Tag: police state

Florida Senate Passes Bill To Ban Psychedelic Mushroom Spores, As Companion Measure Also Advances In House

Florida’s Senate on Wednesday passed a wide-ranging agricultural bill that contains provisions to outlaw fungal spores that produce mushrooms containing psilocybin or psilocin. The vote came a day after a House committee advanced a companion bill in that chamber.

Senators voted 27–9 to approve SB 700, from Sen. Keith Truenow (R). HB 651 is moving through the House, meanwhile, having advanced out of the Commerce Committee on Tuesday.

The proposed ban on spores of mushrooms that create psilocybin or psilocin is a small part of the roughly 150-page legislation, which would make a variety of adjustments to Florida’s agricultural laws, including around agricultural lands, utilities and wildlife management.

With respect to psychedelic mushrooms, both measures would outlaw transporting, importing, selling or giving away “spores or mycelium capable of producing mushrooms or other material which will contain a controlled substance, including psilocybin or psilocyn, during its lifecycle.”

Violating the proposed law would be a first-degree misdemeanor, carrying a maximum one year in jail and $1,000 fine.

While lawmakers on the Senate floor and House committee spent considerable time debating various other portions of the bills—especially a proposed ban on fluoride in local water supplies—there was no mention of the provision concerning psychedelic mushroom spores.

“This bill at its core is meant to help farmers and consumers and students who want to become farmers one day,” Truenow said ahead of the floor vote.

Psilocybin and psilocin are the two main psychoactive compounds in psychedelic mushrooms. Although spores themselves typically do not contain psilocybin or psilocin, they eventually produce fruiting bodies—mushrooms—that do contain the psychedelic compounds.

Because the spores don’t contain any controlled substances, the federal government deems them legal.

Keep reading

Indiana Lawmakers Approve Bill To Regulate Hemp Products

Contentious regulations for marijuana-like products advanced through the Indiana House of Representatives on Tuesday, but will have to survive closed-door negotiations before crossing Gov. Mike Braun’s (R) desk.

“I filed a dissent,” Sen. Travis Holdman, the measure’s author, told the Capital Chronicle.

“We’ve got some clean-up to do,” the Markle Republican said. “We’ll be working on it.”

Products with legally low concentrations of delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol have proliferated in Indiana, alongside those containing delta-8 THC and other isomers. Attempts to regulate the nascent industry, which is booming on shaky legal footing, have failed repeatedly—but are nearing law, in the form of Senate Bill 478.

“These products, being legal under federal law, but having no regulatory structure here in the state, means that technically, it’s not illegal to sell these products to minors [or] to target youth with advertising or packaging, and that there’s no testing requirements to protect consumers from potentially dangerous adulterants,” said Rep. Jake Teshka, the House sponsor, on the chamber’s floor Tuesday.

The measure sets out advertising, age-limit, licensing, packaging, testing and other requirements over the currently unregulated substances. It authorizes the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission to oversee the industry, including approving up to 20,000 retail permits.

Lawmakers have put it through a whopping seven rounds of edits. But critics—including Indiana’s attorney general and anti-marijuana groups—still have objected, arguing the language would expand existing loopholes.

“With Senate Bill 478, I think we finally have an opportunity to rein in this market,” Teshka, R-North Liberty, said. “We have the opportunity to provide real clarity to law enforcement, to protect Hoosier youth, to empower our farmers and to protect our consumers.”

Members of Teshka’s own caucus remained skeptical.

“I recognize that…the General Assembly should take action on the current state of this product,” said Rep. Tim Wesco, R-Osceola. “[But] I don’t feel like this is the appropriate action.”

Instead, it’s “moving us further down a path of increasing—dramatically increasing—access to these products that are known to have adverse and negative effects,” Wesco continued. “We’re setting up a framework that we’re likely not going to go back on, that is just going to expand from here.”

Lawmakers from both parties crossed sides in the 60-37 vote.

