Connect with us

Politics

Justice Department Demands Marijuana Documents From California Officials In Federal Court Filing

Published

on

The Justice Department is asking a federal court to force California marijuana regulators to disclose documents about cannabis businesses’ licenses and shipping manifests for reasons that remain unclear.

A petition with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on Monday says the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) subpoenaed documents about marijuana companies and owners from the state’s Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC) back in January—but regulators declined to comply because the request did “not specify relevancy” and they said it risked violating privacy laws.

What sort of federal investigation is at hand is unclear. In general, the Trump administration has maintained a hands-off approach to state marijuana policies despite the rescinding of an Obama-era memo that generally directed prosecutors to avoid interference in licensed cannabis markets, and the president has asserted that he supports the rights of states to set their own laws regardless of federal prohibition.

The DOJ court filing listed three specific types of records DEA is seeking through the subpoena: “unredacted cannabis license(s), unredacted cannabis license application(s), and unredacted shipping manifest(s).” The department said it “seeks the documents for only six entities, which include three corporations and each corporation’s presumed owner; and it seeks the documents for a limited period of roughly two years, stated as ‘January 1, 2018 to Present.'”

The targeted cannabis businesses and owners are not named in documents that have been publicly released in the new case. Marijuana Moment reached out to DOJ and BCC for comment, but representatives were not immediately available.

Two months after DOJ’s initial request, the agency “spoke with BCC attorneys and attempted to assure them of the Subpoena’s validity and the necessity for compliance, but the BCC’s position did not change,” the filing states. “The United States sent a letter to the California Attorney General (and BCC Counsel) in May and provided an opportunity to respond prior to filing this action. The BCC stated that its position had not changed, and it has not complied with the Subpoena to date.”

The federal filing says that the federal government is “not aware of any court that has invalidated DEA’s use of administrative subpoenas to obtain material relevant to an investigation.”

It also rejects the state’s arguments about privacy concerns with sharing the requested materials.

“The United States is aware of no authority holding that a state entity may rely on state law-based privacy interests to refuse to respond to a federal subpoena, issued pursuant to federal law,” the filing states. “And the BCC has not presented any federal law that permits non-compliance with this federal subpoena.”

“In refusing to comply with the Subpoena, the BCC asserted that California state laws prevent disclosure of the requested documents. These state laws, however, either permit disclosure or do not apply. Yet even if a state law does purport to prevent production,  the Supremacy Clause would preempt such law. None of the cited state laws prevent producing the documents to the DEA. But it also would not matter. That is because when state law does contradict federal law that requires production, federal law, not state law, controls.”

DOJ said DEA “meets the procedural requirements” for its subpoena request, which the government argues “is relevant and material to a DEA investigation, and is specific and narrow in accordance with the Fourth Amendment reasonableness requirement.”

“Not one reason permits the BCC to refuse to comply with the Subpoena. And even if a state law does purport to prevent compliance, the Supremacy Clause would preempt such law,” the filing states.

DOJ requested the court that it must compel the California agency to act within seven days.

BCC “has not complied with the Subpoena and informed the United States multiple times that it will not produce the requested documents,” the feds wrote. “The United States has made all efforts to obtain compliance short of litigation, but the BCC refuses to comply with the Subpoena.”

In the initial subpoena, a redacted version of which was released as an exhibit attached to the court petition, DEA had asked that California’s regulatory agency “not disclose the existence of this request or investigation for an indefinite time period. Any such disclosure could impede the criminal investigation being conducted and interfere with the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act.”

BCC responded at the time in a letter that is also being publicly released that it “objects to the subpoena and will not produce the requested documents as the subpoena does not specify the relevancy of the subpoena and requests information that is confidential, protected from disclosure, and part of pending licensing application investigations.”

The department argued that DOJ’s request “fails to meet the appropriate standard of establishing that the records are in fact relevant to this particular investigation” and “seeks information that is confidential and not subject to disclosure.”

“In addition to the personal information provided to the Bureau, an applicant or licensee must provide procedures for the business and a diagram of the businesses premises,” it argued. “These operating procedures contain information concerning trade secrets or other proprietary information protected from disclosure. Additionally, both the procedures and diagram of the premises contain information that could impact the security of the business.”

This legal action comes weeks after a DOJ whistleblower accused Attorney General William Barr of directing investigations into 10 cannabis firm mergers because of the top prosecutor’s alleged personal animus for the industry.

That said, a top department official said in a letter to Congress that those actions are better understood as helping to ensure consumers have affordable access to products in a competitive cannabis market—a curious position for the federal government to take.

Read the federal court filings seeking California marijuana business information below: 

USA vs. Bureau of Cannabis … by Marijuana Moment on Scribd

Congress Approves Measure Allowing CBD Use By Military Service Members

Photo elements courtesy of rawpixel and Philip Steffan.

