Tuesday, October 13, 2015
In first major Democrat Prez debate, Bernie Sanders says he'd likely vote for marijuana legalization; Hillary Clinton still has her finger in the air
Marijuana reform came up during the Democratic debate in Las Vegas tonight, and toward the end a question directed toward Senator Bernie Sanders asked if he would likely vote for full marijuana legalization were he a voter in Nevada when the issue was on the ballot in 2016. He said he probably would vote in favor of legalization, and he said his disaffinity for the harms of the drug war would drive his vote.
Hillary Clinton got a follow-up question asking if she had seen enough results from Colorado and Washington to weigh in. She said she was in favor of medical marijuana and more research, but she avoided an answer as to recreational marijuana. And, somewhat disappointingly, none of the other Democratic Prez candidates was asked to speak on the issue.
Sunday, October 11, 2015
"Will The Democratic Candidates Talk About Weed? The Marijuana Talk Could Reap Huge Benefits For The Dems"
The title of this post is this short Bustle piece that suggest Democratic candidate for Prez ought to talk up marijuana reform at their upcoming debate. Here are excerpts:
Weed legalization has received relatively little attention in the 2016 presidential campaign. It’s not terribly surprising that GOP is steering clear of the the subject: The party’s broad opposition to any sort of marijuana legalization puts them at odds with the majority of Americans. But several states will vote on marijuana legalization measures at the ballot box next year, and this begs the question: Will the Democrats discuss marijuana at the debate on Tuesday?
For the most part, Democratic candidates haven’t avoided the subject. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a vocal opponent of the war on drugs, wants to legalize medical marijuana, while former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, who signed legislation in his state decriminalization small amounts of weed, supports relaxing marijuana laws. But Sanders has downplayed the significance of marijuana as a policy issue, while frontrunner Hillary Clinton has largely avoided taking any stance on weed altogether.
All of this is odd. For Democrats, marijuana legalization is an issue that’s ripe with political opportunity. For a decade, Americans have been warming to the idea of legalizing the herb. President Obama has been somewhat relaxed in enforcing federal marijuana laws and has faced little consequences for doing so. Meanwhile, four states have legalized recreational marijuana use, a change that’s raked in a windfall of tax revenue and hinted at the incredible economic benefits that could result from full legalization.... [T]he Democratic contenders for president can easily grab this issue by the horns, and they won’t be taking a big risk. By strongly voicing support for medical marijuana legalization, the candidates would have the political, economic and moral calculus all on their side — a rarity as far as hot-button issues go. They would also spur enthusiasm amongst the liberal base, and as an added bonus, they’d have a new issue on which to brand Republicans as being out-of-touch with the times (not that there’s any shortage of such issues).
It’s high time that Democrats seize the opportunity to throw their support behind weed. Next week’s debate is the perfect opportunity for them to blaze that trail.
This local article, headlined "Oregon's first week of recreational pot sales tops $11 million," spotlights the notable reality that individuals given legal permission to purchase marijuana seem eager to do so in large numbers. Here are the details:
After just one week of recreational marijuana sales, Oregon dispensaries have raked in an estimated $11 million. That figure could mean the state's estimate is shockingly low for how much money it'll make when pot taxes kick in this January.
At Nectar on Northeast Sandy Boulevard and 33rd Avenue, they're restocking the shelves a lot this week. "We're seeing about 500 people a day," said Nectar owner Jeff Johnson. Dispensary owners and customers are reporting Oregon's first week has gone very well....
The Oregon Retail Cannabis Association told KGW after tallying up sales from its members statewide and factoring in projections, they estimated there were $3.5 million in sales on the first day, October 1.
One week in, Oregon is already far ahead of dollars spent on pot compared to Colorado's first week of legal recreational sales, at $5 million. Washington took a month to sell its first $2 million, according to Marijuana Business Daily.
When Oregon voters approved recreational marijuana, the state set an estimate of $9 million in net tax revenue for the first full year of 2017. But the Oregon Retail Cannabis Association believes it'll bring in three to four times that much.
"It's just person after person after person," said Rachel Clerk, employee at Fresh Buds in Southeast Portland. For her store, these hundreds of new customers came at a crucial time. They were trying to stay afloat with only 15 medical customers a day.
