Archive for category: Recreational Cannabis

You are here: Home / Blog / Recreational Cannabis

SCIENCE & HEALTHImpact Of Marijuana Legalization On Crime Reduction Is Being Underestimated, New Study Finds

/in , , , /by

Studies have repeatedly identified an association between the legalizing marijuana and reductions in crime—but the impact of the policy change is being significantly understated because of limitations in the research methodology, a new paper co-authored by a federal official asserts.

Most studies looking at crime and cannabis rely on FBI data sourced from local police departments across the country. But reporting that data to the federal agency is entirely voluntary, leaving knowledge gaps that have underplayed the extent to which legalizing medical cannabis reduces violent and property crime.

That’s according to researchers from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Economic Research Service and Appalachian State University, who published a working paper with their findings this month.

“U.S. drug policy presumes prohibition reduces crime. Recently states have enacted medical marijuana laws creating a natural experiment to test this hypothesis but is impeded by severe measurement error with available data,” the abstract states.

To account for those shortcomings, the researchers developed “a novel imputation procedure to reduce measurement error bias and estimate significant reductions in violent and property crime rates, with heterogeneous effects across and within states and types of crime, contradicting drug prohibition policy.”

“We demonstrate uncorrected measurement error or assuming homogeneous policy effects leads to underestimation of crime reduction from ending marijuana prohibition,” the authors said in the paper, which is titled, “Smoke and Fears: The Effects of Marijuana Prohibition on Crime.”

To improve upon existing research, the study authors said they used a “multiple imputation procedure for agency-level crime data to fill in the gaps in the [Uniform Crime Reporting] data that accounts for the inherent uncertainty in these imputed values in the subsequent statistical analysis.”

“Our results indicate that [medical marijuana laws] result in significant reductions in both violent and property crime rates, with larger effects in Mexican border states,” they wrote. “While these results for violent crime rates are consistent with previously reported evidence, we are the first paper to report such an effect on property crime as well. Moreover, the estimated effects of MMLs on property crime rates are substantially larger, which is not surprising given property crimes are more prevalent.”

While the study specifies that the USDA’s official’s involvement in the study “should not be construed to represent” the government’s position on the issue, it’s notable that an agency representative even participated and effectively reached the conclusion that the theory that criminalizing drugs—as the federal government has done for decades—reduces crime seems to be unfounded.

Other data has similarly challenged the notion that prohibition reduces crime.

In 2020, researchers looked at how adult-use marijuana legalization in Washington and Colorado affected crime rates in neighboring states, and the resulting study determined that passage of recreational cannabis laws may have actually reduced certain major crimes in nearby jurisdictions.

The previous year, a federally funded study found that legalizing marijuana has little to no impact on rates of violent or property crime. The policy change did seem connected to a long-term decline in burglaries in one state, however.

A 2018 study from the think tank RAND said county-level data from California suggested that there was “no relationship between county laws that legally permit dispensaries and reported violent crime,” the researchers wrote. What’s more, there was a “negative and significant relationship between dispensary allowances and property crime rates,” though it’s possible that’s the product of “pre-existing trends.”

That same year, researchers at Victoria University of Wellington and Harvard University found that medical marijuana laws essentially have a null effect of crime rates, with one big exception: A nearly 20 percent reduction in violent and property crimes in California following the legalization of medical cannabis there.

DEA marijuana seizures have significantly declined as more states have moved to legalize cannabis, a new study led by a top marijuana investigator for the federal government found. And at the same time, marijuana arrests are also dropping across the country, and they dipped significantly in 2020, recent FBI data shows.

Federal marijuana trafficking cases also continued to decline in 2020 as more states have moved to legalize, an analysis from the U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC) that was released in June found.

Federal prosecutions of drug-related crimes overall increased in 2019, but cases involving marijuana dropped by more than a quarter, according to a report released by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts that year.

A study released by the Cato Institute in 2018 found that “state-level marijuana legalization has significantly undercut marijuana smuggling.”

 

Published 1 day ago on October 15, 2021

By

Newsom vetoes bill that would have allowed cannabis advertising on freeway billboards

/in , , , /by
SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed legislation Friday that would have allowed cannabis products to be advertised on freeway billboards in most of California, a bill that sought to negate a court order in November that had banned the signs.

The bill would have permitted marijuana ads on billboards along interstate freeways and state highways that cross state borders, except within 15 miles of another state.

“When the voters passed Proposition 64, they enacted robust protections shielding youth from exposure to cannabis and cannabis advertising,” Newsom said in a veto message. “Among other things, voters completely prohibited billboard-based cannabis advertising on all Interstate Highways, and on all State Highways that cross the California border. Allowing advertising on these high-traffic thoroughfares could expose young passengers to cannabis advertising.”

Assemblyman Bill Quirk (D-Union City) said his bill was necessary to help the state’s legal cannabis industry, which has struggled in the face of high taxes and bans on cannabis shops by most cities.

