The elderly represent the largest medical marijuana consumer group. However, more and more senior citizens are turning to marijuana for recreational purposes — and it’s not just the aging baby boomers that left the substance behind in college. Some retirees are trying marijuana for the first time.

In 2011, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health found that 6.3% of adults between the ages of 50 and 59 used marijuana, more than double the percentage that reported it 10 years ago.

HuffPost Live streamed “Grandparents & Ganja,” a discussion about marijuana’s unexpected clientele. Speakers included: MPP’s communications director, Mason Tvert; Mason’s grandmother, Helen Shuller; Keith Stroup, the founder of NORML; and former Washington State Senator George Rohrbacher.  During the conversation, Helen was asked if older voters would be in favor of legalizing and regulating marijuana like alcohol. “[T]here’s a great deal of money to be raised by taxing marijuana,” she replied. “If that will relieve the worries about future social security and Medicare, older people will be very much in favor of it.”

The New York Times also explored marijuana’s popularity among the elderly. The newspaper spoke with a number of retirees, including Mason’s grandparents. “Most of us are either retiring or are retired,” Helen told the Times. “You don’t have to worry about your job knowing, so it’s a little easier for us. I don’t care if you use my name, I don’t care if they know!”

It may be surprising, but no state is required to have a law making possession of marijuana, or any drug, a crime. Therefore, any state can legalize some or all marijuana possession if it chooses. The federal government, if it chooses, can enforce the federal law against its possession and use, but it is up to each state to decide what to criminally prohibit, based on the 10th Amendment.

This basic insight has been lost in the public discussion about whether the initiatives legalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana passed by Colorado and Washington voters in November are preempted by federal law. The two states will soon finalize regulations to implement those initiatives, including how to tax and regulate marijuana.

U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. told a recent meeting of state attorneys general that the Justice Department review of the initiatives was winding down, suggesting an imminent decision as to whether it intends to challenge the initiatives as being preempted by federal law.

This month, eight former heads of the Drug Enforcement Administration urged Holder to enjoin the new state laws. Peter Bensinger, DEA chief from 1976 to 1981, told the Associated Press: “This is a no-brainer. It is outrageous that a lawsuit hasn’t been filed.”

Is it outrageous? Or is it just an intelligent assessment of the legal landscape?

The preemption doctrine is based on the supremacy clause of Article VI of the Constitution, which makes federal law “the supreme law of the land” trumping conflicting state laws. The question, then, is whether there is a conflict between the federal government prohibiting small amounts of marijuana and some states not doing so.

There is not a conflict when one level of government prohibits something but another level of government does not. An easy illustration is that murder is a crime in every state, but, except for very specific circumstances, it is not a federal crime. No one would say that there is a conflict. Likewise, a state can decide that certain conduct does not violate state law even if it offends federal law. It is then for the federal government to decide how, if at all, it wants to enforce the federal law.

Several other states, including California, have laws making possession of up to an ounce of marijuana an infraction punishable by a fine, even though under federal law, it’s a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in federal prison. Similarly, 17 states and Washington, D.C., have laws that allow possession of marijuana for medical purposes; there is no such federal exception. Although the federal government can enforce the stricter U.S. law in states that have decriminalized possession or have medical marijuana laws, it has never acted to have those state laws invalidated based on the preemption doctrine.

Simply put, no state has to have a law prohibiting marijuana, even though federal law does. And if a state does have such a ban but wants to repeal it in whole or in part, such as for possession for medical reasons or for small amounts, it may do so.

Because states could remove all criminal sanctions for marijuana, this more limited removal of some state sanctions cannot be preempted, claiming a conflict with federal law. It is true that Colorado and Washington go further than allowing possession of small amounts of marijuana under state law; their new laws also regulate and tax the sale of marijuana. But this actually helps achieve the federal objective of controlling marijuana compared to a state decriminalizing marijuana without regulating its distribution.

Beyond the legal arguments, there are policy reasons for the federal government to not interfere with the Colorado and Washington laws. An important feature of federalism is that states are empowered to serve as laboratories for experimentation with social policies. As the nation embarks on perhaps the most significant public debate about drug policy since President Nixon declared the war on drugs, Washington and Colorado’s experiment should be allowed to go forward. The country can then assess whether it succeeded or failed.

