By David Garrick Contact Reporter MARCH 24, 2017 Crafting comprehensive state marijuana regulations this year will likely be a turbulent process of trial and error, California’s top marijuana official told a few dozen San Diego industry leaders during a forum this week. Lori Ajax, chief of California’s Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation, also said that once new regulations are in place in January the state may crack down on illegal marijuana operations that local jurisdictions have struggled to close. Ajax also expressed some optimism the state could help marijuana businesses get access to banks despite the drug still being illegal under federal law, but said any changes to local tax rates would need to start at the grass roots level. On some issues unique to San Diego, such as U.S. Border Patrol agents possibly blocking transportation of marijuana that is allowed under state law, Ajax said she didn’t have any answers yet. Ajax assured the audience, however, that her staff is moving full speed ahead despite recent comments from the Trump administration that enforcement of the federal marijuana ban could resume. "We have so little time to wring our hands about that," she said. "We have to get this done so I'm focusing on what's in my control, and that's not in my control." The main theme of her hour-long question-and-answer session at San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce headquarters on Thursday was that crafting regulations will be a work in progress followed by a period of awkward transition once they’re in place. She’s facing time pressure because Proposition 64, which was approved by 57 percent of state voters on Nov. 8, requires the new regulations be in place by Jan. 1. Her agency plans to unveil proposed regulations for medical marijuana in late April and then, after the state Legislature sorts out which of nearly four dozen proposed bills under consideration will become law, propose recreational regulations in late summer or early fall. Ajax urged the group of local industry leaders, which included attorneys, dispensary owners, cultivators and operators of delivery services, to take an active role in commenting on the proposals during a 45-day period after they are unveiled. "They are proposed regulations — not final," she said. "The whole reason we have a 45-day comment period is for you to comment, and we expect we may be changing stuff." And even after the regulations become law, Ajax predicted there would be changes based on how the rules perform in real-world situations. "This industry evolves very, very quickly so we have to be ready if some of our regulations aren't working the way we thought they would — we need to be ready to make changes,” she said. "Not everything is going to be OK on Day 1 — there's going to be a transition." Her chief concerns, she said, are whether there will be enough licensed labs to test all of the marijuana — which will be a requirement under state law — and whether cities and counties will approve enough distributors to get the drugs to dispensaries. Testing labs need expensive equipment and rigorous certifications, creating significant barriers to entry, she said. Read more here.
0 Comments
A synthetic marijuana product could be available for commercialization after the DEA gave a newly approved drug a schedule II classification.
On Thursday, Insys Therapeutics announced that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issued an interim final rule that would put Syndros, their synthetic marijuana drug, on Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). “Insys is looking forward to bringing this new drug product to chemotherapy patients to help alleviate their nausea and vomiting and AIDS patients with anorexia associated weight loss, respectively,” Dr. Santosh Vetticaden, interim CEO, said in the announcement. “We look forward to interacting with the FDA to finalize the labeling and subsequent launch of Syndros in the second half of 2017,” Vetticaden said. Syndros is a synthetic version of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main psychoactive component in the plant. In July 206, the company announced the FDA approved their liquid form of synthetic THC to treat anorexia associated AIDS patients, and nausea and vomiting induced by cancer patients going through chemotherapy. The DEA approval placed Syndros and its generic formulations in schedule II of the CSA, which is reserved for drugs that have “a high potential for abuse, with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence.” While some Schedule II drugs can be used for medical purposes, like Vicodin, oxycodone, Adderall, and many prescription painkillers, Schedule I drugs are all federally illegal. Non-synthetic marijuana is a Schedule I drug, which is reserved for drugs that have “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.” In 2011, Insys wrote a letter to the DEA, urging them to maintain the Schedule I status for non-synthetic marijuana, citing “a longstanding policy of the United States to disfavor domestic cultivation of narcotic raw materials because of concerns about the abuse potential from farming of this material." Insys also opposed legalization in Arizona, donating $500,000 to Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy, a group opposing Proposition 205, an initiative to legalize and regulate marijuana like alcohol in Arizona. In a statement, Insys said it opposed Prop 205, "because it fails to protect the safety of Arizona’s citizens, and particularly its children,” according to the Arizona Republic. Read more here. Patrick McGreevyContact Reporter
