Alaska Primed To Become Third State To Legalize

posted in: Cannabis News 0

Alaska is poised to become the third state to legalize retail marijuana after pro-pot advocates this week cleared the signature hurdle to place an initiative on the August ballot.

The Committee to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol in Alaska hit 31,593 valid signatures Tuesday, well above the 30,169 signatures required to place the measure before voters. The initiative is expected to appear on the Aug. 19 primary ballot once a final count is certified by the state.

Alaska follows in the footsteps of Colorado and Washington, where voters approved measures to regulate the sale of recreational marijuana for adults in November 2012. Colorado unveiled the nation’s first retail pot shops in Jan. 1, and Washington is expected to begin marijuana sales in June.

Dependably Republican Alaska would become the reddest state to approve retail marijuana, but Committee spokesman Taylor Bickford predicted the legalization effort would appeal to the electorate’s libertarian streak.

“Alaska voters have a large degree of respect for personal liberty and freedom, and that’s reflected in the poll numbers we’ve been seeing,” said Mr. Bickford.

A newly released survey shows the idea already has significant public support. A Public Policy Polling survey posted Wednesday found 55 percent of registered voters polled agree with legalizing pot for recreational purposes, with 39 percent opposed.

Opposing the measure is Smart Approaches to Marijuana, a year-old group founded by former Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island Democrat, that favors decriminalization for pot smokers but not legalization.

“We’ve been approached by Alaskan treatment and prevention providers to offer advice,” said SAM co-founder Kevin Sabet.

So far Alaska’s leading elected officials haven’t said much about the issue, although the Marijuana Policy Project is lobbying for the support for Rep. Don Young, Alaska Republican, who backed a House bill last year to protect marijuana businesses from federal prosecution as long as they comply with state law.

“It’s a states’ rights issue, period,” Mr. Young told the Alaska Dispatch.

The marijuana measure would appear on the primary ballot alongside a number of other high-profile contests. Republicans are waging a contested Senate primary to decide who will face vulnerable Democratic Sen. Mark Begich in November.

The ballot is also expected to include initiatives on repealing a tax cut for oil companies and boosting the minimum wage, which could increase voter turnout.

The Alaska initiative hews closely to the language in the Colorado and Washington measures, which legalize small amounts of marijuana for adults 21 and over. The sale and cultivation would be regulated by the state in a manner similar to that of liquor.

The state Alcoholic Beverage Control Board would have regulatory oversight over recreational marijuana, but the state legislature would have the option of establishing and shifting authority to a Marijuana Control Board.

The measure also calls for a $50 per ounce excise tax for sales or transfers of marijuana from a cultivation facility or a store. Local governments could opt out by banning retail sales in their jurisdictions, although marijuana use and possession would still be legal.

The campaign doesn’t have an estimate yet on how much revenue would be generated under the initiative, but “what we do know is that a lot of jobs are going to be created, there will be a significant economic boost, and the state will have a new source of tax revenue,” said Mr. Bickford.

The biggest losers would be those now profiting from marijuana sales, he said, namely dope dealers and criminal syndicates.

“We expect to put a lot of drug dealers out of business by selling marijuana over the counter in a regulated market instead of on the black market,” said Mr. Bickford.

Source: Washington Times (DC)
Author: Valerie Richardson, The Washington Times
Published: February 6, 2014
Copyright: 2014 The Washington Times, LLC
Website: http://www.washtimes.com/
Contact: [email protected]

Eric Holder’s Pot Problem

posted in: Cannabis News 0

Twenty states plus the District of Columbia now allow sales of medicinal marijuana, allowing pot prescriptions to treat pretty much any malady, from a headache to a hangnail. Colorado and Washington have legalized the drug for recreational use, too.

Yet federal law still prohibits the possession, use and sale of marijuana for any reason. This dichotomy explains why some banks are reluctant to accept the large amounts of cash that pot purveyors generate — even if the cash is legal under state law.

To redress this, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has promised to issue guidelines to make it easier for marijuana sellers who are operating in accordance with their state laws to use the banking system. Large amounts of cash “just kind of lying around with no place for it to be appropriately deposited,” Holder mused, “is something that would worry me, from a law enforcement perspective.”

The fact is, Holder encouraged those bundles of unbanked cash to be assembled in the first place. Last year, perhaps in a nod to opinion polls showing that a majority of Americans favor marijuana legalization, he said the Justice Department wouldn’t seek to overturn the Colorado and Washington measures. Nor, he said, would Washington interfere with the 20 states that allow medicinal marijuana. Instead, federal drug agencies and prosecutors would leave it to local authorities to enforce marijuana laws.

All of which raises the question: When did it become acceptable for the country’s top law-enforcement officer to decide which federal statutes to enforce and which to ignore? Even those who agree with the broader policy of marijuana legalization should be left uneasy by open defiance of the rule of law.

Under the 1970 Controlled Substances Act, marijuana is classified as a Schedule 1 drug, which means it has high potential for abuse, serves no medical purpose and isn’t safe even under a doctor’s supervision. As recently as 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, even in states that allow medical marijuana sales, sellers and users can be prosecuted.

Whether or not a law is outmoded, unpopular or overtaken by cultural change, the attorney general doesn’t have the authority to ignore it altogether in half the country. To do so is wrong, and has practical consequences: Holder’s pronouncement caused a surge of cash to flow from the black-market weed business into the regular economy. His guidelines presumably will make it possible for buyers to use credit and debit cards now — and for banks to accept those transactions — without fear of reprisal. But some banks won’t go along.

