Fluent Essays

Hi. I have a 30 page paper that I already wrote, but need somebody to do the footnotes and citations. I have a bibliography already. I just need the footnotes to conform to the rules of citation found in the Uniform System of Citation or The ALWD Citation Manual. It must be conforming to those. Only add the footnotes. The footnotes examples can be found in law review articles if you never did them before. Only footnotes This is a law review article showing how these footnotes supposed to be. Not Normal Footnotes please. https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/536-601_Online.pdf this is a law paper, please the footnotes must conform to the rules of citation found in the Uniform System of Citation or The ALWD Citation Manual The Organic Growth of the Cannabis Industry in the U.S. is Curtailed by Conflict of Laws, and is Costing the Government and Private-Sector Billions of Dollars in Lost Revenue Since the 1970’s, American law and policy have greatly progressed due to the changing societal needs, specifically with regard to cannabis use. Although the Federal government has remained somewhat consistent with the Treaty since its enactment with regard to cannabis, the 50 states had a different view of the Treaty. Since the enactment of the CSA in 1970, medical research technology advanced at an unprecedented rate. Specifically, medical research into cannabis, its extracts, tinctures and oils, has led to 33 states plus D.C. to allow for the medical-use of cannabis. In 2012, Colorado and Washington became the first states in the U.S. to legalize the recreational-use of cannabis, in its entirety, completely in conflict with Federal law that prohibits such use. Since 2012, eight more states amended or enacted new laws to allow for the recreational use of cannabis, for a total of ten states. While states continue to legalize the recreational use of cannabis, newer studies and technologies are evolving which are creating newer forms of cannabis medicines that may be able to treat a wider range of diseases, cancers, and disorders. Further, scientific research into the cannabis plant utilizing newer technology has been able to yield more than one hundred different cannabinoids, or chemicals, deriving from the plant, that all may treat different illnesses. As a result of research and the introduction of such forms of cannabis, the cannabis sector flourished as a market of its own but only to be held back by the conflicting international, federal, and state laws. The Federal Government has lost and is losing a great amount of money due to the forgoing of the collection of taxes within the cannabis industry, which is caused, mostly, by the conflict of federal and State laws. In the U.S., the cannabis industry has become a sector in and of itself with an estimated equity market capitalization of over $25 billion in 2018 (1). Since 2014, the total sales of cannabis have grown at approximately 30\% per year, totaling to about $9 billion in sales in 2017. (1). In California for example, a state tax of 15\% is imposed on all cannabis sales, plus mandatory city and county taxes, which bring the average sales tax at about 24\%, while a similar mechanism is used for other recreational states such as Colorado and Oregon. At $9 billion in sales, total tax revenue would equal to a little over $2 billion to the states while the federal government has received nothing. While the Federal Government is dealing with a growing federal budget deficit, the collection of taxes from cannabis-based businesses will certainly create one way of reducing the spending deficit, and the federal debt as a whole. The private sector has been greatly harmed in that commerce regulations and financial laws prohibit the deposit of any money derived from cannabis sales into banks. Banks that are backed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which insures the banks and depositors up to $250,000 in economic crises, are prohibited to accept money from any person or entity that derives the money from cannabis-based businesses. (2). Further, the private sector is being curtailed in that mergers and acquisitions within the industry, which are fundamental to any sector, have been prohibited in cases where State laws are at odds with each other. For example, an investment company based out of Idaho may not be able to acquire a highly-profitable cannabis company in California because the laws of Idaho do not allow such a move. The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) may also have an issue with an American company looking to acquire a Canadian company because the Federal Government may not allow such taxes to be collected as a result of such merger. Although many issues with the financial laws may not have been litigated in the U.S. courts, yet, they are apparent in the practice and will inevitably have to be dealt with if this Federal prohibition continues. It is now apparent that the only solution to this dilemma is that Federal law, within the CSA and financial laws, is amended to allow for the cannabis industry to prosper as it should have. In 1961, 186 countries, including the United States, signed the Single Convention on Narcotics Drugs (“the Treaty”). At its core, the Treaty is an agreement between the participant States to prohibit the Federal production and supply of a list of agreed upon “narcotic drugs” except for scientific research or medical purposes. Among the drugs listed are hydrocodone, methadone, heroin, and cannabis (including cannabis extracts, tinctures, and oils). (3) Following the Convention, the U.S. ratified the treaty and began looking into creating a domestic enforcement-arm of the treaty, as is required by most, if not all, international agreements. In 1970, Congress passed the Controlled Substance Act (“CSA”) which, inter alia, provided for the domestic enforcement of the treaty by extending the Federal Drug Administration’s duties, and also created the Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”) which was to begin scheduling drugs in order to further regulate and essentially comply with the Treaty.