A motorcycle accident when he was 19 left New Englander Scott Murphy
with a steel rod attached to his femur and four metal plates in his hip.
It wasn

The Rhode Island House Judiciary Committee convened this evening to take testimony on H 5274, the Marijuana Regulation, Control, and Taxation Act. This bill, sponsored by Rep. Edith Ajello, would end Rhode Island’s marijuana prohibition, replacing it with a system in which marijuana is taxed, regulated, and sold in a manner similar to alcohol.  This is now the third session in a row that the Marijuana Policy Project has teamed with legislative champions like House Judiciary Chair Edith Ajello, community advocates, and allied policy organizations to make the case that marijuana should be regulated like alcohol, a far more dangerous substance. And for the third year in a row, I was so honored to be in Providence to participate.

Members of the Coalition for Marijuana Regulation testify in support of H 5274

Study after study shows that marijuana is objectively less harmful than alcohol, both for the consumer and the community. For instance, alcohol use is a major factor in many violent crimes and risk of injury to the user; the same is not true for marijuana use. It makes little sense to punish adults who choose to use the safer substance.

Where prohibition fails at prevention of use and abuse, it succeeds at enriching and empowering criminals and cartels. Whether we like it or not, marijuana is and, for decades has been, an in-demand commodity. By prohibiting marijuana, Rhode Island gift-wraps a lucrative, tax-free market to criminal enterprises and drug gangs, putting consumers at risk by exposing them to these harmful people. Since marijuana is illegal, the individuals and organizations that illegally profit are unable to rely on our judicial system to step in and resolve business disputes. This often leads to violence that affects not just the criminals, but our broader communities as well.

Residents of Rhode Island explained how prohibiting marijuana starves Rhode Island of potential tax revenue that could be used to fund vital projects. Marijuana prohibition fails spectacularly at preventing use, but it succeeds in making sure our state and local governments are prevented from collecting revenue off sales. Ending the prohibition will allow Rhode Island to collect sales tax on the purchase of marijuana by adults 21 and older. The particular bill in question also imposes an excise tax of $50 an ounce at the wholesale level. This is real money that Rhode Island can use for good and necessary programs. For instance, under the provisions of the bill, 40% of revenue raised from marijuana sales will go to fund programs for the treatment of alcohol and drug abuse.

Committee members also heard from concerned parents and grandparents about the need to start treating marijuana use for what it is: a matter of public health, not public safety. Rhode Islanders don’t want their children to use marijuana, and we agree with them. But Rhode Islanders also know that marijuana prohibition creates an environment that puts their children at a greater risk than marijuana as a substance ever could. It’s true that we can’t prevent all instances of youth use in Rhode Island, but we can and should address the harms associated with use under prohibition. Prohibition ensures that individuals who have no qualms about breaking the law monopolize the market. Naturally, some of these individuals will have other more harmful drugs available. Regulations ensure that marijuana, and only marijuana, is sold by accountable businesses who card before sales.

We’ve tried prohibition, and it’s failed. No matter how much marijuana law enforcement confiscates, no matter how many individuals they lock up for selling marijuana, and no matter how many users they cite for possession, supply and demand remain. There are many, many reasons to support ending marijuana prohibition, but really no good reason to keep it around. Despite the logic, it will still take time and patience before we can replace prohibition with a system that allows responsible adults to choose to use marijuana in private. Many, many, thanks are in order for Rebecca McGoldrick, Michelle McKenzie, Hillary Davis, Jared Moffat, Beth Comery, and everyone else from the Coalition for Marijuana Regulation who showed up in support. Special thanks to our legislative champion, Chair Ajello, as well as to Minority Leader Newberry and all of their supportive colleagues in the House. What a day!

According to a California Field Poll released on Wednesday, the majority of Golden State voters are in favor of legalizing and regulating marijuana like alcohol for recreational use.  The Sacramento Bee expounded on the poll, which also stated that an even larger percentage of those polled oppose the federal crackdown on medical marijuana businesses. This sentiment was similar across party lines.

