Veteran Pot Growers See Their Way of Life Ending

posted in: Cannabis News 3

In the mountains of Mendocino County, a middle-aged couple stroll into the cool morning air to plant the year’s crop. Andrew grabs a shovel and begins to dig up rich black garden beds while Anna waters the seedlings, beginning a hallowed annual ritual here in marijuana’s Emerald Triangle.

In the past, planting day was a time of great expectations, maybe for a vacation in Hawaii or Mexico during the rainy months or a new motor home to make deliveries around the country.

But this year, Andrew and Anna are hoping only that their 50 or so marijuana plants will cover the bills. Since the mid-1990s, the price of outdoor-grown marijuana has plummeted from more than $5,000 a pound to less than $2,000, and even as low as $800.

Battered by competition from indoor cultivators around the state and industrial-size operations that have invaded the North Coast counties, many of the small-time pot farmers who created the Emerald Triangle fear that their way of life of the last 40 years is coming to an end.

Their once-quiet communities, with their back-to-nature ethos, are being overrun by outsiders carving massive farms out of the forest. Robberies are commonplace now, and the mountains reverberate with the sounds of chain saws and heavy equipment.

“Every night we hear helicopters now,” Anna said. “It’s people moving big greenhouses and generators into the mountains.”

Andrew, 56, and Anna, 52, who agreed to be interviewed only if they would be identified by their middle names, live in a rambling house down a trail through tanoaks and Douglas firs. Their electricity comes from a windmill and solar panels, their water from a spring. They cook on a wood stove and use an outhouse with a composting toilet to conserve water for their crop.

Though they are not complete back-to-the-landers — they have a nice car, satellite TV and Internet access — they keep their gardens relatively small, tucked in the trees throughout their property.

Among their plants, they post their own medical marijuana cards so that if they’re raided, it looks as though they’re growing under the aegis of state law. But because dispensaries generally prefer the more potent weed grown indoors, they still sell mostly to the black market, where mom-and-pop growers now struggle to compete.

“These big commercial growers have really ruined our business,” Anna said.

Until recently, life in the hills of Mendocino and Humboldt counties had changed little in the decades since hippies from the Bay Area began homesteading here. The pioneers initially grew marijuana for themselves and to make a little money.

Then in the 1980s, cultivation of high-grade seedless marijuana opened the possibility for big money as it brought a higher premium. Many of the farmers cashed in. But many remained small and discreet to avoid attracting the attention of state and federal agents.

They raised their families where they cultivated. They drove beat-up Subarus and small Toyota pickups, pumped their water from wells and chopped their own firewood.

The mountain hamlets operated like breakaway states. Marijuana farmers paid for community centers, fire departments, road maintenance and elementary schools.

Even today, small cannabis-funded volunteer fire stations and primary schools are scattered throughout the ranges. And the local radio station, KMUD, announces the sheriff’s deputies’ movements as part of its public service mandate.

But the liberalization of marijuana laws in the last decade upended the status quo.

From Oakland to the Inland Empire, people began cultivating indoors on an unprecedented scale at the same time that growers from around the world flooded the North Coast because of its remoteness and deep-rooted counterculture.

Now, with the market glutted, people are simply planting ever-larger crops to make up for the drop in price.

Longtime residents complain that the newcomers cut down trees, grade hillsides, divert creeks to irrigate multi-thousand-plant crops, use heavy pesticides and rat poisons, and run giant, smog-belching diesel generators to illuminate indoor grows. They blaze around in Dodge monster trucks and Cadillac Escalades and don’t contribute to upkeep of the roads or schools.

“They just don’t care,” said Kym Kemp, a teacher and blogger in the mountains of Sohum, as locals call southern Humboldt County. “They’re not thinking, ‘I want my kids to grow up here.’

“Now there are greenhouses the size of a football field that weren’t even there last year,” she added.

Kemp said she feels her region is being colonized and worries about the colorful, off-the-grid people that small cannabis patches long supported.

“So many people who live here are just different,” she said. “They don’t fit in regular society. They couldn’t work 9-to-5 jobs. But they’ve gotten used to raising their kids on middle-class incomes. What are they going to do?”

Tom Evans, 61, a small-time grower in northern Mendocino, said the sense of peace and self-reliance he moved here for 30 years ago is disappearing so fast that he may leave for Mexico.

“It used to be a contest to see who could drive the oldest pickup truck,” said Evans, a former Army helicopter mechanic who sports a woolly gray beard and tie-dyed shirt. “There’s just been this huge influx of folks who have money on their mind, instead of love of the land. A lot more gun-toters. A lot more attack dogs.”

Evans lives in a small rented home that generously could be called a fixer-upper. He said he doesn’t have a bank account or credit card, and his Honda Passport has more than 300,000 miles. “It’s ‘make a living, not a killing,’” he said.

His friend, a bear of man who goes by the name Mr. Fuzzy, noted that it’s not only outsiders causing problems.

“You know the weird part, these are our kids too,” he said.

It’s a recurring lament among longtime growers. Some of their own children are going for the large-scale grows, big money and fancy cars.

The larger irony is that the marijuana pioneers are being pushed to the margins by the legalization they long espoused.

