Meet the publishers at the International Cannabis / Hemp Expo (IntCHE) May 18-19, 2013, Burlingame CA (near San Francisco). www.intche.net

Colorado legislates legal cannabis rules,
Washington hands task to Alcohol Board

By Jeremy Daw, JD, weedthepeoplebook.com

Since two states legalized adult cannabis sales and use last November, they have taken different approaches to the voter mandates. Colorado’s Amendment 64 Implementation Task Force, an appointed body of experts and bureaucrats, has released its final recommendations for how to treat cannabis businesses in the state’s new legal regime. By contrast, Washington State has outsourced much of its implementation of Initiative 502 to an outside group.

Colorado’s A-64, approved by a 55-45 margin by voters, placed a constitutional imperative on state bureaucrats to regulate so-called “recreational” cannabis in a manner similar to alcohol, but many of the specific regulations like tax rates and cultivation restrictions were left unaddressed by the voter-approved ballot initiative. The Task Force’s recommendations, which are preliminary and non-binding, are thus the first proposed rules for many specific situations.

Some proposed rules have already provoked controversy, such as the proposed prohibition of all outdoor cultivation sites under A-64 (the state’s medical marijuana program would not be affected by this rule, and it is unclear whether greenhouses would also be proscribed under it). Taxes, too, have become a point of contention. While A-64 approved taxes of up to 15% on adult sales of cannabis, the Task Force has recommended that state lawmakers return to voters for approval of new taxes, including an excise tax of 15% or higher on wholesale transactions and an additional retail tax on top of the state’s general sales tax. While the Task Force did not recommend any specific rate for the retail sales tax, it cited 25% as an exemplary figure.

Yet the Task Force’s endorsement of “cannabis tourism” – allowing out-of-state residents to consume cannabis within Colorado but not to traffic it out – may prove the group’s most controversial recommendation. While the proposal, especially in conjunction with high sales taxes, holds the promise of badly-needed revenues for the state, it also raises the specter of increased interstate trafficking to neighboring states where cannabis remains illegal.

By contrast, the state of Washington has turned to an outside consulting group for help in crafting its implementation of I-502. The consulting firm, Botec, is headed by UCLA public policy professor Mark Kleiman and includes Nobel-winning economist Thomas Schelling and CPA Luigi Zamarra, the architect of Harborside Health Center’s tax compliance strategy. While the group has yet to announce any specific recommendations, Kleiman wrote in his 2012 book Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know that he favors solutions such as small cooperatives or heavily regulated commerce over “commercialization on the alcohol model [which] would create an industry like the alcohol industry: a multibillion-dollar enterprise devoted to creating and sustaining as much addiction as possible.”  However, other members of his team bring different approaches to the table and the Liquor Board structure will also affect the final design of the program. The missing element is what the federal government will do in response.

By Martin Williams

The nation’s largest medical marijuana patient advocacy group, Americans for Safe Access (ASA), filed a petition with the federal court of appeals March 22 in its epic battle to force the federal government to comply with its own laws on medical marijuana.

The UN drug control treaties authorizes nations to allow the medical use of cannabis and the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is required to move the plant out of its banned status, Schedule 1, if it has accepted medical use. Currently 18 states and thousands of studies agree that it has medical value and is wrongly prohibited.

In its widely watched case that seeks to reclassify marijuana for medical use, ASA v. DEA, the patient group seeks a rehearing before the original panel, as well as seeking full (en banc) review by the US Court of Appeals for the Washington DC Circuit. The circuit court had granted plaintiffs standing — recognized its right to sue the federal government to reclassify marijuana — but denied the appeal on its merits on Jan. 22, 2013 by setting a new, virtually impossible to meet standard for assessing medical efficacy.

Essentially, it held that if the DEA says cannabis has no accepted medical value and insists that the plant must pass all the federal requirements used for a single molecule medicine and do so without anyone being allowed to do those studies, it must be right because DEA alone — not scientists — gets to pick and choose what studies to accept. Its position has been likened to the medieval church declaring that the world was flat simply because church bureaucrats proclaimed it to be so, despite all evidence to the contrary.

“To deny that sufficient evidence is lacking on the medical efficacy of marijuana is to ignore a mountain of well-documented studies that conclude otherwise,” said ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford, who argued the appeal before the D.C. court last October. “The Court has unreasonably raised the bar for what qualifies as an ‘adequate and well-controlled’ study.” ASA cited more than 200 peer-reviewed studies in its appeal, but the court held that plaintiffs must produce evidence from Phase II and Phase III clinical trials as used by companies trying to bring a new drug to market. The DEA has blocked such studies from being undertaken with cannabis.

The Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis, made up of individuals and organizations including ASA, filed a petition to reclassify marijuana in 2002 that was denied by DEA in July 2011, after ASA sued the Obama Administration for unreasonably delaying the answer. The appeal to the DC Circuit was the first time in nearly 20 years that a federal court has reviewed the issue of whether adequate scientific evidence exists to reclassify marijuana. At that time the court had rejected the patients’ standing to seek reclassification.

National polls since have consistently shown support for medical marijuana among Americans at around 80 percent. 

Advocates point out that the research approval process for marijuana, controlled by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), is unique and only allows research into harmful effects, not medical efficacy. After Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and several other members of Congress introduced HR689 in February, the “States’ Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act,” hundreds of supporters met in Washington DC to lobby for its passage. It would reschedule marijuana allow states to establish production and distribution laws without interference by the federal government, and remove current obstacles to research.

More information at americansforsafeaccess.org.

By Phillip Smith, stopthedrugwar.org

A marijuana policy trifecta hit Capitol Hill in February 2013 regarding recreational marijuana, medical marijuana, and hemp.

Early in the month, reformist House members filed bills to end federal cannabis prohibition and tax the trade, and in mid month a bill to legalize hemp. By the end of the month, legislators had filed bills to protect medical marijuana patients and providers, and US senators filed a companion bill to legalize industrial hemp.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), who earlier sponsored a marijuana tax bill, rolled out House Resolution 689, the “States’ Medical Marijuana Protection Act;” Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA) introduced House Resolution 710, the “Truth in Trials Act;” and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and three co-sponsors filed the “Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2013,” a companion bill to House Resolution 525.

Blumenauer’s bill, introduced with bipartisan co-sponsorship, would grant federal recognition to medical use and remove marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. Regulating medical marijuana would be left to the states, and people complying with state medical marijuana laws would be exempt from federal arrest and prosecution.

“There is a plethora of scientific evidence establishing marijuana’s medical safety and efficacy and public polling for marijuana law reform is skyrocketing,” said Jasmine Tyler, deputy director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance. “However, when it comes to marijuana and the federal government, old fashioned politics routinely trumps modern science. The States’ Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act offers us hope we will see significant change with its passage.”

Farr’s “Truth in Trials Act” attempts to restore fairness in federal medical marijuana prosecutions. Because the federal government refuses to recognize marijuana as anything other than a proscribed controlled substance, medical marijuana defendants and their attorneys are barred from even mentioning it or their state laws allowing its use in federal court. That has repeatedly resulted in state law-abiding medical marijuana growers and providers being convicted as drug dealers in federal courts, and sentenced accordingly.

“Congress has the opportunity to establish a sensible public health policy on medical marijuana, and do what the Obama Administration has been afraid or unwilling to do,” said Steph Sherer, executive director of Americans for Safe Access (ASA. “Patient advocates intend to push Congress to take heed of the abundant scientific evidence showing marijuana’s medical value, and act in accordance with the overwhelming popular support this issue receives.”

With Sen. Wyden’s introduction of a Senate bill, there are now hemp bills in both houses. In addition to Wyden and Democratic and fellow Oregonian Sen. Jeff Merkley (D), the Senate hemp bill has the support of Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Senate party leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), both of whom have support from the ultra-right wing “Tea Party” faction, also endorsed hemp legislation back home in Kentucky.

“I am proud to introduce legislation with my friend Rand Paul and Senate colleagues, that will allow Kentucky farmers to harness the economic potential that industrial hemp can provide,” McConnell said. “During these tough economic times, this legislation has the potential to create jobs and provide a boost to Kentucky’s economy and to our farmers and their families.”

The House version of the hemp bill was introduced earlier by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and has 28 cosponsors. The bills would remove federal restrictions on the domestic cultivation of industrial hemp. Specifically, the bill would remove hemp with less than 0.3 percent tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) from CSA Schedule I, and define it as a non-drug.

“Unfortunately, there are some dumb regulations that are hurting economic growth and job creation, and the ban on growing industrial hemp is certainly among them,” Wyden said. “The opportunities for American farmers and businesses are obvious here. It’s time to boost revenues for farmers and reduce the costs for the businesses around the country that use hemp.”

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, one of the most powerful and top-ranking leaders of the Democratic Party in the US, told a Denver Post columnist that she agrees that federal authorities ought to respect state marijuana laws.

When Electa Draper asked, “What are the measures in Washington (DC) that might address states that legalize marijuana and what is your view of federal policy,” Pelosi expressed her support for state laws and encouraged a tax and regulate marijuana policy in an interview published March 11, 2013.

