Marijuana Law in a Nutshell
Authors:
Osbeck, Mark K. / Bromberg, Howard
Edition:
1st
Copyright Date:
2017
32 chapters
have results for marijuana
Chapter 9. Special Federal Jurisdictions 44 results (showing 5 best matches)
- 1) preventing distribution of marijuana to minors; 2) preventing revenue from sale of marijuana going to criminal enterprises; 3) preventing diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal to other states; 4) preventing marijuana activity from being used as a cover for trafficking of illegal drugs; 5) preventing violence and the use of firearms in marijuana activity; 6) preventing marijuana-impaired driving and other adverse public health consequences; 7) preventing growing of marijuana on public lands; and 8) preventing marijuana possession and use on federal property.
- The DOJ marijuana memoranda raise questions specific to Indian Country. For example, the third priority enumerated by the DOJ is preventing diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal to other states that have not legalized. However, Indian and Alaska Native tribes are concentrated within states that have legalized marijuana—for example, more than half of the 326 federal Indian reservations are located in Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and California, which have legalized recreational marijuana. It would seem nearly impossible, especially given the often amorphous boundaries of Indian reservations, for these states or the tribes to prevent diversion of marijuana into Indian Country. Likewise, for Indian tribes that legalize marijuana and are located within states that have not legalized marijuana, it would seem similarly difficult to prevent diversion of marijuana from Indian Country to the surrounding state that has not legalized it.
- On October 28, 2014, the DOJ issued “Policy Statement Regarding Enforcement of Marijuana Laws in Indian Country,” (Indian Country Memorandum) signed by the Director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, Monty Wilkinson. It was based on Cole Memo II, which gave guidance to U.S. Attorneys as to enforcement of marijuana law. Despite the national scope of the CSA, which prohibits marijuana activity for all purposes, Cole Memo II acquiesces to a large extent to states legalizing marijuana for medicinal or recreational purposes. The Indian Country Memorandum also acquiesces in Indian Country marijuana legalization, so long as the same eight federal priorities are ensured:
- The Indian Country Memorandum is significant in that it signals that the federal government will allow Indian tribes to enact their own marijuana policy. In addition, it requires U.S. Attorneys to pay respect to the sovereign claims of Indian tribes in enforcing marijuana law, a concern that the Department of Justice did not explicitly extend to any of the 50 states. Thus, whereas the memoranda addressed to the states represent a measure of deference to state law, the Indian Country Memorandum envisions an affirmative partnership between federal agencies and Indian tribes in fashioning marijuana law on Indian reservations and Alaska Native villages. In 2015, the Suquamish and Squaxin Island Tribes formed tribal-state compacts with Washington governing legal marijuana on their reservations and opened retail marijuana shops. The Puyallup Tribe signed a compact with the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board to open a marijuana testing laboratory.
- Marijuana cannot be sent through U.S. mail. In 2015, U.S. postal inspectors seized 7,783 parcels containing marijuana, collectively weighing 34,305 pounds, resulting in 1,932 arrests. Marijuana advertisements are nonmailable. Because of federal control over interstate commerce, marijuana cannot be shipped across state lines, even by private carriers such as Federal Express or the United Parcel Service (UPS). However, interstate highways are not federal property; although paid for largely with federal funds, they are owned by the states they traverse. Private individuals traveling on highways might be allowed to possess marijuana based on the state in which they are traveling, subject to motor vehicle laws.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 14. Special Criminal Issues 44 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Marijuana offenses arise in three ways: 1) marijuana activity violates the federal CSA; 2) marijuana activity violates state and/or local prohibitions against marijuana use; and 3) in states where marijuana prohibitions have been repealed or overridden by legislation or constitutional amendment so as to permit medicinal and/or recreational use, marijuana activity goes beyond permitted limits.
- Despite the trend towards legalization by American states, marijuana in the United States remains largely forbidden. Certainly marijuana activity is a crime under federal law. Likewise, in all 50 states, marijuana cultivation, possession, consumption, and sale remain offences, subject to limited exceptions in states that have set up legalization schemes. And while a majority of states have carved out exceptions for medical use of marijuana, there are precise restrictions for licit medical use, and marijuana activity outside of these limits constitutes a criminal offense. Similarly, criminal penalties remain for such offences as driving while marijuana impaired, possessing marijuana in public view, and possessing a quantity of marijuana beyond authorized amounts, even in jurisdictions that have legalized medical and recreational marijuana.
- To give one example, the long-established doctrine that the aroma of marijuana gives rise to probable cause that a crime is being committed may be challenged in states that have legalized marijuana. After all, forensic narcotic dogs cannot distinguish between illegal marijuana and marijuana that is legal for medical purposes, or quantities of marijuana, also a threshold for legality.
- The basic drug offenses are possession and sale. Typically the crime of possessing marijuana entails 1) knowing 2) possession of 3) the quantity of marijuana indicated by the statute. Possession can be actual or constructive. Actual possession consists of having marijuana on one’s person. Constructive possession is having marijuana in near proximity and under one’s control.
- Within the general category of drug crimes, five characteristics of marijuana account for its special significance in criminal jurisprudence. First, marijuana is by far the most used illicit drug in the U.S. It is estimated that 30 million Americans use marijuana annually. Second, marijuana is relatively inexpensive, easy to cultivate, and easy to buy and sell. It is shared casually, passed around among friends, and left lying about in shared domiciles. Therefore, questions of who is in possession of marijuana arise frequently.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 8. Federalism and Preemption 52 results (showing 5 best matches)
- In a series of memoranda, dated October 19, 2009; June 29, 2011; August 29, 2013; February 14, 2014; and October 28, 2014, the DOJ announced that it will not enforce the CSA prohibition against marijuana in states that decriminalized marijuana use, so long as the states do not allow marijuana use that violates federal priorities. The memoranda list eight federal enforcement priorities to guide the states: 1) preventing distribution of marijuana to minors; 2) preventing revenue from sale of marijuana going to criminal enterprises; 3) preventing diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal to other states; 4) preventing marijuana activity from being used as a cover for trafficking of illegal drugs; 5) preventing violence and the use of firearms in marijuana activity; 6) preventing marijuana-impaired driving and other adverse public health consequences; 7) preventing growing of marijuana on public lands; and 8) preventing marijuana possession and use on federal property. As...
- CSA: state marijuana law is “preempted if there is a positive conflict between that provision of this subchapter [CSA] and that State law so that the two cannot consistently stand together.” Most courts have found that state legalization of marijuana does not constitute impossibility preemption because it does not prevent the federal government from enforcing federal prohibition of marijuana if it so chooses—the states do not force anyone to violate federal law. In other words, it is not a physical impossibility to comply with both federal and state law as to marijuana so long as an actor refrains from marijuana activity. Thus, federal and state marijuana law “can stand together,” because state medical and recreational marijuana laws only permit marijuana activity, but do not require it.
- The CSA strictly prohibits marijuana consumption in all of its forms. Theoretically, this law governs every person in the U.S. and makes all marijuana activity, including medical marijuana, a federal crime, regardless of state law. The Supremacy Clause of
- Thus under traditional constitutional jurisprudence, marijuana would be prohibited in every state in the nation. However, the Justice Department has stated that it will allow states to enact regimes legalizing marijuana for medicinal or recreational purposes, so long as certain federal priorities are met. As a result, the current status of marijuana law in the United States is rather paradoxical. Marijuana is strictly prohibited by federal law, the supreme law of the land, yet tolerated for many purposes by the Justice Department, which is required to enforce the laws enacted by Congress. In almost half of the states marijuana remains illicit; in the other half it is legal to use marijuana for medicinal purposes, and in some states, for recreational purposes as well.
- The prevailing jurisprudence that states, by merely permitting marijuana activity, do not conflict with the CSA, suggests that positive actions by the state to facilitate marijuana use could well conflict with federal anti-marijuana regulation and thus be preempted. Commentators have suggested that the following state actions might go beyond merely permissive activity and thus constitute a positive conflict: state laws that immunize their citizens from federal prosecution or from federal consequences of marijuana use, such as disqualification from federally subsidized public housing, or protecting medical users from employment discrimination; state cultivation and distribution of marijuana to qualified residents, such as those for whom physicians have recommended marijuana use; and authorizing state officials to assist individuals in gaining access to marijuana. In the most extreme interpretation, persons who facilitate a violation of the CSA could be liable for aiding and abetting...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 11. State Law 39 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Medical marijuana patients also face certain obstacles to important activities that most of us take for granted. For example, as discussed further in Chapter 17, medical marijuana patients have to be careful when driving, particularly in states such as Colorado and Washington that have limits on blood THC levels. Because they are using the drug frequently, medical marijuana users may carry enough THC in their blood to violate criminal laws on impaired driving, even if the patients are not “high” at the time they are driving. Similarly, as discussed further in Chapter 16, medical marijuana patients face challenges in the workplace, because most states allow employers to terminate medical marijuana patients who fail random drug tests, even though the patients are not using marijuana at work, and are not impaired at work. Medical marijuana patients may face other legal difficulties as well (e.g., with landlords who don’t want marijuana used in the premises, with child custody evaluators...
