Search the Community

According to the new law passed by the Colorado government doctors can prescribe medical marijuana for patients suffering from cancer, HIV and AIDS, glaucoma, PTSD or other chronic medical condition that causes, nausea, severe pain, and seizures. The new law includes all medical conditions in which opioids could be recommended. https://www.myhealthyclick.com/colorado-passes-bill-that-allows-physicians-to-prescribe-medical-marijuana-rather-than-opioids/

Interestingly, young, liberal, men, white skin color, college graduates and people who seldom go to church rate marijuana more morally acceptable more than female, non-white, non-college, conservative and weekly church goers. http://news.gallup.com/poll/235250/say-consuming-alcohol-marijuana-morally.aspx

Cannabis Infused Toffee Chocolate Chip Cookies Buttery toffee adds an extra dimension to an already great chocolate chip cookie recipe. Yield: 26 Cookies Serving Size: 1 Cookie 1 1/2 cups all-purpose flour 1/2 teaspoon baking soda 1/4 teaspoon baking powder 1 teaspoon salt 6 tablespoons Cannabutter 2 1/4 grams kief or finely ground dried hash 3/4 cup firmly packed brown sugar 1/2 cup sugar 1 large egg 1 1/2 teaspoons vanilla extract 1 1/2 cups chocolate chips 3/4 cup toffee chips 3/4 cup chopped walnuts or pecans, optional Preheat oven to 350 degrees F. Grease 2 large baking sheets with vegetable shortening, or alternately line them with parchment paper. In a small bowl, mix together flour, baking soda, baking powder, and salt until well combined. Set aside. With an electric mixer fitted with the paddle attachment cream together the canna-butter, kief or ground hash, and brown and granulated sugars until well incorporated. Add the egg, and vanilla, and mix until just combined. Slowly mix in the dry ingredients and stir just until combined. Stir in the chocolate and toffee chips and nuts, if using. Scoop out about 2 tablespoons dough and press gently to form a flattened cookie. Repeat with remaining dough, placing cookies about 2 inches apart on the prepared baking sheet. Bake for about 15 minutes or until lightly browned. Let set for 5 minutes before transferring to a wire rack to cool completely. Serve warm or at room temperature. Baked cookies will stay fresh for about 4 days in an airtight container. Freezer Friendly! Form dough into cookies and place on a baking sheet and freeze before baking. When frozen you can transfer the unbaked cookies to a lidded container or plastic freezer storage bag. When ready to eat, place frozen cookies on a greased or parchment lined sheet and bake at 375 degrees F for about 18 minutes or until browned. * This dose is only a suggestion. Be sure to read and understand Calculating Cannabis Doses in Ediblesbefore attempting to cook with marijuana. Cannabis Infused Devlishly Good Orange Drink Yield: 1 Cup Serving Size: 1 Cup 3 tablespoons frozen orange juice concentrate, thawed 1/2 cup whole milk or half and half 1/4 gram kief or finely ground dry hash* 1 tablespoon sugar or to taste 1/4 teaspoon vanilla extract 2 to 3 ice cubes Place orange juice concentrate, milk or half and half, kief or ground hash, sugar, and vanilla in a blender and puree until smooth and frothy. Add ice cubes and puree until frosty and ice is incorporated into the drink. Serve immediately. * This dose is only a suggestion. Be sure to read and understand Calculating Cannabis Doses in Ediblesbefore attempting to cook with marijuana. Cannabis Infused Mini Pumpkin Pies The dose below is only a suggestion. Be sure to read and understand Calculating Cannabis Doses in Edibles before attempting to cook with marijuana. Makes 4 (4 1/2-inch) Mini Pies Serving Size: 1 Mini-Pie Crust: 5 tablespoons unsalted butter 5 tablespoons vegetable shortening 1/2 teaspoon salt 1 1/3 cup all-purpose flour 1/2 teaspoon salt 2 tablespoons sugar 5 to 6 tablespoons ice water Filling: 2 large eggs 1 can (14 ounces) pumpkin (not pumpkin pie filling) 1 can (14 or 15 ounces) sweetened condensed milk or dulce de leche 1/4 teaspoon salt 1 1/2 teaspoon cinnamon 1 teaspoon ginger 1/2 teaspoon nutmeg 1/4 teaspoon ground cloves 1 gram finely ground hash or kief** 1 1/2 teaspoons vanilla extract Prepare Crust: Cut up the butter and shortening into small chunks and place it in the freezer for at least 15 minutes — the colder the better. Whirl flour, salt, and sugar in the food processor to blend. Add cold butter and pulse just until well incorporated — the mixture will resemble coarse crumbs (see photo, right). Remove mixture from food processor and place in a large bowl. Add ice water and mix with clean hands just until it holds together — mixture should be a little wet. Pat dough into a disk, wrap in plastic wrap and refrigerate for at least 20 minutes before rolling. The rule of thumb for flaky pie crusts is to handle the dough as little as possible. The best way I’ve found to do this is to roll the dough between 2 layers or plastic wrap or waxed paper. This method also makes it easy to transfer the dough into the pie plate. Remove your disk of dough from the refrigerator and divide it into quarters. Place one quarter on a piece of plastic wrap or waxed paper and lightly sprinkle with flour. Cover with another piece of plastic or waxed paper. Use a rolling pin to roll out dough into a circle about an inch larger in all directions than the pie pan. Remove top layer of plastic or paper, center upside down pie plate on dough, and flip the whole thing over. Remove 2nd layer of plastic or waxed paper and press dough into pie plate. If desired, use fingers to make a nice edge on pie by evening out the edges then use thumb and index finger of one hand to pinch crust around the index finger of the other hand, to make a scalloped edge. Place pie crusts in freezer while you prepare filling. Prepare Filling: In a large bowl, beat eggs with an electric mixer until frothy. Add pumpkin, sweetened condensed milk or dulce de leche, salt, cinnamon, ginger, nutmeg, cloves, hash or kief, and vanilla and beat until well combined. Pour into prepared crust(s). Bake for 15 minutes, reduce temperature to 350 degrees F and bake for another 25 minutes or just until set. Serve warm, at room temperature or cold. Garnish with whipped cream if desired. Freezer Friendly! Cool pies completely, cover tightly with foil and freeze. Bring to room temperature and enjoy, or if desired, reheat thawed pies in a 350 degree oven until warm, about 15 minutes. * Dulce de Leche, which technically means milk candy, is a thick caramel brown syrup made from sweetened condensed milk. It comes packaged in cans, like it’s close cousin sweetened condensed milk, or in plastic bottles. Nestles makes the most commonly found brand in the US, La Lechera. TIP! The Easy Way to Roll Mini Pies! I recently discovered the easiest way ever to roll dough for mini pies. You don’t even need a rolling pin, but rather a small tortilla press, found in Mexican markets and used for making, tortillas. This little gadget also works exceptionally well for making mini pie crusts. Place dough between a sheet of plastic wrap on the tortilla press. Press dough to get a perfectly sized mini pie circle of dough. Place in pie crust, pinch the edges and freeze! Cannabis Infused Banana Caramel Cupcakes with Dulce de Leche Icing Rich caramel blends perfectly with bananas in these indulgent cupcakes, topped with a creamy Dulce de Leche icing. Yield: 14 Cupcakes Serving Size: 1 Cupcake Cake: 1 1/4 cups all-purpose flour 1 1/2 teaspoons baking powder 1/2 teaspoon baking soda 1/2 teaspoon salt 3 1/2 grams finely ground kief or hash* 1/2 cup butter 3/4 cup brown sugar 2 large eggs 2 ripe medium bananas, peeled and mashed 1/2 cup heavy cream 2 teaspoons vanilla extract Icing: 1 cup unsalted butter, at room temperature 4 cups sifted powdered sugar Pinch of salt 2 teaspoons pure vanilla extract 1/4 cup heavy cream 1 (14 ounce) can of Dulce De Leche** shaved chocolate for garnish, optional Preheat oven to 350 degrees F. Place paper cupcake liners in 14 muffin tin cups. In a small bowl combine flour, baking powder, baking soda, salt and kief or hash. Stir to combine well. Set aside. Use an electric mixer to beat together butter and brown sugar until light and fluffy. Beat in eggs, banana, cream, and vanilla until well combined. Lower mixer speed and beat in dry dry ingredients just until combined. Fill prepared muffin cups about 3/4 full and bake for about 25 minutes or until a cake tester comes out clean. Allow to cool for 10 minutes in pan. Remove from pan, with paper cups, to a wire rack. Cool completely before frosting. Prepare icing while cupcakes are baking. Beat 1 cup butter in mixer on medium-high speed until smooth and fluffy. Reduce mixer speed to low and slowly beat in 2 cups confectioner’s sugar. Beat in salt, vanilla extract, cream, and dulce de leche. Continue adding powdered sugar until you reach desired consistency. Mix on medium speed for about 4 minutes or until smooth and fluffy. Frost cupcakes when completely cool. Freezer Friendly! Store baked cupcakes in the freezer, either frosted or unfrosted. A gallon size zip-top plastic storage bag makes a good container. Make 2 layers, separated by a sheet of waxed paper, then remove just the amount you need whenever you want a treat. If you choose to frost later you can freeze covered plastic containers of icing separately. Thaw at room temperature for 20 minutes before frosting cakes. (Hint: Cakes are easier to frost when frozen). Let frosted cupcake sit at room temperature at least 15 minutes before serving. * This dose is only a suggestion. Be sure to read and understand Calculating Cannabis Doses in Ediblesbefore attempting to cook with marijuana. ** Dulce de Leche Dulce de Leche is a caramelized sweetened condensed milk. Find it, packed in cans or plastic bottles, in Latin markets or the Latin foods section of most supermarkets. Cannabis Infused Stir Fried Ginger Shrimp and Asparagus This satisfying stir-fry dinner goes together in a flash. Serve over rice or your favorite Asian style noodles. Yield: 4 Cups Serving Size: 1 Cup plus rice or noodles 1/2 teaspoon minced garlic 2 tablespoons minced fresh ginger 1/3 cup chicken or vegetable stock 2 tablespoons rice vinegar 2 tablespoons oyster sauce* 1 tablespoon sesame oil 1 teaspoon sugar 1/2 teaspoon black pepper 2 teaspoons cornstarch 3 tablespoons melted Cannabutter 4 teaspoons vegetable or canola oil, divided 1 pound peeled fresh medium raw shrimp 2 cups fresh trimmed asparagus pieces (cut each stalk into 4 to 5 pieces) 4 ounces sliced white, cremini, or shitake mushrooms 4 green onions, white and green parts, minced Whisk together garlic, ginger, stock, vinegar, oyster sauce, sesame oil, sugar, salt, pepper, and cornstarch until well combined. Whisk in melted cannabis infused butter until well combined and mixture is emulsified. You can alternately prepare sauce in a small food processor. Set aside. Heat a wok over high heat. Add 2 teaspoons oil and swirl to coat wok. Add shrimp and stir fry just until cooked, about 4 to 5 minutes. Remove shrimp from wok and set aside. Add remaining 2 teaspoons oil to wok and swirl to coat. Add asparagus, mushrooms, and green onions to wok and stir fry until crisp-tender, about 6 minutes. Return shrimp to wok and stir to combine ingredients. Stir sauce and pour over ingredients in wok. Cook, stirring constantly, for about a minute or until sauce heats through, thickens, and evenly coats the food. Serve immediately over rice or noodles. * Oyster Sauce, a staple of Chinese cuisine, is a thick, dark brown sauce made from ground dried oysters. Available at Asian food markets or well stocked grocery stores, oyster sauce will keep indefinitely in your refrigerator. * This dose is only a suggestion. Be sure to read and understand Calculating Cannabis Doses in Ediblesbefore attempting to cook with marijuana. Click herefor instructions for making marijuana infused butter. Cannabis Infused Chicken and Cashew Sandwich or Salad Chicken salad soars to new heights of flavor with this unique recipe featuring sweet red grapes, crunchy cashews, and exotic curry. Yield: 3 cups/4 Servings Serving Size: 3/4 Cup 1/4 cup mayonnaise 1 gram kief or finely ground dry hash* 1/2 teaspoon curry powder 1 1/2 cups diced cooked chicken 1/2 cup halved seedless red grapes 1/4 cup finely diced celery 1 tablespoon minced onion or shallot 1/4 cup chopped cashews 1 tablespoons minced fresh Italian parsley (or 1 1/2 teaspoons dried) Salt and pepper to taste Sprinkle kief or hash and curry powder over mayonnaise and mix to combine. In a medium bowl, toss remaining ingredients with mayonnaise mixture. Season to taste with salt and pepper. Serve stuffed in a pita bread, on toast, or on a bed of lettuce. * This dose is only a suggestion. Be sure to read and understand Calculating Cannabis Doses in Ediblesbefore attempting to cook with marijuana. Trix

Looking to become a caregiver and looking for patients. Located in the Oakland County Area. Feel free to contact me with questions or if you want photos of medicine. Thanks

In the middle of a debate on the legalization of marijuana, the opponents to legalization made the claim, without any details or statistics, that legalizing marijuana would cause auto insurance to rise. This is another bogus claim, in a long line of bogus claims, used to continue prohibition of a plant. In the long line of false claims made by prohibitionists, the theories seem to be getting weaker and weaker as time goes by. Looking back through the claims made over the last 100 years, it is foolish to continue believing these, or anything else the prohibitionists throw at us. Marijuana causing Mexicans go "loco" and murder everyone like they were assassins. Based upon a fictional story in a book published in the early 1900's. Jazz musicians seducing white women with marijuana. Seems kind of racist against blacks and Mexicans so far. The war on drugs is also, currently to this day, even in legalized states, used to prosecute and arrest more blacks and latino's than whites. Marijuana causing murders and suicides (See Reefer Madness movie) Marijuana causing brain cell death. Marijuana causes you to be a lazy no good beatnik and or a motivational syndrome tree-hugging hippie. Marijuana causing testicular cancer. Marijuana causing lung cancer. Marijuana gateway theory to hard drugs like heroin or crack cocaine. Marijuana causes addiction to marijuana. Marijuana funds terrorism. Marijuana causing drop in IQ points. Legalizing marijuana will not stop the cartels and black markets. Marijuana causes man-boobs. Marijuana turns straight people into homosexuals. Marijuana makes you have lower sperm counts and more trouble conceiving. Marijuana makes you drop out of school and if you ever smoke marijuana you will never become President of the USA (See Bush, Clinton and Obama.) Marijuana makes you crazy and prone to psychosis (We circled back to the 1920's again) Marijuana gives you a heart attack because it increases your pulse temporarily. Marijuana suppresses your immune system. Marijuana causes crime. (Back to Reefer Madness) Legalized/Medical Marijuana stores cause crime. Prohibition of marijuana (or Alcohol) works. Cannabis causes traffic accidents ( not according to NHTSA's largest ever study on marijuana drivers http://komornlaw.com/35-years-research-reports-driving-cannabis-marijuana/ ) Car Insurance rates increased in Colorado, where marijuana is legal, although it was due to the incredible population increase and a settling of the market after Colorado repealed no-fault insurance. https://www.denverpost.com/2018/02/27/colorado-car-insurance-premiums-rise/ Have you been charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, marijuana or drugs? Remain Silent and Contact Komorn Law Immediately to protect your rights and freedom 800-656-3557. Similarly, in Washington, Insurance studies show that the state has some of the worst drivers in the nation. https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/article147026734.html https://quotewizard.com/news/posts/the-best-and-worst-drivers-by-state 2012 rates: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2012/03/08/states-with-the-highest-and-lowest-auto-insurance-rates/ https://www.thezebra.com/insurance-news/3232/states-cheapest-car-insurance/ In 2016, the zebra compared car insurance rates across the USA. By checking legalized states before and after legalization and comparing them to states that do not have legalization , we can compare if legalization of marijuana changed car insurance rates. https://www.insure.com/car-insurance/car-insurance-rates.html Since each website lists a different criteria and price range for nation wide insurance rates, its better to use a consistent data set. https://www.obrella.com/news/will-marijuana-use-impact-car-insurance-rates/ So there you have it. Car insurance rates are dictated by bad drivers, distracted drivers, uninsured drivers, alcohol and prescription drug impaired drivers and the weather. Marijuana is not a factor for any increase in insurance, according to the federal government and the reality of a lot of people smoking marijuana who do not get into accidents.

About six-in-ten Americans support marijuana legalization. Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No", the unsuccessful campaign that failed to keep children and adults off of drugs is finally over. Prohibition has never worked in any country. Especially with the history of Alcohol prohibition, there is no way that marijuana prohibition would ever work. Now, a majority of the people of the United States would rather make marijuana legal, and tax it instead of giving the industry to the black market cartels. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/05/americans-support-marijuana-legalization/ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/07/fox-news-poll-support-for-legalizing-marijuana-hits-record-high.html https://www.cbsnews.com/news/support-for-marijuana-legalization-at-all-time-high/ https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2539 http://news.gallup.com/poll/221018/record-high-support-legalizing-marijuana.aspx Even Republicans want Legal Marijuana. https://www.mpp.org/news/press/initiative-to-regulate-marijuana-like-alcohol-in-michigan-qualifies-for-november-ballot/

An initiation of legislation to allow under state law the personal possession and use of marihuana by persons 21 years of age or older; to provide for the lawful cultivation and sale of marihuana and industrial hemp by persons 21 years of age or older; to permit the taxation of revenue derived from commercial marihuana facilities; to permit the promulgation of administrative rules; and to prescribe certain penalties for violations of this act. The people of the State of Michigan enact: Sec. 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act . Sec. 2. The purpose of this act is to make marihuana legal under state and local law for adults 21 years of age or older, to make industrial hemp legal under state and local law, and to control the commercial production and distribution of marihuana under a system that licenses, regulates, and taxes the businesses involved. The intent is to prevent arrest and penalty for personal possession and cultivation of marihuana by adults 21 years of age or older; remove the commercial production and distribution of marihuana from the illicit market; prevent revenue generated from commerce in marihuana from going to criminal enterprises or gangs; prevent the distribution of marihuana to persons under 21 years of age; prevent the diversion of marihuana to illicit markets; ensure the safety of marihuana and marihuana-infused products; and ensure security of marihuana establishments. To the fullest extent possible, this act shall be interpreted in accordance with the purpose and intent set forth in this section. Sec. 3. As used in this act: (a) “Cultivate” means to propagate, breed, grow, harvest, dry, cure, or separate parts of the marihuana plant by manual or mechanical means. (b) “Department” means the department of licensing and regulatory affairs. (c) “Industrial hemp” means a plant of the genus cannabis and any part of that plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration that does not exceed 0.3% on a dry-weight basis, or per volume or weight of marihuana-infused product, or the combined percent of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and tetrahydrocannabinolic acid in any part of the plant of the genus cannabis regardless of moisture content. (d) “Licensee” means a person holding a state license. (e) “Marihuana” means all parts of the plant of the genus cannabis, growing or not; the seeds of the plant; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant or its seeds or resin, including marihuana concentrate and marihuana-infused products. For purposes of this act, marihuana does not include: (1) the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks, except the resin extracted from those stalks, fiber, oil, or cake, or any sterilized seed of the plant that is incapable of germination; (2) industrial hemp; or (3) any other ingredient combined with marihuana to prepare topical or oral administrations, food, drink, or other products. (f) “Marihuana accessories” means any equipment, product, material, or combination of equipment, products, or materials, which is specifically designed for use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging, storing, containing, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing marihuana into the human body. (g) “Marihuana concentrate” means the resin extracted from any part of the plant of the genus cannabis. (h) “Marihuana establishment” means a marihuana grower, marihuana safety compliance facility, marihuana processor, marihuana microbusiness, marihuana retailer, marihuana secure transporter, or any other type of marihuana-related business licensed by the department. (i) “Marihuana grower” means a person licensed to cultivate marihuana and sell or otherwise transfer marihuana to marihuana establishments. (j) “Marihuana-infused product” means a topical formulation, tincture, beverage, edible substance, or similar product containing marihuana and other ingredients and that is intended for human consumption. (k) “Marihuana microbusiness” means a person licensed to cultivate not more than 150 marihuana plants; process and package marihuana; and sell or otherwise transfer marihuana to individuals who are 21 years of age or older or to a marihuana safety compliance facility, but not to other marihuana establishments. (l) “Marihuana processor” means a person licensed to obtain marihuana from marihuana establishments; process and package marihuana; and sell or otherwise transfer marihuana to marihuana establishments. (m) “Marihuana retailer” means a person licensed to obtain marihuana from marihuana establishments and to sell or otherwise transfer marihuana to marihuana establishments and to individuals who are 21 years of age or older. (n) “Marihuana secure transporter” means a person licensed to obtain marihuana from marihuana establishments in order to transport marihuana to marihuana establishments. (o) “Marihuana safety compliance facility” means a person licensed to test marihuana, including certification for potency and the presence of contaminants. (p) “Municipal license” means a license issued by a municipality pursuant to section 16 of this act that allows a person to operate a marihuana establishment in that municipality. (q) “Municipality” means a city, village, or township. (r) “Person” means an individual, corporation, limited liability company, partnership of any type, trust, or other legal entity. (s) “Process” or “Processing” means to separate or otherwise prepare parts of the marihuana plant and to compound, blend, extract, infuse, or otherwise make or prepare marihuana concentrate or marihuana-infused products. (t) “State license” means a license issued by the department that allows a person to operate a marihuana establishment. (u) “Unreasonably impracticable” means that the measures necessary to comply with the rules or ordinances adopted pursuant to this act subject licensees to unreasonable risk or require such a high investment of money, time, or any other resource or asset that a reasonably prudent businessperson would not operate the marihuana establishment. Sec. 4. 1. This act does not authorize: (a) operating, navigating, or being in physical control of any motor vehicle, aircraft, snowmobile, off-road recreational vehicle, or motorboat while under the influence of marihuana; (b) transfer of marihuana or marihuana accessories to a person under the age of 21; (c) any person under the age of 21 to possess, consume, purchase or otherwise obtain, cultivate, process, transport, or sell marihuana; (d) separation of plant resin by butane extraction or another method that utilizes a substance with a flashpoint below 100 degrees Fahrenheit in any public place, motor vehicle, or within the curtilage of any residential structure; (e) consuming marihuana in a public place or smoking marihuana where prohibited by the person who owns, occupies, or manages the property, except for purposes of this subdivision a public place does not include an area designated for consumption within a municipality that has authorized consumption in designated areas that are not accessible to persons under 21 years of age; (f) cultivating marihuana plants if the plants are visible from a public place without the use of binoculars, aircraft, or other optical aids or outside of an enclosed area equipped with locks or other functioning security devices that restrict access to the area; (g) consuming marihuana while operating, navigating, or being in physical control of any motor vehicle, aircraft, snowmobile, off-road recreational vehicle, or motorboat, or smoking marihuana within the passenger area of a vehicle upon a public way; (h) possessing marihuana accessories or possessing or consuming marihuana on the grounds of a public or private school where children attend classes in preschool programs, kindergarten programs, or grades 1 through 12, in a school bus, or on the grounds of any correctional facility; or (i) Possessing more than 2.5 ounces of marihuana within a person’s place of residence unless the excess marihuana is stored in a container or area equipped with locks or other functioning security devices that restrict access to the contents of the container or area. 2. This act does not limit any privileges, rights, immunities, or defenses of a person as provided in the Michigan medical marihuana act, 2008 IL 1, MCL 333.26421 to 333.26430, the medical marihuana facilities licensing act, 2016 PA 281, MCL 333.27101 to 333.27801, or any other law of this state allowing for or regulating marihuana for medical use. 3. This act does not require an employer to permit or accommodate conduct otherwise allowed by this act in any workplace or on the employer’s property. This act does not prohibit an employer from disciplining an employee for violation of a workplace drug policy or for working while under the influence of marihuana. This act does not prevent an employer from refusing to hire, discharging, disciplining, or otherwise taking an adverse employment action against a person with respect to hire, tenure, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of that person’s violation of a workplace drug policy or because that person was working while under the influence of marihuana. 4. This act allows a person to prohibit or otherwise regulate the consumption, cultivation, distribution, processing, sale, or display of marihuana and marihuana accessories on property the person owns, occupies, or manages, except that a lease agreement may not prohibit a tenant from lawfully possessing and consuming marihuana by means other than smoking. 5. All other laws inconsistent with this act do not apply to conduct that is permitted by this act. 2 Sec. 5. 1. Notwithstanding any other law or provision of this act, and except as otherwise provided in section 4 of this act, the following acts by a person 21 years of age or older are not unlawful, are not an offense, are not grounds for seizing or forfeiting property, are not grounds for arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, are not grounds for search or inspection, and are not grounds to deny any other right or privilege: (a) except as permitted by subdivision (b), possessing, using or consuming, internally possessing, purchasing, transporting, or processing 2.5 ounces or less of marihuana, except that not more than 15 grams of marihuana may be in the form of marihuana concentrate; (b) within the person’s residence, possessing, storing, and processing not more than 10 ounces of marihuana and any marihuana produced by marihuana plants cultivated on the premises and cultivating not more than 12 marihuana plants for personal use, provided that no more than 12 marihuana plants are possessed, cultivated, or processed on the premises at once; (c) assisting another person who is 21 years of age or older in any of the acts described in this section; and (d) giving away or otherwise transferring without remuneration up to 2.5 ounces of marihuana, except that not more than 15 grams of marihuana may be in the form of marihuana concentrate, to a person 21 years of age or older, as long as the transfer is not advertised or promoted to the public. 2. Notwithstanding any other law or provision of this act, except as otherwise provided in section 4 of this act, the use, manufacture, possession, and purchase of marihuana accessories by a person 21 years of age or older and the distribution or sale of marihuana accessories to a person 21 years of age or older is authorized, is not unlawful, is not an offense, is not grounds for seizing or forfeiting property, is not grounds for arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, and is not grounds to deny any other right or privilege. 3. A person shall not be denied custody of or visitation with a minor for conduct that is permitted by this act, unless the person’s behavior is such that it creates an unreasonable danger to the minor that can be clearly articulated and substantiated. Sec. 6. 1. Except as provided in section 4, a municipality may completely prohibit or limit the number of marihuana establishments within its boundaries. Individuals may petition to initiate an ordinance to provide for the number of marihuana establishments allowed within a municipality or to completely prohibit marihuana establishments within a municipality, and such ordinance shall be submitted to the electors of the municipality at the next regular election when a petition is signed by qualified electors in the municipality in a number greater than 5% of the votes cast for governor by qualified electors in the municipality at the last gubernatorial election. A petition under this subsection is subject to section 488 of the Michigan election law, 1954 PA 116, MCL 168.488. 2. A municipality may adopt other ordinances that are not unreasonably impracticable and do not conflict with this act or with any rule promulgated pursuant to this act and that: (a) establish reasonable restrictions on public signs related to marihuana establishments; (b) regulate the time, place, and manner of operation of marihuana establishments and of the production, manufacture, sale, or display of marihuana accessories; (c) authorize the sale of marihuana for consumption in designated areas that are not accessible to persons under 21 years of age, or at special events in limited areas and for a limited time; and (d) designate a violation of the ordinance and provide for a penalty for that violation by a marihuana establishment, provided that such violation is a civil infraction and such penalty is a civil fine of not more than $500. 3. A municipality may adopt an ordinance requiring a marihuana establishment with a physical location within the municipality to obtain a municipal license, but may not impose qualifications for licensure that conflict with this act or rules promulgated by the department. 4. A municipality may charge an annual fee of not more than $5,000 to defray application, administrative, and enforcement costs associated with the operation of the marihuana establishment in the municipality. 5. A municipality may not adopt an ordinance that restricts the transportation of marihuana through the municipality or prohibits a marihuana grower, a marihuana processor, and a marihuana retailer from operating within a single facility or from operating at a location shared with a marihuana facility operating pursuant to the medical marihuana facilities licensing act, 2016 PA 281, MCL 333.27101 to 333.27801. Sec. 7. 1. The department is responsible for implementing this act and has the powers and duties necessary to control the commercial production and distribution of marihuana. The department shall employ personnel and may contract with advisors and consultants as necessary to adequately perform its duties. No person who is pecuniarily interested, directly or indirectly, in any marihuana establishment may be an employee, advisor, or consultant involved in the implementation, administration, or enforcement of this act. An employee, advisor, or consultant of the department may not be personally liable for any action at law for damages sustained by a person because of an action performed or done in the performance of their duties in the implementation, administration, or enforcement of this act. The department of state police shall cooperate and assist the department in conducting background investigations of applicants. Responsibilities of the department include: (a) promulgating rules pursuant to section 8 of this act that are necessary to implement, administer, and enforce this act; (b) granting or denying each application for licensure and investigating each applicant to determine eligibility for licensure, including conducting a background investigation on each person holding an ownership interest in the applicant; (c) ensuring compliance with this act and the rules promulgated thereunder by marihuana establishments by performing investigations of compliance and regular inspections of marihuana establishments and by taking appropriate disciplinary action against a licensee, including prescribing civil fines for violations of this act or rules and suspending, restricting, or revoking a state license; (d) holding at least 4 public meetings each calendar year for the purpose of hearing complaints and receiving the views of the public with respect to administration of this act; (e) collecting fees for licensure and fines for violations of this act or rules promulgated thereunder, depositing all fees collected in the marihuana regulation fund established by section 14 of this act, and remitting all fines collected to be deposited in the general fund; and (f) submitting an annual report to the governor covering the previous year, which report shall include the number of state licenses of each class issued, demographic information on licensees, a description of enforcement and disciplinary actions taken against licensees, and a statement of revenues and expenses of the department related to the implementation, administration, and enforcement of this act. Sec. 8. 1. The department shall promulgate rules to implement and administer this act pursuant to the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to MCL 24.328, including: (a) procedures for issuing a state license pursuant to section 9 of this act and for renewing, suspending, and revoking a state license; (b) a schedule of fees in amounts not more than necessary to pay for implementation, administration, and enforcement costs of this act and that relate to the size of each licensee or the volume of business conducted by the licensee; (c) qualifications for licensure that are directly and demonstrably related to the operation of a marihuana establishment, provided that a prior conviction solely for a marihuana-related offense does not disqualify an individual or otherwise affect eligibility for licensure, unless the offense involved distribution of a controlled substance to a minor; (d) requirements and standards for safe cultivation, processing, and distribution of marihuana by marihuana establishments, including health standards to ensure the safe preparation of marihuana-infused products and prohibitions on pesticides that are not safe for use on marihuana; (e) testing, packaging, and labeling standards, procedures, and requirements for marihuana, including a maximum tetrahydrocannabinol level for marihuana-infused products, a requirement that a representative sample of marihuana be tested by a marihuana safety compliance facility, and a requirement that the amount of marihuana or marihuana concentrate contained within a marihuana-infused product be specified on the product label; (f) security requirements, including lighting, physical security, and alarm requirements, and requirements for securely transporting marihuana between marihuana establishments, provided that such requirements do not prohibit cultivation of marihuana outdoors or in greenhouses; (g) record keeping requirements for marihuana establishments and monitoring requirements to track the transfer of marihuana by licensees; (h) requirements for the operation of marihuana secure transporters to ensure that all marihuana establishments are properly serviced; (i) reasonable restrictions on advertising, marketing, and display of marihuana and marihuana establishments; (j) a plan to promote and encourage participation in the marihuana industry by people from communities that have been disproportionately impacted by marihuana prohibition and enforcement and to positively impact those communities; and (k) penalties for failure to comply with any rule promulgated pursuant to this section or for any violation of this act by a licensee, including civil fines and suspension, revocation, or restriction of a state license. 