Cannabis Law Prof Blog

Limited MMJ Bill Passes Alabama Senate

From the Montgomery Advertiser: Medical marijuana bill still alive:

    The [Alabama] Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday approved a bill that would authorize the use of marijuana to treat certain medical conditions.

    The bill, which passed on a 4 to 3 vote, would authorize the use of marijuana to treat at least 25 different conditions. Those using marijuana to treat health conditions would be required to carry an ID card and would face limits on how much they could purchase.

    Advocates of medical marijuana have for years introduced measures to bring medical marijuana to the state, but the efforts have generally failed to move out of committee.  The legislation will likely face long odds of passage in the full Senate. However, Sen. Bobby Singleton, D-Greensboro, the sponsor of the legislation, said it would give those suffering from illnesses an option.  Many medical marijuana supporters attended Wednesday's meeting.

    . . .

    The bill was opposed by Sen. Phil Williams, R-Rainbow City, who said he had worked for a number of years with many children who had developed addiction issues.

    "I recognize you're talking about prescription-based (marijuana)," he said. "I have seen too many messed-up lives and seen the devastation that drugs, beginning with marijuana, cause for me to never feel good about this bill."

        . . .

    Singleton was optimistic about the bill's odds if it made the floor of the Senate. However, he said he was leaning toward converting the legislation into a constitutional amendment, which requires more votes to pass the Legislature and would ultimately put the decision on medical marijuana before the voters of the state.

    Under the bill, patients seeking marijuana to treat certain illnesses would have to submit to a medical evaluation that would include discussion of all possible treatments for their conditions. Conditions that would qualify for medical marijuana under the bill range from AIDS, cancer and Lou Gehrig's disease to migraines, fibromyalgia and severe nausea.

    The legislation would set up three classes of recommendation for the use of marijuana. Class I recommendations would allow a patient or caregiver to purchase up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana each month. Class II recommendations would allow the purchase of at least 5 ounces of marijuana each month, while those listed in Class III could purchase up to 10 ounces of marijuana a month.

    Those looking to use marijuana for treatment would have to apply for identification cards from county health departments, costing at least $100, though the fee could be reduced if the applicant participates in an education program. No ID card could be given without an evaluation from a physician declaring the patient has a serious medical condition where the use of marijuana for treatment would be "appropriate."

    The legislation would also authorize the creation of nonprofit cooperatives for the cultivation and distribution of marijuana. Cooperatives would be required to pay for licensing. A 2.5 percent sales tax would be imposed on all medical marijuana sales.

    "I'm not trying to be a new Colorado," Singleton said. "New money could made off this, but that's not my goal."

    Ron Crumpton, a medical marijuana advocate who attended the hearing, said medical marijuana could be used to help veterans treat the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. He also said the use of marijuana could help those with chronic ailments better cope with their symptoms.

    "It helps you move on with it and live your life," he said.

    The House Judiciary Committee approved a medical marijuana bill in 2010. The committee's action came very late in the session, and the bill never came to a vote in the full chamber.

Pennsylvania Turning Back the Clock on MMJ?

That's the take from this piece on Philly.com, regarding changes in a pending medical marijuana bill:  Philly420: Pennsylvania going backward on marijuana.  Some highlights:

    SB3 is being presented as a "medical marijuana" bill that would bring swift  relief to suffering patients, especially children with seizure disorders. But  the truth is that patients would never actually get any dried plant material  into their hands. Instead, like 11 other states, Pennsylvania would only allow  processed cannabis oils and tinctures. 

    Smoking, vaporizing and even prepared edibles would still be illegal. This  flies in the face of all the peer-reviewed scientific data and thousands of  years of common practice. Somehow heated inhalation, with its quick uptake and  instant relief, has been demonized and left by the wayside. It will also take  years to regulate, if it passes. 

    Florida, Illinois and Iowa passed similarly limited laws. A year later none  of those states  - or any of the others with oil-only laws - are even close  to actually serving products to any patients.

Senate Confirms Lynch as Attorney General

Well, it's official.  New York prosecutor Loretta Lynch is our new U.S. Attorney General.  What does that mean for marijuana legalization advocates?

