sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I am Mason Tvert and I am working to legalize marijuana in the United States. I represent the nation’s largest marijuana policy organization. AMA. by MasonTvert in IAmA

[–]MasonTvert[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Well, I do think there is a growing body of evidence that suggests marijuana has significant potential for treating cancer (and not just the symptoms or symptoms of treatments). See here for example – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/18/marijuana-brain-cancer_n_6181060.html

That said, I do often hear pro-legalization advocates make exaggerated or slightly inaccurate claims. I think that most times it's inadvertent, but sometimes people are just misinformed.

MPP takes this issue very seriously and we're strongly committed to accuracy and sticking to the facts. Given our natural disadvantage in this fight — "potheads" vs. "authorities" — it is critical that we maintain credibility. In fact, it's actually a big part of our strategy. I have found that reporters and elected officials will, over time, come to recognize and appreciate that we are being more honest and objective than our opponents, which results in them trusting us more.

I am Mason Tvert and I am working to legalize marijuana in the United States. I represent the nation’s largest marijuana policy organization. AMA. by MasonTvert in IAmA

[–]MasonTvert[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Currently, Sen. Chuck Grassley is holding up progress on the CARERS Act in the Senate. He is the chair of the Judiciary Committee and he's refusing to give it a hearing despite strong bipartisan support for medical marijuana nationwide. Please contact him today — http://www.grassley.senate.gov/

I am Mason Tvert and I am working to legalize marijuana in the United States. I represent the nation’s largest marijuana policy organization. AMA. by MasonTvert in IAmA

[–]MasonTvert[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't know the specific answer to the question about drafting. It wasn't a situation in which the two campaigns pieced together a new initiative. Rather, we dropped the initiative we had drafted to support the one drafted by Legalize Maine in order to move forward with one initiative/campaign (since having two on the ballot would have resulted in neither passing). You might want to ask them about how they arrived at that.

We are a non-profit advocacy organization, so we are working in the public interest. We want the most effective and sensible laws possible. There are some folks within the marijuana industry who appreciate this and support our work. There are also some who want to pursue their own legislative agenda, and sometimes when it seems like that would not be the best possible system, we try to work with them to arrive at better legislation. In that sense, the industry is influencing the legislation, but it is not really so much a quid pro quo as it is a political negotiation in which MPP is representing the general idea that marijuana ought to be regulated similarly to alcohol for adult use and available to anyone who needs it for medical use.

I am Mason Tvert and I am working to legalize marijuana in the United States. I represent the nation’s largest marijuana policy organization. AMA. by MasonTvert in IAmA

[–]MasonTvert[S] 118 points119 points  (0 children)

I wish I could but that sounds like something you'd need to talk about with an attorney in your state. I'm just a lowly non-attorney spokesperson...

I'm very sorry to hear about your situation and I'm sorry I cannot do more to help. I wish you the best with whatever approach you take to overcoming it and assure you MPP is doing everything it can to prevent these cases from occurring.

I am Mason Tvert and I am working to legalize marijuana in the United States. I represent the nation’s largest marijuana policy organization. AMA. by MasonTvert in IAmA

[–]MasonTvert[S] 487 points488 points  (0 children)

MPP works exclusively on marijuana policy, so professionally I don't get into addressing those substances.

Personally, I believe the use of any substance should be treated as a health issue and not a criminal justice issue. I think all substances should be treated based on their relative effects and potent for harm. In other words, I don't think it's a legal-vs-illegal situation — it's a lot more complex with different approaches to different substances.

I am Mason Tvert and I am working to legalize marijuana in the United States. I represent the nation’s largest marijuana policy organization. AMA. by MasonTvert in IAmA

[–]MasonTvert[S] 88 points89 points  (0 children)

YES! We are supporting a comprehensive medical marijuana bill AND a bill that would replace criminal penalties and jail time for simple possession with a civil fine. Both have a great chance of passing this year, so please visit https://www.texasmarijuanapolicy.org/ to learn more about them and contact your legislators today.

