Marijuana And Election 2016 – Where The Presidential Candidates Stand

Marijuana And Election 2016 – Where The Presidential Candidates Stand

Legalization of marijuana is expected to be a big issue during the 2016 elections. Many states will have ballot items regarding the legalization of marijuana and for some voters, it’s the only issue they care about. Some candidates are very clear as to their position, while others are hard to pin down and deliver confusing and conflicting messages.

 

Many of the candidates don’t post their positions on the issue on their political website, so their stance is determined from their quotes. Here then is a primer for the leading 2016 presidential candidates and their position on the legalization of marijuana.

 

 

Donald Trump

 

Position: Cloudy

 

In 1990, Donald Trump argued that in order to win the War On Drugs, you had to take away the profits from the drug czars. He favored legalizing drugs and using the tax revenue to fund drug education programs. Fast forward to 2015 at the Conservative Political Action Conference where Trump reversed course and said he was against the legalization of marijuana. “I think it’s bad and I feel strongly about that,” he said. “They’ve got a lot of problems going on right now in Colorado, some big problems.” However, Trump contradicts himself when asked about states’ rights and marijuana laws. Trump said, “If they vote for it, they vote for it.”

 

Ben Carson

 

Position: For Medical, Against Recreational

 

Ben Carson is a pediatric neurosurgeon that recognizes medical marijuana as being useful in some cases. However, the good doctor then steers clear of the facts and continues to call marijuana a gateway drug, even though prescription pain killers are the number one gateway to hard drugs. He is firmly against recreational marijuana.

 

Carly Fiorina

 

Position: Against Legalization, Favors States Rights

 

Fiorina lost her step-daughter to drug addiction, which is just terrible and so her stance is deeply personal. She is against the legalization of marijuana, but supports a state’s decision to choose on its own. Fiorina told reporters after her speech at the Western Conservative Summit, “I would also very quickly add that I think the legalization of marijuana is a very bad idea. I think it’s misleading to young people in particular when we tell them smoking pot is like drinking a beer. It is not.” She has also said when she was battling breast cancer her doctor advised her against using cannabis so it’s safe to assume that she’s against medical marijuana.

 

Jeb Bush

 

Position: Against

 

There was a fierce battle over legalizing medical marijuana in Florida and it was mostly funded by the big Republican donor Shel Adelson. Jeb Bush (who admitted he smoked pot in college) sided with the opponents of the initiative. He issued a statement that suggested legalization could harm the state’s reputation as a family friendly place. “Florida leaders and citizens have worked for years to make the Sunshine State a world-class location to start or run a business, a family-friendly destination for tourism and a desirable place to raise a family or retire,” Bush said. “Allowing large-scale, marijuana operations to take root across Florida, under the guise of using it for medicinal purposes, runs counter to all of these efforts,” he added. “I strongly urge Floridians to vote against Amendment 2 this November,” he said.

Position: Against

Marco Rubio has said he would enforce federal law when it came to marijuana. However, he says he is in favor of allowing states to make their own decisions regarding marijuana. Mr. Rubio has also said before that his own family was hurt by the drug business when his brother-in-law was arrested and sent to prison. In a Huffington Post article he said there is “no responsible way to recreationally use” marijuana and that he thinks legalization would be “bad for the country.” While he has occasionally made comments favoring states rights, he has made more against legalization.

 

Chris Christie

 

Position: Against

 

Chris Christie made his position on marijuana clear during the last presidential debate as he connected it to his pro-life stance. He went on to call marijuana a gateway drug, which most studies have proven not to be the case. He also insisted that New Jersey has an emphasis on rehabilitation, not incarceration. Christie also said he supported medical marijuana laws in New Jersey, but it is known for being one of the strictest and most difficult programs in the country. Christie was forced to implement the law, which was signed on his predecessor’s last day in office. Plus, he can’t support medical marijuana and then turn around and state that he’d enforce the federal laws against marijuana which would essentially make medical marijuana criminal.

 

Rand Paul

 

Position: For Legalization.

 

Presidential candidate Rand Paul’s position on marijuana is well known and for many that is enough of a reason to vote for him. Mr. Paul is a libertarian and believes strongly in states’ rights. He has never wavered from the position that the war on drugs was a war that put mostly minorities in jail and prison. Paul has said, “I think to put somebody in jail for 10 years for possession of marijuana or sale of marijuana is ridiculous.”

 

Mike Huckabee

 

Position: Against

 

Mike Huckabee does not agree with legalizing medical marijuana and consequently does not approve of legalizing recreational marijuana. Huckabee thinks patients that want to use medical marijuana should use standard medications. He doesn’t believe that there is any medicinal benefit from marijuana. He has said if people vote to change laws, then he would abide by those laws, but he is clearly not in favor.

