Law The Cannabis Chronicles - Misc Cannabis News

[momofthegoons]

Why Are Mexican Cartels Giving Up Growing Marijuana

Cartels in Mexico are realizing that attempting to compete with the US in relation to cannabis is a futile attempt. Over the past few years, we have seen a decline in volume from the Southern Border because US consumers have better options right at home.

As a result, there are fewer cannabis farms in Mexico and cartels are starting to switch out their crops to poppies and synthetics such as Fentanyl and Chrystal Meth. While some might argue that this is a bad thing, we should see the underlying message behind it all – Legalization Effectively Cuts out Cartels from the Drug Game. Cannabis should be our example. Right now, cannabis isn’t legal all over the US, however if it were legalized tomorrow, the Cartel Cannabis business would diminish to a point of non-existence within a matter of years.

Cartels simply don’t have the resources to compete with the free market. It was the same for alcohol. The moment the Free market got involved, mafiosos could no longer compete and thus legitimate businesses were established to supply the demand. If the Federal government wants to not only reduce drugs flowing from the Southern Boarder, but reduce costs at enforcing border security, legalizing cannabis is a step in the right direction.

Going a step further, legalizing all drugs in one way or another could completely push drug cartels out of the picture. Of course, this wouldn’t occur overnight because cartels have an international infrastructure in place, however as the legal market matures…cartels will lose grounds gradually until they are completely removed from the equation.

Cannabis legalizing serves as a model for all other drugs. Sure, cannabis is not as dangerous as heroin, however despite the danger profile of the drug, people who consume heroin will consume it whether it’s legal or not. We saw this with cannabis.

Even though there were harsh laws against the use of the plant, people continued to smoke it despite risking their freedom to do so. It is no different with all of the other drugs on the table. People, irrespective of the prohibitionist laws on the books, will continue to consume illicit drugs. After 5 decades of a corrosive drug policy, we should have learned this lesson by now.

Thus, understanding that laws do not deter people from consuming or not consuming, the smartest approach is harm reduction. In terms of harm reduction, the best approach is to have all drugs legalized and reclassified. The reclassification of the drugs should be based on their danger profile.

For instance, having cannabis in the hands of the Free market is a good idea, but heroin wouldn’t be since it’s infinitely more addictive and dangerous. However, if you were to dispense heroin/methadone in regulated safe zones, and not charge users for their doses…you would effectively be dealing with a plethora of side effects in one full swoop including;

• Reduction of STDs
• Reduction of crime and violence
• Reduction of petty crimes
• Stronger monitoring potential for addicts
• A legal pathway of kicking the habit

Now for some, this is a liberal approach, however if we consider all of the factors including security, finance and health…it’s a rational approach that considers all of these points to evaluate the true danger profile of a drug.

Cannabis, has been proven to be safe post legalization. We didn’t see the increase of violence, decrease of productivity or an increase of underage consumption as was touted by prohibitionists for years. It has proven to be more effective to legalize and control a drug than flat out prohibition.

The United States is close to legalization. Enough public support has been rounded up for politicians to start talking about measures of legalizing. Hell, the legalizing effect of cannabis is even affecting countries such as Mexico that has embraced a form of legal medical marijuana within their borders. Even the Secretary of Tourism is touting for legalized recreational marijuana in places such as Quintana Roo and Jalisco (Cancun, Puerto Vallarta) with the hopes of lowering violence and generating new revenue streams.

We are seeing real-world examples of how cannabis legalization actually helps society and it’s time that the American people no longer accepts the draconian policies that were forced upon a free society under the guise of “justice”. Cannabis prohibition isn’t constitutional. It goes against the principles of a free society. For the sake of our own humanity, for the future of our society…it’s time we completely repeal anti-cannabis laws once and for all. We have tried prohibition for 80 years and it has failed miserably.

Of course, there are entire government institutions based on the existence of prohibition, however this is no reason to maintain a policy that jeopardizes the health and safety of the citizens. We’ll see how 2018 plays out in the world of cannabis, and I’ll be there every step of the way to provide my analysis of the events that are to unfold.

 

[Baron23]

Why Are Mexican Cartels Giving Up Growing Marijuana

Cartels in Mexico are realizing that attempting to compete with the US in relation to cannabis is a futile attempt. Over the past few years, we have seen a decline in volume from the Southern Border because US consumers have better options right at home.

As a result, there are fewer cannabis farms in Mexico and cartels are starting to switch out their crops to poppies and synthetics such as Fentanyl and Chrystal Meth. While some might argue that this is a bad thing, we should see the underlying message behind it all – Legalization Effectively Cuts out Cartels from the Drug Game. Cannabis should be our example. Right now, cannabis isn’t legal all over the US, however if it were legalized tomorrow, the Cartel Cannabis business would diminish to a point of non-existence within a matter of years.

Cartels simply don’t have the resources to compete with the free market. It was the same for alcohol. The moment the Free market got involved, mafiosos could no longer compete and thus legitimate businesses were established to supply the demand. If the Federal government wants to not only reduce drugs flowing from the Southern Boarder, but reduce costs at enforcing border security, legalizing cannabis is a step in the right direction.

Going a step further, legalizing all drugs in one way or another could completely push drug cartels out of the picture. Of course, this wouldn’t occur overnight because cartels have an international infrastructure in place, however as the legal market matures…cartels will lose grounds gradually until they are completely removed from the equation.

Cannabis legalizing serves as a model for all other drugs. Sure, cannabis is not as dangerous as heroin, however despite the danger profile of the drug, people who consume heroin will consume it whether it’s legal or not. We saw this with cannabis.

Even though there were harsh laws against the use of the plant, people continued to smoke it despite risking their freedom to do so. It is no different with all of the other drugs on the table. People, irrespective of the prohibitionist laws on the books, will continue to consume illicit drugs. After 5 decades of a corrosive drug policy, we should have learned this lesson by now.

Thus, understanding that laws do not deter people from consuming or not consuming, the smartest approach is harm reduction. In terms of harm reduction, the best approach is to have all drugs legalized and reclassified. The reclassification of the drugs should be based on their danger profile.

For instance, having cannabis in the hands of the Free market is a good idea, but heroin wouldn’t be since it’s infinitely more addictive and dangerous. However, if you were to dispense heroin/methadone in regulated safe zones, and not charge users for their doses…you would effectively be dealing with a plethora of side effects in one full swoop including;

• Reduction of STDs
• Reduction of crime and violence
• Reduction of petty crimes
• Stronger monitoring potential for addicts
• A legal pathway of kicking the habit

Now for some, this is a liberal approach, however if we consider all of the factors including security, finance and health…it’s a rational approach that considers all of these points to evaluate the true danger profile of a drug.

Cannabis, has been proven to be safe post legalization. We didn’t see the increase of violence, decrease of productivity or an increase of underage consumption as was touted by prohibitionists for years. It has proven to be more effective to legalize and control a drug than flat out prohibition.

The United States is close to legalization. Enough public support has been rounded up for politicians to start talking about measures of legalizing. Hell, the legalizing effect of cannabis is even affecting countries such as Mexico that has embraced a form of legal medical marijuana within their borders. Even the Secretary of Tourism is touting for legalized recreational marijuana in places such as Quintana Roo and Jalisco (Cancun, Puerto Vallarta) with the hopes of lowering violence and generating new revenue streams.

We are seeing real-world examples of how cannabis legalization actually helps society and it’s time that the American people no longer accepts the draconian policies that were forced upon a free society under the guise of “justice”. Cannabis prohibition isn’t constitutional. It goes against the principles of a free society. For the sake of our own humanity, for the future of our society…it’s time we completely repeal anti-cannabis laws once and for all. We have tried prohibition for 80 years and it has failed miserably.

Of course, there are entire government institutions based on the existence of prohibition, however this is no reason to maintain a policy that jeopardizes the health and safety of the citizens. We’ll see how 2018 plays out in the world of cannabis, and I’ll be there every step of the way to provide my analysis of the events that are to unfold.

well, I don't miss Mexican ditch weed (bricked up crap), the point about the lesson that alcohol and the 21st Amendment (prohibition) provide and its application to MJ is spot on, IMO, and people who argue against that just don't want to face uncomfortable facts.

