Connect with us

Business News

The fallout after Sessions’ anti-states’-rights posture on marijuana

(BUSINESS NEWS) What are politicians saying and how will cannabusinesses fare as US Attorney General, Jeff Sessions takes a hardline stance against marijuana use and sales.

Published

on

weederies cannabusiness weed pot marijuana

“What is a legacy? It’s planting seeds in a garden you never get to see.” —Hamilton, “The World Was Wide Enough”

It’s not uncommon to see policies changed from one Presidential administration to another, as each tries to shape the nation, and, ultimately, their legacy, in the way that makes the most sense to them and their party. However, what is somewhat uncommon is to see a President tacitly approving a major shift in policy (and perhaps practice) that potentially negatively affects not only a growing business segment in multiple states, but also flies in the face of promises made on the campaign trail and angers members of his own party who see it as a rise in the overreach of federalism.

Late last week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded a memo regarding federal levels of action regarding marijuana issued by former Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department. The memo, which dated back to the Obama presidency, provided states with autonomy regarding the legalization of marijuana, and kept federal prosecutors at bay, for all but the most serious of marijuana-related crimes, such as drug trafficking across state lines or selling to minors. For a brief history of how marijuana legislation state-by-state came to be, check out a great overview at Vox.

Sessions, however, views marijuana as a gateway drug, the state legalization of which has not only flouted federal law, but also created a potential for higher rates of impaired driving, greater appeal to youth, as well as a black market for marijuana in states which neighbor those where marijuana is legal. Advocacy groups, such as Smart Approaches to Marijuana, join Sessions in his concern and welcome a potential return for marijuana to fall under federal enforcement.

While Sessions has taken the step of rescinding the prior guidance on the issue for federal prosecutors, there has yet to be a directive as to just how active enforcement on marijuana will be. While some say that the new direction will give prosecutors the ability to go after high profile cases that states are loath or unable to prosecute, others within the Justice Department point to a department strapped for resources, and highlight opioid abuse and human trafficking as remaining front and center on the minds of the prosecutors.

On the campaign trail, then-candidate Trump promised that he would leave marijuana legislation in the hands of the states, a position that echoed with his Republican base.

Looking at the matter as a states’ rights issue, rather than a federal problem, providing states greater autonomy to appeal to their citizens/voters to solve their local problems removes federal overreach – a key campaign point of President Trump and platform point for the Republican Party.

Indeed, the sudden move by Sessions appears to have caught many key Republican politicians off guard, but ready to strike back. Senator Cory Gardner, a Republican from Colorado, promised to block appointments for key Justice Department positions until Sessions relents and restores the previous policy.

Don Young, a Republican Representative from Alaska, in speaking to the Associated Press, noted that the legalization of recreational marijuana sale had been approved by the voters from the individual states and they, as Congressmen, had a duty to act, saying, “Congress is the voice of the people and we have a duty to do what is right by the states.”

Coming on the first day that recreational marijuana was to be made legal for sale in California, Sessions’ shift had the effect of disrupting a growing business segment as well: Cannabusinesses and those industries that have grown to meet their needs, such as bankers and security forces.

What to do with the proceeds from cannabusiness has always been a slippery argument. Banking, which is regulated by both the states as well as the federal government, has had no assurances that federal enforcement of banks and credit unions which accept funds from the sale of marijuana would be exempt from prosecution.

Indeed, industry giants such as Wells Fargo, which had initially tried to get a large portion of the market share have pulled out completely, leaving smaller firms, such as Colorado’s Safe Harbor Private Banking, to bear the burden and potential for prosecution for crimes ranging from money laundering to racketeering. On the heels of Sessions’ announcement, cannabusiness stocks slipped sharply as well.

As the Trump presidency finds its legacy forward, balancing between states’ rights, law and order, and the best use of federal resources, it should consider the fruits that previous Prohibitions have borne.

Making alcohol illegal in the United States from 1920-1933 had the net effect of increasing the reach of organized crime and the spread of bathtub gin. The war on drugs in America, including on marijuana since 1937, has had similar results: a large amount of money spent to negligible gain.

