For marijuana businesses, it can be extremely challenging to utilize social media to its fullest marketing potential. Historically, social media companies have erred on the side of caution when establishing their community guidelines, siding with the feds’ prohibition of marijuana. However, a recent statement from Instagram could indicate a change in that company’s stance on marijuana advertising.

The critical language was noticed by Ganjapreneur after a recent Leafly report on the ongoing Instagram impersonation of Kiva Confections, a popular California-based edibles company.

As Leafly reported, a fake account using Kiva’s name suddenly began abusing people in comments and direct messages. Kiva contacted Instagram and successfully had the internet trolls’ account shut down. However, it was through this exchange that Instagram revealed some potentially critical changes to its existing policy on cannabis as it relates to advertising.

The statement reads in full:

Instagram does not allow people or organizations to use the platform to advertise or sell marijuana, regardless of the seller’s state or country. This is primarily because most federal laws, including those of the United States, treat marijuana as either an illegal substance or highly regulated good. Our policy prohibits any marijuana seller, including dispensaries, from promoting their business by providing contact information like phone numbers, street addresses, or by using the “contact us” tab in Instagram Business Accounts. We do however allow marijuana advocacy content as long as it is not promoting the sale of the drug. Dispensaries can promote the use and federal legalization of marijuana provided that they do not also promote its sale or provide contact information to their store.

As Ganjapreneur points out, the emphasized portion above leaves out any mention of “websites.” Therefore, “without listing your location’s contact info, you can drive customers to your website where your contact info, daily deals, and updated menus are all prominently displayed.” In other words, as long as companies don’t advertise or promote the sale of cannabis, they should be in the clear.

Instagram’s omission signals a progressive push for the social media platform, which was bought by Facebook in 2012. Facebook’s community standards specifically prohibit content that promotes marijuana sales–even in states where it’s legal–but Instagram has a history of not enforcing its vague policies uniformly.

“What’s so interesting is that you’ll see posts from other companies or users and it’s naked women and paraphernalia and guns and cash,” Kristi Knoblich, co-founder of Kiva, said. “But all the posts we had on our real page were about education. Things like how to keep edibles away from kids, how to store and lock your edibles, pointers and tips for how to use safely. The nature of what we were posting didn’t have anything to do with promoting sales, illegal use, shipping or distribution.”

Hopefully, Instagram’s updated guidelines will ensure more breathing room for legal companies looking to grow their businesses with innocuous marijuana posts.

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 Did Instagram Change its Marijuana Marketing Policy? appeared first on Law Street.

While the United States remains locked in an impasse between state and federal law, Canada looks to pass nationwide marijuana legalization this year and begin recreational sales in 2018. How did Canada get to this point? The path to legalization in Canada has been a haphazard one, driven largely by legal decisions. To make the recent Canadian cannabis developments easier to understand, below are eight key court cases and regulations that shaped the current landscape:

1996: Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (“CDSA”)

Provided for limited exemptions for the medical use of cannabis in Section 56, but legal access to dried marijuana for medical purposes was not provided until 1999.

2000: R. v. Parker (Ontario Court of Appeals)

Section 4 of the CDSA was found to be unconstitutional because prohibiting cannabis possession forced people to choose between liberty and health. The medical marijuana exemption in place was found to be unconstitutional because of the Minister of Health’s discretionary power.

2001: Marihuana for Medical Access Regulations (“MMAR”)

R. v. Parker led to the MMAR, which enabled individuals with the practitioner authorization to access dried marijuana for medical purposes by producing their own marijuana plants, designating someone to produce for them, or purchasing Health Canada supply.

April 1, 2014: Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (“MMPR”)

The MMPR replaced the MMAR, which was officially repealed on March 31, 2014. For the first time in Canada, the new system allowed for the production and distribution of cannabis for medical purposes, but still contained restrictions on certain types of marijuana.

June 2015: R. v. Smith (Supreme Court of Canada)

The Court decided the MMPR’s restrictions were unconstitutional and that individuals with a medical need have the right to use and make other cannabis products. To eliminate uncertainty, in July 2015 the Minister of Health issued section 56 class exemptions under the CDSA to allow licensed producers to produce and sell cannabis oil and fresh marijuana buds and leaves in addition to dried marijuana, and to allow authorized users to possess and alter different forms of cannabis.

February 2016: Allard v. Canada

A Canadian federal court found that restricting an individual’s right to home grow and requiring individuals to get their marijuana only from licensed producers violated liberty and security rights protected by section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court found that individuals who require marijuana for medical purposes did not have “reasonable access” under the MMPR’s restrictions. Instead of striking certain portions of the MMPR or reinstating the MMAR, the court called for a new legislative framework for accessing medical marijuana.

August 24, 2016: Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations (“ACMPR”)

The ACMPR, similar to the MMPR, provided for commercial production and distribution of quality-controlled fresh or dried marijuana or cannabis oil or starting materials (i.e., marijuana seeds and plants) and allowed for limited production by individuals. The two types of licenses to be aware of are: (1) Dealers License, issued under the Narcotic Control Regulations and permits activities with cannabis, including analytic testing and (2) Licensed Producers who are authorized to produce and sell cannabis under the ACMPR.

April 13, 2017: The Cannabis Act, Bill C-45 (the “Cannabis Act”)

On April 13, 2017, the Cannabis Act was introduced. If passed, it will provide Canadians with legal access to recreational cannabis nationwide. On June 8, 2017, after the second reading of the bill, the Act passed the House at a vote of 200 for and 76 against. The bill has now been referred to the Standing Committee on Health. The bill is widely expected to pass Parliament and take effect in the summer of 2018.

Canada is already a worldwide leader in the growing cannabis industry, with last year’s sales reaching over one billion Canadian dollars. With the passage of the Cannabis Act, annual sales are expected to increase to between five and eight billion in the first-year post-recreational legalization. And the total estimated annual economic impact could be as high as $23 billion. Given the size of the new market, anyone with an interest in cannabis should pay special attention to Canada and the eight key events listed above.

Amber D. Lengacher also contributed to this post.

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 The Path to Cannabis in Canada: Eight Crucial Events appeared first on Law Street.

Kanye West is well know for his eccentricities.

So when he went on a Trump-praising, Jay Z-dissing rant in November 2016 during one of his Saint Pablo tour stops, it didn’t come as much of a surprise. His eight-day stay at a Los Angeles psychiatric center for “exhaustion,” however, drew whispers in the music community and shocked fans. The mental breakdown led to a canceled tour and thousands of disappointed fans–and now a $10 million lawsuit.

West’s touring company Very Good Touring filed the lawsuit against Lloyds of London, the firm charged with insuring his tour, alleging that the company is stalling on paying out claims relating to the tour’s cancellation.

A loss claim was filed two days after West was hospitalized at the UCLA Neuropsychiatric Hospital Center, but his touring company still hasn’t been paid more than eight months later. The lawsuit alleges that the insurer is trying to blame West’s marijuana usage on the mental breakdown.

“[Lloyds] have neither paid on the multi million dollar claim nor denied the claim,” states the complaint filed Tuesday in a California federal court. “Nor have they provided anything approaching a coherent explanation about why they have not paid, or any indication if they will ever pay or even make a coverage decision, implying that Kanye’s use of marijuana may provide them with a basis to deny the claim and retain the hundreds of thousands of dollars in insurance premiums paid by Very Good.”

The lawsuit continues: “The stalling is emblematic of a broader modus operandi of the insurers of never-ending post-claim underwriting where the insurers hunt for some contrived excuse not to pay.”

The tour insurance was expected to guard against non-appearances and cancellations due to unforeseen perils such as illness. According to the lawsuit, an independent medical examination of West by a doctor hand-selected by the insurer’s counsel confirmed that he was “in no condition to resume the tour.”

West’s lawyers also accused the insurers of leaking his personal medical information to the press in the complaint.

“Plaintiff is informed and believes that the ‘planting’ of the Confidential Information with news outlets … was part and parcel of Defendants’ efforts to impair Plaintiff’s rights to the indemnity payments due under the Insurance Policies,” states the complaint, which nods to a non-disclosure agreement between the parties.

West is not suing the three additional insurance companies that insured his Saint Pablo tour, as they have already paid Very Good Touring for the cancellation.

Read the full lawsuit below.

Kanye West Lloyds by gmaddaus on Scribd

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 Kanye West Sues Insurer for $10M Over Canceled Saint Pablo Tour appeared first on Law Street.

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.

A Houston judge was suspended from her job on Friday amid accusations that she solicited prostitutes, sexted from the bench, and used her bailiff to buy drugs.

Hillary Green, who has been a judge since 2007, presided over misdemeanors, traffic cases, and civil suits for Harris County Precinct 7. Her lawyer called the decision “frustrating and surprising” in addition to arguing that many of the accusations were already public when Green was reelected with 86 percent of the vote.

She will remain suspended until a civil trial is held to make a final decision, but her lawyer said that trial could be years down the line and another judge is already slated to replace her, according to the Washington Post.

Accusations against Green first arose during her divorce from Houston Controller Ronald C. Green in 2015. It was at that point that Green said his now ex-wife “operates daily with impaired judgment as evidenced by her presiding over cases in which she has ongoing sexual relationships with litigants and witnesses,” according to the Houston Press.

Suspicions rose further when Claude Barnes, who Green admits she had an affair with for many years, came forward with allegations regarding drug use and hiring prostitutes for threesomes.

“The three of us sat,” Barnes said. “We smoked marijuana. We had a couple drinks and then three of us had sex.”

These accusations led the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct to file its first formal inquiry into the Houston judge’s behavior, an investigation that culminated in a 316-page recommendation to suspend her that was released this year. Executive Director Eric Vinson said that the commission has been investigating Green for almost four years and that in his decade in that role he has never seen a judge contest proceedings this strongly, according to the Houston Press.

The commission took note of Green’s inability to change her behavior over a five-year span and called out Green’s “outright betrayal of the public’s trust” in the report.

Other stories allege Green and Barnes smoked marijuana that was confiscated from a citizen, bought cough syrup from a drug dealer named “lover boy,” and that she texted her bailiff about explicit sexual acts that she would perform with him later.

Green admitted to buying $500 worth of cough syrup and smoking marijuana daily, but denied hiring prostitutes. In addition to smoking weed and drinking the syrup, she and Barnes took ecstasy on multiple occasions, but Green denies paying for it. So, even though she was sentencing people for committing minor drug offenses, Green frequently undertook similar behavior, according to the report’s findings.

Disgusted with her behavior, the commission asked the Texas Supreme Court to suspend Green while officials prepared their case to permanently remove her. The state bar wrote in May:

To this day, Judge Green has apparently made no attempt to reassign the bailiff with whom she actively participated in an inappropriate sexual texting relation and whom she recruited to assist in illegal drug activity. She engaged the services of a peace officer to commit a criminal act, and indeed he was apparently willing to do so. Incredibly, Judge Green sees nothing wrong with the arrangement.

Green and her lawyers countered that the allegations are the result of a bitter divorce and that Ronald Green could have stolen her phone and sent some of those text messages. They also argue that the accusations were improperly filed, creating a bureaucratic legal issue. Still, there is already ample evidence that the judge crossed several lines.

Even if some of the allegations aren’t true, Green has already admitted to multiple acts that would break the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. The code explicitly states that appropriate action must be taken if a judge is impaired by drugs and that judges must maintain professional relationships with their staff.

Though Green’s civil trial is over a year away, she will almost surely not be reinstated from her suspension with the concrete evidence the bar association already has. Green, who was once part of a powerful political marriage with Ronald, has now had a meteoric fall from grace.

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 Houston Judge Suspended for Buying Drugs and Prostitutes, Sexting Her Bailiff 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

Nevada Prepares to Rake in the Dough Thanks to New Legal Weed Market

Starting July 1, Nevada began recreational marijuana sales. As a result, Las Vegas is expected to see a major tourism boom. An Economic and Fiscal Benefits Analysis prepared by Las Vegas-based RCG Economics in conjunction with the Marijuana Policy Group predicts that the state will actually rake in $393 million in annual sales of adult-use marijuana in 2018, and that the number will rise to a staggering $486 million by 2024. California, Maine, and Massachusetts are expected to begin recreational marijuana sales next year.

Denver Finalizes First Social Marijuana Use Program 

Denver’s top licensing official has unveiled final rules for the state’s pilot social-use program, which would allow some patrons to use marijuana in certain public settings. The four-year pilot program, the first of its kind in the nation, will allow businesses to apply for $2,000 social-use licenses to allow patrons the ability to BYOW (bring your own weed). According to the new rules, the licensing department will also no longer require businesses with consumption area permits to have customers sign waivers as they enter.

Arkansas is Now Accepting Medical Marijuana Applications

Arkansas is one step closer to offering medical marijuana to patients with select medical conditions. Prospective patients can now apply for medical marijuana cards on the state Department of Health site. Voters approved the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment last November. Applicants will need to have an email address, a written certification from their physician, and a state-issued ID to apply, and must pay a nonrefundable $50 fee. According to the Associated Press, the state Department of Health expects anywhere from 20,000 to 40,000 people to apply to use the drug.

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

Officer Who Shot Philando Castile Says Smell of Marijuana Made Him Fear For His Life

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 July 2017: Sin City Welcomes Legal Weed appeared first on Law Street.

Haven’t checked out our top 10 law schools for intellectual property law yet? ICYMI–read up on that and more with Law Street’s best of the week.

Top 10 Law Schools for Intellectual Property Law

In 2014, Law Street Media released its first set of law school rankings, in response to the changing legal education industry. Law Street Specialty Rankings are a detailed resource for prospective law students as they consider the many law schools across the country. Check out our top 10 law school picks for intellectual property law.

Officer Who Shot Philando Castile Says Smell of Marijuana Made Him Fear For His Life

The officer who fatally shot Philando Castile during a traffic stop last July said the smell of “burnt marijuana” coming from the vehicle made him fear for his life. The weak justification comes from a newly released transcript of Minnesota police officer Jeronimo Yanez’s interview with two special agents from the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, the state agency investigating the shooting.

Judge Orders Further Environmental Review for Dakota Access Pipeline

The long legal battle over the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline looks like it will continue to drag on after a recent court ruling. Last week, U.S District Judge James Boasberg ruled that the pipeline, owned and constructed by Energy Transfer Partners, had not undergone an adequate environmental review by the Army Corps of Engineers and that a more thorough environmental review is needed.

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.

The officer who fatally shot Philando Castile during a traffic stop last July said the smell of “burnt marijuana” coming from the vehicle made him fear for his life. The weak justification comes from a newly released transcript of Minnesota police officer Jeronimo Yanez’s interview with two special agents from the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, the state agency investigating the shooting.

“I thought I was gonna die,” said Yanez when recounting the shooting the following day. “If he has the, the guts and the audacity to smoke marijuana in front of the five year old girl and risk her lungs and risk her life by giving her secondhand smoke and the front seat passenger doing the same thing then what, what care does he give about me.”

In other words, Yanez interpreted the smell of marijuana to mean that Castile had no regard for human life–a quantum leap, if I’ve ever heard one.

In the transcript, Yanez repeatedly mentions smelling marijuana in the car and claims it was on his mind at the time of the shooting. He said that because of the odor, he didn’t know if Castile had the gun “for protection” from a drug dealer or people trying to rob him. Make no mistake, Yanez’s prejudicial jump from possible pot user to criminal evading drug dealers is racially motivated, and he likely wouldn’t have come to that conclusion had Castile been white.

But more than half of American adults have admitted to trying marijuana at least once, and 22 percent of adults say they currently use marijuana. Numerous studies have shown that marijuana actually decreases aggression for many individuals. The majority of states have some kind of marijuana legislation–whether that be medical or recreational–on the books, and a growing number of states are actively advancing toward legalizing the drug recreationally.

While it is illegal to smoke marijuana without a medical license in the state of Minnesota, the drug is in fact decriminalized. Possessing 42.5 grams or less is a misdemeanor offense, carrying a no prison time and a maximum fine of $200.

Autopsy results concluded that Castile had high levels of THC in his system at the time of the stop, but it’s unclear whether he was impaired or not at the time. Still Yanez’s attorneys attempted to convince the judge that Castille was culpable in his own death because he was “stoned.”

“The status of being stoned (in an acute and chronic sense) explains why Mr. Castille: 1) did not follow the repeated directions of Officer Yanez; 2) stared straight ahead and avoided eye-contact; 3) never mentioned that he had a carry permit, but instead said he had a gun; and 4) he did not show his hands,” the lawyers wrote in a motion to dismiss the charges against Yanez.

Ultimately, Yanez was acquitted last week by a Minnesota jury on all charges in the shooting death of Castile, but the shocking conclusion still left much of the nation in a collective state of disbelief. Based on Yanez’s testimony, it appears clear that both racial prejudices and stigmas surrounding marijuana use factored into the tragic shooting.

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 Officer Who Shot Philando Castile Says Smell of Marijuana Made Him Fear For His Life appeared first on Law Street.

To boost recruitment, the Secret Service is altering its drug policy: now, applicants who have used marijuana at some point in their past can still be considered for a position. An initiative by newly appointed director Randolph Alles, who President Donald Trump appointed to the post at the end of April, the policy change is designed to infuse the agency with a couple thousand more officers. The policy went into effect last month.

“We need more people,” Alles said in a press conference last Thursday. “The mission has changed.” Pointing to threats like international terrorism, groups like al Qaeda and Islamic State, and homegrown actors, he added: “It’s more dynamic and way more dangerous than it has been in years past.”

According to its drug policy statement, the Secret Service “does not condone any prior unlawful drug activity by applicants, but it is recognized that some otherwise qualified applicants may have used or otherwise interacted with illegal drugs at some point in their past.” When examining an applicant’s eligibility, “any prior illegal drug activity along with various considerations associated with that activity will be weighed in that adjudication process.” the statement says.

The agency’s prior policy disqualified candidates who had used marijuana more than a certain number of times at some point in their pasts. The new policy, designed to be a “whole-person concept,” Alles said, will instead look at the time between an applicant’s last use of marijuana, and his or her application date.

For instance, if an applicant was 24-years-old or younger when he or she last used or purchased marijuana, they must wait at least a year before applying to the agency. That standard rises as the age of last use or purchase rises.

Alles, who previously led air and marine missions with Customs and and Border Protections, also underlined a non-terrorism related reality that is requiring the agency to bolster its ranks: the round-the-clock protection of Trump and his family, as well as his collection of properties, including Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach and Trump Tower in Manhattan.

“I think between that and the fact that he has a larger family, that’s just more stress on the organization,” 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 New Secret Service Director Loosens Agency’s Drug Policy 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

Don’t Give Up on Recreational Marijuana, Vermont!

Vermont still has a chance to become the ninth state, in addition to the District of Columbia, to legalize recreational marijuana, even after Governor Phil Scott’s down-to-the-wire veto last month. The Republican governor told the Associated Press that negotiations are currently in the works to address his concerns regarding public safety. If the governor strikes a deal with legislative leaders, he says he’ll reach out to House Republicans to encourage them not to block the passage of the bill.

California Could Become a “Sanctuary State” from Federal Pot Law

California just became that much closer to becoming a safe haven for legal marijuana users. The state assembly approved a bill Thursday that would make California a “sanctuary state,” where local and state police would be barred, without a court order, from helping federal drug agents arrest people complying with state laws. Despite some opposition from law enforcement, AB 1578 managed to narrowly pass with a majority 41-32 votes. The bill is now awaiting the Senate’s consideration.

Nevada’s Weed Launch Date in Peril Thanks to Liquor Lawsuit

If you have dreams of smoking legal marijuana in Sin City, I wouldn’t plan on booking a Las Vegas vacay anytime soon. Nevada’s July 1 recreational marijuana launch date is in jeopardy after a district judge prohibited the Department of Taxation from issuing cannabis distribution licenses under the adopted regulations. The order comes in response to a lawsuit filed by liquor wholesalers, who claim the legislative measure gives them exclusive rights to marijuana distribution licenses for the first 18 months of sales.

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

What is a Marijuana Lawyer?

Three Questions: Exclusive Q&A

Each month, the Cannabis in America team interviews influencers in the cannabis industry and gives you an exclusive look into their work, motivations, and predictions for the marijuana marketplace.

There is no question the cannabis industry is growing rapidly, and as more states legalize marijuana, more business will crop up. For Michah Tapman, the Managing Director of Canopy, a Boulder-based venture capital firm that invests in cannabis-related technology and services, the future is here now. Law Street’s Alec Siegel spoke with Tapman about what he looks for in a potential investment, the future of the cannabis industry, and more.

AS: What do you look for in a cannabis start-up?

MT: The number one investment criteria for us is the people. Because laws and regulations are changing so quickly, people need to be flexible, very well educated, coachable, and willing to make changes. One thing we know about the industry is that it won’t look tomorrow like it does today. Like any high growth industry, you need to know how to adapt.

AS:  Have you or the companies you work with adapted in any way since the Trump Administration came into office?

MT: The Administration definitely has scared a lot of people. Personally, [Attorney General] Jeff Sessions is opposed to marijuana. But from a policy point of view, neither Trump nor Sessions has made a policy statement indicating that they’ll crack down. They have concerns about medical marijuana, but those are personal statements. That doesn’t mean my business and my policy is going to change.

AS: How do you see the cannabis industry changing over the next five to 10 years?

MT: I see a seismic shift in the level of sophistication for cultivation. Drastic price reduction both in production costs and retail pricing, consolidation, and then fragmentation. [The cannabis industry] is not going to have a lot of mid-market players in my opinion. That will be driven by efficiencies. [Cannabis] is going to legalize. The question is when. As an investor what I’m betting on is people that are able to adapt to changing environments.

Cannabis Culture

Americans Buy More Marijuana Than Ice Cream

By Alexis Evans

Believe it or not, but Americans will probably spend more money on weed this year than ice cream. A new report from Marijuana Biz Daily expects retail sales to increase by more than 30 percent, hitting somewhere from $5 billion to $6 billion in 2017. The estimated total demand, however, for marijuana in the United States, including the black market, is around $45 billion to $50 billion. Find out more 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 Cannabis in America June 2017: Check Out This Venture Capitalist’s Take on Cannabis appeared first on Law Street.

Believe it or not, but Americans will probably spend more money on weed this year than ice cream. A new report from Marijuana Biz Daily expects retail sales to increase by more than 30 percent, hitting somewhere from $5 billion to $6 billion in 2017. The estimated total demand, however, for marijuana in the United States, including the black market, is around $45 billion to $50 billion.

Exclusive: Retail sales of medical and recreational cannabis in the United States are expected to hit $5 billion-$6 billion in 2017. pic.twitter.com/jCjIdhuTZW

— Marijuana Biz Daily (@MJBizDaily) May 17, 2017

Just for comparison, total ice cream sales will likely only garner $5.1 billion, according to the trade publication’s 2017 Marijuana Business Factbook. For reference, sales for movie tickets will clock in at $11.1 billion and snacks like Doritos, Cheetos and Funyuns at $4.9 billion.

Notably, recreational sales may pass medical sales this year for the first time–recreational marijuana is poised to make $2.6 billion to $2.9 billion in sales this year versus $2.5 billion to $3.2 billion on the medical side.

The policy site attributed much of the recreational revenue bump to Nevada’s early launch of adult-use sales in July, and continued growth in existing markets in  Colorado, Oregon, and Washington. In the next three to five years, this number is estimated to grow substantially thanks to new adult use markets in California, Maine, and Massachusetts.

Legalization of medical marijuana in states like Ohio–where it will  be up and running by September 2018–is also expected to boost future sales.

