Sign in to follow this  
Malcolm

Sharing the cost of legalized Marijuana

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, deicer said:

So you prefer to keep the status quo with the funds going to criminals?

 

No, I prefer we WIN THE WAR  against drugs rather than cave in on it!!

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So only the drugs you approve of are allowed?

When it comes to pot, just look back to the prohibition era if you want to see how continuing the ban will work out.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or come to BC where the government will give you free clean opioids to ensure you remain addicted and unproductive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, deicer said:

Opioids and pot are two different classes of drugs.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070923195247AA9s04V

I suspect mo32a knows that but mo32a is also correct about free opiats in BC. https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/ne4neg/bc-health-officials-will-start-giving-free-opioids-to-users-in-2018

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be very carefull if you are in Southern California and holding legal weed.

Dec 27, 11:38 AM EST
 

As California legalizes pot, laws collide at US checkpoints

By ELLIOT SPAGAT

 
A

PINE VALLEY, Calif. (AP) -- California legalizes marijuana for recreational use Monday, but that won't stop federal agents from seizing the drug - even in tiny amounts - on busy freeways and backcountry highways.

Marijuana possession still will be prohibited at eight Border Patrol checkpoints in California, a reminder that state and federal laws collide when it comes to pot. The U.S. government classifies marijuana as a controlled substance, like heroin and LSD.

"Prior to Jan. 1, it's going to be the same after Jan. 1, because nothing changed on our end," said Ryan Yamasaki, an assistant chief of the Border Patrol's San Diego sector. "If you're a federal law enforcement agency, you uphold federal laws."

The checkpoints, located up to 100 miles (161 kilometers) from Mexico, are considered a final line of defense against immigrants who elude agents at the border. They also have been a trap for U.S. citizens carrying drugs, even tiny bags of marijuana.

About 40 percent of pot seizures at Border Patrol checkpoints from fiscal years 2013 to 2016 were an ounce (28 grams) or less from U.S. citizens, according to a Government Accountability Office report last month. California's new law allows anyone 21 and over to carry up to an ounce.

The Border Patrol operates 34 permanent checkpoints along the Mexican border and an additional 103 "tactical" stops, typically cones and signs that appear for brief periods.

Ronald Vitiello, acting deputy commissioner of parent agency Customs and Border Protection, called drug seizures an "ancillary effect" of enforcing immigration laws. Motorists typically are released after being photographed and fingerprinted. They generally aren't charged with a crime because prosecutors consider them low priority.

The clash between state and federal marijuana laws played out on a smaller scale near the Canadian border in Washington after that state legalized marijuana in 2014. California is a far busier route for illegal crossings with many more agents.

State and federal marijuana laws have conflicted since California became the first to legalize marijuana for medical use in 1996. Next week, California will be among seven states and Washington, D.C., with legal recreational pot.

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a staunch opponent of legalization, said last month that he was taking a close look at federal enforcement, suggesting a tougher stance than President Barack Obama's administration.

At highway checkpoints, Border Patrol agents look for signs of nervous drivers, like clutching steering wheels and avoiding eye contact and interrupting when passengers are asked to state citizenship. Some panicked drivers make a U-turn when they spot the checkpoint, a dead giveaway.

One recent morning on westbound Interstate 8 about 40 miles (64 kilometers) east of San Diego, an agent standing outside a booth under a large white canopy stopped drivers for a few seconds to ask their citizenship or waved them through after peering inside.

In about an hour, three raised enough suspicion to be ordered aside for a thorough vehicle search.

A dog discovered a marijuana stash about the size of a thumbprint inside the pickup truck of a man with Arizona license plates who was taking his elderly uncle to a hospital appointment. It would have taken up to an hour to process the arrest, so agents released him after seizing the pot and warning it was illegal.

"I didn't know that, sorry," the driver said, walking to his truck after waiting on a bench a few minutes while the dog searched.

The animal sniffed something in another car but found nothing in the seats or trunk. The apologetic driver said she smoked marijuana a week earlier, implying the odor lingered.

The Pine Valley checkpoint, amid oak- and chaparral-covered mountains on the main route from Arizona to San Diego, gets busy with drivers returning from weekend getaways but is less traveled than others.

Agents say a checkpoint on Interstate 5 between San Diego and Los Angeles can cause a 4-mile (6.4-kilometer) backup in 90 seconds during peak hours.

The government faces pushback over checkpoints. Some residents complain about delays and trespassers trying to circumvent checkpoints - some even dying from heat and exhaustion. Motorists who consider them a privacy invasion steadfastly refuse to answer questions and post their test encounters on YouTube.

Border Patrol officials insist they are effective. Without them, Vitiello said, smugglers would have open passage to cities like Phoenix and Albuquerque, New Mexico, once past the border.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that agents can question people at checkpoints even without reason to believe anyone in the vehicle is in the country illegally and don't need a search warrant.

Michael Chernis, an attorney who represents people charged with marijuana crimes, believes checkpoint seizures are a waste of resources but acknowledged the government is empowered.

"The bottom line is, there's absolutely no protection against federal interaction when it comes to adult use," he said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expert doesn't think legal weed will end black market

by Mike Blanchard

Posted Jan 2, 2018 7:21 am MST

A Criminologist at Mount Royal University doesn’t think legalizing cannabis will take a bite out of organized crime.

One of the arguments in favour of legalizing the recreational use of marijuana in Canada is that it will help reduce organized crime.

However Kelly Sundberg isn’t convinced, arguing governments are underestimating the demand for legal marijuana.

Sundberg doesn’t think legitimate growers can produce enough to meet demand.

“To think that we will have a supply in Alberta, let alone in Western Canada, by licensed producers, like the legal ones, that will be able to supply this industry, that’s pretty positive thinking in my mind,” Sundberg said.