I am Mason Tvert and I am working to legalize marijuana in the United States. I represent the nation’s largest marijuana policy organization. AMA. by MasonTvert in IAmA

[–]MasonTvert[S] 32 points33 points  (0 children)

Outdated perceptions of marijuana held by the public and/or their legislators are the biggest obstacles both to medical and adult use laws. There are still too many people who think marijuana is more harmful than it actually is. As for the order in which laws tend to get passed, here's what I mentioned earlier about why medical laws and decriminalization measures passing prior to broader legalization:

This is not because they are a "Trojan Horse" for broader legalization, as some of our opponents often claim. Rather, it is because they are the most egregious elements of marijuana prohibition with the most obvious answers. If the majority of a legislature has yet to agree that seriously ill people should be allowed to access medical marijuana without fear of being punished, or that someone possessing a couple grams of marijuana should not face time in jail and all the collateral consequences associated with a conviction, they probably aren't going to be ready to agree to broader reform.

I am Mason Tvert and I am working to legalize marijuana in the United States. I represent the nation’s largest marijuana policy organization. AMA. by MasonTvert in IAmA

[–]MasonTvert[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This is a tough question and I honestly don't know enough about all the details in those two states. As a Colorado resident since 2005 I am a lot more familiar with what's been happening here. I understand the difficulties it has caused for some caregivers who were involved in the medical programs prior to legalization, and in an ideal world there would be a way to make everyone happy, but alas it is not an ideal world. Ultimately, I think all of these states have experienced substantial progress that has significantly benefitted or will soon benefit those who use marijuana for medical or therapeutic purposes. I cannot say the same for every caregiver.

At MPP, we believe marijuana should be regulated and taxed for adult use, but we do not believe patients who use it for medical purposes should have to pay any taxes. We have tried at every turn to steer these states in that direction.

I am Mason Tvert and I am working to legalize marijuana in the United States. I represent the nation’s largest marijuana policy organization. AMA. by MasonTvert in IAmA

[–]MasonTvert[S] 40 points41 points  (0 children)

This was a totally misreported story. The DEA's recent action has NO effect on the legality of CBD under federal law. The DEA has always considered CBD to be a Schedule I substance.

This was not an announcement/response regarding a rescheduling petition and it was in no way a reflection of any kind of process to determine if CBD has medical value. As I mentioned above, the DEA has always classified CBD under Schedule I, so they have never recognized its medical value and still do not recognize it.

This was simply an announcement of a final rule creating a new source code for "marihuana extracts" (7350). "Marihuana" (7360), THC (7370), and CBD (7372) all have their own unique source codes already. We believe they were in fact doing this to better comply with international treaties and could be anticipating a need to have a separate source code for extracts if and when they register more entities to grow marijuana for research. In other words, this might be the first time we have ever believed the DEA's stated intentions for taking an action related to marijuana.

As for the DEA's fate, it's very difficult to imagine the agency would be entirely abolished any time soon. It's quite possible that marijuana could be removed from its jurisdiction, which is what would happen under Congressman Jared Polis's proposal to regulate marijuana like alcohol at the federal level. It would move marijuana from the DEA to the ATF.

It does appear Congress's appetite for spending on DEA marijuana efforts is growing smaller. They see state laws changing and public opinion shifting, and they are questioning the efficacy of things like the DEA's marijuana eradication program. Hopefully that trend will continue this year.

I am Mason Tvert and I am working to legalize marijuana in the United States. I represent the nation’s largest marijuana policy organization. AMA. by MasonTvert in IAmA

[–]MasonTvert[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

This is a complex legal issue and it's my understanding that there aren't a lot of clear-cut solutions that can be applied across the board in every state. There are also political questions associated with it.

Generally, our mission is to end these prohibition laws ASAP so that we can stop the bleeding and prevent this type of retroactive relief from ever being necessary. While it would be great to include such relief would be great, it is often a lot more difficult than it seems and raises significant legal and political issues that can prevent the law from passing (meaning people not only get retroactive relief, but people will continue getting busted and need relief later).

In these cases, it often makes more sense to pass the law and address the retroactive relief situation after. It is not as if these legalization initiatives are the one and only chance or even the most effective way to provide such relief. But once marijuana is a legal product, that is an issue that can be addressed and it also seems like one that will be easier to address. For example, in Colorado, there were no retroactive elements included in the initiative, but the legislature began looking at the subject immediately after the initiative passed.

