Last Week In Weed Issue 54
Published April 10th 2023
In this issue of Last Week in Weed. Is a Cannabis civil war brewing in New York? A former Michigan House speaker was caught taking bribes for cannabis licenses. Finally, the Liverpudlian single mother who was chastised by a Judge for possession of just 1g of cannabis.
Is There a Cannabis Civil War Brewing in the Big Apple?
The first story that we’ll be looking at comes from the Big Apple. Last week I read a New York Post article titled ‘How ‘equity’ ruined cannabis legalization in New York’. I at first found this statement to be outlandish and absurd, but I then remembered that it's a story in a mainstream ‘red top’ publication owned by media mogul and Mr Burns cosplay finalist Rupert Murdoch.
Once I read the thing and climbed out of the inevitable rabbit hole it sent me down. I got to thinking about ‘social equity’ in the US state and how vested financial and political interests are attempting to frame, along with the numerous unlicensed entrepreneurs and retailers as the individuals culpable of having ‘ruined’ the state's implementation of its ‘adult-use’ cannabis ‘legalisation’.
While I fully disagree with the premise the piece pushes and the truth it purports to speak there are a few points that I feel it pertinent to dissect and discuss further. The author, whose previous work for the online/print publication is suspiciously devoid of any other work related to cannabis. It mostly pertains to ‘law and order’ and ‘crime and punishment’ as in crime in New York, not the long-running TV show or the weighty Dostoyevsky novel.
At one point in the article the author says “Yet again, applicants will continue to be selected based on their sex or skin color, not on who can best run a business.” A blatant dog whistle and culture war catalyst catchphrase designed to disarm and dismantle the argument of atonement for the crimes of prohibition.
This callous comment is a gross oversimplification and deliberate misinterpretation of the intentions of the architects of the state's cannabis legislation. It wilfully ignores the historic prejudice of decades of demonisation, vilification, and decriminalisation under prohibition. It obfuscates, diminishes, and disregards the extensive and widespread damage directly caused by the over-policing of socio-economically deprived areas and marginalised communities, racial and ethnic minorities, and cultural sub-groups.
Later in the piece, the author states that “This is why the state needs to stop handing out licenses to people as a form of “reparations” and start looking for licensees who can run a real business.” The use of the word ‘reparations’ is another dog whistle and an attempt to further muddy the waters of discussion.
The prejudicial and presumptive language is designed to advance the artificial and illusory conception that those that have been previously convicted of cannabis-related offences are unemployable and not capable of ‘running a real business’.
Again the author attempts and fails here to make a point about not being able to run a business. This is just ridiculous as one of the qualifying criteria for receiving a social equity license is ‘prior experience owning or running a small business’.
One thing I may inadvertently have in common with the author is the belief that in some way this is performative by the state. I feel the legislator doesn’t quite grasp what the cannabis culture is or how diverse a group we truly are. They’re dictating what the culture and consumers should have rather than listening to their needs, wants, and desires.
Given the racist, controversial, and contentious history of the term 'Marihuana’ or ‘Marijuana’. I cannot help but feel its deliberate use in the title of the state's Marihuana Regulation and Taxation Act (MRTA) to be indicative of their lack of understanding and awareness.
Although it does mean that they can keep up the illusion and outright lie that so-called ‘Hemp’ isn’t cannabis and thus requires different legislation, regulation, and taxation.
So why is this fellow of the Manhattan Institute, an American conservative think tank founded by a former head of the CIA, writing about cannabis regulation in New York? To be honest I have no idea but it certainly has piqued my interest. So let's explore the current situation in New York and see if we can figure out why.
The ‘adult use' of cannabis was ‘legalised’ in March 2021 in New York but didn’t come into effect until 2022. However, this wasn’t the state's first attempt to get an Act together to ‘legalise’ and regulate cannabis in the state. Several previous iterations of similar proposals were debated and thrown out for not being progressive enough and not allocating enough tax funds to repair the damage done to marginalised communities by cannabis prohibition.
