From the Houston Press: DA Ogg, Police Leaders Announce Landmark Marijuana Diversion Program

A product of the fact that county officials are elected by county voters.

- Click here for the article.

District Attorney Kim Ogg and heads of local law enforcement announced Thursday that, starting March 1, all police agencies in Harris County will no longer arrest people caught with four ounces or less of marijuana, and the DA's office will no longer be prosecuting those cases.

The remarkable move, which Ogg had championed throughout her 2016 campaign, pushes the third largest county in the nation to the forefront of marijuana reform in places where it is still illegal. Harris County will join only the Brooklyn County District Attorney's Office in New York in choosing to divert misdemeanor marijuana defendants away from jail entirely, saving taxpayers millions of dollars and saving thousands of people the lifelong burden of a criminal record.

Instead of being arrested and hauled off to jail, low-level potheads and casual smokers will instead be asked to take a four-hour decision-making class, at a cost of $150 (exceptions will be made for indigent people). Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez, Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo and Mayor Sylvester Turner joined Ogg in developing the landmark policy. It replaces former district attorney Devon Anderson's First Chance Diversion Program, which only applied to first-time offenders caught with less than two ounces, which Ogg had criticized as being too narrow.

“At 107,000 cases over the last ten years, we have spent in excess of $250 million dollars collectively prosecuting a crime that has produced no tangible evidence of improved public safety,” Ogg said. “Additionally, the collateral damage to our workforce is immeasurable — because what we have done is we have disqualified, unnecessarily, thousands of people from greater job, housing and education opportunities by giving them a criminal record for what is in effect a minor law violation.”

And of course, there's an effort to push back against the initiative.

- Houston Chronicle: Ogg under fire for new marijuana plan.

From Vox: Trump won. But so did marijuana legalization, gun control, and minimum wage increases.

An odd result since these are all liberal proposals.

- Click here for the story.

By all accounts, the biggest races on Election Day were a total disaster for Democrats. Donald Trump won. Republicans kept Congress, holding back a Democratic attempt to retake the Senate. And down the ballot, the results weren’t much better for the party: Democrats overall lost governors’ races, although the results were more mixed in state legislatures.

But not all is doom and gloom. While Democrats lost big, liberals won some of the big initiatives that were on statewide ballots. It wasn’t a total sweep — several states, for example, affirmed the death penalty — but there were gains on some issues, including marijuana legalization, minimum wage, and gun control.

The full results paint a much more mixed picture than the top-ballot results suggest: The Democratic Party got clobbered, but some of the major policies Democrats support also won big.

From Fortune: Court Rules That Medical Marijuana Card Holders Can't Buy Firearms

It'll be fun following the fallout of this one - hat tip to JS.

- Click here for the article.

Because it can make them “irrational and unpredictable.”

If you have a medical marijuana card, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals says that you can’t buy a gun.

The court ruled 3-0 on Wednesday that a ban preventing medical marijuana card holders from purchasing firearms is not in violation of the Second Amendment, the Associated Press reports. There are nine western states under the appeals court’s jurisdiction, including Nevada, where the case originated.

A lawsuit was filed in 2011 by Nevada resident S. Rowan Wilson after she tried to purchase a gun for self-defense and was denied based on a federal ban on the sale of guns to users of illegal drugs. Though marijuana has been legalized in some places on a state-by-state basis, it remains illegal under federal law. The court maintained that drug use “raises the risk of irrational or unpredictable behavior with which gun use should not be associated.”

Wilson claimed that she doesn’t actually use marijuana, she simply obtained a card to show her support for its legalization. The appeals court agreed with guidelines from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that firearms sellers should assume that medical marijuana card holders use the drug.

From Marijuana.com: Congress OKs Medical Marijuana for Military Veterans

The times they are a-changin'

Hat tip to CJT.

- Click here for article.

The U.S. Senate and House of Representatives both took action to increase military veterans’ access to medical marijuana on Thursday.

