A group of four military veterans last week filed suit against New York’s Office of Cannabis Management (OCM), claiming that the agency’s rules that prioritize applicants with prior marijuana convictions for cannabis dispensary licenses violate the state’s 2021 marijuana legalization statute. In a complaint filed in the New York State Supreme Court, the four plaintiffs argue that state regulators failed to follow the Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act (MRTA) when it did not issue cannabis retail licenses to disabled veterans and members of other minority groups. The lawsuit seeks a temporary restraining order barring the state from issuing further licenses under the Conditional Adult-Use Retail Dispensary (CAURD) program, which have been reserved for applicants with a marijuana-related criminal conviction.

The MRTA included provisions that set a goal of awarding at least half of the state’s recreational marijuana dispensaries to social and economic equity applicants. Under an initiative spearheaded by New York Governor Kathy Hochul last year, the state’s first licenses for retail cannabis shops have been reserved for “individuals most impacted by the unjust enforcement of the prohibition of cannabis or nonprofit organizations whose services include support for the formerly incarcerated.” 

To be eligible for a CAURD license, applicants are required to either have had a cannabis conviction or be the family member of someone with a cannabis conviction, among other criteria. Nonprofits with a history of serving formerly incarcerated or currently incarcerated individuals were eligible to apply for a CAURD license. So far, the OCM has issued 463 CAURD licenses, although less than two dozen dispensaries have opened across the state so far.

“The MRTA had already established a goal to award 50% of all adult-use licenses to social and economic equity applicants. But instead of following the law, OCM and CCB created their own version of ‘social equity’ and determined for themselves which individuals would get priority to enter New York’s nascent adult-use cannabis market,” reads a statement on behalf of the veterans bringing the legal action.

Lawsuit Argues OCM Rules Unconstitutional

The lawsuit was filed by four U.S. veterans who have served a combined more than two decades in various branches of the military. They argue that restricting retail licenses to those with cannabis convictions was not approved by the legislature and violates the state Constitution.

“It’s out of character for a veteran to sue the state to uphold a law,” William Norgard, one of the plaintiffs in the case and a U.S. Army veteran, said in a statement quoted by the Olean Times Herald. “We take oaths to defend the laws of our nation, and trust — maybe naively — that government officials will faithfully and legally execute those laws. What the Office of Cannabis Management is doing right now is in complete breach of that trust. As veterans, we know that someone has to hold the line.”

“Service-disabled veterans are the only social equity group in the law not born into priority status, but a group to which anyone could belong,” said Carmine Fiore, who served eight years in the U.S. Army and New York Army National Guard and is also one of the four plaintiffs in the case. “We are also the only priority group in the (law) that achieved its status by helping communities.” 

“It feels like we were used to get a law passed — a good law, one that helps a lot of people, as well as the state,” Fiore added. “Then, once it was passed, we were cast aside for another agenda.”

The other plaintiffs are Steve Mejia and Dominic Spaccio, who both served six years in the U.S. Air Force.

Lucas McCann, co-founder and chief scientific officer at cannabis compliance consulting firm CannDelta Inc., notes that there is no mention of the CAURD program in the MRTA. When the program was created, the definition of social equity was defined to exclusively include those with previous cannabis-related convictions and previous business experience. But a broader definition of social equity may be appropriate, and future rounds of licensing could include members of other groups, McCann says.

“The grievances brought forward by the four military veterans highlight another facet of the ‘social equity’ conversation that cannot be ignored. Veterans, particularly disabled ones, face their own set of challenges and hurdles,” he wrote in an email. “Their dedicated service to the nation warrants recognition and inclusion in the emerging industry, especially when considering the potential therapeutic benefits of cannabis for a myriad of health issues commonly faced by veterans.”

Michelle Bodian, a partner at the leading cannabis and psychedelics law firm Vicente LLP, said that is too early to determine how the lawsuit will affect the continuing rollout of New York’s regulated marijuana industry. 

“There is always a chance the lawsuit will succeed, and the CAURD program will be halted; however, it’s equally as likely the state will settle with the plaintiffs and award them a license,” Bodian said in a statement to High Times. “As the TRO hearing is scheduled for later this week, we should know in short order whether the CAURD program is frozen in place or whether new provisional or final licenses can be awarded.”

When asked about the legal action, an OCM spokesperson told local media outlets that the agency does not comment on pending litigation.

The post Military Veterans File Suit Against New York’s Cannabis Licensing Rules appeared first on High Times.

The post Military Veterans File Suit Against New York’s Cannabis Licensing Rules appeared first on Paradise Found.