“We have not done enough to help the legal cannabis industry thrive,” Quirk said. “The legal cannabis industry has a very limited and narrow set of marketing avenues available to them. Removing their ability to promote their legitimate business along hundreds of miles of roadway does nothing but help the illicit market.”

A judge ruled in November that California officials exceeded their authority when they allowed commercial cannabis businesses to advertise on billboards along the state’s interstate freeways in violation of Proposition 64, the legalization initiative approved by California voters in 2016.

State officials interpreted Proposition 64’s provision barring ads on interstate highways as meaning they could ban billboards within 15 miles radius of the state border but allow them elsewhere.

The state Bureau of Cannabis Control determined that allowing billboards, except within 15 miles of a border, “satisfied the intent of Proposition 64” and also “provided assurance that licensees, including those located in jurisdictions along the California border, would still have an opportunity to advertise and market their commercial cannabis operations within the radius limitations.”

However, San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Judge Ginger E. Garrett ruled that Proposition 64, because it was approved by voters, could not be amended by the state bureau through a regulation.

The ruling forced the state to direct cannabis firms to remove their ads from billboards in areas that included 4,315 miles of interstate highways, including the 5 and the 80, and state highways that cross state borders.

Attorney Saro Rizzo filed the lawsuit on behalf of a San Luis Obispo father of two who thought Proposition 64 would prohibit freeway ads that could be seen by his teenagers. Rizzo said the bill was improper because the state Constitution requires changes to initiatives to be put to a vote of the people unless the ballot measure provides for legislative amendment, which Proposition 64 did not.

 

“It unconstitutionally seeks to amend Proposition 64 in a manner contrary to the purposes and intent of the act because it eviscerates Prop. 64’s mandate of a blanket ban on those highways,” Rizzo said of the legislation.

Rizzo noted that Newsom was instrumental in putting Proposition 64 on the ballot and was the highest-level politician who supported the initiative.

“Needless to say, he was, and is, well aware of Prop. 64’s ban on marijuana billboard ads,” Rizzo said.

The lawyer citied a ballot argument submitted by proponents of the initiative that, appearing in the official voter guide, said Proposition 64 “contains the nation’s strictest child protections: warning labels, child-resistant packaging, and advertising restrictions, and it requires keeping marijuana out of public view, away from children.”

Rizzo had called on the governor to veto the new legislation “in order to remain true to your own words and to uphold the will of the voters,” and to “prioritize children’s health and safety over corporate cannabis profits.”

BY PATRICK MCGREEVY

Cannabis enters the California State Fair competition

/in , , , /by

Next to wine, cheese, olive oils and craft beer, marijuana cultivation will be judged for the first time at one of the world’s largest state fairs.

 

CALIFORNIA, USA — The best of California’s commodities are showcased at county and state fairs. Now for the first time ever, cannabis is entering the competition at the California State Fair.

“We are going to be educating what that means and really having campaigns around education and teaching people about what the cannabis plant is,” said Brian Applegarth, CEO of Cultivar Brands.

The California State Fair will return in July 2022 which will be a historic year for the first-ever state-sanctioned cannabis competition and awards.

Just like the top wine, cheese, olive oils, and craft beers made in the Golden State, 7,000 of the state’s licensed cannabis cultivators could earn 77 awards and seven of the coveted Golden Bear trophies.

“We also want to say to the industry, ‘you deserve recognition.’ If you are producing the best cannabis in the state of California you deserve an award just like the best winemaker in California,” said Jess Durfee, California State Fair Board Chairman.

He said judges will not be smoking cannabis on or off-site.

“We are being respectful of some of the concerns people may have. For example, there will be no consumption of cannabis authorized during the state fair or at the state fairgrounds,” said Durfee.

Judging is done a few months prior and consuming is not part of the panel.

The state is partnering with Cultivar Brands for the awards and there are three divisions: Indoor, mixed light and outdoor which will be based on cannabinoids and terpenes and submitted to the well-known cannabis testing company SC Labs.

“This is all about science and really getting lab test results and seeing what compounds are within the cannabis plant,” said Applegrath.

In 2016, California voters approved pot for recreational use and two years later commercial cannabis became legal.

Joel Weisberger owns White Mountain Farms cannabis in Oceanside, he’s also the chairman of the San Diego County Farm Bureau Cannabis Working Group.

“People have been having fun with it for years by hiding it in the shadows. It’s time to bring it out and share with everyone,” said Weisberger.

Supporters of the cannabis awards say they hope this will normalize and destigmatize California’s multimillion-dollar cannabis industry.

“We have an obligation to educate Californians about the cannabis industry,” said Durfee. “Over time I think that we are going to find cannabis is one of the most valued commodities coming out to agriculture.”

The San Diego County Fair released the following statement:

“Our San Diego County Fair exhibits and competitions are reflective of the agriculture, arts and business in the local communities we represent. California State Fair’s competition is intriguing and we’ll be interested to learn more about it, but as of yet we haven’t considered holding cannabis competitions at our Fair.”

Cannabis entries will be accepted between November 1, 2021, to March 30, 2022, and winners will be announced ahead of the fair in May 2022.

