DOCSLIB.ORG

Your Guide to Understanding Cannabis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Your Guide to Understanding Cannabis Your Guide to Understanding Cannabis DX CONSULTING PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL Disclaimer: Please note that this presentation is for informational purposes only. Any comments or statements made herein do not necessarily reflect the views of DX Consulting or any sources cited. The information is intended for the recipient's use only and should not be cited, reproduced or distributed to any third party without the prior consent of the authors. Although great care is taken to ensure accuracy of information neither the author, nor DX Consulting can be held responsible for any decision made on the basis of the information cited. DX CONSULTING PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL Deirdra O’Gorman has 25 years of experience as a senior financial services executive. She has held numerous leadership positions, including CEO of a de novo financial institution and Market President for a nationally chartered bank, with $17 billion in assets. With her extensive banking experience, Ms. O'Gorman founded a successful consulting firm, DX Consulting, in 2014. Since 2015, along with her consulting practice, Ms. O’Gorman has served as the CEO of The Fourth Corner Credit Union (4CCU). 4CCU is first credit union chartered in over 10 years in the state of Colorado. Most recently, Deirdra and her business partners founded Empyreal Logistics, a logistics company that provides transit, cash processing and onsite audit solutions for financial institutions and businesses. In 2016, Deirdra was named one of 20 “People to Watch” in the cannabis financial services industry and has been featured in articles by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, CNN and more. She is considered one of the foremost experts on banking and compliance for highly regulated industries. Through her work, she has become a nationally known speaker and can be found working with financial institutions, regulators, government agencies, entrepreneurs, and attorneys who are looking to gain a better understanding of emerging markets. DX CONSULTING PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL The Plant Overview Photo credit: Chicago Tribune DX CONSULTING PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL The Plant Overview – Types of Cannabis DX CONSULTING PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL The Plant Overview – Cannabinoids What are Cannabinoids? Cannabinoids are chemical compounds that act on cannabinoid receptors in the body. https://potent.media/understanding-cannabinoids DX CONSULTING PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL The Plant Overview – Plant Phases Mother Clone Vegetative Flower Harvest Dry Trim Cure Package Photo credits: Leaafly DX CONSULTING PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL The Plant Overview – Types of Products Photo credits: Leafly DX CONSULTING PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL Regulatory Overview Graphic by: http://advisoranalyst.advisoranalystgr.netdna- cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/bank-regulation.jpg DX CONSULTING PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL Regulatory Overview – History Brief History: Cannabis was widely used as a medicine in the United States until the states and the federal government ended that practice with state-level bans and the Federal Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. DX CONSULTING PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL Regulatory Overview – Controlled Substances Act (CSA) In 1970, Cannabis was rendered federally illegal under the Controlled Substances Act and categorized as a Schedule I Drug. Since then the CSA has been amended numerous times: 1. 1976 Medical Device Regulation Act 2. 1978 Psychotropic Substances Act 3. 1984 Controlled Substances Penalties Amendments Act 4. 1986 Federal Analog Act 5. 1988 Chemical Diversion and Trafficking Act 6. 1990 Anabolic Steroids Act 7. 1993 Domestic Chemical Diversion and Control Act (methamphetamine trafficking) 8. 2008 Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act 9. 2010 Electronic Prescriptions for Controlled Substances Act 10. 2010 Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act (in response to the US opioid epidemic) 11. 2017 Protecting Patient Access to Emergency Medications Act 12. 2018 Farm Bill, which descheduled Hemp, but not Marijuana Source: Drug Enforcement Administration DX CONSULTING PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL Regulatory Overview – The Cannabis Experiment What started the recent cannabis revolution? Graphic by: http://www.rebrandingcannabis.