Larsen has dedicated his life’s work to cannabis law reform.

On Jan.  23, Dana Larsen spent his afternoon in UVic’s Student Union Building speaking about pot to an audience that no doubt consisted of a few more empty chairs than he would have liked to see.  This has become a typical day for Larsen in his capacity as the face of Sensible B.C., a campaign to reform B.C.’s cannabis laws through a provincial referendum.  Larsen, 41, has travelled across B.C., speaking at events both large and small as he promotes his campaign.

Larsen has dedicated his life’s work to cannabis law reform.  He was politically active as a student at SFU and, upon graduation, worked with Marc Emery, a prominent marijuana activist, at the magazine Cannabis Culture.  He was involved with the Marijuana Party until he joined the NDP in 2003.  In 2010, he ran for the leadership of the provincial NDP and received 2.7 per cent of the vote.

Sensible B.C.  aims to implement something called the sensible policing act.  This act would effectively decriminalize possession of cannabis in B.C.  by redirecting police personnel and resources away from targeting cannabis possession.  Activities like cultivation, trafficking and driving under the influence would remain subject to current policing and penalties.  Minors in possession of cannabis would be treated as though they were in possession of alcohol.

The second part of the proposed act calls for the full legalization of marijuana in B.C.  while recognizing that to do so would require some level of support from the federal government as the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act falls within federal jurisdiction.

For B.C.  to legalize marijuana, the federal government would need to either legalize cannabis or create an exception for B.C.  According to Larsen, this could be done through Section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which allows for a person or “class of persons” to be designated exempt.

Both decriminalization and legalization would prevent people from facing criminal charges for cannabis possession.  Legalization would involve the government in the regulation and taxation of the substance, while decriminalization would not.

The sensible policing act would mandate that the provincial government establish a commission that would hold hearings to study how B.C.  should implement a taxed and regulated system if allowed to do so by the federal government.

Larsen voices few concerns about whether or not his initiative would pass if B.C.  residents vote on the proposal.  A 2012 poll by the research firm Forum found that 76 per cent of British Columbians favour either legalization and taxation of marijuana ( 52 per cent ) or decriminalization of small amounts ( 24 per cent ).  Eleven per cent of British Columbians are content with the status quo, while 12 per cent support increasing penalties.

What Larsen sees as the real obstacle to implementing the sensible policing act is collecting the required number of signatures to compel the government to hold a referendum.  Though eight initiative applications have been approved by Elections B.C.  since 1995, only the initiative to repeal the HST has made it through the entire process.

For an initiative to go to referendum, it must be checked by Elections B.C.  to ensure that it is clearly written and falls within provincial jurisdiction.  Advocates must then collect signatures from 10 per cent of registered voters in every provincial electoral district within a 90-day period.  Sensible B.C.  is planning to collect signatures between September and November of 2013 in the hopes of prompting a referendum in 2014.  To gain an advantage, Sensible B.C.  is asking supporters to register online so that they can be easily contacted once the campaign begins to collect signatures.

There has been debate about whether or not B.C.  has the capacity to decriminalize cannabis without the federal government’s support.  In a recent exchange with Cannabis Culture’s Jeremiah Vandermeer, B.C.’s Minister of Justice and Attorney General Shirley Bond responded, “Police are constitutionally required to enforce the rule of law.  Until and unless Canadian law is changed, the production, sale and use of marijuana is currently illegal ( controlled federal legislation ), and our police have a responsibility to enforce criminal laws for the good of all British Columbians.”

However, by approving the sensible policing act as an initiative, Elections B.C.  indicated that they felt it fell within provincial jurisdiction.  In response to a question from a member of the audience about the controversy, Larsen said, “Stephen Harper could sue British Columbia, go to court and fight us.  I say, bring it on.”

In order for any initiative to collect the required number of signatures, the proponents need a sizeable volunteer base.  Sam Vekemans, the local volunteer co-ordinator for Sensible B.C., asked that anyone interested in volunteering like the Facebook page Sensible BC – Victoria to stay updated.

Source: Martlet (CN BC Edu)
Copyright: 2013 Martlet Publishing Society
Contact: letters@martlet.ca
Website: http://www.martlet.ca/

An effort is building in Congress to change U.S. marijuana laws, including moves to legalize the industrial production of hemp and establish a federal pot tax.

While passage this year could be a longshot, lawmakers from both parties have been quietly working on several bills, the first of which Democratic Reps. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Jared Polis of Colorado plan to introduce Tuesday, Blumenauer told The Associated Press.