Keep reading

After Self-Immolations at Red Onion Prison, Virginia Prisoners Allege Crackdown

Besides an overhead light, Sidney Bowman says he hasn’t had electricity in his cell at Virginia’s Red Onion State Prison for roughly three months. 

Last month, Bowman told a federal court that prison employees cut the electricity to his cell after he refused to sign what staff call a “Safety Agreement for Inmates.” The document offers incentives to prisoners—such as movies, group recreation, free commissary bags, and a fish fry—provided they don’t harm themselves. However, if they repeatedly hurt themselves, they may lose “access to television, recreation time, or other amenities.” The Appeal obtained a copy of the agreement through a public records request. 

Bowman’s statement is part of an ongoing class action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia that alleges that the state’s Step-Down program—which purports to help prisoners earn their way to a general population assignment—traps people in solitary confinement for months or years on end.

The legal team has asked the federal court to restore plaintiffs’ electricity and to prohibit staff from retaliating against people who refuse to sign the agreement or participate in the lawsuit. The Virginia Department of Corrections declined to answer The Appeal’s questions.

Last year, at least six people at Red Onion self-immolated in what incarcerated journalist Kevin ‘Rashid’ Johnson called “desperate attempts” to escape the prison’s inhumane conditions. But rather than offer them help, emails obtained by The Appeal show prison officials discussed how best to punish them. Then, in January, prison staff began distributing the Safety Agreement to people in Red Onion’s Step-Down program.

If someone refused to sign, staff cut the electricity to their cell’s outlet. The ACLU says this prevented prisoners from charging their tablets, watching television, or listening to the radio. Bowman told the court that he accesses religious programming through his television and tablet because he cannot leave his cell for services. He says his tablet is his primary tool to communicate with his family. 

Red Onion’s assistant warden confirmed in a court statement that there have been nine self-burnings—eight last year and one in January. The assistant warden said no one had burned themselves with a power outlet since the prison distributed the agreement on Jan. 20. 

“Security leadership and mental health leadership collaborated on potential solutions, and we ultimately decided that if an inmate agreed not to use the cell’s power outlet to bum himself, the power outlet in that inmate’s cell could remain active,” he said in his statement. “Inmates who refused to agree not to bum themselves would be placed in a cell where the power outlet had been deactivated.”

The warden said prisoners can use kiosks during recreation to charge their tablets and message family members. He said the prison has also set up TVs outside the cells to view religious services. 

In addition to threatening to punish people for acts of self-harm, the agreement also requires signers to affirm that they have “access to mental health and other local resources.” The plaintiffs say compelling them to agree with or espouse statements they believe are untrue or objectionable violates their First Amendment rights. 

Keep reading

Florida Lawmakers Unanimously Approve Bill To Make Medical Marijuana Cards Free For Military Veterans

A Florida House panel on Tuesday unanimously approved a bill that would exempt military veterans from state registration fees for medical marijuana cards, allowing them to obtain the certifications for free.

The House Health and Human Services Committee advanced the legislation, HB 555 from Rep. Alex Andrade (R), on a vote of 21-0.

As originally filed, the measure would have made more significant changes to the state’s existing medical cannabis program, for example allowing home cultivation as well as reciprocity for out-of-state patients. But earlier this month the House Health Professions and Programs Subcommittee replaced its language with a two-page substitute that instead would make only small changes to the medical program.

First, it would change how often patients need to renew their medical marijuana cards, from the current annual process to once every two years.

Second, it would waive the $75 registration and renewal fees for veterans, specifying that the state “may not charge a fee for the issuance, replacement, or renewal of an identification card for a qualified patient who is a veteran.”

A handful of supporters testified ahead of the panel’s vote on Tuesday, and no one spoke against the measure.

Melissa Villar of Tallahassee NORML said that when Florida’s medical cannabis program launched, “it was the most expensive in the country for patients and for business entrance.” She asked lawmakers to expand the bill to go beyond helping military veterans and to additionally provide for discounted or cost-free patient cards for people who are disabled or low income.

If HB 555 becomes law, the changes would take effect July 1.