"There for awhile, towards the end we were thinking we might have to close the doors because we weren't getting any kind of steady business," said Clerk. In this past week, they're back in the black, averaging 10 times as much foot traffic.
And dispensaries are seeing the customer base vary as much as the strains they're buying. "Obviously we're seeing a young crowd but we're also seeing people in their 50s and 60s that would never have bought the product if it wasn't legal," said Johnson.
Oregon recreational marijuana sales are all tax-free until January. Once that 25 percent tax gets added on, it'll go to help fund schools, mental health programs, state police and the cities and counties that are allowing recreational sales.
Thursday, October 8, 2015
The latest swing-state polling numbers via the fine folks who conduct the independent Quinnipiac University Poll finds remarkably high public support for ending marijuana prohibition, especially with respect to allowing adults "to legally use marijuana for medical purposes if their doctor prescribes it." This Quinnipiac press release provides these basic and links to various polling specifics concerning both recreation and medical marijuana reforms (with some of my emphasis added):
With noticeable gender gaps, voters in Florida and Ohio back legalization of marijuana for personal use - so-called "recreational marijuana" - while Pennsylvania voters are divided, according to a Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll released today.
In each state, men support legalized marijuana for personal use more than women, the independent Quinnipiac University Poll finds. The Swing State Poll focuses on Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania because since 1960 no candidate has won the presidential race without taking at least two of these three states.
By overwhelming margins, voters in each state support legalizing marijuana for medical purposes. On this question, there is no gender gap. Also in each state, most voters say they would not use marijuana if personal use were legalized.... "If men are from Mars and women are from Venus, then the Red Planet might be the more spacey place. That's because men are more likely than women to support legalization of marijuana for recreational use," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll. "Not surprisingly support for the change is linked to age, with younger voters more likely to see personal use of pot as a good thing."
"But despite the support for legalization, a majority of voters in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania say they would not use the drug if it were legal," Brown added. "Only about one in 10 voters opposes legalizing marijuana for medical purposes." ...
Florida voters support legalizing personal marijuana use 51 - 45 percent. Men support it 57 - 41 percent, with women narrowly opposed 49 - 46 percent. Support is 66 - 30 percent among voters 18 to 34 years old, 52 - 44 percent among voters 35 to 49 years old and 55 - 43 percent among voters 50 to 64 years old. Voters over 65 are opposed 56 - 39 percent. But 65 percent of voters say they would "definitely not" use marijuana if it were legalized. Voters support legalizing medical marijuana 87 - 12 percent. ...
Ohio voters support legalizing personal marijuana use 53 - 44 percent. Men support it 59 - 38 percent. Women are divided, with 47 percent in favor and 49 percent opposed. Support is 70 - 25 percent among voters 18 to 34 years old, 59 - 39 percent among voters 35 to 49 years old and 50 - 46 percent among voters 50 to 64 years old. Voters over 65 are opposed 64 - 33 percent. Again, 65 percent of voters say they would "definitely not" use marijuana if it were legalized. Voters support legalized medical marijuana use 90 - 9 percent.
Pennsylvania voters are divided on legalizing personal marijuana use, with 47 percent in favor and 49 percent opposed. Men support it 52 - 44 percent, with women opposed 53 - 43 percent.
Support is 66 - 33 percent among voters 18 to 34 years old and 51 - 45 percent among voters 35 to 49 years old. Voters 50 to 64 years old are divided 48 - 47 percent and voters over 65 are opposed 64 - 32 percent. Even if marijuana were legalized, 66 percent of voters say they would "definitely not" use it. Voters support legalizing medical marijuana 90 - 9 percent.
For a number of reasons, it is understandable that the divided numbers concerning legalization of recreational marijuana serves as the top polling story from these data. But, as my headline and highlights are designed to stress, I think the most important and potentially consequential aspect of this polling is the huge approval from all states and all demographics to end blanket marijuana prohibition and to permit, in the words of the poll question, adults "to legally use marijuana for medical purposes if their doctor prescribes it." Now with such overwhelming support for medical marijuana reform in "purple" states, I expect more and more mainstream politicians to actively support medical marijuana reform and perhaps even start attacking any candidates who do not actively support such reforms.
