Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Cannabis activists selling Jeff Sessions rolling papers
There’s a cannabis activism group selling ‘Jeff Sessions’ rolling papers is rolling in success.
By Nick Lindsey
Thanks to a cannabis activism group selling ‘Jeff Sessions’ rolling papers, you can now send a clear political message the next time you roll up. The papers are now on sale, but they’re going quick—apparently, a lot of weed smoker’s are taking advantage of the chance to spite the U.S.’s number one anti-weed villain.
Jeff Sessions Rolling Papers
The cannabis activism group selling ‘Jeff Sessions’ rolling papers calls itself simply #JeffSesh. The group’s website sells two versions of what they’re calling General Jeff’s Sessions Papers. One comes in a black box and the other comes in a white box.
Each box design features a picture of Attorney General Jeff Sessions‘ face right in the center. He’s got a joint in his mouth, and it looks like his eyes may be slightly red. Each box comes with 50 papers, and celebrates the fact that these Jeff Sessions papers are part of a “Limited 1st Edition.”
The group behind these genius rolling papers is working to make a political statement while also maintaining a sense of humor. To that end, they’ve really elevated the world of cannabis puns.
The rolling paper boxes advertise 50 “sessions” per box. Similarly, the top of the box reminds consumers to “Please Sesh Responsibly.” Finally, playing on Sessions’ middle name, the very bottom of the box has the line: “Don’t Beauregard That Joint, My Friend!”
Final Hit: Cannabis Activism Group Selling ‘Jeff Sessions’ Rolling Papers
The group’s website is equally punny in articulating its pro-cannabis politics. According to the site, the Jeff Sessions-themed rolling papers are part of a larger campaign to tell Jeff Sessions:
“We’re not criminals, junkies or idiots. Regular Jeffs all over the country—good, responsible, patriotic Americans—have a sesh now and then . . . and it’s OK!”
Additionally, the group provides a number of key stats about weed. Many of them fly in the face of the prohibitionist myths Sessions himself so often perpetuates.
“Cannabis provides relief and uplifting energy to millions of users, from serious medical patients in 29 states to recreational consumers in 8 states,” the site says. “12 states are considering new legalization measures this year. Every time you sesh with any brand of JeffSesh papers, you’re helping keep the law moving forward—and not back to the Nixon era.”
Jeff Sessions is a logical target for a cannabis activist group. Throughout his entire political career, Sessions has been an outspoken opponent of weed.
For example, he once said the KKK was “OK until I found out they smoked pot.” Similarly, Sessions also said that “good people don’t smoke marijuana.” And finally, he regularly calls cannabis a “very real danger” and rails against it as “not the kind of thing that ought to be legalized.”
More recently, the Attorney General suggested that cannabis is to blame for the opioid crisis. While commenting on the opioid epidemic at a Heritage Foundation event, Sessions claimed that “a lot of this is starting with marijuana or other drugs, too.”
Unfortunately, Sessions’ anti-weed propaganda is extending into policy. Earlier this year, he rescinded an Obama-era policy prohibiting federal resources from going after states with legal cannabis programs.
https://hightimes.com/news/cannabis-activism-group-selling-jeff-sessions-rolling-papers/
Trump Calls Jeff Sessions ‘Mr. Magoo’ And Twitter Can’t Get Over It
President Donald Trump has reportedly taken to calling Attorney General Jeff Sessions Mr. Magoo, causing the classic bumbling cartoon character’s name to trend on Twitter late Wednesday.
The report in The Washington Post led to some decidedly mixed feelings on social media. Some said the comment was was just more bullying by the president while others even some critics admitted to laughing at the insult.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-mrmagoo_us_5a978f40e4b09c872bb11c21
Police chief suspended for smoking pot
Police chief suspended after pot-smoking video surfaces
By Joshua Rhett Miller March 2, 2018
A Mississippi police chief was suspended with pay after a video recorded by his “very vindictive” wife emerged, apparently showing the lawman smoking weed.
Lumberton Police Chief Shane Flynt is seen on a video obtained by WDAM babbling incoherently and puffing on a broken pipe — saying “I’m the only chief of police in Lumberton that likes to smoke weed.”
It’s unclear when the footage was recorded, but Christmas music can be heard periodically in the background and a clearly inebriated Flynt says at one point how much he likes “Rudolph the red-nose reindeers.”
Flynt’s police uniform is also clearly visible in the bizarre footage, in which he laughs maniacally about being the city’s top law enforcement officer while high.
“If this ain’t no cool s–t,” Flynt said. “You don’t know no cool s–t. Who the coolest is? Me! I’m the coolest!”
Flynt declined to comment on the video when approached by a reporter for the station, but he later posted a statement on Facebook acknowledging that he made a “huge mistake” and trusted the wrong person.
“They recorded me in a vulnerable state and they planned every minute of it,” Flynt wrote. “This person being my wife who is obviously very vindictive. I love serving the town of Lumberton, the people there are like family to me. It saddens my heart that I’ve disappointed many as well as myself.”
While saying there was “no excuse” for his actions, Flynt questioned “where would we all be” if hidden cameras were placed throughout homes without prior knowledge.
“What would our neighbors, preachers, co-workers, friends, etc., think of our conversations?” Flynt’s post continued. “There is no excuse. I pray you all find it in your hearts to show me grace and know that I am truly sorry for this incident.”
Lumberton Mayor Quincy Rogers said Flynt was sent home Tuesday after he saw the video and will remain suspended until the city’s board of aldermen can meet. The next board meeting is scheduled for Tuesday.
The city’s board of aldermen had suspended Flynt, who became chief of police in September, in February for a personnel matter but he was reinstated on Feb. 22.
“That’s quite disturbing,” Rogers told WDAM. “I’m still trying to get over this video.”
https://nypost.com/2018/03/02/police-chief-suspended-after-pot-smoking-video-surfaces/
Baseball coach fired for weed discrimination
Wesleyan Baseball Coach Fired for Discriminating Against Players From Colorado Because of Weed Politics
BY ANDREW LONDON ON MARCH 1ST, 2018
A former MLB pitcher and head coach of Texas Wesleyan University’s baseball team was fired today after being exposed for discriminating against a recruit based purely on personal politics.
Mike Jeffcoat, who pitched for four teams over his decade-long career in professional baseball, was hired by Texas Wesleyan University in 2002. Though his 529-358-1 record at the school while at the helm of the team is quite impressive, it was his inability to keep his political beliefs separate from the coaching duties that thrust him into the spotlight this week — ultimately costing him his job.
An email Jeffcoat sent to a high school player from Colorado was made public this week, exposing a questionable recruiting policy that Jeffcoat implied the school abides by. The email thanked Cherokee Trail High School senior Gavin Bell for his interest in playing for Texas Wesleyan, but informed him that “unfortunately, we are not recruiting players from the state of Colorado.”
The email went on to explain that “in the past, players have had trouble passing our drug test. We have made a decision to not take a chance on student-athletes from your state. You can thank your liberal politicians.”
Perusing the current roster for Texas Wesleyan, you’ll find that the majority of the university’s players hail from Texas, but one lone Coloradan suits up for the Rams. Jeffcoat’s allegation that players from Colorado “have had trouble passing” the team drug test cast shade on a single player from the state who has, thus far, maintained a clean public record.
“I’m not trying to get anybody in trouble here,” Bell, an outfielder, said. “My intention wasn’t trying to get this guy fired. My intention was just to try to play baseball.”
Despite Bell’s efforts to keep Jeffcoat from losing his job, the school held a press conference Thursday to address concerns about the issue and announce that Jeffcoat had been relieved of his coaching duties. According to the university, “the comments he made are in no way a reflection of Texas Wesleyan University, its values or its recruiting practices.”
“Mike Jeffcoat is no longer an employee of Texas Wesleyan University,” said Fred Slabach, school president of Texas Wesleyan. “He was separated from the university due to the discriminatory remarks contained in an email to a potential recruit from the state of Colorado and for another factor that we have been investigating for the last week. This additional factor is an NAIA (National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics) rule violation that has recently come to our attention.”
https://www.marijuana.com/news/2018/03/wesleyan-baseball-coach-fired-for-discriminating-against-players-from-colorado-because-of-weed-politics/
Alexis facebook post says prolly going to SCOTUS
Official Press Release. We were ready. Smile. We know #SCOTUS is where we are probably going.
#IStandWithAlexis #AlexisBortell
HILLER, PC
Attorneys at Law
600 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022
For Immediate Release:
Feb. 26, 2018
Statement from Hiller, PC on Landmark Lawsuit Against Jeff Sessions As It Pertains to Constitutionality of Cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act: ?Plaintiffs Vow to Appeal, As Judge Dismisses Federal Cannabis Lawsuit
NEW YORK - Today, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Washington, et.al v. Sessions, et.al, a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Schedule I classification of cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act.
The plaintiffs, along with Hiller, PC lead counsel Attorneys Michael S. Hiller and co-counsels Lauren A. Rudick and Joseph Bondy, vowed to appeal the lawsuit. The plaintiffs in Washington, et.al v. Sessions, et.al include: Denver Broncos Super Bowl Champion, Marvin Washington; 12-year old girl, Alexis Bortell; seven-year old Jagger Cotte of Georgia, who suffers from Leigh’s Disease; disabled military combat veteran, Jose Belen; and the Cannabis Cultural Association, Inc.
Hiller, PC background and statements on Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein’s decision:
A New York federal district court judge dismissed the lawsuit brought by Marvin Washington, Alexis Bortell and an assortment of other plaintiffs seeking a ruling that the classification of cannabis as a Schedule I drug is unconstitutional.
In dismissing the case, Judge Alvin Hellerstein took pains to "emphasize that this decision is not on the merits of plaintiffs’ claim[s]." Instead, Judge Hellerstein decided that the plaintiffs were first required to exhaust administrative remedies – an agency-driven administrative process, during which petitions are filed with and decided by the DEA to reschedule cannabis.
Judge Hellerstein did not appear to address the plaintiffs’ argument, as reflected in a recent filing, that the petitioning administrative process generally consumes an "average of nine (9) years to complete," and is "overseen by a biased decision-maker (defendant Jeff Sessions), who has pre-determined to reject the evidence before it has even been presented."
Michael Hiller, Hiller, PC lead counsel for the plaintiffs stated: "Resigning the plaintiffs to the petitioning administrative process is tantamount to a death sentence for those patients who need cannabis to live. The time has come for the courts to abandon decades-old precedent, notched with obsolete legal technicalities, and catch up with modern science and contemporary principles of constitutional law."
