First, we’ll go over the states voting on legalizing recreational marijuana initiatives then we’ll get into the states voting on medical marijuana initiatives:

Arizona

Arizona’s Proposition 205 initiative is sponsored by the Arizona Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol. If passed, the initiative would grant persons over the age of 21 the right to possess up to an ounce of marijuana and grow up to six plants within enclosed, locked spaces in their homes.

The initiative would create the Department of Marijuana License and Control. The Department would limit the number of retail marijuana shops to a tenth of the number of liquor store licenses, which was less than 180.

Arizona already has a medical cannabis program with 90,000 patients, but recent polls showed the state was not for legalization.

California

California’s Proposition 64 will be on the November ballot. The initiative is called The Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA). It is sponsored by Yes on 64 and would permit anyone over 21 to possess up to an ounce of marijuana and grow up to six plants much like the Arizona measure. Gifting of up to a quarter-ounce of marijuana will be allowed if the proposition passes.

The initiative would make California the first state to have “cannabis cafes” that allow on-site marijuana consumption, similar to the ones in Amsterdam. Marijuana commerce would be regulated by a new Bureau of Marijuana Control, which would replace the current Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation.

Recent polls illustrate that 60% of Californians support the legalization of marijuana.

Maine

The Marijuana Legalization Act or Question 1, sponsored by the Maine Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, will be on the November ballot. The initiative would permit people 21 and over to possess up to two and a half ounces of marijuana or six plants.

The Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry would regulate marijuana commerce, taxing retail marijuana at 10%.

The measure would also allow for “cannabis cafes” to be run similarly to bars because you will need to be 21 to enter and guests will not be allowed to leave with their unfinished marijuana.

So far, campaign supporters have raised more funds than opponents of the initiative. Recent polling showed 55% of Maine for legalization

Massachusetts

The Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act or Question 4, is a measure sponsored by theMassachusetts Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol.

The Act would permit people 21 and over to possess up to an ounce of marijuana in public and up to 10 ounces at home. Residents of Massachusetts would be able to grow up to six plants. A Cannabis Control Commission would regulate legal marijuana commerce. “Cannabis cafes” for indoor marijuana smoking would be permitted.

The measure would impose an additional 3.75% to the state’s 6.25% sales tax, for a total tax rate of 10%. Localities can ban legal marijuana commerce or add local taxes. Pot smoking employees will not be protected under the new law.

The most recent polling in MA had 41% of residents for legalization and 50% against it.

Nevada

The Initiative to Regulate and Tax Marijuana or Question 2 is sponsored by the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol in Nevada. The measure would allow people 21 and over to possess up to one ounce of marijuana. Residents who live more than 25 miles from a retail marijuana store will be able to grow six plants.

If the measure passes, the state’s Department of Taxation will create and oversee a system of licensed marijuana commerce. The initiative would impose a 15% tax on wholesale marijuana sales; retail sales will have the regular state sales tax.

A two-week old poll has the Nevada measure winning 50% to 41%.

Arkansas

Arkansas voters will be voting on two different medical marijuana initiatives come November. The Arkansas Medical Cannabis Act and the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment. The main difference between the two would be in the number of dispensaries allowed in-state.

Florida

Florida voters will have the chance to vote for Amendment 2. This bill would allow the states’ Department of Health to register and regulate dispensaries as well as issue ID cards to patients and caregivers. Patients with qualifying medical conditions will have to receive a Florida physicians approval before becoming eligible for medical marijuana. 60 percent of voters will need to vote yes for the law to pass. Florida already permits qualifying patients to use low-THC cannabis oils, but this law would allow patients to receive much more.

Montana

Montana already has medical marijuana, but the laws are currently quite limiting. Ballot Issue 24 will be on the November ballot, and it would remove the three patient limit imposed on marijuana providers. The initiative would also add chronic pain and PTSD to the list of qualifying conditions.

North Dakota

The Initiated Statutory Measure No. 5 would put the North Dakota Compassionate Care Act into effect. This Act would allow patients to possess up to 3 ounces of marijuana for qualifying conditions. Patients who live 40 miles or more from a dispensary will be allowed to grow up to eight plants if this proposal passes legally.