- Section 11–2 of this chapter discusses traditional criminalization states, that is, states that continue to follow the federal government in criminalizing all marijuana use. Section 11–3 looks at states that have decriminalized the personal use and possession of marijuana. Section 11–4 examines how state law treats marijuana possession for medical use in states that have enacted medical marijuana schemes. Section 11–5 looks at states that have legalized the recreational use of marijuana. And § 11–6 discusses how various states treat related cannabis products, such as hemp, CBD oil, and paraphernalia.
- Interestingly, a particular state’s decision to legalize medical marijuana does not necessarily reflect a general lenience toward marijuana possession on the part of the state. In fact, some of the harshest penalties for illegal use of marijuana are found in states that authorize the medical use of marijuana. Arizona, for example, allows medical marijuana patients with various qualifying conditions to possess up to 2 ½ ounces of usable marijuana for medical purposes. However, strict compliance with the state’s medical marijuana act is necessary, and possession outside of the strict confines of the medical marijuana act is a felony, punishable by incarceration of four months to 3.75 years, depending on the amount, as well as a fine of up to $150,000. Thus, patients, caregivers, and marijuana-related businesses in medical marijuana states need to carefully monitor their activities, as well as new developments in the law, to ensure that they are staying within the strict confines of...
- In the state of Washington, voters passed Ballot Initiative 502, also in 2012, which legalizes the personal use of marijuana in amounts of 1 ounce or less, and authorizes the state liquor control board to tax and regulate sales of marijuana by licensed entities to persons 21 years of age and older. The state set up a detailed regulatory scheme, granting licenses to marijuana producers and marijuana processors, as well as marijuana retailers (i.e., dispensaries). Recreational sales of marijuana to the public began in July 2014. Unlike Colorado, Washington does not allow individuals to grow their own marijuana for recreational use. Both states, however, prohibit the public consumption of marijuana. Both impose limits of 5 ng/ml of blood for purposes of regulating impaired driving. And both states have generated significant revenue by taxing recreational sales of marijuana.
- Beginning in the early 1970s, however, state law began to diverge from federal law—a trend that continues to the present time. This divergence has manifested itself in several distinct ways. Thus, while no two states are exactly the same in terms of their treatment of marijuana, there are certain trends that are apparent when examining state marijuana laws that have put a number of states in conflict with federal law. The first of these is decriminalization. Beginning in the early 1970s, certain states, as well as a few municipalities, began to decriminalize marijuana possession, making it a mere civil offense (or a petty criminal offense with no possibility of jail time). At the present time, nearly half of the states have taken this approach. In addition, beginning in the mid-1990s, certain states began to allow the medical use of marijuana, thereby breaking down the blanket prohibition (whether civil or criminal) on marijuana use that had existed almost universally among the...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 25. Marijuana in American Culture 41 results (showing 5 best matches)
- This chapter describes marijuana in American culture, while noting ramifications on its evolving legal status. Section 25–2 looks at cultural perceptions of marijuana. Section 25–3 looks at marijuana in American arts and entertainment. Section 25–4 looks at marijuana in the counterculture. And § 25–5 looks at changed attitudes towards marijuana in recent years.
- Cultural views of marijuana have played an important role in its legal status. Initial perceptions of marijuana as a foreign, poisonous weed contributed to its prohibition as a dangerous drug. Its alien status was seemingly confirmed by its adoption—often under colorful nicknames—by jazz musicians and beat poets. Federal campaigns against marijuana in the 1930s and 1940s were associated with salacious movies that depicted marijuana as a narcotic of the lascivious, the crazed, and seducers of American youth. Public intellectuals praised marijuana for expanding consciousness and transgressing norms. When embraced by the 1960s counterculture, and associated with the hippie and antiwar movement, marijuana became a proxy for protest—and the Nixon administration struck back. ...under Schedule I of the newly enacted CSA in 1970, with the most dangerous narcotics. As drug use proliferated with middle class youth, law enforcement proclaimed marijuana prohibition as a lynchpin of the War on...
- The cultural manifestations of marijuana reviewed so far represent depictions by those on the margins of society who relished the opprobrium of mainstream culture. As a result much of their descriptions of marijuana are celebratory. Even the anti-marijuana propaganda movies of the 1930s and 1940s were later embraced by the cannabis movement as reflecting the hypocrisy of the United States establishment. This favorable depiction of marijuana was counteracted not so much by cultural influences as by law enforcement, especially the DEA, which has been vocal in opposition. Certainly mainstream attitudes towards marijuana during this period were more in line with those of law enforcement, which saw psychoactive drugs, including marijuana, as a great danger to society. In other words there was wide popular support for maintaining marijuana as an illegal drug.
- As for the presidency, President Bill Clinton admitted to smoking marijuana as a student, although he “did not inhale.” Both presidential candidates in 2000, Al Gore and George W. Bush, admitted they had smoked marijuana. Bush explained that he had recovered from his alcohol problem—no one seemed to care about his smoking marijuana. President Barack Obama also admitted to smoking marijuana. In fact, he is said to have belonged to the “Choom Gang,” a group of high school friends who “choomed,” that is, smoked marijuana.
- Perceptions of marijuana as an alien and destructive agent contributed to its prohibition in the early 20th century. In the western states, where marijuana was first prohibited, it was linked to Mexican culture and Mexican immigrants. The word “marihuana” is itself derived from Mexican usage, as are such nicknames as oregano, marimba, Rosa Maria, Mary Jane ( ), Acapulco Gold, porro, mota, bacha, and sinsemilla. The association between Mexico and marijuana contributed to racist sentiments and hence its prohibition. For example, a Texas state senator justified the passage of Texas’s first anti-marijuana law in 1919 because “all Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff is what makes them crazy.”
- Open Chapter
Chapter 2. Marijuana 30 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Determining the scope of marijuana use in the United States is not easy, given that it relies on self-reporting, and there is evidence that users significantly under-report. Nevertheless, some statistics are available. It has been estimated that at least 30 million Americans use marijuana at least occasionally, and approximately 20 million use it at least once per month. Usage is highest among young people between the ages of 18 and 25 years. Many younger adolescents have tried marijuana as well, however. According to some sources, close to half of all high school seniors in recent years have tried the drug at least once; over 20% use the drug at least monthly, and 6% use marijuana nearly every day. Among all Americans, over 40% have tried marijuana at least once. About 5 million use it nearly every day. Marijuana use varies somewhat across different areas of the country. The states with the highest marijuana use per capita include Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, and Vermont, and the...
- For the most part, medical marijuana is consumed in the same way that recreational marijuana has traditionally been consumed, that is, by smoking, and to a lesser extent, by way of edibles. But vaping, which involves vaporizing marijuana herb or a marijuana extract, has also become a popular option for both medical and recreational users. (Certain states, however, have limited the methods of consumption available to medical users, e.g., by requiring edibles instead of smoking.) In states such as Colorado and Washington that have legalized both medical and recreational marijuana, the medical marijuana is not subject to the same degree of taxation as the recreational marijuana, so it is usually available to medical users at a significantly lower cost.
- Opponents of medical marijuana argue that marijuana has adverse side effects that make it unsuitable for medical use. For one thing, it is now generally agreed that marijuana is addictive, and that approximately 10% of people who use it regularly develop a dependence. The withdrawal symptoms associated with removal of the drug, however, are not nearly as severe as they are for the opioids or even alcohol. Second, there has long been a fear that marijuana is associated with psychoses. The evidence is still somewhat inconclusive on this issue, but it appears that THC can exacerbate the psychotic symptoms of schizophrenics, and that it can perhaps trigger episodes of acute psychoses in certain other susceptible individuals. Third, there has been some recent evidence that heavy marijuana use may impair the user’s memory and cause a small but not insignificant decrease in IQ when consumed for a long period of time. This effect seems to be particularly pronounced in young people who use
- Opponents of medical marijuana also argue that the alleged therapeutic benefits of marijuana are too speculative to justify legalization, and that even if the medical benefits are real, better alternatives already exist for the conditions in question. There is little doubt, for example, that opioids such as morphine are more powerful analgesics (i.e., pain killers) than marijuana. Proponents of medical marijuana, however, counter that marijuana is often safer than these conventional alternatives. For example, thousands of people a year die from overdoses of opioids, whereas there are no documented cases of anyone dying from marijuana poisoning. And there is some recent evidence that the use of marijuana to relieve chronic pain allows some patients to reduce significantly their reliance on opioids such as morphine and oxycodone.
- This chapter provides a basic primer on marijuana for those who are not especially conversant with the substance. Section 2–2 provides an overview and defines basic terms, § 2–3 discusses the psychogenic properties of marijuana, and the remaining two sections discuss the use of marijuana as both an intoxicant (§ 2–4) and a medicine (§ 2–5).
- Open Chapter
Chapter 4. History of Marijuana Law (Part II—The Slow and Halting Return Toward Legalization) 23 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The final frontier for marijuana liberalization, of course, is full legalization, and since 2012, several states plus the District of Columbia have crossed that historic divide. These states allow full “recreational use” (i.e., “adult use”) of marijuana within certain limits, such as restrictions on possession by those under age 21, restrictions on the amount of marijuana that can be possessed, and restrictions on public use. The first two states to fully legalize marijuana were Colorado and Washington, which both passed ballot initiatives in 2012. Of these two, Colorado was the first to implement its ballot initiative, enacting a regulatory scheme in 2013, and opening the first recreational-use marijuana dispensaries (which are rather similar to liquor stores) in January 2014. In doing so, Colorado in effect became the first government in the world to fully legalize and regulate marijuana ..., there are still prohibitions on the sale of marijuana in Amsterdam, they are just not...
