MPP Director of Government Relations Aaron Houston explains the implications of the new federal policy toward medical marijuana state laws, and discusses the growing acceptance of marijuana in public perception. 10/20/2009
Showing posts with label Marijuana Policy Project. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Marijuana Policy Project. Show all posts
Monday, January 25, 2010
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Paypal Nixes California NORML Medical Marijuana Listings
Paypal, the well-known internet payment company has told California NORML that it will no longer accept payments to our "type of business" because we accept listing payments from cannabis-recommending physicians.
After years of offering free listings to physicians and collectives at our website http://www.canorml.org, CaNORML began charging a yearly listing fee to cover our costs last year.
PayPal froze CaNORML's account in June, saying that by accepting listing fees from collectives, we were violating their Acceptable Use policy, which says, "you may not use PayPal in the purchase or sale of narcotics." Although narcotics were not being sold over the CaNORML site, we reluctantly agreed to stop accepting listings fees from collectives that dispense medical marijuana, recognizing that even though they are legal under state law, they are illegal under federal law. However, we continued to accept payments online from doctors, attorneys, and members.
Now PayPal has stopped accepting payments from the CaNORML site because we continued to accept listing payments from physicians.
Under a ruling upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court (Conant v. Walters, 2003), physicians have the first amendment right to discuss and recommend medical marijuana for their patients, although they may not distribute it or help patients in finding it. PayPal was informed of this and wrote back, "We are not arguing the legality of this issue; we are simply stating that we have made the business decision to not be involved with this type of business."
Because of its discriminatory policy and disregard of physicians' first amendment rights, CaNORML submits that PayPal is not the "type of business" to be used by those who advocate for human rights. We will file a complaint with the federal banking committee over their practices.
Located in San Jose, California, PayPal was founded in 1998 and was acquired by eBay (California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman's company) in 2002.
Complain to: PayPal, 2211 N 1st St, San Jose 95131 - (408) 376-7400
Statement of Paypal's Acceptable Use Policy below:
> Hello,
>
> We appreciate the fact that you chose PayPal to send and receive payments
> for your transactions.
>
> Under the Acceptable Use Policy, you may not use PayPal in the purchase or
> sale of narcotics, steroids, certain controlled substances, products that
> present a risk to consumer safety or drug paraphernalia. PayPal makes such
> decisions after reviewing laws, regulations and other actions by
> governmental agencies, other available evidence, and marketing content
> related to the product.
> The complete Acceptable Use Policy can be found at the following URL:
> http://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=p/gen/ua/use/index_frame-outside
>
> To learn more about the Acceptable Use Policy, please refer to our Help
> Center page here:
> http://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/helpweb?cmd=_help
>
> We are hereby notifying you that, after a recent review of your account
> activity, it has been determined that you are in violation of PayPal's
> Acceptable Use Policy regarding your sales at
> http://www.canorml.org/prop/collectivetips.html. PayPal cannot be used to
> accept fees for listing information related to marijuana dispensaries,
> delivery services and cannabis physicians.
After years of offering free listings to physicians and collectives at our website http://www.canorml.org, CaNORML began charging a yearly listing fee to cover our costs last year.
PayPal froze CaNORML's account in June, saying that by accepting listing fees from collectives, we were violating their Acceptable Use policy, which says, "you may not use PayPal in the purchase or sale of narcotics." Although narcotics were not being sold over the CaNORML site, we reluctantly agreed to stop accepting listings fees from collectives that dispense medical marijuana, recognizing that even though they are legal under state law, they are illegal under federal law. However, we continued to accept payments online from doctors, attorneys, and members.
Now PayPal has stopped accepting payments from the CaNORML site because we continued to accept listing payments from physicians.
Under a ruling upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court (Conant v. Walters, 2003), physicians have the first amendment right to discuss and recommend medical marijuana for their patients, although they may not distribute it or help patients in finding it. PayPal was informed of this and wrote back, "We are not arguing the legality of this issue; we are simply stating that we have made the business decision to not be involved with this type of business."
Because of its discriminatory policy and disregard of physicians' first amendment rights, CaNORML submits that PayPal is not the "type of business" to be used by those who advocate for human rights. We will file a complaint with the federal banking committee over their practices.