Here's what she said in her confirmation hearings, when she was asked about President Obama's comment that marijuana is no more harmful than alcohol:

    "Well, senator, I certainly don't hold that view, and don't agree with that view of marijuana as a substance. I certainly think that the president was speaking from his personal experience and personal opinion — neither of which I am able to share."

    She added, "Not only do I not support legalization of marijuana — it is not the position of the Department of Justice currently, to support the legalization, nor would it be the position should I become confirmed as attorney general."

The Justice Department doesn't look like it's going to start being friendlier.  But maybe she was just blowing smoke for Republican senators.  We'll see.

Rohrabacher Reintroduces Bill to Require DOJ to Recognize State Marijuana Regimes

Rep. Daha Rohrabacher and ten of his colleagues have reintroduced a bill that would prevent the federal government from prosecuting people who are acting in compliance with state marijuana legalization laws.  The bill is a response to the Obama Administration's position that its operatives are not, in fact, bound by language passed in last year's appropriations bill and signed by the President, which prohibits use of federal funds to pursue those who are in compliance with state marijuana regulations.   From Matt Ferner at HuffPo:

    “The American people, through the 35 states that have liberalized laws banning either medical marijuana, marijuana in general, or cannabinoid oils, have made it clear that federal enforcers should stay out of their personal lives," Rohrabacher said in a statement Wednesday. "It’s time for restraint of the federal government’s over-aggressive weed warriors.”

        . . .

    And while a federal spending bill signed by President Barack Obama in December prohibits the Department of Justice from using funds to interfere in state-legal medical marijuana programs, the DOJ has said that it doesn't believe the congressional measure prohibits them from prosecuting individuals or businesses in violation of federal law.

    The House bill introduced by Rohrabacher would go further than those previous measures by amending the Controlled Substances Act so it would make an exception to federal law for states that have developed their own marijuana policies.

    Under the Obama administration, the Drug Enforcement Administration and several U.S. attorneys have raided hundreds of marijuana dispensaries and sent people to prison, even though they complied with state laws. According to a 2013 report from advocacy group Americans for Safe Access, the Obama administration has spent nearly $80 million each year targeting medical marijuana.

    The federal government has ignored the congressional action, also introduced by Rohrabacher, in ongoing federal asset forfeiture actions against multiple dispensaries in the San Francisco Bay Area. The congressman sent a letter to Holder slamming the DOJ's interpretation of his amendment, calling the department's interpretation "emphatically wrong."

Co-sponsoring the bill, H.R. 1940, are Reps. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), Tom McClintock (R-Calif.), Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), Jared Polis (D-Colo.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Dina Titus (D-Nev.), Mark Pocan (D. Wisc.), and Don Young (R-Alaska). 

The bill has been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary (where Rep. Cohen the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice), and the Committee on Energy and Commerce (where Ms. Schakowsky is ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade).

What's also interesting is the diversity of the sponsors.  Mr. Rohrabacher is a former Reagan speechwriter and a strong free-market proponent, while Mr. Amash is the head of the House Liberty Caucus and is usually regarded as a Tea Party favorite.  On the other hand, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Cohen, and Mr. Pocan are all active in the Congressional Progressive Caucus and are among the House's most liberal members.

That diversity, and the fact that a majority of Congress supported the restrictions that the Administration is now ignoring, means that the bill might have a much better  chance now than it did when last introduced in 2013.

 It will be interesting to see if President Obama, in light of his recent remarks, will make any effort to put Administration's support behind the bill.

Related articles

USA - Congressmen demand DOJ immediately stop prosecuting medical Marijuana cases

Congressmen Say DOJ's Interpretation Of Their Medical Marijuana Amendment Is 'Emphatically Wrong'

Dana Rohrabacher asks feds: Stop prosecuting medical marijuana patients, providers

"Marijuana Activists Cheer Michele Leonhart's Exit from the DEA"

That title of an article from BloombergPolitics from about sums up the general reaction among legalization advocates about Ms. Leonhart's ouster after fallout from sex-and-corruption scandals in the agency. 

Like most in the community, I hope that her replacement will be less of a hard-liner, but I don't see any evidence he or she is likely to be.  After all, President Obama knew exactly what she was about when he reappointed her five years ago, and he made no apparent attempts to restrain her even as armed DEA task forces descended like locusts on medical marijuana establishments.  Neither he nor Attorney General Eric Holder put a stop to that -- it took (weirdly enough) the  Republican-dominated House of Representatives to do that via an appropriations bill.

