Cannabis Law Prof Blog

California Recreational Weed Measure Clears Ballot Hurdle

From Breitbart News:  CA Marijuana Legalization Clears First Step to Ballot Measure.

    Full marijuana legalization in California inched one small step closer to reality on Monday when advocates were cleared to collect signatures to qualify a measure for the 2016 ballot.

    Supporters of the Responsible Use Act of 2016 have 180 days to collect 365,880 signatures from Californians before the measure can appear on next year’s ballot, reports Reuters.

    The measure, one of at least four being worked on for the 2016 ballot, would impose an excise tax of $8 per ounce of dried marijuana sold in the state, and would allow local governments to tack on an additional sales tax of up to two percent of retail price. The proposal would also set new parameters for marijuana-related criminal offenses and would allow those convicted of marijuana-related crimes the ability to have their sentences reviewed.

    The proposal would not affect medical marijuana’s tax exemption.

Given how easy it is to get an MMJ card in California -- I was repeatedly solicited to apply for one when I took a stroll down Venice Beach at Christmas time -- I'm not sure how many people will want to buy the high-tax version.  But we'll see.

Employee MMJ Rights in Oregon: A Good Q&A

With recreational marijuana arriving tomorrow (Wednesday, July 1) the incidence of employees testing positive for weed is likely to go up substantially.  What obligations do employers have to take into account the fact that ingesting THC is now legal?  That's the subject of a very nice Q&A on The Oregonian's web site:  Recreational pot and the workplace: Q&A on Oregon's new marijuana law.

Short answer: there won't be much of a change.   But the whole exchange is worth checking out.

Adam Smith Predicted This Would Happen

People often like to mock Adam Smith’s "invisible hand," by which answers to people’s urgent needs appear almost magically as a result of other people’s urgent quest for more money.  If you’ve found it time-consuming to go to a physician to get your medical marijuana card, found it outrageous to pay up to $100 for the privilege, and boring to have to go to a dispensary to get your weed, the miracle of capitalism is right around the corner with a solution:

    Marijuana delivery startup Eaze will now let you get a medical marijuana card via smartphone.

    Rival service Meadow claims to Uber over a doctor (mine actually came on a skateboard), but Eaze seems to be the first dooby delivery startup able to hand out a legal cannabis card through EazeMD, its new video phone conference service.

    "You need to actually send a driver to deliver consumer goods, but there’s no reason you should have to actually dispatch a doctor and it really just streamlines the process," founder Keith McCarty said.

    Indeed, it does. California state law has traditionally required those wanting to get a state-issued cannabis card to travel to a designated clinic, pay $100 or more and then wait a few days for their card. EazeMD replaces that process with technology that finds the next available weed doctor from a third-party service.

    EazeMD has also lowered the cost to $25 and reduced the time it takes to minutes so those without a marijuana card, but "in need" of "medicine" at, say, a friend’s house on Saturday night around 11, can dial up a selection of available doctors on EazeMD and start chatting.

    EazeMD issues the new card electronically to the "patients" smartphone and then moves them to the Eaze platform where they can order and get "medication" delivered right to wherever they are in less than 15 minutes, according to McCarty.

    Weed-as-a-service startups like Eaze, Meadow and more than half a dozen others that have popped up in the last year face numerous legal barriers to operation. Getting a card that fast doesn’t seem legit.

    Maybe it is?

Better, faster, cheaper.  That's capitalism.

Delaware Gets first MMJ Dispensary

It took four years after Delaware first authorized medical marijuana, but the first dispensary just opened in the First State.  Here's the intro from a piece at philly.com:

    Delaware has become the second state in the [Mid-Atlantic] region to make its debut in the  burgeoning medical marijuana industry.

    A long line formed Friday when its first dispensary, First State Compassion  Center, opened in a former tile market in a bustling Wilmington industrial park.  CannaCare Docs, a company that employs physicians to certify eligible patients,  fielded questions from curious passers-by a few doors away.

    New Jersey led the way in the area when it legalized medical marijuana in  2010. Delaware followed in 2011. Pennsylvania fell behind while nearly half the  states nationwide adopted marijuana programs. Some Pennsylvania senators have  said they plan soon to push a stalled bill with bipartisan support onto the  floor for debate.

