Mason Tvert

Already submitted questions:

Submitted by captainplantit

On the Bill Maher show, Mason alluded to running a legalization prop in CA in 2014 if Bill and his friends put up money (to which Bill promised on the show he would).

However, most of the discussion I've seen is around a prop push in CA for 2016, which as we all know is a looong way off, especially for a state in which Prop 19 was so narrowly defeated in 2010 (in a non-presidential election and prior to A64 and I502 passing no less) .

I know CA is expensive to run a prop campaign in, but it feels like we could totally pass something in 2014 given the wind is at our backs. Does Tvert still intend to run a campaign in California in 2014, and if not, why?

The goal in CA is a statewide initiative to regulate marijuana like alcohol in 2016. I don't know if that level of detail came up on the Maher show. But that's the case. We definitely want this initiative run during a presidential election year to take advantage of increased and more supportive turnout, and it gives us a couple years to continue building public support and the coalition behind the measure.

Could CA pass something in 2014? Perhaps. But, as you mentioned, it's incredibly expensive (upwards of about $15 million), so we need to make sure we win, and that's what I think will be the outcome if we wait until 2016.

submitted by kooley

What immediate impacts have Amendment 64 had on Colorado? Positive or negative?

Things are going very positively here in CO following passage of 64. The governor issued an executive order in Dec. to officially put the initiative into effect, at which point possession and home-growing of limited amounts of marijuana by adults became legal under state and local laws. That means nobody is being cited for simple possession any longer (we have yet to hear of any cases and don't expect any).

The governor also established a task force to begin developing recommendations for the legislature on how to best establish the system of regulation called for in the initiative. That task force has been meeting and is beginning to finalize recommendations. They have until the end of February to finish up. Then the legislature will have until the end of the session (May 6 or so) to pass a law establishing the system.

Submitted earlier by HillZone

• When do you think cannabis will be legal in the U.S.?
• It seems that the coasts are ahead of middle America when it comes to reform. What do you think needs to be done to get the Midwest to modernize its cannabis laws?

I think we will continue to see states passing measures similar to those in CO and WA. Particularly, we'll see one in 2014 (AK) and then hopefully a handful in 2016 (OR, ME, and CA, in particular). Meanwhile we'll continue to see the issue brought up in various legislatures (legalization bills have been introduced in several states this year). We will also see more states adopt medical marijuana laws – there are currently 18 + DC – and there are several likely to do so over the next couple years. At that point there will likely be an exceptional amount of pressure on the federal government to make some federal changes.

In the interim, we hope the feds will respect the voters in CO and WA, as well as in those 18 states that have adopted medical laws, and I think that is possible. It will take some good laws in the states, though. Particularly it will take state regulated production and sales and a demonstration that everything is under control.

There needs to be more public education done in the Midwest and the south. It's my belief that people's attitudes toward reform are linked to how much they hear about it – how many news stories they see, how many conversations they engage in, etc. The more people hear about the issue, the more support we see for reform. So there needs to be more work done to inject the issue into the public discourse. This is not always easy, especially when resources are limited and typically directed toward states where it is more likely we will see laws pass sooner. But I am committed to trying to spark those conversations in other states, which has been demonstrated by our solid media pushes behind bills introduced this session in TX, OK, KS, and IN. There are some good local activists around the country that are making things happen, as well, and I am always open to trying to work with those folks.

submitted earlier by Blaze_0f_Glory

What do you feel are the realistic chances of the current proposed bills that either federally legalize or respect state legalization?

I think the bills recently introduced in Congress to regulate and tax marijuana at the federal level are going to take some time. They were largely inspired by the victories in CO and WA, and we are really seeing more momentum than ever before since those wins. I think more wins in the states will continue to build that momentum.

I mentioned earlier that we are hopeful the feds will work toward taking a more hands-off approach when it comes to states that pass legalization and medical laws. We need them to work with states to ensure voters are being respected and laws are being implemented as designed, while not frustrating federal interests. This is what we're seeing with CO and WA. State officials are providing the DOJ with information about how they plan to prevent diversion to other states and how they plan to ensure marijuana is being kept away from teens.

See my answers above. Short answer – Yes.

I think the problems we see with the prohibition of marijuana (and that we saw with the prohibition of alcohol) are also evident with prohibition of other drugs. I think it is important that we first recognize the differences between drugs. Marijuana is not the same as cocaine, cocaine is not the same as LSD, and so on. One of the biggest problems with U.S. drug policy is that it tries to treat all of these drugs the same.

