Trump administration spokesman Sean Spicer said yesterday that he believes "you'll see greater enforcement" of federal drug laws in states that have legalized recreational marijuana.
The remarks have harshed the mellow of an industry celebrating California's November passage of Proposition 64, which allows anyone 21 and older to legally possess up to one ounce of weed and will allow retail purchases of recreational weed starting in 2018. Marijuana entrepreneurs have been chomping at the bit at the prospect of a projected $6.6 billion in legal pot revenue in California by 2020. If you'd like to envision what federal raids on otherwise legal marijuana enterprises in Los Angeles look like, you only have to go back a few years. In 2014 the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration raided four medical dispensaries in town. And in 2011 the DEA cracked down on medical pot shops in West Hollywood, the San Fernando Valley and the Antelope Valley. One Southern California dispensary operator was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison in 2013 for selling medical weed. The Obama administration later softened enforcement, and in 2014 Obama signed into law a cessation of funding for federal crackdowns in medical marijuana states. "There were people who lost their freedom as a result of aggressive federal agents targeting key players," says Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance. "This is a good time for everybody involved to batten down the hatches and move forward carefully and strategically." Spicer differentiated medical and recreational cannabis, saying that his boss "understands the pain and suffering that many people go through who are facing especially terminal diseases, and the comfort that some of these drugs, including medical marijuana, can bring to them." He also acknowledged that Congress has blocked Justice Department funding for crack downs on state-recognized medical marijuana concerns. Read more here.
0 Comments
By Dave Boyer - The Washington Times - Updated: 3:58 p.m. on Thursday, February 23, 2017In a departure from the Obama administration’s policies, the White House said Thursday that the Trump administration is likely to crack down on recreational marijuana use.
“I do think you’ll see greater enforcement,” said White House press secretary Sean Spicer. “The Department of Justice, I think, will be further looking into [the issue]. I believe they are going to continue to enforce the laws on the books with respect to recreational marijuana.” He drew a distinction between marijuana use for medical purposes, and compared recreational marijuana loosely with the opioid epidemic. Advocates of recreational marijuana reacted quickly to his comments. “If the administration is looking for ways to become less popular, cracking down on voter-approved marijuana laws would be a great way to do it,” said Tom Angell, chairman of Marijuana Majority. “On the campaign trail, President Trump clearly and repeatedly pledged that he would leave decisions on cannabis policy to the states. With a clear and growing majority of the country now supporting legalization, reneging on his promises would be a political disaster and huge distraction from the rest of the president’s agenda.” Read more here. If the Trump administration decides to crack down on state marijuana programs, a group of legislators wants to make it illegal for California authorities to help them.
A bill introduced Friday in the state Assembly would prevent state and local agencies from using their resources to help federal authorities go after marijuana consumers or businesses who are following California law unless the feds have a court order signed by a judge. The bill is the latest in a string of efforts by Democratic leaders in California to prevent President Donald Trump’s administration from reversing state policies aimed at protecting immigrants, the environment and affordable healthcare. This time, the goal is to protect the state’s 20-year-old medical marijuana program and its three-month-old law on recreational marijuana. “I think this is a definitely one of these laws which is being passed to make a statement,” said Aaron Herzberg, an attorney and cannabis real estate developer based in Costa Mesa. “Whether or not it changes the reality is up for debate.” California was the first state to decriminalize medical marijuana in 1996, with 27 other states following suit. And in November, with Proposition 64, California joined seven other states that have now legalized recreational cannabis. Still, marijuana remains illegal under federal law, classified as a Schedule I narcotic – a category reserved for drugs such as heroin that are said to be highly addictive and have no medical value. The Obama administration largely let states carry out their own legalization schemes so long as they enforced regulations aimed at preventing sales to minors, money laundering and other criminal offenses. But its unclear what might happen under the Trump administration, which includes staunch marijuana opponent Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. In response to that uncertainty, Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer, D-Los Angeles – who was an outspoken supporter of Proposition 64 – authored this new bill with support from Assemblymen Rob Bonta, D-Oakland; Jim Wood, D-Healdsburg; and David Chiu, D-San Francisco; plus Senators Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, and Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley. Assembly Bill 1578 says law enforcement officers and anyone involved with licensing marijuana businesses could not use staff, money, property or equipment to help federal authorities “investigate, detain, detect, report or arrest” anyone who’s acting in accordance with California’s medical and recreational marijuana laws. State authorities also couldn’t hand anyone over to federal agents for marijuana enforcement under AB 1578. Read more here. Alleging that the San Diego district attorney's office missed a deadline to file a formal forfeiture petition, the attorney for a marijuana entrepreneur whose business assets, along with $100,000 of his family's money, were seized in a civil asset forfeiture case plans to file a motion today initiating the process to demand that the family's money be returned.
