Marijuana Legalization – Page 11

13 Apr 2013

Legal Marijuana Sales Set To Quadruple By 2018

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

U.S. legal marijuana sales are projected to hit $1.5 billion this year, and that could look like nothing in just a few years. Data from Medical Marijuana Business Daily shows that total sales could quadruple to $6 billion by 2018 on the back of legalization efforts in Washington and Colorado, as well as the growing medical marijuana industry.

The two states both legalized the recreational use of weed in November. Elsewhere, 18 states and Washington, D.C. have made medical marijuana legal, while 10 others have formal measures pending to legalize medical marijuana, according to the National Cannabis Industry Association.

That’s reflective of a wider acceptance of the drug. A recent Pew Research Center poll discovered a majority of Americans support pot legalization for the first time in more than four decades. As many as 52 percent of Americans support legalizing weed — 45 percent do not — and nearly three-fourths say the amount of money spent enforcing marijuana usage laws is not worth the cost.

Such growing support has led marijuana-tied businesses to pitch their companies to Wall Street investors, the Los Angeles Times reported in March. Take Vincent Mehdizadeh, founder of MedBox, an automated weed dispensing machine company. He’s seeking $20 million from investors in anticipation of potential expansion.

“Everybody’s loosening up a lot because they realize the momentum has shifted and the financial world is going to have to make room for this industry,” Mehdizadeh told the LAT. “Wall Street and investment banks are going to have to come along for the ride, eventually.”

Thinking about investing in the marijuana industry yourself? Be sure to keep the risks in mind. It was reported last year that 500 of the estimated 3,000 U.S. marijuana dispensaries either had been closed by the government or shut down in the past year.

Source: Huffington Post (NY)
Author: Caroline Fairchild
Published: April 8, 2013
Copyright: 2013 HuffingtonPost.com, LLC
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

13 Apr 2013

Poll Breaks for Legalized MJ: What Happens Now?

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

For the first time, national polling shows a majority of Americans — 52 percent of us — favor legalizing marijuana use in the United States. Opposition has dropped to 45 percent.

The new figures, in a scientifically conducted survey by the Pew Research Center, indicate a dramatic reversal of American public opinion. Support for legalizing marijuana has jumped 11 points just since 2010. Historically, the change is even more dramatic. The first national survey on legalizing marijuana — by the Gallup Poll in 1969 — showed just 12 percent of Americans then in favor with 84 percent opposed.

So what happens now? Are we about to see a rush of marijuana-legalization laws as intense as states’ efforts to legalize gay marriages? Did last fall’s Colorado and Washington votes, making marijuana consumption fully legal within their borders — and not just for medicinal uses — mark a true watershed?

One would like to think so. With full reform, millions of Americans could see their personal preference for marijuana, whether for pain relief or just plain fun, move out of the shadows of illegality.

About 800,000 yearly arrests for marijuana possession could be averted. We might start to pare our prison populations by hundreds of thousands, redeeming lives, reuniting families, saving vast sums of public treasure.

Growing marijuana legally would cut deeply into America’s massive, blood-soaked drug (and gun) trade with Mexico.

Sadly, we may not be so fortunate. Today’s swing toward marijuana legalization may move much more slowly than the rush to recognition and legality of same-sex marriages.

Why such a cautious forecast?

Well, this writer was once burned, seeing reform just around the bend. In a 1977 column, I noted nine states had softened their marijuana-possession laws from criminal offense to mere civil infraction. And that President Carter was asking Congress to reduce the federal penalty for an ounce of marijuana from a year in jail to a civil fine, probably $100.

Polls indicated some trends toward acceptance — and the recognition of prohibition’s futility. I could quote C.O. Sessums Jr., president of the Mississippi Sheriffs Association: “If we were to round up every kid in Sunflower County who smoked marijuana, we wouldn’t have enough left to hold Sunday school.”

So what happened to the 1970s whiff of marijuana reform? Ethan Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance gave me an answer: Back then, marijuana was relatively new in American culture — mostly practiced by a younger generation. Today’s world is different: Half of young peoples’ own parents have tried marijuana. Which makes a huge difference.

