Poll: Should Cannabis Be Removed From The Missouri Statutes List Of Controlled Substances

A group, Show-Me Cannabis Regulation, is collecting signatures to place a proposed amendment to  the Missouri constitution on the November 2012 ballot. With legal marijuana dispensaries in some cities the topic seemed like a good subject for a weekly poll (see right sidebar).

The following is the text that will be on the the ballot if they collect about 150,000 signatures by May 6, 2012 (source):

Be it resolved by the people of the state of Missouri that the Constitution be amended:

1. Cannabis shall immediately be removed from the Missouri Revised Statutes list of controlled substances and shall no longer be listed among Missouri’s drug schedules.

2. Definition of terms, as used in this Act:
(a) “cannabis” and “cannabis hemp” refer to the natural, non genetically modified plant hemp, cannabis, marihuana, marijuana, cannabis sativa L, cannabis americana, cannabis chinensis, cannabis indica, cannabis ruderalis, cannabis sativa, or any variety of cannabis, including any derivative, concentrate, extract, flower, leaf, particle, preparation, resin, root, salt, seed, stalk, stem, or any product thereof.
(b) “agricultural hemp” and “agricultural cannabis” means all products made from cannabis hemp with a THC content of less than one percent.
(c) “medical cannabis” means all products made from cannabis that are designed, intended, or used for the treatment of any human disease or condition.
(d) “adult use” and “personal adult use” refer to the non-medical consumption of cannabis with greater than 1% THC by persons twenty-one years of age or older.
(e) “cannabis accessories” means any equipment, products, or materials of any kind which are used, intended for use, or designed for use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging, storing, vaporizing, or containing cannabis, or for ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing cannabis into the human body.
(f) “Department” means the Department of Health and Senior Services or its successor agency.
(g) “cannabis establishment” means a cannabis cultivation facility, a cannabis testing facility, a cannabis product manufacturing facility, or a retail cannabis store or other entity licensed to cultivate, prepare, manufacture, package, transport or sell cannabis, cannabis products and cannabis accessories.
(h) “impairment” means the inability of a person to safely perform functional tasks associated with his or her job or with driving due to the influence of alcohol or other drugs.

3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the following acts are not unlawful and shall not be an offense under Missouri law or be a basis for seizure or forfeiture of assets under Missouri law for persons twenty-one years of age or older:
(a) Possession of cannabis for personal adult use by persons twenty-one years of age or older.
(b) Cultivating cannabis that is not intended for resale within an area measuring ten feet by ten feet for personal adult use, or in an area sufficient to produce the quantity necessary to address a patient’s medical needs under the recommendation of a physician.
(c) Cultivating, harvesting, processing, manufacturing, packaging, distributing, transferring, displaying or possessing cannabis, cannabis accessories, and cannabis products for commercial purposes providing the person has a current, valid license to operate a cannabis establishment or is acting in his or her capacity as an owner, employee or agent of a licensed cannabis establishment.
(d) Providing cannabis, cannabis accessories, and cannabis products for sale to consumers twenty-one years of age or older for personal adult use if the person conducting the activities described in this paragraph has obtained a current, valid license to operate a retail cannabis store or is acting in his or her capacity as an owner, employee or agent of a licensed retail cannabis store.
(e) Leasing or otherwise allowing the use of property owned, occupied or controlled by any person, corporation or other entity for any of the activities conducted lawfully in accordance with paragraphs (a) through (d) of this subsection.