    The differences between the programs and dispensaries in New Jersey and  Delaware are stark.

The article is a good overview of current MMJ regimes in Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, and worth a read.

 

Minnesota Eases MMJ Rules

The Gopher State took a significant step last week:

    Minnesota eased a statewide ban on medical marijuana products Wednesday, approving the use of pills and oils for seriously ill patients, while upholding a ban on products that can be smoked.

    Under the new law, users will be able to use liquid and pill extracts of marijuana plants, provided they are suffering from serious conditions such as epilepsy, HIV and cancer, the Associated Press reports. The law also restricts sales to only eight dispensaries within the state.

    While legalization advocates hailed the new rules as a step forward, they argued that Minnesota’s approach was unusually restrictive, potentially excluding patients living in rural areas or on tight budgets from obtaining the drugs.

Federal Job Candidates Advised to Lie About Marijuana Use

The federal government drug tests potential employees for certain positions.  Young people who want those positions, and who use drugs, need to game the system to avoid having the feds find out.  That's the take from a piece in the New York Times:  State Marijuana Laws Complicate Federal Job Recruitment:

    For all the aspiring and current spies, diplomats and F.B.I. agents living in states that have liberalized marijuana laws, the federal government has a stern warning: Put down the bong, throw out the vaporizer and lose the rolling papers.

    It may now be legal in Colorado, in Washington State and elsewhere to possess and smoke marijuana, but federal laws outlawing its use — and rules that make it a fireable offense for government workers — have remained rigid. As a result, recruiters for federal agencies are arriving on university campuses in those states with the sobering message that marijuana use will not be tolerated.

    So members of a new generation are getting an early lesson in what their predecessors have done for as long as there has been espionage, diplomacy and bureaucracy. They are lying and, when necessary, stalling to avoid failing a drug test.

    As any regular marijuana smoker will tell you, it usually takes about two weeks for evidence of marijuana use to disappear from urine, a urine sample being the method by which drug use ordinarily is tested.

    “Delaying something is part of what a good diplomat is supposed to know how to do,” said John, a young American diplomat who lives in Washington, D.C., where marijuana use became legal this year. “If you can’t put off a test for two weeks, I mean, come on.” He spoke on the condition that only his first name be used in an effort to avoid losing his job.

I suppose it's bound to come to this.  In a culture where we expect the country's leaders to lie to us, we probably can't expect to get honesty from the ordinary folks.  Of course the key to successful lying is to make sure you deny it in public:

    Based on interviews with a handful of federal workers living here, John’s marijuana-smoking story is not unique. One recent federal hire with a security clearance said he and many of his friends believed that the government was basically asking them to lie when applying for jobs. The hire, a university graduate from a Western state with liberal marijuana laws, was adamant that neither his name nor the agency where he was about to start working appear in print.

Then there's this, which is particularly appalling:

    Now, [a State Department] official owns his home here in Washington, [D.C.,]where it is legal to grow up to six plants, though only three can be mature at any given time. If discovered, he said, he would claim that the plants belonged to his wife, who does not work for the government.

This has got to be reassuring to foreign leaders who have to decide whether to believe what an American State Department official says.

Colorado Employers Can Fire Workers for Medical Marijuana Use

Colorado employees who demand drug-free workplaces can fire employees who test positive for marijuana, even if the employees have a medical marijuana authorization and consume the weed in their off-duty hours.

That's the ruling in Coats v. Dish Network, a much-watched decision, in which the Centennial State's highest court upheld an earlier decision by the state's court of appeals.  The unanimous opinion (Justice Monica Márquez did not participate) was written by Justice Allison Eid, a former law professor.

At issue in the case was a state law prohibiting employers from terminating employees for engaging in "lawful" activities in their off-hours.  The plaintiff argued that using marijuana was "lawful" under Colorado law.

