The CDC has provided us with mixed information when it comes to the COVID-19 booster shots. Here’s a breakdown of who qualifies.
There’s been a lot of back on forth on the COVID-19 booster; you have to read the news every day to stay on top of it. The mishandling of matters by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has only made things worse, confusing everyone on whether or not they’re able to get the shot or even if they should.
Do you qualify? Here’s what we know.
Photo by CDC via Unsplash
In order to qualify for a booster shot, you must have received the Pfizer vaccine, since that’s the vaccine that has earned approval. According to the suggestions made by the CDC, people 65 and older and people between the ages of 50-64 with underlying medical conditions should get the Pfizer booster. People between the ages 18-64 may get the booster if they have an underlying condition or if they work somewhere that exposes them to the virus to higher degrees than the normal population.
The CDC has provided a list of health conditions that qualify people for getting their Pfizer booster. It’s important to remember that people who are immunocompromised, whether they’re undergoing cancer treatment or suffering from a condition that affects their immune system, also qualify for the booster.
The toughest area to navigate would be jobs, since the CDC isn’t all that clear. The current list of high-risk occupations includes, “healthcare workers, teachers, and daycare staff, grocery workers, people who work in prisons and homeless shelters, among others.” It’s unclear what among others means, but a lot of people could fit under this definition, making the booster relatively easy to get.
Now that they were approved, boosters should become available soon. While before there were lines and wait times, experts predict that getting this vaccine will be relatively easy, since pharmacies, hospitals and more already have these items in stock.
I firmly believe that businesses that want to get into the California CBD industry are going to need to muster up some serious cash and focus on compliance rather than just marketing.
Last week, AB-45 completed its run through the California legislature and was presented to Governor Gavin Newsom for his signature, which is probably imminent. Once he signs it, the law takes effect and will pave the way for legal CBD consumables, while banning (at least temporarily) any kind of hemp-derived inhalable product. If you want to read our prior analysis of AB-45, see this post.
If you know even a little about the twists and turns of California’s attempts to legalize CBD since 2018, you’ll appreciate just how monumental this bill is, at least in theory. In 2019, AB-228 made it almost to the finish line but stalled out due to opposition (see my posts here, here, here, and here). In 2020, California legislators tried (and failed) to do the same thing two times with AB-2827 and AB-2028. Personally, I was telling people all year that even AB-45 didn’t stand a great chance.
Now that AB-45 has passed, a lot of folks are celebrating while others (namely inhalable product stakeholders) are upset. All of these reactions may be premature because things are likely to change substantially over the coming months (assuming Newsom signs AB-45) when the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) issues CBD regulations.
Before getting into these regs, it’s important to highlight that CDPH hates CBD. In 2018, and without any law supporting them or going through any kind of official rulemaking process, CDPH took it upon itself to straight up ban CBD foods and beverages in the state via a website FAQ. You can read an older analysis of mine on the CDPH’s position here. And at the beginning of this year, CDPH expanded its position to cover topical products via a revised FAQ.
With that all in mind, here are some of the things that CDPH has the power to or will have to regulate under AB-45:
Good manufacturing practice standards for manufacturers;
The amount of THC that’s allowed to be present raw hemp extract not intended for human consumption (i.e., work-in-process hemp extract);
Minimum age requirements for hemp products on a finding of emergency;
Prohibition of human or animal products that CDPH deems harmful;
Serving sizes;
Record-keeping standards;
THC concentration and ratio of cannabinoids for final-form products;
Specific contaminant levels (as an aside, the contaminant-level standards for California cannabis products are basically ported into the hemp market through AB-45, and CDPH is free to add even more standards);
Basically anything else within the purview of AB-45, including things like labeling, licensing fees, etc.
I have worked on hundreds of matters dealing with CDPH cannabis issues and CBD issues in California prior to AB-45. I have seen (a) how intensely CDPH regulated cannabis, and (b) how aggressively they went after CBD for reasons that still remain very unclear to me.
