# MJ News for 03/20/2014



## 7greeneyes (Mar 20, 2014)

h*MP*p://blog.seattlepi.com/marijuana/2014/03/19/liquor-board-joins-the-deacops-in-ability-to-confiscate-marijuana/




*Liquor Board joins DEA, cops in ability to confiscate and destroy marijuana*​

In a late email Wednesday, the Washington State Liquor Control Board announced that it has given its officers the legal right to confiscate and order destroyed marijuana produced in excess of what a grower, producer or retailer is licensed to have.

The newly adopted rules also state that LCB enforcers can take or order destroyed any pot found that is not accounted for in the agencys strict accounting and tracking rules.

The board sent an email at 4:43 p.m. with the punchline:

This explanatory statement concerns the Washington State Liquor Control Boards adoption of new rules and revisions to chapter 314-55 WAC.  New rules for search and seizure and additional revisions to WAC 314-55-083 and WAC 314-55-102 are needed to further clarify I-502 for marijuana licensees.

Here are the new rules, copied from a link to a PDF provided in the boards email:

NEW SECTION

&#65532;WAC 314-55-200: How will the liquor control board identify marijuana, usable marijuana, and marijuana-infused products during checks of licensed businesses?

Officers shall identify marijuana, usable marijuana, and marijuana-infused products during on-site inspections of licensed producers, processors, and retailers of marijuana by means of product in the traceability system, and/or by observation based on training and experience. Products that are undetermined to be marijuana, usable marijuana, and marijuana-infused products will be verified by the following:

(1) Officers may take a sample large enough for testing purposes;
(2) Field test kits may be used if available and appropriate for the type of product being verified; and
(3) Those samples not able to be tested with a field test kit may be tested through the Washington state toxicology or crime lab.


NEW SECTION

WAC 314-55-210: Will the liquor control board seize or confiscate marijuana, usable marijuana, and marijuana-infused products?

The liquor control board may seize or confiscate marijuana, usable marijuana, and marijuana-infused products under the following circumstances:

(1) During an unannounced or announced administrative search or inspection of a licensed location, or vehicle involved in the transportation of marijuana products, where any product was found to be in excess of product limitations set forth in WAC 314-55-075, 314-55-077, and 314-55-079.
(2) Any product not properly logged in inventory records or untraceable product required to be in the traceability system.
(3) Marijuana, usable marijuana, and marijuana-infused product that are altered or not properly packaged and labeled in accordance with WAC 314-55-105.
(4) During a criminal investigation, officers shall follow seiz- ure laws detailed in RCW 69.50.505 and any other applicable criminal codes.


NEW SECTION

WAC 314-55-220: What is the process once the board summarily orders marijuana, usable marijuana, or marijuana-infused products of a marijuana licensee to be destroyed?

(1) The board may issue an order to summarily destroy marijuana, usable marijuana, or marijuana-infused products after the boards enforcement division has completed a preliminary staff investigation of the violation and upon a determination that immediate destruction of marijuana, usable marijuana, or marijuana-infused products is necessary for the protection or preservation of the public health, safety, or welfare.
(2) Destruction of any marijuana, usable marijuana, or marijuana- infused products under this provision shall take effect immediately &#65532;&#65532;upon personal service on the licensee or employee thereof of the summary destruction order unless otherwise provided in the order.
(3) When a license has been issued a summary destruction order by the board, an adjudicative proceeding for the associated violation or other action must be promptly instituted before an administrative law judge assigned by the office of administrative hearings. If a request for an administrative hearing is timely filed by the licensee, then a hearing shall be held within ninety days of the effective date of the summary destruction ordered by the board.


NEW SECTION

WAC 315-55-230: What are the procedures the liquor control board will use to destroy or donate marijuana, usable marijuana, and marijuana-infused products to law enforcement?

(1) The liquor control board may require a marijuana licensee to destroy marijuana, usable marijuana, and marijuana-infused products found in a licensed establishment to be in excess of product limits set forth in WAC 314-55-075, 314-55-077, and 314-55-079.
(2) Destruction of seized marijuana, usable marijuana, marijuana-infused products, or confiscated marijuana after case adjudication, will conform with liquor control board evidence policies, to include the option of donating marijuana, usable marijuana, and marijuana-infused products, set for destruction, to local and state law enforcement agencies for training purposes only.
(3) Marijuana, usable marijuana, and marijuana-infused products set for destruction shall not reenter the traceability system or market place. &#65532;


----------



## 7greeneyes (Mar 20, 2014)

h*MP*p://www.tampabay.com/news/humaninterest/john-morgan-jonathan-pontell-forecast-legalization-of-marijuana/2171006




*In Florida, medical marijuana will be legal, John Morgan says​*

Generation Jones, the youngest segment of baby boomers, is a very influential lot.

Born between 1954 and 1964, GenJonesers are taking the reins of government and becoming a powerful draw for advertisers.

In Florida, they are seen as a key demographic in the push to legalize medical marijuana when it's put to voters in November.

"Jonesers have smoked far more pot than any generation before or after us, which has resulted in more toleration and acceptance of that drug  and comfort with its legalization," said Jonathan Pontell, the social commentator credited with coining the term Generation Jones.

"Given what I'm assuming to be a large number of GenJones voters in Florida, combined with what I'm assuming to be a large number of Florida GenJones politicians and activists, this generation's role may be pivotal," he said.

So, we decided to put some questions about that to John Morgan, founder of the heavy- hitting trial lawyer firm Morgan & Morgan  "For the People"  and the man who funded and put a face on the effort that got medical marijuana on the ballot.

By the way, Morgan, born in 1956, is a GenJoneser himself.

Patti Ewald, Times staff writer

*1 How important are the Generation Jones voters in legalizing medical marijuana?*

I think we are very important. People are afraid of what they don't know. We have been around it our whole lives and we've never been judgmental about it. Even if we never smoked it, it's no big deal.

*2 Why is it no big deal to GenJonesers?*

That group votes tolerant. It's much less afraid of it than the Greatest Generation (defined as those born between 1911 and 1924, the generation that gave birth to the baby boomers), which had much less exposure to it. We hate what we don't know.

Generation Jones had friends in college who smoked who are now neurosurgeons  and president of the United States. (President Barack Obama, a Joneser born in 1961, has admitted to smoking pot.) We all know people who have smoked who are doing tremendous things in society.

*3 What about the children-of-GenJonesers voting block?*

Generation Jones is the reason Barack Obama is president. Black America was, for the most part, in lockstep with Hillary Clinton. Our children were behind Barack Obama. Generation Jones taught our children to be color-blind, to be tolerant, to be accepting.

These kids are going to vote in record numbers in November.

*4 What other group of voters do you see as key to legalization?*

People who are 65 to 70 . . . or anyone who has had a loved one in a chemo ward or watched them suffer in any way. They don't give a damn if marijuana is legal or not if it can provide some relief. It's a step to not only providing safer pain relief and treatment methods for those with legitimate diseases, but also to help end the rampant problem of prescription drug abuse  and abuse of other drugs like heroin  in Florida. Disease and illness doesn't pick a political party. It's not a political issue, it's a medical issue.

*5 Do you think it's going to pass?*

It's not only going to pass, it's going to pass overwhelmingly. We need 60 percent of the vote and in any election, 60 percent is considered a landslide. It's going to pass in a landslide. We are at a tipping point with marijuana in this country and usually when things start to tip, it turns into an avalanche. I know for a fact that someday when we look back on all the money spent on making it a crime and sending people to jail and all the people whose careers were over because they got arrested for it and then couldn't get into med school or law school, we're going to say, "What were we doing?"


----------



## 7greeneyes (Mar 20, 2014)

h*MP*p://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2014/mar/19/las-vegas-allow-medical-marijuana-dispensaries/




*Las Vegas to allow marijuana dispensaries; county advances pot biz process​*

A push to increase patient access to medical marijuana took a step forward today as two local governments voted to allow dispensaries and related businesses in their jurisdictions.


In Clark County, commissioners approved land-use and licensing regulations that clear the way for prospective medical marijuana entrepreneurs to begin filing applications for special-use permits next month.

A few hours earlier, the Las Vegas City Council took a stand on medical marijuana, voting to allowing dispensaries and directing staff to bring back final regulations for a vote in May or June.

The votes mark definitive progress for medical marijuana advocates, who have been working to increase patient access to the drug since it was legalized in the state constitution more than a decade ago.

Although medical marijuana was approved by voters, no system to legally distribute it was established until the 2013 Legislature passed a bill allowing for a network of cultivation facilities, testing labs and dispensaries.

Clark County is the first local government in Southern Nevada to pass regulations that govern how and where medical marijuana businesses can locate.

This is a monumental step I think that the county took, commission Chairman Steve Sisolak said. We tried to get everything right but I think that time is going to tell what we got right and what we got wrong, what adjustments and tweaks are going to have to be made in the future.

Although all commissioners supported medical marijuana, Commissioners Chris Giunchigliani and Lawrence Weekly voted against the ordinance because of concerns about what they felt were some overly restrictive provisions of the law.

Giunchigliani took issue with two specific portions of the ordinance  one requiring cultivation facilities, which are already limited to industrially zoned areas, to be at least 660 feet from homes, which severely limits the number of suitable locations, she said.

The other requires that dispensaries acquire their product from cultivation facilities in Clark County unless theres a shortage or the drug cant be acquired at a fair market value. Giunchigliani said this provision could negatively impact patients who rely on highly specialized strains of cannabis used to treat seizures and other illnesses.

Commissioners did remove a provision requiring dispensaries to be located at least 330 feet from homes, reasoning that any dispensaries too close to a residential area can be rejected during the special use permit application process.

The commissioners approval means business owners will have to scramble to lock down sites for dispensaries and cultivation facilities because of a narrow application window that starts April 16 and ends May 2.

Prospective owners will have to pass a background check and prove locations meet zoning standards, among other requirements.

Once applications are received, each one will be reviewed before making their way before county commissioners, who will hold a public meeting June 5 to award the special-use permits.

Although theres no limit in the state law on the number of production and cultivation facilities, unincorporated Clark County is only allowed 10 dispensary licenses, meaning commissioners will have to wade through dozens of applicants to pick the best proposals.

Las Vegas, meanwhile, is a few steps behind the county. But todays decision by the council means the city will likely become the second in the valley to allow medical marijuana businesses, after licensing regulations are approved. The vote to approve medical marijuana split the council 5-2, with council members Stavros Anthony and Lois Tarkanian in opposition.

Councilman Ricki Barlow was initially hesitant about allowing medical marijuana in Las Vegas, but said he came around after visiting dispensaries in Arizona and California.

In the beginning I had a completely different interpretation and level of understanding as to what were dealing with here, Barlow said. I have a newfound respect for how, in fact, this actually has helped a lot of patients ... I had a stereotype of who was going to be inside of the facilities, but I was gravely wrong.

The city also approved a moratorium on accepting any medical marijuana business license applications until regulations are in place, a measure meant to prevent overeager entrepreneurs from applying early.

While Southern Nevadas two largest local governments have moved firmly in the direction of allowing medical marijuana businesses, others have hesitated.

Boulder City passed an outright ban on dispensaries earlier this year, while Henderson approved a moratorium while city officials decide whether to welcome the industry within their jurisdiction.


----------



## 7greeneyes (Mar 20, 2014)

h*MP*p://www.wbur.org/2014/03/19/wbur-poll-casinos-marijuana




*WBUR Poll: Public Opinion In Mass. Shifts Rapidly On Casinos, Marijuana​*

BOSTON  Public opinion on casinos and marijuana legalization is rapidly shifting in Massachusetts, according to a new WBUR poll.

The survey finds a once-large margin of support for casinos has all but evaporated in recent weeks, with 46 percent now in support of casinos and 43 percent opposed.

Meanwhile, support for the legalization of marijuana for recreational use is taking off. Forty-eight percent now back it, with 41 percent opposed.

Steve Koczela, president of the MassINC Polling Group, which conducted the WBUR poll (topline, crosstabs), says the quick changes on casinos and marijuana are akin to the rapid shift in public opinion on gay marriage nationwide.

Theres much more volatility than I recall seeing in terms of some big social issues, he said.

The WBUR poll of 500 likely voters conducted between March 14 and 16 comes as advocates eye ballot measures on both issues.

Marijuana legalization advocates are pushing for a 2016 referendum. And gambling opponents are hoping to get a measure on the ballot this fall that would repeal the states casino law.

Attorney General Martha Coakley has ruled the casino measure unconstitutional. But activists are appealing that ruling in court. And Kathleen Conley Norbut, a former Monson selectman active in the statewide opposition to casinos, says shifting public opinion on the issue is encouraging.

Were doing this because were going to win, she said. We dont have the deep pockets. What we have is a commitment to our communities, to our democracy and to see that the commonwealth of Massachusetts does the right thing.

*Casino Support Softens*

Mohegan Sun, vying for a casino at the Suffolk Downs racetrack in Revere, declined comment on the poll. Wynn Resorts, competing with Mohegan Sun for the sole Boston-area casino license, did not respond to requests for comment.

There has been plenty of local opposition to casinos. Voters in West Springfield, East Boston, Palmer and Milford shot down pricey gambling resort proposals last year. But statewide support for casinos held strong through 2013.

A November poll from the Western New England University Polling Institute showed voters statewide supported casinos by a 60-33 margin.

A January WBUR poll suggested a softening of that support. And the new WBUR survey shows a more dramatic shift; the three-point gap between supporters and opponents is within the polls margin of error of 4.4 percent.

Koczela said its difficult to say why public opinion is changing on casinos. But he pointed to a string of unflattering stories about the companies vying for one of three casino licenses  and the state regulators reviewing their bids.

Theres been a lot of headlines about, sort of, the underside of this issue and nothing really positive to show for it yet, he said. No voter has gone to a concert or used a slot machine or sat down at a blackjack table yet.

Whatever the impact of the headlines, follow-up interviews with poll respondents suggest that for some voters bedrock concerns about the impact on poor people  and on broader communities  are a factor.

People who cant afford it throw a lot of money in it, said retired Acton caterer Joan Appleton. I also think it lowers property values around. And I just dont think theyre good.

David Davignon, a civil engineer from Acushnet, acknowledged some concern about gambling addiction. But he said Massachusetts should not stand by while local dollars flow to the Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun casinos in Connecticut.

All the money that, you know, two casinos make in Connecticut from Massachusetts residents  you know, if we could take some of that and put it into our own budget it would help, he said.

*Increased Support For Marijuana Legalization*

Massachusetts voters decriminalized possession of small amounts of pot in 2008 and approved medical marijuana in 2012. But local and national advocates want Massachusetts to join Colorado and Washington state in legalizing recreational use of the drug.

As recently as November, a Western New England University Polling Institute survey suggested a tough climb: 52 percent of voters in the poll were opposed to legalization and 39 percent in favor.

But those numbers appear to have flipped in recent months. A Boston Herald/Suffolk University poll last month suggested a big shift on legalization, showing majority support for the first time. The WBUR poll confirms the trend.

Young voters support legalization by substantial margins. And because they tend to turn out in larger numbers in presidential years, advocates are aiming to put the measure on the ballot in two years.

They say the state will be a major focus in what they view as a pivotal year for marijuana law reform nationwide.

Massachusetts is definitely in the top tier of reform states in 2016, said Allen St. Pierre, executive director of NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. We speculate strongly it will be joining California and Maine as two states where voters will be asked to cast votes to legalize marijuana. In all three states, polling is very supportive.

Massachusetts law enforcement has already come out in opposition to the legalization push, arguing that it will send the wrong message to children.

The change in Massachusetts opinion on the issue is emblematic of a national shift. For the first time last year, a majority of Americans said they support legalizing marijuana.

The evolving views of Baby Boomers have been a critical factor in the emergence of a pro-pot majority.

Thirty or 40 years ago, when they were young, they supported [legalization], Koczela said of Boomers. And then as they became parents and as they went through their careers, they opposed it. And now youre seeing them come back actually to support it again.

Poll respondent Janice Ekstrand, 65, of Fall River is among the Boomers who have changed their minds.

Ekstrand, a retired receptionist, said she never would have supported legalization a decade ago. But her views have changed as shes watched marijuana use become more prevalent  and seen more people go to prison

There are so many people in jail for small infractions of the law, she said.

 Here are the polls topline results (via Scribd):


----------



## 7greeneyes (Mar 20, 2014)

h*MP*p://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2014/03/washingtons_new_marijuana_law.html




*Washington's new marijuana law may be freeing up police resources​*

SEATTLE (AP)  A steep drop in the number of misdemeanor marijuana possession charges filed against adults over 21 in Washington state after legalization shows the new law is freeing up court and law enforcement resources to deal with other issues, a primary backer of the law said Wednesday.

The state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union found that such low-level charges were filed in just 120 cases in 2013, down from 5,531 cases the year before.

"The data strongly suggest that I-502 has achieved one of its primary goals - to free up limited police and prosecutorial resources," Mark Cooke, criminal justice policy counsel with the state ACLU, said in a news release.

Ian Goodhew, deputy chief of staff at the King County prosecutor's office, said that hasn't been the case in his office. He said prosecutors only handled a few misdemeanor pot cases a day before the law went into effect.

"There's no great relief of workload," Goodhew said. "All this has meant is maybe our calendar in District Court in the Seattle division is maybe, instead of 46 cases in a day, 44 or 43 or 42. We're no longer filing misdemeanor marijuana cases, but we were not expending any significant resources on those cases at the time I-502 passed."

Cooke conceded the law hasn't fundamentally changed what prosecutors do every day, but said when considered more broadly, I-502 has saved resources, from basic investigation and filing of paperwork to court time. He noted King County's adult misdemeanor pot cases fell from 1,435 in 2009 to 14 last year.

