A new Marijuana Moment analysis finds that a majority of Americans now live in places where first-time, low-level possession of cannabis will generally not result in jail time.
Fifty-five percent of the population—nearly 179 million people—reside in a decriminalized area where adults mostly don’t have to worry about being put behind bars for being apprehended a first time with a small amount of marijuana, even if they don’t have a doctors’ recommendation for medical use.
Many statistics have been thrown around about how many Americans live in a state where some form of marijuana is legal. How these states are tallied is up for debate, largely because of differing language and laws for medical cannabis. Depending on how one counts, 30 or 31 states have comprehensive medical marijuana programs, and an additional 15 or so allow certain patients to access low-THC cannabis extracts.
For recreational marijuana, only nine states and Washington D.C. have passed laws legalizing possession (and most, but not all of those, allow commercial sales and home cultivation). Seventy million people live in these adult-use states or jurisdictions, or 21.5 percent of the U.S. population.
Aside from these places where marijuana is legal for medical or non-medical use, additional states and municipalities have embarked on decriminalization efforts that generally allow people to avoid jail time for low-level possession, even as the drug remains formally prohibited.
That includes a renewed effort by officials in New York City to stop prosecuting low-level cannabis offenses. Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) said in 2014 that police would begin issuing summonses, rather than arrests, in those cases. But police have since continued to arrest an average of 17,000 people per year for possession, 87 percent of whom are black or Hispanic.
This summer, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. declared that, as of August 1, his department would no longer be prosecuting marijuana possession or smoking cases.
— Cyrus Vance, Jr. (@ManhattanDA) July 31, 2018
Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez made a similar move. And the NYPD instituted its own policy of avoiding arrests for low-level cannabis offenses in many cases, an approach that went into effect on September 1.
While marijuana is technically decriminalized in all of New York State, a loophole in the law has allowed police to make arrests for cannabis that is in “public view.” If these new initiatives are successful, the 43 percent of New York State residents who reside within New York City will have a little more freedom.
Which caused us to wonder:
How many Americans now live somewhere they can carry around a joint in their pocket, without an accompanying medical cannabis recommendation, and not have to fear being arrested and sent to jail?
Marijuana Moment decided to tally up all the states and localities where possession of a joint containing the average one gram of weed is, at least in theory, not supposed to result in time behind bars, even if someone had multiple encounters with law enforcement for possession over time. We used NORML’s and the Marijuana Policy Project’s resources for local and state laws.
In addition to the nine legal states and the District of Columbia, at least some jurisdictions in 23 states, plus Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands have passed laws to decriminalize marijuana possession. The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands has passed a legalization bill that is now awaiting the governor’s signature.
We define “decriminalized locations” as ones in which in most circumstances, possession by adults of small (and in some cases large) amounts of cannabis will result in either no penalty, or an infraction or misdemeanor charge plus fine, without the threat of jail time.
We found that at least 146 million Americans live in such legal or decriminalized locations, or 45 percent of the population of the United States. (An additional 1.2 million Michiganders in 16 cities are protected—but only if they are on private property, so are not counted in this total.)
The Impact of Multiple Apprehensions
In addition to the roughly 146 million Americans who live in places where they don’t have to worry about being locked up for low-level cannabis possession no matter how many times they are caught, a further 32.7 million live in a state, county or city where, if it is their first (or in some cases, second or third) time being apprehended, they would face only a civil infraction or misdemeanor charge without jail time. Subsequent offenses carry escalating penalties where incarceration is a possibility.
Several large cities within otherwise criminalized states have opted to enact local decriminalization ordinances. In Florida, for example, six cities and seven counties have decriminalized possession of up to 20 grams of cannabis. Thirty-nine percent of the state’s residents live in those locations. A sizable 34 percent of Texans live in a decriminalized jurisdiction, while 31 percent of New Mexico residents and 27 percent of Wisconsinites are protected by local laws.
If these states (Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island) and localities are included, 55 percent of Americans who haven’t seen a possession charge before would be “safe” from the threat of being put behind bars for initial run-ins with the police over cannabis.
