Cannabis News

The Weed Made Me Do It

Published

4 months ago

August 26, 2024

admin

marijuana insanity defense

The Rise of the Weed Insanity Defense – WeedSanity!

The “cannabis made me do it” defense, once a bizarre footnote in legal history, is gaining alarming traction in courtrooms across the globe. When Bryn Spejcher, a California woman, successfully used “transient psychosis” as her get-out-of-jail-free card after brutally stabbing her boyfriend 108 times, it set a dangerous precedent. I warned then that this ruling would open the floodgates for more killers to claim “temporary insanity” induced by cannabis use.

Sadly, that prediction is becoming reality. In Ireland, Diego Costa Silva was found not guilty of murdering his wife, thanks to a “cannabis-induced psychosis” defense. Now, we’re seeing this strategy employed with increasing frequency, as murderers attempt to shirk responsibility for their heinous acts.

Let’s be clear: even if cannabis could induce a state of temporary insanity (a claim that deserves intense scrutiny), the capacity for such violent behavior should be cause for serious concern, not a ticket to freedom. The idea that a plant could transform someone into a remorseless killing machine is either a blatant lie or a red flag that the individual poses an ongoing threat to society.

This article delves into a recent case where this defense strategy didn’t pan out as the killer had hoped. It serves as a crucial message to future jurors: we must not allow cold-blooded murderers to walk free based on dubious claims about cannabis-induced psychosis. The stakes are too high, and justice demands better.

James Kilroy, a 51-year-old park ranger from Westport, Co Mayo, Ireland, shocked the nation with a brutal act of violence against his wife, Valerie French Kilroy. His defense? A claim that cannabis-induced psychosis led him to believe his wife was conspiring with Donald Trump’s bodyguards to capture, torture, and kill him.

The tragic events unfolded between June 13 and 14, 2019. Valerie, a mother of three, had been enjoying a night out with friends. Upon her return home, she encountered a nightmare. James Kilroy, in what he later claimed was a state of drug-induced paranoia, viciously attacked his wife. He beat her, stabbed her repeatedly, and ultimately strangled her to death. The brutality of the assault was evident, with signs of a struggle and the use of a ligature.

Hours after the murder, Kilroy was discovered wandering naked in a nearby field, a surreal scene that hinted at his disturbed state of mind. When questioned by gardaí and psychiatrists, he spun a web of delusional beliefs, centering on the bizarre claim about his wife’s alleged collaboration with Trump’s security detail.

Investigations revealed that Kilroy had a history of cannabis use. In 2001, he had experienced a previous psychotic episode related to drug use, a fact his defense team would later leverage in their strategy.

Kilroy’s legal team built their case around a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. They argued that their client had suffered from cannabis-induced psychosis or a form of acute and transient psychotic disorder at the time of the murder. This defense strategy mirrored recent high-profile cases where defendants had successfully used similar arguments to avoid conviction.

However, the jury at the Central Criminal Court was not swayed by this narrative. After careful consideration of the evidence presented during the trial, the eight women and four men unanimously rejected Kilroy’s insanity defense. Their decision came after just two hours of deliberation, a clear indication of their conviction in Kilroy’s guilt.

This verdict represents a significant moment in the ongoing debate about cannabis-related defenses in violent crime cases. By seeing through the smoke screen of alleged drug-induced psychosis, the jury affirmed the principle of personal responsibility. They sent a powerful message that such claims should not serve as a get-out-of-jail-free card for heinous acts of violence.

Kilroy now faces the mandatory sentence for murder in Ireland: life imprisonment. This outcome delivers a measure of justice for Valerie French Kilroy and her grieving family, who have endured the ordeal of three separate trials due to unforeseen difficulties in previous proceedings.

The case of James Kilroy serves as a stark reminder of the importance of critical thinking in jury deliberations, especially when confronted with novel defense strategies. It sets a precedent that may help curb the growing trend of using cannabis-induced psychosis as a shield against murder charges, ensuring that justice is served for victims and their families.

