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The MMPR replaced the MMAR, which was officially repealed on March 31, 2014.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.

As soon as Jeff Sessions was nominated by President Donald Trump for the position of Attorney General, pro-medical marijuana advocates had reason to feel uneasy. Sessions has long been anti-marijuana, and while he has previously indicated that federal enforcement of marijuana law wouldn’t change too much, there are still concerns that under his tenure, the DOJ will decide to crack down. Sessions addressed law enforcement officials in Richmond, Virginia, earlier today, and his comments about marijuana should only heighten those concerns. But was Sessions right?

Let’s check out what he said:

He stated, “I think medical marijuana has been hyped, maybe too much.” He went on to say:

I realize this may be an unfashionable belief in a time of growing tolerance of drug use. But too many lives are at stake to worry about being fashionable. I reject the idea that America will be a better place if marijuana is sold in every corner store. And I am astonished to hear people suggest that we can solve our heroin crisis by legalizing marijuana–so people can trade one life-wrecking dependency for another that’s only slightly less awful. Our nation needs to say clearly once again that using drugs will destroy your life.

That’s a lot to unpack. Here are the three biggest issues with Sessions’s comments:

“Marijuana Sold in Every Corner Store”

That would be unfortunate, but no one is proposing anything like that. Every state that has legalized marijuana also puts in place a way to regulate sales–the only exception perhaps being the very grey area of D.C.’s sort-of legal marijuana laws that are still being blocked by Congress. Medical marijuana is similarly strictly regulated. And it’s also worth pointing out that two things that are arguably just as dangerous as weed, and certainly more addictive–alcohol and cigarettes–are available at corner stores. Sessions’s comment about “marijuana sold in every corner store” is clear fear-mongering. It paints pro-legalization efforts as extreme and impractical, and ignores the serious regulatory work that goes hand-in-hand with legalization.

Legalizing recreational marijuana and extending medical marijuana efforts are not to be taken lightly. Many considerations are paramount–for example, how marijuana affects young people, and how our DUI laws need to be altered. Those concerns are not to be downplayed. But they’re not to be fabricated either, and the idea that marijuana will suddenly be as easy to get as groceries is a falsehood.

“One Life-wrecking Dependency for Another That’s Only Slightly Less Awful” and “Using Drugs Will Destroy Your Life”

Heroin is absolutely a life-wrecking dependency. And given the huge rise in overdoses, particularly in rural areas of the United States, it’s heartening to hear a politician talk seriously about combatting it. But claiming that marijuana is a “life-wrecking dependency” is, once again, clear fear-mongering on Sessions’s part.

Marijuana dependence is certainly possible. Studies indicate that less than 10 percent of people who use marijuana become dependent on it, although that number rises to 17 percent if you look exclusively at people who begin using marijuana in their teens. Heroin, however, is one of the most addictive drugs out there. (And perhaps we should tell AG Sessions that alcohol and tobacco, available at your friendly neighborhood corner store, also rank in the top 10 most addictive drugs.)

Again, this is not to say that marijuana shouldn’t be strictly regulated, or that it’s impossible to become addicted to it. But to compare heroin addiction to marijuana does a serious disservice to the millions of Americans who have been affected by heroin. Fighting against marijuana–whether that be medical marijuana or recreational marijuana–is not going to do much to combat heroin addiction. Other factors, like prescription drug use, are significantly more pressing. Almost 80 percent of heroin addicts report having misused prescription drugs prior to getting hooked on heroin. While people who are addicted to marijuana are three times more likely to become addicted to heroin than non-addicts, people who abuse prescription opioid painkillers are a staggering 40 times more likely to become addicted to heroin.

“Medical Marijuana Has Been Hyped, Maybe Too Much”

Generally speaking, Sessions’s remarks today were confusing. While he said “medical marijuana has been hyped, maybe too much,” it’s unclear that he was speaking just about medical marijuana. His rhetoric–“legalizing marijuana” and “sold in every corner store” seemed to track more with arguments against recreational marijuana. And if he was talking about medical marijuana, that’s equally confusing, given that there’s evidence to suggest that opioid use does decrease in states that legalize medical marijuana. Given the deadliness of opioid overdoses compared to marijuana (note: there were zero overdoses on marijuana in 2015) that possibility seems at the very least worth exploring.

