November 24, 2020
Virginia can’t have marijuana legalization without equity
This has been a year full of reckonings that have prompted our society to take a close look in the mirror and begin to really tackle inequalities in all aspects of our lives. It has brought to the forefront issues that are, and have been, disproportionately hurting communities of color for generations. We have had reckonings over systemic racism, police brutality and health disparities for communities of color. If we are going to create and sustain meaningful change, we need to act big and be bold. We can’t tinker around the edges and act as though we are being transformative. One way to do this is to finally fully legalize marijuana and recognize it for what it is: a civil rights issue. Why is it a civil rights issue? For too long, marijuana laws have been disproportionately enforced in Black and brown communities. Disguised under the thin veil of social policy, these laws have not been applied equally or fairly. They became part of the failed “war on drugs” — the same one that went after communities of color at higher rates than their White counterparts even though there is no evidence to suggest communities of color use these substances at higher rates. As a result, Black and Latino Virginians have been disproportionately affected by the criminalization of marijuana. Black Virginians are 3.5 times more likely to be arrested and 3.9 times more likely to be convicted of marijuana-related offenses. Similarly, Latinos are also more likely to be arrested for marijuana than their White counterparts. All of this despite research indicating similar rates of marijuana use by Black and White Virginians. Thanks to the work we did in Virginia to elect Democratic majorities in the General Assembly, we were able to pass a law decriminalizing simple possession of marijuana while we studied legalization. This was a great step, but it’s important to understand that historic inequities live on and can’t be eliminated completely. They don’t end with an arrest, a dismissal or a conviction, or at the end of a probation sentence. A marijuana charge has a litany of effects that have handicapped Virginians and their families for generations. Employment, housing and education can all be on the line for folks who are charged with marijuana offenses until we take the necessary steps to legalize it. We need to be bold. As we continue discussing legalizing adult-use marijuana, equity must be at the forefront of the conversation. It is essential that communities and populations that have been the most affected by criminalization and enforcement of marijuana are front of mind, involved in the conversation and given meaningful opportunities to benefit from this effort. That means we have to put in the work and do this the right way, not the easiest or the fastest way. This includes expunging prior convictions for possession of marijuana and eliminating barriers to education and employment so that Virginians can get back to being active participants in our society.
Learn more
November 24, 2020
NC is becoming an outlier by banning weed. Will that soon change?
If conservative states like South Dakota and Mississippi are relaxing their marijuana policies, will politically purple North Carolina be far behind? Legalization initiatives triumphed in elections across the country this month, and those hoping North Carolina will follow suit have tempered expectations. While they see promise in a notable endorsement from the state, they know marijuana laws don’t change easily in the Tar Heel State. Last week, the N.C. Task Force for Racial Equity in Criminal Justice recommended decriminalizing possession for up to 1.5 ounces of marijuana. The task force, created by Gov. Roy Cooper and led by the state’s top law enforcer, Attorney General Josh Stein, cited data showing North Carolinians of color are disproportionately arrested for marijuana possession. Holding small amounts of weed would still be a civil offense, but charges would no longer appear on criminal records. The task force also suggested studying the effects of legalizing the drug altogether.
Learn more
November 24, 2020
New medical marijuana dispensary opens its doors, becoming 13th in N.J.
A new medical marijuana dispensary opened its doors in New Jersey Tuesday morning, becoming the 13th in the state. The state Department of Health announced it had awarded TerrAscend, a Canadian cannabis company, its permit to dispense marijuana from its Phillipsburg storefront, The Apothecarium. The dispensary planned to begin serving patients by appointment Tuesday, and to hold a grand opening on Nov. 30. It’s the first of three dispensaries TerrAscend plans to open in North Jersey in 2021, in addition to their growing facility in Boonton Township, according to the company. “With production at our Boonton cultivation and manufacturing facility scaling up, we have assembled a comprehensive portfolio of high-quality cannabis products and brands to serve this rapidly growing market,” Greg Rochlin, CEO of TerrAscend Northeast, said in a statement. “As with all of our Apothecarium dispensaries, we are committed to providing patients with quality medical cannabis in a welcoming environment with empathy, education, and ongoing personal support.” The dispensary will offer flower, oils, pre-rolls, capsules, tinctures and topicals, according to TerrAscend. TerrAscend received one of six highly competitive licenses to open a medical facility in 2018. But now that New Jersey voters have approved a ballot question to legalize marijuana, the dispensaries also have a shot at selling to a legal marijuana market, which many estimate could include more than 1 million customers.
Learn more
November 23, 2020
NJ cannabis bill advances, but lawmakers differ on details
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — New Jersey lawmakers advanced legislation setting up a new recreational marijuana marketplace, which voters overwhelmingly approved on the ballot this month, but differed on key details. The Assembly Appropriations Committee and the Senate Budget Committee passed legislation on Thursday, but the changes mean the two Democrat-led chambers will have to iron out their differences before going to a floor vote. Lawmakers were hopeful the bill could get a floor vote next week, but the Senate session was canceled Thursday evening. It’s unclear how soon it will be rescheduled. Lawmakers have have been negotiating over amending the measure since it stalled last week. A key difference between the Senate and Assembly bills involves caps on the number of licenses: The Senate version eliminates caps, while the Assembly bill increased the number to 37 from 28. A commonality, but an addition since last week is an excise tax, which applies to specific goods or services and which consumers ultimately pay. The bill calls for a tax of one-third of 1% on marijuana sales. The state's 6.625% sales tax will also apply. The bills also allow the Cannabis Regulatory Commission to levy an optional additional excise tax. The proceeds would go toward “social equity” programs aimed at alleviating racial disparities, stemming from decades of Black residents being likelier to face marijuana-related charges than white people. Such funding was explicitly sought by the state's Legislative Black Caucus and other advocates. Assemblymember Jamel Holley, a member of the caucus, said the measure gives some in New Jersey the chance for a clean slate. “A key component of cannabis legalization is addressing social justice concerns,” he said in as statement. “The fact that Black New Jerseyans are 3 or 4 times more likely to be arrested on cannabis charges has contributed to the disenfranchisement of (Black) communities.” But some advocates like the Rev. Charles Boyer, the pastor of Bethel AME Church in Woodbury, called on lawmakers to require the additional excise tax, instead of making it optional. “Basically, it gives us a tremendous amount of beautiful window dressing,” he said during Thursday's hearing, adding that the tax was not yet a guarantee. It's not clear exactly when the marketplace will be up and running. The Assembly legislation calls for lengthening the transitional period until a full, recreational marketplace is in place from 18 months to two years. Under the Assembly bill, the main significance of the period is that it caps the number of cultivator licenses at 37, up from 28 in an earlier version. If the optional excise tax were applied, it will be tethered to the price per ounce of marijuana. If the price is $350 or more, the tax would be $10 per ounce, climbing in intervals to $60 an ounce if the price is under $200 an ounce. The measure also calls for the regulatory commission to give priority to businesses owned by minorities, women and disabled vets who seek licenses.
Learn more
State lawmakers on Thursday advanced legislation that would launch a legal marijuana industry in New Jersey, but the plan to get it through both houses of the Legislature Monday fell apart because of differences between the Senate and Assembly bills. The Assembly Appropriations Committee approved the legislation (S-21/A-21), 8-4, Thursday after nearly three hours of testimony. The Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee voted 8-4 with three abstentions to pass the legislation just before 6 p.m. But the bills that emerged from committees did not match one another, as the Senate committee voted to remove a provision that would limit the number of licenses for growers in the marijuana industry’s early years and made a few other changes. The sponsors of the legislation in both houses will have to work out agreements to pass full floor votes and move it to Gov. Phil Murphy’s desk for his signature. “We are reviewing the Senate’s amendments,” Kevin McArdle, a spokesman for Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin, said in a statement Thursday evening. “We have no further comment at this time.” They had hoped to hold voting sessions to pass the legislation next week, but without total consensus, the legislation will be delayed again. Senate President Stephen Sweeney late Thursday canceled the Senate voting session for Monday. The legislation is necessary to implement a ballot question voters passed on Nov. 3, which amends the state constitution. There is urgency to pass the 216-page bill and get it signed by Murphy before the constitutional amendment takes effect on Jan. 1. “We have got to get this done by the end of the year,” Sen. Nicholas Scutari, D-Union, who sponsored the legislation, said during the Assembly hearing. “If we don’t, we’re going to run into a myriad of other problems.”
