If Amendment 64 passes, it will become almost immediately legal under Colorado law for adults to possess, grow, consume and give away up to an ounce of marijuana. It may take more than a year, however, before adults can purchase marijuana legally in a store.

A poll released in early September by Public Policy Polling shows the amendment continues to lead, currently by a 47-38 margin, with 15 percent still undecided. Passage could enable the state to increase tax revenues by $50 million a year or more while also potentially reducing law enforcement costs.

If the measure passes, the parts of the amendment related to individual behavior go into effect as soon as the governor signs a proclamation certifying the results of the election, which he is required to do within 30 days.

Sections related to the commercial cultivation and sale of marijuana would take effect incrementally but marijuana would be available for sale legally no sooner than late 2013 or early 2014.

Even if the state moves forward with implementation in a timely fashion, it is anyone’s guess what the federal response–if any–will be. The feds could do nothing, could move to block implementation, or could wait until legal businesses are set up and then move to shut them down, possibly arresting owners and employees in the process.

The amendment requires the Colorado Department of Revenue to adopt regulations governing the licensing of commercial businesses by no later than July 1, 2013. According to the amendment these regulations cannot prohibit marijuana businesses or make their operation “unreasonably impractical.”

Attorney Brian Vicente, co-director of the pro-64 campaign, says that the amendment was written in such a way that the legislature can choose to address the issue, thus providing guidance to the DOR, or can do nothing and leave the crafting of regulations entirely to DOR staff.

“We left it open so that the legislature can be as active as it wants to be or it can leave the matter entirely to DOR,” Vicente told the Colorado Independent.

DOR must begin processing business applications by Oct. 1, 2013. If the DOR fails to meet the deadline, prospective business owners can apply for local business licenses, thus bypassing the state. Local governments must establish their own regulations, also by Oct. 1, 2013. Local governments may also ban marijuana businesses, but need a vote of the people to do so.

Even if a city or county bans marijuana businesses, residents of the area would still be allowed to grow, possess, consume and give away small amounts of marijuana.

While the amendment legalizes private use of marijuana, public use would remain illegal. Patrons at a ball game, for instance, would not be able to go to the smoking area and light a joint. People would not be allowed to sit on a park bench and light up a marijuana pipe. People growing their own could have up to six plants, with no more than three being mature at any given time. Plants would have to be grown in secured areas that are not visible to the public. Even if it exceeds the legal one ounce, growers would be allowed to possess their entire harvest.

Employers would not have to accommodate people who wish to smoke at work and would still be allowed to test for marijuana use and to fire people who test positive. Driving under the influence of marijuana would remain illegal and it would remain illegal to sell or give marijuana to anyone under 21 years old.

Vicente explains that “employers will still have the absolute ability to retain any policies they have about marijuana use. Once it is legal, it is our hope that they will embrace common sense rules regarding the legal use of a legal product on people’s own time.”

Economic Impact

The Blue Book, produced by the Colorado Legislative Council, estimates the fiscal impact that could be expected if the amendment passes. The book says that sales taxes and licensing fees would be expected to be between $5 million and $22 million per year and that the cost to the state would be $1.3 million in the first year and around $700,000 a year after that. The book makes no estimates of local revenues or costs.

The amendment, though, also requires the legislature to enact an excise tax of up to 15 percent through 2017 and at any rate agreed to by the legislature after 2017. This tax would be collected on sales from growers to retailers and marijuana product manufacturing companies. The Blue Book makes no estimate of how much such a tax could generate. The tax would have to be set by the legislature and then voted on by residents of Colorado.

“It is our strong belief that the legislature will pass such a tax as soon as they can,” Vicente said. He and the campaign estimate that the revenue from such a tax could be as much as $24 million to $73 million a year. The amendment stipulates that the first $40 million a year generated by the tax will go to a state fund for the construction of public schools.

Laura Chapin, spokesperson for the anti-64 campaign, said she doubts the state would ever see anywhere near the amount of money talked about by proponents. “How do you tax an industry that cannot use bank accounts?,” she asked, pointing out that federal law prohibits banks from accepting deposits of money earned by selling a substance that will remain illegal under federal law.

Vicente, though, says some medical marijuana businesses in the state actually do have bank accounts. He notes that there has been lots of press about banks not doing business with marijuana dispensaries, but said numerous banks and dispensaries are “quietly doing business together.”

Aaron Smith, executive director of the National Cannabis Industry Association, said Chapin’s argument is “absurd.”

“Many marijuana businesses do have bank accounts, but I guarantee you that even those that don’t, pay their taxes,” he said. “That is simply an absurd statement. They didn’t do their homework,” Smith said.

