" Germany: The government presents a draft for a law, which would make cannabis flowers available on prescription by every doctor and force health insurances to reimburse cannabis-based medicines in certain cases
On 7 January the Federal Health Ministry presented a detailed draft for a law, which would set up a state cannabis agency to regulate the cultivation and distribution of cannabis to pharmacies. More patients would be given regulated access to the drug on prescription and paid for by their health insurance under measures outlined in the draft bill. Health organizations and associations, including the German ACM (Association for Cannabis as Medicine), were invited to comment on the draft until 5 February. Patients would get cannabis-based medicines (cannabis flowers, extracts, dronabinol, nabilone) reimbursed, if no other treatment works for them. On 1 October 2015 527 patients suffering from at least 60 different diseases, including chronic pain, inflammatory diseases, psychiatric conditions, neurological diseases, appetite loss and nausea have been legally authorised to obtain cannabis at their own expense, because other treatments are not effective enough.
So far, an exemption by the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices is necessary to get access to cannabis. In the future every physician will be able to prescribe cannabis flowers, which will be available from every pharmacy. The maximum amount to be prescribed will be 100g per month, but this amount can be exceeded in justified cases. According to the draft the cannabis agency will be installed at the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices. The agency will not only supervise the production and distribution of cannabis products, but also set the maximum price for cannabis in pharmacies. Patients, who want their costs to be reimbursed, have to participate in accompanying research, which is intended to run until the end of December 2018 to get a basis for further decisions on re-imbursement by health insurances from August 2019 on.
Anouncment by the Federal Health Ministry of Germany of 7 January 2016 "
Lähde: http://cannabis-med.org/english/bulletin/ww_en_db_cannabis_artikel.php?id=469#1
News in English 2016
Alueen säännöt
Politiikka ja media
Tämä alue on tarkoitettu kannabis- ja päihdepolitiikasta keskusteluun.
Alue on erittäin tiukasti moderoitu; lue ohjeet ennen kirjoittamista. Alueelle kuulumattomat keskustelut siirretään Tuhkakuppiin.
Kirjoita viestisi asialliseen ulkoasuun. Ylläpidolla on oikeus muuttaa epäasiallisen viestin sisältöä tai poistaa viesti.
Politiikka ja media
Tämä alue on tarkoitettu kannabis- ja päihdepolitiikasta keskusteluun.
Alue on erittäin tiukasti moderoitu; lue ohjeet ennen kirjoittamista. Alueelle kuulumattomat keskustelut siirretään Tuhkakuppiin.
Kirjoita viestisi asialliseen ulkoasuun. Ylläpidolla on oikeus muuttaa epäasiallisen viestin sisältöä tai poistaa viesti.
Re: News in English 2016
Spannabis, Europe’s Largest Cannabis Festival, Shapes Culture, Organizer Comes to ICBC
Political victories are easy to see, but there are often underlying cultural events that shape our progress. Spannabis, one of the world’s leading cannabis festivals, is an example in Spain. Most of the cannabis community is likely unaware that tens of thousands of revelers attend the event every year, making the event one of the largest cannabis festivals in the world. Spannabis helps bring the European cannabis community together and help promote tolerant, progressive attitude across the continent.
The success and growth of the Seattle Hempfest is an example of such an event having a cultural impact in the United States. Many cannabis law reformers around the world were certainly unaware of Hempfest, especially before it grew into a massive event, but it isn’t a coincidence that Seattle and Washington State have been progressive on cannabis policy compared to most of the U.S.
As we become a more connected society, political and cultural developments in other countries increase in importance as their impact is felt beyond a country’s borders. Cannabis law reform and culture are no different. Positive marijuana momentum in Mexico and Canada influence the debate in the United States and U.S. drug policy definitely impacts the rest of the world.
Raul del Pino, the communications director for Spannabis, will be coming to San Francisco to present at the International Cannabis Business Conference (ICBC) on February 13-14. Raul will share the latest on developments in Spain and will add to a conference that is working to continue our movement’s momentum around the world. It was an honor and a privilege to have Raul answer some questions ahead of the conference.
How long have you considered yourself a cannabis law reform advocate? What brought you into the movement?
Since 1996 I have been interested in Cannabis thanks to my interest in the studies of psychoactive substances. From that that time I adopted a critical attitude toward the prohibition of drugs, especially marijuana, from the viewpoint of personal freedom.
When did Spannabis begin? How many events have been held?
The first Spannabis event occurred in 2002 in Barcelona. Since then we have held the event 12 times and next March (2016) we will hold the 13th.
How many people have attended over the years?
The number of attendees over the years has grown exponentially, and notably each year we surpass the attendance of the previous year. Last year we had close to 35,000 attendees from many different countries, and 3,000 attendees are licensed professionals in addition to over 500 businesses were represented.
Last year we noted an impressive increase in exhibitors and attendees from the United States, thus spannabis has become this platform to launch a multitude of products and businesses.
We believe that our success on the international level makes Spannabis one of the largest and most important Cannabis Fairs in the world.
Can you describe your work for the event?
Hmmm…It’s hard to say exactly what I do because there are so many things going on. An event of this kind requires a work team that is well coordinated and one that has been working for months preparing for the event. As for me, I am in charge of everything to do with things digital and new technologies, like dealing with the means of communication. During the exhibition my main job is to deal with the press, as well as helping coordinate various events, really there are many different issues that I am dealing with.
How is cannabis treated in Spain?
Spain is a country with a very old cannabis culture, due to our location which is so close to Morocco, the largest producer of Hashish in the world, which was an old colony of Spain. So it is a illegal drug that is accepted socially. Also given our climate we can grow lots of crops so Spain has never lacked hashish and marijuana.
Because it has been socially acceptable for a long time, and the spanish law has no criminal penalty for consuming or possessing drugs, thus the consuming of drugs in the privacy of your home is legal. Also there are many pro-cannabis groups and the the ambiguity of the spanish law has given rise to Cannabis Social Clubs, but these are not great times for them, now they are being criminally prosecuted and there have been cases that some members of the clubs have gone to jail and the closure of some and lots of fear among the club members.
Does there seem to be movement improving the law?
These days we are waiting for a new government to be formed after the elections in december. The situation right now is very confusing because we don’t know what party or parties will form the new government. Some of them are pro marijuana legalization.
How is the United States cannabis law perceived in Spain?
The US is originator of the prohibition of drugs throughout the world, and was the first country to prohibit marijuana, as well as industrial hemp. The paradox we find ourselves in is that now the US has begun to decriminalize marijuana in some states. we have a shred of hope that if US legalizes soon after the rest of the world will follow. At any rate we are dealing with contradictory laws.
Are advocates and industry members keeping tabs on developments in states like Colorado that have now legalized cannabis? Or the fact that other states, like California, are likely to legalize in 2016 and coming years?
As I told you, in Spain we are paying attention to what is going in the US regarding the legalization of Cannabis, for sure this will influence legalization in Spain and other countries, in addition to that the industry in the US and Spain is more and more involved with the other, which looks like in the coming years good business opportunities for both countries.
http://marijuanapolitics.com/spannabis- ... s-to-icbc/
Political victories are easy to see, but there are often underlying cultural events that shape our progress. Spannabis, one of the world’s leading cannabis festivals, is an example in Spain. Most of the cannabis community is likely unaware that tens of thousands of revelers attend the event every year, making the event one of the largest cannabis festivals in the world. Spannabis helps bring the European cannabis community together and help promote tolerant, progressive attitude across the continent.
The success and growth of the Seattle Hempfest is an example of such an event having a cultural impact in the United States. Many cannabis law reformers around the world were certainly unaware of Hempfest, especially before it grew into a massive event, but it isn’t a coincidence that Seattle and Washington State have been progressive on cannabis policy compared to most of the U.S.
As we become a more connected society, political and cultural developments in other countries increase in importance as their impact is felt beyond a country’s borders. Cannabis law reform and culture are no different. Positive marijuana momentum in Mexico and Canada influence the debate in the United States and U.S. drug policy definitely impacts the rest of the world.
Raul del Pino, the communications director for Spannabis, will be coming to San Francisco to present at the International Cannabis Business Conference (ICBC) on February 13-14. Raul will share the latest on developments in Spain and will add to a conference that is working to continue our movement’s momentum around the world. It was an honor and a privilege to have Raul answer some questions ahead of the conference.
How long have you considered yourself a cannabis law reform advocate? What brought you into the movement?
Since 1996 I have been interested in Cannabis thanks to my interest in the studies of psychoactive substances. From that that time I adopted a critical attitude toward the prohibition of drugs, especially marijuana, from the viewpoint of personal freedom.
When did Spannabis begin? How many events have been held?
The first Spannabis event occurred in 2002 in Barcelona. Since then we have held the event 12 times and next March (2016) we will hold the 13th.
How many people have attended over the years?
The number of attendees over the years has grown exponentially, and notably each year we surpass the attendance of the previous year. Last year we had close to 35,000 attendees from many different countries, and 3,000 attendees are licensed professionals in addition to over 500 businesses were represented.
Last year we noted an impressive increase in exhibitors and attendees from the United States, thus spannabis has become this platform to launch a multitude of products and businesses.
We believe that our success on the international level makes Spannabis one of the largest and most important Cannabis Fairs in the world.
Can you describe your work for the event?
Hmmm…It’s hard to say exactly what I do because there are so many things going on. An event of this kind requires a work team that is well coordinated and one that has been working for months preparing for the event. As for me, I am in charge of everything to do with things digital and new technologies, like dealing with the means of communication. During the exhibition my main job is to deal with the press, as well as helping coordinate various events, really there are many different issues that I am dealing with.
How is cannabis treated in Spain?
Spain is a country with a very old cannabis culture, due to our location which is so close to Morocco, the largest producer of Hashish in the world, which was an old colony of Spain. So it is a illegal drug that is accepted socially. Also given our climate we can grow lots of crops so Spain has never lacked hashish and marijuana.
Because it has been socially acceptable for a long time, and the spanish law has no criminal penalty for consuming or possessing drugs, thus the consuming of drugs in the privacy of your home is legal. Also there are many pro-cannabis groups and the the ambiguity of the spanish law has given rise to Cannabis Social Clubs, but these are not great times for them, now they are being criminally prosecuted and there have been cases that some members of the clubs have gone to jail and the closure of some and lots of fear among the club members.
Does there seem to be movement improving the law?
These days we are waiting for a new government to be formed after the elections in december. The situation right now is very confusing because we don’t know what party or parties will form the new government. Some of them are pro marijuana legalization.
How is the United States cannabis law perceived in Spain?
The US is originator of the prohibition of drugs throughout the world, and was the first country to prohibit marijuana, as well as industrial hemp. The paradox we find ourselves in is that now the US has begun to decriminalize marijuana in some states. we have a shred of hope that if US legalizes soon after the rest of the world will follow. At any rate we are dealing with contradictory laws.
Are advocates and industry members keeping tabs on developments in states like Colorado that have now legalized cannabis? Or the fact that other states, like California, are likely to legalize in 2016 and coming years?
As I told you, in Spain we are paying attention to what is going in the US regarding the legalization of Cannabis, for sure this will influence legalization in Spain and other countries, in addition to that the industry in the US and Spain is more and more involved with the other, which looks like in the coming years good business opportunities for both countries.
http://marijuanapolitics.com/spannabis- ... s-to-icbc/
Re: News in English 2016
Cannabis Conferences Are Growing Like Weeds
Marijuana conferences have exploded from 1 in 2013 to over 30 planned in 2016 saturating this emerging industry with too many events. While some conferences are worth attending, others feel poorly arranged and only organized to enrich the organizers.
“You can literally attend, speak or exhibit at an event every weekend,” said Chris Drissen, Chief Business Development Officer at O.penVAPE. “It has really had a negative impact on the attendance and viability of the few shows that are worth going to.” Drissen said that an event in the U.S. can cost his company between $20,000-$40,000 depending on the size of the exhibit booth and between $30,000-$50,000 internationally. With the company exhibiting at approximately 6 shows a year, 3 domestic and 3 international; conferences become very expensive.
“The frustration for a business is figuring out which ones will make the most impact,” said Kyle Sherman, CEO of Flowhub. He pointed out that many conferences can be full of prototype companies with only “ideas” looking for capital and with no real product in place. Sherman said, “This has created a lot of noise and chaos in the space.” Since the industry is so new and so many people want to get in on the “green rush,” there is a flood of conferences and companies wanting to capitalize on the influx.
Aaron Herzberg, a partner at CalCann Holdings also agreed that there were too many and mostly served the purpose of introducing newcomers to the industry. “Many of the major players in marijuana, do not attend these events,” said Herzberg. He attends 5-6 conferences a year and has begun speaking at some of them, but as his company gets busier he just doesn’t have the time.
Troy Dayton, Chief Executive Officer of ArcView Group said conference organizers boldly over-promised and severely under delivered. “I suspect that most of them lost money and that attendees and exhibitors will wise up in 2016 and rally around a few of the best.” ArcView hold 5 events a year, but succeeds by keeping their conferences focused. They specialize exclusively on investors and companies raising capital. Dayton thinks that the future of cannabis conferences will evolve into 1-3 big general events and then others that specialize.
he Marijuana Business Conference held in Las Vegas is routinely named as the most important industry event to attend. It is sponsored by Marijuana Business Daily and is the oldest and largest industry event. Herzberg said most of the industry leaders attend the conference and that it was useful for networking. Many feel that as the industry matures the conferences will get more targeted. Kyle Sherman said his favorite so far this past year was the New West Summit in San Francisco, which seemed to follow the idea of specialization. This conference targets the media and technology aspects of the cannabis industry. It has been dubbed the “Tech Crunch Disrupt” of cannabis. Sherman said, “It was very focused on technology in cannabis, which is a huge driving force in where the industry is headed. I think curated conferences are the best.”
Jude Widmann, director of Operations at GreenRush.com thinks the premier conference of 2016 will be the Cannabis Investor Summit in New York. Widman had only positive things to say about the proliferation of events. “The conference ecosystem is another indicator of the vitality and maturation of the cannabis industry as a whole.” Widmann believes the networking, the panels and workshops are all beneficial.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/debraborcha ... ae678d3651
Marijuana conferences have exploded from 1 in 2013 to over 30 planned in 2016 saturating this emerging industry with too many events. While some conferences are worth attending, others feel poorly arranged and only organized to enrich the organizers.
“You can literally attend, speak or exhibit at an event every weekend,” said Chris Drissen, Chief Business Development Officer at O.penVAPE. “It has really had a negative impact on the attendance and viability of the few shows that are worth going to.” Drissen said that an event in the U.S. can cost his company between $20,000-$40,000 depending on the size of the exhibit booth and between $30,000-$50,000 internationally. With the company exhibiting at approximately 6 shows a year, 3 domestic and 3 international; conferences become very expensive.
“The frustration for a business is figuring out which ones will make the most impact,” said Kyle Sherman, CEO of Flowhub. He pointed out that many conferences can be full of prototype companies with only “ideas” looking for capital and with no real product in place. Sherman said, “This has created a lot of noise and chaos in the space.” Since the industry is so new and so many people want to get in on the “green rush,” there is a flood of conferences and companies wanting to capitalize on the influx.
Aaron Herzberg, a partner at CalCann Holdings also agreed that there were too many and mostly served the purpose of introducing newcomers to the industry. “Many of the major players in marijuana, do not attend these events,” said Herzberg. He attends 5-6 conferences a year and has begun speaking at some of them, but as his company gets busier he just doesn’t have the time.
Troy Dayton, Chief Executive Officer of ArcView Group said conference organizers boldly over-promised and severely under delivered. “I suspect that most of them lost money and that attendees and exhibitors will wise up in 2016 and rally around a few of the best.” ArcView hold 5 events a year, but succeeds by keeping their conferences focused. They specialize exclusively on investors and companies raising capital. Dayton thinks that the future of cannabis conferences will evolve into 1-3 big general events and then others that specialize.
he Marijuana Business Conference held in Las Vegas is routinely named as the most important industry event to attend. It is sponsored by Marijuana Business Daily and is the oldest and largest industry event. Herzberg said most of the industry leaders attend the conference and that it was useful for networking. Many feel that as the industry matures the conferences will get more targeted. Kyle Sherman said his favorite so far this past year was the New West Summit in San Francisco, which seemed to follow the idea of specialization. This conference targets the media and technology aspects of the cannabis industry. It has been dubbed the “Tech Crunch Disrupt” of cannabis. Sherman said, “It was very focused on technology in cannabis, which is a huge driving force in where the industry is headed. I think curated conferences are the best.”
Jude Widmann, director of Operations at GreenRush.com thinks the premier conference of 2016 will be the Cannabis Investor Summit in New York. Widman had only positive things to say about the proliferation of events. “The conference ecosystem is another indicator of the vitality and maturation of the cannabis industry as a whole.” Widmann believes the networking, the panels and workshops are all beneficial.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/debraborcha ... ae678d3651
Re: News in English 2016
What the Iowa Caucus Means for Cannabis Legalization and Civil Liberties Supporters
Rubio was the real GOP winner while the Democrats prepare for a slog after a tie
After months (years?) of campaigning in one of the more unique political seasons in modern American history, the Iowa caucus results are in. Republican Ted Cruz won a solid electoral victory while Marco Rubio won the political victory.
The Democratic candidates virtually tied, with progressive values winning the day, setting up a long campaign between a vision of major progressive change versus more incremental reform. Cannabis legalization supporters and civil libertarian activists can generally be pleased with the Democratic results. There is cause for alarm on the Republican side–the rise of Marco Rubio.
A tie really? How can it take so long for precincts to report? Who has all night for this?
A decisive electoral victory by Bernie Sanders would have been preferred by myself, and I believe most cannabis law reformers and many civil libertarian advocates, but Bernie Sanders could declare a political victory, even though he may not actually end up with quite as many votes or delegates as the establishment-favored candidate. Most media outlets, likely because they privately (and sometimes publicly) dismissed the idea that a 74 year-old democratic socialist from a small rural state like Vermont could actually take on the formidable Clinton political machine.
Senator Bernie Sanders declared a “virtual tie” and I think that this is an actual time that a “virtual” electoral tie is a “literal” political tie. (Hillary Clinton actually won two delegates by winning coin flips after precinct votes ended in ties.) Sanders proved that he is a worthy challenger while Hillary Clinton demonstrated that she is the frontrunner for a reason. The anti-establishment candidate called for a political revolution after declaring “virtual tie” while the establishment frontrunner declared a “sigh of relief” in a speech that listed a very progressive platform.
For various reasons, including the political ideals of Democratic-leaning voters, Hillary Clinton, will be decent on drug law reform and most civil liberties. The former Secretary of State’s foreign policy is a bit hawkish for my tastes, so I do fear potential losses due to national security fears in time of war, but not near as much as what I fear from the Republicans.
In politics, expectations can actually elevate the third place finisher over the winner
While Ted Cruz earned the most GOP votes and delegates, Marco Rubio became the big political winner by finishing in third place, setting himself up as the the Republican establishment candidate. The large number of evangelical Christians propelled Ted Cruz to first place, the electoral demographics don’t look great for Cruz in New Hampshire and beyond.
Donald Trump seemed to be the political loser, finishing 2nd, as his “I’m a winner and we’re gonna win so much when I win” persona took a hit. It will be interesting to see how Marco Rubio fares in New Hampshire and South Carolina when the Donald starts attacking the new establishment standard-bearer.
For marijuana law supporters, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, are likely to be rather states-rights oriented, while Marco Rubio is more likely to be a Reefer Madness-inspired disaster as he has pledged to waste scarce federal resources needlessly arresting and prosecuting nonviolent citizens following state laws and regulations. All of the Republican candidates, except Rand Paul (who unfortunately isn’t going to win the GOP nomination), seem all too willing to wage war, so all are threats to our civil liberties. Despite his rather libertarian past, I shudder at the thought of Donald Trump with his finger on the button.
Democrats will have a long battle, GOP will too unless Trump’s mystique fades away
So we’re on to New Hampshire, where Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have been enjoying large leads in the polls. While civil libertarians and Drug War reformers have a tremendous candidate in Bernie Sanders and a good candidate in Hillary Clinton, we have a real danger on the Republican side–Marco Rubio. Marco Rubio provides a strong general election challenge, providing the GOP a young, new face from an important electoral vote-rich state.
Supporters of sensible cannabis policies and other civil liberty protections need to help ensure that Marco Rubio is not the next President of the United States. We definitely don’t want a Rubio-Kasich ticket as a prohibitionist ticket as elected candidates out of Florida and Ohio pose a serious challenge in Electoral College match.
http://marijuanapolitics.com/what-the-i ... upporters/
Rubio was the real GOP winner while the Democrats prepare for a slog after a tie
After months (years?) of campaigning in one of the more unique political seasons in modern American history, the Iowa caucus results are in. Republican Ted Cruz won a solid electoral victory while Marco Rubio won the political victory.
The Democratic candidates virtually tied, with progressive values winning the day, setting up a long campaign between a vision of major progressive change versus more incremental reform. Cannabis legalization supporters and civil libertarian activists can generally be pleased with the Democratic results. There is cause for alarm on the Republican side–the rise of Marco Rubio.
A tie really? How can it take so long for precincts to report? Who has all night for this?
A decisive electoral victory by Bernie Sanders would have been preferred by myself, and I believe most cannabis law reformers and many civil libertarian advocates, but Bernie Sanders could declare a political victory, even though he may not actually end up with quite as many votes or delegates as the establishment-favored candidate. Most media outlets, likely because they privately (and sometimes publicly) dismissed the idea that a 74 year-old democratic socialist from a small rural state like Vermont could actually take on the formidable Clinton political machine.
Senator Bernie Sanders declared a “virtual tie” and I think that this is an actual time that a “virtual” electoral tie is a “literal” political tie. (Hillary Clinton actually won two delegates by winning coin flips after precinct votes ended in ties.) Sanders proved that he is a worthy challenger while Hillary Clinton demonstrated that she is the frontrunner for a reason. The anti-establishment candidate called for a political revolution after declaring “virtual tie” while the establishment frontrunner declared a “sigh of relief” in a speech that listed a very progressive platform.
For various reasons, including the political ideals of Democratic-leaning voters, Hillary Clinton, will be decent on drug law reform and most civil liberties. The former Secretary of State’s foreign policy is a bit hawkish for my tastes, so I do fear potential losses due to national security fears in time of war, but not near as much as what I fear from the Republicans.
In politics, expectations can actually elevate the third place finisher over the winner
While Ted Cruz earned the most GOP votes and delegates, Marco Rubio became the big political winner by finishing in third place, setting himself up as the the Republican establishment candidate. The large number of evangelical Christians propelled Ted Cruz to first place, the electoral demographics don’t look great for Cruz in New Hampshire and beyond.
Donald Trump seemed to be the political loser, finishing 2nd, as his “I’m a winner and we’re gonna win so much when I win” persona took a hit. It will be interesting to see how Marco Rubio fares in New Hampshire and South Carolina when the Donald starts attacking the new establishment standard-bearer.
For marijuana law supporters, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, are likely to be rather states-rights oriented, while Marco Rubio is more likely to be a Reefer Madness-inspired disaster as he has pledged to waste scarce federal resources needlessly arresting and prosecuting nonviolent citizens following state laws and regulations. All of the Republican candidates, except Rand Paul (who unfortunately isn’t going to win the GOP nomination), seem all too willing to wage war, so all are threats to our civil liberties. Despite his rather libertarian past, I shudder at the thought of Donald Trump with his finger on the button.
Democrats will have a long battle, GOP will too unless Trump’s mystique fades away
So we’re on to New Hampshire, where Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have been enjoying large leads in the polls. While civil libertarians and Drug War reformers have a tremendous candidate in Bernie Sanders and a good candidate in Hillary Clinton, we have a real danger on the Republican side–Marco Rubio. Marco Rubio provides a strong general election challenge, providing the GOP a young, new face from an important electoral vote-rich state.
Supporters of sensible cannabis policies and other civil liberty protections need to help ensure that Marco Rubio is not the next President of the United States. We definitely don’t want a Rubio-Kasich ticket as a prohibitionist ticket as elected candidates out of Florida and Ohio pose a serious challenge in Electoral College match.
http://marijuanapolitics.com/what-the-i ... upporters/
Re: News in English 2016
See Inside the Himalayan Villages That Grow Cannabis
The plant is native but illegal in India, and mountain farmers rely on its cultivation
In the Himalayas of India, small villages thrive by growing cannabis.
This is one of them. The village, perched on a mountain at 9,000 feet (2,700 meters), is only reachable on foot. The hike takes three hours. Villagers say it’s been a good season so far—police have only shown up to cut plants twice. But those plants are a drop in the ocean. Ganja grows wild in the Indian Himalayas, and it’s nearly impossible to curb its illegal cultivation.
After harvesting the cannabis indica, farmers spend hours slowly rubbing the resin from the plant’s flowers to create charas, a type of hashish that’s considered to be some of the best in the world. It can cost up to 20 dollars per gram in the West. Cannabis is illegal in India, but many villagers have turned to charas manufacturing out of financial necessity.
Charas gets more valuable every year, but the farmers still live a humble life. Most fields are small, and 50 buds of ganja produce only 10 grams of charas.
Sadhus—Hindu holy men who went to the Himalayas in meditation—were among the first to make charas. When hippies began following sadhus through the mountains in the 1970s, locals, who had been smoking a rough mix of resin and other parts of the plant, began making charas, too. They follow the same technique today to produce what's estimated to be tons of charas a year. There are no official figures for India’s charas production or cannabis cultivation. Because it's illegal, the Indian government has never conducted a large-scale survey to assess cannabis production within its boundaries.
Because cannabis is a native plant, it can be difficult for police to trace producers, who keep moving their fields higher to escape raids. Thousands of families in the region survive on charas production. Farmers sell the resin to foreigners, but also to Indians from big cities. Demand is rising; new guesthouses and venues for smoking charas sprout every season.
Though the drug trade is intricate and advanced, time almost stands still in this part of the mountains. Life follows the rhythms of nature. The villages scattered on the Himalayan slopes are made up of colorful houses with dark roofs made of thin stone slabs. There’s one central tap for water, an old temple, and a few shops that sell soap, cigarettes, legumes, rice, and flour.
The history of cannabis in India dates back thousands of years. It’s mentioned in sacred Veda texts. And it’s said that Lord Shiva sat in meditation on the snowy peaks of the Himalayas, feeding on ganja flowers. Yet today, it’s all about business, with villagers selling charas to survive.
Himalayan communities are proud and very secretive. Strenuous workers, they live in extreme conditions and often with no alternative career options. Many farmers have never cultivated anything legal in their life. Cultivation, production, use, context—everything is imbued with spirituality and religion.
Along with many other countries, India joined the global fight against drugs in 1961 by signing the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. But not everyone was ready to abandon cannabis, which has long been part of religious rituals and festivities. It took 24 years for India to translate its commitment into law. The country banned cannabis in 1985.
“Nearly 400 of the 640 districts in India have cannabis cultivation,” says Romesh Bhattacharji, ex-Narcotics Commissioner of India. “It's time for the Indian Government to stop being a slave of UN-backed policies: since 1985, cannabis use and cultivation has only proliferated. Prohibition has failed."
“The obligation to eliminate cannabis in countries with widespread traditional use is a clear example of the colonial background of the [UN] Convention," says Tom Blickman, from the Dutch think-tank Transnational Institute. "It would never pass nowadays."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016 ... rm-photos/
The plant is native but illegal in India, and mountain farmers rely on its cultivation
In the Himalayas of India, small villages thrive by growing cannabis.
This is one of them. The village, perched on a mountain at 9,000 feet (2,700 meters), is only reachable on foot. The hike takes three hours. Villagers say it’s been a good season so far—police have only shown up to cut plants twice. But those plants are a drop in the ocean. Ganja grows wild in the Indian Himalayas, and it’s nearly impossible to curb its illegal cultivation.
After harvesting the cannabis indica, farmers spend hours slowly rubbing the resin from the plant’s flowers to create charas, a type of hashish that’s considered to be some of the best in the world. It can cost up to 20 dollars per gram in the West. Cannabis is illegal in India, but many villagers have turned to charas manufacturing out of financial necessity.
Charas gets more valuable every year, but the farmers still live a humble life. Most fields are small, and 50 buds of ganja produce only 10 grams of charas.
Sadhus—Hindu holy men who went to the Himalayas in meditation—were among the first to make charas. When hippies began following sadhus through the mountains in the 1970s, locals, who had been smoking a rough mix of resin and other parts of the plant, began making charas, too. They follow the same technique today to produce what's estimated to be tons of charas a year. There are no official figures for India’s charas production or cannabis cultivation. Because it's illegal, the Indian government has never conducted a large-scale survey to assess cannabis production within its boundaries.
