Baron23
Well-Known Member
The depth of mendacity is breathtaking....made me think of this ...
|
Sponsored by |
|---|
|
|
-
Need help navigating the forum? Find out how to use our features here.
-
Did you know we have lots of smilies for you to use?
Law The Cannabis Chronicles - Misc Cannabis News
- Thread starter CarolKing
- Start date
Baron23
Well-Known Member
Circuit Judge Presses Feds to 'Fish or Cut Bait' on Marijuana Tax Audits
At issue is whether owners of a Colorado dispensary should be allowed to deduct the same business costs from their taxes as other, non-marijuana companies.
A judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on Tuesday expressed exasperation with federal tax audits of state-legal marijuana dispensaries, urging the U.S. Department of Justice to “fish or cut bait” on pursuing licensed operations.
U.S. Circuit Judge Carlos Lucero said the threat of federal prosecution “is like a hammer over” marijuana businesses’ heads “whenever it comes time to pay their taxes.”
“The Department of Justice at some point ought to make a decision, to either fish or cut bait on the issue,” Lucero said during oral arguments in Feinberg v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. “And if they’re going to prosecute, then prosecute and bring the whole thing to a head. Or grant immunity and allow the tax operations to operate somewhat more smoothly.”
At issue is whether owners of a Colorado dispensary should be allowed to deduct the same business costs from their taxes as other, non-marijuana companies. The Feinbergs and a third shareholder are appealing a U.S. Tax Court ruling that upheld the U.S. Internal Revenue Service’s decision to deny certain deductions.
The case is the latest front in Greenwood, Colorado, firm Thorburn Walker’s attack on Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code, which bars tax deductions from income derived from drug trafficking. The firm’s lawyers have challenged the law and dispensary tax audits on the grounds that the IRS has become a de facto criminal law enforcement agency.
Judges have generally not been sympathetic to their arguments. And on Tuesday, that seemed to be the case with Lucero’s fellow panelists, Circuit Judges Carolyn Baldwin McHugh and Nancy Moritz.
“This is a huge conflict between how the federal government treats marijuana and how some of the states treat marijuana,” McHugh said to the plaintiff’s lawyer, James Thorburn. “And so long as we have a supremacy clause, your clients are going to lose because it’s still illegal under federal law.”
Lucero, however, accused the IRS of “punish[ing] this business to the point of destruction” amid “this huge mix of tax-raising and criminal law.”
“So the IRS says in this case, even though the business is legal in Colorado, because the federal government says it is not legal to sell marijuana or “traffic” in marijuana you’re going to have to pay taxes on the whole bloody thing,” Lucero said at one point. “‘Colorado, up yours. We’re going to ignore everything that you as a state, under the United States Constitution, have the power to do and has done.’”
Francesca Ugolini, assistant chief at the Department of Justice’s tax division, said the plaintiffs were allowed to take a “substantial” deduction for costs of goods sold—an amount the IRS actually increased after the audit. Both the Ninth and Tenth circuits have upheld the constitutionality of Section 280E and barring deductions of certain business expenses to marijuana operations, she said.
“We enforce the laws that exist and this law has been on the books, I believe, since the ’80s,” Ugolini said. “So the businesses in Colorado and California and some of the other states that have decided to go into this business are, or at least should be, fully aware of the tax implications of deciding to enter this type of business.”
At issue is whether owners of a Colorado dispensary should be allowed to deduct the same business costs from their taxes as other, non-marijuana companies.
A judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on Tuesday expressed exasperation with federal tax audits of state-legal marijuana dispensaries, urging the U.S. Department of Justice to “fish or cut bait” on pursuing licensed operations.
U.S. Circuit Judge Carlos Lucero said the threat of federal prosecution “is like a hammer over” marijuana businesses’ heads “whenever it comes time to pay their taxes.”
“The Department of Justice at some point ought to make a decision, to either fish or cut bait on the issue,” Lucero said during oral arguments in Feinberg v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. “And if they’re going to prosecute, then prosecute and bring the whole thing to a head. Or grant immunity and allow the tax operations to operate somewhat more smoothly.”
At issue is whether owners of a Colorado dispensary should be allowed to deduct the same business costs from their taxes as other, non-marijuana companies. The Feinbergs and a third shareholder are appealing a U.S. Tax Court ruling that upheld the U.S. Internal Revenue Service’s decision to deny certain deductions.
The case is the latest front in Greenwood, Colorado, firm Thorburn Walker’s attack on Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code, which bars tax deductions from income derived from drug trafficking. The firm’s lawyers have challenged the law and dispensary tax audits on the grounds that the IRS has become a de facto criminal law enforcement agency.
Judges have generally not been sympathetic to their arguments. And on Tuesday, that seemed to be the case with Lucero’s fellow panelists, Circuit Judges Carolyn Baldwin McHugh and Nancy Moritz.
“This is a huge conflict between how the federal government treats marijuana and how some of the states treat marijuana,” McHugh said to the plaintiff’s lawyer, James Thorburn. “And so long as we have a supremacy clause, your clients are going to lose because it’s still illegal under federal law.”
Lucero, however, accused the IRS of “punish[ing] this business to the point of destruction” amid “this huge mix of tax-raising and criminal law.”
“So the IRS says in this case, even though the business is legal in Colorado, because the federal government says it is not legal to sell marijuana or “traffic” in marijuana you’re going to have to pay taxes on the whole bloody thing,” Lucero said at one point. “‘Colorado, up yours. We’re going to ignore everything that you as a state, under the United States Constitution, have the power to do and has done.’”
Francesca Ugolini, assistant chief at the Department of Justice’s tax division, said the plaintiffs were allowed to take a “substantial” deduction for costs of goods sold—an amount the IRS actually increased after the audit. Both the Ninth and Tenth circuits have upheld the constitutionality of Section 280E and barring deductions of certain business expenses to marijuana operations, she said.
“We enforce the laws that exist and this law has been on the books, I believe, since the ’80s,” Ugolini said. “So the businesses in Colorado and California and some of the other states that have decided to go into this business are, or at least should be, fully aware of the tax implications of deciding to enter this type of business.”
Baron23
Well-Known Member
The Trump administration’s crackdown on marijuana legalization might end under Bill Barr
Marijuana legalization: 1. Jeff Sessions: 0.
The Trump administration’s war on marijuana legalization may soon end.
A year ago, the Department of Justice, under the leadership of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, made a move widely interpreted as a signal to federal prosecutors and other law enforcement officials to crack down on cannabis — and marijuana businesses — in states that had legalized pot: It rescinded guidance issued during Barack Obama’s presidency that allowed states to legalize pot without the threat of federal interference even as marijuana remained illegal under federal law.
But Trump’s nominee to replace Sessions as attorney general, William Barr, confirmed in written responses to questions from US senators that he won’t be continuing that push to crack down on legal pot if he is confirmed by the Senate.
“As discussed at my hearing, I do not intend to go after parties who have complied with state law in reliance on the Cole Memorandum,” Barr wrote, referring to one piece of the Obama-era guidance.
Barr clarified that he has “not closely considered or determined whether further administrative guidance would be appropriate.” But at least for now, it doesn’t look like he’ll pursue a war on marijuana legalization, like Sessions did.
The nominee, who’s opposed to marijuana legalization, also wrote that “the legislative process, rather than administrative guidance, is ultimately the right way to resolve whether and how to legalize marijuana.”
To put it another way: If Congress wants to eliminate the risk of federal interference into states’ marijuana laws, it should change federal law. (Barr has said that he opposes legalizing pot, so he doesn’t want Congress to take such a move.)
Under federal law, marijuana remains illegal for all purposes, medical or not. So even in the states where marijuana has been made legal under state law, it remains illegal at the federal level.
The Obama-era Justice Department, however, enacted an uneasy truce between federal and state governments with its guidance: It acknowledged that marijuana remains illegal at the federal level, but as long as states met certain criteria (such as not letting legal pot fall into kids’ hands or cross state lines), the federal government wouldn’t crack down on state-legal cannabis businesses.
It’s this truce Sessions attempted to break by rescinding the guidance, opening up state-legal businesses to the threat of federal law enforcement. But Barr is now moving away from that.
Ten states and Washington, DC, have legalized marijuana for recreational purposes, although Vermont and DC have not allowed sales.
Supporters of legalization argue that it eliminates the harms of marijuana prohibition: the hundreds of thousands of arrests around the US, the racial disparities behind those arrests, and the billions of dollars that flow from the black market for illicit marijuana to drug cartels that then use the money for violent operations around the world. All of this, legalization advocates say, will outweigh any of the potential downsides — such as increased cannabis use — that might come with legalization.
Opponents, meanwhile, claim that legalization will enable a huge marijuana industry that will market the drug irresponsibly. They point to America’s experiences with the alcohol and tobacco industries, which have built their financial empires in large part on some of the heaviest consumers of their products. This could result in far more people using pot, even if it leads to negative health consequences.
Baron23
Well-Known Member
World Health Organization Recommends Reclassifying Marijuana Under International Treaties
Global health experts at the United Nations are recommending that marijuana and its key components be formally rescheduled under international drug treaties.
GettyGetty
The World Health Organization (WHO) is calling for whole-plant marijuana, as well as cannabis resin, to be removed from Schedule IV—the most restrictive category of a 1961 drug convention signed by countries from around the world.
The body also wants delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and its isomers to be completely removed from a separate 1971 drug treaty and instead added to Schedule I of the 1961 convention, according to a WHO document that has not yet been formally released but was circulated by cannabis reform advocates.
Marijuana and cannabis resin would also remain in Schedule I of the 1961 treaty—they are currently dual-designated in Schedules I and IV, with IV being reserved for those substances that are seen as particularly harmful with limited medical benefits. (That's different from the U.S. federal system, under which Schedule I is where the supposedly most dangerous and restricted drugs—like marijuana, heroin and LSD—are classified.)
WHO is also moving to make clear that cannabidiol and CBD-focused preparations containing no more than 0.2 percent THC are "not under international control" at all. It had previously been the case that CBD wasn't scheduled under the international conventions, but the new recommendation is to make that even more clear.
Cannabis extracts and tinctures would be removed from Schedule I of the 1961 treaty under the recommendations, and compounded pharmaceutical preparations containing THC would be placed in Schedule III of that convention.
The practical effects of the changes would be somewhat limited, in that they wouldn't allow countries to legalize marijuana and still be in strict compliance with international treaties, but their political implications are hard to overstate.
Taken together, recommendations, if adopted, would represent a formal recognition that the world's governing bodies have effectively been wrong about marijuana's harms and therapeutic benefits for decades. WHO's new position comes at a time when a growing number of countries are moving to reform their cannabis policies. As such, a shift at the UN could embolden additional nations to scale back or repeal their prohibition laws—even though legalization for non-medical or non-scientific reasons would still technically violate the global conventions.
“The placement of cannabis in the 1961 treaty, in the absence of scientific evidence, was a terrible injustice," said Michael Krawitz, a U.S. Air Force veteran and legalization advocate who has pushed for international reforms. "Today the World Health Organization has gone a long way towards setting the record straight. "It is time for us all to support the World Health Organization’s recommendations and ensure politics don't trump science."
The WHO recommendations were initially expected to be released at a meeting in Vienna in December, but the announcement was delayed for unknown reasons. The proposals will next go before the UN's Commission on Narcotic Drugs, potentially as soon as March, where 53 member nations will have the opportunity to vote on accepting or rejecting them.
A number of countries that have historically opposed drug policy reforms, such as Russia and China, are expected to oppose the change in cannabis's classification.
Other nations like Canada and Uruguay, which have legalize marijuana in contravention of the current treaties, are likely to back the reform, as are a number of European and South American nations that allow medical cannabis.
It is not clear how the U.S. will vote. While the country has historically pressured other nations not to reform their own marijuana policies, the reality of legalization in a growing number of U.S. states has made that kind of pressure increasingly untenable in recent years.
The Trump administration moved last year to revoke Obama-era prosecutorial guidance that generally urged non-intervention with local marijuana laws. But the president himself has voiced support for letting states set their own cannabis policies without interference, and attorney general nominee William Barr said during his confirmation hearing that he would not "go after" companies relying on the now-rescinded cannabis guidance.
Thus, it remains to be seen how the administration will direct its UN representative when it comes time to weigh in on the proposed changes to marijuana's status under international law.
If the recommendation on CBD is adopted, however, it could potentially have far-reaching implications in the U.S. Last year, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determined that CBD does not meet the criteria for federal control—except for the fact that international treaties to which the U.S. is party could potentially be construed as requiring it.
