Thursday, March 23, 2017
The title of this post is the title suggested by a student in my Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform seminar as a preview of his planned presentation to the class next week. Here are the resources the student assembled as background on this topic to go with the great title (which leads to show my age by thinking "tastes great/less filling"):
1. Sam Kamin, Legal Cannabis in the U.S.: Not Whether, But How?, 50 UC Davis L. Rev. 617 (2016).
2. Jeffrey M. Jones, In U.S., 58% Back Legal Marijuana Use, Gallup (Oct. 21, 2015)
3. Abigail Geiger, Support for Marijuana Legalization Continues to Rise, Pew Research Center, Oct. 12, 2016
4. Kevin Loria, 11 Key Findings from One of the Most Comprehensive Reports Ever on the Health Effects of Marijuana, Business Insider, Jan. 12, 2017,
5. Ryan Stoa, Is Big Marijuana Inevitable?, The New Republic, Aug. 19, 2016
6. Debra Borchardt, Marijuana Sales Totaled $6.7 Billion in 2016, Forbes, Jan. 3, 2017
7. Robert Benzie, Recreational Weed Could Be A $22.6 Billion Industry: Study, The Toronto Star, Oct. 27, 2016,
8. Angela Dills, Sietse Goffard, & Jeffrey Miron, Dose of Reality: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations, The Cato Institute, Sep. 16, 2016,
9. Jeffrey A. Miron & Katherine Waldock, The Budgetary Impact of Ending Drug Prohibition, The Cato Institute (2010)
10. Beau Kilmer, Trump's Marijuana Options, The Hill (Jan. 17, 2017)
Monday, March 20, 2017
As noted in recent posts, my Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform seminar students, after a well-deserved Spring Break, are hearing presentations this week about marijuana reform's intersection with immigration (background here) and education (background here). If these presentations (or other realities) end up inspiring my students to want to get into the marijuana industry in the Buckeye State, a third student presentation this week has them covered. Specifically, a student this coming week is presenting on "advising a marijuana dispensary in Ohio," and here are the materials this student has assembled for the planned presentation:
Article discussing 501(C)(4) tax emption (webpage includes link to a law review article for those interested)
Posting on taxation of marijuana dispensaries (includes text of 280E as well as a link to the IRS memo regarding taxation, Memo 201504011, for further optional reading)
---- For further reading on the taxation issue: "Tax Planning for Marijuana Dealers"
Memo summarizing Ohio dispensary rules (with changes after comment period)
---- For further reading, check out the “Dispensary Rules” section of OMMCP website
For more information (not Ohio specific) about industry activity as cultivator or processor and for more general business advice, see "Marijuana Business: How to Open and Successfully Run a Marijuana Dispensary and Grow Facility" (free on Amazon’s Kindle unlimited)
Thursday, March 16, 2017
After a Spring Break break, my Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform seminar students are back next week to continue making presentations based on their selected marijuana-related research issue. A student this coming week is exploring the ever-so-timely topic of immigration and its intersection with marijuana laws and policies. Here are the resources the student assembled as background on this topic:
1. Press article: "If pot is legalized, it can still have big consequences for certain immigrants"
2. Press article: "When Immigrants are Deported for Smoking weed"
3. Press Article: "How Marijuana Gets People Deported, In 5 Simple Charts"
4. Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC) Report: "Immigration Impact: Analysis of the Adult Use of Marijuana"
5. Law review article: "Nonserious Marijuana Offenses and Noncitizens: Uncounseled Pleas and Disproportionate Consequences"
Monday, March 6, 2017
Examining studies on marijuana and THC in the treatment of psychiatric diseases and CBD in the treatment of neurological disorders
As recent posts highlight, my Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform seminar is now deep into the part of the semester in which student are making presentation based on their selected marijuana-related research issue. One student this coming week is exploring "the use of THC in the treatment of psychiatric diseases, in comparison to the use of CBD in the treatment of neurological disorders." Here are the studies the student plans to discuss:
Studies on the application of CBD to neurological disorders:
Studies on the Application of THC to psychological disorders:
Antidepressant-like and anxiolytic-like effects of cannabidiol: a chemical compound of Cannabis sativa (illustrating that anxiety, typically thought to be reduced by THC, may experience greater reduction thorough CBD)
Sunday, March 5, 2017
Regular readers know I am quite interested in the connections and linkages between marijuana reform and opioid use and abuse. Thus I am especially excited a student presentation in my Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform seminar this coming week is focused on this topic. The student addressing this issue has assembled the following background reading:
Friday, March 3, 2017
The question in the title of this post is the question being raised by a student presentation in in my Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform seminar next week. The student addressing this issue has assembled the following background reading:
1. Press article: "11 key findings from one of the most comprehensive reports ever on the health effects of marijuana"
2. Information from the FDA: "What is the approval process for a new prescription drug?"
3. More from the FDA: "FDA and Marijuana"
4. Press article: "Most uses of medical marijuana wouldn't pass FDA review, study finds"
5. Press article: "When Your State Says Yes To Medical Marijuana, But Your Insurer Says No"
What are the possibilities and foundations supporting a constutional argument for access to marijuana?
The question in the title of this post is the question being raised by a student presentation in in my Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform seminar next week. (It is also a question that has become ever more timely in light of recent suggestions by members of the Trump Administration that we may soon be seeing "greater enforcement" of federal marijuana prohibition.) The student addressing this issue has assembled the following background reading:
U.S. Supreme Court Cases recognizing a right to privacy and autonomy:
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Stanley v. Georgia (1969)
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)
March 3, 2017 in Assembled readings on specific topics, Criminal justice developments and reforms, History of Marijuana Laws in the United States, Medical Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Recreational Marijuana Commentary and Debate | Permalink | Comments (0)
Wednesday, February 22, 2017
Reviewing ups-and-downs and defeat in 2015 of Ohio effort to legalize recreational marijuana via Issue 3
I am excited to remind readers (and also my students) that it is that time of year again: students in my Ohio State University Moritz College of Law marijuana reform seminar are gearing up to begin in-class presentations. This means, inter alia, that this blog space will be filled in coming weeks with links and materials provided by my students as a background/preview for their coming presentation.
The first of the scheduled presentations involves a review of this history (and epic fail) of Issue 3, the 2015 campaign in Ohio seeking passage of a state constitutional amendment that would have fully legalized marijuana in the Buckeye State and put the rights to grow marijuana in the hands of a small group of financial backers of the initiative campaign. The student making this presentations has suggested the following reading for classmates (and any others interested in recalling this tale):
"Is Responsible Ohio's mascot Buddie 'the Joe Camel of marijuana'?"(Oct 21, 2015 press article)
"On Ballot, Ohio Grapples With Specter of Marijuana Monopoly" (Nov 1, 2015 press article)
Proposed Constitutional Amendment Issue 2: "Anti-monopoly amendment; protects the initiative process from being used for personal economic benefit"
Proposed Constitutional Amendment Issue 3: "Grants a monopoly for the commercial production and sale of marijuana for recreational and medicinal purposes"
"Ohioans reject legalizing marijuana" (Nov 4, 2015 press article)
UPDATE: And here is one more: "Will Ohio's Marijuana Amendment Go up in Smoke" (Sept/Oct Ohio Lawyer article)
February 22, 2017 in Assembled readings on specific topics, Campaigns, elections and public officials concerning reforms, Initiative reforms in states, Recreational Marijuana Commentary and Debate | Permalink | Comments (0)
Friday, February 3, 2017
I’m happy to announce that my first-of-its-kind textbook on Marijuana Law, Policy, and Authority will soon be published by Aspen. It will be out in April (in e form) and May (in print). The teacher’s manual and a companion website will be available soon thereafter. Many thanks to Doug and others who have provided helpful feedback on this book over the last 2.5 years!