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/state-flag-colorado-1.jpg 2012 - Colorado and Washington made history by legalizing recreational cannabis in their states. These states started the first FOR PROFIT model for cannabis distribution. - Coloradans passed Amendment 64 amending the state constitution by legalizing (medical and recreational/adult use) cannabis and mandating regulatory oversight in the state. In Washington, with the passage of Initiative 502, the state was tasked with creating a regulatory structure and oversight for the program. These states, as with most that have followed in their footsteps, require both state and local licensing for all stores, cultivations, infused manufacturers, and testing facilities. Information Provided by the Colorado Marijuana Enforcement Division (“MED”) DX CONSULTING PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL Regulatory Overview – S2S, Closed Loop System Seed-to-Sale (S2S, A Closed-Loop System) - no plant can be added or subtracted from the system without documentation and oversight. DX CONSULTING PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL Regulatory Overview – S2S, Closed Loop System BioTracTHC has deployed in the State of Massachusetts to provide bar tracking. Other S2S tracking solutions include bar codes, NFC, QR codes, and more. DX CONSULTING PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL Regulatory Overview – Tracking Tagged Seedlings In Propagation Room. Tags enable inspectors to quickly count plants in a room using a scanner. The scanned tabulation is expected to match the S2S system plant count. Plant tags inserted in growing medium Scanning a cultivation operation with a retail and medical scanners DX CONSULTING PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL Regulatory Overview – Typical Cultivation DX CONSULTING PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL Regulatory Overview – Typical Dispensary DX CONSULTING PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL Regulatory Overview – Typical Manufacturing Facility (MIP, Processor) Extraction Kitchen DX CONSULTING PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL Regulatory Overview – Typical Extraction Methods Extraction methods remove undesirable compounds, preserving the active terpenes and cannabinoids of the original plant. Solvent-Based Solventless • Alcohol • Water • CO2 • Heat • Butane (PHO) • Pressure • Propane (BHO) DX CONSULTING PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL Regulatory Overview – Typical Testing Facility (Safety Compliance) THC Potency Cannabinoid Potency Microbials Chemical Residue - Pesticides - Fungicides - Insecticides Residual Solvent Levels Mycotoxin Moisture Content DX CONSULTING PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL Guidance Pic by: http://media.bizj.us/view/img/1668591/7abankingmarijuana*304.jpg DX CONSULTING PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL Guidance – Department of Justice Pic and article by: http://www.weednews.co/jeff-sessions-provides-written-responses-to-marijuana-questions-from-senators William Barr, Pic by US DOJ In January 2018, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded the DOJ Cole Memorandum. Published on August 29, 2013, the memo provided guidance to federal prosecutors outlining marijuana enforcement as low priority in light of state laws legalizing marijuana. Session’s update left the discretion of marijuana prosecution priority to the AG’s in those states. In January of 2019, Attorney General William Barr testified before Congress that he does not plan to “go after” [marijuana] companies complying with state law. However, Barr is on record that he does not support changing the Controlled Substances Act. In April of 2019, Barr further clarified in a hearing before Congress, “Personally, I would still favor one uniform federal rule against marijuana.” “But if there’s not sufficient consensus to obtain that, then I think the way to go is to permit a more federal approach so states can make their own decisions within the framework of a federal law so we’re not just ignoring the enforcement of federal law.” Later, Barr said he would prefer that approach “than where we are now,” which he characterized as an “intolerable” situation because of the conflict between federal and state marijuana laws. https://www.forbes.com/sites/julieweed/2019/02/15/optimism-mixes-with-distrust-cannabis-industry-reacts-to-trumps-new-attorney-general/#269583442496 https://mjbizdaily.com/attorney-general-william-barr-federal-law-protecting-state-legal-marijuana-trumps-current-situation DX CONSULTING PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL Guidance – The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) August 2019 - the DEA plans to unveil a proposed regulation to govern applications to grow cannabis for scientific and medical research. For half a century, only one grow was legally approved for such purposes — a University of Mississippi facility contracted by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). This change could pave the way for the robust clinical trials cannabis experts believe could lead to the downgrade of Marijuana on the Controlled Substances Act. Critics say this is just another stall tactic by the DEA, who has not been friendly to legalization efforts. https://thinkprogress.org/dea-concedes-that-marijuana-research-monopoly-must-end-opening-door-to-sweeping-change-2d60015acd1d/ GETTY IMAGES DX CONSULTING PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL Guidance – Department of Justice In reaction to Session’s actions, AG’s and Legislators responded in support of state legal marijuana
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Supplemental Material for Cannabis Conditional Use Permit Applications
    SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL FOR CANNABIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS The following information is required to be submitted, as noted, as part of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application for a cannabis project. Type of Cannabis CUP This application can be used to apply for one or more types of cannabis permits. Please mark which cannabis business(es) the application is for and the square footage in the building for the use(s). Production: ____ Cannabis cultivation: _________________________________ square feet ____ Cannabis distribution: _________________________________ square feet ____ Cannabis manufacturing: _______________________________ square feet Dispensary: ____ Cannabis dispensary, storefront: ________________________ square feet ____ Cannabis dispensary, delivery-only: _______________________ square feet Total building square footage: _________________________________ square feet If this application is to modify a previously approved CUP (aka - conditional use permit major or minor modification) please list previously approved file number(s) here and explain modification details in the Project Narrative on page 10 of the Planning Entitlement Application: Previous File Number(s): ________________________________________________________________ Neighborhood Context Map An accurate, straight-line drawing depicting the boundaries of the subject property, the boundaries of all other properties within 600 feet of the subject property, and the uses of those properties is required at time of CUP application submittal. If the completed map shows that the cannabis project site is within 600 feet of a public or private K-12 school, the application cannot be accepted. If the completed map shows that the site is within 600 feet of a neighborhood park or a community park (if dispensary application, all park types) as defined by the City of Sacramento Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the site does not qualify for Zoning Administrator review and must be reviewed by the Planning and Design Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • DEVELOPING LOCAL CANNABIS POLICY in MASSACHUSETTS a Primer for Elected Leaders and Staff Across the Commonwealth
    DEVELOPING LOCAL CANNABIS POLICY IN MASSACHUSETTS A Primer for Elected Leaders and Staff Across the Commonwealth JUNE 2018 Contents Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 2 About Weedmaps .............................................................................................................................. 3 Section 1. A History of Cannabis Legalization in the United States ..................................................... 4 Section 2. A History of Cannabis Legalization in Massachusetts ......................................................... 7 Section 3. Massachusetts’ Adult-Use Cannabis Policy Timeline: Key Dates and Deadlines ................. 8 Section 4. Overview of State-Level Cannabis Policy ........................................................................... 9 Section 5. Massachusetts State Agencies Working on Cannabis Policy ........................................... 12 Section 6. Economic Impact & Tax Revenue ..................................................................................... 14 Section 7. Massachusetts License Types, Economic Impact, and Tax Revenue ................................. 16 Section 8: Authority of Local Governments ...................................................................................... 20 Local Cannabis Policy Checklist ...................................................................................................... 22 Section 9: Local Government Considerations
    [Show full text]
  • Legalizing Marijuana: California's Pot of Gold?
    University of the Pacific Scholarly Commons McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles McGeorge School of Law Faculty Scholarship 2009 Legalizing Marijuana: California’s Pot of Gold? Michael Vitiello Pacific cGeM orge School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/facultyarticles Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael Vitiello, Legalizing Marijuana: California’s Pot of Gold?, 2009 Wis. L. Rev. 1349. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the McGeorge School of Law Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ESSAY LEGALIZING MARUUANA: CALIFORNIA'S POT OF GOLD? MICHAEL VITIELLO* In early 2009, a member of the California Assembly introduced a bill that would have legalized marijuana in an effort to raise tax revenue and reduce prison costs. While the bill's proponent withdrew the bill, he vowed to renew his efforts in the next term. Other prominent California officials, including Governor Schwarzenegger, have indicated their willingness to study legalization in light of California's budget shortfall. For the first time in over thirty years, politicians are giving serious consideration to a proposal to legalize marijuana. But already, the public debate has degenerated into traditional passionate advocacy, with ardent prohibitionists raising the specter of doom, and marijuana advocates promising billions of dollars in tax revenues and reduced prison costs. Rather than rehashing the old debate about legalizing marijuana, this Essay offers a balanced view of the proposal to legalize marijuana, specifically as a measure to raise revenue and to reduce prison costs.