A study released in August by the Colorado Center on Law and Policy estimates that local governments would generate a combined $14 million a year in the beginning. That study also estimates savings in law enforcement of $12 million a year immediately, increasing to $40 million a year in later years.

While it doesn’t relate directly to Amendment 64, the National Cannabis Industry Association released a study on Sept. 13 that shows tax revenue in Colorado as a result of medical marijuana likely exceeded $10 million in 2011. The study, which looked at only ten Colorado cities, shows that medical marijuana businesses in the cities studied, generated $5.1 million in local tax revenues and nearly $4.5 million in state tax revenues. Business license fees bring in millions more, the study says. In Denver alone, revenue from such fees exceeded $6 million in 2011 alone, according to the study.

Source: Huffington Post (NY)
Author: Scot Kersgaard, The Colorado Independent
Published: September 20, 2012
Copyright: 2012 HuffingtonPost.com, LLC
Contact: scoop@huffingtonpost.com
Website: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

State Rep. Peter Buckley has thrown his support behind Measure 80, an initiative that would legalize, regulate and tax marijuana consumed by adults.

“Overall, legalization would take the black market out of Oregon,” said Buckley, D-Ashland, who has served as co-chairman of the Legislature’s Ways and Means Committee for the past two sessions. He said he supports regulating marijuana in a manner similar to the regulation of alcohol under the Oregon Liquor Control Commission.

Under current laws, he said, medical marijuana has too many legal loopholes that have frustrated law enforcement and left the door open for abuse.

“I do think it’s a problem with some medical marijuana growers,” he said. “They’ve gotten greedy.”

Oregon voters will decide this November on the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act, a citizen’s initiative campaign to regulate cannabis and encourage production of hemp.

According to the YES on 80 campaign, legalizing marijuana could save $60 million annually in law enforcement costs, while taxing it could bring in an extra $140 million. Under the proposal, marijuana would be purchased through state-run stores.

Buckley, who said he’s not a marijuana user and doesn’t have a medical marijuana card, said the federal government likely would question Oregon’s authority to legalize the drug if voters pass the measure, but he thinks that if enough states pass similar initiatives it could change the national debate.

“Hopefully, the federal government will see the light,” he said.

The new law will provide a clearer legal distinction for law enforcement in how to prosecute anyone furnishing marijuana to minors, Buckley said. The law still would make it illegal to drive under the influence of marijuana or to use it in public places.

Roy Kaufmann, spokesman for the YES on 80 campaign, said the law could add to Oregon’s image as a tourist destination, similar to the effect of the Oregon wine and beer industry.

Also, the initiative would create another growth industry in the state, he said. “Agricultural hemp will dwarf the marijuana market within a decade,” Kaufmann predicted.

Other states, including Washington and Colorado, may take up similar initiatives to legalizing marijuana. If enough states support legalization, Kaufmann said, “It would really force the federal government’s hand on this issue.”

He said the marijuana law has been written in a way to stand up to federal scrutiny.

Kaufmann said the prohibition of marijuana has been a failure in this country.

State Rep. Dennis Richardson, R-Central Point, said Oregon’s medical marijuana laws are “grossly abused,” but said he has too many questions about Measure 80 to support it.

“I am very much troubled by the current medical marijuana law,” said Richardson, who served as a co-chairman with Buckley on the Ways and Means Committee. “It is basically legalization through a back-door approach.”

He said the right to smoke pot is now being advertised as a simple matter of spending $100 to find the right doctor.

Richardson said he doesn’t support legalizing marijuana. But he said the state needs to have a rational debate about whether it wants to legalize cannabis or take a different approach and crack down on violations.

He said Measure 80 will at least get voters talking about medical marijuana laws, though he doubts the voters in his fairly conservative district would support the initiative.

While Measure 80 would raise tax dollars, Richardson said he’s reluctant to create a new state bureaucracy to keep track of the process.

He said he’s also concerned about creating another “sin tax,” in addition to the dollars the state already collects through gambling, cigarettes and alcohol.

Richardson, who doesn’t have a medical marijuana card, said he would consider using marijuana if he had a serious medical condition.

Source: Mail Tribune, The (Medford, OR)
Author: Damian Mann, Mail Tribune
Published: September 18, 2012
Copyright: 2012 The Mail Tribune
Contact: letters@mailtribune.com
Website: http://www.mailtribune.com/

A recently published poll from The Denver Post has good news for pot legalization advocates. According to the survey, a majority of Colorado voters are in favor of Amendment 64, a November ballot measure that seeks to legalize and regulate marijuana like alcohol for adult use.

Of the 615 likely Colorado voters surveyed by The Denver Post, 51 percent are in favor of the measure, while only 40 percent are opposed.