The National Review points out that police departments nationwide made nearly 575,000 marijuana-related arrests in 2105 alone(nearly 70,000 more than for all categories of violent crime combined). In combating the effects of foreign drug cartels, they note the work of a Mexican think tank who estimated that legalization of marijuana nationwide in the United States would have the effect of crippling the Mexican drug cartels financially, reducing their intake by $1.6 billion (or 80 percent) annually.

For today, however, there is no talk of decriminalization, much less legalization nationwide, and the states whose voters approved the legal sale of marijuana in their borders are somewhat in limbo. Despite the uncertainty, there is a spirit of optimism that the status quo won’t change as much, and that the move was designed to reflect posturing on the part of the Sessions-led Justice Department.

Washington Governor Jay Inslee, whose state was one of the first to legalize marijuana in 2012, said that things would go on as usual, stating that “[w]e should, in my book, not push the panic button on either …individual lives or …businesses.”

Roger is a Staff Writer at The American Genius and holds two Master's degrees, one in Education Leadership and another in Leadership Studies. In his spare time away from researching leadership retention and communication styles, he loves to watch baseball, especially the Red Sox!

Continue Reading
Advertisement
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. TheSophist

    January 9, 2018 at 10:34 pm

    Silly post. Neither the Attorney General nor his boss the President make laws. Hence, they can’t make marijuana legal or not legal. Congress does that. That various Republican congresscritters are now talking about legalizing pot is precisely the way it’s supposed to work.

    I prefer if the Executive Branch doesn’t get to pick and choose which laws it will and won’t enforce, and the legislature is forced to make and repeal laws that the people want and do not want. YMMV.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Business News

Is insecurity the root of overworking in today’s workforce?

(CAREER) Why are professionals who “made it” in their field still chronically overworked? Why are people still glorifying a lack of sleep in the name of the hustle?!

Published

on

startup optimize to key metric

So you got that job you wanted after prepping for months, and everything seems cool and good… but you’re working way more hours than scheduled. Skipping lunch, coming in early and staying late, and picking up any project that comes your way. You’re overworked.

Getting the job was supposed to be a mark of success in itself, but now, work is your life and everyone is wondering how you can be working so much if you’re already successful.

In an article for Harvard Business Review, Laura Empson delves into what drives employees to overwork themselves. Empson is a professor of Management of Professional Service firms at the University of London, and has spend the last 25 years researching business practices.

Her recently published book Leading Professionals: Power, Politics and Prima Donnas, focuses on business organizational theory and behavior, based on 500 interviews with senior professionals in the world’s largest organizations.

Over the course of her research, Empson encountered numerous reports of people in white-collar positions pushing themselves to work exhausting hours. Decades ago, those with white-collar jobs in law firms, accountancy firms, and management consultancies worked towards senior management positions to gain partnership.

Once partnership was reached, all the hard work paid off in the form of autonomy and flexibility with scheduling and projects. Now, even entry-level employees are working overextended hours.

An HR director interviewed by Empson noted, “The rest of the firm sees the senior people working these hours and emulates them.” There’s a drive to mirror upper management, even at the cost of health.

Empson’s research indicates insecurity is the root of this behavior. Insecurity about when work is really done, how management will perceive employees, and what counts as hard work. Intangible knowledge work provokes insecurity since there’s rarely ever a way to tell when this work is complete.

Colleagues turn into competitors, and suddenly working outside of your regular hours becomes seen as normal if you want to keep up with the competition. You want to stand out from the crowd, so staying late a few days a week starts to feel normal.

This can turn into a slippery slope, and when being overworked feels like the norm, you may not notice taking on even more extra hours and responsibilities to feel like you’re contributing efficiently to the company.

During her research, Empson found that some recruiters admitted to hiring “insecure overachievers” for their firms.

Insecure overachievers are incredibly ambitious and motivated, but driven by feelings of inadequacy. Financial insecurity and disproportionately tying self-worth to productivity are just a few contributing factors to their self-doubt.

As a result, these kind of people are amazingly self-disciplined, and likely to pursue elite positions with professional organizations. Fear of being exposed as inadequate drives insecure employees to work long hours to prove themselves

Even upper level management is subject to this same insecurity.

Organizational pressures can make even the most established leader overwork themselves.

