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/

12 Feb 2013

Senator To Introduce Legislation To Legalize MJ

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

If state Sen. Daylin Leach gets his way, Pennsylvania would become the next state to legalize marijuana. The Democratic senator, who represents the 17th District in suburban Philadelphia, is to introduce legislation at a press conference today in Harrisburg to decriminalize the use of marijuana for any purpose in Pennsylvania.

Leach hopes to end what he calls the “prohibition” of marijuana and treat it the same as certain types of alcohol – regulated by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board and sold at Wine and Spirits Shops or by licensed beer distributors.

John Tew, Leach’s legislative director, said existing laws are not effective.

“Prohibition doesn’t make sense and hasn’t worked,” Tew said. “Most of the harm of marijuana comes from the prohibition than it does from the smoking of the plant.”

A local drug abuse counselor who supports the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes said Leach’s proposal is well-intended but worries that across-the-board legalization will harm children.

“We’ve succeeded in keeping it out of the hands of physicians, but we can’t keep it out of the hands of 12-year-olds,” said Ed Pane, executive director of Serento Gardens Alcoholism and Drug Services in Hazleton and a board member of Pennsylvanians for Medical Marijuana.

Under Leach’s plan, approved stores would sell marijuana only to people over the age of 21, who could not resell the drug or use it in public or before driving. Also, employers would be free to prohibit workers from using marijuana.

Other senators, including one serving the Hazleton area, are flatly opposed to legalizing marijuana in any form.

Sen. John Gordner, R-Berwick, said he would oppose Leach’s legislation, noting that it is not yet up for formal consideration.

“There is no support from my senatorial judiciary,” Gordner said.

Sen. John Yudichak, D-Plymouth Township, did not return calls for comment on Leach’s proposal.

Kline Township police Chief John Petrilla believes any benefits of Leach’s proposal are not worth the risk.

“It would be a mistake,” Petrilla said. “There was talk about legalization of marijuana since the 1960s. It hasn’t been done for a reason. It alters the state of mind. I believe it’s a gateway drug. I feel more people might want to try it and they may be more prone to try other things.”

However, Leach said criminalizing marijuana does far more harm than good.

“This policy destroys lives. We want to stop that from happening. We want to stop spending that money” on enforcing the current law, he said.

Neill Franklin, executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, is a retired Baltimore narcotics officer who will attend today’s press conference as an advocate for the legislation.

“Cops see the ineffectiveness and harms of marijuana prohibition up close, every day,” Franklin said. “Keeping marijuana illegal doesn’t significantly reduce use, but it does give tax-free profits to violent gangs and cartels that control the black market.”

According to Leach, Pennsylvania can not only save a significant amount of money by ending the war on marijuana but also can make money by taxing the drug.

“We have spent billions of dollars investigating, prosecuting, incarcerating and monitoring millions of our fellow citizens who have hurt nobody, damaged no property, breached no peace. Their only ‘crime’ was smoking a plant which made them feel a bit giddy,” Leach said in a memorandum to all state senators.

He said Pennsylvania can legalize and regulate marijuana in the same manner as alcohol following Prohibition during the 1920s and the 1930s.

“We already have an infrastructure. We can plug marijuana into that system,” he said.

Leach believes legalizing marijuana will aid the safety of those who choose to use the drug.

“People that want marijuana are forced to purchase it from criminals out on the street, and it can be laced with dangerous chemicals,” he said.

Pane said he favors the Gov. Raymond Shafer Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act, which Leach introduced on April 25, 2001, and state Rep. Mark Cohen reintroduced on June 13, 2011. Under this bill, patients could legally use the drug with a doctor’s approval and after registering with Pennsylvania’s departments of State and Health.

Leach said he understands his legislation is a tough sell.

“The short term is a battle. Long term, it’s inevitable,” he said.

Sens. Jim Ferlo, D-Pittsburgh, and Lawrence Farnese, D-Philadelphia, will co-sponsor the legislation, Leach said.

Source: Citizens’ Voice, The (Wilkes-Barre, PA)
Author: Shawn Kellmer, Staff Writer
Published: February 11, 2013
Copyright: 2013 The Citizens’ Voice
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.citizensvoice.com/

5 Feb 2013

Reform Efforts In Congress Range From Pot To Hemp

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

An effort is building in Congress to change U.S. marijuana laws, including moves to legalize the industrial production of hemp and establish a federal pot tax.