- Thus, the year 1970 marked a new, divergent path for marijuana law in the United States. No longer, after this point, was there a state and federal consensus on marijuana policy. The federal government’s policy toward marijuana possession became fixed, adopting a more lenient attitude toward punishing possession of small amounts of marijuana, while rigidly opposing any kind of legalization, even for medical purposes. The states, meanwhile, followed somewhat divergent paths. Most followed the lead of the federal government, enacting state statutes that continued to punish simple possession as a felony or high misdemeanor. But some moved instead in the direction of adopting a more lenient approach toward the personal possession of small amounts of marijuana. And by the mid-1990s, states began to adopt measures (often as a result of ballot initiatives) legalizing marijuana for medical use. By 2014, a handful of these states had pushed the envelope even further, legalizing marijuana for...
- For the most part, state law respecting marijuana marked time during the 1980s, though some states imposed additional restrictions on marijuana trafficking. For example, in the wake of a crack cocaine epidemic, a number of states, following the federal lead, imposed drug-free zones around schools, and imposed harsh penalties for marijuana possession in those zones. No additional states decriminalized marijuana during this time, tracking the nation’s increasing impatience with drug abuse.
- These laws varied significantly among the various states, both as to the amount that the medical marijuana user could possess, as well as the manner in which the marijuana could be obtained and consumed. Some states, for example, allowed the creation of medical marijuana dispensaries, some allowed merely the private growing of medical marijuana for personal use or by caregivers, and some were silent as to how marijuana used for medical purposes could be obtained. State laws also varied significantly with respect to the types of medical conditions that come within the scope of the law. Some states limited the ability to obtain a medical license to persons with just a few serious conditions, while other states were less restrictive. California is among the least restrictive, allowing doctors to recommend marijuana for any conditions they think it will help, including such common conditions as anxiety, chronic pain, and insomnia.
- Decriminalization has also picked up steam at the local level. In a number of states that have not yet decriminalized marijuana, voters in marijuana-friendly pockets of the states have championed local initiatives that make possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use merely civil infractions. By 2016, in Michigan and Wisconsin alone, approximately 2 dozen municipalities had passed laws decriminalizing simple possession. It is likely that this trend will continue across a number of the states that have not decriminalized marijuana possession statewide.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 12. Local Law 20 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Section 12–2 of this chapter discusses the early efforts on the part of some municipalities in the 1970s to decriminalize personal marijuana possession within their jurisdictions. Section 12–3 looks at more recent efforts in this regard among municipalities located in states that have not themselves decriminalized personal marijuana possession. Section 12–4 looks at the opposite side of the coin: that is, at local efforts opposing or opting out of state legalization. Some municipalities in states with medical marijuana laws have sought to enforce more restrictive laws against marijuana possession than state law provides. And some municipalities have exercised their option under state medical marijuana law to disallow marijuana-related businesses, particularly dispensaries, within their local jurisdictions. Finally, § 12–5 briefly discusses efforts on the part of local governments to regulate the possession and use of legalized marijuana within their jurisdictions.
- Decriminalization efforts have also picked up renewed steam at the local level, generally in states that continue to maintain criminal penalties for personal marijuana possession that include the possibility of prison time. Thus, in a number of states that have not yet decriminalized marijuana, voters in marijuana-friendly pockets of the states have championed local initiatives that make possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use merely civil infractions. By 2016, in Michigan and Wisconsin alone, approximately 2 dozen municipalities had passed laws decriminalizing simple possession, including Milwaukee and Detroit, the largest municipalities in the two states. Other states in which multiple municipalities have decriminalized marijuana possession include Pennsylvania and Florida. In Tampa, for example, the penalty for the first possession offense is a $75 fine, and for subsequent offenses a fine of $450. This contrasts significantly with Florida state law, where a...
- , for example, the city of Wyoming, Michigan, a suburb of Grand Rapids (which, as discussed above, enacted a local decriminalization measure in 2012) adopted an ordinance that amended the zoning chapter of the city code to provide that any property uses contrary to federal law, state law, or local ordinances were prohibited. Ter Beek, a medical marijuana patient, then filed a lawsuit alleging that he wished to grow and possess medical marijuana in his home pursuant to the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, but was prevented from doing so by the ordinance’s incorporation of federal law prohibiting marijuana possession. This, he argued, impermissibly contravened the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, which provides that registered qualifying patients shall not be subject to arrest or prosecution for medical use of marijuana in accordance with the Act.
- Finally, even where they have not directly challenged state law, many municipalities in medical-marijuana states have exercised their rights under state law to not allow dispensaries and other marijuana-related businesses to operate within their jurisdictions. Thus, in a number of states that have legalized medical and/or recreational marijuana use and have authorized dispensaries, marijuana may be not be available in many if not most localities. In Colorado, for example, it is actually only a minority (albeit a substantial one) of municipalities that allow dispensaries, although they tend to be the larger cities, such as Denver, so the majority of state residents live within jurisdictions allowing dispensaries. And even in those that do not, access to marijuana is usually not far away. For example, although Colorado Springs, the state’s second-largest city, bans marijuana dispensaries, the small enclave of Manitou Springs (home of the Pikes Peak Cog Railway), which is located...
- As discussed in the previous section, states that have legalized medical and/or recreational marijuana generally grant local municipalities certain authority to regulate marijuana possession and use within their jurisdictions with respect to matters such as zoning, licensing, health and safety, and taxation. Thus, it is common for municipalities to restrict where marijuana-related businesses may operate, and to restrict their hours of operation.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 15. Federal Banking Laws and the Marijuana-Related Business 36 results (showing 5 best matches)
- To date, however, relatively few banks and credit unions have ventured into the world of commercial marijuana. Notwithstanding the Treasury Department’s assurances regarding the government’s prosecutorial priorities, only a small percentage of the banks and credit unions in states that have legalized marijuana are providing banking services to marijuana-related businesses. And among those that are, the fees they charge marijuana-related businesses are often quite high, reflecting the risks the depository institutions associate with servicing marijuana-related businesses, as well as the costs that depository institutions incur in connection with their due diligence obligations. This too has created an obstacle for marijuana-related businesses trying to obtain necessary banking services, particularly for ...cannot easily absorb high banking costs. Thus, while the quasi-hands-off approach of the Obama administration has relieved some of the pressure on marijuana-related businesses, it...
- One of the most challenging aspects of running a marijuana dispensary or other marijuana-related business has been the difficulty of obtaining banking services. The banking system in the United State is highly regulated by federal law. And pursuant to federal statutes and regulations, banks generally cannot deal with illegal businesses. Since marijuana is illegal under federal law, banks are accordingly prohibited from dealing with marijuana-related businesses under federal law.
- The Guidance requires depository institutions to conduct due diligence for their marijuana-related business clients, including heightened monitoring for suspicious activity. As part of this due diligence, a depository institution servicing marijuana-related businesses must notify the federal government if one of its marijuana-related business customers has implicated one of the Cole Memo priorities or violated the law of the state(s) in which the institution operates. Furthermore, as noted above, depository institutions must, pursuant to regulations promulgated under the Bank Secrecy Act, submit Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) if they have reason to know that a transaction involves funds derived from illegal activities, such as the illegal sale of drugs. And since marijuana is illegal under federal law, this means that banks and credit unions servicing marijuana-related businesses must routinely file such reports for marijuana-related business clients.
- The Treasury Department’s Guidance, however, specifies three different types of reports that the depository institutions servicing marijuana-related businesses must file. Specifically, if the financial institution has no reason to believe that a particular client has implicated the Cole Memo priorities, then it should file a “Marijuana Limited” SAR, noting that the institution is filing the SAR solely because the customer is engaged in a marijuana-related business transaction, and that no additional suspicious activity has been identified. Conversely, if the depository institution believes that, based on its due diligence, a marijuana related business customer has engaged in an activity that implicates one or more of the Cole memorandum priorities, or violates state law, it should file a “Marijuana Priority” SAR, providing details regarding the specific transaction(s) it believes to be suspicious. And if a bank or credit union deems it necessary to terminate a relationship with a
- A customer appears to be using a state-licensed marijuana-related business as a front or pretext to launder money derived from other criminal activity (i.e., not related to marijuana) or derived from marijuana-related activity not permitted under state law;
- Open Chapter
Chapter 19. Taxation of Marijuana-Related Businesses 40 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Sections 19–2 and 19–3 explain the nondeductability of expenses of marijuana businesses under federal tax law. Section 19–4 describes various challenges to marijuana tax law. Section 19–5 discusses whether tax professionals can service marijuana businesses. And § 19–6 describes state taxation of marijuana-related businesses and providers.
- One of the reasons that states have legalized marijuana has been projections of substantial revenue for state treasuries through taxation. Indeed states have realized substantial revenues for marijuana, although not always as much as projected. For example, Colorado has run marijuana revenue shortfalls due to underestimating the lower revenues derived from taxing medical marijuana as opposed to the higher taxes levied on recreational marijuana sales (although some marijuana revenue projections in Colorado have been exceeded). States earmark marijuana revenues for popular purposes such as school funding, environmental repair, and public health spending. However, as state spending is largely fungible, these earmarks serve mostly a political purpose.