The decision is a pretty straightforward application of statutory construction.  The court finds that the word "lawful" means "not . . . prohibited by law."  Marijuana possession is explicitly prohibited by federal law --  the Controlled Substances Act -- and so would generally not be considered "lawful."  The court went on to consider whether the legislature, in using the word "lawful," meant only things prohibited by Colorado law.  But the language, the court found, is not restricted.  Ordinarily, something is not lawful if it is prohibited by any level of government.  Thus, employers presumably can fire employees for engaging in federal crimes (such as tampering with the U.S. mail or violating customs laws) that are not expressly illegal under state law.

The case is a blow to MMJ patients whose employers have drug-free workplaces.  They will have to decide whether to use their medication or find alternate employment.  It's a win for employers who face pressure from the feds to be drug-free and faced the possibility of being whipsawed between state and federal law.

Because the court's opinion involved interpreting a statute, the Colorado legislature could reverse the decision simply by passing a new law saying that Coloradoans cannot be fired for using medical marijuana on their own time. 

Related articles

Whoa, dude! Pot smokers weeded out from jobs

Colorado Supreme Court: Employee Can Be Fired For Marijuana Use, Even Though It Is Legal Under State Law

You can still get fired in this state for using medical marijuana

Texas A&M Call for Papers: Marijuana and Property Law

I'm pleased to note that the Texas A&M Journal of Property Law (run this year by many of my students) has issued a call for papers for an academic conference to be held in October.  Here's the info:

MARIJUANA AND PROPERTY

Call for Papers — Open until July 1, 2015.

The Journal of Property Law at the Texas A&M University School of Law is hosting a one-day symposium at the Law School in Fort Worth on October 16th, 2015, to consider the effects of marijuana legalization/decriminalization on a broad array of property-related interests, laws, and policies.

Purpose of the Symposium

Nearly half of all U.S. states have enacted -- or have pending -- legislation to legalize, decriminalize, or in some way permit the possession, use, sale, and cultivation of marijuana. As a result,  marijuana has become a significant topic of conversation. A variety of legal as well as logistical issues have arisen that ordinarily have been outside the immediate attention of practitioners and policymakers. Specifically, the industry has brought forth new issues pertaining to energy, taxes, intellectual property, land use, banking, and the environment, just to name a few. It is critical that experts now begin to seek out and address the myriad of complications arising from these events.

The goal of the symposium is to create a forum for experts to exchange ideas and advance the collective understanding of these issues. It will also provide an opportunity for scholars and experts to engage directly with one another on those issues at a high level of detail so that they may advance their research and scholarly agendas as well as strengthen their networks.

Scholarly and Policy Papers

The symposium will consist of presentations and panels where participants will present papers and works-in-progress. All presenters will have an opportunity to publish their work in a special symposium issue of the Texas A&M Journal of Property Law.

Potential Topics

The symposium will address topics relevant to property and marijuana, including:

• Agricultural Law and Policy
• Business Law and Policy
• Clean Energy Development
• Climate Change Impact, Mitigation, and/or Adaptation
• Ecosystem Management
• Energy Law and Policy
• Environmental Protection and Regulation
• Hazardous Materials/Waste Transportation
• Intellectual Property
• Land Use
• Landlord Tenant Law
• Natural Resource Law and Regulation
• Pesticide Use and Control
• Property Rights
• Recreational Use Management
• Regulatory Law
• Water Conservation
• Water Quality
• Water Rights (including Human Right to Water; Withdrawal – Transfer; Water Access Rights)

Submission Requirements

The symposium will be organized around the presentation of papers. These may be scholarly or policy oriented, and they may be written for a legal or interdisciplinary audience. Papers do not need to be in final form by the time of the symposium and authors are invited to present advanced drafts that might benefit from the insights and comments of other symposium participants. Final drafts will be due one month after the symposium.

A notice of interest with a proposed paper topic must be submitted by July 1, 2015. The notice of interest should be a brief (250-500 word) statement that includes the author’s research question and thesis and a short outline of what the author hopes to address in his or her paper. More advanced submissions, including detailed abstracts and draft papers are also welcomed, but only a notice of interest is required at this point. Submissions should be accompanied by a brief biography of the author and a curriculum vitae or resume. Submissions should be made to  [email protected].  If selected, the author will be notified by July 15, 2015.

