Koch Brothers Encourage Republicans To Support Federal Legalization of Marijuana

Since the Koch brothers’ call for a repeal of federal marijuana prohibition, more Republicans have felt emboldened to stand up to the current administration.

The Koch brothers are one of the Republican party’s biggest donors. In fact, they have pledged to donate up to $400 million to Republicans running for office in the 2018 midterm elections. That kind of money carries a lot of weight with the party.

In January, the brothers began throwing that weight around in favor of states’ rights, the legalization of cannabis, and the end of the War on Drugs.

Sent in response to the Attorney General’s ditching of the Cole memo, the statement had some harsh words for Sessions.

“That Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a Republican appointee in a Republican administration, is undoing a Democratic appointee’s work from a Democratic administration is irrelevant,” the letter stated, adding, “Republicans and Democrats alike have criticized the decision, and for good reason: It does little to improve the lives of people in our communities.”

Going beyond just defending states’ rights, the statement also labels the war on drugs “misguided” and calls for a “new, smarter approach to drug policy.”

“The administration would be better suited working with members of Congress to reform outdated sentencing laws,” the statement reads. “However well-intentioned these laws were upon implementation, they have ruined lives, torn apart families and communities, and have burdened taxpayers, doing little to keep people safe.”

Republican support is growing

Since the Koch brothers’ statement, more and more Republicans have felt emboldened to stand up to the administration in this matter without fear of losing the support of GOP donors such as the Koch brothers.

Just last week, a bipartisan bill meant to replace the protections provided by the now-defunct “Cole memo” was introduced jointly by Representatives Lou Correa (D-CA) and Matt Gaetz (R-FL). The bill is entitled the “Sensible Enforcement Of Cannabis Act.”

Earlier this month, Senator Thom Tillis, another powerful Republican from North Carolina, in a letter addressed to an advocate for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) wrote, “Proposals to legalize marijuana should not be taken lightly. As you may know, I am a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and this issue will likely be discussed this Congress. If this issue comes before the Judiciary Committee or the full Senate, I will carefully consider everything you have said in making a decision on what is best for North Carolina and the country.”

And in late January, a bipartisan group of 54 lawmakers sent a letter to President Trump urging him to call off Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who seems intent on harassing states which have legalized marijuana for medical or recreational purposes.

That letter was not the first action taken by joint members of Congress in reaction to Sessions’ threats. Just days after Sessions announced the death of the Cole Memo in early January, 69 members of Congress signed onto a letter proposing an amendment to the current spending bill that would include recreational marijuana protections.

Top Republicans support ending federal prohibition

In a recent article on Civilized entitled “8 Republicans Who Broke from the Party on Marijuana Legislation,” cannabiz journalist Joseph Misulonas wrote, “The Republican Party tends to adopt the old-school philosophy that marijuana is evil and legalization will be the downfall of society. But there are a few members of the GOP who are willing to speak out and break with the party on the issue.”

In the story, Misuloans discusses the stances of several Republicans, including Senator Bill Cassidy (Louisiana), a former doctor who supports legalizing medical marijuana, Senator Steve Daines (Montana), who once prominently supported a bill that would prevent the DEA from interfering with states with medical marijuana laws, and Senator Orrin Hatch (Utah), one of the oldest members of Congress, who recently came out as a pro-cannabis politician.

Also mentioned in Misuloans’ piece are Senator Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), one of the first people to denounce Sessions’ trashing of the Cole Memo, and Senator Cory Gardner (Colorado), who has been blocking the Department of Justice from receiving any new nominees until Sessions’ reverses his marijuana policies.

In at number one and two on the list are Senator Rand Paul (Kentucky) and Dana Rohrabacher (California). Paul supported legalizing medical marijuana nationally while denouncing the War on Drugs. Rohrabacher was a co-author of one of the most important pieces of cannabis legislation currently in play, the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer amendment, which prevents the federal government from interfering with states that legalize medical marijuana.

While Republicans seem to be warming up to the idea of ending federal prohibition and the War on Drugs, according to a report in Forbes, marijuana legalization “is quickly becoming a mainstream consensus position in the Democratic Party.”

Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), who introduced the Marijuana Justice Act last August, says that “Legalizing marijuana isn’t a matter of if, it’s a matter of when.”

Source

Now you are going to see some major changes. For those of you who remember the '80's drug war. You know it was no fun and we also knew that the tide went the other way in favor of prohibition. People losing their homes and families over marijuana,a plant that is lot safer than alcohol and anything the pharmaceutical companies put out.

There is going to be a lot of flip flopping. GOP prohibitionists are going to be scared shitless. They will see that times have changed and that they must make a choice. Side with the Koch brothers and abandon Jeff and Pete Sessions or side with Jeff and Pete Sessions and say goodbye to that Koch brother money. GOP candidates who do not receive Koch brother money don't do so well on election day and it's a little hard to run a campaign when you're broke. Times have changed and they've changed for the better when it comes to marijuana reform.

Amendment to Cut Funding of DEA’s Cannabis Eradication Program

Representative Ted Lieu (D-CA) has reintroduced an amendment to cut funds from the Drug Enforcement Agency’s (DEA) cannabis eradication program through their Salaries and Expenses Account. In 2016, the budget for the eradication program was $18 million and the amendment would cut that in half. The funds would be redirected to domestic abuse prevention and juvenile justice programs. This CJS appropriations amendment that was also proposed last year.

In a 2015 statement, Rep. Lieu explained that this cannabis eradication program “is a ridiculous waste of precious federal resources, especially when multiple states and jurisdictions have already legalized marijuana…it is time for the federal government to stop making marijuana use or possession a federal crime.”

Source

Here is Nelson Muntz take on this:

Controlled Substances Act may be unconstitutional

As an attorney, I am always disappointed that the courts in this country – both at the state and federal level – have refused to get involved in the efforts to end marijuana prohibition and end the practice of treating responsible marijuana smokers as criminals. But that is the reality.

