Politics The latest in cannabis legalization including laws and policies legislators views election coverage and more. Politics How Your Tax Dollars Are Used to Fund Cannabis Opponents in a Clear Violation of Ethics Diane Goldstein This year thepharmaceuticalalcoholandprison foodindustries have allweighed in to oppose marijuana legalization initiatives across the country. This comes as little surprise: These industries all have financial interests in keeping marijuana illegal. By funding anti-legalization efforts theyre simply admitting it. Whatdoessurprise me is that the public is still largely unaware of howgovernmentresourcesat federal state and local levelsare used in the same fashion in a blatant conflict of interests. The ways in which the criminal justice lobby uses its power to undermine drug policy reformare well-established but also complex and sometimes hard to untangle. However given recent donations by law enforcement unions and associations to campaigns against marijuana legalization in California where I live and across the country I believe its important to clarify the unethical way in which taxpayer-funded resources are used in defiance of the proper role of government. Opponents of marijuana legalization always point to what they term Big Marijuanaand how the new industry uses lobbyists and cash to promote legislation that would be in its own interests. Yet such funding involvesaccountable transparent donations with private money. In contrast opponents of legalizationincluding government-funded HIDTA programs community drug-free organizations and anti-marijuana nonprofits likeSAMfrequently fail to disclose their own funding and incestuous financial connections. RELATED STORY Trump or the Prohibitionists: Who Will Get Sheldon Adelsons Cash? Lobbying by Law Enforcement Organizations I believe and was taught during my 20-year police career that law enforcement just like the military should not be allowed to engage in political lobbying. We have always relied on the clich We dont make the law we enforce it to define our proper role. The police like the military are under the jurisdiction ofthe executive branch of the US government so that they remain subordinate to their constituents and carry out the will of the civil government. Yet today millions of dollars are spent by law enforcement organizationsnot only unions but also professional organizationsin order to undermine drug policy reform at the ballot boxor in our statehouses. In Californiasince the passage of the Compassionate Use Act (Proposition 215) in 1996 legalizing medical marijuana the law enforcement lobby has undermined many efforts to improve safe accessforcefully opposing any legislation that introducedregulatory models. During these 20 years organizations such as the California Police Chiefs Association (CPCA) and theCalifornia Narcotics Officers Association(CNOA)maintained that there was no such thing as medical marijuana and wasted public moneyboth on lobbying and on arresting patients and providers. Despite immunity gains made through the passage of Senate Bill 420 the Medical Marijuana Program Act law enforcement opposition in Sacramento continued until this last legislative sessionin which20 years after the passage of Prop. 215 and thanks largely to growing pressure from large numbers of stakeholders Gov. Jerry Brown signed multiple bills to implement the Medical Cannabis Regulation andSafety Act (MCRSA). Forced to reckon withmedical marijuana advocates providers and the nascent industryparticipatingin a political processthey once dominatedthose same Californian law enforcement organizations are now acting as opposition proponents and donating funds to opposeProposition 64 which would legalize marijuana for adult use and on which California voters will decide on Nov. 8. RELATED STORY 13 Things You Might Not Know About Californias Prop. 64 To find out more I researched the five top police organizations in terms of spending on lobbyists in the state capital that have also donated to the current No campaign. These five are the California Correctional Supervisors Organization and the Peace Officers Research Association of California which are collective bargaining organizations along with CPCA CNOA and the Los Angeles Peace Officers Association which are professional and training organizations. According to current California Secretary of Statelobbying activity reportsjust these fiveof course there are many other law enforcement organizations registered with the statespent a combined total of $9552032.53 of direct and indirect taxpayer dollars on lobbying since 2001. With two more reporting periods left in this legislative session I anticipate that this number will soon exceed $10 million paid out to lobbyists. But state-level law enforcement organizations are not alone in doing this. How HIDTA Programs Cross EthicalLines Organizations that receivefederalfunding grants from the Office of National Drug Control (ONDCP)or are under the ONDCPs span of control such as the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) programsalso spend resources to prop up the failed status quo. HIDTAs are a grant-funded initiative by the ONDCP (which is headed by the US Drug Czar Michael Botticelli whorecently admittedthat the federal government intentionally repressed research into the efficacy of medical marijuana). HIDTAs were established in 1990 at the height of the War on Drugssince then their budget has grown from an initial $25 million to the current allocation of $194 million. Its critical to understand that though each HIDTA is grant-funded they arecollectivelygovernedby an executive board comprising federal state and local law enforcement agencies and prosecution offices. The board facilitates interagency drug control efforts to eliminate or reduceperceiveddrug threats and ensures threat-specific strategies and initiatives are developed employed supported and evaluated. But asemployees who exercise functions in connection with federally financed activities they are subject to federal and state laws proscribing political activity. There