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/

27 Feb 2013

Holder Promises Marijuana Verdict Coming ‘Soon’

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

Attorney General Eric Holder promised Washington and Colorado state attorneys general on Tuesday that the Justice Department would issue its verdict “soon” on how it plans to treat the states’ recent moves to legalize marijuana.

“We’re still in the process of reviewing both of the initiatives that were passed,” said Holder, speaking at the National Association of Attorney General annual conference in Washington, D.C.

“You will hear soon. We’re in the last stages of that review and we’re trying to make a determination as to what the policy ramifications are going to be, what our international obligations are — there are a whole variety of things that go into this determination — but the people of [Colorado] and Washington deserve an answer and you will have one soon.”

Holder was responding to Colorado state attorney general John Suthers, who asked the nation’s top law enforcement official when the DOJ would be weighing in on the state laws that have been in effect for nearly two months.

The DOJ is charged with enforcing the federal prohibition on marijuana, and the state laws run counter to the long-existing ban, creating a debate over which law should be enforced and which law is most responsive to the will of the people.

Marijuana has been a centerpiece of the federal government’s “war on drugs,” aimed at cracking down on drug use in the United States. But the growing number of people who support the decriminalization of pot — which is still legally classified nationally in the same category as heroin — has some policymakers in Washington, D.C., rethinking their approach.

On Monday, nearly a dozen House Democrats introduced several bills that would decriminalize marijuana and remove the drug from the list of controlled substances, while requiring the federal government to regulate it and impose penalties on tax-evaders.

Holder has met or talked with both governors and attorneys general from Colorado and Washington during the DOJ’s review process, posing a series of questions to the state leaders, such as how they plan to prevent marijuana produced in the state from being trafficked to other states where the drug is not legal.

Source: Hill, The (US DC)
Author: Jordy Yager
Published: February 26, 2013
Copyright: 2013 The Hill
Website: http://www.hillnews.com/

26 Feb 2013

Will High Marijuana Taxes Encourage Black Markets?

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

Opponents of marijuana prohibition had one heck of a year in 2012, as voters in both Washington and Colorado passed ballot initiatives legalizing recreational use of the drug. One of the central arguments these folks used in their anti-prohibition campaign was to point out what an excellent revenue source a well-regulated and heavily taxed marijuana industry could be for states. And in a time when the federal and state governments are so hard up for revenue, the tax receipts legal marijuana could bring in, plus reduced strain on law enforcement, could be significant. A 2010 Cato Institute study of the issue estimated that if marijuana prohibition were ended nationwide, it would save state, local, and federal governments $8.7 billion annually in reduced law enforcement costs, and bring in another $8.7 billion in tax revenues.

But as it turns out, actually figuring out an appropriate marijuana tax policy is more complicated than it sounds. The cannabis industry is an easy target for legislatures to saddle with heavy taxes. In Washington State for instance, there is a 25% tax at three different stages of cannabis production: from the grower to the processor, from the processor to the retailer, and the retailer to the customer. These taxes are in addition to any other state or local sales taxes that might apply.

But that’s not all. The ultimate goal for opponents of marijuana prohibition is federal legalization. But any serious reform of federal marijuana policy will most certainly include a hefty federal excise tax as well in order to 1) help fund regulatory mechanisms; and 2) garner support from lawmakers who would not otherwise be disposed to reform. Oregon Representative Earl Blumenauer, for instance, has introduced marijuana reform legislation that would enact a 50% excise tax on production.

Proponents of legalization understand that healthy sales taxes are a great tool for furthering their cause. At a certain point, however, high taxes will encourage an illicit market. Where is the line? It’s difficult to know for sure, but if a 50% tax were enacted on the federal level, the marijuana industry in a state like Washington would face at least $1.92 in tax for every $1 of product sold. Whether this level of taxation is enough to encourage a black market is difficult to say.

The black market generally imposes its own costs — purveyors can charge a premium because of the risks they incur. But the regulatory burden for legal marijuana cultivation is high as well. In Colorado, for instance, where medical marijuana has been legal for more than a decade, growers are required to keep their operations under 24-7 video surveillance, procure criminal background checks for workers, and keep regulators alerted each and every time they move product. These are just a few of the regulations that can help to drive up the price of legal cannabis cultivation and encourage illicit markets to develop.

Another vexing tax problem facing Washington state lawmakers particularly is whether or not medical marijuana should be taxed at the same rates as pot consumed recreationally. As it stands, medical marijuana — just like other medications — is not taxed in Washington State. But lawmakers are concerned that having the same product be taxed in some instances while not taxed in others will create a black market whereby medical marijuana is sold illicitly to recreational consumers. One possible way to avoid this problem would be to tax all marijuana products the same, and then allow patients with a prescription to file for a refund.