So while I hope that the new DEA head will be open to doing something the Administration has refused to do for six years -- move toward rescheduling and thus allowing research -- I fear that weed advocates may be in for a letdown.  This reaction, for example, is from the article linked above:

    [Marijuana Majority founder Tom] Angell said that advocates were disappointed and shocked that Obama reappointed Leonhart—a holdover from the Bush administration—to the job in 2010. Since then she's taken a very firm anti-marijuana stance that has alienated supporters of less strict drug laws. In 2011 she was criticized for saying that increased drug war violence in Mexico, including the deaths of over a 1,000 children, was “a sign of success in the fight against drugs.” During a 2012 House Judiciary subcommittee hearing, Leonhart refused to say whether marijuana is safer than crack. 

    Days after Obama, in January of 2014, told The New Yorker that marijuana is safer than alcohol, Leonhart reportedly criticized his comments and said that the lowest day of her 33 years in law enforcement was when a hemp flag flew over the nation’s capital. “Obviously we shouldn’t judge her based on her one comment, but it’s a very telling comment,” said [Marijuana Policy Project's Mason] Tvert.  Tvert accused Leonhart of being “an anti-marijuana zealot” and said the next DEA chair “must be willing and able to recognize the fact that marijuana is relatively less harmful than alcohol and other illegal drugs.” 

I very much respect Messrs. Angell and Tvert, but I'm afraid they may be giving too much credit to what President Obama says in an interview, and too little to what he does in office.  If he really believes what he's now saying about marijuana -- rather than just pandering to what he thinks millennials what to hear -- you'd think he would have done something about it at some point in the past six years.

I mean, seriously, after spending two and a half terms killing children in Mexico, throwing vast numbers of minority users into jail, smashing doors and burning property, did he wake up April 19 and suddenly think, "Oh, hey, I didn't know there was all this science stuff out there?  Maybe marijuana isn't so bad!"

That doesn't mean, of course, that he won't appoint someone who's less of a hard-liner, merely that he's shown considerable ability to say things in the media that do not reflect what he's actually doing.  So I agree with Mr. Angell that what he does now will give us a good idea of what his Administration really thinks about the issue:

    Angell noted that Obama now was a chance to prove his commitment to science over ideology. “The president always talks about how science should dictate public policy,” he said. “Well, now he has a chance to actually appoint someone who’s going to carry that through.” 

I certainly hope I'm being too pessimistic.

Related articles

Bye Bye, Michele! Policy Change Coming At The DEA?

'Yippee Ki-yay!' DEA's Leonhart Prepares to Resign, Reformers Rejoice

Marijuana advocates rejoice as anti-pot DEA chief resigns over sex scandal

The (Strange) Case of Shona Banda

You've probably already seen the story:  A Kansas woman may lose custody rights to her 11-year-old son affected by her arrest on charges of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and endangering the welfare of a child. 

The Shona Banda story is becoming a kind of cause célèbre in the medical marijuana community.  The pro-MMJ crowd is certainly putting it in the best possible light.  Ms. Banda is described as "the Kansas medical marijuana advocate who lost custody of her son after he spoke up in class in support of the treatment benefits of weed." CBS News' title for its latest story is Kansas mom loses custody of son, 11, after he gives marijuana speech.  The spin seems to be that the boy said positive things about marijuana in class, so the state is taking away his mother's custody rights.

The case is plainly an example of the problems caused by harsh drug laws, but I'm not sure it's really wise to jump on the Innocent Victim bandwagon.  According to reports, she wasn't just found with a couple of ounces for medicinal use stored carefully away from her son.  Rather, as the Wichita Eagle reported, police armed with search warrants "found about 1 1/4 pounds of marijuana and a lab for manufacturing cannabis oil on the kitchen table and counters, drug paraphernalia and other related items. . . .  Authorities said the items were within easy reach of the child."  At about $350 an ounce (an estimate of the illegal street price in Kansas in late 2014). we're talking about a substantial amount of weed.  The boy apparently told investigators that "there was a lot of drug use occurring in his residence."

Which is presumably why she's facing potential felony charges.  The stories seem to make it pretty clear that she was distributing marijuana, whether or not she charged for it.

Possessing some medical marijuana is one thing; operating a distribution business out of the house where you live with your 11-year-old son is something different.  I can sympathize with someone who has a personal supply of illegal prescription painkillers in the house; I have less sympathy for somebody who's a drug distributor.  Cannabis oil processing is, after all, not a risk-free operation, and doing on the kitchen table while the kid is making a sandwich strikes me as something that clearly ought to be considered in deciding a custody dispute.

If we change the gender, and assume that a divorced dad was found to be operating a cannabis business out of the home on the weekends he had custody, don't you think mom would have some legitimate cause for concern?

 

 

When You Chase Two Rabbits at the Same Time, You Won't Catch Either One

I think it was Thomas Sowell who noted that politicians are more popular than economists because the former offer solutions, while economists can only offer tradeoffs.

One of the most difficult problems in marijuana reform is the fact that we often run after two very different goals at the same time.  On the one hand, we want to get rid of the black market for weed and the corruption and violence that accompanies it.  On the other hand, we want to carefully regulate it, avoid encouraging addiction, and raise money in taxes.  The problem is that these two goals are fundamentally incompatible.

With any addictive substance -- alcoholic beverages, drugs, even fast food -- 20 percent of consumers ordinarily consume 80 percent of what's sold.  Thus, the 20 percent of heaviest drinkers imbibe 80 of the booze, just as the 20 percent of the heaviest McDonald's eaters consume 80 percent of the Big Macs.  (Pun not intended.)  Because of their heavy consumption, the 20 percent are usually very price-sensitive.  It's not hard-core alcoholics who tend to buy the most expensive wines, beer, and spirits -- they tend to look for the stuff that will get them drunk most cheaply.

Translate this to marijuana, and we can assume that the heaviest users will tend to be the most price-sensitive.  That means that even relatively small price differences between products of similar potency will have a big effect on demand, and thus that unless legal weed prices are kept at or below the price of the illegal stuff, the black market will thrive.  To the extent those prices are propped up by restrictions on growing and selling -- as we now see in several states -- and by various taxes,  the black market remains.  And so long as the black market remains, law enforcement will be targeting those who illegally grow and possess the stuff.  The only difference is that they'll be prosecuting them for evading taxes, not drug possession.

And it works the other way.  If there's a thriving black market, it's easy to evade the regulations and to avoid paying the taxes, which means that tax revenues will be lower than expected.  That seems to be the case so far in Colorado, where reports are that marijuana consumption is up but taxes are falling well below projections.  To drive up tax revenues, the state will have to commit additional resources to combat the black market.

That fact, and some of the thoughts I've mentioned here, are discussed in this nice piece from The Upshot's Josh Barro:  Marijuana Taxes Won’t Save State Budgets.

New Map Shows Marijuana Legalization

Speaking of the Pew Research Center, they've got this very nice new state-by-state map, updated as of April 14, 2015.

Poll: Women, Hispanics Less Favorable to Legalization than White/Black Males

The Pew Research Center has released a survey that has some fascinating new look at polling data on  marijuana legalization.  There's a lot of information to chew on -- this is just one chart, which shows some stark differences in opinions on the subject based on race, sex, and age.

Note that men strongly favor legalization, while women are about equally split. 

Normal People Using Weed

The Drug Policy Alliance is offering royalty-free photos of normal people using recreational marijuana. 

President Now "Enthusiastic" About Medical Marijuana?

President Obama has spent the last six years refusing to take any steps to exercise his Administration's Congressionally granted authority to reschedule marijuana.  For the past six years, the Administration unleashed armed federal assault teams on California medical dispensaries -- a practice that stopped only when Congress prohibited it.  Through the IRS and the bank regulatory authorities, the Administration for the past six years has done whatever it can it make medical and recreational marijuana business as difficult and dangerous as possible.

So now he goes on television and will apparently announce his "enthusiastic support" for MMJ.   That would actually mean something if he were, for example, to actually request the Attorney General to start the rescheduling process for cannabis -- but it sounds like that's not in the cards.

Sometimes I'm not sure whether having this President say he's on your side is really that great a thing. 