“If treaty obligations do not require control of CBD, or if the international controls on CBD change in the future, this recommendation will need to be promptly revisited," FDA wrote, adding that the U.S. scheduling placement of CBD should be “revisited promptly” if international treaty obligations changed. Under the clarification being recommended by WHO, no one would be able to argue that CBD is globally scheduled.
ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER ADVERTISEMENT
The WHO's new cannabis rescheduling recommendations come in the form of a letter, dated January 24, from the Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the body's director general, to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.
Guterres was Portugal's prime minister when the country enacted a policy of decriminalizing drug possession, a move he touted in a speech to the UN's Commission on Narcotics Drugs last year.
Global health experts at the United Nations are recommending that marijuana and its key components be formally rescheduled under international drug treaties.
GettyGetty
The World Health Organization (WHO) is calling for whole-plant marijuana, as well as cannabis resin, to be removed from Schedule IV—the most restrictive category of a 1961 drug convention signed by countries from around the world.
The body also wants delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and its isomers to be completely removed from a separate 1971 drug treaty and instead added to Schedule I of the 1961 convention, according to a WHO document that has not yet been formally released but was circulated by cannabis reform advocates.
Marijuana and cannabis resin would also remain in Schedule I of the 1961 treaty—they are currently dual-designated in Schedules I and IV, with IV being reserved for those substances that are seen as particularly harmful with limited medical benefits. (That's different from the U.S. federal system, under which Schedule I is where the supposedly most dangerous and restricted drugs—like marijuana, heroin and LSD—are classified.)
WHO is also moving to make clear that cannabidiol and CBD-focused preparations containing no more than 0.2 percent THC are "not under international control" at all. It had previously been the case that CBD wasn't scheduled under the international conventions, but the new recommendation is to make that even more clear.
Cannabis extracts and tinctures would be removed from Schedule I of the 1961 treaty under the recommendations, and compounded pharmaceutical preparations containing THC would be placed in Schedule III of that convention.
The practical effects of the changes would be somewhat limited, in that they wouldn't allow countries to legalize marijuana and still be in strict compliance with international treaties, but their political implications are hard to overstate.
Taken together, recommendations, if adopted, would represent a formal recognition that the world's governing bodies have effectively been wrong about marijuana's harms and therapeutic benefits for decades. WHO's new position comes at a time when a growing number of countries are moving to reform their cannabis policies. As such, a shift at the UN could embolden additional nations to scale back or repeal their prohibition laws—even though legalization for non-medical or non-scientific reasons would still technically violate the global conventions.
“The placement of cannabis in the 1961 treaty, in the absence of scientific evidence, was a terrible injustice," said Michael Krawitz, a U.S. Air Force veteran and legalization advocate who has pushed for international reforms. "Today the World Health Organization has gone a long way towards setting the record straight. "It is time for us all to support the World Health Organization’s recommendations and ensure politics don't trump science."
The WHO recommendations were initially expected to be released at a meeting in Vienna in December, but the announcement was delayed for unknown reasons. The proposals will next go before the UN's Commission on Narcotic Drugs, potentially as soon as March, where 53 member nations will have the opportunity to vote on accepting or rejecting them.
A number of countries that have historically opposed drug policy reforms, such as Russia and China, are expected to oppose the change in cannabis's classification.
Other nations like Canada and Uruguay, which have legalize marijuana in contravention of the current treaties, are likely to back the reform, as are a number of European and South American nations that allow medical cannabis.
It is not clear how the U.S. will vote. While the country has historically pressured other nations not to reform their own marijuana policies, the reality of legalization in a growing number of U.S. states has made that kind of pressure increasingly untenable in recent years.
The Trump administration moved last year to revoke Obama-era prosecutorial guidance that generally urged non-intervention with local marijuana laws. But the president himself has voiced support for letting states set their own cannabis policies without interference, and attorney general nominee William Barr said during his confirmation hearing that he would not "go after" companies relying on the now-rescinded cannabis guidance.
Thus, it remains to be seen how the administration will direct its UN representative when it comes time to weigh in on the proposed changes to marijuana's status under international law.
If the recommendation on CBD is adopted, however, it could potentially have far-reaching implications in the U.S. Last year, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determined that CBD does not meet the criteria for federal control—except for the fact that international treaties to which the U.S. is party could potentially be construed as requiring it.
“If treaty obligations do not require control of CBD, or if the international controls on CBD change in the future, this recommendation will need to be promptly revisited," FDA wrote, adding that the U.S. scheduling placement of CBD should be “revisited promptly” if international treaty obligations changed. Under the clarification being recommended by WHO, no one would be able to argue that CBD is globally scheduled.
ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER ADVERTISEMENT
The WHO's new cannabis rescheduling recommendations come in the form of a letter, dated January 24, from the Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the body's director general, to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.
Guterres was Portugal's prime minister when the country enacted a policy of decriminalizing drug possession, a move he touted in a speech to the UN's Commission on Narcotics Drugs last year.
Baron23
Well-Known Member
"Boehner, a staunch opponent of legalized marijuana while in Congress, joined Acreage's advisory board last spring because his "thinking on cannabis has evolved.''
Yeah, it evolved....along with his desire for money. This man has no core values and is a Machiavellian hypocrite, IMO.
John Boehner to chair new national cannabis lobbying group
Former House Speaker turned cannabis investor John Boehner on Friday announced the launch of an industry-funded lobbying group called The National Cannabis Roundtable.
A Republican from West Chester in suburban Cincinnati, Boehner will chair the roundtable. It will represent legalized marijuana businesses in 23 states and the District of Columbia, including New York-based Acreage Holdings.
Acreage owns legalized marijuana licenses in nearly a dozen states. In Ohio, it operates medical marijuana dispensaries under The Botanist name with company Greenleaf Apothecaries. Acreage's chief operating officer was an investor in Terradiol Ohio, which was awarded a large-scale cultivation license.
Boehner, a staunch opponent of legalized marijuana while in Congress, joined Acreage's advisory board last spring because his "thinking on cannabis has evolved.''
The former lawmaker will also serve as an advisor, not a registered lobbyist, for the roundtable, Boehner said during a phone call with reporters Friday.
Boehner said the roundtable will promote changes to federal law that make it easier to research cannabis and for regulated cannabis businesses to operate. Federally, marijuana is an illegal Schedule 1 controlled substance, alongside heroin and LSD, is not a top priority for the group.
Federal law supersedes state laws legalizing marijuana for medical and recreational use, including the 2016 Ohio law that created the state's Medical Marijuana Control Program.
But Boehner said removing cannabis from Schedule I of the U.S. Controlled Substances Act is not the group's top priority.
"It would clearly be a big goal, but I think there are other steps that need to be taken along the way before we get to that,'' he said.
Federal law makes it difficult for legalized marijuana businesses to access banking and other services available to most companies. And marijuana businesses must pay state and federal taxes, but can't deduct expenses as other businesses do.
Boehner said the roundtable's members represent every aspect of the cannabis supply chain, including growers, processors, retailers, wellness centers, investors, entrepreneurs, and publicly traded companies.
Several bills have been introduced in recent years to remove barriers to banking and capital, expand access to medical marijuana to veterans who receive federal health care, and move cannabis off the federal controlled substances list. But none passed, and Republicans routinely blocked marijuana-friendly amendments to other bills.
That could change with Democrats in control of the House. A committee hearing on banking services for marijuana businesses is scheduled for next week.
Outgoing House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio acknowledges a reporter during a new conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Sept. 29, 2015. (Photo: Carolyn Kaster, AP)
Boehner expects this Congress to be different from years' past because more states are considering legalizing medicinal or recreational marijuana use – 33 states and the District of Columbia have already legalized it in some capacity.
“Every day that goes by, members are learning more about this and learning more from their own constituents about how the federal government continues to stand in the way,” Boehner said.
Baron23
Well-Known Member
Just my opinion, but we will not see anything like this pass during this legislative session.
The ‘420 Bill’ to federally legalize marijuana has officially been introduced
A federal bill that would legalize cannabis and regulate it like alcohol was introduced in the Senate on Friday by Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon. The bill, the Marijuana Revenue and Regulation Act, has been designated as S. 420 by Wyden and is a companion measure to H.R. 420, which was introduced in the House of Representatives by fellow Oregon Democrat Rep. Earl Blumenauer last month.
A Democratic aide to the Senate Finance Committee, where Wyden is the ranking member, said that the bill aims to “responsibly legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana at the federal level,” according to media reports. Wyden said in a press release on Friday that now is the time for cannabis reform at the national level.
“The federal prohibition of marijuana is wrong, plain and simple. Too many lives have been wasted, and too many economic opportunities have been missed,” Wyden said. “It’s time Congress make the changes Oregonians and Americans across the country are demanding.”
Blumenauer agreed, noting that voters’ opinions on cannabis have changed and that their representatives in Congress should follow suit.
“Oregon has been and continues to be a leader in commonsense marijuana policies and the federal government must catch up,” said Blumenauer. “The American people have elected the most pro-cannabis Congress in American history and significant pieces of legislation are being introduced. The House is doing its work and with the help of Senator Wyden’s leadership in the Senate, we will break through.”
Bill is Part of Legislative Package
S. 420 is part of a package of bills intended to reform federal cannabis policy dubbed by Wyden and Blumenauer as the Path to Marijuana Reform. The other measures in the package, the Small Business Tax Equity Act and the Responsibly Addressing the Marijuana Policy Gap Act. The Small Business Tax Equity Act would repeal provisions of the tax code that deny cannabis businesses the right to take the same tax deductions as companies in other industries.
The Responsibly Addressing the Marijuana Policy Gap Act would remove federal criminal penalties and civil asset forfeiture for individuals and businesses complying with state law. The bill would also give cannabis businesses legal under state law access to banking, bankruptcy protection, marijuana research, and advertising. The bill includes an expungement process for some marijuana convictions which will reduce some of the collateral damage of the War on Drugs, including the denial of federal housing and financial aid. The bill also gives veterans access to legal medical marijuana programs and protects Native American tribes from prosecution under federal cannabis laws.
The ‘420 Bill’ to federally legalize marijuana has officially been introduced
A federal bill that would legalize cannabis and regulate it like alcohol was introduced in the Senate on Friday by Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon. The bill, the Marijuana Revenue and Regulation Act, has been designated as S. 420 by Wyden and is a companion measure to H.R. 420, which was introduced in the House of Representatives by fellow Oregon Democrat Rep. Earl Blumenauer last month.
A Democratic aide to the Senate Finance Committee, where Wyden is the ranking member, said that the bill aims to “responsibly legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana at the federal level,” according to media reports. Wyden said in a press release on Friday that now is the time for cannabis reform at the national level.
“The federal prohibition of marijuana is wrong, plain and simple. Too many lives have been wasted, and too many economic opportunities have been missed,” Wyden said. “It’s time Congress make the changes Oregonians and Americans across the country are demanding.”
Blumenauer agreed, noting that voters’ opinions on cannabis have changed and that their representatives in Congress should follow suit.
“Oregon has been and continues to be a leader in commonsense marijuana policies and the federal government must catch up,” said Blumenauer. “The American people have elected the most pro-cannabis Congress in American history and significant pieces of legislation are being introduced. The House is doing its work and with the help of Senator Wyden’s leadership in the Senate, we will break through.”
Bill is Part of Legislative Package
S. 420 is part of a package of bills intended to reform federal cannabis policy dubbed by Wyden and Blumenauer as the Path to Marijuana Reform. The other measures in the package, the Small Business Tax Equity Act and the Responsibly Addressing the Marijuana Policy Gap Act. The Small Business Tax Equity Act would repeal provisions of the tax code that deny cannabis businesses the right to take the same tax deductions as companies in other industries.
The Responsibly Addressing the Marijuana Policy Gap Act would remove federal criminal penalties and civil asset forfeiture for individuals and businesses complying with state law. The bill would also give cannabis businesses legal under state law access to banking, bankruptcy protection, marijuana research, and advertising. The bill includes an expungement process for some marijuana convictions which will reduce some of the collateral damage of the War on Drugs, including the denial of federal housing and financial aid. The bill also gives veterans access to legal medical marijuana programs and protects Native American tribes from prosecution under federal cannabis laws.