Let’s hope Holder’s response will be more nuanced and respectful of the states than that urged by the retired drug warriors.

Erwin Chemerinsky is dean of the UC Irvine School of Law. Allen Hopper is criminal justice and drug policy director of the ACLU of California.

Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Author: Erwin Chemerinsky and Allen Hopper
Published: March 27, 2013
Copyright: 2013 Los Angeles Times
Contact: letters@latimes.com
Website: http://www.latimes.com/

A medical marijuana bill that could allow academic medical centers to provide marijuana to patients whose doctors recommend it took a significant step toward becoming law minutes ago when it was approved by the Maryland House of Delegates. In a sign of just how uncontroversial this bill is, there was no debate and the vote was an overwhelming 108-28! The bill now moves over to the Senate, so you know what to do.

If you live in Maryland, please ask your state senator to support HB 1101.

Unlike medical marijuana programs you’ve heard about in other states, HB 1101 would allow academic medical centers, like Johns Hopkins, to apply to an independent commission for the ability to administer a research-focused program through which participating patients could obtain marijuana without fear of arrest and prosecution. The bill is far from perfect – it could take years to get up and running and would require either federal cooperation or medical centers in Maryland to violate federal law – but it’s a start. The bill could be amended down the road if the current version proves unworkable.

Sen. Richard Segerblom

Until recently, things had been all quiet on the marijuana front in Nevada. That changed suddenly last week when Sen. Richard “Tick” Segerblom introduced SB 374, a bill to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries in Nevada, and Assemblyman Joe Hogan introduced AB 402, which would regulate marijuana like alcohol.

We’re already halfway through Nevada’s scheduled session, with adjournment slated for June 3, so time is short. If you live in Nevada, please contact your elected officials today and urge them to support the dispensary bill and to support removing criminal penalties and regulating marijuana like alcohol.

Assemblyman Joe Hogan

Sen. Segerblom’s bill would fix current Nevada law, which prohibits buying or selling marijuana. Last year, a Nevada judge called that “ridiculous” and “absurd” and called upon the legislature to pass a bill much like SB 374. And of course, Hogan’s bill would be a financial boon for the cash-strapped state. Rather than spending millions locking up adults for using a substance safer than alcohol, the state could make millions in tax revenue.

Rep. Lou Lang

Medical marijuana bills are circulating in Illinois and Florida. In Illinois, HB1, authored by Rep. Lou Lang (D-Skokie), will soon be voted on in the House. According to Rep. Lang, the bill is just “one or two” votes short of passage. As for Florida, the Health Policy Committee has been assigned “The Cathy Jordan Medical Cannabis Act,” named for the president of the Florida Cannabis Action Network, who has ALS. Police raided Jordan’s house earlier this year and seized the marijuana she was using to treat her condition.

The interest surrounding each bill has inspired editorial boards in both states to throw their support behind the issue of marijuana reform.

Illinois’ Daily Register put a face on medical marijuana. Twenty-five-year-old Ana DeVarose, an MS sufferer, spoke candidly about her debilitating symptoms and deleterious medication, which almost took a lethal toll on her body in 2011.

Like the lawmakers who have continuously voted down medical marijuana legislation, DeVarose’s grandparents oppose marijuana — at least they did until their granddaughter showed them the impact marijuana had on her symptoms.

The Prairie State’s oldest newspaper, the State Journal-Register, not only came out in favor of medical marijuana but also endorsed regulating recreational marijuana. “None of the harm from using marijuana is worse than … alcohol and tobacco. It’s hard to take anyone who argues otherwise seriously.”

In Florida, the Sun-Sentinel confronted lawmakers who treat legislation as political tug-of-wars and not statutes that impact lives:

[V]oter turnout might benefit Democrats if the medical marijuana issue is on the ballot. But that’s not why the Republican-led Legislature should derail the constitutional amendment drive by instead passing a law that allows sick or dying people to smoke marijuana. The legislature should legalize medical marijuana because it shouldn’t be a crime for doctors to help desperately ill patients find relief, perhaps eat a meal, or find some rest. It is the compassionate thing to do.

