Original Post: Cannabis Now: Could Medical Caregivers Help Avoid a Cannabis Shortage in Michigan?
[Canniseur: The regulators in the state of Michigan are still sticking their collective heads in some very dark and dank places. It might seem from the outside that ‘regulators’ are thwarting an open market. Open as in, the normal economics of a market would govern supply. The reality is, this more about the lack of knowledge and experience. They need to look at the alcoholic beverage industry as a model for cannabis industry.]
The adult-use cannabis market in Michigan officially opened for business this morning, Dec. 1.
A year has come and gone since Michigan voters passed Proposal 1, making the Wolverine State the tenth in the nation to legalize adult-use cannabis. Just 10 days after the law was verified, it became legal for adults in Michigan to possess 2.5 ounces of cannabis in public and 10 ounces at home. However, it has taken a year to get a licensed retail distribution system ready to go — and just barely, at that.
The only places selling cannabis to adults today in Michigan are medical marijuana dispensaries who have been approved for recreational sales. In fact, only three Michigan dispensaries are licensed to sell pot to adults today, according to the Detroit Metro Times, and they’re all in Ann Arbor. These dispensaries are now going to be able to sell products that have sat for 30 days or more on their medical shelves to any person over 21 years of age.
This strategy has an obvious dilemma: there will likely be big supply shortages in the adult-use cannabis industry. It’s ramping up to be a less than spectacular start.
But there’s a group of people who could solve the problem. They are legally growing more cannabis than they need, and until recently, Michigan let them sell to dispensaries.
The Plight of Medical Cannabis Caregivers in Michigan
Read the rest of the story here:
Could Medical Caregivers Help Avoid a Cannabis Shortage in Michigan? was posted on Cannabis Now.
Original Post: Cannabis Now: Is ‘Smokable Hemp’ Legal?
[Canniseur: This is a conundrum. The real question is; “Is cannabis sativa really cannabis sativa”? The answer should be obvious, but it’s not. The federal government needs to pull its collective head out its collective nether region and figure out a way to either de-schedule cannabis entirely or move it to at least Schedule 3. It should just be removed. It’s starting to get silly and this article shows why. Attorneys will have a field day.]
When the federal Farm Bill passed last December, it’s doubtful that its crafters — like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell — anticipated what we are now witnessing. In convenience stores, smoke shops and truck stops across the country, what is to all outward appearance marijuana bud is freely and openly for sale. To the eyes as well as the nose, this stuff is marijuana: fragrant flower-tops, sticky with resin. There’s only one real difference: it doesn’t get you high.
While it may be rich in the non-intoxicating cannabinoid CBD, it contains less than 0.3% THC — not nearly enough to feel high. This makes it “hemp” under the law — and, its purveyors insist, therefore perfectly legal.
And so far, the courts agree with them.
Read the rest of this story on Cannabis Now
Is ‘Smokable Hemp’ Legal? was posted on Cannabis Now.
Original Post: Cannabis Now: Advocates Push Workers’ Right to Cannabis Use
[Canniseur: The courts are finally starting to turn around on the question of workers rights within legal medical or adult-use cannabis. 15 States have made progress, while California, Michigan, Oregon, or Washington do not have protections in place.]
Advocates increasingly assert that cannabis legalization is not fully realized unless workers are guaranteed their right employment even if they partake of the herb off-hours. Some states are finally taking measures to rein in the use of urine test results as an excuse to fire or turn down job applicants.
If you use cannabis on your own time in a state where it is legal, should that be grounds for terminating your employment or rejecting your application for a job? Advocates are starting to say no, and demanding action to protest workers’ rights to use cannabis without the fear of the sack and unemployment.
Some states have already made progress in this direction. Yet California, which led the way toward opening legal space for cannabis with the Propositio 215 medical marijuana initiative in 1996, is not among them. Neither 215 nor the Prop 64 adult-use legalization initiative exactly 20 years later provided any such protections.
California Out of the Vanguard
California’s Supreme Court actually ruled on the question in 2008, finding that Prop 215 does not protect workers’ rights. The high court dismissed a suit brought by Gary Ross, an Air Force veteran who suffered from a back injury sustained during his military service. Ross sued under the state’s Fair Employment & Housing Act (FEHA), charging that he had been wrongfully denied employment by RagingWire Telecommunications after testing positive for cannabis use. The court found that 215 did not create a general right to use medical marijuana, but only protected patients from criminal prosecution.
Later that year, the State Legislature passed a law to correct this situation, making it illegal for employers to discriminate against workers in non-safety-sensitive jobs for using medical marijuana. However, it was vetoed by then-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The California chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) has launched a campaign to instate employment protections for cannabis users.
Progress in 15 States
Fortunately, things are looking a little better elsewhere in the United States. Fifteen states have passed laws making it illegal for an employer to discriminate against either an employee or job applicant who uses medical marijuana as permitted by state law. These states are Arkansas, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and West Virginia.
In June, Nevada became the first state to actually ban pre-employment cannabis testing altogether — for workers not in public safety positions, an inevitable exception. The law was signed by Gov. Steve Sisolak and will take effect next year.
In Maine, which voted to legalize adult-use cannabis in the same 2016 elections that California and Nevada did, employers are not allowed to discriminate based on cannabis use. This was written into the text of the Pine Tree State’s 2002 medical marijuana law. However, there are no laws that directly address drug testing.
The New York City Council also passed a measure this April that bars employers from requiring job applicants to pass a cannabis screening test as a condition of employment.
There is likewise a sense of the tide turning on the judicial front. After years of upholding employee firings for use of cannabis even under state medical marijuana programs, the courts are finally starting to turn around on the question. The rights of Massachusetts medical patients were upheld in state court last year, as were those of patients in Rhode Island and Connecticut.
In February of this year, another such victory was reported from Arizona — this time in the federal courts. Carol Whitmire, a former Arizona Walmart employee and card-holding medical marijuana patient who was fired after testing positive for cannabis, won a wrongful termination suit in the U.S. district court in Phoenix.
A remedy from Capitol Hill may also be in the works. Legislation introduced in the House of Representatives this year would protect the jobs of federal employees who use cannabis in states where their use is currently legal. The Fairness in Federal Drug Testing Under State Laws Act would prohibit cannabis drug-testing “from being used as the sole factor to deny or terminate federal employment for civilian positions at executive branch agencies if the individual is in compliance with the marijuana laws in their state of residence.”
And the Golden State, which has long been at the forefront of expanding freedom for cannabis users, may soon be catching up with Nevada, its supposedly more conservative neighbor to the east. California NORML asserts: “Employment drug testing has been shown in federal studies not to improve worker safety, but it’s a great way to discriminate against cannabis consumers. We hope to sponsor a bill that will truly make marijuana legal for all adults and educate unions and employers about the needlessness of drug testing.”
Advocates Push Workers’ Right to Cannabis Use was posted on Cannabis Now.
Original Post: Cannabis Now: South Dakota Tribe Sues USDA Over Right to Grow Hemp
[Canniseur: USDA is foot-dragging! It sure seems like all Federal departments are in chaos, which is a logical outcome from having a president that thrives on chaos and lies. Get it together, it’s hemp!]
One Native American tribe heads to court to demand the right to cultivate low-THC cannabis and to force the USDA to live up to its regulatory responsibilities under the 2018 Farm Bill.
The federal bureaucracy hasn’t yet caught up with the law where hemp cultivation and commerce are concerned — leaving a lot of would-be entrepreneurs and enterprises in the lurch.
