Law The Cannabis Chronicles - Misc Cannabis News

[Baron23]

Pot initiatives: Predicting the next 15 states to legalize marijuana

A record high 64% of Americans support legalizing marijuana for recreational use, according to a 2017 Gallup Poll. Support for legalization is rooted in changing perceptions of the drug’s potential harm, as well as the prospect of hundreds of millions of dollars in marijuana sales and excise tax revenue for state governments.

The growing acceptance of marijuana among Americans has also been reflected in the ballot box. Currently, eight states and Washington, D.C., have legalized recreational marijuana. The eight states are Alaska, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.

Pro-pot initiatives passed in eight of the nine states in which they made it to the ballot in November 2016. Voters in Arkansas, Florida, Montana and North Dakota approved or expanded medical marijuana laws in their states. In Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada and California, voters approved recreational pot. Only Arizona’s push for full legalization failed.

A record high 64% of Americans support legalizing marijuana for recreational use, according to a 2017 Gallup Poll. Support for legalization is rooted in changing perceptions of the drug's potential harm, as well as the prospect of hundreds of millions of dollars in marijuana sales and excise tax revenue for state governments. Ed Andrieski, AP
In the states where it has been legalized, the new industry is contributing to the various states' economies. Marijuana Business Daily puts the number of jobs created by cannabis-related companies at between 100,000 and 150,000. New Frontier Data estimated employment within the industry may reach 300,000 by 2020.

All four states that legalized recreational marijuana in 2016 made 24/7 Wall St.’s list of the next states to legalize pot that same year.

Despite widespread acceptance of the drug, only about 21% of the U.S. population live in states or districts that have legalized recreational pot. In all likelihood, the share will only grow in the coming years.

Though every state to legalize pot so far has done so through ballot initiatives, going forward, states have a variety of options for making pot legal. Predicting which states will be next to legalize requires weighing a range of legal circumstances and cultural conditions. 24/7 Wall St. reviewed marijuana usage rates, existing marijuana laws, and legislative processes in each state to identify the states most likely to legalize pot next.

1. Arizona

• Possession decriminalized: No
• Amount decriminalized: N/A
• Max. fine for less than 2 lbs.: $150,000
• Annual adult usage: 12.7% (19th highest)

In ballot initiative states, citizens can vote directly on proposed laws. As a result, because politicians who may fear political fallout are out of the equation, states that allow ballot initiatives are much more likely to legalize recreational marijuana use than non-ballot initiative states. Arizona voters in November 2016 struck down Proposition 205, which would have allowed adults in the state to possess up to 1 ounce of marijuana and grow and harvest up to six plants, by a 52.2% to 47.8% margin. Despite the defeat for legalization proponents, other ballot initiative states that have struck down similar propositions in the past — like neighboring California — ultimately legalized pot.

Currently, state residents with dispensary cards suffering from a range of conditions, including PTSD, severe nausea, and cancer, can legally posses as much as 2.5 ounces of marijuana for medicinal use.


2. Arkansas

• Possession decriminalized: No
• Amount decriminalized: N/A
• Max. fine for less than 4 oz.: $2,500
• Annual adult usage: 11.3% (16th lowest)

As a ballot initiative state, the likelihood of Arkansas legalizing recreational marijuana use is considerably higher than that of most other states. Voters in the state recently approved Issue 6 by a 53.2% to 46.8% margin, allowing the use of medical marijuana with doctor approval for the first time. The new law may be a sign of progress for proponents of legalization, as voters in the state struck down a similar proposition as recently as 2012.

Still, the state has several potential hurdles to clear before full legalization is reality. Many voters in Arkansas may not be open to the idea of legalization, as just an estimated 11.3% of state adults 18 and older have used marijuana in the past year, a smaller share than in most states. Additionally, those caught in possession of any amount without doctor approval can face a misdemeanor, one year in jail, and a $2,500 fine.

3. Connecticut

• Possession decriminalized: Yes
• Amount decriminalized: Less than 1/2 oz
• Max. fine for less than 1/2 oz: $150
• Annual adult usage: 15.4% (10th highest)

As is the case in much of the country, Connecticut residents’ attitudes towards pot have shifted considerably in recent years. Some 39.1% of state adults 26 and older perceived great risk in monthly marijuana use in 2002. The share has since fallen to 28.8% of adults. Additionally, Connecticut’s medical marijuana program, which has been in effect since June 2012, was strengthened in 2016. That year, legislators added several new conditions to the list of those approved for medical marijuana, and the state’s Department of Consumer Protection greenlighted three new dispensaries. Even more recently, Democratic lawmakers in the state included a plan to tax and regulate marijuana in their 2017 budget proposal.

Connecticut is one several states to have decriminalized marijuana possession. First time offenders caught with less half an ounce face no more than a $150 fine. For repeat offenders, fines can be as high as $500, but still, possession of a small amount carries no criminal charges.


4. Delaware

• Possession decriminalized: Yes
• Amount decriminalized: 1 oz. or less
• Max. fine for 1 oz. or less: $100
• Annual adult usage: 12.7% (20th highest)

Delaware may very well be the next state to legalize recreational marijuana use, and the first in the country to do so without a ballot initiative. State lawmakers have sponsored House Bill 110, which, if passed, would regulate and tax marijuana in a similar way to alcohol. The bill made it past the Revenue and Finance Committee and will be considered by the state legislature in January 2018.

Marijuana legalization appears to have the support of voters in the state. A 2016 poll conducted by the University of Delaware found that 61% of state residents support legalization. Changing attitudes have been a long time in the making. In 2002, 41.4% of state residents 26 and older perceived great risk from monthly marijuana use. As of 2014, only 28.9% of state adults see monthly pot use as very risky.

5. Florida

• Possession decriminalized: No
• Amount decriminalized: N/A
• Max. fine for 20 g. or less: $1,000
• Annual adult usage: 12.1% (24th lowest)

So far, every state to have legalized recreational marijuana use did so through a voter proposed ballot initiative. In November 2016, Sunshine State residents voted by a wide 71.3% to 28.7% margin to legalize medical marijuana use. Passage of the law, known as Amendment 2, means that patients suffering from a range of conditions, including Parkinson’s disease, PTSD, and glaucoma, can legally obtain and possess marijuana with a doctor’s approval.

Despite the recent constitutional amendment that suggests growing acceptance of marijuana use in Florida, recreational users in the state still face serious legal consequences. Those caught with 20 grams or less of the drug face misdemeanor charges, up to a year in jail, and fines as high as $1,000. Still, as a ballot initiative state, legalization could happen much faster in Florida than in states that do not allow voter-sponsored ballot initiatives.

6. Illinois

• Possession decriminalized: Yes
• Amount decriminalized: 10 g. or less
• Max. fine for 10 g. or less: $200
• Annual adult usage: 12.3% (24th highest)

Few states seem as poised to legalize recreational marijuana use as Illinois. State lawmakers are currently considering legislation in Senate Bill 316 and House Bill 2353 that would allow adults of legal drinking age in the state to possess, cultivate, and purchase limited amounts of pot. If these bills pass, marijuana sales could add to state coffers an estimated $566 million in excise tax revenue per year and as much as $133 million in sales tax revenue annually.

Currently, possession of certain amounts of marijuana for nonmedical purposes is decriminalized in Illinois. Those caught with 10 grams or less will not face more than a $200 fine. State residents with a range of conditions, including cancer, glaucoma, and Parkinson’s disease, can qualify for a medical cannabis card.


7. Maryland

• Possession decriminalized: Yes
• Amount decriminalized: Less than 10 g.
• Max. fine for less than 10 g.: $100
• Annual adult usage: 14.8% (15th highest)

Support for legalizing marijuana for recreational use appears to be on the rise in Maryland, from 54% of residents in 2014 to 61% in 2016, according to a Washington Post-University of Maryland poll. More importantly, 64% of likely voters support legalizing pot.

The state has already taken a more relaxed attitude toward marijuana. Maryland allows medical marijuana use, it decriminalized possession of under 10 grams, and capped the fine for having a small amount at $100. But state legislators are still hesitant to institute full legalization. A recent legalization bill fell short of passing. The state legislature will not meet again until 2018.

8. Michigan

• Possession decriminalized: No
• Amount decriminalized: N/A
• Max. fine for any amount: $2,000
• Annual adult usage: 15.0% (13th highest)

Some proponents of pot legalization in Michigan are working to gather the 252,523 petition signatures necessary to include a proposal — to tax and regulate marijuana like alcohol — on the November 2018 ballot. If enough signatures are gathered, and if voters approve the measure, adults in Michigan will be able to possess up to 2.5 ounces and cultivate as many as 12 marijuana plants. If passed, Michigan would also join the ranks of a growing number of states to have legalized recreational marijuana through ballot initiatives. Voters in Michigan legalized medical marijuana for a range of conditions in 2008, also through a ballot initiative.

Currently, Michigan residents without a medical card can face a $2,000 fine and jail time for possessing small amounts of marijuana.