 

 

Author: Abbie Alford
Published: 10:32 PM PDT September 27, 2021

California Governor Signs Bill To Allow Medical Marijuana Use In Hospitals For Severely Ill Patients

/in , , , /by

The governor of California on Tuesday signed a bill to require hospitals to permit medical marijuana use by certain patients.

Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) approved the legislation, signaling that his prior concerns about an earlier version that he reluctantly vetoed in 2019 have since been resolved.

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Ben Hueso (D), has been pushing for his measure to allow cannabis use in medical facilities for terminally ill patients over multiple sessions. He recently sent a letter to the head of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) seeking clarification on whether the policy change could jeopardize federal funding for those facilities.

“It is inconceivable to me that, in a state where medical cannabis was legalized more than 25 years ago, those in deepest suffering receiving treatment in our state’s healthcare facilities cannot access this proven, effective and prescribed treatment,” Hueso said in a press release.

“Instead, terminally-ill patients in California healthcare facilities are given heavy opiates that rob them of their precious last moments with family and friends,” he said. “This is a simple, yet critical, move that will provide relief, compassion and dignity to terminally-ill Californians.”

Hueso received a letter from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) several months ago stating that there are no federal regulations in place that specifically address this issue and that the agency isn’t aware of any cases where funding has been pulled because a hospital allows patients to use medical cannabis.

“With this confirmation from CMS and the safeguards in the law, we are confident that healthcare facilities have the necessary authority to implement these provisions while ensuring the safety of other patients, guests, and employees of the healthcare facility, compliance with other state laws, and the safe operations of the healthcare facility,” the senator said.

There are some restrictions embedded in the new law. For example, patients receiving treatment for emergency care wouldn’t be covered, and smoking and vaping marijuana would be prohibited. It also stipulates that hospitals aren’t required to provide or dispense cannabis.

Newsom didn’t release a statement about the hospitals bill, which his office announcedhe signed along with more than two dozen other pieces of unrelated legislation.

The legislation was partly inspired by the experience of a father whose son died from cancer and was initially denied access to cannabis at a California hospital. Jim Bartell did eventually find a facility that agreed to allow the treatment, and he has said his son’s quality of life improved dramatically in those last days.

 

“In the invaluable last days as Ryan fought stage 4 pancreatic cancer, I first-handedly experienced the positive impact medical cannabis had on my son’s well-being, as opposed to the harsh effects of opiates,” Bartell said. “Medical cannabis is an excellent option for relieving pain and suffering in those who are terminally-ill, but most importantly it serves to provide compassion, support, and dignity to patients and their families, during their loved-ones’ final days.”

“Looking at each other, holding Ryan’s hand and telling him how much I loved him during his final moments would not have been possible without the medical cannabis,” he said.

Also pending on Newsom’s desk is a bill to set up a regulatory framework for hemp-derived CBD sales that also removes the ban on smokable hemp products.

Separately, a California bill that passed the Senate and several Assembly committees to legalize possession of a wide range of psychedelics such as psilocybin and ayahuasca has stalled following a decision by the sponsor that more time is needed to build the case for the reform and solidify its chances of being enacted.

Meanwhile, California activists have also recently been cleared to begin collecting signatures for a 2022 ballot initiative to legalize psilocybin mushrooms in the state.

Published 4 days ago on September 29, 2021

By

Drought, wildfires create new challenges for California cannabis growers

/in , , , /by

“It’s going to be tight. We’re going to be draining everything by the time this is over,” a cannabis cultivator who doubles as the fire chief said of his receding pond

 

HUMBOLDT COUNTY, Calif. — Driving through a dense canopy of towering redwood and old growth fir trees in southern Humboldt County, Ryan Hale’s rental car bucked and bounced as he laid out the rules of the day.

The first point of contact, a veteran cannabis grower who asked not to be identified, would lead the way to a secluded compound deep within the Emerald Triangle, a widely known cannabis-growing region comprising Humboldt, Mendocino and Trinity counties in northwest California.

It is the first time reporters have been allowed to tour this small corner of the Emerald Triangle, Hale said, and discretion is paramount.

“We’ve basically built our own version of Fort Knox,” he said.

Hale, partner and chief sales officer of Operational Security Solutions, a cannabis security and compliance company, has deep ties to many of the legal cultivators operating in the Emerald Triangle. His team of former military, law enforcement and federal service personnel work closely with the growers, ensuring that they meet state regulations and helping them secure cash and crops.

As drought and climate change batter the West, many outdoor growers face a new obstacle. Wildfires not only destroy crops, but they also contaminate plants if they are soaked in fire retardant or tainted by excessive smoke. Sometimes the latter is jokingly called “campfire kush.”

“The impact wildfires can have expands beyond just the plant,” said Luis Merchan, CEO of the cannabis company Flora Growth. “The growers are at risk, and we’ve seen it over a number of years.”

Last year, during California’s historic fire season, which burned 4.2 million acres across the state, Hale found himself in high demand. While some cannabis businesses were prepared with contingency plans in the event of an emergency, many were not.