In 2016, the legal marijuana industry brought in between $4 billion and $4.5 billion, outselling Viagra and Cialis, paid music streaming services, tequila, and Girl Scout cookies.

The report estimates that for every $1 consumers spend at dispensaries, another $3 in economic benefits are created in cities, states, and nationwide. Marijuana tax revenue, for instance, contributes hundreds of millions of dollars to state and local municipalities, which is used to help balance budgets and fund local projects and government programs.

According to these projections, by 2021, annual retail marijuana sales in the United States could top $17 billion–a 300 percent increase from 2016. In other words, it appears that this so called “green rush” shows no signs of slowing down.

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 Americans Buy More Marijuana than Ice Cream appeared first on Law Street.

What does Greenpeace, Michigan marijuana, and Unicorn drink drama all have in common? They were some of our top stories last week. ICYMI, check out Law Street’s best of the week below!

Beyond Symbolic: Greenpeace in the Trump Era

In January, seven members of Greenpeace scaled a 270-foot crane at a construction site near the White House and unfurled a massive banner with the word “resist” printed in block letters. In April, Greenpeace members blocked the entrance to Coca-Cola’s UK headquarters with a 2.5 ton sculpture of a seagull regurgitating plastic and unfurled a banner reading “Stop Dirty Pipeline Deals!” on the center stage of Credit Suisse’s annual shareholder meeting. All of these Greenpeace interventions grabbed headlines but they did not shut down operations of the White House, Coca-Cola, or Credit Suisse. Greenpeace’s banners certainly entertain and uplift, but do they actually have an impact?

Michigan May Have a Marijuana Legalization Measure on the 2018 Ballot

Pro-marijuana groups in Michigan submitted language to the Board of State Canvassers on Friday for a ballot initiative to legalize recreational marijuana. If the measure makes it to the November 2018 ballot, Michigan would become the ninth state to fully legalize cannabis for adult use. Spearheaded by the Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, the legalization push follows a failed attempt to get a similar measure on the November 2016 ballot.

Unicorn v. Unicorn: Starbucks Sued Over Mystical Frap

Colloquially speaking, the term “unicorn” is often used to describe something that’s pretty unique. Well, that definitely wasn’t the case with Starbucks’ now-extinct “Unicorn Frappuccino,” according to a new lawsuit filed against the company. Williamsburg coffee shop The End Brooklyn is suing the green-strawed giant, claiming it ripped off its popular “Unicorn Latte” and created an unfair competitive advantage.

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.

A police officer in Seattle was arrested last Friday on charges of conspiring to distribute hundreds of pounds of marijuana. According to the FBI, which has been investigating the trafficking scheme since the summer of 2015, Officer Alex Chapackdee would drive pot from Seattle to Baltimore and other neighboring cities in Virginia and Maryland.

A preliminary hearing for the 44-year-old is tentatively scheduled for May 22, but that hearing could be canceled if the grand jury returns an indictment in the case.

.@SeattlePD officer Alex Chapackdee described as ‘good, caring cop.’ Now facing drug charge. More reaction live at 6:30 @KIRO7Seattle pic.twitter.com/xqaRwLoakS

— DeborahHorne (@DeborahKIRO7) May 8, 2017

Seattle Police Chief Kathleen O’Toole called Officer Chapackdee’s conduct “disgraceful and disappointing” in a statement Monday.

“While [it is] always disturbing to investigate one of our own, I am proud of the detectives and commanders who worked diligently on this case,” the statement said. “While he will have his due process in the courts, I hope these charges demonstrate to our community that SPD will not tolerate corrupt behavior in our ranks.”

The federal complaint detailed the trafficking scheme that Chapackdee was involved in. While driving in police vans, Chapackdee and others would allegedly deliver hundreds of pounds of marijuana from the Seattle area to Baltimore and other surrounding neighborhoods in Virginia and Maryland. The mules were working on behalf of Tuan Van Le, Chapackdee’s brother-in-law and ringleader of the trafficking scheme.

Trafficking any amount of marijuana across state lines is considered a federal offense. If convicted, Chapackdee faces a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison, with a maximum stint of 40 years. He could also face a fine of up to $5 million.

Federal prosecutors allege that Chapackdee and his associates–a team of four–took several one-way flights from Seattle to Baltimore’s BWI airport in order to pick up cash payments for Le’s Seattle-grown marijuana, which they then drove back to the west coast.

According to the FBI’s complaint, Le would also pay Chapackdee $10,000 a month “to keep an eye on all of Tuan Van Le’s marijuana grow houses” and to provide him with information about law-enforcement activities.

Chapackdee’s attorney said that his client’s participation in the marijuana trafficking scheme is a “huge fall from grace, an embarrassment.”

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 Seattle Cop Caught Smuggling Marijuana to Baltimore appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

White House Criticized for Promoting Mar-a-Lago

In a blog post from April 4, the U.S. State Department promoted Mar-a-Lago as “Trump’s Florida estate,” and claimed that by visiting “this ‘winter White House,’ Trump is belatedly fulfilling the dream of Mar-a-Lago’s original owner and designer.” After Trump was elected president, the Florida resort doubled its membership fee to $200,000. The blog post received renewed attention on Monday after it was featured on the website of the U.S. embassy in London, as well as several other U.S. embassies. Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden asked on Twitter why taxpayer money is “promoting the president’s private country club.” President Obama’s chief ethics attorney, Norman Eisen, called it “exploitation” and said that this behavior needs to be stopped. Eisen is also part of a group of attorneys who have already sued Trump for an alleged violation of the emoluments clause, which states that a president can’t accept gifts or payments from foreign states without approval from Congress.

Yes, I am curious @StateDept. Why are taxpayer $$ promoting the President’s private country club? pic.twitter.com/IlPhUlvMwa

— Ron Wyden (@RonWyden) April 24, 2017

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 RantCrush Top 5: April 25, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

In case you were wondering, no, Texas has not legalized marijuana.

Prank website React365 published a fake news story titled “Marijuana now legal in state of Texas” on Thursday that had many people believing the conservative state had switched its hardline stance on cannabis.

According to Texas CBS affiliate KHOU, the “news” article–which has since been deleted–was shared more than 71,000 times on Facebook.

Verify: Is marijuana legal in Texas? https://t.co/n8ENJElZcG pic.twitter.com/1S5tQqAhap

— KHOU 11 News Houston (@KHOU) April 14, 2017

The excerpt bellow the title of the link reads [sic]:

In a 10-2 vote marijuana has now been legalized in the state of Texas. Texas’ first marijuana dispensaries said to open up in Corpus Christi, TX April 12, 2017. We were out speaking with local resident of Corpus Christi today who were very excited to say the least of the legalization.

Unfortunately, recreational marijuana is still illegal in the lone star state. Medical marijuana is outlawed too, however, epilepsy patients have been granted an exception when it comes to CBD oil.

In December, State Sen. Jose Menendez filed Senate Bill 269 for 2017, that would increase the number of medical conditions that qualify for the Texas Compassionate Use Program. That bill is still in committee.

FYI, a quick scan of React365’s homepage is a dead giveaway that the article was fake. The site’s header reads: “Prank your friends now! Write an article and prank your friends for fun. Bullying is forbidden.”

KHOU did a little snooping and uncovered that one Nicolas Gouriou registered the site under the organization name Mediavibes SARL. Gouriou currently resides in Binic, France.

So, when in doubt, do your due diligence before sharing suspicious–too good to be true–stories online!

For more information on each state’s marijuana legalization status, check out  our State of Weed: Marijuana Legalization State by State.

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 No, Texas Has Not Legalized Marijuana appeared first on Law Street.

As Deryn Blackwell was dying of cancer, his mother, Callie, sought out something, anything, that could relieve his pain. Finally, after three excruciating years of watching Deryn suffer, she found a potential aid: marijuana.

Now, three years after illicitly providing marijuana to Deryn–his doctor would not prescribe him the drug–Callie claims it saved his life. She reveals Deryn’s story in a new tell-all book set for release next month in Britain titled “The Boy in 7 Billion.”

While Deryn’s story is indeed inspiring, researchers caution that it cannot be taken as evidence that marijuana can treat cancer. Anecdotal tales like Deryn’s exist, but clinical trials have not found concrete evidence that marijuana is an effective cancer treatment. It is also unclear if the cannabis tincture Deryn consumed was the direct cause of his recovery.

“It could have been a number of things,” Emma Smith, a science information manager for Cancer Research UK, told Britain’s online newspaper The Independent. “Perhaps cannabis did help, perhaps it didn’t.”

“Because it’s just one person’s story, without a doctor analyzing all the clinical evidence and comparing him to somebody that didn’t get cannabis, we still don’t know for certain it was the cannabis that helped him.”

Deryn’s ordeal began in 2010 when, at ten-years-old, he was diagnosed with leukemia. Eighteen months later he was diagnosed with a second rare form of cancer.

In an excerpt from Blackwell’s book printed in the Daily Mail, Callie writes:

By 2013, after nearly four years of hospital treatment, it seemed that the only thing left for him were opiate drugs to ease the pain as he reached the end of his life. Like any mother would be, I was desperate to find something to alleviate his suffering.

Marijuana has been shown to alleviate some side effects of cancer, including nausea. But according to the American Cancer Society, studies on cannabinoids have not shown that “they help control or cure the disease.”

Medical marijuana is still illegal in the United Kingdom. The only licensed marijuana-based medicine available is Sativex, which is used to treat patients with multiple sclerosis.

After conducting extensive research on the benefits of marijuana, Callie asked Deryn’s doctor if Bedrocan, a cannabis-based painkiller, would be a better alternative than her son’s “mind-numbing morphine.” The doctor said that while it was an effective painkiller, it had not been tested on children and she couldn’t prescribe it to him.

That’s when Callie and her husband, Simon, decided to take matters into their own hands. Simon traveled to a nearby service station and purchased cannabis illegally from a dealer. Back home, Callie whipped up a tincture that would be compatible for a vaporizer pen, which Deryn would later use when the doctors weren’t around.

“We felt like naughty schoolkids who were having a sneaky cigarette around the back of the bike sheds,” Callie wrote.

Devyn, now 17, made a gradual recovery and is currently attending school and working as a part-time chef of vegan food.

Callie said she’ll probably “never be totally free” of the fear that his cancer will return, but she is confident her son can endure. “I am reminded of my miracle boy every time I look at Deryn and I know deep in my heart that whatever the future may throw at us, we can cope,” she wrote. “We always do.”

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 UK Mom Credits Marijuana With Saving Son From Cancer appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Monday Law Streeters! We hope you enjoyed your weekend. ICYMI, we had some pretty great stories last week. From cell phone plans that give to charity, to South Dakota passing discriminative laws against LGBT couples, check out Law Street’s best of the week below!

New Career, New Phone, New Cause: 5 Reasons to Check out TPO Mobile

Any change in life–whether it be a graduation, a new job, or a move, always comes with a hefty to do list. TPO Mobile wants to help make that to do list a little shorter–by helping you find the perfect cell phone plan. And not only will TPO Mobile help you save some money with a reasonably priced and reliable phone plan, it will also help you check off one other thing on that to do list: making sure you set aside some money for charity.

South Dakota Passes Law Legalizing Discrimination Against LGBT Couples

South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard signed SB-149 on Friday, a law that protects private foster and adoption agencies from being sued for refusing to place children with an LGBT couple. While other states have similar laws, South Dakota is the first to enact one since the SCOTUS decision that legalized gay marriage in 2015.

What’s Going on with Canada’s Cannabis Raids?

Months before lawmakers in Canada are expected to take up marijuana legalization legislation, police in Toronto have been raiding dispensaries; a number of individuals have been charged at this point. Just last week, police raided dispensaries across three cities. The targets were all Cannabis Culture branches, the popular chain owned by Canada’s so-call “Prince of Pot” Marc Emery. Emery and his wife were arrested at an airport last week and charged with drug trafficking, conspiracy, and possession. They were en route to a cannabis festival in Spain.

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.

Months before lawmakers in Canada are expected to take up marijuana legalization legislation, police in Toronto have been raiding dispensaries; a number of individuals have been charged at this point. Just last week, police raided dispensaries across three cities. The targets were all Cannabis Culture branches, the popular chain owned by Canada’s so-call “Prince of Pot” Marc Emery. Emery and his wife were arrested at an airport last week and charged with drug trafficking, conspiracy, and possession. They were en route to a cannabis festival in Spain.

The cannabis raids have been going on for months, in what Toronto police are calling Project Gator, an effort to clamp down on dispensaries which, under the current law, are illegal. But opponents of the crackdown argue that Canada’s marijuana law is hardly black and white. The laws aren’t consistently enforced, leading to confusion and ambiguity for dispensaries and consumers.

“Just because there’s not a grey area when it comes to the law in the books doesn’t mean there’s not a grey area in practice in terms of what’s happening on the ground,” said lawyer Gerald Chan. Canada’s criminal justice system is “overburdened,” Chan said, and police should focus their attention on graver, potentially more dangerous crimes. In Ottawa, some people accused of committing murder were recently allowed to walk free after the justice system’s resources dried up.

Toronto police are not backing down from Project Gator, however. “The dispensary advocates want you to believe … there’s a grey area,” said Mark Pugash, a spokesman for the Toronto police. “There isn’t.” Pugash added: “The fact is, however you try to shine this, it is against the law.”

Last week was not the first time Emery, the “Prince of Pot,” was arrested on marijuana-related charges. After he was convicted of selling marijuana seeds in the U.S. in 2007, Emery spent seven years in prison. On Friday, soon after they were arrested at the airport, the Emerys were released on bail. Jodie Emery, Marc’s wife, said the arrest was “appalling,” adding that she was “quite disturbed by the fact that we are innocent until proven guilty, yet Cannabis Culture, which is a magazine, head shop, vapor lounge, it’s a movement.”

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said recently that lawmakers will be looking at marijuana legalization legislation this summer. But, as the recent raids in Toronto indicate, that does not mean the current law will go unenforced. “Until we have a framework to control and regulate marijuana, the current laws apply,” Trudeau 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 What’s Going on with Canada’s Cannabis Raids? appeared first on Law Street.

According to a new study by the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, teens who use synthetic marijuana are more likely to engage in risky behavior, have unprotected sex, and abuse other, potentially more harmful drugs. The study interpreted data from the 2015 Youth Risk Behavior Survey to come to its conclusions.

Researchers found that “nearly one in 10 high school students had used synthetic marijuana at some point in their lifetime,” said Heather Clayton, the lead researcher of the CDC study, and a scientist with the center’s Division of Adolescent and School Health.

“The findings indicate that students who report using synthetic marijuana are possibly on a very concerning health trajectory, which is particularly serious given that synthetic marijuana use is relatively common among adolescents,” Clayton added.

Those who use synthetic pot–also known as “fake weed”–are more likely to carry a gun or engage in violent behavior than those who use traditional marijuana, the researchers said, and are more likely to have begun using marijuana at an early age. Synthetic marijuana use is also linked to having unprotected sex. So why do people turn to synthetic marijuana rather than the natural plant? It’s readily available, it’s cheap, and it’s hard for authorities to detect, due to manufacturers’ ever-changing formulas and marketing techniques.

Like traditional marijuana, the synthetic variety is classified as a Schedule I drug by the Drug Enforcement Administration. Though often packaged and marketed in a colorful, almost innocent fashion (K2 and Spice are common strain varieties), synthetic marijuana is tied to a variety of adverse effects. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, synthetic marijuana, which usually consists of dried leaves sprayed with a menagerie of chemicals, can lead to “rapid heart rate, vomiting, violent behavior, and suicidal thoughts.”

The CDC researchers said that their findings were not meant to establish a causal relationship between synthetic marijuana use and risky behavior in teens. For instance, people who are more likely to engage in risky or violent behaviors are also more likely to try synthetic marijuana. But “it’s still important for health professionals and school-based substance-prevention programs to focus on strategies that reduce the initiation of marijuana and synthetic marijuana use,” Clayton 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 Is Synthetic Marijuana More Dangerous Than Traditional Marijuana? appeared first on Law Street.

ICYMI last week, paid protesters can make as much as $1,500 a week, pediatricians issued new guidelines regarding kids and marijuana, and a new cannabis gym is opening up in San Fransisco. Check out Law Street’s best of the week below!

Wayne LaPierre Says Paid Protesters Make $1,500 a Week: Where Can I Sign Up?

NRA Executive Director Wayne LaPierre stayed true to the White House’s line that protesters speaking out against the administration are paid. In fact, he claimed that protesters are being paid $1,500 a week. And given that the future of journalism seems to be less-than-rosy right now, I have to ask: where do I sign up?

Pediatricians’ Group Issues New Guidelines Regarding Kids and Marijuana

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released new guidelines for pediatricians to follow in light of recent marijuana legalization developments. Marijuana is legal, either medically or recreationally, in 28 states and D.C. Though overall marijuana use, even in states with the most lenient laws, has remained the same, decriminalization has “created an environment in which marijuana increasingly is seen as acceptable, safe, and therapeutic,” the report said.

A Cannabis Gym is Opening in San Francisco

Things you find at a gym: barbells, bad dance music, bro tanks, yoga pants, and marijuana. Marijuana? At Power Plants Fitness, opening in May in San Francisco yes, you will find marijuana. Founded by Jim McAlpine, with funding help from former NFL star Ricky Williams, the cannabis gym is designed to be a complete health and wellness experience. Patrons will be able to purchase marijuana edibles on-site, and consume the drug before, during, or after their workout.

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.

U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents on the Texas-Mexico border seized nearly 4,000 pounds of marijuana disguised within a commercial shipment of key limes. Yes, limes.

Border officers in Texas find nearly 2 tons of weed camouflaged as limes https://t.co/EPxhrjJNBH pic.twitter.com/FlYxZYnNmU

— CNN (@CNN) February 8, 2017

According to a CBP press release, the drugs were discovered on January 30 at the Pharr International Bridge cargo facility inside of a 2001 Freightliner tractor trailer. With the help of a non-intrusive imagining system and canine team, CBP officers located 34,764 lime-shaped bundles weighing a total of 3,947 pounds.

“This is an outstanding interception of narcotics,” Port Director Efrain Solis Jr. said in a statement. “Our CBP officers continue to excel in their knowledge of smuggling techniques which allows them to intercept these kinds of attempts to introduce narcotics into our country.”

The drugs are valued at approximately $789,467.

But even with the help of imagining equipment and drug sniffing dogs, it should have been pretty obvious to the agents that these lumpy green sacks weren’t limes.

Smugglers tried to fool Border Patrol agents with weed disguised as limes: https://t.co/TpZXJlki11 pic.twitter.com/56BzrxCjao

— VICE (@VICE) February 8, 2017

Apparently, this isn’t the first time smugglers have used fake food to hide narcotics. Last year agents confiscated 2,493 pounds of marijuana stuffed inside of pseudo-carrots entering from Mexico at the same border crossing.

So if you happen to be a drug smuggler living in Mexico with a penchant for stuffing marijuana inside fake fruits and veggies, you should seriously try a different tactic…or maybe learn what a lime actually looks like.

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 Border Patrol Seizes Nearly 4,000 Pounds of Weed Disguised as Limes appeared first on Law Street.

After several failed attempts, experts point to New Mexico as the next possible state to legalize recreational marijuana. Lawmakers are expected to introduce a new bill that would help rebound the state’s lackluster economy with the help of marijuana tax revenue.

On Wednesday sponsors in both the house and senate announced their proposals for parallel marijuana bills that would include a 15 percent tax on sales.

According to the Albuquerque Journal, local governments would choose whether to allow marijuana sales within their jurisdictions and could collect an additional 5 percent tax, while cultivation would be allowed statewide under a proposal modeled after marijuana laws in Colorado.

Governor and former district attorney Susana Martinez, a Republican, has consistently opposed legalizing marijuana or industrial hemp production; however, supporters plan to also advance a constitutional amendment that would call for a statewide vote in 2018, sans the governor’s approval.

“We create jobs, we create economic activity, and we create revenues for the state,” Democratic Sen. Gerald Ortiz y Pino of Albuquerque told the Albuquerque Journal. “It is one way this state has, and I think one of the most promising ways, to get back on track economically.”

He plans to introduce the senate version of the bill later this week. Representatives Bill McCamley (D-Las Cruces) and Javier Martinez (D-Albuquerque) are sponsoring the house version of the legalization bill.

“If it were to be passed by the Legislature, signed by the governor, it could be operational in New Mexico in July,” Ortiz y Pino said.

In 2016, three marijuana initiatives were introduced in New Mexico that would have legalized and taxed marijuana for adult recreational use in the state. In particular, the New Mexico Use of Marijuana Revenues Amendment, also known as Senate Joint Resolution 5, would have created a constitutional amendment to allow possession and personal use. It was approved by the Senate Rules Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee before being defeated on the senate floor, with a vote of 17-24.

According to the Albuquerque Journal, 61 percent of likely voters said they would support full legalization. With increased favorability and joint initiatives in both houses, marijuana advocates could finally see a win in the Land of Enchantment.

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 Will New Mexico Legalize Recreational Marijuana Next? appeared first on Law Street.

ICYMI, last week we taught you how to fight revenge porn, a woman sued Chipotle after the company used her photo, and Sen. Jeff Sessions faced a pro-marijuana group during his confirmation hearing. Learn more about these trending stories below!

How Can We Fight Revenge Porn?

Online sexual harassment and revenge porn have become relatively commonplace. Here at Law Street, we’ve written a number of articles on the topic in the last couple of weeks alone. From the lawyer fighting revenge porn to the online harassment of journalist Lauren Duca, there are concerns that this kind of behavior has become the norm in America. In fact, in September, President-elect Donald Trump was accused of something revenge-porn-like himself, when he encouraged his Twitter followers to look for Alicia Machado’s sex tape. This is clearly something that we’re going to have to deal with in coming years. But what exactly is revenge porn? And what do you do if it happens to you?

California Woman Files $2 Billion Lawsuit Against Chipotle After Company Uses her Photo

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.

Pro-Marijuana Group Gives Jeff Sessions an Earful Before Confirmation Hearing

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for attorney general, will face the Senate in a confirmation hearing on Tuesday. In an effort spearheaded by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), pro-marijuana groups are asking supporters to call their senators on Monday, and let them know that they will not stand for any aggressive enforcement actions taken by Sessions, who once said “good people don’t smoke marijuana.”

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.

Like most Americans, a majority of police officers think that marijuana laws should be relaxed, according to a new survey published Wednesday.

A Pew Research Center survey of nearly 8,000 policemen and women shows that 68 percent of cops favored relaxing marijuana laws in some form, with 32 percent saying that it should be legalized for both recreational and medical use. Only 30 percent said that weed should not be legal at all.

Participating law enforcement were less enthusiastic about marijuana legalization than the general public–84 percent said that marijuana laws should be relaxed. Only 15 percent of the public think that weed should remain illegal.

“Survey: Two-thirds of cops say marijuana laws should be relaxed” – @wonkblog on our survey https://t.co/BPdIwMSPMz pic.twitter.com/yfCAh4C9M2

— Pew Research Center (@pewresearch) January 12, 2017

This data comes after eight states voted to legalize recreational marijuana in 2016. However, marijuana is still listed as a Schedule I drug under federal law–the same classification used for hard drugs like heroin, crack cocaine, LSD, and MDMA. Marijuana has not been linked to any overdose deaths, and its properties have been found to help alleviate the symptoms of terminal illnesses and diseases such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, Alzheimer’s, and epilepsy.

