Cannabis Law Prof Blog

Daily News Roundup: Friday, October 31, 2014

Maryland Cops Seize Marijuana-Infused Halloween Candy: "Authorities in Prince George's County say they've seized several boxes of Halloween candy infused with marijuana.  The candy -- including taffy, mint chocolate bars, blueberry chocolate bars and banana-walnut chocolate bars -- was . . .shipped from the west coast and Colorado, said Prince George's County Police."

Council Members:  New York Police Still Targeting Minorities in Marijuana Arrests:  "In a letter to Mayor de Blasio and Police Commissioner Bill Bratton, five Latino or black City Council members charged that the NYPD continues to unfairly target young minority men for low-level marijuana arrests."

Michigan Doc Pleads Guilty to Medical Marijuana Prescription Fraud:  "A Grand Rapids doctor indicted in a major marijuana conspiracy admitted he wrote medical marijuana prescriptions for patients he never met to help further a criminal enterprise that earned more than $1.3 million in less than two years."

Arizona Prosecutors:  Say No to Recreational Marijuana:  "Three of Arizona's top prosecutors are calling for support from political and civic leaders to oppose the legalization of marijuana for recreational use."

Las Vegas Approves 26 Pot Dispensary Applications:  "City Council members spent the better part of 16 hours mulling preliminary land use and licensing entitlements sought by 50 would-be medical marijuana business operators on Tuesday and Wednesday.  They approved 26 pot dispensaries, more than double the number set aside for the city by Nevada regulators."

New Marijuana Business Incubator Opens in Florida: An old cigar factory in Ybor City has undergone some big changes. . . .  The Common Bond Collaborative opened its doors Thursday in Ybor City with the goal of growing marijuana-related businesses by putting cannabis concepts on the fast track."

Reason: Colorado Regulations Help Keep Black Market Marijuana Flourishing

REGULATION OF ANY BUSINESS always results in unintended consequences.  Legalization of recreational marijuana was supposed to drive out the criminal enterprises and the black market, but the latter is still going strong because the illegal stuff is much cheaper than the legal sort, and for price conscious Coloradoans, that makes a big difference.  Reason magazine has an interesting report, This Is What Legalizing Marijuana Did to the Black Market in Colorado.  Here's a sample:

    The black-market prices are definitely lower than recreational prices," says Michael Elliott, executive director of Colorado's Marijuana Industry Group. "The taxes are a big reason why, the new testing requirements, the packaging requirements, and basically this whole hurdle of the extraordinary expenses people have had to go through to open these businesses. Another reason is that the businesses have had limited supply." The supply problem was especially acute in the early months, before the first harvests of plants raised for the recreational market, when repurposed medical marijuana was the only source.

    The relatively high prices may help explain why the number of medical marijuana patients registered with the state Department of Public Health and Environment rose from 106,763 in November 2012, when voters approved Colorado's legalization initiative, to 115,210 in May 2014. The increase is not huge, but other things being equal you might have expected that number to shrink during this period, assuming that recreational users posing as patients would shift to the general market, where you can buy marijuana without a bureaucratic hassle. But patients are exempt from most of the taxes on marijuana, and dispensaries generally charge them less to begin with.

    Although some conditions covered by Colorado's medical marijuana law, such as cancer and HIV/AIDS, are pretty hard to fake, by far the most commonly reported condition, accounting for 94 percent of registration cards, is "severe pain," which cannot be objectively verified. "It is no secret in Colorado that some medical marijuana users use that market without a legitimate medical need," writes Brookings Institution fellow John Hudak in a July 2014 report on Colorado's regulatory rollout. "The state has an obvious interest in moving some 'gray-market' medical consumers to the new retail market. Unfortunately, the tax and fee structures for medical and retail marijuana did nothing to limit gray-market activity."

Florida Women Bare Breasts to Support Medical Marijuana

THIS IS ONE OF THOSE IDEAS THAT MAY HAVE SEEMED GOOD, and the women involved seem to be nice, thoughtful people with important stories to tell, but what were you folks thinking?

The story is Florida Business Women Flash For Medical Marijuana Votes.  And yes, there's a video.

Seriously, I mean, you're in an election and your team is behind.  But the demographic group that's killing you, the one you need to reach out to, is old people.  Young, hip people are already voting for you, if they decide to vote at all.  It's all the old codgers in their single-family homes and retirement villages and assisted living facilities who will actually go to the polls and vote, and are thus are the ones you have to convince.

And the way you decide to go about getting those crusty old folks to think marijuana is harmless, is just a nice medical product, and won't lead to immorality and social depravity is to take off your clothes in front of cameras in public? 

