California’s History of Arresting Minorities for Marijuana

Despite its reputation for being a progressive state, California has a long history of arresting minorities for marijuana. But is there about to be a majors shift in the criminal justice system?

San Francisco’s District Attorney George Gascon will begin clearing the record of individuals convicted of marijuana offenses from 1975 to the present, under the authority of Prop 64 which legalized cannabis in the state.

Gascon has acknowledged that marijuana laws were unevenly enforced and that they disproportionately affected minorities.

One objective of this policy is “to address the wrongs that were caused by the failures of the war on drugs … and begin to fix the hard that was done … specifically to communities of color.”

The Racial Disparity in Weed Arrests

It is widely recognized that arrests rates for black people have been several times higher than marijuana possession arrest rates for white people throughout the United States.  However, this is not only true of marijuana law enforcement in California as a state, but also in San Francisco.

California decriminalized marijuana in 1975.  However, the Moscone Act did not actually remove criminal penalties for marijuana possession. It instead did away with custodial arrests and jail sentences for the crime of possession of one ounce.

Police began to issue citations for possession offenses, leading to court summons which could be resolved by payment of a $100 fine.   In 2010 State Senate Bill 1440 further reduced possession from a misdemeanor to a civil infraction, like a traffic ticket, also subject to a maximum $100 fine.

Throughout the history of the enforcement of these laws, black people were subject to legal sanctions at a much greater rate than white people.  According to data from the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the arrest rate for black people in California has consistently been twice the arrest rate for white people.

In 1994 the arrest rate for possession was 192 per 100,000 black residents compared to 108 per 100,000 white residents.  In 2000 the black rate was 365 compared to a white rate of 149.

In 2010, the last year before the criminal sanction was replaced by a civil infraction, the black rate was 373 compared to a white rate of 171.  Remember: even though marijuana was decriminalized it was formally a misdemeanor crime and the issuance of a court summons was officially an arrest.

The Statistics in San Francisco

In San Francisco, the disparity was not as great during the late 1990s.  In 1998, for example, the black rate was 255 compared to a white rate of 172.  But this changed, for the worse, in the next decade.

In 2000 the black rate, at 348, was over three times higher than the white arrest rate for possession of 106.  In 2005, the black rate was over 4 times higher at 262 compared to the white rate of 59.  In 2010, the black rate remained nearly 5 times higher at 192 compared to 44 for white people.

After 2010 the numbers of marijuana possession arrests dropped dramatically, as possession of 1 ounce or less was no longer counted as an arrest.  However, possession arrest rates for 1 ounce were still disparate.

In 2015, the arrest rate for black people for marijuana possession was 16, much lower than in the past, but still 8 times higher than the arrest rate for white people, which was 2 per 100,000.

Final Hit: California’s History of Arresting Minorities for Marijuana

California’s Prop 64 sets an important precedent by allowing for clearing the legal record of those arrested for marijuana offenses.  Marijuana is now legal in California, and the state has decided that it should not have been illegal in the past.

San Francisco Attorney General Gascon should be applauded for recognizing the need to address this past injustice, especially in light of the tremendous racial inequity caused by past enforcement practices. Will other cities in the Golden State follow suit? It might just be a matter of time.

Marijuana opponents call on state to halt regulations

BOSTON — As marijuana regulators kick off public hearings on their proposed industry guidelines this week, legal pot opponents plan to call on the Cannabis Control Commission to halt implementation and rework their proposed regulations.

The CCC started a 10-location public input tour Monday under tight deadlines they must hit in order to live up to the assurances that legal marijuana sales will begin July 1 in the Bay State. Voters legalized marijuana and policymakers have set out to structure an industry that will be tightly controlled, shrink illicit sales and counteract some of the social justice effects of marijuana prohibition.

But the Massachusetts Prevention Alliance says the CCC's draft regulations will actually "benefit the marijuana industry, increase access to our youth, increase the black market, and drive further health disparities and inequities in some of our most vulnerable communities."

"Our best recommendation is suspend the promulgation of these regulations, and delay the opening of a commercial marijuana market in Massachusetts until the best interests of the people and our communities are fully considered," the Prevention Alliance wrote in an email to supporters over the weekend.

MPA said its chief concerns are that marijuana remains illegal at the federal level and the Trump administration has signaled a renewed interest in enforcing that federal prohibition, and that the CCC could be subject to "regulatory capture" and cede too much power to the marijuana industry.