Banks are subject to federal banking laws, including the anti-money-laundering statute, which discourages large deposits of cash by requiring reams of paperwork to document where it came from and where it went. When regulators don’t enforce the rules, lawmakers haul them in, Holder’s blind eye notwithstanding.

What’s more, in states that allow marijuana sales, a whole new pot economy has grown up, complete with cannapreneurs, growers, equipment makers, transporters and even private-equity financiers. The National Cannabis Industry Association estimates marijuana sales will exceed $2 billion in 2014 and $10 billion by 2019. Nevertheless, a future president could wipe the industry out by regarding the federal prohibition as wise and strictly enforcing the law.

If that happens, the marijuana industry and thousands of employees would be put out of work or forced back underground. Banks would again refuse to accept their cash, dispensaries would have to unplug their ATMs, and Visa and MasterCard would refuse to process marijuana transactions. Sales of the drug would continue, of course, but they would again go untaxed and unregulated.

At any rate, guidelines from Justice wouldn’t be enforceable in court, and therefore wouldn’t provide the legal defense bank lawyers must have before advising their clients there is a safe harbor against prosecution. 

It’s time Congress recognized reality. With 22 states openly in defiance of the federal statute, lawmakers should decide whether to keep the national ban or turn the question of marijuana decriminalization over to the states. Congress could, for example, withdraw marijuana from the Schedule 1 list, recognize that it has useful medical applications and let the states decide whether and where to allow its use.

What shouldn’t be an option is for the Justice Department to look the other way.

Source: Bloomberg.com (USA)
Published: February 2, 2014
Copyright: 2014 Bloomberg L.P.
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.bloomberg.com/

Marijuana Contests To Join County Fair in Colorado

posted in: Cannabis News 0

Pot at the county fair? Why not? Colorado’s Denver County is adding cannabis-themed contests to its 2014 summer fair. It’s the first time pot plants will stand alongside tomato plants and homemade jam in competition for a blue ribbon.

There won’t actually be any marijuana at the fairgrounds. The judging will be done off-site, with photos showing the winning entries. And a live joint-rolling contest will be done with oregano, not pot.

But county fair organizers say the marijuana categories will add a fun twist on Denver’s already-quirky county fair, which includes a drag queen pageant and a contest for dioramas made with Peeps candies.

“We thought it was time for us to take that leap and represent one of the things Denver has going on,” said Tracy Weil, the fair’s marketing and creative director.

The nine marijuana categories include live plants and clones, plus contests for marijuana-infused brownies and savory foods. Homemade bongs, homemade roach clips and clothing and fabric made with hemp round out the categories.

Judges will look only at plant quality, not the potency or quality of the drugs they produce. Other contests – patterned after Amsterdam’s famed Cannabis Cup – already gauge drug quality and flavor.

Top prize is $20, plus of course a blue ribbon. The fair already has a green ribbon – awarded for using environmentally conscious methods.

The entries will be shown in a “Pot Pavilion” open only to people over 21. Alongside the pot entrants will be 24 categories of homemade beer, four categories for homemade wine and one category for “spirits and liqueurs.”

Prizes will also be given for speedy joint-rolling, though fair organizers insist there won’t be any marijuana consumption on-site. Competitors in the live Doritos-eating contest will have to acquire their munchies elsewhere.

Even the photographs of the winning plants will be viewable only by adults 21. Organizers don’t want 4-H competitors in the popular rabbit and goat contests wandering by a pot display.

“We have a lot of families and kids at the fair, of course, and we wanted to be respectful of that,” Weil said.

Denver’s fair is far from traditional, though. Denver County didn’t have a county fair until 2011. Organizers wanted an urban, hip element alongside traditional fair favorites like a Ferris wheel and cotton candy.

There’s a speed text-messaging contest, and the highlight staple of a Western fair, a rodeo, has been replaced with a bicycle rodeo and a troupe of performing pigs. About 20,000 people attended last year.

The marijuana contests aren’t likely to spread to other fairs in Colorado. Officials in Routt County, in western Colorado, voted last year to expressly ban marijuana from its county fair.

And Colorado State Fair organizers have expressed no interest in marijuana competition.

California holds an Emerald Cup at the fairgrounds in Sonoma County, Calif., where guests with medical clearance are able to sample the drug. That contest is held at the fairgrounds but isn’t a part of the county fair.

Source: Associated Press (Wire)
Published: January 28, 2014
Copyright: 2014 The Associated Press

Eric Holder Says Kids Won’t Be Able To Toke Up

posted in: Cannabis News 0

General Eric Holder said Wednesday that just because states are legalizing marijuana for recreational purposes doesn’t mean minors will be able to roll up a joint.

“People cannot buy alcohol I guess now until you’re age… age 21, but young people find ways to get alcohol because adults can have access to it,” Holder said before the Senate Judiciary Committee. “I’m not sure that we will see the same thing here given what we have said with regard to our enforcement priorities.”

His comments came as Colorado and Washington state have been implementing new laws allowing recreational pot. Marijuana remains illegal under federal law, and under questioning, Holder defended the Obama administration’s stance in allowing the states to move forward with their laws while the feds work to make sure the drug doesn’t become available to minors or move across state lines.

“The distribution of marijuana to minors will… will entail a very vigorous federal response,” Holder said.

The Department of Justice is expected to unveil new guidelines that might help banks transact with legal marijuana companies, which are increasingly worried about the dangers of operating all-cash businesses.

Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, a member of the committee, lamented President Barack Obama’s recent comments that marijuana isn’t more harmful than alcohol, saying he was “heartbroken” to hear Obama argue that states’ experiments in legalization should go forward. Sessions said the country had previously worked to“create a hostility to drug use” that shouldn’t recede.