- Taxes can also be levied at multiple stages in the seedling-to-sale delivery chain. States impose taxes on the producers and growers of marijuana, collect additional taxes from the processors and commercial distributors of marijuana, again from the stores and dispensaries that retail marijuana, and finally from the customers who buy and consume marijuana, earning revenue at each level of the industry.
- The seemingly harsh application of federal tax laws to marijuana businesses has given rise to several legal challenges. The most obvious challenge is that marijuana businesses have been legalized in many states, a situation not contemplated when § 280E was enacted. So, for example, nonprofit Harborside Health, the largest medical marijuana dispensary in the world, contested in Tax Court in 2016 a $2.4 million notice of deficiency for disallowed deductions on the grounds that Congress did not intend for § 280E to apply to legal marijuana businesses, which did not exist at the time of passage. However, a similar argument was rejected in (applying the definition of “trafficking” as any buying or selling of marijuana to nonprofit dispensaries, even if in compliance with state nonprofit and medical marijuana laws, and regardless of any change in Department of Justice marijuana enforcement policies). Also unlikely to succeed are current court challenges to § 280E under the theory that...
- Tax professionals servicing marijuana businesses need to be wary of both state disciplinary rules and federal prosecution, even in marijuana legalizing states. State accounting boards require “good moral character” of accountants practicing in their state. As of now it is a somewhat unresolved question whether providing accounting services to a marijuana business indicates bad moral character as a violation of federal law. Seven state boards of accounting have issued guidelines for certified public accountants servicing marijuana businesses: Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), “An Issue Brief on State Marijuana Laws and the CPA Profession” (Jan. 8, 2016). All seven states have advised CPAs that servicing marijuana businesses does not indicate bad moral character and thus require disciplinary action against them. Although the accounting boards of the remaining 43 states have not yet...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 22. Medical Arguments for and Against Legalization 35 results (showing 5 best matches)
- U.S. social and legal culture has increasingly valued individual autonomy and choice; adults should be allowed to make their own decision as to marijuana use. The half-century war on marijuana has been a monumental failure. It has not deterred marijuana consumption. A majority of American states have legalized marijuana for certain purposes, and there is no turning back. If the United States wants to create a rational, consistent national policy on marijuana, it can only do so through a legalized, regulatory framework.
- The fundamental argument in favor of legalization is that marijuana is not dangerous to consumers and has benefits for treating certain medical disorders. Numerous scientific studies, supported by decades of anecdotal evidence, and by centuries of use by non-Western cultures, indicate its effectiveness in relieving anxiety, nausea, and pain and in producing a mild euphoria. Synthetic derivatives of cannabis, such as FDA-approved Marinol, Cesamet, and Syndros, lack the full “entourage effect” of marijuana, and are thus inadequate substitutes. The side effects associated with marijuana are within the range of tolerated medications. Marijuana does create dependence in certain individuals, but withdrawal symptoms are relatively mild. Studies have found marijuana to be less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco, as well as painkillers such as opioids.
- As with the arguments in favor of legalization, arguments opposed to legalization of marijuana depend fundamentally on assessing its effect on health—but conclude that its dangers potentially outweigh its benefits. Although there is evidence that marijuana can provide some health benefits, at least four factors militate against legalizing medical marijuana for that reason. First, no large-scale, FDA-approved scientific study, including the comprehensive 1999 Institute of Medicine Report, has definitively shown that marijuana has significant health benefits, and the FDA has not approved whole plant marijuana in any form as a safe and effective drug. Second, if the evidence is inconclusive, it weighs against a mind-altering drug, rather than in its favor—the FDA process of approval is rigorous for good reason. Third, any medical benefits that marijuana might have are more palliative than curative. Other medicines ...benefits that may be found, marijuana remains a potentially...
- ProCon.org has identified numerous U.S. peer-reviewed articles on medical marijuana since publication of the IOM Report that have addressed studies of medical marijuana as it relates to ALS, bipolar disorder, cancer, glaucoma, HIV, Huntington’s disease, Crohn’s disease, multiple sclerosis, nausea, pain, Parkinson’s disease, posttraumatic stress syndrome, schizophrenia, rheumatoid arthritis, and Tourette syndrome. Of these studies, the majority showed marijuana had at least some benefit for the medical condition in question. For example, six studies found marijuana as beneficial for treating pain. The only study on marijuana as it relates to nausea found it to be an effective medicine.
- In its most recent denial of a petition to initiate proceedings to reschedule marijuana in August 2016, the DEA relied on a June 25, 2015 evaluation by the Department of Health and Human Services and the FDA of the scientific and medical properties of marijuana. Surveying a wide range of literature, this report concluded that marijuana has harmful psychoactive effects, including behavioral impairment but not psychotic episodes. Physiologically, marijuana smoking can harm the cardiovascular, autonomic, respiratory, and possibly the immunological systems. In contrast, the report found that “no published studies” met FDA criteria for “proving marijuana’s efficacy.”
- Open Chapter
Chapter 24. Foreign Law Approaches 6 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The regulation of marijuana is a global phenomenon, as is marijuana consumption. Reflective of its worldwide prevalence, marijuana goes by distinctive names such as weed, hashish, ganja, hierba, bhang, kief, maconha, charas, and the like. The U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime 2016 World Drug Report estimated that 183 million people used marijuana in 2014. Historically, marijuana consumption is known to most cultures for many purposes, including medicinal. On the Indian subcontinent, marijuana is part of the traditional Ayurvedic systems of medicine, a use that was accommodated in the first international anti-drug regimes. Marijuana was significant in ancient Chinese medicine and agricultural production as well; manufactured hemp fibers dating back 12,000 years have been excavated from an archaeological site in what is now Taipei, Taiwan. In addition to smoking marijuana, traditional cultures have consumed it in various other manifestations, e.g., as a beverage mixed with foods such as...
- Marijuana is illegal in Canada under the 1996 Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19 (Can.). However, access to medical marijuana was formalized in the 2001 Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR), which permitted cannabis for end-of-life patients and patients with debilitating symptoms resulting from medical conditions. The MMAR was replaced by the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR) on April 1, 2014.
- This chapter summarizes the law of marijuana outside of the United States and recent international trends. Section 24–2 takes a broad view, surveying the world’s most populous nations, as well as those in the forefront of marijuana reform. And § 24–3 summarizes trends in foreign cannabis law and the reaction of U.N. monitoring agencies. (This chapter generally refers to marijuana as “cannabis” to reflect international law usage.)
- MARIJUANA REGULATION
- —Cannabis is not historically prevalent in Russia. Although cannabis laws are strict, possession of small quantities has been partially decriminalized. In August 2015, the Russian government temporarily banned the Wikipedia internet site over an article about marijuana that it claimed included instructions on how to make a form of hashish.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 26. Looking Forward 37 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Whatever the fate of the CARERS Act, it indicates the manner in which Congress is most likely to reform marijuana law: by allowing the states to serve as “laboratories of social change” as to medical and recreational marijuana, removing onerous federal restrictions on legal marijuana businesses, expanding access to marijuana by researchers, and allowing veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder access to medical marijuana options in the Veterans Administration health system.
- In the November 2016 election cycle, four states—Arkansas, Florida, Montana, and North Dakota—approved or expanded access to medical marijuana, and four states—California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada—approved recreational marijuana. With these initiatives, well over half of the states have medical marijuana, and over 20% of Americans live in states with recreational marijuana. The results in California alone, constituting one-tenth of the nation’s population and the world’s sixth largest economy, may represent a sea change in American marijuana law.
- The uncertain situation over marijuana law is the result of the increasing disconnect between popular belief as to the relative lack of danger of marijuana consumption and the inertia of a drug regime that was consolidated in the 1970s with a view of marijuana as among the most dangerous of narcotics. The prospects of marijuana law reform reflect a reversal of how this regime was assembled. The drug regime is in a certain sense top-down. International agreements among nations, most importantly the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, require each signatory to outlaw production, possession, and distribution of cannabis, except for scientific and medical purposes. To comply, major nations have enacted laws prohibiting marijuana to a greater or lesser extent. The United States consolidated its variety of federal marijuana laws ..., enacting their own versions of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, which tracked federal law and enrolled marijuana as a Schedule I drug. State laws...
- Although the federal government resisted state legalization to some extent, this resistance had become murky under the Obama administration, as the Department of Justice declared a more or less hands-off approach to state law. With the proliferation of state legalization, pressure is now on the federal government to reform its own marijuana laws, especially as to the scheduling of marijuana. The United States, a long time staunch opponent of relaxation of marijuana laws, is now at the forefront of marijuana reform, along with several nations in Western Europe and Latin America.
- The prospect of rescheduling marijuana from Schedule I is probably the most significant issue looking forward. The most controversial aspect of marijuana law has always been its placement under Schedule I, with Congress declaring marijuana to be equivalent to the most dangerous narcotic, that has no recognized medical value. If marijuana is rescheduled to any of the less restrictive four schedules, it will no longer be illegal for medical purposes. However a patient would still need a physician’s prescription, and any marijuana products would first need FDA approval before they could become available by prescription.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 3. History of Marijuana Law (Part I—The March to Total Prohibition) 20 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Commissioner Anslinger had initially pushed for the inclusion of marijuana within the coverage of the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act, describing the drug as a “national menace.” And the issue was hotly debated through the five drafts of the Act. Ultimately, however, the Commission decided to include a marijuana prohibition as a separate, optional provision. Thus, states adopting the Act could choose for themselves whether to include marijuana within the Act’s prohibition on non-medical use of narcotics, along with the opiates and cocaine. Approximately two-thirds of the states that adopted the Act ultimately decided to do so. In addition, several other states that had not previously prohibited marijuana use and had declined to include marijuana within their version of the model act, nevertheless enacted separate provisions criminalizing non-medical marijuana use. ...non-medical marijuana sale and possession in one way or another. (And since medical use had declined... ...all marijuana...