Sundberg added governments need to ensure the product isn’t over-taxed, and consumers have easy retail access or they’ll continue to buy it illegally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Border Checkpoints 100 Miles from Mexico checking US citizens.  Hmmmm.  Papers Please has a familiar ring.  Remind me again what country is free.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/3/2018 at 5:51 AM, boestar said:

Border Checkpoints 100 Miles from Mexico checking US citizens.  Hmmmm.  Papers Please has a familiar ring.  Remind me again what country is free.

 

It will be even more interesting south of the 49th for "State Legal users"


Jan 4, 9:04 AM EST


AP NewsBreak: US to end policy that let legal pot flourish 

By SADIE GURMAN
Associated Press  
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Attorney General Jeff Sessions is rescinding the Obama-era policy that had paved the way for legalized marijuana to flourish in states across the country, two people with knowledge of the decision told The Associated Press. Sessions will instead let federal prosecutors where pot is legal decide how aggressively to enforce federal marijuana law, the people said.

The people familiar with the plan spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it before an announcement expected Thursday.

The move by President Donald Trump's attorney general likely will add to confusion about whether it's OK to grow, buy or use marijuana in states where pot is legal, since long-standing federal law prohibits it. It comes days after pot shops opened in California, launching what is expected to become the world's largest market for legal recreational marijuana and as polls show a solid majority of Americans believe the drug should be legal.

While Sessions has been carrying out a Justice Department agenda that follows Trump's top priorities on such issues as immigration and opioids, the changes to pot policy reflect his own concerns. Trump's personal views on marijuana remain largely unknown.

Sessions, who has assailed marijuana as comparable to heroin and has blamed it for spikes in violence, had been expected to ramp up enforcement. Pot advocates argue that legalizing the drug eliminates the need for a black market and would likely reduce violence, since criminals would no longer control the marijuana trade.

The Obama administration in 2013 announced it would not stand in the way of states that legalize marijuana, so long as officials acted to keep it from migrating to places where it remained outlawed and out of the hands of criminal gangs and children. Sessions is rescinding that memo, written by then-Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole, which had cleared up some of the uncertainty about how the federal government would respond as states began allowing sales for recreational and medical purposes.

The pot business has since become a sophisticated, multimillion-dollar industry that helps fund schools, educational programs and law enforcement. Eight states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana for recreational use, and California's sales alone are projected to bring in $1 billion annually in tax revenue within several years.

Sessions' policy will let U.S. attorneys across the country decide what kinds of federal resources to devote to marijuana enforcement based on what they see as priorities in their districts, the people familiar with the decision said.

Sessions and some law enforcement officials in states such as Colorado blame legalization for a number of problems, including drug traffickers that have taken advantage of lax marijuana laws to hide in plain sight, illegally growing and shipping the drug across state lines, where it can sell for much more. The decision was a win for pot opponents who had been urging Sessions to take action.

"There is no more safe haven with regard to the federal government and marijuana, but it's also the beginning of the story and not the end," said Kevin Sabet, president and CEO of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, who was among several anti-marijuana advocates who met with Sessions last month. "This is a victory. It's going to dry up a lot of the institutional investment that has gone toward marijuana in the last five years."

Threats of a federal crackdown have united liberals who object to the human costs of a war on pot with conservatives who see it as a states' rights issue. Some in law enforcement support a tougher approach, but a bipartisan group of senators in March urged Sessions to uphold existing marijuana policy. Others in Congress have been seeking ways to protect and promote legal pot businesses.

A task force Sessions convened to study pot policy made no recommendations for upending the legal industry but instead encouraged Justice Department officials to keep reviewing the Obama administration's more hands-off approach to marijuana enforcement, something Sessions promised to do since he took office.

The change also reflects yet another way in which Sessions, who served as a federal prosecutor at the height of the drug war in Mobile, Alabama, has reversed Obama-era criminal justice policies that aimed to ease overcrowding in federal prisons and contributed to a rethinking of how drug criminals were prosecuted and sentenced. While his Democratic predecessor Eric Holder told federal prosecutors to avoid seeking long mandatory minimum sentences when charging certain lower level drug offenders, for example, Sessions issued an order demanding the opposite, telling them to pursue the most serious charges possible against most suspects.

© 2018 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sensible limitations on how many stores can be in a city / town.

Marijuana to be sold in private Saskatchewan stores and online

shawn1.jpg?quality=60&strip=all&w=55&h=5 By Shawn Knox Web Producer  Global News 

The Saskatchewan Liquor and Gaming Authority (SLGA) announced Monday it will issue around 60 cannabis retail permits to private operators in as many as 40 Saskatchewan municipalities and First Nation communities.

John Locher / The Canadian Press

Saskatchewan has finally unveiled their plans for marijuana regulations in the province.

The Saskatchewan Liquor and Gaming Authority (SLGA) announced Monday it will issue around 60 cannabis retail permits to private operators in as many as 40 Saskatchewan municipalities and First Nation communities.

“The federal government has established very aggressive timelines for the legalization of cannabis,” the Minister Responsible for SLGA Gene Makowsky said.

 Saskatoon to limit where marijuana can be smoked

 

“Our government is being diligent to ensure the sale and regulation of cannabis in Saskatchewan strikes a balance between public safety and access for consumers. It’s also important to our government that the 40 municipalities and First Nations selected for retail locations have the opportunity to decide whether they want cannabis retail stores in their community.”

READ MORE: Municipalities, police still awaiting Sask. marijuana legislation

The initial allocation of retail store permits will be in municipalities and First Nations with populations of at least 2,500, with larger communities being allocated additional permits.

Eligible First Nations and municipalities will have the option to opt out of having a retail cannabis store in their community if they choose. The final number of retail permits will depend on the number of community leaders that decide to opt out.

Both wholesaling and retailing of cannabis will be conducted by the private sector and regulated by SLGA. Cannabis retailers will be required to establish a standalone storefront operation, with the option to operate an online store.

