Rehab For Marijuana: Does Your Kid Need To Get Off Weed?

The Fresh Toast , Benzinga Contributor

By The Fresh Toast's Mike Adams, provided exclusively to Benzinga Cannabis.

For families that are not well versed in the ways of the cannabis plant, it is conceivable that some moms and dads may see junior’s pot use as a gateway to harder drugs.

Although most Americans would vote for marijuana legalization at the national level if it were put to the vote, some parents are still frightened by the idea that their children could be negatively impacted by such a thing. All they keep hearing about is how the drug epidemic in this country is spiraling out of control. How millions of people are now addicted to drugs and that tens of thousands of them every year are dropping dead from overdoses. It’s a horror show out there if we’re honest.

For those families that are not well versed in the ways of the cannabis plant, it is conceivable that some moms and dads may see junior’s pot use as a gateway to harder drugs. There are even some that do not understand how marijuana is any less dangerous than drugs like cocaine or heroin. After all, the federal government says it’s basically the same thing.


Studies have suggested that teens’ perception of risk in these products is influenced by flavor.
| Photo by Diego Cervo/Shutterstock.com

So parents may go rifling through their kids’ stuff at times to find out if they are messing with weed. Often this mission is backed by the motto: “No kid of mine is going to become a drug addict!” Most of the time, the parents are going to find that their kids are clean.

We’re not saying they are not using, just that teens are smart and typically understand how to keep their activities clandestine when necessary. But there are those times when the parental quest to find out if a teen is using marijuana shakes out. They might find a stash of pot somewhere or articles of paraphernalia. 

To an anxious parent, this discovery may be processed as one indicating that little Joey is hell bound and coming in hot on the broken wings of illegal drugs.

Their initial reaction might be drastic ⁠— three parts shotgun, one part common sense. You know, lots of yelling, finger-pointing (this is because of those kids you hang out with, isn’t it?), and they might eventually start to blame themselves. The stress of the situation may even prompt the parents to get their child some help by checking them into a rehabilitation facility. It is their hope that the professionals can work some witch doctor style voodoo on them and rid them of this vile affinity for weed.

But is it really necessary to admit your child into rehab to save them from marijuana addiction?

The thing about this so-called addiction is it’s rare. In fact, associating marijuana with the word addiction at all feels a bit overboard.

According to federal data, really only about 9 percent of people who abuse marijuana will end up with a problem. Junior has just as much of a chance at becoming addicted to caffeine. And for those worried about their teen’s marijuana use turning them into junkies, that doesn’t seem likely either. It’s actually “alcohol and nicotine” that are “more likely to inspire people to use harder substances,” reads a report from the National Institute on Drug Abuse.


Photo by rawpixel.com

But let’s just say that none of that matters and you insist on dropping your teen off at the local rehab center to get them fixed. Just know that these people do not have a magic wand that can put your kid on the right track. Impatient marijuana addiction treatment consists of a lot of therapy. The idea is that we must talk about our feelings to get to the bottom of why we are inclined to use pot on a daily basis.

This is where t professionals attempt to help patients cope with their problems by identifying triggers and working on a plan to avoid those situations. This means that, throughout the day, the average patient is going to be required to journal in the morning, engage in individual and group therapy sessions, journal in the afternoon, and get involved with various social activities with other marijuana addicts. There is a lot of downtime, too.

But here’s the thing about rehab: Unless someone (even a teen) really wants to make a change in their life, none of these efforts are going to ensure a proper recovery. Also, without insurance, buying a chance to get junior off weed forever can cost families tens of thousands of dollars. It might even bankrupt some. Therefore, rather than going off the deep end, it is perhaps better to discuss the issue with your child like they are human beings. Share with them your concerns and try to come up with a better course of action than institutionalization.

Try to remember back to the day when you, too, were a teen and think about all of the idiotic stuff you did that had no long term effects on your life. Because that’s all you’re likely dealing with ⁠— a teen being a teen.

Senate Approves Bill Protecting Medical Marijuana States From Federal Intervention

By Kyle Jaeger

The Senate approved spending legislation on Thursday that extends a provision protecting medical marijuana states from federal interference—but the question remains as to whether a House-passed version with broader protections for all state cannabis programs could still be adopted in the final bill that’s sent to the president.

The so-called “minibus” appropriations legislation covers funding for Commerce, Justice, Science, Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, Interior, Environment, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, Transportation and Housing and Urban Development for the 2020 fiscal year.

The vote on the bill, which also includes new hemp and CBD-related language, was 84 to 9.

The medical cannabis provision in question prohibits the Department of Justice from using its resources to prosecute individuals acting in compliance with state laws. The rider has been in place and renewed each year since 2014.

But after the House passed a Justice Department spending bill in June that for the first time would extend those protections to all state cannabis programs, including those allowing recreational use and sales, some advocates hoped the Senate would follow suit. In the lead up to a committee markup where that would have happened, however, several senators told Marijuana Moment that the prospects were unlikely, as congressional leaders made a bicameral agreement not to add new policy riders in the appropriations process unless agreed to by leadership on a bipartisan basis.

Now the only chance that Congress will send the broader provision to President Trump’s desk for 2020 is if negotiators on a bicameral conference committee agree to put the House language in the final package, though there is a chance that the larger chamber could simply approve the bill as passed by the Senate in an effort to avoid a government shutdown that would occur if no spending legislation is signed into law by November 21.

“It’s our hope that the House will insist that today’s minibus appropriations package include the provision to restrict the Department of Justice from interfering with state-legal marijuana programs that passed with bipartisan support,” said Justin Strekal, political director for NORML.

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) introduced a separate amendment to the large-scale appropriations bill last week that would have called on the attorney general to study the criminal justice implications of marijuana legalization, but the measure was not considered on the Senate floor.

The medical marijuana protections language isn’t the only cannabis-related rider that has advanced via the spending process this year.

The Senate Appropriations Committee also approved legislation that includes existing policies barring Washington, D.C. from using its local tax dollars to implement a legal marijuana market, in addition to a provision providing funds to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to enact regulations for a legal hemp program.

The latter language is included in the minibus the Senate approved on Thursday, as are report provisions urging the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to issue enforcement discretion guidelines for CBD, encouraging the Farm Credit Administration to provide services to hemp businesses and supporting “competitive USDA grants for hemp projects.”

“The FDA has been dragging its feet to issue the guidance required following the legalization of hemp-derived CBD,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), told Marijuana Moment. “This is about helping Oregon’s hemp industry continue to create jobs, protecting consumers and putting an end to the regulatory confusion and uncertainty. This language again shows that the Senate is serious about the FDA doing its job.”

The hemp riders are timely given that USDA unveiled draft rules for hemp, which was federally legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill, on Tuesday. The interim final rule will be formally adopted following a 60-day public comment period.

Another House-passed appropriations bill also includes protections for banks that work with the marijuana industry, and the rider preventing D.C. from establishing a cannabis market was removed from the chamber’s version of the legislation.

While the Republican-controlled Senate is mostly sticking to the agreement not to add new policy riders to appropriations legislation, it could soon take up a separate, standalone marijuana bill: the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act, which would allow banks to service cannabis businesses without being penalized by federal regulators.