Legislation is now pending on Capitol Hill that calls upon the Food & Drug Administration to finally regulate CBD products, addressing a dilemma that has been outstanding since hemp-derived CBD was legalized under last year’s Farm Bill. The failure of the FDA to create regulations for CBD as a food additive or drug means many such products actually remain illegal — despite the clear will of Congress.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has also failed to bring its regulations into conformity with the Farm Bill. The USDA in late May issued a memo establishing protocols for interstate commerce in hemp. But it has still failed to provide any legal clarity on the question of hemp cultivation, including on Native American tribal lands.
Given the unique jurisdictional status of such lands, it is the USDA that has the authority to permit and oversee such cultivation. Its failure to issue regulations on the matter is another legal hindrance to Native American cannabis cultivation.
Now the USDA is under pressure from litigation. The Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe has launched suit in a South Dakota federal district court, seeking to force the USDA to approve its plan to regulate hemp production on tribal lands — or get out of the way.
Bureaucracy Bottlenecks Tribal Sovereignty
Under provisions of the Farm Bill, states must submit their plans for hemp cultivation to the USDA for approval before planting can begin. For South Dakota, this doesn’t really matter anyway, as Gov. Kristi Noem in March vetoed a bill that would have allowed hemp cultivation in the state. The good news is that since Indian reservations are considered sovereign entities under federal law (just like states), they may apply separately to cultivate even if the state they are situated in doesn’t allow it.
The bad news is that the USDA hasn’t issued its own regulations for approval of such plans, meaning everything is at a standstill.
According to the Farm Bill, both state and tribal hemp plans must be approved by USDA within 60 days of being submitted. The USDA received the Santee Sioux plan back on March 8, and the tribe made clear that it had already invested money in anticipation of planting a hemp crop in 2019. The tribe says the USDA’s inaction on the plan places it at jeopardy of losing a revenue source it counted on.
“A delay in approval of the tribal plan and unlawfully withholding tribal authority curtails receipt of the tribal revenue from hemp production at grave cost to tribal members, putting tribal members’ health, safety, and welfare at risk,” the lawsuit states, according to the Argus Leader in Sioux Falls.
Instead of approval, the tribe received a letter dated April 24 from Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue, saying that no plans would be approved until the USDA established regulations to oversee hemp cultivation and that these regs are not expected to be completed until this fall.
On June 6, the case was dealt a setback when Judge Karen Schreier in Sioux Falls denied the tribe’s request for a preliminary injunction that would have allowed cultivation to commence. The Santee Sioux must now wait until the case is resolved or until the USDA approves the tribe’s production plan, Sioux Falls’ KSFY reported.
The court concluded that the Farm Bill “provides exclusive authority to the Secretary to issue rules and regulations” relating to hemp. The court continued: “A harmonious reading of the statute lends to the likelihood that the 60-day window to approve or deny a plan does not begin until regulations are promulgated by the USDA.”
The USDA on June 24 had a series of “summary descriptions” of pending regulations published in the Federal Register. Among these was “Establishment of a Domestic Hemp Production Program.” It noted: “This action is required to implement provisions of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (Farm Bill).” The timetable for this regulation indicated that an “Interim Final Rule” would be ready by August — too late in the year for the Santee Sioux to plant a hemp crop.
First Crop Was Burned — And Not the Good Way
The Flandreau Santee Sioux voted to legalize cultivation and use of cannabis on their tribal lands in June 2015. Later that year, tribal leaders announced plans for the addition of a cannabis-themed resort to the reservation’s successful casino. Marijuana grown on the rez was to be available in a new nightclub and “smoking lounge.” Plans for “social consumption” of cannabis were being pioneered by the Santee Sioux before various states and municipalities around the country started pursuing the idea. “We want it to be an adult playground,” tribal president Anthony Reider told the Associated Press at the time.
But that November, the Tribal Council voted to temporarily suspend their marijuana operation. Immediately after the vote, the tribe’s first cannabis crop was burned in the fields.
