Law The Cannabis Chronicles - Misc Cannabis News

[Baron23]

"Q- Why do you think your bill and other marijuana reform efforts have failed to gain traction?
A - It’s very simple. There are a bunch of gatekeepers here that won’t let these bills get to the floor. There are gatekeepers at the subcommittee level, committee level. You have to have leadership that says, “Hey, we’re going to vote on this bill.”

If our bill gets to the floor, it passes with a bipartisan majority – that’s probably close to 300 out of 435 votes."

THIS is the truth of it and for those who advocate for a return to "regular order" in Congress.....THIS....committee chairman (like that dick Pete Sessions from TX) exercises almost unlimited power to single handedly block legislation from even debate much less vote...is regular order.

Why the US needs federal marijuana reform: Q&A with Congressman Tom Garrett

U.S. Rep. Tom Garrett isn’t the most likely congressional member to embrace federal marijuana reform.

The first-term Republican is from a state – Virginia – that has yet to legalize medical marijuana, although its laws provide protections for people who use cannabidiol oils for medical conditions.

Why did Garrett introduce the “Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2017” – a bill that would take marijuana off the federal controlled substances list?

The former county and state prosecutor is troubled by the disparate way marijuana laws are enforced in the United States.

“I care about equal protection under the law, and we’re so far from that,” Garrett told Marijuana Business Daily.


Garrett will speak on a panel discussion about marijuana regulation at MJBizConNEXT May 9-11 in New Orleans.
MJBizDaily spoke with Garrett, who’s also a military veteran, about his views on marijuana reform and regulation.

How did a Republican from a state that doesn’t have a marijuana industry get interested in this issue?

I spent close to 10 years as a prosecutor and vigorously prosecuted all the laws on the books.

Marijuana is a realm where we’ve got laws on the books, particularly federally, that are not uniformly enforced.

It just strikes me as totally undermining the concept of rule of law that we would enforce laws in certain areas while completely ignoring them in others.

Also, I was probably amused the first time I heard the term medical cannabis or marijuana. Over the years, what I’ve learned – whether it’s speaking to parents of children with epilepsy, people with terminal cancer or people with traumatic brain injuries – is that it actually does help medically.

The federal government won’t be honest about the potential that exists medically, and that’s stupid.

If you poll this in my district, it’s not a political winner. But I’m not here to do what’s a political good idea, I’m here to do what’s right.

Why do you think your bill and other marijuana reform efforts have failed to gain traction?

It’s very simple. There are a bunch of gatekeepers here that won’t let these bills get to the floor. There are gatekeepers at the subcommittee level, committee level.

You have to have leadership that says, “Hey, we’re going to vote on this bill.”

If our bill gets to the floor, it passes with a bipartisan majority – that’s probably close to 300 out of 435 votes.

What marijuana issues could get the support right now?

You’ve got the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment, and it’s good, but essentially what that says is that we’re not going to enforce the laws that are on the books.

If you think we should make laws that we apply uniformly, then you know that’s not the right answer.

You could be entrepreneur of the year in Denver, but, for the exact same fact pattern, be in a federal prison in Charlottesville, Virginia. It just makes no sense.

When do you foresee the legalization of marijuana in the United States?

I’m not going to play hypothetical games.

But what this takes is men and women who have the courage to stand up and say, “You know this makes no sense, we have to change it.”

Every single day we get more of those folks. This is not a partisan issue. This is sort of a “Who has really looked into this issue, what’s the right thing to do” issue.

How likely do you think it is that federal prosecutors will crack down on operations in marijuana-friendly states?

I tell you what, I think there’d be a rebellion amongst the leadership. I would not sit quietly while we have for years looked the other way.

Maybe that’s what we need to get across the line, but I hope it doesn’t happen.

 

[Cuckfumbustion]

FDA approves cannabis derived drug.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/19/cannabis-derived-drug-clears-hurdle-on-path-to-fda-approval.html

Are enough legislators and former legislators having a change of heart?
John Boehner's reversal on cannabis: Former speaker of the House joins Acreage Holdings, says thinking on drug has evolved - The Washington Post

Chuck Schumer to Unveil Bill Decriminalizing Marijuana | Time\

Schumer will unveil marijuana decriminalization bill on 4/20.

Here is Chuck signing a bong.

 

[momofthegoons]

"The legislation is long overdue based on, you know, a bunch of different facts," Schumer said.

Sigh.... a bunch of different facts.... So basically what this comment shows me is that he has no clue why... he just sees it as a popular thing to do. If this wasn't an election year I'd feel differently. But what they're doing is using cannabis as a tool for their own re-elections. They're hoping that if they legalize it (especially if they can do this before the elections) that it will keep the folk that use cannabis away from the polls (locally). And on a federal level; help sway the vote. The only thing I can say is that if it passes on a local or federal level prior to the election, I would hope all would still go and vote. Some of these guys still need to go.

Potential Democratic 2020 contenders are rushing to back marijuana legalization

In a significant political shift, several top Democrats considered to be possible contenders in the 2020 presidential race are backing legislation that would decriminalize marijuana.

The shift has left Democratic operatives and marijuana legalization activists across the country saying it's difficult to imagine a debate stage in the 2020 primary race where almost all of the presidential hopefuls don't publicly back removing marijuana from the federal Controlled Substances Act.
The latest signal came when Sen. Bernie Sanders, a 2016 Democratic candidate who is widely considered a top contender for the nomination in 2020, signed onto The Marijuana Justice Act on Thursday. The bill, proposed by Sen. Cory Booker, himself a 2020 contender, would effectively end the federal crackdown on marijuana by removing the drug from the Controlled Substances Act. It was also backed by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, another possible 2020 hopeful.
Democratic endorsement of legalization would also be a departure from the party's 2016 position. Hillary Clinton, the party's nominee in 2016, said the federal government should allow states to legalize marijuana and called for removing the drug from the schedule 1 list, but did not go so far as to call for its removal from the Controlled Substances Act.
While Democratic operatives reject the idea that the issue will be a litmus test in the presidential contest -- the party, says a Democratic National Committee official, doesn't have litmus tests -- Democratic shifts on the issue have put pressure on every candidate to either catch up to the electorate or risk falling behind.

The shift comes amid recent movement by the Trump administration on the issue. President Donald Trump recently agreed to support protecting states that have legalized marijuana, after being pressured by Sen. Cory Gardner, a Colorado Republican. The deal comes after Attorney General Jeff Sessions signaled a desire earlier this year to go after states that have legalized marijuana by rescinding guidance from the Obama administration that had laid out a policy of non-interference.
In another step toward legalization, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer threw his weight behind loosening marijuana laws on Thursday, telling Vice News that he will be introducing legislation to decriminalize the drug soon.
"The legislation is long overdue based on, you know, a bunch of different facts," Schumer said. "Ultimately, it is the right thing to do. Freedom. If smoking marijuana doesn't hurt anybody else, why shouldn't we allow people to do it and not make it criminal."
A watershed moment
Activists who have long hoped the issue would become a key plank in a Democratic nomination fight are hopeful Thursday's news signals a watershed moment is on the horizon.
"Descheduling marijuana should and will likely be a litmus test in the 2020 Democratic primary," said Erik Altieri, the executive director of The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. "As we have seen, leaders from the party are seeing that leading the charge on this is not just good policy but is good politics."
Removing marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act -- where it is now in line with heroin, LSD and ecstasy -- would be a boon for states that have backed legalization. It would allow dispensaries and growers to utilize banks like they haven't been able to before and remove the threat of a federal crackdown, something growers and sellers are particularly worried about under Trump.
Sanders, Booker and Gillibrand are not the only possible candidates backing legalized marijuana, either.
Both Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper and Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, two other potential candidates for the 2020 Democratic nomination, have defended the successful efforts to legalize marijuana in their respective states. Sen. Elizabeth Warren said earlier this year that she is planning to introduce legislation that protects states that have legalized marijuana from a possible crackdown. And Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, who has already started to make trips out to early presidential primary and caucus states, helped implement the plan to legalize marijuana in California, making his city that largest in the United States selling legal pot.
The political shift from Democratic leaders has tracked with polling, too. According to a Pew Research Center poll released earlier this year, 61% of Americans believe marijuana should be legal, more than double the 31% who supported legalization in 2000. The support from Democrats (69%) is even more overwhelming.
Skyler McKinley, the founding deputy director of Hickenlooper's Office of Marijuana Coordination, said that while the Democratic shift is good policy, it is also good politics.
"Especially on the Democratic side," McKinley said, "I don't think anyone who wants to continue the drug war on marijuana is going to be the nominee."
He added: "Imagine the debates. If a moderator just asks, 'Do you support descheduling marijuana' and a candidate says no, that's a viral ad right there."
This level of support is not a surprise to most top Democratic operatives. According to a former Clinton campaign staffer, the issue tested markedly well in focus groups with independent-leaning voters.
In one such group, the former staffer said, one woman brought up the case for legalizing marijuana, making the argument that it would create jobs and boost the economy.
"The group almost all agreed very enthusiastically," the staffer said, adding that the idea "caught on like wildfire."
One outlier in the 2020 field may be former Vice President Joe Biden, who said in 2014 that the Obama administration backed better enforcement efforts, not outright legalization.
"I think the idea of focusing significant resources on interdicting or convicting people for smoking marijuana is a waste of our resources," Biden told TIME. "That's different than [legalization]. Our policy for our Administration is still not legalization, and that is [and] continues to be our policy."
A spokesman for Biden declined to comment.
The Democratic evolution
Democratic views on marijuana have evolved significantly over the past three decades.
In 1992, Bill Clinton, then running for president, admitted that he "experimented with marijuana a time or two" when he was a Rhodes Scholar at the University of Oxford.
"I didn't like it," he said. "I didn't inhale it, and never tried it again."
Fast forward 11 years to 2003, where all candidates at a Democratic presidential debate in Boston were asked whether they had ever used marijuana.
In a sign that the politics around the issue had changed, three of the candidates said they had and Sen. Joe Lieberman apologized for never trying the drug.
"I have a reputation for giving unpopular answers at Democratic debates," he said. "I never used marijuana. Sorry!"
President Barack Obama opposed decriminalizing marijuana during the 2008 campaign but, much like the rest of the Democratic Party, evolved on the issue in his eight years as president and, in his exit interview with Rolling Stone, said the drug should be treated similar to tobacco or alcohol and raised questions about the "untenable" situation of having states with such varied laws.
The largest sea change came during Obama's presidency, though, when Colorado votes made the state the first to legalize marijuana in 2012. Although Hickenlooper, the state's governor, initially opposed the measure, he agreed to implement the publicly backed measure and, eventually, began to support legalization with federal officials.
"Hickenlooper was our opponent in Colorado," said Mason Tvert, a partner at VS Strategies who co-directed the Amendment 64 campaign in the state. "But, after it passed, he did take action to ensure it was implemented and since then he has been evolving on the issue and he has acknowledged that it hasn't caused the problems that he thought it could."
During the 2016 campaign, both candidates were pushed on the issue. Sen. Bernie Sanders said at a CNN debate in Nevada that he would back a state plan to legalize recreational marijuana after calling for an end to the federal ban in 2015. Clinton said the federal government should allow states to legalize marijuana and called for removing the drug from the schedule 1 list. She did not say whether she backed removing the marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act altogether.