An initiative that would legalize the recreational use of marijuana in California officially took its place on the Nov. 8 ballot on Tuesday as its campaign took a commanding lead in fundraising to battle the measure’s opponents.

The Secretary of State’s Office certified that a random sample showed sufficient signatures among the 600,000 turned in to qualify the measure. The initiative is backed by a coalition that includes former Facebook President Sean Parker and Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom.

“Today marks a fresh start for California as we prepare to replace the costly, harmful and ineffective system of prohibition with a safe, legal and responsible adult-use marijuana system that gets it right and completely pays for itself,” said Jason Kinney, a spokesman for California’s Adult Use of Marijuana Act.

The initiative would allow adults ages 21 and older to possess, transport and use up to an ounce of cannabis for recreational purposes and would allow individuals to grow as many as six plants.

California would join Colorado, Washington, Alaska and Oregon as states that allow recreational use of marijuana. Eight other states also have marijuana measures on their ballots this year.

More than $3.7 million has been raised so far by the leading campaign for the initiative, Californians to Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana While Protecting Children. Leading contributors so far have included former Facebook president Sean Parker, legalization advocacy group Drug Policy Action and a committee funded by the firm Weedmaps, a firm that helps consumers locate pot shops.

Opposition is led by the Coalition for Responsible Drug Policies, made up of law enforcement and health groups including the California Police Chiefs Assn., the California Hospital Assn. and the California State Sheriffs’ Assn. The groups warn legalization will lead to more drugged-driving and allow dealers of harder drugs to have a role in the new industry.

The coalition has raised about $125,000 so far from groups including the Assn. of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs State PAC and the Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Assn.

A similar coalition helped defeat the last legalization measure in California, Proposition 19, in 2010.

“This campaign will be very similar to that of Proposition 19. They have the money and we have the facts,” said Tim Rosales, a spokesman for the opposition coalition.

Rosales noted that under current law, convicted methamphetamine and heroin dealers are banned from being involved in the medical marijuana industry, but the initiative overturns that ban and lets those felons obtain licenses to sell recreational marijuana.

“The proponents were specifically advised by numerous law enforcement groups during the comment period about this huge flaw, but they deliberately chose to keep it in, and you have to ask ‘Why?’” Rosales said. “Who is that provision for? They got it wrong.  Again.”

At a conference last week hosted by the National Cannabis Industry Assn. in Oakland, business people and activists were upbeat about the chances of the initiative passing, even though a similar measure in 2010 was defeated, with 53% of voters casting “no” ballots.

Advocates say the new measure has a better chance because it adds more regulation at the state level rather than letting locals dictate what happens, and comes after the state has approved a regulatory system for medical marijuana growing, transportation and sales.

In addition, the presidential election is expected to draw more young, progressive voters than the 2010 midterm election, according to Taylor West, deputy director of the National Cannabis Industry Assn.

It also helps that recreational use has already been approved in other states, she said.

“This is six years later. We’ve already seen legalization pass and be successful in other states. So it’s a different world in talking about his issue than it was,” said West, an activist who helped host the Oakland conference.

West said “there needs to be real funding behind [the measure] and there needs to be a lot of work” to overcome opposition from law enforcement groups.

“We think voters in California are ready to end marijuana prohibition and replace it with a more sensible system,” said Mason Tvert, a spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project, which has about 200,000 supporters nationwide.

Tvert is confident this year’s measure will do better than past attempts.

He expects activists from all over the country will get involved in the California campaign, either through campaign contributions or working phone banks to get out the vote.

“We are moving to mobilize our supporters,” Tvert said. “There are folks throughout the country who recognize the importance of making marijuana legal in the largest state in the nation. There are a lot of folks who recognize that passage of these laws in other states will make it easier for their state to move forward.”