Separately, House and Senate lawmakers are considering legislation that would outlaw fungal spores that produce mushrooms containing psilocybin or psylocin.

The proposed ban on spores of mushrooms that create psilocybin or psilocin is part of the roughly 150-page bills, which would make a variety of adjustments to Florida’s agricultural laws, including around agricultural lands, utilities and wildlife management.

Keep reading

Indiana GOP Senators Block Another Attempt To Legalize Marijuana Through Budget Bill

Indiana Republican senators have rejected another attempt to legalize marijuana in the state.

On Monday, the Senate considered numerous amendments to a two-year budget, defeating many Democratic-led proposals including one from Sen. Rodney Pol (D) to create a regulated adult-use cannabis market.

Pol stressed that Indiana is “losing out” to neighboring states such as Illinois and Michigan that have already enacted legalization, with tax revenue from marijuana sales being diverted to those states as Indianans patronized their licensed businesses.

He said it’s “frustrating” to watch Indiana “lose on an opportunity to keep our dollars in our state and provide relief to those individuals that are dealing with cancer, PTSD, chronic pain and other ailments that prefer cannabis for needed relief, as opposed to pharmaceuticals.”

“We have hundreds of people in the hallway that are concerned about money that we are spending,” he said. “And this is an easy way to turn what is in an illicit market that is funding more crime right now into a regulated and safe taxed market that we reap the benefits of.”

Keep reading

The Circumvention of Habeas Corpus

The most profound and ominous aspect of the controversy surrounding the deportation of Kilmar Ábrego García to El Salvador is that the Trump administration has figured out a way to circumvent the right of habeas corpus, not just for foreigners but also for the American people.

Why is that important? Because without habeas corpus, a right that stretches all the way back to Magna Carta in 1215, there is no free society. As British and American legal scholars have maintained for centuries, habeas corpus is the linchpin of a free society.

For example, freedom of speech is a fundamental right that the federal government is prohibited from taking away. Let’s assume that one day, an American citizen castigates President Trump for policies he has adopted. A few days later in the middle of the night, Homeland Security agents bash down his door, take him into custody, and incarcerate him.

That’s where habeas corpus comes into play. The victim, through his lawyer, files a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with a federal judge. The judge issues the writ, which a U.S. Marshal serves on the person who is holding the critic in jail. The writ commands the custodian to immediately produce the critic in court. At the habeas hearing, the judge orders the government to show just cause as to why it is holding the critic. When it fails to do so, the judge orders the immediate release of the critic. The critic walks out of the courtroom a free person.

Thus, it is the right of habeas corpus that enforces the right of freedom of speech and the exercise of other rights. Without habeas corpus, people’s rights become a dead letter. That’s how important habeas corpus is.

The Framers understood the critical importance of habeas corpus to a free society. That’s why they enshrined it in the Constitution.

The right of habeas corpus developed over centuries of resistance by the British people to the tyranny of their own government. For example, after Magna Carta, English common law courts developed and applied the writ against the king’s arbitrary imprisonment of English citizens. In 1679, Parliament adopted the Habeas Corpus Act, which clarified and codified much of what English courts were doing from the 13th century through the 17th century.

Needless to say, rulers who have dictatorial proclivities hate habeas corpus. They don’t want any judicial interference with their decisions to incarcerate people who question their decisions, who they sometimes refer to by the label “terrorist.”

In the midst of the Civil War, for example, President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, which enabled military officials to arbitrarily arrest and incarcerate critics of Lincoln. When the Supreme Court declared Lincoln’s act unconstitutional, Lincoln simply ignored the ruling.

After the 9/11 attacks, the Pentagon and the CIA established a torture and prison camp at their base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The reason they established it in Cuba was because they figured that it would be totally independent of U.S. judicial interference and the U.S. Constitution, including habeas corpus. The Supreme Court ultimately held otherwise, declaring that Gitmo remained within the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary.

Keep reading

Pennsylvania Lawmakers Push To Protect Medical Marijuana Patients In Child Custody Cases After Father Loses Rights Over THC Test

Pennsylvania lawmakers are taking action to clarify that a person’s status as a medical marijuana patient cannot be used against them in parental custody rulings in family court.

