Cannabis News – Page 91

30 Mar 2013

Group Forms To Oppose Colorado Marijuana Stores

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

A citizens’ group opposed to a large-scale recreational marijuana industry in Colorado has hired two powerhouse lobbyists in preparation for the state legislature’s coming pot fight.

Smart Colorado formed as a nonprofit group within the last several weeks, group leader Doug Robinson said. After collecting donations, Robinson said the group has hired former congressional candidate Mike Feeley and longtime Capitol lobbyist Sandra Hagen Solin to represent it as legislators write the laws for the forthcoming recreational marijuana industry.

It will be the first time in the last several years that a citizens’ group devoted to restricting marijuana will have such high-powered representation at the Capitol. While medical-marijuana businesses have had lobbyists for awhile, anti-marijuana lobbying has often been done by law-enforcement groups or a disjointed collection of advocates.

Robinson said members of Smart Colorado — whom he described as “basically, a bunch of moms” — decided they needed to be better organized and represented to make a difference. Though Smart Colorado shares a name with the campaign committee opposed to Amendment 64, the measure passed in November legalizing limited marijuana possession and sales, Robinson said the two groups are separate.

“We have organized for one reason, and that is to keep Colorado the best state in the nation,” Robinson told lawmakers on Friday during a meeting of a special legislative committee drafting the bill on recreational marijuana. “We are deeply concerned that the way 64 is implemented could threaten this.”

Robinson said the group respects that Colorado voters legalized marijuana in November, but he said the group wants to keep the recreational marijuana industry as small and contained as possible. Group members testifying before the legislative committee said they fear greater availability of marijuana will lead to big public health and safety problems, especially with kids.

“It looks like we are heading down the path of socializing the costs and privatizing the profits,” group member Gina Carbone said.

The legislative committee, though, rejected on Friday one suggestion from Smart Colorado: state-run marijuana stores. The group said state-run stores will prevent marijuana leaks to kids. But a state task force that suggested regulations for recreational marijuana recommended against state-run stores. Such stores would likely provoke a strong response from the federal government.

The legislative committee on Friday sided with the task force’s recommendation against state-run stores.

The committee put off decisions on a number of other issues — including whether to allow pot sales to out-of-state visitors or requiring marijuana stores to grow what they sell. It is scheduled to meet again next Friday, but lawmakers also discussed adding extra, early-morning meetings to complete the work.

The committee must have bills for recreational marijuana written by the end of the month. The full legislature will then have 38 days to pass the bills before the end of the session.

Newshawk: The GCW
Source: Denver Post (CO)
Author: John Ingold, The Denver Post
Published: March 15, 2013
Copyright: 2013 The Denver Post
Website: http://www.denverpost.com/

30 Mar 2013

Wash. Touts Credentials of Pot Consultant

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

Green thumb? Check. Extensive knowledge of the black market? Check. Throw in impeccable academic credentials and decades of experience with government agencies, and you have Washington’s marijuana consultant — a team advising officials on all things pot as they develop rules for the state’s new industry in legal, heavily taxed marijuana.

The Washington Liquor Control Board introduced Massachusetts-based BOTEC Analysis Corp. as the presumptive winner of the consultant contract during a news conference Tuesday. The team is led by a University of California, Los Angeles, public policy professor and includes a former executive of the company that is the sole licensed supplier of medical marijuana in the Netherlands. It also includes researchers with the RAND Corp. who will help figure out how much marijuana state-licensed growers should produce.

“These are, by far, the top consultants available,” said Randy Simmons, who oversees the implementation of the legal weed law for the board. “We’re serious about doing this the right way.”

Washington and Colorado last year became the first states to pass laws legalizing the recreational use of marijuana and setting up systems of state-licensed growers, processors and retail stores where adults over 21 can walk in and buy up to an ounce of heavily taxed cannabis. Sales could begin at the end of the year.

The votes left state officials with a daunting task: figuring out how to build a huge pot industry from scratch. The state’s Liquor Control Board must determine how many growers and stores there should be, how much pot should be produced, how it should be packaged, and how it should be tested to ensure people don’t get sick.

The board is doing a lot of its own research, with buttoned-up bureaucrats traveling to grow operations in California and Colorado as well as within Washington state. But the consultant’s advice will also be important. The state is aiming to produce just enough marijuana to meet current demand: Producing too little would drive up prices and help the black market flourish, while producing too much could lead to excess pot being trafficked out of state.

BOTEC — it stands for “back of the envelope calculations” — is a 30-year-old think tank headed by Mark Kleiman, a UCLA public policy professor with a doctorate from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. The firm has evaluated government programs and provided consulting relating to drug abuse, crime and public health. It studied the results of an effort to crack down on heroin dealers in Lynn, Mass., and in the early 1990s advised the Office of National Drug Control Policy on drug-demand reduction programs.

Kleiman has written several books on drug policy and crime, including “Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know,” and he has argued that states can’t legalize marijuana — federal officials would never stand for it.

“Pot dealers nationwide — and from Canada, for that matter — would flock to California to stock up,” he wrote in an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times in 2010, when California was considering legalizing marijuana. “There’s no way on earth the federal government is going to tolerate that. Instead, we’d see massive federal busts of California growers and retail dealers, no matter how legal their activity was under state law.”