For opponents of prohibition, taxes are the one of the best tools to convince citizens and governments of the benefits of a well-regulated marijuana industry. But the marijuana industry in America — in all its various stages of legality — is large and well-developed. Some even estimate it to be the single largest cash crop in the country. Given that fact, one can’t expect the black market to dissapear overnight if taxes and regulations make legal marijuana prohibitively expensive. And as legislators continue the process of setting up a tax and regulatory structure for this budding industry, it’s a reality they had better take into account.

Source: Time Magazine (US)
Author: Christopher Matthews
Published: February 25, 2013
Copyright: 2013 Time Inc.
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.time.com/time/

26 Feb 2013

Give This Plant its Due: Legalize Hemp

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

As states of a more liberal bent battle the federal government over the legalization of medical and even recreational marijuana, another cannabis battle has reemerged in the farm states. But if pot smoking raises troubling moral and safety questions, industrial hemp does not.

Activists have been struggling to legalize hemp for decades in the U.S., but only recently has the issue seemingly caught fire in Congress. Last week, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell signed on to legislation that had for years been championed by Texas Rep. Ron Paul, the former GOP presidential contender, and has now been taken up by his son Rand, the Republican senator from Kentucky. It would remove hemp from the federal government’s list of Schedule 1 controlled substances and make it legal to cultivate the plant.

What’s so hep about hemp? Supporters tout it as a wonder fiber with dozens of potential uses that would find a lucrative market in the U.S. But while that may be an exaggeration — hemp is unlikely to become anything more than a specialty crop for a few hundred growers supplying goods to high-end food markets and low-end textile producers — there’s no denying that it’s a highly useful weed. The global market for hemp consists of some 25,000 products, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service, including fabric, paper, rope, auto parts and home furnishings. Hemp seed, meanwhile, is an alternative protein source used in a variety of food and beverages, and can be pressed to make body oils, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals.

Despite all this, it is illegal to grow hemp anywhere in the U.S. without permission from the Drug Enforcement Administration. There are currently no active federal licenses, so all hemp products produced here are made from imported material.

Based on its classification under the Controlled Substances Act, one might suspect that hemp provides a cheap high for pot fiends, but one would have to smoke an absurd amount of rope to catch a hemp buzz. The plant seems to have been deemed guilty by association with marijuana because both come from the same species, Cannabis sativa. But just as some mushrooms are magical while others are only good in a salad, not all varieties of cannabis are the same. The intoxicating chemical in marijuana, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), is heavily concentrated in the marijuana plant: anywhere from 10% to 30%. The THC content of hemp, by contrast, is less than 1%, and in the varieties legally cultivated in the European Union and Canada must be less than 0.3%.

Historically, hemp was an important crop in the U.S. before it was caught up in an anti-marijuana crusade in the 1930s. When the Controlled Substances Act was approved in 1970, it took the definition of marijuana from the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, which considered all varieties of Cannabis sativa to be dangerous and narcotic. Despite court challenges, the DEA continues to insist that any plant containing THC, no matter how little, must be tightly controlled.

Legalization opponents, including the California Narcotics Officers Assn., argue that legalizing hemp would complicate the enforcement of laws against cultivating marijuana because the plants are almost indistinguishable from each other; marijuana growers, in other words, could easily conceal their plants in hemp fields. The association opposed a 2011 state bill to create pilot programs for hemp cultivation, which was approved by the Legislature but vetoed by Gov. Jerry Brown because hemp production violates federal law.

Of course, few sensible growers of marijuana would raise their plants in a hemp field. The two varieties would cross-pollinate, severely lowering the pot’s THC content and rendering it all but useless medicinally or as a recreational drug.

Reasonable people can disagree about whether marijuana should be legalized. But the dangers of growing industrial hemp are next to nonexistent. To date, nine states have approved its cultivation, but none has any active fields because of a refusal by the DEA to grant growing permits.

Enough. Hemp is a rare issue that Republicans and Democrats, and members of Congress from both rural and urban states, ought to be able to agree on. Legalize it.

Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Published: February 25, 2013
Copyright: 2013 Los Angeles Times
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.latimes.com/

22 Feb 2013

Bill To Legalize Marijuana in Maine

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

Lawmakers from opposite ends of the political spectrum unveiled a bill Thursday that would give Mainers the chance to legalize marijuana for recreational use in a statewide referendum.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Diane Russell, D-Portland, and co-sponsored by Rep. Aaron Libby, R-Waterboro, would make vast changes in Maine’s drug law, ranging from making possession of up to 2.5 ounces of pot legal to imposing a tax of $50 per ounce.

