I’ve often said that one of the more interesting aspects of cannabis law reform is how it will change the future. Think about the state of cannabis in 1950; now, imagine where things will be in 2050.
The amount of change overall – especially when it comes to technology – that will occur within those 100 years is staggering to think about. And within all that change and advancement will come the normalization of cannabis.
A recent story in The Guardian highlights a harbinger of this evolution. The topic is a new trend of people infusing cannabis into their wedding celebrations, like a bride in Texas that “walked down the aisle holding a bouquet of sunflowers and weed leaves. Guests were served slices of a THC-infused cake and treated to a dab bar where they could take hits of potent, concentrated cannabis oil via a vaporizer while a ‘budtender’ rolled joints – strains of sativa, a stimulant, at the start of the event; hybrids after the service; indicas to wind everyone down at the end of the night.”
Something like this – hard to imagine even 10 years ago – could be considered commonplace 10 years from now. That’s how fast things are moving. In fact, cannabis is perfect to replace alcoholic beverages like wine at a myriad of different events.
There will come a day when marijuana is as ubiquitous and unremarked upon as alcohol is today. It will be considered by the vast majority of people as simply not a big deal, somewhere we have to get if legalization is to truly ever take hold.
We have to get past the notion that marijuana is something dangerous that needs to be heavily regulated and restricted. Not only is it not dangerous, it’s something respectable people can make part of their wedding if they so choose. Besides alcohol and tobacco, what other “illicit” substance can you say that about?
The first step to changing marijuana laws was to make people care, because they didn’t before; if they had, cannabis would never have become illegal in the first place. Now that people care and are aware of the need to change the laws, the next step is to get to a point where people no longer care again.
Stores are filled with products that most of the population doesn’t care about, but are legal for the portion of the population that does care to buy. Most people who walk into a Wal-Mart aren’t looking for a lawnmower and don’t care that they could buy one there if they wanted to. But for the people who do want to buy a lawnmower, it’s a great thing to be able to go in and buy one with no hassle and without anyone really even noticing.
The future of cannabis and/or marijuana could be decided this week. The House Judiciary Committee will have a hearing on July 10th about reforming marijuana laws.
If your representative is on the Judiciary Committee, then you can contact them about reconstructing the malformed federal definition of Schedule 1 marijuana to reveal its adumbrated meaning by clearly describing how marijuana is actually derived from cannabis, and to also explicitly preserve the legitimate federal prohibitions that control the undesired proliferation of marijuana itself. The adumbrated meaning is the answer to the embedded riddle: What is “all parts of the plant”, and simultaneously “does not include the mature stalks”?
Reconstructing the definition this way will carefully deschedule cannabis so that the exclusive 14th Amendment privileges and immunities of citizens to grow cannabis will be restored and protected:
The term “marijuana” means all parts of the smoke produced by the combustion of the plant Cannabis sativa L. which is, as are the viable seeds of such plant, prohibited to be grown by or sold by any publicly traded corporation or subsidiary company, and such smoke is prohibited to be inhaled by any child or by any person bearing any firearm, as is the intake of any part or any product of such plant containing more than 0.3% THC by weight unless prescribed to such child by an authorized medical practitioner.
This is the malformed Schedule 1 definition to be reconstructed:
(16)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), the term “marihuana” means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin.
(B) The term “marihuana” does not include (i) hemp, as defined in section 297A of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946; or (ii) the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination.
Now is the time to make the call or send the email. Snail mail takes too long.
>>>”to also explicitly preserve the legitimate federal prohibitions that control the undesired proliferation of marijuana itself.”
What are you talking about? – What do you consider the “undesired proliferation of marijuana?”
What federal, marijuana prohibitions do you imagine are legitimate? – None are, of course. Marijuana was fraudulently prohibited in 1937 by soon-to-be-out-of-work alcohol prohibition bureaucrat, Harry Anslinger. He desperately wanted a new empire and no lie was too big to tell to get it.
We don’t need to redefine the Shedule 1 definition of marijuana. – We just need to remove marijuana from the list of scheduled drugs altogether, as much more harmful alcohol and tobacco are.
Those are some good questions @John Thomas.