So the shift relates to generations, as the new Pew findings underscore, noting the contrasting results by age groups — from respondents of the “Silent Generation” (Americans born before the end of World War II), post-World War II baby boomers (1946 to 1964) Generation Xers (1965 to 1980), and finally Millennials (born since 1980). Here’s how many now favor legalizing marijuana:

Silent generation: 32 percent

Baby boomers: 50 percent

Generation X: 54 percent

Millennials: 65 percent

So there’s no doubt where the future lies. Indeed, 60 percent of all respondents said the federal government shouldn’t even try to enforce national law prohibiting marijuana use in the states where voters have approved its use.

So if demographics are driving us toward marijuana acceptance, isn’t legalization poised to spread rapidly, state to state? If so, why aren’t significant laws crowding legislative calendars?

Perhaps it’s fear that the Obama administration might suddenly decide to get tough on Colorado and Washington, starting to arrest marijuana providers and users in those states. Attorney General Eric Holder has been promising but not delivering an administration position on the two states’ rather bold defiance of existing federal law.

There are real barriers. Quite absurdly, the U.S. government still classifies marijuana as a “Schedule I” controlled substance — meaning it allegedly has no medical use, strong potential for addiction and danger to persons using it.

So the best Holder may be able to do is to declare marijuana prosecution a low priority. This would allow some U.S. attorneys to go after cases of their own volition.

Eventually the legal logjam has to break, as younger generations gain political clout and today’s oldsters pass on. States will almost assuredly be the leaders, first among them likely those, like Colorado and Washington, that opened the door to medical marijuana — California, Oregon, Alaska, Maine, Nevada, Hawaii and Massachusetts.

But there could be surprise shifts, even in conservative states. Pew found rising support scores in all regions. A website, thedailychronic.net, is keeping track. Stay tuned.

Source: Seattle Times (WA)
Author: Neal Peirce, Syndicated Columnist
Published: April 13, 2013
Copyright: 2013 The Seattle Times Company
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.seattletimes.com/

9 Apr 2013

Legal Marijuana Sales Set To Quadruple By 2018

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

Source: Huffington Post (NY)
Author: Caroline Fairchild
Published: April 8, 2013
Copyright: 2013 HuffingtonPost.com, LLC
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

5 Apr 2013

Support for Legal Marijuana Reached Tipping Point

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

For the first time, a major US poll has found that a majority of Americans support legalization of marijuana.

The Pew Research Center announced Thursday that 52 percent of Americans say that marijuana use should be made legal, versus 45 percent who say it should not. The trend line has been moving gradually in the direction of majority support for more than 20 years. In 1991, only 17 percent supported legalization, while 78 percent opposed.

As with gay marriage, which has also seen a sharp rise in support in the past few years, the Pew poll found major generational differences in views on marijuana. Among Millennials – those now aged 18 to 32 – support is at 65 percent, up from just 36 percent in 2008. Among Generation X, those born between 1965 and 1980, support has risen dramatically, from 28 percent in 1994 to 54 percent today.

Half of Baby Boomers support legalized marijuana today, and among the over-65 Silent Generation support has doubled since 2002 – from 17 percent to 32 percent.

Among other noteworthy findings in the Pew poll:

Nearly three in four Americans (72 percent) say government efforts to enforce marijuana laws cost more than they are worth.

Sixty percent say the federal government should not enforce federal laws prohibiting marijuana use in states that have legalized it. Last November, voters in Colorado and Washington state approved the personal use of small amounts of marijuana.

Some 48 percent of Americans say they have tried marijuana, up from 38 percent a decade ago.

Republicans oppose legalization, while Democrats support it. Among Republicans, it’s 37 percent favoring legalization to 60 percent opposing. Among Democrats, 59 percent say legalize it and 39 percent say don’t.

Marijuana’s image as a “gateway” drug is fading. Today, 38 percent of Americans agree that “for most people the use of marijuana leads to the use of hard drugs.” In 1977, 60 percent felt that way.

Despite the trends, those opposed to legalization are not giving up. In a column in the Washington Post, former Bush administration official Peter Wehner writes that as Republicans search for new issues to champion, fighting drug use and legalization should be one.