Richard Lee

Marijuana reform activists were optimistic after learning of the results. Richard Lee, the chief proponent of Proposition 19, the ballot measure that attempted to make marijuana legal for adults in California in 2010, told the Bee:

“I think it shows that [marijuana legalization and regulation is] going to win in 2016, and it’s just a matter of writing the best law that we can.”

Californians
support legalizing pot in greater numbers than ever — and they want
the federal government to cool it with the crackdowns on medical
marijuana dispensaries.

In a Field Poll released Wednesday, California voters, by a margin of 54 percent to 43 percent, supported allowing legal sales
of marijuana, as long as restrictions are in place on age, driving
under the influence of the drug and licensing those who sell it. That
represents the highest level of support since the Field Poll began
asking the question 44 years ago, when most California believed pot was
the gateway drug to more hurtful substances.

Only 13 percent of California adults supported legalizing marijuana in 1969 — the

"Now, we’re getting to
the point where baby boomers have lived with this stuff for most of
their lives," said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll.

Two-thirds of 834 registered
voters said they opposed the Obama administration’s raids on medical
marijuana outlets, in which nearly 200 dispensaries — most in
California — were targeted in President Barack Obama’s first term.
Local governments have taken cues from the administration: Two hundred
cities and counties have banned medical marijuana dispensaries.

The state Supreme Court is poised to issue a ruling on whether local governments can shut down dispensaries.

Nearly three-fourths — 72 percent — of Californians back the state’s existing medical
marijuana law, approved by voters in 1996. And a strong majority — 58
percent — would support allowing medical marijuana dispensaries in
their own community.

"Certainly, it’s a rebuke of the Obama
administration’s tactics," said Kris Hermes, a spokesman for
Oakland-based Americans for Safe Access, a medical marijuana advocacy
group. "It should indicate that the Justice Department’s tactics are
unacceptable and should be reconsidered."

Obama once criticized
President George W. Bush for his aggressive approach to shutting down
medical marijuana dispensaries. But Obama is on pace to exceed Bush’s
record of medical marijuana busts.

Though voters support medical
marijuana, just over two years ago they rejected a ballot measure to
legalize pot, Proposition 19, by a 53 to 47 percent margin. Legalization
had only narrow support — 50 to 46 percent — in a Field Poll four
months before that election, and the measure’s chances for success were
derailed by what political analysts called a lackluster campaign and a
vague regulatory plan.

Well-run campaigns and more detailed regulatory plans led to pot legalization last November in Colorado and Washington state.

A coalition of Proposition 19 supporters

met
in December to discuss potential future California ballot measures.
They’ve said that they’re targeting the 2016 presidential election
ballot, though they haven’t ruled out putting it on the ballot in 2014.

A
younger and more tolerant electorate is changing the political
landscape. Among voters between the ages of 18 and 29, legalization has a
58-39 edge; among 30- to 39-year-olds, it has a 61-38 percent
advantage. Voters 65 or older are the least likely to support
legalization, with only 43 percent in favor and 52 percent against.

Independent voters most strongly support legalization, at 59 percent, closely followed by Democrats, at 58 percent.

Only
42 percent of Republicans favor legalization. And Latinos are just as
against it, with only 41 percent in favor. But Latinos between the ages
of 18 and 39 support it, 53 to 47 percent. Only 30 percent of Latinos 40
and older support legalization.

Voters living in the Bay Area are
most likely to support legalizing pot, with 66 percent in favor. Voters
along the coast south of Los Angeles County are the least likely, at 47
percent.

The poll, taken Feb. 5 to 17, has an overall margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) Monday gave a public coming out event for
a bill designed to stop federal government interference with medical
marijuana patients and providers in states where it is legal. The bill
debuted at a press conference where Blumenauer was surrounded by medical
marijuana supporters who were in town for meetings and lobbying as part
of the National Cannabis Unity Conference sponsored by Americans for Safe Access.