2. In furtherance of the intent of this act, the department may promulgate rules to: (a) provide for the issuance of additional types or classes of state licenses to operate marihuana-related businesses, including licenses that authorize only limited cultivation, processing, transportation, delivery, storage, sale, or purchase of marihuana, licenses that authorize the consumption of marihuana within designated areas, licenses that authorize the consumption of marihuana at special events in limited areas and for a limited time, licenses that authorize cultivation for purposes of propagation, and licenses intended to facilitate scientific research or education; or (b) regulate the cultivation, processing, distribution, and sale of industrial hemp. 3. The department may not promulgate a rule that: (a) establishes a limit on the number of any type of state licenses that may be granted; (b) requires a customer to provide a marihuana retailer with identifying information other than identification to determine the customer’s age or requires the marihuana retailer to acquire or record personal information about customers other than information typically required in a retail transaction; 3 (c) prohibits a marihuana establishment from operating at a shared location of a marihuana facility operating pursuant to the medical marihuana facilities licensing act, 2016 PA 281, MCL 333.27101 to 333.27801, or prohibits a marihuana grower, marihuana processor, or marihuana retailer from operating within a single facility; or (d) is unreasonably impracticable. Sec. 9. 1. Each application for a state license must be submitted to the department. Upon receipt of a complete application and application fee, the department shall forward a copy of the application to the municipality in which the marihuana establishment is to be located, determine whether the applicant and the premises qualify for the state license and comply with this act, and issue the appropriate state license or send the applicant a notice of rejection setting forth specific reasons why the department did not approve the state license application within 90 days. 2. The department shall issue the following state license types: marihuana retailer; marihuana safety compliance facility; marihuana secure transporter; marihuana processor; marihuana microbusiness; class A marihuana grower authorizing cultivation of not more than 100 marihuana plants; class B marihuana grower authorizing cultivation of not more than 500 marihuana plants; class C marihuana grower authorizing cultivation of not more than 2,000 marihuana plants. 3. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the department shall approve a state license application and issue a state license if: (a) the applicant has submitted an application in compliance with the rules promulgated by the department, is in compliance with this act and the rules, and has paid the required fee; (b) the municipality in which the proposed marihuana establishment will be located does not notify the department that the proposed marihuana establishment is not in compliance with an ordinance consistent with section 6 of this act and in effect at the time of application; (c) the property where the proposed marihuana establishment is to be located is not within an area zoned exclusively for residential use and is not within 1,000 feet of a pre-existing public or private school providing education in kindergarten or any of grades 1 through 12, unless a municipality adopts an ordinance that reduces this distance requirement; (d) no person who holds an ownership interest in the marihuana establishment applicant: (1) will hold an ownership interest in both a marihuana safety compliance facility or in a marihuana secure transporter and in a marihuana grower, a marihuana processor, a marihuana retailer, or a marihuana microbusiness; (2) will hold an ownership interest in both a marihuana microbusiness and in a marihuana grower, a marihuana processor, a marihuana retailer, a marihuana safety compliance facility, or a marihuana secure transporter; and (3) will hold an ownership interest in more than 5 marihuana growers or in more than 1 marihuana microbusiness, except that the department may approve a license application from a person who holds an ownership interest in more than 5 marihuana growers or more than 1 marihuana microbusiness if, after January 1, 2023, the department promulgates a rule authorizing an individual to hold an ownership interest in more than 5 marihuana growers or in more than 1 marihuana microbusiness. 4. If a municipality limits the number of marihuana establishments that may be licensed in the municipality pursuant to section 6 of this act and that limit prevents the department from issuing a state license to all applicants who meet the requirements of subsection 3 of this section, the municipality shall decide among competing applications by a competitive process intended to select applicants who are best suited to operate in compliance with this act within the municipality. 5. All state licenses are effective for 1 year, unless the department issues the state license for a longer term. A state license is renewed upon receipt of a complete renewal application and a renewal fee from any marihuana establishment in good standing. 6. The department shall begin accepting applications for marihuana establishments within 12 months after the effective date of this act. Except as otherwise provided in this section, for 24 months after the department begins to receive applications for marihuana establishments, the department may only accept applications for licensure: for a class A marihuana grower or for a marihuana microbusiness, from persons who are residents of Michigan; for a marihuana retailer, marihuana processor, class B marihuana grower, class C marihuana grower, or a marihuana secure transporter, from persons holding a state operating license pursuant to the medical marihuana facilities licensing act, 2016 PA 281, MCL 333.27101 to 333.27801; and for a marihuana safety compliance facility, from any applicant. One year after the department begins to accept applications pursuant to this section, the department shall begin accepting applications from any applicant if the department determines that additional state licenses are necessary to minimize the illegal market for marihuana in this state, to efficiently meet the demand for marihuana, or to provide for reasonable access to marihuana in rural areas. 7. Information obtained from an applicant related to licensure under this act is exempt from disclosure under the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246. Sec. 10. 1. Notwithstanding any other law or provision of this act, and except as otherwise provided in section 4 of this act or the rules promulgated thereunder, the following acts are not unlawful, are not an offense, are not grounds for seizing or forfeiting property, are not grounds for arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, are not grounds for search or inspection except as authorized by this act, and are not grounds to deny any other right or privilege: (a) a marihuana grower or an agent acting on behalf of a marihuana grower who is 21 years of age or older, cultivating not more than the number of marihuana plants authorized by the state license class; possessing, packaging, storing, or testing marihuana; acquiring marihuana seeds or seedlings from a person who is 21 years of age or older; selling or otherwise transferring, purchasing or otherwise obtaining, or transporting marihuana to or from a marihuana establishment; or receiving compensation for goods or services; (b) a marihuana processor or agent acting on behalf of a marihuana processor who is 21 years of age or older, possessing, processing, packaging, storing, or testing marihuana; selling or otherwise transferring, purchasing or otherwise obtaining, or transporting marihuana to or from a marihuana establishment; or receiving compensation for goods or services; (c) a marihuana secure transporter or an agent acting on behalf of a marihuana secure transporter who is 21 years of age or older, possessing or storing marihuana; transporting marihuana to or from a marihuana establishment; or receiving compensation for services; (d) a marihuana safety compliance facility or an agent acting on behalf of a marihuana safety compliance facility who is 21 years of age or older, testing, possessing, repackaging, or storing marihuana; transferring, obtaining, or transporting marihuana to or from a marihuana establishment; or receiving compensation for services; (e) a marihuana retailer or an agent acting on behalf of a marihuana retailer who is 21 years of age or older, possessing, storing, or testing marihuana; selling or otherwise transferring, purchasing or otherwise obtaining, or transporting marihuana to or from a marihuana establishment; selling or otherwise transferring marihuana to a person 21 years of age or older; or receiving compensation for goods or services; or (f) a marihuana microbusiness or an agent acting on behalf of a marihuana microbusiness who is 21 years of age or older, cultivating not more than 150 marihuana plants; possessing, processing, packaging, storing, or testing marihuana from marihuana plants cultivated on the premises; selling or otherwise transferring marihuana cultivated or processed on the premises to a person 21 years of age or older; or receiving compensation for goods or services. (g) leasing or otherwise allowing the use of property owned, occupied, or managed for activities allowed under this act; (h) enrolling or employing a person who engages in marihuana-related activities allowed under this act; (i) possessing, cultivating, processing, obtaining, transferring, or transporting industrial hemp; or (j) providing professional services to prospective or licensed marihuana establishments related to activity under this act. 2. A person acting as an agent of a marihuana retailer who sells or otherwise transfers marihuana or marihuana accessories to a person under 21 years of age is not subject to arrest, prosecution, forfeiture of property, disciplinary action by a professional licensing board, denial of any right or privilege, or penalty in any manner, if the person reasonably verified that the recipient appeared to be 21 years of age or older by means of government-issued photographic identification containing a date of birth, and the person complied with any rules promulgated pursuant to this act. 3. It is the public policy of this state that contracts related to the operation of marihuana establishments be enforceable. Sec. 11. (a) A marihuana establishment may not allow cultivation, processing, sale, or display of marihuana or marihuana accessories to be visible from a public place outside of the marihuana establishment without the use of binoculars, aircraft, or other optical aids . (b) A marihuana establishment may not cultivate, process, test, or store marihuana at any location other than a physical address approved by the department and within an enclosed area that is secured in a manner that prevents access by persons not permitted by the marihuana establishment to access the area. (c) A marihuana establishment shall secure every entrance to the establishment so that access to areas containing marihuana is restricted to employees and other persons permitted by the marihuana establishment to access the area and to agents of the department or state and local law enforcement officers and emergency personnel and shall secure its inventory and equipment during and after operating hours to deter and prevent theft of marihuana and marihuana accessories. (d) No marihuana establishment may refuse representatives of the department the right during the hours of operation to inspect the licensed premises or to audit the books and records of the marihuana establishment. (e) No marihuana establishment may allow a person under 21 years of age to volunteer or work for the marihuana establishment. (f) No marihuana establishment may sell or otherwise transfer marihuana that was not produced, distributed, and taxed in compliance with this act. (g) A marihuana grower, marihuana retailer, marihuana processor, marihuana microbusiness, or marihuana testing facility or agents acting on their behalf may not transport more than 15 ounces of marihuana or more than 60 grams of marihuana concentrate at one time. (h) A marihuana secure transporter may not hold title to marihuana. (i) No marihuana processor may process and no marihuana retailer may sell edible marihuana-infused candy in shapes or packages that are attractive to children or that are easily confused with commercially sold candy that does not contain marihuana. 4 (j) No marihuana retailer may sell or otherwise transfer marihuana that is not contained in an opaque, resealable, child-resistant package designed to be significantly difficult for children under 5 years of age to open and not difficult for normal adults to use properly as defined by 16 C.F.R. 1700.20 (1995), unless the marihuana is transferred for consumption on the premises where sold. (k) No marihuana establishment may sell or otherwise transfer tobacco. Sec. 12. In computing net income for marihuana establishments, deductions from state taxes are allowed for all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying out a trade or business. Sec. 13. 1. In addition to all other taxes, an excise tax is imposed on each marihuana retailer and on each marihuana microbusiness at the rate of 10% of the sales price for marihuana sold or otherwise transferred to anyone other than a marihuana establishment. 2. Except as otherwise provided by a rule promulgated by the department of treasury, a product subject to the tax imposed by this section may not be bundled in a single transaction with a product or service that is not subject to the tax imposed by this section. 3. The department of treasury shall administer the taxes imposed under this act and may promulgate rules pursuant to the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to MCL 24.328 that prescribe a method and manner for payment of the tax to ensure proper tax collection under this act. Sec. 14. 1. The marihuana regulation fund is created in the state treasury. The department of treasury shall deposit all money collected under section 13 of this act and the department shall deposit all fees collected in the fund. The state treasurer shall direct the investment of the fund and shall credit the fund interest and earnings from fund investments. The department shall administer the fund for auditing purposes. Money in the fund shall not lapse to the general fund. 2. Funds for the initial activities of the department to implement this act shall be appropriated from the general fund. The department shall repay any amount appropriated under this subsection from proceeds in the fund. 3. The department shall expend money in the fund first for the implementation, administration, and enforcement of this act, and second, until 2022 or for at least two years, to provide $20 million annually to one or more clinical trials that are approved by the United States food and drug administration and sponsored by a non-profit organization or researcher within an academic institution researching the efficacy of marihuana in treating the medical conditions of United States armed services veterans and preventing veteran suicide. Upon appropriation, unexpended balances must be allocated as follows: (wink-wink) (a) 15% to municipalities in which a marihuana retail store or a marihuana microbusiness is located, allocated in proportion to the number of marihuana retail stores and marihuana microbusinesses within the municipality; (b) 15% to counties in which a marihuana retail store or a marihuana microbusiness is located, allocated in proportion to the number of marihuana retail stores and marihuana microbusinesses within the county; (c) 35% to the school aid fund to be used for K-12 education; and (d) 35% to the Michigan transportation fund to be used for the repair and maintenance of roads and bridges. Sec. 15. A person who commits any of the following acts, and is not otherwise authorized by this act to conduct such activities, may be punished only as provided in this section and is not subject to any other form of punishment or disqualification, unless the person consents to another disposition authorized by law: 1. Except for a person who engaged in conduct described in sections 4(1)(a), 4(1)(b), 4(1)(c), 4(1)(d), 4(1)(g), or 4(1)(h), a person who possesses not more than the amount of marihuana allowed by section 5, cultivates not more than the amount of marihuana allowed by section 5, delivers without receiving any remuneration to a person who is at least 21 years of age not more than the amount of marihuana allowed by section 5, or possesses with intent to deliver not more than the amount of marihuana allowed by section 5, is responsible for a civil infraction and may be punished by a fine of not more than $100 and forfeiture of the marihuana. 2. Except for a person who engaged in conduct described in section 4, a person who possesses not more than twice the amount of marihuana allowed by section 5, cultivates not more than twice the amount of marihuana allowed by section 5, delivers without receiving any remuneration to a person who is at least 21 years of age not more than twice the amount of marihuana allowed by section 5, or possesses with intent to deliver not more than twice the amount of marihuana allowed by section 5: (a) for a first violation, is responsible for a civil infraction and may be punished by a fine of not more than $500 and forfeiture of the marihuana; (b) for a second violation, is responsible for a civil infraction and may be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000 and forfeiture of the marihuana; (c) for a third or subsequent violation, is guilty of a misdemeanor and may be punished by a fine of not more than $2,000 and forfeiture of the marihuana. 3. Except for a person who engaged in conduct described by section 4(1)(a), 4(1)(d), or 4(1)(g), a person under 21 years of age who possesses not more than 2.5 ounces of marihuana or who cultivates not more than 12 marihuana plants: (a) for a first violation, is responsible for a civil infraction and may be punished as follows: (1) if the person is less than 18 years of age, by a fine of not more than $100 or community service, forfeiture of the marihuana, and completion of 4 hours of drug education or counseling; or (2) if the person is at least 18 years of age, by a fine of not more than $100 and forfeiture of the marihuana. (b) for a second violation, is responsible for a civil infraction and may be punished as follows: (1) if the person is less than 18 years of age, by a fine of not more than $500 or community service, forfeiture of the marihuana, and completion of 8 hours of drug education or counseling; or (2) if the person is at least 18 years of age, by a fine of not more than $500 and forfeiture of the marihuana. 4. Except for a person who engaged in conduct described in section 4, a person who possesses more than twice the amount of marihuana allowed by section 5, cultivates more than twice the amount of marihuana allowed by section 5, or delivers without receiving any remuneration to a person who is at least 21 years of age more than twice the amount of marihuana allowed by section 5, shall be responsible for a misdemeanor, but shall not be subject to imprisonment unless the violation was habitual, willful, and for a commercial purpose or the violation involved violence. Sec. 16. 1. If the department does not timely promulgate rules as required by section 8 of this act or accept or process applications in accordance with section 9 of this act, beginning one year after the effective date of this act, an applicant may submit an application for a marihuana establishment directly to the municipality where the marihuana establishment will be located. 2. If a marihuana establishment submits an application to a municipality under this section, the municipality shall issue a municipal license to the applicant within 90 days after receipt of the application unless the municipality finds and notifies the applicant that the applicant is not in compliance with an ordinance or rule adopted pursuant to this act. 3. If a municipality issues a municipal license pursuant to this section: (a) the municipality shall notify the department that the municipal license has been issued; (b) the municipal license has the same force and effect as a state license; and (c) the holder of the municipal license is not subject to regulation or enforcement by the department during the municipal license term. Sec. 17. This act shall be broadly construed to accomplish its intent as stated in section 2 of this act. Nothing in this act purports to supersede any applicable federal law, except where allowed by federal law. All provisions of this act are self-executing. Any section of this act that is found invalid as to any person or circumstances shall not affect the application of any other section of this act that can be given full effect without the invalid section or application.