A final abstract of the proposed paper will be due by August 14, 2015, and should consist of 750-1000 words. An advanced draft of the paper that would be acceptable to present at the symposium is due no later than October 2, 2015. The facilitators will distribute the selected papers to invited participants in advance of the conference. All final papers will be due November 16, 2015, and will be eligible for publication in the Journal of Property Law subject to the editors’ final review and approval.

Proposals, abstracts, and completed papers must be typed in English. The authors may use whatever citation format is generally accepted in their respective disciplines. Address questions and abstracts to [email protected].  Put "symposium" in the subject line. We look forward to reviewing your submissions.

Submission Deadlines

Notice of Interest Deadline: July 1, 2015
Notification to Authors: July 15, 2015
Abstract (Final) Submission Deadline: August 14, 2015
Advanced Draft Paper Deadline: October 2, 2015
Symposium Date: October 16, 2015
Final Paper Deadline: November 16, 2015

Travel Funding

Travel funding may be available to cover reasonable airfare and lodging costs, based on need, for a limited number of individuals presenting at the conference and publishing with the Journal. Please include a request for travel funding support when sending your Notice of Interest.

Contact Information

Texas A&M University School of Law
Journal of Property Law
1515 Commerce Street
Fort Worth, Texas, 76102
law.tamu.edu
817-212-4100
[email protected]

Open Air Cannabis Fair Today in the City by the Bay

Bring your California MMJ  card or get one on the spot for today's open-air weed festival at the SoMa StrEAT (sic) Food Park at 11th and Division in San Francisco:

    If a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down, imagine what a pancake breakfast might do for medical marijuana.

    Marijuana is only legal for medical purposes in California, but that isn't stopping purveyors of pot-infused cupcakes, nuts and other edible forms of the drug from putting on an outdoor food festival to showcase their wares.

    The "Get Baked Sale" happening Saturday at a food truck hub in San Francisco comes as marijuana advocates are working to legalize recreational use of the drug through a statewide voter initiative in November 2016.

    "It's going to be legal next year, so if we integrate it now, people can come see what it's like and have fun, that it's not what they think and it's definitely going mainstream," event creator Jared Stratton said.

    The fair will be only to all, but under California law only people with proof of a doctor's recommendation for medical marijuana would be authorized to eat the cannabis-cooked pancakes that will be served during the breakfast portion of the daylong event.

    Ticket holders showing the required paperwork at the entrance will get bracelets and hand stamps allowing them to sample and buy the "medicated" snack foods and beverages that also will be served, Stratton said. Two doctors are scheduled to be on hand to provide on-the-spot recommendations, he said.

    Vendors selling more standard fare, a DJ and carnival game operators also will be there, features designed to encourage participants to pace themselves and for relatives and friends of marijuana users to take part, Marjorie Fischer, the brand manager for the Auntie Dolores line of pot-laced munchies.

    "It's very rare to have this kind of event at this point in the industry," Fischer said. "Most of the events have really centered on exclusion and people feel like they are not welcome if they are not patients."

    Cooking demonstrations and illustrations of "food pairing" — combining edible marijuana with everyday dishes — are planned. For example, sausage-kale pizza topped with Auntie Dolores' chili lime peanuts will be one of the offerings, Fischer said.

    Attendees who prefer their pot and food separate will have the chance to buy dried marijuana and to take hits at a bar providing concentrated cannabis.

    With three other festivals also taking place in the city on Saturday, the San Francisco Police Department does not plan to have officers at the food fair checking that only people legally permitted to use medical marijuana are the only ones chowing down or to stop them from lighting up in public, Officer Grace Gatpandan, a department spokeswoman, said.

    "It's not super on our radar," Gatpandan said. "We just want people to have a good time and if there are families that go there, to keep it cool."

Canada's Health Minister "Outraged" at Decision of "High" Court

Not everyone in Canada seems to be thrilled by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision that it, and not the Health Ministry or other agencies of government, is the final authority on what medicines it is appropriate for patients to take.  Initial reactions from Health Canada aren't supportive, according to this CTV piece:

    Health Minister Rona Ambrose says she is "outraged" by the Supreme Court of Canada decision that expands the definition of medical marijuana beyond dried leaves, to include cannabis oils, teas, brownies and other forms of the drug.