9. Minnesota

• Possession decriminalized: Yes
• Amount decriminalized: 42.5 g. or less
• Max. fine for 42.5 g. or less: $200
• Annual adult usage: 12.6% (21st highest)

Since Minnesota does not have ballot initiatives, marijuana legalization may face more of an uphill battle there than in many other states on this list. So some pro-pot lawmakers in the state introduced bills that would have allowed Minnesota voters to decide whether to amend the constitution to include marijuana as a right. That measure failed, but attitudes towards pot are shifting in the Land of 10,000 Lakes.

Current Gov. Mark Dayton opposes legalization, even though he is part of the often pot-friendly Democratic party. However, Dayton is not seeking reelection in 2018, and most Democratic gubernatorial candidates announced they support marijuana legalization.


10. Montana

• Possession decriminalized: No
• Amount decriminalized: N/A
• Max. fine for 60 g, or less: $500
• Annual adult usage: 15.1% (11th highest)

Montana has had a long and checkered history with marijuana laws. First approved for medical use in a 2004 ballot initiative, state lawmakers voted to repeal the measure seven years later, only to be blocked by a veto from the governor. Throughout 2011, lawmakers in Montana fought to impose stricter regulations on the state’s marijuana medical program. The following year, Constitutional Initiative 110, which proposed an all out legalization, failed to garner enough signatures to make it to the ballot. A similar initiative failed to make it to the ballot box as recently as 2016. Still, that same year, Montana voters passed the Medical Marijuana Initiative which loosened some restrictions in existing medical marijuana laws.

As is the case nationwide, Montana residents seem to become more accepting of marijuana use. An estimated 36.2% of adults 26 and older in the state perceived great risk from monthly marijuana use in 2002. As of 2014, only 26.6% of the same age group saw monthly marijuana use as inherently harmful.

11. New Hampshire

• Possession decriminalized: Yes
• Amount decriminalized: 3/4 oz. or less
• Max. fine for 3/4 oz. or less: $100
• Annual adult usage: 17.1% (9th highest)

New Hampshire is catching up with many other states heading towards legalizing marijuana for recreational purposes. The state decriminalized marijuana possession up to three quarters of an ounce in September 2017.

Some 17.1% of adults in the state used marijuana in the past year, the ninth-highest share of all states. The relatively high share of pot users could be part of the reason why legalization is so popular in the Granite State. A University of New Hampshire poll found 68% of residents support legalizing marijuana for recreational use. That is more support than any single elected official in the state has.

12. New York

• Possession decriminalized: Yes
• Amount decriminalized: 25 g. or less
• Max. fine for 25 g. or less: $100
• Annual adult usage: 15.0% (14th highest)

Much of the hopes for recreational marijuana legalization in New York actually rest with Massachusetts. Advocates believe that New York state officials could be spurred to act if legalization works well in the neighboring state, which will begin selling recreational pot in July 2018.

New York already has a medical marijuana program and a significant amount of users overall. The state is home to more than 2.3 million adults who used pot in the past year. Pot smokers caught with the drug in the Empire State have little to fear in the way of legal repercussions. First time offenders caught with 25 grams or less face a $100 fine, while second time offenders are slapped with a $200 fine.

13. Ohio

• Possession decriminalized: Yes
• Amount decriminalized: Less than 100 g.
• Max. fine for less than 100 g.: $150
• Annual adult usage: 12.0% (21st lowest)

Ohio’s attempt to legalize recreational marijuana in 2015 faltered, though the problem may not have been pot itself. Some voters were concerned the ballot initiative would have created an oligopoly, limiting pot profits to just a handful of companies sponsoring the legislation. Even the prominent pro-pot advocacy group Marijuana Policy Project did not endorse the bill. However, since voters can change state law via ballot initiatives, Ohio could be poised for another shot at legalization.

Ohio is in the midst of implementing its medical marijuana program. Currently, recreational users in the state caught with any amount less than 100 grams only face a $150 fine and no jail time.

14. Rhode Island

• Possession decriminalized: Yes
• Amount decriminalized: Less than 1 oz.
• Max. fine for less than 1 oz.: $150
• Annual adult usage: 18.7% (6th highest)

Rhode Island lawmakers are working to draft a bill that would legalize marijuana for personal use. They are aiming to introduce the bill in the first legislative session of 2018. If successful, the state could be the first to pass a recreational marijuana law through the state legislature, as all other states that have legalized marijuana use did so through ballot initiatives.

The bill had much support in the Rhode Island legislature, with about a third of the House of Representatives co-sponsoring the bill. Some 18.7% of Rhode Island adults used pot in the past year, more than 5 percentage points ahead of the national share of adult pot users. High usage rates can often suggest a more tolerant cultural stance towards pot.


15. Vermont

• Possession decriminalized: Yes
• Amount decriminalized: 1 oz. or less
• Max. fine for 1 oz. or less: $200
• Annual adult usage: 20.6% (3rd highest)

Vermont was well on its way to having the first state legislature to pass a law allowing people 21 and over to use marijuana for recreational purposes. It was only one signature away, but Gov. Phil Scott vetoed the bill, saying he wanted to further study the effects pot has on public safety and state tax revenue. Scott said he would be willing to sign a recreational pot bill into law with a few tweaks.

It is not a surprise that politicians in Vermont would be on board with marijuana legalization given how popular it is in the state. Some 15% of Vermont adults used marijuana in the past month, and more than 20% used it in the past year. Those figures were both in the top three among states.

To identify the states most likely to legalize recreational marijuana use in the coming years, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed existing marijuana laws and usage rates in every state. Only states where medical marijuana use is legal were considered. For more on how the list was generated, click here.

 

[momofthegoons]

Smoking marijuana shouldn’t be a disqualifying factor for federal judgeship: Top senators say
By Alex Swoyer - The Washington Times - Thursday, November 16, 2017

Top senators said Thursday that people who smoked pot a couple of times in their lives shouldn’t be denied judgeships, saying it might soon become tough to fill the federal benches if marijuana use is considered disqualifying.

The attitude change came as the Senate Judiciary Committee debated judicial nominees and one senator said it seemed they were relaxing standards for President Trump’s nominees, compared to previous presidents’ picks.

Both Chairman Chuck Grassley and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat, said there’s been an evolving standard in society and the committee is adjusting to it.

“If that’s the sole judgment on whether somebody ought to have a judgeship or not — or maybe any other position — we may not be able to find people to fill those positions,” said Mr. Grassley, Iowa Republican, adding that his own views on drug use have changed since he came to Congress three decades ago.

None of the lawmakers said which nominee had spurred the reconsideration.

All of the president’s nominees are subject to background investigations by the FBI, and they’re required to disclose if they’ve ever used illegal drugs after the age of 18.


While there’s no formal rule for judicial picks, drug use had been used to oppose nominees in the past.

“Since the Clinton administration, Republicans on this committee have used the standard that any use of illegal drugs by a nominee after taking the bar exam are grounds to not clear the background information and prevent the nominee from advancing,” said Ms. Feinstein, California Democrat.

Sen. Richard Durbin, the Illinois Democrat who raised the issue, said Republicans prevented two judicial nominees — one during the Clinton administration, another during the Obama administration — from being confirmed based on their admission of marijuana use.

“I saw in those two instances how good people, because of a mistake they made in a young part of their lives, were disqualified for a lifetime federal service on the bench. I just think it was wrong,” Mr. Durbin said.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, Vermont Democrat, recalled during the George W. Bush administration, a key member of the Justice Department was involved in cocaine use.

“But the Republicans on the committee said, ‘We really need him in the Department of Justice.’ He was confirmed,” Mr. Leahy said without identifying the Bush figure. “Let us make sure we are consistent.”

Marijuana use has snared major nominees quite publicly before. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan’s U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg withdrew his nomination after controversy arose from him admitting to using the drug “on a few occasions” in the 1970s, including with his students while he was a professor at Harvard Law School.

“You like to think people who are appointed to the Supreme Court respect the law,” Mr. Grassley said at the time, according to The New York Times.

Tom Angell, chairman of Marijuana Majority, said it’s time to replace marijuana prohibition laws, adding that he was encouraged to see the senators acknowledge shifting public attitudes.

“Consuming cannabis should not be a barrier to employment for anyone unless it somehow impedes job performance. That’s especially true for marijuana use that occurred years or decades in the past,” said Mr. Angell. “But it’s also ridiculous that Feinstein and Grassley seem to think that using marijuana three times should prevent otherwise qualified nominees from being duly considered.”

 

[Baron23]

This is outrageous. These sniveling, big pharma suck up politicians and bureaucrats will make a pharma MJ product Schedule II and in the same breath, and with a straight fucking face, they say that full MJ has no medical use. What assholes.

DEA finalizing Schedule II status for synthetic THC drug Syndros
"Marijuana does not have an approved medical use and therefore remains in Schedule I,” officials wrote in the filing


The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration this week will grant Schedule II status to a synthetic THC drug developed by a pharmaceutical firm beset with controversy.