“Today, many parents rightly believe the culture is against them. Government policies should stand with responsible parents – and under no circumstances actively undermine them,” writes Mr. Wehner, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington.

“Drug legalization would do exactly that. It would send an unmistakable signal to everyone, including the young: Drug use is not a big deal.”

But in fact, Wehner writes, “the law is a moral teacher,” and government can play a role in the shaping of character. Therefore, “Republicans should prefer that it be a constructive one, which is why they should speak out forcefully and intelligently against drug legalization.”

Source: Christian Science Monitor (US)
Author: Linda Feldmann, Staff Writer
Published: April 4, 2013
Copyright: 2013 The Christian Science Publishing Society
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.csmonitor.com/

31 Mar 2013

New Stricter State Proposal Would Allow MMJ

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

Lawmakers have introduced a measure with stricter provisions than past failed efforts to legalize marijuana sales to New Yorkers who have a “severe debilitating or life-threatening’’ health condition.

The new bill, which ends such past ideas as letting people grow their own marijuana, would have the state Health Department regulate the process, which would include allowing a certain number of private for-profits or not-for-profits to grow the plants and sell the drug under new security protocols to patients with treatment plans approved by a physician, physician’s assistant or nurse practitioner.

The measure was introduced by its past sponsors, Assemblyman Richard Gottfried, a Manhattan Democrat, and Sen. Diane Savino, a Staten Island Democrat. Savino has more political power this year as one of five breakaway Democrats who jointly run the Senate with Republicans.

The bill has 68 co-sponsors, including 10 Senate Democrats. It has previously sailed through the Assembly.

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo has opposed the idea of medical marijuana legalization, though advocates believe he could be flexible, especially since he is already promoting a plan to relax marijuana possession laws. Eighteen states and the District of Columbia have medical marijuana laws.

Advocates say the measure will more strictly regulate the drug than prescription painkillers; patient advocates in the past have said marijuana will be cheaper, less addictive and less dangerous than many of the painkiller prescriptions they take.

The bill defines those eligible to be certified by the Health Department to obtain marijuana as someone with a “serious’’ health condition, including cancer, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injuries, epilepsy, diabetes, post-traumatic stress syndrome and others.

The patient would have to be under a doctor’s supervision. Patients who a doctor believes have less than a year to live also would be eligible to buy the drug. Medical marijuana also would be listed as one of the covered drugs on a new state prescription drug tracking system intended to reduce doctor and pharmacy shopping by addicts.

Marijuana could be grown and dispensed by hospitals, for-profit companies and not-for-profit corporations, and an excise tax would be imposed on the facilities, with part of the proceeds shared with local “host’’ communities.

“The bill is much more restrictive than the New York laws regulating highly dangerous drugs like morphine, Oxycontin or Valium,’’ Gottfried said.

“Anybody who ever had a family member suffer from a debilitating disease learns very quickly the limitations of modern medicine at treating pain,’’ added Savino.

The bill’s backers include the American Public Health Association, American Bar Association, New York State Nurses Association, Pharmacists Society of the State of New York, New York AIDS Coalition, the Independence Party of New York and the Drug Policy Alliance.

Critics, including some Senate Republicans and the state Conservative Party, have said marijuana could be diverted by patients to others not eligible for the drug and that the plan sends the wrong message, especially to teenagers, about a drug some call a gateway to stronger drugs.

Source: Buffalo News (NY)
Author: Tom Precious, News Albany Bureau
Published: March 28, 2013
Copyright: 2013 The Buffalo News
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.buffalonews.com/

30 Mar 2013

Wash. Touts Credentials of Pot Consultant

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

Green thumb? Check. Extensive knowledge of the black market? Check. Throw in impeccable academic credentials and decades of experience with government agencies, and you have Washington’s marijuana consultant — a team advising officials on all things pot as they develop rules for the state’s new industry in legal, heavily taxed marijuana.

The Washington Liquor Control Board introduced Massachusetts-based BOTEC Analysis Corp. as the presumptive winner of the consultant contract during a news conference Tuesday. The team is led by a University of California, Los Angeles, public policy professor and includes a former executive of the company that is the sole licensed supplier of medical marijuana in the Netherlands. It also includes researchers with the RAND Corp. who will help figure out how much marijuana state-licensed growers should produce.

“These are, by far, the top consultants available,” said Randy Simmons, who oversees the implementation of the legal weed law for the board. “We’re serious about doing this the right way.”

Washington and Colorado last year became the first states to pass laws legalizing the recreational use of marijuana and setting up systems of state-licensed growers, processors and retail stores where adults over 21 can walk in and buy up to an ounce of heavily taxed cannabis. Sales could begin at the end of the year.

The votes left state officials with a daunting task: figuring out how to build a huge pot industry from scratch. The state’s Liquor Control Board must determine how many growers and stores there should be, how much pot should be produced, how it should be packaged, and how it should be tested to ensure people don’t get sick.

The board is doing a lot of its own research, with buttoned-up bureaucrats traveling to grow operations in California and Colorado as well as within Washington state. But the consultant’s advice will also be important. The state is aiming to produce just enough marijuana to meet current demand: Producing too little would drive up prices and help the black market flourish, while producing too much could lead to excess pot being trafficked out of state.

BOTEC — it stands for “back of the envelope calculations” — is a 30-year-old think tank headed by Mark Kleiman, a UCLA public policy professor with a doctorate from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. The firm has evaluated government programs and provided consulting relating to drug abuse, crime and public health. It studied the results of an effort to crack down on heroin dealers in Lynn, Mass., and in the early 1990s advised the Office of National Drug Control Policy on drug-demand reduction programs.

Kleiman has written several books on drug policy and crime, including “Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know,” and he has argued that states can’t legalize marijuana — federal officials would never stand for it.

“Pot dealers nationwide — and from Canada, for that matter — would flock to California to stock up,” he wrote in an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times in 2010, when California was considering legalizing marijuana. “There’s no way on earth the federal government is going to tolerate that. Instead, we’d see massive federal busts of California growers and retail dealers, no matter how legal their activity was under state law.”

For that reason, some marijuana advocates questioned how committed his team would be to carrying out the will of the voters. But Alison Holcomb, the author of Washington’s new law, said the choice of a consultant who isn’t a pot cheerleader sent a message that the state is taking its responsibilities seriously.

That’s a crucial concern because state officials are trying to persuade the federal government not to sue to block the law from taking effect. Gov. Jay Inslee has said he stressed to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder that Washington will have the best-regulated system possible, but the Justice Department still has not announced its intentions.

Steven Davenport, BOTEC’s managing director, said that with more than 30 people involved, the team comprises a wide range of opinions on marijuana legalization, but none is relevant to the task at hand: figuring out how it can best be accomplished, balancing the needs of a working marijuana distribution system with the interests of public health.

“We understand the significance and the size of the task in front of us,” Davenport said. “Our intent is to make sure the board does this correctly.”

Other team members include Michael Sautman, former CEO of Bedrocan International, the international affiliate of the only company licensed to produce medical marijuana for patients in the Netherlands; the company is overseen by the Dutch Ministry of Health, according to BOTEC’s bid for the contract.

Sautman “has consulted lawmakers and regulators in Canada, Israel and several U.S. states regarding how medical marijuana is produced and distributed in the Netherlands,” the bid reads.

Beau Kilmer, co-director of RAND’s Drug Policy Research Center, said RAND is already under contract with the White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy to develop a new approach for estimating the number of marijuana users across the country and how much pot they consume. His group will build off that work to estimate use by county in Washington state, and that it could involve Internet-based surveys asking people to detail their cannabis use — to the extent of asking them to explain the size of their most recent joint, as compared with a photograph of a joint next to a credit card or ruler for scale.

“That’s going to be a challenge, but I’m excited to work on it,” Kilmer said.

The value of BOTEC’s contract has not been set, but it is expected to exceed $100,000. The losing bidders have 10 days to contest the award.

Source: Washington Post (DC)
Author: Gene Johnson, The Associated Press
Published: March 19, 2013
Copyright: 2013 Washington Post Company
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/

30 Mar 2013

House Bill Aims To Tax Marijuana Brand Names

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

A House committee held a public hearing Friday on a measure that would tax marijuana brand names and trademarks likely to be introduced in the state of Washington when the sale of recreational marijuana starts at the end of the year.

