Latest news with #ControlledSubstancesActof1970
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
With cannabis industry struggling, Western Mass. sellers and growers seek relief from high court
SPRINGFIELD – Plaintiffs growing, selling and delivering legal marijuana in Massachusetts now have two court decisions against them, but aren't giving up. They seek to overturn a federal law they say strangles their business. They were turned back last week by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. But plaintiffs say their fight against the Richard Nixon-era Controlled Substances Act of 1970 is not over. 'It is fair to assume that we shall seek Supreme Court review,' wrote one of their attorneys, Jonathan D. Schiller of the firm Boies Schiller Flexner. The plaintiffs include Canna Provisions, with stores in Holyoke and Lee; Wiseacre Farms, which grows cannabis in West Stockbridge; Gyasi Sellers, of Springfield, which delivers cannabis; and Verano Holdings Inc. based in Chicago. That company owns Zen Leaf Enfield, at 98 Elm St., in Enfield, Connecticut. The plaintiffs say the 1970 law is an overreach and prevents them from making use of banking services and bankruptcy protection available to most businesses. The U.S. Supreme Court receives 7,000 to 8,000 petitions each term, but hears only about 80 cases. The Boies in the firm's name is that of David Boies, who represented former U.S. Vice President Al Gore during the recount controversy against President George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential election. Boies argued in person when the case came before U.S. District Judge Mark G. Mastroianni in Springfield a year ago. The judge ruled in favor of the U.S. Department of Justice and upheld the Controlled Substances Act. The companies appealed to the First Circuit and a three-judge panel ruled Tuesday, once again in favor of the government. The plaintiffs declined further comment. They sued in 2023, saying that with states legalizing cannabis for recreational use, the 1970 federal law exceeds Congressional power. Making their argument, the companies reached back into history showing that marijuana predates the U.S. Constitution. 'Each of the thirteen original colonies enacted' laws concerning marijuana — 'then known simply as 'hemp'' — some of which 'encouraged (or even required) colonists to grow marijuana,' the suit read. Even the Magna Carta of 1215 created rights concerning hemp cultivation and sometimes even 'made the cultivation of hemp compulsory.' But the appeals judges were unmoved, saying that if left unregulated, the trade in marijuana within states would impact interstate commerce. And Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce. As a practical matter, federal law makes it harder for marijuana companies to lease farm land for fear of losing federal agricultural supports or to do banking or borrow money. The Massachusetts marijuana industry does $1 billion a year in sales, according to data kept by the Cannabis Control Commission. Commission data says marijuana retails for $125 an ounce these days, down from $416 in 2020. Ryan Dominguez, executive director of the Massachusetts Cannabis Coalition trade association, said 30 Massachusetts cannabis businesses closed in the last year. Regulation is expensive, he said. And every neighboring state except New Hampshire has legalized recreational marijuana. Many of those states have tailored their laws – such as limits on how much customers can buy in one transaction – to compete with Massachusetts. The federal law means none of them can take federal tax deductions, he said. And if they want to go out of business, they can't claim bankruptcy protection. The bankruptcy issue is something the lawsuit could fix if it reaches the Supreme Court, Dominguez said. 'A lot of these people would have to declare personal bankruptcy,' he said. And that means they would lose personal assets in addition to the business. Placing pigeons in the park on purpose in Springfield Cause detailed for February train derailment in Wendell 'Global order has been upset': World Affairs Council gauges tariff war impact on Western Mass Read the original article on MassLive.