WXYZ TV Published on Apr 24, 2018 Matthew Abel is hoping this week will mark history. He is part of a coalition of organizations that helped write the language for the proposed legislation the board of canvassers will consider on Thursday.

Pat Miles, Dana Nessel and Unions. Michigan Democratic Party members will be voting and nominating their pick for the Attorney General in the April nomination convention. A few weeks before the convention, the Union Auto Workers endorsed Pat Miles. This is strange, because Pat Miles has a history of working at anti-union law firms. http://www.btlaw.com/Patrick-Miles http://www.btlaw.com/Union-Free-Training-Labor-and-Employment-Law-Practices/ It is clear that Pat Miles works for a law firm that brags and specializes in busting unions and stopping employees from unionizing. When challenged on this, Pat Miles denied everything. https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2018/04/05/pat-miles-attorney-general-uaw-endorse/489401002/ Pat Miles flip flops depending on who he is talking to. Not only has Miles changed his opinion on marijuana legalization, but he also states that his federal prosecution of Michigan Medical Marihuana Patients was correct. Miles’ comments about people hallucinating from Marijuana and his comments on adults eating gummy bear ears should tell everyone that he is the wrong choice. https://www.milesformichigan.com/single-post/2017/01/01/MARIJUANA-LEGALIZATION https://www.milesformichigan.com/single-post/2018/03/07/Statement-from-Pat-Miles-on-legalizing-recreational-marijuana Try to read all of that together. On the one hand, pat said he prosecuted medical marijuana patients, but then paradoxically, says he focused resources on “large-scale drug trafficking organizations as well as those who used violence”. Which is it, Pat? What will he do as Michigan’s Attorney General? Focus on large scale drug traffickers or go after more medical marijuana patients? Michigan needs an attorney general that supports reform for Marihuana. Miles position before his flip flop sounded exactly like Bill Schuette, and his actions were the exact same as Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette when he prosecuted medical marijuana patients who were out of compliance. Miles flopped on the issue because, like our current AG Bill Schuette, Pat Miles will say anything to win. Bill Schuette destroyed the MMMA - arrest for marijuana are up 14 percent. Forfeiture proceeds were 15 million dollars last year in Michigan; not one dollar was spent on training Law Enforcement about Medical Marihuana. http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/Michigan Civil Forfeiture Report_2016.pdf The MSP-FSD Michigan State Police Forensic Science Division spends 40% of its budget and time testing Marihuana for criminal cases. There is nothing to wonder about why the rape test kits go untested. Pat Miles has never addressed this issue. This issue does not exist to him, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he is oblivious to these statistics. Direct Sources : http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,4643,7-123-1586_3501_4621-25744--,00.html http://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2000-glanc2000_17302_7.pdf http://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2001_UCR_glanc_49319_7.pdf http://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2002_UCR_Glance_76503_7.pdf http://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2003-CrimeGlance_106230_7.pdf http://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2004-Ag-glanc_140048_7.pdf http://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2005-Ag-glance_175997_7.pdf http://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2006-Ag-glance06_220683_7.pdf http://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2007Ag-glance07_GroupA_259540_7.pdf http://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2007Ag-glance07_GroupB_259541_7.pdf http://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2008-Aa-Introduction_GroupA_B_305552_7.pdf http://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2009Annual_CrimesAtAGlance_332333_7.pdf http://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2010_Annual_CrimeAtAGlance_358703_7.pdf http://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2011-a_CrimesAtAGlance_391376_7.pdf http://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2012-CrimesAtAGlance_433544_7.pdf http://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2013_Annual_Crime_At_A_Glance_461464_7.pdf http://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2014-Annual_Crime_At_A_Glance_493230_7.pdf http://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2015-Crime_At_A_Glance_528343_7.pdf http://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2016-a2_Crime_At_A_Glance_598812_7.pdf Dana Nessel however is fully aware of these tragedies and speaks about protecting these victims often. Dana Nessel has answers on how to change the priority of the Attorney Generals’ office to solve rape crimes before nonviolent drug crimes. If one asked Miles this question, he would lock up like he did when asked the simple question of if he voted for the MMMA in 2008. While some think that the AG race is about ending Marihuana prohibition, a good argument can be made that it is about focusing resources and the budget on protecting rape victims and prosecuting rapists. These are the things that Dana Nessel addresses when she speaks, not the REEFER MADNESS of medical marijuana gummy bear ears. The AG position is about leadership, and representation of and for the People of the State of Michigan. Most significantly it is about enforcing the law as written and with the true intent of the law to be enforced. Trusting a flip flopper to do this is a bad idea. Dana Nessel is the only candidate that has earned the nomination.

LANSING, MI - It was chilly on the morning of Dec. 15., but Michigan State Police stood outside a state office building. They were there for safety, ready, as the Bureau of Medical Marihuana Regulation opened its doors, for some applicants to show up with the $6,000 application fee in cash. Michigan lawmakers authorized a new medical marijuana industry in 2016, and the state began accepting applications to be a part of it on Dec. 15, 2017. But businesses seeking inclusion are already running into a roadblock: banks won't take their money. "It's not that banks don't want to. It becomes a very significant risk," said Patricia Herndon, senior vice president of government affairs for the Michigan Bankers Association. Michigan created a $837M medical marijuana industry with nowhere to put its cash Updated Feb 14, 7:46 AM; Posted Feb 14, 7:45 AM By Emily Lawler elawler@mlive.com Federally, marijuana is considered a Schedule I substance, a category that means the government considers it to have no medical use and a high potential for addiction. The revenue from a state-authorized medical or recreational marijuana business can potentially be viewed as drug money by the federal government. In Michigan, medical marijuana is legal and its industry is projected to expand rapidly. A House Fiscal Agency analysis of the bill lawmakers approved projected it would grow to $837 million annually. As of Feb. 2 there were already 146 businesses who have submitted prequalifications with the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation, and another 618 had started the online application process. But without being able to rely on basic banking services, those medical marijuana business owners are struggling with how to remain above-board. Paul Samways, an accountant with Cannabis Accounting, said he's currently going out to clients to count their cash. And when the businesses start operating under the new scheme, it only gets more complicated if they can't cut checks or store money. "These guys aren't hiding stuff in their mattress, they want to be above-board, they want to make sure everybody knows what's going on, they want to pay their taxes... how do you do it without a bank account?" Samways asked. Banks shy away from marijuana money Acting as a bank for a medical marijuana business was a thorny issue to begin with, and one that's gotten more difficult in wake of a memo issued by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions last month. Banks that want to handle medical marijuana business money have to do a lot of due diligence at a high upfront cost to ensure compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering rules, Herndon said. But on Jan. 4, Sessions repealed an Obama-era policy known as the Cole memo, which instructed federal prosecutors since 2013 not to prioritize the enforcement of federal anti-marijuana laws in some instances where states had their own marijuana laws on the books. Now, federal prosecutors are using their discretion on the enforcement of federal marijuana laws. Sessions policy shift on marijuana could have implications for Michigan "That rescission adds even greater uncertainty to this," Herndon said. "I will say that they continue to look at this, there's been no declaration from the U.S. district attorney that there's going to be an active force in that direction." Before that move, there had been an uptick nationally in banks serving the medical marijuana industry. According to a report from the federal Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, 400 financial institutions were banking with marijuana businesses in September of 2017, which represented steady growth. And some states have found ways around needing buy-in from financial institutions. In Hawaii, state officials collaborated with a cashless service called CanPay and Safe Harbor Private Banking, a marijuana-specific financial institution, to let medical marijuana businesses handle transactions. In Maryland and Florida, banks have quietly popped up to fill the void. But Florida's bank is backing out now. With Michigan's industry coming online at the same time banks are grappling with the Sessions memo, it's not clear any financial institutions will rush to fill the void. Samways looked into the possibility of starting a state-chartered credit union that would accept medical marijuana money a few years ago. The problem he ran into, he said, was that he couldn't get a master account in the federal reserve without compromising the medical marijuana money. "What happens is if you don't have a federal reserve master account, you can't cash checks or take debit cards or transfer money into the money super-highway," he said. As of now, Herndon said, no Michigan bank has publicly come forward as accepting medical marijuana money. Lawmakers look for solutions Rep. Klint Kesto, R-Commerce Twp., is the sponsor of House Bill 5144, which was signed into law last month. It makes several refinements to the medical marijuana law the state passed in December of 2016. Among the changes, it specifies that an accountant or financial institution providing services to someone licensed under the Medical Marihuana Act wouldn't be subject to penalties. Kesto said the intent was not to hold banks accountable for providing somebody with their banking records. "Because in order to apply for a license you have to go and get your banking records. So if you went to the teller or the clerk or whoever was going to assist you, then we don't want to subject them to any criminal laws that then may be out there. We specifically codify that," Kesto said. The same idea applies to certified public accountants, he said. To apply for a license to be a medical marijuana grower, processer, tester, transporter or dispensary, applicants have to prove they meet a capital requirement, which is often dependent on financial records. It's CPAs who provide an attestation that applicants have met those requirements. And that's just for the application process. But when marijuana businesses actually start pulling in money, they'll run into another problem, one Kesto acknowledges. Where are they supposed to store it? "I think that it makes a lot of people nervous. I bet the people who have to hold that cash are nervous, because that makes them a target as well," Kesto said. "Law enforcement is probably nervous because they have to enforce the laws if there's theft, or robberies, or what have you. So I think that we have to be cognizant of that." Rep. Pete Lucido, R-Shelby Twp., is looking to answer that with House Joint Resolution CC, which would create a state bank capable of handling money from marijuana businesses. Without some kind of solution, he said, Michigan would have a huge industry that basically lacked the ability to put its revenue back into the economy. Right now, he said, people could get stuck keeping it in mattresses and coffee cans. "What other safe harbor do we have? If the banks can't touch the proceeds and the credit unions can't touch the proceeds from the sale of marijuana, then what do we leave those that are in the business that are regulated by the state as it relates to licensing? Even the labs that test it would be barred from putting the proceeds into the bank or credit union because it violates federal law," Lucido said. So far, Lucido said, South Dakota is the only other state with a state bank. South Dakonta authorized it close to 100 years ago and don't have medical marijuana. But Michigan has a chance to open their own and be a leader, he said. He doesn't necessarily think a state bank competing with private banking services is a good idea. But right now, it's what he's got. "I would surely think that if the banking industry and credit union industry have an alternative, they can sure knock on my door and give it to me," Lucido said. Magnitude of problem could grow with legalization Try as state lawmakers might, it's not clear that they have the power to address the issue, at least through regular banks. "Very little can be done at this point, at the state level, to impact the prohibitions and the obstacles that are put into place that are keeping us from jumping into this," Herndon said. Right now the state's talking about a potentially $837 million medical marijuana industry with banking issues. But if a ballot initiative to legalize recreational marijuana for adult use passes, even more businesses and more dollars could have trouble accessing traditional banking systems. Josh Hovey, a spokesperson for the Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, the group pushing for legalization, said based off what other states have experienced, "We're thinking that once the market is fully established that Michigan could be generating anywhere from $100 million to $200 million a year in tax revenue." That's a lot of money to think about collecting from a cash-only business. But he's hopeful Congress will broker a federal solution. "I think it's something that Congress is starting to look at and realizing that there's a whole lot of money out there that the IRS needs to be collecting, that state governments need to be collecting," Hovey said. But absent that - or any potential state action - Michigan's marijuana industry will likely be a cash one. http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2018/02/michigan_created_a_837m_medica.html