Polis’ measure would regulate marijuana the way the federal government handles alcohol: In states that legalize pot, growers would have to obtain a federal permit. Oversight of marijuana would be removed from the Drug Enforcement Administration and given to the newly renamed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana and Firearms, and it would remain illegal to bring marijuana from a state where it’s legal to one where it isn’t.

The bill is based on a legalization measure previously pushed by former Reps. Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Ron Paul of Texas.

Blumenauer’s bill would create a federal marijuana excise tax.

Last fall’s votes in Colorado and Washington state to legalize recreational marijuana should push Congress to end the 75-year federal pot prohibition, Blumenauer said.

“You folks in Washington and my friends in Colorado really upset the apple cart,” Blumenauer said. “We’re still arresting two-thirds of a million people for use of a substance that a majority feel should be legal. … It’s past time for us to step in and try to sort this stuff out.”

Advocates who are working with the lawmakers acknowledge it could take years for any changes to get through Congress, but they’re encouraged by recent developments. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell last week came out in support of efforts to legalize hemp in his home state of Kentucky, and U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., is expected to introduce legislation allowing states to set their own policy on marijuana.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has indicated he plans to hold a hearing on the conflict between state and federal marijuana laws and has urged an end to federal “mandatory minimum” sentences that lead to long prison stints for drug crimes.

“We’re seeing enormous political momentum to undo the drug war failings of the past 40 years,” said Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance, who has been working with lawmakers on marijuana-related bills. “For the first time, the wind is behind our back.”

The Justice Department hasn’t said how it plans to respond to the votes in Washington and Colorado. It could sue to block the states from issuing licenses to marijuana growers, processors and retail stores, on the grounds that doing so would conflict with federal drug law.

Blumenauer and Polis are due to release a paper this week urging Congress to make a number of changes, including altering tax codes to let marijuana dispensaries deduct business expenses on federal taxes, and making it easier for marijuana-related businesses to get bank accounts. Many operate on a cash basis because federally insured banks won’t work with them, they noted.

Blumenauer said he expects to introduce the tax-code legislation as well as a bill that would reschedule marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act, allowing states to enact medical marijuana laws without fear that federal authorities will continue raiding dispensaries or prosecuting providers. It makes no sense that marijuana is a Schedule I drug, in the same category as heroin and a more restrictive category than cocaine, Blumenauer said.

The measures have little chance of passing, said Kevin Sabet, a former White House drug policy adviser. Sabet recently joined former Rhode Island Rep. Patrick Kennedy and former President George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum in forming a group called Project SAM – for “smart approaches to marijuana” – to counter the growing legalization movement. Sabet noted that previous federal legalization measures have always failed.

“These are really extreme solutions to the marijuana problem we have in this country,” Sabet said. “The marijuana problem we have is a problem of addiction among kids, and stigma of people who have a criminal record for marijuana crimes.

“There are a lot more people in Congress who think that marijuana should be illegal but treated as a public health problem, than think it should be legal.”

Project SAM suggests people shouldn’t get criminal records for small-time marijuana offenses, but instead could face probation or treatment.

Source: Associated Press (Wire)
Author: Gene Johnson, Associated Press
Published: February 4, 2013
Copyright: 2013 The Associated Press

MPP executive director Rob Kampia is interviewed on “The Agenda,” a popular political show on the Las Vegas NBC affiliate. In particular, he discusses the prospects for legalizing marijuana in Nevada and the growing public support for ending marijuana prohibition nationwide.

California’s experiment with medical marijuana has sparked a hazy version of the old Not-in-My-Backyard syndrome.

From
Hollister to Antioch, from Scotts Valley to Petaluma, from Seaside to
Moraga, city after city has banned medical marijuana dispensaries,
sending a message that even the sickest of patients must go elsewhere
for that state-permitted dose of prescribed medical weed.

But on
Tuesday, this fear-and-loathing approach to outlawing medical pot
providers will face an unprecedented test in the California Supreme
Court. The seven justices are to hear arguments on whether local
governments can ban the dispensaries in view of the state’s 1996
voter-approved law legalizing pot for medical use.

The case
involves the Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center, which
more than two years ago sued to block Riverside’s dispensary ban,
arguing that cities and counties cannot bar activities legal in
California. A state appeals court sided with Riverside, and now the
Supreme Court, faced with similar legal tangles across the state, has
jumped into the fray.