By a vote of 89-8, senators approved a bill containing language preventing the Department of Veterans Affairs (V.A.) from spending money to enforce a current policy that prohibits its government doctors from filling out medical marijuana recommendation forms in states where the drug is legal.

The House approved an amendment to accomplish the same goal by a vote of 233-189 earlier in the day.

“We are pleased that both the House and Senate have made it clear that the Veterans Administration should not punish doctors for recommending medical cannabis to their veteran patients,” Mike Liszewski, government affairs director for Americans for Safe Access (ASA), told Marijuana.com. “Combat veterans are disproportionately affected by several conditions that medical cannabis can effectively treat, including chronic pain, PTSD and traumatic brain injury. We anticipate this amendment will reach the president, and once signed, it will give V.A. physicians another tool in their toolbox to treat the healthcare needs of America’s veterans.”

The provisions are now part of a larger bills to fund the V.A. and other government agencies through next year. The medical cannabis language was attached to the Senate legislation last month in bipartisan vote of 20-10 in the Appropriations Committee, and did not require a separate vote on the floor.

From NORML: Congressional Scorecard

In honor of 4/20 of course.

And it provides an example of how interest groups can send messages to supporters, as well as give warning to members of Congress that they are keeping track of them.

- Click here for it.

NORML is pleased to present its 2016 Congressional Scorecard. The Scorecard is an all-encompassing database that assigns a letter grade 'A' through 'F' to members of Congress based on their marijuana-related comments and voting records. The information provided in the scorecard will periodically be updated as needed.

Read the executive summary to learn why the Scorecard is important, how the grades were calculated, and key findings of our research. Then, check out your Congressional members' voting records on marijuana law reform amendments. If you find this tool useful, please consider making adonation of at least $4.20 so that we may continue to work towards legalization and providing you the tools necessary to be an informed voter.

From the executive summary, a list of the votes they took into consideration to determine their grades:

NORML weighed the following votes when determining our grades for US Representatives:

The 2015 McClintock/Polis Amendment: This language, which was defeated by the House, sought to prohibit the Department of Justice from interfering with state-specific, adult use marijuana laws.

The 2015 Rohrabacher/Farr Amendment: This language, which was passed by the House, prohibits the Department of Justice from interfering with state-specific medical marijuana programs that license the production and dispensing of cannabis to qualified patients.

The 2015 Blumenauer Amendment: This language, which was defeated by the House, sought to permit physicians affiliated with the US Department of Veterans Affairs to recommend cannabis therapy to veterans in states that allow for its therapeutic use.

NORML weighed the following amendment votes when determining our grades for US Senators:

The 2015 Daines/Merkley Amendment: This language, which was passed by the Senate but later defeated in conference with the House, sought to permit physicians affiliated with the US Department of Veterans Affairs to recommend cannabis therapy to veterans in states that allow for its therapeutic use.

The 2015 Mikulski Amendment: This language, which was passed by the Senate, prohibits the Department of Justice from interfering with state-specific medical marijuana programs that license the production and dispensing of cannabis to qualified patients

The 2015 Merkley Amendment: This language, which was passed by the Senate but later defeated in conference with the House, sought to prohibit the US Treasury Department from using federal funds to take punitive actions against banks and other financial institutions that provide services to marijuana-related businesses that are operating legally under state laws.

What is a usable amount of Marijuana?

The previous post uses the phrase "usable amount of marijuana" which was unknown to me or anyone else in class.

It turns out it has a precise definition.

Here's the gist of it:

. . . the general idea is that a "usable amount" is the amount of marijuana a person needs to consume for the sole purpose of "getting high".

Sounds reasonable to me.

- Click here for the article this came from.
- And here for the part of the statutory code where you can find it.

Articles discussed this week in 2306 so far

All of these are from the Texas Tribune:

- Business Group Blasts Religious Freedom Proposals.

