Mediaboss Marketing

You'd struggle to find an industry with a faster and more consistent long-term growth rate than the legal marijuana industry.

According to cannabis research firm ArcView, sales of legal weed in North America rose by 34% to $6.9 billion in 2016, and based on estimates from investment firm Cowen & Co., U.S. legal sales could reach $50 billion by 2026. For added context, ArcView estimates that North American black market sales totaled $46.4 billion last year.

Image source: Getty Images.

Marijuana's phenomenal growth rate comes on the heels of rapidly changing consumer opinions toward the substance, as well as an influx of investing dollars and government interest that wants a piece of the "pot pie," so to speak.

In the year before California became the first state to legalize medical cannabis for compassionate use, only 25% of respondents in Gallup's marijuana poll wanted to see it legalized nationally. In 2016, the same survey yielded an all-time high of 60% of respondents that would like to see it legalized.

Likewise, rapid growth in the industry is attracting venture capitalists, as well as state governments that envision marijuana opening up new revenue channels. For instance, the passage of Prop 64 (recreational marijuana initiative) in California is expected to add, at minimum, $1 billion in extra tax and licensing revenue per year. Considering California's penchant for running a budget deficit, this added revenue should be a welcome sight for state legislators.

But at the end of the day, pot remains a schedule 1 drug at the federal level, meaning it's deemed to have no medically beneficial qualities, and is therefore illegal. This scheduling means a mountain of obstacles for medical and recreational weed companies alike.

Image source: Getty Images.

As an example, marijuana companies are often unable to open a checking account or obtain a line of credit with financial institutions because they're selling a federally illegal substance. It's not that banks don't want to deal with pot companies, as there would be a presumed massive growth opportunity available to the currently underbanked industry. It's that banks ultimately answer to the federal government, and at the federal level marijuana is still illegal. Thus, allowing cannabis companies to open a checking account or borrow money could be construed as money laundering and expose any and all financial institutions participating to be fined. Plus, it also means marijuana businesses have to deal in cash, which can be a major security concern.

Another good example is corporate income tax. Marijuana businesses are severely hampered by U.S. Tax Code 280E, which disallows businesses that sell a federal illicit substance from taking normal business deductions. This essentially means pot businesses are paying tax on their gross profits instead of net profits, which leaves less money left over for hiring and business expansion.

Congressional lawmakers have repeatedly opined that they'd need more conclusive benefit and risk data from clinical studies to merit any sort of scheduling change on marijuana, but the Catch-22 is that its restrictive schedule 1 status makes running these needed studies practically impossible.

However, this Catch-22 may soon come to an end if Republican Tom Garret of Virginia gets his way. On Feb. 27, Garrett introduced the "Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2017," which would take marijuana off the federally controlled substances list, placing it on par with the alcohol and tobacco industries.

Image source: Getty Images.

Here's what Garrett had to say:

I have long believed justice that isn't blind, isn't justice. Statistics indicate that minor narcotics crime disproportionately hurt areas of lower socio-economic status and what I find most troubling is that we continue to keep laws on the books that we do not enforce. Virginia is more than capable of handling its own marijuana policy, as are states such as Colorado or California.

This step allows states to determine appropriate medicinal use and allows for industrial hemp growth, something that will provide a major economic boost to agricultural development in Southside Virginia. In the coming weeks, I anticipate introducing legislation aimed at growing the hemp industry in Virginia, something that is long overdue.

There are, in particular, two unique aspects about this bill.

First, it was introduced by a Republican! Polling has shown that only two groups oppose the nationwide legalization of marijuana: 1) Seniors by a narrow margin, and 2) Republicans! In fact, of the 22 states that haven't legalized medical marijuana yet, a good number of them are led by Republicans. The fact that a Republican lawmaker is suggesting that marijuana be federally decriminalized and rescheduled should tell you just how far things have come for the industry over the past two decades.

Secondly, unlike the similar legislation that Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced in 2015, Garrett's bill already has co-sponsors. Considering how strong the public's support for marijuana is, Garrett's bill may actually have a shot at working its way through Congress and at least being voted upon.

While Garrett's bill would seem to be a step in the right direction based on the desires of the public, it's still far too early to pop the champagne and celebrate.