While the courts in this country have played a leading role in ending racial discrimination, in guaranteeing women the right to obtain a legal abortion, in protecting the rights of the LGBT community, and in many other areas involving the protection of personal freedom, they have consistently rejected attempts to declare state and federal anti-marijuana laws as unconstitutional.

But that does not mean that we should give up the fight in the courts, and rely only on voter initiatives and elected officials to fix this problem. As long as there are new legal arguments to be made, and fresh and hopefully more convincing facts to be argued, we must continue to engage the courts in this struggle for personal freedom.

Washington, et.al v. Sessions, et.al

One such legal challenge, Washington, et.al v. Sessions, et.al, was recently filed in US District Court in the Southern District of New York by lead attorney Michael Hiller, with NORML Legal Committee (NLC) attorneys David Holland and Joseph Bondy serving as co-counsel. The full complaint can be found here.

Individual plaintiffs in the suit were two young children, an American military veteran, and a retired professional football player, all of whom are medical marijuana patients; and a membership organization alleging their minority members have been discriminated against by the federal Controlled Substances Act.

Seeking to overturn the 2005 Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Raich, plaintiffs request a declaration that the CSA, as it pertains to the classification of Cannabis as a Schedule I drug, is unconstitutional, because it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, an assortment of protections guaranteed by the First Amendment, and the fundamental Right to Travel. Further, plaintiffs seek a declaration that Congress, in enacting the CSA as it pertains to marijuana, violated the Commerce Clause, extending the breadth of legislative power well beyond the scope contemplated by Article I of the Constitution.

Named as defendants in the case are Attorney General Jeff Beauregard Sessions, Acting Administrator of the DEA Chuck Rosenberg, the Justice Department, the DEA and the Federal Government.

In their Complaint, plaintiffs allege that the federal government does not, and could not possibly, believe that Cannabis meets the definition of a Schedule I drug, which is reserved for the most dangerous of substances, such as heroin, LSD, and mescaline; and that classifying Cannabis as a “Schedule I drug,” is so irrational that it violates the U.S. Constitution.

Among the other claims in the lawsuit are that the CSA: (i) was enacted and implemented in order to discriminate against African Americans and to suppress people’s First Amendment rights; and (ii) violates plaintiffs’ constitutional Right to Travel.

Joseph Bondy, a federal criminal defense attorney and legalization advocate, explained he felt it was important to “question the agenda of those who continue to push for enforcement of the CSA, given its unlawful and discriminatory impact and that so few in America support such an effort.” Co-counsel David Holland, a litigator and Executive Director of Empire State NORML, noted that “the efforts to criminalize Cannabis are relatively recent and were largely underwritten by racial and ethnic animus,” referring to recent findings that African Americans and other persons of color are four times as likely to be arrested under the CSA than white Americans, even though marijuana is used equally by people of color and Caucasians.

Perhaps the federal courts will surprise us at long last and finally take a critical look at marijuana prohibition, and find the courage to declare the CSA to be unconstitutional. That would be an enormous step forward in ending marijuana prohibition altogether. But regardless of the outcome of this particular suit, it is encouraging to see the criminal defense bar continue to push the legal envelope, and to advance the best and latest legal and factual arguments. At some point, the courts will have no choice but to strike downC1_8734_r_x prohibition as a violation of our personal

Source

Congress addresses marijuana

Congressman drills DEA head

Scientists say the government’s only pot farm has moldy samples — and no federal testing standards

Sue Sisley, a primary care physician in Scottsdale, Arizona, recalls the moment she picked up the carefully wrapped package fresh from the delivery truck. Nearly two years after Sisley and her colleagues were awarded a grant to study marijuana as a treatment for 76 military veterans suffering from chronic post-traumatic stress disorder, her shipment of the drug was finally in hand.

But minutes later, as she opened the packets to weigh the drug – as required by the federal Drug Enforcement Administration – her enthusiasm turned to dismay. It didn’t look like marijuana. Most of it looked like green talcum powder.

“It didn’t resemble cannabis. It didn’t smell like cannabis,” Sisley says. What’s more, laboratory testing found that some of the samples were contaminated with mold, while others didn’t match the chemical potency Sisley had requested for the study.

There’s only one source of marijuana for clinical research in the United States. And “they weren’t able to produce what we were asking for,” Sisley says.

It’s unclear whether mold, lead or discrepancies in potency has been a problem in prior cannabis studies, because until now, it appears that no one looked.

In January — four months and three rounds of testing after that first delivery — Sisley and researchers working with the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) were finally able to enroll their first subjects. But the delay and the reasons behind it have raised questions about the reliability of the facility responsible for supplying marijuana to every clinical study in the country.

The marijuana came from a 12-acre farm at the University of Mississippi, run by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). Since 1968, it has been the only facility licensed by the DEA to produce the plant for clinical research. While eight states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana — and all but a handful allow at least some medical cannabis — growing the plant in large quantities remains forbidden under federal law. For all practical purposes, that means that any medical study that wants to use marijuana on human subjects must go through the University of Mississippi.

Rick Doblin, MAPS’ director, says this recent episode “shows that NIDA is completely inadequate as a source of marijuana for drug development and research.”

“They’re in no way capable of assuming the rights and responsibilities for handling a drug that we’re hoping to be approved by the FDA as prescription medicine,” he says.

The demand for the facility’s product has surged in the past year, mirroring interest from medical researchers. Through mid-October 2016, the agency says it had fulfilled 39 requests for marijuana, from 10 different researchers. That’s a jump from the 23 requests it filled in 2015, the most recent numbers available, according to an April letter from the DEA to Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass).

It’s unclear whether mold, lead or discrepancies in potency has been a problem in prior cannabis studies, because until now, it appears that no one looked.

NIDA says this is the first time researchers have expressed concern about mold or potency testing. Neither the agency nor the University of Mississippi tests samples for mold before they’re shipped.

Sisley says researchers have taken too much for granted. “There’s no telling how many subjects in past studies were exposed,” she says.

The uncertainty highlights a broader challenge in the growing field of cannabis research: there’s little consensus on what testing is appropriate or on what findings constitute a hazard.
The uncertainty highlights a broader challenge in the growing field of cannabis research: there’s little consensus on what testing is appropriate or on what findings constitute a hazard. Scientists and officials say they would love to have more guidance.