The House overwhelmingly approved that legislation in September, along largely bipartisan lines, and the chair of the Senate Banking Committee said recently that he plans to take up the legislation in his panel before the year’s end. He also outlined several changes he’d like to see to the House-passed version in an interview with Marijuana Moment.

Democrats push for marijuana decriminalization in Wisconsin

By SCOTT BAUER 

MADISON, Wis. — Possession of small amounts of marijuana would be decriminalized in Wisconsin under a bill that Democratic lawmakers introduced Wednesday in their latest push to loosen Wisconsin's marijuana laws in the face of Republican opposition.

It's past time Wisconsin joined with the 26 other states that have decriminalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana, Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes and other advocates said at a news conference in the state Capitol. They pointed to arrest and incarceration data showing that African Americans in Wisconsin are more likely to be penalized under the current system, denying them opportunities to work, vote, get educated and live a full life.

"How many more people have to be lost before we actually get the courage to do something about it?" said Rep. David Crowley, of Milwaukee.

Nearly 15,000 adults in Wisconsin were arrested in 2018 for marijuana possession, a 3% increase from 2017, according to data from the state Department of Justice. Data from the Department of Corrections shows that prison admissions for black people were higher than whites for marijuana possession in 2016.

In Milwaukee, black people accounted for 72% of arrests for possession of less than 25 grams of marijuana, despite making up just 39% of the population between 2012 and 2015, according to research by the Public Policy Forum. Numerous studies have shown that black and white people use marijuana at roughly the same rate.

Barnes, who is black and from Milwaukee, said he thinks having small amounts of marijuana possession is a "victimless crime" and that it's a waste of law enforcement resources to enforce the current law.

"Marijuana is not a reason to serve a prison sentence," Barnes said.

A first-time offense for marijuana possession is punishable under state law by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. Second and subsequent offenses are felonies punishable by up to 3½ years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

The bill would decriminalize possessing, distributing and manufacturing up to 28 grams of pot or more than two marijuana plants. 

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers earlier this year called for decriminalizing up to 25 grams. The bill would also prohibit police from using the smell of marijuana as probable cause to arrest someone. It would also create a process for dismissing convictions involving less than 28 grams of marijuana that occurred prior to the law taking effect.

Democrats this year have also introduced separate bills to legalize both medical and recreational marijuana.

"We need to rethink and modernize our marijuana laws in Wisconsin," said Rep. Sheila Stubbs, co-sponsor of the decriminalization bill.

Republicans have shown little interest in changing the laws.

They killed Evers' proposals this year to decriminalize small amounts and to legalize medical marijuana. They've staunchly opposed legalizing recreational marijuana, while there is a bipartisan bill to legalize it for medical purposes.

But Republicans showed no signs of budging Wednesday.

"I've long been an opponent to any type of marijuana legalization and doubt that any proposals currently being floated will gain support from Republicans in the Senate," said Scott Fitzgerald, the Senate's majority leader and a candidate for Congress.

There is not support for it among Assembly Republicans either, said Speaker Robin Vos' spokeswoman Kit Beyer. Vos, who has been open to a limited form of medical marijuana, remains opposed to decriminalization, Beyer said.

"We're not going to decriminalize it so people can carry around baggies of weed all over the state," Vos said in February.

Despite Republican opposition, there appears to be broad support in Wisconsin for some form of marijuana legalization.

The Marquette University Law School poll in April showed 83% of respondents support legalizing medical marijuana and 59% back full legalization. 

Legalized marijuana: Medical group urges Congress to consider implications for workplace safety

American College of Occuapational and Environmental Medicine

 

Photo: Dmitry_Tishchenko/iStockphoto

 

Elk Grove Village, IL — The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine is calling on Congress to make workplace safety “a primary consideration” when considering federal legislation that would legalize marijuana use.

In a statement sent to every member of Congress in October, ACOEM notes that 33 states and the District of Columbia have legalized the drug for medical and/or recreational use. The physician-led organization contends that the patchwork of laws to address marijuana use and workplace safety is “detrimental” to workers, employers and the general public.

“While there is much not known about marijuana, what is known is that marijuana can cause impairment, which will interfere with safe and acceptable performance in the workplace,” ACOEM President Stephen Frangos said in an Oct. 9 press release. “This is particularly concerning for those individuals working in safety-sensitive positions where impairment can affect the health and safety of other workers, customers, the general public or others.”

The organization points out that under OSHA’s General Duty Clause, all employers are obligated to protect employees from workplace illness and injury and have an ethical responsibility to prevent impaired workers from exposing themselves, co-workers and the public to risk of harm.

“Without measurable concentrations of psychoactive ingredients in marijuana-containing products, known potency of the active ingredient, delivery mechanism, or scientifically established dose or dosing schedule, it is impossible to use evidence-based methods to evaluate marijuana impairment in the workplace,” the statement reads.

ACOEM expresses strong support for any proposed legislation that would allow employers to prohibit employees in safety-sensitive positions from working while under the influence of marijuana. As part of the process of any new legislation in Congress, the organization suggests:

• Reconciling the differences between state and federal laws regarding marijuana use.
• Assessing the impact of marijuana use on workplace safety through research.
• Allowing employers the latitude to manage risk in the workplace.
• Identifying a reliable, practical mechanism for employers to assess fitness for duty.

ACOEM also recommends setting a period of time between marijuana use and performing safety-sensitive tasks, adding that this is the current approach to marijuana use in Canada and alcohol use in the United States.

In a policy position released Oct. 21, the National Safety Council calls on employers to restrict cannabis use among workers in safety-sensitive positions, regardless of whether cannabis consumption is legal in their state.

“Research clearly shows that cannabis impacts a person’s psychomotor skills and cognitive ability,” NSC President and CEO Lorraine M. Martin said in a news release. “In order to protect our employees and those around them, we need to acknowledge the impairing effects of cannabis. We urge employers to implement policies stating no amount of cannabis consumption is acceptable for those who work in safety-sensitive positions.”

 

60 percent of Americans support marijuana legalization — times are changing

By Justin Strekal,

According to a poll released last week by Gallup, there appears to be no buyer’s remorse on the part of the American people when it comes to their support for the legalization of marijuana. In fact, as more states move to end cannabis criminalization, Americans’ support for legalizing and regulating marijuana has only grown stronger. 

Sixty-six percent of Americans now say that they endorse legalization, a total that is consistent with other recent polls and that is nearly 30 percent higher than 2012 totals — when Colorado and Washington became the first two states to legalize adult marijuana use.

A separate nationwide poll also released last week by PPRI (the Public Religion Research Institute) similarly reported that two in three Americans support legalizing and regulating the plant.

The new Gallup poll finds that support for legaization is held by majorities of Democrats (76 percent), Republicans (51 percent), and Independents (68 percent). Further, every age demographic below 65, representing the overwhelming majority of the taxpaying public, would rather their dollars be spent to regulate cannabis, not incarcerate its consumers.

Right now, many states are light-years ahead of Congress when it comes to regulating marijuana. To date, eleven states and Washington, D.C. have legalized the adult-use and possession of cannabis.

Furthermore, 33 states and Washington, D.C. have enacted regulatory access laws that allow qualified patients to obtain and use cannabis therapeutically and many of these states continue to pass significant expansions to their programs. An additional thirteen states have passed laws specific to the possession of cannabidiol (CBD) extracts for therapeutic purposes. CBD is an organic compound in the cannabis plant.