The DEA on Wednesday is expected to finalize the previously suggested Schedule II status for Syndros, the FDA-approved liquid dronabinol drug developed by Insys Therapeutics, the Chandler, Ariz.-based pharmaceutical company that last year donated to a campaign opposing marijuana legalization and last month saw its founder arrested on fraud and racketeering charges.

John Kapoor and other executives were accused of providing kickbacks to doctors to prescribe the company’s Subsys fentanyl spray, a highly addictive and potentially deadly opioid painkiller. Prior to Kapoor’s arrest, Insys was party to several investigations, lawsuits and enforcement actions related to Subsys.

Syndros’ advancement, approval and scheduling have been viewed by analysts as potentially positive developments for the firm.

Insys launched Syndros in late July as a treatment to help alleviate nausea and vomiting in chemotherapy patients and to address anorexia-associated weight loss in AIDS patients. Syndros generated $700,000 in revenue during the first two months, company officials said earlier this month.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the new drug application for Syndros and, alongside the Department of Health and Human Services, provided a scheduling recommendation for the drug. DEA officials concurred, noting that the drug would have the same abuse potential as other substances classified as Schedule II, according to the preliminary, “unpublished,” filing made Tuesday in the Federal Register.

Schedule II substances include Vicodin, cocaine, oxycodone and Adderall.

In the final rule filing, the DEA noted that four comments were submitted in support of the Schedule II listing while four comments were submitted in opposition.

More on Insys

• Pharma CEO who funded anti-cannabis campaign accused of giving docs kickbacks to prescribe opioids
• New Jersey sues painkiller company, calling its methods “evil”
• Synthetic THC drug Syndros poised for Schedule II classification
• The non-weed biz world is zeroing in on legalization
• A casino magnate’s spending millions against pot. Here’s who’s also donating for (and against) legalization

Of the latter, one indicated the dichotomy between Syndros garnering Schedule II status while marijuana remained in the stricter classification of Schedule I. Two commenters expressed concern that pharmaceutical firms were profiting from approved drugs containing marijuana constituents and another commenter noted that the FDA should not approve drug containing any constituents of marijuana.

“The DEA notes that FDA-approved products of oral solutions containing dronabinol have an approved medical use, whereas marijuana does not have an approved medical use and therefore remains in Schedule I,” DEA officials wrote in the filing.

Marijuana advocates have blasted Insys for its stance opposing cannabis legalization. The company donated $500,000 to the campaign against marijuana legalization in Arizona and has expressed concerns about “natural cannabis” and the legalization of marijuana in regulatory filings.

Company officials previously have told The Cannabist that synthetic drugs are highly reliable and consistent and can meet the rigorous demands of the FDA process and subsequent commercialization.

Insys officials were not immediately available early Tuesday morning to respond to The Cannabist’s before-hours request for comment.

 

[CarolKing]

Literature Review: "Substantial" Clinical Evidence Supports Medical Cannabis Efficacy
Tuesday, 21 November 2017


Boston, MA: Substantial clinical trial data exists to support the efficacy of medical cannabis in the treatment of chronic pain conditions, pediatric epilepsy, and multiple sclerosis, according to a literature review published online ahead of print in the journal Polish Archives of Internal Medicine.

Investigators from Harvard Medical School and New York Medical College reviewed randomized, placebo-controlled studies assessing the administration of medical cannabis in various patient populations.

Authors identified "moderate to high" quality evidence in support of the efficacy of cannabis for chronic/neuropathic pain, spasticity associated with multiple sclerosis, and seizures. There exists "substantial evidence supporting the efficacy of medical cannabis pharmacotherapy" in the treatment of these disorders, researchers concluded. They identified "moderate" quality evidence in support of the efficacy of cannabis in the treatment of HIV/AIDS and gastrointestinal disorders.

"As medical cannabis laws continue to be passed internationally, patient requests for medical cannabis will likely increase," they concluded. "Physicians must take the same steps with these patients as they would with prescribing any other medications to ensure that medical cannabis is recommended appropriately and as safely as possible. ... Cannabis is often used for recreational purposes, but this should not affect how physicians view data collected on its efficacy at treating certain medical conditions."

For more information, contact Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director, at: paul@norml.org. Full text of the study, "Medical cannabis for the treatment of chronic pain and other disorders: misconceptions and facts," appears in the Polish Archives of Internal Medicine.

 

[Baron23]

I don't know what they are like elsewhere, but the Maryland MPP site is completely and utterly useless and out of date. As far as I can tell, its there just to raise money.

Pro-legalization group Marijuana Policy Project overhauls leadership
Executive director Rob Kampia is changing roles: "I'm energized to help identify a new executive director to finish the job of ending marijuana prohibition in the U.S."


By Alex Pasquariello, The Cannabist Staff

The man behind more than half of the successful state-level medical and recreational marijuana legalization efforts is stepping down as leader of the marijuana law reform organization he helped found.

The national advocacy group Marijuana Policy Project announced Tuesday that co-founder and executive director Rob Kampia will transition from executive director to a new role focused on strategic development. He will continue to serve on the nonprofit organization’s board of directors, according to the announcement.

Matt Schweich, MPP’s director of state campaigns since 2015, will serve as interim director while the organization searches for a new executive director over the next six months.

Marijuana Policy Project announced Tuesday Rob Kampia is stepping down from his role as the organization’s executive director. (Courtesy Marijuana Policy Project)
“I’m honored to have served as executive director, I’m excited the board chose the person I nominated to serve as interim executive director, and I’m energized to help identify a new executive director to finish the job of ending marijuana prohibition in the U.S.,” Kampia said in a statement released Tuesday.

Kampia said that when he co-founded MPP in 1995, medical marijuana was still illegal in all 50 states. Under his leadership, MPP orchestrated successful campaigns for medical marijuana in more than a dozen states. In 2012, he helped lead MPP’s groundbreaking campaign for Colorado’s marijuana-legalizing Amendment 64 ballot initiative and then scaled the strategy to pass similar ballot measures legalizing adult-use marijuana in Alaska in 2014, and then Maine, Massachusetts and Nevada in 2016. The organization’s 2016 push for legalization in Arizona fell short.

MPP in the news

• Michigan cannabis legalization advocates have raised half a million dollars to get on 2018 ballot
• ‘Cards Against Humanity’ is also ‘Cards against weed prohibition’
• Marijuana Policy Project’s bank closing account amid fears of DOJ crackdown
• Michigan marijuana legalization advocates launching ballot initiative
• House bill seeks to protect individuals in legal marijuana states from the feds

His tenure leading MPP was not without controversy. In January 2010, he was forced by the board of directors to take a three-month medical leave of absence in the wake of a sexual misconduct scandal that led seven staffers to resign, according to The Washington Post.

“I wasn’t nearly careful enough in considering other people’s feelings with my actions and my language,” he told The Washington Post at the time. “I’ve also learned I’m capable of change because, overnight, we changed the culture of MPP.”

In his statement Tuesday, Kampia said he was looking forward to spending more time on Capitol Hill to lobby and help craft legislation for national marijuana legalization.

“I want to thank the MPP board for dedicating sufficient resources to allow me to focus on strategy and fundraising, while liberating me from managerial duties and other responsibilities,” he said.

 

[momofthegoons]

As far as I can tell, its there just to raise money.

Lol... pardon me for my cynicism.... but isn't this the way of most 501C3's? And my bet is that there's probably some Executive Director or other employee of this organization skimming off those profits charging his lunch at Taco Bell, etc.

 

[Baron23]

This seems to support my personal view that neither side in our polorized political scene has the high ground on prohibitionist actions. Each want to impose their view of 'correct' personal behavior on us....adult, consenting, informed USA citizens. Oh, and I really hate when people wrap themselves in the flag of "oh, but what about the children" to justify their efforts to control our behavior. Yeah, you parents...what about your children and what you about bringing them up. The entire country is NOT your nursery.

The Promise of Legal Pot
America came close to legalizing marijuana in the 1970s. What went wrong?
By Max Holleran
November 27, 2017

Marijuana permeated every aspect of hippie culture in 1960s: Think of Merry Pranksters sitting atop a Volkswagen bus smoking a branch-sized doobie. Allen Ginsberg, Jack Kerouac, and Janis Joplin all smoked marijuana. Joints, supplied by Bob Dylan, “turned on” the Beatles in 1964 at the same time that their music was shifting from the saccharine pop of the 1950s to the sitar-laced grooviness of the 1960s. Marijuana was not just the iconic substance of a decade, like absinthe in 1920s Paris, or tea in Victorian England. Smoking marijuana was also a formative act.

GRASS ROOTS: THE RISE AND FALL AND RISE OF MARIJUANA IN AMERICA by Emily DuftonBasic Books, 320 pp., $28.00

Young people smoked both because they liked getting high and because they felt that marijuana built community, creating a ritual that was political as well as social. It separated them from their elders, who were shocked by the social changes of the era. Most importantly, it was illegal: Taking a toke in public was a micro act of resistance against the state which, at the time, locked young people away for partaking in mood-enhancing THC while encouraging them to dump napalm on Vietnam.

