A panel of just five officials is now in charge of implementing Massachusetts’s voter-approved marijuana legalization law.
Advocates expressed concern amid news that four members of the new Cannabis Control Commission voted against last November’s marijuana initiative — opposite the 54% of voters who approved the measure. (A new poll released on Thursday found that 63% of Bay State voters now support legalization.)
Legal marijuana supporters took heart, however, in the appointment to the panel of Shaleen Title, a longtime anti-prohibition advocate and industry insider who actually helped to write the ballot measure.
Her new role marks the first time an activist who helped to craft a marijuana legalization law has been put in charge of implementing it.
Title first got involved in the fight to legalize marijuana in college as a member of NORML and Students for Sensible Drug Policy. After a stint working as a tax law consultant for Deloitte, she returned to activism as key staffer for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, an organization of police professionals who speak out for drug policy reform.
In 2014, she co-founded THC Staffing Group, a recruitment firm that helps connect cannabis businesses with employees for the jobs they are looking to fill. Title chose to give up her ownership of the company in order to take on her new role as a public official regulating the marijuana industry.
(Full disclosure: Title has been a friend of mine for a decade, and serves with me on the board of directors for the nonprofit Marijuana Majority.)
Title was named to the new state cannabis regulatory commission this month in a joint appointment by Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, Attorney General Maura Healey and Treasurer Deb Goldberg. She and her four new colleagues will craft regulations and licensing processes with the goal of rolling out legal cannabis in the Bay State early next year.
In this, the first interview she has granted since being named to the regulatory body, Title outlines her thinking as she takes on the most important role of her career and transitions from activist to public official.
In broad terms can you help us understand your main duties in your new role as a member of the Cannabis Control Commission?
The CCC is a brand new agency tasked with implementing Massachusetts’ new marijuana law. This entails setting up regulations for the new industry and a licensing process for cultivation, manufacturing, retail and testing, as well as policy development around things like edibles, packaging and advertising. Our deadline under the law is to begin accepting applications by April 1, 2018.
How meaningful do you think it is to have someone who helped draft the legalization measure be one of a small handful of people who are now in charge of implementing it? And how do you think your background working in the legalization movement and helping companies in the cannabis industry hire staff will inform your work as a public official?
I think it’s essential to have at least one person on the commission who has a historical understanding of the legal and cultural context around marijuana. To my mind, that holistic approach is crucial in order to fairly implement the law.
In terms of my legal and business background, having an existing knowledge of the complex cannabis laws and regulations is helping me to hit the ground running, but all of that can be learned from books. It’s the time I’ve spent organizing on the ground over the past fifteen years that leads me to honor different communities’ complex feelings toward cannabis, prohibition and regulation, particularly Black and Latino communities that have bore the brunt of prohibition.
Being of Indian descent, I also come from a culture myself in which cannabis has been used since the beginning of recorded history, so there’s a level of respect that comes with that.
Should voters who supported legalization be concerned that the four other members of the commission now charged with implementing the measure opposed it last November?
I don’t think so. None of them are knee-jerk prohibitionists. In my mind, voting yes on the initiative and having used marijuana before are not strict requirements to be able to do this job. While they may be relevant factors, there is a very long list of far more relevant requirements when you are creating a team of people to build a government agency from scratch.
I have been very vocal about my belief that working with people who are different from you yields better results, and that universal principle applies here as much as anywhere. You need people from different backgrounds and perspectives to criticize and challenge each other’s work. The more I get to know my new colleagues, the more impressed I am at the thoughtfulness that went into appointing a team with the diverse set of backgrounds needed to be able to tackle this difficult task.
What are some of the main challenges you and your fellow commissioners will face in getting Massachusetts’s new law up and running?
The primary challenge is meeting a tight deadline while being underfunded. The state treasurer estimated that our agency would need $10 million in the first fiscal year; as of now, we have about $2 million. Starting from scratch is also a major challenge. We currently have no staff and are operating out of temporary office space.