    In a unanimous decision Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that users should not be restricted to only using the dried form of the drug. They said the current rules prevent people with a legitimate need for medical marijuana from choosing a method of ingestion that avoids the potential harms of smoking it.

    But Ambrose says, despite recent court rulings in favour of the use of marijuana, her government maintains that cannabis has never been proven safe and effective as a medicine.

    "Marijuana has never gone through the regulatory approval process at Health Canada, which requires rigorous safety reviews and clinical trials with scientific evidence," she told reporters in Ottawa.

    "So frankly, I’m outraged by the Supreme Court."

    She said Thursday’s decision, as well as prior court rulings that permit the use of medical marijuana, give Canadians the impression that the drug has been shown to be effective, when it has not.

    "We have this message that normalizes a drug where there is no clear clinical evidence that it is, quote-unquote, a medicine," she said, adding that never in Canada’s history has a drug become a medicine "because judges deemed it so."

Related articles

Canada Breaking News: Medical marijuana legal in all forms, Supreme Court rules

Canada Supreme Court Rules Medical Marijuana Legal in All Forms

Medical marijuana users can use edibles: Supreme Court

Canada Supreme Court: All Forms of MMJ Are Legal

More on Canada's Constitutional Right to Bake Marijuana Cookies

The case is Regina v. Smith, 2015 SCC 34, and it holds that Canadians have a fundamental right to use medical marijuana under section 7 of the Charter of Rights, and that this liberty includes taking THC in whatever form the patient chooses. 

It's a very odd opinion from an American perspective.  The findings about the relative value of smoking  marijuana vs. ingesting it in some other form were made by a single trial judge -- not on a record compiled by an expert agency with access to all relevant data.  And the Canadian Supreme Court unanimously found that so long as there was some basis in fact for the trial judge's opinion, it is a "fact" that ingesting marijuana is superior to smoking, even though Parliament apparently thought differently.

Now, I don't disagree with the trial judge or the Supreme Court's opinion on the relevant merits, but in the U.S., despite our constant kvetching about activist judges, courts can't do this sort of thing.  We have administrative agencies (the FDA, the DEA, etc.) that are required to go through lengthy notice-and-comment procedures to set rules.  Moreover, Congressional power over interstate commerce means that a Congressional determination (apparently unlike a determination of the Canadian Parliament) is entitled to extreme deference unless it infringes on some fundamental individual right -- and taking non-FDA-approved medicine isn't a fundamental right.

An interesting question is that if there is a fundamental right to take marijuana in a form not approved by Canadian regulatory agencies, there should be one to take opium derivatives in the same way.  After all, Canadian law allows physicians to prescribe morphine in certain forms -- it would seem to be an infringement of liberty, under the opinion, for the state to prohibit users from taking it in some other form.

Like most insular Americans, I don't know enough about Canada to know how this is going to be received or what the fallout will be.  But it's a big win for MMJ users in the Great White North.

Canada Supreme Court: All Forms of MMJ Are Legal

I haven't seen the opinion yet, so I have no idea what the legal basis for the ruling is, but Canada's highest court reportedly has determined that restrictions on the types of medical marijuana available to patients are invalid, so Canadians can get their weed through edibles as well as smoking it.

    Medical marijuana patients in Canada can legally use all forms of the drug, the Canadian Supreme Court has ruled.

    Medical marijuana patients will now be able to consume marijuana, not only smoke it.

    Cannabis oil is now permitted instead of only "dried" marijuana, meaning people can bake it into food products.

    The case began in 2009 when a baker from the Cannabis Buyers Club of Canada was charged with trafficking and unlawful possession of marijuana.

    Former head baker of the club Owen Smith was caught baking 200 pot cookies, CBC reports.

    A British Columbia judge acquitted Mr Smith and gave Canada's government a year to change laws around extracting marijuana. The case then wound up in the Supreme Court.

    A protestor in CanadaCanada has had a complicated legal journey with marijuana

    Restricting people to dried marijuana for medical purposes has been declared "null and void" by the court.

