Connect with us

Politics

Nebraska Attorney General Argues Legalizing Medical Marijuana Is Unconstitutional

Published

on

Nebraska’s attorney general said in an opinion on Thursday that state efforts to legalize medical marijuana would be preempted by federal law and “would be, therefore, unconstitutional.”

While the opinion concerns specific legislation introduced at the beginning of the year that sought to establish a medical cannabis program—and legal experts said they disagree with its reasoning—the memo could nonetheless have political implications for a separate ballot initiative to legalize medical marijuana for which activists are in the process of collecting signatures.

The attorney general plays a direct role in shaping ballot measures. While the secretary of state certifies petition signatures, a copy of the initiative is sent to the attorney general who “will write a ballot question or title that summarizes (in 100 words or less) the purpose of the measure” and “provide materials that explains the effect of a vote for or against the measure. These items will appear on the ballot.”

The eight-page opinion on legalization legislation, which was requested by Sen. Andrew La Grone (R), describes the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), under which cannabis remains listed in the most strictly controlled category of Schedule I drugs. Attorney General Doug Peterson (R) wrote that “Congress has not amended the CSA to remove marijuana from Schedule I, nor have considerable efforts to administratively reschedule marijuana been successful.”

Citing a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a case concerning California patients who sought an exemption from enforcement under the CSA for cultivating and possessing cannabis for personal use, Peterson argued that the majority’s opinion demonstrated that legalizing medical cannabis in Nebraska would be unconstitutional.

“It is the opinion of this office that the [Medical Cannabis Act] would suffer from the same legal infirmities as the California scheme in [Gonzalez v. Raich],” Peterson wrote. “Notwithstanding the fact that state-level marijuana legalization schemes have spread in the recent (and discretionary) unwillingness by the federal government to civilly enforce the CSA against states, that exercise of discretion simply does not change the federal law that remains on the books and which Congress has steadfastly maintained.”

“Given Gonzales v. Raich, and given the text and legislative history of the CSA, there is no doubt that Congress intended the CSA to serve the purpose of making all manufacture, sale, and possession of regulated drugs illegal, except to the extent explicitly authorized by the CSA. Nothing about the federal government’s relaxed view of its enforcement obligations under the CSA changes the fact that Congress intended the CSA to prohibit the type of legalization proposed by the MCA.”

“In sum, we conclude that the MSA, by creating a state regulatory scheme that would affirmatively facilitate the cultivation, processing, wholesale distribution, and retail sale of federal contraband on an industrial scale, would frustrate and conflict with the purpose and intent of the CSA,” Peterson concluded. “Accordingly, we conclude that the MCA would be preempted by the CSA and would be, therefore, unconstitutional.”

On the other hand, more than 30 states have legalized medical cannabis since 1996 and the Supreme Court has never ruled that state legalization regimes are preempted by federal law—even in the Raich case, which merely said that federal officials can enforce federal laws against people who are following state laws.

“Raich was not a case about preemption and the attorney general’s attempt to make it into one is misleading. He fundamentally misrepresents the Court’s holding in that case,” Sam Kamin, a professor at the University of Denver’s Sturm College of Law, told Marijuana Moment.

Kamin said that Peterson’s argument is similar to that made by the attorneys general of Nebraska and Oklahoma when they asked the Supreme Court to overturn the marijuana law of neighboring Colorado in 2014.

“The Court chose not to hear that case,” he said.

“Congress may not require the states to pass marijuana prohibitions or to keep their marijuana prohibitions on the books,” Kamin continued. “Nothing in Raich says otherwise.”

That said, the impact of Peterson’s memo may be primarily political, rather than legal, by raising the possibility that the federal government could make a preemption argument if the state enacted a medical marijuana program and the Justice Department chose for the first time to directly challenge it—a message that could cause some voters to rethink supporting the legalization measure if it appears on the state’s 2020 ballot.

Sen. Anna Wishart (D), sponsor of the MCA and founding member of the committee behind the ballot measure, told Marijuana Moment that her legislation “is the product of hours of work with doctors, pharmacist, law enforcement, chambers of commerce and patients.”

“We took best practices from all of the states that have already legalized medical cannabis and put together what I would consider one of the best public health models in the country,” she said in response to the attorney general’s opinion. “Two-thirds of states have medical marijuana laws, the first enacted 23 years ago and no one has successfully challenged them. In fact, Congress has directed the DOJ to back off these programs.”