"The CCC's regulatory language drives market growth, targets the poor, and is counter-productive to the state's drug use and addiction prevention goals," MPA wrote in an email of talking points sent to supporters. "The CCC's regulatory measures are counter-productive to every community's social-emotional learning (SEL) goals and may widen the academic achievement gap we are trying to close in Massachusetts."

The group, which worked to oppose the 2016 ballot initiative that legalized marijuana, urged its supporters to attend the CCC's public hearings and send written testimony to the agency before the Feb. 15 deadline.

"We must help the CCC get these regulations in shape, or we risk fast-paced spread of a new addiction epidemic to THC products in the Commonwealth," the group said.

Appearing on WBZ-TV with host Jon Keller on Sunday, CCC Chairman Steven Hoffman said the agency wants to hear from all sides during its listening tour and plans to publicly debate any changes to the regulations after everyone has weighed in.

"There are compelling arguments on both sides. We listen, we take everything you're hearing from all sides under consideration. I will tell you that all of the things we decided in terms of our draft regulations, we decided in public. So people understand the debate we had, what the commissioners had to say and how we tried to make those decisions," Hoffman said. "I will tell you that I don't remember us ever talking about whether we were going too far or not far enough or too fast. We're trying to do this right. We're trying to honor the will of the voters by making this accessible but making sure we're doing everything we possibly can to enhance public health and public safety."

After four days of policy discussions in December, the CCC approved draft regulations that would govern the cultivation, processing, manufacturing, transportation, storage, sale and social use of marijuana, as well as the process businesses must follow to become licensed to legally deal in marijuana.

The regulations cover issues like whether to license establishments where an adult could purchase and use single-servings of marijuana, how to make the fledgling legal industry accessible to racially and economically diverse communities, what price to set for license fees, what security precautions the state will require of marijuana establishments, and what restrictions to place on marijuana marketing.

The CCC will hold public hearings on the draft regulations each day this week, wrapping up with a hearing next Tuesday in Roxbury. The agency is planning to discuss and vote on any changes to their draft before filing its final regulations by March 9, ahead of the March 15 statutory deadline.

The CCC cannot begin to review license applications until April 1 and cannot issue any license until June 1. Hoffman has said that the CCC is committed to having legal marijuana sales begin on July 1, but told Keller on Sunday that the launch date could be pushed back if the regulators are not ready.

"If we're not ready, it will slide," the chairman said. "It's more important to do this right than on time but right now we think we can do both."

This Congressman Could Be Sabotaging Legal Cannabis

Congressman Dana Rohrabacher of California may be one of the most vocal proponents of legal cannabis on Capitol Hill. But in some circles, he is also considered a lunatic.

For nearly 30-years, this Republican soldier has been waving the freak flag in Washington D.C. Yet, despite getting Congress to support medical marijuana, his voice is also behind asinine comments and conspiracy theories. Some of them should inspire the cannabis advocacy community to bury its head in sand.

Not only does Rohrabacher believe Muslims were responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing. He also testified once that it was possible that dinosaur farts may have caused global warming. We would be remiss to discount his importance to the cannabis movement.

But Rohrabacher is the kind of political weirdo that threatens the progress of national reform. Still, he is out there on the front lines. Is this Congressman sabotaging legal cannabis?

Dinosaur Farts and Ancient Martians

Representative Dana Rohrabacher of California’s 48th District, a longtime member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, once toldhis constituents that the concept of man-made global warming was a scam.

Although an IPCC report concluded that humans have been the driving force for climate change, the Republican stood against science. He told the study authors that “dinosaur flatulence” was more likely to blame. Rohrabacher later said his dino fart comments was just a joke

But Rohrabacher was not joking last year when he asked whether Mars was once inhabited by an ancient civilization. It was during a Science, Space and Technology Space Subcommittee meeting that Rohrabacher questioned NASA officials about the possibility of Martians inhabiting the solar system.

Scientists told the Republican that there was no evidence that intelligent life ever roamed the Red Planet. But, from the look on Rohrabacher’s face when they delivered the news, we’re not convinced he believed them. And he probably still doesn’t.

Robert Kennedy and Bad Arabs

Representative Rohrabacher became obsessed with the 1968 assassination of Senator Robert Kennedy. He believed the LAPD covered up the fact that Sirhan Sirhan, convicted in 1969, was part of a Palestinian conspiracy.

Sure, to this day, some folks remain unsettled about the details surrounding the murder of Robert Kennedy, but Rohrabacher has, perhaps, taken the paranoia on this subject to a whole other level.

A 2008 report from the Pasadena Weekly indicates that Rohrabacher visited Sirhan at the Corcoran State Prison in hopes of getting to the bottom of the Kennedy assassination. But he thought it would be difficult to secure a meeting as Dana Rohrabacher.