Cheers

 

[Baron23]

Sens. Lisa Murkowski, Jeff Merkley pinning new marijuana banking measure to SAFE Banking Act
The measure would prevent federal officials from being able to punish banks simply "because the depository institution provides or has provided financial services to a cannabis-related legitimate business."



By The Associated Press

FAIRBANKS, Alaska — Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski and a bipartisan group of senators are pushing legislation that would allow legal marijuana businesses to use banks to store profits.

Murkowski and Democrat Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon have introduced a measure within the Secure and Fair Enforcement Banking Act that Merkley sponsored last year, the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner reported Thursday.

The measure would prevent federal officials from being able to punish banks simply “because the depository institution provides or has provided financial services to a cannabis-related legitimate business.”

Many banks refuse to do business with marijuana growers, processors and sellers because marijuana is still a controlled substance under federal law.

“While there are financial institutions which will bank marijuana-related businesses, many are uncertain about the state of the law,” Murkowski said. “The SAFE Banking Act is intended to resolve these uncertainties, not only for the benefit of the marijuana businesses but also for the states that regulate them.”

Related stories

• Feds working on new marijuana banking guidance, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin tells Congress
• With marijuana banking legislation stalled, cannabusinesses awash with cash, vulnerable to violent crime
• Denver cannabiz-focused credit union gets OK from Federal Reserve — with conditions
• Senators to U.S. Treasury: Preserve marijuana banking access
• Congressmen: Rescinding marijuana banking guidance would be ‘dangerous and imprudent’

Murkowski said that allowing marijuana businesses to set up bank accounts could help states manage the businesses better.

“States that have moved to legalize marijuana did so with the understanding that markets would be well-regulated and transparent,” Murkowski said.

Murkowski said other officials have expressed similar views.

“That is why a number of attorneys general, including Alaska’s, believe that it is urgent for Congress to clarify that marijuana and marijuana-related businesses that operate legally under state law can deposit their receipts in the bank, just as other lawful businesses do,” Murkowski said.

In January, Murkowski spoke out in favor of state’s rights after U.S Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded the Cole Memorandum, put in place by former President Barack Obama to ease federal prosecutions of state-compliant cannabis businesses.

Related: Sens. Lisa Murkowski, Jeff Merkley lead call to preserve marijuana banking access

The legislation, currently being discussed by Senate committee, could prove to be a welcome change for Alaska’s cannabis industry.

“If that passes, it’s going to be a huge deal for us,” said Lenin Lau, bookkeeper at GOOD AK Cannabis in Fairbanks. “It’s going to lower a lot of expenses for us if we no longer have to hand-deliver cash to different locations.”

 

[Baron23]

"So why is Attorney General Jeff Sessions trying so hard to cross voters who relied on President Trump’s repeated campaign promises to protect medical marijuana states?"

A very good question and one that Trump ought to be asking ole' Jefferson.

Trump's Pollster Finds Overwhelming Support for Medical Marijuana

A poll was released on Monday that indicates strong support by Republicans and in swing states for medical marijuana. So why is Attorney General Jeff Sessions trying so hard to cross voters who relied on President Trump’s repeated campaign promises to protect medical marijuana states? Seems like Republicans in tough races are doing everything they can to lose control of both the House and the Senate.

Kevin Robillard of Politico reported on March 19, 2018 that “House and Senate candidates in competitive contests should embrace medical marijuana in their election bids this year, according to a new survey from the lead campaign pollster for now-President Donald Trump.” The poll conducted by Tony Fabrizio, David Lee and Travis Tunis of Fabrizio, Lee and Associates concluded that 77% of likely 2018 voters had favorable opinions of medical marijuana. This broke down to 74% in key Senate states and 76% in competitive House races. Digging deeper you see that 68% of Republicans support medical marijuana. This seems like a no-brainer for candidates who worry about polling on specific issues.

If candidates are worried about the policy side, they need to look no further than the multiple promises both Republicans and Democrats have made to respect the idea of federalism. On May 18, 2017, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) released a joint statement about the creation of a joint task force on intergovernmental affairs. Ryan said at the time “Federalism is not a Republican or Democrat principle, but an American principle—and one that is integral to a thriving culture and economy. But in recent years, the principle of federalism has been slowly chipped away at by an overzealous federal government.” Republicans are in danger of letting Democrats take the issue of federalism away from them by opposing federalism in medical marijuana laws.

CARTOONS | Robert Ariail
View Cartoon
Right now, Congress is working on finalizing appropriations for the year and one issue is whether they will include Rep. Dana Rohrabacher’s (R-CA) rider that has prevented the Justice Department from going after growers, distributors, doctors and patients in states that have allowed medical marijuana since 2014. Republicans in Congress seem to be listening to Attorney General Jeff Session’s war on medical marijuana rather than their own constituents.

The problem is that many states have passed laws that have liberalized marijuana laws in a way consistent with the core Republican value of federalism.

The Fabrizio, Lee and Associates poll results mirror other polls like the Yahoo/Marist poll published on April 17, 2017, which found that 83% of Americans agree with the idea that doctors should be empowered to prescribe medical marijuana. When Fabrizio asked the question if a likely voter supported “legalizing the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes when prescribed by a doctor to treat specific medical conditions” the support rose to 89% yes and only 10% no. Since May of last year, Sessions has pushed hard to anger this strong support, 77% to 89% depending on the question, of the voting public.


If Republicans listen to Sessions and renew a war on states that have allowed medical marijuana, they will be angering voters in the months before a critical election, violating a core promise to respect federalism and opposing Donald Trump’s campaign promises to protect medical marijuana states. That is truly dumb politics and policy.

The bottom line is that Republicans need to work hard to prevent a wave that would hand over the House, and maybe even the Senate, to Democratic control. If they bend to the unpopular will of Sessions and start a war on medical marijuana, expect President Trump’s ground troops in the Congress to be discharged from duty early and looking for new jobs.

 

[Baron23]

Washington’s Most Powerful Anti-Pot Official Is Named Sessions. It’s Not Who You Think.
Rep. Pete Sessions has quietly used his chairmanship of the House Rules Committee to stifle popular amendments that would protect legal marijuana.

In January, a year after he took office, Attorney General Jeff Sessions took his first shot at marijuana, repealing an Obama-era document that had established a hands-off attitude for U.S. attorneys in dozens of states that have legalized pot. Though long-expected, revoking the Cole Memo nonetheless caused anxiety throughout the financially galloping marijuana industry and confirmed for most observers that he was the chief antagonist of legal marijuana in Washington.

But while the nation’s top law enforcement officer has made it abundantly clear over the years that he views marijuana as a scourge equal to heroin, it turns out the unofficial title of Washington’s most powerful marijuana opponent belongs to someone else named Sessions: Pete, the longtime congressman from Texas’ 32nd district in Dallas. No relation to the attorney general, Pete Sessions nevertheless shares the former Alabama senator’s unforgiving attitudes toward all things cannabis.


“Marijuana is an addictive product, and the merchants of addiction make it that way,” Pete Sessions said in January. “They make it to where our people, our young people, become addicted to marijuana and keep going.” In February, at an opioid summit at the University of Texas Southwestern, Rep. Sessions stretched scientific fact when he said, today’s product is “300 times more powerful” than when he went to high school. (Later, his communications director confirmed that he meant three times more powerful.)

What Pete Sessions has, however, that Jeff Sessions doesn’t have is the power to change laws. Very quietly, but with implacable efficiency, Pete Sessions has used his position as the chair of the House Rules Committee to stymie or roll back amendments that protected legal marijuana in the 29 states that have approved it (30 states if you count Louisiana). States that have grown increasingly dependent on tax revenue from newly legal marijuana businesses, and investors who are pumping millions into an industry that is projected to hit $28 billion globally by 2024, have sought assurances that federal authorities wouldn’t try to invoke national drug law that still classifies marijuana as one of the most serious of all illegal drugs. Short of changing federal drug law, legislators in the states with forms of legal pot have sought the next best protection: using the power of the purse to curtail enforcement. But Sessions, with the approval of House leadership, has thwarted his colleagues. He neutralized one amendment that sailed through with a comfortable bipartisan majority and smothered others that would pass if they were ever allowed to see the light of day.