Most challenging for me personally has been the built-in inefficiencies for the sake of transparency. Because of the open meetings law, we can’t do regular check-ins or collaborate via Google Docs or Slack. We can’t even reply-all to emails.
But, anyone who has been involved in marijuana legalization knows that if you have the will, you can do what many people consider impossible, and often with very small groups working under the scrappiest of circumstances. I’m optimistic.
Finally, on a personal note, was it hard for you to give up your business to take on this new role? And do you still consider yourself an activist at the same time you’re a public official? How do you approach that balance?
All of my nonprofit, business and political projects have had the same goal: replacing prohibition with sensible policies that are fair and inclusive and promote health and safety. I will miss THC Staffing Group, but I’ll be working toward that same goal.
There have been a few turning points in my life where I was compelled to follow my gut instinct and immediately say yes, before I had a chance to think about it rationally. The first time was when I quit my job consulting in tax law to work on legalization full-time, and the second time was when I moved to Colorado by myself to work on Amendment 64. The third time was when the Treasurer’s office called me with the offer to appoint me as Commissioner.
While I’m admittedly going through a bit of a culture shock, being given a chance to help Massachusetts set a good example for other states in creating a newly legal market is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Particularly as it relates to being able to implement the sections of the law that champions equity for communities that have been targeted by past criminalization policies — there’s nothing else I’d rather be working on.
Marijuana Opponent Kennedy Reconsiders State Legalization Protections
A Democratic congressman who has acknowledged he is out of step with his party on marijuana policy now says that he doesn’t necessarily support federal crackdowns on states with legalization, even though he has repeatedly voted to allow such enforcement actions.
“The federal government policy on this is incoherent, and the federal government needs to get far more coherent on this,” Congressman Joe Kennedy III (D-MA) said in an interview this week. “For states that have put in place the proper safeguards and procedures, I’d be inclined to support those states.”
Legalization supporters were upset when Democrats tapped Kennedy last month to deliver the party’s response to President Trump’s State of the Union address.
As a member of Congress, Kennedy has not only opposed his state’s move to legalize marijuana, but has voted against amendments to shield state medical marijuana laws from federal interference, allow military veterans to access medical cannabis and protect children who use non-psychoactive cannabidiol extracts to treat severe seizure disorders.
One of only a handful of Democrats to oppose those proposals, Kennedy knows that his views on cannabis are out of step with the party.
“I come at it a little bit differently, obviously, than the vast majority of my colleagues,” he said in a separate interview this month. “I think the party is clearly moving in that legalization direction. It might already be there.”
But in the new interview this week, Kennedy made clear that he still has a lot of concerns about legalization, which he campaigned against in Massachusetts.
“There’s a pretty robust voice in the addiction community that points out some of the challenges and how it has had negative impacts on folks,” he said. “Those voices should be listened to as well.”
He also isn’t sold on medical cannabis, which voters legalized in his state in 2012.
“If we are going to treat something like a medicine, it needs to go through the proper medical trials,” he said. “We’re not going through that process.”
But although Kennedy has repeatedly voted in Congress to allow the Department of Justice to arrest and prosecute medical cannabis patients and providers, he says he doesn’t necessarily want the DEA to launch large-scale raids.
“Assuming there are communities that are doing this in a safe and effective way, I certainly could see myself allowing that go forward,” he said. “I don’t want to upend the access to care that these patients need.”
Although he’s “not proposing a crackdown on it,” Kennedy acknowledged that his overall skepticism about cannabis is “not necessarily reflective of the voters of Massachusetts.”
“I want to make sure that we go about this in the right way with the right safeguards in place to not end up in a circumstance where we can get ourselves in trouble,” he said.
Kennedy’s grandfather, former U.S. Attorney General Bobby Kennedy, criticized the hypocrisy underlying marijuana criminalization half a century ago.
Photo courtesy of Martin Grondin.
Joe Arpaio Supports Medical Marijuana, “Kind Of”
A former sheriff known for disregarding the rights of immigrants, Latinos and people convicted of drug crimes — and who recently received a pardon from President Trump for his own criminal contempt of court — is voicing support for medical marijuana.