Since 2014, Congress has enacted and extended an appropriations rider that blocks the Justice Department from interfering with state medical cannabis laws.

“The Nebraska Attorney General’s argument is nonsensical and motivated by his anti-marijuana ideology,” Matthew Schweich, deputy director of the Marijuana Policy Project, which is working with local activists on the ballot measure, told Marijuana Moment. “Nebraskans understand that many other states have functional medical marijuana programs, which demonstrates the baseless nature of this preemption argument.”

Sen. Adam Morfeld (D), who is working with Wishart on medical cannabis efforts, said that the AG’s opinions comes as “no surprise” given that he has been a “chief opponent” of marijuana reform for years.

“Further, just as the legislature can reasonably regulate other constitutional rights such as speech, firearms and religion, they will be able to do the same if medical marijuana passes on the ballot,” he added. “Right now people are suffering needlessly in Nebraska and being treated like criminals because of the attorney general and others.”

Wishart said that the committee working to advance the ballot measure—Nebraskans for Sensible Marijuana Laws—is “confident that our petition will make it onto the ballot and pass and that Nebraskans will finally have a constitutional right to access a medicine that helps them.”

“We are a country of dual sovereignty, complete with the 10th Amendment that affirms the rights of states,” she said.

Read the Nebraska attorney general’s full medical cannabis opinion below:

Nebraska AG on medical cann… by Marijuana Moment on Scribd

Texas State Police Memo Directs Officers To Stop Marijuana Possession Arrests

This story was updated to include comment from Morfeld.

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

Oregon Officials Explain How Decriminalized Drugs And Legal Psilocybin Therapy Would Impact The State

Published

on

Oregon officials finalized a series of analyses this week on separate ballot measures to legalize psilocybin mushrooms for therapeutic use and decriminalize drugs while investing in substance misuse treatment.

The Oregon Criminal Justice Commission determined that the decriminalization initiative would reduce felony and misdemeanor convictions for drug possession by 91 percent, and that reduction would be “substantial for all racial groups, ranging from 82.9% for Asian Oregonians to approximately 94% for Native American and Black Oregonians.”

Overall, the policy change would result in a 95 percent drop in racial disparities for possession arrests, the panel projects.

“The CJC estimates that IP 44 will likely lead to significant reductions in racial/ethnic disparities in both convictions and arrests.”

The conviction estimate was included in the panel’s draft analysis first released last month, but the final version was expanded to include the arrest data as well. The new document also notes that “disparities can exist at different stages of the criminal justice process, including inequities in police stops, jail bookings, bail, pretrial detention, prosecutorial decisions, and others”—a point that activists hoped the panel would include.

That said, the commission noted it “lacks sufficient or appropriate data in each of these areas and therefore cannot provide estimates for these other stages.”

The new report, published on Wednesday, cites research indicating that the resulting “drop in convictions will result in fewer collateral consequences stemming from criminal justice system involvement, which include difficulties in finding employment, loss of access to student loans for education, difficulties in obtaining housing, restrictions on professional licensing, and others.”

The decriminalization proposal was the first ballot initiative in the state’s history to receive a report on the racial justice implications of its provisions under a little-utilized procedure where lawmakers can request such an analysis.

This information will be included in a voter pamphlet as a factual statement from the secretary of state’s office.

“Our current drug laws can ruin lives based on a single mistake, sticking you with a lifelong criminal record that prevents you from getting jobs, housing and more,” Bobby Byrd, an organizer with the More Treatment, A Better Oregon campaign, said in a press release.

Both the psilocybin therapy and drug decriminalization measures also received final explanatory statements and fiscal impact statements this week.

For the therapeutic psilocybin legalization initiative, the Financial Estimate Committee said that it projects the measure will have an impact of $5.4 million from the general fund during the two-year development period. After the program is established, it will cost $3.1 million annually, “which will be covered by the fees and tax funds for the administration and enforcement of the Act.”

The explanatory statement says the measure “directs the Oregon Health Authority to regulate the manufacture, delivery, purchase, and consumption of psilocybin, a psychoactive component found in certain mushrooms, at licensed psilocybin service centers” and that a “person would be allowed to purchase, possess, consume, and experience the effects of psilocybin only at a licensed psilocybin service center during a psilocybin administration session with a licensed psilocybin service facilitator.”