With federal authorities hinting at a possible crackdown on state-licensed marijuana dealers, a group of California lawmakers wants to block local police and sheriff’s departments from assisting such investigations and arrests unless compelled by a court order. A bill by six Democratic legislators has drawn strenuous objections from local law enforcement officials, who say it improperly ties their hands, preventing them from cooperating with federal drug agents. “It really is quite offensive,” said Kern County Sheriff Donny Youngblood, president of the California State Sheriffs’ Assn., who said he objected to lawmakers “wanting to direct law enforcement how they want us to work.” But proponents say the measure is needed to assure marijuana growers and sellers that applying for state licenses will not make them more vulnerable to arrest and prosecution under federal law, which designates cannabis as an illegal drug. “Prohibiting our state and local law enforcement agencies from expending resources to assist federal intrusion of California-compliant cannabis activity reinforces … the will of our state’s voters who overwhelmingly supported Proposition 64,” said Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer (D-Los Angeles), the lead author of the new bill. The act of resistance is similar to legislation that would prevent California law enforcement agencies from cooperating with federal immigration officials in the deportation of people in the country illegally. Senate Bill 54 would address that concern and make California a so-called sanctuary state for immigrants, while Jones-Sawyer’s legislation would similarly make the state a sanctuary for the marijuana industry. The immigration and marijuana issues have been given new focus by the administration of President Trump, who state officials fear is breaking from the policy of former President Obama, who took a more hands-off approach to both issues. U.S. Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions has indicated in public comments that he thinks marijuana is a danger to society. Last month, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer caused a stir when he said, “I do believe that you'll see greater enforcement” of laws against the sale and use of recreational marijuana. Read more here. Senators Urge Sessions to Keep Trump's Promise of Marijuana Federalism3/3/2017
Yesterday 11 senators sent Attorney General Jeff Sessions a letter expressing concern about recent statements suggesting he plans to enforce the federal ban on marijuana against state-licensed businesses that serve recreational cannabis consumers. The senators, all of whom represent states that have legalized marijuana for medical or recreational use, urged Sessions to stick with the Obama administration's policy of leaving those businesses alone as long as their activities do not implicate the federal "enforcement priorities" listed in a 2013 memo from James Cole, then the deputy attorney general. "On the campaign trail, then-candidate Trump stated that despite his personal views regarding marijuana use, legalization should be left to the states," note Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and nine of their colleagues. "It is essential that states that have implemented any type of practical, effective marijuana policy receive immediate assurance from the DOJ that it will respect the ability of states to enforce thoughtful, sensible drug policies in ways that do not threaten the public's health and safety....We believe that the Cole Memorandum provides a strong framework for effectively utilizing the DOJ's resources and balancing the law enforcement roles of the federal government and the states." Two Republican senators, meanwhile, say Sessions gave them the impression that he would not try to shut down the cannabis industry in Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, or the four states where voters approved legalization last November. "He told me he would have some respect for states' rights on these things," Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) toldPolitico, "so I'll be very unhappy if the federal government decides to go into Colorado and Washington and all of these places." Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) said he did not get the sense from administration officials that Sessions plans a big shift in policy. "Nothing at this point has changed," Gardner told Politico. On Meet the Press last Sunday, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, said Sessions, prior to his confirmation, told Gardner marijuana enforcement "wasn't worth rising to the top and becoming a priority." According to a Justice Department spokesman contacted by Politico, "the department's current policy is reflected in the 2013 Cole memo." These assurance are not exactly rock solid, especially since the Cole memo leaves a lot of leeway to crack down on state-legal marijuana suppliers, depending on how the federal enforcement priorities are interpreted. Yet both Politico and the New York Post make it seem as if opponents of marijuana prohibition overreacted to White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer's prediction of "greater enforcement" and Sessions' criticism of legalization, which he coupled with a pointed reminder that "it does remain a violation of federal law to distribute marijuana throughout any place in the United States, whether a state legalizes it or not." Read more here. Virgil Grant, a longtime cannabis-industry player and co-founder of the Southern California Coalition (SCC), gets right to the point when I ask him about Proposition M.
