Legal Marijuana: Why the States Are Loosening The Leash
Sam Becker
August 28, 2016
It appears we’re witnessing the marijuana industry’s transition out of the experimental phase. With only a few actual, accessible legal markets in the United States, marijuana – though attractive and promising – has been viewed with a high level of skepticism by both lawmakers and investors. There’s room for explosive growth, but also the possibility that the whole industry could be shut down overnight. But booming sales, coupled with little or no trace of negative externalities, is leading states to loosen up a bit, and let the hidden hand work its magic.
For states with planned legal marijuana markets in operation – as of right now, that’s Washington, Colorado, and Oregon (Alaska’s working on it) – the industry has been a boon. Jobs are being created, revenues are being redirected away from street dealers and to voter-approved coffers, and law enforcement agencies are freeing up resources to be used elsewhere.
Just look at the numbers: Colorado alone saw nearly $1 billion in sales in 2015. Experts are projecting the industry nationwide to top $6.8 billion this year. The industry is on fire, and as a result, regulators are easing up a bit.
Take a look at Washington state, which took a much more conservative approach to legalization than Colorado did. Washington put control of its pot laws in the hands of the state’s Liquor Control Board, whose handling has been criticized as being too slow and stringent. But now that we’re a couple of years in, the board is relaxing requirements, and issuing new business licenses to those looking to get into the industry.
Washington also relaxed its taxation policies, which ultimately increased prices of cannabis product at retail stores well-above street value. That meant that instead of going through legal channels, people would still purchase from street dealers, or through (unregulated) medical cannabis dispensaries. But again, we’re seeing the government bodies in control take a more hands-off approach, with lower taxes, and by allowing more businesses to open up.
Colorado’s more liberal approach has attracted more attention, more business, and more revenues. Washington lawmakers are recognizing that, and planning their next moves accordingly.
Washington’s legislators’ caution wasn’t completely unwarranted. From a regulator’s perspective, crafting marijuana policy is tricky. Prior to the 2012 voter-backed initiatives, no one had done it before. So putting together a plan from scratch presented a lot of challenges. Needless to say, legislators stepped lightly, putting together laws that kept the industry on a tight leash.
But we reiterate, Colorado’s laws were a bit less stringent than Washington’s, and as a result, the state saw better results. Other states, like Oregon, took note, and mirrored Colorado’s policies more so than Washington’s when making its own laws. This is ideally how things are supposed to work; it’s the idea of the 50 states acting as laboratories.
What this means for the future of the legalization movement, and for the economy as a whole, is that open, freer markets – in cannabis cultivation and trade, anyway – are clearly winning out over heavy state control. Nobody knew how the legalization “experiment” was going to work out, and the good news is that states (as we’re seeing with Washington) are adapting. Colorado keeps bringing in revenues from fees related to cannabis business licenses, and is better off for it. Washington’s catching up.
Oregon’s industry is still getting off the ground. The Oregon Liquor Control Commission is still in the process of figuring out ways of licensing legal stores, and according to Oregon Public Radio, it looks as though none of the businesses themselves will open up until late this year. Sales are still happening, though, at the state’s medical marijuana shops. Once legal shops open, that will be phased out.
Going forward, with a slew of states on top to legalize (or try to legalize) during this year’s election period, legislators will continue to watch what’s happening out west. We’re seeing states adapt and take a more hands-off approach, which is evidently working to funnel people away from black and gray markets. That’s the biggest issue – if the legal market is too difficult or expensive to access, consumers will go someplace else.
Ohio tried to push through a legalization effort that was heavily regulated – some might say it was cronyism – and the voters didn’t buy it. So, consumers are paying attention, and it seems that people favor open, hands-off approaches from the states.
If states go that route, as it seems most should, consumers, entrepreneurs, and ultimately state legislators should all come out as winners.
Source
Showing posts with label law enforcement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label law enforcement. Show all posts
Sunday, August 28, 2016
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
S.B. 443 would rein in civil asset forfeiture abuses in California
From CREDO:
Protect and serve. That’s the role police are supposed to play in our communities. Stealing from innocent Americans? Not so much.