It also describes an initial two-year development period during which officials will research and make recommendations on “the safety and efficacy of using psilocybin to treat mental health conditions,” after which time the new law will allow “a client who is at least 21 years of age to purchase, possess, consume, and experience the effects of psilocybin at a licensed psilocybin service center during a psilocybin administration session with a licensed psilocybin service facilitator.”

Sam Chapman, campaign manager for the psilocybin initiative, told Marijuana Moment that the group is “satisfied with the explanatory statement and believe it captures the thoughtful approach we took that led to psilocybin therapy being on the ballot this November.”

“Specifically, we were happy to see the regulations and safeguards that are built into the measure highlighted in the explanatory statement,” he said. “We also believe that the fiscal committee saw and respected our approach to keep the psilocybin therapy program revenue neutral once up and running.”

The drug possession decriminalization measure is expected to cost $57 million annually, according to state officials, but it will be covered by marijuana tax revenue, which is “estimated at $61.1 million in 2019-21 and $182.4 million in 2021-23” and would therefore be “sufficient to meet this requirement.” Cannabis revenue to cities and counties would be reduced under the measure.

The reform would also save money through reduced drug enforcement. “These savings are estimated at $0.3 million in 2019-21 and $24.5 million in 2021-23,” the analysis says. “This will reduce revenue transferred from the Department of Corrections for local government community corrections by $0.3 million in 2019-21 and $24.5 million in 2021-23. The savings are expected to increase beyond the 2021-23 biennium.”

The initiative “mandates the establishment of at least one addiction recovery center in each existing coordinated care organization service area in the state,” the separate explanatory statement says, and describes how they would be funded with marijuana tax revenue.

“The measure eliminates criminal penalties for possession of specified quantities of controlled substances by adults and juveniles,” it says. “Instead, possession of these specified quantities of controlled substances becomes a non-criminal Class E violation for which the maximum punishment is a $100 fine or completion of a health assessment with an addiction treatment professional.”

Here’s a status update on other 2020 drug policy reform campaigns across the country: 

A measure to effectively decriminalize a wide range of psychedelics has officially qualified for the November ballot in Washington, D.C.

Montana activists said last month that county officials have already certified that they collected enough signatures to place two marijuana legalization measure on the state ballot, though the secretary of state’s office has yet to make that official.

In Arizona, the organizers of a legalization effort turned in 420,000 signatures to qualify for the ballot last month.

Organizers in Nebraska last month submitted 182,000 signatures in an attempt to put a medical marijuana measure on November’s ballot.

Idaho activists behind a medical marijuana legalization initiative were hoping to get a second wind after a federal judge said recently that the state must make accommodations for a separate ballot campaign due to signature gathering complications caused by the coronavirus pandemic. But following a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling against the other group, hopes are dashed.

Prior to the COVID-19 outbreak and stay-at-home mandates, separate measures to legalize marijuana for medical and recreational purposes qualified for South Dakota’s November ballot.

The New Jersey legislature approved putting a cannabis legalization referendum before voters as well.

And in Mississippi, activists gathered enough signatures to qualify a medical cannabis legalization initiative for the ballot—though lawmakers also approved a competing (and from advocates’ standpoint, less desirable) medical marijuana proposal that will appear alongside the campaign-backed initiative.

A campaign to legalize cannabis in Missouri officially gave up its effort for 2020 due to signature collection being virtually impossible in the face of social distancing measures.

North Dakota marijuana legalization activists are shifting focus and will seek qualification for the 2022 ballot.

Washington State activists had planned to pursue a drug decriminalization and treatment measure through the ballot, but citing concerns about the COVID-19 outbreak, they announced last month that they will be targeting the legislature instead.

Read the full state analysis of the Oregon drug decriminalization and psilocybin therapy measures below:

Oregon Drug Decrim And Psil… by Marijuana Moment on Scribd

Texas Lawsuit Challenges State’s New Ban On Smokable Hemp

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

Top White House Official Blasts Marijuana Banking Provisions In Democrats’ Coronavirus Bill

Published

on

Vice President Mike Pence’s top staffer on Thursday joined the chorus of Republicans criticizing House Democrats for including marijuana banking provisions to the chamber’s latest coronavirus relief bill.

Marc Short, who is Pence’s chief of staff and previously served as director of legislative affairs for the White House, discussed the COVID-19 legislation during an interview with Fox Business, and he described the Democratic proposal as a “liberal wish list” with “all sorts of things totally unrelated to coronavirus.”

“In one instance they have provided guarantees for banking access for marijuana growers,” Short said. “That has absolutely nothing to do with coronavirus.”

