Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform

Editor: Douglas A. Berman
Moritz College of Law

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Tuesday, March 10, 2015

Notable new talk of recreational marijuana reform in Florida

For various reasons, the huge swing southern state Florida is among the most interesting place to watch as a marker for the future of marijuana reform nationwide.  A number of prominent national political figures have links to Florida, and the distinctive economics and voting groups in the state add to the political equation.  As the same time, the state is among the hardest for the enactment of initiative reforms because of its requirement that initiatives garner 60% of the vote for passage.   Thus, I found this lengthy new Sunshine State  article, headlined "Recreational cannabis initiative?," especially interesting. Here are excerpts:

The Florida Cannabis Action Network is now developing a 2016 voter initiative to legalize marijuana, based on the likelihood that the Florida Legislature will be unwilling to create a comprehensive medical-only program in coming weeks. That could mean that there is both a medical marijuana amendment and an adult-use amendment on the Florida ballot during the presidential election-year ballot.

Unlike two recently filed but restrictive medical marijuana legislative bills and unlike the revised medical marijuana amendment possibly headed for the November 2016 ballot, the proposed Florida-Can amendment would open use of the plant. “Just like aloe in your backyard, why shouldn’t you be able to have cannabis in your back yard, and if you want some, use it,” said Parrish resident Cathy Jordan, an ALS patient and longtime president of the Florida Cannabis Action Network....

While the group does not have the deep pockets that Orlando attorney John Morgan’s medical marijuana advocacy group United for Care showed last year, James says raising $10 million from those interested in creating a new multibillion-dollar marijuana industry in the third-most populated state would not be insurmountable. “Florida is a wealthy state, with a lot of people who have an interest in this issue,” James said....

Opponents of legalization were quick to criticize the plan proposed by Florida Cannabis Action Network. The Drug Free America Foundation, through its Drug Free Florida political action committee, was a key 2014 opponent to medical marijuana Amendment 2, taking in major donations and creating the “Vote No. on 2” ad blitz that helped defeat the amendment. Referring to James, Drug Free America chief Calvina Fay said: “For her to make that kind of threat to the Legislature is just disingenuous. I don’t think members of the Legislature are going to be so easily influenced by such a silly threat.”

A $10 million campaign to legalize marijuana in Florida “is feasible,” said Michael Mayes, CEO of Quantum 9 Inc., a Chicago-based consulting firm that works with both recreational and medicinal marijuana business clients on a national basis. Revenues from a wide-open marijuana program in Florida could easily be in the billions of dollars per year, Mayes said, “just because there is such a high likelihood that individuals in Florida could benefit from the use of marijuana, whether it is called adult-use or medical.”

An adult-use law could vault Florida into the U.S. leader in marijuana sales, because all the other states where adult use of marijuana is legal have significantly smaller populations: Colorado, Washington State, Alaska, Oregon and the District of Columbia. Even without any sales, medical or recreational, in Florida, marijuana already is the fastest-growing industry in the United States. The U.S. market for legal cannabis products grew 74 percent in 2014 to $2.7 billion, up from $1.5 billion in 2013, according to ArcView Market Research....

In Florida, it is frustration that is driving the activists toward a recreational approach. “Lawmakers promised that they would do something,” James said. “It is frustrating for us that law enforcement is the voice of opposition up here.”

The Florida Sheriffs Association declined to comment on the Florida-Can proposal. But in late February, in response to a comprehensive medical marijuana bill submitted by St. Petersburg Republican Senator Jeff Brandes, the sheriffs made their position very clear. They would not support a medical marijuana bill that allows for smoking of the plant’s buds, or that gives a physician leeway to recommend its use for any medical condition that causes severe and persistent pain, nausea or muscle spasms. The organization said it could support a medical marijuana bill that calls for marijuana infused edibles, and one that limits use only to specific medical conditions.

March 10, 2015 in Initiative reforms in states, Medical Marijuana State Laws and Reforms, Recreational Marijuana State Laws and Reforms | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, March 9, 2015

Bipartisan federal medical marijuana bill to be introduced Tuesday

As reported in this new Washington Post entry, headlined "In a first, senators plan to introduce federal medical marijuana bill," a trio of notable Senators have interesting plans for mid-day Tuesday:

In what advocates describe as an historic first, a trio of senators plan to unveil a federal medical marijuana bill Tuesday. The bill, to be introduced by Senators Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), would end the federal ban on medical marijuana.

The Compassionate Access, Research Expansion and Respect States (CARERS) Act would “allow patients, doctors and businesses in states that have already passed medical marijuana laws to participate in those programs without fear of federal prosecution,” according to a joint statement from the senators’ offices. The bill will also “make overdue reforms to ensure patients – including veterans receiving care from VA facilities in states with medical marijuana programs – access the care they need.” The proposal will be unveiled at a 12:30 p.m. press conference on Tuesday, which will be streamed live here. Patients, their families and advocates will join the senators at the press conference.

The announcement was met with praise by advocates. “This is a significant step forward when it comes to reforming marijuana laws at the federal level,” Dan Riffle, director of federal policies for the Marijuana Policy Project, said in a statement. “It’s long past time to end the federal ban,” said Michael Collins, policy manager for the Drug Policy Alliance, said in a statement. Both describe the introduction of the bill as a first for the Senate....

In December, Congress for the first time in roughly a decade of trying approved an amendment that bars the Justice Department from using its funds to prevent states from implementing their medical marijuana laws — a significant victory for proponents of the practice.

Potential Republican presidential candidates Rand, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) have all said they support states’ rights to legalize pot, though they themselves disagree with the policy.

March 9, 2015 in Criminal justice developments and reforms, Federal Marijuana Laws, Policies and Practices, Medical community perspectives, Medical Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Medical Marijuana Data and Research, Medical Marijuana State Laws and Reforms, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)

Spotlighting some collateral economic impact of marijuana legalization

Download (1)This notable new CNN money article, headlined "Pot startups cash in on wave of legalization," highlights some of the economic stories emerging in the modern decline of pot prohibition. Here is an excerpt:

The wave of pot legalization hasn't just been a boon for growers. A slew of other businesses are jumping on the bandwagon as well.

"A guy calls me a few weeks ago about a domain name he owns, nugs.com [a reference to marijuana nuggets, or the bud of the plant]," said Jared Mirsky, founder of Online Marijuana Design. "It's a great four-letter domain name, which itself is rare and valuable." Mirsky's Seattle branding firm, which exclusively works with the cannabis industry, is helping him capitalize on it....