The book covers a lot of ground, befitting a field that implicates so many different areas of law. The first chapter of the book is now available on SSRN. That chapter provides more details about the book’s coverage and approach, and it also explains why this is such an interesting and worthwhile area of law to study – and not just for those who are interested in practicing in this burgeoning field.
Not coincidentally, I will be posting more this month (both here and at Prawfsblawg) on topics drawn from the book. My first post at Prawfsblawg briefly laid out the case for teaching and writing about marijuana law. Even though most people who read this blog are already sold on the subject, I’ll copy the relevant passage here:
“For one thing, state marijuana reforms and the federal response to them have sparked some of the most challenging and interesting legal controversies of our day. May the states legalize a drug while Congress forbids it? Even so, are state regulations governing marijuana preempted by federal law? Does anyone (besides the DOJ) have a cause of action to challenge them as such? Can the President suspend enforcement of the federal ban? Do state restrictions on marijuana industry advertising violate the First Amendment? These are just a handful of the intriguing questions that are now being confronted in this field.
Just as importantly, there is a large and growing number of people who care about the answers to such questions. Forty-three (43) states and the District of Columbia have legalized possession and use of some form of marijuana by at least some people. These reforms – not to mention the prohibitions that remain in place at the federal level – affect a staggering number of people. Roughly 40% of adults in the U.S. have tried marijuana, and more than 22 million people use the drug regularly. To supply this demand, thousands of people are growing and selling marijuana. In Colorado alone, for example, there are more than 600 state licensed marijuana suppliers. There are also countless third parties who regularly deal with these users and suppliers, including physicians who recommend marijuana to patients, banks that provide payment services to the marijuana industry, firms that employ marijuana users, and lawyers who advise all of the above.
All of these people need help navigating a thicket of complicated and oftentimes conflicting laws governing marijuana. Colorado, for example, has promulgated more than 200 pages of regulations to govern its $1 billion a year licensed marijuana industry. Among many other things, Colorado’s regulations require suppliers to carefully track their inventories, test and label their products, and limit where and how they advertise. These regulations are complicated enough but doubts about their enforceability (highlighted in the questions above) only add to the confusion and the need for informed legal advice.”
In the coming weeks, I will blog about some of the questions noted above. In the meantime, if you are interested in teaching a course or a unit on any aspect of marijuana law, contact me – robert<dot>mikos<at>vanderbilt<dot>edu -- I would be happy to chat.
February 3, 2017 in Assembled readings on specific topics, Books, Business laws and regulatory issues, Current Affairs, Federal Marijuana Laws, Policies and Practices, Medical Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Medical Marijuana Data and Research, Medical Marijuana State Laws and Reforms, Political perspective on reforms, Recreational Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Recreational Marijuana Data and Research, Recreational Marijuana State Laws and Reforms, State court rulings, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (2)
Monday, October 3, 2016
In just five weeks, Californians will vote on Proposition 64, the state ballot initiative that would legalize recreational marijuana use for persons 21-years-old and older. With Election Day looming, media coverage of the measure has picked up. Most of the state's major newspapers weighed in on legalization a couple weeks ago; and, last week, the local Sacramento CBS station ran a five part series discussing the perceived risks and benefits of legalizing recreational marijuana use in California--coverage that ranged from the lessons to be learned from legalization in Colorado to the effect legalization might have on the image of the state.
- Prop 64: As Recreational Pot Legalization Vote Looms, What Can California Learn From Colorado?
- Prop 64: Would Recreational Pot Legalization Really Ease Pressure on Police?
- Prop 64: How Much Money Could Legal Weed Bring In--And Where Would It Go?
- Prop 64: As THC Levels Hit New Highs, Health Effects Of Marijuana Still A Big Unknown
- Prop 64: Would Weed Legalization Hurt California's Image?
Two other useful resources for commentary on Proposition 64 are The San Francisco Chronicle's blog Smell the Truth and The Sacramento Bee's regular coverage here. The Los Angeles Times's Robin Abcarian also regularly reports on the subject.
