Cannabis Law Prof Blog

New Study Compares Marijuana Toxicity With Other Stuff

A new study on marijuana toxicity is out.  Christopher Ingraham at the Washington Post notes that the study suggests that " marijuana may be even safer than previously thought."  He writes:

    Researchers sought to quantify the risk of death associated with the use of a variety of commonly used substances. They found that at the level of individual use, alcohol was the deadliest substance, followed by heroin and cocaine.

    And all the way at the bottom of the list? Weed — roughly 114 times less deadly than booze, according to the authors, who ran calculations that compared lethal doses of a given substance with the amount that a typical person uses. Marijuana is also the only drug studied that posed a low mortality risk to its users.

The study is Comparative risk assessment of alcohol, tobacco, cannabis and other illicit drugs using the margin of exposure approach, by Dirk Lachenmeier (Dresden University of Technology) and Jürgen Rehm (University of Toronto).

Studies showing the relative harms of alcohol and marijuana are always nice.  But I'm not sure this one does much that's useful.  It's not my field of expertise, but it's not a new clinical study.  Rather, it's taking a bunch of data we already have and applying a different measuring stick (the "margin of exposure" standard) to it.  MOE is (as I understand it) the ratio between the usual dose and the harmful dose of a substance.  It was developed as a method for determining how much of a particular contaminant in a food creates a risk that justifies regulation.  I'm not sure how that has much to tell us about how any individual substance ought to be regulated.  Actual toxicity to the subject isn't the controlling factor in legalization -- if it were, rat poison would be banned.

The authors acknowledge their "novel" approach and the lack of actual good data to really make these comparisons.  And their charts certainly look good.  But I'm not sure I get why this particular view adds anything.  If I'm missing something, let me know.

Colorado Marijuana Business Challenges IRS Penalties

It's no story that marijuana businesses in the brave new world of quasi-legalization are getting hammered by regulators.  They exist in a kind of post-Soviet Eastern Europe, where buying and selling things has stopped being actually illegal, but is still not actually "legal."  The government won't stop you from selling pot, but they'll make sure they extort as much money as humanly possible from you in the process.

Witness the Internal Revenue Service.  This story from Bloomberg captures the dilemma that faces a lot of cannabis businesses forced to use cash because government regulators effectively cut them off from banks.  (Yes, I know the President is always suggesting otherwise, but he's not telling the truth.)  Some are fighting back:

    A Colorado medical marijuana dispensary is challenging an Internal Revenue Service penalty for failing to pay certain taxes electronically, arguing it couldn't do so because it has been unable to open a bank account.

    Rachel Gillette, the Denver attorney that represents Allgreens LLC, told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 17 that the company filed a petition with the U.S. Tax Court challenging an IRS Appeals officer's determination that the company's inability to get a bank account doesn't excuse its failure to pay employee withholding taxes electronically (Allgreens LLC v. Commissioner, T.C., No. 28012-14L, petition filed 11/24/14).

    “If you look at the penalty section of the tax code, you are entitled to abatement as long as you have reasonable cause”

    That Allgreens “cannot secure a bank account due to current banking laws is not considered reasonable cause to abate the penalty,” the IRS settlement officer, Linda Andrews, ruled in a substantive contract letter issued July 24, 2014.

    Allgreens faces a 10 percent penalty for failing to deposit Form 940 and Form 941 employment taxes via the Electronic Federal Tax Payment System as required by federal law, according to Tax Court documents obtained by Bloomberg BNA.

    The use of the EFTPS requires a bank account. Allgreens is a licensed medical marijuana business in the state of Colorado and the city of Denver, but has been unable to secure a bank account because marijuana is a Class 1 controlled substance under federal law.

    Allgreens pays its taxes in cash at a local IRS office, Gillette told BNA. “The taxpayer is a compliant business making timely tax payments and filing timely returns, but due to circumstances beyond his control, is unable to get a bank account so he can file via the EFTPS,” she said. “A compliant taxpayer is one who pays on time and pays the correct amount.”

The whole piece is worth reading.  My favorite part is where the clueless IRA staffers basically tell the taxpayers that they can avoid paying the 10 percent penalty if they  simply do a little money laundering.

On a more serious note, I doubt that this is a legal claim that can win.  Pot is still illegal, and these sorts of agency determinations are hard to challenge.  That said, the IRS's position here is genuinely appalling.