The stakes are high in California’s ongoing
struggle pitting medical marijuana advocates against cities worried
about problems associated with some of the dispensaries, such as lax
control over the distribution of a drug that remains illegal under
federal law.

"The Riverside case is a fascinating example of our ‘laboratories of democracy’ in action," said Julie Nice, a law professor at the University of
San Francisco, where the Supreme Court will hear the arguments. "It
illustrates the difficulties created when each level of government …
stakes out a different regulatory position on a controversial subject."

The
Bay Area, like the rest of California, is divided on the issue. San
Francisco, San Jose, Oakland and Richmond have allowed certain numbers
of dispensaries, even taxing their revenues, while large swaths of the
region are dispensary-free zones.

Overall, there are at least 180
local government bans on medical marijuana dispensaries in California,
about three dozen of them in the Bay Area, according to the marijuana
advocacy group Americans for Safe Access. And that does not include
moratoriums and regulations such as zoning limits, which medical
marijuana supporters agree can be enforced.

Antioch and Pittsburg
just recently approved bans, and Palo Alto voters in November rejected a
ballot measure that would have allowed up to three dispensaries in the
city. As a result, Peninsula residents for the most part have to travel
to San Jose or San Francisco for medical cannabis.

Riverside,
backed by groups such as the League of California Cities, argues that
local governments have strong rights to regulate land uses in their
boundaries, particularly an unusual land use such as a medical pot
dispensary.

"Cities and counties may decide that a particular land
use activity or business is not appropriate for a particular community,
even though that activity is not illegal under state law," said Stephen
McEwen, a lawyer for the cities.

Riverside banned dispensaries
under its nuisance laws. Other cities have taken different approaches;
Hercules five years ago approved a de facto ban with an ordinance
forbidding any land use barred by either state or federal law.

Yet
Hercules has not enforced its ban against the Hercules Health Center,
which has operated in a business park in the East Bay city for several
years. Patients such as Terri Holloway, a local resident, say the center
provides a safe environment close to home to get medical weed, which
she uses after suffering multiple heart attacks and a stroke.

Medical
marijuana advocates say the bans undermine the intent of the state law,
which they argue was meant to provide uniform access to medical
cannabis across the state for certain patients, such as those fighting
cancer or AIDS.

Instead, the bans result in a patchwork that
critics say forces seriously ill people to jump in a car to get to
dispensaries, or seek the drug on the black market. "The ones who need
it the most are the ones who are affected the most," said Douglas
Chiopek, who heads San Jose’s Medmar Healing Center.

David Nick,
who is representing the Riverside dispensary, flatly predicts he’ll win
in the Supreme Court because cities "cannot ban what a state law makes
lawful."

But legal experts say the Supreme Court may be reluctant
to strip cities of the right to enact the bans, likening the situation
to states that permit counties to be "wet" or "dry" in allowing alcohol
sales.

"It is really unusual for a locality to try to outright ban
something that is legal under state law," said Alex Kreit, a Thomas
Jefferson School of Law professor who advised San Diego on its medical
pot regulations. "But I still think it’s going to be an uphill battle
for the medical marijuana argument in this case."

The state Supreme Court is poised to begin hearing arguments Tuesday
on whether cities and counties can ban medical marijuana dispensaries

MPP director of government relations Steve Fox was interviewed on CNBC’s Power Lunch on Wednesday about the implementation of Washington State’s new legal marijuana market regulations.

Here’s the clip:

It is interesting that despite voters in two states making marijuana legal for adults, and with over 20 states considering marijuana reform legislation in the 2013 session, some folks in the mainstream media simply cannot stop making jokes about this serious policy issue. The time for puns is over. It is time for change.

A national poll released this week by Reason Magazine found that a majority of adults want to see marijuana reform, and that they want the federal government to respect state laws concerning marijuana.

Some highlights, courtesy of Katie Hooks:

– 72 percent of Americans say the federal government should not arrest marijuana users in states like Colorado and Washington that have legalized the drug.

– 68 percent of Americans say the federal government should not arrest marijuana growers in states that have legalized the drug.

– 64 percent say the federal government should not arrest marijuana sellers in states that have legalized the drug.

– 53 percent say they agree with the statement that “marijuana should be treated the same as alcohol.”

– 49 percent say they oppose legalizing marijuana for recreational use and 47 percent support legalizing it. That finding is within the poll’s margin of error, which is plus or minus 3.8 percent.

