Pubdate: Fri, 18 Sep 2015
Source: Chicago Tribune (IL)
Copyright: 2015 Chicago Tribune Company
Contact:  http://www.chicagotribune.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/82
Author: David Freedlander, Bloomberg News

IN RACE, POT AN UNTAPPED POT

Advocates, With Cash in Hand, Await the Backing of at Least One Candidate

Hillary Rodham Clinton says she has never smoked pot, not even as a 
bell-bottom-wearing undergraduate in the 1960s. Her husband's 
administration went nuclear in the war on drugs. During her 2008 
campaign, she publicly opposed marijuana legalization.

But it's now seven years later, and the marijuana industry is a $2.7 
billion business - the fastest-growing in the United States - and one 
that operates without any legal sanctions in four states, is 
decriminalized in16 others and is permitted for medical use in a few more.

And now people that are selling, growing and, in some cases, using 
marijuana have money to burn. They want to give cash to politicians 
hungry for donations. But they want some answers first.

At an August fundraiser at the home of Democratic consultants Win 
McCormack and Carol Butler in Portland, Ore. a state that legalized 
marijuana in 2014 - nearly a dozen cannabis industry professionals 
paid $2,700 a head to get an audience with the Democratic 
front-runner and former secretary of state.

There, she mentioned working with Portland Rep. Earl Blumenauer, one 
of Capitol Hill's loudest advocates of pot legalization, on, among 
other items, "cannabis reform."

"We all cheered. We were all just so happy to even hear her mention 
the word cannabis," said Leah Maurer, a pro-pot activist whose 
Portland-based Moms for YES on Measure 91 organized around the 
legalization battle in Oregon last year.

When Clinton made her way through a line of donors, Maurer grabbed 
her hand and said, "Thank you for all the work you have done. I 
really need you to consider coming out in favor of reclassifying 
marijuana. It's an issue that no Republican is going to touch, and it 
would be hugely significant to your campaign."

"I spoke to Earl Blumenauer about that," Clinton responded, according 
to Maurer. "I am thinking about it."

Behind Maurer stood half a dozen other industry professionals and 
advocates, waiting to capitalize on their own $2,700 moment with the candidate.

But what did these pot industry professionals want? Some clarity, for 
one thing. The Obama administration has willfully turned its head 
away from the legalization experiment and the thorny interstate 
issues it has raised. And even though the industry has boomed since 
marijuana was legalized in Colorado, Washington, Alaska and Oregon 
over the last three years, the growing crop of pot entrepreneurs 
faces serious problems.

For one thing, marijuana remains a Schedule I drug, on par with 
heroin, quaaludes and bath salts, a classification that limits 
research of the drugs and forbids their use. (Schedule 2 drugs, like 
codeine, are acknowledged to have some medical uses and are available 
for research.)

Plus, those entrepreneurs want access to the banking system. For now, 
even legal marijuana businesses remain all-cash because many banks 
won't accept their money for fear of violating federal laws. Sellers 
and growing operations are also unable to deduct their businesses 
expenses like other entities.

Few advocates want the federal government to impose legalization by 
diktat; they instead want states to continue to be able to pass new 
liberties as they see fit.

And so, at a bare minimum, what the pot lobby wants from politicians 
this year and beyond is a commitment to let this state-bystate 
experiment that the Obama administration tacitly condones to continue 
to play itself out. The thinking goes that, much like the gay 
marriage debate, once enough states legalize marijuana, the federal 
government will have to adapt.

The presidential candidates have largely been reluctant to discuss 
pot out on the campaign trail. On both sides of the aisle, everyone 
from former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz to former 
Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley and even to self-styled socialist 
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders have been cautious, saying they would 
have voted "no" if they lived in a state with a pot question on the 
ballot but are willing to let the experiment continue.

The exception to this has been Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who has 
introduced a bill to end the federal ban on medical marijuana. 
Staking out the opposite position are Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and 
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who told a town hall audience earlier 
this year that residents of the legal-weed states better smoke ' em 
while they got 'em because, "as of January 2017, I will enforce the 
federal laws."

If anything, Clinton is a laggard, if a slight one. She has said that 
she wants to "wait and see" how legalization plays out in the states 
but has also told a television interviewer that she doubts the 
efficacy of medical marijuana.

"She is basically Ted Cruz-lite on the issue," said Dan Riffle, the 
Marijuana Policy Project's director of federal policies. 
Pro-legalization industry types, though, are sticking with Clinton 
anyway, for the same reason other voters are: They like her well 
enough, and they think that she has the best chance of being president.

If, in industries like law, finance or energy, corporate chieftains 
or their lobbying arms are weary of playing the political game, with 
its constant demands, cannabis industry types stand ready to fill the 
void. They not only have a wealth of major regulatory issues before 
the federal government, but also sound thrilled to be invited inside 
the gate for the first time.

"Feeling engaged like this is something that is completely new to our 
members," said Amy Margolis, a Portland-area lawyer who runs the 
Oregon Cannabis Political Action Committee. "Twenty years ago, to go 
out and meet Hillary Clinton and tell her you are a cannabis business 
owner? Are you kidding me? People realize that they can be a part of 
the political machine in a meaningful way, and that moves us forward."

Her PAC raised over $160,000 in the last election cycle, mostly 
during a swank fundraiser at the Leftbank Annex in Portland, and sent 
two dozen lobbyists to Capitol Hill earlier this year to buttonhole 
lawmakers on their regulatory issues.