    [Show full text]
  • Cannabis Mobile Apps: a Content Analysis
    JMIR MHEALTH AND UHEALTH Ramo et al Original Paper Cannabis Mobile Apps: A Content Analysis Danielle E Ramo1, PhD; Lucy Popova2, PhD; Rachel Grana2, MPH, PhD; Shirley Zhao1, BA; Kathryn Chavez1, BA 1Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States 2Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States Corresponding Author: Danielle E Ramo, PhD Department of Psychiatry University of California, San Francisco 401 Parnassus Avenue Box TRC 0984 San Francisco, CA, 94143 United States Phone: 1 415 476 7695 Fax: 1 415 476 7053 Email: [email protected] Abstract Background: Mobile technology is pervasive and widely used to obtain information about drugs such as cannabis, especially in a climate of rapidly changing cannabis policy; yet the content of available cannabis apps is largely unknown. Understanding the resources available to those searching for cannabis apps will clarify how this technology is being used to reflect and influence cannabis use behavior. Objective: We investigated the content of 59 cannabis-related mobile apps for Apple and Android devices as of November 26, 2014. Methods: The Apple and Google Play app stores were searched using the terms ªcannabisº and ªmarijuana.º Three trained coders classified the top 20 apps for each term and each store, using a coding guide. Apps were examined for the presence of 20 content codes derived by the researchers. Results: Total apps available for each search term were 124 for cannabis and 218 for marijuana in the Apple App Store, and 250 each for cannabis and marijuana on Google Play.
    [Show full text]
  • The Green Regulatory Arbitrage
    Table of Contents I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 1 II. PROHIBITION - HOW CANNABIS BECAME ILLEGAL ..................................................... 4 III. THE LEGAL LANDSCAPE .................................................................................................... 7 A. Federal Law And Its Impact On The Cannabis Industry ..................................................... 7 1. Cannabis Is A Schedule 1 Substance ............................................................................ 7 2. Access To Capital Markets Restricted ......................................................................... 9 3. Banking Services Limited .......................................................................................... 10 4. Tax Burdens .............................................................................................................. 11 5. Interstate And International Commerce Restrictions ................................................. 11 6. Insurance Options Limited ........................................................................................ 12 7. Medical Research And Clinical Trials Stymied .......................................................... 12 8. Professional Services Harder To Find ........................................................................ 13 9. Real Estate Challenges .............................................................................................. 13 B. The States
    [Show full text]
  • Bank on It Finance News You Can Count On
    Bank On It Finance News You Can Count On December 2019 UPCOMING FIRM Banking Cannabis EVENTS: By James I. Kaplan 12/12/19 Business Law Training: Banks face challenges in providing services to What’s Around The Corner? the fast-growing cannabis industry due to The Top Ten Things We Are inconsistency between state and federal law. Watching in Employment Cannabis is now legal for retail and/or medical Law for 2020 sales for about 70% of the country’s population 12:00 p.m. CST under state law, but federal law continues to Register at www.quarles.com/events contain roadblocks for banks wishing to do business with the cannabis industry. Federal legislation is in the works that would Location: Quarles & Brady offices and via Webinar remove barriers and allow banks to confidently serve the cannabis industry. As is often true in this area, the path is hardly smooth and the resolution is not yet clear. We explain below. The current state of law regarding the sale to and use by individuals of cannabis and cannabis products for recreational and medical purposes is, to put it mildly, inconsistent. More than 70 percent of the population of the United States live in the 34 states where retail and/or medical distribution, possession and use of cannabis is or shortly will be legal. At the same time, cannabis is a Schedule 1 drug for purposes of the Federal Controlled Substances Act, which means that retail and medical use of cannabis remains illegal for Federal law purposes. A complicating factor is that Why Quarles & Brady this Federal-State legal conflict has made most banks reluctant to provide cannabis With experience handling a diverse businesses, and sometimes even their service providers or real estate and equipment array of financings, a deep bench of lessors, with financial services like deposit account services and lending.
