Weed YouTubers Speak Out After Having Their Channels Deleted

YouTube has been systematically shutting down marijuana-centric channels on its video-sharing site with little-to-no explanation since at least early 2018. Cannabis YouTubers—or WeedTubers—have been dealt channel strikes, suspensions, and restrictions on the same platform that seemingly used to embrace them. In addition to receiving little information about the purge, creators have been left confused by YouTube’s inconsistent enforcement of standards and policies concerning cannabis content.

“As soon as they decided to close all of our channels down, it’s just been radio silence for every single one of us,” said Josh Young, creator of the channel Strain Central.

Young had been a WeedTuber since 2014, even getting a tattoo of YouTube’s iconic red, “play” button logo on his wrist when he hit 100,000 subscribers about two years ago. He had cultivated a following of nearly 500,000 subscribers with educational cannabis content until his channel was shut down in late April. Young still sees the tattoo as a reminder of how he found both his passion and voice in his YouTube videos but is disappointed to see his channel disappear without a clear explanation.

“I think the weirdest part for me is that for a long time, I had been [regularly] in contact with YouTube,” he said. “I wasn’t doing a lot of the big consumption challenges or anything like that, so I felt like they were a little more open with me… It almost seems like once they made that decision, it was an executive decision for everyone.”

Preparing for the ‘Adpocalypse’

Setting the scene for the creation of YouTube’s vague content policies, the platform has undergone a wide variety of changes dating back to March of 2017, an era dubbed the ‘Adpocalypse.’

Huge brands including Pepsi, Walmart, and Verizon—in addition to institutions like the U.K. government—pulled their ads after finding that their spots were featured alongside problematic videos touting political extremist views and hate speech. AT&T issued a statement: “Until Google can ensure this won’t happen again, we are removing our ads from Google’s non-search platforms.”  A resounding message heard not only by employees at YouTube, but the creators who relied on the platform for their livelihood.

According to ArsTechnica, YouTube’s response was to place an age restriction on anything that might be objectionable, which demonetized those videos—essentially meaning they were not eligible for ads, and therefore, would generate no revenue for their creators. Brands were also allowed to opt out of advertising on videos based on broad criteria, including “tragedy and conflict” or “sensitive social issues.”

As over 400 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute, scouring that content is a huge task—one predominantly carried out by algorithms. Though creators may submit appeals, the process can take several days to complete. This lag upset several creators, who began jumping ship to other platforms, such as Twitch, or soliciting donations via Patreon or PayPal to continue their channels.

The crackdown on content didn’t save YouTube from its next controversy. In December of 2017, YouTuber Logan Paul posted a video depicting a suicide victim in Japan’s Aokigahara forest. Though YouTube condemned the video, Paul, who has 17.5 million subscribers, was not permanently booted from the platform.

Yet the most shocking turn of events came on April 3, when a 38-year-old vlogger shot and wounded three people at YouTube’s San Bruno, CA headquarters before taking her own life. Her videos, whose videos were largely focused on fitness, veganism, and animal rights, had expressed frustration over YouTube’s policies, claiming that many of her videos were demonetized.

All of this sets the scene for what cannabis content creators claim is now happening with their channels, over a year from when this so-called “Adpocalypse” hit.

What’s Happening to Cannabis Channels?

WeedTubers’ channel restrictions and deletions seem to follow a similar pattern. First, content creators first receive a strike. According to YouTube’s guidelines, strikes can be issues for a variety of issues, including copyright violations; harmful, dangerous, or hateful content; scams, or “misleading metadata.” One strike can stop the channel from live streaming, while two within a three-month period prevents the posting of any new content for two weeks. Strikes are not permanent, can be appealed, and will expire in three months’ time. However, if a channel receives three strikes in three months, that account will be terminated. It’s this strike-to-deletion pathway that seems common among cannabis channels, regardless of the type of content posted.

Matthias Gast said he racked up three strikes on his channel, Matthias710WRX in February. He typically posted reviews of dabbing products and videos in which he took “massive dabs” for his some 100,000 subscribers.

“It was kind of like a Jackass of weed thing, just trying to make people laugh and show them that cannabis isn’t dangerous,” he said. “You can smoke a whole ton of it, and I’m still standing here just fine.”