“Our biggest concern is patient safety,” says Mike Van Dyke, chief of toxicology with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, which is funding the MAPS-sponsored study on PTSD. “The lack of a federal regulatory structure makes it a huge challenge. We don’t have all the information we’d like to have.”

Mixed signals on standards

A researcher in Dr. Sue Sisley’s lab prepares to weigh a sample of marijuana received from the federal facility responsible for growing marijuana for clinical research. Photo courtesy of MAPS.
A researcher in Dr. Sue Sisley’s lab prepares to weigh a sample of marijuana received from the federal facility responsible for growing marijuana for clinical research. Photo courtesy of MAPS.

As part of the original study protocol, the marijuana that Sisley received was tested at an independent laboratory in Colorado, which found a high level of total yeast and mold (TYM) in several samples. The tests also found that the potency of some samples didn’t match what study organizers had ordered, or what it says on the certificate of analysis from the federal supplier.

One sample, billed as having a 13 percent level of THC — the main psychoactive compound in marijuana — had just 8 percent when tested at the independent facility in Colorado. Other samples were off by lesser amounts. Subsequent testing at the University of Illinois-Chicago confirmed the presence of total yeast and mold.

The Chicago tests also found all four samples contained trace amounts of lead, though well below the levels generally considered to be hazardous, at least for adults.

On the state level, testing requirements for recreational and medical marijuana vary widely. Most states require some testing for heavy metals such as lead, but not for pesticide residue. Yeast and mold testing is required in most states where cannabis is sold legally. The failure rate – frequently defined as a total mold and yeast count higher than 10,000 “colony-forming units” per gram (CFU/g) — is not officially tracked in Colorado. But state records show that approximately 7 percent of samples tested last year did not pass “microbial” standards, a category that includes bacterial contamination as well as TYM. Colorado only requires microbial testing for marijuana sold on the recreational market, not for medicinal use.

The Chicago tests found total yeast and mold (TYM) counts in Sisley and team’s samples ranging from 23,000 to 64,000 CFU/g.

NIDA says it suspects the mold problem was introduced on the receiving end, when the Colorado lab accidentally left samples in a refrigerator for two days, instead of keeping them frozen at -10 to -25 degrees Celsius, as called for by handling instructions.

But Rebecca Matthews, who oversees clinical trials for MAPS, says the elevated TYM counts were found in samples that never left the freezer before testing. In the samples that were inadvertently defrosted, TYM counts were even higher, as much as 110,000 CFU/g.

Nevertheless, Sisley and the team ultimately concluded after months of research that it was safe to proceed with the study. They began in January. In an internal memo that outlines their reasons for moving forward, they wrote that there’s no agreement on whether tests for TYM should be required, and no guidance from NIDA or the FDA.

One reason for that is a high TYM count does not always constitute a health risk, says Kevin McKernan, an entrepreneur and geneticist who is looking to improve the quality of testing in the realm of cannabis research. Certain types of fungus, notably a group of species known as aspergillus, can cause a variety of health problems when smoked, especially in people with compromised immune systems. But, many other mold varieties are considered harmless, McKernan says.

Immunocompromised patients were already excluded from Sisley’s MAPS-sponsored study.

NIDA says its own tests show THC levels closer to what was expected – in the 10 to 12 percent range, instead of the 8 percent that MAPS found. It says it’s reviewing MAPS’ results and protocols to try to understand the discrepancy. NIDA also says it tested for heavy metals before shipping the material, and found nothing above acceptable levels.

Tighter control, broader playing field

NIDA is also taking some steps to tighten oversight. In January, it announced a grant to McKernan’s two Massachusetts-based companies, Medicinal Genomics and Courtagen, to develop a DNA-based test that would identify specific types of harmful mold and bacteria in marijuana.

Beyond quality control issues, some critics say the Mississippi farm doesn’t provide researchers with enough options. For example, the potency of marijuana in NIDA’s collection tops out at 13 percent THC. That’s less than half the level in the most potent strains sold in states where the drug is legal and regularly tested.

That means “if you’re trying to do a study where you imitate what patients do in the real world, you can’t,” Sisley says.

“If you’re trying to do a study where you imitate what patients do in the real world, you can’t.” – Dr. Sue Sisley

Van Dyke echoes her concern. “It’s an important issue. The products in Colorado are different from the products produced by NIDA, and there’s untapped demand to study those products that people are really using.”

In an email to NewsHour, the agency says it’s growing new material that will likely contain higher THC levels. NIDA officials insist they’re keeping up with demand, and in 2014, increased its production and diversified the strains of marijuana it grows.

Another criticism stems from NIDA’s practice of achieving higher THC concentrations by mixing different strains together, rather than growing new plants.

In its April 2016 letter, the agency told Warren the Mississippi facility has “approximately 185” batches of cannabis, at varying concentrations of THC and CBD. Different varieties, the letter says, “may be blended to achieve specific cannabinoid concentrations of interest to researchers.”

Critics, including Sisley, say that mixing strains is a lost opportunity. Every cannabis plant contains several hundred unique compounds, which some believe may significantly alter the drug’s effects. If different plants are mixed together, scientists have a harder time tracking those effects.

Many scientists were heartened this summer when the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) announced that it would license additional bulk growers, ending NIDA’s monopoly.

According to the DEA, 16 organizations have submitted the paperwork to launch the application process, which comes with a $3,047 fee. None of those applications have been approved, however, and the agency says there is no set timeline to take action.

The delays in Sisley’s study are energizing those who say the federal government needs to speed things up.

Frustrated by her experience, Sisley is hoping to take a more hands-on approach. One of the DEA applicants is the Scottsdale Research Institute (SRI), where she is the principal investigator. SRI has submitted a proposal to grow cannabis from tissue culture rather than seedlings, a more sterile method of producing the plant.

She doesn’t mince words about the setback.

