Double the Dollars: Colorado Recreational Marijuana Prices Soar

1/08/2014

by

January 1st was a significant date for recreational marijuana use in the United States, as residents of Colorado became the first to be able to legally purchase their pot from brick and mortar storefronts. Long lines greeted those who came out to buy on the first day and demand has been so high that some recreational businesses had to close their doors within the first week of legal sales because they ran out of product.

The high demand for marijuana has had a larger effect than supply shortages: it has also affected the price for recreational consumers. At the end of the first week legal sales, recreational pot prices are around $45 for an eighth of an ounce—nearly double the price of medicinal marijuana, which has been selling for $25 for an eighth. In Colorado, sales are limited to one ounce per person, which would cost about $400 dollars.

“That’s just supply and demand,” said Aaron Smith, executive director of the National Cannabis Industry Association in an interview with Bloomberg. “As more businesses open and the businesses get a sense of what the demand is and are able to meet it, the prices will go back down.”

Brooke Gehring, owner of Patients Choice of Colorado told Bloomberg, “We probably won’t truly understand what that demand is for another three to six months.”

Another factor in the price is state and local taxes that have been levied on recreational marijuana sales, which are around 21 percent. However, the price of recreational sales is comparable to black market prices and, while some buyers have grumbled about the price, many have not been deterred. The in-store experience and peace of mind from purchasing marijuana legally are playing a large role in converting buyers from black market to legal sales.

Initial reports show that there have been approximately $5 million in recreational sales. According to Bloomberg Colorado expects $578 million in retail sales per year, which would yield approximately $67 million in tax revenue.

There is growing support for legalization nationwide, however tax revenues similar to those in Colorado are likely the strongest arguments for legalization when it comes to convincing state governments to reconsider their position on marijuana.

In the meantime, residents of Colorado will be toking and hoping that prices drop to something similar to medical marijuana by the end of the year.

Sources:

http://www.insidecounsel.com/2014/01/06/marijuana-prices-skyrocket-in-colorado-with-recrea
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-06/pot-prices-double-as-colorado-begins-recreational-sales.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/06/colorado-marijuana-shortage_n_4550866.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-31/pot-shops-in-denver-open-door-to-578-million-in-sales.html

End

A Tale of Two Systems: Recreational & Medical Cannabis in Washington State

1/03/2014

by

The deadline for submitting applications to grow, produce and/or sell marijuana in Washington has passed and the state liquor control board (WSLCB) has reported receiving over 2,500 applications. Out of those applications no more than 334 retail stores would be allowed statewide, while restrictions on growers will center around a cap on the number of square feet used to grow and produce marijuana products.

With retail outlets slated to start to open in May or June of this year, questions about the necessity of medical dispensaries, which are considered parallel distribution networks, have arisen. Specifically, why should the state continue to support a largely unregulated and tax free medicinal market when another marketplace – that allows the state more regulatory controls, along with the ability to levy taxes – is providing a similar service.

Indeed, a state committee has recommended that the state shut down medical dispensaries and restrict access for patients. These restrictions would ban patients from growing their own marijuana and start to pay taxes on their medical purchases. Medicinal patients would also have to join a patient registry and doctors would be discouraged from primarily providing services to medicinal patients. Finally, the legal possession limit for medicinal patients would be severely restricted. If the recommendation is followed, dispensaries would begin to shut down in 2015.

Another factor in this decision is the federal government, which still considers marijuana as an illegal drug. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has stated they won’t interfere in states where marijuana is legal, except in certain circumstances, most particularly in those where they consider the industry to lack adequate regulation. Eliminating medicinal dispensaries would go a long way towards mollifying federal regulators.

Of course, supporters of the medicinal system in are against these changes. For one, the medicinal system in Washington is working and has been for 15 years. Other concerns center around access to adequate quantities and powerful enough strains, some of which can be catered to specific patient needs.

However, it looks bad for dispensaries in Washington. The lack of regulation and tax income, coupled with the fact that patients will still have access to marijuana, likely makes a strong argument against dispensaries in the minds of state legislators. If the state decides to do away with the medicinal system, Washington dispensaries would be shuttered in favor of retail outlets, leaving those who have invested time and money in the medicinal market out of business.

