D.C. man asks police for his weed back...and gets it

D.C. police often confiscate drugs during the course of searches and arrests, but now D.C. residents are legally allowed to ask for them back — and one recently did.

According to D.C. Council member Yvette Alexander (D-Ward 7), a resident walked into the Sixth District police station in Ward 7 on Monday and asked an officer on duty to return his marijuana to him, which had been confiscated during a prior arrest.

"He walked in to recover his property from a recent arrest," said Alexander, who was told of the exchange by a staff member who witnessed it. "He walked in and said, 'I want my property back, and want to make sure I get my weed back.'"

Alexander says that while the officer on duty was initially confused, the man did eventually recover his marijuana. "They gave him his weed back!" she said.

Under the marijuana legalization law that took effect last Thursday, residents over the age of 21 are allowed to possess up to two ounces of pot on their person, as well as use and grow marijuana within their private residence.

While police are allowed to confiscate the marijuana if no proof of age is provided or if an arrest for another offense occurs, a Special Order distributed to all officers last week specifies that the individual whose marijuana is seized is legally allowed to go to a police station to request that it be returned to them.

"A person whose marijuana or marijuana-infused edible goods was seized... may seek the return of their property by visiting the station in the District where the marijuana was seized no sooner than 24 hours after the seizure," says the order.

If the marijuana is not claimed within 30 days, it is destroyed as contraband.

"Only in 6D," laughed Alexander, referring to the police district that serves her ward.

Source

Stop training lawyers to be jerks

David Navala/Getty Images

As I reflect back on my 10+ years of law practice, I received plenty of advice -- some I followed, some I ignored. Often, the advice was good and helpful. Other advice that I thought was good turned out to be bad. I wanted to share one particular piece of advice I regretted taking.

When I was a young lawyer, I was invited to sit in on a deposition with one of the managing partners at the firm. This was my first deposition, and one of my first experiences coming face to face with an adversary. When I got to the conference room, I asked opposing counsel and his client if they wanted anything to drink and if they were comfortable. I don't recall if they asked for anything, but what I do remember is what happened after the deposition. The managing lawyer pulled me aside and told me never to do that again. It was not my job to offer water or make the opposing side comfortable and in fact, it was my job to do the opposite. To make them as uncomfortable as possible.

This was just one example of the mentoring and advice I received from this partner, but it tainted the way I practiced law for a long time. His tactic was to be the most aggressive man in the room, to be the most boisterous and to never give an inch. I tried my best to mimic his tactics. I wanted to be tough. I wanted to win. I thought if I just followed his advice, I'd be just as successful as he was. But I wasn't.

As I reflect back on those very impressionable years of my professional life, there were many things I failed to see. If I could go back and do it all over again, I'd tell myself the following.

1. Lead with kindness. Going back to the example of not offering the opposing counsel and his client water to make them feel "uncomfortable," I wonder if that actually gave us any strategic advantage. We can debate whether such tactics work or not. However, to me, it doesn't matter. Even if not offering water did somehow give us a slight edge, I still believe I should have offered it. I became a lawyer to pursue justice and to help people. This means that I have to maintain my humanity. Maintaining humanity requires that I live in a manner consistent with my values, and one of the values I hold most dear is kindness. I do not believe you have to be unkind or cruel to win. In fact, it's been my experience that the more I can lead with kindness, the better the outcome I can achieve for my client (and often for all the parties involved).

2. Don't wear other people's suits. When the managing partner was teaching me the ropes of how to be an effective lawyer, what he didn't consider (and what I failed to see) is that he and I are very different. For one, he was a white man, 6'2" with a physique of a baseball player. I am a 5'5" asian woman weighing in at under 130 lbs. For me to mimic his persona is as ridiculous as me putting on his suit and marching into court. For me to pound my fist against the podium and raise my voice simply didn't work. It wasn't my style. Finding your own unique lawyering style is difficult to do, and it takes time. But just as you have to find suits that fit your personality and style, you must also develop your own lawyering style.

3. Be a good human. There's a temptation to leave behind your humanity and your values at the door when you walk into the office or the courtroom. I believe this is where you need to hold onto your values and sense of humanity the most. Being a good human means recognizing the common humanity in all of us. Even our opponents. I don't need to see them as the "enemy." They're just part of this case and they have their role, I have mine. I have to recognize that just as my client has his or her perspective, pain, trauma, anger, sadness and probably dozens of other emotions, so does the opposing side. And just like me, they have people they love and that love them. They also experience pain, joy and all the other emotions that life evokes.. Don't use zealous advocacy as an excuse to be unkind.

I shared this story with a few of my female lawyer friends, and many had similar stories. One attorney told me that her boss told her to never shake hands with the opposing party. Another attorney said her boss always turned down Continuing Legal Education (CLE) or speaking opportunities and explained he would "never give away his knowledge" that way, because he thought the other attorneys would just use it to compete with him.

When I hear these stories, I feel a sense of loss and sadness. Loss for the values in our profession. Loss for our common humanity. Loss for common decency and kindness. And I feel more committed to practicing law in a way that feels consistent with my values regardless of what others do. I'd like to challenge you to consider what you value and aligning your law practice to those values as well.

Source

New LSE report slams the War on Drugs

The ‘singular approach’ to fighting drug abuse isn’t working—and it’s time for a change, says a new report produced by the London School of Economics. What they suggest, in five steps.

In an 81-page report released Monday evening, the best and brightest minds in the economic drug policy world send the United Nations a loaded message about the drug war: Enough.

The individual analyses of the economists and drug policy experts, signed by five Nobel Prize winners in economics, expose the collateral damage of the drug war and offer suggestions on how the policies can—and should—change.

“Academics and economists have great insight into this issue—and for so long, they’ve been ignored,” said John Collins, the International Drug Policy Project Coordinator at the London School of Economics, which produced the report. “Evidenced-based data about the war on drugs has been lacking for too long. It’s time that something changes.”

Collins noted that the report, titled “Ending the Drug Wars,” is nowhere near a simple fix. “There is no single way to solve this issue,” he said. “It’s an extraordinarily complex issue. We’ve tried to fix it with a singular approach—the drug war—and that hasn’t worked.”

The LSE’s report joins a chorus of voices speaking out against the war on drugs in recent years. “We’re not saying, ‘In 30 years, this is what our drug policy landscape should look like,’” Collins said. “We’re saying, ‘This isn’t working. We need to start moving in a different direction.’”

Here, in five steps, is a summation of the LSE report’s road map:

1. A “drug-free world” is not plausible.
In the opening chapter, written by Collins, the economist argues that believing we’ll live in a world free from drugs one day is not only deluded, it’s counterproductive. Collins blames prohibitionist forces in 1961 for perpetuating this fantasy—which he says still exists. In a seemingly heroic attempt to make this fantasy come true, he argues, we’ve assumed that the illicit market can be tamed through enforcement. “A global system which predominantly encourages policies that transfer the costs of prohibition onto poorer producer and transit countries, as the current system does, is an ineffective and unsustainable way to control drugs in the long term.” Collins argues for the decriminalization of drugs, which he calls a “far more effective tool.”
“People are afraid of drugs—rightly so, these substances can destroy people’s lives. But their lack of knowledge results in vitriolic reactions, overreactions.”