Stores will also be limited to selling cannabis, cannabis accessories and ancillary items. Stores must also have the ability to track and report cannabis inventory to help ensure consumers only have access only have access to safe, legal product from regulated wholesalers.

An independent third party will be engaged to assist SLGA with selecting retail operators using a two-phase process. The first phase will be initial screening for financial capacity and the ability for proponents to track and report inventory.

READ MORE: Sask. government launches survey on recreational marijuana regulations

Phase two will be a random selection (lottery) for qualified applicants. Successful proponents will be required to meet “good character” criteria as part of the permitting process.

Additional details regarding application criteria, permit licensing fees, application timelines and other associated details will be finalized over the next few weeks.

A decision on the minimum age for buying cannabis in the province will be made later this spring.

The goto will take you to the list. https://globalnews.ca/news/3951690/marijuana-to-be-sold-in-private-saskatchewan-stores-and-online/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 “Marijuana actually REDUCES the IQ of young people”      Easy to see why Trudeau is all in.

 

“ Production, regulation and jurisdiction are all top of mind in the discussion to legalize marijuana, and recreational use is set to be legal on July 1, 2018.

But while some debate what should be the legal age of use, there are those with concerns about the detrimental effects cannabis can have on young Canadians.

Dr. Louis Francescutti, a former President of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, says the risks are so great that Canada should completely reverse their plans for legalization.”

 

Must watch video.....

https://alberta.ctvnews.ca/the-dangers-of-legalizing-cannabis-in-canada-1.3742356

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not unexpected. 

First Nations entrepreneurs are asserting sovereignty and seizing the new cannabis economy

In Six Nations, the sovereignty arguments asserted by First Nation dispensary owners who have made their moves to stake an early claim in the blossoming cannabis trade may be facing their strongest challenge.

Six Nations cannabis dispensary owner defiant after raid: 'Stay out of our affairs'

Six Nations marijuana dispensary raided

Jeff Hawk said he was sitting in the lounge area of his dispensary chatting with friends early on Tuesday evening when several assault-rifle wielding Six Nations police officers burst in, ordering everyone to get on the ground.

Hawk's dispensary, called Green Health for 6, was the second to be hit by a raid in Six Nations, an Iroquois community near Hamilton, in the space of three months.

Six Nations police seized about $20,000 in cash along with some of the cannabis sold in the dispensary and charged four people, including Hawk. Hawk was charged with possession and trafficking marijuana; the other three were charged with trafficking.

Hawk said police left behind more cannabis products than they seized, including a concentrated form of cannabis extract known as shatter, edibles and half a pound of marijuana.

"I am angry. I am sad. I have a million-and-one thoughts going through my head right now," said Hawk, in an interview Wednesday morning.

"I am very angered by a lot of things how the Six Nations police dealt with it, how they rushed in so fast to raid me for doing something good."

While dispensaries are operating in other First Nations in Ontario, including in Tyendinaga and Alderville, Six Nations is the only place that has been hit by raids.

Battle lines drawn

It seems that in Six Nations the sovereignty arguments asserted by First Nation dispensary owners, who have made their moves to stake an early claim in the blossoming cannabis trade, are facing their strongest challenge.

Many currently involved in the First Nation cannabis trade see the opening moves by authorities as a replay of the beginning stages of what turned into a decades-long battle between government and First Nations over the tobacco trade.

As legalization approaches, Kahnawake prepares to make its own cannabis rules

First Nations aim to capitalize on economic opportunity of legal pot industry

Six Nations police hit Hawk's dispensary mere hours after he issued a video and Facebook post announcing he would be releasing the results on Jan. 28 of an independent community survey on how the cannabis industry should be run in the community. Hawk said he received more than 700 responses to the survey and 626 came from band members.

He saw a connection between the raid and the survey, which the band council actively opposed.

"I think somebody is pushing their authority or somebody is trying to assert authority on the people. Somebody is blowing their horn and saying we are the power," said Hawk

This was the second business to be hit by a raid in the space of three months. 1:13

Hawk is a Seneca faith keeper, a person whose role is to promote ceremonial ways and uphold culture. He said he reopened his dispensary, which sits atop a convenience store in Six Nations, on Wednesday to make a point.

"I will set the bar higher," he said. 

"I will say, 'Listen, this is self-determination. Stay out of our affairs.' That is basically the bottom line."

Hawk said he doesn't understand why Six Nations police is raiding a dispensary while letting known crack houses in the community continue to operate. He said if the police keep coming, it could eventually trigger a conflict.

"It is going to come to a head eventually," he said.

"I was sitting in that jail cell last night. I felt really low. I felt like my culture and my heritage was being dragged and ripped from me."

'No grey area'

Six Nations Police Chief Glenn Lickers said if Hawk reopens his dispensary he will again be on the force's "radar." Lickers said the community has taken a zero tolerance policy against drugs and marijuana remains illegal.

"There is no grey area for us," said Lickers.

"Right now it's an illegal drug and we will deal with it as such. This is what the community expects of us."

Six Nations Chief Ava Hill's office referred calls about the raid to Six Nations police.

In a previous interview with CBC News following another raid in November against the Mohawk Medicine herbal dispensary, Hill said the band council supported the police action.

Hill said her band council is still researching its position on the looming cannabis legislation. She doesn't believe Ontario or Ottawa has consulted enough with First Nations on cannabis legalization. She also doesn't believe Ontario, which has already passed its pot law regulating the distribution and sale of cannabis, has any jurisdiction in her community.

The raid on Mohawk Medicine

It was quiet that Thursday evening in November at the Mohawk Medicine herbal store in Six Nations when a swarm of officers wielding a battering ram and assault rifles burst in through the door.

Seth LeFort and an employee, who were standing at the counter when the gun barrels appeared, immediately kneeled and held up their hands, according to surveillance video provided to CBC News.

"They came in like they were robbing a bank," said LeFort, in an interview describing the Nov. 16, 2017 raid. 