So, in order to get a face-to-face with Sirhan, Rohbacher reportedly disguised himself as a woman named Diana. Yes, the lawmaker visited the prison in drag in hopes of solving the assassination of Senator Kennedy. The Republican then “repeatedly badgered” the prisoner for a confession.

Oklahoma City Bombing and Other Baloney Conspiracies

Incidentally, Rohrabacher pulled a similar stunt in order to interview Oklahoma City bombing co-conspirator Terry Nichols. He reportedly traveled to a Colorado prison to talk to Nichols because he was convinced that Muslims were responsible for the terrorist act, not a couple of local boys.

One would think that a man who claims to have such close tied to the Central Intelligence Agency would have access to top secret plots without imposing this level of crazy. But then again, Rohrabacher’s madness did not end there.

Last year, Representative Rohrabacher called the neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville, Virginia “a total hoax.” He believes liberals orchestrated the violent scene in an effort to put President Donald Trump “on the spot.”

He told the San Francisco Chronicle that the commotion stemming from the rally, which resulted in the death of Heather Hayer, was “baloney.” That all of the insanity between white supremacists and counter protestors was masterminded by Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders supporters “in order to have this confrontation.”

The Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment

 Los Angeles Times

Representative Rohrabacher is a salvation’s wing for medical marijuana. In 2013, he proposed a unique plan designed to prevent the Justice Department from spending tax dollars to investigate, raid and prosecute the medical marijuana community.

And it worked. For the past few years, the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment has been part of the federal budget. It continues to keep medical marijuana states safe from federal interference.

But this temporary reform could end up being Rohrabacher’s swan song. The lawmaker has signed on in support of other marijuana-related measures. However, Congressional leadership has not given them any consideration.

Final Hit: This Congressman Could Be Sabotaging Legal Cannabis

It is possible that the eccentric, Republican voice of this long time lawmaker could be part of the reason marijuana legalization seems to have hit a snag at the nation level.

It could be that all of the influential members of Congress see a man passionate for the cause, but then they find themselves concerned about how crazy it might look to join him.

A representative for marijuana reform connected to conspiracy theories and dinosaur farts is not likely taken seriously by  Congressional members. Yet the legal cannabis advocacy community continues to embrace him.

Will New Jersey Marijuana Legalization Include Home Grow?

Will New Jersey marijuana legalization include home grow? As of now, the new governor of the state seems to only be insistent that adults be able to consume cannabis—not grow it.

“Marijuana legalization” doesn’t guarantee fully legal marijuana. Other states allow adults to grow small amounts of cannabis at home. Will New Jersey marijuana legalization allow home grow?

It’s far from certain.

What Legalization Should Do

New Jersey will almost certainly become the second state to legalize recreational marijuana without a ballot initiative.

But right now, Gov. Phil Murphy’s promise to allow adults 21 and over to use cannabis does not guarantee “home grow.”

This is a problem that needs fixing. Enter Reed Gusciora.

The state Assembly’s deputy leader, Gusciora wants to permit adults 21 and over to grow up to six cannabis plants at home.

“Looking at the marijuana laws in place in California, Oregon, Washington and the like, I thought that homegrown should be an essential element of the New Jersey law, too,” Gusciora told the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Should. Absolutely. But will home-grow be written into marijuana law in New Jersey?

The “Problem” With Home Grow

The New Jersey state Assembly and Senate are considering several legalization efforts. Gusciora, who co-authored the state’s medical-marijuana legislation, introduced his home-grow amendment to a proposal in the lower house.

Yet it’s still unclear which effort will reach Murphy’s desk. Gusciora’s bill would allow New Jersey residents to grow up to six plants. But only indoors, and only in a “controlled environment.”

Why so serious? Anyone who’s followed marijuana legalization for any length of time is familiar with the arguments legalization opponents trot out. A favorite hobbyhorse is a canard that cannabis automatically equals crime.

The notion that a few marijuana plants in someone’s backyard will cause gangsters and crooks to behave as if a supply of unguarded gold bouillon appeared in the neighborhood is false.

What’s news is Gusciora, a prosecutor, is willing to admit it. The problem is his colleagues behave as if it were true.

“They have visions of kids jumping over fences to steal Mrs. Smith’s marijuana plants,” he told the paper.

What About Hemp?

Gusciora is also pushing a bill that would legalize hemp farming.

An earlier effort to allow New Jersey residents to cultivate the non-psychoactive plant, good for fiber and fuel, died in 2012. For that, you can thank Chris Christie.