The notion that “transient insanity” induced by drug use can serve as a valid defense for murder is a dangerous precedent that threatens to undermine the very foundations of our justice system. This concept mocks the principles of law and order, creating a loophole that could potentially allow cold-blooded killers to evade justice. The stark reality is that millions of people consume various substances daily without resorting to violence. When an individual commits murder under the influence, it doesn’t negate their crime; rather, it may indicate underlying psychological issues that make them a continued threat to society.

The case of Bryn Spejcher, who received a mere two-year probation for a brutal murder, set a disturbing tone for future legal proceedings. This lenient sentence sent a message that drug-induced violence might be treated with undue leniency, opening the door for similar defenses. Indeed, since Spejcher’s case, we’ve seen this defense employed twice in Ireland alone, and it’s likely being attempted in courtrooms across the United States as well.

We cannot allow this to become a legal precedent. Murder remains murder, regardless of how intoxicated or mentally altered the perpetrator claims to have been at the time. Millions of individuals, myself included, have experienced altered states of consciousness through various substances without ever contemplating, let alone committing, violent acts. When someone drives under the influence and causes a fatal accident, we rightfully charge them with manslaughter, recognizing that their conscious decision to consume substances led to unconscious, yet deadly, actions.

It’s baffling, then, that taking a few hits from a bong could potentially absolve someone of responsibility for a gruesome murder. The idea that one could spin a tale of drug-induced delusions – like seeing “demons under the skin” or being transported to “the 11th layer of hell” – and use it as a get-out-of-jail-free card is not just absurd; it’s dangerous.

This trend towards accepting drug-induced “temporary insanity” as a defense for murder is, in itself, insane. It sets a perilous precedent that could be exploited by genuinely violent individuals to escape justice. As potential jurors, we must remain vigilant against these attempts to manipulate the legal system. When faced with such claims in a courtroom, it’s crucial to remember that the vast majority of drug users do not become violent, let alone murderous.

Our responsibility as members of society, and potentially as jurors, is to ensure that dangerous individuals are not released back into our communities based on dubious claims of drug-induced psychosis. We must weigh the evidence carefully, consider the broader implications of our decisions, and ultimately prioritize public safety. Murder, regardless of the circumstances or substances involved, remains one of the gravest crimes imaginable. Let’s not allow clever legal maneuvering to diminish its severity or the justice owed to its victims.

As we’ve seen with James Kilroy’s case, the “cannabis-induced psychosis” defense is far from disappearing. Until this dubious legal strategy is completely dismantled, we can expect more killers to attempt to exploit it, hoping to evade justice for their heinous acts.

However, there’s a more insidious consequence lurking beneath the surface. These cases risk reigniting the flames of prohibition, as opponents of cannabis legalization seize upon these isolated incidents to paint a false narrative of cannabis-induced violence. This tactic isn’t new; it’s a page torn straight from the playbook of Harry Anslinger, DuPont, and William Randolph Hearst. In the 1930s, they successfully leveraged sensationalized accounts of violent crimes, falsely attributing them to cannabis use, to sway Congress into passing the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act.

We must learn from history and not allow these isolated cases to derail the progress we’ve made in cannabis reform. Instead, let’s adopt a clear stance: regardless of whether one’s actions were influenced by cannabis or any other substance, the consequences for violent crimes should remain severe. Whether it’s incarceration or commitment to a secure psychiatric facility, we cannot afford to let murderers walk free based on claims of drug-induced temporary insanity.

By maintaining this firm position, we protect both the victims of violent crimes and the broader cause of sensible drug policy reform. Let’s not give prohibitionists new ammunition or murderers an escape route. Justice and public safety demand nothing less.

GETTING AWAY WITH MURDER BECAUSE OF WEED, READ ON…

MURDERS ARE NOW CLAIMING WEED MADE THEM DO IT, SAY WHAT?

Source link

Cannabis News

The Grinch Stole SAFE Banking from the Cannabis Industry This Christmas, Yet Again!

Published

8 hours ago

December 22, 2024

admin

no safe banking in 2024

The landscape of cannabis legislation in the United States has been a complex and evolving issue, particularly concerning banking regulations. As of December 2024, it has become official: the current Congress will not provide any protections for banks that serve state-legal marijuana businesses. This decision has significant implications for the cannabis industry, which continues to grow rapidly despite the lack of federal support. In this article, we will explore the reasons behind this decision, the implications for cannabis businesses, and the broader context of cannabis legalization in America.

