Law Commons^™

Fair Lending For Cannabis Banking Justice, Benjamin T. Seymour

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Caveat

This Comment offers a fair lending solution to promote racial equity in cannabis banking reform: amend the Equal Credit Opportunity Act to ensure individuals previously arrested, charged, or convicted for selling, cultivating, or possessing marijuana will not therefore be precluded from loans to start legal cannabis businesses. Given disparities in the criminal enforcement of marijuana laws, this amendment would provide racial justice benefits, while also encouraging entrepreneurship. As a market-based social justice effort, this amendment offers a bipartisan approach to one of the most vexing and contentious issues in marijuana banking reform.

Part II of this Comment briefly surveys the …

Researching Marijuana Law, Seth Quidachay-Swan

Law Librarian Scholarship

This article provides a brief overview of the current legal framework governing the regulation of marijuana at the federal and state levels in the United States. It also provides an overview of the state of Michigan’s current regulatory framework and resources for attorneys interested in learning more about marijuana regulation.

Response To 'Reverse Al Capone-Ism' And The Tax Treatment Of Marijuana Businesses, Douglas A. Kahn, Howard J. Bromberg

Other Publications

Mr. Silverberg’s comment stresses that the proponents of the legalization of marijuana have not been able to convince Congress to legalize it, and so it is appropriate for Congress to penalize trafficking in that drug. Apparently, he sees our contention that the penalty adopted in I.R.C. § 280E is irrational and contravenes established punitive jurisprudence as a backdoor attempt to accomplish indirectly, by weakening the penalties on the marijuana businesses, what has not been able to be accomplished by those seeking its federal legalization. That was not the motive for our proposal and is not a fair reading of our …

Response To Dude, Where's My Deduction?, Douglas A. Kahn, Howard J. Bromberg

Other Publications

Mr. Pullin’s thesis is that marijuana should be excluded from § 280E when it is operated legally under state law. However, his preferred solution is that the federal government remove marijuana from Schedules I and II of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA), thereby legalizing it for federal law purposes. Either action would exclude the marijuana business from § 280E.

A Higher Authority: Canada’S Cannabis Legalization In The Context Of International Law, Antonia Eliason, Robert Howse

Michigan Journal of International Law

Part I of this Article provides an overview of some of the key terms and provisions of Canada’s Cannabis Act. Part II looks at the Cannabis Act in the context of the International Drug Conventions, examining how the various convention provisions might apply, looking first at the Single Convention and then at the 1988 Convention and how that convention fits with Canadian constitutional provisions. Part III focuses on the international human rights framework and how the Cannabis Act might be viewed as compatible with international human rights law even where incompatible with the International Drug Conventions. This Part also offers …

Tax Treatment Of A Marijuana Business, Douglas A. Kahn, Howard Bromberg

Articles

Currently, twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia allow the use of marijuana for medical purposes and permit the conduct of a business marketing of marijuana for that purpose. Eight of those states and the District of Columbia permit the recreational use of marijuana. There is reason to believe that more states will decriminalize the marketing of marijuana. However, marijuana is listed in Schedule 1 of the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA) which makes it illegal under federal law to manufacture or distribute marijuana even when it is legal to do so under local state law. In a …

Introducing Marijuana Law Into The Legal Writing Curriculum, Howard Bromberg, Mark K. Osbeck

Articles

Interest in marijuana law continues to grow, due in large part to the complicated and rapidly evolving landscape of marijuana laws in the United States. Nearly every day, newspapers report on new or proposed legislation and the legal controversies that have arisen with regard to this evolving landscape. There are now several marijuana-law blogs on the Internet, Congress is considering sweeping legislation that would essentially grant significant deference to the individual states, and public opinion continues to move in favor of increased legalization. For the last two years, Newsweek magazine has published special editions devoted exclusively to marijuana law and …

Proving Personal Use: The Admissibility Of Evidence Negating Intent To Distribute Marijuana, Stephen Mayer

Michigan Law Review

Against the backdrop of escalating state efforts to decriminalize marijuana, U.S. Attorneys’ Offices continue to bring drug-trafficking prosecutions against defendants carrying small amounts of marijuana that are permitted under state law. Federal district courts have repeatedly barred defendants from introducing evidence that they possessed this marijuana for their own personal use. This Note argues that district courts should not exclude three increasingly common kinds of “personal use evidence” under Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403 when that evidence is offered to negate intent to distribute marijuana. Three types of personal use evidence are discussed in this Note: (1) a …

Investing In Cannabis: Inconsistent Government Regulation And Constraints On Capital, Adrian A. Ohmer

Michigan Business & Entrepreneurial Law Review

This note’s focus is on the future of investing in the growing legalized cannabis industry. In Part II, it will provide a brief history of federal and state regulation of cannabis. Part III will discuss the current role of the federal government in regulating the cannabis industry. Part IV will explore the current avenues of access to capital for the cannabis industry. Lastly, Part V will provide suggestions for the federal government and state governments to reduce investment risk that exists in the cannabis industry.

A Government Of Limited Powers, Carl E. Schneider

Articles

Roscoe C. Filburn owned a small farm in Ohio where he raised poultry, dairy cows, and a modest acreage of winter wheat. Some wheat he fed his animals, some he sold, and some he kept for his family's daily bread. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 limited the wheat Mr. Filburn could grow without incurring penalties, but his 1941 crop exceeded those limits. Mr. Filburn sued. He said Claude Wickard, the Secretary of Agriculture, could not enforce the AAI's limits because Congress lacked authority to regulate wheat grown for one's own use. He reasoned: In our federal system, the states …

Going To Pot, Carl E. Schneider

Articles

In several earlier columns, I suggested that judges are usually poorly placed to make good biomedical policy, not least because the law so rarely offers them direct and cogent guidance. Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit proffered a new example of this old problem. In 1996, California's voters approved Proposition 215. Its "Compassionate Use Act of 1996" provided -that a patient "who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician" committed no crime.

Proposition 215: De Facto Legalization Of Pot And The Shortcomings Of Direct Democracy, Michael Vitiello

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215, officially titled The Compassionate Use Act of 1996, and popularly known as the "medical marijuana" initiative. This initiative allows qualifying people and their caregivers immunity from criminal prosecution when the state attempts to charge them with possession or cultivation of marijuana. Professor Vitiello uses the medical marijuana initiative as a case study illustrating flaws in California's ballot initiative process He examines the history of the initiative process in California, misleading aspects of the campaign for Proposition 215, and ambiguities in the proposition's language. Concluding that the initiative process as it now stands fosters …

Decriminalizing The Marijuana User: A Drafter's Guide, Richard J. Bonnie

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The article does not discuss the arguments in favor of decriminalization, a matter which the author' and others have covered elsewhere. Nor does the article consider the even more difficult questions involved in a legislative decision to legalize the drug and authorize its distribution for nonmedical uses. International obligations, federal law, and current political realities preclude enactment of a regulatory approach toward the availability of marijuana, including any variant of the so-called alcohol model. Although a state conceivably could repeal its laws against cultivation and distribution of marijuana, including only the federal prohibitions in effect, such an overt departure from …

Indictment And Information - Requirement Of Specificity In Charging A Statutory Offense, Ward P. Allen

Michigan Law Review

On an information charging the possession of "a certain habit forming drug, to wit: Marijuana . . . in violation of section 158, Chapter 91, Illinois Revised Statutes (1935)," defendant was convicted in the municipal court of Chicago. The Illinois adoption of the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act made the possession of "any narcotic drug" unlawful; defined "narcotic drugs" to include "cannabis"; and stated that "Cannabis includes the following substances, under whatever names they may be designated: (a) The dried flowering or fruiting tops of the pistillate plant Cannabis Sativa L.," from which the resin has not been extracted; (b) the …