Unfortunately, an unjust, racist policy called civil asset forfeiture encourages police in California to do just that – seize property and cash that is allegedly associated with a crime and keep the assets whether or not anyone is charged or convicted. 1 Those assets go into a “slush fund,” and can be used for almost anything, from armored cars and new technology to luxury vehicles and vacations for law enforcement officers.2 It sends the message to law enforcement: Need money? Just seize some assets.3
Here’s a true story of civil asset forfeiture in action: A taco truck owner is pulled over by the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. When questioned, he is honest about the fact that he is carrying a large sum of money from his legal business. Officers find no evidence of a crime. The man is not arrested, or even charged with a crime. Despite the fact that he has done nothing wrong, the police seize $10,000 dollars from this man. Even with a lawyer, he is never able to navigate the legal channels effectively enough to get his assets back. This happens to thousands of Californians every year, especially to people of color and people living in poverty. California police pocketed nearly $600 million from civil asset forfeiture between 2006 and 2013. Instead of a tool to undermine drug organizations, this form of state-sanctioned robbery is employed as a routine funding source.
Tell the California Legislature: Vote yes on SB 443, to help rein in civil asset forfeiture abuse by law enforcement in California.
The civil asset forfeiture laws we know today were originally designed to take down drug "kingpins," but they have morphed into what amounts to legalized theft by the police.4
The majority of people who have their possessions stolen by law enforcement never even have charges brought against them. At the federal level, 87 percent of cases where assets are seized are civil, not criminal.5 That means that the program isn’t punishing criminals or keeping them off the street, it is simply allowing police to profit off of Americans, especially people who are living in poverty or people of color.
The man who had $10,000 stolen from him was able to hire a lawyer, but was eventually advised by his attorney to drop the case because of the expense, and because what starts as asset forfeiture has been known to morph into more serious situations when challenged – like deportation investigations of undocumented people or their relatives.6 The risk that comes with fighting law enforcement, plus the incredible expense of pursuing justice through the legal system, makes communities of color and low-income communities particularly vulnerable to civil asset forfeiture.
California made changes to limit civil asset forfeiture almost 20 years ago, but police departments have found, and are exploiting, a loophole: the federal "Equitable Sharing Program."7 The state’s heavy participation in that program brings over $50 million in profit to the state every year, making California the second highest state in the country in civil asset forfeiture profits.8 SB 443 would close those loopholes and rein in civil asset forfeiture abuse by law enforcement in California.
Tell the California Legislature: Policing for profit is unacceptable. Vote yes on SB 443. Click the link to sign the petition.
Citations are on the same page you sign the petition.
Protect and serve. That’s the role police are supposed to play in our communities. Stealing from innocent Americans? Not so much.
Unfortunately, an unjust, racist policy called civil asset forfeiture encourages police in California to do just that – seize property and cash that is allegedly associated with a crime and keep the assets whether or not anyone is charged or convicted. 1 Those assets go into a “slush fund,” and can be used for almost anything, from armored cars and new technology to luxury vehicles and vacations for law enforcement officers.2 It sends the message to law enforcement: Need money? Just seize some assets.3
Here’s a true story of civil asset forfeiture in action: A taco truck owner is pulled over by the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. When questioned, he is honest about the fact that he is carrying a large sum of money from his legal business. Officers find no evidence of a crime. The man is not arrested, or even charged with a crime. Despite the fact that he has done nothing wrong, the police seize $10,000 dollars from this man. Even with a lawyer, he is never able to navigate the legal channels effectively enough to get his assets back. This happens to thousands of Californians every year, especially to people of color and people living in poverty. California police pocketed nearly $600 million from civil asset forfeiture between 2006 and 2013. Instead of a tool to undermine drug organizations, this form of state-sanctioned robbery is employed as a routine funding source.
Tell the California Legislature: Vote yes on SB 443, to help rein in civil asset forfeiture abuse by law enforcement in California.