He’s referring to language that was inserted from the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act to protect financial institutions that service state-legal cannabis businesses from being penalized by federal regulators.

Numerous Republicans—including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)—have been critical of the provision, arguing that it is not germane to the issue at hand.

The majority leader took a shot at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) this week after she defended the inclusion of the banking language and called marijuana a “proven” therapy.

Democrats, for their part, have made the case that granting cannabis businesses with access to the banking system would mitigate the spread of the virus by allowing customers to use electronic payments rather than exchange cash. They also say it could provide an infusion of dollars into the financial system that’s especially needed amid the economic downturn caused by the pandemic.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) told Marijuana Moment in an interview this week that she agrees with her colleagues that the marijuana banking provision is relevant to COVID-19 bill.

“By continuing to disallow anyone associated with these industries that states have deemed legal is further perpetuating serious problems and uncertainty during a time when, frankly, we need as much certainty as we can get,” she said.

While the Senate did not include the banking language as part of their COVID-19 bill, there’s still House-passed standalone legislation that could be acted upon.

The SAFE Banking Act has been sitting in the Senate Banking Committee for months as lawmakers negotiate over the finer points of the proposal.

Last month, a bipartisan coalition of state treasurers sent a letter to congressional leaders, asking that they include marijuana banking protections in the next piece of coronavirus relief legislation.

In May, a bipartisan coalition of 34 state attorneys general similarly wrote to Congress to urge the passage of COVD-19 legislation containing cannabis banking provisions.

DEA Reveals Details Of Investigation Into California Marijuana Companies With Latest Court Filing

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

USDA Approves Hemp Plan For Maryland And One More Indian Tribe

Published

on

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved hemp regulatory plans for Maryland and the Lower Sioux Indian Community on Thursday.

With this latest development, the total number of approved plans across states, territories and tribes is 55.

USDA has been signing off on hemp proposals on a rolling basis over the past year. Last month, it accepted plans from Minnesota, Tennessee and Puerto Rico.

“USDA continues to receive and review hemp production plans from states and Indian tribes,” the agency said in a notice.

While the agency released an interim final rule for a domestic hemp production program last year, industry stakeholders and lawmakers have expressed concerns about certain policies it views as excessively restrictive.

USDA announced in February that it will temporarily lift two provisions that the industry viewed as problematic. Those policies primarily concern testing and disposal requirements. The department declined to revise the THC limit, however, arguing that it’s a statutory matter that can’t be dealt with administratively.

Last week, two senators representing Oregon sent a letter to the head of USDA, expressing concern that testing requirements that were temporarily lifted will be reinstated in the agency’s final rule. They made a series of requests for policy changes.

Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue has said on several occasions that the Drug Enforcement Administration influenced certain rules, adding that the narcotics agency wasn’t pleased with the overall legalization of hemp.

State agriculture departments and a hemp industry association also wrote to Congress and USDA this week, seeking an extension of the 2014 Farm Bill pilot program for hemp to give states more time to develop regulatory plans to submit to the agency.

Meanwhile, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is still in the process of developing regulations for CBD. It sent an update on its progress to Congress in March, explaining that the agency is actively exploring pathways to allow for the marketing of the cannabis compound as a dietary supplement and is developing enforcement discretion guidance.

An FDA public comment period was reopened indefinitely for individuals to submit feedback on CBD regulations.

Last month, the White House finalized a review of FDA CBD and cannabis research protocols, but it’s unclear when or if the document will be released to the public.

Also last month, FDA submitted a report to Congress on the state of the CBD marketplace, and the document outlines studies the agency has performed on the contents and quality of cannabis-derived products that it has tested over the past six years.

Amid the coronavirus pandemic, hemp industry associations pushed for farmers to be able to access to certain COVID-19 relief loans—a request that Congress granted in the most recent round of coronavirus legislation.

However, USDA has previously said that hemp farmers are specifically ineligible for its Coronavirus Food Assistance Program. While the department initially said it would not reevaluate the crop’s eligibility based on new evidence, it removed that language shortly after Marijuana Moment reported on the exclusion.

Two members of Congress representing New York also wrote a letter to Perdue in June, asking that the agency extend access to that program to hemp farmers.

Hemp farmers approved to produce the crop do stand to benefit from other federal loan programs, however. The department recently released guidelines for processing loans for the industry.

Senators Push USDA To Change Restrictive Hemp Regulations

Photo courtesy of Pixabay.

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

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!