“Ultimately we worry about Winston or Marlboro getting some land and doing their thing,” said Lawrence Ringo, a 55-year-old grower and seed breeder deep in the wilds of Sohum. “We see it time after time in America — big corporations come in and take over.”

Ringo saw the 2010 marijuana initiative, Proposition 19, as a ploy by Bay Area activists to dominate the market with giant warehouse grows in Oakland.

He suspects plenty of people will still want high-quality, organically grown cannabis but fears the big business interests will dictate how marijuana gets regulated. Ringo points out that Colorado, the one state that fully regulates marijuana, helped push most growing indoors and place cultivation under the control of large dispensaries.

“We’re afraid of losing what we’ve been doing for 40 years,” he said.

As competition drives prices down, even chamber of commerce types acknowledge that the North Coast economy is at risk. Pot kept things afloat as the logging and fishing industries declined. Restaurants, car dealerships, banks, hotels and dental clinics all depend on marijuana money.

“There’s probably not one business that doesn’t benefit,” said Julie Fulkerson, who founded a home furnishings store and comes from a prominent third-generation Humboldt family.

Walk into the upscale Cecil’s New Orleans Bistro in small-town Garberville and you’ll find growers in dirty T-shirts unpeeling rolls of $20 bills to pay for martinis and $38 steaks. More soil supply and hydroponics shops line stretches of Highway 101 than gas stations, and trucks laden with bags of soil and fertilizer kick up dust as they make deliveries on the most isolated roads.

During harvest, hardware stores put out huge bins of Fiskars pruning scissors, the preferred tool for marijuana trimmers. Safeway stocks so many turkey bags that an outsider might wonder how such small locales could consume so many birds. The sealable, smell-proof bags are used for storing and transporting weed.

“I wouldn’t survive … if it wasn’t for growing,” said Tom Ochner, 54, who runs a country store and rental cabins outside of Covelo — a business called the Black Butte River Ranch. “Owners realize this is what makes their business go.”

Concerned about the economics of legalization, Humboldt banker Jennifer Budwig studied the amount of pot money entering the local economy.

Using an extremely high estimate that law enforcement seized 25% of the total amount of pot grown in Humboldt, she found that the crop generated at least $1 billion a year — of which $415 million was spent in the county. She said the actual figure could be several times higher.

Legalization “has the potential to be devastating,” she said.

Some small growers, like Anna and Andrew, still hold out hope that they can beat back the deluge of industrial marijuana.

There’s a market, they say, for sun-grown weed among discerning users who appreciate the nuances of regional variety.

A grower just down the road said he hoped to start promoting “Mendocino terroir.”

“How can sun-grown not be better medicine?” Anna asked. “If you’re sick, you want something that has chemicals in it? You can’t grow indoor organically. Not to mention the fossil fuels it burns up.”

But even if boutique weed has some potential, the couple still sense that their life in the mountains is changing for good. The next-door neighbor recently had a home-invasion robbery, and a young man down the road was shot in the face during a deal.

Andrew goes back to planting the new crop. He used to have the radio on all day — something to engage his mind during the tedious work.

He doesn’t anymore.

He keeps it quiet, listening for intruders.

Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Author: Joe Mozingo, Los Angeles Times
Published: September 30, 2012
Copyright: 2012 Los Angeles Times
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.latimes.com/

It’s Time To Legalize, Regulate and Tax Marijuana

posted in: Cannabis News 0

The question for voters is not whether marijuana is good. It is whether prohibition is good. It is whether the people who use marijuana shall be subject to arrest, and whether the people who supply them shall be sent to prison. The question is whether the war on marijuana is worth what it costs. Initiative 502 says no.

If marijuana killed people, or if smoking it made people commit violence and mayhem, prohibition might be worth all its bad effects. But marijuana does not kill people; there is no lethal dose. Marijuana befuddles the mind and stimulates the appetite, but it does not make people commit arson and brigandage.

Some people abuse it, just as with alcohol, but cannabis is less of a social problem than liquor, wine and beer. And society manages those as legal, commercial products.

What would legal marijuana be like? Consider what has happened in Seattle. The city has become a sanctuary for medical marijuana, with aboveboard dispensaries. Recreational marijuana is readily available in Seattle on the illicit market, and users of small amounts are no longer prosecuted. For several years, recreational marijuana has effectively been decriminalized in Seattle, and there has been no upsurge in crime or road deaths from it.

But even in Seattle, recreational marijuana is still supplied by criminals — by definition. Prohibition creates criminals. In the 1920s, when alcohol was banned nationwide, alcohol money fed Chicago gangster Al Capone just as marijuana money feeds the Mexican gangs now.

Says former U.S. Attorney John McKay, who battled the gangs while in office and supports 502 now, “The enormous demand for marijuana in the face of criminal penalties, which has been in existence for 70 years, is spinning off enormous profits for drug cartels, for gangs, for drug dealers.”

Initiative 502 aims to take the marijuana business out of the hands of gangs. That is what legalizing alcohol did in the 1930s. Alcohol was still an intoxicant, and still dangerous. But at least spirits, wine and beer were produced in businesses that were open for inspection and had to follow the law.