On January 28, 2016, a joint drug task force raided Med-West, a medical marijuana CO2 oil manufacturer founded by James Slatic. The police seized the company's equipment, products, and more than $300,000 in cash found at the warehouse after an anonymous source said the company was using illegal solvents to extract THC from marijuana, according to the search warrant. On February 2, 2016, police, with another search warrant signed by a judge, froze the personal bank accounts belonging to Slatic, his wife, and two stepdaughters. Slatic has not been charged with a crime, but his company's money and his family's money have been seized because the state alleges the funds are proceeds of an "illegal marijuana extraction" business. In California Superior Court on November 15, 2016, deputy district attorney Jorge Del Portillo told judge Jay Bloom that the state had until February 2017 to file a petition of forfeiture against the money in bank accounts belonging to James Slatic and his family because the one-year statute of limitations on filing that petition began running when the family's funds were frozen by a February 2, 2016, search warrant. But this week, a spokesperson for the San Diego district attorney's office said Del Portillo was mistaken about the statute of limitations deadline and the actual deadline is in June. Tanya Sierra, the spokesperson, says the yearlong statue of limitations started on June 7, 2016, because that is the day Judge Bloom signed the seizure orders to transfer the money from the Slatics' frozen bank accounts to the DA--months after judge Frederick Maguire signed the search warrants to freeze the family's bank accounts on February 2, 2016. Wesley Hottot, an attorney at the Institute for Justice who is representing the Slatic family's money, says according to California Health and Safety Code 11488.4, which the DA's office used to seize the Slatic family's assets, the statute of limitations for the government to bring a forfeiture action against a person's property is within one year of seizure, or within one year of some "other process against the property, whichever is earlier." "The freezing orders, which they obtained from a judge in February 2016, were considered 'other process' against the property," says Hottot. "Rather than acknowledging this and returning the money, the DA's office is forcing us to litigate for the money's return." Read more here. California lawmaker raises possibility of delaying licensing of recreational marijuana sales2/18/2017 Amid concerns that California may not be ready to issue licenses for the sale of marijuana by next year, one state lawmaker raised the possibility Thursday of the Legislature stepping in to delay taxes and permits.
At a hearing Thursday, the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee heard testimony from Legislative Analyst's Office representatives who said it is unclear whether the Trump administration will enforce federal laws that designate pot as an illegal drug, complicating California's rollout of Proposition 64, which legalized the sale of marijuana for recreational use. State Sen. Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles), chairwoman of the committee, said she was concerned about banks being unwilling to handle marijuana sales revenue because the drug is still illegal under federal law, which could require license holders to transport large amounts of cash to pay state taxes and fees. “Does the Legislature have the authority to delay implementation of either the tax collection or the Jan. 1 due date with regard to licensing?” Mitchell asked attorneys at the hearing. “Do we have the authority to pause this process given its complexity, given the lack of clear sense of direction from the federal government at this point?” Proposition 64 sets an excise tax at 15% for the sale of marijuana, but the state can delay collection of the tax while it puts in place a secure system for handling large amounts of revenue, according to Richard Miadich, an attorney who helped write the initiative. The initiative requires the state to issue licenses for the sale of marijuana for recreational use by Jan. 1, 2018. But the state could decide to issue provisional licenses until it is ready to implement the detailed process for background checks and issuing more permanent licenses, Miadich said. Read more here. In any business, the owner can trademark the name, logo and even images associated with their business with the United States government.