The Florida-based advocacy group Smart & Safe Florida (SSF) has been hard at work trying to get a cannabis legalization initiative on the ballot for 2024. The most recent developments include new briefs filed with the Florida Supreme Court.

On July 19, Smart & Safe Florida, alongside the Medical Marijuana Business Association of Florida and Cato Institute, filed a new brief with the Florida Supreme Court in response to Attorney General Ashley Moody who is challenging the initiative. The Supreme Court is labeling this as a “high profile case.”

In the brief, SSF states that the “roadmap” for previous cannabis ballot initiatives has been guiding cannabis reform, but that Moody is attempting to alter that process. “In the past several years, this Court has established a ‘roadmap’ for sponsors of marijuana-related ballot initiatives. In drafting the Initiative, SSF followed that clear roadmap. But the Attorney General and other opponents now argue that this court should abruptly redraw the map,” the brief stated. “The Attorney General’s lead argument is that this court should discard three of its recent precedents—precedents that it expressly encouraged ballot sponsors to use as blueprints for drafting future initiatives.”

In attempting to “redraw” this initiative map, SSF claims that Moody is suggesting that the Supreme Court “…abandon the deferential standard of review that it has consistently applied to ballot initiatives for decades, essentially arguing that this Court committed legal error in dozens of decisions, and that it should invent a new, more lenient standard for discarding precedent.”

SSF is asking the Supreme Court to “reject these misguided efforts to jettison established legal rules in service of a thinly veiled policy agenda,” and to confirm that SSF’s initiative “satisfies the legal requirements to be placed on the ballot.”

Medical Marijuana Business Association of Florida and Cato Institute also issued individual briefs as well.

The Medical Marijuana Business Association of Florida said that Moody’s argument is “misleading because it fails to disclose that there may be a significant period in which the marijuana industry will be unregulated in the production of marijuana for non-medical personal use by adults, ignores the current regulatory scheme that would remain in place, is speculative, and is belied by Florida’s history of robustly regulating marijuana.” The organization asserts that the ballot title and summary are not misleading, and should be approved.

The Cato Institute’s brief argues that the ballot initiative does not violate the state’s single subject rule for ballot initiatives.

In order for SSF’s ballot to fully qualify, it will need to submit 891,589 valid signatures. In March, SSF submitted 420,000 signatures toward the initiative’s goal to qualify for the ballot, but only 222,881 signatures were required to prompt a Florida Supreme Court review of the ballot summary text in order to move forward.

Two months later in May, Moody submitted her opinion that the ballot doesn’t meet the requirements of the single subject rule. “We very much look forward to [Moody’s] analysis but more importantly to both written and oral arguments before the Florida Supreme Court and a positive ruling from that court,” SSF said at the time. “As an aside, it is important to note that the opinion of the Attorney General is not binding and that this matter will be decided after both sides have had their say before the Florida Supreme Court.”

By June, Moody officially challenged the initiative with a legal opinion that the ballot title and summary is “incorrect and misleading” because cannabis is still illegal under federal law. Previously, Moody also called a ballot initiative from 2021 “misleading” and the Florida Supreme Court rejected the measure.

Cannabis company Trulieve has granted a total of $39.05 million toward getting a legalization initiative onto the ballot in 2024. 

If the initiative is allowed to proceed to the ballot and is approved by voters, it would allow currently operating medical cannabis businesses to sell adult-use cannabis, but also allow state legislators to increase the number of dispensaries. For residents, it would allow adults to possess up to three ounces of flower and up to five grams of concentrates, but in its current form does not allow home cultivation and does not mention anything in regards to cannabis conviction expungement or social equity licensing.

The post Florida Advocacy Group Files Brief Against Attorney General for Challenging 2024 Ballot Initiative appeared first on High Times.

The post Florida Advocacy Group Files Brief Against Attorney General for Challenging 2024 Ballot Initiative appeared first on Paradise Found.

Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody on Monday filed a challenge to a proposed ballot measure to legalize recreational marijuana with the state Supreme Court, arguing that the initiative should not appear before voters in next year’s general election. If successful, the proposed amendment initiative from the group Smart & Safe Florida would legalize cannabis for all adults aged 21 and up. 

In a legal opinion filed with the Florida Supreme Court on Monday, Moody, a Republican who has been the state’s attorney general since 2019, argued that the proposed marijuana legalization ballot measure is misleading to voters. In the brief, she notes that according to the ballot summary, the proposed initiative would permit “adults 21 years or older to possess, purchase, or use marijuana products and marijuana accessories” for non-medical consumption.

“That is incorrect and misleading,” because marijuana remains illegal under federal law, she wrote in the state’s brief. “In previously approving similarly worded ballot summaries, the court erred.”