Hopefully more papers devote some ink to promoting reform.

Amid the whir of fans and the glow of soft white light, workers tended to bright green seedlings sprouting in a giant greenhouse.

Located about an hour’s drive from Manhattan in the hills of northwestern New Jersey, the facility produces basil, chives, oregano and other herbs that are sold in grocery stores around New York City. But if Ken VandeVrede has his way the facility will one day be growing a much more valuable plant: marijuana.

VandeVrede is chief operating officer at Terra Tech, a hydroponic equipment maker based in Irvine. The small company wants to double the five-acre New Jersey greenhouse operation. The aim is one day to supply the exploding U.S. medical marijuana trade and to prepare in the event that recreational marijuana ever becomes legal nationwide.

“We can scale this thing very, very quickly,” said VandeVrede, clad in blue jeans and a pumpkin-colored sweater as he surveyed his indoor fields of produce and flowers. “When hemp and cannabis become legal, we’re ready to rock and roll.”

To do it, Terra Tech needs to raise $2 million. And like a number of small businesses in the burgeoning U.S. cannabis industry, it’s trying to enlist Wall Street’s help. Business owners have been pitching their ideas to potential investors, coming to New York in some cases to meet with would-be financiers.

Wall Street has good reason to smell potential profits.

Washington, D.C., and 18 states, including California, have already legalized medical marijuana; there are formal measures pending in 10 additional states, according to the National Cannabis Industry Assn.

Colorado and Washington legalized recreational marijuana use in November. In addition, a measure allowing “adult use” of pot has been proposed in Maryland, according to the association’s tally. Various bills to legalize marijuana and hemp have been proposed in Congress too.

Although pot remains contraband under federal law, some entrepreneurs see marijuana heading down the same path as Prohibition, which banned the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol from 1920 until it was repealed in 1933.

“More and more people see the inevitability,” said Brendan Kennedy, chief executive of the Seattle private equity firm Privateer Holdings, which targets cannabis-focused start-ups. “They see that the Berlin Wall of cannabis prohibition is going to come down.”

Privateer is raising $7 million to acquire small companies that have a hand in the trade but don’t grow or distribute marijuana. Its first acquisition: Leafly, a Yelp-style online rating site in Seattle for dispensaries and varying strains of marijuana.

With pot still federally outlawed, others are making similar bets — funding firms that supply equipment or ancillary services while steering clear of marijuana farming and sales.

Take Lazarus Investment Partners, a $60-million hedge fund in Denver, for example. One of Lazarus’ investments is in AeroGrow International Inc., a maker of hydroponic kitchen appliances geared toward growing herbs, lettuce and tomatoes.

Lazarus, which owns 15% of AeroGrow’s shares, has suggested that the company tweak its products to accommodate taller plants, including marijuana, said Justin Borus, the fund’s managing partner.

“We want to be selling the bluejeans to the gold miners,” Borus said. “We don’t want to take a bet on which state is going to get legalized and which dispensary is going to succeed, or [which] cannabis growers are going to be successful. We want to just make a bet on overall legalization.”

In California, MedBox, a West Hollywood maker of automated dispensing machines for doctors’ offices, pharmacies and pot dispensaries, is on the hunt for funding.

Vincent Mehdizadeh, MedBox’s founder, said the company is actively exploring raising $20 million in equity to boost staffing and fund research and development, acquisitions and marketing.

Mehdizadeh said he’s seen a “major spike” in interest from potential financiers looking to invest in the small company since Colorado and Washington legalized recreational pot use last year.

“Everybody’s loosening up a lot because they realize the momentum has shifted and the financial world is going to have to make room for this industry,” he said. “Wall Street and investment banks are going to have to come along for the ride, eventually.”

Derek Peterson, president and chief executive of Terra Tech, is working to get his company’s shares listed on a stock exchange by the end of the year. The company may try for NYSE MKT, which was formerly known as the American Stock Exchange and is geared toward smaller companies, or perhaps the Nasdaq Stock Market, he said.