The bill, House Resolution 689,
is known as the State’s Medical Marijuana Patients Protection Act. It
is the latest effort to find a way to end federal interference in
medical marijuana states. It has 13 cosponsors, including California
Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher.

The bill aims "to provide for the rescheduling of marijuana and for the
medical use of marijuana in accordance with the laws of the various
States." It calls on the Department of Health and Human Services and the
DEA to reschedule marijuana to a schedule other than Schedule I or II.

Schedule I — where marijuana is currently placed — is reserved for
substances with a high danger of abuse and "no currently accepted
medical treatment in the United States," while Schedule II drugs have
lower abuse potential and some accepted medical uses. Schedules III, IV,
and V, where the bill mandates marijuana should be placed, all have
some accepted medical use and "moderate to low," "low," and "lower"
abuse potential, respectively.

The bill also bars the use of the Controlled Substance Act to "prohibit
or otherwise restrict" medical marijuana prescribing or recommending,
possession or cultivation, or distribution of medical marijuana in
states where it is legal.

The unwillingness of the federal government to either restrain itself in
states where medical marijuana is legal or to allow for it to be
rescheduled has led to tension and conflict between the states and the
federal government, Blumenauer said.

"This means that the 19 jurisdictions that permit medical marijuana are
operating in a patchwork of inconsistent local and federal laws," he
explained. "These inconsistencies create significant challenges for both
patients and the businesses working to provide access to medical
marijuana.Frankly, the people in the federal bureaucracy are in an
impossible position. The bill gets the federal government and the
Department of Justice out of this never-never land."

Also addressing the press conference was Dr. Karen Munkacy, a breast
cancer survivor who helped lead the successful campaign for medical
marijuana in Massachusetts last year. The lack of protection for medical
marijuana patients left her faced with a cruel dilemma, she said.

"I had to choose between breaking the law and suffering terribly," Munkacy said. "And I chose to suffer terribly."

Iraq war veteran Scott Murphy told the press conference that 22 veterans
killed themselves each day last year and that medical marijuana could
aid returning vets suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

"If medical marijuana could help just one veteran, it would be worthwhile," he said.

The Blumenauer bill is only the latest to emerge in Congress this
session. Inspired by the continuing conflict over medical marijuana, as
well as the legalization victories in Colorado and Washington in
November, members have introduced bills on medical marijuana, marijuana legalization, and industrial hemp.

Early in February, Blumenauer teamed up with Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) to announce the introduction of legalization and medical marijuana taxation bills. At mid-month, Blumenauer announced his pending States’ Right bill, while Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced medical marijuana and hemp bills, respectively. A hemp bill was introduced earlier in the House.

Whether any of these bills move remains to be seen. The atmosphere is
especially hostile in the House, where Majority Leader John Boehner
(R-OH) is no friend of marijuana and some committee chairs are even more
hostile than the House leadership. Still, the bills are out there, and
there are more of them than ever before. A new generation is picking up
the slack left by the retirement of veteran drug reformers Reps. Barney
Frank (D-MA) and Ron Paul (R-TX) — and then some.

And it is going to win victories, if not this year, then next year, or
the year after that. Marijuana reform isn’t going away in Congress and
it seems to be gaining steam in the states. Medical marijuana could be
the law in nearly half the states by year’s end if the legislative
season goes well, and marijuana legalization bills have popped up in a
half dozen states this year — the latest being Blumenauer’s Oregon.
Legalization initiatives are coming down the pike next year and in 2016.

Increasingly, US congressmen and senators will be representing states
that have adopted medical marijuana and/or legalized marijuana. We are
already starting to see the results on Capitol Hill, and while the
federal government may be the last brick in the wall of pot prohibition,
that wall is already starting to crumble around the edges.

Attorney General Eric Holder promised Washington and Colorado state attorneys general on Tuesday that the Justice Department would issue its verdict “soon” on how it plans to treat the states’ recent moves to legalize marijuana.

“We’re still in the process of reviewing both of the initiatives that were passed,” said Holder, speaking at the National Association of Attorney General annual conference in Washington, D.C.

“You will hear soon. We’re in the last stages of that review and we’re trying to make a determination as to what the policy ramifications are going to be, what our international obligations are — there are a whole variety of things that go into this determination — but the people of [Colorado] and Washington deserve an answer and you will have one soon.”

Holder was responding to Colorado state attorney general John Suthers, who asked the nation’s top law enforcement official when the DOJ would be weighing in on the state laws that have been in effect for nearly two months.

The DOJ is charged with enforcing the federal prohibition on marijuana, and the state laws run counter to the long-existing ban, creating a debate over which law should be enforced and which law is most responsive to the will of the people.

Marijuana has been a centerpiece of the federal government’s “war on drugs,” aimed at cracking down on drug use in the United States. But the growing number of people who support the decriminalization of pot — which is still legally classified nationally in the same category as heroin — has some policymakers in Washington, D.C., rethinking their approach.

On Monday, nearly a dozen House Democrats introduced several bills that would decriminalize marijuana and remove the drug from the list of controlled substances, while requiring the federal government to regulate it and impose penalties on tax-evaders.

Holder has met or talked with both governors and attorneys general from Colorado and Washington during the DOJ’s review process, posing a series of questions to the state leaders, such as how they plan to prevent marijuana produced in the state from being trafficked to other states where the drug is not legal.

Source: Hill, The (US DC)
Author: Jordy Yager
Published: February 26, 2013
Copyright: 2013 The Hill
Website: http://www.hillnews.com/

The federal government says there is no such thing as “medical” marijuana. Despite that, an increasing number of states have legalized the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, and a couple, so far, have okayed recreational use of marijuana for adults.

In the medical context, doctors often prescribe marijuana to manage chronic pain, and those patients must register in a confidential patient database. Registration triggers issuance of registry identification cards so recipients avoid criminal liability. Because many such patients are in the workforce, however, employers need to be aware of existing medical marijuana laws and pending legislation in each state where they employ workers.

The states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington currently legalize marijuana use for varying reasons. Washington and Colorado approved recreational marijuana use by adults, with regulations to monitor its possession, use and sale.

Expect more smoke. In 2013, Alabama, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, New Hampshire, Maryland, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and West Virginia introduced bills to make marijuana use lawful. On February 21 2013, for instance, Maryland Democratic Delegate Curt Anderson introduced a bill to legalize and tax marijuana use by “over 21” adults. The titles of several of these proposed bills contain words like “compassionate use” and “compassion and care” that reveal or suggest empathy for individuals with chronic pain who, with marijuana, want to function and work with less or no pain.

Some existing and pending state laws place specific restrictions on the management of employees who are registered medical marijuana users. In other states, however, regulations state that “their” laws do not deprive businesses from maintaining a drug-free workplace. Still other states have yet to address application of their marijuana laws to the workplace while their regulations remain embryonic.

In California, Colorado, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington, businesses need not currently accommodate employees who legally use marijuana for medicinal purposes. Washington’s statute, for example, says that employers may establish drug-free work policies, and nothing in it requires accommodating the medical use of marijuana. Others are not so clear, forcing employers to develop what sometimes must be “best guess” workplace policies to comply with “fog-filled” laws.

Marijuana use laws in Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, and Rhode Island expressly forbid businesses from refusing to hire applicants and from disciplining and otherwise adversely affecting the employment of registered medical marijuana card holders based solely on that status. Arizona and Delaware extend that by forbidding businesses from refusing to hire applicants or disciplining employees on the basis of drug tests that reveal marijuana components or metabolites. There are exceptions to these rules where, for example, the employees are “impaired” by marijuana while on an employer’s property and/or during work hours. But in those states, employed medical marijuana card holders are not “impaired” simply because marijuana components or metabolites are “in” their systems. Even worse, there currently are no bright-line tests for marijuana “intoxication” comparable to those for alcohol intoxication. That means employers in disciplining “impaired” employees will have to rely on observations of an employee’s behavior to prove impairment and avoid liability if the employees file a charge or sue.