Photo by Anshu A via Unsplash
I can only surmise that when — not if — CDPH issues CBD regulations, they will be extremely aggressive and basically box out anyone in the industry who does not have the resources to spend tens of thousands of dollars or more on compliance. I firmly believe that the “wild west” days here are coming to an end and businesses that want to get into the California CBD industry are going to need to muster up some serious cash and focus on compliance rather than just marketing. I could be wrong, but I don’t think so.
Keep in mind too that the initial set of regulations will be exempt from the state Administrative Procedure Act and will be considered “emergency” regulations, which will take effect immediately while the public is commenting on them. CDPH could drop regulations at any time, and if it does there will probably be an initial period of chaos where people try to mold their existing CBD businesses into compliant ones. That too will be expensive.
Don’t get me wrong, on balance I am happy AB-45 passed and that the state will not take an arbitrary and (in my opinion, stupid) position on CBD anymore. But we all need to be very weary about what the future holds, and prepared to do a lot of work.
Griffen Thorne is an attorney at Harris Bricken, a law firm with lawyers in Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Barcelona, and Beijing. This story was originally published on the Canna Law Blog and has been reposted with permission.
The U.S. House of Representatives approved a large-scale defense spending bill on Thursday, just days after passing cannabis banking reform which was part of the legislation. So, it seems that cannabis banking could end up on President Biden’s desk along with the all-important defense budget.
The cannabis banking reform measure, approved Tuesday on a voice vote, would allow banks to do business with cannabis companies without being penalized by federal regulators.
Photo by Darren415/Getty Images
The vote came after the House Rules Committee made in order the amendment from Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) for floor consideration. It was one of various drug policy proposals lawmakers were hoping to attach to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Marijuana Momentreported.
The latest breakthrough is the fifth time that the House has passed the cannabis banking reform in recent years.
Pushback From Key Senators
Perlmutter indicated that he was optimistic about including banking reform in the NDAA as the vehicle to send it to the Senate floor.
“I think the fifth time is the charm,” Perlmutter told Marijuana Moment. “I mean, obviously, we still have to do some work to make sure that it remains part of the NDAA as the House and the Senate go to conference. So we still have work to do with the Senate to make sure that it remains part of it. But I think that it will.”
However, some key senators, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), have insisted on passing comprehensive justice-focused marijuana legalization first, arguing that passing the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act first could affect support for broader reform.
A tweet posted by Politico’s Natalie Fertig cited a Schumer spokesperson who said the senator’s position — that both reforms should move “at the same time” — had not changed.
ALSO: a spokesperson for Maj Leader @chuckschumer told me today that his position has not changed since he told @politico in April that banking and comprehensive reform should move “at the same time.” Here’s that interview: https://t.co/OuCUFaSGSU
On Wednesday, Booker, who is working on a final legalization bill with Schumer and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR), told Politico that cannabis banking is “something that should not be included” in the defense budget.
“It undermines the ability to get comprehensive marijuana reform and the kind of things that are harder to get done like expungement of people’s records,” Booker said, as per Fertig’s tweet.
The bill, which would remove marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), also aims to create a pathway for resentencing for those incarcerated for cannabis offenses.
A bill to federally legalize marijuana will be voted on by the House Judiciary Committee next week, the panel announced on Friday.
The development, initially reported by Marijuana Moment, comes barely 24 hours after the House voted in favor of a defense spending bill with an amendment that would protect banks that do business with state-legal cannabis companies from being penalized by federal regulators.
Photo by Fokusiert/Getty Images
“Next week, the Judiciary Committee will hold a markup on a wide array of legislation that will combat the sale of counterfeit products online and limit race-based hair discrimination,” saidJudiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler’s (D-NY)in a press release.
Nadler’s Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, to be voted on at Wednesday’s panel along with a dozen other pieces of legislation, seeks to “decriminalize marijuana federally and invest in communities that have been disproportionately harmed by the War on Drugs.”