For that reason, some marijuana advocates questioned how committed his team would be to carrying out the will of the voters. But Alison Holcomb, the author of Washington’s new law, said the choice of a consultant who isn’t a pot cheerleader sent a message that the state is taking its responsibilities seriously.

That’s a crucial concern because state officials are trying to persuade the federal government not to sue to block the law from taking effect. Gov. Jay Inslee has said he stressed to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder that Washington will have the best-regulated system possible, but the Justice Department still has not announced its intentions.

Steven Davenport, BOTEC’s managing director, said that with more than 30 people involved, the team comprises a wide range of opinions on marijuana legalization, but none is relevant to the task at hand: figuring out how it can best be accomplished, balancing the needs of a working marijuana distribution system with the interests of public health.

“We understand the significance and the size of the task in front of us,” Davenport said. “Our intent is to make sure the board does this correctly.”

Other team members include Michael Sautman, former CEO of Bedrocan International, the international affiliate of the only company licensed to produce medical marijuana for patients in the Netherlands; the company is overseen by the Dutch Ministry of Health, according to BOTEC’s bid for the contract.

Sautman “has consulted lawmakers and regulators in Canada, Israel and several U.S. states regarding how medical marijuana is produced and distributed in the Netherlands,” the bid reads.

Beau Kilmer, co-director of RAND’s Drug Policy Research Center, said RAND is already under contract with the White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy to develop a new approach for estimating the number of marijuana users across the country and how much pot they consume. His group will build off that work to estimate use by county in Washington state, and that it could involve Internet-based surveys asking people to detail their cannabis use — to the extent of asking them to explain the size of their most recent joint, as compared with a photograph of a joint next to a credit card or ruler for scale.

“That’s going to be a challenge, but I’m excited to work on it,” Kilmer said.

The value of BOTEC’s contract has not been set, but it is expected to exceed $100,000. The losing bidders have 10 days to contest the award.

Source: Washington Post (DC)
Author: Gene Johnson, The Associated Press
Published: March 19, 2013
Copyright: 2013 Washington Post Company
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/

30 Mar 2013

Pot Views Changing

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

For political science pundits, it’s a new high. The latest public survey shows more than two in every five Lethbridge-area people agree with recreational use of marijuana. And even more – close to 79 per cent – say it should be readily available as a medical treatment.

The growing support for decriminalizing the use of marijuana, from 42 per cent of local residents who responded, is reported by the Citizen Society Research Lab at Lethbridge College. Approval was even higher ( 42.7 per cent ) in Coaldale, also included in the college’s twice-yearly public opinion surveys.

Nearly 45 per cent of Albertans responding to the college’s province-wide poll last fall were also in favour – and the strongest support, 48.2 per cent, came from across southern Alberta.

“It’s the ( baby ) boomers and the parents of kids who might get ‘busted’ with a small amount of pot,” says Faron Ellis, political scientist at Lethbridge College.

They’re hoping to see Canadian law changed, as voters were in Colorado and Washington state. Realistically, Albertans know the Stephen Harper government stands opposed.

But it’s the provincial government that appoints the judges, he adds, and they’re not harsh with first-time offenders.

The new telephone survey – taken Feb. 9 and 10, with 835 randomly selected adults in Lethbridge and Coaldale – showed Wildrose party supporters more likely ( more than 39 per cent ) than Conservatives ( 33.6 ) to support decriminalization. New Democrats were most strongly supportive at 65.5 per cent.

Wildrose partisans were also more permissive than Tories on other issues, Ellis found. Citizens who said they vote Wildrose also voiced stronger support for medical use of marijuana, for doctor-assisted suicide and for a woman’s right to choose an abortion.

They’re reflecting a libertarian view that’s also surfaced among Harper’s MPs, he points out.

“They’re saying we should have less government interference in our economic lives, but also in our personal lives.”

Ellis says approval for the prescribed use of marijuana to counteract pain and other medical symptoms has been strong, ever since the college began its twice-a-year opinion surveys. It’s remained in the 70-80 per cent range over the last decade, peaking at 80.1 per cent in 2012.

Support continues to grow on another issue, a woman’s right to choose. Despite in-your-face campaigns by some religious groups, Ellis reports pro-choice responses have passed 80 per cent for the first time.

“It appears their behaviour has failed to stop the trend to more and more support” for choice, he says.

Perhaps surprisingly, the latest poll found 87.4 per cent of Lethbridge and Coaldale residents who attend church as least “several times a year” support women’s choice.

That figure grows to 94 per cent of those who said they attend “seldom or never,” a group that includes about 52 per cent of all residents polled.

A bare majority of those who claimed to attend at least twice a month were also in favour, reflecting differences between the city’s religious liberals and conservatives.

Ellis says the survey also found most southern Albertans agree on a once-contentious topic. Same-sex marriage is supported by more than 83.8 per cent of those who attend church occasionally as well as 85.2 per cent who said “seldom or never.”

Among those who say they attend very regularly ( about 30 per cent of the population ) there’s close to 40 per cent support.