Russell and others argued during a press conference Thursday afternoon at the State House that laws against marijuana have enmeshed too many nonviolent offenders in the legal system and deprived government coffers of millions of dollars in revenue. Russell estimated that taxing and regulating marijuana could generate up to $13 million a year, three-quarters of which she proposes routing into the state’s General Fund, which supports the majority of state government including public education and most social services. The rest of the revenue would pay for implementation of the law, substance abuse treatment and prevention programs, and research on the effects of marijuana.

“We have retail establishments that grow and supply [medical] marijuana to responsible consumers,” said Russell, whose first effort to legalize marijuana failed in the Legislature two years ago. “We have proven here in Maine that this can be done for medicinal purposes and it’s now time to institute that same strict regulatory infrastructure for responsible adult recreational consumers.”

Russell proposes making it legal for individuals to grow as many as six plants if they are cultivated in a locked space. She also supports allowing the transfer of the drug from one adult to another without compensation, as long as they are at least 21 years old. The bill would make it illegal to smoke pot in public and calls on the Department of Administrative and Financial Services to license marijuana retail stores, cultivation facilities, product manufacturing facilities and testing facilities.

Libby said his support for the bill isn’t about promoting drug use, but rather about taking government regulation out of what he called a “morality issue.”

“I believe that ending marijuana prohibition is a true part of limited government,” said Libby. “As a fiscal conservative, I see great potential in the economic growth of removing these prohibitions.”

David Boyer, who is the Maine political director for a Washington D.C.-based group called the Marijuana Policy Project, argued that in many ways marijuana is far less harmful than alcohol.

“Marijuana is objectively far less harmful than alcohol for the consumer and for the broader community,” he said. “It is irrational to punish adults who simply prefer to use the less harmful substance. Law enforcement resources should be focused on preventing and responding to serious crimes rather than enforcing the failed policy of marijuana prohibition.”

Denison Gallaudet, a former superintendent in the Richmond area, also supports the bill because of the potential revenue that could be reaped by the state. But another reason for his support of the bill is that in his experience, drug laws don’t keep marijuana out of the hands of kids.

“We were confronted with the fact that our high school kids were smoking marijuana at twice the rate of smoking cigarettes,” said Gallaudet of his time as superintedent. “This is clearly a plan that is not working.”

If passed by the Legislature, “An Act to Tax and Regulate Marijuana” would result in a statewide referendum in November 2014.

Washington and Colorado approved ballot measures last year that legalized marijuana for recreational use. Bills to regulate and tax marijuana like alcohol also are expected to be debated this year in Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Vermont, according to the Marijuana Policy Project.

Source: Bangor Daily News (ME)
Author: Christopher Cousins, Bangor Daily News
Published: February 21, 2013
Copyright: 2013 Bangor Daily News Inc.
Website: http://www.bangornews.com/

14 Feb 2013

Hemp Growing Finds Allies in Kentucky

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

In 1996 the actor Woody Harrelson, who has a sideline as an activist for legalizing marijuana, was arrested in Kentucky for planting four hemp seeds. Last month Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader, announced his support for growing hemp in Kentucky, his home state.

Between those jarringly disparate events lies the evolution of hemp from a countercultural cause to an issue championed by farmers in the heartland and conservative lawmakers.

On Monday, a panel of the Republican-controlled Kentucky State Senate unanimously approved a bill to license hemp growers. It was promoted by the state agriculture commissioner and three members of the state’s Congressional delegation, including Senator Rand Paul, who removed his jacket to testify in a white shirt that he announced was made of hemp fibers.

If the bill is approved by the full Legislature, Kentucky will join eight other states that have adopted laws to allow commercial hemp growing, although the practice is effectively blocked by federal law that makes no distinction between hemp and marijuana.

Mr. Paul, a Republican, said he would seek a waiver from the Obama administration for Kentucky hemp growers, while pressing Congress to delist hemp as a controlled substance, which hemp supporters say is a legacy of antidrug hysteria.

Both plants are the same species, Cannabis sativa, but hemp has only a trace of the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. Hemp’s champions see it as a source of agricultural jobs, an alternative for struggling tobacco farmers and a wonder plant with uses from bluejeans to building materials.

Attitudes are changing in surprising places. At a hearing on Monday in Frankfort, the Kentucky capital, the state police commissioner’s opposition to hemp growing was challenged by a former C.I.A. director, R. James Woolsey.

