Prohibition

2 Mar 2014

Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970

posted in: Industrial Hemp | 0

Shortly after the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act went into effect on October 1, 1937, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Denver City police arrested Moses Baca for possession and Samuel Caldwell for dealing.

^ “The First Pot POW”. Retrieved 2011-03-18. “On the day the Marijuana Tax Stamp Act was enacted — Oct. 2, 1937 — the FBI and Denver, Colo., police raided the Lexington Hotel and arrested Samuel R. Caldwell, 58, an unemployed labourer and Moses Baca, 26. On Oct. 5, Caldwell went into the history trivia books as the first marijuana seller convicted under U.S. federal law. His customer, Baca, was found guilty of possession.”

Baca and Caldwell’s arrest made them the first marijuana convictions under U.S. federal law for not paying the marijuana tax.[19] Judge Foster Symes sentenced Baca to 18 months and Caldwell to four years in Leavenworth Penitentiary for violating the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act.

After the Philippines fell to Japanese forces in 1942, the Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Army urged farmers to grow fiber hemp. Tax stamps for cultivation of fiber hemp began to be issued to farmers. Without any change in the marijuana Tax Act, 400,000 acres (1,600 km2) were cultivated with hemp between 1942 and 1945. The last commercial hemp fields were planted in Wisconsin in 1957.

In 1967, President Johnson’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of justice opined, “The Act raises an insignificant amount of revenue and exposes an insignificant number of marijuana transactions to public view, since only a handful of people are registered under the Act. It has become, in effect, solely- a criminal law, imposing sanctions upon persons who sell, acquire, or possess marijuana.”

In 1969 in Leary v. United States, part of the Act was ruled to be unconstitutional as a violation of the Fifth Amendment, since a person seeking the tax stamp would have to incriminate him/herself. In response the Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act as Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.[23] The 1937 Act was repealed by the 1970 Act.

23 Aug 2013

Alcohol, Marijuana Prohibitions Don’t Work

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

Prohibition doesn’t work. Not in alcohol. Not in marijuana. Human nature is just too natural for such prohibitions to work beyond the scale of individuals and families.

This is what the Oglala Sioux Tribe decided last week in a historic, and extremely close referendum at the infamous Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. For the first time in 124 years, and after months of intense campaigning, they decided to permit the sale of “firewater.” Why? Because bootlegged booze has created “some of the highest rates of alcoholism in Indian Country and alcoholism is often connected with the high rate of domestic abuse, suicide, birth defects and violent crime on the reservation.” This quote comes from the Rapid City Journal on Aug. 15, which headlined this story.

By legalizing sales, the tribe will have the power to bankrupt the predatory liquor stores that line the edge of the reservation; regulate consumption, especially for children and pregnant women; and raise tax revenue for programs dealing with substance abuse and fetal alcohol syndrome. The Journal article featured a great-grandmother as the primary caretaker for her great-grandchildren because her granddaughter is alcoholic. Nevertheless, she and 1,678 others voted to keep the reservation “dry” to prevent even worse conditions. Worse than what? Three generations out of commission instead of two? Luckily, a slight majority of 1,843 voters carried the day to create a “wet” reservation.

This was big news for me last week because I was visiting family in my hometown of Bemidji, Minn., which has a large population of Native Americans, many of whom still resemble the historic photographs of ethnologist Edward Curtis. The largest nearby reservation, Red Lake, remains dry, even though it hurts their casino revenues and has done little to restrict the social damage of alcohol.

The dry status of Red Lake echoes the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which banned alcohol sales on the premise that society would benefit. The new wet status of Pine Ridge echoes the 21st Amendment, which repealed that law because the negative consequences outweighed the positive, most importantly the flagrant disregard for the rule of law by otherwise law-abiding citizens.

The Pine Ridge vote also echoes recent trends in marijuana legislation. Twenty states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana even though the federal government doesn’t recognize the benefit. Connecticut is among them. In fact, East Hartford is considering an enormous facility for growing medical weed. The community stands to benefit from the new jobs and taxable revenue. Connecticut and 16 other states have decriminalized possession even though pot remains illegal at the federal level. And two states, Washington and Colorado, have legalized adult possession. In fact, a pot festival was underway in Seattle when I wrote this column, and the police were handing out munchies instead of citations. Given these trends, it’s only a matter of time before the prohibition against marijuana is repealed nationally.

This will not come without social costs. As parent, I fear for the neurological consequences of heavy pot use on teenage brains. As a teacher, I fear for the work ethic of a rising generation. As a citizen, I fear for the loss of workplace efficiency, the higher incidence of workplace accidents, and for the associated costs that I will share as a taxpayer.

Obviously, there is no good solution at the government level. Prohibition creates more problems than it solves. Regulation is costly and onerous. The only good solution is personal choice.

Like most of my cohort, I have personally experienced the pleasures of alcohol and marijuana use, and have witnessed the dangers associated with their abuse. For me, the disadvantages of both substances outweigh their advantages. I’m better off without alcohol because it was cramping my style and putting me to sleep. And, I’m better off without dope because – when I dallied with it decades ago – – it distorted my reality and robbed me of my initiative.

Without my initiative, I’d be little more than a lotus-eater mooching off others.

20 Aug 2013

"I don’t want to fucking give this United States government one fucking dollar of taxes…" — Jack Herer, "The Emperor of Hemp", September 12th, 2009

posted in: Industrial Hemp | 0

Rev. Mary Spears explains the legalization vs. repeal initiatives and why REPEAL is the only way to proceed.

“I don’t want to fucking give this United States
government one fucking dollar of taxes…”
– Jack Herer, “The Emperor of Hemp”, September 12th, 2009
(Portland Hempstalk Festival–his final speech.)
http://overgrow.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-fallacy-of-the-legalize-and-tax-cannabis-initiatives

By ElectroPig Von Fökkengrüüven in Overgrow The World v2.0

The Fallacy of the “Legalize and Tax Cannabis” initiatives.

Overgrow The World

April 21, 2010

I have listened and understood the words of the late Jack Herer, and I am amazed how few people who say they believe in what Jack was saying truly understand the real reasons why he so horrified at the idea of creating new cannabis taxes. Let me explain quickly: THEY ARE NOT NEEDED AT ALL! As a matter of fact, nothing could be further from the truth!

Now I’m sure that many of you don’t believe me. If that is the case, then you also didn’t understand what Jack meant, or perhaps you simply weren’t paying attention, choosing to hear what you agreed with and ignoring what you didn’t understand, or simply weren’t interested in.

The first “ignored fact” is that the vast majority of the “illicit market” for cannabis is underground, hence, completely untaxed. There is a small fallacy to this statement, however, as even those “underground economies” still purchase their supplies, tools and equipment from “legitimate businesses” and those businesses all pay taxes of one form or another. Cannabis growers order pizza, buy gas, hire electricians and plumbers, et cetera. In this admittedly roundabout way, cannabis already is taxed, albeit to a very small degreee in comparison to the total size of the market as it stands, and to the potential which is known to exist.

Let’s say that cannabis/hemp were re-legalized prohibition was repealed today, and it was done so without the creation of any new tax codes specifically for cannabis. Most think that this would be a bad thing, as it wouldn’t be “exploiting the market” without creating new tax codes, new agencies, new enforcement regimes. Unfortunately, the people who believe that have been lied to, and it’s time that they learned the truth.

In actual fact, if cannabis were re-legalized prohibition was repealed today and taxes weren’t considered in the equation in any way, it would still be beneficial to society in terms of savings alone. We’d save money on policing, of which estimates range that between 40-60% of all police costs are directly due to “drug prohibition.” Logic follows that with police not bogged down with grandmothers taking a puff to slow their glaucoma, they would then be able to concentrate their resources on combating real crimes. Things like rape, murder, fraud, home invasion and theft, assault and battery, arson, financial crimes, environmental crimes (of which cannabis/hemp prohibition is one of the leading causes, in fact), and many more REAL crimes with REAL victims.

Taken a step further, lawyers would then be freed up to work on real crimes as well. So would prosecutors. So would judges, court stenographers, prison staff and more. WIthout locking away non-violent “criminals” who have harmed noone else–and this is the scary part for corporations–the “warehousing of otherwise productive humans for profit” would suddenly become far less profitable for the prison-industrial complex to continue, and prohibitionary statute development might begin to fade. With less “legal reasons” to imprison people for essentially minding their own business, more people would not have the lives and futures destroyed.