Under the Trump administration, the future of marijuana policy is unclear. The momentum propelling legalization efforts could suddenly halt if Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Trump’s pick for Attorney General, chooses to enforce federal marijuana laws.

During his confirmation hearing on Tuesday, Sessions said he wouldn’t commit to never enforcing federal law for medical marijuana use. He was asked if he would use federal resources to investigate and prosecute sick people who are using marijuana in accordance with their state laws.

“Using good judgment about how to handle these cases will be a responsibility of mine. I know it won’t be an easy decision, but I will try to do my duty in a fair and just way,” said Sessions.

Even though marijuana’s immediate future remains unclear, the clear consensus emerging from the American public, and now cops, favors the relaxation of marijuana laws.

These findings come from an online poll of a nationally representative sample of 7,917 officers working in 54 police and sheriff’s departments administered between May 19-August 14, 2016.

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 Two-Thirds of Cops Support Legalizing Marijuana in Some Form appeared first on Law Street.

Every year since 1992, the Monitoring the Future survey has asked 8th, 10th, and 12th graders how difficult it would be to procure drugs, from marijuana to meth, and how often they use them. In 2016 the survey found that, despite the growing number of states making it easier to obtain marijuana, not only is marijuana use down among teenagers, but so is its availability.

Most teens are obtaining marijuana at a lower rate than ever before, as 34.6 percent of 8th graders said pot would be “easy or very easy to get,” 2.4 percent lower than the rate in 2015. Students in 10th grade also recorded the lowest rate ever for the study, with 64 percent saying the drug is attainable, a 1.4 percent drop from 2015. Eighty-one percent of 12th graders said marijuana would be easy to get, up 1.5 percent from last year.

“I don’t have an explanation. This is somewhat surprising,” Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which commissions the survey, told U.S. News & World Report. “We had predicted based on the changes in legalization, culture in the U.S. as well as decreasing perceptions among teenagers that marijuana was harmful that [accessibility and usage rates] would go up. But it hasn’t gone up,” she said.

Eight states–including four last month–and D.C. have legalized recreational marijuana for people 21 and over. So why has accessibility and use gone down, even among those that are underage? One reason posited by Volkow and other experts is that younger people are more familiar with the harmful effects of inhaling smoke. Or perhaps it’s that their free time is being eaten up by watching TV or playing video games, rather than seeking out the high school pot dealer. Or, as some legalization advocates point out, maybe it’s that as pot laws loosen, the rebellious stigma of marijuana fades away.

For 8th, 10th, and 12th graders alike, alcohol was said to be much easier to obtain than marijuana. Cigarettes also consistently ranked higher than marijuana in terms of ease of access, but lower than alcohol. Marijuana use is also down from last year among 8th and 10th graders, continuing a downward trend that began in 2010. In 2016, 8th grade marijuana use hit its lowest rate since 1993, with 9.4 percent of respondents saying they smoke pot. That figure is significantly higher for 10th graders, with 23.9 percent saying they smoke pot, but that number also saw a 1.5 percent decrease from 2015, and was the lowest usage rate since 2008.

“We’re seeing that more people in the U.S. except for teenagers are taking [marijuana],” Volkow said. “The rates of increases are highest among young adults 18-24, so one would expect that would translate to the adolescents, but apparently it has not.”

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 For Teenagers, Marijuana is Less Accessible Than Ever Before appeared first on Law Street.

Thanks to the success of recent legalization efforts across the country, more American adults are now able to consume legal marijuana than ever before. But as usage statistics surge, researchers have found that their rates do vary along gender lines–men are significantly more likely to smoke marijuana than women.

Epidemiologists Hannah Carliner and Deborah S. Hasin conducted the study at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, and published the results online in the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence. They found that compared to 2002, an estimated six million additional men and four million additional women reported past-year pot smoking in 2014.

For a number of years, users remained steady at about 13 percent of the adult male population and 7 percent of the adult female population; however, in 2007, prevalence increased by about 4 percent among men and 3 percent among women.

“These changes parallel national trends in decreased perceived harmfulness of marijuana use, and legalization of both recreational and medical use in over half of U.S. states,” said Dr. Carliner. “However, changes in attitudes and legality do not sufficiently explain why we observe a sharp increase in use in 2007, or why this increase was greater in men than in women.”

Interestingly, the study also found that the widening of the gap was driven by men with low incomes, and corresponded with the start of the Great Recession and rising unemployment rates in 2007. Between 2007 and 2014, marijuana use increased about 6 percent among men in households earning less than $20,000 annually, compared to only 2 percent of women in that group.

It’s easy to understand how financial pressure could cause more individuals to seek out marijuana, which is commonly used to relieve stress and help with anxiety.

“While an economic recovery began around 2012, it largely bypassed men in the low-income manufacturing and construction fields, where earning and employment rates remained low,” noted Dr. Carliner.

“Our findings are consistent with other recent national studies documenting increasing rates of disease and death related to substance use among middle-aged low socioeconomic status White Americans,” says Dr. Hasin.

Both researchers believe that documenting changes in drug use is important for public health planning as well as economic policy. They also believe that identifying such high risk periods and populations could help tailor future prevention efforts.

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 New Study Finds Men Are More Likely to Smoke Marijuana Than Women appeared first on Law Street.

Students attending a suburban Chicago high school were hospitalized on Tuesday after eating gummy bears that authorities suspect to have been tainted.

The Naperville High School students hospitalized suffered varying degrees of illness, including rapid heart rate, dizziness, and dry mouth. The school encouraged parents to have an open dialogue with their children about healthy choices in a statement posted to Facebook on Tuesday night.

Today at Naperville North High School, 14 students were transported to Edward Hospital for medical treatment. We can confirm 12 are being treated as a result of consuming gummy bears that may contain another substance.

This candy made those students both uncomfortable and sick, so they were taken to the nurse’s office for care. For safety precautions, the students were transported to Edward Hospital to receive medical attention. Each student had varying degrees of discomfort and subsequent treatment.

Currently, 2 students are in stable condition and are undergoing evaluation, while 11 have been treated and released. They have been experiencing symptoms that include fast heart rate, dizziness and dry mouth.

We encourage all parents to have conversations with their children about making healthy choices. Our community is fortunate to have a number of resources available through school and other community partners to support the wellbeing of students.

We continue to review the specifics of the situation and will address it appropriately. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact your school’s principal.

Students told police that they thought the gummy bears were “laced with something with marijuana, like a liquid-based marijuana substance,” said Naperville Police commander Jason Arres. Authorities determined that the gummy bears were ingested voluntarily, but investigations are underway to determine how the gummy bears were distributed.

According to local news station WLS, a 17-year-old male student was taken into custody, but released without being charged.

“There are a lot of avenues that we can take with juvenile discipline,” Arres said. “Again they’re young, so we want to work through these issues in partnership and collaboration with the school district to make sure the punishment fits the crime.”

One Facebook user commented on the Naperville Police Department’s post and suggested the students might have fallen victim to the notorious Haribo sugar-free gummy bears, which online reviewers have complained made them feel ill.

But this doesn’t seem to be the case.

The Naperville incident appears to be the latest in a string of cases where students have sought medical attention after consuming drug-laced candy. Similar reports have appeared in a variety of states–from Pennsylvania to Florida. It seems that students are slowly realizing a “harmless treat” isn’t always as it seems.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chicago Students Hospitalized After Consuming ‘Laced’ Gummy Bears appeared first on Law Street.

Officials in Maine on Monday morning began a recount of ballots from Election Day. Because the state’s recreational marijuana legalization measure, Question 1, passed by a narrow margin (about 4,000 votes), officials wanted to confirm the results of a measure that would have wide-ranging effects in the Pine Tree State. If the results are confirmed, Maine would join three other states–California, Massachusetts, and Nevada–that passed recreational legalization measures on November 8.

The Maine secretary of state’s office has signaled that the recount could take up to a month. The recount–which is taking place in the state capital of Augusta–could cost at least $500,000. State police will be transferring ballots, locked away in password-protected boxes, from 503 towns across the state.

Question 1 would allow Maine residents who are at least 21 years old to possess up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana. Home cultivation would be limited to up to six plants. If the measure passes, state officials would have nine months to construct a regulatory framework.

Governor Paul LePage, in a video released before the vote, said marijuana “can be deadly.” Likening it to heroin, he said, “we do not need to legalize a drug that could lead to more deaths.” LePage, a staunch opponent of the measure, added: “Before you vote, please educate yourself on this dangerous issue.”

The measure was passed by a slim margin, with 381,692 voters supporting Question 1, and 377,619 opposing it. LePage, a Republican, supports the recount, and has said that he would implore President-elect Donald Trump to enforce the federal ban on marijuana. If Trump did respect states’ wishes, however, LePage said he would respect that decision as well.

Election Day was a sizable victory for marijuana advocates, as eight states (nine if the Maine results are confirmed) passed marijuana measures in some form, though marijuana remains illegal at the federal level. Maine residents will have to wait at least a few more weeks to see if their state joins the growing list of states that have legalized the drug since 2012. Maine legalized medical marijuana in 2009.

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 Recount Begins for Maine’s Recreational Marijuana Ballot Measure appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin signaled that his state’s recently passed recreational marijuana legalization ballot measure, Question 4, could miss its targeted implementation date of December 15. Massachusetts, and seven other states, passed some form of marijuana legalization measures on Election Day, with Bay State voters overwhelmingly in support of a recreational marijuana legalization framework.

The eight-member Governor’s Council needs to sign off on the ballot measure, which 1.7 million people (54 percent) voted for, before it can be implemented. Galvin said he expects the council’s votes to be tallied on December 14, and said it’s a “50-50 proposition” that the law will go into effect, meaning Massachusetts citizens 21 and over can legally possess and use small amounts of pot. Stores will be allowed to start selling marijuana on January 1, 2018, though that date might also get pushed back.

“All those tokers can hold their breath a little longer, but they’ll be able to exhale,” Galvin said, adding that if it’s not passed in two weeks, it will be at the beginning of next year. He said a later than usual election, and the results not being a lock until November 18 were the primary reasons for the potential delay. Confirming the presidential election results are his number one priority, he said, and the work put into that takes precedence over the marijuana measure. “No one is trying to delay the marijuana question deliberately,” he added. “It’s just the presidency of the United States is more important than legalizing marijuana.”

Michael Albano, one of the eight members of the Governor’s Council, told The Boston Globe that he would be surprised if the passed ballot measure does not go into effect on the targeted date. “We meet every week so if it’s not ready on the 30th, we’ll be there on December 7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th,” he said. Home cultivation–of up to 12 marijuana plants–is also expected to start on December 15, though that too would be pushed back if the council delays the implementation.

Will Luzier, a lawyer and prominent backer of Question 4, told the Globe he is surprised that there could be a delay, saying: “I would hope that the secretary of state errs on the positive side of that 50-50, and that he and the Governor’s Council would be able to certify given the deadline date.”

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 Massachusetts Might Have to Wait a Little Longer for Legal Marijuana appeared first on Law Street.

ICYMI, last week we covered child marriage, marijuana bans, and suspicious chorizo burritos. Check out Law Street’s top trending stories below!

1. Public Uproar: Turkey Moves Ahead With Child Marriage Law

It is hard to believe that in 2016 in a European country, a government could propose a new law that would make child marriage legal, and also protect rapists from being punished by the law as long as they marry their victim. But that is exactly what is happening in Turkey. The new bill was approved on Thursday and is scheduled to undergo a final vote on Tuesday. If it passes, it will take away the punishment for sexual assault if there is no force or if the victim and perpetrator are married. This would include girls under the age of 18. So how could sexual assault without force be criminalized, and how could sexual violence in marriages be punished? Put simply: they likely couldn’t be. Read the full article here.

2. Will Trump’s Attorney General Pick Enforce the Federal Ban on Marijuana?

Days after eight states voted to legalize marijuana in some form or to expand existing laws, President-elect Donald Trump picked Sen. Jeff Sessions, a vocal critic of legalization, to head the Justice Department as the new attorney general. With the disparate marijuana laws between the federal government and states, marijuana and criminal justice advocacy groups, not to mention users and regulated sellers, are expressing concerns about how the Trump Administration would affect the state-level legal market. Read the full article here.

3. Duped by ‘300-Calorie’ Burrito, Chipotle Customers File Lawsuit

Three Chipotle customers in Los Angeles got more than they were hoping for when trying out the chain’s new Chorizo Burrito–well, more calories that is. In a class action lawsuit filed last week, the diners allege that they were “lulled into a false belief” that Chipotle’s new burrito is much healthier than it really is, due to misleading nutritional information. 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.

Right now we all hear a lot of “Hillary Clinton this,” “Donald Trump that.” Love or hate Donald and Hillary, the 2016 presidential election has dominated our newsfeeds and happy hour conversations. And don’t get me wrong–the presidential election is incredibly important. But many of the laws that affect us on a day-to-day basis are made at the state level, often by our state legislators, but also by us, the American people. States give voters the opportunity to weigh in on important questions, and in some cases directly impact our state’s laws through ballot measures. And there’s a bunch up for grabs this year that millennials should be paying attention to. Learn more about ballot measures, and Law Street’s picks for the top five types of ballot measures we should all be paying attention to below. 

What is a Ballot Measure?

Generally speaking, a ballot measure is a public vote on a proposed issue or question that voters get to weigh in on. Rules about ballot measures vary from state to state and there are a few different ways that ballot measures end up on the ballot. One type, a ballot initiative, requires signatures from citizens who want to see the question weighed by voters. Another option is legislative referral, in which the legislature puts up a law it’s considering to be voted on. In some states, this process is required to pass an amendment to the state constitution.

Why Should I Care About Ballot Measures?

They give you a chance to weigh in directly on issues. America’s government is, at its core, a representative democracy. We elect people to make decisions for us, and we have to accept that sometimes we don’t like those decisions. We, as millennials, routinely answer in polls that we don’t trust the government, the path our country is on, or our elected officials.

But ballot initiatives are different–they’re a real, legitimate way to vote on issues we care about. There’s not really political middlemen to deal with. They’re direct democracy. Regardless of how you feel about the politicians you’ll be asked to vote for in November, it’s important that you make your voice heard on these issues, many of which can and likely will affect millennials.

Gun Control

Image courtesy of Peretz Partensky; License: (CC BY-SA 2.0)

What States are Looking at Gun Control Measures?

California’s Proposition 63: Proposition 63, which is also called the “Safety for All Initiative,” would prohibit Californians from owning high-capacity magazines, make any gun theft a felony, and tighten a variety of loopholes regarding felons owning guns. The especially contentious part of the proposal, however, is that it would require a background check and a four-year permit to obtain ammunition. Here’s the full text.

Maine’s Question 3: Question 3 would require a background check when an individual who is not a licensed firearm dealer sells or transfers a gun to another individual. They would have to meet at a licensed firearm dealer in order to conduct the background check, although there are exceptions, such as for family members. Here’s the full text.

Nevada’s Question 1: Nevada will be asking voters to vote on whether firearm transfers have to go through licensed gun dealers, and therefore be required to have a background check. Like Maine, there would be some exceptions to these provisions, like temporary transfers or transfers to family members would not require a gun dealer. Here’s the full text.

Washington’s Initiative 1491: Formally named the “Individual Gun Access Prevention by Court Order” a “yes” vote on this initiative would allow the use of courts to issue “extreme risk protection orders,” that would prevent someone from having a firearm. This would be used for people who pose a serious threat to themselves or others. Here’s the full text.

Image copyright Law Street Media

Why should we be paying attention to gun control measures?

From Columbine, to Virginia Tech, to Sandy Hook, our lives have been marked by high profile gun violence. We learned what to do if there was an armed shooter in our schools–a drill that probably would have been unthinkable to our parents. We grew up watching violent movies and playing first person shooter video games–a phenomenon that had some worried about the relationship between young people and violence. And guns affect many of our daily lives too–54 percent of Americans killed by gun violence in 2010 were under the age of 30. But exactly how to deal with this violence hasn’t necessarily manifested itself in strong support for one side or the other: do we need more control or less?

Millennials remain split on gun control measures as a whole. A 2015 Gallup poll found that 50 percent of millennials support more gun control, which stands in contrast to 57 percent of the 30-49 age bracket. A 2015 Pew poll also saw millennials almost perfectly split on whether or not to ban assault weapons.

These measures give us the chance to weigh in more directly depending on how we feel about the prospect of more restrictions and the Second Amendment.

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 Election Day 2016: Top 5 Ballot Measures to Watch 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 the weeks leading up to November 8, America’s attention remains squarely on the presidential race. But Election Day will bring scores of ballot measures to voters across all 50 states as well. In nine states, voters will be weighing in on legalizing marijuana in some form, either medically or recreationally.

Early polls in California–one of states to include a full-tilt legalization measure on its ballot–indicate that it will join the handful of states where marijuana is currently legal in all forms. Opponents and proponents of the California measure, Proposition 64, have their sights set on the next battlefield once legalization becomes a reality: marketing.

Proposition 64, or the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, contains a number of provisions aimed at ensuring marijuana will be safely marketed. These include:

• All marijuana product labels must include a government warning that includes the phrase, “please use extreme caution.”
• Billboards can portray marijuana advertisements, but must be located further than 1,000 feet away from a day care, school, playground, or youth center.

But even with the safe-marketing measures baked into Prop. 64, some opponents of legalization remain worried that as the drug is legalized, companies will commit to mass marketing strategies aimed at turning a profit.

Once cannabis is legalized in California, opponents see a period of experimentation, as brands are weeded out and the big players emerge, perhaps paving a landscape similar to Big Tobacco. This would include a landscape consisting of mass marketing campaigns fueled by a few dominant companies.

Prop. 64 contains additional stipulations aimed at preventing a monopolistic environment. For the first five years of legalization, producers are only allowed to cultivate up to 22,000 square feet.

Though Prop. 64 contains measures safeguarding against marketing, and especially marketing to children, the federal classification of marijuana as an illegal substance and a Schedule I drug will prevent marijuana from being marketed on television or radio in California, even if the measure passes on Election Day.

In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, California’s Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, a legalization supporter, noted how federal law will block many marketing efforts at the state level for the time being. He said:

Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and Colorado have legalized cannabis for recreational use for adults. None of those markets have any advertising, because [marijuana] is federally prohibited. You cannot legally advertise [marijuana] on our airwaves, radio, or TV.

Brands, he said, will design their products to appeal to people. “But targeting our kids,” Newsom said. “Absolutely not. And we’re going to keep an eye on that, and we’ve got to hold ourselves accountable.”

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 Will Marijuana Be Marketed if it’s Legalized in California? appeared first on Law Street.

Arrests for small amounts of marijuana outnumbered arrests for all violent crimes combined last year, according to a new report released Wednesday by the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch highlighting the abundance of drug possession crimes in America.

The 196-page report title “Every 25 Seconds: The Human Toll of Criminalizing Drug Use in the United States,” found that every 25 seconds in the U.S., someone is arrested possessing drugs for their personal use, and on any given day 137,000 men and women are behind bars in the U.S. for drug possession. In fact, one in nine arrests are for drug possession, amounting to over 1.25 million each year.

Interestingly enough, many of these people haven’t yet been convicted of a crime, but are being detained pretrial because they can’t afford to post bail–leading many defendants to “plead guilty simply to secure their release, in cases where they might otherwise want to go to trial.”

As a result, these convictions exclude them from job opportunities, public housing, quality education, welfare assistance, voting, and more, and subject them to discrimination and lifelong stigma.

“Rather than promoting health, criminalization can create new barriers to health for those who use drugs,” the report says. “Criminalization drives drug use underground; it discourages access to emergency medicine, overdose prevention services, and risk-reducing practices such as syringe exchanges.”

The authors of the report call for drug use to be treated as a public health issue, rather than a criminal issue. The report says:

Ending criminalization of simple drug possession does not mean turning a blind eye to the misery that drug dependence can cause in the lives of those who use and of their families. On the contrary, it requires a more direct focus on effective measures to prevent problematic drug use, reduce the harms associated with it, and support those who struggle with dependence. Ultimately, the criminal law does not achieve these important ends, and causes additional harm and loss instead. It is time for the US to rethink its approach to drug use.

Federal figures bolster the report’s findings. While drug-related arrests have drastically increased since 1979, drug use remains high. In 1979, less than 200 in 100,000 people were arrested on drug charges. By the mid-2000s, that ratio rose to 500 in 100,000, its peak. Today, federal figures estimate 400 in 100,000 people are arrested for drug use or possession.

Proponents of strict drug-use penalties argue that tough sentencing practices can deter use and will keep the public safe. For instance, since 1979, illegal drug use by children age 12 and up was at its highest rate in 2015, at just under 18 percent. That rate was much lower at the peak of drug-related arrests in the mid 2000s, but the full picture is much murkier than just that blip in time.

The report also found that while whites are more likely to use illicit drugs in general, black adults are more than two-and-a-half times as likely as white adults to be arrested for drug possession–furthering problems of racial discrimination.

 Alexis Evans also contributed to this story.

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 New Study Finds Marijuana Arrests Outnumber Those for Violent Crimes 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.

Instagram has been deleting accounts that contain pictures of marijuana, even if the location where the account is based has legalized the drug in some form. Two companies in Canada, where medical marijuana is legal, recently had their accounts shut down by the social media giant after featuring pictures of legal weed.

Lift Cannabis Co. is a Canadian website that reviews legal strains of weed through licensed producers. A Lift representative told VICE that his company’s Instagram account was deactivated last week.

“Nothing we’re sharing is against the law,” said Lift communications director David Brown. “Instagram is a US-based company. I suspect they don’t really understand the rules involving Canada.”

Lift isn’t the only Canadian company whose Instagram account has recently been taken down.

Tweed, Canada’s largest licensed producer of medical marijuana, used its Instagram as a vital piece of its marketing strategy since advertising medical marijuana in Canada is not permitted. Its account has been shut down twice.

“The work it takes to build an online community isn’t worth it if there’s the constant risk of it disappearing,” Tweed spokesman Jordan Sinclair told VICE. He said Tweed will not open another Instagram account, but will rebuild its social presence on Snapchat and Massroots as alternatives.

Instagram’s community guidelines state: “Offering sexual services, buying or selling firearms and illegal or prescription drugs (even if it’s legal in your region) is also not allowed. Remember to always follow the law when offering to sell or buy other regulated goods.”

However, there are accounts that have pictures of marijuana plants or promote illegal weed that haven’t been deactivated. Cannabis Culture, which sells recreational weed (which is still technically illegal) in parts of Vancouver and Toronto, has an operational account. Leafy and Weedmaps, smart phone apps which review dispensaries and use GPS technology to locate them for the use, both have operating Instagram accounts as well.

Brown is dumbfounded by the seemingly arbitrary account take downs.

“So a company that operates with the entirely legal medical cannabis space in Canada gets deleted, twice, but a company that cover the federally illegal recreational culture in the US and around the world gets a pass,” Brown said. “No rhyme or reason.”

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 Instagram is Censoring Accounts With Pictures of Legal Weed appeared first on Law Street.

Festivals and fraternities–the life source of the average college-bound American teenager–hounded the first family as Malia Obama challenged the roles of acceptable teenage behavior.

President Barack Obama’s 18-year-old daughter graduated from the prestigious Sidwell Friends School earlier this year and unexpectedly decided to take a gap year before attending Harvard. In recent months, Malia’s achievements have been overshadowed by a slew of leaks depicting the recent graduate playing beer pong and smoking at festivals.