Attorney General Jeff Sessions January 4th memo regarding marijuana enforcement is historic... and it should promptly be consigned to the dustbin of history. Mr. Session’s very name is a history lesson. Like his father and grandfather, he was named after Jefferson Davis, the first and only president of the Confederacy and P.G.T. Beauregard, the first prominent general of the Confederate Army. These were the men who lead the people of Alabama in their desire and purpose to join the “slave-holding states” to secede from the U.S. and form a government where “in no case shall citizenship extend to any person who is not a free white person.” See Alabama Ordinance of Secession. Mr. Sessions memo overturning Obama era guidelines for federal marijuana prosecutions is entirely consistent his historic roots. Here’s why. When the South failed in its quest to preserve the “peculiar institution” of slavery, Jim Crow and segregation followed. “Separate but equal” became the rallying cry to keep whiteness supreme. With Brown v. Board of Education and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, this became impossible. American society convulsed. In 1968, Richard Nixon took the White House by appealing to the “silent (white) majority” and exploiting Southern fears of the recently empowered African-Americans. The South has been Republican ever since. Here’s how Nixon did it. He declared a War on Drugs. John Ehrlichman a Nixon staffer revealed the real roots of the criminal prohibition of marijuana and other substances: “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” By 1980 with the ascension of Ronald Reagan (and Nancy Reagan’s vacuous “Just Say No”), the drug war was hitting its stride. George H.W. Bush amended the Posse Comitatus Act to allow the military to be used as a domestic police force in the drug war, effectively para-militarizing police forces across the nation. In 1994, Bill Clinton passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. In the 22 years since the bill was passed, the federal prison population more than doubled. War is a bi-partisan vice, and scare-mongering reliably delivers votes. It is to this era that Mr. Sessions seeks to return us with his memo. That is because the war on drugs has been extraordinarily successful in its primary purpose: to vilify Blacks and the Anti-war left, arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and put them in jail. By 2000, incarceration numbers began to become available in parts of the South demonstrating that the drug war increasingly was a war on African Americans, particularly Black males of prime breeding age. One in three black men in the United States between the ages of 20 and 29 years old was under correctional supervision or control. Among the nearly 1.9 million offenders incarcerated on June 30, 1999, more than 560,000 were black males between the ages of 20 and 39. At those levels of incarceration, newborn Black males in this country had a greater than 1 in 4 chance of going to prison during their lifetimes, while Latin-American males have a 1 in 6 chance, and white males have a 1 in 23 chance of serving time. The United States was incarcerating African-American men at a rate that was approximately four times the rate of incarceration of Black men in South Africa. The rate of imprisonment for black women was more than eight times the rate of imprisonment of white women; the rate of imprisonment of Hispanic women was nearly four times the rate of imprisonment of white women. We can trace those disparities directly to discriminatory and selective enforcement of the drug laws. Most illicit drug users were white. There were an estimated 9.9 million whites (72 percent of all users), 2.0 million blacks (15 percent), and 1.4 million Hispanics (10 percent) who were illicit drug users. Yet, blacks constituted 36.8% of those arrested for drug violations, over 42% of those in federal prisons for drug violations and almost 60% of those in state prisons for drug felonies; Hispanics accounted for 22.5%. Drug laws had become the new Jim Crow. Texas was particularly bad. By 2000, there were more Texans under criminal justice control, 706,600 -- than the entire populations of Vermont, Wyoming or Alaska. Texas’s incarceration rate of 1,035 per 100,000 population tops every state but Louisiana. If Texas were a separate nation, it would have the world’s highest incarceration rate, well above the United States at 682 per 100,000 or Russia's 685. The state's prison population had tripled since 1990, rising more than 60 percent in the past five years -- from 92,669 to 149,684. Black Texans were incarcerated at a rate seven times that of whites -- and at a rate 63 percent higher than the national rate for blacks. Blacks supplied 44 percent of the inmates in Texas although they constituted only 12 percent of the state's population. More than half of all Blacks were in jail in Texas for nonviolent offenses. They ended up picking cotton, herding cattle or, contracted out as labor to assemble computers. Then came 9/11. Criminal justice reform took a backseat to terror wars until those wars too lost all legitimacy. It was not until the election of Barack Obama and the appointment of Eric Holder that the real roots of this massive, fraudulent, unjust war on drugs began to be addressed. Over the course of that presidency, states were allowed to advance their experiments with medicinal and later adult use marijuana. Civil asset forfeiture at the federal level was reigned in and the use of private, for-profit prisons was curtailed. A key part of this reform was a statement of guiding principles for federal prosecutors regarding marijuana. These guidelines allowed states to proceed with some predictability in their local marijuana programs. Mr. Sessions has undone all of this. Why is this important? Because the numbers have only grown worse. An African-American in Michigan is three times more likely to be arrested for violating marijuana laws compared to a white person, although surveys and research indicate little difference between usage rates between the two groups. In all, African-Americans comprise about 14 percent of Michigan's population, but 35 percent of marijuana arrests. Overall, African-Americans in Michigan are incarcerated at roughly five times the rate of whites. The numbers in the white flight counties of the Eastern District of Michigan are even more unconscionable. In St. Clair County, African-Americans make up 2.5% of the total population yet account for 43% of arrests for drug law violations. In Oakland County, African-Americans make up 14.4% of the population yet account for 48% of arrests for drug law violations. In Lapeer County African-Americans make up 1.2% of the population yet account for 10.4% of arrests for drug law violations. In Genesee County African-Americans make up 20% of the population yet account for 76% of drug arrests. This according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Medical marijuana patients and programs are squarely in the cross-fire of a war with deeply racial roots. We say that the only citizen more vulnerable to police misconduct than a young black male in Texas is a medical marijuana patient in Michigan. Mr. Sessions knows all of this. It is in his blood. In his name. This is not accidental. Mr. Sessions and his ilk want to return us to an age when names like Jefferson Davis and P.G.T. Beauregard are names to be proud of and ditzy slogans like “just say no” and “good people don’t smoke marijuana” substitute for real science. Mr. Sessions war is arbitrary, capricious, and racist. His dismissive memo merely enshrines the worst of policies and promotes selective and discriminatory enforcement of the law. Can a community that has been abused for years by a corrupt, federal, militarized police force that is selectively enforcing the law on the basis of race organize to end its oppression? Yes. See e.g. the American Revolution. In 1776, the British Redcoats had become a federal military police force with wide ranging powers to enforce the contraband laws Then, as now, most contraband consisted of drugs, primarily tea and tobacco. Then, as now, the police were allowed to issue “writs of assistance” (roving search warrants devoid of probable cause) allowing them to seize and keep the property of those persons believed to be illicitly trafficking. Then, as now, such power and temptation corrupted the police authorities, resulted in selective enforcement of the law and produced wide scale violations of God-granted liberties. Then, the community organized to resist. The Boston Tea Party, the American Revolution and the Bill of Rights ensued. Among the rights enshrined is the right to organize and to oppose abuses by a federal, corrupt, militarized police force. 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. “I thought those guys (the KKK) were alright until I learned they smoke pot.” -- Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III

Marijuana makes drivers drive slower. That's about it. Read on to see the consensus from research spanning 50 years from USA, UK, Canada, Australia, and everywhere else. Just under 300 studies along with independent and government reports were collected, yet the research keeps pointing to the same thing. People driving after using cannabis drive a little bit slower. States with Legalized and Medical Marijuana have fewer fatal car accidents. My guess is that the fewer fatal accidents are due to substituting alcohol and other medications for cannabis. Don't believe me, take the official government word directly from NIDA: NHTSA 2017 Marijuana-Impaired Driving A Report to Congress The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration did its own tests in 2015 and found that THC showed no increased crash risk. Crash Fatality Rates After Recreational Marijuana Legalization in Washington and Colorado. CANNABIS USE AND DRIVING: Evidence Review Canadian Drug Policy Coalition (CDPC) Simon Fraser University NHTSA The Incidence and Role of Drugs in Fatally Injured Drivers 1992 NHTSA Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance 1993 CRASH CHARACTERISTICS AND INJURIES OF VICTIMS IMPAIRED BY ALCOHOL VERSUS ILLICIT DRUGS University of Michigan Study 1997 CANNABIS: OUR POSITION FOR A CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY REPORT OF THE SENATE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON ILLEGAL DRUGS 2002 Psychomotor Performance, Subjective and Physiological Effects and Whole Blood D9 -Tetrahydrocannabinol Concentrations in Heavy, Chronic Cannabis Smokers Following Acute Smoked Cannabis Medical Marijuana Laws, Traffic Fatalities, and Alcohol Consumption See the full list of studies here: http://komornlaw.com/driving-research/