Lauren Rudick, Hiller, PC co-counsel for the plaintiffs, added: "The plaintiffs weren’t the only ones who experienced a setback today. States and principles of federalism took a black-eye as well, and under the false premise that the courts are constrained by prior decisions to take actions, which the overwhelming majority of Americans, including members of Congress and the President, know are wrong."?
Joseph Bondy, co-counsel for the plaintiffs, commented: "We believe that the court didn’t consider a number of our arguments and declined to hear us at oral argument on some of those points. We are exploring all of our legal arguments in furtherance of winning this case."
Michael Hiller concluded: "This case will continue to move forward. Notwithstanding the outcome today, we remain confident that the final disposition of this case will include a finding that the classification of cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act is unconstitutional – freeing millions of Americans to safely treat their conditions with a plant that maintains their health and their lives.”
https://www.facebook.com/HealAlexis/posts/1687654144652688
Lots of facebook replies with support posted
Alexis facebook post says prolly going to SCOTUS
Official Press Release. We were ready. Smile. We know #SCOTUS is where we are probably going.
#IStandWithAlexis #AlexisBortell
HILLER, PC
Attorneys at Law
600 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022
For Immediate Release:
Feb. 26, 2018
Statement from Hiller, PC on Landmark Lawsuit Against Jeff Sessions As It Pertains to Constitutionality of Cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act: ?Plaintiffs Vow to Appeal, As Judge Dismisses Federal Cannabis Lawsuit
NEW YORK - Today, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Washington, et.al v. Sessions, et.al, a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Schedule I classification of cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act.
The plaintiffs, along with Hiller, PC lead counsel Attorneys Michael S. Hiller and co-counsels Lauren A. Rudick and Joseph Bondy, vowed to appeal the lawsuit. The plaintiffs in Washington, et.al v. Sessions, et.al include: Denver Broncos Super Bowl Champion, Marvin Washington; 12-year old girl, Alexis Bortell; seven-year old Jagger Cotte of Georgia, who suffers from Leigh’s Disease; disabled military combat veteran, Jose Belen; and the Cannabis Cultural Association, Inc.
Hiller, PC background and statements on Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein’s decision:
A New York federal district court judge dismissed the lawsuit brought by Marvin Washington, Alexis Bortell and an assortment of other plaintiffs seeking a ruling that the classification of cannabis as a Schedule I drug is unconstitutional.
In dismissing the case, Judge Alvin Hellerstein took pains to "emphasize that this decision is not on the merits of plaintiffs’ claim[s]." Instead, Judge Hellerstein decided that the plaintiffs were first required to exhaust administrative remedies – an agency-driven administrative process, during which petitions are filed with and decided by the DEA to reschedule cannabis.
Judge Hellerstein did not appear to address the plaintiffs’ argument, as reflected in a recent filing, that the petitioning administrative process generally consumes an "average of nine (9) years to complete," and is "overseen by a biased decision-maker (defendant Jeff Sessions), who has pre-determined to reject the evidence before it has even been presented."
Michael Hiller, Hiller, PC lead counsel for the plaintiffs stated: "Resigning the plaintiffs to the petitioning administrative process is tantamount to a death sentence for those patients who need cannabis to live. The time has come for the courts to abandon decades-old precedent, notched with obsolete legal technicalities, and catch up with modern science and contemporary principles of constitutional law."
Lauren Rudick, Hiller, PC co-counsel for the plaintiffs, added: "The plaintiffs weren’t the only ones who experienced a setback today. States and principles of federalism took a black-eye as well, and under the false premise that the courts are constrained by prior decisions to take actions, which the overwhelming majority of Americans, including members of Congress and the President, know are wrong."?
Joseph Bondy, co-counsel for the plaintiffs, commented: "We believe that the court didn’t consider a number of our arguments and declined to hear us at oral argument on some of those points. We are exploring all of our legal arguments in furtherance of winning this case."
Michael Hiller concluded: "This case will continue to move forward. Notwithstanding the outcome today, we remain confident that the final disposition of this case will include a finding that the classification of cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act is unconstitutional – freeing millions of Americans to safely treat their conditions with a plant that maintains their health and their lives.”
https://www.facebook.com/HealAlexis/posts/1687654144652688
Lots of facebook replies with support posted
Canadian MJ company stock listing on NASDAQ
Cronos Group Inc. is set to make cannabis history as the first Canadian marijuana company to be listed on the NASDAQ.
Published on February 26, 2018
By Tim Kohut
The cannabis industry is set to reach yet another milestone this week. While we won’t see the passing of any new legislation or any states announcing legalization, the plant has still managed to nudge its way further into the mainstream, with one Canadian marijuana company to be listed on the NASDAQ, beginning Tuesday.
Cronos Makes History
Cronos Group Inc., a cannabis company that already trades on the Canadian Stock Exchange, is set to become the first marijuana company to appear on a major U.S. exchange. Shares will be available to trade on the NASDAQ beginning Tuesday.
Cronos founder and chief executive officer Mike Gorenstein believe this isn’t just a massive victory for his own company, but for the industry as a whole.
“It’s very significant for the company and the whole industry,” Gorenstein said in an interview with the Financial Post. “It’s a huge moment—just shows the stigma is continuing to erode on cannabis.”
In Canada, medical marijuana has been federally legal since 2001, and the country is set to legalize recreational marijuana sometime in the fall after the original July 1st deadline was pushed back by lawmakers. On the flip side, the plant remains federally illegal in the U.S., with 29 individual states allowing it for medicinal purposes, and just nine states (as well as the District of Columbia) recreationally.
Not to mention the fact that Jeff Sessions recently nixed Obama-era protections that allowed state-legal industries to create cannabis laws without government interferences. This has caused some prominent U.S. investors to think twice about investing in the Green Rush. According to Gorenstein, U.S. sanctions are what caused him to relocate his company to Canada in the first place.
However, Gorenstein expects that his company’s move to the NASDAQ could cause hesitant investors to change their tune.
“A lot of U.S. investors still are unsure about the legality: There’s not a lot of awareness about the fact that it’s federally legal in Canada versus the U.S.,” he said. “By listing on Nasdaq, it will open up the opportunities for a lot of U.S. investors that otherwise were unsure—even on the institutional level.”
Final Hit: Canadian Marijuana Company To Be Listed On The NASDAQ
Despite its current federal status in the U.S., Gorenstein hopes to eventually expand his business into the U.S. Currently, Cronos is working on building a growing facility in Israel and has received a license through a joint venture in Australia.
And while Cronos will become the first to trade on the U.S. Stock Exchange, it isn’t the first Canadian cannabis stock with U.S. ties. Back in October, Constellation Brands, which brews Corona beer, invested a whopping $191 million in the Canadian cannabis company Canopy growth.
“This move is a complete game changer, not only for Canopy but also for the entire industry,” Eight Capital analyst Daniel Pearlstein said at the time.
He certainly wasn’t wrong. After falling 7.3 percentage points over the fiscal year, Cronos shares were up as much as 11 percent following Mondays’ news. U.S. investors are clearly interested in getting in on the Green Rush from the ground floor. If more and more legal Canadian cannabis companies continue to make its way on to the U.S. exchange, it could prime marijuana investors for a big payday.
But right now, it’s up to the federal government to allow that happen.
https://hightimes.com/news/canadian-marijuana-company-listed-nasdaq/
Judge dismisses Alexis Bortell's medical MJ lawsuit
Federal Judge Dismisses Marijuana Lawsuit
Published on February 26, 2018
By Tom Angell
A federal district court judge in Manhattan has dismissed a lawsuit challenging marijuana’s status under the Controlled Substances Act.
Plaintiffs in the case, which argues that cannabis is improperly classified in the most restrictive category of Schedule I, include former NFL player Marvin Washington and a 12-year-old girl who treats epilepsy with medical marijuana.
Attorneys and plantiffs told Marijuana Moment in advance of oral arguments earlier this month that they were hopeful the case would force the federal government to finally reschedule marijuana.
But Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein ruled on Monday that advocates have “failed to exhaust their administrative remedies” to alter cannabis’s legal status, and should pursue changes through the administration and Congress instead of in the courts.
“[P]laintiffs’ claim is an administrative one, not one premised on the constitution,” he wrote, and “is best understood as a collateral attack on the various administrative determinations not to reclassify marijuana into a different drug schedule.”
Legalization advocates have long argued that marijuana is improperly classified in Schedule I, which is supposed to be reserved for drugs with no medical value and a high potential for abuse. A key claim of the lawsuit is that there is no rational basis for that categorization.
But Hellerstein wrote that “it is clear that Congress had a rational basis for classifying marijuana in Schedule I, and executive officials in different administrations have consistently retained its placement there… Even if marijuana has current medical uses, I cannot say that Congress acted irrationally in placing marijuana in Schedule I.”
However, the judge, who observers say appeared moved by anecdotes about the plaintiffs’ medical uses of cannabis during oral arguments, wrote that he does not reject out of hand the notion that marijuana can be beneficial:
“I emphasize that this decision is not on the merits of plaintiffs’ claim. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint, which I must accept as true for the purpose of this motion, claims that the use of medical marijuana has, quite literally, saved their lives. One plaintiff in this case, Alexis Bortell, suffers from intractable epilepsy, a severe seizure disorder that once caused her to experience multiple seizures every day. After years of searching for viable treatment options, Alexis began using medical marijuana. Since then, she has gone nearly three years without a single seizure. Jagger Cotte, another plaintiff in the case, suffers from a rare, congenital disease known as Leigh’s disease, which kills approximately 95% of those afflicted before they reach the age of four. After turning to medical marijuana, Jagger’s life has been extended by two years and his pain has become manageable. I highlight plaintiffs’ experience to emphasize that this decision should not be understood as a factual finding that marijuana lacks any medical use in the United States, for the authority to make that determination is vested in the administrative process.”
Also in the opinion, Hellerstein ruled that one plaintiff, the Cannabis Cultural Association, lacks standing to sue.
“Plaintiffs’ racial animus claim is based on a patchwork of statements by former Nixon Administration officials, many of which were made after the passage of the CSA,” he wrote. “Even taking these allegations as true, plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the relevant decisionmaker — Congress — passed the CSA and placed marijuana in Schedule I in order to intentionally discriminate against African Americans.”
Hellerstein dismissed every other claim in the lawsuit, as well, making it clear he’s done with the case.