“I think that the use of any drug is potentially harmful,” Holder said of Obama’s comments. “And included in that would be alcohol.”

Sessions was skeptical. “Well, Lady Gaga says she’s addicted to it and it’s not harmless,” he said.

Source: Time Magazine (US)
Author: Maya Rhodan
Published: January 29, 2014
Copyright: 2014 Time Inc.
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.time.com/time/

An Investigation Into B.C.As Controversial Civil

posted in: Cannabis News 0

The office has increased the number of files it accepts and amount of money it makes, but there are growing concerns about its fairness and transparency

It was Oct.  15, 2007, when the RCMP officer knocked on David Lloydsmith’s door.

Mr.  Lloydsmith, a former electrician on partial disability living in the Fraser Valley community of Mission, was told the officer was investigating a dropped 911 call.  Mr.  Lloydsmith lived alone and said he hadn’t touched the phone.

The officer asked to come in and search the residence, according to court documents.  Mr.  Lloydsmith declined several times and finally moved to close the door.  The officer then forced his way in and put Mr.  Lloydsmith in handcuffs.  A second officer arrived within minutes and the Mounties began their search.

They eventually found marijuana plants in the basement.  Mr.  Lloydsmith was arrested, but released without charges.  The initial officer wrote in a report that the offence was “minor” and, with the plants removed from the home, public interest had been met.

Mr.  Lloydsmith thought the ordeal was over.  But three years later, the province’s Civil Forfeiture Office moved to seize the residence.  The legal battle continues, despite an earlier ruling that the evidence collected against him was in breach of the Charter.  A judge described the search as “warrantless” and “unreasonable.”

Mr.  Lloydsmith is one of the hundreds of British Columbians who have become caught in the relatively new spectre of civil forfeiture – a process originally intended to fight organized crime that has come to have a much wider reach.

A Globe and Mail investigation spanning several months and more than two dozen interviews has found the Civil Forfeiture Office has rapidly increased the number of files it accepts and the amount of money it brings in, while remaining largely out of the public eye.  But as the scale of the forfeitures has grown, so too have concerns about fairness, public interest, and transparency.

Documents obtained through freedom of information show how the office’s policy works when it comes to accepting files.  The office does not investigate cases itself and instead relies on referrals from law-enforcement agencies.

The documents say the director must assess a file on four grounds before accepting: public interest, strength and adequacy of evidence, fiscal considerations, and interests of justice.

The office does not need criminal charges, or convictions, to move on a property and the penalty – losing one’s home, for instance – can seem disproportional to the alleged offence.  The burden of proof is lower in civil court than criminal, on a balance of probabilities instead of beyond a reasonable doubt.  Evidence that could be seen as unfit for criminal court can be seen as fit for civil court.

Ontario was the first jurisdiction in Canada to introduce civil forfeiture, and eight of 10 provinces have such programs today.  B.C., despite opening three years after Ontario, has taken in more money than Ontario and critics have contended it’s operating as an end-run on the justice system.

The office’s executive director said 99 per cent of the people the office targets settle on terms favourable to the office.  Unlike Ontario, B.C.  has a budget target it must meet.  And cases that in the past have been conducted as offences under the Motor Vehicle Act, Wildlife Act or Employment Standards Act, for example, are being pursued under the Civil Forfeiture Act.

B.C.  Justice Minister Suzanne Anton expressed her support for the system and said the program meets the public interest.  The minister also noted many millions of dollars have been handed out to community associations and police as a result of the office’s work.

“The public has a very strong interest in seeing that people do not keep ill-gotten gains,” she said.  “And that’s why generally there’s public support for this Civil Forfeiture Act.” Civil forfeiture itself is not a new concept.  Its roots date back about a millennium, to Europe.  Modern civil forfeiture, however, evolved in the United States, where it was brought in to target drug lords but has grown controversial in recent years.  Controls have appeared lax and the programs have developed into cash cows.

Ontario was the first Canadian province to introduce civil forfeiture legislation.  The Civil Remedies for Illicit Activities Office opened in 2003.  In 2009, Ontario’s legislation withstood a challenge in the Supreme Court of Canada in a case commonly known as Chatterjee.  The court ruled the Ontario legislation did not conflict with the Criminal Code.

Yukon considered such legislation but decided against it in 2010, following a public outcry from people who said it would infringe on their rights.  A Yukon government spokeswoman said the territory has no plans to revisit the issue.

B.C.’s Civil Forfeiture Office opened in 2006 under the Liberal government.  It was heralded as another tool in the fight against gangs involved in the billion-dollar drug trade.  The “bling-bling,” as former solicitor general John Les put it after a 2007 bust, was about to disappear and the province has described itself as a modern-day Robin Hood.

In 2011, B.C.  became the first province to introduce a process known as “administrative forfeiture,” which makes it easier and quicker to seize property worth less than $75,000.  Robert Holmes, then the B.C.  Civil Liberties Association’s president, decried the move as another attempt to avoid proving cases in court.  Mr.  Lloydsmith is sitting at his kitchen table, near a window that overlooks the front steps the RCMP officer once climbed.  He has lived in the home for more than two decades.  It’s assessed at about $250,000.

He knows some people won’t sympathize with his plight – he’s heard from them.  They say he should never have grown marijuana in the first place.

He stresses he is not a bad man, nor a rich one, and indicates he started growing after he had trouble getting prescriptions.  Mr.  Lloydsmith went on partial disability after breaking his back on the job.  The exact number of plants discovered in his basement is under dispute.  A police report said it was a few hundred, a fact his lawyer denies.

