Connect with us

Politics

Virginia Conference Committee Faces Saturday Deadline To Finalize Marijuana Legalization Proposal

Published

on

Virginia lawmakers are working to reconcile conflicting House and Senate marijuana legalization bills this week, scrambling to reach deals on matters such as business licensing and criminal penalties ahead of a legislative deadline on Saturday.

Each chamber passed its own legalization bill earlier this month, building off a plan introduced in January by legislative leaders and Gov. Ralph Northam (D), who last year committed to legalizing cannabis in the commonwealth. While the two measures—each spanning more than 500 pages—are substantially similar, key differences remain on a range of hotly debated topics.

“This is one of the largest, most significant pieces of legislation debated in the commonwealth in decades, with years of preparation, study and research leading up to its proposal,” Jenn Michelle Pedini, development director for NORML and executive director of the group’s Virginia chapter, told Marijuana Moment. “Virginia is one of the single most prepared states to undertake a legalization effort.”

Both measures (HB 2312 / SB 1406) would allow adults 21 and older to purchase up to an ounce of marijuana and cultivate up to four cannabis plants (two mature) for personal use. Commercial production and retail sales would be regulated by the state, and tax from the legal industry would fund investment in pre-K education and public health initiatives. The two bills would each create a new agency to regulate cannabis instead of have the state’s existing alcohol authority do so as was originally envisioned by Northam.

But as the proposals have made their way through each chamber, amendments have led to competing approaches on the finer details of legalization.

Some disagreements are relatively simple. The Senate bill would legalize personal possession of marijuana later this year, for example, while the House proposal would keep penalties in place until as late as 2024 to align the change with the launch of legal sales.

Other differences are more complex, especially those around how businesses would be licensed and regulated. Vertical integration of businesses—under which a single company could grow, process and sell cannabis products—would be banned under the House bill. The Senate measure, meanwhile, would allow vertical integration only if a business were to pay $1 million fee into a state equity fund.

The decision on that rule would affect how easily the state’s existing medical marijuana businesses, which are vertically integrated, could participate in the new adult market.

While both bills would leave the total number of business licenses in the state up to local regulators, the House bill would limit individual license holders to no more than five licenses apiece in an effort to avoid the market being dominated by large marijuana businesses. The Senate bill would only limit the number of cultivation licenses any one individual could hold.


Marijuana Moment is already tracking more than 700 cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.

Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.

Social equity applicants would be given licensing priority under both versions of the legislation in an effort to recognize the drug war’s racial and economic disparities, but who qualifies for equity status isn’t settled. Lawmakers have debated whether people who attended the state’s historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) should be eligible, for example, or whether businesses could qualify simply by employing people impacted by the drug war or giving a portion of profits to equity groups.

The two chambers also differ on the issue of local control. The Senate measure would allow individual cities to ban cannabis companies within its borders, while the House bill would allow businesses statewide, although facilities would still be subject to local zoning requirements.

Further controversy surrounds how violations of the new law would be penalized. The Senate proposal creates a number of new criminal penalties, such as making it a misdemeanor—rather than the state’s current $25 fine—for consuming cannabis in public. It would also criminalize consuming cannabis in a moving vehicle, even in the case of a passenger eating a cannabis edible. Driving under the influence of marijuana would remain a crime under both bills.

The House bill also makes clear that adults 21 and older are free to share small amounts of cannabis between them so long as the marijuana isn’t exchanged as part of a larger transaction, as in the case of quasi-legal delivery services that have tried to skirt gifting laws in other states.

Penalties for minors caught with cannabis are more restrained under the House bill, with youth subject to a $25 civil fine and referral to a substance education or treatment program. The Senate bill, meanwhile, would impose a $250 fee for a first offense and criminal charges and even jail time for subsequent convictions.

Expungement of prior convictions could occur under both bills, although the House bill specifies that a larger portion of eligible expungements would happen automatically. Separate legislation advancing this session (HB 2113 / SB 1339) would make changes to the state’s expungement processes more broadly.

Pedini, at NORML, called the House bill “much better when it comes to post-legalization penalties,” noting that the reform group has encouraged the members of the conference committee to avoid rolling back progress recently made with the decriminalization law Northam signed last year, which replaced criminal penalties for possession of up to an ounce of marijuana with a $25 civil fine and no threat of jail time.

Advocates have noted that even as overall marijuana arrests have fallen since the decriminalization law took effect, data from the state Office of the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court show persistent racial disparities in possession charges. Black Virginians accounted for 52 percent of all such charges, the group Marijuana Justice found, despite just 20 percent of the state’s population being Black.

“NORML has long warned that decriminalization, while an important step to reducing marijuana-related arrests, will only do so by about 50 percent, and will unfortunately not address the disparate enforcement of marijuana laws,” Pedini said. “The legislature must act swiftly to stop the harm by legalizing the responsible use of cannabis by adults and begin undoing the harms of prohibition inflicted overwhelmingly on poor, young, Black, and Brown Virginians.”

Virginia NORML has been tracking several other cannabis-related bills this session, a few of which have already made it to the governor’s desk. Most notably, lawmakers on Tuesday signed off on legislation to allow the production and sale of raw, so-called botanical cannabis to medical marijuana patients. Another measure, which passed the House earlier this month and is set to be considered by the Senate on Wednesday, would prevent workers from discharging, disciplining or discriminating against an employee for being a lawful medical marijuana patient. That bill would not restrict an employer’s ability to fire someone for being high on the job.

Pedini urged lawmakers considering the legalization bills to adopt clearer language on how to incorporate the state’s existing medical marijuana businesses into the state’s new market to ensure that both systems flourish.

“The committee has everything they need to reach a resolution in advance of the Saturday deadline,” they said. “If they don’t reach an agreement or fail to pass the bills, it’s purely for political reasons, and reasons that blatantly ignore public opinion.”

Some lawmakers, however, have already floated the idea of delaying certain portions of the legislation. The Senate version of the bill contains a clause that would force the legislature to vote again next year before the legal market could move forward, and it would ask voters to weigh in through a nonbinding referendum on next year’s ballot.

“We’re part-time legislators. It’s 46 days and a 13,000-line bill. This bill makes more substantive change in the law than anything I’ve seen in the whole time I’ve been down here,” Sen. Creigh Deeds (D), told the Richmond Times-Dispatch in an interview earlier this month. “We want to get it right. We need to have it back before us next year.”

The focus on legalizing the “right” way has become a common refrain among Virginia officials. Announcing his commitment to enacting policy change, Northam said late last year he was “committed to doing it the right way.”

Asked by the Times-Dispatch about the House and Senate bills, a spokesperson for Northam replied: “Both bills would legalize marijuana in the right way.”

Democratic lawmakers began formally pushing for legalization last summer, a day after the new state marijuana decriminalization law took effect. In November, a legislative working group issued recommendations to lawmakers and the governor about how best implement a legal cannabis program, and a separate workgroup of state cabinet officials also prepared a study on the issue, which together became the basis for Northam’s proposal.

“Legislative leaders in Virginia deserve a big round of applause for their commitment to ending cannabis prohibition and replacing it with sensible regulation,” said Matt Simon, senior legislative analyst for Marijuana Policy Project, which is also tracking the differences in the two bills. “There are still a few details that still need to be resolved in the legislation, but overall we are happy with the direction things appear to be going and hopeful that legislators will agree on a policy that works for all Virginians.”

Even if state lawmakers pass a reconciled legalization bill in coming days, there would still be a long way to go before legal sales begin. Under both bills, Virginia’s first legal adult-use sale wouldn’t occur until 2024.

“While this protracted timeline is both unnecessary and far from ideal, what’s most important is that the measure succeed. In the next legislative session, we can make improvements,” Pedini said. “What we cannot do is continue to kick the legalization can down the road for yet another year.”

New Jersey Attorney General Orders Marijuana Cases To Be Dropped Following Legalization Bill Signing

Photo courtesy of Chris Wallis // Side Pocket Images

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

Ben Adlin is a Seattle-based writer and editor. He has covered cannabis as a journalist since 2011, most recently as a senior news editor for Leafly.