“Jailing people for consuming cannabis is not only unpopular, but widely viewed as a ludicrous idea,” Karen O’Keefe, state policies director for the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), told Marijuana Moment. “It is no longer just voters calling for decriminalization, but also police chiefs, prosecutors, and other officials at every level of government.”
|Alaska||legal for adults|
|American Samoa||criminalized everywhere|
|Arkansas||some cities/counties decriminalized|
|California||legal for adults*|
|Colorado||legal for adults*|
|District of Columbia||legal for adults*|
|Florida||some cities/counties decriminalized|
|Georgia||some cities/counties decriminalized|
|Louisiana||two cities decriminalized|
|Maine||legal for adults*|
|Massachusetts||legal for adults*|
|Michigan||some cities/counties decriminalized|
|Mississippi||1st offense only decriminalized|
|Missouri||1st offense only, three cities decriminalized for subsequent offenses|
|Montana||one county first offense decriminalized|
|Nebraska||1st offense only decriminalized|
|Nevada||legal for adults*|
|New Jersey||criminalized everywhere|
|New Mexico||two cities decriminalized|
|New York||1st and 2nd offense decriminalized, New York City not prosecuting|
|North Carolina||1st offense only decriminalized (jail time suspended for 2nd to 5th offenses)|
|North Dakota||criminalized everywhere|
|Northern Mariana Islands||legalization bill awaiting governor’s signature|
|Ohio||decriminalized, some cities no penalty|
|Oregon||legal for adults*|
|Pennsylvania||some cities decriminalized|
|Puerto Rico||illegal everywhere|
|Rhode Island||1st and second offense decriminalized|
|South Carolina||criminalized everywhere|
|South Dakota||criminalized everywhere|
|Texas||some cities/counties decriminalized|
|U.S. Virgin Islands||decriminalized|
|Vermont||legal for adults*|
|Washington||legal for adults*|
|West Virginia||criminalized everywhere|
|Wisconsin||some cities decriminalized|
*No jail time for those under 21
Decriminalization Often Still Involves Penalties
Decriminalized doesn’t mean “fine-free.” In New Hampshire, if you are caught possessing four times in three years, you won’t go to jail, but you could be fined up to $1,200. Several Wisconsin locales have passed laws where jail time is omitted, but you might have to shell out up to $1,000. Minnesota has a hefty fine of $1,000 if more than 1.4 grams of cannabis is found inside a vehicle (not secured in the trunk).
The patchwork of policies across the country and within individual states, and the unclear terminology often attached to these proposals (“decriminalization,” “lowest law enforcement priority,” “civil violation”) means that these laws are often poorly understood by consumers and inconsistently enforced by police. The uncertainty surrounding those terms and the policies they apply to also meant that Marijuana Moment had to make some decisions about which jurisdictions to include in our analysis; generally, we counted places where the clear intent of policymakers was to let people avoid jail time for possessing small amounts of cannabis in most cases.
A further wrinkle is the fact that in many municipalities that have enacted decriminalization ordinances, local police can continue to enforce and charge people under overarching state marijuana criminalization laws, and state law enforcement agencies can of course continue to bring charges that come with jail time. People living in or visiting those cities shouldn’t necessarily be too brazen about possessing small amounts of cannabis—or consuming it in public, which is legal exactly nowhere.
“The rate of local governments acknowledging the futility of marijuana criminalization has accelerated greatly in the last few years,” Justin Strekal, political director for NORML, told Marijuana Moment. “But sadistically, many in law enforcement still will seek any justification possible to escalate a confrontation with a civilian that they have made a personal judgement upon—and can still rely on state-level criminalization statutes to do so. While the policy of local decriminalization is a step in the right direction, even in those jurisdictions, many consumers still live under threat by uniformed officers who allegedly are sworn to protect and serve those very communities.”
What’s more, in some “decriminalized” jurisdictions, a conviction still may result in a criminal record which can carry life-altering collateral consequences—including making it harder to get employment or housing—even if time behind bars isn’t a possibility.
It should also be noted that some states where adult-use sales have been legalized actually have more stringent possession laws than states that have merely decriminalized possession. In Colorado, for example, penalties—including jail time—are on the books for possession of more than two ounces. In Ohio, where cannabis prohibition is still in effect, up to 100 grams (roughly 3.5 ounces) is a misdemeanor with no incarceration.
“While public policy and the public’s perceptions are moving in the right direction, there is still a tremendous amount of work to be done,” O’Keefe, of MPP, said. “Marijuana is still illegal in 41 states, and consumers are still subject to potential jail time and life-altering criminal records in about half of U.S. jurisdictions.”