So far, the only people who have complained are the legislators whose amendments he has torpedoed and pro-marijuana lobbyists. That criticism has never troubled Sessions in his 21-year career (representing two districts). But recent polling indicates that 83 percent of Texas voters now favor legalizing medical marijuana, and that seems to be feeding a nascent campaign to use Sessions’ anti-marijuana influence against him in the 2018 midterm election. Even some Texas Republicans think his zealousness on the issue violates essential conservative principles of less government. “He’s got this personal viewpoint; he’s just personally against it. And there’s nothing that’s going to change his mind,” said Zoe Russell, of Republicans Against Marijuana Prohibition (RAMP). “That’s the absolute worst of big government.”

***

In hindsight, it’s easy to see the high-water mark of the legal marijuana movement in Congress. It was the summer of 2015, and legislators seemed to open the floodgates to yes votes on marijuana measures.

The year before, the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment had passed for the first time, after seven tries. As a floor amendment to an appropriations bill and not a full bill in its own right, the measure completely bypassed the formidable House Judiciary Committee, the longstanding cemetery for marijuana legalization efforts. The downside of this tactic was that it had to be reauthorized every year with the budget, but it didn’t seem like it would be a problem. As more states went legal, support was broadening within Congress, and in 2015, it was reauthorized with 23 additional votes.

With legalization efforts advancing around the country, it seemed to nearly everyone that 2016 would be the last time the marijuana prohibitionists would control the chamber. But this optimism did not account for the power of Pete Sessions, who knew there was still a way to stop the inexorable march of marijuana legalization, even when the legalizers had the votes.

The turning point came on an issue that had nothing to do with marijuana. On May 19, 2016, a vote was held on a floor amendment meant to protect LGBT rights in the federal contracting process. The amendment had enough votes to pass, but House leadership kept the vote open long enough to flip a sufficient handful of votes to defeat it. Shouts of “Shame!” erupted from the House floor, and headlines referred to the aftermath as “chaos.” In a House Republican Conference meeting on June 8, members decided the way to avoid such embarrassments going forward was to use the Rules Committee to structure the appropriations process so that such “poison pill” amendments would be out of order. If the amendments couldn’t be offered, there would be no votes and therefore no bad publicity. It was a complete reversal of House Speaker Paul Ryan’s promise to operate the House under regular order. “My goal as speaker is to return to what we call regular order… so that Congress works more smoothly, and more democratically,” Ryan said in December 2015, a pledge that lasted all of six months. Now that Sessions has jammed up the Rules Committee for two years, Ryan’s spokeswoman told POLITICO Magazine that, “Chairman Sessions has run the committee in a fair manner while advancing a robust agenda and the priorities of this majority.”

Pro-marijuana advocates didn’t learn that their issue had been put on the blacklist until Tuesday night, June 21. That’s when Sessions’ committee ruled a marijuana banking amendment out of order. Perhaps it would have received more attention if everyone’s attention had not turned to the party conventions and the 2016 presidential campaign. Democrats, for the first time ever, added a plank to their party’s platform aimed at reforming the nation’s marijuana laws. Meanwhile, Sessions killed at least three more marijuana amendments. One gave veterans better access to medical marijuana. Another was Rohrabacher-Farr, which could hardly be called a “poison pill,” since it had already passed the House twice. And the third was an amendment known as McClintock-Polis, named for Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) and Jared Polis (D-Colo.), which aimed to do for states that had legalized recreational marijuana what Rohrabacher-Farr had done for the medical marijuana states. McClintock-Polis had failed narrowly in 2015, but it was understood to have the votes to pass in 2016. Thanks to Sessions, it never got to the floor.

The only thing that has prevented Pete Sessions from completely wiping out protections for medical marijuana, and freeing Jeff Sessions’ Department of Justice to execute the crackdown he seems to pine for, is Congress’ own dysfunction. Because Congress could not agree on a budget, Rohrabacher-Farr has remained alive through a series of never-ending continuous resolutions. In addition, the Senate hasn’t been quite so willing to stifle its members’ wills on this issue; Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) has proposed a companion amendment to Rohrabacher-Farr, which passed the Senate’s appropriations committee by acclamation.

After Jeff Sessions repealed the Cole Memo in January, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi demanded that Congress fix the damage caused by both Sessionses by approving the Rohrabacher-Farr/Leahy amendment, and even expanding it to protect state legal recreational marijuana programs, as the blacklisted McClintock-Polis amendment was designed to do. “Congress must now take action to ensure that state law is respected, and that Americans who legally use marijuana are not subject to federal prosecution,” Pelosi said in a statement on January 4. “Democrats will continue to insist on bipartisan provisions in appropriations bills that protect Americans lawfully using medical marijuana. Congress should now consider expanding the provisions to cover those states that have decriminalized marijuana generally.”

The question of whether the appropriations conference committee will approve the Senate version with the Leahy amendment or the House version that killed Rohrabacher-Farr remains to be answered. The current continuing resolution ends on Friday at midnight.

Don Murphy, director of conservative outreach for the Marijuana Policy Project, bemoaned the fact that the Republican Party has surrendered ownership of marijuana reform as Democratic support for the issue gains steam: “What had once been a GOP effort known simply as ‘Rohrabacher’ after [Republican Dana Rohrabacher’s] decade-long sponsorship, will now be known as ‘the Leahy Amendment.’ It’s a missed opportunity for the GOP.”

When he speaks publicly about marijuana, Pete Sessions often positions himself as a bulwark against just that kind of Republican accommodation, insisting even against mounting evidence to the contrary that marijuana is a gateway drug to the opioid epidemic. This is a viewpoint shared by Jeff Sessions but not by the American Society of Addiction Medicine, generally an anti-marijuana group, which acknowledges “the observed drop in opioid overdose death rates in states where marijuana use is legal for medicinal purposes. One study found that states with ‘medical marijuana’ laws had a 24.8 percent lower average annual opioid overdose death rate compared to states without similar laws.”

***


Since Pete Sessions halted congressional movement on marijuana legalization, the states have steamrolled ahead in perfect disregard of his personal beef with the plant. In November 2016, California, Nevada, Massachusetts and Maine approved full recreational use. Arkansas, Florida and North Dakota legalized medical marijuana by ballot measure, and Pennsylvania and Ohio approved medical marijuana by state legislation. In 2017, West Virginia became the 29th state to legalize medical marijuana. So far in 2018, Vermont implemented a full legal law, the first state to do so by state legislature. A legalization bill is currently working its way through the New Jersey legislature. In Michigan, full legalization is on the ballot in November, and voters in Missouri, Oklahoma and Utah will have the opportunity to vote their states into the medical marijuana club.

The signs that the Drug War is thawing even in deep-red Texas are hard to miss In 2015, the Texas legislature passed an extremely limited medical marijuana program that grants access to non-psychoactive CBD concentrates to Texans suffering from epilepsy. Given that the Drug Enforcement Administration still considers non-psychoactive CBD to be a drug with no medicinal value, Texas’ tiptoe into the waters of medical marijuana legalization has been an act of civil disobedience against a federal drug enforcement policy that is staunchly defended by the likes of Pete Sessions. In Dallas County, where the majority of Sessions’ constituents reside, police no longer arrest people caught with up to a quarter pound of marijuana, opting instead for a cite-and-release program meant to unclog the jails and judicial system, following the example of similar programs in San Antonio, Houston and Austin.

Against this backdrop, Sessions finds himself defending his congressional seat in 2018 in a district that Hillary Clinton won by nearly 2 percentage points just two years ago. The Cook Political Report rates the race as leans Republican, but does Sessions’ opposition to marijuana law reform make him more vulnerable to a Democratic challenger in November? Some Republicans fear that medical marijuana might be an effective wedge issue that could steer Republican voters toward a Democrat who supports marijuana law reform at the national level.

“I’m a lifelong Republican and will certainly not be voting for [Sessions] ever again,” Mark Zartler told POLITICO Magazine. Zartler and his family are residents of Sessions’ district; they made news when they went public with a video showing them medicating their severely autistic daughter with medical marijuana, which is illegal under Texas and federal law. Their video has been viewed over 88 million times. Mark Zartler sees Sessions as the reason his family has been put in legal jeopardy. “As you can imagine, he’s not my favorite,” Zartler told me.