“The cannabis industry could be a major boon to our economic recovery — creating new jobs, building wealth in historically underserved communities, and increasing state and local tax revenue. With a new regulated adult-use cannabis market on the immediate horizon, now is the time for our city to make proactive investments to ensure the people disproportionately impacted by the criminalization of these substances can reap the benefits of the new industry.” - Mayor Eric Adams (April 2022)
NY state regulators themselves have since acknowledged that several lawsuits have greatly hampered and hindered the roll-out of more licensed dispensaries. Since the start of ‘adult use’ in NY there have been suits filed to prevent the opening of licensed dispensaries in some regions – which have mostly since been overturned.
There has also been litigation claiming that the state's prioritisation of providing licenses to individuals with prior cannabis convictions and communities directly impacted by prohibition is unconstitutional. This casts doubt on the authors' hypothesis that ‘equity’ has ruined cannabis ‘legalisation’ in New York.
While these court battles have been playing out the cannabis entrepreneurs of New York have come out en masse to showcase their version of cannabis culture and vision for the future of the cannabis industry. Initially, New York City Mayor Eric Adams fully supported the cannabis industry in the city but due to the influx of unlicensed cannabis retail outlets have since announced a crackdown on unlawful sales.
Since fines for selling unlicensed cannabis are as low as $250 in New York. It has led to an estimated 1,500 unlicensed dispensaries popping up and operating across New York. Several of these have been raided but reopened immediately with little resistance or reprisal.
These unlicensed retail stores are mostly operating via a loophole in the legislation that allows the sale of an object like a t-shirt or sticker at an inflated price with the cannabis being gifted to the purchaser. These stores currently have no way for them to lawfully pay the applicable taxes and as such have been vilified for making money and not paying taxes.
The persistence of these demonised dispensaries has provoked the current New York State Governor, Democrat Kathy Hochul, to recently propose greatly increasing the fines for the unlicensed sale of cannabis and the expansion of inspection powers.
The irony here is that the Governor wants to use draconian prohibition tactics to criminalise a new generation of cannabis consumers and entrepreneurs to compensate the victims of its failed war on cannabis consumers. It does make you think that maybe the state should just get out of the way of the culture and allow it to organically evolve in line with the neo-liberal principles of so-called ‘free market economics’ that it loves oh so much.
The NYPD has claimed that in the last 12 months, there have been nearly 600 robberies of unlicensed dispensaries. As if this wouldn’t have happened to the licensed dispensaries if they were able to open? It has also been claimed by police that some of these unlawful retailers are also openly selling cannabis to under-21-year-olds. After it successfully sent an underage officer into several unlicensed stores to purchase a small amount of cannabis.
The now-defunct toy store here in the UK, Toys-R-Us recently sued the New York dispensary Weeds-R-Us for copyright infringement showing that the lawfully licensed dispensaries aren’t necessarily as squeaky clean as New York state officials would want you to believe.
Earlier this year, possibly having been overwhelmed by the number of unlicensed dispensaries exploding the NY Cannabis Control Board and the Office of Cannabis Management doubled the total number of planned licenses from 150 – 300.
For reference, the state of New York has a population of 19.8 million meaning that each dispensary would have to serve on average 66,000 residents and countless tourists. Although I do acknowledge not all those residents are over 21 so the real number would be lower.
Then last month the state finally signed off on an additional 99 new CAURD (Conditional Adult-use Retail Dispensaries) licenses. This takes the total number of issued CAURD licenses to 165. Although due to problems with real estate, equity loans, and the aforementioned lawsuits, there are currently only 7 licensed cannabis dispensaries lawfully operating in the state today. With the state's first women-owned pop-up dispensary only recently opened in Queens, NY last month.
While the current implementation of the state's legislation leaves a lot to be desired its conceptual idea has some great elements to it. A few examples are; cannabis can be consumed in the vast majority of locations tobacco can, employers cannot discipline or fire employees for cannabis consumption out-of-work-hours, and landlords cannot refuse to rent to cannabis consumers.