The producer bought insurance and could be sued. Its product was uniform and had the company’s name on it. The executives were members of the community, and they did not shoot each other. Alcohol was sold in establishments that carded buyers who looked to be under 21, on pain of losing a valuable state license.

Parents may ask whether I-502 will make marijuana more available to their teenage children. The answer is to compare marijuana with beer. For teenagers, both are illegal — and available. But which is more easily available, the one that is banned or the one that is regulated? For more than 40 years, the one more easily available to teenagers has been the one that is banned.

Marijuana prohibition does not work. The better policy is to legalize it, license it, regulate it and tax it.

The Times editorial board supports Initiative 502 as a big step in that direction. We present some of our other reasons on this page.

Source: Seattle Times (WA)
Published: September 23, 2012
Copyright: 2012 The Seattle Times Company
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.seattletimes.com/

What Happens If Colorado Legalizes Marijuana?

posted in: Cannabis News 0

If Amendment 64 passes, it will become almost immediately legal under Colorado law for adults to possess, grow, consume and give away up to an ounce of marijuana. It may take more than a year, however, before adults can purchase marijuana legally in a store.

A poll released in early September by Public Policy Polling shows the amendment continues to lead, currently by a 47-38 margin, with 15 percent still undecided. Passage could enable the state to increase tax revenues by $50 million a year or more while also potentially reducing law enforcement costs.

If the measure passes, the parts of the amendment related to individual behavior go into effect as soon as the governor signs a proclamation certifying the results of the election, which he is required to do within 30 days.

Sections related to the commercial cultivation and sale of marijuana would take effect incrementally but marijuana would be available for sale legally no sooner than late 2013 or early 2014.

Even if the state moves forward with implementation in a timely fashion, it is anyone’s guess what the federal response–if any–will be. The feds could do nothing, could move to block implementation, or could wait until legal businesses are set up and then move to shut them down, possibly arresting owners and employees in the process.

The amendment requires the Colorado Department of Revenue to adopt regulations governing the licensing of commercial businesses by no later than July 1, 2013. According to the amendment these regulations cannot prohibit marijuana businesses or make their operation “unreasonably impractical.”

Attorney Brian Vicente, co-director of the pro-64 campaign, says that the amendment was written in such a way that the legislature can choose to address the issue, thus providing guidance to the DOR, or can do nothing and leave the crafting of regulations entirely to DOR staff.

“We left it open so that the legislature can be as active as it wants to be or it can leave the matter entirely to DOR,” Vicente told the Colorado Independent.

DOR must begin processing business applications by Oct. 1, 2013. If the DOR fails to meet the deadline, prospective business owners can apply for local business licenses, thus bypassing the state. Local governments must establish their own regulations, also by Oct. 1, 2013. Local governments may also ban marijuana businesses, but need a vote of the people to do so.

Even if a city or county bans marijuana businesses, residents of the area would still be allowed to grow, possess, consume and give away small amounts of marijuana.

While the amendment legalizes private use of marijuana, public use would remain illegal. Patrons at a ball game, for instance, would not be able to go to the smoking area and light a joint. People would not be allowed to sit on a park bench and light up a marijuana pipe. People growing their own could have up to six plants, with no more than three being mature at any given time. Plants would have to be grown in secured areas that are not visible to the public. Even if it exceeds the legal one ounce, growers would be allowed to possess their entire harvest.

Employers would not have to accommodate people who wish to smoke at work and would still be allowed to test for marijuana use and to fire people who test positive. Driving under the influence of marijuana would remain illegal and it would remain illegal to sell or give marijuana to anyone under 21 years old.

Vicente explains that “employers will still have the absolute ability to retain any policies they have about marijuana use. Once it is legal, it is our hope that they will embrace common sense rules regarding the legal use of a legal product on people’s own time.”

Economic Impact

The Blue Book, produced by the Colorado Legislative Council, estimates the fiscal impact that could be expected if the amendment passes. The book says that sales taxes and licensing fees would be expected to be between $5 million and $22 million per year and that the cost to the state would be $1.3 million in the first year and around $700,000 a year after that. The book makes no estimates of local revenues or costs.

The amendment, though, also requires the legislature to enact an excise tax of up to 15 percent through 2017 and at any rate agreed to by the legislature after 2017. This tax would be collected on sales from growers to retailers and marijuana product manufacturing companies. The Blue Book makes no estimate of how much such a tax could generate. The tax would have to be set by the legislature and then voted on by residents of Colorado.

“It is our strong belief that the legislature will pass such a tax as soon as they can,” Vicente said. He and the campaign estimate that the revenue from such a tax could be as much as $24 million to $73 million a year. The amendment stipulates that the first $40 million a year generated by the tax will go to a state fund for the construction of public schools.

Laura Chapin, spokesperson for the anti-64 campaign, said she doubts the state would ever see anywhere near the amount of money talked about by proponents. “How do you tax an industry that cannot use bank accounts?,” she asked, pointing out that federal law prohibits banks from accepting deposits of money earned by selling a substance that will remain illegal under federal law.

Vicente, though, says some medical marijuana businesses in the state actually do have bank accounts. He notes that there has been lots of press about banks not doing business with marijuana dispensaries, but said numerous banks and dispensaries are “quietly doing business together.”