Mr.  Lloydsmith says he will have nowhere to go if he loses his home.  “My world is right here,” he said.

He said the stress from the case has taken its toll.  He’s fought depression and lost 35 pounds.  It shows – he’s wearing an old sweater that’s become far too large.

“I don’t sleep now.  I can’t get it out of my mind.  It’s torture, it’s like a nightmare,” he said.

In court documents, the office argued Mr.  Lloydsmith’s property amounts to “proceeds and instrument of unlawful activity” and can be seized.

Bibhas Vaze, Mr.  Lloydsmith’s lawyer, said it’s an affront to democratic rights to suggest the Charter shouldn’t apply in this case.  He said the house can be accounted for as purchased through legitimate income and Mr.  Lloydsmith does not have a criminal record.

He worries about the legal ramifications if Mr.  Lloydsmith is to lose.

“Because then, as far as I’m concerned, it will be carte blanche for cops to go into people’s homes in violation of the Charter, based on what they could find, whether they have any good information,” Mr.  Vaze said.  “Why even get a warrant then?”

In a sign of the importance of Mr.  Lloydsmith’s case, the B.C.  Civil Liberties Association has decided to intervene.  It’s back in court in mid-February.  Gian Hong Jang and Yue Wang Jang own a Vancouver janitorial company.  In April, 2008, the husband and wife purchased a second property so Ms.  Jang’s parents would have a place to reside.  The Kerr Street home was bought for $720,000 after the couple secured a bank loan, according to court documents.

In September of that year, Ms.  Jang’s parents moved out of the home.  The Jangs decided to rent out the downstairs portion of the property and found tenants online, according to court documents.

The couple said they had no reason to believe anything was amiss, until Vancouver police raided the home in December and found a marijuana grow-op.  The Jangs were not charged but, in August, 2009, the Civil Forfeiture Office attempted to seize the property.

The office alleged that it would present evidence that the Jangs’ primary property, their own home, was also purchased with marijuana proceeds and it attempted to seize that residence as well.

The Jangs obtained a lawyer but, on the eve of a court date, decided to settle to minimize their losses.

They were allowed to keep their home, but had to give up 50 per cent of the equity in the property they’d been renting out.

David Karp, the Jangs’ lawyer, said the case still irks him.  He said the janitorial company was legitimate and Mr.  Jang “worked his ass off six days a week.”

However, he said his clients were wary of further court costs and the uncertainty of trial.

“They essentially flip it on its head,” Mr.  Karp said of the Civil Forfeiture Office.  “You’re guilty until you prove you’re innocent.” Robert Milligan is a second generation guide outfitter.  He owns and operates Coast Mountain Outfitters, a company based in the northern community of Terrace that specializes in mountain goat hunting, but also offers bear hunting and fishing expeditions.  To run his business, Mr.  Milligan requires a guide outfitter’s certificate.

The Civil Forfeiture Office, however, is attempting to seize that certificate.  Mr.  Milligan is accused of several offences – from using a snowmobile for the purpose of hunting in a closed area, to using a helicopter to transport hunters who were not physically fit, to using bait to lure a bear more than a decade ago.

The office is also seeking an order that would force Mr.  Milligan to turn over his profits.

The case, and the fact that it’s being handled through the Civil Forfeiture Act instead of the Wildlife Act, has drawn the ire of the Guide Outfitters Association of B.C.  Scott Ellis, the association’s executive director, said it plans to intervene in the proceedings.

“I was going to say the punishment doesn’t fit the crime, but I’m not even going to say there was a crime committed,” Mr.  Ellis said.

“It’s taking a sledge hammer – which is a quote you can use from me, if you like – to kill a mosquito.” Mr.  Milligan, in a statement released through his lawyer, said losing the certificate would be “utterly devastating.”

Nicholas Weigelt, the lawyer, said the plan had been for Mr.  Milligan’s children to take over the business.  He said losing the certificate would be akin to losing the family farm.

Although he could not say exactly how much the certificate is worth, Mr.  Weigelt said those in large and remote territories can sell for millions.  Mr.  Milligan’s certificate offers exclusive access to a large space.

Mr.  Weigelt said only one of the office’s claims has merit – one of Mr.  Milligan’s guides did ride his snowmobile into a closed area.  But it was unintentional, he said, and the snowmobile only ventured 400 metres into the closed space.

Mr.  Weigelt said some of the complaints appear to have been made by competing land users.

“I, like most members of the public, thought the government through the Civil Forfeiture Office went after criminals,” Mr.  Weigelt said.  “Regulatory offences are offences, they’re not crimes.”

This is not the only time the office has taken an offence that falls under another act and tried to pursue it under the Civil Forfeiture Act.

The office was unsuccessful last year when it attempted to seize a motorcycle owned by Jason Dery, after he was caught speeding on a quiet Vancouver Island road.  The office argued the Motor Vehicle Act offence made the Ducati – valued at anywhere between $7,400 and $14,000 – an instrument of unlawful activity.  A B.C.  Supreme Court judge disagreed and ruled in Mr.  Dery’s favour.  ( The judge added that the decision should not be seen as acceptance of Mr.  Dery’s driving.  He had been cited for more than three dozen motor vehicle offences over the previous two decades.  )

The office had until recently been pursuing a case against Mumtaz Ladha for an alleged violation of the Employment Standards Act.  Ms.  Ladha had been charged with human trafficking, though she was ultimately acquitted.

