Arkansas Medical Marijuana

[+Malamute]

They have 2 competing amendments in Arkansas. Not sure who is interested.

 

https://ballotpedia.org/Arkansas_Medical_Marijuana_Amendment_of_2016_(2016)

 

Medical Cannabis Act vs. Medical Marijuana Amendment

Below is a comparison of the Arkansas Medical Cannabis Act and the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment of 2016. The main differences lie in patent card fee limits, the organizations that would implement the program, the distribution of sales tax revenue, and the ability for individuals to grow marijuana at home.

 

 

Medical Cannabis Act (AMCA)

• Sets a cap on the fees required to get dispensary and cultivation licenses and the fees required for patient cards;
• Dictates that the Arkansas Department of Health must set rules for patient cards, medical conditions that qualify a patient for medical marijuana use, and operating rules for dispensaries and cultivators;
• Allows patients to grow marijuana at home;
• Requires that all sales tax revenue goes back into the medical marijuana program.

 

Medical Marijuana Amendment (AMMA)

• Sets a cap on the fee required to acquire a dispensary or cultivation license, but no limit on the cost for patient card fees;
• Establishes a Medical Marijuana Commission
• Dictates that the state's Department of Health must set rules for patient cards and medical conditions that qualify a patient for medical marijuana use;
• Dictates that the state's Alcoholic Beverage Control establish operating rules for dispensaries and cultivators;
• Prohibits patients from growing marijuana at home;
• Requires sales tax revenue to be divided up in the following way:
  • 10 percent to the medical marijuana program;
  • 10 percent to the Skills Development Fund;
  • 30 percent to the state's General Fund;
  • 50 percent to the state's Vocational and Technical Training Special Revenue Fund.

 

[+Malamute]

http://www.marijuana.com/blog/news/2016/09/norml-member-tries-to-kick-medical-marijuana-off-arkansas-ballot/

 

NORML Member Tries To Kick Medical Marijuana Off Arkansas Ballot(corporate interest)

 

Why would a member of NORML’s National Legal Committee file a lawsuit seeking to get a medical marijuana measure kicked off of Arkansas’s November ballot?

Thats’s the question many cannabis policy observers are asking after Kara Benca, a lifetime member of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws’s attorneys panel, sued on Friday to invalidate signatures for the Arkansas Medical Cannabis Act (AMCA).

 

 

The measure is one of two separate medical cannabis initiatives that have qualified for the November ballot. It, unlike the competing Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment (AMMA), would allow certified patients to grow medical cannabis at home. It also allows for a broader list of medical conditions that qualify patients for legal access to marijuana.

 

David Couch, the Little Rock attorney behind the more restrictive AMMA, admitted to Marijuana.com that he “provided information” to support Benca’s suit, but didn’t respond directly to questions about whether he merely complied with requests for help or was involved in initiating the case from the beginning.

 

“We are a small town,” he said. “I’ve worked with them and know them. I don’t think anyone contacted anyone.”

Paul Armentano, deputy director for NORML, said his organization has not “picked a side among these dueling initiatives.”

 

Asked whether Benca should be able to retain her status on the organization’s Legal Committee after attempting to block voters from deciding whether to allow medical marijuana homegrow, Armentano said he wasn’t previously familiar with the attorney, who is one of more than 600 who have paid dues in order to be listed on the organization’s site.

 

“I have raised this as a matter of concern to other senior staff, as well as those on the ground in Arkansas, and I would imagine the matter will be formally discussed ASAP some time next week,” he said.

 

Norm Kent, the vice-chair of NORML’s Board of Directors, told Marijuana.com that he would add the issue as a “discussion item to our agenda for this month’s Board meeting in Boston.”

 

It costs $5,000 to become a lifetime member of the NORML Legal Committee, a status which comes with several benefits including a search-engine-friendly listing that puts attorneys in front of potential clients.

 

“NLC members are listed on NORML’s popular webpage, where the victims of marijuana prohibition, their friends and family can turn to find competent and compassionate attorneys, especially those who specialize in criminal and drug defense work,” reads an appeal co-authored by Kent.