    Now, Canadians who qualify to use medical marijuana can have products like cannabis-infused cookies and tea.

    Medical marijuana is used for medical ailments such as Crohn's disease, seizures, HIV and nausea. In Canada, physicians decide who is eligible to use it.

    The court ruled that prohibiting possession of non-dried forms of marijuana is "contrary to the principles of fundamental justice because they are arbitrary; the effects of the prohibition contradict the objective of protecting health and safety".

It will be interesting to see the basis for the ruling.  In the U.S., perhaps unlike Canada, judges aren't the ones who get to decide on what will or will not protect health and safety.

Big Doings in Buckeye State

The big Ohio Marijuana Policy Reform Symposium is going on today in Columbus, at the Ohio State College of Law.  Doug Berman is the keynote speaker (naturally), and he's got his first post on what's going on here. 

With luck, we'll have more in the near future.  Good job by Doug and the crew at the National Champion Ohio State University . . . .

"House bill aims to keep D.C. sales of marijuana illegal"

. . . is the title of a new piece in the Washington Times.  The headline is a little misleading -- marijuana is now and will remain, for some considerable time, illegal everywhere in the U.S., the District of Columbia included.

What the author is referring to -- as the article itself makes clear -- is a spending bill pending in the House of Representatives that would continue prohibiting the D.C. government from enacting a tax-and-regulation system for marijuana.  Congress did this in the last spending bill, and the new rider seems to continue the plan:

    A House spending bill introduced Wednesday would block the District of Columbia from using any money "to legalize or otherwise reduce penalties" for possession of marijuana — a move that would keep the drug quasi-legal in the city.

    Voters approved a ballot initiative in 2014 that legalized possession of up to an ounce of marijuana in the District, however without legislative action by local lawmakers it will remain illegal to buy or sell the drug.

    The congressional rider will continue to block city leaders from pursuing legislation to regulate the sale and taxation of marijuana. A similar provision was included in a congressional spending plan adopted in December.

    Marijuana policy experts interpreted the fact the rider did not include more restrictive language as a sign Republican leaders were not interested in engaging in a larger fight over marijuana.

    "I’m pleasantly surprised that the rider that they did include was not more restrictive," said Dan Riffle, director of Federal Policies at the Marijuana Policy Project. "I fully expected them to include tougher language explicitly naming the law in the language of the rider."

    Tom Angell, chairman of the Marijuana Majority, is holding out hope that the  rider could be removed from the budget.

    "If there’s a floor vote on an amendment to strip this language from the bill, I think we have a really good shot of assembling a bipartisan majority of lawmakers who will stand up for letting D.C. enact its own marijuana policies without interference," Mr. Angell said.

That last prediction may be correct, but I doubt it.  Congressional Republicans may not want to stop D.C. residents from growing and smoking a little, but Weed Marts scattered around Capitol Hill isn't something many of them will want to see.  Add in the potential for D.C.'s chronically corrupt government to start trading licenses for under-the-table cash, and you've got a recipe for problems.

It's an interesting paradox.  In enacting the spending bill, Congressional Republicans aren't thwarting the will of the D.C, voters -- they've made no attempt to overturn what the voters did.  They merely seem to be thwarting the D.C. government, which wants to license, control, and profit from the trade.

Colorado Cuts Weed Tax, Targets Black Market

The best way to stop a black market is to allow legal prices to fall to black market levels, and Colorado has taken a step in that direction.  Forbes reports that the rate will be cut from 10% to 8%.  Gov. John Hickenlooper notes that this will reduce the retail price of state-legal marijuana.

The same article reports that the state is doing is best to avoid having to give excess taxes collected back to taxpayers instead of spending them itself.  The state is putting out a ballot initiative to avoid having to rebate excess taxes collected, something which is required under the state constitution.  

California Weed: Is It Exacerbating the Drought?

My Texas A&M colleague, water law guru Gabriel Eckstein, sends along this video on the impact marijuana growing is having on California's drought.

 

One of the most interesting comments is that it's almost impossible to get a Mendocino County jury to convict someone of illegally growing marijuana.  But juries apparently are willing to go after them for taking water without permits.