Image source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Flickr.

Donald Trump, who during his campaign suggested that he would support state's rights once in office, has apparently backed off that approach. White House press secretary Sean Spicer recently noted that the federal government could be looking to step up enforcement of recreational marijuana in the months and years to come. No details were given as to how extensive this increase in federal enforcement would be, nor when exactly it might begin.

Also, Trump's Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, is clearly no fan of marijuana. While in the Senate, Sessions could arguably have been described as the most ardent opponent of pot. Though Sessions commented that he would follow the president's policies on marijuana during his confirmation hearings, it's pretty evident based on his past views that he doesn't support the expansion of marijuana in any form.

This essentially means that cannabis is continuing to fight an uphill battle, which isn't good news for businesses or investors who want to invest in these businesses. The industry's growth is clearly undeniable, but until there's a clearer path forward to decriminalization, investors would be wise to keep their distance.

The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

View original post here:
Say What? A Republican Just Introduced a Bill to End the Federal Prohibition of Marijuana - Motley Fool

Bernie Sanders has launched a scathing attack on Donald Trump, who he described as a "pathological liar" with authoritarian ambitions.

Speaking to The Guardian, Mr Sanders, who challenged Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination last year, said he believed Mr Trump's lies were an attempt on the President's part to "undermine the foundations of American democracy."

The Vermont senator pointed to Mr Trump's unsubstantiated claims about mass voter fraud in US elections and his dismissal of District Judge James LRobart as a "so-called judge", after he temporarily blocked the President's ban on travellers from Muslim-majority nations from entering the United States.

The President has also recently accused Barack Obama of wire-tapping Trump Tower, without producing any evidence to substantiate this claim.

Mr Sanders has been a vocal critic of the President since he took office in January. He recently described the revised version of Mr Trump's travel ban as "racist and anti-Islamic", and accused him of "stirring up fear and hatred against immigrants" after it emerged the President plans to regularly publish a list of crimes committed by non-US citizens.

Bernie Sanders: Trump is a pathological liar

Mr Sanders said that these statements were intended to discredit the media, politicians, and the judiciary, in order to give the public the impression that "the only person in America who is telling the truth is the President, Donald Trump."

He also used the interview to call on Republican politicians to join him in opposing Donald Trump in the interests of defending American democracy.

"It is incumbent upon [Republicans], in this moment in history, to stand up and say that what Trump is doing is not what the United States is about", Mr Sanders said.

Mr Sanders also said that "despair is not an option", and calledfor a grassroots movement, bringing together progressive groups from across the political spectrum, to oppose the President.

However, the senator, who is the longest-serving Independent in the history of Congress, also said the Democratic Party must accept some responsibility for Trump's rise to power.

"What we have seen over the last 30 or 40 years is a Democratic party that has transformed itself from a party of the working class to a party significantly controlled by a liberal elite which has moved very far away from the needs of the middle class and working families of this country."

Continued here:
Donald Trump is a pathological liar working to undermine US ... - The Independent

Common Dreams

How Progressive Cities Can Reshape the World And Democracy Common Dreams How Progressive Cities Can Reshape the World And Democracy. Published on. Saturday, March 11, 2017. by. OpenDemocracy.net. How Progressive Cities Can Reshape the World And Democracy. As national governments lurch to the right, a radical ...

Read more here:
How Progressive Cities Can Reshape the World And Democracy - Common Dreams

Paul Mitchell 12:16 p.m. ET March 11, 2017

U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Elk Grove, speaks at a town hall meeting about controversial Republican proposals in Congress and actions by President Donald Trump on health care, immigration and the environment, on February 21, 2017, in Mariposa, Calif.(Photo: Mark Z. Barabak/Los Angeles Times/TNS)

Substantive dialogue brings real solutions that achieve success.

Having an open dialogue between people of all beliefs is important but to truly make an impact it must also be a meaningful and respectful dialogue.

Sadly, this is not the reality we have seen time and time again as recent town hall events around the country, meant for any and all constituents, have devolved into rowdy media events.

Those whose aim is to disrupt, or to be the loudest, drown out those who want to participate in their government constructively through peaceful dialogue.

