Bonita “Bo” Money, founder of the National Diversity and Inclusion Cannabis Alliance (NDICA), is concerned that the administration’s stance is putting people of color who have been disproportionately prosecuted for drug crimes back in law enforcement’s cross hairs. “The real drug dealers are Big Pharma,” she said. “Now they want to target people of color in the cannabis industry.”
Smarting from Sessions’ opposition to state-legal marijuana in places like California, Colorado and Washington state, the new guidelines sent chills through some in the cannabis community.
“Mr. Sessions’ threat has the potential to destroy not only the state-legal cannabis industry, but more importantly, the lives of ordinary, law-abiding people,” said Michael S. Hiller, a New York-based attorney who sued Sessions unsuccessfully in a challenge of marijuana’s federal outlaw status. “If the state-legal cannabis industry were to be destroyed, millions of Americans who depend on medical cannabis to live would be unable to treat with their medication.”
Some players in the pot world said the attorney general was just grandstanding for his boss, but others noted that Sessions is the most powerful law enforcement official in the land.
“To not acknowledge the difference between a regulated cannabis business and a heroin kingpin is unfathomable,” said Adam Spiker, executive director of the Southern California Coalition, a cannabis business trade group. “We will stand up against these outdated, draconian policies.”
In a move apparently designed to appease President Trump’s recent promise to execute narcotics traffickers, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions this week released a memo urging federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty for “dealing in extremely large quantities of drugs.”
Adam Eidinger, co-founder of the organization, DCMJ, which pushed to legalize recreational marijuana possession in Washington, D.C., called Sessions’ memo part of the Trump administration’s “draconian ‘drug warrior’ policies” that “don’t work.”
Respondent also points to the 1999 Guidance document’s statement that “[t]he goal of this program must be to determine whether cannabinoid components of marijuana administered through an alternative delivery system can meet the standards enumerated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for commercial marketing of a medical product. As the IOM report stated, ‘Therefore, the purpose of clinical trials of smoked marijuana would not be to develop marijuana as a licensed drug, but such trials could be a first step towards the development of rapid-onset, nonsmoked cannabinoid delivery systems.’ ”  GX 24, at 2.
Thus, this “third incident” to which Respondent points involved an effort by MAPS to expand upon the research that Chemic had conducted on the Volcano—this time using marijuana directly obtained from NIDA rather than using marijuana obtained without the knowledge or approval of HHS or DEA. Id. Under MAPS sponsorship and oversight, Chemic so applied to NIDA in 2004. Id.; RX 52B. The protocol submitted by Chemic proposed to heat marijuana obtained from NIDA and from a Dutch “medical marijuana” program to three different temperature levels below its combustion temperature and to then “compare the quality and relative percentage of available cannabinoids” in the material obtained from each source. RX 52B, at 2-3.
Enhanced Content – Read Public Comments
The ALJ also reasoned that the marijuana Respondent seeks to grow would qualify under the Convention as “special stocks” and thereby be exempt from the “exclusive government’s right to maintain stocks.” ALJ at 82. Even Respondent acknowledges the ALJ’s error on this point. See Respondent’s Resp. at 12 (“[I]t is evident that [the ALJ] simply inadvertently referenced the wrong term from Article 1.”). The term “special stocks” under the Convention refers to “drugs held in a country or territory by the Government of such country or territory for special government purposes and to meet exceptional circumstances.” Single Convention, Art. 1, para. 1(w). Neither party is suggesting, and there is no basis to conclude, that the marijuana Respondent seeks to produce fits into this definition. 
Start Printed Page 2131
(2) That DEA need not keep the number of registered bulk manufacturers to a number below that which is consistent with maintenance of effective controls against diversion where adding an additional manufacturer is necessary to provide for adequate competition.
Yvonne C. Zimmerman offers a groundbreaking exploration of the relationship between freedom and sexual regulation in American anti-human trafficking law and policies. She argues that the religious values of American Protestantism have indelibly shaped the federal government’s approach to engaging human trafficking, and that the trajectory of the U.S.’s anti-trafficking efforts cannot be fully grasped without understanding the unique ways in which sex, morality, and freedom are connected in Protestant Christian configurations of morality. Zimmerman shows that particularly under the George W. Bush administration, the U.S.’s anti-trafficking project expressed a vision of freedom whose structure and logic is thoroughly Protestant. Her analysis challenges the assumption that combating human trafficking necessarily entails sexual regulation, and reveals the extent to which the preoccupation with sexual regulation has functioned to discourage alternative understandings and practices of freedom, particularly for women.
In Intuitions of Justice and the Utility of Desert, Paul H. Robinson demonstrates that criminal law rules that deviate from public conceptions of justice and desert can seriously undermine the American criminal justice system’s integrity and credibility by failing to recognize or meet the needs of the communities it serves.
“To date, knowledge of the everyday world of the juvenile correction institution has been extremely sparse. Compassionate Confinement brings to light the challenges and complexities inherent in the U.S. system of juvenile corrections. Building on over a year of field work at a boys’ residential facility, Laura S. Abrams and Ben Anderson-Nathe provide a context for contemporary institutions and highlight some of the system’s most troubling tensions.
“Human trafficking has captured worldwide attention as a crucial moral and political issue, but perhaps nowhere more than in the United States. Since they were signed into law in 2000, U.S. federal laws and policies on human trafficking have been understood as concrete expressions of the civic values of personal and political freedom. Yet these policies have also been characterized by a marked preoccupation with regulation, and especially sexual regulation.
“Human trafficking constitutes one of the most serious human rights violations of our time. However, many social work practitioners still have a poor and incomplete understanding of the experiences of children and young people who have been trafficked. In Trafficked Young People, the authors call for a more sophisticated, informed and better developed understanding of the range of issues facing trafficked young people.
“In the UK the number of people who came from a minority ethnic group grew by 53 per cent between 1991 and 2001, from 3.0 million in 1991 to 4.6 million in 2001. Whilst much has been written about the impact of these demographic changes in relation to policy issues, black and minority women and children remain under-researched. Recent publications have tended to focus on South Asian women, forced marriage and ‘honour’ related violence.
The author interviewed more than 100 racial and ethnic minority citizens. Citing 87 of these cases, the book examines each individual case and employs a rigorous qualitative phenomenological method to develop dominant themes and determine their associated meaning. Through an exploration of these themes, we can learn: