Tag Archives: legal

Jeffrey Epstein’s Accused Madam Ghislaine Maxwell Sells London Home to Pay For Legal Fees

Incarcerated socialite Ghislaine Maxwell is selling her home in London to fund her legal fees, a family spokesman has confirmed. The former partner and accused madam of Jeffrey Epstein, who has been in federal custody since July on charges of aiding in Epstein’s sex trafficking scheme, owned a home in the high-end Belgravia district. Maxwell’s representative did not confirm the selling price, but nearby homes have recently sold for $3.6 million to $11.2 million. The sale previously got Maxwell in some trouble with her bank, Barclays, which closed her account after the buyer deposited the down payment. Prosecutors have accused Maxwell, daughter of controversial publisher Robert Maxwell, of helping Epstein abuse underage girls in the late 1990s. One of Epstein’s accusers claims she was brought to the London house to have sex with Prince Andrew. Andrew denies the charges; Maxwell has pleaded not guilty.

Read it at Wall Street Journal

Read original article here

Johnny Damon had 4 times legal limit after DUI arrest, during which he voiced support for Trump and Blue Lives Matter

Damon was initially charged with one count of driving under the influence and one count of resisting an officer without violence, according to an arrest affidavit. Court documents show that he pleaded not guilty to the DUI charges, and the resisting charge was dropped.

According to the arrest affidavit, his breathalyzer test was at 0.30% two hours after police first stopped him, nearly four times the state’s 0.08% threshold.

According to the affidavit, an officer said he stopped an SUV around 1:23 a.m. after seeing it drifting in the road and nearly striking a guardrail.

Video shows the moment the officer approached the vehicle. As the door opens, the officer can be heard saying to Damon multiple times, “shut your door” while approaching his SUV. The video shows Damon’s wife, Michelle Mangan-Damon, climb out of the SUV and ask, “What’s happening right now?”

According to the affidavit, the officer described Damon as “extremely unsteady on his feet and his speech was extremely slurred.” The officer added he smelled alcohol coming from Damon.

The officer said that Mangan-Damon continued to disobey his commands to stay in the car, and at one point, Damon then stepped back over between the officer and his wife, the affidavit says.

The officer said he then grabbed Damon and escorted him to stand in front of the police car, ordering him to say there, the affidavit says.

Video shows Mangan-Damon walking toward the driver’s side of the SUV when the officer grabbed her left wrist to stop her. Damon then intervened and got between the officer and the wife.

In the video, the officer can be heard saying “fighting one-two, actually” into his police radio.

The bodycam fell on the ground, showing both Damon and the officer. At one point, Damon can be heard saying a couple of times, “Blue lives matter,” a reference to his support for police officers.

Two officers were eventually able to put Damon and his wife in handcuffs, according to the video and the affidavit.

“I know people are trying to target me because I’m a Trump supporter,” Damon later said.

“I don’t think that has anything to do with it,” an officer responds.

“Yea, it does,” Damon said.

“That’s neither here nor there right now; that’s not why I’m stopping you,” the officer said.

Stuart Hyman, who is representing Damon and his wife, told CNN on Wednesday that the bodycam video doesn’t show some of the allegations made by the police, including the alleged driving pattern that led to the stop.

“If you watch the video, then you saw that the driving pattern wasn’t on the video that was being narrated and yet there was a camera in the car that could have recorded that,” Hyman said.

Hyman added the incident was “not a textbook example of how a police officer should handle this type of situation,” explaining the officer did not try to de-escalate at times when Mangan-Damon was not complying as well as when Damon tried to intervene.

Hyman told CNN Mangan-Damon has not been charged.

CNN has reached out to the Windermere PD for response to the attorney’s statements.

Damon retired from Major League Baseball in 2012 after an 18-year career. He played on seven teams, mostly notably the Kansas City Royals, the Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees.

CNN’s Travis Caldwell contributed to this report.

Read original article here

Britain has a moral and legal obligation to Shamima Begum | Shamima Begum

Shamima Begum has the right to contest the government’s decision to deprive her of British citizenship. But she cannot exercise that right until the home secretary says she can, even if that is never. That seems to be the nub of the supreme court decision granting victory to the Home Office over its decision to ban the “jihadi bride” from entering Britain on “security” grounds.

Beyond the legal issues lie deeper political and moral questions. To refuse entry to Begum is not simply to keep her out of Britain. It is also to force another state or organisation to take responsibility for her.

Begum’s parents came from Bangladesh. That, in the eyes of the Home Office, makes her a Bangladeshi citizen (even though Bangladesh denies this and insists it would refuse her entry). Why should moral responsibility for someone born and raised in Britain be passed to another country just because her parents came from there?

Begum is in al-Hawl camp, run by the largely Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) who helped destroy Islamic State (Isis). Why should Britain expect the SDF to take responsibility for a British citizen who helped its monstrous enemy?

And then there is the question of two-tier citizenship. For any Briton whose parents were born in this country and who does not possess dual citizenship, their citizenship is unconditional. For those whose parents were born abroad, or has recourse to another citizenship (even of a country they have never set foot in), their citizenship is conditional. That cannot be morally right.

Begum has, of course, to face up to her own moral responsibilities in joining Isis. She can do so in a trial. But, however monstrous her actions may have been, she remains someone to whom Britain has legal and moral obligations.

The debate over Shamima Begum is not simply about Begum herself. It is about the nature of citizenship and the meaning of moral responsibility. It is also about how far we are willing to sacrifice moral obligations on the altar of political expediency.

• Kenan Malik is an Observer columnist

Read original article here

This Drug Gets You High, and Is Legal (Maybe) Across the Country

Texas has one of the most restrictive medical marijuana laws in the country, with sales allowed only by prescription for a handful of conditions.

That hasn’t stopped Lukas Gilkey, chief executive of Hometown Hero CBD, based in Austin, Texas. His company sells joints, blunts, gummy bears, vaping devices and tinctures that offer a recreational high. In fact, business is booming online as well, where he sells to many people in other states with strict marijuana laws.

But Mr. Gilkey says that he is no outlaw, and that he’s not selling marijuana, just a close relation. He’s offering products with a chemical compound — Delta-8-THC — extracted from hemp. It is only slightly chemically different from Delta 9, which is the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana.

And that small distinction, it turns out, may make a big difference in the eyes of the law. Under federal law, psychoactive Delta 9 is explicitly outlawed. But Delta-8-THC from hemp is not, a loophole that some entrepreneurs say allows them to sell it in many states where hemp possession is legal. The number of customers “coming into Delta 8 is staggering,” Mr. Gilkey said.

“You have a drug that essentially gets you high, but is fully legal,” he added. “The whole thing is comical.”

The rise of Delta 8 is a case study in how industrious cannabis entrepreneurs are pulling apart hemp and marijuana to create myriad new product lines with different marketing angles. They are building brands from a variety of potencies, flavors and strains of THC, the intoxicating substance in cannabis, and of CBD, the nonintoxicating compound that is often sold as a health product.

With Delta 8, entrepreneurs also believe they have found a way to take advantage of the country’s fractured and convoluted laws on recreational marijuana use. It’s not quite that simple, though. Federal agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Administration, are still considering their options for enforcement and regulation.

“Dealing in any way with Delta-8 THC is not without significant legal risk,” said Alex Buscher, a Colorado lawyer who specializes in cannabis law.

Still, experts in the cannabis industry said Delta 8 sales had indeed exploded. Delta 8 is “the fastest growing segment” of products derived from hemp, said Ian Laird, chief financial officer of New Leaf Data Services, which tracks the hemp and cannabis markets. He estimated consumer sales of at least $10 million, adding, “Delta 8 has really come out of nowhere over the past year.”

