Laws
Why Cannabis Consuming Parents Need The Protection Of Child Welfare Laws
While societal rules are changing, people’s personal norms aren’t because if it’s acceptable to smoke weed outside, how do parents set ground rules at home?
As of the time of writing, 18 states and the District of Columbia have already legalized marijuana for recreational use. A majority of US states have also approved it for medicinal use. In these areas, it’s legal for adults over the age of 18 — parents included — to consume marijuana the way they would a bottle of beer.
However, the stigma is still there. The cultural bias can still be astounding especially for parents who need marijuana the most. Each state has its own specific laws regarding cannabis use though in many cases, it’s far too easy to charge a parent for endangerment or even child neglect if they consume marijuana and others suspect that their children are being put at risk.
While we’re living in terrific times — legal marijuana and all — parents must still think carefully and strategize around cannabis consumption. Whether or not your cannabis use puts your child at risk, it will depend on many things such as how conservative your social circle is, whether you act impaired around your child or not, and what your lawyer thinks. Unfortunately, there are many gray areas still at this time when it comes to parenting, child safety, and marijuana use.
There are many parents who have no problem consuming responsibly. After all, what ‘harm’ is being done when you smoke a few puffs when your kid is in bed? Then there again, there are also those who abuse it, and they give the rest of the responsible parents a bad rap.
Impact of Cannabis Legalization on Foster Care
Cannabis law can have a direct impact on child welfare, though there must also be laws in place that would protect parents. Several studies have shown that cannabis use actually reduces domestic violence at home, and can even have a positive impact on child welfare.
Earlier this year, a study appeared in the journal Economic Inquiry which shed hopeful light on the possible benefits that cannabis may have on foster care admissions. According to researchers, cannabis legalization led to a 10% reduction in foster care placement. They expect that this number could increase should the United States legalize marijuana on a national level.
The researchers hypothesized a few factors that could have contributed to the decrease in foster care placements. For one, cannabis law reform pushes states to update foster care policies to be relevant to the drug laws. As a result, amendments lead to a drop in incarceration since the antiquated cannabis laws state that children should be removed from homes if parents are charged with some marijuana possession laws.
Governments can save a tremendous amount of money from child welfare interventions if cannabis is legalized nationally. The study’s researchers estimate that the cost for one foster care placement is around $25,000, and a 10% decrease in foster care placements mean that 27,000 less kids would have to enter the system. This can save the government as much as $675 million.
More importantly, this means that children can grow up in safe, happier homes – no different than one of a sober parent provided that parents do so responsibly. Reasonable cannabis laws for parents would mean that households are more stable while parents still have access to the medicine that they need to function efficiently as both a human and a parent.
We can only hope that our state government can be on the side of parents. In California, for example, Governor Gavin Newsom just signed bills that would protect cannabis consuming parents.
Assembly Bill 2595, which was introduced by Bill Quirk (D-Hayward), mandates that California’s Department of Social Services (DSS) must update “all regulations, all-county letters, and other instructions relating to the investigation of a minor”. It goes on to add that if a social worker has to investigate an alleged case involving child abuse or neglect, the child’s guardian or parents’ use of marijuana should be treated in the same way that they would if the guardian or parent possessed alcohol or other legally prescribed drugs.
“As is the case with alcohol and prescription medication, parents and guardians should be allowed to safely and legally use cannabis without fear of having their children permanently removed from their care, provided there are no other concerns regarding the child’s safety,” says Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer (D), who sponsored the bill.
Higher Risk in Prohibition States
Parents who live in states where cannabis isn’t legal yet will have to face more serious risks. Child Protective Services (CPS) in these states are much stricter when it comes to parents consuming cannabis. The risk grows in proportion to how relaxed cannabis laws are in your state, but parents also have to comply with any state laws.
For example, even if you live in a state that has decriminalized marijuana, laws may not do much to protect parents if you consume recreationally and without a medical marijuana card. Again, it depends on the specific state: some legal protections exist in certain states.
It’s the job of family courts to make sure that the best interest of kids are always protected. Make sure that your kids can’t access marijuana in your home, and don’t accidentally see gummies lying around and ensure that you don’t blow smoke in their face. But you already knew this.
There are still blurred lines when it comes to what’s deemed as acceptable and what’s not; while societal rules are changing, people’s personal norms aren’t because if it’s acceptable to smoke weed outside, how do parents set ground rules at home?
The gray area is challenging at best though it would help if parents have more scientific and factual information about how to discuss marijuana with children at home — and specific guidelines to consume it when they need it.
New Mexico regulators fined a cannabis operator nearly $300,000 and revoked its license after the company allegedly created fake reports in the state’s traceability software.