Marijuana Investing Still in Wild West Mode

A lot of people are going to make a lot of money in the marijuana industry.  The trick is, of course, fis separating the winners from the losers.  The Wall Street Journal, in a new piece, Buying Legal-Marijuana Stocks: Just Say No?, highlights the extreme riskiness of many marijuana investments, including some that are little more than scams.  But money is slowly but inexorably moving into the industry: 

    Author Bruce Barcott says interest from wealthy individuals in investing in  cannabis  has shot up.

    There are funds, open only to wealthy investors, that specialize in marijuana-related securities, though they won’t speak publicly, for fear of violating accredited-investor solicitation rules and rules about marijuana. High Times Growth Fund, for one, linked to the High Times media brand, has a website with little information other than email addresses and a cannabis leaf.

    Marijuana Investment Co., also open only to accredited investors, focuses on providing investment access to an ETF-like portfolio of marijuana-related assets, says  Alan Brochstein, a financial adviser who runs the newsletter 420 Investor and designs marijuana-based model-portfolios for his subscribers. The company says it is planning to file for an initial public offering, and has invested in the Marijuana Index, which tracks listed companies in the sector. The index launched by tracking six stocks just two years ago, but now tracks 200 with a combined market value of $6.9 billion.

    Mr. Brochstein’s own model portfolio of marijuana stocks provides a look at the many subsectors: a 19% allocation to Canadian licensed producers; 18% to vaporizer smoking devices; 14% to  GW Pharmaceuticals,  a listed British biopharmaceutical company that makes cannabis-based medication; 14% to grower supplies; 9% to cannabis concentrates; 7.5% to air-control and lighting for indoor cannabis growers; 4% to cannabis-based biotech; and the remainder in cash and technology.

    Inevitably, mutual funds and exchange-traded funds will look at opportunities in marijuana-related businesses. When that happens, investors who object to such businesses may want to look closely at the holdings of any funds they invest in, as investors do who don’t want to own liquor or conventional-tobacco stocks.

    "I don’t think there will be funds and ETFs in the cannabis sector for at least a couple of years," says Mr. Brochstein. "Liquidity in this space is poor, so mostly you have over-the-counter stocks trading publicly."

    Despite the lack of liquidity, investors are curious. Mr. Barcott says companies that help wealthy individuals invest in cannabis have gone from holding small seminars to "renting out hotel ballrooms."

    Legal sales of marijuana are expected to quintuple to as much as $8 billion in 2019 from $1.6 billion in 2013, according to forecasts from trade publication Marijuana Business Daily. Founding editor  Chris Walsh says his publication predicts that more stocks will move to major exchanges, where disclosure and company liquidity is more regulated, in the next two years.

"7 States Where Medical Marijuana Is Legal But Barely Accessible"

One of the interesting tings about watching marijuana legalization as a business law prof is that the whole chronology is backwards.  Ordinarily, people invent industries, they grow, develop problems, and then government starts regulating them.

In the marijuana business, however, the regulations get drafted before the industry begins -- which makes it very difficult.  A rundown in Rolling Stone magazine highlights a number of states where the system isn't working as expected.   A couple of states, like Texas, are dinged because the MMJ laws are said to be too narrow.  But some of the others demonstrate that problems that come from trying to regulate in advance something that doesn't exist, while simultaneously making sure that everybody who's been generous in their political donations gets a cut of the spoils.  Some highlights:

    Massachusetts.  In 2012, Massachusetts's voters approved via ballot initiative the legalization of medical marijuana and state-regulated dispensaries, but overcomplicated licensing procedures allowed not a single dispensary to open. Two dozen lawsuits followed a two-and-a-half-year wait for the law to be enforced. . . .  Things . . . were looking up, with the first dispensary set to open later this month, but then unprecedented requirements on marijuana's lead levels proved to be an impossible standard that even grocery store vegetables couldn't meet.  As residents wait for a viable program, confusion about the law has led to the arrest of doctor-certified medical marijuana patients, despite state regulations allowing them to grow and possess their own supply.