The MORE Act comes with the backing of over 150 organizations across the country.
“Many of these bills were reported out of the committee and passed by the full House of Representatives last Congress, and I look forward to working with all my colleagues once again to get these bills through Congress and on to the president’s desk,” Nadler said in the press release.
Photo by Karolina Grabowska from Pexels
The bill, which would remove marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), also aims to create a pathway for resentencing for those incarcerated for cannabis offenses, protect immigrants from being denied citizenship over marijuana and prevent federal agencies from denying public benefits or security clearance due to its use.
“The Committee will also consider a bipartisan package of bills that will help lower prescription drug costs by taking on certain anticompetitive practices employed by large pharmaceutical companies, legislation that will decriminalize marijuana federally and invest in communities that have been disproportionately harmed by the War on Drugs, and several private immigration bills,” Nadler said.
“Many of these bills were reported out of the Committee and passed by the full House of Representatives last Congress, and I look forward to working with all my colleagues once again to get these bills through Congress and on to the President’s desk.”
It is time for President Biden to face the reality of his role and the role of his colleagues and predecessors in advancing of the drug war.
The War on Drugs, not the war in Afghanistan, is America’s longest war. It has used trillions of American taxpayer dollars, militarized American law enforcement agencies (federal, state, and local), claimed an untold number of lives, railroaded people’s futures (especially among Black, Latino, and Native populations), and concentrated the effort in the country’s most diverse and poorest neighborhoods.
The War on Drugs has been a staggering policy failure, advancing few of the claims that presidents, members of Congress, law enforcement officials, and state and local leaders have sought to achieve. The illicit drug trade thrived under prohibition; adults of all ages and youth had access to illicit substances. Substance use disorders thrived, and policymakers’ efforts to protect public health were fully undermined by policy that disproportionately focused, if unsuccessfully, on public safety.
Photo by vladans/Getty Images
It is time for an American president to think seriously about broad-based policy change to disrupt the manner in which the United States deals with drugs.
Despite its dramatic policy failures, the War on Drugs has been wildly successful in one specific area: institutionalizing racism. The drug war was built on a foundation of racism and xenophobia. As I have written in Marijuana: A Short History, the historical foundation of drug policy in the United States was to vilify African Americans, Native Americans, immigrants from Asia and Mexico, and other out groups, and to turn White America against each. Michelle Alexander and numerous others have effectively highlighted how America’s criminal justice system from arrest to trial to incarceration to post-release conditions disproportionately punish people of color, creating a cycle of harm in their communities.
We know the design and enforcement of America’s drug laws were racist in intent and in practice. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 enacted penalties for possession of crack cocaine (a substance predominantly used by poor and minorities users) that were 100 times higher than for the possession of powder cocaine (a substance used more often by wealthier, white users). And while Congress in 2010 reduced that disparity in penalties from 100 to 1 to 18 to 1, and in 2018 President Trump signed a law making that change retroactive, thousands of low level offenders were left out from resentencing because of a loophole. And in 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to extend the retroactive resentencing effort for those low-level offenders.
In addition, research shows that Black and wWhite Americans use cannabis at roughly the same rates. However, Black Americans are more than 3.6 times more likely to be arrested for a cannabis offense than are wWhite Americans. And even in states that have reformed their cannabis laws, the institutionalization of racism in police departments’ enforcement of the drug war sustains, as Blacks are more than two times as likely as whites to be arrested for cannabis offenses in those legal jurisdictions. And while cannabis offenses have plummeted in those states, the impact of those remaining arrests and convictions are felt in an outsized way across Black and Brown America and in Native communities.