While passage this year could be a longshot, lawmakers from both parties have been quietly working on several bills, the first of which Democratic Reps. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Jared Polis of Colorado plan to introduce Tuesday, Blumenauer told The Associated Press.

Polis’ measure would regulate marijuana the way the federal government handles alcohol: In states that legalize pot, growers would have to obtain a federal permit. Oversight of marijuana would be removed from the Drug Enforcement Administration and given to the newly renamed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana and Firearms, and it would remain illegal to bring marijuana from a state where it’s legal to one where it isn’t.

The bill is based on a legalization measure previously pushed by former Reps. Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Ron Paul of Texas.

Blumenauer’s bill would create a federal marijuana excise tax.

Last fall’s votes in Colorado and Washington state to legalize recreational marijuana should push Congress to end the 75-year federal pot prohibition, Blumenauer said.

“You folks in Washington and my friends in Colorado really upset the apple cart,” Blumenauer said. “We’re still arresting two-thirds of a million people for use of a substance that a majority feel should be legal. … It’s past time for us to step in and try to sort this stuff out.”

Advocates who are working with the lawmakers acknowledge it could take years for any changes to get through Congress, but they’re encouraged by recent developments. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell last week came out in support of efforts to legalize hemp in his home state of Kentucky, and U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., is expected to introduce legislation allowing states to set their own policy on marijuana.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has indicated he plans to hold a hearing on the conflict between state and federal marijuana laws and has urged an end to federal “mandatory minimum” sentences that lead to long prison stints for drug crimes.

“We’re seeing enormous political momentum to undo the drug war failings of the past 40 years,” said Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance, who has been working with lawmakers on marijuana-related bills. “For the first time, the wind is behind our back.”

The Justice Department hasn’t said how it plans to respond to the votes in Washington and Colorado. It could sue to block the states from issuing licenses to marijuana growers, processors and retail stores, on the grounds that doing so would conflict with federal drug law.

Blumenauer and Polis are due to release a paper this week urging Congress to make a number of changes, including altering tax codes to let marijuana dispensaries deduct business expenses on federal taxes, and making it easier for marijuana-related businesses to get bank accounts. Many operate on a cash basis because federally insured banks won’t work with them, they noted.

Blumenauer said he expects to introduce the tax-code legislation as well as a bill that would reschedule marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act, allowing states to enact medical marijuana laws without fear that federal authorities will continue raiding dispensaries or prosecuting providers. It makes no sense that marijuana is a Schedule I drug, in the same category as heroin and a more restrictive category than cocaine, Blumenauer said.

The measures have little chance of passing, said Kevin Sabet, a former White House drug policy adviser. Sabet recently joined former Rhode Island Rep. Patrick Kennedy and former President George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum in forming a group called Project SAM – for “smart approaches to marijuana” – to counter the growing legalization movement. Sabet noted that previous federal legalization measures have always failed.

“These are really extreme solutions to the marijuana problem we have in this country,” Sabet said. “The marijuana problem we have is a problem of addiction among kids, and stigma of people who have a criminal record for marijuana crimes.

“There are a lot more people in Congress who think that marijuana should be illegal but treated as a public health problem, than think it should be legal.”

Project SAM suggests people shouldn’t get criminal records for small-time marijuana offenses, but instead could face probation or treatment.

Source: Associated Press (Wire)
Author: Gene Johnson, Associated Press
Published: February 4, 2013
Copyright: 2013 The Associated Press

5 Feb 2013

Marijuana Activists Want Vote On Pot

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

Larsen has dedicated his life’s work to cannabis law reform.

On Jan.  23, Dana Larsen spent his afternoon in UVic’s Student Union Building speaking about pot to an audience that no doubt consisted of a few more empty chairs than he would have liked to see.  This has become a typical day for Larsen in his capacity as the face of Sensible B.C., a campaign to reform B.C.’s cannabis laws through a provincial referendum.  Larsen, 41, has travelled across B.C., speaking at events both large and small as he promotes his campaign.

