Cannabis – Page 140

2 Jul 2013

Legalizing MJ is Hard Regulating Pot is Harder

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

It’s not every day that a former Microsoft executive holds a press conference to announce his new venture into the exciting and profitable world of drug dealing. But that’s exactly what happened earlier this month when Jamen Shively, a former Microsoft corporate strategy manager, announced that he wants to create the equivalent of Starbucks in the newly legalized pot industry in Washington state.

All this is happening at the same time that the Washington State Liquor Control Board is looking to finalize rules on the new, legal marijuana industry. And one of the major debates right now among board members is how much they ought to prevent or encourage the kind of market consolidation in which a few firms dominate the whole industry.

As Chris Marr of the Liquor Control Board argued, “How do you prevent a Microsoft millionaire from getting this idea and deciding that — playing by the rules — they’re going to dominate the market?” And if that is the concern, what can economics inform us about how this new market should be set up?

To provide some background, voters in Washington state passed Initiative 502 last fall in a general ballot, creating a statewide legal market in pot. Unlike Colorado, which has passed a bill to expand its medical marijuana industry and make pot legally available to everyone, Washington is folding pot under regulations for the liquor industry. As such, the Washington Liquor Board has regulatory control over the new marijuana industry.

As with alcohol, a marijuana firm is classified as a producer, processor or retailer. The first question, therefore, is how aggressively regulators should try to check the market power of front-line sellers. As of now, if there is excess demand for licenses, which cost $1,000 each, they will be subject to lottery. Licenses can’t be traded in a secondary market, and it is possible that the regulators will cap the number of licenses per holder.

The law also requires regulation for public safety and public health. As with the tobacco industry, voters don’t want firms marketing and selling pot to underage users. And public health officials are concerned about companies marketing to “problem users” who would like to quit or reduce their usage but find themselves unable to.

If that’s the case, then perhaps having pot dealers with large market power is a good idea. Economists usually consider monopolists a problem because they produce too little of a product and charge too much for it, earning substantial profits. But that could be a good thing for the pot industry. Safe profit margins mean that a firm might be less likely to compete on price for every potential consumer — and also much more likely to follow the law.

Yet people involved with the Washington law have two main responses to this. The first is that firms with market power could go outside the market and use their extensive profits and influence to exert political power.

“The idea is to prevent the retail industry from becoming so large that they have enough wealth and power to roll over anyone trying to enforce, expand or update the public-health-focused rules that are designed to protect the public’s health and safety,” says Roger Roffman, a University of Washington professor and author of the forthcoming book “Marijuana Nation.”

Second, consolidated firms may that they themselves pose threats to public health. “If a firm has market power, the profits they get from selling above market costs means that they can have a bigger marketing department,” says UCLA public policy professor Mark Kleiman. “In the real world, spending here will increase their market share by creating additional problem users. This, combined with lobbying efforts that will rival the alcohol industry in terms of avoiding taxes and adjusting the rules, is a major problem.”

A third argument comes from University of Chicago economics professor E. Glen Weyl. He argues that “long-term players who have market power have an incentive to get people addicted. A monopolist, in particular, has a big incentive to advertise to get people addicted over the long-term, as they are sure to reap all those rewards.” If a marijuana firm has a monopoly, then the financial gains of turning someone into a heavy, problem user of a product (rather than a specific brand) will all go to that firm. A market with smaller, fragmented firms with greater turnover would be a check on this dynamic.

Both Weyl and Kleiman argue that Washington should consider bolder ideas to regulate the industry. Weyl suggests some sort of mandatory turnover policy to discourage firms from turning people into problem users. Another possibility, which Kleiman considers, is to create a state-run nonprofit retail firm that has no interest in creating problem users or expanding the market. (Given that pot is still illegal at the federal level, this isn’t likely to happen).

Market consolidation is also an issue when it comes to a firm’s vertical structure. Under Washington state law, if a firm is a retailer, it can’t be a producer as well as a processor. This is meant to fragment the vertical chain of production, and it contrasts with Colorado’s system, in which dealers are required to grow 70 percent of what they sell (as that is how the medical marijuana system works).

Another related economic issue is the location of pot retailers. The law in Washington, as currently structured, requires pot retailers to be at least 1,000 feet away from a school, day-care facility, playground, teen arcade game center, recreation center, transit center or library. Though this may sound minor, in practice it means that it will be very difficult to put pot retailers in dense population spaces. Retailers might be limited to industrial or largely depopulated areas.