The 2018 law mentioned above was titled the First Step Act. This label was fitting in that it described the long road toward broader criminal justice reform and for justice in the communities that the War on Drugs targeted for decades. And in his 2019 State of the Union Address, President Trump praised that bill becoming law, by noting that it addresses the explicit racism in the American criminal justice system. He noted:
“This legislation reformed sentencing laws that have wrongly and disproportionately harmed the African American community. The First Step Act gives nonviolent offenders the chance to reenter society as productive, law-abiding citizens. Now States across the country are following our lead. America is a nation that believes in redemption.”
President Trump was right that America believes in redemption, but only in theory. It rarely advances redemption in practice. Every president in the 20th and 21st centuries helped perpetuate, in some way, a drug war with one “crowning achievement”: systematically harming minority communities in America with intent and malice. Supporters of prohibition, be they presidents or other elected officials, advocates, law enforcement leaders, or everyday citizens wrap themselves in a mystical cloak of “protecting the children” and “keeping communities safe.” In reality, that hypocrisy has sought simply to protect white children (a failed effort) and to keep white communities safe (another missed target).
Photo by LeszekCzerwonka/Getty Images
If prohibition supporters cared deeply about children and the safety of communities, they would look at what the War on Drugs have done to Black and Brown children and communities and be sickened. They would see families divided, young people (especially young Black men) have dreams dashed and future opportunities restricted, communities rocked by gang and police violence, systematic underinvestment with simultaneous over-policing in cities, and dozens more disastrous consequences because of their failed drug policies. Prohibition supporters from Main Street to Pennsylvania Avenue should consider how the drug war has harmed specific American communities and recoil, but instead, they ignore reality and refuse to advance legitimate alternatives.
It is time for President Biden to face the reality of his role and the role of his colleagues and predecessors in advancing of the drug war. He must consider vast reforms — some which require the cooperation of Congress and others than can be implemented via executive action— that deal with drug policy in a thoughtful and reasoned, rather than anachronistic and heartless way. Mr. Biden must realize that choices about drug reform—pardons, sentencing reform policy, the expansion of mental health and addiction services, cannabis legalization, police reform, prison reform, community reinvestment—should not focus on whether those reforms come without costs. Mr. Biden must compare whether those reforms are a policy improvement over the status quo: prohibition.
Too often elected officials, policy analysts, advocates, and citizens hide behind the cowardice of highlighting the challenges that drug reform can potentially cause, while refusing to speak and think bravely about the comprehensive failures and harms perpetuated by current policy. Mr. Biden can no longer do what he and his predecessors have done: sit idly by, awaiting a perfect policy to replace the unmitigated failures of the War on Drugs. A significant part of the electoral coalition that swept Mr. Biden to the Democratic presidential nomination and eventually to the White House were Black, Latino, and Native Americans who have been harmed the most by the War on Drugs.
Photo by sakhorn38/Getty Images
Part of that solution must be an embrace of full-scale criminal justice reform that works to inject fairness into a system that has, for centuries, disproportionately punished people of color, the poor, the undereducated, those without personal or political connections, and any others in our society who fall on hard times. Drug reform — and particularly cannabis reform — must sit at the forefront of the president’s efforts to chase the type of justice that has eluded so many for so long.
Legalizing cannabis, focusing broader drug reform efforts around public health policy rather than inhumane criminalization, prioritizing law enforcement funds toward violent crime rather than petty crime, coordinating an intergovernmental effort to harmonize criminal justice reform through legislative and executive efforts, and reinvesting in the communities that our government has targeted and persecuted are a requirement for President Biden to be the humane and justice-oriented president he marketed himself to be in the 2020 campaign.
Eight months into this administration, Mr. Biden faces an embarrassing reality with regard to drug policy. Donald Trump, who received only 8% of the Black vote in 2016, did more as president to change drug policy and ameliorate the effects of the drug war for communities of color than has Joe Biden, who won 87% of Black support in 2020.
In the same way this president took the bold step of ending America’s second longest war in Afghanistan, he should take the equally bold step of ending America’s longest war: the War on Drugs.
New data suggests there’s a difference between the leading vaccines that are being administered in the U.S.