2. Realize that prohibition isn’t necessarily the problem.
In the third chapter, “Effects of Prohibition, Enforcement and Interdiction on Drug Use,” Jonathan P. Caulkins, the H. Guyford Stever Professor of Operations Research and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon, argues that there are benefits to prohibition—such as reduced dependence. Caulkins suggests that the current failures of prohibition are “overstated” and that the benefits may outweigh the costs. One example he offers to support his point is a group of friends who want to get stoned and listen to jazz but instead decide to go to a movie. “How much they actually enjoyed going to the movies is a loss whose value should be charged to prohibition,” he writes.

3. But prohibition isn’t the answer, either.
The fourth chapter, “Why Is Strict Prohibition Collapsing?,” written by Daniel Mejia, an associate economics professor in Colombia, and Pascual Restrepo, a Ph.D. candidate at MIT, shows the dark side of Caulkins’s argument. Classifying prohibition as a system based on “ideological positions,” the two elaborate on the violence and corruption that can result from banning drugs. Statistics to support it are staggering. Since 2007, 220,000 people have abandoned Ciudad Juárez as a result of the war on drugs, according to the London School of Economics. The war on drugs in Colombia has led to the second-largest internally displaced population in the world.

4. Stop sacrificing basic human rights.
Alejandro Madrazo Lajous, a professor in the Legal Studies Division of the Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económica (CIDE) in Mexico, argues that on top of the monetary costs of the war on drugs are the constitutional costs of “enforcing” what he views as an ideological war. “Creating an ‘exceptional’ regime of diminished fundamental rights goes against the logic of fundamental rights: that they can be universal,” he writes. “The structural design of constitutional government should not be adjusted in function of specific, purportedly transitory policies.”

5. Put an end to mass imprisonment of drug offenders.
On the heels of Madrazo’s claim, Ernest Drucker, adjunct professor of epidemiology at Columbia University, dives into one of the most costly, counterproductive byproducts of the war on drugs in America: mass imprisonment. Drucker details the grisly measures used to punish inmates brought in on drug charges in the U.S.—citing discipline that includes hard labor, severe mental and physical privations, isolation, body mutilation, and execution. The collateral effects, Drucker argues, show how imprisonment, human rights, and public health are related.

6. Make mistakes—then learn from them.
In the final chapter, UCLA drug policy expert Mark Kleiman and Jeremy Ziskind, a crime and drug policy analyst with BOTEC Analysis, dive into the early stages of cannabis legalization in the United States. In their chapter, the two stress the importance of allowing both Colorado and Washington the freedom to pursue their marijuana initiatives with “regulatory experimentation” to—put simply—figure out what works and what doesn’t. “The places that legalize cannabis first will provide—at some risk their own populations—an external benefit to the rest of the world in the form of knowledge, however the experiments turn out,” the two write. Most important, the two stress how vital the conversation surrounding these policies is. “Both sides of the legalization debate should acknowledge that the question is complex and the range of uncertainties wide.”

***

While Collins says he hopes the information in the LSE report will lead member states to back it publicly—so far, only Guatemala has formally done so—his main focus is on putting an end to the misinformation that has perpetuated the war on drugs. “People are afraid of drugs—rightly so, these substances can destroy people’s lives,” he said. “But their lack of knowledge results in vitriolic reactions, overreactions. At this point, they’re doing more harm than the drugs themselves.”

Source

Attitude and laws against pit bulls softens

For much of the past three decades, pit bulls have been widely regarded as America's most dangerous dog — the favorite breed of thugs, drug dealers and dog-fighting rings, with a fearsome reputation for unprovoked, sometimes deadly attacks.

Hostility toward "pits" grew so intense that some cities began treating them as the canine equivalent of assault rifles and prohibited residents from owning them.

But attitudes have softened considerably since then as animal activists and even television shows cast the dogs in a more positive light. The image makeover has prompted many states to pass new laws that forbid communities from banning specific breeds. And it illustrates the power and persistence of dog-advocacy groups that have worked to fend off pit bull restrictions with much the same zeal as gun-rights groups have defeated gun-control measures.

"Lawmakers are realizing that targeting dogs based on their breed or what they look like is not a solution to dealing with dangerous dogs," said Lisa Peterson, a spokeswoman for the American Kennel Club.

Seventeen states now have laws that prohibit communities from adopting breed-specific bans. Lawmakers in six more states are considering similar measures, and some cities are reviewing local policies that classify pit bulls as dangerous animals.

Pit bull advocates hail the changes as recognition that breed-specific laws discriminate against dogs that are not inherently aggressive or dangerous unless they are made to be that way by irresponsible owners.

The dogs' foes complain that their message is being drowned out by a well-funded, well-organized lobbying effort in state capitols. The debate puts millions of pit bull owners up against a relatively small number of people who have been victimized by the dogs.

Ron Hicks, who sponsored a bill in the Missouri House to forbid breed-specific legislation, said he was surprised when nobody spoke against his proposal last month at a committee hearing.

"I figured a few parents would be there who would bring tears to my eyes," the Republican said. "Would it have changed my opinion or what I believe in? No."

A version of Hicks' legislation was endorsed by a House committee last month and needs to clear another committee before a full House vote. The state Senate is considering a comparable bill, as are lawmakers in Utah, South Dakota, Washington, Vermont and Maryland.

In Kansas, the communities of Bonner Springs and Garden City repealed their pit-bull bans earlier this year.

Summer Freeman did not know there was a ban when she moved to Bonner Springs last year after a divorce. She panicked when an animal-control officer discovered her pet and told her she had 15 days to get rid of the dog named Titan or move out of town.

"I think of him like my son," she said. "He's my dog-son, I guess you could say. He's at my hip all the time. He's just a big baby that wouldn't hurt a fly."

Freeman was forced to leave Titan at a shelter in Lawrence for nine months until she successfully fought to overturn the law in January.

For dog owners and pit bull opponents alike, the battle is as deeply personal as any gun-control or religious issue. Each side accuses the other of lying, exploiting emotions and using bullying tactics.

Pit bull owners insist their dogs are harmless, loving family members that shouldn't be blamed for something they didn't do. To opponents, they are a volatile breed whose genetics drive them to kill more than two dozen people in the U.S. each year, many of them young children.

Popular television shows such as "Pit Boss" and "Pit Bulls and Parolees" on Animal Planet glorify the animals and minimize the tragedies that occur when pit bulls turn on humans, pit bull opponents say.

"Everything is telling us these animals are safe if you raise them right," said Jeff Borchardt, an East Troy, Wis., man whose 14-month-old son was mauled to death a year ago by two pit bulls that tore the child from the arms of their owner, who was baby-sitting. "My son's dead because of a lie, because of a myth. My life will never be the same."

The two dogs that killed Borchardt's son had lived with their owner since soon after they were born, were well-cared for and had no history of aggressive behavior, he said. Both had been spayed or neutered.

That contradicts the contention that only mistreated, neglected or abused pit bulls attack people.

Colleen Lynn, founder of DogsBite.org, pointed to a friend-of-the-court brief her organization submitted in a 2012 case in which the Maryland Court of Appeals declared pit bulls "inherently dangerous."

"Appellate courts agree with us. Doctors and surgeons agree with us. That is credibility right there," Lynn said. "We also have the support of three divisions of the U.S. military, huge, massive bodies in the U.S. government."

