There are a couple of things marijuana related that I want to bring up and since I do not feel like creating two posts I just combine the two on this one post. Here they are:
It’s incredible to see the progress we have made in recent years. Marijuana has been legalized for adults in nine states and Washington, D.C., and polls show two out of three Americans want to end the failed policy of prohibition.
But our opponents think they can stop our momentum — and they’re spending a lot of money to defeat Prop 1 in Michigan.
A win in Michigan would demonstrate the strength of our movement. But imagine the headlines if Prop 1 fails. Project SAM and their prohibitionist allies will claim that the tide is turning. Politicians in Congress would take note, and if they think voters are changing their mind, our reform efforts at the federal level could be jeopardized.
We have to prove the anti-legalization voices wrong. Make a donation to the YES on 1 campaign to help them fight back against their opposition’s fear tactics.
The Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol produced a series of powerful ads. These TV and digital ads tell the truth about legalization, and they are the perfect antidote to the opposition’s demonstrably false attack ads. Your contribution will go directly towards helping the campaign share these messages with more Michigan voters.
There’s not much time left. Election Day is just a few days away. I can’t emphasize enough how important Prop 1 is for the future of our legalization movement. Please, get in the fight and support the campaign today.
and this:
Attorney General Jeff Sessions may be waging a very public war against marijuana, but we have another Sessions to contend with, a much quieter one with an insidious agenda to ramp up the decades-old drug war, long ago proven to be wasteful and ineffective.
U.S. Representative Pete Sessions has been using his chairmanship of the Rules Committee to stifle popular amendments that would protect legal marijuana, refusing to bring them to the floor. This, despite a record 66% of adults in the U.S. being in favor of legalized marijuana, according to a recent Gallup poll.
This has to stop – and you can make it stop. Stand with the Drug Policy Alliance and tell Rep. Pete Sessions you won't stand for his harmful agenda to stifle drug policy reform. Sign our petition today.
Because of Rep. Sessions' actions, DPA hasn't even been able to produce our annual legislative report card to inform voters like you about elected officials' stances on marijuana reform, a resource we typically provide ahead of every election season.
Through his willful obstruction, Rep. Pete Sessions has halted reform that would help people across the board, including allowing veterans access to medical marijuana, protecting states from federal interference and expanding research into marijuana health benefits. Sign our petition now. Tell Rep. Pete Sessions his outdated, destructive drug war must end.
The election is on Tuesday. See you at the polls.
Showing posts with label marijuana prohibition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marijuana prohibition. Show all posts
Sunday, November 4, 2018
Friday, April 20, 2018
There may be hope
Like I said there may be hope. Congressman Pete Sessions (R-TX32),Chairman of the Congressional Rules Committee,has power but not absolute power. There is a way to defeat him. The following will explain it all:
The House may under certain rules remove the bill or measure from committee (known as "discharging the bill from committee") if the committee fails to report the measure to the House Rules Committee or to the full House and a negative report to the full House does not terminate the bill. The phrase that a "bill has been killed in committee" is not completely accurate as the full House always has options under the rules to remove the bill from Committee and to take action.
Source
Contact your Congressional Representative and tell them to take pro-legalization bills out of the hands of Pete Sessions. We've got to get serious about this. The more of us they hear from the better so contact them right away.
The House may under certain rules remove the bill or measure from committee (known as "discharging the bill from committee") if the committee fails to report the measure to the House Rules Committee or to the full House and a negative report to the full House does not terminate the bill. The phrase that a "bill has been killed in committee" is not completely accurate as the full House always has options under the rules to remove the bill from Committee and to take action.
Source
Contact your Congressional Representative and tell them to take pro-legalization bills out of the hands of Pete Sessions. We've got to get serious about this. The more of us they hear from the better so contact them right away.
Thursday, April 19, 2018
Kevin Sabet-Sharghi royally steps in it
Marijuana legalization is up for a vote in Illinois. Both sides are present in Illinois to lobby for or against marijuana legalization. Guess who else was out there? Our old friend Kevin Sabet-Sharghi. Leader of Smart Approaches to Marijuana aka SAM. Using the word "smart" to describe this group is like using the word "tiny" when discussing a large person. To prove it the Kev himself made the following statement:
“We think marijuana is taking cues from Big Tobacco,” Sabet said. “This is not about mom and pop stores growing weed, this is all about Wall Street and Silicon Valley, rich white guys who want to get richer off marijuana.”
“I hope we’ll have more balance in this debate, we talk about both revenue and cost, we do a comparison,” Sabet said. “We’re advocating to slow down legalization, smarter policies, more prevention, a holistic way to look at substance abuse.”
Source
2nd paragraph: IOW blah blah blah.
I don't usually take this route but it is difficult to take this guy seriously. Yes he made both a racist and sexist statement. Has anyone else brought this up? As of right now at posting time: no they haven't. I guess the anti-choice,anti-freedom types like the Kev and his cohorts have to rely on both racism and sexism to promote their cause. The more things change the more they stay the same.
“We think marijuana is taking cues from Big Tobacco,” Sabet said. “This is not about mom and pop stores growing weed, this is all about Wall Street and Silicon Valley, rich white guys who want to get richer off marijuana.”
“I hope we’ll have more balance in this debate, we talk about both revenue and cost, we do a comparison,” Sabet said. “We’re advocating to slow down legalization, smarter policies, more prevention, a holistic way to look at substance abuse.”
Source
2nd paragraph: IOW blah blah blah.
I don't usually take this route but it is difficult to take this guy seriously. Yes he made both a racist and sexist statement. Has anyone else brought this up? As of right now at posting time: no they haven't. I guess the anti-choice,anti-freedom types like the Kev and his cohorts have to rely on both racism and sexism to promote their cause. The more things change the more they stay the same.
Sunday, July 16, 2017
Jeff Sessions balks at state's rights concerning marijuana
NEW YORK — In a national vote widely viewed as a victory for conservatives, last year’s elections also yielded a win for liberals in eight states that legalized marijuana for medical or recreational use.
But the growing industry is facing a federal crackdown under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has compared cannabis to heroin.
A task force Sessions appointed to, in part, review links between violent crimes and marijuana is scheduled to release its findings by the end of the month. But he has already asked Senate leaders to roll back rules that block the Justice Department from bypassing state laws to enforce a federal ban on medical marijuana.
That has pitted the attorney general against members of Congress across the political spectrum — from Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, to Senator Cory Booker, Democrat of New Jersey, — who are determined to defend states’ rights and provide some certainty for the multibillion-dollar pot industry.
“Our attorney general is giving everyone whiplash by trying to take us back to the 1960s,” said Representative Jared Huffman, Democrat of California, whose district includes the so-called Emerald Triangle that produces much of the United States’ marijuana.
“Prosecutorial discretion is everything given the current conflict between the federal law and the law of many states,” he said in an interview last month.
In February, Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, said the Trump administration would look into enforcing federal law against recreational marijuana businesses. Some states are considering tougher stands: In Massachusetts, for example, the Legislature is trying to rewrite a law to legalize recreational marijuana that voters passed in November.
About one-fifth of Americans now live in states where marijuana is legal for adult use, according to the Brookings Institution, and an estimated 200 million live in places where medicinal marijuana is legal.
Cannabis retailing has moved from street corners to state-of-the-art dispensaries and stores, with California entrepreneurs producing rose gold vaporizers and businesses in Colorado selling infused drinks.
Sessions is backed by a minority of Americans who view cannabis as a “gateway” drug that drives social problems, such as the recent rise in opioid addiction.
“We love Jeff Sessions’s position on marijuana because he is thinking about it clearly,” said Scott Chipman, Southern California chairman for Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana.
He dismissed the idea of recreational drug use. “’Recreational’ is a bike ride, a swim, going to the beach,” he said. “Using a drug to put your brain in an altered state is not recreation. That is self-destructive behavior and escapism.”
Marijuana merchants are protected by a provision in the federal budget that prohibits the Justice Department from spending money to block state laws that allow medicinal cannabis. Under the Obama administration, the Justice Department did not interfere with state laws that legalize marijuana and instead focused on prosecuting drug cartels and the transport of pot across state lines.
In March, a group of senators that included Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, asked Sessions to stick with existing policies. Some lawmakers also want to allow banks to work with the marijuana industry and to allow tax deductions for business expenses.
Lawmakers who support legalizing marijuana contend that it leads to greater regulation, curbs the black market and stops money laundering. They point to studies showing that the war on drugs, which began under President Richard M. Nixon, had disastrous impacts on national incarceration rates and racial divides.
In a statement, Booker said the Trump administration’s crackdown against marijuana “will not make our communities safer or reduce the use of illegal drugs.”
“Instead, they will worsen an already broken system,” he said, noting that marijuana-related arrests are disproportionately high for black Americans.
Consumers spent $5.9 billion on legal cannabis in the United States last year, according to the Arcview Group, which studies and invests in the industry. That figure is expected to reach $19 billion by 2021.
A Quinnipiac University poll in February concluded that 59 percent of US voters believe cannabis should be legal. Additionally, the poll found, 71 percent say the federal government should not prosecute marijuana use in states that have legalized it.
But marijuana businesses are bracing for a possible clampdown.
“People that were sort of on the fence — a family office, a high-net-worth individual thinking of privately financing a licensed opportunity — it has swayed them to go the other way and think: not just yet,” said Randy Maslow, a founder of iAnthus Capital Holdings.
Source
But the growing industry is facing a federal crackdown under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has compared cannabis to heroin.
A task force Sessions appointed to, in part, review links between violent crimes and marijuana is scheduled to release its findings by the end of the month. But he has already asked Senate leaders to roll back rules that block the Justice Department from bypassing state laws to enforce a federal ban on medical marijuana.
That has pitted the attorney general against members of Congress across the political spectrum — from Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, to Senator Cory Booker, Democrat of New Jersey, — who are determined to defend states’ rights and provide some certainty for the multibillion-dollar pot industry.
“Our attorney general is giving everyone whiplash by trying to take us back to the 1960s,” said Representative Jared Huffman, Democrat of California, whose district includes the so-called Emerald Triangle that produces much of the United States’ marijuana.