One of the arguments that many health experts have posed comes in regards to vaccine effectiveness. They all say it’s important to get your shot, no matter whether it’s Johnson & Johnson, Moderna, or Pfizer. But is there a vaccine that’s superior to the rest? While they’re all very effective, data suggests there is one vaccine that stands out from the rest.
According to a report published this week in The New England Journal of Medicine, the Moderna vaccine appeared to have more protective powers than Pfizer.
This study analyzed the real world effectiveness of the vaccines at preventing disease in 5,000 health care workers in 25 states. Both vaccines were very effective, but Pfizer’s defense rate was 88.8% versus Moderna’s 96.3%. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that Pfizer’s protection fades over time, from 91% to 77% following a period of four months. Moderna’s protection doesn’t show this same decline.
The New York Times reports that if this gap starts to increase, it may be important data to have when it comes to booster shots and who needs them.
Still, while those who received the Pfizer vaccine may be feeling a little stressed out, experts say that this difference is small and should warrant any meltdowns. “It’s not appropriate for people who took Pfizer to be freaking out that they got an inferior vaccine,” said virologist John Monroe.
Photo by Diana Polekhina via Unsplash
A lot of factors could have affected these results, including the demographic of those who were vaccinated and the time of their release. For example, Pfizer was the first vaccine approved, meaning that a large percentage of adults and health care workers received it first, something that could be skewing the data.
Both Moderna and Pfizer vaccines are effective against preventing infection and severe disease, and both have surpassed the expectations set by researchers when they were first being devised.
There are many obstacles still ahead for cannabis businesses, brands, and consumers in the U.S. and abroad. Still, it’s safe to say that the industry will continue to boom for the time being.
No matter where you live in the United States, it’s safe to say that the cannabis industry has come a long way in the past couple of decades.
Back toward the beginning of the New Millennium, if I had told you that recreational cannabis would be legal in 18 states and that medical marijuana would be permitted in 37 states, you would have most likely laughed in my face and told me to take a hike. If you were a cop back then, you might have even had me arrested and charged with possession.
Photo by Michele Ursi/Getty Images
But all jokes aside, today, marijuana is, in fact, legal in many U.S. states for both medicinal and recreational uses, as well as in other countries, such as Canada, South Africa, the Netherlands, and more!
But despite this widespread legalization of cannabis in both the U.S. and abroad, the industry still has a long road ahead of itself in terms of establishing itself as the titan that it might truly become.
What changes, trends, and challenges should we expect to see in the coming years?
Especially as news laws and regulations are continuously developing that affect consumer buying habits and the overall sales and profitability of owning a business in the cannabis industry today.
In the following article, we’re exploring some of the biggest challenges that experts predict will dominate the cannabis industry in 2021 and beyond.
Industry Predictions For Big Cannabis In 2021
As the cannabis industry continues to develop, the industry is only expected to grow and see much strength in the coming years, with experts predicting that market values could reach $30 billion by 2025.
In legalized states and jurisdictions worldwide where pot has been deemed legal, laws surrounding the production, distribution, and sale of wholesale cannabis will continue to dominate the news.
However, before we see the markets stabilize, we should still expect to see a lot of volatility in industry-level laws and regulations, especially within jurisdictions such as the U.S., where different states have different rules regarding cannabis. Yet, it is still considered illegal at the federal level.
With this paradox, cannabis companies should expect a lot of change in the coming years regarding regulations.
Photo by Yarygin/Getty Images
Startup funding, cannabis finance, and banking will continue to be ongoing concerns for countless smaller businesses in the industry, especially as cannabis awareness continues to rise and the industry establishes itself as an “addictions” industry, right along with the tobacco and alcohol industries.
But even with these challenges ahead, experts believe the overall outlook of the cannabis industry remains sound and that investors, businesses, and consumers alike should only expect to see more signs of strength in the future.