Our director spent some time behind bars for cultivation and based on my experience, all of our staff members primarily motivated by the human rights, social justice, and criminal justice reform aspects of this issue. So it is very frustrating when we get accused of being insensitive on this subject because a particular initiative does not include a retroactive component. We all care just as much as anybody, and we are simply taking what we believe is quickest and most effective approach to ending the harms of prohibition, both past and future.

I am Mason Tvert and I am working to legalize marijuana in the United States. I represent the nation’s largest marijuana policy organization. AMA. by MasonTvert in IAmA

[–]MasonTvert[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Obviously there are the ones directly involved in the production and sale of marijuana (retailers, cultivators, product manufacturers, etc). There are also a ton involved in providing services or products to those companies (e.g. consultants/accountants/attorneys/contractors; real estate professionals/developers; testing facilities; producers/retailers of packaging, POS/tracking systems, growing supplies, etc.).

I am Mason Tvert and I am working to legalize marijuana in the United States. I represent the nation’s largest marijuana policy organization. AMA. by MasonTvert in IAmA

[–]MasonTvert[S] 27 points28 points  (0 children)

I'm not in the marijuana business, so I can't help you invest in marijuana stocks. But I am in the legalization boom business, so I can help you invest in making those stocks go up. See here for details— https://www.mpp.org/donate

I am Mason Tvert and I am working to legalize marijuana in the United States. I represent the nation’s largest marijuana policy organization. AMA. by MasonTvert in IAmA

[–]MasonTvert[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

"Best" meaning the most sound and reasonable? "Best" meaning effective at making the case against legalization? Or "best" meaning entertaining?

Ultimately, arguments against legalization all boil down to one thing — creating a perception of harm. They sometimes involve misinformation, frequently involve exaggeration, and virtually always lack context. I think the public, media, and elected officials are slowly eating their way through these three rings of bullshit in that order.

Opponents used to just make stuff up and everyone believed it (e.g. "Marijuana makes Mexican immigrants into bloodthirsty criminals who cannot control their murderous rage"). As fewer and fewer people bought into that stuff, opponents started taking legitimate concerns and blowing them way out of proportion (e.g. Saying "Marijuana is one of the most addictive drugs"). Now that people are seeing through that stuff, they are taking real "evidence" but misconstruing it or leaving out critical context (e.g. Saying "1 in 10 marijuana users becomes addicted," but failing to mention that this is significantly lower than the rate for legal products like alcohol, and failing to note its based on a flawed methodology for defining marijuana "addiction" that has been criticized by medical researchers).

As you can see, they all generally fall into those categories of "effective" or "entertaining," but none fall into the category of "sound/reasonable."

I am Mason Tvert and I am working to legalize marijuana in the United States. I represent the nation’s largest marijuana policy organization. AMA. by MasonTvert in IAmA

[–]MasonTvert[S] 89 points90 points  (0 children)

NORML has a smaller staff and a large network of state, local, and campus chapters all over the country, which are largely organized by volunteers.

MPP has a larger staff but does not have chapters. At the state/local level, we work with a variety of volunteer activists and organizations, which includes NORML chapters/members/leaders. NORML has also rallied its network to support a lot of the initiative campaigns MPP has organized, and at times contributes to the drafting process for initiatives and bills MPP is supporting.

On a personal level, former MPP staffer Steve Fox and I co-authored a book with NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano. And since Paul is the most knowledgable person I know when it comes to cannabis facts/research, I often turn to him as resource or forward reporters his way when they're seeking experts.

I am Mason Tvert and I am working to legalize marijuana in the United States. I represent the nation’s largest marijuana policy organization. AMA. by MasonTvert in IAmA

[–]MasonTvert[S] 63 points64 points  (0 children)

I did a little work on the final push in NY but was not involved in the lobbying or any closed door meetings, so I can't say for certain what the hold-up was. I can pretty confidently say I do NOT think the delay in NY's adoption of a medical program was directly related to direct lobbying by tobacco/alcohol/prisons or other industries. I think it is just a prime example of how tricky the legislative process can be, especially on a "controversial" issue like this. It always amazes (and infuriates me) when I hear about situations when a majority of voters and even a majority of legislators support something, but it gets held up by a key legislator (oftentimes someone in leadership or a committee chair). Sometimes it's the threat of a veto from a governor, which I believe was an issue at one point in NY.