“Prosecutorial discretion is everything given the current conflict between the federal law and the law of many states,” he said in an interview last month.
In February, Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, said the Trump administration would look into enforcing federal law against recreational marijuana businesses. Some states are considering tougher stands: In Massachusetts, for example, the Legislature is trying to rewrite a law to legalize recreational marijuana that voters passed in November.
About one-fifth of Americans now live in states where marijuana is legal for adult use, according to the Brookings Institution, and an estimated 200 million live in places where medicinal marijuana is legal.
Cannabis retailing has moved from street corners to state-of-the-art dispensaries and stores, with California entrepreneurs producing rose gold vaporizers and businesses in Colorado selling infused drinks.
Sessions is backed by a minority of Americans who view cannabis as a “gateway” drug that drives social problems, such as the recent rise in opioid addiction.
“We love Jeff Sessions’s position on marijuana because he is thinking about it clearly,” said Scott Chipman, Southern California chairman for Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana.
He dismissed the idea of recreational drug use. “’Recreational’ is a bike ride, a swim, going to the beach,” he said. “Using a drug to put your brain in an altered state is not recreation. That is self-destructive behavior and escapism.”
Marijuana merchants are protected by a provision in the federal budget that prohibits the Justice Department from spending money to block state laws that allow medicinal cannabis. Under the Obama administration, the Justice Department did not interfere with state laws that legalize marijuana and instead focused on prosecuting drug cartels and the transport of pot across state lines.
In March, a group of senators that included Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, asked Sessions to stick with existing policies. Some lawmakers also want to allow banks to work with the marijuana industry and to allow tax deductions for business expenses.
Lawmakers who support legalizing marijuana contend that it leads to greater regulation, curbs the black market and stops money laundering. They point to studies showing that the war on drugs, which began under President Richard M. Nixon, had disastrous impacts on national incarceration rates and racial divides.
In a statement, Booker said the Trump administration’s crackdown against marijuana “will not make our communities safer or reduce the use of illegal drugs.”
“Instead, they will worsen an already broken system,” he said, noting that marijuana-related arrests are disproportionately high for black Americans.
Consumers spent $5.9 billion on legal cannabis in the United States last year, according to the Arcview Group, which studies and invests in the industry. That figure is expected to reach $19 billion by 2021.
A Quinnipiac University poll in February concluded that 59 percent of US voters believe cannabis should be legal. Additionally, the poll found, 71 percent say the federal government should not prosecute marijuana use in states that have legalized it.
But marijuana businesses are bracing for a possible clampdown.
“People that were sort of on the fence — a family office, a high-net-worth individual thinking of privately financing a licensed opportunity — it has swayed them to go the other way and think: not just yet,” said Randy Maslow, a founder of iAnthus Capital Holdings.
Source
Thursday, May 18, 2017
Senator Rand Paul on the drug war
From Senator Rand Paul:
The attorney general on Friday made an unfortunate announcement that will impact the lives of millions of Americans: he issued new instructions for prosecutors to charge suspects with the most serious provable offenses, "those that carry the most substantial guidelines sentence, including mandatory minimum sentences."
Mandatory minimum sentences have unfairly and disproportionately incarcerated a generation of minorities. Eric Holder, the attorney general under President Obama, issued guidelines to U.S. Attorneys that they should refrain from seeking long sentences for nonviolent drug offenders.
I agreed with him then and still do. In fact, I'm the author of a bipartisan bill with Senator Leahy to change the law on this matter. Until we pass that bill, though, the discretion on enforcement -- and the lives of many young drug offenders -- lies with the current attorney general.
The attorney general's new guidelines, a reversal of a policy that was working, will accentuate the injustice in our criminal justice system. We should be treating our nation's drug epidemic for what it is -- a public health crisis, not an excuse to send people to prison and turn a mistake into a tragedy.
And make no mistake, the lives of many drug offenders are ruined the day they receive that long sentence the attorney general wants them to have.
If I told you that one out of three African-American males is forbidden by law from voting, you might think I was talking about Jim Crow 50 years ago.
Yet today, a third of African-American males are still prevented from voting, primarily because of the War on Drugs.
The War on Drugs has disproportionately affected young black males.
The ACLU reports that blacks are four to five times likelier to be convicted for drug possession, although surveys indicate that blacks and whites use drugs at similar rates. The majority of illegal drug users and dealers nationwide are white, but three-fourths of all people in prison for drug offenses are African American or Latino.
Why are the arrest rates so lopsided? Because it is easier to go into urban areas and make arrests than suburban areas. Arrest statistics matter when cities apply for federal grants. It doesn't take much imagination to understand that it's easier to round up, arrest, and convict poor kids than it is to convict rich kids.
The San Jose Mercury News reviewed nearly 700,000 criminal cases that were matched by crime and criminal history of the defendant. Their analysis showed that whites of similar situation were far more successful in the plea bargaining process and "virtually every stage of pretrial negotiation" than their African-American and Latino counterparts.
I know a guy about my age in Kentucky who was arrested and convicted for growing marijuana plants in his apartment closet in college.
Thirty years later, he still can't vote, can't own a gun, and, when he looks for work, he must check the box -- the box that basically says, "I'm a convicted felon, and I guess I'll always be one."
He hasn't been arrested or convicted for 30 years -- but still can't vote or have his Second Amendment rights. Getting a job is nearly impossible for him.
Mandatory sentencing automatically imposes a minimum number of years in prison for specific crimes -- usually related to drugs.
By design, mandatory sentencing laws take discretion away from judges so as to impose harsh sentences, regardless of circumstances. Our prison population, meanwhile, has increased by over 700% since the 1980s, and 90% of them are nonviolent offenders. The costs of our prison system now approach nearly $100 billion a year. It costs too much, in both the impact on people's lives and on our tax dollars.
I want to go the opposite way from the attorney general. That's why I've partnered with Senator Leahy and once again will be reintroducing the Justice Safety Valve Act.
This isn't about legalizing drugs. It is about making the punishment more fitting and not ruining more lives.
The legislation is short and simple. It amends current law to grant judges authority to impose a sentence below a statutory mandatory minimum.
In other words, we are not repealing mandatory minimums on the books -- we are merely allowing a judge to issue a sentence below a mandatory minimum if certain requirements are met.
We need this legislation because while there is an existing safety valve in current law, it is very limited. It has a strict five-part test, and only about 23% of all drug offenders qualified for the safety valve.
The injustice of mandatory minimum sentences is impossible to ignore when you hear the stories of the victims.
John Horner was a 46-year-old father of three when he sold some of his prescription painkillers to a friend.
His friend turned out to be a police informant, and he was charged with dealing drugs. Horner pleaded guilty and was later sentenced to the mandatory minimum of 25 years in jail.
As I testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Edward Clay was an 18-year-old and a first-time offender when he was caught with less than 2 ounces of cocaine. He received 10 years in jail from a mandatory minimum sentence.
Weldon Angelos was a 24-year-old who was sentenced to 55 years in prison for selling marijuana three times.
Former federal judge Timothy Lewis recalls a case where he had to send a 19-year-old to prison for 10 years for conspiracy. What was the "conspiracy"?
This young man had been in a car where drugs were found. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure one of us might have been in a car in our youth where someone might have had drugs. Before the arrest, according to news reports, this young man was going to be the first in his family to go to college.
Each case should be judged on its own merits. Mandatory minimums prevent this from happening.
Mandatory minimum sentencing has done little to address the very real problem of drug abuse while also doing great damage by destroying so many lives, and most Americans now realize it.
Proposition 47 recently passed in California, and it has spurred a cultural change in the way nonviolent drug offenders are treated, resulting in more than 13,000 fewer prisoners and a savings of $150 million, according to a Stanford Law School study.
Pew Research found that 67% of Americans want drug offenders to get treatment, not prison, and over 60% want an end to mandatory minimum sentences.
I urge the attorney general to reconsider his recent action. But even more importantly, I urge my colleagues to consider bipartisan legislation to fix this problem in the law where it should be handled. Congress can end this injustice, and I look forward to leading this fight for justice.
Source
The attorney general on Friday made an unfortunate announcement that will impact the lives of millions of Americans: he issued new instructions for prosecutors to charge suspects with the most serious provable offenses, "those that carry the most substantial guidelines sentence, including mandatory minimum sentences."
Mandatory minimum sentences have unfairly and disproportionately incarcerated a generation of minorities. Eric Holder, the attorney general under President Obama, issued guidelines to U.S. Attorneys that they should refrain from seeking long sentences for nonviolent drug offenders.
I agreed with him then and still do. In fact, I'm the author of a bipartisan bill with Senator Leahy to change the law on this matter. Until we pass that bill, though, the discretion on enforcement -- and the lives of many young drug offenders -- lies with the current attorney general.
The attorney general's new guidelines, a reversal of a policy that was working, will accentuate the injustice in our criminal justice system. We should be treating our nation's drug epidemic for what it is -- a public health crisis, not an excuse to send people to prison and turn a mistake into a tragedy.
And make no mistake, the lives of many drug offenders are ruined the day they receive that long sentence the attorney general wants them to have.
If I told you that one out of three African-American males is forbidden by law from voting, you might think I was talking about Jim Crow 50 years ago.
Yet today, a third of African-American males are still prevented from voting, primarily because of the War on Drugs.
The War on Drugs has disproportionately affected young black males.
The ACLU reports that blacks are four to five times likelier to be convicted for drug possession, although surveys indicate that blacks and whites use drugs at similar rates. The majority of illegal drug users and dealers nationwide are white, but three-fourths of all people in prison for drug offenses are African American or Latino.
Why are the arrest rates so lopsided? Because it is easier to go into urban areas and make arrests than suburban areas. Arrest statistics matter when cities apply for federal grants. It doesn't take much imagination to understand that it's easier to round up, arrest, and convict poor kids than it is to convict rich kids.
The San Jose Mercury News reviewed nearly 700,000 criminal cases that were matched by crime and criminal history of the defendant. Their analysis showed that whites of similar situation were far more successful in the plea bargaining process and "virtually every stage of pretrial negotiation" than their African-American and Latino counterparts.