 

[Baron23]

"The legislation is long overdue based on, you know, a bunch of different facts," Schumer said.

(sic) So basically what this comment shows (sic)... he just sees it as a popular thing to do.

Absolutely. Voter buying is still alive and well in this country. Now, you have all heard me go on and on about how elected representatives in our democracy are duty bound to...well, represent their voters views and in this case the polls are clear where voters stand.

But this is really separate from evaluating the venality of politicians who opposed legalization when they thought it would advance their personal ambitions and are now equally cynically supporting legalization for the same reasons.

Its this cynical pursuit of political advancement that makes me say "voter buying" rather than "responsive to their electorate"

On the other side we have Boehner who went from "unalterably opposed" to being on the board of advisers of an MJ company because.....well, he's being paid for it (FFS!

 

[Baron23]

Watch: Rep. Earl Blumenauer delivers the Cannabis State of the Union 2018
“There’s no doubt in my mind that the next Congress will accelerate our progress to reform cannabis laws on the national level.”




Editor’s Note: In advance of 4/20, Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore. and co-chair of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, released the following statement, published here in full, addressing his views on the state of marijuana in America.

For the two decades after cannabis was listed as a Schedule 1 controlled substance, we were spinning our wheels. While a few states decriminalized marijuana, starting with Oregon in 1973, we were basically overwhelmed by Richard Nixon’s misguided War on Drugs.

In 1996, with California’s vote to legalize medical marijuana–followed shortly thereafter by Arizona and Oregon–we moved into a new period of activism driven by the will of the voters, not the politicians. Victories for medical marijuana and decriminalization began piling up in state after state.

The adult-use victories of 2012 and 2014 in Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and the District of Columbia signaled the shift to broader acceptance and increasingly sophisticated campaigns. The wins in eight of nine states’ elections in 2016 cemented the revolution.

The public, and some politicians, finally understood that it was time to end the failed prohibition of cannabis. Whether it was because of the merits of the case for legalization or the power of the politics, or both, people started to get on board.

Last year, I founded the bipartisan Congressional Cannabis Caucus to involve more members of Congress with our efforts. There are now dozens of pieces of legislation to end federal interference with state-legal cannabis, to de-schedule cannabis, and to remove barriers to banking and research. If not for the opposition of Republican leadership, we would have already settled many of these issues once and for all. Even with their opposition, my protections to prevent federal intervention in state medical marijuana programs are in place, and we are poised to expand on them in the year ahead.

Trump is backing off the marijuana fight. Jeff Sessions has not.

• Trump says he’ll support protections for legal marijuana. Here’s what politicians and cannabis insiders are saying.

• Senate passes spending bill with medical marijuana protections, Trump agrees to sign it

• Feds working on new marijuana banking guidance, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin tells Congress

• Federal marijuana bills boosted by new supporters as Congress gets back to work

The politics have reached an exciting level, with many candidates across the country embracing ending the failed war on drugs. Over the past six months, I’ve worked to personally connect with dozens of candidates running for office to ensure that they have the facts straight about cannabis and will be on our side in Congress.

Even Trump is coming around. After allowing Jeff Sessions to threaten decades of progress, Trump issued a statement reaffirming what he said in Colorado in 2016 as a candidate: hands-off state-legal programs. Given his penchant for frequently changing his mind, Trump’s announcement is no guarantee. We need to continue our fight to make sure that the federal government protects states’ rights.

Thanks to your help, we’re watching the numbers of supporters grow in Congress, seeing stronger and stronger polling, and there are ballot measures poised for success in Michigan, Missouri, and perhaps Utah. Advocates for medical marijuana in Texas are organizing and optimistic about their chances for success in the 2019 legislative session in Austin.

It’s all coming to a head. The opponents of legalization will be held accountable in this election as an unprecedented array of individuals, organizations, and news media are poised to help us. Last but not least, the industry itself has achieved a greater degree of sophistication and effectiveness. They are making the case for legalization with their business models, how they treat their customers and their employees, and their lobbying efforts in Washington, DC and state capitals.

There’s no doubt in my mind that the next Congress will accelerate our progress to reform cannabis laws on the national level. If Republican leadership would allow our legislation to be fully and fairly debated in the House and Senate, it will happen even sooner. Because of the work of advocates and the strong support of voters, progress is inevitable – and the 2018 election will prove it. The winner of the next presidential election will be a candidate who embraces our cause to finish the job of ending the failed federal prohibition of marijuana.

Congress has more work to do with research, veterans, economic development, international treaties, and clearing the records of people who have been caught up in this War on Drugs–especially young African-American men who have been treated so unfairly. We need to help with the development of tests that show impairment and better drug testing that recognizes the legitimate use of CBD and medical marijuana. We need new procedures and medicines for Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA to provide better health care at lower costs.

These advances will not happen overnight, but they are inevitable. The rate of progress is accelerating. The wind of public opinion is at our back. There’s no reason we cannot see spectacular results if we all do our job in the next 18 months.”

 

[Baron23]

While I agree with her sentiment, to me she is just yet another politician jumping on the MJ bandwagon to advance their career ambitions and leverage the issue for partisan advantage. I mean, where the hell was Elizabeth on this two years ago? Or Schumer...or Boner?

Yes, MJ should be legalized at the Fed level immediately. Its completely unjustifiable to do otherwise. But I'm not giving credit for political courage to any of these three as it seems that once again they are leading from behind while there are many other politicians of both parties at both the state and Fed level who really did take a risk to legalize MMJ and rec MJ.

Just how I feel about it.

Massachusetts Senator: Feds Should ‘Get Out of The Business’ of Banning Marijuana

In a Friday tweet, Warren said: “The federal government needs to get out of the business of outlawing marijuana. States should make their own decisions about enforcing marijuana laws.”

Warren’s tweet came after the top Senate Democrat, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, said he’ll introduce legislation taking cannabis off the federal list of controlled substances, essentially decriminalizing its use. Marijuana is classified by the Drug Enforcement Administration as under Schedule I, meaning it has no accepted medical abuse and a high potential for abuse.

Warren’s position on cannabis has evolved since her first run for office in 2012 when she opposed legalization.

In 2016, Massachusetts approved the legalization of cannabis for recreational use.

Warren has urged President Donald Trump to reinstate the Cole Memorandum, an Obama-era policy by Deputy US Attorney General James M. Cole discouraging federal prosecutors from targeting individuals in the marijuana trade in states that have legalized the drug.

 

[Baron23]

“I get angry when you see just privileged people, wealthy people suddenly getting into the marijuana businesses"​

I get it, Booker. Yes, a lot of inner urban city residents, mostly black Americans, get busted for MJ and end up in jail. Certainly more than white people in the suburbs AND IMO certainly more than affluent black people in the suburbs. Its a fact, to me at least its a fact, that black urban Americans are arrested for MJ to a greater degree than other Americans. I wonder, but have no idea, if that is mostly because they are black or because they are in urban, high crime, areas where a lot of activity takes place on the streets and corners. I really don't know but I do wonder as in many urban areas, like Washington, DC where I live, the majority of the cops are black also as is most of the city government. Certainly there is an issue of fairness and equal justice in both arrests and sentences.

But what also makes ME angry are these constant refrains of "people of privilege" and "people of color". First, because labels like this, IMO, do nothing but continue to divide us by identity groups and does nothing to unite us. But also because frankly I find it to be complete and utter horseshit.

Look, anybody would look at me and say "oh, he's white"....but really I'm beige (that's a color, right?) and if I showed you a picture of my immigrant grandfather with brown skin and kinky hair you wouldn't know quite what to call him (Sephardi Jews from the Mediterranean). Then there is the "privileged" part.

On my mother's side, both of my grandparents were Ellis Island, steerage class immigrants. They had five kids, four of which worked to put one brother through college. My generation generally had the chance to go to college helped, in some cases, by our parents but me and my cousins were mostly self-supporting (I always had jobs in school...starting when I was 15 and right through college... and went into the ROTC in the Vietnam era for the scholarship money and the monthly stipend).

On my father's side, my grandfather died in his 30's, my grandmother and father lived with my grandmother's sister and brother in-law in the Oakland section of Pittsburgh (which has always been a dump), worked as a floral arranger and counter help in my great uncle's little flower shop her whole life to make a living, and my father actually did sell magazines and the like to get through school.

I'm sure that some folks in the MJ industry come from dynastic families with great wealth. But I bet most of them are wealthy because they worked their asses off and took risks to start their business or were like most of the executives I have met in my career who have their job because they worked to get an education and then also worked their asses off to make a career and accumulate wealthy for their family.

I've just personally fucking had it with people who want to discount all of the hard work and sacrifices of others while discounting their success as being merely the result of "privilege" with the implication that their achievements were purely a result of their gender and race.

I suppose its just easier to be a victim and be jealous than to actually try to do what others have done to achieve their material success.



Cory Booker: I Get Angry That Privileged People Are Opening Up Pot Shops
The senator is at the forefront of a movement. But he’s not sure the movement has the right philosophical foundation. At least not yet.



Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) was jubilant on 4/20. Not because he was high (he doesn’t smoke or drink) but because his colleague, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), had introduced legislation to decriminalize marijuana, marking a major milestone for pot and criminal justice reform advocates everywhere.

“It’s extraordinary that he’s coming out as somebody who has not been out before,” Booker told The Daily Beast in an interview after he spoke at Reverend Al Sharpton’s National Action Network convention in New York. “I think it helps to add momentum to the end prohibition movement.”

Booker has been at the forefront of the decriminalization push, making it one of his major causes as a senator. And while he sees his fellow politicians finally catching up to both him and the mood of the country, he still worries that the framing of the debate is skewed. It is not so much a matter of states rights versus federal rights, he argued, as it is one of privilege.

“I get angry when you see just privileged people, wealthy people suddenly getting into the marijuana businesses and when I see people celebrating,” Booker said, seemingly referencing Friday’s date, “without the understanding that there are people suffering because of past convictions, having had their families destroyed because their wage is suppressed because they can’t get jobs because of what? They got caught for doing things that presidents have done.”

“This has been a sin in a sense, the way we’ve conducted this marijuana prohibition,” Booker added. “I mean you literally have presidents admitting to doing this. You have Congress people that have now openly admitted. People of privilege have had de facto legalized marijuana for a long time. We’ve been punishing poor people, been punishing people of color and that’s got to stop.”

Even prior to Schumer’s announcement, there was legislative momentum for reconsidering marijuana laws. Just yesterday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) co-sponsored Booker’s legislation which would also allow people to have their records expunged if convicted of marijuana possession. Prior to Sanders co-sponsoring the bill, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) had also backed it. Even some of his Republican colleagues, Booker noted, appeared amenable to changing marijuana laws. Among them are Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO), who recently extracted a promise from President Donald Trump to respect state marijuana laws in exchange for Gardner allowing Trump nominees to the Department of Justice to get votes before the Senate.

 

[momofthegoons]

While this article is about cannabis in Canadian history, I thought it spoke to some of the issues we have in the other areas as well... so I stuck it here.

Cannabis, and the Trouble with the Doctors

Ever wonder why, despite the heroic efforts of a few doctors, Health Canada, the Canadian Medical Association, provincial medical associations, and local health authorities, are still miles away from accepting cannabis as a medicine? Here’s a brief history that sheds a little light on ignorance, 21st Century Style.