So let’s say that there were no new taxes created upon re-legalization of cannabis/hemp, and we ONLY consider the tens or hundreds of billions SAVED by no longer wasting time attacking people in their homes for posession or for growing a few plants for their own consumption. Are not those billions of dollars saved a tremendous enough benefit to justify the immediate repeal of cannabis/hemp prohibition? Could saving those billions of dollars not be immediately transferred into lower taxes, or public debt reduction? Would those savings alone not be of tremendous, immediate and long-term social value?

Now let’s consider the tax idea on it’s own merit.

With re-legalization repeal of cannabis/hemp prohibition, there would immediately follow the creation of new businesses to exploit what is widely known to be a global market for cannaibs and hemp products. Each of those businesses would be subject to business income taxes that currently do not exist. WIthout a single character added to business tax statutes, the net result would be the establishment of “new revenue” from those “new businesses.”

Of course, those businesses would need people to man storefronts, deliver products, develop products, design packaging, grow the raw materials, process the raw materials, et cetera. These jobs would all be legitimate jobs in the real job market. Each of those jobs would be subject to existing income tax statutes. It’s not hard to see how those “new jobs” would in turn be utilized as “new tax revenue sources” which previously did not exist. Again, without a single line of new codes written, a brand new revenue stream has been obtained.

Each of those new employees and businesses would need supplies, equipment, computers, energy sources, and services. All of those businesses and individuals would then use their incomes to purchase those items or services they needed, either to operate or enhance their businesses, or simply to make their lives at home a little better. All of those products would be purchased at existing retailers and/or wholesalers that exist in the current “legitimate marketplace.” All (or the vast majority) of those purchases would be subject to sales taxes at state/provincial and federal levels. Again, not a single comma added to the existing statutes required, but “new revenue” has effectively been attained.

Now let’s take the cannabis market ITSELF.

All of those newly created and legitimate businesses would provide products that people either wanted or needed, be they for medical purposes or for recreational uses. All of those products would then be subject to state/provincial and federal sales taxes. With each sale would then come “new revenues” which do not exist today. Again–are you starting to notice a pattern yet?–without the addition of a single line of code to any existing tax codes.

The Fallacy of “New Government Regulatory Jobs”

People keep being told that “new jobs” will be created in the “new regulatory framework” that “will be needed”, but they haven’t thought this through. Some have partly thought it through, thinking that since a percentage of those worker’s incomes will be clawed back by income taxes–say 25%–that means that those jobs are “cheaper” than “real jobs”. That’s actually not quite right.

When you look the “real economy”, or in other words, the economy from which all government income is derived via the millions of tax codes which exist to take our incomes from us all, any position in this “real economy” is one which is subject to taxation, and therefore, is generally to be considered a contributing position.

On the other hand, when you look at “government jobs” which are wholly funded by “real people” with “real jobs” in the “real economy”, every government position which exists–no matter what country or what level of government–is a drain on society, and must be so, as “we hired them to work for us.”

Now let’s take a simple example that we’ve all heard a million times: “Joe The Plumber.”

If Joe was working in his own shop, or for someone else in their business, he would be a contributing factor in the “real economy” in the amount of taxation on his income, we’ll use 25% for illustration purposes. This means that 25% of his income is diverted to “public employees and projects” needed for society to function as it currently exists.

Now let’s take Joe’s situation if he were a government employee…let’s say he’s employed by the local Public Utilities Comission. Now Joe’s income is wholly funded by tax dollars, and thus, is a drain on society. We’ve established an income tax rate of 25%, so we can now say that Joe is “cheaper” because now his services now only costs us 75% of what they would, had he remained in his private sector job.

Here is the “minor error” in that logic: Joe has moved from the “real economy” to the “government economy”. In making that move, the “real economy” has lost 100% of a “real job”, while the government has gained an employee “at a discount of only 75% of their private sector wages.” When you add that up, you see quite clearly that Joe’s “new job” is effectively now a 175% loss to society as a whole.

Joe’s still making the same amount of money. We’re still paying him the same amount of money when he does his work…but now he is NOT contributing to the “real economy” at all, while he is draining 75% of his wages from unnaportioned taxation of the people who are forced to pay his salary, whether they partake of his services or not.