I can picture the old folks rocking on the young porch watching the video on TV saying, "You know, Maisie, I thought marijuana was somethin' that might lead them young folks into dangerous and sinful ways, but now that I watch a bunch o' women marijuana supporters strip in public and put bumper stickers on their bosoms and pose for the TV, I've changed my mind."

Actually, no I can't imagine that.

There are three unfortunate things about this.  The first is that many of the old folks opposing medical marijuana are the ones most likely to benefit from it, and they're the ones who not only won't hear the message, but might recoil from it.  The second is that these women really do have important stories that ought to be heard, and somehow the old folks should get that message.  The third is that we live in a world in which some women seem to feel like they need to take off their clothes in order to be taken seriously in public debate.

Sacramento Marijuana Hearing: Day Two

LIKE ME, ALEX KREIT of Thomas Jefferson Law School, writing over over at Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform is cautioning restraint over what's going on in the case.  Kreit, unlike me, is a drug policy expert -- I'm a business and regulatory guy -- and his take is that (1) this is, and always was, going to be a tough case to win, and (2) much of what's being reported out of the hearing might be more flash than substance . . . although without actually seeing the transcript it's hard to tell exactly what points are being made.

The coverage in the marijuana press may spark a lot of enthusiasm, and judging by the readers' comments they're playing well with the choir.  But the prosecution is playing to the judge, which makes a difference.

Daily News Roundup: Thursday, October 30, 2014

Third Day of Sacramento Medical Marijuana Hearing in the Books; Continues Today:  "The third day of hearings on the constitutionality of cannabis’ federal Schedule I status presented further bizarre twists, as both federal prosecutors and NORML’s defense team appeared at times to agree on the medical benefits of cannabis."

Group of Retired Oregon Law Enforcement Officials Comes Out in Support of Measure 91:  "A coalition of [30 former police officers, sheriffs, prosecutors and judges] has come out in support of marijuana legalization in Oregon, less than a week before voters will decide the issue at the polls."

British Parliament Talking About Marijuana Today:  "MPs are set to debate a possible shift in the coalition’s policy on drugs in the House of Commons on Thursday. It comes as two Home Office reports suggest penalties for drug possession do not reduce the number of users."

D.C. Council Weighs Permitting Legal Sales at Hearing Today:  "With District of Columbia residents poised to legalize possession of marijuana, the D.C. Council is starting to consider whether to allow its legal sale.  The council will hold its first hearing [today] on a bill that would allow the nation's capital to tax and regulate pot like Colorado and Washington state. Dozens of witnesses are scheduled to testify."

Physician:  Marijuana Might Prevent Ebola Infection:  "A former Mississippi heart surgeon who was jailed for 14 months on drug charges that were eventually dropped said marijuana might provide protection from the deadly Ebola virus, according to gulflive.com. Dr. David Allen, who is now the medical director for Cannabis Sativa Inc., said in a paper written for a medical digest that marijuana should be studied as one answer to the international Ebola crisis."

Texas Children's Hospital to Participate in Medical Marijuana Trials:  "[It's one of ten sites for an] international trial of an experimental drug derived from marijuana that has shown dramatic benefits in a select few patients who have already received it. The drug, Epidiolex, is a highly purified extract of cannabis that does not contain THC, the ingredient that alters mood."

Marijuana Lounge to Hold Halloween Party for Kids:  "The Members Lounge, a members-only medical marijuana dispensary in Spokane Valley, is hosting a children’s Halloween party.  But it’s not what you think, the owners say."

Daily News Roundup: Wednesday, October 29. 2014

Denver Police, Colorado AG & Feds Raid Marijuana Grow Operations:  "Denver police officers, some in hazmat suits, raided multiple marijuana-growing operations Tuesday, part of an investigation into illegal marijuana sales in Minnesota, a federal law enforcement official said.  Federal agents assisted in the raids, which saw investigators haul dozens of high-intensity grow lights and thousands of plants out of the operations. The federal official said as much as $1 million was found in large bags during the searches."

New Poll:  Vote on Oregon's Measure 91 Looks Too Close to Call:  "Oregon voters are closely divided about passing a measure that would legalize recreational marijuana in the state, according to a new poll conducted for The Oregonian and KGW.  The Oct. 26-27 survey of 403 likely voters found that 44 percent backed the legalization measure while 46 percent were opposed.  Another 7 percent were unsure and and 2 percent would not say."

Maryland Commission Postpones Vote on New Medical Marijuana Regs:  "A state commission charged with launching Maryland's lagging medical marijuana program hit the pause button Tuesday, postponing a final vote on already tardy regulations to tweak licensing fees and make cannabis available to patients in liquid as well as smoke-able form."