“We waited 20 months to get going, and then we got this sub-optimal study drug,” she says. “The longer we allow this monopoly to continue, the more efficacy [of the] research will continue to be thwarted.”

Source

Don't our elected officials: those in the House and the Senate and President Trump tell us that more research needs to be done. Let's tell them that the samples they have are subpar and because of the contaminants the past studies that showed negative results could be false. The more of us they hear from the better.

Sessions will crack down on recreational marijuana

From Drug Policy Alliance:

Today, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer strongly indicated that the Department of Justice will crack down on recreational marijuana programs.

When asked at a press briefing whether the federal government will take action in states that have legalized marijuana, Spicer said, “I do think you’ll see greater enforcement. The Department of Justice, I think, will be further looking into [the issue]. I believe they are going to continue to enforce the laws on the books with respect to recreational marijuana.”

Since 2012, the Obama Administration took a hands off approach to recreational marijuana. That’s about to change.

Jeff Sessions and the Trump Administration are on the wrong side of history. Almost 60% of the American people support legalizing marijuana, and support is growing.

It’s time for Congress to act and let states set their own policies. Send a message to your representatives now to support the Respect State Marijuana Laws Act of 2017.

We must fight back against the Jeff Sessions Justice Department.

It’s worth noting that thanks to the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment, which DPA and our allies helped pass in 2014, Spicer said the Justice Department will not intervene in medical marijuana states.

But that amendment does not protect the eight states with legal marijuana programs. There’s little that can be done unless we end the federal prohibition of marijuana once and for all.

Stand with us and send a message to your representatives now.

Trump seems insistent on pushing the marijuana market back underground, wiping out tax-paying jobs, and eliminating billions of dollars in taxes.

We can’t let this stand.

Sincerely,

Bill Piper
Senior Director of National Affairs
Drug Policy Alliance

A victory over the DEA and more

From Americans For Safe Access:

We are happy to announce that after months of public pressure, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has removed factually inaccurate information from its website claiming that cannabis was a gateway drug, caused irreversible cognitive decline in adults, and contributed to psychosis and lung cancer. This change comes after we filed a legal request with the Department of Justice last year demanding that the DEA immediately update and remove factually inaccurate information from their website and materials

That said, we still face major obstacles in our fight for safe and legal access to this medicine. I sent a note last week about swearing-in of former Senator Jeff Sessions as U.S. Attorney General, a strong opponent of legalizing cannabis. As the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, Jeff Sessions could cause chaos for medical patients across the country.

That’s why we need your support to help educate Jeff Sessions and other decision makers about why medical cannabis is just that – medicine. In the fifteen years since I started ASA in 2001, advocates of medical cannabis have invested greatly in this fight to move toward creating a safe federal and state environment for patients to access the medicine they need. Every year our patient advocates come to Washington D.C. for the National Medical Cannabis Unity Conference to learn about the latest in our industry and how they can help change hearts and minds about how medical cannabis is safe and essential to the health of countless patients.

Over the years, many of our patient advocates have made the difference in our efforts to educate and persuade lawmakers to support our cause. Thanks to scholarship sponsor Dr. Bronner, advocate Lisa Bean, along with fellow advocates Risa Horowitz, and Sarah Armstrong met with California Representative Julia Brownly during the 2016 Unity Conference’s lobby day on March 22, 2016. The very next day, Rep. Brownly co-sponsored the Compassionate Access, Research Expansion, and Respect States Act (CARERS)!

Our champions have provided real impact, in their states and with elected official in Washington D.C. We will continue to work to remove cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act and legalize its use in the United States, however it’s a long road ahead.

We need your support to accomplish this! Will you help the cause and participate in the 2017 Americans for Safe Access Unity Conference?

Sponsor a scholarship. Your scholarship will make the difference in supporting work to encourage and educate public officials about medical cannabis and holding down the front lines! Send people to learn how to become patient advocates in your states and many others! Contact unity2017@safeaccessnow.org for more information.

Attend the ASA conference and become an advocate yourself! Many attendees of ASA conferences have become leaders in passing medical cannabis laws in their home states! You will meet and learn from other business owners, patient advocates, and researchers invested in the fight. To learn more and register visit

Thanks for being a part of the ASA family and I hope to see you in Washington D.C. in April!

Best,

Steph Sherer
Executive Director, Americans for Safe Access

Safe Access Now

P.S. Check out my editorial on The Hill where I talk about the "discredited gateway theory."

NORML issues open letter to incoming Vice President

From The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML):

Tomorrow, Michigan NORML will release an open letter to Vice President-Elect and presidential transition Chairman Mike Pence calling upon the incoming administration to declare their intentions on federal marijuana policy. Over 50 state and local NORML chapters representing tens-of-thousands of supporters have already co-signed.
The letter, combined with National NORML's petition to President-Elect Trump, is a powerful way in which we can influence the new administration as well as leaders in Congress in order to protect the rights of those in states that have instituted legalization, decriminalization, and medicinal marijuana.

Add your name to the thousands demanding cannabis clarity from the incoming administration.
With mixed signals coming from Donald Trump and his cabinet picks, the future of cannabis law reform has never been more uncertain. At times on the campaign trail, Trump has indicated support for states rights in regards to medicinal marijuana, yet his choice of Senator Jeff Sessions for Attorney General, the man who will be the nation's prosecutor-in-chief, sends a conflicting message.

As you may know, Sessions throughout his career has been militantly opposed to marijuana law reform and would, if empowered by President Trump and Congress, will have the ability to reverse all the hard fought protections that we have achieved to protect responsible marijuana users rights and freedoms.

Join the thousands who have added their name to find out if President Trump will reverse our progress.

Only when we stand together and speak with one unified voice, clearly demanding an end to our nation's outdated and unjust marijuana prohibition, will we win.
Thank you for all that you do,
NORML Team

P.S. Did you see our email about Local 420: The Marijuana Consumers Union? Sign up to be a monthly supporter of NORML and you will get awesome NORML gear, special updates from NORML staff, and invites to policy calls with leading marijuana experts and policy makers. Sign up today!

Americans For Safe Access sue the DEA

From American For Safe Access:

Today, Americans for Safe Access (ASA) took a major step to stop the DEA’s misinformation campaign on cannabis once and for all. And as an ASA member, you helped make it happen!

ASA filed a new petition under the Information Quality Act (IQA)  on behalf of our members that could force the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to update its outdated and unscientific information about medical cannabis. If this new effort is successful, it will be a watershed moment in the effort to end the conflict between federal and state law. This important step will also mean politicians will no longer be able to use this misinformation to fight against medical cannabis.

ASA has worked with the prestigious international law firm Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe to file the petition on behalf of our 100,000 members nationwide. U.S. Department of Justice guidelines require a response to IQA petitions within 60 days of filing. That means that the Obama Administration can still act on our members’ IQA petition and instruct the DEA to grant the request before Inauguration Day on January 20th.

The IQA requires federal agencies to employ reliable and sound science when making regulations and disseminating information. It also provides a mechanism for people and companies to challenge government information they believe to be inaccurate. Business, consumer, environmental and conservation groups have all used the IQA to pursue changes in government policies. Now is our chance to use this tool to make a real difference in federal policy.

Forcing a change in federal policy towards medical cannabis before Obama leaves could make all the difference when it comes to rescheduling and changing federal law during the new Administration.
ASA cites 25 violations under the IQA, alleging that the DEA website currently contains inaccurate statements that do not meet informational standards required by the law. Making matters worse, the DEA continues to distribute statements about the efficacy of medical cannabis and its risks, which have been refuted by the DEA itself in the recent “Denial of Petition to Initiate Proceedings to Reschedule Marijuana,” issued August 12, 2016. If this petition is successful, it means that the DEA will no longer be able to use misinformation about cannabis on issues such as the gateway drug hypothesis, irreversible cognitive decline in adults, and how cannabis can be linked to psychosis or lung cancer to deny patients access to medical cannabis.

If you want to be a part of history, it is not too late to join ASA and be a part of this amazing moment. If you are already a member, you can also help by making a generous one-time donation or affordable monthly contribution to help us fight for your IQA petition – all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary. Please know, we cannot do this without you!

Now is the time to act! We need all ASA members and allies to join together and take the offensive in the effort to finally change federal medical cannabis policies. Do not miss out on this once in a lifetime opportunity to make a difference in medical cannabis policy!

We need all of our voices to be heard to get this petition approved right now or in the federal courts next year. Please contribute today to support this effort.

Thank you in advance for being a part of the IQA campaign. Together, we are getting closer and closer to our goal – safe and legal access to medical cannabis for everyone who needs it.

Regards,
Steph Sherer
Executive Director, Americans For Safe Access

For more information on the IQA petition please refer to this webpage.

P.S. – You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support the educational and legal work of Americans for Safe Access Foundation, including the IQA petition campaign, online or by mailing a check or money order to Americans for Safe Access Foundation, 1624 U Street, NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20009.

Sorry Rush

On today's Rush Limbaugh show Rush brought up a few people considered for Trump's cabinet that the leftists objected to. Amongst them was Senator Jeff Sessions. Rush pointed out that their fears about these cabinet members was unfounded. Usually the left's fears are unfounded. This time however the left is correct on this one. Recreational and medical marijuana have been approved by several states. If Jeff Sessions becomes Attorney General those rights and laws that have been severely fought for may be taken away from us by systematic raids by the DEA with the blessing of Sessions himself. We can't take that risk. We have to oppose the nomination of Jeff Sessions for Attorney General. The best way we can do that is to contact our Congressional Representative along with our Senators. Let's tell Donald Trump himself here and here.

The man behind the marijuana ban for all the wrong reasons

If you look for the roots of America’s ban on cannabis, you’ll find nearly all roads lead to a man named Harry Anslinger. He was the first commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, which laid the ground work for the modern-day DEA, and the first architect of the war on drugs.

Anslinger was appointed in 1930, just as the prohibition of alcohol was beginning to crumble (it was finally repealed in 1933), and remained in power for 32 years. Early on, he was on record essentially saying cannabis use was no big deal. He called the idea that it made people mad or violent an “absurd fallacy.”

But when Anslinger was put in charge of the FBN, he changed his position entirely.

“From the moment he took charge of the bureau, Harry was aware of the weakness of his new position. A war on narcotics alone — cocaine and heroin, outlawed in 1914 — wasn’t enough,” author Johann Hari wrote in his book, “Chasing the Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs.” “They were used only by a tiny minority, and you couldn’t keep an entire department alive on such small crumbs. He needed more.” 

Consequently, Anslinger made it his mission to rid the U.S. of all drugs — including cannabis. His influence played a major role in the introduction and passage of the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, which outlawed possessing or selling pot.

Fueled by a handful of 1920s newspaper stories about crazed or violent episodes after marijuana use, Anslinger first claimed that the drug could cause psychosis and eventually insanity. In a radio address, he stated young people are “slaves to this narcotic, continuing addiction until they deteriorate mentally, become insane, turn to violent crime and murder.” 
In particular, he latched on to the story of a young man named Victor Licata, who had hacked his family to death with an ax, supposedly while high on cannabis. It was discovered many years later, however, that Licata had a history of mental illness in his family, and there was no proof he ever used the drug.

The problem was, there was little scientific evidence that supported Anslinger’s claims. He contacted 30 scientists, according to Hari, and 29 told him cannabis was not a dangerous drug. But it was the theory of the single expert who agreed with him that he presented to the public — cannabis was an evil that should be banned — and the press ran with this sensationalized version.

Narcotics Commissioner Harry J. Anslinger announces a series of raids in the nation’s big cities aimed at crippling the narcotics traffic in New York on Jan. 4, 1958. More than 500 suspected peddlers were bagged. AP

The second component to Anslinger’s strategy was racial. He claimed that black people and Latinos were the primary users of marijuana, and it made them forget their place in the fabric of American society. He even went so far as to argue that jazz musicians were creating “Satanic” music all thanks to the influence of pot. This obsession eventually led to a sort of witch hunt against the legendary singer Billie Holiday, who struggled with heroin addiction; she lost her license to perform in New York cabarets and continued to be dogged by law enforcement until her death.