“Because plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under any constitutional theory, all of plaintiffs’ remaining claims are also dismissed,” he wrote. “For the reasons stated herein, defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint is granted. Plaintiffs have already amended their complaint once, and I find that further amendments would be futile.”
https://www.marijuanamoment.net/federal-judge-dismisses-marijuana-lawsuit/
So an appeal will prolly be the next step....
Judge dismisses Alexis Bortell's medical MJ lawsuit
Federal Judge Dismisses Marijuana Lawsuit
Published on February 26, 2018
By Tom Angell
A federal district court judge in Manhattan has dismissed a lawsuit challenging marijuana’s status under the Controlled Substances Act.
Plaintiffs in the case, which argues that cannabis is improperly classified in the most restrictive category of Schedule I, include former NFL player Marvin Washington and a 12-year-old girl who treats epilepsy with medical marijuana.
Attorneys and plantiffs told Marijuana Moment in advance of oral arguments earlier this month that they were hopeful the case would force the federal government to finally reschedule marijuana.
But Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein ruled on Monday that advocates have “failed to exhaust their administrative remedies” to alter cannabis’s legal status, and should pursue changes through the administration and Congress instead of in the courts.
“[P]laintiffs’ claim is an administrative one, not one premised on the constitution,” he wrote, and “is best understood as a collateral attack on the various administrative determinations not to reclassify marijuana into a different drug schedule.”
Legalization advocates have long argued that marijuana is improperly classified in Schedule I, which is supposed to be reserved for drugs with no medical value and a high potential for abuse. A key claim of the lawsuit is that there is no rational basis for that categorization.
But Hellerstein wrote that “it is clear that Congress had a rational basis for classifying marijuana in Schedule I, and executive officials in different administrations have consistently retained its placement there… Even if marijuana has current medical uses, I cannot say that Congress acted irrationally in placing marijuana in Schedule I.”
However, the judge, who observers say appeared moved by anecdotes about the plaintiffs’ medical uses of cannabis during oral arguments, wrote that he does not reject out of hand the notion that marijuana can be beneficial:
“I emphasize that this decision is not on the merits of plaintiffs’ claim. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint, which I must accept as true for the purpose of this motion, claims that the use of medical marijuana has, quite literally, saved their lives. One plaintiff in this case, Alexis Bortell, suffers from intractable epilepsy, a severe seizure disorder that once caused her to experience multiple seizures every day. After years of searching for viable treatment options, Alexis began using medical marijuana. Since then, she has gone nearly three years without a single seizure. Jagger Cotte, another plaintiff in the case, suffers from a rare, congenital disease known as Leigh’s disease, which kills approximately 95% of those afflicted before they reach the age of four. After turning to medical marijuana, Jagger’s life has been extended by two years and his pain has become manageable. I highlight plaintiffs’ experience to emphasize that this decision should not be understood as a factual finding that marijuana lacks any medical use in the United States, for the authority to make that determination is vested in the administrative process.”
Also in the opinion, Hellerstein ruled that one plaintiff, the Cannabis Cultural Association, lacks standing to sue.
“Plaintiffs’ racial animus claim is based on a patchwork of statements by former Nixon Administration officials, many of which were made after the passage of the CSA,” he wrote. “Even taking these allegations as true, plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the relevant decisionmaker — Congress — passed the CSA and placed marijuana in Schedule I in order to intentionally discriminate against African Americans.”
Hellerstein dismissed every other claim in the lawsuit, as well, making it clear he’s done with the case.
“Because plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under any constitutional theory, all of plaintiffs’ remaining claims are also dismissed,” he wrote. “For the reasons stated herein, defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint is granted. Plaintiffs have already amended their complaint once, and I find that further amendments would be futile.”
https://www.marijuanamoment.net/federal-judge-dismisses-marijuana-lawsuit/
So an appeal will prolly be the next step....
Man admits to using Megabus to traffic weed
By Tim Kohut
Another day, another botched attempt to smuggle weed in the U.S. In this latest case, a Georgia man admits to using Megabus to traffic weed across state lines. The weirdest part is that he tried to downplay the whole thing.
Man Admits To Using Megabus To Traffic Weed
On Monday, Tevin Lewis boarded a Megabus in Atlanta, Georgia headed for Memphis, Tennessee.
By his side, was 1.5 pounds of marijuana stashed throughout the contents of his luggage.
Police later boarded that same Megabus, where they then approached Lewis. Detectives then asked Lewis if they could search his carry-on luggage, to which he quickly obliged.
According to one of the officers, Lewis began shaking nervously as the cops rummaged through his bag. The detectives promptly found three vacuum-sealed bags, covered in aluminum foil, wrapped underneath of Lewis’ clothing.
When the officers asked Lewis what was in the bags, he downplayed the severity of the situation.
“That ain’t nothing but a pound or a pound a half,” Lewis told police.
The police then removed Lewis from the bus and transferred him to an organized crime unit where he refused to divulge any information.
“[I] ain’t no snitch,” Lewis proclaimed. “Y’all just lock me up and get me a bond.”
https://hightimes.com/news/man-admits-using-megabus-traffic-weed/
Vegas airport installs big green pot disposal boxes
Pot disposal boxes installed at Las Vegas airport
By Mick Akers
Wednesday, Feb. 21, 2018 | 6 p.m
If someone purchases legal weed in Las Vegas and has it with him upon arriving to McCarran International Airport, there is now a legal way to dispose of the drug before entering the premises.
The first 13 of a planned 20 marijuana amnesty drop boxes were installed Friday, with 10 bins outside of McCarran and three outside of the McCarran Rent-a-Car Center on Gilespie Street near Warm Springs Road.
Bolted to the ground and only accessible to drop items in, the bins are in high-traffic areas, monitored regularly and serviced multiple times a week.
“The drawer pulls out; you drop your stuff in and you close it. You can’t really get your hand in there,” said Christine Crews, McCarran spokesperson said. “If you start tampering with them, you’d be detected pretty quickly.”
The bins are in response to changing guidelines surrounding weed on airport grounds.
The possession of up to one ounce of marijuana and 1/8 ounce of the THC equivalent of concentrates and edibles was made legal in January, with legal sale and purchase of the drug going live on July 1.
From Jan. 1 to late September, if a person had weed on his person on Department of Aviation grounds and it was discovered by a TSA agent, Metro Police would be called and they would assess the amount.
If they deemed it to be under the allowed amount, the person would be given back their product and were free to go. If it was over the allowed amount they would be arrested for felony possession, Crews said.
With the county ordinance disallowing weed on any airport property going in effect in October, the rules now mirror what they were before legalization.
Metro is called for anyone possessing weed, and if he has under one ounce, he is cited and has the product confiscated. If he has over an ounce of marijuana, he is arrested and charged with a felony.
The remaining seven marijuana amnesty boxes will be placed over the next several months at Henderson Executive Airport, North Las Vegas Airport and among other areas of McCarran where private companies operate.
https://lasvegassun.com/news/2018/feb/21/pot-disposal-boxes-installed-at-las-vegas-airport/
I hear a happy contractor has been hired to collect and dispose of the box contents.
Ending prohibition ?
Meet the Lawyer Suing Jeff Sessions to End Cannabis Prohibition
SARA BRITTANY SOMERSET
February 20, 2018
Last week, in a lawsuit that could put an end to federal cannabis prohibition, a federal judge in New York acknowledged the healing potential of medical marijuana. “It’s saved a life,” he said, referring to a Colorado girl with epilepsy. “She has no more epileptic seizures.”
The judge then turned to lawyers for the federal government, who have argued that cannabis is a dangerous drug with no accepted medical benefit. “If there is an accepted medical use,” he told them, “your argument doesn’t hold.”
The case of Washington v. Sessions has generated great interest. Five plaintiffs, including former NFL player Marvin Washington; 12-year-old Colorado medical refugee Alexis Bortell; youngster Jagger Cotte; US military veteran Jose Belen; and the Cannabis Cultural Association, a nonprofit that helps people of color benefit from cannabis in states where it’s legal, have challenged the constitutionality of the classification of marijuana under the federal Controlled Substances Act. The case, filed in 2017, finally received its first hearing in federal court last week, when US District Court Judge Alvin Hellerstein heard the federal government argue for the case’s dismissal.
The five plaintiffs have clearly obtained, and are able to maintain, a better quality of life because of cannabis.
David C. Holland, lead plaintiffs attorney
David C. Holland, the lead plantiffs'attorney
Leafly sat down with David C. Holland, the lead attorney representing plaintiffs in the suit, following the Feb. 14 hearing. Holland is a litigator in New York City and the executive and legal director of Empire State NORML. He’s former counsel to High Times Magazine and a member of the New York Cannabis Bar Association.
Holland walked us through what’s at stake in the lawsuit and the significance of the government’s recent effort to dismiss it.
Leafly: Why have the plaintiffs sued US Attorney General Jeff Sessions?
Holland: The five plaintiffs have sued Sessions and the DEA to declare the classification of cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act unconstitutional on claims it violates their rights, including that to travel, to be engaged in business’ interests, and to be free from racial discrimination and in enforcement of the law against communities of color. The federal government denies those claims and has moved to dismiss the action.
What are the main components of the Controlled Substances Act? Take us through its procedural history.
In 1970, the federal Controlled Substances Act established five classifications, from Schedule I to V, ranging from prohibited to prescription, which classify and categorize drugs and how they may be researched, used, and administered. Marijuana was placed in Schedule I, the most restrictive category, based upon three criteria: high risk of abuse, no medical efficacy or use, and no ability to use or research it in a safe manner. Cannabis has never been rescheduled since 1970.
He was clearly wrestling with the reality that 30 states have already found cannabis to be a useful medical treatment, which directly contradicts one of the criteria of the CSA.
That Schedule I classification of cannabis can be changed by one of three ways: through an act of Congress, an act of the US attorney general, or an act of the FDA. Within the CSA is an administrative remedy where anyone can petition the FDA to have cannabis rescheduled where it would no longer be prohibited in that most restricted classification.
If anyone can petition the FDA, why haven’t more patients done so?
The petitioning process can take years, if not a decade to get an FDA determination on a rescheduling request. The FDA has repeatedly denied those petitions, as recently as 2013 (Americans for Safe Access v. FDA), and 2016 (Krumm Petition), finding that cannabis still should sit as a Schedule I substance based on those three criteria.
Tell us a bit more about the plaintiffs.