That could force what economists who study spatial models of economies call the agglomeration model — as when certain kinds of restaurants all cluster together to create an area people go to for certain goods. As Weyl notes, “often ethnic restaurants cluster into neighborhoods so that people can find the best places, creating ethnic neighborhoods. Do we want a ‘pot town’ to grow up in our cities? Perhaps not, but that is the logical consequence of forcing dealers away from a convenience model.”

Kleiman thinks the main issue with regard to pot retailers’ ultimate location has more to do with advertising and discretion than anything else. “An alcoholic trying to quit drinking will pass by alcohol in bars, billboards and grocery stores. That person uses up a lot of emotional energy always having to say no.” Instead of focusing on 1,000 feet within certain buildings, the bigger issue Kleiman emphasizes is whether storefronts and signs aggressively advertise their product.

It’s important to get these issues right because they interact with the three background constraints on this new market. The first is the black market, while the second is the legal medical marijuana market. For some reason, the medical marijuana market won’t be taxed, while the new legal market will be taxed around 25 percent. (The black market is, of course, not taxed at all.)

Note that if the price goes too high, or if the location restrictions prove too inconvenient, pot consumers might just stick with medical marijuana or the black market. State lawmakers are currently trying to get the medical marijuana market folded under the same regulations that the Liquor Board is creating for the legal pot market, and Mark Kleiman notes that police may need to escalate crackdowns on illegal distribution as they legalize the market.

A third constraint is the federal government, which enforces laws that still make pot illegal. If legalization is seen as a disaster, it is possible that the federal government will move to shut down the process by preempting state law. But even if it doesn’t, background laws will probably hurt the scale and efficiency of pot retailers.

As Jack Finlaw explains, since marijuana is banned at the federal level, new pot retailers “often cannot conduct their businesses through banks. They also cannot deduct business expenses from their federal taxes.” It is possible the normal interactions between businesses that allow them to thrive — things like having a legal bank account — won’t be immediately available.

Markets are constructed through laws and regulations, and the market for pot that is being created in Washington state is no exception. The regulators see how the consolidated alcohol industry is able to avoid taxation and accountability and are determined to avoid these problems in the new pot industry. Thus this market may help economists understand a crucial role of regulations that has lapsed in recent decades: the role of government in curbing the excess power of the private sector.

Mike Konczal is a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, where he focuses on financial regulation, inequality and unemployment. He writes a weekly column for Wonkblog.

Source: Washington Post (DC)
Author: Mike Konczal
Published: June 29, 2013
Copyright: 2013 Washington Post Company
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/

2 Jul 2013

Pissing our life away…

posted in: Industrial Hemp | 0

As Gatewood Galbraith once said, “Our Father’s and Grandfather’s did not go to the beaches of Normandy so that their children could piss in a cup to get a job”…

Corporate “Drug Testing” aided by Pharmaceutical Companies who develop and produce these tests have taken our very right to be able to work away. So long as they are allowed to do this our country will never be truly free and we will have not won ANY war.

The drug testing laws have forced us to be liar’s, cheater’s and last but most important – unemployed.

There is virtually no “blue collar” job for which there is not drug testing.

Everyone already knows how unfair it is to the casual marijuana smoker as the cannabinoids remain in your body for an extended length of time – which in and of itself is a GOOD thing, but Corporate Fascist have condemed us to be “worthless”, for corporate use…

Some smaller businesses may be ignorant of the fact that the “1988 Drug Free Workplace Act (DFWA)” DOES NOT require the majority of these businesses conduct drug testing. Other’s are part of the corporate majority who will adhere to drug testing to try to lower their insurance premiums and “slap the hands” of anyone who would like to use marijuana either for personal or medical reasons. They do this in order to continue the “Elkhorn Manifesto” regime to keep cannabis out of the hands of those who would attempt to put an end to the oil based society which we now “enjoy”.

It’s all about where the profit is and how far they are willing to go to keep it.

The slaves were never set free. Everyone just became “equal” in color and was run off of their farms and into the Industrial Revolution.
The slaves are us. All of us.

Until we can get the drug testing laws eradicated we will continue on as slaves long after the “law” has been changed regarding the use of marijuana/cannabis.

It may not be in the government’s best interest to keep paying for incarceration for use, but it IS in corporate America’s best interest to keep the cannabis off the shelf.