Because cannabis is a native plant, it can be difficult for police to trace producers, who keep moving their fields higher to escape raids. Thousands of families in the region survive on charas production. Farmers sell the resin to foreigners, but also to Indians from big cities. Demand is rising; new guesthouses and venues for smoking charas sprout every season.
Though the drug trade is intricate and advanced, time almost stands still in this part of the mountains. Life follows the rhythms of nature. The villages scattered on the Himalayan slopes are made up of colorful houses with dark roofs made of thin stone slabs. There’s one central tap for water, an old temple, and a few shops that sell soap, cigarettes, legumes, rice, and flour.
The history of cannabis in India dates back thousands of years. It’s mentioned in sacred Veda texts. And it’s said that Lord Shiva sat in meditation on the snowy peaks of the Himalayas, feeding on ganja flowers. Yet today, it’s all about business, with villagers selling charas to survive.
Himalayan communities are proud and very secretive. Strenuous workers, they live in extreme conditions and often with no alternative career options. Many farmers have never cultivated anything legal in their life. Cultivation, production, use, context—everything is imbued with spirituality and religion.
Along with many other countries, India joined the global fight against drugs in 1961 by signing the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. But not everyone was ready to abandon cannabis, which has long been part of religious rituals and festivities. It took 24 years for India to translate its commitment into law. The country banned cannabis in 1985.
“Nearly 400 of the 640 districts in India have cannabis cultivation,” says Romesh Bhattacharji, ex-Narcotics Commissioner of India. “It's time for the Indian Government to stop being a slave of UN-backed policies: since 1985, cannabis use and cultivation has only proliferated. Prohibition has failed."
“The obligation to eliminate cannabis in countries with widespread traditional use is a clear example of the colonial background of the [UN] Convention," says Tom Blickman, from the Dutch think-tank Transnational Institute. "It would never pass nowadays."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016 ... rm-photos/
Re: News in English 2016
Obama says marijuana reform is not on his agenda for 2016
Marijuana advocates hoping for a substantial shift in federal marijuana policy in the last year of the Obama administration are likely to be disappointed.
At a briefing Friday, White House press secretary John Earnest said any progress on marijuana reform would need to come through Congress. President Obama had signaled his position a day earlier at the House Democratic retreat in Baltimore, saying marijuana reform is not on his list of end-of-term priorities, according to Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.).
Cohen said he asked the president whether he wanted to "reschedule" marijuana. The federal government considers marijuana a Schedule 1 controlled substance, "the most dangerous class of drugs with a high potential for abuse and potentially severe psychological and/or physical dependence." Many lawmakers want to see it moved to Schedule 2, which acknowledges the plant's medical potential. Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders wants to remove marijuana from the federal list of controlled substances altogether.
[The Senate marijuana reform bill would bring federal policy in line with medical research]
But Obama's answer on the rescheduling was "disappointing," Cohen said in an interview. "On marijuana, he gave the same answer as when I asked him seven years ago: 'If you get me a bill, and get it on my desk, I'll probably sign it,' " Cohen said (emphasis his).
At the briefing, Earnest clarified further: "There are some in the Democratic Party who have urged the president to take this kind of action. The president's response was, 'If you feel so strongly about it, and you believe there is so much public support for what it is that you're advocating, then why don't you pass legislation about it and we'll see what happens.' "
Obama's approach to the issue has long frustrated activists. "This isn't the first time President Obama has unnecessarily tried to pass the buck on marijuana rescheduling to Congress," Tom Angell of the pro-marijuana group Marijuana Majority said in an email. "It's unacceptable and frankly embarrassing for a president who has so nonchalantly acknowledged his own marijuana use to allow the federal government to continue classifying cannabis in such an inappropriate category."
[Gallup: Support for legal marijuana at an all-time high and likely to grow]
There is an administrative process in place for the Drug Enforcement Agency to reschedule or deschedule a drug. But as the Brookings Institution has noted, the DEA has historically not been eager to take action on this front. "Four petitions that have been initiated to reschedule marijuana or remove it from the schedules entirely have been denied or stalled by DEA with disposition times ranging from five to more than 20 years," its report found.
The DEA is reviewing another petition to reschedule pot, but given the history, most observers are skeptical that anything will change this time around.
"I don't think they're doing anything," Cohen said. "They've slow-walked it for all these years." He'd like to see the White House be more vocal about the process. "The president could just tell them to get it done," he said.
[The government is stifling medical marijuana research, major think tank declares]
The latest public opinion polls show broad support not just for marijuana reform, but also outright legalization: Fifty-eight percent of Americans want to see marijuana use fully legalized, according to the latest Gallup polling on the issue. And a 2015 CBS news poll found that 84 percent of Americans support legalizing marijuana for medical use.
Moving marijuana to Schedule 2 of the Controlled Substances Act is a more modest step than full legalization or legalization for medical purposes. It would simply remove some of the barriers to research on uses of marijuana, barriers that the Brookings Institution recently said were "stifling" medical research.
Among people who study the issue, there is near universal agreement that marijuana doesn't belong in the same category of substances as heroin, as even the DEA has finally acknowledged. The consensus among researchers is that it's a lot less dangerous than alcohol, too.
A federal classification that stands in such stark opposition to expert consensus "breeds contempt for the government," Cohen said. But if this week's remarks are any indication, addressing that contempt is not high on the White House priority list for 2016.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... -for-2016/
Marijuana advocates hoping for a substantial shift in federal marijuana policy in the last year of the Obama administration are likely to be disappointed.
At a briefing Friday, White House press secretary John Earnest said any progress on marijuana reform would need to come through Congress. President Obama had signaled his position a day earlier at the House Democratic retreat in Baltimore, saying marijuana reform is not on his list of end-of-term priorities, according to Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.).
Cohen said he asked the president whether he wanted to "reschedule" marijuana. The federal government considers marijuana a Schedule 1 controlled substance, "the most dangerous class of drugs with a high potential for abuse and potentially severe psychological and/or physical dependence." Many lawmakers want to see it moved to Schedule 2, which acknowledges the plant's medical potential. Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders wants to remove marijuana from the federal list of controlled substances altogether.
[The Senate marijuana reform bill would bring federal policy in line with medical research]
But Obama's answer on the rescheduling was "disappointing," Cohen said in an interview. "On marijuana, he gave the same answer as when I asked him seven years ago: 'If you get me a bill, and get it on my desk, I'll probably sign it,' " Cohen said (emphasis his).
At the briefing, Earnest clarified further: "There are some in the Democratic Party who have urged the president to take this kind of action. The president's response was, 'If you feel so strongly about it, and you believe there is so much public support for what it is that you're advocating, then why don't you pass legislation about it and we'll see what happens.' "
Obama's approach to the issue has long frustrated activists. "This isn't the first time President Obama has unnecessarily tried to pass the buck on marijuana rescheduling to Congress," Tom Angell of the pro-marijuana group Marijuana Majority said in an email. "It's unacceptable and frankly embarrassing for a president who has so nonchalantly acknowledged his own marijuana use to allow the federal government to continue classifying cannabis in such an inappropriate category."
[Gallup: Support for legal marijuana at an all-time high and likely to grow]
There is an administrative process in place for the Drug Enforcement Agency to reschedule or deschedule a drug. But as the Brookings Institution has noted, the DEA has historically not been eager to take action on this front. "Four petitions that have been initiated to reschedule marijuana or remove it from the schedules entirely have been denied or stalled by DEA with disposition times ranging from five to more than 20 years," its report found.
The DEA is reviewing another petition to reschedule pot, but given the history, most observers are skeptical that anything will change this time around.
"I don't think they're doing anything," Cohen said. "They've slow-walked it for all these years." He'd like to see the White House be more vocal about the process. "The president could just tell them to get it done," he said.
[The government is stifling medical marijuana research, major think tank declares]
The latest public opinion polls show broad support not just for marijuana reform, but also outright legalization: Fifty-eight percent of Americans want to see marijuana use fully legalized, according to the latest Gallup polling on the issue. And a 2015 CBS news poll found that 84 percent of Americans support legalizing marijuana for medical use.
Moving marijuana to Schedule 2 of the Controlled Substances Act is a more modest step than full legalization or legalization for medical purposes. It would simply remove some of the barriers to research on uses of marijuana, barriers that the Brookings Institution recently said were "stifling" medical research.
Among people who study the issue, there is near universal agreement that marijuana doesn't belong in the same category of substances as heroin, as even the DEA has finally acknowledged. The consensus among researchers is that it's a lot less dangerous than alcohol, too.
A federal classification that stands in such stark opposition to expert consensus "breeds contempt for the government," Cohen said. But if this week's remarks are any indication, addressing that contempt is not high on the White House priority list for 2016.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... -for-2016/
Re: News in English 2016
Mexico OKs 2 More Permits to Import Medicinal Cannabis
MEXICO CITY (AP) -- The Mexican government is letting the parents of two more sick girls import a cannabis-derived medicine for their treatment.
The Federal Health Commission says in a statement that it has authorized the parents' requests to bring hemp oil into the country.
In a landmark decision last year, a judge ordered the government to allow the parents of another girl suffering from a severe form of epilepsy to import a similar product.
That ruling did not establish a general legal right to import medical marijuana.
But the new approvals announced Monday indicate a willingness to OK such petitions without an explicit court order to do so. The commission says it aims to "accelerate patients' access to alternative treatments."
Last week, Mexico launched a formal debate on the use of medicinal marijuana.
http://www.hightimes.com/read/mexico-ok ... l-cannabis
MEXICO CITY (AP) -- The Mexican government is letting the parents of two more sick girls import a cannabis-derived medicine for their treatment.
The Federal Health Commission says in a statement that it has authorized the parents' requests to bring hemp oil into the country.
In a landmark decision last year, a judge ordered the government to allow the parents of another girl suffering from a severe form of epilepsy to import a similar product.
That ruling did not establish a general legal right to import medical marijuana.
But the new approvals announced Monday indicate a willingness to OK such petitions without an explicit court order to do so. The commission says it aims to "accelerate patients' access to alternative treatments."
Last week, Mexico launched a formal debate on the use of medicinal marijuana.
http://www.hightimes.com/read/mexico-ok ... l-cannabis
Re: News in English 2016
Native American Church Schism Sues for Right to Cannabis
A seemingly schismatic Oregon branch of the Native American Church claims the US government illegally seized its sacramental cannabis—and is fighting in court to get it back. Oklevueha Native American Church leaders James "Flaming Eagle" Mooney and Joy Graves brought the case Jan. 15 in a US district court in Portland. Graves says she mailed five ounces of cannabis to a church member in Ohio on Dec. 10, but it never arrived. The Postal Service tracking website reported that the package had been seized by law enforcement.
A postal inspector in Portland told her cannabis is illegal under federal law and was unimpressed by her claim that she sent the herb to a church member with esophageal cancer for use in healing rituals, according to Courthouse News Service. Oregon legalized medical marijuana in 2007 and approved recreational cannabis through a ballot measure last year. Both remain illegal in Ohio, although small quantities are decriminalized there. Sending cannabis through the mails is a federal crime.
Mooney and Graves say Native Americans have used cannabis ritually for centuries. They want Graves' five ounces back, and an injunction prohibiting the government from seizing their herbal sacrament, claiming ceremonial use as a right under the 1978 American Indian Religious Freedom Act.
But they may have a difficult legal battle. Graves does not appear to claim enrollment with any federally recognized Indian tribe. Mooney says he is a descendant of Osceola, a medicine man and war chief of Florida's Seminole Tribe. He claims membership in the Crow clan of the Cox Osceola Seminole Indian Reservation in Orange Springs, Fla. But Ruth Hopkins, chief judge of the Spirit Lake Tribe of Dakota Sioux in Fargo, ND, had a scathing piece in Indian Country Today in December, "Pot and Pretendians," accusing the Oklevueha Native American Church of being wannabe Indians. She accuses Mooney of creating a "veritable maze" of identities, "desperately trying to prove he's native."
She added: "When non-Natives steal ceremonies from us, it creates a spiritual harm. These sacred rites have real power, and that’s not to be taken lightly." While making clear she does not oppose cannabis use per se, she blasted the Oklevueha crew for reckless litigation that could undermine genuine struggles for Native American spiritual rights: "Now don’t misinterpret me here. Marijuana is medicinal, as are many plants utilized by Indigenous people. However, claiming its [sic] part of our spirituality to avoid catching a case threatens the rights of actual Natives who deserve protection under the American Indian Religious Freedom Act."
Mooney has been pressing his claims about cannabis since his son, Michael Rex "Raging Bear" Mooney, sued the federal government in Hawaii in 2009, claiming it illegally seized five pounds he sent through the mail. That case is now pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. But five major affiliates of the Native American Church filed an amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit, disavowing any connection with Oklevueha and Mooney. The National Council of Native American Churches, Native American Church of North America, Azzee' Bee Nahaga of Diné Nation, Native American Church of the State of Oklahoma and Native American Church of the State of South Dakota told the court they "do not recognize Oklevueha as a chapter, nor...recognize Mr. Mooney as a member." They additionally stated that the organizations "do not recognize, condone, or allow the religious use of marijuana, or any other substance other than peyote... To the contrary, the only plant that serves as a sacrament in the NAC is peyote, and without peyote, the NAC services could not take place."
In November last year, two members of the Oklevueha Native American Church in California's Sonoma County sued the state and county in federal court for seizing cannabis plants from their church basement in Kenwood. Claims of spiritual use are again being rejected by authorities. Said a County Counsel statement quoted by the Santa Rosa Press Democrat: "There is not a federally recognized tribe in Kenwood, nor is there Indian trust land. The over 600 mature marijuana plants seized from the property appear more consistent with a drug sale operation than local church sacraments."
Craig Dorsay, who argued the case before the US Supreme Court that led to passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and protection of peyote use by the Native American Church, told Courthouse News he'd never heard of cannabis being used as a sacrament in the church. "That was never mentioned when I was representing the church," Dorsay said. That case was launched in 1984, when Alfred Smith, a member of Oregon's Klamath Tribe, was fired from his job as a drug counselor for using peyote during a Native American Church ceremony. In its 5-4 ruling in 1990, the Supreme Court found that the First Amendment did not protect Smith's right to use peyote without fear of losing his job. That decision prompted Congress to pass RFRA in 1993. The following year, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act was amended to protect the "use, possession, or transportation of peyote by an Indian who uses peyote in a traditional manner for bona fide ceremonial purposes in connection with the practice of a traditional Indian religion." Dorsay is skeptical this applies to Mooney and his followers, telling Courthouse News: "The Native American Church has been a very identifiable and discrete entity. It looks like this group is just trying to trade on their name."