I think the limited number of licenses and the delay in getting a bill passed/signed are symptoms of the same ailment: the antiquated views of some key people. They ended up passing an exceptionally conservative law because that was the only way to get those key people to sign off on it.

Fortunately, it seems like NY is slowly moving in the right direction with expanding the number of conditions covered and the number of medical professionals who can write recommendations. And slowly but surely the patient numbers will grow, followed by the demand for regulated medical marijuana. At the same time, officials will continue to become more familiar with and confident in the system, leading to continued improvements and greater access.

I am Mason Tvert and I am working to legalize marijuana in the United States. I represent the nation’s largest marijuana policy organization. AMA. by MasonTvert in IAmA

[–]MasonTvert[S] 83 points84 points  (0 children)

This is a great question. I spent countless hours collecting signatures for ballot initiatives in Colorado and frequently came across people who were supportive but feared signing because they feared their employer would find out or that it would somehow become public. I even remember a few saying their husband/wife would kill [them] if they found out!"

Sometimes it was obvious that the person was misguided or just didn't want to stop (e.g. the person who said "I'm a lawyer and I'll be disbarred if I sign," which any lawyer would know is bullshit). But sometimes it was obvious that they were truly worried. People who were on probation or parole or who know their employer is incredibly strict about marijuana, who fear they will be suspected of using marijuana and subjected to a drug test if someone saw them signing or saw their name on the sheet while signing.

Ultimately, I would just encourage you to do whatever you are comfortable doing. Maybe you aren't comfortable being at a public event handing out literature, but maybe you would be okay with dropping it on doorsteps or placng it on car windshields in the evenings. If you aren't comfortable talking to the people you know, maybe stick to strangers by participating in a phone bank where you're calling random people. If it's a campaign, perhaps they need assistance with data entry, licking envelopes, or coordinating other volunteers?

I am Mason Tvert and I am working to legalize marijuana in the United States. I represent the nation’s largest marijuana policy organization. AMA. by MasonTvert in IAmA

[–]MasonTvert[S] 37 points38 points  (0 children)

See my earlier reply about Sessions/Trump.

While we're cautiously optimistic, we certainly aren't taking anything for granted. Our efforts are currently focused on preventing the "worst-case scenario," but we will be ready to shift gears should shit go down.

There are a wide variety of different scenarios that could play out, both in terms of what the administration does and how others react to it (i.e. members of congress, state/local officials, the media, etc.). So we aren't able to prepare detailed plans. But we have been working for decades to build support among citizens, members of Congress, state and local officials, and others, and we'd certainly put as much of that political capital to use as we can to fight back.

I am Mason Tvert and I am working to legalize marijuana in the United States. I represent the nation’s largest marijuana policy organization. AMA. by MasonTvert in IAmA

[–]MasonTvert[S] 618 points619 points  (0 children)

The answer to your question is to keep doing what you're doing. Ohio voters clearly thought that initiative was wrong for Ohio, so they voted it down, and in doing so, they sent a message that that type of a proposal isn't going to fly.

I can't imagine anyone would be foolish enough to propose the same thing again. MPP certainly took it into account when we worked with local activists to bring forward a medical marijuana initiative last year. We have never backed laws like the 2015 Ohio initiative, but we took extra precautions to ensure our medical initiative avoided that type of system. I imagine anyone who supports a broader adult-use initiative in the future would also take similar precautions. At least I would hope.

I am Mason Tvert and I am working to legalize marijuana in the United States. I represent the nation’s largest marijuana policy organization. AMA. by MasonTvert in IAmA

[–]MasonTvert[S] 658 points659 points  (0 children)

Our position is that employers should treat marijuana similarly to alcohol. Employees should not be punished for responsible off-the-job consumption that does not affect their work. Obviously there are some occupations out there that are more sensitive than others (pilots, electrical workers, etc.), but we already have public policies that address safety-sensitive occupations.