I know a guy about my age in Kentucky who was arrested and convicted for growing marijuana plants in his apartment closet in college.
Thirty years later, he still can't vote, can't own a gun, and, when he looks for work, he must check the box -- the box that basically says, "I'm a convicted felon, and I guess I'll always be one."
He hasn't been arrested or convicted for 30 years -- but still can't vote or have his Second Amendment rights. Getting a job is nearly impossible for him.
Mandatory sentencing automatically imposes a minimum number of years in prison for specific crimes -- usually related to drugs.
By design, mandatory sentencing laws take discretion away from judges so as to impose harsh sentences, regardless of circumstances. Our prison population, meanwhile, has increased by over 700% since the 1980s, and 90% of them are nonviolent offenders. The costs of our prison system now approach nearly $100 billion a year. It costs too much, in both the impact on people's lives and on our tax dollars.
I want to go the opposite way from the attorney general. That's why I've partnered with Senator Leahy and once again will be reintroducing the Justice Safety Valve Act.
This isn't about legalizing drugs. It is about making the punishment more fitting and not ruining more lives.
The legislation is short and simple. It amends current law to grant judges authority to impose a sentence below a statutory mandatory minimum.
In other words, we are not repealing mandatory minimums on the books -- we are merely allowing a judge to issue a sentence below a mandatory minimum if certain requirements are met.
We need this legislation because while there is an existing safety valve in current law, it is very limited. It has a strict five-part test, and only about 23% of all drug offenders qualified for the safety valve.
The injustice of mandatory minimum sentences is impossible to ignore when you hear the stories of the victims.
John Horner was a 46-year-old father of three when he sold some of his prescription painkillers to a friend.
His friend turned out to be a police informant, and he was charged with dealing drugs. Horner pleaded guilty and was later sentenced to the mandatory minimum of 25 years in jail.
As I testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Edward Clay was an 18-year-old and a first-time offender when he was caught with less than 2 ounces of cocaine. He received 10 years in jail from a mandatory minimum sentence.
Weldon Angelos was a 24-year-old who was sentenced to 55 years in prison for selling marijuana three times.
Former federal judge Timothy Lewis recalls a case where he had to send a 19-year-old to prison for 10 years for conspiracy. What was the "conspiracy"?
This young man had been in a car where drugs were found. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure one of us might have been in a car in our youth where someone might have had drugs. Before the arrest, according to news reports, this young man was going to be the first in his family to go to college.
Each case should be judged on its own merits. Mandatory minimums prevent this from happening.
Mandatory minimum sentencing has done little to address the very real problem of drug abuse while also doing great damage by destroying so many lives, and most Americans now realize it.
Proposition 47 recently passed in California, and it has spurred a cultural change in the way nonviolent drug offenders are treated, resulting in more than 13,000 fewer prisoners and a savings of $150 million, according to a Stanford Law School study.
Pew Research found that 67% of Americans want drug offenders to get treatment, not prison, and over 60% want an end to mandatory minimum sentences.
I urge the attorney general to reconsider his recent action. But even more importantly, I urge my colleagues to consider bipartisan legislation to fix this problem in the law where it should be handled. Congress can end this injustice, and I look forward to leading this fight for justice.
Source
Friday, April 14, 2017
We have his attention
Attorney General Jeff Sessions expressed shock at the swift public backlash to his fiery rhetoric on federal marijuana policy and his opposition to legalization.
Speaking on a range of issues at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona Tuesday, Sessions addressed his opposition to further easement of marijuana laws in states across the country. He also expressed confusion over the amount of attention his comments on marijuana during his confirmation hearing received, reports AZ Central.
Sessions, a stanch opponent of legalization, is currently reviewing the Cole Memorandum, a set of guidelines established in 2013 that direct DOJ to focus marijuana enforcement efforts on violent crimes and distribution in states without legalization laws.
“When they nominated me for attorney general, you would have thought the biggest issue in America was when I said, ‘I don’t think America’s going to be a better place if they sell marijuana at every corner grocery store,'” Sessions said Tuesday, according to AZ Central. “(People) didn’t like that; I’m surprised they didn’t like that.”
Sessions also touched on illegal immigration and border protection Tuesday, reiterating his belief that a wall and bolstered enforcement will greatly cut down on the flow of illegal drugs into the U.S.
Sessions claimed in February “there’s more violence around marijuana than one would think, and there’s big money involved.” It is unclear how aggressive the administration will ultimately be on the issue, but officials in states with legalization laws are preparing for the worst.
The governors of Alaska, Colorado, Oregon and Washington, the first four states to legalize recreational marijuana, sent a letter to Sessions and Secretary of the Treasury Steve Mnuchin April 3, imploring them to leave marijuana policy to the states.
The governors say they previously opposed legal weed but argue the policy is boosting revenue and helping reduce the “inequitable incarceration” of minority groups.
Sessions and the Trump administration could cost the marijuana industry hundreds of thousands of jobs if they interfere with state pot laws. A report released in February by New Frontier Data projects that an unimpeded marijuana market will create more than 250,000 jobs by 2020. The booming projections for growth stand in stark contrast to manufacturing jobs, which are expected to crater by more than 800,000 by 2024.
Source
Thursday, March 9, 2017
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 8, 2017
5 lies about marijuana debunked
Marijuana legalization is no longer just a pipe dream; in several states, it’s become a reality. With several states all having passed voter-backed legalization initiatives, residents in three of those states are now free to engage in the purchase and consumption of marijuana and related products from licensed stores and retail locations. It’s a situation that would have been unimaginable just a decade or so ago.
But those political battles weren’t easy to win. There was plenty of pushback from those wishing to keep marijuana illegal, with concerted efforts coming from groups of all kinds. There were strategic messages put into play, warning voters of the potential harm legal pot could do to their communities.
Little, if any of what the doomsayers had to say, however, has come to fruition.
Marijuana legalization: So far, so good If we take a look at what’s happened in Washington and Colorado, and to a lesser extent Oregon (where legalization is a couple of years younger), we see that not much has really changed. These states have not sunken into the sea, or become festering centers of crime and corruption. In fact, they’re doing just fine — and rolling in dough. As it turns out, many of the warnings and concerns pushed by the anti-legalization crowd turned out to be completely wrong.
With many other states looking at ending marijuana prohibition in the near future, it’s important to take a look at which predictions were off the mark. Here are five that, so far, haven’t proven to be true.
1. Crime will increase
Worries that marijuana legalization would lead to higher crime rates have proven to be fruitless. Of course, when you take a crime and suddenly make it a legal action, you’re naturally going to see lower crime rates. But so far, in areas that have legalized marijuana, crime rates have softened up; and we don’t mean those connected to cannabis. The research is still ongoing, but preliminary reports indicate that legalization has freed up law enforcement to focus on more serious crimes. In Colorado, scientists are looking at the correlation (which doesn’t mean causation, remember) between legalization and lower rates of homicide and assault.
2. Teen use rates will skyrocket
There were some serious fears that legalization would more or less give teenagers the green light to engage in marijuana use. Interestingly enough, there has been an opposite trend — teens in legal states have actually been using pot at lower rates. This could always change, however. It’s likely the case that teens who wanted to use marijuana already were, and that legalization did little to change their behaviors. But we’ll have to keep an eye out for changes.
3. Public health will suffer
Another concern among the pro-prohibition crowd was that widespread legalization would lead to significant public health problems. That’s not been the case, at least not that anyone can measure. If anything, more marijuana has led to better outcomes, as cannabis tends to be a much safer alternative to alcohol, tobacco, and hard drugs. Again, this is another area that will require some additional monitoring and research. But at this point, there hasn’t been much evidence to back up public health concerns.
4. The roads will be more dangerous
People driving under the influence was, and still is, a major concern for those opposing legalization. While there likely are plenty of people who drive high (both in legal states, and those where pot is still illegal), no one should get behind the wheel if they’re under the influence. Police are still trying to develop next-level technology to deal with the problem, but if we look at the numbers, it doesn’t appear that the roads are any more dangerous than they were before prohibition was lifted in legal states.
5. Enforcement costs will spike
There were worries that regulating and keeping tabs on budding marijuana industries would actually end up costing taxpayers more than it did to keep the drug illegal. New systems and rules would need to be devised and implemented, and police would need to be retrained for dealing with the new rules. All of that takes money.
But not more than prohibition cost — which has been estimated at up to $20 billion annually. There was even a case that reached the Supreme Court (and was promptly thrown out) that involved two states suing Colorado for increased enforcement costs along the border. But the truth is, law enforcement costs fall when a black market is no longer around to enforce, and this ends up saving the public gobs of money.
Source
This is very telling. Let's not keep this to ourselves let's share this with our elected officials (House and Senate along with President Trump. The more of us they hear from the better.
But those political battles weren’t easy to win. There was plenty of pushback from those wishing to keep marijuana illegal, with concerted efforts coming from groups of all kinds. There were strategic messages put into play, warning voters of the potential harm legal pot could do to their communities.
Little, if any of what the doomsayers had to say, however, has come to fruition.
Marijuana legalization: So far, so good If we take a look at what’s happened in Washington and Colorado, and to a lesser extent Oregon (where legalization is a couple of years younger), we see that not much has really changed. These states have not sunken into the sea, or become festering centers of crime and corruption. In fact, they’re doing just fine — and rolling in dough. As it turns out, many of the warnings and concerns pushed by the anti-legalization crowd turned out to be completely wrong.
With many other states looking at ending marijuana prohibition in the near future, it’s important to take a look at which predictions were off the mark. Here are five that, so far, haven’t proven to be true.
1. Crime will increase
Worries that marijuana legalization would lead to higher crime rates have proven to be fruitless. Of course, when you take a crime and suddenly make it a legal action, you’re naturally going to see lower crime rates. But so far, in areas that have legalized marijuana, crime rates have softened up; and we don’t mean those connected to cannabis. The research is still ongoing, but preliminary reports indicate that legalization has freed up law enforcement to focus on more serious crimes. In Colorado, scientists are looking at the correlation (which doesn’t mean causation, remember) between legalization and lower rates of homicide and assault.