Sessions did roll back his comments during a question and answer segment after his remarks. He said that the Obama-era Cole Memo, which de-prioritizes the enforcement of federal anti-marijuana law in states where it has been legalized, was “valid.” But the fact that Sessions made the remarks in the first place indicate that pro-medical and recreational marijuana advocates have every reason to remain concerned.

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 Fact-Checking Jeff Sessions’s Claim that “Medical Marijuana Has Been Hyped, Maybe Too Much” appeared first on Law Street.

Cannabis and caffeine lovers rejoice: San Diego-based BrewBudz will soon be debuting a coffee, tea, and cocoa pod product, fit for Keurig machines, that are infused with marijuana. According to the company’s tagline, the hybrid product will be “good for you” and “good for the earth.” Its pods will be made of 100 percent compostable material, including the caps, which are made of coffee beans.

Calling cannabis and coffee “two important rituals,” the BrewBudz website says: “The merging of cannabis and coffee delivered in a sustainable and environmentally conscious way invests us in the responsibility of caring for both our customers and the earth.” The site adds: “Our goal is to provide full life-cycle recycling and composting from the plant harvest to the disposal of our coffee grounds and packaging.”

Entrepreneurs are seeing more openings in the cannabis market since Election Day, when nine states voted to legalize marijuana in some form; nearly a quarter of Americans now live in a state with legal marijuana laws. A number of Cannabis-infused products have hit the market: chocolate, candy, syrup, cocktails, and pet treats.

But what about the health effects of mixing two brain-altering drugs into one drink? Consuming coffee, a stimulant, and marijuana, a depressant, at the same time could make the user feel wired and tired at the same time. There is not a plethora of research on how combining THC and caffeine can affect a person’s health.

States that have legalized recreational marijuana have proven to be especially fertile grounds for new companies to spring up. In Colorado, where weed has been legal since 2012, sales for marijuana during the first half of 2016 neared half a billion dollars. By 2020, California, which legalized medical marijuana 20 years ago and recreational in November, is expected to have a legal weed market worth about $6.5 billion.

The pot pods will launch in January in Nevada, which legalized recreational marijuana in November, and Colorado. Washington, Oregon, California, and Arizona residents will be able to purchase BrewBudz products in March. Each pod will cost $7, and a cup of a brew for recreational purposes will consist of 10 milligrams of THC, while a medically-oriented brew will have 25 to 50 milligrams of the compound.

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 Latest Marijuana-Infused Products: Cannabis Coffee and THC Tea 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.

Hemp. It’s a word you have probably heard more than once, and probably had some questions about at the time. Is it marijuana? Is it legal? Why does my vegan friend preach its health prowess? In short, hemp is cannabis, but it is not marijuana, though marijuana is also cannabis. Confused? Read on to find out the details.

Endless Potential

Cannabis is a plant genus with two sub-species, indica and sativa. Both contain THC, the psychoactive chemical that results in a “high,” though they differ in appearance and effect. The fault line between hemp and marijuana is the THC content of an indica, sativa, or hybrid strain. If the THC concentration in a plant of any strain is under 0.3 percent, then it is classified as hemp (with the exception of West Virginia, which defines hemp as having a THC level below 1 percent). If it’s above that threshold, then it is classified as marijuana. The classification largely exists for legal purposes, as marijuana laws are much harsher than hemp laws.

Hemp grows around the world, most abundantly in Pakistan and China. China is also the crop’s largest exporter. An estimated 25,000 products are made from hemp, spanning nine different product markets. Its fibers are spun into a variety of goods: socks, shirts, pants, strong plastics, rope, and paper; a company in France even prints the Bible on hemp paper. Hemp seeds boast a nutritional profile unlike any other miracle seed (like chia or flax), with its perfect omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids ratio and a host of vital vitamins and minerals. 

Persisting Taboos

In the U.S.–where marijuana taboos persist but are slowly crumbling–hemp is a nascent industry, even though its sturdy, long-lasting fibers are woven into the nation’s past. Colonial farmers cultivated the crop, including some famous ones: Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and George Washington all grew hemp and sang its praises. The ropes of the Mayflower were made of hemp fiber.