When it comes to marijuana, it is a relatively benign substance that is far safer than alcohol and used in a relatively similar manner. Thus it should be treated that way. But that might not be how we should treat psychedelics. With growing research finding that psychedelics can be beneficial for some in a therapeutic setting, perhaps the direction we should take there is developing a system in which those products are legitimately produced and used in a controlled therapeutic setting. At the least, we shouldn't be treating consumers as criminals who should go to prison, and we should treat it as a public health issue. The same goes for other drugs like meth and heroin – should they be "legal," probably not. At least not in the sense that they're sold in stores to any adult who wants them. But should it be a crime that lands people in prison? No. That doesn't seem to be doing the job. Perhaps we could start treating this as a public health issue – and more and more places are beginning to do that – in which we focus on providing treatment and minimizing the harm associated with these products.

See answer above.

Yes. But as I mentioned above, I think it will be a matter of states nationwide changing their laws, which will ultimately result in changes in federal law. The states will happen relatively quickly over the next 2-10 years. Hopefully we see momentum continue to grow at the federal level to accommodate those states.

Tough one. The biggest issue is that only so many states have ballot initiatives available as a means of bringing about new marijuana laws. For example, if there were workable initiative processes in IL, NY, and a few other states, they'd have passed medical marijuana laws years ago. But they have to work through the legislatures and that takes much, much longer. So in order to reach 26, it would require a number of states to do it via the legislature, and I can't say that will happen in the very near future. The states that would most likely be among the first to pass legalization measures via their legislatures are RI, HI, VT, and NH. I think we will see a number of states pass measures via initiative between now and 2020, such as AK, CA, OR, ME, NV, MA, MT, and possibly some others.

While I am not working very much on implementation in CO, my colleagues and other local activists are. And they are doing everything they can to ensure the will of the voters is respected. For one thing, CO is a home-rule state, so localities already have a vast amount of control. But we also need to recognize that 1) localities decide for themselves how to handle alcohol (ie. we have a TON of "dry" counties nationwide where alcohol cannot be sold), and 2) people in any locality can possess and grow their own. It's simply a question of whether the localities want to allow businesses. I think the localities already acting to ban these new businesses are acting prematurely because they 1) don't even know what these businesses are going to end up looking like regulatory-wise, and 2) they couldn't possibly know where all their voters stand on the issue.

If local officials pass a measure banning, then the voters can bring the measure to the ballot or push their local officials to make the change. I think we'll see a steady stream of localities changing their tune over the course of the next few years. They will recognize that their citizens can use marijuana regardless of the bans, they will recognize that the businesses do not create problems, and they will recognize that these businesses are creating benefits (tax revenue, jobs, taking up empty retail space, providing business to ancillary businesses).

Measures like that proposed by Greenwood Village – which essentially seeks to ban possession and not just businesses – are definitely not legit and need to be stopped. Our team is working to do that and I am confident we'll be successful.

Gotta love people who demand that the voters' will be followed, but disrespect the will of the voters. People approved an initiative that allows local control, so you are ignoring them. And you are ignoring the voters in these localities who should have the ability to decide for themselves whether to allow these businesses.

The initiative allows local control because that's how it ought to be – possession and home-growing are legal, localities decide if they want businesses. That's how it works with liquor licenses and liquor stores.

The notion that I am trying to keep marijuana illegal or overly restricted to ensure I keep a "kushy job" is absurd and, quite frankly, demonstrates you are oblivious to what's happening. Do you really think my plan was to spend eight years in Colorado building up toward legalization, then ran a successful legalization initiative, all so I could ruin marijuana legalization efforts? Please. You can scream about patients all you want, but the fact is that the vast, vast majority of patients, and a strong majority of businesses, are thrilled that A64 passed. If you're not, actually do something proactive and change a law instead of sitting at your computer criticizing the work of others to change these laws.

See commenter in post above. It's the people who say we're somehow hurting legalization efforts by actually legalizing marijuana. And the ones who say we're hurting medical marijuana patients and businesses when in fact patients and businesses are largely on our side. And the people who talk about the will of the voters not being respected, but simultaneously criticize what the voters have done and don't think voters should be able to do anything unless it's something that one individual wants done. Those people are the ones who cause the most frustration. Fortunately, they're also the ones who are completely irrelevant to the conversation us adults are having about marijuana and how we can move forward with establishing a system in which it can be a legal product and no longer a criminal offense.