The following article is from the Emerald Growers Association homepage at: emeraldgrowers.org
AB 266: Support with concerns
RE: Assembly Bill 266 (Bonta/Jones-Sawyer/Cooley/Lackey) – SUPPORT

The Emerald Growers Association, advocating and organizing on behalf of more than 150 member farmers and 600 affiliated supporters and small business partners in dozens of counties throughout California, supports AB 266. This bill is set to be heard in the Senate Committee on Governance and Finance as well as the Senate Committee on Health.

Our association is focused on ensuring a rapid transition to a well regulated cannabis industry. Our mission is to identify, promote, and protect the interests of our community and members by advocating for public policies that foster a healthy, sustainable and legal cannabis industry. The lack of regulation for commercial medical cannabis has led to an environmental crisis, a public safety crisis, and a small business crisis. We are firmly committed to supporting regulations that offer balanced solutions to these crises.

While we are supportive of the bill at this time, I must highlight a serious concern with recent changes to the legislation. As amended June 30, we are concerned that AB 266 incentivizes continued criminality by failing to provide adequate opportunities and protections for existing small farms and businesses.

We commend the authors’ leadership on this issue. It is high time to bring some sanity to our state’s medical cannabis industry. Cannabis policy promises to be a challenge for several years to come. AB 266 has the potential to be a landmark on the journey toward a well regulated future. We are fully committed to continue working with the author and other stakeholders to improve this important legislation. We urge you to support AB 266.

As amended, AB 266 fails to provide adequate opportunities and protections for small businesses

Protecting small farms and businesses is a core component of our work. Protecting small businesses will provide several important benefits. By keeping existing CA farms and businesses working, we can minimize economic incentives to divert products to illicit markets. Access to a regulated market is a fundamental incentive to existing farms and businesses to comply with existing regulations.

Protecting small businesses will preserve our states global leadership in this industry by ensuring a future for the craft of cannabis cultivation and manufacturing. These protections will also create localized opportunity for value added and manufacturing jobs in communities through the state.

Small businesses focus on quality over quantity and are able to create more jobs because of this added value. This is especially true on farms that grow cannabis.

Specific licenses for small and medium dispensaries and manufacturer have been eliminated. Removing these license classes reduces the regulatory authorities’ ability to provide adequate protections for small businesses. We strongly encourage that these tiers be restored. Alternatively, intent language could direct the regulatory authority to “develop a system of tiered business licensing to ensure small business receive adequate protections.” We feel strongly that creating these license types is a critical step to protect small businesses.

We are specifically concerned with the most recent AB 266 amendments that have loosened restrictions on vertical integration. As proposed, the only restriction applies to dispensaries with more than three locations. As only a handful of dispensaries currently have more than three locations, this means that nearly all of the existing dispensaries would be able to vertically integrate cultivation into their operations. The impacts of this could be catastrophic to the existing small cannabis farms throughout the state and would create and economic incentive for existing farms to divert products to illicit markets.

Generally we support a model that is consistent with the three-tier distribution model in the alcohol industry. This model will foster an environment that allows for the growth of smaller cultivators and manufacturers. This model will ensure that patients have access to diverse qualities and varieties of medical cannabis and medical cannabis products. We are encouraged by the inclusion of definitions for “distribution” and “distributor.”

Farm to table delivery models should be explored as a special market privilege available to “specialty cultivators.” Farm to table models can provide both lower prices to consumer and higher returns to small producers. Vertical integration should be a limited market privilege afforded only to small businesses, similar to a brew-pub or farmers market model or limited to specialty product lines owned by large retailers.

Additionally, this three-tiered model is practical and proven method for collecting and paying excise tax and creates a secure, viable system of cannabis transportation throughout the state.

Language could be added that limited licensees holding license type 10 to only holding only one other license type 1 or 2. This would limit the total volume that could be produced by a vertically integrated company.

Provisions could be added that limited the production levels of vertically integrated retailers to 10% of gross sales by volume. This would ensure that all producers have access to the regulated market.

Provisions that require licensees to send products to a licensed processor for testing prior to sale in section 19325 (e) could be clarified to ensure vertically integrated companies are required to contract with distributors for these “processing” services. This could be achieved by the creation of a distributor/processor license type. This would allow businesses to vertically integrate while ensuring equity for small farms and businesses. Processors could be responsible for QAQC, testing, labeling, and processing taxes.