The Golden Age

Although cannabis is an ancient medicine, it was introduced to the younger civilizations of Western Europe and White North America only in the 19th Century, through the work of William O’Shaughnessy (1809-1889). O’Shaughnessy was an Irish physician, famous for his work in pharmacology and chemistry. In 1833, he was employed by the British East India Company. Once in India, he found himself working alongside doctors well schooled in cannabis’ effects. A natural adventurer, he embraced the herb, testing it on dogs, and then on human patients. In 1839, he published his first scientific paper in the Transactions of the Medical and Physical Society of Bengal, titled, “On the Preparation of the Indian Hemp, or Gunjah.”

In 1841, O’Shaughnessy returned to England, bringing with him quantities of what was then called Indian Hemp or Cannabis Indica. He distributed it liberally to pharmacists and practitioners in England and North America. Based on their own experiments, they proceeded to publish over a hundred papers on Indian Hemp in English language medical journals. By 1854 cannabis was listed in the US Dispensatory; at the 1876 Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia, pharmacists carried up to 10 lb. of hashish.

Thus in 1890, or thereabouts, any respectable citizen of Canada, the US, England, or Ireland, could walk into a pharmacy and purchase without prescription, a bottle of cannabis tincture or oil, either alone or mixed with other substances. The pharmaceutical company, Parke-Davis produced what it called Cannabis Americana; Smith Brothers, Squibb, Lilly, Burroughs, and Wellcome made and sold similar products. There were smoking forms as well. The pharmaceutical company, Grimault and Sons, for example, produced cannabis cigarettes for treating asthma.

The Decline

But this era turned out to be brief. Notwithstanding the buoyant market, by the late 19th Century, physicians’ interest in cannabis had begun to wane. Three discoveries helped to bring this decline about. In 1827, the German pharmaceutical company, Merck, developed an opium derivative: water-soluble morphine. Then, in the years 1853-55, researchers in Ireland, Scotland and France developed the hypodermic needle. Injectable morphine was quicker and more effective than cannabis for relieving acute pain, and achieved high status in hospitals during the American Civil War, and WWI. Moreover, morphine was easier than cannabis to titrate precisely. Third, in the 1890s, the German firm, Bayer, produced, and began to sell aspirin, an alternative mild pain reliever, which gained wide acceptance.

The Tidal Wave
A broader set of events pushed cannabis’ decline further still. The 19th Century saw the advent of entirely new sources of medicine, heralding a dramatic shift in medical practice. By the 1850s, chemists working in Germany and England had identified the building blocks of the natural world: carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and sulphur. Assembled by nature, they made the substances of everyday life. If one could figure out how this assembly was done, chemists reasoned, one could copy it, and perhaps even improve on it. Their work built the field of organic chemistry, new and revolutionary for the time.

Lodged in the industrial age, the chemists had the benefit of a cheap, widely accessible substance with all the requisite elements: coal tar, the residue left when coal is refined to make lamp oil. In 1856, an 18-year old English chemist named William Perkin attempted, from this substance, to synthesize quinine, the only remedy at the time, for malaria. He failed, but in the process produced a solution that, when applied to textiles, turned them a glorious shade of purple. Purple dyes had long been expensive to produce, as natural sources were scarce. The invention thrilled the textile industry, bustling at the time, to produce fashions for a newly moneyed, industrial class of consumers. It also made Perkin a fortune. Other colours followed, brighter and cheaper than the vegetable dyes that preceded them.

From Dye to Medicine
The dyes’ usefulness, however, extended to well beyond the world of fashion. They turned out to be superb stains for specimens to be viewed under a microscope. The deeper colours illuminated cell structure as never before, making possible more detailed studies in cell biology, furthering the field of bacteriology. With their help in 1880 German chemist, Robert Koch, identified the bacterium for anthrax; in 1882, the bacterium for tuberculosis; and in 1884, the bacterium for cholera. That same year two other German bacteriologists, Edwin Klebs and Freidrich Loeffler, identified the bacterium for diphtheria.

The substance that lit up the tuberculosis bacterium was methylene violet, a dye developed by Paul Ehrlich, soon to become a colleague of Koch’s, and later to win a Nobel Prize. Ehrlich had an idea that went beyond shining a light on pathogens. He wanted to explore the affinities between pathogens and the dyes that lit them up, in order to find ones that might act directly as toxins, knocking the pathogens out. In 1900, he called the toxins-to-be, “magic bullets,” and the project of using them, “chemotherapy.” The world in 1900 had not yet seen a real magic bullet, but in 1931, the pharmaceutical company, I G Farben, found one. It developed a sulphur-based dye, Streptozon, which proved to be an effective antibiotic in mice. By 1935, the firm was able to market the first sulpha drug, Sulfanilamide, named after its parent element. It has to be said that bacteriology has benefited us immensely. And one can scarcely miss the rush of these exciting times. Unhappily, they helped to create an exclusive concept of medicine that reigns supreme to this day: synthetic, and highly specific in its aim.

Big Pharma
Dye works, thus, were foundational to many pharmaceutical companies: Ciba, BASF, Bayer, Sandoz, Hoechst, Geigy, to name a few. Equally foundational: medicine-making became a natural-seeming offshoot of the revolution that brought us synthetic soaps, detergents, fertilizers, plastics, cosmetics, textiles, and explosives. These activities married pharmaceuticals to big industry, and doctors to them both. As the West embraced the union, traditional remedies, herbs, and other holistic methods sank into obscurity, viewed as outmoded, and unprogressive. The dye factories were making the workers sick; new fertilizers were killing the soil, oils were creeping onto the beaches, and plastics were on the way to choking the oceans. But in 1950, heady with penicillin, and phenothiazine, the world’s first anti-psychotic, derived from methylene blue, those facts were a distant bell.

The Doctors
Thus when, in 1937, cannabis was banned in the US, although a representative of the American Medical Association objected, doctors in general did not. And when in 1942, it was forced out of the medical formulary, although a few pharmacists objected, pharma as a whole did not.

Doctors and pharmacists had become heir, as well, to another important cultural shift. The golden age of cannabis was a home remedy era. Drugs available today by prescription only, and some that have become illegal, were at the disposal of every adult who could pay for them. Cocaine, opium preparations, cannabis, and many more drugs could be purchased over the counter, singly, or as part of a patent formula. A hundred years later, and not without some public support, enforceable regulations had turned almost anything useful into a banned, or prescription only medicine, and doctors into enforced caretakers.

In the interim, the non-synthetics: older patent meds, plus opium, cocaine and cannabis, were much maligned. But in truth, they hadn’t been killing anyone, and were probably excellent at easing chronic aches and pains. More importantly, the freedom to choose would have afforded their consumers a level of dignity one derives only from relying on one’s own judgments, and resources. It is this level of dignity that medical cannabis consumers have been fighting to regain, and to maintain. Cannabis is the quintessential DIY medicine, best self tested, self titrated, and if possible, self grown. This is a tough fight, as medical authorities have been trained, medically speaking, to be in loco parentis. So if your doc won’t talk to you, have some sympathy; the petrochemical legacy may take generations to wear off.

 

[Baron23]

The medical marijuana movement is a stunning rejection of American technocracy and representative government. Where our leaders and government-led scientific institutions have declared unequivocally that there is no accepted medical use for marijuana, voters across the country have disagreed so fervently that they decided to ignore government and doctor’s orders and declare it a medicine anyway.​

That's because voters are now recognizing that their "representative government" is more interested in representing themselves than representing the views of the electorate. As far as rejection of "American technocracy", to me that's rejection of big pharma and the other big corporate interests are lying their asses off to try to protect their almost monopoly like market for medications.



The federal government is failing us by outlawing medical marijuana

The woman who was administering marijuana to her son daily desperately needed me to know that she wasn’t a hippie. She had no prior relationship with marijuana. But after she had exhausted all other forms of medication to treat her son’s seizures, she decided to try medical marijuana. She saw her son go through his first day in years without a seizure. She moved to Colorado within the month.

I was Governor Hickenlooper’s Director of Marijuana Coordination at the time. The woman was in my office because she wanted access to our certified testing labs in order to test the marijuana she was administering to her child.

She was not a faithful believer in the healing power of marijuana. She did not want to be making decisions about her son’s health based on anecdotes from marijuana growers and Internet message boards. She wanted data, research, studies. And we, the government, had failed her.

The medical marijuana movement is a stunning rejection of American technocracy and representative government. Where our leaders and government-led scientific institutions have declared unequivocally that there is no accepted medical use for marijuana, voters across the country have disagreed so fervently that they decided to ignore government and doctor’s orders and declare it a medicine anyway.

Medical marijuana has been around since 1996. In the intervening 22 years, the federal government has stubbornly stuck to its position: There is no accepted medical use for this drug. They have labeled marijuana a Schedule 1 Drug, a classification that means that potential for abuse is extremely high, and there is no medical use. Other Schedule 1 Drugs include heroin, LSD and cocaine.

Meanwhile, Schedule 2 Drugs, also seen as very dangerous but with an accepted medical use, includes opium and morphine. The impact of the Schedule 1 classification is that labs across America have had essentially no ability to research marijuana while millions of people are using it to medicate themselves or their children.

During the Obama administration, the Drug Enforcement Administration decided marijuana should remain a Schedule 1 Drug since the Food and Drug Administration had not approved any medical uses to date. Never mind the fact that the reason there has not been FDA-approved studies on the medicinal uses of marijuana is because such studies are largely prohibited because of its Schedule 1 classification. If that sentence looks like government double-speak to you, that’s because it is.

The federal government still classifies marijuana as a substance with no medical value.

Now the FDA is asking for public input again. They are preparing a recommendation to be submitted to the World Health Organization as the WHO reevaluates its current classification.

I was amongst the thousands of individuals and organizations who submitted my input. I did so with Dr. Jerry Bryant, the Chief Scientific Officer for Vyripharm, a biopharmaceutical company devoted to bringing scientific rigor and quality control to the use of marijuana as a medicine.

The letter was not intended to promote Vyripharm. There are other biopharmaceutical companies with technologies that will prove very useful in this area. We presented a quick overview of two of Vyripharm’s products only to help us demonstrate the value rescheduling would have on promoting public health and public safety.

Vyripharm has two technologies I desperately want available to the mother who has to administer marijuana to her child. First, a molecular imaging agent that bonds to cannabinoids and measures the effectiveness of the drug in real time. This solves the problem of diagnosis and therapeutic dosing errors by providing molecular diagnostic and personalized targeted therapy for patients suffering from neurological disorders and cancers.

Second, a fully comprehensive block-chain botanical testing and evaluation platform that would ensure that the marijuana delivered to the patient met pharmaceutical-grade standards.

Even with the severely restricted ability to research the medicinal uses of marijuana, the research Vyripharm has completed to date has yielded positive initial results in the use of cannabinoids in applications for neurologic disorders including, but not limited to, post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) epilepsy, metabolic disorders, and cancers. The scientific community has begun to accept this research as valid. Vyripharm has already been accepted to present their findings at nine highly respected scientific conferences.

It is simply time for the federal government to acknowledge that marijuana has medical uses. It should be enough that most of America has declared that marijuana can be medical. But if that isn’t scientific enough, research coming from biopharmaceuticals such as Vyripharm have proven that there are medical applications for marijuana.

