Highlighted – Page 16

11 May 2013

The Marijuana Measures

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

The regulation of medical marijuana in Los Angeles is a mess and has been ever since Proposition 215 was approved by California voters in November 1996.

Repeated state and city efforts to bring the chaotic situation under control have had little effect. A move by the City Council in 2007 to register medical marijuana dispensaries, for instance, led instead to an unexpected proliferation. An attempt to limit them in 2010 drew 66 lawsuits and a court-ordered injunction. An ordinance to ban them outright in 2012 was quickly repealed after marijuana businesses gathered enough signatures for a referendum to overturn the measure. Court decisions designed to clarify the murky laws have instead contradicted one another.

Today, there are an estimated 850 dispensaries — or maybe it’s 1,000 or 1,600 (no one seems sure) — operating in Los Angeles despite the city’s position that they’re illegal. Everyone knows that medical marijuana can be easily obtained by recreational users who aren’t truly sick. The “medicine” is not monitored by the government for potential health or safety problems; the dispensaries, by many accounts, are not nonprofit “collectives,” as state law requires (although it’s not really clear what a nonprofit collective is or isn’t). Residents in some neighborhoods complain that they are being overrun by dispensaries, and that many pot shops serve as hubs for crime.

A mess, like we said. And on May 21, Angelenos will have the opportunity to muck it up even further, if they’re not careful. On the ballot will be not one or two but three competing marijuana initiatives: Measures D, E and F.

It would be easy enough to urge a no vote on all three, and to call on the city to impose a full-scale ban instead. After all, The Times opposed Proposition 215 from the outset, partly because it was sloppily written and partly because it set up an inevitable conflict with the federal government, which continues to classify marijuana as illegal and dangerous.

But voting no solves nothing. The people of Los Angeles, like the people of California, overwhelmingly support making medical marijuana available to cancer patients, glaucoma sufferers and others. A ban would be unlikely to pass, and besides, denying marijuana to truly sick patients who can benefit from it would be a step backward. Given that, and given that the status quo is entirely unacceptable, the city’s best hope is to try to carry out the will of the voters with minimal confusion and maximum control to ensure that medical marijuana remains accessible to those who need it.

Measure D will come the closest to accomplishing that goal, or at least will put us on the right road.

Most important, it would impose limits on the number of marijuana businesses in the city, allowing about 135 dispensaries to remain open — those that were operating and registered under city laws in 2007 and that sought to re-register in 2011. Limits are essential. Even people who support easy access to medical cannabis can see that there need to be rules and oversight, as with bars and liquor stores. But resources are limited, and the city can’t police an infinite number of establishments.

Measure D is backed by both mayoral candidates and the current city attorney and his challenger. It applies to any organization of four or more people who cultivate, process, distribute or give away medical marijuana. It hikes the gross receipts tax on their operations — to $60 per $1,000 of gross receipts — and establishes the distances they must keep from schools, parks, one another and residential neighborhoods. It sets hours — they must be closed between 8 p.m. and 10 a.m. — prohibits the consumption of marijuana on the premises and requires background checks on managers, among other provisions.

It is far from perfect. For one thing, it is somewhat arbitrary. Why should a handful of dispensaries that got in under the wire in 2007 be the ones that now get to stay open? There’s no reason to think those particular establishments are more responsible than any other. For another, if it is passed, the city will be required to close hundreds of existing dispensaries, which could prove difficult, legally and practically. Here’s another thing: Measure D doesn’t create a process for a new dispensary to open when one of the 135 closes; that seems like an unfortunate oversight. And it would be far better if the measure could be amended or repealed by the City Council without requiring an additional vote of the people. But it cannot.

Still, Measure D is the best of the bunch.

Measure F, by contrast, sets no limits. It includes some strong rules and protections — in some cases stronger than those in D. But the city simply can’t sustain an unlimited number of dispensaries. Supporters of F say there would be de facto limits as a result of the requirements about how close dispensaries could be to schools, parks and one another, and that the final number would be in the hundreds. But what guarantee is there? Certainly nothing in the law.

As for Measure E — ignore it. That measure became moot after its supporters agreed to throw their support to Measure D.

No matter what you think of medical marijuana, it’s hard to deny that implementation of Proposition 215 has been unsuccessful. The Legislature and the state attorney general’s office were late to offer much-needed guidance. The federal government sent mixed messages about what it would or would not tolerate. The city of Los Angeles has flailed around, trying and failing to devise a workable set of rules.

Even if Measure D passes, there will still be no way to ensure that medical marijuana goes only to the sick people who are entitled to it, or that the product being sold is safe and untainted. Moreover, there will still be no resolution to the ongoing conflict between state and federal law. Perhaps one day the U.S. government will decide that marijuana should no longer be a Schedule I controlled substance, which means it has no medical use and is as dangerous as heroin. If that happens, perhaps the Food and Drug Administration will regulate it, doctors across the country will be able to prescribe it for patients they believe need it, and pharmacies will be able to provide it, just as they do with other medicines.

Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Published: May 10, 2013
Copyright: 2013 Los Angeles Times
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.latimes.com/

9 May 2013

Medical Marijuana Dispensary Bans Upheld By High Court

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

California Supreme Court Rules Cities and Counties Can Use Zoning to Ban Pot Shops

The state Supreme Court decisively ruled Monday that cities and counties have the right to ban medical marijuana dispensaries from operating within their territory, but leading activists say their fight for easy access is not over.

“This is pretty much the end of the road, unless the state Legislature changes how much it allows the city to regulate,” said J. David Nick, who argued the dispensaries’ position in front of the high court and represents a few dispensaries in the Coachella Valley. He does not anticipate any sort of appeal. “You’re going to see some very specific legislation to address the decision of the court.”

The Supreme Court ruled 7-0 in favor of Riverside, which took the Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center to court after it opened in defiance of that city’s ordinance banning dispensaries in 2009.

Since first filing a complaint the following year, Riverside has prevailed at the trial and appellate levels, but judges across the state have been handing down contradictory opinions on whether local governments could outlaw storefront dispensaries under California’s 1996 voter-approved medical marijuana act, the nation’s first.

The decision written by Justice Marvin. R. Baxter says nothing in the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 or the Medical Marijuana Program adopted by the state in 2004 overrode cities’ and counties’ zoning power, up to and including prohibition of storefront pot shops.

“Of course, nothing prevents future efforts by the Legislature, or by the People, to adopt a different approach,” the 38-page opinion concluded. “In the meantime, however, we must conclude that Riverside’s ordinances are not preempted by state law.” A concurring opinion was submitted by Justice Goodwin Liu.

Lanny Swerdlow of Whitewater has been a longtime medical marijuana activist in the Coachella Valley, and is the founder and a board member of the Inland Empire dispensary at the heart of the Supreme Court case. He agreed the fight now must return to the public arena, particularly the Legislature.

“We’re going to have to get better organized and work with our legislators to get new bills passed, because the courts have told us that the collective idea the Legislature came up with isn’t going to work,” he said.

That process has already started, he said, with one bill putting medical marijuana regulation under the state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.

Attorney Joseph Rhea, who represents open and closed dispensaries in Palm Springs, plus the shuttered Rancho Mirage Safe Access Wellness Center, said the open shops he represents will now close.

“I think the lawyers have done what they can here,” Rhea said.

Rancho Mirage City Attorney Steve Quintanilla said the ruling appears to reach beyond the issue of dispensaries by indicating there’s nothing in state law to stop cities from barring medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives, even if they distribute the drug to members without a storefront, as well as any kind of cultivation.

“I read the the part about collectives and thought, wow, they’re going farther than I thought,” he said. “Then I saw the section about cultivation and said, ‘Oh my God, they’re going even farther.’ ” He would not advise any of his cities to go that far, he said.

Rancho Mirage was the Coachella Valley city most affected by the crossfire of conflicting opinion on the issue, with its dispensary ban ruled invalid by a Riverside County Superior Court judge in 2011. The city appealed the ruling, which had been on hold since the Supreme Court first agreed to hear the Riverside case in January 2012.

Quintanilla, also the city attorney for Desert Hot Springs and deputy city attorney for Cathedral City, said the decision settles seven lawsuits pitting his cities against dispensaries trying to set up shop.

Palm Springs is the only city in Riverside County that allows limited dispensary operations. It holds the cap for such businesses to three, with plans to offer a fourth permit on hold.

The Supreme Court decision validates its efforts to close down more than a dozen illegal shops over the past several months, said City Attorney Doug Holland.

Since December, the city has been trying to close those collectives operating without a license by issuing them notices and fines for thousands of dollars.

So far, 12 dispensaries have closed. The city, though, is still battling with five operators – four of which have either preliminary or permanent injunction orders to close. The city has a court hearing soon on the fifth dispensary.

“We feel very confident that, based on the Supreme Court decision, there’s no room for these dispensaries … to argue that they have any right,” Holland said.

The argument used by illegal dispensaries is that state law – which allows the use of marijuana to people with a doctor’s prescription – pre-empts local law and gives them the ability to operate.

“The Supreme Court clearly said, ‘No, that’s not the case,’ ” Holland said.

The city will continue trying to close the remaining five, he said, which could eventually come to criminal charges if civil methods don’t work.

“Now we will also be looking at pushing our criminal remedies, which could be, in addition to fines, it could be jail time,” said Holland.

“These are guys that somehow seem to think they are above the law. The Supreme Court says, ‘No, they are not,’ ” he said.

According to the Weed-Maps.com website that shows dispensary locations across the valley, there are fewer dispensaries listed than a few months ago, but more delivery services.

The city is currently addressing only “bricks and mortar” operations, Holland said.

But he added that the district attorney and local law enforcement agencies could eventually decide to look at whether the delivery operations are being consistent with the Compassionate Use Act.

