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

Poll: Who Should Be Elected Treasurer for the City of St. Louis in 2012

Nationally the battle for the GOP presidential nomination is ongoing but locally we will soon see a fight for the county-level office of treasurer. Monday last week I blogged that Larry Williams Should Not Seek Another Term as Treasurer. Williams has been in office over 30 years and so far he’s said he is going to run again.

This election can potentially have a big impact on the future of St. Louis. The candidates will be debating parking policy, related urban policy, financial management and possibly the idea of changing the city’s charter.

The poll question this week asks who should be elected treasurer in 2012. I’ve listed Williams and the three candidates that have announced so far: Ald Fred Wessels, City Democrat head Brian Wahby and State Rep Tishaura Jones. I’ve also included a choice for an “undeclared candidate.”

– Steve Patterson

Poll: Should Missouri Require Seatbelt Use For Back-seat Passengers?

Each new year brings new laws and 2012 was no exception. Residents on the east side of the region now face a stricter seatbelt law:

Illinois is the latest state to require back-seat passengers to buckle up. Twenty-five other states and the District of Columbia require all rear-seat occupants to wear seat belts, according to IIHS. All states except New Hampshire mandate belt use by front-seat occupants. (USA Today)

I’ve long been a seatbelt advocate, always requiring my passengers to buckle up. In the backseat of other’s cars I wear the seatbelt. But not everyone does and now Illinois is the latest state to require backseat passengers to buckle up, the goal to save lives. But some may see this as government going too far.

It was hard to find a good summary of Missouri’s existing seatbelt law, the following pertains to kids:

Missouri car seat safety laws require children under age four and under 40 pounds to ride in a federally approved child car seat that is appropriate for the child’s age and size. Children ages 4 through 7 who weigh more than 40 pounds but less than 80 pounds or are not at least 4’9″ tall must ride in an appropriate child car seat or booster seat. Children ages 8 to 18 must wear a seat belt. Missouri law also prohibits children under age 18 from riding in an unenclosed truck bed. (About.com)

According to Wikipedia Missouri requires people in front seats to wear seat belts. The poll question this week asks if Missouri should require seatbelt use for back-seat passengers.

– Steve Patterson

Best & Worst of 2011: World Series Win and Population Loss

Last week I had two separate polls asking readers to pick what they thought were the best & worst things to happen to St. Louis in 2011.

BEST

No surprise, the Cardinals 11th World Series win was the top pick among the best things to happen to St. Louis in 2011.

I’m not a sports fan but the civic pride after such an event is contagious. The second place item was the reopening of the Kiel as the Peabody Opera House after being shuttered for two decades.

I never saw the interior before the reopening, I was blown away by the beauty of the 1934 structure. Welcome back Kiel..er, Peabody. Here are the final results.

Q: Best thing to happen to STL in 2011 (pick up to 3)

1. Cardinals win their 11th World Series 90 [28.48%]
2. Kiel reopened as the Peabody Opera House 79 [25%]
3. Most public places became smoke-free 61 [19.3%]
4. Independent Scott Ogilvie elected to Board of Aldermen 20 [6.33%]
5. Pevely Dairy saved from demo 19 [6.01%]
6. Flying saucer (aka Del Taco) saved from demo 15 [4.75%]
7. Population loss not as much as in previous decades 13 [4.11%]
8. Cupples 7 saved from demo, although still at risk of collapse 7 [2.22%]
9. Other: 5 [1.58%]
10. Cardinals sign Carlos Beltran to 2-year deal 3 [0.95%]
11. Taxi stand removed from sidewalk in front of convention center 2 [0.63%]
12. Rams sold to Stan Kroenke 2 [0.63%]

The five other answers were:

1. Got a new job
2. Dorsa Lofts Sold Out
3. live music scene in STL is still AWESOME!!
4. DEL TACO, CUPPLES, AND PEVELY SAVED ; D
5. climbed the ladder to 3rd most dangerous city, Watch out Warez, your next!

Uh, okay.

WORST

The worst of vote also wasn’t a surprise, readers felt the population loss of nearly 29,00 residents on the 2010 Census was a downer.  The bad news came in late February 2011, as the US Census Bureau began to release 2010 figures for individual cities.  St. Louis’ official 2010 population was 319,294 versus 348,189 in 2000.

Q: Worst thing to happen to STL in 2011 (pick up to 3)

1. Population loss rather than gain 91 [37.14%]
2. Bob Cassilly died 74 [30.2%]
3. Albert Pujohls left St. Louis 31 [12.65%]
4. Redistricting 23 [9.39%]
5. Other: 10 [4.08%]
6. Most public places became smoke-free 9 [3.67%]
7. Rams sold to Stan Kroenke 7 [2.86%]

The ten other answers were:

1. we still have to many aldermen
2. Smoking by-law was much to weak. Should have been complete ban everywhere.
3. Aerostoplis didnt pass
4. Occupy Kiener Plaza
5. Continued deterioration in North City without a plan from the Mayor/Aldermen
6. Missouri’s special session dropped the China Hub and local control
7. Metro area homicides
8. Hostile state government: threats to tax credits, etc.
9. Add as a poll answer
10. tornados
11. Status quo remains unchanged

No doubt 2012 will bring both good & bad news for St. Louis. Let’s just  work to make the good more frequent and significant than the bad!

– Steve Patterson

Readers Not Fully Prepared For A Catastrophe

No surprise that readers aren’t fully prepared for a catastrophe, I know I’m not prepared at all — unless you count a rechargeable LED flashlight. Here are the results from the poll last week:

Q: How prepared are you for a major catastrophe?

1. Not prepared at all 19 [41.3%]
2. Mildly prepared 13 [28.26%]
3. Somewhat prepared 12 [26.09%]
4. Very prepared 1 [2.17%]
5. Other: 1 [2.17%] (yes, I do have a zombie survival plan)

Our federal government has an informative site you might find helpful:

Ready.gov has a variety of publications for download covering various topics about planning and preparation for disasters and emergencies.

Check it out.

– Steve Patterson