I am concerned that as states take on more liberal laws, and as people start to view marijuana more favorably, there is not enough research being conducted to determine both positive medical uses and negative health consequences. Without this research, individuals and states are making decisions based on anecdotal evidence alone. I believe that a shift in federal policy to allow for responsible research will significantly aid public well-being. Additionally, if done correctly, better controlling the medical marijuana supply chain will lead to significantly less diversion.

I understand the frustration of the mother across the table. I need you to know I am not a hippie or fanatical believer in the healing power of marijuana. But it is far past time to research medical marijuana.

 

[Baron23]

This article is absolutely right that if the House goes majority Democrat party, then Fed legalization has a much better chance than right now. But be careful and let's not forget history...history that's not even that long ago. Obama and the Democrat party did indeed have the majority in BOTH the House and the Senate and didn't do squat. Nada. Zip. Zero.

Also, there are many in the other party who are supportive of MJ legalization.

IMO, the issue is with Republican "leadership" (hell, I hate to give them that much benefit of the doubt as to call them leaders). In particular, Pete Sessions who runs the House Rules committee and by virtue of that believes that he's justified in blocking the democratic function of the House by refusing to allow any debate on the subject.

As for all of the recent converts to MJ legalization among our professional political class, from both parties, my only thought is that I can hardly believe that they can be any more transparent about the self-serving nature of their change of views. I do NOT for a moment believe that these politicians, who did NOTHING for decades on this subject, have now suddenly seen the light. No, the only light they have seen is a possible wedge issue to use for political advantage and if it wasn't for that we would still be sucking hind tit.


Legal Marijuana’s Big Moment
Despite hostility from the Trump administration, signs indicate federal decriminalization is only a flipped House away.

By JAMES HIGDON
April 24, 2018

A couple of weeks ago, John Boehner was dining at one of his favorite Washington haunts, Trattoria Alberto on Barracks Row, when in walked Earl Blumenauer, the Democrat from Oregon known as one of the most fervent advocates for legal marijuana in Congress. In years past, the two men would have had little in common, but earlier that day Boehner announced he was joining the advisory board for Acreage Holdings, one of the largest marijuana corporations in the country. It stunned many in the political world because the former speaker, whose tastes favor merlot and Camel Ultra Lights, had on several occasions spent political capital to defeat legalization measures: In 2014, he supported the congressional blockade of the District of Columbia’s recreational marijuana program and the next year he opposed efforts to legalize marijuana in his home state of Ohio.

Blumenauer was still so stunned by the turnabout, he couldn’t resist hailing his former adversary, who only a few hours earlier had advocated for marijuana’s full federal decriminalization, or its “descheduling,” in the parlance of Capitol Hill.


“John!” Blumenauer said, greeting the former speaker warmly, “What happened?”

“Well,” Boehner replied, “my thinking has evolved.”

He’s not the only one. In Washington, evolution on the marijuana issue is proceeding at warp speed in political terms. Boehner is just the latest in a string of noteworthy newcomers to the legalization movement that has been barreling through state houses for the past decade. Just in the past several weeks, Mitch McConnell fast-tracked a Senate bill to legalize low-THC hemp. Chuck Schumer announced that he would introduce a bill to deschedule marijuana entirely. Colorado Senator Cory Gardner struck a deal with President Donald Trump, who promised to not target Colorado’s legal marijuana industry in exchange for Gardner releasing his hold on Trump’s Department of Justice nominees. The Food and Drug Administration opened a comment period on the scheduling of marijuana ahead of a special session of the World Health Organization convened to re-evaluate marijuana laws, and both chambers of Congress passed “right to try” bills that might have accidentally legalized medical marijuana for terminally ill patients. Taken together they suggest that nearly 50 years of federal marijuana prohibition is about to disappear, and it’s happening in the face of an administration that has expressed its outright hostility to the notion.

“I don’t think we’ve seen a bigger transformation of the politics of marijuana in a single month since November 2012, when Colorado became the first state to legalize,” said Tom Angell, an advocate journalist who runs MarijuanaMoment.net. “It’s now very clear that both parties see this as a winning issue [and] they are worried about the other party taking ownership of it.”

Multiple currents are propelling this wave. In 2017, West Virginia became the 29th medical marijuana state, and earlier this year, Vermont became the ninth state to permit adult use. Tax revenue for fully legal marijuana in Colorado reached $247 million last year. Opinion polls continue to show approval ratings for marijuana higher than any politician’s, including in deep red states like Texas and Utah. The opioid addiction crisis has pushed medical marijuana further into the mainstream; the American Society for Addiction Medicine, which is not an advocate for legalization, acknowledges that opioid overdose death rates are 25 percent lower in states with legal medical marijuana. That list now includes Ohio, Boehner’s home state, where dispensaries will open later this year.

Boehner must have known he would soon face the smug satisfaction of his former colleagues who had goaded him on this issue for years, but the fact that it was Blumenauer he ran into was a kind of poetic political moment. Known for his bow tie and a lapel pin shaped like a bicycle, Blumenauer cuts a very different figure from Boehner, as different as their views on nearly every major political issue. With the exception now of marijuana. By chance, Blumenauer happened to be wearing a pair of marijuana-themed socks, and he offered to accessorize Boehner. According to Blumenauer, Boehner demurred.

When POLITICO Magazine caught up with Blumenauer last week, he bubbled with enthusiasm. The prospects for legalizing marijuana at the federal level, he said, have never been brighter. “It’s kind of exciting, isn’t it?” he told me. “It’s all cresting this year … I think we’re entering into the final stages, if everyone does their jobs right.”

“I think the next Congress will finish the job of reform, and clean it up,” he told me, by which he means if it flips to Democratic control and legislation is permitted to proceed. “We’ve got the votes in the House and the Senate and there will be a huge shake-up in the next Congress.” With Democrats in control, the new chairs of the relevant committees would be pro-marijuana: Jerry Nadler in Judiciary, Frank Pallone in Commerce, and Jim McGovern in Rules. “These are our friends with good records,” he said.

Blumenauer thinks the votes are there now, but bills are bottled up by Republican leadership.

“I think this Congress, if the Republican leadership would not stifle this bipartisan consensus of virtually every Democrat and several dozen Republicans, if they’d just allow the vote, it would pass [a number of measures].” That includes an amendment known as Rohrabacher-Blumenauer, which protects state legal medical marijuana programs. The House denied a vote on Rohrabacher-Blumenauer in this Congress, but the same protections were added to the 2018 omnibus spending bill by a companion amendment in the Senate sponsored by Pat Leahy of Vermont.

As POLITICO Magazine reported earlier this year, Democrats have been rushing to support this issue in congressional races across the country, and it’s playing a role in governors’ contests in some of the country’s largest media markets, too, such as New York and Illinois. (In New Jersey last year, Governor Phil Murphy ran in favor of full legalization and won by 14 points.) Cynthia Nixon’s surprise entry into the New York race has pushed incumbent Governor Andrew Cuomo and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio on this issue: “We have to stop putting people of color in jail for something that white people do with impunity,” Nixon said in a video posted to Twitter. Representative Jared Polis, a marijuana-rights leader who represents Colorado’s 2nd District, is leaving Congress to run for governor. “Colorado voters want a governor who is going to stand up to President Trump and Attorney General Sessions if they try to interfere with legal cannabis in our state,” Polis told POLITICO Magazine.

In November, marijuana is on the Michigan ballot for adult use and on the Utah ballot for medical use. And in Texas, incumbent Senator Ted Cruz faces an unusually strong general election challenge from Representative Beto O’Rourke, with a recent poll that shows the Democrat within the margin of error. “Texas is as significant as anything we’re looking at,” Blumenauer told me. “Beto has been very outspoken. It’s not the centerpiece of his campaign, but he’s been very outspoken and he’s been friendly with us,” he said, joking that only a few years ago, talking out loud about marijuana was probably a felony under Texas law and now a pro-marijuana Democrat has a real shot at becoming the state’s junior senator.

“The more we discuss it, the more we talk about it, I find it’s not that hard to persuade people that reform is the right policy,” he said.

***

The nation was not founded with a prejudice against marijuana.

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew cannabis on their plantations, most probably for fiber and seed. Jefferson’s slaves planted his hemp in March; Washington’s in April. Henry Clay, the speaker of the House from 1811 to 1825, grew hemp on his Kentucky plantation. The first law against weed didn’t come until the early 20th century when the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act was passed, effectively outlawing the plant for both its medicinal and industrial applications. The prohibition was lifted briefly during World War II during the “Hemp for Victory” effort to supply the U.S. Navy with rope made from hemp fiber. After the war, hemp reverted to its illegal status, but it kept itself alive as “ditch weed” that grew wild in the fencerows of rural America.

During the Vietnam War, demand for illegal marijuana grew across the nation, becoming indivisibly linked with the protest movement against the war, which the Nixon administration continued to press. Nixon couldn’t repeal the Voting Rights Act that had passed just a few years before, but he could criminalize his opponents’ behavior. In 1970, he signed the Controlled Substances Act, which grouped illegal drugs into “schedules.” Marijuana was placed in “Schedule 1” along with heroin, defined as highly addictive with no medical value. Nixon seemed obsessed with cracking down on marijuana users, even after the passage of the CSA. On May 26, 1971, Nixon told his chief of staff, H. R. Haldeman, “I want a goddamn strong statement on marijuana … I mean one on marijuana that just tears the ass out of them.”

A wave of decriminalization followed Nixon’s resignation in the late 70s, but that was ended by Ronald Reagan, who doubled down on Nixon’s anti-marijuana policies. Bill Clinton signed the 1994 Crime Bill, which imposed mandatory life sentences after “three strikes” and mandatory drug testing for those on supervised release, provisions which led to prison overcrowding. The Department of Justice under George W. Bush prosecuted Tommy Chong for selling glass bongs across state lines and sent him to prison for it.

Many expected Barack Obama to legalize marijuana in his second term, but he did not. The best he could do was the Cole Memo, written by the DOJ, which directed federal prosecutors to use their discretion in pursuing marijuana cases in states where marijuana was legal.

The signals from the Trump administration have been mixed at best. On the campaign trail, candidate Trump seemed to embrace marijuana for medical but not recreational use. But his attorney general has made his antagonism toward marijuana clear at every stage. In January, Sessions rescinded the Cole Memo, causing a wave of anxiety through states whose residents had assumed that marijuana was on a glide path to full national legalization. But Trump appeared willing to compromise with Gardner for the sake of getting his nominees through. “We’re always consulting Congress about issues, including states’ rights, of which the president is a firm believer,” White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said.

The president’s inconsistency is maybe the only thing that marijuana advocates can agree on says Kevin Sabet, executive director of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, an anti-legalization group. “With this president, things don’t exactly stay the same from week to week, so we are going to keep putting pressure on him on this issue,” Sabet told POLITICO Magazine. For SAM, that means pumping “a seven-figure amount,” according to Sabet, into anti-marijuana campaigns in states with ballot measures like Michigan, and another million-plus dollars on grass-roots operations and state offices, he said.

Sabet says the recent spate of good news for marijuana has also been good news for his organization’s fundraising efforts. “I’m more optimistic than ever. I’ve raised more money in the last week than we have in the last year. Because people are coming out of the woodwork because they are afraid. We’ve actually been energized by this.”