Other firms, like Sussex, Wisc.-based Vaportek, have pivoted to work with the marijuana industry. Originally, the company created a machine to control odors in hospitals. The business grew to target fire and flood restoration, crime scenes and, most recently, the marijuana industry. "As soon as it became legal, we knew our products would be a great fit for the industry. And it's a new area to increase our sales," said spokeswoman Sunny Schneider-Christensen.

Vaportek created smaller home vaporizers for individual use as well as larger machines for larger growing facilities. "We're targeting bedroom smokers to big industry growers," she said.

The U.S. market for legal marijuana soared 74% to $2.7 billion between 2013 and 2014, making it the fastest growing industry in the country, according to a report from the ArcView Group, a cannabis-focused investment and research firm. It's expected to reach $3.5 billion in 2015....

"Under full legalization, this could be a $36 billion industry," said ArcView Group's CEO Troy Dayton. "Most people who are getting in won't be marijuana growers or processors. That requires a very specific skillset," he said. "It's like with the Gold Rush. It's a great time to be selling picks and shovels, instead."

WaterPulse, in Longmont, Colo., helps marijuana growers reduce water usage by as much as 70%. Its automatic watering mats, placed underneath cannabis plants, let growers set timers, said Mike Croy, the firm's VP of sales and marketing. "This helps prevents water wastage and allows plants to grow uniformly," he said, adding that marijuana's legalization has generated a lot of interest. "It's become the fastest-growing part of our overall business," he said.

Brother-sister team Kevin and Kathleen Sullivan launched Forever Green Indoors in 2013. The Kirkland, Wash.-based firm sells lighting panels for indoor marijuana farms. Kathleen had run a small business that sold energy-efficient lighting options for businesses. "We recognized an opportunity for our products in the marijuana business," said Kevin. LED lighting is much more effective for growing cannabis indoors -- and considerably cheaper, he said.

"The market demand for LED lighting panels has really picked up in the last six months," he said. Forever Green Indoors has installed about 500 LED panels (each costing $1,400) since the firm launched. "We're not profitable yet, but our pre-orders are growing fast," said Kevin.

Mirsky, who used to design websites for dispensaries, is overwhelmed by the rush of new clients. He started the branding agency five years ago and has already worked with hundreds of clients. Last year he hit $500,000 in sales and is on track to hire eight new employees this year. "Five years feels like 20 years already," he said. "That's how fast everything is moving in this industry."

March 9, 2015 in Recreational Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Recreational Marijuana State Laws and Reforms | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, March 8, 2015

"What, Ohio a trendy pot state?"

Download (6)The title of this post is the headline of this notable new USA Today column which highlights why the discussion of marijuana reform in the Buckeye State may be such a big deal in the coming month.  Here are excerpts:

Is Ohio, long considered the nation's leading political bellwether state, going to pot? If some big-money investors, former sports stars and grassroots activists get their way, voters in November could make Ohio the first state to go directly from a total ban on marijuana to one allowing production and consumption of both medical and recreational marijuana.

And what happens here could reverberate across the country next year when as many as two dozen other states are expected to vote to decriminalize marijuana or to permit its legal production and consumption. It should also put pressure on the U.S. Supreme Court to step in to resolve the obvious conflict between the growing number of state and local laws legalizing pot and federal law that still classifies marijuana as an illegal and dangerous drug.

The Ohio marijuana juggernaut is notable because, unlike Colorado, Washington, D.C., Alaska and Oregon, which have legalized weed, Ohio is Rust Belt dull, not known for an edgy living style or as a hotbed of libertarianism.

What's more, polls by Gallup show that support for legal marijuana in the Midwest is a paltry 45%, lower even than the 47% support found in the South. Both the East Coast and West Coast states support legalization by a majority of 57%. (Two countrywide polls in the past 18 months have shown slim-to-solid majority support for national legalization.)...

It could become the hottest cultural issue since the push for gay marriage began, and is likely to generate a range of debates: Will legalization reduce prison populations, and at what cost? Will taxes on marijuana leave state coffers flush or prove to be as oversold as recent projections on gambling revenues? Doesn't it just make sense, really, to control and profit from transactions that will otherwise be engaged in illegally by those who have a yearning for pot?

All legitimate questions, but none that addresses the elephant in the room: How can state and local jurisdictions continue to make something legal that is patently illegal under federal law? Here's how crazy things have become: In cities from Portland, Maine, to Detroit and Flint, Mich., voters have approved possession of small amounts of marijuana. In some cases, local police say they will still enforce state laws prohibiting possession, in others police say they will look the other way.

In December, Congress approved and President Obama signed a spending bill that defunds federal prosecution of medical marijuana sales, yet a U.S. attorney in Oakland continues a campaign to shut down California's largest medical marijuana dispensary.

Obama has not only instructed the Justice Department to not interfere with state laws legalizing marijuana, he also has even encouraged more states to "experiment" with such laws. So what happens if a Republican is elected president in 2016 and he or she orders a new attorney general to stamp out marijuana wherever it is found?...

That's the big picture. Back here in Ohio, if the ballot measure passes, I see a problem for the horticulturally challenged: How can we expect to raise our own marijuana if we can't even get marigolds to grow?

Some prior related posts on Ohio reform discussions:

March 8, 2015 in Initiative reforms in states, Recreational Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Recreational Marijuana State Laws and Reforms, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, March 7, 2015

Another round of state reform news from coast to coast

Marijuana reform discussions at the state level, regarding both medical and recreational reforms, continue to generate lots of stories and headlines each week. Here is an abridged run-down of (and links to) some recent news stories reviewing recent state-level marijuana reform developments that caught my eye:

Alaska: "Alaska lawmakers hold marijuana show and tell"

California: "GOP's risk-reward calculus on legalizing pot"

Nebraska: "Medical marijuana debated in Nebraska's Capitol"

New Hampshire: "Committee approves bill to decriminalize marijuana"

Oregon: "Oregon Liquor Control Commission Releases Marijuana Policy Recommendations"

Rhode Island: "Rhode Island again takes up bills to legalize marijuana"

March 7, 2015 in Criminal justice developments and reforms, Medical Marijuana State Laws and Reforms, Recreational Marijuana State Laws and Reforms, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, March 6, 2015

Spotlighting political realities for GOP leaders looking to 2016

Pew-marijuana-chartRegular readers have likely already figured out that I am already obsessed with how marijuana reform politics are going to play out in the run-up to the big 2016 election.  Consequently, I found notable and blogworthy this effective new Forbes commentary by Jacob Sullum on this topic, headlined "Ted Cruz's Cannabis Conversion Reflects The Political Prudence of Marijuana Federalism." Here are excerpts:

At the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) last week, Ted Cruz responded to a question about marijuana legalization in Colorado by endorsing a federalist approach to the issue. “I actually think this is a great embodiment of what Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called ‘the laboratories of democracy,’” the Texas senator said. “If the citizens of Colorado decide they want to go down that road, that’s their prerogative. I personally don’t agree with it, but that’s their right.”

