Tuesday, November 26, 2013

William Delahunt, Thomas Finneran join a number of politicos involved in medical marijuana bids

from boston.com

By Frank Phillips and Joshua Miller / Globe Staff / November 26, 2013

Several former elected officials and politically connected figures have joined the sweepstakes to be part of the state’s potentially lucrative medical marijuana industry, partnering with applicants who need help navigating the regulatory process.

The Boston GlobeFormer Congressman William Delahunt is the president of a nonprofit seeking medical marijuana licenses (Globe File)

Former US representative William D. Delahunt, now a lobbyist, is the president of a nonprofit corporation that has applied for three marijuana dispensary licenses in southeastern Massachusetts.

Former House speaker Thomas M. Finneran, as well as at least three former state senators, an ex-sheriff, and two former top aides to powerful officeholders are also associated with dispensary applicants, either as investors or advisers, as they lobby for state and local support of their proposals.

A law approved last year by voters gives the state Department of Public Health authority to register up to 35 nonprofit dispensaries, with at least one — but not more than five — in each county.

The jockeying for those slots is extremely competitive, with 100 applications submitted on Thursday in the second and final round of the process.

State public health regulators have indicated that dispensaries with the support of the towns or cities where they are proposed will be seen more favorably, which is potentially an area where these political figures could be helpful.

Also involved in applications are former state senators Brian P. Lees, Andrea F. Nuciforo, Henri Rauschenbach, and Guy Glodis, who is also the former Worcester County sheriff.

David A. Passafaro, former chief of staff to Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino, is part of another group — Prime Wellness of MA — that has submitted three applications.

Finneran is a registered State House lobbyist for Avum, whose nonprofit subsidiary has proposed facilities in Northampton, Worcester, and Lowell.

“I’m a guide to Massachusetts,’’ Finneran explained in describing his work on Monday.

Since the ballot initiative passed, applicants have been hurrying to set up not-for-profit corporations that will be the backbone of the marijuana distribution system. Despite their names, non-profits can be highly lucrative for those involved.

“It’s an absolute gold rush,’’ said John Scheft, the attorney who represented the opponents to the 2012 voter-approved law that created the system. “You are an idiot if you are running a dispensary and you can’t make a couple of million dollars in profit.’’

Interviews with several of the participants and a Globe review of preliminary applications indicate some of the political figures who have joined the Massachusetts marijuana market are investors in the firms, while others say they are simply consultants.

Delahunt, who represented Cape Cod and much of the South Shore for 14 years, is part of a group — Medical Marijuana of Massachusetts — that has applied for marijuana facilities in Plymouth, Taunton and Mashpee.

Two weeks ago Delahunt, a former Norfolk district attorney, appeared before the Plymouth board of selectmen along with several competitors to plead the case for his group. The board initially hedged on taking action. But a week later, it endorsed Delahunt’s project.

Working with Delahunt is a political figure with connections in both the State House and the town: Kevin O’Reilly, who once served as a top aide to Senate President Therese Murray, a long-time Plymouth lawmaker, and has been her closest political adviser. He serves on the board of the Plymouth chamber of commerce. Former Barnstable county commissioner Mary J. LeClair, a popular veteran political figure on Cape Cod, is also working with Delahunt.

The initial financial backing for the group is coming from Jeffrey L. Feinberg, a California-based hedge fund manager, who, along with his wife Stacey, has pledged $1.3 million as part of the firm’s demonstration of financial viability to state public health regulators.

Delahunt, who said he has never met Feinberg, repeatedly sidestepped questions about whether he was looking to financially gain from his involvement with the project.

“That’s yet to be determined,’’ he said last week.

Analysts say medical marijuana dispensaries tend to be lucrative endeavors.

Luigi Zamarra, a certified public accountant who has overseen the books for medical marijuana businesses in a half-dozen states, said the markup in dispensaries is usually about 100 percent.

“If you buy a pound for $2,500, you can retail that, when you break it all down, for $5,000,” he said, explaining that the average-size dispensary brings in $4 million to 5 million in gross revenues per year.Continued...

Mayor moves to limit medical marijuana dispensaries

from chicagotribune

Mayor moves to limit medical marijuana dispensaries (Tribune illustration)

By John BryneTribune reporter

5:27 p.m. CST, November 26, 2013

Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Ald. Edward Burke introduced a plan Tuesday to limit where medical marijuana dispensaries and growing operations can set up shop in the city after the drug becomes legal Jan. 1.

The proposal would require special use permits from the Zoning Board of Appeals, limit locations to manufacturing districts and establish minimum parking requirements.

"We regulate everything from liquor licenses to how many residences may be built above a certain height, so it makes sense to give Chicago residents some control over where these types of operations can be located," said Burke, 14th.

Burke also introduced a resolution Tuesday calling for a nonbinding ballot referendum in March asking Chicago voters if the state should outlaw firearms in businesses that sell alcohol as part of Illinois' concealed carry law. The City Council passed an ordinance in September to revoke liquor licenses of restaurants that don't ban guns, a move gun rights advocates promised to challenge in court.

Ald. James Balcer, 11th, introduced another proposal for a nonbinding referendum asking Chicagoans whether the state should ban gun magazines with a capacity of more than 15 rounds.

A third nonbinding referendum was proposed by Ald. Anthony Beale, 9th, to ask voters whether cab fares should be increased for the first time in eight years to "bring Chicago's taxi fleet in line with other cities." Cabdrivers have been pushing Beale, chairman of the Transportation Committee, to hold hearings about their desired rate increase, and he said a referendum is the best way to take residents' pulse on the matter.

Asked whether the nonbinding referendum could be used to kill a fare hike, since voters would seem unlikely to vote in favor of an increase, Beale said only, "It gives the people an opportunity to speak."