When the question was asked 10 years ago – before all provinces had made the change – Ellis says about one-third of Lethbridge people polled were in favour of lesbian or gay couples marrying. But now, for the first time, that popular support has passed 70 per cent.

“Southern Albertans have accepted that as a just and legitimate aspect of Canadian society,” he says.

Public support for a still-controversial issue, doctor-assisted death, has also grown. Nearly 75 per cent of those responding to this month’s survey voiced their approval, compared with 66.4 per cent a year ago and 61.9 per cent in 2011. More than 82 per cent of those who sometimes attend church were in favour, vs. about 44 per cent who attend frequently.

In contrast, Ellis says, more than 60 per cent of those who attend frequently were in favour of the death penalty for first-degree murder – – nearly as high as the 66.6 per cent who don’t attend.

Church attendance isn’t an absolute predictor of southern Albertans’ attitudes, Ellis admits. On some issues, he says, it depends on whether people lean more heavily on Old Testament vengeance or New Testament forgiveness.

The Lethbridge College survey, conducted by supervised college students and distance education students of Athabasca University, polled citizens whose phone numbers were selected at random. Its margin of error is stated as 3.4 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20.

Source: Lethbridge Herald (CN AB)
Copyright: 2013 The Lethbridge Herald
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.lethbridgeherald.com/
Author: Dave Mabell

30 Mar 2013

House Bill Aims To Tax Marijuana Brand Names

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

A House committee held a public hearing Friday on a measure that would tax marijuana brand names and trademarks likely to be introduced in the state of Washington when the sale of recreational marijuana starts at the end of the year.

The bill heard by the House Finance Committee calls for a tax of $3.60 per $1,000 of assessed value of “all trademarks, trade names, brand names, patents and copyrights related to marijuana.” It does not say how those values would be determined and instead says the Department of Revenue can adopt rules for determining those amounts.

In November, voters approved Initiative 502, which allows adults over age 21 to have up to an ounce of pot. The state is due to start issuing licenses to marijuana growers, processors and retail stores, with the marijuana taxed 25 percent at each stage.

Democratic Rep. Jeff Morris of Mount Vernon, the sponsor of the trademark bill, told the committee that Washington, along with Colorado, which also passed a legalization measure in the fall, could benefit as the new industry moves to register brand names or trade names.

“I think that this reflects the uniqueness of the situation,” Morris said. “What was the value of Marlboro as a trade name back when it was filed as a trade name or brand name?”

Under the bill, revenue from the tax would go into a special fund for agricultural research tied to health benefits.

During Friday’s hearing, Morris specifically cited research being done at Washington State University on creating plasma from wheat and making gluten-free wheat.

“It’s that type of research that I’m hoping this money would target,” he said.

Chris Mulick, director of state relations for WSU, testified that the university has concerns about the bill.

He said WSU currently receives $21 million a year to support agriculture research, and there are concerns that if the measure passes, the tax on brand names would supplant state funding.

Mulick also noted concerns surrounding the state’s efforts to persuade the federal government not to sue to block the law from taking effect. The U.S. Justice Department still has not announced its intentions.

“This is a resource that at this time remains highly uncertain,” Mulick said.

Morris said the tax is not meant to replace state funding of research.

A fiscal note done by the state Office of Financial Management says the amount of potential revenue from the tax is unknown for several reasons, including the difficulty estimating a value for a an industry that doesn’t yet exist, as well as uncertainty caused by the illegality of marijuana under federal law.

The measure is House Bill 1976.

Online: http://www.leg.wa.gov

Source: Associated Press (Wire)
Author: Rachel La Corte, The Associated Press
Published: March 22, 2013
Copyright: 2013 The Associated Press

30 Mar 2013

Colo. Hemp Legislation Would Launch Industry

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

Colorado’s hemp-growing industry will kick off on a modest scale under state legislation expected to be introduced next week.

The bill sponsored by state Sen. Gail Schwartz, D-Snowmass Village, would enable farmers to register for 10-acre research-and-development plots to test the viability of different hemp varieties.

Hemp is genetically related to marijuana but contains little or no THC, the psychoactive substance in marijuana. The seeds and fibers of hemp have dozens of commercial uses in foods, cosmetics, textiles and building materials.

The passage of Amendment 64 last year legalized in Colorado the possession and cultivation of both marijuana and hemp.

However, growing hemp, as with marijuana, is still illegal under federal law. That’s one of the reasons that hemp backers are proposing to launch the industry on a relatively small scale.

Schwartz said Thursday at a hemp forum in Loveland that 10-acre R&D plots grown under state guidelines are less likely to attract federal law enforcement attention than bigger commercial farms.

The proposed legislation would not prohibit larger farms, but backers say it is unlikely that farmers would choose to start on a large scale.

“The reality of the situation is that hemp probably won’t be grown on a mass commercial level for a few years because the crop will still need to be processed in-state and it will take a while to build that infrastructure and market,” said Samantha Walsh, political director of the advocacy group Hemp Cleans.

The bill would direct the Colorado Department of Agriculture to establish rules for registration and crop testing.

Hemp-growing has been legal in Canada since 1998. The industry is expanding rapidly. In 2012, a record 52,000 acres were grown. Projections for this year are 75,000 acres.