“[M]arijuana is independently prohibited by federal law,” the brief notes, as cited by the Orlando Sentinel. “Indeed, every individual who possesses marijuana under the scheme provided by the proposed amendment would become a federal criminal.”

The ballot summary notes that the initiative does not change federal law, but that language is “inadequate to resolve the confusion,” Moody wrote in the brief.

To qualify for the ballot, the proposal must first be approved by the Supreme Court and receive nearly 900,000 verified signatures from registered voters. If the initiative survives the challenge by Moody, it must receive at least 60% of the vote in the 2024 general election to become law.

Medical Marijuana Legalized In 2016

In 2016, the Florida Supreme Court approved a medical marijuana legalization ballot measure that went on to garner 71% of the vote at the polls in that year’s election. But in her legal brief, Moody wrote that “voters need clear guidance before being asked to lift state-law penalties for the possession of a substance that would subject users to devastating criminal liability under federal law. And the rampant misinformation in the press and being peddled by the sponsor of this initiative about its effects makes clarity all the more pivotal.”

In a 5-2 decision in 2021, the Florida Supreme Court rejected a proposed recreational marijuana initiative that was challenged by Moody. The same year, the court also rejected a second adult-use cannabis ballot proposal in a separate decision.

Campaign Responds To Challenge

After Moody filed the brief challenging the proposal, Smart & Safe Florida spokesman Steve Vancore said the campaign does not agree with Moody’s assessment of the ballot measure.

“We believe the language as written clearly complies with the requirements of the Constitution. We look forward to bringing this matter to the Florida Supreme Court and are confident that the court will conclude that there is no lawful basis to set aside the ballot initiative,” Vancore said in a public statement. “This important issue should be entrusted to the citizens of Florida — over a million of whom have already signed the Smart & Safe Florida petition saying they support it — to decide for themselves through democratic choice.”

Daniel Russell, an attorney specializing in cannabis law, accused Moody of politicizing the issue.

“This document is more Fox News fear-mongering intended to produce goodwill from ‘the base’ than a legal document filed by Florida’s chief legal officer on behalf of the state’s 22 million residents,” Russell told The News Service of Florida in an email. “It reeks of conservative nonsense and Nixonian views on a substance that is legalized for recreational use in 23 states, three U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia. I believe that the Supreme Court of Florida will see this for what it is and allow voters to decide the next steps for Florida’s future.”

Proposal Would Legalize Weed For Adults in Florida

The proposal from Smart & Safe Florida would allow the state’s current providers of medical marijuana to begin selling cannabis to all adults aged 21 and up. Consumers would be permitted to purchase up to three ounces of marijuana at a time, including no more than five grams of cannabis concentrates. The proposed constitutional amendment ballot measure allows state lawmakers to authorize additional adult-use cannabis business licenses, although there is no requirement for the legislature to do so. The initiative also retains Florida’s current vertically integrated business structure, which requires operators to control the production and marketing of marijuana from seed to sale.

The Smart & Safe Florida campaign is sponsored by Trulieve, the state’s largest medical marijuana provider, to the tune of contributions totaling more than $38 million, according to data from the state Division of Elections. Earlier this month, Trulieve announced that the proposal had received enough signatures from Florida voters to qualify for the 2024 general election ballot.

“Our investment demonstrates our firm belief that Floridians are ready to experience the freedom to use cannabis for personal consumption; a freedom which is currently enjoyed by more than half of America’s adults,” Trulieve CEO Kim Rivers said in a statement from the company on June 1. “With over 965,000 validated signatures from nearly every part of our state, it is clear these voters share that belief. We are thrilled the campaign has made this milestone and look forward to seeing this initiative on the ballot next November.”

The post Florida AG Files Challenge to Cannabis Legalization Initiative appeared first on High Times.

The post Florida AG Files Challenge to Cannabis Legalization Initiative appeared first on Paradise Found.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled this week that the scent of cannabis alone constitutes probable cause to justify a search by police, despite the legalization of other products such as hemp that have similar odors. The court’s conservative majority ruled in a 4-3 decision that police officers in Marshfield, Wisconsin, had enough probable cause to search a defendant after detecting the smell of cannabis in the car he was driving and declined to exclude evidence discovered during the warrantless search. The ruling overturns two lower court rulings that found the evidence gained in the search was inadmissible because officers could not be certain if they smelled marijuana, which is still illegal under Wisconsin state law, and hemp, an agricultural crop that was legalized by the federal government with the 2018 Farm Bill.

