Monthly Archives: October 2017

Could Brad Bradshaw’s Constitutional Marijuana Initiative Allow Him to Make a Deal on Behalf of Missouri with Iran?

Note Section 3, subsection M, article XII of the proposed Constitutional “Bradshaw Amendment” petition to create a Missouri state medical research institute and medical marijuana program empowered to:Screen Shot 2017-10-30 at 11.14.31 AM

This is very broad language granting a unilateral, unchecked power to the Research Board in charge of implementing this program to deal with foreign powers. It’s also worth remembering that Section 3, subsection I, article k designates Brad Bradshaw as the head of of the Research Board, empowering Mr. Bradshaw to propose and implement any agreement with a foreign power he chooses. Since this proposal if enacted by the voters would create a Constitutional framework superseding any legislative or executive ¬†action, any modification would have to be voted on in a future Constitutional referendum.

I don’t think Mr. Bradshaw will consider dealing with Iran or any other foreign power that is hostile to American interests, but it is a legitimate concern that the scope of this power is broad enough that this kind of action would be possible and Constitutionally sanctioned. Voters should evaluate the language of these and other medical marijuana initiative petitions closely, and contact their elected representatives to express these and similar concerns.

 

Advertisements

How 20 Operators Could Monopolize Missouri’s Medical Marijuana Industry

Today we will analyze the New Approach Missouri medical marijuana Constitutional proposal’s proposal for licensing marijuana cultivators. On page 6 of the NAM IP we find:

Screen Shot 2017-10-09 at 10.34.18 AM

On Page 7 we find

 

Screen Shot 2017-10-09 at 10.36.54 AM

The population of Missouri is almost 6,100,000 people. Under the most restrictive setting of this proposal, there would roughly 60 cultivation licenses allocated to applicants. Since New Approach Missouri specifies that up to 3 licenses can be held by a single entity, it is plausible that 20 entities could hold all the cultivation licenses for Missouri.

In 2016, then President of the Board for New Approach Missouri Mike Kielty sent a set of ¬†contracts to multiple entities who were being solicited to fund NAM’s 2016 ballot campaign. The contract included these provisions:

Screen Shot 2017-10-09 at 10.44.05 AM

It’s beyond question that the 2016 New Approach Missouri medical marijuana campaign (which failed) attempted to create a non-competitive oligopoly environment for stakeholders interested in acquiring marijuana licenses through the passage of the New Approach legislation.

It’s worth asking if the 2018 New Approach Missouri marijuana campaign is using similar tactics and what precisely they’re promising their donors.

Advertisements