Boston Bombing Jury Rejects "Too Stoned to Remember" Defense: "On Tuesday, a Boston jury found Robel Phillipos, the 21-year-old friend of Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, guilty on two counts of lying to the FBI. Phillipos could face up to 16 years in jail when he is sentenced in January. . . .  The Phillipos defense team said the then-19-year-old was 'high out of his mind' on marijuana when he spoke with investigators."

D.C. Votes to Seal Criminal Records of Non-Violent Marijuana Offenders:  "A whole bunch of bills were passed by the D.C. Council during [Tuesday's] legislative meeting, including one that will seal the criminal records for District residents convicted of non-violent marijuana-related crimes."

Chile Greenlights New Medical Marijuana Project:  "In most countries in the world, if you asked the local authorities for permission to grow 750 cannabis plants in a residential area of the capital city, you would probably end up in trouble.  But in Chile, the state has just agreed to such a project. . . .  It is the first project of its kind with state backing anywhere in Latin America."

U.S. Gets New Armed Allies in Efforts to Stem IS--Lebanese Pot Farmers:  "They are unlikely first responders to Islamic militants, but heavily armed cannabis farmers who once fought against the Lebanese army are now turning their weapons elsewhere. "

What's Happening at the Federal Marijuana Policy Hearing in Sacramento?

OPINIONS ON YESTERDAY'S HEARING on whether marijuana's listing as a Schedule 1 controlled substance is unconstitutional are mixed. 

I didn't see the testimony, and a transcript does seem available yet.  A Leaf Online story by Jeremy Daw reports Monday's hearing as an unambiguous victory for witness Dr. Carl Hart, [pictured] who ostensibly demolished the hapless prosecutor -- an "intellectual mismatch" that was "painfully apparant."  It's okay to get enthusiastic, but the story's account of what happened gives me some reason to think that the government scored some important points.

For those who aren't lawyers, it's useful to explain some background.  The defense in the case basically has to show that putting marijuana on Schedule 1 is so completely opposed to modern science that its inclusion amounts to a violation of the Constitution.  The prosecution doesn't have to prove that marijuana is as dangerous as heroin; it doesn't have to prove that marijuana ought to be on Schedule 1.  The prosecution only needs to show that it's not completely irrational to list marijuana there.  Thus, it doesn't have to refute Hart -- it merely has to show that not everyone agrees with him.  And that's what it seems to be doing.

To illustrate why I'm less enthusiastic about the reports than the Leaf Online observer, look at the following exchange in which the writer suggests that Hart made the prosecutor look silly:

In response to questions of whether certain propositions accorded with his opinion, Hart repeatedly and emphatically replied no: “It’s not my opinion,” the scientist said. “It’s what the evidence indicates.”

From a PR perspective this is great.  From a legal perspective, however, it's Hart who lost this round.  Hart may have looked really impressive saying this, but he either fails to understand (or deliberately evades) the legal distinction between facts (e.g., what happened when we ran this test on these people?) and expert opinions (do these results indicate that the substance is addictive?).  But the judges understand the difference, and the prosecutor did a good job of highlighting the limits of Hart's testimony.

Similarly, take this exchange:

Soon after, when Broderick brought up the fact that the American Medical Association had released statements calling cannabis a “dangerous drug,” Hart replied: “Think about what you just said. The AMA committee reads research, such as what I conduct, to form their positions. So why would I go to them for their opinion?”

Here Hart is saying that his opinion is much more valuable and the opinion of the AMA.  That may be perfectly true, for all I know, but as both the prosecutor and I know, that's not the issue.  The prosecutor clearly made the point that America's largest group of physicians disagrees with Hart.  That's what's important.  Is it wholly and utterly irrational to prefer their views to his?  And then there's this:

Broderick [the prosecutor] tried to recover by bringing up some of Dr. Hart’s family history in an apparent attempt to show bias. Asking about the legal troubles of his adult son and other members of his family, Broderick tried to insinuate that these troubles had spurred Dr. Hart on to some kind of personal mission to legalize drugs. “I’m a black man in America,” Dr. Hart replied. “You’d be hard pressed to find someone like me who isn’t closely connected to someone” who has been through the penal system.

Hart isn't exactly scoring points here.  In fact, his response seems to reinforce the fact that he's on a crusade, rather than calmly evaluating scientific data.  As the prosecutor understands, any evidence of bias (no matter how motivated by social justice concerns) can be used to undercut his testimony.

I could add that an apparently dramatic incident involving the differences between DSM-4 and the 2013 DSM-5 didn't carry as much weight as the theater might suggest.  Changes in the DSM are not universally agreed to by physicians, and they are not binding on either legislatures or courts.  Again, the prosecution is merely pointing out that the science is unsettled.  That's all it really needs to do.