Georgia Governor Signs "Haleigh's Hope Act" on CBD Oil for Kids

Governor Nathan Deal today signed a narrow medical marijuana bill that passed by big majorities in both houses of the state legislature.  It's a flawed bill, to be sure; the headline Georgia Shuffles Towards Marijuana Legalization is accurate, if not terribly tactful: 

    The bill takes effect immediately, and allows the possession of of up to 20 ounces of cannabis oil if a doctor signs off on the treatment.

    . . .

    While supporters trumpet the achievement, this is still a baby step in the right direction. Though patients can possess cannabis oil, there is no in-state infrastructure to sell the drug or cultivate it. Both are still illegal.

    Patients would have to have the drug shipped or travel to states where the drug is sold. Travelling across state lines and shipping the oil is still illegal in the eyes of federal government and a majority of states.

    . . .

    With the law comes the rush to get a system in place for marijuana permits. With zero infrastructure for doctors and patients to apply to use the drug, the system will have to be built from the ground up.

    Deal has pledged to have the system up and running in two months.

    . . .

    This is not Colorado or the medical legalization of California. The law is strict in what it treats for both children and adults.

    Only cannabis oil can be used, and eight disorders are eligible: cancer, Crohn’s disease, Lou Gehrig’s disease, mitochondrial disease, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, seizure disorders and sickle cell disease.

    State clinical trials were also approved in the bill, which could lead to more diseases being added to the list, along with various strains of marijuana.

    The law does run afoul of federal law that prohibits the use of marijuana. It’s a tricky one for lawmakers to navigate, even though parents readily proclaim their willingness to break marijuana laws to help their children.

I know some legalization supporters aren't enthusiastic about this kinds of bills, which are usually too narrow to do a lot of good.  But it's significant when two Republican-dominated legislative chambers and a 72-year-old Republican governor signed any kind of medical marijuana bill.  And if even a handful of kids get some benefit, that's a net good.

New Federal CARERS Bill Would Allow Greater MMJ

A very nice review of a new piece of legislation from the Penn Program on Regulation:  Congress Rethinks Policy on Medical Marijuana.  Here are some highlights:

    Newly introduced federal legislation would pave the way for easier access to medical marijuana across the country, although it falls short of fully legalizing it. Senators Cory Booker, Rand Paul, and Kirsten Gillibrand introduced the bipartisan Compassionate Access, Research Expansion, and Respect States Act of 2015 (CARERS Act) If adopted, the bill would amend the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA) to exempt from the federal ban people who grow, distribute, or use the drug for medical purposes in compliance with state law.

    . . .

    As support for medical marijuana grows, federal laws are increasingly in conflict with various state laws permitting medical marijuana. To help alleviate this tension, the proposed CARERS Act includes five major federal policy changes.

    First, the bill would amend the CSA so that enforcement of federal marijuana laws no longer takes priority over state laws if they conflict. This amendment would eliminate the fear of federal prosecution for involvement with medical marijuana which is in compliance with relevant state regulations, leaving individual state legislatures free to regulate this use of the substance as they deem fit. Although federal guidance currently urges prosecutors generally to refrain from targeting state-legal marijuana operations, many continue to do so.

    . . .

    Second, the bill would reclassify marijuana as a Schedule II narcotic, declaring it to be a less dangerous substance with purported medical benefits. This reclassification would reduce the barriers to research on medical marijuana.

    Third, the CARERS Act would benefit veterans, as it would allow U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs’ (VA) doctors to prescribe medical marijuana to patients who live in states that have legalized its use. Some commentators have suggested that marijuana may be effective in treating post-traumatic stress disorders commonly suffered by veterans. Yet the VA’s doctors currently cannot prescribe medical marijuana to patients because it is a federally banned drug.

    The bill also would make banking services accessible to medical marijuana businesses allowing them to operate as traditional businesses and adding greater legitimacy to such operations. Currently, banks often shut down accounts of marijuana businesses and decline to advance loans out of fear of federal prosecution for aiding illegal drug dealers or money laundering.

    Finally, the bill addresses the need to legalize inter-state transport of medical marijuana. It suggests completely removing marijuana with less than 0.3 percent THC from the CSA’s schedules, allowing it to cross state lines legally. Twelve states do not allow the sale or cultivation of marijuana but permit the use of low-THC strains for medical purposes. Currently, residents of these states cannot purchase low-THC marijuana from a state where marijuana is legal to grow, because transporting a federally banned substance across state lines violates federal law.