Public support for medical marijuana in Arkansas is broad, polling shows. In the only publicly available survey comparing the two measures, AMCA outperformed Couch’s AMMA by five percentage points.

 

Couch told Marijuana.com that he has internal polling showing the opposite result, but refused to share the data.

Benca’s suit, filed before the Arkansas Supreme Court, claims that the AMCA team didn’t comply with state petition collection and verification rules and, as a result, at least 15,000 of their signatures are invalid. If the court agrees with the claims, the measure would no longer have enough signatures to qualify.

 

Advocates have raised concerns about voter confusion that could arise from two similar but separate measures dealing with a single topic appearing on the same ballot. They are worried that if all medical cannabis supporters don’t end up voting for both measures and instead pick only the one they prefer, the votes could be split and a majority won’t be achieved for either initiative.

 

Couch told Marijuana.com that national marijuana policy reform advocates like Rob Kampia of the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) and Graham Boyd of New Approach PAC tried to get him to drop his AMMA effort after AMCA qualified.

 

In 2012, Arkansas voters narrowly defeated a medical marijuana initiative that was run by roughly the same team behind this year’s AMCA effort. MPP provided funding to both efforts.

 

“Rob Kampia is to blame for this mess,” Couch said. “His arrogance cost us in 2012 and it might cost us this time. The Supreme Court will decide if [AMCA’s campaign] followed the rules. I did.”

 

Couch said that he informed Kampia of problems with AMCA’s signatures in April.

 

“He blew me off and orchestrated [AMCA’s] early turn in and press conferences demanding I stand down,” he said. “If I stood down – it’s taken off ballot the people have no choice.”

 

Benca’s lawsuit is the second that has been filed against AMCA. A group of medical cannabis opponents filed a separate case last week asking the Arkansas Supreme Court to stop the state from counting or certifying the results of the measure after it is voted on in November. Advocates have asked the court to dismiss the case.

 

There is uncertainty about what would happen if both measures are approved by voters on Election Day.

[+Malamute]

MPP v NORML

 

MPP = Home Growing if not near a dispensary

 

NORML = No home growing(plus no rights or absolute conditions etc,)

 

 

Bleh.

[+Malamute]

SECTION 106. Hardship Cultivation Certificates

 

(a) Application for Hardship Cultivation Certificates and qualifications. The Department shall issue Hardship Cultivation Certificates to Qualifying Patients who, in accordance with rules issued by The Department, submit:

(1) A written explanation and supporting documentation of the Qualifying Patient’s need for a Hardship Cultivation Certificate based on a lack of a Nonprofit Cannabis Care Center within twenty (20) miles of the Qualifying Patient’s residence;

(2) An application or renewal fee;

(3) A copy of the Qualifying Patient’s Registry Identification Card;

(4) The address and description of the single location that shall be used for the cultivation of Cannabis, which shall be either the primary residence of the Qualifying Patient or the Designated Caregiver; and

(5) Any other information required by The Department.

 

(b) Department approval or denial. The Department shall verify the information contained in an application or renewal submitted pursuant to this section and shall approve or deny an application or renewal within thirty (30) days of receiving it. The Department may deny an application or renewal only if the applicant did not provide the information required pursuant to this section, the applicant previously had a Hardship Cultivation Certificate revoked, The Department determines that the Qualifying Patient does not have a verified hardship and is within twenty (20) miles of a registered Nonprofit Cannabis Care Center, or The Department determines that the information provided was falsified. Rejection of an application or renewal is considered a final agency action, subject to judicial review, and jurisdiction is vested in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County.

 

© Hardship Cultivation Certificate issuance. The Department shall issue Hardship Cultivation Certificates to Qualifying Patients within five (5) days of approving an application or renewal under this section. Hardship Cultivation Certificates expire one (1) year after the date of issuance.

 

(d) Notification of changes in status. This subsection governs notification of changes in status.

(1) A Qualifying Patient shall notify The Department within fifteen (15) days if the Qualifying Patient ceases to have the hardship which qualified the Qualifying Patient for a Hardship Cultivation Certificate under subdivision 106(a)(1).

(2) The Hardship Cultivation Certificate becomes void 120 days after receipt by The Department that the Qualifying Patient ceases to have a qualifying hardship or at the expiration date, whichever comes first.