See above re: timeline for change.

As for the factors that will make change come about, by far and away I think it is a matter of changing public attitudes toward marijuana. And by that I mean toward marijuana itself – not just toward marijuana prohibition. People have been exposed to a great deal of misinformation about marijuana throughout their lives, much of which exaggerates the potential harm of marijuana. Once more people come to understand that marijuana is actually pretty safe for adults and is far less harmful than alcohol, they will not be nearly as dead-set against allowing adults to use it. If people think marijuana is as dangerous as meth and we are simply pushing the messages that legalization could generate tax revenue, and that it can save law enforcement resources, then we're not going to get very far. Most people don't think meth would be a good source of tax revenue, and they do think it should be a law enforcement priority. So we need to make sure people know that marijuana is not meth and is relatively safe. Once they appreciate that fact, they will be far more likely agree that it might be a good source of revenue and that it isn't something we should be spending law enforecement resources trying to prohibit.

1. It was not well-written and many people were concerned it would not be workable.

2. There didn't appear to be adequate public support heading into the campaign. Polling wasn't as good as WA and CO.

3. Add #1 and #2 together, and that means there isn't a lot of interest among donors, hence they did not raise the money that was needed to run the campaign that was needed.

It was a great effort though and the fact that it received 47% (I believe) demonstrates that there is a lot of support in Oregon and it's only a matter of time before they do pass a legalization initiative. I am fairly confident that will occur in 2016.

I got into this issue because I think it is absolutely insane to be making people criminals and interrupting their lives simply because they use marijuana responsibly for their enjoyment or for its medical benefits. I was the target of a big marijuana-related investigation in college and, quite frankly, it pissed me off. I almost drank myself to death one night during my senior year of high school and when I woke up in the hospital, I was never asked a single time who sold/gave me enough liquor to almost kill myself. Yet, as a college student simply using (and not even selling) a little marijuana, I became the target of a big investigation and police from every level of government demanded to know where I was getting marijuana. It was insane.

Once I got more into the issue, I became more conscious of the many other problems surrounding marijuana prohibition, and I feel strongly about them. But overall, for me, it was a matter of justice/fairness and compassion on the medical side (I worked on medical marijuana for a few months before getting into the non-medical advocacy side).

This is one of the toughest questions we have to address as we move toward a society in which marijuana is legal. There is currently a generally accepted test, which is drawing blood and testing for levels of THC, but that isn't exactly an easy or appropriate means of testing people. There are a lot of technologies in the works, though, ranging from physical tests (mouth swabs, for example) to non-physical tests (devices that give people little tests on motor skills and judgement). The development of those technologies will hasten as marijuana becomes a more legally accepted product.

There has been a lot of debate about whether there should be a standard limit on THC in the blood, just like we have 0.08 BAC for alcohol. This is not easy and in many ways it is troubling. The issue is that marijuana affects different people differently (which sounds pretty obvious, but to some, not so much). That is, some people can have X ng/ml of THC in their blood and not be impaired, but others could have the same amount and show signs of impairment. So a strict limit is not really a fair way to determine impairment. A strict "per se" limit of 5 ng/ml has been proposed in CO on a few occasions now, and it has been shot down in the legislature. I oppose such a per se limit, as do the organizations with which I have been affiliated (MPP, SAFER, and the A64 campaign) because it is not evidence-based and could result in people who are not impaired being found guilty of driving while impaired.

The latest proposal in CO is a limit of 5 ng/ml but with "rebuttable presumption," meaning a person with ≥5 can make the case in court that they were not actually impaired. A "per se" limit would not allow that. This is still a troubling proposal because it significantly impacts the person's life and they have to go to court just to prove they're innocent. And even then they might still be found guilty. So, is it the best idea? No. Is it better than the previously proposed per se limit? Yes. In the end, we can't know for sure whether it will ever be an entirely fair system, just as it's not really fair for a person at 0.08 BAC who is not actually impaired to be found guilty of DUI. The only thing we can do is continue the debate, get as much evidence together is possible, and try to arrive at the fairest system possible.

One thing worth noting is that it is already illegal to drive under the influence of marijuana in every state. In fact, in CO, you could be found guilty having ≤ 1 ng/ml. But you could go to court and argue you were not impaired and perhaps get let off. The question is whether a limit gets set, what type of limit, and what that limit is.