Those remarks seemed to contradict the position Cruz had taken a year before, when he criticized the Obama administration for failing to aggressively enforce the federal ban on marijuana in states that have legalized the drug for medical or recreational use. Speaking at a Texas Public Policy Foundation conference in January 2014, he described the Justice Department’s prosecutorial restraint, which is designed to respect state policy choices, as an abuse of executive power.

Cruz’s apparent turnaround reflects a political reality that he and other candidates for the Republican presidential nomination will have to confront. Although most members of their party still support pot prohibition, most Americans don’t, and even within the GOP the staunchest drug warriors are dying off, while Republicans in their 20s and 30s strongly favor legalization. As with gay marriage, Republican politicians face a generational shift that will leave them struggling to placate social conservatives without alienating younger, more tolerant voters. Cruz’s calibration—I don’t personally favor legalization, but as a conservative constitutionalist I think the issue should be left to the states—is the easiest way to strike that balance....

After Colorado and Washington voters approved marijuana legalization in 2012, a CBS News survey found that only 27 percent of Republicans agreed with that policy. Yet 65 percent of Republicans thought “laws regarding whether the use of marijuana is legal or not should be…left to each individual state government to decide.”

Marijuana federalism also appeals to Republicans who support legalization, and there are more of those than there used to be, although they still represent a minority. According to surveys conducted last year, roughly a third of Republicans think pot should be legal. But the proportion is dramatically higher among young Republicans. A Pew Research Center survey conducted in February 2014 found that 63 percent of Republicans born between 1981 and 1996 favored legalization.

The outlook for Republican prohibitionists seems even bleaker when you look at survey data for the general population. Several recent surveys, including Pew’s, the Gallup Poll and the General Social Survey, indicate that most Americans favor legalization. Last year’s General Social Survey put support for legalization at 52 percent, 10 points higher than in 2012. It seems likely that the upward trend will continue, since support is inversely associated with age. According to Gallup’s 2013 results, Americans 65 and older were the only age group in which a majority still opposed legalization....

Since marijuana legalization will be on state ballots next year and will continue to be a source of friction with the federal government, the candidates who have not taken a position yet probably will be pressed to do so as the 2016 presidential campaign heats up. If they are smart, they will parrot Cruz, Perry, Bush, and Paul. Marijuana federalism is a rare opportunity for politicians to be prudent, principled, and popular.

Some prior related posts:

March 6, 2015 in Federal Marijuana Laws, Policies and Practices, History of Marijuana Laws in the United States, Initiative reforms in states, Political perspective on reforms, Polling data and results | Permalink | Comments (0)

Another notable reformer now blogging at Cannabis Law Prof Blog

I am very pleased to see a recent announcement by Frank Snyder at the Cannabis Law Prof Blog welcoming Chris Lindsey as a new co-blogger on the site.  The name of this new blogger should sound familiar to anyone who has seen the documentary Code of the West (which I am showing to my students this afternoon):  Chris was charged with violating federal drug laws as a result of his partnership in a Montana medical marijuana business prominently featured in that documentary.

Chris is off to a flying start as a blogger at CLPB, as these new posts highlight:

March 6, 2015 in Recreational Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, March 5, 2015

Might some 2016 presidential candidates start advocating for marijuana reforms?

Images (1)The question in the title of this post is prompted by this notable new article emerging from inside the Beltway headlined "Marijuana gets lift as 2016 presidential race takes shape." Here are excerpts:

Early signs indicate that marijuana entrepreneurs may have little to worry about as the 2016 presidential campaign takes shape, with some top-rung hopefuls warming to the idea of letting states decide whether to legalize recreational pot.

On the Republican side, those potential candidates include former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, both of whom have admitted to using the drug during their younger years, and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who has said he was no “choir boy” in college. On the Democratic side, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says she never experimented with marijuana but appears open to the idea of allowing states to legalize it.

It’s all good news for Tim Thompson, who commits a felony under federal law every time he sells marijuana to his customers at Altitude, the retail pot shop he opened last July in Prosser, Wash. With Thompson’s store legal under Washington state law, he said it would be a mistake for anyone running for president in 2016 to try to shut down his operation. “They’d be alienating themselves from a large majority of people who are for legalization if they took a hard line against it,” Thompson said.

While the push for legalization has gained great momentum in the past two years, the next president will have to decide whether to enforce the federal law that bans marijuana or follow the Obama administration’s lead in allowing states to tax and regulate it, as long as they do a good job policing themselves.

Legalization emerged as a big winner at last week’s Conservative Political Action Conference in Maryland, where nearly two-thirds of the 3,000 activists who voted in a straw poll said it should be legal for either recreational or medical purposes. Nationally, the most most recent Gallup poll, conducted in October, found 51 percent of Americans backing legalization. But less than a third of conservatives said it should be legal.

The growing popularity of legalization was not lost on the parade of politicians at CPAC. “Well, I was told Colorado provided the brownies here today,” Cruz told his audience, a reference to the first state that allowed recreational pot sales in January of last year.

At the gathering, Paul, Bush and Cruz all said that legalization should be left up to the states, responding to questions from talk show host Sean Hannity of the Fox News Channel. Clinton disclosed her views in June on CNN.

Tom Angell, chairman of the pro-legalization group Marijuana Majority, based in Washington, D.C., said it’s obvious that presidential candidates are paying attention to polls. “Letting states set their own marijuana laws without federal interference is quickly becoming the default position among ambitious politicians in both parties. . . . When voters lead, politicians have to follow or get left behind,” he said.

To be sure, not all of the likely contenders in the top tier are jumping on the bandwagon. Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker, a crowd-pleaser at CPAC who’s scoring high in early polls, is among those who have consistently opposed legalization. And others say it’s far too early to draw any conclusions on how the issue would fare in 2016.