Politics

Pennsylvania Senators Will Consider DUI Protections For Medical Marijuana Patients At Hearing

Published

on

A Pennsylvania Senate committee is set to take up a bill next week that would protect medical marijuana patients from being prosecuted under the state’s “zero tolerance” DUI laws.

The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Camera Bartolotta (R), would amend state statute to require proof of active impairment before a registered patient can be prosecuted for driving under the influence. The current lack of specific protections for the state’s roughly 368,000 patients puts them in legal jeopardy when on the road, supporters say.

Members of the Senate Transportation Committee will explore the issue at a hearing on Tuesday.

Bartolotta first introduced an earlier version of the bill in June 2020. She said at the time that the state needs to “ensure that the legal use of this medicine does not give rise to a criminal conviction.”

Months after the standalone reform legislation was introduced, the Pennsylvania House approved a separate amendment that would enact the policy change.

Pennsylvania legalized medical marijuana in 2016, with the first dispensaries in the state opening in 2018. But the state’s zero-tolerance DUI law still doesn’t reflect those changes. Because it criminalizes the presence of any THC or its metabolites in a driver’s blood—which can be detected for weeks after a person’s last use—the law puts virtually all medical marijuana patients at risk, even if it’s been days since their last use and they show no signs of impairment.

Bartolotta’s bill would require officers to prove a registered patient was actually impaired on the road.


Marijuana Moment is already tracking more than 1,200 cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.

Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.

“Unimpaired patients currently face the risk of being arrested, prosecuted and convicted for using medicinal marijuana that has no bearing on their ability to drive a vehicle,” the senator wrote in a cosponsorship memo late last year. “Given the very serious consequences of a DUI conviction, my legislation will provide critical protections for medicinal cannabis patients by ensuring responsible use of their legal medicine does not give rise to a criminal conviction.”

Several legal cannabis states have enacted per se THC limits in blood, similar to blood alcohol requirements. However, evidence isn’t clear on the relationship between THC concentrations in blood and impairment.

A study published in 2019, for example, concluded that those who drive at the legal THC limit—which is typically between two to five nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood—were not statistically more likely to be involved in an accident compared to people who haven’t used marijuana.

Separately, the Congressional Research Service in 2019 determined that while “marijuana consumption can affect a person’s response times and motor performance… studies of the impact of marijuana consumption on a driver’s risk of being involved in a crash have produced conflicting results, with some studies finding little or no increased risk of a crash from marijuana usage.”

Outside of this bill, Pennsylvania lawmakers have continued to pursue adult-use legalization in the state. Earlier this year, two legislators circulated a memo to build support for a comprehensive reform bill they plan to introduce, for example.

A bipartisan Senate duo is also in the process of crafting legislation to legalize cannabis across the commonwealth. They announced some details of the proposal earlier this year, but the bill has yet to be formally introduced.

Outside the legislature, Gov. Tom Wolf (D) said earlier this year that marijuana legalization was a priority as he negotiated the annual budget with lawmakers. However, his formal spending request didn’t contain legislative language to actually accomplish the cannabis policy change.

Wolf, who signed a medical cannabis expansion bill in June, has repeatedly called for legalization and pressured the Republican-controlled legislature to pursue the reform since coming out in favor of the policy in 2019. Shortly after he did that, a lawmaker filed a separate bill to legalize marijuana through a state-run model.

Lt. Gov. John Fetterman (D), who is running for U.S. Senate, previously led a listening tour across the state to solicit public input on legalization. He’s credited that effort with helping to move the governor toward embracing comprehensive reform. The lieutenant governor even festooned his Capitol office with marijuana-themed decor in contravention of a state law passed by the GOP-led legislature.

Fetterman has also been actively involved in encouraging the governor to exercise his clemency power for cannabis cases while the legislature moves to advance reform.