Thats life in America…let the “private sector” handle it…

Drug-Free Workplaces do NOT have to test for marijuana (Updated) – November 21, 2012 by Russ Belville

Why Employers Drug Test

Obama Administration Pushes Drug Testing in Workplace, But Not For Everybody

WASHINGTON — The government wants businesses to drug test their workers to boost productivity and reduce health care costs, according to the 2012 National Drug Control Report released Tuesday.

@ShereeKrider 7.1.13

2 Jul 2013

Pissing our life away…

posted in: Industrial Hemp | 0

As Gatewood Galbraith once said, “Our Father’s and Grandfather’s did not go to the beaches of Normandy so that their children could piss in a cup to get a job”…

The drug testing laws have forced us to be liar’s, cheater’s and last but most important – unemployed.

There is virtually no “blue collar” job for which there is not drug testing.

It’s all about where the profit is and how far they are willing to go to keep it.

The slaves were never set free. Everyone just became “equal” in color and was run off of their farms and into the Industrial Revolution.
The slaves are us. All of us.

Until we can get the drug testing laws eradicated we will continue on as slaves long after the “law” has been changed regarding the use of marijuana/cannabis.

It may not be in the government’s best interest to keep paying for incarceration for use, but it IS in corporate America’s best interest to keep the cannabis off the shelf.

Thats life in America…let the “private sector” handle it…

Drug-Free Workplaces do NOT have to test for marijuana (Updated) – November 21, 2012 by Russ Belville

Why Employers Drug Test

Obama Administration Pushes Drug Testing in Workplace, But Not For Everybody

WASHINGTON — The government wants businesses to drug test their workers to boost productivity and reduce health care costs, according to the 2012 National Drug Control Report released Tuesday.

@ShereeKrider 7.1.13

29 Jun 2013

Five Reasons Cops Want to Legalize Marijuana

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

Most people don’t think “cops” when they think about who supports marijuana legalization. Police are, after all, the ones cuffing stoners, and law enforcement groups have a long history of lobbying against marijuana policy reform. Many see this as a major factor in preventing the federal government from recognizing that a historic majority of Americans – 52 percent – favors legalizing weed.

But the landscape is changing fast. Today, a growing number of cops are part of America’s “marijuana majority.” Members of the non-profit group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) say that loosening our pot policy wouldn’t necessarily condone drug use, but control it, while helping cops to achieve their ultimate goal of increasing public safety. Here are the five biggest reasons why even cops are starting to say, “Legalize It!”

1. It’s about public safety.

While marijuana is a relatively harmless drug, the black market associated with it can cause significant harm. Much like the prohibition of alcohol, marijuana’s illegality does not erase the profit incentive – instead, it establishes a risky, unregulated market in which violence and intimidation are used to settle disputes.

“When we ended the prohibition of alcohol, Al Capone was out of work the next day,” says Stephen Downing, Los Angeles’ former Deputy Chief of Police. “Our drug policy is really anti-public safety and pro-cartel, pro-street gang, because it keeps them in business.”

Marijuana trafficking represents a significant chunk of business for black-market cartels. Though the exact percentage of cartel profits from pot is disputed, lowball estimates fall at around 20 percent.

“During my time on the border, I saw literally tons of marijuana come over the border from Mexico,” says Jamie Haase, a former special agent in the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement division. “Competition over the profits to be made from this illicit industry has led to the deaths of tens of thousands of individuals in that country, and an ever-increasing amount of violence spilling over into the United States, where the Justice Department estimates Mexican cartels now operate in more than 1,000 American cities.”

2. Cops want to focus on crimes that hurt real victims.

In the past decade, police made more than 7 million marijuana arrests, 88 percent of them for possession alone. In 2010, states spent $3.6 billion enforcing the war on pot, with blacks nearly four times as likely as whites to be arrested. That’s a lot of police time and resources wasted, says former Seattle Chief of Police Norm Stamper, who had an “aha moment” about marijuana policy while working for the San Diego Police Department in the late 1960s.

“I had arrested a 19-year-old in his parents’ home for the possession of a very small quantity of marijuana, and put him in the backseat of a caged police car, after having kicked down his door,” recalls Stamper. While driving the prisoner to jail, he says, “I realized, mainly, that I could have been doing real police work, but instead I’m going to be out of service for several hours impounding the weed, impounding him, and writing arrest, impound, and narcotics reports. I was away from the people I had been hired to serve and in no position to stop a reckless drunk driver swerving all over the road, or to respond to a burglary in progress, or intervene in domestic violence situation.”