Additional concerns
We would like to note the addition of Section 19333. This section states that “An employee engaged in commercial cannabis cultivation activity shall be subject to Wage Order 4-2001 of the Industrial Welfare Commission.” We have only been able to complete an initial review of “Wage Order 4-2001 of the Industrial Welfare Commission” and we are not able to comment on this addition at this time. We would welcome an explanation and discussion of why this language was added.

We remain concerned about labor language. The cannabis industry does not need, warrant, nor want precedent-setting language that may result in mandated labor relationships, especially at such a low threshold as 20 employees. Such a mandate would severely, perhaps even fatally, impact the numerous small canna-business that serve communities throughout California today. Finally, we will not support labor peace agreements that operate as a gag order for the employer. We are working with labor to better understand the intent and impact of proposed language and are hopeful we will be able to find a workable compromise.

Many of our members have expressed concern over the addition of new language that expands the scope of felony convictions that are grounds to deny an applicant a license to operate in the medical cannabis industry. We do not think it is appropriate to make such substantive changes to delicate language this late in the legislative process.

We appreciate the authors’ attention to our core principle that prior marijuana convictions not be used as grounds to exclude an applicant from the regulated commercial medical cannabis industry.

We were willing to support the compromise language in the June 2 amendments of AB 266. However, we are unable to support changes made to Section 19321 (d) (14). Text was added on page 38, specifically lines 6, 7, and 8. We encourage the following language be struck from the legislation:

“the possession for sale, sale, manufacture, transportation, or cultivation of a controlled substance, including a narcotic drug classified in Schedule II, III, IV, or V, but excluding marijuana, for drug”

Highlight: This legislation is very close to achieving the gold standard provisions for regulating the licensing and regulation of commercial medical cannabis cultivation.

Despite our increasing concerns with AB 266, we still feel this bill represents the most thoughtful and solution-oriented legislation we have seen in several years of working on this subject. The authors have listened very carefully to many perspectives and worked hard to ensure that our most basic principles have been protected. As our community works to emerge from the shadows of nearly two decades of regulatory uncertainty, this basic recognition is tremendously important. We are excited at the momentum this bill—if passed into law—could bring to our state as we work to regulate medical cannabis.

AB 266 establishes tiered business licensing for cultivation

Recent amendments have significantly improved the cultivation licensing framework.

California’s medical cannabis industry has been built by the hard work and sacrifice of tens of thousands of business owners. Many of these are small farms, creating good jobs in impoverished rural communities. It is critical to communities throughout the state that the transition to a regulated future minimize disruption to existing businesses. The bill calls on the regulatory authorities to establish a tiered licensing scheme for cultivation to accommodate the different levels and types of activity to be licensed. This will create opportunities for small, medium, and large business to participate in the regulated industry and ensure the most expeditious transition to regulation with minimal disruption to regional economies.

The bill should restore tiered business licensing for other business types.

AB 266 begins to regulate cultivation as agriculture

The cannabis industry in California is large and complex with varying businesses of different sizes and types. AB 266 is the first cannabis regulatory bill that takes a multi-agency approach. There is no other major industry in CA that is regulated entirely by one agency and past attempts to fit the entire industry into the oversight of a single industry have failed. The multi-agency approach ensures that agencies are only responsible for regulating things they are capable of regulating. AB 266 offers a uniquely viable path forward for solving the problems associated with the lack of regulation for medical cannabis because it calls on several state agencies to regulate different sectors of this major industry. Specifically, the bill creates the Governor’s Office of Medical Cannabis Regulation to oversee all aspects of cannabis regulation and requires the Board of Equalization to oversee regulation of distributors, transporters and dispensaries of cannabis.

The bill establishes the Division of Medical Cannabis Cultivation within the Department of Food and Agriculture. Recognition as farmers is a fundamental priority of our membership. A licensing program administered the CDFA will attract significantly more participation that a program administered by another agency. This will ensure the smoothest transition to regulation possible.