The Importance Of Controlling The Cannabis Industry
Many pot advocates would have you believe that the government should not be involved in their or anyone else’s marijuana use. They might even have you believe that the government is only legalizing it because it wants a cut of the market.
However, the truth is that regulations are crucial to keeping both consumers and cannabis companies safe.
And today, there are just as many pot advocates that believe that enacting better laws and regulations is the only way to make the industry a safe place for both consumers and cannabis companies to coexist peacefully.
In the US, before cannabis being decriminalized in states such as Washington and Colorado, there were very few, if any, laws regarding the production, processing, or sale of cannabis and cannabis products.
Today, on the other hand, there are many laws and regulations in place to oversee the sale of cannabis in legalized jurisdictions. And with this, consumers are getting the benefits of access to better, higher-quality cannabis products than ever before and more variety in terms of the cannabis products that are readily available from brands and dispensaries.
Along with this, we also expect that consumers will develop an increased awareness surrounding marijuana and cannabis-related products.
This increased awareness will eventually lead to pot brands and companies being required to adapt to changing consumer behaviours, resulting in economic boosts to other sub-industries, such as manufacturing, distribution, marketing and advertising, eCommerce, and many more that will rush in to cash in on mergers with the booming cannabis industry.
Boosting The Economy With Pot
There’s also much good to be said about regulating the industry when you consider that tax profits and proceeds for cannabis sales are single-handedly helping boost local, national, and global economies.
In the U.S. alone, just in the past couple of years since legalization, states like Washington and Colorado have seen better sales than predicted, resulting in rather handsome tax revenues being generated.
In Colorado, the state collected more than $302 million in fees and taxes from marijuana sales in 2019. That same year, experts estimated sales in the entire continental U.S. at roughly $12.2 billion.
What’s more is that, beyond 2021, cannabis sales in the U.S. are expected to reach up to $31.1 billion by the end of 2024 and into 2025.
Photo by Elsa Olofsson via Unsplash
For countries such as the U.S., the cannabis industry is poised to become a sector that can help the national economy recover from the uncertain economic conditions left in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.
In fact, according to New Frontier, the cannabis company suggests that federally legal pot could generate more than a million jobs and an additional $105.6 billion in aggregate federal tax revenue by 2025.
But even with such impressive predictions for the future, there’s still a lot of work to be done for the cannabis industry as a whole.
The Challenges Ahead For Cannabis Brands
Whether farmer, wholesaler, retailer, consumer, lover, or hater, the laws and regulations that continue to shape the industry will affect everyone.
As a growing number of states and international jurisdictions develop their industries, businesses should expect to see changing regulations surrounding the import and export of cannabis products, resulting in potential price fluctuations at an industry level.
Consumers should expect to see fluctuating cannabis prices. But in general, countries such as Canada have seen an overall decline in cannabis prices since it first legalized pot back in 2018.
We also believe that the ongoing development of the cannabis industry will continue to see an increase in business mergers and acquisitions with businesses from other sectors, such as the alcohol, tobacco, food and beverage industries.
For instance, it wouldn’t be all that unexpected to see restaurants or other establishments serving cannabis products in the future, much in the same way beer, wine, and different kinds of alcohol are served.
All of this will likely add to both the volatility and strength of the industry in the future.
Photo by anankkml/Getty Images
In the end, the main challenges the industry should expect to see in 2021 will focus on laws and regulations surrounding the production, distribution, and sale of cannabis, as well as laws and regulations surrounding business funding and financing of cannabis-related businesses.
But despite the possibility of fluctuating prices and all of the regulatory challenges ahead, industry observers should expect to see nothing but better production, better sales, more revenue, and safer products for consumers in the coming years.
The Future Of The Cannabis Industry
As every day goes by, thousands of cannabis activists worldwide continue to lobby for reform and new rules and regulations that will make the industry safer and more accessible to everyone, including consumers and cannabis companies alike.
