1. What does SSTB mean? See our glossary of acronyms.
    Dismiss Notice

Cannabis News

Discussion in 'Cannabis News and Activism' started by vtac, Jun 26, 2008.

  1. Silat

    Silat When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind.

    Messages:
    931
    Location:
    Oregon
    Court Rules Medical Cannabis Users Cannot Be Charged With DUI


    From the article:

    The Arizona Court of Appeals last week ruled that the state’s medical cannabis patients who have been charged with a DUI may contest the charges against them, forcing law enforcement officials to prove henceforth that those found with THC in their systems were too impaired to operate a vehicle.

    The ruling stems from the 2013 arrest of an Arizona man named Nadir Ishak, in the city of Mesa. Ishak was arrested after an officer noticed his car drift into another lane and reported to have found Ishak to have bloodshot and watery eyes.
    Ishak was later charged and convicted of driving with cannabis in his system. He was not convicted of a second charge, which was a DUI.
    During his subsequent conviction, Ishak was denied the opportunity to present evidence that he was registered in Arizona as a medical cannabis patient.

    The state first passed a law in 2010 allowing for the use of medical cannabis. Later, in 2015, the state Supreme Court ruled in the case of Dobson v. McClennen that medical cannabis was not necessarily grounds to charge patients with DUIs.

    The issue of driving under the influence of cannabis is problematic, and not just because cannabis is used as medicine by thousands of patients nationwide.

    The effects of cannabis are such that it is difficult to determine how people under the influence of the substance may be affected at a given time, given both how long it stays in the bloodstream and the different ways in which it is processed amongst different people.

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration acknowledges the issue, saying on its website,

    It is difficult to establish a relationship between a person’s THC blood or plasma concentration and performance impairing effects… It is inadvisable to try and predict effects based on blood THC concentrations alone, and currently impossible to predict specific effects based on THC-COOH concentrations.

    Fast forward to this week and the Arizona Court of Appeals tossed out Ishak’s DUI conviction.

    The court’s opinion – authored by presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen – first points out that, under the state’s medical cannabis act, a patient having any amount of cannabis in their system does not automatically impair their driving abilities.

    The opinion goes on to state that the state law does not include any provision stating a level at which a patient may reasonably be considered intoxicated by cannabis.

    Therefore, the opinion concludes, it is reasonable for medical patients who believe that they have been unfairly charged with a DUI to be able to challenge the charge.

    [A]n authorized medical marijuana user charged with violatint [the law] may establish the affirmative defense… by showing a preponderance of the evidence that the marijuana metabolite concentration in his or her system was insufficient to cause him to be impaired at the time he or she operated or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle.

    The opinion states that the defendant may successfully fight the charge by presenting evidence that they were not impaired and by cross-examining the officer that arrested them, the forensic scientists who have been called by the State.
    END OF LINE...
     
  2. Baron23

    Baron23 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,707
    The global experiment of marijuana legalization

    In 2016, more countries legalized the use of marijuana for medicinal or recreational purposes.
    Marijuana, or cannabis, is "the most widely cultivated, produced, trafficked and consumed drug worldwide," according to the World Drug Report, but its legality has long been a topic of debate worldwide.
    In the US, Maine recently confirmed legalized recreational marijuana use, joining seven other states and the District of Columbia. Medical marijuana is now legal in more than half of US states (cont)

    Why a skirmish over pot legalization in Massachusetts is making some progressives paranoid

    n November, Massachusetts voters decided to make recreational marijuana legal, allowing it to be bought and sold in stores by January 2018. But this week, state lawmakers quietly voted to delay the sale date by at least six months.

    The delay has outraged some marijuana-legalization advocates, less so because they'll have to wait a few months to buy pot and more so because they feel the legislature is trying to subvert the will of the people by fundamentally changing what they voted for. A similar skirmish is happening in Maine over the minimum wage, and progressives in both states are worried that their opponents are trying to delay or even reverse their remarkable success via ballot initiatives.

    "No legislature has inserted themselves in such a way as to extend timelines," said Jim Borghesani, director of communications for the Massachusetts campaign to legalize marijuana. "It's direct democracy by the voters, whether you like it or not."

    Massachusetts state lawmakers passed the bill in an informal session Wednesday with just a handful of lawmakers present. Lawmakers told the Boston Globe they wanted more time to set up the bureaucracy around the selling of marijuana. But legalization advocates note that Massachusetts's timeline to legalize marijuana matches up with other states that allow it.