While state statue clearly stipulates that lawful use of medical cannabis “shall not by itself be considered by a court in a custody proceeding,” a father’s recent experience losing custody rights after testing positive for THC metabolites has exposed an apparent implementation issue.

After David Levi—a registered medical cannabis patient with severe arthritis—sought financial support from his daughter’s mother in family court, his use of marijuana became a determining factor, contrary to what’s prescribed under state law.

“By the time they were done with me, I became a drug user—not a prescribed user—and that’s my tagline” in the eyes of the court, Levi told Marijuana Moment. “And two days before my father died, I got an email, and it was that the judge had ordered to take away all of my rights as a father.”

“I went from 50-50 custody to not being able to drive my daughter, and I’m only allowed to have overnight visits with her every other week,” he said.

Sen. John Kane (D) learned about his constituent’s story and, last week, circulated a cosponsorship memo to build support for forthcoming legislation to both clarify the existing statute and also make it so a person’s medical cannabis patient status cannot be used to determine child custody or to justify a drug test in a custody case.

“To treat his pain without using addictive opioids, my constituent obtained a medical marijuana card and began using this medication to treat his arthritis,” Kane wrote. “Medical marijuana has allowed him to manage his pain, maintain his work, and remain an attentive father to his three-year-old daughter.”

“Despite following the guidelines set forth by Pennsylvania’s Medical Marijuana Act, the constituent found himself in a custody battle that has threatened his rights as a father and penalized him based on his status as a medical marijuana patient,” he said, adding that current statute “prohibits the lawful use of medical marijuana as a determinant of child custody.”

“However, in my constituent’s case, his use of medical marijuana was used against him to determine child custody,” the senator said. And to address the issue, he will be filing legislation to “amend Title 23 Section 5328 to prohibit the use of medical marijuana from being used to determine child custody or the sole reason to order a drug test in child custody cases.”

The text of the bill hasn’t been filed yet. But on the House side, a Republican lawmaker has since committed  to work on the issue as well, Levi said.

Keep reading

New North Carolina Bill Would Legalize Medical Marijuana For Patients Enrolled In A ‘Registered Research Study’

A newly filed bill in North Carolina would narrowly legalize medical marijuana, allowing access for individuals enrolled in a “registered research study.”

Titled the Cannabis Treatment Research Act, HB 984 would allow patients and caregivers to register with the state, which in turn would permit legal possession of up to 1.5 ounces of marijuana. It’s sponsored by Rep. Julia Greenfield (D) and five other Democratic lawmakers.

The three-page bill would create a Cannabis Treatment Research Database under the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). To qualify for the program, patients would need to be enrolled in a study conducted by a hospital, university, lab, pharmaceutical manufacturer or private medical research company that is registered with DHHS and has entered a study into the state research database.

The legislation specifies no age limit for patients, but registered caregivers would need to be at least 18. As for qualifying conditions, it lists no specific maladies but mandates that patients obtain a signed statement from “a physician with whom the patient has a bona fide physician-patient relationship indicating that, in the physician’s professional opinion, the patient has a medical condition and the potential health benefits of the medical use of cannabis would likely outweigh the health risks for the patient.”

It’s not immediately clear how accessible the research-focused program would be in practice, though it appears that authors intend the program to be relatively open.

The measure states, for example, that it’s the General Assembly’s intent “that any physician who issues a written certification to a patient be permitted to participate in objective scientific research.” It also defines research broadly to include “the development of quality control, purity, and labeling standards for cannabis; sound advice and recommendations on the best practices for the safe and efficient medical use of cannabis; and analysis of genetic and healing properties of the many varied strains of cannabis to determine which strains may be best suited for a particular medical condition or treatment.”

In addition to legalizing possession among registered patients and caregivers, the bill shields from liability both research institutions and their employees. It also specifies that the identities of patients, caregivers and research institutions be shielded from public record, though in some cases it allows records to be provided to law enforcement.