Learn more
November 23, 2020
Texas lawmaker understands path ahead for marijuana legalization
State Rep. Joe Moody, D-El Paso, is well aware of the uphill battle he will face on his marijuana legalization bill he has filed, when the Texas legislature reconvenes. Last session, Moody authored House Bill 63, which would have decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana. That bill passed with a supermajority in the Texas House of Representatives, but was never taken up in the Senate, failing to even be assigned a committee - the step needed before even being brought to the floor for discussion. This session, the prosecutor-turned-lawmaker is going further by filing a bill that would outright legalize marijuana if passed. "In the past, I worked heavily on decriminalization. I think that’s an effort that’s still worthy of robust debate, and last session we voted it out of the House with a supermajority of the votes, so there’s a lot of momentum behind that policy," Moody said. "Quite honestly, the public opinion on having a retail market for cannabis in Texas is moving in favor of. This is the right time, particularly with the economic downturn we’re in due to the pandemic. This is the right time to advance this conversation." Moody filed House Bill 447, which would make recreational marijuana legal for adults at least 21-years-old. If passed, this would outlaw driving while under the influence of marijuana, while also creating a taxable market. Under this bill, the state would tax cannabis products 10 percent, with the revenue going towards cities, counties, and the Teacher Retirement System. "We can learn from the mistakes from other states, and we should. This is no longer an experiment. There’s a significant amount of data out there we can rely upon," Moody said. "If you overly tax or overly regulate the market, then you probably haven’t done anything to eliminate the black market, or you probably create a grey market. That’s important, just to make it effective and efficient." Through the years, Texans have increasingly supported legalization of marijuana, beyond simply decriminalization. A 2019 poll by UT and Texas Tribune revealed a small majority - 54 percent - supported legalization of marijuana. This is compared to their 2015 poll, which showed only 42 percent were in support. Despite this growing support, Joshua Blank - the research director for The Texas Politics Project at The University of Texas at Austin - said there are so many factors working against passing Moody's bill or any other meaningful marijuana policy reform. In addition to having to compete with higher priority issues like COVID-19 response and redistricting, Blank said the political battlefield may end up ultimately holding up any meaningful marijuana legislation, despite growing public support.
Learn more
November 23, 2020
County on Track to Surpass 2018 Tobacco Tax Collections
Washington County recently received its monthly tobacco tax spreadsheet from the Oklahoma Tax Commission, and it shows that collections are up this month.
Learn more
November 20, 2020
Judge nixes lawsuit challenging California home pot delivery
In what could be a temporary victory for California's legal cannabis industry, a judge has dismissed a lawsuit that sought to overturn a state rule allowing home deliveries statewide, even into communities that banned commercial marijuana sales. The court challenge raised a fundamental question in the nation's largest legal pot market: Where can you buy it? The state earlier ruled a licensed delivery can be made into "any jurisdiction" within California. But a group of local governments behind the court challenge argued that the state was usurping their authority to regulate marijuana sales within their borders. While the cities argued that the state rule "removes local regulatory power," Fresno County Superior Court Judge Rosemary McGuire agreed with state that the regulation and local ordinances "do not occupy the same field and are not in conflict." Without a conflict, "this matter is not ripe for adjudication," she concluded in a Tuesday order. McGuire agreed with the state that the regulation applies to state cannabis license holders, not local governments that filed the lawsuit. The state regulation "does not command local jurisdictions to do anything or preclude them from doing anything," she added. "It does not command local jurisdictions ... to permit delivery. Nor does it override their local ordinances prohibiting or regulating delivery."