Baron23
Well-Known Member
"According to New York City's spokesperson: "Restaurants in New York City are not permitted to add anything to food or drink that is not approved as safe to eat. Until cannabidiol... is deemed safe as a food additive, the department is ordering restaurants not to offer products containing CBD."
Ah, the idiots strike again...so, has the FDA ruled on...for example, adding St John Wart to food. F*ck no.....but CBD, well....the wee dense bastards just don't get it unless it comes from a company like GW Pharmaceuticals....who....wait for it....spend millions on lobbying (see S. Dakota's CBD as an example.....)
3 legal marijuana States are banning CBD edibles. Here's why.
The legal marijuana industry had itself a 2018 to remember. Having entered the year as a still somewhat taboo industry, legal cannabis ended the year as a legitimate business model that expects to be around for a long time to come.
To our north, Canada became the first industrialized country in the world to legalize recreational marijuana. This will open the floodgates to billions of dollars in potential annual sales, and it validated that the weed industry might be worthy of investment consideration.
In the United States, we saw the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approve its very first cannabis-derived drug in June, saw a handful of new states give the green light to pot during midterm elections, and observed as President Trump legalized hemp and hemp-based cannabidiol (CBD) in December by signing the Farm Bill into law. CBD is the nonpsychoactive cannabinoid best known for its medical benefits.
CBD edibles come under fire in New York and other select states
Everything would seem to be going very well for the cannabis industry, and especially for manufacturers of CBD products. Following passage of the Farm Bill, it would presumably become easier for hemp-based CBD products to find their way to retailers' shelves. That's one of the many reasons the Brightfield Group is calling for global CBD sales to soar by a compounded annual rate of 147% between 2018 and 2022, eventually hitting $22 billion in 2022.
But these CBD sales estimates may have hit a bit of a snag this past week. As reported by The Atlantic, the states of New York, Ohio, and Maine have begun waging war on edibles containing CBD. Even in states where recreational marijuana is legal, such as Maine, a gray area exists with regard to adding CBD to food products.
In New York City, the Department of Health announced that it had begun a crackdown on establishments (e.g., restaurants and coffee shops) that have been using CBD as a food additive. This crackdown has included seizure of CBD products, and the warning of fines to come, which could total up to $650 beginning in July for violations, according to the New York Post. According to New York City's spokesperson: "Restaurants in New York City are not permitted to add anything to food or drink that is not approved as safe to eat. Until cannabidiol... is deemed safe as a food additive, the department is ordering restaurants not to offer products containing CBD."
Here's why CBD edible usage is far from a cut-and-dried issue
Why is this happening? The blame primarily lies with a lack of guidelines and FDA-confirmed research on CBD.
To be clear, GW Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:GWPH) put a decisive end to the question of whether cannabis has medical benefits this past June. GW Pharmaceuticals' lead drug, Epidiolex, an oral solution containing CBD, dazzled in multiple late-stage clinical studies for two rare types of childhood-onset epilepsy. The statistically significant reduction in seizure frequency demonstrated by study patients taking Epidiolex compared to the placebo group was the reason the FDA approved GW Pharmaceuticals' lead drug in June.
The problem here is that the FDA views this clinical indication as statistically significant for patients with Dravet syndrome and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, and unconfirmed for every other possible ailment. Even with university-based data suggesting that CBD treatments can help with chronic pain or glaucoma, that's not been proven by an FDA-cleared study. And since the "F" in the FDA stands for "Food," adding an unproven substance to food items creates a big gray area for the time being.
The other issue relates to a lack of guidelines. CBD products don't have any labeling standards or dosage guidelines, and in many instances consumers aren't aware how much CBD they're receiving in restaurants and coffee shops that are using CBD in food and beverages. It's also become difficult for some consumers to determine what items on a menu contain CBD and which one's don't. Until there's a better way to pass along this labeling and dosing info to the consumer, it could be difficult for CBD edibles of any form to thrive.
Not so fast, CBD producers
The news of a CBD edibles crackdown in select states might come as a bit of a surprise to cannabis enthusiasts, but it might have an even larger impact on investors. There are a few publicly traded companies leaning heavily on CBD products to drive sales and profitability.
For example, Charlotte's Web Holdings (NASDAQOTH:CWBHF), which is one of a very small handful of marijuana stocks to have generated an operating profit without the help of one-time benefits or fair-value adjustments, has its line of CBD products in more than 3,600 U.S retailers. The passage of the Farm Bill was expected to rapidly expand this retail presence, with Charlotte's Web leaning on CBD derived from hemp plants. However, demand for CBD products may prove less robust than initially thought as a result of regulatory pushback against CBD-infused edibles. This might have the potential to adversely affect Charlotte's Web's near-term growth prospects.
The hottest marijuana stock of 2018 might also take it on the chin. CV Sciences (NASDAQOTH:CVSI) has two diverse business segments, including specialty pharmaceuticals and consumer products. The consumer-products division features CBD oil used for beauty care, vaping, and specialty foods. It's possible CV Sciences could see some pushback in sales as a result of this CBD edible crackdown, although it's going to depend on whether more states begin banning CBD use in foods beyond New York, Ohio, and Maine. Coupled with the potential overhang of lawsuits concerning its specialty pharmaceutical division, CV Sciences might be a name to avoid.
Baron23
Well-Known Member
Another entry in the "Our politicians are a mendacious, self-serving, bunch who will say anything to get elected" category
Kamala Harris Says Her Opposition to Marijuana Legalization Is 'Not True.' We Have the Receipts!
For most of the presidential candidate's political career, she was absolutely dead set against full legalization.
Democratic presidential candidate and California Sen. Kamala Harris stopped by I Heart Radio morning show The Breakfast Club for a chat about her campaign ambitions. She found a friendly questioner in Charlamagne tha God, and they talked at length about the kind of attacks she's been facing over her record as a former prosecutor in San Francisco and the state's attorney general.
Part of the interview appeared to be a bit of straw man attacking, or at least time spent on claims that weren't actual critiques of her record. There's apparently a meme out there that states that Kamala Harris as a prosecutor "set a state record" for prosecuting black men. I can find little evidence of this meme online other than a single picture and a response on Medium from somebody saying that this likely isn't true. California's prison population declined during the time that Harris was attorney general.
There are a lot of legitimate critiques of Harris' background as a prosecutor, so picking the most absurd claim to give her space to hit back on is a little odd. In addition, he lets her weigh in on some absurd claim out there that she's not really black and was raised in Canada. The 44-minute interview does delve into a few more issues, and he gives her space to promote the criminal justice reforms she really does support. She mentions crafting legislation to try to eliminate the use of cash bail in the states—an effort on which she's partnered up with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to try to send federal grants to states to research changes.
But then things get truly odd when Charlamagne funnels her into pretty much flat-out deceiving us about her record on marijuana legalization. Here's the clip:
For those who can't watch, Charlamagne says there's a rumor going around that she's against marijuana legalization and she says that's "not true." If you listen carefully, the two of them are circumspect about how they're approaching this. They are talking about Harris' current position on marijuana legalization. She states very clearly that she is in favor of legalizing marijuana.
But that's a significant change of her position in the last 10 years, and the show simply does not grapple with any of it, treating Harris as though she's ahead of the curve on legalization.
She's not. She is playing catch-up and has been publicly supporting legalization for all of a year.
Harris has a lengthy history as a prosecutor in California of opposing marijuana legalization. She opposed Proposition 19, the first failed attempt in California to legalize recreational use of marijuana. Here's a quote from her campaign manager when she was running for attorney general in 2010, when Prop. 19 was on the ballot: "Spending two decades in court rooms, Harris believes that drug selling harms communities. Harris supports the legal use of medicinal marijuana but does not support anything beyond that."
In 2014 she actually laughed at a reporter in response to the very idea (pushed by her Republican opponent) of legalized recreational use.
For almost the entirety of Harris' political career, she has been against legalizing pot. Like a lot of politicians, she has only recently come around to recognize the reality that whatever damage marijuana use might cause pales in comparison to the harms created by the government enforcing marijuana laws.
It's not all that much different from various Democratic leaders coming around over the past decade to support same-sex marriage recognition. The issue here in this interview is that Harris is clearly wanting to present herself as being some sort of cutting edge candidate (she admits to smoking pot once in college) when her actual record on marijuana is anything but.
For an actual critique of Harris' record that doesn't rely on random memes, check out Reason TV's recent analysis. This is the stuff that people are actually thinking about before deciding whether to cast a vote for her:
Kamala Harris Says Her Opposition to Marijuana Legalization Is 'Not True.' We Have the Receipts!
For most of the presidential candidate's political career, she was absolutely dead set against full legalization.
Democratic presidential candidate and California Sen. Kamala Harris stopped by I Heart Radio morning show The Breakfast Club for a chat about her campaign ambitions. She found a friendly questioner in Charlamagne tha God, and they talked at length about the kind of attacks she's been facing over her record as a former prosecutor in San Francisco and the state's attorney general.
Part of the interview appeared to be a bit of straw man attacking, or at least time spent on claims that weren't actual critiques of her record. There's apparently a meme out there that states that Kamala Harris as a prosecutor "set a state record" for prosecuting black men. I can find little evidence of this meme online other than a single picture and a response on Medium from somebody saying that this likely isn't true. California's prison population declined during the time that Harris was attorney general.
There are a lot of legitimate critiques of Harris' background as a prosecutor, so picking the most absurd claim to give her space to hit back on is a little odd. In addition, he lets her weigh in on some absurd claim out there that she's not really black and was raised in Canada. The 44-minute interview does delve into a few more issues, and he gives her space to promote the criminal justice reforms she really does support. She mentions crafting legislation to try to eliminate the use of cash bail in the states—an effort on which she's partnered up with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to try to send federal grants to states to research changes.
But then things get truly odd when Charlamagne funnels her into pretty much flat-out deceiving us about her record on marijuana legalization. Here's the clip:
For those who can't watch, Charlamagne says there's a rumor going around that she's against marijuana legalization and she says that's "not true." If you listen carefully, the two of them are circumspect about how they're approaching this. They are talking about Harris' current position on marijuana legalization. She states very clearly that she is in favor of legalizing marijuana.
But that's a significant change of her position in the last 10 years, and the show simply does not grapple with any of it, treating Harris as though she's ahead of the curve on legalization.
She's not. She is playing catch-up and has been publicly supporting legalization for all of a year.
Harris has a lengthy history as a prosecutor in California of opposing marijuana legalization. She opposed Proposition 19, the first failed attempt in California to legalize recreational use of marijuana. Here's a quote from her campaign manager when she was running for attorney general in 2010, when Prop. 19 was on the ballot: "Spending two decades in court rooms, Harris believes that drug selling harms communities. Harris supports the legal use of medicinal marijuana but does not support anything beyond that."
In 2014 she actually laughed at a reporter in response to the very idea (pushed by her Republican opponent) of legalized recreational use.
For almost the entirety of Harris' political career, she has been against legalizing pot. Like a lot of politicians, she has only recently come around to recognize the reality that whatever damage marijuana use might cause pales in comparison to the harms created by the government enforcing marijuana laws.
It's not all that much different from various Democratic leaders coming around over the past decade to support same-sex marriage recognition. The issue here in this interview is that Harris is clearly wanting to present herself as being some sort of cutting edge candidate (she admits to smoking pot once in college) when her actual record on marijuana is anything but.
For an actual critique of Harris' record that doesn't rely on random memes, check out Reason TV's recent analysis. This is the stuff that people are actually thinking about before deciding whether to cast a vote for her:
Baron23
Well-Known Member
Is FDA behind the latest CBD crackdown?
There is local and state level crackdown presently underway on the popular cannabis extract cannabidiol—commonly known as CBD—because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) wants all food products containing this substance to go through the federal approval process before it is sold to the public. Maine, Ohio and New York City have all imposed bans on CBD, citing the FDA’s vague rules. Other states, including North Carolina, have also joined in. It remains uncertain just how far this backlash will go before it is all said and done, and the FDA isn’t helping much to provide clarity.
In those areas affected by the CBD debacle, health officials are placing these products under embargo. Although this doesn’t mean the products are being confiscated, it does prohibit them from being sold to the public. Some states haven’t taken it to the level of stuffing CBD in plastic bags, but they have written warning letters insisting that these products be pulled from the shelves.
The bulk of the problem apparently stems from the language of the Federal Food, Drug, & Cosmetic Act, which has strict rules on adding medicinal components to food. The FDA is also not very keen on businesses making health claims about CBD products that are not approved by the agency.