“I wish there was something more we could do with the medical dispensaries to help our veterans [and] people who are sick. I still can’t understand why you can’t go to a drug store on a prescription and get this type of drug,” Joe Arpaio, now a U.S. Senate candidate in Arizona, said. “The medical dispensaries, I kind of support it if it can help the sick people.”
Arpaio was answering a question from Larry King.
This isn’t the first time the former sheriff has spoken in support of medical cannabis.
In 2015, he appeared at an event aimed at educating senior citizens about medical marijuana.
“If this is one thing that really will help them, the medical part of it, and is done legitimately, no diversion, I don’t know, what’s the difference going to the drug store and getting a prescription,” he said at the time.
The opinion of the former Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs special agent appears to have shifted over time. In 2010, he campaigned against Arizona’s medical cannabis ballot measure, which ultimately eked out a narrow victory on Election Day.
But while Arpaio sees medical potential for marijuana, he doesn’t support its broader legalization.
“I don’t support using or selling marijuana across our nation,” he said in the new interview with King. “Actually it’s against the law. It’s against the federal law anyway.”
Last year, Arpaio was found in contempt of federal court after refusing to obey a judge’s order to stop racial profiling practices. He also, at one point, got a tank from the Army and decorated it with “Sheriff Arpaio’s War on Drugs” written on the sides.
Congresswoman Martha McSally, who is also running for the Republican nomination for the Arizona Senate seat, voted against amendments to protect state medical cannabis and marijuana legalization laws from federal interference.
Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema, a Democrat running for the seat, voted in favor of both measures.
Photo courtesy of Gage Skidmore.
Senate Measure Shields Immigrants From Deportation For Marijuana
The U.S. Senate could soon vote on whether immigrants should be deported for marijuana activity that follows state laws.
As Congress considers proposals to address immigration policy and border security this week, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) filed an amendment to shield people who use cannabis or work in the industry in legalized states from being deported or denied visas.
SA 1983. Mr. WYDEN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 2579, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to allow the premium tax credit with respect to unsubsidized COBRA
continuation coverage; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ___. PROHIBITION ON INADMISSIBILITY OR DEPORTATION OF
ALIENS WHO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW.
(a) Prohibition on Inadmissibility.–Section
212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II)) is amended by inserting “other
than an act involving marijuana that is permitted under the
laws of a State or the law of an Indian tribe, as defined in
section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304), that has jurisdiction over
the Indian country, as defined in section 1151 of title 18,
United States Code, in which the act occurs” after
(b) Prohibition on Deportation.–Section 237(a)(2)(B)(i) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1227(a)(2)(B)(i)) is amended by striking “marijuana,” and
inserting “marijuana or an offense involving marijuana that
is permitted under the laws of a State or the law of an
Indian tribe, as defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304),
that has jurisdiction over the Indian country, as defined in
section 1151 of title 18, United States Code, in which the
Under current law, immigrants “who at any time after admission” are convicted of a violating any state, federal, or foreign drug law, “other than a single offense involving possession for one’s own use of 30 grams or less of marijuana,” are considered deportable. Those committing certain drug crimes are also ineligible to receive visas or be admitted to the U.S.
Wyden’s amendment would provide exemptions for people who handle marijuana in accordance with state laws.
It is unknown when or if the proposal will receive a vote on the floor.
Photo courtesy of JD Lasica.
Politics5 months ago
This Obscure 45-Year-Old Federal Law Exempts State-Legal Marijuana
Politics3 months ago
Trump Administration Considering Marijuana Policy Changes, Sessions Says
Politics4 months ago
These States Will Probably Vote On Marijuana In 2018
Politics4 months ago
Former Surgeon General: Legalize Marijuana; Decrim Not Good Enough
Politics5 months ago
FDA To Review Medical Claims About Marijuana
Culture2 months ago
Bill Nye: Marijuana’s Federal Status ‘Not Based In Science’
Politics4 months ago
Marijuana Is A Big Issue In Next Month’s Elections
Politics3 months ago
New Sessions Memo: Does It Impact Marijuana?