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
Exploring how to impact the hearts and minds of bellwether Buckeye voters concerning marijuana reform
Perhaps fittingly, the final student presentation planned for my Ohio State College of Law marijuana reform seminar is focused on "efforts to change the hearts and minds of Ohio voters when it comes to marijuana reform." Here is how the students have described their project and the materials they have assembled to this end:
Our project is focused on connecting with the average Ohioan who does not and has not used marijuana, in order to dispel any myths or prejudices that he or she might hold. The goal is to inform the populace about the virtues of marijuana reform before they vote on another bill/initiative so that they are primed to vote yes on the merits. The articles include what the polls say about Ohio's desire for legal marijuana, a Vice video about moms returning to marijuana consumption after years rebuking it, and some materials concerning compelling organizational tactics for reformers including strategies used for legalization initiatives:
Summer 2014 Prospectus by The Strategy Network describing ResponsibleOhio's plans for "2015 Ohio Marijuana Legalization and Regulation"
April 20, 2016 in Assembled readings on specific topics, Initiative reforms in states, Polling data and results, Recreational Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Recreational Marijuana State Laws and Reforms, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
I am sad to report that this week marks the final week of my OSU marijuana reform seminar and thus the final set of student presentations. One of these presentations will be focused on labor and employment law issues, and here are student-assembled materials on this topic:
Monday, April 11, 2016
A student in my semester-long OSU Moritz College of Law seminar on marijuana reform is presenting this week on how the NCAA approaches marijuana issues involving student athlete. The student has authored this preview blurb to go along with links to assembled background reading:
One of the “hotter” topics in college sports today revolves around the personal activities of high profile student-athletes. When allegations surface that a student-athlete has used marijuana, the focus immediately goes to potential consequences. However, these consequences vary among the leagues, conferences, and schools that student-athletes attend. While the NCAA has (somewhat) consistent procedure for dealing with drug violations, the potential consequences aren’t always clear. Additionally, the potential consequences and treatment of marijuana violations are not always consistent across the board.
These material and articles provide background and highlight some main points for discussion:
AP: “Schools Was Athlete Penalties for Marijuana” - Eric Olson, Dec. 2015
The Wall Street Journal: “The NCAA’s Drug Problem” - Sharon Terlep, March 2015
NCAA: "Marijuana and the interocollegiate student-athlete: Implications for Prevention” - Jason Kilmer, Ph.D., University of Washington; Karalyn Holten, University of Washington
Sunday, April 10, 2016
As students in my semester-long OSU Moritz College of Law seminar on marijuana laws and reform continue assembling readings on particular topics in preparation for an in-class presentation/discussion, this week we have a student taking a deep dive into marijuana propaganda past and present. Here is his summary of the issue and links to background reading:
The presentation will examine the ways the States' clean air acts and anti-public use laws are barriers to these type of establishments and the social use of marijuana, as well as what people are doing to get around the laws and legally use marijuana socially. We will consider what laws have been enacted in response to people trying to circumvent the pre-existing laws and how other states considering legalizing recreational marijuana are approaching the issue of public use and marijuana lounges.
The question in the title of this post is posed by a trio of my students in my OSU Moritz College of Law seminar on marijuana laws and reform as a preview to their coming in-class presentation/discussion. These students have authored this preview blurb to go along with the following links to assembled background reading:
As more states become increasingly friendly to marijuana, investors of every size are looking into the industry. But, given the current market and the legal uncertainties, is investing in the marijuana industry a prudent choice?
"The historical consequences of Irrational Exuberence: Market Crashes: The Tulip and Bulb Craze"
"The Legal Marijuana Industry: The rise of cannabis capitalism: Silicon Valley Meets Bob Marley"
"The business of marijuana R&D: U.S. firms target investment in Israeli cannabis R&D"
Wednesday, April 6, 2016
The question in the title of this post is posed by a student in my semester-long OSU Moritz College of Law seminar on marijuana laws and reform as a preview to his in-class presentation/discussion on Fouth Amendment doctrines. The student has authored this preview blurb to go along with links to assembled background reading:
Warrantless searches are per se unreasonable subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions. Over the last several decades, many of these exceptions to the protections of the Fourth Amendment have either revolved around or are tied to the presence of marijuana. The “Plain Smell” or marijuana from an officer is firmly supported among circuit courts as sufficient for granting probable cause for a search. The Supreme Court has upheld the use of drug detection dogs during traffic stops to generate probable cause to search a vehicle. When there is marijuana in a location where marijuana is illegal, police officers have a justification for a warrantless search.