“There is ongoing communication with state and local officials to answer questions about the requirements under the FD&C Act, to better understand the landscape at the state level, and to otherwise engage with our state/local regulatory partners,” a spokesperson for the FDA told Inverse. “FDA will also continue to closely scrutinize products that could pose risks to consumers. In particular, the agency continues to be concerned at the number of drug claims being made about products not approved by the FDA that claim to contain CBD or other cannabis-derived compounds.”
But is this CBD crackdown just the result of state and local level paranoia or is the FDA itself behind it? So far, no one knows. One thing is sure, however—many of the businesses affected by the CBD ban believe it is just another government tactic intended to capitalize on a product that is gaining commercial momentum all across the country. Some think it’s just their way of weaseling in and making the CBD market one that only large corporations can afford involvement.
This dust-up took hold after the Congress passed the latest Farm Bill in December that legalized industrial hemp nationwide. Although CBD can be extracted from the cannabis plant itself, it can also be squeezed from hemp in lower concentrations.
Shortly after the farm bill was signed into law, the FDA published a statement intended for those companies that manufacture CBD products. It was a message to the industry, one that made it relatively clear that if they were going to call CBD “medicine,” they were going to be forced to play ball in the same way pharmaceutical companies.
“Cannabis and cannabis-derived products claiming in their marketing and promotional materials that they’re intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of diseases (such as cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, psychiatric disorders and diabetes) are considered new drugs or new animal drugs and must go through the FDA drug approval process for human or animal use before they are marketed in the U.S,” Comissioner Scott Gottlieb said in a statement.
Let’s be clear, the CBD ban does not involve all products. For now, it appears to be focused only on CBD-infused food items. And the ban has not yet taken hold nationwide—only a few states and NYC have embraced it. However, there is a distinct possibility that more jurisdictions will follow suit in the coming weeks and months unless the FDA provides additional guidance.
There is local and state level crackdown presently underway on the popular cannabis extract cannabidiol—commonly known as CBD—because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) wants all food products containing this substance to go through the federal approval process before it is sold to the public. Maine, Ohio and New York City have all imposed bans on CBD, citing the FDA’s vague rules. Other states, including North Carolina, have also joined in. It remains uncertain just how far this backlash will go before it is all said and done, and the FDA isn’t helping much to provide clarity.
In those areas affected by the CBD debacle, health officials are placing these products under embargo. Although this doesn’t mean the products are being confiscated, it does prohibit them from being sold to the public. Some states haven’t taken it to the level of stuffing CBD in plastic bags, but they have written warning letters insisting that these products be pulled from the shelves.
The bulk of the problem apparently stems from the language of the Federal Food, Drug, & Cosmetic Act, which has strict rules on adding medicinal components to food. The FDA is also not very keen on businesses making health claims about CBD products that are not approved by the agency.
“There is ongoing communication with state and local officials to answer questions about the requirements under the FD&C Act, to better understand the landscape at the state level, and to otherwise engage with our state/local regulatory partners,” a spokesperson for the FDA told Inverse. “FDA will also continue to closely scrutinize products that could pose risks to consumers. In particular, the agency continues to be concerned at the number of drug claims being made about products not approved by the FDA that claim to contain CBD or other cannabis-derived compounds.”
But is this CBD crackdown just the result of state and local level paranoia or is the FDA itself behind it? So far, no one knows. One thing is sure, however—many of the businesses affected by the CBD ban believe it is just another government tactic intended to capitalize on a product that is gaining commercial momentum all across the country. Some think it’s just their way of weaseling in and making the CBD market one that only large corporations can afford involvement.
This dust-up took hold after the Congress passed the latest Farm Bill in December that legalized industrial hemp nationwide. Although CBD can be extracted from the cannabis plant itself, it can also be squeezed from hemp in lower concentrations.
Shortly after the farm bill was signed into law, the FDA published a statement intended for those companies that manufacture CBD products. It was a message to the industry, one that made it relatively clear that if they were going to call CBD “medicine,” they were going to be forced to play ball in the same way pharmaceutical companies.
“Cannabis and cannabis-derived products claiming in their marketing and promotional materials that they’re intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of diseases (such as cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, psychiatric disorders and diabetes) are considered new drugs or new animal drugs and must go through the FDA drug approval process for human or animal use before they are marketed in the U.S,” Comissioner Scott Gottlieb said in a statement.
Let’s be clear, the CBD ban does not involve all products. For now, it appears to be focused only on CBD-infused food items. And the ban has not yet taken hold nationwide—only a few states and NYC have embraced it. However, there is a distinct possibility that more jurisdictions will follow suit in the coming weeks and months unless the FDA provides additional guidance.
Baron23
Well-Known Member
Pro-pot activists not sure they trust 2020 Democrats claiming to favor legalization
As Democrats hurl themselves into the 2020 presidential fray, marijuana reformers are finding an unprecedented number of new friends and apologetic former enemies, some of whom they aren’t sure if they can trust.
Among the new converts are Sens. Kamala Harris of California and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, both former prosecutors, while vintage anti-drug warrior and former Vice President Joe Biden apologized for helping implement harsh drug penalties.
“What they plan to do is more important than the role they may have played in the past,” said Marijuana Policy Project spokesman Mason Tvert, who welcomes the expanded political support after years of officials lagging far behind voters on the issue.
But the new expressions of support aren’t convincing to some activists — creating a community divide resembling lingering gay-rights qualms about Hillary Clinton, who embraced same-sex marriage ahead of 2016, despite long opposing it, after popular opinion shifted.
“I think they put their fingers in the wind ... but which of them were talking about if before it became acceptable in the last few years? Not many,” said Douglas Hiatt, a marijuana reform activist and attorney in Washington state.
Hiatt said that selecting a sincere ally is important and that he’s not convinced federal legalization is inevitable, even if 10 states have legalized recreational pot use and national support is now around 60 percent, after crossing into a majority around 2013.
“A lot of people who were around in the ‘70s told me we went through this before. We had a big wave of decriminalization. Lots of states you wouldn’t expect were decriminalizing and things were looking good ... then, boom, the whole thing got turned around in four years and Reagan restarted the war on drugs,” Hiatt said. “Everyone thought it was over.”
When Reagan ramped up criminal penalties for drugs, he had a key ally in Biden, the current leader in polls for declared and potential Democratic candidates. In January, Biden repented for some of his legacy, saying it was “a big mistake” to help in the early '90s establish a 100:1 sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine, resulting in lengthy sentences mostly for black men. The apology was seen by some observers as evidence he plans to run.
Harris, the early leader among declared candidates in polls, announced this week she had smoked marijuana in college and supports legalizing it, on the grounds that “it gives people joy," despite opposing legalization until last year and building a tough-on-drugs reputation as a local prosecutor and state attorney general.
Hiatt said careful review of Harris’ and Klobuchar’s records are likely to reveal people prosecuted for minor marijuana offenses or for playing a minor role in large marijuana-dealing operations.
Adam Eidinger, who led the successful 2014 ballot campaign to legalize recreational marijuana in D.C., is more open-minded about Harris and about Klobuchar, who recently co-sponsored legislation that would allow the states to set their own pot policies. He sees the pair as potential game-changers who can persuade more conservative law enforcement leaders.
“There is an advantage, they know how to talk to other prosecutors … Someone like me wouldn’t be liked by police, necessarily,” said Eidinger, who has organized large public smoke-ins, joint giveaways, and cannabis seed-shares, often resulting in his arrest.
On Biden, Hiatt and Eidinger agree.
“No way, absolutely not, I would not support Biden,” Eidigner said. “Until he sits down with me and begs for my support, I wouldn't support him. I don’t trust him at all — he's someone who could have done something in the vice president's office, and they wouldn't touch it." Despite tolerating state pot legalization, the Obama administration didn't attempt to change federal law.
Hiatt called Biden a nearly unforgivable "architect" of the nation's toughest anti-drug laws.
Tvert declined to comment specifically on Biden, saying his candidacy was only hypothetical.
Others in the growing Democratic field are longtime friends of pot legalization.
Among declared candidates, Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and Cory Booker, D-N.J., since 2015 have pushed legislation to federally legalize medical pot. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., is the top Democratic sponsor on Colorado Republican Sen. Cory Gardner’s marijuana federalism bill, which Trump has endorsed. And Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, has long backed legalization.
Among prospective candidates, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., is a longtime legalization backer, while former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper is a gradual convert, after opposing his state’s 2012 decision to become the first, alongside Washington, to tax and regulate the drug.
Eidinger said it’s not too late for Trump to give Democrats a run for their money, suggesting that he lead a push to federalize pot law. Eidinger sees that reform as a quick step toward allowing interstate commerce.
“If Trump wants to increase his chance of re-election, he really should do legalization at the federal level. He should call the Democrats out,” Eidinger said
As Democrats hurl themselves into the 2020 presidential fray, marijuana reformers are finding an unprecedented number of new friends and apologetic former enemies, some of whom they aren’t sure if they can trust.
Among the new converts are Sens. Kamala Harris of California and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, both former prosecutors, while vintage anti-drug warrior and former Vice President Joe Biden apologized for helping implement harsh drug penalties.
“What they plan to do is more important than the role they may have played in the past,” said Marijuana Policy Project spokesman Mason Tvert, who welcomes the expanded political support after years of officials lagging far behind voters on the issue.
But the new expressions of support aren’t convincing to some activists — creating a community divide resembling lingering gay-rights qualms about Hillary Clinton, who embraced same-sex marriage ahead of 2016, despite long opposing it, after popular opinion shifted.
“I think they put their fingers in the wind ... but which of them were talking about if before it became acceptable in the last few years? Not many,” said Douglas Hiatt, a marijuana reform activist and attorney in Washington state.
Hiatt said that selecting a sincere ally is important and that he’s not convinced federal legalization is inevitable, even if 10 states have legalized recreational pot use and national support is now around 60 percent, after crossing into a majority around 2013.
“A lot of people who were around in the ‘70s told me we went through this before. We had a big wave of decriminalization. Lots of states you wouldn’t expect were decriminalizing and things were looking good ... then, boom, the whole thing got turned around in four years and Reagan restarted the war on drugs,” Hiatt said. “Everyone thought it was over.”
When Reagan ramped up criminal penalties for drugs, he had a key ally in Biden, the current leader in polls for declared and potential Democratic candidates. In January, Biden repented for some of his legacy, saying it was “a big mistake” to help in the early '90s establish a 100:1 sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine, resulting in lengthy sentences mostly for black men. The apology was seen by some observers as evidence he plans to run.
Harris, the early leader among declared candidates in polls, announced this week she had smoked marijuana in college and supports legalizing it, on the grounds that “it gives people joy," despite opposing legalization until last year and building a tough-on-drugs reputation as a local prosecutor and state attorney general.
Hiatt said careful review of Harris’ and Klobuchar’s records are likely to reveal people prosecuted for minor marijuana offenses or for playing a minor role in large marijuana-dealing operations.
Adam Eidinger, who led the successful 2014 ballot campaign to legalize recreational marijuana in D.C., is more open-minded about Harris and about Klobuchar, who recently co-sponsored legislation that would allow the states to set their own pot policies. He sees the pair as potential game-changers who can persuade more conservative law enforcement leaders.
“There is an advantage, they know how to talk to other prosecutors … Someone like me wouldn’t be liked by police, necessarily,” said Eidinger, who has organized large public smoke-ins, joint giveaways, and cannabis seed-shares, often resulting in his arrest.
On Biden, Hiatt and Eidinger agree.
“No way, absolutely not, I would not support Biden,” Eidigner said. “Until he sits down with me and begs for my support, I wouldn't support him. I don’t trust him at all — he's someone who could have done something in the vice president's office, and they wouldn't touch it." Despite tolerating state pot legalization, the Obama administration didn't attempt to change federal law.
Hiatt called Biden a nearly unforgivable "architect" of the nation's toughest anti-drug laws.
Tvert declined to comment specifically on Biden, saying his candidacy was only hypothetical.
Others in the growing Democratic field are longtime friends of pot legalization.
Among declared candidates, Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and Cory Booker, D-N.J., since 2015 have pushed legislation to federally legalize medical pot. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., is the top Democratic sponsor on Colorado Republican Sen. Cory Gardner’s marijuana federalism bill, which Trump has endorsed. And Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, has long backed legalization.
Among prospective candidates, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., is a longtime legalization backer, while former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper is a gradual convert, after opposing his state’s 2012 decision to become the first, alongside Washington, to tax and regulate the drug.
