URL: hMPp://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/02/02/268381983/marijuana-laced-treats-leave-colorado-jonesing-for-food-safety-rules




Marijuana-Laced Treats Leave Colorado Jonesing For Food-Safety Rules



Where there's pot, there's pot brownies. But how do you make sure those high-inducing sweets are safe to eat?

Colorado regulators are wrestling with that question now that the state has legalized recreational marijuana. From sodas and truffles to granola bars and butter, food products infused with THC – the chemical in marijuana that gives you a high — are already for sale.

The problem? Marijuana is still illegal under federal law. And that means the existing food safety system, which relies heavily on support from federal agencies, can't ensure that marijuana-infused foods are safe.

Purveyors of pot-laced foods say they want the regulation.

"We are under a microscope," says Christie Lunsford, marketing and education director for Dixie Elixirs, a manufacturer of foods infused with THC. "Even my competitors, who are food novices, they really care about providing for the consumer and making sure they're safe."

That's created new demand for businesses like CannLabs, a facility where chemists pick apart marijuana products to find out if they're safe to smoke or eat. Owner Genifer Murray is preparing for a boom in business.

"CannLabs started in a space of about 150 square feet," she notes during a tour of the company's offices. "This is about 500 and we're moving to 2,000."

New state rules go into effect this year that require businesses to test their marijuana products in labs like Murray's. Until this point, tests for mold, foodborne pathogens and potency were voluntary, meaning few companies actually did them. Murray says new potency standards could help prevent marijuana novices from, say, eating too many prepackaged special brownies in one sitting.

"You can feel like you're dying," she says, describing what it feels like when you take in too much THC. "Your heart rate speeds up, you sweat, you can throw up. I mean, it's awful. So with edibles, it is very important that they get tested and that you know your dose."

The enforcement and creation of the industry's rules is the responsibility of the small Marijuana Enforcement Division. It was created to watch over the medical marijuana industry, but Colorado's experiment in recreational use has expanded the division into areas it never would have been before, like food safety and lab certification.

"To a large extent, we're learning a lot as we go along," says Lewis Koski, the division's chief. "The right thing to do, from a regulatory standpoint, is to make sure we can comprehensively regulate all these businesses and ensure the health and welfare of the citizens of Colorado."

Because Colorado is one of the first states to draft rules for recreational marijuana, all eyes are on Koski.

"It's a new agency. If you're just going to start up a new agency – [even] in a public policy arena that wasn't this divisive — it'd be pretty challenging," he says.

Colorado has already taken some innovative steps in ensuring public safety. For example, state regulators have rolled out a system that tracks all marijuana plants from seed to sale, meaning if a pot cookie caused a salmonella outbreak, you could track it all the way back to the source.

That tracking system is just one piece of a much larger set of rules used to keep the recreational marijuana industry in check.

And with more states legalizing marijuana, both recreational and medicinal, you can guarantee they'll be watching to see if this regulatory scheme built from scratch actually works.

url: hMPp://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/02/marijuana_news_what_would_lega.html




What would legal pot mean for state workers in Oregon?



The Statesman Journal over the weekend raised an interesting question about what legal marijuana would mean for Oregon's state workers. Would they be required to pay the smokers' fee as part of their health insurance? How would workplace policies change?


One thing is certain, reports Hannah Hoffman. State and local police won't be allowed to use the drug.

Matt Shelby, a spokesman for the Oregon Department of Administrative Services, told Hoffman that it's likely that marijuana would be treated the same as alcohol, "which loosely means it would be allowed during nonworking hours but any intoxication at work would not be tolerated."

He said drug testing policies, which only apply to some positions, likely would have to be reconsidered or retooled in some way. It is too early, however, to know how that would work.

Radio promotions for medical marijuana in Massachusetts are causing a flap, reports The Boston Herald.