Read the entire poll, exact question wording and results here at The Denver Post.: http://www.denverpost.com/news/marijuana/ci_21548398/colorado-marijuana-legalization-initiative-leads-new-poll

Colorado’s Amendment 64 does appear to be popular among voters. Earlier this month, Public Policy Polling surveyed 1,000 likely voters and found that 47 percent would vote in support of Amendment 64, while only 38 percent would vote against the ballot measure.

That percentage was the exact same that PPP had found one month prior during a similar survey.

The largest percentage in favor of legalization in Colorado ever polled came from Rasmussen, back in June, which found 61 percent of likely Colorado voters in favor of legalizing marijuana if it is regulated the way that alcohol and cigarettes are currently regulated.

According to a report by the Colorado Center on Law & Policy, the passage of Amendment 64 could be a boon for the state economy. Marijuana legalization would produce hundreds of new jobs, raise millions for the construction of Colorado public schools and raise around $60 million annually in combined savings and revenue for Colorado’s budget, the report says.

It’s not just pot advocates that are in favor of legalization. The NAACP recently backed pot legalization measures in Oregon and Colorado not because the group necessarily favors marijuana use, but because members say current marijuana laws lead to a disproportionately high number of people of color being incarcerated or otherwise negatively affected.

“Marijuana prohibition policy does more harm to our communities than good,” said Rosemary Harris Lytle in a statement, president of the NAACP-Colorado-Montana-Wyoming State Conference. “That is why we have endorsed Amendment 64 which presents a more effective and socially responsible approach to how Colorado addresses the adult use of marijuana.”

The NAACP provided this data in a press statement about marijuana arrests in Colorado:

African-Americans made up roughly 4% of the population in Colorado in 2010, but they accounted for about 9% of marijuana possession arrests and 22% of arrests for marijuana sales and cultivation. The numbers in Denver are particularly staggering. According to a report prepared by the Denver Police Department for the the city’s Marijuana Policy Review Panel, African-Americans accounted for more than 31.5% percent of arrests for private adult marijuana possession, despite making up less than 11% of the city’s population.

Politically, the measure has received support from both Democrats and Republicans in Colorado, as well as more than 100 professors from around the nation. However, just last week Gov. John Hickenlooper came out in opposition to Amendment 64, saying in a statement:

Colorado is known for many great things –- marijuana should not be one of them. Amendment 64 has the potential to increase the number of children using drugs and would detract from efforts to make Colorado the healthiest state in the nation. It sends the wrong message to kids that drugs are OK.

To which Mason Tvert, co-director of the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol — the organization behind Amendment 64 — responded with strong words for the Governor. “Governor Hickenlooper’s statement today ranks as one of the most hypocritical statements in the history of politics,” Tvert said. “After building a personal fortune by selling alcohol to Coloradans, he is now basing his opposition to this measure on concerns about the health of his citizens and the message being sent to children. We certainly hope he is aware that alcohol actually kills people. Marijuana use does not. The public health costs of alcohol use overall are approximately eight times greater per person than those associated with marijuana. And alcohol use is associated with violent crime. Marijuana use is not.”

Hickenlooper’s statement that Amendment 64 has the “potential to increase the number of children using drugs” is debatable at best. A recent study from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention shows that marijuana use among Colorado minors is going down, while it is simultaneously going up nationally. The drop in usage by Colorado teens as seen in the CDC data — a drop below the national average — coincides with the same period that the medical marijuana industry developed in the state, between 2009 and 2011.

Marijuana legalization advocates point to the data as sign that regulation is helping reduce marijuana use amongst minors. Mason Tvert, co-director of the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, told The Huffington Post “that even the partial regulation of marijuana can make it harder for young people to get their hands on marijuana. By regulating all marijuana sales, we can further reduce teen access and use.”

And a 2011 study from economists at University of Colorado Denver and Montana State University may backs that claim up. “Medical Marijuana Laws, Traffic Fatalities, and Alcohol Consumption” by Daniel I. Rees, from UCD, and D. Mark Anderson, from MSU looked at state level data from the more than a dozen states that had passed medical marijuana laws at the time of the study. Rees and Anderson found that there was no evidence of an increase in marijuana usage among minors in the states surveyed.

Amendment 64 will appear on Colorado’s ballot in November, but the state voting guide — the so-called “blue book” — will not include the three main arguments in favor of legalization after the Colorado Legislative Council deleted the text, in apparent confusion, and would not restore the text to the voter guide. The three deleted arguments “For” are as follows:

• Marijuana is objectively less harmful than alcohol.
• The consequences of a marijuana offense are too severe.
• Law enforcement resources would be better spent on more serious crimes.