Colin Allred and Lillian Salerno are the two candidates in the Democratic runoff election in May for the chance to run against Sessions in November. Neither Democrat has the word “marijuana” on their campaign websites. Yet when asked by POLITICO Magazine, both candidates spoke in favor of medical marijuana legalization at the federal level, and both pointed to Sessions as a part of the problem.

Salerno said, “The fact that Pete Sessions wants to deny sick kids, seniors and veterans access to the compassionate care they need by blocking medical marijuana is unconscionable. We demand new policy that stops the criminalization of communities of color, and allows states to generate revenue through regulation.”

Allred is on the same page: “I support the use of medical marijuana as an alternative to the habit-forming opioids that have become a national crisis. This common-sense approach to alternative treatments has been opposed by Pete Sessions, and is something I will fight to expand.”

These Democrats might be late to the pro-marijuana party, but Sessions has made so many enemies among the drug policy reform crowd that they are ready to support whichever Democrat emerges from the May runoff.

“Pete Sessions has made himself the No. 1 target of drug policy reformers in the 2018 general election,” Don Murphy of MPP told POLITICO Magazine. “Defeating Pete Sessions in 2018 will send a message to Washington that even the tone-deaf GOP can’t miss.”

In fact, Murphy’s prediction appears to be taking shape in Texas.

“It doesn’t matter which Democrat wins. Either way, we’re going to un-elect him,” said Rob Kampia, the former executive director of MPP. Kampia’s new venture is the Marijuana Leadership Campaign and its companion Marijuana Leadership PAC. “Our invitation-only launch meeting was held in Dallas,” he told POLITICO Magazine, “and I can safely say we'll be spending $500,000 on this singular congressional race.”

Kampia and his crew will need every penny if they want to dislodge Sessions from the House Rules Committee, where he’s been chairman since 2013, which makes this year his sixth, and theoretically final year, but a spokeswoman for Rep. Tom Cole, the Oklahoma Republican and vice chair of the Rules Committee, told POLITICO Magazine that Cole “supports the reappointment of Chairman Sessions should the Speaker do so, and the Congressman [Cole] has no desire to seek the chairmanship himself.”

Sessions had $1.2 million cash on hand on February 14, the end of the most recent reporting period, but that doesn’t account for the last month’s worth of spending to win his March 6 primary by nearly 59 points. He declined help from Ryan’s Congressional Leadership Fund, which is a sign of confidence that Sessions feels his reelection is not in doubt, that he can handle this one himself.

So it’s up to marijuana reform activists and whichever Democrat emerges from the runoff to take the chairmanship of the Rules Committee away from Pete Sessions by getting more votes in November. Kampia told POLITICO Magazine that the two stated goals of his Marijuana Leadership Campaign were “to legalize medical marijuana in Texas and to unseat Congressman Pete Sessions.”

“We’re going to show them that we are the NRA of marijuana,” he said.

 

[momofthegoons]

The Grades Are In: Best And Worst States For Marijuana Patients
Seven states receive a B+ and 16 states (mostly from the South) flunk.

Photo by LPETTET/Getty Images


In a comprehensive, 187-page report on the status of access for medical marijuana patients in the US, seven states received a grade of B+, the highest score given this year.


California, Hawaii, Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio and Oregon were recognized as the best states for patients. Californi, Michigan and Illinois were repeat winners from last year.

The report, “Medical Marijuana Access in the United States,” was released by Americans For Safe Access, a 15-year-old organization whose mission is to “ensure safe and legal access to cannabis for therapeutic use and research.”

No state was given an “A” grade and 16 states received “F” grades, 1o of those states from the South. All states that received a failing grade limit their medical cannabis program to cannabidiol, an extract of the marijuana plant.

Five states — Idaho, Nebraska, Kansas and South Dakota — did not even qualify for a grade since they do not have medical marijuana laws.

The categories states are graded on include:

• Patient Rights and Civil Protection
• Access to Medicine
• Ease of Navigation
• Functionality
• Consumer Safety and Provider Requirements

“We want lawmakers to use this report to see that there are gaps in their medical cannabis programs. Even programs that have been around for decades like California still have room for improvement,“ said Steph Sherer, Executive Director for Americans for Safe Access. “Research has shown us that there can be as much as a 40% decrease in opioid overdose deaths in states with medical cannabis dispensaries. States with effective medical cannabis programs can save lives, and this report lays out the steps to increase program effectiveness.”


The report reviewed existing laws and regulations, and laws passed in between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2017. This year’s report, unlike previous versions, urges states to improve their programs to use medical cannabis as a tool to fight the opioid crisis.

You can read the entire 187-page report here.

 

[Baron23]

@momofthegoons - and in the pic in the article, that looks like the color of our Maryland MMJ....much lighter green than the sun grown N Cali I used to get.

I was in a new dispensary today that just opened....its also a vertically integrated operation with grower, processor, and dispensary licenses....and they did tell me that they grow hydroponically. Perhaps that's the source of the light green color? But I think its because its indoor grown.

Cheers

 

[momofthegoons]

Where do I even begin....???

DEA Approves Another Form of Synthetic Cannabis


DEA has announced that the same company that makes fentanyl, a pharmaceutical drug often deemed more dangerous than heroin, will be coming to the market soon with a synthetic form of cannabis.

The drug will be called Syndros, and is a synthetic form of THC. However, THC will remain a schedule 1 substance and Syndros will be classified as a Schedule 2 substance. Meaning it can be prescribed legally in all 50 states.

With organic cannabis remaining a schedule 1 substance, the DEA still considers it to have “no currently accepted medical use” and “a high potential for abuse”. It’s schedule one status also lumps it in with heroin, which is also schedule one.

The FDA has also approved Syndros, so it will be hitting the market soon. It is made by a company called Insys Therapeutics, an Arizona-based pharmaceutical company. This company hasn’t had the cleanest history. A few top executives have been arrested and charged for bribing doctors and defrauding insurance companies. The company itself has had numerous lawsuits for allegedly triggering America’s opioid crisis. Now they are working to take over cannabis.

 

[Baron23]

@momofthegoons - you got to be fucking kidding me. So, multi-billion dollar pharma company is ok to make it and its schedule 2, ordinary people want to grow and consume it and it has no beneficial medical application? There ain't enough sides of their mouth for the DEA to talk out of to explain this horse pucky.

 

[Shredder]

Where do I even begin....???

DEA Approves Another Form of Synthetic Cannabis


DEA has announced that the same company that makes fentanyl, a pharmaceutical drug often deemed more dangerous than heroin, will be coming to the market soon with a synthetic form of cannabis.

The drug will be called Syndros, and is a synthetic form of THC. However, THC will remain a schedule 1 substance and Syndros will be classified as a Schedule 2 substance. Meaning it can be prescribed legally in all 50 states.

With organic cannabis remaining a schedule 1 substance, the DEA still considers it to have “no currently accepted medical use” and “a high potential for abuse”. It’s schedule one status also lumps it in with heroin, which is also schedule one.

The FDA has also approved Syndros, so it will be hitting the market soon. It is made by a company called Insys Therapeutics, an Arizona-based pharmaceutical company. This company hasn’t had the cleanest history. A few top executives have been arrested and charged for bribing doctors and defrauding insurance companies. The company itself has had numerous lawsuits for allegedly triggering America’s opioid crisis. Now they are working to take over cannabis.

This reads like an early April fools story.

 

[momofthegoons]

@momofthegoons - you got to be fucking kidding me. So, multi-billion dollar pharma company is ok to make it and its schedule 2, ordinary people want to grow and consume it and it has no beneficial medical application? There ain't enough sides of their mouth for the DEA to talk out of to explain this horse pucky.

Lol..... that post showed some real restraint.

Add to that, "the same company that makes fentanyl" and I have a real 'say what?' type moment. And am very skeptical. I have a hard time believing that this compound of theirs is safe.

This reads like an early April fools story.

Could we be that lucky?

 

[Baron23]

Lol..... that post showed some real restraint.

Well, it took some two or three rounds of editing to get it into that final configuration....I was pretty sure that my initial draft wasn't going to cut it! hahaha

But this is insane...it defies all logic until you introduce venal conflict of interest and corruption.

Wow...why isn't this on the front page of papers around the country.

 

[momofthegoons]

Wow...why isn't this on the front page of papers around the country.

Cause it's a dirty little secret?