Cops have limited resources, and spending them on marijuana arrests will inevitably divert them from other policing. Adds Stamper, “In short, making a marijuana arrest for a simple possession case was no longer, for me, real police work.”

3. Cops want strong relationships with the communities they serve.

Baltimore narcotics veteran Neil Franklin says the prevalence of marijuana arrests, especially among communities of color, creates a “hostile environment” between police and the communities they serve. “Marijuana is the number one reason right now that police use to search people in this country,” he says. “The odor of marijuana alone gives a police officers probable cause to search you, your person, your car, or your home.”

Legalizing pot, says Franklin, could lead to “hundreds of thousands of fewer negative police and citizen contacts across this country. That’s a hell of an opportunity for law enforcement to rebuild some bridges in our communities – mainly our poor, black and Latino communities.”

Franklin adds that this would increase citizens’ trust in police, making them more likely to communicate and help solve more serious crimes. Building mutual respect would also protect cops on the job. Adds Franklin, “Too many police officers are killed or injured serving the War on Drugs as opposed to protecting and serving their communities.”

4. The war on pot encourages bad – and even illegal – police practices.

Downing says that monetary incentives for drug arrests, like asset forfeiture and federal grants, encourage an attitude where police will make drug arrests by any means necessary, from militarized SWAT raids to paid informants who admit to lying. “The overall effect is that we are losing ground in terms of the traditional peace officer role of protecting public safety, and morphing our local police officers into federal drug warriors,” Downing says.

Quotas and pressure for officers to make drug arrests – which profit police departments via federal funding and asset forfeiture – also encourage routine violations of the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. The NYPD, for example, stops and sometimes frisks well over 500,000 people a year, the vast majority of them youths of color – the basis for a pending federal lawsuit challenging the policy on constitutional grounds. While New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has defended stop-and-frisk as a way to get guns off the street, in fact, it’s more often used to arrest kids with small amounts of weed. Stamper adds that legalization would allow police officers “to see young adults not as criminals, but members of their community” – and start respecting those young people’s civil liberties.

5. Cops want to stop kids from abusing drugs.

Marijuana’s illegality has done very little to stop its use. A recent survey by the National Institutes of Health found that 36 percent of high school seniors had smoked marijuana in the past year. Legalization would most likely involve age restrictions on marijuana purchases, while at the same time providing quality control over product. “The only way we can effectively control drugs is to create a regulatory system for all of them,” says Stamper.

“If you are truly a proponent of public safety, if you truly want safer communities, then it’s a no-brainer that we have to end drug prohibition and treat [marijuana] as a health issue, like we did with tobacco,” says Franklin. “Education and treatment is the most effective and cost-efficient way to reduce drug use.”

On the other hand, adds Franklin, “If you support a current system of drug prohibition, then you support the very same thing that the cartel and neighborhood gangs support. You might as well be standing next to them, shaking hands. Because they don’t want an end to prohibition, either.”

Source: Rolling Stone (US)
Author: Kristen Gwynne
Published: June 27, 2013
Copyright: 2013 Straight Arrow Publishers Company, L.P.
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.rollingstone.com/

28 Jun 2013

Google Quietly Giving Aid To Marijuana Activists

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

Cancer patients who Google the words “chemotherapy nausea” today get a host of advertisements for treatment, including pills, skin patches and folk remedies used to prevent vomiting. Next month, however, the same search will turn up an ad for something a bit more controversial: medical marijuana.

The change comes courtesy of the charitable unit of Google, which last week gifted a Michigan medical marijuana advocacy group $120,000 worth of its services. As part of the grant, the group, Michigan Compassion, will be able to promote medical marijuana use through Google’s popular AdWords platform — the plain-text advertisements that pop up to the right side of any given search result.

Michigan Compassion does not sell marijuana but connects patients and growers, and it says the ads will appear alongside searches likely to be made by chemotherapy patients.

“The goal is to link the negative effects of chemotherapy and the positive effects of cannabis,” Amish Parikh, vice-president of Michigan Compassion, told The Huffington Post.

The ads’ value is small in the scheme of Google’s AdWords program, which brings in over $40 billion per year in revenue, but they represent a change for the Mountain View, Calif. firm, which has a strict policy against hosting ads for marijuana-related searches.