The Marines, Army and Air Force all have banned dangerous dogs — including pit bulls and rottweilers — from their bases because of the "unreasonable risk" they pose to safety, Lynn said.

On the other side stand the American Bar Association and National Animal Control Association, which oppose breed-specific laws because they are discriminatory against a type of dog that isn't really a single breed.

Three main breeds — Staffordshire bull terrier, American pit bull terrier and American Staffordshire terrier — along with mixes of those breeds are generally considered pit bulls. But many muscular, square-jawed, boxer-type dogs often are misidentified as pit bulls, making breed-specific bans hard to enforce.

And because fatal pit bull attacks are a rarity compared with other causes of death such as auto accidents, dog advocates argue that breed-specific bans amount to legislative overkill.

"All communities deserve comprehensive dog laws that demand responsible dog ownership and that hold reckless owners accountable when their poor decisions wind up getting other dogs or other people hurt," said Ledy Vankavage, a top lobbyist for the Best Friends Animal Society.

Don Bauermeister, assistant city attorney for Council Bluffs, Iowa, led the effort to pass a local pit bull ban that took effect in 2005. He recalled first reading about the issue in the July 27, 1987, issue of Sports Illustrated, which carried a full-cover shot of an angry pit bull baring its teeth. Across the top, it said "BEWARE OF THIS DOG."

After the Council Bluffs ban went into place, the number of pit bull attacks that resulted in hospitalization plummeted from 29 in 2004 to zero the past few years — proof, Bauermeister said, that breed-specific bans work.

The opposition to pit bull bans, he added, is a sign that many American pet owners have lost touch with reality.

"Fifty years ago, you could take a sick animal behind a barn and put it out of its misery," he said. "That's just the way it was done. Now they would investigate you for doing that. The emotional irrationality of Americans and their dogs has never been worse than it is today."

Source

Georgia lawyer's insane Super Bowl commercial

Virginia to fight same-sex marriage ban

Mark Herring

Virginia Attorney General Mark R. Herring will announce Thursday that he believes the state’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and that Virginia will join two same-sex couples in asking a federal court to strike it down, according to an official close to the attorney general with knowledge about the decision.

The action will mark a stunning reversal in the state’s legal position on same-sex marriage and is a result of November elections in which Democrats swept the state’s top offices. Herring’s predecessor, Republican Ken Cuccinelli II, adamantly opposes gay marriage and had vowed to defend Virginia’s constitutional amendment banning such unions, which was passed in 2006 with the support of 57 percent of voters.

Herring, too, had voted against same-sex marriage eight years ago, when he was a state senator. But he has said that his views have changed since then and that on Thursday he will file a supportive brief in a lawsuit in Norfolk that challenges the state’s ban, said two people familiar with his plans.

Herring will say that Virginia has been on the “wrong side” of landmark legal battles involving school desegregation, interracial marriage and single-sex education at the Virginia Military Institute, one official said. He will make the case that the commonwealth should be on the “right side of the law and history” in the battle over same-sex marriage.

He has not informed Republicans in Richmond about his plans; an uproar is likely. GOP lawmakers have worried that Herring would change the state’s position — such decisions are up to the attorney general — and have contemplated legislation that would allow them to defend the law in court.

The attorney general thinks that is unnecessary, the official said. The clerks of the circuit court in Norfolk and Prince William County are defendants in the suit, and both are represented by independent counsel.

Janet Rainey, the state registrar of vital records, is also a defendant. Although she and Herring will urge the court to strike down the ban, she will continue to enforce it until the courts act.

The move in Virginia is part of a quickly changing legal landscape reshaped by the Supreme Court’s rulings in two cases on same-sex marriage in June.

In one, U.S. v. Windsor, the court voted 5 to 4 to find unconstitutional a key part of the Defense of Marriage Act, which withheld federal recognition of same-sex marriages performed where they are legal and denied federal benefits to those in such unions.

In the other, it allowed to stand a federal judge’s opinion that California’s Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage, was unconstitutional. The court ruled that the case was not before it in a way that allowed a ruling on the merits.

The justices sidestepped a critical question: whether state bans on same-sex marriage violate the Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process.

But federal judges in Utah and Oklahoma have said that the reasoning used by the court majority meant that constitutional amendments in those states banning same-sex unions cannot stand. Gay marriages took place in Utah, but both decisions are now stayed pending appeal.

The highest courts in New Jersey and New Mexico have held that gay couples have the right to be married there. The District of Columbia and 17 states — including Maryland but not counting Utah and Oklahoma — now allow such unions.

The Obama administration took a position similar to Herring’s when it announced it would not defend DOMA, which Congress passed in 1996 and President Bill Clinton signed into law. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. joined the legal challenge against the key part of the law, and House Republicans hired a lawyer in an unsuccessful bid to save it.

Similarly, Democratic attorneys general in other states have said they think their bans are unconstitutional. Democrats in California refused to defend Proposition 8. And last summer, Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane bowed out of challenges to her state’s law.

Herring, whose race against Republican Mark D. Obenshain was so close it was not decided until Dec. 18, has been in office just two weeks. But he faced a tight deadline in deciding whether to change the state’s legal position.

U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen has scheduled oral arguments for Jan. 30 in the Norfolk case. It received a jolt of attention last fall when lawyers Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, who brought the federal challenge of Proposition 8, announced that they were joining the plaintiffs’ side.

In addition, the American Civil Liberties Union is challenging the Virginia ban in a federal suit in Harrisonburg. That case is not as far along.

Virginia has been a particularly appealing place for a challenge by supporters of gay rights because of the Supreme Court’s 1967 decision in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down laws against interracial marriage. Those who support same-sex unions often draw a parallel.

Herring will make the same point, according to a person who has seen the brief he will file. The state will say that Loving upheld the fundamental right to marriage, not the right to interracial marriage. The question at stake now, the brief states, is not a right to same-sex marriage but whether the fundamental right to marriage can be denied to “loving couples based solely on their sexual orientation.”

Democrats are sensitive to charges that it is Herring’s duty to defend Virginia’s law regardless of whether he agrees with it. They point out that Cuccinelli refused to defend one of then-Gov. Robert F. McDonnell’s education reforms in court, saying he believed that the legislation (for state takeovers of failing schools) was unconstitutional.

Herring also will say that the state’s law will be defended in the Norfolk challenge. Norfolk clerk George E. Schaefer is represented by a private lawyer paid by the state’s Department of Risk Management. Prince William clerk Michèle B. McQuigg, who asked to intervene in the case, is represented by the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom.

Source

Things cops do not want you to know

Laws to know about in 2014

Legalizing marijuana gets unlikely conservative supporter

The growing campaign for legalizing marijuana has what would appear to be an unlikely supporter: the National Review.

The conservative magazine published an editorial on Monday applauding Colorado for becoming the first state to make the "prudent choice" of legalizing recreational marijuana, "thus dispensing with the charade of medical restrictions and recognizing the fact that, while some people smoke marijuana to counter the effects of chemotherapy, most people smoke marijuana to get high.

The prohibition of marijuana, its editors argue, has led to "billions in enforcement costs, and hundreds of thousands of arrests each year, in a fruitless attempt to control a mostly benign drug."

"We make a lot of criminals while preventing very little crime," the National Review writes, "and do a great deal of harm in the course of trying to prevent an activity that presents little if any harm in and of itself."