Unfortunately, this also applies to every “equivalent government position” that exists in the world. Accountants cost 175% of what they would cost in the “real economy.” So do welders, secretaries, cafeteria cooks, lawyers…ALL of them! If they work for the government, they are at a much higher cost than their equivalent “real world” positions in the real economy.

We need to keep this in mind whenever we hear talk of ” new regulations” because that almost always means “new regulatory bodies”, and that DEFINITELY always means “new government employees” which are going to cost us dearly if we allow such things to occur.

If we are forced to accept some form of taxation in order to move closer to the full repeal of cannabis/hemp prohibition, so be it…let’s move a little closer…but the second we have a positive change under our belts, we must NOT become complacent! We must continue to fight for the full repeal of cannabis/hemp prohibition until the batttle is decisively won.

Once we have some “half-assed reasonable legislation” in place, we can guage what are the worst parts of those enacted bills and target them one by one until they’re all gone, and then, we will have our ofn freedom, and freedom for what is arguably the most important plant known on this planet.

At the Hempstalk Festival, during Jack Herer’s final public speech, he said (among other things):

“I don’t want to fucking give this United States government one fucking dollar of taxes…”

Obviously, he understood my thinking…or perhaps, I simply learned enough to come to an understanding of his.

What about you?

EDIT: I have since come up with the complete solution to the perils of prohibition in THREE WORDS:

1) DESCHEDULE.
2) REPEAL.
3) DONE!!!

If you remember only three words in your lifetime, THOSE are the ones that WILL end cannabis/hemp prohibition.

If we continue to be led by propagandists and prohibitionists into accepting ever-longer-names for prohibition, while believing we are “moving closer to freedom”, we’ll never get there…it’ll just keep getting more complex, more costly, and more damaging to society as a whole…as it has for decades already.

If we allow our politicians to “reschedule” cannabis, this COULD mean an outright statutory BAN on ALL cannabis use, medicinal or otherwise, for the length of time it would take “to conduct safety studies.” We already know that if they keep finding proof cannabis is non-toxic, anti-oxidant, neuroprotectant, et cetera, we also already know that these “safety studies” will be completed in an absolute minimum of 4-6 years, to an absolute maximum of…NEVER!

“Decriminalization” is NOT repeal. It’s still illegal.

“Legalization” simply tells the politicians and courts that we believe the fix to bad legislation conveived of in fraud can only be fixed not by deleting it from the recored entirely, but by making it more complex…but keeping it all on the books for future “quick-n-easy” readoption when prison investors want higher revenues to do their profit-taking from.

“Re-legalization” is just two letters prepended to the above.

“Tax and regulate” tells OUR EMPLOYEES that “we owe them new taxes for not wasting our money attacking us.” If we keep buying into the scam, they’ll get it, too!

“Regulate like [insert commodity of the hour here]” is just another way to justify the creation of a new regulatory body, hire new “government employees”, raise taxes, lower rights and freedoms, all while telling the wilfully ignorant population that “they are free.” They ain’t. They won’t be.

“REPEAL” means: The statutes are GONE. Deleted. History. Erased. Terminated. Removed from the “law” journals. NEVER TO RETURN.

The ridiculous proposition that “if we want it legal again, we have to create new taxes” is also a prime example of idiotic propaganda foisted upon a wilfully ignorant population. Only two seconds of thought tells you the truth of the situation…we do NOT need to “appease our employees” when we finally force them to stop wasting our money. Not wasting all those billions of dollars every year should be, and IS, reward enough to everyone all on it’s own!

When we find out we’ve got a crooked mechanic who’s bee charging us for spark plug changes on every visit that we didn’t really need, and were nothing more than a waste of OUR money…we don’t praise them and give them permanent bonuses, do we? So where did the idea come from, that in order for our employees to simply do their job with a litle more brainpower behind their actions, that we need to give them more money and hire more people? Reality has to sink in eventually, folks! Even through the infinitely thick skulls of “politicians.” They might be as dense as the core of a neutron star, but they still have ear holes! SO START SPEAKING UP!!!