The New Mexico Cannabis Control Division (CCD) accused marijuana manufacturer and retailer Golden Roots of 11 violations, according to Albuquerque Business First.
Golden Roots operates the The Cannabis Revolution Dispensary.
The majority of the violations are related to the Albuquerque company’s improper use of BioTrack, which has been New Mexico’s track-and-trace vendor since 2015.
The CCD alleges Golden Roots reported marijuana production only two months after it had received its vertically integrated license, according to Albuquerque Business First.
Because cannabis takes longer than two months to be cultivated, the CCD was suspicious of the report.
After inspecting the company’s premises, the CCD alleged Golden Roots reported cultivation, transportation and sales in BioTrack but wasn’t able to provide officers who inspected the site evidence that the operator was cultivating cannabis.
In April, the CCD revoked Golden Roots’ license and issued a $10,000 fine, according to the news outlet.
The company requested a hearing, which the regulator scheduled for Sept. 1.
At the hearing, the CCD testified that the company’s dried-cannabis weights in BioTrack were suspicious because they didn’t seem to accurately reflect how much weight marijuana loses as it dries.
Company employees also poorly accounted for why they were making adjustments in the system of up to 24 pounds of cannabis, making comments such as “bad” or “mistake” in the software, Albuquerque Business First reported.
Golden Roots was fined $298,972.05 – the amount regulators allege the company made selling products that weren’t properly accounted for in BioTrack.
The CCD has been cracking down on cannabis operators accused of selling products procured from out-of-state or not grown legally:
- Regulators alleged in August that Albuquerque dispensary Sawmill Sweet Leaf sold out-of-state products and didn’t have a license for extraction.
- Paradise Exotics Distro lost its license in July after regulators alleged the company sold products made in California.
Golden Roots was the first alleged rulebreaker in New Mexico to be asked to pay a large fine.
Source: https://mjbizdaily.com/new-mexico-cannabis-operator-fined-loses-license-for-alleged-biotrack-fraud/
Four marijuana companies, including a multistate operator, have filed a lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland in which they allege the federal MJ prohibition under the Controlled Substances Act is no longer constitutional.
According to the complaint, filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, retailer Canna Provisions, Treevit delivery service CEO Gyasi Sellers, cultivator Wiseacre Farm and MSO Verano Holdings Corp. are all harmed by “the federal government’s unconstitutional ban on cultivating, manufacturing, distributing, or possessing intrastate marijuana.”
Verano is headquartered in Chicago but has operations in Massachusetts; the other three operators are based in Massachusetts.
The lawsuit seeks a ruling that the “Controlled Substances Act is unconstitutional as applied to the intrastate cultivation, manufacture, possession, and distribution of marijuana pursuant to state law.”
The companies want the case to go before the U.S. Supreme Court.
They hired prominent law firm Boies Schiller Flexner to represent them.
The New York-based firm’s principal is David Boies, whose former clients include Microsoft, former presidential candidate Al Gore and Elizabeth Holmes’ disgraced startup Theranos.
Similar challenges to the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) have failed.
One such challenge led to a landmark Supreme Court decision in 2005.
In Gonzalez vs. Raich, the highest court in the United States ruled in a 6-3 decision that the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution gave Congress the power to outlaw marijuana federally, even though state laws allow the cultivation and sale of cannabis.
In the 18 years since that ruling, 23 states and the District of Columbia have legalized adult-use marijuana and the federal government has allowed a multibillion-dollar cannabis industry to thrive.
Since both Congress and the U.S. Department of Justice, currently headed by Garland, have declined to intervene in state-licensed marijuana markets, the key facts that led to the Supreme Court’s 2005 ruling “no longer apply,” Boies said in a statement Thursday.
“The Supreme Court has since made clear that the federal government lacks the authority to regulate purely intrastate commerce,” Boies said.
“Moreover, the facts on which those precedents are based are no longer true.”
Verano President Darren Weiss said in a statement the company is “prepared to bring this case all the way to the Supreme Court in order to align federal law with how Congress has acted for years.”
While the Biden administration’s push to reschedule marijuana would help solve marijuana operators’ federal tax woes, neither rescheduling nor modest Congressional reforms such as the SAFER Banking Act “solve the fundamental issue,” Weiss added.
“The application of the CSA to lawful state-run cannabis business is an unconstitutional overreach on state sovereignty that has led to decades of harm, failed businesses, lost jobs, and unsafe working conditions.”
The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed that cannabis odor does not constitute probable cause to search a vehicle.
If Minnesota police search a vehicle solely based upon the smell of pot, they can’t justify searching a vehicle, even if there is evidence found of other alleged crimes. Even after appealing a lower court decision to suppress the evidence—twice—the Minnesota Supreme Court agreed, and the dismissal of his charges stands.