Despite Sabet’s optimism, members of Congress seem to be looking past his efforts to block marijuana law reform. Jared Polis is co-sponsor of the McClintock-Polis amendment, currently blocked in the Rules Committee, which would protect states that allow full recreational use. “Funding restrictions are nice, but until we actually change the law, there will always be uncertainty for consumers and people in the industry,” Polis told me. “So I’m continuing to work to get my ‘Regulate marijuana like alcohol’ bill passed.”

But because Polis is leaving Congress at the end of the year, it’s unlikely that stand-alone bill will pass while he’s in office because the chairman of House Judiciary, Bob Goodlatte, will not let Polis’ bill out of committee. But the prospects for a stand-alone bill got a boost last week in the Senate. Schumer announced his plan to introduce a bill that would deschedule marijuana outright. He isn’t the first senator to come aboard the marijuana legalization effort; he’s just the most recent. “I applaud Senator Schumer for taking a bold stance for nationwide decriminalization,” Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) told POLITICO Magazine. “The American public’s views on this issue are shifting rapidly, and Congress needs to keep up.”

While the Polis stand-alone bill is likely dead in this Congress, and the Schumer bill hasn’t been drafted yet, there is still one stand-alone bill to legalize cannabis that has a shot of reaching Trump’s desk for a signature: Mitch McConnell’s hemp bill.

Co-sponsored by an unusual coalition of senators from Kentucky and Oregon, the Hemp Farming Act of 2018 would deschedule any cannabis plant with a maximum THC level of 0.3 percent. While initially envisioned as a crop for fiber and seed, today’s hemp is largely grown for production of CBD, the nonintoxicating cannabinoid that has shown promise in treating epilepsy and other conditions. But the Drug Enforcement Administration still considers hemp to be a Schedule 1 drug.

“For far too long, the federal government has prevented most farmers from growing hemp,” Senator McConnell wrote in an op-ed published on Friday, which happened to be 4/20, the unofficial holiday of marijuana enthusiasts.

“Treating hemp and marijuana as the same thing represents the height of foolishness on the part of the federal government,” Senator Ron Wyden told POLITICO Magazine, in rare agreement with McConnell. “I’m working with my colleagues to get the current misguided federal ban on hemp out of the way of farmers in Oregon and across the country.”

The Senate majority leader did not respond for this story, but advocates for marijuana law reform are giving him grudging credit as hemp’s unlikely hero. “Seems pretty good to me,” said Tom Angell, of MarijuanaMoment.net. “There could be bigger implications if we legalize CBD production and legitimize that entire market. It would have broader implication than just making T-shirts and stuff.”

 

[Baron23]

On marijuana, let the Food and Drug Administration make the decisions

Whether and how to regulate marijuana use has been in the news again recently. Currently, federal laws classify marijuana as a “Schedule I” (unhelpful and dangerous) drug. This means that physicians cannot prescribe marijuana for therapeutic or recreational purposes.

Since 1996, however, numerous states have revised their state criminal laws to permit marijuana to be sold and used for medical purposes. Some of these states (and the District of Columbia) even allow marijuana to be sold for recreational use by adults.

And Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., recently announced that he had reached a deal with President Trump to modify the federal criminal code regarding marijuana.

In addition, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y, said he will introduce legislation to leave it up to the states to decide whether to prohibit the distribution of marijuana.

Have the president and Gardner agreed that states should be free to let people use marijuana as the states see fit? Has Schumer correctly guessed which way the wind is blowing? That remains unclear.

Reports about the Trump-Gardner deal and Schumer proposal raise several additional questions:

· Will the federal government pursue an entirely new policy regarding marijuana regulation?

· If so, will that new direction leave decision-making entirely up to the states?

· If not, will the federal government still play a role?

· Will that change lead to a net social plus or minus?

The answer to each of those questions is the same: “Maybe yes, maybe no.” That’s because there is another possible option lying between “absolute federal ban” and “complete state freedom.”

Federal law has prohibited marijuana cultivation, processing and distribution since the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. That date is significant because the following year Congress passed the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act. The FDCA prohibited interstate commerce of “adulterated” food and drugs.

The FDCA also directed the commissioner of food and drugs to examine both products to make sure they were safe for interstate distribution.

In 1962, Congress also prohibited the distribution of new drugs unless the FDA commissioner first found them to be both “safe” and “effective.” Since then, Congress has consistently reiterated that the FDA should be responsible for making those decisions – not Congress, not the states, not the public.

It’s an important matter. We do not decide by plebiscite which drugs should be sold to the public. America has resolved that experts should make that decision because the average person lacks the education, training and experience to answer the medical question of whether a particular drug is safe and effective.

Why should we treat marijuana differently?

For more than two decades, states have decided to reconsider their marijuana laws and permit people to use marijuana for medical or recreational purposes even though the distribution of marijuana is forbidden under federal law.

Three presidents – Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama – each failed to force Congress to decide whether federal law should also be re-examined.

President Trump may be willing to do what his three predecessors should have done. It is time for Congress to take up this subject once again.

Great nations, like great people, always must be willing to reconsider their laws in light of new developments. It makes sense for Congress to revisit this issue.

But that does not mean senators and representatives should act in a vacuum, without regard for the nation’s designated authority on food and drug safety. Nor should members of Congress simply act according to polling results.

We do not let the public decide which antibiotic, antiviral, antifungal, or chemotherapy drugs can be marketed. There is no reason to treat marijuana differently.

Congress has never let the FDA decide this issue, because federal law has treated marijuana as contraband since the year before the FDCA became law. Maybe we should treat marijuana in the same way that we treat any other new drug that someone argues should be used therapeutically.

No healthy democracy can afford to glibly disregard the opinions of experts on matters within their expertise. Since 1962, the United States has decided to trust the FDA with the responsibility to resolve any debate, either within or beyond the scientific community, over a drug’s safety and efficacy. That decision is entitled to no less respect today than it was 50 years ago.

So maybe Congress will re-examine the treatment of marijuana under federal law and send the nation in a new direction. But maybe that new direction will be to leave the decision how to treat marijuana in the hands of the person we trust to make other, similar decisions: the commissioner of food and drugs.

And maybe that approach will be a net social plus. We certainly think so with respect to other drugs. Perhaps, it’s time to enlist the FDA commissioner to make a scientific judgment about this issue too.

 

[Baron23]

And this included my contribution to these comments.

NORML Delivers More Than 10,000 Comments to FDA in Favor of Descheduling
0 By Duke London on April 23rd, 2018 at 6:00 pm | Updated: April 23rd, 2018 at 6:02 pm

After the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requested public comments on whether to change marijuana’s classification as a drug with no medical use and a high potential for abuse, a leading US cannabis advocacy group turned in more than 10,000 responses for a survey that could shift drug laws all over the world.

In early April 2018, the FDA requested public comments regarding cannabis as a Schedule I drug, grouped with heroin and cocaine, among other drugs. The World Health Organization (WHO) is conducting a review on international prohibition of cannabis and will consider all of the comments gathered by the FDA in the United States, as well as similar bodies in other nations.

The Washington, D.C.-based cannabis advocacy group, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) hand-delivered more than 10,000 comments from concerned Americans on Monday, April 23, 2018 to the FDA’s offices in suburban Washington.

International treaties categorize marijuana similarly, placing it in the highest level of controlled substances, preventing research and therapeutic applications from helping countless people in need.

“The United National’s international prohibition of cannabis is a relic from a bygone era,” NORML deputy director Paul Armentano said of the Schedule I classification in a written statement. “This decision, which was largely a political one made over 50 years ago, does not accurately reflect either the available science or the rapidly changing political and cultural status of cannabis worldwide.”

Along with delivering the comments, NORML officials also submitted their own concerns with current international cannabis restrictions.

“In general, the safety, dependence, and usage profile of cannabis compares favorably to alcohol, tobacco and other unscheduled substances,” the statement from NORML’s board of directors said. “For this reason, NORML believes that cannabis [ultimately]should be withdrawn from the treaty framework entirely.”

The 10,000 comments collected by NORML were more than the 6,566 comments collected on the federal regulations.gov site where people could submit their thoughts online. NORML’s efforts account for 61 percent of the total contributions from Americans to the WHO review.

Comments can be submitted until midnight Monday, April 23, 2018 online.

A video of NORML officials delivering the public comments to the FDA’s Rockville, Maryland, office is available on its Facebook page.

 

[Baron23]

Cannabis Trade Federation forms in wake of Gardner-Trump marijuana deal
“We may have entered a historic moment where Congress and the president are poised to act to align our industry with our nation’s federalist ideals.”


Two cannabis organizations are coalescing to further legalization causes on Capitol Hill.

Lobbying firm New Federalism Fund and business organization American Trade Association of Cannabis and Hemp announced plans to unite their operations to form the Cannabis Trade Federation.

The new coalition’s formation comes as cannabis legalization talk heats up in Washington, D.C. following President Donald Trump’s pledge to Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., to support a federal bill that would protect state-legal marijuana programs.

“We may have entered a historic moment where Congress and the president are poised to act to align our industry with our nation’s federalist ideals,” Neal Levine, chairman of the Denver-based New Federalism Fund and a senior vice president at dispensary chain LivWell Enlightened Health, said in a statement. “It is no secret that the New Federalism Fund has been working collaboratively with Sen. Gardner and his staff to address the federal issues facing our industry.

“In light of the deal that Sen. Gardner made with the president, we simply must marshal considerable resources from throughout the industry to give our allies in Congress the support that they need to pass this historic legislation.”

The Cannabis Trade Federation’s objectives include:

• Maintaining the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer medical marijuana amendment and expanding those provisions to adult-use cannabis markets;
• Maintaining and clarifying the existing Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) guidance;
• Challenging the application of the Internal Revenue Service Tax Code 280E on state-legal marijuana operations;
• Allowing state-legal marijuana businesses to have access to banking services;
• Removing cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act, deferring to the states on cannabis laws and regulations, with reasonable federal oversight.

 

[Baron23]

Key GOP Chairman Supports New Marijuana Research Bill
April 25, 2018

New legislation being filed this week by a bipartisan coalition of Republicans and Democrats — including the chair of the powerful House Judiciary Committee — would remove several key federal roadblocks to research on marijuana.

“Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Medical Cannabis Research Act of 2018…the Attorney General shall register…at least 2 applicants to manufacture cannabis for legitimate research purposes,” reads the text of a bill obtained by Marijuana Moment that is slated to be introduced on Thursday with the support of Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA).

In subsequent years, the attorney general would be required to license at least three additional cannabis manufacturers annually.

For decades, all cannabis used for studies in the U.S. has been grown at a single farm at the University of Mississippi. Researchers have long argued that it is difficult to access cannabis from the facility, and that the product is often of low quality.

In 2016, the Drug Enforcement Administration enacted a new policy intended to license more research cultivators, and he agency has reportedly since received at least 25 applications to participate in the new program. But it has not yet acted on any of them and, according to the Washington Post, that is because top Justice Department officials have stepped in to prevent DEA from approving any proposals.

The new legislation would force the attorney general’s hand.

A fact sheet circulated by the office of Congressman Matt Gaetz (R-FL), the lead sponsor of the bill, says that the existing cannabis research supply is “extremely subpar.”

“It is weak and often moldy, which can cause illness. In addition to being subpar, federally-grown cannabis is scarce; there is not enough product,” the document says.

The new bill would also create a “safe harbor” from federal law for universities and other research institutions that want to study marijuana. And it would clarify that doctors with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs are allowed to refer military veterans to studies on cannabis’s medical benefits.