In total, 46 states have enacted statutory laws specific to the possession and use of either whole-plant cannabis or extracted cannabinoids that are in direct violation of the federal law, which classifies cannabis as a Schedule 1 prohibited substance.

This contradiction undermines the very premise of the American belief in the rule of law.

But, even within the halls of Congress, there are signs that times are changing. 

Just last month, The SAFE Banking Act was taken up by the full House and passed by a bipartisan vote of 321-103, becoming the first stand-alone cannabis legislation to legitimize the retail sale of marijuana in the U.S.

At the time of the bill’s passage, multiple commitments were made to take up a Judiciary Committee bill.

Conveniently waiting in the wings is Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler’s (D-N.Y.) Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment, and Expungement (MORE) Act, comprehensive legislation to end federal marijuana criminalization.

The act removes the marijuana plant from the federal Controlled Substances Act, requires the federal courts to expunge prior marijuana-related convictions, and provides grants to communities that have been disproportionately impacted by the drug war to facilitate record expungements, assist local governments in setting up accessible licensing structures that promote consumer safety, and other needed changes.

Clearly, the age of marijuana prohibition is nearing its end. The question is which political leaders will cast their votes on the right side of history and how long will it take until we find out. 

More Pregnant Women Are Using Cannabis, Research Shows

Tonya Mosley Allison Hagan

Expectant women are increasingly using marijuana products during pregnancy. (Raul Arboleda/AFP/Getty Images)

A new guideline from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration advises pregnant women to stay away from marijuana as cannabis use during pregnancy is on the rise.

In 2009, researchers found about 4% of pregnant women tested positive for using cannabis during pregnancy, says Kelly Young-Wolff, a clinical psychologist for Kaiser Permanente. That number doubled to 8% in 2017.

Cannabis usage for younger age groups is increasing more rapidly — 22% of pregnant teenagers and 19% of pregnant young adults screened positive for using marijuana — a trend she calls “alarming.”

“I think pregnant women are inundated with messages from online media and from even cannabis dispensaries telling them that use in pregnancy is safe,” she says. “Unfortunately, that is not consistent with what we're seeing in our research studies.”

The FDA warns cannabis usage during pregnancy may affect fetal brain development because THC can enter the brain through the mother’s bloodstream. The guideline also warns breastfeeding while using cannabis can result in hyperactivity and poor cognitive function.

Young-Wolff says there's substantial evidence that shows using cannabis during pregnancy increases the risk of low birth weight, as well as problems with memory, problem-solving and concentration later in childhood.

Some moms’ groups are promoting cannabis use to alleviate symptoms like morning sickness, aches, nausea and other pregnancy symptoms, she says.

The growing social acceptability of cannabis thanks to legalization for recreational use in some states contributes to the spike in usage during pregnancy, too — and it’s also putting a lot of new products on the market.

The increasing number of ways to consume cannabis from vaping to edibles creates a challenge for researchers. Different studies have found conflicting results because of varying methodologies and failing to account for co-occurring substance use, she says.

Many studies on cannabis and pregnancy underestimate use because they are self-reported. Young-Wolff says women are twice as likely to screen positive for marijuana through urine toxicology testing than self-reporting.

Another challenge researchers face when studying pot and pregnancy is many studies looking at the health effects of using cannabis were conducted in the 1980s, but the potency of THC in marijuana has been increasing over time.

“It's unclear how that might impact the risks,” she says. “We don't really have a lot of new information yet to help us understand how these higher-potency products could impact the fetus.”

At Kaiser Permanente in northern California, Young-Wolff says the Early Start Screening and Intervention Program helps women quit substance use during pregnancy.

When a pregnant woman tests positive for cannabis use, the program connects them with a licensed social worker or a marriage and family therapist at the clinic with expertise in substance use during pregnancy.

Pregnant women can continue to meet the specialist throughout the pregnancy as needed, she says.

“I think it's important that women recognize that no amount of cannabis has been shown to be safe during pregnancy,” she says.

 

Risks of cannabis use for mental health treatment outweigh benefits

New study shows evidence of positive outcomes is scarce while symptoms can be exacerbated

Sarah Boseley

The use of cannabis medicines to treat people with depression, anxiety, psychosis or other mental health issues cannot be justified because there is little evidence that they work or are safe, according to a major new study.

A review of evidence from trials conducted over nearly 40 years, published in the journal Lancet Psychiatry, concludes that the risks outweigh the benefits. And yet, say the authors, they are being given to people with mental health problems in Australia, the US and Canada, and demand is likely to grow.

Prof Louisa Degenhardt of the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre at UNSW Sydney, Australia, lead author of the study, said the findings had important implications in countries where medical use was allowed.

“There is a notable absence of high-quality evidence to properly assess the effectiveness and safety of medicinal cannabinoids compared with placebo, and until evidence from randomised controlled trials is available, clinical guidelines cannot be drawn up around their use in mental health disorders,” she said.

The authors looked for evidence of an effect of medicinal cannabinoids in trials conducted in depression, anxiety, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Tourette syndrome, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and psychosis. They found 83 studies in 3,000 people. But the evidence of a positive effect was sparse.

There was, they said, “low-quality evidence” that THC, one of the derivatives of cannabis, could be helpful to people with multiple sclerosis or chronic pain who were also suffering from anxiety. But it made people with psychosis worse.

While there is little evidence that cannabinoids can help, the authors found more evidence in “a large body of research” of the potential harms. “This research suggests that cannabis use can increase the occurrence of depression, anxiety, and psychotic symptom,” says the paper.

A well-constructed study found that smoked cannabis actually increased the risk of acute psychotic symptoms. And young adults, the age group more likely to suffer from anxiety, depression and psychosis, are more likely to become dependent if they use cannabis daily over a long period of time.

“These risks, and the limitations of existing evidence, need to be weighed when considering the use of medicinal cannabinoids to treat symptoms of common mental disorders. Those who decide to proceed should be carefully monitored for positive and negative mental health effects of using medicinal cannabinoids,” they write.

In a comment piece in the journal, Deepak Cyril D’Souza of Yale University School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, said that “in light of the paucity of evidence, the absence of good quality evidence for efficacy, and the known risk of cannabinoids, their use as treatments for psychiatric disorders cannot be justified at present.”

In modern medicine, it is normal practice to prove safety and efficacy in trials before drugs are allowed to be given out to patients.

“If cannabinoids are to be used in the treatment of psychiatric disorders, they should first be tested in randomised controlled trials and subjected to the same regulatory approval process as other prescription medications,” he add.

Editorial: Marijuana and racial bias in the justice system 0

By Brown and White Editorial Board

The cannabis industry brought in $1 billion in revenue for Colorado in 2018 alone, while Ferrell Scott spent his ninth consecutive year behind prison walls. 

Scott, a 56-year-old African American man, sold marijuana in the early 2000s to support his three children. Ten years after his conviction, he watches as marijuana is legalized and sits at the forefront of presidential debates. 

Scott was sentenced to life in prison for a non-violent marijuana charge in 2009. As the years have passed, news broadcasts discuss prospective plans to legalize marijuana. Candidates promise to legalize marijuana on the federal level, while Scott watches on his television screen, behind bars. 

While political candidates struggle to come to a consensus on the future of marijuana legalization, the freedom of thousands depends on the next steps taken.  