SOURCES:

http://blog.seattlepi.com/marijuana/2013/10/21/recommendations-for-washingtons-medical-marijuana-system-released-public-comment-next/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/11/21/with-pot-legal-the-days-of-washingtons-medical-marijuana-dispensaries-are-numbered/
http://www.columbian.com/news/2013/nov/12/marijuana-stores-clark-county-washington/
http://blog.seattlepi.com/marijuana/2013/12/18/county-by-county-how-marijuana-applications-are-shaking-out-so-far/#18413101=0&18853103=0&17959105=0&17011107=0

End

Undefined Definitions: Marketing Cannabis under I-502

12/09/2013

by

With the window for marijuana retailer license applications coming to a close, it’s time for business owners to start (if they haven’t already) thinking about advertising. However, much like everything else related to the implementation of I-502, the Washington State Liquor Control Board (WSLCB) has laid out guidelines for how retail outlets can advertise.

A retail outlet is only allowed one sign that is purely for the purpose of identifying the store: it can include the store name, but can’t contain anything marijuana related. In fact, retail outlets won’t be allowed to “display marijuana or marijuana products in a manner that is visible to the general public,” per the WSLCB. So consumers won’t see, for example, a business logo that incorporates a marijuana leaf. The signage guidelines are fairly clear.

However, that is where the clarity ends. The WSLCB has also laid out guidelines for advertising and, unlike the signage guidelines, they are ambiguous and open to wide interpretation. The guidelines, which relate to advertising statements and illustrations, fall into four distinct categories:

Statements that are “False or Misleading”

This seems to be a catch all guideline. What constitutes a false and misleading statement is open to many different interpretations. Some possible scenarios would be if advertising promises some sort of lifestyle change, or a change in a consumer’s fortune. However, this guideline looks to primarily give law enforcement leeway if they decide to target and prosecute a specific retail outlet.

Statements that “Promote Overconsumption”

Overconsumption is a tricky thing to define, especially since recreational users have been pushing that boundary for years. The definition depends upon someone’s tolerance or personal views and this may be problematic if they aren’t in line with Washington State’s. In the end, this probably relates more to responsible use rather than any health problems related to overconsumption.

Statements that Marijuana has “Curative or Therapeutic Effects”

This particular guideline seems a bit confusing, since marijuana is widely known to have curative and therapeutic effects. Medicinal marijuana has been legal in Washington State for some time now and has received lots of press coverage. Presumably, this is to pre-empt any attempts at marketing retail marijuana as a home remedy or supplement. It may also serve as a means to avoid undercutting the medicinal market.

Illustrations that “Depict a Child or may be Appealing to Children”

Most people would probably agree that children shouldn’t be included on any marijuana packaging or advertisements, but defining what appeals to a child will be difficult. Who will decide what appeals to children—will it be the courts or law enforcement; will there need to be an actual example of a child who was seduced by marijuana related imagery? It remains to be seen.

This facet of the I-502 implementation will be interesting to watch, as the guidelines leave room for vendors to push the definitions of what is allowed to their limits. The general nature of the guidelines also gives prosecutors and law enforcement latitude when it comes to enforcing the guidelines. In the end, these guidelines will only be defined by the courts, once lawsuits have been filed against retail vendors.

 

End

New Rules Proposed for Washington State’s Medical Marijuana System

11/15/2013

by

With retail sales of marijuana set to begin in a matter of weeks, Washington State’s Medical Marijuana Work Group, which is comprised of the Washington State Liquor Control Board, the Washington State Department of Health and the Washington State Department of Revenue, released new recommendations relating to the sale and distribution of medicinal marijuana within the state.

The recommendations arise from state lawmakers’ concerns that Washington’s current medicinal marijuana regulations (or lack thereof) will make the taxation and regulation of the recreational marijuana market much more difficult, something that may negatively affect the rollout of the recreational retail market.

The new recommendations are broken into eight parts:

Age limits: the recommendations would allow adults between 18 and 20 to have access to medicinal marijuana with authorization. It would also allow minors to have access to medicinal marijuana with the consent of a parent or guardian. Recreational users must be 21 years of age to possess and use marijuana under I-502.