Julie Smith is a volunteer at C.C.O.C, one of the illegal dispensaries still open in Palm Springs. She said she didn’t have a problem with the court’s ruling because the decision should be made by individual cities, maybe through a vote of the people.

But there’s already a shortage of legal dispensaries between local bans and federal crackdowns, she said, which has helped C.C.O.C.’s membership grow to about 3,000.

“We’ve got people coming in from Riverside, Blythe, Arizona, San Diego, because all the ones in San Diego are being shut down,” she said.

C.C.O.C., 650 S. Oleander Road, is fighting Palm Springs’ efforts to close them down because “the city isn’t being responsible with how they’ve decided which stores do get the permit and those that don’t,” she said.

The city is choosing dispensaries in a way that lowers competition and increases prices, she said.

There is nothing in the court’s ruling stopping cities from allowing dispensaries to come in, and while the legal pressure has been on Cathedral City and Rancho Mirage recently, new slates of city council members have come in to cities farther east.

Indio Mayor Elaine Holmes said she’s never dealt with the issue in her 21/2 years on the council, though she remembers the issue being discussed in City Hall before she was elected.

Before taking a stand for or against allowing dispensaries in the city, “I’d have to see it on a case-by-case basis,” she said. “I’d need to know about the location, and a lot of other things. But I try to keep an open mind.”

Palm Desert Mayor Jan Harnik was elected to that city’s council at about the same time, after the city dealt with a dispensary on El Paseo.

“If anyone can show me how medical marijuana helps people who are really in pain, then I’m all for it,” she said. “But in that case, it should be through a pharmacy.”

Marijuana’s status as a Schedule 1 drug under federal law, along with heroin and cocaine, makes that impossible.

Rick Pantele is a representative of C.A.P.S., one of the three legally permitted dispensaries in Palm Springs. With the recent voter-approved legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington, he foresees the drug being legal nationwide in the next five to 10 years.

The momentum is headed that way, he said, even in California, “but this doesn’t help that at all,” he said.

Desert Sun reporter Xochitl Pena contributed.

Source: Desert Dispatch, The (Victorville, CA)
Copyright: 2013 Freedom Communications, Inc.
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.desertdispatch.com/
Author: Blake Herzog

7 May 2013

Medical Marijuana Supporters Push For Legalization

posted in: Cannabis News | 1

Legislators are disagreeing on a lot of big issues, but they found a bit of common ground Thursday — medical marijuana.

It’s too late to push a bill through this session, but about 40 legislators in both parties, including more than a dozen committee chairmen, sent a strong signal that they want to add Minnesota to the 18 states where marijuana can be legally prescribed.

Legislators passed the legalization of medical marijuana in 2009, but were stopped by Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who vetoed the bill.

Now they’re ready to try again, in part because of such Minnesotans as Joni Whiting, of Jordan. Whiting watched as her 26-year-old daughter, Stephanie Whiting Stradinger, endured surgeries for malignant melanoma that ate away her face and ultimately took her life. There was just one thing, Whiting said, that eased her daughter’s suffering, and getting it meant her entire family had to break state law.

“They cut her face off, one inch at a time, until there was nothing left to cut,” Whiting said at a Thursday news conference, holding up a picture of Stradinger, smiling and lovely. She then covered it with a later photo of her daughter, her face flayed open and raw from treatments for the melanoma that started to grow on her cheek during her third pregnancy.

“The pain she was experiencing was unimaginable and the nausea was so severe that it became difficult for her to eat,” Whiting said. “That was when a doctor at the hospital pulled me aside and told me that Stephanie might benefit from using marijuana.”

The legislation proposed Thursday would allow doctors or other medical professionals to write prescriptions for up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana for patients with “debilitating” medical conditions. Those conditions include cancer, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma and post-traumatic stress.

The marijuana would be available through licensed dispensaries that would grow the drug on site in locked greenhouses. Patients in remote areas could be licensed by the state to grow a small number of marijuana plants for their own use.

But is a state that doesn’t allow wine sales in grocery stores ready to legalize marijuana dispensaries?

The issue is not one that breaks along party lines.

Like Pawlenty, DFL Gov. Mark Dayton opposes legalization, and for the same reason — law enforcement agencies are firmly against it.

Rep. Carly Melin, DFL-Hibbing, is a chief sponsor in the House, joined by Republican Rep. Tom Hackbarth, of Cedar. For Hackbarth, the cause is painfully personal. His wife is terminally ill.

“It’s a matter of the quality of life in the final days for me,” Hackbarth said. “We’re introducing it now so we can gain support, talk to legislators and then really hit the ground running when the session starts next year.”

But even if the House and Senate pass a bill to legalize medical marijuana next year, they face a formidable obstacle in the governor’s office.

“The governor will not be able to support the legalization of medical marijuana as long as law enforcement is opposed,” Dayton spokeswoman Katharine Tinucci said. “If advocates are able to reach an agreement with law enforcement, the governor would consider the measure.”