The bill heard by the House Finance Committee calls for a tax of $3.60 per $1,000 of assessed value of “all trademarks, trade names, brand names, patents and copyrights related to marijuana.” It does not say how those values would be determined and instead says the Department of Revenue can adopt rules for determining those amounts.

In November, voters approved Initiative 502, which allows adults over age 21 to have up to an ounce of pot. The state is due to start issuing licenses to marijuana growers, processors and retail stores, with the marijuana taxed 25 percent at each stage.

Democratic Rep. Jeff Morris of Mount Vernon, the sponsor of the trademark bill, told the committee that Washington, along with Colorado, which also passed a legalization measure in the fall, could benefit as the new industry moves to register brand names or trade names.

“I think that this reflects the uniqueness of the situation,” Morris said. “What was the value of Marlboro as a trade name back when it was filed as a trade name or brand name?”

Under the bill, revenue from the tax would go into a special fund for agricultural research tied to health benefits.

During Friday’s hearing, Morris specifically cited research being done at Washington State University on creating plasma from wheat and making gluten-free wheat.

“It’s that type of research that I’m hoping this money would target,” he said.

Chris Mulick, director of state relations for WSU, testified that the university has concerns about the bill.

He said WSU currently receives $21 million a year to support agriculture research, and there are concerns that if the measure passes, the tax on brand names would supplant state funding.

Mulick also noted concerns surrounding the state’s efforts to persuade the federal government not to sue to block the law from taking effect. The U.S. Justice Department still has not announced its intentions.

“This is a resource that at this time remains highly uncertain,” Mulick said.

Morris said the tax is not meant to replace state funding of research.

A fiscal note done by the state Office of Financial Management says the amount of potential revenue from the tax is unknown for several reasons, including the difficulty estimating a value for a an industry that doesn’t yet exist, as well as uncertainty caused by the illegality of marijuana under federal law.

The measure is House Bill 1976.

Online: http://www.leg.wa.gov

Source: Associated Press (Wire)
Author: Rachel La Corte, The Associated Press
Published: March 22, 2013
Copyright: 2013 The Associated Press

30 Mar 2013

Wall Street Sees Opportunity in Marijuana

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

Amid the whir of fans and the glow of soft white light, workers tended to bright green seedlings sprouting in a giant greenhouse.

Located about an hour’s drive from Manhattan in the hills of northwestern New Jersey, the facility produces basil, chives, oregano and other herbs that are sold in grocery stores around New York City. But if Ken VandeVrede has his way the facility will one day be growing a much more valuable plant: marijuana.

VandeVrede is chief operating officer at Terra Tech, a hydroponic equipment maker based in Irvine. The small company wants to double the five-acre New Jersey greenhouse operation. The aim is one day to supply the exploding U.S. medical marijuana trade and to prepare in the event that recreational marijuana ever becomes legal nationwide.

“We can scale this thing very, very quickly,” said VandeVrede, clad in blue jeans and a pumpkin-colored sweater as he surveyed his indoor fields of produce and flowers. “When hemp and cannabis become legal, we’re ready to rock and roll.”

To do it, Terra Tech needs to raise $2 million. And like a number of small businesses in the burgeoning U.S. cannabis industry, it’s trying to enlist Wall Street’s help. Business owners have been pitching their ideas to potential investors, coming to New York in some cases to meet with would-be financiers.

Wall Street has good reason to smell potential profits.

Washington, D.C., and 18 states, including California, have already legalized medical marijuana; there are formal measures pending in 10 additional states, according to the National Cannabis Industry Assn.

Colorado and Washington legalized recreational marijuana use in November. In addition, a measure allowing “adult use” of pot has been proposed in Maryland, according to the association’s tally. Various bills to legalize marijuana and hemp have been proposed in Congress too.

Although pot remains contraband under federal law, some entrepreneurs see marijuana heading down the same path as Prohibition, which banned the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol from 1920 until it was repealed in 1933.