Eidinger said it’s not too late for Trump to give Democrats a run for their money, suggesting that he lead a push to federalize pot law. Eidinger sees that reform as a quick step toward allowing interstate commerce.
“If Trump wants to increase his chance of re-election, he really should do legalization at the federal level. He should call the Democrats out,” Eidinger said
Baron23
Well-Known Member
“Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.”
― George Bernard Shaw
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
― Isaac Asimov
An informed electorate should be a more wise electorate. Educate yourself on the people who are asking for your votes....look at them closely, what they say today as well as what they actually said and did in the past. ― George Bernard Shaw
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
― Isaac Asimov
4 Ways 2020 Democratic Presidential Candidates differ in their marijuana views
There are currently nine “major” Democrats running for the 2020 presidential election (at least according to Wikipedia) and a bunch of lesser candidates with no chance, writes Joseph Misulonas. Throw in people like Joe Biden, Beto O’Rourke and Bernie Sanders who haven’t announced their plans yet, and that number could get much higher. And pretty much all of them say they are in favor of marijuana legalization. So if they all support legalization, there’s no differences in their views, right? Well, not exactly.
Here are four ways 2020 Democratic presidential candidates differ in their views on marijuana:
1. Klobuchar Doesn’t Support Descheduling Bills
Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar is the latest candidate to join the race. While she does have a history supporting marijuana issues, she has not co-sponsored Senator Cory Booker’s Marijuana Justice Act, which would deschedule cannabis and expunge old marijuana convictions. Booker himself is a 2020 candidate, and the other major candidates running in 2020 (Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Kamala Harris) have all co-sponsored his bill.
2. Gillibrand and Harris aren’t Fans of the STATES Act
Last spring Massachusetts Senator and now 2020 candidate Elizabeth Warren co-wrote the STATES Act, a bill that would protect states that legalize marijuana from federal government intervention. Obviously Warren supports the bill, and she’s joined by fellow 2020 candidates Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar. However Senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Kamala Harris have not co-sponsored her bill. It’s possible they think a more wider-reaching bill is necessary, or maybe they just don’t want to help support a bill created by Warren.
3. Marijuana History
The biggest way the Democratic candidates differ in marijuana is their history on it. Harris, Warren, Gillibrand and Klobuchar only really began supporting marijuana-related issues in the last few years, coinciding with their runs for president. Cory Booker has consistently supported and proposed bills to expand marijuana reform since joining the Senate, although he did express skepticism for recreational marijuana during his time as Mayor of Newark. Bernie Sanders, who has not announced his candidacy, is really the only candidate who has support cannabis reform throughout his entire political career.
4. Silence
There are a few Democrats running for president who have not announced their support for legalization, but also have not said they’re in favor of keeping it illegal. Former San Antonio Mayor and HUD Secretary Julián Castro has spoken against the Trump administration cracking down on states with legal cannabis, but he hasn’t discussed the issue other than that. And South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg has said nothing about the issue
Last edited:
Baron23
Well-Known Member
72% of the electorate supports legalization but the political crap just keeps on flowing...endlessly, it would seem.
Trump issues signing statement on medical marijuana provision of funding bill
President Trump said during his 2016 election campaign that he supports the right of states to legalize marijuana and that he personally supports medical cannabis. But in signing a federal spending bill into law on Friday that contains a rider preventing the Justice Department from interfering in state medical marijuana laws, the president went out of his way to make clear that he reserves the right to ignore the cannabis provision.
“Division C, section 537, provides that the Department of Justice may not use any funds to prevent implementation of medical marijuana laws by various States and territories,” he said in a signing statement. “I will treat this provision consistent with the President’s constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.”
While the passage is a bit hard to parse on its own, here’s what you need to know:
Presidents typically use signing statements to flag provisions of laws they are enacting which they believe could impede on their executive authorities. By calling out the medical cannabis rider, Trump is making clear that his administration reserves the right to broadly enforce federal drug laws against people complying with state medical marijuana laws even though Congress just told him not to.
Trump issues signing statement on medical marijuana provision of funding bill
President Trump said during his 2016 election campaign that he supports the right of states to legalize marijuana and that he personally supports medical cannabis. But in signing a federal spending bill into law on Friday that contains a rider preventing the Justice Department from interfering in state medical marijuana laws, the president went out of his way to make clear that he reserves the right to ignore the cannabis provision.
“Division C, section 537, provides that the Department of Justice may not use any funds to prevent implementation of medical marijuana laws by various States and territories,” he said in a signing statement. “I will treat this provision consistent with the President’s constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.”
While the passage is a bit hard to parse on its own, here’s what you need to know:
Presidents typically use signing statements to flag provisions of laws they are enacting which they believe could impede on their executive authorities. By calling out the medical cannabis rider, Trump is making clear that his administration reserves the right to broadly enforce federal drug laws against people complying with state medical marijuana laws even though Congress just told him not to.
Baron23
Well-Known Member
European Parliament approves bill that would incentivize countries to allow medical marijuana
Recently the World Health Organization recommended that countries around the world reschedule marijuana and remove it from international drug treaties. And now the European Parliament is doing the same, Joseph Misulonas.
The European Parliament passed a new resolution calling on member states to increase access to medical marijuana and increasing research efforts into cannabis. The resolution is non-binding, meaning it doesn't actually change any laws and isn't a requirement for countries in the European Union to follow. But it is another high-profile international body calling on marijuana reform, which will hopefully lead to countries actually following through and changing their cannabis laws.
The EU was only addressing medical marijuana, not recreational marijuana. So it isn't so much calling on countries to decriminalize the drug, although most European countries do not have punishments in place for people caught with possession of marijuana.
While the World Health Organization and the EU have both called on increasing access to medical marijuana, it's not really clear if any countries are heeding the call yet. Although there isn't quite the same need to legalize marijuana since many European countries do not have the laws in place that lead to mass incarceration for cannabis the way they do in the United States.
Baron23
Well-Known Member
What will Trump do...well, IMO he will do the same as all of our self-serving political, he will do what he thinks will get him the most votes.
To me, the pertinent question is what will Congress do. Congress passed the prohibition and Congress needs to repeal it. That's the long and short of it IMO.
Cheers
What's Trump really going to do about marijuana?
In 2015, when running for president, Donald Trump was asked about Colorado's legalization of recreational marijuana. "I think it's bad," he said at the time, "and I feel strongly about it." However, he later modified his stance on marijuana, stating at a campaign rally that states should be allowed to legalize marijuana. And he has frequently expressed his support for the legalization of medical marijuana.
So far in his term, President Trump hasn't been very clear about his intentions regarding marijuana legalization. His recent signing of a federal spending bill raised the question of what he's really going to do about marijuana.
Mixed signals
The spending bill Trump signed on Feb. 15 funds U.S. government operations through Sept. 30. And, like previous temporary spending bills, it included language that prevents the U.S. Department of Justice from using funds to interfere in states that have legalized medical marijuana. So the president is comfortable with keeping the DOJ out of the way, at least when it comes to medical marijuana, right? Not so fast.
In signing the bill, Trump highlighted the medical marijuana provision in the spending bill and stated that he "will treat this provision consistent with the President's constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the laws of the United States." Marijuana in any form remains illegal at the federal level in the United States. Trump's additional statement appears to reserve the right to enforce those laws even though the spending bill expressly prohibits using authorized funds to do so.
Notably, Trump didn't use similar language when he signed the 2018 budget bill a year ago. At that time, Jeff Sessions was the U.S Attorney General. Only a few weeks earlier, Sessions had caused an uproar in the U.S. cannabis industry by issuing a memorandum that overturned Obama administration policies that had kept the DOJ from interfering in states that had legalized marijuana.
But under Sessions, the DOJ never took action against people or businesses that operated in states that had legalized marijuana. And Sessions is now gone, with his replacement, William Barr, agreeing to not interfere in states with legal marijuana markets despite his personal opposition to marijuana legalization.
What will Trump do?
The president has sent mixed signals in the past about marijuana and is still doing so. But what will he actually do?
Probably nothing.
During his nomination process, Barr testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he wouldn't target cannabis businesses that comply with individual states' marijuana laws, and he put that pledge in writing. Now that he's the Attorney General, it would be difficult for Barr to renege on his commitments. Trump's advisors know that.
Trump himself agreed to a deal with Sen. Cory Gardner (R.-Colo.) last year to prevent the federal government from challenging Colorado's marijuana laws. Gardner even said at the time that he had secured Trump's pledge to support "a federalism-based legislative solution to fix this states' rights issue once and for all."
Such a legislative solution is working its way through the U.S. Congress now. The Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States (STATES) Act, sponsored by six Democrat senators and five Republican senators, including Gardner, is currently under Senate Judiciary Committee review. An identical bill has also been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, with 31 Democrat sponsors and 15 Republican sponsors.
With the 2020 presidential campaign beginning to heat up, marijuana legalization could become a key issue. Three senators who have already announced plans to run for president -- Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D.-Mass.), Corey Booker (D.-N.J.), and Amy Klobuchar (D.-Minn.) -- are sponsoring the STATES Act. Other current and potential Democratic presidential candidates have also expressed their support for marijuana legalization.
Multiple recent surveys have shown that a majority of Americans are in favor of marijuana legalization. Any presidential candidate, including Trump, would find opposition from a majority of voters on the issue if he or she came out against legalizing pot.
Investors, place your bets
The most likely scenario for the U.S. marijuana industry in 2019 is the status quo. While Trump might have created some uncertainty with how he signed the recent spending bill, that uncertainty should only be temporary. Don't expect the DOJ to make any moves against the marijuana industry in states that have legalized pot.
But the status quo will be shaken up sooner or later. The momentum for marijuana legalization is simply too great. And that means investors who place their bets on the right stocks could have huge winners on their hands in the not-too-distant future.
While there are several marijuana stocks that should soar if federal anti-marijuana laws change, I think two especially stand out -- Origin House (NASDAQOTH:ORHOF) and Canopy Growth (NYSE:CGC).
Origin House is the leading cannabis distributor in California. The company also has been steadily building up its own portfolio of cannabis brands. Origin House stock trades at a discount to most Canadian marijuana stocks primarily because of U.S. federal laws. Should the STATES Act or similar legislation become law, I think shares of Origin House would skyrocket.
Canopy Growth is the world's biggest marijuana stock by market cap. The company announced plans to move into the U.S. hemp market following the recent U.S. legalization of hemp. Canopy would almost immediately jump into the U.S. marijuana market as well if federal laws changed. Its experience in Canadian and European marijuana markets would make Canopy a formidable player in the United States.
To me, the pertinent question is what will Congress do. Congress passed the prohibition and Congress needs to repeal it. That's the long and short of it IMO.
Cheers
What's Trump really going to do about marijuana?
In 2015, when running for president, Donald Trump was asked about Colorado's legalization of recreational marijuana. "I think it's bad," he said at the time, "and I feel strongly about it." However, he later modified his stance on marijuana, stating at a campaign rally that states should be allowed to legalize marijuana. And he has frequently expressed his support for the legalization of medical marijuana.
So far in his term, President Trump hasn't been very clear about his intentions regarding marijuana legalization. His recent signing of a federal spending bill raised the question of what he's really going to do about marijuana.
Mixed signals
The spending bill Trump signed on Feb. 15 funds U.S. government operations through Sept. 30. And, like previous temporary spending bills, it included language that prevents the U.S. Department of Justice from using funds to interfere in states that have legalized medical marijuana. So the president is comfortable with keeping the DOJ out of the way, at least when it comes to medical marijuana, right? Not so fast.
In signing the bill, Trump highlighted the medical marijuana provision in the spending bill and stated that he "will treat this provision consistent with the President's constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the laws of the United States." Marijuana in any form remains illegal at the federal level in the United States. Trump's additional statement appears to reserve the right to enforce those laws even though the spending bill expressly prohibits using authorized funds to do so.
Notably, Trump didn't use similar language when he signed the 2018 budget bill a year ago. At that time, Jeff Sessions was the U.S Attorney General. Only a few weeks earlier, Sessions had caused an uproar in the U.S. cannabis industry by issuing a memorandum that overturned Obama administration policies that had kept the DOJ from interfering in states that had legalized marijuana.
But under Sessions, the DOJ never took action against people or businesses that operated in states that had legalized marijuana. And Sessions is now gone, with his replacement, William Barr, agreeing to not interfere in states with legal marijuana markets despite his personal opposition to marijuana legalization.
What will Trump do?
