Connect with us

Politics

Here’s Where Indiana’s US Senate Candidates Stand On Marijuana

Published

on

In this year’s U.S. Senate race in Indiana, marijuana policy has largely been a sidelined issue, with neither candidate having embraced a strong cannabis reform platform. But the Hoosier State contest is one of a small handful this year in which the Republican candidate seems at least a little more open to cannabis law reform than does the Democrat.

Incumbent Senator Joe Donnelly is among the most conservative Democrats on drug policy, while his Republican opponent, businessman and former state legislator Mike Braun, has managed to mostly dodge the issue outside of responding to pointed questions about it during debates.

As a House member prior to serving in the Senate, Donnelly voted against a 2007 amendment to shield state medical cannabis laws from federal interference. He was one of six House members to be absent from a vote on a similar measure in 2012.

Until this year, Donnelly had never added his name as a cosponsor of marijuana reform legislation in either chamber. But in June, the senator announced his support for the bipartisan VA Medicinal Cannabis Research Act, which would encourage the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to carry out scientific and medical research exploring marijuana’s safety and efficacy in treating veterans.

In a letter to to constituents about his cosponsorship of the bill, Donnelly wrote: “In the midst of the opioid crisis, I have heard from many Hoosiers and veterans that marijuana has the potential to help treat conditions such as chronic pain and PTSD, and I believe that we have a responsibility to look closely at safe, alternative treatments.”

Donnelly’s support for legislation pegged to veterans’ wellbeing is a fairly modest entrypoint into supporting cannabis law reform, but fellow Indiana Democrats are hopeful the senator will continue to reform his viewpoint on marijuana issues.

“Studies show again and again that legalization of medical cannabis has positive results, and it is time for Indiana and the rest of the U.S. to push our legislators to realize this,” said Mathew Bumbalough, secretary of the Indiana Democratic Veterans Caucus and chair of the its 9th Congressional district division. “I believe Senator Donnelly has the capacity to evolve on this issue, especially after announcing his support of the VA Medicinal Cannabis Research Act.”

Meanwhile, in his attempt to appeal to Indiana conservatives, Donnelly seems to have quietly backed himself into lukewarm prohibitionist waters. In another constituent letter, dated January 11, 2018, the senator spent a great deal of time skirting around the issue, listing various cannabis-related bills that have been filed, coming to the simple conclusion that he “does not believe it to be prudent to decriminalize marijuana at this time.”

“I will, however, continue to research the developments regarding its medical benefits,” he wrote.

Donnelly’s conservative distance from the marijuana issue and his failure to support broader federal legislation to reform cannabis policy have earned him a D grade from NORML.

Like incumbent Donnelly, GOP challenger Mike Braun has also been fairly moderate in his statements about cannabis law reform. But in a debate earlier this year, the former state representative voiced soft support for medical marijuana, saying that the issue should be seen in terms of “free markets and freedom of choice” for patients.

In a subsequent debate, Braun underscored his support for states’ rights on the medical cannabis issue, asserting that “states are a great laboratory” and “if a state wants to go to medical marijuana, it ought to be their prerogative.”

But Braun said he was still personally “out on the issue” of medical cannabis. While his responses to marijuana questions during the debate were been tepid, he nonetheless averted any mention of the debunked “gateway theory,” unlike his Republican primary opponents, both of whom consistently voted against marijuana measures in Congress.

While Donnelly is now cosponsoring a fairly modest cannabis research bill, his past vote against protecting state medical marijuana laws from the federal government gives some advocates pause about his newfound legislative efforts. Meanwhile, Braun’s stated support for respecting local cannabis policies indicates he might be more likely than the incumbent to back broader marijuana legislation.

That said, it is also true that the winner of the Indiana race could help determine which party ends up controlling the Senate next year. Democratic leaders have mostly indicated they are more open to advancing cannabis reform than current GOP committee chairs and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) have been. That being said, while neither Donnelly nor Braun has thus far treated marijuana as a key issue, Indiana constituents who value cannabis law reform have a lot to consider—the candidates’ individual positions as well as broader party dynamics—before heading to the polls in November.

Photo courtesy of Carlos Gracia.

Marijuana Moment is made possible with support from readers. If you rely on our cannabis advocacy journalism to stay informed, please consider a monthly Patreon pledge.

Madison is a New York/Los Angeles-based journalist on the cannabis beat. You can read her work on Herb, Rolling Stone, Merry Jane, and elsewhere.