So to answer my earlier question I believe it's greed, power, and corruption that motivated this cultural hit piece in the post. Given what we have just discussed I cannot help but feel there is a deliberate attempt to polarise both sides to benefit the existing ‘adult-use industrial complex’. political power dynamics, and the vested interests of the hyper-wealthy over social equity applicants and the legacy culture.
This artificial binary demarcation of stakeholders I fear could lead to a kind of ‘cannabis civil war’ between social equity and legacy business owners and the ever more desperate multinational and interstate conglomerates eager to conquer new regions and cannibalistically capitalise on the state's 20 million residents.
A Former Michigan House Speaker Was Caught Taking Bribes for Cannabis Licenses.
The second story that we’ll be looking at this week comes from the upper Midwestern US state of Michigan. It has been a long-held belief of mine that the cannabis licensing system is not immune to the same corruption, cronyism, and greed that inevitably ends up permeating all capitalist endeavours.
So I was pleasantly surprised to have my suspicion confirmed last week when a former Michigan House of Representatives speaker and three others admitted guilt in a conspiracy to exchange cash bribes for cannabis cultivation licenses in the state.
“[The cannabis industry has] been held out as an equalizing opportunity, yet what we’ve learned today is that one of its key leaders … acted corruptly and did so at a moment that mattered most for those who want to get ahead in this industry.” - U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Michigan Mark Totten
Rick Johnson, the former Republican Michigan House of Representatives speaker from 2001 – 2004 later served as the chairman of the now-defunct ‘Medical Marijuana Licensing Board’ from 2017 – 2019.
It was during their time as chairman that he admits accepting over $100,000 in bribes in exchange for providing commercial cannabis licenses. The US Attorney for the Western District of Michigan Mark Totten revealed that the investigation into the corruption of Rick Johnson began just 7 months after becoming chair.
During the investigation, Mr Johnson admitted to providing individuals that paid him "valuable non-public information" about the proposed rules and procedures anticipated to be approved by the licensing board.
“Those who wield the power of state have a sacred obligation to serve the people they represent. But when a government official takes a bribe, they spurn that solemn duty – in favor of the connected, the crooked, and ultimately themselves.” - U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Michigan Mark Totten
Last week, in a deal with investigators from the FBI and US Attorney's office the former Great Lake state House speaker, agreed to plead guilty to a charge of ‘accepting a bribe’. The maximum prison sentence he could face is 10 years and a fine of $250,000. Although this could be reduced if he continues to fully cooperate with their investigation.
Mr Johnson had already agreed to repay the $110,200 he received in payments and benefits. This story, while being the first, is likely not to be the last case of corruption, cronyism, and criminality in the US cannabis licensing sector. We'll keep you up to date as more news about the case comes out.
Liverpudlian Mother Chastised By Judge For Possession of Just 1g of Cannabis
The final story this week comes from Liverpool where a judge has chastised a ‘self-medicating’ single mother for possession of just 1 gram of cannabis. The 35-year-old mother, who I shall not name to respect her privacy, was arrested after police raided her home following a tip-off that the property was involved in the unregulated trade of drugs.
During the raid, which took place at 6 am, the woman cooperated fully with police and immediately indicated that she had a glass jar next to her bed containing a tiny amount of cannabis. The woman from Anfield, who already has two prior out-of-court disposals for cannabis possession was then arrested for possession of a Schedule 1 class B drug.
The school cleaner stated during questioning that she uses cannabis medicinally to help treat anxiety and nervousness caused by a previous abusive relationship. The woman was offered a conditional caution and then released.
Despite the almost insignificant amount of cannabis found during the raid unfortunately she failed to contact police in time to receive the caution and was subsequently charged and forced to appear in court last week. When asked why she missed the appointment the woman responded by saying that she thought she had completed the course over the phone because “The lady on the phone said that's all I have to do.”