The president has sent mixed signals in the past about marijuana and is still doing so. But what will he actually do?
Probably nothing.
During his nomination process, Barr testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he wouldn't target cannabis businesses that comply with individual states' marijuana laws, and he put that pledge in writing. Now that he's the Attorney General, it would be difficult for Barr to renege on his commitments. Trump's advisors know that.
Trump himself agreed to a deal with Sen. Cory Gardner (R.-Colo.) last year to prevent the federal government from challenging Colorado's marijuana laws. Gardner even said at the time that he had secured Trump's pledge to support "a federalism-based legislative solution to fix this states' rights issue once and for all."
Such a legislative solution is working its way through the U.S. Congress now. The Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States (STATES) Act, sponsored by six Democrat senators and five Republican senators, including Gardner, is currently under Senate Judiciary Committee review. An identical bill has also been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, with 31 Democrat sponsors and 15 Republican sponsors.
With the 2020 presidential campaign beginning to heat up, marijuana legalization could become a key issue. Three senators who have already announced plans to run for president -- Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D.-Mass.), Corey Booker (D.-N.J.), and Amy Klobuchar (D.-Minn.) -- are sponsoring the STATES Act. Other current and potential Democratic presidential candidates have also expressed their support for marijuana legalization.
Multiple recent surveys have shown that a majority of Americans are in favor of marijuana legalization. Any presidential candidate, including Trump, would find opposition from a majority of voters on the issue if he or she came out against legalizing pot.
Investors, place your bets
The most likely scenario for the U.S. marijuana industry in 2019 is the status quo. While Trump might have created some uncertainty with how he signed the recent spending bill, that uncertainty should only be temporary. Don't expect the DOJ to make any moves against the marijuana industry in states that have legalized pot.
But the status quo will be shaken up sooner or later. The momentum for marijuana legalization is simply too great. And that means investors who place their bets on the right stocks could have huge winners on their hands in the not-too-distant future.
While there are several marijuana stocks that should soar if federal anti-marijuana laws change, I think two especially stand out -- Origin House (NASDAQOTH:ORHOF) and Canopy Growth (NYSE:CGC).
Origin House is the leading cannabis distributor in California. The company also has been steadily building up its own portfolio of cannabis brands. Origin House stock trades at a discount to most Canadian marijuana stocks primarily because of U.S. federal laws. Should the STATES Act or similar legislation become law, I think shares of Origin House would skyrocket.
Canopy Growth is the world's biggest marijuana stock by market cap. The company announced plans to move into the U.S. hemp market following the recent U.S. legalization of hemp. Canopy would almost immediately jump into the U.S. marijuana market as well if federal laws changed. Its experience in Canadian and European marijuana markets would make Canopy a formidable player in the United States.
Chances are ‘good’ that Whole Foods will sell marijuana products, CEO says
If marijuana is legalized you can expect Whole Foods Market to start selling cannabis products, the company’s CEO said on Thursday.
During a conversation hosted by The Texas Tribune, an audience member asked John Mackey whether his company would consider selling “alternative proteins” such as insects. Mackey said yes, and then, unprompted, he brought up marijuana.
“If cannabis is ever passed in Texas, chances are good that grocery stores will be selling that too,” he said. “You just never know what happens over time with markets. They change and evolve.”
The moderator asked Mackey which product he thought Whole Foods would start selling first: “bugs or pot brownies?”
“Let’s see what happens with the market and the government regulations over time,” he said.
It’s not much of a surprise that Mackey is open-minded about putting cannabis products on Whole Foods shelves. In 2013, he voiced support for marijuana legalization in an interview with Mother Jones.
“I am pro-choice, favor legalizing gay marriages, protecting our environment, enforcing strict animal welfare protection laws (I’ve been an ethical vegan for 10 years), marijuana legalization, having a welfare safety net for our poorest or disabled citizens, and a radically reduced defense budget and military presence around the world,” he said at the time.
It would also seem to make good business sense generally for Whole Foods to plan an entry into the cannabis business. Perhaps that’s why the company, which was acquired by Amazon in 2017, recently enlisted a “seasoned trend-spotter” to make predictions about the hottest items for 2019, and hemp products made the top-10 list.
“Hemp hearts, seeds, and oils are nothing new to food and body care lovers — they’re in everything from waffle mix to dried pastas,” the company wrote on its website. “But a new interest in the potential benefits stemming from other parts of hemp plants has many brands looking to explore the booming cannabis biz.”
And while it will take some further legislative changes before Whole Foods is comfortable selling marijuana products, the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, which legalized industrial hemp, could at least open the door for hemp-derived CBD products to be sold down the line.
The commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration announced this week that the agency will be holding listening sessions later this year as it mulls over “alternative” pathways to allow for the inclusion of hemp-derived CBD in food products and dietary supplements.
If marijuana is legalized you can expect Whole Foods Market to start selling cannabis products, the company’s CEO said on Thursday.
During a conversation hosted by The Texas Tribune, an audience member asked John Mackey whether his company would consider selling “alternative proteins” such as insects. Mackey said yes, and then, unprompted, he brought up marijuana.
“If cannabis is ever passed in Texas, chances are good that grocery stores will be selling that too,” he said. “You just never know what happens over time with markets. They change and evolve.”
The moderator asked Mackey which product he thought Whole Foods would start selling first: “bugs or pot brownies?”
“Let’s see what happens with the market and the government regulations over time,” he said.
It’s not much of a surprise that Mackey is open-minded about putting cannabis products on Whole Foods shelves. In 2013, he voiced support for marijuana legalization in an interview with Mother Jones.
“I am pro-choice, favor legalizing gay marriages, protecting our environment, enforcing strict animal welfare protection laws (I’ve been an ethical vegan for 10 years), marijuana legalization, having a welfare safety net for our poorest or disabled citizens, and a radically reduced defense budget and military presence around the world,” he said at the time.
It would also seem to make good business sense generally for Whole Foods to plan an entry into the cannabis business. Perhaps that’s why the company, which was acquired by Amazon in 2017, recently enlisted a “seasoned trend-spotter” to make predictions about the hottest items for 2019, and hemp products made the top-10 list.
“Hemp hearts, seeds, and oils are nothing new to food and body care lovers — they’re in everything from waffle mix to dried pastas,” the company wrote on its website. “But a new interest in the potential benefits stemming from other parts of hemp plants has many brands looking to explore the booming cannabis biz.”
And while it will take some further legislative changes before Whole Foods is comfortable selling marijuana products, the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, which legalized industrial hemp, could at least open the door for hemp-derived CBD products to be sold down the line.
The commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration announced this week that the agency will be holding listening sessions later this year as it mulls over “alternative” pathways to allow for the inclusion of hemp-derived CBD in food products and dietary supplements.
Baron23
Well-Known Member
The politician who really tries to shut down the industry and eliminate 200K jobs will be out on their ass. The Feds don't want to rationalize this mess....but the fact is, the boat has left the dock and they will not be able to turn legalization back, IMO.
Report: Legal marijuana industry employs over 200,000 full-time workers
The state-licensed cannabis industry gained over 64,000 new employees in 2018, and now employs over 200,000 full-time workers, according to data compiled by Whitney Economics and the online content provider Leafly.com.
Commenting on the new findings, NORML Executive Director Erik Altieri said, “The federal government needs to deschedule marijuana to allow states to better and more fully benefit from the economic growth engine that is the legal marijuana industry. Further, state regulators need to ensure as this sector expands its economic benefits are shared by all, including and most especially by those who suffered most under the failed policy of criminal prohibition.”
The report, entitled Cannabis Jobs Count, identifies some 211,000 full-time jobs in the legal cannabis sector. This total increased to 296,000 jobs when ancillary employers are included.
By comparison, 112,000 Americans are estimated to currently work in the textile industry, while only about 52,000 people are employed by the coal mining industry.
“[T]he legal cannabis industry remains a substantial and unrecognized engine of grassroots job creation,” authors concluded. “In fact, cannabis job growth is proceeding at double digit rates in many states despite being overtaxed locally and heavily penalized at the federal level.”
California (67,000 jobs) led the country in cannabis-related employment, followed by Washington (47,000 jobs), and Colorado (44,000 jobs).
The full report is available online here. Additional economic data is available via the NORML fact-sheet, “Marijuana Regulation: Impact on Health, Safety, Economy,” online here.
Report: Legal marijuana industry employs over 200,000 full-time workers
The state-licensed cannabis industry gained over 64,000 new employees in 2018, and now employs over 200,000 full-time workers, according to data compiled by Whitney Economics and the online content provider Leafly.com.
Commenting on the new findings, NORML Executive Director Erik Altieri said, “The federal government needs to deschedule marijuana to allow states to better and more fully benefit from the economic growth engine that is the legal marijuana industry. Further, state regulators need to ensure as this sector expands its economic benefits are shared by all, including and most especially by those who suffered most under the failed policy of criminal prohibition.”
The report, entitled Cannabis Jobs Count, identifies some 211,000 full-time jobs in the legal cannabis sector. This total increased to 296,000 jobs when ancillary employers are included.
By comparison, 112,000 Americans are estimated to currently work in the textile industry, while only about 52,000 people are employed by the coal mining industry.
“[T]he legal cannabis industry remains a substantial and unrecognized engine of grassroots job creation,” authors concluded. “In fact, cannabis job growth is proceeding at double digit rates in many states despite being overtaxed locally and heavily penalized at the federal level.”
California (67,000 jobs) led the country in cannabis-related employment, followed by Washington (47,000 jobs), and Colorado (44,000 jobs).
The full report is available online here. Additional economic data is available via the NORML fact-sheet, “Marijuana Regulation: Impact on Health, Safety, Economy,” online here.
Baron23
Well-Known Member
I do have issues with this man as a politician, but we don't talk politics here except to the extent that it impacts MJ legalization.
So, once again.....while I don't like many politicians who are now lining up for MJ legalization (as a result mostly of self-serving motives, IMO), I'll take any support anywhere I can get it for legalization at the Fed level.
Beto O’Rourke calls for marijuana legalization ahead of expected Presidential run
Another day, another potential presidential candidate voicing support for the federal legalization of marijuana. In an email sent to supporters, former Rep. Beto O’Rourke reiterated his belief in cannabis reform nationwide, a familiar stance for those that followed his 2018 campaign for Senate.
O’Rourke advocated for federal decriminalization of marijuana as well as expunging the records of those with criminal records for cannabis possession. His proposal was part of a series on criminal justice reform, that also included providing opportunities for convicted criminals to apply for loans and banning the box on job applications that requires someone must disclose their past criminal history.
“Giving low-level offenders a second chance no matter the color of their skin or the economic status they hold can create opportunity for all of us,” O’Rourke said in the email. “It will help build a future that is more just, more fair, and more prosperous for every single person in this state and this country.”
CNN reports O’Rourke is close to announcing whether he’ll run for the Democratic nomination in the 2020 election. The answer appears to be yes, as O’Rourke’s aids have already discussed possible presidential campaign roles, according to CNN.
O’Rourke embraced marijuana legalization as early as 2012, when he highlighted cannabis reform during his successful effort to dethrone former Democratic Rep. Silvestre Reyes. Cannabis reform was also a focal point in O’Rourke’s 2018 Senate campaign to oust Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), though he came up short.
Should O’Rourke join the race, his stance would be aligned with the rest of the Democratic field. O’Rourke’s decriminalization plan echoes Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) Marijuana Justice Act legislation, which he-filed last week and has been supported by other presidential candidates like Sens. Kamala Harris (D-CA) and Bernie Sanders (D-VT).
So, once again.....while I don't like many politicians who are now lining up for MJ legalization (as a result mostly of self-serving motives, IMO), I'll take any support anywhere I can get it for legalization at the Fed level.
Beto O’Rourke calls for marijuana legalization ahead of expected Presidential run
Another day, another potential presidential candidate voicing support for the federal legalization of marijuana. In an email sent to supporters, former Rep. Beto O’Rourke reiterated his belief in cannabis reform nationwide, a familiar stance for those that followed his 2018 campaign for Senate.
O’Rourke advocated for federal decriminalization of marijuana as well as expunging the records of those with criminal records for cannabis possession. His proposal was part of a series on criminal justice reform, that also included providing opportunities for convicted criminals to apply for loans and banning the box on job applications that requires someone must disclose their past criminal history.
“Giving low-level offenders a second chance no matter the color of their skin or the economic status they hold can create opportunity for all of us,” O’Rourke said in the email. “It will help build a future that is more just, more fair, and more prosperous for every single person in this state and this country.”