“This is the most progressive and influential ordinance that I’ve ever been involved with in the history of this industry,” he says. With Los Angeles residents set to vote March 7, Prop. M reflects the efforts of the SCC to finally bring comprehensive, sensible cannabis regulations to a city widely regarded as the No. 1 marijuana distribution market in the world. Should it prove successful, the measure may also serve as a blueprint for other cities and California — as well as other states. “[Prop.] M is definitely going to be the model of what everyone will definitely want to take and plug into their localities, as well as their states,” Grant says. “It will lead the charge for how other cities, states, and counties will respond by taking that model and using it for themselves.” Grant, who has been a part of the scene since California passed Prop. 215 in 1996, has seen the industry’s tumultuous history and says it’s time for the chaos to end. “I’ve been around for a long time,” he says. “I’ve been through the Bush years, through federal intervention, DEA raids, and landlord threat letters — the whole nine. I was indicted by the federal government and served six years in federal prison for owning and operating a legitimate medical marijuana facility. “When I came home, I saw that the industry was not progressing forward in the right way,” he adds. “I saw a lot of outside interests coming into L.A. and trying to dictate how L.A.’s market should run, and I said, ‘Not in our backyard.’ ” That’s why Grant started the SCC, one of the driving forces behind Prop. M. Comprised of cultivators, manufacturers, distributors, lab testing companies, delivery services, and collective owners, the SCC offers an accurate reflection of the cannabis industry. “We needed one unified voice instead of 15 different voices chanting 15 different things,” Grant says. Now that those voices are joined, they are trying to raise awareness for M, a measure that promises to legitimize L.A.’s cannabis industry by creating regulations, establishing a licensing mechanism, and setting reasonable tax structures. In doing so, it will provide a transparent and fair rubric for law enforcement to crack down on so-called illegal operations. As Adam Spiker, SCC’s executive director, explains, discussions with Grant and pivotal figures like Eric Holdstrom from the Cultivators Alliance and NAACP’s Donnie Anderson, laid the groundwork for Prop. M. “Time will tell,” Spiker says, “but Prop. M is trying to account for all of the ancillary pieces that need to have their voices heard: the neighborhood councils, the stakeholder groups, certainly the city of L.A. and their elected officials and staff — and, of course, the industry.” Spiker says it was imperative that the SCC highlight what made this legislation different from ones that came before. “What’s different this time? I would say MCRSA [Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act of 2016] is different,” he says. “Prop 64 is different. The city council’s opinions of it are different. That’s why the council voted unanimously to put Proposition M on the ballot.” Another significant factor is the fact that M will finally do away with the 135-dispensary limit on the number of medical dispensaries allowed to have licenses under the auspices of 2013’s Prop. D. A lack of licensing was to blame when the passage of Prop. D immediately deemed over 1,000 local dispensaries illegal. Read more here. Not only is it now legal to recreationally use marijuana in some states, incorporating cannabis into weddings has become increasingly common. Before you write it off as odd or potentially tacky — don’t. Herb-al weddings can be extraordinarily chic and sophisticated, and wedding planners have come up with some truly creative ways to incorporate it into a couple’s big day.
Speaking of wedding planners, you really do need to hire someone who knows her way around weed laws and regulations if you want to add this element to your wedding. Fortunately, with the trend becoming more popular (especially in California with the recently passed marijuana law), bridal gurus are educating themselves and making sure they have their ear to the legal pulse. We spoke to California-based Ivy Gaitatzis, CEO and founder of California-based Voulez Events, who’s currently involved in organizing San Francisco’s Cannabis Wedding Expo. “We have to respect the laws in place and those laws vary from county to county,” she said. “The very first thing couples need to do is consult with someone who’s aware of all the legalities.” With that advice, we’re excited to share some creative ways you can incorporate cannabis into your wedding day. 1. Adult CornerThe “adult corner” — which can either be completely private or partially tucked away — is the best way to “keep marijuana away from the kids at the wedding, and away from those who don’t really want it in their face,” said Gaitatzis. She says that it doesn’t have to be completely secluded, but it needs to offer at least a semi-private area for those who want to partake. Gaitatzis recommends creating a clever, weed-themed sign to indicate where the “adult only” room or outdoors area is located. In this space, the bride and groom can offer everything from edibles to vaporizer pens, or simply make it an area for guests to BYOW. 2. Weed-Infused FavorsThe most popular types of weed-infused flavors are either edibles or spa products. For the former, don’t limit yourself to the traditional brownie, as there are many alternatives! Gaitatzis’ said that one of the most creative things she’s seen were microdosed garlic-rosemary roasted almonds and cashews. Other options include truffles, cookies and donuts. For spa-related products, Gaitatzis has seen marijuana-infused bath bombs, lip balms and hand creams. She recommends providing an assortment at a table letting guests choose their favorite. 