The Big Cities
Citizens and visitors to any county in 18 states, Puerto Rico and American Samoa face jail time for any amount of cannabis on their person. But possession of a joint is legal or effectively decriminalized in 24 of the 35 largest cities in the United States:
|City||State||Population (July 2017
|New York||New York||8,622,698||Y|
|Charlotte||North Carolina||859,035||Y (first-strike)|
|Washington||District of Columbia||693,972||Y|
|Detroit||Michigan||673,104||On 2018 ballot|
The totals in Marijuana Moment’s analysis seem poised to grow later this year and into 2019 as more cities and states vote on reform measures. In November alone, Michigan and North Dakota have legalization measures on the ballot, while Missouri and Utah voters will consider medical cannabis initiatives.
Scientists Sue DEA Over Alleged ‘Secret’ Document That Delayed Marijuana Research Expansion
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is finding itself in court over marijuana again after scientists filed a lawsuit against the agency, requesting “secret” documents that they allege DEA used to delay action on expanding cannabis research.
The Scottsdale Research Institute (SRI) is behind the suit. It’s one of more than 30 organizations that have submitted applications to DEA to become licensed cannabis manufacturers for research purposes.
Some background should be noted: In 2016, DEA announced it would expand marijuana research by approving additional growers beyond the sole source that has existed for half a century at the University of Mississippi. But after more than three years, applicants heard silence, and SRI filed an initial lawsuit alleging that the agency was deliberately holding up the process. A court mandated that it take steps to make good on its promise, and that case was dropped after DEA provided a status update.
This month, DEA finally unveiled a revised rule change proposal that it said was necessary due to the high volume of applicants and to address potential complications related to international treaties to which the U.S. is a party. A public comment period is now open, after which point the agency says it will finally approve an unspecified number of additional growers.
But what really accounted for the delay?
According to the plaintiffs in this new suit, after DEA said it would accept more cultivators, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) secretly issued an opinion that interprets international treaty obligations as making it impossible to carry out the 2016 proposed rule while maintaining compliance.
The new revised rule aims to address the problem, in part by shifting jurisdiction over the cannabis to a single agency, DEA, which would purchase and technically own all of the cannabis grown by approved cultivators, and would then later sell the product directly to researchers.
That OLC document, which is not public, is the basis of SRI’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) complaint. The case was filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on Wednesday and requests that the Justice Department be found guilty of unlawfully failing to make records available related to its interpretation of the Single Convention treaty, including the OLC opinion. It further states that DEA should release those documents and pay the plaintiff’s attorney fees.
Matt Zorn, an attorney working the case, told Marijuana Moment in a phone interview that it’s not clear what’s contained in the OLC opinion and that the uncertainty is “entirely the point” of the suit.
“I think we all know vaguely what it says—the subject matter of it—but we don’t know what it actually says,” he said. “That’s important because you need to know what that instruction was or what their interpretation of the law is to assess whether what they’re doing now is appropriate.”
The suit claims that SRI, “as a non-commercial company dedicated to advancing the state of medical care through clinical research, is directly harmed by this unlawful secrecy.”
“Because Defendants have failed to fully disclose their re-interpretation of federal law and treaty obligations as the law requires, Plaintiff lacks information necessary to protect its legal rights, including the right to have its application to manufacture marijuana for research processed in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act and the [Controlled Substances Act],” the filing states.
SRI’s research objective for cannabis is to determine potential therapeutic benefits for veterans suffering from conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder. “While DEA’s unlawful and dilatory conduct harms the public generally, the secrecy and delay have been especially harmful to our nations’ veterans,” the suit says.
“We deserve not only to know the scientific truth about medical marijuana use, but candor from our government, which includes disclosure of the ‘secret law’ the agency continues to rely on as a basis to delay and ultimately revamp the process for researching and manufacturing marijuana in this country,” the filing says. “Plaintiff brings this FOIA action so can understand the legal basis—if there is one—for the government’s conduct surrounding the Growers Program.”
While SRI acknowledged that DEA last week announced its revised rule change proposal, the suit states that the explanation about how it arrived at its determination “leaves Plaintiff and the public in the dark with respect to several critical considerations.” For example, it alleges, the notice doesn’t account for how the Justice Department advised the agency on the matter and which parts of the amended proposal would make the action compliant with international treaties.
“The answer to these questions and others presumably lies in the undisclosed OLC Opinion and related records that animated DOJ’s decision to sideline the Growers Program and prompted DEA to embark on this notice-and-comment rulemaking in the first place… In sum, using a secret OLC Opinion interpreting the CSA and a 1961 international treaty, DEA delayed processing applications to cultivate marijuana for research and now proposes to radically revamp federal law through rulemaking—rules which will loom large over the future of medical marijuana research, manufacture, and distribution going forward.”