Learn more
November 20, 2020
NJ cannabis bill advances, but lawmakers differ on details
New Jersey lawmakers advanced legislation setting up a new recreational marijuana marketplace, which voters overwhelmingly approved on the ballot this month, but differed on key details. The Assembly Appropriations Committee and the Senate Budget Committee passed legislation on Thursday, but the changes mean the two Democrat-led chambers will have to iron out their differences before going to an expected floor vote next week. Lawmakers have have been negotiating over amending the measure since it stalled last week. A key difference between the Senate and Assembly bills involves caps on the number of licenses: The Senate version eliminates caps, while the Assembly bill increased the number to 37 from 28. A commonality, but an addition since last week is an excise tax, which applies to specific goods or services and which consumers ultimately pay. The bill calls for a tax of one-third of 1% on marijuana sales. The state's 6.625% sales tax will also apply. The bills also allow the Cannabis Regulatory Commission to levy an optional additional excise tax. The proceeds would go toward “social equity” programs aimed at alleviating racial disparities, stemming from decades of Black residents being likelier to face marijuana-related charges than white people.
Learn more
In a win for California’s struggling cannabis industry, a Fresno judge has dismissed a lawsuit by 24 cities seeking to invalidate state regulations allowing delivery of cannabis to homes in communities that have outlawed sales in shops. Fresno County Superior Court Judge Rosemary McGuire said in a ruling made public Wednesday that she agreed with attorneys for the state Bureau of Cannabis Control that the state regulation does not prevent cities from enforcing local ordinances restricting home delivery. “On the basis of that conclusion, the court finds that this matter is not ripe for adjudication, and dismisses the action as to all plaintiffs,” McGuire wrote in the ruling signed on Tuesday. Attorneys for the cities were not immediately available for comment on whether they would appeal the court ruling. Santa Cruz County and 24 cities including Agoura Hills, Beverly Hills, Covina and Riverside had filed the lawsuit asking the judge to invalidate the state regulation that allows delivery in all cities, including those that ban pot shops. The cities argued the regulation undermined their local planning powers. The lawsuit by the cities also said the state regulation allowing delivery everywhere in the state violates a promise of Proposition 64, the 2016 initiative that legalized the sale of cannabis for recreational use. The cities say that ballot measure promised that local governments would have veto power over the sale of cannabis in their jurisdictions. The challenged regulation adopted by the state Bureau of Cannabis Control “directly conflicts with local autonomy,” J. Scott Miller, an attorney for the cities, told the judge during a court hearing on Monday. He noted that the state regulations affect cities, including Agoura Hills, that prohibit all cannabis deliveries. In defense of the bureau, the state attorney general’s office said that the regulation allowing state-licensed cannabis firms to deliver throughout California is legal. Deputy Atty. Gen. Ethan Turner told the judge that cities can still require firms that deliver in their jurisdiction to get a business license from the city and obey local ordinances. But attorneys for the cities said the law needs to be clarified by the courts because any city that tries to ban deliveries by companies they have not licensed will be sued. In approving home delivery in all cities, Bureau of Cannabis Control chief Lori Ajax cited a provision of a law approved by the Legislature that says “a local jurisdiction shall not prevent delivery of cannabis or cannabis products on public roads” by a state licensee. But Steve Churchwell, an attorney for the cities, argued that delivery vans using public roads can’t stop and have a person walk up to the front door of a home to provide cannabis to a purchaser. “We agreed with the [state] Legislative Analyst that it allowed delivery through the jurisdiction and not a delivery to a physical address, which this regulation allows,” Churchwell told the judge. The case was closely watched by California’s licensed cannabis retailers, who say they have not made the inroads they expected when the initiative was approved in 2016.
Learn more