Aaron Smith, executive director of the National Cannabis Industry Association, said Chapin’s argument is “absurd.”

“Many marijuana businesses do have bank accounts, but I guarantee you that even those that don’t, pay their taxes,” he said. “That is simply an absurd statement. They didn’t do their homework,” Smith said.

A study released in August by the Colorado Center on Law and Policy estimates that local governments would generate a combined $14 million a year in the beginning. That study also estimates savings in law enforcement of $12 million a year immediately, increasing to $40 million a year in later years.

While it doesn’t relate directly to Amendment 64, the National Cannabis Industry Association released a study on Sept. 13 that shows tax revenue in Colorado as a result of medical marijuana likely exceeded $10 million in 2011. The study, which looked at only ten Colorado cities, shows that medical marijuana businesses in the cities studied, generated $5.1 million in local tax revenues and nearly $4.5 million in state tax revenues. Business license fees bring in millions more, the study says. In Denver alone, revenue from such fees exceeded $6 million in 2011 alone, according to the study.

Source: Huffington Post (NY)
Author: Scot Kersgaard, The Colorado Independent
Published: September 20, 2012
Copyright: 2012 HuffingtonPost.com, LLC
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

MJ Legalization Ballot Measure Favored By Majority

posted in: Cannabis News 0

A recently published poll from The Denver Post has good news for pot legalization advocates. According to the survey, a majority of Colorado voters are in favor of Amendment 64, a November ballot measure that seeks to legalize and regulate marijuana like alcohol for adult use.

Of the 615 likely Colorado voters surveyed by The Denver Post, 51 percent are in favor of the measure, while only 40 percent are opposed.

Read the entire poll, exact question wording and results here at The Denver Post.: http://www.denverpost.com/news/marijuana/ci_21548398/colorado-marijuana-legalization-initiative-leads-new-poll

Colorado’s Amendment 64 does appear to be popular among voters. Earlier this month, Public Policy Polling surveyed 1,000 likely voters and found that 47 percent would vote in support of Amendment 64, while only 38 percent would vote against the ballot measure.

That percentage was the exact same that PPP had found one month prior during a similar survey.

The largest percentage in favor of legalization in Colorado ever polled came from Rasmussen, back in June, which found 61 percent of likely Colorado voters in favor of legalizing marijuana if it is regulated the way that alcohol and cigarettes are currently regulated.

According to a report by the Colorado Center on Law & Policy, the passage of Amendment 64 could be a boon for the state economy. Marijuana legalization would produce hundreds of new jobs, raise millions for the construction of Colorado public schools and raise around $60 million annually in combined savings and revenue for Colorado’s budget, the report says.

It’s not just pot advocates that are in favor of legalization. The NAACP recently backed pot legalization measures in Oregon and Colorado not because the group necessarily favors marijuana use, but because members say current marijuana laws lead to a disproportionately high number of people of color being incarcerated or otherwise negatively affected.

“Marijuana prohibition policy does more harm to our communities than good,” said Rosemary Harris Lytle in a statement, president of the NAACP-Colorado-Montana-Wyoming State Conference. “That is why we have endorsed Amendment 64 which presents a more effective and socially responsible approach to how Colorado addresses the adult use of marijuana.”

The NAACP provided this data in a press statement about marijuana arrests in Colorado:

African-Americans made up roughly 4% of the population in Colorado in 2010, but they accounted for about 9% of marijuana possession arrests and 22% of arrests for marijuana sales and cultivation. The numbers in Denver are particularly staggering. According to a report prepared by the Denver Police Department for the the city’s Marijuana Policy Review Panel, African-Americans accounted for more than 31.5% percent of arrests for private adult marijuana possession, despite making up less than 11% of the city’s population.

Politically, the measure has received support from both Democrats and Republicans in Colorado, as well as more than 100 professors from around the nation. However, just last week Gov. John Hickenlooper came out in opposition to Amendment 64, saying in a statement:

Colorado is known for many great things –- marijuana should not be one of them. Amendment 64 has the potential to increase the number of children using drugs and would detract from efforts to make Colorado the healthiest state in the nation. It sends the wrong message to kids that drugs are OK.

To which Mason Tvert, co-director of the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol — the organization behind Amendment 64 — responded with strong words for the Governor. “Governor Hickenlooper’s statement today ranks as one of the most hypocritical statements in the history of politics,” Tvert said. “After building a personal fortune by selling alcohol to Coloradans, he is now basing his opposition to this measure on concerns about the health of his citizens and the message being sent to children. We certainly hope he is aware that alcohol actually kills people. Marijuana use does not. The public health costs of alcohol use overall are approximately eight times greater per person than those associated with marijuana. And alcohol use is associated with violent crime. Marijuana use is not.”

Hickenlooper’s statement that Amendment 64 has the “potential to increase the number of children using drugs” is debatable at best. A recent study from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention shows that marijuana use among Colorado minors is going down, while it is simultaneously going up nationally. The drop in usage by Colorado teens as seen in the CDC data — a drop below the national average — coincides with the same period that the medical marijuana industry developed in the state, between 2009 and 2011.