The court handed down the decision on Tuesday in the case of Quaheem Moore, a man who was pulled over for speeding in Marshfield by two police officers in 2019. In their report, the officers state that while talking to Moore, they detected a strong odor of burnt cannabis emanating from the vehicle. When questioned about the odor, Moore told the officers that he had a CBD vaping device and noted that the vehicle was a car that had been rented by his brother. 

Scent of Cannabis Cited as Cause for Search

Although they admitted that they did detect the odor of marijuana on Moore, the officers cited the scent of cannabis coming from the car as cause to search the vehicle and Moore. The officers stated that during the search, they noted that Moore’s belt buckle appeared to be askew and upon looking closer, discovered a bulge in his pants. After closer examination, the officers discovered a hidden pocket inside the zipper of Moore’s pants, where they discovered packets of fentanyl and cocaine.

Police then arrested Moore and charged him with possession of narcotics, although he was not charged with possession of marijuana. Moore’s lawyers argued that because the police officers did not smell marijuana on Moore and because of the legality of CBD and hemp, which has an odor indistinguishable from marijuana, the police officers did not have probable cause for the search. Thus, the drugs found in the search should be excluded from evidence.

A circuit court judge and an appeals court agreed and ruled that the evidence discovered in the search was not admissible. Prosecutors appealed the rulings, saying the lower courts erred when they ruled the evidence inadmissible for trial.

Decision Overrules Lower Courts in Wisconsin

The Supreme Court disagreed with the previous rulings, overruling the lower court decisions and deciding the evidence gained in the search could be used in court. In a majority opinion written by Justice Brian Hagedorn, the court’s conservative majority found that because Moore was the only person in the vehicle, the police could reasonably assume that he “was probably connected with the illegal substance the officers identified.”

The decision relied on a 1999 Supreme Court decision that found police could arrest a driver because they connected him to the odor of cannabis in the car he was driving. That ruling said that the “unmistakable” scent of a controlled substance was evidence that a crime had been committed.

But the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s liberal minority questioned the 1999 ruling and its relevance to Moore’s case, saying that the police officers did not have strong evidence that the cannabis odor was coming from Moore. They also noted that the earlier ruling is outdated and does not take into account the subsequent legalization of hemp and CBD. 

“Officers who believe they smell marijuana coming from a vehicle may just as likely be smelling raw or smoked hemp, which is not criminal activity,” Justice Rebecca Frank Dallet wrote in a dissenting opinion that was joined by two additional justices.

After Tuesday’s Supreme Court ruling was released, Moore’s attorney, Joshua Hargrove, warned that the decision could allow law enforcement offices to justify searches based on unreliable conclusions without being held accountable in court.

“This opinion could subject more citizens engaged in lawful behavior to arrest,” he said in a statement quoted by the Associated Press.

The post Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules Cannabis Odor Enough To Justify Search appeared first on High Times.

The post Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules Cannabis Odor Enough To Justify Search appeared first on Paradise Found.

On May 16, the New Mexico Supreme Court oversaw arguments on the topic of roadside cannabis testing. According to Santa Fe New Mexican, Nina Luna was pulled over by a law enforcement officer in Albuquerque in 2018. The officer described in his report that Luna had red, watery eyes and slurred speech, and smelled cannabis odor coming from inside her vehicle.

Although Luna stated that she had smoked “a bowl” hours before driving, the officer conducted a field sobriety test, which is designed to determine alcohol impairment. After performing “poorly” on the field test, Luna was convicted of driving under the influence, as well as speeding. 

During the most recent supreme court case, Luna’s public defender argued that the field sobriety test she received should not be admitted as evidence because it does not properly measure cannabis impairment.

Luna’s attorney also asked the Bernalillo County Metro Court that the officer’s testimony be suppressed because he’s not an expert in drug-recognition but was denied. The state District Court ruled that “a reasonable fact-finder could conclude … [Luna] was influenced by drugs to such a degree that she could not safely operate a motor vehicle.”

The state Court of Appeals echoed that decision in 2021. “Administration of field sobriety tests is a reasonable part of an investigation where the officer has reasonable suspicion the person was driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs…defendant has not convinced us expert testimony from a drug recognition expert was required,” wrote Court of Appeals Judge J. Miles Hanisee.

In December 2022, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, which led to the events of the most recent hearing on May 16. Luna’s appellate attorney, Luz Valverde, was questioned about evidence of impairment. “What about a circumstance like here, where there’s overwhelming compelling evidence…a person was impaired?” asked Justice David Thomson.

In response, Valverde stated that the evidence in Luna’s case was not compelling. “I would disagree…that the evidence was overwhelming, especially in light of recent studies that show that impairment is so hard to determine based on [field sobriety tests],” Valverde said. 