2. Teen use rates will skyrocket
There were some serious fears that legalization would more or less give teenagers the green light to engage in marijuana use. Interestingly enough, there has been an opposite trend — teens in legal states have actually been using pot at lower rates. This could always change, however. It’s likely the case that teens who wanted to use marijuana already were, and that legalization did little to change their behaviors. But we’ll have to keep an eye out for changes.
3. Public health will suffer
Another concern among the pro-prohibition crowd was that widespread legalization would lead to significant public health problems. That’s not been the case, at least not that anyone can measure. If anything, more marijuana has led to better outcomes, as cannabis tends to be a much safer alternative to alcohol, tobacco, and hard drugs. Again, this is another area that will require some additional monitoring and research. But at this point, there hasn’t been much evidence to back up public health concerns.
4. The roads will be more dangerous
People driving under the influence was, and still is, a major concern for those opposing legalization. While there likely are plenty of people who drive high (both in legal states, and those where pot is still illegal), no one should get behind the wheel if they’re under the influence. Police are still trying to develop next-level technology to deal with the problem, but if we look at the numbers, it doesn’t appear that the roads are any more dangerous than they were before prohibition was lifted in legal states.
5. Enforcement costs will spike
There were worries that regulating and keeping tabs on budding marijuana industries would actually end up costing taxpayers more than it did to keep the drug illegal. New systems and rules would need to be devised and implemented, and police would need to be retrained for dealing with the new rules. All of that takes money.
But not more than prohibition cost — which has been estimated at up to $20 billion annually. There was even a case that reached the Supreme Court (and was promptly thrown out) that involved two states suing Colorado for increased enforcement costs along the border. But the truth is, law enforcement costs fall when a black market is no longer around to enforce, and this ends up saving the public gobs of money.
Source
This is very telling. Let's not keep this to ourselves let's share this with our elected officials (House and Senate along with President Trump. The more of us they hear from the better.
Saturday, March 4, 2017
Thursday, March 2, 2017
Senators urge Sessions not to crack down on marijuana
With the Trump administration suddenly sending what appear to be mixed signals on marijuana, a group of senators — mostly Democrats — are urging the new White House not to crack down on legal weed.
In a letter delivered to Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Thursday, Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, asked the Department of Justice to uphold the Obama administration’s policy allowing individual states to determine their own pot laws.
“We respectfully request that you uphold DOJ’s existing policy regarding states that have implemented strong and effective regulations for recreational marijuana use,” the senators wrote in the letter. “It is critical that states continue to implement these laws.”
The letter was cosigned by Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J.; Patty Murray, D-Wash.; Maria Cantwell, D-Wash.; Ron Wyden, D-Ore.; Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.; Ed Markey, D-Mass.; Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii; Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev.; and Michael Bennet, D-Colo. — all Democrats and most from states where marijuana is legal.
It comes less than a week after White House press secretary Sean Spicer suggested that the administration may press for “greater enforcement” of federal pot laws.
“There’s a big difference between [medical marijuana] and recreational marijuana, and I think when you see something like the opioid addiction crisis blossoming in so many states around this country, the last thing we should be doing is encouraging people,” Spicer said Thursday. “There is still a federal law that we need to abide by in terms of recreational marijuana and other drugs of that nature.”
Spicer referred a reporter who asked about increased enforcement around recreational marijuana to the Department of Justice. But he added, “I do believe that you’ll see greater enforcement of it.”
The statement sent a shock wave through the United States’ budding marijuana industry, which some analysts estimate could grow into a $24.5 billion business by 2025.
Under President Barack Obama, the Department of Justice left the enforcement of federal marijuana laws up to the states, allowing places like Colorado, Washington and Oregon to experiment with cannabis regulation. In an interview with the New Yorker published in early 2014, Obama famously said that he viewed marijuana as “a bad habit and a vice” but no more dangerous than alcohol.
“As has been well documented, I smoked pot as a kid, and I view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life,” Obama said. “I don’t think it is more dangerous than alcohol.”
According to a recent Quinnipiac poll, 71 percent of Americans said they would oppose a federal crackdown on legal marijuana.
Before he was confirmed as attorney general, Sessions had told some members of the Senate that he would respect state laws and not change federal policy.
But earlier this week, Sessions told reporters that the Obama-era pot policy is under review.
“I’m definitely not a fan of expanded use of marijuana,” Sessions said, according to Politico. “States, they can pass the laws they choose. I would just say it does remain a violation of federal law to distribute marijuana throughout any place in the United States, whether a state legalizes it or not.”
Some lawmakers aren’t waiting around to find out whether a cannabis crackdown is coming.
Last week, a bipartisan bill was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives (“Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2017”) that would take marijuana off the federal controlled substances list — putting pot on par with alcohol and tobacco.
And in California, a bill introduced in the state Assembly would prevent state and local law enforcement agencies from using their resources to help federal authorities crack down on marijuana.
Source
Letter to Jeff Sessions requesting he back off raiding dispensaries
In a letter delivered to Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Thursday, Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, asked the Department of Justice to uphold the Obama administration’s policy allowing individual states to determine their own pot laws.
“We respectfully request that you uphold DOJ’s existing policy regarding states that have implemented strong and effective regulations for recreational marijuana use,” the senators wrote in the letter. “It is critical that states continue to implement these laws.”
The letter was cosigned by Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J.; Patty Murray, D-Wash.; Maria Cantwell, D-Wash.; Ron Wyden, D-Ore.; Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.; Ed Markey, D-Mass.; Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii; Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev.; and Michael Bennet, D-Colo. — all Democrats and most from states where marijuana is legal.
It comes less than a week after White House press secretary Sean Spicer suggested that the administration may press for “greater enforcement” of federal pot laws.
“There’s a big difference between [medical marijuana] and recreational marijuana, and I think when you see something like the opioid addiction crisis blossoming in so many states around this country, the last thing we should be doing is encouraging people,” Spicer said Thursday. “There is still a federal law that we need to abide by in terms of recreational marijuana and other drugs of that nature.”
Spicer referred a reporter who asked about increased enforcement around recreational marijuana to the Department of Justice. But he added, “I do believe that you’ll see greater enforcement of it.”
The statement sent a shock wave through the United States’ budding marijuana industry, which some analysts estimate could grow into a $24.5 billion business by 2025.
Under President Barack Obama, the Department of Justice left the enforcement of federal marijuana laws up to the states, allowing places like Colorado, Washington and Oregon to experiment with cannabis regulation. In an interview with the New Yorker published in early 2014, Obama famously said that he viewed marijuana as “a bad habit and a vice” but no more dangerous than alcohol.
“As has been well documented, I smoked pot as a kid, and I view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life,” Obama said. “I don’t think it is more dangerous than alcohol.”
According to a recent Quinnipiac poll, 71 percent of Americans said they would oppose a federal crackdown on legal marijuana.
Before he was confirmed as attorney general, Sessions had told some members of the Senate that he would respect state laws and not change federal policy.
But earlier this week, Sessions told reporters that the Obama-era pot policy is under review.
“I’m definitely not a fan of expanded use of marijuana,” Sessions said, according to Politico. “States, they can pass the laws they choose. I would just say it does remain a violation of federal law to distribute marijuana throughout any place in the United States, whether a state legalizes it or not.”
Some lawmakers aren’t waiting around to find out whether a cannabis crackdown is coming.
Last week, a bipartisan bill was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives (“Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2017”) that would take marijuana off the federal controlled substances list — putting pot on par with alcohol and tobacco.
And in California, a bill introduced in the state Assembly would prevent state and local law enforcement agencies from using their resources to help federal authorities crack down on marijuana.
Source
Letter to Jeff Sessions requesting he back off raiding dispensaries
Monday, February 27, 2017
Trump’s Proposed Pot Crackdown Is Out Of Step With Voters, Including Many Republicans
The Republican Party controls the legislative and executive branch for the first time since the 109th Congress. Understandably, leadership is anxious to push forward an agenda that comports with longstanding conservative principles of limited government as well as with the President’s populist rhetoric. Advocating for marijuana policy reform ought to be part of this federal agenda. Here’s why.
The election of Donald J. Trump was not the only politically significant victory on Election Day. Somewhat lost in the media frenzy was that millions of voters went chose to put an end to America’s nearly century long experiment with cannabis criminalization.
Majorities of voters in eight states decided in favor of initiatives to permit the use of marijuana by either adults or by qualified patients, and to regulate those markets accordingly. Voters’ support for reform was essentially non-partisan. Blue states like California, Massachusetts, Maine, and Nevada voted in favor of legalization, as did red states like Arkansas, Florida, Montana, and North Dakota.
To those of us who have worked on this issue for some time, these results were hardly surprising. Outside of the Beltway, Americans’ support for enacting regulatory alternatives to pot prohibition is uniquely bipartisan. According to the latest national polling by Gallup, six out of ten Americans believe that the adult use of marijuana “should be made legal.” By party, Gallup pollsters found that legalization was most likely to be favored by Independents and Democrats, but also that support among Republicans had more than doubled over the past decade.
Support among Republicans for legalizing medical marijuana is even higher, with 85 percent of GOP voters endorsing its therapeutic use, according to nationwide survey data released this week by Quinnipiac University. But perhaps most strikingly, Quinnipiac pollsters also reported that nearly three-quarters of voters – including majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents – “oppose the government enforcing federal laws against marijuana in states that have already legalized medical or recreational marijuana.”
Nonetheless, the Trump administration appears to be planning on doing just that. In fact, on the same day that Quinnipiac released its latest survey data, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer indicated that the Justice Department was intending to pursue the “greater enforcement” of federal anti-marijuana laws in the eight states that now regulate its adult use.
Such a move by the federal government would be a stark departure from the position of the prior administration, which largely let these voter-initiated laws move forward unfettered. It also represents an about-face in Trump’s own position, as he previously said that he would not use federal authority to target adult use laws. For instance, while campaigning in Colorado in August, Trump responded to the question “[Do] you think Colorado should be able to do what it’s doing?” by stating, “I think it’s up to the states, yeah. I’m a states person. I think it should be up to the states, absolutely.”