“The insanity of the racism is a thing to behold when you go into his archives,” Hari told CBS News. “He claims that cannabis promotes interracial mixing, interracial relationships.”

The word “marijuana” itself was part of this approach. What was commonly known as  cannabis until the early 1900s was instead called marihuana, a Spanish word more likely to be associated with Mexicans.

“He was able to do this because he was tapping into very deep anxieties in the culture that were not to do with drugs — and attaching them to this drug,” Hari said. Essentially, in 1930s America, it wasn’t hard to use racist rhetoric to associate the supposed harms of cannabis with minorities and immigrants. 

So as the nationwide attitude towards cannabis began to fall in line with Anslinger’s, he testified before Congress in hearings for the Marijuana Tax Act. His testimony centered around the ideas he had been pushing all along — including a provocative letter from a local newspaper editor in Colorado, saying “I wish I could show you what a small marihuana cigaret can do to one of our degenerate Spanish-speaking residents.”

All these years later, many of the threads in Anslinger’s arguments are still present in the American conversation about legalizing marijuana. The act was passed in 1937, and the rest, they say, is history.

Source

Federal medical marijuana protections *temporarily* extended.

From Marijuana Majority:

Federal medical marijuana protections *temporarily* extended. Earlier this month we told you that a federal law protecting state-legal medical marijuana patients from DEA harassment was set to expire on September 30. Congress still hasn't resolved the question of whether to extend the provision through next year, but they did just pass a temporary bill prolonging the protections until December 9.

Stay tuned for an action alert making it easy for you to pressure your representatives to keep protecting patients and providers on a longer-term basis. 

This is great. It shows we are a powerful lobby that they must take seriously. Thanks to everyone who helped us out by signing the petition.

It depends on how you look at it

The Marijuana Industry Pulls Victory From the Jaws of a DEA Defeat

Despite the DEA's failure to reschedule marijuana, the cannabis industry has plenty of positives to look forward to.

Sean Williams
(TMFUltraLong)

Aug 28, 2016 at 9:11AM

August began with plenty of promise for the marijuana industry, but those high hopes went up in smoke on Aug. 11, when the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency released its long-awaited decision on whether it would reclassify marijuana.

The DEA denies the marijuana industry a victory

For months, the marijuana industry, cannabis supporters, and medical patients had hoped that the U.S. regulatory agency, with the recommendation of the Department of Health and Human Services, would reschedule marijuana from its current status of Schedule 1 -- which deems it an illicit drug with no accepted medical use -- to Schedule 2. This would have recognized that cannabis has an accepted medical benefit, and it would have allowed physicians around the country to prescribe medical marijuana to patients with very specific ailments.

However, the decision by the DEA denied the two petitions seeking to reschedule the still-illicit drug. The DEA leaned on three points in its explanation of the decision.

First, the DEA believes marijuana has a high potential for abuse. Both the evaluation from the Department of Health and Human Services and the DEA's own observations appeared to confirm that.

Second, the DEA pointed out that cannabis has no currently accepted medical use, listing five reasons why that is. Most notably, the drug's chemistry isn't known and reproducible, and there are no well-controlled studies to back up cannabis supporters' claims that it can treat pain, epilepsy, or any other number of ailments.

Finally, the agency believes marijuana lacks an acceptable safety profile. Without any approved cannabis products, the benefits of marijuana don't appear to outweigh its risks.

For these reasons, marijuana will continue to remain a Schedule 1 drug, and approvals at the medical and recreational level will still be conducted at the state level. The ruling took the wind out of the sails of supporters.

But the marijuana industry succeeds anyway

However, it's not all bad news for the cannabis industry. The DEA's decision came with one notable caveat that will allow for easier access into medical marijuana research. Currently, the only approved grow farm in the U.S. is in Mississippi. New regulations could open the door for researchers to gain easier access to cannabis for medical research. Presumably, the sooner researchers can present a series of well-controlled studies on cannabis to the Food and Drug Administration and/or the DEA, the better chance they'll have of getting the latter to reclassify marijuana in the future.

Even more recently, on Aug. 16, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the cannabis industry by protecting legal recreational and medical marijuana users against federal prosecution. In effect, the 3-0 verdict by the federal court prevents the federal government from providing funding for the prosecution of recreational or medical marijuana users in states where recreational or medical marijuana is legal. With nine states set to vote on whether to legalize cannabis this November, millions of Americans could soon be protected from federal prosecution, according to this ruling. It should be noted that the Appeals Court could change its mind at any time. But for the time being, federal prosecutors will have better ways to spend their money than prosecuting consumers who are using marijuana in accordance with their states' laws.

There's also a bright side to the DEA's decision. Had the DEA rescheduled cannabis, the substance could have been exposed to a laundry list of FDA regulations. For example, the FDA could have placed requirements on packaging and marketing, or it could have demanded consistent levels of THC from each crop of marijuana. Even more importantly, FDA oversight may have forced the cannabis industry to run clinical trials in order to demonstrate the efficacy of the drug for treating certain ailments. These added costs could have put smaller players out of business and essentially handed the industry over to bigger businesses. Given less competition and more regulation, legal marijuana prices would likely rise rapidly.

In other words, marijuana's DEA defeat is, in many ways, a victory.

The lone loser of the DEA decision

Perhaps the biggest loser here is the individual investor looking to take advantage of the marijuana industry's incredible growth.

According to ArcView Market Research, a cannabis research firm, legal marijuana sales hit $5.4 billion in 2015, and they're slated to grow by roughly 30% per year throughout the remainder of the decade. If this trend were to continue, then legal marijuana sales would total nearly $22 billion by 2020. An investment that could grow at 30% per year for five straight years is a real rarity for stock investors, so you can imagine how closely some investors are watching the marijuana industry. Unfortunately, keeping cannabis as a Schedule 1 substance will probably keep big business from gaining substantial market share within the industry. This leaves investors little to no opportunity to profit from the growing legal marijuana market.