3. Hemp Paper ProductsHemp has a really organic, earthy feel to it, so even if you’re not into a full-blown weed wedding, you may like the idea of incorporating this into your big day. Gaitatzis says to consider hemp invitations, dinner menus, wedding programs or even guest books! 4. Wine and Cannabis PairingsThis is a super creative option, and one that would require additional experts and staff. However, wine and cannabis pairings are super cool, and will offer your guests an experience they’ll talk about for a long time. It involves “bringing the cannabis smoke extract to sub-zero temperatures,” which is then dispensed into a glass of wine,” explained Gaitatzis. “It enhances the pairing experience since you have to use your nose and mouth at the same time.” Read more here. A cannabis industry research and lobbying consultant is using Obama administration Department of Labor research to claim that legally supplying medical and recreational pot will lead American job growth, with a gain of 300,000 jobs over the next three years.Washington DC-based New Frontier Data (NFD) raised an undisclosed amount of seed venture capital on October 22, 2015 as “an independent, data analytics company that provides real-time data solutions to trailblazers in the cannabis industry.”
Over the last 16 months, the company has produced at least 15 cannabis industry reports that analyze marijuana regulation and promote how the exploding American cannabis industry will lead America in job growth and solve public sector tax shortfalls. According to their latest study, sponsored by M Jardin Premium Cannabis and titled “The State of Legal Marijuana Markets – 4th Edition,” New Frontier Data predicts that legal pot sales will grow at a 31 percent compounded rate, from $4.8 billion in 2014 to 22.6 billion in 2020. The report’s authors claim the legal pot industry arose to provide medical marijuana after the U.S. federal government criminalized marijuana as the “Assassin of Youth.” But NFD sees the industry’s biggest growth coming from legalized adult recreational marijuana use in states like New York, Illinois and Maryland. Beginning with Colorado offering the first adult recreational legalization of pot in 2014, NFD projects that legal recreation sales will account for 53 percent, or $12.1 billion, of legal pot sales by 2020. To highlight the comparative economic development advantages of the 300,000 new legal marijuana jobs NFD predicts over the next three years, it refers to the 2015 Obama Labor Department’s 10-year employment forecast, which predicted American manufacturing jobs would actually shrink by 814,100 — from 12,188,300 in 2014 to 11,374,200 in 2024. The NFD report is especially high on “cannatourism,” as residents from restricted states travel to legal states to purchase legal pot and presumably satisfy the munchies by consuming mass amounts of sugared and salty treats from all-night convenience stores. Read more here. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Tuesday that he doesn’t believe marijuana should be legalized.
“We have a responsibility to use our best judgment … and my view is we don’t need to be legalizing marijuana,” he said at the winter meeting of the National Association of Attorneys General. “I’m dubious about marijuana. I’m not sure we’re going to be a better, healthier nation if we have marijuana sold at every corner grocery store.” Sessions said he saw an article in The Washington Post that said smoking marijuana could be a cure for opiate abuse. He called that argument a “desperate attempt” to defend marijuana and its benefits. “Maybe science will prove me wrong,” he said. The nation’s top lawman instead called for local law enforcement to be tougher on drugs. He said President Trump has directed him to lead an effort against international drug cartels. “They are growing in strength ,” he said. “We got so much of it coming right across the Texas border and all across the Mexican border. We can do better. We can do better attacking the distribution networks and we have to start with state and local cases.” The Department of Justice announced Tuesday that it has created a task force to reduce crime and improve public safety. Its members will include the director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the director of the FBI and the director of the U.S. Marshals Service. Read more here. Warned of a possible federal crackdown on marijuana, California elected officials and cannabis industry leaders said Friday they were preparing for a potential showdown in the courts and Congress to protect the legalization measure approved by state voters in November.