    [Show full text]
  • Banking Mrbs and Lessons from NCUA Enforcement Action
    Banking MRBs and Lessons from NCUA Enforcement Action Thursday, July 15, 2021 Aliza Pescovitz Malouf Richard Garabedian Associate Counsel Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700 2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Dallas, Texas 75202 Washington, D.C. 20037 Tel: 214‐979‐8229 Tel: 202‐419‐2117 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] This Program Covers . I. Difference Between Marijuana and Hemp II. Background on Legalization of Cannabis III. Current State of Cannabis Legalization IV. Financial Benefits of Banking Marijuana Related Businesses V. Regulatory Landscape VI. Live Life Enforcement Action VII. Best Practices 2 Cannabis: Marijuana vs. Hemp Marijuana Hemp Marijuana is abundant in THC with concentrations Hemp contains a very low concentration of THC (0.3% or between 15% to 40%. less). Marijuana is grown for recreational and medicinal Hemp is grown primarily for industrial purposes. purposes. Marijuana can be smoked, inhaled, ingested or injected Hemp's rapid growth and strong fibers make it ideal for directly into the body. THC is also commonly extracted crafting durable rope, clothing, sails, and paper. With the from the plant and used in a variety of methods fast‐growing popularity of CBD, hemp is also used to including vaporizers, capsules, edibles and more. produce a wide variety of THC‐free CBD products. Still a Schedule I drug under the federal Controlled No longer a Schedule I drug under the federal Controlled Substances Act. Substances Act as of December 20, 2018. 3 Background on Legalization of Cannabis History of Cannabis in the United States • 1619. Virginia Assembly passed legislation requiring every farmer to grow hemp.
    [Show full text]
  • Legalization of Marijuana and the Conflict with International Drug Control Treaties
    Legalization of Marijuana and the Conflict with International Drug Control Treaties Biju Panicker* Independent Study Spring 2015 Professor Jalila Jefferson-Bullock Abstract The present system of worldwide drug control is based upon three international conventions: the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs as amended by the 1972 Protocol, the 1971 Convention on Pyschotropic Substances, and the 1988 Convention Against Illicit Trafficking of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. These treaties require participating nations to limit and even criminalize the possession, use, trade, and distribution of drugs outside of medical and scientific purposes, and work together to stop international drug trafficking. This paper argues that the recent move toward legalization of use, possession, and sales of marijuana in the United States (U.S.) and other foreign nations is in conflict with international treaty obligations. While each state in the U.S. has its own drug laws and controlled substances acts, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution places international treaties on the same legal footing as federal law. Under this argument, Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Washington D.C., as well as Uruguay and The Netherlands’ legalization of marijuana for recreational use, allowance of possession and sales, is in contravention of U.S. federal law and international treaties. Finally, this paper will also look at Portugal’s 2001 decision to decriminalize all drug use to answer the question as to whether the international drug treaties place a “firm limitation” on the legal, “non-medical” sale of schedule drug or truly obligate countries to penalize drug use. Keywords: Marijuana Legalization, International Conventio * © Biju Panicker, J.D.
    [Show full text]
  • CSE: TGIF | OTCQX: TGIFF | 1933Industries.Com DISCLAIMER STATEMENTS
    CSE: TGIF | OTCQX: TGIFF | 1933industries.com DISCLAIMER STATEMENTS This presentation relates to an entity that is directly involved in the United States cannabis industry insofar as its business activities include the cultivation, production, manufacturing and distribution of cannabis and cannabis-related products where use of cannabis is legal for medical and/or adult use purposes, as applicable. While some states in the United States have authorized the use and sale of cannabis, it remains illegal under federal law and the approach to enforcement of U.S. federal laws against cannabis is subject to change. Because the Company engages in cannabis-related activities in the United States, it assumes certain risks due to conflicting state and federal laws. The federal law relating to cannabis could be enforced at any time and this would put the Company at risk of being prosecuted and having its assets seized. For these reasons, the Company’s investments in the United States cannabis market may subject the Company to heightened scrutiny by regulators, stock exchanges, clearing agencies and other U.S. and Canadian authorities. There can be no assurance that this heightened scrutiny will not in turn lead to the imposition of certain restrictions on the issuer’s ability to operate in the United States or any other jurisdiction. There are a number of risks associated with the business of the Company. CSE: TGIF | OTCQX: TGIFF | 1933industries.com 2 3 COMPANY OVERVIEW Branded Goods Company Model: 1933 Industries is a consumer-packaged goods Controlling the Supply Chain company with a portfolio of authentic, premium brands in the cannabis industry.