Google’s new generosity toward marijuana advocates fits neatly in Silicon Valley, however, where tech companies and their employees have been quietly contributing to cannabis activism, an area attorney involved in the marijuana legalization movement told The Huffington Post.

“They’re not the ones coming to the city council meetings to protest, but they quietly send in their donations,” attorney Lauren Vazquez said. “And they’re definitely consuming the cannabis,” she added.

A spokeswoman for Google declined to comment on whether the grant made to Michigan Compassion meant the company was taking an advocacy position in favor of medical marijuana.

AdWords has a policy against allowing advertisements for drugs and drug paraphernalia, but is allowing the Michigan Compassion ads since the organization does not directly supply such products. Google does not allow advertisers to link their ads to searches with words like “cannabis” and “marijuana.”

The spokeswoman said the ads would not appear in web searches done by those using a “family safe” filter, and text would show up only in states where medical marijuana is legal. (While legal for medical use in 19 states and the District of Columbia, possessing marijuana for any purpose remains a federal crime.)

It’s been noted before that the culture inside California tech companies is highly supportive of marijuana use, with on-the-job drug testing extremely rare. According to a Businessweek article on the topic earlier this year, the city of San Jose, where many industry workers live, has more than 100 pot clinics, and it’s considered normal for programmers to soothe the stress of long days hunched over a computer with a visit to one of those retailers.

“I think Silicon Valley is very supportive,” said Michigan Compassion’s Parikh. “There’s a lot of testing the waters, though.”

LinkedIn, the professional social networking company also based in Mountain View, is providing Michigan Compassion with free services to help reach potential donors and board members, according to Parikh.

An email requesting comment from LinkedIn was not returned.

Michigan Compassion has also received donated equipment and software from other tech companies channeled through San Francisco-based TechSoup Global. And Vertical Response, an email marketing firm also based in San Francisco, provided the group with several thousand dollars’ worth of free marketing technology.

A spokeswoman for Vertical Response, Connie Sung Moyle, said Michigan Compassion was not given a grant specifically due to the nature of its work but as a result of its non-profit status. Moyle said Vertical Response has provided in-kind donations to some 2,600 charities since 2005. “We don’t really discriminate either way as long as what they’re doing is above the law,” she said.

Source: Huffington Post (NY)
Author: Eleazar David Melendez
Published: June 27, 2013
Copyright: 2013 HuffingtonPost.com, LLC
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

27 Jun 2013

Medical Cannabis Legalized in New Hampshire

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

With just one day left to pass it this session, the New Hampshire Legislature has given final approval to a measure aimed at legalizing medical marijuana – including state licensed dispensaries.

After much back anmedical-marijuana-symbold forth between the House and Senate, HB 573 has finally made it through – Governor Maggie Hassan will sign the legislation at any time, stating prior to its passage that: “I encourage the full legislature to pass this compromise so I can sign this legislation into law”.

“This legislation has been a long time coming and is a much-needed victory for those with serious illnesses who find significant relief in medical marijuana,” said Matt Simon, a legislative analyst for the Marijuana Policy Project.

Once signed, the law will go into effect immediately, and a commission will begin the process of establishing a dispensary system. Patients will be allowed to possess up to 2 ounces, and dispensaries will be allowed up to 80 ounces and 80 plants (with 160 seedlings), plus an additional three plants, 12 seedlings and 6 ounces for every patient who designates the dispensary as their primary access point.

The measure mandates that at least two licenses must be issued for dispensaries within the first 18 months of the law’s passage.

25 Jun 2013

Feds Announce Mail-Order Medical Pot

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

Ottawa’s decision to phase out both government and personal medical marijuana production came as no surprise to patient advocates who opposed the new rules.

“I’m not surprised a bit,” said Ric Bills, who organized a rally protesting the proposed changes in Sechelt earlier this year. “I didn’t think public comments would change what they had in store. The Harper government doesn’t seem to care about patients whose lives are stake. They put it all on public safety. They’re really sticking it to the people.”

On June 10, Federal Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq announced Ottawa was proceeding with its plan to stop producing and distributing medical pot and is also removing the right of patients or their designates to grow their own plants.

Under the new system, all production will shift to private companies operating under contract to Health Canada and prescribed patients will only be able to obtain medical pot by mail order. A suggestion in the draft regulations to allow pharmacists to dispense the product was scrapped after the Canadian Pharmacists Association strongly objected to the plan.