“I support the leadership of Jared Polis, who has been a leader on this issue as well as other members. I understand some of the Republican members support the law now that is passed, even if they didn’t before. But in any case, to answer your question, what is my position regarding the states that have medical marijuana or recreational marijuana as the law of their states: I think that has to be respected. I think tax and regulate.

“In order to do that, there has to be a level of respect for the fact, that if you are going to have recreational marijuana, someone is in business to do that and they have to have tax treatment in order for them to function as a business. How the state of Colorado interacts with the federal government on the taxation issues is something they have to work out, but I think they should.”

The full interview is posted at denverpost.com.

Election rundown
By Chris Conrad

In a pivotal election, voters in the states of Colorado and Washington passed the first marijuana legalization initiatives in US history Nov. 6, 2012. Massachusetts became the 18th state to legalize medical use of cannabis, and voters there approved six [local?] resolutions calling on the federal government to legalize adult use of cannabis. Michigan voters approved five local reform measures, as well.

Meanwhile, voters in Oregon rejected personal adult legalization, voters in Arkansas narrowly defeated medical use, California voters removed marijuana offenses from the onerous “Three Strikes” life-imprisonment penalty, and a spattering of local votes in that state have made it more difficult for collectives and individual patients to cultivate, obtain or provide medical marijuana.

The results were: Colorado Amendment 64 passed 54 to 56% [??]; Washington Initiative 502 won 55 to 45%; Massachusetts medical use act passed 63 to 37%; Oregon Measure 80 lost 45 to 55%; and Arkansas medical use act lost 48 to 52%.

This seismic shift in the political landscape comes just two years after California voters narrowly defeated adult legalization via Prop. 19. Whereas in that election, to undercut that ballot measure’s majority support among voters just weeks before the vote, the California governor signed a law that decriminalized marijuana to the level of a traffic infraction, no such changes in state laws occurred in the 2012 campaigns.

Cannabis reform legislation got more favorable votes than Obama in three of the five initiative states, and more votes than Romney in four out of five races.

Washington’s conservative I-502 does not authorize cultivation — it sets a completely un-scientific “per-se” limit of 5 nanograms per milliliter in the blood for driving under the influence, and it increases penalties for marijuana offenses involving minors.

More information to come in the Winter, 2013 issue of West Coast Leaf. Due to illness in the family, the publication date for that issue has been postponed indefinitely.

Cannabis tourism survives

Coffeeshop battle in the Netherlands: past the worst

By Derrick Bergman, G0NZ0 Media, VOC*

The struggle against the “wietpas” (weed pass) and the banning of foreigners from Dutch cannabis coffeeshops isn’t over yet, but the worst seems to have passed .

Weed pass was introduced into three southern provinces of the Netherlands on May 1, 2012, with the rest of the country to follow suit on Jan. 1, 2013. As predicted by activists and opposition politicians, the scheme led to chaos, especially in the city of Maastricht. The black market welcomed a stream of foreign customers with open arms. Then, just a week before the pass took effect, the national government resigned and called new elections, held in September. The new government is a coalition of the conservative VVD party and the social democrats of PvdA, who want to regulate and legalize cannabis and abolish weed pass.

This coalition of political rivals and opposites forced the government to find compromises, marking the return of the Dutch polder model of dialogue and compromise. To bridge the gap between the two parties on cannabis policy, a local option was adopted. Because justice minister Ivo Opstelten returned to his post in the new cabinet, it was not likely the whole idea would be labeled a big failure. Instead, local authorities now have a lot of freedom to enforce the new rules as they see fit. The mandatory membership club system, with a 2000-members maximum and a roster open to police inspection, has been abolished nationally, but the ‘inhabitant criterion,’ which excludes non-residents from coffeeshops, is still officially in place.

There is no clear answer as to whether foreigners are allowed in coffeeshops. The mayor of Amsterdam seems to have made the best deal: he can postpone enforcement of the criterion for as long as he wants. So tourists remain welcome in all coffeeshops in the Dutch capital. A number of other big cities have announced they also will not enforce the criterion. Two court cases by groups of coffeeshop owners are pending. So, all in all, things are looking up.

Unfortunately the new government wants to ban cannabis with over 15% THC. This “strong cannabis” is to be rescheduled as a List I narcotic, putting it in the same category as heroin and crack. According to government statistics, around 80% of all cannabis sold in Dutch coffeeshops has over 15% potency, so a new black market will likely arise for strong cannabis. Meanwhile, a growing number of cities want to experiment with some form of regulated cannabis production to cut out the criminal element, and they point to Colorado and Washington State to make their case for legalized cannabis.

* Union for abolition of cannabis prohibition: voc-nederland.org, info@voc-nederland.org, twitter/vocnederland