Empson notes, “Working hard can be rewarding and exhilarating. But consider how you are living. Recognize when you are driving yourself and your staff too hard, and learn how to help yourself and your colleagues to step back from the brink.“

Analyze your organization’s conscious and unconscious messaging about achievement, and make sure you’re setting and enforcing realistic expectations for your team.

Continue Reading

Business News

How employers should react to the new age discrimination court ruling

(BUSINESS NEWS) A court case that could likely land in the Supreme Court is one that all employers should react to and prepare for.

Published

on

age discrimination

In January, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that then 58-year-old Dale Kleber did not get protection against age discrimination from CareFusion as a job applicant.

For employers, there are some important takeaways. Namely, that Kleber v CareFusion does not give employers open season to only hire young workers.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) protects employees against age discrimination. There are also protections against disparate treatment under ADEA.

Basically, employers cannot intentionally discriminate against aged applicants. When posting a job, that means you should never advertise for someone under the age of 40 when posting job descriptions.

While Federal law may not apply to older applicants, the Texas Labor Code,  for example prohibits discrimination against people over 40 years of age. Employers should be very aware of inequity throughout the hiring process, whether you’re looking at internal or external candidates. You do not want to be a test case for age discrimination.

How can you avoid violating ADEA and other applicable laws?

First, you should work with your legal counsel and HR department to make sure you are following the law. If you are accused of age discrimination, you should talk to your lawyer before responding. It’s a serious complaint that you shouldn’t try to answer on your own.

Next, go through your job postings to make them age-neutral unless there is a reason for hiring someone under the age of 40. The legal term for this is Bona Fide Occupational Definition. The qualifications can’t be arbitrary. There must be industry standards that determine a definable group of employees cannot perform the job safely.  

Words in applications matter. Don’t ask for GPA or SAT scores. Avoid things like “digital native,” “high-energy,” or “overqualified.” These terms indicate that you’re looking for someone young.  

You should also update application forms that request birthdays or graduation dates. According to the Society for Human Resource Management, you should structure interviews around skill sets, not personal information.

Train those responsible for hiring about the current laws in your state.

Make your managers aware of bias, both conscious and unconscious. It’s not age discrimination that runs afoul of the law, and you must be prepared to confront any situation where it occurs.

Talk about age bias and discrimination in your workplace. Don’t assume that older workers aren’t tech savvy or that they don’t want to keep their skills current. Instead of putting generations against each other, have a multigeneration workplace.

Continue Reading

Business News

Cities are fighting back against the motorized scooter companies

(BUSINESS NEWS) The scooter wars are on, and major cities are filled with them – residents and government are finally fighting back.

Published

on

bird scooters

When the scooter-pocalypse began, it seemed to come out of nowhere. One day, the most annoying thing in downtown traffic was maybe a pedicab, and then the next: a swarm of zippy electric razor scooters.

This sudden arrival was by design: companies like Lime and Uber’s JUMP simply just began offering their services. There was no negotiation with the city, no opportunity even for residents to say whether or not the scooter pick-up stations could be located in front of their houses—just a sudden horde of scooters (for the record, this do-it-first and then ask permission approach was replicated in all major cities across the United States).

Was this illegal? Nope. There was nothing on the law books about the rental scooter technology so there was technically nothing wrong with the companies just assuming that they could do what they wanted. (Some scooterists have since come to think the same thing, committing crimes and breaking rules.)

Now, enough time has passed for cities to have the opportunity to fight back, as a new year of legislative sessions has begun. San Francisco is one such community, which determined that only permitted companies could operate within the city limits—and, surprise, many of the don’t-ask-permission companies were not given these permits.

Lime, blocked from operating, filed a suit against the city saying that they had been discriminated against based on their … rude … arrival.

A judge has since ruled that there was no bias in the city’s review of the permit applications that were later not awarded to Lime.

As the legislation and the lawsuits play out over the next year, it will be interesting to see if the scooter company’s attitudes toward the cities they operate in change.

If, as they have said all along, they desire to be the next major innovation in urban infrastructure, then they need to be prepared to work with and grow alongside the communities that they inhabit.

It would be a wise move, then, to partner with local governments to ensure that both organizations are working in the best interest of the populations that they serve. 

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Our Great Partners

The
American Genius
news neatly in your inbox

Subscribe to our mailing list and get interesting stuff and updates to your email inbox.

Emerging Stories