Larsen has dedicated his life’s work to cannabis law reform.  He was politically active as a student at SFU and, upon graduation, worked with Marc Emery, a prominent marijuana activist, at the magazine Cannabis Culture.  He was involved with the Marijuana Party until he joined the NDP in 2003.  In 2010, he ran for the leadership of the provincial NDP and received 2.7 per cent of the vote.

Sensible B.C.  aims to implement something called the sensible policing act.  This act would effectively decriminalize possession of cannabis in B.C.  by redirecting police personnel and resources away from targeting cannabis possession.  Activities like cultivation, trafficking and driving under the influence would remain subject to current policing and penalties.  Minors in possession of cannabis would be treated as though they were in possession of alcohol.

The second part of the proposed act calls for the full legalization of marijuana in B.C.  while recognizing that to do so would require some level of support from the federal government as the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act falls within federal jurisdiction.

For B.C.  to legalize marijuana, the federal government would need to either legalize cannabis or create an exception for B.C.  According to Larsen, this could be done through Section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which allows for a person or “class of persons” to be designated exempt.

Both decriminalization and legalization would prevent people from facing criminal charges for cannabis possession.  Legalization would involve the government in the regulation and taxation of the substance, while decriminalization would not.

The sensible policing act would mandate that the provincial government establish a commission that would hold hearings to study how B.C.  should implement a taxed and regulated system if allowed to do so by the federal government.

Larsen voices few concerns about whether or not his initiative would pass if B.C.  residents vote on the proposal.  A 2012 poll by the research firm Forum found that 76 per cent of British Columbians favour either legalization and taxation of marijuana ( 52 per cent ) or decriminalization of small amounts ( 24 per cent ).  Eleven per cent of British Columbians are content with the status quo, while 12 per cent support increasing penalties.

What Larsen sees as the real obstacle to implementing the sensible policing act is collecting the required number of signatures to compel the government to hold a referendum.  Though eight initiative applications have been approved by Elections B.C.  since 1995, only the initiative to repeal the HST has made it through the entire process.

For an initiative to go to referendum, it must be checked by Elections B.C.  to ensure that it is clearly written and falls within provincial jurisdiction.  Advocates must then collect signatures from 10 per cent of registered voters in every provincial electoral district within a 90-day period.  Sensible B.C.  is planning to collect signatures between September and November of 2013 in the hopes of prompting a referendum in 2014.  To gain an advantage, Sensible B.C.  is asking supporters to register online so that they can be easily contacted once the campaign begins to collect signatures.

There has been debate about whether or not B.C.  has the capacity to decriminalize cannabis without the federal government’s support.  In a recent exchange with Cannabis Culture’s Jeremiah Vandermeer, B.C.’s Minister of Justice and Attorney General Shirley Bond responded, “Police are constitutionally required to enforce the rule of law.  Until and unless Canadian law is changed, the production, sale and use of marijuana is currently illegal ( controlled federal legislation ), and our police have a responsibility to enforce criminal laws for the good of all British Columbians.”

However, by approving the sensible policing act as an initiative, Elections B.C.  indicated that they felt it fell within provincial jurisdiction.  In response to a question from a member of the audience about the controversy, Larsen said, “Stephen Harper could sue British Columbia, go to court and fight us.  I say, bring it on.”

In order for any initiative to collect the required number of signatures, the proponents need a sizeable volunteer base.  Sam Vekemans, the local volunteer co-ordinator for Sensible B.C., asked that anyone interested in volunteering like the Facebook page Sensible BC – Victoria to stay updated.

Source: Martlet (CN BC Edu)
Copyright: 2013 Martlet Publishing Society
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.martlet.ca/

5 Feb 2013

Court Upholds Canada’s Medical Marijuana Laws

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

The Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld medical marijuana provisions that require those with serious illnesses to obtain a physician’s approval before they can legally acquire cannabis to alleviate their pain.

The 3-0 decision overturned a lower court decision that had earlier struck down the laws as being impractical and difficult to comply with.

The appellate judges ruled that the case under appeal had failed to establish that patients at the heart of the case were systematically unable to obtain medical marijuana.

“In the absence of admissible evidence as to whether they qualified for exemptions and the reasons for which their requests for declarations were rejected, this court cannot accept that the difficulties faced by these individuals render the entire Marijuana Medical Access Regulations regime unconstitutional,” it said.