The state’s famously reactionary former governor also vowed to block a hemp bill.

For this reason, the bill died along with other efforts to expand the state’s extremely limited medical marijuana law.

By most measures, New Jersey’s medical marijuana law is terrible. Restrictions are so tough that through the end of 2016, fewer than 12,500 patients were enrolled.

Patients must also be “re-assessed” to see if they’re still sick enough to use cannabis every 90 days. And plenty of sick people who could benefit from marijuana aren’t sick enough: Jersey is only one of three states where chronic or “intractable pain” is not a qualifying condition.

In the context of an opiate crisis that kills 60,000 people a year, rules like these are criminal.

Home grow could help. So will New Jersey marijuana legalization allow home grow? Maybe not. In order for marijuana legalization to live, home grow may have to die.

Final Hit: Will New Jersey Marijuana Legalization Include Home Grow?

Christie is gone, but neither hemp farming nor home grow is a sure thing. Neither is legalization itself.

A recent poll found only 42 percent support among voters for legalization. And in preparation for legal cannabis, several townships have prepared by laying plans to ban it—even before the issue goes to a vote.

If legalization looks like it’s stalling out, home grow may be one of the first “rights” to go by the board. Stupid? Yes. But that’s how marijuana is legalized.

Six-Year-Old Girl Just Became First Medical Marijuana Patient In Texas

A six-year-old girl just became first medical marijuana patient in Texas. Cannabis is an effective medicine for anyone seeking relief from pain, a method to de-stress or a sleep aid. Meaning: medical marijuana is good medicine for everyone and anyone. Texas medical marijuana, however, is all about the kids.

On Thursday, an anonymous six-year-old girl who suffers intractable epilepsy became the first legal medical marijuana patient in Texas.

Knox Medical, licensed to provide cannabis in the state under the name Cansortium Texas, announced the victory in a statement sent to the press.

It took almost three years for Texas’s medical marijuana law to help its first patient. We don’t know her name—it has been withheld to protect her privacy—and we don’t know how many of the other 150,000 people suffering from epilepsy in the state will be able to receive cannabis.

The state blew an initial deadline to license marijuana providers. And restricting medical marijuana to CBD-only—no THC—is a fallacy. Even worse, the girl whose battle with epilepsy inspired Texas’s marijuana law still doesn’t have any.

Still, a milestone is a milestone. And make no mistake: Texas medical marijuana is a very big deal.

Medical Marijuana Arrives in Texas—Finally

Whenever and wherever marijuana legalization appears in America, it arrives carried on the backs of sick people.

In California, where voters legalized medical marijuana in 1996, the ghastly suffering of HIV/AIDS patients inspired the Compassionate Use Act and the nation’s first medical marijuana law.

Cannabis appears to have potential in aiding cancer patients, whose pain is intolerable and who often can’t manage to eat thanks to chemotherapy. In Montana, it took the death of four-year-old pediatric cancer patient Cash Hyde to reveal medical marijuana’s value—and the steep price paid when lawmakers decide to restrict cannabis access.

In Texas, an organized campaign of open lawbreaking—weed civil disobedience—shamed lawmakers into finally taking action. Mothers of autistic children forced to defy state law to obtain medicine went public with their stories.

Other kids—like Elissa Howard, now seven years old—put their suffering on display.

Epilepsy Only, And Only If You’re Lucky

Elissa experiences 30 seizures every day, according to her parents. Terrifying enough on their own, seizures can lead to permanent brain damage, and the mainstream pharmaceutical treatments can lead to terrible side effects. So the Howards turned to cannabis—and only the coincidence of a connection to a state lawmaker through family led to legal protection, according to the Dallas-based CBS affiliate.

There’s still Texas-sized room for improvement. Only three providers in the state can provide marijuana-derived oil. Very little THC is allowed, meaning the medicine’s applicability is severely limited.

Forget trips to the pharmacy: A social worker or nurse must deliver Texas medical marijuana directly to a patient’s home. Only seventeen doctors sprinkled throughout the state can write recommendations.

Only patients with intractable epilepsy are eligible. And they must obtain paperwork from two doctors: A state-certified neurologist, and then a second independent physician.

These are all reasons why Elissa Howard isn’t a registered medical marijuana patient in the very registry she helped inspire.

Final Hit: Six-Year-Old Girl Just Became First Medical Marijuana Patient In Texas

Painful and obvious as that irony is, there’s still reason to celebrate—while pushing for more from Texas medical marijuana.