4. Medical cannabis shall be available to patients who have a physician’s recommendation.
(a) All patients engaged in cannabis therapy shall be afforded the same rights and privileges afforded to any patient treated through other pharmaceutical means.
(b) Cannabis acquisition, possession, and consumption shall be permitted to patients under the age of twenty-one with the consent of a parent or legal guardian and through the supervision of a parent or legal custodian and a licensed physician.
(c) Licensed physicians shall not be penalized for nor restricted from recommending cannabis for medical purposes to any person.
(d) Opinions pertaining to, and willingness to recommend medical cannabis therapy shall not be a criteria for the licensure of physicians; no physician shall be subject to any professional licensing review or hearing as a result of recommending or approving medical cannabis therapy.
(e) Any individual who is a legal cannabis patient in another state shall be granted the same rights and privileges as a legal Missouri cannabis patient.
(f) Medical care, including organ transplants, shall not be restricted in any way based on a person’s use of cannabis.

5. Not later than February 1, 2013, the Department shall adopt regulations necessary for implementation of this section.
(a) All regulations and rules imposed by the Department or any other agency of government shall meet a standard of strict scrutiny as to whether they further the goals of this Act and must be narrowly tailored to meet those goals. Such regulations shall include:
(i) Procedures for the issuance, renewal, suspension, and revocation of a license to operate a cannabis establishment;
(ii) A schedule of application, licensing and renewal fees;
(iii) Qualifications for licensure that are directly and demonstrably related to the operation of a cannabis establishment;
(iv) Security requirements for cannabis establishments;
(v) Civil penalties for the failure to comply with regulations made pursuant to this section;
(vi) The Department shall not require a consumer to provide a retail cannabis store with personal information other than identification to determine the consumer’s age, and a retail cannabis store shall not be required to acquire and record personal information about consumers other than information typically acquired in a financial transaction conducted at a retail liquor store.
(b) Each application for an annual license to operate a cannabis establishment shall be submitted to the department. The department shall: 

(i) Begin accepting and processing applications on July 1, 2013;

(ii) Immediately forward a copy of each application and half of the license application fee to the county, municipality or city and county in which the applicant desires to operate the cannabis establishment;
(iii) Issue an annual license to the applicant between forty-five and ninety days after receipt of an application unless the department finds the applicant is not in compliance with regulations enacted pursuant to paragraph   (a);
(iv) Upon denial of an application, notify the applicant of the specific reason for its denial.
(c) Retail cannabis products for medical or adult use shall contain appropriate labeling, which outlines the weight and estimated potency of the product, lists all pesticides used in production, and summarizes the safe and effective use of cannabis. Labels shall not be promotional, false or misleading, and should be based on data derived from scientific study and prevailing human experience.

6. Nothing in this section shall:
(a) Require an employer to retain an employee who is impaired on the job by his use of cannabis.
(b) Permit operation of a motor vehicle by anyone who is impaired by cannabis.
(c) Permit the transfer or sale of cannabis intended for adult use to a person younger than twenty-one years of age.
(d) Forbid any individual or corporate property owner from prohibiting the distribution, sale or cultivation of cannabis within their dwelling.

7. Upon the passage of this Act, all persons incarcerated or under supervision of the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole for non-violent, cannabis-only offenses which are no longer illegal in the State of Missouri under this Act shall be immediately released.
(a) The Court shall order the immediate expungement of civil and criminal records pertaining to non-violent cannabis only offenses which are no longer illegal in the State of Missouri under this Act.
(b) Within 120 days of the passage of this Act, the Attorney General shall develop and make available to the public an application providing for the destruction of all cannabis-related civil and criminal records in Missouri and for any offense covered by this statute. These applications shall be distributed to all Circuit Court clerks within the State.

8. The Missouri General Assembly may enact a tax of up to $100 per pound of dried cannabis to be levied upon cannabis which is sold solely for personal adult use at the retail
level.

9. No Missouri law enforcement personnel or state funds shall be used to assist or aid and abet in the enforcement of federal cannabis laws involving acts which are no longer illegal in the State of Missouri under this statute.

10. Any person who willfully impedes the lawful exercise of these provisions is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

11. Commercial and agricultural cannabis farmers, manufacturers, processors, and distributors shall not be subject to any special zoning requirement, licensing fee, or tax that is excessive, discriminatory, or prohibitive, or in any way significantly different from any other commercial or agricultural farmer, manufacturer, processor or distributor.

