Archive

Archive for the ‘drugs’ Category

Federal Taxation of Marijuana Sellers, CRS Legal Sidebar (November 6, 2014)

November 18, 2014 Comments off

Federal Taxation of Marijuana Sellers, CRS Legal Sidebar (PDF)
Source: Congressional Research Service (via Federation of American Scientists)

As several states have permitted the use of marijuana for medical and recreational uses, one question that arises is what are the federal income tax consequences for businesses that sell marijuana?

There is no question that income from selling marijuana is taxable to the seller, regardless of whether such sale is legal or not under federal or state law. The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) uses a very broad definition of income, and income is taxable whether it comes from legal or illegal activities. Further, it can be taxed even if the proceeds are forfeited to the government.

About these ads

CRS — Cities Try, and Fail (So Far), to Prevent Federal Marijuana Enforcement, CRS Legal Sidebar (October 24, 2014)

November 6, 2014 Comments off

Cities Try, and Fail (So Far), to Prevent Federal Marijuana Enforcement, CRS Legal Sidebar (PDF)
Source: Congressional Research Service (via Federation of American Scientists)

To paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the death of federal marijuana enforcement appear to have been exaggerated. While federal authorities have created a perceived safe harbor for the operation of marijuana businesses in states that have legalized the drug, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is still punishing violations of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) when a business’s activities threaten certain core federal interests, such as preventing the distribution of marijuana to children and combating the involvement of criminal enterprise. One tool the DOJ has used to close down offending dispensaries, grow facilities, and retail shops is civil forfeiture—a legal process by which the government may seize and liquidate a wide array of property “used or intended to be used to facilitate a violation of the CSA.” Once a decision to initiate a forfeiture proceeding has been made, there appears to be very little that states or localities, that actively support the operation of marijuana businesses, can do to prevent federal authorities from enforcing federal law.

Bankruptcy for Marijuana Businesses?, CRS Legal Sidebar (October 29, 2014)

November 3, 2014 Comments off

Bankruptcy for Marijuana Businesses?, CRS Legal Sidebar (PDF)
Source: Congressional Research Service (via Federation of American Scientists)

Much ink has been spilled about the disparity between state and federal marijuana laws and the resulting risks to individuals and companies in—or providing services to—medical and recreational marijuana businesses that operate legally under the laws of more than 20 states even while such activities remain unlawful under federal law. Recent bankruptcy court cases suggest that one such risk may be the ultimate unavailability to both debtors and creditors of the protections, benefits, and predictability of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code when state-regulated marijuana businesses fail.

CRS — Reauthorizing the Office of National Drug Control Policy: Issues for Consideration (September 30, 2014)

October 8, 2014 Comments off

Reauthorizing the Office of National Drug Control Policy: Issues for Consideration (PDF)
Source: Congressional Research Service (via Federation of American Scientists)

The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) is located in the Executive Office of the President and has the responsibility for creating policies, priorities, and objectives for the federal Drug Control Program. This national program is aimed at reducing the use, manufacturing, and trafficking of illicit drugs and the reduction of drug-related crime and violence and of drug-related health consequences. The director of ONDCP has primary responsibilities of developing a comprehensive National Drug Control Strategy (Strategy) to direct the nation’s anti-drug efforts; developing a National Drug Control Budget (Budget) to implement the National Drug Control Strategy, including determining the adequacy of the drug control budgets submitted by contributing federal Drug Control Program agencies; and evaluating the effectiveness of the National Drug Control Strategy implementation by the various agencies contributing to the Drug Control Program. Authorization for ONDCP expired at the end of FY2010, but it has continued to receive appropriations. Congress, while continuously charged with ONDCP’s oversight, is now faced with its possible reauthorization.