"We are not the 'free cannabis for all' activists of 20 years ago. We 
are business owners, investors, lab cultivators, showing up in 
professional-looking suits and with the exact same talking points, 
saying we want to own a business in a state where that is allowed to 
happen," Margolis said.

The lobbying might of the industry remains small. It spent just 
$80,000 on lobbying in 2014, compared to the $24 million of the 
alcohol industry.

But the business is booming - up to perhaps $4 billion by 2016, 
according to The ArcView Group, a cannabis investment and research 
firm - and Margolis, for one, said she could easily raise $200,000 
from the Oregon pot business alone if Clinton committed to a fundraiser.

But if the pot industry is prepared to wrap its arms around Clinton, 
she has been far more chilly in response. A cautious pol whose 
current platform differs not one iota from the standard Democratic 
playbook, Clinton seems unmoved even by a poll commissioned this year 
by her own pollster, Joel Benenson, which showed that 61 percent of 
Americans favored legalization, with even larger majorities among 
exactly the kind of voters Clinton needs to excite in 2016 - young 
people, African-Americans and Hispanics.

For example, the Clinton campaign declined a donation from the 
National Cannabis Industry Association earlier this year, according 
to NCIA Executive Director Aaron Smith.

"Obviously, she is not against raising cannabis industry money," 
Smith said. "We have already seen some evolution on this issue, and I 
think we will see further evolution between now and the general 
election. You won't find any other sector of the economy that is as 
excited about being taxed and regulated as we are."

And so, without a warm embrace, industry professionals and advocates 
are forced to look for any glimmer of hope that Clinton is on their 
side, like her mentioning the word "cannabis" in a fundraising speech.

"We felt like she was teetering on the edge of taking a side on the 
issue," said Margolis, on the Portland fundraiser. "Like she was at 
least willing to have a further conversation about it."

Privately, however, others are hoping to move the needle further. 
When John Morgan, a major Democratic donor who has been partially 
bankrolling the medical marijuana movement in his native Florida, 
hosted Clinton for a fundraiser at his home, he pulled her aside 
beforehand in his kitchen. "I don't want to bog you down," he said as 
he prepared to launch into his pot legalization pitch.

"I expected that we would talk about this," Clinton replied, 
according to Morgan, and the two hashed it out for 10 minutes before the event.

"I will let her speak for herself," Morgan said. "But I made sure 
what her position was, and I left very satisfied."

Blumenauer, the Portland- area congressman, said he has discussed the 
issue with Clinton over a private dinner and in a subsequent follow- 
up phone call and has traveled to Brooklyn to meet with her campaign staff.

"She understands. She is sympathetic. (President Barack) Obama has 
moved the needle both in terms of his personal acknowledgment that he 
smoked in his youth, and his statement that it is no more dangerous 
than alcohol, and by saying that he has bigger fish to fry than what 
is happening in Colorado and Washington."

But, Blumenauer added, he was personally assured that Clinton "would 
be at least as good, if not better" than Obama on the issue.

But without a clear, public signal, some industry insiders say they 
are getting antsy. Chris Woods, the owner of Terrapin Care Station, a 
pot dispensary in Boulder, Colo., ponied up the $2,700 to attend a 
Clinton fundraiser in Denver with a half-dozen or so other industry 
professionals. There, Woods said, Clinton "at least acknowledged" the 
legalization experiment playing out in Colorado and elsewhere, 
without saying whether she supports or opposes it.

Asked why he and his colleagues support Clinton, Woods responded: "We 
don't support her. We would if she were more supportive of our 
issues, but we thought to show that the marijuana industry is present 
in Colorado, that we exist and are part of the economy and are creating jobs."

By the time the campaign season is over, he expects to max out to 
Sanders and Paul as well.

Even Morgan, a die-hard Clinton fan, said that, if another Democrat 
like O'Malley promised to decriminalize marijuana, "I would write him 
a big check."

And it would be good politics too.

"If he did that, he would pass Donald Trump's numbers overnight," Morgan said.

The candidates are unlikely to be able to duck the matter for much 
longer, however.

Legalization is set to be on the ballot in a handful of states in 
2016, including the swing states of Nevada, Ohio, Maine and Arizona, 
and a medical marijuana bill is likely to be on the ballot in 
Florida. For reformers, polls are encouraging nearly everywhere. 
Throw in Colorado, where a definitive majority wants the federal 
government to keep away from their experiment, and it's hard to see a 
path to the White House that doesn't involve spending some serious 
time in the groves of the legalization movement.

So why, then, are politicians, known for jumping to the front of the 
parade and acting as if they have been there all along, so cautious?

"Political consultants are trained to only play in the spaces they 
are comfortable in," Blumenauer said. "This is an emerging industry. 
It's not top-line, but, if you care about inequalities in the 
criminal justice system, if you care about the economy, if you care 
about personal liberty, it is one you cannot ignore."

Blumenauer said he has been a Clinton backer for a long time, but he 
echoed many reformers by saying she should "acknowledge that we are 
in the middle of a dramatic reassessment of the policy of prohibition 
and that that policy has failed."

"In places that have legalized, the industry is an embedded part of 
the economy," Smith said. "Voters rely on the industry to maintain 
public schools, and the exposure to the industry has shown voters not 
only that revenue is being generated, but that it is good for the 
community as well. Tourism is up. Crime is down. Everyone in these 
states knows someone who would lose their job if legalization ended, 
and they wouldn't want to see that happen just because of some 
politician's backward sense of morality."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom