From usatoday at 7pm eastern:
Senate panel clears the air on marijuana laws

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Was first-ever hearing of its kind
Some senators concerned about exports from Colo.
Justice Department seeks strong enforcement of laws

Federal laws pose "significant obstacles" to regulation of marijuana in states where it is legal and need to be addressed, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said Tuesday in a first-ever hearing aimed at reconciling rapidly changing state marijuana laws with a federal prohibition on the drug.

"We must have a smarter approach to marijuana policy," Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said. "The absolute criminalization of personal marijuana use has contributed to our nation’s soaring prison population and has disproportionately affected people of color."

The hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee follows a Justice Department memo outlining how it will enforce federal marijuana prohibitions in two states, Colorado and Washington, that have legalized its use, and 20 states that allow marijuana for medical use.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said he was concerned state regulations would fail to keep marijuana use in check. Colorado, which had legalized marijuana for medical use before legalizing it for recreational use in November, has done a poor job so far of preventing marijuana exports to other states where marijuana remains illegal, he said.

"Why has the Justice Department decided to trust Colorado?" Grassley said. "Colorado has become a significant exporter of marijuana."

The Justice Department reserved its right to challenge state laws if public health or safety problems emerge or if the states fail to enact strict regulations to control marijuana use and sale, Deputy Attorney General James Cole, author of the memo, told the Senate panel.

The states’ regulations must be "tough in practice, not just on paper," Cole said. "It must include strong enforcement efforts, backed by adequate funding."

Colorado adopted its final rules on Monday, said Jack Finlaw, chief legal counsel to Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper. He said the 141 pagers of rules cover application and licensing for retail stores; cultivation and manufacturing; testing requirements; inventory tracking; testing and product safety; labeling; and advertising. He said the state would also take steps to limit production so marijuana won’t be diverted to other states.

The Justice Department said in its Aug. 29 memo to U.S. attorneys nationwide that it would seek to prosecute people who sell marijuana to minors, use state laws as a cover for drug trafficking or who attempt to distribute marijuana in states where it is not legal.

King County, Wash., Sheriff John Urquhart said he sees little conflict between his state’s marijuana laws and federal law enforcement.

"The reality is we do have complimentary goals and values," Urquhart said. "We all agree we don’t want our children using marijuana. We all agree we don’t want impaired drivers. We all agree we don’t want to continue enriching criminals."

The federal government needs to take some steps to help the state meet those goals, particularly easing banking laws to allow them to do business with licensed marijuana business, Urquhart said.

Because it’s illegal under federal law for banks to open checking, savings or credit card accounts for marijuana businesses, marijuana stores are cash-only, he said. That makes them prime targets for armed robberies and makes them difficult to audit for tax evasion and wage theft, he said.

"I am simply asking that the federal government allow banks to work with legitimate marijuana businesses who are licensed under this new state law," Urquhart said.

"What we have in Washington is not the wild, wild West," he said. "The message to my deputies has been very clear: You will enforce our new marijuana laws. You will write someone a ticket for smoking in public. You will enforce age limits. You will put unlicensed stores out of business."

Legalizing marijuana without strict controls will create an enormous public health problem similar to what the United States faced with tobacco use, said Kevin Sabet, founder of Project SAM, which advocates for a marijuana policy that focuses on public health, prevention and treatment.

After years of fighting "Big Tobacco," Sabet said, "we are now on the brink of creating ‘Big Marijuana.’ "

"Authorizing the large-scale, commercial production of marijuana will undoubtedly expand its access and availability," Sabet said. "When we can prevent negative consequences of the commercial sale and production of marijuana now, why would we open the floodgates, hope for the best, and try with limited resources to patch everything up when things go wrong?"

The hearing suggests that "the Senate at last is acknowledging the remarkable shift in public opinion and state laws involving marijuana," Drug Police Alliance Executive Director Ethan Nadelmann said.

Dan Riffle, director of federal policies for the Marijuana Policy Project, said despite the guidelines, Congress needs to address the federal status of marijuana as a prohibited drug.

"The administration is doing its best to work around federal law, but a better approach would be to simply fix federal law and permanently resolve this conflict," Riffle said.

Follow Donna Leinwand Leger on Twitter: @donnaleinwandh

Fingers, toes , and Balls crossed ….ouch :weinerwiggle:

same here Tibs  ;D thanks for posting 3V1L9371U5 job wel done man  :banana: :popcorn:

Politician shit speak, they move their lips but nothing worthwhile comes out..

lol  :goodpost

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2013/sep/10/senate_marijuana_legalization_hearing

The Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday afternoon held a hearing on marijuana legalization and conflicts between state and federal marijuana laws. Led by committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the hearing featured testimony from the deputy attorney general who has set Justice Department policy, two officials in states that have legalized marijuana and one critic of marijuana legalization.

The hearing marked the first time Congress has grappled with the issue of responding to state-level marijuana legalization and was notable for its emphasis on making legalization work in states where it is legal. It was also notable in that of all the senators present, only one, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), bothered to dredge up the sort of anti-marijuana rhetoric that had in years and decades past been so typical on Capitol Hill.

"Marijuana is a dangerous and addictive drug," said Grassley, who turns 80 next week. "It’s illegal under international law as well, and the treaty requires us to restrict its use to scientific and medical uses. These [legalization] laws flatly contradict our federal law. Some experts fear a Big Marijuana, a Starbucks of marijuana," he lamented.

Grassley’s lonely stand reflects changing political realities around marijuana policy. The other senators who spoke up during the hearing — Democrats Leahy, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island — all represent states where voters have already expressed support for medical marijuana and a region where support for outright legalization is high. They were all more interested in removing obstacles to a workable legalization than in turning back the clock.

"Last November, the people of Colorado and Washington voted to legalize marijuana, and these new laws are just the latest example of the growing tension between state and federal marijuana laws and the uncertainty about how such conflicts are resolved," Leahy said as he opened the hearing. "Marijuana use in this country is nothing new, but the way in which individual states deal with it continues to evolve. We all agree on the necessity of preventing distribution to minors, on preventing criminal enterprises from profiting, and on drugged driving. But I hope that there might also be agreement that we can’t be satisfied with the status quo."

The first witness was Deputy Attorney General James Cole, author of last month’s policy directive notifying state governments that the Justice Department would not seek to preempt their marijuana laws and instructing all federal prosecutors to leave legal marijuana alone — with a number of exceptions. Sales to minors, the use of guns or violence, profiting by criminal groups, a marked increase in public health consequences like drugged driving, and distribution of marijuana into non-legal states are all among the factors that could excite a federal response, Cole’s directive noted.

On Tuesday, Cole reiterated and went over the policy directive for senators, but the most striking part of his testimony was his admission that the federal government could not effectively put the genie back in the bottle.

"It would be very challenging to preempt decriminalization," Cole conceded in response to a question from Leahy. "We might have an easier time preempting the regulatory scheme, but then what do you have? Legal marijuana and no enforcement mechanism, which is probably not a good situation. You would also have money going to organized criminal enterprises instead of state coffers."

The three Democratic senators all prodded Cole and the Justice Department to do something about the legal marijuana (and medical marijuana) industry’s problems with banks and financial services. Because of federal pressure, such institutions have refused to deal with marijuana, leaving those businesses drowning in cash. The senators also questioned reports that the DEA had been telling armored car companies not to do business with marijuana businesses.

"What about the banking industry?" asked Leahy. "A cash only business is a prescription for problems. We’re hearing that DEA agents are instructing armored car companies to stop providing services to medical marijuana companies. It’s almost as if they’re saying ‘let’s see if we can have some robberies.’ What is the department going to do to address those concerns?"

"The governors of Colorado and Washington raised this same issue," Cole acknowledged. "There is a public safety concern when businesses have a lot of cash sitting around; there are guns associated with that. We’re talking with FinCEN and bank regulators to find ways to deal with this in accordance with laws on the books today."