I ultimately think we will see driving and marijuana play culturally similarly to how it did with alcohol. People will come to recognize there are serious consequences and will be less likely to do it. And I imagine it will reach the point where social pressure will start to make it less likely to occur, as well. People will tell their friends, "I don't think you should drive," more often, etc.

Once again, a demonstration that you have no clue what you're talking about. A64 simply said it is remaining silent on the issue of driving. This was a constitutional amendment – we weren't going to include something making it a constitutional right to drive while impaired by marijuana, and we weren't going to include some specific limit like they did in WA (they included a 5 ng/ml per se limit in their statutory initiative).

Thanks. Much appreciated.

Very nicely done.

Medical marijuana centers can still only sell to licensed patients because they are only licensed to sell to licensed patients. The legislature will establish the regulatory system for non-medical sales in the next month or two, at which point the licensing process will begin for non-medical marijuana businesses (medical businesses can just switch over if they want). If all goes as planned, we expect to see these new marijuana retail stores opening in the beginning of the coming year. Meanwhile, it is legal for anyone 21 and older to grow up to 6 plants and possess up to one ounce.

With regard to age limit, we felt that the general consensus among voters was that 21 is the appropriate age (in fact, polling anywhere in the country shows support is vastly lower if the proposed age limit is 18). Our nation has, over the course of the past few decades, arrived at the consensus that alcohol, being an intoxicant, ought to entail a limit of 21, whereas tobacco, a non-intoxicating substance, should entail a limit of 18. Obviously there are a lot of people who disagree with one or both of those age limits. For example, there has been a significant push in the past few years among college administrators to lower the drinking age to 18 – see http://theamethystinitiative.org – but it has not gained a great deal of traction legislatively. It would probably be an easier sell at the state level, but states will likely never take that action until Congress repeals the law that requires states to use 21 in order to receive federal transportation funding. Personally, I question the 21-y/o drinking age and I am very intrigued by the plan brought forward by the folks who pushed the Amethyst Initiative (essentially, licensing 18-20-year-olds to drink and having a strict policy that they lose their license until they're 21 if they do anything wrong, such as provide to younger friends, DUI, etc. It really provides an incentive to follow the rules because nobody would want to lose their drinking rights.).

Ultimately, since marijuana is an intoxicant and the State of Colorado currently has a drinking age of 21, we felt that was appropriate. If the legislature or the voters do prefer 18, that is a change that can be made at any time. The age limit is not set in stone in the state constitution. It is simply guaranteed that those 21 and older can use marijuana.

Speaking on behalf of the Marijuana Policy Project, we are focused on legislative change via initiatives and bills in state legislatures. There are some other organizations that are pushing for legal victories – for exmaple, Americans for Safe Access took the DEA to court re: rescheduling marijuana. My colleagues at Sensible Colorado won some big medical marijuana cases here in CO, which really opened the door for dispensaries and the system that came about. I think there needs to be work done on both fronts and it needs to be carried out by the appropriate actors. In MPP's case, our folks are qualified to work more on the legislative level.

See above answers

There are likely to be several marijuana-related bills being brought before Congress. One to regulate marijuana like alcohol, one to establish a federal excise tax similar to alcohol, one regarding industrial hemp, and one regarding tax issues with state-regulated marijuana businesses. It remains to be seen how they will perform, but it is safe to say there is increasing support for reform and growing momentum following the wins in CO and WA. See above for more explanation of how things might play out federally.

Here are the states where we/I are doing the most work:

CO - implementation of Amendment 64

RI - bill to regulate/tax like alcohol in the legislature

NH - medical marijuana bill (passed last year and was vetoed, new governor has expressed support for medical marijuana laws)

VT - decriminalization (reducing penalties so they are similar to traffic tickets)

ME - bill to regulate/tax like alcohol in the legislature

OR - working on the ground to build public support and coalition leading up to a 2016 initiative

AK - working with allies on the ground to draft an initiative to regulate marijuana like alcohol and to build a coalition in support of that initiative

CA - working with allies on the ground to discuss best strategy for moving forward with a 2016 initiative to regulate marijuana like alcohol

IL - medical marijuana bill

MN - medical marijuana bill

MD - bill to provide protection to medical marijuana caregivers

HI - working with allies on the ground who are pushing bills to regulate marijuana like alcohol and to decriminalize possession of small amounts

see previous answers

It's a tough one. This stuff usually all gets hashed out in the courts.