are now over 737HIDTA-initiated programs nationwide supporting everything from abstinence-only DARE-style drug education to intelligence reports marijuana eradication andmulti-agency narcotics task forces.But since the passage of adult consumption legalization across Colorado Washington and Oregon one of their new responsibilities appears to be writing intelligence reports geared towards reflecting the downsides of legalization while ignoring any benefits. Reasons Jacob Sullum hasdetailedhow these reports were started by the Rocky Mountain HIDTA (RMHIDTA) after Colorado legalized in 2012. Last month following the release of RMHIDTAs most recent report Sullum wrote: Since suppressing the use of marijuana and other illegal drugs is RMHIDTAs mission its reports on legalization are indictments masquerading as objective assessments. The same organization that last year falselyclaimedpublic support for legalization had declined in Colorado this year portrays a governor who sounds cautiously optimistic about legalization as unambiguously against it. In the lead-up to the vote on Prop. 64 the media either willfully or negligently ignore how the federal government suppresses positive information about the liberalization of marijuana laws and in doing so protectsits own interests.For law enforcement and for HIDTA its clear that maintaining economic resources and powerhas become an end in itself. Let me give you oneexample of the crossover betweenpolitical lobbyingand the misappropriation of government funding resources. In 2011 I received an email from theLos Angeles HIDTAoffice that was political in nature. It was asking members of law enforcement to sign a pro-drug war petitionand in doing soit violated afederal government edictagainstusing governmentresources for political purposes. This was reported byDavid Downsin theEast Bay Express.He noted the waste of fiscal resources not just by the federal government but by state and local law enforcement officers. The LA HIDTA quickly retracted that email noting that it was a violation of policybut my experiences and contacts in law enforcement suggest that such violations are the norm not the exception. And most Americans would be unaware of this. RELATED STORY Straight Talk in Ski Country: A Qamp;A with Aspens Cannabis-Friendly Sheriff Connections Between Anti-Marijuana Nonprofits and Government Funding A similar blurring of roles and funding applies to certainnonprofit organizations such as community drug-free coalitions or anti-marijuana groups. Just last week for example I readan articlein theNapa Valley Registercovering a presentation by John Redman the executive director of Californians for Drug Free Youth (CADFY)a San Diego-based nonprofit funded through the ONDCPDrug Free CommunitiesProgram. Redmans talk titled Weeding out the Facts was by his own admission one-sidedpresenting his version of negative information about marijuana in order to counter information provided through by the Yes on 64 campaign. But what Im certain Redmandidntshare is that he is not only the executive director of a government-sponsored drug-free organization; he alsorepresents the federal governmentas the demand-reduction coordinator for the California High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (CAHIDTA) and is helping coordinate opposition to the legalization campaign. CADFY a 501(c)(3) organization has been a community drug-free coalition granteeand hasreceived designated HIDTA funding for the California Border Region. I can only infer that the use of a fiscal sponsorship is a way for SAM to sidestep the rules that limit tax deductible contributions. Meanwhile Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) founded in 2013 as a nonprofit charity according to its website has emerged as one of the most prominent anti-legalization organizations. Its led by Kevin Sabet a former senior advisor to the drug czar and the White House and vehement legalization opponent. I first became interested in the links between SAM and the federally funded HIDTA groups back in 2014. As an experiment I donated one dollar to CADFY. My PayPal receipt indicated that donations to CADFY were now going directly to SAM. But the email address to process the donation was agovernment-issuedHIDTA address. Its this overlap that is problematic. Courtesy of Diane Goldstein/LEAP SAM has yet to file a Federal 990 tax return since it started operating in January 2013 as a charitable nonprofit. There is no record of an IRS ruling granting them their 501(c)(3) nonprofit status in either Guidestar or according to the IRS. In April 2015 SAM ACTION filed for 501(c)(4) status which was just granted in July of 2016 (EIN 47-368846). Its no surprise that they also formed apolitical action committeeand specifically in California they also formed a ballot measure committee named A Committee Against Proposition 64 with Help from Citizens (FPPC ID 1387789) that has been making active donations to the opposition campaign. The fact that SAM Action is a501(c)(4) means that its funders cannot take a charitable tax deductionand though CADFY is permitted to donate to SAM that donation must be restricted to acharitablepurpose only. Having started several nonprofits myself I understand the complexities of tax filingsof this kind.I can only inferthat the use of a fiscal sponsorship is a way for SAM to sidestep therules that limittax deductible contributions for 501(c)(4)s and limits political activity and lobbying under501(c)(3)s. According to Federal 990 Tax records CADFY has been making direct donations to SAM since 2013. It was also in 2013 thatthe firstRMHIDTA reportwas released following the November 2012 legalization of marijuana in Colorado. This report (like every RMHIDTA report since) was widely touted by Kevin Sabet and SAM to highlight the supposed negative effects of legalization. In August 2015 I read with interest how CADFY had sponsored a poll thatindicatedthat Coloradans were experiencing buyers remorse. I wondered why a California organization was interested in Colorado. Again Kevin Sabetusedthis poll to push a message of