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.

Kyle Jaeger is Marijuana Moment's Los Angeles-based associate editor. His work has also appeared in High Times, VICE and attn.

Politics

Mexican Lawmakers Circulate Amended Marijuana Legalization Bill That’s Set For A Vote On Monday

Published

on

Lawmakers in Mexico’s Chamber of Deputies are finally set to take up a bill to legalize marijuana nationally in the coming days, but the proposal has recently been subject to several significant revisions since being approved by the Senate last year.

First, a joint hearing of the chamber’s Health and Justice committees will take place on Monday, and a vote in the full chamber is expected the following day or on Wednesday. Advocates have been eagerly awaiting the introduction of new language, hopeful that it would address certain concerns with the Senate proposal, and now they’re getting details about what is being changed by the joint panels.

Generally speaking, most of the main provisions of the legislation remain intact. Adults 18 and older would still be allowed to purchase and possess up to 28 grams of marijuana and cultivate up to six plants for personal use, for example. But lawmakers revised the regulatory structure, rules for the commercial market and licensing policies, among other aspects.

Among the most significant amendments is that the revised bill would not establish a new independent regulatory body to oversee the licensing and implementation of the program as was approved by the Senate. Instead, it would give that authority to an existing agency, the National Commission Against Addictions.

Another change would be the creation of a license category for vertically integrated marijuana businesses that could control all areas of production and sales. However, there is language included in the measure to “prevent undue concentration that affects the market.”

While the bill would give priority for those licenses to marginalized communities, advocates are worried that there might not be strict criteria to actually ensure that ends up being the case. They had wanted to specific percentage of licenses to be set aside for those communities, but that’s not in the new bill.

For the purposes of public consumption, cannabis would be treated the same as tobacco under the amended legislation, but it could not be sold online or through the mail.

According to Heraldo de Mexico, the amended legislation includes “substantive modifications” to 15 provisions, deletes seven components and adds five new ones.

The text of the revised measure also seeks to reframe the reform as being about protecting public health rather than economic growth.

“Given that the proposed legislation would open the legal market for cannabis, a substance considered to be a narcotic in the international treaties signed by our country, it is essential that the law issued for this purpose has a clear and defined public health approach,” it says. “For this reason, it is essential to modify the approach that predominates in the bill, which considers the cultivation of cannabis as a means for economic growth and community development; which, if maintained like this, would encourage production and commercialism, neglecting public health, contrary to the guiding model that these committees intend to build.”

Already, there’s been criticism of the revised bill.

The advocacy group Mexico Unido said that the revised proposal still “criminalizes users, puts criminal and administrative sanctions on them and invades their privacy.”

“The current ruling removed the locks on vertical market integration and the entry of the junk food and beverage industry,” it said. “And it did not eliminate excessive requirements such as seed control, traceability and testing, which exclude small participants.”

Activists are happy, however, that a proposed permitting requirement for people to grow their own cannabis that was included in an earlier draft in circulation is no longer in the new version. They also appreciate that proposed fines for possessing too much marijuana have been reduced.

“The Federal Law for the Regulation of Cannabis is intended, through a public health approach, to link the right to consume cannabis with the right to production for self-consumption, either personally in homes, or as participants in legally constituted civil associations,” the bill states. “Through the proposed system, the production of cannabis and its derivatives would be aimed at self-consumption, either at home or in cannabis associations.”

There would be six licensing categories under the proposal: production, distribution, sales, marketing and research—in addition to one that would provide for vertical integration.

Another change in the latest version concerns edibles, which would not be allowed to be marketed on a temporary basis until additional research is conducted into the products, 24 Horas reported.

Martha Tagle Martínez, a member of the chamber’s Health Committee, said earlier this week that the original Senate reform legislation did not fulfill the requirements of the Supreme Court, which deemed the prohibition on personal possession and cultivation of marijuana unconstitutional in a 2018 ruling. Lawmakers have since been tasked with ending criminalization, but they’ve repeatedly pushed back deadlines to enact the policy change.

Now the legislature has until the end of April to legalize cannabis nationwide, and it seems next week’s action will set the stage for Congress to make good on its obligation.

In the meantime, the Health Committee already held a preliminary discussion on the issue last month.

Members of the panel said they wanted to hold four sessions to debate the legislation, but its president, Carmen Medel Palma, has yet to convene them and wants to speed up the process, La Jornada reported.

The Justice Committee also met to discuss the matter on Sunday, according to the group Cáñamo México. The two panels were initially expected to send a revised legalization proposal to the floor last month, but that didn’t happen. However, they met jointly on Thursday to discuss the latest version in advance of the expected formal approval on Monday.