The flashpoint that set off a scramble in California was a news conference Thursday at which White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer told reporters that the administration had no plans to continue the Obama administration's permissive approach in states that have legalized marijuana for recreational use. "I do believe that you'll see greater enforcement,” he said, adding that the administration would continue to allow states to regulate the sale of marijuana for medical use. The latest development could force California officials and marijuana industry leaders into an unusual alliance against the federal government, with billions of dollars in profits for businesses and taxes for state coffers at stake. The state agency responsible for drafting regulations said Friday it was going ahead with its plans to start issuing licenses to growers and sellers in January. “Until we see any sort of formal plan from the federal government, it’s full speed ahead for us,” said Alex Traverso, a spokesman for the California Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation. In Congress, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Costa Mesa) plans to introduce legislation that could blunt Spicer’s threat by preventing the Department of Justice from enforcing federal laws against the recreational use of marijuana in states that have legalized it, a spokesman said Friday. And industry officials warn that any federal crackdown in California and other states will result in many growers and sellers continuing to operate, but on the black market. California Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra says he is ready to safeguard the rights of the 56% of voters who approved Proposition 64, which allows California adults to possess, transport and buy up to an ounce of marijuana for recreational use. “I took an oath to enforce the laws that California has passed,” Becerra said in a statement Thursday after Spicer’s comments. “If there is action from the federal government on this subject, I will respond in an appropriate way to protect the interests of California.” State lawmakers also say California should do what it can to preserve Proposition 64. “We will support and honor the laws that California voters have democratically enacted,” said Assemblyman Rob Bonta (D-Oakland), an author of legislation creating the licensing system for medical marijuana dispensaries. Becerra would likely be joined in any defense of the state’s marijuana policy by attorneys general in other parts of the country. Recreational use has also been legalized in Washington state, Colorado, Oregon, Alaska, Maine, Massachusetts and Nevada, home to a combined 68 million Americans. Washington Atty. Gen. Bob Ferguson, who has worked with Becerra on opposing President Trump’s travel ban, said he and Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee last week asked for a meeting with U.S. Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions to discuss how the recreational marijuana use system is working in their state. California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, a leading supporter of Proposition 64, took a similar approach, sending a letter Friday to Trump urging him not to carry through with threats to launch a federal enforcement effort. “I urge you and your administration to work in partnership with California and the other … states that have legalized recreational marijuana for adult use in a way that will let us enforce our state laws that protect the public and our children, while targeting the bad actors,” the Democrat wrote. If the Justice Department starts arresting licensed marijuana sellers, the multibillion-dollar industry would join forces with the states that issue permits to challenge the action in court, said Amy Margolis, an attorney whose law firm has more than 200 clients in the marijuana industry, including businesses in California. “This industry is so mature and it’s so far along that I have no doubt that if the Department of Justice started true enforcement actions against cannabis businesses, that they would go to court,” Margolis said. “I see joint actions between the states and the industry hoping to prevent those type of actions.” Margolis would argue that it is a states’ rights issue. “The argument would be that this is a situation where the states have the right to regulate and tax an industry the way they want,” she said, adding that states are gaining tax revenue to pay for government programs. Although federal law does not outline a medicinal use for marijuana, Trump administration officials have made public statements indicating they recognize that such a benefit exists, which could help the industry in a potential court case, Margolis said. However, the states may find their hands tied legally if they try to keep federal agents from raiding and shutting down marijuana growing and sales operations, according to Adam Winkler, a professor at UCLA School of Law. “I imagine that California will mount a legal challenge to any crackdown on recreational marijuana,” Winkler said. “Yet there is not much California can do. Federal law is supreme over conflicting state law. Federal agents are entitled to enforce federal law anywhere in the country, including California.” He said there are limits to federal power, but the courts have held that the federal government does have the authority to enforce federal drug laws. Aaron Herzberg, an attorney for the industry, agreed that the state would face a tough fight. He cited the 2005 case Gonzales vs. Raich, in which the U.S. Supreme Court found that under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown marijuana even if states approve its use for medical purposes. “Let's face it: If the federal government wants to shut down recreational marijuana they could quite easily accomplish it using federal law enforcement and taxation tools,” Herzberg said. Others