Matthew Pappas, attorney for Mooney, Graves and Oklevueha, countered: "You don't have to be Italian to be Roman Catholic. There's no blood test for religion. There is no requirement that you be Chinese to be Buddhist or Indian to be Hindu. Religion is not a blood type." But Dorsay contends that the legal exemption for the Native American Church is based on sovereign status, not on race. "Italy isn't mentioned in the US Constitution," Dorsay said. "Indian tribes are. Tribes are one of the three sovereigns mentioned in the Constitution. So the Supreme Court has upheld special treatment for Indian tribes for 200 years, not based on racial status but based on political status under the Constitution."
Sandor Iron Rope, president of the National Native American Church of North America, told Courthouse News that Mooney and Graves are free to worship as they wish, so long as they don't claim to be part of the Native American Church. "If they want to worship marijuana, fine. But just don't say that you're a Native American Church like we are... At no point in time has marijuana ever been a sacrament of the Native American Church."
The Oklevueha church does claim affiliation with a bona fide Amerindian cannabis tradition. In 2000, the church became affiliated with the Huichol tribe of northern Mexico. The Huichol not only use peyote, but also what they call "mariguana or rosa maria (Cannabis sativa) in their religious ceremonies," according to the Oklevueha suit against Sonoma County.
"There are many of these tribes that used cannabis in their traditional ceremonies for years. They use it in spiritual healing practices," attorney Pappas told the Press-Democrat. "Laws that substantially burden religions are held to a higher standard of strict scrutiny."
But the Huichol are not affiliated with the Native American Church, nor recognized by the US Constitution. These cases could be critical—both in determining whether there is a First Amendment right to sacramental use of cannabis, and in defining the limits of Native American identity.
http://www.hightimes.com/read/native-am ... t-cannabis
A seemingly schismatic Oregon branch of the Native American Church claims the US government illegally seized its sacramental cannabis—and is fighting in court to get it back. Oklevueha Native American Church leaders James "Flaming Eagle" Mooney and Joy Graves brought the case Jan. 15 in a US district court in Portland. Graves says she mailed five ounces of cannabis to a church member in Ohio on Dec. 10, but it never arrived. The Postal Service tracking website reported that the package had been seized by law enforcement.
A postal inspector in Portland told her cannabis is illegal under federal law and was unimpressed by her claim that she sent the herb to a church member with esophageal cancer for use in healing rituals, according to Courthouse News Service. Oregon legalized medical marijuana in 2007 and approved recreational cannabis through a ballot measure last year. Both remain illegal in Ohio, although small quantities are decriminalized there. Sending cannabis through the mails is a federal crime.
Mooney and Graves say Native Americans have used cannabis ritually for centuries. They want Graves' five ounces back, and an injunction prohibiting the government from seizing their herbal sacrament, claiming ceremonial use as a right under the 1978 American Indian Religious Freedom Act.
But they may have a difficult legal battle. Graves does not appear to claim enrollment with any federally recognized Indian tribe. Mooney says he is a descendant of Osceola, a medicine man and war chief of Florida's Seminole Tribe. He claims membership in the Crow clan of the Cox Osceola Seminole Indian Reservation in Orange Springs, Fla. But Ruth Hopkins, chief judge of the Spirit Lake Tribe of Dakota Sioux in Fargo, ND, had a scathing piece in Indian Country Today in December, "Pot and Pretendians," accusing the Oklevueha Native American Church of being wannabe Indians. She accuses Mooney of creating a "veritable maze" of identities, "desperately trying to prove he's native."
She added: "When non-Natives steal ceremonies from us, it creates a spiritual harm. These sacred rites have real power, and that’s not to be taken lightly." While making clear she does not oppose cannabis use per se, she blasted the Oklevueha crew for reckless litigation that could undermine genuine struggles for Native American spiritual rights: "Now don’t misinterpret me here. Marijuana is medicinal, as are many plants utilized by Indigenous people. However, claiming its [sic] part of our spirituality to avoid catching a case threatens the rights of actual Natives who deserve protection under the American Indian Religious Freedom Act."
Mooney has been pressing his claims about cannabis since his son, Michael Rex "Raging Bear" Mooney, sued the federal government in Hawaii in 2009, claiming it illegally seized five pounds he sent through the mail. That case is now pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. But five major affiliates of the Native American Church filed an amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit, disavowing any connection with Oklevueha and Mooney. The National Council of Native American Churches, Native American Church of North America, Azzee' Bee Nahaga of Diné Nation, Native American Church of the State of Oklahoma and Native American Church of the State of South Dakota told the court they "do not recognize Oklevueha as a chapter, nor...recognize Mr. Mooney as a member." They additionally stated that the organizations "do not recognize, condone, or allow the religious use of marijuana, or any other substance other than peyote... To the contrary, the only plant that serves as a sacrament in the NAC is peyote, and without peyote, the NAC services could not take place."
In November last year, two members of the Oklevueha Native American Church in California's Sonoma County sued the state and county in federal court for seizing cannabis plants from their church basement in Kenwood. Claims of spiritual use are again being rejected by authorities. Said a County Counsel statement quoted by the Santa Rosa Press Democrat: "There is not a federally recognized tribe in Kenwood, nor is there Indian trust land. The over 600 mature marijuana plants seized from the property appear more consistent with a drug sale operation than local church sacraments."
Craig Dorsay, who argued the case before the US Supreme Court that led to passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and protection of peyote use by the Native American Church, told Courthouse News he'd never heard of cannabis being used as a sacrament in the church. "That was never mentioned when I was representing the church," Dorsay said. That case was launched in 1984, when Alfred Smith, a member of Oregon's Klamath Tribe, was fired from his job as a drug counselor for using peyote during a Native American Church ceremony. In its 5-4 ruling in 1990, the Supreme Court found that the First Amendment did not protect Smith's right to use peyote without fear of losing his job. That decision prompted Congress to pass RFRA in 1993. The following year, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act was amended to protect the "use, possession, or transportation of peyote by an Indian who uses peyote in a traditional manner for bona fide ceremonial purposes in connection with the practice of a traditional Indian religion." Dorsay is skeptical this applies to Mooney and his followers, telling Courthouse News: "The Native American Church has been a very identifiable and discrete entity. It looks like this group is just trying to trade on their name."
Matthew Pappas, attorney for Mooney, Graves and Oklevueha, countered: "You don't have to be Italian to be Roman Catholic. There's no blood test for religion. There is no requirement that you be Chinese to be Buddhist or Indian to be Hindu. Religion is not a blood type." But Dorsay contends that the legal exemption for the Native American Church is based on sovereign status, not on race. "Italy isn't mentioned in the US Constitution," Dorsay said. "Indian tribes are. Tribes are one of the three sovereigns mentioned in the Constitution. So the Supreme Court has upheld special treatment for Indian tribes for 200 years, not based on racial status but based on political status under the Constitution."
Sandor Iron Rope, president of the National Native American Church of North America, told Courthouse News that Mooney and Graves are free to worship as they wish, so long as they don't claim to be part of the Native American Church. "If they want to worship marijuana, fine. But just don't say that you're a Native American Church like we are... At no point in time has marijuana ever been a sacrament of the Native American Church."
The Oklevueha church does claim affiliation with a bona fide Amerindian cannabis tradition. In 2000, the church became affiliated with the Huichol tribe of northern Mexico. The Huichol not only use peyote, but also what they call "mariguana or rosa maria (Cannabis sativa) in their religious ceremonies," according to the Oklevueha suit against Sonoma County.
"There are many of these tribes that used cannabis in their traditional ceremonies for years. They use it in spiritual healing practices," attorney Pappas told the Press-Democrat. "Laws that substantially burden religions are held to a higher standard of strict scrutiny."
But the Huichol are not affiliated with the Native American Church, nor recognized by the US Constitution. These cases could be critical—both in determining whether there is a First Amendment right to sacramental use of cannabis, and in defining the limits of Native American identity.
http://www.hightimes.com/read/native-am ... t-cannabis
Re: News in English 2016
Vermont Senate Committee Pushes Through Marijuana Legalization Bill
Marijuana prohibition in Vermont could be terminal – possibly with less than six months to live – as the state legislature seems to be ferociously gunning to become the first group of bipartisan lawmakers in American history with enough sense to pull the plug on the antiquated policies that makes it a criminal offense to capitalize on the cannabis plant.
Just weeks after Governor Peter Shumlin announced during his State of the State address that he was fully prepared to end the War on Weed in the Green Mountain, the Vermont Senate Judiciary Committee put their stamp of approval on a bill aimed at establishing a taxed and regulated cannabis trade. The proposal, which seeks to create a system of retails sales and cannabis cafes, was approved last week in a vote of 4 to 1, catapulting the measure into the next phase of legislative redemption.
The bill (S.241) is now headed to the Senate Finance Committee, where all of the tax business will be decided. Some anticipate that while the proposal stands a relatively good chance at making it through the full Senate, there will be snags in the House – a force that could prevent the measure from landing on the governor’s desk for final approval.
Nevertheless, Governor Shumlin has applauded the committee for throwing their balls over their shoulders in an effort to advance this bill to the next level.
“I want to thank Senator Sears for his leadership and the entire Judiciary Committee for their hard work on this bill,” Governor Shumlin said in a statement. “This legislation meets the principles I outlined in my State of the State Address and I believe it provides the framework for our state to cautiously, step-by-step and in the Vermont way end the failed war on drugs policy of marijuana prohibition.
This debate is about whether we can take a smarter approach towards marijuana, which is already widely available and used by tens of thousands of Vermonters,” Shumin explained. “Promoting prevention, keeping marijuana out of the hands of kids, getting rid of illegal drug dealers, and doing a better job responding to impaired drivers already on our roads, I believe this legislation is a huge improvement on the failed war on drugs. I look forward to working with the Legislature as they continue to debate this issue.”
In its current form, the bill would legalize a recreational cannabis market in a manner similar to what is currently underway in Colorado. It would allow adults 21 and over to purchase weed from state licensed dispensaries, while also giving residents permission to “cultivate limited amounts of cannabis for personal use.” And while smoking weed in public would still be considered a citable offense, the bill contains a provision that would allow a number of cannabis cafes to open across the state. As it stands, no other legal state permits customers to smoke weed in the same establishment that sold it to them.
"It's a product that many adults enjoy for the same reasons that many adults enjoy consuming alcohol," Matt Simon of the Vermont Coalition to Regulate Marijuana told HIGH TIMES in a written statement. "While no substance is entirely harmless, the evidence is pretty clear that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol. Adults who choose to consume marijuana should be able to purchase it legally and safely from licensed stores that test and label their products. They shouldn't be forced to seek it out in an illegal market where they might be exposed to other more harmful substances."
If all goes according to plan, Vermont’s legal cannabis industry could be fully operational by the beginning of 2018.
http://www.hightimes.com/read/vermont-s ... ation-bill
Marijuana prohibition in Vermont could be terminal – possibly with less than six months to live – as the state legislature seems to be ferociously gunning to become the first group of bipartisan lawmakers in American history with enough sense to pull the plug on the antiquated policies that makes it a criminal offense to capitalize on the cannabis plant.
Just weeks after Governor Peter Shumlin announced during his State of the State address that he was fully prepared to end the War on Weed in the Green Mountain, the Vermont Senate Judiciary Committee put their stamp of approval on a bill aimed at establishing a taxed and regulated cannabis trade. The proposal, which seeks to create a system of retails sales and cannabis cafes, was approved last week in a vote of 4 to 1, catapulting the measure into the next phase of legislative redemption.
The bill (S.241) is now headed to the Senate Finance Committee, where all of the tax business will be decided. Some anticipate that while the proposal stands a relatively good chance at making it through the full Senate, there will be snags in the House – a force that could prevent the measure from landing on the governor’s desk for final approval.
Nevertheless, Governor Shumlin has applauded the committee for throwing their balls over their shoulders in an effort to advance this bill to the next level.
“I want to thank Senator Sears for his leadership and the entire Judiciary Committee for their hard work on this bill,” Governor Shumlin said in a statement. “This legislation meets the principles I outlined in my State of the State Address and I believe it provides the framework for our state to cautiously, step-by-step and in the Vermont way end the failed war on drugs policy of marijuana prohibition.
This debate is about whether we can take a smarter approach towards marijuana, which is already widely available and used by tens of thousands of Vermonters,” Shumin explained. “Promoting prevention, keeping marijuana out of the hands of kids, getting rid of illegal drug dealers, and doing a better job responding to impaired drivers already on our roads, I believe this legislation is a huge improvement on the failed war on drugs. I look forward to working with the Legislature as they continue to debate this issue.”
In its current form, the bill would legalize a recreational cannabis market in a manner similar to what is currently underway in Colorado. It would allow adults 21 and over to purchase weed from state licensed dispensaries, while also giving residents permission to “cultivate limited amounts of cannabis for personal use.” And while smoking weed in public would still be considered a citable offense, the bill contains a provision that would allow a number of cannabis cafes to open across the state. As it stands, no other legal state permits customers to smoke weed in the same establishment that sold it to them.
"It's a product that many adults enjoy for the same reasons that many adults enjoy consuming alcohol," Matt Simon of the Vermont Coalition to Regulate Marijuana told HIGH TIMES in a written statement. "While no substance is entirely harmless, the evidence is pretty clear that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol. Adults who choose to consume marijuana should be able to purchase it legally and safely from licensed stores that test and label their products. They shouldn't be forced to seek it out in an illegal market where they might be exposed to other more harmful substances."
If all goes according to plan, Vermont’s legal cannabis industry could be fully operational by the beginning of 2018.
http://www.hightimes.com/read/vermont-s ... ation-bill
Re: News in English 2016
Cannabidiol Pills Show Promise in Epilepsy Treatment
Cannabidiol may the be the answer for drug-resistant epilepsy.
Treatment for a drug-resistant form of epilepsy may come from an unlikely source, Scientific American reports.
A study published in The Lancet Neurology in December 2015 indicates that cannabidiol, a nonpsychoactive chemical in marijuana, may be an effective treatment for epileptic patients with no previous treatment options.
[READ: Will Pills Containing Fecal Matter Help Treat Obesity?]
In the study, the researchers treated 162 patients with an extract of 99 percent cannabidiol and monitored them for 12 weeks. This treatment was supplemental to patients' existing course of treatment.
The patients who received cannabidiol had motor seizures at a reduced rate of 36.5 percent. Even more promising: 2 percent of patients became completely seizure-free.