Politics

Colorado Governor Touts Marijuana Legalization’s Benefits

Published

on

After the 2012 election, which saw Colorado become the first state to legalize marijuana, Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) said he probably would have reversed the vote if he had a magic wand.

But with the perspective of a few years post-legalization, today he says he’d put that wand “back in the drawer.”

“I’m not quite there to say this is a great success, but the old system was awful,” Hickenlooper said at a forum hosted by the Economic Club of Chicago on Wednesday.

What’s more, “the things that we most feared—a spike in teenage consumption, a spike in overall consumption, people driving while high—we haven’t seen them,” he said.

“We had a little increase in teenage consumption, but then it went down. We do think that some of the teenage consumers are using it a little more frequently than they were five years ago before legalization. We have in many ways seen no demographic where there’s an increase in consumption, with one exception: senior citizens. I leave you to draw your own conclusions.”

Hickenlooper, who’s been floated as a potential 2020 presidential candidate, described the challenges his administration faced when Colorado voters approved an adult-use legalization measure. Elected officials and advisors were opposed to it, he said, and plus, “it’s no fun to be in conflict with federal law.”

But he pushed forward with implementation, recruiting the “smartest people” he could find to figure out the best approach to regulation and taxation. And Illinois, which recently elected pro-legalization J.B. Pritzker for governor, will likely be better off if they pursue reform because they can learn from the successes and failures of Colorado’s system, Hickenlooper said.

“Ultimately, I haven’t come to a final conclusion yet, but I think it’s looking like this is going to be—for all of the flaws and challenges we have—a better system than what we had. You guys are going to benefit, I think, having let us make a bunch of the mistakes and deal with it, I think you’re going to be able to have a much better system if indeed that is the direction that the state wants to go.”

Asked what advice he’d give to Pritzker if Illinois does elect to fully legalize cannabis, Hickenlooper offered three tips: 1) don’t overtax marijuana, or else the illicit marketplace will persist, 2) get data from law enforcement on the presence of cannabis metabolites in the blood after highway fatalities to establish “good baselines” for comparison and 3) set limits on THC concentrations in edibles.

“What they’re selling now, they tell me it’s 10-to-12 times more intense than what allegedly I smoked in high school,” Hickenlooper said, pausing before conceding, “I smoked pot in high school and I inhaled, but it was a fraction of the intensity of what these kids are getting now.”

Legal Marijuana Would Generate Hundreds Of Millions For Illinois, New Analysis Finds

Photo courtesy of YouTube/Economic Club of Chicago.

Marijuana Moment is made possible with support from readers. If you rely on our cannabis advocacy journalism to stay informed, please consider a monthly Patreon pledge.
Continue Reading

Politics

The DEA Just Got Scolded Over Its Marijuana Eradication Program

Published

on

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) got a slap on the wrist from a federal watchdog agency over its management of a multi-million dollar marijuana eradication program.

In a report released on Wednesday, the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) said the DEA had failed to adequately collect documentation from state and local law enforcement partners that received funds through the federal program. And that lapse could prevent the agency from being able to accurately assess “program performance.”

What’s more, the DEA “has not clearly documented all of its program goals or developed performance measures to assess progress toward those goals,” according to the report.

In other words, the agency expends about $17 million in funds to partners across the U.S. each year to help them get rid of illegal cannabis grows. That includes fully legal states like California, where enforcement efforts are generally limited to public lands—namely national forests. But due to inadequate record keeping, the DEA doesn’t really know if that money is serving its purpose.

To fix the problems, the GAO issued four recommendations:

1. The DEA Administrator should develop and implement a plan with specific actions and time frames to ensure that regional contractors are implementing DEA’s requirement for collecting documentation supporting participating agencies’ Domestic Cannabis Eradication And Suppression Program (DCE/SP) program expenditures in the intended manner.

2. The DEA Administrator should clarify DCE/SP guidance on the eradication and suppression activities that participating agencies are required to report, and communicate it to participating agencies and DEA officials responsible for implementing DCE/SP.

3. The DEA Administrator should clearly document all DCE/SP program goals.

4. The DEA Administrator should develop DCE/SP performance measures with baselines, targets, and linkage to program goals.

The DEA was able to review a draft of the GAO report ahead of its release and, in an October 17 letter, a Justice Department official said the agency concurred with all four of the recommendations and would take steps to address them.

