Two tax increases: cigarettes and banks

Washington’s Legislature had two tax increases in its budget, both of them small and finely targeted at unpopular interests: cigarette smokers and large banks.

The smokers’ bill, House Bill 2565 (Rep. Steve Kirby, D-Tacoma) is aimed at the customers of tobacco stores with roll-your-own cigarette machines. These places sell loose tobacco and paper tubes and rent a machine that makes them into smokes. Customers have been saving about half the cost of cigarettes because the tax on loose tobacco is less than the tax on cigarettes. H.B. 2565 makes the roll-your-own customers pay at the cigarette rate.

I wrote a column on this in February, taking the side of the smokers.

The bank bill, Senate Bill 6635 (Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle) imposes business-and-occupation tax on interest from residential first mortgages. It applies only to banks that have branches in at least 10 states—lenders such as Bank of America and Chase Bank.

Here is an odd thing about these two tax bills. Each of them, it seems to me, is vulnerable to a legal challenge. The bank bill singles out a class of out-of-state companies and taxes them differently than companies that are only in Washington or ones (like Washington Federal or Banner Bank) that have branches in two to nine states. This appears to violate the “dormant commerce clause” of the U.S. Constitution—that a state may not pass a law that improperly burdens interstate commerce. I asked Jim Pishue, president of the Washington Bankers Association, about that.

“There has been a question out there whether this is constitutional,” he said, adding that he didn’t know if any of his members would pursue it.

The possible legal challenge to the roll-your-own bill is that the vote in the Senate was 27-19, which is less than two-thirds. And Tim Eyman's Initiative 1053, passed in 2010, requires a two-thirds’ vote of both houses to pass a tax increase. The bill has been described as a tax reclassification rather than in increase but that’s a dodge. It’s a tax increase.

Push for plain packet cigarettes

The Government has agreed in principle to stub out the brightly-coloured branding of cigarette packets - just as tobacco companies' court actions to overturn Australia's plain-packet law are getting under way.

Forcing tobacco into plain packaging is considered a key policy to help break the cycle of new, teenaged smokers becoming addicted.

Unbranded packets have been shown in New Zealand research with young people to lack the cool factor associated with cigarette branding for decades.

Australia's new law will put tobacco into packets of a dull colour dominated by large health warnings and with standardised fonts for the names of the products.

New Zealand's Associate Health Minister Tariana Turia said tonight that cabinet had agreed in principle to introduce a plain packaging regime in alignment with Australia, subject to the outcome of a New Zealand public consultation process to be carried out later this year.

"The public consultation process is a transparent way of reviewing the evidence and testing the case for plain packaging, and giving the public, the health sector and business interests a chance to have their say.''
Final decisions would be made after the consultation results had been taken into account.

"I am confident that we can bring in a plain packaging regime that will meet all our international commitments, including a major global treaty on tobacco control as well as a range of multilateral, regional and bilateral trade and investment agreements.''

Professor Jane Kelsey, an Auckland University expert on international trade and investment law, said Australia was facing several challenges on its precedent-setting plain-packaging law, which showed that tobacco companies would use every legal manouevre they could find.

"We can expect that similar pressure will be brought to bear on the New Zealand Government.

"But the New Zealand Government also has obligations under the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control to pursue these kinds of policies. It has made a commitment ... to pursue a goal of Aotearoa-New Zealand being effectively smokefree by 2025. You can't achieve that goal without radical tobacco control policies.''

She said one of the tobacco company actions against Australia was under a bilateral investment agreement with Hong Kong, claiming a loss of intellectual property rights though the change to plain packaging.

New Zealand's agreement with Hong Kong contained strong public health exception clauses, but its agreement with Singapore did not.

"It contains other kinds of exceptions.''

Professor Kelsey said New Zealand would become much more vulnerable under Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement investment provisions, "because that would give United States companies the direct right to challenge us''.

Tobacco company Philip Morris New Zealand said a plain packaging law would violate numerous international laws and trade treaties.

Susan Jones, Head of Corporate and Regulatory Affairs at British American Tobacco, said the company would take "every action necessary" to protect its intellectual property rights "as would any other business faced with the removal of their brands". "A government prohibition on a company's right to use their own intellectual property constitutes property removal and sets a disturbing precedent for businesses throughout New Zealand.

"If government is prepared to do this today, are the next logical steps to force alcohol, fast food, salty or sugary products into plain packs as well?" said Ms Jones.