[READ: Alzheimer's May Be Detectable Through Urine Test, Study Says]
Despite these results, the exact effects of the drug are still questionable. Cannabidiol inhibits liver enzyme function, so it's possible that taking it simply concentrated the effects of the other medications already in the patients' systems.
Still, researchers and clinicians remain optimistic that this compound in marijuana could be an effective treatment for hitherto untreatable patients.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201 ... t-epilepsy
Cannabidiol may the be the answer for drug-resistant epilepsy.
Treatment for a drug-resistant form of epilepsy may come from an unlikely source, Scientific American reports.
A study published in The Lancet Neurology in December 2015 indicates that cannabidiol, a nonpsychoactive chemical in marijuana, may be an effective treatment for epileptic patients with no previous treatment options.
[READ: Will Pills Containing Fecal Matter Help Treat Obesity?]
In the study, the researchers treated 162 patients with an extract of 99 percent cannabidiol and monitored them for 12 weeks. This treatment was supplemental to patients' existing course of treatment.
The patients who received cannabidiol had motor seizures at a reduced rate of 36.5 percent. Even more promising: 2 percent of patients became completely seizure-free.
[READ: Alzheimer's May Be Detectable Through Urine Test, Study Says]
Despite these results, the exact effects of the drug are still questionable. Cannabidiol inhibits liver enzyme function, so it's possible that taking it simply concentrated the effects of the other medications already in the patients' systems.
Still, researchers and clinicians remain optimistic that this compound in marijuana could be an effective treatment for hitherto untreatable patients.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201 ... t-epilepsy
Re: News in English 2016
Health Buzz: Young Adult Pot Smokers May See Memory Slide in Middle Age
Marijuana use was tracked over 25 years in long-term study.
Would you rather smoke pot or keep your memory sharp? Persistent marijuana users showed worse verbal recall in a long-term study that followed them for 25 years, starting as young adults. Other mental abilities, such as processing speed and executive function, were not affected by how much pot participants used over time, found the study released online Monday in JAMA Internal Medicine.
As pot use increasingly becomes legal in parts of the U.S., "continuing to warn potential users about the possible harm from exposure to marijuana seems reasonable," concluded Dr. Reto Auer, now with the University of Lausanne, in Switzerland, and previously with the University of California–San Francisco, and co-authors.
Using data from a larger study on heart disease risk in young adults, researchers looked at men and women aged 18 and 30 in the mid-1980s, who were then tracked through mid-2011. Participants were recruited by random selection in Birmingham, Alabama; Chicago and Minneapolis, and from a health care plan in Oakland, California.
At the 25-year point, participants completed a variety of standardized tests of cognitive performance. Of the nearly 3,400 participants with complete data available, 84 percent reported past pot use. Only 12 percent continued using pot into middle age.
The researchers found a cumulative effect: The results corresponded to one of two participants remembering one word fewer from a list of 15 words, for every five years of marijuana exposure.
Similar evidence has emerged from other studies, an accompanying journal commentary noted. "The public health challenge is to find effective ways to inform young people who use, or are considering using, marijuana about the cognitive and other effects of long-term daily use," wrote Wayne Hall and Michael Lynskey, with the Center for Youth Substance Abuse Research, in Queensland, Australia.
Government regulators should consider requiring explicit warnings on marijuana packaging, they suggested, similar to warning labels on medications and cigarettes.
Hazy Advice: Should Moms Who Smoke Weed Continue to Breast-feed?
Food for Thought: Eating for Brain Health in Middle Adulthood
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/he ... middle-age
Marijuana use was tracked over 25 years in long-term study.
Would you rather smoke pot or keep your memory sharp? Persistent marijuana users showed worse verbal recall in a long-term study that followed them for 25 years, starting as young adults. Other mental abilities, such as processing speed and executive function, were not affected by how much pot participants used over time, found the study released online Monday in JAMA Internal Medicine.
As pot use increasingly becomes legal in parts of the U.S., "continuing to warn potential users about the possible harm from exposure to marijuana seems reasonable," concluded Dr. Reto Auer, now with the University of Lausanne, in Switzerland, and previously with the University of California–San Francisco, and co-authors.
Using data from a larger study on heart disease risk in young adults, researchers looked at men and women aged 18 and 30 in the mid-1980s, who were then tracked through mid-2011. Participants were recruited by random selection in Birmingham, Alabama; Chicago and Minneapolis, and from a health care plan in Oakland, California.
At the 25-year point, participants completed a variety of standardized tests of cognitive performance. Of the nearly 3,400 participants with complete data available, 84 percent reported past pot use. Only 12 percent continued using pot into middle age.
The researchers found a cumulative effect: The results corresponded to one of two participants remembering one word fewer from a list of 15 words, for every five years of marijuana exposure.
Similar evidence has emerged from other studies, an accompanying journal commentary noted. "The public health challenge is to find effective ways to inform young people who use, or are considering using, marijuana about the cognitive and other effects of long-term daily use," wrote Wayne Hall and Michael Lynskey, with the Center for Youth Substance Abuse Research, in Queensland, Australia.
Government regulators should consider requiring explicit warnings on marijuana packaging, they suggested, similar to warning labels on medications and cigarettes.
Hazy Advice: Should Moms Who Smoke Weed Continue to Breast-feed?
Food for Thought: Eating for Brain Health in Middle Adulthood
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/he ... middle-age
Re: News in English 2016
Annual Pot Sales Blaze to $5.4 Billion, With Many Highs Ahead, Study Finds
State-legal cannabis markets are likely to grow more as laws change
State-legal sales of marijuana jumped nearly 20 percent to $5.4 billion last year, according to a market analysis report released Monday, which projects average annual growth of 30 percent through 2020.
Though sales of marijuana for medical use – allowed in about half of states – still dominate the national cannabis market, making up about $4.4 billion of 2015 sales, the growth rate for recreational marijuana was steeper, rocketing 184 percent to an estimated $998 million last year.
The overall economic impact of the booming quasi-legal sector and its ancillary businesses, which unlike their black market forerunners pay state and federal taxes, was not quantified in the report, which will be released in full later this month.
“It shows the legal cannabis industry is to be taken seriously,” says Troy Dayton, CEO of the ArcView Group, a prominent cannabis investor network that commissioned the report.
“These are serious numbers,” he says. “Where else do you find a multibillion dollar industry growing at 30 percent for the foreseeable future? It’s still early for people to make a big play in a market that’s growing like we only see a few times every century.”
John Kagia, one of the report’s primary researchers as director of industry analytics at cannabis data firm New Frontier, says sales figures were easy to calculate using state government data, with the exception of recreational sales in Oregon and medical sales in California and Michigan, for which his team created models with factors including illicit use rates and market maturity.
“We are at the very, very tip of the iceberg of what the industry could represent in 10 or 20 years,” Kagia says. “On that scale, we would compare this industry to others that have been truly transformative for our society.”
A robust legal market for marijuana generally concerns opponents of marijuana reform who suggest pot businesses make money by endangering children and public health, but is embraced by reformers as a laudable redistribution of money from drug gangs to ID-checking businessmen and public coffers.
Much of the recreational sales growth last year is attributable to the gradual opening of retail shops in the first states to treat the drug like alcohol, and projections for future sales growth take into account anticipated legalization of medical and recreational marijuana elsewhere in the next few years.
The 2014 data for recreational sales represented a full year in Colorado, but less than a half-year of sales from Washington, where shops opened later. The 2015 figures include a full year of sales in both states and a few months of projected Oregon sales, where medical pot dispensaries began selling recreational products in October. Anticipated 2016 recreational sales will include Alaska, which will unfurl its own market later this year.
[READ: Pot Breathalyzer May Be Coming Soon to Police Near You]
Five states – Arizona, California, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts – are likely to have legalization ballot initiatives in November, and Vermont appears on the verge of becoming the first state to legislatively legalize a recreational market.
Other states appear likely at some point in the near future to legalize marijuana. In Hawaii, for example, the state Senate’s Democratic majority leader, Sen. Kalani English, has reintroduced legalization legislation that he expects will pass within the next five years.
“Every year it moves a little bit further,” English said in a recent interview, explaining his state is known for high-quality cannabis and that Hawaii risks a brain-drain of experienced cultivators heading to the mainland U.S.
“In essence, we’ve been exporting our technology for many years, and we’ve watched other states benefit with huge tax revenue,” he says.
Marijuana businesses currently cultivate and transport the drug within state lines, as possession of marijuana for any reason outside limited research remains a federal crime, a fact that leads some investors and many financial institutions to think twice about working with the industry. But absent a major surprise – such as an unfavorable court ruling – the industry outlook remains positive, with front-runners in the 2016 presidential race saying they would continue the Obama administration's policy allowing for state autonomy.
Some of the nation’s largest states currently are unfurling regulated cannabis markets. In New York, medical pot became available this month, through the current law is regarded as extremely conservative. In Illinois, dispensaries opened late last year, and the state’s Republican governor blocked a bid to expand eligible conditions last week, citing the young age of the program. Both states are likely to see sustained campaigns to expand the list of eligible conditions.
An enormous potential cannabis market may open in the near future in Florida if voters approve a relatively relaxed medical marijuana ballot initiative in November. The winter migration destination for many elderly Americans came within a hair’s breadth of legalizing medical pot in 2014, with 58 percent of votes in favor – just under a 60-percent threshold for state constitutional amendments.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201 ... tudy-finds
State-legal cannabis markets are likely to grow more as laws change
State-legal sales of marijuana jumped nearly 20 percent to $5.4 billion last year, according to a market analysis report released Monday, which projects average annual growth of 30 percent through 2020.
Though sales of marijuana for medical use – allowed in about half of states – still dominate the national cannabis market, making up about $4.4 billion of 2015 sales, the growth rate for recreational marijuana was steeper, rocketing 184 percent to an estimated $998 million last year.
The overall economic impact of the booming quasi-legal sector and its ancillary businesses, which unlike their black market forerunners pay state and federal taxes, was not quantified in the report, which will be released in full later this month.
“It shows the legal cannabis industry is to be taken seriously,” says Troy Dayton, CEO of the ArcView Group, a prominent cannabis investor network that commissioned the report.
“These are serious numbers,” he says. “Where else do you find a multibillion dollar industry growing at 30 percent for the foreseeable future? It’s still early for people to make a big play in a market that’s growing like we only see a few times every century.”
John Kagia, one of the report’s primary researchers as director of industry analytics at cannabis data firm New Frontier, says sales figures were easy to calculate using state government data, with the exception of recreational sales in Oregon and medical sales in California and Michigan, for which his team created models with factors including illicit use rates and market maturity.
“We are at the very, very tip of the iceberg of what the industry could represent in 10 or 20 years,” Kagia says. “On that scale, we would compare this industry to others that have been truly transformative for our society.”
A robust legal market for marijuana generally concerns opponents of marijuana reform who suggest pot businesses make money by endangering children and public health, but is embraced by reformers as a laudable redistribution of money from drug gangs to ID-checking businessmen and public coffers.
Much of the recreational sales growth last year is attributable to the gradual opening of retail shops in the first states to treat the drug like alcohol, and projections for future sales growth take into account anticipated legalization of medical and recreational marijuana elsewhere in the next few years.
The 2014 data for recreational sales represented a full year in Colorado, but less than a half-year of sales from Washington, where shops opened later. The 2015 figures include a full year of sales in both states and a few months of projected Oregon sales, where medical pot dispensaries began selling recreational products in October. Anticipated 2016 recreational sales will include Alaska, which will unfurl its own market later this year.
[READ: Pot Breathalyzer May Be Coming Soon to Police Near You]
Five states – Arizona, California, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts – are likely to have legalization ballot initiatives in November, and Vermont appears on the verge of becoming the first state to legislatively legalize a recreational market.
Other states appear likely at some point in the near future to legalize marijuana. In Hawaii, for example, the state Senate’s Democratic majority leader, Sen. Kalani English, has reintroduced legalization legislation that he expects will pass within the next five years.
“Every year it moves a little bit further,” English said in a recent interview, explaining his state is known for high-quality cannabis and that Hawaii risks a brain-drain of experienced cultivators heading to the mainland U.S.
“In essence, we’ve been exporting our technology for many years, and we’ve watched other states benefit with huge tax revenue,” he says.
Marijuana businesses currently cultivate and transport the drug within state lines, as possession of marijuana for any reason outside limited research remains a federal crime, a fact that leads some investors and many financial institutions to think twice about working with the industry. But absent a major surprise – such as an unfavorable court ruling – the industry outlook remains positive, with front-runners in the 2016 presidential race saying they would continue the Obama administration's policy allowing for state autonomy.
Some of the nation’s largest states currently are unfurling regulated cannabis markets. In New York, medical pot became available this month, through the current law is regarded as extremely conservative. In Illinois, dispensaries opened late last year, and the state’s Republican governor blocked a bid to expand eligible conditions last week, citing the young age of the program. Both states are likely to see sustained campaigns to expand the list of eligible conditions.
An enormous potential cannabis market may open in the near future in Florida if voters approve a relatively relaxed medical marijuana ballot initiative in November. The winter migration destination for many elderly Americans came within a hair’s breadth of legalizing medical pot in 2014, with 58 percent of votes in favor – just under a 60-percent threshold for state constitutional amendments.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201 ... tudy-finds
Re: News in English 2016
Puerto Rico Adopts Regulation for Use of Medical Marijuana
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) — Puerto Rico's Health Department has adopted a regulation that will allow for the cultivation, manufacturing and distribution of medical marijuana in the U.S. territory.
Officials say the substance can be used in forms including pills, creams, patches and oral drops. Authorities stress that smoking marijuana and cultivating it for personal use remains illegal.
The Health Department said Thursday that it will implement a seed-to-sale inventory tracking system. It will also award licenses to doctors and to private companies that seek to cultivate and manufacture medicinal marijuana. Officials say samples must be sent to independent labs to ensure they contain the correct amounts of THC and are free of contaminants.
Public Affairs Secretary Jesus Manuel Ortiz says the system should be in place by year's end.
http://www.hightimes.com/read/puerto-ri ... -marijuana
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) — Puerto Rico's Health Department has adopted a regulation that will allow for the cultivation, manufacturing and distribution of medical marijuana in the U.S. territory.
Officials say the substance can be used in forms including pills, creams, patches and oral drops. Authorities stress that smoking marijuana and cultivating it for personal use remains illegal.
The Health Department said Thursday that it will implement a seed-to-sale inventory tracking system. It will also award licenses to doctors and to private companies that seek to cultivate and manufacture medicinal marijuana. Officials say samples must be sent to independent labs to ensure they contain the correct amounts of THC and are free of contaminants.