Marijuana legalization advocates point to the data as sign that regulation is helping reduce marijuana use amongst minors. Mason Tvert, co-director of the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, told The Huffington Post “that even the partial regulation of marijuana can make it harder for young people to get their hands on marijuana. By regulating all marijuana sales, we can further reduce teen access and use.”

And a 2011 study from economists at University of Colorado Denver and Montana State University may backs that claim up. “Medical Marijuana Laws, Traffic Fatalities, and Alcohol Consumption” by Daniel I. Rees, from UCD, and D. Mark Anderson, from MSU looked at state level data from the more than a dozen states that had passed medical marijuana laws at the time of the study. Rees and Anderson found that there was no evidence of an increase in marijuana usage among minors in the states surveyed.

Amendment 64 will appear on Colorado’s ballot in November, but the state voting guide — the so-called “blue book” — will not include the three main arguments in favor of legalization after the Colorado Legislative Council deleted the text, in apparent confusion, and would not restore the text to the voter guide. The three deleted arguments “For” are as follows:

• Marijuana is objectively less harmful than alcohol.
• The consequences of a marijuana offense are too severe.
• Law enforcement resources would be better spent on more serious crimes.

The campaign says that the “Arguments For” Amendment 64 section of of the blue book is now just 208 words following the deletion, whereas the “Arguments Against” section is approximately 366 words — meaning “Against” has nearly 75 percent more words than the “For” section. “The blue book is supposed to be fair and balanced, and it’s safe to say this is quite lopsided and, thus, unfair,” the campaign said in a statement.

Source: Huffington Post (NY)
Author: Matt Ferner
Published: September 17, 2012
Copyright: 2012 HuffingtonPost.com, LLC
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Buckley Supports Marijuana Legalization

posted in: Cannabis News 0

State Rep. Peter Buckley has thrown his support behind Measure 80, an initiative that would legalize, regulate and tax marijuana consumed by adults.

“Overall, legalization would take the black market out of Oregon,” said Buckley, D-Ashland, who has served as co-chairman of the Legislature’s Ways and Means Committee for the past two sessions. He said he supports regulating marijuana in a manner similar to the regulation of alcohol under the Oregon Liquor Control Commission.

Under current laws, he said, medical marijuana has too many legal loopholes that have frustrated law enforcement and left the door open for abuse.

“I do think it’s a problem with some medical marijuana growers,” he said. “They’ve gotten greedy.”

Oregon voters will decide this November on the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act, a citizen’s initiative campaign to regulate cannabis and encourage production of hemp.

According to the YES on 80 campaign, legalizing marijuana could save $60 million annually in law enforcement costs, while taxing it could bring in an extra $140 million. Under the proposal, marijuana would be purchased through state-run stores.

Buckley, who said he’s not a marijuana user and doesn’t have a medical marijuana card, said the federal government likely would question Oregon’s authority to legalize the drug if voters pass the measure, but he thinks that if enough states pass similar initiatives it could change the national debate.

“Hopefully, the federal government will see the light,” he said.

The new law will provide a clearer legal distinction for law enforcement in how to prosecute anyone furnishing marijuana to minors, Buckley said. The law still would make it illegal to drive under the influence of marijuana or to use it in public places.

Roy Kaufmann, spokesman for the YES on 80 campaign, said the law could add to Oregon’s image as a tourist destination, similar to the effect of the Oregon wine and beer industry.

Also, the initiative would create another growth industry in the state, he said. “Agricultural hemp will dwarf the marijuana market within a decade,” Kaufmann predicted.

Other states, including Washington and Colorado, may take up similar initiatives to legalizing marijuana. If enough states support legalization, Kaufmann said, “It would really force the federal government’s hand on this issue.”

He said the marijuana law has been written in a way to stand up to federal scrutiny.

Kaufmann said the prohibition of marijuana has been a failure in this country.

State Rep. Dennis Richardson, R-Central Point, said Oregon’s medical marijuana laws are “grossly abused,” but said he has too many questions about Measure 80 to support it.

“I am very much troubled by the current medical marijuana law,” said Richardson, who served as a co-chairman with Buckley on the Ways and Means Committee. “It is basically legalization through a back-door approach.”

He said the right to smoke pot is now being advertised as a simple matter of spending $100 to find the right doctor.

Richardson said he doesn’t support legalizing marijuana. But he said the state needs to have a rational debate about whether it wants to legalize cannabis or take a different approach and crack down on violations.

He said Measure 80 will at least get voters talking about medical marijuana laws, though he doubts the voters in his fairly conservative district would support the initiative.

While Measure 80 would raise tax dollars, Richardson said he’s reluctant to create a new state bureaucracy to keep track of the process.

He said he’s also concerned about creating another “sin tax,” in addition to the dollars the state already collects through gambling, cigarettes and alcohol.

Richardson, who doesn’t have a medical marijuana card, said he would consider using marijuana if he had a serious medical condition.