 

(e) Location of cultivation. This subsection governs the location of cultivation.

(1) A Qualifying Patient with a Hardship Cultivation Certificate shall only cultivate Cannabis at the location specified in the application and approved by The Department.

(2) The Hardship Cultivation Certificate must be displayed and clearly visible at the location where Cannabis is cultivated.

(3) At any given location, cultivation shall occur pursuant to only one (1) Hardship Cultivation Certificate unless it is the primary residence of more than one (1) Qualifying Patient for whom The Department has approved a Hardship Cultivation Certificate for that location or it is the primary residence of a Designated Caregiver who is the Designated Caregiver for more than one (1) Qualifying Patient for whom The Department has approved a Hardship Cultivation Certificate for that location.

(4) Cannabis cultivation and storage of Cannabis produced by the cultivation shall be in an Enclosed, Locked Facility.

 

(f) Inspection of cultivation. The Department shall inspect and search the location of cultivation specified in a Hardship Cultivation Certificate during normal business hours.

 

(g)  Felony exclusion. The Department shall not issue a Hardship Cultivation Certificate to any Qualifying Patient or Designated Caregiver who has been found guilty or pleaded guilty or nolo contendere in a criminal proceeding, regardless of whether or not the adjudication of guilt or sentence is withheld by a court of this state, another state, or the federal government for any felony. The Department shall conduct a background check of each prospective Hardship Cultivation Certificate applicant in order to carry out this subsection. The Department shall notify the Qualifying Patient or Designated Caregiver in writing of the reason for denying the Hardship Cultivation Certificate.

[+Malamute]

Um...yeap.

 

[imiubu]

SECTION 106. Hardship Cultivation Certificates

 

(a) Application for Hardship Cultivation Certificates and qualifications. The Department shall issue Hardship Cultivation Certificates to Qualifying Patients who, in accordance with rules issued by The Department, submit:

(1) A written explanation and supporting documentation of the Qualifying Patient’s need for a Hardship Cultivation Certificate based on a lack of a Nonprofit Cannabis Care Center within twenty (20) miles of the Qualifying Patient’s residence;

(2) An application or renewal fee;

(3) A copy of the Qualifying Patient’s Registry Identification Card;

(4) The address and description of the single location that shall be used for the cultivation of Cannabis, which shall be either the primary residence of the Qualifying Patient or the Designated Caregiver; and

(5) Any other information required by The Department.

 

(b) Department approval or denial. The Department shall verify the information contained in an application or renewal submitted pursuant to this section and shall approve or deny an application or renewal within thirty (30) days of receiving it. The Department may deny an application or renewal only if the applicant did not provide the information required pursuant to this section, the applicant previously had a Hardship Cultivation Certificate revoked, The Department determines that the Qualifying Patient does not have a verified hardship and is within twenty (20) miles of a registered Nonprofit Cannabis Care Center, or The Department determines that the information provided was falsified. Rejection of an application or renewal is considered a final agency action, subject to judicial review, and jurisdiction is vested in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County.

 

© Hardship Cultivation Certificate issuance. The Department shall issue Hardship Cultivation Certificates to Qualifying Patients within five (5) days of approving an application or renewal under this section. Hardship Cultivation Certificates expire one (1) year after the date of issuance.

 

(d) Notification of changes in status. This subsection governs notification of changes in status.

(1) A Qualifying Patient shall notify The Department within fifteen (15) days if the Qualifying Patient ceases to have the hardship which qualified the Qualifying Patient for a Hardship Cultivation Certificate under subdivision 106(a)(1).

(2) The Hardship Cultivation Certificate becomes void 120 days after receipt by The Department that the Qualifying Patient ceases to have a qualifying hardship or at the expiration date, whichever comes first.

 

(e) Location of cultivation. This subsection governs the location of cultivation.

(1) A Qualifying Patient with a Hardship Cultivation Certificate shall only cultivate Cannabis at the location specified in the application and approved by The Department.

(2) The Hardship Cultivation Certificate must be displayed and clearly visible at the location where Cannabis is cultivated.