Authorization for medicinal use: the recommendations call for a mandatory registry for both patients and designated providers. It would allow tax exempt purchases from retail stores, in lieu of a dispensary.

Regulations for health care professionals: these regulations would prohibit practices from primarily authorizing the use of medicinal marijuana. It would also make demonstrating a medical necessity far more difficult.

Collective gardens: the recommendations call for the elimination of collective gardens.

Possession amounts: the amount of medicinal marijuana that a patient or designated provider could possess would be reduced and home growing would be eliminated. The new recommendations would allow for patients or providers to possess three ounces, down from twenty-four ounces. I-502 allows recreational users to possess one ounce of marijuana.

Location requirements: location requirements wouldn’t change as they would be in line with the requirements currently in place for retail locations as laid out by I-502.

Producing, processing and retail licensing requirements: the recommendations would establish a single system for licensing both medicinal and recreational processors, which is in contrast to I-502’s three tier system.

Taxation: the recommendation is that medicinal marijuana would be taxed the same as recreational marijuana; however, patients on the recommended registry would be exempt from taxes when purchasing from a retail seller.

While supporters of recreational and medicinal marijuana share a desire to see both systems succeed, there are some concerns amongst the medicinal community. Are there too many new recommendations and in what fashion will they be applied? Will the increased regulation and lowering of the medicinal possession limit make it more difficult for medical patients to get access? And, finally, could a mandatory registry for medicinal patients make medicinal patients easy targets for law enforcement?

A deadline for comments on the recommendations has passed and the final recommendations are due before state legislature by the end of the year. Once the recommendations have been accepted, the changes are set to go into effect January 1st, 2015.

End

Rebranding “Marijuana” (A Look at the Word’s Etymology)

9/25/2013

by

To this day, newspapers, cable news networks, and law makers all use the word ‘Marijuana’. In New York State, the proposed Assembly Bill: AB06357A uses ‘marihuana’ through out, along with a number of other currently proposed bills on the legalization of medical cannabis.

This is a pet peeve of mine and I’m sure I’m not alone.

The AP Style book reads ‘marijuana not marihuana‘. The AP Style book is used by editors and copywriters nationwide on a daily basis. Some might say it’s an editor’s bible.

Proponents of cannabis legalization have definitely fought an uphill battle. It’s evident that scientific facts only get you so far, which, if you’re a level-headed rational human being living in the free world, is utter bullshit.

With the cannabis industry growing at a rapid pace, what can we do to make the industry and cannabis a little more palpable to the American public?

For one, reverting back to using ‘cannabis’ in the headline and in the fucking legislation would be a start.

‘Cannabis’ etymology states that it’s Latin stemming from the Greek kánnabis.

So what about ‘marijuana’ etymology? Well, it’s rich with history and interesting to say the least. It can be traced back to Mexican Spanish and Chinese languages, Alan Piper lays it out in his July 2005 paper titled ‘The Mysterious Origins of the Word ‘Marihuana.’

But the word ‘marijuana’ has a stigma to it. In Matt Thompson’s NPR piece ‘The Mysterious History of ‘Marijuana’ he points to a 1905 L.A. Times article in which a man attacked and killed a policemen all while under the influence of a ‘marihuana cigarette.’ Thompson mentions that this gave the weed from Mexico a new, polarizing identity. If you’ve ever been under the influence of a ‘marihuana cigarette,’ the claim that this act of violence was the ‘marihuana’s’ fault might not sit well with you.

Prior to the L.A. Times piece, the word ‘cannabis’ was used in medical journals and according to ‘The Origins of Cannabis Prohibition in California’ by Dale H. Gieringer the first known reference to the Mexican Spanish term was in an 1887 San Francisco Call article.

So, was the 1905 L.A. Times crime report the start of the William Randolph Hearst’s agenda that brought the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 fruition? Or was it the political agenda of the xenophobic W.A.S.P. of the early 1900s?