In May, Wolf pardoned a doctor who was arrested, prosecuted and jailed for growing marijuana that he used to provide relief for his dying wife. That marks his 96th pardon for people with cannabis convictions through the Expedited Review Program for Non-Violent Marijuana-Related Offenses that’s being run by the Board of Pardons.

Overall, legalization is popular among Pennsylvania voters, with 58 percent of residents saying they favor ending cannabis prohibition in a survey released in April.

Another poll released in May found that a majority of voters in the state also support decriminalizing all currently illicit drugs.

80 Top Law Enforcement Officials, Including A Biden Nominee, Urge SCOTUS To Hear Safe Injection Drug Case

Photo courtesy of Mike Latimer.

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

80 Top Law Enforcement Officials, Including A Biden Nominee, Urge SCOTUS To Hear Safe Injection Drug Case

Published

on

A coalition of 80 current and former prosecutors and law enforcement officials—including one who is President Joe Biden’s pick for U.S. attorney of Massachusetts—have filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to take up a case on the legality of establishing a safe injection facility where people can use illicit drugs in a medically supervised environment.

The nonprofit organization Safehouse was set to launch a safe consumption site in Philadelphia before being blocked by a legal challenge from the Trump administration, and it filed a petition with the nation’s highest court last month to hear the case. Now the group of law enforcement officials associated with Fair and Just Prosecution are calling on the Supreme Court to act in an amicus brief.

“Amici have an interest in this litigation because overdose prevention sites (OPSs) are among the harm reduction and public health interventions that have proven effective in preventing fatal overdoses and diverting people from unnecessary and counterproductive interactions with the justice system,” they wrote. “Amici, many of whom are currently or were previously responsible for enforcing the nation’s drug laws, also believe that the Controlled Substances Act cannot be construed to prohibit operation of a facility designed to address the most acute aspects of this public health emergency.”

If the court agrees to hear the dispute, advocates will be looking toward the Biden Justice Department and whether it will continue the federal government’s opposition to allowing supervised injection facilities. It would be a precedent-setting case that could steer policy for years to come, meaning Safehouse is taking a significant risk by pursuing the appeal of its loss in a lower court before the majority of conservative justices.

“Failing to address the loss of life resulting from drug overdoses—and criminalizing a community-based public health organization working to save lives—will further erode trust in the justice system,” the new brief states. “If there were ever a time to demonstrate that our government values the dignity of human life, that time is now.”

While President Joe Biden hasn’t weighed in directly on safe consumption sites, there’s been a theme within his administration of embracing the general concept of harm reduction for drugs. The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), for example, said that “promoting harm-reduction efforts” is a first-year priority. In an overview of its objectives, the office said it intends to expand “access to evidence-based treatment,” enhance “evidence-based harm reduction efforts” and promote “access to recovery support services.”

These goals theoretically align with those of Safehouse, which wants to give people with substance use disorders a facility where medical professionals can intervene in the event of an overdose and provide people with the resources to seek recovery.

Among the signatories on the amicus brief are a former deputy assistant attorney general under Obama, district attorneys of Baltimore, Cook County, Dallas County, Los Angeles County, Manhattan, Philadelphia, San Francisco County and Seattle and the former attorneys general of Ohio, Vermont and Virginia.

But one signatory who especially stands out is Rachael Rollins, the district attorney of Suffolk County, Massachusetts who is Biden’s nominee for U.S. attorney of Massachusetts.

“As an elected prosecutor, I have a responsibility to protect every member of my community, which requires moving away from criminal justice responses to substance use disorder,” Rollins said in a press release. “Instead, we must embrace proven public health strategies as potential solutions. Lives depend on it.”

Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner said the drug war “has taken too many lives already, and criminalization has only exacerbated this devastating toll.” He added: “We need a new way forward that allows communities to address the overdose crisis with harm reduction approaches proven to save lives and improve community safety.”

Fair and Justice Prosecution, the group that coordinated the amicus brief, also organized a tour of Portugal for 20 top prosecutors in 2019 so they could learn about the successful implementation of the country’s drug decriminalization law.