"They said, 'Everyone get on the ground. Get on the ground.'"

An officer from the Six Nations police aims an assault rifle during a Nov. 16, 2017, raid of the Mohawk Medicine herbal dispensary in Six Nations. (Submitted by Seth LeFort)

LeFort's Mohawk Medicine was operating in a newly-leased building for only a month when the Six Nations police hit it in a raid. LeFort was charged with possession and trafficking. 

He considers the motivation behind the raid suspect since marijuana was only one of about 130 herbal remedies including bear root, sage, singer's root available at this store, which also offered traditional Iroquois tattooing and Reiki sessions.

"It's a game; that's not justice," said LeFort.

LeFort and Hawk don't believe the band council, which they see as an arm of the federal government, or the province have any say over how they can manage their cannabis businesses.

"There is a little bit of confusion when you talk to Canadians about self-regulating," said LeFort.

"In our system, we have a full governance structure — a clan system, social networks, economic structures — that are regulated by the people.... We have the capacity to meet inside our institutions, our own longhouses, in our own way."

Seth LeFort inside his Mohawk Medicine dispensary in Six Nations which was raided on Nov. 16, 2017. (CBC)

Blair's warning

The federal government and the province of Ontario see things differently.

Ottawa and the provinces have reached their own deal on splitting federal tax revenue from cannabis sales and First Nations are expected to operate within federal and provincial frameworks in the coming cannabis economy.

Status First Nations to remain tax exempt on marijuana sales on reserve land

First Nations in Saskatchewan question provincial jurisdiction over marijuana sales

A spokesperson for Ontario's Attorney General, Yasir Naqvi, said in a statement that the province's recently passed marijuana law applies on reserve. The statement said the province is open to negotiating agreements with First Nations on how to handle marijuana sales within the framework of the law.

The Justin Trudeau government's spokesperson on the file, Toronto MP Bill Blair, says anyone operating outside federal or provincial frameworks will face the strong arm of the law.

"The sale of any cannabis, or the production of any cannabis, outside the licence regime... will remain a criminal offence with the new legislation," Blair told reporters in a scrum in December.

Different approach in Tyendinaga

Roughly 400 kilometres from Six Nations, in the sister Mohawk community of Tyendinaga, which sits near Belleville, the cannabis trade is booming. There are at least 22 dispensaries operating in the territory which has a population of about 2,200 people.

There won't be raids on the territory by the First Nation police, said band Chief Donald Meracle.

"Our police chief said it is a grey area," said Meracle.

"The judges don't want to hear the cases, so they are not prosecuting."

Meracle said there is little he can do to curb the growing cannabis trade.

"It doesn't matter what I say, they're going to do it. They are going to exercise their free will to participate in the economics of this industry," he said.

Jamie Kunkel inside his Smoke Signals cannabis dispensary in Tyendinaga. (CBC)

Profits and the community

And business has been good.

Jamie Kunkel, owner of the Smoke Signals dispensary, said he can make between $5,000 and $10,000 a day and he's constructing a new outlet.

Kunkel agrees with Hawk and LeFort that the band or any government doesn't have a right to control the business in the community.

"They don't have rights, nor do they have the right to negotiate about my rights," he said.

Kunkel said Tyendinaga dispensary owners and the community can regulate the trade which could even see stricter guidelines than those proposed by the province.

"We do not want people to think this is a safe haven, that a non-Native person you can come here, befriend an Indian and open up a store. This is not a safe haven for criminals," said Kunkel.

Kunkel said the cannabis trade has the potential to help First Nations break free from government money. He believes the local trade will lead to the construction of a new high school and he is planning on building a Mohawk language school with the revenues from his profits.

Tobacco laid the groundwork

However, he believes the First Nation cannabis trade is beginning to see the same tactics and threats the tobacco trade faced more than three decades ago.

"It has gone pretty much the same way as tobacco," said Kunkel.

"The tobacco industry gave us back enough economically that we could rebuild the things we lost. This has the ability to do the exact same thing, but probably on a scale that is 10 times bigger.... This is something that people are willing to fight for."

For three decades, Ottawa and provincial governments battled with First Nations in several parts of the country over the trade and sale of untaxed tobacco. There were raids, protests and a new law passed under the administration of Stephen Harper that criminalized the untaxed tobacco trade yet the smoke shacks remained.

LeFort said the law, Bill C-10, essentially crushed the tobacco trade, which was originally started by traditional grassroots people but is now controlled by tobacco millionaires.

The traditional people are again building the cannabis trade, he said, and this time they don't plan to lose control.

"The tobacco industry taught us how to do the cannabis industry," he said.

"They did it because they didn't want to be dependent on the government and they were looking for a way to be independent and to raise our nations back up to be our own countries again the way we were before."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/first-nations-entrepreneurs-are-asserting-sovereignty-and-seizing-the-new-cannabis-economy-1.4481747?cmp=rss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the excited states, Pot and Guns are not to mix but I guess Alcohol and guns remain OK?

Jan 14, 12:21 PM EST

My guns or my ganja? Firearm-owning pot fans face a choice By MARK SCOLFORO

Associated Press

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) -- The federal government says grass and guns don't mix, and that is putting gun owners who use marijuana - and the strongly pro-gun-rights administration of President Donald Trump - in a potentially uncomfortable position.

As gun-loving Pennsylvania becomes the latest state to operate a medical marijuana program, with the first dispensary on track to begin sales next month, authorities are warning patients that federal law bars marijuana users from having guns or ammunition.

"They're going to have to make a choice," said John T. Adams, president of the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association. "They can have their guns or their marijuana, but not both."

That's the official line, but the reality of how the policy might be enforced in Pennsylvania and other states is a little muddier. That includes the question of whether people who already own guns might have to surrender them, instead of just being prohibited from making new purchases.