CNN reports O’Rourke is close to announcing whether he’ll run for the Democratic nomination in the 2020 election. The answer appears to be yes, as O’Rourke’s aids have already discussed possible presidential campaign roles, according to CNN.
O’Rourke embraced marijuana legalization as early as 2012, when he highlighted cannabis reform during his successful effort to dethrone former Democratic Rep. Silvestre Reyes. Cannabis reform was also a focal point in O’Rourke’s 2018 Senate campaign to oust Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), though he came up short.
Should O’Rourke join the race, his stance would be aligned with the rest of the Democratic field. O’Rourke’s decriminalization plan echoes Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) Marijuana Justice Act legislation, which he-filed last week and has been supported by other presidential candidates like Sens. Kamala Harris (D-CA) and Bernie Sanders (D-VT).
Baron23
Well-Known Member
On Marijuana, Sherrod Brown Is Out Of Step With Democratic Voters And Candidates
As he weighs a potential run for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) is an outlier on one key issue as compared to Senate colleagues who have already declared their candidacies: Marijuana.
Brown's consistent refusal to endorse legalizing cannabis also puts him at odds with his party's voters.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Last week, five competing presidential candidates—Sens. Cory Booker (D-NJ), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Kamala Harris (D-CA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)—teamed up to introduce the Marijuana Justice Act, which would remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act and punish states that have discriminatory enforcement of prohibition policies.
This week, Rep. Tusli Gabbard (D-HI), who is also seeking the party's presidential nomination, filed a bill to deschedule marijuana so that states can set their own laws without federal interference.
Brown, on the other hand, hasn't introduced or cosponsored a single marijuana reform bill during his quarter-century in Congress.
Last week, during a South Carolina leg of a multi-state tour the senator is undertaking as he considers entering the presidential race, Brown said he disagrees with his colleagues and would-be primary opponents about cannabis legalization.
“Cory is a good guy," he said of Booker, who is the lead sponsor of the new congressional cannabis bill, according to a journalist who was in the room. "But I don’t go quite where he does.”
Last year, Brown told a Cleveland TV news station that he isn't sure if marijuana is a gateway drug or not.
"States that have legalized marijuana, we'll see what happens in those states," he said. "If that means less addiction to more powerful drugs, or if it's a gateway. And I don't think we don't know that yet."
In 2015, Brown said that "there are far too many" unanswered questions about legalizing cannabis, the Cincinnati Enquirer reported.
"I have significant concerns about it," he said of a ballot measure to end prohibition in Ohio. "It's a step that we should take with great caution."
In a 2010 letter to a constituent, Brown wrote that "there are risks associated with making marijuana legally available," according to NORML. "The widespread popularity and use of this drug among our nation’s youth, as well as its role as a 'pipeline' drug (potentially leading to the use of heroin and other lethal drugs) distinguishes it from other controlled substances, and we must be particularly careful before creating the potential for expanded access and use."
In 2011, Brown told a student who asked him to support marijuana reform legislation that he would "probably not" take initiative on the issue.
"I've got other priorities," the senator said.
That said, while Brown has refused to take proactive legislative steps on marijuana, he did support a moderate pro-reform position when forced to vote on cannabis issues during his tenure in the House.
In 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 Brown voted in favor of floor amendments to bar the Department of Justice from spending money to interfere with the implementation of state medical cannabis laws.
And although he doesn't go as far as his colleagues and potential presidential rivals—including former prosecutors like Harris and fellow candidate Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)—in endorsing the legalization of marijuana, he has voiced support for medical cannabis and letting states set their own policies without federal interference.
"Senator Brown supports legalizing medical marijuana and decriminalizing recreational use at the federal level and allowing states to go further if they choose," Brown spokeswoman Jennifer Donohue said in an email.
When then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions revoked Obama-era guidance that urged federal prosecutors to respect local cannabis laws last year, Brown pushed back.
"I wish the attorney general would mind the store on other things and would put his efforts into this terrible addiction issue about opioids and worry less about medical marijuana," he said. “I’m concerned when the attorney general and the Justice Department, it's a huge operation, it's powerful and when they come in this way I'm concerned about what it means for people who need medical marijuana and believe it can help them."
And during his South Carolina pre-campaign stop last week, Brown indicated that he's in favor of removing criminal penalties for low-level marijuana possession and supports letting state-legal cannabis businesses access banks, according to a reporter who as in attendance.
Nonetheless, the fact that he has not supported legalizing marijuana or put his name on any cannabis reform bills in Congress makes him stand out from most Democrats who are seeking their party's presidential nomination or are considering doing so.
NORML, in congressional scorecards over the years, has given Brown C and D grades for his cannabis record.
"It is time for Senator Brown to place himself on the right side of history and give his unqualified support to ending marijuana prohibition in this country. His current position has more in common with the dated mentality that Democrats held in the 1990s than where the overwhelming majority of all Americans are in 2019," NORML Executive Director Erik Altieri said in an interview. "If he maintains his opposition to legalization, his presidential aspirations may be over before they even start. Supporting the failed status quo of prohibition in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary will likely prove disqualifying with party voters."
A Gallup poll last year found that 66 percent of Americans support legalizing marijuana. Among Democrats, 75 percent are on board with ending cannabis prohibition.
Even a majority of Republicans now want to legalize marijuana, according to the survey.
As he weighs a potential run for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) is an outlier on one key issue as compared to Senate colleagues who have already declared their candidacies: Marijuana.
Brown's consistent refusal to endorse legalizing cannabis also puts him at odds with his party's voters.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Last week, five competing presidential candidates—Sens. Cory Booker (D-NJ), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Kamala Harris (D-CA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)—teamed up to introduce the Marijuana Justice Act, which would remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act and punish states that have discriminatory enforcement of prohibition policies.
This week, Rep. Tusli Gabbard (D-HI), who is also seeking the party's presidential nomination, filed a bill to deschedule marijuana so that states can set their own laws without federal interference.
Brown, on the other hand, hasn't introduced or cosponsored a single marijuana reform bill during his quarter-century in Congress.
Last week, during a South Carolina leg of a multi-state tour the senator is undertaking as he considers entering the presidential race, Brown said he disagrees with his colleagues and would-be primary opponents about cannabis legalization.
“Cory is a good guy," he said of Booker, who is the lead sponsor of the new congressional cannabis bill, according to a journalist who was in the room. "But I don’t go quite where he does.”
Last year, Brown told a Cleveland TV news station that he isn't sure if marijuana is a gateway drug or not.
"States that have legalized marijuana, we'll see what happens in those states," he said. "If that means less addiction to more powerful drugs, or if it's a gateway. And I don't think we don't know that yet."
In 2015, Brown said that "there are far too many" unanswered questions about legalizing cannabis, the Cincinnati Enquirer reported.
"I have significant concerns about it," he said of a ballot measure to end prohibition in Ohio. "It's a step that we should take with great caution."
In a 2010 letter to a constituent, Brown wrote that "there are risks associated with making marijuana legally available," according to NORML. "The widespread popularity and use of this drug among our nation’s youth, as well as its role as a 'pipeline' drug (potentially leading to the use of heroin and other lethal drugs) distinguishes it from other controlled substances, and we must be particularly careful before creating the potential for expanded access and use."
In 2011, Brown told a student who asked him to support marijuana reform legislation that he would "probably not" take initiative on the issue.
"I've got other priorities," the senator said.
That said, while Brown has refused to take proactive legislative steps on marijuana, he did support a moderate pro-reform position when forced to vote on cannabis issues during his tenure in the House.
In 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 Brown voted in favor of floor amendments to bar the Department of Justice from spending money to interfere with the implementation of state medical cannabis laws.
And although he doesn't go as far as his colleagues and potential presidential rivals—including former prosecutors like Harris and fellow candidate Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)—in endorsing the legalization of marijuana, he has voiced support for medical cannabis and letting states set their own policies without federal interference.
"Senator Brown supports legalizing medical marijuana and decriminalizing recreational use at the federal level and allowing states to go further if they choose," Brown spokeswoman Jennifer Donohue said in an email.
When then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions revoked Obama-era guidance that urged federal prosecutors to respect local cannabis laws last year, Brown pushed back.
"I wish the attorney general would mind the store on other things and would put his efforts into this terrible addiction issue about opioids and worry less about medical marijuana," he said. “I’m concerned when the attorney general and the Justice Department, it's a huge operation, it's powerful and when they come in this way I'm concerned about what it means for people who need medical marijuana and believe it can help them."
And during his South Carolina pre-campaign stop last week, Brown indicated that he's in favor of removing criminal penalties for low-level marijuana possession and supports letting state-legal cannabis businesses access banks, according to a reporter who as in attendance.
Nonetheless, the fact that he has not supported legalizing marijuana or put his name on any cannabis reform bills in Congress makes him stand out from most Democrats who are seeking their party's presidential nomination or are considering doing so.
NORML, in congressional scorecards over the years, has given Brown C and D grades for his cannabis record.
"It is time for Senator Brown to place himself on the right side of history and give his unqualified support to ending marijuana prohibition in this country. His current position has more in common with the dated mentality that Democrats held in the 1990s than where the overwhelming majority of all Americans are in 2019," NORML Executive Director Erik Altieri said in an interview. "If he maintains his opposition to legalization, his presidential aspirations may be over before they even start. Supporting the failed status quo of prohibition in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary will likely prove disqualifying with party voters."
A Gallup poll last year found that 66 percent of Americans support legalizing marijuana. Among Democrats, 75 percent are on board with ending cannabis prohibition.
Even a majority of Republicans now want to legalize marijuana, according to the survey.
Baron23
Well-Known Member
Joe Biden’s Drug War Record Is So Much Worse Than You Think
Former Vice President Joe Biden has begun tip-toeing towards throwing his hat in the ring as a candidate in the 2020 Democratic Presidential Primary.
Few politicians have done more harm in America’s war on drugs than the former senator from Delaware.
Political watchers are expecting him to formally announce any day now. But Biden, who carefully cultivated a genial “Uncle Joe” image during his eight years as Obama’s veep, knows he’s got a history that could drag him down. Few politicians have done more harm in America’s war on drugs than the former senator from Delaware.
Just last month, on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, he addressed a room full of civil rights activists on the subject of criminal justice, hoping to shore up support.
“I haven’t always been right,” Biden told the National Action Network, “but I’ve always tried.”
Try telling that to the millions of people and entire communities who’ve had their lives torn apart by laws championed by kindly old Uncle Joe. From green lighting civil asset forfeiture to incentivizing mass incarceration to cheerleading mandatory minimums and the militarization of the police, Joe Biden has been a driving force behind America’s disastrous approach to drug policy.
Original Drug War Architect
Many of the original architects of America’s drug war have retired or passed away. Biden remains one of the few still in power—and may soon reach for more.
His influence over drug policy and mass incarceration began in the 1980s, when, as a senator from Delaware, he served as chair of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee.
Policies Biden personally put into place greatly expanded a racist, ineffective, costly, unjust and oppressive quagmire that was already an obvious failure when he first entered government service nearly 50 years ago. That same self-destructive drug war rages on today—in America and around the world.
America Changed, Biden Didn’t
Meanwhile, Biden remains one of very few prominent Democrats who’ve still failed to endorse cannabis legalization at the federal level. A policy that’s currently supported by 62% of Americans—including 45% of Republicans—and is already the law of the land in ten states remains too radical for him to sign off on.
Biden remains one of few prominent Democrats who’ve still failed to endorse cannabis legalization at the federal level.
At the very least, Biden seems to be aware of the fact that the times and public opinion are changing around him. He was plenty outspoken about drug policy in the 1980s, but has run silent on the issue for nearly a decade. The last time he substantively addressed legalization appears to be 2010, in an ABC News interview:
“There’s a difference between sending someone to jail for a few ounces and legalizing it,” he said. “The punishment should fit the crime. But I think legalization is a mistake. I still believe [marijuana] is a gateway drug.”
Well, Joe, it’s a free country—believe anything you want. But the gateway theory has long been thoroughly debunked. Even D.A.R.E. no longer promotes that old canard.
Biden: ‘Let’s Have a Drug Czar’
Let’s circle back to Biden’s humblebrag: that he hasn’t “always been right” when it comes to criminal justice.
When pressed for specifics, he says that after pushing for vastly harsher punishments for crack than for powder cocaine, he “spent years” working to undo his own racist fuckup. But in terms of accountability, that’s basically the end of it. Biden has never truly come to terms with the scope of the damage he’s done.