Regardless of politicians’ and voters’ varying stances on marijuana legalization, it is critical to recognize the lives and communities at stake if our nation fails to confront the legislation with urgency. 

Since the War on Drugs in the 1970s, marijuana has been grouped with other illicit drugs. Former President Ronald Reagan said “marijuana, pot, grass is probably the most dangerous drug in America.” But as the conversation has opened up, researchers have found that this may not be the case. 

According to a study by author and sociologist Van Gundy, there is little to no association between marijuana use and the future use of illicit drugs. Due to his findings, Gundy is one of the many researchers urging policy-makers to humanize the marijuana debate and seek justice for those incarcerated. 

The cannabis industry is expected to be worth $77 billion by 2022, and it is predominantly controlled by — and benefitting — caucasian CEOs.  As of 2017, 81 percent of cannabis executives were white. Meanwhile, African American males are 3.73 times more likely than white males to be incarcerated for marijuana-related offenses. 

Of the 60,000 marijuana-related arrests in New York City between 2014 and 2016, 88 percent were black or Latino. Before Americans can ethically profit off of cannabis sales, we must confront past racial discrepancies face-to-face. 

The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 classifies marijuana as a Schedule I substance, which labels a drug as abused and of no medical value. This is the same classification as heroin and LSD. In 1971, President Richard Nixon declared the War on Drugs, further classifying marijuana as a threat to public safety. 

Separate from federal policies, 11 states have legalized recreational marijuana since 2010. And as politicians begin to promise progressive policies, state and federal laws sit at a crossroads. 

2020 candidates sit at both ends of the table. Some candidates commit to complete federal legalization of marijuana while others are in favor of decriminalization, but not federal legalization. 

With politicians at both ends, those impacted by marijuana legalization deserve a seat at the table. 

Two-thirds of the American population support marijuana legalization. Meanwhile, 663,367 people were arrested for marijuana offenses in 2018. 

Scott will spend the rest of his life behind bars as a result of a marijuana-related charge. Meanwhile, mainstream legal cannabis suppliers, such as Acreage, make up to $13 million per year. 

Since his incarceration, Scott’s children have grown into adolescence, Scott has watched recreational marijuana gain legalization in 11 states, and CEO of Acreage, Kevin Murphy, profits almost $400,000 per year in cannabis sales. 

As politicians debate the topic, stories like Scott’s must remain at the forefront of the discussion. If states continue to legalize marijuana, bringing in billions in revenue, the marijuana-related incarceration of thousands must be revisited. 

The glaring hypocrisy between the consequences in the past and progress in the present calls for the humanization of the issue.

For the 10th year, Scott sits in a prison cell, separated from his family, while states and CEOs profit off of the industry. 

The legalization of marijuana is more than a state issue — it is a pressing example of the impacts of racial bias in the criminal justice system. Our nation must confront the past before implementing progressive legalization plans. 

If convicts like Scott remain behind bars while predominantly white, male CEOs earn millions, we will continue to go nowhere but backward.

How we found out the Army let hundreds of soldiers back in after previously kicking them out — and all kinds of other sh*t

By James Clark and Paul Szoldra

Army soldier provides security during a live-fire exercise near Tbilisi, Georgia, Aug. 4, 2019, during Agile Spirit, an exercise between U.S. and Georgian troops designed to improve joint and multinational readiness.

(U.S. Army/Sgt. LaShic Patterson) 

 

How We Found Out explores recent reporting from Task & Purpose, answering questions about how we sourced our stories, what challenges we faced, and offers a behind-the-scenes look at how we cover issues impacting the military and veterans community.
Over the last two weeks Task & Purpose has published several stories based on the Army's annual Crime Report for 2018.

The expansive report yielded articles on: 10 'known or suspected terrorists' who tried to access Army bases in 2018; and that hundreds of soldiers were able to rejoin the service after being kicked out for 'adverse reasons'; and then there was the soldier who stole a 155mm artillery round during training and nobody noticed for six years.



On Oct. 15, Task & Purpose published its latest piece from the report, which found that marijuana use has shot up in states where weed is legal.

The internal document was provided to Task & Purpose's editor in chief, Paul Szoldra, and given that it offered insight into how the Army tracked and assessed crime in the service in 2018, senior reporter James Clark, spoke with Szoldra to ask how the stories were selected, what additional sourcing was necessary, and how we, as a news team, approach leaked documents.

This is the second installment in the recurring column How We Found Out.

James Clark: So, Paul, last week Task & Purpose got a look at the Army's Crime Report for 2018, and over the next several days published a number of stories based on what was in that document.

First off, tell me what an annual crime report is, and then give me a brief overview of the stories that came out of this one.

Paul Szoldra: Sure, so the Army Crime Report is a document put out every year by the Army's Office of the Provost Marshall General. 

In civilian-speak, the office is akin to the Chief of Police in whatever town you may be in.

It's marked "For Official Use Only" and not publicly-released. It's an internal document Army law enforcement puts together to highlight whatever trends they are seeing on various crimes, whether that be drug use, sexual assault, or any number of other offenses, while also offering Army leaders tips on how to mitigate crime in the ranks.

I ended up getting a copy, and it's kind of a treasure trove of bad behavior in the ranks. No organization is perfect, and the Army is no different. It's actually really good that they put this together to look internally and try to figure out how to fix problems.

JC: Who worked on what stories for Task & Purpose? How was it divied up?

PS: Since this was such a large document, after I went through highlighting what was interesting, I sent that off to the rest of the team in an email. I basically said, hey I got this doc that's full of interesting stories and I've run through it with a highlighter, but please go through it yourself and pick out what things you'd like to hit.

And we just sort of tag-teamed the doc over email and each person called what they wanted to write about. For Haley Britzky (Task & Purpose's Army reporter), that was the terrorists at the gate. Jared Keller (Task & Purpose's deputy editor) did a great job writing about the artillery guy, and even worked in some jokes. And then I did the story about weed and soldiers coming back in after being kicked out. It was a true team effort.

JC: Now, walk me through this: You get a 100-plus page document in the middle of the week that covers criminal activity in the Army over the last year, and obviously, there's a lot in that document to unpack.

How do you decide what's worth covering?

PS: Like I imagine a lot of people would do, I started first with the executive summary and seeing what the authors themselves highlighted as being important.

Right up front, the document lays out some of the big stats they've found. In FY18, for example, most soldier offenders (89%) were below E6 rank.

Then it has crime trends from FY11-18 and whether one thing is going up or down. Overall crime, fortunately, is on a downward trend. But there were some areas I found interesting right off the bat: Domestic violence is trending upward, and there's also been an upward trend of marijuana use in states where it's legal.

And then there was "soldiers titled in multiple felony cases," which I didn't understand upon first reading. But it went on to say, "The number of these Soldiers still serving in units (approximately 2,400) continued to decrease, both in counts and as a percentage of the force."

What this was saying, as I figured out later, was that there are about 2,400 soldiers who have been credibly accused of multiple felonies and yet are still serving. I found that super strange, and it turns out even the Army does, too, since they call the soldiers "a threat to readiness of the force" later in the report.

So after I do my initial read on the exec summary, I basically pulled out a highlighter and ran through the entire thing and marked portions I found interesting, and then it was taking that and trying to figure out which ones could be good stories or which weren't actually all that important.