Valverde continued to discuss that while officers should be able to testify about their observations as laypeople (or non-qualified people within the legal system), but shouldn’t make claims about a person who passed or failed, or claim that pupil size is relative to impairment without any kind of training.

Assistant General Meryl Francolini argued against disqualifying an officer’s testimony because of lack of training, stating that the 2021 Court of Appeals ruling from a Florida case stated that field sobriety tests are “easily understood tests that a layperson can observe and identify signs of impairment.”

“The officer did not need to be a [drug recognition expert] to give the testimony in this case, and any holding to the contrary I think would have pretty dire consequences in the trial courts,” said Francolini. “If this court were to hold that a nontrained officer [in drug recognition] is just totally unqualified to connect signs of impairment to a drug, when he knows what the drug is because he smelled it and the defendant told him that she used it, that’s a slippery slope.”

A ruling was not issued during or directly after the May 16 hearing.

Verifying cannabis impairment is no simple task. A study from May 2022 determined that THC found in blood or breath tests does not indicate impairment. A Canada study from April 2021 emphasized a need for accurate methods of detecting impairment while driving. “We know that cannabis has an impact on driving,” said the study’s lead author, Sarah Windle. “Detecting cannabis, it doesn’t necessarily correspond directly to impairment. That’s a big, big challenge in this literature. At what level is somebody really impaired and it seems that varies on many factors: by (the) individual, by their level of tolerance, how often are they using, what kind of cannabis and its potency are they using.”

In February, a Maryland police department started inviting cannabis consumers to its training academy to demonstrate driving impairment in exchange for water, snacks, and pizza. “Participants are then used as test subjects for officers trying to determine whether someone is too high to drive. That’s not easy. Unlike people who drive drunk, and whose impairment can be quantified by breathalyzers and blood-alcohol tests, it’s more difficult to discern with pot,” wrote The Washington Post in a report.

The post New Mexico Supreme Court Case Hearing Addresses Cannabis Impairment appeared first on High Times.

The post New Mexico Supreme Court Case Hearing Addresses Cannabis Impairment appeared first on Paradise Found.

The political committee Smart & Safe Florida is sponsoring the “Adult Personal Use of Marijuana” proposal, which obtained well over the required 222,881 petition signatures to trigger an imperative Supreme Court review. 

On Monday, Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody (R) formally submitted the proposal to the court, along with her opinion that it does not meet legal requirements to land on next year’s ballot. The Supreme Court reviews initiatives, specifically ensuring that constitutional amendments are limited to single subjects and that they contain clear language.

Moody has specifically claimed that the initiative violates the state Constitution’s single subject rule, requiring ballot proposals to focus on a single, individual issue only. Moody previously made the same argument about a 2022 legalization measure, which the Supreme Court ultimately invalidated.

“In accordance with the provisions of Article IV, section 10, Florida Constitution, I respectfully request this Court’s opinion as to whether the proposed amendment ‘Adult Personal Use of Marijuana’ complies with the single-subject requirement of Article XI, section 3, Florida Constitution, and whether the ballot title and summary of the amendment complies with the substantive and technical requirements in section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes,” Moody’s new court filing reads. “I believe that the proposed amendment fails to meet the requirements of Section 101.161(1), Fla. Stat., and will present additional arguments through briefing at the appropriate time.”

Activists countered with a statement shared Tuesday, sharing their appreciation for Moody’s transmittal to the Supreme Court while they “respectfully disagree with her statement that she believes it does not comply.”

“We very much look forward to her analysis but more importantly to both written and oral arguments before the Florida Supreme Court and a positive ruling from that court. As an aside, it is important to note that the opinion of the Attorney General is not binding and that this matter will be decided after both sides have had their say before the Florida Supreme Court,” reads a statement from the Safe & Smart campaign. 

Trulieve spokesman Steve Vancore also shared the company’s belief that “the ballot language meet’s Florida’s single subject and related laws.” Trulieve is the largest cannabis producer in Florida and has put more than $38 million to date behind the effort to put adult-use cannabis in front of voters in the state.

“As a majority of American adults now enjoy the freedom to use cannabis for personal consumption, we hope the court will agree that the Smart & Safe amendment meets Florida’s ballot sufficiency laws and will allow the voters to have a vote on this important matter,” Vancore said. 

The Safe & Smart committee needs both Supreme Court approval and at least 891,523 validated petition signatures for the measure to land on the 2024 ballot. According to the state’s Division of Elections website, the committee had 786,747 signatures as of Tuesday.