    [Show full text]
  • Legislative Calendar
    S. PRT. 112–60 COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS UNITED STATES SENATE LEGISLATIVE CALENDAR ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS CONVENED JANUARY 5, 2011 FIRST SESSION ! ADJOURNED DECEMBER 3, 2012 CONVENED JANUARY 3, 2012 SECOND SESSION ! ADJOURNED JANUARY 3, 2013 BARBARA BOXER, Chairman FINAL CALENDAR January 3, 2013 36–868 PDF U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE: 2019 VerDate Aug 31 2005 13:35 Aug 01, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 7800 Sfmt 7800 S:\_EPW\DOCS\36868.TXT VERNE congress.#06 CONTENTS Page Committee members .............................................................................................................................................. 3 Subcommittees ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 Jurisdiction of the committee ................................................................................................................................ 6 Rules of procedure ................................................................................................................................................. 7 History and work of the committee ...................................................................................................................... 10 Measures Within the Jurisdiction of the Committee on Environment and Public Works—112th Congress .... 11 Chronology and status of Senate bills .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Unconstitutional Qualification of the Right to Bear Arms by the Federal Government Against Law-Abiding Medical Marijuana Patients
    A STICKY SITUATION: THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL QUALIFICATION OF THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGAINST LAW-ABIDING MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENTS LUKE C. WATERS* INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 116 I. MEDICAL MARIJUANA LAWS ................................................................ 120 A. Comprehensive Medical Marijuana Programs ....................... 121 B. Federal Laws & Policies ........................................................ 129 1. The Ogden Memo ............................................................. 134 2. The Cole Memo ................................................................ 135 3. The Cole Recreational Memo ........................................... 137 4. The Sessions Enforcement Memo .................................... 137 5. The Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment .................................. 138 II. SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS ............................................................ 142 A. An Awkward Landmark Decision ......................................... 143 B. The Post-Heller Two-Step Qualification Analysis ................ 144 1. Individuals Adjudicated as Mentally-Ill ........................... 149 2. Users of Illegal Drugs ....................................................... 151 IV. UNCONSTITUTIONAL APPLICATION ................................................... 152 A. Modest Collateral Burdens: Wilson v. Lynch ......................... 153 B. Applying the Two-Step Test to Qualified Patients Appropriately
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking Federal Marijuana Policy by Ed Chung, Maritza Perez, and Lea Hunter May 1, 2018
    Rethinking Federal Marijuana Policy By Ed Chung, Maritza Perez, and Lea Hunter May 1, 2018 For decades, the failed war on drugs has devastated communities across the United States, contributing to unprecedented rates of incarceration. The United States has nearly 25 percent of the world’s incarcerated population despite comprising less than 5 percent of the world’s total population.1 This phenomenon gained momentum in the 1970s when President Richard Nixon first declared a war on drugs and policy- makers at all levels of government added harsh criminal penalties for drug offenses, leading to explosive incarceration rates. Since then, the nation’s incarcerated popula- tion has increased sevenfold—from 300,000 people to 2.2 million people today—and 1 out of 5 people incarcerated are serving time for a drug offense.2 People of color have disproportionately felt the damaging and unnecessary consequences of these outdated tough-on-crime policies. Members of these communities have been sentenced to long terms of imprisonment as well as lifetimes of poverty and economic insecurity.3 According to the Drug Policy Alliance, drug enforcement in the United States is rooted in racial discrimination, as the first anti-drug laws were established around the turn of the 20th century and targeted Chinese immigrants, black Americans, and Mexican migrants.4 Today, between 40 percent and 50 percent of all drug arrests are for mari- juana.5 Discriminatory enforcement of marijuana laws is one reason that black and Latino Americans make up two-thirds of the U.S. prison population despite only comprising 12 percent and 17 percent of the U.S.
    [Show full text]