The paper reports that the ads, paid for by New England Grass Roots Institute and airing on FM radio, claim that medical marijuana "adds to a healthy lifestyle." The ads state that people don't have to smoke marijuana to "enjoy its medical benefits” and that "this all-natural herb can be infused into almost any food or beverage."

The Herald reports that a police official thinks the ads make law enforcement's job a challenge.

State regulations bar dispensaries from making any advertising claims on “the safety or efficacy of marijuana unless supported by substantial evidence,” or “for any purpose other than to treat a debilitating medical condition.”

Marijuana-infused foods and drinks are a major part of the consumer market and yet the products don't fall under any food safety rules in Colorado, where recreational marijuana is legal. NPR reports on the effort by Colorado regulators to take a look at rules for the thriving infused-product industry.

The problem? Marijuana is still illegal under federal law. And that means the existing food safety system, which relies heavily on support from federal agencies, can't ensure that marijuana-infused foods are safe.

Purveyors of pot-laced foods say they want the regulation.

"We are under a microscope," says Christie Lunsford, marketing and education director for Dixie Elixirs, a manufacturer of foods infused with THC. "Even my competitors, who are food novices, they really care about providing for the consumer and making sure they're safe."

url: hMPp://keepingscore.blogs.time.com/2014/01/31/super-bowl-2014-marijuana-legalization/




Pot Will See Sales Spike For Super Bowl, Just Like Pizza



If you’re looking to stock up on Super Bowl goodies, you’ll find no shortage of deals at pizza joints, the supermarket or the beer distributorship. But you won’t find any Super Bowl specials at the Denver Kush Club, a marijuana dispensary. Before New Year’s Day, when only the sale of medical marijuana was legal in Colorado, the Kush Club would discount a gram of marijuana if, say, the Broncos scored four touchdowns. But those promotions disappeared once legal recreational sales started under new state law.

“We’ve just been running out of product so quickly,” says Jess Vanderpool, a store manager. “We can’t really justify any deals right now.”

Football is good for lots of businesses: TV networks, hotels around the stadium, pizzerias, supermarkets, makers of chicken wings and dips. Now throw pot in the mix, too. Especially with both states who have teams in the Super Bowl—Colorado’s Denver Broncos and Washington state’s Seattle Seahawks—having recently become the first two states to allow marijuana for recreational use.

“Liquor stores see a spike,” says Vanderpool. “Why should this be any different?”

Over the past few weeks, marijuana dispensaries in Colorado have seen an uptick in the days and hours before the Broncos play. Fans are stocking up. Now that Denver is playing in the Super Bowl, Colorado shops are expecting their biggest spikes yet. “We’re anticipating a really, really busy Saturday,” says David, the store manager for Mile High Medical/Recreational Cannabis, located across the street from Sports Authority Field, home of the Broncos (he did not give his last name)

These proprietors say that weed, like a bowl of chips, meshes with watching sports. “It’s a Sunday, you’re hanging out in the house relaxing,” says David. “Instead of relaxing with a Bud, you’re relaxing with a joint. Or a bud.” For the Super Bowl, David predicts that the sativa strain of marijuana, which raises energy levels, will be a better seller than the indica strain, which has more mellowing effects. It’s pretty big game after all.

At the LoDo Wellness Center in Denver, more than one customer has come to rekindle their acquaintance with marijuana during the Super Bowl. “We hearing things like I haven’t smoked in 30 years,” says Liz H.—she also would not disclose her last name—a front desk manager. “They’re treating it like as fine bottle of wine.” Liz said that before the San Diego Chargers played a playoff game in Denver three weeks ago, Chargers fans flocked to the shop. “There have been a couple of people with Seahawks gear,” she says. “We’ve bonded over cannabis use, sure.”