Kevin Sabet, president of the anti-legalization group Smart Approaches to Marijuana, said that with the general election still 20 months away, it’s hardly a surprise that candidates are using what he called “the states’ rights card” as often as possible. But he noted that even George W. Bush, as a Republican presidential candidate in 1999, said states should have the right to decide whether to legalize medical marijuana. As president, Bush backed the federal law outlawing marijuana. “I doubt that any of these candidates will want to run as the pro-marijuana candidate,” Sabet said. “Even Rand Paul stopped short of endorsing legalization, and he is the most libertarian of the bunch.”

Paul, who won the straw poll Saturday at CPAC for the third consecutive year, had plenty of backing from pro-marijuana activists at the conference. Many of his supporters said they believe Paul would move to legalize marijuana if he won the presidency. “He’s more receptive to it than any other candidate,” said Dave Hargitt of Fayetteville, N.C., president of the North Carolina chapter of Republicans Against Marijuana Prohibition, a group that had a booth at the exhibit hall at CPAC. “God gave us all free will, and that’s free will to make good decisions or bad decisions – it’s not the government’s place to tell me what I can and cannot do.”

Paul, who backs reduced penalties for drug offenses, appears ready to make marijuana a campaign issue. Last week at the political conference, he accused Bush of hypocrisy for opposing medical marijuana as governor even though he had smoked pot as a prep student.

John Baucum, president of the Houston Young Republicans, said that’s a message that resonates with the large group of voters under 40. “First of all, I think he’s somebody who can win,” Baucum said of Paul. “We don’t see a lot of the candidates reaching out for that demographic, except for Rand.”...

Thompson, co-owner of the Washington state pot store, said it would be a relief to not have to worry about the federal law prohibiting marijuana after Obama leaves office in January 2017. “Having it controlled by the state is a good idea,” he said. “In this area – and it’s a conservative area – most people like it when the federal government has less control of what we do in our day-to-day lives, especially something like this. It’s basically adults just trying to enjoy themselves.”

Some prior related posts:

March 5, 2015 in Current Affairs, Federal Marijuana Laws, Policies and Practices, Political perspective on reforms, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sherriffs now suing in an effort to shut down Colorado's recreational marijuana regime

This USA Today report, headlined "Sheriffs sue Colorado over legal marijuana," highlights that yet more notable folks continue to press in court lawsuits seeking to end state experimentation with marijuana reforms. Here are the details:

Sheriffs from Colorado and neighboring states Kansas and Nebraska say in a lawsuit to be filed Thursday that Colorado's marijuana law creates a "crisis of conscience" by pitting the state law against the Constitution and puts an economic burden on other states.

The lawsuit asks a federal court in Denver to strike down Colorado's Amendment 64 that legalized the sale of recreational marijuana and to close the state's more than 330 licensed marijuana stores.

Lead plaintiff, Larimer County, Colo., Sheriff Justin Smith, calls the case a "constitutional showdown." Each day, he says, he must decide whether to violate the Colorado Constitution or the U.S. Constitution. Colorado legalized recreational marijuana sales Jan. 1, 2014, but marijuana remains illegal at the federal level. Colorado is "asking every peace officer to violate their oath," Smith said. "What we're being forced to do ... makes me ineligible for office. Which constitution are we supposed to uphold?"

The out-of-state sheriffs say the flow of Colorado's legal marijuana across the border has increased drug arrests, overburdened police and courts and cost them money in overtime. Felony drug arrests in the town of Chappell in Deuel County, Neb., 7 miles north of the Colorado border, jumped 400% over three years, a USA TODAY report tracking the flow of marijuana from Colorado into small towns across Nebraska found. Deuel County Sheriff Adam Hayward is one of the plaintiffs.

Police officers monitoring the flow of marijuana outside Colorado say volumes have risen annually. The Colorado-based Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area task force is still compiling 2014 numbers but expects to see the trend continue, director Tom Gorman said. He said non-residents often strike backdoor deals with legal growers to buy more than they are allowed, then illegally drive, fly or mail the marijuana across state lines. The lawsuit invokes the federal government's right to regulate drugs and interstate commerce and argues that Colorado's decision to legalize marijuana hurt communities on the other side of the state lines. Attorneys general of Nebraska and Oklahoma filed a similar lawsuit late last year....

Supporters of legalization criticize such lawsuits as last-ditch attempts by conservative politicians to derail states' movement toward marijuana legalization. Speaking about the Nebraska-Oklahoma lawsuit in December, Mason Tvert of the Marijuana Policy Project said police should focus their attention on serious crimes and leave alone people who choose to use marijuana. "These guys are on the wrong side of history," Tvert said.

I fully understand why various law enforcement officials, who seemingly enjoy and benefit from waging a drug war without many limitations or uncertainties, are struggling to deal with the new legal regimes in place in Colorado and other marijuana reform jurisdictions. Indeed, I am especially sympathetic to those sheriffs in non-reform jurisdictions which border reform regions because they have to deal with unique spill-over challenges. But this is a problem that has been long endured by localities with lots of other potential dangerous but legal products like alcohol and guns, and I find a bit troublesome that in this context law enforcement officials are so quick to turn to make novel claims in courts to vent their frustrations with what is really just a small pull-back in the modern drug war.

March 5, 2015 in Federal Marijuana Laws, Policies and Practices, Recreational Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Recreational Marijuana State Laws and Reforms, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

Is there any solid data on impact of 2009 Ogden medical marijuana memo?

Download

This week in my marijuana seminar we will be watching and discussing the terrific (though already dated) documentary "Code of the West" about medical marijuana reforms in Montana.  Among the many stories effectively documented by this movie is the important reality that, while Montana enacted via voter initiative medical marijuana reforms in 2004, the medical marijuana industry in the state only became active and prominent after the issuance of the 2009 Ogden Memo. This memo from the Obama Administration's Justice Department stated that the federal government would not prosecute "individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana."

In addition to the coverage of this story in Montana in this great documentary, I have seen a number of anecdotal reports about how the medical marijuana industry kicked into high gear in many western states as a result of the 2009 Ogden Memo, especially states like California, Colorado and Washington. But, to my knowledge, nobody has yet done any systematic research on the impact of the Ogden Memo, in individual states or nationwide, on the number of state-compliant medical marijuana dispensaries or the number of persons working in and around the medical marijuana industry or the number of persons registered for or regularly obtaining marijuana in conjunction with a doctor's recommendation.

I am busy trying to finish an article complaining about the lack of rigorous social science research surrounding the real impact of state-level marijuana reforms, and I am especially intrigued and troubled by how little systematic data I can find concerning the medical marijuana industry and users. If anyone knows of any significant recent data collections or other research on these fronts, please let me know.