(3) At any given location, cultivation shall occur pursuant to only one (1) Hardship Cultivation Certificate unless it is the primary residence of more than one (1) Qualifying Patient for whom The Department has approved a Hardship Cultivation Certificate for that location or it is the primary residence of a Designated Caregiver who is the Designated Caregiver for more than one (1) Qualifying Patient for whom The Department has approved a Hardship Cultivation Certificate for that location.

(4) Cannabis cultivation and storage of Cannabis produced by the cultivation shall be in an Enclosed, Locked Facility.

 

(f) Inspection of cultivation. The Department shall inspect and search the location of cultivation specified in a Hardship Cultivation Certificate during normal business hours.

 

(g)  Felony exclusion. The Department shall not issue a Hardship Cultivation Certificate to any Qualifying Patient or Designated Caregiver who has been found guilty or pleaded guilty or nolo contendere in a criminal proceeding, regardless of whether or not the adjudication of guilt or sentence is withheld by a court of this state, another state, or the federal government for any felony. The Department shall conduct a background check of each prospective Hardship Cultivation Certificate applicant in order to carry out this subsection. The Department shall notify the Qualifying Patient or Designated Caregiver in writing of the reason for denying the Hardship Cultivation Certificate.

 

Thanks for posting (the whole thread) Mal.

 

wth is this crap ^^ looks like a whole lot of ways to bust home growers even after they acquire said HCC. 

 

Arkansas managed to get enough signatures for 2 ballot initiatives and MI could not get even 1 to the ballot, smh. 

[pergamum362]

Thxs for this info and links. Arkansas is my home state.

[t-pain]

Why such bunny muffin people running things?

[beourbud]

 

Thxs for this info and links. Arkansas is my home state.

That explains a lot.

[+Malamute]

Thxs for this info and links. Arkansas is my home state.

 

Right on. I have a lot of family there.  Lonoke, Corbett, hot springs.  And,... congratulations on getting out. ;-p

 

Hehehe..

 

But on point,... MPP and NORML.

 

I mean seriously.  Wtf is wrong with NORML? Fk NORML. I gave up on NORML in 1991. Useless.

 

And, WTF MPP?  20 miles from a dispensary?

 

 

 

 

[+Malamute]

That explains a lot.

 

 It doesn't explain anything.  There is one spectrum to the other in Arkansas. I used to go to an old Rainbow farm around Mt. Ida. They had a crystal mine.  It was cool.  I have also been chased out of redneck bars in Arkansas and refused gasoline fro a gas station.

 

Haha...

 

I never lived there, nor would, but , don't be a Statist.

[+Malamute]

I mean, there are basically three major legislative forces in the marijuana movement.

 

MPP- Marijuana Policy Project (best by far, but look at what they have been doing lately)

 

NORML- National Organization of useless stoners who never really accomplish anything and have sold out completely to corporate marijuana.

 

DPA- Drug Policy Alliance- well funded. But will support anything. I mean anything.

 

 

Don't be deluded to think there is anyone anywhere out there looking out for the little guy and personal grow rights. Its become almost nonexistent amongst those groups.  MPP still wants growrights, but only ifit doesn't  interfere with the big alcohol model, Regulate like alcohol crap.

 

Anyhow...

 

Better fight, for your right, to grow weed.  Noone else is.  Well i try....:-)

[beourbud]

It doesn't explain anything. There is one spectrum to the other in Arkansas. I used to go to an old Rainbow farm around Mt. Ida. They had a crystal mine. It was cool. I have also been chased out of redneck bars in Arkansas and refused gasoline fro a gas station.

 

Haha...

 

I never lived there, nor would, but , don't be a Statist.

Rocks,Religous Racists and Red Neck Republicans

They claim Jim Crow was born in Little Rock.

 

Elaine Massacre

aka: Elaine Race Riot of 1919

aka: Elaine Race Massacre

 

The Elaine Massacre was by far the deadliest racial confrontation in Arkansas history and possibly the bloodiest racial conflict in the history of the United States. While its deepest roots lay in the state’s commitment to white supremacy, the events in Elaine (Phillips County) stemmed from tense race relations and growing concerns about labor unions. A shooting incident that occurred at a meeting of the Progressive Farmers and Household Union escalated into mob violence on the part of the white people in Elaine and surrounding areas. Although the exact number is unknown, estimates of the number of African Americans killed by whites range into the hundreds; five white people lost their lives.