In a ruling filed regarding a case the State of Minnesota Court of Appeals on Sept. 13, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed that cannabis odor does not constitute probable cause to search a vehicle.
The case has been ongoing for two years. On July 5, 2021, just before 10 p.m., a Litchfield police officer stopped a car for an obscure local law: the light bar mounted on the vehicle’s grill had more auxiliary driving lights than are permitted under Minnesota law. The officer asked the driver, Adam Lloyd Torgerson, for his license and registration. Torgerson, his wife, and his child were present in the vehicle. The officer stated that he smelled pot and asked Torgerson if there was any reason for the odor, which he initially denied. But cops found a lot more than just pot.
A backup officer was called in. The couple denied possessing any pot, but Torgerson admitted to smoking weed in the past. The second officer stated that the weed odor gave them probable cause to search the vehicle and ordered them to exit the vehicle. The first officer searched the vehicle and found a film canister, three pipes, and a small plastic bag in the center console. The plastic bag contained a white powder and the film canister contained meth, which was confirmed in a field test.
Torgenson was charged with possession of meth pipe in the presence of a minor and fifth-degree possession of a controlled substance after the unwarranted search of Torgerson’s vehicle.
Police Aren’t Allowed to Do That, Multiple Courts Rule
But the search had one major problem—cops weren’t searching for a meth pipe. They only searched his car because they could smell pot, and the meth and paraphernalia were a surprise for everyone. Still, they had no grounds to search the vehicle. The man’s charges were later dismissed after the district court determined the odor of cannabis alone was insufficient basis for probable cause to search the vehicle, regardless of whatever other drug paraphernalia they found.
The state appealed the case, but the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision. The case was appealed a second time, this time to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which agreed with the lower court’s ruling.
“This search was justified only by the odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle,” the Minnesota Supreme Court decision reads. “Torgerson moved to suppress the evidence found during the search, arguing that the odor of marijuana, alone, is insufficient to create the requisite probable cause to search a vehicle under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. The district court granted Torgerson’s motion, suppressed the evidence, and dismissed the complaint. The State appealed. The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s suppression order. Because we conclude that the odor of marijuana emanating from a vehicle, alone, is insufficient to create the requisite probable cause to search a vehicle under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, we affirm.”
It amounts to basic human rights that apply—regardless of whether or not a person is addicted to drugs.
Other States do Precisely the Same Regarding Pot Odor as Probably Cause
An Illinois judge ruled in 2021 that the odor of cannabis is not sufficient grounds for police to search a vehicle without a warrant during a traffic stop.
Daniel J. Dalton, Associate Judge of the 14th Judicial Circuit, issued a ruling in response to a motion to suppress evidence in the case of Vincent Molina, a medical cannabis patient arrested for cannabis possession last year.
In that case, Molina was arrested despite the decriminalization of small amounts of cannabis in Illinois in 2019 with the passage of the Illinois Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act.
In some states, the issue of probable cause and cannabis was defined through bills.
Last April, the Maryland House of Delegates approved a bill that reduces the penalties for public cannabis consumption and bars police from using the odor of cannabis as the basis for the search of an individual or auto. Under Maryland’s House Bill 1071, law enforcement officers would be prohibited from using the odor of raw or burnt cannabis as probable cause to search a person or vehicle.
The rulings represent the rights of citizens when they are pulled over by police, even if there are hard drugs involved.
New Mexico cannabis operator fined, loses license for alleged BioTrack fraud
Marijuana companies suing US attorney general in federal prohibition challenge
Alabama to make another attempt Dec. 1 to award medical cannabis licenses
Pot Odor Does Not Justify Probable Cause for Vehicle Searches, Minnesota Court Affirms
New Mexico cannabis operator fined, loses license for alleged BioTrack fraud
Alabama to make another attempt Dec. 1 to award medical cannabis licenses
-
Business1 year agoPot Odor Does Not Justify Probable Cause for Vehicle Searches, Minnesota Court Affirms
-
Business1 year agoNew Mexico cannabis operator fined, loses license for alleged BioTrack fraud
-
Business1 year agoAlabama to make another attempt Dec. 1 to award medical cannabis licenses
-
Business1 year agoWashington State Pays Out $9.4 Million in Refunds Relating to Drug Convictions
-
Business1 year agoMarijuana companies suing US attorney general in federal prohibition challenge
-
Business1 year agoLegal Marijuana Handed A Nothing Burger From NY State
-
Business1 year agoCan Cannabis Help Seasonal Depression
-
Blogs1 year agoCannabis Art Is Flourishing On Etsy