    Illinois.  After legalizing medical marijuana in 2013, Illinois is in its second year of a four-year medical marijuana pilot program, but with no existing dispensaries to assess. Gov. Pat Quinn left office without issuing any licenses for medical marijuana distribution, prompting his replacement, Bruce Rauner, to swiftly condemn Quinn's inaction and issue a slew of licenses for providers in January. Still, dispensaries are not expected to open until the fall.

    New Jersey.  In January of 2010, the New Jersey legislature approved a medical marijuana program set to go into effect six months after enactment. . . .  The first dispensary didn't open until three years later, in 2013, and its role as the sole provider of medical marijuana in the state prompted complaints from registered patients about limited access and long waits. Today, the state's program remains only half operational, with just three of the six dispensaries allowed by the law open for business.

    New Hampshire.  In 2013, New Hampshire passed legislation allowing just four state-licensed dispensaries to treat patients suffering from only five qualifying medical conditions. The law mandated that the state Department of Health and Human Services approve at least two dispensaries by the end of January 2015. So far it has approved zero. . . .  Dispensaries are not expected to open until January of 2016.

 

More Toddlers Exposed to Weed?

Time Magazine (yes, apparently it's still being published):  An Increasing Number of Young Children Are Being Exposed to Marijuana, Study Shows:

    More children under 6 across the U.S. are being exposed to marijuana, according to a study released on Monday.

    The study, conducted by researchers at Nationwide Children’s Hospital and published in the journal Clinical Pediatrics, showed a 147.5% increase in marijuana exposure among children younger than 6 years old between 2006 and 2013. That rate spiked by 610% over the same period in states where marijuana was legalized for medicinal purposes before 2000.

    Although the total number of reported cases — 1,969 children between 2000 and 2013 — is not large, the researchers say the rapid escalation in the rate of exposure is a cause for concern. More than 75% of the children who were exposed to marijuana were under 3 years old. They ingested it in the form brownies, cookies and other foods containing the drug.

    “Any state considering marijuana legalization needs to include child protection in its laws from the very beginning,” Gary Smith, senior author of the study and director of the Center for Injury Research and Policy at Nationwide Children’s, told Science Daily.

    His co-author Henry Spiller says the high instances of marijuana ingestion are most likely due to the popularity of marijuana-laced food.

    “Very young children explore their environments by putting items in their mouths, and foods such as brownies and cookies are attractive,” he said.

It's hard to tell how serious a problem this is; I suspect the "legal" nature of cannabis has caused an increase in reporting, as parents are willing to admit to having weed when they take their kids to the hospital.

That said, kids will eat pretty much anything they find around.  As a toddler in the late 1950s I polished off most of a bottle of my dad's Gallo White Port on one occasion, and a fair amount of lawn mower gasoline (which smelled really good) another time.  Both resulted in hospital visits.

Kids find stuff and eat it; parents need to take special care when toddlers are around.

Related articles

Marijuana Exposure Among Young Children Has Increased by Almost 150 Percent

More Young Children Exposed to Marijuana, Study Finds

Marijuana Exposure Among Kids Under 6 Rises Sharply

If You Build It, They Will Come

News from the Rocky Mountain State:  Colorado sees 1st camp resort for pot users:

Colorado is full of all-inclusive ranch resorts where guests hike, fish, play horseshoes and roast marshmallows. This one has a new offering - smoking pot.

The 170-acre CannaCamp opening July 1 in Durango in southwest Colorado calls itself the nation's first cannabis-friendly ranch resort.

Guests won't be given marijuana, because that violates state law. Instead, the resort allows guests to bring their own pot and use it while at the resort.

In addition to horseshoes and hiking, guests are offered yoga sessions and workshops on marijuana cultivation.

"We're bringing an element of luxury to that adventurous, exploratory vibe of childhood summer camp -in a beautiful setting where visitors can enjoy marijuana in a safe, comfortable, social environment," Joel Schneider, head of the management group opening CannaCamp, said in a statement.

Guests stay in cabins that allow smoking on porches but not inside. Rates start at $395 per person per night, with a three-night minimum.

Expect more of these.  A number of half-full motels around the state could probably get on the bandwagon with lower prices and shorter minimum stays.  Unlike dud ranches, they'll also be in pizza delivery range, which is probably important.