Source: Mail Tribune, The (Medford, OR)
Author: Damian Mann, Mail Tribune
Published: September 18, 2012
Copyright: 2012 The Mail Tribune
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.mailtribune.com/

Lawmakers Revisit Marijuana DUI Standard

posted in: Cannabis News 0

A Colorado lawmaker pushing for a marijuana blood-level limit for drivers said Friday he’s arguing for a fourth time because lives are at stake. The bill supported by Mesa County Republican Sen. Steve King would make Colorado the third state in the country to adopt a drivers’ blood standard for THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana.

Lawmakers have rejected the measure three times, including during a special session earlier this year when it failed in the state Senate on a 17-17 vote.

The Transportation Legislation Review committee is expected to vote Friday on whether to introduce the bill in January.

“People are dying on our highways and byways as a result of people driving under the influence of THC, just like with alcohol 20 years ago,” King said.

The proposal would limit drivers to 5 nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood.

Opponents worry medical marijuana users will be wrongly convicted of driving under the influence. They argue some medical marijuana users can have high THC blood level even when the driver is not impaired, and that the amount stays in their system long after they’ve used the drug.

“We risk convicting people of an impaired driving infraction when they’re not actually impaired,” said Michael Elliott, executive director of the Medical Marijuana Industry Group. “That is an injustice that is a major problem.”

Elliott said opposition to the bill would decrease if the nanogram-level was increased to 10, where “there’s more guarantee that the person is actually impaired.”

Colorado is among 16 states that allow medical marijuana use.

Nevada, which allows medical marijuana, and Ohio have a 2 nanogram THC limit for driving. Pennsylvania has a 5 nanogram limit, but that’s a state Health Department guideline, which can be introduced in driving violation cases.

Colorado law enforcement and the National Highway Safety Administration say there has been an uptick in drivers in fatal accidents testing positive for marijuana use.

Some marijuana activists argue pot-related crash data is incomplete and shouldn’t be used to impose a blood-level limit. They say officer observations, not blood levels, are better for showing a driver is impaired.

Source: Associated Press (Wire)
Author: Ivan Moreno, The Associated Press
Published: September 15, 2012
Copyright: 2012 The Associated Press

Trying Marijuana in Court of Public Opinion Again

posted in: Cannabis News 0

Montana voters will decide on Nov. 6 whether to keep the Legislature’s medical marijuana law that effectively repealed the 2004 voter-enacted law.

Between now and Election Day, additional restrictions from Senate Bill 423 may take effect. Last week, the Montana Supreme Court overturned a District Court judge’s ruling that certain provisions of SB423 violated rights guaranteed by the Montana Constitution. Helena District Judge Jim Reynolds issued a preliminary injunction last year, finding that the new law’s restrictions on medical marijuana providers and users amounted to unconstitutional infringement on citizens’ rights to privacy, to health care and to seek employment (as medical marijuana providers).

In overturning Reynolds’ ruling, the Supreme Court said there is no constitutional right to use marijuana or to sell it.

The 2011 Legislature acted because the voter-approved medical marijuana law was being exploited by a growing number of marijuana suppliers who encouraged people to get state medical marijuana cards. The number of cards issued grew tenfold within three years so that by the time the 2011 Legislature passed SB423, the state had nearly 30,000 registered medical marijuana users and 4,800 suppliers. Medical marijuana storefronts had sprouted along busy streets in Billing and other cities.

What had been promoted in 2004 as a compassionate law to allow seriously ill Montanans to legally access a drug that relieved their pain, glaucoma or nausea was transforming quickly into a marijuana-for-the-masses business.

The 2011 Legislature didn’t act on medical marijuana reform proposals from its interim committee. Instead, SB423 was cobbled together in the latter half of the 90-day session with less public input than the interim committee proposals had received.

Storefronts Shut Down

However, the new law has been effective at reining in legal marijuana suppliers and users. The law also authorized local governments to restrict medical marijuana storefronts, which Billings, Yellowstone County and other jurisdictions have since done. The law narrowed eligibility for medical marijuana cards and restricted the business of supplying card holders.

By August, the number of registered card holders had dropped to 8,849, registered suppliers numbered 399 and doctors recommending marijuana numbered 225. Back in December 2008, there had been 1,577 cardholders and 465 suppliers.

The Supreme Court decision allows the state to enforce a previously blocked provision in the new law that forbids legal suppliers from charging for marijuana. That change is likely to further reduce the number of legal suppliers and card holders.

The Legislature’s repeal of a voter-enacted law is troubling in its disregard of the people’s directive in 2004. However, the initiative proponents weren’t advertising “cannabis caravans,” medical marijuana shops a few blocks from schools or thousands of new users each month.

State-Federal Conflict

In his 12-page dissent from the majority medical marijuana opinion last week, Justice James C. Nelson said the state court simply should have dismissed the challenge to SB423 rather than sending it back to Reynolds.

“Montana’s medical marijuana laws, in effect, purport to make legal conduct that is violative of the federal Controlled Substances Act,” Nelson wrote. “That Montana’s courts have become complicit in this endeavor (by taking up questions regarding the interpretation of Montana’s medical marijuana laws in the absence of an actual underlying criminal prosecution) is shocking.”

Under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Nelson said, state law must give way to federal law “where compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility.” If the illegality of marijuana is to be changed, Nelson said, Congress will have to change it first.