“In spite of the program’s unreasonably restrictive nature, we’re really happy to see the (cannabidiol) is getting into the hands of at least one patient who needs it,” Heather Fazio, political director for the Marijuana Policy Project, told the New York Post.

From here, the pressure will be on Texas lawmakers to expand. And that’s a good thing.

Could Georgia Be The Next State To Vote For Legalized Weed?

Medical cannabis is a conservative value. Just last week in Texas, a six-year-old girl received the state’s first shipment of legal medical marijuana. Now, the question is which southern state will be the first to legalize recreational marijuana outright. Looking around the south, the chief suspect is in the southeast. So: Could Georgia be the next state to vote for legalized weed?

Legalization Where The Marijuana Laws Are Toughest?

Georgia is more liberal on cannabis than you may think. Atlanta lawmakers ended criminal penalties for low-level marijuana possession in October. That paved the way for state lawmakers to support legalization in numbers never before seen.

State Senator Curt Thompson tried to legalize cannabis in Georgia last year. His bill failed, in no small part because he was the only sponsor. This time around, five other state lawmakers attached their names to the effort.

Decriminalization is nice, but legalization is much better. Georgia has some of the strictest marijuana laws in the country. Possession of more than two ounces is punishable by a ten-year prison term, according to the Marijuana Policy Project.

That’s bad. And that’s something cities can’t fix on their own.

“To get rid of the gangs, to get rid of the organized crime unit, that is the only way to do it is to do it statewide,” Thompson told WTOC.

Based on numbers from Colorado, if Georgia were to legalize and tax recreational cannabis, it would mean more than $340 million in tax revenue. Big money! And money that Georgia is desperate to find from somewhere. Anywhere. This is why the answer to “Could Georgia be the next state to vote for legalized weed” is a strong maybe.

If Not Casinos, Then Cannabis

Georgia lawmakers have spent the past few years furiously searching around for a source of income. They’ve tried several times to legalize casinos with no luck.

So instead of casinos, why not marijuana?

Thompson’s plan is short on details. The bill he’s introduced only authorizes the state assembly to send the question to voters. Every other point, such as who can grow it and how it’ll be taxed or sold, is still up in the air.

That said, Thompson wants to split that $340 million windfall between education and transportation.

If the bill passes the state Legislature, it would go to the voters in November 2018 for their final approval.

That’s a mighty big if.

Final Hit: Could Georgia Be The Next State To Vote For Legalized Weed?

2018 is already shaping up to be a banner year for marijuana legalization. Vermont’s governor signed a legalization bill into law in January. New Jersey’s governor is on notice to fulfill a similar promise. And backers of a legalization effort in Michigan say they have more than enough support to pass a ballot measure in November.

Where does that leave Georgia? In the south, unfortunately. Support for legalization so far is limited to urban areas like Atlanta. Lawmakers in other sparsely populated areas of the state aren’t quite so keen. Not even coastal Savannah, with its renowned arts and cultural scene, is down with legal weed.

In fact, lawmakers are both the solution and the problem.

Georgia has no citizen-initiated ballot initiative process. Changes to the state Constitution go before voters, but only legislators can send a question to the ballot.

So legalization’s only path forward is via state lawmakers. Until this year, no state had accomplished that. And so far, only Bernie Sanders’s home state has managed that trick. Can the home of SEC football be the next? It’s at least possible.

Has Federal Marijuana Research Evolved?

Has federal marijuana research evolved since the early days of prohibition? The legalization of marijuana by states across the country has tempered the federal government’s presentation of research on marijuana. The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) acknowledges research that makes several former concerns inaccurate today.

Research Contrasts Concerns

NIDA has always expressed concern over marijuana’s effect on memory and consciousness. They act as if getting high is a negative side-effect rather than one of the reasons people use it.  They continue to worry about its effect on learning and driving. On a more serious note research suggests some concern over the effect of marijuana use on the developing brains of teenagers and whether heavy use at that age harms cognitive development.

More interesting is that NIDA acknowledges that while they would like to see more research on the subject, when it comes to medical marijuana “there is mounting anecdotal evidence for the efficacy of marijuana-derived compounds.”  However, there has been a subtle change in how NIDA refers to medical cannabis. It is now part of a general and recognized category of therapeutic substances known as botanicals.

Has federal marijuana research evolved since the popular gateway theory came about? NIDA acknowledges that of people who use marijuana typically do not use other, more dangerous drugs.

Loose Links Sink Ships

NIDA also clarifies the linkage between marijuana and psychiatric disorders. However, the connection was confined to people with preexisting genetic conditions or other vulnerabilities. They concluded that there was no significant risk for the general population.