JC: Now for folks reading this who aren't reporters: When you come across something like that — with a bunch of jargon or unclear terms — and need context, what's the next step? It's not like this came with a press release and some points of contact.

How do you find sources to comment on them, or provide context on a leaked document?

PS: Google is your friend a whole lot the time, and that was definitely the case here. But I also was fortunate enough to be able to ask the source of the documents about terms in there, or whether a part I thought was important was actually important.

And then for some things, like the term "titled for felonies," it took me a little while to figure that out. I'm a Marine veteran, and we have our own terms that we use for things, but titled is not one I'm familiar with. So I asked around about what that was supposed to mean, and all the soldiers I spoke with told me their opinion of it, but were not sure and said I should ask a JAG.

Thankfully, I did a Google search for something like "Army felons titled meaning" and found something on the official website of Fort Benning, which explained it in great detail.

JC: Great, thanks for exposing all our trade secrets: We just Google it, everybody.

Bullshitting aside: Once you had a handle on what was in the report, did you reach out to the Army for comment? What did they say?
PS: Yes, absolutely. One of the tenets of being an ethical journalist (and frankly, just not being a dick) is to make sure you reach out to the people or organizations you are reporting on and allow them a chance to comment on things, especially when what you are reporting is not going to make them look all that great.

Most of the time I'm reporting, I might reach out early to get a comment or get an answer to a question I might have. But in this case, I didn't really need the Army's comment here, since they were telling me everything I needed to know in this document. Still, I wrote what's called a "no surprises" letter to the public affairs officials explaining what I'd be writing about and offering them a chance to put in a statement.

Not-so-fun-fact: I sent this to the wrong email address, though it wasn't my fault. On the Facebook page of the Army's Office of the Chief of Public Affairs website is an email, which I used for my query. And I got zero response. So I published, and the Army public affairs folks at the Pentagon were kind of mad at me about surprising them. I was a whole lot more surprised they didn't get the email or whoever got it didn't forward it to the right spot!

JC: I mean, doesn't really seem like it's on you. In any case, I imagine you guys worked it out.

PS: Yeah I had a nice conversation with an Army lieutenant colonel about the mix-up. He wasn't really all that mad about me having the report or writing about it, but didn't like that I had that line in there: The Army declined to comment.

I took it out so they'd have a chance to respond after the fact if they wanted to. But given that we're now about a week after, it looks like I'm going to popping that line right back in.

JC: On the topic of Army input: This is supposed to be an internal document just for Army leadership, right? What's the value of getting a look at something like this and then getting it out to a broader audience?

PS: You're absolutely right. It's supposed to be an internal Army doc, but we don't work for the Army. We (and I mean journalists here) work for the public and try to get them the facts and information that matters to them, and in this case, with these stories, we're able to illustrate some of the Army's ongoing struggles with crime in the ranks and how they're dealing with it. A better informed public, who are paying taxes and therefore paying soldiers' salaries, should have insight on whether their money is being well spent or if a government agency is doing good things or, well, screwing up. I think in the case of the Army allowing soldiers back in after adverse separations, it's clear it's the latter.

JC: And for our readers in the military, and in this case, in the Army: They should probably know what's going on in that service, too.

PS: Exactly. And I think one thing worth noting here is how I got this doc. I'm not going to talk about my source, but I will say that the majority of my stories on problems inside the military come from people on the inside wanting to get that news out there. They want me to investigate a topic and look into things, because that often is the only way to shine a spotlight on it and get it fixed. One only needs to look at the incredible work of Reuters in exposing the problems in private military housing with mold and rats and everything else — and more recently, our own Haley Britzky doing even more on this — to see how journalists can sometimes work a whole lot faster than the Inspector General's office in getting problems addressed.

JC: Yeah, that's the benefit of community reporting: Our readers are often our sources.

Alright, my last question for you: Were there any portions of the report where you read it and thought: Holy shit, there has to be more here. My mind immediately goes to the soldiers who were kicked out and then let back in, and the 10 known or suspected terrorists who tried to access Army bases. What stood out to you?

PS: There were actually a couple of those things that stood out for me. The interesting thing in here for me is how this helps me learn a little more about how the Army does things and how they report on crimes, or what kind of statistic is measured and who measures it.

These little nuggets help me with future stories or maybe investigate more. Like, one thing in the drug crime part of the report was that there were 11 deaths investigated by Army CID as heroin or fentanyl overdoses. Another part of the report on corrections mentions that 15% of soldiers serving a life sentence were convicted of other crimes. In a parenthetical, it says (e.g. rape, aiding the enemy). We all know sexual assault is a huge problem in the military, but I had no idea there were more than a few soldiers charged with "aiding the enemy," which makes my ears perk up and think I need to start asking some more questions about these things, and perhaps, submit some Freedom of Information Act requests for documents.

Weed Addiction – Is It a Real Thing?

by Helena Miles, 

Addiction isn’t something that’s easily defined and understood.

That’s why, from the get to, we have to put to rest the notion that drug addiction only happens when physical dependency comes into existence.

Things are far more complicated than that, especially when we’re dealing with “soft drugs” like cannabis. It’s of crucial importance to understand that addiction is interconnected with mental health, meaning that we mustn’t overlook the psychological aspects of substance abuse.

To put it in plain words – weed addiction is a very real thing.

Even though the majority of regular users don’t develop a dependency on it, around 30% show signs of a use disorder.

The picture becomes gloomier when we add age to the equation. Namely, if someone starts using weed before the age of 18, they are up to seven times more likely to end up with a marijuana use disorder.

So, those people who say that weed addiction isn’t a real thing because it’s impossible to overdose on it are, quite simply, uninformed.
But, before we delve deeper into the ins and outs of weed addiction, we first need to understand how and why weed affects our brains in the first place.

Back to the classroom.

How our brains respond to weed

Source: nacioncannabis.com

To a certain degree, our brains get tricked by weed.

To be specific, the chemical structure of Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is extremely similar to the chemical structure of an endogenous cannabinoid called anandamide. This similarity enables our brains to detect THC and react to it.

Now, anandamide, being a neurotransmitter, allows our neurons to communicate. It actually transmits chemical messages between nerve cells in the areas of the brain responsible for memory, concentration, thinking, coordination, movement, pleasure, and even time perception.

So, because of its similarity to anandamide, THC is capable of attaching to our brains’ cannabinoid receptors and affecting our cognitive and physical functions.

For the sake of clarity, here’s a simple example. Being forgetful can be a very good sign of being high. That happens because THC interferes with the normal functioning of the hippocampus and the orbitofrontal cortex. These two structures are responsible for creating new memories.

However, since we’re talking about weed addiction, the most important thing to highlight is that THC also gets in touch with our brains’ reward system. That’s why getting high feels so pleasurable. When nerve cells get stimulated in that region, our brain starts releasing a signaling chemical called dopamine.

As we know, when dopamine levels spike, there’s nothing left for us to feel but pleasure.

Possible signs of addiction

Accepting addiction is probably the hardest step to recovery. Especially when dealing with weed addiction, people nurture the idea that they can quit anytime they want. They don’t stop because they don’t want to. Quite simply, they’re in denial.

The new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) includes weed addiction under the name of “Cannabis Use Disorder.”

In order to be diagnosed with this disorder, at least two out of ten symptoms need to be present in your life within a period of 12 months. These symptoms include:

1. Consuming cannabis longer and in greater quantities than you originally intended. 
2. Frequently considering quitting, but failing to do so.
3. Spending most of your time on acquiring and consuming weed.
4. Feeling a strong desire to use weed. 
5. You start abusing the substance so much that you become unable to fulfill your responsibilities.
6. Despite experiencing social/relationship problems caused by weed, you still continue to use it.
7. Substituting your hobbies and other pleasurable activities for using weed.
8. You find yourself using weed in dangerous situations.
9. Developing a significant tolerance. You start needing larger quantities in order to get high.
10. Experiencing withdrawal symptoms when you run out of weed. 

Another common misconception is that it’s impossible to experience withdrawal symptoms with weed. Granted, these symptoms are nowhere near as bad and long-lasting as those related to “hard” drugs such as heroin.

Nonetheless, they can occur, usually a few days after the person stops smoking. The most common withdrawal symptoms are anxiety, depression, profuse sweating, absence of appetite, etc.

The good thing, however, is that the abstinence crisis rarely lasts longer than two-three weeks.

Facing the facts

When dealing with serious issues like weed addiction, numbers and scientific facts help paint a clearer picture of the nature of the problem we’re facing as a society.

Here are some of the most important things you should know about weed addiction:

• Being integrated into society makes a world of difference. People with strong social networks and stable relationships are less likely to start abusing marijuana. They also tend to have more developed responsibility skills, as the sense of having options in their lives. 
• As we’ve previously mentioned, impaired mental health increases the likelihood of developing a dependence on weed. Some estimates are that more than 50% of people who are addicted to weed suffer from various mental health conditions. The most common are depression, anxiety,  PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder), and schizophrenia.
• The fact that the potency of THC had significantly risen over the past couple of decades has become a major talking point within the scientific community. Compared to the 1990s, nowadays the potency of weed is at least three times higher! How will that affect the prevalence of weed addiction is yet to be seen.
• Weed consumption among teens is a deeply concerning issue. Namely, our brains don’t stop developing until the age of 25 or 26. Becoming a regular user in your youth increases the chances of developing irrevocable memory and learning problems.
• According to a medical study conducted back in 2009, medical marijuana consumers reported the following:
  • More than 60% of them used marijuana as a replacement for prescription drugs
  • 40% used it to replace alcohol and under 30% replaced other illicit drugs with it
• Abusing marijuana for too long compromises the functioning of our brains’ reward system. The amount of dopamine released isn’t lessened but, for some reason, our brains stop responding to the signals. 

A serious matter

Weed addiction is no laughing matter. Just take into consideration that cannabis-related emergency room visits are increasing year in and year out.

Just like any other substance abuse disorder, weed addiction also has the potential to ruin one’s life by becoming a source of escapism.

Therefore, if you’ve recognized any of the aforementioned signs of weed addiction in yourself or some of the people in your surroundings, make sure to react as soon as you can.

Each person reacts differently to cannabis, and consuming it has to be done responsibly.

CBD Oil: Doctor Reveals Hard Facts Everyone Should Know About

By Snow Digon

CBD oil is growing in popularity these days. Many people turn to it instead of vitamins and other supplements. Some want to try the supplement but are in doubt as to its efficacy. Others simply wouldn’t want to try it. So what is CBD oil anyway? Is it effective? A doctor explained hard facts about CBD that you should know.

What is CBD Oil?
CBD oil is a chemical compound called cannabidiol. This comes from the cannabis plant. This has been used as a treatment in several ailments. In Britain, it was found that about 4.7 million regularly take CBD oil instead of vitamin D supplements.

Because of this, many started to wonder whether CBD oil is effective as a treatment? Must one be cautious before taking it? One doctor took a hard stance and explained what CBD oil is all about.

 
hard facts about cbd oil as stated by an expert Photo: CBD-Infos-com

Explained by a Doctor
As per Express’ report, TV’s Dr. Hilary Jones explained what CBD oil is all about. According to her, saying that CBD oil is like an all-cure for various treatments, must not be taken hook, line, and sinker. Since CBD is a food supplement, it must be noted that pharmaceutical companies must not make medical claims on it.

Several people compare CBD oil to other cannabinoids. They compare ti to the latter, which are used in helping treat multiple sclerosis and epilepsy. Comparing it is one thing, but claiming it with medicinal properties is another.

There Is No High
Others think that CBD oil can provide individuals with a high. However, this is a misconception. Dr. Jones stated that for CBD oil to comply with laws, such as in the UK, it could only contain traces of THC, the psychoactive compound found in marijuana. Yes, they may be derived from the same cannabis plant; however, CBD is a non-psychoactive compound.

Knowing the Difference
While it is true that there are medicinal cannabis, cannabis, and hemp, there are those who don’t get to differentiate between the quality one and the low-quality one. Many consumers get confused as to what bottle to buy. It is advised that consumers must be cautious when buying CBD oil. Better yet, consult your physician before doing so.

French MPs okay budget for medical marijuana experiments

Paris (AFP)

Liberté Égalité Actualité

 

Lawmakers in France, one of few European countries to still ban medical cannabis use, approved the budget Friday for two years of patient experiments that advocates hope will pave the way for a change in the law.

The National Assembly voted for the tests, already given the green light by France's ANSM medicines regulator, to be paid out of the social security budget for 2020.

"I sincerely hope that the experiments can begin in the first quarter of 2020," junior health minister Christelle Dubos said after the vote.
Olivier Veran, a lawmaker from President Emmanuel Macron's centrist party who proposed the budget inclusion, said the experiments could target some 3,000 sick people in France.

They will seek to determine whether cannabis derivatives can alleviate the symptoms of certain illnesses, and in which doses, he said.
Seventeen other European Union members have already authorised cannabis-based therapies, he added.

The tests will be done at a number of hospitals, with people who have serious conditions such as epilepsy, chronic pain, cancer or involuntary muscle contractions associated with multiple sclerosis.

In July, the ANSM gave the go-ahead for the experiments, which will not see patients getting a prescription for an old-fashioned joint.
For the purposes of the research, the cannabis can be ingested in the form of oil capsules, infusions, or drops.

France, which has one of the highest proportions of recreational drug users in Europe, softened penalties on marijuana use, making in punishable only by an on-the-spot fine of 200 euros.

In June, a group of French economists recommended fully legalising the drug, arguing it said would add billions to state coffers.

But Macron's government has consistently ruled out changing the law to allow people to get legally high.

5 myths surrounding substance addiction busted

People who don’t fully understand addiction are often seen giving advice that is of no help. These well-meaning advices make it hard to differentiate between facts and lies.

By: Paras Hemrajani

Cocaine is a powerfully addictive stimulant drug made from the leaves of the coca plant. © Shutterstock

Marijuana and acid misuse has assumed epidemic proportions in India today. This has created an adverse public health problem in the country. According to a report released by the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, in India, approximately 72 lakh individuals require assistance for their cannabis misuse. If you are one of those people or know someone who is struggling with addiction, then you must have heard a lot of advice from people who don’t fully understand the curse of addiction. As noble as their intentions maybe, these people are only spreading myths and misconceptions. Misconceptions make it hard to understand what a person is going through and reduces the chances of someone else offering a more supportive assistance to those in need. Here are some of the common myths and misconceptions about substance abuse issues.