Public Affairs Secretary Jesus Manuel Ortiz says the system should be in place by year's end.
http://www.hightimes.com/read/puerto-ri ... -marijuana
Re: News in English 2016
Can California’s Cannabis ‘Nuns’ Save Medical Marijuana Despite Harassment and Local Bans?
Sister Kate and her apprentice Sister Darcy are not really nuns, but they do have a real mission—to grow and produce medical marijuana for those in need. They sell their products at moderate prices on Etsy, under the brand name Sisters of the Valley.
Kate, a 56-year-old Milwaukee native, spent a decade working in a business-related job in Amsterdam. After divorce and hard times hit, she decided to venture into an industry she knew about: pot.
But why the nun’s habit?
Kate told the Daily Beast that her nun persona came about when she decided to wear a habit to an Occupy protest, and people gravitated to her for advice and comfort and to ask for prayers. So she decided to keep it.
“We never hide the fact that we're not Catholic nuns; we're a New Age sisterhood,” Kate told Vice.
Only six months after launching Sisters of the Valley Cannabis, they’ve sold out everything they make. A recent note on their Etsy page apologizes: “Due to media attention, we have quickly sold out of most items and are behind in processing others.”
But supply and demand is the least of Sister Kate’s worries.
According to the Associated Press, California cities and counties are racing against time to make their own decisions on how to regulate pot cultivation.
Last October, Governor Jerry Brown signed the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act into law, requiring local jurisdictions to develop their own regulations by March 1, 2016, or relinquish authority to the state government.
As many as 19 cities have scrambled to ban MMJ dispensaries before the deadline and more are considering doing the same.
The city of Merced, where the Sisters Kate and Darcy live and work, became one of them last week when the city council voted to ban MMJ cultivation pending further deliberation, according to the Washington Post.
The decision prompted Kate to launch a Change.org petition.
Merced’s decision could drive the Sisters of the Valley to another jurisdiction—but not without a fight.
The Merced City Council “could shut me down,” Kate told Vice. “But I’ve already made it clear to all of them that they’re going to have to shut me down."
http://www.hightimes.com/read/can-calif ... local-bans
Sister Kate and her apprentice Sister Darcy are not really nuns, but they do have a real mission—to grow and produce medical marijuana for those in need. They sell their products at moderate prices on Etsy, under the brand name Sisters of the Valley.
Kate, a 56-year-old Milwaukee native, spent a decade working in a business-related job in Amsterdam. After divorce and hard times hit, she decided to venture into an industry she knew about: pot.
But why the nun’s habit?
Kate told the Daily Beast that her nun persona came about when she decided to wear a habit to an Occupy protest, and people gravitated to her for advice and comfort and to ask for prayers. So she decided to keep it.
“We never hide the fact that we're not Catholic nuns; we're a New Age sisterhood,” Kate told Vice.
Only six months after launching Sisters of the Valley Cannabis, they’ve sold out everything they make. A recent note on their Etsy page apologizes: “Due to media attention, we have quickly sold out of most items and are behind in processing others.”
But supply and demand is the least of Sister Kate’s worries.
According to the Associated Press, California cities and counties are racing against time to make their own decisions on how to regulate pot cultivation.
Last October, Governor Jerry Brown signed the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act into law, requiring local jurisdictions to develop their own regulations by March 1, 2016, or relinquish authority to the state government.
As many as 19 cities have scrambled to ban MMJ dispensaries before the deadline and more are considering doing the same.
The city of Merced, where the Sisters Kate and Darcy live and work, became one of them last week when the city council voted to ban MMJ cultivation pending further deliberation, according to the Washington Post.
The decision prompted Kate to launch a Change.org petition.
Merced’s decision could drive the Sisters of the Valley to another jurisdiction—but not without a fight.
The Merced City Council “could shut me down,” Kate told Vice. “But I’ve already made it clear to all of them that they’re going to have to shut me down."
http://www.hightimes.com/read/can-calif ... local-bans
Re: News in English 2016
California Marijuana Growers Face New Crop of Local Bans
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- When the California Legislature passed the state's first comprehensive medical marijuana regulations in September, pot advocates hoped the move heralded a new era of trust in their often-tumultuous relationship with wary local officials and police.
So far, it hasn't turned out that way.
Facing what appears to be a rapidly closing window for action, dozens of cities and counties from across California are racing to enact new bans on marijuana-growing. Some apply only to commercial cultivation, both indoor and outdoor, but many would also prohibit personal pot gardens that have been legal - or at least overlooked - for 19 years.
"Any other industry that created four months of seasonal labor and hundreds of thousands of jobs...we would be giving tax breaks to those businesses," medical marijuana dispensary owner Robert Jacob, a member of the Sebastopol City Council who has been fighting pot-growing bans proposed in Sonoma County.
At issue is a paragraph in the 70-page framework approved in the closing hours of the legislative session that would give the state alone authority to license growers in jurisdictions that do not have laws on the books by March 1 specifically authorizing or outlawing cultivation.
Lawmakers involved in crafting the package say the deadline ended up by mistake in the final compromise regulations. Assemblyman Jim Wood, a Democrat who represents California's prime pot-growing region, included it in earlier versions as a way to free local governments from a responsibility they might not want, spokeswoman Liz Snow said.
"It was a way to try to make it clearer in terms of, 'OK, local jurisdictions. If you want to act, you should be thinking about it, working on it now. Otherwise, we will all defer to the state,'" Snow said.
Even before Gov. Jerry Brown signed the regulations, which create the first statewide licensing and operating rules for California's sprawling medical marijuana industry, Wood announced he would introduce an emergency bill this month deleting the March 1 deadline.
The League of California Cities and the California Association of Police Chiefs, while supporting the fix, nonetheless have advised their members to enact cultivation bans ahead of the original cutoff date as a precaution to preserve local control.
The two groups fought hard last year for provisions stating that to be eligible for licenses the state expects to start issuing in about two years, anyone involved in the commercial medical marijuana trade must first obtain a local operating permit.
Tim Cromartie, a lobbyist with the League of California Cities, said the guidance to ban all medical marijuana growing outright stemmed from the conclusion that the short time frame did not give local officials enough time to draft, debate and refine their own cultivation rules.
"Most cities, their staff have no clue how to begin writing one of these ordinances. Their first thought is, 'Don't the feds prohibit this? How can we do this?'" Cromartie said. "We know of jurisdictions that didn't want to have to ban, but they did it under the point of a gun."
With new proposals being introduced and voted on almost daily, no one knows yet how many of California's 58 counties and 482 cities have taken the league's advice.
The California branch of the National Organization for the Repeal of Marijuana Laws, or NORML, which has been monitoring what it's termed "the banapalooza," said more than 160 jurisdictions either have passed or introduced legislation to outlaw only commercial cultivation or both commercial and personal growing.
The crackdown has been a source of frustration for veteran pot farmers who hoped the new state regulations would bring clarity to their gray corner of the medical marijuana industry and instead find themselves "recriminalized," said Hezekiah Allen, executive director of the newly formed California Growers Association.
Unless the local bans are lifted or modified, they would make medical marijuana growers in those areas automatically ineligible for the potentially lucrative and limited number of agriculture licenses the state expects to start issuing in 2018.
"Certainly we have been disappointed with the League of Cities, how they have chosen to proceed," Allen said. "A lot of the jurisdictions had a predisposition to ban, and the March 1 deadline unfortunately gave them cover to ban."
http://www.hightimes.com/read/californi ... local-bans
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- When the California Legislature passed the state's first comprehensive medical marijuana regulations in September, pot advocates hoped the move heralded a new era of trust in their often-tumultuous relationship with wary local officials and police.
So far, it hasn't turned out that way.
Facing what appears to be a rapidly closing window for action, dozens of cities and counties from across California are racing to enact new bans on marijuana-growing. Some apply only to commercial cultivation, both indoor and outdoor, but many would also prohibit personal pot gardens that have been legal - or at least overlooked - for 19 years.
"Any other industry that created four months of seasonal labor and hundreds of thousands of jobs...we would be giving tax breaks to those businesses," medical marijuana dispensary owner Robert Jacob, a member of the Sebastopol City Council who has been fighting pot-growing bans proposed in Sonoma County.
At issue is a paragraph in the 70-page framework approved in the closing hours of the legislative session that would give the state alone authority to license growers in jurisdictions that do not have laws on the books by March 1 specifically authorizing or outlawing cultivation.
Lawmakers involved in crafting the package say the deadline ended up by mistake in the final compromise regulations. Assemblyman Jim Wood, a Democrat who represents California's prime pot-growing region, included it in earlier versions as a way to free local governments from a responsibility they might not want, spokeswoman Liz Snow said.
"It was a way to try to make it clearer in terms of, 'OK, local jurisdictions. If you want to act, you should be thinking about it, working on it now. Otherwise, we will all defer to the state,'" Snow said.
Even before Gov. Jerry Brown signed the regulations, which create the first statewide licensing and operating rules for California's sprawling medical marijuana industry, Wood announced he would introduce an emergency bill this month deleting the March 1 deadline.
The League of California Cities and the California Association of Police Chiefs, while supporting the fix, nonetheless have advised their members to enact cultivation bans ahead of the original cutoff date as a precaution to preserve local control.
The two groups fought hard last year for provisions stating that to be eligible for licenses the state expects to start issuing in about two years, anyone involved in the commercial medical marijuana trade must first obtain a local operating permit.
Tim Cromartie, a lobbyist with the League of California Cities, said the guidance to ban all medical marijuana growing outright stemmed from the conclusion that the short time frame did not give local officials enough time to draft, debate and refine their own cultivation rules.
"Most cities, their staff have no clue how to begin writing one of these ordinances. Their first thought is, 'Don't the feds prohibit this? How can we do this?'" Cromartie said. "We know of jurisdictions that didn't want to have to ban, but they did it under the point of a gun."
With new proposals being introduced and voted on almost daily, no one knows yet how many of California's 58 counties and 482 cities have taken the league's advice.
The California branch of the National Organization for the Repeal of Marijuana Laws, or NORML, which has been monitoring what it's termed "the banapalooza," said more than 160 jurisdictions either have passed or introduced legislation to outlaw only commercial cultivation or both commercial and personal growing.
The crackdown has been a source of frustration for veteran pot farmers who hoped the new state regulations would bring clarity to their gray corner of the medical marijuana industry and instead find themselves "recriminalized," said Hezekiah Allen, executive director of the newly formed California Growers Association.
Unless the local bans are lifted or modified, they would make medical marijuana growers in those areas automatically ineligible for the potentially lucrative and limited number of agriculture licenses the state expects to start issuing in 2018.
"Certainly we have been disappointed with the League of Cities, how they have chosen to proceed," Allen said. "A lot of the jurisdictions had a predisposition to ban, and the March 1 deadline unfortunately gave them cover to ban."
http://www.hightimes.com/read/californi ... local-bans
Re: News in English 2016
Marijuana Policy Project Will Campaign to Legalize Medical Marijuana in Ohio
While both chambers of the Ohio legislature prepare to embark on separate fact-finding missions in order to evaluate the benefits and risks of legalizing marijuana for medical purposes, the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), a national cannabis advocacy group based in the District of Columbia, hopes to take the fate of legal weed out of the hands of lawmakers and put the question of medical use up to the voters in November’s general election.
Similar to what they have managed to achieve in states like Arizona and Michigan, the MPP will soon launch an initiative aimed at establishing a somewhat restrictive medical marijuana program throughout the state of Ohio. The proposal would give patients suffering from “serious medical conditions,” including cancer and Crohn’s disease, access to cannabis that they would be able to purchase though state licensed dispensaries. It would also give patients the freedom to engage in home cultivation.
“We are committed to working with local patients, advocates and professionals to pass a well-written initiative that ensures seriously ill Ohioans are able to access medical marijuana if their doctors recommend it,” Mason Tvert, director of communication at the Marijuana Policy Project, told HIGH TIMES in an emailed statement.
The 2016 campaign, which will be formally handled by the newly created “Ohionans for Medical Marijuana,” is in response to last year’s failed “Issue 3,” an effort put forth by the recently dismantled ResponsibleOhio, which attempted to end statewide prohibition by establishing a cartel-like monopoly that would have prevented any chance of a free market cannabis trade. It was after a great deal of mostly negative media attention that Ohio voters ultimately decided to run ResponsibleOhio out on a rail, showing big marijuana that not even a $20 million campaign could compete with the Midwestern farming community.
Although the polls regarding ResponsibleOhio’s mission showed that voters were somewhat conflicted over whether to support Issue 3, there was no mistaking that the majority of the population was all for legalization. A WKYC and Kent University poll revealed that 56 percent of the state’s voters wanted to legalize recreational and medical marijuana, while 32 percent opposed and another 10 percent remained uncertain.
Interestingly, as soon as the results of last year’s election were set in stone, the Marijuana Policy Project cryptically suggested that the organization might be eyeballing the Midwest to push a new initiative.
“It’s pretty obvious that the outcome in Ohio does not reflect where the nation stands on the direction in which it is heading when it comes to marijuana policy,” Tvert said last November. “It only reflects where Ohio voters stand on a specific and rather unique proposal in an off-election year. It will not have any bearing on the outcomes of the initiative that we expect to appear on other states’ ballot in 2016.”
The MPP’s master plan to bring medical marijuana to Ohio has not been officially announced.
This information was initially discovered through a job posting that went up on their website last night seeking an “Ohio organizer” to work in Columbus, Cleveland or Cincinnati. According to the post, the position will be active February through November 2016, paying a salary of $5,000 per month.
“We are in the very initial stages of this process—filing a committee, starting to build a campaign team, and conducting outreach to potential coalition partners and donors,” Tvert said. “We are looking forward to working with our allies in Ohio to produce the most effective and responsible medical marijuana system possible.”
This development almost inevitably ensures that 2016 will be another interesting year in the realm of Ohio’s pot politics. Not only will the MPP fight to put a medical marijuana initiative in front of voters, but another group called “Ohioans to End Prohibition” (Legalize Ohio) is also working to legalize a fully recreational market in the same manner. Reports show this organization has so far collected 80,000 of the more than 300,000 signatures needed to earn a spot on the ballot, but the real question is do they have the financial resources to see their proposal to fruition.
One thing is certain—the MPP will have no trouble securing the funds needed to gain a strong position in this race.
