peru’s Congress approved the bill which will be written into law in 60 days, once regulations for producing and selling cannabis have been set out.

Alberto de Belaunde, a governing party lawmaker and advocate of the proposal, said: “We’ve ensured that thousands of patients and their family members will enjoy a better quality of life.”

“This is a historic moment and my dream is that empathy and evidence can continue to defeat fears and prejudices,” he told the Guardian.

“This was not an abstract debate, it had a human face,” he added.

The legislative approval followed a government proposal to decriminalise the medical use of marijuana for the “treatment of serious and terminal illnesses” after a police raid in February on a makeshift laboratory where a group of mothers made marijuana oil for their sick children.

The laboratory was in the home of Ana Alvarez, 43, who founded the group Buscando Esperanza or Searching for Hope to treat her 17-year-old son Anthony who suffers from a rare and severe form of epilepsy called Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, as well as tuberous sclerosis, which causes tumours to grow on the brain and other organs.

“We’re very happy with the fact that Peruvian law has approved this,” Alvarez told the Guardian. “But we’re not totally satisified.”

“We want associations like ours to be included in the production of this natural medicine,” she said, adding that the new bill only allowed strictly regulated local production of cannabis oil, precluding organisations like hers.

She was also worried that imported marijuana derivatives would be too expensive for her to buy for her son and for the families of other patients. The homemade oil was made for a fraction of the cost, she said, and came in different varieties for the personalised use of more than 300 patients.

“We would have liked the patients’ associations to be have been allowed to produce their own cannabis oil,” De Belaunde agreed, adding it could be possible through university investigations into medicinal marijuana, which are now permitted.

After Colombia, Peru is the largest producer of coca, the leaf used to make cocaine, and it has a thriving illegal drug trade. It is now the sixth country or territory in Latin America to legalise the use of cannabis in some form.

The medicinal use of cannabis oil is now legal in Peru’s neighbours Colombia and Chile as well as in Puerto Rico. In Uruguay, marijuana cultivation and use is permitted in all its forms.
 
For the first time, a majority of Republicans support marijuana legalization

By Christopher Ingraham October 25 at 10:17 AM

gallup_marijuana.jpg


Fifty-one percent of Republicans surveyed by Gallup this month said they support legalization, up sharply from 42 percent a year ago. Even larger majorities of independents (67 percent) and Democrats (72 percent) are in favor of legal marijuana.

Overall, 64 percent of Americans now support legalization, the highest percentage ever in Gallup polling.

“The trajectory of Americans' views on marijuana is similar to that of their views on same-sex marriage over the past couple of decades,” Gallup said in its analysis of the data. “On both issues, about a quarter supported legalization in the late 1990s, and today 64% favor each.”

[Finally, a degree in marijuana: But it’s not for stoners or slackers.]

Nationwide support for legalization first hit 50 percent in 2011, just ahead of historic votes in Colorado and Washington state to legalize recreational use of the drug in 2012. Since then, voters in six more states and the District of Columbia have approved recreational marijuana laws.

More than 20 percent of the U.S. population now lives in a state where marijuana use is fully legal, and even strong opponents of legalization concede that norms around marijuana use are shifting.

“The national discussion surrounding marijuana enforcement efforts continues to evolve,” the federal Drug Enforcement Administration wrote in its just-released 2017 National Drug Threat Assessment. Despite the drug's widespread availability even in states where it hasn't been legalized, marijuana remains at the bottom of law enforcement agencies' drug priorities.

Meanwhile, many of opponents' fears about marijuana legalization don't appear to be panning out. States that have legalized pot are also beginning to reap some of the benefits of the policy change, including job growth, tax revenue and even some evidence of slowing in the opiate epidemic.

To be sure, legalization has also brought some challenges. The popularity of potent edible products proved to be a surprise, prompting lawmakers to scramble to regulate them. Drug-impaired driving will continue to be a concern, as will medical issues among people who overdo it.

The sharp shift in Republican voters' views on pot is the most significant finding in the Gallup poll, coming during a time of increased federal skepticism of marijuana legalization efforts. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has asked lawmakers to undo federal protections for medical marijuana, repeatedly calling it a “dangerous drug.”

But greater support for legalization could complicate any administration efforts to crack down on pot. "Attorney General Jeff Sessions could find himself out of step with his own party if the current trends continue,” Gallup wrote.
 
Sadly, Steele, our Maryland former Lt Governor, was always considered a bit of a light weight in the R party so take this with a grain of salt. But its better than opposition.

Marijuana legalization is around corner, says former Republican party chairman

"The opportunity's there now for communities across the country to reevaluate the historic stance on marijuana use," says Michael Steele

By James McClure, Civilized

There’s no better time than the present to discuss marijuana legalization according to Michael Steele, who helped shape national policy during his tenure as Chairman of the Republican National Committee. Steele recently told Civilized that America is finally ready to take a critical look at its outdated drug policies.

“Broadly speaking, the opportunity’s there now for communities across the country to reevaluate the historic stance on marijuana use, specifically with respect to medical marijuana,” he said.

But that doesn’t mean Steele fully supports legalization.

Related stories
“I’ve always been much more favorably disposed to medical marijuana use, especially after understanding the medicinal aspects of it and certainly having friends and associates who have suffered various illnesses where it was very clear that marijuana was a difference maker for them, day-in and day-out in terms of their pain management and overall wellbeing,” Steele added. “I’ve since evolved to appreciating the broader use of it.”

By “appreciating” he means respecting the decisions of adults who choose to have a puff. But Steele isn’t one of those consumers.
 

Sponsored by

VGoodiez 420EDC
Back
Top