March 4, 2015 in Federal Marijuana Laws, Policies and Practices, History of Marijuana Laws in the United States, Medical Marijuana Data and Research, Medical Marijuana State Laws and Reforms, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (1)

Major uptick in support marijuana legalization according to General Social Survey

As reported in this new Wonkblog posting via the Washington Post, notable new survey data documents new national affinity for major marijuana reform. The post is titled "A majority favors marijuana legalization for first time, according to nation’s most authoritative survey," and here are excerpts:

For the first time, the General Social Survey -- a large, national survey conducted every two years and widely considered to represent the gold standard for public opinion research -- shows a majority of Americans favoring the legalization of marijuana.

In interviews conducted between March and October of last year -- when the legal marijuana markets in Colorado and Washington were ramping up -- researchers asked 1,687 respondents the following question: "Do you think the use of marijuana should be made legal or not?"

Fifty-two percent said pot should be legalized, 42 percent opposed it, and another 7 percent were undecided. Support is up 9 percentage points from 2012, the last time the survey was conducted.

The GSS marijuana numbers trace the trajectory of U.S. drug policy over the past 40 years. In 1974, a year after the Shafer Commission recommended removing marijuana from Schedule 1 of the Controlled Substances Act, public support for full legalization stood at 19 percent. Support rose through the 1970s, reaching nearly 30 percent in 1978, only to plummet during the Reagan years, "Just Say No" and the advent of the drug war.

The year 1990 represented the nadir of legalization support, when it stood at 16 percent. But the numbers rose steadily through the 1990s as states began adopting medical marijuana laws, starting with California in 1996. As recently as 2006, support stood only at 32 percent -- just a little bit higher than the previous peak in 1978. In the fewer than 10 years since then, support has jumped 20 percentage points -- mirroring, in many ways, the dramatic shift in public opinion on gay marriage over the same period.

Legalization supporters have been able to capitalize on that energy and secure full legalization in four states, with a partial legal status in DC similar to the Schafer Commission's original recommendation. Opponents have scrambled to catch up, but the sharp and sustained increase in public opinion means they're facing an uphill battle. That fact that they've been drastically outspent at every turn -- partially a reflection of greater public support for the pro-legalization camp -- hasn't helped things....

For a public increasingly weary of the toll of decades of costly and ineffective drug policies, these cases will be a tough sell. Younger Americans -- including Republican ones -- overwhelmingly favor marijuana legalization. And after a year of legal pot, Colorado doesn't appear to be experiencing buyer's remorse. A recent Quinnipiac poll found that 58 percent of Colorado's voters said they supported the state's marijuana law -- slightly more than the 55 percent who approved it in 2012.

The strong numbers in the latest General Social Survey indicate that the issue isn't losing salience with the public. At the national level, support for legal marijuana remains robust -- and doesn't show signs of wavering any time soon.

March 4, 2015 in Polling data and results, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)

Three of "Kettle Falls Five" convicted on least serious federal marijuana charges in Washington

This AP story reports on the notable mixed verdict in a high-profile federal prosecution of a group of defendants in Washington state who claimed they were growing marijuana only for medical purposes.  Here are the details:

Three people were found guilty Tuesday of growing marijuana, but they also were exonerated of more serious charges in a widely-watched federal drug case in a state where medical and recreational marijuana is legal.

The three remaining defendants of the so-called Kettle Falls Five were all found guilty of growing marijuana. But a jury found them not guilty of distributing marijuana, conspiracy to distribute and firearms charges that carried long prison sentences.

U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Rice set sentencing for June 10.

The defendants were Rhonda Firestack-Harvey, her son Rolland Gregg and his wife, Michelle Gregg. Firestack-Harvey wiped away tears as she declared victory in the case. "The truth comes out," she said, noting that the defendants were growing marijuana for medical purposes and had cards permitting that use. "We would have loved to be exonerated of all charges."

However, there was no doubt that federal drug agents found marijuana plants growing on their property near Kettle Falls, she said.

Federal prosecutors did not speak with reporters after the verdict, which followed a full day of deliberations by the jury. Prosecutors asked that the three be taken into custody until sentencing, but Rice declined.

"It's a victory, but it's bittersweet," said Jeff Niesen, an attorney for Firestack-Harvey. "They've been convicted of a federal crime." But while the tougher charges carried sentences of a decade in prison, growing marijuana should bring a much lower sentence, Niesen said.

On Monday, attorneys for the defendants asked jurors to throw out what he described as an overzealous and overreaching case. Attorney Phil Tefleyan criticized the government's prosecution of the three, who contend they were growing medical marijuana for personal use in a case that has drawn wide attention over the government's willingness to prosecute marijuana growers. "They roped in this innocent family," Tefleyan told jurors.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Earl Hicks told jurors Monday that Washington state's stance on marijuana doesn't matter. He says the question for the jury is, "Is it legal under federal law?"

The defendants contend they didn't distribute the marijuana. But they were barred from telling jurors their claim that they grew the marijuana only for personal medical use. That issue can be raised during sentencing. Tefleyan said the government could not point to a single sale of the drug by the family. He said the evidence seized by drug enforcement agents during a raid in August 2012 — 4 pounds of marijuana and about $700 in cash — didn't support the conclusion the family was dealing.

The government has argued the family grew the plants in violation of federal law. "I don't believe there's any question in this case that we're talking about the manufacture of marijuana," Hicks told the jury.

Tefleyan placed blame for those plants on Jason Zucker, a former defendant who cut a plea deal last week, just before the trial started. Zucker, 39, testified Friday that he fronted $10,000 in costs to get the operation up and running. Zucker's plea deal called for a 16-month sentence....

Larry Harvey, 71, was recently dismissed from the case after being diagnosed with terminal pancreatic cancer in December.

I believe that these defendants' acquittal on gun charges means that that they are not subject to any mandatory minimum sentencing terms, and the judge's decision to allow them to be free awaiting sentencing suggests to me that they will likely not receive significant (or perhaps any) prison time for these offenses. In addition, these defendants might have various grounds for appealing to the Ninth Circuit (although they many not want to bother if they get relatively lenient sentencing terms).

Prior related posts:

March 4, 2015 in Criminal justice developments and reforms, Federal court rulings, Federal Marijuana Laws, Policies and Practices | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, March 3, 2015

Florida jury embraces medical marijuana defense to state cannabis manufacturing charge

As reported in this local article, for "the first time in Florida history, a Broward jury acquitted a marijuana grower after finding he has a medical need for the illegal drug."  Here is more about this notable trial outcome:

Jesse Teplicki hid nothing from the detectives who showed up at his Hollywood home two years ago acting on a tip that he was growing pot on the premises. And he hid nothing from the jury on Thursday when he took the stand at his criminal trial, even admitting that he smoked a marijuana cigarette earlier in the day to treat the nausea and suppressed appetite that had been plaguing him for decades.