It is important to note the discrepancy in these last two results. Often times, when people hear the word “legalize,” they assume that this means making marijuana legal with no regulations or systems in place to govern the distribution and use of the substance. This could easily explain why more respondents agree with treating marijuana like alcohol than with “legalizing marijuana.” Fortunately, every serious effort to make marijuana legal in states around the country has been careful to include provisions that would establish a well-regulated cultivation and distribution system.

Videos are now available of the town hall forum MPP hosted Sunday in Portland, Ore., where U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR3) and MPP director of government relations Steve Fox discussed the benefits of ending marijuana prohibition and how it can be done in Oregon and in Congress. A great article about the event was featured on the front page of the state’s largest newspaper, the Oregonian.

The videos of Rep. Bluemenauer and Steve Fox are below courtesy of the Russ Bellville Show, and a full rundown on the event can be found after the jump.

U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer:

Steve Fox of MPP:

November 8, 2016, may seem like calendars away, but in the world of lobbying and ballot initiatives, it’s right around the corner. Last Sunday, January 27, U.S. Rep. Blumenauer (D-OR3) joined MPP’s Steve Fox in Portland, Oregon for a town hall forum on legalizing marijuana. Unlike Washington and Colorado, Oregon wasn’t a scene of celebration during election night 2012; Measure 80, which sought to repeal the state’s marijuana prohibition and replace it with a system of taxation and regulation, was defeated 53% to 47%.

No one said the path to regulation would be easy. Rather than sulking and dreaming about what could have been, Steve and Rep. Blumenauer used their time to advise Oregonians on what they could do now to ensure that the next time a reform initiative makes its way on to Oregon’s ballot, it’s met with sweeping approval.

Rep. Blumenauer opened the meeting by discussing his growing involvement in the fight to end prohibition. It began with a two-plant legalization bill in 1972. A 61-year-old Republican hog farmer from eastern Oregon named Stafford Hansell came onto the floor of the state legislature and gave a clean, systematic comparison of marijuana of other substances, including alcohol and tobacco. By the end of Mr. Hansell’s speech, Rep. Blumenauer decided that not only was the (defeated) bill worthy of his support, the entire issue of marijuana reform was a cause he should advocate. He left the assembly concluding, “Oregonians should be allowed this choice.”

When promoting reform, Rep. Blumenauer refers to the model “directly analogous” to marijuana-related policy: alcohol. “Prohibition, depending on your point of view, was either a failure or a disaster…The federal government and the states, the political system, and civic society worked out a system where the federal government would reflect individual states decisions.” It is a model, Rep. Blumenauer concluded, that makes sense for the federal government to look at going forward.

Steve followed Rep. Blumenauer’s question-and-answer session by addressing what lessons voters in Oregon could take away from Colorado. Success was predicated on cooperation, education, timing, drafting, organizing, and advertising, six categories those hoping to replicate Colorado’s victory in the Beaver State could easily incorporate into their campaign.

In 2012 there were multiple pro-reform initiatives put forward in Oregon, resulting in a division of money that, if merged, could have been used more efficiently. “You need to move forward together,” Steve told attendees. He also suggested that Oregonians form a 2016 roundtable so that everyone who wants to be part of this effort can “share their voice.”

Education, Steve believes “changed the dynamic” in Colorado. In 2005, MPP embarked on a public education campaign fully dedicated to the fact that marijuana is safer than alcohol. The SAFER campaign combated the old and tired fear tactics oppositional groups mechanically to dismiss the idea of marijuana reform. Getting the message “marijuana is safer than alcohol” out to the public so early and so often made all the difference when it came time to vote.

The issue of timing was particularly touchy for some in the room. Years of experience have taught MPP that presidential election years make all the difference. Presidential elections give a seven to eight point bump, which can – and often do – make or break an initiative. Some attendees expressed their desire to push forward in 2014, seizing the momentum of 2012; however, Steve reminded the crowd, “You don’t know what the landscape will look like in 2014…It’s a roll of the dice.” If the 2014 initiative failed, the money put into that campaign would ultimately affect the quality of resources sponsors could put into 2016.

Drafting is another collaborative process. It requires compromise and listening to the opinions of various communities. It is not a one size fits all approach; each state needs to examine their voting bodies and decide whether or not sponsors should choose the statutory or constitutional initiative process.