The civil asset forfeiture laws we know today were originally designed to take down drug "kingpins," but they have morphed into what amounts to legalized theft by the police.4
The majority of people who have their possessions stolen by law enforcement never even have charges brought against them. At the federal level, 87 percent of cases where assets are seized are civil, not criminal.5 That means that the program isn’t punishing criminals or keeping them off the street, it is simply allowing police to profit off of Americans, especially people who are living in poverty or people of color.
The man who had $10,000 stolen from him was able to hire a lawyer, but was eventually advised by his attorney to drop the case because of the expense, and because what starts as asset forfeiture has been known to morph into more serious situations when challenged – like deportation investigations of undocumented people or their relatives.6 The risk that comes with fighting law enforcement, plus the incredible expense of pursuing justice through the legal system, makes communities of color and low-income communities particularly vulnerable to civil asset forfeiture.
California made changes to limit civil asset forfeiture almost 20 years ago, but police departments have found, and are exploiting, a loophole: the federal "Equitable Sharing Program."7 The state’s heavy participation in that program brings over $50 million in profit to the state every year, making California the second highest state in the country in civil asset forfeiture profits.8 SB 443 would close those loopholes and rein in civil asset forfeiture abuse by law enforcement in California.
Tell the California Legislature: Policing for profit is unacceptable. Vote yes on SB 443. Click the link to sign the petition.
Citations are on the same page you sign the petition.
Saturday, August 30, 2014
Marijuana prohibitionists getting desperate
The Anti-Marijuana Lobby Is Enlisting Scientific Mercenaries
SAM BECKER GOOGLE
AUGUST 30, 2014
It’s an age-old play that has been used in several different industries over the past several decades, and now marijuana is the new target. One incredibly popular method for garnering support against a cause is to attack the science and facts supporting it, even if it is a virtual certainty that you’d be fighting a losing battle.
According to a new report from Vice, that’s precisely what’s happening to the cannabis industry, despite the fact that marijuana has only been legalized in two states for recreational use and a handful of others for medicinal purposes. It’s been well-known for a while that there are plenty of groups with vested interests in keeping marijuana illegal, including prison guard unions, law enforcement agents and officials, private prison companies, and more. But the group Vice focuses on is the painkiller industry.
One would think at first that pharmaceutical companies would be ecstatic about marijuana prohibition finally coming to an end, as it could possibly supply them with a relatively cheap and easy resource to study and apply to their products. But as with any entrenched special interest group, they instead see it as a threat to profits.
So instead of embracing the end of prohibition, many companies have decided to pay academics to develop research that instead leads to the conclusion that marijuana is a health hazard and should remain outlawed. Vice cites the claims of Dr. Herbert Kleber of Columbia University, who has published work and has been quoted as saying that marijuana is a ‘gateway drug’, is addictive and will hurt society as a whole.
Of course, he’s also a paid consultant to several large pharmaceutical companies that manufacture painkillers, which could lose their appeal if marijuana is adopted en masse in coming years.
As with anything, marijuana does most likely pose some health risks. Smoking anything isn’t really good for your health, and there is plenty of research to be done focused on the long-term effects of cannabis use, particularly in younger people. But even with those concerns in mind, marijuana use is not even remotely close in terms of danger and damage to products like cigarettes, alcohol and yes, even prescription painkillers — all of which have been linked to thousands, if not millions of deaths per year.
Marijuana has still yet to kill anyone, although it could play a factor in things like auto accidents. But as far as overdoses? Zero.
The truth is that the ploy boy these painkiller manufacturers is tired and played out. We saw it from the cigarette companies during the 1960s and ’70s, claiming that cigarettes were harmless when they are one of the most dangerous products available. We’re seeing it today in the climate change debate, in which 98 percent of scientists have come to the conclusion that man-made climate change is a serious problem. Yet, there are still a handful of scientists (many of whom on the payroll of large, entrenched energy corporations) who feel otherwise.