Under the initiative, adults over the age of 21 would be allowed “to possess, purchase, or use marijuana products and marijuana accessories for non-medical personal consumption by smoking, ingestion, or otherwise.” Additionally, the proposal allows state-licensed medical cannabis operators — of which there are currently 22 — to “acquire, cultivate, process, manufacture, sell and distribute such products and accessories.” 

The initiative does not allow for residents to grow at home for personal use. Should the initiative make the ballot, it must receive approval from 60% of voters to be enacted, since it’s a constitutional amendment.

A poll published by the University of North Florida’s Public Opinion Research Lab (PORL) in February also found that 70% of respondents supported the measure, either “strongly” or “somewhat.”

“Efforts to put recreational marijuana in front of voters in 2024 are in the beginning stages, but support for it is high across the political spectrum,” said Dr. Michael Binder, PORL faculty director and professor of political science. “If it makes it onto the ballot next year, and that’s a big ‘if,’ it has a good chance of reaching the 60% supermajority needed to pass.”

The post Supreme Court Review for Florida Rec Cannabis Bill Set in Motion, AG to Challenge appeared first on High Times.

The post Supreme Court Review for Florida Rec Cannabis Bill Set in Motion, AG to Challenge appeared first on Paradise Found.

Hundreds of Alaska residents will have their prior marijuana convictions removed from the state’s online court database.

That move follows an order late last month from the state Supreme Court last month, according to local media reports. 

Local news station KTUU reports that, as of May 1, “marijuana possession convictions of about just under 800 Alaska residents will be removed from Courtview, a public, online database of court cases.”

The order “follows years of similar, unsuccessful, legislative efforts to join a nationwide trend,” according to the Anchorage Daily News.

“I’m glad that the Supreme Court has ordered this,” said Democratic state Sen. Scott Kawasaki, as quoted by the Anchorage Daily News.

As stipulated by the state Supreme Court, the removal from the system will apply to individuals who were “convicted of possessing less than one ounce of marijuana … or a prior version of that statute that criminalized the same conduct, or a municipal ordinance that criminalized that same conduct if … the defendant was 21 years of age or older at the time of the offense, and … the defendant was not convicted of any other criminal charges in that same case.” 

According to the Anchorage Daily News, those “records will still be available for inspection at courthouses and will be discoverable by a formal criminal background check, but they won’t be as easy to find for the general public.”

Alaska legalized recreational cannabis for adults in 2014, when a majority of the state’s voters approved a ballot measure ending the prohibition on pot. 

“Given that (marijuana) has been legal for eight years, it appeared to the Supreme Court that this was an appropriate time not to have people, as I say, suffer the negative consequences that can stem from having your name posted on Courtview. Because the conduct is considered legal right now,” said Nancy Meade, the general counsel for the Alaska Court System.

In September, Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy, a Republican, issued an order establishing a new task force “to review the current marijuana tax and fee structures, and regulations applicable to marijuana operators, and provide recommendations for improvement to the Office of the Governor.”

“In the past seven years Alaska’s marijuana industry has flourished but is still considered a new and evolving industry in Alaska,” Dunleavy said in the announcement. “As we would expect to see with any new industry, concerns have been raised about the structure the industry has been operating under. A cornerstone of my administration has been to review unnecessary regulations that are a burden to business, while ensuring oversight to protect the health, life, and safety of all Alaskans. It is my hope that with the formation of the Governor’s Advisory Task Force on Recreational Marijuana, we can bring together a variety of voices and perspectives to evaluate existing provisions and consider recommendations to improve the viability of the industry.”

Dunleavy’s office said the task force will be comprised of 13 members, three of whom will be “The Commissioner of the Department of Revenue or the Commissioner’s designee; The Commissioner of the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development or the Commissioner’s designee; [and] The Director of the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Agriculture.”

The remaining ten members of the task force are identified as follows: “One member who sits on the Alaska Marijuana Control Board; One member who represents a city, borough, or municipality that allows recreational marijuana businesses within its jurisdictional boundaries; One member that is a standard licensed marijuana cultivator in the State; One member that is a limited licensed marijuana cultivator in the State; One member that is a licensed marijuana product or concentrate manufacturer in the State; One member that is a licensed marijuana retailer in the State; Three licensed marijuana operators from any segment of the industry; [and] One public member.”

The post Alaska Scrubbing Hundreds of Pot Convictions from Court Database appeared first on High Times.

The post Alaska Scrubbing Hundreds of Pot Convictions from Court Database appeared first on Paradise Found.

The Arkansas Supreme Court ruled late Thursday that voters in the state will have the opportunity to decide on a recreational marijuana proposal that will appear on this November’s ballot.

The decision ends a drawn-out dispute over the measure, which would legalize pot for adults aged 21 and older while also establishing a state-regulated marijuana market.