"I can't fault their logic," said Mitch Barker, executive director of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs. "If we took speeding off the books, that would free up time. If we took robbery off the books, that would free up time.

"The question we all have to look at is, is it good public policy? My sole concern is that when you expand access to marijuana for adults, you expand access for underage people."

The pot cases that were filed in the state last year likely involved people caught with more than the ounce of weed, or 28 grams, they're allowed to have under Washington's Initiative 502, but less than the 40 grams that can trigger felony possession charges.

The data, which came from Washington's Administrative Office of the Courts, also suggest racial disparities remain a concern in marijuana charges, Cooke said.

Prior to I-502's passage in 2012, blacks were nearly three times as likely as whites to face misdemeanor marijuana possession charges in Washington, and that remained true among the 120 cases filed last year, he said. Of the 120, white defendants accounted for 82 cases and blacks for 11. That equated for whites to 2 cases per 100,000 residents; for blacks, to 5.6 per 100,000.

The number of misdemeanor filings for those over 21 had been dropping for several years, the group said, from 7,964 in 2009 to 5,531 in 2012. Court filings for all drug felonies, including marijuana growing and selling, has remained fairly constant since 2009, at about or slightly under 20,000.

Among people under 21, misdemeanor marijuana possession charges have also fallen in the past two years from 4,127 in 2011 to 3,469 in 2012 and 1,963 last year. People under 21 aren't allowed to have pot under the state law, so reasons for that decline weren't immediately apparent.


----------



## 7greeneyes (Mar 20, 2014)

h*MP*p://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/19/dianne-feinstein-marijuana_n_4995381.html?utm_hp_ref=politics




*Dianne Feinstein Opposes Marijuana Legalization*​

WASHINGTON (AP)  Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Wednesday joined Gov. Jerry Brown in expressing skepticism about legalizing marijuana in California for recreational purposes.

The state's senior senator told The Associated Press in a telephone interview that one of her concerns is the potential for pot-impaired drivers to take to the road. Feinstein said she hopes California declines to join Colorado and Washington in approving the sale of marijuana for recreational use.

"The risk of people using marijuana and driving is very substantial," she said.

As a possible example, the California Highway Patrol is investigating a fatal weekend collision in Santa Rosa as being related to marijuana use. A woman and her daughter-in-law were killed when a Toyota Camry in which they were riding was rear-ended by a pickup truck. A preliminary CHP investigation determined that the 30-year-old man driving the pickup was impaired by marijuana and reading a text message on his cellphone at the time of the collision.

California became the first state to legalize the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes in 1996, but voters rejected a ballot initiative seeking to legalize it for recreational purposes in 2010. The margin of defeat was relatively narrow, 54 percent to 46 percent, and public opinion appears to have softened since then.

A Public Policy Institute of California poll taken last September found a majority of Californians supporting full legalization for the first time, with 52 percent of all adults and 60 percent of likely voters in favor.

Feinstein said in the interview that she believes California has gone as far as is responsible in allowing marijuana to be sold for medical purposes.

She said serving on the California Women's Board of Terms and Parole during the 1960s allowed her to see how marijuana, in her view, led to bigger problems for many female inmates.

"I saw a lot of where people began with marijuana and went on to hard drugs," Feinstein said.

She also said she did not understand how culture is improved through legalizing marijuana. Feinstein's comments come after Brown voiced concerns about legalization on NBC's "Meet the Press.

"If there's advertising and legitimacy, how many people can get stoned and still have a great state or a great nation? The world's pretty dangerous, very competitive. I think we need to stay alert, if not 24 hours a day, more than some of the potheads might be able to put together," Brown said.

Despite such criticism, the movement to expand full legalization beyond Colorado and Washington is continuing. A Gallup poll taken last year found that 58 percent of Americans say the drug should be legalized. Several legalization petitions are circulating this year in California, although none has yet qualified for a ballot.

Meanwhile, California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom supports legalization of marijuana and is leading a panel of medical and law enforcement officials who are studying how the state could tax and regulate marijuana sales effectively.


----------



## 7greeneyes (Mar 20, 2014)

h*MP*p://www.denverpost.com/marijuana/ci_25381126/congress-yawns-at-colorado-delegations-marijuana-banking-bill#axzz2wW3qPkIs




*Congress yawns at Colorado delegation's marijuana banking bill​*

As cannabis workers carry cash by the briefcase throughout Colorado, the lack of interest in Washington suggests that a bill to green-light banking practices for the marijuana industry is headed nowhere fast.

Federal legislation that could end cash-only practices in the marijuana industry will likely remain stuck in committee this year, with near silence from Washington lawmakers as to why it has.

A Denver Post survey of the two House committees that could take immediate action found only one member outside the bill's signed supporters and the Colorado delegation had interest in discussing the subject.

Four of 60 members of the Financial Services Committee and one of the 39 Judiciary Committee members said they had no position. The rest did not respond.

Most Colorado members are in favor of the bill, but the delegation is mixed.

The Colorado-rooted bill at the center of the issue, HR 2652, would allow banks to do business with pot retailers and businesses in states that legalize the drug, and was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in July by Rep. Ed Perlmutter, D-Colo., and Rep. Denny Heck, D-Wash.

"The almost universal response is the rolling of one's eyes," Heck said of his attempts to discuss the bill.

Under the bill, recreational and medical marijuana enterprises legalized in 20 states and the District of Columbia could open bank accounts and use credit cards. businesses within the industry operate cash-only because financial institutions fear prosecution should they offer banking services to the federally illegal marijuana industry.

"We need from a public safety and a crime perspective to allow legal businesses in the state of Colorado to operate in a normal business fashion," Perlmutter said. "And not simply operate on major piles of cash."

Perlmutter expects five more states to legalize medical or recreational marijuana by the end of this year.

Perlmutter and Heck said they have pressed for action since the bill was introduced but are pessimistic about its prospects this year. The bill has yet to be scheduled for a hearing in either committee.