Safehouse won a battle in a federal district court in 2019 to proceed with the facilities. But in January, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit overturned the decision, ruling that permitting such facilities would violate a 1980s-era federal statute that bars organizations from running operations “for the purpose of unlawfully… using controlled substances.” That law was passed while Biden served in the Senate and helped push punitive drug policies that have had lasting consequences.

“As current and former criminal justice leaders, amici have seen first-hand how the classic ‘war on drugs’ approach to drug control—with its almost exclusive focus on aggressive criminal law enforcement—has exacerbated the overdose epidemic,” the pro-reform prosecutors and cops wrote in the new brief. “This experience confirms that no jurisdiction can arrest its way out of this public health problem. Fatal overdoses are a symptom of substance use disorder, a medical condition requiring a medical response.”

“Distorting federal drug laws to prohibit an [overdose prevention site] or to prosecute its sponsors would further undermine trust in the justice system and faith in the fair and sensible application of our drug laws. Interpreting federal criminal law to bar empirically validated harm reduction measures would make no one safer; it would only impede cooperation between law enforcement and the communities they serve.”

In its original petition to the Supreme Court in the current safe injection site case, Safehouse argued that the justices should “grant review to determine whether” federal statute really does prohibit “non-commercial, non-profit social service agencies…from establishing an overdose-prevention site that includes medically supervised consumption.”

“This question is a matter of life or death for thousands of Philadelphians and many thousands more throughout the country,” it said. “Tragically, while respondents have been pursuing this declaratory judgment against Safehouse, more than 3,200 people died in Philadelphia of drug overdoses—many of which could have been prevented if medical care had been immediately available through supervised consumption services.”

Safehouse also pointed out that Xavier Bacerra, the Biden administration’s secretary of health and human services, was among eight top state law enforcement officials who filed an earlier amicus brief in support of the organization’s safe injection site plan when he served as California’s attorney general.

The organization put the gravity of the case in no uncertain terms, painting a picture of how its proposed facility can save lives.

“When breathing stops, even a brief delay while waiting for medical help to arrive may result in an otherwise preventable overdose death or irreversible injury,” the petition says. “As a result, every second counts when responding to an opioid overdose; as more time elapses, the greater the risk of serious injury and death. Ensuring proximity to medical care and opioid reversal agents like the drug Naloxone at the time of consumption is therefore a critical component of efforts to prevent fatal opioid overdose.”

“Intervention by this Court is warranted to make clear that the federal law does not criminalize this essential public health and medical intervention designed to save lives from preventable overdose death,” it continues.

Safehouse argued that the appeals court’s interpretation of the law “eviscerates the intended boundaries of the statute and would criminalize the operation of legitimate businesses, charities, families, and good Samaritans that serve and reside with those suffering from addiction.”

If the Supreme Court were to take up the case and rule in favor of Safehouse, it could embolden advocates and lawmakers across the country to pursue the harm reduction policy.

The governor of Rhode Island signed a bill in July to establish a safe consumption site pilot program where people could test and use currently illicit drugs in a medically supervised environment. It became the first state in the country to legalize the harm reduction centers. It’s not clear whether the Department of Justice will seek to intervene to prevent the opening of such facilities in that state.

Massachusetts lawmakers advanced similar legislation last year, but it was not ultimately enacted.

A similar harm reduction bill in California, sponsored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D), was approved in the state Senate in April, but further action has been delayed until 2022.

At the same time that Safehouse is turning to the Supreme Court, it also announced recently that it will be returning the the federal district court that gave it an initial 2019 victory in support of establishing a safe injection facility before it was overturned in the appeals court.

The organization is making the unique argument that the federal government’s decision to block it from providing the service violates religious freedom by subjecting participants “to criminal penalties for exercising their sincerely held religious beliefs that they have an obligation to do everything possible to preserve life and to provide shelter and care to the vulnerable, including those suffering from addiction.”

In 2018, a congressional subcommittee approved legislation to specifically prohibit Washington D.C. from using local tax dollars to help open safe consumption facilities. But that provision was not enacted and has not been reintroduced since.