The changes are expected to mean significantly higher prices for patients who currently grow their own, and that will breathe new life into the black market, Bills predicted.

“The black market will get more profitable because if people can’t grow it themselves, they’ll go to the black market for it. Some people can’t afford it. They’ll keep growing and risk their freedom, and I guess some will be in pain. It’s pretty backward,” he said.

Bills, who was a lawyer in the U.S. before relocating to Halfmoon Bay, said Canada is “really behind the curve” compared to states such as Colorado and Washington, which are legalizing and planning to tax recreational marijuana.

“They’re going ahead. We’re going backwards,” he said.

The new system, he said, will likely attract commercial operators who are in it for the money.

“You can’t really know patients through a mail order system. It’s very impersonal.”

Both medical pot programs will operate concurrently until March 31, 2014, when the current regulations will be repealed, Health Canada said in a release.

Explaining the reason for the change, Health Canada said its medical pot program had grown exponentially since 2001 from 500 to more than 30,000 authorized persons.

“This rapid increase has had unintended consequences for public health, safety and security as a result of allowing individuals to produce marijuana in their homes,” the release said. “Under the new regulations, production will no longer take place in homes and municipal zoning laws will need to be respected, which will further enhance public safety.”

Aglukkaq confirmed details of the new program during a press conference held on June 10 in an Ottawa fire hall.

“While the courts have said that there must be reasonable access to a legal source of marijuana for medical purposes, we believe that this must be done in a controlled fashion in order to protect public safety,” Aglukkaq said. “These changes will strengthen the safety of Canadian communities, while making sure patients can access what they need to treat serious illnesses.”

Bills questioned the number of fires that were actually sparked by medical marijuana grow-ops, and said the cost of related home invasions nationwide quoted by government — about $2 million per year — was a “pretty pathetic” figure.

“I think they’re blowing up their statistics and the harm of it all, and it’s not going to do away with medical marijuana grows,” Bills said.

Saying education and inspections would be a far better approach, Bills reiterated a theme expressed by patients and growers at the Sechelt rally in February.

“The Harper government doesn’t want it to work. They’re going to spend a lot of money dragging it through the courts, and they’re going to lose, because the courts have been clear that it has to be reasonable access,” he said.

The new rules, he added, are “just scary” in light of the Conservatives’ mandatory minimum sentencing provisions and civil forfeiture laws, which could result in unlicensed growers having their homes seized.

“There’s Charter rights involved — that’s what people don’t understand,” Bills said. “They’re constitutional rights and government is taking them away.”

Source: Coast Reporter (CN BC)
Copyright: 2013 Coast Reporter
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.coastreporter.net/
Author: John Gleeson

25 Jun 2013

Bill To License Dispensaries Clears Oregon House

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

The House narrowly passed a bill Monday that would license and regulate medical marijuana dispensaries, a proposal that some lawmakers argue would allow more patients to safely access the drug but others worry could heighten abuse of the program.

The state currently allows patients with certain debilitating medical conditions to grow their own marijuana or designate someone else to do it but there isn’t a place to legally purchase the medicine.

Under House Bill 3460, the Oregon Health Authority would set up a registration system of medical marijuana dispensaries, authorizing the transfer of the drug and immature marijuana plants to patients. The facilities would also have to comply with regulations for pesticides, mold and mildew testing, which supporters say will help ensure the drug isn’t contaminated.

The bill passed on a 31-27 vote and is now headed to the Senate.

Rep. Brian Clem, D-Salem, told lawmakers on the floor that when his father-in-law was dying from lung cancer a doctor recommended medical marijuana to help with appetite and chemotherapy.

While he considers marijuana a gateway drug, he supports the bill because of his personal experience.

“I witnessed firsthand what it was like to have somebody be told you need this, you’re going to die. This is the only thing that might make you feel better but figure out some way to buy it off the street if you can figure it out because there’s no way for me to legally get it into your hands and I’m your doctor,” Clem said.

But former Oregon State Police officer Rep. Andy Olson, R-Albany, told lawmakers the bill does little to address the abuses in the state’s medical marijuana program.

“It’s not that I’m opposed to medical marijuana. I’m a major advocate for those who are in need of marijuana as a medicine. I am opposed to the abuse,” he said.