The title of this post is the headline of this notable new report from Tom Angell about notable developments on Capitol Hill. Here are the interesting and notable details:
A key Senate leader has included several pieces of good news for marijuana law reform advocates in a package of spending bills intended to keep the government operational for the next fiscal year.
Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS), chairman of the Appropriations Committee, filed the bills on Tuesday, and they have just been uploaded to Congress’s website. Here’s what the bills’ language will do, if enacted:
* Prevent the Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement Administration from spending money to interfere with the implementation of state medical marijuana laws. Similar language was enacted last year and is current law.
* Prevent the Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement Administration from spending money to interfere with the implementation of state industrial hemp research programs. Similar language was enacted last year and is current law.
* Allow doctors with the Department of Veterans Affairs to recommend medical marijuana to military veterans, and prevent the V.A. from denying services to veterans because they are medical marijuana patients in accordance with state law.
* Prevent the federal government from punishing banks for doing business with state-legal marijuana providers.
Each of the provisions above were passed this year with bipartisan votes on the House floor, in the Senate Appropriations Committee or both.
The legislation also removes language from previous years’ spending bills that has prevented Washington, D.C. from spending money to implement a system of legalized and taxed sales of marijuana. If Cochran’s bill is enacted as is, the District of Columbia will be able to move forward with enacting marijuana sales regulations that the mayor and local lawmakers have indicated they support but have been stymied from moving forward with due to ongoing Congressional interference.
The provisions, and the overall spending proposals they are attached to, represent what Cochran believes can pass the Senate. He and other Senate appropriators are currently in negotiations with leadership from the House Appropriations Committee and are expected to arrive at a compromise spending package sometime before government funding under current legislation runs out on December 11.
October 8, 2015 in Business laws and regulatory issues, Federal Marijuana Laws, Policies and Practices, History of Marijuana Laws in the United States, Medical Marijuana State Laws and Reforms, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)
The title of this post is the headline of this interesting new Los Angeles Times article, and here is how the article gets started:
For years, Brandan Flores has treated his chronic back pain with marijuana, a remedy he champions as a natural alternative to traditional medication. But recently he heard rumblings that his drug of choice might be less wholesome than he had imagined.
"There was talk about Eagle 20," he said, "and it concerned me right away." Eagle 20 is a fungicide used to kill mites, mildew and assorted pests that flock to plants like hops and grapes. It also contains a chemical called myclobutanil, which produces hydrogen cyanide gas when burned.
Stunned that he might be inhaling toxic fumes, Flores and fellow medicinal pot user Brandie Larrabee, a brain tumor patient, sued the grower this week, filing the first product liability lawsuit against the marijuana industry. "I want these companies to take a step back and look at what they are putting into their products," said Flores, 24, who sued in Denver District Court. "These warehouses are getting big and really sloppy. They are adding chemicals to make things more efficient and more potent. But there are so many chemicals now that you might as well get prescription medication."
The target of the suit, LivWell Inc., owns nine pot shops in Colorado, which legalized recreational marijuana use last year. LivWell operates one of the largest grow houses in the world. Company lawyer Dean Heizer did not respond to a request for comment. Earlier, he told the Associated Press that LivWell had stopped using Eagle 20 and that no consumer illnesses had been linked to marijuana pesticides.
In April, Colorado quarantined 60,000 pot plants from LivWell to check for Eagle 20 residue. The hold was lifted when only low levels of the chemical were found. Afterward, LivWell owner John Lord released a statement saying laboratory tests of his plants "showed that our products are safe — as we always maintained."
Neither Flores nor Larrabee contends that the marijuana has harmed them. But they say they would have never inhaled it if they knew it could release what the lawsuit calls "poisonous hydrogen cyanide." Their attorney, Steven Woodrow, said the growers "either knew or acted in disregard of the facts" when they sprayed the plants with Eagle 20. "The state of Colorado has a list of approved pesticides for marijuana," he said. "This is not one of them."
Woodrow said this is the first lawsuit to challenge the marijuana industry's grow methods. He is seeking class-action status for the suit and expects more plaintiffs to join in. "Unless the industry cleans itself up, we can expect more lawsuits like this in the future," he said.