Empirically Characterizing Domain Abuse and the Revenue Impact of Blacklisting

September 29, 2014 Comments off

Empirically Characterizing Domain Abuse and the Revenue Impact of Blacklisting (PDF)
Source: George Mason University Department of Computer Science

Using ground truth sales data for over 40K unlicensed prescription pharmaceuticals sites, we present an economic analysis of two aspects of domain abuse in the online counterfeit drug market. First, we characterize the nature of domains abused by affiliate spammers to monetize what is evidently an overwhelming demand for these drugs. We found that the most successful affiliates are agile in adapting to adversarial circumstances, and channel the full spectrum of domain abuse to advertise to customers. Second, we use contemporaneous blacklisting data to provide an economic analysis of the revenue impact of domain blacklisting, a technique whereby lists of “known bad” registered domains are distributed and used to filter email spam. We found that blacklisting rapidly and effectively limited per-domain sales. Nevertheless, blacklisted domains continued to monetize, likely as a result of high demand, non-universal use of blacklisting, and delay in deployment. Finally, our results suggest that increasing the number of domains discovered and using blacklists to block access to spam domains could undermine profitability more than further improving the speed with which domains are added to blacklists.

Perceived neighborhood illicit drug selling, peer illicit drug disapproval and illicit drug use among U.S. high school seniors

September 25, 2014 Comments off

Perceived neighborhood illicit drug selling, peer illicit drug disapproval and illicit drug use among U.S. high school seniors
Source: Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy

Background
This study examined associations between perceived neighborhood illicit drug selling, peer illicit drug disapproval and illicit drug use among a large nationally representative sample of U.S. high school seniors.

Methods
Data come from Monitoring the Future (2007-2011), an annual cross-sectional survey of U.S. high school seniors. Students reported neighborhood illicit drug selling, friend drug disapproval towards marijuana and cocaine use, and past 12-month and past 30-day illicit drug use (N = 10,050). Multinomial logistic regression models were fit to explain use of 1) just marijuana, 2) one illicit drug other than marijuana, and 3) more than one illicit drug other than marijuana, compared to “no use”.

Results
Report of neighborhood illicit drug selling was associated with lower friend disapproval of marijuana and cocaine; e.g., those who reported seeing neighborhood sales “almost every day” were less likely to report their friends strongly disapproved of marijuana (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.29, 0.49) compared to those who reported never seeing neighborhood drug selling and reported no disapproval. Perception of neighborhood illicit drug selling was also associated with past-year drug use and past-month drug use; e.g., those who reported seeing neighborhood sales “almost every day” were more likely to report 30-day use of more than one illicit drug (AOR = 11.11, 95% CI: 7.47, 16.52) compared to those who reported never seeing neighborhood drug selling and reported no 30-day use of illicit drugs.

Conclusions
Perceived neighborhood drug selling was associated with lower peer disapproval and more illicit drug use among a population-based nationally representative sample of U.S. high school seniors. Policy interventions to reduce “open” (visible) neighborhood drug selling (e.g., problem-oriented policing and modifications to the physical environment such as installing and monitoring surveillance cameras) may reduce illicit drug use and peer disapproval of illicit drugs.

How Much Crime is Drug-Related? History, Limitations, and Potential Improvements of Estimation Methods

September 22, 2014 Comments off

How Much Crime is Drug-Related? History, Limitations, and Potential Improvements of Estimation Methods (PDF)
Source: National Criminal Justice Reference Service
From NCJRS abstract:

Goldstein’s model of drug-related crime identifies three categories of DAFs: “economic-compulsive” (crimes committed to obtain money for buying drugs); “psychopharmacological” crime (crimes committed due to the effect of drugs, such as assaults and homicides); and “systemic” crime (crimes committed by individuals and organizations in the course of operating a drug-trafficking enterprise). In addition to these three categories of DAFs, this paper proposes four additional types of DAFs indirectly related to drug supply and demand. Although these drug-related harmful effects may not involve specific law violations, they constitute part of the cost of drug supply and consumption. One of the four additional drug-related costs to society is the diminishment of positive contributions to society the drug-user might have provided had he/she not become dependent on drugs. A second indirect effect pertains to the adverse impacts the drug-user has on his/her children and other family members because of drug dependence. A third indirect effect is the impact of drug market activities on the neighborhood environment and constructive influence. The fourth indirect cost of drug use is the general diminishment of the informal ability of a society to mold the moral development of its members and thus deter crime. 3 figures and 53 references

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 960 other followers