Connect with us

Crime

What marijuana reclassification means for the United States

Published

on

WASHINGTON (AP) – The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration is moving toward reclassifying marijuana as a less dangerous drug. The Justice Department’s proposal would recognize the medical uses of cannabis but wouldn’t legalize it for recreational use.

The proposal would move marijuana from “Schedule I” to the less tightly regulated “Schedule III.”

So what does this mean and what are its consequences?

What actually modified? What happens next?

Technically nothing yet. The proposal should be reviewed by the White House Office of Management and Budget after which subjected to public discussion and review by an administrative judge, a potentially lengthy process.

Still, the shift is taken into account a “paradigm shift and is very exciting,” Vince Sliwoski, a cannabis and psychedelics lawyer in Portland, Oregon, who runs outstanding legal blogs on these topics, told The Associated Press when the federal Health and Wellness Commission Department of Social Services advisable the change.

“I can’t emphasize enough how important this news is,” he said.

This got here after President Joe Biden last 12 months asked each HHS and the attorney general, which oversees the DEA, to review marijuana classification. Schedule Legally, I put it on par with heroin, LSD, quaalude, and ecstasy, amongst others.

Biden, a Democrat, supports legalizing medical marijuana for use “where appropriate, consistent with medical and scientific evidence,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Thursday. “That is why it is important that this independent review passes.”

If marijuana is reclassified, will it legalize recreational marijuana nationwide?

NO. Schedule III drugs – which include ketamine, anabolic steroids and a few combos of acetaminophen and codeine – are still controlled substances.

They are subject to varied laws that allow for certain medical uses and federal criminal prosecution of anyone who deals drugs and not using a license.

No changes are expected to medical marijuana programs currently licensed in 38 states or to legal recreational marijuana markets in 23 states, but they’re unlikely to satisfy federal requirements for production, recordkeeping, prescribing and other requirements for Scheduled drugs III.

There have not been many federal prosecutions for easy marijuana possession in recent times, even under marijuana’s current Schedule I status, but the reclassification would don’t have any direct impact on people already involved in the criminal justice system.

“Put simply, this move from Schedule I to Schedule III is not going to get people out of jail,” said David Culver, senior vp of public affairs at the U.S. Cannabis Board.

Featured Stories

However, the rescheduling itself would have some impact, particularly on research and marijuana taxes.

What would this mean for research?

Because marijuana is a Schedule I drug, it has been very difficult to conduct authorized clinical trials involving the administration of the drug. This has created something of a catch-22: requiring further research, but making it harder. (Researchers sometimes depend on people’s own reports of marijuana use.)

Schedule III drugs are easier to check, although changing the classification won’t immediately reverse all barriers to testing, Culver said.

What about taxes (and banking)?

Under the federal tax code, businesses that “trade” marijuana or another Schedule I or II drug cannot deduct rent, payroll, or various other expenses that other businesses can write off. (Yes, a minimum of some cannabis businesses, especially state-licensed ones, pay taxes to the federal government despite its marijuana prohibition). Industry groups say the tax rate often tops out at 70% or higher.

The deduction rule doesn’t apply to Schedule III drugs, so the proposed change would significantly reduce taxes on cannabis firms.

They say it might treat them like other industries and help them compete with illegal competitors that frustrate licensees and officials in places like New York.

“That’s how you strengthen these state legal programs,” says Adam Goers, director of medical and recreational marijuana giant Columbia Care. He co-leads a coalition of corporations and other players that’s pushing for the schedule change.

It could also mean more promotion and promoting of cannabis if those costs could possibly be deducted, based on Beau Kilmer, co-director of the RAND Drug Policy Center.

The rescheduling would don’t have any direct impact on one other marijuana business issue: difficulty accessing banks, particularly for loans, as federally regulated institutions fear the drug’s legal status. Instead, the industry sought a measure called the SAFE Banking Act. It passed the House multiple times but stalled in the Senate.

Are there critics? What are they saying?

They do exist, including the national anti-legalization group Smart Approaches to Marijuana. President Kevin Sabet, a former Obama administration drug policy official, said the HHS suggestion “contradicts science, reeks of politics” and is a regrettable nod to an industry “desperate for legitimacy.”