(4). The CSA became a popular piece of legislation in the U.S., but the piece of the Act that called for the prohibition of cannabis has since turned out to be problematic not just for the U.S., but for other signatories of the Treaty as well. Several states in the U.S., and other State signatories of the treaty have since quasi-violated the treaty with regard to cannabis. Not all signatories have complied with the Treaty, leading to a somewhat adverse view of an international treaty’s binding-power as a whole, which has been a major issue since the inception of international law post World War Two. On December 10th, 2013, Uruguay, a signatory of the Treaty, took an unprecedented action when their Senate passed legislation that allowed for the legalized production, sale and consumption of cannabis for non-medical purposes. (5). In October 2018, Canada, also a signatory of the Treaty, became the second country to violate the Treaty by passing federal legislation to allow for the recreational use of cannabis. Two weeks later, the Supreme Court of Mexico ruled that a federal law banning the recreational use of cannabis was unconstitutional under the Constitution of Mexico. Although Mexico has yet to create a law similar to Uruguay and Canada, many legislators have said that legislation will be introduced to their legislative bodies in the coming months for consideration and a highly-possible vote. (6). Many of the State signatories of the Treaty other than those that have already legalized cannabis use are also growing interest in doing the same for themselves, which will inevitably lead to an even greater concern that future treaties will not be abided by. This dynamic has created uncertainty not only within the international law sphere, but has spilled-over onto the U.S. market, curtailing private investment by creating a distinct risk factor; uncertainty of law, both internationally and domestically. In 2012, the Colorado electorate voted to amend the Colorado Constitution to allow for the recreational sale and personal use of marijuana, including its concentrates, tinctures and oils; the vote passed. (7). Under the new section of the Constitution, the purpose of the law was for the enhancement of revenue, and the efficient use of law enforcement resources. The purpose is as follow: In the interest of the efficient use of law enforcement resources, enhancing revenue for public purposes, and individual freedom, the people of the state of Colorado find and declare that the use of marijuana should be legal for persons twenty‐one years of age or older and taxed in a manner similar to alcohol. . After the amendment to the Colorado Constitution, new sales of recreational marijuana in Colorado began in 2014, which generated a whopping $67,594,323 in total tax revenue for the state in the first year. The following year, tax revenues nearly doubled to $130,411,173 in 2015, and continued to grow. In 2016, tax revenue rose to $193,604,810, and last year, in 2017, saw a total of $247,368,473 in tax revenue for Colorado. (8). Without a doubt, these numbers signify an organic growth of the marijuana industry, but at numbers not seen since the days of Standard Oil or the “Dot-Com” boom. At a total of $1.5 billion in total marijuana sales in 2017, marijuana revenue generated more economic activity than 90\% of all other industries in Colorado. (8). Retail stores in Colorado also showed to be a proven success, with over 95\% of retail marijuana stores remaining in business, creating a lucrative and sustainable business model for investors (8). In 2014, the state of Colorado issued 322 licenses for retail stores within the state, mostly in Denver. (9). The 322 licenses prompted many business experts and academics to project an overflow of supply, and many of them projected that the oversupply would dilute the sector as a whole, leading to a major shutdown of stores the following years. Not only were they wrong, but almost every single licensed store that opened remained open, and the number of active licenses within the state grew from 322 to 424 in 2015. In 2016, the number grew to 459, and in 2017, the number continued to grow to 509. At the same time, retail stores saw an unnatural increase in their cost of rent, with some landlords demanding an almost 50\% increase in rent simply because the business is a marijuana retail store. (10). Not only was the marijuana industry growing, but the industry grew at a rate not seen in any sector since oil or the internet. At the same time that Colorado legalized recreational sales of marijuana, Washington was doing the same thing in its own legislature. In 2012, the Washington State legislature passed Initiate 502 (I-502) which essentially decriminalized the sale and use of marijuana, while allows for the licensing and regulation of new marijuana businesses. I-502 was popular among Washingtonians due to the agriculture sector that dominates most of the state, and allowed farmers that were otherwise suffering from lack of business in the winter, to continue working year-round. (11). Further, fierce competition among farmers in Washington meant that profits decreased to near null. Marijuana growing became a new business within the agriculture sector, and allowed growers to shy away from the fierce competition surrounding the growth of fruit such as Apples, and moved toward a more profitable business. Tax revenue in Washington state, similar to that of Colorado, exploded for the state since its introduction in 2014. In 2014, Washington state recorded approximately $16 million in marijuana tax revenue, prompting many critics to question as to its credibility. The following year however saw a massive and unexpected growth