In July, Malia skipped the Democratic National Convention to enjoy numerous artists and setlists at the Lollapalooza music festival in Chicago. Concert-goers photographed and filmed Malia dancing against the tide of crowds–her secret service in tow. Unfortunately, the extra security couldn’t stop the national spotlight from pointing directly at the teen, after cameras caught her allegedly smoking pot and twerking during the concert lineup.

Radar Online released the viral snapshot and in minutes, numerous online outlets exploded criticizing the partying teen’s behavior.

Twitter users strongly opposed online outlets overanalyzing Malia’s actions, and the children of politicians followed suit by showing support. Meghan McCain, daughter of U.S. Sen. John McCain, lashed out against the media for its portrayal of the teen with a tweet reading: “leave Malia Obama alone!”

.@connortryan @PageSix leave Malia Obama alone!

— Meghan McCain (@MeghanMcCain) August 10, 2016

If Malia was in fact smoking marijuana, her behavior wouldn’t be atypical. In fact, one in every 17 college students is smoking marijuana on a daily or near-daily basis, defined as use on 20 or more occasions in the prior 30 days, according to a 2015 study from the University of Michigan.

“It’s clear that for the past seven or eight years there has been an increase in marijuana use among the nation’s college students,” said Lloyd Johnston, the principal investigator of the study.

Malia’s alleged marijuana use isn’t the only thing she’s been criticized for. She once again made headlines after a snapchat depicting her playing beer pong at a party in Maryland on August 23 surfaced. The picture released by the Daily Mail shows Malia surrounded by a patriotic table covered in red, white, and blue confetti and a sprawl of Bud Light and Miller Lights cans. The infamous red solo cup was also fully present.

The president’s daughter helps contribute to the number of students her age who drink underage. A Villanova study shows, nationally, about 80 percent of college students consume alcohol. 

This is not the first time presidential kids and the children of candidates have made headlines due to their antics–from Bristol Palin’s teenage pregnancy out of wedlock to George W. Bush’s 19-year-old twins Barbara and Jenna underage drinking in Texas–and it surely won’t be the last.

The White House has opted to remain silent in the wake of the media firestorm surrounding Malia. The eldest Obama daughter, however, subtly responded to her critics at Philadelphia’s Labor Day weekend Made In America Music Festival. Malia was caught sporting a Harvard cap and a tee with the befitting hand-written words “Smoking Kills” scrawled across.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Malia Obama: A Wallflower Under Public Scrutiny appeared first on Law Street.

As marijuana is slowly legalized both for recreational and medicinal purposes in a variety of states across the United States, those states’ laws sometimes come head-to-head with already-existing federal legislation. These clashes are problematic, and they can create legal gray areas that courts then need to weigh in on. That’s exactly what happened recently in a federal appeals court in San Francisco, when the court ruled that the federal government’s prohibition on medical marijuana users obtaining a firearm does not violate the Second Amendment.

The case was sparked by a Nevada woman named S. Rowan Wilson, who in 2011 tried to purchase a gun. She had a medical marijuana card, which was legal given that Nevada had legalized medicinal weed over a decade before.  The store refused to sell her the gun, because in 1968 Congress passed a law prohibiting anyone who used illegal drugs from obtaining a firearm. While Wilson wasn’t exactly using an illegal drug–at least under Nevada law–marijuana is still illegal under federal law. That’s what makes this case a perfect example of the confusing interplay between state and federal law when it comes to marijuana, yet Wilson was upset by what she saw as a violation of her Second Amendment rights.

So, Wilson sued the government. According to Consumerist, she:

Filed a federal lawsuit alleging that this refusal to sell her a firearm violated her First and Second Amendment rights, along with the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment. She subsequently claimed that the ATF notice that clarified the legality of selling firearms to medical marijuana users violated the Administrative Procedure Act by effectively making new rules without going through the necessary processes.

But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed 3-0 that “Congress reasonably concluded that marijuana and other drug use ‘raises the risk of irrational or unpredictable behavior with which gun use should not be associated.'”

Wilson now has the option to continue forward with the suit–it could hypothetically make its way to SCOTUS–but it’s unclear if she will do so. Yet as more states legalize marijuana, particularly for medical purposes, these are questions that courts are going to become increasingly familiar with.

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 Federal Appeals Court: Medical Marijuana Users Can’t Buy Firearms appeared first on Law Street.

Mass producing marijuana for the medical (or recreational) market is a weighty task. Most importantly, given that significant amounts of marijuana are produced in cultivation sites, it is an incredibly energy-intensive industry. In an attempt to reduce costs and impact on the environment, some marijuana growers are experimenting with using green energy–a pattern that seems likely to continue as more states legalize weed and America’s collective concern over the environment continues to worsen.

In order to grow marijuana indoors, grow rooms are constructed. They can range from small, household endeavors, to large warehouses. They require lights to mimic natural sunlight, and air conditioning to keep the temperatures at ideal levels. Both of those functions–lighting and AC–require a lot of energy, especially when you consider that at their largest level, some of these grow rooms could produce over 100 pounds of marijuana a month.

As a result, the overall drain on energy is large. A 2011 study by a California energy and environmental systems analyst yielded some of the following revelations:

U.S. cannabis production results in 15 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions per year, or the same as emitted by 3 million cars.

[…]

Cannabis production uses eight times as much energy per square foot as other commercial buildings, and 18 times more than an average home.

A recent Las Vegas Sun article by Daniel Rothberg features the efforts of one particular grow center in Clark County, Nevada. The center, owned by a company called The Grove, uses more energy-efficient LED lights in an attempt to slash power costs. The push to make the marijuana industry greener (and cheaper) isn’t just limited to Nevada, however. Rothberg quotes John Morris, who runs Resource Innovation Institute, saying: “The top priority is yield and product quality. When you can add a layer of energy efficiency on top of that, it lowers your operational cost.” At the end of the day, there’s a lot of potential for innovative energy efficiency when it comes to growing marijuana, and the two industries have the opportunity to grow and evolve together.

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 Are the Marijuana and Green Energy Industries a Perfect Match? appeared first on Law Street.

A new study from the University of British Columbia suggests that there is some truth to the stereotype that smoking weed makes you lazy–at least as far as rats are concerned.

Researchers published a study in the Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience, that found THC, the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, made male rats less likely to choose more cognitively demanding tasks. (Presumably they used male rats because all the female rats were already busy multi-tasking three things at once.)

UBC conducted the study by training 29 lab rats to complete behavioral tasks where they had to decide whether or not they wanted to engage in a task that required a lot of attention for a larger reward, or complete an easier task for a smaller reward.

Under normal circumstances the rats opted for the harder task to earn the bigger reward. However, when the scientists gave the rats doses of THC and had them pick between the same tasks, they chose the easier tasks for the smaller reward–basically they became “cognitively lazy.” Surprisingly, the rats could still perform the harder task, they just didn’t want to.

Some of the motivations behind the study were to determine whether or not marijuana legalization has an adverse effect on the quality of life of its users. The researches concluded:

We hypothesize that associations between THC and poorer life outcomes may be due to a drug-induced decrease in willingness to allocate cognitive effort, rather than impairments in fundamental cognitive abilities per se. Our findings also suggest that unlike THC, CBD does not adversely affect executive function, and as such its inclusion in medicinal cannabis is not of primary concern.

While the results of this study probably aren’t shocking for most of us, they do provide more information about the affects of THC–at least on rats. Although, I do think they could have gotten the stoned rats to try a little harder if they’d offered them pizza as their reward instead.

Watch the researchers explain the study below

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 Shocker: Weed Makes Rats Lazy AF, Say Researchers appeared first on Law Street.

A laser light show. Painting parties. Rattlesnakes and lizards. The 2016 Oregon State Fair is a diverse affair, set to feature the aforementioned activities and reptiles. And for the first time ever at an American state fair, according to its organizers, there will be an exhibit displaying live marijuana plants, with leaves but no buds. The exhibit is focused on promoting pot cultivation techniques. “It’s not to tempt people to use marijuana,” Donald Morse, executive director of the Oregon Cannabis Business Council and the exhibit’s organizer, told ABC. “It is to educate. Cannabis is Oregon’s newest farm crop.”

Oregon voted to legalize recreational marijuana in November 2014. It’s one of four states plus the District of Columbia to legalize the drug. State fairs are communal gatherings, where the latest in food and culture is often showcased side-by-side with local traditions. A public cannabis exhibit represents an important milestone in erasing the long-held stigma associated with pot since the days of “Reefer Madness.” This year’s exhibit is the logical next step from last year’s fair, which had marijuana information booths. A positive response from fairgoers last year allowed for live plants to be displayed this year, Morse said. 

Nine plants will feature at the fair, which begins on Friday in Salem, a city 50 miles south of Portland. Selected from a cannabis competition last weekend, the nine winning plants will evenly be split between sativa, indica, and a hybrid of the two varieties. Sativa and indica are two major species of the cannabis plant, distinguished by the appearance of their leaves and their psychological effects.

The Oregon Liquor Control Commission is still tweaking the state’s regulations regarding marijuana cultivation, transportation, and consumption. A spokesman said the commission hopes to have licensing laws and regulations finalized by 2017. The current code allows people to grow four pot plants in their private residence. But because a flowering plant–one with buds–is illegal to transport, the plants at the fair will be budless. Dan Cox, a spokesman for the fair, said the marijuana exhibit fits right into the ethos of his state’s annual event: “It is a showcase for traditional things. And yet it’s always been a showplace for the new, the different, and the innovative,” 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 At Oregon’s State Fair, a Groundbreaking Attraction: Marijuana Plants appeared first on Law Street.

It has been nearly two years since Santa Fe, New Mexico decriminalized marijuana, but police officers are still arresting some for possession of the drug. A recent report from the Santa Fe Reporter counted 36 arrests over the past two years–the decriminalization ordinance passed on August 27, 2014–in instances where the possession of less than one ounce of marijuana should have amounted to a $25 fine, not jail time.

Of the 36 arrests, 12 led to convictions. The median age of the arrestees was 24, and 70 percent took place on the city’s Southside. Most of those arrested (20 of the 36) also qualified for a public defender, an indication that they likely fell below the poverty level. Decriminalization efforts at the state level have failed thus far, which has allowed for some officers to make marijuana-related arrests under the state code rather than the city of Santa Fe’s.

Santa Fe’s Mayor Javier Gonzalez told the Reporter in informal discussions that he has had with police officers, at least half of them–the city has 82 total officers–disagree with the ordinance, which considers possession of less than an ounce of marijuana to be the department’s “lowest priority.” Patrick Gallagher, the police chief of Santa Fe, echoed that sentiment, saying, “some of our officers are adamantly opposed to it,” adding, “but that shouldn’t change the way we enforce the law.”

According to the two-year old ordinance, possessing an ounce or less of marijuana and related paraphernalia results in a $25 fine. Under state law, that same offense carries a $50 to $100 fine and 15 days in jail. Subsequent arrests can incur heavier fines and increased jail time. But perhaps the most consequential aspect of an arrest is the fact that it will show up on background checks.

When the ordinance passed in August 2014, the fine print essentially amounts to allowing officers to use their discretion when deciding to arrest someone with an ounce of weed or less. For instance, two men could be carrying .08 ounces of pot on them each, and an officer can slap one of the men with a $25 fine, while another officer can arrest the other man, depending on his subjective assessment of the situation.

As more states begin to vote on legalization measures–including five in November–the ambiguity surrounding city and state law will clarify, and police officers would have a clear law to enforce. New Mexico, however, is not one of the five states to weigh marijuana legalization this fall.

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 Ounce of Pot in Santa Fe Can Still Lead to an Arrest, Despite Decriminalization appeared first on Law Street.

Sex under the influence is a complicated topic–one rife with questions of consent and the spread of STIs or unwanted pregnancy. Traditionally, that “influence” has been alcohol, but as the legalization of recreational marijuana becomes increasingly the norm in some states, will the same concerns extend to sex while stoned? New York University researchers recently set out to weigh the differences between stoned sex and drunk sex, and their results shed some light on that question.

The researchers, led by Joseph Palamar, PhD, MPH, an affiliate of NYU’s Center for Drug Use and HIV Research and an assistant professor of Population Health at NYU Langone Medical Center (NYULMC), studied 12 heterosexual men and 12 heterosexual women. They conducted in-depth interviews about their sexual experiences while under the two different influences.

The results? Both alcohol and weed lead to riskier sexual behavior overall. But, at the end of the day, drunk sex was riskier than stoned sex. Sex after consuming lots of booze was more likely to lead to negative feelings of regret, shame, and embarrassment afterwards. According to the Washington Post’s analysis of the study:

The most commonly reported feeling after sex on alcohol was regret. Both males and females commonly reported that regret, shame, and embarrassment were associated with alcohol use, but this was rarely reported for marijuana.

However, the study also acknowledged that those feelings may come from the situations in which alcohol and marijuana are likely to be consumed. Given the fact that marijuana is still illegal in most states, it’s more likely to be consumed in intimate settings; alcohol is often consumed at larger parties and in more social situations.

The study also found that sex under either influence led to some technical difficulties for both men and women–the study’s writeup stated: “marijuana use was linked to vaginal dryness and alcohol was commonly described as increasing the likelihood of impotence among males.”

Put simply, sex under the influence–alcohol or weed–has its risks. But drunk sex is riskier than stoned sex, an important distinction as recreational marijuana becomes more and more socially acceptable (and legal).

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 What’s Riskier: Drunk Sex or Stoned Sex? appeared first on Law Street.

There is a divide in America between how the federal government classifies marijuana and how some individual states do. And that divide probably won’t be bridged any time soon. On Wednesday, the chief of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) wrote a letter to a trifecta of petitioners who sought to prod the institution into liberalizing its restrictions on the drug. Chuck Rosenberg, the chief of the DEA, wrote: “[Marijuana] does not have a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, there is a lack of accepted safety for its use under medical supervision, and it has a high potential for abuse.” Marijuana is a Schedule I substance, which limits researchers’ abilities to study its medical properties, and of course, renders it illegal.

Governor Gina Raimondo (D-RI), Governor Jay Inslee (D-WA), and a nurse from New Mexico, Bryan Krumm filed the petition with the DEA, and were the fourth straight petitioners to be rejected for similar requests. In his letter, Rosenberg painted his decision as hardly a decision at all, but as a responsibility bound by science and the FDA’s conclusions regarding the lack of evidence in regards to any positive medical properties of the drug.

“This decision isn’t based on danger. This decision is based on whether marijuana, as determined by the FDA, is a safe and effective medicine,” Rosenberg wrote, “and it’s not.”

Keeping marijuana in the same category as heroin is absurd. The time is long overdue for us to remove the federal prohibition on marijuana.

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) August 11, 2016

Marijuana’s classification as a Schedule I drug is a nearly 50 year-old demarcation defined under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. The characteristics of a Schedule I drug, according to the CSA, include “a high potential for abuse,” “no currently accepted medical treatment use in the U.S.,” and “a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or substance under medical supervision.” Rosenberg said the FDA upholds those standards in regards to marijuana, and the classification at this point in time remains the same.

“If the scientific understanding about marijuana changes,” he added, “the decision could change.” Heroin, LSD and bath salts are some of the other drugs classified as Schedule I. Cannabis is treated differently at the state-level, however. At the moment, 25 states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana.

The War on Marijuana by the DEA continues…

— Tommy Chong (@tommychong) August 11, 2016

And though there is no direct causal evidence that marijuana can treat specific diseases or disorders, doctors often prescribe patients the drug for pain relief. The American Academy of Pediatrics, while it opposes legalizing marijuana for recreational use, supports re-classifying the drug in order to allow for unhindered research. “The Academy supports further study of cannabinoids, which limited research to date shows can help specific conditions in adults,” the group wrote last year.

Rosenberg acknowledged the difficulty scientists face in researching marijuana, but said the DEA has “never denied” requests to study legally produced pot. At the moment, the University of Missouri has the only lab that can legally grow the plant for research purposes. Some analysts see the FDA and DEA as being in an intractable loop: the FDA can’t conduct research on marijuana because of how the DEA classifies it, and the DEA classifies it as such because of the lack of scientific literature proving it as safe and beneficial.

At this point, it might be Congress is the only means forward for loosening the restraints on marijuana research. It’s a largely bipartisan priority, and with five states voting this November to legalize recreational marijuana, the issue won’t be disappearing any time soon.

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 DEA Won’t be Reclassifying Marijuana Anytime Soon appeared first on Law Street.

Hey, hey, it’s Friday.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now?

Daily Beast Outs LGBT Athletes In Rio

The Daily Beast is in big, big trouble after one of its reporters used the popular dating app, Grindr, to bait Olympic athletes into interviews. Two problems: The athletes had no clue they were being interviewed, and the reporter, who is straight, later used the interviews to out the athletes as gay.

The bigger ethical issue, though, lies in the fact that in many countries represented at the Olympics, homosexuality is often punishable by death. So Nico Hines, douche bag of the year, is facing major backlash, particularly from Slate, which published a scathing article condemning his actions. The Daily Beast has since taken down the article and released an apology from the Editor-in-Chief.

So…@dailybeast is trash. @NicoHines is trash.
Whomever Hines’ editor is is trash.

Duly noted.

You don’t endanger lives for clicks.

— April (@ReignOfApril) August 11, 2016

It is disappointing that the @thedailybeast published @NicoHines‘ story in the first place. That wasn’t journalism.

— deray mckesson (@deray) August 11, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 12, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Last week’s top stories on Law Street included North Korea possibly declaring war on the U.S., Sanders supporters taking over the DNC media tent to protest Clinton’s nomination, and a recent study showing a rise in cases of children ingesting edibles since Colorado legalized marijuana. ICYMI–Check out the top stories from Law Street below!

1. Did North Korea Just Declare War on the U.S.?

The annual joint military exercises between the United States and South Korea usually elicit ominous threats of retaliation from North Korea. But in an interview on Thursday with the Associated Press, Han Song Ryol, the North’s only diplomatic tether to the United States, effectively declared war, referencing sanctions targeting Kim Jong Un as crossing “the red line.” Read the full article here.

2. Sanders Supporters Take Over DNC Media Tent to Protest Clinton’s Nomination

Here at the DNC, there’s a cushy little area for the press. Giant tents, creature comforts like snacks and water, and (most importantly) enough charging stations for our phones/laptops/tablets/obscene amount of technology we lug around. The DNC media tent is, for many, a peaceful workspace, and a quiet respite from the complete and utter craziness that is the Democratic National Convention. Tonight it was a little less peaceful. Sanders supporters walked out of the convention in protest after Hillary Clinton became the official Democratic nominee, and ended up staging a sit in inside and around the media tent. Read the full article here.

3. Since Legalizing Marijuana, More Colorado Children Are Ingesting Edibles

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. 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.

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.

Californians will have the opportunity to vote to legalize recreational marijuana in November now that the proposed ballot measure officially meets the state’s signature requirement. California was the first state in the country to legalize medical use of the drug in 1996. If Californians vote to allow recreational use it could have a big impact on the rest of the country, considering the size of the state and the existing momentum behind legalization.

Six years ago, Californians voted against Proposition 19, a similar initiative that would have made California the first state to legalize recreation marijuana use. But since then, more states have opened up to marijuana use and California recently enacted new rules to regulate medicinal marijuana. This time around, the campaign to legalize has several prominent backers such as Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, billionaire Sean Parker, the California Democratic Party, and the California Medical Association.

To put the issue on the November ballot, pro-Marijuana groups needed over 365,000 signatures, but the campaign collected over 606,000.

Dr. Jill Stein, the Green Party’s presidential candidate, voiced her support for the measure on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/748202943170682884

What Would This Mean?

If the Adult Use of Marijuana Act is passed, it would basically mean that anyone over 21 would be allowed to buy, use, and possess up to one ounce of marijuana and grow up to six plants.

It would also entail huge savings for the state considering all the marijuana related offenses and incarceration of users that no longer would have to be enforced. The savings could be as big as over $100 million per year according to a statement from California Secretary of State Alex Padilla.

Jason Kinney, a spokesperson for the campaign behind the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, said in a statement:

Today marks a fresh start for California, as we prepare to replace the costly, harmful and ineffective system of prohibition with a safe, legal and responsible adult-use marijuana system that gets it right and completely pays for itself.

The anti-Marijuana bloc consists of the California Republican Party and representatives from police and hospitals. Opponents argue that legalization would not change the black market or criminal activity, such as driving under the influence.

But if the ballot measure passes, marijuana businesses would have to be 600 feet away from any school. Related advertising would not be allowed to target kids and marijuana products could not be easily confused with candy or other products that to not contain the dr.

The ballot measure currently has a broad base of support. A recent poll conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California found that 60 percent of California voters favor of legalization.

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 Californians to Vote on Recreational Marijuana in November appeared first on Law Street.

It is a foregone conclusion, less a question of if than when: marijuana will be legalized for recreational use across all 50 states. Three states–Washington, Colorado, and Oregon–have already done so. Medical marijuana is legal in 25 states and the District of Columbia. This fall, five states–including California, a heavily populated pot playground–will vote on measures to legalize the long demonized plant.

Marijuana is less stigmatized in popular culture and society than ever before. Studies of weed–though stymied due to federal classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug, reserved for the most dangerous substances–have largely hinted at its curative properties. Weed is inevitably headed toward a legal, taxed, regulated market in the vein of tobacco and alcohol. What effects could that have on consumers? What dangers could it cause? How will consumers benefit from marijuana shifting from an unchecked black market to one that is legal and perhaps beholden to powerful interests? Law Street investigates:

The State-Level Model

In a 1932 case, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously called states the “laboratories of democracy.” And so far, in the twilight years of marijuana legalization, states are the testing grounds for setting standards and establishing norms. Colorado and Washington were the first states to fully legalize recreational marijuana in 2012. Oregon passed a similar measure last fall. At the Brookings Institute in Washington D.C. last week, the authors of a paper on how special interest groups will shape the legal marijuana landscape presented their findings. They concluded, “the emerging model of state-level regulation provides valuable insulation against interest-group depredations.”

Philip Wallach, a senior fellow at Brookings and co-author of the paper, believes states can act as a bulwark against the potentially self-serving, damaging motivations of special interest groups, and sort through what works and what does not. During a panel discussion that followed the presentation of his paper, Wallach ticked off the benefits of a state-level model versus a federal one. A state model would “[offer] room for experimentation, limit the stakes of any misstep, and spread out the resources of interest groups, preventing them from concentrating their firepower,” he said. Decentralization, according to Wallach and his colleague Jonathan Rauch, co-author of the paper and moderator of last week’s panel, would make for a healthier and more robust legal marijuana market.

But Kathleen Frydl, a history professor at the University of California, Berkeley and author of “The Drug Wars in America, 1940-1973,” questions the ability of the state-level model to act as a decentralizing mechanism. She worries the best practices formed within states would be co-opted by interest groups regardless. Frydl argues that these groups might “then promote those best practices, or what they see as best practices, and the other states kind of fall as dominoes,” without taking statewide “indigenous concerns” into account. Interest groups would be, in effect, “ordering from a legislative menu.”

A member on one of two panels at Brookings last week and a “full-throated advocate” of legalizing marijuana, Frydl also expressed concern over the lack of watchdogs at the state level. But, she conceded, “state taxation is the principle way in which states can regulate marijuana” and regulation is “best maintained by a variety of state experiences.”

Misregulation vs. Overregulation

For Andrew Freedman, the last few years have been a “regulatory honeymoon period.” Freedman is the Director of Marijuana Coordination in Colorado, a role that did not exist until a few years ago. As the “marijuana czar” of the first state to legalize pot, Freedman has dealt firsthand with the trial and error regulatory process of marijuana legalization. He participated in both panels last week and provided insight into how easy it was for Colorado to pass new legislation to shape the rules of its growing marijuana market.