“It was absolutely chaotic,” he said. “There would be brief periods of time where we would have anywhere from 15 to 25 requests for immediate solutions because of fire threat. We weren’t sure what each day was going to bring.”

Some clients called Hale as firefighters pounded on their doors instructing them to evacuate. They needed help getting money safely off their premises before wildfires or would-be thieves descended. Dozens of armored security vehicles dashed across California to pack up bundles of cash, but it could take several hours for security teams to reach remote locations like Humboldt, Hale said.

While Sacramento is the capital of the state, the Emerald Triangle is the capital of cannabis in California, if not the whole country. It started as a haven in the late 1960s for hippies and people drawn to the back-to-the-land movement, which espoused a return to nature and sustainable homesteading.

Since then, the Emerald Triangle has blossomed into a mecca for both legal and illegal cannabis.

Humboldt County began licensing once-clandestine operations in 2016 under the state’s medical marijuana program, and it expanded cultivation licenses in 2018, when recreational cannabis became legal in California. Of the 7,951 cultivation license holders in the state, nearly 3,000 are in the Emerald Triangle, and 1,702 of those are in Humboldt County, according to the state Department of Cannabis Control.

Drawn to the promise of cashing in on the new green rush, growers from all over — including Mexico, Bulgaria and Laos — flocked to the region, gobbling up land and diverting water for their crops.

But the Emerald Triangle is also home to generations of local growers. Some of the younger ones were born into the trade while their elders made the transition from black market operators to fully licensed cultivators. Among them is a farmer and fire chief named Manning, who is being identified by only his middle name to protect his identity.

Tired of waiting for outside fire agencies — some of which must use helicopters to reach the area — to respond to wildfires in remote terrain, Manning is working to create the area’s first fire district as drought and wildfires threaten the historically verdant region. He must coordinate with the county to establish the department’s mission and draw boundary lines and then secure enough local support to get the issue on a ballot.

“The goal is to get to the fire really quickly because we live here,” he said.

In Humboldt County, where growers and other residents prefer to keep to themselves, the threat of wildfire is ever-present and costly. Some cannabis cultivators have resorted to building their own fire rigs using trucks, hoses and water drums.

Almost all of the fire departments in the county rely on volunteer firefighters who do not receive salaries. The departments are largely self-funded through donations, fundraising and grants, and the money they raise pays for projects like maintaining firehouses and buying equipment.

“We’ve been the rebel hippie fire department forever,” Manning said of his all-volunteer crew.

He replaced an aging 1980s fire engine this summer with a new one that cost about $150,000. It was recently parked in Manning’s driveway, which doubles as a runway for his small aircraft.

By Alicia Victoria Lozano

World Anti-Doping Agency to review cannabis ban for athletes

/in , , , /by

An advisory group to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) will review whether cannabis should remain a banned substance, a move that comes after American track and field star Sha’Carri Richardson missed the Tokyo Games after testing positive for it.

The scientific review will be initiated next year, WADA said on Tuesday. Cannabis is currently prohibited in competition and will continue to be in 2022, it added.

Richardson tested positive for a chemical found in cannabis during the U.S. Olympic Track & Field trials in June, which wiped out her trial results. She was also hit with a one-month suspension.

The 21-year-old, who had been seen as a top contender in the 100 meters, has said she used cannabis to help cope with the death of her mother.

The suspension sparked an outpouring of sympathy and calls for a review of anti-doping rules, including by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency.

 

 

(Reporting by Rory Carroll in Los Angeles; editing by Richard Pullin)

Published Wednesday, September 15, 2021 7:25AM EDT

California completes marijuana regulatory agency merger; new cannabis czar takes over

/in , , , /by

California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Department of Cannabis Control aims to unclog a glut of temporary licenses and transition them to annual permits as well as ease regulatory red tape and financial burdens on businesses.

That’s according to spokespeople at the newly established agency, which launched in July and amounts to one of the state’s biggest regulatory overhauls in years.

The Department of Cannabis Control (DCC), which counts nearly 400 employees, is led by Director Nicole Elliott, a Newsom confidante for more than a decade.

It also must grapple with the world’s largest illicit market.

The DCC combines the regulatory, licensing and enforcement responsibilities of three different state agencies into one large, wide-ranging regulator.

“We heard from businesses, local governments, law enforcement and others that it was complicated to work with three different state cannabis programs,” according to Christina Dempsey, the DCC’s deputy director of external affairs.

Those three agencies were:

  • The Department of Consumer Affairs’ Bureau of Cannabis Control.
  • The Department of Food and Agriculture’s CalCannabis Cultivation Licensing Division.
  • The Department of Public Health’s Manufactured Cannabis Safety Branch.

The DCC’s creation represents California’s largest regulatory reorganization since the 2013 debut of the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency, the department under which the DCC now falls.

The agency’s goal, according to Dempsey: Boost the number of businesses participating in the legal market, ease the licensing process for applicants and keep licensed operators compliant.