Some legalization advocates say the marijuana reschedule is just too gradual. They wish to deal with removing it completely from the list of controlled substances, which doesn’t include items like alcohol or tobacco (they’re regulated, but they usually are not the same).

Paul Armentano, deputy director of the National Marijuana Law Reform Organization, said simply reclassifying marijuana would “perpetuate the existing divide between state and federal marijuana policy.” Minority Cannabis Business Association President Kaliko Castille said she would only postpone the “rebranding ban,” relatively than giving full clarity to state licensees and definitively ending a long time of arrests that disproportionately attracted people of color.

“Schedule III will leave it in this amorphous, dirty middle where people won’t understand the danger that it will still be illegal at the federal level,” he said.


This article was originally published on : thegrio.com
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Crime

Two white men arrested on hate crime charges after terrorizing black woman at Louisiana Walmart

Published

on

By

Two white men have finally been arrested after being accused of harassing and terrorizing a black woman in what authorities are calling a hate crime. Dylan Reynolds and Micahel Walters were wanted on hate crime charges stemming from an incident that occurred Nov. 29 at a Walmart in West Monroe, Louisiana. reports.

According to the report, police were called in reference to a disturbance and property damage issue, and once they arrived, they found that the victim, a black woman, had been “intimidated while exiting the store in the parking lot…for no apparent reason.” The unidentified woman was accosted by Reynolds and Walters as she was exiting the Walmart and loading her belongings into her automotive. In the car parking zone, the men allegedly yelled at the woman and called her a “nigger.”

The woman tried to flee in her automotive, but one in all the 2 men chased her on foot, pushing an empty shopping cart. He then allegedly used a shopping card to hit the back of the woman’s automotive when she slowed down for “speed bumps” within the car parking zone near the doorway to the constructing, the police report noted. The woman’s automotive was damaged, costing her greater than $1,000 in repairs, and police also said her safety was threatened “while driving away from the two aggressors.”

After allegedly damaging the woman’s automotive, the men fled in a dark gray Dodge Ram 2500 pickup truck. The incident was captured on store surveillance footage. Both men were arrested and booked into the Ouachita Correction Center Thursday evening. Bail was set at $20,000 for every man Friday, reports.

 

This article was originally published on : www.essence.com
Continue Reading

Crime

Fired Florida sheriff’s deputy released on bail after fatally shooting black airman

Published

on

By

FORT WALTON BEACH, Fla. (AP) — A judge on Thursday allowed bail to be granted for a Florida sheriff’s deputy who was fired and charged with murder after he shot and killed a senior U.S. Air Force soldier within the doorway of a Black man’s apartment.

Former Okaloosa County Sheriff’s Deputy Eddie Duran, 38, could resist 30 years in prison if convicted of murder with a firearm, a rare charge against a Florida law enforcement officer. Duran’s body camera recorded him shooting Roger Fortson, 23, on May 3, just after Fortson opened the door with the gun pointed at the ground.

Judge Terrance R. Ketchel set bail at $100,000 and said Duran cannot possess a firearm or leave the premises, though he is not going to be required to wear a GPS tracker. He was released from jail shortly after Thursday’s hearing, jail records show.

Duran’s arrest warrant was issued Thursday, pending a detention hearing, despite arguments from his attorney Rodney Smith that there was no probable cause to arrest him.

“He spent his entire life … his entire career and military career trying to save people, help people,” Smith said at Thursday’s hearing. “He is not a threat to the community.”

Prosecutor Mark Alderman said “this is a case where we all know what happened.”

“We all saw what happened,” he said. “It’s just a matter of interpretation. We all saw that Mr. Duran killed Roger Fortson. It’s obvious that’s a very serious charge.”

Duran had been homeschooling his six children in recent months while he was unemployed and his wife worked full time, Smith said. Duran sat quietly within the courtroom Thursday, wearing a pink striped prison jumpsuit and glasses. He conferred along with his lawyers and the occasional clang of metal handcuffs might be heard.

