As part of an effort to engage the Gardiner, Maine, community and clean up the town of roughly 5,000, a nearby marijuana dispensary is rolling out an innovative new program. Essentially, citizens who bring in a bag of collected trash can exchange it for some weed.

Dennis Meehan, owner of Summit Medical Marijuana, offered the marijuana as a gift to adults over the age of 21. Citizens would meet Meehan at the park and get two trash bags to explore the city and collect any garbage they found.

If residents collected a full bag of trash from around the city they could bring it back and pick up their gifted weed. The exchange rate was one full trash bag for one gram of marijuana. Gifting weed to others became legal in Maine after recreational marijuana was legalized in January. Across municipalities with legalized weed, gifting weed has become a common method to circumvent rules against selling the product on the street.

For more information on the status of legalization in Maine check out our “State of Weed” map here. 

He was inspired to put the event together by a similar weed exchange community event he heard about in Colorado. “[I heard of it in] Colorado – there was a town that did this,” Meehan told the local NBC affiliate. “They had a great response to this. So I was hoping to do the same thing in Maine.”

Meehan advertised the event on the dispensary’s Facebook page. After seeing its success, Meehan hopes to expand the program and make it statewide. While there are certainly some business interests at play here, Meehan also said that he wants to promote the “life-changing” aspects of marijuana, according to the Associated Press.

The nascent marijuana industry has been, so far, considered a success. One important aspect is the massive tax influxes that states that have legalized it have seen. For example, Colorado pulled in $200 million in just tax revenue in 2016, according to MarketWatch. Meehan’s actions prove that there are even more interactive ways for the marijuana industry to engage with the community.

For an industry that faces plenty of criticism, working with local communities could have a huge impact on public perception and how quickly critics shift their views. Now, it’s time to see if other marijuana businesses engage their communities in a similar way to Meehan and his Colorado inspiration.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Maine Dispensary Trades Weed for Trash in Community Clean Up Effort appeared first on Law Street.

Legal recreational marijuana sales officially began Wednesday in Uruguay at pharmacies all across the South American nation. Authorities report that nearly 5,000 people have already signed up for the national registry.

While the program is the first of its kind–Uruguay is the first nation to fully legalize the production and sale of recreational marijuana–it isn’t a cannabis free-for-all. It comes with some restrictions:

• All buyers need to officially register with the country’s national registry, and must be 18 years or older.
• Buyers’ fingerprints must be scanned at every purchase.
• You can only buy up to 10g (0.35oz) a week and no more than 40g a month.
• There are also only two strains available: Alpha 1 and Beta 1.
• Marijuana tourism is a “no go,” as foreigners are prohibited from registering.

Reportedly, about 70 percent of people who had registered to buy marijuana from pharmacies were men, most of them aged 30-44.

As previously mentioned, Uruguay’s market is significantly cheaper than those in the United States. Pharmacies began selling the drug at $1.30 per gram compared to $5-$15 per gram in legal American states. The government hopes that by pricing marijuana below black market prices, it will undercut drug traffickers.

Queues form outside pharmacies after Uruguay has legalised both the sale and the production of cannabis https://t.co/i1L1WNqPKJ pic.twitter.com/gjcSSsaDDg

— Ruptly (@Ruptly) July 20, 2017

“These are measures designed to help people who are already users without encouraging others who don’t consume,” Alejandro Antalich, the vice president of the Center of Pharmacies in Uruguay, an industry group, told the New York Times. “If this works as planned, other countries could adopt it as a model.”

Will Uruguay Impact the U.S.?

It’s hard to say. The U.S. has had its hits and misses when it comes to adopting marijuana legislation. Colorado saw roughly $1.1 billion in legal sales of medical and recreational marijuana last year, while Nevada’s highly anticipated recreational launch proved to be a bit of an embarrassment thanks to unsolved distribution supply chain issues.

If Uruguay’s model proves successful, it could prove to be a workable template for more legalization efforts in America

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Recreational Marijuana Sales Start in Uruguay appeared first on Law Street.

Federal officials visited Denver and Colorado Springs this week, holding a number of private meetings with local representatives about Colorado’s legal marijuana system and its sizable black market. The federal fact-finding mission comes as pro-marijuana advocates across the country worry about a fresh crack-down on marijuana users and sellers by Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

The first meeting took place in Denver on Tuesday. According to Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper’s marijuana adviser Mark Bolton, representatives from the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Domestic Policy Control, and the State Department attended the closed-door session.

“Our purpose was to convey to them the strength of our regulatory system and our enforcement system and our policies and practices,” Bolton, who was also present at the meeting, told The Cannabist. He added that the federal officials saw the meeting “as an educational opportunity.”

Colorado’s attorney general, Cynthia Coffman, also met with the federal officials. Coffman and Hickenlooper, in a joint statement, said the meeting “focused on sharing Colorado’s experience creating and executing a robust and effective regulatory and enforcement system, and our continuing efforts to protect public health and public safety.”

In April, Hickenlooper joined three other governors from states that have legalized marijuana in asking Sessions and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin to consult them “before embarking on any changes to regulatory and enforcement systems.”

Thus far, Sessions has expressed a personal animus for marijuana, but has not taken any drastic measures to enforce federal law over state law. Marijuana is banned at the federal level, while eight states and D.C. have fully legalized cannabis.

In the second meeting, on Wednesday in Colorado Springs, federal officials, including representatives from the DEA, met with the city’s mayor, John Suthers. Local officials were criticized for holding the meeting in private, which they did because the meetings “include sensitive investigative information,” according to a statement from Suthers.

“The folks that came out didn’t want it public; there’s no reason for it to be public,” Suthers told KKTV 11, a local news station that reported the meetings. Suthers added he believes the officials visited Colorado, which legalized marijuana in 2012 “to find out what law enforcement and other regulatory agencies’ view is toward marijuana regulation in Colorado.”

Both meetings come the week before the Justice Department is set to release a report on violent crime, immigration, and drug trafficking. It is unclear if the meetings, which also featured discussions about Colorado’s black marijuana market, are related to that report.

Meanwhile, a Denver-based research company reported this week that Colorado has collected over $500 million from marijuana taxes since legal sales began in January 2014.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Federal Officials Visit Colorado to Learn About Legal Marijuana appeared first on Law Street.

It’s one of the most controversial topics of the last 20 years. And before you ask, yes it is a matter of life and death.

Physician-assisted suicide is expanding in the United States. Last year after a statewide referendum, Colorado became the sixth state to allow assisted suicide, with 65 percent of Colorado voters casting a ballot in favor of the measure. According to Compassion & Choices, an advocacy group that supported the ballot initiative in Colorado, so far 10 people have received prescriptions from doctors giving them access to the life-ending drugs. So far there is no data on whether those who received prescriptions for the life-ending medication have actually gone through with the procedure.

But the practice, which was taboo to even discuss 25 years ago, enjoys a large base of support in the United States. According to Gallup, physician-assisted suicide is supported by nearly 70 percent of the population.

Just last year, California passed the End Of Life Option Act. The first analysis of the law, which the California Department of Public Health recently released, indicates that 173 doctors had prescribed life-ending drugs to 191 patients. Out of those 191 patients, 111 have used the drugs to end their lives since the law was passed in June of 2016. However, Compassion & Choices, says it knows of 500 deaths in California as of this year. We will not know the full information until California releases the data for 2017 next year.

Physician-assisted suicide is an issue that has been debated for a long time. It has been subjected to rounds of philosophical, ethical, and moral debate. But the issue came into the spotlight in the United States in the 1990s with the legal battle between the State of Michigan and Dr. Jack Kevorkian, aka “Doctor Death.”

Jack Kevorkian was a pathologist who wanted to challenge the status quo of the ethical guidelines of a doctor. He contended that if a doctor had a patient that was truly suffering in pain from a terminal or debilitating illness for which there was no cure, then why couldn’t that doctor help end their suffering? He contended that it a doctor’s moral duty to focus on the welfare of the patient, and if the option of death presented itself as a suitable form of welfare for the patient than it should be allowed.

Kevorkian invented his own “suicide machine” in 1989 and assisted over 130 patients in assisted suicide. However, the Michigan legislature made it illegal to perform an assisted suicide in 1998, but Kevorkian continued to practice and was arrested after he allowed “60 Minutes” to air a video that showed him injecting life-ending medication to a man with ALS. He was convicted in 1999 of second-degree murder and served eight years in prison.

While Kevorkian was controversial, particularly because in at least one case he administered the procedure himself, experts agree that he brought assisted suicide into the forefront of public debate.

Since Kevorkian’s conviction, five states and the District of Columbia have passed assisted suicide legislation. Only three of these states have voluntarily provided data on physician-assisted suicide so far. Since Oregon legalized the practice in 1997, 1,127 patients have died. In Washington, where legalization was approved in 2009, there have been 917 reported deaths. And in Vermont, physicians have filed reports for 53 patients seeking life-ending medication.

While assisted suicide has made great progress over the years, many still have issues with the way it is practiced.

Marilyn Golden, a Policy Analyst for the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund opposed California’s law for a variety of reasons. She says that in theory it could discourage medical insurance companies from paying for new and expensive experimental treatments when providing assisted suicide medication is a cheaper option. She also argues that people in a vulnerable state of mind could be manipulated by heirs and caregivers to end their life, and that there is a lack of oversight for the current process–citing the fact that there is not an independent individual who is there that can confirm that the person who is taking the medication wants to end their life.

It should also be noted that assisted suicide can be a particularly expensive process. A pharmacist in California told the San Diego Tribune that doctors’ preferred drug, which makes the process of assisted suicide quick and painless, costs as much as $3,400 per dose. While the cost of life-ending medication is not cheap, it can be significantly cheaper than what it takes to provide care to someone with a terminal illness.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Colorado and the Rising Trend of Assisted Suicide appeared first on Law Street.

Dozens of pharmacy shelves in Uruguay will soon be stocked with a plant that is entirely prohibited in most other countries: cannabis. Three and a half years ago, Uruguay became the first country to fully legalize marijuana. And later this month, after overcoming legal hurdles and a presidential transition, government-approved marijuana will be sold out of dozens of pharmacies across the country.

Priced at $1.30 per gram, the legal weed will exclusively be sold at pharmacies. Uruguay’s government will have tight control over the process, from planting to puffing. The marijuana plants’ genetic material will be determined by the government, as will its THC–marijuana’s psychoactive component–concentration. Uruguayans ages 18 and up can purchase up to 40 grams each month.

According to the Washington Post, customers will register for the marijuana program via a government database. Instead of producing identification at the register to prove their age, customers will place their thumb on a scanner, which will be linked to the database, providing pharmacies with a buyer’s purchasing history.

Unlike some of the U.S. states that have legalized recreational marijuana, there will be no smoking cafes as part of Uruguay’s legalization regime. Foreigners cannot purchase marijuana, and there will be no shops selling pot edibles or other marijuana-infused products. For some, the caveats to Uruguay’s marijuana legalization are overburdensome and unnecessary. But to public health officials, the regulations will hopefully ensure marijuana does not tread down the same path as the tobacco industry.

“The risk of what they’re doing in Colorado is that you end up with something like the tobacco industry,” Julio Calzada, a public health official in Uruguay, told the Washington Post. “To us, marijuana is a vegetable substance with a capacity to generate addiction,” added Calzada, who helped design the regulatory framework after legalization in 2013, “so what we’re trying to do is control the production, distribution and consumption of that substance as effectively as possible.”

Uruguay is a socially liberal society, where gambling and prostitution are legal. The government maintains control of a majority of sectors, including banking and utilities. The same goes for its nascent legal weed market–only two government-approved private firms will supply marijuana to about three dozen pharmacies across the nation.

Distribution will be coordinated by the Institute for the Regulation and Control of Cannabis (IRCCA). According to its website, over 4,600 people have already signed up for the government database. Meanwhile, in America, marijuana advocates are worried the country’s top enforcer, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, will initiate stringent anti-marijuana measures. He once said “good people don’t smoke marijuana.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Uruguay is Set to Become First Country to Sell Fully Legal Marijuana appeared first on Law Street.

ICYMI, Maryland became the first state to pass laws protecting Planned Parenthood. For that story and other trending news, check out Law Street’s best of the week below!

How Did We Get Here? A Brief History of Cannabis Legalization in Colorado

Legalized cannabis. From California’s Proposition 215 in 1996 to West Virginia’s SB 386 in 2017, legalized cannabis is becoming the norm. And in Colorado, legalized cannabis is almost old news. But how did we get here? A mix of timing, trailblazers, economics, and politics.

NRA Video Sparks Reactions from Both Supporters and Opponents

The National Rifle Association (NRA) released a video on Thursday imploring its followers to stock up on firearms and “fight back” against liberals. But many Americans were horrified by the inflammatory message, fearing that it could spark violence. The lobbying group’s video claims that liberal Americans are indoctrinating children, “assassinating [the] real news,” and using Hollywood celebrities to further their narrative. Titled “The Violence of Lies,” the video claims that when police stop the demonstrators from protesting they will be accused of police brutality.

Maryland Becomes First State to Pass Law Protecting Planned Parenthood Funding

Maryland is officially the first state with a law in place to protect funding for Planned Parenthood. The Maryland General Assembly passed a law in April ensuring the organization’s continuity; the law went into effect on July 1. SB 1081 establishes the Family Planning Program in the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and provides that Maryland will pay for Planned Parenthood’s health care services in the state if Congress cuts off funding for the organization. The bill, which was backed by a veto-proof majority in Maryland’s House of Delegates and Senate, became law without Maryland Governor Larry Hogan’s signature.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Legalized cannabis. From California’s Proposition 215 in 1996 to West Virginia’s SB 386 in 2017, legalized cannabis is becoming the norm. And in Colorado, legalized cannabis is almost old news. But how did we get here? A mix of timing, trailblazers, economics, and politics.

The genesis of the Golden Age of the Ganjapreneuer in Colorado began in 2001, when Colorado voters amended the Colorado Constitution by adopting Amendment 20, which provides limited protection from criminal prosecution for medical cannabis patients, primary caregivers, and to a certain extent, physicians. For several years, Amendment 20 existed quietly and those governed by it operated largely under the radar. Slowly, medical cannabis dispensaries began to appear, as did large-scale home grows.

In 2004, the Colorado Department of Health attempted to begin serious regulation of medical cannabis. However, when adopting an administrative rule that attempted to limit a primary caregiver’s allowable activity, the department made procedural errors. Consequently, the rule was thrown out when challenged in district court in 2007.

In 2009, there were several factors that promoted substantial growth in the number of Colorado cannabis businesses. First, Deputy Attorney General David Ogden issued the Ogden Memo regarding investigation and prosecutions in states authorizing medical cannabis. The Ogden Memo encouraged U.S. Attorneys to not focus federal resources on individuals whose actions were in clear and unambiguous compliance with state medical cannabis laws. Second, the Department of Health unsuccessfully attempted to re-promulgate its failed rule, giving medical cannabis activists momentum and political clout. Third, consistent with other states, Colorado was in the midst of the Great Recession. Unemployment rates were high and empty retail space abounded. Businesses that could pay rent were welcome.

Consequently, the stars aligned for cannabis businesses in Colorado. The industry took off. The number of registered patients grew from approximately 5,000 to over 100,000, and the number of dispensaries grew proportionally. Without regulation, innovation in the marketplace was unfettered.

The cannabis industry could not be ignored and the Colorado General Assembly responded in 2010 by adopting the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code. The statute essentially grandfathered in the operating businesses, but subjected them to strict requirements, mandated eventual licensure to continue operating, and created the Medical Marijuana Enforcement Division, or MED. The MED was the first agency of its kind and was tasked with regulating every aspect of medical cannabis businesses from seed-to-sale.

As the new MED struggled to properly regulate the medical cannabis industry, in 2012 Colorado voters passed Amendment 64 to the Colorado Constitution. Amendment 64 both legalized personal use of marijuana for individuals over 21 (subject to certain restrictions) and established a basic regulatory structure for recreational cannabis businesses. In 2013, the MED was properly funded and full-scale regulation began.

The rest is history. Legal cannabis in Colorado is currently a billion dollar a year industry. The MED is a successful regulator and the cannabis industry is among the most regulated of all industries. And while there are certainly industry players that have been around for a decade, most are new and unaware of the history driving Colorado’s successful cannabis legalization experiment.

Corey Cox also contributed to this article. 

Kelly Rosenberg

Kelly Rosenberg, a Senior Associate at Vicente Sederberg, was central to the Colorado Department of Revenue’s efforts to regulate marijuana from when the Department embarked on the groundbreaking work in 2010 through March of 2016. As an attorney with the Colorado Department of Law, Kelly was assigned as the general and litigation counsel to the Colorado Medical Marijuana Enforcement Division. There, she played a key role in the MMED’s early work to craft its regulatory structure. In 2013, she became an even more integral part of the regulatory development process after recreational marijuana was legalized and the MMED became the Marijuana Enforcement Division. Ms. Rosenberg worked on and legally reviewed all rules adopted by the agency. In addition, she provided day-to-day legal counsel to the MED on a variety of matters including open records, requests for positions statements, subpoenas, policies, procedures, contracts, employment issues, and trademark concerns, and presided as general counsel over all of the MED’s emergency and permanent rule making processes. At Vicente Sederberg, Ms. Rosenberg serves as Chair of the Administrative and Regulatory Law Department and assists clients with regulatory and compliance issues as well as administrative matters. She is also a key member of the firm’s new Government Relations Department, which assists governmental entities in the process of drafting medical and retail marijuana laws, ordinances, and regulations.

The post How Did We Get Here? A Brief History of Cannabis Legalization in Colorado appeared first on Law Street.

When people ask me what I do for a living, I usually give the simple response: “I’m a lawyer.” Which usually ends the conversation. But sometimes people will ask, “what kind of law?” My response: “marijuana.” This is when people suddenly perk up, “so what do you actually do?” No, it doesn’t mean that I smoke a joint while drafting documents. And while that sounds like fun, THC and asset purchase agreements don’t play well together.

The answer varies for each marijuana lawyer as there are several different types. But all marijuana lawyers share one thing in common–we represent marijuana businesses for a living. And that means their problems become our problems. From banking, to dealing with 280E (which is the section of the federal tax code that prevents marijuana businesses from deducting certain expenses from their income–resulting in far higher tax bills than non-marijuana businesses), to residency requirements for ownership, to the inability to access federal bankruptcy courts, there are major difficulties that marijuana businesses face. And while the underlying legal work that a marijuana lawyer does might be very similar to that done by a non-marijuana lawyer, these unique challenges often define our jobs.

Marijuana lawyers these days tend to come in two varieties: old school types who often have strong criminal law or activist backgrounds and newer arrivals who frequently come from more corporate backgrounds. I’m very much of the latter variety, having spent the six years prior to joining the marijuana industry working at large firms in New York, but I work for a law firm founded and run by lawyers with impeccable activist credentials (if you have ever benefitted from legalized marijuana you owe them a debt of gratitude–they helped write and pass Amendment 64 in Colorado, which created the first legal and regulated recreational marijuana market in the world).

I specialize in corporate and securities law, which is to say that I help marijuana businesses and investors raise capital, buy and sell assets and businesses, navigate the patchwork of ownership requirements across the US, and generally assist with any business law issue that arises. A lot of what I do is almost identical to the work of a startup lawyer in Silicon Valley–drafting contracts and negotiating deals is very similar across industries. But there are key differences. In my previous life, it was extraordinary rare for a client to lose a bank account, or have trouble opening one, and now this is a daily occurrence. And that’s just one of many unique challenges that marijuana businesses and their lawyers face.

But no matter how transactional your focus, being a marijuana lawyer necessarily implies some level of political engagement. Our clients’ businesses are subject to heavy regulation (in addition to currently being federally illegal) and that means marijuana lawyers must both stay on top of the ever-changing regulations governing our clients and continue being activists for our industry. Following cannabis news is effectively a second job for a dedicated marijuana lawyer and my colleagues and I all have a long list of podcasts, daily and weekly newsletters, and websites that we attempt to follow regularly.

Like any other lawyer focused on an industry, we need also to learn the underlying business. In this way marijuana lawyers are far more like oil and gas lawyers than, say, employee benefits or tax lawyers (examples of legal specialties where lawyers are generally agnostic as to the underlying industry–a stock incentive plan can pretty much be the same for a software, machine tools, or widgets company). Unfortunately, this means more than burning one down after work. It means being able to talk intelligently to a grower, extractor, or dispensary manager about their job and it also means keeping up to date on the latest industry trends and news. Good marijuana lawyers understand not only the laws that impact the industry, but also how marijuana is grown, how it is sold, who buys it, and what keep marijuana business owners up at night.

This is the first of a series of articles I’ll be writing for Cannabis in America alongside my colleague Kelly Rosenberg. Together we will explore the frontlines of marijuana law and policy, business, and the day to day challenges and rewards of representing cannabis businesses.

Charlie Alovisetti

Charles Alovisetti is a senior associate and co-chair of the corporate department at Vicente Sederberg LLC. Prior to joining Vicente Sederberg, Charlie worked as an associate in the New York offices of Latham & Watkins and Goodwin where he focused on representing private equity sponsors and their portfolio companies, as well as public companies, in a range of corporate transactions, including mergers, stock and asset acquisitions and divestitures, growth equity investments, venture capital investments, and debt financings. He is a graduate of McGill University and Columbia Law School. Charlie is admitted to practice in Colorado and New York.

The post What is a Marijuana Lawyer? appeared first on Law Street.

Buying and selling limited quantities of marijuana has been legal in Colorado for nearly five years. Public use, however, is prohibited. Still, for years, state lawmakers have been trying to determine how to define “open and public” consumption.

One of the more contentious questions state lawmakers have wrangled over: should residents be permitted to smoke marijuana on their front porches? Or should smoking marijuana on a front porch–where children and other passersby could be exposed to the smoke–be prohibited?

Last week, the 2017 legislative session came to a close without answering these questions. Despite successfully passing a number of other bipartisan priorities–like expanding Medicaid benefits–the Colorado legislature could not reach a consensus as to what “open and public” consumption means.

The House and Senate previously passed different versions of a bill that would clarify the question that has lingered since legalization in 2012. But both chambers have yet to land on a bill that suits them equally.

Senate Bill 184, the version of the bill the Senate passed, would have prohibited marijuana consumption in places where “a substantial number of the public” congregates without restriction. It also would have outlawed pot smoking in “a place not protected from unaided observation lawfully made from outside its perimeter,” which essentially would have included front porches.

A compromise was proposed to both chambers–residents can smoke on their front porch as long as no more than five outside guests were present–but was ultimately flouted.

“We’re talking about your own private property,” Rep. Jovan Melton (D-Aurora) told the Denver Post. “And why the number five? Why did we arbitrarily land on that number? We are literally putting things into statute with no explanation.”

Bob Gardner, the Republican state Senator from Colorado Springs, is concerned about marijuana smoke affecting other people in the neighborhood.

“My concern continues to be that in urban and suburban areas property lines are so close that children walking up and down sidewalks that are not 15 feet from [a home],” he recently told the Denver Post. “And frankly it is a crime in Colorado to do a lot of things on your front porch, no matter how much you own that property.”

In 2012, Colorado became the first state in the country to legalize marijuana for recreational use–in private. Figuring out how cannabis should be consumed publicly is a fairly fuzzy conundrum that has consistently bedeviled state lawmakers.

At one point, the legislature nearly passed a law that would have legalized private pot clubs–bars and cafes where people could congregate and smoke pot. But that bill was scuttled after resistance from Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper and others.

Pot clubs do exist, but outside of the legal bounds. Now, because state lawmakers could not properly define what “open and public” consumption means, local jurisdictions will continue to be in charge of interpreting the stipulation.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Definition of “Open and Public” Marijuana Use Still Hazy in Colorado appeared first on Law Street.

From Cannabis churches to Russia banning Jehovah’s Witnesses, religious expression was a hot topic last week on Law Street. ICYMI, check out some of our top stories below!

