This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
He then went even further, describing the Colorado case that the Court declined to hear as a prime example of the fact that marijuana businesses do not experience “equal treatment” under the law. For almost two decades now, the Court has upheld and relied on its 2004 decision in Gonzales v. Partridge Snow & Hahn LLP.
The research, which was published in the journal Ecological Economics earlier this month, is thought to be the first of its kind to analyze the effects of legalization policies on illegal outdoor grows in national forests throughout the United States. More at: [link].
Public Policy. According to the English cases of R v Loizou [2004], R v Geary [2010] and GH [2015] , property must be “criminal property” at the time the alleged criminal activity was undertaken. This type of activity is not what POCA was designed to criminalise, and it is considered unlikely that the U.K.
They are paying attention, slowly formulating bits and pieces of vital international, federal, and state public marijuana policy. ” CannaMD , outlining marijuana laws from state to state , explains that “This question comes down to federal versus statelaw.” Think again.
The Department of Defense makes no exceptions for active or reserve duty personnel for medical marijuana use, even if such use is legal under applicable statelaws. United States v. 2004), United States v. 1999), United States v. United States V. Likewise, in United States v. Roberts , 59 M.J.
Both paths are complex processes in which scientific, medical, policy and political forces have influence. There are other avenues Congress can take besides rescheduling marijuana to ameliorate the seeming breakdown in federalism brought about by federal marijuana policy. It was not a policy priority of the Obama administration.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 14,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content