 

Ted Cruz

 

Position: Favors States Rights

 

Ted Cruz co-sponsored The Smarter Sentencing Act of 2015 to give judges more flexibility in sentencing, so he believes some people are unfairly incarcerated. He has now “evolved” his position on cannabis and supports states rights to choose whether to legalize or not. At the conservative conference earlier this year, he said he would not crack down on legal marijuana if he were president.

 

Lindsey Graham

 

Position: Cloudy

 

Graham’s position on marijuana is a little cloudy. He voted against veterans having access to medical marijuana and voted in favor of border patrols to battle drugs. However, he has also said he isn’t against legalizing medical marijuana, but then he voted against medical marijuana in Washington D.C. He has said if medical marijuana would help a patient, he wouldn’t be against it. So, his statements tend to be contradictory and hard to follow.

 

Bobby Jindal

 

Position: Against Legalization

 

Jindal has said, “I’m not for the legalization. The full legalization of marijuana has been done in Colorado. But certainly, I think that it makes sense. We could use our resources more effectively. We passed some pretty good laws last year. There’s more work that we can do there. I do think when it comes to medical marijuana, I’ve said that I’m open if it’s tightly regulated, for legitimate medical purposes. We don’t need to be locking up people who aren’t the dealers, who aren’t committing other crimes.” So, he’s not in favor, which makes conservatives happy, but he’ll stand aside for medical marijuana advocates.

 

John Kasich

 

Position: Cloudy

 

Kasich is firmly against legalizing medical marijuana, but he is in favor of states’ rights. On the one hand, Kasich seems like the most moderate of the Republicans when it comes to marijuana. He also believes in rehabilitation of drug offenders as opposed to prison sentences. He also supports legalized marijuana businesses to be able to have regular banking and file tax returns. Yet, he clearly is also against legalizing medical marijuana. If he were voted in as president, it’s hard to tell which direction he would go in.

 

Rick Santorum

 

Position: Against

 

Santorum smoked pot in college, but knew it was wrong, he says we all make mistakes. He said, “For example, I smoked pot when I was in college. Does that mean that I can’t talk about drug use? Does that mean that I can’t talk about how that’s a bad thing? Of course not. You learn from those experiences.” Lately he has said that federal laws should be enforced and that Colorado was violating federal law.

 

George Pataki

 

Position: Cloudy

 

George Pataki is a big supporter of the 10th amendment and feels it is a state’s right to choose. He thinks federal law should be changed in order to support those states. However, he opposed the efforts in the state of New York to legalize medical marijuana and said “I am not in favor of legalized marijuana.” So, which is it? He seems to favor legalization if a state votes it in, but then again he is against it. He has admitted to smoking pot and inhaling.

 

Jim Gilmore

 

Position: Against

 

Gilmore is decidedly against legalization. He strongly favors stricter drug laws and has said that illicit drugs are not an acceptable part of our society. He believes in more federal funding for all aspects of the War on Drugs. At least, Gilmore leaves no doubt about his position on marijuana.

 

Bernie Sanders

 

Position: For Legalization

 

Sanders co-sponsored the States’ Rights to Medical Marijuana Act. The act reclassifies marijuana as a schedule 2 drug from schedule 1. The act approves of marijuana with a doctor’s prescription or recommendation. He also believes that industrial hemp should not be considered as marijuana. Sanders also co-sponsored the Industrial Hemp Farming Act. There is no doubt where Bernie stands.

 

Hillary Clinton

 

Position: Favors Medical Marijuana

 

Hillary Clinton, whose husband former President Bill Clinton famously said he smoked marijuana but didn’t inhale, is in favor of medical marijuana in extreme cases. She says she wants to “wait and see” how states are doing with recreational before taking a position as to whether states have the right to decide about recreational use. That’s a pretty safe way of not taking a real position.

 

Posted on Forbes – Original Post

 

Sep 25, 2015 @ 07:00 AM

Debra Borchardt , Contributor (Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own).

Michigan Marijuana Legalization Initiative 2016

Michigan Marijuana Legalization Initiative 2016

Posted on BallotPedia

 

The Marijuana Legalization Initiative is an initiated state statute proposed for the Michigan ballot on November 8, 2016 ballot.

 

The measure would legalize, regulate and tax marijuana.

 

Adults age 21 and older would be permitted to possess and use marijuana and to cultivate 12 plants each. The initiative would also allow for hemp farming.