“More and more people see the inevitability,” said Brendan Kennedy, chief executive of the Seattle private equity firm Privateer Holdings, which targets cannabis-focused start-ups. “They see that the Berlin Wall of cannabis prohibition is going to come down.”

Privateer is raising $7 million to acquire small companies that have a hand in the trade but don’t grow or distribute marijuana. Its first acquisition: Leafly, a Yelp-style online rating site in Seattle for dispensaries and varying strains of marijuana.

With pot still federally outlawed, others are making similar bets — funding firms that supply equipment or ancillary services while steering clear of marijuana farming and sales.

Take Lazarus Investment Partners, a $60-million hedge fund in Denver, for example. One of Lazarus’ investments is in AeroGrow International Inc., a maker of hydroponic kitchen appliances geared toward growing herbs, lettuce and tomatoes.

Lazarus, which owns 15% of AeroGrow’s shares, has suggested that the company tweak its products to accommodate taller plants, including marijuana, said Justin Borus, the fund’s managing partner.

“We want to be selling the bluejeans to the gold miners,” Borus said. “We don’t want to take a bet on which state is going to get legalized and which dispensary is going to succeed, or [which] cannabis growers are going to be successful. We want to just make a bet on overall legalization.”

In California, MedBox, a West Hollywood maker of automated dispensing machines for doctors’ offices, pharmacies and pot dispensaries, is on the hunt for funding.

Vincent Mehdizadeh, MedBox’s founder, said the company is actively exploring raising $20 million in equity to boost staffing and fund research and development, acquisitions and marketing.

Mehdizadeh said he’s seen a “major spike” in interest from potential financiers looking to invest in the small company since Colorado and Washington legalized recreational pot use last year.

“Everybody’s loosening up a lot because they realize the momentum has shifted and the financial world is going to have to make room for this industry,” he said. “Wall Street and investment banks are going to have to come along for the ride, eventually.”

Derek Peterson, president and chief executive of Terra Tech, is working to get his company’s shares listed on a stock exchange by the end of the year. The company may try for NYSE MKT, which was formerly known as the American Stock Exchange and is geared toward smaller companies, or perhaps the Nasdaq Stock Market, he said.

“The stodgier Wall Street types are starting to realize there’s money to be made here,” said Peterson, who worked in wealth management at Wachovia Securities and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney.

The company has taken steps to get the word out to investors. It tapped Midtown Partners, a small New York boutique investment bank, to help it explore financing options as it planned the New Jersey greenhouse expansion. Terra Tech is merging with the farm’s owner, NB Plants, and retail gardening center and nursery. Both are owned by VandeVrede’s family.

Initially, the vast majority of Terra Tech’s revenue will come from cultivating fresh herbs and flowers from the New Jersey farm, with the rest coming from equipment sales. The idea is to first feed urban consumers’ growing appetite for pesticide-free produce, then add pot or hemp when the legal climate is right.

“There is this huge demand for organic food,” said Prakash Mandgi, Midtown Partners’ director of investment banking. “Marijuana cultivation, in my opinion, is a potential driver in the future, but it’s so tied to government rule and regulations…. Federally it’s illegal.”

Estimates for the marijuana industry’s size range widely, since much of the trade remains on the black market. Bloomberg Industries recently pegged it at $35 billion to $45 billion.

Still, Wall Street is by no means opening the floodgates of capital.

Companies in this space are still quite tiny, not to mention risky, compared with large corporations trading on the New York Stock Exchange or the Nasdaq.

Moreover, Wall Street firms face a significant disincentive to investing in the industry: federal law. Growing and distributing marijuana can still lead to raids by federal agents — not to mention prison time and huge fines.

Major banks have come under intense scrutiny by the federal government in recent years for violating laws aimed at preventing money-laundering. The British banking giant HSBC paid $1.9 billion to end a U.S. investigation into its role processing cash for drug cartels and customers in rogue nations.

Marijuana dispensary owners have complained of difficulty opening bank accounts, forcing them to operate in cash only.

“This is messy,” said Dan Richman, a former federal prosecutor who handled narcotics cases and now teaches at Columbia Law School in New York. “This might be complex politically. It’s not complex as a matter of federal criminal law.”