All in all, this looks like a pretty good step forward -- and one that just might be able to get some steam behind it.  The bill's text and other info is here.

California Judge Refuses to Re-Schedule Marijuana

The federal judge who held an "unprecedented" hearing on the constitutionality of marijuana's classification on Schedule 1 of the CSA has ruled that there is no constitutional violation.  There apparently is not yet a written opinion for us to pore over.

As I've noted before, this isn't unexpected.  There are formidable legal and practical hurdles to courts who want to overrule agency determinations, and so long as any evidence supports the government's determination, it's unlikely to be overruled.  Still, it was an amazingly good effort by the lawyers and raised a lot of great issues.  Sounds like marijuana advocates will take it up to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

NORML's reaction to the ruling seems to me to be dead right:

    "We applaud Judge Mueller for having the courage to hear this issue and provide it the careful consideration it deserves,” said Paul Armentano, NORML’s deputy director. “While we are disappointed with this ruling, it changes little. We always felt this had to ultimately be decided by the 9th Circuit and we have an unprecedented record for the court to consider.”

ADD:  Reading the vitriolic comments on some web sites about Judge Mueller's decision, it seems necessary to remind people that despite what it sometimes looks like, U.S. judges are not given carte blanche to overturn any laws they personally find unsupported by evidence, or which interfere with notions of "liberty."  Her decision is correct as a matter of law.  That law can be changed either by the Administration (which has been delegated power by Congress) or by Congress, but it can't be changed by one unelected woman in a black robe in Sacramento.

I'd Buy That for a Dollar

On the game show The Price is Right, contestants have to guess the price of whatever consumer item is placed before them. The person who gets closest to the actual price wins, but if he or she goes over, that contestant automatically loses. There is often some crafty contestant who guesses the lowest possible price (usually $1.00), so that if everyone else is over, he  or she wins.

That is how I see this play by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie - claiming that if he were elected president, he would clamp down on the various forms of legalization (despite what the majority of Americans support). Sure, America has moved on and wants a new policy. But just in case all these other candidates are overplaying the marijuana card, he wants to be the guy that wins if everyone else loses.

 

From the Huffington Post story:

When asked by Hewitt if he would enforce federal drug laws in those states that have legalized and regulated cannabis, Christie responded unequivocally.

"Absolutely," Christie said. "I will crack down and not permit it."

Citing an "enormous addiction problem" in the U.S., Christie, who has not yet announced a presidential run but has launched a political action committee, said that a very clear message needs to be sent "from the White House on down through federal law enforcement."

"States should not be permitted to sell it and profit" from legalizing marijuana, he said.

Never mind that New Jersey is a medical marijuana state, or that this is a federalist system in which states get to make that decision. I'm sure both Nancy Reagan and Drew Carey would be proud of the strategy. Yeah, it's Drew now. Bob Barker retired. 

Is There Anything It Can't Do?

From The Times (London):  Cannabis treats for canines could ease pets’ pain.

    The cannabis industry, driven by the easing of drug laws across the US, is turning its sights on a new group of potential users — ill and elderly dogs.

    The “pet-pot” market is new but shows promise, its pioneers say. Products already available include “Treat-ibles” — canine snacks infused with CBD, or cannabidiol, a non-psychoactive compound derived from the cannabis family.

    Auntie Dolores Kitchen, the company behind Treat-ibles, suggests that CBD could be used on dogs to suppress nausea, induce appetite and to manage pain and mood disorders.

    Researchers believe that CBD could have medical applications for humans, including treating severe epilepsy.

    The dog treats, which cost $22 for a box of 40, do not contain THC, the compound that gets cannabis users high.

    The company’s website says that the absence of THC makes Treat-ibles “completely legal as a hemp-derived product”. Hemp and cannabis belong to the same family but the US government defines hemp as having less than 0.3 per cent THC. A higher concentration means that the plant is regarded as cannabis, illegal under federal law.

    Other American companies offering “pet-pot” products have received letters from federal regulators, warning them that they are breaking the law by selling unapproved drugs. However, the legal landscape could be shifting. In Nevada, a bill is being considered that would grant access to medical cannabis for pets. The proposal comes as a growing number of American states relax local cannabis laws. Nevada is one of 23 states where medical pot is legal.