In a lengthy floor speech, Olson talked about various concerns he had about the bill including federal law enforcement, drug trafficking, public safety, Rick Simpson’s hemp oil and out-of-state and youth access to the drug.

Olson read from a 2012 story by The Oregonian about how drug traffickers have exploited the state’s medical marijuana program.

He told lawmakers he would be committed to working with the other party on a more comprehensive bill to correct the abuses in program and provide the access the patients need.

The bill’s lead sponsor Rep. Peter Buckley, D-Ashland, and other lawmakers argued while the bill doesn’t fix every problem in the program it’s a step in the right direction.

“The black market of medical marijuana is out of hand,” he said. “The ability to trace with accuracy cardholders and growers is extremely problematic.”

Supporters of the bill include medical marijuana dispensaries, the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum and other advocacy groups.

Medical marijuana facilities would pay a registration fee of $4,000 each, according to the bill’s fiscal note. If an estimated 225 facilities register, the state would receive about $900,000 in the next two years. Revenue from the fees would help offset the cost of creating and running a new registration system.

Marijuana is still illegal under federal law, meaning it has no accepted medical use.

Source: Statesman Journal (OR)
Author: Queenie Wong, Statesman Journal
Published: June 24, 2013
Copyright: 2013 Statesman Journal
Contact: [email protected]
URL: http://drugsense.org/url/51Kl9UjA
Website: http://www.statesmanjournal.com/

25 Jun 2013

Evil Monsanto Aggressively Sues Farmers for Saving Seeds

posted in: Industrial Hemp | 0

Farmers have always saved seeds from their harvest to sow the following year. But Monsanto and other big seed companies have changed the rules of the game.

June 20, 2013 |

The following content originally appeared on TruthOut.

There has been mixed news for the agrochemical giant Monsanto recently. On the one hand, there was the surprise announcement on June 1 by company spokesman Brandon Mitchener: “We are no longer working on lobbying for more cultivation in Europe… Currently we do not plan to apply for the approval of new genetically modified crops.”

The embattled corporation has decided to stop tilting against the windmill of European resistance to its controversial biotech seeds. Eight EU nations have already prohibited GM (genetically modified) cultivation on their territory and banned the import of genetically modified foods from abroad.

But Monsanto’s prospects in the United States took a very different turn last month when the US Supreme Court ordered Indiana farmer Vernon Bowman to pay Monsanto over $80,000 for planting its GM soybean seeds. Bowman had purchased the seeds from a grain elevator rather than from Monsanto itself, as their corporate contract requires. The seeds had been saved from an earlier crop.

For as long as humans have been growing food, farmers have saved seeds from their harvest to sow the following year. But Monsanto and other big seed companies have changed the rules of the game. They have successfully argued that they spend millions of dollars developing new crop varieties and that these products should be treated as proprietary inventions with full patent protection. Just as one can’t legally reproduce a CD or DVD, farmers are now prohibited from copying the GM seeds that they purchase from companies like Monsanto, Bayer, Dow and Syngenta.

In one sense, these corporations no longer sell seeds – they lease them, requiring farmers to renew their lease with every subsequent growing season. Monsanto itself compares its GM seeds to rental cars. When you are finished using them, rights revert to the owner of the “intellectual property” contained within the seed.

Some farmers have saved their seeds anyway (called “brown bagging”), in some cases to save money, in others because they don’t like the big companies telling them how to farm. Monsanto has responded with an all-out effort to track down the brown baggers and prosecute them as an example to others who might be tempted to violate its patent. By aggressively enforcing its “no replant policy,” Monsanto has initiated a permanent low-grade war against farmers. At the time of this writing, the company had not responded to emailed questions about its seed saving policies.

“I don’t know of [another] company that chooses to sue its own customer base,” Joseph Mendelson of the Center for Food Safety told Vanity Fair Magazine. ” It’s a very bizarre business strategy.”

Yet the strategy appears to be working. Over 90 percent of the soybeans, corn, canola and cotton grown in the United States are patented genetically modified organisms (commonly known as GMOs). The soybean variety that Bowman planted has proved popular with farmers because it has been modified to survive multiple sprayings by Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Roundup, whose active agent is glyphosate. While Monsanto claims that GMOs increase crop yields, there is little evidence that this is the case. The chemical giant turned seed company also claims that the new technology decreases the need for agrochemicals. Yet 85 percent of all GM crops are bred to be herbicide resistant, which has meant that pesticide use is increasing as a result of the spread of GM crops. What GMOs were designed to do – and indeed accomplish – is create plants that can be grown efficiently in the chemical-intensive large scale monocultures that dominate American agriculture.