- of marijuana. By 1929, 24 states had prohibited the non-medical use of marijuana (i.e., required a prescription for its use), and by 1933, another 9 states had followed suit. The impetus for outlawing the non-medical use of marijuana during this time was a perception in many state legislatures that burgeoning marijuana use was causing significant increases in crime and other social problems, particularly among members of certain ethnic groups. While cannabis had been grown in the United States for centuries, the practice of smoking marijuana here was quite recent, having been introduced by immigrants and workers from Mexico (and, to a lesser extent, by immigrants from the Caribbean), where the practice was well established. Newspaper accounts of the time reflect quite racist, and no doubt exaggerated, accounts of crazed men, under the influence of this new drug, committing all sorts of violent and depraved acts. It was also widely believed that marijuana was highly addictive, and...
- As the 1960s progressed, however, societal attitudes toward marijuana began to change fairly quickly. The practice of smoking marijuana became increasingly popular with America’s youth, particularly on college campuses, and by the late 1960s approximately half of the nation’s college students had at least tried marijuana. Many were regular users. In addition, various scientific and medical groups began to cast doubt on the long-accepted narrative that marijuana was a highly addictive drug that led its victims to insanity and lives of crime.
- At the end of the Civil War, marijuana was subject to less regulation in the United States than tea; a century later, the mere possession of even a small amount of marijuana could result in years of imprisonment. This chapter discusses how that dramatic change in the law transpired.
- Cannabis was well-known in America from colonial times. For several centuries, it was grown as a cash crop to produce hemp, which was used for various products, including rope, clothes, paint, paper, sails for boats, and birdseed. In the middle third of the 19th century, marijuana—the “drug” made from the flowers and leaves of the cannabis plant—began to be studied in Western medicine for its therapeutic properties. (Marijuana had long been used as a medicine in other parts of the world.) By 1870, marijuana was included in the United States Pharmacopeia, which is the country’s compendium of drug information (first published in 1820), establishing accepted standards for medicines, drugs and related products. And by the 1870s, herbal marijuana was appearing frequently in patent medicines and other elixirs that were sold in drugstores to treat various medical conditions. It was then that marijuana first began to be regulated.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 1. Overview—Marijuana Regulation in the United States 24 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Marijuana law also includes practical administrative issues that states have had to deal with when they decide to legalize, in whole or in part, marijuana possession and use, such as how to reign in impaired driving caused by marijuana use, how to keep legal marijuana out of the hands of minors, and how best to regulate the number and location of marijuana-related businesses. Thus, the marijuana-law practitioner must be conversant with a variety of statutes, regulations, and ordinances that pertain to these types of matters, as well as administrative matters such as licensing
- Finally, marijuana regulation raises a number of important scientific, medical, and policy related issues, and a proper understanding of marijuana law must account for these considerations as well. A long-standing debate among those who favor liberalization of marijuana regulation, for example, has been whether it is better to decriminalize marijuana possession and use without actually authorizing it, or whether it is better to legalize and regulate marijuana. And if legalization is preferred, that raises another important issue as to the proper scope of such legalization. Should possession and use be allowed to all persons, or only to those who use marijuana for medical purposes pursuant to the authorization of a physician? Related to these types of debates are scientific questions such as whether marijuana is harmful, whether it is habit-forming, whether it is a “gateway” to more dangerous drugs, whether it has legitimate medical uses, etc. These issues, too, fall within the broad...
- Related to these theoretical questions are a number of more mundane issues concerning the competing legal demands that are placed on marijuana-related businesses, and to some extent, on individuals, in states that legalize marijuana. Because of the conflict between federal and state law, marijuana-related business owners, such as dispensaries, have had to operate under a cloud of uncertainty regarding the law, which hinders their ability to operate under state laws legalizing marijuana use. For marijuana-related businesses, this uncertainty means that they cannot take advantage of many of the legal benefits ordinary businesses take for granted, and it also creates uncertainty with respect to certain employer/employee issues.
- In addition to these important theoretical issues that arise by virtue of the conflict between federal law, international, and state/local law, there are a number of more practical legal issues arising from the legalization efforts of the states. For example, the federal bankruptcy courts have thus far not allowed marijuana-related businesses to avail themselves of the protections provided by the United States Bankruptcy Code. Likewise, the federal courts and the Internal Revenue Service have not allowed marijuana-related businesses to take federal tax deductions for business expenses, which makes operating a marijuana-related business a very expensive endeavor. Similarly, the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve have only recently begun to issue guidelines for banks to follow in dealing with marijuana-related businesses. Traditionally, banks in legalization states have been ...with marijuana-related businesses because they fear they will be found liable under federal...
- We believe that marijuana law is one of the most interesting, diverse, and dynamic areas of legal study. Yet as a legal discipline, marijuana law is a quite recent phenomenon. Only in the past few years have legal scholars begun to think of it as an independent field of law, worthy of study in its own right. Prior to that, marijuana law was principally associated with criminal law, and grouped within the category of drug crimes generally.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 6. Enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act 47 results (showing 5 best matches)
- This chapter summarizes federal enforcement of the marijuana provisions of the CSA by both the DOJ and the DEA. Section 6–2 describes various policies the DOJ has adopted in overseeing federal marijuana laws. Section 6–3 describes enforcement mechanisms the DEA has waged in its war against marijuana. Section 6–4 describes the consequences of marijuana violations under the CSA. And § 6–5 summarizes recent changes in the response of the DOJ and the DEA to state legalization of marijuana.
- Prosecutors in their discretion must observe the strictures of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Categories of persons cannot be favored or disfavored over one another. Questions of equal protection and disparate impact have arisen from studies that show that prosecutors favor harsher penalties for drug offenders who are male over female. Likewise, critics have contended that enforcement of marijuana crimes has traditionally oppressed poor and minority communities. Studies have also shown the disproportionate impact of marijuana prosecutions under the CSA on minority populations. For example, a nationwide study has shown that African Americans are 3.7 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana crimes, even though the incidence of marijuana use by Caucasian and African American populations is approximately equal. In 2010, African Americans accounted for 58% of marijuana arrests, despite being only 15% of the population. A 2010 study of California arrests...
- The DEA marijuana eradication program began in 1979. The DEA describes marijuana as the only drug of abuse grown within U.S. borders. Its Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program (DCE/SP) engages in efforts to eradicate cultivated marijuana throughout the nation and provides resources to 128 state and local eradication programs. In 2015, the DCE/SP eradicated 3,923,201 cultivated outdoor cannabis plants and 325,019 cultivated indoor plants. In the course of these operations, the DEA made 6,278 arrests, and seized $29.73 million in marijuana cultivator assets and 4,300 weapons from marijuana cultivators. Although the DEA has in previous decades eradicated billions of non-cultivated, “feral” cannabis plants, such efforts have largely ceased.
- Schedule I drugs such as marijuana, the Office of Diversion Control has been less involved in marijuana operations. This may well change with marijuana legalization efforts, when the DEA may seek to confine marijuana use to legally regulated streams.
- Most of these duties concern controlled substances on Schedules II through V, which the CSA allows for medical use. As medical use of marijuana is prohibited on Schedule I, the chief administrative task the DEA carries out in regards to marijuana is authorizing and supervising research into marijuana.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 13. State vs. State Disputes 29 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The discrepancy between federal law and state law has implications for relations between the states as well. If State X has not legalized marijuana and neighboring State Y has legalized marijuana, can State X complain that Y’s legalization will adversely impact X’s marijuana prohibitions? State Y is not actively encouraging the overflow of marijuana into State X, but surely legal accessibility to marijuana will increase consumption and trafficking across the border. The laws of neighboring states often differ one from another, but in this scenario State Y’s law contrasts with federal law as well. What is more, the federal government bases its authority to enforce marijuana prohibition nationwide in the Commerce Clause, under the theory that it needs to exercise authority over both interstate and intrastate marijuana activity so as to avoid conflict. Can State X bring a lawsuit against State Y demanding an end to its legalization ...laws against marijuana activity in State Y? If so,...
- Although much of this book addresses the differences between federal and state marijuana law, tensions exist between other sovereign entities in the U.S. For example, these tensions can result from geography, as jurisdictions that legalize marijuana adjoin those that prohibit marijuana. Legal actions will be the inevitable result and have already begun.
- States have made accommodations with Indian tribes, but the results are in dispute. For example, when Washington legalized marijuana, it exempted the Yakama nation and other tribes that wanted to retain local laws against marijuana use. Nevertheless, the Yakama claimed that Washington-labeled marijuana was infiltrating their 1.2 million-acre reservation. In response, the Yakama sought to enforce an 1855 treaty, so as to ban marijuana over an additional 10.8 million acres of ancestral land in Washington, comprising one-fifth of Washington’s land mass. The Yakama filed objections to marijuana licensing applications made from within this ceded territory, but apparently to no effect.