Myth 1: Prescription drugs are safe
Fact: Just because a drug is prescribed by a doctor, does not mean it is safe. These drugs are highly addictive and dangerous when abused. It is important to remember that the doctor is not just prescribing the medicine. He/she has also prescribing the dosage in which you have to take the drugs.

Myth 2: Regular detox reduces the effect
Fact: It is great if you regularly detox your system and get all the toxic substances out of your body. But that doesn’t make you healthy. Staying sober is the main challenge. The detox process is an uncomfortable process because of the withdrawal symptoms, but it is just the first step.

Myth 3: Relapse is not the end
Fact: Addiction is a normal human condition. It does not mean that you don’t have enough will power to succeed. Relapse is a normal and expected part of the recovery process. It does not indicate failure. Relapse is just a sign that your medication and treatment method needs to be changed.

Myth 4: Relapse proves that addiction treatment doesn’t work
Fact: If one treatment method failed it mean others will too. Discuss with your doctor about the other treatment options that you can try. You can learn from your failure and determine which programme is best for you.

Myth 5: You have to hit rock bottom to seek treatment
Fact : Substance abuse treatments are not only for patients who have hit rock bottom, if you feel like you are getting addicted to drugs, you can also join the programme. You don’t have to wait for the drugs to completely take over your body. Pressure from family, peers, as well as personal identification, are powerful factors to seek early treatment.

Bernie Sanders offers marijuana legalization plan

Supporters hold up signs for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) at a Saturday campaign rally in New York. (Mary Altaffer/AP)

By Sean Sullivan 

Sen. Bernie Sanders released a proposal Thursday to legalize marijuana across the country and expunge criminal convictions related to the drug, embracing an overhaul of federal laws on the eve of a presidential forum expected to renew the debate on race, drugs and police violence.

Sanders becomes the latest Democratic White House aspirant to issue a plan for more tolerant drug laws, a shift from past presidential elections when Democrats, like Republicans, often promoted more toughness. Changing attitudes toward drug crimes, and a growing number of states legalizing cannabis, have ushered in a primary where ideas once seen as provocative have become mainstream.

Sanders’s plan, which aims to overhaul an approach he argues has unfairly hurtminorities, calls for using executive power to reclassify marijuana as a dangerous controlled substance and passing legislation to permanently legalize the drug. It would direct federal and state authorities to review, vacate and expunge past marijuana convictions.

“We’re going to legalize marijuana and end the horrifically destructive war on drugs,” the Vermont independent said in a written statement. “It has disproportionately targeted people of color and ruined the lives of millions of Americans.”

In his 2016 campaign, Sanders struggled to persuade African American voters to support him, and many instead gravitated to Hillary Clinton. He has taken steps in his second run to improve his standing, but so far there is little indication his outreach has made a significant impact in states with large minority populations.

Sanders released his marijuana plan a day before the start of the Second Step Presidential Justice Forum at Benedict College, a historically black institution in Columbia, S.C. South Carolina is an important early nominating state where African Americans are expected to account for a majority of Democratic primary voters. Sanders and eight other Democrats are scheduled to speak at the forum over the next three days.

President Trump is also slated to appear, taking the stage on Friday. He will participate in a symposium called “The Conservative Case for Criminal Justice Reform,” according to the 20/20 Bipartisan Justice Center, which is sponsoring the event.

Trump has presented himself as a champion of criminal justice reform, and in December he signed the “First Step Act,” a bipartisan prison reform law. The “second step” in the forum’s title refers to a push to move beyond that law.

While criminal justice reform is important to many black voters, African American leaders have condemned the president’s sometimes racist rhetoric, and it is not clear what kind of reception he will receive Friday.

Most recent polls show Sanders, who recently resumed his campaign activities after taking time off to recuperate from a heart attack, in third place behind Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and former vice president Joe Biden. His two top rivals have also proposed sweeping changes to the nation’s marijuana laws.

Biden’s proposal is less far-reaching than those of Sanders and Warren. His plan, which he rolled out in July, would decriminalize marijuana use and expunge prior convictions for it. Biden’s plan advocates legalizing marijuana for medical purposes but would leave decisions on recreational use largely up to the states.

Biden would reclassify cannabis as a Schedule II drug, rather than Schedule I, so researchers would be allowed to study it.

Warren, like Sanders, supports legalizing marijuana and erasing past convictions.

Eleven states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana use to some degree, and many more allow it for medicinal purposes. Increasingly, prominent Democrats, along with some Republicans, have become outspoken advocates of relaxing criminal penalties for using the drug.

Former House speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), for example, joined the board of a cannabis company last year and favors legalization.

But some divides have remained. In the early days of the Trump presidency, his administration signaled an intent to crack down on marijuana under then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions. 

More recently, Trump said he would leave it to states to decide whether to legalize the drug.

“We’re going to see what’s going on,” Trump said in late August when asked whether the federal government would legalize marijuana during his presidency. “It’s a very big subject. And right now we’re allowing states to make that decision. And a lot of states are making that decision.”

Trump administration officials have raised alarms about marijuana use among pregnant women and young people. In August, Surgeon General Jerome M. Adams and Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said the drug “carries more risk than ever.”

The marijuana industry, however, has become lucrative as more states have legalized it. Sanders, who is running on a platform of curtailing income inequality and reining in the power of big companies, says he would create provisions to prevent large corporations from dominating the market.

His plan would ban tobacco companies from participating in the industry, for example, and would offer resources for people to start cooperatives and nonprofits.

The Sanders plan would also use taxes on marijuana sales to help promote minority businesses. 

It would do away with regulations requiring drug tests to receive public benefits, prevent officials from removing residents of public housing for marijuana use, and prohibit products and labels that target young people.

As Russian Money Poured Into Cannabis, Giuliani Allies Scrambled to Partake

One of the nation’s largest cannabis companies, Curaleaf, is led by one of Russia’s most influential financiers and backed by another.CreditHans Pennink/Associated Press

By Mike Baker and William K. Rashbaum

SAN FRANCISCO — At a restaurant meeting in California a few years ago, Brad Hirsch and one of his law clients gathered over a meal with two potential business partners: Andrey Kukushkin and Andrey Muraviev, an investor who had flown in from Russia.

Mr. Kukushkin and the Russian financier were hoping Mr. Hirsch could help them build a stake in the state’s burgeoning cannabis market, Mr. Hirsch said, and he helped them set up a real estate business that would cater to marijuana operators. Over the span of just a few years, Mr. Kukushkin would join or develop cannabis companies around San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles and Las Vegas, establishing a foothold in everything from real estate and cultivation to retail and delivery. 

There was a reason that people like Mr. Kukushkin, who was born in Ukraine and later worked at a Russian investment bank, had a unique opportunity to get in on the ground floor. Federal law still treats cannabis as an illegal substance, and traditional banks have been wary of getting involved. 

Wealthy financiers have moved in to fill the void — including a growing cast of investors from Russia and former Soviet Union countries who have helped shape the industry's growth.

One of the nation’s largest cannabis companies, Curaleaf, is led by one of Russia’s most influential financiers and backed by another, allowing the company to pursue rapid expansion and hefty acquisitions. Investment firms have taken their own stakes: A San Francisco-based venture capital fund run by the Russian tech entrepreneur Pavel Cherkashin, backed largely by investors from Russia and the former Soviet Union, has put $2 million into Pure Spectrum, a Colorado-based business marketing CBD products.