The ruling was a major disappointment to civil libertarians and advocates for HIV-AIDS patients, who had argued that it is virtually impossible to obtain the medical approval the law demands.

“Allowing the current regulations to stand unchanged will leave many people with serious health conditions without effective access to legal authorization to use cannabis as medicine, and this means they are exposed to the risk of criminal prosecution,” said Richard Elliott, Executive Director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network.

“People shouldn’t have to risk going to prison in order to get the medicine they need,” he said.

Medical marijuana has proved helpful in reducing appetite loss, nausea, anxiety and depression associated with some medical conditions.

Created in 2001, the regulatory scheme was intended to help those who need cannabis for medical purposes to avoid criminal prosecution for production or possession of the drug.

The litigant at the centre of the case, Matthew Mernagh, was charged in 2008 with producing marihuana illegally.  At the outset of his trial, he applied for a declaration that the law violated his constitutional right to life, liberty and security.

Mr.  Mernagh, who suffers from fibromyalgia, scoliosis, epilepsy and depression, claimed that he was unable to obtain a medical marijuana exemption because no physician was willing to sign his medical declaration.

His lawyer also argued that doctors have refused en masse to co-operate with the medical marijuana regime.

However, the court majority concluded today that Mr.  Mernagh and several interveners in the case were unable to prove that access to the medical exemption scheme was illusory.

“Further, the evidence in this case fails to prove that the vast majority of physicians in Canada refuse to participate in the MMAR scheme,” the court majority said.

Mr.  Elliott criticized the medical regime for leaving many of those afflicted with serious illness in limbo.

“In practice, the requirements of the regulations are often unworkable, meaning people suffering with serious health conditions are unable to overcome the hurdles currently in place,” he said in a release.  “As a result, they are treated as criminals under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , which makes it a crime to produce or possess cannabis without authorization.”

Source: Globe and Mail (Canada)
Copyright: 2013 The Globe and Mail Company
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/
Author: Kirk Makin

29 Jan 2013

Will States Lead The Way To Legalizing Marijuana?

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

When citizens of Colorado and Washington voted to legalize marijuana in November they created a conflict, because pot remains illegal under federal law and anyone who lights up is committing a federal crime and could theoretically still be arrested for it. After Colorado passed the referendum, Governor John Hickenlooper said the implementation of the law in his state would be a “complicated process” and he warned residents not to “break out the Cheetos or Goldfish too quickly.”

While it seems unlikely that the federal government will make much of an effort to arrest pot users in Colorado or Washington—Obama has said he has “bigger fish to fry”— the tension between federal and state laws on marijuana remains. Just last week, an appeals court rejected a suit that sought to lower the classification of medical marijuana under federal drug laws.

That court ruling threw the issue back to Congress and the Drug Enforcement Agency, which should start a serious reconsideration of national policy toward marijuana. The federal government should start by reclassifying medical marijuana, legalizing it outright, or at least dialing down the penalties. And it should begin to have the sort of serious discussion about legalizing recreational marijuana that is now occurring in the states.

The campaign to legalize marijuana has long been viewed as a fringe cause, backed by young people and old hippies. That perception has lingered even though public opinion polls have shown that a growing percentage of the public favors legalization – as much as 68% in one recent poll. In the past two decades, supporters of marijuana have focused on legalizing medical use, and they have had impressive success. Today, 18 states and the District of Columbia have made medical use legal – and at least seven more states are considering it. Meanwhile, the DEA still classifies marijuana as a “schedule 1” drug under the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970 – a classification for drugs that have no accepted medical use. Americans for Safe Access, a pro-marijuana group, challenged this classification, but last week the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected the lawsuit. That ruling left in place the DEA’s blunt position that there is “no currently accepted medical use for marijuana in the United States.”

The votes in Colorado and Washington were a watershed, however, because they shifted the debate from medical marijuana to outright legalization. And the votes were not even close. In Colorado, the referendum passed by more than 6%. In Washington, the margin was 10%.

Afterwards, President Obama said that the federal government has a lot of crime to prosecute and “it does not make sense from a prioritization point of view for us to focus on recreational drug users in a state that has already said that, under state law, that is legal.” Last week, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee said that he had a conversation with Attorney General Eric Holder that encouraged him about his state’s ability to carry out the referendum legalizing marijuana.