But recreational sales in Washington state, home to the Seahawks and also implementing a new law, don’t start until later in the year. With the Seahawks in the Super Bowl, those shops are missing out. “How cool has this been for us?” says David. “You need to go recreational. So your team can make the Super Bowl.”

url: hMPp://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2014/02/02/mark-kleiman-concedes-that-obama-has-the-power-to-reclassify-marijuana-yet-claims-its-ignorant-to-say-so/




Mark Kleiman Concedes That Obama Has The Power To Reclassify Marijuana Yet Claims It's Ignorant To Say So



On Friday I noted that, contrary to what President Obama said in his recent CNN interview, the executive branch does have the power to reclassify marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). For some reason, that observation irked UCLA drug policy expert Mark Kleiman, who claims I am 1) ignorant of the facts, 2) willfully blind to the facts because they clash with my libertarian ideology, and 3) eager to criticize Democrats because it is in my financial interest to do so:

"The discussion of “rescheduling” marijuana is confused because most of the people engaged in it don’t know how the law works.

Jacob Sullum, always willing to let his ignorance be the measure of other people’s knowledge, utterly unwilling to let mere facts get in the way of libertarian ideology, and eager to please his paymasters by slagging a Democratic President, illustrates my point in his response to the latest CNN Obama interview."

A few paragraphs down, Kleiman concedes that “yes, authority to reschedule cannabis lies with the Administration.” So what I said was correct yet somehow also ignorant and unfactual.

Even if I had misrepresented the administration’s authority under the Controlled Substances Act (which Kleiman admits I did not), in what sense would that illustrate my libertarian bias? No matter who is charged with saying which drugs people are not allowed to have, the CSA is not a libertarian statute by any stretch of the imagination.

But Kleiman says I am not really motivated by libertarianism anyway. Rather, I am in it for the money, “eager to please [my] paymasters by slagging a Democratic President.” Exactly who are these “paymasters,” and why do they hate Democrats in particular? Kleiman does not say, possibly because this is a generic ad hominem attack he uses against people he perceives as political opponents, whether or not he has any facts to back it up.

In any case, anyone who is even vaguely familar with my work knows it is absurd to suggest that I criticize Democrats while giving Republicans a pass. Two days before I criticized Obama for speaking as if he were powerless to reschedule marijuana, I defended him against an attack by a Republican senator who objected to his statement that marijuana is safer than alcohol. A couple of weeks before that, I took issue with another Republican senator who criticized Obama for allowing legalization to proceed in Colorado and Washington by refraining from arresting and prosecuting state-licensed marijuana suppliers.

More generally, while Obama is the president I have been “slagging” most since January 2009, I was never shy about slagging his Republican predecessor. Last week I linked to some of that criticism while arguing that Republicans who fault Obama for abusing executive power, if they want to be taken seriously, should not downplay similar sins committed by Republican presidents. In case it still is not clear, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Republican Party. But in Kleiman’s mind, I am a partisan interested only in picking apart members of the other team.

Kleiman also suggests that if I really understood how the law works, I would have criticized the administration for impeding research by maintaining a monopoly on production of marijuana used in studies. Yeah, why have I never talked about that?

The one valid point Kleiman makes is that placing marijuana on a lower schedule would not automatically make it available by prescription, since any cannabis preparation would still have to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration. But the practical impact of reclassifying marijuana is distinct from the question of whether it meets the criteria for Schedule I and whether the Obama administration has the power to move it, which is what I was talking about in the post that set Kleiman off, as people who actually read it may be surprised to learn.

url: hMPp://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/why-dutch-mayors-want-to-cultivate-cannabis-9102858.html




Why Dutch mayors want to cultivate cannabis



Dutch laws governing marijuana use are so liberal that even the US pop star Miley Cyrus failed to spark too much controversy when she lit a joint on stage in Amsterdam last year.

Now, 35 mayors are urging the government to take it a step further and let them grow cannabis too, as a global shift in favour of legalisation is leaving the once forward-thinking Netherlands lagging behind.

In a manifesto signed last week, the mayors of cities including Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Utrecht argue that the current laws allowing the sale but banning the cultivation of marijuana mean the nation’s cannabis cafés have to turn to illegal gangs for their supply, encouraging organised crime and wasting valuable police time dismantling unlawful plantations.