Every business, that is, expect the marijuana business.vThe federal government grants trademarks for businesses but the federal government still classifies marijuana as an illegal drug. That makes getting a trademark at the national level impossible. However, lawmakers in California, which has been among those leading the way in the new era of legalized marijuana, have proposed a solution for businesses in the Golden State. California Trademark ProposalBusinesses need trademarks to protect intellectual property, keeping other businesses from stealing names and logos associated with their product and using it on products of their own. The lack of trademark protection in the marijuana industry already has led a German pipe maker to sue companies in the United States for appropriating their name and placing it on other products. Under current law, a secretary of state can provide trademark protection for businesses at the state level, but only if they already have a federal trademark. “Not being able to trademark your brand is a huge setback if you’re trying to get capital investment,” Nate Bradley, a lobbyist for marijuana sellers, told non-profit journalism site Calmatters.com. “If you’re not able to protect what you’re asking people to invest in, you’re not likely to get investments.” California lawmakers have introduced a bill that would provide that protection. Assembly Bill 64 expands provisions of the Model State Trademark law allow the state to grant trademarks to business that deal in “medical cannabis and nonmedical cannabis goods and services.” Assemblyman Rob Bonta, a Democrat representing the Oakland area, is lead author on the bill. Both Colorado and Washington have passed similar laws to offer marijuana businesses in those states trademark protection. Read more here. Los Angeles County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl thinks that marijuana should be treated like alcohol. That's an important thing to know, because she's the one leading the charge on how L.A. County is going to regulate cannabis.
Even though pot's legal in California, the state, cities and counties are still deciding how they should treat the drug. L.A. County is in a unique position, given that it's the most populous county in the United States. That makes it the largest county with legal weed. Just last week, Kuehl kicked off the county's move towards regulating cannabis in the unincorporated areas — a broad swath of land that stretches from Altadena to Ladera Heights, East L.A. to Topanga Canyon. When you've got that large of an area to cover and that many different communities to consider, how do you decide which rules are right for a previously unregulated industry? Below is a conversation that I had with Kuehl about how her own substance abuse issues inform her view of the drug, as well as what she hopes the Board of Supervisors will be able to do for people living here. HAVE YOU SMOKED MARIJUANA BEFORE? Oh, I think I did in my twenties. You know, that's 50 years ago now, so it's hard to remember whether I think I did or I [actually] did. But I don't want to deny it. I'm sure a lot of people did it and I probably did too. WHEN IT COMES TO CREATING REGULATIONS THAT WORK FOR L.A. COUNTY, HOW DO YOUR PAST EXPERIENCES WITH THE DRUG AND BEING AROUND PEOPLE USING THE DRUG, MEDICALLY AND RECREATIONALLY, INFORM YOUR DECISIONS? It has a very big influence on me, but so does my youthful drinking and being in recovery. I mean, not a big fan of alcohol either, I have to say. And I don’t drink, and don’t do any of these drugs. Those are my choices, because I came to understand the impact on me, and millions of other people have as well. I think the biggest question for governments now is how to shift from kind of an underground illegal economy, which is thriving, to fulfill what the people have in mind by voting for legalization, which is to treat this more like alcohol was treated after the 21st Amendment, when Prohibition was repealed. So, it shifts from 'this is an illegal drug' to 'this is a kind of substance that affects your vision and your judgement while you're under the influence and needs to be regulated.' Making sure that when we do regulations, we worry about strength and potency, the way we do with alcohol. I think that’s an important role of government, not to over-terrorize people, but to say, 'look, you need to understand.' And we’re going to regulate strength, we’re going to regulate distribution, we’re going to try to make sure all of these businesses are licensed, so at least there’s some quality control. And that’s a big lift for the county, because we have to create a whole new process for this, and that’s what I hope to do. Read more here. A state Senate panel recommended confirmation of Lori Ajax as California’s chief of marijuana regulation on Wednesday after she promised equal opportunity in making licenses available.
The move came after Alice Huffman, president of the California NAACP, initially opposed the appointment of Ajax based on concerns that the strict rules she is developing might disproportionately exclude people of color from getting licenses to legally grow and sell pot. But Huffman said she and Ajax met and agreed to work together to address the concerns. “We can make sure people of color and low-income people are included as the law requires,” Huffman told the Senate Rules Committee. Ajax was appointed chief of the Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation by Gov. Jerry Brown. The bureau is developing regulations for the sale of marijuana for recreational use, as allowed by the voter-approved Proposition 64. It will also license medical marijuana firms starting Jan. 1, 2018. Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), the committee’s chairman, supported Ajax after she agreed to his request that she “even the playing field for access.” De León noted that African Americans have been disproportionately arrested on marijuana charges, which could disqualify them at a greater rate than other ethnic groups from getting licenses to legally grow, transport or sell pot. “We don’t want to exclude anybody,” Ajax told the panel. She said her office is developing regulations that would allow people with drug convictions to go through a rehabilitation process that allows them to apply for licenses. Read more here. Jeff Sessions is once again in the spotlight after it was revealed he sat on the same Trump campaign national security council as Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser who was forced to resign after admitting he called the Russian ambassador to reassure them that sanctions would be overturned.
The Attorney General, who was sworn in last week despite opposition from Democrats and civil rights activists, is now being asked to recuse himself from his role at the nation’s highest office after speculation is swirling that he may also have been involved in the Russia-related scandal. That is despite revelations that Mr Sessions would lead the investigation against Mr Flynn. The Trump campaign said in a statement on 7 October 2016 last year that his national security council included Mr Flynn, Mr Sessions, Republican Senator Tom Cotton and former Fox News anchor KT McFarland. After earlier incorrect reports that she had also quit, Ms McFarland said she would remain in her role as the deputy national security adviser after Mr Flynn resigned. Mr Sessions was reportedly a key architect of Mr Trump’s Muslim ban, which barred nearly all travellers from seven Muslim-majority countries for at least 90 days and indefinitely suspended Syrian refugees. The executive order was signed on 27 January, before Mr Sessions was sworn in to office. He has long been a supporter of the President, and acted as an adviser. During his senate confirmation hearing, he said he would recuse himself from any investigation into Hillary Clinton and her alleged misuse of her personal email server when she was secretary of state as he had spoken against her during the campaign. Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer said that there needs to be "an independent and transparent investigation into General Flynn’s action and the Trump’s administration’s knowledge of them". "Gen Flynn’s resignation is not the end of the story, it is merely the beginning and the American people deserve to know the truth," he said. Read more here. By Chris Roberts January16, 2017 Enumerating the vulnerable Americans threatened by Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III is like running the guest list for formal dinners aboard Noah’s Ark—almost everybody’s invited. Based on the attorney general nominee’s record, racial minorities, women seeking an abortion, survivors of sexual assault and many others all have something to fear from the U.S. Justice Department. Aware of this, even if protesters in Klan hoods hadn’t crashed his confirmation hearings, the Alabama senator put on a smooth conciliatory show, assuring his detractors, one-by-one, that he would respect peoples’ rights and not use the Justice Department to carry out Donald Trump’s personal Twitter vendettas. It all sounded nice—so nice that the Washington Post wondered aloud if it was all a calculated act. Marijuana falls below voting, racial and reproductive rights as a priority for most Americans. But it may yet become a new focus for a Sessions Justice Department—we just have absolutely no idea, and Sessions deftly and slyly avoided providing one. On weed, Sessions managed a particularly slick two-step. Answering questions from Sen. Patrick Leahy, Sessions stated the obvious: marijuana remains illegal thanks to an act of Congress, and as attorney general, it’s his job to enforce the laws of the land. If Americans don’t like the laws, he added, they should convince their representatives in Congress to do something about it. “The U.S. Congress made the possession of marijuana in every state—and the distribution—an illegal act,” Sessions said last week. “If that’s something that’s not desired any longer, Congress should pass a law to change the rule.” Reaction from marijuana advocates was mixed, as is often the case when someone is asked to react to nothing and guess blindly at what that nothing means. Some were thrilled that Sessions didn’t use his confirmation hearing to declare all-out war on marijuana and put an end to the widening experiment of states allowing adults to use cannabis legally. Others noted that he didn’t say much of anything at all. That’s not entirely true, but it highlights the problem. What Sessions did say was deliberately disingenuous. Americans absolutely want Congress to change the country’s outdated, punitive and politically motivated marijuana laws. They are on record saying this, clearly and without question, in every major poll and at the ballot box. In November, red state and blue state alike voted to relax marijuana prohibition or end it outright. States that helped elect Donald Trump, the man who picked Sessions to give the DEA its marching orders, also voted to allow their citizens easier access to cannabis. So, about Congress. Read more here. |
AuthorSusan Soares has written for Cannabis Now Magazine, Alternet, and Sensi Magazine. Archives
June 2018
|