MartĂ­nez of the Health Committee has signaled that she doesn’t feel lawmakers have been provided sufficient time to analyze the revised bill ahead of the planned floor vote in the coming days.

President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, for his part, said in December that an earlier anticipated vote on legalization legislation was delayed due to minor “mistakes” in the proposal.

He said “there was no time to conduct a review” in the legislature before the prior December 15 Supreme Court deadline, but he noted that issues that need to be resolved are “matters of form” and “not of substance.”

The Senate passed the legalization bill in November and transmitted it to the Chamber of Deputies. Several committees took up the bill, with the Human Rights and Budget and Public Account Committees representing one panel that considered and advanced it just before the the court granted lawmakers’ latest deadline extension request.

While advocates are pushing for lawmakers to formally end prohibition, they hoped the delay would give them more time to try to convince the legislature to address their concerns about certain provisions of the current bill, namely the limited nature of its social equity components and strict penalties for violating rules.

The legalization bill cleared a joint group of Senate committees prior to the full floor vote in that chamber, with some amendments being made after members informally considered and debated the proposal during a virtual hearing.

Members of the Senate’s Justice, Health, and Legislative Studies Committees had approved a prior version of legal cannabis legislation last March, but the coronavirus pandemic delayed consideration of the issue.

The legislation as ultimately approved by the Senate made some attempts to mitigate the influence of large marijuana corporations. For example, it stated that for the first five years after implementation, at least 40 percent of cannabis business licenses must be granted to those from indigenous, low-income or historically marginalized communities.

Households where more than one adult lives would be limited to cultivating a maximum of eight plants. The legislation also says people “should not” consume cannabis in homes where there are underaged individuals. Possession of more than 28 grams but fewer than 200 grams would be considered an infraction punishable by a fine but no jail time.

Sen. Julio Ramón Menchaca Salazar of the MORENA party said in April that legalizing cannabis could fill treasury coffers at a time when the economy is recovering from the pandemic.

As lawmakers work to advance the reform legislation, there’s been a more lighthearted push to focus attention on the issue by certain members and activists. That push has mostly involved planting and gifting marijuana.

In September, a top administration official was gifted a cannabis plant by senator on the Senate floor, and she said she’d be making it a part of her personal garden.

A different lawmaker gave the same official, Interior Ministry Secretary Olga Sánchez Cordero, a marijuana joint on the floor of the Chamber of Deputies in 2019.

Cannabis made another appearance in the legislature in August, when Sen. Jesusa Rodríguez of the MORENA party decorated her desk with a marijuana plant.

Drug policy reform advocates have also been cultivating hundreds of marijuana plants in front of the Senate, putting pressure on legislators to make good on their pledge to advance legalization.

Read the text of the revised Mexico legalization bill below: 

Mexican Chamber of Deputies… by Marijuana Moment

West Virginia Governor Would Support Taxing The ‘Absolute Crap’ Out Of Marijuana To Replace Income Tax

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

West Virginia Governor Would Support Taxing The ‘Absolute Crap’ Out Of Marijuana To Replace Income Tax

Published

on

The governor of West Virginia isn’t personally a fan of marijuana legalization, but for the second time in a week, he said that he’d support the reform if the legislature sent a bill to his desk.

In response to a question about the prospect of taxing “the absolute crap” out of cannabis, Gov. Jim Justice (R) said during a virtual town hall event on Friday that he’s “not a proponent of recreational marijuana.” However, he noted, “it seems like the entire nation is going to end up moving that way.”

“If in fact the entire nation is going to move that way, if our legislature from the standpoint of the Republicans in the House were to bring me that, and it would be tied to using those extra dollars [to] get rid of additional personal income tax, I would support it,” he said.

Watch Justice talk about marijuana reform policy in the video below: 

“I’m not in favor, but I would support it if people got on board and brought that to me,” the governor said.

The voter who posed the question was primarily concerned that no new taxes be placed on nicotine vaping products, and wanted to suggest legalizing cannabis as an alternative means to raise revenue.

“Please don’t do a 70 dollar tax on my vapes, man,” he told the governor.

Friday’s event was focused on the state’s move to eliminate the personal income tax, but this isn’t the first time that Justice discussed how regulating cannabis sales could factor into that effort.

On Tuesday, he similarly said that he’d be inclined to sign legalization legislation if lawmakers sent it to him, in part because he’s heard from he’s from members of the medical community who feel that regulating cannabis sales could actually reduce “drug-type problems” like the opioid overdose epidemic, which has hit his state especially hard.

“I’ll just tell it like it is, I’m not educated enough to make a really good assessment as of yet,” he said. “But I can tell you just this: I do believe that that is coming, and the wave is coming across all of our states, and as that wave comes, if our House Republicans and Democrats and Senate Republicans and Democrats would get behind that effort from a standpoint of legalization of recreational marijuana and they would be supportive of that, I would too.”