Located in San Jose, California, PayPal was founded in 1998 and was acquired by eBay (California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman's company) in 2002.
Complain to: PayPal, 2211 N 1st St, San Jose 95131 - (408) 376-7400
Statement of Paypal's Acceptable Use Policy below:
> Hello,
>
> We appreciate the fact that you chose PayPal to send and receive payments
> for your transactions.
>
> Under the Acceptable Use Policy, you may not use PayPal in the purchase or
> sale of narcotics, steroids, certain controlled substances, products that
> present a risk to consumer safety or drug paraphernalia. PayPal makes such
> decisions after reviewing laws, regulations and other actions by
> governmental agencies, other available evidence, and marketing content
> related to the product.
> The complete Acceptable Use Policy can be found at the following URL:
> http://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=p/gen/ua/use/index_frame-outside
>
> To learn more about the Acceptable Use Policy, please refer to our Help
> Center page here:
> http://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/helpweb?cmd=_help
>
> We are hereby notifying you that, after a recent review of your account
> activity, it has been determined that you are in violation of PayPal's
> Acceptable Use Policy regarding your sales at
> http://www.canorml.org/prop/collectivetips.html. PayPal cannot be used to
> accept fees for listing information related to marijuana dispensaries,
> delivery services and cannabis physicians.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
LA County DA Prepares To Crack Down on Pot Outlets
Los Angeles, CA — Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley said Thursday he will prosecute medical marijuana dispensaries for over-the-counter sales, targeting a practice that has become commonplace under an initiative approved by California voters more than a decade ago.
“The vast, vast, vast majority, about 100%, of dispensaries in Los Angeles County and the city are operating illegally, they are dealing marijuana illegally, according to our theory,” he said. “The time is right to deal with this problem.”
Cooley and Los Angeles City Atty. Carmen Trutanich recently concluded that state law bars sales of medical marijuana, an opinion that could spark a renewed effort by law enforcement across the state to rein in the use of marijuana. It comes as polls show a majority of state voters back legalization of marijuana, and supporters are working to place the issue on the ballot next year.
Law enforcement officials have been frustrated by the explosion in the number of dispensaries in Southern California, arguing that most are for-profit enterprises that violate the 1996 voter initiative legalizing medical marijuana and the 2003 state law permitting collective cultivation. Cooley’s announcement, coming at a news conference that followed a training session he and Trutanich conducted for narcotics officers, dramatically raises the stakes.
In the city of Los Angeles, some estimates put the number of dispensaries as high as 800. The city allowed 186 to remain open under its 2007 moratorium, but hundreds of others opened in violation of the ban while the city did nothing to shut them down.
..........
Cooley said he believes that under state law, collectives must raise their own marijuana and can only recoup their costs. “That’s absolutely legal,” he said. “We’re going to respect that.”
But he said none of them currently do that.
The district attorney’s warning could make the situation more chaotic in Los Angeles, where the City Council has struggled for two years to devise an ordinance to control the distribution of medical marijuana.
In addition to prosecuting dispensaries, Cooley said he would consider going after doctors who write medical marijuana recommendations for healthy people. Medical marijuana critics argue that some doctors freely recommend the drug to people who are not ill.
..............
When Californians voted for Proposition 215 in 1996, they made it legal for patients with a doctor’s recommendation and their caregivers to possess and raise pot for the patient’s medical use.
In 2003, the Legislature allowed patients and caregivers “collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes” but said they could not do it for profit.
Cooley and Trutanich, after reviewing a state Supreme Court decision from last year, have concluded that the law protects collectives from prosecution only in the cultivation of marijuana, not for sales or distribution.
Medical marijuana advocates, however, note that the state currently requires dispensaries to collect sales taxes on marijuana, and that guidelines drawn up by the attorney general conclude that “a properly organized and operated collective or cooperative that dispenses medical marijuana through a storefront may be lawful.”
The guidelines allow collectives to take costs into account but do not deal directly with over-the-counter sales.
CLICK ON TITLE FOR FULL STORY
“The vast, vast, vast majority, about 100%, of dispensaries in Los Angeles County and the city are operating illegally, they are dealing marijuana illegally, according to our theory,” he said. “The time is right to deal with this problem.”