It is good that the Obama administration appears to be standing down now, but that has not always been the case. As recently as last year, the Justice Department was cracking down on medical marijuana producers in California and other states. There is no way to know that the federal government will continue to leave marijuana policy to the states. And whatever policy the Obama administration adopts, it could be undone when a new President takes office.

Justice Louis Brandeis once said that the states should function as “laboratories,” testing new ideas for possible adoption by the whole nation. We have seen enough over the past 16 years from the states that have legalized medical marijuana to know that the benefits are real and the alleged dangers overblown. With this data in hand, the DEA should reclassify marijuana to acknowledge its possible medical uses.

In Colorado and Washington, a bolder experiment is now underway. The rest of the nation should watch closely. It is possible that legalization will lead to higher crime rates, increased use of harder drugs, and other menaces that marijuana critics warn about. But if legalization in these states has few negative effects, we will have the strongest argument yet for why marijuana should be legal nationwide.

Source: Time Magazine (US)
Author: Adam Cohen
Published: January 28, 2013
Copyright: 2013 Time Inc.
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.time.com/time/

19 Jan 2013

If You Smoke It, You Will Become Addicted!

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

In recent weeks, we have seen a shift in how drug war proponents are talking about marijuana. No longer able to convince the public that people who use marijuana should go to jail, they are singing a new tune; they should all go to treatment. This is a shift we have seen before. When marijuana first came on the scene in the U.S. in the early 1900s, reports of marijuana induced violence among Mexicans fueled the nation’s fear about the little known plant. When the general population started experimenting with the herb in the 1920s, it became clear that the claims of violence were fabricated. Losing the ability to instill fear in the public around marijuana use, the message was modified. The new message tied marijuana use to insanity and mental illness, which were highly stigmatized conditions, and continue to be. Being labeled as mentally ill frightened the white, middle class, marijuana consumers, and this fear led to the support of the Marijuana Tax Act in 1937.

Fast forward to 2012. Public support for marijuana legalization is at an all-time high and the government acknowledges that a change is being considered. No longer able to convince Americans that marijuana consumers are dangerous criminals who deserve to be locked up, history is repeating itself. We are seeing a shift in the message, from marijuana consumers as criminals to marijuana consumers as sick people who belong in treatment. It’s a propaganda shell game and we can’t fall for it again.

A recent article in the New York Times quoted Dr. Nora Volkow, the head of the National Institute on Drug Abuse as saying that 1 out of 6 adolescents who try marijuana will become addicted. That is akin to saying, if you keep making that face, it will freeze that way. In fact, a mere 2.8% of 12-17 year olds who used marijuana in 2010 entered treatment for it, and many of those cases could be the result of an agreement between the courts and the defendant in lieu of involvement with the juvenile justice system. When looking at the broader landscape of marijuana use, we see that 1.1% of marijuana users 12 and older in 2010 went to treatment for the substance. We also saw twice as many arrested for simple marijuana possession that year than enter treatment for marijuana dependence (750,000 vs. 335,833). The claim that marijuana causes mental illness, or that all marijuana consumers are addicted and in need of treatment undermines the efforts by mental health and addictions professionals to address the serious illnesses and addictions that pose real threats to persons and society.

Dr. David Nathan, a clinical associate professor at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and recently elected as a distinguished fellow in the American Psychiatric Association, wrote in a piece on CNN.com, “Throughout my career as a clinical psychiatrist, I have seen lives ruined by drugs like cocaine, painkillers and alcohol. I have also borne witness to the devastation brought upon cannabis users — almost never by abuse of the drug, but by a justice system that chooses a sledgehammer to kill a weed.”

Recently, former Rhode Island Congressman Patrick Kennedy announced the formation of a new group, SAM, which stands for A Smarter Approach to Marijuana. Kennedy and his group recognize that the argument of jail for marijuana is no longer salient with today’s population, so they have repackaged the message for a new generation: marijuana use is a mental illness and requires treatment, every time. This sentiment is echoed in his group’s project list, which includes, “Increased funding for mental health courts and treatment of drug dependency, so those caught using marijuana might avoid incarceration, get help and potentially have their criminal records cleared.”