Alaska Legalization Law Effective Today

Although Alaskans voted to legalize marijuana last November, the law officially takes effect today.  As this NPR report notes, the regulations for growing and selling commercially aren't in effect, so basically you can grow it, you can use it, and you can give it away, but it will be a while before you can sell or buy it lawfully:

    Alaska's voter initiative making marijuana legal takes effect Tuesday, placing Alaska alongside Colorado and Washington as the three U.S. states where recreational marijuana is legal. The new law means people over age 21 can consume small amounts of pot — if they can find it. It's still illegal to sell marijuana.

    "You can still give people marijuana, but you can't buy it — or even barter for it," Alaska Public Media's Alexandra Gutierrez reports. "So, it's a pretty legally awkward spot. That probably won't stop people from acquiring it, though."

    The ballot measure that was adopted in November allows Alaskans to possess marijuana harvested from up to six plants on private property. For now, that's the biggest change in the state's pot practices.

    "There are no stores yet, but black market sales are still illegal," Gutierrez adds. "The state is now crafting regulations for marijuana retailers, and the stores will be licensed and operational by next year."

    A similar initiative to Alaska's was passed in Oregon; marijuana will begin to be legalized there in July. Another measure adopted by voters in Washington, D.C., has been blocked by Congress.

    The many questions that surround legalization in Alaska prompted the Alaska Dispatch News to run a story urging its readers to be "highly informed." In Anchorage, police have posted a "Know Your Grow" page.

    Since November, local and state governments have been trying to clarify legal questions such as how much pot a person can possess (and in what form) and the places where consumption will be off-limits.

    Also coming into play next year will be the legalization of commercial farms.

    On Monday, Alaska's Gov. Bill Walker filed legislation to create a marijuana control board, similar to the body that controls alcohol sales.

Can Nonprofits Get Marijuana Licenses and Tax Breaks?

If for-profit marijuana businesses face serious tax penalties because they can't deduct certain expenses, what about nonprofits?  Should nonprofits get federal 501(c) tax status if they engage in things that are illegal under federal law?

I don't know, but that's a question raised by this story out of Illinois, where a for-profit business is suing to stop a nonprofit from exploiting one of the state's licenses, claiming that it's improper for a tax-exempt group to get a sales monopoly on an illegal product. 

    A medical marijuana business is facing what's believed to be the first legal challenge in Illinois to its license to operate..

    A downstate corporation that lost out on the license argues that Shelby County Community Services Inc. is ineligible to cultivate medical marijuana because it is a not-for-profit entity, and therefore must pledge not to violate federal law.

    A state law that took effect last year authorizes production and distribution of marijuana for patients with any of about three dozen illnesses. It remains illegal under federal law, though federal authorities have stated generally that they won't prosecute businesses that comply with state laws.

    Shiloh Agronomics LLC, which is challenging the license, was formed by owners of a family farm in downstate Edgar County, including former County Board Chairman and Sheriff James Sullivan, according to his son, Chicago attorney Jude Sullivan. It sought the cultivation license awarded to Shelby County Community Services in District 10, which includes Champaign and nearby counties.

    Shiloh Agronomic's attorney, Sean Britton, sent a letter to the Illinois attorney general on Monday asking the office to take action to revoke the license, a precursor to the company pursuing the matter in court. The attorney general's office did not immediately comment Tuesday on the request.

    "It seems to me the state shouldn't be able to create a monopoly for someone who is tax-subsidized," Jude Sullivan said.

    Shelby County Community Services in Shelbyville offers residential and out-patient programs for developmentally disabled individuals. Formed in 1975, it puts its clients to work at its own plastic bag and paper plate manufacturing plants, and hopes to do the same with the cultivation center, Executive Director Tom Colclasure said.

    The agency also counsels substance abusers, but Colclasure sees no contradiction in that, emphasizing that medical marijuana is tightly controlled and only for therapeutic purposes for patients who are authorized by doctors. The cultivation center would also help fund the agency's $14 million annual budget in the face of tight state funding, he said.

    "That was our motivation," Colclasure said. "It met with our mission of helping people and also provide jobs to people with disabilities."

    In some states, the laws encourage not-for-profits to run medical marijuana facilities, to avoid the appearance of the industry being driven by profits, said Chris Lindsey, legislative analyst for the Marijuana Policy Project, a lobbying group.

    Internal Revenue Service regulations state: "If (a not-for-profit) organization engages in illegal acts that are a substantial part of its activities, it does not qualify for (tax) exemption."