 

Text of measure

 

Ballot summary

 

An initiation of legislation to allow under state law the personal possession and use of marihuana by persons 21 years of age or older; to provide for the lawful cultivation and sale of marihuana and marihuana-infused products by persons 21 years of age or older; to permit the taxation of revenue derived from commercial marihuana facilities and to require that any such taxes be used for the purposes of education, public safety and public health; to permit the legislature to require licensing of commercial marihuana facilities by establishing a Michigan Cannabis Control Board, which board would be responsible for enforcement and administration of this act, including the promulgation of administrative rules.

 

The full text of the measure can be found here.

 

Support

The initiative campaign is being led by the Michigan Comprehensive Cannabis Law Reform Committee. The group is headed by Jeffrey Hank, who has organized local marijuana legalization initiative campaigns in Lansing and East Lansing, including one that appeared on the May 5, 2015, ballot.

 

Read the full post and see more stats and details

Medical Marijuana Lawyers Want Crime Lab Removed From Michigan State Police

Medical Marijuana Lawyers Want Crime Lab Removed From Michigan State Police

A group of criminal defense attorneys says the Michigan State Police (MSP) should no longer oversee the state crime lab.  “We in Michigan accept the idea we’ve got a Michigan State Police crime lab.  That is inherently problematic.  But we accept it, because that’s how it is,” said attorney Michael Komorn, who specializes in defending medical marijuana patients.

 

Komorn and attorney Neil Rockind recently filed a federal complaint against the lab in hopes that it will spark an independent investigation into a new crime lab policy dealing with synthetic THC.  The policy instructs crime lab technicians to treat extracts that contain THC as being synthetic.  That’s in any case where it is not absolutely clear they came from a cannabis plant.  The attorneys claim the policy change is leading to unfair felony charges for patients who would otherwise face misdemeanors.

 

Komorn uncovered the policy through a public information request and provided the documents to the Michigan Public Radio Network in October.  The attorneys say it’s the result of political pressures on the crime lab as a result of being overseen by MSP.  “The idea that the police and the lab and the prosecutors are all intertwined and they are one side of the team versus the defendant is inherently a conflict,” said Komorn. He’d like the crime lab to be overseen by another government agency or a private entity.

 

Komorn is defending a patient who was charged under the policy. He says the state removed the Ottawa County man’s six-year-old son and placed him in a foster home due to the charges. The man faces two years behind bars, twice as long as a misdemeanor charge.

Listen

Original post with stream

— Jake Neher is the State Capitol Reporter for the Michigan Public Radio network.  Contact WEMU News at 734.487.3363 or email us at studio@wemu.org

Medical marijuana lawyers want state crime lab moved out of Michigan State Police

Medical marijuana lawyers want state crime lab moved out of Michigan State Police

“The attorneys claim the policy change is leading to unfair felony charges for patients who would otherwise face misdemeanors.”

 

Posted on MichiganRadio.org

 

 

A group of criminal defense attorneys says the Michigan State Police (MSP) should no longer oversee the state crime lab.

 

“We in Michigan accept the idea we’ve got a Michigan State Police crime lab. That is inherently problematic. But we accept it, because that’s how it is,” said attorney Michael Komorn, who specializes in defending medical marijuana patients.

 

Komorn and attorney Neil Rockind recently filed a federal complaint against the lab in hopes that it will spark an independent investigation into a new crime lab policy dealing with synthetic THC.

 

The policy instructs crime lab technicians to treat extracts that contain THC as being synthetic. That’s in any case where it is not absolutely clear they came from a cannabis plant. The attorneys claim the policy change is leading to unfair felony charges for patients who would otherwise face misdemeanors.

 

Komorn uncovered the policy through a public information request and provided the documents to the Michigan Public Radio Network in October.

 

The attorneys say it’s the result of political pressures on the crime lab as a result of being overseen by MSP.

 

“The idea that the police and the lab and the prosecutors are all intertwined and they are one side of the team versus the defendant is inherently a conflict,” said Komorn.

 

He’d like the crime lab to be overseen by another government agency or a private entity.

 

Komorn is defending a patient who was charged under the policy. He says the state removed the Ottawa County man’s six-year-old son and placed him in a foster home due to the charges. The man faces two years behind bars, twice as long as a misdemeanor charge.

 

Read Original Post

Defense attorneys seek fed inquiry of MSP crime labs

Defense attorneys seek fed inquiry of MSP crime labs

Southfield — Three defense attorneys are asking the federal government to investigate the Michigan State Police crime laboratories, alleging misconduct in their testing for pending drug cases.