The Okaloosa County Sheriff’s Office initially said Duran fired in self-defense after being confronted by a person with a gun, but Sheriff Eric Aden fired back on May 31 after an internal investigation found his life was not in peril when he opened fire. Outside law enforcement experts have also said an officer can’t shoot simply because a possible suspect is holding a gun if there isn’t a threat.

Featured Stories

Duran was responding to a report of a physical fight at an apartment in a Fort Walton Beach complex. An worker identified Fortson’s apartment as the situation, based on sheriff’s investigators. Fortson was alone in his apartment on the time, talking to his girlfriend on a FaceTime video call. Duran’s body camera footage showed what happened next.

After knocking repeatedly, Fortson opened the door. Authorities say Duran shot him multiple times before telling Fortson to place the gun down.

Duran told investigators he saw aggression in Fortson’s eyes and shot because “I’m standing there thinking I’m about to get shot, I’m about to die.”

In a press release after Thursday’s hearing, Smith said the deputy’s actions “were reasonable and appropriate given the information he was provided regarding the nature and urgency of what he deemed to be a potentially dangerous domestic situation.”

In a press release, he described Fortson as “an individual who armed himself before he simply responded to what may have been nothing more than a routine attempt by law enforcement to prevent a domestic violence situation from escalating.”

At Thursday’s hearing, Smith said his team had cooperated with authorities, saying “we turned him in. He’s not going anywhere.”

Smith confirmed there was video evidence of the shooting and that the case was within the national interest.

“We know we have defenses that we intend to use … qualified immunity, defending our position with respect to law enforcement,” Smith said.

The fatal shooting of the Georgia airman was only one in a growing list of black people being killed by law enforcement officers in their very own homes, and it has also renewed debate over Florida’s “Stand and Fight” law. Hundreds of Air Force blues joined Fortson’s family, friends and others at his funeral.

This article was originally published on : thegrio.com
Continue Reading

Crime

Texas man exonerated after spending nearly 34 years in prison for wrongful conviction

Published

on

By

A wrongly convicted Texas man who spent 34 years in prison for a Eighties murder was acquitted Thursday, saying that while he couldn’t get back the years he lost, he’s glad and moving forward.

“I’m excited this day has finally come,” said Benjamin Spencer, 59.

A Dallas County judge granted the district attorney’s office’s request to dismiss aggravated robbery charge against Spencer, who was originally convicted in 1987 of murder in reference to the carjacking and death of Jeffrey Young.

“It’s a good day,” said defense attorney Cheryl Wattley, who has worked on Spencer’s case for greater than 20 years. “I’m trying not to cry.”

Wattley praised Dallas County District Attorney John Creuzot for taking a serious take a look at evidence that had been discredited in the case.

Creuzot said he felt “relieved and humbled to be able to help correct this injustice.”

Prosecution witnesses, including a jailhouse informant who had sought a lenient sentence, gave false testimony, Creuzot said. He added that prosecutors on the time also failed to supply the defense with evidence that may have excluded Spencer from the crime, including fingerprints.

Featured Stories

Spencer, who maintained his innocence, later saw his 1987 conviction overturned. However, he was retried and sentenced to life in prison for the aggravated robbery of Young.

He was released on bail in 2021 after the district attorney’s office found that his constitutional rights had been violated and that he had not received a good trial because of false witness statements and the concealment of evidence.

Earlier this 12 months, the Texas Court of Criminal (*34*) overturned his conviction and sent the case back to Dallas County.

Assistant District Attorney Cynthia Garza, who heads the Conviction Integrity Unit, said: “There is no credible or physical evidence that he was in any way involved in this crime.”

Spencer is one in every of 60 individuals with the longest convictions to be found innocent, in line with the National Registry of Exonerations.

Under Texas law, he’s entitled to a lump sum of as much as $80,000 for annually of imprisonment, plus a pension, Wattley said.

Wattley said Spencer tries to live honorably and “strives to be an example that others can be inspired by.”

This article was originally published on : thegrio.com
Continue Reading
Advertisement

OUR NEWSLETTER

Subscribe Us To Receive Our Latest News Directly In Your Inbox!

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

Trending