The State of Cannabis Legalization

A Growing Industry

The cannabis industry has seen remarkable growth over the past decade. As of late 2024, 23 states and Washington D.C. have legalized recreational marijuana use, while 38 states allow medical marijuana. According to recent estimates, the legal cannabis market in the U.S. is projected to reach over $40 billion by 2025. This growth has been fueled by changing public perceptions of marijuana, increased advocacy for legalization, and significant tax revenues generated by state-legal cannabis sales.

The Banking Dilemma

Despite this rapid expansion, cannabis businesses face unique challenges, primarily due to their inability to access traditional banking services. Federal law classifies marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act. This classification creates a significant barrier for banks and financial institutions that wish to work with cannabis businesses, as they risk federal penalties for facilitating transactions related to an illegal substance.

As a result, many cannabis companies operate on a cash-only basis. This situation not only poses safety risks—such as increased theft and violence—but also limits these businesses’ ability to manage finances effectively, pay taxes electronically, and build credit histories.

Legislative Attempts at Reform

One of the most prominent legislative efforts aimed at addressing these banking issues is the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act. First introduced in 2019, the SAFE Banking Act sought to provide protections for banks that serve legal cannabis businesses by preventing federal regulators from penalizing them for doing so.

The act garnered significant bipartisan support in both the House and Senate. In previous sessions of Congress, it passed multiple times in the House but faced hurdles in the Senate due to opposition from certain lawmakers who were concerned about broader implications of marijuana legalization.

In light of ongoing discussions about federal spending and budgetary priorities, advocates had hoped that some version of the SAFE Banking Act would be included in recent spending bills. However, during negotiations leading up to December 2024, a House committee led by Republicans removed any provisions related to marijuana banking protections from key spending legislation.

This decision reflects a broader trend within Congress where discussions around cannabis reform have become increasingly contentious. While there is still bipartisan support for certain aspects of cannabis legislation—particularly when it comes to medical use—more comprehensive reforms like banking protections have struggled to gain traction.

Implications for Cannabis Businesses

Continued Cash-Only Operations

The removal of banking protections means that many cannabis businesses will continue to operate primarily on a cash basis. This situation presents several challenges:

Safety Risks: Cash-only operations make cannabis dispensaries and cultivation facilities prime targets for theft and robber Employees often have to handle large amounts of cash daily, increasing their risk of violence.

Operational Inefficiencies: Without access to banking services, businesses cannot easily manage payroll or pay bills electronically. This inefficiency can lead to operational delays and increased costs.

Impact on Public Safety

Advocates argue that providing banking access would enhance public safety by reducing the amount of cash circulating within the community. By allowing cannabis businesses to deposit their earnings into banks, it would minimize the risks associated with cash transactions, making both employees and customers safer.

Moreover, having a transparent financial system would help law enforcement track illicit activities more effectively. Currently, without proper banking oversight, there are concerns that some cash-only operations may be involved in money laundering or other illegal activities.

Politics and Public Opinion

Changing Attitudes Toward Cannabis

Public opinion on marijuana legalization has shifted dramatically over recent years. According to various polls, a significant majority of Americans now support legalizing marijuana for both medical and recreational use. This shift has put pressure on lawmakers to address outdated federal policies regarding cannabis.

Despite this growing acceptance among the public, political divisions remain strong within Congress regarding how best to approach cannabis reform. Some lawmakers advocate for full legalization at the federal level, while others prefer a more cautious approach that prioritizes regulation over outright legalization.

The Role of Advocacy Groups

Advocacy groups play a crucial role in pushing for legislative change regarding cannabis banking protections. Organizations such as the National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA) and Americans for Safe Access (ASA) have been vocal proponents of reforming banking laws to support state-legal cannabis businesses.

These groups have mobilized public support through campaigns highlighting the safety risks associated with cash-only operations and advocating for policies that promote financial inclusion for cannabis entrepreneurs.