The first strike was on one such CBD review, in which Gast took a half-gram dab and gave his thoughts on how he felt.

He admits the second video strike, which featured the inclusion of a psychedelic mushroom, made more sense to remove. Yet his third came minutes after posting a video about a trip to Hawaii containing footage of him taking dabs and smoking, and his account was terminated within the span of a week. Gast said he was sent a generic email which indicated he was not following the platform’s terms and conditions.

Similarly, Joel Hradecky’s channel boasting 1.5 million subscribers, CustomGrow420, was deleted earlier this year, only to have it reinstated on June 6 without notice. Like Gast, he said he received generic emails from YouTube without specific answers. In one such email, of which he posted a screenshot to his Instagram account, YouTube writes they do not allow content that “encourages or promotes violent or dangerous acts that have an inherent risk of serious physical harm or death.” Examples included drug abuse, bomb making, and underage drinking or smoking.

“They have lots of alcohol stuff on there” Hradecky pointed out. “It’s just weird because everybody could post [cannabis content] for a long time, and then all of a sudden, everything changed.”

Clark Campbell and Alice Addison, a Los Angeles-based couple who posted cannabis and lifestyle content to their channel, That High Couple, had their channel suspended in April. Campbell works as a digital community manager for a Multi-Channel Network, which means his day job is to work with influencers and content creators on growth strategies. In his experience operating under YouTube’s policies, he sees the rise in strikes and flags as the likely result of an algorithm, not a human monitor.

“Across the board, we’re seeing cannabis tags and cannabis-related titles and topics [being removed]; those are the ones that at least the algorithm, on its basic level, is picking up, flagging, and removing,” Campbell said.

Courtesy of That High Couple

The High Couple received their first strike on April 19 on a video explaining how to roll a joint, followed by a channel suspension. When their channel was reinstated, it came back with two strikes; the second strike was on a 360 tour of a dispensary in Vegas. The couple is now afraid to post any new content, for fear of a third and damning strike. So, they intend to move their cannabis content elsewhere and only post lifestyle and travel content to YouTube.

“It hasn’t been anything we, as content creators, have done differently, it’s just that the platform is changing this year,” Campbell said. “It’s a shame because it’s one of the biggest, most radical changes since I’ve started working with YouTubers, and it’s something that they’re just not communicating enough over what it is they’re flagging.”

While some cannabis YouTubers have had their presence wiped out with no clear path to return, Matt Lamb, who posts educational and how-to content to his Ruffhouse Studios channel, has had his channel reinstated, though not without much back and forth.

Lamb found YouTube supportive when he first started his channel in 2011. He enjoyed repeated invitations to YouTube’s space in Los Angeles, where he both produced content and used their equipment. Another time, said he was introduced to various brands like Chipotle and SweeTarts at a party; he was one of about 15 to 20 other creators and the only cannabis creator present at the time.

Yet about a year ago, he began experiencing demonetization, followed by the complete deletion of his channel. When he reached out to YouTube to ask why, he was told he was using spiders or bots that would artificially inflate view counts, generating fake traffic. Lamb denies this, and said YouTube provided no evidence of what he had supposedly done. On May 29, Lamb’s channel was reinstated and he was sent an email indicating the channel did not violate the platform’s policies. Browse his channel today, and you’ll find his over 400,000 subscribers and video content in tact. Lamb still, however, doesn’t know what went wrong in the first place.

Why the Purging of Cannabis Content?

Given the range of reasons provided in YouTube’s vague emails and the absence of personalized communication, many WeedTubers are left wondering why — and, especially, why now. High Times reached out to YouTube for a statement, and have not received a response at the time of this writing.

Without a clear answer, theories abound. One might argue that cannabis is a stigmatized drug that remains federally illegal, but it’s also considered a medicine in 29 states and legal in 9, as well as D.C. Although this would seem to go against the trend of YouTube not only allowing cannabis content, but seemingly encouraging it for quite some time with invites to film in the YouTube Space with studios and equipment or partner managers assigned to WeedTuber accounts prior to the wave of deletions.

Some hypothesize that YouTube is attempting to become more brand-friendly and more appealing to TV advertisers. Lamb notes that some bigger content creators who cover cannabis but already have ties to TV, like Snoop Dogg and VICE, have been permitted to stay on the site.