The office would not immediately agree to drop the case after Ms.  Ladha was exonerated, but relented about a week later.  Casey Leggett, Ms.  Ladha’s lawyer, said media attention around the potential forfeiture likely didn’t hurt her cause.  The different cases highlight the different concerns that have been raised with respect to the office.

Mr.  Lloydsmith’s case speaks to admissibility of evidence, among other things.

The Jangs are among the many landlords who said they had no idea what their tenant was up to, raising questions about severity of punishment and public interest.

Mr.  Milligan’s case demonstrates how an offence under a different act can be pursued through the Civil Forfeiture Act.

In 2007, the Civil Forfeiture Office moved on the Hells Angels clubhouse in the Vancouver Island city of Nanaimo.  It later went after clubhouses in Vancouver and Kelowna.

However, even these instances, in which the office did what it was essentially created to do, have not been without controversy.  Joe Arvay, one of the country’s most influential lawyers and a constitutional law expert, announced in October that he would represent the Hells Angels in a constitutional challenge of the Civil Forfeiture Act.

“If it takes the Hells Angels to demonstrate that the government has acted unconstitutionally, well then good for the Hells Angels,” he said.  “There have been a number of cases …  where you look at what the director has done and you say, ‘Really?’”

The constitutional challenge could put those who feel they have been unfairly targeted, or that the process is flawed, in the delicate position of rooting for the Hells Angels to succeed.

Rick Ciarniello, president of the Vancouver chapter of the Hells Angels, said the legislation should trouble everyone, not just the group’s members.

“Governments everywhere are now routinely using these ‘civil forfeiture’ laws as a substitute for the criminal process.  Most people seem to just cave when faced with these forfeiture lawsuits.  It is just too expensive and stressful to fight back when faced with the resources of the state,” he wrote in a statement.  “We aren’t going to do that and our fight will be for all British Columbians.” The office itself is a black box.  Its location is not made public and, unlike Ontario, B.C.  does not disclose who works there.  The province’s information and privacy commissioner is expected to rule in a matter of months on whether the staff list should be made public.

Rob Kroeker, who was the office’s first executive director, left the post in October, 2012, for a position with a gaming corporation, according to documents released through freedom of information.  He was replaced by Phil Tawtel.  Both men had previously worked for the RCMP.

In an August briefing note to Minister Anton, obtained through freedom of information, Mr.  Tawtel said revenue derived from forfeiture is used to operate the program ( legal and administrative costs ) and provide crime-prevention grants to community associations and police.  Litigation is the single biggest expense.

Mr.  Tawtel said the grants are critical because they generate positive feedback and provide government with a way to identify emerging issues and priority commitments.

The office has issued about $11-million in grants since it opened, and paid about $1.3-million to victims of crime.  Grant applications can be found on the Ministry of Justice’s website.

Those numbers have been helped by a sharp increase in seizures in recent years.  In its first year, the office brought in about $600,000.  In 2010-11, it seized approximately $4.8-million in property.  That figure more than doubled the following year, to about $10.8 million.

By the end of fiscal year 201213, the office had seized more than $31-million in property since it opened.  That total has since reached $41-million, more than Ontario which is at $39 million.

Unlike Ontario, B.C.  has an annual budget target it must reach.  In the briefing note, Mr.  Tawtel wrote the office must “meet an assigned budget target to the government which has increased over the past two years by $1M to its current $3M.”

The office has made more than three times that target in fiscal year 2013-14, seizing about $9.5-million in property.

The number of files the office has accepted has also grown, from 69 in 2008, to 240 in 2011, to 418 in 2012.  In 2013, the office accepted 467 files.

The complaint most often cited by defendants in civil forfeiture proceedings is that of cost.  Legal aid is not available and defendants are put in the position of assessing whether it’s better to fight their case in court or to settle to try to minimize the damage.

Blair Suffredine, a lawyer and former Liberal politician who served in the legislature from 2001 to 2005, last year went up against the office in a case involving the seizure of $9,251.  The money was found on a property in which marijuana plants had also been discovered.

Mr.  Suffredine’s client, Bill Pundick, was living on part of the property but was not its owner and maintained the money had been obtained lawfully as part of his decades-old currency collection.  The judge ruled in the pensioner’s favour and said it was “not a case where wads of tens or twenties or fifties are rolled up and bound by elastic bands.”

Mr.  Suffredine, who did not play a role in establishing the Civil Forfeiture Office during his time in government, said its conduct in the few cases he’s handled amounts to bullying.  He said the office tries to stretch out a case and make it so expensive that the defendant has to settle.  Going after pensioners was not the plan, he said.  “What was intended was to get the guys who are making big money,” he said.  In a joint telephone interview with Minister Anton and Mr.  Tawtel, the minister portrayed Mr.  Tawtel as a gatekeeper who ensures it does not go after cases that are outside the public interest or the interests of justice.

Ms.  Anton said the office’s target remains organized crime, but any unlawful activity is fair game.  When asked if she’s worried people who did not receive ill-gotten gains are being swept up in the process, she said no.

Mr.  Tawtel said the Civil Forfeiture Act has a number of safeguards, including court oversight.  But very few cases make it to trial – the first wasn’t completed until 2011.  As Mr.  Tawtel himself noted, 99 per cent of people settle on terms favourable to his office.

Ms.  Anton said she does not believe a settlement rate that high suggests the process is flawed.  She said she’s very confident in the system.

“Sometimes the cases, often they do settle.  And that’s because generally the director brings them forward in proper circumstances.  In fact, I would argue the director brings them forward always in proper circumstances because that’s his job,” she said.  “The point is not to make money.  The point is to deprive people of ill-gotten gains.”