State officials, including Arkansas’ secretary of state, challenged the validity of the measure, which would be an amendment to the state’s constitution.

Activists submitted more than enough valid signatures for the proposal to qualify for the ballot, but the state Board of Election Commissioners rejected the measure, contending that the ballot title did not adequately explain the amendment to voters.

The group behind the proposal, Responsible Growth Arkansas, filed an appeal to the state Supreme Court, which made a preliminary ruling last month that the amendment should appear on the ballot, but held off on deciding whether the votes will actually count.

On Thursday, the court issued its final decision, ruling that the amendment is sufficient and rejecting the Board of Election Commissioners’ authority to deny the proposal in the first place.

As the Associated Press reported, the justices “rejected the board’s arguments for denying the measure” and “also struck down the 2019 law that empowered the board to certify ballot measures.”

According to local news station WREG, the majority opinion said that “the ballot title at issue is complete enough to convey an intelligible idea of the scope and import of the proposed amendment,” and that “Respondents and Intervenors have not met their burden of proving that the ballot title is insufficient.”

“The people will decide whether to approve the proposed amendment in November,” the opinion said.

Responsible Growth Arkansas celebrated the decision.

“We’re extremely grateful to the Supreme Court that they agreed with us and felt like it was a complete validation of everything we’ve done,” said the group’s attorney, Steve Lancaster, as quoted by the Associated Press. “We’re excited and moving on to November.”

The majority also said that the Board of Election Commissioners “has no discretion to determine whether to certify a ballot title,” according to WREG, and that “the Board had no authority to decline to certify the ballot title to the Secretary of State, and its action is without legal effect.”

“I am confident that Arkansans can read this ballot title and understand that a vote for the initiative is a vote in favor of legalizing recreational marijuana and that their decision could have a wide-ranging impact on current medical-marijuana laws and regulations and children. It is for the people—not this court—to exercise the right to amend the constitution, and our court must continue to preserve this first power of the people of Arkansas by not supplanting their decisions with ours,” wrote Justice Rhonda Wood in a concurring opinion, as quoted by WREG.

Another justice, Shawn Womack, “concurred in part with the majority’s opinion but also dissented,” according to WREG, saying that the “ballot title fails to sufficiently advise voters of the magnitude of the change and gives the marijuana industry greater leeway to operate with limited oversight in these areas.”

But Womack also said he’s “confident that Arkansans can read this ballot title and understand that a vote for the initiative is a vote in favor of legalizing recreational marijuana and that their decision could have a wide-ranging impact on current medical-marijuana laws and regulations and children.”

“It is for the people—not this court—to exercise the right to amend the constitution, and our court must continue to preserve this first power of the people of Arkansas by not supplanting their decisions with ours,” Womack said, as quoted by WREG.

The post Arkansas Supreme Court Signs off on Legalization Ballot Measure appeared first on High Times.

The post Arkansas Supreme Court Signs off on Legalization Ballot Measure appeared first on Paradise Found.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to settle a dispute surrounding a recreational cannabis initiative that could appear on the state’s ballot this year, giving hope to activists that the proposal may still qualify.

Last week, the prospects for the initiative appeared grim. Although the Oklahoma secretary of state confirmed that organizers had submitted more than the requisite number of signatures for the proposal to qualify for the ballot, supporters lamented that it likely would not be certified before the August 29 deadline.

As the Associated Press detailed on Tuesday, Oklahomans for Sensible Marijuana Laws, the group behind the proposal, known as State Question 820, “gathered enough signatures to qualify…for a statewide vote, but because it took longer than usual to count the signatures, it’s not clear if there is enough time to get the question printed on ballots ahead of the Nov. 8 general election.”

Supporters of State Question 820 petitioned the Oklahoma Supreme Court to settle the matter.

“Since filing their initiative more than six months ago, proponents have done everything in their power to expedite the unwieldy Oklahoma initiative petition process so the People of Oklahoma can exercise their right to vote on the measure at the next general election,” the Yes on 820 campaign wrote in the petition, as quoted by the Associated Press. “Yet they have been stymied by state officials (or their hand-picked vendors) who are either unable or unwilling to perform their administrative duties in a timely and efficient manner.”

On Tuesday, the state Supreme Court “issued an order assuming jurisdiction to decide if the state question will appear on the November 2022 ballot,” according to Tulsa Public Radio, a decision that pleased the SQ 820 campaign.

According to the station, “the measure has to make it through the 10-day publication period before Court Justices will approve it for the general election.”