There is also a distinct possibility that news of the MPP’s efforts will spook the Ohio legislature to the point of getting serious about drafting legislation ahead of the November election. At this point, the House has created a medical marijuana task force to weigh out the pros and cons of legalization, while several senators recently announced that they will travel the state to “listen to the nurses…the doctors…the patients” in hopes of determining the best course of action for the development of a medical marijuana bill.
http://www.hightimes.com/read/marijuana ... juana-ohio
While both chambers of the Ohio legislature prepare to embark on separate fact-finding missions in order to evaluate the benefits and risks of legalizing marijuana for medical purposes, the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), a national cannabis advocacy group based in the District of Columbia, hopes to take the fate of legal weed out of the hands of lawmakers and put the question of medical use up to the voters in November’s general election.
Similar to what they have managed to achieve in states like Arizona and Michigan, the MPP will soon launch an initiative aimed at establishing a somewhat restrictive medical marijuana program throughout the state of Ohio. The proposal would give patients suffering from “serious medical conditions,” including cancer and Crohn’s disease, access to cannabis that they would be able to purchase though state licensed dispensaries. It would also give patients the freedom to engage in home cultivation.
“We are committed to working with local patients, advocates and professionals to pass a well-written initiative that ensures seriously ill Ohioans are able to access medical marijuana if their doctors recommend it,” Mason Tvert, director of communication at the Marijuana Policy Project, told HIGH TIMES in an emailed statement.
The 2016 campaign, which will be formally handled by the newly created “Ohionans for Medical Marijuana,” is in response to last year’s failed “Issue 3,” an effort put forth by the recently dismantled ResponsibleOhio, which attempted to end statewide prohibition by establishing a cartel-like monopoly that would have prevented any chance of a free market cannabis trade. It was after a great deal of mostly negative media attention that Ohio voters ultimately decided to run ResponsibleOhio out on a rail, showing big marijuana that not even a $20 million campaign could compete with the Midwestern farming community.
Although the polls regarding ResponsibleOhio’s mission showed that voters were somewhat conflicted over whether to support Issue 3, there was no mistaking that the majority of the population was all for legalization. A WKYC and Kent University poll revealed that 56 percent of the state’s voters wanted to legalize recreational and medical marijuana, while 32 percent opposed and another 10 percent remained uncertain.
Interestingly, as soon as the results of last year’s election were set in stone, the Marijuana Policy Project cryptically suggested that the organization might be eyeballing the Midwest to push a new initiative.
“It’s pretty obvious that the outcome in Ohio does not reflect where the nation stands on the direction in which it is heading when it comes to marijuana policy,” Tvert said last November. “It only reflects where Ohio voters stand on a specific and rather unique proposal in an off-election year. It will not have any bearing on the outcomes of the initiative that we expect to appear on other states’ ballot in 2016.”
The MPP’s master plan to bring medical marijuana to Ohio has not been officially announced.
This information was initially discovered through a job posting that went up on their website last night seeking an “Ohio organizer” to work in Columbus, Cleveland or Cincinnati. According to the post, the position will be active February through November 2016, paying a salary of $5,000 per month.
“We are in the very initial stages of this process—filing a committee, starting to build a campaign team, and conducting outreach to potential coalition partners and donors,” Tvert said. “We are looking forward to working with our allies in Ohio to produce the most effective and responsible medical marijuana system possible.”
This development almost inevitably ensures that 2016 will be another interesting year in the realm of Ohio’s pot politics. Not only will the MPP fight to put a medical marijuana initiative in front of voters, but another group called “Ohioans to End Prohibition” (Legalize Ohio) is also working to legalize a fully recreational market in the same manner. Reports show this organization has so far collected 80,000 of the more than 300,000 signatures needed to earn a spot on the ballot, but the real question is do they have the financial resources to see their proposal to fruition.
One thing is certain—the MPP will have no trouble securing the funds needed to gain a strong position in this race.
There is also a distinct possibility that news of the MPP’s efforts will spook the Ohio legislature to the point of getting serious about drafting legislation ahead of the November election. At this point, the House has created a medical marijuana task force to weigh out the pros and cons of legalization, while several senators recently announced that they will travel the state to “listen to the nurses…the doctors…the patients” in hopes of determining the best course of action for the development of a medical marijuana bill.
http://www.hightimes.com/read/marijuana ... juana-ohio
Re: News in English 2016
Illinois Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Fear Bankruptcy Without More Patients
While medical marijuana businesses in states like Illinois have been forced to invest unimaginable amounts of money for a chance to sell pot products to qualified patients, some of the dispensaries that have opened their doors over the past few months claim that bankruptcy could be on the horizon if more patients are not given access to the program.
Some of the latest reports suggest that Illinois dispensaries are struggling to stay alive because there simply aren’t enough medical marijuana patients to sustain the program. Joseph Friedman, a pharmacist who operates the Buffalo Grove dispensary, told The Daily Herald that he only services somewhere between “one to three patients a day,” a trend that threatens to put his company “out of business” if something doesn’t change soon.
When the Illinois pilot program was launched last November, there were fewer than 4,000 patients registered for participation. Now, with more than 20 dispensaries in operation and as many as 14 more expected to open before spring, business owners say they would need to see at least 30,000 patients in order to have a fighting chance.
Most of this madness can be attributed to the state’s unwillingness to create a full-scale medical marijuana program, settling instead for one that is considered to be one of the most restrictive in the nation. As it stands, Illinois will only issue cards to patients suffering from around 40 serious conditions, including cancer and Crohn’s disease, but they are apprehensive about incorporating other, more common ailments that would undoubtedly amplify the program for the betterment of everyone involved.
Industry experts argue that Illinois could fix the majority of their problems, and rather quickly, by simply allowing the participation of patients suffering from chronic pain. Statistics show that the majority of the patients in states like Arizona and Colorado are using medical marijuana for this reason. In fact, while Minnesota health officials would probably deny it, “intractable pain” was recently added to its list of qualified conditions in an effort to keep its program from crashing into a pit of total failure. This move is expected to quadruple the number of registered patients, which was approximately 700, as of December.
But there is little hope that Illinois will start taking medical marijuana serious enough to ensure its success. Last year, Governor Bruce Rauner seemed to do everything in his power to prevent the program’s functionality, including vetoing a measure to stretch it beyond its expiration date and one that would have allowed more qualified conditions.
Even though the state Medical Cannabis Advisory Board recently approved eight more conditions, including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and four pain disorders, the decision to incorporate these into the existing program remains in the hands of the Rauner administration. A decision on this matter is expected to be announced before the end of the month.
Other states, specifically New York, are almost inevitably headed for a similar fate, especially if they do not make an effort to incorporate additional conditions in the mix. Last month, health officials rejected the inclusion of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Alzheimer’s disease, muscular dystrophy, dystonia, and rheumatoid arthritis because they said there wasn’t enough scientific evidence to prove that marijuana was an effective treatment for these conditions. Meanwhile, dispensaries across the state are listening to crickets rather than servicing patients. As of the first day of medical marijuana sales, there were only 51 patients registered in all of New York – hardly enough to keep the lights on in one dispensary, much less 20.
There are some concerns that restrictive medical marijuana programs, such as those in Illinois and New York, are destined to become a model for other states under pressure to put some type of system into place. Pennsylvania, for example, has been struggling for years to come up with a medical marijuana law that appeases the state legislature, but so far, their best plan is at risk of becoming one of the least effective programs in American history.
Part of the problem is that some lawmakers are worried that creating a comprehensive medical marijuana program will lead to an uprising in criminal chaos and stoned kids. This has caused many laws to be developed under the concept of a cautious experiment rather than a progressive development in the world of natural medicine.
Last year, Governor Rauner said he wouldn’t expand the program until “we have had a chance to evaluate it.” His administration now has until the end of January to decide if thousands of additional patients should have access, or whether he will continue to entertain a program set up for failure.
http://www.hightimes.com/read/illinois- ... e-patients
While medical marijuana businesses in states like Illinois have been forced to invest unimaginable amounts of money for a chance to sell pot products to qualified patients, some of the dispensaries that have opened their doors over the past few months claim that bankruptcy could be on the horizon if more patients are not given access to the program.
Some of the latest reports suggest that Illinois dispensaries are struggling to stay alive because there simply aren’t enough medical marijuana patients to sustain the program. Joseph Friedman, a pharmacist who operates the Buffalo Grove dispensary, told The Daily Herald that he only services somewhere between “one to three patients a day,” a trend that threatens to put his company “out of business” if something doesn’t change soon.
When the Illinois pilot program was launched last November, there were fewer than 4,000 patients registered for participation. Now, with more than 20 dispensaries in operation and as many as 14 more expected to open before spring, business owners say they would need to see at least 30,000 patients in order to have a fighting chance.
Most of this madness can be attributed to the state’s unwillingness to create a full-scale medical marijuana program, settling instead for one that is considered to be one of the most restrictive in the nation. As it stands, Illinois will only issue cards to patients suffering from around 40 serious conditions, including cancer and Crohn’s disease, but they are apprehensive about incorporating other, more common ailments that would undoubtedly amplify the program for the betterment of everyone involved.
Industry experts argue that Illinois could fix the majority of their problems, and rather quickly, by simply allowing the participation of patients suffering from chronic pain. Statistics show that the majority of the patients in states like Arizona and Colorado are using medical marijuana for this reason. In fact, while Minnesota health officials would probably deny it, “intractable pain” was recently added to its list of qualified conditions in an effort to keep its program from crashing into a pit of total failure. This move is expected to quadruple the number of registered patients, which was approximately 700, as of December.
But there is little hope that Illinois will start taking medical marijuana serious enough to ensure its success. Last year, Governor Bruce Rauner seemed to do everything in his power to prevent the program’s functionality, including vetoing a measure to stretch it beyond its expiration date and one that would have allowed more qualified conditions.
Even though the state Medical Cannabis Advisory Board recently approved eight more conditions, including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and four pain disorders, the decision to incorporate these into the existing program remains in the hands of the Rauner administration. A decision on this matter is expected to be announced before the end of the month.
Other states, specifically New York, are almost inevitably headed for a similar fate, especially if they do not make an effort to incorporate additional conditions in the mix. Last month, health officials rejected the inclusion of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Alzheimer’s disease, muscular dystrophy, dystonia, and rheumatoid arthritis because they said there wasn’t enough scientific evidence to prove that marijuana was an effective treatment for these conditions. Meanwhile, dispensaries across the state are listening to crickets rather than servicing patients. As of the first day of medical marijuana sales, there were only 51 patients registered in all of New York – hardly enough to keep the lights on in one dispensary, much less 20.
There are some concerns that restrictive medical marijuana programs, such as those in Illinois and New York, are destined to become a model for other states under pressure to put some type of system into place. Pennsylvania, for example, has been struggling for years to come up with a medical marijuana law that appeases the state legislature, but so far, their best plan is at risk of becoming one of the least effective programs in American history.
Part of the problem is that some lawmakers are worried that creating a comprehensive medical marijuana program will lead to an uprising in criminal chaos and stoned kids. This has caused many laws to be developed under the concept of a cautious experiment rather than a progressive development in the world of natural medicine.
Last year, Governor Rauner said he wouldn’t expand the program until “we have had a chance to evaluate it.” His administration now has until the end of January to decide if thousands of additional patients should have access, or whether he will continue to entertain a program set up for failure.
http://www.hightimes.com/read/illinois- ... e-patients
Re: News in English 2016
New York Health Officials Deny Additional Qualified Conditions for Failing Medical Marijuana Program
New York recently launched its ultra-restrictive medical marijuana program for patients suffering from “severe, debilitating, or life-threatening” conditions, but so far there are no signs that state officials are eager to expand the program to service a wider spectrum of patients.
On Monday, Health Commissioner Dr. Howard Zucker announced that he would not allow patients with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Alzheimer’s disease, muscular dystrophy, dystonia, and rheumatoid arthritis to participate in the medical marijuana program because he does not believe there is enough scientific evidence to prove that cannabis can be an effective treatment for these conditions.
In accordance with state law, the New York Health Department was given a year and a half to consider the five proposed qualified conditions and make a determination as to whether patients with these ailments should be given access to medical marijuana. Officials reportedly pulled in a legion of health and science experts to examine several pieces of research pertaining to marijuana as a viable treatment option, but ultimately they concluded that more evidence was needed before they would be willing to move forward.
Incidentally, Dr. Zucker has the power to add any qualified condition he wishes at any time.
"The law or the health commissioner don't tell doctors what diseases are appropriate for any other drug," Assemblyman Richard Gottfried, one of the key sponsors of the Compassionate Care Act, told Politico. "We really should not have an official list for medical marijuana."
As it stands, medical marijuana in New York is only available to those with cancer, HIV/AIDS, Lou Gehrig’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, intractable spasticity as a result of spinal cord damage, epilepsy, inflammatory bowel disease, neuropathies and Huntington’s disease. Yet, the state should be embarrassed by just how much of a failure the program is destined to become, simply because officials refuse to set aside the fear that any wrong move might create a liberal system comparable to what is going on in California.
But New York is far from achieving a program of that magnitude.
The New York Times recently reported that only 51 patients were currently registered to participate in the medical marijuana program, mostly because there are only about 150 physicians in the entire state that have been certified to provide their patients with medical marijuana recommendations. Furthermore, the Times indicates that dispensaries located in highly populated New York City have only seen “a trickle of patients” since opening their doors last week, indicating that dispensaries servicing other parts of the state likely aren’t seeing much action.
Although many lawmakers consider the state’s newfound medical marijuana program to be the first step towards the eventual creation of a plan with more comprehensive coverage, state officials need to ease up on the restrictions to ensure the program is able to generate enough revenue to stay alive long enough to see that happen.
Right now, the inability for patients to consume raw cannabis has forced the state’s medical marijuana prices into the realm of the obscene because the five cannabis producers are only permitted to sell tinctures, oils, and vapors. This restriction alone could be enough to force patients back into the black market, as it is expected that some could spend as much as $1,200 a month to buy it legally.
Last year, New York Physicians for Compassionate Care — a group of more than 600 doctors from across the state who support medical marijuana — sent a letter to the state legislature pointing out a number of scientific studies that shows smoking marijuana in not as dangerous as it is perceived. Still, the state has refused to allow this delivery method.
Keith Stroup, the founder of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, recently told Vice News that changes to New York’s medical marijuana program will take some time because lawmakers are still suspicious that patients are simply searching for a way to get stoned without legal ramifications. Unfortunately, due to the New York’s impact on national policy, Stroup thinks more states will follow in its footsteps when it comes time to create their respective medical marijuana programs – providing patients with no raw cannabis, no edibles, and no fun.
http://www.hightimes.com/read/new-york- ... -marijuana
New York recently launched its ultra-restrictive medical marijuana program for patients suffering from “severe, debilitating, or life-threatening” conditions, but so far there are no signs that state officials are eager to expand the program to service a wider spectrum of patients.