Cooley and Los Angeles City Atty. Carmen Trutanich recently concluded that state law bars sales of medical marijuana, an opinion that could spark a renewed effort by law enforcement across the state to rein in the use of marijuana. It comes as polls show a majority of state voters back legalization of marijuana, and supporters are working to place the issue on the ballot next year.
Law enforcement officials have been frustrated by the explosion in the number of dispensaries in Southern California, arguing that most are for-profit enterprises that violate the 1996 voter initiative legalizing medical marijuana and the 2003 state law permitting collective cultivation. Cooley’s announcement, coming at a news conference that followed a training session he and Trutanich conducted for narcotics officers, dramatically raises the stakes.
In the city of Los Angeles, some estimates put the number of dispensaries as high as 800. The city allowed 186 to remain open under its 2007 moratorium, but hundreds of others opened in violation of the ban while the city did nothing to shut them down.
..........
Cooley said he believes that under state law, collectives must raise their own marijuana and can only recoup their costs. “That’s absolutely legal,” he said. “We’re going to respect that.”
But he said none of them currently do that.
The district attorney’s warning could make the situation more chaotic in Los Angeles, where the City Council has struggled for two years to devise an ordinance to control the distribution of medical marijuana.
In addition to prosecuting dispensaries, Cooley said he would consider going after doctors who write medical marijuana recommendations for healthy people. Medical marijuana critics argue that some doctors freely recommend the drug to people who are not ill.
..............
When Californians voted for Proposition 215 in 1996, they made it legal for patients with a doctor’s recommendation and their caregivers to possess and raise pot for the patient’s medical use.
In 2003, the Legislature allowed patients and caregivers “collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes” but said they could not do it for profit.
Cooley and Trutanich, after reviewing a state Supreme Court decision from last year, have concluded that the law protects collectives from prosecution only in the cultivation of marijuana, not for sales or distribution.
Medical marijuana advocates, however, note that the state currently requires dispensaries to collect sales taxes on marijuana, and that guidelines drawn up by the attorney general conclude that “a properly organized and operated collective or cooperative that dispenses medical marijuana through a storefront may be lawful.”
The guidelines allow collectives to take costs into account but do not deal directly with over-the-counter sales.
CLICK ON TITLE FOR FULL STORY
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Dana Point heading to court over pot dispensaries' records
The city says it's seeking documents from five operations in town to figure out if they are legal. The dispensaries refused, in part, on privacy and constitutional grounds.
An Orange County Superior Court judge is expected to rule on Oct. 2 whether to enforce Dana Point's subpoenas for five medical marijuana dispensaries' records as part of a city investigation.
The dispensaries, among other objections to the subpoenas, say the city did not follow proper procedure to issue a subpoena.
The city in July served the subpoenas for records to those operating marijuana dispensaries following a request to amend zoning laws to permit dispensaries, city attorney Patrick Munoz said.
The city does not have a specific ordinance prohibiting medical marijuana dispensaries. But that does not mean the operations are permitted, like many other uses not specifically addressed in municipal codes, said Munoz.
Before making any decision, the council wanted to determine if existing dispensaries are complying with state laws or if they are operating illegally, he said.
The subpoenas followed, but the five dispensaries have not complied.
One of the dispensaries argued that the city's request for records among other reasons violates medical and financial privacy rights of its members, the Fifth Amendment's protection against self incrimination and the Second Amendment protection of freedom of association.
FOR FULL STORY CLICK ON TITLE...
An Orange County Superior Court judge is expected to rule on Oct. 2 whether to enforce Dana Point's subpoenas for five medical marijuana dispensaries' records as part of a city investigation.
The dispensaries, among other objections to the subpoenas, say the city did not follow proper procedure to issue a subpoena.
The city in July served the subpoenas for records to those operating marijuana dispensaries following a request to amend zoning laws to permit dispensaries, city attorney Patrick Munoz said.
The city does not have a specific ordinance prohibiting medical marijuana dispensaries. But that does not mean the operations are permitted, like many other uses not specifically addressed in municipal codes, said Munoz.
Before making any decision, the council wanted to determine if existing dispensaries are complying with state laws or if they are operating illegally, he said.