In the late 1800’s to the early 1900’s Mexico was in turmoil. The Porfiriato era lasted from 1876-1910 and led to the Mexican Revolution from 1910-1920. It’s thought that during this time more than 1 million Mexicans sought refuge in the United States. Some Americans saw these refugees as a threat, many considered them as ‘undesirables’. These Mexican refugees brought a weed with them, ‘mariguan’.

Even if you’re not privy to the xenophobic free market manipulation history and clusterfuck that surrounds the word ‘marijuana,’ when you hear it on CNN or read it on the front page of the New York Times you might have an uncomfortable thought of Nancy Reagan saying ‘program’ at the 1988 World Series.

It’s time to rethink and rebrand the terms used when it comes to this industry. Why “cannabis?” Simply put, “cannabis” is clinical, palpable, most of all doesn’t come with a history of fraud and racism.

End

Checks and Balances: Financial Regulation and the Cannabis Industry

9/21/2013

by

Why can’t owners of cannabis businesses cut a check? Because they don’t have a checkbook.

On September 10th, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing that investigated conflicts between state and federal marijuana laws. The hearing came right on the heels of new guidelines for the enforcement of federal marijuana laws, which the Department of Justice released at the end of August, and addressed the issue of marijuana and banking.

Under current federal law, it is illegal for banks to open accounts or issue credit cards to cannabis businesses. Banks that do choose to process money from marijuana sales run the risk of losing the protection of the FDIC, along with the possibility of prosecution for racketeering.

And while the DOJ relaxed its stance on marijuana enforcement in states where the drug is legalized, it did reserve the right to prosecute marijuana crimes that revolve around the flow of money, particularly to cartels and other criminal organizations.

That poses a serious problem for marijuana businesses which are forced to operate on a cash only basis.

King County Sheriff John Urquhart was a member of one of the panels that took part in the Judiciary Committee hearing and he spoke to the issue in his testimony, “Under federal law, it is illegal for banks to open checking, savings, or credit card accounts for marijuana businesses. The result is that marijuana stores will be operated as cash-only businesses, creating two big problems for us: (1) Cash-only businesses are prime targets for armed robberies; and (2) cash-only businesses are very difficult to audit, leading to possible tax evasion, wage theft, and the diversion of resources we need to protect public safety.”

Deputy Attorney General James Cole, author of the DOJ memo clarifying its position on the enforcement of marijuana laws, admitted that the lack of banking options for marijuana businesses was something that “we need to deal with.” Cole emphasized that “there are no perfect solutions here,” and that it was something that the DOJ was working on.

The question is how long will the DOJ and the Senate Judiciary Committee be working on it. With legalized sales of marijuana set to begin in early 2014, time is of the essence. It is unlikely that banks will start to offer services to marijuana businesses until there has been a clear decision on the part of either the DOJ or congress.

Photo Credit: Sean Dunbar

End

Federal Government Won’t Interfere with State Marijuana Laws (For Now)

9/13/2013

by

The Department of Justice announced a long-awaited update to their Marijuana Enforcement Policy at the end of last month, stating that the DOJ would no longer interfere with legal and medicinal marijuana operations in states where marijuana is legal.

However, the DOJ did not rule out future enforcement efforts. They left interpretation of the new memo to federal prosecutors and also left the door open for renewed federal enforcement if state laws don’t include “robust controls” over marijuana sales and distribution.

The DOJ also made it clear that marijuana was still considered a dangerous drug and that it would continue to enforce federal law in situations where the following “harms” are not adequately addressed (defined by the DOJ) by state law and law enforcement:

-distribution of marijuana to minors
-prevention of marijuana revenue going to criminal organizations
-trafficking between states where marijuana is legal and states where it is not
-the use of firearms during the cultivation and distribution of marijuana
-drivers under the influence of marijuana
-the growing of marijuana on federal lands and possession of marijuana on federal property

The memo which is dated August 29th states, “If state enforcement efforts are not sufficiently robust to protect against the harms set forth above, the federal government may seek to challenge the regulatory structure itself in addition to continuing to bring individual enforcement actions, including criminal prosecutions, focused on those harms.”

So, basically, the DOJ is going to take a ‘wait and see’ stance on their enforcement and make further determinations once state laws are in place and being tested.