12. No person twenty-one years of age or older shall be arrested or prosecuted, nor be subject to any criminal penalties for the possession, cultivation, distribution, or consumption of cannabis.

13. Pursuant to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the people of Missouri hereby repudiate and challenge federal cannabis prohibitions that conflict with this Act.

14. Severability: If any provision of this Act or the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, shall be held invalid by any court, the remainder of this Act, to the extent it can be given effect, or the application of such provisions to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable.

15. Construction: If any rival or conflicting initiative regulating any matter addressed by this act receives the higher affirmative vote, then all non-conflicting parts shall become operative.

16. All provisions of this section are self-executing and severable, and, except where otherwise indicated in the text, shall supersede conflicting state or federal statutory, local charter, ordinance, or resolution, and other federal, state and local provisions

St. Louis More An Island Than I Thought

I often find myself arguing that St. Louis isn’t so different from the rest of the country, other regions encounter the same problems we face. But then I see data that shows we are different in one respect.

Here in the St. Louis region and surrounding area we call soft drinks “soda” while those to the north say “pop” and to the south “coke”. The data from this map is from 2003 so it’s possible our region’s term for a soft drink it part of a larger area, but my guess is we are still a “soda” island.

 – Steve Patterson

Winners of the Laurel Apartment’s Lovin the Lou Contest

Last night winners were finally announced in the Lovin the Lou contest:

The Laurel Apartments is asking St. Louisans to show them why they love St. Louis in a ‘Lovin the Lou Video Contest’ beginning July 8th. The prize for the most love (and a little creativity and video savvy) is Free Rent For A Year at the Laurel Apartments in Downtown’s Mercantile Exchange District!

Contest Details

The Laurel Apartments will run a city-wide ‘Lovin the Lou’ video contest for an incredible opportunity to live rent-free for one year at The Laurel Apartments in Downtown St. Louis. The winner will also be the featured blogger on the’ Lovin the Lou Blog’ which will chronicle their crazy cool adventures and experiences around their new neighborhood in Downtown St. Louis.

This contest is an effort to identify what makes St. Louis unique and remarkable and to find the next ambassador for St. Louis. The Laurel Apartments is asking St. Louisans to submit a 2-minute video that captures how they are Lovin the Lou!

“We want to showcase the people and character that make St. Louis, especially downtown, a great place to live and work,” said Melissa DeCicco, Marketing Director for Mills Properties, “We know it’s fabulous, but it is time for us to show and tell!”

I served as one of the judges in the contest, along with Jeff Vines (STL_Style), Bill Streeter (Brick by Chance and Fortune) and developer Amos Harris.  I can tell you it was not easy to pick the final winners, but we did come to agreement:

Grand Prize Winner –  Finding You in the Lou, Ria & husband

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSki_EZgzmY

Second Place Winner –  Love in the Lou, Mike & Tabitha

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iYowBe_Hnk

Best Use of Music – A Day in the Lou, Dana Kay Goddard

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khtPX8ZYODI

Best Guest Appearance –  Becky Shows us St. Louis, Becky

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwE47VCAUhU

Best Use of Food – Get a Taste of Lee’s Cookies, Lee

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSpS5c3DlZ8

Best STL Style –  St. Louis Social Scene, Jessie & Red October in the Lou, The Ropers

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KobwYGOx0jQ

Fan Favorite – Our Kinda Town, Jenna & Todd

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8U7F1VXbrM

Honarable mentions: The Real Lou, Shaun

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgP-daCfIdo

& Andy Rocks St. Louis, Andy

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w8mdquAKLY

The above awards were presented at a bonfire in the center courtyard of the Laurel Apartments last night.

Congrats to all the winners.

– Steve Patterson

Why Does MoDOT Keep Closing I-64 in Downtown St. Louis?