 

The conflict began on the night of September 30, 1919, when approximately 100 African Americans, mostly sharecroppers on the plantations of white landowners, attended a meeting of the Progressive Farmers and Household Union of America at a church in Hoop Spur (Phillips County), three miles north of Elaine. The purpose of the meeting, one of several by black sharecroppers in the Elaine area during the previous months, was to obtain better payments for their cotton crops from the white plantation owners who dominated the area during the Jim Crow era. Black sharecroppers were often exploited in their efforts to collect payment for their cotton crops.

 

In previous months, racial conflict had occurred in numerous cities in America, including Washington DC; Chicago, Illinois; Knoxville, Tennessee; and Indianapolis, Indiana. With labor conflicts escalating throughout the country at the end of World War I, government and business interpreted the demands of labor increasingly as the work of foreign ideologies, such as Bolshevism, that threatened the foundation of the American economy. Thrown into this highly combustible mix was the return to the United States of black soldiers who often exhibited a less submissive attitude within the Jim Crow society around them.

 

Unions such as the Progressive Farmers represented a threat not only to the tenet of white supremacy but also to the basic concepts of capitalism. Although the United States was on the winning side of World War I, supporters of American capitalism found in communism a new menace to their security. With the success of the Russian Revolution, stopping the spread of international communism was seen as the duty of all loyal Americans. Arkansas governor Charles Hillman Brough told a St. Louis, Missouri, audience during the war that “there existed no twilight zone in American patriotism” and called Wisconsin senator Robert LaFollete, who opposed the war, a Bolshevik leader. The threat of “Bolshevism” seemed to be everywhere: not only in the labor strikes led by the radical Industrial Workers of the World but also in the cotton fields of Arkansas.

 

Leaders of the Hoop Spur union had placed armed guards around the church to prevent disruption of their meeting and intelligence gathering by white opponents. Though accounts of who fired the first shots are in sharp conflict, a shootout in front of the church on the night of September 30, 1919, between the armed black guards around the church and three individuals whose vehicle was parked in front of the church resulted in the death of W. A. Adkins, a white security officer for the Missouri-Pacific Railroad, and the wounding of Charles Pratt, Phillips County’s white deputy sheriff.

 

The next morning, the Phillips County sheriff sent out a posse to arrest those suspected of being involved in the shooting. Although the posse encountered minimal resistance from the black residents of the area around Elaine, the fear of African Americans, who outnumbered whites in this area of Phillips County by a ratio of ten to one, led an estimated 500 to 1,000 armed white people—mostly from the surrounding Arkansas counties but also from across the river in Mississippi—to travel to Elaine to put down what was characterized by them as an “insurrection.” On October 1, Phillips County authorities sent three telegrams to Gov. Brough, requesting that U.S. troops be sent to Elaine. Brough responded by gaining permission from the Department of War to send more than 500 battle-tested troops from Camp Pike, outside of Little Rock (Pulaski County).

 

After troops arrived in Elaine on the morning of October 2, 1919, the white mobs began to depart the area and return to their homes. The military placed several hundred African Americans in makeshift stockades until they could be questioned and vouched for by their white employers.

 

Evidence shows that the mobs of whites slaughtered African Americans in and around Elaine. For example, H. F. Smiddy, one of the white witnesses to the massacre, swore in an eye-witness account in 1921 that “several hundred of them… began to hunt negroes and shotting [sic] them as they came to them.” Anecdotal evidence also suggests that the troops from Camp Pike engaged in indiscriminate killing of African Americans in the area, which, if true, was a replication of past militia activity to put down perceived black revolts. In 1925, Sharpe Dunaway, an employee of the Arkansas Gazette, alleged that soldiers in Elaine had “committed one murder after another with all the calm deliberation in the world, either too heartless to realize the enormity of their crimes, or too drunk on moonshine to give a continental darn.”