The plaintiffs argue that DEA violated federal statute that prohibits the creation of a “secret law.” The statute says that federal agencies must make records—including final opinions and policy interpretations not published in the Federal Register—public.
“To block the Growers Program, DOJ formulated—through the OLC Opinion and related records—and DEA adopted to an undisclosed interpretation of the Single Convention and federal law contrary to the view espoused and published by DEA in the August 2016 Policy Statement, and contrary to the view of the State Department,” it continues, apparently referencing a letter the State Department sent to a senator in response to questions about the role of international treaties as it concerns expanding cannabis cultivation facilities.
In that letter, the department said nothing about the Single Convention prevents member nations from increasing the number of such facilities. “If a party to the Single Convention issued multiple licenses for the cultivation of cannabis for medical and scientific purposes, that fact alone would not be a sufficient basis to conclude that the party was acting in contravention of the Convention,” it read.
Read the State Department’s responses on international treaties and marijuana below:
If the new lawsuit’s allegations prove accurate, it could help explain the role of former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the anti-marijuana official who was reportedly involved in blocking research expansion.
The suit, which was first reported by Politico, goes on to say:
“For more than three years, Defendants relied on this undisclosed interpretation, contained in the OLC Opinion and related records, to make an end-run around the Administrative Procedure Act by unlawfully withholding and unreasonably delaying agency action on marijuana cultivation applications. The OLC Opinion has guided DEA’s actions—and its inaction… The government’s unlawful conduct under FOIA prevents Plaintiff and those similarly situated from timely and effectively vindicating legal rights under the Administrative Procedure Act, effectively rendering its protections and judicial review provisions meaningless.”
To resolve the issue, SRI said it wants DEA to be held accountable for violating federal law, release the documents and compensate them for the legal action. While this is a FOIA-related suit, the institute didn’t first seek the documents through a standard document request but instead filed the case under the law’s “Reading Room provision” that allows courts to force federal agencies to put records online, according to a Ninth Circuit ruling last year.
Sue Sisley, a researcher with SRI, told Marijuana Moment that the institute has generally had a good relationship with DEA over the years and doesn’t expect that it would unduly deny their application in retaliation for the institute’s repeated legal actions against the agency.
“I couldn’t fathom that that would happen, but I hope that the merits of our application are so clear that it would carry us forward,” she said. However, these licensing agreements are “not always a merit-based process so it is possible that if politics get deeply involved here that there could be a situation where licenses are awarded to friends of the government. We’re still praying that there is some merit-based system.”
Researchers and lawmakers have made clear that the current availability of federally authorized cannabis for research raises questions about the accuracy of tests that rely on it, as the quality is insufficient. As of now, there’s only one facility at the University of Mississippi that’s authorized to grow cannabis for researchers. The products developed at the university have been widely criticized by scientists and lawmakers. A study indicated that the facility’s cannabis is chemically more similar to hemp than marijuana available in state-legal markets.
“If adopted, these proposed rules would radically overhaul how medical marijuana manufacture and research will proceed in this country,” the plaintiffs wrote. “Better supply is needed for better research, and better research is needed not only because millions use medical marijuana every day, but also to facilitate informed policymaking at the federal and state levels, including legislation and drug scheduling decisions.”
Read the full lawsuit against DEA below:
Photo courtesy of Mike Latimer.
First Legal Marijuana Home Deliveries Begin In Colorado
For the first time, people in Colorado will be able to legally have marijuana products delivered directly to their homes starting on Friday.
The launch of the limited program focused on medical cannabis patients comes one week after the dispensary chain Native Roots announced that its Boulder location The Dandelion had received the state’s first marijuana delivery license. And while the license wasn’t related to the coronavirus outbreak, the timing is opportune, as officials have increasingly cautioned against leaving home to avoid catching or spreading the virus.
The delivery service will be limited to patients living in either Boulder or Superior. They must also be registered with the dispensary, and those who are not already signed up must do so in-person for the time being—though Native Roots said it is “looking into a compliant, remote solution for patient registration.”
Native Roots said there is a $100 minimum purchase, and they’re encouraging patients to pay with a debit card rather than cash, presumably because drivers could be targets of burglaries if they’re transporting large amounts of cash or because of concerns that money changing hands could further the spread of COVID-19.