During the woman’s farcical trial the judge, Wendy Lloyd claimed that “Not only is cannabis illegal, self-medication does not exist. The only person who can medicate for drugs is a doctor.”
“I know there's some background, but cannabis can have enormous effects, physically and psychologically. Some people become psychotic through the use of cannabis alone. Please do not think it's some innocuous substance. As well as being illegal, it does harm."
The ignorant propaganda perpetuated and preached by the presiding puppet of the judiciary is patently misleading, highly prejudicial, and scientifically inaccurate. Firstly, cannabis isn’t illegal in the UK. The possession, cultivation/production, and supply/trade of cannabis without license, exemption, or prior authorisation is currently unlawful and criminalised in the UK.
Secondly, the outlandish and absurd assertion that “self-medication does not exist.” What a load of shite. Millions of people self-medicate with thousands of over-the-counter medications every day. From paracetamol to ibuprofen, antihistamines to antifungal foot creams. The idea that “The only person who can medicate for drugs is a doctor” is not just simply untrue, it is an ignorant and dangerous claim for someone in their position to make.
Finally, the judge claims that cannabis alone can cause psychosis. Again, this isn’t true. Cannabis like many currently unlawful and unregulated substances and compounds can precipitate a psychotic-type event in individuals that have a propensity toward mental illness anyway. If cannabis caused psychosis it would cause all consumers to become psychotic. As it does not it cannot be claimed to alone causes it.
This isn’t the judges first time exhibiting less legal knowledge than a non-educated layman. In 2016 District Judge Wendy Llyod made a glaring mistake during a trial in which a litigant in person (layman) corrected the judge after she tried to falsely dismiss the case for being ‘out of time.’ After the defendant corrected the judge she argued, incorrectly, that the layman was wrong. After she ironically sought legal counsel she admitted her mistake but ruled that “the crime didn’t have a realistic prospect of conviction” and subsequently dismissed the layman’s case.
After being found guilty by the judge the defendant's representative Joseph Ely stated in mitigation; “At the time, some six months ago, she was using the drug as a form of self-medication. She suffers significantly from anxiety having been domestically abused on occasions in the past. It is particularly upsetting for her and she has explained it to me in private. This lady now has the use of the drug under control. She no longer needs the drug to assist with her anxiety.”
Although her legal representative claims that their client “no longer needs the drug” and “now has the use of the drug under control.” I cannot help but feel this is simply the defence just saying what the judge wants to hear. I also feel that the obvious anxiety, fear, and intimidation this young woman suffered at the hands of her former violent partner will undoubtedly be amplified by the aggressive and violent raid of her home by a dozen screaming men for a fucking gram of weed.
The Liverpudlian mother was ultimately handed a 12-month conditional discharge and fined £146 in costs and a victim surcharge. The conviction of this woman for the amount of cannabis many seasoned smokers would consume in one blunt is diabolical, disproportionate, and disgusting. It becomes even more frustrating when you consider the fact that if she had paid a private for-profit clinic for the privilege and protection of a prescription she would have had a legal defence and avoided all of this violence and prejudice.
Cannabis, All cannabis can be consumed medicinally regardless of its lawful designation or regulated cultivation. A private prescription is just a legal exception and license to possess a limited amount of cannabis acquired from a loosely regulated and inconsistent source and consumed in a very specific way.
The cannabis provided by the dispensaries is just cannabis. A doctor does not magically make cannabis medicine. The same cannabis is grown in bedrooms around the world and sold as a lawful safe, relaxing, enjoyable drug in a myriad of places around the world. It's time to end cannabis exceptionalism.
Written By Simpa For The Simpa Life
Last Week In Weed Updates
In issue 43 (Oct 21) we covered the story of a couple from Ormskirk, Lancashire who were caught cultivating cannabis after the wife called the police on the ‘missing’ husband. On March 31st at a Proceeds of Crime trial, the couple were ordered to pay the court over £100,000. The husband was instructed to ‘repay’ £53,807.34 and the wife £52,743.62.