Either we DEMAND the full repeal of prohibition, or we will continue on with it forever, just with a different name, and higher taxes…and let’s face it, folks: OUR EMPLOYEES will be completely happy to rename what they’re doing to us and call it whatever we want to call it, if we’re dumb enough to allow it to continue. Are we really so blind as to STILL not see the truth for what it is?

Want it over? MAKE it over!

1) DESCHEDULE.
2) REPEAL.
3) DONE!!!

It really is just as simple as that.

* That solves prohibition on a national level…we still need to remove cannabis/hemp from the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs in order to end prohibition GLOBALLY.

Tags: Herer, Jack, PROHIBITION, REPEAL, Rick, Simpson, cannabis, freedom, health, human, More…

By ElectroPig Von Fökkengrüüven in Overgrow The World v2.0

The Fallacy of the “Legalize and Tax Cannabis” initiatives.

Overgrow The World

April 21, 2010

Jack Herer’s last speech at Portland Hempstalk Festival 2009–HIS FINAL SPEECH BEFORE HE DIED…MAY HE NEVER BE FORGOTTEN!

MY PERSONAL COMMENT: SOMETIMES (MOST OFTEN) OLD NEWS IS THE BEST NEWS – SMK.

1 Jun 2013

Former Microsoft Manager Has Big Ideas About Pot

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

Former Microsoft manager Jamen Shively wants to create the first national brand of retail marijuana and to open pot trade with Mexico. Shively plans to announce that and more in a Thursday news conference he says will feature Vicente Fox, the former president of Mexico. “Let’s go big or go home,” Shively said. “We’re going to mint more millionaires than Microsoft with this business.”

He’s acquiring medical-marijuana dispensaries in Washington and Colorado, he said, and plans to become the leader in both the medical and adult-recreational pot markets. He sees the marijuana market as the only one of its size in which there does not exist a single established brand.

He and Fox plan to announce a proposal for regulating the trade of marijuana between the two countries, he said.

Some details of the trade agreement remain to be worked out, such as how to get around international rules forbidding legal pot, Shively admitted.

“I don’t know how exactly that would be done, but I know it’s been done in other industries,” he said.

Alison Holcomb, primary author of the state’s legal-marijuana law, said Shively faces a huge obstacle in the federal government’s prohibition of marijuana.

“Having a national chain of marijuana-based companies is not only explicitly counter to the existing prohibition, but also counter to the government’s expressed concern about business growing too large,” said Holcomb, drug-policy director for the ACLU of Washington.

But Shively, 45, likened the federal prohibition to the Berlin Wall and said it’s crumbling, with fewer defenders every day.

He also said he’s created a way to shield investors from federal regulators at the Securities and Exchange Commission.

And, he contends a venture this size is too big to operate recklessly and take risks — such as diverting legal pot to black markets — that the federal government is most concerned about.

“What we’re all about is making it extremely professional and having the highest quality and efficiencies,” he said.

What if the feds were to come after him?

Shively paraphrased Obi-Wan Kenobi. “He said ‘Darth, if you strike me down I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.’”

If she were Shively’s attorney, Holcomb said, she’d advise him to read the so-called Cole memorandum from the U.S. Department of Justice. It “explicitly mentioned a concern with operations involving thousands of plants and millions of dollars” and is evidence of the federal concern with big pot businesses.

Shively, though, seems undeterred. He has become almost evangelical about pot and its benefits, particularly for medical patients, such as his father who has prostate cancer.

“I’ve just fallen in love with the plant,” he said. “Especially in the medical realm I’ve gone from entrepreneur to advocate to activist, seriously.”

Shively worked at Microsoft six years, he said, and had the title of corporate strategy manager. He said he’s been smoking pot for a year and a half.

Source: Seattle Times (WA)
Author: Bob Young, Seattle Times Staff Reporter
Published: May 29, 2013
Copyright: 2013 The Seattle Times Company
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.seattletimes.com/

29 May 2013

How America Learned To Stop Worrying & Love MJ

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

For nearly a century, the United States has been one of the fiercest advocates and practitioners of marijuana prohibition in the world. At the height of the America’s anti-pot fervor in the 1950s and ’60s, one could even receive life imprisonment for simple possession of the drug.