“The stodgier Wall Street types are starting to realize there’s money to be made here,” said Peterson, who worked in wealth management at Wachovia Securities and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney.

The company has taken steps to get the word out to investors. It tapped Midtown Partners, a small New York boutique investment bank, to help it explore financing options as it planned the New Jersey greenhouse expansion. Terra Tech is merging with the farm’s owner, NB Plants, and retail gardening center and nursery. Both are owned by VandeVrede’s family.

Initially, the vast majority of Terra Tech’s revenue will come from cultivating fresh herbs and flowers from the New Jersey farm, with the rest coming from equipment sales. The idea is to first feed urban consumers’ growing appetite for pesticide-free produce, then add pot or hemp when the legal climate is right.

“There is this huge demand for organic food,” said Prakash Mandgi, Midtown Partners’ director of investment banking. “Marijuana cultivation, in my opinion, is a potential driver in the future, but it’s so tied to government rule and regulations…. Federally it’s illegal.”

Estimates for the marijuana industry’s size range widely, since much of the trade remains on the black market. Bloomberg Industries recently pegged it at $35 billion to $45 billion.

Still, Wall Street is by no means opening the floodgates of capital.

Companies in this space are still quite tiny, not to mention risky, compared with large corporations trading on the New York Stock Exchange or the Nasdaq.

Moreover, Wall Street firms face a significant disincentive to investing in the industry: federal law. Growing and distributing marijuana can still lead to raids by federal agents — not to mention prison time and huge fines.

Major banks have come under intense scrutiny by the federal government in recent years for violating laws aimed at preventing money-laundering. The British banking giant HSBC paid $1.9 billion to end a U.S. investigation into its role processing cash for drug cartels and customers in rogue nations.

Marijuana dispensary owners have complained of difficulty opening bank accounts, forcing them to operate in cash only.

“This is messy,” said Dan Richman, a former federal prosecutor who handled narcotics cases and now teaches at Columbia Law School in New York. “This might be complex politically. It’s not complex as a matter of federal criminal law.”

Investors in businesses involved in growing or distributing cannabis could face civil forfeiture actions to seize their investments or other assets, Richman said.

“I would think the prospectus would have to say: ‘The government might come and take all of your money and possibly go after you,’” Richman said.

Federal law may not deter all investors. After all, the government can choose what laws to strictly enforce, and it’s unclear how the federal government will ultimately treat legalized recreational pot in Colorado and Washington.

Alan Valdes, a floor trader on the New York Stock Exchange, expects some of Wall Street’s more adventurous investors to put up money for a project he’s involved with called Diego Pellicer Inc.

The business idea is to open a dozen Starbucks-like high-end shops for pot in Colorado and Washington. Valdes said he and his partners might begin tapping investors — wealthy individuals, family-run funds — later this year.

“These are more mavericks — these are gunslingers,” he said of potential investors. “The big houses are off the table right now.”

Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Author: Andrew Tangel, Los Angeles Times
Published: March 23, 2013
Copyright: 2013 Los Angeles Times
Contact: letters@latimes.com
Website: http://www.latimes.com/

Colorado’s hemp-growing industry will kick off on a modest scale under state legislation expected to be introduced next week.

The bill sponsored by state Sen. Gail Schwartz, D-Snowmass Village, would enable farmers to register for 10-acre research-and-development plots to test the viability of different hemp varieties.

Hemp is genetically related to marijuana but contains little or no THC, the psychoactive substance in marijuana. The seeds and fibers of hemp have dozens of commercial uses in foods, cosmetics, textiles and building materials.

The passage of Amendment 64 last year legalized in Colorado the possession and cultivation of both marijuana and hemp.

However, growing hemp, as with marijuana, is still illegal under federal law. That’s one of the reasons that hemp backers are proposing to launch the industry on a relatively small scale.

Schwartz said Thursday at a hemp forum in Loveland that 10-acre R&D plots grown under state guidelines are less likely to attract federal law enforcement attention than bigger commercial farms.

The proposed legislation would not prohibit larger farms, but backers say it is unlikely that farmers would choose to start on a large scale.