Perhaps the most important question of all regarding these paid academics is relative to the worries they’re adopting in the first place. For those opposing marijuana legalization, the arguments are usually centered-around health concerns and public safety. Yet, we already have far more dangerous products available on the market, which actually do lead to increased instances of violence and crime and nobody has a problem with it.
So why would they have a problem with marijuana?
There’s always the chance that these people genuinely hold these concerns, but it has to be understood that the ties they hold to these companies compromises their opinion in many aspects, especially in the eyes of the public.
Take what the paid ‘experts’ are saying with a grain of salt. This is the same tactic we’ve seen the energy and cigarette industries use over the years, and until some concrete evidence surfaces that marijuana is indeed a public threat, there’s really no reason to think so.
After all, do we really want to keep putting people in jail to bolster the profits of pharmaceutical companies, private prison organizations, and prison guard unions?
Probably not.
Source
SAM BECKER GOOGLE
AUGUST 30, 2014
It’s an age-old play that has been used in several different industries over the past several decades, and now marijuana is the new target. One incredibly popular method for garnering support against a cause is to attack the science and facts supporting it, even if it is a virtual certainty that you’d be fighting a losing battle.
According to a new report from Vice, that’s precisely what’s happening to the cannabis industry, despite the fact that marijuana has only been legalized in two states for recreational use and a handful of others for medicinal purposes. It’s been well-known for a while that there are plenty of groups with vested interests in keeping marijuana illegal, including prison guard unions, law enforcement agents and officials, private prison companies, and more. But the group Vice focuses on is the painkiller industry.
One would think at first that pharmaceutical companies would be ecstatic about marijuana prohibition finally coming to an end, as it could possibly supply them with a relatively cheap and easy resource to study and apply to their products. But as with any entrenched special interest group, they instead see it as a threat to profits.
So instead of embracing the end of prohibition, many companies have decided to pay academics to develop research that instead leads to the conclusion that marijuana is a health hazard and should remain outlawed. Vice cites the claims of Dr. Herbert Kleber of Columbia University, who has published work and has been quoted as saying that marijuana is a ‘gateway drug’, is addictive and will hurt society as a whole.
Of course, he’s also a paid consultant to several large pharmaceutical companies that manufacture painkillers, which could lose their appeal if marijuana is adopted en masse in coming years.
As with anything, marijuana does most likely pose some health risks. Smoking anything isn’t really good for your health, and there is plenty of research to be done focused on the long-term effects of cannabis use, particularly in younger people. But even with those concerns in mind, marijuana use is not even remotely close in terms of danger and damage to products like cigarettes, alcohol and yes, even prescription painkillers — all of which have been linked to thousands, if not millions of deaths per year.
Marijuana has still yet to kill anyone, although it could play a factor in things like auto accidents. But as far as overdoses? Zero.
The truth is that the ploy boy these painkiller manufacturers is tired and played out. We saw it from the cigarette companies during the 1960s and ’70s, claiming that cigarettes were harmless when they are one of the most dangerous products available. We’re seeing it today in the climate change debate, in which 98 percent of scientists have come to the conclusion that man-made climate change is a serious problem. Yet, there are still a handful of scientists (many of whom on the payroll of large, entrenched energy corporations) who feel otherwise.
Perhaps the most important question of all regarding these paid academics is relative to the worries they’re adopting in the first place. For those opposing marijuana legalization, the arguments are usually centered-around health concerns and public safety. Yet, we already have far more dangerous products available on the market, which actually do lead to increased instances of violence and crime and nobody has a problem with it.
So why would they have a problem with marijuana?
There’s always the chance that these people genuinely hold these concerns, but it has to be understood that the ties they hold to these companies compromises their opinion in many aspects, especially in the eyes of the public.
Take what the paid ‘experts’ are saying with a grain of salt. This is the same tactic we’ve seen the energy and cigarette industries use over the years, and until some concrete evidence surfaces that marijuana is indeed a public threat, there’s really no reason to think so.
After all, do we really want to keep putting people in jail to bolster the profits of pharmaceutical companies, private prison organizations, and prison guard unions?
Probably not.
Source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