And so it should be. According to a 2016 report by the CATO think-tank, these adult use regulatory schemes are working largely as voters intended. They are not associated with increased marijuana use among young people, or rising rates of crime or accidents in the workplace. “The absence of significant adverse consequences is especially striking given the sometimes dire predictions made by legalization opponents,” the report’s authors concluded. Further, tax revenue derived from the regulated markets now exceeds initial expectations.
Rather than picking an unnecessary fight with the majority of American voters, including a significant portion of Trump’s own base, the administration should consider embracing common sense marijuana law reforms. Endorsing bipartisan legislation, HR 975: The Respect State Marijuana Laws Act,” would be a good place to start. In accordance with the electorate’s wishes, passage of the act would prevent the federal government from criminally prosecuting individuals or businesses that are engaging in state-sanctioned activities specific to the possession, use, production, and distribution of marijuana.
Despite more than 70 years of federal marijuana prohibition, Americans’ consumption of and demand for cannabis is here to stay. It is time for politicians to acknowledge this reality and amend federal marijuana laws in a manner that comports with majority public opinion and the plant’s rapidly changing legal and cultural status. The Trump administration has the opportunity to take the lead on this issue. It would be an enormous political misstep for them to do otherwise.
Source
The election of Donald J. Trump was not the only politically significant victory on Election Day. Somewhat lost in the media frenzy was that millions of voters went chose to put an end to America’s nearly century long experiment with cannabis criminalization.
Majorities of voters in eight states decided in favor of initiatives to permit the use of marijuana by either adults or by qualified patients, and to regulate those markets accordingly. Voters’ support for reform was essentially non-partisan. Blue states like California, Massachusetts, Maine, and Nevada voted in favor of legalization, as did red states like Arkansas, Florida, Montana, and North Dakota.
To those of us who have worked on this issue for some time, these results were hardly surprising. Outside of the Beltway, Americans’ support for enacting regulatory alternatives to pot prohibition is uniquely bipartisan. According to the latest national polling by Gallup, six out of ten Americans believe that the adult use of marijuana “should be made legal.” By party, Gallup pollsters found that legalization was most likely to be favored by Independents and Democrats, but also that support among Republicans had more than doubled over the past decade.
Support among Republicans for legalizing medical marijuana is even higher, with 85 percent of GOP voters endorsing its therapeutic use, according to nationwide survey data released this week by Quinnipiac University. But perhaps most strikingly, Quinnipiac pollsters also reported that nearly three-quarters of voters – including majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents – “oppose the government enforcing federal laws against marijuana in states that have already legalized medical or recreational marijuana.”
Nonetheless, the Trump administration appears to be planning on doing just that. In fact, on the same day that Quinnipiac released its latest survey data, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer indicated that the Justice Department was intending to pursue the “greater enforcement” of federal anti-marijuana laws in the eight states that now regulate its adult use.
Such a move by the federal government would be a stark departure from the position of the prior administration, which largely let these voter-initiated laws move forward unfettered. It also represents an about-face in Trump’s own position, as he previously said that he would not use federal authority to target adult use laws. For instance, while campaigning in Colorado in August, Trump responded to the question “[Do] you think Colorado should be able to do what it’s doing?” by stating, “I think it’s up to the states, yeah. I’m a states person. I think it should be up to the states, absolutely.”
And so it should be. According to a 2016 report by the CATO think-tank, these adult use regulatory schemes are working largely as voters intended. They are not associated with increased marijuana use among young people, or rising rates of crime or accidents in the workplace. “The absence of significant adverse consequences is especially striking given the sometimes dire predictions made by legalization opponents,” the report’s authors concluded. Further, tax revenue derived from the regulated markets now exceeds initial expectations.
Rather than picking an unnecessary fight with the majority of American voters, including a significant portion of Trump’s own base, the administration should consider embracing common sense marijuana law reforms. Endorsing bipartisan legislation, HR 975: The Respect State Marijuana Laws Act,” would be a good place to start. In accordance with the electorate’s wishes, passage of the act would prevent the federal government from criminally prosecuting individuals or businesses that are engaging in state-sanctioned activities specific to the possession, use, production, and distribution of marijuana.
Despite more than 70 years of federal marijuana prohibition, Americans’ consumption of and demand for cannabis is here to stay. It is time for politicians to acknowledge this reality and amend federal marijuana laws in a manner that comports with majority public opinion and the plant’s rapidly changing legal and cultural status. The Trump administration has the opportunity to take the lead on this issue. It would be an enormous political misstep for them to do otherwise.
Source
Saturday, February 25, 2017
5 Things Donald Trump Should Know Before He Shuts Down The Legal Marijuana Industry
Marijuana, like alcohol, can regulated, taxed and used in moderation by adults who choose it, like a glass of wine with dinner. The burgeoning legal cannabis industry wants Donald Trump to know five critical benefits to marijuana legalization.
1. Law and Order: Legalizing marijuana reduces the criminal activity of drug cartels and gangs, and reduces court, prison and police spending.
2. Public Health: Marijuana is safer in states where it has been legalized because it is tested, appropriately labeled, and packaged in child-proof containers.
3. Reduced Addiction: Marijuana is not a gateway to opiate use, it is an Off-ramp. Many prefer switching to marijuana for pain relief because it has fewer side effects than opioids and is not addictive. Marijuana is NOT a killer – it does not bind to respiratory cells, so an overdose does not stop a person from breathing. Opioids do bind to respiratory cells and overdoses do kill.
4. Fiscal Health: Taxing marijuana already produces hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue.
5. Job Creation: More than 100,000 have been employed so far. In Washington State, cannabis is now the 3rd largest cash crop.
Entrepreneurs in the legal marijuana industry believe that the plant should be taken off the federal schedule 1 (most harmful) list of substances, or at least continue to leave the issue of legalization up to each state. Recent statements by the Trump administration indicate that will not happen. Here, executives in the industry share their experiences and advice for the President and his advisors:
Isaac Dietrich, CEO of MassRoots: Colorado is one of the only states in the nation that is seeing a decline in opioid deaths — that’s not a coincidence. Cannabis is a healthy alternative to pain pills and heroin, not a gateway to it.
Derek Peterson, CEO of Terra Tech: “We have hoped and still hope that the federal government will respect states’ rights in the same manner they have on several other issues. We hope the new administration really takes the time to understand that the money is either going into the states’ coffers or making its way to drug cartels.”
Danny Davis, Convectium, Managing Partner: Many of the states who helped elect President Trump just voted to also support recreational marijuana; it is hard to imagine that he would push an agenda with the support ratings where they are.”
Christie Strong, Marketing Communications Manager of Kiva Confections: “Over 60% of Americans supports cannabis legalization. It is one of the few bi-partisan issues that actually has the potential to unite us right now.”
Jeffrey Zucker, President of Green Lion Partners: “I hope that the administration takes the time to truly immerse and educate themselves on cannabis before making any destructive decisions. The incredibly positive medical, social, and economic impact cannabis legalization has had on regulated states is undeniable. The cannabis industry will fight any pressure from the federal government to set back the significant progress that’s been made thus far.
Source
Let's tell the President about this article. You can email him or send him a tweet or both. I wouldn't stop there. Also let your Congressperson and Senators know as well. The more of us they hear from the better.
1. Law and Order: Legalizing marijuana reduces the criminal activity of drug cartels and gangs, and reduces court, prison and police spending.
2. Public Health: Marijuana is safer in states where it has been legalized because it is tested, appropriately labeled, and packaged in child-proof containers.
3. Reduced Addiction: Marijuana is not a gateway to opiate use, it is an Off-ramp. Many prefer switching to marijuana for pain relief because it has fewer side effects than opioids and is not addictive. Marijuana is NOT a killer – it does not bind to respiratory cells, so an overdose does not stop a person from breathing. Opioids do bind to respiratory cells and overdoses do kill.
4. Fiscal Health: Taxing marijuana already produces hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue.
5. Job Creation: More than 100,000 have been employed so far. In Washington State, cannabis is now the 3rd largest cash crop.
Entrepreneurs in the legal marijuana industry believe that the plant should be taken off the federal schedule 1 (most harmful) list of substances, or at least continue to leave the issue of legalization up to each state. Recent statements by the Trump administration indicate that will not happen. Here, executives in the industry share their experiences and advice for the President and his advisors:
Isaac Dietrich, CEO of MassRoots: Colorado is one of the only states in the nation that is seeing a decline in opioid deaths — that’s not a coincidence. Cannabis is a healthy alternative to pain pills and heroin, not a gateway to it.
Derek Peterson, CEO of Terra Tech: “We have hoped and still hope that the federal government will respect states’ rights in the same manner they have on several other issues. We hope the new administration really takes the time to understand that the money is either going into the states’ coffers or making its way to drug cartels.”
Danny Davis, Convectium, Managing Partner: Many of the states who helped elect President Trump just voted to also support recreational marijuana; it is hard to imagine that he would push an agenda with the support ratings where they are.”
Christie Strong, Marketing Communications Manager of Kiva Confections: “Over 60% of Americans supports cannabis legalization. It is one of the few bi-partisan issues that actually has the potential to unite us right now.”
Jeffrey Zucker, President of Green Lion Partners: “I hope that the administration takes the time to truly immerse and educate themselves on cannabis before making any destructive decisions. The incredibly positive medical, social, and economic impact cannabis legalization has had on regulated states is undeniable. The cannabis industry will fight any pressure from the federal government to set back the significant progress that’s been made thus far.
Source
Let's tell the President about this article. You can email him or send him a tweet or both. I wouldn't stop there. Also let your Congressperson and Senators know as well. The more of us they hear from the better.
Monday, January 30, 2017
Jeff Sessions has convenient amnesia
Before the Senate Judiciary Committee votes on Jeff Sessions’ nomination to be attorney general, senators should demand an explanation for the sudden bout of amnesia he had at his nomination hearing earlier this month.