For weeks (months?) now I’ve been hearing on the news about MoDOT closing I-64 (hwy 40) for repair work.

I went to MoDOT’s St. Louis website and found this under “planning/future projects”:

The I-64 double deck approach to the Poplar Street Bridge extends from 21st Street to the bridge. This structure is in a double deck configuration from approximately 14th Street to Broadway. The bridge was opened to traffic in November 1967 and is over 43 years old. The double deck needs to be rehabilitated to ensure a longer lifespan. The expansion joints in between the bridge decks also need to be replaced because they are in poor condition due to age. (MoDOT)

But this future work sounds like what’s being done currently.

Under “current work” I found this:

11th Street Exit Ramp on Eastbound Interstate 64

*Updated on June 13, 2011

Below is a schedule for the 11th Street exit ramp on eastbound I-64:

• The ramp will continue to close from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. on each weekday (Monday – Friday). It will open every weekday for morning and evening rush-hour times.
• As of now, this will continue throughout 2011. If there are any changes to this schedule, MoDOT will immediately inform motorists.
• The construction that is being done at the 11th Street exit ramp right now is on I-64 between 21st Street and the Poplar Street Bridge. Crews are performing earthquake seismic retrofit work to maintain the I-64 double deck bridge since it has deteriorated significantly.
• Work on and under the 11th Street ramp is just a portion of this overall project. Over the last ten years, various work has been completed in an effort to earthquake strengthen and to keep I-64 in service for the future.
• Various evening and weekend closures on I-64 will continue throughout 2011. MoDOT will keep motorists informed of new updates and lane closures expected to take place in the near future.

This current project was last updated in June of last year? Nice to see MoDOT working hard to keep the public informed.

– Steve Patterson

Readers: LGBT-Friendly Establishments Shouldn’t Be Pressured To Locate In The Gayborhood

The poll last week was interesting to watch, I’d wanted to do such a poll question for a long time but didn’t have a good reason. The new Hamburger Mary’s opening up in an area other than our gay village, The Grove, was a good excuse to do so. Here were the results:

Q: Should new LGBT-friendly places like Hamburger Mary’s locate within The Grove ‘Gayborhood’ or anywhere?

1. Anywhere — no need to segregate LGBT businesses 89 [65.93%]
2. Either is OK 26 [19.26%]
3. In the gayborhood — strength in numbers 11 [8.15%]
4. Other: 6 [4.44%]  — these are listed at the end of this post
5. Unsure/no opinion 3 [2.22%]

Of course we shouldn’t force segregation but minority populations tend to self-segregate, including the LGBT population (of which I’m a part). There is something comforting about going to an area, walking down the sidewalk, and for once you aren’t the minority. To the person just coming out such a place is very comforting.

The Castro in San Francisco is such a place:

The Castro is one of the United States’ first and best-known gay neighborhoods, and it is currently its largest. Having transformed from a working-class neighborhood through the 1960s and 1970s, the Castro remains a symbol and source of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) activism and events.

Chicago has Boystown, NYC has Christopher Street (and many more):

Many have worked to strengthen the LGBT credentials of The Grove and they think a high profile establishment like Hamburger Mary’s should build upon the other LGBT-friendly establishments rather than divide. I fall into the “either” viewpoint. It’s ok if a new business wants to be a part of the gay village and it’s ok if they don’t. But here’s a fun twist — substitute “arts & entertainment” for “LGBT-friendly” and ask yourself if you feel the same way.

The six “other” answers supplied by readers were:

1. Why would we tell any LGBT-owned business where they have to locate?
2. nowhere!
3. In the closet
4. I’ve heard Tower Grove South is gayborhood, true?
5. The grove is dead. Midtown is on the rise. Theymade the right decision.
6. Wherever they want to.

I guess I had to expect a couple of answers like #2 & #3. To #4, yes South Grand is on the list of gay villages in Missouri.

– Steve Patterson