- marijuana on their reservations. For example, in June 2016 the Flandreau Santee Sioux tribe voted to legalize recreational marijuana on its reservation located in South Dakota and made plans to open a marijuana resort. Marijuana is illegal for all purposes in South Dakota, and federal and state officials threatened to raid the reservation. In response the Santee Sioux eradicated their marijuana crop. The consultants who advised the tribe and obtained cannabis seeds for the project were convicted of drug offenses by South Dakota.
- A central question of marijuana law is the relation among various sovereign entities in U.S. law. Only a few legal issues in the United States have presented as divided a face as current marijuana law. It is certainly true that earlier conflicts between federal and state law, such as those that characterized slavery and civil rights, were of greater importance. Still, almost every question of marijuana law today is shaped to some extent by an understanding of federalism, and of the relations among various jurisdictions.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 20. Additional Civil Issues 26 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The conflict between state and federal law regarding the legal status of marijuana has created problems for marijuana-related businesses in obtaining insurance to cover their operations. Many insurers are reluctant to enter the market for fear they will be found complicit in the violation of federal criminal laws, similar to the types of fears many in the banking industry have expressed with regard to servicing marijuana-related businesses. And in June 2015, the largest insurer of marijuana-related businesses, Lloyd’s of London, announced that it would be leaving the market and originating no new policies. Thus, it is often difficult for marijuana-related businesses in states that legalize marijuana to obtain insurance, and such insurance tends to be more costly than for comparable non-marijuana businesses.
- Another area of law that has been affected by legalization efforts at the state level is real-estate law. Marijuana-related businesses have faced some unique issues in dealing with landlords who may not be favorably disposed to leasing business spaces to businesses trafficking in marijuana, even though the businesses are operating legally under state law. Likewise, landlords may not like the idea of tenants smoking marijuana or cultivating marijuana plants in apartments and rented houses.
- As a result of these types of concerns, some landlords have taken an aggressive posture toward tenants that traffic in marijuana. The landlord can include a lease provision that prohibits marijuana use or trafficking, and make the violation of such a provision a material default under the lease, entitling the landlord to take possession. Often, however, the landlord does not know of the planned marijuana use, or does not take a proactive step to include such language in the lease. In those cases landlords have tried several arguments to avoid their obligations under the lease, once they discover that a tenant is involved with marijuana.
- One approach has been to seek an equitable remedy under the illegality doctrine in contract law, which allows courts to refuse to enforce contracts if they pursue illegal ends or otherwise act against public policy interests. Landlords can argue that, since marijuana is illegal under federal law, a lease made for the purpose of running a marijuana-related business is an illegal contract. Since the illegality doctrine is an equitable doctrine, however, this remedy requires that the landlord have “clean hands” itself, which can be problematic if the landlord knew of the intended use at the time the lease was entered into. Another possibility is for the landlord to find the tenant in default for breach of certain related provisions in the lease. For example, many leases contain “illegal activity” clauses that allow the landlord to terminate its lease obligation if the tenant engages in illegal activities. Again, since marijuana is illegal under federal law, a colorable argument can be...
- Thus, it appears that, barring legislative action by Congress, federal bankruptcy courts will not allow marijuana-related businesses to avail themselves of the protections of the Bankruptcy Code. As a result, marijuana-related businesses that are unable to pay their debtors will not be able to restructure their obligations and continue operating the way that other businesses are allowed to do, adding to the difficulty of owning and operating a marijuana-related business in states that have legalized marijuana.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 18. Professional Responsibility Issues for Lawyers 32 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The divergent status of marijuana under federal law and state law, in those states that have legalized medical or recreational marijuana, creates special problems for lawyers. The ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Responsibility, which have been adopted by nearly every state (California being the important exception), prohibit lawyers from advising clients to engage in criminal conduct, and from assisting clients in conduct the lawyer knows is criminal. They also provide that it is professional misconduct for lawyers themselves to engage in criminal conduct. Because marijuana possession and distribution are illegal under federal law, lawyers in marijuana-legal states arguably violate the former prohibition when they assist marijuana-related businesses with their legal affairs. And they arguably violate the latter when they themselves partake of marijuana or invest in marijuana-related businesses, even though these activities are legal under state law. These potential conflicts have...
- Probably the most significant ethical issue that marijuana legalization has raised is the extent to which lawyers may counsel marijuana-related businesses. That issue arises because the Model Rules prohibit lawyers from (knowingly) assisting clients in the furtherance of criminal and fraudulent conduct. Thus, Rule 1.2 provides as follows:
- Other states that have legalized medical and/or recreational marijuana are in accord with the Colorado Supreme Court’s approach. In 2015, for example, the Oregon Supreme Court adopted an exception to its Rule 1.2(d), specifically exempting marijuana representation from the scope of the rule’s prohibition:
- Another significant issue that arises with respect to a lawyer’s ethical duties in marijuana-legal states is whether a lawyer violates the rules of professional responsibility through the lawyer’s personal use of marijuana, even though it is in accordance with state law. The model rule that is arguably implicated by such conduct is Rule 8.4, which states as follows:
- At least one state bar has indicated that a lawyer’s personal use of marijuana may constitute professional misconduct. In 2014, the Ethics Committee of the North Dakota State Bar was called upon to interpret Rule 8.4 in the case of a North Dakota attorney who wished to move to Minnesota to participate in a medical marijuana treatment program there, while still maintaining his license to practice law in North Dakota. The Committee ruled that this conduct would violate Rule 8.4. Noting the supremacy of federal law that criminalizes marijuana use, and the fact that North Dakota law did not allow the use of medical marijuana, the Committee concluded that “if [the] Attorney purchased, possessed, or ingested marijuana in Minnesota, Attorney would be violating federal law each and every time Attorney did so. In other words, Attorney would be engaging in a ‘pattern of repeated offenses’ that indicates indifference to legal obligations and constitutes a violation of
- Open Chapter
Chapter 21. Marijuana and Other Drugs 31 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Recreational drugs are those taken solely for pleasure or their intoxicating effects. Marijuana is unique among the drugs discussed in this chapter insofar as it is used both recreationally and medicinally. This alone may justify treating marijuana differently from the other drugs discussed in this section. For even if marijuana is substantially similar to these other drugs for purposes of recreational use, marijuana’s medical efficacy arguably makes it more appropriate to treat marijuana the way the prescription drugs discussed in § 21–5 are treated. Thus, this section focuses just upon marijuana’s potential for recreational use. The previous section compared marijuana to the recreational drugs that are currently legal in the United States: tobacco and alcohol. This section compares marijuana to some common recreational drugs that are presently illegal throughout the United States.
- In making this determination, the principal focus needs to be on the efficacy of marijuana as a medicine, since, as discussed in the previous section, it is reasonably clear, given the present state of medical knowledge, that the prescription narcotics are overall more dangerous than marijuana, and that they have a greater potential for dependence and abuse. Thus, using the federal government’s treatment of these prescription narcotics as a legal precedent, it would seem that opponents of medical marijuana would have a difficult time arguing against according marijuana the same status as these prescription narcotics, unless marijuana has no significant medical value. To be sure, the safety of marijuana has not been extensively proven in the types of clinical trials the FDA requires; however, the evidence that is out there, and it is substantial, indicates that marijuana is safer and less prone to addiction and abuse than many prescription narcotics.
- In undertaking such a re-assessment, it would seem helpful to consider how relevantly similar substances are treated under the law, and to examine the rationale, if any, for treating marijuana differently from these substances. Of course, as discussed in Chapter 2, there really are no drugs that are all that similar to marijuana. It is a relatively unique substance, and it is this uniqueness that has, to a large extent, made a rational regulatory scheme for the drug challenging. Nevertheless, there is value in thinking about the way substances that are at least somewhat similar to marijuana are regulated, as these provide at least partial precedents for marijuana regulation, even if there are no direct corollaries. And thus they may shed some light on the best way for governments to handle marijuana.
- In assessing how marijuana compares to any other drug, safety concerns are paramount. So the starting point in terms of whether it makes sense to treat marijuana the same as the OTC drugs, such as analgesics, is whether marijuana is potentially more harmful. To a large extent, as discussed in Chapter 2, this question remains unresolved due to the lack of comprehensive research on the effects of marijuana. Based on the limited research that is available, however, it does appear that marijuana has some potentially deleterious effects. As discussed further in Chapters 2 and 22, for example, there is evidence that chronic marijuana use may hurt long-term memory and even diminish IQ. There is also some evidence that it may affect the brain in such a way as to diminish ambition in the user. And there is evidence that it can trigger acute psychotic episodes in susceptible individuals, and
- On balance, therefore, marijuana does not present a significantly greater harm profile than alcohol or tobacco. All three substances are addictive, though alcohol has the most serious withdrawal symptoms. Both alcohol and marijuana are intoxicants with the potential for abuse, and both cause impairment. Tobacco causes minimal abuse and impairment, but it probably has the most significant adverse effect on public health. Alcohol is a close second, and marijuana a distant third. In fact, marijuana is the only one of the three that has a demonstrated medical use. Thus, setting aside the historical context and focusing just on the drugs’ impact, it would be difficult to build a rational case for continuing to criminalize marijuana while keeping these other two drugs legal. Society’s regulation of alcohol and tobacco accordingly makes a good precedent for regulating marijuana, rather than criminalizing it.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 23. Policy Arguments for and Against Legalization 30 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The issues of marijuana legalization go beyond the question of the medical effects of marijuana, however important those considerations weigh. This chapter focuses on the public policy considerations bearing on the legalization debate. Section 23–2 considers economic arguments. Section 23–3 examines marijuana in politics. Section 23–4 examines marijuana in society. Section 23–5 examines the role of marijuana in criminal justice. Section 23–6 looks at environmental arguments for and against marijuana legalization. And § 23–7 summarizes the changing terms of the legalization debate.