of revenue to about $129 million. In 2016, $256 million, and $314 million in 2017. This equals to $742 million in total marijuana tax revenue for Washington State in four years. (13). Although some of this tax revenue derives from recreational retail stores, the majority of this tax revenue comes from the booming farming industry. Washington has seen some of the highest rates of profitability with the tax revenues that have been recorded. Although tax revenues may not be an accurate depiction of the inner-workings and finances of a given industry, they are telling of the overall health and growth of a sector. Washington State has seen a growth in the cultivation of cannabis almost double the rate of retail dispensaries. (12). Washington is mostly suburban to rural in its geography, and most of the cities in the state are much less populated than bigger states such as California or Texas. It is not difficult to see why not many retail dispensary stores are needed, but the number of producers of cannabis seem to double in number than retail. In 2017, the state of Washington reported 1,009 licenses were issued to producers, while 507 were issued to retail licenses. (13). The industry in Washington seems to be centered in on the cultivation, where profitability in retail stores may not yield as high of a return as it would in cultivation. Further, as we will see later on in this research, retail stores in any state face great barriers in banking and management laws, which also adds to the decrease in profitability. Washington is also known for its agricultural sector, and the popularity surrounding its main export; apples. With the growing number of apple producers in the U.S. and with the growing increase in produce imports, cannabis cultivation has been a profitable alternative to farming fruits. Washington has a $49 billion agricultural industry, which employs about 140,000; one of the highest in the country. The state also sees 13\% of its economy coming from agriculture, which places the state, and any other similar state, in a great position to shift its operations to farming new and more profitable crops such as cannabis. (14). Although much cannabis is cultivated as marijuana, hemp may also be grown to assist with the demand for paper products, oils and non-toxic diesel fuel. The growing numbers of Washington’s cannabis sector show that the industry is growing, but continues to face many hurdles that curtail its organic spur. While Colorado and Washington state were seeing massive tax revenue due to the newly formed industry, every other state in the U.S., and other countries such as Canada and Mexico were watching closely as the newly formed cannabis market began its inception. With a fear that marijuana legalization would prompt things like an increase in crime, deaths, and loss of jobs, quite the contrary occurred. However, the biggest risk was still that, on its face, the State laws were completely at odds with federal law. Although the tax revenue figures in Colorado and Washington showed that, inherently, the marijuana sector was extremely prosperous, the sector was still significantly curtailed. By 2015, retail stores were literally collecting millions of dollars in sales, and paying millions back in taxes, wholly in cash. Further, direct individual and corporate investment from out-of-state investors was reaching an alarming demand rate, but was being curtailed by the uncertainty of governing law. Investors were afraid to invest in this new sector with the fear that they might be in violation of federal law, which until now, does not recognize such recreational or medical sales to occur. Innovation of marijuana products continued to spur, creating new forms of cannabis such as concentrates, vapes, oils, and tinctures. Although Colorado was doing a lot of research into new forms of cannabis, the cannabis industry took a turn, for the better, when it found a new home for research and development. On November 8, 2016, the California electorate voted to pass Proposition 64 by a vote of 57\% which legalized the cultivation, distribution and sale of cannabis within the state. (16). California began legal sales of recreational cannabis on January 1st, 2018 and many had projected that total tax revenues were to exceed $1 billion for 2018.(15). In San Diego, the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research, which was created in 2000, was further funded by Proposition 64 to continue its research and development of cannabis. The mission of the Center is to “facilitate high quality scientific studies intended to ascertain the safety and efficacy of cannabis and cannabinoid products and examine alternative forms of administration.”(17). In a departure from the private-sector-led industries in Colorado and Washington, California funded its own state-funded center to handle research and development for the sector. This centralized and state-run center symbolized California’s handling of the sector, and has since provided the state with studies, statistics, and scientific information to lawmakers and policymakers to better assist with the growth of the industry. California encountered several roadblocks and hinderances to the sector, for several reasons, but has seen tax revenue hit over $100 million since its inception. Although far lower than the $1 billion than was expected, California’s private-sector blamed much of the lack of anticipated growth on administrative hurdles such as obtaining licenses and the rules governing businesses, which all stem out of the uncertainty of compliance with federal and state law. In 1996, California lawmakers, frustrated with the Governor’s veto of all efforts to pass legislation for medically-prescribed marijuana, took the issue directly to the voters utilizing Proposition 215. (18). The Proposition called for the allowing of licensed physicians to prescribe cannabis to treat an exhaustive