While smoke is harmful to the lungs, studies have failed to associate marijuana with emphysema and lung cancer.  However, heavy marijuana users report more symptom of chronic bronchitis.  On the other hand, NIDA explains that THC and CBD have been shown in animal studies to have antitumor effects, and this may explain why there no connection between the use of marijuana and more serious lung problems.

There are also a few studies showing a link between adolescent marijuana use and an increased risk for testicular cancer.  Another relatively new concern that is Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome, “a condition marked by recurrent bouts of severe nausea, vomiting, and dehydration.  This condition occurs in persons over 50 with a long history of cannabis use.  These developments will be subject to further research.

Positive Impact Of Legal Marijuana

NIDA also reports on the impact of marijuana legalization on the opioid crises.  The first study found a reduction in overdose deaths from opioid pain relievers in states that had legalized marijuana. The effect grew stronger every year after legalization.

A more detailed study funded by NIDA and conducted by the RAND Corporation shows areas with cannabis dispensaries have lower levels of opioids prescribed. Additionally, there is less self-reported opioid use, fewer people need treatment for the abuse of pain pills and overdose deaths are reduced.

Final Hit: Has Federal Marijuana Research Evolved?

The government has always pushed that idea that marijuana is addictive but overlooks clinical standards about drug dependency about just what that means.  However, the use of alcohol, tobacco and other substances like marijuana or kratom by teenagers can contribute to other problems in early adulthood.  The research supporting these warnings has been available for some time now. And they seem to support efforts to reduce marijuana’s availability to teenagers and support responsible use of marijuana by adults.

Indiana Has Finally Legalized Industrial Hemp

Indiana has finally legalized industrial hemp, which means that farmers could soon have the freedom to grow this cash crop. Lawmakers have been pushing for years to bring this versatile plant to the Hoosier State. But some worry it is a step in the wrong direction.

Law enforcement and other state officials have voiced concerns that fields of hemp might become problematic. They believe it might create opportunities for black market players to grow weed under legal cover. Maybe even become so confident that they take it a step further and grow organic weed.

There is also the concern that permitting farmers to grow marijuana’s low-THC cousin might be a pathway to full-blown legalization. Nevertheless, the Indiana Legislature has taken steps to legalized industrial hemp.

Indiana House Votes to Legalize Industrial Hemp

Earlier this week, the Indiana House voted unanimously in favor of a measure allowing Indiana farmers to cultivate industrial hemp. The proposal, which was brought to the table by Republican Representative Jim Lucas, would give farmers the opportunity to grow hemp in the same fields as corn and other crops.

The goal is to provide the agriculture sector with a new economic opportunity—create jobs for Indiana families.

There seems to be a lot of support in the 2018 session for an upgrade to last year’s CBD oil law. Lawmakers from both parties are now pushing for a more comprehensive reform.

But the idea of allowing the cultivation of industrial hemp is not exactly the move that some lawmakers had intended. Still, supporters of the Lucas’ “jobs bill” hope to convince the naysayers that this is the right move for the state economy.

Not only would industrial hemp production lead to economic growth, but it could also open up a venue for patients to get local CBD products. Yet, federal law is still a concern.

Some lawmakers are still worried that the Justice Department and its head goon, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, are going to impose a crackdown. So they want to err on the side of caution.

“Everything I’ve seen says industrial hemp is probably a harmless crop,” Senate leader David Long told the Indianapolis Star. “I have no problem with that, I’m just not sure the federal government issue isn’t still holding us back.”

Federal Farm Bill and Hemp Legalization

In 2014, the federal government passed a bill that gives states permission to cultivate industrial hemp for research purposes. Many states, including Indiana, took advantage of this opportunity.

There were some problems, at the beginning, with respect to getting seeds without hassles by the DEA. Kentucky, which has one of the strongest industrial hemp programs in the country, made national headlines with its seed debacle.

But in Indiana, industrial hemp is a relatively quiet scene. As for now, Purdue University is the only location allowed to grow the crop. Still, no one is positive whether the “research” adheres to federal law.

“There’s been no research that I’ve seen directly,” professor Janna Beckerman, a hemp researcher at Purdue, told the Star. “It’s sort of a big wink: ‘Oh yea we’re doing research.'”

But if Indiana was to get on the same page as Kentucky, big opportunities would come-a-knocking. Some of the latest data shows that Kentucky farmers produced 3,200 acres of industrial hemp in 74 counties last year.