Good regulations are key to a thriving legal marijuana market, he said, but the challenge is “how to draw the line between what is overregulation and what’s running as fast as possible, as smart as possible to create a good guideline later on.” Since Colorado legalized recreational marijuana in 2012, the trailblazing state has tweaked rules and amended the initial legislation in an effort to find a regulatory sweet spot.

Originally, tourists in Colorado were only allowed to purchase seven grams of weed while residents could buy up to 28 grams. Now, both tourists and residents can purchase up to 28 grams. And after a number of incidents involving edibles and children, Colorado is lowering the concentration of THC–the compound in marijuana that has psychological effects–allowed in edibles sold for purchase. That measure will go into effect in October.

But Freedman understands the freedom to adjust and establish new norms will likely be short lived. In five years, as a legal framework is established and interest groups consolidate, he sees pushing new regulations as “day to day battles versus big pieces being moved.” A consolidated marijuana industry with increased regulations would create obstacles for new entrants and more hurdles for existing businesses. But according to Alexander Tabarrok, professor of economics at George Mason University and a member of last week’s panel,  stifling regulatory measures and barriers to entry could be a good thing for the marijuana industry. “Capitalism plus an addictive drug—is this really the best combination?” he said, “maybe sometimes efficiency is not the best thing, maybe innovation in all things is not always good.”

Big Marijuana

Like the tobacco and alcohol industries before it, some experts say the marijuana industry is headed down a road of narrow interest groups and concentrated power. Big Marijuana: where rules of the road are set by only a handful of national actors. In their new paper, Wallach and Rauch conclude: “Over time, multiple interests will coalesce and colonize the regulatory process.” But Big Marijuana does not have to be an inherent evil, said John Hudak, who also presented a paper at the Brookings event. “This idea that big is always bad is wrong, and that differently sized is good is also wrong.”

Big Marijuana has its advantages, he said. Powerful actors have more to lose, and thus more incentive to play by the rules. They also have a reputation to uphold, since consumers buy into their brands and care about their actions, forcing them to act with the public’s spending power in mind. Hudak, who wrote a book called “Marijuana: A Short History,” said that big firms will also have the advantage of pairing business acumen with marijuana know-how. “Not every marijuana grower should run a business, and not every businessman should be growing marijuana,” he said.

That business acumen could come with costs, however. Freedman is concerned that as national marijuana brands accrue capital and influence, they will follow in the footsteps of tobacco and alcohol brands that market to underage users and exploit people with abuse problems. “Those who have access to capital know how to do that in a much better way than those who don’t have capital,” Freedman said. He wasn’t the only panelist who expressed caution at the exploitative potential of powerful marijuana companies. Jeff Zinsmeister, vice president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, opposes legalizing weed because legalization would “inevitably push marijuana into a model that is constantly going to be pushing the limits when it comes to targeting children and heavy users.”

Whatever forces end up governing the legalized marijuana market–a handful of powerful brands and interest groups; a smattering of smaller, statewide actors; or something else entirely–there will be a time in the not so distant future where the entire country recognizes the drug as a legal substance. And like tobacco and alcohol before it, marijuana will pose difficult questions for society, government, and industry to answer.

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 Once Marijuana Is Legal, Who Sets the Rules? appeared first on Law Street.

Microsoft came out with more big news this week following its announcement that it will buy LinkedIn. The tech giant is dipping its toes in the marijuana industry, partnering with a startup company that will track legal marijuana to make sure everything is in compliance with regulations from “seed-to-sale.“

As more and more states legalize marijuana either recreationally or medically (the total count is up to 25 states now) corporate companies are shying away from joining the green profit boom–marijuana is illegal in the eyes of the federal government, after all. But, Microsoft is the first big tech company to break this taboo.

KIND Financial, a company focused on cannabis technology, and Microsoft will collaborate with governments to ensure marijuana stays within legal realms. The software will monitor the entire process, from growth and harvest of marijuana plants to sales in stores, entering a special niche in the marijuana market.

Only nine of the twenty-five states that have legalized pot, either medical or recreational, have implemented regulatory systems. These sorts of systems can also track how much marijuana is being sold to whom, the taxes that are being collected, and if growers and sellers are obeying the law.

“Microsoft is helping us support governments in their expansion of cannabis legislation,” KIND CEO David Dinenberg told The New York Times. “They’re experienced at providing platforms for government regulation. This is something Microsoft does every day of the week with other businesses in other categories.”

For now, Microsoft is sticking strictly to the government and compliance side of business, while KIND is more hands-on with the weed, but that could change. In the beginning, Microsoft will market the software at government-employee conferences, but it could eventually make appearances at cannabis events where KIND already has a regular presence. KIND, a start-up from Los Angeles, is one of the many companies trying to mainstream the marijuana industry. One of their most popular products is an ATM-style kiosk that dispenses marijuana.

“We do think there will be significant growth,” Kimberly Nelson, the executive director of state and local government solutions at Microsoft, told The New York Times. “As the industry is regulated, there will be more transactions, and we believe there will be more sophisticated requirements and tools down the road.”

Although KIND and Microsoft do not currently have any state contracts, they have applied to provide their software to Puerto Rico, which legalized medical marijuana earlier this year. Microsoft’s willingness to join the up-and-coming legalized weed industry is a big step forward.

“Nobody has really come out of the closet, if you will,” said Matthew Karnes, the founder of Green Wave Advisors, a company that provides data and analysis of the marijuana business. “It’s very telling that a company of this caliber is taking the risk of coming out and engaging with a company that is focused on the cannabis business.”

State governments and weed stores alike are relying on start-ups like KIND to facilitate the sales flowing through the industry. Because many banks are unwilling to hold money that is “illegal” in a federal sense, dispensaries are forced to rely on cash or the types of kiosks like those that KIND provides. States like Washington, New Mexico, and Illinois currently depend on start-ups similar to Kind to monitor marijuana sales.

Either way, partnering with KIND was a solid business decision for Microsoft, whose revenue is declining from its fading software business. Legal marijuana sales are expected to jump to $6.5 billion this year, from $4.8 billion last year; and another five states will vote in the fall on whether or not to legalize marijuana.

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Microsoft Enters the Marijuana Industry appeared first on Law Street.

In an America where marijuana laws are being liberalized and the drug itself de-stigmatized, drivers who are found with traces of a cannabinoid in their blood can incur similar punishments in some states to those who drive under the influence of alcohol, a much deadlier exercise.

Marijuana researchers have been publishing studies over the past few years that have found marijuana to be a less dangerous substance than alcohol, and a recent study by the AAA Foundation for Public Safety appears to substantiate those claims when it comes to criminalizing drivers: “Legal limits, also known as per se limits, for marijuana and driving are arbitrary and unsupported by science.”

At the moment, drivers in Montana, Washington, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Nevada, and Colorado are convicted of a DUI if they are found with a certain amount of a cannabinoid–THC, hydroxy-THC or carboy-THC–in their bloodstream. And similar to a DUI involving alcohol, this can result in hefty fines or even a lengthy prison stay. The problem is that THC can linger in a user’s bloodstream for days after actively ingesting the drug, whether for recreation or medical purposes, so a driver can be perfectly safe and sober while driving yet convicted of a crime because of an action taken a day or more prior. 

Michael L. Becker of the Las Vegas Defense Group and one of Nevada’s top criminal defense lawyers called the law “hypocritical”; that in a state where medical marijuana is legal it is possible for someone who uses the drug as a medicine one day and then is found with it in his or her bloodstream days later can be found guilty of a DUI offense.

“I’ve had cases where prosecutors have said to me ‘I know your client wasn’t under the influence, but I can prove he has metabolized marijuana in his system’,” Becker said in a phone interview with Law Street, pointing to cases in which a client’s body is still processing marijuana from a dose taken a day or more prior to when an arrest is made. “People are literally being prosecuted where everybody knows they weren’t even high.”

The current threshold for what is considered above the legal limit in Nevada is two nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood, lower than the five milliliter threshold in Colorado and Washington, both of which have legalized marijuana completely. The new study by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety used psychophysical tests (walk-and-turn, finger-to-nose) and physical indicators (bloodshot eyes, pupil dilation) on drivers who had consumed marijuana and those who had not, and determined quantifiable thresholds for THC “cannot be scientifically supported.”

That’s not to say driving high poses no danger whatsoever. Being under the influence of marijuana while driving doubles the chances of a crash, a figure most researchers accept. But according to a study from 2014, 20-year-olds who drive with an illegal amount of alcohol in their system (above 0.08 percent) are twenty times as likely to crash. The researcher who conducted that study, Eduardo Romano, told The New York Times, “Despite our results, I still think that marijuana contributes to crash risk, only that its contribution is not as important as it was expected.”

So how can THC levels be accurately quantified in determining whether a driver is under the influence of cannabis, and above the legal threshold, if not by blood-THC content?

There is hardly a consensus among researchers, partially because they are limited in their research since cannabis is classified as a Schedule I drug in the U.S., meaning any research into it requires a special permit. Experts see saliva sampling as a promising alternative to blood testing, but the jury is out until more research is conducted.

While scientists try to figure out more reasonable ways of measuring the dangers of driving stoned, Becker, the lawyer in Las Vegas, continues to help his clients navigate the ironic situation of being legally allowed to use a drug that could put them in jail days after using it, if it’s in their system while they’re later behind the wheel. Becker wasn’t able to give an exact number of clients he represents who find themselves in this quandary, but he said it does happen.

And as marijuana is decriminalized and used more frequently, “[the law] is going to impact more people,” he said. Nevada’s law–drafted at a time when “communities were fearful and anti-marijuana”–has been examined for a repeal, but according to Becker, real change has been resisted because it’s not a “politically expedient” issue.

Becker hopes change is on the horizon: “The Nevada legislature is finally deciding to have an honest look at things. That’s the bright side,” 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 DUI Laws Unsupported by Science, New Study Suggests appeared first on Law Street.

I’m a little late for the gathering of the parade, but can still smell it from at least two blocks away. The cloudy New York sky matches the fumes from the joints as the 17th annual NYC Cannabis Parade marches south on Broadway toward Union Square. An enormous hot air balloon in the shape of a lit joint is carried along to the chanting of classic rock songs, with the lyrics replaced by one word–‘marijuana’.

The group in the parade was as diverse as New York itself–people of all ages, ethnicities and backgrounds, people wearing all green, people in one-pieces with weed patterns, and one group wearing t-shirts saying “Law enforcement for legalization.”

Image courtesy of Evershed Mattingly

“I’m in the long-term care field, and I see way too many people in jail for just using,” said Jeanette McDonald, one of the t-shirt wearers. She’s not a user herself, but is all for the medical use of marijuana for pain management. “To arrest them doesn’t make any sense, go after the terrorists instead.”

The medical use of weed to ease pain seemed to be the most important aspect for many people at the event. Beata Kosmik, dressed in a green creation with a crown of tulle on her head, is in a band that performs to raise awareness about the medical benefits of marijuana. She’s an eco educator–campaigning for a natural, green way of life. Her granddaughter has Dravet syndrome, a kind of infant epilepsy that can be alleviated by a drug containing cannabis but is still in the research stage here in the U.S., so she lives in London.

Image courtesy of Evershed Mattingly

Steven, who wore American Flag overalls and carried a Pride flag, told me he wants decriminalization of all drugs. “It’s corrupt–all these people that are incarcerated for using, it breaks up families, people go to jail for this. Weed doesn’t kill.” Steven also pointed out that so many Afro-American youths get locked up for something that now is considered cool by young white hipsters.

Marijuana was legalized for medical use in New York almost a year ago, and the law came into effect in January. But among the states that allow some kind of marijuana use, it’s one of the most restrictive, and it’s really hard for patients to gain access to legal pot. Classic smoking is actually still forbidden. But if the participants of the Cannabis Parade get their way, that will soon be changed.

To sum up the situation, Steven said: “America has bad fucking karma. The roller coaster is going downhill, and now it’s time to deal with it.”

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 The Fight for Total Legalization Continues at the NYC Cannabis Parade appeared first on Law Street.

Whoopi Goldberg is the latest celebrity to try to get in on the legal marijuana market. She has started the “Whoopi & Maya brand,” which will produce marijuana-infused products advertised as solutions for pesky period cramps.

Whoopi Goldberg partners with Maya Elisabeth, And announces launch of @whoopiandmaya. A product line for women. pic.twitter.com/sUC5N8rs8r

— _DCNetwork_ (@_DCNetwork_) March 30, 2016

Goldberg is teaming up with Maya Elisabeth from Om Edibles, an all-female edibles company, hence the company name. They plan on starting with four products, available this April. The products will only be sold in California right now due to complicated legal restrictions in other states. According to the Daily Beast, the product line will include:

A ‘raw sipping chocolate’ infused with CBD or THC, a tincture (liquid extract) for ‘serious discomfort,’ a THC-infused bath soak, and a topical rub for localized pain.

Goldberg has been transparent about her marijuana use, particularly the fact that she uses a vape pen to help her with pain relief and dealing with stress. Goldberg explained her motivation for creating these products, highlighting the difficulties that are inherent in using medical marijuana:

For me, I feel like if you don’t want to get high high, this is a product specifically just to get rid of discomfort. Smoking a joint is fine, but most people can’t smoke a joint and go to work.

This, you can put it in your purse. You can put the rub on your lower stomach and lower back at work, and then when you get home you can get in the tub for a soak or make tea, and it allows you to continue to work throughout the day.

It makes sense that Goldberg wants to tap into the rapidly-growing marijuana market. The results of early legalization in states like Colorado and Washington look very good, the market is growing annually by 31 percent, and some experts estimate that it could become a $20 billion market by 2020.

While others have called their product niche, Goldberg and Elisabeth disagree, given that women do make up a little over half of the United States population. If the marijuana industry grows as quickly as is expected, and these products catch on, Goldberg and Elisabeth could have a total winner on their hands.

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 Whoopi Goldberg is a Ganjapreneur Who Wants to Help Treat Your Period Cramps 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.

The top stories published at Law Street last week included a look at Kesha’s contract woes, an innovative seed storage program, and a rundown of the 2015 election results. ICYMI, here are the top stories from Law Street last week:

#1 Sony Reportedly Refuses to Let Kesha Record New Music Without Her Alleged Rapist

If you were wondering why pop star Kesha hasn’t put out any new music since being featured on Pitbull’s 2013 smash hit “Timber” there’s an unsettling reason. The singer has put her career on the line in an attempt to free herself from being forced to work with producer Dr. Luke, who she says sexually and emotionally abused her for ten years. Read the full story here.

#2 Seeds of Hope: Inside the Doomsday Seed Vault

October 19 marked the first time in history that the Svalbard Global Seed Vault wasopened up for a withdrawal. Often referred to as the “doomsday vault,” the seed vault was built to serve as a backstop for plant extinction, storing seeds for individual countries to ensure that plant diversity is not lost in a catastrophe. While weather disasters and global warming pose significant threats to the future of agriculture, the recent withdrawal was the result of the war in Syria. Researchers sought additional seeds as the multi-year war significantly reduced their supply of drought-resistant wheat. The idea of a last-resort vault full of the world’s seeds may surprise many, but the planning and implementation of the world’s seed bank have been a long and thought-out process. Read the full story here.

#3 The Results are in: Election Day 2015

A breakdown of the results of some of the most important races to watch, including the Virginia Senate, San Francisco’s Airbnb regulations, the Kentucky Governor’s race, Ohio’s marijuana initiative, and Houston’s equal rights ordinance. Read the full story 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.

Legalizing marijuana wasn’t the only interesting initiative on the Ohio ballot Tuesday; the state approved a new redistricting commission to prevent partisan district mapping, putting the task in the hands of a seven-person commission. Issue 1, which received an overwhelming majority of votes, will seek to limit the control of one party over elections for the state assembly.

The change will expand the existing five-person commission to include four additional legislators–ensuring that at least two members will be from the minority party. While redistricting in Ohio was already under the control of a commission outside of the legislature, the commission was composed of the Governor, State Auditor, Secretary of State, and one member from each party, which gave a 4 to 1 majority for the Republican Party. The new system will include incentives for bipartisanship and adds another member from each party to give additional voice to the minority.

The amendment also makes it more difficult for a long-term redistricting to be pushed through  without minority support. Redistricting, a process that occurs every 10 years after the Census, involves adjusting existing election districts to accommodate for population change. In order to create a new 10-year district map, both members of the minority party will need to approve the plan. However, a short-term map can be implemented for a period of four years if bipartisan support is not possible.

Issue 1 had support from both parties and the backing of over 100 organizations as Ohioans feel that their current redistricting system strongly favors the majority party. While the amendment will not change the way that the state’s Congressional districts are drawn, the newly expanded commission will draw maps for the Ohio House of Representatives and the Ohio Senate.

This plan seeks to eliminate the issues associated with gerrymandering, a long-derided practice where legislators in charge of redistricting create maps that favor their party (for more information on gerrymandering see Law Street’s explainer). Many people argue that gerrymandering is a significant source of America’s political woes while many political scientists claim that the practice isn’t nearly as big of an issue as people make it out to be.

Political scientists Jowei Chen and Jonathon Rodden contend that gerrymandering, as done by partisan state legislators, is not as much of a problem as people think it is. Instead, they find that “unintentional gerrymandering”–which has more to do with the geographic distribution of voters within a state–has a much greater effect. Unintentional gerrymandering is particularly an issue for the Democratic Party, whose constituents tend to cluster themselves in urban areas, whereas Republicans tend to be more rural and spread out. As a result, you see cities voting overwhelmingly for Democrats while rural districts voters lean Republican. This can lead to election results where the majority of the people in a state vote for Democratic candidates, but Republicans win more seats. Put simply, it’s not necessarily how districts are drawn that matter, but where people choose to live in the first place. Yet even when you account for unintentional gerrymandering, it’s clear that the practice has at least some effect on election outcomes.

While the issue of gerrymandering is often exaggerated, the extent of gerrymandering in Ohio is particularly extreme. A report from the League of Women’s Voters of Ohio found that in the 2014 elections, Republican candidates in the Ohio House of Representatives received 57 percent of the vote, but the party won 66 percent of the total number of seats. The same thing happened in the Ohio Senate but to a lesser extent–Republicans received 54 percent of the vote and 58 percent of the seats. The discrepancy between votes and seats illustrates the way in which district lines can influence election outcomes.

This trend is even starker when you look at the state’s Congressional districts, as Republican candidates statewide got about 52 percent of the vote but 75 percent of the Congressional seats. It is important to note that the new redistricting amendment will have no effect on the drawing of Congressional districts. However, that may change in the future–Ohio legislators have already introduced a bill that calls for all Ohio redistricting to be under the control of the seven-person commission.

In addition to disproportionate representation, many fear that gerrymandering leads to decreased responsiveness from elected officials. If districts are drawn to heavily favor certain politicians, they have very little fear of losing their bid for re-election. The classic criticism is that “politicians are choosing their voters, rather than voters choosing their politicians.” That sentiment was one of the main arguments in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s decision to uphold an independent redistricting commission in Arizona, which created a legal justification for similar commissions in other states.

While Ohio’s new constitutional amendment will not solve all of the state’s districting problems, notably its Congressional districts, it will have some important consequences. First, by expanding the panel to include more people from the minority party, it will not be as easy for the majority party to create districts that favor certain officials. Second, the amendment also makes the redistricting process much more open and transparent, allowing people to understand how districts are drawn and the decision making that goes into them. Finally, as Andrew Prokop at Vox points out, the Ohio Constitution now says that no district “shall be drawn primarily to favor or disfavor a party.” Not only does it lay out important guidelines for what a good district should look like, it also creates a legal underpinning for people to challenge unfair redistricting in Ohio courts.

Read More: Gerrymandering: (Mis)Shaping America’s Vote?

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 Issue 1: Ohioans Vote to Limit Gerrymandering appeared first on Law Street.

Yesterday, I wrote a breakdown of some of the top races to watch on election day 2015. Here are the results of these contentious votes:

Virginia’s General Assembly

Why we should have watched it: With just a few key races promising to decide the lean of the state Senate overall, and Governor Terry McAuliffe pushing hard for a Democratic Senate, it was certainly a race to watch. Given that Virginia promises to be a hotly contested swing state in 2016, seeing just how purple the state has become is always interesting.

What happened: The GOP retained control of the state senate, and therefore the General Assembly as a whole. This leaves McAuliffe still without allies, and may indicate an uphill battle for whoever ends up as the Democratic nominee for 2016.

San Francisco’s Airbnb Vote

Why we should have watched it: San Francisco voters were offered a sort of referendum on Airbnb’s model of short-term rentals. Proposition F promised to levy some serious restrictions on the company. Add to that Airbnb’s $8 million dollar investment in fighting against the proposition, and a series of weird ads that certainly turned San Francisco voters off, and it became a tense race from start to finish.

What happened: Airbnb’s massive investment paid off, as voters rejected Proposition F. So, Airbnb will continue business as usual in the city where it is headquartered, but it was still a very expensive fight. As other cities may try to create similar restrictions, Airbnb might not want to make spending that kind of cash a precedent.

Kentucky Gubernatorial Race

Why we should have watched it: The Democratic Attorney General Jack Conway faced off against tea party candidate and businessman Matt Bevin. This was an incredibly hotly contested race; recent polls actually showed Conway in the lead. Bevin last year tried to primary Mitch McConnell, and was almost successful, and then beat a more establishment Republican for the Republican gubernatorial nomination.

What happened: Bevin won, marking the first time in a while that a Republican has taken the governorship in Kentucky. Moreover, he showed that tea party wins aren’t a thing of the past. His successful rallying against the establishment may indicate who Kentucky will vote for in 2016.

Ohio Marijuana Initiative

Why we should have watched it: There were a lot of weird aspects to Ohio’s attempt to legalize marijuana. For one, it would have been the first state to legalize recreational marijuana having not first legalized medical marijuana. Moreover, there were concerns of a “marijuana oligopoly,” given that only 10 facilities backed by a group of investors would receive licenses to grow it. So, some that rallied against it were more fighting against the threat of a restricted market than the legalization of weed itself.

What happened: The initiative failed, so weed won’t be legalized in Ohio. However, it’s unclear whether it was rejected because of the oligopoly fears, or because Ohioans actually didn’t want to legalize weed. If it’s the former, we should expect to see another measure up for vote soon that allows a wider market.

The Houston Equal Rights Ordinance

Why we should have watched it: The city of Houston, Texas voted on an equal rights ordinance that would have included protections for the LGBTQ community, including on the basis of gender identity. However, the entire thing became a nasty firefight when groups that opposed the ordinance began suggesting that it would allow predators to enter women’s bathrooms.

What happened: The fear-mongering paid off, and the ordinance didn’t pass. The opponents focused on one incorrect assumption, and were successful. Although the U.S. is doing a little better on LGBTQ rights in the wake of Obergefell, the resounding defeat of the ordinance in a relatively liberal city run by Annise Parker, one of the most high profile openly gay mayors in the United States, isn’t a great sign.

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 The Results are in: Election Day 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Friday everyone! It’s time for yet another run down of the weird arrests of the week–check out the slideshow below.

Three’s Company

Image courtesy of Lower Columbia College (LCC) via Flickr

Carnell Eugene Butler, 18, from St. Petersburg, Florida was arrested after police found court papers regarding a car Butler had allegedly stolen in a second stolen car. When Butler came to retrieve the papers he happened to be driving…yet another stolen car. He now faces charges for all three thefts.

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 Weird Arrests of the Week 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.

Attention all stoners, occasional smokers, and cannabis curious! South Dakota has announced that it will soon become home to the nation’s first marijuana resort. Owned and operated by the Santee Sioux tribe, this weed lover’s paradise promises to be the ideal spot for vacationers looking to blow off some steam with the help of a few blunts.

But before you begin booking your ganja getaway here are five things you need to know about the nation’s first weed resort.

1. It’s Legal Even in a State Where Weed is Illegal

In 2014 the Justice Department determined that Native American tribes can grow and sell marijuana, even in states where pot is illegal. So far the Santee Sioux tribe seems to be the only reservation taking advantage of the ruling, but others will surely be monitoring their experiment to see if it is economically viable. Something tells me it will be, especially when tribe members are already projecting the project to generate up to $2 million a month in profits.

2. There will be 30 Different Strains

This isn’t amateur hour. The Santee Sioux tribe hired Denver-based cannabis consultants Monarch America to teach them the weed growing basics. According to the Associated Press, workers at the Flandreau indoor marijuana farm are “working to grow more than 30 different strains of the finicky plant, including those with names like ‘Gorilla Glue,’ ‘Shot Glass’ and ‘Big Blue Cheese.'”

3. It Will Have Some Awesome Amenities

“We want it to be an adult playground,” said tribal President Anthony Reider. And from the sounds of it, it definitely will be. This stoner’s paradise will sell weed in a smoking lounge that comes complete with a nightclub, arcade games, bar and food–for when those munchies hit. They also have plans to later add in slot machines and an outdoor music venue.

4. Don’t Plan on Bringing any Weed Home

Even though marijuana will be legally sold at the resort, it cannot leave the reservation. According to AP, leaders of the project plan to ensure that this won’t happen by assigning a bar code to every plant in the Flandreau’s growing facility. AP writes,

After being harvested and processed, it will be sold in sealed 1-gram packages for $12.50 to $15 — about the same price as the illegal market in Sioux Falls, according to law enforcement. Consumers will be allowed to buy only 1 gram — enough for two to four joints — at a time.

5. The Resort’s Future Isn’t Certain

Currently four states and Washington, DC have legalized marijuana, but pot remains illegal on a federal level. The Obama administration has agreed to let Native American tribes legalize the drug without interference, but our nation’s next president may not be so lenient. If one of the current Republican presidential candidates (especially Chris Christie) is elected, we could soon be saying farewell to lawful Mary Jane.

If you’re interested in being one of the first to visit the resort, be prepared for a bit of a wait. The tribe says that joints won’t be going on sale until Dec. 31 at a New Year’s Eve party. But if all goes well, this reservation could soon become the U.S.’s #1 destination for marijuana tourism.

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 5 Things you Need to Know About the Nation’s First Marijuana Resort appeared first on Law Street.

During the early morning hours of September 8, Maya Donnelly was awaken by a crash that she believed was just thunder. Later that morning she looked in her garage and noticed pieces of broken wood and signs that Hulk, their large German Shepherd, had been making a mess. Donnelly went outside to get a closer look at things and to her surprise there was a mysterious package wrapped in black plastic. Donnelly stated:

I went out to investigate, and sure enough, I looked up to see the hole, and then my eyes trailed down and the big dog’s house was destroyed. It made a hole in that hard plastic doghouse and the bundle was inside…

Donnelly lives with her husband and three teenage daughters in Nogales, Arizona, near the U.S.-Mexico border. Because of the large amount of smuggling that occurs near the border area, she immediately assumed that the package was drugs and called the police. When the police arrived, they revealed that Donnelly was correct. The package contained 26 pounds of marijuana and was worth nearly $10,000.

Nogales Police Department officers searched their property and other nearby areas for additional bundles but nothing was found. The officers then took possession of the drugs.

Nogales family woke to find a bail of marijuana fell through their roof. http://t.co/Y0gsVpCwCT pic.twitter.com/ZG7pqlJWRZ

— KVOA News 4 Tucson (@KVOA) September 27, 2015

Police are trying to determine if the bundle was transported by an aircraft or a pilotless drone. Authorities told Donnelly that an ultralight aircraft smuggling marijuana from Mexico had probably let part of its load go early by mistake. These aircrafts are one of the tools of the local drug smuggling trade. Nogales Police Chief Derek Arnson stated, “Someone definitely made a mistake, and who knows what the outcome of that mistake might be for them.”

In the United States, ultralight aircrafts are classified as “vehicles” and not aircrafts. They are not required to be registered nor is the pilot required to have a pilot license or certificate, thus making it easy to smuggle drugs. Arnson told Nogales International,

Ultralights, we’ve seen those on occasion. They’ll take a couple, two, three bundles. You can hear those kind of buzzing. They come at nighttime and they don’t land, they just drop and go back to Mexico.

Now, I’m sure some people may be surprised by the Donnellys’ integrity in calling the police and not keeping the bundle to make a profit.

Let 26 pounds of marijuana fall on my house. The last thing Ima do is call the police…the last.

— Bria (@BriaMaria92) September 28, 2015

Despite their friends joking to them that they could have kept the package and illegally sold the drugs, the family did not want to feel any guilt about the situation. “That’s what everybody says: ‘Why did you call 911?” Maya Donnelly stated. “But how can you have a clear conscience, right?”

The Donnellys do not feel any less safe after the incident and doubt that anyone will come looking for the drugs since the bundle is now in police custody. Arnson agreed, but placed patrols in the Donnelly’s neighborhood for now just to be safe. Although the family will have to pay an estimated amount of $500 in roof repairs and a new home for their dog, they are just happy that the package did not come through another part of their home and that no one was harmed.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Surprise: 26 Pounds of Marijuana Crash Through Arizona Home appeared first on Law Street.

College students are big partiers–that’s no secret. But their vice of choice may be changing. Marijuana use is up among college students, surpassing cigarettes for the first time. Even more surprisingly, rates of alcohol abuse are also falling.

The study looked at 1,500 students at two and four year universities around the country in order to reach its conclusions. According to the study, habitual cigarette usage among students is down to about five percent, a sizable drop from years past. Just 16 years ago, in 1999, 19 percent of college students reported daily cigarette use. On the other hand, almost six percent of college students use marijuana daily. That’s the highest rate since 1980, when data reporting marijuana use among college students was first reported.

The rate of students using marijuana semi-regularly is also up. According to the Chicago Tribune: “Twenty-one percent of the college students surveyed said they had used marijuana at least once during the previous month, and 34 percent said they had used it in the past year.”

Incidences of dangerous drinking among college students are also decreasing. Binge drinking among college students, defined as having five or more drinks in a row in the past two weeks has dropped  from 44 percent in 1984 to 35 percent in 2014. Extreme binge drinking, which is defined as “having had 15 or more drinks in a row at least once in the previous two weeks,” is falling. Only five percent of students reported that behavior in this year’s study.

But this news isn’t unique to college students. This sort of shift is consistent with the general population’s views on cigarettes and marijuana. Now that multiple states have legalized the recreational use of marijuana, and medical use is all but commonplace in many other states, the use of weed is becoming more and more acceptable. A majority of Americans–a slim majority, but a majority all the same–believe that recreational marijuana should be legalized for adults. Additionally, a majority of Americans believe that alcohol is more dangerous to an individual’s health than marijuana. And possibly most strikingly, almost exactly half of Americans have tried marijuana at some point in their lives.

Of course as weed becomes more acceptable generally nationwide, it’s important that the risks that are still associated with marijuana, particularly for young people, are not overly minimized. Some studies have raised concerns that for young people whose brains are still developing, marijuana can have some negative long term effects.

That being said, overall there’s a lot of good news in the study. Alcohol and cigarettes have long been consumed at worrisome levels by college students. College students will probably always partake in illegal substances, but changes to the ways in which they do so will probably continue to reflect the national zeitgeist when it comes to drug and alcohol acceptance.

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 College Students Are Smoking More Marijuana, Fewer Cigarettes appeared first on Law Street.

The ways in which the law interacts with marijuana is, in many ways, still in its infancy. Most glaringly, there a lot of legal issues that come with the use of marijuana that still need to be solved. However, the latest weed legal question was just answered by an Oregon appeals court: does the smell of marijuana smoke constitute an “olfactory assault?” The Oregon court didn’t think so, possibly setting a precedent for how to deal with particularly smelly weed smoke moving forward.

The particulars of the case are bit confusing, but here’s the breakdown: in 2012, Jared William Lang lived in an apartment building in Philomath, Oregon. His neighbors believed he had been smoking weed. Given that there were other people in the apartment complex, they could smell it, and finally had had enough. One of them called the police, who came to check it out. Keep in mind at this point that while weed was decriminalized in Oregon, it wasn’t legal yet.

So, the police officer showed up and talked to Lang’s neighbors–some of whom had some pretty serious complaints about the weed smell. One mentioned that he was a recovering drug addict, and smelling weed constantly acted as a sort of “trigger.” Given this concerning context, the police officer went to get a warrant to search Lang’s apartment. While the officer likely finding weed wouldn’t have been a big deal, given the drug’s decriminalization in Oregon, the officer did find spray paint and stencils in Lang’s apartment that he believed had been used to create nearby graffiti. It was at that point that Lang was charged and later convicted on three counts of criminal mischief for the graffiti.

While that seems like an open-and-shut case, there was one part of the story in particular that Lang based his appeal on–the grounds on which the police officer acquired the search warrant. The officer based it on the fact that the smell of weed constituted a “hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which the person is not licensed or privileged to do.” So amazingly, that became the crux of the legal question–does weed smell so bad that it can be considered “hazardous” or “physically offensive?” Is it an “olfactory assault?”

Those terms in and of themselves are ambiguous. The appeals court tasked with weighing the question ended up defining “physically offensive” as “must be more than minimally unpleasant but need not be dangerous or harmful.” While that’s still a vague parameter, the court decided that in case, the smell wasn’t offensive enough for the officer to obtain the warrant, rendering the charges against Lang invalid.

So, can you get in trouble with the smell police for smoking weed? Maybe–as Judge Erika L. Hadlock put it:

We are not prepared to declare, as the state would have us, that the odor of marijuana smoke is equivalent to the odor of garbage. Nor can we say, however, that the odor is inoffensive as a matter of law. We could perhaps say with confidence that a fleeting whiff of marijuana smoke would not offend a reasonable person, but as the intensity, duration or frequency of the odor increases, it stands to reason that it would become objectively offensive at some point, particularly depending on the location in which it is smelled.

So there you have it, the smell of weed probably isn’t “olfactory assault” but as it continues to become more popular (and legal), we will most likely need to constantly re-examine these boundaries.

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 Court Answers the Time-Old Question: Is Weed Too Smelly? appeared first on Law Street.

Okay. I can’t believe I am about to say this. I don’t care if someone takes your $5 but does not give you your weed, you just cannot call the cops to complain about being stiffed. If you do, you will get in trouble. And if my admittedly limited knowledge of pot prices is accurate, you will get in trouble over some very poor quality marijuana.

(Before I continue with this story, I have a confession to make. Whenever I do not have a good story lined up for the week, I just Google ‘weird legal stories Florida.’ It never disappoints. Now back to this week’s weird Florida story … )

Courtesy of Giphy.

I’ve Been Robbed!

Daneshia Heller, a 19-year-old Florida resident, had an emergency. She had just been robbed. When she went over to a man’s house to buy some pot, she had expected to receive said pot in exchange for the $5 she had given him.

Unfortunately, the man allegedly took the money but didn’t give anything back. Heller did what any irrational person would do. She called 911.

“He got my money, and I want my drugs. Can you send an officer?” she asked the operator.

A Wish Come True

You know how if you find a genie and you make a wish it is going to come true in a way you never expected? Like how in the Geico commercial a million bucks gets granted as a million male deer (aka bucks)?

Courtesy of Giphy.

Well think of this 911 operator as Heller’s genie in a bottle. Heller was granted her wish: a cop did come to the scene of the alleged crime. Only, the cop didn’t arrive for precisely the reason Heller had wanted him.

You see, drugs are illegal in Florida, both in buying and selling. Which means if you call up and admit you are trying to buy some, especially if you dial 911 to do it, you will probably get in a little trouble yourself.

Taking Some Flakka

If this had been the only thing to happen, though, then maybe this story would not have been so bad. However, when the cops arrived, they saw an angry Heller talking to herself. This aroused their suspicion.

When they checked her person, they found a white substance in one of her pockets. As it turned out, it was Flakka, a psychosis-inducing drug.

The Legal Consequences

After the substance was found, Heller was taken into custody and charged with the following:

• Drug possession
• Misusing the 911 system
• Violating parole from an earlier, unrelated charge

Moral of the Story

As with any good story, there are a few key takeaways:

1. Don’t be a tattletale (especially don’t tattle on your potential drug dealer);
2. Don’t call 911 unless it is actually an emergency;
3. If you call the cops about a theft, make sure you hide your drugs before they get there; and,
4. Just don’t do drugs in general.

This may all seem like a lot to ask, but I promise you they are all good ideas if you do not want to get arrested and be talked about here.

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 Woman Calls 911 When She Doesn’t Get Her Drugs, Gets Arrested appeared first on Law Street.

Everybody has an opinion about marijuana (and, as my cousin who is about to start his freshman year of college at the University of Colorado-Boulder will attest, they are not afraid to state that opinion when they learn someone is moving to a pot-legalized state.)

It can be a real lightening rod of controversy. No, really. It can actually be a lightning rod. And Jaroslav Kratky had to learn this the hard way.

The Lightning Round: A Quick Retelling of the Story

Where there is smoke, there is often fire. But sometimes the smoke and fire have nothing to do with each other. For example, let’s say that a bad storm caused a lot of lightning in a Florida town and when it struck, it caused some fires.

Now let’s say that while putting out said fires, a marijuana grow-house (i.e., the smoke) was discovered. Kratky would like for this all to have been a hypothetical story, but alas for him, it was all too real.

Courtesy of Giphy.

After the fire was put out and the police had obtained a search warrant, they confiscated 15 indoor plants, seven outdoor plants, and one large suitcase filled with packaged pot. All in all, 8.5 pounds of pot were brought into evidence.

As you might imagine, catching someone with this amount of marijuana leads to some charges. Kratky was arrested and charged with production/cultivation of marijuana within 1000 feet of a school or church as well as possession of over 20 grams of marijuana.

What could he possibly say to get out of that?

Greased Lightning: Mr. Kratky’s Defenses

The expression throw mud at the wall and see what sticks, or whatever variation you know, basically means that if you don’t know if anything will work, just try everything and hope that something does.

Now, any good definition will also include an example to demonstrate it. Here is mine:

When Kratky was arrested after police found a lot of pot at his house, he needed a good defense but could not decide what to go with. So he decided to throw mud at the wall and see what sticks. In other words, he claimed all of the following.

• I am a hoarder. I am a packrat. I collect things, and when I am collecting junk, you never know what I might accidently get. For example, somebody may just give me a suitcase full of weed and some magic seeds (or at least some seeds that make me feel magical). How am I supposed to know what they are? I’m just a junkman.
• Marijuana? What! That’s not marijuana. They’re just ragweeds. Doesn’t everybody keep a load of packaged ragweeds in their house? You know. Just in case a spontaneous ragweed collector’s conference pops up last minute. Oh? Wait. You did a test and found that it was marijuana? Hmm. I hadn’t expected that.
• What’s the big deal? Marijuana is practically legal everywhere now. [In a really whiny voice:] I mean, Washington’s government lets them do it. And Colorado’s government lets them do it. Why can’t I? You are so uncool. (To which the police reply, “Do I look like Colorado or Washington’s government? If everybody in those states jumped off a bridge, would you jump too?”)
• Um. You mean that marijuana. Sorry, I thought we were talking about something else entirely. Yes. That marijuana is mine. It is used for medicinal purposes. Now that we have that cleared up, I’ll just be on my way. Bye!

Courtesy of Giphy.

(Parts of these were exaggerated for dramatic effect. However, I assure you, at their heart–meaning the texts in italics–these were all things Kratky tried to claim.)

Do you think any of that mud will stick?

Lightening Never Strikes the Same Place Twice: Conclusions

I think if there was really one thing to learn in this story, it is that Mother Nature has no problem with being a tattle-telling narc. It doesn’t matter how well you keep your drug lair hidden, if she decides she wants to make you suffer, she will not hesitate to send out a smoke signal to the authorities, letting them know all about your whereabouts.

Courtesy of Giphy.

Now normally I would point out that if you were looking for a good place to start growing some weed, then Kratky’s house might be a great option. After all, I’ve heard that lightning never strikes the same place twice.

However, not only does this story teach us that we can’t trust Mother Nature, it also teaches us that the originators of this idiom do not know what they are talking about. Lightning can strike the same place twice. And I have proof.

The weekend before the pot was discovered, firepeople had been called to put out a boat that was on fire after having been struck by lightning. And, as I am sure you have guessed by this point, that boat was in the Kratky’s back yard.

After the boat was declared a total loss, the Kratkys were not that upset. After all, they said, the boat wasn’t worth anything. I wonder if they will have the same sanguine thoughts after this fire? Somehow I doubt it.

I guess if there is really one thing we can learn in this story is that it doesn’t matter where you go. It doesn’t matter how careful you are. If it is in your destiny to get caught, you will get caught one way or the other. So if you are doing anything illegal in your backyard, you might want to make sure you are doing it in a fire safe place. Good luck!*

*This is a fictitious good luck. I am in no way actually encouraging people to do illegal things and wishing them real luck in their efforts.

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 Stormy Times Ahead: Lightning Discovers Marijuana Grow House appeared first on Law Street.

ICYMI, check out this week’s best articles from Law Street, including ridiculous LSAT anecdotes, shocking news out of Egypt’s hospitals, and how you can be fired for legally smoking weed.

#1 The Most Ridiculous LSAT Stories of the Year

The June 2015 LSAT is over, and approximately 20,000 people are eagerly–or anxiously, depending on how they did–waiting on their results. In the meantime, users of law school forums like Top Law School (TLS) and PowerScore have created post-test impressions and waiter’s threads to pass the time. Read full article here.

#2 The Sad State of Egypt’s Hospitals: Shocking Pictures Released

Doctors need the proper resources to be able to treat their patients. But a new viral Facebook page started in Egypt illustrates that doctors and dentists in that country don’t necessarily have access to what they need. The page is shocking to many, as photos of multiple hospitals in Cairo, Egypt have been shared illustrating that they are unequipped and unsanitary for doctors to properly operate in. Read full article here.

#3 Can You Be Fired For Legal Marijuana Use?

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. Read full article here.

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 ICYMI: Best of the Week 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.

One of the most recent applications of Indianapolis’ new Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is not exactly what supporters of the bill expected when Governor Mike Pence signed it into law in March. The bill was designed to ensure that personal religious liberties are not infringed upon, seeking to reflect a federal bill of the same name. Following this decision, a new church named the First Church of Cannabis, sought to gain recognition as a religious group. Its founder, Bill Levin, recently received IRS certification that it is officially a nonprofit charitable organization. This group, created in Indiana, plans to have its first service on July 1, which Levin says will include smoking marijuana. There’s just one problem: marijuana is illegal in Indiana. However, since this is in the context of a religious service, Levin believes he has the right to smoke marijuana without having his religious liberties infringed upon. This claim as a church will have to be defended legally, but Levin, in an interesting application of the new law, is pressing on with plans for the July 1 meeting, which is when RFRA takes effect.

Since its passing, the Indiana RFRA bill been very controversial, with individuals, businesses, and even government officials from other states stating their concerns that its language would allow discrimination against LGBT citizens for religious reasons. Although Pence oversaw a change to the law on April 4 that added a section saying that it cannot supersede local laws preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, many local Indiana municipalities do not have such anti-discrimination laws. Also, despite what some proponents of the bill have argued, Indiana’s RFRA bill is not the same as its federal counterpart. Before this bill, and currently in most states, laws that are neutral and generally applicable are only subject to a “rationality review,” and religious objections would be less likely to overrule basic laws. Under Indiana’s bill, even neutral and generally applicable laws are now subject to “strict scrutiny” and allow for religious objections to such laws.

Despite these issues, there is still a lot of support for the bill, especially among conservative media. Most proponents argue that it will not be used for discrimination, but rather it will protect religious observers from being forced to act against their faith. On his Fox News show, Todd Starnes argued that the Indiana bill does not allow for discrimination, although the language of the bill does seem to allow it. He mentions that “bakers, photographers, wedding planners, even pastors” are being attacked “simply because they choose to live out their religious beliefs.” In a heated (and not very productive) discussion on his show, Sean Hannity and two of his guests stated their fears of infringement upon religious rights, repeatedly arguing that discrimination is not the issue at hand. While many have stuck to this position, some, like constitutional lawyer Michael Farris, admit that the provision protects the practice of faith to the point of discrimination.

Upon hearing about the Church of Cannabis, the religious Right who fervently supported Indiana’s bill, are now singing a different tune. Bill O’Reilly, host of the O’Reilly Factor on Fox, discussed the bill on April 9 during his “Talking Points” segment. O’Reilly praised the Indiana bill for “providing people of faith with an avenue of legal challenge.” In a later show, O’Reilly labelled the first Church of Cannabis a “con,”  and pointed to the conflict between the church doctrine and the state’s marijuana laws. But, this is exactly what the Indiana law was intended to do: allow religious objections to supersede laws that a believer claims is in conflict with his or her faith. When discussing the implications of RFRA for the Church of Cannabis, O’reilly stated, “it’s really a different situation.” Is it a different situation because the religion in question is not Christianity? If there is a strict investigation to determine if the Church of Cannabis is a genuine religious group, should the same apply to all religious objections?

While the First Church of Cannabis has to legally prove that it is a church before the protections of Indiana’s bill are applicable, should a Christian believer have to prove their faith and the legitimacy of their place of worship before being allowed to pose a religious objection under RFRA? In her statement on the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated that she believed in “keeping the courts ‘out of the business of evaluating’ . . . the sincerity with which an asserted religious belief is held.” And while courts have historically analyzed the sincerity of religious beliefs, it has only been on a basic factual level.

The development of this new church in Indiana has brought to light two issues with Indiana’s RFRA. The first is that, when applied in a context different from what supporters originally imagined, the support for its effects begins to wane. A law about religious freedom that is only meant to affect certain religions violates its own principles of protecting religious liberty; however, this is the exact context under which the bill was passed. Secondly, the validity of concern over religious freedom is subject to question. Given the rulings of the Supreme Court in Employment Division v. Smith, Church of Lukumi Babalau Aye vs. City of Hialeah, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, and most recently in EEOC v. Abercrombie and Fitch, it appears that religious liberty is alive and thriving. In this situation it is almost certainly the rights of LGBT citizens that are under the greatest threat. Moreover, despite what some have claimed about the issue, the Supreme Court does not allow religious rights to trump civil rights. In the 1968 case of Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, and in the 1983 case of Bob Jones University v. United States, the Court ruled that a religious defense could not be used to prohibit black people from an amusement park, or prevent interracial dating at a university. In both of these cases, as well as others, the Court ruled that a “compelling government interest” can supersede religious liberty and civil rights have consistently been one such interest.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post First Church of Cannabis to Open Thanks to Indiana’s Religious Freedom Law appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court of Canada has just ruled that the users of marijuana for medical purposes now have the right to bake the drugs in cookies, take it in lozenge form or as tropical oils in addition to smoking it. The unanimous ruling against the federal government expands the definition of medical marijuana beyond the “dried” form, and speaks volumes about the changes happening in the marijuana industry.