"There should be specific guidance to the financial services industry," a not-quite-mollified Leahy replied.

The committee then heard from King County (Seattle), Washington, Sheriff John Urquhart. "The war on drugs has been a failure," the sheriff said bluntly. "We have not reduced demand, but instead incarcerated a generation of individuals. The citizens decided to try something new. We, the government, failed the people, and they decided to try something new."

Urquhart saw no great tension between the federal government and legal marijuana states, and he, too, brought up the issue of banking services.

"The reality is we do have complementary goals and values," Urquhart said. "We all agree we don’t want our children using marijuana. We all agree we don’t want impaired drivers. We all agree we don’t want to continue enriching criminals. I am simply asking that the federal government allow banks to work with legitimate marijuana businesses who are licensed under this new state law."

The committee also heard from Kevin Sabet of Project SAM (Smart About Marijuana), the voice of 21st Century neo-prohibitionism.

"In states like Colorado," he said, "we’ve seen medical marijuana cards handed out like candy, we’ve seen mass advertising. At the marijuana festival in Seattle we saw 50,000 people smoking marijuana publicly; it’s the public use of marijuana that worries me. I don’t see the evidence of trying to implement something robust, especially in the face of an industry that will be pushing back against every single provision. In a country with a First Amendment and alcohol and tobacco industries that profit off addiction, I worry that, inevitably, American-style legalization is commercialization, no matter the interests of state officials and regulators."

But nobody except Grassley seemed to be listening.

Marijuana legalization advocates and drug law reformers liked what they heard Tuesday.

"It feels like there’s a paradigm shift underway in the Justice Department’s interpretation of federal drug control law," said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance. "They seem to recognize that drug control should be first and foremost about protecting public health and safety, and that smart statewide regulatory systems of the sort that Colorado and Washington are proposing may advance those objectives better than knee-jerk enforcement of federal prohibitions."

"For years, the legalization movement has been gaining traction as people learn this is neither a fringe issue nor a partisan one, but one responsible for deep inequities in our justice system, the expansion of criminal gangs and the increase in unsolved violent crimes," said Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) board member and former Denver cop Tony Ryan. "There’s a long road ahead, and this hearing leaves many questions unanswered, but this historic discussion means we are on our way to a more rational and effective drug policy."

"The Department of Justice is finally taking seriously the dangers that a lack of access to simple banking services poses to consumers, employees and business owners," said Aaron Smith, director of the National Cannabis Industry Association. "We are encouraged that the growing consensus among essentially all stakeholders is that banking access must be available to legal businesses. It portends a quick reform to this dangerous and unnecessary situation."

"The era of robust state-based regulation is here," said Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance. "Legalizing marijuana and shrinking the number of people behind bars in the US is an issue the left and right can join together on. Like the repeal of alcohol prohibition, the repeal of marijuana prohibition will save taxpayer money, put organized crime syndicates out of business, and protect the safety of young people."

But at a time when marijuana prohibition remains the federal law of the land, perhaps former Seattle police chief and LEAP member Norm Stamper had the most down-to-earth take.

"While I would have liked to have seen a substantive change in policy, what we were really listening to in that hearing was the sound of a changing political climate," said Stamper. "People who can’t agree on any other political issue are coming together over this one, and politicians on both sides of the aisle ignore that at their own peril."

Washington, DC
United States

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearings on the conflict between state and federal marijuana laws, scheduled for Sept. 10 and led by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), have been hailed as “unprecedented.” Deputy Attorney General James Cole’s Aug. 29 memorandum to federal attorneys, advising that prosecuting cannabis businesses legal under state law should only be a priority if they commit other offenses such as selling to minors, has also been hailed as a major step towards legalization.

On the other hand, the Cole memo did not specifically enjoin federal prosecutors from going after medical-marijuana dispensaries or the pot stores that Colorado and Washington are preparing to license. Some—such as Melinda Haag of California’s Northern District, leader of the crackdown on dispensaries in the San Francisco Bay Area—are saying they will continue to target violations of the federal Controlled Substances Act.