The political sensitivity was underscored Friday when Pennsylvania regulators reversed themselves and announced its registry of medical-pot patients will not be available, as was previously planned, through the state's law enforcement computer network.

Phil Gruver, a professional auto detailer from Emmaus who received a state medical marijuana card in mid-December, is weighing what to do with his .22-caliber rifle and a handgun he keeps for home defense.

"It's a violation of my Second Amendment rights," Gruver said. "I don't know of any time anyone's been using marijuana and going out and committing acts of violence with a gun. Most of the time they just sit on their couch and eat pizza."

State laws allowing medical or, more recently, recreational use of pot have long been at odds with the federal prohibition on gun ownership by those using marijuana. But the government has traditionally taken a hands-off approach. Since 2014, Congress has forbidden the Department of Justice from spending money to prosecute people who grow, sell and use medical pot.

The picture has become murkier under Trump, a Republican whose attorney general, Jeff Sessions, has long denounced the drug. Sessions recently rescinded a Barack Obama-era policy that was deferential to states' permissive marijuana laws. Now, federal prosecutors in states that allow drug sales must decide whether to crack down on the marijuana trade.

 

It's not clear what impact the new policy will have on gun owners who use cannabis as medicine, or even how many people fit the bill. Nor is it clear whether any people who use legally obtained medical marijuana have been prosecuted for owning a gun, although the existence of medical marijuana registries in some states, including Pennsylvania, has some patients concerned.

More than 800,000 guns are sold or transferred in Pennsylvania annually, and more than 10,000 people in the state have signed up for medical marijuana. The registry change on Friday makes it much less likely the state's medical marijuana users will be flagged when going through a federal gun sales background check.

A spokeswoman for Dave Freed, the new U.S. attorney in Harrisburg, said only that criminal investigations and prosecutions "will be based on a fair and transparent fact-intensive inquiry of individual cases." State police said it's up to prosecutors to decide when to bring a case.

The Justice Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has left no doubt where it stands. Last year, the ATF spelled out the marijuana prohibition in boldface type on gun purchase forms.

"Any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her state has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medical purposes ... is prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition," ATF spokeswoman Janice L. Kemp said in an email to The Associated Press.

A spokeswoman for the Justice Department referred questions about medical marijuana and guns enforcement to local federal prosecutors and a recent memo from Sessions that does not specifically address the issue.

In Ohio, which has authorized a medical marijuana program, the office of the U.S. attorney for the northern part of the state, Justin Herdman, has said Sessions' guidance won't change his case-by-case approach.

The gun-ownership ban has withstood at least one legal challenge. An appeals court in San Francisco, rejecting a challenge on Second Amendment grounds, said in 2016 that Congress reasonably concluded marijuana and other drugs raise the risk of unpredictable behavior.

Meanwhile, some state and local officials, particularly in law enforcement, have sought to crack down.

William Bryson, chairman of the Delaware Police Chiefs' Council, told state lawmakers in December that people who use marijuana for medical or recreational purposes should be required to have a designation on their driver's licenses. That would make it easier, he said, for police to enforce the ban.

And last month, a police chief in Hawaii publicized and then quickly rescinded a directive that medical marijuana patients had to give up their handguns. Two people turned in their weapons.

But marijuana activists predict a backlash should federal prosecutors begin going after gun owners who use legally obtained medical marijuana.

The issue has been largely theoretical, but there would be quick pushback if the federal government took a more aggressive stance, said Paul Armentano, deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

Between 1998 and 2014, nearly 100,000 prospective gun purchasers went home empty-handed because they were flagged as using illegal drugs, according to the ATF. But the agency could not say how many of those used medical or recreational marijuana.

Dean Hazen, an Urbana, Illinois, businessman who helps broker online gun purchases, said a 75-year-old client with a medical marijuana card was turned down when his state firearm-owner identification card was run through the federal background check system.

"He's got a collection of guns at home," Hazen said, "and he's a model citizen."

Even before his administration took the medical marijuana registry off the Pennsylvania law-enforcement computer network, Gov. Tom Wolf, a Democrat, sought to assure people the state has no plans to take their guns. And last week, state House Republican Leader Dave Reed urged residents to call their congressional representative and "urge them to make gun ownership legal for medical marijuana card holders."

Kim Stolfer, head of the Pennsylvania organization Firearms Owners Against Crime, pointed out that people who drink heavily or use potent but legal drugs such as opioids or antidepressants can still own a gun.

"You have people that are advancing up in age that need medical marijuana and might have, say, 50 firearms and just realized they sacrificed all of those," Stolfer said. "Where are they going to turn them in and how are they going to get rid of them?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From one of the articles posted above ...

"Marijuana possession still will be prohibited at eight Border Patrol checkpoints in California, a reminder that state and federal laws collide when it comes to pot. The U.S. government classifies marijuana as a controlled substance, like heroin and LSD."

Marijuana issues aside, no one seems to be too concerned that the so-called 'checkpoints' themselves are illegal as hell in their own right.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, DEFCON said:

Marijuana issues aside, no one seems to be too concerned that the so-called 'checkpoints' themselves are illegal as hell in their own right.

 

Probably because the US Supreme Court has ruled the checkpoints themselves are not illegal.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DEFCON said:

Do you have the USSC case file name, number, or some other reference?

 

 

Quote

"These cases involve criminal prosecutions for offenses relating to the transportation of illegal Mexican aliens. Each defendant was arrested at a permanent checkpoint operated by the Border Patrol away from the international border with Mexico, and each sought the exclusion of certain evidence on the ground that the operation of the checkpoint was incompatible with the Fourth Amendment. In each instance whether the Fourth Amendment was violated turns primarily on whether a vehicle may be stopped at a fixed checkpoint for brief questioning of its occupants even though there is no reason to believe the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens. We reserved this question last Term in United States v. Ortiz, 422 U. S. 891, 897 n. 3 (1975). We hold today that such stops are consistent with the Fourth Amendment. We also hold that the operation of a fixed checkpoint need not be authorized in advance by a judicial warrant."

