Jeff Sessions

[Baron23]

You caved, Gardner....how disappointing.


Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner ends marijuana blockade for some DOJ jobs

By The Cannabist Staff

Colorado’s Republican U.S. senator announced Thursday that he has lifted holds on certain Department of Justice nominees he had previously put in place over concerns about federal marijuana policy.

Gardner used his power as a senator last month to freeze nominations for posts at the agency after U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded Obama-era protections for states like Colorado that have broadly legalized recreational marijuana. It was a dramatic move by a Republican senator against his own party’s attorney general and came after Gardner said Sessions had promised him there wouldn’t be a crackdown. Gardner said he was placing holds on nominees until Sessions changed his approach.

Thursday’s announcement comes after Gardner received undefined assurances from Justice Department officials about its enforcement of federal drug laws, The Denver Post reports

Asked to specify what he got in return, Gardner told the Post: “We’ve had very good, positive conversations about protecting states’ rights and protecting the voters of Colorado’s wishes.”

Related stories

• Berkeley to Jeff Sessions: We’re a sanctuary city for marijuana users
• Senators: Add protections for state marijuana laws to legislation funding federal government
• With marijuana banking legislation stalled, cannabusinesses awash with cash, vulnerable to violent crime
• Sen. Cory Gardner’s siege of Justice Department over marijuana enters second month
• One month after Sessions marijuana memo, where do U.S. attorneys stand on legal weed?

He will release his holds on nominees for U.S. attorneys in a dozen federal districts, U.S. marshals in every district and on John Demers, who was nominated to head Justice’s national security division, The Associated Press reports. Holds will continue on the nominations of seven top Department of Justice nominees.

“Let me be crystal clear: so long as the federal enforcement priorities detailed in the 2013 Cole Memorandum are adequately protected, the DOJ should respect the will of the states who have spoken overwhelmingly on this issue,” Gardner said in a statement. “I will view the DOJ’s failure to do so as a direct contradiction of our positive conversations and will take action accordingly.”

In an interview with The Associated Press Thursday, Gardner stopped short of saying Rosenstein offered his assurances that the department would not crack down on the legal cannabis industry, but it gave him enough comfort that Colorado’s acting U.S. attorney, Bob Troyer, will continue to focus on prosecuting people acting outside of Colorado’s voter-approved marijuana laws rather than those who follow them.

Members of Colorado congressional delegation have said they were reassured by Troyer during a Jan. 11 conference call that his office would not step up marijuana-related prosecutions at the expense of other matters such as immigration, the opioid crisis and violent crime, The Cannabist reported.

In the call, Troyer reiterated his previous statements about marijuana prosecutions, Jeff Dorschner, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Colorado, told The Cannabist.

The about-face marks a major de-escalation in Gardner’s six-week battle with Sessions over federal marijuana policy and states’ rights.

Gardner took to the Senate floor shortly after Sessions’ Jan. 4 marijuana policy shift, calling the move a trampling of Colorado’s rights and announcing he would withhold support for Justice Department nominees until the policy dispute was resolved.

The senator’s fiery speech helped score him a Jan. 10 meeting with the attorney general, however no progress was made, Gardner told the Post.

“I don’t think there was anything new in the (Jan. 10) discussion about (Sessions’) position, other than he doesn’t think that he’s changed anything,” Gardner said. “But clearly what he did (Jan. 4) was, I don’t think, the same commitment that he gave us prior to (his) confirmation.”

Op-ed: What to make of Cory Gardner’s feud with Jeff Sessions

A month into his blockade, Gardner was still standing firm in his vow to jam all appointments — even as Sessions blamed the Republican senator for holding up the confirmations of key figures, including the heads of the department’s national security, criminal and civil rights divisions.

Gardner’s remaining holds on other DOJ nominees will continue as he works toward a solution that protects Coloradans’ rights, the senator said Thursday.

This week Gardner and fellow Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet led a bipartisan group of 18 senators in requesting protections for state marijuana laws be inserted into must-pass legislation funding the federal government.

“Doing so will provide the opportunity to pursue federal legislation that both protects the legitimate federal interests at stake and respects the will of the states – both those that have liberalized their marijuana laws and those that have not,” the letter said.

Colorado’s senators also teamed up on a Jan. 11 letter to the U.S. Treasury Department requesting it retain a 2014 agency decision that allows banks and credit unions to do work with the cannabis industry “so long as they conducted due diligence such as verifying that the businesses were in compliance with state law.”

Both Bennet and Gardner argued the 2014 rule has been a boon for both safety and industry oversight. The two lawmakers introduced legislation last year that would similarly protect banks that did business with marijuana companies.

 

[Baron23]

Meet the Lawyer Suing Jeff Sessions to End Cannabis Prohibition

Last week, in a lawsuit that could put an end to federal cannabis prohibition, a federal judge in New York acknowledged the healing potential of medical marijuana. “It’s saved a life,” he said, referring to a Colorado girl with epilepsy. “She has no more epileptic seizures.”

The judge then turned to lawyers for the federal government, who have argued that cannabis is a dangerous drug with no accepted medical benefit. “If there is an accepted medical use,” he told them, “your argument doesn’t hold.”

The five plaintiffs have clearly obtained, and are able to maintain, a better quality of life because of cannabis.
David C. Holland, lead plaintiffs' attorney
The case of Washington v. Sessions has generated great interest. Five plaintiffs, including former NFL player Marvin Washington; 12-year-old Colorado medical refugee Alexis Bortell; youngster Jagger Cotte; US military veteran Jose Belen; and the Cannabis Cultural Association, a nonprofit that helps people of color benefit from cannabis in states where it’s legal, have challenged the constitutionality of the classification of marijuana under the federal Controlled Substances Act. The case, filed in 2017, finally received its first hearing in federal court last week, when US District Court Judge Alvin Hellerstein heard the federal government argue for the case’s dismissal.

Leafly sat down with David C. Holland, the lead attorney representing plaintiffs in the suit, following the Feb. 14 hearing. Holland is a litigator in New York City and the executive and legal director of Empire State NORML. He’s former counsel to High Times Magazine and a member of the New York Cannabis Bar Association.

Holland walked us through what’s at stake in the lawsuit and the significance of the government’s recent effort to dismiss it.


RELATED STORY
What Are the Risks and Benefits of Treating Pediatric Seizures With Cannabinoid Medicine?
Leafly: Why have the plaintiffs sued US Attorney General Jeff Sessions?
Holland: The five plaintiffs have sued Sessions and the DEA to declare the classification of cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act unconstitutional on claims it violates their rights, including that to travel, to be engaged in business’ interests, and to be free from racial discrimination and in enforcement of the law against communities of color. The federal government denies those claims and has moved to dismiss the action.

What are the main components of the Controlled Substances Act? Take us through its procedural history.
In 1970, the federal Controlled Substances Act established five classifications, from Schedule I to V, ranging from prohibited to prescription, which classify and categorize drugs and how they may be researched, used, and administered. Marijuana was placed in Schedule I, the most restrictive category, based upon three criteria: high risk of abuse, no medical efficacy or use, and no ability to use or research it in a safe manner. Cannabis has never been rescheduled since 1970.

He was clearly wrestling with the reality that 30 states have already found cannabis to be a useful medical treatment, which directly contradicts one of the criteria of the CSA.
That Schedule I classification of cannabis can be changed by one of three ways: through an act of Congress, an act of the US attorney general, or an act of the FDA. Within the CSA is an administrative remedy where anyone can petition the FDA to have cannabis rescheduled where it would no longer be prohibited in that most restricted classification.

If anyone can petition the FDA, why haven’t more patients done so?
The petitioning process can take years, if not a decade to get an FDA determination on a rescheduling request. The FDA has repeatedly denied those petitions, as recently as 2013 (Americans for Safe Access v. FDA), and 2016 (Krumm Petition), finding that cannabis still should sit as a Schedule I substance based on those three criteria.


RELATED STORY
Lawsuit Takes Big Swing at Prohibition. Can It Connect?
Tell us a bit more about the plaintiffs.
Three of the plaintiffs in the Washington case—Alexis Bortell, Jagger Cotte, and Jose Belen—suffer life-threatening or severely debilitating diseases. They are seeking to bypass the FDA’s administrative petitioning process in order to get more immediate relief, because they may not live long enough to otherwise await and hear the determination.

The CSA petitioning process does not have any realistically viable means for them to expedite review of a petition to bring relief to their life-altering and life-threatening circumstances. Therefore, for them, the petitioning process is futile. They seek relief from the federal court for the CSA’s violation of their constitutional rights, with regard to this medicine as well as redress of other violations and due process.

The government has moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims on a multitude of theories rather than put in an answer to the claims and let them be heard and determined by the judge or jury.

On Feb. 14, Judge Hellerstein entertained written opposition to the motion to dismiss and heard oral argument from the parties. At the conclusion of oral argument, the judge reserved his decision and retired to his chambers to deliberate and draft an opinion about all the legal issues he was wrestling with in regard to motion.


RELATED STORY
Medical Cannabis Clearly Saves Lives, Federal Judge Declares
Why did Judge Hellerstein seem so conflicted when speaking in court?
He was clearly wrestling with several legal issues pertaining to the Controlled Substances Act, and the reality that 30 states have already found cannabis to be a useful medical treatment, which directly contradicts one of the criteria of the CSA.

The first issue is referred to in legal terms as “exhaustion of remedies.” That is, the judge may be considering whether he must defer to the prior decisions of the FDA regarding the scheduling of cannabis. The government based its dismissal motion in part on a claim that the five plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies under the CSA. In other words, because no petition had first been filed with the FDA to reschedule cannabis, [the government argued that the court] does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the claims of the plaintiffs. Thus, their reasoning goes, the case should be dismissed.


RELATED STORY
NJ Court: Medical Cannabis Benefits ‘Abundant and Glaringly Apparent’
Judge Hellerstein, however, did not seem particularly swayed by that argument. Several federal criminal cases have found that there is no requirement to file a petition to exhaust that administrative petition remedy when there are claims that constitutional rights are being violated by the enforcement of cannabis as a Schedule I drug under the CSA. That rule was upheld in late 2017 by the federal court in upstate New York, in a case known as US v. Green, which caused Judge Hellerstein to pause during the course of oral argument.

Do you think that was Hellerstein’s primary concern?
Not really. The issues that seemed to trouble Judge Hellerstein the most about the CSA petition process was whether he, as a judge, was without jurisdiction to hear, or must defer to, the administrative agency role of the FDA and prior findings in 2013 and 2016. In those findings, the FDA determined that cannabis was properly classified as a Schedule I substance.

If he did have such jurisdiction, could he then stand in the shoes of the FDA and make his own determination about the propriety of that schedule?

He further was concerned about any restrictions on the court’s analysis of the language of the statute, and the proper evidence to be evaluated, to determine whether the three criteria of Schedule I status continues to be met by cannabis. Some of the factors he noted included the fact that 30 states have legalized marijuana for medical purposes; the federal government has filed a patent on certain cannabinoids from the cannabis plant; and the five plaintiffs have clearly obtained, and are able to maintain, a better quality of life because of [medical cannabis].


RELATED STORY
The Biology of Cannabis vs. Opioids for Pain Relief
The language of the CSA regarding the three scheduling criteria seems straightforward.
It is straightforward as “conjunctive,” in that cannabis seemingly must satisfy each and every one of the three factors to qualify as a Schedule I substance. The failure to satisfy any one of those factors renders the designation void. In other words, if the plaintiffs prove that cannabis fails to meet any one of the three criteria, [then the question becomes: Is the court] required to declare the Schedule I classification null and void?

What seemed to concern Judge Hellerstein was that generally, when a federal court reviews an agency’s determinations, like those of the FDA, and that agency has repeatedly determined that cannabis satisfies the Schedule I criteria, the court must generally evaluate and disjunctively weigh all the factors in the aggregate to determine if they are satisfied with the intent of the criteria and classification.

This was a concern to the court in the Green case I mentioned earlier. It also troubled the Eastern District of California court in the US v. Picard case. In Picard, the court allowed a five-day hearing of evidence on the science behind the Schedule I classification, and then ultimately concluded that any determination to reschedule cannabis is best left to Congress.


RELATED STORY
Here’s Why the DEA Will Never Reschedule Cannabis
Do you think Hellerstein will defer to Congress?
This quandary of whether to defer to Congress invokes the “political question” doctrine, which says courts should generally not make decisions that are political in nature and best left to the legislative process. It is difficult to tell where Judge Hellerstein will ultimately fall on this political question issue. But he surely will wrestle with the fact that 30 states have already legalized cannabis despite its Schedule I status. That means that as a matter of politics, the actions of Congress should already have responded to the legislative actions already taken by an overwhelming majority of the states.

One argument advanced by your lawsuit is that the Controlled Substances Act and federal law enforcement should not govern cannabis in the 30 legalized states.
That is correct. The plaintiffs argue that although Congress may regulate interstate commerce—a.k.a. the commerce clause—between the states, the state-based activity of medical marijuana in those 30 states does not impact upon interstate commerce. Judge Hellerstein seemed to dismiss the argument out of hand, citing federal case law which finds that even a negligible or de minimis impact on commerce is enough to give the federal government jurisdiction over the issue.


RELATED STORY
DEA’s Ban on CBD Challenged in Federal Court
There was also the argument about racism and equal protection under the law. While the history of cannabis prohibition, ignited by former federal drug czar Harry Aslinger, wasn’t addressed in court, President Nixon and his administration’s racist motivations for instituting the Controlled Substances Act were definitely called into question. Hellerstein seemed dismissive of the Nixon argument. How is Nixon’s racism still a contributing factor to the Controlled Substances Act?
It is unclear how Judge Hellerstein will rule on this “as applied” claim of the Cannabis Cultural Association (CCA). The CCA brought a claim on behalf of their members of color, who were disproportionately targeted for prosecution for marijuana offenses under the CSA. People of color unequally suffered collateral consequences stemming from those convictions as a result.

Judge Hellerstein seemed unpersuaded by statements of President Richard Nixon and his advisor, John Ehrlichman, which made clear that the criminalizing of marijuana under the CSA was done as a means to suppress minorities and social dissent against the Vietnam War. Judge Hellerstein suggested that any racist tendencies of the Nixon administration were not attributable to Congress under the separation of powers doctrine—where the powers of one branch of government are not affected by the actions of another. While there are compelling arguments to the contrary, which were not heard during the hearing, the plaintiffs hope that the issue is revisited in Judge Hellerstein’s opinion. Since so much of that claim seems to be a question of fact that will require lots of discovery and information to be tendered by the government, however, it’s unlikely to be the primary focus of the judge’s anticipated decision.


RELATED STORY
DAs Making it Easier to Clear California Cannabis Convictions
It seems that there are various possible outcomes. Do you think Hellerstein will dismiss the case? He hinted that he was going to kick the case to the Second Circuit Court.
There are three possible resolutions to the federal government’s motion to dismiss. Firstly, there is the potential dismissal of the claims. Secondly, Judge Hellerstein could deny the motion, and all claims will proceed to trial. Or, lastly, some mixture of the two.

Based on the comments and concerns [expressed by the] court, there is a possibility that the court will follow the precedent of the district courts in Picard and Green and find this to be a political question. However, if Judge Hellerstein finds that there are some claims that may be dismissed but [that] others are tenable, then there is a strong possibility that the court will berate both the FDA and Congress for failing to reschedule or deschedule cannabis, especially in light of the fact that 30 states have found that there is medical validity to marijuana. After all, as he openly stated, the plaintiffs are the best evidence of the effectiveness of cannabis as a medical cure.

For now, we will just have to wait and see. A ruling is expected as soon as this coming week.

 

[Baron23]

Now, please understand....I don't mind blaming Jeff Sessions for anything and everything. I don't personally feel that anybody willing to make policy based on his/her antediluvian personal prejudices (like El Jeffe) should be in a position of power like the AG office.

However, and I have said this before, true blame lies at the feet of our follow from behind, venal, self-serving politicians...of both parties. This article is spot on and MJ advocates need to bring ALL of the heat on elected Federal representatives who are allowing prohibition to continue unabated. I have contacted my representatives and have received assurances that they support MJ legalization....but what I want to see is actual action and right now that's really lacking.


Stop Blaming Jeff Sessions for America’s Anti-Pot Drug Policy

Ever since Jeff Sessions was rumored to become President Trump’s pick to serve as Attorney General of the United States back in November 2016, the cannabis advocacy community has been fixated on how the former Alabama Senator is public enemy number one in the realm of cannabis reform. But while it is true that Sessions is no friend to marijuana, legal or otherwise, he is not the true nemesis to reasonable cannabis policy — Congress is.

The cannabis industry seems to have forgotten that Congress is king, and it is has allowed Attorney General Sessions to wage his psychological war on legal marijuana. The federal lawmakers, who are supposed to be looking after the interests of the people, have had every opportunity to approve legislation that would bring marijuana prohibition to a screeching halt. But the issue continues to be ignored by most who sit on Capitol Hill. With the exception of Congressmen Dana Rohrabacher, Earl Blumenauer and a handful of others, most lawmakers are still not ready to get onboard with legalization.

It was once believed that Republican domination stood in the way of progress. But we now know that Democratic forces are sandbagging it, as well. Even representatives from legal states are refusing to stand up for the concept of nationwide legalization. Earlier this year, Roll Call reported that a number of Democratic senators often dodge questions about cannabis and frequently say that it should be “up to the voter” or “state should be allowed to do what they want.” Nationwide reform doesn’t appear to be on many representatives’ priority list.

Because of this attitude in Congress, there exists a gaping black hole with respect to state and federal pot policy. It is the one snag that gives federal officials like Attorney General Sessions the authority to even utter the words, “Marijuana is illegal in the United States—even in Colorado, California, and everywhere else in America.”

Last year, during his confirmation hearing, Sessions fired back at federal lawmakers who questioned his anti-marijuana stance. Many of these folks expressed concern that Sessions would not play nice with the states that have legalized the leaf for recreational purposes. But Sessions gave it to them straight. “If that’s something [that] is not desired any longer, Congress should pass a law to change the rule,” he said.

“It is not so much the Attorney General’s job to decide what laws to enforce,” he added. “We should do our job and enforce laws effectively as we are able.”

But Congress has made no real attempt to change the laws surrounding marijuana. Not even as more than 60 percent of the population now believes that weed should be taxed and regulated the same as alcohol and tobacco. Medical marijuana is even more popular with the public. Around 90 percent of voters think it is ridiculous that patients cannot relish in the therapeutic benefits of cannabis without the risk of jail. Despite the fact that there are now 30 states with medical marijuana programs on the books, Congress still has not taken decisive action to declare a new national standard.

Yet the cannabis industry continues to drone on about Sessions and his recent decision to reverse the Obama-era memo designed to allow states to experiment with legal weed without federal interference. But the piece of paper known as the Cole Memo was never a binding contract.

Some say Sessions’ attitude so far in 2018 could help drag marijuana out of the trenches of prohibition a little faster. But that seems unlikely. The Marijuana Justice Act, which was introduced last year by Senator Cory Booker and aims to legalize marijuana nationwide, still only has two co-sponsors. A companion measure filed earlier this year in the U.S. House of Representatives has twenty-four. Even combined, there simply isn’t enough traction in the federal government to get so much as a hearing.

Despite what the pundits of the cannabis scene would have you believe, Congress is only barely progressing on the issue. Marijuana still has a long way to go.

Perhaps it is time to forget about Jeff Sessions and the crackdown that will never come and start applying pressure to our elected officials. It is imperative that we change the country’s pot law at the federal level because as long as marijuana remains a Schedule I banned substance, the buzzards of uncertainly will continue to circle an industry predicted to employ several hundred thousand workers and generate billions of dollars in tax revenue.

TELL US, who do you blame for federal prohibition?

 

[Baron23]

Jeff Sessions: US prosecutors won’t take on small-time marijuana cases
Federal prosecutors "haven't been working small marijuana cases before, they are not going to be working them now," said Sessions


By Sadie Gurman, The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Federal prosecutors won’t take on small-time marijuana cases, despite the Justice Department’s decision to lift an Obama-era policy that discouraged U.S. authorities from cracking down on the pot trade in states where the drug is legal, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Saturday.

Federal law enforcement lacks the resources to take on “routine cases” and will continue to focus on drug gangs and larger conspiracies, Sessions said. The comments come after the Trump administration in January threw the burgeoning marijuana legalization movement into uncertainty by reversing the largely hands-off approach that prevailed during the Obama administration, saying federal prosecutors should instead handle marijuana cases however they see fit.

Related stories

• Jeff Sessions acts “more like Fox News than a law enforcement officer,” California gov. says
• States mull “sanctuary” status for marijuana businesses
• Lawsuit challenging Sessions and DEA on marijuana’s Schedule I status dismissed by federal judge
• Op-ed: Jeff Sessions thinks aspirin helps severe pain. He’s wrong
• Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner ends marijuana blockade for some DOJ jobs

The Obama-era policy allowed the pot trade to flourish, with eight states legalizing marijuana for recreational use.

The reversal added to confusion about whether it’s OK to grow, buy or use marijuana in states where pot is legal, since long-standing federal law prohibits it. And it caused concern that prosecutors would feel empowered to jail individuals for marijuana possession.

“I am not going to tell Colorado or California or someone else that possession of marijuana is legal under United States law,” Sessions said, answering student questions after a speech at Georgetown’s law school. But, he added, federal prosecutors “haven’t been working small marijuana cases before, they are not going to be working them now.”

Related: Op-ed: Jeff Sessions’ marijuana crackdown makes national legalization more likely

Of particular interest are problems that federal authorities have tried for years to tackle, like illegal marijuana-growing operations on national parklands and gangs that peddle pot along with more harmful drugs. Some law enforcement officials in pot-legal states argue the legal trade has caused unintended problems like black-market marijuana growing and dealing by people who don’t even try to conform to the legal framework.

“Those are the kinds of things each one of those U.S. attorneys will decide how to handle,” Sessions said.

 

[Baron23]

Is there no end to this man's stupidity.

New Sessions memo pushes death penalty for big drug dealers. That could include legal marijuana business owners.

Little-known federal law makes it possible to execute people who grow more than 60,000 marijuana plants


To the litany of challenges facing Colorado’s state-licensed marijuana business owners, add another one: The federal government could — though probably won’t — try to execute them.

This week, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions sent a memo to the nation’s federal prosecutors urging them to seek the death penalty in cases involving large-scale drug traffickers. The memo points to an existing but little-known federal law that already allows for such a punishment.

Sessions’ memo talks largely about opioids, but federal law contains no such drug-specific limitation on prosecutors’ power. Trace the law’s meandering route through federal statutes and you’ll come to this conclusion: Anyone convicted of cultivating more than 60,000 marijuana plants or possessing more than 60,000 kilograms of a substance that contains marijuana could face death as a punishment.

So, did Sessions just greenlight using the death penalty against the nation’s largest marijuana business owners?

Alaska House to feds: Stay out of the state’s marijuana industry

• Op-ed: Welcome to California, Mr. President. We’ve got a few things to show you

• Jeff Sessions: US prosecutors won’t take on small-time marijuana cases

“I think it’s still very theoretical,” said Sam Kamin, a University of Denver law professor who, as harmonic luck would have it, specializes in marijuana law and in the death penalty. “I don’t think anyone thinks the federal government is going to seek the death penalty against a state-licensed business. But what it highlights is this enormous disconnect with federal and state law.”

Aaron Smith, the executive director of the National Cannabis Industry Association, similarly dismissed the possibility of executions for marijuana business moguls, even if it is technically possible under the law.

“I really think that’s just bluster,” he said.

 

[Baron23]

Marijuana-friendly states want meeting with Sessions

California, Oregon and other marijuana-friendly states are seeking a meeting with U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions in hopes of resolving the conflict between federal and state laws that has left the nation’s cannabis industry in legal limbo.

Marijuana is illegal at the federal level, even as 29 states have legalized pot in some form.

State treasurers from California, Oregon, Illinois and Pennsylvania told Sessions in a letter Thursday that businesses and banks need greater clarity on how federal law enforcement will respond to the growing legalization trend.

The Trump administration lifted an Obama-era policy in January that kept federal authorities from cracking down on the pot trade in states where the drug is legal.

The letter, released by California Treasurer John Chiang, said the absence of those federal rules “leaves the industry and financial institutions in the dark.”

A shortage of banking services in California’s emerging pot industry is seen as a major obstacle to developing a thriving, regulated marketplace.

Legal pot sales for adults kicked off in the state on Jan. 1, but many banks don’t want anything to do with pot money for fear it could expose them to legal trouble from the federal government.

That’s left many businesses to operate largely in cash, which can make them a target for theft while posing risks for cannabis workers and the public.

Financial institutions need “some comfort that they will not be prosecuted, or lose access to customer assets, simply for banking this industry,” said the letter, also signed by several cannabis industry groups and the Maine Credit Union League.

Congress this month extended restrictions that prevent the Justice Department from prosecuting medical marijuana cases in legal-pot states.

Chiang, a Democratic candidate for governor, earlier formed a task force in an attempt to resolve banking problems for the marijuana industry.

 

[Baron23]

Ah, back to one of my favorite topics...bashing our abysmal AJ, ole' El Jeffe Sessions. excerpted the part about MJ, if you want to read the whole article, please follow the link in the article title.



John Hickenlooper on the Future of Weed, the 2020 Race, and What's Happening at the 'Denver Post'

Speaking of places where federal and state law are in conflict, earlier this year, Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded the Cole Memo, an Obama-era policy directing the federal government not to enforce federal marijuana restrictions in states that legalized it — how is your administration dealing with that? Have you been in communication with the DOJ about their plans?
I've talked to Attorney General Sessions a couple times, and he is very clear. He's saying that more Americans enjoying any kind of drug makes the country weaker, not stronger. He's very clear on that. I can say, "Well, what if they were doing a bunch of drinking? Now they're doing this instead," or, "What if they were doing drugs before and it was illegal, they're not doing anymore drugs now?" which is what our data suggests. We haven't seen a big spike in consumption. The only increase in consumption is among senior citizens, which we think is either Baby Boomers coming home to roost or arthritis and the aches and pains of growing older – people finding that marijuana is better pain solution than opioids or other things.

But, Attorney General Sessions said, "I think it makes the country weaker, not stronger," and then [he] said, "But we don't have the resources to police marijuana dispensaries, and we know that our priority has to be heroin and meth and human trafficking." That being said, he's not going to want to do anything that in any way allows people to think that it's OK to open a dispensary or it's OK to start growing pot. He just wants people to be very uncertain about that and unsure about what the next step would be from the federal government, which is sort of what's happening now with trade, right? With the tariff wars. But it creates this uncertainty, which is bad for business. That's what Attorney General Sessions wants to do in marijuana. He wants to have that uncertainty, which he hopes will be bad for business. Just make people think twice before they expand their operation or make additional investments.

You’re a pro-business governor, how do you feel about the federal government deterring individuals from investing in or growing their businesses like that?
Yeah, but we're in conflict with federal law, so I am like any governor in this position: I took an oath to obey and protect the Constitution of the state of Colorado, and the Constitution of the United States, so we're [walking] a very narrow line here. I do feel that any business, if they're going to invest their capital and hire people and have a responsibility to their employees, they should have some sense of what the future holds, and they should not be held subject to the suspicions that they're going to be closed down – it's almost like they're being held hostage to those suspicions.

You initially opposed legalization. Based on your experience overseeing the roll-out in Colorado, what would you tell someone like Sessions about what you got wrong?
Certainly the worst things that we had great fear about – spikes in consumption, kids, people driving while high – we haven't seen any of that. We saw a little increase in teenagers and that came down within a couple years. We're still worried about that because with kids, especially teenagers, their brains are growing so rapidly, and this is such high-THC marijuana that almost every brain scientist that I've talked to seems to think you are risking losing a sliver of your long term memory, even if you only smoked this pot once a week. And your long term memory, that's your IQ, being able to access your experiences and what you've learned, that's what we think of as intelligence, so you're risking that. We were very worried that by legalizing, we were making this more somehow more psychologically available to kids. We haven't seen that. If anything, we've seen less drug dealers.

All our studies show that the consumption and time of consumption are pretty much stable from what they were, so we don't think there are more people driving while high, or very few more. And we spend now, we get $200 million a year in tax revenue, which, you know, we're a $30 billion budget, so it's a drop in the bucket – it's not going to pay for early childhood education or solve any big social ill – but it does allow us to regulate closely the marijuana industry. Getting the tax revenue allows us to do [anti-drug] advertising, and also to hire more police officers to make sure that they're cracking down on [what] we think [is] a 50 or 100 million dollar black market now [in a] 1.5 billion dollar industry. That's a pretty small amount in terms of black market. Fifteen years ago, the whole 1.5 billion dollars was all black market. Right?

 

[Baron23]

My favorite spectator sport....Jeff Sessions Ass Kicking Contests. Love to see ole' Jeffe take it right to the gluteus maximus once again.

Senators Take On Jeff Sessions Over Marijuana Research Restrictions
Senators take on Jeff Sessions over marijuana research restrictions, urging the AG to stop blocking the DEA from licensing producers.