"The sunshine of a hearing would change the discussion of this," Heck said.

Both said that for the bill to have a chance of passing, more states will need to legalize marijuana.

For Perlmutter, who was not aware on Friday that the bill was stuck in more than one committee, the likelihood of it moving forward is dependent on the Republican leadership in the committees.

"If I were in the majority and Democrats were running the House, you can bet it would have gotten a hearing," Perlmutter said. "If you want to just get down to basic power and how this place operates, that's it."

According to Perlmutter and Heck, the majority leadership and the members of the Financial Services committee have little interest in discussing the matter because it is perceived as a marijuana issue rather than a banking one. Most committee members represent constituencies that do not have any form of legalized marijuana.

Republican leadership assigned it to the Financial Services and Judiciary committees on July 10, 2013, the same day Perlmutter introduced it with signed support from 16 other Democrats and two Republicans. Today the bill has 29 total co-sponsors, including representatives who do not sit on the committees.

Colorado Reps. Diana DeGette, D-Denver, Jared Polis, D-Boulder, and Mike Coffman, R-Aurora, co-sponsored the bill. Reps. Tipton, R-Cortez, and Gardner, R-Yuma), have not taken positions, and Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo. Springs, opposes the legislation. If the bill were to make it to the U.S. Senate, Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet supports it, and Sen. Mark Udall has not taken a position. Both senators are Democrats.

Perlmutter's membership in the House Financial Services Committee was the primary reason he assumed responsibility of the banking topic. He said he has met with committee leadership at least once a month for the past eight to stress the importance of legal marijuana banking.

Perlmutter said cash sitting in marijuana shops invites robbery, assault and battery, tax evasion, skimming and fraud. Because marijuana dispensaries are primarily small operations, he said their banking concerns are also a small-business issue.

On Feb. 14, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network issued a statement delineating how banks could "enhance the availability of financial services for, and the financial transparency of, marijuana-related businesses."

When Perlmutter met with committee leadership last week, they wanted to understand why the federal guidance does not solve problems related to the cash-only system. In Colorado, bankers have signaled that they are not comfortable with the rule change and would rather see legislative action.

Perlmutter also pointed out that a change in the White House could end the new banking regulations.


How they responded ... or didn't

*HOUSE FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE*

*Sponsors (supporting)*

Ed Perlmutter (D-Lakewood)

Denny Heck (D-Wash.)

Brad Sherman (D-Calif.)

Michael E. Capuano (D-Mass.)

*Ranking members with no response*

Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), Chairman

Gary G. Miller (R-Calif.), Vice Chairman

Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), Chairman Emeritus

Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), Minority Ranking Member

*Members with no response*

Peter T. King (R-N.Y.)

Ed Royce (R-Calif.)

Frank Lucas (R-Okla.)

Shelley Moore Capito (R-W. Va.)

Scott Garrett (R-N.J.)

Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas)

Patrick T. McHenry (R-N.C.)

John Campbell (R-Calif.)

Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.)

Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.)

Bill Posey (R-Fla.)

Mike Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.)

Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.)

Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.)

Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.)

Sean P. Duffy (R-Wis.)

Robert Hurt (R-Va.)

Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.)

Steve Stivers (R-Ohio)

Stephen Lee Fincher (R-Tenn.)

Marlin A. Stutzman (R-Ind.)

Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.)

Randy Hultgren (R-Ill.)

Dennis A. Ross (R-Fla.)

Robert Pittenger (R-N.C.)

Ann Wagner (R-Mo.)

Garland "Andy" Barr (R-Ky.)

Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)

Keith Rothfus (R-Pa.)

Nydia M. Velázquez (D-N.Y.)

Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.)

Rubén Hinojosa (D-Texas)

Wm. Lacy Clay (D-Mo.)

Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.)

Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.)

David Scott (D-Ga.)

Al Green (D-Texas)

Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.)

Jim Himes (D-Conn.)

Gary Peters (D-Mich.)

John Carney (D-Del.)

Terri Sewell (D-Ala.)

Bill Foster (D-Ill.)

Dan Kildee (D-Mich.)

Patrick Murphy (D-Fla.)

John Delaney (D-Md.)

Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.)

*Members with no position*

Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.)

Gwen Moore (D-Wis.)

Keith Ellison (D-Minn.)Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio)

*Members opposed*

Steve Pearce (R-N.M.)

*HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Sponsors (supporting)
*
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)

Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.)

*Ranking members with no response*

Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), Chairman

John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), Minority Ranking Member

*Members with no response*

Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.)

Howard Coble (R-N.C.)

Lamar Smith (R-Texas)

Steve Chabot (R-Ohio)

Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.)

Darrell Issa (R- Calif.)

J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)

Steve King (R-Iowa)

Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)

Louie Gohmert (R-Texas)

Jim Jordan (R-Ohio)

Ted Poe (R-Texas)

Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah)

Tom Marino (R-Pa.)

Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.)

Raul Labrador (R-Idaho)

Blake Farenthold (R-Texas)

George Holding (R-N.C.)

Doug Collins (R-Ga.)

Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.)

Jason Smith (R-Mo.)

Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)

Bobby Scott (D-Va.)

Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)

Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas)

Hank Johnson (D-Ga.)

Pedro Pierluisi (D-Puerto Rico)

Judy Chu (D-Calif.)

Ted Deutch (D-Fla.)

Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)

Karen Bass (D-Calif.)

Cedric Richmond (D-La.)

Joe Garcia (D-Fla.)

Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.)

David Cicilline (D- R.I.)

_members listed by seniority_


----------



## 7greeneyes (Mar 20, 2014)

h*MP*p://qz.com/189561/the-worlds-most-valuable-cannabis-business-is-growing-in-a-sleepy-corner-of-england/




*The worlds most valuable cannabis business is growing in a sleepy corner of England​*

The medieval city of Salisbury in Englands southwest is dripping with history. Its majestic cathedral, completed in 1258, contains what is believed to be the worlds oldest functioning clock and one of just four original copies of the Magna Carta. The prehistoric ruins of Stonehenge are just eight miles to the north.