- A remarkable aspect of the political debate over marijuana is how much has taken place at the ground level rather than in legislatures, especially in Congress. Although the classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug is the dominant factor in U.S. marijuana law, few bills that have addressed this issue have made it out of Congressional committee or have been debated on the floors of Congress. Likewise, most state legalization of marijuana has been the result of voter initiatives and referendums rather than bills initiated by legislators. Politicians apparently see great risks from being on either side of the marijuana debate.
- The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world. With some 5% of the world’s population, it houses about 25% of prison inmates. 2014 statistics indicate that of 700,993 arrests in the U.S. for marijuana activity, 619,809 were for possession only (88%). The statistics are similar for the decade 2001 to 2010 with 8,244,943 arrests for marijuana, of which 7,295,880 (88%) were for possession alone. In addition, there is evidence of racial bias in marijuana arrests. Although studies show marijuana use by black and white populations to be roughly similar, the arrest ratio of blacks for marijuana use is higher. For example, in 2010 blacks were arrested for marijuana use at the rate of 716 per 100,000 of the black population, while whites were arrested at a rate of 192 per 100,000 of the white population, an arrest ratio 3.73 times higher.
- Opponents of legalization point to the low incarceration rate for everyday users. It is estimated that about 40,000 federal and state inmates are incarcerated for marijuana offenses, less than 3% of the total prison population. The Bureau of Justice counted only 0.1% of people in state prisons in 2004 as serving sentences for first-time marijuana possession and only 1.4% of inmates were for offenses involving only marijuana crimes. Of the inmates who were convicted of marijuana offenses alone, the vast majority were sentenced for large-
- As the legal systems of the United States overlap geographical areas, the most important legal question concerning marijuana reform is jurisdictional. Most of the discussion above involves legalizing marijuana at the federal level. But it may be sufficient for marijuana advocates if voters legalize marijuana in the vast majority of states, for both medical and recreational purposes, without changing federal law. This would have the benefit (or danger) of allowing marijuana to bypass the expensive FDA approval process. If so, it would seem necessary to codify the DOJ’s recent policy of conditional non-enforcement, for example, with legislation that allowed states to opt out of the CSA. A step in that direction has already been taken with Congressional defunding of DEA crackdowns on state medical marijuana and hemp cultivation programs.
- Open Chapter
Preface 7 results (showing 5 best matches)
- On November 8, 2016, two major issues were on American ballots coast-to-coast: the presidential election and the status of marijuana. Marijuana referenda were on the ballots of nine states; four states voted to enact medical marijuana measures, and four states recreational marijuana. As a result, more than half of the states in the United States and the District of Columbia now have legal medical marijuana. Eight states, plus the District of Columbia, comprising almost a quarter of the U.S. population, now have recreational marijuana. These states are pioneers in fashioning laws to regulate, monitor, and tax marijuana consumption. They do so against a framework of federal laws that classify marijuana activity as illegal and subject to severe sanctions. Congress, the executive branch, and federal and state courts wrestle with the complexities of this evolving area of law while legal scholars and students wrestle with the almost unprecedented questions they raise.
- In addition to jurisdictional questions that divide marijuana law, it is also bifurcated by its illegal or legal status. Where illegal, marijuana law is primarily a subset of criminal law and procedure, and we focus on the criminal law of marijuana in two ways. First, by the range of its prohibitions and penalties. And second, on how the unique characteristics of marijuana law shape our criminal jurisprudence in such areas as Fourth Amendment search and seizure. Where legalized, marijuana law is a subset of the law of regulated substances, but with special characteristics. For example, marijuana businesses must account for federal regulations affecting their dealings with banks, bankruptcy courts, the IRS, and employees. States must calibrate new rules to cover issues such as excise and sales taxes on marijuana, parental custody for medical marijuana users, and driving while marijuana-impaired. Lawyers must take into account canons of professional responsibility against advising...
- U.S. marijuana law is also shaped at a global and local level. The United States is signatory to international treaties that curtail marijuana use. The United Nations estimates 183 million persons use marijuana worldwide; thus we review the experience of foreign nations as well. And municipalities are shaping their own marijuana law, raising questions as to how far local ordinances can conflict with state law. The law of marijuana as it relates to Native Americans is of importance both for the sovereign status of Indian tribes and because of initial forays into cultivation of marijuana and hemp on Indian reservations.
- Across the 50 states the status of marijuana varies from strictly prohibited, to authorized for medical purposes, to fully legal, subject only to the kinds of restrictions imposed on substances like tobacco and alcohol. With such disparate classification, marijuana has unique and fascinating legal characteristics.
- This Nutshell covers the wide range of laws affecting marijuana. There is no neat pre-packaging of marijuana issues. We organize our topics according to the basic divisions of marijuana law. This involves primarily accounting for the differences between federal and state law, and for the diversity among the 50 states themselves. The federal law of marijuana is largely shaped by its inclusion in the most restrictive schedule (Schedule I) of the 1970 Controlled Substances Act (abbreviated throughout the book as the “CSA”). For the states, we focus on issues raised by its legalization for medical and recreational purposes, noting peculiarities of one or other state where necessary.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 5. The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 46 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The CSA is the most significant legislation regulating drug and marijuana use in the United States. It establishes a closed registration system for all substances it controls, regulating categories of drugs and punishing use not in accordance with the Act. Because marijuana is controlled in Schedule I, the CSA does not so much regulate as prohibit marijuana. Although states have enacted laws allowing marijuana use for medical and recreational purposes, and although the federal government has announced that it will accommodate such laws, marijuana activity remains no less a serious federal crime.
- The definition of marijuana under the CSA is broad, encompassing every kind of marijuana plant, and any substance containing THC, including industrial hemp and synthetic marijuana.
- Marijuana is essentially illegal under federal law for all purposes. Cultivating, possessing, distributing, and consuming marijuana are prohibited under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA).
- Furthermore, the central piece of federal legislation curbing marijuana use—the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937—was declared unconstitutional in 1969. . This left a significant void in federal drug law, since it essentially left marijuana largely unregulated at the federal level.
- Hence, under the CSA, marijuana cannot be prescribed by a physician for any purpose, and no state law authorizes physicians to do so. (Instead, state medical marijuana laws require a “physician recommendation”.)
- Open Chapter
Chapter 7. Challenges, Defenses, and Exemptions to the CSA 31 results (showing 5 best matches)
- In 1996, California became the first state to legalize the medical use of marijuana. Plaintiffs Angel Raich and Diane Monson were California residents who had been consuming marijuana for several years to alleviate serious medical afflictions. Their use was permitted by California law, as it was recommended by physicians. Indeed one of their physicians testified that conventional medicine had proven ineffective, that marijuana alleviated their symptoms such that they could function on a daily basis, and that without marijuana, their condition would deteriorate and perhaps prove fatal. One plaintiff grew her own marijuana; the other was supplied with locally grown marijuana at no charge. The DEA seized and destroyed the plaintiffs’ marijuana plants. The plaintiffs claimed that their personal use of marijuana for medical reasons was in compliance with California law because it was purely
- , the Ninth Circuit held that the Second Amendment does not protect the rights of unlawful drug users, which would include marijuana users, to bear arms. Likewise in , the court found that a medical marijuana card holder’s Second Amendment rights had not been burdened, even though she did not actually consume marijuana. In that case, a possessor of a Nevada medical marijuana registry card claimed that ATF was denying her right to buy a gun although she did not in fact consume marijuana, even though Nevada authorized her to do so. She held the card largely to make a political statement. Nevertheless, the ATF instructs firearms sellers that they cannot sell firearms to persons “in possession of a card authorizing the possession and use of marijuana under State law.” The court held that “there may be some small population of individuals who—although obtaining a marijuana registry card for medicinal purposes—instead hold marijuana registry cards only for expressive purposes. But it is...
- Courts have found some free speech protections for physicians in the area of marijuana. The courts marijuana in contravention of the CSA. However, there is also an issue as to whether physicians advising patients that they will benefit from use of marijuana constitutes incitement of criminal activity that is outside of First Amendment protection. The distinction has generally been drawn between expressing opinions about the benefits or even necessity of consuming marijuana, and providing actual means for patients to do so. (In some ways, this resembles the distinction between a physician’s “recommendation,” allowed in state legalization regimes, and a physician’s “prescription,” which is not provided for.) In the most prominent case, , the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that physicians have a First Amendment right to tell their patients that they would benefit from use of marijuana. However, if the recommendation is made as a means and method for the patient to actually obtain
- [A]ny person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance, and is prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition.