    However, while medical marijuana businesses generally do not qualify for not-for-profit tax exempt status, that is a separate issue from qualifying to receive a license to operate, according to Robert McVay, an attorney who specializes in marijuana law.

    Many not-for-profits operate medical marijuana licenses in other states, he said, though they typically must pay exorbitant taxes because the IRS does not allow standard business deductions for federally prohibited activities.

This probably won't be the last challenge, given that many states give strong preferences to nonprofits in the medical marijuana arena.  One obvious question is whether a 501(c) that sells marijuana loses the tax-deductibility of its contributions.

Study: Extra-Potent Weed Linked to Psychotic Mental Conditions

As reported in The Times (London): Quarter of psychotic cases linked to skunk cannabis.

    Smoking extra-strong varieties of cannabis could be the cause of a quarter of  all new cases of psychotic mental conditions such as schizophrenia, a  six-year study concludes.

    Researchers found that about 60,000 people in Britain suffered hallucinations  and paranoid episodes brought on by the use of high-potency skunk. Daily  users of skunk were five times as likely to suffer psychosis as those who  never used it.

    The findings prompted claims that smoking cannabis was like playing “Russian  roulette with your mental health”. Psychiatrists said that there was now an  “urgent need” to educate the public about the risks.

    The report comes amid warnings that even newer varieties, some of them more  than twice as potent as those available on British streets, have been  developed in the Netherlands.

    The study, by researchers from the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology &  Neuroscience at King’s College London, is due to be published in The Lancet Psychiatry journal this week.

    The research looked at almost 800 working-age adults from one area of south  London, half of whom had recently been treated for a psychotic episode for  the first time. Incidence of schizophrenia in the area has doubled since the  mid-1960s, a trend thought to be linked to drug use.

    Cannabis use in the UK overall has fallen by about 40 per cent in the past  decade, but the drug’s potency has increased sharply in that time. Levels of  tetrahydrocannabinol, the main psychoactive compound, are about 15 per cent  in skunk, compared with about 4 per cent in traditional “hash” cannabis.

    The study noted: “Compared with those who never used cannabis, individuals who  mostly used skunk-like cannabis were nearly twice as likely to be diagnosed  with a psychotic disorder if they used it less than once per week, almost  three times as likely if they used it at weekends, and more than five times  as likely if they were daily users.”

    It found that skunk use was the “strongest predictor” of psychotic illness in  those studied and that 24 per cent of new cases in the area could be  attributed to it.

    The study said: “The worldwide trend of liberalisation of the legal  constraints on the use of cannabis further emphasises the urgent need to  develop public education to inform young people about the risks of  high-potency cannabis.”

    Mark Winstanley, chief executive of the charity Rethink Mental Illness, said:  “Essentially, smoking cannabis is like playing a very real game of Russian  roulette with your mental health.”

Marijuana and States' Rights

Marijuana legalization proponents have been strong backers of a states' rights movement that relies on the fact that the federal government cannot compel the states to do things.  Thus, while marijuana is illegal everywhere in the U.S., Colorado and D.C. can decide not to have their own law enforcement officers enforce the laws.

What's becoming interesting is that the same thinking is now being embraced by groups that may not be fond of marijuana, but have other important issues about which they disagree with the feds.  If the states don't have to enforce marijuana laws, they reason, why should they have to enforce gun control laws, environmental regulations, experimental drug restrictions, educational standards, and other things?  The Hill has this piece, States rise up against Washington:

    State legislators around the country have introduced more than 200 bills aiming to nullify regulations and laws coming out of Washington, D.C., as they look to rein in the federal government.

    The legislative onslaught, which includes bills targeting federal restrictions on firearms, experimental treatments and hemp, reflects growing discord between the states and Washington, state officials say.

    “You have a choice,” said Kentucky state Rep. Diane St. Onge (R). “To sit back and not do anything or say anything and let overregulation continue — or you have the alternative choice to speak up about it and say, ‘We know what you are doing or intend to do and we do not think that it is constitutional and we as a state are not going to stand for it.’ ”

    Last month, St. Onge introduced H.B. 13 to nullify federal gun control laws within Kentucky state lines. Similar legislation has been introduced in seven other states.

    “This law is saying the sheriff and those under him do not have to follow federal regulations,” she said.

    Friction between the states and the federal government dates back to the nation’s earliest days. But there has been an explosion of bills in the last year, according to the Los Angeles-based Tenth Amendment Center, which advocates for the state use of nullification to tamp down on overzealous regulation.