A 2020 study found that people “who reported using supervised injection facilities on an at least weekly basis had a reduced risk of dying compared to those who reported less than weekly or no use of this health service.”

Read the amicus brief from the prosecutors on the Safehouse safe injection site case below: 

Safehouse Amicus Sept 2021 by Marijuana Moment

Former GOP Congressman Who Actually Supported Marijuana Reform Enters The Cannabis Industry

Photo courtesy of Jernej Furman.

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

Former GOP Congressman Who Actually Supported Marijuana Reform Enters The Cannabis Industry

Published

on

Lately it’s come to seem as if most of the former politicians who’ve entered the marijuana industry were unhelpful or downright hostile to legalization when they were in office. But on Friday, a cannabis company announced an addition to its board who disrupts that narrative: a former Republican congressman who has a consistent legislative record of cosponsoring and voting for marijuana reform measures.

The multi-state cannabis businesses Red White & Bloom Brands Inc. (RWB) is bringing on former Rep. Ryan Costello (R-PA) to help it navigate the complicated regulatory space, drawing on his experience in Congress as the company works to expand.

Costello certainly isn’t the only Republican lawmaker who’s made the transition from Capitol Hill to the cannabis market. But he is a rare example of a politician who actually embraced enacting marijuana policy changes while he was in power before standing to profit from the industry. The congressman cosponsored a variety of bills—including ones to shield states that legalize cannabis from federal interference—and supported several reform amendments.

“I’m looking forward to utilizing my 15+ years of service in government, the legal profession, and my familiarity with cannabis policy to be a strategic resource for RWB as it positions itself as a true market leading house of brands in the permitted U.S. marketplace,” Costello said in a press release.

This breaks with a trend that has increasingly frustrated advocates, where it seems the people most inclined to benefit from legalization are those who stood in the way in Congress. The best-known example of that is former GOP House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), who’s faced criticism from activists over his anti-legalization record while in office before joining the board of marijuana company Acreage Holdings.

While Costello left Congress in 2019 prior to the historic House vote on a standalone bill to federally deschedule cannabis, there are plenty of examples of him supporting more modest reform proposals during his congressional tenure.

He was a cosponsor of legislation to protect state marijuana markets from federal intervention, promote cannabis research, support military veterans’ access to medical marijuana, protect banks that service state-legal cannabis businesses and legalize industrial hemp.

The congressman also voted in favor of floor amendments to shield all state marijuana programs from Justice Department intervention, allow Department of Veterans Affairs doctors to recommend medical cannabis and end hemp prohibition.

In that respect, he was a rare GOP lawmaker. While the issue is increasingly bipartisan among the public, that hasn’t been reflected in Congress. And now Costello is in a position to leverage his legislative experience to advance a marijuana business’s interests.

It’s an exception to the trend.

For example, Tom Price, the former U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) head under President Donald Trump, is serving as a member of the board of directors for a medical marijuana business in Georgia after he refused to take action to reclassify cannabis under federal law when he had the power to do so. Price consistently voted against marijuana reform measures while serving in Congress.

Former Rep. Steve Buyer (R-IN), who also has a long track record of opposing marijuana legalization efforts, joined a Canadian cannabis company’s board in 2019.

Earlier this month, a New York-based lobbying firm that’s headed by a former Republican U.S. senator announced that it is launching a practice focused on serving cannabis businesses. That former senator, Alfonse D’Amato, racked up a record of supporting the war on drugs while in office.

There is at least one other former GOP congressman who entered the cannabis space with a legislative record supporting marijuana reform. Former Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), who championed cannabis reform while in Congress, became an advisory board member for a marijuana company after being voted out of office in 2018.

Separately, President Joe Biden’s pick to head up federal drug policy worked for a major marijuana business last year, according to his financial disclosure reports.

California Activists Cleared To Collect Signatures For Psilocybin Legalization Ballot Initiative

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
Advertisement

Marijuana News In Your Inbox

Support Marijuana Moment

Marijuana News In Your Inbox

Marijuana Moment