But the puritanical fervor that once dominated the national discussion surrounding cannabis has been conspicuously absent of late. Earlier this month, the Colorado State legislature, by order of a November referendum, passed bills to implement the legalization and regulation of recreational marijuana use. Washington State voters also approved legalization by referendum on election day. And these events have recently been followed by more good news for supporters of cannabis law reform.

The Organization for American States recently suggested that marijuana legalization could be a way to cut down on drug-violence in the western hemisphere. Perhaps most important, the movement has finally found a voice on Capitol Hill, as representatives Earl Blumenauer and Jared Polis submitted legislation earlier this year that would end federal prohibition of the drug, and allow states to tax and regulate it as they see fit. As Bill Keller put it recently in the New York Times, “Today the most interesting and important question is no longer whether marijuana will be legalized — eventually, bit by bit, it will be — but how.”

Indeed, the feeling that the further liberalization of marijuana laws is inevitable is backed up by the polling trends. According to Gallup, as recently as 2005, two-thirds of Americans opposed legalization of marijuana. Now 48% percent of the population supports it. And a similar poll from Pew puts the number even higher – at 52%. But what exactly explains this sudden change in American attitudes towards pot?

Undoubtedly, part of the reason for the increased acceptance is demographic. It might make you feel old to read this, but on Friday, both Bob Dylan and Tommy Chong celebrated birthdays, turning 72 and 74 respectively. The aging of these counterculture icons hasn’t directly changed American attitudes towards marijuana, of course, but it does underscore the fact that the vast majority of Americans living today came of age during a time when marijuana was widely in use. The data bear out the prevalence of marijuana use in today’s society, with 48% of Americans claiming they have tried the drug at least once.

But familiarity with marijuana isn’t by itself going to drive changes in the legal code. Political consensus is necessary too. And while national political leaders aren’t necessarily falling over themselves to endorse marijuana legalization, there isn’t a lot of room in the current political climate to defend it, either. The political right has done an excellent job over the past thirty years convincing the American public of the limitations of government. They have argued that even when the government has the best of intentions it can be astoundingly ineffective at achieving its stated goals, and often creates unintended and pernicious consequences to boot. This is the same argument that has led to deregulation of industry, historically low tax rates, and legislative efforts like welfare reform. It’s only logical to extend it beyond social welfare programs to something like drug policy.

And supporters of ending marijuana prohibition do indeed point to the unintended consequences of the policy as reason to legalize. According to the FBI, in 2011, 1.5 million people were arrested on drug charges, and roughly half of those were for marijuana, costing billions per year in law enforcement and court costs. And that doesn’t count the human toll on those arrested, like potential loss of work, government benefits, the right to vote, and student aid. Meanwhile, the government simply hasn’t come anywhere close to achieving the stated goal of marijuana prohibition, which is to prevent drug addiction. According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, since the beginning of the so-called war on drugs, the addiction rate in America has remained steady at 1.3%, despite the fact that each year state and local governments spend more and more money – over $1 trillion in total – fighting the drug war.

What’s more, the unintended consequences of marijuana prohibition do not stop at our borders. In fact, the brunt of the side effects may be being felt in places like Mexico. And as my college Tim Padgett wrote this week, it would appear that America’s allies in the Western hemisphere are looking seriously at ending marijuana prohibition as a strategy for reducing the drug violence that is ravaging much of Latin America. A study issued this month by the Organization of American States declared that it’s now time to seriously consider legalizing pot in order to cut down on this violence. It’s estimated, for instance, that legalizing marijuana in America could eliminate one-third of Mexican cartel’s $30 billion annual haul.

We are in a political moment where social conservatism has been somewhat sidelined as a political force by the growing influence of libertarianism in the Republican party. This dynamic emphasizes the tension between liberty and morality that has been with us since the founding of our country, and at this moment liberty appears to be ascendant. But make no mistake, the puritanical impulses that once made America the leading voice in marijuana prohibition haven’t gone anywhere — and advocates of reform should know that pendulums, once set it motion, swing back again.

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

24 May 2013

The Cannabis Is Out Of The Bag

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

This week, the Colorado General Assembly put the finishing touches on legislation aimed at taxing and regulating the commercial distribution of marijuana for recreational use. The process has been haunted by the fear that the federal government will try to quash this momentous experiment in pharmacological tolerance — a fear magnified by the Obama administration’s continuing silence on the subject.