And the new industry has created hundreds of new jobs. The state was recently approved to grow 12,000 acres of the product in 2018.

Final Hit: Indiana Has Finally Legalized Industrial Hemp

Regardless of the obvious benefits, many conservatives in the Indiana Senate are expected to carefully approach the industrial hemp bill. This chamber is responsible for the majority of the snags with last year’s CBD proposal.

Many lawmakers still do not understand that industrial hemp does not have intoxicating prosperities. That it is impossible to get high by smoking this stuff.

They fail to comprehend that if marijuana is beer, hemp is O’Doul’s. But the two plants look similar, and that is enough for some lawmakers to turn their backs.

Should We Lower Legal Adult-Use Marijuana Laws to 18?

Should we lower legal adult-use marijuana laws to 18? Now that more states are legalizing weed, it’s definitely something to consider. But why does the default age for legal consumption seem to be 21?

The United States has been sending 18-year-olds into combat for years while refusing to sell them alcoholic beverages. Now, this trend has become the standard with respect to the legalization of marijuana. There is no federal policy to strong arm cannabis advocates to reach for legal weed based on these politics.

Yet this is how the cannabis industry is being set up for future generations. Are we passing these types of adult-use laws because it is the right thing to do? Or is the cannabis industry simply following in the footsteps of alcohol because it is more palatable?

History of Adult-Use Laws

The U.S is one of only four countries that prevents adults between 18 and 20 from enjoying booze and weed. The age restriction is a fairly new concept. It originated in the 1980s as one of the most effective methods to control drunk driving. We suspect this was less complicated than imposing the more common-sense policies recommended by the commission on drunk driving.

President Reagan eventually signed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act in 1984. The law did not force states to increase their legal drinking age to 21-years-old. But it twisted their arms a bit by threatening to revoke a percentage of their highway funding.

These days, every state follows this policy. But, contrary to popular opinion, there is still no national minimum drinking age.

Similarly, there is nothing on the books to persuade legal states to limit cannabis sales to people 21 and older. Marijuana remains an outlaw substance under the DEA’s Controlled Substances Act. This classifies it as one of the most dangerous drugs in the world.

In recent years, eight states have passed recreational marijuana laws. And all without the permission or support of Congress. This means marijuana initiatives approved in places like Colorado and Washington could have, just as easily, had adult-use marijuana laws at 18 and older to buy weed.

There are no laws in place to encourage states to go along with the 21 and older philosophy.

Cannabis Industry Follows Suit

But cannabis advocates have piggybacked Reagan’s 21 and older approach to responsible use. Why? It seems advocacy groups, like the Marijuana Policy Project, believe it is less confusing for the voters. Rather than adult-use marijuana laws being set at 18.

“We are pushing to regulate marijuana similarly to alcohol because that is a system that is universally familiar and which most people are comfortable with,” Morgan Fox, director of communications at the Marijuana Policy Project, told High Times.

“Since marijuana does cause inebriation it more closely resembles alcohol than tobacco to the average person, despite being far safer than both substances. Setting an age lower than 21 could turn off a lot of swing voters,” he added. “Once marijuana becomes legal at the federal level, it is likely that Congress will eventually pass something analogous to the federal minimum drinking age, so it also makes sense for states to already be in compliance if this happens.”

But there is no evidence that adult-use policies restricting the sale of booze and weed to adults 21 and older contribute to the public safety of American citizens.

Do Adult-Use Laws Keep America Safer?

Many people believe that laws restricting the sale of alcohol and marijuana to adults 21 and older keep American safer. This is just an illusion. Drug and alcohol use among teens is lower these days than it has been in the past few decades.

But young people did not allow 21-and-older laws to keep them sober through much of the nineties and into the new millennium. The nation’s current infatuation with adult-use laws is actually part of the reason how binge drinking has become such a problem.

College-aged students are often reduced to getting their hands on booze only after finding someone 21 and older willing to score for them. And when they do, they often drink way too much.

Marijuana, while safer than booze, still comes with a certain binge mentality for those without legal access. But much like alcohol, the powers-that-be continue to try and sell the American public on the myth that marijuana consumption before the age of 21 wreaks havoc on developing brains.

They pulled the same shenanigans, back in the day, when trying to increase the legal drinking age. Researchers said, at the time, that booze consumption before the age of 21 limits “brain power.” To this day, no one is certain exactly what constitutes brain power.

Some of the latest studies have shown that person’s brain is not fully developed until around age 25. But researchers say this has more to do with “emotional maturity, self-image and judgment.”