Marijuana and hemp are essentially the same plant, but marijuana has higher concentrations of Delta-9 THC — and, as a source of intoxication, it has been a main focus of entrepreneurs, as well as state and federal lawmakers. Delta 8, if discussed at all, was an esoteric, less potent byproduct of both plants.

That changed with the 2018 Farm Bill, an enormous piece of federal legislation that, among other things, legalized widespread hemp farming and distribution. The law also specifically allowed the sale of the plant’s byproducts — the only exception was Delta 9 with a high-enough level of THC to define it as marijuana.

Because the legislation made no mention of Delta 8, entrepreneurs leapt into the void and began extracting and packaging it as a legal edible and smokable alternative.

Precisely what kind of high Delta 8 produces depends on whom you ask. Some think of it as “marijuana light,” while others “are pitching it as pain relief with less psychoactivity,” said David Downs, senior content editor for Leafly.com, a popular source of news and information about cannabis.

Either way, Delta 8 has become “extremely ascendant,” Mr. Downs said, reflecting what he calls “prohibition downfall interregnum,” where consumer demand and entrepreneurial activity are exploiting the holes in rapidly evolving and fractured law.

“We’re getting reports that you can walk into a truck stop in prohibition states like Georgia where you’re looking at what looks like a cannabis bud in a jar,” Mr. Downs said. The bud is hemp sprayed with high-concentration Delta 8 oil.

Joe Salome owns the Georgia Hemp Company, which in October started selling Delta 8 locally and shipping nationally — about 25 orders a day, he said. “It’s taken off tremendously.”

His website heralds Delta 8 as “very similar to its psychoactive brother THC,” giving users the same relief from stress and inflammation, “without the same anxiety-producing high that some can experience with THC.”

Mr. Salome said that he didn’t need to buy an expensive state license to sell medical marijuana because he felt protected by the farm bill.

“It’s all right there,” he said, explaining it’s now legal to “sell all parts of the plant.”

The legal landscape is contradictory at best. Many states are more permissive than the federal government, which under the Controlled Substances Act considers marijuana an illegal and highly dangerous drug. In 36 states, marijuana is legal for medicinal use. In 14 states, it’s legal for recreational use.

But in a flip, under the farm bill, the federal government opened the door for the sale of hemp products even in states that haven’t legalized the recreational use of marijuana. Only a few states, like Idaho, ban hemp altogether, but in others, entrepreneurs of Delta 8 are finding a receptive market.

Lawyers for Mr. Gilkey believe the farm bill is on their side. “Delta 8, if it is derived from hemp, or extracted from hemp, that is considered hemp,” said Andrea Steel, co-chair of the cannabis business group at Coats Rose, a Houston law firm. She emphasized that the legality also depends on whether Delta 9 exceeds legal limits.

Ms. Steel noted that when making a Delta 8 product, it can be hard, if not impossible, to filter out all the Delta 9 from hemp.

“Adding another wrinkle,” she said, “a lot of labs do not have the capability of delineating between Delta 8 and Delta 9.”

Lisa Pittman, the other co-chair of the cannabis business group at Coats Rose, said that in her reading of the issue, the authors of the farm bill may not have contemplated the consequences of the law.

Ms. Pittman said that the ultimate question of a product’s legality may be dependent on other factors, including how the Delta 8 is produced and sourced. Specifically, the lawyers said, the D.E.A.’s rule on the issue seems to suggest that Delta 8 could be illegal if it is made “synthetically” rather than derived organically.

There are currently lawsuits pending over interpretation of the D.E.A. rule.

Mr. Gilkey said he had paid upward of $50,000 in legal fees to make sure that he will not run afoul of the law. A veteran of the U.S. Coast Guard, Mr. Gilkey worked in a counternarcotics unit on boats out of San Diego. He “saw some really tough stuff,” he said, and “wasn’t happy about the war on drugs.”

He wound up running a business in Austin that sold e-liquid for vaping devices. Then in 2019, he started his current business focused on selling CBD. Late last spring, he said, he started getting calls from customers about Delta 8.