Nelson makes a good point: Regardless of what Montana voters decide in November, medical marijuana will remain risky for users and hazy for law enforcement.

Source: Billings Gazette, The (MT)
Published: September 16, 2012
Copyright: 2012 The Billings Gazette
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.billingsgazette.com/

Measure 80 Would Legalize Pot, Allow Research

posted in: Cannabis News 0

If Oregonians pass Measure 80 in the November election, the state would legalize marijuana for adults, but more importantly to Todd Dalotto, it would open the doors for medical research on the plant.

“If it’s free from legal roadblocks, then patients can benefit greatly from the research that takes place in horticulture, in medicine,” Dalotto said Monday in front of the City Club of Corvallis.  “Unfortunately, clinical research is hindered to a prohibitive degree, mainly because of federal prohibition.”

Dalotto, a longtime cannabis horticultural researcher and president of CAN! Research, Education and Consulting in Corvallis, offered his take on Measure 80 to the group on Monday.  Sandee Burbank, executive director of Mothers Against Misuse and Abuse, also spoke in favor of the measure at the club’s monthly meeting.

If passed, the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act would create a commission that would license growers, buy and sell the product, and test it for quality assurance.  Adults, ages 21 and older, would be able to legally purchase cannabis from state-run stores or grow it, unregulated, for personal use.

In his presentation, Dalotto explained that each strain of the plant contains different properties.  With more research, scientists will be able to isolate the parts of the plant, on a molecular level, that contain positive medicinal values and breed out negative properties, he said.

Currently, however, researchers must get the go-ahead from multiple federal agencies before studying marijuana – a nearly impossible undertaking, he said.

Burbank spoke to the group about the need for more accurate education about drugs, including the potential harm of over-the-counter and legally prescribed medicine, alcohol and tobacco.  Marijuana, she believes, has medicinal value and is much less harmful than some legal drugs.  In 1982, her organization declared that marijuana laws were “inequitable, ineffective, unenforceable and counterproductive.”

Attendees questioned how the new legislation would affect black market demand for marijuana.  Burbank and Dalotto believe it would be curtailed.

“The reason it’s so profitable is because of prohibition, because it’s unregulated,” Dalotto said.

The speakers also touched on the benefits of legalizing the cultivation of cannabis to produce hemp, a product with multiple uses that can be made into fabric and rope.  It requires less fertilizer and water and produces four times the amount of fiber that trees do, Dalotto said.

Hemp production would provide Oregon with an economically friendly export crop, he added.

If the legislation should pass, one attendee asked, how would the federal government – which classifies marijuana as a dangerous drug – respond?

“There would be significant challenges from the feds,” Dalotto said, “but the measure does provide revenue to fund the attorney general’s defense of this, and that’s fully anticipated.”

Revenue from licenses would pay administrative costs of the commission, and 90 percent of the remaining money would be placed in the state’s general fund.  The remaining 10 percent would be split among funds for related uses, such as drug education and research grants.

The City Club invited the Corvallis Police Department to offer a differing opinion on the measure, but the department declined.

Source: Corvallis Gazette-Times (OR)
Copyright: 2012 Lee Enterprises
Contact: https://gazettetimes-dot-com.bloxcms.com/app/forms/contact/letters/
Website: http://www.gazettetimes.com/
Author: Canda Fuqua

Commentary: Medical Marijuana and Taxes

posted in: Cannabis News 0

An obscure tax law, intended to prevent cocaine kingpins from deducting yachts and other necessities, may alter Boulder’s landscape. Experts say it may shutter dispensaries nationwide.

Fourteen years before any medical marijuana laws existed, US Tax Code was amended because a convicted coke dealer had successfully deducted guns, boats, and bribes. Ever since, Section 280E has banned deductions related to “trafficking in controlled substances.”

Because marijuana is a “controlled substance,” dispensaries are taxed on all revenue — without subtracting rent, payroll, or supplies. The IRS has embarked on an auditing spree, slapping some dispensaries with tax bills in the millions. (The representative who sponsored 280E in 1982, observing its current invocation, now leads the effort to reform his own law.)

Aware of the threat, Colorado dispensaries have tread carefully. Some calculated the square footage used for selling meds, versus the area used for discussing and observing said meds ­— and wrote off rent for the latter. Some claimed that their employees multi-tasked, and deducted a portion of payroll for non-trafficking pursuits.

These number-crunching taxpayers were abiding Tax Court’s 2007 decision (C.H.A.M.P. v. Commissioner): Caregiving services were separate from trafficking, the court had ruled, and could be deducted. Dispensaries pay a higher tax rate than other businesses — but they’ve been able to keep the doors open.

Until now. In August, the Tax Court unanimously reached its second decision on 280E: It precludes dispensaries “from deducting any expense related to the business in that the business is a single business that consists of trafficking in a controlled substance.”