Ahmed Aboutaleb, the mayor of Rotterdam, said the coffee shops were having to rely on “murky worlds” and called the current situation “unsustainable”, the public broadcaster RTV reported. If local municipalities were able to grow the drug in a regulated environment, proponents argue, that would cut out the criminal middlemen and generate revenue for the cities.

“The Netherlands no longer leads the way: what we have is a bizarre system of banning and allowing cannabis at the same time,” Arend van den Berg, editor-in-chief of the Z24 business news website, wrote in an editorial. The current laws mean “coffee shops have to bend over backwards to safeguard their supply line, giving criminals a chance to get involved and endangering quality”.

The government, however, is unmoved. “We agree that crime and nuisance have to be fought, but we disagree on the right instrument,” said the Security and Justice Minister, Ivo Opstelten. He argues that a change in the law would not be well-received by neighbouring countries, as marijuana grown in The Netherlands could end up in other European nations where it remains banned.

However, as the veteran Dutch politician Frits Bolkestein told a conference on marijuana legislation on Friday, “the international tide is turning”.

While The Netherlands was once at the cutting edge of the move to decriminalise marijuana, it now looks likely to be out-done in its liberal credentials by the United States, where the so-called “War on Drugs” was first declared, and where the first state-licensed cannabis shops opened in Colorado last month. The new laws allow the regulated growth, sale and taxation of marijuana for recreational use, and Washington will enact similar laws later this year.

The tide is turning in South America too, with Uruguay in December becoming the first nation fully to legalise the trade in cannabis.

This marks a change from the last four decades, when The Netherlands was one of the few places in the world where you could spark up without fear of arrest. Since the 1970s, the possession of small amounts of cannabis has been legal, allowing the sale and consumption in the infamous coffee shops.

As a result, Dutch cities have become favourite destinations for party weekends. The presence of drunken youths from across Europe marauding along the streets searching for the next smoke-filled café has already prompted some shift in the law, with the city of Maastricht banning the sale of cannabis to tourists.

But those visitors can also offer a financial windfall. By taxing the growth and sale of cannabis, Colorado expects to raise $67m (£41m) this year, and Mr Van den Berg cites a study predicting that tourist spending and taxes on legal drugs in The Netherlands could earn the government €1.05bn a year.

So while the stoned revellers may be annoying, it seems the arguments in favour of legalisation are persuasive: a recent poll by the current affairs show EenVandaag found that 60 per cent of Dutch people support the idea of state-grown weed.

url: hMPp://thefreethoughtproject.com/state-p...defense-police/




(Indiana) State Passes Law to Legalize Shooting Police (in self-defense)



Finally some rational legislation is passed concerning ‘public servants’ unlawfully entering another person’s property.

All too often, we see examples of cops breaking into the wrong house and shooting the family dog, or worse, killing a member of the family.

Well, Indiana has taken action to “recognize the unique character of a citizen’s home and to ensure that a citizen feels secure in his or her own home against unlawful intrusion by another individual or a public servant.”

This special amendment is no revolutionary new thought, only common sense.

Self-defense is a natural right; when laws in are in place that protect incompetent police by removing one’s ability to protect one’s self, simply because the aggressor has a badge and a uniform, this is a human rights violation. Indiana is leading the way by recognizing this right and creating legislation to protect it.

Of course cops have already begun to fear monger the passage of this bill, “If I pull over a car and I walk up to it and the guy shoots me, he’s going to say, ‘Well, he was trying to illegally enter my property,’ ” said Joseph Hubbard, 40, president of Jeffersonville Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 100. “Somebody is going get away with killing a cop because of this law.”

Instead of looking at the beneficial aspect of this law, which creates the incentive for police to act responsibly and just, Hubbard takes the ‘higher than thou’ attitude and is simply worried about himself.

How about questioning the immoral laws that you are enforcing in the first place? Or how about sympathizing with the innocent people whose pets and family members have been slain, due to police negligence?