Active Now

Element 99
Shuhak
.
Malizz
Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » California legalizes marijuana for "recreational" use. Feds say it's illegal and criminal. Does States' Rights apply? What does and why?

California legalizes marijuana for "recreational" use. Feds say it's illegal and criminal. Does States' Rights apply? What does and why?

Posted - January 2, 2018

Responses


  • 7919

    We're talking about different things. I did give the wrong year, it was a 2013 memo from the DOJ: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-update-marijuana-enforcement-policy 

    Based on assurances that those states will impose an appropriately strict regulatory system, the Department has informed the governors of both states that it is deferring its right to challenge their legalization laws at this time. But if any of the stated harms do materialize—either despite a strict regulatory scheme or because of the lack of one—federal prosecutors will act aggressively to bring individual prosecutions focused on federal enforcement priorities and the Department may challenge the regulatory scheme themselves in these states.

    Ergo, it is the DOJ's ongoing policy to leave legalized states alone, as long as they are regulating the industry. I suppose the Trump administration could override it as they have done on other things, but we'd likely hear something about it first. And, for what it's worth, Trump was pro MJ early in the elections and then backed off some and switch to supporting research. Nobody knows what that guy is going to push for from one day to the next, but he's a businessman, and I'd bet he's going where the money is- legalization. 

    As far as the patent goes- semantics. I simplified. It doesn't change what I meant. The government has the ball in its court. 

    "At will" Semantics again. Of course it's regulated. I was referencing it in terms of creating hybrids/ new strains and compounds, which growers and processors are permitted to do in most circumstances, as it related to what the government has control over patent-wise. The government is not presently going after people under patent law. If/ when the government says it has medicinal benefit, do you really think they're not going to regulate who can produce CBD compounds? 

    As far as what the patent encompasses:
    Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention. A particular disclosed class of cannabinoids useful as neuroprotective antioxidants is formula (I) wherein the R group is independently selected from the group consisting of H, CH.sub.3, and COCH.sub.3. ##STR1##
    Taken from the patent: https://patent6630507.info/ 

    For further reading, see: 
    https://www.thecannabist.co/2016/08/22/marijuana-patents-6630507-research-dea-nih-fda-kannalife/61255/ 


    Yeah... it may not be "all" medical MJ, but they've quantified virtually every use of it at a much deeper level than MJ. That means it's not just marijuana, but pretty much every low-THC CBD compound, for almost every known medical use, from epilepsy to cancer.

    Tax: Nope, no federal sales tax, but there are federal excise taxes. Smokers pay just over $1 per pack to the feds. With booze, it's $16 or so per proof gallon, amounting to billions the gov't earns on alcohol alone every year. It's not unrealistic to expect the feds to tax recreational marijuana or compounds the same way. Moreover, companies will all be paying corporate taxes (a huge deal with the latest Trump tax overhaul), and there is a ton of other fees manufacturers and importers pay to the federal government, both as an ongoing expense of doing business and to get a drug approved to sell. Sure, the states will make bank, but the feds will too- agencies from the IRS to the FDA will be collecting from regulated businesses, just as they do right now with pharmaceuticals. 

      January 4, 2018 12:30 PM MST
    0

  • 3191
    That memo, along with the other three penned by the Obama DOJ, were policy, not law.  As I stated above, subsequent administrations are not bound by Obama's policy, and indeed, Sessions just rescinded those four memos.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/national-security/sessions-is-rescinding-obama-era-directive-for-feds-to-back-off-marijuana-enforcement-in-states-with-legal-pot/2018/01/04/b1a42746-f157-11e7-b3bf-ab90a706e175_story.html

    I am very familiar with the patent.

    The feds will always do what is in the best interests of the feds, and there are a lot more factors involved than just sin and income taxes related to marijuana.  The sales taxes are a boon for states, though. 
      January 4, 2018 1:16 PM MST
    1

  • 7919
    Right... I never said it was law. I said, "The feds agreed to stay out of it in states that legalized it." That was true. I was unaware that Sessions rescinded the memos a few days ago. That does complicate things again. 

    I'm not sure why we're debating who would make more money. I never referenced the states. I said "I also think taxation and pharma will become the government's next big cash cow." Whether the states make money off legalized MJ is irrelevant to my statement as are other factors the feds might consider. None of that has anything to do with what I said. If you came back with something referencing how legalization would cost the federal government money, then you'd have a dissenting opinion. Right now, I only see statements unrelated to my point, and I'm not sure why we're discussing them.
      January 4, 2018 2:09 PM MST
    0

  • 3191
    You said, "Ergo, if you qualify for a medical marijuana card in Cali, you're in the clear to have MJ."  I was simply pointing out that the policy under Obama does not make that necessarily true in the future. 

    I was saying that the other factors may offset or more than offset any tax cash cow for the feds.  That being true for the states was a related aside and not specifically in response to your statement.

    Have a good afternoon, JA. 
      January 4, 2018 2:41 PM MST
    0

  • 113301
    Boy oh boy JA what a huge can of worms this is! So many levels of things to consider. In California there was coverage of a guy who was just hoping for this kind of legislation. He has a huge operation going in a couple of cities in northern California and acres and acres of marijuana being cultivated. I was overwhemld with the size of it. He stands to make billions and I think he already has made tons of moola though I'm not exactly sure if he grew for "medicinal" purposes. Anyway I guess the market for it is  enormous and those who already have their feet in the marijuana water from the point of growing it are diving in! Thank you for a thoughtful and very informative reply and Happy Thursday! I guess we'll see how this all plays out! 
      January 4, 2018 3:46 AM MST
    1