Making matters worse for investors is the fact that the vast majority of publicly traded marijuana stocks are penny stocks that trade on over-the-counter exchanges. While reporting standards are improving on the OTC exchanges, it can still be difficult to get accurate financial information on cannabis stocks. Nonetheless, losses remain common among marijuana stocks, and that's all the more reason to watch the advancement of the industry safely from the sidelines.

Marijuana stocks are overhyped: 10 better buys for you now

When investing geniuses David and Tom Gardner have a stock tip, it can pay to listen. After all, the newsletter they have run for over a decade, Motley Fool Stock Advisor, has nearly tripled the market.*

David and Tom just revealed what they believe are the ten best stocks for investors to buy right now... and marijuana stocks were noticeably absent! That's right -- they think these 10 stocks are better buys.

Source

The way I see it is we got jacked around. I've got something for the DEA and I would appreciate your help in sending them a message to obey the will of the people.

Tell your elected leaders to defund the DEA

Recently the DEA held a Kangaroo court of a discussion concerning rescheduling marijuana from Schedule 1,where the drugs in this category have no medicinal value although with marijuana we know that is not true,to the less restrictive Schedule 2. The DEA was lobbied by the people of the United States of America whom demanded that marijuana be rescheduled to Schedule 2. I don't know if the DEA decided to pull a fast one from the beginning or this was a recent development but they decided against rescheduling. Jesse Ventura discusses the decision by the DEA and how they fucked with us. I'm sure they got a good laugh with their little game of "let's yang their chains and see what happens." I want us to have a good laugh too. The best way we can do that is to contact our Congressperson and Senators and demand the DEA be defunded. If they want to deny people marijuana in defiance of the wishes of the people then the people do not want to pay their salaries. Why should the people pay their tormentors? The DEA,along with the rest of the federal government work for us,The People. Let's remind them of that. The more of us they hear from the better so let them know.

Remind Chuck Rosenberg that medical marijuana is not a joke

Medical marijuana petition arrives on DEA's doorstep

Marijuana Majority

Nov 18, 2015 — The DEA is about to get some visitors.

This Friday, a group of people who rely on medical marijuana are going to personally deliver printed copies of the petition you signed calling for DEA head Chuck Rosenberg to resign or be fired after he called medical cannabis a "joke."

And the news media is coming with us. Something tells us that Mr. Rosenberg is about to start taking this issue a little more seriously...

And we're now over 90,000 signatures! We're *this close* to the major milestone of 100,000. Can you help us get there?

Please take a minute right now to reach out and ask your friends and family to join you in calling for much-needed change at the DEA.

Please send this Tweet: click here

And share this Facebook post:click here

100,000 is a huge, in-your-face number that simply can't be ignored. With your help, we can get there and beyond.

And stay tuned for an update on how our petition delivery goes on Friday...

Share the petition

Make the DEA commissioner resign over medical marijuana comments

Last week, the acting chief of the Drug Enforcement Administration called medical marijuana "a joke" during a Q&A with reporters. Now, medical marijuana patients are calling for his head, with an online petition demanding his resignation attracting over 10,000 signatures on change.org.

Here's what administrator Chuck Rosenberg said about medical marijuana, via CBS News:

"What really bothers me is the notion that marijuana is also medicinal -- because it's not," Rosenberg said in a briefing to reporters. "We can have an intellectually honest debate about whether we should legalize something that is bad and dangerous, but don't call it medicine -- that is a joke."

"There are pieces of marijuana -- extracts or constituents or component parts -- that have great promise" medicinally, he said. "But if you talk about smoking the leaf of marijuana -- which is what people are talking about when they talk about medicinal marijuana -- it has never been shown to be safe or effective as a medicine."

Rosenberg's argument that smoking marijuana "has never been shown to be safe or effective as a medicine" has been contradicted by numerous studies. A meta-analysis of 79 medical marijuana studies involving 6,462 patients, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association earlier this year, found "moderate-quality evidence to support the use of cannabinoids for the treatment of chronic pain and spasticity." There was low-quality evidence suggesting marijuana had therapeutic applications for other conditions as well.

The finding that marijuana is effective at treating chronic pain is a big deal. High-caliber prescription painkillers are highly addictive and potentially deadly when misused -- they killed over 16,000 people via overdose in 2013, according to the CDC. Numerous studies have found that at the state level, the availability of medical marijuana is associated with a significant reduction of painkiller abuse rates and overdose deaths -- presumably, as patients opt to treat their pain with marijuana rather than painkillers.

Rosenberg's statements about medical marijuana aren't surprising when you consider that they comport with the official position of the DEA. The Administration considers marijuana a "Schedule 1" controlled substance, which among other things means it has "no currently accepted medical use." Most researchers reject this claim, however, with organizations including Brookings Institution, the American Medical Association, and the ACLU arguing that the current designation is inappropriate.

Given all this, marijuana advocates are furious at what they see as the DEA's dismissal of the science behind medical pot.

"My mom is a legal patient in Rhode Island, and she uses medical marijuana to deal with the severe pain she experiences from multiple sclerosis," said Tom Angell, chairman of the group Marijuana Majority, which started the petition. "Medical cannabis is no joke to my family or the millions of other American families who have seen its real benefits."

In an e-mailed statement, a DEA spokesperson sought to clarify Rosenberg's remarks. "To clarify, Acting Administrator Rosenberg indicated that marijuana should be subject to the same levels of approval and scrutiny as any other substance intended for use as a medicine. DEA supports efforts to research potential medical uses of marijuana. To this end, DEA has never denied a registration request from anyone conducting marijuana research using FDA approved protocols."

The spokesman added, "acting Administrator Rosenberg was also clear to point out there are a number of marijuana components and/or extracts which appear to show promise as medicines, but have not yet been approved as safe and effective. His comments reflected the fact that FDA has not approved any medicinal uses for smoked marijuana."

This wouldn't be the first time Rosenberg has courted controversy over marijuana during his tenure as DEA administrator. Over the summer, he said that marijuana was "probably not" as dangerous as heroin, and then one week later clarified that "heroin is clearly more dangerous than marijuana." For the record, over 8,200 people died from heroin in 2013, compared to zero known marijuana overdose deaths.

