DOCSLIB.ORG

Legislative Study Thank You, Mr. Chairman, Committee, I Am Jody

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Legislative Study Thank You, Mr. Chairman, Committee, I Am Jody Legislative Study Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee, I am Jody Vetter, chairperson of the ND for Freedom of Cannabis Act, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today. ND for Freedom of Cannabis Act is a constitutional amendment written by attorney David Thompson at the request of the ND Cannabis Caucus. The ND Cannabis Caucus is a coalition formed by three political action committees; The Committee for Compassionate Care, Real ND News, and ND Veterans for Safe Access to Cannabis. These pacs lobbied for medical cannabis reforms as well as cannabis decriminalization during the 2019 legislative session. While we did make some headway in both the medical program and lowering possession of small amounts of cannabis to an infraction, that simply is not enough. ND for freedom of Cannabis Act would give adults 21 years of age or older the personal freedom to consume, possess, grow, process or transport up to twelve cannabis plants, with six or fewer being mature. Cannabis accessories as well as cannabis-infused products would be permitted. This is for personal use only. Cannabis can be transferred among legal age adults without remuneration. Cannabis is not allowed to be openly consumed in public. From the late 1800's until the 1930's, cannabis was considered a benign, medically efficacious substance. Moving into the reefer madness era, cannabis was deemed such danger to society only prohibition could save it. That propaganda continued straight into the Controlled Substances Act. Since that time in addition to health impacts, the prohibition of cannabis has had significant impacts on criminal justice. The over prosecution of cannabis has had negative economic, health, and safety impacts. Ending prohibition will address these social justice issues. Eleven states, the District of Columbia, the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam have AaJre legalized cannabis for adult use, all but Vermont and D.C. permit commercial sale. Four states have constitutional protections for cannabis. It is time cannabis is taken out of the failed war on drugs. ND for Freedom of Cannabis Act calls on the legislature to prescribe the law to license and regulate commercial sales of cannabis in North Dakota. It would also be unlawful to sell cannabis or grow cannabis to be sold or sell cannabis infused products without obtaining the proper license required. Much of the impact of a regulated cannabis program is contingent on program implementation. The prohibition of cannabis has not curbed teen use. Eighty to ninety percent of American 18 year olds have consistently reported that cannabis is "very easy" or "fairly easy" to obtain since the 1970's. The positive effects of a regulated cannabis market outweigh potential negative impacts. DUI rates overall have declined in Colorado and Washington since legalization. The majority of individuals who use cannabis do not try other illicit substances. Cannabis should be viewed as a healing plant not a dangerous drug. Areas of legalization that may be a cause for concern can be mitigated with regulation and proper use of public education. I am happy to answer any questions. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Survey of Cannabis Consumption and Implications of an Experimental Policy Manipulation Among Young Adults
    Virginia Commonwealth University VCU Scholars Compass Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 2018 A SURVEY OF CANNABIS CONSUMPTION AND IMPLICATIONS OF AN EXPERIMENTAL POLICY MANIPULATION AMONG YOUNG ADULTS Alyssa K. Rudy Virginia Commonwealth University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/etd © The Author Downloaded from https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/etd/5297 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at VCU Scholars Compass. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of VCU Scholars Compass. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A SURVEY OF CANNABIS CONSUMPTION AND IMPLICATIONS OF AN EXPERIMENTAL POLICY MANIPULATION AMONG YOUNG ADULTS A thesis proposal submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science at Virginia Commonwealth University. by Alyssa Rudy B.S., University of Wisconsin - Whitewater, 2014 Director: Dr. Caroline Cobb Assistant Professor Department of Psychology Virginia Commonwealth University Richmond, Virginia January, 2018 ii Acknowledgement I would like to first acknowledge Dr. Caroline Cobb for your guidance and support on this project. Thank you for allowing me to explore my passions. I am thankful for your willingness to jump into an unfamiliar area of research with me, and thank you for constantly pushing me to be a better writer, researcher, and person. I would also like to acknowledge the other members of my thesis committee, Drs. Eric Benotsch and Andrew Barnes for their support and expertise on this project. I would also like to thank my family for always supporting my desire to pursue my educational and personal goals.