Getty Images

For the first time, the American Academy of Pediatrics is recommending the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency reclassify marijuana so that more research can be conducted in the hopes of finding benefits for children. The influential medical society also proposes that marijuana should be made available on a compassionate use basis for children with debilitating or life-threatening illnesses.

Specifically, the AAP wants marijuana to be removed from the DEA’s Schedule 1 listingfor controlled substances, which are not considered to have any “currently accepted medical use in the U.S., a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision and a high potential for abuse.” Other drugs in this category include heroin, acid and ecstasy.

Instead, the medical society wants marijuana downgraded to the list of Schedule 2 drugs, which are considered to have a “high potential for abuse which may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.” These include various widely prescribed narcotics, such as oxycodone and fentanyl, as well as morphine and codeine, which are used for medical purposes.

“A Schedule 1 listing means there’s no medical use or helpful indications, but we know that’s not true because there has been limited evidence showing [marijuana] may be helpful for certain conditions in adults,” says Seth Ammerman, a clinical professor in pediatrics at Stanford University and a member of the AAP national committee on substance abuse, who co-authored the new policy statement.

“By placing this on Schedule 2, it would allow the FDA to be involved [in pediatric research] as the agency is in any study. Unless scheduling changes, this won’t happen. And there could be therapeutic benefits. The AAP is not opposed to medical marijuana, per se, but we feel it’s important that this be explored within the [framework of the] FDA process, where you have standardization.”

Epilepsy has been high on the list of potentially beneficial uses. Last year, the Epilepsy Foundation called on the DEA to reschedule marijuana so to improve and bolster research, reflecting a growing belief that medical uses can combat the affliction. Since marijuana became legal in some states, there have been reports that cannabis compounds may reduce the frequency or severity of seizures.

To what extent the Obama administration will consider making such a change remains unclear. There have been numerous proposals and recommendations made over the years to change the DEA scheduling. In 2008, the American College of Physicianssuggested a review. But the federal government has resisted relisting over debate about the kind of scientific evidence that would warrant a change.

Although 23 states have legalized medical marijuana for those who receive recommendations for use by physicians, there is no accepted medical use on a federal level. The FDA is conducting an analysis – at the request of the DEA – to determine whether marijuana should be downgraded on the Controlled Substances list. We have reached out to the FDA for comment and will update you accordingly. The DEA, meanwhile, last year approved an  increase in the amount of marijuana that government researchers can use for studies.

The AAP recommendation, meanwhile, is potentially significant. By adopting such a policy, the influential medical society is lending its voice to a growing national debate over the veracity of using marijuana for medical purposes. And any steps that lead toward new research may also open the door to further investment from a variety of companies that view marijuana as a growing, if risky market.

“Most people realize AAP advocacy is for the well-being of children,” says Ammerman. “As pediatricians, we’re into prevention and early intervention. So having this voice will be important. We’re advocating for the kids and if it leads to research that establishes [that marijuana offers] a benefit – whoever conducts the research – then what we’re doing could help improve pediatric care.”

[UPDATE: An FDA spokeswoman says the agency “can’t comment on the suggestion to change the schedule for marijuana, as the latest FDA review of the issue (known as the 8-factor analysis) is currently ongoing. However, FDA agrees with the call by the AAP for rigorous scientific research into the uses of marijuana. The FDA has an important role we are playing to support scientific research into the medical uses of marijuana and its constituents as part of the agency’s drug review and approval process. As a part of this role, the FDA supports those in the medical research community who seek to study marijuana.”]

In November, Florida voters will decide whether the Sunshine State will be the next laboratory of democracy to legalize medical marijuana.

This week the state Supreme Court narrowly signed off on a controversial proposed constitutional amendment allowing the medical use of pot.

Now, if 60 percent of voters go for it, doctors could prescribe marijuana for patients with “certain medical conditions” and “debilitating diseases.”

The justices voted in favor, 4-3.

A pro-medical pot group, United for Care, also recently announced it has obtained the necessary number of petition signatures to ensure the amendment will appear on the November ballot.