Texas' most powerful interest group sides with Democrats against legislative proposals to make it easier for religious liberty claims to be made against state laws. Texas businesses - the large ones anyway - see laws favoring same sex relationship as good for business.

- Don't Fear the Reefer: House Mulls Lower Pot Penalties.

This catches us up with proposals to lower punishments for possession of marijuana. The focus is on the costs associated with prosecution - not whether the use of marijuana is good or bad:

A former Harris County prosecutor, [Gene] Wu said reducing the penalties would relieve the caseload in the state's misdemeanor courts. He said that in Houston's Harris County, about a third of the 1,000 cases that hit misdemeanor courts each day involve marijuana possession. 

Wu said prosecutors want to spend their time on assault cases, domestic violence and drunken driving, not small-time drug possession cases. 

"Why not send them to JP court to pay a $150 fine and do hours?" he said. "It's about saving police time, giving courts more range, instead of forcing everybody into jail."

From the Houston Chronicle: Texas lawmaker files bill to legalize marijuana

- Click here for the article.

- Click here for HB 2165.

The lawmaker takes a conservative, religious approach to the issue: 

In Texas, a conservative lawmaker filed a bill to completely deregulate marijuana in the Lone Star State Monday, proposing to strike any mention of the psychoactive plant from state law.

"Everything that God made is good, even marijuana" said state Rep. David Simpson, R-Longview, who filed the bill. "The conservative thought is that government doesn't need to fix something that God made good."

The 24-page bill begins: "The following provisions are repealed," then lists dozens of Texas statutes related to marijuana. If the Legislature were to approve the bill, pot in Texas would be regulated like any common crop.

In a press release, Simpson said he supported regulating marijuana like the state regulates "tomatoes, jalapeños or coffee."

It's a markedly different approach to marijuana law reform than other states have adopted. In the last year, blue states Colorado, Washington, Alaska and Washington, D.C., have voted to legalize pot within a detailed framework of taxation and regulation. But it would not be so with Simpson's bill, which would offer no such restrictions.

In his column, Simpson reflected on his Republican beliefs in small government and individual liberties, and he invoked biblical verse to explain his initiative to repeal marijuana prohibition. He told KETK he wants to "reframe the current marijuana discussion" by talking prohibition repeal in terms of common conservative values.

Will marijuana be legalized in Texas?

If there's money to be made by doing so, I wouldn't bet against it. Political forces seem to be slowly lining up - including conservative ones - that could make a push to at least decriminalize it. File this under public policy, in addition to interest groups.

- Click here for the article.

Former FEMA director Joe Allbaugh, who took the reins of Gov. Rick Perry’s 2012 presidential campaign just as it was going into a nosedive, has jumped into a potentially more stable and long-term endeavor: legal marijuana.

Allbaugh is an investor in and board director of Colorado-based CannLabs, which calls itself “a leader in cannabis innovation” and specializes in the testing of pot potency and quality.

The company already has a major presence in Colorado, recently expanded into Connecticut and is positioning itself to take advantage of what could be exponential growth in the legal weed business across the country.

Allbaugh is a conservative Republican who served as chief of staff to then-Gov. George W. Bush and then managed his 2000 presidential campaign. He heads up Allbaugh International Group, a consulting firm with offices in Washington, D.C., and Austin.

Is law enforcement addicted to drug money?

Andrew Sullivan looks at evidence that it is.

- Click here for the post.

Law enforcement agencies get additional revenue from forfeitures resulting from drug convictions, and they have grown used to - even dependent upon - that revenue. They are not that happy about the legalization of marijuana. Local law enforcement in states that have legalized marijuana are finding ways around it:

When voters in Colorado and Washington state approved legalizing marijuana in 2012, those votes undermined an abusive—and profitable—police practice: civil forfeiture. Unlike with criminal forfeiture, undercivil forfeiture people do not have to be convicted of or even charged with a crime to permanently lose their cash, cars, and other property. Police can then auction off that seized property and use the proceeds to fund themselves. In the 42 states that allow police departments to profit from forfeiture, that cash flow has funded both themilitarization of police and allowed law enforcement to make ridiculous purchases, including a margarita machine, a Hawaiian vacation, and a Dodge Viper.