Future Prospects for Cannabis Banking Reform

While current congressional efforts have stalled regarding marijuana banking protections, there are still potential avenues for reform:

Incremental Reforms: Rather than pursuing comprehensive federal legislation like the SAFE Banking Act all at once, lawmakers may consider incremental reforms that address specific issues related to banking access without fully legalizing marijuana at the federal level.

The Role of Public Awareness

As public awareness about the challenges faced by cannabis businesses grows, there may be increased pressure on lawmakers to act decisively on this issue. Continued advocacy efforts can help ensure that banking reform remains a priority on Congress’s agenda.

Conclusion

The decision by Congress not to include marijuana banking protections in its current spending bill underscores ongoing tensions surrounding cannabis legislation in America. While public opinion increasingly favors legalization and reform, political divisions continue to hinder progress on critical issues such as banking access for state-legal marijuana businesses.

As the industry continues to grow despite these challenges, stakeholders must remain vigilant in advocating for change while exploring alternative solutions at both state and federal levels. The future of cannabis banking reform remains uncertain; however, with continued advocacy and public support, there is hope that meaningful progress can be made in addressing these pressing issues facing one of America’s fastest-growing industries.

SAFE BANKING SINCE 2018, WHAT A FAILURE, READ ON…

SAFER BANKING ACT FAILS AGAINS, SAME OF BANANA IN THE TAILPIPE!

Source link

Cannabis News

HHC vs. Delta 9: Differences & Similarities

Published

2 days ago

December 20, 2024

admin

Cannabis has so many compounds, and two that have been making the rounds lately are HHC and Delta 9 THC. They’re not the same thing, even though they’re both cannabinoids that interact with the body’s endocannabinoid system. Some people want a mild, steady experience, while others might be looking for something more intense. Understanding these two can help you figure out what’s right for you.

What Is HHC?

HHC, short for hexahydrocannabinol, is a hydrogenated version of THC. It’s not something you’d find naturally in large amounts in cannabis plants. Instead, it’s made through a process that adds hydrogen molecules to THC. The result? A more stable compound that’s less prone to breaking down when exposed to heat or UV light.

How HHC Is Made

Think of it like a science experiment. HHC is usually created in a lab by taking Delta 9 or Delta 8 THC and using hydrogenation—basically, combining it with hydrogen under pressure and in the presence of a catalyst. This process changes its structure while keeping its effects somewhat similar to THC.

Common Uses and Effects of HHC

People who use HHC say it’s somewhere between Delta 8 and Delta 9 in terms of effects. It’s often described as relaxing but without being overly sedative. You might feel a light buzz, reduced stress, or mild euphoria. Some even claim it helps with discomfort or improving sleep, but solid research is still catching up. Since it’s less potent than Delta 9, it’s often favored by those who want a manageable experience without the strong psychoactive punch.

If you’re interested in trying HHC and Delta 9 for yourself, check out their wide range of products at trycandycloud.com. They’ve got everything from gummies to disposable vapes, all crafted for a smooth experience.

What Is Delta 9 THC?

Delta 9 THC is the main psychoactive compound in cannabis. It’s the reason you feel “high” when you use weed. Chemically speaking, Delta 9 has a double bond in its ninth carbon chain, which plays a big role in how it interacts with your brain.

Natural Occurrence in Cannabis

This one is straightforward: Delta 9 is found in high concentrations in marijuana plants. It’s what most people think of when they hear “THC.” Unlike HHC, there’s no need for a lab process—it’s already there. Hemp plants, however, contain much lower levels of Delta 9 THC, which is why it’s primarily extracted from marijuana.

Common Uses and Effects of Delta 9 THC

The effects of Delta 9 are well-documented. Depending on the dose, you might feel euphoria, increased appetite, or deep relaxation. For medical users, it’s often used to manage chronic pain, nausea, and other conditions. It’s also been studied for its potential benefits in anxiety relief, though higher doses might have the opposite effect, causing paranoia. Delta 9 THC is versatile, but it’s not without its risks, particularly for new users or those sensitive to its psychoactive effects.

