Medical marijuana advocates want the DEA to quit fibbing about weed, Massachusetts pols say they may delay implementation of legal pot commerce, a medical marijuana bill gets filed in Texas, and more.

Marijuana Policy

California Roadside Drug Testing Bill Filed. After being defeated last session over concerns that field drug testing devices are not reliable, Assemblyman Tom Lackey (R-Palmdale) is back with a new roadside drug testing bill for the next session, Assembly Bill 6. Lackey says it's all about pot: "The ballot initiative passed this year to legalize marijuana will result in more marijuana consumers on our state's highways and roads," Lackey said in a statement. "It is imperative that we invest in a broad spectrum of technologies and research to best identify marijuana-impaired drivers."

Massachusetts Senate President Says Legal Marijuana Commerce Could Be Delayed. The successful Question 4 marijuana legalization initiative means pot possession, use, and home cultivation is legal as of December 15 and authorizes stores to start selling it in January 2018, but now, key legislators are saying that might not happen on time. Senate President Stan Rosenberg (D) said Monday there is "a strong feeling that we ought to be looking at the later dates, rather than the earlier dates."

Medical Marijuana

ASA Files Petition With DOJ to Make DEA Stop Lying About Marijuana. Americans for Safe Access (ASA) Monday filed a petition under the Information Quality Act with the Justice Department "demanding that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) immediately update misinformation about cannabis." Under the Information Quality Act, federal administrative agencies are required to ensure that the information they disseminate is accurate and objective. ASA says the DEA has violated the act at least 25 times.

Texas Lawmaker Files Medical Marijuana Bill. State Sen. Jose Menendez (D-San Antonio) Tuesday filed a bill to allow for the use of medical marijuana in the Lonestar State. The bill lists qualifying conditions and would allow for private dispensaries, but would not set amount limits. Menendez said that should be left between the doctor and the patient. The bill is not yet available on the state legislative website.

Law Enforcement

DEA Releases 2016 Drug Threat Assessment. The DEA has released its 2016 National Drug Threat Assessment, which emphasizes issues around the use of prescription opioids and heroin and warns about rising opioid overdose rates. The assessment also notes that DEA marijuana prosecutions are declining, but that more of the cases that are prosecuted are domestic, as opposed to Mexican marijuana imports. The assessment also reports declines in Mexican marijuana seizures in every border district but one.

Donald Trump wasn't the only big winner on Tuesday. Marijuana law reform also had a stellar night, with medical marijuana winning in all four states it was on the ballot and marijuana legalization winning four out of five.

Pot legalization won in California (Prop 64), Maine (Question 1), Massachusetts (Question 4), and Nevada (Question 2), losing only in Arizona (Prop 205), where a deep-pocketed opposition led by a hostile sitting governor managed to blunt the reform thrust. Medical marijuana won overwhelmingly in Florida (Amendment 2), the first state in the South to embrace full-blown medical marijuana, as well as in Arkansas (Question 6), Montana (I-182), and North Dakota (Measure 5).

This week's election doubles the number of legal marijuana states from four to eight and brings the number of full-fledged medical marijuana states to 28. It also means some 50 million people just got pot-legal, more than tripling the number of people living in states that have freed the weed.

 "This is one of the most significant days in the history of marijuana prohibition and this movement," said Rob Kampia, long-time head of the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), which was behind the legalization initiatives in Arizona, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada and which also backed the California initiative. "When four states legalize it, it's a big deal, and California is an even bigger deal. The next time we'll see a day as important as yesterday is when a president signs a bill to end federal marijuana prohibition."

A major question is whether Donald Trump might be that president. During the campaign, he suggested that he would follow President Obama's lead and not interfere with state-level marijuana legalization and regulation (roughly the same position as Hillary Clinton). But his political alliances leave some reformers less than sanguine about a Trump administration.

"Marijuana reform won big across America on Election Day - indeed it's safe to say that no other reform was approved by so many citizens on so many ballots this year," said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, which was involved in the California campaign. "But the prospect of Donald Trump as our next president concerns me deeply. His most likely appointees to senior law enforcement positions - Rudy Giuliani and Chris Christie - are no friends of marijuana reform, nor is his vice president.

 "The momentum for ending marijuana prohibition took a great leap forward with the victories in California and elsewhere, but the federal government retains the power to hobble much of what we've accomplished," Nadelmann continued. "The progress we've made, and the values that underlie our struggle - freedom, compassion, reason and justice - will be very much at risk when Donald Trump enters the White House."

MPP's Kampia had a more optimistic take.