Grass Roots: the Rise and Fall and Rise of Marijuana in America by Emily Dufton, a new history of the fight to legalize marijuana, is geared toward Americans for whom marijuana increasingly means more than hippie culture, or the African American culture around jazz music before it. The anti-conformist culture lives on, but supplemented by a whole range of medical, therapeutic and other uses. Masseuses from Seattle to Denver rub cannabis oil on the achy muscles of their patients. Books like Grow Your Own and Herb offer directions on cooking everything from apple pie to pasta to granola using cannabis. Americans may now walk by medical marijuana dispensaries on their streets and encounter full legalization initiatives on their ballots. Dufton’s book provocatively asks (and answers) the question: Why did this take so long?

The short answer is that marijuana was almost legalized by Generation 68ers who had copiously sampled it in places like Haight-Ashbury and Greenwich Village. It was decriminalized in many states in the mid-1970s—even in Mississippi, South Dakota, and other states not known for their counterculture scenes. Marijuana legalization was supported by a variety of social movements with very different claims to moral legitimacy. First, hippies advocated for legal pot because it was going to change society and “turn people on.” Everyone was encouraged to smoke as well as experiment with other drugs, including substances such as LSD and cocaine, which were not considered inordinately risky.

The focus of Grass Roots is how that legalization movement was subsequently challenged by another kind of activist group: concerned parents, who wrestled away government attention from decriminalization efforts and advocated for protecting children. Dufton shows that these activists were not, initially, conservatives scandalized by their kids’ long hair and electric guitar music. They were often progressive community activists who had supported civil rights and were concerned about how adolescent marijuana use would tear apart young people’s lives, creating long-term health affects and leading to harder drugs. The efforts of these groups were gustily taken up by the zero-tolerance Reagan administration but were also distorted through the professionalization of the War on Drugs—which was left to law enforcement with little patience for community building. This heavy-handed approach continued until the late 1990s when the Just Say No status quo was finally challenged by social justice initiatives concerned with mass incarceration.

The history of marijuana legalization highlights two shameful aspects of U.S. drug policy: the tendency to militarize public health problems, leaving social issues in the hands of SWAT teams, and the stark disparity between drug enforcement for whites and African Americans, many of whom served lengthy sentences for marijuana possession up until the past decade.

Although Richard Nixon had taken a harsh stance on marijuana in his War on Drugs, by the time Jimmy Carter took office in 1977, the national approach to drug enforcement had drastically shifted. Nixon’s policies around marijuana had betrayed his own paranoia about young people and social change; he warned in private that “every one of the bastards that are out for legalizing marijuana is Jewish.” But Nixon’s successor, Gerald Ford, was less committed to the War on Drugs. First Lady Betty Ford even told reporters that she “assumed” her children had tried marijuana and that if she were their age she would “be smoking a joint herself.”

Several years later, First Lady Rosalynn Carter effectively concurred, saying that she hoped her children would be honest with her about marijuana and that her husband, while not a fan of full legalization, would support decriminalization. When Carter took office, he appointed the physician and anthropologist Peter Bourne to oversee decriminalization. Bourne, who eventually resigned amid scandal, began to collaborate with more controversial legalization activists such as Keith Stroup, the founder of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). The partnership between marijuana activists and the federal government was practical rather than ideological: Budgets were limited and, much like today, stoned teenagers in the drive-through line made little impression amid a slew of heroin overdoses.

At the same time, some Americans were worried about the ubiquity of drug culture. Main Street shops openly sold bongs and marijuana leaf tchotchkes for customers who didn’t bother to move off the sidewalk, or look out for children, when they lit up joints. The public display of marijuana culture became a point of concern because of the rapid displacement of drug taboos. It became likelier than ever that children would grow up regarding marijuana use, and maybe experimentation with other drugs, as entirely normal.

Dufton zeroes in on one parent activist in particular: Marsha Schuchard. Schuchard, an Atlanta liberal with a Ph.D., co-founded the group Parents’ Resource Institute on Drug Education (PRIDE) after witnessing her adolescent daughter’s friends unabashedly getting stoned at her backyard birthday party. Dufton argues that activists like Schuchard, comprised of well-educated and socially progressive parents, were dismayed by the carelessness of decriminalization policies, which did not make an effort to shield children from soft drugs. Schuchard, who began with a crusade against paraphernalia, eventually came to believe that the drug problem “was not heroin addiction, which affected a small marginalized population, but pot-smoking, which touched so many families.”

By 1980, over 300 parents’ groups had formed in 34 states. President Reagan was far more eager to hear from them and steer financial resources in their direction than his predecessors had been. Some of the activists were suburbanites upset with their children getting stoned in the dark corners of the neighborhood cul-de-sac, no matter how other activists echoed the new Administration’s grimmer forecast about the effects of soft drugs on society. For the Reaganites, even soft drugs were an existential menace to American progress and were to be rooted out using strong-armed policing and long prison sentences. Joan Brann, an African American Oakland resident, worked at the State Department, before starting Oakland Parents in Action, an organization that aimed to combat drug use in a largely low-income black community. Even though Brann got her start in the milieu of radical black activism, she nonetheless supported Reagan’s harsher drug laws as a means to save her community from drug addiction. It was during a visit to her group’s headquarters that Nancy Reagan lifted the motto “Just Say No.”

It’s doubtful that parent activists would have been so successful if marijuana had not always been a racialized substance.
By the time the Reagans earnestly faced the nation on television, sitting rigidly hand-in-hand and imploring young people to “Just Say No,” adolescent drug use was already declining. But that would not stop the president from pushing through harsh new laws with mandatory minimum sentences for marijuana dealers, whose transgressions were folded into the moral panic of the crack epidemic.

Where Grass Roots falls short is in its discussion of drugs and race. Dufton observes how drug laws disproportionately affect African Americans, writing that “marijuana, and the activism surrounding it, has rarely been about the drug itself. Instead, debates over cannabis have always centered on the people who use it and whether they’re benefiting from the drug or being harmed by it.” Even though “blacks and whites use marijuana in equal numbers,” she reminds us that “African Americans face a far greater threat of arrest and incarceration.” With so many unjustly imprisoned, she points out the urgency of decriminalizing marijuana.

Yet, Dufton does not tell in any detail the story of black and Latino activists working toward decriminalization, relying instead on a summary of Michelle Alexander’s important book The New Jim Crow. Nor does she flesh out how all drugs, not just hard drugs, are connected to racial fears. Parent activists were instrumental in pushing for new drug laws in the 1980s but it’s doubtful their agenda would have been so successful if marijuana had not always been a racialized substance: smoked by Harlem jazz musicians and Latino farm workers, who bestowed the drug’s very name. In the popular imagination drug users morphed from urban social outlaws to suburban kids in varsity jackets, but the penalties ratcheted up by the Reagan administration fit the fears of the latter. Harsh laws were largely aimed at dealers, who were still imagined as misfits, foreigners, and, all importantly, the black underclass, a community supposedly beset with pathologies.

While parent activism is an important and understudied piece of marijuana enforcement history, it doesn’t quite get at why parents were so afraid. Concern for children may have helped slow down decriminalization efforts, but the association of all drugs with urban black communities is what created absurdly harsh jail sentences.

Grass Roots reorients the celebratory drug legalization story that is so often told today in a number of ways. It challenges the chronology by showing how close the United States previously came to acceptance of marijuana before a new climate of fear swooped in. (This is a point worth remembering now that the avowedly anti-pot Jeff Sessions is Attorney General, a man who once joked that he didn’t see anything wrong with the KKK until he found out they liked to get stoned). Dufton is also even-handed in her treatment of anti-drug activists, taking seriously both their concerns for child safety and the potential effects of the cavalier attitude members of organizations like NORML took toward marijuana.

Last, by making the history of legalization about activist groups, Dufton shows how the debate over marijuana played out among numerous camps, many of whom never saw eye-to-eye: the weed revolutionaries, who used the drug (amongst a smorgasbord of pharmacological options) to open the doors of perception; the libertarians staking claim to freedom from excessive government control; patients using marijuana as medicine; people of color organizing against excessive sentencing for nonviolent crimes; and “green” entrepreneurs betting that an end to prohibition will bring them a windfall. Dufton takes on all of these voices in the battle for legalization while giving equal attention to those who fought against marijuana on the grounds of public health and child safety.

The sad irony of the long saga for marijuana legalization is that much of the hippie generation may only experience legal weed at the end of their lives as a medical supplement for terminal illness—unless the current legalization trend speeds up and circumvents federal resistance. National public opinion toward marijuana use softened dramatically during the AIDS crisis when young men dying in San Francisco hospitals were given edibles by the grandmotherly weed activist “Brownie” Mary Rathbun. Yet, even with sympathetic examples like these the acceptance of medical marijuana was slow. When medical marijuana was first legalized, the patients were typically people dying of cancer, who already had access to a pharmacopeia of opiates, hoping only for relief from nauseating chemotherapy treatments. Even this was begrudged for years.