In Colorado and Washington, the federal government processed more than $36 million worth of cash and other property in civil and criminal marijuana forfeitures between 2002 and 2012. Pursuing cannabis cases earned local law enforcement in Washington an additional $6 million to $9 million in forfeiture revenue since 2008. Nationwide, the Wall Street Journal reported the federal government scored $1 billion in forfeiture from marijuana cases over the past decade.

Legalization now threatens that forfeiture revenue for the police departments that have relied on it. Legal cannabis and the subsequent drop in forfeiture have already caused one drug task force in Washington to cut its budget by 15 percent. That’s great news for due process and property rights.

But marijuana is still illegal under federal law, so local legalization has created ambiguity in civil forfeiture proceedings. Even in states where recreational or medical marijuana is legal, property owned by innocent people is still at risk thanks to “equitable sharing.” This federal program lets local and state law enforcement do an end run around state law and profit from civil forfeiture, simply by collaborating with a federal agency.

In 2306 yesterday we looked at the following part of Article IV (Section 23) of the Texas Constitution:

The Comptroller of Public Accounts, the Commissioner of the General Land Office, the Attorney General, and any statutory State officer who is elected by the electorate of Texas at large, unless a term of office is otherwise specifically provided in this Constitution, shall each hold office for the term of four years. Each shall receive an annual salary in an amount to be fixed by the Legislature; reside at the Capital of the State during his continuance in office, and perform such duties as are or may be required by law. They and the Secretary of State shall not receive to their own use any fees, costs or perquisites of office. All fees that may be payable by law for any service performed by any officer specified in this section or in his office, shall be paid, when received, into the State Treasury.

I may be wrong, but it appears to me that the part in bold is designed to prevent the activities mentioned above. Fees collected from an activity do not do to the department that collected them, but to the general treasury. This creates a disincentive for aggressive collection of the fee, since there is no direct benefit in doing so.

A subtle restriction on state governing power. I do not know if similar restrictions exists on the local level.

Next week - in 2306 - we discuss criminal justice policy. Obviously this reality encourages aggressive prosecution of drug laws, and also encourages law enforcement agencies to lobby to maintain them.

From Texas Public Radio: A recap of the debate between the Republican candidates for Lieutenant Governor

Click here for the link.

Since we're looking at marijuana policy across the nation, this sticks out:

8:42 p.m.: Support legalization of marijuana?

Dewhurst: Would not legalize marijuana. Get people who have addictions well and not addicted.

Staples: Would not legalize recreational use. We need to be smart on enforcing laws. Need to make sure we have programs in place to deal with perpetual violators of our law. Do not need to lower our standards or allow what is happening elsewhere in the country to happen in Texas. We support local law enforcement and as lieutenant governor I would uphold the laws of the land.

Patrick: A nonstarter for me. I couldn’t believe the president of the U.S. would interject in the parenting of our children to say it’s OK to use marijuana.

Patterson: Federal government should not be involved in criminal justice. It is a state issue. I do agree with Gov. Perry – it is Texas’ decision to make. Do not support legalizing recreational use. Medicinal uses, we should consider that. We should not go back to the ’60s where if one kid had a joint it’s a felony. … FDA would administer it. We have medical barbiturates. We have medical codeine.

So if you're a stoner, vote Patterson, but don't get your hopes up.

H.R.499 - Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2013

For a future look at the bill making process on the national level.

- Click here for information on the bill from Congress.gov.
- Here for info from Govtrack.com.
- And here for the Wikipedia page on the bill.

Who said the 113th Congress is unproductive?

58% of Texans support legalizing marijuana - area Congressman cosponsors bill requiring federal officials to comply with state marijuana laws

Two related stories provide further evidence that attitudes about marijuana are changing.