Who's scared of tobacco warnings?

Most smokers will probably ignore the graphic health-warning images that the government plans to require tobacco companies to put on cigarette packs, suggesting the plan may be ineffective.
“I would still buy cigarettes even with the graphic images printed on the packs. In fact, I would intentionally buy them so I could feel that little bit cooler,” 25-year-old art-student Nadia Kusumahdewi said to The Jakarta Post via a text-message.
She said the new draft regulation currently discussed by the government would do “very little” to reduce the number of smokers in the country.
Nadia said that the government should concentrate on enforcing the smoking ban in public places.

Ikram Putra, a 28-year-old copy editor, separately said graphic images on cigarette packs would not stop him from buying them.
“I would only consider quitting smoking if the price was three times higher than the current price,” he said, adding that currently most tobacco companies sold their brands of cigarettes at Rp 12,000 (US$1.30) per pack.

Meanwhile, 35-year-old Desiree, a radio announcer, said that she had already purchased cigarettes with grotesque images of cancer sufferers on their packaging whenever she was abroad, such as in Malaysia or Singapore.
“I still bought them even though their price was about Rp 80,000. I just didn’t care,” she said.

A nonsmoker, Julia Adha Kaelani, 24, told the Post that smokers' awareness of public health would be more significant than countless government policies.
“If they [smokers] were truly aware of the health risks, they could print Mickey Mouse images on cigarette packs and they would still not buy them,” she said.
Coordinating People’s Welfare Minister Agung Laksono earlier told reporters in Jakarta that the government would instruct tobacco companies to include graphic health-warning images on at least 40 percent of each side of cigarette packs.
He said the future regulation, which was in accordance with the 2009 Health Law, had to be carried out within two years of the law being passed.

However, the politician from the Golkar Party, the second largest party in the House of Representatives, declined to clarify when the government would introduce regulation.

Medical Marijuana Laws Go Up in Smoke

Sixteen years after California voters passed Proposition 215, legalizing medical use of marijuana, it's clear the plant is not going to disappear.
Now if only the federal government could figure that out.
The message will be exhaled across the West Friday, as pot smokers gather to celebrate their national holiday: 4/20, a number whose origins are veiled in time and rumor, if not in smoke.
President Obama does not hear the message.
At a Summit of the Americas conference in Columbia on April 14, the host nation's President Juan Manuel Santos discussed alternatives to the "War on Drugs," and urged consideration of a middle ground short of decriminalization.
In response, Obama said, "I think it is entirely legitimate to have a conversation about whether the laws in place are ones that are doing more harm than good in certain places." But, he added, "I personally, and my administration's position is that legalization is not the answer,'" according to The New York Times.
Consider some numbers the War on Drugs has generated:
The annual marijuana crop in California is worth $13.8 billion, according to "Ganjanomics," an Aug. 15 story in High Country News.
Mexico's war with drug cartels, backed by $1.6 billion in U.S. money for training, support and equipment, has brought that country 50,000 deaths in 5 years.
If marijuana were legal in the United States, you could grow it in your back yard, bring it to your local farmers' market to trade or sell, and buy it commercial grade at your corner store or at specialty shops.
Law enforcement could use a device, akin to a breathalyzer, to determine if someone was too high to be driving.
Drug cartels would have less incentive to battle over supply routes marijuana would no longer be expensive.
Unfortunately for California, the Obama administration is making the state it the poster child for what flouting federal drug laws will get you.
Under the Controlled Substances Act marijuana is classified as a Schedule I drug, meaning: "a) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse, b) The drug or substance has no currently accepted medical use in the United States."
But in the rural Northern California counties of the Emerald Triangle, including Mendocino, Trinity and Humboldt Counties, marijuana is what powers their economies.
Tired of dealing with hunters and hikers encountering gun-toting pot growers in its forests, Mendocino County started a first-of-its kind permitting program in 2010 that let medical marijuana collectives grow up to 99 plants, to bring pot growers out of the black market.
Participants paid the county $1,500 in application fees, $50 for zip ties for each plant and $300 to $600 per month for monthly garden inspections by sheriff's deputies.
Nearly 100 farmers signed up for the program, which generated $663,230 for the Mendocino County Sheriff's Office from July through December, according to county officials.
That all changed in October, when DEA agents raided Northstone Organics' owner Matthew Cohen's Mendocino County farm and cut down his 99 marijuana plants.
Cohen ran a medical marijuana delivery service for patients in the Bay Area and Los Angeles, and appeared on the PBS documentary show "Frontline" earlier in the season, touting his garden's compliance with county law.
Due to threats from U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag that Mendocino County could face litigation if the program continued, the board of supervisors voted in February to end it.
Mendocino County Sheriff Tom Allman was an advocate of the program.
"This step that the U.S. Attorney's Office took in California, in my humble opinion as an elected sheriff, was a step backwards," Allman told KQED News. "We're further away from a solution today than we were two months ago."
On April 3 federal agents raided Oaksterdam University, a medical marijuana training college in Oakland, founded by Richard Lee, who spent more than $1 million backing a defeated 2010 California ballot measure that would have legalized recreational marijuana use.
An IRS spokeswoman told reporters that agents were serving a federal search warrant but said she could not comment on the raid's purpose.
Given the federal government's position, and the U.S. Supreme Court 2005 ruling in Gonzalez v. Raich, that Congress can criminalize homegrown cannabis production and use even where states approve it for medical purposes, this is a battle that will play out over decades.
What will it take for our nation's leaders to even start discussing solutions to a problem that will only keep growing?