The Court found that the current restriction to dried marijuana violates the right to liberty and security “in a manner that is arbitrary and hence is not in accord with the principles of fundamental justice.” Restricting medical access  in Canada to marijuana in a dried form has now been declared “null and void.” That renders sections four and five of the Controlled Drug and Substances Act, which prohibits possession and trafficking of non-dried forms of cannabis, unenforceable.

This decision supports earlier rulings by lower Courts in British Columbia that said they went against a person’s right to consume medical marijuana in the form they choose.

Medical marijuana patients don’t always want to expose themselves to the effects of smoking the drugs. Inhaling marijuana could present health risks, and is said to be less effective for some conditions that administer cannabis derivatives. With inhalation being a large issue, the smoking process is said to irritate the lungs, which is why smokers are more likely to have an ongoing cough or other health problems like chest colds and lung infections.

A 2011 systematic review of the research concluded that long-term marijuana smoking is associated with an increased risk of some respiratory problems, including an increase in cough, sputum production, airway inflammation, and wheezing–similar to that of tobacco smoking. 

Some medical marijuana users wanted to avoid those side effects. But other methods like brewing marijuana leaves in tea or baking weed into brownies left patients vulnerable to be charged with possession and trafficking under the law.

“This is monumental,” said David Posner, CEO of Nutritional High, a Canadian company that has been testing marijuana-infused candy and drinks for sale in the United States later this year. “Another market the size of California just opened up for our products.”

So what does this mean for the U.S. exactly? Four states–Washington, Colorado, Oregon, and Alaska, as well as Washington D.C.–have legalized marijuana, while a total of 14 states have decriminalized certain amounts of possession. Legal marijuana is said to be the fastest-growing industry in the U.S. According to ArcView, over the next five years, the marijuana industry is expected to continue to grow. They are predicting that 14 more states will legalize recreational marijuana and two more will legalize medical marijuana. At least ten states are already considering legalizing recreational marijuana in just the next two years through ballot measures or state legislatures.

In that context, Canada extending its medical marijuana market, and the U.S.’s current growing market promise continued growth. Non-traditional ways to consume marijuana will continue to rise–this week’s decision was just the beginning.

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Weed Trend Grows: Canada Legalizes Medical Edibles appeared first on Law Street.

A soda, a pack of gum, and some psychoactive drugs might all be available for checkout at typical gas stations across the globe. Head shops, gas stations, and online sites are legally selling drugs that the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime call new psychoactive substances (NPS). Also known as “designer drugs,” “herbal highs,” or “legal high” drugs, NPS have come under increased international scrutiny as variations of these drugs continue to develop and as alarming research on the dangerous health effects of these substances emerges. In light of this, some places, such as Scotland, are beginning to shut down the sale of these substances.

Harminasion, a shop that sells legal high drugs in Aberdeen, Scotland, was forced to close its doors last Wednesday and will remain out of business for the next three months after Aberdeen police and city council members secured a closure order under the Antisocial Behaviour Act of 2004. The shop’s closing is believed to be a Scottish first in an effort to thwart the destructive consequences of NPS.

NPS are defined as “substances of abuse, either in a pure form or a preparation, that are not controlled by the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs or the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, but which may pose a public health threat.” “New” does not necessarily mean that the drug is a new invention, but rather that the substances have recently become available. These drugs are synthetic, “legal” alternatives to internationally controlled drugs, intended to mimic the effects of illicit drugs. NPS emerge rapidly, making controls for these drugs extremely difficult. The increased use and emerging trade of NPS have created concerns that transnational organized criminal groups could exploit the market for these substances.

One class of new psychoactive substances is synthetic cannabinoids, such as “spice,” which was introduced to the United States around 2009, marketed as potpourri, and labeled “not for human consumption” to avoid FDA regulations. Spice or “K2” is an herbal material infused with dangerous chemicals that imitate the effects of THC, although it is much more potent and can be extremely harmful. Due to the ever-changing concentrations of chemicals used to make synthetic cannabinoids, data on human toxicity related to the use of these drugs remains limited. However, known health-related problems associated with their use include cardiovascular complications, psychological disorders, physiological dependence, hallucinations, paranoid behavior, agitation, anxiety, nausea, vomiting, and seizures. Data has also shown that an increasing number of suicides are also associated with use of synthetic cannabinoid products such as spice.

The Scottish decision to close the Aberdeen shop comes just weeks after the launch of an interactive online video that warns teens of the dangers and risks associated with legal high drugs. The video will be available to every secondary school throughout Scotland. Detective Inspector Michael Miller said of NPS use:

It’s become clear that officers are spending an increasing amount of time dealing with the diverse issues brought on by new psychoactive substances as the trend to take them escalates… It horrifies me that young people willingly take a substance without knowing what it contains or the effects it will have.

Scotland is not the only country in Europe feeling the daunting impact of NPS. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction reported an unprecedented increase in the number, type, and availability of new psychoactive substances in Europe over the past five years. The report claims that 101 new psychoactive substances were reported for the first time in 2014. What is truly shocking is the alarming number of seizures–46,730–of new psychoactive substances in 2013 alone. To combat the rapid increase of the drugs, several countries have amended their legislation to control the manufacture, trafficking, possession, sale and use of NPS. However, including a drug on a prohibited or scheduled list is often a lengthy process that requires health risk assessments based on scientific data, (data that is scarce for NPS) and can take several months to approve. For this reason, many governments have resorted to “emergency scheduling” to introduce temporary bans on NPS until the legislative process can be completed. Australia, China, Croatia, Bahrain, Ghana, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom and the United States reported in a UNODC questionnaire on NPS to having used emergency scheduling to temporarily ban NPS. New psychoactive drug information has also begun to appear on national drug surveys due to the growing need to monitor and combat their use.

In the United States, NPS use is on the rise, mimicking the international trend. In 2011, the annual “Monitoring the Future” national survey asked 12^th graders about their drug use; the survey found that synthetic cannabinoids ranked second in annual prevalence only to natural cannabis. Notably, the states with the highest number of calls to U.S. Poison Centers involving synthetic cannabinoids in 2015 are states with harsher cannabis laws. Washington, Oregon, Colorado, and Alaska are the only four U.S. states with legalized recreational cannabis, although they are in different stages of implementation. Those four states combined have had a total of 41 calls to poison centers this year, while Mississippi, a medical marijuana state with decriminalization laws, alone has had over 1,000 calls. In April, New York officials issued a health alert after more than 160 patients over a span of just nine days were admitted to hospitals across the state for adverse reactions to spice. In Mississippi, 97 cases of synthetic marijuana abuse were reported to the Mississippi Poison Control Center over an eight-day span in April. Although the Synthetic Drug Abuse Prevention Act of 2012 banned the synthetic compounds found in NPS, there is obviously still an NPS abuse problem in the states, and we will probably see crackdowns similar to Europe on the rise.

In one German study on NPS, more than three out of five respondents indicated the legal availability of NPS as a major motivation for use. This result speaks to the importance of monitoring and scheduling new variations of NPS, shutting down head shops, gas stations, and websites that sell the drugs, and educating young people that the legality of the drugs does not imply their safety. Closing stores that sell these drugs will attack the infrastructure of NPS propagation and will deter novice NPS users from experimenting with these unsafe substances. Openly condemning the NPS market will also combat the current normalization of NPS use, which the open, “legal” sale of these drugs promotes. While policy reform is important, education is the most powerful tool for change. The U.S., and other locations, should take after Scotland in its efforts to inform young people about the detrimental impacts of new psychoactive substances.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Legal Doesn’t Mean Safe: The Rise of Synthetic Drugs 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.

There’s a hot, new startup in town and it’s solving a problem that has long gone unanswered–how to get medical marijuana delivered to you. It’s called Eaze and it’s being promoted as Uber for weed. As more and more states legalize marijuana, and many more allow the substance to be used for medicinal purposes, the commercial industry is going to continue booming. Eaze wants a piece of that–and from the looks of it, so do Eaze’s many investors.

The San Francisco-based company has already gotten quite a bit of funding. In its series A funding round–essentially its first big push for venture capital money–it received a very impressive grand total of $10 million. One of the more prominent investors is Casa Verde Capital. For those of you for whom that doesn’t ring a bell, that’s the name of the venture capital fund run by Snoop Dogg. Although this was Eaze’s first major funding push, it also received $1.5 million at the beginning of last year to get started.

Calling Eaze the Uber of weed, or at least medical marijuana, seems pretty much spot on. Users can order the drug with the click of a button, and Eaze promises a ten minute or less turn-around time. The company connects already-existing dispensaries with customers, and has a fleet of drivers ready to transport the orders. Eaze also allows customers to look through what each dispensary offers, including lab results, in order to find a good match between customer and product.

The business certainly has some kinks to work out, but they seem to be relatively minor. TechCrunch’s Ryan Lawler tried it out over the weekend and pointed out that right now it only accepts cash, which can be viewed as inconvenience for anyone who operates mostly in plastic.

Eaze isn’t the only business trying to capitalize on medical marijuana, however. There are plenty of others that have similar ideas and business plans. Some of the more well known include Nestdrop, Meadow, Grassp, Dave, and Canary, each of which have slightly different business models, platforms, and markets.

Moreover, that’s only considering the weed delivery industry. Other pot-based startups have already begun to try to break off chunks of what will inevitably end up being a gigantic market. For example, Privateer Holdings, based in Seattle, recently raised $75 million in funding for its many endeavors in the marijuana market. Privateer Holdings already has a hold on the Canadian medical marijuana market, and plans on “branding” marijuana to sell in the United States. One of those brands will be “Marley Natural“–based on the late Bob Marley. The business will involve his family and estate.

Now that the tide really does seem to be turning both for medical and recreational weed, it seems like there’s no good reason for funders not to back some of these projects. After all, legal marijuana has been named the fastest growing industry in the United States. A company like Eaze has the potential to become massively profitable, given the convenience of having items delivered to your door, as well as its ability to prevent any sort of “high” driving. Snoop Dogg’s investment is probably a pretty good one, and with that kind of backing, we should expect to see Eaze expand with this growing market.

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 New Snoop Dogg-Backed Startup Brings Weed to Your Door appeared first on Law Street.

Jordan Meir of Nebraska thought he found the perfect way to disguise his stash–just mark it up as ‘not weed.’ After all, labeling it as weed is a sure fire way to get caught, so the opposite must be the solution, right? Maybe in the rest of the world, but the cops in Nebraska must be extra smart because this ingenious scheme actually did not end up working in their neck of the woods.

Twenty-one-year-old Meir was cruising around town one night when he was pulled over for suspected drunk driving. He was not worried. Sure, he was riding dirty, but in such a way that he knew he could not be caught. So when the officer saw a sour cream container labeled ‘not weed,’ Meir was probably as surprised as everyone reading his story that, in the words of the cop, containers labeled ‘not weed’ are what they in Nebraska call “a clue.”

Courtesy of Giphy.

When the cop opened it up, it turned out that the container had indeed accidently been mislabeled. Inside was 11 ounces of marijuana. (This really could have been an innocent mistake, by the way. If Meir is anything like me, he probably just reuses containers when he is done with them. When this specific container was first labeled, it probably was not stashing weed, and he just forgot to re-label when he was done.)

Courtesy of Giphy.

Meir admitted that it was his–are you surprised that he was so honest? Whatever gave you the impression that he was a liar?–and was fined $100 and arrested on suspicion of drunken driving.

It is a pity that the world has become so dishonest that nobody can trust anybody anymore. I dream of a day when we can see someone’s sour cream tub labeled “not weed,” and just take it for a tub of pot-free sour cream instead of being suspicious and untrusting. I want to live in a world where we can rely on others and take what they tell at face value. I want honesty and trust to be our guiding forces.

But until that day, I probably need to go re-label some sour cream jars…

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 Man’s ‘Not Weed’ Label Does Not Fool Nebraska Cops appeared first on Law Street.

I’m writing this from Washington D.C. As many of you know, as of 12:00am Thursday, recreational marijuana became legal in our Nation’s Capital. Things will never be the same. Our Congresspeople are lounging on the steps of the Capitol, smoking joints. (This hasn’t affected their productivity–it has remained dismal.) All of the CVSes are out of Doritos. The National Mall looks like modern day Woodstock. It’s the end of this city as we know it.

Just kidding. Everything is still normal. Although it did snow in D.C.–a rarity for late February–I don’t think that had to do anything with recreational marijuana becoming legal. No, everything here in D.C. is basically the same. The line at Starbucks was still too long. The metro is a fiery pit of despair. My hallway still smells like weed–although I guess we shouldn’t be as surprised by that one.

Regardless though, nothing has changed, but it is now legal to smoke, possess, and grow recreational pot in D.C., with some obviously pretty heavy restrictions. But, given D.C.’s status, it’s kind of a mess.

D.C. is a unique place, to say the least. For a long time there was almost no ability to self-govern–an attitude left over from the idea that D.C. was to be the city where our federal government was located and little else. We did receive some limited home rule in the 1970s, but there’s still a lot in D.C. that’s controlled by everyone’s favorite group of whiny toddlers–Congress.

Now, weed became legal because a pretty sizable majority of the population of the District of Columbia voted to legalize it during the 2014 midterms. The ballot measure was named “Initiative 71.” However, unlike the states that have approved the legalization of recreational marijuana, D.C. has had to wait to figure out if our votes actually allow us to control the legislation of our own city. (I’m clearly not bitter.) Basically, we had to wait and see if Congress would step in and stop the legalization of weed. It didn’t–or at least not in so many words, though we’ll get to that later–so we’re in the clear, right? If only. There are still a lot of complicated, absurd things happening here in D.C. with regard to the legalization of marijuana, and here are a few of the most pressing:

D.C. Has a Lot of Federal Land

D.C. has two kind of distinctive parts to it–there’s federal land and then there’s the land that’s occupied by the city and by private residences, businesses, and buildings. Initiative 71 obviously only legalized weed on non-federal land. Although you can’t smoke in public anywhere, you can have it on your person without it being against the law.

While that sounds pretty straightforward, it’s not. In D.C. Twenty-nine percent of the land is actually federal–including parks, monuments, and buildings. With a few exceptions, every time that two diagonal streets meet, a park, square, or circle is formed. And all of those grassy areas are federal land–meaning they’re not good “grassy” areas, if you catch my drift. Here’s what the map of D.C. looks like if you mark all the federal land–it’s in green in the map below.

Watch your step. Weed will be legal in D.C. but not on 29% of city that is federal land. Map http://t.co/5tOfIZi33Zpic.twitter.com/kKOWCKy3bN

— Mary Pat Flaherty (@marypatflaherty) February 24, 2015

So unless you want to memorize that map, be careful, and be prepared take some weird routes home.

D.C.’s Weed Legalization Expects Everyone to be Very Generous

So, what D.C. legalized is actually kind of weird–it didn’t set up any sort of parameters to sell recreational marijuana. So you can have recreational weed, but you can’t buy or sell it. You can, however, gift it, or receive it as a gift. So, there will be a lot of “gifts” happening, presumably.

Congress is Still Freaking Out

The situation with Congress right now is very complicated. There’s basically an argument over whether or not what D.C. is doing is legal. In a federal spending bill, Congress had included a measure preventing D.C. from using money to “enact” marijuana legalization. That, however, isn’t what D.C. is doing. There really isn’t any money being used–not arresting people for possessing marijuana doesn’t cost anything. Furthermore, it may have already been “enacted” when it passed in November, so that measure, passed later, wouldn’t apply. It just depends a lot on your definition of enacted. Congress could still act, but right now it’s all up in the air.

So, that’s the news from here in the District. Whether or not legalized marijuana is here to stay is yet to be seen. Everyone’s confused, avoiding public parks, and Congress is being a pain, so it’s basically just business as usual 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 The Absurdity of D.C. Marijuana Legalization appeared first on Law Street.

It’s that time of the year again: yesterday the Obama administration released a proposed budget for the next fiscal year. As always, it made waves, sparked plenty of political statements from both sides of the aisle, and will take a while to get sorted out. There are some interesting provisions included in this budget though–one of the most notable is that it may allow Washington D.C. to finally move forward with the recreational marijuana legalization initiative that was passed in November.

Obama’s support for Washington D.C.’s ability to legalize recreational marijuana is incredibly subtle. In fact, it’s so subtle that it pretty much hinges on one word included in the budget: federal.

How can one small word have such a large impact on the ability of a city with roughly 650,000 people to enact a law? Well, there’s a lot of background that needs to be considered. D.C. residents voted to legalize recreational marijuana in November, with a huge margin–roughly 65 percent–in favor. The way that D.C.’s ability to pass laws is set up is very complicated, and has changed numerous times, but at the end of the day, Congress usually has final say.

Many Republicans, as well as some others in Congress, were unhappy with the idea of the nation’s capitol legalizing marijuana, so when Congress made a funding bill, it included wording that pretty much blocked D.C. from moving forward with the initiative. It stated that no funds could be used to enact the legalized marijuana initiative in the District of Columbia. Republican House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz explained the logic behind the block, saying:

Looking at the Constitution, Washington, D.C. is different. They are not a state and we have a role to play and the Congress passed this. I respect the people who live here and most everything passes through without a problem. But the idea that this is going to be a haven for pot smoking, I can’t support that

But Obama’s budget deviated from that slightly with the use of that one word: “federal.” Obama’s budget states that no federal funds can be used to implement the law. The distinction there is it doesn’t preclude D.C. from using local funds to do so.

There’s obviously no guarantee that the changed language will end up having any effect on whether or not legalized recreational marijuana actually happens in Washington D.C. However, it does show Obama’s continued support for the autonomy of Washington residents. This last July, Obama became the first sitting president to endorse D.C. statehood, saying:

I think I’ve long believed that D.C. pays — folks in D.C. pay taxes like everybody else. They contribute to the overall well-being of the country like everybody else. They should be represented [in Congress] like everybody else. And it’s not as if Washington, D.C., is not big enough compared to other states. There has been a long movement to get D.C. statehood, and I’ve been for it for quite some time.

While there are a lot of debates over D.C. statehood, and the exact rights that should be afforded to the city, the fact that Obama supports the ability for the city to do as its residents please has been made pretty crystal clear. The insertion of the word “federal” in the budget as it relates to the legalization of marijuana in D.C., as small as it may seem, is just the most recent example.

There’s no way to make any sort of clear prediction what will happen with the D.C. effort to legalize recreational marijuana–there are just too many moving parts right now. If Obama’s budget remains as is, and prohibits federal but not local funds from being used, recreational marijuana could soon be a fixture in D.C. The ball is now in Congress’s court.

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 Obama’s Budget Could Help D.C. Implement Legalized Marijuana 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.

While you were grinding away last week, you might have missed these three great articles. The #1 story of the week came from Anneliese Mahoney with her take on Fox News guest Steven Emerson’s totally fabricated “facts” about Muslim residents of Birmingham, England; Alexis Evans made her debut with the #2 article of the week–a smart takedown of rapper 2 Chainz debate with TV host Nancy Grace over marijuana policy; and the #3 article of the week came from Morgan McMurray’s coverage of anti-Muslim sentiment on Twitter. ICYMI, check out the best of the week from Law Street.

#1 No Surprise: Fox News Just Makes Up Facts Now

We all know that Fox News interprets the second part of its name very loosely, but it hit a new low this weekend when it allowed guest Steven Emerson to blatantly make stuff up. Read the full article here.

#2 2 Chainz vs. Nancy Grace: Rapper Wins Debate Over Legalizing Pot

Is this real life? HLN viewers were gifted TV comedic gold the other night in the form of a marijuana debate between the always controversial Nancy Grace and “Fed Watching” rapper 2 Chainz. Grace, whose Wikipedia controversy section alone is cause enough for pause, brought 2 Chainz, who was arrested in 2013 for possessing a weed grinder, on her show to discuss the legalization of marijuana. Funnily enough, it was 2 Chainz who upstaged Grace with actual valid points while she rebutted by showing him irrelevant videos of parents forcing toddlers to smoke pot. Read the full article here.

#3 J.K. Rowling Has Perfect Response to Anti-Muslim Tweets

We are now nearly two weeks into the new year and have already had a heavy dose of tragedy. Unless you have been cut off from internet and television over the past few days, you’ve heard about the Charlie Hebdo shootings. Regardless of what your opinion is of that publication, the murder of those people was an act of terror and an infringement on their rights as humans and French citizens. Read the full article here.

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

How do you avoid getting arrested overseas?

While the most obvious answer would be by not breaking any laws, it’s hard enough to know the legal minutia in America, let alone the rest of the world. When you travel to another country, you are subject to its laws and are under its jurisdiction, not the protection of the U.S. Constitution. Therefore you may be expelled, fined, arrested, or imprisoned if found in violation of foreign laws, even unknowingly.

Can I hold hands with my same-sex partner? Can I take a picture of this building? Is this outfit acceptable to wear in public? These are all important questions that you may not have considered before. Read on to learn about the ways you can protect yourself while traveling, and what to do if you do find yourself on the wrong side of a foreign law.

Before You Go

Before booking your boarding pass, first tour your country of interest’s available online resources, such as tourism sites, for valuable travel information. It’s also a good idea for travelers to research what crime trends are happening in that country as well to get an idea of what to stay away from. The U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs provides a convenient resource that allows travelers to research specific countries and learn key facts, entry and exit requirements, embassy locations, and important local laws of which to take note. The British government actually offers a better resource than the U.S. government does; Britain provides extensive country-specific “prisoner packs” on its website containing step-by-step information for those arrested, including arrest procedures, legal representation, and prison conditions and regulations.

While in a Foreign Country

Once you’ve made it safely to the country of your choice, there’s the matter of staying out of trouble. Here are a few tips on what to avoid and how to ward off unnecessary suspicion.

Keep Identification on You at All Times

The last thing you want to do is be caught in a foreign country without proper papers. In Russia, for example, traveling without identification could possibly lead to a tourist becoming detained. In the event that you are arrested you want to be able to prove that you are who you say you are, that you’re in the country legally, the purpose of your visit, and what kind of visa you have. The more information you can provide the easier it is for police officers to deduce whether or not you are a threat.

Beware of Drugs, Booze, and Ammunitions

It’s estimated that more than 7,000 Americans are locked up overseas every year and 2,500 are in jail at any given time. Attorney Dick Atkins, who’s spent the last 33 years helping Americans get out of legal trouble abroad, names drugs, booze, and ammunition as the three biggest culprits when it comes to overseas arrests. Even though some countries may have younger legal drinking ages, drunk and disorderly conduct is almost always still considered a punishable offense. He also advises not to leave leftover bullets in your suitcase even if you obtained them legally in the U.S., because in countries like Mexico it could get you locked up.

Illegal drugs have both alcohol and ammunitions offenses beat. According to the Bureau of Consular Affairs more than one-third of Americans incarcerated abroad are held on drug charges. That’s not surprising considering that most countries have a zero-tolerance policy for drug trafficking and recreational use, and apply hefty fines and lengthy prison sentences for those found in violation. For many, Amsterdam stands out as a novelty soft-drug destination due to its famed “coffee shops,” which serve small amounts of cannabis products over the counter to tourists who are 18 and up. In 2004, the Netherlands passed a law requiring people to have membership cards, known as “weed-passes,” to gain entry to the coffee shops, which are only available to Netherlands residents. Amsterdam’s mayor and the coffee shop owners fought back however, rejecting the cards and keeping the entry to their shops permissible to all of-age patrons. While the Dutch try to decriminalize drug use as much as possible, production, trading, and stocking drugs remain a serious criminal offense.

So, what do I do if I am arrested?