“The specter of people getting high on industrial hemp,” Mr. Woolsey said, “is pretty much exactly like saying you can get drunk on O’Doul’s.”

Hemp supporters say it is only a matter of time before legalization comes as people more fully understand the plant. They also point to states where voters legalized recreational marijuana in November — Colorado and Washington — as inevitably forcing a change in priorities in the Obama administration.

“The demonology of hemp is exposed as being not valid,” said Representative John Yarmuth, Democrat of Kentucky, a sponsor of a bill in the House to allow hemp cultivation. He said the movement to accept hemp has the same inevitability that he attributed to acceptance of same-sex marriage.

Still, the federal government has been unyielding. Farmers in states that allow hemp must seek a waiver from the Drug Enforcement Administration or risk being raided by federal agents and losing their farms.

Dave Monson, a North Dakota wheat farmer and Republican state representative, has held a state hemp license since 2007, when North Dakota legalized cultivation. But he has no plans to plant. “I applied for a D.E.A. license, never got one,” he said.

A spokesman for the drug agency said it did not keep statistics on permits to grow hemp, which it does not distinguish from marijuana under the Controlled Substance Act of 1970.

Mr. Monson knows farmers just north of the Canadian border who profitably grow hemp, and he argues that it can be an economic boon. “The more states that do what we have done in North Dakota, if we can keep the pressure on, I think we’re going to see some movement at the federal level,” he said.

Hemp supporters claim a total retail value of products containing hemp at more than $400 million in the United States. But a Congressional Research Service report last year found that imported hemp raw materials was small, only $11.5 million. All hemp used in United States today — such as in Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps sold at Whole Foods — is imported, mostly from China.

Rodney Brewer, the commissioner of the Kentucky State Police, said that if hemp farming were legal, marijuana growers would hide their plants in hemp fields and the police could not tell them apart.

“They are identical in appearance when it comes to the naked eye,” Mr. Brewer said, predicting that legalizing hemp would create a boom for pot growers.

But Mr. Woolsey, who said he favored hemp because of “my interest in prosperity for rural America,” argued that no pot farmer would hide plants in a hemp field for fear that low-potency hemp would cross-pollinate with marijuana and lower the concentration of THC, its psychoactive ingredient.

Marijuana growers “hate the idea of having industrial hemp anywhere near,” he said.

The Kentucky bill faces resistance from some lawmakers, including the speaker of the State House.

Mr. Paul, after calling attention to his hemp shirt at the hearing in Frankfort, seemed to roll his eyes when he said, “You’d think you’re at a D.E.A. hearing.”

“This is a hearing about a crop,” he said. “It’s a crop that’s legal everywhere else in the world except the United States.”

Mr. Paul, elected in 2010 with Tea Party support, promised to introduce a Senate bill as a companion to the pro-hemp bill in the House, which has 28 co-sponsors. He is following in the family footsteps, since the first House bill allowing hemp was introduced several years ago by his father, Ron Paul, a former Texas congressman and Republican presidential candidate. Ron Paul’s embrace of the issue fit his deep libertarian streak, which also at times embraced legalizing marijuana and other drugs.

Those positions placed hemp far outside the mainstream in many lawmakers’ minds, just as the image of its products — soaps, sandals and natural foods sold at co-ops — placed it in a counterculture.

But no better sign exists that hemp’s image is changing than its embrace by Mr. McConnell, the minority leader, who said in a statement last month that his mind had been changed “after long discussions” with Rand Paul and the Kentucky agriculture commissioner, James Comer, a Republican.

“The utilization of hemp to produce everything from clothing to paper is real,” Mr. McConnell said.

A version of this article appeared in print on February 13, 2013, on page A16 of the New York edition with the headline: Hemp Growing Finds Allies of a New Stripe in Kentucky.

Source: New York Times (NY)
Author: Trip Gabriel
Published: February 13, 2013
Copyright: 2013 The New York Times Company
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/

12 Feb 2013

Doors Swing Open For Marijuana On Capitol Hill

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

Advocates for the legalization of marijuana plan to step up their political giving and lobbying efforts now that members of Congress are taking an interest in changing federal drug laws.

The lobbyists say lawmakers who wouldn’t give them the time of day are suddenly interested in meeting with them and introducing legislation following the approval of ballot initiatives in Colorado and Washington that legalized recreational use of the drug.

“These were folks who wouldn’t take a call five years ago and now they are calling us and telling us to get up there with our PAC money and our expertise,” said Allen St. Pierre, executive director for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). “For those of us who have been at this for the past 20 years, it has been nice to see the warm turn.”