Others believe the platform is simply still trying to clean up its content after the Logan Paul outrage by bumping off smaller creators. While cannabis seems to be the common denominators among the WeedTubers we spoke with—whose subscriber counts and content styles vary—it’s not the only genre of channels that’s been experiencing strikes, suspensions, and deletions. Following the Parkland shooting, conspiracy theory and firearm channels began complaining of similar treatment. In 2017, LGBTQ creators found their videos were being placed in restricted mode.

It seems the algorithm, blindly flagging and restricting videos containing anything that might be construed controversial in the slightest, is at the core of the confusion leading creators to criticize the lack of transparency at YouTube. And if YouTube is unable to clarify what, exactly, is acceptable on its platform, they could stand to lose a fair amount of creators—which may not matter to them if they’re still getting those advertiser dollars. For creators, it may mean seeking out new, more accepting platforms, or finding niche platforms centered around the communities they love.

Marijuana businesses threaten to leave Colorado after governor's vetoes

Marijuana industry and patient advocates joined state legislators at a news conference Thursday to condemn Gov. John Hickenlooper for vetoing three marijuana-related bills in the past week in a state that saw $1.5 billion in medical and retail marijuana sales in 2017, according to the Colorado Department of Revenue.

Bruce Nassau, board chairman of the Marijuana Industry Group, said the veto of House Bill 1011 is especially troubling for the industry.

“I have spoken with, I would say, three or four different organizations, a couple of whom have indicated a consideration to leave the state because of the now lack of availability of public capital,” Nassau said.

All of the Obstacles To Marijuana Legalization in Georgia

Four months ago, HT writer Chris Roberts asked if Georgia would be the next state to legalize marijuana. As a resident of Greater Atlanta, I hate to break the news but the answer is “no.” Georgia House Bill 645, allowing for “lawful possession or control of certain amounts of low THC oil” for “certain circumstances” did not pass during the most recent legislative session. Neither did HB 865, which would have made possession of certain quantities of herb a misdemeanor. Even before the vote, the law was given a 7 percent chance of passing.

Just a reminder: This is Georgia we’re talking about. There are not many surprises here.

Changes in the State

That doesn’t mean things aren’t changing. Term-limited Georgia governor Nathan Deal did sign HB 65 into law, which added post-traumatic stress disorder and “intractable pain” to the state’s growing list of conditions considered treatable by cannabis oil. And, according to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, somewhere around 4,000 people are listed in Georgia’s medical marijuana registry and are carriers of the state’s Low THC Oil Registry Card.

Progress is progress, and in the deeply conservative South, it’s easy to be amazed at the giant steps Georgia has taken to legalize medicinal marijuana, particularly over the past eight years under Governor Deal. But progress isn’t the goal, and while it’s great that we’ve moved the ball forward on legal cannabis, the reality of the current situation here in the Peach State is pretty terrible, thanks to all sorts of problematic issues that hover above like a cloud of mids, keeping everyone stuck in a hazy limbo on exactly where we are now and what will happen next.

You could be completely colorblind and still know without a doubt that Georgia is a red state. And there’s a chance it could become significantly redder, depending on the outcome of the upcoming 2018 gubernatorial election.

There’s going to be a runoff on the Republican side between Lieutenant Governor Casey Cagle and Secretary of State Brian Kemp. Between the two, Cagle is seen as the moderate, even though his recent retaliation toward Delta Airlines over the company’s severing of ties with the National Rifle Association shows that he’s not above grandstanding to please his base when it’s voting/fundraising time. Whether you think that’s the lesser of two evils when compared to Kemp’s primary campaign ads, like the one in which he promised to “round up criminal illegals” in his own big truck might depend on what kinda stuff you like to smoke (from the way things appear it might not even be weed).

Politicians and Pot

Assuming history knows best and Georgia elects another Republican, you can expect Cagle to be more open to expanding the state’s legalization efforts (at least according to The Atlanta-Journal Constitution), while Kemp will fight any in-state cannabis cultivation in a state with boundless agricultural capability. Neither of these situations point to the sort of systems in place in states like California prior to wide legalization.

It’s unclear what motivates Cagle and Kemp, and those who would support them. But it is notable that an AJC poll of 940 Georgia voters (administered by the University of Georgia’s School of Public and International Affairs Survey Research Center) showed that Georgians like weed: 77 percent of participants said the state’s medical marijuana law should be expanded to “allow the harvesting and distribution of medical marijuana with strict controls.” Even when it comes to recreational and miscellaneous marijuana use, those polled voted 50 percent to 46 percent in favor of legalizing it.

On the other hand, Democrat Stacey Abrams, who won a historic primary to become the nation’s first woman of color to become a state’s major party nominee for governor, seems to be clearly in favor of relaxing marijuana policy in Georgia, and quite heavily. She tweeted in February that with the creation of “a strong substance abuse network,” she would back recreational use, and until then she’d continue to be a supporter of decriminalization, medical marijuana, and local cultivation.

There’s also a lot of conflicting information—and, with that, a lot of confused people. I looked into this back in April, before Governor Deal’s recent PTSD and pain inclusion move. It’s definitely worth educating yourself if you plan to use marijuana, particularly since there seems to be no possible way to legally get it right now.

And with all the celebration that occurred when former mayor Kasim Reed and the Atlanta City Council announced the decriminalization of weed, many people don’t seem to realize that you can absolutely still be arrested for having or smoking it anywhere in the city or state.

To look on the bright side, by signing HB 645, Governor Deal has mandated the creation of a 15-member commission, which will look into how cannabis oil is accessed in Georgia, and spend time evaluating elements such as testing, manufacture, dispensing and security of the current controlled substance. And with the state registry continuing to grow, it will certainly be worth watching to see how the governor’s race affects things, and what else other than peaches Georgia residents might one day be able to grow as a result.

Detroit Proposes Limits on Licensed Marijuana Dispensaries

The City of Detroit may impose limits on the number of licensed marijuana dispensaries it allows. City Councilmember Chris Tate has proposed a new ordinance that caps the number of cannabis dispensaries at 75. The proposal also gives the city authority to regulate businesses involved in cannabis cultivation, manufacturing, testing, and distribution.

The measure also encourages potential owners of cannabis businesses to offer community benefits in their permit applications. Tate told local media that the new ordinance will allow medical marijuana patients and the city at large to coexist.

“Approving this ordinance would finally bring some closure to this issue and chart the path to the future of this industry in the City of Detroit and the State of Michigan,” Tate said. “The goal has always been to ensure that we have an industry that is respectful of the neighborhoods, the communities it is located in, but also considerate to individuals seeking safe access to alternative medication. This ordinance balances those two needs with the preservation of neighborhoods being the top priority.”

Amir Makled is an attorney who represents medical marijuana dispensaries in Detroit. He believes that city officials should not establish arbitrary limits that can hinder the growth of the cannabis economy.

The ordinance goes against “the will of the voters,” Makled said. “I understand the city has an interest in curtailing the amount of dispensaries they have or medical marijuana facilities. But I think they should have allowed the market to determine what was a reasonable amount of facilities to have.”

Can Cannabis be the Economic Boost Detroit Needs?

Makled also said that cannabis is a chance to revitalize Detroit’s depressed economy. But for that to happen, city officials must embrace the new opportunity.

“If Detroit is going to make a comeback and have new industries come into the city, they should welcome this industry,” Makled said. “It can create a tax base and a whole new hub for the industry, so I’m surprised they’re curtailing that growth.”

The new ordinance would also clarify “drug-free zones” and zoning and distance requirements for cannabis businesses. Earlier this year, Chief Judge Robert Colombo Jr. of the Wade County Circuit Court partially overturned Proposal A — which was approved by voters in November 2017, and would have allowed dispensaries within 500 feet of each other. It also allowed dispensaries to locate near liquor stores, child care centers, and other so-called sensitive use establishments.

Judge Colombo also entirely struck down Proposal B, which voters also passed last year. That law established zoning regulations for pot businesses and permitted dispensaries and processors in all business and industrial districts.

Detroit Corporation Counsel Lawrence Garcia said Tate’s proposal will guide the growth of the cannabis industry.

“Detroit’s new, proposed ordinance will…resolve some of the confusion created by some of the misguided zoning restrictions that were originally part of the ballot initiative,” Garcia said in a statement. “In short, the new ordinance, if passed, will clarify Detroit’s common-sense regulation on medical marijuana activity and will allow for all five of the legal uses contemplated by state statute.”

Florida Judge Repeals Ban on Smokeable Medical Marijuana

The state of Florida can no longer ban medical marijuana patients from smoking cannabis, a judge ruled Friday. But the Florida Health Department is appealing the judge’s decision. Caught between are Florida’s medical marijuana patients, who say the state legislature is placing unconstitutional restrictions on access to their medicine.

Florida Judge Says Medical Marijuana Smoking Ban Is Unconstitutional

In 2016, Florida voters approved Amendment 2. The constitutional amendment became effective on January 3, 2017. It expanded Florida’s list of qualifying medical conditions, but also placed restrictions on smoking medical marijuana.

Specifically, the language in the bill and an “intent document” circulating during the 2016 lead up to the vote did mention smoking marijuana, but only in very limited terms. The bill states that the Florida legislature and local governments could ban medical cannabis smoking in public places.

Last year, however, the state Legislature ended up passing laws banning the sale of smokeable medical cannabis products. The Legislature viewed smoking cannabis a health risk. However, the bill, signed by Florida Gov. Rick Scott in June, still allowed patients to use cannabis in food, as an oil or spray, or vaporized.

Just two weeks after Gov. Scott signed the legislation, Orlando attorney John Morgan filed a lawsuit to challenge the smoking ban. Morgan was a key player in the movement to legalize medical cannabis in Florida.

But on Friday, Leon County Circuit Judge Karen Gievers ruled that the state’s ban on smokeable medical marijuana violated patients’ constitutional rights, according to the Associated Press

In her 22-page ruling, Judge Grievers wrote that Floridians, “have the right to use the form of medical marijuana for treatment of their debilitating medical conditions as recommended by their certified physicians, including the use of smokable marijuana in private places.”

Florida Court’s Ruling Is Major Win For Medical Cannabis Patients

Despite Judge Griever’s ruling that a ban on smoking medical cannabis was unconstitutional, the Florida Health Department is appealing the ruling. And that appeal has placed a temporary stay on the decision while the state goes through the appeal process.

Still, medical cannabis supporters and patient advocates are praising the judge’s ruling as a major win for patients in Florida.

“Despite legislative pushback over interpretation and ideologies, justice has been served,” said Taylor Patrick Biehl of the Medical Marijuana Business Association of Florida.

In his lawsuit, John Morgan used testimony from two terminally ill patients who say smoking medical cannabis has dramatically improved their quality of life.

Both plaintiffs said in court that currently permitted methods of cannabis consumption are not as effective as smoking.

Diana Dodson, who has been HIV-positive since 1991, testified that vaping cannabis was 50 percent less effective than smoking. She also said that smoking cannabis allows her to use the proper dosage for her symptoms.

Additionally, Cathy Jordan, who has suffered from Lou Gherig’s disease since 1986, says that smoking alone can help her symptoms. ALS patients suffer from excess saliva, low appetite, and muscle pains. Smoking medical cannabis, Jordan testified, dries her excess saliva, increases her appetite and relaxes her muscles.

“This is legitimate medicine,” Jordan told the Orlando Sentinel over the phone. “This ruling is not just for me but for many other people.”

Indeed, Jordan’s husband Bob said he was still in shock after the ruling. “A little women with ALS took on the state and won,” he said. ‘That’s an amazing thing. It is kind of surreal.”

Judge Griever is keeping the Florida appeals courts busy with marijuana cases. Her ruling that a ban on smokeable medical cannabis was unconstitutional is in fact the second medical marijuana case sent to an appeals court this year.

The next stop for the case involving the prohibition on smoking medical cannabis is the 1st District Court of Appeal in Tallahassee this year. But Griever’s argument maintains that since the state banned public smoking, smoking in private was implicitly appropriate and consistent with Amendment 2.

Marijuana Sales: Strong in Nevada, Disappointing in California

© ThinkstockLegal sales of marijuana for recreational use began last July in Nevada and in January in California. Although California sells a lot more legal weed than Nevada, California sales are much lower than projected while Nevada's are much higher.