Tribune reporter Bill Ruthhart contributed.

jebyrne@tribune.com

Monday, November 25, 2013

Montebello mayor's husband pleads not guilty to felony drug charges

from latimes

A view of City Hall in Montebello, where the mayor's husband is facing prosecution for allegedly selling drugs. He pleaded not guilty Monday to six charges. (Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)

By James Barragan

November 25, 2013, 4:08 p.m.

The husband of Montebello's mayor pleaded not guilty Monday to six felony drug charges of selling methamphetamine multiple times to an undercover sheriff's detective.

Ruben Guerrero, 44, allegedly sold drugs to a detective in audio- and video-recorded transactions in a parking lot across from Montebello Intermediate School. The alleged incidents occurred three times from Sept. 26 to Oct. 15, prosecutors said.

Guerrero was charged with three felony counts each of possessing a controlled substance for sale and the sale or transportation of a controlled substance, according to the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office.

Guerrero was arrested Oct. 17 as he was leaving his home. He is out of jail on $60,000 bail.

Authorities have said Guerrero was the only one in his household implicated in the alleged drug sales. He lives with his wife, Montebello Mayor Christina Cortez.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department began investigating Guerrero after receiving a tip from Montebello police that he was suspected of selling meth.

Guerrero is due back in court Jan. 15 for the setting of his preliminary hearing. If convicted, he faces 11 years in prison.

ALSO:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-mayor-of-montebello-husband-pleads-not-guilty-20131125,0,6818810.story#ixzz2lj7O5vmr

Legalize all drugs

from browndailyherald

Powers ’15: Legalize all drugs

By Andrew Powers
Opinions Columnist

Sunday, November 24, 2013

In April, possession of small amounts of marijuana was decriminalized in Rhode Island. Some might wonder what motivated the state government to loosen restrictions on a substance that causes such apparent mental impairment. How could this possibly benefit the state?

At the start of any given weekend on College Hill, many students prepare to drink, smoke, roll, trip and partake in other illegal drug-related activities. A Herald poll conducted last semester found that during the previous year, 85 percent of students had consumed alcohol, 49 percent had used marijuana, 9 percent had used ecstasy — also known as MDMA — and at least 7 percent had used some psychedelic agent (“Poll: White, older students more likely to use substances,” Apr. 17). Many would say that, for the most part, the University turns a blind eye to this debauchery — a policy generally supported by the student body.

But why does an institution of higher learning seemingly undermine — or, at best, minimally support — the efforts of the exorbitant drug war being waged by the U.S. federal government? Brown is known for its almost obnoxious commitment to social justice, and I believe that the end of drug prohibition would better society in ways so tangible that they would trump all other considerations. There is no need to justify drug legalization on the basis of some supposedly inalienable rights. Rights are those entities that are more significant than the consequences precipitated by actions that would violate them.

For example, we would allow a talented cancer researcher to quit his job and take up professional gambling because his right to self-determination takes precedence over the utility he could have for society. But as I said before, we need not resort to any consideration of rights, as the consequences of drug legalization engender massive societal benefits.

So what are legalization’s benefits? It seems counterintuitive that allowing the use of mind-altering substances that decrease one’s ability to think rationally could have benefits for society. And it may be true that for the average individual, the overall cost of using drugs outweighs the utility. Few would deny the overt detriments of abuse and dependence.

But most drugs rarely make the user a more dangerous member of society — particularly when there is no driving involved. It is not the drug users but the drug war that makes our society more dangerous.

As was shown by the inelasticity of the demand of alcoholics and recreational drinkers during Prohibition, artificially reducing the supply of drugs makes dealing a highly profitable criminal enterprise. Intense competition between dealers, combined with a lack of government enforcement of property rights, is the perfect incentive for the rampant violent crime necessary to succeed in a “might makes right” market. In the 1920s, the United States saw the rise of gangsters like Al Capone and Bugs Moran, along with a bloom of criminal activity that lasted until the end of Prohibition in 1933.

It’s difficult to keep drugs out of maximum-security prisons. It’s virtually impossible to keep them off the streets. And the extremely marginal success of efforts to prohibit drug use is wholly eclipsed by unavoidable increases in crime, as seen during Prohibition.

During my senior year of high school, I volunteered at a small local hospital and worked alongside a black man in his mid-20s. He came from a bad neighborhood, and I was always morbidly fascinated by his depiction of his environment and the role drug crimes played in it. He once showed me a local news video of a man’s throat being slit in a rundown bar. I saw him calmly sitting in the background, sipping his drink. He told me he was upset that they stopped the music when the ambulance came. Just the circle of life, right?

The profits of drug crime afford the perpetrators social status, making them role models that younger members of their communities aspire to emulate. I can only imagine the seductive contrast of success by drug dealing in the depressing morass that is west Philadelphia. This anecdotal evidence does not prove my point, but it serves as a modern-day illustration of the type of alluring drug culture fostered by the drug war.

So what would happen if we were to legalize drug use today? Like the end of alcohol prohibition in the United States, the decriminalization of drug use in other countries has led to undeniable benefits. In the five years since Portugal decriminalized drugs, drug-related deaths and transmission of HIV have decreased by over 25 and 75 percent, respectively. Estimates place the annual cost of the drug war in America at anywhere from $50 to 150 billion. Given the fiscal state of the nation, this seems as strong a motivation as any to do away with this inefficacious policy.

I understand the desire to regulate drugs, but similar to the motivation to regulate guns, the end goal is simply unrealistic. Our choice is not between a world with drugs and a world without drugs. Our choice is between a world with drugs and a world with drugs, violent drug crime, more drug-related deaths and the massive economic costs of an ineffective drug war.

Andrew Powers ’15 can be reached at andrew_powers@brown.edu and will respond to all questions and comments.