    [Show full text]
  • Energy and Climate Impacts of the Marijuana Industry
    Regulating Pot to Save the Polar Bear: Energy and Climate Impacts of the Marijuana Industry Gina S. Warren* I. Introduction .......................................................................... 386 II. The Trend Towards Marijuana Legalization ..................... 388 A. Global Trends in Legalization ........................................ 389 B. United States Trends in Legalization ............................ 391 i. State Trends to Legalize ............................................. 392 ii. The Federal Response to State Trends to Legalize ... 398 III. The Cultivation of Marijuana and Its Negative Impacts on Energy Usage, the Environment, and the Climate ...... 401 A. Indoor Marijuana Cultivation and Its Externalities ...... 402 B. Outdoor Marijuana Cultivation and Its Externalities .. 406 IV. Opportunities Presented by Legalization to Address Some Negative Externalities ............................................. 409 V. A New Licensing Framework to Limit Energy and Climate Impacts of Indoor Cultivation .............................. 412 A. The Externality That Ate the World ............................... 413 B. Incorporating Climate-Risk Analysis and Mandates into State Business Licensing Schemes ........................ 416 i. Colorado and Washington Licensing Schemes ............. 417 ii. Climate Risk Assessments and Energy Usage Restrictions: Some Benefits, Some Obstacles ........... 424 VI. Conclusion .......................................................................... 431 * Copyright held by author. Associate
    [Show full text]
  • The Forensic Identification of Marijuana: Suspicion, Moral Danger, and the Creation Of
    Title: The Forensic Identification of Marijuana: Suspicion, Moral Danger, and the Creation of Non-Psychoactive THC Author: Aaron Roussell* Running Head: “Marijuana Identification” Abstract: Federal and state laws present marijuana as a dangerous substance requiring coercive control and forbid private citizens from possessing, selling, or growing it. Possession cases brought under these laws depend on a forensic confirmation of taxonomic identity as Cannabis sativa to establish and successfully prosecute a case. Hemp Industries Association v. DEA (2003), a recent federal appeals court ruling, is at odds with this forensic process. American citizens may legally possess and even consume a similar substance — hemp and its derivatives — which can be made into such everyday objects as clothing, rope, and food products. Yet these two plants are both Cannabis sativa and differ only in physical structure and degree of natural tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Synthetic THC is also a medically prescribed substance, which introduces further confusion into the legal standing of cannabis. Finally, *Department of Criminology, Law & Society, University of California, Irvine. Address correspondence to Aaron Roussell, Department of Criminology, Law & Society, University of California, Irvine, Social Ecology II, Irvine, CA 92697; email: [email protected]. 949-943-9860 Thanks to Professors Simon Cole, Justin Richland, Michael Clegg, and Dr. Fred Whitehurst for their direct or indirect contributions and assistance, as well as Akhila Ananth, Vivek Mittal, and Trish Goforth for their help with paper drafts and the editorial staff of the Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology for their superb efforts to improve the final version. Mistakes and weaknesses herein are entirely in spite of their efforts and remain the sole dominion of the author.
    [Show full text]
  • Quinsam Capital Corporation 2018 ANNUAL REPORT
    Quinsam Capital Corporation 2018 ANNUAL REPORT QUINSAM CAPITAL CORPORATION Management’s Discussion and Analysis For the Year Ended December 31, 2018 April 29, 2019 QUINSAM CAPITAL CORPORATION Management’s Discussion and Analysis For the year ended December 31, 2018 The following Management’s Discussion and Analysis (“MD&A”) constitutes management’s assessment of the factors that affected the financial condition and results of operations of Quinsam Capital Corporation (“Quinsam”, the “Company” or “We”) for the year ended December 31, 2018 (“Fiscal 2018”). This MD&A was written to comply with the requirements of National Instrument 51-102 – Continuous Disclosure Obligations and should be read in conjunction with the Company’s financial statements and related notes for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017 (“Fiscal 2017”). Except as otherwise indicated (see “Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures” section in this MD&A), the Company’s financial statements and the financial information contained in this MD&A have been prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”) as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (“IASB”) and the interpretations of the IFRS Interpretations Committee (“IFRIC”). All figures in this MD&A are reported in Canadian dollars ($) unless otherwise stated. About Quinsam Capital Corporation Quinsam was incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act on March 18, 2004 in the Province of British Columbia. The Company is a merchant banking firm focused on the small-cap market with early-stage investments in the cannabis markets. The Company’s business may encompass a wide range of activities including acquisitions, advisory services, lending activities and portfolio investments.