It does not mean that smoking marijuana at the age of 18 or 19 will cause any particular brain development issues. There is still no definitive evidence that marijuana is harmful to the brain.

Adult-Use Policies Are a Scam

Let’s face it. If state and local governments really had any interest in restricting the sale of intoxicating substances to mature adults, the legal age would be somewhere around 42 for men and 30 in women.

Most of us are still exercising our hell-raising years until then.

Yet it has been our nation’s modus operandi since 1920 to impose prohibition laws as a means for controlling the masses. But those policies do not work.

Imposing restrictive adult-use marijuana laws are made up of the same beast as prohibition. These policies really only serve to criminalize behavior that technically does not impact or harm others.

So no, adult-use laws do not keep Americans safer. If this is the goal, cannabis advocates should be encouraging responsible consumption by working with lawmakers to impose stricter penalties for those who do not act responsibly. We hate to be the ones to break it to you. But the 21-and-older sales pitch is nothing but a scam.

Final Hit: Should We Lower Legal Adult-Use Marijuana Laws to 18?

Lawmakers in some states are presently working to lower the legal drinking age to 20-years-old, while still restricting retail sales to those 21 and older. Other states are trying to drop the legal drinking age to 18-years-old for active service members only.

This is insanity at its finest. All of the people that fall into this demographic are legal adults. They can go to war, they can be prosecuted for crimes and sent to prison and they can get married.

But because President Reagan tried to convince the public almost 35 years ago that he was doing everything in his power to stop drunk drivers from terrorizing America’s highways, none of these folks can legally purchase alcohol.

Unfortunately, the marijuana advocacy community is now copying this misguided standard with raging enthusiasm. Perhaps the cannabis industry should rise up and become leaders on adult-use marijuana laws, rather than try to impose policies that mirror the alcohol industry because they are “universally familiar” and “comfortable.”

We should be working to pass laws that celebrate freedom and the American way of life, not just trying to legalize a plant.

California Weed Farmers Are Challenging State Grow Regulations

In an effort to fight against the looming threat of cannabis corporatization, California weed farmers are challenging state grow regulations. Small-scale growers were dismayed when the regulations overseeing the legal cannabis economy were released by California state authorities last year, placing no effective limits on acreage that can be used by a single grower.

This led to fears that agribusiness could convert huge holdings in the Salinas and Central valleys to cannabis cultivation, and force the traditional small growers of the Emerald Triangle off the market.

Now the California Growers Association is challenging the regulations in the courts, demanding a one-acre cannabis grow cap.

The California Growers Association

Representing more than 1,000 cannabis cultivators and businesses in communities throughout the state, the California Growers Association filed its suit against the Department of Food & Agriculture regulations in Sacramento County Superior Court on Jan. 24.

The group’s press release cites the text of Proposition 64, the 2016 initiative to establish a legal cannabis market in California. Prop 64 stated that it “ensures the nonmedical marijuana industry in California will be built around small and medium-sized businesses…”

Prop 64, formally the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, and its enabling legislation, the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act, establish a five-year transition period during which small and medium-size growers are to be protected before the state may issue large-scale cultivation licenses.

But the California Growers Association argues that the new regulations include a loophole that allows a single corporation “to obtain and aggregate unlimited smaller cultivation licenses to operate a cultivation site larger than the legal limit.”

The regulations do limit the number of one-acre grow licenses to one per person or entity—but also allow an individual to apply for multiple licenses for smaller plots, making nonsense of that one-acre limit.

Growers Association director Hezekiah Allen said Food & Agriculture violated the intent of the law. Its lawsuit calls upon the court to prohibit the state from issuing small cultivation licenses in cases in which the applicant’s total size would exceed one acre. The suit is also calling for the court to award attorneys’ fees to the Growers Association.

The association’s director Hezekiah Allen said they had exhausted every other option after meeting with state regulators and staff from Governor Jerry Brown’s office over the past months.

Allen emphasized, “Generally we think the agency is doing a good job, this is not a broad complaint. Our concern is very narrow in scope, but the implications are huge.”

Final Hit: California Weed Farmers Are Challenging State Grow Regulations

The specter of “corporate cannabis” was part of what led to the defeat of the 2010 legalization initiative in California, Prop 19, and also won Prop 64 its skeptics—including the recently departed Dennis Peron, arguably the state’s most prominent cannabis activist.

At least keeping a market niche for the small producers of the plant that gives us THC will clearly now be a challenge for growers, advocates and policy-makers alike.

California weed farmers are challenging state grow regulations, and if they do so successfully, it could help the industry keep true to its grassroots foundation.