“It simplifies regulatory oversight by having one entity issuing licenses, promulgating and interpreting regulations for the entire commercial cannabis supply chain, and addressing all compliance and enforcement issues,” she added.

Moving forward, the DCC will oversee all commercial cannabis license holders in California, including cultivators, retailers, manufacturers, distributors, testing labs, microbusinesses and event organizers.

The agency also will manage the state’s track-and-trace system used to monitor cannabis flower and other products, from seed to sale, within the legal supply chain.

Newsom proposed the regulatory consolidation as part of the state’s $262 billion fiscal budget, which he signed into law July 12.

The agency was formally created through Assembly Bill 141, a so-called trailer bill that also eliminates provisional licensing in 2026 and prohibits the DCC from issuing provisional licenses after Jan. 1, 2025.

The DCC’s budget for the fiscal year is $154.3 million, nearly identical to the three former cannabis programs combined.

The overhaul is the culmination of 18 months of planning, public comment and debate involving more than 10 state agencies, various stakeholders and several assembly members.

Key personnel

Elliott, who was confirmed by the state Senate, has formally advised the governor on cannabis issues since 2019. She also served as director of the Office of Cannabis in San Francisco and held several positions under Newsom while he was mayor of that city.

Other key personnel, all appointed by Newsom, include:

  • Chief Deputy Rasha Salama, who has served at the state’s Department of Public Health since 2016, including the past five years as assistant branch chief of the Manufactured Cannabis Safety Branch.
  • General Counsel Matthew Lee, who has served as deputy legal affairs secretary in the governor’s office.
  • Deputy Director of Legal Tamara Colson, who has served as assistant chief counsel of the Bureau of Cannabis Control since 2016. She’s the only Republican appointee.
  • Deputy Director of Equity and Inclusion Eugene Hillsman, who most recently served as deputy director of the Office of Cannabis for the city and county of San Francisco.

These positions are among 26 new roles at the DCC, which is comprised of 10 divisions, including lab services, enforcement and licensing.

Provisional licenses and grant program atop agenda

The department, according to Dempsey, is unifying its processes and procedures, consolidating regulations and streamlining licensing applications to create a more consistent experience for businesses.

As of Aug. 9, California cannabis operators held 8,649 active provisional licenses, which represents more than 75% of all state licenses, according to the governor’s office. By contrast, there were only 2,834 active annual licenses, Dempsey said.

Provisional license holders and industry advocates have voiced concerns that regulators and applicants will be hard-pressed to meet the looming 2026 deadline to transition provisional licenses into annual ones.

The DCC hopes a new government relief program – perhaps the first one anywhere dedicated for cannabis businesses – will alleviate those fears.

“We are preparing to roll out the Local Assistance Grant Program, which commits $100 million in funding to assist local governments and licensees with swiftly moving from provisional licensure into annual licensure,” Dempsey said.

Though none of the $100 million has yet made it to any of the recipients, Dempsey said the agency’s goal is to “begin dispersing funds by the end of the year.”

The grants, which will be dispersed to 17 cities and counties, will provide:

  • Aid for local governments in processing substantial workloads to transition businesses into the regulated market.
  • Incentives for local governments to better align permitting methods with the state to remove barriers to licensing.
  • Resources to support the completion of environmental impact assessment and mitigation.
  • Additional assistance to support eligible jurisdictions implementing social equity programs.

A push to support local municipalities to create more pathways to the regulated market is welcomed by legal operators, who take on high capital, taxes and compliance costs while the underground market thrives.

Los Angeles-based Global Go Analytics estimates California’s illicit cannabis market generates $8 billion in annual sales, nearly double that of the legal market, which the MJBizFactbook pegged at $4.4 billion last year.

“Ultimately, we want to make it easier to participate in the legal, regulated market and less desirable to operate in the illicit market,” Dempsey said.

“We hope to create more opportunities for businesses, particularly small businesses, who want to enter the cannabis market.”

 

August 17, 2021 | By Chris Casacchia

Senate moves to legalize pot at federal level. What are the chances?

/in , , , /by
WASHINGTON — The Senate is preparing to wade into a controversial conversation about federal policies on marijuana after Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer, a Democrat from New York, released draft legislation this month that would legalize weed at the federal level.

The draft bill, known as the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act, follows a similar bill that passed the Democratic-controlled House in December and comes as recent polling from the Pew Research Center shows that about 60% of Americans support legalizing marijuana for recreational and medical use.

But Senate Democrats have a lot to balance over the next several months, tasked with drafting and passing legislation on issues such as infrastructure, policing and immigration that President Biden has marked as priorities. As the draft bill jump-starts discussion on Capitol Hill, here’s a look at where marijuana legalization might go.

Weed has been fully legalized for recreational use in 18 states, starting with Colorado and Washington in 2012. A total of 37 states have approved medical marijuana. In California, cannabis has been legal for medical use since 1996 and for recreational use since late 2016.

But cannabis is still illegal under federal law, where it is classified as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act.

Possession of marijuana remains a federal offense, punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction.