In sum, my reading is that what happened is better described by another observer quoted on the sfgate blog, who said  “[Dr. Hart] was very good. He was very eloquent. The prosecutor was on his game.  It was a good tennis match.”  Pretty much what you'd expect.

The hearing continues today.

Does Your Homeowner's Insurance Cover Loss of Your Marijuana Plants?

MARIJUANA REMAINS HIGHLY ILLEGAL in every U.S. jurisdiction -- state laws can't override the general federal ban -- which means that there's an open question whether insurance carriers have to reimburse you if your state-legal but federally illegal pot plants that are stolen or destroyed, or if your neighbors sue you when one of their kids goes into seizures after ingesting some of your pot, or if your marijuana grow lamps short circuit and burn the place down.  An interesting recent piece outlines the issues.

So if you're thinking of growing marijuana in your home, keep a few things in mind.  First, insurance companies do not make money by paying claims that they don't have to.  They are not, despite their commercials, your friend.  If you're doing something illegal -- like growing marijuana -- they're very likely to deny coverage.  Think about it this way:  If you were running a meth lab in your house and the police seized it, would you expect your insurance company to pay you for the loss?  At this point, marijuana plants and meth labs are legally indistinguishable for purposes of federal law.

Second, marijuana plants will very often be by far the most valuable things in a home.  For most people, if you add together the TV, home computers, gaming system, stereo, refrigerator, La-Z-Boy vibrating recliner, and the jewelry in mom's jewel box, it's hard to get to much over $10,000.  But a fairly small number of marijuana plants can be worth five or ten times that much.  When homes have really valuable things in them -- artwork, jewelry, antiques -- insurers charge more for coverage.  If you don't tell your insurance company you have these plants, it's likely to deny coverage for them.

Third, because insurance is regulated by the states, insurance regulators in states that legalize marijuana may decide that homeowners' insurance must cover marijuana-related losses.  That will be good news and bad news.  The good news is that marijuana growers will get their losses paid.  The bad news is that insurers will respond by raising rates for homes with marijuana plants or -- if regulators prevent that as discriminatory -- for everybody.  They may also stop writing coverage in those states, which will reduce competition and itself cause rates generally to rise.

We're now in the early stages of all this, and we'll see it play out in the courts and legislatures over the next few years.

Daily News Roundup: Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Pro-Marijuana Candidate Leads in Uruguay Election, Headed for Runoff:  "Leftist ruling party candidate Tabare Vazquez is in a strong position to win Uruguay's presidential election race after taking a big lead in the first round of voting, official results showed on Monday."

Day 1 of Sacramento Federal Court Cannabis Hearing is in  the Books; Continues Today:  "For the first time since the 1970s, defendants in a cannabis-related criminal case are being allowed to present new scientific and medical studies as part of their defense in a federal trial in California [going on this week]."

Maryland Panel Mulls Medical Marijuana Proposals Today: "A Maryland panel could begin voting on regulations to make medical marijuana available in Maryland.  The state commission is scheduled to meet [today] in Annapolis."

Prospects for Florida Amendment 2 Looking Grim:  "A new poll of likely voters confirms proponents' fears that Amendment 2, a proposal to expand medical marijuana use in the Sunshine State, is in deep trouble at just the wrong time."

MEANWHILE . . . Florida Marijuana Supporters Pressure TV Stations to Refuse Anti-Marijuana Ads:  "Today, United for Care, the largest organization advocating for Amendment 2 on Florida’s November ballot, sent a cease and desist letter to all of the television stations broadcasting the latest ad produced by the No on 2 campaign entitled 'It’s Nuts.'"

Colorado Cannabis Business Incubator Going Forward:  "A Colorado Springs company that leases property to marijuana growers has acquired a former bank building in south Denver with plans to turn it into the industry’s first business incubator."

Marijuana Use Up Among Arrestees in San Diego:  "Marijuana use among men and woman arrested in San Diego County last year reached a 14-year high, and methamphetamine use was up for the fifth year in a row among male arrestees, according to a San Diego Association of Governments report released Monday."

It's Not Islamic Jihad Killing People -- It's Marijuana!

IN A LONDON DAILY MAIL COLUMN, writer Peter Hitchins makes the case that the allegedly jihad-driven attacks in England and Canada that left two soldiers dead are actually the result of something far more dangerous: pot.

    Why do our politicians and media talk so much drivel about Islam? 

    We react like superstitious peasants to anything connected with this religion. As a result, we completely miss the point of what is going on.