But this ancient town is also home to a very modern corporation. In a complex on the outskirts of the city are the headquarters of GW Pharmaceuticals, which is no ordinary biotech business. Its probably the worlds most valuable cannabis company.

GW Pharmaceuticals doesnt sell weed, per se, but rather prescription cannabinoid medicines. The company, which has garnered some media attention, is listed on both the London Stock Exchange and on the Nasdaq. Its US listing has surged by 75% in 2014, and by 713% since last May, pushing its market value to above $1 billion. All this for a company that generated just $44 million in sales last year. This optimistic valuation is partly a function of the seemingly inexorable shift toward the legalization of cannabis in the United States.

This year so far, two US statesColorado and Washingtoneffectively declared cannabis legal. The drug has also been approved for medicinal purposes in another 18 states plus Washington DC, which together have a cumulative population of about 117 million people, or more than a third of all Americans. At least 14 other states, including Maryland and Florida, are considering laws that would approve marijuana for medical use this year, the New York Times reported.

While this is delighting potheads and upsetting some drug advocacy groups, it is also creating a unique headache for the countrys pharmaceutical regulator, the Food and Drug Administration, which has never approved marijuana as a legitimate treatment. Part of the reason for the surge in GW Pharmaceuticals share price this year is the belief among some investors that the company could provide the FDA with an elegant way out of this predicament.

Last year, GWs cannabinoid spray, Sativex, which is used to treat spasticity caused by multiple sclerosis, was approved for sale in eleven European countries. It is currently in the third and final phase of testing by the FDA in separate trials for multiple sclerosis treatment, as well as for use as relief from cancer pain. If it gets through this Phase III testing, it could become the first FDA-approved cannabis-based product to hit the market in the US, and provide an alternative way to consume weed for medical purposes besides smoking or eating it. (There are other products that contain synthetic versions of cannabis chemicals, but Sativex is the only one to contain actual extracts from marijuana plants.)

The FDA is in a bit of a bind because some states are approving medicinal marijuana, and this is an absolute nightmare because its very difficult to control the manufacturing of it, Samir Devani, a biotech analyst at WG Partners in London tells Quartz. You can imagine that the FDA  [is saying] hang on a minute, this might be a saving grace for us. If theres an FDA-approved product on the market, then why do you need medicinal cannabis?

*Big business*

A study by RAND Corporation estimates that Americans consumed $40.6 billion worth of marijuana in 2010, an increase of 30% over a decade earlier.  A separate study by IBIS World estimated the US medicinal marijuana industry to be worth $2 billion last year, with annualized growth of 13.8% from 2008. Whichever way you look at it, the marijuana industry is huge and growing rapidly. Now, as it becomes increasingly legally acceptable, its entrepreneurs are moving out of the shadows of the underworld and into mainstream commerce. For example, this week, the Wall Street Journal profiled (paywall) Justin Hartfield, probably Americas most prominent legal weed mogul. Hartfield runs weedmaps.com, a sort of Yelp for legal marijuana dispensaries, which reportedly made $25 million last year. He also recently launched Ghost Capital, a pot-focused venture capital fund.

For ordinary investors, there are limited ways to bet on this shift in the consumer economy. The obvious industry to capitalize on the creeping legalization of marijuana is big tobacco. Cigarette sales have been steadily declining, and marijuana (alongside tobacco-less products like e-cigarettes) would be an obvious way to pick up the slack.

Yet despite satirical reports about a Marlboro marijuana cigarette, the industry has given no public indication that it will start marketing joints. The terms marijuana or cannabis do not show up once in a search of the transcripts of earnings and conference calls for the major cigarette makers since the beginning of last year. Investment bank tobacco analysts contacted by Quartz declined to comment on the issue. Marijuana remains illegal under federal law, and Altrias companies have no plans to sell marijuana-based products, a spokesman for the tobacco giant that owns Marlboro and other brands said earlier this year.

There are a string of smaller, over-the-counter listed companies actively promoting themselves as marijuana companies. They include Growlife, which currently has a market value of about $503 million, Advanced Cannabis Solutions, worth about $570 million, and MedBox, valued at $443 million. Since I last warned about the dangers of investing in these companies, Growife and Advanced Cannabis Solutions have both increased in value. Yet they remain highly volatile stocks and dont carry the prestige of a major exchange listing.

Which brings us back to GW Pharmaceuticals. The company has been around since 1998, floated on the London Stock Exchange in 2001, and battled investor skepticism for about the next 10 years. Now, with interest in marijuana at possibly unprecedented levels, it is benefitting from the paucity of legitimate weed investment options.

At a secret location somewhere in the south of England, GW has a marijuana-growing facility that produces 200 tons of raw material and about 20 tons of actual pot each year. (The facility is reportedly guarded around the clock, and each plant is genetically fingerprinted to enable tracking, should anything be stolen.) From these plants, the key components of GWs cannaboid products are carefully extracted and standardized. Its not just street cannabis put into a bottle, CEO Justin Gover told the Guardian in 2011. To get regulatory approval, we had to meet very strict standards. We had to know every vial of Sativex is identical.

The company, which has struck distribution partnerships with some of Big Pharmas giants, such as Novartis and Bayer, appears to have carved out a niche for itself in the cannabinoid space. We are not aware of any other company following the same route as GW in the sense of both deriving a cannabinoid medicine from plants extracts and going through the full, regulated clinical trials procedure, so as to arrive at approved prescription pharmaceuticals, a spokesman for GW said via email.

This week the company said it was also progressing with early-stage development of cannabinoid products to treat schizophrenia, diabetes and other forms of epilepsy. But it is the prospect of an alternative to medical marijuana that people are most excited about.  Devani says GW is probably the best positioned for when the regulatory barriers come down, to get through the stringent requirements that the FDA will propose.  Its investors are praying that it will deliver on that promise.


