Month: March 2014

On
Saturday the Washington Senate
passed a bill that addresses some of the
concerns that patients have about new restrictions on medical
marijuana. S.B.
5887, introduced by Sen. Ann Rivers (R-La Center), is
substantially more permissive than H.B.
2149, the medical marijuana bill
approved last month by the state House of Representatives,
although both bills would abolish dispensaries, require patients to
register with the state, and reduce limits on possession and
cultivation. The patient-friendlier provisions of S.B. 5887, which
passed by a vote of 34 to 15, include:

Collective gardens. The House bill would ban
dispensaries (a.k.a. “collective gardens”) as of May 2015, while
the Senate bill would let them continue to operate until that
September. Even after then, the Senate bill would let patients (or
their designated providers) pool their resources and grow marijuana
together for their own medical use. S.B. 5887 includes rules aimed
at preventing collective gardens from evolving into dispensaries:
Just one garden is allowed per location, no more than four patients
may grow together at a time, and at least 15 days must elapse after
one member leaves before a new member may join. 

Cultivation limit. Each patient (or a
designated provider) would be allowed to grow up to six plants
(down from 15 currently), but there would be no limit on how many
of those six plants could be flowering at one time.

Purchase limits. Patients could buy up to three
ounces of marijuana (more if a health professional says it is
necessary), 48 ounces of marijuana-infused products in solid form,
216 ounces of marijuana-infused liquids, and 21 grams of
concentrates. Those are three times the limits for recreational
customers. The current possession limit for patients is 24 ounces
of marijuana.

Tax exemptions. When they buy cannabis from
state-licensed stores with “medical marijuana endorsements,”
registered patients would not have to pay standard sales tax or the
retail-level excise tax, but the latter exemption would expire in
September 2015. “I am not happy about that, and we’ll be fighting
for its reinstatement this week,” says Philip Dawdy, media and
policy director at the Washington Cannabis
Association. 

Supply and access. The state Liquor Control
Board, which would be renamed the Liquor and Cannabis Board, would
be
required to “increase the amount of square feet available for
production by marijuana producers if the producer agrees to use the
extra space to grow products for medical use and for sale to
medical marijuana endorsed stores.” On the retail end, the board

must “reconsider the maximum number of retail outlets permitted
and allow for a new license period and a greater number of retail
outlets in order to accommodate the medical needs of qualifying
patients.” When it does so, “a preference may be given to those
license applicants who intend to operate a medical-only store.”

Medical strains. The Liquor and Cannabis
Board
must “adopt rules on products sold to qualifying patients
under an endorsement, including THC concentration, CBD
concentration, and THC to CBD ratios appropriate for patient
use.” State-licensed pot stores would be allowed to “identify
the strains, varieties, THC levels and CBD levels” of their
products, although state regulations would prohibit the sort of
symptom-specific advice currently available from dispensaries.
“We’ll have to work with LCB in rule making to straighten out what
people can say,” Dawdy says. 

Recommendations. An
amendment to H.B. 5887 defines “principal care provider”—the
person authorized to recommend marijuana for a patient—as a “health
care professional who is designated by a qualifying patient.” That
provision should help veterans who receive primary care through
V.A. hospitals where doctors are not allowed to recommend
marijuana.

Affirmative defense. Patients with
doctor’s recommendations would continue to have an affirmative
defense against marijuana charges until April 1, 2016, after which
they would have to register with the state, which would give them
immunity from arrest.

Registry privacy. In addition to
confirming a patient’s eligibility for higher purchase limits and
tax exemptions, information from the registry could be
shared with a law enforcement agency “engaged in a bona fide
specific investigation of suspected marijuana-related activity that
is illegal under Washington state law.” Illegally sharing
information from the registry would be a
Class C felony.

“I’m not calling it good,” Dawdy says, “but it is a workable
framework for medical going forward.” The Senate and the House
have until Thursday to agree on a compromise bill.

The deadline for
Reason magazine’s paid ten-week summer internship,
which begins in June, is coming up (March 26).

Given that the deadline is a little over two weeks away I
thought it would be worth reiterating the advice my former
colleague
Mike Riggs gave to potential intern applicants almost a year
ago:

• Follow instructions

• Write the hell out of your cover letter

• Show some familiarity with the publication

• Tell me what you can do for us, because we know what we can do
  for you

• Be Patient

I cannot stress enough the importance of taking these tips
seriously. As I mentioned
back in November, talented applicants have ruined their chances
of being considered for an internship at Reason by failing to do
something as simple as following instructions.

Something I have been noticing since I have started looking over
intern applications is the tendency for applicants to write almost
identical cover letters to dozens of publications. These cover
letters express an interest in a career in journalism but
oftentimes do not mention why they want to be at Reason in
particular. An application with a cover letter that mentions issues
Reason is known for covering or the writings of a particular editor
is going to grab my attention much more than an application with a
cover letter that mentions Reason once in the introductory
sentence.

Interns here get to write for Reason.com and Reason
magazine about topics that interest them. Our current intern,
Alyssa
Hertig, has been writing about technology, Bitcoin, and civil
liberties. Zenon
Evans, who did such a fine job as an intern we hired him,
interviewed Russian libertarian activist
Vera Kichanova during his internship. Guy Bentley, who
now works at the London-based City A.M. (which you should
all be reading), wrote about foreign
affairs while he was an intern here.