    “People are becoming more and more concerned about the overreach of the federal government,” said center spokesman Mike Maharrey. “They feel the federal government is trying to do too much, it’s too big and it’s getting more and more in debt.”

    The 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights reserves to the states powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution. States have long used it as a tool to protect themselves against regulations.

    Though federal law trumps state law, Maharrey said states are learning to exercise their own power by pushing back.

    Without the resources to enforce its laws, the federal government is forced to rely on state action. When states refuse, federal law becomes virtually unenforceable, he said.

    “States were always intended to be a check on federal power,” Maharrey said.

    The National Conference of State Legislatures, which monitors action in the country’s statehouses, could not confirm the center’s 200-plus bill count, though a spokesman said there is a vocal movement behind the notion that some issues are best left to the states.

    “It is often said states are the laboratories of democracy and the Tenth Amendment is something we at NCSL advocate for on behalf of states every day,” spokesman Mick Bullock said in a statement.

    West Virginia and 19 other states, for instance, have introduced legislation to allow terminally ill patients to have access to investigational products that have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Included on the list are Oregon, California, Utah, Texas, Virginia, New Jersey, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maine, Indiana and Tennessee.

    In Florida, state Rep. Michelle Rehwinkel Vasilinda (D) has introduced a bill that would legalize and regulate the production of hemp in the Sunshine State; a similar effort appears stalled at the federal effort.

    Rehwinkel Vasilinda said if Congress won’t act, she will. 

    “All politics is local and we try to solve problems at the local level,” she said. “We have the authority to solve our own problems at the state and local levels — that’s what is great about the United States.”

    Republican members of Congress say the spike in state nullification bills is a natural response to the current administration.

    “I think it’s due to the frustration with an out of control president who seems to be expanding federal power through executive action,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). “Obama’s not bringing us together he’s dividing us further. This is an example of how we’re being divided.”

    Though there are constitutional limits, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) said, states have the right to act when Congress won’t.

    “They have a lot of rights to move ahead in a lot of discrete areas when they are confronted with paralysis here,” he said. “We set a floor on a lot of things, they can always exceed it.”

    In Virginia, conservatives are pushing for states to invoke Article 5 of the Constitution and hold a “convention of states” to restrict the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.

    The group Citizens for Self-Government is leading the charge, and three states — Alaska, Georgia and Florida — have already passed resolutions calling for the convention.

    Another 26 states are considering legislation this year, according to the group’s president, Mark Meckler. It would take 34 states to call a convention.

    “The citizens of this country believe Washington, D.C. has exceeded its boundaries,” he said. “Article 5 is the only method available to us to push back.”

    At the convention, Meckler said the states would work to pass amendments that impose fiscal restraints, regulatory restrictions and term limits on federal officials, including members of the Supreme Court.

    “We’ll have [Article 5] applications pending in 41 states within the next few weeks,” he said. “The goal is to hold a convention in 2016.”

    On Monday, former Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) announced he is joining the Convention of States Project as a senior adviser.  

    “Our Founders anticipated the federal government might get out of control at some point, and they gave us a Constitutional mechanism to rein it in,” he said in a statement. “Many in Washington have unfortunately forgotten they work for the American people, and the people have begun to mobilize in this effective effort from coast to coast.”

As a small-f federalist I believe this is healthy.  Seeing both liberals and conservatives pushing a states' rights agenda, though, is a little strange.

Will Marijuana Be a "Key Issue" for Republicans in 2016?

Color me skeptical.  Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform has a link to this story: GOP strategist highlights why "marijuana law reform could be a key issue" for Republicans in 2016.

I'm all for legalization -- and I believe that it's fully in accord with traditional Republican values -- but on the cosmic scale of issues that Republicans are going to run on in 2016 -- the ones they used to crush Democrats in 2014 -- marijuana seems well down the list.  If Hillary Clinton (or whoever turns out to be the eventual nominee) comes out in favor of legalization, the GOP might have to think about a response.

After all, if 2016 is Bush v. Clinton II, Jeb can point out that he, at least, knows what it's like to inhale.

Related articles

Catching Up With MLP&R

The Devil is Always in the Details, Isn't It?

Does Legal Marijuana Reduce Suicide?