First

A majority of Texas voters would like to see the state go the way of Washington and Colorado and legalize possession of marijuana, according to a new poll conducted by Public Policy Polling for the Marijuana Policy Project.

According to the poll, 58 percent of the 860 respondents said they either "strongly support (41 percent)" or "somewhat support (17 percent)" changing the law in Texas to regulate marijuana similarly to alcohol, licensing stores to sell the substance to adults age 21 and older. Of those in opposition, 14 percent "somewhat oppose" the full legalization of marijuana and 24 percent "strongly oppose" such a change.

Sixty-one percent of respondents said they would like to remove criminal penalties for those in possession of an ounce or less of marijuana and make it a civil rather than criminal offense, punishable by a fine of up to $100 with no jail time. Under the current law, a person in possession of a small amount of the drug faces up to a year in jail and a fine of up to $2,000.

"I would take this poll seriously, because it does generally track with Gallup and Pew polls nationwide," said Nathan Jones, a postdoctoral fellow in Drug Policy at Rice University's Baker Institute.

"This shows that a majority of Texans are in support of fully legalizing marijuana."

Jones attributes the poll results in part to Texans' libertarian attitudes on spending tax dollars to enforce the state's marijuana policy and the cost of incarcerating drug offenders. The state also loses money due to lost productivity, when a non-violent offender is released from prison and is unable to find a good job.

Notice that some of the support for legalization has less to do with attitudes about the drug than concerns over the costs of prosecution.

Second

Texas Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Friendswood, has recently backed a bill to require federal officials to comply with state marijuana laws, which was introduced in April and has since garnered support from Congressmen on both sides of the aisle.

The Respect State Marijuana Laws Act of 2013, introduced by California Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a Republican, would bar federal drug enforcement agents from penalizing any person abiding by the marijuana laws in their own state.

The law “shall not apply to any person acting in compliance with State laws” — that is, people who are in compliance with their state laws regarding possession, manufacture or use of marijuana will not be subjected to federal penalties.

Twenty-one states and Washington, D.C. have already legalized medical marijuana, and both Washington and Colorado legalized marijuana for both medicinal and recreational use.

Stockman’s name was added to the bill as a sponsor on Saturday. He currently is the only Texas Congressman to cosponsor the bill, which has a total of 19 cosponsors. The bill was referred to to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations in April.

States free to legalize marijuana

The Washington Post reports that the Obama Administration will not preempt state laws:

The Obama administration on Thursday said it will not stand in the way of Colorado, Washington and other states where voters have supported legalizing marijuana either for medical or recreational use, as long as those states maintain strict rules involving distribution of the drug.

In a memo sent Thursday to U.S. attorneys in all 50 states, deputy attorney general James M. Cole detailed the administration’s new stance, even as he reiterated that marijuana remains illegal under federal law.

The memo directs federal prosecutors to focus their resources on eight specific areas of enforcement, rather than targeting individual marijuana users, which even President Obama has acknowledged is not the best use of federal manpower. Those areas include preventing distribution of marijuana to minors, preventing the sale of pot to cartels and gangs, preventing sales to other states where the drug remains illegal under state law, and stopping the growing of marijuana on public lands.

A Justice Department official said that Attorney General Eric Holder had called the governors of Colorado and Washington around noon on Thursday to inform them of the administration’s official stance.

 

First gay marriage, now marijuana legalization

From the Dish. They call attention to a new Pew Center report. Its seems like Americans are changing their minds on all sorts of things. Democrats and Republicans differ little on this question. Whether this leads to rapid changes in policy is a different question.

Look who is lobbying . . .

. . . for marijuana legalization group, the Marijuana Policy Project: Bob Barr. As a member of Congress, Mr. Barr managed the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton. He has since distanced himself from his old party and joined the Libertarian Party.

He states that recent expansions of governmental power have led him to become an advocate for civil liberty protections.