Teplicki is the first defendant in Florida to argue medical need in a marijuana case. The jury of four women and two men deliberated for less than an hour before returning its verdict. "You saved my life," a tearful Teplicki told three jurors who stayed in the courtroom after they were discharged by Broward Circuit Judge Michael Ian Rothschild.

Manufacture of cannabis is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. Teplicki, 50, had rejected several plea offers, admitting his actions but referring to the plant as "medicine" he needs to function. Teplicki has suffered from anorexia since age 9, according to trial testimony.

Medical need has worked as a defense before, but it's never been tried in front of a jury. In two cases dating back more than 20 years, marijuana smokers have defended themselves at trial before a judge. In each case, the judge convicted the defendants only to see appeals courts overturn their decisions and order not-guilty verdicts.

Rothschild warned Teplicki that the verdict does not change Florida law. Marijuana remains illegal to grow, possess and sell. But Teplicki was never accused of selling pot. He did not say how he plans to secure marijuana in the future.

Prosecutor Kathleen O'Brien argued that Teplicki had failed to demonstrate the "medical need" central to his defense. She faulted Teplicki for not only self-medicating, but for also self-diagnosing, never seeking alternative treatments that do not involve breaking the law. "There was no follow-up by a treating physician," she said.

"This is an historic decision in the state of Florida," said defense lawyer Michael C. Minardi. "Hopefully prosecutors heed the decision and are less likely to prosecute this kind of case in the future."

March 3, 2015 in Medical Marijuana State Laws and Reforms, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)

"Nonserious Marijuana Offenses and Noncitizens: Uncounseled Pleas and Disproportionate Consequences"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new UCLA Law Review comment by Jordan Cunnings. Here is its abstract:

Marijuana is being decriminalized in many states and localities throughout the United States. While recreational use of marijuana is legal in only a handful of states, in many other areas it has become a type of pseudo-violation with such low criminal penalties that defendants may be issued just a citation or ticket and are often not entitled to the assistance of a public defender. While low-level marijuana offenses have fewer meaningful consequences within the criminal justice system in these jurisdictions, these offenses continue to create serious immigration consequences for noncitizen offenders. The Immigration and Nationality Act defines “conviction” in such a way that even civil infractions with very low penalties count as drug convictions that make lawful permanent residents deportable.

The combination of lowered criminal penalties for marijuana offenses and severe resulting immigration consequences causes significant problems for noncitizens. First, as the penalties for marijuana offenses are lowered at the state and local levels, a defendant is less likely to have a right to appointment of a public defender when charged with possession of a small amount of marijuana. This situation implicates potential violations of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel in criminal proceedings, which has been held to cover affirmative advice on the immigration consequences of a criminal charge. Additionally, even with the assistance of a public defender, individuals may still be unable to avoid the harsh immigration consequences that often result from marijuana offenses. These harsh consequences violate our society’s understanding of proportionality of punishment in criminal law. Even though immigration law is traditionally insulated from proportionality considerations because of the plenary power doctrine, deportation for low-level marijuana offenses provides one example of why this doctrine should be reconsidered.

March 3, 2015 in Criminal justice developments and reforms, Federal Marijuana Laws, Policies and Practices, History of Marijuana Laws in the United States, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (1)

"Mitch McConnell’s Love Affair with Hemp"

The title of this post is the headline of this lengthy new Politico article, which carries this sub-headline: "How the Kentucky senator picked a fight with the DEA and became one of Washington’s top drug policy reformers." Here is how the story gets started:

Last May, a shipment of 250 pounds of hemp seeds left Italy destined for Kentucky as part of a pilot project made legal by the 2014 federal farm bill.  Kentucky farmers had long hoped for a crop that could fill the void left by the decline of tobacco, and many thought that industrial hemp, which is used in a vast array of products, could be that crop.

The hemp seeds cleared customs in Chicago, but when the cargo landed at the UPS wing of Louisville International Airport, the Drug Enforcement Administration seized it, arguing that importing hemp seeds required an import permit, which could take six months to process.  If farmers couldn’t get those seeds into the ground by June 1, the entire first year of the hemp pilot program would be dashed.

The DEA would have succeeded in blocking the seeds from reaching Kentucky farmers and university researchers but for the efforts of the state’s agricultural commissioner, who sued the agency and, most improbably, Mitch McConnell.

McConnell — then the Senate’s minority leader — worked furiously to free the seeds from the DEA’s clutches and continued the pro-hemp drumbeat throughout 2014, as he campaigned for reelection.  This year, as Senate majority leader, he’s taken a further step by co-sponsoring the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2015.  While the farm bill carved out an exception to allow hemp cultivation in Kentucky, the 2015 bill would remove hemp entirely from the list of drugs strictly regulated by the Controlled Substances Act.  It would, in essence, legalize hemp production in the United States.

“We are laying the groundwork for a new commodity market for Kentucky farmers,” McConnell told me.  “And by exploring innovative ways to use industrial hemp to benefit a variety of Kentucky industries, the pilot programs could help boost our state’s economy and lead to future jobs. … I look forward to seeing industrial hemp prosper in the Commonwealth.”

Yes, Mitch McConnell said that.  About hemp.

To grasp how McConnell — the quintessential establishment Republican — came to champion industrial hemp, you must first understand the economics and internal politics of Kentucky, as well as McConnell’s relationship to Kentucky’s junior senator, Rand Paul.  It’s also helpful to know that close to $500 million worth of hemp products produced by Canada and other countries is already sold in the United States through such stores as Whole Foods.  McConnell’s move also has potential ramifications beyond the marketplace, providing a credible threat to the Controlled Substances Act since it was signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1970.

“The fact that Majority Leader McConnell is a co-sponsor of a hemp bill shows how fast the politics are changing on this issue,” said Bill Piper of the Drug Policy Alliance, a nonprofit group that favors reform.

March 3, 2015 in Federal Marijuana Laws, Policies and Practices, Political perspective on reforms, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, February 27, 2015

Lots of official new Colorado data about state's marijuana realities showing lots of job growth

As detailed in this local article, headlined "Colorado releases trove of marijuana data," the Colorado Department of Revenue today released this 40-page "Annual Update" report that "may very well be largest collection of data about marijuana use ever released in human history."  Here is a partial summary of some of the data cite the press report:

74 tons of marijuana flower were sold in the state, of which only 19 tons were sold as "recreational," telling us medical patients used more than twice as much marijuana flower (buds) as did recreational customers....