The campaign says that the “Arguments For” Amendment 64 section of of the blue book is now just 208 words following the deletion, whereas the “Arguments Against” section is approximately 366 words — meaning “Against” has nearly 75 percent more words than the “For” section. “The blue book is supposed to be fair and balanced, and it’s safe to say this is quite lopsided and, thus, unfair,” the campaign said in a statement.

Source: Huffington Post (NY)
Author: Matt Ferner
Published: September 17, 2012
Copyright: 2012 HuffingtonPost.com, LLC
Contact: scoop@huffingtonpost.com
Website: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Montana voters will decide on Nov. 6 whether to keep the Legislature’s medical marijuana law that effectively repealed the 2004 voter-enacted law.

Between now and Election Day, additional restrictions from Senate Bill 423 may take effect. Last week, the Montana Supreme Court overturned a District Court judge’s ruling that certain provisions of SB423 violated rights guaranteed by the Montana Constitution. Helena District Judge Jim Reynolds issued a preliminary injunction last year, finding that the new law’s restrictions on medical marijuana providers and users amounted to unconstitutional infringement on citizens’ rights to privacy, to health care and to seek employment (as medical marijuana providers).

In overturning Reynolds’ ruling, the Supreme Court said there is no constitutional right to use marijuana or to sell it.

The 2011 Legislature acted because the voter-approved medical marijuana law was being exploited by a growing number of marijuana suppliers who encouraged people to get state medical marijuana cards. The number of cards issued grew tenfold within three years so that by the time the 2011 Legislature passed SB423, the state had nearly 30,000 registered medical marijuana users and 4,800 suppliers. Medical marijuana storefronts had sprouted along busy streets in Billing and other cities.

What had been promoted in 2004 as a compassionate law to allow seriously ill Montanans to legally access a drug that relieved their pain, glaucoma or nausea was transforming quickly into a marijuana-for-the-masses business.

The 2011 Legislature didn’t act on medical marijuana reform proposals from its interim committee. Instead, SB423 was cobbled together in the latter half of the 90-day session with less public input than the interim committee proposals had received.

Storefronts Shut Down

However, the new law has been effective at reining in legal marijuana suppliers and users. The law also authorized local governments to restrict medical marijuana storefronts, which Billings, Yellowstone County and other jurisdictions have since done. The law narrowed eligibility for medical marijuana cards and restricted the business of supplying card holders.

By August, the number of registered card holders had dropped to 8,849, registered suppliers numbered 399 and doctors recommending marijuana numbered 225. Back in December 2008, there had been 1,577 cardholders and 465 suppliers.

The Supreme Court decision allows the state to enforce a previously blocked provision in the new law that forbids legal suppliers from charging for marijuana. That change is likely to further reduce the number of legal suppliers and card holders.

The Legislature’s repeal of a voter-enacted law is troubling in its disregard of the people’s directive in 2004. However, the initiative proponents weren’t advertising “cannabis caravans,” medical marijuana shops a few blocks from schools or thousands of new users each month.

State-Federal Conflict

In his 12-page dissent from the majority medical marijuana opinion last week, Justice James C. Nelson said the state court simply should have dismissed the challenge to SB423 rather than sending it back to Reynolds.

“Montana’s medical marijuana laws, in effect, purport to make legal conduct that is violative of the federal Controlled Substances Act,” Nelson wrote. “That Montana’s courts have become complicit in this endeavor (by taking up questions regarding the interpretation of Montana’s medical marijuana laws in the absence of an actual underlying criminal prosecution) is shocking.”

Under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Nelson said, state law must give way to federal law “where compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility.” If the illegality of marijuana is to be changed, Nelson said, Congress will have to change it first.

Nelson makes a good point: Regardless of what Montana voters decide in November, medical marijuana will remain risky for users and hazy for law enforcement.

Source: Billings Gazette, The (MT)
Published: September 16, 2012
Copyright: 2012 The Billings Gazette
Contact: speakup@billingsgazette.com
Website: http://www.billingsgazette.com/

A Colorado lawmaker pushing for a marijuana blood-level limit for drivers said Friday he’s arguing for a fourth time because lives are at stake. The bill supported by Mesa County Republican Sen. Steve King would make Colorado the third state in the country to adopt a drivers’ blood standard for THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana.

Lawmakers have rejected the measure three times, including during a special session earlier this year when it failed in the state Senate on a 17-17 vote.

The Transportation Legislation Review committee is expected to vote Friday on whether to introduce the bill in January.

“People are dying on our highways and byways as a result of people driving under the influence of THC, just like with alcohol 20 years ago,” King said.