Spiritual High: A Cannabis Church Opened Last Week in Denver

From the outside, it looks like any other nondescript, brick-built church. But its stained glass panels, instead of biblical images, are adorned with a colorful fresco of planets–with wide, cartoonish grins–and stars. Welcome to Denver’s International Church of Cannabis, which had its grand opening last Thursday, on the unofficial weed holiday known as “4/20.” In a city where smoking marijuana in public is illegal, despite Colorado’s legalization of the drug in 2012, the church offers a holy refuge to those looking for a more spiritual kind of high.

Russia Bans Jehovah’s Witnesses, Labels Them Extremists

Russia’s Supreme Court has banned the Jehovah’s Witness organization after the Ministry of Justice labeled it an extremist group. The denomination already was on shaky ground in Russia, as the government had banned its literature and website as well as arrested members and seized their property. But now with a complete and nationwide ban, the group’s headquarters in St. Petersburg and 395 local branches will all become state property.

How El Salvador Became the First Country to Ban Metal Mining

On March 29, El Salvador became the first country in the world to ban metal mining. The ban passed through the El Salvador unicameral legislature with support from a sweeping coalition and is favored by nearly 80 percent of the El Salvadorian population. In spite of the overwhelming support for the ban, the anti-mining movement started with a handful of grassroots groups determined to push back against the country’s historical devotion to “pro-business” policies.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

From the outside, it looks like any other nondescript, brick-built church. But its stained glass panels, instead of biblical images, are adorned with a colorful array of planets–with wide, cartoonish grins–and stars. Welcome to Denver’s International Church of Cannabis, which had its grand opening last Thursday, on the unofficial weed holiday known as “4/20.” In a city where smoking marijuana in public is illegal, despite Colorado’s legalization of the drug in 2012, the church offers a holy refuge to those looking for a more spiritual kind of high.

Church members call themselves “Elevationists.” They refer to cannabis as “the sacred flower.” The church’s interior looks like a Salvador Dali painting come to life: technicolor, kaleidoscopic patterns blanket the ceiling; two surreal figures sit in pools of paint, a tiny, blue horse is visible in the background. There is hardly a speck of white in the entire sanctuary–courtesy of the colorful vision of artists Kenny Scharf and Okuda San Miguel.

Coming back at you from Denver’s International Church of Cannabis pic.twitter.com/pe7Xjqtlv5

— Full Disclosure (@FullDRadio) April 21, 2017

The church’s mission, according to its website, is:

To offer a home to adults everywhere who are looking to create the best version of themselves by way of the sacred plant. Our lifestance is that an individual’s spiritual journey, and search for meaning, is one of self-discovery that can be accelerated with ritual cannabis use. Elevationists claim no divine authority, nor authoritarian structure, therefore, those of all religious and cultural background are welcome to visit our chapel and take part in our celebrations.

Colorado became the first state to legalize recreational marijuana in 2012, setting off a string of state referendums–from Oregon to California–on legalization, and shifting the nationwide discourse on the long-pilloried plant. Eight states and D.C. have legalized recreational marijuana; 28 have legalized it for medical purposes. But while it is legal to possess limited amounts of cannabis across Colorado, which is also dotted with licensed dispensaries, local jurisdictions draft their own rules regarding public use.

In response, a number of so-called “cannabis clubs” (essentially bars or cafes where lighting up is legal) have cropped up. Also on 4/20, the country’s first cannabis drive-thru opened in Parachute, Colorado. And Denver’s cannabis church is not the country’s first establishment to mix the high with the holy. The First Church of Cannabis, in Indianapolis, opened in the summer of 2015.

Funded by Elevation Ministries, a religious nonprofit, the International Church of Cannabis was not unequivocally embraced. On Thursday, the church’s opening day, Dan Pabon, a Democratic state representative, proposed an amendment to ban cannabis consumption in churches. Pabon said the church “offends both religious beliefs everywhere, as well as the voters’ intent on allowing legalization of marijuana in Colorado.”

Welcome to the International Church of Cannabis. Yes, you read that correctly. https://t.co/mN6C9bVVug pic.twitter.com/v2Xbd8ilwK

— NYT National News (@NYTNational) April 24, 2017

The amendment was never officially introduced; many fellow legislators viewed it as an attempt to repress religious freedom. To Steve Berke, the church’s media relations director, the church was founded to “do something different, something unique.” In an interview with the New York Times, Berke said: “We’re building a community of volunteers, and the common thread is that they use cannabis to positively influence their lives, and they use cannabis for spiritual purposes.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Spiritual High: A Cannabis Church Opened Last Week in Denver appeared first on Law Street.

When Mark Smith realized that the residents of Parachute, Colorado craved a late-night marijuana fix, after his dispensary had closed for the day, he had an idea. Smith, 58, decided to re-brand the Valley Car Wash across the street from his dispensary as Tumbleweed Express, the nation’s first marijuana drive-thru business. The drive-thru’s grand opening coincides with the unofficial–yet widely celebrated, especially on college campuses–holiday of “4/20,” a spirited celebration of pot and paraphernalia.

Smith, a lifetime entrepreneur who once owned 23 pawn shops, explained to a local Fox affiliate his rationale for opening Tumbleweed Express: “I’ve been driving by the car wash building a lot. I talked to the realtor here in town and it was for sale. So, it seemed like the perfect fit,” he said.

Ribbon cutting at Tumbleweed Express at 1pm today. pic.twitter.com/Y41yUJAFjL

— Parachute Colorado (@VisitParachute) April 20, 2017

Parachute once seemed like an unlikely place for the nation’s–and the world’s, according to Smith–first pot drive-thru. Though the town of 1,100 is in the first state in the nation to legalize recreational marijuana, it had a freeze on marijuana sales until June 2015. But as the town’s economic engine, its natural gas reserves, sputtered, town officials decided to lift the marijuana ban, which proved a boon to Parachute’s economy. In 2016, according to the Post Independent, 30 percent of the town’s tax receipts were from marijuana sales.

Smith has taken full advantage of Parachute’s marijuana renaissance. He opened a dispensary in Parachute last February, expanded to a few more towns, and on Thursday will become America’s first steward of a marijuana drive-thru. It was when he realized that customers craved a late-night cannabis fixing, with no local dispensary open late enough to scratch that itch, that Smith decided to pursue his latest venture.

“I didn’t set out thinking this would be national news,” Smith told the Post Independent. “I didn’t have some big epiphany. I just saw a need for our customers.” According to Robert Goulding, a spokesman for Colorado’s Marijuana Enforcement Division, “the same laws apply to the drive-thru as do the main dispensary.” The rules include: customers must be 21 years old or up, there must be security and surveillance at the point of sale, and no pot can be visible outside the drive-thru premises.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Welcome to Tumbleweed Express: America’s First Marijuana Drive-Thru appeared first on Law Street.

Terminal illnesses are a heartbreaking reality of life–in many cases, doctors can only provide care to help patients feel less pain in their remaining days. But, some activists believe that it doesn’t have to be that way, and that patients with terminal illnesses should be able to have control over their deaths. Physician-assisted suicide is legal in six states in the United States, and multiple states have weighed whether or not to allow it in the last few years. Read on to learn what physician-assisted suicide is, where it’s legal, and the arguments for and against the controversial practice.

What is Physician-Assisted Suicide?

Physician-assisted suicide is the prescribing of some sort of life-ending drug to a patient by a doctor. The patient then takes the steps to end their own life. Physician-assisted suicide should not be confused with euthanasia–in euthanasia, the physician physically performs the death-causing act. There are other names for physician-assisted suicide, including “physician-assisted death,” “aid-in-dying,” “right to die,” and “death with dignity.”

Across states that have legalized the practice of physician-assisted suicide, the process varies. But there are some consistent elements–only licensed medical doctors (M.D.s) or doctors of osteopathy (D.O.s) can issue the prescription. Additionally, doctors must be willing to issue the prescriptions–by no means are they obligated to do so. Many of the states that have legalized physician-assisted suicide also require that there’s some sort of waiting period between when a patient requests the procedure and when it’s granted, and that multiple doctors are consulted in the decision.

Where is Physician-Assisted Suicide Legal?

Currently, there are six states where physician-assisted suicide is legal: Oregon, Washington, Vermont, California, Colorado, and Montana. It is also legal in Washington D.C.

Oregon legalized physician-assisted suicide in 1994, with 51 percent of Oregon voters voting for it. However it wasn’t enacted until 1997. That was just a few months after the Supreme Court decided in Washington v. Glucksberg that state laws banning physician-assisted suicide are not unconstitutional. This meant that the decision of whether or not to legalize physician-assisted suicide would be left up to each state to determine; other Supreme Court rulings have since continued to validate that it’s a matter for states to decide.

In 2008, Washington became the second state to legalize physician-assisted suicide, via a voter referendum. In Washington, terminally ill residents who have less than six months to live may request drugs that would end their lives.

In 2009, the Montana Supreme Court ruled on Baxter v. Montana, and became the first case to essentially legalize physician-assisted suicide through a court case. Although there was no regulatory framework for physician-assisted suicide set up in the state, it ensured that a doctor cannot be prosecuted for the act.

In 2013, Vermont became the first state to legalize physician-assisted suicide through its state legislature. Like many of the other laws, it includes caveats, including that terminally ill patients need to make multiple requests and wait 15 days after their initial request.

Then, in 2015, the California legislature passed the End of Life Option Act. Like the other states, California put certain restrictions on physician-assisted suicide. The patient must be at least 18, must have a diagnosis that will–within reasonable medical judgment–result in death within six months, and be deemed competent to make medical decisions, among other restrictions.

On November 8, 2016, Colorado voters voted in favor of Proposition 106, which legalized physician-assisted suicide in the state. Almost two-thirds of Coloradans voted in favor of the proposition, which like other states’ legalization measures, requires that the patient has less than six months to live, and is deemed competent to make a decision to end their life.

In late 2016, Washington DC’s council approved a Death with Dignity law, and Mayor Muriel Bowser signed it into law. However, based on the way that DC is set up, Congress has the ability to block laws enacted by the district. While Congress did not succeed in blocking this particular law, it has been known to prevent the city from setting up successful regulatory frameworks through budgetary measures, which could still happen.

Have Other States Tried to Legalize Physician Assisted Suicide?

Many states have introduced some sort of law or measure to legalize physician-assisted suicide recently, with most floundering. Michigan lawmakers proposed a physician-assisted suicide bill in late March 2017. Hawaii’s House of Representatives “deferred” a physician-assisted suicide bill, essentially killing it for now. New Mexico’s Senate just voted down a physician-assisted suicide bill. Other states have considered or may consider bills soon, including Maine, while others, like Kansas, are considering resolutions that would ban physician-assisted suicide. For many of the states considering legalizing physician-assisted suicide, it’s not the first time. In the mid-1990s, when the debate about physician-assisted suicide first began to heat up, measures failed in many states.

Arguments in Favor of Physician-Assisted Suicide

Most arguments in favor of physician-assisted suicide cite humanitarian arguments. Advocates of physician-assisted suicide argue that if an individual knows he’s going to die within the next six months, it’s cruel to force him to suffer through it. Instead, physician-assisted suicide allows him to end his life on his own terms, humanely and peacefully. Currently, mentally-competent people have the ability to refuse potentially life-saving treatments. Those in favor of legalizing physician-assisted suicide argue that it’s a similar concept.

Real Life Example: Brittany Maynard

In 2014, the story of Brittany Maynard captivated the nation. Maynard, a 29-year-old California woman, was diagnosed with an aggressive form of brain cancer. After trying treatments, none of which were successful in the long term, Maynard decided to end her own life. She became an advocate for physician-assisted suicide, and in many ways, a modern face of the movement. Maynard and her family moved to Oregon from California, as this was before California had legalized the practice. Maynard wrote an op-ed about her decision, explaining why she believed that physician-assisted suicide was the right choice for her, and explaining that her decision wasn’t about being “suicidal,” but about having an option at the end of her life:

I’ve had the medication for weeks. I am not suicidal. If I were, I would have consumed that medication long ago. I do not want to die. But I am dying. And I want to die on my own terms.

I would not tell anyone else that he or she should choose death with dignity. My question is: Who has the right to tell me that I don’t deserve this choice? That I deserve to suffer for weeks or months in tremendous amounts of physical and emotional pain? Why should anyone have the right to make that choice for me?

Now that I’ve had the prescription filled and it’s in my possession, I have experienced a tremendous sense of relief. And if I decide to change my mind about taking the medication, I will not take it.

Maynard did take her own life, in November of 2014, and remains a face of the movement to extend physician-assisted suicide.

Arguments Against Physician-Assisted Suicide

Those who disagree with the legalization of physician-assisted suicide argue that suicide, regardless of the reasons, is immoral and should not be condoned by the government in any way, shape, or form. Many religious institutions argue against physician-assisted suicide; in some ways, it’s become linked to the pro-life movement. Others argue that physician-assisted suicide inherently creates issues for doctors, as the Hippocratic Oath essentially prescribes that doctors are not supposed to harm their patients. There are also concerns about a slippery slope–if we make any sort of physician-assisted suicide legal, we may open up the door to euthanasia or other harmful practices. Some who advocate against physician-assisted suicide argue that there’s no way to definitively guarantee that it’s completely a patient’s choice to request medicine that would end his life–they worry that a doctor or family member could pressure a patient.

Real Life Example: Dr. Jack Kevorkian

Dr. Jack Kevorkian was known as an advocate for physician-assisted suicide, but was found guilty of second-degree murder for actually administering drugs to one patient himself, and served eight years in prison. Dr. Kevorkian, nicknamed Dr. Death, was believed to have assisted in over 130 suicides throughout his career. He used multiple methods, including setting up ways for patients to inject drugs into themselves, carbon monoxide poisoning, and his infamous “suicide machine,” which was built into the back of a van.

There were claims that Dr. Kevorkian crossed serious ethical lines with his practices. An analysis conducted by a team at the University of South Florida at Tampa of 69 assisted suicides supervised by Dr. Kevorkian claimed that 75 percent of his patients were not terminally ill.

While some defend Dr. Kevorkian as a pioneer, his methods remain controversial, and are often cited as an argument against physician-assisted suicide.

Conclusion

In addition to ethical and moral arguments, there are many other concerns that come to mind when considering physician-assisted suicide. For one, the drugs that are used for physician-assisted suicide are very expensive, and not necessarily easy to get. A patient looking to move forward with physician-assisted suicide must find a doctor willing to help, which can pose challenges, even in states that have legalized the practice. And while the publicity surrounding Brittany Maynard certainly garnered attention for the physician-assisted suicide movement, she died in 2014, and momentum for state laws may be waning. But one thing is certain: the debate over physician-assisted suicide is very far from over.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Right to Die?: The Argument Over Physician-Assisted Suicide appeared first on Law Street.

All Cannabis in America coverage is written by Alexis Evans and Alec Siegel and brought to you by Law Street Media.

STATE OF WEED: WATCH

Will the U.S. Finally End its Prohibition on Marijuana?

A freshman representative from Virginia introduced legislation last week that would remove marijuana from the federal Controlled Substances Act. This measure, introduced by Representative Thomas Garrett (R-VA), is identical to legislation introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in 2015 that never really went anywhere. The bill would not effectively legalize the sale and use of marijuana in all 50 states; instead, it would allow states the ability to make their own decisions on marijuana policy without the threat of federal interference.

NFLPA Will Explore if Marijuana is Safer Than Opiates 

The NFL Players Association will look into whether marijuana is a safer pain management alternative for athletes than opiates. During a taping of the NBC Sports “Pro Football Talk Live” radio show, NFLPA President Eric Winston revealed that owners may soon have no choice but to embrace it.

Colorado Could Become the First State to Legalize “Pot Clubs”

In a five-to-two vote, the Colorado Senate Business, Labor, and Technology Committee recently passed a bill that would bring “pot clubs” to the state. Senate Bill 184, titled Private Marijuana Clubs Open and Public Use, would allow individuals 21 years and older to publicly consume marijuana in privately-owned marijuana clubs. The bill will now move to a full Senate vote.

All links are to primary sources. For more information on state laws for possessing, selling, and cultivating marijuana, click here to read “The State of Weed: Marijuana Legalization State by State.”

LAW STREET CANNABIS COVERAGE

Will the Trump Administration Crack Down on Marijuana?

By Alec Siegel

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer suggested the Justice Department will increase its enforcement of federal marijuana laws. Marijuana is banned at the federal level, but is legal, recreationally or medically, in 28 states and D.C. However Spicer did say the president sees a “big difference” between recreational and medical marijuana.

Congress Now Has A Bipartisan Cannabis Caucus

By Alexis Evans

A group of pro-pot federal lawmakers has teamed up to announce the formation of the first-ever Congressional Cannabis Caucus. The bipartisan effort will work on legislation related to marijuana legalization and regulation, proving that perhaps Congress is taking the issue of marijuana legalization seriously.

Hemp Industries Association Sues DEA for Regulating Hemp as a Schedule I Drug

By Alexis Evans

The Hemp Industries Association (HIA) has filed a motion against the DEA, challenging the agency’s handling of hemp foods as Schedule I drugs. On February 6, the HIA filed a motion to find the DEA in contempt of court for failing to comply with a 13-year-old court injunction, prohibiting the agency from regulating hemp food products as Schedule I controlled substances.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cannabis in America March 2017: Will Colorado Be First to Legalize “Pot Clubs”? appeared first on Law Street.

A California woman is suing the popular fast-casual burrito chain Chipotle, alleging that the company used a photo of her in its advertisements, but that she never gave it permission to do so. Leah Caldwell, the plaintiff, is asking for over $2 billion, specifically $2,237,633,000, arguing that the company has made that much money off of the use of her photo that was taken in 2006.

Caldwell claims that she was sitting down to eat at one of the chain’s stores in Colorado, when a photographer snapped her photo without asking permission first. While he then asked her to sign a release to use the photo,  Caldwell claims that she left the store without signing it, thereby preventing Chipotle from using the photo. That photographer, Steve Adams, is also listed as a defendant, along with the food chain.

Caldwell says that she then saw the photo of her in multiple promotional materials in Florida and California in 2014 and 2015, and that alcohol had been photoshopped onto the table in front of her. While the photo was taken in 2006, she didn’t see the picture being used in any promotional materials until 2014, so she didn’t sue before then. She has filed the suit in the U.S. District Court in Colorado.

Some of the news outlets who picked up the story pointed out–perhaps rightly so–that Caldwell’s estimate for how much she is “owed” for the picture is a bit high. Caldwell got the $2 billion-plus number by adding up the total of all of Chipotle’s profits from 2006-2015, and believes that Chipotle’s 2016 profits, when they are calculated, should be added to her paycheck as well. But that would mean that all the profits the company made in that eight year period were attributable to her photo. As Lee Morris pf FStoppers–a site dedicated to providing news for photographers–pointed out:

I don’t think there is any doubt that Caldwell should be compensated for this error, but $2.2 billion may be a bit high. Ten thousand dollars and a year’s supply of burritos would be more than enough to compensate for the error, don’t you think?

Chipotle has not made a statement about the lawsuit yet, except to say that it does not comment on pending cases.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post California Woman Files $2 Billion Lawsuit Against Chipotle After Company Uses her Photo appeared first on Law Street.

Colorado voters had the choice on November 8 to decide whether or not to abolish a loophole in the state’s constitution that makes slavery legal as punishment for a crime. Lawmakers from both parties unanimously decided to put the question on the ballot and there seemed to be no opposition to the effort, as no one campaigned against it.

That’s why it was such a shocker when it turned out that a majority appears to have voted against the measure. All of the votes have still not been counted, but by late Thursday there were almost 35,000 more “no” votes than “yes” votes, out of 2.3 million ballots cast.

Many were upset after the election:

Colorado votes NOT to remove language of slavery from state constitution. This is even more concerning than other results today.

— Matthew Bentley (@bentleymaja) November 9, 2016

Colorado voted a minimum wage increase while simultaneously voting to keep slavery in the constitution for criminals. Huh?

— John Livingston (@JohnLivy) November 18, 2016

Colorado, I’m confused. You voted for Clinton, to keep slavery legal, to legalize assisted suicide, & made it harder to propose amendments.

— Suzi Q Smith (@suziqpoet) November 9, 2016

It seems unbelievable that over a million people in a state that recently voted to legalize recreational marijuana would also vote against completely getting rid of slavery. And when it dawned on lawmakers why the results turned out as they did, they probably slapped their heads. The question was worded like this:

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the removal of the exception to the prohibition of slavery and involuntary servitude when used as punishment for persons duly convicted of a crime?

Would you know whether to check the “yes” or “no” box?

“I think people were confused by the language,” Democratic Representative Joe Salazar told the New York Times. “I don’t think this was a pushback at all by individuals saying they wanted slavery in the Constitution. I just think the language was too confusing.”

The exception to the prohibition of slavery, which allowed for the practice as a punishment for a crime, was added in 1876, which was after slavery was abolished nationally in 1865. But since it was not widely known that the language exists in the constitution, activists think that people might have misinterpreted it. In addition to the confusing language on the ballot, some believe that voters could also have been thrown off by a voter guide that was sent to every Colorado voter. The guide is required to contain arguments for and against ballot measures and it said that the proposition could lead to legal ambiguity, although experts were not actually concerned.

Lawmakers are determined to try one more time, but next time with simpler language. “We’re going to do it again,” Mr. Salazar said. “We’re going to make sure we finally rid the Constitution of that language.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Colorado Votes to Keep Slavery in State Constitution (Really) appeared first on Law Street.

The Mile-High City is on the cusp of reaching another milestone in its legal marijuana framework, as Denver voters appear to have voted to approve a measure that would allow pot consumption in approved public spaces. A week after Election Day, 53 percent of counted ballots support Initiative 300. Over 30,000 ballots still need to be counted, but The Denver Post said it would take a “supermajority” of opposition votes to keep the measure from passing.

Initiative 300 would “permit a business or a person with evidence of support of an eligible neighborhood association or business improvement district to allow the consumption of marijuana (“cannabis”) in a designated consumption area,” such as a bar or cafe. The four-year pilot program would stipulate that “consumption areas” would require the backing of neighborhood groups or a business improvement district, which would also draft the conditions the bar, cafe, or other space must operate under.

“We are truly grateful to the people of Denver for approving this sensible measure to allow social cannabis use in the city,” Kayvan Khalatbari, the leader of an Initiative 300-backing group said in a statement. “This is a victory for cannabis consumers who, like alcohol consumers, simply want the option to enjoy cannabis in social settings.”

Since Colorado legalized recreational marijuana in 2012, and the first state-licensed shops opened in early 2014, consumers have dealt with a hampering paradox. People 21 and over could purchase and possess pot in public, but could only smoke or consume it in their private residences, with the approval of a landowner. Proponents hope the measure will open a door for Denver residents and tourists to smoke pot or eat edibles in public without persecution. Currently, the only places outside of private dwellings that allow cannabis consumption are private cannabis clubs. Those are few in number and very exclusive.

Not everyone is on board with widening the scope of Denver’s weed legislation. In an editorial for The Denver Post in October, Rachel O’Bryan, campaign manager for Protect Denver’s Atmosphere: Vote No on 300, wrote: “Initiative 300 won’t end public marijuana smoking. Rather, it will spread the problem to all parts of Denver by permitting outdoor marijuana smoking on patios and rooftops of potentially any business. This is simply too much.”

Over 160,000 Denver residents disagree, and as final ballots are counted, it seems like Colorado’s largest city will continue to pave the way for marijuana legalization in the U.S.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Denver Residents Could Soon Be Able to Use Pot in Some Public Spaces appeared first on Law Street.

Legalizing recreational marijuana, some argue, could lead to a proliferation of underage sales. Profit might trump policy and safety. But a new study offers no evidence, specifically in Colorado, where state-licensed dispensaries popped up in 2014 after recreational weed earned legal status in 2012, that dispensaries sell recreational pot to minors.