Some pro-legalization groups are increasing their fundraising as lawmakers consider drug legislation. Steve Fox, director of government relations for the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), said the group is planning more aggressive fundraising through its political action committee.

“Our hope is to exceed what we have done in any previous cycle,” Fox said.

The group is aiming to get more than $150,000 in contributions to its PAC for the 2014 election cycle — topping its previous record of more than $119,000 in donations for the 2006 campaign, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) records.

Further, the PAC is changing its name to the Marijuana Policy Project PAC, dropping a prior reference to medical marijuana. Fox, who also lobbies for the National Cannabis Industry Association, said the name change signals that a broader reform agenda is now on the table.

“The ground has shifted and we now see members of Congress wanting to regulate marijuana like alcohol. The name change reflects that our activity on the federal level is no longer just about medical marijuana,” Fox said.

But strategists looking to reform drug policies are choosing their battles carefully at the state level.

In a Nov. 28, 2012, memo obtained by The Hill, Rob Kampia, MPP’s executive director, said Oregon should wait until 2016 to for a marijuana legalization ballot drive, when another presidential election would boost turnout among young voters.

“Given that an initiative in November 2014 would be almost certain to lose, MPP would contribute no money toward a signature drive, paid staff, or advertising during the 2013-2014 cycle,” Kampia wrote to Oregon activists.

Kampia said MPP is interested in passing an Oregon ballot initiative in 2016 and would contribute $700,000 to the effort.

“There is going to be disagreement at times. That’s par for the course. It’s like any other issue advocacy group. We will agree on the objectives but we might disagree on how to get there,” said Roy Kaufmann, one of the activists who received the memo and is now MPP’s Oregon representative and agrees with waiting until 2016.

Kaufmann was the campaign strategist for Measure 80 in Oregon, the marijuana legalization ballot effort that failed in 2012.

“We can’t tell our funders in good faith that they should fund a 2014 initiative. We are not saying it’s impossible to win. We are just saying it’s a completely unnecessary risk,” Fox said. “The only thing that can keep Oregon from winning this in 2016 is a loss in 2014.”

As the movement for marijuana legalization spreads, competition for fundraising dollars is likely to grow. A number of well-heeled donors have already opened their wallets for the cause.

New Approach Washington, the main group that campaigned for legalization in that state, took in more than $6 million in contributions last election cycle.

The prolific liberal donor Peter Lewis gave more than $2 million to New Approach Washington for their legalization campaign, according to state campaign finance records. Drug Policy Action — the 501(c)(4) affiliate of Drug Policy Alliance — contributed more than $1.6 million. George Soros sits on Drug Policy Alliance’s board of directors and was a major donor to Drug Policy Action in 2012.

Lobbyists say the battle that is brewing over drug laws will be far-reaching and not confined to recreational use of marijuana.

“You going to see reform on federal drug policy in general,” said Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance. “It’s not just about marijuana. It’s about racial disparity, over-incarceration and saving money as well.”

Capitol Hill has certainly taken notice.

Reps. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) and Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) each introduced separate bills this past week that would regulate and tax marijuana like alcohol. The two lawmakers also released a report on how to rethink federal marijuana policy.

On the other side of the Capitol, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, plans to hold a hearing on marijuana policy this Congress.

Drug laws are also getting a second look from the GOP, with Kentucky Republicans rallying behind industrial hemp. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) introduced legislation this past week to exclude hemp from the Controlled Substances Act’s definition of marijuana.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has backed that effort, saying he became convinced that hemp production would be good for his state after long discussions with the libertarian Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).

Lobbyists don’t expect a marijuana legalization bill will be on President Obama’s desk this Congress, but lawmakers know they will have to reconcile federal policy at some point with the legalization movement sweeping the states.

“I often tell elected officials that if you are going to remain relevant in politics, you are going to have to move towards drug policy reform because that’s where the younger voters are,” Piper said.

One Democrat said he’s made a personal appeal to Obama — who has admitted to smoking marijuana as a teenager — for changes to federal policy.

“I raised the issue myself with the president at the Democratic retreat [on Thursday]. … It should change,” Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), noting thousands of people are in jail for marijuana use.

Cohen plans to introduce legislation to create a commission to study states where medical marijuana and marijuana have been legalized. Advocates believe the bill could attract White House support.

“The commission gives the president some maneuvering room by affording him time and his administration acknowledges that public attitudes about this have changed,” St. Pierre said.

Source: Hill, The (US DC)
Author: Kevin Bogardus
Published: February 10, 2013
Copyright: 2013 The Hill
Website: http://www.hillnews.com/

1 … 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 … 41