The proposal would limit drivers to 5 nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood.

Opponents worry medical marijuana users will be wrongly convicted of driving under the influence. They argue some medical marijuana users can have high THC blood level even when the driver is not impaired, and that the amount stays in their system long after they’ve used the drug.

“We risk convicting people of an impaired driving infraction when they’re not actually impaired,” said Michael Elliott, executive director of the Medical Marijuana Industry Group. “That is an injustice that is a major problem.”

Elliott said opposition to the bill would decrease if the nanogram-level was increased to 10, where “there’s more guarantee that the person is actually impaired.”

Colorado is among 16 states that allow medical marijuana use.

Nevada, which allows medical marijuana, and Ohio have a 2 nanogram THC limit for driving. Pennsylvania has a 5 nanogram limit, but that’s a state Health Department guideline, which can be introduced in driving violation cases.

Colorado law enforcement and the National Highway Safety Administration say there has been an uptick in drivers in fatal accidents testing positive for marijuana use.

Some marijuana activists argue pot-related crash data is incomplete and shouldn’t be used to impose a blood-level limit. They say officer observations, not blood levels, are better for showing a driver is impaired.

Source: Associated Press (Wire)
Author: Ivan Moreno, The Associated Press
Published: September 15, 2012
Copyright: 2012 The Associated Press

If Oregonians pass Measure 80 in the November election, the state would legalize marijuana for adults, but more importantly to Todd Dalotto, it would open the doors for medical research on the plant.

“If it’s free from legal roadblocks, then patients can benefit greatly from the research that takes place in horticulture, in medicine,” Dalotto said Monday in front of the City Club of Corvallis.  “Unfortunately, clinical research is hindered to a prohibitive degree, mainly because of federal prohibition.”

Dalotto, a longtime cannabis horticultural researcher and president of CAN! Research, Education and Consulting in Corvallis, offered his take on Measure 80 to the group on Monday.  Sandee Burbank, executive director of Mothers Against Misuse and Abuse, also spoke in favor of the measure at the club’s monthly meeting.

If passed, the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act would create a commission that would license growers, buy and sell the product, and test it for quality assurance.  Adults, ages 21 and older, would be able to legally purchase cannabis from state-run stores or grow it, unregulated, for personal use.

In his presentation, Dalotto explained that each strain of the plant contains different properties.  With more research, scientists will be able to isolate the parts of the plant, on a molecular level, that contain positive medicinal values and breed out negative properties, he said.

Currently, however, researchers must get the go-ahead from multiple federal agencies before studying marijuana – a nearly impossible undertaking, he said.

Burbank spoke to the group about the need for more accurate education about drugs, including the potential harm of over-the-counter and legally prescribed medicine, alcohol and tobacco.  Marijuana, she believes, has medicinal value and is much less harmful than some legal drugs.  In 1982, her organization declared that marijuana laws were “inequitable, ineffective, unenforceable and counterproductive.”

Attendees questioned how the new legislation would affect black market demand for marijuana.  Burbank and Dalotto believe it would be curtailed.

“The reason it’s so profitable is because of prohibition, because it’s unregulated,” Dalotto said.

The speakers also touched on the benefits of legalizing the cultivation of cannabis to produce hemp, a product with multiple uses that can be made into fabric and rope.  It requires less fertilizer and water and produces four times the amount of fiber that trees do, Dalotto said.

Hemp production would provide Oregon with an economically friendly export crop, he added.

If the legislation should pass, one attendee asked, how would the federal government – which classifies marijuana as a dangerous drug – respond?

“There would be significant challenges from the feds,” Dalotto said, “but the measure does provide revenue to fund the attorney general’s defense of this, and that’s fully anticipated.”

Revenue from licenses would pay administrative costs of the commission, and 90 percent of the remaining money would be placed in the state’s general fund.  The remaining 10 percent would be split among funds for related uses, such as drug education and research grants.

The City Club invited the Corvallis Police Department to offer a differing opinion on the measure, but the department declined.

Source: Corvallis Gazette-Times (OR)
Copyright: 2012 Lee Enterprises
Contact: https://gazettetimes-dot-com.bloxcms.com/app/forms/contact/letters/
Website: http://www.gazettetimes.com/
Author: Canda Fuqua

An obscure tax law, intended to prevent cocaine kingpins from deducting yachts and other necessities, may alter Boulder’s landscape. Experts say it may shutter dispensaries nationwide.

Fourteen years before any medical marijuana laws existed, US Tax Code was amended because a convicted coke dealer had successfully deducted guns, boats, and bribes. Ever since, Section 280E has banned deductions related to “trafficking in controlled substances.”