You and I both know the government is full of it when it comes to legalization. It's all about money, greed and control. And they cannot figure out how to control a plant that can grow in a ditch. So... next best thing is to outlaw it and make a synthetic that they can control.....

 

[momofthegoons]

DENYING CANNABIS AND ITS TRUE NATURE





Looking back fifty years, one can see obvious differences in the public’s general state of health. Current data shows that more than 40% of people who died in 2012 had been diagnosed with cancer at some point in their life and these figures are increasing. Over 1,688,780 new cancer cases are expected to be diagnosed this year, and about 600,920 Americans are projected to die of cancer, over 1,650 people a day. This is nearly 1 of every 4 deaths in the United States. This information should be shocking to anyone who cares about their family’s well-being. There is most definitely something wrong when half the population is developing cancer. There are many factors that play a role in this cause and effect including what is put into today’s food, and what is done to the environment. However, the true evil is what’s being denied to the masses that could prevent cancer from starting in the first place.

One can understand why there are those who still have the misguided notion that cannabis is inherently wrong. It can be hard to stray from what one was taught as a child, as incorrect as it may be. However, to still pretend that there are no known medical benefits of the cannabis plant is simply ignorant. Put aside for the moment all the valid medical studies that prove otherwise and look to all the current cancer patients choosing to heal themselves with alternative methods as opposed to modern medicine. A recent poll showed that 73% of all physicians would recommend marijuana to a patient even if it remained illegal under federal law. It is not wise to trust those whose income depends on cannabis never becoming a valid form a medication? As the Upton Sinclair once famously said,

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”


With the leading cancer treatment of chemotherapy having a success rate of only 3 percent, it is absurd that physicians are not speaking out more often. This is mostly due to the fact that chemotherapeutic drugs are the only class of drug that allows for the prescribing doctor to get a direct cut of the profit; so these doctors either do not know any better (which is disheartening) or they are simply choosing profit over the success of their patents battle with this deadly affliction. Some would say that the lack of cannabis and its many valuable uses is directly related to most of American’s current health issues. This is however, an opinion, but it is not hard to see the time correlation between the beginning of marijuana prohibition and America’s health decline. Before the illegalization of cannabis, this country widely utilized the plant in a medial, industrial and nutritional capacity. What is most upsetting is the government’s blatant disregard for the new information releasing everyday from major medical locations such as Harvard.

When one gives a man an opinion, however valid and justified it may be, and that man chooses to remain with his original beliefs, no one can condemn him for that. When one shows the same man proof from multiple reputable locations that the opinion just became fact, and the man not only proceeds to deny its legitimacy, but continues to openly speak out about how there is no proof to support the claim, it becomes obvious that there are other motives at play. In a past interview with the Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, he was quoted saying in regards to medical marijuana,

“There is no medical. This is one of the great hoaxes of all time.”

It should show Americans that these men are simply choosing not to see an obvious truth. As legalization of marijuana progresses there will be those who choose to stare logic in the face and defy it. That is when it becomes the job of the people to make their voices heard.

Follow the change. Be the change.

Better to suffer for the truth than prosper in a falsehood. – Danish proverb

 

[Baron23]

Sessions is out of his fucking mind. My only hope is that the old fuck drops dead (from natural causes, mind you).

Actually no, I have never wished death on anybody...but wow, he's really pushing my limits with this stuff.

Don't get me wrong, I have NO sympathy for organized criminal activity bringing in or distributing heroin, cocaine, meth, etc. and personally feel that they should be locked up and the key thrown away when caught poisoning people in our country with this shit, but the death penalty.

Its just too stupid for words and even Sessions knows this will not pass muster in the judiciary.


Here’s how much marijuana you’d need to be eligible for the death penalty under federal law

Last week Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a memo encouraging federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty for certain drug trafficking offenses.

Federal law allows for capital punishment in drug trafficking cases involving murder or homicide. But the attorney general also specifically called out one provision that allows for capital punishment in cases involving “extremely large quantities of drugs.”

That provision, 18 U.S.C. § 3591(b)(1), lays out quantities of drugs that could trigger capital punishment even in the absence of any accompanying violent crime. Experts say that no cases have ever been tried under this provision, and that it's almost certain that it would be declared unconstitutional if any such case were to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

“The Supreme Court has never upheld the death penalty for a crime that did not involve death,” said Tamar Todd, director of the Office of Legal Affairs at the Drug Policy Alliance, a group that advocates for decriminalizing drug use.

Still, for the time being, a zealous federal prosecutor could seek the death penalty for certain drug traffickers on the basis of drug quantity alone. Below, we visualized those quantities relative to a 6-foot-tall American man.

Just under 0.6 kilograms of LSD could trigger the death penalty in a federal drug trafficking case, the lowest such threshold in the statute. While such a pocket-size quantity may not seem like much, it works out to about 6 million standard (100-microgram) doses of the drug.

For meth, the threshold is three kilograms. Similarly, six kilograms of PCP, or angel dust, would trigger the death penalty. PCP use is relatively uncommon — the number of Americans reporting use in 2016 rounded to zero, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

The capital threshold for fentanyl is 24 kilograms, enough to squeeze into one or two backpacks. With a lethal dose of three milligrams for a typical adult man, 24 kilograms of fentanyl could kill approximately 8 million people. Fentanyl analogs, which can be even more powerful, are treated more strictly under federal law.

The capital threshold for heroin is 60 kilograms — small enough to move in a few suitcases or the trunk of a small car.

Three hundred kilos of pure cocaine is enough to trigger the death penalty, but as in many areas of federal law crack-cocaine (“cocaine base,” in statutory parlance) is treated much more harshly, with a threshold of 16.8 kilograms. The two substances are chemically identical, but crack is treated 18 times more severely under federal law — a relic of racial drug sentencing disparities that have traditionally treated African American drug users much more severely than white ones.

Finally, there is a federal capital punishment on the books for large quantities of marijuana — a substance with no known lethal dose that is legal for recreational use in nine states plus the District. The threshold is huge — 60,000 kilograms, or 60,000 plants, enough to fill several shipping containers.

The quantity-based capital punishment provision is of particular concern to state-legal marijuana businesses. The plant remains illegal under federal law, regardless of what state laws say. Aaron Smith, executive director of the National Cannabis Industry Association, a trade group, said in an email that “there are many state-licensed cannabis businesses cultivating 60,000 plants or more.”

But again, experts say it's unlikely that any individuals trafficking in any drug, much less state-legal marijuana, would be tried or sentenced under the quantity provision of federal law.

“No one has been sentenced to death under that provision,” Todd said. “People have long thought that the provision would be unconstitutional, but it hasn't been challenged because there have been no cases.”

Why, then, would the attorney general specifically highlight that provision in his memo?

Todd thinks the memo is more about messaging than anything else. “To me it's the message of 'we're going to be tough, and we don't view these people as fully human and deserving of life,’ ” Todd said. “It's an opportunity to look really tough by dehumanizing people.”

 

[Baron23]

Joke MMJ programs....they are a sham run by politicians on their electorate to convince them that their state government is responsive to their needs and desires while....being NOT responsive to their needs and desires.

Just like Iowa's ridiculous excuse for an MMJ program: https://vaporasylum.com/threads/iowa.222/#post-15426


Low-THC medical marijuana programs a bust for cannabis industry

Although medical marijuana is legal in over half the United States, not all of these programs are created equal. Some are comprehensive, giving patients with a laundry list of qualified conditions the freedom to access various strains of marijuana with a recommendation from a licensed physician.

Others are more restrictive. These typically only give patients with specific debilitating conditions, like certain types of epilepsy, the freedom to treat their symptoms with a legal form of cannabis.

This toe-in-the-water approach to medical marijuana forces participants to rely almost exclusively on expensive, low-THC cannabis products. It also requires them to jump through a series of hoops (approval from more than one doctor, etc.) before they can even begin to think about visiting a dispensary.

These factors alone prevent many qualified patients from leaning on legal sources. Instead, they continue frequenting the black market, where they can get their hands on the real medicine they need.

Despite all of the problems surrounding low-THC medical marijuana programs, cannabis companies scramble like wild-eyed fiends to get in on the action whenever a state approves a program of this kind. But as many of them have learned, the restrictive nature of these programs does not come with the promise of a golden goose at the end of the day.

Louisiana is set to launch its medical marijuana program in the coming months. The law was designed to give patients with around 10 “serious conditions” access to low-THC cannabis products. Because the state has a no smoking rule, no raw flower can be sold.

But now the companies approved to service Louisiana patients are starting to panic because they say the current business model does not provide them with an opportunity to turn a profit. There simply isn’t a strong enough customer base for any of them to operate in the black.

Needless to say, Louisiana's cannabis industry is nervous.

“They've said, 'When I look at the numbers, when I look at the disease states, and the amount of recommendations it will generate, this business model is going to be tough to be profitable,'” State Senator Fred Mills, who introduced the state’s medical marijuana legislation, told the New Orleans Advocate.

As it stands, the state expects 1,441 patients will have access to medical marijuana. It has been said that a program needs at least 30,000 patients for dispensaries to stand a fighting chance at survival. But the only way to increase patient participation is by expanding the law – adding more qualified conditions is the most logical start.

A recent study by LSU AgCenter suggests that “once legislators expand the list of debilitating medical conditions,” making sure to include “chronic pain,” the program will service more patients.

Until that happens, however, cannabis companies can expect to hear crickets when they open their doors later this year. It is a situation where only the most financially sound organizations can push through without their coffers entering starvation mode.

Sadly, all of dispensaries set to sell cannabis products to Louisiana patients are expected to operate at a loss.

“If our program stays the way it is, these companies are going to lose their shirts,” Kevin Caldwell, president of the cannabis reform organization CommonSense, told the Advocate. “Our concern is that because of the cost associated with getting this program off the ground, the medicine they provide to patients is going to be so expensive, patients aren’t going to be able to afford it.”

The complaints coming from Louisiana’s cannabis sector is not anything new. Every state that has passed similar medical marijuana laws has driven its cannabis businesses to the brink of bankruptcy.

Minnesota and New York are two prime examples.

The two medical marijuana dispensaries operating in the Land of 10,000 Lakes reportedly lost $11 million during the first two years of operation. The situation has improved slightly since the state approved “intractable pain” as a qualified condition. But the additional patients generated from this expansion are only expected to bring these companies to the point of break-even.

In New York, the state’s initial five medical marijuana producers struggled to get by on only around 1,000 patients during the first year of operation. In fact, the state’s cannabis industry generated only around $16 million during that time.

That was before operating expenses and taxes. These businesses also invested millions of dollars in lobbying funds before ever receiving approval to set up shop

Just as the state’s medical marijuana program saw a modest expansion last year, with the addition of chronic pain and PTSD to the list of qualified conditions, health officials approved another round of medical marijuana licenses that continues to prevent any of the companies from turning a profit.

This in spite of the fact that patient numbers have increased significantly. The state now has more than 30,000 registered participants. Still, the cannabis firms connected to the program aren’t getting much relief.

Perhaps the only hope for these companies is that the New York will eventually move to legalize for recreational use. A step in this direction could leads to billions.

Some cannabis companies get involved with restrictive medical marijuana states based on the possibility that the program will improve, allowing them to secure the ground floor of a budding industry. But so far, none of the states that have implemented restrictive medical marijuana laws (CBD-only) have moved into more comprehensive programs.

This means some of the cannabis businesses that deal with these so-called medical marijuana states could be on borrowed time. It's a situation where a seemingly good first step could be their last.

 

[Baron23]

12 influential pro-cannabis politicians to pay attention to

There have been more and more pro-cannabis politicians voicing their support for legalization. Here are 12 to be inspired by.

The last five years boast some of the greatest progress in marijuana legislation, possibly ever. Still, politicians and lawmakers continue to relay false information about weed, creating obstacles to full acceptance.

But no one is a bigger enemy to marijuana law reform in the US than Senator Jeff Sessions. Despite his efforts to snub out this progress, many politicians who back weed reform disagree with his stance.

And they are not backing down but taking action to stop his war on this miracle drug. Though the list of politicians keeps growing, here’s a list of the top 12 influential pro-cannabis politicians to pay attention to.

1. Sen. Cory Booker, D-New Jersey

In the summer of 2017, Sen. Cory Booker introduced the CARERS Act alongside five other leading proponents to call for an end to the federal prohibition on weed, especially for states and territories that currently have laws for medical marijuana.

This bill, called the Compassionate Access, Research Expansion, and Respect States Act ( or the CARERS ACT for short) is currently under consideration. But Sen. Booker made his opinion on the current state of weed laws clear when he helped introduce this bill.

In a room of lawmakers, he argued, “This [prohibition] makes no sense in science, makes no sense in compassion, makes no sense in terms of law, it makes no sense frankly in terms of economics.”

Furthermore, Booker is responsible for bringing forward the important Marijuana Justice Act.

2. Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colorado

As part of the bipartisan effort to stop Sessions’ actions to rescind the Cole Memo, Rep. Jared Polis has banned together with many other pro-cannabis politicians to create what is now known as the Congressional Cannabis Caucus.

Joined by other weed-friendly representatives like Reps. Dana Rohrabacher and Earl Blumenauer from California and Oregon, respectively, Polis hopes to protect and promote the budding pot industry.

Part of this battle will include fighting Sessions’ actions to challenge marijuana reform.

But this group and Polis especially will be active in creating marijuana legislation that, according to Polis, covers “issues ranging from banking to tax deductions to employment issues to potential for enforcement.”

3. Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colorado

Although he is a Republican like Sen. Jeff Sessions, Sen. Gardner rejects his intentions to alter the current interpretation of the Cole Memo. Instead, he has been one of the most vocal against Sessions recent letters criticizing pot protections.

In fact, he was one of the first to respond to the story publicly, where he acknowledged his disappointment in Sessions for changing his stance on the priority of targeting pot.

In that same message of concern for Sessions actions, he threatened to do everything in his power politically until Sessions lives up to the platform he had prior to being appointed.

4. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky

Not only is Sen. Rand Paul a Republican member of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, he is thought to be the first presidential candidate to use the marijuana industry to raise funds for campaign fundraising.

While he lost the race in 2016, his use of the money-making potential in the pot industry may set higher standards for those running for office in the future.

5. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska

Though she has a personal stance against legal recreational bud, this senator from the Great White North listens to the rally cry of her voters.

Though she did not support it on the ballot measure, this tough senator now confronts Sessions head-on when it comes to pot.

Speaking alongside others like Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, this leader of the people spoke out against rescinding the Cole Memo, arguing for strong state’s rights.

In this way, this outspoken senator may have changed her tune on pot. And now she’s singing louder than ever.

6. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah

Story Continues Below


Many politicians feel marijuana should be a states’ rights issue. Sen. Mike Lee supports this federalist stance along with others, like Sen. Rand Paul.

He also serves on the new Congressional Cannabis Caucus. By holding this position, he believes states should govern themselves on weed laws, allowing for medical marijuana and in some cases legal recreational use.

7. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-New York

Like her brother in the political struggle Sen. Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand supports the Marijuana Justice Act.

Reacting to Sessions determination to continue a War on Drugs that includes pot, Gillibrand also stood with other legislators for the CARERS Act when it was introduced.

Her advocacy for both has been made clear on her Facebook and Twitter accounts.

There she criticizes Sessions and those who back his agenda as working for special interests like Big Pharma and not the American people.

8. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Oregon

This guy is no new kid on the block. A Democratic politician since the 1970s, Rep. Blumenauer has worked tirelessly to promote acceptance of weed. For Rep. Blumenauer, medical marijuana continues to be a critical need for our country.

With the opioid crisis affecting both red and blue states, this representative argues that medical weed may be the solution.

Also, this advocate earns partial responsibility for the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment, which makes illegal any federal prosecution of medical cannabis activity, if allowed by a state’s laws.

9. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, D-California

It’s important to have a chorus of pro-cannabis politicians when working to protect and reform any policy.

And Sen. Dana Rohrabacher’s name has been added to a number of these marijuana initiatives, including the Congressional Cannabis Caucus and the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment.

However, as we’ve reported before, some of this politician’s beliefs might be a bit like a stoner’s hallucinations.

Nonetheless, he continues to bat on the team for marijuana policy reform.

10. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts

This powerful woman who is also one of the important pro-cannabis politicians aims to tackle a major issue when it comes to pot.

Retail shops selling weed where it is legal can’t use the same banking services other businesses are able to use.

That’s why Sen. Warren joined forces with other senators from 9 other states to ask with the regulator Financial Crimes Enforcement Network to provide advisement to help banks work with these weed retail shops.

11. Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-California

This contender for California’s 2018 gubernatorial position has an abundance of political pot-tential.

In fact, the 2018 hopeful has received funding from the state’s legal cannabis industry. To date, his campaign has received $300,000 in funding from cannabis retailers, cultivators, and others.

Though he claims he hasn’t puffed on any green himself, he is one of the first officeholders in the state to support legal recreational use.

12. Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vermont

A lot of the pot-smoking world felt the Bern in the 2016 primaries.

The senator’s feelings on weed have been transparent. He makes it easy for the other lawmakers to understand, reminding them that marijuana is not heroin.

Instead, he calls for an end to federal prohibition of recreational and medical pot use.

Bernie may not burn flowers. But he’s certainly been part of the flame that has ignited this conversation about cannabis reform.

Supporting Pro-Cannabis Politicians

Having lawmakers behind the movement to have universal legalization of weed is important. But nothing is quite as important as what the individual can do to pot’s progress in the US.

Pro-cannabis politicians are voted into office by you, and so the possibility for change starts with you. So make sure to show up to the polls.

But first, educate yourself on what representatives think about weed before casting your vote.

 

[Baron23]

I'm generally supportive of LEO's as without the police we would have violent anarchy. But my support is contingent on them doing their job correctly, within the law, and with respect to their rights of citizens in a free democracy. I support good police and feel strongly that bad police, that abuse their authority, should be severely punished not only for their crime but for their abuse of the public trust. This raid and the actions after are a complete travesty of justice, if this article is at all accurate.

57 shots....why is it that when police open fire two things generally occur; 1) they shoot more shots than is even conceivable as reasonable and; 2) they miss...a LOT.

I hated reading this article...got my blood pressure up. Race of the victim is not noted so I don't know if that came into play at all.


Man shot at 57 times during raid over $100 pot sale gets $2.75 million settlement


by Radley Balko March 27 Email the author
I first wrote about Julian Betton’s case in my 2016 series on policing in South Carolina. Betton was raided by a multi-jurisdictional narcotics task force after a police informant bought $50 worth of marijuana from him two times. The police broke down Betton’s door with a battering ram, then fired at least 57 bullets at him, hitting him nine times. He lost portions of his gallbladder, colon, bowel and rectum, and is paralyzed from the waist down. He also suffered damage to his liver, lung, small intestine and pancreas. Two of his vertebrae were damaged, and another was partially destroyed. Another bullet shattered his leg.

In their remarkably consistent after-action reports and interviews, members of the raid team initially claimed they fired only after Betton shot at them first. They had to change that narrative when the crime lab revealed that Betton’s gun hadn’t been fired. They then claimed they opened fire when he pointed his gun at them. They claimed he had no right to do so because — again in remarkably similar, almost word-for-word descriptions — they knocked and announced themselves repeatedly before breaking down his door. Several of the officers were wearing body cameras. Those cameras might have shown us whether members of the raid team had indeed knocked and announced themselves several times before smashing Betton’s door with a battering ram. But curiously, all the raid team members who were wearing body cameras neglected to activate them prior to the raid. Curiouser still, they all did activate their cameras after the raid went down, and after Betton lay in his own home, bloodied and nearly dead.

He was placed under arrest at the hospital where he was recovering, and charged for the marijuana and for pointing a gun at police officers. He woke from his coma handcuffed to his hospital bed.

What the police didn’t know is that Betton had a security camera. There’s no audio, but the camera clearly shows that the police almost certainly didn’t knock and announce at all before smashing down Betton’s door. At most, it’s at least possible that one officer knocked or announced, though it seems unlikely that there was time to do both. The raid team members also all claimed that the first officers into Betton’s home were wearing clothing that clearly indicated they were police. Betton’s video shows that this, too, was a lie.

The raid and the shooting of Betton were then reviewed by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED), the state police agency that reviews nearly all of the state’s police shootings. Incredibly, despite having access to the security camera footage, SLED investigators found no wrongdoing on the part of the raid team. Worse, the SLED report didn’t even attempt to explain the significant discrepancies between the footage and the well-rehearsed police reports.

Last year, prosecutors dropped the gun charges against Betton, a pretty good indication that they were convinced either that he never pointed his gun at the raiding cops or, more likely, that the cops didn’t properly knock and announce themselves, in which case he had every right to point a gun at them, at least until he realized they were police officers.

Now, officers from two police agencies that participate in the task force as well as the prosecutor’s office that oversees the unit have settled with Betton for $2.75 million. That, too, seems to be a good indication that town officials know that this raid team messed up, and messed up pretty badly. The city of Myrtle Beach did not participate in the settlement, so Betton’s lawsuit against that city and the officer from the city police department who was involved in the raid will continue.

The main focus of my 2016 series on policing in South Carolina was how deficient SLED appears to be at investigating police shootings. The agency is widely thought to be the most elite law enforcement outfit in the state. Yet my review of shootings found that SLED investigators routinely failed to investigate contradictions and falsehoods in police reports, often made little effort to follow up when police accounts of a shooting were directly contradicted by video or forensic evidence, and sometimes failed to even mention those contradictions. One SLED investigator admitted under oath that he doesn’t even read forensics and crime lab reports. Another said he didn’t bother following up on contradictions between crime lab reports and police reports in an officer-involved shooting “because they’re police officers and I believe what they’re telling me.”

The really troubling thing about all of this is that because SLED is an outside police agency, and because it is viewed as elite, when investigators from the agency clear cops for shootings, they come with a great deal of cachet and credibility. Or at least perceived credibility. And an outside investigation that’s perceived as credible and unbiased, but is actually neither, is arguably more destructive to good policing and good government than not handing the investigation over to an outside agency at all.

After my series ran, SLED chief Mark Keel gave an interview to Statehouse Report in which he made unspecified allegations that the series was “inaccurate” and “misleading,” and dismissed my reporting as the work of someone who wants “to believe that law enforcement is somehow evil.”

Let’s go back to the Betton case. SLED cleared the raid team without noting that the task force members’ reports of the raid appear to have been coordinated and rehearsed, and that those coordinated, rehearsed reports were initially wrong about Betton firing his gun and about the raid team’s attire, and in claiming that members of the raid team repeatedly knocked and announced themselves. Yet local prosecutors didn’t believe there was sufficient evidence that Betton had pointed his gun at the raid team to charge him for doing so. And here’s the thing: If Betton didn’t point his gun, the raid team had no justification to shoot at him 57 times.

Now, officials in two jurisdictions and the local prosecutor’s office seem to believe that the raid team messed up badly enough that they’re willing to pay Betton $2.75 million — which suggests that they think there’s a good chance that a jury would have awarded Betton quite a bit more. It’s difficult to get a jury to rule against police officers, even in really egregious cases. So whoever decided on this settlement undoubtedly concluded that the raid team’s actions were about as bad as it gets.

So the city and local officials outside of SLED who have reviewed this case seem to have reached conclusions that are starkly different from the SLED investigators’ conclusions. But because the SLED investigators found no wrongdoing by the raid team, the only party who will be punished for the damage done to Julian Betton’s body will be South Carolina’s taxpayers.

 

[Baron23]

Not a great article, but not bad either. Just would like some more meat on the bones.

But this I could live without "These two are “trigger warning worthy" sigh


Keeping an Eye on Cannabis Prohibitionists
Two cannabis prohibitionist groups are spreading misinformation.

I am a pot writer, So it’s no surprise that the vast majority of my interactions—be they electronic or IRL—are with people, businesses, and organizations that you could describe as “pro-cannabis.” A lot of them are employed in the industry, in both the recreational and medical fields, and might have financial interests in the biz as business owners, investors, or employees. Or they’re medical patients who use cannabis to relieve any number of physical and psychological ailments and conditions. Or they’re simply consumers—people who partake of cannabis in its many forms to enhance, enrich, and increase the enjoyment levels of their professional and personal lives.