    [Show full text]
  • Important Dates in Hemp History 10,000-Year History of Marijuana Use in the World
    Important dates in Hemp History 10,000-year History of Marijuana use in the World 8,000+ BCE Use of hemp cord in pottery identified at ancient village site dating back over 10,000 years, located in the area of modern day Taiwan. 6,000 BCE Cannabis seeds and oil used for food in China. 4,000 BCE Textiles made of hemp are usedina. in China and Turkestan. 2,737 BCE First recorded use of cannabis as medicine by Emperor Shen Neng of China. 1,500 BCE Cannabis cultivated in China for food and fiber. Scythians cultivate cannabis and use it to weave fine hemp cloth. 100 BCE First evidence of hemp paper, invented in China. 100 Imported hemp rope appears in England. 105 Legend suggests that Ts'ai Lun invents hemp paper in China, 200 years after its actual appearance (see 100 BCE above). 300 A young woman in Jerusalem receives medical marijuana during childbirth. 570 The French queen Arnegunde is buried with hemp cloth. 500-600 The Jewish Talmud mentions the euphoriant properties of Cannabis. 850 Vikings take hemp rope and seeds to Iceland. 900 Arabs learn techniques for making hemp paper. 1271-1295 Marco Polo brings cannabis to Europe. 1300 Ethiopian pipes containing marijuana suggest the herb has spread from Egypt to the rest of Africa. 1533 King Henry VIII fines farmers if they do not raise hemp for industrial use. 1549 Angolan slaves brought cannabis with them to the sugar plantations of northeastern Brazil. They were permitted to plant their cannabis between rows of cane, and to smoke it between harvests.
    [Show full text]
  • Emerging Issues with Marijuana Legalization
    Emerging Issues With Marijuana Legalization Faye Caldwell Email: [email protected] Disclaimer: no Legal advice or attorney-client relationship This presentation has been prepared by Caldwell Everson, PLLC for informational purposes only. The information presented does not constitute legal advice and is not to be acted on as such. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not establish an attorney-client relationship. By participating in this presentation you are not and do not become a client of Caldwell Everson PLLC. Any information contained herein is not intended as a substitute for legal counsel. You should not rely upon any information contained in this presentation without seeking legal advice from an attorney of your choice and who practices law in your state. © Caldwell Everson PLLC 2 As of November 29, 2018: 33 states + D.C. + 2 U.S. territories (Guam, PR) have passed Comprehensive “Medical marijuana” Laws Laws vary widely 13 other states have passed low THC/High CBD laws All passed since 2014 in mostly southern states after CNN documentary Some states with comprehensive medical marijuana laws also have CBD laws 10 states + D.C. + 1 U.S. territory (CNMI) have passed recreational marijuana laws All except US territory also had comprehensive medical marijuana laws 4 states prohibit marijuana for all purposes © Caldwell Everson PLLC (Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota) 3 State Medical Marijuana Laws 33 states + D.C. Alaska (1998) Maine (1999) New York (2014) Arizona (2010) Maryland (2014) North Dakota (2016) Arkansas (2016) Massachusetts (2012) Ohio (2016) California (1996) Michigan (2008) Oklahoma (2018) Colorado (2000) Minnesota (2014) Oregon (1998) Connecticut (2012) Missouri (2018) Pennsylvania (2016) Delaware (2011) Montana (2004) Rhode Island (2006) Florida (2016) Nevada (2000) Utah (2018) Hawaii (2000) New Hampshire (2013) Vermont (2004) Illinois (2013) New Jersey (2010) Washington (1998) Louisiana (2015) New Mexico (2007) West Virginia (2017) Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Green Rush: Cannabis Market Will Grow by 9 Times by 2030 Amid