Wednesday, October 7, 2015
Reefer madness or state law sanity?: Ohio AG sues Toledo after passage of local marijuana decriminalization measure
As noted in this prior post, last month Toledo voters overwhelmingly passed a measure to decriminalize marijuana in the city by reducing penalties for the drug to the minimum allowed by state law and repealing penalties for possessing small amounts of marijuana. But now, as reported in this new Toledo Blade article, headlined "Ohio sues city over marijuana ordinance: Attorney general sees state conflict," Ohio's top state lawyer believes it is necessary to sue the city to block some aspects of what the local voters' approved. Here are the basics:
The Ohio Attorney General’s Office filed suit Tuesday against the city of Toledo, asking a judge to declare invalid several key sections of the city’s new “Sensible Marihuana Ordinance.”
The legal challenge in Lucas County Common Pleas Court claims several portions of the voter-approved Toledo law, including restricting fines and incarceration for marijuana possession, contradict Ohio law. Lucas County Prosecutor Julia Bates and Sheriff John Tharp joined Attorney General Mike DeWine in the lawsuit.
Voters last month approved a measure reducing penalties in Toledo Municipal Code for all marijuana-related crimes to no fines or jail time. They also supported stopping city police from reporting the convictions to state authorities.
Although it is unfortunate to oppose the will of a majority of voters, significant portions of this law are “clearly unconstitutional,” Mr. DeWine said. He announced the legal action during a news conference at One Government Center.
Mr. DeWine discussed a seizure last month by the Ohio Highway Patrol in Lucas County that found 226 pounds of marijuana. If the motorists had been charged through this Toledo ordinance, neither would be incarcerated or fined. “Such a scenario is completely unacceptable, and it violates the Ohio Constitution,” Mr. DeWine said.
Mr. DeWine said this lawsuit does not seek to dismiss the entire measure, but the portions that contradict state law. Ohio’s constitution allows cities to adopt and enforce local regulations if they do not conflict with the state, according to the complaint. Police are empowered to arrest suspects in their municipality found breaking state law, the lawsuit states. “Municipal drug ordinances are police power regulations, and drug statutes duly enacted by the state of Ohio are laws of general application throughout the state,” the suit states.
The lawsuit specifically names a “gag rule” in the ordinance that says city police and the law director may not report for prosecution under state law any marijuana or hashish offense to an authority besides the law director. The prosecution would be left pursuing a misdemeanor case in Toledo Municipal Court under a law claiming to abolish incarceration, fines, and probation. “The city of Toledo is not empowered to establish or amend Ohio felony law. And municipal authorities are not authorized to prosecute felony offenses under state law,” according to the suit.
When asked during the news conference why Mr. DeWine’s office did not intervene prior to the vote, he said that he did not believe “anyone was aware of everything that was in there.”
City officials were not surprised by the lawsuit. Adam Loukx, Toledo law director, said there were concerns about its potential contradictions with state law, but he will defend the voters’ choice. “It’s only appropriate a court would be the one to decide that,” Mr. Loukx said. Mr. Loukx said he recently obtained a copy of the lawsuit and could not yet say what would remain of the law if Mr. Dewine is successful.
Sean Nestor, campaign manager for the Sensible Marihuana initiative that promoted the ballot measure, said the group expected a legal challenge. When they were crafting the ordinance, organizers studied other successful decriminalization measures in Ohio and Michigan, he said. “We used laws that had survived court challenges,” he said.
Mr. Nestor said his group is ready to work with city officials to defend the measure in court. While the case remains pending, Mr. Loukx said a Toledo police officer who finds a resident possessing marijuana could cite the suspect under Ohio Revised Code. The officer also might be permitted to charge under Toledo Municipal Code as well, Mr. Loukx said. “At this point, a lot of it will be in the discretion of the officer,” he said.
Because I am not an expert on local government law, I am going to need to read the full lawsuit filed by Attorney General DeWine [which is available here] before commenting on its merits. But I can say at the outset that I suppose I am pleased to learn that other crimes and legal concerns in the state of Ohio are so low that the AG's office had ample time to focus on what (I would hope) is a relatively low-level concern for state official.