Plenty of politicians from both parties supported the drug war. Only Biden went further and cooked up the idea of a Drug Czar.
A lot of politicians from both parties vocally supported the war on drugs back in the days of “Just Say No.” But it was Joe Biden who pretty much singlehandedly dreamed up the idea of a cabinet level “Drug Czar”—a term he coined in a 1982 interview with the New York Times. Seven years later, after working in tandem with the Reagan administration, he saw that dream come to life when the White House created the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP).
Charged with formulating and administrating America’s drug prohibition game plan, the ONDCP almost immediately began agitating for a massive expansion of interdiction, enforcement, and incarceration efforts. A 1989 report to Congress put it in dollar figures:
No attempt should be made to disguise the fact that significant new resources will be required to pay for the many proposals advanced in this report… Last February, this Administration requested nearly $717 million in new drug budget authority for Fiscal Year 1990. Now, after six months of careful study, we have identified an immediate need for $1.478 billion more. With this report, the Administration is requesting FY 1990 drug budget authority totaling $7.864 billion—the largest single-year dollar increase in history.
Doubling Down on Propaganda
In 1996, when the ONDCP came up for reauthorization, Biden voted in the senate for a bill that basically required the Drug Czar to spearhead a massive propaganda campaign directed at the American people.
“The Director shall ensure that no Federal funds appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall be expended for any study or contract relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of [such] a substance (in any form).”
Which basically boils down to: No matter how much evidence comes to light showing cannabis is a safe and effective medicine, the Drug Czar is required, by law, to lie about it. No matter how much evidence piles up showing that the benefits of legalization far outweigh any potential harms, the Drug Czar is required by law to lie about it. Which they have all done.
The lying continues today. Under Donald Trump, the ONDCP supports the work of a secretive White House anti-cannabis committee whose membership list reads like a murderer’s row of discredited drug warriors.
A Disparity of 100:1
Should Biden decide to jump into the race for the Presidency, he’ll have to either make a late conversion to cannabis legalization or explain why not. Either way, it’s not a good look. He’s also open to charges that his signature piece of legislation in the US Senate—the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act—played a key role in supercharging the for-profit prison industry and turning the United States into the nation with the world’s highest incarceration rate.
That same law spurred a ramping up of aggressive policing in poor and minority neighborhoods, while establishing a weight disparity for crack to powder cocaine at 100:1 (for the purposes of federal sentencing guidelines). Distribution of five grams of crack triggered a five-year mandatory minimum, as opposed to 500 grams of powder. Predictably, this meant the law vastly disproportionately targeted people of color and other at-risk communities.
According to a 2006 report from the American Civil Liberties Union, Cracks in the System: Twenty Years of the Unjust Federal Crack Cocaine Law:
In 1986, before the enactment of federal mandatory minimum sentencing for crack cocaine offenses, the average federal drug sentence for African Americans was 11% higher than for whites. Four years later, the average federal drug sentence for African Americans was 49% higher. The effects of mandatory minimums not only contribute to these disproportionately high incarceration rates, but also separate fathers from families, separate mothers with sentences for minor possession crimes from their children, create massive disfranchisement of those with felony convictions, and prohibit previously incarcerated people from receiving some social services for the betterment of their families.
Golf Clap for ‘Reform’
That all sounds pretty terrible. But keep in mind, while Biden may not have always been right, he was always trying. And this is the one fuckup he reversed, right? In 2010 the Fair Sentencing Act—signed by President Obama while Biden served as his Vice President—reduced the disparity between crack and powder cocaine all the way down to 18:1—though not retroactively.
The Sins of the Father
With a crowded field of Democrats already in the race, cannabis policy and criminal justice reform could emerge as a major wedge issue during a hotly contested primary season. So far, every declared Democratic candidate fully supports federal cannabis legalization. Some, like New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, have been early sponsors of bills to do just that. So why should you vote for a guy who still thinks peaceful adults should get busted for weed?
Especially when the same rules don’t seem to apply to his own children.
In September 1998, Biden’s daughter Ashley was arrested for cannabis possession in Louisiana—a state notorious for giving decade-long sentences for miniscule amounts of marijuana. But there’s no record of a conviction in Ashley Biden’s case.
In 2014, Biden’s son Hunter tested positive for cocaine on a drug test and was discharged from the Navy just a month after reporting for duty. No criminal charges were filed.
There’s zero evidence either of them received any special treatment because of their father’s position as a powerful politician, though it’s certainly possible. What doesn’t seem possible is that Joe Biden would support one of his own children spending years behind bars for possession of a personal amount of drugs—not now, and not back in 1994 when he championed the crime bill.
I can’t even imagine the person who would want that for their own children. So how can you want it for someone else’s?
Former Vice President Joe Biden has begun tip-toeing towards throwing his hat in the ring as a candidate in the 2020 Democratic Presidential Primary.
Few politicians have done more harm in America’s war on drugs than the former senator from Delaware.
Political watchers are expecting him to formally announce any day now. But Biden, who carefully cultivated a genial “Uncle Joe” image during his eight years as Obama’s veep, knows he’s got a history that could drag him down. Few politicians have done more harm in America’s war on drugs than the former senator from Delaware.
Just last month, on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, he addressed a room full of civil rights activists on the subject of criminal justice, hoping to shore up support.
“I haven’t always been right,” Biden told the National Action Network, “but I’ve always tried.”
Try telling that to the millions of people and entire communities who’ve had their lives torn apart by laws championed by kindly old Uncle Joe. From green lighting civil asset forfeiture to incentivizing mass incarceration to cheerleading mandatory minimums and the militarization of the police, Joe Biden has been a driving force behind America’s disastrous approach to drug policy.
Original Drug War Architect
Many of the original architects of America’s drug war have retired or passed away. Biden remains one of the few still in power—and may soon reach for more.
His influence over drug policy and mass incarceration began in the 1980s, when, as a senator from Delaware, he served as chair of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee.
Policies Biden personally put into place greatly expanded a racist, ineffective, costly, unjust and oppressive quagmire that was already an obvious failure when he first entered government service nearly 50 years ago. That same self-destructive drug war rages on today—in America and around the world.
America Changed, Biden Didn’t
Meanwhile, Biden remains one of very few prominent Democrats who’ve still failed to endorse cannabis legalization at the federal level. A policy that’s currently supported by 62% of Americans—including 45% of Republicans—and is already the law of the land in ten states remains too radical for him to sign off on.
Biden remains one of few prominent Democrats who’ve still failed to endorse cannabis legalization at the federal level.
At the very least, Biden seems to be aware of the fact that the times and public opinion are changing around him. He was plenty outspoken about drug policy in the 1980s, but has run silent on the issue for nearly a decade. The last time he substantively addressed legalization appears to be 2010, in an ABC News interview:
“There’s a difference between sending someone to jail for a few ounces and legalizing it,” he said. “The punishment should fit the crime. But I think legalization is a mistake. I still believe [marijuana] is a gateway drug.”
Well, Joe, it’s a free country—believe anything you want. But the gateway theory has long been thoroughly debunked. Even D.A.R.E. no longer promotes that old canard.
Biden: ‘Let’s Have a Drug Czar’
Let’s circle back to Biden’s humblebrag: that he hasn’t “always been right” when it comes to criminal justice.
When pressed for specifics, he says that after pushing for vastly harsher punishments for crack than for powder cocaine, he “spent years” working to undo his own racist fuckup. But in terms of accountability, that’s basically the end of it. Biden has never truly come to terms with the scope of the damage he’s done.
Plenty of politicians from both parties supported the drug war. Only Biden went further and cooked up the idea of a Drug Czar.
A lot of politicians from both parties vocally supported the war on drugs back in the days of “Just Say No.” But it was Joe Biden who pretty much singlehandedly dreamed up the idea of a cabinet level “Drug Czar”—a term he coined in a 1982 interview with the New York Times. Seven years later, after working in tandem with the Reagan administration, he saw that dream come to life when the White House created the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP).
Charged with formulating and administrating America’s drug prohibition game plan, the ONDCP almost immediately began agitating for a massive expansion of interdiction, enforcement, and incarceration efforts. A 1989 report to Congress put it in dollar figures:
No attempt should be made to disguise the fact that significant new resources will be required to pay for the many proposals advanced in this report… Last February, this Administration requested nearly $717 million in new drug budget authority for Fiscal Year 1990. Now, after six months of careful study, we have identified an immediate need for $1.478 billion more. With this report, the Administration is requesting FY 1990 drug budget authority totaling $7.864 billion—the largest single-year dollar increase in history.
Doubling Down on Propaganda
In 1996, when the ONDCP came up for reauthorization, Biden voted in the senate for a bill that basically required the Drug Czar to spearhead a massive propaganda campaign directed at the American people.
“The Director shall ensure that no Federal funds appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall be expended for any study or contract relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of [such] a substance (in any form).”
Which basically boils down to: No matter how much evidence comes to light showing cannabis is a safe and effective medicine, the Drug Czar is required, by law, to lie about it. No matter how much evidence piles up showing that the benefits of legalization far outweigh any potential harms, the Drug Czar is required by law to lie about it. Which they have all done.
The lying continues today. Under Donald Trump, the ONDCP supports the work of a secretive White House anti-cannabis committee whose membership list reads like a murderer’s row of discredited drug warriors.
A Disparity of 100:1
Should Biden decide to jump into the race for the Presidency, he’ll have to either make a late conversion to cannabis legalization or explain why not. Either way, it’s not a good look. He’s also open to charges that his signature piece of legislation in the US Senate—the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act—played a key role in supercharging the for-profit prison industry and turning the United States into the nation with the world’s highest incarceration rate.
That same law spurred a ramping up of aggressive policing in poor and minority neighborhoods, while establishing a weight disparity for crack to powder cocaine at 100:1 (for the purposes of federal sentencing guidelines). Distribution of five grams of crack triggered a five-year mandatory minimum, as opposed to 500 grams of powder. Predictably, this meant the law vastly disproportionately targeted people of color and other at-risk communities.
According to a 2006 report from the American Civil Liberties Union, Cracks in the System: Twenty Years of the Unjust Federal Crack Cocaine Law:
In 1986, before the enactment of federal mandatory minimum sentencing for crack cocaine offenses, the average federal drug sentence for African Americans was 11% higher than for whites. Four years later, the average federal drug sentence for African Americans was 49% higher. The effects of mandatory minimums not only contribute to these disproportionately high incarceration rates, but also separate fathers from families, separate mothers with sentences for minor possession crimes from their children, create massive disfranchisement of those with felony convictions, and prohibit previously incarcerated people from receiving some social services for the betterment of their families.
Golf Clap for ‘Reform’
That all sounds pretty terrible. But keep in mind, while Biden may not have always been right, he was always trying. And this is the one fuckup he reversed, right? In 2010 the Fair Sentencing Act—signed by President Obama while Biden served as his Vice President—reduced the disparity between crack and powder cocaine all the way down to 18:1—though not retroactively.
The Sins of the Father
With a crowded field of Democrats already in the race, cannabis policy and criminal justice reform could emerge as a major wedge issue during a hotly contested primary season. So far, every declared Democratic candidate fully supports federal cannabis legalization. Some, like New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, have been early sponsors of bills to do just that. So why should you vote for a guy who still thinks peaceful adults should get busted for weed?
Especially when the same rules don’t seem to apply to his own children.
In September 1998, Biden’s daughter Ashley was arrested for cannabis possession in Louisiana—a state notorious for giving decade-long sentences for miniscule amounts of marijuana. But there’s no record of a conviction in Ashley Biden’s case.
In 2014, Biden’s son Hunter tested positive for cocaine on a drug test and was discharged from the Navy just a month after reporting for duty. No criminal charges were filed.
There’s zero evidence either of them received any special treatment because of their father’s position as a powerful politician, though it’s certainly possible. What doesn’t seem possible is that Joe Biden would support one of his own children spending years behind bars for possession of a personal amount of drugs—not now, and not back in 1994 when he championed the crime bill.
I can’t even imagine the person who would want that for their own children. So how can you want it for someone else’s?
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT!!!
I've never heard it put better.
This doesn't just pertain to being busted in an illegal dispensary. It pertains to any form of being detained in any way by the police.
I've never heard it put better.
This doesn't just pertain to being busted in an illegal dispensary. It pertains to any form of being detained in any way by the police.|
Sponsored by |
|---|
|
|
|