“The reality of the situation is that hemp probably won’t be grown on a mass commercial level for a few years because the crop will still need to be processed in-state and it will take a while to build that infrastructure and market,” said Samantha Walsh, political director of the advocacy group Hemp Cleans.

The bill would direct the Colorado Department of Agriculture to establish rules for registration and crop testing.

Hemp-growing has been legal in Canada since 1998. The industry is expanding rapidly. In 2012, a record 52,000 acres were grown. Projections for this year are 75,000 acres.

Canadian farmers at the Thursday forum said the crop is resistant to drought and weeds, relatively easy to grow, and profitable compared to other mainstream crops.

Manitoba hemp scientist Anndrea Hermann said the Canadian crop recently has generated average profits of $255 per acre compared with $208 for corn, $201 for canola and $100 for wheat.

David Bronner, whose company Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps is a major buyer of hemp oil, said at the forum that Colorado’s efforts to establish an industry may help persuade the federal government to end its prohibition.

“A little civil disobedience in the mix would hasten the end of this charade,” he said.

Source: Denver Post (CO)
Author: Steve Raabe, The Denver Post
Published: March 22, 2013
Copyright: 2013 The Denver Post
Website: http://www.denverpost.com/
Contact: openforum@denverpost.com

Security cameras have been installed, scales calibrated and signs declaring

A House committee held a public hearing Friday on a measure that would tax marijuana brand names and trademarks likely to be introduced in the state of Washington when the sale of recreational marijuana starts at the end of the year.

The bill heard by the House Finance Committee calls for a tax of $3.60 per $1,000 of assessed value of “all trademarks, trade names, brand names, patents and copyrights related to marijuana.” It does not say how those values would be determined and instead says the Department of Revenue can adopt rules for determining those amounts.

In November, voters approved Initiative 502, which allows adults over age 21 to have up to an ounce of pot. The state is due to start issuing licenses to marijuana growers, processors and retail stores, with the marijuana taxed 25 percent at each stage.

Democratic Rep. Jeff Morris of Mount Vernon, the sponsor of the trademark bill, told the committee that Washington, along with Colorado, which also passed a legalization measure in the fall, could benefit as the new industry moves to register brand names or trade names.

“I think that this reflects the uniqueness of the situation,” Morris said. “What was the value of Marlboro as a trade name back when it was filed as a trade name or brand name?”

Under the bill, revenue from the tax would go into a special fund for agricultural research tied to health benefits.

During Friday’s hearing, Morris specifically cited research being done at Washington State University on creating plasma from wheat and making gluten-free wheat.

“It’s that type of research that I’m hoping this money would target,” he said.

Chris Mulick, director of state relations for WSU, testified that the university has concerns about the bill.

He said WSU currently receives $21 million a year to support agriculture research, and there are concerns that if the measure passes, the tax on brand names would supplant state funding.

Mulick also noted concerns surrounding the state’s efforts to persuade the federal government not to sue to block the law from taking effect. The U.S. Justice Department still has not announced its intentions.

“This is a resource that at this time remains highly uncertain,” Mulick said.

Morris said the tax is not meant to replace state funding of research.

A fiscal note done by the state Office of Financial Management says the amount of potential revenue from the tax is unknown for several reasons, including the difficulty estimating a value for a an industry that doesn’t yet exist, as well as uncertainty caused by the illegality of marijuana under federal law.

The measure is House Bill 1976.

Online: http://www.leg.wa.gov

Source: Associated Press (Wire)
Author: Rachel La Corte, The Associated Press
Published: March 22, 2013
Copyright: 2013 The Associated Press

Today is the 40^th anniversary of the Shafer Report, the extensive study commissioned by Richard Nixon to advise him on drug policy. Surprisingly, both to Nixon and to most readers today, the report suggested making marijuana legal all the way back in 1973!

Nixon did not approve and ignored the findings of the report, having already decided to embark on a disastrous “War On Drugs” that continues to this day, with increasingly devastating effects on society.

Eric Sterling covers the report extensively at the Huffington Post, but just think: we could have stopped all this nonsense 40 years ago if our politicians had listened to the evidence instead of reactionary political pressure.