The decision was taken after South Dakota officials, including then-Attorney General Marty Jackley, warned that legalization on the reservation would only be seen as applying to tribal members. Therefore, non-tribal members using cannabis on the reservation risked prosecution under state law. Rather than risk a confrontation with state authorities, the tribe agreed to suspend the project.
However, the move was explicitly seen as a tactical retreat. Tribal attorney Seth C. Pearman said in a statement, published by Indian Country Today: “After government-to-government consultation with the United States, the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe is temporarily suspending its marijuana cultivation and distribution facilities. This suspension is pivotal to the continued success of the marijuana venture… The Tribe will continue to consult with the federal and state governments and hopes to be granted parity with states that have legalized marijuana. The Tribe intends to successfully participate in the marijuana industry, and Tribal leadership is undaunted by this brief sidestep.”
After this setback, hopes were revived for reservation hemp cultivation after the passage of the Farm Bill last December — only to be met with frustration yet again, this time by USDA foot-dragging.
The Santee Sioux are certainly owed a little bit of long-delayed justice from Uncle Sam. Their history is the all-too-familiar one of expropriation of their traditional lands, followed by forced relocation.
The Santee Sioux briefly made news in December 2012, when tribal members made a horseback pilgrimage to Mankato, Minnesota. The cross-country ride was made to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the 1862 mass public hanging there of 38 Dakota Sioux men, for crimes allegedly committed in that year’s U.S.-Dakota War, the largest mass execution in U.S. history. The execution order was personally signed by President Abraham Lincoln. After the war, the Dakota were pushed west from their Minnesota homeland and became known as the Santee Sioux. They settled at Flandreau, and a second Santee Sioux Reservation in Nebraska.
TELL US, who do you think should be in charge of regulating hemp production?
The post South Dakota Tribe Sues USDA Over Right to Grow Hemp appeared first on Cannabis Now.
South Dakota Tribe Sues USDA Over Right to Grow Hemp was posted on Cannabis Now.
Original Post: Cannabis Now: Inside the Free Speech Battle Over Vancouver’s 420 Festivities
[Canniseur: Civil disobedience & Canada – 2 phrases one doesn’t hear too often in the same sentence. It’s fascinating to see how legalized cannabis in Canada is getting played out. There will be lessons learned for Countries following their path to legal cannabis.]
Vancouver’s first 420 event of the post-legalization era in Canada is, paradoxically, turning into a fight over free speech. City authorities claim the event has gotten out of control and must come to an end — or at least be significantly reined in. Organizers, in turn, are asserting their right to hold the event without a permit, just as they always have.
This year’s Vancouver 420 will be the 25th time the festival has been held since the event began as a pro-legalization rally outside the Vancouver Art Gallery. Since 2016, the event has been held at Sunset Beach, a waterfront park, where it attracts tens of thousands of revelers, with some 40,000 attendees congregating during the peak at 4:20 p.m. and up to 100,000 over the course of the eight-hour bacchanalia.
But the Vancouver Park Board is saying the unpermitted fun must come to an end and has thrown up a multitude of bureaucratic obstacles. In the most recent development, at an April 15 meeting, Park Board commissioner John Coupar raised a motion to ask event organizers to cancel the planned performance by hip hop giants Cypress Hill. That motion passed, and the organizers are now on notice.
“Cancel Cypress Hill, because that’s a big escalation,” Coupar warned organizers, speaking to Vancouver’s CityNews. “It’s almost like they’re saying, ‘OK, you think it was big last year? We’re going to really make it bigger and there’s nothing you can do about it.’”
‘Largest Act of Civil Disobedience in Canadian History’
David Malmo-Levine, longtime Vancouver cannabis activist and one of the event organizers, struck a defiant tone when reached by Cannabis Now — and he was particularly enthused about Cypress Hill.
“It’s the first time we have a major act performing,” he says. “It’s on a Saturday, so we expect a massive turnout. The parks board is the right wing of Vancouver politics and they’re losing their sh*t over the fact that they can’t shut us down and we refuse to pay for policing.”
That demand from the city, for event organizers to pick up the tab for policing, has also placed them at odds with authorities. The city additionally wants a halt to illicit-market sales of cannabis products on the site. Some 300 unpermitted cannabis-product vendors are expected at the event — and the park board has threatened to shut them all down.
But Malmo-Levine believes authorities will be overwhelmed by sheer numbers. “They like to pretend that cops can shut it down,” he says. “There aren’t enough cops and jails and paddy wagons in Western Canada to shut it down. Realistically, this could be the largest act of civil disobedience in Canadian history, and possibly a demonstration of the strength of the black market to assert its right to exist.”
Another Parks Board commissioner, Tricia Barker, is openly saying that this year’s 420 event will be the last to be held in a city park. And ironically, she is pointing to cannabis legalization as one of the reasons why. Both city police and British Columbia’s Community Safety Unit are gearing up to wipe out the illicit market.
“Everyone is getting used to the new laws; with another year under their belt they just won’t be allowing all the illegal sales that happen” at 420, she told the Vancouver Sun. “By next year they will be ready and there will be no permitted seller of cannabis at this event.”
Protest or Festival?
Much of the controversy hinges on whether 420 is a “protest” or a “festival,” with the event’s website splitting it down the middle by calling it a “protest festival.”
Organizers say that as a protest, the event is not on the hook for covering the costs of its own policing. But the parks board says the event is no longer a “protest,” even if it began as one way back in 1995.
Barker said plans to bring in Cypress Hill are actually working against the event. “It’s gone now from being a protest to a festival, and I think they were foolish to do this because it makes our point stronger, that it’s not a protest,” Barker told the Sun.
She also asserted that the fact it is no longer illegal to smoke cannabis in Canada weakens the event’s claim to be a protest, protected under the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. “The bottom line is it’s legal now and you can’t smoke in a park. They’ve run out of arguments.”
British Columbia’s Public Safety Minister Mike Farnworth weighed in on the side of the Park Board. He told Vancouver’s CityNews: “This is an annual thing and we’ve seen it the last number of year and my expectation is, you know what, it really should change to meet the times. The fact [is] that we now have legalization in this country.”
The Park Board last year billed organizers $64,870 for the clean-up and other costs related to the event — and despite having signed no permit, they paid up most of it (minus a retroactive permit fee and some other contested items). However, organizers refused to pay an additional $170,796 the city has demanded to cover the costs of policing the event.
Organizers are likely to be hit with similar sums after this year’s 420 — to similar results. “Protests do not pay for policing costs,” organizer Dana Larsen told Canada’s Global News. “The idea that you can’t hold a protest in Vancouver unless you give a huge amount of money to the police kind of goes against the idea of a democracy.”
Even some outside the bureaucracy aren’t buying 420 Vancouver’s argument. “Protests don’t have booths,” Kris Sims of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation told Global News. “They don’t have commerce tents, they don’t sell t-shirts, they don’t have cookies for sale. This is a festival, and it should be treated as a festival, and by that I mean taxpayers should not be footing the bill for this.”
Between the costs controversy and the pledged illicit-market crackdown, the Park Board is adamant that this year’s 420 will be the last to be held in a Vancouver park. “We do not allow smoking in parks [and] we will never, ever permit this event,” commissioner Barker told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
But Malmo-Levine, for one, says the event remains a protest despite Canada’s legalization of cannabis. “It is still quite illegal for the young to use and the poor to grow and deal,” he says. “They only legalized half our community. Until it’s as legal as coffee beans, it’s a protest.”
TELL US, have you ever been to a cannabis protest?
The post Inside the Free Speech Battle Over Vancouver’s 420 Festivities appeared first on Cannabis Now.
Inside the Free Speech Battle Over Vancouver’s 420 Festivities was posted on Cannabis Now.