Three of the plaintiffs in the Washington case—Alexis Bortell, Jagger Cotte, and Jose Belen—suffer life-threatening or severely debilitating diseases. They are seeking to bypass the FDA’s administrative petitioning process in order to get more immediate relief, because they may not live long enough to otherwise await and hear the determination.
The CSA petitioning process does not have any realistically viable means for them to expedite review of a petition to bring relief to their life-altering and life-threatening circumstances. Therefore, for them, the petitioning process is futile. They seek relief from the federal court for the CSA’s violation of their constitutional rights, with regard to this medicine as well as redress of other violations and due process.
The government has moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims on a multitude of theories rather than put in an answer to the claims and let them be heard and determined by the judge or jury.
On Feb. 14, Judge Hellerstein entertained written opposition to the motion to dismiss and heard oral argument from the parties. At the conclusion of oral argument, the judge reserved his decision and retired to his chambers to deliberate and draft an opinion about all the legal issues he was wrestling with in regard to motion.
Why did Judge Hellerstein seem so conflicted when speaking in court?
He was clearly wrestling with several legal issues pertaining to the Controlled Substances Act, and the reality that 30 states have already found cannabis to be a useful medical treatment, which directly contradicts one of the criteria of the CSA.
The first issue is referred to in legal terms as “exhaustion of remedies.” That is, the judge may be considering whether he must defer to the prior decisions of the FDA regarding the scheduling of cannabis. The government based its dismissal motion in part on a claim that the five plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies under the CSA. In other words, because no petition had first been filed with the FDA to reschedule cannabis, [the government argued that the court] does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the claims of the plaintiffs. Thus, their reasoning goes, the case should be dismissed.
Judge Hellerstein, however, did not seem particularly swayed by that argument. Several federal criminal cases have found that there is no requirement to file a petition to exhaust that administrative petition remedy when there are claims that constitutional rights are being violated by the enforcement of cannabis as a Schedule I drug under the CSA. That rule was upheld in late 2017 by the federal court in upstate New York, in a case known as US v. Green, which caused Judge Hellerstein to pause during the course of oral argument.
Do you think that was Hellerstein’s primary concern?
Not really. The issues that seemed to trouble Judge Hellerstein the most about the CSA petition process was whether he, as a judge, was without jurisdiction to hear, or must defer to, the administrative agency role of the FDA and prior findings in 2013 and 2016. In those findings, the FDA determined that cannabis was properly classified as a Schedule I substance.
If he did have such jurisdiction, could he then stand in the shoes of the FDA and make his own determination about the propriety of that schedule?
He further was concerned about any restrictions on the court’s analysis of the language of the statute, and the proper evidence to be evaluated, to determine whether the three criteria of Schedule I status continues to be met by cannabis. Some of the factors he noted included the fact that 30 states have legalized marijuana for medical purposes; the federal government has filed a patent on certain cannabinoids from the cannabis plant; and the five plaintiffs have clearly obtained, and are able to maintain, a better quality of life because of [medical cannabis].
The language of the CSA regarding the three scheduling criteria seems straightforward.
It is straightforward as “conjunctive,” in that cannabis seemingly must satisfy each and every one of the three factors to qualify as a Schedule I substance. The failure to satisfy any one of those factors renders the designation void. In other words, if the plaintiffs prove that cannabis fails to meet any one of the three criteria, [then the question becomes: Is the court] required to declare the Schedule I classification null and void?
What seemed to concern Judge Hellerstein was that generally, when a federal court reviews an agency’s determinations, like those of the FDA, and that agency has repeatedly determined that cannabis satisfies the Schedule I criteria, the court must generally evaluate and disjunctively weigh all the factors in the aggregate to determine if they are satisfied with the intent of the criteria and classification.
This was a concern to the court in the Green case I mentioned earlier. It also troubled the Eastern District of California court in the US v. Picard case. In Picard, the court allowed a five-day hearing of evidence on the science behind the Schedule I classification, and then ultimately concluded that any determination to reschedule cannabis is best left to Congress.
Do you think Hellerstein will defer to Congress?
This quandary of whether to defer to Congress invokes the “political question” doctrine, which says courts should generally not make decisions that are political in nature and best left to the legislative process. It is difficult to tell where Judge Hellerstein will ultimately fall on this political question issue. But he surely will wrestle with the fact that 30 states have already legalized cannabis despite its Schedule I status. That means that as a matter of politics, the actions of Congress should already have responded to the legislative actions already taken by an overwhelming majority of the states.
One argument advanced by your lawsuit is that the Controlled Substances Act and federal law enforcement should not govern cannabis in the 30 legalized states.
That is correct. The plaintiffs argue that although Congress may regulate interstate commerce—a.k.a. the commerce clause—between the states, the state-based activity of medical marijuana in those 30 states does not impact upon interstate commerce. Judge Hellerstein seemed to dismiss the argument out of hand, citing federal case law which finds that even a negligible or de minimis impact on commerce is enough to give the federal government jurisdiction over the issue.
There was also the argument about racism and equal protection under the law. While the history of cannabis prohibition, ignited by former federal drug czar Harry Aslinger, wasn’t addressed in court, President Nixon and his administration’s racist motivations for instituting the Controlled Substances Act were definitely called into question. Hellerstein seemed dismissive of the Nixon argument. How is Nixon’s racism still a contributing factor to the Controlled Substances Act?
It is unclear how Judge Hellerstein will rule on this “as applied” claim of the Cannabis Cultural Association (CCA). The CCA brought a claim on behalf of their members of color, who were disproportionately targeted for prosecution for marijuana offenses under the CSA. People of color unequally suffered collateral consequences stemming from those convictions as a result.
Judge Hellerstein seemed unpersuaded by statements of President Richard Nixon and his advisor, John Ehrlichman, which made clear that the criminalizing of marijuana under the CSA was done as a means to suppress minorities and social dissent against the Vietnam War. Judge Hellerstein suggested that any racist tendencies of the Nixon administration were not attributable to Congress under the separation of powers doctrine—where the powers of one branch of government are not affected by the actions of another. While there are compelling arguments to the contrary, which were not heard during the hearing, the plaintiffs hope that the issue is revisited in Judge Hellerstein’s opinion. Since so much of that claim seems to be a question of fact that will require lots of discovery and information to be tendered by the government, however, it’s unlikely to be the primary focus of the judge’s anticipated decision.
It seems that there are various possible outcomes. Do you think Hellerstein will dismiss the case? He hinted that he was going to kick the case to the Second Circuit Court.
There are three possible resolutions to the federal government’s motion to dismiss. Firstly, there is the potential dismissal of the claims. Secondly, Judge Hellerstein could deny the motion, and all claims will proceed to trial. Or, lastly, some mixture of the two.
Based on the comments and concerns [expressed by the] court, there is a possibility that the court will follow the precedent of the district courts in Picard and Green and find this to be a political question. However, if Judge Hellerstein finds that there are some claims that may be dismissed but [that] others are tenable, then there is a strong possibility that the court will berate both the FDA and Congress for failing to reschedule or deschedule cannabis, especially in light of the fact that 30 states have found that there is medical validity to marijuana. After all, as he openly stated, the plaintiffs are the best evidence of the effectiveness of cannabis as a medical cure.
For now, we will just have to wait and see. A ruling is expected as soon as this coming week.
https://www.leafly.com/news/politics/meet-the-lawyer-suing-jeff-sessions-to-end-cannabis-prohibition
http://www.hollandlitigation.com/
Ending prohibition ?
Meet the Lawyer Suing Jeff Sessions to End Cannabis Prohibition
SARA BRITTANY SOMERSET
February 20, 2018
Last week, in a lawsuit that could put an end to federal cannabis prohibition, a federal judge in New York acknowledged the healing potential of medical marijuana. “It’s saved a life,” he said, referring to a Colorado girl with epilepsy. “She has no more epileptic seizures.”
The judge then turned to lawyers for the federal government, who have argued that cannabis is a dangerous drug with no accepted medical benefit. “If there is an accepted medical use,” he told them, “your argument doesn’t hold.”
The case of Washington v. Sessions has generated great interest. Five plaintiffs, including former NFL player Marvin Washington; 12-year-old Colorado medical refugee Alexis Bortell; youngster Jagger Cotte; US military veteran Jose Belen; and the Cannabis Cultural Association, a nonprofit that helps people of color benefit from cannabis in states where it’s legal, have challenged the constitutionality of the classification of marijuana under the federal Controlled Substances Act. The case, filed in 2017, finally received its first hearing in federal court last week, when US District Court Judge Alvin Hellerstein heard the federal government argue for the case’s dismissal.
The five plaintiffs have clearly obtained, and are able to maintain, a better quality of life because of cannabis.
David C. Holland, lead plaintiffs attorney
David C. Holland, the lead plantiffs'attorney
Leafly sat down with David C. Holland, the lead attorney representing plaintiffs in the suit, following the Feb. 14 hearing. Holland is a litigator in New York City and the executive and legal director of Empire State NORML. He’s former counsel to High Times Magazine and a member of the New York Cannabis Bar Association.
Holland walked us through what’s at stake in the lawsuit and the significance of the government’s recent effort to dismiss it.
Leafly: Why have the plaintiffs sued US Attorney General Jeff Sessions?
Holland: The five plaintiffs have sued Sessions and the DEA to declare the classification of cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act unconstitutional on claims it violates their rights, including that to travel, to be engaged in business’ interests, and to be free from racial discrimination and in enforcement of the law against communities of color. The federal government denies those claims and has moved to dismiss the action.
What are the main components of the Controlled Substances Act? Take us through its procedural history.
In 1970, the federal Controlled Substances Act established five classifications, from Schedule I to V, ranging from prohibited to prescription, which classify and categorize drugs and how they may be researched, used, and administered. Marijuana was placed in Schedule I, the most restrictive category, based upon three criteria: high risk of abuse, no medical efficacy or use, and no ability to use or research it in a safe manner. Cannabis has never been rescheduled since 1970.
He was clearly wrestling with the reality that 30 states have already found cannabis to be a useful medical treatment, which directly contradicts one of the criteria of the CSA.
That Schedule I classification of cannabis can be changed by one of three ways: through an act of Congress, an act of the US attorney general, or an act of the FDA. Within the CSA is an administrative remedy where anyone can petition the FDA to have cannabis rescheduled where it would no longer be prohibited in that most restricted classification.
If anyone can petition the FDA, why haven’t more patients done so?