Because of federal restrictions, marijuana producers and retailers face significant logistical challenges with banking, transporting goods and paying taxes, even in states where the drug is legal.

In 2019, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and California’s then-Sen. Kamala Harris, now vice president, introduced legislation in both chambers of Congress that would have decriminalized marijuana and expunged some criminal records, among other things.

The House passed the legislation in a 228-164 vote in December 2020. It was the first time legislation to remove cannabis from the Schedule I list made it to a floor vote.

The bill ultimately failed to move out of committee in the Senate.

What does the new draft legislation do?

The bill draft is partially based on last year’s failed effort. It proposes removing federal penalties for marijuana, expunging criminal records for nonviolent offenders of federal cannabis laws, earmarking funding for restorative justice programs, establishing tax rates for cannabis products and formally allowing states to decide whether to legalize pot.

John Hudak, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who researches state and federal marijuana policy, said the draft legislation gives states “quite a bit of deference.”

For marijuana producers and retailers in states where recreational use is already legalized, removing federal penalties for marijuana will solve banking, taxation and transport problems, cannabis reform advocates say.

In places where weed is still illegal, state governments can opt to keep it that way.

However, without federal prohibition, pot-unfriendly states wouldn’t be able to prevent interstate transport of marijuana. Those states would also miss out on tax revenue. Marijuana advocates predict state governments could be pushed toward legalization if the federal draft bill was to be signed into law.

“While it wouldn’t tell Nebraska you have to legalize marijuana, it would say you have to allow marijuana that’s being transported from California to Ohio to be able to pass through on your interstate highway system,” said Justin Strekal, political director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. “That is going to trigger a tectonic shift in thinking.”

 

Would the federal government stop all regulation of pot?

No, not under the current proposal.

Hudak said the draft legislation takes “a comprehensive approach” and lays out a detailed plan for oversight and regulation of recreational marijuana.

The Food and Drug Administration and the Treasury Department’s Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau would regulate the production, distribution and sale of marijuana.

In an effort to address past injustices caused by federal marijuana prohibitions, the Justice Department would establish an office to help people convicted of nonviolent marijuana-related violations transition out of incarceration.

 

What are advocates and critics saying?

Advocates of the draft legislation see it as a rare opportunity to push federal reform on marijuana.

Still, Strekal said the draft legislation continues drug testing for federal employees and, under its proposed taxation structure, would tax medical marijuana. He hopes to see those items changed in the final version.

“Fifty years from now, the implications of the initial bill passed are going to be massive,” Strekal said. “And there’s no perfect legislation, but we want to make sure it’s as close to right as possible.”

Smart Approaches to Marijuana, an organization that supports decriminalization but opposes legalization of cannabis, released a letter from its research advisory board calling for the final legislation to include limitations on potency, advertising restrictions and a ban on flavored products that could appeal to children.

Kevin Sabet, president of the organization, said he would also like to see further discussion about whether legalization might increase the number of DUIs on the road and other public health consequences.

“There’s a lot of protections for people who use marijuana and not a lot of protections for people who don’t use marijuana, which obviously is the majority of people, believe it or not,” Sabet said.

How would federal legalization affect scientific research of cannabis?

Jennifer Bailey, a principal investigator with the University of Washington’s Social Development Research Group who has studied cannabis use, said an end to federal prohibition of marijuana would be “immensely beneficial to science.”

Research on both the harm and potential benefits of cannabis has been slim because it’s difficult for scientists to gain funding and access to marijuana.

 

Does legalization lead to an increase in use among children?

Researchers believe that adolescent use of cannabis has not risen in states where marijuana has been legalized. In fact, some early studies suggested it could be decreasing.

However, Bailey does see cause for concern when it comes to young children accidentally ingesting edible marijuana products, such as cookies, brownies and candy.

She said states where marijuana is legal have seen rises in accidental ingestion of cannabis by children — even in Washington, where state law bans advertising that could appeal to children.

“I mean, who doesn’t want to eat brownies,” Bailey said. “And of course, children want to eat brownies and gummy bears and large lozenges and things that look like candy.”

 

Will it pass?

Because the bill is still just a draft, Schumer and other lawmakers could change it substantially. But in its current form, most experts believe the bill will not pass.

Hudak called the bill “a good conversation starter.” Sabet said he is “not losing a ton of sleep over this.”

But Strekal said similar comments were made about last year’s bill having “no shot,” and it surprised many by passing the House amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Schumer acknowledged at the draft bill’s unveiling that he does not yet have the votes to push it through the Senate. He would need total support from Democratic senators plus at least 10 Republican votes to overcome a filibuster.

If passed, it’s unclear whether Biden would sign the legislation into law. He has expressed support for decriminalizing marijuana, but not for full legalization. At a recent briefing, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said “nothing has changed” regarding Biden’s views on cannabis reform.

BY SASHA HUPKA

California opens new marijuana agency 5 years after legalization, aiming to simplify rules

/in , , , /by

Five years after California legalized recreational marijuana, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law aimed at simplifying how the state regulates the growing industry.