"The positions of Clinton and Trump were very similar," he said. "We have no reason to believe Trump would escalate the war on nonviolent marijuana users in states where it is legal. States will continue moving forward, and we will see a string of successes in the future, as well as being able to implement the laws passed yesterday."

That remains to be seen, as does the chance that a Republican Congress will move in a positive direction on marijuana. In a Wednesday tele-conference, marijuana reform stalwart Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), pointed to three areas where congressional action is needed: reforming the IRS's 280-E tax code provision that bars marijuana businesses from getting normal business tax breaks, reforming Treasury Department regulations that bar financial institutions from doing business with pot businesses, and removing barriers to research on marijuana's medical efficacy.

"I believe the next administration will follow the policy of the Obama administration," he said. "We had strong support for legalization in nine diverse states, with more support for these legalize, regulate, and tax policies than for either presidential candidate. The people have spoken, and that will make it easier for us in Congress to build bipartisan support for this legislation. There are now 28 states where there are state-legal businesses having to pay their taxes with shopping bags full of $20 bills. We have growing support in the House and Senate to stop this insanity," Blumenauer said.

"I believe we will see action within the next two years to stop this discrimination against state-legal marijuana businesses," he prophesied. "Now that the playing field has expanded dramatically, including that overwhelming vote in Florida, which will become the second largest state marijuana market in the country, there is even more incentive. Some representatives are ambivalent or even opposed to marijuana legalization, but will serve their constituents."

But, as DPA's Nadelmann noted, even if Congress is favorably disposed to move in a positive direction on marijuana, the Trump executive branch is likely to feature staunch foes of marijuana law reform. Will advisors and possible appointees such as Chris Christie, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Pence push Trump to try to undo the spreading marijuana legalization movement? And will Trump listen if they do? We will know the answer to these questions only in the fullness of time.

In the meantime, voters in initiative and referendum states and legislators in states without the initiative process can work to create more facts on the ground, more legalization states. National public opinion polls—and this week's elections—show that marijuana legalization is a winning issue. And the more states that legalize it, the more ridiculous, or as Obama put it this week, "untenable," federal marijuana prohibition becomes. Even a Trump victory, with all the frightening prospects that brings, may not be able to stop the marijuana juggernaut. 

Marijuana legalization advocates have long argued that pharmaceutical companies, who could lose out if marijuana is legally available, are some of the staunchest supporters of marijuana prohibition, and now an Arizona company is making their case for them.

According to campaign finance reports posted online by the Arizona secretary of state's office, fentanyl manufacturer Insys Therapeutics has donated $500,000 to foes of the Prop 205 marijuana legalization initiative.

Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid several dozen times more potent than heroin. It has been linked to numerous opioid overdose deaths across the country, especially when mixed with heroin. Marijuana, on the other hand, has no reported overdose deaths -- ever (although the analogy isn't perfect, because Prop 205 is a legalization initiative, Arizona already has medical).

Insys isn't just any pharmaceutical company. Its sole product is Subsys, a sublingual fentanyl spray, and it has shown that it's willing to bend the rules to sell that product. In the past month alone, two former company employees pleaded not guilty to federal charges related to an alleged kickback scheme to get doctors to prescribe Subsys and Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan filed a lawsuit against the company charing that Insys hawked the drug to doctors for off-label prescribing.

Insys's "desire for increased profits led it to disregard patients' health and push addictive opioids for non-FDA approved purposes," Madigan wrote.

While Subsys is the only product the company currently markets, it says on the home page of its website that it is also working "to develop pharmaceutical cannabinoids." It's not much of a leap to wonder whether the company is backing the continued criminalization of marijuana users in order to protect potential market share for its products in development, and legalization supporters were quick to do so.

Responding to a query from US News & World Report, the anti-legalization Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy said it would not return the donation. Instead, it released a statement expressing gratitude for the donation and pointing out that Insys is an Arizona-based company, unlike the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), which backs the legalization effort.

The MPP-backed Arizona Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol responded with a statement from campaign director J.P. Holyoak, who laid into both InSys and the opposition group that took its money.

"We are truly shocked by our opponents' decision to keep a donation from what appears to be one of the more unscrupulous members of Big Pharma. You have a company using profits from the sale of what has been called 'the most potent and dangerous opioid on the market' to prevent adults from using a far less harmful substance. In addition to selling an extremely potent and dangerous opioid, they have been under investigation by numerous states and the federal government for the manner in which they have done so," Holyoak said.