In regards to organizing, it’s all about utilizing time. “Start now, find the people who are on your side,” and add their voices (and vote) to your campaign. At the grass-roots level, engage individuals across the state; build a strong emailing list; and, talk to friends and family – 12% of Colorado voters (1/8) polled post-election stated they heard positive things about the initiative from either relatives or friends.

Lastly, Steve spoke about advertising. It’s a two-part process. Early on, start with education. Inform voters about the CDC’s take on alcohol and tobacco, and let them know what doctors across the country are saying about marijuana. During the final months of a campaign, focus should be placed on the traditional argument, (i.e., crime and money). La enforcement agencies should direct their attention to combating serious crime tax revenue should benefit the state not cartels.

Mesothelioma cancer patients utilizing marijuana for medicinal
purposes were dealt a setback earlier this month when a federal appeals
court in Washington D.C. ruled in favor of the government

2013 isn’t even a month old, and already we’re seeing numerous senators and representatives across the country ride the wave of reformation that was generated in November 2012. Since Washington and Colorado put the question of marijuana regulation on the ballot, more and more state leaders have come to the realization that prohibition is not what the people want, and it’s definitely not what the country needs.

Prior to the end of 2012, Indiana Sen. Brent Steele (R-Bedford) announced plans to introduce a proposal in the 2013 session that would alter the legal repercussions associated with marijuana possession. Rather than facing jail time, individuals in Indiana caught with 10 grams of marijuana or less would be served a fine.

Iowa Rep. Bruce Hunter (D-Des Moines) has pushed for medical marijuana and declared his intention to introduce HF 2270 in the Iowa General Assembly. If passed, Iowans with qualifying conditions would be allowed to possess up to two and a half ounces of marijuana. HF 2270 also includes terms for the creation of a licensing system for eligible patients and for the creation of nonprofit suppliers to sell marijuana to those licensed to buy.

In Illinois, Rep. Lou Lang (D-Skokie) introduced HB 1 to protect medical cannabis patients. Mississippi Sen. Deborah Dawkins (D-Pass Christian) is seeking to add the Magnolia State, which has already decriminalized personal use marijuana possession, to the ever-growing list of states that have legalized medical marijuana. Other states actively seeking to adopt compassionate medical marijuana legislation include New York, New Hampshire, and West Virginia.

On January 17, Hawaii Speaker of the House Joseph Souki (D-8th District) took – or photocopied – a page from Amendment 64, and introduced HB150, which essentially mirrors the latest article in Colorado’s constitution. If passed, adults 21 and over would be permitted to possess and purchase up to an ounce of marijuana at a time, as well as paraphernalia. (Under current state law, paraphernalia possession is a felony and carries a maximum five-year prison sentence and a $10,000 fine.)

Many of the calls for marijuana policy reforms have come out of states with the harshest marijuana laws on record. In Oklahoma, Sen. Connie Johnson (D-Oklahoma City) successfully introduced SB 710 and SB 914. Respectively, the bills call for (1) the establishment of a medical marijuana program, and (2) the reduction of penalties for possessing small amounts of marijuana. Both are scheduled to receive first readings on February 4.

In Alabama, Rep. Patricia Todd (D-Birmingham) and Rep. K.L. Brown (R) pre-filed House Bill 2, which would authorize the use of medical marijuana. HB 2 will be introduced to the legislature on February 5. And, a history of rejection didn’t dissuade Sen. David Haley (D-Kansas City) from introducing SB 9 in the Kansas Senate. It turns out third time’s a charm: for the first time in three years, an introduced medical marijuana bill will be heard at the committee level in Kansas.

Even Texas jumped – or at the very least, hesitantly crawled – on the reform bandwagon. Rep. Harold Dutton (D-Houston) has proposed decriminalizing possession of one ounce or less, instead fining users $500. Rep. Dutton’s fellow representative Elliot Naishtat (D-Austin) reintroduced a bill that would give patients with serious illnesses an “affirmative defense” against charges of possessing small amounts of marijuana.

Refusing to become complacent is one of, if not the most, important elements in the fight to end prohibition. Marijuana reform will not happen overnight, and individuals like Sen. Haley and Rep. Todd have shown us that determination does indeed yield results. Even small measures like substituting fines for jail time are a step in the right direction.

If these early weeks of 2013 can assure us of anything, it’s that this year has the potential to be one of the most significant and memorable years in reform history. With public opinion for marijuana regulation on the rise, we expect multiple states to follow suit and offer up similar legislative proposals in the months to come.