    That the legislature is involved at all in setting up a timeline is especially frustrating to advocates, since the whole point of ballot initiatives is to go around the legislative body. And in a nation dominated by Republican legislatures (Massachusetts's is one of a handful controlled by Democrats), going around legislatures is something progressives have had a lot of success with in recent year (cont.)

    Somebody needs to sue these MA legislative assholes.
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2016
    macbill, Silat, grokit and 5 others like this.
  3. BabyFacedFinster

    BabyFacedFinster Capo di tutt'i capi

    Messages:
    754
    Agreed. Right now it seems like there is a lot of progressives saying they are upset, but no one is turning up the heat. My main concern with Mass. was the sneaky way it was handled. This was purposely planned and carried out in an underhanded fashion. They knew if it was publicized that this vote would occur, someone would step in and vote no, stopping the process. So it was done in hint, hint, wink ,wink fashion. They do need to be sued or some type of legislative review to hold their feet to the fire. Other prohibitionists are watching. The suits probably wouldn't amount to anything because I'm sure they have the law on their side, but perhaps other legislators will think twice before pulling these stunts that undo the will of the voters. Right now, it was accepted as business as usual.

    In fact, there is an article somewhere where the prohibitionists in Maine want to push legislators to adopt their own moratorium of several years. So people have already seen what happened in Mass. and are saying, well they were able to do it, so can we. So if anti-legalization loses in the polls, then they can convince legislation to "moratorium the fuck out of the new law " so that it never goes into effect. If you can pass one 6 month moratorium, then you can also pass 2 or 3 or 8 more moratoriums. There are a lot of sneaky shitheads out there trying to stop this at all costs.

    Unless we go on the offensive, they will begin to find a way. Another vulgar point is how the anti-legalization groups are exploiting children. Their claim is that they are fighting the laws because they worry about the children. I guess they believe that street dealers are more selective as to who they sell to versus state regulated dispensaries. The truth is that many of these people are lobbyists for big pharma, big alcohol, etc. They claim it is about safety, but in fact it is all about money. It is so fucking disgusting.

    No one seems to care that parents may have 6 packs of hard root beer with colorful labels sitting in their unsupervised refrigerators. There will be no moratorium on Anheusier- Busch.
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2016
    Baron23, Squiby, grokit and 2 others like this.
  4. OldNewbie

    OldNewbie Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    710
    There is a bit of a problem on this point. It's called standing. A particularized harm to an individual that gives the right to have your case be heard in the courts. Generally, the only one who could sue on a matter like this would be the top enforcement officer in the state.

    An example had to do with the complex history of same sex marriage in my state. At the end, there was a state Supreme Court decision saying an initiative keeping marriage between a man and a woman was constitutional. (There are two decisions at the state supreme court and this is the second and operative one.) A federal judge found the initiative's statute unconstitutional. The good officers of the state with the power (Governor and Attorney General) decided they would not appeal.

    Who can appeal?

    After much folderol and detour, the supreme Supreme Court found the state's sponsors of the initiative did not have standing when the State's officers did not act in the State's stead.

    In other words, a lawsuit is probably not going to end the lack of motivation on the part of MA's legislature. Not only would the members be immune from suit, but also it will have to be a state officer with the power to prosecute any suit. I assume they will make the same choice of the legislature for whatever reason. There seems no way to force them to act here. This is a political question. Those who are thwarting the will of the people need be removed from office by a vote. ​
     
  5. cybrguy

    cybrguy Patience Rewards

    Messages:
    4,395
    The good news is, he is outta work very soon.

    To be honest, I am a little surprised he wasn't nominated for AG. That would have been completely in keeping with his other nominations. Tho, as long as there was a segregationist bigot available I suppose he was good enough...

    The important question for this thread, however, is what will Sessions push regarding cannabis? His comments, like the one about the KKK, would surely suggest he wants to fuck with it...
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2016
    BabyFacedFinster likes this.
  6. CarolKing

    CarolKing Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur

    [​IMG]
    December 30, 2016
    Year in Review: Top 10 notable developments in the marijuana industry from 2016
    By Omar Sacirbey and Bart Schaneman

    In the annals of marijuana history, 2016 will most certainly stand out as a watershed year for the business of cannabis.

    From huge wins on Election Day and a flurry of investment activity to big courtroom victories and recreational legalization momentum in Canada, cannabis made headlines in the U.S. and
     
  7. Baron23

    Baron23 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,707
    First we must kill all the lawyers....well, except for you @OldNewbie ! haha
     
  8. Baron23

    Baron23 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,707
    Massachusetts governor signs bill delaying pot shop openings

    BOSTON — Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker signed a bill Friday aimed at delaying by up to six months the opening of marijuana shops in the state until mid-2018.