The DOJ memo also included verbiage that seems to be targeted at the medicinal marijuana community in California. In 2011, the DOJ issued guidance under the Controlled Substances Act that it would not allow large and/or commercial dispensaries and a crackdown, most notably in California, followed. According to the memo, “…prosecutors should not consider the size or commercial nature of a marijuana operation alone as a proxy for assessing whether marijuana trafficking implicates the Department’s enforcement priorities.” It continues, “Rather, prosecutors should continue to review marijuana cases on a case-by-case basis and weigh all available information and evidence, including, but not limited to, whether the operation is demonstrably in compliance with a strong and effective state regulatory system.”

This verbiage suggests that prosecutors’ main concern should be the harms listed in the document, but still leaves the door open for wide interpretation on the part of federal prosecutors. As usual, only time will tell when it comes to federal action on the issue. However, there is one thing that the memo makes clear: 2014 will be an eventful year when it comes to federal and state marijuana enforcement efforts.

Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/politics/holder-marijuana-laws/index.html

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-justice-marijuana-20130830,0,4392089.story

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/August/13-opa-974.html

http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf

Photo Credit: Dank Depot

End

Gupta Apologizes for Being Late to the Party

8/12/2013

by

CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta has joined a growing majority of Americans who support legalized, medicinal use of Marijuana, saying he changed his mind after researching the topic for a documentary he has been working on for the past year. His change of position, which he announced on CNN’s website on August 8th, is of particular interest due to his role as CNN’s Chief Medical Correspondent and also to the fact that he was one of President Barack Obama’s top choices for Surgeon General when he was first elected.

In his August 8th column he wrote, “I apologize because I didn’t look hard enough, until now.” And then went on to claim that he ignored research being done by labs in other countries by blindly following reports and studies pushed by the US government stating, “I mistakenly believed the Drug Enforcement Agency listed Marijuana as a schedule 1 substance because of sound scientific proof.”

In particular, Gupta took issue with Marijuana being branded as a substance with no medicinal use and a high potential for abuse, which are central to a drug being categorized as a schedule 1 substance. The DEA “didn’t have the science to support that claim, and I now know that when it comes to Marijuana neither of those things are true,” said Gupta. “We have been terribly and systematically misled for nearly 70 years in the United States, and I apologize for my own role in that.”

Gupta also added, “I have…come to the realization that it is irresponsible not to provide the best care we can as a medical community, care that would involve Marijuana.” He went on to discuss higher levels of addiction with substances like heroin, cocaine, tobacco and prescription drugs. He also addressed the physical symptoms of withdrawal saying, “The physical symptoms of marijuana addiction are nothing like those of the other drugs I’ve mentioned. I have seen the withdrawal from alcohol, and it can be life threatening.”

One of his more compelling arguments was his observation on what kind of medical research has been done on marijuana. “In my quick running of the numbers, I calculated about 6% of the current US marijuana studies investigate the benefits of medical marijuana. The rest are designed to investigate harm. That imbalance paints a highly distorted picture.” He also discussed the challenge of actually doing marijuana research, particularly the approval process via the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which is something that has been a topic of previous posts on this blog.

As someone who had previously been on the record as against medical marijuana, Gupta’s change of heart has met a positive response, especially online where it trended on Twitter and was shared hundreds of thousands of times on Facebook. A Colorado dispensary has even started to market a “Gupta Kush” Indica, named in his honor.

The public reversal of Gupta’s opinion on marijuana was the first of several victories for marijuana advocates in August, as it was followed by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie committing to sign a bill that allows minors to use medicinal marijuana and the Department of Justice’s recent announcement that it will allow Colorado and Washington’s marijuana legalization laws go into effect.

Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/08/health/gupta-changed-mind-marijuana/
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/09/health/gupta-weed-reaction
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-newman/the-incredible-impact-of_b_3787326.html
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/08/24/medical-marijuana-dispensary-names-pot-strain-after-cnns-sanjay-gupta

Photo Credit: Duncan Brown

End

Marijuana Dispensaries Raided in Washington State

8/05/2013

by

On July 24th, armed members of the Drug Enforcement Agency raided four medicinal marijuana dispensaries in the South Sound region of Washington State. Per federal authorities, the raids are a part of an investigation dating back to 2011, the year before Initiative 502 passed. No arrests were made, but DEA agents did seize supplies of marijuana and the dispensaries were closed down. Employees of the dispensaries were told that they would be subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury when the investigation wraps up in September of this year.