With the current legalization of marijuana in many jurisdictions, these established exceptions and practices are being turned on their heads. However, the movements away from these established practices are inconsistent and uncoordinated. When dealing with drug detection dogs, some agencies are retiring established dogs and training new ones while some agencies are attempting to retrain their established dogs. But the proper course of action is legally and procedurally uncertain. To retire and retrain is expensive while it is unknown whether a drug detection dogs will remain effective upon retraining or if they can even be retrained. Is it impossible to teach an old dog new tricks?
Two articles on what is happening to drug dogs in jurisdictions where marijuana has been legalized:
An article which further examines marijuana legalization on drug dogs and wades into the discussion of automobiles searchs on the basis of marijuana:How medical marijuana legalization has affected the probable cause generating effect of marijuana odor in Arizona:
April 6, 2016 in Assembled readings on specific topics, Criminal justice developments and reforms, Medical Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Recreational Marijuana Commentary and Debate | Permalink | Comments (0)
Tuesday, April 5, 2016
As students in my semester-long OSU Moritz College of Law seminar on marijuana laws and reform continue assembling readings on particular topics in preparation for an in-class presentation/discussion, this week we have a student taking a deep dive into marijuana propaganda past and present. Here are links to assembled resources and his summaries:
This article provides a good timeline of early Marijuana propaganda and identifies some of the common themes underlying public marijuana education through the 1950s. It also discusses the themes of racism underlying early marijuana advertising.
Identifying the changing themes of government propaganda over the years. Beginning with violent crime, shifting to laziness, health concerns, gateway drugs, and eventually focusing on youth access to marijuana in the modern day. This article showcases the ways that government sponsored marijuana education has changed over the years as public perception of the drug also changes.
A Pew Research study showcasing attitudes towards marijuana based on age. A correlation can be drawn between reasons that a certain age group opposes legalization and the messages presented during their time. The Silent Generation who was coming of age during Reefer Madness opposes legalization because of the perceived violent nature of marijuana, while members of Gen X oppose legalization because of the perceived health risks presented by marijuana. A relation to their exposure to the “Your Brain on Drugs” campaign during the ‘80s.
Finally, a video I edited to try and capture the essential themes and messages presented in both Reefer Madness and Ten Nights in a Bar Room. The two films have been edited down to try and present only the biggest anti-marijuana/alcohol themes in the movies. If fellow classmates would like a brief introduction to what marijuana education looked like in the ‘30s I would hope this properly captures and showcases the political climate at the time.
April 5, 2016 in Assembled readings on specific topics, History of Alcohol Prohibition and Temperance Movements, History of Marijuana Laws in the United States, Recreational Marijuana Commentary and Debate | Permalink | Comments (0)
The question in the title of this post is the query that defines the work of one of my seminar students who will be presenting on this topic to the rest of the class this week. Here is his suggested background readings and materials to set up this important topic:
General Overview Material
Background on "Big Tobacco" Regulation
FDA v Brown and Williamson, 529 U.S. 120 (2000).
First Amendment / Online Marijuana Advertising/ Commercial Speech Doctrine
Brown v Entertainment Merchants Assn., 564 U.S. ___ (2011).
Marijuana Perspective on Video Game Advertising targeted toward Marijuana Users
April 5, 2016 in Assembled readings on specific topics, Business laws and regulatory issues, History of Marijuana Laws in the United States, Recreational Marijuana Commentary and Debate | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, March 31, 2016
The question in the title of this post is posed by one of my seminar students who will be presenting on this topic to the rest of the class this afternoon. Here is introduction for his colleagues and others interested in this engaging query:
Many players are pushing towards open marijuana policies because of the potential health benefits of marijuana use. Players argue that they can be taking marijuana instead of other synthetic pain killers to keep them on the field or court. The players arguments generally fall on deaf ears, the league doesn't want to have any of it.
Here’s why; The league is concerned about its image. In the code of every sports league is the phrase, “integrity of the game.” In other words, the league has the responsibility to uphold the integrity of the game. This applies to players conduct both on and off the field.
For conduct on the field, the league is concerned that marijuana use will effect players ability to play the game. The players abilities may become diminished by the use of marijuana which in turn would diminish the competitive integrity of the game. What if marijuana use improved players ability to play the game – would the league ban it similar to steroids or would the league embrace it because it makes the game more exciting? (Marijuana does not have the negative consequences typically associated with steroids, an argument for allowing its use.)
For conduct off the field, the league is concerned about its image. Every league has “body image issues.”
- NFL – Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson, Josh Gordon
- NBA – Donald Sterling…
- Olympics – Michael Phelps
The list goes on and on. The leagues want to keep a sterling image and the concern is that allowing marijuana use will taint their image. They are unlikely to move until marijuana use is more accepted. Its just good to keep things how they are for business purposes. They don't want to alienate fans.
On the other hand, leagues have incredible ability to shape policy. The leagues may even pave the way for legalization and normalization of marijuana use to treat pain if they would embrace the players requests. The more medical discovery regarding concussions and other ailments and its treatment of marijuana the more likely the leagues will become a factor in this arena.
Maybe even some leagues will fund a study?
Other interesting articles:
- "High Time For Hockey"
March 31, 2016 in Assembled readings on specific topics, Business laws and regulatory issues, Medical Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Recreational Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Sports | Permalink | Comments (0)
Wednesday, March 30, 2016
Examining the modern intersection of the drug war and deportations (with a special focus on marijuana)
This week's presentation in my marijuana reform seminar is focused on immigration law and the "war on drugs." My student will be presenting, I believe, some original empirical research; as background reading he suggested this 2014 Huffington Post piece headlined "The Drug War = Mass Deportation: 250,000 Deported for Drug Offenses in Last 6 Years." Here is how this piece gets started (with links from the original):
The drug war has increasingly become a war against migrant communities. It fuels racial profiling, border militarization, violence against immigrants, intrusive government surveillance and, especially, widespread detentions and deportations.
Media and politicians have tried to convince us that everyone who gets deported is a violent criminal, a terrorist or a drug kingpin. But a newly released, first-of-its-kind report shatters that notion, showing instead that the majority (some two-thirds) of those deported last year were guilty of minor, nonviolent offenses — including thousands deported for nothing more than possessing small quantities of drugs, typically marijuana.
The report, an analysis of federal immigration data conducted by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, details how roughly 40,000 people have been deported for drug law violations every year since 2008. That means that nearly 250,000 — one-quarter of a million — people were deported for nonviolent drug offenses in just the past six years. A nonviolent drug offense was the cause of deportation for more than one in ten (11 percent of) people deported in 2013 for any reason — and nearly one in five (19 percent) of those who were deported because of a criminal conviction.
Much as the drug war drives mass incarceration, it also appears to be a major driver of mass deportation. Indeed, the report reveals that simple marijuana possession was the fourth most common cause of deportation for any crime, and the most common cause of deportation for crimes involving drugs. On average, more than 6,600 people were deported in each of the last two years just for personal marijuana possession, and overall, nearly 20,000 people were deported last year for simple possession of any drug or drug paraphernalia.
By contrast, relatively few of those deported were drug traffickers, let alone violent ones. “Convictions for drug trafficking accounted for only one percent of deportees recorded as convicted of a crime,” the report’s authors note, “while marijuana possession was more than three times that level.”
March 30, 2016 in Assembled readings on specific topics, Criminal justice developments and reforms, Federal Marijuana Laws, Policies and Practices, History of Marijuana Laws in the United States, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (1)