On its face, this statement is not so outrageous, but upon closer look it is frightening for two reasons. First, although increased funding for mental health services and substance abuse treatment can be beneficial, according to a 2008 report, 90% of those who currently need substance abuse treatment do not receive it, this compares to 24% of diabetes patients who do not receive treatment. It is estimated that 23 million people need addiction care, and only 2.3 million receive it. Forcing marijuana consumers into an already overloaded system will reduce the likelihood of care for those with serious, life threatening addictions. Furthermore, since approximately 37% of treatment referrals come from the criminal justice system, initiating a pipeline from the courtroom to treatment will result in a tidal wave of first time, young marijuana offenders entering substance abuse treatment to trade the label of criminal for addict. Secondly, Kennedy’s group refers to treatment for those “caught” with marijuana. This implies, that, under his plan, the U.S. will continue to seek out marijuana users, presumably via law enforcement. Or, perhaps Kennedy et al will institute a special marijuana task force charged with roaming the country in search of marijuana addicts. Whatever the case, SAM’s plan involves the active identification of marijuana consumers, followed by forced involvement in the system. Don’t be fooled, this is not a “new way” for marijuana, but rather a regressive old approach dressed in new clothes.

Source: Huffington Post (NY)
Author: Amanda Reiman, Policy Manager, Drug Policy Alliance
Published: January 18, 2013
Copyright: 2013 HuffingtonPost.com, LLC
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

17 Jan 2013

Colorado Preps for Recreational Marijuana

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

Driving east on Interstate 70 through Denver’s warehouse district, the smell of the marijuana plants growing inside unmarked industrial buildings blasts through car air vents and overwhelms drivers who roll down their windows. The smell is a pungent reminder that the state of Colorado is now home to some of the world’s laxest marijuana regulations.

The state legalized medicinal marijuana use in 2000, but in November voters in Colorado went even further by approving a constitutional amendment that legalizes recreational marijuana for all users over 21 and aims to “regulate marijuana like alcohol.”

Now, a governor-appointed “Amendment 64” task force is racing to draft regulations on everything from banking to public safety, to submit to the governor and the general assembly by the end of February. The legal sale of marijuana to recreational users is scheduled to begin as early as October.

The passage of the new law raises a lot of questions, especially for the established medical marijuana community. While marijuana advocates cheered Amendment 64’s passage, Colorado’s current medical marijuana providers, arguably the nation’s most successful and well-regulated, are apprehensive about how the new laws might change the current landscape. These businesses, 299 medical marijuana centers statewide at the end of 2012, have completed 1000-page business applications and probing background checks, paid taxes to the state Department of Revenue and still managed to turn a profit.

Now that recreational marijuana is legal, medical marijuana sellers must decide whether to pursue a permit to serve recreational users, or remain medical dispensaries. If they do expand their operations, how might the new recreational market change their relationship with their medical patients? And most importantly, will the federal government shut them down as soon as they begin serving recreational users?

Established Medical Marijuana Market

When it comes to regulating marijuana, Colorado is further along than the state of Washington, which also legalized recreational marijuana use in November’s election. In Colorado, unlike in Washington, medical marijuana dispensaries are for-profit businesses and all dispensaries and employees are registered and licensed, which has helped legitimize an industry that’s been forced underground in most of the world. You won’t see marijuana leaves emblazoned on dispensary doors or pictures of Bob Marley on the walls. Instead, they feel like small doctors’ offices with waiting rooms and helpful receptionists.

“We’re trying to rebrand the image of marijuana in general and get away from that pot stoner culture,” says Jason Katz, head of operations at Local Product, a Denver dispensary located in view of the statehouse. “As long as we can continue to keep doing that with the recreational model…we’ll be moving in the right direction.”

For most medical marijuana sellers, the decision to serve recreational users is likely to come down to economics—there will simply be more customers, and more money, for businesses who serve recreational users alongside medical users.

“If anyone over 21 can buy marijuana,” says Katz, “why would a patient go through a $100 state registration process to get a medical marijuana card when they can just buy it without doing any of that? I think it makes sense for our business to go recreational in that it will open up our customer base.”

Analysts expect that customer base to be upwards of one million in-state consumers, which for a marijuana products manufacturing company like Denver-based Dixie Elixirs, spells big profits.