Six months after voters in Colorado and Washington made history by voting to legalize marijuana, Attorney General Eric Holder still has not said how the Justice Department plans to respond. But if the feds are smart, they will not just refrain from interfering, they will work together with state officials to minimize smuggling of newly legal marijuana to jurisdictions that continue to treat it as contraband. A federal crackdown can only make the situation worse — for prohibitionists as well as consumers.

Shutting down state-licensed pot stores probably would not be very hard. A few well-placed letters threatening forfeiture and prosecution would do the trick for all but the bravest cannabis entrepreneurs. But what then?

Under Amendment 64, the Colorado initiative, people 21 or older already are allowed to possess up to an ounce of marijuana, grow up to six plants for personal use and keep the produce of those plants ( potentially a lot more than an ounce ) on the premises where they are grown. It is also legal to transfer up to an ounce “without remuneration” and to “assist” others in growing and consuming marijuana.

Put those provisions together, and you have permission for various cooperative arrangements that can serve as alternative sources of marijuana should the feds stop pot stores from operating. The Denver Post reports that “an untold number” of cannabis collectives have formed in Colorado since Amendment 64 passed.

Washington’s initiative, I-502, does not allow home cultivation. But UCLA drug policy expert Mark Kleiman, who is advising the Washington Liquor Control Board on how to regulate the cannabis industry, argues that collectives ostensibly organized to serve patients under that state’s medical marijuana law could fill the supply gap if pot stores never open.

It is also possible that Washington’s legislature would respond to federal meddling by letting people grow marijuana for personal use, because otherwise there would be no legal source.

With pot shops offering a decent selection at reasonable prices, these alternative suppliers will account for a tiny share of the marijuana market, just as home brewing accounts for a tiny share of the beer market. But if federal drug warriors prevent those stores from operating, they will be confronted by myriad unregulated, small-scale growers, who will be a lot harder to identify, let alone control, than a few highly visible, state-licensed businesses.

The feds, who account for only 1 percent of marijuana arrests, simply do not have the manpower to go after all those growers. Nor do they have the constitutional authority to demand assistance from state and local law enforcement agencies that no longer treat pot growing as a crime.

Given this reality, legal analyst Stuart Taylor argues in a recent Brookings Institution paper, the Obama administration and officials in Colorado and Washington should “hammer out clear, contractual cooperation agreements so that state-regulated marijuana businesses will know what they can and cannot safely do.” Such enforcement agreements, which are authorized by the Controlled Substances Act, would provide more security than a mere policy statement, although less than congressional legislation.

Taylor, who says he has no firm views on the merits of legalization, warns that “a federal crackdown would backfire by producing an atomized, anarchic, state-legalized but unregulated marijuana market that federal drug enforcers could neither contain nor force the states to contain.” Noting recent polls finding that 50 percent or more of Americans favor legalizing marijuana, he says the public debate over that issue would benefit from evidence generated by the experiments in Colorado and Washington. That’s assuming the feds do not go on a senseless rampage through these laboratories of democracy.

Source: Odessa American (TX)
Copyright: 2013 Odessa American
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.oaoa.com/
Author: Jacob Sullum

2 Oct 2012

Will Obama, Romney Clarify Their Positions on Medical Marijuana in Colorado Election Debate?

posted in: Latest Hemp News | 0

Tags: marijuana legalization, obama on medical marijuana, presidential debates, romney on medical marijuana

On Wednesday, President Barack Obama and GOP nominee Mitt Romney will face off on live television in the first of several debates that could shape the upcoming election.

Medical marijuana professionals should tune in: The candidates will most certainly field questions about MMJ and cannabis legalization in general, given that the debate will be held in Denver.

Colorado has one of the largest medical marijuana industry’s in the country, home to more than 1,000 dispensaries, grow sites and infused-product manufacturers. It also has a measure on the ballot this November asking voters to legalize the general use of marijuana.

Additionally, the debate is focused on domestic policy and will be held at a university, so you can bet that medical cannabis will be a particularly big topic.

The biggest question going into the debates, however, is will either candidate actually shed any new light on their vague positions regarding medical marijuana and cannabis legalization?