“I said, please explain to me what that is,” he recalled. Mr. Gilkey, whose company supplies other retail shops around the country with products, saw a huge opportunity. After checking with the lawyers, he started full-scale packaging gummies and vape pens and other products using Delta 8 he said he got from a major hemp supplier.

“It’s about to go mainstream,” he said. And it’s just the beginning. “There’s a Delta 10 in the works.”

Read original article here

Ilhan Omar, other progressives question Biden’s ‘legal rationale’ for Syria airstrikes

Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., said Friday she was concerned about the White House’s “legal rationale” for launching airstrikes in Syria a day earlier without congressional approval.

“We in Congress have congressional oversight in engaging in war and we haven’t been briefed yet and we have not authorized war in Syria,” Omar told CNN.

Omar had retweeted a resurfaced 2017 post from now-White House press secretary Jen Psaki that had questioned the Trump administration’s “legal authority” for conducting airstrikes against the “sovereign” country at the time.

US AIRSTRIKE IN SYRIA UNDER BIDEN AND 2017 TOMAHAWK STRIKES ORDERED BY TRUMP: THE DIFFERENCE

“Great question,” Omar responded to the four-year-old tweet in light of the Biden administration’s military action announced Thursday.

“Her question was important when it was a different administration and that question still remains with this administration,” Omar told CNN’s John King. “Our ability to engage in constitutional actions does not diminish when the party in power is ours.”

BIDEN’S SYRIA AIRSTRIKE EARNS APPLAUSE FROM PROMINENT REPUBLICANS 

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle criticized the strike, including Republican Reps. Nancy Mace, R-S.C.; Jim Banks, R-Ind.; Rand Paul, R-Ky.; and Lauren Boebert, R-Colo.; and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif.; and Sens. Chris Murphy, D-Conn.; and Tim  Kaine, D-Va.

“While the President has a responsibility to defend the people of the United States, our Constitution is clear that it is the Congress, not the President, who has the authority to declare war,” Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said in a statement Friday, adding in a tweet he was “very concerned by last night’s strike by U.S. forces in Syria.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The first known military action of the Biden administration was meant as a defensive “shot across the bow” against an Iranian-backed militia stronghold in Syria, a senior official said, intended to deter Iran and its militia from launching rockets at U.S. forces in the region.

Read original article here

Bruce Springsteen’s Jeep Ad Pulled From YouTube After Report of DWI Arrest

This morning, TMZ reported that, back in November, Bruce Springsteen was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated, reckless driving, and consuming alcohol in a closed area. The incident occurred at Gateway National Recreation Area in New Jersey. A spokeswoman for the National Park Service confirmed the November 14 arrest to The New York Times, adding, “Springsteen was cooperative throughout the process.”

Following the TMZ report, Springsteen’s Super Bowl ad for Jeep was removed from YouTube, as InsideHook notes. The ad, titled “The Middle,” marked Springsteen’s first ever commercial appearance. In addition, he and Ron Aniello wrote and produced the music for the commercial, according to a press release from Jeep’s parent company Stellantis. “The Middle” is still available on Springsteen’s Instagram.

Pitchfork has reached out to representatives for Jeep and Bruce Springsteen for comment and more information.



Read original article here

Saudi Arabia announces legal reforms paving the way for codified law

Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia Mohammed bin Salman attends the 41st Summit of Gulf Cooperation Council in Al-Ula, Saudi Arabia on January 05, 2021.

Royal Council of Saudi Arabia | Anadolu Agency | Getty Images

Saudi Arabia has announced new judicial reforms, putting the kingdom on a path to codified law — a huge step, considering the deeply conservative country has no codified legal system to accompany the Sharia, or Islamic law, which is currently in place.  

“The Personal Status Law, the Civil Transactions Law, the Penal Code for Discretionary Sanctions, and the Law of Evidence represent a new wave of judicial reforms in the Kingdom,” Saudi state news agency SPA quoted Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman as saying late Monday evening. 