Here's the example of Colorado...

There is a state law that says an employee cannot be fired for engaging in an activity that is legal when they are not on the job. There have been a couple cases in which medical marijuana patients have gone to court and have lost because marijuana is still illegal under federal law, thus it is not a legal activity covered by the state law. When marijuana becomes legal federally, that could change.

A64 in Colorado was essentially silent on employment and simply said nothing changes for employers.

Generally, private employers are not required to do testing for marijuana. The Federal Drug Free Workplace Act simply requires employers to 1) have a drug policy, and 2) have penalties for violations of that policy. It does not require employers to prohibit the use of marijuana outside of the workplace.

Ultimately, I think this is an issue that will play out culturally. Already, most employers do not do ongoing drug testing because they don't want to fire, re-hire, and potentially lose the more qualified people. It's expensive and sets them back. For many employers, if the person isn't doing it on the job and they're performing their job as necessary, there's no issue.

There are some issues that arise, however, when it comes to government employees and at businesses with federal contracts.

Unfortunately, pretty damn hard. But if it makes you feel better, it will be just as hard as most other states. Again, this is largely because it will need to go through the legislature and cannot be done via initiative. There isn't enough public support for an initiative at this time, but even when there is, an initiative won't be possible and we'll have to rely on the much slower legislative process.

I should add, though, that this in no way means things are hopeless or that there is nothing that can be done. I think it's critical that people get out there and educate the public about marijuana, particularly the fact that it is safer than alcohol. We need to shift the public attitude out there if we are ever going to see any change. Also, there's some hope for local changes in the future. For example, some interesting stuff has come up in El Paso, and it'd be great to see Austin move the ball forward. The problem that arises is a shitty TX law that makes local marijuana initiatives virtually impossible to run.

I think support will grow exponentially as a result of the combination of:

1) more successful reform efforts occurring in more states and localities, which results in

2) more public discussion about the issue, which is what leads to people becoming more supportive of reform, then pair all that with

3) older, more conservative people dying and younger, more supportive people becoming the more consistent voters. This is a similar situation as marriage equality, in which there is just a natural tendency for younger people to be more supportive.

So, when will this result in full legalization? Can't say for sure. I do think that the November 2016 election will be another major milestone. By then we should have at least ≥20 medical marijuana states (+ DC) and at least 6 states will have made marijuana legal for adults (CO and WA + AK in 2014 + CA, OR, and ME in 2016, but hopefully more in 2016).

1 oz and 6 plants are the minimum amounts Coloradans must be allowed to possess. They can be increased at any time. There simply is not enough public support yet for allowing greater quantities, but I think that will change relatively quickly. The decision was: 1) make marijuana into a legal product people can possess, grow, and purchase, ending the arrest of thousands of people each year, or 2) run an initiative that gets shot down and allows for everyone to continue getting arrested.

The legislature has been moving toward lowering penalties for marijuana-related offenses over the past several years. I think that will continue to be the case and will occur even more quickly.

Are you suggesting we should have run an initiative to make it legal for people to grow hundreds of plants and sell marijuana on the streets? Good luck with that one. Just like with alcohol, the product is legal, it can be produced and sold legally, and if you try to produce and sell it without a license, there are serious penalties. If you don't like that system, I can appreciate that. But it's how our society has chosen to operate, so don't hate the player, hate the game.

I'm pretty sure I came up with the acronym and then filled in the words. I remember there being some questions as to whether it was weird to have the first word of the acronym be the same as the acronym itself. And there was a question about whether "enjoyable recreation" was the best phrase. But we decided it really did fit our mission and our message, and we knew it would likely be the case that we'd generally be known as "SAFER" and not the full spelled out name, so we went with it.

I see there was some debate over the title of this post. Really? With this whole issue and all the questions surrounding it, that's what you're really digging into? OK, well, for what it's worth, I was told I should have a title that will get people's attention. I was one of the two official proponents who brought A64 forward, I was a director of the campaign, I directed the successful legalization initiative in Denver in 2005, the successful lowest priority initiative in Denver in 2007, I ran the 2006 leglaization initiative that received 41%, and I founded and ran the largest organization in the state dedicated to making marijuana legal. I thought perhaps I was justified in having "I legalized marijuana" in there instead of "I helped legalize marijuana," in which case many people might just assume it was someone who volunteered. I'm not one to try to take credit, and quite frankly, the title concerned me. But I used it to ensure people would know what's going on with this AMA. Sorry if that offended anyone.