First the good news. From July 2017 through March 2018 (the first nine months of Nevada's fiscal year), combined taxable sales of marijuana totaled $386 million, of which nearly $305 million represents sales for recreational use. Sales in March posted a record total of just over $41 million. Through March, the state has collected almost $49 million in taxes, about 97% of its estimated full-year take of $50.32 million.

The less-good news about recreational pot sales comes from California, where the latest projections based on sales to date estimate sales will be about half the original estimates.

According cannabis industry analyst firm New Frontier Data, sales in California this year will total $1.9 billion, exactly half the original estimate of $3.8 billion. Giadha Aguirre De Carcer, CEO of New Frontier, told the Los Angeles Times that strict rules on growers, distributors, and retailers combined with low governmental authorization in California cities are to blame.

Only about 30% of California's 540 cities have have so far permitted commercial cannabis activity. The effect has been to send consumers to the black market where they pay no taxes and illegal sellers easily undercut legal prices.

In February the Los Angeles Police Department shut down 8 illegal pot stores but the deputy chief told the Los Angeles times that another 200 to 300 illegal stores were still operating in the city.

Marijuana tax collections in California totaled $33.6 million in the first quarter of 2018, virtually guaranteeing that the state would not reach its estimated 6-month total of $175 million in tax collections.

California's estimated legal and illegal marijuana market totals around $7.8 billion. About $2.3 billion comes from sales of medical marijuana. If the legal market is only taking about $1.9 billion of the total, the rest ($3.6 billion) is going to the illegal market.

And that illegal market is only for sales inside the state. California also exports (illegally, of course) tons of marijuana. State residents consumed about 2.5 million pounds of marijuana (most of it illegally) in 2016 and produced about 13.5 million pounds. Those 11 million pounds are sold, illegally, to out-of-state buyers.

Feds Hammer San Francisco Brewer for Making Beer with CBD

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — U.S. officials have ordered a San Francisco brewery to stop producing beers containing cannabidiol, the hemp-derived compound known as CBD.

The U.S. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau is allowing Black Hammer Brewing to sell off the rest of the beer it has produced with CBD, including one called Toke Back Mountain.

CBD is a non-psychoactive cannabinoid. The beer’s drinkers can’t get high, but users say CBD is calming.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported Wednesday, May 23, 2018, that the order was not issued because the federal government says marijuana is illegal, but because the trade bureau requires special approval for non-standard beer ingredients.

The brewery’s owners are applying for permission to use hemp and terpenes, the compounds that give cannabis its aroma and flavor.

Arizona Supreme Court Rules Medical Marijuana Legal on College Campuses

In a major win for medical cannabis patients in Arizona, the state’s Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that public college students with medical cards cannot face criminal charges for possessing or using marijuana on campus. The court ruled against a 2012 law that banned cannabis on public higher education institutions, finding it unconstitutional and a violation of voters’ intent. The court’s ruling also vacated the cannabis possession charge of the student who fought the law—and won.

How One Student Fought To Allow Medical Cannabis at College

Arizona voters approved the state’s medical marijuana program in 2010. Originally, the law placed prohibitions on having and using cannabis on preschool and elementary school campuses, school buses and prisons. But the law did not restrict medical cannabis on college and university campuses.

Arizona has a Voter Protection Act, which means lawmakers can’t pass laws that overturn or restrict anything voters approved. Instead, they can only pass legislation that “furthers the intent” of the measure voters passed.

So when Arizona passed a law in 2012 that banned medical cannabis use at institutes of higher learning, it violated the Voter Protection Act. The ban, in other words, did not further the intent of the law, since voters did not intend to ban medical cannabis on campus.

That’s exactly the argument Andre Maestas used to vacate his 2014 criminal charge for marijuana possession when he was a student at ASU. In 2014, ASU police arrested Maestas for having just 0.4 grams of cannabis in his dorm room.

The state’s medical cannabis program permits cardholders to possess up to 2.5 ounces at a time. But Maestas was charged with a class 6 felony for possession.

Prosecutors ultimately reduced the charge to a misdemeanor and tried to reach a plea deal. But Maestas fought the charges in court and ended up appealing his sentence.