Canadian farmers at the Thursday forum said the crop is resistant to drought and weeds, relatively easy to grow, and profitable compared to other mainstream crops.

Manitoba hemp scientist Anndrea Hermann said the Canadian crop recently has generated average profits of $255 per acre compared with $208 for corn, $201 for canola and $100 for wheat.

David Bronner, whose company Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps is a major buyer of hemp oil, said at the forum that Colorado’s efforts to establish an industry may help persuade the federal government to end its prohibition.

“A little civil disobedience in the mix would hasten the end of this charade,” he said.

Source: Denver Post (CO)
Author: Steve Raabe, The Denver Post
Published: March 22, 2013
Copyright: 2013 The Denver Post
Website: http://www.denverpost.com/
Contact: [email protected]

30 Mar 2013

Wall Street Sees Opportunity in Marijuana

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

Amid the whir of fans and the glow of soft white light, workers tended to bright green seedlings sprouting in a giant greenhouse.

Located about an hour’s drive from Manhattan in the hills of northwestern New Jersey, the facility produces basil, chives, oregano and other herbs that are sold in grocery stores around New York City. But if Ken VandeVrede has his way the facility will one day be growing a much more valuable plant: marijuana.

VandeVrede is chief operating officer at Terra Tech, a hydroponic equipment maker based in Irvine. The small company wants to double the five-acre New Jersey greenhouse operation. The aim is one day to supply the exploding U.S. medical marijuana trade and to prepare in the event that recreational marijuana ever becomes legal nationwide.

“We can scale this thing very, very quickly,” said VandeVrede, clad in blue jeans and a pumpkin-colored sweater as he surveyed his indoor fields of produce and flowers. “When hemp and cannabis become legal, we’re ready to rock and roll.”

To do it, Terra Tech needs to raise $2 million. And like a number of small businesses in the burgeoning U.S. cannabis industry, it’s trying to enlist Wall Street’s help. Business owners have been pitching their ideas to potential investors, coming to New York in some cases to meet with would-be financiers.

Wall Street has good reason to smell potential profits.

Washington, D.C., and 18 states, including California, have already legalized medical marijuana; there are formal measures pending in 10 additional states, according to the National Cannabis Industry Assn.

Colorado and Washington legalized recreational marijuana use in November. In addition, a measure allowing “adult use” of pot has been proposed in Maryland, according to the association’s tally. Various bills to legalize marijuana and hemp have been proposed in Congress too.

Although pot remains contraband under federal law, some entrepreneurs see marijuana heading down the same path as Prohibition, which banned the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol from 1920 until it was repealed in 1933.

“More and more people see the inevitability,” said Brendan Kennedy, chief executive of the Seattle private equity firm Privateer Holdings, which targets cannabis-focused start-ups. “They see that the Berlin Wall of cannabis prohibition is going to come down.”

Privateer is raising $7 million to acquire small companies that have a hand in the trade but don’t grow or distribute marijuana. Its first acquisition: Leafly, a Yelp-style online rating site in Seattle for dispensaries and varying strains of marijuana.

With pot still federally outlawed, others are making similar bets — funding firms that supply equipment or ancillary services while steering clear of marijuana farming and sales.

Take Lazarus Investment Partners, a $60-million hedge fund in Denver, for example. One of Lazarus’ investments is in AeroGrow International Inc., a maker of hydroponic kitchen appliances geared toward growing herbs, lettuce and tomatoes.

Lazarus, which owns 15% of AeroGrow’s shares, has suggested that the company tweak its products to accommodate taller plants, including marijuana, said Justin Borus, the fund’s managing partner.

“We want to be selling the bluejeans to the gold miners,” Borus said. “We don’t want to take a bet on which state is going to get legalized and which dispensary is going to succeed, or [which] cannabis growers are going to be successful. We want to just make a bet on overall legalization.”

In California, MedBox, a West Hollywood maker of automated dispensing machines for doctors’ offices, pharmacies and pot dispensaries, is on the hunt for funding.

Vincent Mehdizadeh, MedBox’s founder, said the company is actively exploring raising $20 million in equity to boost staffing and fund research and development, acquisitions and marketing.

Mehdizadeh said he’s seen a “major spike” in interest from potential financiers looking to invest in the small company since Colorado and Washington legalized recreational pot use last year.

“Everybody’s loosening up a lot because they realize the momentum has shifted and the financial world is going to have to make room for this industry,” he said. “Wall Street and investment banks are going to have to come along for the ride, eventually.”

Derek Peterson, president and chief executive of Terra Tech, is working to get his company’s shares listed on a stock exchange by the end of the year. The company may try for NYSE MKT, which was formerly known as the American Stock Exchange and is geared toward smaller companies, or perhaps the Nasdaq Stock Market, he said.

“The stodgier Wall Street types are starting to realize there’s money to be made here,” said Peterson, who worked in wealth management at Wachovia Securities and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney.

The company has taken steps to get the word out to investors. It tapped Midtown Partners, a small New York boutique investment bank, to help it explore financing options as it planned the New Jersey greenhouse expansion. Terra Tech is merging with the farm’s owner, NB Plants, and retail gardening center and nursery. Both are owned by VandeVrede’s family.

Initially, the vast majority of Terra Tech’s revenue will come from cultivating fresh herbs and flowers from the New Jersey farm, with the rest coming from equipment sales. The idea is to first feed urban consumers’ growing appetite for pesticide-free produce, then add pot or hemp when the legal climate is right.

“There is this huge demand for organic food,” said Prakash Mandgi, Midtown Partners’ director of investment banking. “Marijuana cultivation, in my opinion, is a potential driver in the future, but it’s so tied to government rule and regulations…. Federally it’s illegal.”

Estimates for the marijuana industry’s size range widely, since much of the trade remains on the black market. Bloomberg Industries recently pegged it at $35 billion to $45 billion.

Still, Wall Street is by no means opening the floodgates of capital.

Companies in this space are still quite tiny, not to mention risky, compared with large corporations trading on the New York Stock Exchange or the Nasdaq.

Moreover, Wall Street firms face a significant disincentive to investing in the industry: federal law. Growing and distributing marijuana can still lead to raids by federal agents — not to mention prison time and huge fines.

Major banks have come under intense scrutiny by the federal government in recent years for violating laws aimed at preventing money-laundering. The British banking giant HSBC paid $1.9 billion to end a U.S. investigation into its role processing cash for drug cartels and customers in rogue nations.

Marijuana dispensary owners have complained of difficulty opening bank accounts, forcing them to operate in cash only.

“This is messy,” said Dan Richman, a former federal prosecutor who handled narcotics cases and now teaches at Columbia Law School in New York. “This might be complex politically. It’s not complex as a matter of federal criminal law.”

Investors in businesses involved in growing or distributing cannabis could face civil forfeiture actions to seize their investments or other assets, Richman said.

“I would think the prospectus would have to say: ‘The government might come and take all of your money and possibly go after you,’” Richman said.

Federal law may not deter all investors. After all, the government can choose what laws to strictly enforce, and it’s unclear how the federal government will ultimately treat legalized recreational pot in Colorado and Washington.

Alan Valdes, a floor trader on the New York Stock Exchange, expects some of Wall Street’s more adventurous investors to put up money for a project he’s involved with called Diego Pellicer Inc.

The business idea is to open a dozen Starbucks-like high-end shops for pot in Colorado and Washington. Valdes said he and his partners might begin tapping investors — wealthy individuals, family-run funds — later this year.

“These are more mavericks — these are gunslingers,” he said of potential investors. “The big houses are off the table right now.”

Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Author: Andrew Tangel, Los Angeles Times
Published: March 23, 2013
Copyright: 2013 Los Angeles Times
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.latimes.com/

30 Mar 2013

On Pot Laws, Respect The States

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

It may be surprising, but no state is required to have a law making possession of marijuana, or any drug, a crime. Therefore, any state can legalize some or all marijuana possession if it chooses. The federal government, if it chooses, can enforce the federal law against its possession and use, but it is up to each state to decide what to criminally prohibit, based on the 10th Amendment.

This basic insight has been lost in the public discussion about whether the initiatives legalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana passed by Colorado and Washington voters in November are preempted by federal law. The two states will soon finalize regulations to implement those initiatives, including how to tax and regulate marijuana.

U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. told a recent meeting of state attorneys general that the Justice Department review of the initiatives was winding down, suggesting an imminent decision as to whether it intends to challenge the initiatives as being preempted by federal law.

This month, eight former heads of the Drug Enforcement Administration urged Holder to enjoin the new state laws. Peter Bensinger, DEA chief from 1976 to 1981, told the Associated Press: “This is a no-brainer. It is outrageous that a lawsuit hasn’t been filed.”

Is it outrageous? Or is it just an intelligent assessment of the legal landscape?

The preemption doctrine is based on the supremacy clause of Article VI of the Constitution, which makes federal law “the supreme law of the land” trumping conflicting state laws. The question, then, is whether there is a conflict between the federal government prohibiting small amounts of marijuana and some states not doing so.

There is not a conflict when one level of government prohibits something but another level of government does not. An easy illustration is that murder is a crime in every state, but, except for very specific circumstances, it is not a federal crime. No one would say that there is a conflict. Likewise, a state can decide that certain conduct does not violate state law even if it offends federal law. It is then for the federal government to decide how, if at all, it wants to enforce the federal law.

Several other states, including California, have laws making possession of up to an ounce of marijuana an infraction punishable by a fine, even though under federal law, it’s a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in federal prison. Similarly, 17 states and Washington, D.C., have laws that allow possession of marijuana for medical purposes; there is no such federal exception. Although the federal government can enforce the stricter U.S. law in states that have decriminalized possession or have medical marijuana laws, it has never acted to have those state laws invalidated based on the preemption doctrine.

Simply put, no state has to have a law prohibiting marijuana, even though federal law does. And if a state does have such a ban but wants to repeal it in whole or in part, such as for possession for medical reasons or for small amounts, it may do so.

Because states could remove all criminal sanctions for marijuana, this more limited removal of some state sanctions cannot be preempted, claiming a conflict with federal law. It is true that Colorado and Washington go further than allowing possession of small amounts of marijuana under state law; their new laws also regulate and tax the sale of marijuana. But this actually helps achieve the federal objective of controlling marijuana compared to a state decriminalizing marijuana without regulating its distribution.

Beyond the legal arguments, there are policy reasons for the federal government to not interfere with the Colorado and Washington laws. An important feature of federalism is that states are empowered to serve as laboratories for experimentation with social policies. As the nation embarks on perhaps the most significant public debate about drug policy since President Nixon declared the war on drugs, Washington and Colorado’s experiment should be allowed to go forward. The country can then assess whether it succeeded or failed.

Let’s hope Holder’s response will be more nuanced and respectful of the states than that urged by the retired drug warriors.

Erwin Chemerinsky is dean of the UC Irvine School of Law. Allen Hopper is criminal justice and drug policy director of the ACLU of California.

Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Author: Erwin Chemerinsky and Allen Hopper
Published: March 27, 2013
Copyright: 2013 Los Angeles Times
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.latimes.com/

30 Mar 2013

Cannabinoids And Cancer

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

The Stone-Cold Truth

I got a good bit of reaction to my last piece on cannabis and cancer, so I want follow up on it before moving on to other subjects. Obviously, many folks out there are suffering and seeking relief, but I don’t want to peddle false hope; there is already too much of that going on. However, if you already have a death sentence hanging over your head then you pretty much have nothing to lose.

One of the major medicinal advantages of cannabis, the clinical name for marijuana, is the absence of significant and unintended side effects ( no major harms ) associated with its medicinal use 3/4which is a lot more than can be said for many pharmaceutical drugs that come with a laundry list of side effects, which sometimes include death.

That said, the website of the National Cancer institute has recently added a page titled “Cannabis and Cannabinoids” [cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/patient/page2]. The information on that page cites preclinical studies that indicate the following “antitumor activity” of cannabinoids ( the active substances in the marijuana plant ):

Studies in mice and rats have shown that cannabinoids may inhibit tumor growth by causing cell death, blocking cell growth, and blocking the development of blood vessels needed by tumors to grow. Laboratory and animal studies have shown that cannabinoids may be able to kill cancer cells while protecting normal cells.

A study in mice showed that cannabinoids may protect against inflammation of the colon and may have potential in reducing the risk of colon cancer, and possibly in its treatment.

A laboratory study of delta-9-THC in hepatocellular carcinoma ( liver cancer ) cells showed that it damaged or killed the cancer cells.

A laboratory study of cannabidiol in estrogen receptor positive and estrogen receptor negative breast cancer cells showed that it caused cancer cell death while having little effect on normal breast cells.

It’s not about just a toke or two:It’s no wonder that people who have been told they are terminal are willing to try cannabis in an attempt to save themselves. However, it is important to note that neither smoking, vaporizing nor eating cannabis-infused brownies alone can deliver an effective dose of cannabinoids to have the kind of effect patients are looking for from the plant.

That’s where something like Rick Simpson’s Hemp Oil comes in. It’s a highly concentrated cannabinoid extract that Simpson and others claim has wondrous results, including its ability to cure many different cancers.

I can’t independently verify that claim, but when used along with conventional cancer therapy it seems to help. After my last Higher Ground column about cannabis and cancer, a 66-year-old San Francisco woman named Michelle Aldrich contacted me. Aldrich, and her husband Michael, have been longtime marijuana activists and received the High Times magazine lifetime achievement award in June 2011, so she’s obviously predisposed to have a favorable outlook about the herb, but her story is very compelling.

Aldrich was diagnosed with cancer in late 2011. Further testing revealed lung cancer, three cancerous lymph nodes, a spot on her kidney and inflammation in her colon ( three polyps ) 3/4Stage 3A poorly differentiated non-small cell metastatic ad-enocarcinoma of the right lung with bulky lymph node involvement 3/4in January 2012.

Her main tumor was 30 by 31 millimeters. The five-year survival rate for this type of cancer is about 25 percent. Her doctors recommended that she undergo chemotherapy. They would have added radiation except her lymph nodes were too close to her trachea for that. The goal was to shrink the lymph nodes enough so doctors could operate and remove two lobes of her right lung. Aldrich agreed to the course of treatment but was up front with her medical team that she was going to take what she called Milagro Oil, a variation of the Simpson extract, along with their recommended course of action. In fact, she put together a complete holistic approach to dealing with her cancer.

“I needed to set a new course. A course correction,” she said in a talk she gave at the sixth annual Women’s Visionary Congress in July 2012. The talk was adapted and published in the spring 2013 edition of O’Shaughnessy’s, a journal focused on medical cannabis.”I needed to change my destiny. I did not want to die of lung cancer. I would do everything possible to restore my health: diet, chemo, acupuncture, and cannabis oil. I knew I had a wonderful support group and a dream team of doctors.”

The oil she took contained 63 percent THC – she says it didn’t get her high – and she also used a CBD tincture. Aldrich’s diet was strict: no dairy, sugar, wheat, alcohol or meat, except chicken once a month. She said she ate a lot of fish, especially salmon.

Aldrich started chemo in early February and had the last of four courses on April 5, 2012, although she continued taking oil until mid-May. An April 17, 2012 CT scan showed the tumor had shrunk by 50 percent. On May 10, 2012, a PET scan showed no discernible cancer and her lymph nodes had completely shrunk. She had surgery to remove the lymph nodes and the remains of the tumor which was “a thin rim surrounding a necrotic core.” In other words, it was dead. Aldrich still suffered some of the bad effects of chemo such as nausea and loss of appetite, but in the end her primary doctor was amazed at the result.

“He had never seen lung cancer totally eradicated by chemo, much less in four months,” said Aldrich. “I assume cannabis oil was the factor that made the difference.”

Cancer is not considered “cured” until it has been absent from a patient for five years, and doctors are loath to say that anyone’s cancer is cured, but testimonials such as Aldrich’s are becoming much more common.

Spread the word:Alternet, an alternative news service, picked up her story and distributed it last week; and testimonials of people’s claims of having cured several types of cancer or other ailments with some variation of Simpson oil can be easily found on the Internet.

Variations abound, with some folks adding other healing herbs that they trust to the mix, but the main ingredient is cannabis, preferably an indica strain. They’re claiming healing or relief for Multiple Sclerosis, rheumatism, arthritis, psoriasis, eczema, diabetes, seizures, migraines and more.

“Anybody who looks at the sheer amount of these materials cannot deny that cannabis extract deserves mainstream medical attention immediately,” says Justin Kander, a board member of Phoenix Tears ( phoenixtears.ca ), the Rick Simpson organization that promotes cannabis oil.

“People don’t have time to wait for all the proper scientific channels. We’ve been waiting years, and millions of people have died. With pain, people don’t have a day to wait,” Kander explains. “They don’t have 10 seconds to wait. It’s irresponsible to hold it back. The extract seems to work for virtually any condition. That makes it less believable. In theory, the reason that it works for so many things is the endocannabinoid system ( cannabinoid receptors in the human body ) maintains balance in the other systems. All disease is some form of imbalance. We need to investigate this further through science.”

In the meantime, a lot of people have decided not to wait. They don’t have time.

We’ve been peddled various snake oils in the past. So I would advise caution when treating yourself or a loved one, and it’s advisable to use cannabis oil in tandem with conventional therapies. The bottom line is it may work, it may not work, but it won’t harm you. And as they say on the playground – no harm, no foul.

Hash Bash: The 46th Annual Hash Bash will take place noon-1:30 p.m. on Saturday, April 6. Mason Tvert, who let the successful Colorado legalization drive, will headline the program along with NORML founder Keith Stroup, growing expert Ed Rosenthal and cannabis seed developer DJ Short.

Source: Metro Times (Detroit, MI)
Copyright: 2013 C.E.G.W./Times-Shamrock
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.metrotimes.com
Author: Larry Gabriel

30 Mar 2013

When Bad Weed Moves In Next Door

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

Tin foil on the windows, children’s toys that never seem to move from their spot in the front yard and neighbours who don’t seem to live in the home they own.

These are just some of the signs of a marijuana grow operation residents should look out for in their neighbourhood, police repeatedly warn.

According to a 2007 Royal Canadian Mounted Police report on drug offences, 60% of offences related to marijuana production occurred in a residence.

And an Ipsos Reid study in 2012 – prompted by the Ontario Real Estate Association – said almost a quarter of Ontario residents have “seen or know of homes in their neighbourhood that have been used as a marijuana grow operation.”

No one wants to live in a mouldy ex-drug lab. A past history of drug production can lower a property’s value for years by 15-20%, and make home insurance a pain to maintain.

That’s why Markham realtor Cathy Innamorato did not buy a grow-op home, despite the fact that it had been remediated, leaving little concern for mould.

A conversation with her insurance company left her walking away from the home, she said, because she ran the risk of increasing premiums in the future.

“And you have no recourse,” Innamorato said. “So because of that I decided against purchasing this property.”

Despite remediation – the process of eradicating mould and other damage done to a building following it’s use for illicit drugs – a grow house never truly shakes its drug-related stigma, she added. Remediation reports often don’t guarantee the home’s condition 100% and insurance companies are reluctant to accept them.

“How is the buyer protected?” Innamorato said.

A central grow-op registry would have all grow-op houses listed, making it easier for realtors to be open and for buyers to be confident of their purchase.

The Ontario Real Estate Association repeated its call for the registry in early March, supporting Nepean-Carleton MPP Lisa MacLeod’s recently tabled Clandestine Drug Operation Prevention Act.

“I think that there’s an appetite to protect our community and also crack down on this illicit activity,” MacLeod said.

The theft of hydro is a major related concern, as house grow-ops steal energy by rewiring, often risking electrical safety.

MacLeod said law-abiding customers wind up footing the bill for dollars lost to hydro theft.

“It’s quite significant, its a cost to our communities,” she said.

One man has made stigmatized properties his personal mission.

Barry Lebow, a GTA realtor and an expert in real estate stigma, said grow-ops can become long-lasting problems for homeowners and landlords when they try and sell their property in the future.

“Do you realize how many houses are stigmatized in this province?” Lebow said. “Because the law is that there’s no such thing as a statute of limitations on stigma in Ontario. It has to be reported forever.”

While he makes it clear he dislikes stigmatizing properties for housing as few as three or four marijuana plants – therefore causing no damage done to the home – he agrees a central registry disclosing grow-op homes ruined by organized criminal behaviour can help realtors and buyers.

“Where there’s been a professional criminal organization, that’s where I draw the line,” Lebow said. “We have to quantify what they did to the house.”

There should be a difference between a home where a person has grown pot for recreational uses without touching the structure, and a home that has to be gutted after a massive grow operation, Lebow said. Because the two aren’t the same.

“Therefore you have a problem on your hands because you’re stigmatizing people for something that really shouldn’t be stigmatized,” he said.

Lebow said he knows the impact of grow-ops on property owners. He’s heard many stories of landlords who have returned to find tenants have ruined their investment homes by running grow-ops. They take a huge loss of up to 20% in property value.

“Most of the houses that I’ve come across … have been hardcore blue-collar people who have bought a house, put all their money in, and find out that they’ve got a 20% loss in value across the board,” Lebow said. “Nobody can afford it but these people ( can afford the loss ) even less.”

Source: Sudbury Star (CN ON)
Contact: http://www.thesudburystar.com/letters
Copyright: 2013 Osprey Media
Website: http://www.thesudburystar.com
Author: Maryam Shah

27 Feb 2013

‘What Were They Smoking?’

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

The federal government says there is no such thing as “medical” marijuana. Despite that, an increasing number of states have legalized the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, and a couple, so far, have okayed recreational use of marijuana for adults.

In the medical context, doctors often prescribe marijuana to manage chronic pain, and those patients must register in a confidential patient database. Registration triggers issuance of registry identification cards so recipients avoid criminal liability. Because many such patients are in the workforce, however, employers need to be aware of existing medical marijuana laws and pending legislation in each state where they employ workers.

The states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington currently legalize marijuana use for varying reasons. Washington and Colorado approved recreational marijuana use by adults, with regulations to monitor its possession, use and sale.

Expect more smoke. In 2013, Alabama, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, New Hampshire, Maryland, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and West Virginia introduced bills to make marijuana use lawful. On February 21 2013, for instance, Maryland Democratic Delegate Curt Anderson introduced a bill to legalize and tax marijuana use by “over 21” adults. The titles of several of these proposed bills contain words like “compassionate use” and “compassion and care” that reveal or suggest empathy for individuals with chronic pain who, with marijuana, want to function and work with less or no pain.

Some existing and pending state laws place specific restrictions on the management of employees who are registered medical marijuana users. In other states, however, regulations state that “their” laws do not deprive businesses from maintaining a drug-free workplace. Still other states have yet to address application of their marijuana laws to the workplace while their regulations remain embryonic.

In California, Colorado, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington, businesses need not currently accommodate employees who legally use marijuana for medicinal purposes. Washington’s statute, for example, says that employers may establish drug-free work policies, and nothing in it requires accommodating the medical use of marijuana. Others are not so clear, forcing employers to develop what sometimes must be “best guess” workplace policies to comply with “fog-filled” laws.

Marijuana use laws in Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, and Rhode Island expressly forbid businesses from refusing to hire applicants and from disciplining and otherwise adversely affecting the employment of registered medical marijuana card holders based solely on that status. Arizona and Delaware extend that by forbidding businesses from refusing to hire applicants or disciplining employees on the basis of drug tests that reveal marijuana components or metabolites. There are exceptions to these rules where, for example, the employees are “impaired” by marijuana while on an employer’s property and/or during work hours. But in those states, employed medical marijuana card holders are not “impaired” simply because marijuana components or metabolites are “in” their systems. Even worse, there currently are no bright-line tests for marijuana “intoxication” comparable to those for alcohol intoxication. That means employers in disciplining “impaired” employees will have to rely on observations of an employee’s behavior to prove impairment and avoid liability if the employees file a charge or sue.

With the changing landscape of state regulation, businesses cannot rely on federal classification of marijuana as a Schedule I substance (meaning it has no currently accepted medical use and has high potential for abuse). Instead, the federal-state “tug of war” means that every employer must be on “high alert” to ever-broadening marijuana use state laws and regulations.

Employers also need to educate law-makers as to the practicalities of employing marijuana users so any legislation passed can and does avoid unintended, harsh, and perhaps dangerous workplace consequences. Here are examples of opportunities for workplace input. In Colorado, there is a task force to propose regulations for its new use laws. Massachusetts health officials held three public “listening sessions” during February to help draft the regulations for the medical marijuana law passed by voters in November 2012.

Employers also should ensure that their human resources professionals and management teams are knowledgeable about the marijuana laws in each state where they employ workers, including updating their policies.

As more and more states relax the use of marijuana, perhaps, in part, because tax revenues from the sale of marijuana can help solve budget woes, business owners will also need pain management.

* Barbra Diallo also contributed to the content of this article.

Source: Forbes Magazine (US)
Author: Roxanne Wilson, Contributor
Published: February 26, 2013
Copyright: 2013 Forbes Inc.
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.forbes.com/

« 1 … 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 … 104 »