The subpoenas followed, but the five dispensaries have not complied.
One of the dispensaries argued that the city's request for records among other reasons violates medical and financial privacy rights of its members, the Fifth Amendment's protection against self incrimination and the Second Amendment protection of freedom of association.
FOR FULL STORY CLICK ON TITLE...
The Mainstream Media's 5 Favorite Marijuana Myths
Here are 5 recent stories the mainstream media doesn't want you to know about pot:
1. Marijuana Use Is Not Associated With a Rise in Incidences of Schizophrenia
Over the past few years, the worldwide media, as well as federal officials in the United Kingdom, Canada and the U.S. have earnestly promoted the notion that smoking pot induces mental illness.
Perhaps most notably, in 2007 the MSM reported that cannabis "could boost the risk of developing a psychotic illness later in life by about 40 percent" -- a talking point that was also actively promoted by U.S. anti-drug officials. So, is there any truth to the claim that pot smoking is sparking a dramatic rise in mental illness? Not at all, according to the findings of a study published in July in the journal Schizophrenia Research.
Investigators at the Keele University Medical School in Britain compared trends in marijuana use and incidences of schizophrenia in the United Kingdom from 1996 to 2005. Researchers reported that the "incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia and psychoses were either stable or declining" during this period, even the use of cannabis among the general population was rising.
"[T]he expected rise in diagnoses of schizophrenia and psychoses did not occur over a 10-year period," the authors concluded. "This study does not therefore support the specific causal link between cannabis use and incidence of psychotic disorders. ... This concurs with other reports indicating that increases in population cannabis use have not been followed by increases in psychotic incidence."
As of this writing, a handful of news wire reports in Australia, Canada, and the U.K. have reported on the Keele University study. Notably, no American media outlets covered the story.
2. Marijuana Smoke Doesn't Damage the Lungs Like TobaccoEveryone knows that smoking pot is as damaging, if not more damaging, to the lungs than puffing cigarettes, right? Wrong, according to a team of New Zealand investigators writing in the European Respiratory Journal in August. Researchers at the University of Otago in New Zealand compared the effects of cannabis and tobacco smoke on lung function in over 1,000 adults.
They reported: "Cumulative cannabis use was associated with higher forced vital capacity [the volume of air that can forcibly be blown out after full inspiration], total lung capacity, functional residual capacity [the volume of air present in the lungs at the end of passive expiration] and residual volume.
"Cannabis was also associated with higher airways resistance but not with forced expiratory volume in one second [the maximum volume of air that can be forcibly blown out in the first second during the FVC test], forced expiratory ratio, or transfer factor. These findings were similar amongst those who did not smoke tobacco... By contrast, tobacco use was associated with lower forced expiratory volume in one second, lower forced expiratory ratio, lower transfer factor and higher static lung volumes, but not with airways resistance."
They concluded, "Cannabis appears to have different effects on lung function to those of tobacco." Predictably, the scientists' "inconvenient truth" was not reported in a single media outlet.
3. Cannabis Use Potentially Protects, Rather Than Harms, the Brain
Does smoking pot kill brain cells? Drinking alcohol most certainly does, and many opponents of marijuana-law reform claim that marijuana's adverse effects on the brain are even worse. Are they correct? Not according to recent findings published this summer in the journal Neurotoxicology and Teratology.
Investigators at the University of California at San Diego examined white matter integrity in adolescents with histories of binge drinking and marijuana use. They reported that binge drinkers ( defined as boys who consumed five or more drinks in one sitting, or girls who consumed four or more drinks at one time ) showed signs of white matter damage in eight regions of the brain.
By contrast, the binge drinkers who also used marijuana experienced less damage in 7 out of the 8 brain regions. "Binge drinkers who also use marijuana did not show as consistent a divergence from non-users as did the binge drink-only group," authors concluded. "[It is] possible that marijuana may have some neuroprotective properties in mitigating alcohol-related oxidative stress or excitotoxic cell death."
To date, only a handful of U.S. media outlets -- almost exclusively college newspapers -- have reported the story.
4. Marijuana Is a Terminus, Not a 'Gateway,' to Hard Drug UseAlarmist claims that experimenting with cannabis will inevitably lead to the use of other illicit drugs persist in the media despite statistical data indicating that the overwhelming majority of those who try pot never go on to use cocaine or heroin.