The editorial comes less than a week after the world's first legal recreational marijuana sales began in Colorado, with pot stores seeing long lines and retailers reporting supply shortages, pushing prices as high as $400 an ounce.

Pot stores in the state of Washington, which also voted to legalize recreational marijuana, are expected to open later this year. And marijuana activists hope to help pass similar laws in 13 more states by 2017.

"Marijuana is a drug, as abusable as any intoxicant is, and its long-term use is in some people associated with undesirable effects," the National Review continues. "But its effects are relatively mild, and while nearly half of American adults have smoked marijuana, few develop habits, much less habits that are lifelong. ... Compared to binge drinking or alcohol addiction, marijuana use is a minor public-health concern. All that being the case, the price of prohibition is relatively high, whether measured in police and penal expenses or in liberty lost. The popularity of marijuana may not be the most admirable social trend of our time, but it simply is not worth suppressing."

Legalization, the National Review says, is "a sign that Americans still recognize some limitations" on the reach of government.

"It is perhaps a little dispiriting that of all the abusive overreaches of government to choose from, it is weed that has the nation’s attention," the National Review concludes, "but it is a victory nonetheless."

It's not the first time the National Review has weighed in on the legalization debate. In 1996, the magazine published an editorial that also favored legalization.

"It is our judgment that the war on drugs has failed, that it is diverting intelligent energy away from how to deal with the problem of addiction, that it is wasting our resources, and that it is encouraging civil, judicial, and penal procedures associated with police states," the editors wrote in letter to readers in February of that year. "We all agree on movement toward legalization, even though we may differ on just how far."

Source

Twitter, Facebook and more demand sweeping changes to US surveillance laws

The world's leading technology companies have united to demand sweeping changes to US surveillance laws, urging an international ban on bulk collection of data to help preserve the public's “trust in the internet”.

In their most concerted response yet to disclosures by the National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, LinkedIn, Twitter and AOL have published an open letter to Barack Obama and Congress on Monday, throwing their weight behind radical reforms already proposed by Washington politicians.

“The balance in many countries has tipped too far in favour of the state and away from the rights of the individual – rights that are enshrined in our constitution,” urges the letter signed by the eight US-based internet giants. “This undermines the freedoms we all cherish. It’s time for change.”

Several of the companies claim the revelations have shaken public faith in the internet and blamed spy agencies for the resulting threat to their business interests. “People won’t use technology they don’t trust,” said Brad Smith, Microsoft's general counsel. “Governments have put this trust at risk, and governments need to help restore it.”

The chief executive of Yahoo, Marissa Mayer, said: “Recent revelations about government surveillance activities have shaken the trust of our users, and it is time for the United States government to act to restore the confidence of citizens around the world."

Silicon Valley was initially sceptical of some allegations about NSA practices made by Snowden but as more documentary evidence hasemerged in the Guardian and other newspapers detailing the extent of western surveillance capabilities, its eight leading players – collectively valued at $1.4tn – have been stung into action amid fears of commercial damage.

“We understand that governments have a duty to protect their citizens,” they say in the letter. “But this summer’s revelations highlighted the urgent need to reform government surveillance practices worldwide.”

A separate list of five “reform principles” signed by the normally fiercely competitive group echoes measures to rein in the NSA contained in bipartisan legislation proposed by the Democratic chair of the Senate judiciary committee, Patrick Leahy, and the Republican author of the Patriot Act, Representative Jim Sensenbrenner.

Crucially, Silicon Valley and these key reformers in Congress now agree the NSA should no longer be allowed to indiscriminately gather vast quantities of data from individuals it does not have cause to suspect of terrorism in order to detect patterns or in case it is needed in future.

“Governments should limit surveillance to specific, known users for lawful purposes, and should not undertake bulk data collection of internet communications,” says the companies' new list of principles.

They also argue that requests for companies to hand over individual data should be limited by new rules that balance the “need for the data in limited circumstances, users’ reasonable privacy interests, and the impact on trust in the internet”.

This places them in direct conflict with Dianne Feinstein, the Democratic chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who is sponsoring a rival bill that would enshrine the right of security agencies to collect bulk data.

Feinstein, who represents California, has been accused by critics of being a cheerleader for Washington's intelligence committee but now faces opposition from her state's largest industry.

The companies also repeat a previous demand that they should be allowed to disclose how often surveillance requests are made but this is the first time they have come together with such wide-ranging criticism of the underlying policy.

The industry's lobbying power has been growing in Washington and could prove a tipping point in the congressional reform process, which has been delayed by the autumn budget deadlock but is likely to return as a central issue in the new year.

The Feinstein and Leahy/Sensenbrenner bills agree with technology companies that there should be greater transparency of court rulings regulating surveillance and more opportunity for privacy advocates to argue against intelligence agency requests.

The eight technology companies also hint at new fears, particularly that competing national responses to the Snowden revelations will not only damage their commercial interests but also lead to a balkanisation of the web as governments try to prevent internet companies from escaping overseas.

“The ability of data to flow or be accessed across borders is essential to a robust, 21st century, global economy,” the companies argue in the list of reform principles. “Governments should permit the transfer of data and should not inhibit access by companies or individuals to lawfully available information that is stored outside of the country. Governments should not require service providers to locate infrastructure within a country’s borders or operate locally.”

And they argue foreign governments need to come together to agree new international standards regulating surveillance, hinting at legal disputes and damage to international trade otherwise.

“In order to avoid conflicting laws, there should be a robust, principled, and transparent framework to govern lawful requests for data across jurisdictions, such as improved mutual legal assistance treaty – or “MLAT” – processes,” say the companies. “Where the laws of one jurisdiction conflict with the laws of another, it is incumbent upon governments to work together to resolve the conflict.”

Official responses to the Snowden revelations have been angriest in countries subject to US surveillance such as Germany and Brazil, but more muted in countries such as Britain and Australia, whose governments are close partners of the NSA.

Martha Lane Fox, who recently resigned as the British government's digital champion, responded to the new letter by expressing concern at the lack of understanding of both the scale and complexity of the surveillance story within Britain's government.

"We do have an issue in this country among the corporate world, the political establishment and the general population where we have a shortage of skills and understanding for the digital age," she told the Guardian. "There is an absence of a clear, coherent debate around this subject in this country and it's a very big issue that will only become more frequent the more technologically dependent we become."

She pointed to comments made by the former Conservative home office minister Lord Blencathra and the Labour peer Lord Soley, who both expressed concern at the scope of surveillance by the security services.

"[The government] needs to listen to people, to examine whether their policies are fit for the digital age. It's not that people aren't used to their data being collected, but what it is being collected for, and there needs to be a distinction between the average person and a security threat."

The eight internet companies behind the new letter also acknowledge that business also has a responsibility to protect privacy.

“For our part, we are focused on keeping users’ data secure, deploying the latest encryption technology to prevent unauthorised surveillance on our networks, and by pushing back on government requests to ensure that they are legal and reasonable in scope,” they conclude.

“We urge the US to take the lead and make reforms that ensure that government surveillance efforts are clearly restricted by law, proportionate to the risks, transparent and subject to independent oversight.”

Google, Twitter, Yahoo and last week Microsoft have all responded to public concerns over surveillance by increasing the security of their products, introducing “perfect forward secrecy” encryption to protect information travelling on their internal systems.

"The security of users' data is critical, which is why we've invested so much in encryption and fight for transparency around government requests for information,” said Google's chief executive, Larry Page.