Plain packets to be introduced for cigarettes

The government is to forge ahead with a ban on branded cigarette packets.

Cabinet has agreed ''in principle'' to introduce a plain packaging regime alongside Australia - but only after public consultation.

Associate Minister of Health Tariana Turia announced the move this evening, calling it ''a significant to our goal of making New Zealand smokefree by 2025.''

The open display of cigarette and tobacco packs in all dairies and other shops is banned from July 23 July this year.

''Plain packaging is the next step to ensure that once they are in the hands and homes of smokers, the packs don't promote anything other than our serious health warnings and quit messages,'' Turia said.

But the Australian government is currently embroiled in a legal wrangle with the world's major tobacco companies.

Last year, in a world first Australia passed tough legislation requiring all tobacco to be sold in unbranded packets with graphic health warnings.

The court case, led by British American Tobacco, got under way at the High Court in Canberra this week, and the tobacco giants see it as a test case.

They believe the ban on their brands, logos and trademarks infringes intellectual property rights, will dramatically slash profits and flood the market with fake products.

Removing the trademarks without compensation is also unconstitutional, their lawyers argue.

British and Canadian governments look set to follow suit with a ban.

The move is likely to have an impact on the various free trade deals New Zealand is trying to sew up.

In a recent trip to South Korea, Key made a big push to get a stalled FTA back on track.

But talks between Canberra and Seoul on a similar deal have hit the buffers over the packaging row.

Turia said she is confident of bringing in a regime that will meet international commitments, including a major global treaty on tobacco control.

"The public consultation process is a transparent way of reviewing the evidence and testing the case for plain packaging, and giving the public, the health sector and business interests a chance to have their say."

The consultation process will get underway later this year and once it is wrapped up a final decision will be made by cabinet.

Suspects take $1,200 worth of cigarettes from CVS

Orange County Sheriff deputies are looking for suspects accused of breaking into a CVS store and stealing about 20 boxes of cigarettes, police said.

The incident was reported at 1:38 a.m. on Tuesday in the 23300 block of El Toro Road. When deputies arrived they saw that the front door was open, Sgt. Angel Andrade said. They requested additional units for backup. A perimeter was set up and a K-9 was sent in.

Deputies entered and found that suspects had apparently stolen only cigarettes, Andrade said. There was no entry into the pharmacy.
Deputies recovered a video and are hopeful of using that to identify the suspects involved, Andrade said. It appears that the suspects used a heavy pry tool to open the door.

Yankton Smoke Shop Owner Upset With New Law

A Yankton business owner is fighting back against new legislation signed by Governor Dennis Daugaard. House Bill 1138 states any retail establishment that provides roll-your-own cigarette machines should be declared a cigarette manufacturer and pay higher taxes. But that could snuff out a niche market for tobacco users.
John Muilenburg's been operating Mullies Cigarette Shop since October. He got the idea from similar stores in Sioux Falls and Mitchell and says it's a unique way to interact with local smokers.

"The customers, they operate the machine. I teach them how," Muilenburg said. "They operate it, they do it all, they hit all the buttons on it. And these cigarettes are not packaged."

That's the main reason why Muilenburg's fighting the idea of being labeled a cigarette manufacturer. House Bill 1138 has been signed into law. Now Muilenburg's out to prove that customers merely put the tobacco products and cigarette tubes into the roll-your-own machines. In his eyes that means the transaction is in the customer's hands.

"We do not make the cigarettes," Muilenburg said. "We don't package them. If we were packaging the cigarettes and selling them ready to go out the door, yes, I would consider us a manufacturer."

Muilenburg has e-mailed Daugaard and other state representatives to reconsider his shop's label before the law goes into effect in July.

Muilenburg says if his store is still deemed a cigarette manufacturer, he may have to close up shop or move to a different state.

"The state of Wisconsin allows them," Muilenburg said. "The state of Iowa allows them. I will find a place to go."

But as a retiree, Muilenburg would like to stay in South Dakota. He says his customer base is loyal and appreciative of the cheaper option.

"I will try to operate, but I'm a little afraid it's going to automatically make us close our doors," Muilenburg said. "The price will be up so high, we won't be able to stay open."

And that could put out the last flicker of hope in the Rushmore State.

Muilenburg estimates the price for his products would double if he tried to operate as a manufacturer.

MSU Billings goes tobacco-free this fall

Jamie Schoonover has been a smoker for more than 20 years, having taken up the habit as a high school sophomore.
She’s tried multiple times to quit.
Now a student at Montana State University Billings, Schoonover thinks a new policy that will make the campus tobacco-free this summer may give her the incentive to kick the habit.
On Aug. 15, MSUB will go tobacco-free, following by two weeks a similar policy at Montana State University Bozeman that will go into effect Aug. 1.
Both campuses now ban smoking inside buildings, but allow it within a certain distance outside buildings and make no restrictions on other tobacco products.
The two MSU-affiliated schools aren’t breaking new ground in an effort to make campuses healthier.
The University of Montana campuses in Missoula, Butte, Dillon and Helena have banned tobacco products.
Fort Peck Community College in Poplar also went tobacco-free more than a year ago.
At MSUB, the current policy was difficult to enforce because some people had trouble estimating the 30 feet smokers had to stand away from a building, said Darla Tyler-McSherry, health educator with Student Health Services.
People still had to walk through smoke from smokers clustered around entrances.
The current policy also didn’t address the use of spit tobacco, which is harmful to people’s health, too.
Campuses didn’t want to send a message with the current policy that smoking was bad but other forms of tobacco are safe to use, said Jenny Haubenreiser of MSU’s Student Health Service.
After Aug. 15, smokers will have to puff on public sidewalks that border the main MSU Billings campus.
At the College of Technology, there aren’t safe places along Central Avenue and Shiloh Road to stand, so there will be designated smoking areas to the north of campus buildings.
MSU Billings has moved toward the new policy over several years, Tyler-McSherry said.
Last academic year, MSU Billings Chancellor Rolf Groseth asked Tyler-McSherry to form a team to research and take steps to make the Billings campus tobacco free in light of other campuses addressing tobacco use.
Last fall, MSU Billings had open forums for students and others to voice their opinion about a tobacco-free policy.
The meetings drew a good mix of comments, including people critical of the policy who said it was their right to smoke.
“There is no right to smoke,” Tyler-McSherry said. “There is a desire to smoke. We aren’t saying you can’t smoke, just that you can’t smoke on campus.”
At MSU, 61 percent of students voted for a tobacco-free campus in March 2011. The next month, 72 percent of employees voted for the policy. The University Council gave its final approval in October.
Most students at the Billings and Bozeman campuses don’t smoke.
A fall 2010 survey showed 14 percent of MSU Billings students smoked, with 8 percent using smokeless tobacco daily.
That’s a lower spit tobacco rate than many other Montana campuses.
At the MSU Bozeman campus, for example, 11 percent of students use spit tobacco, which is three to four times the national rate, Haubenreiser said.
Another MSU Billings survey last spring showed that half of the students who do smoke want to quit by the time they graduate.
“There is a need and desire to quit this unhealthy habit,” Tyler-McSherry said.
The new policy not only protects nonsmokers from secondhand smoke, but also encourages smokers to quit.
Nationally, there’s a momentum for more restrictions on collegiate tobacco use.
As of October 2011, at least 586 campuses were smoke-free across the country with another 252 tobacco-free.
A new U.S. Surgeon General’s report on tobacco use by young people aged 12 through 25 further validates the new campus policy, Haubenreiser said.
The report issued earlier this month noted that the younger people are when they begin smoking, the more likely they will become addicted to tobacco. Also, the rates of decline of smoking have slowed in the last decade and the rate of smokeless tobacco use no longer is dropping.
Smoking also retards lung development in young people.
The new tobacco policy is anti-tobacco, not anti-smoker, Haubenreiser said.
Both MSU and MSU Billings health services offer help for smokers to quit.

tobacco companies must report chemicals

Tobacco companies will be required to report the levels of dangerous chemicals found in cigarettes, chew and other products under the latest rules designed to tighten regulation of the tobacco industry.

The preliminary guidance issued Friday by the Food and Drug Administration marks the first time tobacco makers would be required to report quantities of 20 chemicals associated with cancer, lung disease and other health problems. The FDA will release the information in a consumer-friendly format by next April.

"Cigarettes are the only mass-consumed product in this country for which consumers don't know what's in them, until now," said Dr. Lawrence Deyton, director of FDA's tobacco center, in an interview with the Associated Press.

Ammonia, carbon monoxide and formaldehyde are among the ingredients or byproducts of tobacco that are subject to the new rule.
Regulators have identified more than 93 harmful or potentially harmful chemicals in tobacco products, though the agency is only focusing on 20 for the coming year. The agency will take comments on the guidance until June 4. There is no deadline for when the documents will become final.
A law enacted in 2009 gave the FDA authority to regulate a number of aspects of tobacco marketing and manufacturing, though the agency cannot ban nicotine. FDA also gained authority to set standards on levels of harmful ingredients in tobacco products, though the agency is not yet using that power.
The same law lets the agency approve new tobacco products that could be marketed as safer than what's currently for sale.

In separate guidance issued Friday, the FDA laid out the scientific studies it will require before any company can market a so-called modified-risk tobacco product. Companies must submit extensive testing data on health risks for users and non-users, behavior changes and consumer understanding of marketing materials for new products.
"The law sets a high standard to make sure that tobacco products marketed to reduce risk actually reduce risk," Deyton said.
The FDA's handling of modified-risk products has been highly anticipated by both the public health community and bigger tobacco companies, which are looking for new products to sell as they face declining cigarette demand due to tax increases, health concerns, smoking bans and social stigma.

Some tobacco companies have alternatives like snus - small pouches like tea bags that users stick between the cheek and gum - and dissolving tobacco - finely milled tobacco shaped into orbs, sticks and strips. But they are not explicitly marketed as less risky than cigarettes.
The FDA is required to respond to a company's application within a year of its submission and acceptance. FDA officials would not comment on how many applications have been submitted to date.

Court Extinguishes Worcester Cigarette Ad Ban

A federal court judge ruled earlier this week that a Worcester ordinance restricting advertising for tobacco products is unconstitutional, the Boston Globe reports.

The regulation was approved by city officials last May — but not yet enforced — and prohibits stores from advertising specific cigarette brands on signs visible from the street. Signage could only indicate that the stores sold cigarettes.

Worcester officials said they passed the ban to counter a high incidence of tobacco use in the city, where nearly 20% of adults smoke, compared with 14% statewide.

U.S. District Court Judge Douglas P. Woodlock ruled the ordinance violates First Amendment rights to free speech, supporting the argument brought by the plaintiffs, Philip Morris USA Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Lorillard Tobacco Co. and the National Association of Tobacco Outlets Inc., a trade group.

“They contend that the City has no legitimate interest in prohibiting non-misleading advertising to adults to prevent them from making decision of which the City disapproves,” Woodlock wrote in his decision. “I agree.”

Philip Morris lauded the decision. “Tobacco companies have a constitutional right to communicate with adult consumers through retail advertising and this court appropriately recognized that,” said Murray Garnick, a senior vice president at Altria Client Services, a subsidiary of Philip Morris’ parent company. “We will continue to vigorously defend this right when it is challenged.”

A Worcester spokesperson said city officials have not yet decided whether to appeal the decision.

City-County Council panel approves smoking ban

A City-County Council panel on Tuesday moved an expanded smoking ban covering most bars a step closer to reality in Indianapolis.

The bipartisan measure, endorsed 6-2 by the Rules and Public Policy Committee, contains a carefully worded exemption for nonprofit private clubs and veterans halls. It's aimed at winning Mayor Greg Ballard's approval.

The committee defeated a proposed amendment that would have allowed use of electronic cigarettes where smoking is banned. It added an exemption for the Downtown Indianapolis off-track betting parlor.