The first thing you should do if arrested is immediately ask the officials to notify the closest U.S. embassy of your arrest. Most countries are required to do so within a certain time window, but it varies, so it’s always better to be safe than sorry. Embassies don’t provide you with a get-out-of-jail-free card, though. Once you’ve been arrested, you must go through the foreign legal process for being charged or indicted, prosecuted, potentially convicted, and sentenced, and for any subsequent appeals process. Here are a few things that embassies can help with:

• Contact family members, friends, or employers.
• Explain to you the local legal procedures as well as provide a list of attorneys and translators who speak English.
• Establish a trust for detainees to receive funds when permissible under prison regulations (embassies are also prohibited from paying for your legal or medical fees or representing you in court).
• Work with prison officials to ensure treatment is consistent with internationally recognized human rights standards.
• Protest any allegations of abuse against American inmates.

There are also some overseas organizations, depending on your nationality, such as Britain’s Prisoners Abroad, that specialize in helping to lobby for the release of prisoners abroad as well as provide some monetary support in the form of grants.

Strange Laws Abroad

While some foreign laws only differ slightly from those in the U.S., some are just downright unexpected. For your benefit, here are a list of some particularly surprising offenses that if you aren’t cautious could land you in legal trouble.

 Overseas Prison Horror Stories

Once tangled in a foreign legal web, it’s hard to get out. It potentially takes cases months or even years to be resolved. Here are a few notable travelers’ horror stories to consider as cautionary tales.

Alan Gross

On December 17, 2014, 65-year-old Alan Gross, a subcontractor working for the U.S. Agency of International Development (USAID), was released from a Cuban prison after five years. While working on a project to improve wireless access to small communities in Cuba, Gross was arrested after allegedly smuggling electronic equipment and a satellite phone capable of bypassing Cuban restrictions on Internet and telecommunications to a small Jewish community.

While imprisoned, his health deteriorated and he underwent a hunger strike. After years of waiting, he was released in exchange for three members of the Cuban Five agents who were being held in U.S. prisons, paving the way for better relations between the U.S. and Cuba, easing travel restrictions, and including plans for a new U.S. embassy in Havana.

ARMA 3 Developers

In September 2012, Ivan Buchta and Martin Pezlar, two Czech Bohemia Interactive ARMA 3 video game developers were jailed in Greece for 218 days, accused of espionage after being caught photographing Greek military installations. The pair, actually vacationing on the isle of Lemnos, were presumed to be scouting locations for their upcoming military tactical shooting game. They were released from the Greek prison after four months and are still awaiting trial.

Merrill Newman 

On December 7, 2013, 85-year-old Korean war veteran Merrill Newman was released from a North Korean prison after being held for more than a month. At the conclusion of a ten-day guided tour of North Korea, Newman was pulled from his plane and held in connection to alleged war crimes he was said to have committed more than 60 years prior during his 1953 tour of duty. He was later forced to confess in a jailer-fabricated statement televised on North Korean State TV, which he read and signed.

Upon his release Newman later stated:

Anyone who has read the text of it or who has seen the video of me reading it knows that the words were not mine and were not delivered voluntarily. Anyone who knows me knows that I could not have done the things they had me ‘confess’ to.

---

Conclusion

Touring internationally is a cultural luxury that relatively few Americans are able to experience. That luxury can swiftly turn into a nightmare when ignorant mishaps land unsuspecting tourists in cuffs. So if you’re planning to travel soon, begin by researching your destination, heed the warnings, and most of all just be smart.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Department of State: Bureau of Consular Affairs 

Bureau of Consular Affairs :’A Safe Trip Abroad’ PDF 

British Gov: Passports, Travel, and Living Abroad 

Additional

Reader’s Digest: 13 Funny International Laws You’d Never Know Were Real

TRIP: Legal Advice For Americans Traveling Abroad 

Prisoners Abroad Website: Homepage 

Amsterdam: Amsterdam Drug Policy

Polygon: Arma 3 Developers Arrested

Daily Beast: Americans Locked Up Abroad

Washington Post: Korean War Veteran Merrill Newman Gives Detail of Detention by Pyongyang

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 Arrested Overseas: What Travelers Need to Know 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.

Happy Holidays, everyone! Unfortunately, an abundance of holiday spirit didn’t keep everyone off of the naughty list this year. Check out the slideshow to see the top five weirdest arrests of the week.

[SlideDeck2 id=30667 ress=1]

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 Weird Arrests of the Week 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.

This was a fun week for weird arrests–full of drugs, more drugs, and drunk escorts. Read on to see the top five strangest and weird arrests of the week.

[SlideDeck2 id=29769 ress=1]

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 Weird Arrests of the Week 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.

The midterms are finally over (thank God/the universe/Oprah) so now we can all go back to real life. Just kidding — it’s practically presidential election time. Your attention span and patience are ready for that, right? Well before you get into that, take a look at some of the top stores from Law Street last week that you might have missed in all the excitement. It was a clean sweep for writer Anneliese Mahoney who wrote all three of the top articles on Law Street last week. Number one is Mahoney’s take on Taylor Swift’s latest album and her decision to pull all her work from popular streaming music site Spotify; number two is an in-depth look at the three states with major marijuana legislation on last Tuesday’s ballots; and number three was a shout out who is generally accepted as the country’s youngest new elected official, Saira Blair of West Virginia. ICYMI, take a look at Law Street’s Best of the Week.

#1: Taylor Swift and Spotify: Never Ever, Ever Getting Back Together?

Taylor Swift made waves this week when she pulled all of her music from the popular streaming site Spotify. The 24-year-old singer-songwriter’s newest album, “1989,” was never put on the site, and her older music can no longer be found there. Read full article here.

#2: States to Watch Today: Marijuana on the Ballot in Oregon, Alaska, and DC

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? Read full article here.

#3: Saira Blair Youngest Elected Official in America: Snaps for Her

Saira Blair is an 18-year-old West Virginia University freshman majoring in economics. She’s also believed to be the youngest elected lawmaker in the United States. At 17, Blair actually beat a 66-year-old Republican incumbent in a primary, and on Tuesday she beat a 44-year-old Attorney, Democrat Layne Diehl. She will represent a district of just under 20,000 people located in the West Virginia panhandle, close to Maryland, as one of 100 members of the Virginia House of Delegates. Read full article here.

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 ICYMI: Best of the Week 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.

Missed out on some of the most interesting news last week? Don’t worry, we’ve got you covered. From satirical gateway drugs to a city overrun by clowns, last week was certainly one for the books. Writer Anneliese Mahoney took the top two spots with her reporting on police who struck out in their drug searches but came out with a handful of okra and some frisbee equipment, as well as a look t the city of Wasco, California, which may or may not be crawling in clowns; Alexandra Badalamenti write the number three post of the week on Hershey’s lawsuit against the maker of Hashees, a curiously similarly named weed edible. ICYMI, here is Law Street’s Best of the Week.

#1 Frisbees and Okra: The New Gateway Drugs

The national attitude towards pot has been evolving for some time now. Marijuana has now officially been decriminalized in a number of states, and even legalized in two: Oregon and Washington. But even as our national view towards marijuana changes, our misperceptions don’t necessarily follow suit. This split has led to a couple funny stories making the national news this week. One directly relates to those aforementioned stereotypes. A video in Ankeny, Iowa has been making its rounds on the internet. In it, a police officer tries to search a driver’s car, because apparently, people who play disc golf also smoke weed. (Read full article here)

#2 What’s the Deal With the Clown Problem in Wasco, California

If you’re a member of the Wasco California Police Department, you’ve had an interesting week. Wasco, near Bakersfield, has been all over the news for an interesting problem it’s having. But is it actually a problem, or a weird hoax turned viral? Google it and you’ll see a bunch of headlines about crazy clowns terrorizing the town and stalking people. (Read full article here)

#3 Hershey’s Settles Trademark Suit With Hashees Marijuana Edibles Maker

The Hershey Company has settled a lawsuit and simultaneously protected millions of little children across the country from becoming future cannabis users. The maker of the legendary chocolate Kiss, Peppermint Patty, and (my personal favorite) Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup settled a suit against marijuana candy manufacturer TinctureBelle LLC. Filed this summer, the suit was in response to TinctureBelle’s “medicated gourmet edibles,” many of which boast names allegedly mimicking those of the Hershey Company’s treats. (Read full article here)

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

The Hershey Company has settled a lawsuit and simultaneously protected millions of little children across the country from becoming future cannabis users.

The maker of the legendary chocolate Kiss, Peppermint Patty, and (my personal favorite) Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup settled a suit against marijuana candy manufacturer TinctureBelle LLC. Filed this summer, the suit was in response to TinctureBelle’s “medicated gourmet edibles,” many of which boast names allegedly mimicking those of the Hershey Company’s treats.

TinctureBelle is clever, I’ll give them that. Some of its product names included “Hashees,” “Ganga Joy,” and “Hashheath.” Who doesn’t enjoy a good pun? Well, Hershey. The Pennsylvania-based company wasn’t laughing when it sued the Colorado-based company for trademark infringement.

The purpose of a trademark is to avoid confusion among consumers between two products. Hershey argued that similarities in product names would do just that and expressed concern over maintaining their wholesome reputation as a company whose biggest fans are children.

“The Hershey Company’s trademarks are iconic and among our company’s most important assets,” explained Hershey’s spokesman Jeff Beckman. “They are recognized by consumers around the world, and our company has spent as many as 120 years building the trust and equity in these iconic brands. Consumers depend on our brand names to represent a level of quality and dependability. These entities have used Hershey’s trademarks, without authorization, to trade on Hershey’s goodwill and reputation, and to draw greater attention to their products; these unauthorized uses of Hershey’s trademarks also make the products more appealing to children.”

TinctureBelle must now refrain from using names that infringe on Hershey products. According to the Denver Business Journal, this includes the destruction of “all remaining specimens of each product, including without limitation cartons, containers, packaging, wrappers, labels, displays and any other material.”

TinctureBelle owner Char Mayes released a statement asserting that “the lawsuit from Hershey came as a huge surprise to us, because we changed our entire label line approximately six months ago, long before these allegations surfaced.”

With one Google search of TinctureBelle’s products, you will find that the packaging does resemble that of Hershey’s delicious treats. It’s pretty obvious.

TinctureBelle now begins the walk of shame with this settlement. It has agreed to disable an Internet site that had been designed to raise money for the legal battle against Hershey. It promised not to register trademark for the names involved in the suit and will have to pay $25,000 per trademark breach of the settlement going forward.

It seems as though Hershey’s legal department is actually quite busy lately. TinctureBelle isn’t the only company in its path of legal destruction. In June it filed a suit against Conscious Care Cooperative over a similar marijuana-based candy issue. And in September, the Hershey Company filed a lawsuit against LBB Imports LCC over trademark infringement of foreign candy.

Meanwhile, Hershey is playing defense against Mars, which accused the candy company of copying its red-colored packaging.

October’s Halloween holiday can mean many things — spookiness and fear, high candy sales, and now salty executives caught up in some sweet trademark hell.

—

Alexandra Badalamenti (@AlexBadalamenti) is a Jersey girl and soon-to-be graduate of Fordham University in Lincoln Center. She plans to enroll in law school next year to study Entertainment Law. On any given day, you’ll find her with big blonde hair, high heels, tall Nashville dreams, and holding a newspaper or venti latte.

Featured image courtesy of [slgckgc via Flikr]

The post Hershey’s Settles Trademark Suit With Hashees Marijuana Edibles Maker appeared first on Law Street.

The national attitude towards pot has been evolving for some time now. Marijuana has now officially been decriminalized in a number of states, and even legalized in two: Oregon and Washington. But even as our national view towards marijuana changes, our misperceptions don’t necessarily follow suit. This split has led to a couple funny stories making the national news this week.

One directly relates to those aforementioned stereotypes. A video in Ankeny, Iowa has been making its rounds on the internet. In it, a police officer tries to search a driver’s car, because apparently, people who play disc golf also smoke weed.

Basically, the driver was stopped for an equipment violation, and the officer warns the driver about headlight use. Then he saw something horrifying and totally weed-related in the car. It wasn’t drugs, it wasn’t paraphernalia, it was…a disc golf bag!

The officer goes on to interrogate the stopped driver about the relationship between disc golf and pot. After that exchange goes back and forth for a few minutes, the officer says, “you understand you’re free to go and everything but you wouldn’t have a problem with me looking through your car?” The man, of course, replies no, because that’s both unreasonable and illegal. The officer then tries to imply that because he won’t let his car be searched, the driver in question does have weed in the car. Throughout the entire exchange both men involved stayed relatively calm and pleasant, despite their clear disagreement and frustration. Most importantly, the driver was right to refuse the car search–according to Drake Law Professor Robert Rigg:

The Iowa Supreme Court has held that under the Iowa constitution you can’t convert an equipment violation stop into a general search. and any consent that would have been given would have been invalid in any event.

The video footage really is worth a full listen, if for hilarity purposes only:

In a completely separate incident, but definitely equally amusing story, a man in Georgia had his garden raided last week because he was growing something almost as deadly as disc golf–okra. Police were using helicopters to survey for marijuana, when they saw what they thought was pot in the Atlanta man’s garden. They showed up at his door, heavily armed and with a K-9 unit. They eventually discovered that the plants were not marijuana, apologized, and left.

It turned out to be okra, which like marijuana is a green plant, with leaves. Unlike marijuana, okra is really delicious when deep fried, and a popular vegetable in many dishes in the southern United States.

Obviously, these are both totally silly stories. But they also are telling, at least in the sense that in these two cases, police resources were used for what ended up being kind of ridiculous incidences. Yes, marijuana use should not be encouraged in places where it is illegal, but there’s also something to be said for making mountains out of molehills. Interrogating a man for carrying a bag of frisbees, or bringing a K-9 unit to deal with a man who was just growing veggies seems like a bit of overkill. As our nation changes its views on marijuana, seemingly state by state, it seems more and more likely that these kinds of disconnects and misperceptions will happen. So the moral of these stories: hide your frisbees and okra, they may not be worth the trouble.

—

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 [Taber Andrew Bain 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 Frisbees and Okra: The New Gateway Drugs 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.

Hey y’all!

The Berkley City Council in California has unanimously approved an ordinance requiring pot dispensaries donate 2 percent of their product to “patients” making under $32,000 a year. A single person is eligible for this “welfare weed” if they make $32,000 or under, but if that person has a family, the family income has to be $46,000 or under. This ordinance will go into effect in August 2015, but I imagine there will be some pushback over the next year about whether this should actually go into effect or not. I mean really, allowing free weed to those already on welfare? We all might as well quit our jobs or take on low-paying jobs and wait for our handouts. This is getting a little bit ridiculous. How many people in Berkley actually need free weed!?!

There are only three licensed dispensaries in the Berkley city limits and one of those dispensaries, House of Compassion, claims they already had:

[A] program in place that allocated a pound of marijuana for giveaway each week. The pound is broken up into 3.5-gram parcels and distributed on Mondays to anyone who can prove that they are on welfare (using an EBT card or other form of proof) and have been certified to use medical marijuana.

So why the need to create an ordinance if one location already has this program and there are only three dispensaries in the city? I don’t feel right about the reasoning behind this ordinance or the idea that marijuana should be free to anyone. And to be honest, I don’t think it should be legalized.

I don’t believe that every medical marijuana cardholder is someone who is genuinely sick or needing it for medicinal purposes. Back in 2011, the top three reasons physicians gave for recommending medical marijuana were “back/spine/neck pain” at 31 percent, “sleep disorders” at 16 percent and “anxiety/depression” at 13 percent. That is a total of 60 percent. SIXTY PERCENT! Now, I understand that many of these patients probably went through a very frustrating period of trial and error with other medical remedies, like pills, and nothing worked. But realistically how many of these “patients” were telling the truth? I understand, for the most part, the benefits of medical marijuana for some, but not everyone that has an ailment. I get the need for medical marijuana for people diagnosed with cancer or HIV/AIDS–those are diseases that can really take a toll on your body. But the “I need pot because I’m depressed” thing doesn’t sit well with me. Anyone can claim they are depressed or anxious or have certain levels of pain when in reality they don’t. Symptoms can be faked and I know people who have done so, which is why I am so cynical about the whole thing.

My biggest issue with the Berkley City Council is that they basically have said that if you need pot and are on welfare you might as well get it for free. They are allowing the lazy to be even lazier.

In Texas, the Texas Senate passed a bill last year that approved drug testing of welfare applicants so I can’t imagine the ideals of the Berkley City Council will breach the Texas boarder anytime soon. Which is great. Legalizing marijuana is probably one of the most reckless things a state can do. I love the fact that the Texas Senate allows for drug testing and if someone fails that drug test three times, no more welfare for them! “Taxpayer money should not be used to subsidize someone’s drug habit,” read a statement made by Texas State Sen. Jane Nelson, (R-Flower Mound.) I could not agree more!

I’ve seen the functioning pothead who will smoke a blunt everyday but still be able to go to work and act like a contributing member of society. I’ve seen the pothead who will sit at home, smoke out of their glass pipe in front of the computer and play mindless video games all day long, contributing nothing to their own lives or to society. I also recently had a friend tell me that she wished her husband would stop smoking pot but she recognizes that if he doesn’t smoke his four or five blunts throughout the day he turns into a completely different person, so she accepts his decision to smoke weed everyday, all day long. Dependence. Addiction. Altered mood. These are things that marijuana does to a person and it isn’t something that we should condone.

Marijuana’s second hand smoke is said to be very dangerous to children and pregnant women. Obviously there isn’t a whole lot of testing that has been done on the subject because of the dangers but there have been a few and the results appear to be compelling. According to studies, just like any other illicit drug, marijuana and secondhand marijuana smoke can cause premature labor, low birth weights and even neurological damage. There are people reckless enough out there that will disregard warnings and expose their loved ones to the second hand effects of marijuana. This short, but very interesting and to the point, article really brings to light what can happen to young children that are exposed to it in the womb or through second hand smoke.

Now I am not a believer in the “marijuana is a gateway drug to other drugs” idea–I think it is completely inaccurate–but I do think that allowing our country to accept an illegal drug like marijuana simply opens the door to other illegal drugs like opiates. At one point opiates were used like Tylenol is today. We should not revert back to the days of not knowing just to appease the drug users of the world; drugs are illegal for a reason. They do more harm than good.

—

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.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Ian Sane 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 Welfare Weed – Let the Lazy Be Lazier 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.

Fifty years ago, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed into law by President Johnson. Since then, the shape of the civil rights movement has transformed dramatically. Racial discrimination in voting, education, and employment began being combated by the activists of the 1950s and early 60s. Despite making progress since then, blacks and other minorities still face disparities, and they’re being addressed differently today. To further the cause, we need to know how the movement has changed.

What is the Civil Rights Conversation Today?

The transformation of civil rights and racial politics reveals what some scholars call the post-civil rights era. One such scholar, Howard Winant of University of California Santa Barbara, discussed what racism means in a modern context. In his piece “What is Racism?” he suggests that conservatives control the modern civil rights discussion. He says that the conservative revolution of the Reagan era created a wave of racial demands that used “individualism, competition, and laissez-faire” as its focal points. Although it was written in 1998, the principles he laid out are applicable today. Who are the conservatives engaging in discussions about civil rights now?

One politician stands out as taking the helm on civil rights issues from a political position: Rand Paul. Senator Paul of Kentucky, a libertarian Republican, has gained national attention. Although he may have started on the coattails of his father, former congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul, Senator Paul has made some interesting moves in his own right. From cosponsoring a criminal justice reform bill with Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), to introducing legislation to curb civil asset forfeiture, Paul is making noise in Washington.

Other conservatives are talking about civil rights outside of the capital, too. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie signed a bill that expanded the state’s drug court system; the policy is designed to help non-violent drug offenders access rehabilitation rather than serve time in prison. Libertarian groups like the CATO institute are also leading the way on discussing discrimination with scathing research on topics like police aggression.

Is there a problem with conservatism in the civil rights discussion? According to Winant, “racism is rendered invisible and marginalized” because of the right-wing’s domination of the discussion. He suggests that the conservative uprooting of the civil rights discourse resulted in a conversation “which deliberately restricted its attention to injury done to the individual as opposed to the group, and to advocacy of a ‘color-blind’ racial policy.”

But Senator Paul is acknowledging the racial components. In a Politico article he notes, “I believe in these issues. But I’m a politician, and we want more votes.” He’s actually advertising himself as the most prominent congressperson advocating civil rights for minorities, while admitting his political ambition. By recognizing the detrimental effects that excessive police force and the war on drugs have on racial minorities especially, is Paul changing the civil rights discourse while maintaining its conservatism?

How American civil rights issues are progressed is called into question by Paul. He may be referencing the disadvantages minorities continue to face as a result of these problems, but is his approach in line with true civil rights activism? Winant would call for a great emphasis on group collaboration and celebration. Meanwhile, the conservative and libertarian influence on civil rights issues would ensure that the political discussion remain an individualistic one. This dichotomy is important to keep in mind when discussing civil rights issues today.

The War on Drugs

The War on Drugs is remarkably impactful on civil rights. “Tough on crime” anti-drug policies, which have proliferated since the Nixon administration, swell America’s prisons and disproportionately affect the black community. Two drugs in particular largely define the epidemic: marijuana and crack-cocaine.

While marijuana laws across the country are loosening, black people are still 3.73 times more likely to be arrested for possession than white people. Employment opportunities are lost, and families are broken. Similarly, law enforcement’s aggressive response to crack, and the drug itself, ruined entire inner-city communities. Crack’s culturally-white counterpart, cocaine, was never targeted with nearly the same hostility. As the War on Drugs directly toppled black communities and severed their families, it caused a number of other issues in the realm of civil rights.

Excessive Policing

A primary issue is constitutionally-questionable policing. In an effort to confiscate assets involved in illicit drug transactions, law enforcement officers across the United States have been endowed with the authority to take money and property through a process called civil asset forfeiture. Roughly 80 percent of citizens in these cases are never charged with a crime, but police may seize their assets and use them to fund their department. Escalating since the 1990s, the militarization of police also results in excessive aggression against innocent people. With law enforcement offices across the country having easy access to federal military equipment, police take on unnecessary gear and, during a drug search or warrant serving, break into homes without knocking, traumatize people, and often kill innocents

The black community suffers disproportionately from both of these issues. A New Yorker article on civil asset forfeiture notes the disparities faced by blacks and minorities in these cases. For example, in Shelby County, Texas “the targets were disproportionately black or Latino.” The American Civil Liberties Union published an extensive report on police militarization and found that “the use of paramilitary weapons and tactics primarily impacted people of color.” Although blacks comprise 13 percent of the U.S. population, 39 percent of SWAT deployments impacted blacks, according to the ACLU. Only 20 percent impacted whites.

The War on Drugs led to excessive law enforcement practices that are are unsavory in their own right. But issues such as these consistently impact blacks at disparate rates. While a variety of problems now face minorities such as food insecurity and strict voter identification laws, the criminal justice system holds a great deal of political attention.

In some ways, the discussions we have these days about civil rights look very different than those that were prevalent during the hey-dey of the civil rights movement. The movement certainly has changed, and new players are entering the debates. What’s important to keep in mind is that the leaders of the current civil rights discussion shouldn’t only ask what can be done for each and every minority. They should also question how today’s civil rights conversation affects the community as a whole.

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Civil Rights Discussion: New Issues and New Debaters 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.

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.

Early this week, a video leaked on the internet featuring two of the British boy band OneDirection members acting like idiots. Louis Tomlinson and Zayn Malik made a video of themselves driving in Peru during their tour.