Police officials remain deeply skeptical. Legal marijuana greenhouses won’t make the job of clamping down on illegal drug use any easier, they warn.

“It is an absolute regulatory and enforcement nightmare,” said Dennis Flaherty, executive director of the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association. “We are not convinced that there really is a medicinal purpose to marijuana. … We see marijuana as a harmful drug and a gateway drug.”

But Whiting doesn’t want the governor to wait until law enforcement officials are on board with medical marijuana. Smoking the drug, she said, was the only thing that gave her daughter relief before her death in 2003 at age 26.

“He’s the governor and he should lead,” she said. “It’s his responsibility to lead, and then it’s law enforcement’s responsibility to do what he says.”

Source: Minneapolis Star-Tribune (MN)
Copyright: 2013 Star Tribune
Contact: http://www.startribunecompany.com/143
Website: http://www.startribune.com
Author: Jennifer Brooks

4 May 2013

Proposals Would Legalize Marijuana in Ohio

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

As poll numbers show Ohioans are growing increasingly comfortable with the idea of marijuana use, a Youngstown Democrat wants to give people the chance to make the drug fully legal in Ohio.

Rep. Robert F. Hagan has made a few attempts over the years to persuade his colleagues to allow for the use of medical marijuana in Ohio, and each effort has died a quiet death. A spokesman for Speaker William G. Batchelder, R-Medina, declined to comment on the pair of proposals Hagan introduced yesterday.

One is a bill that would allow patients with certain chronic conditions such as cancer or sickle-cell anemia to use marijuana for treatment. Eighteen other states have approved similar measures.

“In addition to the studies that show marijuana to be a valuable treatment option for chronic pain, nausea and seizure disorders, I have heard countless stories of how cannabis has made a difference in the lives of people who are sick or dying,” Hagan said.

His other proposal, modeled after an amendment recently passed in Colorado, would ask voters to approve allowing people 21 or older to purchase and use marijuana. The drug could be sold only by state-licensed establishments and would be subject to a 15 percent excise tax.

“With billions upon billions spent on the war on drugs with little progress to show for it, it is time for more-sensible drug policy in this country,” Hagan said, arguing that the revenue could help restore cuts to education and local governments.

It takes a three-fifths vote for the legislature to put an issue on the ballot.

A recent Saperstein Associates poll of more than 1,000 Ohioans for The Dispatch found that legalizing medical marijuana was overwhelmingly favored, 63 percent to 37 percent, but making pot completely legal was opposed by a 21-point margin.

Martin D. Saperstein, head of the Columbus polling firm, noted that surveys in other states are finding growing acceptance of legalizing marijuana, especially if it would be regulated and taxed.

The Ohio Ballot Board last year approved language for two medical-marijuana issues, though neither appears likely to collect the 385,000 signatures needed to qualify for the November ballot. One group has reorganized, calling itself OhioRights.org, and plans to submit a new petition that will include legalized growing of hemp, a plant related to marijuana.

Source: Columbus Dispatch (OH)
Author: Jim Siegel, The Columbus Dispatch
Published: Friday May 3, 2013
Copyright: 2013 The Columbus Dispatch
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.dispatch.com/

3 May 2013

Federal Suit Claims Police Distort MJ Searches

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

One man was walking home with groceries. Another was on a break from his job at a meat market. A third was walking down the street listening to headphones.

That is when the men say police officers confronted them, sometimes violently, searched their clothing and discovered small amounts of marijuana, according to a federal civil rights lawsuit that is expected to be filed on Thursday in United States District Court for the Southern District, in Manhattan.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of five Bronx men, contends that New York City police officers routinely stop black and Latino men without cause and then charge them with low-level misdemeanors when their pockets are emptied and small amounts of marijuana are found.

In each of the cases, the amount of marijuana found on the men would have amounted to little more than noncriminal violations punishable by a fine of up to $100 for first-time offenders. But the lawsuit contends that the charging officers falsely claimed the marijuana was in public view, making it a low-level misdemeanor under Section 221.10 of the New York Penal Code, which allows for sentences of up to three months in jail.

Critics of the Police Department say the practice, which they call manufactured misdemeanors, is widespread. The arrests are often the outgrowth of the department’s stop-and-frisk program, which is being challenged in federal court for, among other things, disproportionately targeting black and Hispanic men.

The lawsuit names the city, the department and several officers and supervisors as defendants. It was filed by the Bronx Defenders, which represents low-income defendants, and the law firm of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady L.L.P. A similar lawsuit filed by the Legal Aid Society is pending in state court in Manhattan.

A spokeswoman for the city’s Law Department declined to comment on Wednesday, saying the city had not yet been served with the lawsuit.

The Police Department charged more than 50,000 people with marijuana misdemeanors in 2011. More than 84 percent were black or Hispanic, a disparity that is even more pronounced in the Bronx.

In an effort to limit these arrests, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo has made decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana in open view one of his top goals this legislative session. The Legislature failed to act on a similar measure last year, despite support from Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and the police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly.

Though state law calls for misdemeanor cases to be tried within 60 days, the time limits are seldom met, the lawsuit contends. People arrested in the Bronx have it even worse; a recent series of articles in The New York Times revealed a dysfunctional justice system plagued by long delays that often make it all but impossible for people charged with misdemeanors to ever reach trial.

Two of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Francisco Zapata and Danilo Melendez, were featured in one of the articles. They endured long delays and made frequent court appearances waiting for trial before the charges against them were finally dropped.

A version of this article appeared in print on May 2, 2013, on page A20 of the New York edition with the headline: Federal Suit Claims Police Distorted Marijuana Searches to Create Misdemeanors.

Source: New York Times (NY)
Author: Ray Rivera
Published: May 2, 2013
Copyright: 2013 The New York Times Company
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/

2 May 2013

Marijuana Taxes Prove Sticking Point in Colorado

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

Marijuana as a potential tax bonanza has Colorado lawmakers wrestling with a question both sides say they don’t know how to answer: How much will people pay for legal weed?

The state House advanced a taxing measure Monday to levy a pot tax in excess of 25 percent, a reduction from the 30 percent rate lawmakers considered last week.

The proposal sparked a lively floor debate over the proper tax rate for a drug that’s never been taxed before. Democrats argued that voters want high pot taxes, and that consumers will gladly pay a premium for the assurances that would come from a regulated and legal drug supply.

“We need to responsibly tax it,” said the measure’s sponsor, Rep. Jonathan Singer, D-Longmont.

He predicted Colorado voters would happily sign off on marijuana taxes. Colorado law requires voters to approve new taxes.

Republicans argued against the taxes, though. They pointed out that Colorado voters have a history of rejecting tax hikes, even for popular public programs, and that the public’s desire for a marijuana windfall may not materialize unless the tax rate is lower.

“Taxation of marijuana is right, just, and proper. But we have make sure this passes,” said House Republican Leader Mark Waller.

Other Republicans noted that marijuana taxes would be in addition to hefty licensing and application fees to enter the business. The result, they feared, could be the retention of a black market for pot. The measure approved by voters last year allows not just retail pot sales, but also home marijuana growing, raising the specter of plentiful homegrown weed to compete with the taxed marijuana.

“The consensus has always been that the industry needs to pay for itself … but whether we like it or not, there’s already an entrenched black market in place,” said Rep. Dan Nordberg, R-Colorado Springs.

The tax debate came after a largely party-line vote on a separate marijuana bill to regulate how the newly legal drug can be grown, packaged and sold.

Among other things, that bill requires potency labels, serving-size limits on edible pot and purchasing limits for out-of-state buyers. The regulation bill also revives a marijuana blood-limit standard for drivers, a proposal that has failed four times in the Senate. The House vote Monday to revive the DUI standard renews the battle.

A third marijuana bill awaits action in the Senate. That measure includes less controversial pot regulations, such as a new crime of providing marijuana to people under 21.

Washington and Colorado, the only two states that have legalized pot for recreational use, are still awaiting federal response to the votes. Marijuana remains illegal under federal law, even for medical use.

Online:

Marijuana regulation bill: http://bit.ly/11RIeiY

Marijuana tax bill: http://bit.ly/12ekKlF

Source: Associated Press (Wire)
Author: Kristen Wyatt, Associated Press
Published: April 29, 2013
Copyright: 2013 The Associated Press

2 May 2013

Some Dispensaries Not Too Thrilled By Legal Pot

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

Medical marijuana groups are wary of a bill that would legalize and tax marijuana in Maine.

Estimates nationwide suggest if marijuana were legal, much of the profit gained by medical retailers and black-market criminals would disappear.

That worries Glenn Peterson, the owner of Canuvo, a Biddeford medical-marijuana dispensary. He also serves as president of the Maine Association of Dispensary Operators, a trade group made up of five Maine dispensary owners.

Peterson said his group is concerned that the bill could “eliminate the medical marijuana industry” in Maine.

“I tend to be libertarian,” he said. “On the other hand, I am quite protective of my dispensary.”

Paul McCarrier, a lobbyist for Medical Marijuana Caregivers of Maine, an advocacy group for state-licensed caregivers who grow marijuana for small groups of medical patients, said his group is opposing the bill. McCarrier said it would favor dispensaries through licensing requirements, which could regulate small-time growers out of existence.

“The scope of protections for the individual to cultivate for themselves is too limited,” he said.

The head of a national group that has supported the Maine bill and similar proposals nationwide says his organization has run into opposition to legalization from medical-marijuana groups in other states.

Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, or NORML, said that “probably the most vexing thing that we’re facing right now ( in pushing for legalization ) is not the government or law enforcement agencies,” he said. “It comes from, oddly put, anti-prohibitionists versus anti-prohibitionists.”

The Maine bill to legalize marijuana, sponsored by Rep. Diane Russell, D-Portland, is a sweeping measure. Chiefly, it would allow those 21 and older to possess 21/2 ounces of marijuana and six plants.