"Their homepage touts their development of 'pharmaceutical cannabinoids,' which are synthetic versions of chemical compounds found in marijuana. It appears they are trying to kill a non-pharmaceutical market for marijuana in order to line their own pockets," he continued.

"Our opponents have made a conscious decision to associate with this company. They are now funding their campaign with profits from the sale of opioids -- and maybe even the improper sale of opioids. We hope that every Arizonan understands that Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy is now a complete misnomer. Their entire campaign is tainted by this money. Any time an ad airs against Prop. 205, the voters should know that it was paid for by highly suspect Big Pharma actors."

This article was produced in collaboration with AlterNet and first appeared here.

Before too long, when you sit down to enjoy your 2014 vintage Caymus Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon, you'll be able to pair your wine with a nice South Mendocino County Sour Diesel or maybe a Mendocino Covelo/Dos Rios OG Kush for a sip and smoke that hits all the high notes.

That's right, pot farmers in one of California's Emerald Triangle marijuana-growing counties are about to follow their brethren in the wine industry by seeking to capitalize on its reputation as a pioneer and still cutting-edge presence in American cannabis cultivation. As with Bordeaux in France or the Napa Valley nearby, the Mendocino Appellations Project wants the county's marijuana brand protected and promoted by designating denominations of origin that reflect both the county provenance and the distinct pot-growing microclimates that Mendo offers.

The first-of-its-kind project is riding a tide of local optimism not only about the future -- legalization is set to be on the ballot in California this year -- but also the present, now that the state legislature has belatedly passed the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA). Twenty years after voters first approved medical marijuana, the act will finally bring some clarity to an endeavor that has operated with many grey areas. It defines marijuana cultivation as an agricultural activity, creates state licensing requirements, and also makes it a crime to label or sell medical marijuana as grown in a county if it actually isn't.

These rules are similar to the ones that protect the state's wine regions, whose global reputations for fine wines are jealously guarded. But unlike wine, which is regulated by the federal government, California's pot's regulation defaults to the state under federal marijuana prohibition.

"You have a product coming out of prohibition, essentially. Marijuana growers are caught in a very difficult situation. It's a bit of a 'catch-22'. Even though it's legal at the state level, it's not legal at the federal level. They can't operate in the normal way by creating bank accounts and the like. Appellations will help show the legitimacy of what they are doing," wine legal expert Richard Mendelson told The North Bay Business Journal

Mendelson has played a key role in the development of Napa County's wine appellations for more than 30 years, and he's now lending his expertise to the Mendocino Appellation Project.

"Appellations can be really powerful because they can be a means to protect everything from the intellectual property, to the labor force, to the culture and history. They can be very rich vehicles for promotion, protection, and rural development," he added.

"Mendocino is the Napa Valley of cannabis. It is by far the most conducive place for outdoor cultivation," said project founder Justin Calvino. "Mendocino is a growing culture you won't find anywhere else."

Calvino began the project last year with a topographical map of the county, then proceeded to listen to growers and others in the industry. After surveying local farmers last fall, he created the appellation map, with 11 different micro-regions based on ecological factors, such as watershed and microclimate.

The proposed appellations are: Spyrock-Bell Springs, Covelo-Dos Rios, Long Valley-Branscomb-Leggett, Willits, Comptche, Ukiah Valley, North Mendocino Coast, South Mendocino Coast, Anderson Valley South Mendocino, Potter Valley, and Mountainhouse South Mendocino County.

"I like the way he's gone about it, because he's factored in not just the natural elements, he's gone out and spoken to growers, asking the old-timers what they think, and is making revisions. He's being true to the history. This is a template for the future, creating a dossier of physical and human, historical factors -- I applaud him for that," Mendelson said.

There are issues yet to be resolved, including whether to brand the name "Mendocino" or focus on smaller areas, the setting of environmental standards, and the thorny philosophical question of whether marijuana grown indoors can lay claim to terroir, a wine term that means the specific environmental conditions, especially soil and climate, that give a wine its unique characteristics. Can a crop grown with hydroponics in a controlled indoor environment have a terroir?

In any case, the adoption of appellations should be good for consumers and good for the industry.

"This is what makes wine so much fun for consumers, to experiment and to be able to go from the larger country and regional levels all the way down to the specific vineyard designation, and see, as a consumer if you can spot those differences and understand the effect of terroir on the final product," Mendelson said.

"Tourism is big. We want people to come out and visit our tasting rooms. We want the debate and the talk about our appellations, and which one does it better than another," he said.

Calvino also sits on the board of the California Growers' Association and has been asked to lead a group working on developing appellations statewide. He said he is looking a neighboring Humboldt County next.