Visiting state-licensed dispensaries in Colorado over a period of four days in August 2015, the authors of the study found that all proprietors asked for ID, and only one agreed to sell their product in the absence of an ID. Led by a pair of doctors from the health communications firm Klein Buendel, the study concluded:

Compliance with laws restricting marijuana sales to individuals age 21 years or older with a valid ID was extremely high and possibly higher than compliance with restrictions on alcohol sales. The retail market at present may not be a direct source of marijuana for underage individuals, but future research should investigate indirect sales.

In 2012 Colorado legalized recreational marijuana, the first state to do so. But recreational bud did not hit the regulated market until 2014. Opponents argued shifting to a legal market would lead to minors having easier access to the drug. And despite the new study, published in the November issue of the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, state-sponsored sting operations have uncovered evidence to support both sides.

A police sting operation of 20 retailers in Colorado in June 2014 found no wrongdoing. All dispensaries complied with the law, refusing to sell to minors. “We are pleased with the results, and will continue to monitor the businesses to ensure that the compliance efforts are maintained,” said the director of Colorado’s Marijuana Enforcement Division, which worked with the police in the sting.

But a similar operation nearly one year later contradicted those findings. In September 2015, one month after the Klein Buendel study conducted its study, undercover police visited 30 Denver-area dispensaries. Police issued seven of them–including “The Healing House” and “Herbs 4 You”–citations for selling to minors. “Up until now these compliance checks have been a bright spot for the industry. This recent check drops compliance to 92 percent,” the MED director said at the time.

In Washington, where recreational marijuana is also legal, a sting last May found four stores guilty of selling to minors. For stores in Colorado that break the law and sell to minors, penalties can include a suspended or revoked license, and up to $100,000 in fines.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Often Do Dispensaries Sell Marijuana to Minors? appeared first on Law Street.

A new study details some of the positive effects Colorado’s legal marijuana industry has had on its economy: in 2015, it created 18,000 new full-time jobs, and there was $2.4 billion in total economic activity. Commissioned by the state, the Marijuana Policy Group’s study is the first scientific, data-based study on Colorado’s cannabis economy. Previous dives into Colorado’s legal pot industry have relied on surveys and anecdotal reports.

The authors write that the study’s purpose is to “help voters, policymakers, and regulators understand how marijuana legalization impacts the state economy in terms of output, tax revenues, GDP, and employment.”

What the new study finds is a thriving market that has led to direct and indirect benefits for the economy. Large-scale growth is expected through 2020, at which point “the regulated market in Colorado will become saturated.”

Chief among the legal pot market’s impact is the $2.4 billion dollars it infused into the economy in 2015. Nearly $1 billion of that activity, the study found, can be attributed to simple retail sales. The rest is from secondary revenue generators, or spillover effects: “warehousing, cash-management, security, testing, legal services, and climate engineering for indoor cultivations.,” the study found.

Legal pot has also raked in a bundle of new tax revenue: $121 million in 2015, the second-highest tax revenue source in the state, nearly twice as much as marijuana tax revenue in 2014. The report found “marijuana tax revenues are growing more quickly than any other tax type in the state,” and that the increase “reflects a combination of demand growth and a demand shift from the untaxed black and gray markets into the taxed retail market.”

Most of the economic growth is due to customers shifting from Colorado’s black market to its legal, regulated market. And though a black marijuana market still exists in Colorado, the study found that by 2020, 90 percent of marijuana sales will come from the regulated market. The other ten percent is expected come from home growers and underground sales.

Finally, the study concludes that “legal marijuana demand is projected to grow by 11.3 percent per year through 2020,” at which point the market will saturate, and begin to mirror other retail industries that follow population trends.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Colorado’s Legal Marijuana Market Created 18,000 Jobs in 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

In key battleground states and some Republican strongholds, early voting trends appear more favorable to Democrats this year compared with the same time last cycle. With less than two weeks to Election Day, 13.4 million voters have cast ballots by mail or in person in 37 states. For starters, the early vote total is far higher than during the same period in 2012. Forty percent of the electorate, or 46 million people, are expected to vote before Election Day on November 8. Below are some takeaways from a handful of key states.

North Carolina

Republican Mitt Romney won this vital battleground state in 2012. But if current trends hold, it seems the state could swing to the left. Fewer people have voted early in North Carolina this year compared to 2012, but of those who have, 46 percent are Democrats and 29 percent are Republicans.

According to a CNN analysis of the early votes, Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, will need a strong turnout from African-American voters to capture the state. Their share of the electorate is down five percent from 2012. In the most recent poll, Clinton leads Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, by seven points.

Florida

The Sunshine State went to Democrat Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. Democrats seem poised to repeat their victory there on November 8. Two million ballots have been cast in Florida so far, with the two major parties in a dead heat, each garnering 41 percent of the voters. This bodes well for Democrats: at the same point in 2008 (the most recent available data) Republican voters cast 113,222 more votes than Democrats, according to CNN.

This could be due to changing demographics: the Hispanic portion of the electorate is up four percent in Florida from 2008, while the share of whites has dropped from 82 percent in 2008 to roughly 77 percent this year. But the most recent poll shows Trump edging Clinton by two percentage points in Florida.

Red to Blue?

Some traditionally purple states are showing signs of turning blue, including Nevada and Colorado. Democrats have cast 46 percent of the ballots in Nevada thus far, compared to 35 percent for the GOP. In Colorado, over 400,000 people have cast early ballots, 40 percent Democrats and 34 percent Republicans. CNN’s analysis of the early vote data shows the Democrats with a 15,000 vote lead, which is slightly more than they had in 2012. Obama won Nevada in 2012, though recent polls show a tie between Clinton and Trump.

Historically, Nevada is not necessarily a Republican shoo-in. Bill Clinton won there in 1992 and 1996. George W. Bush won there in 2000 and 2004. And President Obama won in 2008 and 2012. The past two decades or so in Colorado are nearly identical, aside from the 1996 election, when Bob Dole picked up its eight electoral votes.

Obama won Colorado in 2012, but compared to the same early voting period, Republicans held a slight lead. This year, Democrats are up by about 10,000 votes, according to CNN.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Road to 270: A Look at Early Voting Trends in 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Putting the “pot” in potency, marijuana in Colorado has a higher concentration of THC than ever before. A combination of lax regulations and an influx of growers selecting for desirable genes has led to the increased pop to Colorado’s pot.

“While we don’t do genetic engineering here, we’re constantly looking for better genetics. That means good, big, and fast. So, it’s been a constant evolution of our genetics over time,” Andy Williams, CEO of Denver-based dispensary Medicine Man Marijuana, told CNN in a recent interview.

Cross-breeding strains of cannabis has certainly played a role in the overall potency increase in the state’s crop. But Colorado’s regulatory framework, or lack of one, concerning limits on THC concentration in a flowering plant, has also had an effect. However, Colorado’s Marijuana Code does include stipulations regarding edibles: a packaged marijuana product can contain no more than 100 milligrams of active THC.

Academic studies–as well as mandatory tests conducted by state-licensed, third-party laboratories–have tracked the steady rise in THC levels in Colorado’s pot over the last few decades.

TEQ Analytical Laboratories is one of the state-licensed laboratories that tests producer’s products before they hit the market, a requirement for all growers in the state. They have examined over 100 strains from more than two dozen clients. JJ Slatkin, director of business development at TEQ, recently showed CNN the test results of a flower with a THC content of 32 percent, well above the average of 18.7 percent in .

“The biggest issue is protecting the public’s health and safety and making sure this industry is based on sound accurate science,” Slatkin said.

A study published in April of nearly 40,000 samples of marijuana–all from illicit material confiscated in raids by the Drug Enforcement Administration over the past two decades–reveals what might be a national trend: rising THC levels in illicit plants. In 1995, the average black market plant had a THC level of just 4 percent. That figure tripled by 2014, to 12 percent.

“This increase in potency poses higher risk of cannabis use, particularly among adolescents,” the authors of the study concluded.

Legislators concerned about THC’s effect on adolescent brains, and who would like to see caps on THC levels, introduced an amendment earlier this year that would bar producer’s from growing and selling cannabis with THC levels above 16 percent. That measure failed to pass.

Williams, the CEO of Medicine Man Marijuana, compared limiting THC levels to taking spirits and hard liquor off liquor store shelves. People who crave a stronger dose will simply “make it themselves,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cannabis Grown in Colorado is More Potent Than Ever Before appeared first on Law Street.

After making a killing on taxing legalized recreational weed, Colorado plans to utilize the state’s excess marijuana tax revenue for good by giving its schools millions in an effort to combat bullying.

The Colorado Department of Education (CDE) announced plans to use $2.9 million of the total $66 million in surplus funds to create bullying prevention grants for approximately 50 schools for the 2016-2017 school year. Awardees could receive grants up to $40,000.

According to the CDE’s School Bullying Prevention and Education Grant Program:

The first year of funding will be used for the purchasing of an evidence-based bullying prevention program, training for the school on the program selected, a needs assessment, development of foundational systems, hiring an implementation coach, and baseline bullying assessment administration. In the second and third years of the grant, successful grantees will receive up to $40,000 per year to be used for bullying prevention program refresher materials, training for the school on the program selected, salary for an implementation coach, educating parents on bullying prevention strategies, and annual bullying assessment administration.

The money for the program comes from Proposition BB, a measure passed by voters in the state in November that allows the state to keep excess weed tax revenue. In the last fiscal year, the state raked in almost $70 million in marijuana tax revenues–nearly double what was collected from alcohol taxes.

Colorado schools have until Friday, October 21 to submit their applications for the program.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Colorado Plans to Fight Bullying With Weed Money appeared first on Law Street.

The movie theater chain Cinemark will no longer pursue the $700,000 in legal fees that four surviving victims of the shooting were to pay after they lost a lawsuit to the theater. Four years after the mass shooting at the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, this particular case is finally closed after the remaining plaintiffs reached a deal.

Attorneys for the theater chain on Tuesday said:

All plaintiffs in this matter have now waived appeal of the jury’s verdict and the case can now be deemed completely over. Defendants’ goal has always been to resolve this matter fully and completely without an award of costs of any kind to any party.

Surviving victims initially sued Cinemark for not having sufficient security at its theaters, hoping to raise the bar for other theaters across the country. They brought up the lack of security cameras, guards, and silent alarms on the emergency exit doors.

However, Cinemark’s lawyers concluded the theater could have done nothing to prevent the shooting and that the ultimate responsibility lay with the shooter. Cinemark was entitled to ask the plaintiffs to pay for its litigation costs, a bill that amounted to $699,187.13. But now they’ve reached an agreement, which means that any appeals will be dropped and Cinemark will not demand any legal fees from the victims.

The shooting in 2012 left 12 people dead and over 70 injured, including children and an unborn baby. The assailant James Holmes entered the movie theater during a screening of the Batman movie “The Dark Knight Rises,” dressed in a long black coat, a gas mask, throat protector, and leggings. He carried an assault rifle, a shotgun, and two handguns and allegedly said something like “I am the Joker” before he started his shooting rampage. He also had dyed his hair shock orange.

Holmes’ mother spoke out about the event in May this year and urged people to be more open about mental health issues. She didn’t know her son suffered from schizophrenia until she was in court.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cinemark Drops Claim of $700,000 in Legal Fees from Theater Shooting Survivors appeared first on Law Street.

After an unsuccessful civil lawsuit against the Cinemark theater where the 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting took place, the victims and their families may be forced to pay the opposing side’s legal fees. Those fees could cost nearly $700,000, according to recent court filings identified by the Denver Post.

In the wake of the Aurora shooting, which left 12 dead and more than 70 injured, many of the survivors and the families of those who were killed filed a civil lawsuit in a Colorado state court against the movie theater, arguing that its security provisions failed to protect the victims. The shooter, James Holmes, was sentenced to 12 consecutive life sentences for the crime.

The victims’ lawyers argued that the theater failed in its responsibility to secure the building, citing a lack of video surveillance, security guards, and silent alarms on exit doors–which is what the shooter used to enter the theater. They also noted that prior to the shooting the Department of Homeland Security warned movie theaters that they might be the target of terrorist attacks.

In response, Cinemark argued that the responsibility for the shooting ultimately lies with the shooter. It claimed that there was no way for the theater to foresee such a meticulously planned attack. Ultimately, a six-person jury sided with the company.

A similar lawsuit in a federal court decided in Cinemark’s favor as well and concluded that the company was entitled to recoup some legal costs, though Cinemark has not yet requested an amount in that case. Many of the victims settled with the company prior to the ruling, telling the Denver Post that potentially being on the hook for legal costs contributed to the decision.

Colorado law allows parties that succeed in civil lawsuits to recover legal costs, leading Cinemark to file a motion to bill the victims for $699,187.13 in expenses. But filing the motion does not mean that the company will get all of what it requested, a decision that requires a judge’s approval. In response to the company’s request, Marc Bern, one of the plaintiffs’ lawyer told the Wall Street Journal that the amount “is an outrageous attempt to keep the plaintiffs from appealing.” And while the company is entitled to recoup the costs, seeking money from the victims of a mass shooting may not be a great decision from  a public relations standpoint.

An editorial from the Denver Post claims that this outcome may actually be preferable because it could put an end to what it considers to be a misguided lawsuit. The Post’s editorial board argues that, ideally, the victims will drop the case and not appeal while Cinemark will retract its demand for the $700,000 in legal fees.  

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cinemark Asks for $700,000 in Legal Fees from Aurora Shooting Victims appeared first on Law Street.

A new study shows a link between recreational marijuana legalization in Colorado and the incidence of children who need medical treatment for ingesting the drug. The study, released Monday by pediatricians at Children’s Hospital Colorado (CHC) in Aurora, retroactively reviewed 163 cases involving marijuana treatment in toddlers ages zero to nine. The cases spanned between 2009 and 2015. Recreational marijuana was legalized in Colorado in 2014.

In 2009, the CHC’s emergency room admitted one child seeking treatment for marijuana ingestion. In 2015, a year after Colorado legalized marijuana entirely: 16 children were treated for a marijuana-related emergency. Forty-eight percent of the 163 cases during that period involved children who ingested marijuana in its edible form: candies, baked goods, and other sweet treats that contain THC, the psychedelic component of marijuana.

The rate of children visiting the hospital for marijuana ingestion increased after weed became legal in Colorado. During the two years prior to the legalization, 1.2 in 100,000 children visited the children’s hospital for marijuana-related issues. That figure increased to 2.3 per 100,000 children during the two years post-legalization. Additionally, the regional poison center in Aurora received nine calls in 2009 regarding children who had ingested marijuana, compared to 47 calls in 2014.

Dr. George Sam Wong, the study’s lead author, said his team’s findings help shed light on the impact state-wide legalization can have on children, and hopes it will lead to smarter regulations. In a video on the JAMA Pediatrics journal website, where his study was published, Wong said:

As more states decide to legalize both medical and/or retail recreational marijuana, we need to be cognizant about the public health impacts in all ages, but also in the young children, and think about proper regulations and rules to help prevent some of these exposures and ingestions.

Current requirements in Colorado require edible manufacturers to use packaging that is difficult for children to get into. Colorado, the first state to legalize recreational marijuana, also introduced new dosing regulations in 2015. Dr. Wong said the next step will be to analyze how other states change as they legalize marijuana. He also said the impacts of regulations that are already in place should be evaluated.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Since Legalizing Marijuana, More Colorado Children Are Ingesting Edibles appeared first on Law Street.

Not one but two transgender women, both named Misty, won Democratic Primaries held on Tuesday. This is a big step forward for the LGBT community and is well timed since June is National LGBT Pride Month.

In Utah, Misty Snow won the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate, while in Colorado, Misty Plowright won a House primary.

JoDee Winterhof, from the Human Rights Campaign, said to NBC:

It is historic that this November, the top Utah Democrat on the ballot in that state will be a transgender woman. Regardless of the outcome in the fall, both of these candidates have demonstrated to transgender people across the country that our politics are stronger when diverse voices are not only heard, but also included.

Neither of the women have much experience in politics, but want to offer voters an alternative to the other candidates that are running.

Misty K. Snow & Misty Plowright made history yesterday, and also they are my favorite political figures in ages https://t.co/7OoxouQ61Z

— J. Escobedo Shepherd (@jawnita) June 29, 2016

Misty Snow, from Utah, is the first transgender person to run for a Senate seat from a major party. Her day job is at a grocery store and she doesn’t have a college degree, but she beat marriage therapist Jonathan Swinton by a big margin. She is challenging Utah Senator Mike Lee, who is very conservative, with Bernie Sanders-inspired ideas such as $15 minimum wage, paid parental leave, and free college tuition.

Misty Plowright works in tech in Colorado and described herself as “the anti-politician” and an IT nerd. She also beat her opponent, an Iraq war veteran, easily and wants to get private money out of politics and for the whole country to have access to high speed Internet.

Neither of the candidates focused on the fact that they’re transgender women in their campaign, but rather on progressive Democratic ideas. However, winning in November might be harder to do considering how relatively conservative both of their states are. However, after the recent bathroom debate in North Carolina, and the shooting in Orlando, Snow and Plowright provide some positive news for the LGBT community, no matter the outcome of these elections.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Two Transgender Women Historically Won Democratic Primaries on Tuesday appeared first on Law Street.

Last week’s top stories on Law Street covered Canadian anti-vaccine parents’ guilty verdict in son’s meningitis death, the best legal tweets of the week, and Colorado’s supreme court striking down Fort Collins’ five-year fracking moratorium. In case you missed it, check out the top stories below.

1. Anti-Vaccine Parents Found Guilty of Not Providing ‘Necessaries of Life’

The parents of 19-month-old Ezekiel Stephen were found guilty of letting their child die after he contracted bacterial meningitis in 2012. David Stephan, 32, and Collet Stephan, 36, who live in Lethbridge, Alberta in Canada, walked out of an emotional courtroom Tuesday after hearing their fate. They won’t, however, be held in custody, and will return to court in June for their sentencing hearing. Read the full article here.

2. Best Legal Tweets of the Week

Check out Law Street Media’s roundup of the best legal tweets of the week. Read the full article here.

3. Colorado’s High Court Deals Blow to Towns’ Efforts to Freeze Fracking

Beneath Colorado’s Front Range–a stretch of the Rocky Mountains in the center of the state–billions of cubic feet of natural gas have been bubbling for millions of years. Above ground, the state’s supreme court ruled on Monday to overturn measures put in place by Fort Collins and Longmont–two towns that sit atop the reserves–to prevent fracking within the limits of their municipalities. Read the full article here.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Beneath Colorado’s Front Range–a stretch of the Rocky Mountains in the center of the state–billions of cubic feet of natural gas have been bubbling for millions of years. Above ground, the state’s supreme court ruled on Monday to overturn measures put in place by Fort Collins and Longmont–two towns that sit atop the reserves–to prevent fracking within the limits of their municipalities.

A lawsuit brought by the Colorado Oil and Gas Association to a lower court ended up invalidating both cities’ anti-fracking measures, and following an appeal by Fort Collins and Longmont, the case moved to the state’s high court.

The court overturned Fort Collins’s five-year freeze of fracking within its city limits, issuing the following statement:

“The supreme court concludes that Fort Collins’s five-year moratorium on fracking and the storage of fracking waste within the city is a matter of mixed state and local concern and, therefore, is subject to preemption by state law.”

Similarly, the fracking ban established by Longmont in 2012 was deemed “invalid and unenforceable.”

“Applying well-established preemption principles, the supreme court concludes that the City of Longmont’s ban on fracking and the storage and disposal of fracking wastes within its city limits operationally conflicts with applicable state law,” Justice Richard Gabriel wrote.

Colorado state law does not prohibit fracking, though the practice is regulated, and is among the most transparent in the country. State law also maintains the state’s authority in instances where a local government moves to push litigation involving the oil and gas industries.

Unsurprisingly, energy industry advocates were encouraged by the court’s ruling while conservationists were incensed.

“Oil and gas is ready to stand up for Colorado consumers and for Colorado’s place in the American energy renaissance,” Colorado Petroleum Council director Tracee Bentley told the Denver Post.

Conservation Colorado director Pete Maysmith expressed disappointment, advocating for “ground up” policymaking.

“Local governments should have the ability to call a timeout on drilling in order to better understand its impacts and ensure safety and public health,” he said.

While Monday’s ruling prohibits Fort Collins and Longmont from halting the practice of fracking, other Front Range towns voted for and still maintain regulatory measures (but not full force bans) for fracking on their land, namely Boulder and Lafayette.

As the demand for natural gas rises, it’ll be interesting to see how other states handle local attempts to regulate the potentially unsafe methods of natural gas extraction.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Colorado’s High Court Deals Blow to Towns’ Efforts to Freeze Fracking appeared first on Law Street.

Since Colorado became one of the first states to formally legalize recreational marijuana, there have been many attempts to stop legalization in its tracks. But the most interesting, and arguably the most promising attempt, was Nebraska and Oklahoma’s lawsuit against Colorado, which allege that since Colorado legalized weed, both states face an increased burden on their law enforcement due to marijuana coming in from Colorado. The Supreme Court dashed both states’ hopes on Monday when it declined to hear the case, but still this might not be the end of the story.

The lawsuit claims that Colorado’s marijuana legalization is unlawful for a number of reasons, from violating the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, to going against international treaties adopted by the United States. Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act during Nixon’s presidency, which categorized Marijuana as a Schedule I drug making it illegal and placing some of the strictest restrictions on its use and sale. The Supremacy Clause of Article IV of the Constitution states that federal law is the “supreme law of the land” and supersedes state laws, which effectively makes Colorado’s legalization unconstitutional.

The lawsuit claims:

In passing and enforcing Amendment 64, the State of Colorado has created a dangerous gap in the federal drug control system enacted by the United States Congress. Marijuana flows from this gap into neighboring states, undermining Plaintiff States’ own marijuana bans, draining their treasuries, and placing stress on their criminal justice systems.

However, in light of many states’ efforts to legalize marijuana, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued guidance that largely allows states to move forward without federal interference. Deputy Attorney General James Cole issued a memo highlighting eight enforcement priorities, including things like preventing marijuana distribution to minors and stopping marijuana-related violence. But the memo notes that “Outside of these enforcement priorities, the federal government has traditionally relied on states and local law enforcement agencies to address marijuana activity through enforcement of their own narcotics laws.” He further says that if state laws sufficiently regulate marijuana to deal with the DOJ’s enforcement priorities, then the federal government will largely leave states alone. This essentially meant that states would be free to legalize as long as they created a strong enough regulatory system to protect the priorities outlined by the DOJ.

So that explains why the federal government didn’t stop the legalization, but what happens when others challenge the law? That’s how we got here, with Nebraska and Oklahoma suing Colorado after voters passed Amendment 64 back in 2012. The lawsuit was sent directly to the Supreme Court, which has “original jurisdiction” over disputes between states, meaning that such cases begin at the Supreme Court and do not need to go through the traditional appellate process first.

After the Supreme Court declined to hear the lawsuit, Justices Thomas and Alito–both of whom are pretty conservative–dissented primarily because of the nature of the court’s original jurisdiction. In his dissent, Justice Thomas writes, “Federal law is unambiguous: If there is a controversy between two States, this Court—and only this Court—has jurisdiction over it.” He argues that, regardless of his or the other justices’ desired outcomes, the court has a duty to hear the case because it is the only body that can resolve these disputes.

But others have noted that the Nebraska and Oklahoma’s attorneys general still may be able to take the case to a lower court. Robert Mikos, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School, told the Cannabist that the two states could pursue their case in a district court. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli filed a brief calling for them to not take up the case. He claimed that doing so would be a “unwarranted expansion of the Court’s original jurisdiction” because it would need to argue that one state’s laws caused the illegal actions of people in bordering states. He also argues that hearing the case would be unwarranted because the dispute could be handled by a circuit court.

Many were not surprised when the court ultimately declined to hear the case. Cases between states are typically pretty rare and the court has often refused to hear them in the past. As the Federal Judicial Center notes, “Since 1960, the Court has received fewer than 140 motions for leave to file original cases, nearly half of which were denied a hearing.” Now it’s up to the Nebraska and Oklahoma to decide whether they want to pursue the case in a different court.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Marijuana Remains Legal in Colorado, SCOTUS Declines to Hear Lawsuit appeared first on Law Street.