When Sen. Patrick Leahy asked him about his past support for imposing mandatory death sentences on people twice convicted of dealing marijuana, Sessions smiled and claimed to have a foggy memory.
“Well, I’m not sure under what circumstances I said that,” he told the committee.
Perhaps this will refresh Sessions’ memory:
In 1996, when serving as Alabama’s attorney general, he promoted H.B. 242, S.B. 291, a state bill to establish mandatory death sentences for a second drug trafficking conviction, including for dealing marijuana. His support for the bill was reported at the time by several local newspapers, as well as The Alabama Lawyer, the Alabama State Bar’s official publication. The Alabama Lawyer described the bill as part of a legislative package that Sessions and then-Governor Fob James proposed to “fix a broken system.”
On Feb. 29, 1996, for example, The Huntsville Times reported that the proposed package of bills to fight crime by “ending parole, eliminating part of the appeals in death penalty cases, and executing people twice convicted of being drug kingpins” had drawn “praise from Attorney General Jeff Sessions.”
The drug bill was advertised as targeting “kingpins,” but to qualify for execution, the defendant merely needed to lead a group of five people and make the minimum wage in drug proceeds. Alabama’s minimum wage was US$4.25 per hour in 1996.
We teach and study death penalty law, but you didn’t need to be an expert to know that the bill to execute drug dealers would “never pass constitutional muster,” as The Huntsville Times then reported. That’s because by 1987, the Supreme Court had completely banned mandatory death sentences. The court ruled that the individual circumstances of the crime and defendant must always be considered. Furthermore, in 1977, the high court had held that even in cases of rape, the death penalty is “grossly disproportionate,” “excessive” and therefore unconstitutional.
Despite Sessions’ support, the Alabama bill never passed. Presumably, the Alabama legislature had a better understanding of wise policy and the Constitution than their attorney general did.
Making a broken system worse
At his nomination hearing, Sessions said that he currently does not support mandatory executions for drug trafficking. But the fact that he once supported it in direct violation of established constitutional law is deeply troubling, especially in light of his direct knowledge, as Alabama attorney general, of the prosecutorial misconduct, racial bias and systematically weak defense lawyering that permeated the state’s capital system. As the state’s top attorney between 1995 and 1997, Sessions sought to uphold more than 40 death sentences, even in the most questionable circumstances.
For example, Sessions knew that during trial, prosecutors had hidden DNA-related evidence from Larry Padgett that pointed to his innocence. Yet Sessions still tried to convince the Alabama Supreme Court to uphold Padgett’s death sentence. Thankfully, Sessions was unable to persuade Alabama’s highest court. Padgett was exonerated at his second trial.
Sessions also worked to uphold the death penalty against defendants who’d received grossly inadequate legal representation, such as Jimmy Lee Dill. At the guilt phase of Dill’s trial, his lawyers didn’t call a single witness. They thus failed to present evidence that the victim died due to improper medical care, more than nine months after Dill shot him during a drug deal gone awry. The attorneys also failed to submit mitigating evidence at sentencing, telling the judge that “we were just blank on submitting it.” Had they tried harder, the attorneys would have found powerful mitigating evidence: Dill was intellectually disabled and had been sexually abused as a child, according to Bryan Stevenson, the renowned public interest lawyer who took on his case a month before he was executed in 2009.
Dill was represented at trial by court-appointed lawyers whose compensation for out-of-court preparation was capped at $1,000 by Alabama law. This is very low pay given the time-intensive nature of capital defense work. A study of federal capital trials in the 1990s found that defense attorneys spent an average of 1,480 out-of-court hours preparing death penalty cases.
As Alabama attorney general, Sessions could have sought reforms to address the glaring flaws in his state’s capital system. Instead, he chose to promote policies such as executing small-time drug dealers, and reducing death penalty appeals in a state where judges were already overriding jury decisions against the death penalty.
Sessions’ purported forgetfulness at his nomination hearing can be explained in two ways.
One explanation is that he lied under oath and actually remembered supporting the bill. Indeed, Sessions also may have been reminded by a New York Times op-ed we published the day before his hearing, which highlighted his support for the bill.
Alternatively, President Trump’s pick for attorney general really did forget promoting the legislation. This possible explanation is perhaps more frightening: that Sessions couldn’t recall advocating to kill drug dealers would suggest that he didn’t give much thought to backing such an extreme and unlawful policy.
At the end of the day, we need an attorney general who is trustworthy, understands the demands of the Constitution and respects them, and has good judgment on criminal justice enforcement policy. The record of Jeff Sessions as Alabama’s attorney general and his current evasiveness about his prior support for a mandatory death penalty for marijuana dealers raises concerns on all these grounds.
Source
When Sen. Patrick Leahy asked him about his past support for imposing mandatory death sentences on people twice convicted of dealing marijuana, Sessions smiled and claimed to have a foggy memory.
“Well, I’m not sure under what circumstances I said that,” he told the committee.
Perhaps this will refresh Sessions’ memory:
In 1996, when serving as Alabama’s attorney general, he promoted H.B. 242, S.B. 291, a state bill to establish mandatory death sentences for a second drug trafficking conviction, including for dealing marijuana. His support for the bill was reported at the time by several local newspapers, as well as The Alabama Lawyer, the Alabama State Bar’s official publication. The Alabama Lawyer described the bill as part of a legislative package that Sessions and then-Governor Fob James proposed to “fix a broken system.”
On Feb. 29, 1996, for example, The Huntsville Times reported that the proposed package of bills to fight crime by “ending parole, eliminating part of the appeals in death penalty cases, and executing people twice convicted of being drug kingpins” had drawn “praise from Attorney General Jeff Sessions.”
The drug bill was advertised as targeting “kingpins,” but to qualify for execution, the defendant merely needed to lead a group of five people and make the minimum wage in drug proceeds. Alabama’s minimum wage was US$4.25 per hour in 1996.
We teach and study death penalty law, but you didn’t need to be an expert to know that the bill to execute drug dealers would “never pass constitutional muster,” as The Huntsville Times then reported. That’s because by 1987, the Supreme Court had completely banned mandatory death sentences. The court ruled that the individual circumstances of the crime and defendant must always be considered. Furthermore, in 1977, the high court had held that even in cases of rape, the death penalty is “grossly disproportionate,” “excessive” and therefore unconstitutional.
Despite Sessions’ support, the Alabama bill never passed. Presumably, the Alabama legislature had a better understanding of wise policy and the Constitution than their attorney general did.
Making a broken system worse
At his nomination hearing, Sessions said that he currently does not support mandatory executions for drug trafficking. But the fact that he once supported it in direct violation of established constitutional law is deeply troubling, especially in light of his direct knowledge, as Alabama attorney general, of the prosecutorial misconduct, racial bias and systematically weak defense lawyering that permeated the state’s capital system. As the state’s top attorney between 1995 and 1997, Sessions sought to uphold more than 40 death sentences, even in the most questionable circumstances.
For example, Sessions knew that during trial, prosecutors had hidden DNA-related evidence from Larry Padgett that pointed to his innocence. Yet Sessions still tried to convince the Alabama Supreme Court to uphold Padgett’s death sentence. Thankfully, Sessions was unable to persuade Alabama’s highest court. Padgett was exonerated at his second trial.
Sessions also worked to uphold the death penalty against defendants who’d received grossly inadequate legal representation, such as Jimmy Lee Dill. At the guilt phase of Dill’s trial, his lawyers didn’t call a single witness. They thus failed to present evidence that the victim died due to improper medical care, more than nine months after Dill shot him during a drug deal gone awry. The attorneys also failed to submit mitigating evidence at sentencing, telling the judge that “we were just blank on submitting it.” Had they tried harder, the attorneys would have found powerful mitigating evidence: Dill was intellectually disabled and had been sexually abused as a child, according to Bryan Stevenson, the renowned public interest lawyer who took on his case a month before he was executed in 2009.
Dill was represented at trial by court-appointed lawyers whose compensation for out-of-court preparation was capped at $1,000 by Alabama law. This is very low pay given the time-intensive nature of capital defense work. A study of federal capital trials in the 1990s found that defense attorneys spent an average of 1,480 out-of-court hours preparing death penalty cases.
As Alabama attorney general, Sessions could have sought reforms to address the glaring flaws in his state’s capital system. Instead, he chose to promote policies such as executing small-time drug dealers, and reducing death penalty appeals in a state where judges were already overriding jury decisions against the death penalty.
Sessions’ purported forgetfulness at his nomination hearing can be explained in two ways.
One explanation is that he lied under oath and actually remembered supporting the bill. Indeed, Sessions also may have been reminded by a New York Times op-ed we published the day before his hearing, which highlighted his support for the bill.
Alternatively, President Trump’s pick for attorney general really did forget promoting the legislation. This possible explanation is perhaps more frightening: that Sessions couldn’t recall advocating to kill drug dealers would suggest that he didn’t give much thought to backing such an extreme and unlawful policy.
At the end of the day, we need an attorney general who is trustworthy, understands the demands of the Constitution and respects them, and has good judgment on criminal justice enforcement policy. The record of Jeff Sessions as Alabama’s attorney general and his current evasiveness about his prior support for a mandatory death penalty for marijuana dealers raises concerns on all these grounds.
Source
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
Senate Judiciary Committee delays Sessions' nomination
From The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML):
Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have requested a one week delay on the vote to advance Jeff Sessions to the full Senate for confirmation to become the next Attorney General.
Throughout his confirmation hearing, Sessions has yielded little information with regard to how he will address the growing divide between state and federal marijuana laws. If anything, his responses have left the door open for the enhanced enforcement of federal laws in states that have legalized medical or recreational marijuana.
Senator Sessions has a long and consistent record of opposing any efforts to reform marijuana policy. He has a history of outrageous remarks including stating that he thought the Ku Klux Klan “was okay until I found out they smoked pot,” that “good people do not smoke marijuana,” and previously spoke in support of legislation that would have opened the door to individuals with multiple marijuana distribution convictions receiving the death penalty.
Email your Senators to tell them to oppose Jeff Sessions and protect the security and liberty of the millions of Americans currently benefiting from legalization.