Bloomberg first reported that Goodlatte was supporting the bill.

On Tuesday night, Gaetz and other lawmakers took to the House floor to voice support for marijuana law reform.

“Even though VA doctors/staff are not prohibited from sharing information about federally-approved cannabis clinical trials with patients, many VA offices believe mentioning these trials is illegal,” Gaetz’s fact sheet says. “This legislation codifies that healthcare providers at the VA are authorized to provide information about federally-approved cannabis clinical trials, and they are also allowed to fill out forms for veterans to participate in these trials.”

Besides Goodlatte, other initial cosponsors include Steve Cohen (D-TN), Alcee Hastings (D-FL), Darren Soto (D-FL), Dana Rohrabacher (R-FL), Karen Handel (R-GA), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Scott Taylor (R-VA), Carlos Curbelo (R-FL), Dina Titus(D-NV), Tom McClintock (R-CA), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Barbara Lee (D-CA).

See below for the full section-by-section bill analysis circulated by Gaetz’s office:

Section 1: Title

Section 2: INCREASING THE NUMBER OF FEDERALLY-REGISTERED MANUFACTURERS OF CANNABIS FOR LEGITIMATE RESEARCH PURPOSES

PROBLEM: Currently, all federally-approved studies of medical cannabis get their product from one source, and it is extremely subpar. It is weak and often moldy, which can cause illness.

SOLUTION: this section requires there to be at least three federally-approved manufacturers of cannabis for legitimate research purposes.

The license to be a federally-approved manufacturer would be one year, with the (rare) exception of producers who wish to initiate a multi-year study or clinical trial.

Manufacturers would have to pass stringent background checks and meet a strict set of criteria, including growing at least ten different strains, and being able to test for at least 12 different cannabinoids. We must ensure that federally-approved growers are safe, will not run out of product, and are prepared to meet the needs of current and future researchers.

The strict standards set forth for medical cannabis manufacturers are not applied to other, non-research-based cannabis businesses. Keeping “research cannabis” separate means this legislation does not interfere with federal laws, state laws, or law enforcement. This bill makes no changes to the legal status of cannabis.

By ending the current monopoly on research-grade medical cannabis, and by improving choice among growers, research will be easier and better.

In addition to being subpar, federally-grown cannabis is scarce; there is not enough product. This section requires the Attorney General to annually assess whether there is an adequate and uninterrupted supply of research-grade cannabis.

Even though the DOJ is required to process new applicants for growing cannabis, they have dragged their feet, and a huge backlog of applications has built up. This section requires DOJ/DEA to act on any application to manufacture cannabis within one calendar year.

Some institutions (like universities) want to research cannabis, but cannot do so because cannabis research threatens their federal funding. This section includes “safe harbor” for researchers and institutions studying cannabis, and for patients in federally-approved medical cannabis clinical trials.

Section 3: PROVISION BY DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS OF INFORMATION REGARDING VETERAN PARTICIPATION IN FEDERALLY-APPROVED CANNABIS CLINICAL TRIALS

PROBLEM: even though VA doctors/staff are not prohibited from sharing information about federally-approved cannabis clinical trials with patients, many VA offices believe mentioning these trials is illegal.

SOLUTION: this section codifies that healthcare providers at the VA are authorized to provide information about federally-approved cannabis clinical trials, and they are also allowed to fill out forms for veterans to participate in these trials.

This section also clarifies that VA employees are allowed to receive information about cannabis clinical trials from researchers.

Finally, this section says that VA researchers (who are eligible to research Schedule 1 substances) may do research on cannabis.

This section provides clarity to VA employees, and allows VA researchers to study cannabis.


This bill is not a pathway to legalization, nor does it change the legal status of cannabis. It simply makes it easier to conduct federally-approved research. Many people say that we can’t change cannabis laws without doing more research. Fair enough. This legislation simply makes cannabis research safer, better, and more accessible.

 

[Baron23]

Bipartisan Marijuana Speechathon On House Floor

A bipartisan group of lawmakers came together on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives to chat about their shared interest in marijuana reform for about 20 minutes on Tuesday night.

“Medical marijuana is like the Fourth of July,” Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) said. “It is almost universally accepted.”

Congressman Matt Gaetz (R-FL) took the opportunity to announce that he will soon introduce legislation — with the surprising support of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) — that would ease restrictions on cannabis research:

“First, it will increase the number of people who are growing medical-grade cannabis for research purposes.

“Second, it will end the gag rule at the VA that precludes physicians from being able to consult and speak with their patients about the laws in their particular States.

“Third, it will create a safe harbor so that some of the finest medical institutions and universities in this great country will be able to research and partner with private sector entities to determine the potential that medical cannabis can have to improve people’s quality of life.

“And finally, this legislation will end the prohibition from having commercial, for-profit entities working in concert, in collaboration with some of those very universities and medical institutions.”

Congressman Carlos Curbelo (R-FL), who convened the floor gathering, tore into U.S. Attorney General Jeff Session’s anti-marijuana moves.

“It is difficult for me to comprehend the logic behind blocking scientific research to analyze the medical applications of cannabis because I believe it is critical for policymakers to possess objective data on the effectiveness of cannabis as an alternative treatment for anxiety, depression, pain, psychosis, post-traumatic stress disorder, opioid addiction, and epilepsy. We owe it to American patients to open up the field of research on this,” he said on the floor. “Now, the only logical explanation I can think of is that the Attorney General knows the facts of this field of research won’t support his policies or the witch hunt he and his Department have been conducting on legal State-regulated operators across the country.”

Curbelo argued that Sessions’s rescission of an Obama-era policy protecting state marijuana laws was a gift to drug cartels.

“As I have said before in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, the best ally that illegal operators like drug cartels and drug traffickers–who do not pay taxes, who target children, who have no safety standards for their products–the best ally they have are the policies that the Attorney General has embraced,” he said. “Because by continuing to hamstring Federal research, over tax, and stoke uncertainty, legally operating businesses that are State regulated, that pay taxes, that are helping patients who are suffering, can no longer compete. And when these businesses can no longer compete, people turn to the black market. So inadvertently, I hope, the Attorney General is actually doing a great favor to the criminals operating outside the law by punishing law-abiding Americans trying to control the substance and make it safer.”

The Florida GOP congressman closed by appealing to fellow Republicans’ professed reverence for individual liberty.

“Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of colleagues in this Chamber who say people should be able to buy whatever health insurance or get whatever kind of health coverage they want, and the government should interfere as little as possible, and I agree,” he said. “But on this issue, there seems to be a hypocrisy, and many colleagues want to impose a Federal view or a Federal perspective on States, on the people of States like Florida, who have already decided explicitly and clearly and overwhelmingly.?

 

[Baron23]

The hypocrisy of big pharma knows no bounds.


FDA Rejects Anti-Legalization Pharma Co’s Cannabis Drug Request

The same drug company that donated $500,000 to a campaign to defeat marijuana legalization in its home state of Arizona in 2016 is now actively fighting to deter competition against its own synthetic THC product. Efforts to extend its exclusive right to manufacture the drug have resulted in a back-and-forth with a federal agency that ultimately resulted in the pharma firm’s request being summarily rejected.

Insys Therapeutics, a pharmaceutical company that came under fire over its anti-legalization election spending, is also known for producing potent opioids and a drug called Syndros, a synthesized THC product containing dronabinol that’s similar to Marinol, except that it’s a liquid preparation rather than a pill.

To many advocates, the company’s anti-legalization spending reeked of conflicts of interest. Was Insys worried that legal weed in Arizona represented a threat to its bottom line? The company essentially admitted as much in 2007, writing in a disclosure statement to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that “the market for dronabinol product sales would likely be significantly reduced and our ability to generate revenue and our business prospects would be materially adversely affected” if marijuana or synthetic cannabinoids were legalized.

Now, according to publicly available documents, Insys is engaging in another type of battle. It wants extended exclusivity over its oral dronabinol product. And in October 2017, the company asked the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to decline applications from competitors seeking to produce generic versions of Syndros.

Insys has already sued two such drug companies, Par Pharmaceuticals and Alkem Laboratories, after learning that they had submitted Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDA)—the first step in the process of gaining approval for generic versions of existing drugs—which “triggered a 30-month stay” in one case, Insys senior vice president of regulatory affairs Stephen Sherman noted in a October 2017 citizen petition to the FDA.

Citizen Petition From Insys Therapeutics, Inc (2) by KyleJaeger on Scribd

In light of disclosures that drugmakers were submitting FDA applications to develop generic versions that referenced Syndros, which might eventually provide patients with cheaper alternatives, Insys appealed to the FDA.

Its request was in two-parts: 1) It asked the FDA to decline to “receive or approve” any ANDA applications that didn’t establish “in vivo bioequivalence” to its drug, and 2) that any ANDA applications for its drug “include fed and fasted state bioequivalence studies.”

In essence, Insys argued that its drug was too complex to be replicated by generic competitors that didn’t first conduct extensive testing demonstrating its biochemical likeness.

In a letter made public earlier this month, the FDA flatly denied the company’s petition. The government agency disputed the claims Insys included in its letter and clarified how the ANDA approval process works.

Petition Response Letter From FDA CDER to Insys Therapeutics, Inc (1) by KyleJaeger on Scribd

Robin Feldman, professor of law and director of the Institute for Innovation Law at UC Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, literally wrote the book on all the different ways that mainstream pharmaceutical companies try to subvert generic competition.

She told Marijuana Moment that the bioequivalence testing Insys requested was already required in any ANDA application, so it was kind of like “petitioning the FDA to say ‘we insist that you do what it is that we all know you’re going to do.’ And with that, you get five months of delay.” In a phone interview, Feldman couldn’t help but laugh as she was read another section of the drug company’s citizen petition. That section says:

“Insys notes that it is currently awaiting an FDA exclusivity determination with respect to SYNDROS and expects to receive three years of exclusivity based on the submission of new clinical studies essential to approval.”

“Companies pile these exclusivities on one after another to keep generic competitors off the market as long as possible,” Feldman said. “So the reason I laughed is what you are seeing is a multipronged effort by the brand company to stave off generic entry as long as possible.”

“They’re using a variety of techniques: citizen petition, additional regulatory exclusivity, and adding these on. Each delay may be of limited time, but they may be extremely valuable—and together, they can add up to significant costs to the consumer,” she said.

In her book and published studies, Feldman reported that approximately 80 percent of citizen petitions, like the one submitted by Insys, were denied by the FDA. Submitting a citizen petition is often a delay tactic for drug companies hoping to maintain exclusivity over their brands, because “[d]elaying generic competition for as little as six months can be worth half a billion dollars in sales for a blockbuster drug,” she wrote in an op-ed for STAT.

False or misleading citizen petitions from drugmakers are so common, in fact, that Feldman created a beta “alert system” for users to submit and detect suspect petitions. When she ran Insys’s October 2017 petition through the system, it “came back with red flags,” she said.

Insys Therapeutics did not respond to requests for comment by the time of publication. This story will be updated if the company sends comment.

 

[Baron23]

Well, while I do think the GOP (in general) are indeed a dragging anchor to legalization, in this case I personally think GOP = Rep Pete Sessions, Rules Committee Chairman. Yes, party line vote with Pete Sessions twisting arms every inch of the way. This guy has to go.....not for MJ position, but for his contempt of democracy and his using arcane Congressional rules to thwart democracy and debate. TX, please 86 this guy...please?