 

Colonel Isaac Jenks, commander of the U.S. troops at Elaine, recorded the number of African Americans killed by U.S. troops as only two. In contrast, the correspondent for the Memphis Press on October 2, 1919, wrote, “Many Negroes are reported killed by the soldiers….” Other anecdotal information suggests that U.S. troops also engaged in torture of African Americans to make them confess and give information.

 

The white power structure in Phillips County formed a “Committee of Seven,” made of influential planters, businessmen, and elected officials, to investigate the cause of the disturbances. The committee met with Gov. Brough, who had ridden on the train with the troops and accompanied them on a march to the Hoop Spur area. The governor, who was reported as saying he was going to Elaine to “obtain correct information,” accepted the authority of the committee in return for its commitment that no lynchings would take place in Helena (Phillips County). He returned to Little Rock the next day and told a press conference, “The situation at Elaine has been well handled and is absolutely under control. There is no danger of any lynching…. The white citizens of the county deserve unstinting praise for their actions in preventing mob violence.”

 

From this point forward, two versions of what occurred at Elaine exist. The white leaders put forward their view that black residents had been about to revolt. E. M. Allen, a planter and real estate developer who became the spokesman for Phillips County's white power structure, told the Helena World on October 7, “The present trouble with the Negroes in Phillips County is not a race riot. It is a deliberately planned insurrection of the Negroes against the whites directed by an organization known as the ‘Progressive Farmers and Household Union of America,’ established for the purpose of banding Negroes together for the killing of white people.”

 

On the other hand, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in New York, which had sent Field Secretary Walter White to investigate the events in Elaine, contested such allegations from the outset. White wrote in the Chicago Daily News on October 19, 1919, that the belief there had been an insurrection was “only a figment of the imagination of Arkansas whites and not based on fact.” He said, “White men in Helena told me that more than one hundred Negroes were killed.”

 

Within days of the initial shoot-out, 285 African Americans were taken from the temporary stockades to the jail in Helena, the county seat, although the jail had space for only forty-eight. Two white members of the Phillips County posse, T. K. Jones and H. F. Smiddy, stated in sworn affidavits in 1921 that they committed acts of torture at the Phillips County jail and named others who had also participated in the torture. On October 31, 1919, the Phillips County grand jury charged 122 African Americans with crimes stemming from the racial disturbances. The charges ranged from murder to nightriding, a charge akin to terroristic threatening. The trials began the next week. White attorneys from Helena were appointed by Circuit Judge J. M. Jackson to represent the first twelve black men to go to trial. Attorney Jacob Fink, who was appointed to represent Frank Hicks, admitted to the jury that he had not interviewed any witnesses. He made no motion for a change of venue, nor did he challenge a single prospective juror, taking the first twelve called. By November 5, 1919, the first twelve black men given trials had been convicted of murder and sentenced to die in the electric chair. As a result, sixty-five others quickly entered plea-bargains and accepted sentences of up to twenty-one years for second-degree murder. Others had their charges dismissed or ultimately were not prosecuted.

 

In Little Rock and at the headquarters of the NAACP in New York, efforts began to fight the death sentences handed down in Helena, led in part by Scipio Africanus Jones, the leading black attorney of his era in Arkansas. Jones began to raise money in the black community in Little Rock for the defense of the “Elaine Twelve,” as the convicted men came to be known.

 

At the same time, the New York offices of the NAACP, upon the advice of Arkansas attorney U. S. Bratton, hired the Little Rock law firm of George C. Murphy, a former attorney general and candidate for governor, as counsel for the twelve men. Even at the age of seventy-nine, Murphy, a former Confederate officer and Arkansas attorney general, was considered one of the best trial attorneys in Arkansas. By late November, Jones was working with Murphy’s firm to save the Elaine Twelve.

 

Their initial task was to appeal the sentences given to the Elaine Twelve and ask for a new trial based on errors committed by the trial court. Gov. Brough issued a stay of the executions to permit an appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court after the motions were denied. For the next five years, the cases of the Elaine Twelve were mired in litigation as Murphy and Jones fought to save the men from death. They secured new trials for six of the men, known as the Ware defendants, based on the fact that the trial judge had not required jurors to indicate the degree of murder on their ballot forms.The convictions of the other six men, known as the Moore defendants, were affirmed.