The petitioning process can take years, if not a decade to get an FDA determination on a rescheduling request. The FDA has repeatedly denied those petitions, as recently as 2013 (Americans for Safe Access v. FDA), and 2016 (Krumm Petition), finding that cannabis still should sit as a Schedule I substance based on those three criteria.
Tell us a bit more about the plaintiffs.
Three of the plaintiffs in the Washington case—Alexis Bortell, Jagger Cotte, and Jose Belen—suffer life-threatening or severely debilitating diseases. They are seeking to bypass the FDA’s administrative petitioning process in order to get more immediate relief, because they may not live long enough to otherwise await and hear the determination.
The CSA petitioning process does not have any realistically viable means for them to expedite review of a petition to bring relief to their life-altering and life-threatening circumstances. Therefore, for them, the petitioning process is futile. They seek relief from the federal court for the CSA’s violation of their constitutional rights, with regard to this medicine as well as redress of other violations and due process.
The government has moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims on a multitude of theories rather than put in an answer to the claims and let them be heard and determined by the judge or jury.
On Feb. 14, Judge Hellerstein entertained written opposition to the motion to dismiss and heard oral argument from the parties. At the conclusion of oral argument, the judge reserved his decision and retired to his chambers to deliberate and draft an opinion about all the legal issues he was wrestling with in regard to motion.
Why did Judge Hellerstein seem so conflicted when speaking in court?
He was clearly wrestling with several legal issues pertaining to the Controlled Substances Act, and the reality that 30 states have already found cannabis to be a useful medical treatment, which directly contradicts one of the criteria of the CSA.
The first issue is referred to in legal terms as “exhaustion of remedies.” That is, the judge may be considering whether he must defer to the prior decisions of the FDA regarding the scheduling of cannabis. The government based its dismissal motion in part on a claim that the five plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies under the CSA. In other words, because no petition had first been filed with the FDA to reschedule cannabis, [the government argued that the court] does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the claims of the plaintiffs. Thus, their reasoning goes, the case should be dismissed.
Judge Hellerstein, however, did not seem particularly swayed by that argument. Several federal criminal cases have found that there is no requirement to file a petition to exhaust that administrative petition remedy when there are claims that constitutional rights are being violated by the enforcement of cannabis as a Schedule I drug under the CSA. That rule was upheld in late 2017 by the federal court in upstate New York, in a case known as US v. Green, which caused Judge Hellerstein to pause during the course of oral argument.
Do you think that was Hellerstein’s primary concern?
Not really. The issues that seemed to trouble Judge Hellerstein the most about the CSA petition process was whether he, as a judge, was without jurisdiction to hear, or must defer to, the administrative agency role of the FDA and prior findings in 2013 and 2016. In those findings, the FDA determined that cannabis was properly classified as a Schedule I substance.
If he did have such jurisdiction, could he then stand in the shoes of the FDA and make his own determination about the propriety of that schedule?
He further was concerned about any restrictions on the court’s analysis of the language of the statute, and the proper evidence to be evaluated, to determine whether the three criteria of Schedule I status continues to be met by cannabis. Some of the factors he noted included the fact that 30 states have legalized marijuana for medical purposes; the federal government has filed a patent on certain cannabinoids from the cannabis plant; and the five plaintiffs have clearly obtained, and are able to maintain, a better quality of life because of [medical cannabis].
The language of the CSA regarding the three scheduling criteria seems straightforward.
It is straightforward as “conjunctive,” in that cannabis seemingly must satisfy each and every one of the three factors to qualify as a Schedule I substance. The failure to satisfy any one of those factors renders the designation void. In other words, if the plaintiffs prove that cannabis fails to meet any one of the three criteria, [then the question becomes: Is the court] required to declare the Schedule I classification null and void?
What seemed to concern Judge Hellerstein was that generally, when a federal court reviews an agency’s determinations, like those of the FDA, and that agency has repeatedly determined that cannabis satisfies the Schedule I criteria, the court must generally evaluate and disjunctively weigh all the factors in the aggregate to determine if they are satisfied with the intent of the criteria and classification.
This was a concern to the court in the Green case I mentioned earlier. It also troubled the Eastern District of California court in the US v. Picard case. In Picard, the court allowed a five-day hearing of evidence on the science behind the Schedule I classification, and then ultimately concluded that any determination to reschedule cannabis is best left to Congress.
Do you think Hellerstein will defer to Congress?
This quandary of whether to defer to Congress invokes the “political question” doctrine, which says courts should generally not make decisions that are political in nature and best left to the legislative process. It is difficult to tell where Judge Hellerstein will ultimately fall on this political question issue. But he surely will wrestle with the fact that 30 states have already legalized cannabis despite its Schedule I status. That means that as a matter of politics, the actions of Congress should already have responded to the legislative actions already taken by an overwhelming majority of the states.
One argument advanced by your lawsuit is that the Controlled Substances Act and federal law enforcement should not govern cannabis in the 30 legalized states.
That is correct. The plaintiffs argue that although Congress may regulate interstate commerce—a.k.a. the commerce clause—between the states, the state-based activity of medical marijuana in those 30 states does not impact upon interstate commerce. Judge Hellerstein seemed to dismiss the argument out of hand, citing federal case law which finds that even a negligible or de minimis impact on commerce is enough to give the federal government jurisdiction over the issue.
There was also the argument about racism and equal protection under the law. While the history of cannabis prohibition, ignited by former federal drug czar Harry Aslinger, wasn’t addressed in court, President Nixon and his administration’s racist motivations for instituting the Controlled Substances Act were definitely called into question. Hellerstein seemed dismissive of the Nixon argument. How is Nixon’s racism still a contributing factor to the Controlled Substances Act?
It is unclear how Judge Hellerstein will rule on this “as applied” claim of the Cannabis Cultural Association (CCA). The CCA brought a claim on behalf of their members of color, who were disproportionately targeted for prosecution for marijuana offenses under the CSA. People of color unequally suffered collateral consequences stemming from those convictions as a result.
Judge Hellerstein seemed unpersuaded by statements of President Richard Nixon and his advisor, John Ehrlichman, which made clear that the criminalizing of marijuana under the CSA was done as a means to suppress minorities and social dissent against the Vietnam War. Judge Hellerstein suggested that any racist tendencies of the Nixon administration were not attributable to Congress under the separation of powers doctrine—where the powers of one branch of government are not affected by the actions of another. While there are compelling arguments to the contrary, which were not heard during the hearing, the plaintiffs hope that the issue is revisited in Judge Hellerstein’s opinion. Since so much of that claim seems to be a question of fact that will require lots of discovery and information to be tendered by the government, however, it’s unlikely to be the primary focus of the judge’s anticipated decision.
It seems that there are various possible outcomes. Do you think Hellerstein will dismiss the case? He hinted that he was going to kick the case to the Second Circuit Court.
There are three possible resolutions to the federal government’s motion to dismiss. Firstly, there is the potential dismissal of the claims. Secondly, Judge Hellerstein could deny the motion, and all claims will proceed to trial. Or, lastly, some mixture of the two.
Based on the comments and concerns [expressed by the] court, there is a possibility that the court will follow the precedent of the district courts in Picard and Green and find this to be a political question. However, if Judge Hellerstein finds that there are some claims that may be dismissed but [that] others are tenable, then there is a strong possibility that the court will berate both the FDA and Congress for failing to reschedule or deschedule cannabis, especially in light of the fact that 30 states have found that there is medical validity to marijuana. After all, as he openly stated, the plaintiffs are the best evidence of the effectiveness of cannabis as a medical cure.
For now, we will just have to wait and see. A ruling is expected as soon as this coming week.
https://www.leafly.com/news/politics/meet-the-lawyer-suing-jeff-sessions-to-end-cannabis-prohibition
http://www.hollandlitigation.com/
Treasury says MJ banking top of the list
Marijuana Banking At “Top Of The List,” Treasury Secretary Says
By Tom Angell
The Trump administration’s top fiscal official told Congress that figuring out marijuana businesses’ access to banks is at the “top of the list” of his department’s concerns.
“This is a complicated issue. We are actively looking at this,” Treasury Sec. Steven Mnuchin said at a hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee on Thursday. “We’re working on it as we speak.”
Mnuchin indicated during a separate House hearing last week that he wants cannabis businesses to be able to store their profits in banks.
“I assure you that we don’t want bags of cash,” he said at the time. “We do want to find a solution to make sure that businesses that have large access to cash have a way to get them into a depository institution for it to be safe.”
In 2014, under the Obama administration, the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued guidance that has allowed banks to open accounts for marijuana growers, processors and retailers without running afoul of federal regulators.
But last month, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded a broader policy from the former administration that had generally cleared the way for states to implement their own cannabis laws without Justice Department interference. Sessions’ move has led to fears that the Trump administration may tear up the banking memo as well.
On Thursday, Mnuchin was responding to a question from Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), who said that marijuana businesses’s uncertain access to financial services is a “threat to public safety.”
https://www.marijuanamoment.net/marijuana-banking-at-top-of-the-list-treasury-secretary-says/
Feds attorney cited 1973 Schedule I status ruling
Assistant U.S. Attorney Samuel Dolinger argued that the case should be dismissed because “courts around the country have considered similar or identical claims and have rejected them.” Dolinger and Hellerstein spent a good deal of time discussing the case of U.S. v. Kiffer, which affirmed the drug’s Schedule I status.
“When they talk about Kiffer, a 1973 case… you really don't know the rest of the history,”Michael Hiller, lead counsel for plaintiffs in the case, told reporters after the hearing. He cited numerous developments since 1973, including the government’s Investigational New Drug program, Nixon’s Schafer Commission, the federal government’s very own cannabis patent, and the emergence of state-level marijuana programs.
“How can you say that? ... ‘There is no currently accepted medical use in the United States,’” Hellerstein asked. “Your argument doesn’t hold.”
“It could be recognized to have some medical use” if the laws change, Dolinger said.
At one point, Hellerstein also said to the five plaintiffs’ lawyer, Michael Hiller: “Your clients are living proof of the medical effectiveness of marijuana.”
“How could anyone say your clients’ lives have not been saved by marijuana?" Hellerstein also remarked. “You can’t.”
N.Y. lawmakers want to fight opioid crisis with medical marijuana
“I couldn’t agree more, your honor,” Hiller replied.
Though Hellerstein didn’t doubt medical marijuana’s potential, he had reservations about whether the lawsuit could proceed on legal grounds.
Hellerstein said it wasn’t clear whether he had the power to rule on the dispute over pot’s place in the drug Schedule - or whether advocates needed to pursue changes through government agencies.