----------



## 7greeneyes (Mar 20, 2014)

h*MP*p://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25378142/high-colorado-spending-could-trigger-tabor-refund-cannabis




*High Colorado spending could trigger TABOR refund on cannabis revenues​*

Colorado voters approved the sale of legal marijuana, thinking the revenues derived would go toward such things as schools or treatment for substance abuse. Instead, it's possible that the money may be returned to them.

A Tuesday economic forecast from the state's Legislative Council said that state spending is trending higher than previously estimated. If that holds true, under TABOR statutes, the higher spending could trigger a one-year refund on any new sources of revenue  such as the taxes on marijuana.

"The idea of having to issue a refund or going back to voters hat in hand is disappointing," said Sen. Pat Steadman, D-Denver, the vice-chair of the Joint Budget Committee, which hosted the briefing.

Creating a referendum asking voters whether the state could keep the money from pot taxes is one possibility  another is that the issue won't come up at all because the actual numbers won't match the estimate.

"It's a moving target, one with lots of interpretations," said Natalie Mullis, the chief economist for the Legislative Council.

In June 2013, the council forecast that state spending would be $12.08 billion; on Tuesday that estimate was amended to $12.21 billion.

Under the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, that $133 million difference would necessitate a refund of the revenues received from the pot taxes, about $54 million.

Approved by voters in 1992, the TABOR amendment puts limits on government revenue growth and requires that excess be returned unless taxpayers vote to let the government keep it.

However, the state legislature could decide not to accept the council's prediction. On Tuesday, Gov. Hickenlooper's office issued its own forecast, which says spending will be closer to the $12.08 figure and will not trigger a TABOR refund.

The legislature could also ask the state's Supreme Court to issue an opinion on how it would interpret the numbers and whether a refund would be required under TABOR rules, or it could accept the council's forecast and ask voters this fall to allow them to keep the money.

According to Mullis, a preliminary estimate of what the actual spending is won't come until September, with the final numbers arriving in late December or January.

On Wednesday, House Speaker Mark Ferrandino said his chamber was still deliberating how to react to the forecast.

"There's still time to figure out what the right policy decision is," he said.

The introduction of TABOR into the conversation recalled the controversy that arose in the wake of last fall's floods, when the question of whether accepting federal relief funds counted against TABOR spending limits.

"The more I learn about TABOR, the less I like it and the more insidious I think it is to state government," said Rep. Cheri Gerou, R-Evergreen.

JBC Chairwoman Crisanta Duran, D-Denver, said situations like the flood recovery, or a possible pot refund are reasons why there should be conversations about revising TABOR.

Ferrandino said while wholesale changes aren't likely for the next couple of years, there's a chance that some tweaking may occur.

"As issues like the flood recovery come up, there could be conversations across the aisle," he said. "There would be bipartisan support on some of the smaller issues to make changes that would avoid some of these unintended consequences."


----------



## 7greeneyes (Mar 20, 2014)

h*MP*p://www.state-journal.com/latest%20headlines/2014/03/20/house-panel-approves-bill-allowing-cannabis-oil




*HOUSE PANEL APPROVES BILL ALLOWING CANNABIS OIL
​*

Rita Wooten hopes drugs derived from cannabidiol, a non-intoxicating extract from cannabis plants like marijuana or hemp, allows her 4-year-old son Eli to lead a normal life.

A large plastic bag filled with various prescriptions meant to treat Elis severe epilepsy laid in front of her at Wednesdays House Judiciary Committee meeting.

I just want a normal 4-year-old at home, she said after Senate Bill 124 unanimously cleared the committee.

Wooten described a travel regimen that included 25 trips to Cincinnati from the familys home in Hyden last year, including five by plane, at a cost of between $7,000 and $8,000. Eli, who cannot communicate verbally, was admitted to the hospital 17 times, with the longest stay spanning 12 days, she said.

Its taken a toll on all of us, our entire family, Wooten said, noting Eli has not tried cannabidiol. Not just me or my daughter or the rest of our family; its devastating to all of us. Who in their right mind wants to keep a little boy thats 4 years old and has six types of seizures? Honestly, no one.

SB 124 would allow cannabidiol to be prescribed through the University of Kentucky and University of Louisville or in clinical trials approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 

Sen. Julie Denton and other supporters, such as Rep. John Tilley, D-Hopkinsville, and Sen. Whitney Westerfield, R-Hopkinsville, said the measure would provide relief for children who suffer debilitating epilepsy.

Deb McGrath, executive director of the Epilepsy Foundation of Kentuckiana, said national trials through New York University and the University of California have shown promising results thus far. Cannabidiol drugs are readily available in Europe, she said.

We know that this drug is working and it is giving hope to those families that have utilized every opportunity to treat their child, McGrath said.

SB 124 would be the first law in Kentucky allowing the medicinal use of cannabis byproducts. But opponents of legalizing medical marijuana say the General Assemblys potential approval of SB 124 is not an indication that lawmakers are ready to embrace wider medicinal use of the illicit substance.

Westerfield said he remains reluctant to legalizing the medical use of marijuana based on his experiences as a prosecutor.

Ive prosecuted DUI homicides where impairment due to marijuana caused the death of someone, he said. 

Denton, R-Louisville, said she is thrilled for the children and even the adults who may benefit from using the substance. The bill was a long shot, she said, but lawmakers have taken their time in vetting SB 124, which has received broad bipartisan support.

The bill, in Dentons opinion, does not open the door for further legalization of medical cannabis.

There is no psychoactive properties to this whatsoever, she said. You cant get high. This is simply something that has the ability to help with seizures. It may help with autism. There are numerous things this could be helpful for.

House Speaker Greg Stumbo said he expects his chamber will move swiftly in approving SB 124, which cleared the Senate by a 38-0 vote. The speaker has acknowledged a willingness to study medicinal marijuana after constituents in his eastern Kentucky district said the substance could help treat autism.

I think that debate obviously got some legs this session and needs to, said Stumbo, D-Prestonsburg. Ive told you, I think all of you, Ive got constituents in my district who have kids who have autism who believe and swear that there is medicinal relief found for those children, and to me, that testimony makes it worth looking at.