As well as writing, Reason interns provide admin assistance to
the office, assist staff with research, and transcribe interviews.
The internship is based in Washington, D.C., and interns are
encouraged to attend events in the city that interest them.

If you want to pursue a paid journalism internship in
Washington, D.C. that will allow you to write about topics that
interest you please send in an application. But make sure to take
the tips above seriously.

If you have a question send me an email: mfeeney@reason.com.

How hard is it to read the “nutrition facts”
label on a package of food? According to the Obama administration,
it’s nearly impossible. But do we really need the government’s help
figuring out what’s best to eat? A. Barton Hinkle says we don’t,
and then explains why more government involvement in food labeling
will only make things worse.

View this article.

The long-interesting
Wacko Birds vs. Angry Birds split in today’s tumultuous GOP has
tended to distract from the split-within-the-split when it comes to
Tea Party types and foreign policy.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), representing the
anti-interventionist strain, has
insisted from the get-go that the Tea Party is an explicit
rejection of neoconservative belligerence. While that seemed like
wishful thinking in 2011, the notion gained more plausibility by

September 2003, when many TP groups and politicians went all-in
against the Obama administration’s
neocon-backed attempts to use force in Syria. When Paul’s
ambitious and considerably more hawkish Wacko Bird Senate
colleagues Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Marco Rubio (R-Florida)
joined the doves on Syria, it was a telltale sign that the
intervention was doomed.

Well, that was then. Vladimir Putin’s thuggish takeover of
Crimea and menacing gestures toward Eastern Ukraine are generating
a lot of hawk-talk about the alleged consequences of American
“weakness,” and its possible embodiment in
anti-interventionists like Paul. On
ABC News yesterday, O.G. Wacko Bird Ted Cruz made it
explicit:

“I’m a big fan of Rand Paul. He
and I are good friends. But I don’t agree with him on foreign
policy,” Cruz said. “I think U.S. leadership is critical in the
world. And I agree with him that we should be very reluctant to
deploy military force abroad. But I think there is a vital role,
just as Ronald Reagan did… The United States has a responsibility
to defend our values.” […]

“A critical reason for Putin’s aggression has been President
Obama’s weakness,” Cruz told Karl on “This Week.” “That Putin fears
no retribution… [Obama’s] policy has been to alienate and abandon
our friends and to coddle and appease our enemies.” 

“You’d better believe Putin sees in Benghazi four Americans are
murdered, the first ambassador killed in service since 1979, and
nothing happens,” Cruz added, echoing comments  by
other Republicans like Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. “You’d better
believe that Putin sees that in Syria, Obama draws a red line and
ignores the red line. You’d better believe that Putin sees all over
the world.”

When asked about Russia’s record of aggression before Obama
became president, including its invasion of Georgia during the
presidency of George W. Bush, Cruz instead slammed Obama […]

Rand Paul, who
one year ago went to the Heritage Foundation to unveil what he
portrayed as his Reaganesque vision for foreign policy,
did not take kindly to Cruz’s co-opting of the Gipper, writing
a Breitbart.com column titled “Stop Warping Reagan’s Foreign
Policy.” Excerpt:

Reagan clearly believed in a strong national defense and in
“Peace through Strength.” He stood up to the Soviet Union, and he
led a world that pushed back against Communism.

But Reagan also believed in diplomacy and demonstrated a
reasoned approach to our nuclear negotiations with the Soviets.
Reagan’s shrewd diplomacy would eventually lessen the nuclear
arsenals of both countries.

Many forget today that Reagan’s decision to meet with Mikhail
Gorbachev was harshly
criticized by the Republican
hawks of his time, some of whom would even call Reagan
anappeaser.
In the Middle East, Reagan strategically pulled back our forces
after the tragedy in Lebanon in 1983 that killed 241 Marines,
realizing the cost of American lives was too great for the
mission. 

Without a clearly defined mission, exit strategy or acceptable
rationale for risking soldiers lives, Reagan possessed the
leadership to reassess and readjust.

Today, we forget that some of the Republican hawks of his time
criticized Reagan harshly for this too, again, calling
him an appeaser. […]

I also greatly admire that Reagan was not rash or reckless with
regard to war. Reagan advised potential foreign adversaries not to
mistake our reluctance for war for a lack of resolve. 

What America needs today is a Commander-in-Chief who will defend
the country and project strength, but who is also not eager for
war.

Regarding Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, for example, there is
little difference among most Republicans on what to do. All of us
believe we should stand up to Putin’s aggression. Virtually no one
believes we should intervene militarily.

So we are then faced with a finite menu of diplomatic measures
to isolate Russia, on most of which we all agree, such as sanctions
and increased economic pressure.

Yet, some politicians have used this time to beat their chest.
What we don’t need right now is politicians who have never seen war
talking tough for the sake of their political careers.

Tart, substantive exchanges like that are one of the reasons I
lament the GOP’s decision to
condense its 2016 presidential nominating schedule. The
Republican Party’s approach toward foreign policy is up for grabs,
and with it the party’s potential popularity. Surely on questions
of life and death, more debate is better than less.