While the vote’s delay is not necessarily indicative that a majority of members are having second thoughts in regards to Sen. Sessions’ nomination, it does provide us with additional time to make our opposition heard.
Even if you have done so already, please take 30 seconds today to email your Senators and tell them to stand against marijuana prohibitionists like Jeff Sessions.
You can also call your Senators through the Congressional Switchboard at (202) 224-3121.
Thanks for all you do,
The NORML Team
Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have requested a one week delay on the vote to advance Jeff Sessions to the full Senate for confirmation to become the next Attorney General.
Throughout his confirmation hearing, Sessions has yielded little information with regard to how he will address the growing divide between state and federal marijuana laws. If anything, his responses have left the door open for the enhanced enforcement of federal laws in states that have legalized medical or recreational marijuana.
Senator Sessions has a long and consistent record of opposing any efforts to reform marijuana policy. He has a history of outrageous remarks including stating that he thought the Ku Klux Klan “was okay until I found out they smoked pot,” that “good people do not smoke marijuana,” and previously spoke in support of legislation that would have opened the door to individuals with multiple marijuana distribution convictions receiving the death penalty.
Email your Senators to tell them to oppose Jeff Sessions and protect the security and liberty of the millions of Americans currently benefiting from legalization.
While the vote’s delay is not necessarily indicative that a majority of members are having second thoughts in regards to Sen. Sessions’ nomination, it does provide us with additional time to make our opposition heard.
Even if you have done so already, please take 30 seconds today to email your Senators and tell them to stand against marijuana prohibitionists like Jeff Sessions.
You can also call your Senators through the Congressional Switchboard at (202) 224-3121.
Thanks for all you do,
The NORML Team
Tuesday, January 24, 2017
Jeff Sessions' nomination is stalled-for now
From The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML):
While this in no way means that Sessions will not merely be advanced and approved next week, it does buy us time to make our voices heard in regards to his stance on marijuana policy. One more week of the federal government not arresting responsible consumers in states that have legalized recreational or medical marijuana. One more week for us to reach out to the Senate to apply more scrutiny to Sessions.
Letters to your Senators
Sessions' nomination is stalled-at the moment. Now is the time to act. Let your Senators know that you do not want Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. Act now before it's too late.
While this in no way means that Sessions will not merely be advanced and approved next week, it does buy us time to make our voices heard in regards to his stance on marijuana policy. One more week of the federal government not arresting responsible consumers in states that have legalized recreational or medical marijuana. One more week for us to reach out to the Senate to apply more scrutiny to Sessions.
Letters to your Senators
Sessions' nomination is stalled-at the moment. Now is the time to act. Let your Senators know that you do not want Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. Act now before it's too late.
Saturday, December 10, 2016
According to CNBC even Jeff Sessions can't stop the marijuana train
In November, the country elected a new president who promised to shake up Washington. At the same time, the cannabis industry took a giant leap forward with seven states voting yes to measures further legalizing marijuana. In total, California, Nevada, Massachusetts and Maine legalized recreational use, and Florida, North Dakota and Arkansas legalized medical use, bringing the total number of states with legal marijuana to 29.
The recent slate of successful marijuana-related measures at the state level could be viewed as a national referendum on cannabis. The "yes" votes cut across party lines and presidential candidates. Today, two-thirds of Americans live in states with legal access to cannabis.
California, the first to pass medical marijuana two decades ago, is arguably the most significant bellwether state in the evolution of cannabis. It is the country's most populous state, the sixth largest economy in the world and a cultural trendsetter. California's Proposition 64 legalizing adult use of marijuana passed with 57 percent of the votes.
As President-elect Donald Trump nominates members of his cabinet, some have conjectured about what U.S. Attorney General appointee Jeff Sessions, a Republican senator from Alabama, might mean for the future of the cannabis industry. The sober conclusion? Very little.
It is true that Mr. Sessions publicly has expressed contempt for marijuana users, but it is a giant leap to equate one's personal stance with a public policy position that will impact millions of lives. You can be a teetotaler, but still believe that the best way for government to control alcohol consumption is to regulate it, not ban it.
"The cannabis industry is on track to reach $23 billion by the end of the decade, it is already a major economic engine employing more than 100,000 and generating millions in tax revenue."
What we do know, from a policy perspective, is that Mr. Trump is on the record saying marijuana policy is something best left to the states, a position consistent with Republican Party's core doctrines.
U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), a long-time supporter of marijuana policy reform in Capitol Hill, told reporters recently that he trusts that Mr. Trump's hands-off approach is likely to prevail.
In fact, Mr. Rohrabacher may hold more sway on federal policy than anyone in the executive branch when it comes to marijuana. The Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment, which he co-authored, prohibits the U.S. Department of Justice from prosecuting those who engage in state-sanctioned use, cultivation and dispensing of medical marijuana. It was first passed in 2014 with bipartisan support and again in 2015. It needs to be renewed each year, but it is currently the law.
Others have pointed out that the president cannot nullify state laws, and only Congress has the power to pass federal laws. And Congress' attitude toward marijuana is likely to reflect the U.S. electorate. The vast majority of Americans today favor legalizing marijuana, about 60 percent, the largest percentage ever, according to recent polls.
There are currently several bills working their way through Congress that could further ease Prohibition, including the Marijuana Business Access to Banking Act that would update federal banking rules to resolve conflicts between federal and state laws and allow banks and credit unions to provide services to legitimate marijuana businesses. U.S. Rep. Denny Heck (D-Wash.), a co-author of the banking bill, has said the results of this year's elections could give his bill a boost.
As more and more states legalize marijuana, the federal stance will be become untenable in the long run. It is fundamentally unfair that the same act of consuming marijuana can be perfectly legal in one state, and land you in prison in another. President Barack Obama made that very point during a recent interview with Bill Maher telling the television host that the time will come when the federal government must review its stance on cannabis.
With all due respect to President-elect Trump and Mr. Sessions, this debate is larger than one administration or one cabinet nomination. The cannabis industry is on track to reach $23 billion by the end of the decade, it is already a major economic engine employing more than 100,000 and generating millions in tax revenue.
The way for progress is not to turn back time, but to continue institutionalizing this space with professional standards and reasonable regulations that protect consumers and citizens.
Source
I added "According to CNBC" to the original title. The original title might just poke the bear too much and too hard. If that happens that bear will swipe his paw and cause marijuana dispensaries nationwide to be closed down. If you were not around in the 80's you are not familiar with the prohibitionist mindset being mainstream. Where the DEA had society's blessings and those that used marijuana were labeled as "drug addicts","stupid potheads" and "waste cases". The police could act on a tip by an informer (there have been cases where the informer was a fictional character) breakdown you front door. Making you lay down on your stomach as they ransack your house. They didn't find anything but they are going to take your home,cars and other property away anyway under the asset forfeiture laws. Your children will be taken away from you and given to strangers. Those were the days of the 80's. The same 80's Sessions wants to return this country to.
The recent slate of successful marijuana-related measures at the state level could be viewed as a national referendum on cannabis. The "yes" votes cut across party lines and presidential candidates. Today, two-thirds of Americans live in states with legal access to cannabis.
California, the first to pass medical marijuana two decades ago, is arguably the most significant bellwether state in the evolution of cannabis. It is the country's most populous state, the sixth largest economy in the world and a cultural trendsetter. California's Proposition 64 legalizing adult use of marijuana passed with 57 percent of the votes.
As President-elect Donald Trump nominates members of his cabinet, some have conjectured about what U.S. Attorney General appointee Jeff Sessions, a Republican senator from Alabama, might mean for the future of the cannabis industry. The sober conclusion? Very little.
It is true that Mr. Sessions publicly has expressed contempt for marijuana users, but it is a giant leap to equate one's personal stance with a public policy position that will impact millions of lives. You can be a teetotaler, but still believe that the best way for government to control alcohol consumption is to regulate it, not ban it.
"The cannabis industry is on track to reach $23 billion by the end of the decade, it is already a major economic engine employing more than 100,000 and generating millions in tax revenue."
What we do know, from a policy perspective, is that Mr. Trump is on the record saying marijuana policy is something best left to the states, a position consistent with Republican Party's core doctrines.
U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), a long-time supporter of marijuana policy reform in Capitol Hill, told reporters recently that he trusts that Mr. Trump's hands-off approach is likely to prevail.
In fact, Mr. Rohrabacher may hold more sway on federal policy than anyone in the executive branch when it comes to marijuana. The Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment, which he co-authored, prohibits the U.S. Department of Justice from prosecuting those who engage in state-sanctioned use, cultivation and dispensing of medical marijuana. It was first passed in 2014 with bipartisan support and again in 2015. It needs to be renewed each year, but it is currently the law.
Others have pointed out that the president cannot nullify state laws, and only Congress has the power to pass federal laws. And Congress' attitude toward marijuana is likely to reflect the U.S. electorate. The vast majority of Americans today favor legalizing marijuana, about 60 percent, the largest percentage ever, according to recent polls.
There are currently several bills working their way through Congress that could further ease Prohibition, including the Marijuana Business Access to Banking Act that would update federal banking rules to resolve conflicts between federal and state laws and allow banks and credit unions to provide services to legitimate marijuana businesses. U.S. Rep. Denny Heck (D-Wash.), a co-author of the banking bill, has said the results of this year's elections could give his bill a boost.
As more and more states legalize marijuana, the federal stance will be become untenable in the long run. It is fundamentally unfair that the same act of consuming marijuana can be perfectly legal in one state, and land you in prison in another. President Barack Obama made that very point during a recent interview with Bill Maher telling the television host that the time will come when the federal government must review its stance on cannabis.
With all due respect to President-elect Trump and Mr. Sessions, this debate is larger than one administration or one cabinet nomination. The cannabis industry is on track to reach $23 billion by the end of the decade, it is already a major economic engine employing more than 100,000 and generating millions in tax revenue.
The way for progress is not to turn back time, but to continue institutionalizing this space with professional standards and reasonable regulations that protect consumers and citizens.