This local article, headlined "Marijuana legislation calls for DUI study," reports on a notable (and I think very valuable) element of California's recent new law concerning medical marijuana. Here are the details and the context:
Recent legislation awaiting Gov. Jerry Brown’s signature not only seeks to implement a statewide regulatory system on the medical marijuana, but also calls for a study on how law enforcement can better detect stoned drivers.
Nestled within one of the bills — Assembly Bill 266 by Assemblyman Rob Bonta (D-Oakland) — is a sentence that calls for the state to commission the UC San Diego’s Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research to develop a study that identifies how cannabis impacts motor skills. The language was written by Assemblyman Tom Lackey (R-Palmdale), a retired California Highway Patrol sergeant of 28 years who said he was motivated to coauthor the bill to give officers another tool to get impaired drivers off the street and to save lives.
“We’ve done a good job of reducing alcohol DUIs,” he said. “With drug impairment we have a long way to go. I believe this is a pioneering effort to allow that to take place.” Lackey — who made his first visit to Humboldt County on Tuesday along with two other bill authors to call on Gov. Brown to sign the bills — said that the study could provide data that he hopes will result in an improved field sobriety test specifically for marijuana impairment.
The three-bill package known as the “Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act” is currently sitting on Gov. Brown’s desk. If signed, the bills would create a licensing and regulatory scheme for all aspects of the medical marijuana industry including cultivation, distribution, transport, dispensary sales, laboratory testing, environmental protections and storage.
Unlike with alcohol, where a legal blood alcohol concentration has been established, local law enforcement officials say they are currently limited in their methods of detecting drivers under the influence of the marijuana’s main psychoactive component, THC, with no set level of impairment and no easy detection method like a Breathalyzer.
“We do not have a cutoff point where we can say we know they are impaired,” Humboldt County District Attorney Maggie Fleming said. “The proof goes back to whether or not their driving showed they were impaired.” When prosecuting someone for driving under the influence of marijuana, Fleming said evidence usually includes patrol car dash cam videos, testimony by drug recognition experts and observations by a law enforcement officer.
Even if such a level were established, a local defense attorney and several studies state that THC processing by the human body is more complicated than alcohol and other drugs. A former president of the DUI Lawyers Association and current member of National College of DUI Defense, Eureka-based attorney Manny Daskal said some studies have shown that drivers actually exhibited safer driving habits and kept more room between themselves and other drivers to compensate for their impairment, though other studies refute the findings. “Right now the research isn’t there for them to accurately predict when impairment occurs or at what level it occurs,” Daskal said.
Regardless of what type of drug a California Highway Patrol officer suspects a driver is impaired by, Humboldt County CHP Public Information Officer Cy May said they will perform the same field sobriety test. “Usually we’re not sure it’s cannabis,” May said, adding there are certain giveaway signs. Such signs include marijuana odor emanating from the car or driver, bloodshot or dilated eyes, and a higher pulse rate....
Two studies by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration released in February found that 12.6 percent of surveyed drivers had evidence of marijuana use in their systems — up from 8.6 percent in 2007 — while those driving under the influence of alcohol dropped by one-third in the same time period.
Another study by the administration found that marijuana users were 25 percent more likely to be in a crash than non-marijuana users, but that the increased risk “may be due in part because marijuana users are more likely to be in groups at higher risk of crashes” — such as young men. “When you take all the confounding factors into account there is not much of an indication that marijuana causes an increase of crashing,” Daskal said.
Speaking at Tuesday’s rally in Eureka, Lackey said a September 2015 report by the Rocky Mountain High Drug Trafficking Area showed a 32 percent increase in marijuana-related traffic deaths in Colorado in 2014 — the same year recreational marijuana use became legal — compared to 2013. “We will not stand for that in California,” he said to the crowd.
While these studies state the risk of a crash is much higher when THC impairment is factored in, others — like a 2010 study in the The American Journal on Addictions — state some experimental studies have shown it can have the opposite effect. “Several reviews of driving and simulator studies have concluded that marijuana use by drivers is likely to result in decreased speed and fewer attempts to overtake, as well as increased ‘following distance,’ ” the study states. “The opposite is true of alcohol.”
Tuesday, October 6, 2015
This new Internation Business Times article provides a helpful review the legal status of marijuana in a number of European nations. Here are the basics:
European laws on marijuana consumption and sale differ greatly throughout the continent and have shifted throughout the past 15 years, with one country having decriminalized all drugs.
The Netherlands: Amsterdam, the Dutch capital, is known throughout Europe -- and indeed, throughout much of the world -- for its coffee shops, where customers can buy joints and smoke them in the cafe. What most tourists in the city do not realize, however, is that most drugs in the Netherlands, including marijuana, are still illegal to produce and possess. Dutch law allows for customers to buy a small amount of it and consume it on the premises, but smoking pot on the street (for example) is not allowed.
Spain: The laws in Spain concerning marijuana often seem contradictory. Though it is illegal to buy or sell marijuana, citizens can grow and consume it for personal use. As a result of this legal loophole, "cannabis clubs" -- night clubs in Barcelona and Valencia -- have sprung up where members can smoke pot in the dance club.
France: The French government has toed a strict line when it comes to marijuana, and the substance is still illegal to buy, sell or produce. If you walk along the Seine near midnight in Paris, however, the smell of teenagers smoking hashish on the wharves might indicate otherwise.
The Czech Republic: Passed in 2013, a brand-new medical marijuana law in the Czech Republic allows patients with a doctor's note to purchase pot. Weed is decriminalized for the rest of the nation, and citizens can grow up to five plants for personal use.
Portugal: This Iberian nation has arguably the loosest marijuana laws on the continent. In fact, Portugal became the first European nation to officially abolish all criminal penalties for drug use with a 2001 law that got rid of jail time for possession of any drug, including heroin, cocaine and marijuana. The policy was aimed at encouraging rehabilitation over criminalization.
Sunday, October 4, 2015
The slightly silly title of this post is my reaction to this local report from Canada on the political discussion of marijuana reform up north. The piece is headlined "Marijuana ‘infinitely worse’ than tobacco, says Canadian PM Harper," and here are excerpts:
The debate over legal marijuana usage in Canada has become one of key issues in the federal election, pitting Liberal leader Justin Trudeau against the Conservative Stephen Harper, who has challenged his opponent’s pro-legalization stance claiming marijuana is “infinitely worse” than tobacco.
“Tobacco is a product that does a lot of damage. Marijuana is infinitely worse and it’s something that we do not want to encourage,” Harper said, pointing to the dark sides of smoking weed after his opponent Trudeau vowed to legalize marijuana if elected.
Trying to explain why he was so bothered by marijuana, given that tobacco and alcohol are regulated and pot is used for medicinal purposes, Harper said, that the plant is bad for human health. “There's just overwhelming and growing scientific and medical evidence about the bad long-term effects of marijuana,” he said, without backing his claims with any examples. Marijuana 101: Canadian university to teach basics of pot growing, marketing & sales
The Conservative leader also stressed that he will retain tough drug laws aimed at targeting traffickers, who profit off “destroying people's health.” He was reiterating his claims made during Friday’s second French-language debate when he clashed with Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau....
The reality is that we have kids who find it easier to buy marijuana than cigarettes and beer,” Trudeau responded. “If a young person buys marijuana, it’s because he had contact directly with a criminal. We will continue to control marijuana like cigarettes and alcohol, not to sell them in corner stores.” The Canadian federal election will be held on October 19, 2015 to elect members to the country;s House of Commons. Marijuana has been a key topic throughout the campaign, with the Liberals in favor of legalization and regulation and the NDP, headed by Tom Mulcair favoring decriminalization, rather than legalization.
October 4, 2015 in Campaigns, elections and public officials concerning reforms, International Marijuana Laws and Policies, Recreational Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)
This AP article, headlined "Legal Marijuana Stirs Hope in Illinois Town," highlights the on-the-ground reality that I believe will sustain marijuana reform: local economic development. Here are excerpts:
A skunky aroma fills the room in which hundreds of lush marijuana plants grow, some nearly ready for harvest. Grower Ashley Thompson, a former high school agriculture teacher in this rural part of southeastern Illinois, takes the scent of weed home with her.
She doesn't mind. It's the fragrance of money and jobs. "My family says I smell," said Thompson, who quit the classroom to work for Ataraxia, one of a handful of cultivation centers in Illinois, which is one of 23 states with medical marijuana. "I can't tell though."
The Associated Press recently gained an exclusive look at Illinois' first legal marijuana crop, and the new farmland ritual beginning amid surrounding cornfields in the historic town of Albion: the harvest of medical marijuana that will soon be sold in dispensaries around the state.
Ataraxia is the first center to make it to the finish line after running a gantlet of state requirements. For the company to find a home in Albion — where grain trucks rumble past the sleepy central square, cicadas drone in the trees shading a century-old courthouse and a breeze touches an empty bandstand — is paradoxical. Stores can't sell package liquor, but marijuana has been welcomed as a badly needed source of employment.
A comical T-shirt for sale says the town is "High and Dry." Cheryl Taylor, who sells the shirts at her shop on the square, said the marijuana facility has everyone curious: "It's brought our little town to life."
Down a country road, tucked behind the New Holland tractor dealer and the Pioneer seed plant, the history-making cannabis crop is being cut and dried behind the locked doors of a giant warehouse. By mid-October, strains with names like Blue Dream, OG Kush, Death Star and White Poison will be turned into medicine in many forms: oils, creams, buds for smoking, edible chocolates and gummies.
It's been a twisting path to harvest, marked by delays and a secretive, highly restrictive program meant to avoid the creation of easy-access pot shops seen in other states. Until Illinois gave approval in late September for the AP's tour, only company workers and government inspectors had been inside the warehouse. Thousands of cannabis plants — some in full bud, coated with cannabinoid-rich fibers — filled two large rooms at the facility on the day of the AP's tour. Mother plants and young plants started from cuttings had their own, smaller rooms.
The 1,900-person community of Albion, which is closer to Louisville, Kentucky, than Chicago, has embraced all this, sight unseen. "It's a good thing for the local economy," said Doug Raber, who sells insurance. "This is a pretty conservative area. Any kind of revenue we can have here is good."
Local developers sold a cornfield to Ataraxia for $5,000 an acre, which real estate agent Randy Hallam said is a 50 percent discount. The city also paid to build a road and extend water and sewer lines. The company hired locals to build and outfit the warehouse.
But only seven people, aside from managers, have been hired permanently. With only 3,000 approved medical marijuana patients, the company can't expand yet. CEO George Archos said he wants to hire 50 to 60, and meeting that goal will go a long way to keeping the community's support. "Albion needs to diversify its employment," said Duane Crays, editor of The Navigator, Albion's newspaper. Chief employers regionally are agriculture, oil and gas production, and an auto filter plant....
Residents' excitement over the health benefits of marijuana — from stimulating appetite in cancer patients to easing stiffness for people with multiple sclerosis — may also have historic roots. The bandstand marks the spot where a mineral spring once drew patients suffering from a host of ailments; it was said the water could cure. "My wife has MS," Hallam said. She doesn't have her patient card yet, he said, "but she has a doctor's appointment coming up."
October 4, 2015 in Employment and labor law issues, History of Marijuana Laws in the United States, Medical Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Medical Marijuana State Laws and Reforms | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, October 1, 2015
The title of this post is the headline of this notable new article, which provide a speedy and notable follow up to this recent post: South Dakota tribe poised to open "marijuana resort" to serve as "adult playground. Here are excerpts from the new article:
A South Dakota Native American tribe has been flooded with requests hours after it announced plans to open the United States’ first marijuana resort this New Years Eve, the tribe said Wednesday. “About 100 people have already called to say they’re coming,” Seth Pearman, tribal attorney for the Santee Sioux in Flandreau, South Dakota, told Al Jazeera. “We’re very excited about this process.”
Marijuana is not legal in South Dakota, but the U.S. Department of Justice said last year that Indian reservations would not face prosecution or federal interference for legally operating — under rules similar to those in states that have legalized recreational use of the drug — its distribution and cultivation facilities.
The Santee Sioux resort, converted from a 10,000 square-foot bowling alley on the reservation, will grow its own marijuana and will have an “upscale bar or club atmosphere” and live music, Pearman said. A nearby casino will provide rooms for overnight guests, he added.
The resort will be open to the public, will sell both marijuana and alcohol to adults over 21 years old and will allow them to consume it openly, Pearman said. A handful of private clubs have been allowed to operate in Colorado, where recreational marijuana use was legalized in 2012, but smoking in public is not legal.