“Ultimately my goal is to sell our business to big alcohol, big tobacco, or potentially big pharma,” says Tripp Keber, managing director of Dixie Elixirs. The company makes more than 75 marijuana-infused products, ranging from marijuana-infused truffles to flavored sodas to non-psychoactive cannabis body lotion. Located in the Denver warehouse district , a whiff of the outside air leaves little doubt about the new cash crop in town.

But until the regulations are finalized later this year, business owners who want recreational permits will have to sit on their hands. They’ll have to make sure they follow all the rules, such as not selling to anyone without a medical marijuana card, says Denver medical marijuana lawyer Warren Edson. That takes a lot of restraint. Since Amendment 64’s passage, says Katz, he’s had about three or four people a day either calling or knocking on the door of his dispensary asking to buy recreational marijuana.

Writing The Rules

In a dimly-lit room in a Denver office building across the street from the golden-domed statehouse, the first draft of the new rules for recreational marijuana are being hammered out by agency officials, medical marijuana interest groups, lawyers, doctors and concerned citizens. The mundaneness of the setting belies the enormity of the task: creating the most open marijuana market in the country while at the same time protecting public health, safety and trying not to run too far afoul of the federal government, which still considers marijuana use—medical or otherwise—to be illegal.

At a working group meeting of the Amendment 64 task force last week, banking issues took center stage. Under the Controlled Substances Act, any bank that takes money from an illegal enterprise can lose its FDIC coverage and potentially be prosecuted. This means that medical marijuana businesses are cash only, which makes for a potentially dangerous situation where businesses have thousands of dollars in cash on hand at any given time, making them vulnerable to robbers.

But fixing this problem would require action from the federal government, which is unlikely in such a short amount of time. However, the attitudes in Washington, D.C. about marijuana seem to be tacitly on the side of state experimentation.

The Obama administration is taking a hands-off approach in both Colorado and Washington, saying his administration has “bigger fish to fry” than going after recreational marijuana users in those states. And a 2009 U.S. Department of Justice memo made clear that pursuing medical marijuana users would be the administration’s lowest enforcement priority.

That bodes well for Colorado, since its strict medical marijuana regulations seem to have satisfied federal drug enforcement authorities. Few Colorado dispensaries have been shut down and raids are uncommon, unlike in California where the Drug Enforcement Agency has raided and closed hundreds of dispensaries in the last few years. Many in the medical marijuana community hope that the Amendment 64 task force and ultimately the general assembly simply roll over many of the medical marijuana regulations into new recreational regulations.

The regulations also make business owners and employees feel safer navigating this legally precarious industry. Other states such as Massachusetts, Arizona, Connecticut that are crafting their own medical marijuana regulations are looking to Colorado’s example as a way to serve patients while not upsetting the federal government.

A Marijuana Trajectory

Indeed, national political analysts agree that Colorado’s trajectory, from making marijuana possession the lowest criminal priority, to legalizing medical marijuana and then legalizing recreational use, is the ultimate goal for most activists. “I don’t think the distinction between medical and recreational marijuana will hold up,” says Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Association for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). “We hear people asking, why be in purgatory? Why spend 10 years on decriminalizing possession and medical marijuana only to move on to recreational later?… Legalization is so much more politically salient now that it makes the discussion around medical marijuana almost pedestrian.”

Already this legislative session, legislators in five states have proposed medical marijuana legislation and in five other states, legislators will consider following in Colorado and Washington’s footsteps to regulate marijuana like alcohol, according to the Marijuana Policy Project.

But however the states regulate it, marijuana remains a Schedule I narcotic in the eyes of the federal government, equivalent to heroin and LSD. That means that, while unlikely, all of these business owners, employees, and even regulators are open to federal prosecution. While the risks are still high, Keber says he sleeps pretty soundly.

“We operate with our doors wide open,” says Keber, “and we’ve hosted law enforcement officers, state and federal legislators here. The reality is that (prosecution) is always a concern, but I don’t lose sleep over it. If federal agents arrest me… they should go to mayor’s office since he puts his name on the business license, then they should wrap up the governor since he signed it into law.”

Source: Stateline.org (DC)
Author: Maggie Clark, Staff Writer
Published: January 16, 2013
Copyright: 2013 Stateline.org
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.stateline.org/

1 … 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 … 30