Last year, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled in Maestas’ favor and dismissedhis conviction for possession. The state, however, continued to pursue charges by appealing the ruling, which brought the case to the Supreme Court.

Colleges Can Still Ban Cannabis Use On Campus

Even though medical card holders can use cannabis on college campuses without legal consequences, they can still face disciplinary action from their universities. Many public universities across the country ban cannabis use and possession even if a state has legalized it.

Public universities say their federal funding is on the line. Marijuana is still illegal under federal law. And schools say they must comply with those laws to remain eligible for federal grants and subsidies.

In the case leading up to Wednesday’s Arizona Supreme Court decision, the State used this loss of funding argument to oppose the repeal of the 2012 law. But the court found that “the State has not shown that a university would lose (or has lost) federal funding if a state prosecutor did not prosecute violations of the university’s program.”

The court also revoked universities’ ability to criminally charge someone for marijuana possession, something the 2012 law allowed. Schools do not have the authority to enact criminal laws, the court ruled.

So, students who break their university’s weed rules won’t face criminal charges. But their schools can still enact tough sanctions on violators.

Arizona State University, for example, prohibits anyone from using or possessing marijuana on campus or in a residence hall whether they have a medical card or not. Students who break the rule face disciplinary action and arrest, according to the university website.

The Arizona Department of Health Services doesn’t track how many college students in Arizona have medical marijuana cards. But of the state’s roughly 167,000 registered patients, 25 percent are 30 years old or younger.

So if you’re a medical cannabis patient attending college in Arizona, don’t worry about facing criminal charges for lighting up. Just know the best place to medicate is still somewhere off-campus.

NYPD Sergeants Union Criticizes Mayor’s Orders Against Cannabis Arrests

New York City has been relatively slow to change when it comes to cannabis laws, but recent activity from the mayor’s office could be shaking things up. Last week, Mayor Bill de Blasio promised to make potentially significant alterations to how the city enforces weed laws — and, unsurprisingly, not everyone is happy about it. In particular, the NYPD Sergeants Union is criticizing the mayor’s orders against cannabis arrests.

NYPD Pushes Back Against Mayor

The back-and-forth between de Blasio and NYPD leaders arises out of recent developments in NYC’s gradually-evolving approach to cannabis laws.

Last week, Mayor de Blasio announced that the city will create a new task force to prepare it for legalization. According to NY Daily News, the task force will have 30 days to review the NYC’s current practices regarding cannabis law enforcement. It will then make recommendations for ways to improve those practices.

But that’s not all. Mayor de Blasio went a step further. He directed the NYPD to stop arresting people caught smoking weed in public.

This change is the one that seems to be generating the most controversy. So far, the most outspoken critic is Ed Mullins, President of the NYPD Sergeants Benevolent Association.

Yesterday, he told the Wall Street Journal that the new change could put officers “in positions of conflict.” Mullins argued that such conflicts could arise if residents called cops to crack down on public weed-smoking, but then were not allowed to arrest offenders.

“You can’t just circumvent the law,” Mullins said. “If you want to not have enforcement of arrests, then you need to change the law.”

This isn’t the first time Mayor de Blasio has tried to change New York City’s approach to cannabis law. In previous years, he instructed NYPD to stop arresting people caught with small amounts of marijuana. In response, officers began writing simple summonses instead of issuing arrests.

Since going into effect, that change has led to a 40 percent drop in marijuana arrests. But data from recent years reveal ongoing problems. In particular, the city has seen persistent racial disparities in the marijuana-related arrests that are still being made. NYPD reportedly arrested 17,500 people for marijuana last year. A full 86 percent of those arrested were black and Latinx.

“The racial disparities have not changed one bit, and arrests are still too common in communities of color,” Councilman Donovan Richards said earlier this year. “If the administration is serious about changing this disparity, we’re not seeing it.”

Now, it seems that Mayor de Blasio may be taking Richards up on his challenge. The mayor’s office indicated that his latest order to stop arresting people for smoking weed is in large part intended to address these racial disparities.

Additionally, de Blasio has indicated that the change is part of a larger effort to prepare the city for legalization. Although de Blasio has voiced opposition to legalization, he now believes it will happen sooner or later.