Now, millions of Americans have access to marijuana without a doctor’s note and, to many, the end of prohibition is just over the horizon. However, Dufton’s book shows not just the caprice of U.S. drug policy, but how quickly and dramatically the legal and social changes called for by the hippie generation were quashed, creating a backlash still felt today.

 

[Baron23]

For a list of the signatures on this letter, please follow link in the article title. You should look at this and if your House Representative isn't on it, ask them wtf not!

66 Congress members make plea to extend protection for medical marijuana states

The letter about the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer appropriations bill provision that targets DOJ spending on marijuana prosecutions was signed by five of Colorado's seven House representatives

With the current federal appropriations bill set to expire Dec. 8, there’s a new bipartisan call for continuing protection of medical marijuana states.

Two congressmen behind a namesake provision for medical cannabis, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-California, and Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Oregon, on Wednesday sent a letter co-signed by 64 of their peers to House and Senate leadership.

The letter, addressed to Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer, House Speaker Paul Ryan and Democratic leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi, urged them to extend the “Rohrabacher-Blumenauer” provision that has been in place since December 2014, which “has successfully protected patients, providers, and businesses against federal prosecution, so long as they act within the confines of their state’s medical marijuana laws.”

The missive also listed the 46 states, along with two U.S. territories and the District of Columbia, which have enacted some form of legalization of medical cannabis, “from CBD oils to the full plant.”

Related: Sessions says DOJ just talked “at some length” about marijuana enforcement
It was signed by five of Colorado’s seven House representatives: Republicans Ken Buck and Mike Coffman; and Democrats Diana DeGette, Ed Perlmutter and Jared Polis. Republicans Scott Tipton and Doug Lamborn did not sign it.

The measure, previously known as “Rohrabacher-Farr” (Rep. Sam Farr retired in 2016), prevents the Justice Department from using its resources to pursue prosecutions involving cannabis when a state’s medical marijuana laws have been followed, and its presence has had an impact in federal courts.

Earlier this year, a judge suspended the case of two California men who had pleaded guilty to a federal charge of conspiring to manufacture and sell marijuana; the judge cited the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer amendment in what is believed to be the first such ruling of its kind.

Another case involved medical marijuana growers in Washington state, who were convicted in 2015. In October, federal prosecutors acknowledged they shouldn’t have spent taxpayer dollars on the trial.

The provision has been targeted by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who in May sent a letter of his own to congressional leadership asking that it not be included in the appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2018, stating: “It would be unwise for Congress to restrict the discretion of the Department to fund particular prosecutions, particularly in the midst of an historic drug epidemic and potentially long-term uptick in violent crime.”

Earlier this year, the measure was approved in the Senate version of the spending bill, but not the House’s.

The Senate Appropriations Committee included the amendment language in the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2018. In September, the measure was rejected from consideration for a floor vote by GOP leadership in the House Rules Committee.

 

[Baron23]

I must say I can't really stand this lady and believe that her populist stances are just more DC self-serving, political theater (...well, that and her 'style branding' of the 3/4 sleeves (very celebrity like). But as with almost anyone, there is common ground and on this issue, Sen Warren and I agree completely.

Elizabeth Warren Demands Answers About Marijuana
In her 21-page letter addressed to the Health and Human Services Secretary nominee Alex Azar, Senator Elizabeth Warren demands answers about marijuana.

In a letter addressed to the nominee for the Department of Human and Health Services, Elizabeth Warren demands answers about marijuana. The nominee in question is Alex Azar. Chosen by Donald Trump, Azar formerly served as the president of a major pharmaceutical company in the United States. Here’s what Senator Warren wants him to answer.


Senator Warren And Weed

The world of politics is pretty hazy right now.

In case you need a refresher, Elizabeth Warren is a United States senator hailing from the great state of Massachusetts. Elected in 2012 as a member of the Democratic Party, she’s a popular figure among party members, both in her state and throughout the country. As a politician, she champions causes like LGBT rights, abortion rights and better healthcare.

And speaking of health, she supports both medical and recreational cannabis.

Two years ago, Senator Warren urged the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study the use of cannabis as a means to combat the nation’s opioid epidemic. Specifically, to study the application of cannabis as a replacement for the overprescribed painkillers that are easily abused.

That was two years ago, and the opioid epidemic is still in crisis mode. The situation is dire, and she isn’t backing down.


In a 21-page letter to Trump’s nominee for the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services, Elizabeth Warren demands answers about marijuana.

“Medical marijuana has the potential to mitigate the effects of the opioid crisis,” she wrote. Warren cites relevant data from Colorado to support her assertion. She then asks the following questions:

1. As HHS Secretary, what would you do to further study this potential alternative to opioids?
2. Are you committed to implementing evidence-based policies regarding its use?
3. What steps will you take to improve our knowledge of the potential therapeutic benefits of marijuana when used for medical purposes?

Senator Warren is a member of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP).

Alex Azar

Reuters


Today, Alex Azar testified before HELP in a preliminary hearing before his confirmation hearing.

From 2001 to 2007, Azar worked under former President George W. Bush in the Department of Health and Human Services. First General Counsel in 2001, he shot up the ladder to Deputy Secretary in 2005. His last year in the position was in 2007.

Between then and now, Azar enjoyed high-ranking positions in Eli Lilly and Company—a major, global pharmaceutical company. From 2007 to 2009, he was the company’s premiere lobbyist. And then, from 2012 to January 2017, he was the President of Lilly USA, LLC. This position put him in charge of the largest branch of the company. Under his leadership, drug prices skyrocketed.

Eli Lilly has the distinction of being the first pharmaceutical company to mass-produce life-saving drugs, like the polio vaccine, penicillin and insulin. They are also the leading manufacturers of Methadone and Prozac.

Final Hit: Elizabeth Warren Demands Answers About Marijuana
In an age where everything in Washington seems to be clouded with uncertainty, it’s nice to know that there are at least a few politicians who are fighting the good fight. Even though HELP doesn’t have an authoritative role in the confirmation of Alex Azar, Senator Warren is doing her part to bring pressing matters to the forefront. We can only hope that the right people take her concerns and questions into consideration when it’s time for the full Senate to vote on this nominee.

 

[momofthegoons]

You should look at this and if your House Representative isn't on it, ask them wtf not!

Looks like I'll be doing some questioning. I don't see one signature on there from Michigan.

 

[CarolKing]

Rolling Stone looks at efforts to accurately label marijuana strains and their areas of origin.
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/inside-the-battle-to-accurately-label-pot-w512688

 

[momofthegoons]

GOP Senator Pulls Back Marijuana Tax Amendment
By
Tom Angell December 2, 2017

Despite saying this week that he would offer an amendment to help marijuana businesses achieve tax fairness, Republican U.S. Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado did not end up forcing colleagues to vote on the issue during consideration of a broad GOP-led tax reform bill.

As a result, the measure, which would have exempted cannabis growers and retailers who operate legally under state law from a federal penalty on illegal drug sellers, is not currently attached to a broad tax reform bill that Republicans are working to send to President Trump’s desk by the end of the year.

Following a lengthy session during which other members offered various amendments, the Senate approved the legislation on a largely party-line vote early Saturday morning with a margin of 51 to 49.

Gardner was unsure he had enough support in the chamber to approve the amendment in light of the $5 billion price tag that Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation reportedly scored it with.



Because the tax bill was being considered under a budget reconciliation process that allowed Republicans to avoid a filibuster and advance the proposal with 51 votes instead of 60, the overall plan needed to avoid increasing the deficit by more than $1.5 trillion over the next decade.

Since Gardner’s measure, while focused on allowing marijuana operators to be taxed fairly like other businesses, would in effect amount to a cut from their current rates, it would reduce revenue and add to the deficit.

Nonetheless, conservative anti-tax group Americans for Tax Reform included the measure in a list of “key votes,” calling it “good tax policy.”

“Support for the legislation should not be conflated with support or opposition to legalizing cannabis,” the organization wrote. “Instead, this amendment is about ensuring the federal government does not use the tax code to discriminate against legal businesses.”

Under current federal law, a 1980s provision — section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code — effectively forces cannabis businesses to pay a much higher tax rate than other companies.

“No deduction or credit shall be allowed for any amount paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business if such trade or business (or the activities which comprise such trade or business) consists of trafficking in controlled substances (within the meaning of schedule I and II of the Controlled Substances Act) which is prohibited by Federal law or the law of any State in which such trade or business is conducted.”

The statute was originally intended to to stop drug cartel leaders from writing off yachts and expensive cars, but today its language means that that state-licensed growers, processors and sellers of marijuana — which is still a Schedule I substance under federal law — can’t take business expense deductions that are available to operators in other sectors.

As a result, cannabis businesses often pay an effective tax rate upwards of 65-75 percent, compared with a normal rate of around 15-30 percent.

“Our current tax code puts thousands of legal marijuana businesses throughout Colorado at a disadvantage by treating them differently than other businesses across the state,” Gardner said in a press release upon cosponsoring a standalone bill to reform the provision last month. “Coloradans made their voices heard in 2012 when they legalized marijuana and it’s time for the federal government to allow Colorado businesses to compete. This commonsense, bipartisan bill will allow small businesses in Colorado and other states that have legal marijuana businesses to grow their operations, create jobs, and boost the economy.”

The marijuana reform provision was also not included in the version of the tax legislation recently passed by the House, where that chamber’s Rules Committee blocked floor consideration of an amendment on the issue two weeks ago.

Now, a bicameral conference committee will hammer out the overall differences between the two chambers’ bills into a single proposal that can be sent to the president. It is technically possible that the cannabis amendment could still be inserted in conference, though it would be unusual for congressional leaders to attach a provision that wasn’t approved by either chamber and which concerns a still fairly controversial issue like marijuana.

A standalone House bill to shield state-legal marijuana businesses from 280E has 40 cosponsors. The companion Senate legislation has six cosponsors.

 

[momofthegoons]

I find this interesting... and could have some bearing on why they want to tax cannabis to the extent they do.

Study: Alcohol Sales Fall Following Cannabis Legalization
by Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy DirectorDecember 1, 2017

Sales of alcoholic beverages decline following the enactment of medical marijuana access laws, according to a working paperauthored by a team of researchers from the University of Connecticut and Georgia State University.

Authors evaluated the relationship between medical marijuana laws and retail alcohol sales for more than 2,000 US counties for the years 2006 to 2015. Alcohol sales trends in medical cannabis states were compared to sales trends in states where cannabis remained illegal. Researchers determined that counties located in medical cannabis states, on average, experienced a reduction in monthly alcohol sales of 15 percent.

Researchers concluded: “We find that marijuana and alcohol are strong substitutes. … States legalizing medical marijuana use experience significant decreases in the aggregate sale of alcohol, beer and wine. Moreover, the effects are not short-lived, with significant reductions observed up to 24 months after the passage of the law.”

Consumer trend data from California reports that those with legal access to cannabis frequently reduce their alcohol intake. A 2016 analysis of beer sales in Colorado, Oregon, and Washington reported that retail sales “collectively underperformed” in the years following the enactment of adult use marijuana regulation.

Full text of the study, “Helping settle the marijuana and alcohol debate: Evidence from scanner data,” appears online here.

 

[Baron23]

Oh yeah...the old phrase "follow the money" has never been more true than in the cannabis arena.

Definitely the money changers in Solomon's Temple.

Cheers

 

[Baron23]

"The court’s decision, expected by June, could also affect other conflicts between federal and state authorities. At Monday’s argument, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said some forms of federal regulation of marijuana could be threatened by a ruling that allows sports betting."

Justices Skeptical of Sports Gambling Ban

WASHINGTON — A federal law that effectively bans commercial sports gambling across most of the nation faced skepticism at the Supreme Court on Monday. A majority of the justices indicated that the law had crossed a constitutional line by requiring states to do the bidding of the federal government.

New Jersey is leading the challenge to the law, and Chris Christie, the state’s governor, watched the argument from the front row.

Americans are estimated to annually place $150 billion in illegal wagers on sports. If the Supreme Court strikes down the law, dozens of states could quickly make such wagers legal and reap tax revenues from them.

The court’s decision, expected by June, could also affect other conflicts between federal and state authorities. At Monday’s argument, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said some forms of federal regulation of marijuana could be threatened by a ruling that allows sports betting.

The betting law, the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992, prohibited states from authorizing sports gambling. It exempted Nevada, where sports betting has long been legal, along with sports lotteries in Delaware, Montana and Oregon. Other states were given a year to opt in, but none acted in time.


In 2011, though, as casinos in Atlantic City were losing revenue, voters in New Jersey amended its state Constitution to allow sports betting, and the state Legislature soon passed a law authorizing it. The four major sports leagues successfully challenged the state law as a violation of the federal one.

In 2014, the Legislature tried a new approach, partly repealing its existing bans on sports betting to allow it at racetracks and casinos. The leagues again sued and won.

In the Supreme Court, the federal law faced headwinds.

“The citizens of the State of New Jersey are bound to obey a law that the state doesn’t want but that the federal government compels the state to have,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said.

He said that crossed a constitutional line and blurred the political accountability of elected officials. “The citizen doesn’t know,” he said. “Is this coming from the federal government? Is this coming from the state government? That’s precisely what federalism is designed to prevent.”

The Supreme Court has said that the federal government may not commandeer state resources to achieve federal objectives. On the other hand, the court has said that the federal government may regulate all sorts of things directly and that federal laws pre-empt contrary state laws under the Constitution’s supremacy clause.


Most of Monday’s argument in Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 16-476, was an effort to decide whether the 1992 law amounted to unconstitutional commandeering or permissible pre-emption.

Theodore B. Olson, a lawyer for New Jersey, said the law was a “direct command” to the states rather than a federal effort to regulate sports betting.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer proposed a distinction. The federal government can first make a policy determination to regulate an activity, he said. “Once it makes that determination, it can forbid state laws inconsistent with that determination,” he said. “That’s called pre-emption.” What it cannot do, he added, “is to tell the state how to legislate.”

Mr. Olson agreed. “I wish I had said that myself, Justice Breyer,” he said.

Justice Elena Kagan did not seem fully persuaded, asking whether state officials were required to do anything in particular by the 1992 law. “Who is being conscripted in order to do what here?” she asked.

Paul D. Clement, a lawyer for the sports leagues and Mr. Olson’s successor as solicitor general in the George W. Bush administration, said the 1992 law was part of a set of regulations establishing federal policy. “Congress in all of these statutes did not want there to be sports gambling schemes operating in interstate commerce,” he said.

Jeffrey B. Wall, a deputy solicitor general who argued in support of the leagues, said New Jersey was not entitled to repeal only a part of its law, thereby “channeling sports gambling to particular state-preferred providers.” He added that the federal government would not object to a wholesale repeal of the state law.

“The problem that Congress was confronting was state sponsored and sanctioned sports gambling schemes,” Mr. Wall said. “It didn’t care if I bet with my buddy on the Redskins game or we had an office pool. It wasn’t going after all sports gambling.”

For most of the argument, the lawyers and the justices ignored the potential consequences of a decision striking down the law. Toward the end, though, Mr. Olson noted that billions of dollars were at stake.

“Nevada has sports betting, and it has it regulated,” he said. “What I’m saying is, and all of the evidence supports this, that betting on sports is taking place all over the United States. Five percent of it is legal in Nevada. The rest of it is illegal. New Jersey decided we are going to look at it.”

 

[Baron23]

"If the Supreme Court were to adopt it, Congress could potentially enact laws blocking states from legalizing almost any activity they previously banned, except perhaps in cases where they do so without leaving any regulatory restrictions in place at all. That will potentially constrain state experimentation on a wide range of issues including drug legalization, licensing reform, gun control, land use restrictions, environmental policy, and many, many others. Almost all such legalization initiatives leave some regulations in place. For example, state marijuana legalization laws often limit sales to specially licensed establishments, and continue to forbid sales to minors, among other restrictions."


Place your bets on federalism — thoughts on today’s oral argument in Christie v. NCAA

This morning, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Christie v. NCAA, an important federalism case. The case involves an effort by the NCAA and various professional sports leagues to block New Jersey’s effort to partially legalize sports gambling under state law. Overall, the argument went well for New Jersey, and badly for the NCAA and its allies (including the federal government).

That’s not only good news for sports bettors, it’s also good news for constitutional federalism. The case has implications that go far beyond the specific issue of gambling. If the NCAA were to prevail, the federal government would have a free hand to block many state efforts to legalize activities previously forbidden under state law. Fortunately, it appears that a majority of the justices don’t want to gamble away federalism.

The sports leagues contend that New Jersey’s 2012 and 2014 laws partly legalizing sports betting are illegal because they violate the federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), which mandates that states may not “sponsor, operate, advertise, promote, license, or authorize by law or compact” sports betting. New Jersey’s legalization law, the leagues contend, qualifies as “authorization.”

This provision of PASPA clashes with Tenth Amendment, which the Supreme Court has long interpreted as banning “commandeering” of the states, in cases such as Printz v. United States (1997) and New York v. United States (1992). The federal government cannot require state officials to help enforce federal law, or force state legislatures to enact any legislation. To get around this constitutional constraint, the NCAA and its allies claim that there is a difference between mere legalization of sports betting under state law and “affirmative authorization” of gambling. The latter, supposedly, can be banned by Congress even if the former cannot. The New Jersey law, they claim, qualifies as “authorization” because it regulates sports betting in various ways and confines it to particular locations, such as Atlantic City casinos, and current and former race tracks.

This distinction was endorsed by the lower court in its ruling in favor of the NCAA. If the Supreme Court were to adopt it, Congress could potentially enact laws blocking states from legalizing almost any activity they previously banned, except perhaps in cases where they do so without leaving any regulatory restrictions in place at all. That will potentially constrain state experimentation on a wide range of issues including drug legalization, licensing reform, gun control, land use restrictions, environmental policy, and many, many others. Almost all such legalization initiatives leave some regulations in place. For example, state marijuana legalization laws often limit sales to specially licensed establishments, and continue to forbid sales to minors, among other restrictions.

Fortunately, today’s oral argument reveals that most of the justices don’t buy this attempt to circumvent the constitutional rule against commandeering. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a key swing voter in many Supreme Court federalism cases, put the issue well in his very first question to Paul Clement, the famous “super-lawyer” representing the sports leagues:

[PASPA] leaves in place a state law that the state does not want, so the citizens of the State of New Jersey are bound to obey a law that the state doesn’t want but that the federal government compels the state to have. That seems commandeering.

Justice Stephen Breyer, a liberal who in the past has not been sympathetic to state anti-commandeering claims, made a similar point. As he put it, “the subject matter of this law is the state. That’s what this is about, telling states what to do, and therefore, it falls within commandeering.”

Breyer and Kennedy are exactly right. Forcing states to either maintain laws that ban sports gambling or legalize the activity completely is indeed a form of commandeering, because it it is “telling states what to do” (Breyer) and forces a state to keep in place “a law that the state doesn’t want” (Kennedy) As Paul Clement admitted in his response to Kennedy, “partial repeal [of state anti-gambling laws] is forbidden” by PASPA. That imposes a major constraint on states’ control of their own laws.

Justice Elena Kagan asked Clement to explain “what’s the difference between saying you must pass a certain piece of legislation and saying you must maintain a piece of legislation on the books?” Clement was forced to admit that “I don’t think that there is a distinction necessarily between those two.” If there is no meaningful distinction, then surely both qualify as commandeering.

At various times during the oral argument, Justices Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor suggested that PASPA may be constitutional because it is similar to federal laws that preempt conflicting state laws. Congress does indeed have the power to override state laws that conflict with federal legislation. But preemption does not typically force a state to make an activity illegal under the state’s own laws, or require it to either legalize the activity completely or keep current laws banning it on the books indefinitely. Preemption merely prevents the states from interfering with federal enforcement efforts, or – in some cases – from regulating private activity that the federal government wishes to leave free. It does not force states to keep existing state laws on the books, and it does not prevent states from partially repealing them.

It is fair to ask, as some of the justices did, whether New Jersey’s authority to partially legalize sports gambling under state law matters very much in a world where Congress could potentially just enact its own law banning the activity. The answer is that it matters a great deal. The federal government’s law enforcement resources are often very limited, and it is difficult for it to effectively enforce laws against a widespread activity like sports gambling without state support. Thus, state-level legalization can have a major impact, even if the activity in question remains illegal under federal law. Over the last few years, state legalization of marijuana has had just such a major effect, even though marijuana remains illegal under federal law.

In addition to Kennedy and Breyer, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito also seemed generally sympathetic to New Jersey’s position. Justice Clarence Thomas kept silent, as he does at nearly all oral arguments. But he is known for his support of very strong enforcement of constitutional limits on federal power, and it would be very surprising if he deviated from that position in this case. Overall, it seems as if New Jersey has the backing of a majority of justices, perhaps even a 6-3 or 7-2 majority (with Breyer and Kagan voting against PASPA in the latter scenario, along with the five conservative justices).

Oral argument is not a perfect predictor of the justices’ views, and it is always possible that one or more of them will change their minds. But if I were a betting man, I would say that today’s argument indicates that the smart money is on federalism.

 

[Baron23]

Conservative Groups Want Marijuana Protections Extended

A collection of right-leaning organizations is urging Congress to continue a current policy that protects state medical marijuana laws from federal interference.

“On its face, the [policy] merely prohibits the use of taxpayer money by federal authorities to prosecute medical marijuana patients and providers who are in compliance with the laws of their state,” the groups, including the American Enterprise Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, wrote in a letter delivered to Republican and Democratic House and Senate leaders on Tuesday. “At its heart, however, it is a guard for our nation’s fragile principle of federalism—the right of the states to govern matters within their borders as their constituents see fit.”

The policy, which has been in effect since late 2014, prevents the U.S. Department of Justice from using funds to interfere with state medical cannabis laws. It, along with funding for the federal government, is set to expire on Friday unless Congress passes legislation to extend the deadline.

Advocates fear that if the protections disappear it could give U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions a green light to begin cracking down on state marijuana policies.

“A majority of the Americans now live in states that have legalized medical marijuana and only 14 percent oppose such laws, according to a recent Yahoo/Marist College poll,” the conservative groups’ letter says. “With broad popular support for them, it’s not surprising that Congress would take action to protect these laws from federal interference.”

The measure passed with bipartisan margins twice on the House floor — in 2014 and 2015. It has also been approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee and has since been continuously included in bills funding the federal government.

But because House leaders have in recent years blocked votes on the measure, there is a concern that it may not be continued in Fiscal Year 2018 funding legislation.

“As a coalition of groups supporting free market solutions and the protection of essential Constitutional principles, we strongly urge you to respect our nation’s federalist structure, patients’ right to decide on their own treatment, and good order by including [the provision] in the FY 2018 omnibus appropriations bill,” the organizations wrote.

The other signatories are the Campaign for Liberty, the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, the Institute for Liberty, the Taxpayer’s Protection Alliance and the Marijuana Policy Project.

 

[Baron23]

This is despicable on many levels but the one that occurs to me first is the anti-democratic nature of civil suits, with lower threshold of proof, as a remedy for losing out in legislation or in the criminal courts. This couple in CO are just looking to grab money and impose their will against legal MJ via RICO, which has great potential to freeze the industry.

My second thought was "first we just kill all of the lawyers"


Civil ‘conspiracy’ lawsuits may be next legal threat for marijuana businesses

Another legal threat for marijuana businesses across the United States has emerged over the past few months: civil suits involving anti-racketeering laws.

One such case – a nearly 3-year-old lawsuit in Colorado – is scheduled to go to trial in Denver in July.

Two similar suits have been filed against licensed MJ companies – and numerous other defendants – in Oregon and Massachusetts.

All three lawsuits allege that the licensed companies are in violation of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO.

The suits also name “co-conspirators” – simply put, other entities that played some role in helping the plaintiffs operate their businesses.

The litigation threat came to light last June, when the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver issued a ruling that gave legal legitimacy to some of the racketeering claims made by a Colorado couple who alleged they were being harmed by a licensed marijuana grower’s operation.

The ramifications of the ruling could be the first of many expensive legal fights for cannabis businesses.

For now, the ruling allows a civil RICO lawsuit to proceed against three licensed marijuana companies and three individuals in Colorado.

The upshot? A married couple in Colorado who own land adjacent to a licensed MJ grow stand to win damages upwards of six or seven figures because of the RICO violations.

The bigger picture: “This is an existential threat to the industry,” said Brian Barnes, an attorney with Cooper & Kirk, a Washington DC-based law firm that filed the original lawsuit against the Colorado businesses back in 2015.

His assertion is based on “the scope of the potential liability.”

“Anyone who participates in what the law defines as an illegal drug conspiracy is potentially on the hook for damages caused by the conspiracy,” Barnes said.

“We’ve basically proven that this can be done. I think it’s going to be a big problem for the marijuana industry.”

The threat

If the Colorado plaintiffs are successful, it could open the floodgates for similar lawsuits.

In fact, two more civil lawsuits invoking the RICO act were filed against marijuana businesses in Oregon and in Massachusetts after the 10th Circuit ruling.

The unique nature of RICO cases is that co-conspirators can be found financially liable for up to three times the financial damages – plus attorneys’ fees – even if they weren’t directly responsible for injuries to the plaintiffs.

That’s why two of the three suits have also named financial institutions as defendants for enabling state-licensed marijuana companies by providing them banking services. Other companies the growers have done business with also have been named.

Several marijuana industry attorneys contacted by Marijuana Business Daily said they expect more RICO cases because the lawsuits can lead to pricey out-of-court settlements or lengthy court fights.

Either is a win for plaintiffs’ lawyers.

“I’ve advised (cannabis) clients on the potential for neighbors to bring RICO litigation,” said California marijuana attorney Omar Figueroa, who has spent years working on such cases in federal court.

He called civil RICO litigation “a very serious threat” and noted that “it behooves investors and prospective operators to conduct due diligence and make sure the neighbors are friendly and aren’t going to file a RICO lawsuit.

“RICO litigation can be quite expensive … And it’s not easy to win.”

Figueroa said the big unknown when a RICO case goes to trial is the jurors, who could decide to ignore law and find for whichever side they sympathize with more.

“Many times, jurors make decisions with their hearts first, and they look for reasons to justify their emotional decisions,” he added.

The Colorado case

When Cooper & Kirk originally filed two lawsuits in Colorado in February 2015, the express aim was to quash the state’s fledgling adult-use marijuana industry.

The firm first tried to argue that states don’t have the right to bypass federal law and legalize marijuana.

While the 10th Circuit rejected that argument – affirming a district court’s finding that cannabis opponents don’t have standing to enforce federal law – it did provide an opening for the Colorado plaintiffs by ordering the case to proceed.

That, in turn, provided possible openings for others in the United States who are anti-cannabis.

While one of the original two Colorado lawsuits was settled in early 2016, the one involving the couple is now set for trial beginning July 23.

“I do expect to see more of them,” said Matt Buck, an attorney for one of the defendants in the Colorado case.

But, he added, “I don’t think they’re a serious threat to marijuana businesses, other than costing legal businesses money in defending nuisance lawsuits.”

Still, Buck estimated that RICO cases could cost MJ companies “hundreds of thousands” in legal fees.

Figueroa estimated those costs likely would start at $30,000-$50,000 and increase from there.

The linchpin of the Colorado lawsuit – and of other future RICO cases – seems to be whether Barnes will be able to prove his clients were actually harmed by the cannabis grow.

Barnes believes that will be fairly easy to do.

“The 10th Circuit said there are three ways we can prove injury, for the purposes of RICO,” Barnes said.

Those include proving:

• The marijuana farm is creating a “bad smell” that “interferes with my client’s use and enjoyment of their property.”
• Barnes’ clients’ property value has dropped as a result of the nearby marijuana business.
• There’s a stigma that still accompanies marijuana businesses, which often extends to nearby properties and, in turn, also can affect property value.

Buck, however, scoffed at Barnes’ confidence, saying the odor argument is subjective and the property in question has “quintupled” in value, which he said is verifiable through tax assessor records.

“For them to say the value has been diminished is outrageous,” Buck said.

The Oregon case

The lawsuit in Oregon – filed six days after the 10th Circuit’s June ruling – makes similar claims to those in the Colorado case, including a drop in property values.

The case appears to be heading toward an out-of-court settlement instead of trial, according to court records.

But depending on the terms, it could prove to be a win for the plaintiffs – two property owners south of Portland – and a significant financial loss for the marijuana growers.

“It was a really broad-reaching RICO action, very much modeled after what we saw in Colorado,” said Amy Margolis, who represents one of the Oregon defendants.

The Massachusetts case

The latest RICO action, filed in September in Massachusetts, involves a small-business owner and a cannabis retailer that hasn’t yet opened.

It also uses the methodology laid out by the Colorado case and involves Barnes and his firm.

Other defendants include:

• The Massachusetts Department of Health, which licensed the company.
• Century Bank, which provides banking services for the primary defendant, MMJ retailer Healthy Pharms.

Whether the case goes to trial or ends up settling is up in the air since the litigation is in the early stages.

Regardless, the real impact of RICO suits could be to simply scare entrepreneurs into quitting the marijuana business, said Valerio Romano, an attorney for one of the Massachusetts defendants.

“These are nuisance claims,” he said. “The idea that someone is going to pack up shop and quit is the real fear.”

 

[Baron23]

Study: People Prefer Legal Weed Over Alcohol
In a somewhat unsurprising study, findings suggest people prefer legal weed over alcohol.

With an influx of legal cannabis—both medical and recreational, readily available amongst 29 states around the country—alcohol sales have taken a noticeable drop, according to a recent study.

A Changing of the Guard: People Prefer Legal Weed Over Alcohol
The report, which sought to identify the link between medical marijuana laws and alcohol consumption, studied retail sales data for beer and wine in states that recently legalized medical marijuana. The findings concluded that two years after medical marijuana had become available, retail sales in grocery, convenience, drug or mass distribution stores had fallen 13 percent. Researchers did not factor in liquor sales, however, due to the poor quality of data.

While there have been other studies that have attempted to decipher this information strictly on people’s own estimates of their alcohol consumption, this recent report strictly looked at hard retail data. Georgia State University economics professor Alberto Chong explained how that the old method is too unreliable to make a definitive conclusion.

“[Previous] studies tried to answer the question using subjective surveys,” Chong said. “We use actual data about sales, which is much better. That’s hard data—we know the exact number of sales per store.”

The research determined that it took a full two years of legal marijuana for the aforementioned 13 percent decrease in sales. However, the study dually noted an immediate nine percent decrease upon the inception of medicinal cannabis in certain states.


And while the study only takes into account the medicinal cannabis market, Chong believes that the influx of states legalizing recreational pot undoubtedly played a factor in the results.

“The drop in [alcohol] sales is so huge—it’s like 13 percent—that there has to be some leakage,” he said.

Final Hit: Study: People Prefer Legal Weed Over Alcohol
The study supports earlier findings from Deloitte, that suggested Canadians would ditch alcohol for cannabis once the plant is (hopefully) legalized for recreational purposes in July.

“[There’s] a potential for some current beverage alcohol consumers to migrate away from that category and toward marijuana when it becomes legal,” the study concluded.

The study, which studied legal weed states Colorado, Oregon and Washington, also noted that cannabis would be considered a competitor to the alcohol market, rather than a compliment, as the majority of pot consumers (80 percent) choose not to intertwine the two.


However, Chong believes if cannabis supplants alcohol in Canada, it should be considered a ““good news story,” as there’s plenty of evidence to suggest the effects of alcohol are markedly worse than cannabis.

We’ll just leave this here, for good measure.

 

[Baron23]

This bill is going nowhere but its a start. Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment is, however, in the Senate budget bill and MUST be retained during reconciliation with the House bill that does not....thanks to that single asshole, Rep Pete Sessions, Chairman of the Rules committee. If you see him broken down with a flat tire on a rainy night....keep driving. LOL


Sen. Ron Wyden cosponsors bill to legalize marijuana across U.S.

U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, is cosponsoring a bill to decriminalize marijuana across the nation and penalize states with high arrest and incarceration rates for pot-related crimes.

The Marijuana Justice Act of 2017, first introduced in August by Sen. Cory Booker, D-New Jersey, would remove weed from the federal list of controlled substances.

The bill also would penalize states that haven't legalized marijuana and have "disproportionate" rates of arrest and incarceration for marijuana-related offences by cutting federal funding in those states for new jails, prisons and staffing.

For the bill's purposes, disproportionate rates of arrest and incarceration are defined as:

• "The percentage of minority individuals arrested for a marijuana related offense in a state is higher than the percentage of the non-minority individual population of the state, as determined by the most recent census data"
• "The percentage of low-income individuals arrested for a marijuana offense in a state is higher than the percentage of the population of the state that are not low-income individuals, as determined by the most recent census data"
• "The percentage of minority individuals incarcerated for a marijuana related offense in a state is higher than the percentage of the non-minority individual population of the state, as determined by the most recent census data"

The bill would help Americans convicted of marijuana-related crimes retroactively expunge those offences from their records.

In addition, it would create a "Community Reinvestment Fund" for communities hit hardest by the war on drugs. Communities would get federal money for efforts such as job training programs, pubic libraries, community centers and health education programs.

The bill proposes spending at least $500 million every fiscal year from 2018 to 2040 on the reinvestment programs.

Sitting beside Wyden for a Facebook Live video Monday to announce the sponsorship, Booker said having the Oregon Democrat aboard added "a stamp of gravitas."

"We've got to get out of the war on drugs, which is really a war on people, a war on poor people, a war on a disproportionate (number) of minorities, a war on (the) mentally ill," Booker said.

Wyden said people of color around the U.S. are convicted for marijuana crimes that millions of other Americans also commit without facing the same consequences. "It's just wrong, wrong, wrong."

Odds of the bill's success, however, are low. Jim Moore, director of the Tom McCall Center for Policy Innovation at Pacific University, said, "I don't think it's chances are very good."

It's not just because Congress is controlled by Republicans right now, he said, but because a number of Democrats also oppose this kind of legislation.

But it does create "a national conversation," Moore said.

With many looking ahead to the 2020 presidential election, marijuana policy is poised to become a major talking point among candidates, he said.

"It could end up becoming a very interesting political plank," Moore said.

Wyden's announcement Monday comes as U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Oregon, is rushing to save federal protections for medical marijuana users as part of a congressional spending package needed to avoid a government shutdown.

The Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment basically stops the Justice Department from prosecuting medical marijuana users in states where voters have approved such use.

Federal lawmakers originally passed a version of the amendment in 2014, but they’ve had to re-approve it every time the Justice Department’s spending guidelines go before Congress.

The amendment hit turbulence earlier this year when the House Rules Committee blocked a vote on it. The Senate Appropriations Committee, however, approved a version of the amendment.

"Ultimately, Congress must act to put an end to the cycle of uncertainty and permanently protect state medical marijuana programs — and adult use — from federal interference," Blumenauer said earlier this month. "The American people have spoken. It’s past time that Congress catch up."

Blumenauer has also launched a political-action committee, called the Cannabis Fund, to unseat anti-marijuana lawmakers. The committee has garnered at least $2,000, according to the Federal Election Commission.