    For example, we imagine that the horrible killings by cannabis-crazed drifters, of Lee Rigby here and of Nathan Cirillo in Canada, are evidence of some vast secret Islamist conspiracy masterminded from a cave by a robed villain with a beard.

    This is partly because a long and expensive international PR campaign has fooled a willing elite (many of them drug abusers themselves) into believing that cannabis is safe when in fact it is one of the most dangerous drugs there is. So we shut our minds to all the evidence of the terrible harm it can do – even highly publicised killings by cannabis abusers.

Rigby, you recall, was the British soldier run down by a car and then hacked apart with a cleaver.  Cirillo was the Canadian soldier killed when a man invaded the Canadian Houses of Parliament and opened fire.

And While We're Talking About Marijuana and Financial Institutions . . .

. . . JULIE ANDERSEN HILL (Alabama Law) has a new article making a similar point (although she knows more about bank regulations than I do) in a new article, Why won't banks dance with Mary Jane?  You should read the whole thing, but there are, to cut to the chase, three reasons (I've excerpted these paragraphs from the piece:

    Anti-money laundering laws impose a high compliance burden on banks. Banks must report suspicious transactions involving more than $5,000 to the federal Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). FinCEN says virtually every transaction involving marijuana money is suspicious. . . .  Mistakes can lead to criminal charges or fines. Some banks are unwilling to undertake this compliance burden and the risk that comes with it.

    Banks in the United States cannot operate without deposit insurance. The FDIC warns that banks “need to assure themselves that they are not facilitating [their customers’] … illegal activity.” If a bank ignores the warnings, the corporation may revoke deposit insurance and force closure of the bank.

    Banks that help the marijuana industry could be found guilty of “aiding and abetting” marijuana manufacturing or “conspiring” to dispense marijuana. It is also a crime to launder money – to engage in transactions knowing that the money came from marijuana.

Or, to put it more succinctly, you can (1) go through a lot of paperwork so that you can (2) risk having your bank fail, and maybe even (3) go to jail.

New Mexico Credit Union Association Advises Members to Avoid Marijuana Business Clients

THE APPALLING LACK OF GUIDANCE from Congress, the Obama Administration, and U.S. financial regulators means that American banks, savings associations, and credit unions are treating marijuana businesses the way New York is treating nurses who may have been exposed to Ebola: avoid any contact with them if at all possible.

The Credit Union Association of New Mexico has gone on record advising its members to have nothing to do with accounts from medical marijuana businesses legal under state law but still illegal at the federal level.  Financial reporter Missy Baxter has a great Credit Union Times piece on the condundrum that credit unions in the Land of Enchantment (and elsewhere as well) are facing.  It's fairly long, but here's the teaser:

    It's been eight months since the U.S. Department of Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network issued banking guidelines for state-licensed marijuana businesses, which some heralded as a way to usher the budding industry into the mainstream.

    But since then, some credit unions have closed accounts belonging to cannabis companies due to concerns about federal repercussions, according to industry insiders.

    A New Mexico credit union closed its marijuana business accounts after a negative reaction by a NCUA field examiner, according to Paul Stull, president/CEO of the Credit Union Association of New Mexico in Albuquerque.

    “From what I was told, the field examiner's reaction was quite over the top,” said Stull, who declined to name the specific credit union involved in the alleged incident. “The examiner said there was no way this could be done legally.”

    The credit union closed the accounts after an examiner threatened to issue a letter of understanding and agreement if it didn't do so, Stull said. To his knowledge, there are no credit unions currently offering banking services to New Mexico's licensed medical marijuana businesses.

    Due to the regulatory burden of meeting due diligence requirements, CUANM is advising credit unions to not open the accounts, Stull said.

    “There are no guarantees in the state of New Mexico to hold any credit union harmless and it is clearly a very dangerous situation for any credit union to currently be involved in that business,” he said.

Me, I'm generally risk-averse.  Given the work the feds have done to create as much uncertainty as possible, if I were running a financial institution I wouldn't touch money from a marijuana business with somebody else's ten-foot pole.  Sorry, but my kids have to eat, too, and I'm not willing to risk jail time for money laundering to help somebody else make money.

Marijuana businesses' inability to use the financial system is a serious problem.  It's one that any of the three responsible parties -- Congress, the Administration, and the financial regulators -- could pretty easily resolve.  Frustrated marijuana businesses should blame the feds, not the banks and credit unions.  They want your deposits -- so long as they don't have to risk prison to take them.

Historic Marijuana Court Hearing Scheduled for Today

AS WE NOTED LAST FRIDAY, an important hearing is scheduled for today in a Sacramento federal courtroom.  Lawyers challenging the classification of marijuana as a schedule 1 (most dangerous & least useful) controlled substance will get the unusual chance to put on evidence that the classification is unconstitutional.