Because marijuana is a “controlled substance,” dispensaries are taxed on all revenue — without subtracting rent, payroll, or supplies. The IRS has embarked on an auditing spree, slapping some dispensaries with tax bills in the millions. (The representative who sponsored 280E in 1982, observing its current invocation, now leads the effort to reform his own law.)

Aware of the threat, Colorado dispensaries have tread carefully. Some calculated the square footage used for selling meds, versus the area used for discussing and observing said meds ­— and wrote off rent for the latter. Some claimed that their employees multi-tasked, and deducted a portion of payroll for non-trafficking pursuits.

These number-crunching taxpayers were abiding Tax Court’s 2007 decision (C.H.A.M.P. v. Commissioner): Caregiving services were separate from trafficking, the court had ruled, and could be deducted. Dispensaries pay a higher tax rate than other businesses — but they’ve been able to keep the doors open.

Until now. In August, the Tax Court unanimously reached its second decision on 280E: It precludes dispensaries “from deducting any expense related to the business in that the business is a single business that consists of trafficking in a controlled substance.”

No more multi-tasking staff or separate “wellness spaces.” Your stores’ rent, employees, marketing, supplies — what might seem like normal business expenses — are all part of your trafficking. Growing controlled substances (still just as federally illegal as trafficking them) was somehow omitted by the lawmakers who wrote 280E in 1982. So you can deduct rent and supplies for your grow operation — great news, if you operate your dispensary out of your warehouse, or poorly maintain your storefront and pay your employees terrible wages. In Boulder, your dispensary and warehouse must be separate, and running a retail establishment isn’t cheap. It’s a troubling choice: “We either change our 2011 taxes, and suddenly owe the IRS far more than we earned this year,” says one Boulder dispensary owner who for obvious reasons would rather not be identified, “or we leave them and wait for an audit.” If audited, he’ll likely receive a tax bill high enough to sink his small business.

Owning a dispensary here was costly already. To comply with state regulations, you must: Install enough state-of-the-art surveillance to capture each moment of your plants’ lives from every angle; build the appropriate number of doors, bathrooms, and hallways for the amount of marijuana you plan to grow; fork over at least $10,000 in fees every time you need to change your dispensary’s name, location, or owner/investor lineup — and at least $10,000 annually to remain open, whether or not you’ve adjusted your name/location/ownership to comply with other changing regulations.

Now it’s even harder for Colorado dispensaries to profit, thanks to their multiplying taxes. One small-business owner in Boulder expects to owe an additional $100,000 a year — money he doesn’t have, because he’s invested it in his business.

Yes, our country needs tax dollars. But dispensaries aren’t the only businesses selling controlled substances: Others sell Oxycodone, Vicodin, morphine. In 2007, the US pharmaceutical industry collected $315 billion, and their revenue keeps rising. If 280E was enforced, their taxes would go a long way towards reducing our national deficit.

But the pharmaceutical industry enjoys a relaxed tax rate, about 40 percent less than other industries, according to a Public Citizen report. Those companies get tax breaks for paying their executives high stock-option-supplemented salaries. (At least one pharma giant paid its CEO more than it paid the government in taxes last year.) They receive tax credits and subsidies for research and development. Tax dollars fund most pharmaceutical R&D, so how much is the industry really spending? None of your business. Thanks to a nine-year legal battle the industry fought and won in Supreme Court (Bowsher v. Merck and Co.), they don’t have to disclose R&D records.

No disclosure needed: It’s just medicine. Dispensary owners only have to sign away privacy rights and submit a 22-page application measuring their “moral character.” (Question #672D: What is the value of your spouse’s great-aunt’s stock portfolio divided by the average age of your pets?) Even extraneous MMJ folks like me can’t escape the disclosure demands. The state department of revenue has, currently on file, a diagram mapping of the bodily locations of my tattoos. (Not a joke.)

Pharmaceutical giants justify their secrecy and skimpy taxes by citing the high “risk” they face. If only the marijuana industry was riskier. Like, if crop failures due to pests were increasing because inspectors now tramp through grow after grow without changing clothes; or if MMJ grows were now especially vulnerable to break-ins, due to state regulations now requiring that their locations be made public. Or if, say, dispensaries could be shut down by the federal government at any moment.

Both the marijuana industry and the federal government face changes in November, when Colorado votes on legalizing marijuana, and the country decides between candidates whose campaigns focus on taxes and small business. In a safer, healthier, more economically-stable America, marijuana would be legal — or would at least be a Schedule II drug like Oxycodone, not a Schedule I drug like heroin. That wouldn’t be a full victory for MMJ — but at least the taxes would be easier.

Cecelia Gilboy owns Colorado Quality Collective, the first wholesale marijuana brokerage licensed by the state.