The reforms, the crown prince said, “will help with the prediction of court rulings, the increase of the level of integrity and efficiency of judicial institutions, and will contribute to the increase of the reliability of procedures and control mechanisms.” The new laws are to be announced over the course of 2021, according to his statement.

The news is the latest in a series of dramatic economic and social reforms launched by the 35-year-old crown prince aimed at modernizing the kingdom. It fits into his Vision 2030 agenda which aims to diversify the economy away from oil and attract foreign talent and investment to the kingdom, and comes as Saudi Arabia pitches itself as a destination for international business headquarters.

“This is an important step on the path towards global best practices that give businesses the confidence to invest,” Tarek Fadlallah, Middle East CEO at Nomura Asset Management, told CNBC on Tuesday.

Having no codified legal system often resulted in inconsistency in court rulings and long, drawn-out litigation procedures. The announcement made a specific mention of women in Saudi Arabia, who have long held a lower status to men in terms of legal and economic rights, and who the crown prince described as being particularly harmed by the lack of written laws over certain issues. 

“Discrepancies in court rulings has led to a lack of clarity in the rules governing the incidents and practices, and has hurt many, mostly women,” the SPA quoted Bin Salman as saying.  

Women’s rights in the kingdom — while improved in some areas like driving, employment, and freedom of movement in recent years — are still a major target of criticism by human rights groups and some foreign governments. Several Saudi female driving activists remain in prison and allege they are being tortured, charges the Saudi state denies.  

Ali Shihabi, a Saudi analyst close to the kingdom’s royal court, tweeted about the reforms late Monday, describing the news as “an important step in legal reform and one that recognizes that the Saudi legal system has a way to go to reach international standards and that the leadership appreciates the urgency and importance of such reform.”

“Highlighting its impact on women is particularly interesting,” Shihabi added. 

The crown prince described the current legal system as “painful for many individuals and families, especially women, permitting some to evade their responsibilities. This will not take place again once these laws are promulgated pursuant to legislative laws and procedures,” he said. The statement did not outline further details of what specific practices and penalties would be changed.

His statement added that the forthcoming legal reforms will “will tackle lack of clarity in rules governing… prolonged litigations that are not based on established legal provisions, and absence of a clear legal framework for individuals and businesses.”

Read original article here

‘There is real teeth to this’: Legal experts weigh in on Smartmatic’s $2.7 billion lawsuit against Fox News

That’s what CNN senior legal analyst Laura Coates told Erin Burnett Thursday night when discussing Smartmatic’s $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News, three of the network’s hosts (Lou Dobbs, Maria Bartiromo, and Jeanine Pirro), Rudy Giuliani, and Sidney Powell.

“When you are making statements that are knowingly false, and you make them with malice, and you actually tarnish reputations and it has a financial consequence — that’s why you have defamation lawsuits in the first place,” Coates said, explaining the seriousness of the lawsuit.

Coates is not alone in believing Smartmatic’s suit poses real threat to Fox. University of Georgia media law professor Jonathan Peters noted on Twitter that “libel law makes it difficult to prevail where the plaintiff is a public figure and/or where the speech involved a matter of public concern. In various ways, these will be key issues in litigation.” But, Peters added that he believed the “smart money” is on Smartmatic.
That seemed to be the general consensus among legal experts who commented on the case Thursday. Despite Fox describing the suit as “meritless,” Powell calling it a “political maneuver,” and Giuliani saying he looked forward to discovery, most legal experts believed it to have some bite. “This lawsuit is a legitimate threat — a real threat,” CNN legal analyst Ellie Honig said. “There is a real teeth to this.” And Roy Gutterman, who directs the Tully Center for Free Speech at Syracuse University, echoed to WaPo, “This complaint establishes a compelling narrative in its 270-plus pages. It will certainly be interesting to see how the defendants frame their responses.”

