Archive for Courts & Cannabis

Federal Lawsuit Against U.S. Attorney General, WA State For Discrimination in the Cannabis Industry

March 18, 2020 Court Cases, Courts & Cannabis, I-502, Integrity Check, Washington State Liquor Control Board No comments

Seattle, WA — Members of a group called Black Excellence In Cannabis filed a federal lawsuit earlier this month against Washington State Governor Jay Inslee and Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) for what they see as state officials running a corrupt and discriminatory licensing and regulatory scheme in the guise of a legal recreational cannabis industry.U.S. Attorney General, William Barr is also included as a defendant, as the U.S. federal government has been acting as an accessory by funding Washington State to enforce federal laws while regulators operate and profit from an illicit licensing and taxation racket at the expense of African Americans’ Constitutional Rights.

Constitutionally protected Civil Rights at the center of this suit are; Title 42 US Code § 1981, 1983 and 1985.

Plaintiffs Aaron Barfield and Peter Manning are turning to the U.S. federal courts for justice after years of working for inclusion for African Americans in their state’s lucrative recreational cannabis market.

They have pled their case in administrative proceedings, meetings with WSLCB Executive Director Rick Garza and Board Members Jane Rushford, Ollie Garrett and Russ Hauge. Also, in meetings with multiple public officials and state legislators, at public hearings and finally granted an audience to plead their case directly to Governor Jay Inslee. All to no avail.

“What we have in Washington is a system where wealthy white men have performed a hostile takeover of our State’s entire cannabis market,” said Manning.

Minorities and Medical Cannabis activists who are on the frontlines of the fight for cannabis legalization are almost entirely excluded from the legal market.

“Washington has a strong and diverse cannabis community. Participation in the economic opportunities generated by the regulation and sale of cannabis should be inclusive and reflective of that community,” said Barfield, who also acts as the current director of Black Excellence In Cannabis.

Blacks were arrested at four times the rate of whites for cannabis violations yet only own and operate less than 1% of Washington’s licensed cannabis businesses.

Many may be inclined to believe that the Plaintiffs are just disgruntled failed applicants who were unable to transition from the unregulated world of medical cannabis providers, to the regulated, WSLCB, seed-to-sale traceability system and meet their compliance requirements.

For more details about Black Excellence In Cannabis, visit www.BlackExcellenceinCannabis.com

PRESS CONTACT:
Black Excellence in Cannabis
blackexcellenceincannabis@gmail.com

Corporations and Industry Don’t Care About Real People

March 11, 2019 Cops & Cannabis, Courts & Cannabis, Editorials, Integrity Check No comments

I find it more than a little disturbing that the cannabis industry has continued to ignore the rights of the people they are trying to market their products to.

While Wall Street is flush with new money and new ticker symbols appearing on American stock exchanges, and new states opening the doors to “legalization”, you would think that someone out there would think it might be a good idea to first make sure the customers you serve will not be subject to police abuse.

The fact that it hasn’t happened from the multinational corporations isn’t entirely surprising, however. In fact, the first big marijuana bill in the US Congress this year was not a bill to end prohibition, but to allow banks to take money from marijuana businesses.

However, in many states, even smaller “mom & pop” supported lobby organizations that have sprung up have not pushed for ending harassment, arrests and forfeitures against their potential customers.

For instance, Washington State passed the first medical cannabis legislation in 1979. Again in 1998, with adult use passing in 2012.

However, we still have no arrest and forfeiture protection for the majority of patients.

Adults are still harassed, imprisoned or getting their property seized for having more than an ounce or trying to grow their own.

Not a single bill has ever come out of the industry groups to fix this.

And that’s in a state that “legalized”.

Maybe those of you in the industry will take this more seriously now if you read it for yourself on NBC News, because you sure have been good at marginalizing, gaslighting and ridiculing your potential customers when we tell you this stuff.

Marijuana legalization must make War on Drugs’ victims whole before companies profit

For Amazon-owned Whole Foods to get the right to sell a single pot brownie, every non-violent marijuana-related conviction must be thrown out.

So yes, even Amazon’s John Mackey, CEO of Amazon subsidiary Whole Foods, sees the organic grocer pushing into cannabis.

But have they backed legislation to first end the Drug War abuse? Not to our knowledge. Considering Amazon is headquartered in our state, you’d think that might be a priority now that they have an eye on this market.

Customer satisfaction on this doesn’t end with the sale. It should begin with ending the Drug War on REAL PEOPLE FIRST.

STOP PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE!

More stories of consumers getting harassed in the news lately:

Over 60 Party Guests Zip Tied and Arrested for an Ounce of Marijuana

“Outrage After Police Search Terminally Ill Cancer Patient’s Hospital Room For Marijuana”

Court witnesses requested for Worthington VS WSLCB August 17th

August 9, 2016 Courts & Cannabis, I-502, Integrity Check, Public Records, Washington State Liquor Control Board No comments

In late 2014, a Thurston County Superior court judge ruled that the WSLCB violated the Washingtin State Open Public Meetings Act at least 17 different times by holding secret meetings with law enforcement and the substance abuse community.

 Shortly after, John Worthington and others with the 420leaks project filed public records requests asking for the complete i502 rule making files.  These files must be mainatined by law.  See RCW 34.05.370
By their own words, they no longer have the original file, have deleted and altered files in what Worthington believes is a clear case of the agency once again running roughshod over the Sunshine laws in our state.
He tried to get a resolution by filing an administrative appeal directly to the WSLCB, but they dismissed his claims out of hand.
Thurston County Superior Court ruled that decision was “arbitrary and caprecious” and ordered the WSLCB to hear the case again.
With no legal rule making file to work with, Worthington is asking the court to make a desicion instead.
If there is no valid rule making file for I-502, then it follows that the rules are also invalid.
The court has an overhead projector that will be used. The court of public opinion must be there to witness the fact that Worthington did challenge the rules for I-502, so the Court of Appeals cannot bury the rules validity challenge.
The oral arguments in this case will be heard
at the Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II on August 17th.
Washington State Court of Appeals
Division II at 9:00 AM950 Broadway, Suite 300, Tacoma, WA 98402

More information is available here:
Read John Worthington’s motions here:
*****

RCW 34.05.370

Rule-making file.

(1) Each agency shall maintain an official rule-making file for each rule that it (a) proposes by publication in the state register, or (b) adopts. The file and materials incorporated by reference shall be available for public inspection.
(2) The agency rule-making file shall contain all of the following:
(a) A list of citations to all notices in the state register with respect to the rule or the proceeding upon which the rule is based;
(b) Copies of any portions of the agency’s public rule-making docket containing entries relating to the rule or the proceeding on which the rule is based;
(c) All written petitions, requests, submissions, and comments received by the agency and all other written material regarded by the agency as important to adoption of the rule or the proceeding on which the rule is based;
(d) Any official transcript of oral presentations made in the proceeding on which the rule is based or, if not transcribed, any tape recording or stenographic record of them, and any memorandum prepared by a presiding official summarizing the contents of those presentations;
(e) All petitions for exceptions to, amendment of, or repeal or suspension of, the rule;
(f) Citations to data, factual information, studies, or reports on which the agency relies in the adoption of the rule, indicating where such data, factual information, studies, or reports are available for review by the public, but this subsection (2)(f) does not require the agency to include in the rule-making file any data, factual information, studies, or reports gathered pursuant to chapter 19.85 RCW or RCW34.05.328 that can be identified to a particular business;
(g) The concise explanatory statement required by RCW 34.05.325(6); and
(h) Any other material placed in the file by the agency.
(3) Internal agency documents are exempt from inclusion in the rule-making file under subsection (2) of this section to the extent they constitute preliminary drafts, notes, recommendations, and intra-agency memoranda in which opinions are expressed or policies formulated or recommended, except that a specific document is not exempt from inclusion when it is publicly cited by an agency in connection with its decision.
(4) Upon judicial review, the file required by this section constitutes the official agency rule-making file with respect to that rule. Unless otherwise required by another provision of law, the official agency rule-making file need not be the exclusive basis for agency action on that rule.

Cannabis Patient Denied Constitutional Rights Gets Appeal Hearing

July 19, 2016 Courts & Cannabis, Integrity Check No comments

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Oral Arguments; Constitutional Rights to Cannabis? The Right to Choose Healthcare And Protection for a woman in Washington state
Freedom and Bodily Autonomy for Medical Marijuana.
July 19, 2016. Oral arguments for the Human Rights Legal case of Wilson v. Lynch at the 9th Circuit Court of the United States of America, Browning Federal Court House in San Francisco, California on Thursday morning, July 21, 2016.
Moving into its 5th year, the case tests the first, second, fourth and fifth amendments of the US Constitution for a woman who is registered with a medical marijuana card. 60% of Americans approve the legal use of cannabis per Gallup polls.  The plaintiff contends that all people have a right to free speech, their choice of health care and basic rights of protection, including from undue process. The case brings to the forefront more than just one Washington woman’s ‘right to choose’ in a contentiously ‘medically legal’ cannabis state.
Medical cannabis has been known since ancient times to have positive health effects.  25 US states have regulated its medical use. Even with this approval, patients who may or may not be using medical marijuana/cannabis are still categorized as criminals.  The federal law classifies cannabis as a dangerous drug similar to opiates, despite research clearly showing its multiple benefits.  ‘Patients are out of Patience.’  Even with the legalization of medical cannabis, discrimination continues. In the case of Wilson v. Lynch, the defendants egregiously violated the fifth amendment, contending the plaintiff is an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance. She was deprived of her rights to secure a firearm for self-defense.
A more pressing problem is the rising number of people addicted to opioids and the drug’s effects on the population. According to the American Society of Addiction Medicine, opioid addiction includes the use of the illicit drug heroin and prescription pain relievers such as oxycodone, hydrocodone, morphine, codeine and fentanyl. Over 259 million prescriptions per year are written for opioids. This number is more than enough to provide each American a bottle of prescription opiate pills.
More information about the case can be found here.