With the changing landscape of state regulation, businesses cannot rely on federal classification of marijuana as a Schedule I substance (meaning it has no currently accepted medical use and has high potential for abuse). Instead, the federal-state “tug of war” means that every employer must be on “high alert” to ever-broadening marijuana use state laws and regulations.

Employers also need to educate law-makers as to the practicalities of employing marijuana users so any legislation passed can and does avoid unintended, harsh, and perhaps dangerous workplace consequences. Here are examples of opportunities for workplace input. In Colorado, there is a task force to propose regulations for its new use laws. Massachusetts health officials held three public “listening sessions” during February to help draft the regulations for the medical marijuana law passed by voters in November 2012.

Employers also should ensure that their human resources professionals and management teams are knowledgeable about the marijuana laws in each state where they employ workers, including updating their policies.

As more and more states relax the use of marijuana, perhaps, in part, because tax revenues from the sale of marijuana can help solve budget woes, business owners will also need pain management.

* Barbra Diallo also contributed to the content of this article.

Source: Forbes Magazine (US)
Author: Roxanne Wilson, Contributor
Published: February 26, 2013
Copyright: 2013 Forbes Inc.
Contact: readers@forbes.com
Website: http://www.forbes.com/

Earlier today, the 11^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that temporarily halted the enforcement of a Florida law requiring that all welfare recipients be drug tested in order to receive benefits.

We have addressed this issue in the past on this blog, and it is good to see the 11^th Circuit supporting the lower court’s decision. Drug testing in this fashion is an invasion of privacy, and in most cases ends up costing the taxpayers far more than is saved by denying benefits to the very few people who test positive.

Cathy Jordan

Yesterday, the Miami Herald published an article discussing a recent poll that shows a majority of Florida voters support medical marijuana. The article specifically mentioned the Cathy Jordan Medical Cannabis Act and talked about how it could affect the gubernatorial race in 2014.

Apparently, certain folks in law enforcement didn’t like what they saw.

In a bizarre twist that some see as more than just a coincidence, Cathy Jordan, who has Lou Gehrig’s disease and for whom the bill is named, had her home raided by Manatee County sheriffs just hours after the article was published.

Deputies entered the property, claiming they had probable cause to search based on a tip and found two mature marijuana plants and 21 immature seedlings growing inside.

A spokesman for the sheriff’s office claimed deputies had no knowledge of the pending legislation, and that they have no desire to get involved in the publicity of such a discussion.

Luckily, no arrests were made, but the case is being reviewed by the state attorney’s office.

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Jeff Clemens, was not amused:

Clemens said Monday he was angry about the raid on the Jordan house.

“Do we want to be the kind of state that raids the home of a woman in a wheelchair in order to enforce outdated laws?” Clemens said Monday night.

According to a recent poll conducted by Hamilton Campaigns on behalf of People United for Medical Marijuana, 70% of Florida voters support a plan to mend the state constitution to allow the medical use of marijuana.

Those are great numbers, but analysts say that this level of support could actually have an impact on the gubernatorial race in Florida if it makes the ballot in 2014! 

From the Miami Herald:

“Supporters of the proposed amendment are less certain to cast ballots in the 2014 governor’s race,” David Beattie, Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson’s pollster, wrote in an analysis of the poll of 600 registered voters taken Jan. 30-Feb. 3 by his firm, Hamilton Campaigns.

If it made the ballot, the measure would draw even more attention to Florida’s nationally watched 2014 election in which Gov. Rick Scott will fight for his political life.

“The proposal to allow the medical use of marijuana could provide a message contrast in the Governor’s race,” Beattie wrote, “heightening its effectiveness as a turnout mechanism.”

Politicians should start to take notice of the effect marijuana bills can have on elections. As popular support for marijuana reform grows, so will the electoral chances of candidates that get in front of this issue.