say one basis for legal action would be an argument that enforcing laws against marijuana would damage states that have put regulations in place and are depending on hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes to pay for government programs. States are too far down the path of regulating, licensing and taxing those who are making big investments in the sanctioned marijuana industry to pull the rug out now, said Richard Miadich, an attorney who co-wrote Proposition 64. “Given the strict regulatory structure set forth in Proposition 64, that medical and adult-use regulations are being developed in concert, and that public opinion is squarely on the side of states’ rights on this issue, I think it is impractical for the federal government to reverse course now,” he said. “Not to mention the potential for great harm to individual states.” Supporters of Proposition 64 say there is also a potential political solution. In recent years, Rohrabacher and Rep. Sam Farr (D-Carmel) won congressional approval of a rider to the federal budget that prohibited federal funds from being used to prosecute medical marijuana businesses that are in compliance with state laws. Rohrabacher plans to introduce legislation that would expand the protection to businesses that comply with state laws allowing the growing and sale of marijuana for recreational use, according to spokesman Ken Grubbs. The congressman is planning the legislation “because recreational use is an issue of individual freedom and should be dealt with legally according to the principle of federalism, a bedrock conservative belief,” Grubbs said. Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) is also “reviewing options to counteract whatever the Trump Administration’s plans” are for state marijuana laws, said Lieu senior advisor Jack d’Annibale. Another option, though a long shot, would be for Congress to attempt to change the federal Controlled Substances Act to decriminalize the use of marijuana nationally. Herzberg said reinstituting federal raids would be “a major setback for the industry.” But the state could still go ahead with a licensing system for medical marijuana growing and sales in spite of a federal crackdown on recreational use, according to Hezekiah Allen, head of the California Growers Assn. “A vast majority of California growers and cannabis business owners would choose to participate only in the medical marketplace if given the option, and some would choose to avoid licensure entirely if they were unable to distinguish themselves from adult-use businesses,” Allen said. Because Spicer did not provide details on what an enforcement effort might look like, many in the industry hope it will focus on the illegal exporting of marijuana to other states, leaving alone state-licensed firms that grow and sell pot. “The biggest crackdown we may see is on the increase of cannabis being illegally exported out of recreational states,” said Nate Bradley, executive director of the California Cannabis Industry Assn. State Sen. Mike McGuire (D-San Rafael) said any change in federal enforcement policy on states that have legalized recreational use would be misguided. “You can’t put the genie back into the bottle — marijuana regulation and enforcement can’t and shouldn’t go backwards,” he said. patrick.mcgreevy@latimes.com Twitter: @mcgreevy99 Read more here. Lieutenant Governor of California Gavin Newsom sent a letter to President Trump Friday expressing his support for the marijuana industry. The letter comes after an announcement made by Press Secretary Sean Spicer Thursday, stating that the Trump Administration viewed recreational marijuana use as a flagrant violation of federal law, and hinting at increased enforcement.
Marijuana legalization in California passed under Prop. 64 last November, garnering 57 percent of the vote—equating to nearly eight million people. But this latest move by the federal government could throw a wrench in plans to expand the lucrative marijuana growing industry. “When you see something like the opioid addiction crisis blossoming around so many states the last thing we should be doing is encouraging people,” Spicer stated. “There is still a federal law we need to abide by in terms of when it comes to recreational marijuana and other drugs of that nature.” Newsom slammed a crackdown on marijuana use, citing the “draconian” policies that have encouraged illegal underground sales of drugs and have been largely ineffective in keeping marijuana out of kids’ hands. “A 2014 National Institute on Drug Abuse study showed that, despite cannabis’ classification by the federal government as a Schedule 1 illegal substance, 34 percent of 10th graders had used cannabis – making the substance more prevalent among this age group than the highly regulated and legal tobacco industry,” Newsom stated. But Newsom says he does believe there are solutions to be found through legalization and the accompanying enforcement. “I urge you and your administration to work in partnership with California and the other eight states that have legalized recreational marijuana for adult use in a way that will let us enforce our state laws that protects the public and our children while targeting the bad actors. We have a shared goal of reducing crime, and the best way we can achieve that is through a tightly regulated market.” The letter concluded with a zinger aimed directly at Spicer. “With regard to your Press Secretary’s grossly misinformed comments, marijuana is nothing like an opioid and there is no scientific evidence that marijuana use increases the use of opioids,” he stated. “Unlike marijuana, opioids represent an addictive and harmful substance, and I would welcome your administration’s focused efforts on tackling this particular public health crisis.” Read more here. |
AuthorSusan Soares has written for Cannabis Now Magazine, Alternet, and Sensi Magazine. Archives
June 2018
|