    An aide to the Republican governor said Baker shares the desire of state lawmakers to thoroughly prepare for the launch of a new industry distributing a controlled substance.

    Baker is “committed to adhering to the will of the voters by implementing the new law as effectively and responsibly as possible,” the governor’s communications director Lizzy Guyton said.

    Baker’s decision to sign the bill came as a small group of marijuana activists protested outside the Statehouse.

    Members of the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws faulted lawmakers for passing the bill during end-of-year sessions and said the delay “flies in the face of the will of the voters” who approved the ballot question legalizing pot.

    The House and Senate passed the bill Wednesday without a public hearing and without debate during informal sessions in both chambers. Only a handful of lawmakers were present.

    The ballot initiative that allows adults 21 and over to possess and use limited amounts of recreational marijuana and grow as many as a dozen pot plants in their homes was approved by 53.7 percent of voters on Nov. 8 and took effect Dec. 15.

    The action by lawmakers doesn’t change that. But what it’s almost certain to do is push back the timetable for opening retail marijuana stores from the beginning of 2018 until the middle of that year.

    Senate President Stan Rosenberg and House Speaker Robert DeLeo, both Democrats, said pushing back the deadlines will give lawmakers more time improve the law by considering issues that were not addressed in the ballot question.

    RachelRamone Donlan was among the dozen or so protesters outside the Statehouse. The 45-year-old Braintree resident said she and other cannabis activists are “100 percent outraged” that a small group of lawmakers undid the will of the people. She said she’s even angrier that Baker signed the bill.

    Donlan also warned of what she called a legal gray area that will confuse people.

    “We are in fear that people are going to get arrested in the next six months because there will be a time frame when it’s legal to possess it but you cannot buy it,” Donlan said. “We’re losing out on tax revenue and we’re fueling the black market.”

    Among the key deadlines that would be put off six months include the current March 1 deadline for state Treasurer Deb Goldberg to appoint a cannabis control commission to oversee the recreational marijuana market; a Sept. 15 deadline for the commission to approve detailed regulations; an Oct. 1 deadline for accepting applications for retail marijuana outlets, and the Jan. 1, 2018, deadline for licensing the first pot shops.

    For now, it remains illegal in Massachusetts to sell pot except to registered medical marijuana patients.

    This action is so outrageous and so flies in the face of direct democracy, that I posted the entire article. May the wrath of the MA voters descend on these venal, asshole politicians (perhaps along with a really bad case of chronic psoriasis! LOL).


    Also for your reading pleasure:

    4 Promising Cannabis Studies and Research from 2016


     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2016
    grokit, macbill, His_Highness and 2 others like this.
  9. MinnBobber

    MinnBobber Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,390
    .......................................
    anyone else unable to open this??
     
    Adobewan likes this.
  10. Squiby

    Squiby Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,687
    4 Promising Cannabis Studies and Research from 2016

    Appears to be linkless
     
    BD9 and Adobewan like this.
  11. Baron23

    Baron23 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,707
  12. macbill

    macbill Gregarious Misanthrope

    Messages:
    2,750
    Location:
    The Evergreen State
    Article on CBDs

    A powerful new form of medical marijuana, without the high

    “CBD has been a game-changer for medical marijuana,” says Martin Lee, the director of Project CBD, a Northern California nonprofit that promotes use of the compound. “Its safety and lack of psychoactivity undermines any argument that it should be illegal. It’s really shifted the national discussion on this issue.”
     
  13. cybrguy

    cybrguy Patience Rewards

    Messages:
    4,395
    This is actually a little bit of a concern for me as regards the future of legal cannabis. With some states already only allowing concentrates, and some only allowing CBD concentrates, there is a risk to those of us who's benefits are tied to THC. The concern with cannabis being an "inebriate" are poorly placed, I believe, and allow for a "teetotaler" kind of perspective that may still interfere with cannabis's acceptance around the country. Lets not forget that there are still 3 states that are dry (alcohol) by default, and counties that want an exception to that have to go through a lot of aggravation to overrule the states default prohibition. That may end up a model for some states acceptance (or lack there of) of cannabis.

    All that being said it is better to have CBD strains or even concentrates than nothing, but "permission to exclude" is not helpful in the effort towards more universal acceptance.
     