“This is undermined by the apparent wholesale collection of data, in secret and without independent oversight, by many governments around the world. It's time for reform and we urge the US government to lead the way.”

Source

First east coast city legalizes recreational pot

Portland, Maine, voters on Tuesday approved legalizing recreational marijuana for residents 21 and older. The measure, Question 1, passed with about 70 percent of the vote, making Portland the first East Coast city to legalize recreational pot.

Adult residents of Portland -- Maine's largest city -- may possess up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana under the referendum. The new measure does not permit the recreational purchase or sale of marijuana, nor does it permit its use in public spaces like parks.

"Most Portlanders, like most Americans, are fed up with our nation's failed marijuana prohibition laws," said David Boyer of the Marijuana Policy Project, a marijuana advocacy group. "We applaud Portland voters for adopting a smarter marijuana policy, and we look forward to working with city officials to ensure it is implemented."

Marijuana advocates anxiously awaited the city vote result.

Medical marijuana is already legal in Maine, and the Portland referendum is seen as largely symbolic, as it does not override state or federal laws. But the passage could spark further efforts to legalize recreational marijuana in the state, as it was in Washington and Colorado in November 2012.

"I think there's national implications, keeping the momentum that Washington and Colorado started last November in ending marijuana prohibition," said Boyert in anticipation of the vote. "This is just the next domino."

While the measure did not face organized opposition, some did raise concern over the Marijuana Policy Project's Metro bus ad campaign. Some said the ads promoted the use of marijuana, not just the passage of Question 1.

"It's highly inappropriate to be promoting pro-marijuana message in a place that has a large audience of people under the age of 21," said drug prevention group 21 Reasons spokeswoman Kate Perkins to local news group WCHS.

Metro officials reviewed the transit agency's policy and said the ads fall in line with political advertisements.

Source

Legal marijuana market is growing faster than the smartphone market

Legal marijuana is among the fastest-growing markets in the United States, and it's growing at a rate poised to outpace the expansion of the global smartphone market, according to a new report obtained exclusively by The Huffington Post.

Researchers surveyed hundreds of medical cannabis retailers, processors, dispensary owners and industry leaders over the course of six months this year, and estimated that more than $1.43 billion worth of legal marijuana will be sold in 2013. The report also predicts that figure to grow by 64 percent to $2.34 billion next year. By comparison, recent figures show the U.S. smartphone market expanded by 46 percent from 2012 to 2013.

"Cannabis is one of the fastest-growing industries," said Steve Berg, a former managing director of Wells Fargo Bank and editor of the report, the second edition of the State of Legal Marijuana Markets. "Domestically, we weren't able to find any market that is growing as quickly."

While it's important to note that smartphones surged in popularity long before medical marijuana became a viable industry, and global sales numbers for 2012-2013 don't offer a direct comparison to 2013-2014 domestic estimates, Berg said his goal was to illustrate just how rapidly the cannabis market is expanding by offering familiar data points. The U.S. smartphone market, according to research group IDC, is growing at an annual rate of 7.3 percent.

"Entrepreneurs and private investors are flocking to cannabis markets," Berg said. "Those who really understand market dynamics will reap large rewards."

Medical marijuana is currently legal in 20 states and the District of Columbia. Next year, Washington and Colorado will begin implementing laws that permit the sale of pot to all adults, and Berg noted that those states will obviously play a major role in the growth of the cannabis market. Colorado alone is predicted to add $359 million to its existing market in 2014.

The marijuana industry's growth coincides with a widespread shift in the public's attitude toward the substance. A Gallup poll conducted last month found that for the first time in history, more than half of Americans think pot should be legal for both medical and recreational purposes. A CNN documentary that aired this summerexplored marijuana's benefits for a mainstream audience. And individuals are increasingly using the plant's medicinal properties to treat symptoms even in children: A coalition of conservative Mormon mothers in Utah recently began lobbying for safe access to cannabis oil for their epileptic children.

"There has been a seismic shift in public attitudes towards marijuana," Berg said, explaining that as public opinion changes, laws are likely to follow. "Younger voters will become a bigger proportion of the overall voting base. It begins with shifts in attitudes and that translates to initiatives."

The report predicts that 14 more states will legalize marijuana for recreational adult use in the next five years, creating a potential $10.2 billion cannabis market by 2018.

Berg added that his research only examined the sale of cannabis itself, whether wholesale to retailers or directly to consumers. He said that the market for ancillary products, such as security equipment, grow tools, apps and paraphernalia, has the potential to drive growth still further.

"This industry is professionalizing and seeing an influx of professionals from other industries," he said. "More and more investors are coming in and financing these businesses, which have more and more markets to serve."

The federal government, however, has yet to catch up to this rapid evolution. Even in states that permit marijuana use, cannabis remains illegal at the federal level, and the Controlled Substance Act classifies marijuana as having no medical value. Federal raids against dispensaries in California over the past two years have shuttered hundreds of businesses and hindered the industry's growth.

Still, Berg remains optimistic, pointing to Attorney General Eric Holder's recent assertion that the Justice Department would not interfere with the implementation of adult use laws in Washington and Colorado.

"Federal acceptance of marijuana is not going to happen in one fell swoop," he said. "It will happen incrementally, with important steps along the way."

Source

Hillary Clinton's epic answer to abortion question

San Francisco considering a soda tax

A San Francisco city supervisor will introduce legislation on Tuesday proposing a tax on soda and sugar-sweetened beverages in the city.

Supervisor Scott Wiener issued a press release on Monday detailing the proposal, which will be added to the November 2014 ballot if successful. The legislation would introduce a two-cents-per-ounce tax, increasing the cost on an average can of soda by 24 cents. Wiener claims the tax would create an estimated $31 million annually that would be used to fund recreation and nutrition programs in schools and elsewhere.

“We are experiencing an epidemic of health problems caused by sugary beverages -- including diabetes and obesity afflicting adults, teenagers, and even young children -- and we have a responsibility to act to confront this escalating public health challenge," said Wiener in the release.

Wiener noted a 2010 UC San Francisco study which found that a nationwide sweetened drink tax of just a penny per ounce would avert nearly 100,000 cases of heart disease, 8,000 strokes and 26,000 deaths over the next decade.

“While researchers, physicians, and community health advocates have made tremendous strides in educating the public on the negative health effects of sugary beverages, they agree that more must be done, and they are making urgent requests for intervention from policy leaders,” said Wiener.

While the research may be there, soda taxes have raised tricky objections in the past, with opponents citing government overreach and fears of a nanny state. Similar ballot initiatives failed miserably in the California cities of El Monte and Richmond -- just across the bay from San Francisco.

But polling suggests voters are sweetening on the idea.

A Field Poll survey in February revealed that only 40 percent of respondents supported a tax, but that number skyrocketed up to 68 percent when funds for the tax were earmarked for school nutrition and physical activity programs.

Unlike the failed tax in Richmond, Wiener's plan does just that.

"I try to cross my t's and dot my i's, and I wouldn't pursue this if I didn't think it had a chance," Wiener told the San Francisco Chronicle. "There will be a big fight -- the beverage industry will try to pull all the shenanigans they have pulled elsewhere -- but we have a strong coalition behind this. San Francisco is always at the forefront of public health issues and trying to find innovative ways to keep the city healthy."