list of specific disorders and illnesses. Some of these illnesses include cancer, AIDS, chronic pain, headaches and glaucoma. Intentionally or not, this Proposition paved the way for medical cannabis in California. As a result of the proposition, over 200 new cannabis caregivers were created, which led to a surge of job growth within the industry. (18). Although tax revenues for the medical industry are not easily accessible through public records for this period of time, it is without a doubt that California’s 15\% excise tax on all medical marijuana sales created some additional revenue and job creation for the state. Proposition 215 was just the first step in the medical marijuana industry creation in California, but the law became famously confusing, leading to many courts to interpret the Proposition in different ways. In 2003, lawmakers and business owners grew increasingly frustrated with the wording of Proposition 215, and deemed the vagueness to be a curtailing of the growth of the industry. Lawmakers took to the California Senate to clarify the conditions, administrative requirements, and amount that a medical patient was entitled to purchase. With those concerns, lawmakers introduced, and eventually passed Senate Bill 420. The Senate Bill 420 did several things for California’s medical cannabis industry. First, it clarified many terms of the law in order to avoid the many arrests and prosecution of caregivers that were simply confused as to what is allowed and what was against the law. Second, the law called for a “uniform and consistent” application of the law within every county of the big state of California. Third, it created a controversial mandate upon all counties of the state to issue identification cards for all caregivers and patients of medical marijuana. Finally, the intent of the new law called for the addressing of “additional issues” of the law that may have arose after the enactment of Proposition 215. (19). Many took the meaning of the “additional issues” as a means of seeking out recreational cannabis, which eventually would pass several years later. With a few hurdles pertaining to amount limits and the mandatory identification system, the medical cannabis program of California was a financial success for the state. By 2011, the California Department of Public Health wound up issuing over 57,000 marijuana “cards,” although some studies showed the estimated actual number is in excess of 1 million patients. (20). Also by 2011, the number of registered caregivers skyrocketed from several dozen to a little less than 6,000. San Francisco County, where the movement of Proposition 215 initially arose out of, saw the highest number of state-registered patients at close to 20,000. (20). With these figures, it is obvious that the medical cannabis industry in California was not just the biggest in the nation, but was seen as a model for other states to consider. Other states, seeing the popularity of California’s medical marijuana program, and the potential to create an additional source of tax revenue, followed in their footsteps. California has also been at the forefront of cannabis-product innovation, branding, and marketing. As the nations entertainment capital, Los Angeles is home to some of the biggest television and advertising companies in the world. Although research is limited, or may not even exist, California has led the industry in branding and marketing. Utilizing social media platforms, magazines, and films, the cannabis industry in California has innovated itself and has recreated the image of cannabis in its entirety. One of the biggest, if not the biggest, retail marijuana dispensaries “MedMen” was started in Los Angeles several years ago. The company essentially leads the industry in marketing, choosing a modern/contemporary style in its advertising. The company has been seeking to create a brand that looks and feels like Apple with its simplicity and high quality. (21). Medmen is a unique company that controls everything from cultivation, to curing, to retailing marijuana in 13 states, recreational or medical. In West Hollywood, Los Angeles, MedMen has a prime presence in the area and has priority over billboard placement over, arguably, any other cannabis company located in Los Angeles. A visit to a retail store will show any interested person that the store is indeed “the Apple of cannabis.” (21). California’s cannabis market is continuing its growth at an unprecedented rate, even with the turbulence of the first year. The state currently has over 40 million people, which includes 1 million medical marijuana patients, that make up its sector, and is estimated to grow in the next ten years. The California market, at this point, represents almost one-third of the U.S. cannabis industry. Although California missed estimates of $1 billion in sales in its first year, analysts estimate that even with the legal and financial hurdles the sector faces as a whole, the California market should reach sales in excess of $5 billion by the end of 2019. (22). Despite the current hurdles in the market today, the California market is an example of the cannabis industry’s growth in America. THE FEDERAL POSITION After California’s success in implementing a medical marijuana program, and seeing what Colorado and Washington had done with regard to recreational programs, nearly a dozen states have since followed in the footsteps. As of the date of this paper, the following states have passed legislation to allow for the creation of recreational marijuana programs: Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and Washington D.C. Although unofficial, states such as New York and Florida, with medical programs already in place, have floated the idea implementing recreation programs as early as 2019. As the marijuana industry is being opened up in newer states, and with current state markets expanding at an unprecedented rate