    His_Highness, Squiby and CarolKing like this.
  14. grokit

    grokit well-worn member

    Messages:
    11,742
    Location:
    the north
    Cannabis reform was going to be on shaky ground with either of these two candidates :2c:

    WikiLeaks Shows Hillary Clinton Was Against Pot Legalization
    In 'All Senses Of the Word'

    A longtime drug warrior, Clinton has softened her public positions on marijuana.
    But does she mean it?


    There isn't much to divine from John Podesta's hacked emails (published earlier this week by WikiLeaks) when it comes to Hillary Clinton's supposed evolution on marijuana legalization.

    But in an email circulated among senior Clinton campaign staffers concerned about the content of Clinton's paid corporate speeches and appearances—which includes an 80-page attachment detailing "a lot of policy positions that we should give an extra scrub"—a brief portion of Clinton's Q & A with Xerox CEO Ursula Burns in 2014 shows Clinton's staunch opposition to any form of marijuana legalization:

    URSULA BURNS: So long means thumbs up, short means thumbs down; or long means I support, short means I don't. I'm going to start with — I'm going to give you about ten long-shorts.

    SECRETARY CLINTON: Even if you could make money on a short, you can't answer short.

    URSULA BURNS: You can answer short, but you got to be careful about letting anybody else know that. They will bet against you. So legalization of pot?

    SECRETARY CLINTON: Short in all senses of the word. (emphasis added)

    That was in March 2014, and even if it's the briefest of exchanges, it says something that the Clinton campaign suspected this message of staunch prohibitionism needed "an extra scrub."

    The newly-leaked documents showing Clinton’s strong opposition to legalization in a private appearance, combined with comments from the candidate’s daughter Chelsea last month implying that marijuana use can lead to death, could present an added sense of urgency for Clinton to evolve on the question of ending prohibition prior to Election Day.

    Clinton was on the record opposing medical marijuana in 2007—she supported "research," but not decriminalization—but just three months after saying she opposed marijuana legalization "in all senses of the word," she said on a CNN town hall that "there should be availability (of marijuana) under appropriate circumstances." She also said she would allow Colorado and Washington—which had just fully legalized recreational use of marijuana for adults—to serve as "laboratories of democracy" and reserved the right to offer her opinion on the subject at an unspecified later date.

    Also in 2014, she offered the standard "gateway drug" trope as a defense of prohibition in a KPCC radio interview:

    I think the feds should be attuned to the way marijuana is still used as a gateway drug and how the drug cartels from Latin America use marijuana to get footholds in states, so there can't be a total absence of law enforcement, but what I want to see, and I think we should be much more focused on this, is really doing good research so we know what it is we're approving.

    The Hillary Clinton running for president in 2016—who had to "evolve" a number of her long-held policies and supposed principles just to make it through her bruising primary battle with Bernie Sanders—now fully supports both medical marijuana and the removal of the drug from the DEA's Schedule I classification.

    The question is, which Hillary Clinton should be believed?

    The lifelong drug warrior who as recently as 2011 seemed to misunderstand both prohibition and supply-and-demand when she said drug legalization was an impossibility "because there is just too much money in it"? Or the chastened Democratic presidential nominee hoping to energize the youth vote and perhaps even convince some libertarians she can be trusted in her promises regarding criminal justice reform?

    http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/14/wikileaks-hillary-clinton-against-pot
    http://www.marijuana.com/blog/news/2016/10/clinton-gave-thumbs-down-to-legal-marijuana-leak-shows/

    To see what else Hillary Clinton has said about cannabis law reform, check out
    Marijuana.com’s comprehensive guide to the candidates.


    :myday:
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2017
    His_Highness, t-dub, Scott A and 3 others like this.
  15. cybrguy

    cybrguy Patience Rewards

    Messages:
    4,395
    Obviously you have been consuming quite a bit. You seem to have missed the fact that Donald Trump won. Whatever Hillary's plans might have been they don't mean dick now. What matters is what Trump may or may not do...

    I have a very uncomfortable feeling based on who Donald is choosing that going forward the future of cannabis in the US is going to have some major roadblocks in its way...
     
    CarolKing likes this.
  16. grokit

    grokit well-worn member

    Messages:
    11,742
    Location:
    the north
    edit: You're kidding! Trump actually won :freak:?

    Who could the dems have run that wouldn't beat a reality show con-man? Lemme guess; was it the retread that lost the nomination over eight years ago, then became a war criminal in the meantime?

    As a cannabis patient, I have seen that recreational progress can actually impede existing medical users in the name of making a profit. So I am actually okay with both trump and hillary taking a pause.