While federal authorities raiding medical marijuana dispensaries is not unheard of, the fact that these raids took place in Washington, where marijuana has been legal since December of last year, once again raises questions about the federal government’s still undefined policy of enforcement when it comes to states that have legalized medicinal and recreational use of pot.

According to the US Attorney’s office, the raids were not a statement about the use of marijuana in Washington State.

Maybe the US Attorney’s office is right. Maybe these dispensaries were in violation of laws on the books at the time the investigation started. One would assume the raids are in relation to marijuana from the dispensaries ending up in the hands of individuals without a medicinal marijuana card, but at what cost?

Several years ago I happened to be working across the street from a local collective. I watched (city police) raid and shut down the dispensary. I also saw the result of the raid – patients in wheelchairs and who were bald from chemotherapy distraught on the sidewalk as they came to terms with the fact that they may not be able to obtain a medicine that returned them to something near a normal quality of life.

Even if these raids are not a statement about the use of marijuana in Washington, they may have national implications. Even though pot is now legalized at the state level, this seems to show the intent of the federal government to continue to prosecute based upon national laws.

At the state level, enforcement has already been dropped or made a low priority. King and Pierce county prosecutors dropped over 200 marijuana related cases just days after Washington State’s Initiative 502, which legalized marijuana in the state, passed. Seattle police declared marijuana use one of their lowest priorities and opted to issue verbal warnings instead of tickets for those using in public. To date, the Seattle police haven’t issued any citations for public marijuana use.

It remains to be seen if the federal government will follow suit, but in the meantime raids continue.

Sources:

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/politicsnorthwest/2012/11/09/175-marijuana-prosecutions-in-king-county-dismissed-because-of-initiative-502/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/16/us-marijuana-raids-washington-idUSTRE7AF0BN20111116

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/making-pot-a-priority/Content?oid=17330390

http://www.king5.com/news/marijuana/DEA-raids-Olympia-medical-marijuana-clinic-216841501.html

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2013/07/24/2693689/dea-raiding-marijuana-dispensaries.html

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/07/feds-raid-pot-dispenaries-washington-where-drug-legal/67585/

 

End

Mile High Taxes? Denver City Council Considers Additional Tax on Marijuana Sales

7/29/2013

by

As the implementation of Colorado’s Amendment 64 continues, the question of how to tax recreational marijuana sales is getting more and more attention. Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper signed two bills into law in May that impose a 15% excise and a 10-15% sales tax on all retail marijuana sales in the state. Now both Denver and Boulder are considering adding their own 5-10% tax hikes to retail sales within their city limits. Both the state and local taxes still have to be approved by voters in November.

While the state taxes, which would tax recreational marijuana at a minimum of 25%, are widely expected to gain voter approval (one of the main arguments for legalization was tax revenue), members of marijuana advocacy groups are concerned that an extra 5-10% tax could cripple the nascent recreational marijuana business community and drive recreational users back to the black market. The irony is that if the extra taxes do indeed drive consumers to the black market, it would reduce the amount of tax money the state anticipates collecting.

Opponents of the city tax also speculate that the new taxes are an opportunistic attempt to raise new funds.

Denver city officials claim that the tax revenue is necessary to fund the enforcement of new regulations pertaining to recreational use. Specifically, the city wants to hire more police officers, park rangers and another city attorney in anticipation of an expanded caseload. Some of the funding would go to mental health programs and campaigns to keep Colorado youths from using recreationally. The Denver city council will vote on whether to add the tax to the November ballot on July 29.

Any approved taxes will go into effect on January 1, 2014. As with all of the actions surrounding the legalization of marijuana for recreational use, only time will tell how these taxes affect legal marijuana sales, the black market and state revenues.