She declined to comment on whether the office should take cases in which evidence was collected in breach of the Charter, since such a matter is before the courts.

She declined to comment on whether the Civil Forfeiture Act is being used too broadly for similar reasons.

When asked whether she sees any problem with giving the office a budget target, whether she’s worried the quota leads to the pursuit of cases that don’t meet high standards, her answer was simple: “Absolutely not.” Although it has had some defeats, the Civil Forfeiture Office has also had some wins, both inside the courtroom and the community.

Sergeant Lindsey Houghton, spokesperson for the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit of B.C., the province’s anti-gang unit, said his agency will only refer files to the Civil Forfeiture Office if they involve people with direct relationships to guns, gangs, and violence.

He said the office does serve as a deterrent.  The unit this week received a vehicle from the office that’s been draped in antigang messaging.  The seized sport utility vehicle will be taken to school to warn young people about the dangers of gang life.

Abbotsford police received a vehicle in a similar manner for a similar purpose in 2011.  The department had the Hummer covered with messages that included “Gang life is a dead end” and “Easy money can get you hard time.”

The rolling billboards have also grown popular among police departments in the U.S.

The grants the province has handed out as a result of the office’s work have helped a wide variety of groups.

In February, 2012, the province announced $5.5-million in crime prevention grants for programs that included violence-prevention projects at half a dozen Lower Mainland schools and an anti-gang campaign in Kelowna.

About $1-million in grants was announced in March, 2013, with funds earmarked for women and family violence programs and a workshop on sexual exploitation awareness, among other things.

MOSAIC, a non-profit organization that assists immigrants and refugees, last year released a pamphlet to help foreign workers who may be victims of trafficking.

The pamphlets were made possible due to a $42,500 civil forfeiture grant.

Source: Globe and Mail (Canada)
Copyright: 2014 The Globe and Mail Company
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/
Author: Sunny Dhillon


DEA Chief Slams Obama For Pot Remarks: Reports

posted in: Cannabis News 0

The head of the Drug Enforcement Administration slammed President Barack Obama this week for saying marijuana is no more harmful than alcohol, according to a report Saturday in the Boston Herald.

DEA Administrator Michele M. Leonhart reportedly told a group of sheriffs at a closed-door conference in Washington that she was frustrated by the administration’s recent openness toward state legalization. Although Leonhart’s remarks were not made publicly, her pointed references to the president could put her job in jeopardy.

“She was honest,” Mike H. Leidholt, president of the National Sheriffs’ Association, told the Herald. “She may get fired. But she was honest.”

The administration so far has shown itself willing to let Colorado’s and Washington’s experiments with marijuana legalization move ahead. But those baby steps toward respecting state legislation appear to have sown dissension at the DEA.

Leonhart, a former Baltimore cop and long-time DEA agent before ascending to the agency’s top role, staunchly opposes mainstreaming marijuana use. In 2012 House Judiciary testimony, she refused to answer a question from Colorado Rep. Jared Polis (D) about whether she thought crack or heroin were worse for a person’s health than marijuana. She said in December that legalization sends “mixed messages” to high-schoolers, and this month, one of her top deputies told Congress that legalization is “reckless and irresponsible.”

Leonhart also appears to have been upset by a flag made of hemp that flew over the U.S. Capitol on July 4 at the behest of Polis.

Bristol County, Mass., Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson told the Herald that “she said her lowest point in 33 years in the DEA was when she learned they’d flown a hemp flag over the Capitol on July 4. The sheriffs were all shocked. This is the first time in 28 years I’ve ever heard anyone in her position be this candid.”

The flag was made with industrial hemp, which is not a drug.

“This shows how shockingly out of touch Michele Leonhart is,” Polis told HuffPost in an email Saturday. “You would think that one of her lowest points would have been when she completely embarrassed herself by failing to state the obvious scientific fact that marijuana is less harmful and addictive than heroin. Almost half a million Americans saw her make a fool of herself.”

A DEA spokeswoman contacted by the Herald did not comment on Leonhart’s remarks, but reiterated the agency’s opposition to legalization. She did not immediately respond to a request for comment from HuffPost.

Aside from Obama’s statements, it also appears that Leonhart was incensed that the unofficial White House softball team squared off against a marijuana reformers’ team in a game covered exclusively by HuffPost. The White House staffers lost.

Tom Angell, founder of the reform group Marijuana Majority, told HuffPost in an email that he doesn’t expect Leonhart to be fired for her “insubordinate speech.”

“But in light of the president’s newfound boldness in speaking out about the unfairness of marijuana prohibition enforcement, he should take the opportunity to significantly reform federal marijuana policy and rearrange the agencies that have mismanaged it for so long,” he said.

Newshawk: runruff
Source: Huffington Post (NY)
Author: Ryan Grim and Matt Sledge
Published: January 25, 2014
Copyright: 2014 HuffingtonPost.com, LLC
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Med Marijuana Advocates Meet Florida Ballot Goal

posted in: Cannabis News 0

A petition campaign to legalize medical marijuana in Florida has gathered enough signatures to put the issue on November’s general election ballot. Just after noon Friday, county elections officials had validated 710,508 signatures — enough to force a vote on a proposed constitutional amendment to allow growth, sale and possession of marijuana for medical uses.

The Florida Supreme Court could still reject the ballot language — and any vote along with it — but organizers expressed jubilation Friday that an expensive, last minute push at least fulfilled the signature requirements for citizen initiated amendments.