This is not a nuisance suit

Brian Stelter writes: “Libel suits against media organizations are typically filed on a slippery slope. Journalists have good reason to be concerned about these types of cases. And nuisance lawsuits against newsrooms are a real problem. But I think it’s safe to say that Smartmatic’s action against Fox is not a nuisance suit, and it has little to do with news. It’s going to be hard for Fox to wrap its hosts in a press freedom flag. This case is about entertainers who gave fuel to lies in a desperate bid to keep Trump in power.”

“Disinformation has free reign right now”

When I spoke with Smartmatic’s lawyer, Erik Connolly of “pink slime” fame, about the case, I did press him on whether he was worried his suit could set a precedent that could ultimately harm press freedoms. His response was that the lawsuit would actually be beneficial to legitimate news orgs. “I think it’s the type of case that has to be brought right now to try to get us away from disinformation,” Connolly told me. “Disinformation has a free rein right now. This kind of case can be a shot across the bow that courts can deliver that says, ‘Let’s get back to reality. Let’s get back to factual reporting.'”

A world of people “telling outright lies”

Stelter writes: “I was struck by something Roberta Kaplan, a lawyer representing author E. Jean Carroll, told the NYT. Carroll is suing Trump for defamation. Kaplan ‘stated that the profusion of defamation circumstances associated to the previous president was notable,’ since there’s been a perception that such cases are hard to win. ‘What’s changed,’ Kaplan said, ‘and why we’re seeing so many more defamation cases today than ever before, is because, frankly, we’re living in a world in which people with legitimacy and authority seem to feel no compunction whatsoever about just telling outright lies.’ This is partly why other legal experts are saying Smartmatic has a strong argument — the lies are explicit and easily debunked. And that’s why it may not be so hard to prove that Fox and its hosts knew, or should have known, that they were telling lies — which is the ‘actual malice’ standard that public figures have to meet in defamation cases…”

The lies have consequences

It’s crucial to point out the consequences the slew of conspiracy theories pushed against Smartmatic have had for the company. In its lawsuit, Smartmatic detailed some of the ramifications: a wave of threats against its employees, a “meteoric rise” in cyberattacks, and hundreds of millions of dollars in projected revenue losses. CEO and founder Antonio Mugica told me that there was “no choice” the company had but to file the lawsuit. “The disinformation campaign that was launched against us is an obliterating one. For us, this is existential, and we have to take action.”



Read original article here

Mar-a-Lago: Palm Beach completes legal review of Trump’s residency

In a memo produced by the town’s attorney and posted on the town’s website, lawyer John “Skip” Randolph advised the town to look instead to its zoning ordinance, which permits only bona fide employees to reside in private clubs. Thus, if Trump is a “bona fide employee of the club,” town zoning would allow him to live on the premises, Randolph concluded.

Randolph recommended in the memo that the town council hear from interested parties, including Trump, and debate the issue further.

A letter to Randolph from Trump’s attorney last month argued that the former President is a bona fide employee of the resort and therefore is “clearly entitled to reside there.”

The town of Palm Beach will hear the review as part of its Town Council Meeting scheduled for next Tuesday, according to the agenda and supporting documents posted on the town’s website.

Trump bought the former estate of Marjorie Merriweather Post in 1985 and turned it into a members-only club in 1993. To transform the private residence into a revenue-generating business, he had to agree to certain limitations, based on guidelines presented as deal-breakers from Palm Beach.

For example, there could be no more than 500 members, there were rules concerning parking and traffic, and club members could not spend more than seven consecutive days at Mar-a-Lago, or no more than three weeks total a year. Trump signed the agreement.

CNN reported in December that nearby residents in the posh Florida town were not interested in supporting Trump making the club his permanent home after he left office. The former President returned to Mar-a-Lago on January 20.

Randolph said the issue “hinges primarily on whether former President Trump is a bona fide employee of the Club.” In the two-page legal memo, Randolph writes that town zoning code for private clubs allows “a private club may provide living quarters for its bona fide employees only.” He added that the town code definition of employee “includes sole proprietors, partners, limited partners, corporate officers and the like.”