But the abundance of hemp in colonial times soon became a siren for the demonizing of Mexican immigrants, and their supposed proclivity for the other side of the cannabis equation: marijuana. Marijuana–traditionally spelled “marihuana,” the modern spelling is a dig at Spanish-speaking Mexicans–became associated with all things evil and naughty, and of course, was banned. Hemp could not rid itself of the stigma of its more potent (and polarizing) cousin. That began to change in 2014.

A New Era

The Agricultural Act of 2014, also known as the 2014 Farm Bill, allowed states to pass legislation for the cultivation and study of hemp, with a requirement that growers must partner with researchers from a university to ensure cooperation between the scientific and commercial fields. As of this year, 16 states have passed laws that legalize industrial hemp for commercial purposes; 20 states are dipping into hemp more cautiously, allowing pilot programs that allow for collaborative research between growers and researchers.

One entrepreneur in New York is jumping on the state’s recently passed legislation allowing for hemp pilot programs. Aidan Woishnis is a part of an educational hemp outfit called WhatCannaDo. Aiming to educate prospective growers and consumers alike, Woishnis is passionate about the hemp movement, the importance of educating people on its potential powers, and deconstructing its marijuana-drenched stigma.

“In order to get any movement properly, people need to be educated and know what’s going on,” Woishnis, who dropped out of Prescott College in Arizona to stake his claim in hemp trade, told Law Street in a phone interview. His aim is to “build an educational platform, giving them a source of actual knowledge that’s been researched by a lab, not by someone taking something from the internet.”

State legislatures are showing a greater willingness to embrace hemp. But Woishnis said the greatest barrier to hemp taking off the way he thinks it could is competing private interests. Wealthy and powerful material industries–like plastics and timber–have pushed back on the young and frightening (for them) potential of hemp.

Some see hemp as an all-purpose answer to a green-conscious society’s infrastructure woes, a fix for the typical carbon-emitting materials that make up today’s cities and towns. Woishnis thinks hemp has the ability to remove the guilt from a culture built on consumption, but that is increasingly concerned with the longterm effects consumption will have on the environment. With hemp, people “can still be consumers and be in a capitalist system while not harming anything,” he said. “[Hemp] is a much better option.”

Editor’s Note: this piece has been updated to change the spelling of “WhatCannaDo.” 

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 is Hemp?: Marijuana’s Industrial Counterpart 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.

Edible marijuana has a bit of a bad reputation. Take too little and expect to ask yourself “is anything happening?” about a thousand times for the next several hours, but take too much and well….you’ll be high as a kite. Relax, you likely won’t die; however, increased heart rate, paranoia, and  nausea are all possible side effects of “greening out.”

Hoping to help end some of the stigma surrounding baked goods like “pot brownies,” edible producers have begun to take the guess work out of  marijuana edibles with microdosing.

Microdosing aims to get people high–but not too high–by lowering the dose of THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, to small amounts typically ranging between 5 and 10 milligrams. The practice doesn’t just apply to baked goods. Aside from brownie bites, these marijuana-infused products also include chocolates, bottled water, and even barbecue sauce.

Seattle edibles producer Spot is one of the companies taking advantage of the trend in hopes of carving out a chunk of the $5.4 billion legal industry. Co-founder Tim Moxey claims his company’s five milligram indica brownie bites are the “right level to be at,” and  aren’t “going to make you lose control.”

“No one is going to get weirded out at five milligrams,” Moxey explained. “That’s why these products are selling so quickly.”

What often sets these microdosed products apart, is the clear labeling. In fact, only 17 percent of marijuana products have been found to be labeled properly. This can be especially problematic when, say, a marijuana-infused candy bar is meant to be split into 16 pieces instead of munched on, as Maureen Dowd famously found out.

Microdosing isn’t for everyone. The subtle “mood enhancing” dose is geared more toward novice pot users, or consumers looking for a more casual experience.

“It’s that person looking for a glass of wine or beer in the evening [type] experience,” said Kristi Knoblich, chief operating officer and cofounder of pot-infused chocolates company Kiva Confections.. “We’re looking for that person who isn’t looking to get blasted.”