Sources:

http://www.denverpost.com/carroll/ci_23672823/carroll-denvers-wish-list-marijuana-taxes

http://www.denverpost.com/news/marijuana/ci_23644028/how-would-denver-pot-tax-be-used

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_23673193/boulder-council-backs-5-percent-pot-excisetax

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_23622157/denver-considering-5-tax-pot-salescomparable-cigarette

Photo Credit: Alain Bachellier

End

WSLCB Announces Washington Marijuana Surveys

7/03/2013

by

The Washington State Liquor Control Board has announced two online surveys, open to the general public, that BOTEC Analysis Corporation will be using to help the board make informed decisions about the existing marijuana consumer base. If you live in Washington, please take a moment to fill them out and contribute to the birth of this industry!

Here is the announcement sent via WSLCB’s ListServ email:

The WSLCB is facilitating a request from BOTEC Analysis Corporation, our contracted marijuana consultants, seeking survey participants for two separate research projects. The more people who participate in each survey the more accurate and refined the results will be. If you are interested in participating the details on each of them is located below:

  • Angela Hawken, a professor of public policy at Pepperdine University and a co-author of “Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know” is studying the economics of cannabis production. To do so, she’s collecting data from cultivators on their operating costs and has built an easily-accessible web survey on the economics of cultivation (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/DCH6YXK). In particular, she is looking for those cultivators with the business sense and awareness of their books to provide substantive answers. Each respondent improves Dr. Hawken’s model of the cannabis industry by providing more evidence on the actual costs of cannabis production.
  • Beau Kilmer, a research with the RAND Corporation, is working to learn more about cannabis consumption throughout the state.  As part of that task he’s developed a short and confidential survey (no more than 15 minutes for heavy users, less for others) which asks users about how much cannabis they use, what products they use, how much they spend, etc. The survey will be the most detailed yet on cannabis use habits, and is available at www.mjsurvey.org

End

Cracked Nutt: Scientist Argues Drugs Should Be Legalized For Research

7/03/2013

by

In June Dr. David Nutt made headlines as one of the primary authors of a document that indicted government marijuana research policies stating that the outlaw of substances like marijuana, LSD and MDMA were tantamount to, “the worst case of scientific censorship since the Catholic Church banned the works of Copernicus and Galileo.”

In the paper Nutt, formerly a drug policy advisor to the British government, argues that current government law and regulations restrict what could be meaningful and culturally significant advances in the understanding of controlled substances and how they affect the health and wellbeing of users.

According to Nutt, “laws have never been updated despite scientific advances and growing evidence that many of these drugs are relatively safe.” He also claimed that politics were the main motivation behind the continued restrictions on research.

This claim is based on the assertion in his paper that alcohol and tobacco are significantly more harmful drugs. Of course, alcohol and tobacco are almost universally legal and are backed by large, established industries and major lobbying groups.

Even though Nutt is from the UK, his claims also ring true in the US which, after the recent legalization of the drug by the states of Washington and Colorado, is currently in the middle of a national debate on the merits of legal recreational and medicinal use of the substance.

In the US, if an organization wants to do research on marijuana they need to acquire a license from the Drug Enforcement Agency and get the study approved by the Food and Drug Administration. However, even if a license and approval are obtained researchers still need to actually procure marijuana—something that requires researchers to go through a third agency, the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

However, procuring marijuana has proven extremely difficult for researchers (which is hardly surprising considering the institute defines its relationship with drugs in terms of “abuse”). In large part, the difficulty comes from marijuana’s classification as a Schedule I controlled substance by the Controlled Substances Act. Per the Act, Schedule I substances A) have a high potential for abuse, B) have no accepted medical use in the US and C) lack accepted safety for use of the drug under medical supervision.

In particular, the legalization by certain states of marijuana for medicinal use come in clear conflict with points B and C of the Schedule I definition. By legalizing marijuana for medicinal use states are clearly stating their objections to the classification.

It isn’t clear what the future holds in regard to marijuana research. However, one thing is clear—in light of recent legalization efforts and the growing support for legalization in the US marijuana research has never been more important.

Source:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/48301/marijuana-legalization-scientists-say-pot-mdma-and-lsd-should-be-legalized-for-further-research

End

Coffee Pot: The “Starbucks” of Marijuana?