The new law creates a single Department of Cannabis Control, consolidating enforcement, licensing and environmental oversight that had fallen under three different departments.

Industry representatives praised the change, which Newsom first proposed in January 2020.

We “are excited to see the consolidation,” said Lindsay Robinson, the executive director of the California Cannabis Industry Association, representing over 400 licensed businesses across the state. “We see this as a big win for the industry.”

The Department of Cannabis Control will now take over responsibilities from the Bureau of Cannabis Control under the Department of Consumer Affairs, CalCannabis under the Department of Food and Agriculture and the Manufactured Cannabis Safety Branch under the Department of Health.

Cannabis companies had often expressed difficulty navigating three different agencies with varying protocols and processes, according to Robinson.

“I think that having all of this housed under one agency is going to help with communication, it’s going to help with transparency and hopefully with process time for applications too,” Robinson said.

The department will also manage California’s track-and-trace system, following the movement of cannabis and cannabis products through the legal supply chain.

The Newsom administration wants to make it less likely someone will choose to operate in the illicit market, Christina Dempsey, the Acting Deputy Director for the DCC, told The Sacramento Bee by email.

Robinson called the licensing of California’s cannabis industry when voters approved recreational cannabis use in 2016 a “behemoth project” from the start.

“There’s still some hiccups, we’re still sort of in this phase of we’re slowly maturing,” Robinson said. “The consolidation is just kind of part of the maturation, that hopefully it’ll make things easier not only for the regulators, but also for the folks navigating the system.”

Employees of the pre-consolidation agencies will continue to use their same offices to ensure continuity and stability, according to Dempsey, and will receive advance notice if office locations change.

The new state department falls under the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency. It will still use the current licensing systems, but the law prohibits the department from renewing provisional licenses starting in 2025.

The provisional licensing program was scheduled to sunset at the beginning of this year. The new law extends it until 2026.

The bill also creates a deputy director of equity and inclusion to oversee the new department’s programs and ensure implementation of the California Cannabis Equity Act.

Cannabis businesses do not need to submit new license applications with the new department. Existing licenses and license applications will automatically be transferred to the Department of Cannabis Control.

Researchers also do not need to worry about changes to grant funding under the consolidation. Local government and law enforcement may continue working with existing contacts.

The new department also comes with a new logo: a simple cannabis leaf with intertwining leaves that, according to the department’s press release, represent “the unification of the three programs and collaborative spirit with which DCC intends to engage businesses and stakeholders.”

The Department of Cannabis Control is located at 2920 Kilgore Road in Rancho Cordova, where the Bureau of Cannabis Control formerly resided.

Five myths about marijuana

/in , , , , /by

No, it doesn’t lead to violent crime, and no, those strains aren’t that different

It’s been seven years since the country’s first legal recreational marijuana shops opened in Colorado and Washington state. What was once a bold social experiment is now commonplace, with 18 states plus D.C. — representing well over one-third of the U.S. population — permitting recreational use. Nevertheless, myths about marijuana use and legalization remain widespread. Some are stubborn artifacts of the long-standing war on drugs, while others reflect the influence of a growing industry looking to attract new customers. Here are a few of the most persistent ones.

 

Myth No. 1

Marijuana is a gateway drug.

“Do most people who use other drugs start with marijuana? Most definitely,” reads a fact sheet on the website of Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), a prominent anti-pot organization. “Research demonstrates that 99% of those addicted to other drugs started with alcohol and marijuana,” the group claims. Pot-squeamish politicians — including New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D), President Biden and Rep. Andy Harris(R-Md.) — have cited this “gateway theory” as a reason to keep restrictions in place.

In reality, no credible evidence shows that pot makes people more inclined to use other drugs. That, at least, was the conclusion of an exhaustive 96-page inquiry by the Justice Department and the Library of Congress in 2018. “No causal link between cannabis use and the use of other illicit drugs can be claimed at this time,” the authors wrote.

The shoddy reasoning undergirding the gateway theory is on full display in SAM’s statements. It’s true, for instance, that most people who use opiates and other dangerous drugs have also used marijuana at some point in their lives. However, you can make the same claim about alcohol, cigarettes, caffeine or just about any other common substance. “Ninety-nine percent of those addicted to other drugs started with milk” is a true statement — and also perfectly meaningless.

Myth No. 2

Marijuana leads to violent crime.

This myth has gained some steam because of the 2019 publication of “Tell Your Children: The Truth About Marijuana, Mental Illness, and Violence,” a polemic by Alex Berenson, a former New York Times reporter who has also gained attention for his aggressively skeptical coverage of the pandemic and the coronavirus vaccines. In the book and elsewhere, Berenson attempts to tie marijuana legalization to increases in murders and assaults: “Marijuana causes psychosis. Psychosis causes violence. The obvious implication is that marijuana causes violence.” Other prohibitionists have attempted to show a link between marijuana use and mass shootings.