Randolph then concluded that “if he is a bona fide employee of the Club, absent a specific restriction prohibiting former President Trump from residing at the Club, it appears the Zoning Code permits him to reside at the Club.”

Randolph continued, “After entertaining all of the relevant presentations, the Town Council should deliberate on this matter and determine what action, if any, should be taken.”

The legal memo prepared for the town was first obtained by The Washington Post.
Many once-loyal members of Mar-a-Lago are leaving because they no longer want to have any connection to Trump, according to the author of the definitive book about the resort.

“It’s a very dispirited place,” Laurence Leamer, historian and author of “Mar-a-Lago: Inside the Gates of Power at Donald Trump’s Presidential Palace,” told MSNBC earlier this month. He said members are “not concerned about politics and they said the food is no good.”

Leamer said he had spoken to a number of former members who “silently walked out” after Trump left office.

CNN’s Kate Bennett, Caroline Kelly, Katelyn Polantz and Alexis Benveniste contributed to this report.

Read original article here

Arizona, 15th state with legal pot, sees recreational sales

Legal sales of recreational marijuana in Arizona started on Friday, a once-unthinkable step in the former conservative stronghold that joins 14 other states that have broadly legalized pot.

The state Health Services Department on Friday announced it had approved 86 licenses in nine of the state’s 15 counties under provisions of the marijuana legalization measure passed by voters in November. Most of the licenses went to existing medical marijuana dispensaries that can start selling pot right away.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

“It’s an exciting step for those that want to participate in that program,” said Dr. Cara Christ, Arizona’s state health director, on Friday.

Under the terms of Proposition 207, people 21 and older can grow their own plants and legally possess up to an ounce (28 grams) of marijuana or a smaller quantity of “concentrates” such as hashish. Possession of between 1 ounce and 2.5 ounces (70 grams) is a petty offense carrying a maximum $300 fine.

The march toward decriminalization in the Sun Belt state was long. Approval of the legalization measure came four years after Arizona voters narrowly defeated a similar proposal, although medical marijuana has been legal in the state since 2010.

The initiative faced stiff opposition from Republican Gov. Doug Ducey and GOP leaders in the state Legislature, but 60% of the state’s voters in the November election approved it.

The vote on marijuana reflected larger trends at play during the historic election that saw Democrat Joe Biden flip the longtime Republican state where political giants include five-term conservative senator Barry Goldwater and the late GOP Sen. John McCain.

DEAL OFFERS MORE BANKING SERVICES FOR CALIFORNIA POT FIRMS

Changing demographics, including a fast-growing Latino population and a flood of new residents, have made the state friendlier to Democrats.

The recreational pot measure was backed by advocates for the legal marijuana industry and criminal justice reform advocates who argued that the state’s harsh marijuana laws were out of step with the nation. Arizona was the only state in the country that still allowed a felony charge for first-time possession of small amounts of marijuana, although most cases were prosecuted as lower-level misdemeanors.

MARIJUANA STOCKS BOOM WITH NEW HOPES FOR LEGALIZATION AS DEMOCRATS TAKE POWER

The vast majority of the licenses issued Friday were in Maricopa County, the state’s largest county that’s home to Phoenix and its suburbs. Other counties with dispensaries now allowed to sell recreational pot are Cochise, Coconino, Gila, Pima, Pinal, Yavapai and Yuma counties.

Voters in New Jersey, South Dakota and Montana also approved making possession of recreational marijuana legal last November.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS

Arizona prosecutors dropped thousands of marijuana possession cases after the measure was approved. Possession in the state technically became legal when the election results were certified on Nov. 30 but there was no authorized way to purchase it without a medical marijuana card.

Voters in November dealt another blow to Republicans in control of the state’s power levers when they approved a new tax on high earners to boost education funding, a move that came after years of GOP tax cuts and the underfunding of public schools.

Read original article here