Key Differences Between HHC and Delta 9 THC

Chemical Structure and Composition

The main difference is in their structure. Delta 9 THC has that iconic double bond, while HHC’s hydrogenation makes it more stable. This difference might not mean much to the average person, but it’s why HHC is less likely to degrade over time.

Potency Levels

Delta 9 THC is generally more potent. HHC might require a higher dose to get a comparable effect, but some people prefer its lighter touch. Potency differences can also depend on the method of consumption, with edibles typically providing a stronger, longer-lasting effect compared to vaping or smoking.

Duration of Effects

Both last a few hours, but some users report that HHC’s effects fade more gradually. Delta 9, on the other hand, can have a sharper comedown. HHC’s gradual fade makes it appealing for those who want a smooth end to their experience.

Benefits and Drawbacks of HHC and Delta 9 THC

HHC: Pros and Cons

Pros:

More stable, so it lasts longer on the shelf.
Effects are milder, making it less overwhelming for beginners.
Can be a functional option for daytime use.

Cons:

Limited research, so we don’t know its full impact yet.
Availability can be hit or miss depending on where you live.
Legal gray area in many regions.

Delta 9 THC: Pros and Cons

Pros:

Well-studied with established medical uses.
Widely available in areas where cannabis is legal.
Stronger effects make it ideal for experienced users or those with high tolerance.

Cons:

Higher chance of side effects like anxiety.
More likely to show up on drug tests.
Shorter shelf life compared to HHC.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q. Is HHC safer than Delta 9 THC?

Not enough research exists to say definitively, but HHC’s milder effects might make it feel safer to some users.

Q. Will HHC or Delta 9 THC show up on a drug test?

Yes, both can potentially show up on a drug test, so use with caution if that’s a concern.

Q. Which one is better for recreational use?

That depends on your preferences. HHC is great for a mellow time, while Delta 9 is better if you’re looking for something more intense.

HHC vs. Delta 9: Choosing the Right One for You

The choice comes down to what you’re after. If you want a milder, more laid-back experience, HHC might be a good option. On the other hand, if you’re looking for something stronger or need it for medical reasons, Delta 9 is the way to go. It also depends on what’s legal and available where you are. And always consider your tolerance levels and experience before diving in. If you’re unsure, consult with a knowledgeable dispensary staff.

Resources:

Source link

Cannabis News

What Federally Illegal Drug Has Created Almost $10 Billion in Sales Tax Revenue for States in the Last 40 Months?

Published

2 days ago

December 20, 2024

admin

sales tax revenue with marijuana

In a significant development for the burgeoning cannabis industry, the U.S. Census Bureau has reported that states across the nation have collectively amassed over **$9.7 billion** in tax revenue from marijuana sales since mid-2021. This figure underscores the economic impact of legalized cannabis and highlights the growing acceptance of marijuana as both a recreational and medicinal substance in various states. As more states move toward legalization, the financial implications both positive and negative are becoming increasingly evident.

The Landscape of Cannabis Legalization

The journey toward cannabis legalization in the United States has been long and complex. Initially criminalized in the early 20th century, cannabis began to regain acceptance in the late 20th century, particularly for medical use. The first state to legalize medical marijuana was California in 1996, setting a precedent that many states would follow.

By 2012, Colorado and Washington became the first states to legalize recreational cannabis, paving the way for a wave of legalization efforts across the country. As of now, more than 20 states have legalized recreational marijuana, while over 30 states allow medical use. This shift reflects changing public attitudes toward cannabis and recognition of its potential benefits.

Economic Implications of Legalization

The legalization of cannabis has not only transformed social norms but has also created a substantial economic impact. States that have embraced legalization have seen significant increases in tax revenue, job creation, and investment opportunities.

According to the latest Census Bureau report, states like California, Colorado, Illinois, and Michigan have emerged as leaders in cannabis tax revenue generation. These states have implemented various tax structures on marijuana sales, including excise taxes, sales taxes, and local taxes. The revenue generated is often earmarked for essential public services such as education, healthcare, infrastructure improvements, and drug rehabilitation programs.