“I think there is a strong fear of missing out back in Russia,” Mr. Cherkashin said. “It’s one of the most promising and rapidly developing markets.” 

Mr. Kukushkin and some of his business partners appear to have gone a step further, funneling political contributions to candidates in Nevada and elsewhere in a way that has drawn the scrutiny of federal prosecutors. Earlier this month, a federal grand jury indicted four men, including Mr. Kukushkin, in a scheme to use money from an unnamed Russian to support politicians who could potentially help them obtain retail marijuana licenses around the country. 

The indictment attracted widespread attention because two of the men charged are associates of President Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani, and worked with Mr. Giuliani in the past to collect potentially damaging information about targets of interest to Mr. Trump in Ukraine. 

They were accused in a separate scheme to conceal the source of a $325,000 donation to a pro-Trump super PAC, as well as other political contributions.

But when it came to Russian money flowing into the United States, prosecutors focused on its role in the Nevada marijuana business formed by Mr. Kukushkin and the others. The case illustrates how Mr. Giuliani’s allies were operating not just to advance the president’s political interests, but to build a political network of their own that would give them entree into one of the country’s more promising new industries.

Big Investors

The reluctance of traditional banks to touch marijuana financing has attracted private investors not from just Russia, but from China, Japan, South America and from around the United States. Mr. Kukushkin, according to the indictment, said he was trying to disguise the source of the Nevada venture’s money because of the financier’s “Russian roots and current political paranoia about it.”

Mr. Kukushkin’s lawyer, Gerald B. Lefcourt, declined to comment on the case.

Other investors with Russian backgrounds have been public about their involvement in the cannabis industry, and law enforcement officials do not appear to have raised questions.

Curaleaf, based in Massachusetts, is led by Boris Jordan, a businessman born in the United States who went on to build the investment bank Renaissance Capital in Russia, where he now leads the Sputnik Group, which has a major private equity division. The company’s other major individual investor was Andrei Blokh, a Moscow businessman.

In May, Curaleaf announced a $950 million deal to acquire the Oregon-based Cura Partners in one of the industry’s largest deals ever. In July, it followed up with an $875 million deal to acquire the Illinois-based Grassroots Cannabis.

Vedomosti, a Russian business publication, reported earlier this year that it had talked with eight investment funds of Russian origin that were either considering cannabis investments or had already pursued them.

Some states, including Oregon and Maine, tried to reap the benefits of a cannabis industry by requiring that companies be locally controlled. But that has been a struggle as the industry has pushed for open markets in order to get access to funding, said Andrew Freedman, who helped the lead the development of Colorado’s legal cannabis market.

“A lot of these states are trying to keep the money and the ownership interest within the four corners of the state,” Mr. Freedman said. “It simply isn’t happening.”

Federal prosecutors said the Russian money backing the business of Mr. Kukushkin and others was helping lay the groundwork of a multistate operation. The Russian partner, according to two people familiar with the case, was Andrey Muraviev — the man Mr. Kukushkin had brought to the meeting that day with Mr. Hirsch.

From Russia to California

 

Andrey Kukushkin and three others were indicted in a scheme to funnel money to politicians who could potentially help them obtain retail marijuana licenses.CreditKevin Hagen/Associated Press

Born in the Ukrainian port city of Odessa when it was still part of the Soviet Union, Mr. Kukushkin earned degrees at Odessa National Polytechnic University in engineering and finance in 1992, then worked in the Russian finance industry.

Even before entering the cannabis world, Mr. Kukushkin, 46, was living a comfortable life, with photos on Russian social media showing him vacationing at the elite French resort of Chamonix. Mr. Kukushkin listed himself as living in Ukraine, Russia and San Francisco. 

In 2013, Mr. Kukushkin took up residence in a 1,400 square-foot condo a few blocks from San Francisco’s financial district. 

Mr. Muraviev, meanwhile, was born in Russia and partially educated in San Francisco. He led a cement company in Russia before starting the investment company Parus Capital. 

Together, their first foray into the cannabis industry appears to have been in 2015. 

Records show that Mr. Kukushkin helped Mr. Muraviev steer a $1 million investment into a California cannabis management company, Venture Rebel, which helped run a San Francisco cannabis shop known as MediThrive. Details of the venture, outlined in a lawsuit filed in San Francisco County Superior Court, were first reported by McClatchy newspapers and Mother Jones.

Mr. Kukushkin and Mr. Muraviev expanded next into the Sacramento area, joining up with Mr. Hirsch, the lawyer who met with them in San Francisco, and his client, Garib Karapetyan. Mr. Hirsch said he lost his enthusiasm for the partnership when Mr. Kukushkin began to do things like demanding new terms in the 11th hour of negotiations.

In regulatory applications, another Kukushkin company, Oasis Venture, proposed a large cannabis cultivation site east of San Francisco, including a greenhouse that would have 22,000 square feet of cannabis canopy and a processing facility on an estate with garage space for 12 vehicles and panoramic views of the nearby Alameda County valleys and foothills.

In the last few months, Mr. Kukushkin has been pursuing a dispensary license in the Los Angeles area.

Sean Maddocks, a legal consultant who has helped in that effort, said Mr. Kukushkin approached him last year looking for guidance on where he could get additional licenses. 

He said Mr. Kukushkin never discussed anything like campaign contributions or any improper effort to get a license.

Political Contributions

Federal prosecutors have seized on the issue of campaign contributions in the Nevada case, and that is where Mr. Giuliani’s associates from Florida entered the marijuana case: Lev Parnas, a native of Ukraine, and Igor Fruman, originally from Belarus — both now American citizens who have long lived in Florida — along with David Correia, another South Florida resident. 

In the summer of 2018, according to federal prosecutors, those three men teamed up with Mr. Kukushkin to develop a multistate cannabis business strategy.

Two people familiar with the details of the federal case said the financier was to be Mr. Muraviev, who did not respond to emails or phone messages. Both Mr. Fruman’s lawyer, Todd Blanche, and Mr. Correia’s lawyer, Jeffrey Marcus, declined to comment. The lawyer for Mr. Parnas, Edward B. MacMahon Jr., did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

Mr. Correia drafted a document that considered between $1 million and $2 million of potential political donations to help win marijuana retail licenses in Nevada and elsewhere, according to the indictment. Though donations from foreign nationals to American political campaigns are illegal, the indictment says that the Russian arranged two wire transfers totaling $1 million to Mr. Fruman that were intended at least in part for political candidates.

Near the end of October 2018, the group apparently realized that the deadline for getting a license in Nevada had already passed — “unless we change the rules,” Mr. Kukushkin said, according to the indictment. They talked about needing the support of a Nevada state candidate.

The indictment does not name the candidate being discussed, but a week later, records show, Mr. Fruman donated the maximum amount, $10,000, to both Adam Laxalt and Wesley Duncan. 

Both Republicans, Mr. Laxalt was the state’s attorney general running for governor, while Mr. Duncan was running to succeed Mr. Laxalt.

Mr. Duncan and Mr. Laxalt both said through spokespeople that they were unaware of any illegal activity and were returning the donations.

If the contributions and support were intended to produce a result, they failed. Mr. Duncan and Mr. Laxalt both lost their elections.