Pages

View as a single page

CONTINUE TO SITE HERE…

23 Jun 2013

Veterans Key To Medical Marijuana Lobby Efforts

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

When a constant, “sputtering” pain grips Jim Champion’s arms and legs, the Army veteran says only one thing brings him relief: marijuana.

Champion, who suffers from a progressive form of multiple sclerosis, hopes his experience with marijuana as medicine will help bring relief to other suffering veterans in Illinois. He’s told his story to Gov. Pat Quinn, who now faces a decision whether to sign a measure legalizing medical marijuana in the state.

The veteran, who met Quinn in 2011, says his illness started with blurred vision when he was in the military 25 years ago and ultimately left him a quadriplegic reliant on his wife for care. Pills he took to control pain, which causes violent tremors and leaves him at times unable to open his fists, killed his appetite and turned him “into a zombie,” he says. At the same time, the marijuana his wife adds to baked goods relaxed him.

“My nerves kinda shut off. They quit jumping, sputtering,” Champion said. “So far I’ve found no medicine that’s capable of doing that.”

Pleas from people such as Champion who have serious illnesses have been central to efforts to lobby for legalized medical marijuana in Illinois. As Quinn decides whether to sign the measure, those personal stories could make the difference.

Quinn has placed veterans’ issues at the top of his agenda since before he held the state’s highest office. That has included attending their funerals, creating a relief fund for families who lost active-duty soldiers and traveling to Germany each Christmas to visit wounded soldiers.

The Democratic governor has mentioned hearing compelling stories of sick patients, including a veteran, who have been aided by cannabis. But Quinn, facing the start of what could be a tough re-election campaign, has said only that he’s “open minded” to the proposal.

Some law enforcement officials are against the measure, which would allow seriously ill patients — the bill describes roughly 30 conditions — who have a doctor’s approval to access the drug.

Veterans for Medical Cannabis Access, a Virginia-based nonprofit group, has organized in several states including Illinois, saying marijuana can help people with post-traumatic stress disorder find balance.

“Really the choices are few and basically suck,” said Michael Krawitz, the group’s executive director. “It’s a population that finds cannabis really, really useful.”

Opponents have been vocal as well.

The Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police and the Illinois Sheriffs’ Association have called on Quinn to veto the measure, saying it would create troubles for motorists. The Chicago Crime Commission, a non-government group that looks at crime trends, says legalized marijuana raises too many questions and that the allowed amount — 2.5 ounces per patient at a time — is too high.

“Would it wind its way to family members? On purpose or inadvertently? Would it wind its way onto the street corner drug trade?” asked Joe Ways, the commission’s executive director.

Proponents say the 2.5-ounces limit is necessary for baking, in case a patient can’t smoke.

The measure outlines a four-year pilot program that requires patients and caregivers to undergo background checks and sets provisions for state-regulated dispensaries. The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Lou Lang, a Skokie Democrat, said the regulations are stiff.

“There’s an absolute need out there. It will help the quality of life immensely for a lot of people,” Lang said. “Every leaf, every transaction is going to be tracked.”

Champion would like for his wife to be able to buy marijuana for him without the legal risk.

After being diagnosed with the autoimmune disease that affects the central nervous system, Champion was medically discharged from the Army in 1989.

Over the years, doctors prescribed numerous medications — including morphine, valium and methadone — to help him deal with the pain, until he was taking 59 pills a day. The medications made it difficult for Champion to eat. Last year, he experienced kidney failure. Once a robust 185 pounds, he saw the scale dip to near 130.

“You don’t remember a lot. You’re not hungry. You’re constantly sick to your stomach. You’re tired. You’re shaky,” he said.

Marijuana brought back his appetite and eased the pain without side effects, he said. While neither likes that she buys the drug on the streets, his wife, Sandy Champion, agrees to be interviewed about it, and both say it’s worth the risk. He’s decreased his daily pills to around two dozen.

Champion is optimistic about the bill’s chances and believes Quinn’s talk about the sacrifices of service members is heartfelt.

“I reminded him that I was one of those veterans,” he said.

Source: Associated Press (Wire)
Author: Sophia Tareen, Associated Press
Published: June 21, 2013
Copyright: 2013 The Associated Press

« 1 … 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 … 174 »