Recreational marijuana may be legal in four states (and the District of Columbia) but it’s still not legal at the federal level. This has caused some problems and inconsistencies with between states and federal agencies–most recently, the United States Postal Service has declared that it is illegal to mail materials, including newspapers, that advertise marijuana.

This revelation comes after the Democrats of Oregon’s Congressional delegation wrote a letter to the Postal Service asking the agency to explain its policy. That inquiry was sparked by a memo that was circulated in the Portland, Oregon, postal district that stated that it was illegal for any media sources to run ads for marijuana and still distribute their publications through the Postal Service. The Democrats of the Oregon Congressional delegation explained their frustrations with the Postal Service’s policy, which they say is too rigid and doesn’t respect the voters of Oregon, stating:

We are working as a delegation to quickly find the best option to address this agency’s intransigence. Unfortunately, the outdated federal approach to marijuana as described in the response from the Postal Service undermines and threatens news publications that choose to accept advertising from legal marijuana businesses in Oregon and other states where voters also have freely decided to legalize marijuana.

In response, the Postal Service explained that “the Postal Service has released a national policy, which also spells out that local postal officials can’t refuse mail that contains pot ads, but they must report it; the matter must then be turned over to law enforcement agencies who can decide if an investigation is warranted.”

So, it’s actually pretty unclear what will happen if a newspaper or magazine publishes an ad for marijuana–the Washington Post points out that it’s tough to determine whether or not any prosecutions would come from breaking the policy. The law being broken would technically be advertising for illicit goods, but as the Washington Post states: “federal authorities have generally not cracked down on pot sales in states where they’re legal.”

Given that the number of states that have legalized marijuana are a notable minority, and traditional advertising isn’t necessary flourishing, this may not be a big deal. But it’s another messy manifestation of the current divide between state and federal law–one that only threatens to widen as more states legalize recreational marijuana.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Newspapers Can’t Run Marijuana Ads if They Want to Use the Postal Service appeared first on Law Street.

Oregon’s first week of selling legalized marijuana has been, by pretty much all accounts, a success. The first week of sales topped an estimated $11 million, blowing sales from other states with legalized weed, including Colorado and Washington, out of the water. If those sales keep up, Oregon can expect to see a pretty noticeable bump in new revenue when the sales taxes kick in this January.

Oregon began selling legal marijuana for recreational uses on October 1, after Ballot Measure 91 to legalize it was successful during the 2014 midterm elections. Just over 56 percent of voters voted to legalize marijuana, and the state took almost a year to put in place the necessary regulations and protocols to sell legalized week. However, there are still some aspects of the industry that are being sorted out.

Currently, only adults 21 and older are allowed to purchase marijuana. Only “flower and dry leaf products, plants, and seeds” are being sold and there are restrictions on the amounts of those items that are able to be sold. Other products, like edibles, are still not being sold to recreational users as some regulation kinks are worked out, but are still available to medical marijuana license holders.

Currently, only licensed medical marijuana dispensaries are allowed to sell the products; there are roughly 200 of those in Oregon. There are plans to begin allowing standalone stores dedicated to selling legalized marijuana sometime next year. Additionally, there are some places where legalized marijuana won’t be sold in Oregon, as the state has allowed individual cities and counties to prohibit the sale.

One the first day of sales–October 1–the Oregon Retail Cannabis Association estimated that there was roughly $3.5 million in sales. This is good news for the state, given that it set a tax revenue goal of $9 million for the first fiscal year. Recreational marijuana won’t be taxed in Oregon until January, at 25 percent. The Oregon Retail Cannabis Association is very optimistic about that $9 million goal–it believes that the tax revenue brought in will be three to four times as much.

So far Oregon’s foray into legalized marijuana has been a success, even just a week in. While there are still regulations that need to be figured out, and the addition of taxes in January may slow down some sales, Oregon is on its way to being a great economic example in the argument for legalizing marijuana.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Oregon’s First Week of Legalized Weed Sales Rakes in $11 Million appeared first on Law Street.

James Holmes was sentenced to life in prison yesterday by Judge Carlos A Samour, without possibility of parole. He will be serving 12 consecutive life sentences, and an additional 3,318 years in prison. While that’s obviously an incredibly restrictive and grave sentence, many were surprised that the perpetrator of one of the bloodiest mass shootings in history didn’t receive the death penalty, and questioned the motives of the single juror who voted against it.

Aurora theater gunman sentenced to life without parole http://t.co/WVytelb7bz pic.twitter.com/Hlw4CPhCNp

— The Atlantic (@TheAtlantic) August 26, 2015

On July 20, 2012, Holmes opened fire in a theater in Aurora, Colorado, during a showing of the “The Dark Knight Rises.” He killed 12 people and injured 70 others before being detained. In court, his lawyers claimed that he wasn’t guilty by reason of insanity, but that defense was ultimately unsuccessful, given that he had clearly put thought into his assault beforehand. He had spent months accumulating weapons and body armor, and had purchased his ticket beforehand.

In Colorado, in order for a defendant to be sentenced to the death penalty, the jurors had to vote unanimously for the death penalty. In this case, there was one juror who would not vote for that sentence, ensuring that the death penalty could not be used. Instead, Holmes was sentenced to 12 consecutive life sentences by the jurors–as is custom in Colorado the judge formally sentenced him today and was bound by the jury’s decision.

The fact that it was just one person who stood between Holmes and the death penalty received mixed reactions. For Judge Samour, it was an act that represented compassion in the face of the horrible evil that Holmes committed. Judge Samour stated: ““At least one juror showed the defendant the mercy that he refused the victims that day when he went into that theater.”

However for others, the fact that Holmes didn’t receive the death penalty was deeply problematic. Robert Sullivan, grandfather to six-year-old Rebecca Moser-Sullivan who was killed, and father to Ashley Moser, who was paralyzed, explained his frustrations to CNN. The sticking point appeared to be the one juror who voted against the death penalty; Sullivan called him a “stealth juror.” In order to be on a jury trying a death penalty case, you have to be willing to vote for the death penalty. A stealth juror is someone who is secretly anti-death penalty, but is still able to convince the attorneys during jury selection that they’re alright with the death penalty.

When the jury was being selected, there were concerns that a stealth juror would make it on. Legal experts voiced those concerns during the original jury selection process this winter. David Lane, a longtime Denver criminal defense attorney, told Yahoo about the difficulties of finding a stealth juror:

They are sworn to tell the truth, but a good liar can slip by. The only remedy for prevention is extensive questioning. Probing jurors about their attitudes about other things which would tend to out them as either liberal or conservative are helpful.

Whether or not the juror who voted not to give Holmes the death penalty was a true “stealth juror” or someone who genuinely thought that it was not an appropriate punishment for this case will probably never be known. However, the fact that Holmes received life sentences as opposed to the death penalty means that he, and his surviving victims, won’t be locked in years of appeals, hopefully finally bringing some closure.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Was There a Stealth Juror in the James Holmes Case? appeared first on Law Street.

In Colorado and thinking about smoking marijuana after work? Might want to reconsider that. Even though many Colorado residents qualify to use medical marijuana regularly, it can carry many consequences for consumers. In a landmark Colorado Supreme Court decision, Coats v. Dish Network, the court decided that employers can now lawfully terminate employees for using medical marijuana, even if they are off the clock.

This case originated in 2010 when Dish Network fired an employee, Brandon Coats, for not passing a random drug test. Testing positive for marijuana went against the company’s “zero-tolerance” drug policy. Coats is a quadriplegic who is licensed to use medical marijuana under Colorado state law to help ease the pain of his muscle spasms. He claims that he never used marijuana while working, nor was he ever high at work. Coats filed the lawsuit claiming that his rights were violated since he is legally allowed to use marijuana in the state of Colorado, so this should not affect his status of employment.

Colorado Supreme Court: Worker can be fired for using pot even though it's legal in state http://t.co/VNP5g4CEZY pic.twitter.com/DSeFkSGZJ4

— USA TODAY (@USATODAY) June 15, 2015

In a unanimous decision, all six judges ruled in favor of Dish Network, stating that the company was in the right when it let go of Coats. This case sets a precedent for future workplace conflicts over the matter. Medical marijuana is legal in Colorado, as well as recreational marijuana, but it is still illegal in all forms under federal law. Federal law trumps state law and so despite some people being able to obtain licenses to use medical marijuana, they still have to obey their employers’ drug policies.

Colorado is one of the most liberal states in the United States when it comes to marijuana use, as it legalized the medical consumption of it in 2001, and the recreational use of it became legal in 2012.  Marijuana use in Colorado has become ubiquitous. Doctors prescribe medical marijuana to patients for a multitude of reasons, such as to help combat the nausea induced by chemotherapy, to treat seizure disorders, or to curb the poor appetite and weight loss associated with HIV. People can grow the plant in their basements and there are dispensaries throughout many of the major cities. People can even take yoga classes focused on marijuana or marijuana themed cooking classes. Reports state that the legalization of cannabis has caused crime rates to decrease, lowered unemployment rates, and has contributed to greater economic growth thanks to the enormous tax revenues that the sales have created.

This decision will clear up many issues in Colorado, although it could also cause tensions to rise among citizens throughout the state and the whole country. Seeing how this case will impact other states’ decisions regarding the workplace and the use of medical marijuana will be interesting, considering that 23 other states have legalized it for medical consumption so far. To avoid future legal problems, this decision will likely prompt other companies to devise new drug policies so it is clear what they expect of their employees.

Toni Keddell

Toni Keddell is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Toni at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can You Be Fired for Legal Marijuana Use? appeared first on Law Street.

On New Year’s Day 2014, it became legal in Colorado to sell marijuana in specially licensed dispensaries to adults 21 years and older. Much like any liquor store, you can walk in, show your ID, and make your purchase. But the dispensaries don’t just sell marijuana you smoke; you can also buy edibles, as well–marijuana you eat. As a newly legal product, the state was in uncharted territory. As we fast forward a little more than a year later, what are the state regulations on edibles, what effects have the sale of edibles had, and are other states following suit?

What is edible Marijuana?

The Science

Cannabis, or marijuana, has three primary active compounds: THC, CBD, and CBG. THC is the only psychoactive ingredient. CBD and CBG have medicinal properties and alter the effects of THC. The drug reacts with the body’s endocannabinoid system, a “regulatory mechanism that modulates the release of compounds produced throughout the body,” and causes humans to experience a high. Marijuana can be vaporized, smoked, or consumed orally.

When marijuana is smoked or vaporized, delta-9-THC is absorbed through the lungs and heads straight to the brain. The onset high is relatively quicker and shorter than if marijuana is eaten. When the marijuana is consumed and digested by the liver, the delta-9-THC turns into 11-hydroxy-THC. The transformation causes the THC to quickly bypass the blood-brain barrier and produce a more psychedelic effect than smoked THC. Smoked and vaporized marijuana completely sidestep the liver and the THC never converts.

While the high from smoking marijuana is faster, edible highs last longer. When smoking marijuana, 50 to 60 percent of the THC in a joint can reach the blood plasma. The peak of the high can come after five to 10 minutes of smoking. In comparison, only ten to 20 percent of the THC in edibles hit the blood plasma and the high takes effect an hour or two later. The high from edible marijuana is described as a “whole body” high and can last from six to ten hours. Essentially, people experience the highs from smoking eating marijuana differently.

Why would someone choose edibles over smoking?

Although the high from edibles lasts longer, it isn’t necessarily stronger. The high from smoking is rapid and strong, and the effects wear off rather quickly. It is also relatively easy to know when you’ve reached a limit since the high is so immediate. One answer could be personal choice–some people prefer the experience of edibles. Edibles could also alleviate any problems a person has with consuming smoke, and coughing fits are essentially eliminated.

Also, edibles are inconspicuous. A person eating won’t invite attention the way someone smoking will. This is probably most important to medicinal marijuana patients. Amanda Reiman, policy manager of the California Drug Policy Alliance, explains that “people using marijuana medicinally for long-lasting chronic pain often prefer oral ingestion because it lasts longer and they don’t have to consume as often.” Bob Eschino, a partner at Medically Correct, says “They’re discreet, and it’s an easy way to dose the medication…especially here in Colorado, where you can’t smoke in public, you can still medicate with edibles.”

Edible Products

The sky seems to be the limit. Marijuana comes in the form of cookies, gummies, brownies, caramels, hard candies, chocolate bars, Rice Krispies treats, and beyond. Colorado dispensaries estimate edibles account for 20-40 percent of sales. Nearly five million edibles were sold in Colorado in 2014. For example, Dixie Elixirs, a popular cannabis products store, sold THC-infused mints, truffles, dew drops, whipped cream, coffee, and tea all in a variety of flavors. There are plenty of companies getting onboard. In an interview just this past February, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream even stated they would experiment with cannabis-infused ice cream if legal hurdles were removed.

Health Concerns

A major issue when ingesting marijuana is a person’s inability to predict the right amount to take. In order to receive the intended effect, there are many factors to take into consideration. Dosage is based on the type of marijuana, tolerance, body weight, gender, body chemistry, and more. The issue is further exacerbated by the fact that an edible’s effect can take an hour to two hours to reach its height. This prompts impatient people to ingest more.

The Cannabist, which seeks to educate readers about marijuana, recommends the following steps to be safe. First, a user must acknowledge his or her drug history and tolerance and recognize body factors like body type and gender when ascertaining the proper dosage. Also, it’s recommended when eating an edible to have a full stomach or to do so while also consuming food. Next, a user should measure by milligrams. A unit is generally ten milligrams of cannabinoids. A user should stick to a brand that works for him after lightly experimenting with a variety. Be patient, and cautious.

Controversy arose after a string of tragic incidents occurred involving edible marijuana. Levy Thamba, a Wyoming college student, committed suicide by jumping from a hotel balcony after eating an entire marijuana-infused cookie. The recommend dosage was probably only a portion of that cookie. Lack of portion control knowledge is a problem. Al Bronstein, a physician and medical director of the Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center, explains “[portion control is] difficult to do, practically. I know, myself: I wish I could only eat one-eighth of a Snickers bar and leave the rest for later.” Another concern is that consumers don’t realize that ten milligrams refers to one-tenth of a candy bar, for example, as opposed to the entire thing.

A Colorado man was accused of killing his wife after consuming pot candy. This man is thought to also have been on prescription drugs. As with alcohol, it is extremely dangerous to mix marijuana and prescription drugs.

Another major concern is children accidentally ingesting edibles that look like their non-marijuana-infused counterparts. According to a 2013 JAMA Pediatrics study, Children’s Hospital Colorado saw a “significant spike in the number of children treated for accidentally eating marijuana-laced treats” after the new marijuana-based laws were set in place. In one month, three seventh graders were hospitalized after ingesting marijuana-infused brownies.

The culmination of these events prompted public outcry that inspired new and stricter regulations on the selling and packaging of edible marijuana

Laws and Regulations

Stricter laws and regulations in Colorado went into effect on February 1, 2015 aimed at standardizing the labeling, packaging, and potency of edibles.

The recommend amount to take is one unit or ten milligrams. According to the new law, to avoid any consumer confusion, the serving portion must be transparently clear and marked “in a way that enables a reasonable person to intuitively determine how much of the product constitutes a single serving of active THC.” For example, Dixie Elixir’s marijuana-infused mints used to come in a loose tin of ten, with ten milligrams of THC each. They are now wrapped individually and sold at 16 mints of five milligrams apiece.

Packaging must now be child-resistant. Packages must be “constructed to be significantly difficult for children under five years of age to open…opaque so that the packaging does not allow the product to be seen without opening the packaging material…[and] resealable for any product intended for more than a single use.”

Labels must be more informative and give clear warning signs such as “This product is unlawful outside the State of Colorado” and/or “The intoxicating effects of this product may be delayed by two or more hours.” This specifically targets overdoses caused by impatience and overconsumption while a user is waiting for the drug to take effect.

The Marijuana Enforcement Agency now provides incentives for companies to sell ten milligram-portioned products. Manufacturers will face larger obstacles for production of ten to 100 milligram products.

Other Laws

Marijuana is still prohibited under federal law. This means you can still be fired for recreational use, and it can also lead to the loss of benefits, public housing, and financial aid.

Driving under the influence of marijuana will always be illegal, like alcohol. In Colorado, you can transport an unopened original package, but never across state lines. It is also forbidden to fly with marijuana even if you are traveling to another state with legalized marijuana.

You can obtain marijuana from a licensed dispensary or another adult over 21 as long as no money is exchanged. It is illegal to sell or resell any marijuana.

Alaska and Washington have also legalized marijuana for adult use with similar regulations. Washington D.C. and Oregon are following suit, but certain aspects of regulation have yet to go into effect. A total of 23 states allow marijuana for medical necessity.

Conclusion

Education and clear information are both vital. The tragedies surrounding edible marijuana seem like they most likely could have been avoided if these regulations were initially set in place, but it is hard to say for sure. Legalized marijuana, including edibles and other products, remains a new territory. New consumers need to learn what is safe and right for them as a learning curve is involved. If you are going to try it, it is important to be as informed as possible and in a safe environment. In the future, additional states may follow suit and legalize marijuana, and these questions will remain essential to keeping everyone as safe as possible.

Resources

Primary

Colorado Department of Revenue: Retail Marijuana Regulations

Additional

ABC News: Why Marijuana Edibles Might Be More Dangerous Than Smoking

Cannabist: Get Educated About Edibles: Eight Tips For Getting the Right Dose

Cannabist: New Rules in Effect for Colorado Marijuana Edibles Feb. 1

CBS: Colorado Moves to Curb Dangers of Edible Pot Products

BoingBoing: Everything You Need to Know about Marijuana Edibles

Consumer Responsibly: Know the Law

Denver Post: More Than 15 Months in, Pot-infused Edibles Still Confound

Dixie Elixirs: Products

Huffington Post: Ben & Jerry’s Founders Are Totally Down With Weed Ice Cream When It’s Legal

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Marijuana Edibles: A New Challenge for Regulators appeared first on Law Street.

California is in the midst of one of the worst droughts we’ve ever seen. The demand for water is exceeding the actual supply of water in the region, leading to big problems. The Southwest region of the United States has always been a dry area, and previously most Southwestern states nursed from the same water supply. Due to a decline in the water supply, those same procedures will not work in 2015 and beyond. Read on to learn about the changing policies for California relating to its water supply, and the potential effects of California’s drought.

Colorado River Sources

In order to understand the water problems occurring in California and the American Southwest as a whole, it’s important to understand the overall state of water in the region. The Colorado River and other water sources in the area play an important role, both historically and today.

According to the Glen Canyon Institute, here’s the background of the area: Seven states in the Colorado Basin signed the Colorado River Compact in 1922. The agreement allocated water rights between New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona, and California.

But now the Colorado River Basin is experiencing a natural disaster and water supply tragedy. That agreement almost 100 years ago was reached based on an overestimation of river flow, and an underestimation of water demand. As a result of the growing demand and unyielding drought, there is a water deficit of almost 1 million acre-feet a year in the Colorado River system.

To provide water for over 40 million people, the Hoover and Glen Canyon dams were built as a part of the Colorado River water management system under the 1922 agreement. This created the Lake Mead and Lake Powell reservoirs. But now, both the Lake Powell and Lake Mead reservoirs are half empty. Environmentalists doubt the reservoirs will ever naturally fill again.

As a result, the conservation and fate of the Colorado River system is directly linked to the environmental health of the Southwest.

How did this problem begin?

During the last century, more than a dozen dams were built which negatively affected the flow of the Colorado River, as a result, “hundreds of miles of canyon and countless archaeological sites have been flooded, and dozens of wildlife species have been endangered.” Glen Canyon Dam is one of the largest contributors to these issues.

The Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 was meant to alleviate the negative effects the Glen Canyon Dam had caused; specifically to, “protect, mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve the values for which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area were established.” Despite the fact that this act was passed 23 years ago, little implementation or success has been seen.

Lake Mead & Lake Powell

In Lake Mead, water levels have dropped to 1,085 feet above sea level, the lowest in 75 years, and only 10 feet above the level that would trigger cuts in water deliveries by the federal government to Arizona and Nevada.

The purpose of building the dams was to keep the lake reservoirs full. Some strategize to “Fill Lake Mead First” arguing it would benefit the people who depend on Lake Mead in major cities like Los Angeles and Las Vegas. However, this strategy appears to be largely going unnoticed by policymakers.

 California Water Policies

It was only in 2014 that the California government began to recognize the severity of the drought and began to enact serious policy changes. Governor Jerry Brown and California Democratic lawmakers “enlisted business support of a $7.2 billion plan composed mostly of new bonds for water storage and delivery to drought-stricken cities and farms.”

California Governor Jerry Brown signed three bills designed to regulate the pumping of water from underground aquifers. An aquifer is an underground layer of materials such as sand, silt or gravel from which groundwater can pumped up. Habitual digging for water has led to sinking–nearly 30 feet in some areas. Previously, aquifers provided 30-40 percent of California’s water supply. Since the drought, nearly 60 percent of the state’s water comes from underground. Scientists worry that it is possible to completely deplete the underground supply. Currently, there is no method to replace the underground water. In addition, a lack of underground water affects the species of animals who depend upon it. Without a diverse ecosystem underground, the quality of the dirt is also weakened over time.

Governor Brown first politely asked Californians to reduce their water consumption by 20 percent, but instead consumption rose. A water board survey of 267 water providers found consumption in the Bay Area dropped five percent. But in coastal California, consumption rose eight percent, leading to an overall one percent increase of water usage statewide.

As a result, Governor Brown ordered mandatory water use reductions –the first time such an action has been taken in California’s history. An executive order directed the State Water Resources Control Board to enforce a “25 percent reduction on the state’s 400 local water supply agencies, which serve 90 percent of California residents.” However, owners of large farms, who obtain their water from sources outside the local water agencies, will not be subject to the 25 percent mandate.

The agencies are responsible for creating ways to monitor compliance and enforce restrictions to cut back on water use; some hypothesize there should be fines from $500-$1000 per violation. 

The federal government has made a contingency plan as well. According to Nova Publishers, the U.S. Department of Agriculture offers programs to help farmers nationwide “recover financially from a natural disaster, including federal crop insurance, the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP), and emergency disaster loans.” These loans are typically less than $100 million per year.

Although state officials do not expect the executive order to result in an increase in farm or food prices; these assumptions can only apply to the immediate future. Long-term effects are still unforeseen.

What are the consequences of California’s water shortage?

Environment

While the entire Southwest region of the United States is facing challenges, California is seeing the most the extreme. Combined with extreme heat, and less circulation, the lack of rainfall has triggered a dangerous increase in wildfires and air pollution across the state. The smog is sticking around due to high-pressure systems, setting California back decades in terms of clean air and creating new health risks.

Jobs

A University of California-Davis research report estimated there would a direct cost to agricultural industry totaling $1.5 billion, a statewide economic cost of $2.2 billion and the loss of 17,100 jobs related to agriculture–rendering a 3.8 percent farm unemployment rate.

Prices

Observers are divided on whether California’s drought will make food prices rice. It seems logical that as farm acres become less useful, food would be more difficult to produce, thus making popular crops like tomatoes, artichokes, and broccoli more expensive.

The most affected crops will most likely be be rice, cotton, hay and corn silage. But crops like avocado, and mangoes which are mostly imported shouldn’t be affected.

Some retailers believe one of California’s signature products, wine, will see price increases in the coming months. The scarcity of water will likely increase prices for wines, especially some of the cheaper ones.

The U.S. is a geographically diverse nation, and does not solely depend on the Southwest for food production. For now, the globalization of food along with the nation’s agriculture industry has helped American consumers mostly escape higher food prices. These two factors continue to work to limit impacts on total food production and costs.

Why doesn’t Silicon Valley help?

What about reverse osmosis? Recycling water? All of those other terms we learned in biology? Technology should be able to solve this problem right? Well some efforts have begun.