UNITED STATES v. MARTINEZ-FUERTE ET AL. - 428 U.S. 543 (1976)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"First Nations entrepreneurs are asserting sovereignty and seizing the new cannabis economy"

With reserves scattered all over the Country already demonstrating their lack of respect for provincial & federal taxation schemes with cigarette sales, it's easy to see how hamstrung whitey's governments are going to be when natives start selling weed from the thousands of existing cigarette shacks.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Airband; I stand corrected. I guess it comes down to the 'reasonableness' of the search conducted.

Edited by DEFCON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another point of concern re Legal Pot  for Land Lords.

Quote

It can cost $5,000-6,000 to get the smell of marijuana smoke out of apartment walls and floors, said Dan Henderson, president of the DelSuites property management firm in Toronto.

"It's not the stigma (of marijuana use), it's just the number of expenses to maintain the unit and the complaints landlords receive from the neighbours," said Henderson, whose company manages rental units for approximately 2,000 landlords in the Greater Toronto Area.

Ontario landlords call for right to immediately ban pot in rentals despite tenant laws


Peter Goffin, The Canadian Press
Published Monday, January 22, 2018 1:20PM EST

TORONTO -- Ontario landlords want the right to immediately ban the use of pot in rental properties when recreational weed is legalized this summer, arguing they should be allowed to change tenants' existing leases to stop the drug from being consumed in their units.

Some marijuana users say, however, that the situation would leave renters with few places to legally use weed, given the province's already restrictive rules around the drug.

Under rules announced in the fall, the province plans a ban on recreational pot consumption in public spaces and workplaces, allowing it only in private residences. Medical marijuana use will be permitted anywhere that cigarette smoking is allowed, the legislation says.

Landlords will be able to spell out a ban on smoking marijuana in rental units for new leases post-legalization -- the same as they do for tobacco use -- but the province's tenancy laws make it illegal to change a lease before it ends.

That means in some cases, until an existing lease runs out, landlords would be unable to regulate marijuana use in their properties, said John Dickie, president of the Canadian Federation of Apartment Associations, adding that landlords are concerned about the impact a spike in pot smoking will have on other tenants in rental properties.

"(The province is) not going to allow marijuana to be smoked in public areas, so where the heck are people going to smoke marijuana? Well they're going to do it in their apartments," he said. "The problem is, just like when they smoke tobacco, the smell goes to neighbouring apartments. Buildings are not hermetically sealed."

It can cost $5,000-6,000 to get the smell of marijuana smoke out of apartment walls and floors, said Dan Henderson, president of the DelSuites property management firm in Toronto.

"It's not the stigma (of marijuana use), it's just the number of expenses to maintain the unit and the complaints landlords receive from the neighbours," said Henderson, whose company manages rental units for approximately 2,000 landlords in the Greater Toronto Area.

Dickie and Henderson both argue Ontario landlords should be allowed to immediately prohibit tenants from smoking marijuana in their units, even if the tenants are mid-lease.

"As it stands (before) legalization, tenants are banned from smoking marijuana in a building and you don't have to write it in the lease because it's the law," Dickie said."It would be ideal if the province automatically (made it part) of leases, unless the landlord and tenant agree to take it out of the lease, because that would continue the status quo."

The Ontario government says its Residential Tenancy Act does not include explicit rules about smoking substances of any kind in a rental property, and the new pot laws do not contain any rules for renters engaging in recreational use.

Landlords have the right to include stipulations banning tobacco smoke when drafting a lease but if they do not, a tenant can smoke in their own unit. Those rules will likely apply to marijuana when it is legalized, the government says.

The province is also currently seeking public feedback on a proposal to allow designated outdoor smoking or vaping areas in multi-unit residences, an idea welcomed by some marijuana users who argue some tenants may otherwise have few places they can consume pot.

"It (would be) really leaving people with nowhere to go," Natasha Grimshaw, a manager at a Toronto marijuana dispensary, said of landlords banning pot in units. "You have more freedom (to smoke) now when it's illegal than you will when you're supposed to be free to smoke it."

Having a dedicated marijuana space for a rental property could provide a suitable compromise, Grimshaw said.

"Condos have theatre rooms, party rooms, so why not have marijuana rooms?" she said. "They could even make restrictions that you need to use vaporizers (instead) of smoking a joint so it's not a smoke and you're not going to necessarily be upsetting too many people in the building."

Designated marijuana lounges would be "a great idea" if landlords could then also ban smoking in rental units, Dickie added.

"People haven't rushed to do that with tobacco in part because it's not inexpensive to set up a separate ventilation system, but in a bigger building it would make sense," he added. "We'll just all have to weigh out the demand for it with the cost of doing it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2017 at 8:23 PM, boestar said:

Several weeks ago I had the opportunity to discuss the very issue of determining if someone is under the influence of narcotics and Marijuana with the officer that so happens to be in charge of just this sort of thing with the Halton Regional Police.

Apparently the training is quite extensive and is very accurate at determining a level of impairment.  In fact the first such case is going or has gone before the courts recently.

There is a process.  Make no mistake about it.

 

THE FIFTH ESTATE

Like 'flipping a coin': Why it's so hard to test drivers for pot

Federal government warned not to waste millions on testing experts say is flawed

By Timothy Sawa, Andrew Culbert, CBC NewsPosted: Jan 26, 2018 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Jan 26, 2018 5:00 AM ET

Tests by police drug recognition experts to detect drivers impaired by marijuana can lead to false arrests and are prone to bias, an investigation by The Fifth Estate has found. (CBC)

 

The federal government plans to invest $81 million to train police officers to smoke out drivers impaired by pot across Canada while using a test experts say is flawed and that is being challenged in a U.S court.