Overall, we believe that the industry will remain strong, seeing consistent growth throughout 2021, 2022, and beyond. But there are many obstacles still ahead for cannabis businesses, brands, and consumers in the U.S. and abroad. Still, it’s safe to say that the cannabis industry remains healthy and will continue to boom for the time being.
When discussing the topic of banning cannabis consumption in public, you are also inviting a wider discussion about what we can and cannot do within a public space.
In New York City, when they allowed public smoking of marijuana, arrests declined significantly. Sounds like a no brainer — if it’s legal to smoke weed in public, cops can’t arrest you. Except, in some places there are grey areas and cops like to exploit these grey areas to increase arrest records and feel like they are “enforcing the LAW!”
It turns out that all you have to do for cops not to do something is to make it legal. The police is blind to the moral consequences of law — they simply enforce it. You know, like Superior Orders!
Photo by Matthew Karila via Unsplash
However, the issue of public cannabis consumption isn’t limited to New York City; it’s a topic that will most definitely come up in every future legalization debate from now until cannabis is completely integrated into society.
Here, we’ll be addressing this question, the potential fears people expect would happen, and whether this would also apply to tobacco smoke.
The Fears of Public Smoking
The picture that opponents of public smoking would want you to believe is that once you allow public consumption, people would be walking around smoking joints everywhere, all the time.
While it’s true that public consumption would invite the occasional whiff of cannabis smoke, most people are not fans of “walking around smoking marijuana”. With vape devices, they typically take a hit or two and continue with their day. Smoking joints simply creates too much smoke — and is usually reserved for parks or outdoor events.
Yet with vaporizers becoming more popular among the youth, it’s safe to say that there will be a greater prevalence of these devices within mass society. If you don’t smoke cannabis, you’d probably not be able to tell the difference between a normal vaporizer and a cannabis infused one. Therefore, unless you have a problem with public vaping, you should technically not take issue with public cannabis consumption.
As for actual joint smoking, you would hardly see or smell them except for days like 4/20.
Smoking Tobacco vs Smoking Cannabis
It turns out that cannabis and tobacco smoking are virtually tied. Roughly 12% of Americans admit to smoking cannabis regularly vs 14% of Americans who smoke tobacco regularly.
Most places ban smoking tobacco indoors, however, when it comes to outdoor consumption there is not an issue. If people believe that smoking cannabis outdoor should be banned, then the obvious question we would need to ask is, “What about tobacco?”
If tobacco is not seen as a problem, it would be hypocritical to criminalize public consumption of one but not the other. If euphoria is the reason why public cannabis consumption is barred, we would have to point out that tobacco has a psychological and neurological effect on users and that the second hand smoke can create health problems.
Therefore, when discussing the topic of banning cannabis consumption in public, you are also inviting a wider discussion about what we can and cannot do within a public space. Cannabis users won’t have a problem with adjusting to “private consumption” due to the criminality of the act in the past. Tobacco smokers would die.
How much government do you want?
As someone who has extensively studied the war on drugs, I have zero trust in the government. I have seen branches of the government play a political game for the past 70+ years, bending the rules and the narratives to suit their purposes.
Photo by LordHenriVoton/Getty Images
For me, the smaller the government the better because I have lived as hunted individual by law enforcement simply because I chose to consume a plant. For those who place their blind faith in the government, I fear. These are the people who would think “Just Following Orders” is a justification for murder.
Government is not meant to tell us how to behave; it is meant to ensure that the rights of others aren’t infringed upon. However, by giving government more power, such as the case to dictate what you can and cannot smoke in public, you create a condition of enforcement.
Well, government looks weak which means that their ability to enforce the norm diminishes. In order to rectify this they have a few options:
Increase the perception of the severity of the punishment
Increase the brutality of enforcement
The first one they achieve with their prison sentencing programs, where they give arbitrary years for crimes. There is no scientific method applied to giving someone “14 years for selling plant.”
The second one they achieve with militarizing the police, providing immunity to being prosecuted of crimes, and protecting police overreach.
Now, compliance is facilitated over the very real threat of death by cop. Allowing the government jurisdiction over your outdoor activities in such a way simply creates more space for them to operate their intimidation tactics.
The Sticky Bottom Line
We need to always be working to expand our personal liberties as much as possible. There may be some people who take smoking publicaly to the next level and toke up in parks all day. But for most people, we just don’t have the time.
But what public smoking will ensure is that restaurants, bars and music venues would be able to inject a new revenue stream that provides a substance that is arguably safer than the alternative — alcohol.
What you put into your body is your business, and if you want to toke up in public, you should be allowed. Maybe you just needed to clear your head, walk down to the park and spark one.
The FBI updated their job policies, providing very specific guidance about the amount of cannabis job applicants can consume before being disqualified for the position.
The FBI recently revised its stance on cannabis use among job applicants. The historically stern and anti-drug agency stated, quite specifically, that applicants would be disqualified if they’d consumed cannabis over 24 times after turning 18-years-old.
This new guidelines appear on the FBI’s website, in the job postings section. Candidates who “have used marijuana or any of its various forms (e.g., cannabis, hashish (hash), hash oil, or tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), synthetic or natural), in any location (domestic or foreign) regardless of the legality in that location of use, more than twenty-four (24) times after turning 18 years old is a disqualifier for FBI employment.”
The FBI has been involved in a back and forth with cannabis for a while now. In July, the agency indicated that would-be agents would be disqualified if they’d used cannabis during the past year. Before that, the agency said that employees couldn’t join the FBI if they’d used cannabis within the past three years.
Arbitrariness aside, the FBI now makes it clear that consuming cannabis while under the age of 18 is not a disqualifying factor for employees. This suggests that their stance on cannabis has loosened and progressed over the years, reflecting the real world, something that government agencies are very slow in admitting and doing.
“The FBI is firmly committed to a drug-free society and workplace,” the agency’s website states. “Applicants for employment with the FBI who are currently using illegal drugs, misusing or abusing legal drugs or other substances for illicit purposes at the time of the application process will be found unsuitable for employment.”
While progress is slowly being made, this wariness in which cannabis is treated is a clear discrepancy from how the drug is viewed nowadays, especially for young people who’ll make up a significant part of the FBI in the near future. As long as cannabis remains a federally illegal drug, these kinds of cognitive dissonance situations will continue to occur. The government will remain outdated and out of touch with the people it serves.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) announced on Wednesday her final two appointees to regulate the state’s adult-use marijuana market.
The newly named regulators, Reuben McDaniel III and Jessica García, do not require confirmation by lawmakers, reported Marijuana Moment.
Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images
“New York’s cannabis industry has stalled for far too long — I am making important appointments to set the Office of Cannabis Management up for success so they can hit the ground running,” Gov. Hochul said on Wednesday in a statement.
Gov. Hochul added: “I am confident Mr. McDaniel and Ms. Garcia will serve the board with professionalism and experience as we lead our state forward in this new industry.”
Reuben R. McDaniel, III is the president and CEO of the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York (DASNY), which is a public-benefit corporation that provides financing and services for nonprofits and for other New York State-related institutions.
Jessica García is assistant to the president of the Retail, Wholesale Department Store Union, UFCW, a national labor union representing workers along the food supply chain, as well as workers in non-food retail and healthcare.
Earlier Appointments
On September 1, Governor Hochul appointed former Brooklyn assembly member Tremaine Wright as chairperson for the Cannabis Control Board (CCB) and Christopher Alexander as executive director of the Office of Cannabis Management (OCM).
Under New York’s legalization law, the independent OCM within the New York State Liquor Authority was established and will be responsible for regulating the recreational cannabis market as well as the existing medical marijuana and hemp programs. The OCM, in turn, will be overseen by the Cannabis Control Board.