“We’re actually thrilled,” campaign director Michelle Tilley said, as quoted by local news station Fox 25. “We’re thrilled because the Supreme Court has recognized that we have enough valid signatures to go forward, and we are thrilled because they have left open the possibility that after our 10-day protest period is over, that they have jurisdiction to place this on the ballot in November.”

“We’ve done what we’ve had to do, we’ve really really worked hard,” Tilley added, as quoted by Tulsa Public Radio. “We even turned in our signatures 30 days early. We’ve done everything to try and make these deadlines, and it’s hard. We’re playing by the rules and then the rules change, so.”

The 820 campaign has been stymied in particular by a new ballot system implemented this year in Oklahoma.

The Associated Press reports that “while the Oklahoma Secretary of State’s Office has typically handled counting signatures in house, the process this year involved a contract with a company connected to a political polling firm to provide software and technical assistance to help verify the voter registration status of signatories,” and that as a result, “supporters say a signature-counting process that typically takes two to three weeks took nearly seven weeks to complete.”

“This new process differs significantly from the historical practice of merely counting the number of individuals who signed the petition without regard for their voter registration status,” Oklahoma Secretary of State Brian Bingman said in a statement, as quoted by the Associated Press. “Our office has been in constant communication with the proponents and we look forward to working with them and other interested parties as we continue to improve this new process.”

The post Oklahoma Supreme Court To Consider Whether Legalization Initiative Will Qualify For Ballot appeared first on High Times.

The post Oklahoma Supreme Court To Consider Whether Legalization Initiative Will Qualify For Ballot appeared first on Paradise Found.

The Arkansas Supreme Court this week said that a marijuana legalization proposal should be placed back on the state’s ballot, but it remains unclear whether the vote will ultimately mean anything.

It is the latest twist in what has become a messy dispute surrounding a campaign to end prohibition in the state. Earlier this month, the advocacy group Responsible Growth Arkansas filed an appeal to the state Supreme Court after the state Board of Election Commissioners rejected the group’s bid to get the proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot.

Organizers with Responsible Growth Arkansas submitted nearly 90,000 valid signatures––well above the threshold to qualify for the ballot––but the Board of Election Commissioners rejected the proposal because “commissioners said they didn’t believe the ballot title fully explained to voters the impact of the amendment,” according to the Associated Press.

“For example, commissioners said they were concerned that the amendment would repeal the state’s current limit under its medical marijuana amendment on how much THC is allowed in edible marijuana products,” the Associated Press reported.

Responsible Growth Arkansas objected to the board’s ruling, arguing that commissioners were asking for an unreasonable amount of information.

“The type of detail that the board expected, or demanded in this case, would make our ballot title thousands and thousands of words long,” Steve Lancaster, an attorney for Responsible Growth Arkansas, said after the board’s vote, as quoted by the Associated Press. “That just simply is not workable for a ballot.”

On Wednesday, the state’s high court sided with the group, but uncertainty remains high.

According to local television station KARK, “the Arkansas Supreme Court instructed Secretary of State John Thurston to certify the ballot title for [recreational] marijuana in order to place it on the November ballot,” which “will allow voters to vote in favor or against expanded access to marijuana in the state.”

But, the station noted, “it remains to be seen if the general election votes will be counted.”

KARK explains: “At issue is the deadlines for items to appear on the November ballot. Any proposed Arkansas constitutional amendment must be certified by the Secretary of State by August 25. The Supreme Court’s schedule, however, will not allow it to hear the case filed by Responsible Growth Arkansas, the group working to put recreational marijuana on the ballot, until September.”

“What that means is that we’re going to be on the ballot. You’re going to see the Responsible Growth Arkansas measure on your ballot. You’ll be able to cast a vote,” Lancaster said, as quoted by local station 4029 News. “But what’s going to happen in the interim is the Supreme Court will make its decision, and if they agree with us that our ballot title is good, then the votes will count. Otherwise, if the court decides that our ballot title is not sufficient, they’ll just never count those votes.”

“I’m confident that once the court looks at this, they’re going to agree with us that our ballot title is fine,” Lancaster continued. “So I’m, again, confident that … votes are going to count in November.”

Arkansas voters narrowly approved a ballot proposal in 2016 that legalized medical cannabis in the state.

A poll earlier this year found that a slight majority of Arkansas voters––53%–– believe that recreational cannabis should be made legal for adults aged 21 and older, while 32% said that it should only be legal for medical purposes.

Only about 10% of those polled said that cannabis should remain broadly illegal.

The post Recreational Pot Question Back on Arkansas Ballot—But Will Votes Count? appeared first on High Times.

The post Recreational Pot Question Back on Arkansas Ballot—But Will Votes Count? appeared first on Paradise Found.