It’s possible but doubtful. Both Obama and Romney have been asked countless times about MMJ, and in most cases they sidestep the question or offer vague answers. In an interview Monday with the Denver Post, Romney said he opposes “marijuana being used for recreational purposes and I believe the federal law should prohibit the recreational use of marijuana.” But he didn’t directly address medical marijuana, though a campaign spokesman told the Washington Post today that Romney is against MMJ legalization.

Obama has been similarly vague about medical marijuana in recent interviews, and the current MMJ crackdown under his administration is uneven and unpredictable.

Both presidents, however, seem to be against the idea of general marijuana legalization. Romney has made it crystal clear that he would not allow that to happen under his watch. Obama, while less assertive on the issue, has indicated he doesn’t think it’s the proper path for the country to take. It unclear how the presidents would respond if an individual states such as Colorado legalizes cannabis use.

Pot Prohibition Benefits No One

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

You can’t visit a winery established in the 19th century without hearing about the heroic efforts made to preserve the ancient vines that provide the grapes, which with time and care, produce wine. From 1920 until 1933, the manufacture, sale and transportation of alcohol within the USA was prohibited. So called “Prohibition” was an effort to control the use of alcohol, especially among the working classes. Its roots stretch even earlier in our history. Before Prohibition began, the brewing, wine-making and distillery businesses in the nation represented about 14 percent of the economy, and employed thousands. It took the Great Depression to convince voters that maybe Prohibition was not such a good idea.

Prohibition began with the ratification of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution. Interestingly, drinking itself was never made illegal. Those who had the money could continue to consume alcohol as they pleased, from private stocks. Every President during the period, and over 80 percent of Congress had their own private stashes of alcohol. The people affected by this law were the working classes and the poor. The original thought was that if the sale of alcohol was made illegal, people would not consume it. We could control the risk of alcoholism, and reduce the problems often associated with it. Instead, people went to extremes to obtain it.

The advent of Prohibition was a bonanza for organized crime, bootleggers, and of all things, Canadian manufacturers.

Canada and other neighbors like Mexico never made the manufacture and sale of alcohol illegal. Alcohol was bootlegged into this country and then sold at great (non-taxed) profit, estimated by the end of prohibition to exceed $2 billion a year. Hence, the rise of Al Capone and the so-called mob. Home distilling became popular, and thousands died because of the lack of regulation.

Prohibition was repealed in 1933 with the 21st Amendment to the Constitution, in the heart of the Great Depression. Budweiser sent a truck-load of beer to the White House to honor the occasion, delivered by their famous Clydesdales.

We face a similar situation today around the pros and cons of the legalization of marijuana. An article in Sunday’s New York Times (”Cities Balk as Federal Law on Marijuana Is Enforced”) highlighted Arcata in the discussion about medical marijuana clinics. Many states, along with California, have decided that marijuana, at least for medical reasons, should be legal. Though the voters have spoken, the federal government continues to enforce its rules. Not unlike drinkers during Prohibition, marijuana users are forced to go underground. Illegal grow houses and trespassing on public lands are the result, with huge profits for those willing to take the risk. Needless to say, none of this is taxed or regulated.

Do we really want to continue down this road? No one benefits. Private citizens, not to mention law enforcement officials, are at constant risk because of people cultivating marijuana illegally, whether in grow houses which have become ubiquitous, or on public lands. Marijuana isn’t going away, no matter what the federal government says. The alternative to regulation is no regulation, and the chaos we experience is the result. Surely local governments are better able to determine which clinics are legitimate and which are not. By blindly threatening every clinic, as has become the federal government’s policy today, we shoot ourselves in the foot. The rich, as usual, can do pretty much what they want, as they always have. It is the medically legitimate marijuana users who are forced underground, into the black market, much as in Prohibition days.

For a small town, Arcata has a big reputation. We are known for many things, from big trees and beautiful beaches, to being capitol of the so-called “Emerald Triangle.” Perhaps we can also help the nation move forward in meaningful dialogue about the so-called war on drugs.

Source: Times-Standard (Eureka, CA)
Copyright: 2012 Times-Standard
Contact: http://www.times-standard.com/writeus
Website: http://www.times-standard.com/
Author: Eric Duff

« 1 2

Related Stories