Jeb Bush Admits He Smoked Marijuana, Wants To Keep Pot Illegal

Marijuana Laws Makes Recruiting Troopers Tougher

Study: Marijuana Use Has Little Effect on Car Crashes

This actually seems like a pretty good study on the subject:  Marijuana Doesn’t Pose Significant Risk in Car Crashes, NHTSA Says:

    According to a new study commissioned by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, people who smoke marijuana have a minimally higher risk of crashing than those who stay sober. During a 20-month study of 10,858 drivers in Virginia Beach, researchers working 24/7 compared drug and alcohol readings from people involved in crashes against similar people (at the same time of day and location) who kept their cars intact. The main takeaway: When factoring age, sex, and race, there was no “significant increased risk of crash involvement” due to marijuana use.

    Excluding those demographics, NHTSA said stoners had a 25-percent higher risk of crashing but at the same time attributed that increase to a greater representation of younger, predominantly male drivers who already top actuarial spreadsheets for loss and damages. Weird as it seems, the actual measured risk of THC-registered drivers, at five percent higher than sober drivers, dropped to zero when those drivers had also consumed alcohol. (You may have heard some uproar in 2013 about random police checkpoints asking drivers for anonymous blood, saliva, and breath samples. That was part of a separate survey, and right now, the marijuana study is the only one of its kind to correlate marijuana impairment and vehicle accidents in such an exacting way.)

    When it came to just alcohol, the outlook predictably got worse. At a blood-alcohol content of 0.05—interestingly, the lower limit suggested by the NTSB and which we support—drivers were twice as likely to have an accident than someone who hadn’t touched any booze. At the legal 0.08 nationwide limit, that risk climbed to fourfold; at 0.12, it was nearly eight times higher.

    There are several caveats that NHTSA fully admits. Unlike alcohol, THC concentrations in the blood don’t necessarily equate to intoxication at that moment (the mind-altering substance can be detected for days, if not weeks, afterward). Tolerance, metabolism, and various other degrees to which marijuana affects different people are also difficult to establish in studies like these. The 2682 car crashes the study investigated, 15 of which involved fatalities, were “less severe” and meant to mimic the majority of accidents that occur each day and week across the U.S. Had the researchers focused only on more severe and deadly crashes, marijuana (and other prescription and illegal drugs tested) might pose a higher risk. There’s also the little issue of the lack of any uniform test or scientific determination of a driver’s true impairment. No one, not even authorities in states like Colorado, has come up with a simple solution. NHTSA says it simply doesn’t know as much about pot as it does about alcohol.

This obviously doesn't settle the discussion -- we just don't know enough about how pot affects the brain (yes, due in great part to the federal government's recalcitrance in allowing studies) -- but it's very encouraging.

D.C. Won't Go Forward With Marijuana Regulations

Officials in the District of Columbia won't go forward with plans to develop a scheme for regulating and taxing newly legalized marijuana in the nation's capital.  That's according to reports in the Washington Post.

Council members had planned a series of hearings with experts from around the country, but an opinion by D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine said that doing so might well put District leaders in jeopardy of punishment (including jail time) under the federal Anti-Deficiency Act.  (The Act prohibits persons from spending appropriated funds on things that Congress has prohibited.) 

General Racine's opinion conflicts with one earlier given to the Council by its own general counsel, David Zvenyach.  At issue is the language from section 809 of last year's Cromnibus funding bill, which provides:

    (a) None of the Federal funds contained in this Act may be used to enact or carry out any law, rule, or regulation to legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the possession, use, or distribution of any schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act or any tetrahydrocannabinols derivative.

    (b) None of the funds contained in this Act may be used to enact any law, rule, or regulation to legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the possession, use, or distribution of any schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act or any tetrahydrocannabinols derivative for recreational purposes.

The question is whether introducing bills, holding and preparing the regulations count as part of the "enactment" process (as General Racine suggests) or whether the prohibition is only on the final "enactment" itself,  not on the preliminaries (as Mr. Zvenyach argues).

It's a nice little question of statutory interpretation, but if the penalty for being wrong was two years in jail, I'd probably be conservative and adopt the A.G.'s view.  So I'm not surprised that the Council has decided to back off.

No Tribal Marijuana in California, Says Mendocino Sheriff

The first Indian nation to embrace medical marijuana growing seems to have backed off, or at least slowed down.   A week or two ago came news that the Pinoleville Pomo Nation was poised to begin growing MMJ on tribal lands.  But a reader sends us this update on that story, which I hadn't seen:

    The Pinoleville Pomo Nation's proposed medical marijuana growing endeavor appears to be off for the time-being after a meeting with Mendocino County Sheriff Tom Allman Thursday. 

    Allman acknowledged Friday morning that he had a 'lengthy' meeting with involved individuals he would only identify as a "couple representatives," who he said visited the Sheriff's Office for an hour-and-a half about the proposed 2.5 acre medical marijuana growing facility.

    Construction of the project was reportedly scheduled to proceed this month on Pinoleville's land just north of Ukiah involving two other out-of-state investors, FoxBarry Cos. LLC out of Kan., and United Cannabis Corp. in Denver, Colo. 

    Allman also acknowledged all parties present during the discussion were cooperative with his concerns. 

    "I think we all agreed there is no need to proceed on the project," Allman said. "As far as I know there are no laws that allow this. What we did discuss is there certainly needs to be more research on the project that is being proposed."

    Allman said the specific topics of discussion were public safety and quality of life concerns for Mendocino County residents, followed by the subject of the environment, including water, and the legality of the concepts being proposed.

    Mendocino County District Attorney Spokesman Mike Geniella said as of Thursday afternoon District Attorney David Eyster still hasn't received a response to his written request for detailed project information. Geniella said last week that Eyster had sent out a multiple page request for information by certified mail to FoxBarry, United Cannabis and the Pinoleville tribe. 

    "He's (Eyster) giving them the appropriate amount of time," Geniella said. "Supposedly FoxBarry is saying they're going to be meeting with local officials, but we haven't heard from them, nor have they scheduled anything. "Eyster will not meet with them unless they provide answers to his detailed questions." 

An editorial in the Ukiah Daily Journal confirms that Sheriff Allman has nixed the proposal.  The sheriff relies explicitly under his authority to enforce federal law under P.L. 280. 

Here's the paper's take on the issue:

    We are glad to hear that Sheriff Tom Allman has politely but firmly put his foot down over local tribes starting up marijuana growing businesses.

    Allman has made it clear to the marijuana entrepreneurs from Kansas and Colorado who want to partner with the Pinoleville tribe in Ukiah to open a 2.5-acre marijuana farm, that there are no laws that allow them to do that.

    It appears that a new sort of “urban myth” has grown around a memo sent out by the U.S. Department of Justice about its priorities for prosecuting marijuana growing in states that have legalized it to some extent. The memo, known as the “Cole Memo” which dates back to early 2014, does not mention Indian lands among the eight priorities for prosecution. Those priorities include keeping pot away from minors, keeping criminal enterprises out of the marijuana business, preventing marijuana grown legally in some states from traveling to other states where it remains illegal, on so on.

    Another DOJ memo released in late 2014 discussed requests from tribes in states where marijuana has been legalized for guidance about what they can do on tribal lands. That memo referred back to the Cole memo but added that nothing in the Cole memo means that federal marijuana laws are no longer going to be enforced on tribal lands.

    Nonetheless, enthusiastic marijuana proponents interpreted the memo as permission for tribes to get started and spread the word.

    Beyond the DOJ’s clear assertion that no laws have changed, Allman points out that in California the federal government has transferred its criminal law enforcement on tribal lands to the state (PL-280), which means the sheriff has that responsibility.

    As Allman says, there are no laws that allow tribes to simply go into the marijuana business in California. We appreciate his making his point explicitly before any such project got started.

Virginia: "One small step for a man . . . ."

Okay, it's a fairly small advance.  But I still take it as encouraging that Virginia's House of Delegates this week unanimously approved use of CBD oil to fight epilepsy:

    Virginia’s Republican-dominated House of Delegates voted Tuesday for a bill that would protect users of a form of medical marijuana from state prosecution.

    The legislation, which passed 98-0, would allow the use of two oils extracted from marijuana that lack the plant’s intoxicating properties but help alleviate debilitating seizures. The bill provides a way for epileptics or their legal guardians to avoid prosecution for possession of cannabidiol oil (also known as CBD) and THC-A oil.

    “You can’t get high from it,” said David Albo (R-Fairfax), who sponsored the House bill.

    The legislation has been pushed by parents of children with epilepsy, who they say their children could be helped by the oils.

    The bill now moves to the Senate, which has already approved similar legislation sponsored by Sen. David W. Marsden (D-Fairfax). Gov. Terry McAuliffe supports the bills, spokesman Brian Coy has said.

    Virginia legalized medical marijuana in 1979, but that law requires “a valid prescription” — something doctors cannot legally provide so long as marijuana is federally restricted.