Conversely, recreational users consumed vastly more edible marijuana products in 2014 than did medical marijuana patients.  1.96 million units of medical edibles were sold. 2.8 million of them were sold to recreational buyers.

That means a total of 4.8 million edible marijuana products like cookies, candy bars and drinks sold in 2014. That's equal to almost one edible to every resident of Colorado....

The state of Colorado was cranking out almost 17,000 new plants each day at the end of 2014....  At year's end, Colorado recreational pot growers were cultivating more than 200,000 new plants each month to support their businesses, compared to just 25,000 in January, the first month of legal sales.

Plants need to be designated as either "retail" or "medical" when they are potted. By contrast, growers cranked out more than 300,000 new medical plants in all but two months of the year.

Each plant is tagged with an RFID chip, which is tracked through each step of cultivation and preparation for sale.  The state tracking system logged 37 million "events," including new cutting planted and plants processed into various products.

Denver is the undisputed capitol of the marijuana trade in Colorado. 60 percent of all the recreational buds sold in the state were sold in Denver, 11.5 tons.  The next nearest competitor, Boulder County, looked paltry by comparison with 2.5 tons.

Denver is also tops in medical pot with 31 tons sold compared to just 11 tons in El Paso County. By a 5-1 margin, the Denver County's recreational sales of infused products outpaced its next nearest competitor with 1.3 million units sold.  About 2.6 million edibles sold in Denver.  A half million sold in Boulder....

The data reveal that 9,400 jobs were created above-board in Colorado's marijuana sector with the dawn of recreational sales.  There were 6,600 state badges issued to workers in the medical pot industry as 2014 began.  By year's end, the figure mushroomed to 16,000.

833 brand-new recreational marijuana facilities opened in Colorado in 2014, including 322 retail stores.  At year's end there were 1,416 medical marijuana facilities, a slight increase over 2013.  State regulators suspended 30 licenses for violations over the course of the year. An additional 153 agreed to corrections or shut-downs.

Though there is a lot of data to take in and assess, the economic development story in the form of jobs created strikes me as a hugely significant factors for the future of marijuana reform.  This other official Colorado document seems to indicate that total job growth in Colorado numbered 80,000, which suggests that perhaps as much as 25% (if not more) of the job growth in Colorado can and should be fairly attributed to Colorado's marijuana sector.

February 27, 2015 in Medical Marijuana Data and Research, Recreational Marijuana Data and Research | Permalink | Comments (0)

"Obama backs pot decriminalization efforts"

The title of this post is the headline of this notable new CNN article reporting on some notable new comments from President Obama concerning marijuana law, policy and reform.  Here are the comments:

President Barack Obama said states could overhaul their laws to discourage marijuana the same way "we've been able to discourage a lot of other bad things that people do" -- like using tobacco.

His comments to Kansas City-based KMBC during a series of interviews Thursday afternoon with local television stations, the same day that Washington implemented a new law decriminalizing the use of small amounts of marijuana over the objections of some congressional Republicans.

"I think that we have to separate out legalization -- there's a lot of concern about drug abuse of any sort by our children and the general population -- versus the heavy criminalization of non-violent drug offenses," Obama said. "And I think that a lot of states are taking a look to see, do we have proportionality in terms of how we are penalizing the recreational user."

He said the United States has managed to discourage the use of other harmful products like tobacco without stiff jail sentences. "I think that's what every state across the country, including some very conservative states that don't have a lot of tolerance for marijuana, are looking at," Obama said, "is do we want to be throwing people in jail for five, 10, 15 years if they're not major drug dealers but they're using a substance that's probably not good for them but is probably not hurting too many other people?"

February 27, 2015 in History of Marijuana Laws in the United States, Political perspective on reforms, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)

Learning so much already even in first few hours of first Tribal Marijuana Conference

ImagesI feel extraordinarily fortunate to have been invited to participate the nation’s first ever Tribal Marijuana Conference taking place as I write this post from a huge ballroom at the Tulalip Resort Casino, just North of Seattle.   This post from Canna Law Blog discusses the basics, and this agenda highlights all the informed speakers in the mix who are already making this an amazing event in which I am learning so much.  

For example, right now on the podium now are Thomas Carr, the Boulder City Attorney, and Pete Holmes, Seattle City Attorney, are providing an extraordinary set of insights about local enforcement of local laws in the first two recreational marijuana states. Carr also reported that, because Dunkin' Donuts does not have a store in Boulder, it is easier to get marijuana (and munchies) in Boulder than Dunkin' Donuts (and Munchkins) in some parts of Colorado. Of course, that should not worry public health advocates too much, given that there is good reason to believe Munchkins are perhaps much more addictive and harmful than marijuana.

1403002903506This local article, headlined "Indian tribes looks to marijuana as new moneymaker," highlights some reasons why there are hundreds of persons at this event:

After making hundreds of billions of dollars running casinos, American Indian tribes are getting a good whiff of another potential moneymaker: marijuana.

The first Tribal Marijuana Conference is set for Friday on the Tulalip Indian Reservation in Washington state as Indian Country gets ready to capitalize on the nation’s expanding pot industry. Organizers said representatives from more than 50 tribes in at least 20 states have registered, with total attendance expected to surpass 300....

Robert Odawi Porter, one of the conference organizers and the former president of the Seneca Nation of Indians in New York, said tribes have “a tremendous economic diversification opportunity to consider” with marijuana commerce. He said the event would bring together “trailblazers” in the industry who will help tribal leaders understand the complex issues involved.

While it’s unknown how many tribes ultimately will seek to take advantage of the change, one analyst warned that any tribe expecting to hit the jackpot might be in for a surprise, particularly as the supply of legal pot in the U.S. increases. “People keep forgetting it’s a competitive market,” said Mark Kleiman, a professor of public policy at the University of California, Los Angeles, who served as Washington state’s top pot consultant. “And it’s cheap to grow.”

In Washington state, where retail pot stores opened in July, Kleiman said pot growers who sold their product for $21 a gram only a few months ago are now getting $4 a gram. “The price of marijuana is the price of illegality,” he said.

But the issue is generating plenty of buzz among tribal leaders. On Monday, tribal officials at the National Congress of American Indians winter meeting in Washington, D.C., attended a closed breakout session with two U.S. attorneys to discuss the implications of legalized marijuana....