Source

Lawsuit filed against the sriracha factory

In Irwindale, California, nose-y neighbors, sick of the supposedly strong chili smell emanating from the factory where Sriracha hot sauce is made, want the Huy Fong Foods factory shut down unless the odor can be abated. The city has filed a public nuisance lawsuit, says the Associated Press, “seeking
temporary closure of the factory until Huy Fong submits a plan to minimize the smell.” CBS:

“The odors are so strong and offensive as to have caused residents to move outdoor activities indoors and even to vacate their residences temporarily to seek relief from the odors,” according to the suit.

Living next to a food processing plant is always a scented existence, and Huy Fong Foods has denied there’s a problem. But if the injunction goes through, it could spell bad news for hot sauce lovers everywhere.

The factory in Irwindale where Sriracha is now made opened within the last year. At 650,000 square feet, says Quartz, the company can pump out up to 7,500 bottles of hot sauce each hour. Huy Fong Foods was started 33 years ago by Vietnamese refugee David Tran, and the company, says Quartz, has never raised its wholesale prices. If the Sriracha factory is shuttered, supply and demand may do what Tran never did. Canada might have a strategic maple syrup reserve, but if Sriracha goes out of production, there’s no emergency warehouse waiting to be tapped.

If the price of Sriracha skyrockets, where will the heat-seeking foodie turn? For the New Yorker, Lauren Collins details how chili sauces have grown into a massive industry.

Chilis have become an attractive business. According to a report by IBISWorld, a market-research firm, hot-sauce production is one of America’s ten fastest-growing industries, along with solar-panel manufacturing and online eyeglass sales.

Unfortunately, it seems, based on Collins’ account, the so-called “chiliheads” driving the hot sauce boom have been in a bid to best each other on one metric alone, Scoville units, a measure of hotness. With manufacturers racing to abandon taste for sheer burn, we can only hope the city of Irwindale and Huy Fong Foods can work out their differences before our bottle is empty.

Source

The marriage equality movement could change dramatically in the next two weeks

It’s been less than four months since the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act and put an end to California’s marriage amendment, but advocates have been busy over the summer — setting the stage for a very busy two weeks that could rock the marriage equality landscape and change the country.

The calendar for the rest of the month is packed with a dizzying array of potential developments: decisions and movement in lawsuits that are multiplying by the week, possible votes from lawmakers being prodded to action by governors in their states, and — for the state of New Mexico — a hearing at the state Supreme Court to resolve once and for all whether same-sex couples can marry in a state that doesn’t specifically ban or allow such marriages.

The coming weeks also will feature the first action in the federal appellate courts since the Supreme Court rulings, with a filing in the 9th Circuit in a challenge to Nevada’s marriage law. The quick reemergence of a marriage case at the appellate level is notable because that’s the path back to the Supreme Court, where marriage equality advocates are still seeking a ruling that would bring marriage equality to all 50 states.

From a Wednesday hearing in Michigan to a hearing regarding a challenge to Virginia’s marriage law on Oct. 29, here’s what you need to know:

1. Michigan

Same-sex couples could be able to marry in some counties in Michigan on Wednesday, advocates hope, if a federal judge there rules Wednesday on a challenge to the state’s constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying.

Judge Bernard Friedman has pressed the case — which has traversed a winding path — forward, ruling against the state of Michigan earlier this year in refusing to dismiss the challenge.

Discussing the Supreme Court opinion striking down DOMA, United States v. Windsor, Friedman wrote, “[P]laintiffs are prepared to claim Windsor as their own; their briefs sure to be replete with references to the newly enthroned triumvirate of [pro-gay rights cases of] Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, and now Windsor. And why shouldn’t they?”

Although clerks in at least 10 of the state’s counties have said they will issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples if Friedman’s ruling allows them to do so, it is not yet clear whether and when they will be allowed to do so.

It is not certain that Friedman will even rule on the case following Wednesday’s hearing or, if he does, that he will rule that marriage equality is constitutionally guaranteed. What’s more, even if he does rule for marriage equality, there remains the question of whether he will issue a stay, which would put the case on hold pending an inevitable appeal by state officials.

If he rules in favor of marriage equality and does not issue a stay, however, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals could put a halt to any marriages within hours or days, a stay it likely would leave in place if it does so while it considers an appeal.

2. New Jersey
On Oct. 21, under current orders from Judge Mary Jacobson, same-sex couples in New Jersey can marry. Before then — any day now — the state Supreme Court is expected to rule on whether it will put that order on hold, leaving same-sex couples waiting into the new year for a chance to marry in the Garden State.

Gov. Chris Christie’s administration appealed Jacobson’s decision to the state’s Supreme Court, which will be hearing arguments on whether same-sex couples need to be allowed to marry in the state. Currently, civil unions — but not marriages — are available to same-sex couples.

But that appeal doesn’t stop Jacobson’s order from going into effect during the appeal process. That requires a stay, which would prevent marriages between same-sex couples for the time being. Over the past few days, the parties have briefed the state Supreme Court on the question of whether the court should issue such a stay — keeping same-sex couples from marrying until a final decision is rendered in the case sometime next year.

Outside of all of the legal maneuvering, advocates also are pressing lawmakers to override Christie’s veto of the legislative effort to bring marriage equality to New Jersey.

3. Nevada

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — which allowed same-sex couples to begin marrying in California days after the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal of the case challenging the state’s marriage amendment — will start considering whether Nevada can ban same-sex couples from marrying when the couples file their brief with the court by Oct. 18.

The federal trial-court judge who first considered the challenge, Judge Robert C. Jones, ruled against the same-sex couples challenging the ban, concluding the Constitution does not “[prohibit] the People of the State of Nevada from maintaining statutes that reserve the institution of civil marriage to one-man–one-woman relationships.”

The case was brought by Lambda Legal, and it represents one of the few losses marriage equality advocates have faced in the courts in recent years.

Eleven important Supreme Court cases in this upcoming term

At 10 a.m. Monday, in the midst of a government shutdown, Chief Justice John Roberts will begin his eighth term at the Supreme Court — beginning a session in which the justices are slated to hear cases affecting the future of legislative prayers, presidential power in making appointments and whether a meth addict can have a court-ordered mental evaluation used against him in fighting murder charges.

As court-watchers wonder what the term will hold for the future of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the legacy of retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the justices themselves are preparing for a term that, at the outset, appears to focus on revisiting some precedents established in past decades and considering anew issues at the outer limits of the powers of the three branches of government.

In the first week of the term, the justices will be hearing a challenge to campaign finance contribution limits. The next week, a Michigan amendment that bars affirmative action in higher education admissions will be at the center of the court’s attention.

Other cases will address whether the impact of housing development decisions can violate the Fair Housing Act and whether roommates can authorize a police search later used against a tenant who previously objected to the search but is no longer there. The Massachusetts law creating a “buffer zone” around reproductive health clinics is being challenged in another case, and the limits of congressional power in enforcing treaties is at question in a case involving the Chemical Weapons Convention.

The incentives against lawsuits enforcing patent rights are at issue in a case that some say could affect the future of innovation in America, and another case about the role of bankruptcy judges — who are not lifetime-tenured judges — could impact the future role of those lifetime-tenured Article III judges.