    ? June 2019 Green Rush: Cannabis Market Will Grow by 9 Times by 2030 Amid Widening Legalization Contents Cannabis stocks have delivered impressive investor returns in 2019, with many of the publicly traded 2 Key Takeaways companies soundly outperforming the broader market. Optimism has preceded actual performance as 4 Cannabis Playbook: We See Multiple Ways to Play Trends the industry has yet to generate positive free cash flow. However, unlike other emergent industries that 12 The U.S. Will Be the Largest and Fastest- have enjoyed fleeting popularity with fickle investors, the cannabis industry should realize a steep Growing Cannabis Market in the World 38 National Legalization Has Unlocked demand growth trajectory that could appeal to investors with a long-term investment horizon. The five Massive Growth for Canada industry leaders we now cover are far from burning out, with some offering attractive upside potential 50 Global Medical Cannabis Market Will as early overhead investments are harvested over time. See Huge Demand Growth but Increasing Competition 60 Cannabis Primer: How It Grows and Is Prohibition has kept cannabis largely in the hands of criminal enterprises. However, legalization is Consumed Has Implications for the gaining momentum. In the United States, 11 states and Washington, D.C., have legalized recreational Industry's Future 72 Appendix: Company Models cannabis, and 35 states have legalized medical cannabis or products that are low in tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, and high in cannabidiol, or CBD. We expect federal legalization to take place in the U.S. by 2023. Canada legalized recreational cannabis in October 2018. Internationally, more Important Disclosure The conduct of Morningstar's analysts is governed and more countries have recognized the benefits of medical cannabis and are expanding access.
    [Show full text]
  • Cannabis State-By-State Regulations
    CANNABIS STATE-BY-STATE REGULATIONS By: Barry Weisz and Michael Rosenblum Updated August 2021 Michael Rosenblum is a former associate with Thompson Coburn. He now serves as Associate General Counsel at #1: CALIFORNIA Shryne Group, Inc. - a cannabis company. California has legalized both adult-use and medical marijuana, making it one of the most relaxed states in the nation with The Tracking Cannabis blog is proud to announce our latest state-by-state ranking of state cannabis regulations based regard to cannabis use. With the passage of the Compassionate Use Act (CUA) of 1996 (Proposition 215), California on how favorable they are to cannabis businesses. California leads the pack, but you might be surprised by which states became the first state to legalize medical marijuana use. It has since been followed by the Medical and Adult-Use Cannabis make the top — and bottom — of the list. Regulation and Safety Act, creating a uniform licensing regime for both medical and adult-use. California’s cannabis market recorded a record $4.4 billion in sales in 2020. Our guide provides a holistic review of the current cannabis laws in every state and the District of Columbia, from most favorable to cannabis businesses to most restrictive. In addition, you can find each state in alphabetical order below. Jurisdictions are ranked on the following factors: CUA allowed patients and their primary caregivers to obtain marijuana for medical use by the patient without subjecting either to criminal prosecution. The Act authorized medical use for patients with one of 11 specified conditions and also 1. Cannabidiol (CBD) derived from marijuana plants (THC concentration equal to or greater than 0.3 percent on a dry included a general purpose clause that authorized use for any condition that substantially limited a person’s ability to weight basis) – legality and required qualifications; conduct a major life activity as defined in the ADA.