Yahoo
27-01-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Why Trump's tariffs can't solve America's fentanyl crisis
Americans consume more illicit drugs per capita than anyone else in the world; about 6% of the U.S. population uses them regularly. One such drug, fentanyl – a synthetic opioid that's 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine – is the leading reason U.S. overdose deaths have surged in recent years. While the rate of fentanyl overdose deaths has dipped a bit recently, it's still vastly higher than it was just five years ago. Ending the fentanyl crisis won't be easy. The U.S. has an addiction problem that spans decades – long predating the rise of fentanyl – and countless attempts to regulate, legislate and incarcerate have done little to reduce drug consumption. Meanwhile, the opioid crisis alone costs Americans tens of billions of dollars each year. With past policies having failed to curb fentanyl deaths, President Donald Trump now looks set to turn to another tool to fight America's drug problem: trade policy. During his presidential campaign, Trump pledged to impose tariffs on Canada and Mexico if they don't halt the flow of drugs across U.S. borders. Trump also promised to impose a new set of tariffs against China if it doesn't do more to crack down on the production of chemicals used to make fentanyl. He reiterated his plan on his first day back in office, saying to reporters, 'We're thinking in terms of 25% on Mexico and Canada because they're allowing … fentanyl to come in.' Speaking as a professor who studies social policy, I think both fentanyl and the proposed import taxes represent significant threats to the U.S. While the human toll of fentanyl is undeniable, the real question is whether tariffs will work – or worsen what's already a crisis. In 2021, more than 107,000 Americans died from overdoses – the most ever recorded – and nearly seven out of 10 deaths involved fentanyl or similar synthetic opioids. In 2022, fentanyl was killing an average of 200 people each day. And while fentanyl deaths declined slightly in 2023, nearly 75,000 Americans still died from synthetic opioids that year. In March of that year – the most recent for which full-year data on overdose deaths is available – the then-secretary of homeland security declared fentanyl to be 'the single greatest challenge we face as a country.' But history shows that government efforts to curb drug use often have little success. The first real attempt to regulate drugs in the U.S. occurred in 1890, when, amid rampant drug abuse, Congress enacted a law taxing morphine and opium. In the years that followed, cocaine use skyrocketed, rising 700% between 1890 and 1902. Cocaine was so popular, it was even found in drinks such as Coca-Cola, from which it got its name. This was followed by a 1909 act banning the smoking of opium, and, in 1937, the 'Marihuana Tax Act.' The most comprehensive package of laws was instituted with the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, which classified drugs into five categories based on their medical uses and potential for abuse or dependence. A year later, then-President Richard Nixon launched the 'War on Drugs' and declared drug abuse as 'public enemy No. 1.' And in 1986, Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, directing US$1.7 billion for drug enforcement and control. These policies have generally failed to curb drug supply and use, while also causing significant harm to people and communities of color. For example, between 1980 and 1997, the number of incarcerations for nonviolent drug offenses went from 50,000 to 400,000. But these policies hardly put a dent in consumption. The share of high school seniors using drugs dipped only slightly over the same period, from 65% in 1980 to 58% in 1997. In short, past U.S. efforts to reduce illegal drug use haven't been especially effective. Now, it looks like the U.S. is shifting toward using tariffs – but research suggests that those will not lead to better outcomes either, and could actually cause considerable harm. America's experiments with tariffs can be traced back to the founding era with the passage of the Tariff Act of 1789. This long history has shown that tariffs, industrial subsidies and protectionist policies don't do much to stimulate broad economic growth at home – but they raise prices for consumers and can even lead to global economic instability. History also shows that tariffs don't work especially well as negotiating tools, failing to effect significant policy changes in target countries. Economists generally agree that the costs of tariffs outweigh the benefits. Over the course of Trump's first term, the average effective tariff rate on Chinese imports went from 3% to 11%. But while imports from China fell slightly, the overall trade relationship didn't change much: China remains the second-largest supplier of goods to the U.S. The tariffs did have some benefit – for Vietnam and other nearby countries with relatively low labor costs. Essentially, the tariffs on China caused production to shift, with global companies investing billions of dollars in competitor nations. This isn't the first time Trump has used trade policy to pressure China on fentanyl – he did so in his first term. But while China made some policy changes in response, such as adding fentanyl to its controlled substances list in 2019, fentanyl deaths in the U.S. continued to rise. Currently, China still ranks as the No. 1 producer of fentanyl precursors, or chemicals used to produce illicit fentanyl. And there are others in the business: India, over that same period, has become a major producer of fentanyl. Drugs have been pervasive throughout U.S. history. And when you investigate this history and look at how other nations are dealing with this problem rather than criminalization, the Swiss and French have approached it as an addiction problem that could be treated. They realized that demand is what fuels the illicit market. And as any economist will tell you, supply will find a way if you don't limit the demand. That's why treatment works and bans don't. The U.S. government's ability to control the production of these drugs is limited at best. The problem is that new chemical products will continually be produced. Essentially, failure to restrict demand only places bandages on hemorrhaging wounds. What the U.S. needs is a more systematic approach to deal with the demand that's fueling the drug crisis. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Rodney Coates, Miami University Read more: Why do some young people use Xanax recreationally? What are the risks? What the Opium Wars can tell us about China, the U.S. and fentanyl What is fentanyl and why is it behind the deadly surge in US drug overdoses? A medical toxicologist explains Rodney Coates does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