Hellerstein will issue a decision at a later date.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/manhattan-federal-judge-declares-marijuana-saves-lives-article-1.3821123
Judge deliberates experimental lobotomy for Sessions
One of the plaintiffs is Alexis Bortell, a 12 year girl who uses a cannabis oil to prevent life-threatening epileptic seizures. She takes the oil orally twice a day, and always keeps a THC spray on hand in case she experiences a pre-seizure aura. Alexis did not have access to cannabis when she lived in Texas, and when doctors there were left with no other option than to suggest an experimental lobotomy, her parents moved to Colorado. They knew cannabis had to be better than removing a portion of Bortell's brain. Thanks to cannabis medicine, she has now been seizure free for over 2 years, where in Texas she was lucky if she could go 3 days without one.
https://www.themaven.net/theweedblog/policies/judge-recognizes-medical-cannabis-works-delays-decision-in-lawsuit-2MOfc94xUEyszbdd8hVOKA?full=1
And they say money can’t buy happiness…
Trump Treasury Secretary Wants Marijuana Money In Banks
by Tom Angell FEB 6, 2018 @ 01:46 PM
The Trump administration's top fiscal official appeared on Tuesday to voice support for letting marijuana businesses store their profits in banks.
"I assure you that we don't want bags of cash," Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin testified during an appearance before the House Financial Services Committee. "We want to make sure that we can collect our necessary taxes and other things."
Mnuchin, in a series of responses to questions from lawmakers who raised concerns about the public safety implications of preventing cannabis businesses from accessing banks and forcing them to operate on an all-cash basis, said the Treasury Department is currently considering how to deal with the issue.
In 2014, under the Obama administration, the department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued guidance that has allowed banks to open accounts for marijuana growers, processors and retailers without running afoul of federal regulators.
But last month, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded a broader policy from the former administration that had generally cleared the way for states to implement their own cannabis laws without Justice Department interference. Sessions' move has led to fears that the Trump administration may tear up the banking memo as well.
Last week, a top Treasury official wrote in a letter to lawmakers that the department is "consulting with law enforcement" about whether to maintain the guidance for depository institutions. Last month, a Mnuchin deputy testified at a Senate hearing that the banking document remains in effect while the administration weighs whether to revoke it.
At the Tuesday hearing, Mnuchin confirmed that the department is "reviewing the existing guidance." But he clarified that he doesn't want to rescind it without having an alternate policy in place to address public safety concerns.
"The intent is not to take it down without a replacement that can deal with the current situation," he said.
Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) told Mnuchin that simply deleting the banking memo "would really make it better for armed robbers in my community, because there'd be huge amounts of cash at the local marijuana dispensary."
Reps. Denny Heck (D-WA) and Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) also raised questions about the issue.
"We specifically haven't taken it down," Mnuchin said of the 2014 memo. "We are looking at what Justice has done. And again, as I said, we're sensitive to the issue of dealing with the public safety issue and also making sure that the IRS and others have ways of collecting taxes without taking in cash."
In response to comments about pending congressional legislation to address cannabis businesses' access to financial services, Mnuchin pledged to consult with White House Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, who as a member of Congress previously sponsored a similar bill.
Perlmutter's legislation on the issue currently has 78 co-sponsors, and a companion Senate version has 14 senators signed on. Bipartisan groups of House and Senate lawmakers have also sent letters to the administration urging that the banking guidance be maintained.
During the hearing, Mnuchin also appeared to confirm a Reuters report that FinCEN was not consulted in advance about Sessions’s decision to change federal marijuana enforcement policy.
"I did not participate in the attorney general's decision and what he did, but we are consulting with them now," he said. "We do want to find a solution to make sure that businesses that have large access to cash have a way to get them into a depository institution for it to be safe."
The FinCEN policy, which requires financial institutions to regularly file reports on their cannabis customers, was intended to provide clarity and assurances to banks, but many have remained reluctant to work with marijuana businesses because of overarching federal prohibition.
Nonetheless, documents released by FinCEN late last year showed that the number of banks willing to work with the marijuana industry has steadily grown over time, though those figures were collected prior to Sessions’s move to revoke the broader Justice Department guidance.
Prior to his being confirmed by the Senate last year , Mnuchin said in response to written questions from a senator that marijuana businesses' banking and tax issues are "very important."
Tom Angell publishes Marijuana Moment news and founded the nonprofit Marijuana Majority. Follow Tom on Twitter for breaking news and subscribe to his daily newsletter.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomangell/2018/02/06/trump-treasury-secretary-wants-marijuana-money-in-banks/2/#7ed93b455fe9
And they say money can’t buy happiness…
Trump Treasury Secretary Wants Marijuana Money In Banks
by Tom Angell FEB 6, 2018 @ 01:46 PM
The Trump administration's top fiscal official appeared on Tuesday to voice support for letting marijuana businesses store their profits in banks.
"I assure you that we don't want bags of cash," Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin testified during an appearance before the House Financial Services Committee. "We want to make sure that we can collect our necessary taxes and other things."
Mnuchin, in a series of responses to questions from lawmakers who raised concerns about the public safety implications of preventing cannabis businesses from accessing banks and forcing them to operate on an all-cash basis, said the Treasury Department is currently considering how to deal with the issue.
In 2014, under the Obama administration, the department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued guidance that has allowed banks to open accounts for marijuana growers, processors and retailers without running afoul of federal regulators.
But last month, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded a broader policy from the former administration that had generally cleared the way for states to implement their own cannabis laws without Justice Department interference. Sessions' move has led to fears that the Trump administration may tear up the banking memo as well.
Last week, a top Treasury official wrote in a letter to lawmakers that the department is "consulting with law enforcement" about whether to maintain the guidance for depository institutions. Last month, a Mnuchin deputy testified at a Senate hearing that the banking document remains in effect while the administration weighs whether to revoke it.
At the Tuesday hearing, Mnuchin confirmed that the department is "reviewing the existing guidance." But he clarified that he doesn't want to rescind it without having an alternate policy in place to address public safety concerns.
"The intent is not to take it down without a replacement that can deal with the current situation," he said.
Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) told Mnuchin that simply deleting the banking memo "would really make it better for armed robbers in my community, because there'd be huge amounts of cash at the local marijuana dispensary."
Reps. Denny Heck (D-WA) and Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) also raised questions about the issue.
"We specifically haven't taken it down," Mnuchin said of the 2014 memo. "We are looking at what Justice has done. And again, as I said, we're sensitive to the issue of dealing with the public safety issue and also making sure that the IRS and others have ways of collecting taxes without taking in cash."
In response to comments about pending congressional legislation to address cannabis businesses' access to financial services, Mnuchin pledged to consult with White House Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, who as a member of Congress previously sponsored a similar bill.
Perlmutter's legislation on the issue currently has 78 co-sponsors, and a companion Senate version has 14 senators signed on. Bipartisan groups of House and Senate lawmakers have also sent letters to the administration urging that the banking guidance be maintained.
During the hearing, Mnuchin also appeared to confirm a Reuters report that FinCEN was not consulted in advance about Sessions’s decision to change federal marijuana enforcement policy.
"I did not participate in the attorney general's decision and what he did, but we are consulting with them now," he said. "We do want to find a solution to make sure that businesses that have large access to cash have a way to get them into a depository institution for it to be safe."
The FinCEN policy, which requires financial institutions to regularly file reports on their cannabis customers, was intended to provide clarity and assurances to banks, but many have remained reluctant to work with marijuana businesses because of overarching federal prohibition.
Nonetheless, documents released by FinCEN late last year showed that the number of banks willing to work with the marijuana industry has steadily grown over time, though those figures were collected prior to Sessions’s move to revoke the broader Justice Department guidance.
Prior to his being confirmed by the Senate last year , Mnuchin said in response to written questions from a senator that marijuana businesses' banking and tax issues are "very important."
Tom Angell publishes Marijuana Moment news and founded the nonprofit Marijuana Majority. Follow Tom on Twitter for breaking news and subscribe to his daily newsletter.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomangell/2018/02/06/trump-treasury-secretary-wants-marijuana-money-in-banks/2/#7ed93b455fe9
Democracy lives in dankness
Stoners Loving Donald Trump Jr.’s ‘Democracy Dies In Dankness’ Tweet
This typo might be the junior Trump’s “covfefe.”
By David Moye
For many people, Donald Trump Jr.’s Twitter account is the gift that keeps on giving. This time, stoners are the recipients.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-jr-dankness-tweet_us_5a737e0de4b06ee97af0d663
Marijuana shops prep for Super Bowl sales blitz
Mike Alvarez, VP of Terra Tech’s Retail Operations, quoted.
Trevor Hughes, USA TODAY
DENVER — Marijuana stores across the country are bracing for one of their biggest sales weekends in history: The Super Bowl.
While the annual football festival is traditionally associated with beer and liquor, pot is quickly gaining ground. Fans say marijuana provides an alternative way to celebrate — without the hangover.
"You can be social, have a good time and still be a human being and go to work the next day," said Justin Bishoff, manager of the Denver-based GroundSwell cannabis dispensary.
Cannabis sales leaped 40% last year on the Saturday before the big game and this year could rise even higher thanks to California's recent legalization of recreational marijuana, according to Green Bits, which runs sales systems for more than 350 dispensaries in six states and compiled stats for USA TODAY.
“The Super Bowl is like any other large social event: people getting together,” said Green Bits CEO Ben Curren. “Whenever there’s a large social event we see an uptick in purchases.”
Last year, the average purchase at a marijuana store rose from $100 to $140 on the Saturday before the game, with much of the spending coming in the form of marijuana-infused snacks known as edibles, or in cartridges for vape pens, Green Bits found.
Fridays are typically the busiest sales days as consumers stock up for the weekend, and April 20 remains the biggest sales day of the year, as 4/20 is traditionally when millions of marijuana enthusiasts across the country light up in public. Other popular shopping periods include the days before Thanksgiving and Christmas, and the day after Thanksgiving, which cannabis retailers dubbed "Green Friday."
Nine states — Colorado, Alaska, California, Nevada, Vermont, Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts and Maine, plus the District of Columbia — permit recreational marijuana use, although not all of them allow sales in stores. Minnesota, which is hosting the big game, does not permit recreational use.
Searches for Super Bowl-related deals are already increasing on platforms like Weedmaps, which helps customers find marijuana stores near them. Cannabis stores are forced to rely on non-traditional advertising venues because few television stations or newspapers will accept advertising over fears it might make them a target of federal agents.