Source: Boulder Weekly (CO)
Author: Cecelia Gilboy
Published: September 13, 2012
Copyright: 2012 Boulder Weekly
Contact: letters@boulderweekly.com
Website: http://www.boulderweekly.com/

Nine former heads of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration urged Attorney General Eric Holder on Friday to take a stand against possible legalization of recreational marijuana in three western states, saying silence would convey acceptance.

The former officials said in a letter sent on Friday that legalization would pose a direct conflict with federal law, indicating there would be a clash between the states and the federal government on the issue.

Voters in Colorado, Washington state and Oregon are due to decide in November whether to legalize marijuana for recreational use and to regulate and tax its sale.

“To continue to remain silent conveys to the American public and the global community a tacit acceptance of these dangerous initiatives,” they said in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by Reuters. A spokeswoman for Holder declined to comment on the letter.

The letter is similar to one they sent Holder in 2010 urging him to oppose a recreational pot legalization ballot measure in California. It was defeated with 53.5 percent of voters rejecting it.

Holder opposed the California measure before the vote, warning that U.S. officials would enforce federal laws against marijuana in California despite any state legalization.

Kevin Sabet, a former senior adviser on marijuana issues to President Barack Obama’s administration, said he would not be surprised if Holder took that same position again.

“Essentially, a state vote in favor of legalization is a moot point since federal laws would be, in (Holder’s) own words (from 2010), ‘vigorously enforced,’” Sabet said. “I can’t imagine a scenario where the Feds would sit back and do nothing.”

Obama administration officials have until now said little about the upcoming ballot measures, although the federal government has cracked down on medical cannabis dispensaries in several states by raiding them and threatening legal action.

Public Support

In recent years polls have shown growing national support for decriminalizing marijuana. In May, an Angus Reid survey showed 52 percent of those polled expressed support for legalizing pot. The poll of 1,017 respondents had a margin of error of 3.1 percent.

Gallup saw support hit 50 percent last year, the highest number the organization had ever measured on the question.

In the swing state of Colorado, the marijuana measure with its potential to bring out young voters is seen as potentially influencing votes for president. Tom Jensen of Public Policy Polling said earlier this year that marijuana “could be a difference maker” in the state.

The nine signatories to Friday’s letter included John Bartels, who ran the DEA from 1973 to 1975, and Karen Tandy, who was in charge from 2003 to 2007.

Tom Constantine, who was in charge of the DEA from 1994 to 1999 and also signed the letter, said the former administrators hoped it would send a message to voters and alter the public debate.

He said the letter had been sent so “voters would know in all fairness that no matter what they vote on in Colorado or wherever it is, that federal law still prevails.”

In response to a 2011 petition to legalize and regulate marijuana, Obama administration drug czar Gil Kerlikowske said at that time that federal officials were concerned about the drug because it was “associated with addiction, respiratory disease and cognitive impairment.”

Legalization advocates say the decades-old drug war in the United States has failed, and they compare laws against marijuana to the prohibition of alcoholic beverages from 1920 to 1933. They argue that society would be better served if marijuana could be taxed and regulated.

While no U.S. state allows recreational use of marijuana, 17 states and the District of Columbia permit its use in medicine.

“Anyone who is objective at all knows that current marijuana policy in this country is a complete disaster, with massive arrests, wasted resources, and violence in the U.S. and especially in Mexico,” said Jill Harris, managing director of strategic initiatives for Drug Policy Action, which has poured money into legalization campaigns.

Reporting By Alex Dobuzinskis; Editing by Cynthia Johnston and David Brunnstrom

Source: Reuters (Wire)
Author: Alex Dobuzinskis, Reuters
Published: September 7, 2012
Copyright: 2012 Thomson Reuters

Seattle’s medical marijuana stores have been living in a dream. Some have been so complacent as to oppose Initiative 502, the decriminalization measure on the Nov. 6 ballot.

They didn’t want a state marijuana tax. They didn’t want regulation by the Liquor Control Board, and they didn’t want a blood-THC standard for driving under the influence. They had what they wanted, marijuana unregulated and tax-free, protected by the forbearance of liberal politicians.

Now they don’t have it. The federal Drug Enforcement Administration has moved to shut down 26 of Seattle’s 145 dispensaries because they are within 1,000 feet of a school, playground or, in the case of a Shoreline dispensary, a public trail.

The DEA spokeswoman says all the remaining marijuana stores are illegal, too. An outspoken Seattle attorney now advises his cannabis clients: “Close, and close fast.”