Governments from around the world have conducted exhaustive studies on Marijuana / Hemp / Cannabis and have found the exact same results each and every time, consistently over the last 120+ years. Likewise, the governments have attacked, ignored, buried and outright shunned every one of these reports for the last 120 years. The Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Report India 1893-1894 The Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Report, completed in 1894, was a British India study of cannabis usage in India. The Commission report and all recorded testimony was over 3,000 pages long spanning 8 volumes. The Summary of conclusions regarding effects of cannabis is found in the first volume of the report, on pages 263 and 264. 552. The Commission have now examined all the evidence before them regarding the effects attributed to hemp drugs. It will be well to summarize briefly the conclusions to which they come. It has been clearly established that the occasional use of hemp in moderate doses may be beneficial; but this use may be regarded as medicinal in character. It is rather to the popular and common use of the drugs that the Commission will now confine their attention. It is convenient to consider the effects separately as affecting the physical, mental, or moral nature. In regard to the physical effects, the Commission have come to the conclusion that the moderate use of hemp drugs is practically attended by no evil results at all. There may be exceptional cases in which, owing to idiosyncracies of constitution, the drugs in even moderate use may be injurious. There is probably nothing the use of which may not possibly be injurious in cases of exceptional intolerance. There are also many cases where in tracts with a specially malarious climate, or in circumstances of hard work and exposure, the people attribute beneficial effects to the habitual moderate use of these drugs; and there is evidence to show that the popular impression may have some basis in fact. Speaking generally, the Commission are of opinion that the moderate use of hemp drugs appears to cause no appreciable physical injury of any kind. The excessive use does cause injury. As in the case of other intoxicants, excessive use tends to weaken the constitu- tion and to render the consumer more susceptible to disease. In respect to the particular diseases which according to a considerable number of witnesses should be associated directly with hemp drugs, it appears to be reasonably estab- lished that the excessive use of these drugs does not cause asthma; that it may indirectly cause dysentery by weakening the constitution as above indicated; and that it may cause bronchitis mainly through the action of the inhaled smoke on the bronchial tubes. In respect to the alleged mental effects of the drugs, the Commission have come to the conclusion that the moderate use of hemp drugs produces no inju- rious effects on the mind. It may indeed be accepted that in the case of special- ly marked neurotic diathesis, even the moderate use may produce mental injury. For the slightest mental stimulation or excitement may have that effect in such cases. But putting aside these quite exceptional cases, the moder- ate use of these drugs produces no mental injury. It is otherwise with the excessive use. Excessive use indicates and intensifies mental instability. It tends to weaken the mind. It may even lead to insanity. It has been said by Dr. Blanford that "two factors only are necessary for the causation of insanity, which are complementary, heredity, and stress. Both enter into every case: the stronger the influence of one factor, the less of the other factor is requisite to produce the result. Insanity, therefore, needs for its production a certain insta- bility of nerve tissue and the incidence of a certain disturbance." It appears that the excessive use of hemp drugs may, especially in cases where there is any weakness or hereditary predisposition, induce insanity. It has been shown that the effect of hemp drugs in this respect has hitherto been greatly exag- gerated, but that they do sometimes produce insanity seems beyond question. In regard to the moral effects of the drugs, the Commission are of opinion that their moderate use produces no moral injury whatever. There is no adequate ground for believing that it injuriously affects the character of the consumer. Excessive consumption, on the other hand, both indicates and inten- sifies moral weakness or depravity. Manifest excess leads directly to loss of self- respect, and thus to moral degradation. In respect to his relations with society, however, even the excessive consumer of hemp drugs is ordinarily inoffensive. His excesses may indeed bring him to degraded poverty which may lead him to dishonest practices; and occasionally, but apparently very rarely indeed, exces- sive indulgence in hemp drugs may lead to violent crime. But for all practical purposes it may be laid down that there is little or no connection between the use of hemp drugs and crime. Viewing the subject generally, it may be added that the moderate use of these drugs is the rule, and that the excessive use is comparatively exceptional. The moderate use practically produces no ill effects. In all but the most excep- tional cases, the injury from habitual moderate use is not appreciable. The excessive use may certainly be accepted as very injurious, though it must be admit- ted that in many excessive consumers the injury is not clearly marked. The injury done by the excessive use is, however, confined almost exclusively to the consumer himself; the effect on society is rarely appreciable. It has been the most striking feature in this inquiry to find how little the effects of hemp drugs have obtruded themselves on observation. The large number of witnesses of all classes who professed never to have seen these effects, the vague statements made by many who professed to have observed them, the very few witnesses who could so recall a case as to give any definite account of it, and the manner in which a large proportion of these cases broke down on the first attempt to examine them, are facts which combine to show most clearly how little injury society has hitherto sustained from hemp drugs. Letter from the American Medical Association 1937 Re: H.R. 6906 SENATOR BROWN: Before we adjourn, I desire to place in the record a letter regarding the pending bill addressed to Senator Harrison by Dr. William C. Woodward, of the American Medical Association, Chicago, Ill. American Medical Association Bureau of Legal Medicine and Legislation Chicago, July 10, 1937 Hon. Pat Harrison Chairman, Committee on Finance, United States Senate Washington D.C. SIR: I have been instructed by the board of trustees of the American Medical Association to protest on behalf of the association against the enactment in it present form of so much of H.R. 6906 as relates to the medicinal use of cannabis and its preparations and derivatives. The act is entitled "An Act to impose an occupational excise tax upon certain dealers in marihuana, to impose a transfer tax upon certain dealings in marihuana, and to safeguard the revenue therefrom by registry and recording." Cannabis and its preparations and derivatives are covered in the bill by the term "marihuana" as that term is defined in section 1, paragraph (b). There is no evidence, however, that the medicinal use of these drugs has caused or is causing cannabis addiction. As remedial agents, they are used to an inconsiderable extent, and the obvious purpose and effect of this bill is to impose so many restrictions on their use as to prevent such use altogether. Since the medicinal use of cannabis has not caused and is not causing addiction, the prevention of the use of the drug for medicinal purposes can accomplish no good end whatsoever. How far it may serve to deprive the public of the benefits of a drug that on further research may prove to be of substantial value, it is impossible to foresee. The American Medical Association has no objection to any reasonable regulation of the medicinal use of cannabis and its preparations and derivatives. It does pretest, however, against being called upon to pay a special tax, to use special order forms in order to procure the drug, to keep special records concerning its professional use and to make special returns to the Treasury Department officials, as a condition precedent to the use of cannabis in the practice of medicine. in the several States, all separate and apart from the taxes, order forms, records, and reports required under the Harrison Narcotics Act with reference to opium and coca leaves and their preparations and derivatives. If the medicinal use of cannabis calls for Federal legal regulation further than the legal regulation that now exists, the drug can without difficulty be covered under the provisions of the Harrison Narcotics Act by a suitable amendment. By such a procedure the professional use of cannabis may readily be controlled as effectively as are the professional uses of opium and coca leaves, with less interference with professional practice and less cost and labor on the part of the Treasury Department. It has been suggested that the inclusion of cannabis into the Harrison Narcotics Act would jeopardize the constitutionality of that act, but that suggestion has been supported by no specific statements of its legal basis or citations of legal authorities. Wm. C. Woodward, Legislative Counsel Whereupon at 11:37 AM Monday, July 12, 1937, the subcommittee adjourned. The marihuana problem in the city of New York 1944 by New York (N.Y.). Mayor's Committee on Marihuana In a 220 page report, the La Guardia Committee on Marihuana investigated marijuana users, school children, and even conducted clinical studies on the effects of cannabis on 77 humans. Conclusions From the foregoing study the following conclusions are drawn: 1. Marihuana is used extensively in the Borough of Manhattan but the problem is not as acute as it is reported to be in other sections of the United States. 2. The introduction of marihuana into this area is recent as compared to other localities. 3. The cost of marihuana is low and therefore within the purchasing power of most persons. 4. The distribution and use of marihuana is centered in Harlem. 5. The majority of marihuana smokers are Negroes and Latin-Americans. 6. The consensus among marihuana smokers is that the use of the drug creates a definite feeling of adequacy. 7. The practice of smoking marihuana does not lead to addiction in the medical sense of the word. 8. The sale and distribution of marihuana is not under the control of any single organized group. 9. The use of marihuana does not lead to morphine or heroin or cocaine addiction and no effort is made to create a market for these narcotics by stimulating the practice of marihuana smoking. 10. Marihuana is not the determining factor in the commission of major crimes. 11. Marihuana smoking is not widespread among school children. 12. Juvenile delinquency is not associated with the practice of smoking marihuana. 13. The publicity concerning the catastrophic effects of marihuana smoking in New York City is unfounded. Marihuana users accustomed to daily smoking for a period of from two and a half to sixteen years showed no abnormal system functioning which would differentiate them from the nonusers. There is definite evidence in this study that the marihuana users were not inferior in intelligence to the general population and that they had suffered no mental or physical deterioration as a result of their use of the drug. Addiction and Tolerance As our group of subjects included 48 users of marihuana, opportunity was afforded for some conclusions concerning marihuana addiction and tolerance. Practically all of our group of users stated that they could and often did voluntarily stop the smoking for a time without any undue disturbance from the deprivation. In the sociologic study reported by Dr. Schoenfeld it was found that smokers had no compelling urge for marihuana. If "reefers" were not readily available there was no special effort made to obtain them from known sources of supply. Dr. Walter Bromberg, Psychiatrist-in-Charge, Psychiatric Clinic, Court of General Sessions in New York, states: "The fact that offenders brought up on marihuana charges do not request medical treatment on their incarceration (with its cessation of drug supply) argues for the absence of with drawal symptoms.''(1) From interviews with several hundred marihuana users he concludes that true addiction was absent. (1) Bromberg, W. "Marihuana: a psychiatric study." J.A.MA. 113:4, 1939.=20 The evidence submitted here warrants the conclusion that as far as New York City is concerned true addiction to marihuana does not occur. Drug addiction: crime or disease? Interim and final reports. USA 1961 Author: Joint Committee of the American Bar Association and the American Medical Association on Narcotic Drugs. In 1955-56 the American Bar Association and the American Medical Association appointed a Joint Committee on Narcotic Drugs to explore the problem. It issued a 173 page interim draft report of its findings in 1958, and sent it to the Bureau of Narcotics for review. In 1959, a comprehensive attack upon the ABA/AMA draft report was published by Harry J Anslinger at the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Titled "Comments on Narcotic Drugs: Interim Report of the Joint Committee of the American Bar Association and the American Medical Association on Narcotic Drugs" by Advisory Committee to the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, U.S. Treasury Department, Bureau of Narcotics. The Department of Treasury, after seeing the draft report conclusions contradicted their Bureau of Narcotics, then threatened the AMA, ABA and the funders of the study with losing their tax-exempt status and other threats if they dared to publish the study reports. Alfred R. Lindesmith , professor at the University of Indiana then published the report 3 years later in 1961. On the basis of its studies and deliberations, the joint committee has reached the following conclusions concerning narcotic addiction and methods of dealing with narcotic addicts, which it submits for the purpose of indicating the need for further studies along the lines recommended above, and with the hope that these conclusions, although subject to reappraisal in the light of additional data, will be serviceable guides: 1. There appears to have been a considerable increase in drug addiction in the United States immediately following World War II; the increase was most apparent in the slum areas of large metropolitan centers and especially among minority groups in the population. 2. As a result, the federal government and many states passed legislation imposing increasingly severe penalties upon violators of the drug laws, as a means of dealing with the apparent increase in addiction. 3. This penal legislation subjects both the drug peddler and his victim, the addict, to long prison sentences, often imposed by mandatory statutory requirements without benefit of the probation and parole opportunities afforded other prisoners. 4. Though drug peddling is acknowledged to be a vicious and predatory crime, a grave question remains whether severe jail and prison sentences are the most rational way of dealing with narcotic addicts. And the unusual statutory basis of present drug-law enforcement, substantial federal domination in a local police-power field established by means of an excise measure enforced by a federal fiscal agency, invites critical scrutiny. 5. The narcotic drug addict because of his physical and psychological dependence on drugs and because of his frequently abnormal personality patterns should be as much a subject of concern to medicine and public health as to those having to do with law enforcement. But the ordinary doctor is not presently well equipped to deal with the problems of the narcotic addict, and even his authority to do so is in doubt. 6. The role of medicine and public health in dealing with drug addiction and the drug addict should be clarified. There must be a new determination of the limits of good medical practice in the treatment of drug addiction, and an objective inquiry into the question whether existing enforcement policies, practices and attitudes, as well as existing laws, have unduly or improperly interfered with good medical practice in this area. As part of this evaluation, consideration should also be given to the possibility of helping both the addict and persons formerly addicted through open clinic facilities as well as in closed institutions such as Lexington and Fort Worth. 7. It can be stated emphatically that no acceptable evidence whatsoever points to the indiscriminate distribution of narcotic drugs as a method of handling the problem of addiction. On the contrary, the use of such drugs, except for legitimate medical needs, should be discouraged by the best available means. Individuals who have become addicted should be given the benefit of all known medical and paramedical procedures to encourage them to withdraw from dependence on narcotic drugs voluntarily; those who have withdrawn should be given psychiatric and social-agency help as long as necessary to assure against relapse. We need much more information than is presently available about the best means of handling addicts who, despite the best professional efforts, continue to be dependent on drugs. An experiment conducted by experts (as proposed above in this report) should be charged with getting information on this point. 8. There is a high rate of relapse on the part of addicts who have been in the care of narcotics hospitals and installations for the treatment of addiction. The real reasons for this must be determined. Factors to be considered include the physical and personality make-up of the individual, the social pressures applied to him, both adverse and constructive, and the attitude and sophistication of medicine and the law regarding addicts and addiction. 9. some responsible authorities state that the physical and psychological dependence of addicts on narcotic drugs, the compulsion to obtain them, and the high price of the drugs in the illicit market are predominantly responsible for the crimes committed by addicts. Others claim that the drug itself is responsible for criminal behavior. The weight of evidence is so heavily in favor of the former point of view that the question can hardly be called a controversial one.-But this point is so fundamental to the development of a sound philosophy of management of the problem that any residue of reasonable doubt must be resolved. )In this connection the joint committee deplores the hysteria which sometimes dominates the approach to drug addiction problems by persons in positions of public trust. In terms of numbers afflicted, and in ill effects on others in the community, drug addiction is a problem of far less magnitude than alcoholism. Crimes of violence are rarely, and sexual crimes are almost never, committed by addicts. In most instances the addicts' sins are those of omission rather than commission; they are ineffective people, individuals whose great desire is to withdraw from the world and its troubles into a land of dreams. 10. It appears that neither compulsory hospitalization of all addicts nor permanent isolation is practicable at the present time. Hospital facilities to deal with narcotic addicts are not adequate in numbers, staff or program, and the permanent isolation of addicts, even if feasible, would not be a solution but only a temporizing maneuver--the very antithesis of the medical and scientific approach to the physical and behavioral problems of man. The foregoing recommendation and report will be submitted to the House of Delegates of the American Medical Association with resolutions similar to those appended hereto, merely conformed to adapt the language of the resolutions to A.M.A. purposes. The object of the resolutions is to continue cooperation between the two associations in further mutual efforts along the lines suggested in this report and the joint committee's interim report. It is firmly believed by the joint committee that the work it has already done clearly indicates a need for further joint efforts, carried on by both associations through permanent instrumentalities which have greater continuity, more facilities, and a broader mandate than the joint committee. Accordingly, favorable action on this report and its appended resolutions is respectfully urged. Even though the AMA knows the "gateway theory" was false, they still used it in the above public service announcement against marijuana. These findings are consistent with the idea of marijuana as a "gateway drug." However, the majority of people who use marijuana do not go on to use other, "harder" substances. Wootton Commission Report UK 1968 SECTION VI GENERAL CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 67. The evidence before us shows that: An increasing number of people, mainly young, in all classes of society are experimenting with this drug, and substantial numbers use it regularly for social pleasure. There is no evidence that this activity is causing violent crime or aggression, anti-social behaviour, or is producing in otherwise normal people conditions of dependence or psychosis, requiring medical treatment. The experience of many other countries is that once it is established cannabis-smoking tends to spread. In some parts of Western society where interest in mood-altering drugs is growing, there are indications that it may become a functional equivalent of alcohol. In spite of the threat of severe penalties and considerable effort at enforcement the use of cannabis in the United Kingdom does not appear to be diminishing. There is a body of opinion that criticises the present legislative treatment of cannabis on the grounds that it exaggerates the dangers of the drug, and needlessly interferes with civil liberty. The Report of the Canadian Government Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs - Canada 1972 SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Although research has not clearly established that cannabis has sufficiently harmful effects to justify the present legislative policy towards it, there are serious grounds for social concern about its use, and this concern calls for a continuing police to discourage its use by means which involve a more acceptable cost, than present policies, to the individual and to society. The focus of our social concern should be the use of cannabis by adolescents, and the principal object of our social policy should be to restrict its availability to them as much as reasonably possible by the methods which appear to be most acceptable on a balance of benefits and costs. The only policy which can impose a significant restriction on availability is a prohibition of distribution. Under a system of administrative regulation or licensing, availability would be virtually unrestricted. A policy of making cannabis available to adults would have the effect of making it more available to minors. This is the lesson of our experience with alcohol. It would also make cannabis appear to be relatively harmless. Further, there is no reason to believe that we could effectively control potency and encourage moderate use by a system of administrative regulation or licensing. People will consume the quantities they require to achieve the desired level of potency or they will seek more potent forms, if necessary in the illicit market. Moreover, our present knowledge about cannabis would not permit a policy of legal availability that could be accompanied by suitable assurances as to what might constitute moderate and relatively harmless use 4. The costs to the individual and society of maintaining a prohibition of distribution are severe but they are justified by the probable effect of such a prohibition on availability and perception of harm, in contrast to the likely effect on both of a policy of legal availability. 5. The costs of a policy of prohibition of distribution are only acceptable, however, if the possible penalties for illegal distribution are reasonable in relation to the relative seriousness of the offence. Having regard to thc potential for harm of cannabis in relation to other drugs, the extent to which young people are involved in its distribution, and the general level of penalties in other countries, the present penalty structure for the illicit distribution of cannabis is grossly excessive. In some cases it does not leave the courts sufficient discretion, and in others it leaves them too much. 6. We recommend the following changes in the law respecting the illegal distribution of cannabis: (a) Importing and exporting should be included in the definition of trafficking as they are under the Food and Drugs Act), and they should not be subject to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment. It might be appropriate, however, to make them subject to somewhat higher maximum penalties than other forms of trafficking. (b) There should be an option to proceed by indictment or summary conviction in the case of trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking. (c) Upon indictment, the maximum penalty for trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking should be five years, and upon summary conviction, eighteen months. It should be possible in either case to impose fine in lieu of imprisonment. (d) In cases of possession for the purpose of trafficking it should be sufficient, when possession has been proved, for the accused to nise a reasonable doubt as to his intention to traffic. He should not be required to make proof which carries on a preponderance of evidence or a balance of probabilities. (e) Trafficking should not include the giving, without exchange of value, by one user to another of a quantity of cannabis which could reasonably be consumed on a single occasion. 