House GOP Blocks Another Marijuana Amendment

It happened again: Republican congressional leadership has prevented yet another marijuana amendment from even being considered on the House floor.

This time, it was a measure intended to let marijuana businesses be taxed fairly.

Under a 1980s federal provision — known as 280E — cannabis businesses are forced to pay a much higher tax rate than companies in other industries.

The statute was originally intended to to stop drug cartel leaders from writing off yachts and expensive cars, but today its plain language means that that 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.

On Monday, the powerful House Rules Committee blocked an amendment to make sure the provision doesn’t apply to businesses that are following state marijuana laws from advancing.

Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO) was trying to attach the cannabis language to a larger bill concerning various reforms to IRS policies and structures.

“In effect, without this amendment that we can include here today, legal businesses in my state are forced to pay an effective federal tax rate as high as 70 percent,” he said. “I thought Republicans didn’t like 70 percent tax rates, but you can show that by adopting this amendment. If you fail to adopt this amendment, you’re showing that tax impeding small businesses is just another thing the Republican Party wants to do while they increasingly bloat the deficit.”

But on a party line vote of 7 to 4 on a Polis motion combining the marijuana amendment and two measures he filed concerning kombucha and cryptocurrencies, GOP lawmakers prevented the issue from reaching the full House.

The full House hasn’t voted on any marijuana amendments since 2016, when Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-TX) began consistently blocking them from advancing.

 

[Baron23]

Republican Sen. Cory Gardner to introduce cannabis bill for states' rights with Elizabeth Warren

Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., is teaming up with Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., on a bill that could finally reconcile the current discrepancy between federal and state cannabis laws.

Earlier this year, Gardner protected thriving marijuana industries in states like Colorado by threatening to block all Justice Department nominees after Attorney General Jeff Sessions killed the 2013 “Cole memo,” which effectively allowed states to determine their own cannabis laws. Earlier this week, Gardner co-sponsored the Hemp Farming Act of 2018 with the aim of removing that form of cannabis from Schedule 1, the list of substances, including heroin, under the strictest federal controls.

And he’s not finished yet. Gardner is working with colleagues on a bipartisan legislative solution that can pass Congress and appear on President Trump’s desk — so he can deliver on his campaign position to make cannabis a states’ rights issue.

In 2012, Colorado and Washington became the first states to legalize marijuana for recreational use. Since then, seven more states and the District of Columbia followed suit.

Yahoo News reached out to Gardner Wednesday afternoon to discuss the conflict between state and federal law regarding cannabis, and the several ways he’s promoting the ability of states to set their own rules. He provided some details about the bill he’s drafting with Warren, which he said could appear as early as this week.

Yahoo News: Do you think that President Trump will be true to his word that the rescission of the Cole memo will not impact Colorado’s legal marijuana industry?" data-reactid="27">Yahoo News: Do you think that President Trump will be true to his word that the rescission of the Cole memo will not impact Colorado’s legal marijuana industry?

Gardner: I do believe he will be true to his word, and certainly has over the last several weeks since the agreement was entered into remained true to that word. His commitment was reconfirmed multiple times by the White House legislative director, Marc Short, as well as Sarah Huckabee Sanders during the live press briefing carried on national television. This is something the president has agreed to. I believe he will hold to his end of the bargain. And I believe we will also be able to work together on a federalist-based approach to resolve the conflict between federal and state law." data-reactid="28">Gardner: I do believe he will be true to his word, and certainly has over the last several weeks since the agreement was entered into remained true to that word. His commitment was reconfirmed multiple times by the White House legislative director, Marc Short, as well as Sarah Huckabee Sanders during the live press briefing carried on national television. This is something the president has agreed to. I believe he will hold to his end of the bargain. And I believe we will also be able to work together on a federalist-based approach to resolve the conflict between federal and state law.

Mile High Green Cross is a recreational and medical marijuana dispensary serving the greater Denver area. Located south of downtown, the shop is one of many that makes up the city’s “Green Mile.” (Photo: Vince Chandler/The Denver Post)
Were there any stipulations when Trump told you he would support a federalism-based legislative solution?" data-reactid="40">Were there any stipulations when Trump told you he would support a federalism-based legislative solution?

There were no stipulations that he placed on it but that doesn’t mean once we get our bill drafted — which we’re in the process of, talking to Republicans and Democratic members of the Senate who are involved on this issue — they may not embrace the language fully. They may want some tweaks. We’ll see how that goes, but I don’t envision the president changing his mind generally from the idea of letting the states make this decision.

I know it’s still in process but could you tell me a little about the bill you’re working on with your colleagues toward this goal?" data-reactid="42">I know it’s still in process but could you tell me a little about the bill you’re working on with your colleagues toward this goal?

Basically, this is a states’ rights bill. This is a federalism bill that says if a state like Colorado decides to move forward on medical marijuana, recreational marijuana, CBDs [cannabidiol, which is a medical cannabis compound that doesn’t make one “stoned”], hemp, that that activity is going to be lawfully, legally carried out. It opts the state out of the marijuana provisions of deferral law, of Schedule 1. While this doesn’t change Schedule 1 at all, it simply says if the state wants to do this, it no longer violates the law. So if Oklahoma wishes to maintain a prohibition on marijuana, then it would be illegal under state and local law in Oklahoma. But as far as Colorado goes, there would no longer be an illegal activity.

When can we expect this sort of bill to appear?" data-reactid="44">When can we expect this sort of bill to appear?

We’re going to have a meeting this afternoon in my office with a number of senators on both sides of the aisle. We’re going to talk about the concept and framework of the bill. It could be as early as later this week or it could be a couple of weeks from now. We haven’t quite decided exactly the time frame.

Cannabis on display at Denver Relief. The pot shop purports to be the oldest marijuana dispensary in Denver, having opened its doors in 2009. The shop is open for both Colorado red-card-holding medical marijuana patients and adult-use recreational cannabis sales. (Photo: Vince Chandler/The Denver Post)
And then there’s the Hemp Farming Act, which you’re co-sponsoring, to help hemp farmers and entrepreneurs. What sorts of barriers do they currently face? [Earlier this week, Gardner and Michael Bennet, D-Colo., co-sponsored Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s Hemp Farming Act of 2018: a bipartisan bill that would define industrial hemp as an agricultural commodity and remove it from the list of controlled substances — legalizing it nationwide. If successful, this would reconcile the current contradictions between state and federal laws over hemp.]" data-reactid="59">And then there’s the Hemp Farming Act, which you’re co-sponsoring, to help hemp farmers and entrepreneurs. What sorts of barriers do they currently face? [Earlier this week, Gardner and Michael Bennet, D-Colo., co-sponsored Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s Hemp Farming Act of 2018: a bipartisan bill that would define industrial hemp as an agricultural commodity and remove it from the list of controlled substances — legalizing it nationwide. If successful, this would reconcile the current contradictions between state and federal laws over hemp.]

Well, several years back when I was in the House, I sponsored legislation with Mitch McConnell — a pilot program within the farm bill for states to move forward with this under certain conditions. What the legislation does now is remove hemp from the schedule where it never should have been in the first place. This is think is a great alternative to crops. There’s a lot of excitement in Colorado. I visited a number of hemp farms and operations, from fabrics to medicinal sources. This has a lot of economic development potential that farmers who are looking to diversify are very interested in. We have historically low commodity prices right now. And if you can shift out of corn, which people are losing money on, and into hemp, where they may be able to make money, that means they’re able to stay on the farm. That means the next generation is able to participate in the family business. Right now, that legal cloud that’s over hemp may jeopardize that continuation of the family farm or family operation. This is a good step for diversity, economic opportunity and to make sure that we keep our agricultural roots strong.

Some in government are confused about the difference between hemp and marijuana, including, it seems, the politicians who grouped all species of cannabis as a Schedule 1 drug back in the 1970s. What could be done to educate government officials and the public about the difference between hemp and marijuana, and why this is so important? [Hemp and marijuana are both species of cannabis and, therefore, classified as a Schedule 1 drug, the same category as heroin. But they are cultivated and used differently. Marijuana is smoked or consumed for medicinal or recreational purposes. Hemp, on the other hand, has many other applications, such as creating clothing, skin products, dietary supplements and health foods.]" data-reactid="61">Some in government are confused about the difference between hemp and marijuana, including, it seems, the politicians who grouped all species of cannabis as a Schedule 1 drug back in the 1970s. What could be done to educate government officials and the public about the difference between hemp and marijuana, and why this is so important? [Hemp and marijuana are both species of cannabis and, therefore, classified as a Schedule 1 drug, the same category as heroin. But they are cultivated and used differently. Marijuana is smoked or consumed for medicinal or recreational purposes. Hemp, on the other hand, has many other applications, such as creating clothing, skin products, dietary supplements and health foods.]

I think that’s a great point. This comes down to education. On every aspect of cannabis, it comes down to education: What the industry is, what it isn’t, what is medicinal marijuana, what recreational means, what hemp is. That means we have to take the time to visit with members of Congress and their staff — to have people from the industry visit with their staffs back home, to take the time to educate members through policy papers, position papers, through speeches, through the work we do at conferences and meetings. This is going to be a lot of shoe-leather work, just walking in, beating down the halls of Congress and making sure people understand what we’re dealing with.

A “budtender” organizes and inventories marijuana at the Health Center, a medical cannabis and recreational marijuana dispensary in Denver. (Photo: Vince Chandler/The Denver Post)
Do you think cannabis-friendly states should still worry about Sessions? Do you think he’s backed down or do you think he still wants to send federal prosecutors into states that have legalized cannabis?" data-reactid="74">Do you think cannabis-friendly states should still worry about Sessions? Do you think he’s backed down or do you think he still wants to send federal prosecutors into states that have legalized cannabis?

Well, I think the president of the United States, who the attorney general works for, has made it very clear what his objectives are. This is something the president said in 2016, reiterated to me in a very public fashion now. What we need to do now is not sit back with the status quo but work for a resolution of this federal-state conflict so we provide certainty once and for all.

I have a related question, on the issue of criminal justice reform. A lot of people are serving harsh sentences because of the almost draconian laws that surrounded marijuana. Do you have any thoughts on the war on drugs and the effect it had on society?" data-reactid="76">I have a related question, on the issue of criminal justice reform. A lot of people are serving harsh sentences because of the almost draconian laws that surrounded marijuana. Do you have any thoughts on the war on drugs and the effect it had on society?

Certainly, there has been a great deal of discussion on this over the last several congresses. Senator Mike Lee [a Republican from Utah] and Senator Chuck Grassley [a Republican from Iowa] put together some sentencing reform last Congress because of some of the disparities in law. This perhaps could be viewed as one of the ways to address some of the sentencing disparities, while also addressing a states’ rights issue that probably is one of the most significant federalist advancements that this country’s seen in decades.

Back to your upcoming bill. Could you tell me a little bit more about the role Elizabeth Warren is playing in this project?" data-reactid="78">Back to your upcoming bill. Could you tell me a little bit more about the role Elizabeth Warren is playing in this project?