Moreover, recent research is emerging that indicates that pot may also suppress one's desire to use so-called hard drugs. In June, Paris researchers writing in the journal Neuropsychopharmacology concluded that the administration of oral THC in animals suppressed sensitivity to opiate dependence.
Also this summer, investigators at the New York State Psychiatric Institute reported in the American Journal on Addictions that drug-treatment subjects who use cannabis intermittently were more likely to adhere to treatment for opioid dependence.
Although a press release for the former study appeared on the Web site physorg.com on July 7, neither study ever gained any traction in the mainstream media.
5. Government's Anti-Pot Ads Encourage, Rather Than Discourage, Marijuana Use
Sure, many of us already knew that the federal government's $2 billion ad campaign targeting pot was failing to dissuade viewers from toking up, but who knew it was this bad?
According to a new study posted online in the journal Health Communication, survey data published by investigators at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania found that many of the government's public-service announcements actually encouraged pot use.
Researchers assessed the attitudes of over 600 adolescents, age 12 to 18, after viewing 60 government-funded anti-marijuana television spots. Specifically, researchers evaluated whether the presence of marijuana-related imagery in the ads ( e.g., the handling of marijuana cigarettes or the depiction of marijuana-smoking behavior ) were more likely or less likely to discourage viewers' use of cannabis.
Messages that depict teens associating with cannabis are "significantly less effective than others," the researchers found. "This negative impact of marijuana scenes is not reversed in the presence of strong anti-marijuana arguments in the ads and is mainly present for the group of adolescents who are often targets of such anti-marijuana ads ( i.e., high-risk adolescents )," the authors determined. "For this segment of adolescents, including marijuana scenes in anti-marijuana ( public-service announcements ) may not be a good strategy."
CLICK ON TITLE FOR FULL STORY....
1. Marijuana Use Is Not Associated With a Rise in Incidences of Schizophrenia
Over the past few years, the worldwide media, as well as federal officials in the United Kingdom, Canada and the U.S. have earnestly promoted the notion that smoking pot induces mental illness.
Perhaps most notably, in 2007 the MSM reported that cannabis "could boost the risk of developing a psychotic illness later in life by about 40 percent" -- a talking point that was also actively promoted by U.S. anti-drug officials. So, is there any truth to the claim that pot smoking is sparking a dramatic rise in mental illness? Not at all, according to the findings of a study published in July in the journal Schizophrenia Research.
Investigators at the Keele University Medical School in Britain compared trends in marijuana use and incidences of schizophrenia in the United Kingdom from 1996 to 2005. Researchers reported that the "incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia and psychoses were either stable or declining" during this period, even the use of cannabis among the general population was rising.
"[T]he expected rise in diagnoses of schizophrenia and psychoses did not occur over a 10-year period," the authors concluded. "This study does not therefore support the specific causal link between cannabis use and incidence of psychotic disorders. ... This concurs with other reports indicating that increases in population cannabis use have not been followed by increases in psychotic incidence."
As of this writing, a handful of news wire reports in Australia, Canada, and the U.K. have reported on the Keele University study. Notably, no American media outlets covered the story.
2. Marijuana Smoke Doesn't Damage the Lungs Like TobaccoEveryone knows that smoking pot is as damaging, if not more damaging, to the lungs than puffing cigarettes, right? Wrong, according to a team of New Zealand investigators writing in the European Respiratory Journal in August. Researchers at the University of Otago in New Zealand compared the effects of cannabis and tobacco smoke on lung function in over 1,000 adults.
They reported: "Cumulative cannabis use was associated with higher forced vital capacity [the volume of air that can forcibly be blown out after full inspiration], total lung capacity, functional residual capacity [the volume of air present in the lungs at the end of passive expiration] and residual volume.
"Cannabis was also associated with higher airways resistance but not with forced expiratory volume in one second [the maximum volume of air that can be forcibly blown out in the first second during the FVC test], forced expiratory ratio, or transfer factor. These findings were similar amongst those who did not smoke tobacco... By contrast, tobacco use was associated with lower forced expiratory volume in one second, lower forced expiratory ratio, lower transfer factor and higher static lung volumes, but not with airways resistance."