“I’ve spent $4 million, hired the best legal minds in the state of Florida, rallied my army of angels and collected more than 1.1 million signatures in five or six months,” said Orlando trial attorney John Morgan, who took over a small, grass roots petition campaign last year and gave it the clout to get on the ballot.

By law, constitutional amendment campaigns for 2014 require signatures from 683,149 registered voters. Morgan’s group, United for Care, added more than 50,000 signatures Friday to exceed that mark.

Morgan, who has paid about three-quarters of United for Care’s expenses, said the petition drive cost twice as much as he planned, largely because signatures lagged by December and the campaign had to gear up.

By paying professional collectors as much as $4 a signature, United for Care began dumping hundreds of thousands of petitions on beleaguered county elections officials. At the 1.1 million mark, the campaign shut down two weeks ago, then waited to see how many signatures actually came from registered voters.

The rejection rate ran about 30 per cent — typical for large petition campaigns. Still, the Florida Division of Elections reported 50,000 new signature validations on Friday, putting the total over the top.

The campaign also met its other requirement: hitting signature targets in at least 14 of Florida’s 27 congressional districts.

The Tampa Bay area proved to be fertile ground: 165,042 valid signatures came from Pinellas, Hillsborough, Pasco and Hernando counties, nearly one-fourth of the statewide total.

Save Our Society from Drugs, a St. Petersburg advocacy group, down played the significance of Friday’s signature count.

“This really doesn’t change anything,” said Executive Director Calvina Fay. “We are still waiting to hear from the Supreme Court about the ballot language. We believe the language is misleading and are hopeful that the justices will rule soon.

“This also doesn’t change the fact that the initiative is riddled with loopholes that would create de facto legalization in our state. We believe that if this gets to the ballot, Floridians will vote wisely and reject it.”

Twenty states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana. Constitutional amendment proposals in Florida require 60 percent of votes cast to pass, but polls show widespread support for medical marijuana.

The measure also could affect the governor’s race. Republican Gov. Rick Scott opposes medical marijuana while former Republican governor Charlie Crist — the presumptive Democratic candidate who works at Morgan’s firm — favors it.

In the Legislature, Republican majority leadership has so far squelched attempts to legalize medical marijuana by statute.

That could change this year with a bill to legalize Charlotte’s Web, a cannabis strain that seems to help children with seizure disorders without getting them high. The idea has garnered some Republican support, but some fear opening the door to wider use.

The Florida Supreme Court has until April 1 to decide if United for Care’s ballot language is confusing and illegal. If the court agrees, United for Care’s signatures will be invalid. Any future ballot initiatives would have to start from scratch and could not come to a vote until 2016 at the earliest.

Source: Tampa Bay Times (FL)
Author: Stephen Nohlgren, Times Staff Writer
Published: January 24, 2014
Copyright: 2014 St. Petersburg Times
Website: http://www.tampabay.com/
Contact: http://www.sptimes.com/letters/

Holder Announced A Major Shift On U.S MJ Policy

posted in: Cannabis News 0

U.S. treasury and law enforcement agencies will soon issue regulations opening banking services to state-sanctioned marijuana businesses even though cannabis remains classified an illegal narcotic under federal law, Attorney General Eric Holder said on Thursday.

Holder said the new rules would address problems faced by newly licensed recreational pot retailers in Colorado, and medical marijuana dispensaries in other states, in operating on a cash-only basis, without access to banking services or credit.

Proprietors of state-licensed marijuana distributors in Colorado and elsewhere have complained of having to purchase inventory, pay employees and conduct sales entirely in cash, requiring elaborate and expensive security measures and putting them at a high risk of robbery.

It also makes accounting for state sales tax-collection purposes difficult.

“You don’t want just huge amounts of cash in these places,” Holder told the audience at the University of Virginia. “They want to be able to use the banking system. And so we will be issuing some regulations I think very soon to deal with that issue.”

Holder’s comments echoed remarks by his deputy, James Cole, in September during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill.

Colorado this month became the first state to open retail outlets legally permitted to sell marijuana to adults for recreational purposes, in a system similar to what many states have long had in place for alcohol sales.

Washington state is slated to launch its own marijuana retail network later this year, and several other states, including California, Oregon and Alaska, are expected to consider legalizing recreational weed in 2014.

The number of states approving marijuana for medical purposes has also been growing. California was the first in 1996, and has since been followed by about 20 other states and the District of Columbia.

But the fledgling recreational pot markets in Colorado and Washington state have sent a new wave of cannabis proprietors clamoring to obtain loans and make deposits in banks and credit unions.

The Justice Department announced in August that the administration would give new latitude to states experimenting with taxation and regulation of marijuana.

But with the drug still outlawed at the federal level, banks are barred under money-laundering rules from handling proceeds from marijuana sales even in states where pot sales have been made legal.

The lack of credit for marijuana businesses, however, poses its own criminal justice concerns, Holder said.

“There’s a public safety component to this,” he said. “Huge amounts of cash – substantial amounts of cash just kind of lying around with no place for it to be appropriately deposited – is something that would worry me just from a law enforcement perspective.”

Holder did not offer any specifics on a timeline for action on banking services for marijuana. Cole in September said the Justice Department was working on the issue with the Treasury Department’s financial crimes enforcement network.

Critics of liberalized marijuana laws have said the lack of credit faced by pot retailers was beside the point.

“We are in the midst of creating a corporate, for-profit marijuana industry that has to rely on addiction for profit, and that’s a much bigger issue than whether these stores take American Express,” said Kevin Sabet, co-founder of the anti-legalization group Smart Approaches to Marijuana.