There are indeed well-documented ties between heavy marijuana use and psychosis, particularly among the young. But teasing out the causality is incredibly difficult. Does marijuana use cause psychosis, or are people who develop psychosis already more predisposed toward marijuana use? Researchers say Berenson and others overstate their claims and ignore evidence that marijuana may help some people with psychotic disorders.

Beyond that, scholars have done plenty of rigorous work directly examining the relationship between marijuana use and crime, and for all intents and purposes, they haven’t found one. In 2013, a sweeping review of the evidence conducted by the Rand Corp. on behalf of the White House concluded that “marijuana use does not induce violent crime.”

A more recent Justice Department-funded study of the effects of legalization in Washington state found that “neither cannabis-related crime nor more serious offenses seemed to be affected by legalization.” Numerous other papers have turned up evidence that marijuana use and legalization may lead to less violent crime. Given that the drug’s most common effects include “a pleasant euphoria and sense of relaxation,” it isn’t hard to understand why.

Myth No. 3

Potency is an important indicator of quality and safety.

No topic in marijuana produces a greater noise-to-signal ratio than potency, or the concentration of THC — the plant’s main psychoactive compound — in a given product. Legalization skeptics claim today’s cannabis is stronger than ever before — “not your father’s marijuana,” as they say. Pot advocates, meanwhile, often say stronger weed is better, because you can theoretically consume less of it to achieve the same high.

That said, marijuana is getting stronger, although it’s hard to say by exactly how much. Most of our longitudinal knowledge of pot potency comes from a government-run monitoring program that’s been marred by shoddy data-collection practices for much of its existence. There’s no question, however, that under both prohibition and legalization, pot growers have been obsessively selecting for higher THC potency in their plants.

That’s not necessarily good. The research on potency, summed up in a 2020 reportfrom the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, shows a good deal of evidence that people who routinely use stronger marijuana put themselves at a higher risk for mental health disorders than people who use weaker stuff. Might users of high-potency product consume less? It’s a nice idea in theory, but the real-world data is mixed. A recent review found, for instance, that “users of more potent cannabis products incompletely adjust their THC doses,” which resulted in those users reporting “more negative consequences than users of less potent products.”

Other recent research has shown that high-potency cannabis products don’t necessarily get users more high. And recent investigations have revealed that the potency testing industry is rife with fraud, quality-assurance problems and general incompetence. Those THC labels on the products at the dispensary may not mean that much, in the end.

Myth No. 4

Different strains produce different intoxicating effects.

Speaking of labels at dispensaries, pot connoisseurs often rhapsodize about their favorite strains the way wine snobs discuss their favorite chardonnays. Product descriptions promise effects from locking you to the couch to motivating you to clean the house.

But scientists who’ve studied the genetics of cannabis strains say those alleged distinctions have little grounding in reality. A 2015 report, for instance, found only minor differences in the genetic makeup of cannabis strains. “A marijuana strain name does not necessarily represent a genetically unique variety,” the authors wrote. In about a third of the plants they studied, individual samples were “more genetically similar to samples with different [strain] names than to samples with identical names.” A 2019 study failed to find meaningful genetic differences even between the two major varieties, indica and sativa, often said to produce very different types of intoxication. An analysis in 2018 concluded that “the concept of a ‘strain’ does not reflect the crop domestication, breeding programs or plant chemistry.”

Cannabis contains hundreds of chemical compounds, most of which are poorly understood. It’s possible that different combinations could produce different intoxicating effects. But the research strongly suggests there’s little correlation between how a strain is labeled and what it actually does.

Myth No. 5

Legalization has been a public health disaster.

Opponents of legalization often make their case in apocalyptic terms. Groups like Parents Opposed to Pot, for instance, claim that legalization is “an anti-science Public Health disaster” and an “assault on public safety” that “increases the black market for all drugs, and overdose deaths,” and that “on EVERY measure, marijuana legalization is failed policy.” Medical groups have argued that legalization will lead to increases in teen drug use. Police groups have warned that traffic fatalities will rise.

But one of the most striking facts about the states that have legalized is how little has changed there. This spring, for instance, two economists from the University of Colorado at Denver and Montana State University performed a comprehensive review of the public health consequences of marijuana legalization, encompassing dozens of previously published studies. They found little evidence suggesting that recreational marijuana laws result in greater teen drug use, but strong evidence that teens who do use marijuana are less likely to use alcohol — a net public health win, given what we know about the relative dangers of the two substances. There are also some provisional signs that legal weed is taking a bite out of opioid mortality, directly contradicting prohibitionists’ dire warnings.

On the traffic front, the researchers found that “road safety improves when medical marijuana is legalized” but that the jury’s still out on the effect specifically of recreational pot. At the workplace, multiple studies have shown that legalization reduces sick-day use and absenteeism.

The net post-legalization changes are modest and trending slightly toward positive. This is not terribly surprising: Human societies are massive and complex systems, with thousands of interconnected parts interacting in unpredictable ways. It’s naive to think that altering a single variable, like the legal status of weed, could bring the whole edifice crashing down.

 

By Christopher Ingrahamch

July 15, 2021