On Monday, Health Commissioner Dr. Howard Zucker announced that he would not allow patients with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Alzheimer’s disease, muscular dystrophy, dystonia, and rheumatoid arthritis to participate in the medical marijuana program because he does not believe there is enough scientific evidence to prove that cannabis can be an effective treatment for these conditions.
In accordance with state law, the New York Health Department was given a year and a half to consider the five proposed qualified conditions and make a determination as to whether patients with these ailments should be given access to medical marijuana. Officials reportedly pulled in a legion of health and science experts to examine several pieces of research pertaining to marijuana as a viable treatment option, but ultimately they concluded that more evidence was needed before they would be willing to move forward.
Incidentally, Dr. Zucker has the power to add any qualified condition he wishes at any time.
"The law or the health commissioner don't tell doctors what diseases are appropriate for any other drug," Assemblyman Richard Gottfried, one of the key sponsors of the Compassionate Care Act, told Politico. "We really should not have an official list for medical marijuana."
As it stands, medical marijuana in New York is only available to those with cancer, HIV/AIDS, Lou Gehrig’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, intractable spasticity as a result of spinal cord damage, epilepsy, inflammatory bowel disease, neuropathies and Huntington’s disease. Yet, the state should be embarrassed by just how much of a failure the program is destined to become, simply because officials refuse to set aside the fear that any wrong move might create a liberal system comparable to what is going on in California.
But New York is far from achieving a program of that magnitude.
The New York Times recently reported that only 51 patients were currently registered to participate in the medical marijuana program, mostly because there are only about 150 physicians in the entire state that have been certified to provide their patients with medical marijuana recommendations. Furthermore, the Times indicates that dispensaries located in highly populated New York City have only seen “a trickle of patients” since opening their doors last week, indicating that dispensaries servicing other parts of the state likely aren’t seeing much action.
Although many lawmakers consider the state’s newfound medical marijuana program to be the first step towards the eventual creation of a plan with more comprehensive coverage, state officials need to ease up on the restrictions to ensure the program is able to generate enough revenue to stay alive long enough to see that happen.
Right now, the inability for patients to consume raw cannabis has forced the state’s medical marijuana prices into the realm of the obscene because the five cannabis producers are only permitted to sell tinctures, oils, and vapors. This restriction alone could be enough to force patients back into the black market, as it is expected that some could spend as much as $1,200 a month to buy it legally.
Last year, New York Physicians for Compassionate Care — a group of more than 600 doctors from across the state who support medical marijuana — sent a letter to the state legislature pointing out a number of scientific studies that shows smoking marijuana in not as dangerous as it is perceived. Still, the state has refused to allow this delivery method.
Keith Stroup, the founder of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, recently told Vice News that changes to New York’s medical marijuana program will take some time because lawmakers are still suspicious that patients are simply searching for a way to get stoned without legal ramifications. Unfortunately, due to the New York’s impact on national policy, Stroup thinks more states will follow in its footsteps when it comes time to create their respective medical marijuana programs – providing patients with no raw cannabis, no edibles, and no fun.
http://www.hightimes.com/read/new-york- ... -marijuana
Re: News in English 2016
Colorado pot sales top $1B in 2015, ArcView Group estimates
Despite a disappointing end to 2015, overall industry growth was a robust 30 percent, according to the report
BOULDER — Marijuana sales in Colorado topped $1 billion in 2015, according to a new report from cannabis investment firm the ArcView Group.
Estimates put the figure at $1.005 billion, up nearly 45 percent from about $700 million last year. Growth was primarily driven by recreational sales, which topped $600 million. Medicinal sales in the state came in just above $400 million.
Industry insiders had long predicted revenue would cross the $1 billion mark, though a sluggish end to the year was unanticipated.
“(The fourth quarter) did not continue the momentum of (the third quarter),” said Roy Bingham, founder and CEO of BDS Analytics, and industry data analysis firm in Boulder. “In fact, Q4 came in well below Q3, suggesting among other things that this is a more seasonal market than might have been expected.”
Data from ArcView, based in San Francisco, showed that in Colorado and Washington, the two states in which recreational marijuana is legal, sales growth peaked in the summer months, with decided dips in the fall and early winter.
Nancy Whiteman, co-founder of Boulder’s Wana Brands, said that sales ebb and flow along with tourism in the state.
“Things really start to pick up in January and stay strong throughout ski season,” Whiteman said. “They go down a bit in mud season and up again in summer, which is the peak time.”
Still, despite a disappointing end to 2015, overall industry growth was a robust 30 percent, according to the report.
Nationwide, sales of marijuana for adult use (non-medicinal) were up a stunning 184 percent — from $351 million to $998 million last year.
“Many in the business and financial sector have taken a ‘wait and see’ approach to the legal cannabis industry,” ArcView CEO Troy Dayton wrote in the report. “The data in this report confirms (that) legalization of cannabis is one of the greatest business opportunities of our time and it’s still early enough to see huge growth.”
Still, the report cautioned, the industry is not without risk.
Last year, for instance, publicly traded marijuana stocks consistently underperformed the NASDAQ and S&P 500 indices, according to ArcView.
http://www.thecannabist.co/2016/02/03/c ... ort/47604/
Despite a disappointing end to 2015, overall industry growth was a robust 30 percent, according to the report
BOULDER — Marijuana sales in Colorado topped $1 billion in 2015, according to a new report from cannabis investment firm the ArcView Group.
Estimates put the figure at $1.005 billion, up nearly 45 percent from about $700 million last year. Growth was primarily driven by recreational sales, which topped $600 million. Medicinal sales in the state came in just above $400 million.
Industry insiders had long predicted revenue would cross the $1 billion mark, though a sluggish end to the year was unanticipated.
“(The fourth quarter) did not continue the momentum of (the third quarter),” said Roy Bingham, founder and CEO of BDS Analytics, and industry data analysis firm in Boulder. “In fact, Q4 came in well below Q3, suggesting among other things that this is a more seasonal market than might have been expected.”
Data from ArcView, based in San Francisco, showed that in Colorado and Washington, the two states in which recreational marijuana is legal, sales growth peaked in the summer months, with decided dips in the fall and early winter.
Nancy Whiteman, co-founder of Boulder’s Wana Brands, said that sales ebb and flow along with tourism in the state.
“Things really start to pick up in January and stay strong throughout ski season,” Whiteman said. “They go down a bit in mud season and up again in summer, which is the peak time.”
Still, despite a disappointing end to 2015, overall industry growth was a robust 30 percent, according to the report.
Nationwide, sales of marijuana for adult use (non-medicinal) were up a stunning 184 percent — from $351 million to $998 million last year.
“Many in the business and financial sector have taken a ‘wait and see’ approach to the legal cannabis industry,” ArcView CEO Troy Dayton wrote in the report. “The data in this report confirms (that) legalization of cannabis is one of the greatest business opportunities of our time and it’s still early enough to see huge growth.”
Still, the report cautioned, the industry is not without risk.
Last year, for instance, publicly traded marijuana stocks consistently underperformed the NASDAQ and S&P 500 indices, according to ArcView.
http://www.thecannabist.co/2016/02/03/c ... ort/47604/
Re: News in English 2016
The 3 States Least Likely To Legalize Cannabis
Illegal in the United States for nearly 80 years, cannabis accounted for 8.2 million arrests nationwide between 2001 and 2010. Despite the decades old federal ban, the country’s attitude toward cannabis has been changing. While only 12% of Americans supported legalizing pot in 1969, 58% of Americans supported an end to cannabis prohibition in 2013.
Below are the 3 states that are least likely to legalize cannabis:
1. Alabama
Max. fine for small amount: $6,000
Marijuana related arrests in 2012: 3,600
Marijuana arrests per 100,000: 74.7
Minimum penalty classification: Misdemeanor
Cannabis use among Alabama residents is relatively rare. Roughly 9.7% of residents 12 years and older report using the drug, one of the lowest usage rates among all states and significantly lower than the national usage rate of 12.3%. Low useage may be the result of steep legal penalties for possession. Even after a reduction in the severity of the penalties earlier this year, second time offenders caught with any amount of marijuana face felony charges and up to five years incarceration.
Not all cannabis legislation introduced to the state legislature this year was signed into law. The senate killed a bill that would have established a medicinal cannabis program. With harsh possession penalties, low usage rates, and a demonstrable lack of political support, Alabama is among the least likely states to legalize cannabis in the near future.
2. Arkansas
Max. fine for small amount: $2,500
Marijuana related arrests in 2012: 5,892
Marijuana arrests per 100,000: 199.8
Minimum penalty classification: Misdemeanor
Arkansas has a voter initiative process, and as Tvert explained, this could put progressive cannabis reform on the table in the near future. However, the state is still an unlikely place for full legalization. In 2012, voters in Arkansas did not pass a measure that would have allowed seriously ill residents to use medicinal cannabis without fear of legal repercussion. Two years later, after falling short by about 11,500 signatures of the 62,507 required, a proposal to legalize recreational use of the drug failed to even make it on the ballot. having a A reluctance to legalize cannabis in Arkansas may not be especially surprising as nearly half of all counties in the state ban alcohol sales.
Possession of four ounces or more in Arkansas is a felony punishable by up to six years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Second time offenders in Arkansas will face felony charges for possession of as little as a single ounce. Prosecuting and arresting marijuana offenders is a strain on state resources. There were 5,324 arrests in 2012 for marijuana possession alone. According to the MPP, 91% of burglaries in the state and more than 90% of all motor vehicle thefts went unsolved in the same year, an indication resources allocated to crimes relating to cannabis may be better used elsewhere.
3. Georgia
Max. fine for small amount: $1,000
Marijuana related arrests in 2012: 30,611
Marijuana arrests per 100,000: 308.6
Minimum penalty classification: Misdemeanor
Despite recent legalization of non-psychoactive cannabis oil for medicinal purposes, cannabis legalization seems unlikely in the near future for residents of the Peach State. Even those who are prescribed cannabis oil for specific medical treatment face potential legal risks. Georgia currently does not allow for the production or distribution of the medicinal oil in the state, leaving patients little choice but to travel across state lines to obtain the medicine, a direct violation of federal law. While laws regarding the drug’s medical use will remain strict, some legislators along with the majority of voters, support allowing cannabidiol to be produced and distributed within state borders.
An adult in Georgia caught in possession of more than 1 ounce of cannabis can face felony charges, a $5,000 fine, and a minimum of one year incarceration. Cannabis arrests are more common in Georgia than they are in most other states. There are roughly 309 cannabis-related arrests for every 100,000 state residents, significantly more than the corresponding national rate of 239 arrests for every 100,000 people.
http://marijuanaworldnews.com/the-3-sta ... -cannabis/
Illegal in the United States for nearly 80 years, cannabis accounted for 8.2 million arrests nationwide between 2001 and 2010. Despite the decades old federal ban, the country’s attitude toward cannabis has been changing. While only 12% of Americans supported legalizing pot in 1969, 58% of Americans supported an end to cannabis prohibition in 2013.
Below are the 3 states that are least likely to legalize cannabis:
1. Alabama
Max. fine for small amount: $6,000
Marijuana related arrests in 2012: 3,600
Marijuana arrests per 100,000: 74.7
Minimum penalty classification: Misdemeanor
Cannabis use among Alabama residents is relatively rare. Roughly 9.7% of residents 12 years and older report using the drug, one of the lowest usage rates among all states and significantly lower than the national usage rate of 12.3%. Low useage may be the result of steep legal penalties for possession. Even after a reduction in the severity of the penalties earlier this year, second time offenders caught with any amount of marijuana face felony charges and up to five years incarceration.
Not all cannabis legislation introduced to the state legislature this year was signed into law. The senate killed a bill that would have established a medicinal cannabis program. With harsh possession penalties, low usage rates, and a demonstrable lack of political support, Alabama is among the least likely states to legalize cannabis in the near future.
2. Arkansas
Max. fine for small amount: $2,500
Marijuana related arrests in 2012: 5,892
Marijuana arrests per 100,000: 199.8
Minimum penalty classification: Misdemeanor
Arkansas has a voter initiative process, and as Tvert explained, this could put progressive cannabis reform on the table in the near future. However, the state is still an unlikely place for full legalization. In 2012, voters in Arkansas did not pass a measure that would have allowed seriously ill residents to use medicinal cannabis without fear of legal repercussion. Two years later, after falling short by about 11,500 signatures of the 62,507 required, a proposal to legalize recreational use of the drug failed to even make it on the ballot. having a A reluctance to legalize cannabis in Arkansas may not be especially surprising as nearly half of all counties in the state ban alcohol sales.
Possession of four ounces or more in Arkansas is a felony punishable by up to six years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Second time offenders in Arkansas will face felony charges for possession of as little as a single ounce. Prosecuting and arresting marijuana offenders is a strain on state resources. There were 5,324 arrests in 2012 for marijuana possession alone. According to the MPP, 91% of burglaries in the state and more than 90% of all motor vehicle thefts went unsolved in the same year, an indication resources allocated to crimes relating to cannabis may be better used elsewhere.
3. Georgia
Max. fine for small amount: $1,000
Marijuana related arrests in 2012: 30,611
Marijuana arrests per 100,000: 308.6
Minimum penalty classification: Misdemeanor
Despite recent legalization of non-psychoactive cannabis oil for medicinal purposes, cannabis legalization seems unlikely in the near future for residents of the Peach State. Even those who are prescribed cannabis oil for specific medical treatment face potential legal risks. Georgia currently does not allow for the production or distribution of the medicinal oil in the state, leaving patients little choice but to travel across state lines to obtain the medicine, a direct violation of federal law. While laws regarding the drug’s medical use will remain strict, some legislators along with the majority of voters, support allowing cannabidiol to be produced and distributed within state borders.
An adult in Georgia caught in possession of more than 1 ounce of cannabis can face felony charges, a $5,000 fine, and a minimum of one year incarceration. Cannabis arrests are more common in Georgia than they are in most other states. There are roughly 309 cannabis-related arrests for every 100,000 state residents, significantly more than the corresponding national rate of 239 arrests for every 100,000 people.
http://marijuanaworldnews.com/the-3-sta ... -cannabis/
Palaa sivulle “Politiikka ja media”
Paikallaolijat
Käyttäjiä lukemassa tätä aluetta: Ei rekisteröityneitä käyttäjiä ja 1 vierailija