Source
I added "According to CNBC" to the original title. The original title might just poke the bear too much and too hard. If that happens that bear will swipe his paw and cause marijuana dispensaries nationwide to be closed down. If you were not around in the 80's you are not familiar with the prohibitionist mindset being mainstream. Where the DEA had society's blessings and those that used marijuana were labeled as "drug addicts","stupid potheads" and "waste cases". The police could act on a tip by an informer (there have been cases where the informer was a fictional character) breakdown you front door. Making you lay down on your stomach as they ransack your house. They didn't find anything but they are going to take your home,cars and other property away anyway under the asset forfeiture laws. Your children will be taken away from you and given to strangers. Those were the days of the 80's. The same 80's Sessions wants to return this country to.
Let's ask Trump to clarify his position on marijuana
From The National Organization for the Reform Marijuana Laws:
Over the last several weeks, we have received dozens of calls from journalists with the same question: "What does NORML think that President-Elect Trump and his Attorney General nominee Jeff Sessions will do in regards to marijuana once in office?"
However, the best public indicators we have to go on give mixed messages. Additionally,in nearly all of the articles
that NORML has been quoted in about Trump and Sessions, not one indicates that the writer had even attempted to contact the presidential transition team or Sen. Sessions.
So we've released our own request for clarification and we NEED you to join us in demanding answers as to how the federal government is going to respect the will of the voters in states that have ended prohibition.
Add your voice to the thousands calling on Trump to provide cannabis clarity TODAY.
On the campaign trail, Trump promised to take a federalist approach to marijuana stating:
"In terms of marijuana and legalization, I think that should be a state issue, state-by-state... Marijuana is such a big thing. I think medical should happen - right? Don't we agree? I think so. And then I really believe we should leave it up to the states."
Yet his nomination of Sen. Sessions sends a very different signal. At a Congressional hearing just this past April, he stated that "good people do not smoke marijuana." His legislative track record and public comments show no intentions of ending marijuana prohibition or respecting the millions of responsible cannabis consumers throughout the country. If Senator Sessions' personal beliefs were allowed to dictate the policies of the Justice Department, we could be in for a rough four years.
With 8 states now having legalized the adult use of marijuana and over half the country having medical marijuana programs, the American people deserve to know what President-Elect Trump's policy towards these states will be.
Join thousands of others in signing the petition to ask President-Elect Donald Trump to answer this question and clarify his position on respecting state marijuana laws.
Going forward we must be vigilant to protect the progress we have made, keep fighting to protect the rights of responsible adults, and end finally end the prohibition of marijuana nationwide.
Onward,
NORML Team
Over the last several weeks, we have received dozens of calls from journalists with the same question: "What does NORML think that President-Elect Trump and his Attorney General nominee Jeff Sessions will do in regards to marijuana once in office?"
However, the best public indicators we have to go on give mixed messages. Additionally,in nearly all of the articles
that NORML has been quoted in about Trump and Sessions, not one indicates that the writer had even attempted to contact the presidential transition team or Sen. Sessions.
So we've released our own request for clarification and we NEED you to join us in demanding answers as to how the federal government is going to respect the will of the voters in states that have ended prohibition.
Add your voice to the thousands calling on Trump to provide cannabis clarity TODAY.
On the campaign trail, Trump promised to take a federalist approach to marijuana stating:
"In terms of marijuana and legalization, I think that should be a state issue, state-by-state... Marijuana is such a big thing. I think medical should happen - right? Don't we agree? I think so. And then I really believe we should leave it up to the states."
Yet his nomination of Sen. Sessions sends a very different signal. At a Congressional hearing just this past April, he stated that "good people do not smoke marijuana." His legislative track record and public comments show no intentions of ending marijuana prohibition or respecting the millions of responsible cannabis consumers throughout the country. If Senator Sessions' personal beliefs were allowed to dictate the policies of the Justice Department, we could be in for a rough four years.
With 8 states now having legalized the adult use of marijuana and over half the country having medical marijuana programs, the American people deserve to know what President-Elect Trump's policy towards these states will be.
Join thousands of others in signing the petition to ask President-Elect Donald Trump to answer this question and clarify his position on respecting state marijuana laws.
Going forward we must be vigilant to protect the progress we have made, keep fighting to protect the rights of responsible adults, and end finally end the prohibition of marijuana nationwide.
Onward,
NORML Team
Sunday, November 27, 2016
Senator Jeff Sessions' asinine quote
The following is the most ignorant statement I have ever read from a member of Congress. Here is the entire quote:
You have to have leadership from Washington. You can’t have the President of the United States of America talking about marijuana … you are sending a message to young people that there is no danger in this process. It is false that marijuana use doesn’t lead people to more drug use. It is already causing a disturbance in the states that have made it legal.
It was the prevention movement that really was so positive, and it led to this decline. The creating of knowledge that this drug is dangerous, it cannot be played with, it is not funny, it’s not something to laugh about, and trying to send that message with clarity, that good people don’t smoke marijuana.
Lady Gaga says she’s addicted to [marijuana] and it is not harmless.
-Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Now here's me tearing it a new one:
You have to have leadership from Washington. You can’t have the President of the United States of America talking about marijuana … you are sending a message to young people that there is no danger in this process.
True leadership comes from We The People. We grant certain powers upon our elected representatives through elections. Those in Congress are our servants. The People do want to discuss marijuana reform. The recent elections have proven that. The reaction of the People toward the Drug Enforcement Agency when they raided lawful marijuana dispensaries was one of disdain and rightfully so.
It is false that marijuana use doesn’t lead people to more drug use. It is already causing a disturbance in the states that have made it legal.
What is Sessions asking? Does a little use of marijuana lead to a big use in marijuana or does marijuana lead to harder drugs such as crystal meth,heroin and cocaine? States that have medical marijuana report the decline in the use (and abuse) of opioid drugs because of it. DUI's (DWI's) declined while revenue skyrocketed. It got so bad that the State of Colorado had to give the excess money back to the taxpayers as per Colorado law. Oh the horror.
It was the prevention movement that really was so positive, and it led to this decline.
You mean as in those early dawn drug raids? The kind that tore a new asshole in the 4th Amendment and ruined a lot of people's day? Those ones? You know the kind that should have never existed the United States Of America,the land of the free,in the first place? Yeah,those. Amazing we were wagging our fingers at the Russians while we murdered our own Constitution. It lead to a slight decline in supply but not demand.
The creating of knowledge that this drug is dangerous, it cannot be played with, it is not funny, it’s not something to laugh about, and trying to send that message with clarity, that good people don’t smoke marijuana.
Your hysteria Senator Sessions is quite comical. Marijuana is the one of the safest substances on earth. It has no death rate. The only problem with marijuana are legal ones and you are someone in the way of reform. A reform that is long overdue. That message is quite clear as well. Good people do smoke marijuana.
Lady Gaga says she’s addicted to [marijuana] and it is not harmless.
Nice try. Lady Gaga's problem is not America's problem.
You have to have leadership from Washington. You can’t have the President of the United States of America talking about marijuana … you are sending a message to young people that there is no danger in this process. It is false that marijuana use doesn’t lead people to more drug use. It is already causing a disturbance in the states that have made it legal.
It was the prevention movement that really was so positive, and it led to this decline. The creating of knowledge that this drug is dangerous, it cannot be played with, it is not funny, it’s not something to laugh about, and trying to send that message with clarity, that good people don’t smoke marijuana.
Lady Gaga says she’s addicted to [marijuana] and it is not harmless.
-Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Now here's me tearing it a new one:
You have to have leadership from Washington. You can’t have the President of the United States of America talking about marijuana … you are sending a message to young people that there is no danger in this process.
True leadership comes from We The People. We grant certain powers upon our elected representatives through elections. Those in Congress are our servants. The People do want to discuss marijuana reform. The recent elections have proven that. The reaction of the People toward the Drug Enforcement Agency when they raided lawful marijuana dispensaries was one of disdain and rightfully so.
It is false that marijuana use doesn’t lead people to more drug use. It is already causing a disturbance in the states that have made it legal.
What is Sessions asking? Does a little use of marijuana lead to a big use in marijuana or does marijuana lead to harder drugs such as crystal meth,heroin and cocaine? States that have medical marijuana report the decline in the use (and abuse) of opioid drugs because of it. DUI's (DWI's) declined while revenue skyrocketed. It got so bad that the State of Colorado had to give the excess money back to the taxpayers as per Colorado law. Oh the horror.
It was the prevention movement that really was so positive, and it led to this decline.
You mean as in those early dawn drug raids? The kind that tore a new asshole in the 4th Amendment and ruined a lot of people's day? Those ones? You know the kind that should have never existed the United States Of America,the land of the free,in the first place? Yeah,those. Amazing we were wagging our fingers at the Russians while we murdered our own Constitution. It lead to a slight decline in supply but not demand.
The creating of knowledge that this drug is dangerous, it cannot be played with, it is not funny, it’s not something to laugh about, and trying to send that message with clarity, that good people don’t smoke marijuana.
Your hysteria Senator Sessions is quite comical. Marijuana is the one of the safest substances on earth. It has no death rate. The only problem with marijuana are legal ones and you are someone in the way of reform. A reform that is long overdue. That message is quite clear as well. Good people do smoke marijuana.
Lady Gaga says she’s addicted to [marijuana] and it is not harmless.
Nice try. Lady Gaga's problem is not America's problem.
Friday, November 25, 2016
Joining with Drug Policy Alliance in opposing Jeff Sessions' nomination
We at Among Other Things are joining in with Drug Policy Alliance in opposing the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions as United States Attorney General. We fear Sessions will clamp down on marijuana dispensaries in states that have approved marijuana for medical and/or recreational use. If approved by the Senate Sessions will have the authority and ability to undo years of progress in a very short time with the DEA backing him up. If the dispensaries are closed down patients are going to be forced to buy from the black market. Opening them up to arrest and incarceration for marijuana that may be adulterated. With their money going to support a criminal organization. Closing down the dispensaries makes criminals out of otherwise law abiding people. Prohibition failed. It's time to move on to legalization.
Friday, November 18, 2016
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