As states continue to pass recreational and medical marijuana measures, more Americans will find themselves exposed to this growing marijuana market. If retailers continue to ensure edible users’ experiences go a little smoother, then these mini edibles very well may just be the future.

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 Mini Edibles are the Future of Pot 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

As per usual, it’s Friday, so it’s time to scroll through a slideshow of all the weird crimes that have happened. I’ve been told it’s an excellent way to procrastinate your way to five o’clock, so enjoy this list of the top weird arrests of the week!

[SlideDeck2 id=27142 ress=1]

—

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 [Rama 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 Weird Arrests 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.

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.

The NFL’s drug enforcement policy is making news again, this time because the Cleveland Browns’ only reason for existing star receiver, Josh Gordon, failed another drug test for allegedly smoking marijuana. The Browns are now likely to be without Gordon for the entire 2014-2015 season because the League’s Policy and Program for Substance Abuse (a cleverly couched title for a lengthy drug rulebook) imposes a one-year banishment from the league as the minimum penalty for stage three infractions.  Much like a judicial body, the NFL and a few other leagues have devised a lengthy program to curb drug use. Unlike a judicial body, however, the NFL is not a tax-payer funded institution entrusted to balance the punishment and rehabilitation of society. So why do they try? It probably has to do with image. Drug-using players make for poor role models, which is why the issue remains uncontentious between player unions and ownership (at least compared to wages). But with public opinion changing and player drug-use actually elevating, it’s probably time to relax the rules with regard to weed.

The League should remove marijuana from its drug policy list of controlled substances because the public doesn’t care if athletes smoke weed. A majority of Americans now support efforts to legalize marijuana, and 18 states have decriminalized non-medical marijuana possession. Will Sports Illustrated for Kids soon be posting pictures of Johnny Manziel on its cover smoking a joint? Probably not, but it’s already pretty clear that not all pictures of athletes exude professionalism.

Athletes who use marijuana also don’t hurt their game. Several athletes have admitted to smoking marijuana, even those who rely on lung capacity. If weed cost them a competitive edge and consequently money, why would they continue to smoke?

League drug policies aren’t curbing drug use either. In 2000, marijuana use among NBA players was reported to be small. Now, reports have used the word ubiquitous to describe the prevalence of smoking pot. The drug’s popularity is likely what prompted Arizona Cardinals cornerback Antonio Cromartie to exclaim that penalizing the drug serves no punitive function. Besides, leagues that haven’t penalized marijuana use, such as the NHL, have remained competitive and are not yet overrun with Jeffrey Lebowskis on ice.

Clearly, it’s high time (couldn’t resist!) to change the rules.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured image courtesy of [Erik Drost via Flickr]

Andrew Blancato

The post Enough with the Draconian Rules on Pot, Man appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

First off, what exactly does legal mean?

In Colorado…

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

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

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

Is legalization of marijuana technically unconstitutional?

Technically, the answer is yes.

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

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

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

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

Can I lose my job for using marijuana?

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

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

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

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

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

Can I fly with my marijuana?

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

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

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

Fair or not, it does not change a thing.

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

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

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

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

Is marijuana legalization a continuing trend?

Most likely.

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

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

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

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

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

—

Matt DiCenso 

Featured image courtesy of [rafael-castillo via Flickr]

Matt DiCenso

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

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

The law often does not have the same consequences for all people. This doesn’t necessarily mean that a given law is racist. Or even that a given officer tasked with enforcing the law is a racist individual. What it does mean is that though justice is supposed to be blind, the fallible human beings whose duty it is to carry out the law are not. This is never more true than when it comes to arrests for marijuana. This topic has been in the news recently in the wake of Colorado making marijuana consumption legal.

What I am here to talk about is the cold, hard truth about the state of marijuana use — and more importantly, arrests — in the rest of the nation where recreational marijuana use is still forbidden. Particularly what I’d like to comment on is the raw, and honestly quite refreshing take MSNBC anchor Chris Hayes had on the subject in response to a column recently written by David Brooks. I’ll let Chris do the talking and then see you after the jump.