Breakdown of Tax Revenue by State

As the largest legal cannabis market in the United States, California has been at the forefront of marijuana tax revenue generation. Since mid-2021, California has contributed approximately $2.5 billion to state coffers from cannabis taxes. This revenue is derived from both recreational and medical marijuana sales.

California’s tax structure includes a 15% excise tax on retail sales, along with local taxes that can vary significantly by city and county. The state has allocated a portion of these funds to various programs aimed at addressing issues related to drug abuse and public health.

Colorado was one of the pioneers in cannabis legalization and continues to serve as a model for other states. Since mid-2021, Colorado has generated around $1.8 billion in tax revenue from marijuana sales. The state imposes a 15% excise tax on wholesale marijuana transactions and a 2.9% sales tax on retail sales.

The revenue generated from cannabis taxes has been instrumental in funding education initiatives through the Public School Fund, as well as supporting mental health programs and substance abuse treatment services.

Illinois has seen remarkable growth in its cannabis market since legalizing recreational use in January 2020. In just two years, Illinois has collected approximately $1 billion in tax revenue from marijuana sales. The state imposes a tiered excise tax based on the potency of the product, ranging from 10% to 25%.

The funds collected are allocated to various initiatives, including community reinvestment programs aimed at addressing social equity issues related to past drug enforcement practices.

Michigan’s cannabis market has also flourished since legalization. Since mid-2021, Michigan has generated about $700 million in tax revenue from marijuana sales. The state’s tax structure includes a 10% excise tax on recreational marijuana and a 6% sales tax.

The revenue is utilized for various purposes, including education funding and support for local governments impacted by legalization.

Broader Economic Impact

The legalization of cannabis has led to significant job creation across various sectors. According to industry reports, the legal cannabis market supports hundreds of thousands of jobs nationwide—from cultivation and processing to retail and distribution. As more states legalize marijuana, this trend is expected to continue.

With the growth of the legal cannabis industry comes increased investment opportunities. Entrepreneurs are entering the market at an unprecedented rate, leading to innovations in product development, marketing strategies, and distribution channels. This influx of investment not only benefits individual businesses but also stimulates local economies.

Social Equity Considerations

While the financial benefits of cannabis legalization are clear, it is essential to address social equity issues that arise alongside this new industry. Many states have recognized that communities disproportionately affected by past drug enforcement policies should benefit from legalization efforts.

States like Illinois have implemented community reinvestment programs that allocate a portion of cannabis tax revenues to support communities impacted by previous drug laws. These funds can be used for education initiatives, job training programs, and mental health services—aiming to rectify historical injustices associated with cannabis prohibition.

In addition to financial support for communities affected by past policies, some states are also working to create equitable licensing opportunities for individuals from those communities. By prioritizing applications from minority-owned businesses or those directly impacted by previous drug laws, states can foster a more inclusive cannabis industry.

Challenges Ahead

Despite the significant progress made through legalization efforts, challenges remain on both state and federal levels.

Federal Legalization Uncertainty

One major hurdle is the ongoing conflict between state and federal laws regarding cannabis. While many states have legalized marijuana for recreational or medical use, it remains classified as a Schedule I substance under federal law. This discrepancy creates complications for businesses operating legally at the state level but facing potential federal prosecution.

Efforts toward federal legalization or decriminalization have gained traction recently; however, progress remains slow due to political divisions and differing opinions on drug policy reform.

Regulatory Hurdles

As more states enter the legal cannabis market, regulatory frameworks must evolve to ensure consumer safety while promoting fair competition among businesses. States face challenges related to product testing standards, labeling requirements, advertising restrictions, and taxation policies that can impact market dynamics.

Conclusion

The U.S. Census Bureau reports that states have collected over $9.7 billion in marijuana tax revenue since mid-2021, highlighting the significant economic impact of cannabis legalization. As public acceptance grows, more states are likely to pursue legalization. Despite ongoing challenges, including federal regulations and social equity issues, legalized cannabis is poised to remain a vital part of state economies. Collaboration among government officials, business leaders, and community advocates will be essential for fostering an equitable and sustainable cannabis industry. This evolving landscape not only presents economic growth opportunities but also addresses historical injustices tied to drug policy enforcement, shaping the future of cannabis legislation in the U.S.