Most of the other people I come into contact with may not have any financial or personal stakes in legalized cannabis, but they have no problem with those who do, and recognize that the people who produce, provide, and partake of cannabis are their neighbors, friends, children, parents, and partners—not strung-out addicts, violent cartel members, or whatever probably racist stereotype the anti-cannabis industry has put forth for decades. Even non-users can recognize that a legal and regulated recreational program generates tax revenue and creates jobs, and not feel the need to limit access to cannabis, or ostracize and punish its users and producers.

But my work occasionally exposes me to people who feel differently, and their concerns and fears (emphasis on “fears”). My recent takeaway is that people who don’t support growing access to legal cannabis around the country are afraid of the many, many horrible things that’ll happen when that access is established. (I’m not including anyone who financially benefits from cannabis prohibition, such as pharmaceutical companies, the correctional facility industry, or certain branches of law enforcement—in this case, I’m looking at individuals and advocacy groups.)

There’s no shortage of examples, I’m sorry to say, but two more recently came to my attention. While it’s valuable to maintain awareness of what those on the other side are stating and supporting, it’s not much fun. These two are “trigger warning” worthy, so you may wish to avoid them like those animal cruelty TV commercials where they’re rescuing those poor dogs and OH GOD CHANGE THE CHANNEL! CHANGE THE CHANNEL!

First up: The brain trust at Facebook made a page suggestion to me for a group called “Parents Opposed to Pot,” which took me to their site (poppot.org). If you need a one-stop site filled with hysterical fear-based misinformation and rabid foaming at the mouth over cannabis and those who partake, welcome! They can boast all varieties of ill-informed rant, such as “The Truth of Deaths Caused by Marijuana Overdose,” a warning of those who “Dumpster Dive for Weed,” and “Marijuana Lobby Plays Retribution and Slander to the Max.” Enter this tinfoil-hat brigade of fuckery only after you’ve partaken of a relaxing strain and are ready to abandon all hope of rational thought and constructive engagement.

Up next: The state of New Jersey has been exploring implementing a regulated legalization program for cannabis, and the Legislative Black Caucus, composed of 19 Democrats, recently heard testimony. During the first of three forums on the matter, on February 21, they heard from 17 speakers, only two of whom were in favor of legalization. The meeting was organized and led by Senator Ronald Rice, a former police detective opposed to legalization. Rice refused to allow testimony from the head of the local ACLU-NJ coalition, New Jersey United For Legalization Reform, and instead recruited 15 fervent anti-cannabis speakers with the help of the Virginia-based nonprofit Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM).

SAM is worried that “Big Cannabis” is on par with Big Tobacco, but that’s just one of their fears. Regarding medical cannabis, they state on their website that “smoking the raw form of marijuana is akin to smoking opium to get the effects of morphine” and that “marijuana meets the technical definition of [a] Schedule I [drug] because it has a high potential for abuse and has no FDA-approved use.” They are pro-Jeff Sessions. Enough said.

This is what prohibitionist belief systems currently look like, and this is how they shape arguments through misinformation. If you want to convince someone who’s on the fence about cannabis, it helps to explore what the opposition believes. Then speak truth to power, loudly.

 

[Baron23]

Medical Marijuana Patient’s Federal Appeal Heard by 9th Circuit Court of Appeals During Special Sitting at U of I Law School
Michael "Adam" Assenberg appealed District Court's summary judgment in action alleging U.S. Constitution violations by Whitman County, the Sheriff's Office, Sheriff Brett Myers, Quad Cities Drug Task Force, & others

MOSCOW, ID - The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held a special sitting today at the University of Idaho College of Law in Moscow. The three-judge panel heard oral arguments on appeals of decisions by the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of Washington and District of Montana

Oral arguments for one of the cases was an appeal filed by Michael "Adam" Assenberg (Civil Case 15-35757). He appealed the District Court's summary judgment in an action alleging Federal Amendment violations by Whitman County, the Sheriff's Office, Sheriff Brett Myers, the Quad Cities Drug Task Force, and others, arising from the execution of a narcotics search warrant at his Colfax home and his subsequent arrest in 2011.

Assenberg has suffered from debilitating pain since 1985 when he was working as a security guard in California and was pushed off a train bridge "15 feet down into a dry riverbed full of boulders," according to an online account of the incident. He suffered nine broken bones in his spine. He has been an advocate for the use of medical marijuana for several years.

At the time that law enforcement officials conducted the raid on his home, Assenberg was running a medical marijuana dispensary there. He says police sent in a confidential informant who acted like a marijuana patient.

"That's what he went ahead and acted like when he came to me is that he was a patient just like any other seeking my help in acquiring medicine once he got the authorization from his doctor," Assenberg says.

Law enforcement reportedly found nearly 100 marijuana plants in various stages of development during the raid.

Assenberg was arrested and charged with four felonies in Whitman County Superior Court. The plants and other items that were confiscated were later ordered to be returned when the charges were dropped. The marijuana was unusable because they were stored incorrectly by the county, Assenberg says.

Meanwhile, Assenberg filed a civil lawsuit in U.S. District Court claiming, among other things, that officers entered his residence pursuant to an illegal search. Although a search warrant had been issued, he claims it had been issued improperly and his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion at home was violated.

"They made it sound like I was helping any Tom, Dick, and Harry on the street when they went ahead and created the warrant. They did not even bother to tell the Magistrate that it was a medical marijuana organization that they were getting ready to raid," Assenberg says.

"In reality, the officers responsible for the search knew, and should have known,
that Plaintiffs were in possession of valid medical marijuana authorizations. In fact, the case against Plaintiff Michael Adam Assenberg, based on evidence obtained from the illegal search, was eventually dismissed by the Whitman County Superior Court with prejudice because of the valid medical marijuana patient and provider authorizations," according to court documents.

Assenberg also claimed that his Eighth Amendment right to medical treatment was violated.

"He was in custody, in a cell that was under the oversight of officials at the Whitman
County Jail, suffered a seizure, and suffered injury to his head," the documents say. "Nothing was done to prevent his injury, and no treatment was provided once it had occurred. The claim is not for denial of medical marijuana."

"While I was in the holding cell, I had one of those episodes to where I woke up [on] the floor of the jail after going through one of those convulsions," Assenberg explains. "I had gotten home after being in jail [and] my wife noticed the back of my head was a little bit red and come to find out I cracked the back of my head open just enough to make it bleed."

"They're trying to argue that since I did not request medical care when I was in the jail, then I should not have been offered any medical care," Assenberg says, adding that there was video surveillance of the holding cell.

"And they should have had someone watching that camera. Apparently they did not," Assenberg says.

The third argument in Assenberg's appeal was that his First Amendment rights were violated because a Whitman County Commissioner reportedly sent a letter to him, threatening to “ask our sheriff to take appropriate actions” if he were to speak during an open forum at a Commission meeting.

"Plaintiff Michael Adam Assenberg did not speak at the meeting because of that letter. No disturbance was caused by Plaintiff Assenberg, and Commissioner Partch cannot take preemptive action before any disturbance is caused. Plaintiff Assenberg’s speech was chilled by the actions of Commissioner [Greg] Partch," the documents say.

"I wanted to go to a county commissioner's meeting and ask them why was it that a county sheriff could go ahead and violate the RCW laws of Washington State by arresting me when it clearly stipulates that I'm allowed to help one patient at a time," Assenberg explains.

A judgment was entered in favor of the Defendants in September 2015 and Assenberg then filed an appeal later that month in an effort to get a reversal of that judgment and get a jury trial. That appeal was heard today.

The Court of Appeals is expected to render its opinion in 30 to 60 days, Assenberg says.

Video of today's argument:

Assenberg ran for Whitman County Sheriff in 2014, garnering nearly 19% of the votes (1,907).

-------

Other cases on today's docket were:
USA v. Brian Charette, in which Brian Charette appeals his bench trial conviction for unlawful taking of a grizzly bear in violation of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1538(a)(1)(G) and 1540(b)(1) and 50 C.F.R. § 17.40(b)(1)(i)(A). Case 17-30059.

Wonder Ranch, LLC v. USA, in which Wonder Ranch, LLC appeals the district court’s judgement in favor of the United States in Wonder Ranch’s action under the Quiet Title Act, alleging exclusive ownership and control of the portion of a trail, known as the Indian Creek Trail. Case 16-36071.

More information on Assenberg: https://www.themaven.net/theweedblo...arijuana-policy-6pkAw2-LI0W0m080D80log?full=1