in business, the entire industry is booming. However, the industry continues to suffer from the conflict of laws among state and Federal law, and Federal law conflicting with international agreements. These conflicts of laws, among other circumstances, have created barriers to investment in this industry, and is significantly hindering the organic growth of the sector. Conflicting laws create significant risks to investors, personal or corporations, which directly lead to a decrease of otherwise available capital. Absent clear and concise laws, such as the medical marijuana laws of California prior to Senate Bill 420, the chances of litigation and possible sanctions create liabilities for investments, and prompts fear which increases volatility. The federal Government has not issued any sort of “green-light” towards the current states with recreational marijuana programs, and has been silent on the medical programs as well. The primary guidance that the Federal government relies on with regard to questions of cannabis legality is the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs Treaty. The Treaty is the first step of unpacking the Federal government’s position on this issue. The Single Convention on Narcotics Drugs Treaty prohibited the signatories from manufacturing and distributing of any form of cannabis. As a result of the signed treaty, Congress enacted the Controlled Substance Act, which is somewhat a federal law enforcing the international agreement and which schedules the same listed drugs as those in the Treaty. Since 1961, cannabis has remained on the list of drugs listed in the original Treaty. Uruguay and Canada, both signatories of the Treaty, have since clearly and directly violated the Treaty by passing federal laws allowing for the sale and distribution of cannabis. In looking at those countries, the U.S., possibly concerned with violating the Treaty, has since seen the majority of states passing laws creating medical and recreational marijuana programs. With the uncertainty of how, and if the Federal government will crackdown on these businesses that are in clear violation of federal law, financial investment into the start-up, marketing, branding, and production of cannabis businesses have been significantly curtailed. The text of the Controlled Substance Act in the U.S. pertaining to marijuana is as follows: The term marihuana means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin. Such term does not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination. The Federal law makes clear that any possession of “marihuana” will lead to a felony drug offense. The term “felony drug offense” means an offense that is punishable by imprisonment for more than one year under any law of the United States or of a State or foreign country that prohibits or restricts conduct relating to narcotic drugs, marihuana, anabolic steroids, or depressant or stimulant substances. . The language of this provision of the CSA is tantamount to investors and capital-holders in the U.S. that are seeking to invest in the industry. It is difficult to pitch to investors the idea of investing in a business that, while legal under an inferior state law, the superior federal prohibits such acts. Although some investors, such as we have seen in Colorado and California, have chosen to take the risk with the hopes that the benefits will outweigh the risk, the majority of businesses in cannabis today are private individuals or newly-formed entities, with only four companies that have a market capitalization of over $1 billion. Compare that with other industries that have most investing companies at over $1 billion in market capitalization, and it is evident that the companies associated with cannabis are simply high-risk takers. Another reason as to why capital is very limited in the cannabis sector is the access to traditional banking. Traditionally, new businesses that comply with deposit regulations, such as those prohibiting businesses to deposit money from illegal sources, were allowed to utilize a bank’s services. Of importance are the services pertaining to mass-depositing of cash, the writing and issuing of checks, pay-roll, wire-transfers, and certified check issuance for the maintenance or acquisition of new assets or property. In fear that banks would be in clear violation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), almost every single major banking institution has refused to deal with cannabis companies. The FDIC prohibits banks from receiving and investing deposits from entities or individuals engaged in money-laundering services. Under Federal law, money-laundering is a crime committed by “whoever, knowing that property involved in a financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, conducts or attempts to conduct such a financial transaction which in fact involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity.”(23). Since the cultivation, possession, and sale of any amount of marijuana is “unlawful activity” under federal law, §1956 implicates any bank that assists in the business of such, even if they are simply depositing the money. As a result of bank’s refusing to accept cannabis money from businesses, that are otherwise permitted to conduct such activities under State law, banks have lost, and are currently losing the opportunity to deposit tens of billions of dollars of corporate revenues. In 2017, the cannabis industry drew in over $9 billion in revenue, which are simply estimates. It is almost impossible to verify the total number of revenue when an entire sector is engaged in a cash-only transaction system, but using the numbers we have now, banks are foregoing on over $1 billion of revenue per year. According to the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, in 2018, banks averaged about 12\% return on deposits and equity that were acquired from legitimate and federally-allowed …