 

Southfield defense attorneys Neil Rockind and Michael Komorn, along with Michael Nichols of East Lansing, want the National Institute of Justice and the institute’s Office of Investigative and Forensic Sciences to look into their claims that the State Police lab has — on advice of the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan — compromised results in marijuana cases.

 

According to Rockind, defense attorneys have obtained emails sent between lab officials and the association that allegedly show the labs were influenced by PAAM in its reporting of the testing of suspected marijuana in criminal cases and the origin of THC, the active component that produces the “high” obtained by the user.

 

“This involves how test results can show whether substances are synthetic, such as in designer drugs or from plant material,” Rockind said. “If synthetic, it can result in felony offenses punishable by up to seven years in prison rather than the more common misdemeanor offense or a crime in which medical marijuana card holders can advance a medical defense.”

 

State Police and the prosecutors association deny the attorneys’ allegations.

 

MSP crime labs received more than $236,000 this year in federal funding through the Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program. The grants are monitored by two federal agencies, Rockind said.

 

According to Rockind’s complaint, dated Tuesday, the emails reveal a “co-dependence between the Crime Lab and the prosecuting attorneys association that is the antithesis of an independent, objective and science focused forensic crime laboratory.”

 

“The problem is the interference by the prosecuting attorneys association with the reporting of scientific results,” Rockind wrote the agencies. “It reflects a culture that the Crime Lab and its analysts are not scientists reporting forensic analyses dispassionately in court through testimony. Instead, it reflects a systematic top-down management of the reporting by (PAAM) through the MSP laboratory supervisors.”

 

Rockind also wrote that the MSP crime labs have violated guidelines of the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board, which has accredited the lab.

 

Accredited labs nationally follow guidelines that include being impartial and objective, approaching all testing with an open mind and without bias, the complaint states.

 

Quoting the accrediting agency’s guidelines, Rockind wrote, labs must “conduct complete and unbiased examinations. Conclusions are based on the evidence and referenced material relevant to the evidence, not extraneous information, political pressure, or other outside influences.”

 

“The involvement and participation of the prosecuting attorney in the operation and conduct of the Crime Lab violates these guidelines,” Rockind wrote.

 

Rockind said he has not filed a lawsuit in the matter but only seeks to have supervisory officials review the situation, identify problems, if any, and determine corrective action.

 

Gerry LaPorte, a director of the two federal agencies both based in Washington, D.C., could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

 

Shanon Banner, a spokeswoman for the Michigan State Police, said, “The allegations of this group of defense attorneys are without merit.”

 

Banner said in 2013, the State Police Forensic Science Division changed its policy regarding how marijuana and THC are reported “in an effort to standardize reporting practices among our laboratories and to ensure laboratory reports only include findings that can be proved scientifically.”

 

Banner said that with an increase of synthetic drugs being sent to labs, “it became necessary to ensure reporting standards were in place across all labs.”

 

Lab workers were involved in discussions and proposed changes, she said, which included using the phrase “origin unknown” for samples where the source of the THC could not be scientifically proven to originate from plant-based material.

 

“It does not mean the sample is synthetic THC,” Banner stressed. “It only means the lab did not determine the origin, and the source of the THC should not be assumed from the lab results.”

 

“The allegation that politics or influence from any outside entity played a role in this policy change is wholly untrue,” Banner said. “Further, the MSP rejects the allegation that an internal policy change to ensure standardization regarding how test results are reported rises to the level of negligence or misconduct.”

 

PAAM president Mike Wendling issued a response Wednesday that said, in part, “defense attorneys have alleged that the PAAM directed the Michigan State Police Forensic Science Division to change their reporting procedures relating to THC in an effort to increase potential charges. These allegations are false.”

 

Wendling said the allegations are based on two emails in which Ken Stecker, a staff attorney, opined that “THC is a Schedule I drug, regardless of where it comes from.

 

“At no time, in either email, did Mr. Stecker direct MSP Forensic Science personnel on how to conduct tests or how to report their findings.

 

“When the MSP Forensic Science Division tests a substance that shows the presence of THC, the measurement of that THC is reported,” Wendling wrote. “If plant material is not detected to be present, they cannot determine if the THC is a synthetically created resin or created out of plant material.”

 

Wendling stressed that the crime labs set their own protocols for reporting scientific findings and described Stecker as a “highly regarded and highly requested statewide and national presenter on the issues of traffic safety and drug use.”

 

Mike Martindale

The Detroit News –5:50 p.m. EST December 23, 2015

mmartindale@detroitnews.com

 

Read Original Article