Even though the talks are in the early stages, many tribal officials are pleased that the Obama administration is giving them the power to proceed. “The position of the administration is a strong indication of their commitment and acknowledgment of tribes’ sovereignty, jurisdiction and governmental authority,” said W. Ron Allen, chairman and CEO of the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe in Washington state.

Marijuana is a divisive issue among tribes, with many tribal officials worried about high rates of drug addiction among American Indians. Last year, the Yakama Nation decided to ban marijuana from its reservation in south central Washington state. The Tulalip Tribe, located just north of Seattle, voted to work with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of Justice to try to legalize medical marijuana.

Legalization opponents fear that more tribes will want to begin selling marijuana without understanding the risks. “I worry about this being a big expansion and I worry that the potential consequences – health, safety and legal – have not been properly communicated to them,” said Kevin Sabet, president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, an anti-legalization group.

Regardless of what tribes decide to do, he warned that the situation could change with the election of a new president in 2016. “I don’t see this ending well for anyone, especially if a new administration decides to enforce federal law,” Sabet said. “The thing people should remember is that marijuana is still illegal – on tribal lands and otherwise – even if the law isn’t being equally enforced.”

Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes, another of the planned speakers at Friday’s conference, said allowing tribes to legalize marijuana will move pot sales “into the light of day.” And he predicted there would be little change in the amount of pot sold on reservations. “Here’s the worst-case scenario: that a tribe just decides they want to be the epicenter of marijuana production, they want to undercut the state system, they want to be a mecca, if you will,” Holmes said. “I’ve heard no tribe say that. . . . We seem to be able to co-exist quite nicely.”

Kleiman said the tax issue would be one of the toughest to sort out as tribes ponder whether to join the industry. “It’s a big deal for people who are trying to make sense of marijuana policy, because if the tribes are exempt from state law, then the states can’t actually tax and regulate,” Kleiman said. “That would be catastrophic. It’s not a big deal for the tribes because there’s no money in it.”

February 27, 2015 in Federal Marijuana Laws, Policies and Practices, History of Marijuana Laws in the United States, Medical Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Medical Marijuana State Laws and Reforms, Recreational Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Recreational Marijuana State Laws and Reforms, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)

Conservatives convene and comment on cannabis at CPAC

Yet another notable sign of the modern marijuana times could be observed this week as leading lights from the GOP got together at the Conservative Political Action Conference. The first day of CPAC included a break-out panel debating marijuana reform, and these article highlight that a number of notable GOP voices have been making headline-making comments on the topic:  

UPDATE:  This new CNN piece, headlined "What's the conservative pot position?," highlights some parts of the marijuana debate session at CPAC. It includes this notable quote from Gary Johnson:

In an interview offstage, Johnson joked that the sparring session didn't qualify as a debate. "I mean having a debate on legalizing marijuana really is like having a debate on whether the sun's gonna come up tomorrow," the former New Mexico governor said. "It's coming up tomorrow."...

But Johnson suggested that Republicans will need to stake out a realistic position on marijuana. The Republican Party -- whose leadership largely opposes marijuana legalization -- will be ushered "right out of existence" if it doesn't change its stance, Johnson said, noting the groundswell of support for pot legalization among younger voters. "It should be [a conservative issue]," Johnson said. "This is your life and don't you have the freedom to do what you want to do with your life. But you also have the responsibility that your actions don't mess with my life. Isn't that kind of fundamentally conservatism, period?"

February 27, 2015 in Political perspective on reforms, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, February 26, 2015

Fascinating (federal? federalism?) fracas unfolding over DC marijuana reform inside the Beltway

Images (4)As reported in this local article, headlined "Washington DC Law Legalizing Marijuana Goes Into Effect," an interesting fight is developing among politicians over marijuana reform law and practices in the District of Columbia.  Here are the basics:

Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser defied congressional Republicans and implemented D.C.’s new local law allowing its residents to smoke marijuana. In implementing the new pot laws Thursday, Bowser has rebuffed two influential House Republicans who’d warned her that she’d be breaking federal law — and risking retribution.

“We would encourage the Congress to not be so concerned with overturning what 7-in-10 voters said should be the law in the District of Columbia,” Bowser said at a news conference Wednesday afternoon.

Bowser and Washington police implemented a measure approved by D.C. voters in November allowing Washington residents to possess up to two ounces of pot. The allowance applies only to those over 21. In addition, D.C. residents can grow up to six pot plants in their own yards. Buying and selling pot are still illegal, as is smoking in public places. But people can transfer up to one ounce to another person — just not for money.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, and Rep. Mark Meadows, R-North Carolina, said in a letter Tuesday that the city would be violating a spate of federal laws if it went forward with Bowser’s plan to implement the new pro-pot measure.

“We strongly suggest you reconsider your position,” the two wrote to Bowser — while, in a thinly veiled suggestion that there would be consequences for ignoring them, pointing to House rules that give Chaffetz’s panel broad investigative authority.

Bowser, though, brushed Chaffetz and Meadows back on Wednesday, saying they should worry about bigger problems — like funding the Department of Homeland Security, which is set to shut down at week’s end if Congress doesn’t act.

And she took a shot at Republicans who have suggested she could wind up in jail for breaking federal law — even though Congress has no powers to prosecute her. “A lot of reasonable people have a different view of this issue,” she said. “I have a lot of things to do here in the District of Columbia, and me being in jail wouldn’t be a good thing.”

It’s the latest example of the strain between a heavily Democratic city that is ultimately controlled by a Republican-dominated Congress — which couldn’t stop similar marijuana legalization pushes in Colorado and Washington state, but is trying to use its power of the purse to do so this time.

Chaffetz and Meadows pointed to a provision included in a massive spending bill approved by Congress in December that prohibited Washington from legalizing marijuana, or cutting any drug possession penalties.

Bowser has insisted that the district’s measure was enacted before that December vote. But the two Republicans noted that any bill in Washington can’t become local law until it’s been through a 30-day layover period before Congress. Until that happens, they said, the measure can’t be considered enacted — which in this case means it “was not enacted prior to the language in the continuing resolution preventing it from moving forward.”

“If you decide to move forward tomorrow with the legalization of marijuana in the District, you will be doing so in knowing and willful violation of the law,” Chaffetz and Meadows wrote.

February 26, 2015 in Federal Marijuana Laws, Policies and Practices, History of Marijuana Laws in the United States, Initiative reforms in states, Recreational Marijuana State Laws and Reforms, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)