Its right there in the reconstructed definition, where it should be. Cannabis is the precursor plant. Marijuana is the combusted smoke. Legitimate federal prohibitions are 1). the prohibition of corporations from growing cannabis (undesired act). That is derived from Section 1 of the 14th Amendment which established privileges and immunities for CITIZENS to grow cannabis, not corporations, 2). the prohibition of children from smoking cannabis (undesired act), 3). the prohibition of gun bearers from smoking cannabis (undesired act), derived from the Well Regulated Militia Clause of the 2nd Amendment, 4). the prohibition of children and gun bearers from partaking in cannabis products with over 0.3% THC (undesired for them to be dabbing, vaping, eating gummies, chewing on potent buds, taking sublingual drops, etc.) unless children have a prescription. You think its cool for kids to toke, or for people to wear their guns while toking, when they could just retrieve their gunbelt from the check-in counter at the front of the smoke lounge? Acknowledging that your home is your castle.
Marijuana as currently defined cannot be removed from Schedule 1. Its been tried for nearly 50 years. The Auer ruling and the Chevron deference prevent it. It takes two steps: 1st, Congress reconstructs the definition to uphold the Constitution, 2nd, remove the reconstructed definition from Schedule 1 (deschedule/reschedule). The steps could happen simultaneously, or separated by some period of time. That depends on people contacting Congress.
Impatience with the injustice must be channeled into reasonable steps for long lasting reform. Do you activism much?
Though I disagree with the decision, corporations are now considered citizens, so if a citizen has a right, corporations also have it.
Prohibition of gun bearers from consuming marijuana is a SECONDARY effect of prohibition, not any point of contention. – When marijuana is re-legalized, that automatically disappears.
Saying children should not consume marijuana is simply a straw-man argument, since no one advocates that.
Yes, we tried for a long time to end the fraudulently enacted prohibition on the federal level. But it was too well protected there, primarily by the maddening ability of the DEA to delay responses to submissions and appeals for YEARS, only to finally respond with unsubstantiated negation.
That’s when we decided to switch to the state level, and that’s when we began to win. – Yes. I have been an activist for legalization for more than 20 years. – I focus on public education. We have raised public support for ending prohibition from the low 20 percentiles to 65 percent today. – That’s what’s driving the success in the states. And the success in the states is what’s finally moving the feds.
That the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), just joined Senator Kamala Harris to file the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, tells us all we need to know about where the Committee is headed. – The MORE Act will remove marijuana and THC from the Controlled Substances Act, provide for expungement and resentencing of prior convictions.
We passed the tipping point of re-legalization when California launched their massive, legal, recreational market at the beginning of 2018. – It’s now clear it’s all over but the shouting.
State actions regarding marijuana have been helpful, but they still face federal obstruction. We agree that federal action is required, but how.
Perhaps the MORE Act will be successful, but it doesn’t provide the controls that the reconstructed definition contains. Legislatively reconstructing the definition will override the mistaken opinion that corporations are citizens, at least with regard to cannabis. It will promote labeling of THC content in cannabis products to help consumers from being surprised by their effects. It will allow corporations to develop quality cannabis products, but oblige them to outsource cannabis from real citizens competing in the supply-side of a diversified cannabis market, while also precluding corporations from enticing children to “smoke marijuana” in mass media advertisements. It removes the fear of confiscation for farmers and gardeners growing cannabis crops with over 0.3% THC. It will establish a national rule against children smoking. These are not provided by the MORE Act.
Does the public want to return to the cannabis wild west that the MORE Act enables? Marijuana is a familiar thing, but it has been misconstrued at the federal level. Perhaps the reconstructed definition could be appended onto the MORE Act as an set of reasonable, but unscheduled, prohibitions to control undesired marijuana use.
You put too much stock in this concept of a “reconstructed definition.” – Marijuana reform is a grass roots movement. — It is clearly winning and the statutory language will be fashioned around it, not the other way around.
There are various legislative filings for re-legalization now in the pike. Whether the one chosen will be the MORE Act, or some other, they ALL move us massively down the road of freedom.
We will continued to refine marijuana policy, just as we did with alcohol after ending ITS misguided prohibition.
After the dust settles on re-legalization of marijuana, average quality herb will sell for $25 to $40 an ounce, and it will be sold wherever much more harmful alcohol is available.