It also would license cultivators, producers of products containing marijuana, retailers and laboratories, giving preference for licensing to officials at existing dispensaries.

David Boyer, Maine political director for the Marijuana Policy Project, a nationwide group backing Russell’s bill, said the provision to give preference to existing dispensaries was partially due to a drafting error in the bill, and he and Russell are open to amending it. Boyer has been lobbying legislators to support the bill.

Peterson said his group is lobbying for dispensaries to be granted automatic cultivation, retail and production licenses. He said it wouldn’t oppose the bill then.

McCarrier said it isn’t clear whether caregivers are on the same plane as dispensaries in the bill.

Russell’s bill would assess a $50-per-ounce tax on cultivators, 75 percent of which Russell has said she wants to divert to the state’s General Fund. Under her plan, the rest would go toward substance abuse programs, marijuana research and implementing the act.

Only two states, Colorado and Washington, have legalized marijuana, and they did so in 2012 referendum votes. Marijuana possession is illegal under federal law, so even states with medical-marijuana programs are running afoul of that law.

In those states and others, legalization efforts ran into patches of opposition from medical-marijuana groups as well.

St. Pierre suggested that’s because of economic protectionism: Simply put, when marijuana becomes legal, consumption will go up and prices will fall sharply.

McCarrier said it’s not about protecting money, but protecting “the ability for caregivers to continue to operate.”

Peterson said he sells marijuana for $360 per ounce; McCarrier said caregivers sell for between $175 and $250 per ounce. Street prices could be higher or lower.

A paper by a group of marijuana researchers published this month in the Oregon Law Review says the American marijuana market is a $30 billion industry annually. But modern farming techniques could supply that demand for “hundreds of millions of dollars.”

So, the paper says, most of those billions could be captured by businesses or states, but “only if competitive pressure does not drive prices down.”

Peterson said he has hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in his operation, and he’s not sure what would happen to it under legalization.

“I have no investors. I don’t take a salary,” he said. “But that’s what you have to do to have a program in this state.”

Medical marijuana wouldn’t be taxed at $50 an ounce, according to Russell’s proposal, and Boyer said he doesn’t want to affect the medical system “in any bad way.”

Still, “it’s kind of an evil trade-off,” Peterson said of the tax on recreational marijuana. “You can have it legally, but it’s going to cost you.” Russell has said the price drop after legalization would more than make up for the tax.

On taxes, a fine line would have to be walked to turn the average consumer to the new, recreational market. If the marijuana tax is too high, people will likely seek the black market or a doctor’s recommendation for patient status, say many working on tax proposals in other states.

Colorado and Washington are establishing regulations for their legal programs. They are seeking to establish a tax system that strikes those balances.

According to The New York Times, Colorado is considering excise and sales taxes of up to 30 percent combined on recreational marijuana. In Washington state, the Times said three levels of taxes will be levied on producers, processors and retailers. Consumers will pay a 44 percent effective rate.

The $50-per-ounce rate has been discussed in other places. California considered a bill that would use that rate in 2009, and lawmakers effectively killed it in 2010.

Beau Kilmer, a drug policy researcher for the RAND Corp., a nonprofit think tank, said there are a number of ways that regulators could tax marijuana, including per ounce and by the plant’s chemical makeup.

However, it’s too early to tell what would work best, so Kilmer suggests flexibility in the tax system.

“If large barriers are created to changing the taxes, it’s going to make it a heck of a lot harder to update them based on new research,” he said.

That lack of clarity makes Boyer, of the Marijuana Policy Project, wonder why some are opposing Russell’s bill so soon, before a legislative committee gets to amend it.

“I’m a little disappointed that some people are jumping the gun on this bill before it’s a final bill,” Boyer said. “I think everyone would benefit from ending marijuana prohibition.”

McCarrier said that philosophically, he could support legalization, but “the devil’s in the details.”

Peterson also said he could support the right plan, but “I would not want to do anything that disrupted the medical side of things. It really puts a death knell to the program.”

For St. Pierre, the NORML director, the schism is particularly divisive for the overarching cause of his group for years — totally legal marijuana.

“For me, it is a necessary but fascinating footnote in history that some of the most active opposition is oddly coming from those who are fellow travelers of the road, shall we say — those who enjoy and use marijuana, be it for medical reasons or recreational,” he said.

Source: Morning Sentinel (Waterville, ME)
Copyright: 2013 MaineToday Media, Inc.
Website: http://www.onlinesentinel.com/
Author: Michael Shepherd

1 May 2013

An Unlikely Defender Of State Pot Laws

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

Orange County Rep. Dana Rohrabacher Is Hoping More Colleagues Are Starting to See Things His Way.

WASHINGTON – For more than a decade, conservative Orange County Rep. Dana Rohrabacher has formed an unusual alliance with liberals on an unexpected topic – the defense of marijuana.