With that in mind, the California chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws has suggested seven questions the Leahy committee should ask Cole when he testifies.

(1) Will the Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement Administration stop pressuring banks and financial institutions to deny services to cannabis businesses that are operating legally under state law?

One aspect of the federal crackdown on dispensaries has been threatening to prosecute the banks that keep their accounts for money-laundering. These businesses may be legal under state law, but federal law considers them blatant drug traffickers, “unlawful manufacturing and distribution activity regarding marijuana,” as Haag put it in a 2011 memo.

“Forcing cannabis businesses to deal in cash only invites crime,” says Dale Gieringer of California NORML.

(2) Similarly, will the DEA desist from its recently reported policy of pressuring armed security services into not serving cannabis businesses?

Armored-car companies in California and Colorado, including Brinks, Dunbar, and ADT, have stopped serving dispensaries after receiving warnings from the DEA. “This ensures that businesses known to carry large amounts of cash will be transporting that cash without professional protection. You couldn’t create a situation more ripe for criminal intervention if you tried,” Stephen Downing of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition told the L.A. Weekly.

(3) Will the Department of Justice direct the DEA to stop sending threatening forfeiture letters to landlords of cannabis businesses that operate legally under state law?

In Spokane, Washington in 2011, landlords evicted about 20 dispensaries within a month after receiving such letters. Haag filed forfeiture proceedings against the Harborside dispensary in Oakland, California’s largest, in 2012.

(4) Will the Department of Justice direct the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to rescind its prohibition on gun sales to otherwise law-abiding medical-marijuana users?

BATF Assistant Director Arthur Herbert instructed licensed gun dealers in 2011 that regardless of state law, any person who uses marijuana “is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance, and is prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition” under the Gun Control Act of 1968.

(5) Will the Department of Justice rescind its threats to prosecute local officials who try to regulate marijuana?

In 2012, California’s Mendocino County stopped issuing medical growers permits for up to 99 plants after Haag threatened to prosecute the county officials who collected the fees. In 2011, Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire vetoed a bill to have the state license medical-marijuana farms and dispensaries after the state’s two U.S. attorneys told her that government employees who worked in such a system could be prosecuted, and state property forfeited.

(6) Will the Department of Justice direct the DEA to reconsider its obsolescent, 40-year-old policy of treating marijuana as a Schedule I drug with no valid medical use?

“There have been dozens of published studies showing medical benefits of marijuana, including several FDA-approved human studies by California’s Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research,” says Gieringer, and 20 states plus the District of Columbia have enacted laws permitting medical use, along with Canada, Israel, Czechoslovakia, and the Netherlands. But the DEA refuses to change this policy, on the grounds that cannabis does not have a “known and reproducible” chemistry and no large-scale Phase II or Phase III clinical studies have ever been conducted on it. That standard is “impossible to meet” for a plant-based drug, Kris Hermes of Americans for Safe Access told Alternet after the federal D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a challenge to the policy in January.

(7) Will the DEA desist from obstructing scientific studies by denying access to marijuana for research purposes, and eliminate obsolescent rules that prevent legitimate researchers from using marijuana that is legally produced under state laws?

Current DEA regulations prohibit researchers from getting cannabis from any source other than the National Institute on Drug Abuse’s abysmal-quality marijuana. This prevents studies on the efficacy of, for example, the high-cannabidiol strains currently being bred for medical use. In 2009, the DEA overruled a decision by administrative-law judge Mary Ellen Bittner to let the University of Massachusetts grow its own cannabis for medical research.

“In effect, the DEA has created a Catch-22 situation, demanding that marijuana be proven through studies that it refuses to permit in the first place,” says Gieringer.

Great updates, Swish.  Thanks!

No Problem EG  :beers: :weedpass:

Awesome read Swish..i wish this would all go faster..