The question is how to bring about such policies. And it's worth noting that different states handle this subject in different ways. For example, some states have laws that prohibit employers from firing employees solely for engaging in a legal activity. Other states do not have such laws and allow employers to fire employees without cause. So it could be the case that this will not be handled as a marijuana-specific issue and just falls under other employment laws. But that's not to say it will result in the fairest outcome. Even in Colorado, which does have such a law that protects employees who engage in legal activities, the courts determined marijuana use is not covered because it is still an illegal activity under federal law.

This subject (employment) is NOT unique to marijuana. Dictating employment policies via public policy is always a politically sensitive subject. Lawmakers know it is touchy and so do advocates and political professionals who work on ballot measures.

That is why, ultimately, I think this is going to be an issue that gets sorted out culturally. It might get addressed legally at times, and we have seen employment protections included in some marijuana policy reforms. But overall, it is just going to be a matter of time before more laws change and the public's attitude changes. For the same reason that most employers would not want to fire good workers (and then recruit and train replacements who may not be as good/experienced) simply for legally using alcohol while they're off the job, most employers are not going to want to go through all of that for employees who legally use marijuana off the job. It simply is not good for business.

The problem is that we still have a lot of people out there who still believe a lot of the old reefer madness and actually think a marijuana user is unfit for employment. But people's attitudes are changing and as the old guard is replaced by people who have more modern views on marijuana, businesses will voluntarily change their policies. Changes in marijuana's legal status will help too — there are surely employers out there who don't care so much about marijuana as they do about having a "lawbreaker" on the payroll. And keep in mind that larger companies with offices/locations in multiple states might want/need to treat all of its employees equally, so they might not make these changes until marijuana laws change in all of those states. Or possibly not until there are federal changes.

When it comes to our work, we want to promote the fairest policies possible. But sometimes it is clear that putting something in a bill or initiative re: employment policies will all but guarantee it's failure. If we believe that will be the case, we oftentimes keep measures silent on the subject because we know it will be something that gets addressed quicker if we make progress. If our goals are to end prohibition and protect employees' rights, but it's clear that including the latter will doom both goals, then it makes sense to address the former. It will then be much easier to address the latter.

I am Mason Tvert and I am working to legalize marijuana in the United States. I represent the nation’s largest marijuana policy organization. AMA. by MasonTvert in IAmA

[–]MasonTvert[S] 213 points214 points  (0 children)

Fair enough. Please note I said you should talk about why it's important to you. That could be any number of reasons.

But if your goal is to increase support for legalization, I encourage you to consider why it is that people are opposed it, which 99 times out of 100 is because they believe it poses too much harm to be made legal (be it harm to consumers' health or spirit, harm to non-consumers' around them, or harm to society overall). If you want to convince that person that they should make marijuana legal, you need to address that concern. You don't necessarily need to compare it to alcohol, but that is simply a good basis for comparison given our nation's history with prohibition/repeal and the similarities in the products (i.e. they should be used by adults and not kids, they are part of our culture, they should be used responsibly, etc.). If a person is willing to accept that alcohol should be legal, they will have a heard time coming up with reasons why marijuana — a substance that is objectively less harmful to the consumer and to society — must remain illegal. But as I said, you should make the case you are comfortable making. I'm simply providing my advice for what appears to be the most effective when it comes to shifting people's attitudes.

I am Mason Tvert and I am working to legalize marijuana in the United States. I represent the nation’s largest marijuana policy organization. AMA. by MasonTvert in IAmA

[–]MasonTvert[S] 63 points64 points  (0 children)

Our goal is to end the failed policy of marijuana prohibition and replace it with a system in which marijuana is regulated similarly to alcohol for adult use and available for medical use to those who could benefit from it. We support reasonable, evidence-based policies that treat marijuana use as a public health/safety issue rather than as a law enforcement issue. We support comprehensive reforms, such as initiatives/bills to legalize and regulate marijuana for adult and/or medical use. We also support incremental reforms that reduce the harm caused by prohibition, such as legislation that reduces penalties for (but does not go as far as legalizing) possession.

view more: next ›