There is a difference between those who share their earnest concerns in a civil manner and those aiming to disrupt the free exchange of ideas by shouting down those with whom they disagree. Sharing ideas in a respectful manner is what democracy looks like.

Before taking office as the member of Congress for Michigans 10th Congressional District, I had spent a career in private business creating jobs. I was not a politician and I learned in business that shouting matches and meaningless theater achieve nothing. Calm, sober, substantive conversations and hard work are the only ways to find real solutions to challenges. I will work no differently in Congress than I did in private business. Focus on effectiveness and listen closely to anyone wishing to work with you to find solutions.

During my campaign, I participated in more than 700 community events. I answered questions about my position on issues such as Obamacare, tax reform and immigration.

By providing voters with clear statements of policy and by connecting with them in person, my campaign achieved convincing victories in both a hard-fought primary and the general election.

My congressional website and Facebook page reflect the same approach: Share with voters how I am keeping the policy promises I made during the election.

I am committed to having real and ongoing dialogue with constituents throughout my time in Congress. I urge all of my constituents to keep informing me of their views and positions, as they have been, and I will do my best to fight for better policies and better legislative outcomes.

U.S. Rep. Paul Mitchell

10th Congressional District

Dryden

Read or Share this story: http://on.freep.com/2mxime4

Excerpt from:
Respect, democracy go hand in hand - Detroit Free Press

Among the many different forms of government, democracies are unique in the extent to which their stability depends on legitimacy - a belief on the part of the public that the system of government in the country has what the late Seymour Martin Lipset called "a moral title to rule".

Moral assessments of political authority are always to some extent relative. People may not love their system of government, but it is important that they at least see it as better than any alternative they can imagine. Social scientists thus have increasingly been inclined to measure political legitimacy with Winston Churchill's famous declaration in mind: "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

With the defeat of fascism in World War II, and then of communism in the Cold War, and with the general decline of various other forms of military, one-party, and personal (strongman) dictatorships since the mid-1970s, democracy came to be seen globally as the one truly legitimate form of government. But there is a difference between popular acceptance of a regime in the absence of any immediate alternative and a deep popular commitment to its moral worth.

Dr Lipset, a leading theorist of American democracy, and other social scientists have also distinguished between what we call "performance legitimacy" and "intrinsic legitimacy". The former is more superficial: People support a political system because it works for the moment to maintain order, generate economic growth and produce other public goods. But the danger with legitimacy that is based purely on performance is that it can evaporate when the performance goes bad. A democracy is thus only truly "consolidated" when most of its citizens come to believe that the constitutional system is the most right and appropriate for the country, irrespective of how well it performs in any given period of time.

Dr Lipset argued that once democracies had functioned well over an extended period of time, they would build up a reservoir of intrinsic legitimacy that they could draw on in difficult times.

But what happens if "difficult times" last a very long time?

Political legitimacy has many possible sources. As German sociologist Max Weber wrote, legitimacy may be based on tradition - people see authority as morally right because it has a long and deeply rooted historical vintage. It may be forged by the personal charisma of a transformative leader; whether democratic, such as George Washington or Nelson Mandela; or autocratic, such as Lenin, Fidel Castro, or Ayatollah Khomeini. But charismatic authority is fleeting as it depends on a personality.

So to be sustained, legitimacy must be institutionalised through rules and procedures, what Weber called "rational-legal" bases of authority. People will obey rules when the rules are perceived to work fairly and well over the long run - or in the absence of any alternative. But in the face of an extended crisis of performance - for example, a protracted increase in economic inequality; two or more decades of stagnant or declining incomes for a large swathe of the population; or a broader sense of unaddressed threat to group identity and national sovereignty - much of the population may lose faith in the political system. And when that happens, a systemic alternative is bound to present itself. This can be the military, an authoritarian movement or party, or simply an authoritarian individual leader who denounces the system as weak and corrupt and who claims "I alone can fix it".

The ultimate guarantor of any democracy is that its citizens are committed to it unconditionally - again, independent of what it produces for them at any moment in time and of whether the party they favour is in power or not. A reasonable minimum threshold for democratic consolidation is that no less than 70 per cent of the public express commitment to democracy as the best form of government, and no more than 15 per cent of the public express support for an authoritarian regime option. This is a tough standard that is met by only a few democracies outside the West.

We have generally presumed that popular support for democracy remains extremely high in the established Western democracies. However, recent analysis by researchers Roberto Foa and Yascha Mounk, published in the Journal Of Democracy, shows that support for democracy in the US and Europe has declined over the last 20 years in almost every age group, and that the young are the most sceptical (with more than 20 per cent of those below age 35 saying that "having a democratic political system" is a "bad" or "very bad" way to "run this country"). Moreover, the percentage of Americans saying it would be good or very good for the "army to rule" rose from about 6 per cent to 16 per cent between 1995 and 2011.

More disturbing still, the percentage of Americans who answer that having "a strong leader who does not have to bother with Parliament and elections" increased in this same period from about 20 per cent to 34 per cent. Most of the countries surveyed by the World Values Survey between 2010 and 2014 showed similar increases. In fact, in all of the advanced industrial democracies surveyed in this period, support for a "strong leader" is at or above 20 per cent (for example, 21 per cent in Germany, slightly above 25 per cent in Sweden, Australia and the Netherlands, and 40 per cent in Spain).

Surely not all of the above surveyed citizens imagined that they were expressing support for non-democratic rule. But the real danger that the established democracies face is not an army takeover, or a blatant suspension of the Constitution by a would-be civilian dictator. The peril is rather the creeping path to autocracy in which a "strong" elected leader would seek to sideline or undermine established institutions and constraints - the Congress, the courts, the media and the political opposition. Then such a leader would not need to "bother" with constitutional constraints and could simply "get things done".

This is a playbook that has been utilised in the last two decades by a number of "strong leaders" who came to power in competitive elections and then proceeded to dismantle checks on their executive power - and eventually the ability of opposition parties to challenge them on anything like a level playing field. The early practitioners of this incremental assault on democratic constraints were Russia's Vladimir Putin and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. In the early 2000s, Thailand's Thaksin Shinawatra pursued a similar path, but the military overthrew him before he could consolidate power. More recently, Mr Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey and Mr Viktor Orban in Hungary have gradually strangled democratic pluralism in their countries. The Law and Justice Party led by Mr Jaroslaw Kaczynski is attempting to do the same in Poland, but it lacks the parliamentary strength to amend the Constitution to rig the system in favour of the ruling party, the way Mr Orban did in Hungary.

It is important to note that all the instances of "creeping autocracy" have been accomplished in political systems that lacked the long duration, deep historical roots and strong countervailing institutions that characterise the democracies of North America, Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Japan. It would be a much greater shock if any of these democracies were to succumb to the wave of (largely right-wing, nativist) populist authoritarianism sweeping through Central and Eastern Europe and several developing countries, most recently the Philippines since the election of Mr Rodrigo Duterte last year. In the long-established democracies, the institutional underpinnings of democracy are much stronger.

But institutions in the end are rules and patterns of behaviour that are perpetuated by people and must be defended by people. If people abandon the unconditional commitment to democracy as the best form of government, if they come to put short-term programmatic or partisan advantage above the most fundamental rules of the democratic game, then democracy will be endangered. Political polarisation, which has been steadily increasing in the United States, facilitates this slide toward the autocratic abyss, because it makes politics a zero-sum game in which there is no common ground uniting opposing camps. Therefore anything can be justified in the pursuit of victory. Over the last century, this dynamic of polarisation eroding the rules of the democratic game, paralysing the democratic process, and paving the way for a strongman has been a common scenario for the failure of democracy.

If there is a lesson that stretches across the history and the public opinion data, it is that nothing should be taken for granted. The laziest and most fatal form of intellectual arrogance is to assume that what has been will continue to be, simply because it has a long history. Legitimacy is nothing more than a set of individual beliefs and values. If we do not work to renew those beliefs and values with each generation, even long-established democracies could be at risk.

The writer is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies.

This essay is part of an Inquiry, produced by the Berggruen Institute and Zocalo Public Square, on what makes a government legitimate.

View original post here:
Are Americans fully committed to democracy? - The Straits Times