The Democrat-led measure was introduced on Thursday in the House of Representatives. Lawmakers—including Senate President Phil Berger (R)—have said they’re deferring to the House on medical marijuana reform this session, but it’s not clear whether HB 984 is the only bill that will be introduced in that chamber.

Keep reading

Montana Lawmakers Pass Marijuana Bill To Set Zero-Tolerance THC Limit For Drivers Under 21

Advocates are warning that a bill passed by Montana’s legislature aimed at reducing marijuana-impaired driving by people under 21 would put younger medical cannabis patients at risk and criminalize minors who may have used the drug days earlier but are otherwise entirely sober.

The state House of Representatives voted on Friday to pass the measure—SB 508, from Sen. Willis Curdy (D)—which the Senate approved in early March. It next proceeds to the desk of Gov. Greg Gianforte (R).

Reform advocates are asking their supporters to urge a veto from the governor, noting that the proposal includes mandatory jail time for offenders and claiming that young drivers could be tested and charged after an accident that wasn’t their fault even if they weren’t impaired.

The Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) said in an email about the bill that it would create an “extreme standard for drivers under 21, making it a DUI offense to have any detectable THC or certain metabolites in their system.”

“It would criminalize sober young drivers who are state-legal medical cannabis patients, people who tested positive after using legal CBD products, and people who were exposed to cannabis second-hand,” the group said. “Since THC can remain in the bloodstream and urine days after its effects have worn off, this approach would criminalize and incarcerate young Montanans who are completely unimpaired.”

Karen O’Keefe, director of state policies for MPP, said the House passed the bill after lawmakers made misleading statements about marijuana legality among people younger than 21 as well as circumstances under which minors would be tested.

In floor debate, Rep. Steven Kelly (R) said that marijuana use is already illegal for people under 21 and that minors would need to exhibit signs of impairment—such as bloodshot eyes or inhibited speech—in order to be tested.

But MPP points out that Illinois’s medical marijuana program allows patient use by people 21 and under with a doctor’s recommendation, and minors can also legally use hemp-based CBD products that in some cases can cause positive THC tests, especially when screening for trace amounts.

The group also noted that nothing in the bill appears to actually require evidence of impairment, meaning drivers could be tested even if there’s no sign they’re actually under the influence of the drug.

“There is no need for this unjust, overbroad law,” MPP said in its email, adding that “Montana already criminalizes impaired driving,” including with a per se THC blood limit of 5 nanograms per milliliter.”

MPP also put out a call to action asking supporters to urge Gianforte to veto SB 508.

Keep reading

Massachusetts Couple Accused of ‘Kidnapping’ Their Own Five Children from State Custody

A Massachusetts couple is facing serious charges after allegedly kidnapping their five children, who had been placed in the custody of the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF).

Isael Rivera, 31, and Ruth Encarnacion, 30, were located by Fitchburg Police in early March, after a multi-state manhunt.

The couple is accused of taking the children across state lines in an attempt to evade DCF intervention.

Authorities believe the family fled Massachusetts shortly before the state attempted to enforce child protective measures, according to WCVB 5.
Rivera, the biological father of four of the five children, was arraigned last week in Fitchburg District Court. A not-guilty plea was entered on his behalf, and he is currently being held without bail, WHDH reported.

Encarnacion, the mother of all five children, is scheduled to be arraigned this week and faces five counts of kidnapping a minor by a relative. A not-guilty plea has also been entered on her behalf.

According to law enforcement, the family went missing just as DCF prepared to remove the children from Encarnacion’s care on February 27.

Encarnacion’s sister reported her missing days later on March 3, citing a lack of contact since February 26. DCF officially reported the five children missing on March 5, triggering a state and federal search.

Court documents indicate that DCF had opened a case against the couple in February after a pediatrician flagged signs of neglect involving the youngest child, a 9-month-old.

DCF intervened shortly thereafter, but by then, the family had reportedly left Massachusetts.

According to unconfirmed reports, they told their pediatrician they were skipping vaccines for their baby.

Keep reading