7. The costs to a significant number of individuals, the majority of whom are young people, and to society generally, of a policy of prohibition of simple possession are not justified by the potential for harm of cannabis and the additional influence which such a policy is likely to have upon perception of harm, demand and availability. We, therefore, recommend the repeal of the prohibition against the simple possession of cannabis. The cultivation of cannabis should be subject to the same penalties as trafficking, but it should not be a punishable offence unless it is cultivation for the purpose of trafficking. Upon proof of cultivation, the burden should be on the accused to establish that he was not cultivating for the purpose of trafflcking, but it should be sufficient for him, as in the case of possession for the purpose of trafficking, to raise a reasonable doubt concerning the intent to traffic. 9. The police should have power to seize and confiscate cannabis and cannabis plants wherever they are found, unless the possession or cultivation has been expressly authorized for scientific or other purposes. John Munro was responsible for establishing the commission of inquiry in 1969. His public enthusiasm for decriminalization did not end up being "political suicide" -- just a blunder. His government ignored the Le Dain commission's report, and Munro went on to be minister of Labour and Multiculturalism, Indian and Northern Affairs and eventually head of Transport Canada. Marihuana: a signal of misunderstanding; first report 1972 by United States. Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse The Commission recommends only the following changes in federal law: • POSSESSION OF MARIHUANA FOR PERSONAL USE WOULD NO LONGER BE AN OFFENSE, BUT MARI- HUANA POSSESSED IN PUBLIC WOULD REMAIN CON- TRABAND SUBJECT TO SUMMARY SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE. • CASUAL DISTRIBUTION OF SMALL AMOUNTS OF MARIHUANA FOR NO REMUNERATION, OR INSIG- NIFICANT REMUNERATION NOT INVOLVING PROFIT WOULD NO LONGER BE AN OFFENSE. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STATE LAW Private Activities • POSSESSION IN PRIVATE OF MARIHUANA FOR PER- SONAL USE WOULD NO LONGER BE AN OFFENSE. • DISTRIBUTION IN PRIVATE OF SMALL AMOUNTS OF MARIHUANA FOR NO REMUNERATION OR INSIGNIF- ICANT REMUNERATION NOT INVOLVING A PROFIT WOULD NO LONGER BE AN OFFENSE. Public Activities • POSSESSION IN PUBLIC OF ONE OUNCE OR UNDER OF MARIHUANA WOULD NOT BE AN OFFENSE, BUT THE MARIHUANA WOULD BE CONTRABAND SUB- JECT TO SUMMARY SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE. • POSSESSION IN PUBLIC OF MORE THAN ONE OUNCE OF MARIHUANA WOULD BE A CRIMINAL OFFENSE PUNISHABLE BY A FINE OF $100. • DISTRIBUTION IN PUBLIC OF SMALL AMOUNTS OF MARIHUANA FOR NO REMUNERATION OR INSIGNIF- ICANT REMUNERATION NOT INVOLVING A PROFIT WOULD BE A CRIMINAL OFFENSE PUNISHABLE BY A FINE OF $100. • PUBLIC USE OF MARIHUANA WOULD BE A CRIMINAL OFFENSE PUNISHABLE BY A FINE OF $100. • DISORDERLY CONDUCT ASSOCIATED WITH PUBLIC USE OF OR INTOXICATION BY MARIHUANA WOULD BE A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE BY UP TO 60 DAYS IN JAIL, A FINE OF $100, OR BOTH. Drug use in America: problem in perspective; second report 1973 by United States. Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse The recommendations included: All public and private institutions should sponsor research and objective evaluation of drug-related issues, programs, and policies. Congress should create a single Federal drug agency. The accomplishments should be reexamined four years after its creation; and the agency, by law, should disband within five years. Each state should establish a unified drug agency on the same model as that proposed for the federal government. Congress should establish a commission four years hence to determine which measures have justified their costs and which have not and to propose new policies. The Single Convention Treaty should be redrafted to make clear that each nation is free to determine which domestic uses of drugs it will allow. Cannabis should be removed from the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961), since this drug does not pose the same social and public health problems associated with the opiates and coca leaf products. The American Medical Association should determine cocaine's therapeutic benefits. If no unique therapeutic use remains, the government should eliminate manufacture altogether. Except where the Commission has specifically recommended a change, the present levels of control on availability of psychoactive substances should be maintained. With respect to the drug trafficking laws, the trafficking offenses and penalty structure presently in force should be retained. The unauthorized possession of any controlled substance except marihuana for personal use should remain a prohibited act. The primary purpose of the possession laws should be detection of those persons who would benefit by treatment or prevention services, rather than criminal punishment. Federal criminal investigative agencies should concentrate primarily on the top level of the illegal drug distribution network. State enforcement should concentrate on the lower levels of both licit and illicit distribution networks. Criminal investigation activities at the federal level should not have regional offices, as BNDD and Customs have now but instead should deploy strike forces. Each state should have a separate unit charged with the responsibility of investigating any evidence of corruption in drug law enforcement agencies. Local police should receive appropriate training in dealing with the medical needs of drug-dependent persons, including alcoholics. The government should continue to prohibit heroin maintenance. Each state should establish a comprehensive statewide drug dependence treatment and rehabilitation program, with confidentiality-of-treatment laws. Drug abusers who are suffering from emergency medical conditions should not be refused treatment in hospitals, solely because of their drug abuse. The states should provide by law for emergency detention and treatment of persons (not to exceed 48 hours) so incapacitated by use of a drug that they cannot intelligently determine whether they are in need of treatment. Drug use prevention strategy, rather than persuading or "educating" people not to use drugs, should emphasize other means of obtaining what users seek from drugs, means that are better for the user and better for society. The government role should be limited to providing accurate information regarding the likely consequences of the different patterns of drug use. A moratorium should be declared on the production and dissemination of new drug information materials, including all drug education programs in the schools. State legislatures should repeal all statutes which now require drug education courses to be included in the public school curriculum. Government should not interfere with private efforts to analyze the quality and quantity of drugs anonymously submitted by street users. The government should not support programs which compel persons to undergo drug testing, except in limited situations. Government should remove legal and bureaucratic obstacles to research into the possible therapeutic uses of currently prohibited substances, such as marihuana and hallucinogens. Schools of medicine, pharmacy, nursing, and public health should include the social and medical aspects of drug use in their curriculum. Drug companies should end the practice of sending doctors unsolicited samples of psychoactive drugs. The business community should not reject an applicant solely on the basis of prior drug use or dependence, unless the nature of the business compels it. Industry should consider alternatives to termination of employment for employees involved with drugs. The business community should adopt "employee assistance" programs for drug problems. College and universities should make their policies and practices regarding drug use, including alcohol, explicit, unambiguous, and readily available to all students. Even those colleges and universities which strongly disapprove of student drug-use behavior should expand their counseling services rather than rely upon disciplinary measures alone. U.S. Senate Hearing on Juvenile Delinquency and Marijuana Decriminalization, including 4 years of research during 1971-1975. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BIRCH BAYH, CHAIRMAN Senator Bayh. We meet today to consider legislation relating to the appropriate legal sanctions for the private possession of small amounts of marihuana. Throughout the Subcommittee To Investigate Juvenile Delinquency's 4-year investigation of drug traffic and abuse I have noted with concern the growing number of arrests for marihuana possession. Arrests have increased from 188,682 in 1970 to 420,700 in 1973. It may go as high as 500,000 for 1974. This is not nearly as dramatic as the 1,000 percent increase between 1965-70 from 18,815 to 188,682; but it is rather astonishing that this 3-year increase of 232,018 is more than 12 times the total marihuana arrests just 10 years ago. Additionally, the number of marihuana arrests as a percentage of all drug arrests has increased substantially. In 1970 these arrests amounted to 45.4 percent of total drug arrest= During the 1970-73 period 1,127,389 of the total 2,063,900 drug arrests were for marihuana. And in 1973, the most recent year for which records are available, 67 percent of all drug arrests were for marihuana. Available studies and research to date have found that the majority of those arrested are otherwise law-abiding young people in possession of small amounts of marihuana. In fact, a Presidential commission found that the vast majority of users are essentially indistinguishable from their nonuser peers by any criteria other than its use. During these last 4 years, I have likewise been especially concerned about the ever-escalating level of serious crime. The recently released FBI report on the trends in crime for 1974 presents a frightening picture of the rising tide of criminal activity in America. Serious crime in the United States rose 17 percent last year, the highest, annual increase since the FBI began collecting data 45 years ago. In fact, the increase for the final quarter of 1974 had reached 19 percent. The suburban increase for last year was 20 percent while crime in rural areas increased by 21 percent. In smaller communities—under 10,000— crime increased by 24 percent last year while robbery alone went up 30 percent. ALLOCATING CRIME FIGHTING RESOURCES The rising tide of serious crimes inevitably raises the question of whether we are properly allocating our crime fighting resources and aggressively pursuing the arrest and criminal prosecution of the 13 million American users of marihuana. It is estimated that the prosecution of these cases costs $600 million annually. In 1969 and 1970 the subcommittee considered the adequacy of penalties for marihuana with the result that thenew Controlled Substances Act provided that simple possession or distribution of a small amount of marihuana for no remuneration were both designated misdemeanors, not felonieb. punishable by up to 1 year in jail and/or up to a $5,000 fine. It was the view of many members that the sanctions should be further reduced. Some suggested that the sanction be eliminated for such conduct. In order to permit a thorough assessment of these issues the subcommittee recommended the creation of a Presidential commission. The Congress agreed and provided for the establishment of the Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse in part F of the Controlled Substances Act. This body known as the Sliafer Commission, after its distinguished chairman, conducted an in-depth study of the issues and concluded that marihuana was not dangerous enough to the user or to the general public for its private possession and use to remain a criminal offense. In the last several years a growing list of organizations and individuals have endorsed the Shafer Commission recommendations, including the following: American Bar Association. Consumer Union, publishers of Consumer Reports. National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. American Public Health Association. National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. National Council of Churches. The Governing Board of the American Medical Association. National Education Association. B'nai B'rith. Canadian Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical use of Drugs [Le Dain Commission], San Franciso Committee on Crime. Mayor's Advisory Committee on Narcotics Addiction [Washington, D.C.]. John Finlator, retired Deputy Director, Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, U.S. Department of Justice. William F. Buckley, Jr., syndicated columnist, author, TV host and editor of National Review. James J. Kilpatrick, syndicated columnist, Washington Evening Star. The subject of our hearing S. 1450, the "Marihuana Control Act of 1975" introduced by Senators Javits, Cranston, Brooke, and Nelson, reflects the general recommendation of the Shafer Presidential Commission. It adopts an approach similar to that undertaken by the State of Oregon which abolished criminal penalties for simple possession of marihuana and substituted a civil fine of up to $100 for possession and nonprofit transfers of up to 1 ounce of marihuana. Criminal penalties for sale of the drug for profit would remain intact. Thus, this approach maintains a policy of discouragement toward marihuana use while recognizing the current inappropriate use of law enforcement resources and the destructive impact of criminal records for such common conduct. Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs, Australia 1979 On page A63, the report states: At present it appears that intermittent use of cannabis in low dosages does not produce any permanent brain damage. While there is no definite proof, to date, that long-term chronic high dosages of cannabis produce any lasting brain impairment this needs further study. There have been suggestions that cannabis might cause prolonged abnormalities of mental function, including personality disorders and a cannabis psychosis. There is no proven evidence that such disorders are caused by cannabis. Acute Toxicity THC has a wide safety margin, much more so than does alcohol. It is almost impossible to get a lethal dose of THC from smoking marihuana joints. Tolerance and Physical Dependence Tolerance does occur if cannabis is administered regularly over a long interval. While mild withdrawal symptoms (such as irritability, restlessness and insomnia) occasionally develop in those who have regularly taken a high dose of THC, there is not a typical abstinence syndrome and there are no withdrawal effects from the usual low-dose, 'recreational' use of the drug. At the present time, it would not seem that infrequent 'recreational' use of cannabis produces any severe direct consequences to health. As already mentioned, there is impairment of driving ability. Higher doses and frequent chronic use may constitute a significant degree of risk to the user, but further research on this is needed. Later, in Book C, Page C215, the following is stated on cannabis and health. CANNABIS AND HEALTH Limitations on Scientific Investigation Mr A. W. Parsons, Director of the Cannabis Research Foundation, presented evidence to the effect that cannabis had been the subject of considerable scientific probing. He stated: Dr Lorna Cartwright, senior tutor in Pharmacy, University of Sydney, stated in her address to the 1977 Cannabis Conference that marihuana is one of the most thoroughly investigated drugs in the history of scientific research. Eighty-four years of scientific study has been unable to find any adverse health effects of moderate cannabis use which impel a particular legislative policy. This is not to say that more research is not needed. 1t is always possible that certain harmful side effects may be discovered, but considering the medical information at hand and the social costs of the present laws, scientific clairvoyance has been used for too long by the anti- marihuana lobby to justify the present laws pertaining to cannabis use. The Commonwealth Department of Health report previously mentioned stated that although prolonged cannabis psychosis has been reported in Eastern literature as occurring under conditions of unusually heavy use, it is often difficult to isolate the causative role of marihuana from that of pre-existing psychopathology or other drug use. Three research studies of heavy chronic users conducted in Jamaica, G·reece and Costa Rica failed to detect evidence of cannabis psychosis. However the small numbers in each sample and the comparative rarity of this syndrome may mean that such a consequence was missed (Open exhibit 636). Professor R. T. Jones stated that persons with schizophrenia show a marked psychosis when using marihuana but that this psychosis disappears when marihuana use is discontinued (OT 18132--33). Mr A. W. Parsons, Director of the Cannabis Research Foundation, agreed that marihuana impairs the ability to drive, but stated that the size of the threat which cannabis poses to road safety is a matter of conjecture (OT 2453). Mr J. Billington,founder of the Cannabis Research Foundation, said in evidence that while inexperienced user/drivers may cause problems for themselves and the rest of the community, the problems are nowhere as great with experienced user/drivers (OT 10839). Professor R. T. Jones (OT 18140--41) and Dr G. B. Chesher (OT 10474) agreed that more experienced users drive with less impairment than persons unfamiliar with the combination of marihuana and motor vehicles. Witnesses indicated that other possible medical applications of cannabis are being examined. Researchers are investigating anti-tumor activity, anti-anxiety and hypnotic effects, and analgesic and anti- depressant effects. Some investigators have speculated that cannabis may be useful in treating alcohol dependence. Professor N. Blewett, Past President of the South Australian Council for Civil Liberties summarised this line of argument succinctly in a paper entitled 'Marihuana: The Most Victimless Crime of All?'. This paper, which was part of a submission by the Council to the South Australian Royal Commission into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs, later incorporated into the transcript of evidence of this Commission, said: The law is simply an ass if, in seeking to protect a person from his own actions, it imposes upon him far greater agreed harm than anything likely to result from the prohibited actions. Medical Use Some witnesses argued that the existing laws had the effect of preventing the use of cannabis for legitimate scientific and medical purposes. On behalf of the Cannabis Research Foundation, Mr A. W. Parsons stated: We have had personal reports from patients who need cannabis, particularly those suffering from internal cancer, epileptics and patients suffering from glaucoma. We have had approaches from their doctors saying, 'We need cannabis because none of the other drugs work and this does. We are in a drought situation. The Health Department will not give us any, nor will the Drug Squad. What can you do for us?' This is ridiculous when they are handing out amphetamines and such things---it is ridiculous that we cannot get hold of cannabis for simple therapeutic use. (OT 2480) The potential medical application of cannabis has been discussed already in this chapter. It has also been noted that the law permits the use of cannabis for legitimate scientific research. After finding that cannabis is non-toxic, non-addictive, has no evidence of any harms WHATSOEVER, has medical value in a number of different diseases, the committee said that cannabis should be prohibited forever. As you can see, the science, logic, reasoning, and evidence is ignored, buried, shunned and attacked. The fact that Australians must bear in mind is that a decision now to remove the prohibition against cannabis can never, from the practical point of view, be reversed. Book C, page C269. An Analysis of Marijuana Policy National Research Council of the National Academy of Science. 1982 At the same time, the effectiveness of the present federal policy of complete prohibition fails far short of its goal--preventing use. An estimated 55 million Americans have tried marijuana, federal enforcement of prohibition of use is virtually nonexistent, and 11 states have repealed criminal penalties for private possession of small amounts and for private use. It can no longer be argued that use would be much more widespread and the problematic effects greater today if the policy of complete prohibition did not exist; The existing evidence on policies of partial prohibition indicates that partial prohibition has been as effective in controlling consumption as complete prohibition and has entailed considerably smaller social, legal, and economic costs. On balance, therefore, we believe that a policy of partial prohibition is clearly preferable to a policy of complete prohibition of supply and use. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration In The Matter Of MARIJUANA RESCHEDULING PETITION Docket No. 86-22 OPINION AND RECOMMENDED RULING, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE FRANCIS L. YOUNG, Administrative Law Judge DATED: SEPTEMBER 6, 1988 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDED DECISION Based upon the foregoing facts and reasoning, the administrative law judge concludes that the provisions of the Act permit and require the transfer of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II. The Judge realizes that strong emotions are aroused on both sides of any discussion concerning the use of marijuana. Nonetheless it is essential for this Agency, and its Administrator, calmly and dispassionately to review the evidence of record, correctly apply the law, and act accordingly. Marijuana can be harmful. Marijuana is abused. But the same is true of dozens of drugs or substances which are listed in Schedule II so that they can be employed in treatment by physicians in proper cases, despite their abuse potential. Transferring marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II will not, of course, make it immediately available in pharmacies throughout the country for legitimate use in treatment. Other government authorities, Federal and State, will doubtless have to act before that might occur. But this Agency is not charged with responsibility, or given authority, over the myriad other regulatory decisions that may be required before marijuana can actually be legally available. This Agency is charged merely with determining the placement of marijuana pursuant to the provisions of the Act. Under our system of laws the responsibilities of other regulatory bodies are the concerns of those bodies, not of this Agency, There are those who, in all sincerity, argue that the transfer of marijuana to Schedule II will "send a signal" that marijuana is "OK" generally for recreational use. This argument is specious. It presents no valid reason for refraining from taking an action required by law in light of the evidence. If marijuana should be placed in Schedule II, in obedience to the law, then that is where marijuana should be placed, regardless of misinterpretation of the placement by some. The reasons for the placement can, and should, be clearly explained at the time the action is taken. The fear of sending such a signal cannot be permitted to override the legitimate need, amply demonstrated in this record, of countless suffers for the relief marijuana can provide when prescribed by a physician in a legitimate case. The evidence in this record clearly shows that marijuana has been accepted as capable of relieving the distress of great numbers of very ill people, and doing so with safety under medical supervision. It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of the evidence in this record. The administrative law judge recommends that the Administrator conclude that the marijuana plant considered as a whole has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, that there is no lack of accepted safety for use of it under medical supervision and that it may lawfully be transferred from Schedule I to Schedule II. The judge recommends that the Administrator transfer marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II. Dated: SEP 6 1988 Francis L. Young Administrative Law Judge Legislative options for cannabis use in Australia Commonwealth of Australia 1994 No best single option for cannabis legislation exists. What is most appropriate will depend upon what goals both policy makers and the community are seeking to achieve. Our review suggests that two of the five legislative options discussed above are inappropriate in contemporary Australian circumstances. They are the options which we have characterised as total prohibition and free availability. Australia experiences more harm, we conclude, from maintaining the cannabis prohibition policy than it experiences from the use of the drug. We also reject the legislative option of the free availability of cannabis. Our society is one that accepts that governments and others have both the right and the responsibility to intervene in diverse ways to protect people from harm and to advance the common good. It would be unreasonable, therefore, to argue that cannabis should be available in an uncontrolled manner. We conclude that cannabis law reform is required in this country. Many options for policy, legislation and implementation processes exist within the broad categories of prohibition with an administrative decision that it is inexpedient to prosecute people for minor cannabis offences, prohibition with civil penalties, partial prohibition and regulated availability. We believe, on the available evidence, that widely accepted social goals, well attuned to the needs of contemporary Australian society, will be attained through the adoption and implementation of policies which lie within these options. CANNABIS: OUR POSITION FOR A CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY REPORT OF THE SENATE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON ILLEGAL DRUGS 2002