- The Compassionate Investigational New Drug Program (IND) commenced in 1978. It was implemented under the authority of the FDA and supplied cannabis cigarettes to a limited number of patients with medical needs. It began as a result of a federal lawsuit. Robert Randall, afflicted with glaucoma, was arrested in 1976 for cultivation and consumption of marijuana. D.C. Superior Court Judge James Washington dismissed the charges, finding that smoking marijuana presented no harm to Randall and might bring medical benefits. Although the U.S. Supreme Court would eventually reject such a medical necessity defense, the DOJ and other federal agencies reached a settlement with Randall in 1978. As a result of these “Randall lawsuits,” the FDA created the IND program, administered by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). It allowed a limited number of patients like Randall, victims of disorders which they claimed could be alleviated by marijuana, to obtain FDA-approved marijuana. The marijuana
- Open Chapter
Chapter 17. Impaired Driving and Marijuana 20 results (showing 5 best matches)
- One practical concern that lawmakers have struggled with in states that have legalized medical and/or recreational marijuana is how to discourage impaired driving caused by marijuana consumption. Although there is some evidence that “high” drivers may present less of a hazard overall than drunk drivers (among other things, drunk drivers tend to greatly overestimate their ability to drive, whereas high drivers tend to be more aware of their limitations), there is still a concern among law enforcement officials that increased marijuana use resulting from legalization of marijuana, whether medical or recreational, will result in an increase in traffic accidents and fatalities. Thus, there appears to be a general agreement, even among marijuana legalization advocates (e.g., NORML) that there needs to be a criminal penalty for impairment caused by high driving. The problem arises in devising an accurate and efficient way to detect and measure such impairment.
- Even among states that have legalized marijuana for medical use, there are some significant differences in how they treat evidence of trace amounts of marijuana in a driver’s body. And in some cases the state courts have narrowed the reach of particular statutes to make them more driver-friendly.
- , the Supreme Court of Arizona narrowed the meaning of the word “metabolite” in the statute, holding that it referred only to those metabolites that actually cause impairment of driving. In that case, the driver (who did not have a medical marijuana license) had smoked marijuana the day before, and his blood test upon arrest revealed no active THC in his blood, but only a trace of an inactive metabolite, formed upon the breakdown of THC in the body. The court looked to, among other things, the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act in holding that the state’s interpretation of the statute to include non-impairing metabolites worked an absurd result, since a medical marijuana user may have traces of such metabolites in the user’s blood for a month or more following use. Therefore, the court concluded “that the ‘metabolite’ reference in is limited to any of a proscribed substance’s metabolites that are capable of causing impairment. Accordingly, marijuana users violate ...usage of marijuana...
- . It held that, as applied to a medical marijuana user, § (A)(3) of the statute, read in conjunction with the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act, allowed liability only where the amount of cannabis or an impairing metabolite of cannabis was in a quantity capable of causing impairment. Thus, there is an affirmative defense available to medical marijuana users in Arizona who are arrested for driving with traces of marijuana in their body. If they can show that the amount of marijuana was not capable of causing impairment, then there is no liability. 361 P.3d at 378.
- Among the most lenient of the states that allow medical marijuana use is Maryland. That statute has no marijuana-specific provisions, and it has no
- Open Chapter
Chapter 16. Employment Law Issues 16 results (showing 5 best matches)
- One other approach employers could take in states that allow medical marijuana use is to simply treat medical marijuana users the same as prescription drug users. In other words, if the employee has a disability, and is using medical marijuana pursuant to a valid license to treat this disability, the employer should work with the employee to find a reasonable accommodation, as long as this does not result in undue hardship for the employer. But while this seems like a sensible approach, it is not one, as discussed in the previous two sections, that most states that allow medical marijuana use are inclined to legally mandate at the present time.
- , the plaintiff was a quadriplegic who had a valid medical marijuana license. He used marijuana to treat painful muscle spasms, at home only, as permitted by Colorado law. Coats was employed as a customer service representative by Dish Network until he failed a random drug test at work one day, at which time he was terminated. Coats argued that his termination was wrongful under a state statute, , which prohibits employers from discharging employees who engage in “lawful activities” off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours. He argued that his medical marijuana use was a “lawful activity” under the meaning of the statute because he was using marijuana pursuant to a valid medical marijuana license. The Colorado Supreme Court, upholding the decisions of the trial court and the court of appeals, rejected Coats’ argument that the term “lawful” under the statute was restricted to activities lawful under Colorado law. Rather, it held, an activity must be lawful under both...
- Other courts have likewise upheld the right of an employer to terminate an employee who tests positive for marijuana use. This is true even though such use took place outside of work hours, even though the employee was treating a disability with the marijuana, and even though the employee had a valid medical marijuana license. In so holding, these courts, like the Colorado Supreme Court in , have pointed to the illegal status of medical marijuana use under federal law, which takes it out of the protections of the Americans With Disabilities Act, (holding that, under Oregon’s employment discrimination laws, an employer was not required to accommodate an employee’s use of medical marijuana, because it constituted an illegal use of drugs under an exclusion to the protections of Oregon’s version of the ADA); (holding that Washington’s medical marijuana statute did not regulate the conduct of a private employer or protect an employee from being discharged because of authorized medical
- Thus, the states that have legalized medical marijuana are divided with respect to an employer’s right to terminate an employee for failing a zero-tolerance drug test, even though there is no evidence that the employee used marijuana at work or was impaired while working. Thus far, however, the majority trend appears to favor giving employers that right. In doing so, these states empower employers to treat medical marijuana patients differently from users of prescription drugs. That issue is discussed in the following section.
- Generally, therefore, in the absence of a specific state statute protecting the rights of medical marijuana users in the employment context (such as the New York and Minnesota statutes cited in § 16–2), the law draws a distinction between medical marijuana users and users of potentially impairing prescription drugs. For while there is not a lot of case law on the topic, it appears that most courts in states that have legalized marijuana require an employer to engage in interactive efforts to cooperate with an employee who seeks reasonable accommodations for the potentially impairing effects of prescription medications used to treat a disability. ...discrimination against an employer that terminated an employee for using prescription pain medicine to treat a temporary disability). Thus, until such time as marijuana is rescheduled under the Controlled Substances Act, or otherwise decriminalized under federal law, employers in most states will likely retain the right to... ...marijuana,...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 10. International Treaty Obligations of the United States 19 results (showing 5 best matches)
- According to both international and domestic law, changes in U.S. law as to marijuana have to take into account these treaty obligations. Because the United States has sovereign powers vested in both the national and state governments, two questions arise. The first is whether the federal government can mitigate its sanctions against marijuana, for example by transferring marijuana in the Controlled Substances Act to Schedule III, or an even less restrictive Schedule, without violating international law. The second question is whether individual American states can legalize marijuana without causing the United States to fall into violation.
- and so it can be argued that state legalization of medical marijuana does not violate the treaty obligations However, both the DEA and the INCB have stated that a lax state medical marijuana scheme that did not employ the strict controls mandated by the Single Convention would violate the international treaties. As marijuana is allowed under the international treaties only for medical and scientific purposes, legalization of recreational marijuana appears to contravene the terms of the treaties.
- Cannabis is classified in both Schedule I and Schedule IV of the Single Convention, the first systematic prohibition of marijuana and hashish on an international level. Nevertheless, in allowing medical use, although strictly controlled, the Single Convention is to some extent less restrictive than earlier CND and WHO pronouncements, which rejected therapeutic use of cannabis. Nations can decide whether, per Schedule I, to limit marijuana to medical and scientific purposes, or per Schedule IV, to impose even greater restrictions. The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA) is the national legislation by which the United States complies with the Single Convention. According to notes of the Convention Committee, the United States insisted that marijuana be classified among the most serious drugs. Unlike the CSA, however, the Single Convention does not restrict industrial hemp. “This Convention shall not apply to the cultivation of the cannabis plant exclusively for industrial purposes...
- The DEA has argued that marijuana can only be rescheduled under the CSA if the WHO or the ICNB first reschedules marijuana under the Single Convention. , revolved around a petition to reschedule marijuana under the CSA. The DEA opposed rescheduling, in part because the Single Convention classifies marijuana as a Schedule IV dangerous drug with uncertain therapeutic benefits. The court, by and large ruling for the DEA against rescheduling, cited the deference that the CSA itself pays to international obligations, overriding procedures that could otherwise be taken to reschedule. “If control is required by United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on October 27, 1970, the Attorney General shall issue an order controlling such drug under the schedule he deems most appropriate to carry out such obligations.” CSA, § 811(d)(1). In other words, the Attorney General is to place cannabis in the minimum schedule to satisfy international law,...
- The DEA also maintained that international treaties required it to license only one marijuana supplier; that license was granted to the University of Mississippi under contract with NIDA. However, this interpretation was rejected by the State Department in August 2016, stating that the treaty allows multiple licenses to be issued. This interpretation by the State Department may have been a factor in the DEA’s decision in August 2016 to allow additional suppliers of research marijuana.
- Open Chapter
Title Page 1 result
Outline 35 results (showing 5 best matches)
Center Title 1 result
- Publication Date: March 17th, 2017
- ISBN: 9781634599351
- Subject: Food and Drug Law
- Series: Nutshells
- Type: Overviews
- Description: Concise yet comprehensive text that provides an overview of marijuana law. It discusses important issues pertaining to public policy, legal history, constitutional law, criminal law, and jurisprudence, as well as practical legal issues that concern both marijuana-related businesses and individuals, in areas such as banking, employment, tax, bankruptcy, and child custody. The text provides in-depth coverage of federal laws governing marijuana, along with an overview of international, state, and local laws relating to marijuana regulation. It also provides an overview of arguments for and against medical and/or recreational legalization, as well as an analysis of how marijuana compares to other potentially harmful substances, both legal and illegal.