Dueling experts for defendants charged with marijuana violations and the federal government will testify as to why marijuana does or does not belong on the same drug classification schedule as heroin, methamphetamine, and cocaine.  The order reaffirming the grant of the hearing explains its scope and justification:

    An evidentiary hearing on a motion to dismiss an indictment may be held when the moving papers "allege facts with sufficient definiteness, clarity, and specificity to enable the trial court to conclude that contested issues of fact exist."  United States v. Cano-Gomez, 460 F.App'x 656, 657 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 620 (9th Cir. 2000)) (alteration to original omitted). Here, defendants' moving papers set forth facts with sufficient specificity, supported by declarations, showing there is new scientific and medical information raising contested issues
of fact regarding whether the continued inclusion of marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance in Title 21 of the federal statutes passes constitutional muster.

    The evidentiary hearing is granted to probe the scientific and medical information. At the hearing, the defendants will be allowed to call the four witnesses they have identified. The scope of the hearing is delimited by defendants' challenge to the federal statutes; the hearing will not include the presentation of evidence applicable only to attacking federal regulations or any administrative decision of the Attorney General or the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Stay tuned . . . .

 

Related articles

War On Marijuana Unconstitutional, Doctors Testify In Federal Court Monday

Federal District Court Judge Asks: Should Federal Law Classify Pot As One of the Nation's Most Dangerous Drugs?

Federal Judge: Should Marijuana Be Classified As One Of The Nation's Most Dangerous Drugs?

Federal Court to Hear Evidence on Whether Marijuana is Misclassified as a Dangerous Drug with No Medical Value

Weekend Roundup: Monday, October 27, 2014

Uruguayan Election Seems Headed to Runoff:  "Uruguayans voted on Sunday in a presidential election that has the leftist ruling coalition battling to hold onto power for a third term and fend off a young center-right contender who promises to undo its pioneering marijuana law."

Oregon Sheriffs Bash Seattle Colleague on Pro-Pot Ad:  "Oregon's 36 county sheriffs 'don't appreciate' that a sheriff for King County in Washington has begun publicly supporting Oregon's marijuana legalization ballot initiative.  "I am appalled that Sheriff (John) Urquhart feels the need to speak to Measure 91, a measure that is very different from Washington's Initiative 502," Marion County Sheriff Jason Myers said in a statement."

Advocacy Groups Endorse D.C. Legalization Initiative:  "[This week] the Washington, D.C. chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the D.C. Branch of the National Organization for Women came out in support of marijuana legalization and endorsed D.C.’s Initiative 71."

Florida Beachcombers Find Stuff More Valuable than Sea Shells:  "Between the surf and the sand, people at two Volusia County beaches found large amounts of drugs on Thursday and Friday . . . .  Twenty kilos of cocaine were found near New Smyrna Beach on Thursday, said Gary Davidson, spokesman for the sheriff's office.  Then on Friday, a package containing bricks of marijuana was found floating near Daytona Beach, he said."

Feds Raid Two L.A. Dispensaries:  "Federal officials were mum today about what led them to raid two marijuana dispensaries, one in West Hollywood and another in Westwood, whose staff claimed they were operating within the bounds of California’s medical cannabis laws."

 

 

Mark Kleiman: Hold Your Nose and Vote Yes on 91 in Oregon

MARK KLEIMAN, the UCLA academic and drug policy expert who helped Washington state craft its regulatory system, isn't much of a fan of ballot initiatives, unregulated markets, for-profit mariijuana producers, and low marijuana taxes, but he's nevertheless come out (apparently reluctantly) in support of Oregon's libertarian-influenced Measure 91. 

"It’s not an easy choice," he writes, and "as a Californian, I’m glad I don’t have to make one like it (yet). But if I had to vote in Oregon, I’d vote 'Yes.'"

Okay, not the most enthusiastic endorsement.  He's making the old argument that sometimes the voters (like the mythical Missouri farmer) just have to hit the mule on the head with a 2 x 4 to get its attention.  It's the same argument I remember being made in 1978 about California's controversial Proposition 13.  And while I wouldn't presume to suggest to Oregonians how they should vote, Kleiman's take on 91 seems sensible.

His hesitation is due to a number of bugs he sees in the proposal, but for those who don't share his preference for detailed and "technical" government command-and-control regulations that are "sophisticated" and "nuanced" -- me, for example -- they're more like features.