“The Supervisors of Elections have validated enough of our submitted signatures to place us on the ballot in November – more than the 683,149 we needed and in the required number of congressional districts,” said Ben Pollara, campaign manager for United for Care, in a website statement.

Not everyone will celebrate these latest developments.

In an email response to Watchdog.org, Attorney General Pam Bondi said, “The ruling leaves the issue of medical marijuana in the hands of Florida’s voters. I encourage every Floridian to read the full amendment in order to understand the impact it could have on Floridians.”

I have to tell you, I’m heartbroken to see what the president said just a few days ago. It’s stunning to me. I find it beyond comprehension….This is just difficult for me to conceive how the president of the United States could make such a statement as that….Did the president conduct any medical or scientific survey before he waltzed into The New Yorker and opined contrary to the positions of attorneys general and presidents universally prior to that?

Sessions, by contrast, clearly did his homework. He rebutted Obama’s observation that marijuana is safer than alcohol by citing a renowned expert on substance abuse:

Lady Gaga says she’s addicted to it and it is not harmless.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (Image: Senate Judiciary Committee)

I have been covering drug policy for about 25 years, and I am still sometimes startled by what passes for an argument among prohibitionists. What should we conclude from this sample of one about the hazards posed by marijuana? That it can be taken to excess, like every other fun thing on the face of the planet? That some people say they have trouble consuming it in moderation? Didn’t we know both of those things before Dr. Gaga’s earthshaking discovery?

More to the point, what does the possibility of addiction tell us about the truth of the statement Obama made—i.e., that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol? After all, “less dangerous” does not mean “harmless.” As Holder observed, “any drug used in an inappropriate way can be harmful,” and “alcohol is among those drugs.” To evaluate relative hazards, we have to dig a little deeper.

According to one widely cited study, based on data from the National Comorbidity Survey, “dependence” is nearly 70 percent more common among drinkers than it is among pot smokers. So even by this measure, marijuana looks less dangerous. That’s without considering differences in acute toxicity, driving impairment, and the long-term effects of heavy consumption, all of which weigh strongly in marijuana’s favor.

Gaga was not the only authority cited by Sessions. He also mentioned former Rhode Island congressman Patrick Kennedy, chairman of the anti-pot group Project SAM, who according to the senator “says the president is wrong on this subject.” Yet here is what Kennedy said during a recent debate on CNN with my Reason colleague Nick Gillespie:

I agree with the president. Alcohol is more dangerous.

Sessions was on firmer ground when he pressed Holder to admit that “if marijuana is legalized for adults, it makes it more available for young people.” As I’ve said before, it is likely that legalization in Colorado and Washington will be accompanied by an increase in underage consumption. While the newly legal marijuana stores are not allowed to serve anyone younger than 21, there will be a certain amount of leakage from adults to “minors” (who in this case include a bunch of people who in most other respects are considered adults), as there is with alcohol. Buying marijuana may become more difficult for people younger than 21 (assuming the black market eventually withers away), but that does not mean obtaining marijuana will be more difficult. Some teenagers and young adults will get pot by swiping it from parents or older siblings, and some legal buyers will have no qualms about sharing with older teenagers or 20-year-olds (although that will remain illegal). Given this reality, Holder’s response to Sessions’ concern about underage access is a bit troubling:

One of our eight priorities is the prevention of distribution of marijuana to minors. If there’s an indication that marijuana is being distributed to minors, that would require federal involvement….

Young people find ways to get alcohol because adults can have access to it. I’m not sure that we’ll see the same thing here given what we have said with regard to our enforcement priorities.

Holder is referring to the eight issues the Justice Department expects Colorado and Washington to address as the price of federal forbearance, one of which is “preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors.” If that means stopping state-licensed stores from selling marijuana to people younger than 21, it can be accomplished through strict enforcement of the states’ age limits. But if it means preventing 21-year-olds from sharing marijuana with their 19-year-old friends or brothers, it is not a realistic expectation. It is more like an excuse to crack down whenever the president gets tired of sniping by diehard drug warriors like Sessions.