These comments come after House Majority Whip Paul Espinosa (R) circulated an internal poll among Republican lawmakers, inquiring about what kind of policies—including marijuana legalization—they’d be willing to support to make up revenue for the state as part of the plan to gut the income tax.

When asked about legalization as a means to raise tax revenue that could theoretically be used to get ride of the income tax, the governor said this week that he’s principally opposed to broad reform but “I’m weakening on that position” because while his instinct is to reject regulating marijuana amid the state’s drug crisis, the medical community has shifted his perspective.

Experts “tell me that really and truly the legalizing of marijuana in certain areas or certain states that have that, from a recreational standpoint, have lowered their drug-type problems,” he said.

“If we could bucket the proceeds [from cannabis tax revenue] and use them in a way, just like this personal income tax reduction…in a really beneficial way for all our people,” he would be supportive of that.

West Virginia approved medical cannabis legalization in 2017, which Justice signed into law, and patients were just recently approved to start registering for the program. That said, the state must still partner with a testing laboratory before marijuana products are made available.

Two Democratic candidates who lost their bids for West Virginia House seats last year had pledged to introduce legislation to legalize marijuana in the state if they were elected.

Local Activists In Washington State Push For Psilocybin Decriminalization

Photo courtesy of WeedPornDaily.

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

Local Activists In Washington State Push For Psilocybin Decriminalization

Published

on

Voters in Spokane, Washington could make the city one of the latest to decriminalize psilocybin mushrooms under a proposed ordinance that was recently filed by local activists.

The initiative, which was introduced by the group Decriminalize Spokane, would make enforcement of laws prohibiting the personal possession, cultivation and limited distribution of psilocybin for adults 21 and over among the city’s lowest priorities and would further ban officials from using “any city funds or resources to assist in the enforcement of laws imposing criminal penalties for the use, possession, transportation, cultivation, or distribution of psilocybin mushrooms.”

The measure, which activists intend to qualify for the city’s ballot, includes stipulations prohibiting the use or display of the psychedelic fungi in public spaces.

The “whereas” section of the measure points to scientific research on the therapeutic potential of psilocybin and the relatively low health risks it poses.

“Psilocybin can alleviate end-of-life anxiety for hospice and terminal cancer patients, can reduce prison recidivism, and can effectively treat depression, cluster headaches, addiction and trauma,” it says.

The proposed ordinance was submitted to the City Council last month, and lawmakers had the option of endorsing and enacting it into law themselves, rejecting it and proposing an alternative or approving the petition and placing it before voters. But while the proposal was on the agenda for Monday, local legislators chose not to act, which means it will be vetted by city officials to ensure its language is lawful and then cleared for signature gathering by activists.

If they are successful in collecting enough valid petitions from registered voters, the ordinance could go before voters as early as November of this year. As currently drafted, here’s the language of the ballot question that voters would see:

“Shall the Spokane Municipal Code be amended to make adult possession and transfer of limited quantities of psilocybin mushrooms the lowest possible law enforcement priority?”

According to The Spokane Spokesman-Review, activists will need 3,477 signatures to put the reform on the ballot.

Mason Lord, the chief petitioner, told the local newspaper that the proposal “is mostly about safety, and this is acknowledging certain legal substances that are accessible—like alcohol, for one—are far more dangerous.” He added that it’s about “the criminalization of a substance that has so much research showing that it’s so much safer than legal substance adults (can access).”

This is the latest iteration of a the decriminalization movement that’s evolved since Denver became the first city in the U.S. to decriminalize psilocybin mushrooms in 2019 via a citizen initiative.

Six other cities—Oakland, Santa Cruz, Ann Arbor, Washington, D.C., Somerville and Cambridge—have decriminalized possession of a broader collection plant-and fungi-based psychedelics since Denver’s move.

In Oregon, voters approved historic initiatives to legalize psilocybin for therapeutic purposes and decriminalize drugs more broadly in November.

Legislators in California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Kansas, Missouri, Washington State and Virginia are also considering psychedelics and drug policy reform bills for the 2021 session.

A Republican lawmaker in Iowa introduced a bill to remove psilocybin from the list of controlled substances, which received a subcommittee hearing this week but did not advance. He also filed another piece of legislation to let seriously ill patients use psychedelic mushrooms, LSD, DMT and other drugs.

Read the text of the Spokane psilocybin decriminalization ordinance below: 

Spokane Psilocybin Decrimin… by Marijuana Moment

Hawaii Governor Has ‘Concerns’ About Legalization Bill Advancing In Legislature

Photo courtesy of Dick Culbert.

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

Marijuana News In Your Inbox

Support Marijuana Moment

Marijuana News In Your Inbox

Marijuana Moment