California has started the Water Recycling Funding Program (WRFP) to promote the beneficial use of water recycling in order to add to fresh water supplies in California. State funding is going towards water treatment facilities, while most of private and outside funding is going towards the tech community innovations.

Or take Tech startup TerrAvion. According to CNBC it “flies manned aircraft over farmland and gives growers thermal images that can show farmers potential trouble spots when it comes to irrigation” and give tips on how to manage water more effectively.

WaterSmart Software works with water utilities to supply easy-to-understand information to customers on their water use–for example, showing how much water their home may be using compared to another home of the same size.

Conclusion

According to National Geographic, “for many years, California’s powerful agricultural lobby resisted any and all legislative attempts to regulate water restrictions, or groundwater withdrawals.” But, the extent of the current drought, combined with the state’s increasing demand for water has led to new support for change. We are in a new era and California may actually start to look like a desert. Even with the 25 percent reduction push, and the possibility of tech companies saving the day, Californians still must make behavioral changes to reduce water consumption. Even if Californians do make these changes, saving 25 percent of the water supply is not a long-term solution. It’s time for real change in California.

Resources

Popular Mechanics: 6 Radical Solutions for U.S. Southwest Peak Water Problem

National Geographic: Record Drought Reveals Stunning Changes Along Colorado River

Stanford: Causes of California Drought Linked to Climate Change, Stanford scientists Say

National Geographic: Amid Drought, New California Law Will Limit Groundwater Pumping

New York Times: California Imposes First Mandatory Water Restrictions to Deal With Drought

Glen Canyon: Fill Mead First

Arizona Central: States Expected to Reduce Water Taken from Lake Mead

CNBC: Silicon Valley Seeks to Help California

Fortune: The Consequences of California’s Severe Drought

Mercury News: California Drought Conservation Efforts Failing

KTLA: Heat, Drought Causes Significant Increase of Wildfires

LA Times: Heat, Drought Worsen Smog in California, Stalling Decades of Progress

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated to credit select information to The Glen Canyon Institute and National Geographic. 

Jasmine Shelton

Jasmine Shelton is an American University Alumna, Alabamian at heart, and Washington D.C. city girl for now. She loves hiking, second-hand clothes, and flying far away. Contact Jasmine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post California’s Drought: Costs and Consequences appeared first on Law Street.

A Colorado woman was arrested this week after a she orchestrated a Craigslist transaction that went very wrong. Thirty-four-year-old Dynel Lane of Longmont, Colorado allegedly cut out 26-year-old Michelle Wilkins’ unborn child from her womb, leaving Wilkins to call 911 herself and pretending that the baby was hers via miscarriage. The two women did not know each other and Wilkins had gone to Lane’s home in order to purchase baby clothes that Lane had advertised on Craigslist.

Read More: Slideshow: Killers of Craigslist

Law Street’s investigation into killings associated with making transactions on Craigslist, the popular buying-and-selling website, yielded the discovery of 58 murderers and 45 murder victims since 2009. This brutal attack is reminiscent of the 2009 attack on a pregnant 21-year-old woman in Oregon. Korena Roberts arranged to sell baby clothes to Heather Snively through an an on Craigslist. When Snively arrived at Roberts’ home, Roberts hit hit more than 30 times before cutting her open and taking her unborn child. In that case Snively died of major blood loss and Roberts pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated murder. She is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole.

Michelle Wilkins survived Dynel Lane’s attack, with surgeons noting that the incision in her abdomen “appeared to be well performed.” Lane was a licensed nurse aide between July 21, 2010 and January 31, 2012. Wilkins’ baby, however, did not survive the grisly attack.

Police are now investigating the crime, as well as Lane’s history, as prosecutors determine how exactly to charge her. According to Boulder County District Attorney Stanley L. Garnett,

Under Colorado law, essentially, there’s no way murder charges can be brought if it’s not established that the fetus lived as a child outside the body of the mother for some period of time. I don’t know the answer yet as to whether that can be established.

Wilkins pregnancy was seven months along at the time of the attack, and the hospital report indicates that the baby “would have been viable.”

Lane was arrested on attempted first-degree murder, first-degree assault, and child abuse that knowingly and recklessly resulted in death. Charges are expected to be filed next week.

[SlideDeck2 id=26861 ress=1]

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Craigslist Post Ends in Grisly Attack on Pregnant Colorado Woman appeared first on Law Street.

As of 2014, legalized marijuana is quickly establishing itself as the fastest growing industry in the United States, according to a new report. ArcView Market Research (AMR) just published its 3rd edition of the State of Legal Marijuana Markets report, and states that the U.S. legal cannabis market grew from $1.5 billion in 2013 to $2.7 billion in 2014, showing an overall growth of 74 percent.

In the report, AMR projects:

Full legalization of marijuana nationwide would result in $36.8 billion in retail sales, larger than the $33.1 billion U.S. organic foods market.

In order to obtain the most current information on existing marijuana markets for calculating potential growth, AMR researchers surveyed hundreds of marijuana dispensaries in key states, ancillary business operators, and independent cultivators.

The report projects that, by 2019, all of the legal marijuana markets combined will make for a potential overall market worth almost $11 billion annually.

Currently four states and Washington D.C. have legalized recreational use of marijuana, and 24 states have legalized the use of medical marijuana. However, Alaska, Oregon, and D.C, the places that passed Adult Use legislation via ballot initiatives during the most recent mid-term elections, have yet to establish markets for marijuana retail. On the other hand, Colorado has seemingly established itself as the nation’s pot headquarters with “$315 million in 2014 Adult Use sales, for $805 million total combined retail (Adult and Medical) and wholesale sales.”

California still currently boasts the most combined retail and wholesale marijuana sales of 2013 and 2014 at over $1.2 billion, but unlike Colorado, California only has laws permitting medical marijuana use. An Adult Use law initiative for the state is in the works, and if it passes in 2016, AMR projects the entire industry could rapidly double in size.

Despite the growth, some setbacks have hindered the industry. Financing has become an issue, with many banks opting not to lend to marijuana-related businesses despite the Department of Justice’s go-ahead. Nebraska and Oklahoma are also attempting to interfere with Colorado state law by suing them. In the suit they claim:

Marijuana flows from this gap into neighboring states, undermining their marijuana bans, draining their treasuries, and placing stress on their criminal justice systems.

However, some suspect that Attorney Generals Jon Bruning and Scott Pruitt’s intentions in filing the suit aren’t entirely safety motivated. Both politicians have received significant campaign contributions from alcohol companies, which are looking to remain their customers’ primary source of legal inebriation.

The potential for legalized marijuana growth is exponential, but also highly contingent on states continuing to adopt pro-marijuana legislation. As the nation weighs the pros and cons of the weed debate, the impact it has already had on the economy will probably stand out. Eventually, country-wide adoption looks to be inevitable from a financial standpoint, even if that may come as a blow to moral convictions for some.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Legal Marijuana: The Fastest Growing Industry in America appeared first on Law Street.

In Colorado, there is a famous city called Boulder. World-class geology professors teach at the University of Colorado Boulder, and the state’s concert venue Red Rocks is known across the nation. So, naturally, Colorado takes rocks very seriously.

This brings me to dumb Colorado law number one: one may not mutilate a rock in a state park. I’m not entirely sure what is considered “rock mutilation.” Carving your initials into a rock? Do pebbles count? Oh, the confusion! In the city of Boulder, it is illegal to roll or throw rocks on public property. This law also raises a lot of questions. What if you are rolling snow to make a snowman and there is a rock in the ball of snow? Does that count? Can you throw a pebble at a window to get someones’ attention like they do in the movies?

Because of the presence of llama farms in Boulder, lawmakers felt it necessary to ban llamas from grazing on city property. This law also applies to other domestic animals, in case you’re wondering. No need to worry about a missile being thrown at your vehicle while driving in Alamosa, Colorado, as that is illegal there. And if you frequently need to pee in Alamosa, make sure you are always near a restroom, as there is a law banning public urination.

Colorado is famous for a lot of things, including recreational marijuana and skiing. If you decide to take a skiing or snowboarding trip to Vail, you’d better be pretty good at it, as it is illegal to crash into obstacles on a ski slope. So, if you are a little less than pro level, I’d recommend venturing elsewhere lest you have a run in with the law.

Now it’s time to poke some fun at Arizona laws. Obviously, Cocaine is illegal in the state, yet lawmakers also felt the need to make the manufacture of imitation cocaine illegal, as well. What about baking soda companies, or other companies that make white powdery substances? Doesn’t that technically count as “imitation cocaine?”

You should also be careful what you write or draw on a flag in Arizona. If you place any mark on a flag likely to cause a physical retaliation, you will be charged with a class 2 misdemeanor. The state also cherishes its cacti. If you cut one down, you’re looking at up to 25 years in prison. Also, if you happen to come across a camel there, don’t shoot! Camel hunting in Arizona is illegal. This law may sound dumb, but there actually are camels in Arizona. The U.S. Army once experimented with camels in the desert there but they eventually gave up. The remaining camels were set free, and are now protected.

In summary, be careful with rocks in Colorado and don’t cut down cacti in Arizona or kill any camels and you should be okay. Join me next time for the dumbest laws of New Mexico and Texas!

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dumbest Laws in the United States: Colorado and Arizona appeared first on Law Street.

It’s still the holiday season, and during this time of the year it’s easy to forget to check the news. Luckily, Law Street has you covered with this week’s edition of “In Case You Missed It.” Our top story last week covered the ongoing legal battle between Colorado, Nebraska, and Oklahoma over Colorado’s legalization of recreational marijuana, written by Anneliese Mahoney. Our number two post, by Lexine DeLuc,a should help any Serial fans out there with their withdrawals–it’s a great collection of parodies inspired by the hit podcast. Finally, rounding out the list was a story from blogger Katherine Fabian on how to spot fake handbags during your holiday gift shopping. ICYMI: Check out what you missed on Law Street last week.

#1 Nebraska and Oklahoma Sue Colorado Over Marijuana Legalization

Colorado voted to legalize recreational marijuana in 2012, and officially started selling it in the beginning of this year. Now, almost a year later, Colorado is experiencing some backlash for its choice to legalize. Two of Colorado’s neighbors–Nebraska and Oklahoma–are suing the state because of the impact of legal marijuana within their borders. Read the full article here.

#2 Five Parodies to Get You Through Serial Withdrawal

Serial‘s first season has ended and if you’re feeling a little separation anxiety, here are the top five parodies to help fill that void. The list includes selections from Saturday Night Live, Funny or Die, SubmissionsOnlyTV, and even a few parodies with multiple episodes. Read the full article here.

#3 Holiday Gift Guide: How to Authenticate a Designer Handbag

It’s almost 2015 and there is now a plethora of consignment sites to get your second-hand designer goods. But as great as sites like Ebay, Amazon, and the new Alibaba are, sometimes sellers aren’t always honest when they claim their items are authentic. So to make sure that you don’t get duped (like my poor brother did when he ordered those fake Nikes from China) I’ve put together a handy guide on how to spot a fake. Read the full article here.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

The 2014 midterm elections weren’t the only reason to pay attention to political news this year. Keep scrolling to check Law Street’s top 10 political stories of 2014.

1. BridgeGate: 7 Reasons to Watch the Chris Christie Scandal

This winter, revelations about Governor Chris Christie’s involvement in the shutting down of the George Washington Bridge came to light. The whole scandal raised a lot of questions about Christie’s ability to be a contender on the national stage, quite possibly as the 2016 Republican Presidential nominee. Whether or not Christie chooses to run, there will be a lot of eyes on his handling of “Bridgegate.”

2. Marijuana Legalization: Let’s Be Blunt 

The states of Colorado and Washington voted to legalize recreational marijuana in 2012, and the sale and use started moving into the public sphere earlier this year. However, given that Colorado and Washington were the first two states to do so, many were left with questions about how exactly the legalization worked, what affects it could have on society, and how the Washington and Colorado laws would interact with federal law.

3. Drone Rules: Are They Enough to Protect Civilians?

Drones have evolved from being a futuristic fantasy to real part of American military strategy. However, like any new innovation, the legality is developed after the technology itself. In early 2014, the Obama Administration’s drone strike policies were a hot topic of conversation, especially after the disclosures regarding a December 2013 strike in Yemen.

4. Hobby Lobby: They Want to Remove the Corporate Veil — and Your Birth Control Coverage

Image courtesy of [Annabelle Shemer via Flickr]

Another hot political topic in 2014 was the Supreme Court case that’s widely become known as Hobby Lobby. It questioned whether or not the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) required employers to provide contraception for their employees, regardless of the company’s religious beliefs. Concerns about the case extended far beyond whether or not those particular employees would get contraceptive coverage, as it could have set a dangerous precedent for all sorts of discriminatory policies.

5. Obamacare Is Here to Stay! But It Still Kind of Sucks

Image courtesy of [Daniel Borman via Flickr]

The much maligned Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) finally went into effect this year, with the first open enrollment period. The act provided healthcare for many who previously didn’t have it, but that doesn’t mean that it was anywhere close to perfect. Partisan bickering over the law remained steady, but the Affordable Care Act can certainly be considered a step in the right direction.

6. Stuck in McAllen: Jose Vargas and the Texas Immigration Crisis

This summer, the arrival of undocumented youth at the Texas border sparked political debates, some outrage, and acts of compassion. One of the biggest advocates for these young people was a man named Jose Vargas, a prominent undocumented immigrant who works as a journalist and advocate. When Vargas traveled to McAllen, Texas, one of the towns most heavily affected by the arrival of the children, he was briefly detained and then released–cementing his status as one of the lucky few.

7. Debating Minimum Wage in America

As the cost of living in the United States continues to creep upward, and the American economy rebounds from one of the worst economic crises in recent history, many people still struggle to meet ends meet. Minimum wage jobs are an important sector of our economy–but what exactly do we mean when we say minimum wage? It’s an important political question that has yet to find an exact answer.

8. “Gay Panic” Defense Outlawed in California

For some time, the “gay panic” defense served as a way to claim a sort of self-defense in regards to hate crimes. While it doesn’t have a strong track record of actually succeeding, there were no laws specifically forbidding it. This fall, California became the first state to actually ban the “gay panic” defense, an important step in the fight against homophobia.

9. Campaign Finance: Free Speech or Unfair Influence?

In the wake of Citizens United and other landmark court decisions, our rules about campaign finance have seen some extreme changes in the last few years. These changes will have a huge impact on the 2016 Presidential elections, and pretty much every election moving forward, unless more changes happen. Given the topsy-turvy world that is the debate over campaign finance, anything is possible.

10. Just Get Ready For It: Another Clinton in the White House

We’ve all barely recovered from 2012, not to mention this year’s midterms, but speculation about 2016 has, predictably, already begun. Probably the Democratic front-runner at this point, Hillary Clinton has a lot of support. There are many reasons to get on the Hills bandwagon–including feminism, foreign policy, and her awesome facial expressions.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Top 10 Political Stories of 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

Colorado voted to legalize recreational marijuana in 2012, and officially started selling it in the beginning of this year. Now, almost a year later, Colorado is experiencing some backlash for its choice to legalize. Two of Colorado’s neighbors–Nebraska and Oklahoma–are suing the state because of the impact of legal marijuana within their borders.

Nebraska and Oklahoma have filed a lawsuit petitioning the Supreme Court to declare Colorado’s legalization of marijuana unconstitutional. Leading the charge are Nebraska and Oklahoma’s Attorneys General: John Bruning and E. Scott Pruitt.

The reason that they’re bringing it before the court is that marijuana is still illegal under federal law. Nebraska and Oklahoma’s constitutional argument has to do with the supremacy clause, which essentially says that federal law supersedes state law. Still it’s going to be a tough argument to make, given that Nebraska and Oklahoma are trying to make changes to what goes on within another state. Cases that center on disputes between states are pretty rare–although they do definitely fall within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Since 1960, only 140 such cases have been brought in front of the Supreme Court, and they’ve refused to hear about half of those. The court has not yet said whether or not they’ll consider this one.

While Nebraska and Oklahoma are making a constitutional argument, there are more practical reasons why they don’t want Colorado to have legalized weed anymore. Both states share borders with Colorado, and weed keeps creeping over them. Both states are claiming that this illegal influx is making it difficult to enforce their individual anti-marijuana polices, as well as putting stress on their law enforcement personnel. That’s understandable–there is some evidence to indicate that weed is coming out of Colorado and into other states. As the New York Daily News pointed out:

But the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area wrote in a recent report that the amount of Colorado pot seized on highways increased from an annual average of 2,763 pounds between 2005 and 2008 to a yearly average of 3,690 pounds from 2009 to 2013. The weed was headed for at least 40 different states.

That being said, there’s no evidence to suggest that the increase is directly tied to Colorado’s decision to legalize weed. After all, during the majority of the years included in that report, weed wasn’t even legal in Colorado. As Morgan Fox from the Marijuana Policy Project put it,

Marijuana was widely available in Nebraska and Oklahoma well before Colorado made it legal. It would continue to be available even if Colorado were to all of sudden make it illegal again.

Colorado has every intention of fighting the lawsuit–Attorney General John Suthers has even said that it’s without merit.  While it’s still uncertain whether or not the justices will hear this particular case, it’s an interesting look at the ways in which the ability of different states to make new laws affects their neighbors.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Nebraska and Oklahoma Sue Colorado Over Marijuana Legalization appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

As you probably know, marijuana is now legal for recreational use in Colorado and Washington, and soon it will be legal in Alaska and Oregon, along with possibly Washington, D.C. pending Congressional approval.

I was surprised to see recently that the University of Denver’s Sturm College of Law will be offering a class on the laws of marijuana beginning in January 2015. Created by professor Sam Kamin, the course is called “Representing the Marijuana Client” and it intended to instruct law students on how to represent parties in cases involving marijuana as a result of the wave of state legalizations. According to Kamin, “topics covered will include regulatory compliance, criminal defense, contract, banking, tax, real estate, and multidisciplinary practice. It’s not going to be a joke.”

I don’t think that this class is a joke at all. In fact, I love the idea! Obviously it is legal now in several places and people will need to know their rights–or really their lawyers will need to know their rights. It’s what they are paid to do!

I am in the process of applying to law schools, and before applying I took a very long time to see what various schools had to offer. I love a program that can separate itself from others and really show that it cares about the future lawyers it’s teaching. The University of Denver’s Sturm College of Law is able to recognize times are changing and so should some of its courses. Taking a class on the legalization of marijuana is vital to the lawyers and citizens of the states where it is legalized. Knowing your rights is the best way to stay out of trouble!

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sturm College of Law Changes With Times, Offers Marijuana Class appeared first on Law Street.

A Colorado High School is being sued for denying a student group the ability to gather for prayer. The Alliance Defending Freedom, a group that describes itself as a non-profit legal organization advocating for the free practice of faith, is suing the school district along with the principal and assistant principal of Pine Creek High School. They allegedly stopped a Christian student group from holding group prayers on the grounds of separation of church and state, Reuters reported. The Alliance says they are violating the students’ First Amendment rights.

The Alliance said in a news release that the informal prayer group would meet to pray, sing, and discuss religion in an unoccupied choir room during a free period, when students are supposedly allowed to meet up with friends and hang out on school grounds. Senior Chase Windebank contacted the Alliance after he unsuccessfully appealed to Principal Kolette Back about the ban, who told him that they could only hold group prayers before or after school, but not during school.

The Alliance then sent a letter in October to Colorado’s Academy School District 20 arguing that Pine Creek is violating the prayer group’s First Amendment rights by restricting their religious freedom. The district responded by saying that no student group is technically allowed to meet during school time. On Friday, the Alliance filed a First Amendment-based suit anyway, saying Windebank’s group should be able to pray freely during the free period.

Public schools themselves are not allowed to hold sanctioned prayers because of the separation of church and state outlined in the First amendment. But Windebank’s group is supposedly informal, thus the group’s prayers aren’t technically school-sanctioned. One could say that since students are free to hang out freely during the free period, they should be allowed to meet to pray. One could also say that for a public school to allow a prayer group to go on violates the separation of church and state. But technically the state (by way of Pine Creek High School) has nothing to do with the prayer group. It’s just Windebank and his friends.

The Pine Creek case may be debatable, but it’s only a small story in a larger issue. The separation of church and state is a principle of secularism that can inadvertently lead to misguided policies that ironically go against secularism. An example of this phenomenon is France’s laws banning conspicuous religious symbols in public schools and banning veils that cover the face in any public place. The laws have been seen as de facto bans specifically on Muslim headwear for women, such as the niqab and the hijab. Proponents have defended the laws as protecting French identity and values, while others say they obstruct religious freedom.

The irony is that secularism and the separation of church and state mean that governments are neutral toward religion. Just like they can’t sponsor religious practices, they also can’t hinder them. It means no religion, not anti-religion. So when it comes to Pine Creek High School’s ban on Windebank’s prayer group, the question is whether or not by asserting the separation of church and state, it means that the school is actually restricting students’ freedom. The separation of church and state, at its core, never requires citizens to give up their freedoms. The prayer group was initially asked by the principals to stop meeting during school hours because what it was doing was religious. By doing that, the school could inadvertently be going against the very principle of separation. Whether or not that’s true, the lawsuit will decide.

Zaid Shoorbajee

Zaid Shoorbajee is a an undergraduate student at The George Washington University majoring in journalism and economics. He is from the Washington, D.C. area and likes reading and writing about international affairs, politics, business and technology (especially when they intersect). Contact Zaid at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Colorado School Prayer Ban: Limiting Religious Freedom? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s official. Two more states — Oregon and Alaska — have joined Colorado and Washington in legalizing marijuana.

Oregon’s Measure 91 had a convincing victory, winning approximately 54 percent of the vote. Like Washington and Colorado, Oregon will now allow regulated and taxed sales of marijuana to adults. Stores will probably come sometime in 2016, a timeline consistent with those that Colorado and Washington set for themselves previously.

Ballot Measure 2 passed in Alaska by a margin of roughly 52-48 percent. In 90 days it will become the law of the state, and the state will create mechanisms to regulate the use and sale of legalized recreational marijuana. Alaska has long had a lax view on marijuana laws — a 1975 court decision legalized very small amounts in the home, although it was incredibly narrow and not really followed. In addition, Alaskans have tried a few times to get legal marijuana on the ballot, voting on the issue in 2000 and 2004. While both measures obviously failed, Alaska has certainly had a storied and complicated history with marijuana legalization.

And then, of course, there’s D.C. Our nation’s capital legalized recreational marijuana use, although not the sale of marijuana. There’s confusion over what this actually means, though. Congress technically has oversight over the District, and it can take measures to basically make sure that nothing ever comes out of the passage of this initiative. D.C.’s ability to actually govern itself and the people who live within its borders is notoriously limited. No one can do anything to stop the 735,000 people who live in Alaska from legalizing marijuana, but D.C.’s 650,000 are prohibited by officials they didn’t even elect. That’s why there’s a big question mark next to D.C. — no one really knows what will happen here.

As fascinating as the wins were for the future of marijuana legalization, it’s also interesting to look at what they mean for the overall scheme of American politics. Democrats lost last night on pretty much every level. Some marijuana legalization was one of the very few things that Democrats support that made it through. But what’s important to remember about marijuana legalization is that it’s not so much a Democratic value, it’s also a very Libertarian issue. There are reasons for both Democrats and Libertarians to support marijuana legalization, which may have been one of the reasons that it passed. It’s a strange phenomenon, as 538‘s Ben Casselman tweeted:

So voters want a higher minimum wage, legal pot, abortion access and GOP representation. Ok then.