In any case, the newest change will not go into effect until the end of the summer. It remains to be seen if the tensions between de Blasio and NYPD leaders like Mullins will intensify in the meantime.

New Zealanders May Soon Vote on Cannabis… and Euthanasia?

New Zealand politicians have promised to hold a nation-wide vote on whether to legalize recreational marijuana by 2020. And euthanasia, the right for doctors to assist the terminally ill or those in crippling pain in dying, has amassed political support. As legislation for both topics progresses, Kiwis will have a chance to vote yay or nay, possibly at the same time.

Here’s a look at what New Zealand’s political forces have to say about both issues, and how they’ll decide when to hold this historic referendum.

Legal Marijuana Is Coming To New Zealand

Support for decriminalization or legalization has been on the rise for years. In 2017, a New Zealand Drug Foundation poll found that 65 percent back decriminalization or legalization for personal possession.

Furthermore, an overwhelming majority support marijuana for pain relief, especially for the terminally ill. 55 percent would vote in favor of legalizing personal use marijuana growth, too.

Ross Bell, director of the Drug Foundation, explained to the New Zealand Herald, “A regulated approach will usher in controls on quality, price, and availability of cannabis, along with more education, prevention and treatment. The public gets this. Why don’t our political leaders?”

When weed comes to a vote, Kiwis will almost certainly decriminalize it, and will most likely legalize it recreationally.

Political Forces Are Catching Up To Popular Opinion

Though former Prime Minister Bill English was a fervently anti-marijuana, times have changed in New Zealand. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has not publicly supported recreational weed. However, as part of a larger deal with the Green Party, Ardern’s Labour Party has committed to holding the marijuana referendum.

Now that the Greens and the Labour Party are working together, cannabis has the support of a parliamentary majority. But political leaders have yet to present marijuana legislation. Justice Minister Andrew Little said, “We simply haven’t got anywhere near that, I think it’s about getting the mechanics of the referendum sorted, then I think obviously some discussions around scope and maybe some options there.”

This means working on public education and preventing young people from accessing marijuana. Legislators also want to hear from the public. When you combine all these factors, Mr. Little estimated, “That would dictate a timing that would be no earlier than late 2019.”

Euthanasia Legislation Is Gaining Ground

The End of Life Choice Bill outlines a strict protocol for doctors to assist patients in dying. Specifically, only those with incurable medical conditions and the terminally ill could legally request assistance. The process would require more than one consultation. If the patient decides to proceed, a doctor will administer a lethal dose of medication.

David Seymour leader of ACT New Zealand, the county’s liberal party, proposed the ‘assisted dying’ legislation in 2017. In December, he agreed to a public referendum on the bill. To get to this next stage, however, it will require the support of a parliamentary majority.

One Referendum Could Include Marijuana and Euthanasia

There are still some hurdles to overcome for both pieces of legislation. Progressives need to flesh out a framework for recreational weed, both as a referendum and as a nationwide program. Additionally, the End of Life Choice Bill must move through the approval process.

But a vote on both is on the horizon. It’s only a question of when they’ll hold the vote, and whether it should be on one ballot. Some politicians want to combine the two votes because it would be cheaper. “It would make sense to not have to spend a lot of money on a succession of referenda,” explained Justice Minister Little.

Some want to hold the referendums during the 2020 general election. James Shaw of the Green Party sees it as a matter of convenience for voters. “People are going to be going to the polling booths anyway,” he said.

Other politicians worry that voting on marijuana and euthanasia during the general election would complicate the issues. Chloe Swarbrick, a Green Party spokeswoman, argued, “If we hold it in 2019, it may not be deeply politicised, polarised, or pigeon-holed—and we are hopefully able to have more of an evidentiary discussion.”

New Zealanders Will Vote in 2019 or 2020

A vote on legalizing recreational marijuana and euthanasia is impending, though the decision of when to hold it affect its outcome. For instance, fewer people would vote in a mailed in referendum compared to one held during a general election. But voting on marijuana in the general election could detract from other political issues that lawmakers feel strongly about.

No matter when they hold the vote, it looks like Kiwis will be deciding on some life-changing issues—who has the right to die and who is sent to prison—in the next year or two.