 

The cases of the Elaine Twelve were litigated on two separate tracks. The re-trials of the Ware defendants began on May 3, 1920. During the trials, Murphy became ill, and Jones became the principal counsel. Hostility toward him was so great from local white residents that, out of fear for his life, he was said to sleep at a different black family’s house every night during the trials. The convictions were again affirmed. Gov. Brough once again stayed their executions until the Arkansas Supreme Court could again review the cases. Ultimately, the Ware defendants were freed by the Arkansas Supreme Court after two terms of court had passed, and the state of Arkansas made no move to re-try the men.

 

The Moore defendants were granted a new hearing after the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Moore v. Dempsey, ruled that the original proceedings in Helena had been a “mask,” and that the state of Arkansas had not provided “a corrective process” that would have allowed the defendants to vindicate their constitutional right to due process of law on appeal.

 

Instead of pursuing a new hearing in federal court, in March 1923, Scipio Jones entered into negotiations to have the Moore defendants released. To be released, the men would have to plead guilty to second-degree murder and a sentence of five years from the date they were first incarcerated in the Arkansas State Penitentiary. Finally, on January 14, 1925, Governor Thomas McRae ordered the release of the Moore defendants by granting them indefinite furloughs after they had pleaded guilty to second-degree murder. In the interim, Jones had secured the release of the other Elaine defendants.

 

Though some local white residents of Phillips County still contend that white people at the time acted appropriately to prevent a slaughter in the Elaine area in 1919, the modern view of most historians of this crisis is that white mobs unjustifiably killed an undetermined number of African Americans. More controversial is the view that the military participated in the murder of blacks. Race relations in this area of Arkansas are currently quite strained for a number of reasons, including the events of 1919. A conference on the matter in Helena in 2000 resulted in no closure for the people in Phillips County.

 

For additional information:

Butts, J. W., and Dorothy James. “The Underlying Causes of the Elaine Riot of 1919.” Arkansas Historical Quarterly 20 (Spring 1961): 95–104.

 

Collins, Ann V. All Hell Broke Loose: American Race Riots from the Progressive Era through World War II. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger, 2012.

 

Cortner, Richard C. A Mob Intent on Death: The NAACP and the Arkansas Riot Cases. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1988.

 

Dillard, Tom. “Scipio A. Jones.” Arkansas Historical Quarterly 31 (Autumn 1972): 201–219.

 

Dunaway, L. S. What A Preacher Saw Through a Keyhole in Arkansas. Little Rock: Parke-Harper Publishing Company, 1925.

 

Ferguson, Bessie. “The Elaine Race Riot.” Master’s thesis, George Peabody College for Teachers (now Peabody College of Education and Human Development at Vanderbilt University), 1927.

 

Krugler, David F. 1919, The Year of Racial Violence: How African Americans Fought Back. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

 

McCool, B. Boren. Union, Reaction, and Riot: The Biography of a Rural Race Riot. Memphis: Memphis State University Press, 1970.

 

McWhirter, Cameron. Red Summer: The Summer of 1919 and the Awakening of Black America. New York: St. Martin’s, 2011.

 

Research Materials for Blood in Their Eyes: The Elaine Race Massacres of 1919. Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System, Little Rock, Arkansas.

 

Rogers, O. A., Jr. “The Elaine Race Riots of 1919.” Arkansas Historical Quarterly 19 (Summer 1960): 142–150.

 

Smith, C. Calvin, ed. “The Elaine, Arkansas, Race Riots, 1919.” Special Issue. Arkansas Review: A Journal of Delta Studies 32 (August 2001).

 

Stockley, Grif. Blood in Their Eyes: The Elaine Race Massacres of 1919. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press, 2001.

 

Stockley, Grif, and Jeannie M. Whayne. “Federal Troops and the Elaine Massacres: A Colloquy.” Arkansas Historical Quarterly 61 (Autumn 2002): 272–283.

 

Taylor, Kieran. “‘We Have Just Begun’: Black Organizing and White Response in the Arkansas Delta, 1919.” Arkansas Historical Quarterly 58 (Autumn 1999): 265–284.