Passage by the full council is expected April 16.

Its approval and the mayor's signature would expand Indianapolis' existing smoking ban beyond the bounds of a recently enacted statewide ban, which exempts bars.

"Doing this is critical for the future of health in our city," said John Barth, an at-large Democrat and co-sponsor.

Ballard, a Republican, has wrangled with the council for months, culminating in a mayoral veto in February of a measure that passed the Democratic- majority council 19-9.

He took issue with the wording of the private clubs exemption. It would have required private clubs and veterans halls that allow smoking to keep children off their premises, a choice he argued was unfair.

So for the latest version, Democrats removed the restriction on children in clubs.

It helped that the statewide ban, which takes effect July 1, requires clubs to keep children out of smoking areas.

Ballard's spokesman has said the council proposal appears to meet the mayor's standard.

"This tonight represents a victory for the mayor," said Brian Mahern, the Democratic committee chairman, before reluctantly voting in favor. "It also represents a loss for children."

Besides clubs, the measure would exempt retail tobacco shops and existing cigar and hookah bars. It would add bars, bowling alleys, hotel rooms and other places to Indianapolis' 2005 smoking ban. Any new ban wouldn't apply to Speedway, Southport, Lawrence or Beech Grove.

Several bar owners spoke against the proposal Tuesday, while health and anti-smoking advocates urged passage.

The most spirited discussion was over e-cigarettes, which emit nicotine-laced vapor. Users said they're harmless to bystanders, but anti-smoking advocates said too much still was unknown about potential risks.

A statement issued by Greg Conley, legal director of Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives, which supports the use of e-cigarettes, said the committee "relied on inaccurate and misleading information."

Florida State College trustees OK smoke-free campus

Florida State College at Jacksonville's board of trustees didn't spend much time at all debating the non-smoking issue Tuesday afternoon. Once the campus wide ban on smoking was brought to the table, the group passed it without opposition, making the college the first major college in Jacksonville with such a ban.

Florida State College worked with members of the board of trustees, faculty and the student government to write up the ban and come up with a plan for how soon they could reasonably put it into place. After today's vote it was decided that the ban would go into effect March 1, 2013.

Students are taking the news of today's vote with mixed reviews.

"This is a school, we shouldn't have smoking in schools. You come here to make yourself a better person and cigarettes aren't good for us," said Florida State College student Kasea Matthews.

"I think it is good for promoting, getting people to stop smoking, but at the same time, I think people are going to do what they are going to do regardless," said student Jaron McDonald.

The ban goes for all Florida State College campuses both indoors and outdoors and all school sponsored off campus events.

Medical marijuana providers suing government arrested

Four of the six medical marijuana providers who are suing the U.S. government over last year's raids of pot businesses across Montana have been arrested on federal drug charges, their lawyer in the civil lawsuit said Tuesday.

The medical marijuana businesses of the four plaintiffs arrested Tuesday and last Thursday were among more than 26 homes, businesses and warehouses searched in sweeping raids last spring that shut down many providers and cast a pall over Montana's booming pot business.

The lawsuit, which challenges the constitutionality of raiding medical marijuana providers who were operating under a voter-approved Montana law, is before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after a district judge rejected their claims in January.

The attorney in the lawsuit, Paul Livingston of New Mexico, said he did not know why the plaintiffs in the lawsuit are being targeted now.

"It seems senseless to us. It's as if the government wants to show how devastating they can be to people's lives because they're involved in this business," Livingston said.

One of those arrested, Randy Leibenguth of Belgrade, said he does not believe the timing of the arrests has anything to do with the civil lawsuit. His business, MCM Caregivers, was raided in March 2011.

"They were taking a year to gather information to come up with a good case and make it hard for us to fight back," he said Tuesday.

U.S. Attorney's Office spokeswoman Jessica Fehr said federal prosecutors did not have comment on the new arrests. Federal prosecutors have repeatedly refused to comment on the raids and subsequent prosecution of medical marijuana providers.

Leibenguth and another Belgrade medical marijuana provider, Luke Mulvaugh, were arrested last Thursday along with Leibenguth's wife, Stephanie. They spent five days in jail before being released on Monday, Leibenguth said.

They were indicted on charges of conspiracy to manufacture marijuana, manufacture and distribution of marijuana and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, according to court documents. The conspiracy charge carries a minimum of 10 years to life in prison and a $5 million fine if convicted, while the two other charges carry a punishment of at least five years in prison each.