Rohrabacher ( R-Huntington Beach ) and his allies have so far waged a futile effort to pass legislation that would prevent federal authorities from interfering with medical marijuana use in California and other places where pot use is permitted by state law.

But as more states have moved to allow the drug’s use, Rohrabacher believes his Respect State Marijuana Laws Act may be gaining momentum in Congress.

The recently reintroduced measure would shield from federal prosecution people acting in accordance with their states’ marijuana laws, including new Colorado and Washington laws that allow adult recreational use of the drug.

“The prospects are much better now,” said Rohrabacher, whose co-sponsors include Rep. Barbara Lee ( D-Oakland ), a Bay Area liberal who is usually about as far apart ideologically from Rohrabacher as anybody in Congress.

Still, Rohrabacher has his work cut out for him. The House last year soundly rejected, by a 262-163 vote, an effort he led to block the use of federal funds to prevent states from implementing medical marijuana laws. Only 28 Republicans supported the measure.

Rohrabacher has a libertarian bent but became more interested in the medical benefits of marijuana after having to spoon-feed his dying mother because of her loss of appetite. He has talked about the relief that marijuana might have afforded her.

He has been emboldened by a recent Pew Research Center poll that showed respondents, by nearly 2 to 1, believe the federal government should not enforce federal laws prohibiting the use of marijuana in states where it is legal.

Perhaps as important as the shifting public opinion, he said in an interview, is his colleagues’ eagerness to erase Washington’s red ink. Substantial majorities of Republicans and Democrats in the Pew survey regarded federal enforcement of anti-marijuana laws as not worth the cost.

“If people of the states recognize what a waste of limited resources this is, then the federal government should respect what the people of those states want for their own criminal justice system,” Rohrabacher said.

Since 1996, when California became the first state to legalize the drug’s use for medical treatment, 17 other states and the District of Columbia have approved medical marijuana measures. Last year, Colorado and Washington state voters opted to allow recreational users to possess an ounce of marijuana. A move is underway to put a measure on the Alaska ballot to permit recreational use of the drug.

Efforts are underway in other states, including Idaho, Illinois and New Hampshire, to allow medicinal use of marijuana.

Rohrabacher also is hoping to convince GOP colleagues that his bill fits with the party’s traditional support for states’ rights.

“It is time that we respect states’ rights, get serious about prioritizing our federal government’s activities, and show some common sense and compassion when dealing with the sick among us,” Rohrabacher said last year when he proposed his measure.

However, Rep. Frank R. Wolf ( R-Va. ), chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that oversees Justice Department spending, responded at the time: “If a state said sex trafficking is OK, would we honor that?… States, in the past, have done some things that have not been good in this country.”

The president’s drug czar, R. Gil Kerlikowske, recently said at the National Press Club that the Justice Department was responsible for enforcing the Controlled Substances Act, and “that remains unchanged. No state, no executive, can nullify a statute that’s been passed by Congress.”

Kevin Sabet, a former advisor to Kerlikowske, said Rohrabacher’s latest attempt would “likely suffer the same fate as his several previous attempts that have failed over the past decade.”

Steve Fox, national political director for the Marijuana Policy Project, which promotes legalization, regards the bill as a long shot in this congressional session. But he said the legislation “sends the message that it is simply not a rational use of federal law enforcement resources to prosecute and imprison individuals who are acting in compliance with state marijuana laws.”

Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Copyright: 2013 Los Angeles Times
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.latimes.com/
Author: Richard Simon

30 Apr 2013

A Smarter Federal Path on State-Voted MJ Laws

posted in: Cannabis News | 1

The time is at hand for the Obama administration to stop dithering, to take a clear position on the rights of Washington state and Colorado — and by precedent all others — to experiment with legalized marijuana.

That’s what Govs. Jay Inslee of Washington and John Hickenlooper of Colorado are asking the Justice Department to do — even though they personally opposed the marijuana legalization measures their voters approved last November.

The governors insist they can make their states’ new laws work well through responsible regulations that license, regulate and tax the production and sale of marijuana. New state labeling laws, say supporters, will also remove confusion and dangerous use levels by showing the potency in terms of THC, the psychoactive component of the cannabis plant, analogous to the labeling of alcoholic beverages.

Clearly it’s a direction the American people — who favor marijuana legalization 52 to 41 percent in recent polling — would approve.

A collaborative approach would be consistent with President Obama’s own marijuana history — a substance he tried himself as a youth. Asked last December about the Colorado and Washington legalization votes, he told Barbara Walters “It would not make sense for us to see a top priority as going after recreational users in states that have determined that it’s legal,” because “we’ve got bigger fish to fry.”

But Mr. President, there are serious issues to resolve. As personal purchase and use of marijuana are permitted in some states, can the practice really be contained at state borders? Will television, Web and print advertising be allowed? Will the legalizing states allow many small or just a few large suppliers? How much marijuana will be eligible for sale at one time? How will “marijuana tourism” — out-of-state visitors coming just to stock up — be handled? Will retail outlets be allowed near a state’s borders?