Cannabis delivery services are a new feature of Colorado’s legal marijuana program. Gov. Jared Polis (D) signed legislation last year allowing the option, though individuals jurisdictions must proactively opt-in, so as of now that number of cities permitting deliveries is limited. Native Roots said it’s been engaging with local governments about the issue for months.
Deliveries for recreational cannabis consumers won’t begin until January 2021 under the law.
As more businesses shutter as a result of the pandemic, there’s growing demand for alternative means of obtaining marijuana products, and several states have taken steps to address that concern by encouraging deliveries and curbside pickup, for example.
For patients and reform advocates, that represents an ideal solution compared to closing dispensaries altogether. Numerous legal states have categorized cannabis shops as essential services that are exempt from mandates to close down. And according to a poll released this week, a majority of Americans agree with that decision.
But while the market remains largely operational in the midst of this health crisis, reform advocates across the U.S. are feeling the impact and struggling to continue campaign activities, including in-person signature gathering.
Campaigns to change state marijuana programs, legalize psilocybin mushrooms, legalize psilocybin for therapeutic purposes, legalize medical and recreational cannabis, decriminalize psychedelics and broadly decriminalize drug possession have all faced challenges amid the pandemic, and several have implored officials to allow electronic signature gathering to overcome the barrier.
An exception to this appears to be Arizona, where activists recently said they’ve collected more than enough signatures at this point to qualify for the state’s November ballot.
Photo courtesy of Philip Steffan.
Federal Agency Touts Hemp Progress While Refusing To Serve Marijuana Businesses
The federal Small Business Administration (SBA) is celebrating the potential of hemp and is urging federal regulators to address concerns from farmers before rules for the crop are finalized. At the same time, however, it is maintaining that it cannot service marijuana businesses due to ongoing federal prohibition.
In a blog post published on Tuesday, SBA’s Office of Advocacy described the wide range of uses for hemp, including rope and CBD oil, and detailed the crop’s evolution from a federally controlled substance to an agricultural commodity that was legalized through the 2018 Farm Bill.
“From rope to clothing, biodiesel to hempcrete, plant-based ingestible protein to CBD balm, the uses of hemp are far-reaching.”
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) now has jurisdiction over the plant, and it released an interim final rule last year outlining guidelines for a domestic hemp program. In the time since the crop’s legalization, SBA says it has “embarked on an ambitious and lengthy outreach effort to hear from small businesses” and heard feedback from farmers about how USDA’s proposed rules could impact their operations.
“Advocacy staff were first introduced to the concerns that many other producers would later echo” during those outreach events, the post states. “Advocacy also learned about the concerns that educational institutions have with the program, and the wide reach the rule would have if left as-is without modification.”
During a trip to a Virginia hemp farm, for example, the agency “learned about the various non-CBD uses for hemp, and that the rule as written would stifle the ability of small producers to grow for purposes other than manufacturing CBD products.”
“The one commonality that all stakeholders expressed was the ‘chilling’ effect the rule would have on the hemp industry.”
SBA also hosted its own forum on hemp issues in Pennsylvania “where concerns were raised about the length of time between testing and harvest, especially for those growers that do not use technology, such as Amish communities,” the agency reported.
To address such issues, SBA was one of numerous organization to submit feedback on USDA’s interim final rule during a public comment period. In its letter, the agency identified several potentially problematic provisions of the proposed rule, including the THC testing window, maximum THC limit and restricted authorized testing methods.
USDA took much of that feedback and announced last month that it would temporarily suspend enforcement of certain policies, including the requirement that test be conducted by Drug Enforcement Administration-registered labs. However, it said it couldn’t make other changes such as raising the THC threshold because that it a statutory matter that must be resolved by Congress.
“At this stage, Advocacy and the regulated community are eagerly awaiting further action from the agency including additional guidance, and the publication of a final rule by fall of 2021,” SBA said in the new blog post. “The hemp community is hopeful that the agency will consider some key modifications to the rule so that hemp can blossom into a successful industry.”
While SBA evidently is standing strong with the legal hemp industry, cannabis reform advocates have expressed frustration that the agency’s services—particularly concerning disaster relief loans—are unavailable to marijuana businesses who might be in need of additional support amid the coronavirus outbreak.
SBA confirmed in tweet and a statement this week that it cannot provide those services so long as marijuana remains a federally controlled substance, unlike hemp.
Photo courtesy of Pixabay.