— Ben Casselman (@bencasselman) November 5, 2014

So, the success of marijuana legalization in an election where so many other Democratic measures failed could mean a few things. It could mean that the Libertarian wing of the Republican party is really becoming sort of a dark horse among Millennials who are frustrated with the way that Democrats have been running the country, but aren’t willing to align with the Republican base or the Tea Party on most social issues. Or it could just mean that Oregon, Alaska, and the District of Columbia really enjoy getting high and don’t mind the increase in taxes that comes with the legalization of marijuana. Either way, it will be interesting to see if anything at all comes of the measure in D.C., as well as which states will be next to hop on the marijuana legalization bus.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Oregon and Alaska Legalize Marijuana appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been a truly whirlwind few years for marijuana legalization. In 2012, voters in Washington and Colorado voted to legalize marijuana use in those states. Others continue to decriminalize marijuana and allow its use for medical purposes. Today Oregon, Alaska, and the District of Columbia will vote on whether or not to legalize marijuana. How do these laws stack up? Check out the infographic below, based on information from Measure 91 in Oregon, Ballot Measure 2 in Alaska, and Ballot Initiative 71 in DC.

Oregon, Alaska, and the District of Columbia aren’t the only places considering marijuana legalization today. The cities of Lewistown and South Portland, Maine, are going to vote on whether or not to legalize it — Portland, Maine has already made it legal for adults to own less than an ounce of the substance. In addition, votes continue on legalizing medical marijuana. If the initiative currently up for a vote in Florida passes, it would make the Sunshine State the twenty-fourth to legalize marijuana, as well as the first southern state.

Regardless of how these particular measures do, there’s a good chance that we’ll see more states starting to legalize marijuana in the very near future. The national opinion on marijuana has changed rapidly. Polls fluctuate, but the amount of Americans who believe legalizing marijuana would be in the best interest of the nation hovers around 50 percent. In addition, most Americans don’t think that jail time should be served for small amounts of marijuana, which is now very much a “soft” drug; it doesn’t receive the same kind of punishment as more addictive and harmful drugs.

The progress in Alaska, Oregon, and the District of Columbia might not mean that we suddenly see a large wave of marijuana legalization across the country — it will still be illegal under federal law. But it will be interesting to see if any other states join Colorado and Washington this year.

Editor’s note: The infographic in this article was updated November 5, 2014 to reflect each vote’s outcome.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post States to Watch Today: Marijuana Laws On the Ballot in Oregon, Alaska, DC appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I am a huge fan of going to the movies. I was one of those people who would go to the midnight showing of “Harry Potter” or “Transformers” and all the big blockbusters. Although I never had a real passion for the Batman franchise, it sticks with me to this day with these two thoughts: 1. Heath Ledger died too soon, and 2. The “Dark Knight Rises” movie theater massacre in Colorado.

It’s hard to believe that it has been two years since movie theater shooter James Holmes walked into that movie and killed 12 people, injuring 70, on July 20, 2012. It’s even harder to believe that he still hasn’t stood trial for his crimes. The new date for jury selection is January 20 — this will be his FIFTH trial date.

Why do they keep postponing a trial that seems so cut and dry? Because they keep wanting to evaluate him and find out if he is sane enough to stand trial and get the death penalty that he so rightly deserves!

There have been 22 hours of interviews to determine if this guy is sane. I would say that all signs point to yes! Not because of my personal belief in the death penalty, but because he knew what he was going to do long before he did it. There was a serious plan in motion. The guy even signed up for dating websites and put in his profile, “Will you visit me in prison?” He knew what he was doing and the prosecutors are planning to use that bit of information to prove he was sane. Holmes’ attorneys acknowledge that he was in fact the shooter but that he was having a psychotic episode at the time.

It is time to realize that James Holmes knew what he was doing and get through the trial.

 —

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Matt P. via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Stop Delaying Movie Theater Shooter’s Trial Date appeared first on Law Street.

When I was young, my mom took my (even younger) sisters and me to a “Legalize Marijuana” festival. To be fair, she only did this because she thought it was the circus. How, you ask, could she possibly make this mistake? Well, it was very easy.

We were visiting my aunt at Florida State University (FSU). FSU has a clown school because, well, why wouldn’t it? (They probably prefer the term collegiate circus, but they are not writing this, I am.) Anyway, my aunt was attending the circus on the day we were visiting, and we were supposed to meet her there. She gave my mom directions that included something along the lines of “turn left at the stop sign, and when you see the big tent, you will be there.” My mom did get to that stop sign, but what my aunt had not predicted was that there would also be a big tent to the right of the stop sign. And as the tent to the right was visible from the sign but the tent to the left was not, my mom drew the conclusion that my aunt had given bad directions.

My aunt had not given bad directions. Which is how my mom and her three fairly young daughters ended up at a pot fair.

Let me tell you the conclusions a young girl at an event like this draws:

• Stoners are chill.
• College seems fun.
• All this was going on, and it wasn’t even 4/20.
• And I don’t care that those signs say no actual marijuana is present, there was definitely a lot of toking going on that day.

(My terminology on this topic may not actually have been that developed at this time, but you get the gist.)

Courtesy of Tumblr.

Does any of this have a point? Yes, of course it does. Because as it turns out, the FSU “Legalize Marijuana” fair is not the only fair in the country that – despite what their signs say – has marijuana on site. Take, for example, the Denver County fair where seven attendees entered a Pot Pavilion and were allegedly sickened, and at least one was hospitalized, after taking pot-laced candy that was sold as potless candy.

Though they were in the pot tent in a state where pot is legal, the victims actually did have every reason to believe that the only high they were about to get would be sugar-induced. Consider the following:

• The fair’s website clearly stated that there would be no pot anywhere on the vicinities.
• At least one drugged man, not buying the assertions of the website, claimed that he asked the vendor if the candy was laced and was repeatedly told no.

Being assured that what they just bought could legally be taken out of the state, each did what any sane person having just come into possession of chocolate would do: they ate it. And that is how they learned that vendors in pot tents are dirty liars. Allegedly.

Courtesy of Tumblr.

Shortly after eating the pot chocolate (like hot chocolate, except with drugs), the victims began getting sick. Two tested positive for THC-overdose. Reported symptoms included: vomiting, the feeling of “having a heart attack,” and of course the rage that comes from realizing you were just drugged against your will.

A class action suit has been filed against the manufacturer and the vendor.

The fact that we cannot eat candy without worrying about being poisoned with pot disturbs me (and that is not a joke). But I came up with a great solution (which is kind of a joke): let’s bring back food testers like royalty used to have. Those were the people who had to take a bite of the king’s food before he ate it. If it didn’t kill them, the king was free to eat (I’m not a poison expert, or anything, but aren’t there poisons that don’t kick in immediately? How long did they have to wait to get the green light to eat? I can’t imagine kings wanted to sit around while their food got cold. But I’m getting off topic…).

So anyway, we should definitely bring those back. I say we all have someone take a bite out of our food to make sure it is pot free. It will create more jobs, which will fuel the economy; and I predict it could become a competitive field. After all, I’ve been to a marijuana festival, so I can safely say that there are a lot of chill people out there who would be willing to help out humanity in this noble endeavor.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fairs Going to Pot: 7 Sue After Unknowingly Buying Marijuana Chocolate appeared first on Law Street.

This generation is supposed to be apathetic, image-obsessed, and glued to their phones, right? Well some young people in Denver are proving that perception wrong. Students from Jefferson County left class today in protest of possible changes to their history curriculum. No one is exactly sure quite how many students skipped school to help with the protest, but estimates put the figure at around 700. The protest was short lived, ending around 10:15am, because the students did want to show that despite disagreements about the curriculum, they do respect their education.

While the exact changes that the curriculum would make appear to be unclear, we do know that there would be an intense focus on the positive aspects of American life, while downplaying some of the more negative periods of our nation’s history. According to the Denver Post:

Community members are angry about an evaluation-based system for awarding raises to educators and a proposed curriculum committee that would call for promoting ‘positive aspects’ of the United States and its heritage and avoiding material that would encourage or condone ‘civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law.’

The curriculum would also “promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free-market system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights.”

So, the students are creating quite a meta-protest. They’re protesting the removal of conversations about civil disobedience by creating civil disobedience, albeit peaceful.

Revisionist history is tempting, and many countries, states, and groups are susceptible to downplaying negative aspects of the past. That’s tough to do though, because its important we learn from history. Furthermore, downplaying protests that have happened in the past de-legitimizes the rights of so many Americans that were won through our ability to stand together and lobby our government. Freedom of Assembly is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights for a reason, and our history shouldn’t ignore that.

This debate in Denver resembles many happening all across the country. What and how we teach our children is a constant argument. School districts are constantly arguing over the use of certain textbooks — like the case of the Texas history books earlier this year that critics were concerned put too large a focus on creationism. A system of charter schools in Texas was using books that question the age of the earth, links autism and vaccines, and claim that feminism makes women turn to the government to fill the place of a “surrogate husband.” The Denver case in particular seems to be a reaction to the Common Core stands that have drawn ire, particularly from conservatives, around the country. But the answer isn’t to rewrite history.

There’s a silver lining to this story though, and that’s the fact that those high schoolers recognize that there’s something foul afoot. As a country that consistently lags behind its peers in math, science, and pretty much everything else education-wise, getting kids interested in learning is way more than half the battle. While the Jefferson County school board’s attempt to mess with the curriculum is disappointing, something weirdly good is happening there. Because I can almost guarantee you that 20 years from now those kids aren’t going to remember what particular historical events they learned about in class. They’re going to remember the time they banded together and stood up for what was right, which is the perfect lesson.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Denver Students Walk Out to Protest County’s Attempt to Re-Write History appeared first on Law Street.

When it comes to alcohol, the laws regulating when someone is “over the limit” are pretty easy to remember. For drivers over 21, the legal blood alcohol content (BAC) limit in all 50 states is .08. For most of us, that means roughly one drink per hour. But as some states legalize recreational use of marijuana, and others allow its use for medical purposes, defining driving under the influence is becoming increasingly difficult.

One of the big problems is that we don’t quite know how badly marijuana affects driving. Experts point out that it’s obviously bad to drive when any senses are impaired — but we still allow people to have a drink before they drive, because a safe threshold has been determined. That threshold hasn’t really been identified for marijuana use yet.

Marijuana users are definitely impaired. Reaction times for example, are usually slower. But unlike those who have had alcohol, people under the influence of marijuana are usually more aware of that impairment. They are more likely to be cautious and compensate for their dulled senses. Currently, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is working on a study to figure out how exactly smoking marijuana can affect driving. In states that do allow marijuana, whether or not the legalization has led to more fatal crashes is virtually impossible to determine. Some studies claim that it has, others say that there’s no correlation. With such a small sample population, as well as so many other contributing factors to automobile accidents, it’s just too soon to tell what effect marijuana use has on driving conditions as a whole.

The states that have legalized marijuana, or allow it for medical purposes, have attempted to institute some parameters. For example, Colorado has set the DUI limit for marijuana intoxication at 5 nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood. Some people worry, however, that it’s too early to appropriately determine such limits, and that until we can do so, a limit like Colorado’s is arbitrary. The Marijuana Policy Project stated:

The inability to accurately measure marijuana impairment is why both the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the National Institute on Drug Abuse have stated that marijuana impairment testing via blood sampling is unreliable.

The main complaint stems from the fact that there’s no good way to easily test marijuana intoxication. When someone is pulled over and suspected of driving while drunk, there are small breathalyzers that can be used to determine BAC. No comparative tool has been invented for marijuana intoxication at this point. There is apparently a very preliminary marijuana breathalyzer being created by a Canadian police officer; he has named it the “Cannabix.” It’s still in the very preliminary stages, and scientists aren’t sure about the efficiency or accuracy of a breath-based marijuana test.

As more states move toward the legalization of marijuana — currently there are serious pushes in Alaska, Massachusetts, Oregon, New York, and Washington D.C. — the question of marijuana DUIs needs an answer. Zero tolerance policies seem tough, especially with the now relatively common use of medical marijuana. But how much marijuana in your blood is too much? Scientists will have to tell us — hopefully the new National Highway Traffic Safety Administration study will provide us with some answers.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Marijuana DUIs: How Much Weed is Too Much to Drive? appeared first on Law Street.

In an era when it seems like there’s constantly a story about a shooting on school grounds, we’re always looking for solutions to our school shooting epidemic. One long-discussed argument has been to arm teachers, and people across the country are taking action to do just that.

In many conservative-leaning states, the push to arm teachers is getting pretty serious. As of this year, in 28 different states, adults who own guns will be allowed to carry them into school buildings under certain parameters. Recently, legislation was passed in Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas related to arming teachers and staff members in public schools.

There’s also been some expansion of the way in which those who are armed in schools are trained. In some places, free classes are offered for staff members who want to carry guns into schools in an attempt to protect students. The Centennial Gun Club in Colorado is offering free classes to teachers who want to learn how to carry and operate guns. A former Colorado teacher named Tara who is thinking of returning to the classroom named explained her interest in the class, saying:

While I am a teacher, those kids, those students in my class are my kids, and my first responsibility is to protect them at all costs. When all the school shootings happened I realized that I wanted it more for my own personal protection and I thought that that idea of being prepared to protect translates very well to the classroom for teachers.

That’s all well and good, but what they don’t seem to be offering is classes that particularly relate to stopping armed intruders or using a gun under high-pressure circumstances.

In other places, the emphasis is on cutting the response time in case of an armed intruder by training designated staff members who have access to weapons. In some cases, teachers need to disclose information to superiors that they’re bringing a gun into the classroom, in other states the legislation doesn’t require that kind of step. While the laws are varied, one thing is pretty clear — bringing more guns into schools in an attempt to stop horrific tragedies like the Sandy Hook shooting has become a fairly popular mindset, without any whiff of consistency from state to state or even school district to school district.

Now, I’m very split here. On one hand I’m frustrated. Part me of thinks that we literally are so bad at finding solutions to our mass shooting problem that we’re just bringing more guns into schools as an answer. That is where we are. We so fundamentally can’t agree on how to deal with gun violence that we can’t even make the laws or required training consistent. Never mind the fact that arming people more to prevent shootings is a kind of miniature mutually assured destruction. Never mind that while shootings are occasionally stopped by bystanders, it’s relatively rare. Never mind that the ability to stop a shooting takes a blend of training, instinct, and temperament that requires way more than one class to learn. Never mind that in the last year, 100 children died in accidental shooting deaths in the United States. Never mind that by bringing guns into our classrooms, we are teaching our children that school is not a safe place, and that gun violence is a reasonable answer. That’s the obnoxious liberal in me talking.

But on the other hand, I have a side that I like to think is rational, and that side is also kind of frustrated. Now, I want to be clear, because I’ve learned from experience that this kind of disclaimer is needed: this is not an attack on the Second Amendment. This is an attack on the complete lack of common sense that we are now employing. If we sat down, as a nation, and truly determined that the best way to protect children is to arm their teachers, fine. We can do that, if we really think that will work. It’s a plan, at least, and as much as I don’t think it’s a good plan, I would be ecstatic to be proven wrong.

But what we have right now is such a fundamental disagreement on literally everything to do with this debate that we’re half-assing it. We’re passing laws that allow certain people to bring guns into schools under the guise of protection without necessarily creating corresponding legislation to make sure that the plan has the chance to be effective. We’re ignoring the possibly negative ramifications of these laws because it’s just easier that way. We are so far from being able to have a rational debate on this topic that any ability to be able to work together has been thrown out the window.

Every gun death is a tragedy, and the only way we’re going to be able to prevent situations like Sandy Hook, or Columbine, or UC-Santa Barbara from happening again is if we all grow up and talk about this in a rational way.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Wendy House via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Risky Idea Alert: Arming Teachers in School appeared first on Law Street.

Sometimes the news, especially when it’s about politics, can get us all down. But recently I’ve been seeing a few news stories that have lifted my spirits. Lately, some small towns have started to elect dogs and cats as mayors.

Most recently, there’s Duke, a 7-year-old dog who was just elected the mayor of Cormorant, Minnesota. He’s going to have a lot of responsibilities, given that the town he presides over has 12 people. Luckily he has a great salary–kibble and treats provided by a local pet store. I’ve heard rumors that items on his agenda will include outlawing the postman, and importing more frisbees. But I’d have to say that Duke’s best qualification is that he is incredibly adorable and fluffy–just check out a video of Cormorant’s new mayor below:

One of the most famous animal leaders in the United States is the prolific Mayor Stubbs, who has run Talkeetna, Alaska since 1997. Here is Mayor Stubbs conducting an important meeting with a constituent.

Thanks, t-dawg!

Stubbs has been the mayor since he was just a kitten, defeating some of his less-qualified human candidates early in life. He was a write-in candidate, and has been very successful in reelection bids. Stubbs’ leadership has been very well received by the roughly 900 townspeople of Talkeetna, Alaska. They especially appreciate his paws-off approach when it comes to business. He also has increased tourism visits to Talkeetna just by being himself–everyone wants to come see the most prolific cat mayor in the United States.

Another more recent four-legged mayoral victory came from the town of Divide, Colorado. The leadership structure in general there is actually quite wild–the mayor is a dog named Pa Kettle, the Vice Mayor is a wolf named Kenyi, and the viceroy is a cat named Buster. To be fair, their leadership is less official than those of Duke or Stubbs, because they were elected on fundraiser driven by the local animal shelter. But since Divide doesn’t have a human mayor, I assume they’ll be consulting Pa Kettle on many important matters.

Of course, not every animal has quite as much success when running for elected office. Einstein, a beautiful shepherd mix, is running for mayor of Oakland, California. He has a very well developed platform that contains good proposals for both his human and animal friends. Unfortunately, due to horribly discriminatory laws, Einstein will not be on the ballot this year.

From what I can tell, there’s two reasons why these animals are getting involved in politics. The first is because let’s be honest, they’re super cute. Small towns often have other institutions in place to deal with day-to-day leadership, and a mayor is just a figurehead. Why shouldn’t the figurehead be fluffy, easy to work with, and boost tourism?

However there’s also another reason that some of our towns may be turning to electing dogs, cats, and other critters. It’s a pretty unsubtle comment on the state of politics in the United States. Einstein, the little guy running for Oakland mayor, is running on behalf of the Occupy Oakland movement. In a time when Congress has an approval rating of 13 percent, the state of our politics is pretty depressing. Why not change it up–at least dogs won’t try to impeach the President, fail to pass any bills, or anything of the sort. So next time that American politics have got you down, google “mayor dog.” I predict that we may see a gubernatorial bid from Duke soon.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [geckoam via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Animal Mayors on the Rise: A Solution to America’s Political Woes? appeared first on Law Street.

Stories of vicious dog attacks capture the imagination of concerned citizens and instill fear in communities. While dog-bite attacks are relatively rare, the viciousness of some attacks is enough to cause anyone concern. Localities turn to Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL) as a way to regulate aggressive dogs and prevent attacks. Here’s what you need to know about BSL, why groups increasingly oppose it, and what other alternatives exist to be proactive about dog attacks.

What Are Breed-Specific Laws?

Breed-Specific Legislation is a blanket term that refers to any type of law designed to regulate certain breeds with the goal of reducing dog attacks. These laws are typically instituted by city and municipal governments. In its most drastic form, BSL includes a complete ban on a specific type of dog. The laws typically target “pitbull” types and other dog breed that are considered aggressive. Pit bulls aren’t a specific breed, but are a set of dogs that can include American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, and other breed mixes. Bans in cities may also include bulldogs, rottweilers, and wolf-hybrids.

Other BSL has lesser requirements, such as mandatory spaying or neutering, muzzling, confinement, a minimum insurance, or preventing the chaining of dogs. Most BSL requires owners of dangerous breeds to carry liability insurance with coverage up to $500,000. If an attack does occur, victims can then receive medical payment. This also acts as a type of ban, since owners unable to afford such exorbitant insurance would not be allowed to own targeted breeds.

What is the reason for BSL?

The basis for these laws can be traced to numerous studies concluding pit bulls were implicated in a disproportionate number of attacks. A 20-year study (1978-1998) by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) showed that pit bulls and rottweilers were involved in 67 percent of dog-bite related fatalities during that time period. Numerous studies reveal similar conclusions. Some of the grizzly statistics can be seen below:

BSL advocates point to features specific to certain dogs that make them prone to harmful attacks. Pit bulls derive their genes from “the Butcher’s Dog,” which was originally bred for bull-baiting before being used for dogfighting. The dogs were bred to be muscular, aggressive, and agile. Reports claim these dogs are unique since they give no warning signs before attacking and will not retreat from an attack even when considerable pain is inflicted. These dogs will attack deep muscles and then hold on with their teeth and shake, causing tissues to rip.

Attacks by aggressive dogs can pose a large threat to communities and are too expensive of an issue to ignore. The AVMA estimates hospital expenses for dog-bite related emergency visits to be $102.4 million. A 2010 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality study showed that the number of Americans hospitalized for dog bites almost doubled over a 15-year period. The study also concluded the average cost of a dog-bite related hospital stay was $18,200, approximately 50 percent higher than the average injury-related hospital stay. In 2012, more than 27,000 people underwent reconstructive surgery as a result of being bitten by dogs.

What arguments are made against BSL?

Numerous organizations, including the American Bar Association, American Humane Association, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publicly oppose BSL. Many opponents refer to the laws as “Breed Discriminatory Laws.”  In 2013 President Obama even issued an official response to the controversial laws:

“We don’t support breed-specific legislation — research shows that bans on certain types of dogs are largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources.”

Listen to a discussion from the American Kennel Club below:

State bans

Seventeen states ban legislation against specific types of dogs, and other states are considering similar legislation. An interesting case was made in Denver after Colorado approved legislation banning BSL. Denver passed its pit bull ban in 1989, repealed the ban in 2004 to comply with state law, but then reinstated the ban in 2005. The city’s challenge to the state’s BSL prohibition was ultimately ruled in Denver’s favor as a home-rule exception. The court ruled a state ban on BSL could not infringe on Denver’s right to enforce ordinances on matters of local concern. Most court cases have upheld the laws because localities enjoy widespread police powers. As long as cities can prove a BSL is related to improving public safety, it will be upheld. Even following Denver’s BSL, the county has dog bite rates many times higher than other Colorado counties without similar laws.

Profiling

Many take issue with BSL because it is difficult to predict a dog’s breed or behavior based on outward appearance. According to the American Pet Products Association, 31 million of 73 million pet dogs are classified by their owners as “mutts,” which makes them hard to classify as a specific breed. Laws banning “pit bulls” target a loosely-defined class of dogs or dogs with a similar appearance. In many localities, the decision of whether a dog is one of the prohibited breeds is left to a city manager or police who lack sufficient expertise in the matter. Other times animal control or a veterinarian will make the decision. The only certain way to tell a dog’s breed is by way of DNA tests, which can be very expensive. This means BSL is often difficult to effectively enforce.

Expense

The laws are typically enforced by animal control agencies on tight budgets. Counties rack up costs from enforcement, kenneling, euthanasia, and litigation. In 2008, Omaha proposed a BSL that would cost half a million dollars to enforce. A Baltimore auditor estimated it would cost $750,000 to enforce a breed-specific ban.

Nature v. Nurture

Owners of these “dangerous” breeds contend any dog can become vicious if it is not treated properly. Dog owners who do not appropriately care for their dog, abuse it, or treat it as a guard dog rather than a pet make the dog more prone to attacks. In contrast, a loving family training a pit bull would raise a well-behaved dog with no aggression problems.

Unintended effects

Others believe BSL has more dangerous effects. Owners intent on keeping the outlawed breeds may keep their dogs in hiding, meaning the dogs do not get proper socialization or visits to the veterinarian. Opponents also claim these laws encourage ownership by the most irresponsible people, who own pit bulls as a status symbol to show disregard for the law. If there is a ban on pit bulls or rottweilers, owners can still have other unregulated aggressive breeds. One dog owner created a video against BSL below:

Have these laws been effective?

One highly cited case study comes from Prince George’s County in Maryland, as it was one of the few places to examine BSL effectiveness. The county of more than 900,000 people banned pit bulls in 1996. Any pit bulls found in the county after the ban were either put down or sent to live with families in other areas. A 2003 task force found the 15-year pit bull ban cost the county more than $250,000 each year, with no measurable effect on safety. The cost to the county to confiscate and euthanize a single pit-bull is roughly $68,000. In fiscal year 2001-2002, the county spent more than half a million dollars enforcing the ban. Due to ineffectiveness, the task force recommended repealing the ban and found that other, non-breed-specific laws already were in place to cover vicious animals, leash laws, and other public health and safety concerns.