They concluded, "Cannabis appears to have different effects on lung function to those of tobacco." Predictably, the scientists' "inconvenient truth" was not reported in a single media outlet.
3. Cannabis Use Potentially Protects, Rather Than Harms, the Brain
Does smoking pot kill brain cells? Drinking alcohol most certainly does, and many opponents of marijuana-law reform claim that marijuana's adverse effects on the brain are even worse. Are they correct? Not according to recent findings published this summer in the journal Neurotoxicology and Teratology.
Investigators at the University of California at San Diego examined white matter integrity in adolescents with histories of binge drinking and marijuana use. They reported that binge drinkers ( defined as boys who consumed five or more drinks in one sitting, or girls who consumed four or more drinks at one time ) showed signs of white matter damage in eight regions of the brain.
By contrast, the binge drinkers who also used marijuana experienced less damage in 7 out of the 8 brain regions. "Binge drinkers who also use marijuana did not show as consistent a divergence from non-users as did the binge drink-only group," authors concluded. "[It is] possible that marijuana may have some neuroprotective properties in mitigating alcohol-related oxidative stress or excitotoxic cell death."
To date, only a handful of U.S. media outlets -- almost exclusively college newspapers -- have reported the story.
4. Marijuana Is a Terminus, Not a 'Gateway,' to Hard Drug UseAlarmist claims that experimenting with cannabis will inevitably lead to the use of other illicit drugs persist in the media despite statistical data indicating that the overwhelming majority of those who try pot never go on to use cocaine or heroin.
Moreover, recent research is emerging that indicates that pot may also suppress one's desire to use so-called hard drugs. In June, Paris researchers writing in the journal Neuropsychopharmacology concluded that the administration of oral THC in animals suppressed sensitivity to opiate dependence.
Also this summer, investigators at the New York State Psychiatric Institute reported in the American Journal on Addictions that drug-treatment subjects who use cannabis intermittently were more likely to adhere to treatment for opioid dependence.
Although a press release for the former study appeared on the Web site physorg.com on July 7, neither study ever gained any traction in the mainstream media.
5. Government's Anti-Pot Ads Encourage, Rather Than Discourage, Marijuana Use
Sure, many of us already knew that the federal government's $2 billion ad campaign targeting pot was failing to dissuade viewers from toking up, but who knew it was this bad?
According to a new study posted online in the journal Health Communication, survey data published by investigators at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania found that many of the government's public-service announcements actually encouraged pot use.
Researchers assessed the attitudes of over 600 adolescents, age 12 to 18, after viewing 60 government-funded anti-marijuana television spots. Specifically, researchers evaluated whether the presence of marijuana-related imagery in the ads ( e.g., the handling of marijuana cigarettes or the depiction of marijuana-smoking behavior ) were more likely or less likely to discourage viewers' use of cannabis.
Messages that depict teens associating with cannabis are "significantly less effective than others," the researchers found. "This negative impact of marijuana scenes is not reversed in the presence of strong anti-marijuana arguments in the ads and is mainly present for the group of adolescents who are often targets of such anti-marijuana ads ( i.e., high-risk adolescents )," the authors determined. "For this segment of adolescents, including marijuana scenes in anti-marijuana ( public-service announcements ) may not be a good strategy."
CLICK ON TITLE FOR FULL STORY....
Thursday, September 17, 2009
NORML's 38th Annual National Conference
.jpg)
The 2009 NORML Conference will be held Thursday, September 24 through Saturday, September 26 at the Grand Hyatt in San Francisco, CA. Join NORML's staff and Board of Directors – and over 500 policy activists, medical patients, cultivators, doctors, politicians, and clinical investigators – as we congregate and celebrate in one of America's most 'cannabis friendly' cities.
The tax heard round the world
Since the passage of Oakland's Measure F, which taxes medical marijuana the same as alcohol, the media has been in a feeding frenzy. Articles gushing over the revenue potential of marijuana have appeared in Time, The Atlantic, The San Francisco Chronicle, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Economist, and Forbes.