Here are 11 cases that could change the way America and the government work in the coming year:

1. Presidential Recess Appointments - National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning
In a case that appears to be a courtroom-based continuation of ongoing partisan fighting in a city currently in shutdown mode could, depending on the way the justices rule, dramatically alter the balance of power between the president and Congress in the ever-present nominations fight. In answering whether President Obama had the authority to make so-called “recess appointments” of people to the National Labor Relations Board during “pro forma” sessions of the Senate in which no business was to be conducted in January 2012, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that he did not.

In a broad ruling, the judges said that the Constitution’s “recess appointment” clause — which allows presidents to fill vacancies temporarily that otherwise would need Senate approval during Senate recesses — only applies to the “intersession” recess between sessions of Congress and not “intrasession recesses” taken during a session of Congress. Although the opinion could have found against Obama’s decision on a more limited reasoning that the Senate was not actually recessed during a time when it held “pro forma” sessions, the D.C. Circuit issued the broader reasoning in its ruling.

The justices took the case and, if the D.C. Circuit’s reasoning becomes the law of the land, could create a significant change in the way nomination battles are fought in D.C.

2. Campaign Finance “Aggregate” Limits - McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission

On Tuesday, the justices will consider whether “aggregate” limits faced by political donors are constitutional. Beyond the normal contribution limits, the aggregate limits — $48,600 to candidate committees and $74,600 to non-candidate committees like political parties — are limits on overall contributions to any federal candidates or non-candidate committees.

The Federal Election Commission argues that there has been a different standard applied to contributions than to campaign expenditures since the Supreme Court upheld the post-Watergate federal campaign finance law. Shaun McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee, with support from campaign finance restriction foe Sen. Mitch McConnell, say that distinction should be tossed out by the court or, at least, should nonetheless mean the aggregate limit is unconstitutional.

A broad array of groups has argued in support of the limits, and Public Campaign released a report last week showing how eliminating the limits would, primarily, benefit wealthy, white men. In the shadow of Citizens United, though, supporters of campaign finance restrictions are nervous. As law professor Rick Hasen has written, given the other members of the court, “liberals have to hope [Chief Justice John] Roberts will show some restraint.”

3. State Affirmative Action Bans - Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action
Next week, the Supreme Court will hear another affirmative action case. In the court’s last term, it made clear that those places that choose to utilize any form of affirmative action in higher education admissions need to show, under the “strict scrutiny” standard, that the plan is necessary to create a diverse student body. Now the court is considering the other side of that question: Does it violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection when a state bans such considerations in public-university admissions across the state through a constitutional amendment?

Justice Elena Kagan is not participating in the case, but a 4-4 decision would mean the Sixth Circuit’s decision holding the ban unconstitutional would stand, so supporters of the amendment need at least 5 votes to uphold the amendment. The opponents of the amendment argue, in part, that the “political restructuring” of banning race and sex considerations by amendment limits considerations of those factors in a way that no other factor is limited and, as such, is unconstitutional. Proponents say, to the contrary, that this amendment is, by its terms, nondiscriminatory and could never violate the Constitution.

If the ban is upheld, as many observers expect, expect others to try and get other states to follow.

4. Reproductive Health Clinic Buffer-Zone Law - McCullen v. Coakley
In its January decision upholding the Massachusetts law banning those other than employees, law enforcement or those entering or leaving reproductive health care facilities from entering a 35-foot “buffer zone” around the entrance and exits of such facilities, the First Circuit judges were clearly frustrated with the challenge: “This case does not come to us as a stranger.”

In examining the First Amendment arguments put forth by opponents of the buffer zone, Judge Bruce Selya wrote, “The plaintiffs have also marshaled other recent Supreme Court cases in their ambitious effort to reinvent First Amendment doctrine. … For present purposes, it suffices that these decisions, by no stretch of even the most fertile imagination, sully either the reasoning or the doctrinal infrastructure of [the court’s earlier decision upholding the law].” Now however, the Supreme Court will examine whether the law is different from a 2000 decision upholding a Colorado buffer zone and, more broadly, whether that decision should be limited or overruled.

5. Scope Of The Fair Housing Act - Mount Holly v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action
The question before the justices with regards to the New Jersey town of Mount Holly is very direct: Can so-called “disparate impact” claims be violations of the Fair Housing Act? Disparate impact claims are raised in those circumstances in which racial or other discrimination may not have been the purpose of a given rule or policy but in which the effect of the rule or policy “disproportionately affects or impacts one group more than another,” as the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held in finding that the Fair Housing Act can be violated by a policy with such a “disparate impact.”

The Supreme Court took the case, and part of the underlying question the justices will consider is whether it should defer to the Housing and Urban Development Department’s policy that such “disparate impact” cases are allowed under the law.

Virginia is a test state for a new gun program

Virginia has become the test state for a planned nationally linked program that will allow every law enforcement agency in the commonwealth -- if they choose to participate -- instant access to a shared database of records on recovered crime guns and investigative traces of those weapons.

In the eight weeks since the program was launched, 25 of Virginia's 352 state and local law enforcement agencies have signed agreements to share crime gun trace data with their participating state colleagues through an enhancement of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' eTrace system, an Internet-based firearms tracing and analysis initiative.

The shared information can help authorities link a suspect to a firearm in a criminal investigation, identify potential gun traffickers and straw purchasers, and detect intrastate patterns regarding the sources and types of weapons used in crimes.

"It's basically a pay-to-play system," said April Carroll of the ATF's eTracing unit, in explaining how police agencies must share their data to receive information in return. "If you opt in, you have access to all the other pool of data for all the other agencies that have also chosen to opt in. So it's reciprocal, and the data is immediately available and it's instantaneous sharing."

The Virginia initiative, which started in mid-July as a first-of-its-kind pilot program, is an expansion of the federal Electronic Tracing System based at the ATF's National Tracing Center in Martinsburg, W.Va.

Authorities have deemed Virginia's start a success and are in the planning stages of expanding the program to other states. Illinois and Maryland are next in line, Carroll said.

Once other states come online, participating law enforcement agencies could collectively share trace information well beyond their states' borders. But for now, Virginia's system is limited to in-state use.

"In the past, if a firearm was trafficked from Chesterfield into the city of Richmond, the city of Richmond and Chesterfield County may not know that that firearm had been trafficked from one jurisdiction to the next," said Melissa Merola, resident agent in charge of the ATF's central Virginia office. "So by the new opt-in (provision) that we share through our eTracing system, local agencies and state agencies can make choices and agree to share the data with one another.

"And it's a free resource to every agency."

Merola said the system will allow state and local police agencies to look at patterns of firearm trafficking "and in turn give us a better analytical capability to look at where these firearms are going."

DOJ will let Washington, Colorado marijuana laws go into effect

The United States government took a historic step back from its long-running drug war on Thursday, when Attorney General Eric Holder informed the governors of Washington and Colorado that the Department of Justice would allow the states to create a regime that would regulate and implement the ballot initiatives that legalized the use of marijuana for adults.

A Justice Department official said that Holder told the governors in a joint phone call early Thursday afternoon that the department would take a "trust but verify approach" to the state laws. DOJ is reserving its right to file a preemption lawsuit at a later date, since the states' regulation of marijuana is illegal under the Controlled Substances Act.

Deputy Attorney General James Cole also issued a three-and-a-half page memo to U.S. attorneys across the country. "The Department's guidance in this memorandum rests on its expectation that states and local governments that have enacted laws authorizing marijuana-related conduct will implement strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems that will address the threat those state laws could pose to public safety, public health and other law enforcement interests," it reads. "A system adequate to that task must not only contain robust controls and procedures on paper; it must also be effective in practice."

The memo also outlines eight priorities for federal prosecutors enforcing marijuana laws. According to the guidance, DOJ will still prosecute individuals or entities to prevent:

• the distribution of marijuana to minors;
• revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises, gangs and cartels;
• the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under state law in some form to other states;
• state-authorized marijuana activity from being used as a cover or pretext for the trafficking of other illegal drugs or other illegal activity;
• violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of marijuana
• drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences associated with marijuana use;
• growing of marijuana on public lands and the attendant public safety and environmental dangers posed by marijuana production on public lands;
• preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property.

The eight high-priority areas leave prosecutors bent on targeting marijuana businesses with a fair amount of leeway, especially the exception for "adverse public health consequences." And prosecutors have shown a willingness to aggressively interpret DOJ guidance in the past, as the many medical marijuana dispensary owners now behind bars can attest.

U.S. Attorneys will individually be responsible for interpreting the guidelines and how they apply to a case they intend to prosecute. A Justice Department official said, for example, that a U.S Attorney could go after marijuana distributors who used cartoon characters in their marketing because that could be interpreted as attempting to distribute marijuana to minors.

But the official stressed that the guidance was not optional, and that prosecutors would no longer be allowed to use the sheer volume of sales or the for-profit status of an operation as triggers for prosecution, though these factors could still affect their prosecutorial decisions.

The Obama administration has struggled with the legalization of medical marijuana in several states. Justice Department Officials had instructed federal prosecutors across the country not to focus federal resources on individuals who were complying with state laws regarding the use of medical marijuana. But the U.S. attorneys in several states that had legalized medical marijuana rebelled, and what was known as the Ogden memo faced stiff resistance from career prosecutors.

"That's just not what they do,” one former Justice official told HuffPost. “They prosecute people."

As a result of the internal pushback at DOJ, a new memo was issued by Deputy Attorney General James Cole in 2011 that gave U.S. attorneys more cover to go after medical marijuana distributors. Federal prosecutors began threatening local government officials with prosecution if they went forward with legislation regulating medical cannabis.

After recreational marijuana initiatives passed in Washington and Colorado in November, President Barack Obama said the federal government had “bigger fish to fry” and would not make going after marijuana users a priority.

Holder said back in December that the federal response to the passage of the state ballot measures would be coming “relatively soon.”

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson told HuffPost his office was preparing for the “worst-case scenario” of a federal lawsuit against the law.

Source

The high hurdles of running a medical marijuana business

The Renaissance Blackstone Hotel in Chicago, way back in June 1920, famously birthed the concept of the “smoke-filled room” when a gaggle of Republican power brokers checked into a suite and stayed up all night, puffing their lungs black and haggling over their party’s stalemated presidential convention. (They ultimately decided on nominating Warren G. Harding, a devoted tobacco user in his own right.)

So it seems appropriate that on Thursday night the hotel served as the setting for a marijuana powwow — more specifically, the Illinois Medical Cannabis Investment and Legal Seminar.

Looking not all that different than the attendees of an insurance conference, a crowd of around 50 mostly white, middled-aged men in sports jackets — each of whom paid several hundred dollars for entry — sat at long tables with water pitchers and information packets in the hotel’s “Innovation Room” to hear Brian Vicente and Christian Sederberg provide three hours of tips and intuition about navigating the legal and financial obstacles to starting a medical marijuana dispensary.

Or rather, a medical cannabis company — the first rule of marijuana club is not to talk about “marijuana.” The nomenclature is important, insists Vicente, the Colorado lawyer who helped lead the successful fight to legalize pot in his home state. You don’t dick around.

“This isn’t a reefer shop. This is Chicago’s Wellness Center,” he says. “It is the best way to keep the federal government, soccer moms that might complain, and law enforcement from beating on your door.”

Vicente and Sederberg have become two of the more prominent voices on marijuana — sorry, cannabis — legalization in the last year. Their law practice, Vicente Sederberg LLC, now operates as a “full-service medical marijuana law firm,” with offices in Denver and Massachusetts, and plans to expand.

The legalization effort, as it continues to push forward, needs an industry to support it, just as it finds a phalanx of aligned corporate interests (lobbyists, drug-testing equipment manufacturers, DEA subcontractors, etc.) in opposition. There is for-profit potential here. But it’s not going to be easy.

“When you are planning your business, you have to understand that this is a federally illegal product,” Vicente says. He notes that there are former dispensary owners who currently sit behind bars, looking at another decade of hard time.

Even if you don’t get shut down and carted off by the feds, you still will constantly bump up against Uncle Sam’s presence, particularly when it comes to banking and taxation. Banks tend to become tight-fisted with loans and credit for this type of business. Vicente tells of one client in Colorado who has had to open up 14 different bank accounts over the last 11 months.

Presuming you’re able to get a loan and open a business and make money dispensing, current federal law makes simply depositing it an enterprise unto itself.

Section 280 E of the Internal Revenue Code — which everyone quickly scribbles down on their notepads when Vicente mentions it — holds that no deductions or credits shall come from the “trafficking” of federally prohibited substances.

“This is a brand-new industry,” Sederberg says, “so a lot of people think that it is an immediate moneymaker because it is a product everyone wants, and [they think] there is a large margin for error when there really isn’t.”

As Jill Lamoureux, who previously operated four dispensaries in Colorado and now works as a consultant and grant writer, declared to the attendees upon taking the podium last night, medical cannabis is “one of the riskiest businesses you could ever undertake.” The margins are small and the payback period is long. In Illinois, specifically, patient protection laws are limited, making setting up a dispensary even riskier than in Colorado, Lamoureux notes.

To make the point even finer, she compares the prospective endeavor to her former career in the world of municipal bonds, saying, “It is probably easier to sell junk bonds for construction projects in South America than it is to be in this business.”

She advises arming oneself with multiple attorneys and a “great tax advisor.”

Earlier this month, Illinois became the 20th state in the nation to sign into law a medical marijuana bill, although a rather difficult one, as plainly evidenced by its full statutory name: the Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act. The operative word being “pilot,” as in trial; the law will be up for renewal in 2018.

And even though the legislation is 200 pages long, many of its specific provisions are still waiting to be hashed out. So far we know only that there will be tremendous bureaucracy: Dispensaries will be regulated in Illinois by four executive agencies. And there will be a long delay. The Department of Agriculture has announced that it doesn’t expect to accept dispensary applications until fall 2014, meaning that patients likely won’t be able to start getting cannabis until early 2015 at the earliest. To put it another way, a prospective dispensary owner could spend the next two years hazarding a thicket of red tape in trying to set up a business, with only the guarantee that the pilot law will be in effect for the three years after that.

“You’ve got to take the long-arc view on this. Marijuana was illegal for 80 years, and now it is becoming a regulated product,” he says. “We are trying to get on the ground floor. It may take months, it may take years to get established.”

For now, the pot of gold is as ethereal as a rainbow. You need so much capital and so much patience and so much gumption. And at the end of a sobering walk through the legal and financial hurdles to climb to get into the medical cannabis business, you know what else you can really use?

Source