Santee Sioux tribal officials have been researching the idea and touring other marijuana-growing facilities around the country. The tribe has also partnered with Colorado-based marijuana consulting firm Monarch America to learn about cultivating the plant. The tribe will grow its own marijuana in a 10,000 square-foot facility on the reservation with the help of industry experts. The pot will be “high quality, free from contaminants, and organic,” according to Pearman....
Sales will be tightly regulated, and any pot purchased must be consumed on site, Pearman said. Some reservation residents have publicly complained about the project, he said, comparing the situation to the concerns expressed when casinos became popular businesses on reservations in the early 1990s.
The Santee Sioux held several general council meetings inviting all tribal members while it was debating whether to go ahead with the resort. Some people opposed the plan but a tribal survey showed that most supported it, Pearman said. The tribe hopes the resort will boost the reservation’s economy, which is still recovering from the 2008 economic recession. “It’s a great opportunity, with a small investment, to make a lot of money for tribes who have been struggling for hundreds of years to get economic development going,” Pearman said.
Prior related posts:
Could marijuana reform in part explain application and enrollment boost at University of Colorado Law School?
The question in the title of this post was the thought that kept coming to mind as I read this interesting article headlined "CU-Boulder law school sees enrollment boom as numbers fall nationally." As those in and following closely the law school industry know all too well, both applications and enrollment has been way down at most law schools nationwide over the last few years. But, as the article explains, the flagship school in a flagship state for marijuana reform now has a different story to tell:
At a time when interest in attending law school appears to be waning across the country, the University of Colorado Law School this fall has seen a 22 percent increase in first-year students. CU's newest crop of law students totals 205, up from 168 students in the first-year class of 2014.
Though they're still trying to determine the exact cause of the enrollment boost, Colorado Law administrators contend that the school is in a desirable location and has a reputation for putting students in jobs after graduation. "We've been really working hard at communicating our value proposition and why Colorado Law is a special place to be," Dean Philip Weiser said. "We are getting that story out there. That story picks up on the fact that we are really helping our students on the job front."
Since 2005, CU's first-year law classes have hovered between 160 and 180 students each year. The American Bar Association reported that fall 2014 first-year enrollment levels in the United States, the most recent data available, were the lowest since 1973. The 2014 new student enrollment figure represented a 4.4 percent decrease from 2013 and a 27.7 percent decrease from 2010, when first-year law school enrollment peaked. Nearly two-thirds of association-approved law schools experienced first-year enrollment declines last year....
It seems that trend is continuing into 2015, though official enrollment numbers aren't yet available. The Law School Admission Council reported in August that applications were down 4 percent from 2014. Despite that, applications to Colorado Law increased in 2015 to 2,383, up from 2,180 applications in 2014.
CU admitted a few more students this year and saw an increased yield rate, or the number of students who enrolled after being admitted. This year, the yield rate was about 19 percent, compared to 15 percent in 2014.
At the same time, the academic qualifications of the 2015 entering class stayed roughly the same as those of the 2014 class, Weiser said. The median LSAT score stayed the same and the median cumulative grade point average declined from 3.62 in 2014 to 3.6 in 2015.
Roughly 70 percent of the entering class of 2015 came from outside of Colorado, up from 59 percent in 2014. Weiser believes the law school's setting and collaborative environment drew students to Boulder this year. "Part of the story is Colorado," Weiser said. "One is that our community in Colorado is a special community that really wants to help each other and collaborate and that cultural appeal resonates."
He said the law school has always been less reliant on large, corporate law firms than other schools. Instead, Colorado Law graduates tend to be more innovative in their career choices. "We have a very entrepreneurial student population, alumni population, who have done all sorts of interesting things," Weiser said. "There are lots of opportunities for smart people who are creative, who know how to communicative, know how to analyze. "I remain excited about what our students are going to be able to do and the careers they're going to be able to have."
Not surprisingly, marijuana reform is not mentioned in this article as a reason for the uptick in both applications and entering students, but the fact that a much larger percentage of students in the entering class came from outside the state is notable and certainly reinforces my speculations. In addition, I am certain that marijuana reform has helped the overall Colorado economy and the business needs for legal help in a highly-regulated industry.