Investors in businesses involved in growing or distributing cannabis could face civil forfeiture actions to seize their investments or other assets, Richman said.

“I would think the prospectus would have to say: ‘The government might come and take all of your money and possibly go after you,’” Richman said.

Federal law may not deter all investors. After all, the government can choose what laws to strictly enforce, and it’s unclear how the federal government will ultimately treat legalized recreational pot in Colorado and Washington.

Alan Valdes, a floor trader on the New York Stock Exchange, expects some of Wall Street’s more adventurous investors to put up money for a project he’s involved with called Diego Pellicer Inc.

The business idea is to open a dozen Starbucks-like high-end shops for pot in Colorado and Washington. Valdes said he and his partners might begin tapping investors — wealthy individuals, family-run funds — later this year.

“These are more mavericks — these are gunslingers,” he said of potential investors. “The big houses are off the table right now.”

Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Author: Andrew Tangel, Los Angeles Times
Published: March 23, 2013
Copyright: 2013 Los Angeles Times
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.latimes.com/

30 Mar 2013

On Pot Laws, Respect The States

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

It may be surprising, but no state is required to have a law making possession of marijuana, or any drug, a crime. Therefore, any state can legalize some or all marijuana possession if it chooses. The federal government, if it chooses, can enforce the federal law against its possession and use, but it is up to each state to decide what to criminally prohibit, based on the 10th Amendment.

This basic insight has been lost in the public discussion about whether the initiatives legalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana passed by Colorado and Washington voters in November are preempted by federal law. The two states will soon finalize regulations to implement those initiatives, including how to tax and regulate marijuana.

U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. told a recent meeting of state attorneys general that the Justice Department review of the initiatives was winding down, suggesting an imminent decision as to whether it intends to challenge the initiatives as being preempted by federal law.

This month, eight former heads of the Drug Enforcement Administration urged Holder to enjoin the new state laws. Peter Bensinger, DEA chief from 1976 to 1981, told the Associated Press: “This is a no-brainer. It is outrageous that a lawsuit hasn’t been filed.”

Is it outrageous? Or is it just an intelligent assessment of the legal landscape?

The preemption doctrine is based on the supremacy clause of Article VI of the Constitution, which makes federal law “the supreme law of the land” trumping conflicting state laws. The question, then, is whether there is a conflict between the federal government prohibiting small amounts of marijuana and some states not doing so.

There is not a conflict when one level of government prohibits something but another level of government does not. An easy illustration is that murder is a crime in every state, but, except for very specific circumstances, it is not a federal crime. No one would say that there is a conflict. Likewise, a state can decide that certain conduct does not violate state law even if it offends federal law. It is then for the federal government to decide how, if at all, it wants to enforce the federal law.

Several other states, including California, have laws making possession of up to an ounce of marijuana an infraction punishable by a fine, even though under federal law, it’s a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in federal prison. Similarly, 17 states and Washington, D.C., have laws that allow possession of marijuana for medical purposes; there is no such federal exception. Although the federal government can enforce the stricter U.S. law in states that have decriminalized possession or have medical marijuana laws, it has never acted to have those state laws invalidated based on the preemption doctrine.

Simply put, no state has to have a law prohibiting marijuana, even though federal law does. And if a state does have such a ban but wants to repeal it in whole or in part, such as for possession for medical reasons or for small amounts, it may do so.

Because states could remove all criminal sanctions for marijuana, this more limited removal of some state sanctions cannot be preempted, claiming a conflict with federal law. It is true that Colorado and Washington go further than allowing possession of small amounts of marijuana under state law; their new laws also regulate and tax the sale of marijuana. But this actually helps achieve the federal objective of controlling marijuana compared to a state decriminalizing marijuana without regulating its distribution.

Beyond the legal arguments, there are policy reasons for the federal government to not interfere with the Colorado and Washington laws. An important feature of federalism is that states are empowered to serve as laboratories for experimentation with social policies. As the nation embarks on perhaps the most significant public debate about drug policy since President Nixon declared the war on drugs, Washington and Colorado’s experiment should be allowed to go forward. The country can then assess whether it succeeded or failed.

Let’s hope Holder’s response will be more nuanced and respectful of the states than that urged by the retired drug warriors.