----------



## 7greeneyes (Mar 20, 2014)

h*MP*p://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/uruguay-canada-sell-us-your-best-quality-cannabis-n57656




*Uruguay to Canada: Sell Us Your 'Best Quality' Cannabis​*

MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay  In about a month, Uruguays revolutionary new cannabis law will go into effect. In addition to allowing citizens to grow, buy and sell weed, the government will also set forth on its mission to grow its own fields of marijuana, which will then be harvested, taxed and sold in neighborhood pharmacies.

At least, thats the theory.

But growing weed takes a while. Cultivating fields of it, figuring out how to keep the fields safe from poachers, harvesting vast amounts of cannabis, packaging it, taxing it, distributing it and selling it take even longer.

Long story short: Uruguays government is not going to be producing much of its own cannabis any time soon. So, where is the official stash going to come from in the meantime?

Maybe Canada.

According to senior-ranking officials in the ruling Broad Front Party, including Sen. Lucia Topolansky, whos also Uruguays first lady, Canadian medical marijuana producers could provide this tiny Latin American nation with a stopgap until it figures out how to grow and harvest its own crop.

To start with, we will have to buy cannabis, Topolansky said in an interview last week. I think that were going to buy it from Canada, because thats where the best quality is.

To be clear: This is still just an idea. Neither country has announced a deal to ship pot from Vancouver to Montevideo. A spokeswoman for Health Canada wrote by email, There are currently no plans to encourage the export of cannabis to Uruguay or any other country.

But could it happen?

Well, its complicated. Lets take a look at four key questions.

*1. Does Canada have weed to sell?*

In short: Yes, but not a whole lot  yet.

Under Canadas latest medical marijuana laws, there are about 10 companies currently licensed to grow pot. Marc Wayne, president of Toronto-based Bedrocan Canada Inc., one of the biggest suppliers, said the companies are struggling to meet demand inside Canada.

The Canadian law governing medical marijuana has a provision that allows the government to issue export licenses to growers. However, the authorities will not start issuing export licenses until they're satisfied Canadians have access to all the pot they need.

There wont be any export to Uruguay, or anyone else, any time soon, Wayne said.

*2. Is marijuana import and export economically feasible?*

In short: Probably not, at least not from Canada to Uruguay.

The Uruguayan government has announced a lofty goal to sell cannabis at $1 a gram. Thats the price point at which it will be competitive against the black market, national drug czar Julio Calzada has said.

On the streets of Montevideo, poor quality pot, most of it from Paraguay or Brazil, currently sells at about $100 for 25 grams, or about $4 a gram, according to research by Insight Crime.

In Canada, weed is much more expensive than that. Currently, a gram of medical pot sells for a minimum of about 7.60 Canadian dollars a gram (about $6.80), said Steve Thomas, general manager of the Whistler Medical Marijuana Co. His companys cannabis, which is grown organically, sells for about CA$10 a gram (about $8.95).

Once the cost of shipping and jumping through regulatory hurdles is taken into account, it probably wouldnt make sense to export to a country like Uruguay, where disposable income is low compared with more developed countries, Thomas said.

He said his company is certainly eyeing the export market, but hes looking at countries with higher incomes, such as the Czech Republic or Israel, as possible targets for growth.

*3. Is shipping marijuana actually legal?*

In short: Kinda.

Theres no easy answer to this. Two shipping lawyers GlobalPost contacted both explained that shipping marijuana is illegal under different United Nations conventions on transporting narcotics. But one company, Dutch-owned Bedrocan, is already shipping cannabis as a pharmaceutical.

The Canadian government has given permission to Bedrocan BV in the Netherlands to ship cannabis, via a government agency, to its Canadian counterpart, Bedrocan Canada Inc. The shipments have also been approved by the UNs International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) in Vienna, said Tjalling Erkelens, the owner of Bedrocan BV. The UN body approves a certain amount of narcotics for each of its member countries to import and produce based on INCB estimates of need. (The INCB didn't immediately respond to a request for comment sent Wednesday.)

Any company in Canada hoping to export cannabis to Uruguay would need permission from both countries governments, as well as approval from the INCB for Uruguay to import cannabis, Erkelens said, adding that the INCB has already said its not happy with Uruguays marijuana experiment.

*4. How would the pot get to Uruguay, and would the US intervene?*

In short: Probably via a small boat, and probably not.

First, logistics: If Canadas growers were to export weed to Uruguay, theyd likely use converted fishing boats or smaller vessels rather than big container ships, according to Craig H. Allen, a professor at the University of Washington School of Law who specializes in shipping law.

Thats important because a smaller boat would have to stop at least once on the way south to refuel, Allen said. And that means Uruguay and Canada would need the cooperation of a third country, probably a Caribbean island nation, he added.

Landing a vessel full of cannabis at a US port would almost certainly result in seizure of the vessel, said Tina Loverdou, a lecturer in shipping and insurance law at Queen Mary, University of London. That could pose a problem for a boat that hit bad weather or other trouble on the voyage south.

If the ship was in major danger and needed refuge, the third country might say you cant enter my territorial waters, Loverdou said.

If the shipment was legally sanctioned by both Canada and Uruguay, the legal experts say it would be unlikely for the United States or other countries to intervene if the ship stayed in international waters.

As for quality: Keeping weed fresh over long distances isnt a problem, said Mark Kleiman, public policy and marijuana expert at the University of California, Los Angeles. Even newly harvested cannabis would stay fresh over a weeklong journey south, he said.

*In conclusion:*

Theres a legal framework out there to ship cannabis from Canada to Uruguay.

Theoretically, licensed Canadian pot producers could get to the point where they have enough excess weed to sell it south. But the economics would probably get in the way, with companies having to jump through legal hoops, only to export a product to a country at far higher prices than the weed already available there.

Kleiman, the UCLA professor, said its much more likely that Uruguay ramps up its own production long before the international pot trade grows into a viable model.

The Ministry of Agriculture just needs to put up a greenhouse today, he said. Marijuana is a cheap and easy crop to produce.


----------