In 2000, the CDC looked at 20 years of data regarding dog bites and fatalities in the United States. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks represent only a very small proportion of total dog bite injuries, and that it’s impossible to calculate the bite rates of specific breeds. No evidence supports the idea that a specific type of dog is more prone to attacks. Furthermore, breed specific laws have not succeeded in reducing overall bite-related injuries in any area where they were implemented.

The U.S. Military also has contentious BSL. The Marine Corps, Army, and Air Force all ban large dogs with a predisposition for aggressive behavior. Dogs such as pit bulls and rottweilers are not allowed to live at base housing, and families wishing to have these dogs may be moved off base. Many feel this treatment is unfair to those who are fighting for their country.

Are there other alternatives to BSL?

Organizations who oppose BSL advocate a number of solutions they feel are more effective. The CDC proposes a community-based approach. This approach includes:

• Public dialogue identifying community issues
• Developing an advisory council
• Monitoring bite response
• Data reporting
• Public education campaign
• Businesses addressing prevention techniques
• Effectively conveying information through local media

The CDC reports that aggression in dogs is tied to a number of factors beyond breed. These factors include sex, socialization, heredity, and treatment. More than 70 percent of all dog bite cases involve unneutered male dogs. An unneutered male dog is 2.6 times more likely to bite than is a neutered dog. Eighty-four percent of bite cases involved dogs who were maintained by reckless owners — the dogs were abused or neglected, not humanely controlled or allowed to interact with children unsupervised. Seventy-eight percent of the dogs in bite cases were not kept as pets but as guard, breeding, or yard dogs.

The statistics show that rather than outlawing specific breeds, campaigns to prevent dog-biting should focus on creating caring owners and encouraging the spaying and neutering of dogs. Further, children must be educated to understand how to play with dogs and when to leave them alone. Dogs themselves may not be dangerous, but a bad situation can make any dog more prone to aggressive behavior. While pit bulls and other “aggressive” breeds can pose threats to a community, outlawing these dogs through BSL is not a surefire solution.

Resources

Primary

ASPCA: Breed Specific Legislation

DogsBite.org: Military Breed-Specific Policies

DogsBite.org: BSL by State

Additional

TIME: Obama Blasts Legislation Targeting Specific Dog Breeds

StopBSL.org: Expense of BSL

Animal Legal Defense Fund: Challenging Denver’s Pit Bull Ban

American Veterinary Medical Association: Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention

Animal Legal Defense Fund: Pit Bull Bans: The State of Breed-Specific Legislation

National Canine Research Council: Denver’s Breed-Specific Legislation: Brutal, Costly, and Ineffective

Animal Law Coalition: Denver’s Holocaust: Call For an End to the Pit Bull Ban

United Kennel Club: Punish the Deeds, Not the Breeds

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bullying Pit Bulls: Do Breed-Specific Laws Work? appeared first on Law Street.

Washington and Colorado approved voter referendums in November 2012 to become the first states in the nation to allow recreational marijuana sales; however, the states have taken different regulatory paths. Colorado started selling recreational marijuana on January 1, 2014, while Washington’s first legal stores opened on July 8, 2014. Regulators in Washington have frequently been in contact with those in Colorado to smooth the implementation process. The infographic below shows a quick breakdown of the two states’ policies, and if you’d like to learn more about what’s going on with these rules read on to the in-depth analysis below.

Who is allowed to buy marijuana?

Colorado and Washington both regulate marijuana similarly to alcohol. Only those aged 21 and older can buy recreational weed. Walk into a store, show your ID, and you can make a purchase. Customers are limited to buying or possessing only one ounce of marijuana at a time. Rarely would anyone buy a full ounce — more commonly marijuana is sold as an eighth of an ounce. Should you need more than an ounce, however, you would not be prohibited from making multiple trips to the store in the same day.

In Colorado, buyers from out of state are limited to buying only one-quarter of an ounce at one time, while there is no restriction on purchases by out-of-state visitors in Washington. Marijuana bought in the state must then be consumed in the state. In Colorado, you can share marijuana with others as long as you don’t receive any cash. In Washington, any purchase of marijuana must be for personal consumption. In both states marijuana transactions often have to be made in cash, since credit cards cannot be used due to federal banking regulations; however, state banks in Colorado moved to set up more local credit unions and issue debit cards that can be used for marijuana purchases.

How much does marijuana cost?

In Colorado, shops opened January 1, 2014 and were met with high demand. Initially 136 shops acquired licenses from Colorado’s Marijuana Enforcement Division, but the state has set no official cap on the number of licenses it will issue. The city of Denver, however, has a two-year moratorium on new marijuana businesses. Many other cities, such as Colorado Springs, banned recreational marijuana shops altogether. In the first days of sale, prices for high-quality marijuana rose to more than $300 per ounce. NPR reports that over the weekend of July 4, 2014, prices at a large chain hovered around $85 an ounce. Other estimates show the price per gram in Colorado typically averages $16 to $20.

In Washington, initial sales are likely to lead to product shortages and higher prices. Marijuana can only be purchased in retail shops licensed by the state; however, only 24 shops were licensed for the first day of sales, so owners may initially be inclined to ration. The state set a cap of 334 licenses to be distributed in accordance with population. The Washington State Liquor Control Board still has thousands of applications to sift through. Like Colorado, many municipalities in Washington banned recreational sales of marijuana. In Seattle, with a population of 652,000 and likely the hottest market, only one shop will be open on the first day of sales. Vancouver has two shops and Spokane has three. Growers of marijuana only received their licenses in March, meaning that there has not been enough time to grow a substantial amount of marijuana. Store owners indicate they want to sell for roughly $12 per gram, but the cost per gram could rise to as much as $25. Medical marijuana dispensaries in the state average between $10 and $15 per gram. Watch for more information on the marijuana shortage below:

How much is the state making off sales?

In both states, recreational marijuana is heavily taxed. Colorado buyers face a 15 percent excise tax, 10 percent special sales tax, and a 2.9 percent standard sales tax. Various localities then add additional taxes. Colorado’s amendment dictates that the first $40 million in taxes raised annually by marijuana sales must go toward the state’s public schools. According to USA Today, Colorado collected more than $24 million in marijuana fees and taxes through April 2014. In the fiscal year beginning July 2014, the state expects to make $98 million from marijuana. Tourism also increased, likely in part due to the marijuana law — 2013-2014 was the state’s best ski season to date. Watch an overview of Colorado’s marijuana industry below:

In Washington, an excise tax of 25 percent is levied at three different points in the sale process: from grower to processor, processor to retailer, and retailer to customer. According to USA Today, Washington is expected to collect $190 million from fees and taxes over the next four years.

What restrictions do marijuana shops face?

The two states regulate shops a little differently. Both only allow sales between 8:00am and midnight, and any marijuana sold in the state must be grown in the state. Initially in Colorado, any business wanting to sell recreational marijuana already had to be an existing medical marijuana dispensary. Vendors must be residents of Colorado and undergo a background check. They must apply through the Colorado Department of Revenue’s Marijuana Enforcement Division and typically have to apply for a local license as well. Beginning October 1, 2014, new recreational facilities will be able to apply for licenses. Medical marijuana dispensaries pay a $500 application fee to get a recreational license, while new businesses face a $5,000 application fee. Annual licensing fees can range from $3,750 to $14,000. Colorado also allows companies to vertically integrate by growing, processing, and selling as a single company. Additionally, individuals are allowed to grow up to six plants for personal use.

In contrast, Washington gave medical marijuana dispensaries no edge in the application process over new businesses. The medical marijuana industry was unregulated, so the state created regulations from scratch, including protocol-testing, child-resistant packaging, and shop security systems. Vendors must be residents of the state and are subject to a background check. The law separates producers, growers, and retailers. Businesses face a $250 application fee for a license and a $1,000 annual renewal fee. The state also limits overall marijuana growing to 200 million square feet. Washington does not allow individuals to grow plants themselves.

Are edibles available?

One of the most high-profile issues Colorado faces is how to regulate marijuana edibles, which are often seen as a hassle-free way to consume marijuana. Yet several severe cases illustrated potential dangers of edibles. On March 11, 2014, a college student from Wyoming jumped from a balcony to his death after eating a potent marijuana cookie. In another case, Richard Kirk suffered severe hallucinations after allegedly taking painkillers and eating marijuana-infused candy. The hallucinations led him to shoot and kill his wife. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd recently chronicled her experience with marijuana edibles to further heighten awareness of the issue. Colorado is aiming to make buyers aware of portion size and THC content, but is still experiencing difficulty regulating edibles and keeping them from the hands of unsuspecting children. The video below explores Colorado’s problems with edibles:

So far Washington has not approved any edible products. Edibles must first be tested and approved, so there will be a bit of a wait before they hit the Washington market.

Are there other regulations?

Smoking Areas

Both states ban smoking in public places, including in marijuana shops. The bans are enforced similar to open-container laws. In Washington, consuming in public means a fairly light $27 fine. Things can get trickier for tourists trying to find a place to consume. Only 25 percent of hotel rooms in Washington are designated as smoking, and it is unclear if hotels will permit smoking marijuana.

Driving

Driving under the influence of marijuana is illegal in both states. Anyone driving with more than five nanograms of THC per milliliter can be issued a DUI. Tests for THC are not as easy as a breathalyzer, especially since THC can linger in the body long after an initial high. If a driver was suspected of being high, an officer would likely have to drive the individual to the hospital for a blood test to get conclusive results. In Colorado, marijuana was involved in 12.5 percent of DUIs occurring in the first five months of 2014, a statistic that the state has only just begun tracking. Watch a video about DUIs below:

Other Issues

Despite the legality of recreational marijuana in these states, questions linger. Employers can still fire employees for showing up high or for testing positive, even though marijuana is legal. An in-depth look at the issue can be found here. States are also wary of consumers who may go to a number of stores to buy a small amount of marijuana at each and then sell it on the black market. The Justice Department is continuing to work on legal guidance for banks on how to deal with local retail marijuana sales. Despite these issues, the sale of marijuana has been a large success in Colorado, with voters now favoring the law by a 22-point margin after witnessing relatively smooth implementation. Should kinks in these laws be worked out, more states will look to Colorado and Washington when implementing marijuana laws of their own. Colorado has increased its regulation of marijuana since the law was first implemented and has not experienced serious consequences. More regulation of edibles in the future will likely lead other states to follow marijuana policies similar to those of Colorado and Washington.

Resources

Primary

Washington Liquor Control Board:  Fact Sheet

Additional

Time: Everything You Need to Know About Buying Legal Weed

Time: Colorado Kids are Accidentally Ingesting Pot

NPR: Washington State to Start Recreational Pot Sales

The New York Times: Still-Divided Washington Prepares for Start of Recreational Marijuana

Mercury News: Marijuana Legalization in Colorado

USA Today: With Legal Marijuana, Washington Joins Exclusive Club

CNN: 10 Things to Know About Nation’s First Recreational Shops

Denver Post: Colorado Voters Approve New Taxes on Recreational Marijuana

USA Today: Colorado, Washington Differ in Legalizing Marijuana

Brookings: Legal Marijuana: Comparing Washington and Colorado

The New York Times: Don’t Harsh Our Mellow, Dude

New York Magazine: Washington Starts Selling Legal Weed: What You Need to Know

The New York Times: Sales of Recreational Marijuana Begin in Washington State

Denver Post: A Colorado Marijuana Guide: 64 Answers to Commonly Asked Questions

Denver Post: Colorado Recreational Marijuana Industry Begins

—

Alexandra Stembaugh is a senior at the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Legal Marijuana Laws: Colorado v. Washington appeared first on Law Street.

Despite some positive results of Colorado’s marijuana legalization, like additional revenue and a decrease in crime, there are issues that require further legislative attention. The main point of dispute is the regulation, or rather lack thereof, of marijuana edibles. THC, the mind-altering ingredient in marijuana, can be converted into a cooking oil and used to make treats including truffles, lollipops, cookies, and basically anything else you can eat.

It is easy to see the appeal after just a glance at the menu in a dispensary, often including selections like macadamia nut cookies and candy bars alongside the more traditional brownies. This appeal, however, does not only apply to legal users over age 21, but to children who unknowingly find these THC-laced goodies lying around.

Why Regulate?

Critics claim edibles are far too alluring to children. The cardinal concern here is that kids will be tempted by marijuana candy and guzzle it down without knowing what they are eating. According to the New York Times, “so far this year, nine children have ended up at Children’s Hospital Colorado in Aurora after consuming marijuana, six of whom got critically sick. In all of 2013, the hospital treated only eight such cases.” In a recent incident, a seven-year-old girl in Colorado was hospitalized after ingesting a THC edible. While it does appear that the trend of the hospitalization of children who consumed pot has increased, the evidence is not yet conclusive.

What is the key to preventing future events from occurring? Law enforcement officers and manufacturers of marijuana edibles stress time and time again the importance of the role of parents in keeping their kids away from potentially tempting pot candies. “There is a level of discretion and education and, frankly, tenacity on the behalf of parents that has to occur. If you leave pot lying around, kids are going to find it,” said Joe Hodas, a spokesman for the Denver-based Dixie Elixirs edibles.

Another issue noted with marijuana edibles is the difficulty with dosing them properly. To deal with these issues, lawmakers are considering new packaging with more obvious warnings or limiting each package to contain just a single dose. Recreational dispensaries are also implementing safety measures by listing precautions for edible users.

Edible marijuana information sheet via anonymous

Last time I ate a brownie I bought it legally from a recreational marijuana dispensary. The brownie was 90 MG, so I used caution in the portion I ate because I knew that my tolerance was nonexistent. I started feeling the sensation creeping on about 20 or 30 minutes after eating it. My girlfriend, who has had much less experience using marijuana than myself, was trying to argue that it wasn’t working and that we should eat more, but I urged her to be patient because I knew that even the small amount we ate would get us high. We both ate a little more because I figured she could learn firsthand about the appropriate dosage for her. The peak of my high wasn’t attained until two to three hours after consumption. The experience is equally in the mind as well as the entire body, so I recommend not going out or driving and just letting the drug take effect.

-Anonymous Colorado marijuana user

Advocates of further regulation often cite recent incidents in which two individuals died, allegedly due to the over-consumption of THC edibles; however, the roll of edible marijuana in these deaths remains in question. The only instances on record include a man who jumped off a balcony to his death after consuming a cookie laced with the amount of THC in six joints. In the other instance, a man hallucinated and stabbed his wife, but other drugs were more likely the contributing factor leading to his actions.

Whether the marijuana edibles were the true culprit or not, these events and others have led lawmakers to begin tightening the regulatory noose on their THC content, sale, and marketing. Many express concern over the appearance of the labels on edibles as they appear strikingly similar to their non-THC counterparts.

How are Edibles Different?

In short, when THC is digested, the body absorbs it more slowly than when it is smoked, and therefore can cause the user to feel the need to consume far too much. In spite of this, edibles do not cause damage to lungs in the way that smoking can.

According to an anonymous Colorado marijuana user, the experience consuming pot edibles is a juxtaposition of emotion. “There is a simultaneous balance of being completely relaxed and being on the verge of a panic attack, for me.”

Like many other recreational pot users, he generally prefers pot edibles. “Edible marijuana makes me feel like I need to go to sleep right away but my heart rate is also increased because THC is a stimulating drug. The mind altering properties of weed are especially apparent because it takes feelings that I experience and makes me see them from a different perspective, making me physically uncomfortable yet more accepting to new ideas.”

Even supporters of legalization such as Brian Vicente, one of the authors of the amendment that legalized marijuana, say that Colorado needs to pass stricter rules about edible marijuana. He said that the state was racing up a sharp learning curve. “Marijuana was illegal for 80 years. Now it’s legal, and everyone’s just trying to figure out how to approach these new issues.”

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Janet Hudson via wikipedia]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Have Your Pot and Eat it Too: Regulating Edible Marijuana appeared first on Law Street.

With the legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington, people who choose to smoke marijuana for recreational purposes will not face criminal charges. But they could be at risk of losing their jobs. This ongoing debate between employees and employers continues to be fueled by state legislation and employment drug testing policy. The courts must now analyze and settle questions regarding the controversy. Although in certain states, employees are not breaking the law by using marijuana, employers continue to implement pre-screening and routine drug tests. Workers are beginning to take action against what they believe to be violations of their rights. This leads to an inherent disconnect between the law and companies’ policies – so here is everything you need to know about marijuana, employment, and drug testing policies.

History of Drug Testing

In order to explain the divide between state law and employee drug testing, let us examine the history of testing policies and procedures. Surprisingly, not all workplaces require drug testing; the power to choose whether or not to implement the procedure is given directly to the corporation. According to Drug Testing USA, there are three factors that are taken into consideration regarding employee drug testing laws:

“1) who can be tested and under what circumstances (pre‐employment, random, etc.), 2) how testing is to be conducted (in a law, via on‐site devices, etc.), and 3) the procedures to be observed by the testing entity.”

As a result, companies have the power to alter and update their employee requirements to align with state legislation. Yet, in recent cases, companies chose to adhere to their original methods. Later, we will examine how the courts respond when employees challenge employers’ practice.

Who is tested?

If employers do not require mandatory drug screenings, do they have the right to single out individuals and conduct a test based on “reasonable suspicions?” If they do, employers must be sure to adhere to a strict guideline of how they define suspicious behavior in order to avoid a lawsuit. According to the Northwest Justice Project, “it is legal for a private employer to require a drug test of its employees, unless the employer uses the test to discriminate against certain people.”

Who conducts the tests?

There is a discrepancy between the law and employee protocol. Although Colorado and Washington have legalized marijuana, this does not mean that businesses have to follow suit. In a company’s defense, retaining a safe and efficient system is vital to the company reputation and prosperity. But an individual could argue that employee drug testing is a violation of their privacy. Since drug testing lacks federal legislation, and designates most of the power directly to the businesses themselves, it is a corporation’s decision whether to drug test or not.

Ethics: Is an employer testing for marijuana a violation of privacy?

Technically, drug testing is classified as a form of search and seizure. When employers choose to test employees, they are compromising the individual’s Fourth Amendment rights which read, “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” A common argument is that what an individual does on their own time should not be used against them professionally. The concept of employee drug testing is similar to employers researching their employees’ social media accounts. If a person chooses to party and live promiscuously on their own time, should employers have the right to judge the employee even if they are a capable and efficient worker? The employer could argue that this is a practical and fair assessment in evaluating employees. However, the employee could dispute that they have the right to privacy within their personal lives, and should not have to change their habits or filter their social media on account of being judged by an employer.

Case Study: National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab (1989)

In a 1986 case, National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, the National Treasury Employees Union argued that drug testing was violating their privacy rights and the Fourth Amendment. Originally the State Court of Eastern Louisiana ruled in their favor, yet the case ultimately went to the United States Court of Appeals. There, the court ruled that the government’s policy on drugs surpassed the desires of the union. Although testing potentially violated employees’ rights, “balancing the individual’s privacy expectations against the government’s special needs” became the basis for enacting the tests. The ruling outlined several factors which the employer must abide by to protect the employee’s rights and ultimately upheld the standard that, “no privacy invasions should be permitted unless some good end is served.” This case made drug testing legally applicable to businesses if they choose to enact such as policy as long as they abide by the ruling’s contingencies.

Case Study: Johnson v. City of Plainfield (1990)

 “Even if drug testing is found to be constitutional, we must measure what we have gained in finding the guilty against what we have wrought upon the innocent.”

-Johnson v. City of Plainfield

In Johnson v. City of Plainfield, the courts questioned the constitutionality of employee drug testing, and decided that it must be decided on a case-by-case basis. In 1986 in New Jersey, the City of Plainfield Fire Department employees were subjected to an abrupt urine test. Sixteen of the firefighters tested positive for unspecified drugs and were fired without pay. Several of the firefighters felt that accusations were false, and that certain medication could have tainted the urinalysis since no information was provided about those present substances. Additionally, they felt that their privacy had been violated because a member of the same sex had monitored them during the urine test. Finally, they argued that their morales were tainted by the positive drug tests. In the ruling, “[the] court suggest[ed] that the factual findings in this matter should cause us to pause in the nationwide rush toward massive and mandatory drug testing.” This case illustrated a shift from a more conservative stance on employee drug testing to a more reformed view.

Case Study: Colorado

Although marijuana is now legal in Colorado, not all businesses condone recreational usage. Section 6 of Amendment 64, which legalized recreational marijuana, states that:

“Nothing in this section is intended to require an employer to permit or accommodate the use, consumption, possession, transfer, display, transportation, sale or growing of marijuana in the workplace or to affect the ability of employers to have policies restricting the use of marijuana by employees.”

Legally, employees can be tested for marijuana. According to The Denver Post, “despite marijuana’s legal status in Colorado, courts have ruled that employers have the right to fire workers for using pot, even off-duty.” There is no protection against losing your job because of marijuana use, so employees must make wise decisions when partaking in recreational use or they could be at risk for losing their jobs.

Does that violate employees’ rights and the law? According to Amendment 64, Colorado marijuana legalization, “specifically gives employers the right to have a Zero Tolerance Policy.” Therefore companies who choose to enact the policy are abiding by not only federal, but also state law.

Fox Business discusses how Colorado and Washington employers are wrestling with new marijuana laws:

Medical Marijuana

While Colorado and Washington have fully legalized marijuana, a more applicable nationwide debate is medical marijuana. Only a handful of states have provided legal protection to individuals with a prescription for medical marijuana. How do employers handle individuals who smoke to ease the symptoms of painful and sometimes crippling illnesses?

History of Legislation

The 1990 American with Disabilities Act protects individuals with disabilities. It assures that disabled citizens will receive protection from discrimination in the workplace and have the freedom to use certain aides to function in the workplace; yet it does not cover medical marijuana.

The Compassionate Use Act of 1996 gives individuals some protection against criminal charges, such as possession, when they use cannabis for medical purposes. However, it does not include any safeguard for employees from being terminated for violating a company’s drug policy.

Finally, in the 2008 case, Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications, individuals who used cannabis for medical purposes were denied protection from being terminated from their job.

However, there are some loopholes that certain states provide; in California, a smoker who uses medical marijuana can negotiate with the following letters:

1. Pre-employment Negotiation Letter (.doc).
2. Negotiation Letter for Currently Employed Patients (.doc)
3. Termination Negotiation Letter (.doc)

These letters do not guarantee an employee defense against termination, yet they give an employee a chance to petition to preserve their job.

To see a debate about the legality of medical marijuana in the workplace, click here:

Case Study: Brandon Coats v. Dish Network

In a 2010 Colorado case, a quadriplegic man, Brandon Coats, was fired from the Dish Network for testing positive for marijuana. Coats smoked medical marijuana to alleviate severe pain he experienced on a regular basis. When Coats brought the case to the Colorado Court of Appeals  in 2013,  the court confirmed that Dish had the right to fire Coats for violating company drug policy. When Coats appealed, the appellate court ultimately ruled that: “federal law trumps state law.” Montana, Oregon, and Washington also heard similar cases. All cases resulted in the same ruling– federal law overrides state law, and employers can choose to terminate employees if they do not abide by the company’s drug policy.

Employers retain the right to test and terminate employees for testing positive for THC regardless of the circumstances.

Future Amendments

Will the legislation amend the requirements for employers to accept the use of medical marijuana? Individuals that suffer from chronic illnesses are put in potential financial jeopardy. Yet employers are liable for mistakes made on the job due to marijuana use. As of now, employers have no intention of changing the policy, and legislatures are leaving the power to the businesses. Is this ethical? It has been scientifically proven that marijuana can help with extreme illnesses in a way which no other medication can. Employers are putting individuals who are already in a precarious situation in jeopardy. On the other hand, businesses have a reputation to maintain and would like to remain efficient in a competitive field.