The lead Democrat on this effort is Elizabeth Warren. When this first happened, the reversal of the Cole memorandum back in January, I had a number of conversations with Senator Warren. We had a meeting in our office with a number of senators who are interested in finding a solution. It was clear that Elizabeth Warren and I were thinking about the same kind of approach on a federalism level. We’ve continued that work together. We’re leading this meeting this afternoon.

 

[Baron23]

Wow, look at these numbers....and the next thing you will see is our contemptible professional political class NOW scurry like roaches when the lights come on to " get in front" on legalization. We are already seeing this from our so-called "leaders". I guess I don't care that they don't have any real core values or positions as long as they support MJ legalization, but I really think our country deserves better than we are getting from them.


Poll: Support for legal marijuana hits all-time high

Nearly two-thirds of U.S. voters back legalizing marijuana, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday.

Support for legalization hit 63 percent in the survey — the highest level of support recorded by a Quinnipiac poll. A third of American voters still oppose legalization, the poll found.

Support for medical marijuana is even higher, at 93 percent. Only about 5 percent of respondents opposed it.

The poll also found little support for Attorney General Jeff Sessions's decision earlier this year to rescind an Obama-era policy that paved the way for individual states to legalize marijuana without federal interference.

Seventy percent of respondents said that they oppose enforcement of federal laws prohibiting marijuana in states that have moved to legalize the substance, while only 23 percent were in favor of such enforcement.

So far, nine states and the District of Columbia have legalized the use of recreational pot, and two dozen states have approved medical marijuana. Nevertheless, the substance remains federally prohibited.

In January, Sessions rescinded the Cole memo, which discouraged federal prosecutors from prioritizing marijuana-related charges in states that had voted to legalize it.

Fifty-four percent of respondents to the Quinnipiac poll said that among the reasons to legalize marijuana is that it would bring in additional revenue through taxes. Still, 42 percent said that such revenue is not a good justification for legalizing pot.

The Quinnipiac poll surveyed 1,193 voters from April 20-24. Its margin of error is plus or minus 3.4 percentage points.


Americans support federal bill to shield legal cannabis states: new poll
The federal bill query was one of 11 marijuana-related questions on the survey, the largest number of cannabis questions posed to-date on a single Quinnipiac poll.


Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner has said he likes his odds of getting a bill through Congress to protect state-legal marijuana operations.

And a new npoll released Thursday shows that it’s a popular bet with the American people.

Nearly three-quarters of American voters surveyed by Qunnipiac University say they would support legislation that shields states that have legalized medical or recreational from federal prosecution. The poll showed that 74 percent of Americans surveyed said they would favor such a bill, with 20 percent opposing and 6 percent not knowing or responding.

The federal bill query was one of 11 marijuana-related questions on the survey, the largest number of cannabis questions posed to-date on a single Quinnipiac poll.

The latest survey out of the Connecticut university shows that public support for marijuana legalization has notched a new high.

A total of 63 percent of voters surveyed favored legalizing marijuana, an increase of 2 percentage points from the previous high of 61 percent reported in an Aug. 3, 2017, survey.

Levels of public support have steadily climbed in recent years. When Quinnipiac pollsters posed the legalization question back in December 2012 — just a month after residents in Colorado and Washington voted to start adult-use cannabis sales in their states — Americans who favored the move nationally totaled 51 percent.

But as to whether legalization is good or bad, people are less certain. A total of 48 percent of respondents who live in states where recreational marijuana is allowed said they thought it had a positive effect; however, 25 percent of respondents said they thought the move has negatively affected their state and another 26 percent saying they were unsure.

The survey was conducted between April 20 and April 24 and contained a margin of error of +/- 3.4 percentage points, including the design effect. Live interviewers called landlines and cell phones of the 1,193 participants.

The marijuana-specific polling results included:

Do you think that the use of marijuana should be made legal in the United States, or not?

Yes: 63 percent
No: 33 percent
DK/NA: 4 percent

Do you support or oppose allowing adults to legally use marijuana for medical purposes if their doctor prescribes it?

Support: 93 percent
Oppose: 5 percent
DK/NA: 1 percent

Keeping in mind that your answers are confidential, have you ever recreationally used marijuana or not?

Yes: 43 percent
No: 54 percent
DK/NA: 2 percent

If you agreed with a political candidate on other issues, but not on the issue of legalizing marijuana, do you think you could still vote for that candidate or not?

Yes: 82 percent
No: 13 percent
DK/NA: 5 percent

Would you support or oppose the government enforcing federal laws against marijuana in states that have already legalized medical or recreational marijuana?

Support: 23 percent
Oppose: 70 percent
DK/NA: 7 percent

Is recreational marijuana legal in the state in which you live, or not?

Yes/Legal: 22 percent
No: 72 percent
DK/NA: 5 percent

(If yes/legal) Do you think that legalizing recreational marijuana has been good for your state or bad for your state?

Good: 48 percent
Bad: 25 percent
DK/NA: 26 percent

As you may know, legalizing recreational marijuana allows states to tax the sale of marijuana, which can result in increased revenue. Do you think that increasing revenue in your state is a good reason or a bad reason for recreational marijuana to be legalized?

Good reason: 54 percent
Bad reason: 42 percent
DK/NA: 4 percent

Do you consider marijuana a so-called “gateway drug”, or not?

Yes/Gateway drug: 31 percent
No: 61 percent
DK/NA: 8 percent

Do you think that legalizing marijuana will make people more likely to use opioids, less likely to use opioids, or don’t you think legalizing marijuana will have much impact either way?

More likely: 20 percent
Less likely: 20 percent
Not much impact: 56 percent
DK/NA: 5 percent

 

[Baron23]

Two thoughts:

1. "House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi has said she supports leaving it up to the states to decide how to enforce marijuana laws"

This ^^ is NOT support for Federal legalization no matter how closely she thinks she is walking the line. For both Dem and Rep, when I look at the many of the leaders of both parties all I see is octogenarians. Once these ticks dig in, its almost impossible to get rid of them.

2. While this guy may well be over 21 (unlike the pic in the article I posted under Weird Cannabis News) I still despair that almost every image of a MJ user is some young stoner. The demographics are much larger and I don't think these pics help us sway the opposition.


On the Hill and the Trail, Democrats Want to Push Pot Legalization
Key members are eyeing broad legislation on the topic, and some in the party believe the issue can be a big winner at the polls.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is on board. Former Speaker John Boehner is on board. Yet members of Congress still think the institution has been too slow to embrace the movement to decriminalize or even legalize marijuana.

A group of progressive lawmakers want to change that, hoping that if Democrats win majorities in Congress in November, they can bring legislation to the floor to once and for all end the federal prohibition of marijuana.

Among those voices is the Congressional Black Caucus, which held an hour-long private discussion on the topic Wednesday. The group’s chairman, Rep. Cedric Richmond, said they plan to release a statement of principles on the issue as soon as next month. Like Schumer’s bill, the principles will likely call for federal decriminalization of marijuana and removal of the plant from the Drug Enforcement Agency’s Schedule 1 classification, which includes drugs such as methamphetamines, cocaine, and heroin.

But more pointedly, Richmond added, he is pushing for the group to endorse restorative justice and the expungement of marijuana convictions for those affected by the war on drugs, many of whom are young African-American men represented by members of the caucus.

“Schumer’s bill is not bad, but there’s a whole set of collateral consequences of the marijuana policy for all of these decades,” he said. During the meeting, he added, “Most people went on to [talk about] the war on drugs, the effects it’s having in our community. Why would you have marijuana on the same schedule with opioids and all of these other drugs?”

Richmond said he supports another bill from Sen. Cory Booker and Rep. Barbara Lee, which would do all of the above but go farther in some respects, cutting federal funding for law enforcement in states found to disproportionately arrest and convict low-income and minority residents and creating a community reinvestment fund to train those populations for jobs in the cannabis industry.

The push reflects the growing support among the American electorate for relaxed drug laws relating to cannabis. The Pew Research Center found in January that about six in 10 voters support legalizing marijuana, while a Fox News poll from February similarly found that 59 percent of voters support the policy.

A Gravis Marketing poll in March of voters in Pennsylvania’s 18th District, meanwhile, found that a majority of voters there support recreational marijuana. President Trump won the district by 20 points, but a Democrat, Rep. Conor Lamb, won a March special election there against a Republican, Rick Saccone, who did not support even legalized medical marijuana.

Those numbers have liberal pundits wondering why Democrats aren’t pushing the issue harder. HBO late-night host and noted marijuana aficionado Bill Maher, for instance, dedicated an entire bit to the topic on a recent show, calling for Democrats to approach marijuana with single-issue politics, the way Republicans do guns.

“Hey Democrats, you’re going to lose this issue if you’re not careful, because now Republicans smell the money,” Maher said, after noting Boehner joined the board of a recreational marijuana company. “What we need is a sweetener to rouse the liberal base and I think pot would do the trick.”

“That’s smart,” said Rep. Ro Khanna, a freshman Democrat who represents Silicon Valley. “I know there’s evidence that people get active on that, that they will be passionate, turn out.

“I think it will help mobilize our base. Do I think it’s an issue that is going to impact swing voters? I don’t know. But I think what’s important is it will send a signal to young voters and to our base that this party’s bold, they’re actually going to change something, they stand for something.”

As an example, he said he recently filmed two videos for the video-news website NowThis: one about the contribution of immigrants to Silicon Valley and another about how legalizing marijuana would create jobs. The first got about 100,000 views, the second, more than 1.5 million.

Khanna, a cosponsor of the Booker-Lee bill, said he wants to push Democratic leadership to include ending marijuana prohibition in their Better Deal agenda, a document outlining what they would do if they control congressional majorities in Congress.

“If someone wants to disagree in their district they should be free to do so, but it should be the platform position of the Democratic Party,” Khanna said. “Where you stand on this should be defining in terms of being a progressive Democrat. I’m not sure you can’t be for legalization and really be part of the progressive party.”

Across the aisle, some voices in the GOP have come around to supporting elements of cannabis decriminalization. Notably, Sen. Cory Gardner has been an advocate for Colorado’s legalization, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte recently signed onto a bill to expedite medical-marijuana research, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has become an advocate for legal hemp.

Yet the party also includes more strident voices for prohibition, for instance Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who famously said, “Good people don’t smoke marijuana;” Rep. Andy Harris, who has fought against the District of Columbia’s legalization efforts; and President Trump, who reportedly nixed Israel’s plan to export marijuana.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi has said she supports leaving it up to the states to decide how to enforce marijuana laws and she has supported decriminalization efforts in her own state of California. Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill did not rule out adding to the agenda.

“Leader Pelosi and the [Democratic Policy Communication Committee] cochairs continue to reach out to members about future components to the Better Deal agenda,” he said.

Richmond said he hasn’t seen hard evidence that voters vote based on their stance on marijuana, but he said younger voters and community activists are paying attention to the issue and pushing for change, and it is incumbent for leaders to listen to them.

Rep. Jared Polis said the same of the burgeoning marijuana businesses, which in total is a billion-dollar industry in his home state of Colorado with more than 20,000 full-time jobs. He said that at the very least, people who have a livelihood in the industry vote based on a candidate’s stance on the issue. For recreational users, it’s more about freedom, he said.

“People don’t like nanny-state Republicans telling them what they can or can’t do in their own homes,” he said. “I think the movement is growing and Congress is slow to react to that. It’s at incumbents’ own peril if they’re running for reelection if they’re on the wrong side of the vast majority of their own electorate on that issue.”