Reporting by David Ingram in Charlottesville, Virginia; Writing by Alex Dobuzinskis; Editing by Steve Gorman and Lisa Shumaker

Source: Reuters (Wire)
Author: David Ingram, Reuters
Published: January 24, 2014
Copyright: 2014 Thomson Reuters

Obama Nudges The Ball Forward on Marijuana

posted in: Cannabis News 0

In an interview with the New Yorker released on Sunday, President Obama made perhaps the strongest endorsement by any sitting president on relaxed marijuana laws. Pushed by interviewer David Remnick, Obama acknowledged that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol in its effect on consumers. He also noted the obvious racial and economic disparities in enforcement of marijuana laws. “Middle-class kids don’t get locked up for smoking pot, and poor kids do,” he said. “And African-American kids and Latino kids are more likely to be poor and less likely to have the resources and the support to avoid unduly harsh penalties.”

A fully budded marijuana plant ready for trimming is seen at the Botanacare marijuana store ahead of their grand opening on New Year’s day in Northglenn, Colorado, in this December 31, 2013 file photo. The District of Columbia will take a step closer toward decriminalizing marijuana on January 15, 2014 with a move that will make smoking a joint in the U.S. capital a violation comparable to a parking ticket.

In fact, the president backhandedly came close to endorsing outright legalization of the drug for recreational purposes, by offering a modified endorsement of new laws in Colorado and Washington that do exactly that:

Accordingly, he said of the legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington that “it’s important for it to go forward because it’s important for society not to have a situation in which a large portion of people have at one time or another broken the law and only a select few get punished.”

Obama circled back around and noted the new laws in both states could be “a challenge” because of the potential for legalization of other, harder types of drugs. He also noted he has advised his daughters not to smoke marijuana. So it wasn’t an outright endorsement.

But the moment was still significant in several ways. In context of the United States’ long-running and highly problematic war on drugs, it is quite notable to have a president come out and say that marijuana isn’t nearly as harmful as it is often made out to be and to back serious changes in the legal regime governing the drug.

Obama is correct about the racial disparities at work here: The American Civil Liberties Union issued a report last year finding that African Americans are four times as likely as whites to be arrested for marijuana, despite similar rates of use.

The White House’s record is somewhat checkered on this issue. On the one hand, early in Obama’s time in office, his administration stepped up federal crackdowns on marijuana producers sanctioned by state law, a move that was highly criticized by reformers. However, Attorney General Eric Holder recently took steps to relax federal prosecution of marijuana offenses and said the Justice Department won’t challenge new state laws on marijuana. Obama’s comments may reflect a real evolution in his approach to drug policy, and one that may have long-lasting effects.

But there is, of course, also a political angle here. Whether he meant to or not, Obama was positioning himself and his party on the correct side of an issue that many Democrats feel could reap serious political rewards in the coming months and years.

For example, in Florida, strategists on both sides of the gubernatorial race there believe a statewide referendum to legalize some marijuana use could tilt the contest to Democrats. Republicans have filed a legal challenge to keep it off the ballot, because they openly admit it may bring young people and minorities — traditional Democratic voters — to the polls in unusually high numbers. “It’s an issue that the Democrats can use to pump up the youth vote,” Alex Patton, a Republican political consultant told Bloomberg Businessweek. “The politics of it are dangerous for the GOP.”

And Florida isn’t the only place marijuana will be on the ballot this year. At least four other states will put the issue before voters, and people outside those areas are no doubt following the evolving debate closely.

Polls have shown recent spikes in support for legalized marijuana. Gallup found 58 percent of Americans favor legalization, and other surveys show majorities also share Obama’s view that the drug is not physically or mentally harmful. I have no idea if Obama’s remarks were a calculated move, but his party’s prospects this fall seem likely to improve as a result.

Source: Washington Post (DC)
Author: George Zornick
Published: January 20, 2014
Copyright: 2014 Washington Post Company
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/

Marijuana Case Filings Plummet in Colorado

posted in: Cannabis News 0

Charges for all manner of marijuana crimes plummeted in the months after Colorado voters legalized limited possession of cannabis for people over 21.

According to a Denver Post analysis of data provided by the Colorado Judicial Branch, the number of cases filed in state court alleging at least one marijuana offense plunged 77 percent between 2012 and 2013. The decline is most notable for charges of petty marijuana possession, which dropped from an average of 714 per month during the first nine months of 2012 to 133 per month during the same period in 2013 — a decline of 81 percent.

That may have been expected — after all, people over 21 can now legally possess up to an ounce of marijuana. But The Post’s analysis shows state prosecutors also pursued far fewer cases for marijuana crimes that remain illegal in Colorado.

For instance, charges for possessing more than 12 ounces of marijuana dropped by 73 percent, and cases alleging possession with intent to distribute fewer than 5 pounds of marijuana dipped by 70 percent. Even charges for public consumption of marijuana fell statewide, by 17 percent, although Denver police have increased their number of citations issued for public consumption.

While marijuana prosecutions against people over 21 declined, so did prosecutions against people under 21, for whom all marijuana possession remains illegal except for medical marijuana patients.

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers said he thinks the drop in cases may be due to police not wanting to parse the complexities of the state’s marijuana law.

“I think they’ve kind of thrown their arms up in the air,” he said.

Snipped

Complete Article: http://drugsense.org/url/PJao1kLb

Source: Denver Post (CO)
Author: John Ingold, The Denver Post
Published: January 12, 2014
Copyright: 2014 The Denver Post
Website: http://www.denverpost.com/

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 30