a marijuana industry run amokneglecting to reveal that CADFY is a fiduciary agent or fiscal sponsor of SAM and in 2014 raised over $234398 for his organization. Its evident that Sabet and his allies have found a legal but unethical away to drive their political agenda at the taxpayers expense. Used correctly a fiscal sponsor is a way to help build support for an organization and is supposed to provide fiscal oversight and financial management for new nonprofits. But given the anti-drug mission of HIDTAit can reasonably be inferredthat this non-disclosure was an effort to avoidthe transparency and accountability that are critical to the governance of nonprofits. Because of the fiscal sponsorship arrangementwe are unable to see how donations are being spent by SAM and if they are being co-mingled with SAMs political action committee SAM Action Inc.There is also currentlyaninvestigation by thestate campaign watchdog agencyinto allegations that SAM Action violated campaign laws by failing to properly register and report its contributions to the anti-Proposition 64 campaign. Thisallegedfailure to make a correct and timely disclosure of the receipt of contributionswould bea serious violation of the California Political Reform Act. In 2015 I again donated a dollar to CADFY. This time I received a PayPal receipt displaying a SAM email address. Courtesy of Diane Goldstein/LEAP Why the change?I can theorize that both SAM and CADFY realized thatthe relationship between a government-run HIDTA program and a nonprofit with clear political purposes was inappropriate. Since 2013 John Redmanthe HIDTA demand reduction director for HIDTA and CADFY executive directorhas helped to coordinate national marijuana summits. CADFYs 2013 and 2014 tax records reflect expenditures of over $127000 dollars to host those events. The mission of the summits according to a flyer from a Florida event is to assemble a national action plan to address the impact of marijuana. Theevents are invitation-only and Kevin Sabet has played a prominent role. The presentation by Redman called Developing Collaborative Solutions was anything but objectiveits clear to anyone viewing theslidesthat its focus was how to build a political opposition campaign not how to educate attendees on the public health implications of legalization. In addition to funding anti-marijuana summits Redman has been disseminating HIDTA reports including one just releasedabout Californiathat cherry-picks data in an attempt to generate some modern-day reefer madness. This California HIDTA report employs data for example from a 2011-13 California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS) reflecting increases in past-30-days marijuana use. But the report neglects to mention that there is anewbiennial survey out: A simple Google search took me to the 2013-2015Biennial Statewide Student Surveywhich indicates that past-30-days marijuana use hasdecreased to 2008-2010 levels. CAHIDTAs report also omits the CHKS finding that 11th graders showed a four-point decrease in current marijuana use while lifetime marijuana use decreased by seven points. RELATED STORY Heres Why Cannabis Legalization Doesnt Lead to Higher Teen Use Rates Such misinformation is egregious but standard. Even more alarming to me are the close links between government funding and lobbying that SAM and HIDTA demonstrate. And their collaboration goes further: The two organizations have coordinated numerousconferences with SAM bringing in HIDTA representatives to represent fact-based information on marijuana legalization during the campaign. Each of these conferences have been promoted by law enforcement prosecutors and other government agencies. Its evidentthat Sabet and his allies have found a legal but unethical away to drive their political agenda at the taxpayers expense. The clear link between Sabet and Redman creates a perception of irregularity and a potential breach of the public trust. This activity can be fairly characterized as advocacy and its funding thereby violates core democratic principles. Kevin Sabet and I have plenty of history and Im tired of pointing out his hypocrisy. But in its own way his failure to publicly disclose his connection to CADFY and HIDTA is as dangerous as law enforcements unethical use of power money and influence. Its difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it Upton Sinclair once wrote.Based on the manipulation of the nonprofit system by HIDTA and SAM and the economic resources of the criminal justice lobby I would add that the pursuit of power and status is also damaging our political process today. Meanwhile at least until Nov. 8the No on 64 Campaign and the police lobby continue to pretend that they are the victims in a David-and-Goliath battle for our children. I believe that we should critically analyze how such practices threaten proper governance. Rather than the specter of Big Marijuana we should worry about how unscrupulous self-interested operators in state local and federal government are undermining our democratic process. This article was originally published byThe Influence a news site that covers the spectrum of human relationships with drugs. FollowThe InfluenceonFacebookorTwitter. CaliforniaElection 2016kevin sabetlegalizationpolitics Diane Goldstein Lt. Cmdr. Diane Goldstein(Ret.) is a board member ofLaw Enforcement Against Prohibition a group of law enforcement officials opposed to the war on drugs. Law Enforcement Why One Ex-Chicago Prosecutor Changed Her Thinking On the Drug War This One Chart Captures Everything Wrong With NYC Cannabis Arrests Nub-Kicking Cops No Longer Harassing Southern California Dispensaries Science amp; Tech How Cannabis Could Turn the Opioid Epidemic Around Politics Leafly Investigation: Michigan Marijuana Frame-Up Politics National Guard Declares Victory Over Lone Cannabis Plant Science amp; Tech How Scientists Debunked a Study About Medical Marijuana Laws and Underage Use The post How Your Tax Dollars Are Used to Fund Cannabis Opponents in a Clear Violation of Ethics appeared first on Leafly. by Diane Goldstein at Leafly