Closed doors are not what the people of Washington want. More than 58 percent of voters favored medical cannabis 14 years ago, and more people support it now. We believe they are ready for the next step, marijuana decriminalization for general adult use. I-502 is a vehicle for the people to say that. It is a way to push back against the Obama administration, which has been much less liberal on this issue than many had hoped.

Everyone involved in medical cannabis should support Initiative 502. It does not offer unregulated freedom; the people of Washington are not ready for that. We believe they are ready to bring marijuana above ground to license it, tax it and regulate its sale and use. Initiative 502 asks for that. It is a step forward.

Source: Seattle Times (WA)
Published: September 7, 2012
Copyright: 2012 The Seattle Times Company
Contact: opinion@seatimes.com
Website: http://www.seattletimes.com/

A ban on storefront pot dispensaries here won’t go into effect Thursday after advocates for medical marijuana successfully petitioned to block it, the latest skirmish in the battle over how local governments around the nation should regulate pot businesses.

After years of failed attempts to control the number of pot shops and their operations here, the Los Angeles City Council unanimously passed an ordinance in late July that made storefront dispensaries illegal by modifying language in the city’s municipal code.

Last week, medical-marijuana advocates submitted about 50,000 signatures to overturn the ban, nearly twice the number needed, according to the Los Angeles City Clerk’s office. Once the city clerk verifies the signatures, the council will have to decide whether to repeal the ordinance or place the issue on the ballot next year.

This city’s unsuccessful efforts to regulate marijuana businesses have taken center stage in a statewide and national debate. Even as the federal government steps up efforts to crack down on dispensary sales of the drug, illegal under U.S. law, 17 states and the District of Columbia now allow marijuana use for medicinal purposes, according to Americans for Safe Access, an advocacy group.

An ASA spokesman said California was the first state to popularize brick-and-mortar pot shops, typically denoted with a leaf or cross symbol, and the nation’s largest state still counts the most pot shops.

A 1996 voter-approved initiative allows people with a doctor’s recommendation to grow and use marijuana for medical reasons in California. According to an attorney for the city of Los Angeles, there is no mention of dispensaries in that law.

“The state voter initiative envisioned a kibbutz model,” said Deputy City Attorney Bill Carter. “It’s morphed into a Starbucks model.”

Complicating the issue for California cities is a tangle of competing lawsuits. Last year, the California Court of Appeals ruled that the city of Long Beach, just south of Los Angeles, couldn’t use a lottery system to limit the number of pot shops, because controlling the distribution of medical marijuana violates federal law. The state Supreme Court recently dismissed the case.

The state Supreme Court is expected to take up other cases addressing the issue of whether municipalities can ban pot shops, but not for several months.

Although many California municipalities ban pot sales, about 50 jurisdictions allow sales, while regulating things like the number of dispensaries, their locations and hours of operation, according to Don Duncan, California director of ASA.

In 2007, when fewer than 200 dispensaries were operating in Los Angeles, city officials passed a moratorium to block new ones from opening. But hundreds more opened anyway, exploiting an exemption for dispensaries that could show they faced “hardship.”

There are currently about 1,000 dispensaries in the city, according to Councilman Paul Koretz, who represents parts of the city’s west side.

On the same day the City Council passed the ban, Mr. Koretz proposed that city attorneys prepare a separate ordinance allowing dispensaries that were open before 2008 to remain in business. Mr. Koretz said he hoped the new ordinance, once it proceeds through a clearance process, would be approved by the City Council before the ban comes up for a citywide vote.

For now, the proliferation continues. In the east side neighborhood of Eagle Rock, about 15 dispensaries have sprouted up recently, attracting customers from the nearby communities of Pasadena and Glendale, where dispensaries are banned.

Michael Larsen, president of the Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council, said he isn’t opposed to medicinal marijuana but said the shops are a “nuisance” in the community. Loitering, littering and reselling are serious problems around the dispensaries, Mr. Larsen said.

“It’s easier to open a pot shop than a yogurt shop in Eagle Rock,” Mr. Larsen said. “They just do it and start raking in the cash.”

Annie Lam, a manager at Hyperion Healing in the nearby neighborhood of Silver Lake, said a citywide ban would be “harsh” for many of her shop’s clients who use marijuana to curtail side effects from AIDS, cancer drugs and other conditions. State law allows people with a prescription to grow their own cannabis, she said, but for many that isn’t a viable option.

“They’re frustrated,” she said. “Everyone still needs their medication.”

A version of this article appeared September 6, 2012, on page A3 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: L.A. Pot Ban Is Blocked.

Source: Wall Street Journal (US)
Author: Erica E. Phillips
Published: September 5, 2012
Copyright: 2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Contact: wsj.ltrs@wsj.com
Website: http://www.wsj.com/