An investigation by The Fifth Estate shows the tests done by police drug recognition experts (DREs) can lead to false arrests, are prone to police bias and according to one scientific expert are no better at detecting drug-impaired drivers than "flipping a coin."

"You can't hijack science in the name of law enforcement," says David Rosenbloom, a clinical professor in the Department of Medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.

"We know that with high enough concentrations [of marijuana] in the blood that driving is impaired so it's not that we don't need tests of impairment, it's just that we need valid tests of impairment, and at this point in time we don't have them."

Prof. David Rosenbloom of McMaster University says the science is just not there when it comes to proving drug impairment. (CBC)

The DRE test is a 12-step process that involves examining a suspect's vital signs, eyes, balance and ability to concentrate and then rendering an opinion.

For Rosenbloom, the science of the test simply is not there.

"It's equivalent of flipping a coin, it's 50/50 as to whether we know the person was impaired or not."

Taxpayers 'should be outraged'

Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union in Georgia recently launched what is believed to be the first civil challenge in the U.S. on behalf of four drivers wrongfully arrested by police officers trained as drug recognition experts.

The ACLU has a warning for Canada.

"I think that Canadian police departments need to think twice about pouring millions or billions of dollars into a failed system that has not worked in the United States," says Sean Young, legal director for the ACLU in Georgia.  

"And the taxpayers of Canada should be outraged that their precious dollars are being wasted on this program that just results in more innocent people being thrown into jail."

Drug recognition experts have been operating in Canada since the 1990s. However, Canada is set to significantly increase their numbers as marijuana is legalized.

In preparation for the upcoming legalization of marijuana, the federal government is planning for training of an additional 750 drug recognition experts over the next five years. (CBC)

In preparation for legal weed coming in July, Public Safety Canada recently announced it's going to invest up to $81 million in new law enforcement training, paying to train 750 more drug recognition experts over the next five years and more than 3,000 officers to administer a shortened version of the observational test known as the Standardized Field Sobriety Test.

Canada's minister of public safety, Ralph Goodale, declined a request to be interviewed for The Fifth Estate investigation.

In a statement, Goodale said he believes there is enough evidence to support the use of DREs, pointing to a recent review by the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction that found DREs are "valid and reliable."

That same review, however, also cautions that when it comes to detecting impairment, DREs have a "modest degree of accuracy," between 43 and 62 per cent.

A recent report from Statistics Canada shows our system for convicting high drivers fails almost half of the time. Suspected drug-impaired drivers walk free nearly 40 per cent of the time, or twice as often as alcohol-impaired drivers.

In his statement, Goodale acknowledges more research in this area is "critical," but is also hopeful a new saliva test in the works will help police determined if someone has recently consumed drugs.

'I knew I was innocent'

Two Ontario drivers came face to face with the flaws in Canada's system last year when they were arrested for impaired driving by drugs after separate car accidents.

Corinne Fardy slammed into a parked construction vehicle while she was travelling on Highway 11 near Parry Sound.

The police report into her accident, obtained by The Fifth Estate, says they found her to be "unsteady on her feet," she "had a white coated tongue" and that she was "fumbling" and had "poor dexterity."

She was arrested, handcuffed and put in jail. In the end, a drug recognition expert conducted the test and concluded she was impaired by drugs and charged her with the criminal offence of driving while impaired by drugs.

'I was in shock.'- Corinne Fardy

"I was in shock. I knew I was innocent," she told The Fifth Estate.

The unsteadiness, she says, was caused by injuries to her legs from her airbags going off. Her tongue is always coated white, she says, from medication she takes and she was in shock from the accident, which she says explains her shakiness.

After three months, the police dropped the charges, accepting that the symptoms observed by the DRE could have been caused by the accident.

"I was upset with the way they treated me."

Slurring speech

Like Fardy, Harry Rudolph was arrested for drug-impaired driving by last year. Once again, the police misunderstood his symptoms, this time with serious consequences.

The Toronto man was driving along a county road in Britt, Ont., when he swerved and hit a boat ramp on the side of the road. Then the police showed up.

Harry Rudolph recovers from a stroke in the West Parry Sound Health Centre on Nov. 1, 2017. (Dawn Phillips)

"The police insisted Harry was high," his friend Dave Phillips says.

Rudolph was "slurring speech, disoriented, stumbling, and when they got him out of the vehicle he wasn't able to stand real well," Phillips said.

But Rudolph wasn't high. He was having a stroke. Instead of getting prompt medical care, Phillips says Rudolph was arrested for drug-impaired driving and put in a holding cell for the next 5½ hours.

Dave Phillips says the police decision to place his friend Harry Rudolph in a holding cell for 5½ hours after he was arrested for drug-impaired driving has affected Rudolph's life forever. (CBC)

That decision, says Phillips, has forever affected his friend's life. Rudolph can now barely talk and has serious memory problems.

"Harry could've gotten the medications that they give to a stroke victim and right now we may not even be having this conversation."

The Ontario Provincial Police say they can't talk about the arrest for privacy reasons. Rudolph now has a civil lawyer looking at his case.

Detecting the pot smoker

When a police officer suspects you've been driving high, typically they ask you to perform a short roadside test that involves looking at your eyes and walking in a straight line.

If you fail that test, you are arrested and taken to a police station where a DRE conducts a much more involved test, 12 steps in total, over the course of about an hour.

For step 12, the police take a fluid sample, typically urine, to confirm or refute the findings of the DRE.

The RCMP calls this a "key" part of the test.

The test done by a drug recognition expert involves 12 steps conducted over about an hour. (CBC)

Steve Maxwell, a retired Ontario Police officer and instructor for drug recognition experts, recently conducted a demonstration of the test for The Fifth Estate.

He was presented with three people, including one who has a medical marijuana licence and recently smoked. Maxwell succeeded in spotting the smoker.

"People get killed, so that's why we need to detect these people and test them," says Maxwell.

He says high drivers represent "the same danger as any other driver that's impaired by alcohol. The end result is the same."

Maxwell believes the test works. He points to a 2009 study that shows Canadian drug recognition experts successfully identified the class of drug more than 90 per cent of the time, in more than 1,000 cases.

But spotting actual impairment, he says, is more difficult.

"It's not a machine that spits out a number. It's subjective. DRE evaluation is subjective from the beginning," he says.

'Hard time being unbiased'

Maxwell now works as an expert witness, defending people wrongfully arrested as a result of tests by drug recognition experts.   

"What I'm finding or that I'm seeing is that police officers have a really hard time being unbiased," he says.

When a suspected drug-impaired driver is arrested and brought in, the DRE often knows the arresting officer, and might feel pressure to confirm what the arresting officer believes.

"Now I'm going to evaluate them," says Maxwell. "I don't want to disappoint my buddy."

Rosenbloom goes further, arguing the test should be thrown out all together.

"I think the answer is to develop tests that are validated in a scientifically appropriate way and have these implemented instead of the pseudosciences being applied today."

Rosenbloom is equally concerned with the federal government's plan to introduce saliva tests. While there is no timeline for that, the government's new impaired driving law allows them to be used by police.

Steve Maxwell taught other police officers how to administer a drug recognition evaluation before he retired and became an expert witness in Ottawa. (CBC)

The tests won't detect impairment, but will detect recent drug use. Rosenbloom says, at least so far, they've been shown to be just as unreliable as DREs.

The Supreme Court of Canada recently decided drug recognition experts in Canada can automatically testify as experts.

But Rosenbloom points to a series of court decisions in the U.S. that went the other way. Courts in six different states refused to let them testify as experts.

A Maryland court was blunt. In a 2012 decision it said: "The training police officers receive does not enable DREs to accurately observe the signs and symptoms of drug impairment, therefore, police officers are not able to reach accurate and reliable conclusions."
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jan 27, 11:57 AM EST
 

After California pot stockpiles go up in smoke, what's next?

By MICHAEL R. BLOOD
Associated Press

A

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Like many pot shops in California, the Urbn Leaf in San Diego bulked up its inventory before legal sales began on Jan. 1, stockpiling enough marijuana to last for months because no one knew what the era of legal pot would bring.

The shop, along with others involved in the state's fledgling cannabis economy, are now concerned that too few operators have been licensed to support a pot pipeline of state-approved growers, distributors and retailers.

In some cases, they say, bottlenecks have already slowed the supply chain from fields to storefronts.

"They are going to have to come online with more producers in the next 12 months to keep up with the demand," said Will Senn, the founder of Urbn Leaf who operates three dispensaries and plans to open three more, including one in Los Angeles.

"The black market will balloon if we can't get legal, licensed producers to step into the industry. That's the biggest risk," he said.

Nearly a month after legal sales began for adults in the nation's most populous state, the longstanding medicinal and illegal marijuana markets are still transitioning to a multibillion-dollar regulated system, estimated to eventually reach $7 billion in value.

Questions about the supply chain represent just one example of early obstacles that range from complaints about hefty taxes to the refusal of most banks to do business with pot companies because the drug remains illegal on the federal level.

In one way, the arrival of legal sales has been a story about borrowed time.

Most of the pot now being legally sold in California comes from plants that were harvested last year, and those reserves can be sold until July 1, provided they have required labeling.

Lori Ajax, the state's top pot regulator, said officials are aware that those initial supplies will eventually dry up but it's too early to tell how the legal supply chain will work.

"We legalized cannabis - you want to have that product available," she said. "We don't want people going to the black market because they can't get product from the legal market."

In Santa Cruz County, TreeHouse dispensary CEO Bryce Berryessa is already having trouble keeping some popular brands on his shelves.

The problem, he says, is smaller producers haven't been able to obtain licenses, either because they are in an area where growing is banned by local government or they haven't been able to obtain a license from their hometown government.

Operators are required to have state and local licenses to conduct business, but must get the local one first.

Without money to relocate to a pot-friendly community, "they are going to be unable to find a pathway to legally sell their products," said Berryessa, who sits on the board of the California Cannabis Industry Association.

"I think this affects a large portion of California cannabis businesses throughout the state," he said.

For now, legal sales for adults appear to be robust in San Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco.

But the patchwork of local regulations - some cities and counties have banned all commercial activity - has erected barriers to getting pot from place to place.

Some longtime growers are marooned in counties that don't allow pot or have imposed regulations so tight it's tantamount to prohibition. In some cases, investors are backing away.

For example, in previously pot-friendly Calaveras County, officials reversed course and banned commercial marijuana farms, leaving growers in a bind.

Without a local license, "it doesn't matter how incredible their products are," Berryessa said.

Indeed, the once-shadowy business of pot distribution is no longer about sending a text message to a friend. Regulators have come with complex procedures to keep a tight leash on the market, though some say it's bringing more confusion than efficiency.

In general, a retailer who needs to stock shelves must contact a distributor, who in turn picks up cannabis from a grower.

The marijuana is then sent to a warehouse, where a testing company picks up a sample and analyzes it for pesticides and other contaminants, as well as potency. It cannot be sent to the retailer for sale until it clears that check. The distributor can also do packaging, with taxes assessed along the way.

Pot that fails testing goes back to the grower. If the problem can't be fixed, it must be destroyed, further tightening supplies.

So far, one of the biggest challenges is having enough growers and distributors to do the job.

In total, the state has issued about 1,900 licenses in all categories so far. By comparison, there are an estimated 15,000 illegal marijuana farms in Humboldt County alone.

Only about 20 licenses have been issued for testing statewide.

Berryessa said what once could be done with a phone call could now takes days or weeks as pot moves through the supply chain, each step with added costs that will inevitably drive up prices.

And when a product isn't on his shelves, business suffers.

"The time from production ... to market is going to increase significantly," he said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this