The Oregon measure, in outline at least, seems to be considerably more market-friendly than the Washington approach, with fewer government attempts to distort the market and extort revenue from the produceres and consumers.  There's less room for the political favoritism in deciding who's going to make money on it.  This, even though the legalization campaign (brilliantly, I think) focuses on "Regulate It!" as its chief marketing pitch.

As a Texan with no dog in this hunt, I'm all for state experimentation.  So if the measure passes, it will be good to see how legalization in Oregon matches up with that of its neighbor to the north.  Kleiman envisions cheaper (and less heavily taxed) Oregon pot flooding over into Washington, which would be bad news for Washington's tax coffers but good news for consumers.  If you use marijuana, your opinion on this is likely to vary depending on whether you think you or the Washington state government should get a bigger share of your disposable income.

Assuming Kleiman's reservations are valid, however, there's no doubt that the Oregon government will step in to add new layers of regulation.  States have rarely shown any reluctance to regulate anything if they think they can make money off of it.

2,500-Year-Old Siberian "Ice Princess" Apparently Was Using Medical Marijuana

THE WELL-KNOWN RUSSIAN MUMMY KNOWN AS THE "ICE PRINCESS" seems to have been using medical marijuana at the time of her death to combat pain from breast cancer, osteomyelitis, and injuries suffered in a fall from a horse, scientists say.

The body of the 5th-century B.C. Scytho-Siberian woman was found in 1993.  Among her burial possessions was a vial of cannabis.  Scientists have for years been trying to figure out how she died.  As this story suggests, they may have found an early documented use of marijuana for its pain-relieving effects.

Related articles

2,500-Year-Old 'Siberian Princess' Corpse Shows Breast Cancer, Medicinal Pot Use

Did ancient Siberian princess use cannabis to cope with breast cancer?

Ancient Siberian Shaman Princess Had Cancer and Used Marijuana as Medicine

Ancient Siberian Princess Died From Breast Cancer and Smoked Cannabis to Ease Pain

Ancient Siberian Mummy Had Breast Cancer and Self-Medicated with Marijuana

New Working Paper: Effects of Legalization (So Far) in Colorado

BOTH SIDES OF THE RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA DEBATE made bold predictions about what effect legalization would have in the Centennial State.  Who's turned out to be right so far?

A new working paper by Dr. Jeffrey Miron of the Cato Institute, Marijuana Policy in Colorado, takes a look at what's happened on the ground in Colorado since legalization in 2014.  Miron is a scholar of libertarian economics and long-time critic of the War on Drugs -- his 2004 book, Drug War Crimes: The Consequences of Prohibition, is still one of the most hard-headed and even-handed analyses out there -- and in this study he does a fine job of collecting and presenting data it in a way that average readers can understand.  Here's the brief take: 

    In November 2012, voters in the states of Colorado and Washington approved ballot initiatives that legalized marijuana for recreational purposes. Alaska, Oregon, and the District of Columbia are scheduled to consider similar measures in the fall of 2014, and other states may follow suit in the fall of 2016.

    Supporters and opponents of such initiatives make numerous claims about state-level marijuana legalization. Advocates believe legalization reduces crime, raises revenue, lowers criminal justice expenditure, improves public health, improves traffic safety, and stimulates the economy. Critics believe legalization spurs marijuana use, increases crime, diminishes traffic safety, harms public health, and lowers teen educational achievement. Systematic evaluation of these claims, however, has been absent.

    This paper provides a preliminary assessment of marijuana legalization and related policies in Colorado. It is the first part of a longer-term project that will monitor state marijuana legalizations in Colorado, Washington, and other states.

    The conclusion from this initial evaluation is that changes in Colorado’s marijuana policy have had minimal impact on marijuana use and the outcomes sometimes associated with use. Colorado has collected non-trivial tax revenue from legal marijuana, but so far less than anticipated by legalization advocates.

There's far too much in the paper for a quick summary.  The many charts alone are worth spending time poring over.  If you're interested in this stuff, the paper is well worth your time.

Florida's Amendment 2 Battle Gets Partisan . . . . Who Would Have Thought It?

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL IS REPORTING that more than the benefits and demerits of medical marijuana are at issue in the upcoming Florida medical marijuana contest.  It's already one of the most expensive ballot initiative battles in the country, and it's possible that folks who aren't particularly interested in cannabis are taking a role.

The battle pits two wealthy donors. Democrat John Morgan, an Orlando trial lawyer, has pumped about $4 million into United for Care, the main organization supporting the measure. Republican Sheldon Adelson, a Las Vegas casino magnate, has contributed about $4 million to the Drug Free Florida Committee, one of the groups opposing it.