The purpose of this bulletin is to inform the public and potential medical marihuana licensees of the Bureau of Medical Marihuana Regulation’s intentions regarding testing of marihuana and marihuana-infused products. This bulletin is only for advisory purposes and is subject to change. The Bureau intends to require testing of marihuana and marihuana-infused products at the following two points in the supply chain: After harvest: Harvested marihuana must pass required tests before it is transferred from a grower to a processor or a provisioning center. After processing: Marihuana and marihuana-infused products in their final state must pass required tests before they are transferred from a processor to a provisioning center. Facilities may choose to test their products at additional points in the supply chain. More information regarding marihuana testing: The test results will be recorded in the statewide monitoring system by the licensed safety compliance facility The grower or processor that provided the test sample will be able to view the testing results in the statewide monitoring system once they have been recorded A caregiver may choose to have his or her product tested by a licensed safety compliance facility, but those tests will not be recorded or tracked in the statewide monitoring system. Licensed provisioning centers can sell or transfer marihuana to a registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver only after it has been tested and bears the label required for retail sale. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/lara/BMMR_Advisory_Bulletin_Testing_602773_7.pdf

Well this is interesting. So imagine where this is headed, politics aside. This is going to make this a more efficient and streamlined process. Less transport company involvement. Co-Location of Medical Marihuana Facilities Operation of grower, processor, and/or provisioning center facilities at the same location The purpose of this bulletin is to advise the public and potential medical marihuana licensees of the Bureau of Medical Marihuana Regulation’s intention to allow for the operation of licensed grower, processor, and/or provisioning center facilities at the same location. This bulletin is only for advisory purposes and is subject to change. A potential licensee may apply for and be granted a license to operate as a grower, processor, and/or provisioning center. It is the Bureau’s intention that growers, processors, and provisioning centers may operate at the same location under the following conditions:  Each licensed entity remains distinct and separate within different working areas.  Each licensed entity has separate entrances and exits, point of sale operations (if applicable), and record keeping systems.  The municipality in which the facility is located does not prohibit co-location of facilities through its local ordinance or zoning regulations.  Each licensed entity is compliant with local and state public health standards and building inspection and fire safety regulations.  Each entity’s license is posted on the wall in its distinct working area.  The Department has authorized the licensees to operate at the same location. Other considerations regarding co-location of facilities:  Additional inspections and/or permits may be required for licensed entities operating at the same location.  Each grower, processor, and provisioning center requires its own separate application, regulatory assessment, and license.

This really sets the stage for super grows... The State of Michigan’s Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) released an advisory bulletin today to inform and advise prospective medical marihuana licensees regarding stacking of medical marihuana class C grower licenses. The bulletin is for advisory purposes only and is subject to change. It is the intent of the Bureau of Medical Marihuana Regulation to allow a potential licensee to apply for – and be granted – multiple (“stacked”) class C grow licenses in a single location. Each class C license authorizes the grower to grow up to 1,500 marihuana plants. Stacked licenses must be issued to the same applicant/licensee and each license will be subject to an additional application and regulatory assessment. While a stacked licensee will need to identify and track all information in the statewide monitoring system under the appropriate license, the licensee will not be required to operate each license in a separate, distinct working area. A licensee with stacked licenses must be in compliance with all applicable local ordinances and zoning regulations. This bulletin does not constitute legal advice and is subject to change. It is intended to be advisory only, in anticipation of the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs’ promulgation of emergency rules consistent with statutory requirements. Potential licensees are encouraged to seek legal counsel to ensure their licensure applications and operations comply with the Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act and associated administrative rules.

I finally got settled in at my house and just started putting my green room together it's looking pretty good so far. I now need to find the last few parts to be running again (6' Inline fan)(T-5 light fixture)(organic soil mixture)(Seeds) Anyone have any suggestions on where to find these items? I want to run all organic soils, is there somewhere that sells the "just add water from start to finish" I've seen the recipe on the forums. Now for seeds, I'm looking for a reputable source that I can pick some up from. Where can I find a good site to pickup a T-5 light fixture? Home Depot, sells a T-8 setup, whats the difference?

USA -- More US college students are making a habit of using marijuana, which has supplanted cigarettes as the smoke-able substance of choice among undergraduates who light up regularly, a study released Tuesday found. Just under 6 percent of the full-time students surveyed by University of Michigan researchers for the annual ‘‘Monitoring the Future’’ study reported using pot either every day or at least 20 times in the previous 30 days. Read More...

Washington, D.C. -- State lawmakers are calling on the federal government to change its drug laws to let states experiment with marijuana and hemp policy. The National Conference of State Legislatures, the de facto bipartisan group of lawmakers, passed a resolution at its annual meeting Thursday calling on the federal government to amend the Controlled Substances Act to authorize state marijuana laws and on the administration to keep its nose out of state pot policies. Read More...

Some cannabis growers may soon find themselves with a lot less irrigation water if the U.S. government decides to block the use of federal water for state-legal marijuana cultivation. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which oversees management of federal water resources, "is evaluating how the Controlled Substances Act applies in the context of Reclamation project water being used to facilitate marijuana-related activities,” said Peter Soeth, a spokesman for the bureau. He said the evaluation was begun "at the request of various water districts in the West." Local water districts in Washington state and Colorado, where recreational marijuana is now legal, contract with federal water projects for supplies. Officials from some of those water districts said they assume the feds are going to turn off the spigots for marijuana growers. “Certainly every indication we are hearing is that their policy will be that federal water supplies cannot be used to grow marijuana,” said Brian Werner at Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, which handles approximately one-third of all water for northeastern Colorado and is the Bureau of Reclamation's second-largest user in the number of irrigated acres. Washington state’s Roza Irrigation District, which supplies federal water to approximately 72,000 acres in Yakima and Benton counties, has already issued a “precautionary message” to water customers that may be involved in state-legal cannabis growing. “Local irrigation districts operating federal irrigation projects have recently been advised that under Federal Reclamation Law, it is likely project water cannot be delivered and utilized for purposes that are illegal under federal law,” wrote Roza district manager Scott Revell in letters to the Yakima and Benton county commissioners. “Presumably growing marijuana would fall into this category.” Both Washington and Colorado legalized marijuana for medical use more than a decade ago. Pot remains illegal under federal law. Reclamation’s Soeth said that the issue of cutting off water supplies for marijuana has never come up before. A Department of Justice official told HuffPost it has no comment on the water issue. The Bureau of Reclamation is likely to announce a decision this month. “We’re going to work with our water districts once that decision is made,” Soeth said. Marijuana advocates condemned the possibility of a federal water ban for state-legal crops. Mason Tvert, communications director for Marijuana Policy Project and key backer of Amendment 64, which legalized marijuana for recreational use in Colorado, criticized the hypocrisy of a federal government that would prevent water access to some legal businesses and not others. “If water is so precious and scarce that it can’t be used for state-legal marijuana cultivation, it shouldn’t be used for brewing and distilling more harmful intoxicating substances like beer and liquor,” Tvert said. The impact on Washington may be more severe, since the state’s marijuana laws allow for outdoor growing and, according to McClatchy, the Bureau of Reclamation controls the water supply of about two-thirds of the state’s irrigated land. In Colorado, marijuana businesses can grow either indoors or outdoors, but some local jurisdictions like Denver require the outdoor grow to be in a fully enclosed and locked space, like a greenhouse. Growing in Denver, home to the majority of Colorado marijuana dispensaries, likely wouldn't notice a shortage if the Bureau of Reclamation cuts off federal water. “Because we are not a federal contractor, we would not be affected,” said Travis Thompson, spokesman for Denver Water, the main water authority for the state’s capital and surrounding suburbs. But many other regions of the state rely on federal water. In Pueblo, about two hours south of Denver, about 20 percent of regional water is Reclamation-controlled. Although the remaining 80 percent of the region's water is locally controlled, it passes through the Pueblo Dam, operated under Bureau of Reclamation authority. "Yes, they come through a federal facility, but the federal facility is required to let those water right to pass," Pueblo Board of Water Works executive director Terry Book said to southern Colorado’s NBC-affiliate KOAA. The St. Charles Mesa Water District, another Pueblo-area water facility, has already imposed a moratorium on supplying water to marijuana businesses until the Bureau of Reclamation settles the issue. The Bureau of Reclamation said its facilities deliver water to 1.25 million acres of land in Colorado and 1.2 million acres in Washington state. About 1.6 million acre-feet of water is delivered to Colorado’s agricultural sector from Reclamation and about 5 million acre-feet is delivered to agriculture in Washington. As McClatchy reported last month that there are several viable alternatives to using federal water. Small-scale marijuana-growing operations may be able to use city-controlled water sources, or drill a well. Greenhouse growers are allowed to use up to 5,000 gallons of well water per day under state law. Any use beyond that requires a permit from the state. While some marijuana plants can require an average of six gallons of water per day, growing operations in the state are likely to fall well within that limit. However, in areas of the state where much of the water is controlled by Bureau of Reclamation contracts, these alternatives aren't as accessible. The potential water ban has already set off local opposition. The Seattle Times' editorial board urged the Bureau of Reclamation to allow federal water contracts to be used by marijuana farmers. "The bureau has never had -- nor should it have -- a stake in what crop is planted. That’s a basic tenet of the 1902 National Reclamation Act, which created the bureau and transformed the arid American west," read the May 4 editorial. "Yet the federal government is now threatening to forget that history, because some regulators are queasy about Washington and Colorado’s experimentation with marijuana legalization." As the Times' board points out, there is some precedent for the Justice Department to stand down on the water issue. Last August, Attorney General Eric Holder told the governors of Washington and Colorado that the DOJ wouldn't intervene in the states' legal pot programs. And earlier this year, federal officials issued guidelines expanding access to financial services for legal marijuana businesses, so long as the business doesn't violate certain legal priorities outlined by the Justice Department. "While we appreciate how the Obama administration has made some administrative concessions to the majority of voters who support legalization by issuing banking guidelines and having the Justice Department largely stand out of the way of state implementation, this water issue highlights the urgent need to actually change federal law," Tom Angell, chairman of Marijuana Majority, told The Huffington Post. "There are bills pending in Congress that would solve this and other state-federal marijuana policy discrepancies, but so far the support from elected officials doesn't even come close to matching the support from the public. I expect that gap will shrink with each passing election cycle as politicians start to see just how popular this issue is with voters." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5335219.html

Outdoor Marijuana Grows Banned in Sacramento County On Tuesday, Sacramento County supervisors unanimously voted to ban outdoor marijuana grows. The new ban applies to unincorporated Sacramento County and will take effect this summer, likely in June. Growing marijuana outdoors in residential areas was already banned in the city of Sacramento, but this new vote takes the ban a step further. Sacramento County Supervisor Roberta MacGlashan introduced separate indoor and outdoor ordinances Tuesday to ban marijuana crops, saying she has received many complaints from residents. In addition to safety and quality of life issues, marijuana grows create undue demands on the environment, including high water use in a drought, she said. Supervisors unanimously approved the ban on outdoor cultivation. But MacGlashan said she agreed to continue the indoor ordinance discussion because she thinks a majority of board members prefer regulation instead of an outright ban, even though she does not agree with that approach. Marijuana advocates believe that officials are overstating the dangers of outdoor marijuana grows. Ultimately, advocates say, the harms associated with denying patients their medicine outweigh the risks to the community. Medical marijuana dispensaries were banned from Sacramento in 2011, making it even more difficult for patients to access their medicine. [Source]

Tacoma, Wash. (AP) -- As Washington prepares to open its first retail marijuana stores in the next few months, tens of thousands of military service members have been warned not to shop in any of them. They face criminal charges and career-ending discipline if caught with a substance still banned by the federal government. "Our soldiers understand what's legal," Lt. Gen. Stephen Lanza, the senior Army officer at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, said in an interview last week. "From our perspective, marijuana or any type of illegal drug is something that's not tolerated." Read More...

USA -- The CEO of Partnership at Drugfree.org, best known for its 1980s "Your brain on drugs" ads, conceded during an interview with Advertising Age published Monday that the legalization of recreational marijuana in the U.S. "is happening." After successful legalization efforts in Colorado and Washington, the 28-year old group, formerly known as Partnership for a Drug-Free America, has rejected requests to launch a campaign condemning the policy shift, viewing anti-legalization commercials as a futile effort, according to CEO Steve Pasierb. Read More...

Woman's Christian Temperance Union Targeting Pot Portland -- The mansion that serves as Maine headquarters of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union lay largely fallow until recently, with drug needles, liquor bottles and pornographic magazines littering the grounds. Now, in the state where Prohibition had its roots and in a city that just legalized recreational marijuana, the WCTU is overhauling the building and looking to reinvent itself. Leaders of the organization, which is committed to abstinence, plan to take a lower-key approach, compared with the old days when crusading women terrorized saloon owners. Read More...

International Watchdog Group Challenges Uruguay’s New Marijuana Law The International Narcotics Control Board is challenging Uruguay’s recent legalization of recreational marijuana, claiming it conflicts with the 1961 Single Convention of Narcotic Drugs, of which Uruguay is a member. The convention aims to limit the possession, use, distribution, and production of any drug to medical and scientific purposes only. “Cannabis is controlled under the 1961 Convention, which requires State Parties to limit its use to medical and scientific purposes, due to its dependence-producing potential,” said INCB president Raymond Yans. The INCB is an independent international agency that monitors the enforcement of UN drug treaties. According to the organization, Uruguay’s move to legalize marijuana is focused solely on reducing crime, while ignoring the potential public health issues that recreational marijuana could create. The decision “will not protect young people but rather have the perverse effect of encouraging early experimentation, lowering the age of first use, and thus contributing to developmental problems and earlier onset of addiction and other disorders,” Yans said. “The Board regrets that the Government of Uruguay did not respond to INCB to engage in a dialogue prior to further consideration of the law,” the statement said. “INCB reiterates its call to the Government of Uruguay to engage with the Board to ensure that Uruguay continues to respect and implement the treaties to which it is a party.” [Source]