No more multi-tasking staff or separate “wellness spaces.” Your stores’ rent, employees, marketing, supplies — what might seem like normal business expenses — are all part of your trafficking. Growing controlled substances (still just as federally illegal as trafficking them) was somehow omitted by the lawmakers who wrote 280E in 1982. So you can deduct rent and supplies for your grow operation — great news, if you operate your dispensary out of your warehouse, or poorly maintain your storefront and pay your employees terrible wages. In Boulder, your dispensary and warehouse must be separate, and running a retail establishment isn’t cheap. It’s a troubling choice: “We either change our 2011 taxes, and suddenly owe the IRS far more than we earned this year,” says one Boulder dispensary owner who for obvious reasons would rather not be identified, “or we leave them and wait for an audit.” If audited, he’ll likely receive a tax bill high enough to sink his small business.

Owning a dispensary here was costly already. To comply with state regulations, you must: Install enough state-of-the-art surveillance to capture each moment of your plants’ lives from every angle; build the appropriate number of doors, bathrooms, and hallways for the amount of marijuana you plan to grow; fork over at least $10,000 in fees every time you need to change your dispensary’s name, location, or owner/investor lineup — and at least $10,000 annually to remain open, whether or not you’ve adjusted your name/location/ownership to comply with other changing regulations.

Now it’s even harder for Colorado dispensaries to profit, thanks to their multiplying taxes. One small-business owner in Boulder expects to owe an additional $100,000 a year — money he doesn’t have, because he’s invested it in his business.

Yes, our country needs tax dollars. But dispensaries aren’t the only businesses selling controlled substances: Others sell Oxycodone, Vicodin, morphine. In 2007, the US pharmaceutical industry collected $315 billion, and their revenue keeps rising. If 280E was enforced, their taxes would go a long way towards reducing our national deficit.

But the pharmaceutical industry enjoys a relaxed tax rate, about 40 percent less than other industries, according to a Public Citizen report. Those companies get tax breaks for paying their executives high stock-option-supplemented salaries. (At least one pharma giant paid its CEO more than it paid the government in taxes last year.) They receive tax credits and subsidies for research and development. Tax dollars fund most pharmaceutical R&D, so how much is the industry really spending? None of your business. Thanks to a nine-year legal battle the industry fought and won in Supreme Court (Bowsher v. Merck and Co.), they don’t have to disclose R&D records.

No disclosure needed: It’s just medicine. Dispensary owners only have to sign away privacy rights and submit a 22-page application measuring their “moral character.” (Question #672D: What is the value of your spouse’s great-aunt’s stock portfolio divided by the average age of your pets?) Even extraneous MMJ folks like me can’t escape the disclosure demands. The state department of revenue has, currently on file, a diagram mapping of the bodily locations of my tattoos. (Not a joke.)

Pharmaceutical giants justify their secrecy and skimpy taxes by citing the high “risk” they face. If only the marijuana industry was riskier. Like, if crop failures due to pests were increasing because inspectors now tramp through grow after grow without changing clothes; or if MMJ grows were now especially vulnerable to break-ins, due to state regulations now requiring that their locations be made public. Or if, say, dispensaries could be shut down by the federal government at any moment.

Both the marijuana industry and the federal government face changes in November, when Colorado votes on legalizing marijuana, and the country decides between candidates whose campaigns focus on taxes and small business. In a safer, healthier, more economically-stable America, marijuana would be legal — or would at least be a Schedule II drug like Oxycodone, not a Schedule I drug like heroin. That wouldn’t be a full victory for MMJ — but at least the taxes would be easier.

Cecelia Gilboy owns Colorado Quality Collective, the first wholesale marijuana brokerage licensed by the state.

Source: Boulder Weekly (CO)
Author: Cecelia Gilboy
Published: September 13, 2012
Copyright: 2012 Boulder Weekly
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.boulderweekly.com/

MMJ Dispensaries Should Get on 502 Bandwagon

posted in: Cannabis News 0

Seattle’s medical marijuana stores have been living in a dream. Some have been so complacent as to oppose Initiative 502, the decriminalization measure on the Nov. 6 ballot.

They didn’t want a state marijuana tax. They didn’t want regulation by the Liquor Control Board, and they didn’t want a blood-THC standard for driving under the influence. They had what they wanted, marijuana unregulated and tax-free, protected by the forbearance of liberal politicians.

Now they don’t have it. The federal Drug Enforcement Administration has moved to shut down 26 of Seattle’s 145 dispensaries because they are within 1,000 feet of a school, playground or, in the case of a Shoreline dispensary, a public trail.

The DEA spokeswoman says all the remaining marijuana stores are illegal, too. An outspoken Seattle attorney now advises his cannabis clients: “Close, and close fast.”

Closed doors are not what the people of Washington want. More than 58 percent of voters favored medical cannabis 14 years ago, and more people support it now. We believe they are ready for the next step, marijuana decriminalization for general adult use. I-502 is a vehicle for the people to say that. It is a way to push back against the Obama administration, which has been much less liberal on this issue than many had hoped.

Everyone involved in medical cannabis should support Initiative 502. It does not offer unregulated freedom; the people of Washington are not ready for that. We believe they are ready to bring marijuana above ground to license it, tax it and regulate its sale and use. Initiative 502 asks for that. It is a step forward.

Source: Seattle Times (WA)
Published: September 7, 2012
Copyright: 2012 The Seattle Times Company
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.seattletimes.com/

1 17 18 19 20 21 22