If PETA figures out that marijuana bans equal animal abuse, things will really start to happen.

Related articles

Medical pot for pets?

"What’s Right for Ohio: A Discussion about Marijuana Reform"

. . . is the title of a program that is being held today at Ohio State's Moritz College of Law.  The event isn't going to be live streamed, but Doug Berman (who is one of the panelists and whose student organized the session) says they hope to have podcasts available later.  I'll certainly link to them when they're available.

Speaking of the Buckeye State, the scenario playing out there is unusually interesting, because it shows legalization advocates battling each other, not against opponents.  At least three strands of legalization -- the libertarians, the command-and-control advocates, and the crony capitalists -- are  squaring off against each other in trying to get competing propositions on the Ohio ballot.  Doug has the links here.

Hillary Clinton and Marijuana

Doug Berman at MLP&R links to a Vox article entitled "Democratic voters love marijuana legalization. Hillary Clinton doesn't." 

The piece quotes Marijuana Policy Project's Dan Riffle:

    Clinton's stance to let states decide whether to legalize is "unnecessarily tepid for a Democrat [said Riffle].  There's nothing to lose and a lot to gain for her if she were to take a more aggressive position in favor of regulation.  By not doing so, she leaves the door open for a candidate like [former Maryland Gov. Martin] O'Malley, who is trying to outflank her with liberals and young voters, to make marijuana reform part of his platform."

I'm not a Democrat, but from an outsider's position I can't see any benefit for her to do anything controversial at this point.  Unless she's very, very afraid that marijuana will be the key issue for millennial, minority, and women voters in the primary -- and I don't see that being the case here -- why risk alienating older white voters, at least some of whom she'll need to win in the general election?  

Now, if the marijuana lobby were to cough up $100 million or so in contributions, there might be a good reason to do it.  But that seems unlikely.

Related articles

"Democratic voters love marijuana legalization. Hillary Clinton doesn't."

Democratic voters love marijuana legalization. Hillary Clinton doesn't.

Addressing young Democrats in N.H., O'Malley decries influence of 'ultra-wealthy'

Marijuana and the 2016 Election

Legalizing Weed May Actually Benefit Taxpayers

The good news for Colorado taxpayers is that the tax money being harvested off of legalized marijuana may wind up being rebated to taxpayers in the Centennial State.  The bad news is that . . . well, the money is going to be refunded to taxpayers instead of being  turned over to the state government to spend. 

    The first state in the US to legalise recreational cannabis has encountered a problem: taxes raised from sales of the drug are too high.

    Sales of pot will yield estimated tax revenues of $58 million in Colorado in the current fiscal year. The money was intended to go towards projects such as school construction, law enforcement and drug education.

The revenues may now have to be returned to taxpayers because Colorado underestimated the overall amount of tax it was likely to raise when voters were asked to decide whether to legalise cannabis.

    State rules tightly regulate how much Colorado can raise and spend, described by critics as a product of “anti-tax zealotry”. The state legislature is now trying to enact new laws that would stop them from having to pay each citizen about $11 — their share of the windfall. Those who oppose giving the money back describe the situation as “refund madness”.

Damned taxpayers.  It's almost as if they think it's their money.

President: No Changes Likely for Marijuana at Federal Level

Not surprising, I think, given his general lack of enthusiasm on the topic . . . .  Obama Still Taking It Slow on Marijuana.  Here's a sample quote:

    There’s then the second issue of legalizing marijuana, whether it’s medical marijuana or recreational use.  There are two states in the United States that have embarked on an experiment to decriminalize or legalize marijuana — Colorado and Washington State.  And we will see how that experiment works its way through the process.

    Right now, that is not federal policy, and I do not foresee anytime soon Congress changing the law at a national basis.  But I do think that if there are states that show that they are not suddenly a magnet for additional crime, that they have a strong enough public health infrastructure to push against the potential of increased addiction, then it’s conceivable that that will spur on a national debate.  But that is going to be some time off.

The striking thing is that in areas like immigration and foreign treaties, the Administration has claimed vast powers to ignore Congress.  But on marijuana, where Congress specifically gave power to the executive branch to reschedule marijuana (18 USC § 811), the President suggests he needs to wait for Congress.  That's a pretty good indicator that despite the rhetoric he's not really interested in doing anything.