Agroterrorism and Agro Crime to United States Cannabis Industry. Discusses agrothreats from crime to terrorism to the US Cannabis Industry. Offers solutions to legislation to ensure cannabis is safe.

1. Justin Feldstein
Agrothreats to the Budding U.S.
Cannabis Industry

2. Overview
• New industry
• Conflict of law
• Many forms
• Agrocrime
• Agroterrorism
• Plant Disease
• California
• Colorado
• Connecticut
• Unscheduled Drug
• Federal Oversight
• Top-down
Approach
• Will it work?
• Other
Solutions
• Questions
ProblemsBackground Case Studies Solutions Discussion

3. Market Background
• Newest “official” agriculture market. By 2016, will reach
$9B
• In the 1980s, it was estimated the domestic production
was $32B. In 2000s, 36B, 50% greater than corn, the
next largest cash crop
• Since 2006, 20 states and DC have passed laws
allowing smoked marijuana to be used medicinally
• Not just medical and recreational use: Hemp

4. Legal Background
• The State of California under proposition 215 and SB
420 allows “medical” marijuana and home grow
• Notoriously easy to obtain ID card, essentially legalizing
recreational marijuana
• In conflict, Federal Government asserts that marijuana is
not a medicine and SCOTUS held that federal
government can restrict marijuana unconditionally
• Harsh criminal prosecution and fines

5. Implications of Law on Cannabis
Agriculture
• Declared as Schedule I Drug, No federal funds can be
used to develop robust systems
• No ARS, APHIS, FDA, USDA
• This creates a “free-for-all”, leaving regulation to the
states
• Unique position not seen in any other ag. sector
• Allows extreme flexibility at the state level, but is this
good or bad?

6. Threats: Agrocrime
• Adulteration: “bulk up” weight to increase
selling price. Use lead or beads.
• NEJM Leipzig Germany lead poisoning in
29 patients from adulterated black market
marijuana
• Salmonellosis: NEJM cites multi-state
(Massachusetts to California) outbreak in
early 1980s, 85 cases
• Questions: how often does adulteration
occur? Accidental or purposeful? At what
point in production did adulteration
occur?

7. Threats: Agroterrorism
• In 2011, the entire 400 million base-pair genomic
sequence of Cannabis Sativa was published online
• Allows continued research to the medicinal effects of
Tetrahydrocannabinol and Cannabanoids
• Could place THC production in anything
• Could create mutant strain
• Similar to H7N9 controversy

8. Threats: Plant Disease
• For commercial Ag. Sector, strict guidelines govern the use of
pesticides, no such legislation exists for the cannabis industry
• Little research on pesticides and the cannabis plant,
especially a substance that is smoked and not eaten
• Fungi: 88 species affect cannabis: Gray Mold and Hemp
Canker, leaf spot
• Nematodes: roundworm
• Parasitic Plants
• Viruses: Hemp Streak Virus
• Bacteria: Bacterial Blight
• Plagues and Pests: Lice, Wasps, Flies

9. Gray Mold and Blight

10. Case Study: California
• California Proposition 215; enacted, on November 5, 1996
• established MMJ program, allowed cultivation of marijuana
• established collective and cooperative distribution
– qualified patients and caregivers may possess 8 ounces of
dried marijuana
– maintain 6 mature or 12 immature marijuana plants
– local governments may allow patients or caregivers to
exceed these levels

11. Case Study: California
• California Senate Bill 420
– clarified Prop 215
• "require[s] the Attorney General to develop and adopt
guidelines to ensure the security and nondiversion of
marijuana grown for medical use"
• allows counties to increase plant number

12. Implications in California
• relatively liberal use of marijuana as implemented
• no mention of agro safety or defense
– high risk of contamination, agrocrime
– No testing requirements
• Permits establishment of collectives
– Collectives purchase from members
– No tracking of plants of “seed to sale”
• “Wild west of weed”

13. Case Study: Colorado
• Colorado Department of Revenue, Marijuana Enforcement
Division, 1 CCR 212-2 Very strict guidelines on the retail,
licensing, cultivation, facility requirements
• Facility Guidelines:
– Established limited access area with credentialing to
visitors, ID Check, Visitor Log
– Building plans must be approved by state
– Separates medical and recreational marijuana
– Surveillance and alarm system requirements with
redundancy
• Direct positioning of cameras
– Physical security, locks, fences

14. Case Study: Colorado
• Inventory Tracking
– MITS
– May only sell product from licensed manufacture
• Testing
– Business must provide samples for testing
• Personnel
– No consumption on the premises

15. Case Study: Colorado
Must be stored away from chemicals
Packaging and labeling standards
Must test samples for:
• Mold, mildew, filth
• Microbial
• Herbicides, pesticides, fungicides
• Harmful chemicals
• Solvents, poisons, toxins
Testing labs are separate and have own regulations
• Outlines exact testing procedure
• Educational requirements of lab director and
technicians

16. MITS Tracking System

17. Colorado Legislation Analysis
• Strengths:
– Very tightly controlled
– Prevents gray and black market product from entering
legitimate market
– Ensures marijuana is free of contaminants at the point of
testing
• Weaknesses: (Production, Distribution, Retail)
– Potential for insider threat still exists
• No regulation on training and vetting of dispensary staff
• Creation of higher demand in illegal market due to high
operating cost, Purchase limit counterproductive
– “gray market” of caregiving growing, becoming
illegal commercial operations

18. Program Audit
Feb 2013 audit in Colorado found: Budgets kept MITS from
working fully
• Do we need “micro-level” control since growing rec
cannabis is allowed under amendment 64?
• 40% of business applications have not be vetted or
approved
• 13 of 35 applications that were approved contained
“potentially disqualifying information”
• licenses issued prior to results of criminal background
check
– Past arrest, felony robbery and menacing with a
deadly weapon

19. Discussion
• Clearly, Colorado is better shape than California
• California is highly susceptible to contaminated crop
• This will be consistent theme under current Federal Regs.

20. Solution
The only way to ensure safe and protected product is using a
“top-down” approach
– Must be removed from Schedule I list
– Must be regulated like alcohol (w/ personal cultivation
limits, selling restrictions)
• Alcohol model works
• FDA and USDA oversight
• Will ensure legislation is consistent and effective
– Categorizing it as a “Drug Store” drug won’t be effective
Look beyond the US, Uruguay Federal Crop, DNA Tracked

21. Solution
• Not all bad
– Clean Green Certified in California: Organic certification
– Emerging reactive legislation about personnel in Colorado
• Legislation that is put into place must be followed through on,
a federal specialty, checks and balances

22. References
Busse, F., Omidi, L., Leichtle, A., Windgassen, M., Kluge, E., & Stumvoll, M. (2008). Lead poisoning
due to adulterated marijuana. N Engl J Med, 358(15), 1641-1642. doi:10.1056/NEJMc0707784
Chaboya-Hembree, J. (2012). Diseases of cannabis. Retrieved March 23, 2014, from
http://medicalmarijuana.com/experts/expert/title.cfm?artID=727
DRAFT permanent rules related to the Colorado retail marijuana code, R 100 (2013).
Decorte, T., Potter, G. W., & Bouchard, M. (2011). World wide weed: Global trends in cannabis
cultivation and its control Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
Gorski, E. (2013, ). Audit: Serious flaws in Colorado's regulation of medical marijuana. Denver
Post
Office of National Drug Control Policy. (2013). Marijuana resource center: State laws related to
marijuana. Retrieved March 23, 2014, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/state-laws-related-to-
marijuana
Compassionate use act of 1996, (1996).
Russo MD, E. (2012). Cannabis genome uncloaked. Retrieved March 23, 2014, from
http://www.icrs.co/content/Cannabis_Genome_Uncloaked.pdf
Small, E., & Marcus, D. (2002). Hemp: A new crop with new uses for north america. Trends in New
Crops and New Uses, , 284-326.
California senate bill 420 "Medical marijuana program act", 11362.7 (2003).