CBD oil bills, of course, benefit only a very small slice of all those who suffer and might get benefit.  But one sometimes has to eat an elephant one bite at a time.  And if only one kid is saved from these seizures under the bill, it's a net gain.

CIncinnati Would Be Buckeye Pot Capital Under Proposed Initiative

Backers of Ohio's proposed crony capitalism legalization bill are already out identifying locations where they might be locating their businesses.  A piece at Cincinnati.com says that much of the growing is being planned for Southwest Ohio.  The piece is Cincinnati would become Ohio marijuana capital under proposal.  Here's an excerpt:

    Under the amendment, Ohioans would be allowed to open pot-related manufacturing plants, retail stores and medical dispensaries. But marijuana growing would be limited to 10 specified sites around the state, including the three in Cincinnati and one just north in Montgomery County. The farms would likely include structures that would allow cannabis to be grown indoors and therefore year-round.

    Investors in those farms -- ranging from former Bengals defensive end Frostee Rucker to Indian Hill philanthropist Barbara Gould to the "Big O" himself (Cincinnati Royals legend Oscar Robertson) -- have bankrolled the campaign to legalize marijuana, leading to accusations that the ballot initiative aims to develop a "monopoly" in the state.

 

 

 

Lawyers Need Cutting-Edge Technical Skills , , , Like Using Google

From the ABA Journal:  $1.37B case is abruptly dropped after lawyers' Google search spots alleged fakery.

Good job by the Baker Botts lawyers involved, although it's kind of surprising that their Russian oil company clients could spot a fake document they were alleged to have relied on.

 

North Dakota MMJ Bill is "Bad Public Policy" Says Legislative Blogger

Rob Port is one of the leading political bloggers in the the Peace Garden State.  He  wrote recently about the medical marijuana bill introduced this year in Bismarck.   Hearings were held on the bipartisan bill this week. 

Mr. Port's take on the bill is interesting, and highlights the division in the legalization movement between the hardcore medical marijuana crowd and the general legalization enthusiasts.  He's in favor of legalization, he writes, but against this bill:

    The problem is that the manner in which HB1430 legalizes marijuana use is objectionable. The legislation is chock-full of regulations for how much marijuana an individual can have. When and where they can have it. And, perhaps most disturbingly, the legislation details specifics on which maladies marijuana can be prescribed for.

    While many support this legislation as “baby steps” toward broader legalization, and the myriad regulations and requirements as so much appeasement for the drug warriors, I worry when the government begins codifying how doctors can prescribe a drug like marijuana.

    The case for medicinal marijuana is dubious, at best, and little more than a cover for a broader legalization for recreational use. So why not have that debate?

From one perspective, this is certainly correct.  For a great many MMJ proponents, medical weed is just the first step toward full recreational legalization, and if that's the goal, why not go for it outright?  I'm a full-legalization guy (at the capitalist end of the spectrum), and recreational legalization would certainly help the MMJ folks. 

But it's possible to favor MMJ without being in favor of outright recreational legalization.  That strikes me as a perfectly reasonable position.  (It's what we do with morphine, after all -- it's legal but it has to be prescribed.)  Under that view, the bill makes perfect sense.

I've heard some legalization proponents hold out against this kind of MMJ legislation because it takes the most appealing poster children for marijuana reform (i.e., dying kids and pain-ravaged veterans) out of the picture.  When kids with MS or cancer can get their marijuana through a controlled and regulated scheme, the pressure for reform goes down.

I have no reason to believe that's what Mr. Port is suggesting.  But I don't think it's fair to say that MMJ is "nothing more than a cover" for full legalization.  In my view it's better to help people who are in pain now than to hold them hostage until we get full legalization.

Catching Up With MLP&R

It's been a crazy week, and I'm behind on noting a lot of stuff.  First, links to some good posts from Doug Berman at Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform, together with my thoughts:

US Surgeon General essentially states marijuana should not be a Schedule I drug.  This is long overdue.  Maybe the new attorney general, though she doesn't think pot should be legalized, could think about using her authority at least to move marijuana into the same category as, say, heroin.

Was Jeb Bush a significant marijuana dealer in high school?  I'm not sure I agree that the fact that Bush "sold" some stuff to a classmate who asked him for it means much.  At least when I was that age, the number of people -- even good friends -- who would give you stuff for free was pretty limited.  Maybe it was different at Andover.