Please see response to another question about TX

All objective research on marijuana has concluded that using it has no impact on whether a person goes on to use other drugs. There is certainly a correlation between marijuana use and other drug use, but that's because marijuana is so popular/available and anyone who is willing to use other drugs was probably willing to use marijuana (and more likely to be exposed to marijuana earlier). If we're looking at correlation and not causation, then alcohol is by far and away the #1 gateway drug because virtually every marijuana and other drug user tried alcohol first.

It's also worth noting that research has found the illegal status of marijuana to be the true "gateway" to other drugs.

Here's what we had on the campaign fact page (which I wrote, so it's also my general answer):

According to the National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine’s 1999 report, Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base:

"There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs … There is no evidence that marijuana serves as a stepping stone on the basis of its particular physiological effect … Instead, the legal status of marijuana makes it a gateway drug."

The World Health Organization noted that any gateway effect associated with marijuana use may actually be due to marijuana prohibition because "exposure to other drugs when purchasing cannabis on the black-market, increases the opportunity to use other illicit drugs."

Answered this one earlier. See if you can find it. Sorry, I am definitely overwhelmed by the number of questions so trying not to repeat. These give a bit of explanation:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/will-colorado-legalize-pot/263355/

http://www.jewishjournal.com/nation/article/jewish_pot_activist_mason_tvert_hits_new_high_with_marijuana_legalization_v

My family is from Ohio – Cincinnati and Cleveland, in particular.

I think Ohio needs to get a medical marijuana law on the books and it's unfortunate that hasn't happened yet. I don't say that because I think medical is the stepping stone to legalization. I say it more so because depriving marijuana from people who are sick or in pain and could be benefiting from it is one of if not the most egregious elements of marijuana prohibition. And making them criminals if they do use it anyway is absolutely insane.

My advice is to start out by focusing on changing people and not on changing laws. Without public support, no initiative or bill will ever be passed. And without enough public support, it will be incredibly difficult to raise the funds needed to run a statewide initiative. Here are some ideas that I provided in the book I coauthored, <i>Marijuana Is Safer: So why are we driving people to drink?</i>

http://www.saferchoice.org/content/view/1071/85/

Law enforcement officials are by far the biggest roadblock when it comes to marijuana reform. A lot of them (but certainly not all) enjoy marijuana being illegal because 1) it provides job security and 2) it provides them with a tool. For example, they can use the smell of marijuana as probable cause to search people. Many prosecutors are similar in that they like having marijuana charges that they can use when trying to get plea bargains (eg. "If you plead guilty to the robbery charge we'll drop the marijuana charge stemming from the bag you had in your car when you got caught.")

Here's something I provided to a reporter a short while back when I was asked this question about opposition (I was also asked for specific examples of people):

• Anti-marijuana organizations and crusaders – usually extremists and people with personal vendettas (ie. blame marijuana for something that happened to them or to someone they know) - The recently launched "Project SAM" or "Smarter Approaches to Marijuana" (here and here for background) - SAM board member, former drug czar staffer, and longtime anti-marijuana activist Kevin Sabet - Save Our Society from Drugs (here for background) - Church of Scientology – rabidly anti-drug and focused on marijuana; produced tons of anti-marijuana propaganda (literature, possibly a website, too)

• "Arrest and Prosecution Industry" – Law enforcement officials who benefit from prohibition because it pads their budgets, gives them more power, and/or keeps them employed; some are also just personally against marijuana for whatever reason. - Federal: Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) - State: Law enforcement groups and associations, such as police chiefs associations, sheriffs associations, and DA associations; in Colorado, the Drug Investigators Association – a trade group for narcotics officers – has been rabidly opposed to reform efforts; local drug task forces

• Federal government officials - Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) aka the Drug Czar's office; have traditionally opposed state and federal reform efforts; run billions of dollars in anti-mariuana advertisements; produce one-sided and misleading propaganda to distribute via state/local governments and schools - Regional High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) offices – been very active in fighting CO efforts

• Elected officials - Those who fight reform for personal reasons and/or strong beliefs about marijuana - Those who fight or fail to advance reform for political reasons – wanting to appease other elected officials or organizations; fear it will be used against them (even though that really never happens)

I realize this was just a fun question, but it raises a point worth making. When I was in college, we knew we would get in trouble if we used marijuana in our dorm rooms. So we would get in the car and drive elsewhere to do it. Why would we want to push people toward getting in there cars and driving in order to use marijuana, as opposed to simply acknowledging it is going to take place and letting people do it safely at home? Always struck me as crazy.

I live in Colorado.

Would it be an Arabian or a Mustang?

Contacting them and providing them with the info is the simple answer. But that's obviously not going to cut it in most cases. Quite frankly, I don't invest much trust in elected officials when it comes to changing marijuana laws. There are certainly some great officials out there and several are doing great work to pass legislation and educate their colleagues and the public. But by and large, I have focused my attention on ballot initiatives and public education efforts (changing people so that they change laws or the legislators who can change the laws). The latter is more important, and most of the initiatives I've worked on were designed more so to force public discussion and disseminate info than they were to win. That was not the case with A64, but it was with the 2005 and 2007 Denver initiatives and the 2006 Colorado initiative.

I won't get into the whole thing since I already addressed this. But I am a voter...

I addressed this one a little while ago. Can you try to find that? Sorry. Too many questions to get into them multiple times.

We have actually petitioned twice in CO to have PTSD added as a qualifying condition for medical marijuana, and we definitely encourage including it in any medical marijuana law. In fact, we worked with a group of veterans this past year to highlight the need for 64 because vets were not covered under the state mmj law. We even had a TV ad featuring a vet with PTSD making the case. So, yes, I completely agree PTSD is a huge issue and we need to allow medical marijuana. We will continue to push for that whenever possible.

There will always be the arguments about marijuana being addictive and about making it more available to teens, but we're starting to see arguments shift toward things like "It will be bad for tourism/businesses", which is essentially shifting away from "marijuana is bad" to "marijuana's stigma is bad." That's a good development, and it won't be long before people recognize that these new arguments are just as foolish as the old ones.

MPP just sent out this out a few minutes ago. Please share it!

Here's the action page:

https://secure2.convio.net/mpp/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&page=UserAction&id=1652&JServSessionIdr004=xgd0yol8b2.app213a

Here are the details:

As you might have read or heard, a state representative in North Carolina killed a medical marijuana bill yesterday because he felt he and his colleagues were being “harassed” based on the volume of emails and calls they were receiving in support of the legislation.

This is unacceptable. Our democratic process depends on citizens reaching out to their elected representatives to let them know where their constituents stand on the issues. Not only is this type of civic engagement appropriate, it should be encouraged. If anything, such a high volume of calls and emails in support of the medical marijuana bill should be considered a sign that this is an issue worthy of public debate.

Please send a message to Rep. Paul "Skip" Stam asking him to apologize for equating calls and emails from constituents to being “harassed,” and requesting that he call for a hearing regarding medical marijuana.

Despite what Rep. Stam said, elected officials need to hear from their constituents. This is a perfect opportunity to let him know that, so please take action today.

Just posted this to another question re: NC:

MPP just sent out this alert and action. Please share!

https://secure2.convio.net/mpp/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&page=UserAction&id=1652&JServSessionIdr004=xgd0yol8b2.app213a

As you might have read or heard, a state representative in North Carolina killed a medical marijuana bill yesterday because he felt he and his colleagues were being “harassed” based on the volume of emails and calls they were receiving in support of the legislation.

This is unacceptable. Our democratic process depends on citizens reaching out to their elected representatives to let them know where their constituents stand on the issues. Not only is this type of civic engagement appropriate, it should be encouraged. If anything, such a high volume of calls and emails in support of the medical marijuana bill should be considered a sign that this is an issue worthy of public debate.

Please send a message to Rep. Paul "Skip" Stam asking him to apologize for equating calls and emails from constituents to being “harassed,” and requesting that he call for a hearing regarding medical marijuana.

Despite what Rep. Stam said, elected officials need to hear from their constituents. This is a perfect opportunity to let him know that, so please take action today.

Okay, folks. I'm afraid I have to dip out now. I really appreciate all the questions. And for those who spent the time criticizing me and the randomly selected title of this AMA, thanks for joining, too. I hope it was beneficial to see some actual conversation about the issue and not just the back-and-forth griping that gets us nowhere.

Have a great weekend everyone!