 

Waskow, Arthur I. From Race Riot to Sit-in: 1919 to the 1960's. New York: Anchor Books, 1967.

 

Whayne, Jeannie M. “Black Farmers in the Red Autumn: A Review Essay.” Arkansas Historical Quarterly 68 (Autumn 2009): 327–336.

 

———. “Low Villains and Wickedness in High Places: Race and Class in the Elaine Riots.” Arkansas Historical Quarterly 58 (Autumn 1999): 285–313.

 

Whitaker, Robert. On the Laps of Gods: The Red Summer of 1919 and the Struggle for Justice that Remade a Nation. New York: Crown, 2008.

 

Woodruff, Nan Elizabeth. American Congo: The African American Freedom Struggle in the Delta. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003.

 

Wormser, Richard, director. The Elaine Riot: Tragedy & Triumph. VHS Documentary. Little Rock: Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation, 2002.

 

 

 

Grif Stockley

Butler Center for Arkansas Studies

 

Related Butler Center Lesson Plans:

The Elaine 12 (Grades 5-8); Arkansas's Top Ten Events (Grades 6-12)

Last Updated 8/1/2016

 

About this Entry: Contact the Encyclopedia / Submit a Comment / Submit a Narrative

Edited September 5, 2016 by beourbud

[pergamum362]

None of that has anything to do with me.

[beourbud]

None of that has anything to do with me.

Arkansas is a beautiful state rich with natural resources.

 

Another example of how man can corrupt Gods Country.

 

Arkansas and Alabama, where you will get beat with the Bible Belt if your the wrong color.

 

Bottom of the list for education and median household income.

 

Right to Work for Less state.

 

Home of China loving, anti Union, anti Made in America.....Walmart

 

I can't blame anyone for leaving that third world state, only wish they had the backbone to make their state better.

 

Eta. Don't be fooled MPP is only behind home grows for their support, they will throw Home Grows under the bus first chance they get.

All of the alphabet groups are looking out for there sponsors financial interest not ours.

Edited September 5, 2016 by beourbud

[pergamum362]

So what i can gather,amca is the one to vote for? My sister is getting ready to make up flyers and go post them around, about the amca initiiative.

[pergamum362]

Obviously niether of them are great.

[beourbud]

Obviously niether of them are great.

thats why they won't pass. Getting on the ballot is only half the battle

 

Folks, even Arkansans are wising up to Big. $$$$$. trying to take over the canna industry thru legal lies.

 

Protect your Home Grows. Or start paying greedy bass turds like shkreli for medicine just about anyone can grow.

Edited September 6, 2016 by beourbud

[pergamum362]

Honestly reading through them, i hope not. They dont know what its really like. Even after telling my sister, she is still adamant that she wants legal access no matter the cost.

[t-pain]

legal is better than illegal in most cases.

[+Malamute]

AMCA is 'better'.

[+Malamute]

I mean, there are basically three major legislative forces in the marijuana movement.

 

MPP- Marijuana Policy Project (best by far, but look at what they have been doing lately)

 

NORML- National Organization of useless stoners who never really accomplish anything and have sold out completely to corporate marijuana.

 

DPA- Drug Policy Alliance- well funded. But will support anything. I mean anything.

 

 

Don't be deluded to think there is anyone anywhere out there looking out for the little guy and personal grow rights. Its become almost nonexistent amongst those groups.  MPP still wants growrights, but only ifit doesn't  interfere with the big alcohol model, Regulate like alcohol crap.

 

Anyhow...

 

Better fight, for your right, to grow weed.  Noone else is.  Well i try....:-)

 

 

Update:

 

 It appears the national NORML board has slowly walked away, via a tweet,  from the "NORML" group in Arkansas and endorsed MPP's initiative because  "at least it offers hardship grows".

 

Heh...

 

 You have to keep up the pressure on these groups for home growing.

[pergamum362]

Yah, i have sent her various links and links to the bills, gave her my opinion to vote NO on all of them.

[pergamum362]

I was hoping for better, was thinking about going back home. Think ill stick around a bit longer.

[Wild Bill]

AMCA is 'better'.

 

The lesser of two evils? Free choice again!