And then questions that undecided states may want to hear answered: Will the big tax revenues that marijuana supporters predict actually come true? Will driving under the influence of marijuana prove a real problem — and if so, how will it be controlled? Or on the health front: Will freely available marijuana help returning veterans suffering from PTSD? And generally, will it lead to more or less use of a substance we know is clearly dangerous: alcohol?

Those are the types of intriguing questions that journalist-scholar Stuart Taylor Jr. probes in a newly released Brookings Institution policy paper — “Marijuana Policy and Presidential Leadership: How to Avoid a Federal-State Train Wreck.”

Central to his case: the argument for an early, upfront agreement by the Obama administration and the states. Because the opposite — a fierce federal crackdown on Colorado and Washington state’s licensed marijuana producers and sellers — could well “backfire by producing an atomized, anarchic, state-legalized but unregulated marijuana market that federal drug enforcers could neither contain nor force the states to contain.”

And back to Obama — what about the U.S. Justice Department? It could use threats of conspiracy prosecutions to scare off applicants for state licenses to grow and sell marijuana. But there are federalism barriers: Washington can’t directly force states to enforce federal law. And there are only 4,400 federal Drug Enforcement Administration agents — “nowhere near enough,” Taylor suggests, “to restrain the metastasis of the grow-your-own-and-share marijuana market” — with small-time criminals crowding in — “that state legalization without regulation would stimulate.”

The recent precedents aren’t good. Faced by 18 states’ laws already allowing marijuana for medical use, the Justice Department has swung back and forth from general permissiveness to cracking down unmercifully in individual cases.

A crux of the problem is the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970, which insists that marijuana has no medicinal properties — an assertion “on its face nonsensical,” says Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore.

But the law’s criminal sanctions for cultivating, possessing or distributing marijuana aren’t alone, notes Taylor. The statute also instructs that the attorney general “shall cooperate” with states on controlled substances, with power “to enter into contractual agreements … to provide for cooperative enforcement and regulatory activities.”

This is the opening, Taylor argues, that the Obama administration should take to negotiate with the states legalizing marijuana use — a process that would lead them toward careful regulation and standards, and away from the threat of irrational federal prosecutions.

In a more sensible world, Congress would be rewriting the Controlled Substances Act to reclassify marijuana as the relatively low-risk drug it clearly is. But who’d expect this Congress to do anything so rational?

That leaves states to regulate carefully on their own. And a clear challenge for Obama. Here’s a president who’s been bold enough to jump ahead of Congress on issues ranging from gay marriage to amnesty for DREAM Act immigrants. So now, why not smooth the way to marijuana reform when states choose it?

Source: Seattle Times (WA)
Author: Neal Peirce, Syndicated Columnist
Published: April 27, 2013
Copyright: 2013 The Seattle Times Company
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.seattletimes.com/

30 Apr 2013

Make Money With Pot, Not War

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

Are we about to see the end of the war on drugs?

Following ballot measures last November, producing and selling marijuana are now legal in both Colorado and Washington state. Several other U.S. states have decriminalized simple possession of marijuana, or allowed its medical usage. The latter is also the case in Canada.

The financial consequences of a complete and general legalization across the continent would certainly be huge.

Over the past couple of decades, billions of dollars have been spent fighting this unwinnable war, which has fuelled corruption, organized crime, and violence. Thousands of people are killed in drug fights every year in Mexico. In Canada and the U.S., it has justified growing government intrusion in commercial and private life, from the money-laundering bureaucracies to civil forfeiture laws.

Despite this, recreational use of drugs is as popular as ever.

The simple economic fact is that when there is a demand, a supply will be forthcoming — legally or illegally. We should therefore reconcile ourselves with what economists call “consumer sovereignty,” that is, let people consume what they want, and let’s prosecute only real crimes.

From an economic perspective, it would be a lot more profitable for everyone if we stopped wasting resources trying to suppress this trade, and instead let it develop legitimately and have governments regulate and tax it. I don’t like taxes, but in that case, that would mean a huge improvement in terms of economic efficiency.

In British Columbia only, where a lot of marijuana is illicitly being grown, legalization could generate $2.5 billion in government tax and licensing revenues over five years, according to a recent research paper from Simon Fraser University.

Both the Wall Street Journal and The Economist have been convincingly arguing for many years against the war on drugs. And for the first time in more than four decades of polling on the issue, a majority of Americans now favour legalizing the use of marijuana. In Canada, public support has also been high for several years.

My point is not that drug consumption is a good thing or that I encourage it, but merely that any rational person can see that the current policy has not been a success despite all the money spent and all the people jailed. It is high time we rethink our strategy in this regard. Let’s end the war on pot and make money with it instead.

Source: Kingston Whig-Standard (CN ON)
Copyright: 2013 Sun Media
Contact: http://www.thewhig.com/letters
Website: http://www.thewhig.com/
Author: Michel Kelly-Gagnon

« 1 … 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 … 30 »