7/03/2013

by

On May 30th, former Microsoft employee Jamen Shively held a press conference to announce his acquisition of the Northwest Patient Resource Center and intention to build what at first would be a national and then an international retail cannabis brand around his company Diego Pellicer.

With former Mexican President Vicente Fox at his right hand to lend legitimacy for his project, Shively spoke about what he called a “unique” historical context, stating “The Berlin wall of the prohibition of cannabis is weak…and it is crumbling as we speak.”

Fox, who is not involved in the project with Diego Pellicer, said that Shively’s actions were the beginning of a “path to change” that he sees as eventually freeing his nation from the influence of rich and powerful drug lords.

Public reaction has been mixed, with some embracing what has been called the Starbucks of cannabis and others cautiously pointing out that such a large scale enterprise is likely to draw unwanted attention from the US government, which still considers the possession and sale of marijuana as a violation of federal law. To date, the US government has tended to leave small marijuana operations that follow state law unprosecuted, but they have targeted large dispensaries and co-ops.

There are also legal questions that remain to be answered. The Department of Justice hasn’t come out with an official policy on how to handle marijuana distribution in states where it is legal. Attorney General Eric Holder has promised an answer, but it is unclear when a decision will be made. Additionally, while Washington and Colorado have recently passed laws legalizing both medicinal and recreational use of marijuana, state laws require that related monies not cross state lines – something that is problematic when trying to establish a national brand.

Shively hasn’t gone into detail on how Diego Pellicer will clear legal hurdles, but maintains that he wants to create a “prosperous and safe” industry in accordance with the law. At the press conference John Davis, CEO of the Northwest Patient Resource Center stated that he and his partners are intent to “show how it can work.”

Regardless of one’s position on creating what Shively has dubbed “Big Marijuana” the legal challenges that Diego Pellicer will face will be instructive to both large and small marijuana distributors. Smaller distributors tend to be wary of Big Marijuana; however Big Marijuana will also likely end up spending large amounts of money on legal costs, helping to establish the legal framework for distribution and potentially shielding smaller distributors from excessive legal fees.

Sources:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/18/jamen-shively-diego-pellicer_n_3454815.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/ex-microsoft-builds-marijuana-empire-2013-5

http://diegopellicer.com/

End

New timeline for WSLCB recreational marijuana draft rules

6/11/2013

by

Yesterday, June 10, the Washington State Liquor Control Board (WSLCB) in Olympia released
the following dates for filing its recreational marijuana draft rules:

June 19, 2013 – Board work session on proposed rules.
July 3, 2013 – Board files official draft rules (CR 102) with the state Code Reviser.
August 7, 2013 – Public hearing on draft rules.
August 14, 2013 – Board adopts rules.
September 14, 2013 – Effective date for rules, and
September 14, 2013 – WSLCB begins accepting applications for all license types.

Until now, the WSLCB would not list specific dates; rather, the previous timeline merely addressed milestones for forming the draft’s rules as falling early, middle, or late in the last of the summer months.  The draft itself is designed to cover all aspects of legal marijuana entrepreneurship: it outlines the prerequisites for obtaining a license to grow commercially, the level of security expected for marijuana retail businesses, the type of photo ID’s marijuana stores will accept, and even how to properly handle cannabis-plant composting.  Needless to say, the WSLCB has a myriad of factors to consider, and the future of the industry depends on the decisions made in the coming months.

The draft’s first cut of rules was released on May 16, 2013, and the period of public input terminated yesterday with the release of the new timeline. According to the agency, they have received substantial written input from both public and private organizations, demonstrating the future marijuana industry’s concern with the draft’s development.

WSLCB Director Rick Garza says, according to a recent WSLCB email announcement,

“In keeping with our goal of an open and transparent process for drafting the rules, we’re going to take an additional two weeks to consider the last-minute input we’ve received.  The Board was prepared to issue the rules on June 19; however, it’s our responsibility to carefully review and consider the comments we received.”

The WSLCB, alongside the state of Colorado, must now look to the future when continuing further with the draft, as the rules they design will govern the world’s only fully-functional, fully-legal system of growing, processing, and retailing recreational marijuana.

End