Other than Senator Rand Paul, are any GOP leaders likely to become supportive of marijuana reform? I doubt it, not because there's not a good economic libertarian/states rights case, but because the issue is still way down the list of stuff that's important to voters, especially those in the center and right.  After all, we haven't seen Hillary Clinton spending much time talking about it.  If she does, the GOP will respond.  If Secretary Clinton, President Obama, and General Holder haven't felt any need to start pushing legalization to appeal to younger voters, I doubt any Republican candidates will do much about it.

Will vigorous opponents of marijuana reform back vigorous efforts to raise the legal age for tobacco?   I don't see much of a connection.  If you're mature enough to join the Army and maybe get killed, or agree to borrow $150,000 in nondischargeable student loans you'll be paying on for 20 years, or to get death by lethal injection for killing somebody, I don't see why you're not mature enough to decide if you should buy a pack of cigarettes.  Age 21 for marijuana is there because we already have age 21 for alcohol.  There's at least some justification for a higher age for booze and pot, because (unlike cigarettes) these things mess with your mind and can lead to very hazardous behaviors like drunk/stoned driving.

"Medical or Recreational Marijuana and Drugged Driving.  I'll second the recommendation for the article previewed, by Paul Larkin of the Heritage Foundation.   Mr. Larkin points out something I hadn't fully appreciated -- the potential unreliability of current blood-alcohol standards when those who are drinking are also using marijuana.  Check it out.

"DeWine: Marijuana legalization a 'stupid idea'"  The Ohio attorney general doesn't think much of the legalization proposal being pushed in the Buckeye State.  While I disagree with him on legalization, I do agree that Ohio's proposal -- a state-granted monopoly to the rich and politically connected, with all the potential for crony capitalism that entails -- is a bad way to do it.  I understand that other groups on the ground in Ohio are working on a better alternative, although the monopoly measure is the one that probably will have most of the money behind it.

Texas Cannabis Industry Launches at Fort Worth Event

Everything is bigger in Texas.  And that was pretty much the general perspective of those who attended last night’s inaugural dinner of the new Texas Cannabis Industry Association, at the Sheraton Fort Worth.  California may have more people, but those who gathered for the event here in Cowtown were pretty uniformly convinced that the Lone Star State is going to be the key to the long-term success of marijuana in the U.S.

This was the kickoff of a series of events that TCIA has planned for the months ahead, and it was fun and exciting to be there at the inception.  The initial group included entrepreneurs, investors, veteran business people looking at new markets, and longtime advocates.  For a business law guy like me, seeing the passion of nascent entrepreneurs was exciting, and hanging around investors who tended to be as enthusiastic about social change as they are were about making money was just as fun.  I’m one of those who sees free enterprise and reasonable regulation as the best ways to get rid of the harms caused by prohibition, and that’s pretty much the feel I got from the whole group.

It was especially gratifying to see this new industry group taking shape at the Sheraton, right across the street from Texas A&M Law School.  The incredible group of law student cannabis activists we’ve got at A&M – who banded together as the Cannabis Legal Network – played a significant role in helping the organization get going.  One of them, Kayla Brown, is the TCIA’s first Executive Director.

I definitely want to give the group a plug.  If you’re a business or group interested in legalization, and you can see the potential in the country’s powerhouse economy, think about joining up.

Israel Looking to Become Leading MMJ Supplier

Medical marijuana producers in Israel will be holding a conference in Jaffa this week for potential investors in the country's new industry.  Israeli scientists have developed a marijuana called "Raphael" which gives the medical benefit without the high, and lots of people seem to be interested. 

The Washington Post has coverage in a story, Israeli medical marijuana creates buzz but no high— will it go global?  Here's a sample:

    Israel has become a world leader in science on the medical uses of marijuana, and its producers could become major exporters of medical cannabis, experts say. But so far, the government has allowed them to export only their knowledge — not the actual product.

    Michael Dor, the senior medical adviser in the Israeli Health Ministry’s cannabis unit, said that in ongoing government talks, agricultural officials support the export of Israeli medical cannabis, but top officials in the police force, army and executive branch oppose it. Exports face stringent international legal requirements, Dor said, adding that those officials “don’t want Israel to be seen all over the world as a country that exports weapons and cannabis.”

    Even without being exported, Israel’s medical cannabis research and development is drawing global interest. PhytoTech Medical, an Australian medical cannabis venture that just raised $6 million in a public offering, announced a deal last week with Yissum, the technology transfer arm of Jerusalem’s Hebrew University, to develop precisely dosed pills for the mainstream pharmaceutical market.