Weedmaps is highlighting Super Bowl specials in Arizona, Michigan and California, with more expected closer to game day. At Denver's GroundSwell, workers are offering deals on marijuana-infused sodas, riffing off the beer-drinking culture of the Super Bowl.
Anheuser-Busch is a major supporter of the NFL through the advertising it buys on the television networks carrying the games. And alcohol in general is big business during the game: Nielson reports beer, wine and spirits sales average 9-11% higher in the week before the Super Bowl.
In Las Vegas, marijuana store Blum is offering a special deal on Super Bowl day itself: Buy $30 of marijuana, get $8 more for just a penny. Until then, the company's four Nevada stores are running a Super Bowl-related raffle, said Mikel Alvarez, vice president of retail operations for TerraTech Corp., which owns Blum. Alvarez said he's also working with the company's two California stores on Super Bowl-related specials.
"We're having some fun with it," he said.
Like many other marijuana experts, Alvarez said the increasing acceptance of cannabis, especially in the form of edibles, is driving up consumption in social situations.
"You go out with friends and it's amazing how many people aren't drinking as much. They're using cannabis instead," Alvarez said.
Of course, not everyone is a fan of higher marijuana sales around the Super Bowl, or any other time, for that matter. Kevin Sabet, who runs the anti-legalization group Smart Approaches to Marijuana, argues that increasing normalization is a bad idea, and Americans should be trying to reduce their use of mind-altering drugs, no matter the form in which they come.
"People are naïve if they think legalization is about these lofty goals often spoken about on university campuses or mass protests. In reality, legalization is about what is spoken about in Wall Street board rooms: money, money, and more money," Sabet said. "This whole movement to legalize has enriched an industry looking to normalize and profit from heavy use of their products. It’s like we’re seeing the Big Tobacco car crash happen all over again in slow motion."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/02/01/marijuana-pot-shops-prep-super-bowl-sales-blitz/1085109001/
Marijuana shops prep for Super Bowl sales blitz
Mikel Alvarez, VP of Terra Tech’s Retail Operations, quoted.
Trevor Hughes, USA TODAY
DENVER — Marijuana stores across the country are bracing for one of their biggest sales weekends in history: The Super Bowl.
While the annual football festival is traditionally associated with beer and liquor, pot is quickly gaining ground. Fans say marijuana provides an alternative way to celebrate — without the hangover.
"You can be social, have a good time and still be a human being and go to work the next day," said Justin Bishoff, manager of the Denver-based GroundSwell cannabis dispensary.
Cannabis sales leaped 40% last year on the Saturday before the big game and this year could rise even higher thanks to California's recent legalization of recreational marijuana, according to Green Bits, which runs sales systems for more than 350 dispensaries in six states and compiled stats for USA TODAY.
“The Super Bowl is like any other large social event: people getting together,” said Green Bits CEO Ben Curren. “Whenever there’s a large social event we see an uptick in purchases.”
Last year, the average purchase at a marijuana store rose from $100 to $140 on the Saturday before the game, with much of the spending coming in the form of marijuana-infused snacks known as edibles, or in cartridges for vape pens, Green Bits found.
Fridays are typically the busiest sales days as consumers stock up for the weekend, and April 20 remains the biggest sales day of the year, as 4/20 is traditionally when millions of marijuana enthusiasts across the country light up in public. Other popular shopping periods include the days before Thanksgiving and Christmas, and the day after Thanksgiving, which cannabis retailers dubbed "Green Friday."
Nine states — Colorado, Alaska, California, Nevada, Vermont, Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts and Maine, plus the District of Columbia — permit recreational marijuana use, although not all of them allow sales in stores. Minnesota, which is hosting the big game, does not permit recreational use.
Searches for Super Bowl-related deals are already increasing on platforms like Weedmaps, which helps customers find marijuana stores near them. Cannabis stores are forced to rely on non-traditional advertising venues because few television stations or newspapers will accept advertising over fears it might make them a target of federal agents.
Weedmaps is highlighting Super Bowl specials in Arizona, Michigan and California, with more expected closer to game day. At Denver's GroundSwell, workers are offering deals on marijuana-infused sodas, riffing off the beer-drinking culture of the Super Bowl.
Anheuser-Busch is a major supporter of the NFL through the advertising it buys on the television networks carrying the games. And alcohol in general is big business during the game: Nielson reports beer, wine and spirits sales average 9-11% higher in the week before the Super Bowl.
In Las Vegas, marijuana store Blum is offering a special deal on Super Bowl day itself: Buy $30 of marijuana, get $8 more for just a penny. Until then, the company's four Nevada stores are running a Super Bowl-related raffle, said Mikel Alvarez, vice president of retail operations for TerraTech Corp., which owns Blum. Alvarez said he's also working with the company's two California stores on Super Bowl-related specials.
"We're having some fun with it," he said.
Like many other marijuana experts, Alvarez said the increasing acceptance of cannabis, especially in the form of edibles, is driving up consumption in social situations.
"You go out with friends and it's amazing how many people aren't drinking as much. They're using cannabis instead," Alvarez said.
Of course, not everyone is a fan of higher marijuana sales around the Super Bowl, or any other time, for that matter. Kevin Sabet, who runs the anti-legalization group Smart Approaches to Marijuana, argues that increasing normalization is a bad idea, and Americans should be trying to reduce their use of mind-altering drugs, no matter the form in which they come.
"People are naïve if they think legalization is about these lofty goals often spoken about on university campuses or mass protests. In reality, legalization is about what is spoken about in Wall Street board rooms: money, money, and more money," Sabet said. "This whole movement to legalize has enriched an industry looking to normalize and profit from heavy use of their products. It’s like we’re seeing the Big Tobacco car crash happen all over again in slow motion."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/02/01/marijuana-pot-shops-prep-super-bowl-sales-blitz/1085109001/
Dow closes down 666 points that can't be good
http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/02/investing/stock-market-today-dow/index.html
The sky is really falling this time
Look out below....
Just another market maker sell off scam
And then the panic selling and market capitulation on Friday morning
Classic ....
Vermont Governor Signs Marijuana Legalization bill
Vermont Governor Signs Marijuana Legalization Into Law
by Tom Angell
Vermont is officially the ninth state to legalize marijuana, and the first to end cannabis prohibition through an act of lawmakers.
"I personally believe that what adults do behind closed doors and on private property is their choice, so long as it does not negatively impact the health and safety of others, especially children," Gov. Phil Scott (R) said in a statement accompanying a legalization bill he signed into law on Monday.
Under the legislation's provisions, people over 21 years of age will be allowed to to legally possess up to one ounce of marijuana and grow as many as two mature and four immature cannabis plants.
Commercial marijuana sales will not be allowed under the new law, which is set to take effect on July 1.
All eight other states that had previously legalized marijuana did so via voter-approved ballot initiatives.
Vermont’s legislative move signals a milestone in the evolving politics of marijuana. Polls consistently show majority voter support for legalization, and more politicians are beginning to see the issue as a winning one they should embrace rather than run away from.
State lawmakers approved the legislation earlier this month, just days after U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions moved to rescind Obama-era guidance that has generally allowed states to implement their own marijuana laws without federal interference.
Now that the bill allowing possession and home cultivation has been signed into law in Vermont, supporters appear ready to keep pressing toward full-scale commercial legalization.
“It’s up to citizens across the state whether or not we see a bill like that pass this year with their participation in the process,” Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (Progressive) said at a press conference earlier this month. “I would like to see that. I think every year we go by not doing it, we are perpetuating the underground, unregulated, unjust system that we have today while other states are moving forward.”
The Senate approved bills to allow legal marijuana sales last year and in 2016, but they didn’t gain traction in the House, which favored the noncommercial approach.
Advocates believe that New Jersey is also poised to end marijuana prohibition via the legislature this year. Phil Murphy (D), who was sworn in as governor last week, campaigned on full-scale commercial legalization and reiterated his promise during his inaugural address. The state's Senate president says he is ready to pass a bill, too.
Separately, a number of other states are expected to vote on ballot initiatives to legalize recreational or medical cannabis in 2018.
Vermont fell just short of legalizing marijuana last year. The legislature passed a bill to allow personal cannabis possession and homegrow, but Scott vetoed it. However, in doing so, he laid out a few small changes he wanted legislators to make in order to win his support. The Senate quickly acted to make the requested revisions, but the House was not able to overcome procedural hurdles to get it done in time during a short special session over the summer.
Lawmakers took final action on the bill earlier this month.
Scott, who used an executive order to create a commission to study the implications of legalization last year, said in his signing statement that he's not ready to support legal marijuana sales.
"I look forward to the Marijuana Advisory Commission addressing the need to develop comprehensive education, prevention and highway safety strategies. To be very direct: There must be comprehensive and convincing plans completed in these areas before I will begin to consider the wisdom of implementing a commercial 'tax and regulate' system for an adult marijuana market," he wrote. "It is important for the General Assembly to know that – until we have a workable plan to address each of these concerns – I will veto any additional effort along these lines, which manages to reach my desk."
Tom Angell publishes Marijuana Moment news and founded the nonprofit Marijuana Majority. Follow Tom on Twitter for breaking news and subscribe to his daily newsletter.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomangell/2018/01/22/vermont-governor-signs-marijuana-legalization-into-law/#2367dbc9526a
Any mj amendments make the final vote ?
Is that good or bad ?
Dynamic Air Engineering 620 E Dyer Rd Santa Ana, CA
620 E Dyer Rd Santa Ana, California ?
620 E Dyer Rd Santa Ana, CA
On December 6, 2017, 620 Dyer LLC (“620 Dyer”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Terra Tech Corp. (the “Company”), entered into an Amendment to Escrow Instructions (the “Amendment”) with Modernize, Inc. (“Modernize”) pursuant to which Modernize designated 620 Dyer as the “Buyer” of that certain commercial property located at 620 East Dyer Road, Santa Ana, CA 92705 (the “Property”) pursuant to a Real Property Purchase and Sale Agreement between Modernize, as buyer, and 620 E. Dyer, LLC, as seller, dated October 17, 2017, for a purchase price of $11,000,000. On January 18, 2018, 620 Dyer closed on the acquisition of the Property.