You can listen to a podcast about the GAO report here:

Just because it’s the DEA’s program doesn’t mean it’s the only agency dropping the ball on marijuana eradication efforts. In April, a report from the inspector general for the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that agents weren’t adequately cleaning up public lands after cannabis busts, which can pose threats to humans, animals and the environment.

Feds Don’t Properly Clean Up After Marijuana Raids, Report Finds

Photo courtesy of Chris Wallis // Side Pocket Images.

Marijuana Moment is made possible with support from readers. If you rely on our cannabis advocacy journalism to stay informed, please consider a monthly Patreon pledge.
Continue Reading

Politics

Here’s How Much Legal Marijuana Supporters And Opponents Spent Per Vote In Last Week’s Election

Published

on

Political committees concerned with marijuana law reform in four states have waged an information war over the past year, first to qualify cannabis initiatives for the ballot, and then to support or oppose those measures in the lead-up to last week’s midterm elections. In total, over $12.9 million in cash and in-kind services was spent attempting to convince voters about these marijuana ballot measures.

Now that voters have had their say, Marijuana Moment decided to calculate how much each “yes” and “no” vote cost the committees on either side of the debate. Our calculations are based on dollars raised and disclosed before the election, since final totals of actual expenditures won’t be available until December or January reports required in the states that voted on cannabis.

Michigan

In Michigan, where voters approved marijuana legalization, our calculations show that the two anti-legalization committees spent about $1.28 per “no” vote, as they raised $2.37 million for the 1.85 million votes against the measure. The proponents spent 19 percent more per vote, or $1.52 for each of 2.35 million “yes” votes.

Missouri

In Missouri, three separate medical cannabis initiatives competed in the run-up to Election Day, resulting in the highest funding levels of the four states we looked at. There, committees raised a total of $5.4 million dollars to influence voters. Across all the committees, the average cost per “yes” vote was $1.82.

Amendment 3, which was supported by Find the Cures PAC, spent $2.91 for each of its 747,977 votes. Proposition C, supported by Missourians for Patient Care, spent $1.44 for each of its 1.03 million votes. New Approach Missouri, which supported winning Amendment 2, which garnered the support of 1.57 million voters, spent the least, at $1.10 per vote. Only Amendment 2 received a majority and was approved.

Given that there were three competing measures on the ballot, vote costs cannot be parsed in the same binary “yes” or “no” on marijuana reform that is possible for initiatives in the other states. A “no” vote for one measure in Missouri was often paired with a “yes” vote for another.

North Dakota

In North Dakota, there were many fewer votes cast on the state’s marijuana legalization initiative as compared to cannabis measure elsewhere, a total of 324,550. The two committees that opposed Measure 3 heavily outspent the pro-reform committees, to the tune of $629,648 to $94,308. With 131,585 people voting for the initiative, the cost per “yes” vote was 72 cents. On the opposing side, winning came at a high price: Each “no” vote cost four and a half times as much, or $3.26, the most costly per-vote expense on a marijuana ballot measure in the nation this year.

Utah

In Utah, a relatively state where proponents of medical cannabis measure Proposition 2 were narrowly outspent by opponents, the cost per vote was higher. Votes are still being counted more than a week after Election Day, but preliminary vote totals show opponents spent $908,464, or $1.99 for each of the 455,879 votes against the initiative. The prevailing “yes” committees spent $831,471 for 493,060 votes, or $1.69 each. About 8 percent of precincts are yet to be counted, so both of these figures will decrease as more votes are added to both the support and opposition tallies.

Overall in the three states that had a straight up-or-down vote (Michigan, Utah and North Dakota), the average cost per “no” vote was slightly more than each “yes” vote, with prohibitionist committees spending an average of $1.56 for each “no” vote, versus $1.51 spent on average for each “yes” votes. It should be noted that those costs include millions of dollars in in-kind services. In Michigan, for example, The Coalition to Regulate Cannabis like Alcohol reported $706,900 in in-kind services, or 23 percent of their total fundraising.

Looked at another way, the average per state cost (rather than total votes average) for “yes” votes was $1.31 while “no” votes cost 67 percent more: $2.18. And with the total number of “yes” votes in those states outnumbering “no” votes by 19 percent, it would seem that in the state-by-state marijuana legalization battle, you don’t always get what you pay for.

Marijuana Moment is made possible with support from readers. If you rely on our cannabis advocacy journalism to stay informed, please consider a monthly Patreon pledge.
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Stay Up To The Moment

Marijuana News In Your Inbox


Support Marijuana Moment

Marijuana News In Your Inbox