Legal Inconsistency Throughout the States

Currently, every case regarding employees’ rights to marijuana use has been overruled by federal law, which still sees marijuana as illegal. This legal generalization may not suffice with the innovations to state laws that continue to develop. Legislation needs to take into consideration all of the ripple effects that marijuana will have on businesses. When drug testing was deemed constitutionally appropriate, marijuana was distinctly illegal. Now with all of the unique exceptions and amendments to state laws, there are constant inconsistencies. National businesses are now also put in an difficult situation when dealing with the marijuana laws unique to their state– how does a nationwide company handle state-to-state laws regarding their policy on employee drug testing?  Legislation needs to step up and tie up all the loose ends to protect employees as well as protect corporations from being sued by individuals who feel that their rights are being challenged.

Resources

Primary

US District Court, New Jersey: Johnson v. City of Plainfield

US Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit: National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab

Department of Labor: Drug-Free Workplace Policy Builder

California EDD: Misconduct MC 270

Additional

Regulate Marijuana: Amendment 64: The Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act of 2012

MAPI: Changing State Marijuana Laws and Employer Drug Testing Policies

The New York Times: Creating Confusion in the Workplace

Americans for Safe Access: Employment 

Huffington Post: Employers Can Fire You For Using Marijuana, But Brandon Coats’ Case Could Change Everything

Madeleine Stern

Madeleine Stern attended George Mason University majoring in Journalism and minoring in Theater. Her writing on solitary confinement inspired her to pursue a graduate degree in clinical counseling after graduation. Madeleine is an avid runner, dedicated animal lover, and a children’s ballet instructor. Contact Madeleine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post After Marijuana is Legalized, What Limits Can Employers Impose? appeared first on Law Street.

Fewer burglars and robbers lurk in the streets of Colorado, and not because of a Batman-style, crime-fighting vigilante. After Colorado’s legalization of recreational marijuana, skeptics believed the rate of crime would elevate if not skyrocket; however, the opposite appears to be true. Since January 2014, when recreational marijuana sales began, robberies and burglaries have decreased in Colorado.

Although a causal link between legalized recreational marijuana and the decrease in crime cannot be determined, the correlation remains. Other factors such as weather and the economy most likely influenced the lower crime rate. One of the main reasons it is important to observe these rates is that they can act as a crystal ball for other states hoping to follow Colorado’s lead. As the first state to legalize recreational marijuana, it became a guinea pig for demonstrating the effects of this legislation.

Many lawmakers and analysts predicted that the legalization of marijuana would lead to increased crime rates. For example, prior to its legalization Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey made the case that robbers would prey on marijuana businesses and their customers because they carry lots of cash and pot. This is because they are unable to open bank accounts and therefore need to keep their income in cash.

None of these fears have panned out, at least not yet.

Have we forgotten about Washington, the other state in which citizens voted to allow the purchase and use of recreational marijuana? Has the new law in the Evergreen state (potential for plenty of jokes there, along with the Mile-High city of Denver) mirrored a decrease in crime as well? The simple answer is no, because despite its new legal standing, not one Washingtonian has purchased a joint nor lone bud of Mary Jane.

For more than a year, the sale and use of recreational marijuana in Washington has been legal under Initiative 502; however, Washington residents still wait with bated breath to purchase recreational pot. Colorado residents have spoken: they voted to get high legally, and now they can. Perhaps the encouraging statistics demonstrating its decrease in crime will finally cause Washington lawmakers to speed up the enactment their law.

Why the difference between the two states? Whereas Colorado simply opened up the state’s existing medical cannabis system to recreational customers, the initiative passed in Washington required that the recreational pot business start from scratch. Although marijuana is legal to possess, there’s no way to acquire it until the state issues licenses for what the state calls its “seed-to-sale” system. Currently, this system does not exist. Would-be marijuana sellers filled out and handed in applications to acquire these licenses last November. The Washington State Liquor Control Board, the legal authority in charge of distributing these licenses, has not handed out a single one.

If and when the aspiring pot shop owners finally do get their licenses, they still must go through the tedious process of securing business permits from local authorities who are often against legal pot. Good luck to them.

If they decide to take a page from Colorado’s legislative notebook, Washington may be able to get the sale of legal marijuana up and running. Sometimes it is hard for lawmakers to move past the fear that naturally comes with enacting a new law, especially when they are the first to do so. The lower crime rate in Colorado since the legalization of marijuana should hopefully put them at ease.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [United States Fish and Wildlife Service via Wikipedia]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Colorado Crime Down Since Pot Legalization; is Washington to Follow? appeared first on Law Street.

There’s been a lot of talk about marijuana lately. This year we’ve seen the implementation of Amendment 64 in Colorado and Initiative 502 in Washington, both passed in 2012. Aside from the 18 states and the District of Columbia that have approved marijuana for medical use, two states have approved measures to legalize recreational use for adults 21 and over. With the sophisticated enforcement of these initiatives we must ask ourselves, has marijuana gone mainstream?

One might think, but this is a paradox when it comes to the criminal justice system. The latest FBI Uniform Crime Report shows that the highest amount of arrests were for drug abuse violations, with more than 42 percent of violators being arrested for marijuana possession. So marijuana is cleared for medical use but possessing it is a crime that led to more arrests than any other in 2012. Not only that, but these arrests consume massive amounts of money due to the cost of prosecuting, incarcerating, and having offenders under the watchful eye of the courts as a result probation or parole. These non-violent criminals are a drain of financial resources and increase criminal justice caseloads. As a result, many states are considering decriminalizing marijuana as is the case in places like Maryland and the District of Columbia.

The prohibition of marijuana seems to be losing popularity as the combination of decreased funds in state budgets continue, and more medical uses for the drug are found. On top of efforts to decriminalize and legalize marijuana, there seems to be a new level of acceptance when you consider the number of apps that have been created that allow potential marijuana dispensary customer to locate dispensaries from their phones. Even more than being able to get directions to the local dispensary, there are game-like apps such as Weed Firm that allow users to create their own cyber pot shops.

Weed Firm, a creation of Manitoba Games, was offered by the Apple App Store and allowed users to create their own marijuana plant mixtures that could then be sold to virtual customers. The game was complete with seed, potting, and fertilizer options for growers to make their favorite combinations. One of the more unsavory game features was the option to either pay the local thugs for the ability to sell marijuana on their turf, or have them take all of your plants and profit as payment. Manitoba Games was pleased to announce that Weed Firm was number one on every Apple App Store category. Unfortunately for Manitoba Games, Apple recently decided to remove the app from the store. As you can expect, the gaming company was not pleased with this decision and released a hilarious statement discussing the matter. In their statement, Manitoba Games has vowed to return to Apple’s App Store with a more acceptable, censored version of Weed Firm.

If technology is any indication of the changing opinion on marijuana, then its safe to say marijuana is no longer considered taboo. This change is a result of realizing the prohibition of marijuana has been unsuccessful. Financially, states cannot support the incarceration of large amounts of people for non-violent crimes like marijuana possession. It’s even harder to explain that people are being classified as criminals as a result of being in possession of a plant that is used for medical purposes. It seems that the evolution of marijuana and its negative associations are as old as Reefer Madness. This post does not advocate for the legalization of marijuana, but rather to explain some of the changes in public opinion and the influence it has on technology.

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a recent Graduate of Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [O’Dea via Wikipedia]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Marijuana Apps May Indicate a Change in Public Opinion appeared first on Law Street.

In December 2012, Colorado voters made history by approving Amendment 64, legalizing the use and possession of marijuana for anyone over the age of 21. Not long after, Washington voters followed suit, passing Initiative 502 in a state election and effectively legalizing recreational use of the drug.

Although Washingtonians will have to wait until roughly April 2014, pot can officially be sold in specially licensed stores in Colorado as of January 1, 2014. Now that you can legally buy, sell, and smoke marijuana in certain states, there are still questions that need answering.

First off, what exactly does legal mean?

In Colorado…

• Residents, of at least 21 years of age, can buy up to an ounce of marijuana at a time. If you aren’t a Colorado resident, the maximum amount that can be purchased drops to a quarter-ounce.
• Marijuana purchased in Colorado cannot cross state lines.
• The drug can be sold commercially – but only by specially licensed stores.
• It is illegal to consume marijuana openly or publicly. “Retail marijuana” is intended for private, personal use in locations not open to the public.
• The drug cannot be consumed in the vicinity of licensed stores, bars, and restaurants. Consumption in public transportation, cars, limos and taxis is also illegal.
• It is illegal to drive under the influence of marijuana. Anyone with 5 nanograms or more in their blood while driving can be arrested for a DUI, which could result in fines or jail time.

In Washington, although possession of marijuana is already legal, other significant parts of Initiative 502, namely selling marijuana commercially, will not go into effect for a few months. Like Colorado, however, some restrictions are already in place…

• Marijuana is prohibited in public settings.
• Drivers are prohibited from having more than 5 nanograms in their blood, an amount supposedly comparable to .08 blood alcohol content, while driving.
• Washington State universities can set their own rules regarding marijuana use. In an effort to avoid losing federal funding, University of Washington and Washington State University currently prohibit use and possession of pot on campus grounds.
• To deter underage use of the drug, Washington will adopt public health strategies similar to successful anti-tobacco campaigns. Specifically, retail outlets will not be allowed within 1,000 feet of schools and marijuana advertising will be tightly regulated.

Is legalization of marijuana technically unconstitutional?

Technically, the answer is yes.

Known as the “supremacy clause,” Article VI Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution establishes federal law as the “supreme law of the land” – hence the name. Seeing as marijuana remains illegal under the Controlled Substances Act, a federal law, the recent legalization of the drug in Colorado and Washington provides an interesting example of the interplay between state and federal laws. Attorney General Eric Holder has said the Department of Justice is taking a “trust but verify approach to the state laws.” In addition, Deputy Attorney General James Cole issued a memo to prosecutors across the U.S. 

The Department’s guidance in this memorandum rests on its expectation that states and local governments that have enacted laws authorizing marijuana-related conduct will implement strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems that will address the threat those state laws could pose to public safety, public health and other law enforcement interests. 

Still, for those worried about (technically) violating federal laws, Alison Holcomb, author of I-502 in Washington and drug policy director for the Washington State ACLU, says not to worry.

“Federal law enforcement resources tend to be focused on major organized crime,” Holcomb said in an interview with CBS News. “It is very, very rare that marijuana use is subjected to federal enforcement, unless users are on federal lands like national parks. By and large, the DEA has much better things to do than go after the marijuana users.”

Can I lose my job for using marijuana?

Although it has yet to become a problem in Washington, Colorado’s recent legalization has created a dilemma for businesses and their employees. While Amendment 64 legalized weed, it also gave employers the right to drug test their employees and subsequently fire them if they test positive. Simply put, the new law does not “affect the ability of employers to have policies restricting the use of marijuana by employees.” 

Last April, the Court of Appeals in Colorado upheld the firing of Brandon Coats, a Dish Network employee who was let go after he tested positive for marijuana during a random drug test. Coats, a quadriplegic who has used a wheelchair since age 16, uses medicinal marijuana to control his muscle spasms. Coats sued Dish Network, arguing that his use of the drug was legal and that he was never impaired while at work.

The Colorado Court of Appeals ultimately decided Colorado’s Lawful Off-Duty Activities Statute, which prohibits employers from firing employees for participating in legal activities during their free time, does not include marijuana use. Because marijuana remains illegal under federal law, the judges ruled that the protections of the statute do not apply. Colorado’s Supreme Court announced it will review the case.

With the outcome of Coats’ case still uncertain, one can’t help but wonder: If smoking marijuana can result in a person losing his or her job, is it really legal?

In an interview with Buzzfeed, Harry Levine, a sociology professor at Queens College and operator of the website marijuana-arrests.com, said the conundrum is the result of clashes between state and federal law. “Everyone’s attention is focused on the shiny new post-prohibition legal marijuana industry, and how regulated, interesting, and cool it is,” Levine said, “but over here behind door number one is the still-existing structures of nationwide drug prohibition.” 

Can I fly with my marijuana?

Again, since federal law regarding marijuana remains unchanged, the drug will not be allowed on airplanes – even if you’re flying out of Colorado or Washington. On the “air side” of an airport, which begins at the security checkpoint, federal law reigns supreme. When it comes to possession of weed before going through security, airports have differing policies. The Aspen/Pitkin County Airport, for example, offers travelers “amnesty boxes” – a place where marijuana can be stashed or disposed of without legal consequences. At Denver’s Airport however, weed is banned entirely, even in the areas before security.

Because state law forbids any facility from setting any further regulations, airports in Washington are unable to ban the legal amount of cannabis.

What does legalization mean for prior offenders and those currently in prison for weed crimes?

Fair or not, it does not change a thing.

From 2006 to 2010, there have been more than 50,000 marijuana-related arrests in the state of Colorado. For those still serving time in prison, the new legalization will do nothing to free them or reduce their sentencing. In addition, those who have already served time will not have their records expunged.

The reasoning behind this is simple. Since the crimes were committed when possession or distribution of marijuana was against the law, the charges stick. According to Matthew Fleischer, an investigative journalist and contributor to TakePart.com, “whether or not the old law was unpopular or unjust is immaterial.”

Unfortunately for anyone sitting in prison for weed crimes, the United States does not guarantee “retroactive ameliorative relief” in sentencing. Although it’s a mouthful, the term simply means letting convicts out of prison after a law changes.

The U.S. is one of only 22 countries that fail to guarantee this relief. In an interview with TakePart, Amanda Solter, Project Director of the Human Rights and Criminal Sentencing Reform Project for the University of San Francisco School of Law, elaborated further. “The only other countries that do this are places like Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, South Sudan, and a handful of countries in the Caribbean,” she said and added, “even Russia provides this right.”

Is marijuana legalization a continuing trend?

Most likely.

Brandy Zadrozny, a researcher and reporter for The Daily Beast, provides excellent insight regarding the future of legalization in her informative “Guide to State Pot Laws.”

According to Zadrozny, the National Conference of State Legislatures revealed that nine states –Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Vermont – and the District of Columbia have introduced some form of marijuana legislation. Alaska, Maryland, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin are likely to follow suit.

For the most part, state legislative action regarding marijuana legalization depends heavily on grassroots (no pun intended) support within the individual state. As Zadrozny cleverly puts it, “the data seems to support that if you smoke it, the laws will come.”

Everything considered, experts say Alaska will be the next state to join Colorado and Washington’s exclusive club.

[CNN] [CNTraveler] [The Daily Beast] [CBS News] [ABC News] [Take Part] [BuzzFeed] [Huffington Post] [Colorado State Legislature] [Washington State LCB] [U.S. Archives]

—

Matt DiCenso 

Featured image courtesy of [rafael-castillo via Flickr]

Matt DiCenso

Matt DiCenso is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Let’s Be Blunt: What Marijuana Legalization Actually Means appeared first on Law Street.

Freedom of the Press has always, of course, applied to traditional journalists. If someone accuses a journalist in say, The Washington Post, or the New York Times, or even a small town newspaper of defamation, and the issue is of public concern, the plaintiffs have to prove that there was negligence or worse in order to win damages. Essentially a plaintiff would have to prove that a journalist wrote their story without properly checking out their sources, or some other negligent behavior. If they cannot prove that a reporter didn’t do their due diligence, they cannot be found guilty. This was established by a 1974 Supreme Court case, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.

For years, this 1974 case sufficed as protecting journalists, because official media was really the only kind of media that existed. There was radio, newspapers, and TV, and all of those were mostly composed of people who had journalistic training and were part of a larger company. But with the advent of the internet, everyone can have a blog. In fact, if I so decided, I could go get a free WordPress blog right now and start writing just a few minutes later. And out of that prevalence of individual-driven media came the question: does this freedom of the press also apply to the informal and individual press?

Last week, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the same standards that apply to journalists in print media also apply to bloggers and anyone else. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press member Gregg Leslie said, “it’s not a special right to the news media. So it’s a good thing for bloggers and citizen journalists and others.”

The case came from a Montana blogger named Crystal L. Cox. In a blog post a few years ago, Cox stated that Obsidian Finance Group and its founder had committed fraud. So Obsidian Finance Group’s co-founder Kevin Padrick sued Cox. During the first trial, Cox lost the case and was ordered to pay the plaintiffs $2.5 million in damages. Cox did not deny that what she reported may have been false, just that she did not do it out of negligence, the same standard that a print reporter would have been held to. With this latest appeal, the 9th District Court agreed with Cox.

The Court stated,

The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others’ writings, or tried to get both sides of a story. As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable.” They went on to cite cases in which individual speakers have been granted First Amendment rights, despite not being a part of the established press. For example, the First Amendment rights of authors have often been protected, regardless of their training, background, or affiliations.

This is very good news for anyone who has a blog or even a desire to post things in an individual capacity on their social network. It could also go a far way for advocacy groups that work unofficially for candidates and their rights to create media alleging things against candidates. It could also have important ramifications for blogging in other lawsuits. For example, if a blogger is treated as a journalist for the purposes of the First Amendment, they could also be treated as a journalist in a matter like protection of sources.

[LA Times]

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Jorge Quinteros via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Court Says Bloggers are Journalists Too appeared first on Law Street.

During the 2012 elections, Colorado voters voted to legalize recreational marijuana, with about 54 percent of Colorado residents voting yes. As of yesterday, recreational marijuana became retailed at twenty-four stores around the state, though most of the locations were in Denver.

Despite awful weather in Colorado, shoppers waited in long lines to purchase the first legal pot in the United States. Yesterday was nicknamed “Green Wednesday” because of its popularity.

Understanding the new marijuana laws in Colorado are relatively easy if you compare them to alcohol laws. When they were written by the Colorado legislature, they loosely based the new marijuana laws off of already existing alcohol regulation laws. The reasoning for this is that legalization advocates have argued that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol, so it makes sense to provide similar laws for the two. For example:

• You must be 21 or older to purchase marijuana.
• It is illegal to distribute marijuana to anyone who is under the age of 21.
• It is illegal to drive while under the influence of marijuana.
• It is not limited to residents, but visitors to Colorado may partake as well.
• There are limits to where smoking can take place. Marijuana cannot be consumed openly and publicly. Although this is stricter than open container laws, it is the same idea.

There are of course, other sections that differ from already in place alcohol laws:

• There’s a limit on how much you can buy. Residents can purchase up to an ounce; out of state visitors can purchase one quarter of an ounce.
• As of right now, Marijuana can only be bought with cash, although that may change as the market evolves.
• Marijuana cannot be brought across state lines.

There are other interesting rules that are specific to the sale of marijuana. A system called the Marijuana Inventory Tracking System (MITS) will log sales, and stores are required to keep it updated on sales. Any marijuana sold must be put in a child resistant package. Retailers cannot advertise in an outlet where 30% or more of viewers may be under 21. These are just a sampling of the safeguards that Colorado has put in place.

After the first day, it seems like the sales are going well. In fact, demand threatens to outpace supply. There are some complaints, of course. One of the concerns about selling recreational marijuana is that it would price medical marijuana license holders out of the market, but Colorado is making sure that won’t be the case. Medical marijuana will be sold more cheaply than its recreational counterpart.

There’s also a concern that demand will outpace supply–leading to inflated prices. There was no implementation of any sort of statewide pricing structure or rules, so stores can essentially charge what they wish. By the end of the day yesterday, one store sold 1/8th of an ounce of pot for $70. There’s also the state and local taxes to think about–they total about 25% of the cost.

Many onlookers have harkened this as an interesting experiment that will have some hand in dictating what marijuana legalization may look like in the rest of the United States. Colorado’s market is the first of its kind. It even differs from the Netherlands in that there’s no unregulated production.

Washington state also legalized marijuana during the 2012 elections, although they probably will not begin legal retailing until this summer. Colorado’s successes and failures may help Washington, and potentially other states, set up their market.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [PabloEvans via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Breakdown of Colorado’s New Marijuana Laws appeared first on Law Street.

The newest trend among small town sheriffs is a refusal to follow the laws of the land. What laws have caused such a visceral reaction from our law enforcement? One of the hottest topics in the American political sphere, of course. These sheriffs are refusing to follow newly enacted gun control laws.

The movement is especially popular in Colorado, although there have been issues in Florida, California, New York, and multiple other states as well. After the horrifying Aurora, Colo. and Newtown, Conn. shootings last year, state and federal leaders have attempted to put more gun control measures in place, but success has been varied.

Since the first whispers of proposed new gun laws began, there has been opposition among local sheriffs. One group, the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, also known as CSPOA, has already announced that they would not enforce local, state, or federal gun control laws if they believe that the laws are unconstitutional. As of today, the CSPOA website lists 18 state sheriff organizations and many individual sheriffs. The founder, Richard Mack, is the former sheriff of Graham County, AZ. It also contains a section entitled “The Red Coat List,” presumably a Revolutionary War throwback reference to British soldiers who fought the newly formed United States armies. According to CSPOA, Red Coats are any individuals who try to undermine the the power of the sheriffs of CSPOA.

In March of this year, Colorado’s Governor John Hickenlooper signed new gun laws; they went into effect in July. They include universal background checks on gun purchases and a limit on the size of ammunition magazines, among other measures. The laws incited an incredibly reactionary response throughout the state. Two state senators who supported the laws were actually recalled just a few months later, and a third resigned to avoid a third vicious and expensive recall battle. So far, 55 of the 62 sheriffs in Colorado have stated that they will not follow these laws.

Reasons for refusal vary somewhat, but for the most part, these sheriffs claim that the laws are both unconstitutional and vague to the point of being ineffective. The sheriffs are almost all from rural areas–the few urban sheriffs who are following the news laws claim that they are absolutely enforceable. There are also some sheriffs who disagree with the law, but realize that it is part of their job description to comply, regardless of personal beliefs. These two types of officials are part of a minuscule minority in Colorado.

Acts of defiance are not the first steps that these Colorado sheriffs have taken. In May, a group filed a suit challenging the constitutionality of the laws in the State Court. US District Judge Martha Kreiger turned them down, stating that they didn’t have the legal authority or standing to file the case as sheriffs, although they could as a group of private citizens. There are other suits moving forward, and some of the sheriffs have signed on.

The problem with what’s happening in Colorado is that whether or not these laws are actually constitutional is a separate issue from the job for which these sheriffs have been elected. It is not a sheriff’s duty to make laws–that falls on the Legislature. Similarly, it is not a sheriff’s job to interpret a law–that falls on the Judicial system. A sheriff’s job is to enforce the laws that are enacted.

Now, what many sheriffs are doing is not focusing on the enforcement of these provisions and characterizing them as a very low priority, which is fine, and not entirely unexpected. Not all laws are enforced on the same level anywhere. I know for a fact that I have jaywalked dozens of times. Or, for a sillier example, let’s remember that in my home state of Connecticut, it’s technically illegal to dispose of a used razor. I can assure you, I have done so many times, and I’ve never had the police burst into my bathroom to arrest me. And if all these sheriffs were doing was characterizing these laws as a low priority, it would be bothersome, but in the grand scheme of things, alright.

But the sheriffs who have taken their crusade further worry me. They will face very few consequences–in some states, Governors can investigate sheriffs that don’t follow laws, but that provision is rarely enacted. Mostly, any challenge to these sheriffs will come from voters, but given that these sheriffs are almost exclusively in conservative rural areas, that’s unlikely.

Gun laws in this country will continue to be a grand debate, there’s no doubt about it. But when sheriffs, or former sheriffs, such as Mack, make statements such as, “every one of the sheriffs is going to follow the Constitution, not follow the president or the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has already ruled twice for the Second Amendment. The federal government has no right to tell me how many magazines I can have, how many guns I can have and how much ammunition I can have,” we have a problem. Sheriffs should be focusing on counteracting the epidemic of gun violence in this country. If they don’t agree with the laws that are passed, that’s a well-deserved personal belief, but it’s still their job to enforce them. In order to make this country a safer place, we need to get on the same page. But right now, we’re not even reading the same book.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Inventorchris via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Colorado Sheriffs Say “No Way” to New Laws appeared first on Law Street.