Https://www.google.com/maps/uv?hl=en&pb=!1s0x80dcdecb9f54142d:0x33092a3106c23000!2m22!2m2!1i80!2i80!3m1!2i20!16m16!1b1!2m2!1m1!1e1!2m2!1m1!1e3!2m2!1m1!1e5!2m2!1m1!1e4!2m2!1m1!1e6!3m1!7e115!4shttps://picasaweb.google.com/lh/sredir?uname%3D103534163681971633187%26id%3D5763305769128761346%26target%3DPHOTO!5sDynamic+Air+Engineering+Inc+Santa+Ana,+CA+92705+-+Google+Search&imagekey=!1e3!2s-tP4y6z7LckM/T_tgD8zhGAI/AAAAAAAAAk8/rhdu9Sz538wTFGuZP-SYUI9rnOFTaUk5wCJkC&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiaoqyKmuXYAhXoTN8KHXtWDa4QoioIbjAK
69 Congress members push mj spending bill amendment
"In the last week there's been a groundswell of support to include this amendment in appropriations legislation," Rep. Jared Polis said.
PUBLISHED: JAN 12, 2018, 3:47 PM • UPDATED: ABOUT 4 HOURS AGO COMMENTS (6)
By Alicia Wallace and Alex Pasquariello, The Cannabist Staff
Members of Congress have proposed a spending bill amendment that would ensure protections for states that have legalized marijuana.
Nearly 70 U.S. representatives signed onto a letter sent Friday to U.S. House of Representatives leadership asking for the inclusion of the provision, known as the McClintock-Polis Amendment, that ensures U.S. Department of Justice funds cannot be used to interfere with states that have authorized some form of marijuana legalization.
The McClintock-Polis Amendment has taken on a new level of urgency in the wake of U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ Jan. 4 memo rescinding Obama-era guidance on marijuana enforcement, Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo., told The Cannabist.
“In the last week there’s been a groundswell of support to include this amendment in appropriations legislation,” he said.
Last April, a letter from Reps. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., and Polis requesting inclusion of their amendment in the appropriations bill had a total of 16 signatures. The letter sent Friday had the support of 69 members.
In it, the congressmen asked that “any forthcoming appropriations or funding bill” include the following language:
None of the funds made available by this act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to any of the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, to prevent any of them from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of marijuana on non-Federal lands within their respective jurisdictions.
The representatives said the proposed provision respects constitutional authority for states to regulate commerce within their own borders.
“Specifically, we are concerned with several attempts to apply federal law upon commerce related to cannabis that is conducted entirely within the boundaries of states that have legalized such commerce,” the representatives wrote. “While the federal government is legitimately empowered to regulate interstate commerce, the measures adopted by states such as California, Oregon and Colorado are aimed solely at intrastate commerce and as such should not be interfered with.
“Indeed, this is exactly the mechanism (former U.S. Supreme Court Justice) Louis Brandeis referred to when he wrote of the states as laboratories for innovation and experimentation.”
An amendment preventing the Justice Department from using federal funds to prosecute individuals in states where medical marijuana is legal has been included in appropriations bills since 2014. The so-called Rohrabacher-Blumenaeur amendment remains in place following the Dec. 22 signing of a stopgap spending bill. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., a co-sponsor of the amendment, has said that efforts are ongoing to include the language in upcoming appropriations legislation.
Following Sessions’ move on Jan. 4, members of Congress have pushed back and conducted emergency meetings to develop a response — be it via a spending bill rider or longer-term legislation.
Polis on Friday said he would continue to push for passage of his Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act, which would end the federal prohibition on marijuana. However, “that could take years,” he said. “This is urgent — we must get this amendment passed in any vehicle that funds the government.”
http://www.thecannabist.co/2018/01/12/congress-protect-marijuana-mcclintock-polis/96679/
Massachusetts police say they will resist Sessions
Massachusetts Police Resist Sessions, Respect State Law
BY DUKE LONDON ON JANUARY 11TH, 2018 AT 3:21 PM
After Jeff Sessions and the Department of Justice announced they would rescind the Cole memo and direct U.S. attorneys across the country to resume their prosecution efforts of marijuana “offenders,” many wondered how the states that had already legalized would handle the directives. State and local law enforcement in Massachusetts, the first East Coast state to legalize cannabis, isn’t leaving anything up to the imagination.
Should the federal government pursue law-abiding marijuana businesses in the Bay State, they’ll be missing a critical component of federal investigations and arrests — the support of Massachusetts state and local police.
While U.S. attorneys across the country have said their hands are tied, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is coming out strongly against the move.
Public Safety Secretary Daniel Bennett, who leads the Massachusetts State Police oversight, told the Boston Herald, “We have a state law that we’re intending to enforce, and the state law was voted on by the people of Massachusetts. We have no intention of raiding a pot shop that is legal under state law.”
The state police aren’t alone in their resolve to resist federal pressure to crack down on state-legal marijuana businesses, either, as Boston Police Department Detective Lt. Michael McCarthy echoed a similar stance to his “statie” counterparts.
“Similar to our position on immigration, the BPD will not actively enforce federal marijuana laws at the local level,” explained McCarthy. “We will continue to enforce local drug laws to keep our neighborhoods safe.”
The public defense of the recently established marijuana industry comes after the state’s U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling offered little more than a cloud of doubt. Lelling made a statement that he couldn’t guarantee the law-abiding business owners making up the state’s cannabis industry would be able to avoid federal scrutiny.
The Cannabis Control Commission, the governing body of the legal marijuana industry in Massachusetts, will forge ahead as planned. The commission must finish developing the regulatory framework that will guide the entire market when it opens for business July 1.
If the feds do decide to bring down the hammer of prohibitionist justice on these East Coast cannabis pioneers, at least these New Englanders won’t have to worry about it coming from their state or local law enforcement — for better or worse.
Today, the mayors of many major cities across the country unified in their resistance to the Department of Justice’s recent policy change:
https://www.marijuana.com/news/2018/01/massachusetts-police-resist-sessions-respect-state-law/
Massachusetts police say they will resist Sessions
Massachusetts Police Resist Sessions, Respect State Law
BY DUKE LONDON ON JANUARY 11TH, 2018 AT 3:21 PM
After Jeff Sessions and the Department of Justice announced they would rescind the Cole memo and direct U.S. attorneys across the country to resume their prosecution efforts of marijuana “offenders,” many wondered how the states that had already legalized would handle the directives. State and local law enforcement in Massachusetts, the first East Coast state to legalize cannabis, isn’t leaving anything up to the imagination.
Should the federal government pursue law-abiding marijuana businesses in the Bay State, they’ll be missing a critical component of federal investigations and arrests — the support of Massachusetts state and local police.
While U.S. attorneys across the country have said their hands are tied, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is coming out strongly against the move.
Public Safety Secretary Daniel Bennett, who leads the Massachusetts State Police oversight, told the Boston Herald, “We have a state law that we’re intending to enforce, and the state law was voted on by the people of Massachusetts. We have no intention of raiding a pot shop that is legal under state law.”
The state police aren’t alone in their resolve to resist federal pressure to crack down on state-legal marijuana businesses, either, as Boston Police Department Detective Lt. Michael McCarthy echoed a similar stance to his “statie” counterparts.
“Similar to our position on immigration, the BPD will not actively enforce federal marijuana laws at the local level,” explained McCarthy. “We will continue to enforce local drug laws to keep our neighborhoods safe.”
The public defense of the recently established marijuana industry comes after the state’s U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling offered little more than a cloud of doubt. Lelling made a statement that he couldn’t guarantee the law-abiding business owners making up the state’s cannabis industry would be able to avoid federal scrutiny.
The Cannabis Control Commission, the governing body of the legal marijuana industry in Massachusetts, will forge ahead as planned. The commission must finish developing the regulatory framework that will guide the entire market when it opens for business July 1.
If the feds do decide to bring down the hammer of prohibitionist justice on these East Coast cannabis pioneers, at least these New Englanders won’t have to worry about it coming from their state or local law enforcement — for better or worse.
Today, the mayors of many major cities across the country unified in their resistance to the Department of Justice’s recent policy change:
https://www.marijuana.com/news/2018/01/massachusetts-police-resist-sessions-respect-state-law/
Sessions cracking down on the old folks
Y'all better sell now
https://m.theepochtimes.com/elderly-couple-who-claimed-drugs-were-christmas-presents-busted-again-on-anti-drug-charges_2409759.html
Elderly couple busted again
These old folks are just trying to have some fun. This time they got caught on the same road in the same vehicle with a duffle bag full of loot that smelled a lot like weed.
Darn you Jeff Sessions !
https://m.theepochtimes.com/elderly-couple-who-claimed-drugs-were-christmas-presents-busted-again-on-anti-drug-charges_2409759.html
Sessions' marijuana move backfires
Jeff Sessions' marijuana move will backfire
By Michael Chernis
Updated 12:46 PM ET, Sun January 7, 2018
Big comeback for the good guys !
Manic volume
Good one !
I had a snow day off here to watch the lousy trading day.
So I went to the abc store. Got liquored up good.
Hope my whisky'd up posts weren't all bad.
There's a big fat happy sheriff Sell everything !
The Latest: California sheriff applauds AG's anti-pot stance
LOS ANGELES (AP) — The Latest on reaction in California to U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions' decision to rescind a policy that guided federal authorities to take a hands-off approach to marijuana enforcement (all times local): 11:28 a.m. A Northern California sheriff is applauding U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions' decision to end a policy that guided federal authorities to take a hands-off approach to marijuana enforcement. Siskiyou County Sheriff Jon Lopey said Thursday that he's encouraged by Sessions' actions. Much of the enforcement of marijuana laws has fallen to rural local authorities in Northern California where most of the crop is grown.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/7c045aed-bd3e-3200-aa3e-2e93291df151/ss_the-latest%3A-california.html
There's a big fat happy sheriff Sell everything !
The Latest: California sheriff applauds AG's anti-pot stance
LOS ANGELES (AP) — The Latest on reaction in California to U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions' decision to rescind a policy that guided federal authorities to take a hands-off approach to marijuana enforcement (all times local): 11:28 a.m. A Northern California sheriff is applauding U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions' decision to end a policy that guided federal authorities to take a hands-off approach to marijuana enforcement. Siskiyou County Sheriff Jon Lopey said Thursday that he's encouraged by Sessions' actions. Much of the enforcement of marijuana laws has fallen to rural local authorities in Northern California where most of the crop is grown.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/7c045aed-bd3e-3200-aa3e-2e93291df151/ss_the-latest%3A-california.html
Suckers....
Even if they do crackdown they usually lose in court later on and have to pay big damages
It's silly !