The previous DEA chief, Michele Leonhart, had a rocky relationship with the Obama administration as well -- especially when it came to drug policy issues, which she often criticized the administration on. Leonhart left her post under a cloud of scandal earlier this year, prompting cheers from drug policy reform advocates and hopes that her successor would change the DEA's tone on certain drug policy issues.

Source

Congressman introduce bills to legalize marijuana

Two congressmen filed separate House bills on Friday that together would legalize, regulate and tax marijuana at the federal level, effectively ending the U.S. government's decadeslong prohibition of the plant.

Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) introduced the Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act, which would remove marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act's schedules, transfer oversight of the substance from the Drug Enforcement Administration over to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and regulate marijuana in a way similar to how alcohol is currently regulated in the U.S.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) introduced the Marijuana Tax Revenue Act, which would set up a federal excise tax for regulated marijuana.

The bills would not force states to legalize marijuana, but a federal regulatory framework would be in place for those states that do decide to legalize it. To date, four states and the District of Columbia have legalized recreational marijuana (however, D.C.'s model continues to ban sales), 23 states have legalized marijuana for medical purposes and 11 other states have legalized the limited use of low-THC forms of marijuana for medical use.

"While President Obama and the Justice Department have allowed the will of voters in states like Colorado and 22 other jurisdictions to move forward, small business owners, medical marijuana patients, and others who follow state laws still live with the fear that a new administration -- or this one -- could reverse course and turn them into criminals," Polis said in a statement Friday. "It is time for us to replace the failed prohibition with a regulatory system that works and let states and municipalities decide for themselves if they want, or don't want, to have legal marijuana within their borders."

Despite the programs currently in place in Colorado and Washington state -- as well as those that will soon go into effect in Oregon, Alaska and D.C. -- the sale, possession, production and distribution of marijuana all remain illegal under federal law. The states that have legalized marijuana or softened penalties for possession have only been able to do so because of federal guidance urging prosecutors to refrain from targeting state-legal marijuana operations.

With marijuana legalization supported by a majority of Americans, and a new wave of states considering loosening their marijuana laws over the next several years, it seems unlikely that the federal government would push back against the popular movement. But it's not completely out of the realm of possibility.

Harvard economist Jeff Miron, a vocal supporter of marijuana policy reform, highlighted the precarious nature of state marijuana laws in a recent op-ed for CNN on why Congress needs to act now on federal marijuana policy.

"Despite the compelling case for legalization, and progress toward legalization at the state level, ultimate success is not assured," Miron wrote. "Federal law still prohibits marijuana, and existing jurisprudence (Gonzales v. Raich 2005) holds that federal law trumps state law when it comes to marijuana prohibition. So far, the federal government has mostly taken a hands-off approach to state medicalizations and legalizations, but in January 2017, the country will have a new president. That person could order the attorney general to enforce federal prohibition regardless of state law."

On Friday, Blumenauer called the federal prohibition of marijuana "a failure" that has wasted tax dollars and ruined lives. He also said it's time for the government to forge a new path ahead for the plant.

"As more states move to legalize marijuana as Oregon, Colorado, Washington and Alaska have done," Blumenauer said, "it's imperative the federal government become a full partner in building a workable and safe framework."

Source

Reschedule marijuana to Schedule 5 status

There has been talk about marijuana legalization buzzing around the net especially on yahoo. Which is good because I favor legalization. If you do too get involved in the process by writing your elected officials and getting the laws changed. There is also marijuana activist pressure on the DEA to reclassify marijuana from Schedule 1 which is defined as:

Schedule I Controlled Substances

Substances in this schedule have no currently accepted medical use in the United States, a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision, and a high potential for abuse.

Some examples of substances listed in Schedule I are: heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), peyote, methaqualone, and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine ("Ecstasy").

Clearly marijuana is not even close to heroin,LSD or meth. Too argue that they are is sheer absurdity. Like I said the goal is move marijuana to Schedule 2 which is defined as:

Schedule II/IIN Controlled Substances (2/2N)

Substances in this schedule have a high potential for abuse which may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.

Examples of Schedule II narcotics include: hydromorphone (Dilaudid®), methadone (Dolophine®), meperidine (Demerol®), oxycodone (OxyContin®, Percocet®), and fentanyl (Sublimaze®, Duragesic®). Other Schedule II narcotics include: morphine, opium, codeine, and hydrocodone.

Examples of Schedule IIN stimulants include: amphetamine (Dexedrine®, Adderall®), methamphetamine (Desoxyn®), and methylphenidate (Ritalin®).

Other Schedule II substances include: amobarbital, glutethimide, and pentobarbital.

That's not good enough. I want to reschedule marijuana to Schedule 5 which is defined as:

Schedule V Controlled Substances

Substances in this schedule have a low potential for abuse relative to substances listed in Schedule IV and consist primarily of preparations containing limited quantities of certain narcotics.

Examples of Schedule V substances include: cough preparations containing not more than 200 milligrams of codeine per 100 milliliters or per 100 grams (Robitussin AC®, Phenergan with Codeine®), and ezogabine.

Source

I believe Schedule 5 is much more realistic than Schedules 1 and 2 are. If you agree contact your Congressperson and Senators and tell them to change the laws.

Congress tells the DEA to leave marijuana dispensaries alone

Congress Tells DEA to Stand Down on Legal Marijuana

Congress passed a measure that would deny the Drug Enforcement Agency to spend federal money interfering with state approved medical marijuana businesses. Dan Riffle of the Marijuana Policy Project says the key to getting the measure passed this time was the 49 Republicans who voted in favor. Normally, Republicans see medical marijuana as a liberal issue, but now they are beginning to recognize it as a states' rights issue. California Representative Dana Rohrabacher sponsored the measure. Many California marijuana dispensaries and patients have been raided or arrested by the DEA.

Source

Nah nah nah nah nah hey hey good bye nah nah nah nah hey hey good bye.