    [Show full text]
  • "Hash"Ing out Inequality in the Legal Recreational Cannabis Industry Maya Rahwanji
    Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business Volume 39 Issue 3 Spring Spring 2019 "Hash"ing Out Inequality in the Legal Recreational Cannabis Industry Maya Rahwanji Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njilb Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Criminal Law Commons, Food and Drug Law Commons, and the Health Law and Policy Commons Recommended Citation Maya Rahwanji, "Hash"ing Out Inequality in the Legal Recreational Cannabis Industry, 39 Nw. J. Int'l L. & Bus. 333 (2019). https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njilb/vol39/iss3/4 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business by an authorized editor of Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Scholarly Commons. Copyright 2019 by Maya Rahwanji Vol. 39, No. 3 Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business “Hash”ing Out Inequality in the Legal Recreational Cannabis Industry Maya Rahwanji* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ........................................................................................... 334 II. Background and Growth of the Legal Recreational Marijuana Industry .......................................................................................... 337 A. Legal Status of Marijuana in the United States ...................... 337 B. Profitability of the Legal Recreational Marijuana Industry .... 339 III. Statutory Requirements to Start a Legal
    [Show full text]
  • 'New Cannabis' in Canada
    From ‘Indian Hemp’ to the ‘New Cannabis’ in Canada: the Racial Contract and Cannabis Criminalization and Licensing in a British Settler State by Amanda Vance A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in The Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (Political Science) The University of British Columbia (Vancouver) October 2018 © Amanda Vance, 2018 The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the dissertation entitled: From ‘Indian Hemp’ to the ‘New Cannabis’ in Canada: The Racial Contract and Cannabis Criminalization and Licensing in a British Settler State submitted by Amanda Vance in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Political Science Examining Committee: Bruce Baum Supervisor Paul Quirk Supervisory Committee Member Supervisory Committee Member University EXaminer University EXaminer Additional Supervisory Committee Members: Supervisory Committee Member Supervisory Committee Member ii Abstract As recreational cannabis drug legalization approaches in Canada with The Cannabis Act, the question of why marijuana cultivation, production, use and trade was criminalized in the first place looms large. Leading up to reform in Canada, observers in Canada and the United States argued racism was central to cannabis drug criminalization in North America. Using critical race theory including Charles Mills’ The Racial Contract, Edward Said’s Orientalism, and passages
    [Show full text]
  • Key Considerations for Marijuana Legalization 2020
    Commonwealth of Virginia November 16, 2020 Report to the Governor and the General Assembly of Virginia Key Considerations for Marijuana Legalization 2020 COMMISSION DRAFT JOINT LEGISLATIVE AUDIT AND REVIEW COMMISSION Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission Delegate Kenneth R. Plum, Chair Senator Janet D. Howell, Vice Chair Delegate Terry L. Austin Delegate Betsy B. Carr Delegate M. Kirkland Cox Delegate Eileen Filler-Corn Delegate Charniele L. Herring Senator Mamie E. Locke Senator Jeremy S. McPike Senator Thomas K. Norment, Jr. Delegate Robert D. Orrock, Sr. Delegate Mark D. Sickles Senator Lionell Spruill, Sr. Delegate Luke E. Torian Martha S. Mavredes, Auditor of Public Accounts JLARC staff Hal E. Greer, Director Justin Brown, Senior Associate Director Mark Gribbin, Project Leader Dan Hiller Kapria Lee Brittany Utz Information graphics: Nathan Skreslet Managing Editor: Jessica Sabbath JLARC Report 542 ©2020 Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission jlarc.virginia.gov Contents Summary i Recommendations and Policy Options vii Chapters 1. Overview of Marijuana Legalization 1 2. Marijuana Arrests and Convictions 7 3. Legalization and the Criminal Justice System 17 4. Required Statutory Changes to Legalize Marijuana 23 5. Commercial Market Operations and Licenses 37 6. Local Authority, Medical Market, and Other Commercial Considerations 59 7. Promoting Social Equity in Marijuana Business Ownership 73 8. Additional Options for Promoting Social Equity in a Commercial Market 89 9. Mitigating Negative Public Health Impacts from Legalizing
    [Show full text]
  • View / Open Daigle.Pdf
    SUZANNE K. DAIGLE* Legal Impediments to Banking Services for Recreational CannaBusinesses: Comparing Oregon to Canada Introduction ...................................................................................... 216 I. Legalization of Cannabis: Moving froM Medical to Recreational ........................................................................... 218 A. Historical Context .......................................................... 218 B. DecriMinalization in Oregon .......................................... 219 C. DecriMinalization in Canada .......................................... 222 II. Legal IMpediMents to Cannabusinesses: Why Is There No Bank of Pot? .................................................................... 224 A. Oregon ............................................................................ 225 1. Controlled Substances Act ....................................... 226 2. Federal Anti–Money Laundering Statutes ................ 227 a. Money Laundering Control Act ........................... 227 b. Bank Secrecy Act ................................................. 228 c. Patriot Act ............................................................. 230 3. Sessions’s Rescission Memorandum ........................ 231 4. Tax TreatMent .......................................................... 233 5. Oregon-Specific Regulatory Framework ................. 235 B. Canada ............................................................................ 237 1. Jurisdictional Responsibilities .................................
    [Show full text]