Each camp says it is motivated by personal reasons and accuses the other side of playing politics. Republicans claim Mr. Morgan, a law partner of Democratic gubernatorial candidate Charlie Crist, is trying to drive young Democratic voters to the polls. Democrats counter that Mr. Adelson, a major contributor to Republican Gov. Rick Scott’s campaign, is trying to bolster his years-long quest to build a resort casino in the state.

Wow, it's hard to believe that rich people contribute to political campaigns based on what they and their friends will get out of it. 

Michigan Medical Pot Users Fired for Failing Employer Drug Test Can Get Unemployment Benefits

LICENSED MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIJUANA USERS who are fired solely because they failed an employer's "zero-tolerance" drug test policy are entitled to unemployment benefits, according to a Friday decision of the state's Court of Appeals.

The decision is Braska v. Challenge Manufacturing Co., No. 315441 (Mich. Ct. App. slip op. Oct. 23, 2014) (per curiam).  It actually involved three different cases and three different employers.  Rick Braska was a material handler at a manufacturing plant where he operated a hi-lo forklift truck.  Jean Kemp was an X-ray computed tomography (CT) technician in a hospital.  Stephen Kudzia was a repairman who drove an Art Van Furniture truck to customers' houses to repair furniture.

All three were fired for testing positive for marijuana, although none were actually found to be impaired on the job.

The unsigned opinion by Judges Stephen Borrello, Deborah Servitto, and Douglas Shapiro sticks strictly to the statutory language of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, which was adopted by voters in 2008. Basically, § 333.26424 of the MMMA contains very broad protection for medical marijuana users:

A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act . . . .  [Note: Michigan uses the "marihuana" instead of the "marijuana" spelling.]

Denying unemployment benefits, said the court, clearly imposes a penalty on the employees for using medical marijuana.  The employers, and the state unemployment authorities, relied on another provision, § 333.26427(c)(2), which provides that “Nothing in this act shall be construed to require. . . . [a]n employer to accommodate the ingestion of marihuana in any workplace or any employee working while under the influence of marihuana."

But that provision, according to the court, doesn't help the employers.  The employees were not "ingesting" marijuana while in the workplace, nor were they "under the influence."  They merely failed a drug test.  As such, they were entitled to the unemployment benefits, which their former employers will fund.

Related articles

Jobless pay OK for people fired for medical pot

Federal Judge to Hold Hearing on Whether Cannabis is Properly Scheduled

SINCE THE PASSAGE OF THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT OF 1970, marijuana and most of its derivatives have been included on the list of Schedule 1 controlled substances under 21 U.S.C. § 812.  Schedule 1 is the list of drugs that (a) have "a high potential for abuse," (b) have "no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States," and (c) have "a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision."

The statute gives the Attorney General power to schedule drugs, but Congress itself created the first schedule, which specifically includes "Marihuana," "Tetrahydrocannabinols," and substances that contain "cannaboinoids."  In other words, Congress itself declared marijuana as a Schedule 1 substance and no Attorney General has ever changed the schedule.  A nice, brief rundown of the backstore can be found in a Rolling Stone piece by reporter Missy Baxter a few months back.

But a federal district judge apparently is going forward with a hearing on the question whether marijuana should be listed under Schedule 1.  Paul Armentano, Deputy Director of NORML, offers a rundown of what's happening:

    Expert witnesses for the defense – including Drs. Carl Hart, Associate Professor of Psychology in the Department of Psychiatry and Psychology at Columbia University in New York City, retired physician Phillip Denny, and Greg Carter, Medical Director of St. Luke’s Rehabilitation Institute in Spokane, Washington – will testify that the accepted science is inconsistent with the notion that cannabis meets these Schedule I criteria. “[I]t is my considered opinion that including marijuana in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act is counter to all the scientific evidence in a society that uses and values empirical evidence,” Dr. Hart declared. “After two decades of intense scientific inquiry in this area, it has become apparent the current scheduling of cannabis has no footing in the realities of science and neurobiology.”

    The government intends to call Bertha Madras, Ph.D., Professor of Psychobiology at Harvard Medical School and the former Deputy Director for Demand Reduction for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy under President George W. Bush.

The case is United States v. Schweder, No. 2:11-CR-0449-KJM.  The "KJM" means that the judge assigned is Kimberly Mueller, an Obama appointee who's also an adjunct professor at the University of the Pacific's McGeorge School of Law.

As the brief for the United States in the case by AUSA Samuel Wong [PDF of brief here] explains at length, challenges to classification of pot as a Schedule 1 substance have a long history of failing.  But San Francisco lawyer Zenia Gilg is raising a fifth amendment challenge [PDF of brief here]  that legalization supporters hope might gain more traction than previous arguments.

Stay tuned.