Erwin Chemerinsky is dean of the UC Irvine School of Law. Allen Hopper is criminal justice and drug policy director of the ACLU of California.

Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Author: Erwin Chemerinsky and Allen Hopper
Published: March 27, 2013
Copyright: 2013 Los Angeles Times
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.latimes.com/

27 Feb 2013

‘What Were They Smoking?’

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

The federal government says there is no such thing as “medical” marijuana. Despite that, an increasing number of states have legalized the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, and a couple, so far, have okayed recreational use of marijuana for adults.

In the medical context, doctors often prescribe marijuana to manage chronic pain, and those patients must register in a confidential patient database. Registration triggers issuance of registry identification cards so recipients avoid criminal liability. Because many such patients are in the workforce, however, employers need to be aware of existing medical marijuana laws and pending legislation in each state where they employ workers.

The states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington currently legalize marijuana use for varying reasons. Washington and Colorado approved recreational marijuana use by adults, with regulations to monitor its possession, use and sale.

Expect more smoke. In 2013, Alabama, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, New Hampshire, Maryland, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and West Virginia introduced bills to make marijuana use lawful. On February 21 2013, for instance, Maryland Democratic Delegate Curt Anderson introduced a bill to legalize and tax marijuana use by “over 21” adults. The titles of several of these proposed bills contain words like “compassionate use” and “compassion and care” that reveal or suggest empathy for individuals with chronic pain who, with marijuana, want to function and work with less or no pain.

Some existing and pending state laws place specific restrictions on the management of employees who are registered medical marijuana users. In other states, however, regulations state that “their” laws do not deprive businesses from maintaining a drug-free workplace. Still other states have yet to address application of their marijuana laws to the workplace while their regulations remain embryonic.

In California, Colorado, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington, businesses need not currently accommodate employees who legally use marijuana for medicinal purposes. Washington’s statute, for example, says that employers may establish drug-free work policies, and nothing in it requires accommodating the medical use of marijuana. Others are not so clear, forcing employers to develop what sometimes must be “best guess” workplace policies to comply with “fog-filled” laws.

Marijuana use laws in Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, and Rhode Island expressly forbid businesses from refusing to hire applicants and from disciplining and otherwise adversely affecting the employment of registered medical marijuana card holders based solely on that status. Arizona and Delaware extend that by forbidding businesses from refusing to hire applicants or disciplining employees on the basis of drug tests that reveal marijuana components or metabolites. There are exceptions to these rules where, for example, the employees are “impaired” by marijuana while on an employer’s property and/or during work hours. But in those states, employed medical marijuana card holders are not “impaired” simply because marijuana components or metabolites are “in” their systems. Even worse, there currently are no bright-line tests for marijuana “intoxication” comparable to those for alcohol intoxication. That means employers in disciplining “impaired” employees will have to rely on observations of an employee’s behavior to prove impairment and avoid liability if the employees file a charge or sue.

With the changing landscape of state regulation, businesses cannot rely on federal classification of marijuana as a Schedule I substance (meaning it has no currently accepted medical use and has high potential for abuse). Instead, the federal-state “tug of war” means that every employer must be on “high alert” to ever-broadening marijuana use state laws and regulations.

Employers also need to educate law-makers as to the practicalities of employing marijuana users so any legislation passed can and does avoid unintended, harsh, and perhaps dangerous workplace consequences. Here are examples of opportunities for workplace input. In Colorado, there is a task force to propose regulations for its new use laws. Massachusetts health officials held three public “listening sessions” during February to help draft the regulations for the medical marijuana law passed by voters in November 2012.

Employers also should ensure that their human resources professionals and management teams are knowledgeable about the marijuana laws in each state where they employ workers, including updating their policies.

As more and more states relax the use of marijuana, perhaps, in part, because tax revenues from the sale of marijuana can help solve budget woes, business owners will also need pain management.

* Barbra Diallo also contributed to the content of this article.

Source: Forbes Magazine (US)
Author: Roxanne Wilson, Contributor
Published: February 26, 2013
Copyright: 2013 Forbes Inc.
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.forbes.com/

« 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 … 16 »