    I am under no illusion that either one of these two tools would support laws freeing our sacred plant.

    No matter how much I consume :spliff:

    :myday:
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2017
    His_Highness, Adobewan and Baron23 like this.
  17. howie105

    howie105 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,105
    Like the old saying, goes two steps forward and one step back. Applied to legalization it would be disappointing but pot people are a determined lot.
     
  18. BabyFacedFinster

    BabyFacedFinster Capo di tutt'i capi

    Messages:
    754
    Cannabis never gets a free ride.
     
    His_Highness and howie105 like this.
  19. Baron23

    Baron23 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,707
    US Sen. Warren seeks to pull pot shops out of banking limbo

    BOSTON — As marijuana shops sprout in states that have legalized the drug, they face a critical stumbling block — lack of access to the kind of routine banking services other businesses take for granted.

    U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, is leading an effort to make sure vendors working with legal marijuana businesses, from chemists who test marijuana for harmful substances to firms that provide security, don’t have their banking services taken away.

    It’s part of a wider effort by Warren and others to bring the burgeoning $7 billion marijuana industry in from a fiscal limbo she said forces many shops to rely solely on cash, making them tempting targets for criminals (cont)
     
  20. howie105

    howie105 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,105
    If you have money and you can't bank it you have manage it some other way and that may mean doing something shady and/or off the books, which the suits don't want. So if the commercial operations can survive the changing of the guards in DC I suspect the suits will straighten things out, if for no other reason then to get their cut.
     
    His_Highness, GetLeft and grokit like this.
  21. Baron23

    Baron23 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,707
    Oh, I agree completely. Call me a cynic but I don't think politicians even scratch their ass unless its directly serves their self-interest. In this case, yes....at least one result of clearing banking hurdles for MMJ companies will be to ensure all taxes are properly collected...mostly so they can then be doled out to politico's favorite voting groups.

    Still, would be a very good think overall for MMJ industry.
     
    looney2nz, His_Highness and grokit like this.
  22. grokit

    grokit well-worn member

    Messages:
    11,742
    Location:
    the north
    Remember the rethuglicans had to sue to get obama's executive order overturned that would have made check-cashing outlets and pawn shops (among others) unbankable as well, if not they would be paying their rent/mortgage in cash too; this obviously affects the chain up to landlords banks tax collectors etc.

    Obvious shenanigans on both sides, the race to see who gets the biggest cut off the top of our plant :evil:

    :myday:
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2017
    His_Highness, howie105 and CarolKing like this.
  23. grokit

    grokit well-worn member

    Messages:
    11,742
    Location:
    the north
    Cannabis ingredient to be classed as medicine in UK
    The move by the UK regulator raises concerns that the public could get mixed messages about
    the safety and legality of cannabis.


    [​IMG]
    Products that contain a cannabis-based ingredient called cannabidiol, or CBD, are to be classed as medicines by the UK medicines regulator from this year.

    The Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) said it had looked at CBD because a number of manufacturing companies had been making "overt medicinal claims" about products.

    Cannabis has two key ingredients - THC and CBD. The THC gets you stoned, and it can also make you anxious and psychotic.

    But, isolated, CBD has the opposite effect, often calming people down - which is why some people are using it in small doses as medicine.

    While some users are pleased that CBDs are finally being recognised as medicine, others worry about their supply.

    ...
     
  24. Baron23

    Baron23 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,707
    Marijuana advocates to hand out joints at Trump inauguration

    WASHINGTON — A group of marijuana legalization advocates plan to hand out thousands of joints during President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration.

    Pro-marijuana organization DCMJ will begin distributing the 4,200 joints 8 a.m. on Jan. 20 on the west side of Dupont Circle. The participants will then walk to the National Mall.

    At 4 minutes and 20 seconds into Trump’s speech, DCMJ founder Adam Eidinger says protesters will light up.

    The giveaway is legal as long as it’s done on District of Columbia land. Those smoking on federal land risk arrest.

    Eidinger says the group wants to send a message that the federal government should legalize cannabis.

    Marijuana advocates are concerned about what actions attorney general nominee Sen. Jeff Sessions would take on the issue. Sessions has previously spoken out against marijuana legalization.
     
    t-dub, grokit and OldNewbie like this.
  25. howie105

    howie105 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,105
    So how many smokers would it take to roll 4.200 joints? Wonder if it is a worlds record?
     
    grokit likes this.

Support FC, visit our trusted friends and sponsors