Notably absent from this blitz is any criticism of the taxation of medicine. And there is some, by some of the most notable voices in the medical marijuana movement, such as Ed Rosenthal and Dennis Peron.
Click on the title to read the quotes from these people.
Notes from the writer of this blog:
In looking at what we determine to be medicine, I think there are two categories here. One is the medical industry, including pharmaceuticals, which it not taxable under current laws; and the other is alternative medicine, which includes, herbs, vitamins, homeopathy and other over the counter medicine, which is taxable. For those who choose the more natural and alternative direction, we are taxed on this "medicine". So if medical marijuana is categorized as alternative, then it is liable to taxes the same as herbs and vitamins. If this is the case, then marijuana should be changed from the Schedule 1 drug that is it currently listed under. If it is categorized as a "pharmaceutical medicine", then under the current laws, it should not be taxed.
In addition to the comments regarding taxes, the author of this article has yet again mentioned Bruce Perlowin and his company Medical Marijuana, Inc. The author seems to have taken the tax remittance aspect of the payment system out of context, inferring that MMI is making money off of the taxes, which it can not do. The tax remittance feature only allows dispensaries to be more transparent and in compliance with the CURRENT LAWS. There are many more features and benefits of the card, for example, eliminating the cash transactions which put both the dispensary and client at risk for theft. Other important information may be stored on the card, as well.
To set the record straight, Medical Marijuana, Inc. does not promote that medical marijuana should be taxed, but is a solutions oriented company that offers a simple way for dispensaries to monitor their sales and easily comply with the tax remittance laws.
Notably absent from this blitz is any criticism of the taxation of medicine. And there is some, by some of the most notable voices in the medical marijuana movement, such as Ed Rosenthal and Dennis Peron.
Click on the title to read the quotes from these people.
Notes from the writer of this blog:
In looking at what we determine to be medicine, I think there are two categories here. One is the medical industry, including pharmaceuticals, which it not taxable under current laws; and the other is alternative medicine, which includes, herbs, vitamins, homeopathy and other over the counter medicine, which is taxable. For those who choose the more natural and alternative direction, we are taxed on this "medicine". So if medical marijuana is categorized as alternative, then it is liable to taxes the same as herbs and vitamins. If this is the case, then marijuana should be changed from the Schedule 1 drug that is it currently listed under. If it is categorized as a "pharmaceutical medicine", then under the current laws, it should not be taxed.
In addition to the comments regarding taxes, the author of this article has yet again mentioned Bruce Perlowin and his company Medical Marijuana, Inc. The author seems to have taken the tax remittance aspect of the payment system out of context, inferring that MMI is making money off of the taxes, which it can not do. The tax remittance feature only allows dispensaries to be more transparent and in compliance with the CURRENT LAWS. There are many more features and benefits of the card, for example, eliminating the cash transactions which put both the dispensary and client at risk for theft. Other important information may be stored on the card, as well.
To set the record straight, Medical Marijuana, Inc. does not promote that medical marijuana should be taxed, but is a solutions oriented company that offers a simple way for dispensaries to monitor their sales and easily comply with the tax remittance laws.
Groups Running Medical Marijuana Ads
The Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) and New Yorkers for Compassionate Care are running ads in New York to push a medical marijuana bill sponsored by Assembly Health Committee Chairman Richard Gottfried, D-Manhattan, and Senate Health Committee Chairman Thomas Duane, D-Manhattan.
The group said the ad is running on WNBC in New York City and on cable outlets around the state, including the New York City, Buffalo, Rochester and the Hudson Valley.
The group said other major networks refused to run the ads. One ad features Conservative Party member Joel Peacock of Buffalo, who suffers from chronic pain after a serious accident. The other includes Saugerties doctor Kevin Smith, who suffers severe pain from a genetic disorder known as ankylosing spondilitis.
You can see the ads here
The group said the ad is running on WNBC in New York City and on cable outlets around the state, including the New York City, Buffalo, Rochester and the Hudson Valley.
The group said other major networks refused to run the ads. One ad features Conservative Party member Joel Peacock of Buffalo, who suffers from chronic pain after a serious accident. The other includes Saugerties doctor Kevin Smith, who suffers severe pain from a genetic disorder known as ankylosing spondilitis.
You can see the ads here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