Bipartisan senators take on Jeff Sessions over marijuana research restrictions, calling for the Justice Department to stop blocking the DEA from approving new suppliers. On Thursday, Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah.) and Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) sent a letter to the DOJ demanding action on the more than two dozen applications the DEA has yet to review.

Is Jeff Sessions Blocking The DEA From Authorizing More Marijuana Suppliers?
In their letter, Harris and Hatch expressed concern that Jeff Sessions’ Justice Department was sitting on a number of requests from growers looking to supply FDA-approved research on medical cannabis.

While the DEA wants to increase the number of authorized marijuana manufacturers, Sessions’ DOJ appears to be holding them back.

Jeff Sessions extreme opposition to marijuana legalization and his public disdain for cannabis users have prompted concerns that the Trump administration would attempt to roll back policies aimed at expanding access to medical cannabis and ensuring states are free to pass their own marijuana legislation.

And those concerns have already proven themselves to be valid. Since becoming Attorney General, Sessions has repeatedly vowed to ramp up federal drug enforcement. He’s ordered federal judges to pursue the maximum sentence possible even for non-violent, petty drug offenses.


Furthermore, on January 4, Sessions rescinded an Obama-era memo adopting a non-interference policy with legal-cannabis states.

What Sens. Harris and Hatch say Sessions is doing, though, is a bit more subtle than all that. In their letter, the senators reference reports that the Justice Department is preventing the DEA from reviewing applications from cultivators.

Unable to authorize new manufacturers, FDA-approved research projects on medical marijuana can source their cannabis from just one grower. Indeed, the University of Mississippi is currently the only grower licensed to produce cannabis for federally-approved research.

Senators’ Latest Bout With Sessions Takes Aim At Expanding Federal Cannabis Research
For as long as Sessions has been threatening a federal crackdown, however, lawmakers across the nation have pushed back.

Legislators have written letters, sent invitations, sought summits, and even filed lawsuits in response to Sessions’ provocations.


Sens. Kamala Harris and Orrin Hatch went with the letter-writing approach. But their aim isn’t to get Sessions to back down on enforcement. Rather, the bipartisan senators want to expand federal cannabis research, starting at the source.

Nearly two years ago, on Aug 11, 2016 the DEA announced a series of significant actions regarding medical cannabis research and industrial hemp production.

One policy change aimed “to foster research by expanding the number of DEA-registered marijuana manufacturers.”

The change, the DEA said, would “provide researchers with a diverse and robust supply of marijuana.”

Additionally, the DEA has approved every single application researchers have submitted to use federally-supplied cannabis to conduct “scientifically meritorious” studies.


So despite being the law enforcement wing of federal drug policy, the DEA have in recent years been surprisingly committed to advancing cannabis research.

And according to reports referenced in the letter Sens. Harris and Hatch sent to the DOJ, the DEA would be able to license up to 25 new manufacturers to grow cannabis for federal research, were the DOJ not sitting on the applications.

So Harris and Hatch are merely asking the Justice Department to let the DEA move forward on policy changes it adopted nearly two years ago.

Harris And Hatch Have A History With Cannabis
Both Harris and Hatch have had checkered records on the issue of legal cannabis. These days, Harris regularly denounces the war on drugs as a failure. But during her tenure as California’s Attorney General (2011 to 2017), Harris took no action on drug policy reform.

When Obama’s DOJ raided dispensaries in her home state of California in 2011, she issued a brief and largely deferential statement about “the gangs and criminal enterprises that seek to exploit the definite ambiguities in state law.”

In 2012, Harris laughed at the New York Time‘s official endorsement of legalization. In 2014, her Republican opponent ran to her left on marijuana issues. And despite her public support for marijuana, Harris has yet to sign on to any existing reform bills this year.

Unlike Harris, who’s been more inert on the issue than oppositional, Orrin Hatch has had a dramatic cannabis conversion. The senator has gone from being vocally anti-cannabis to one of the Hill’s most ardent champions of medical marijuana.

The Final Hit: Senators Take On Jeff Sessions Over Marijuana Research Restrictions
Whatever their records, however, Hatch and Harris are putting pressure on a significant choke point blocking medical cannabis research from advancing in the United States.

“Research on marijuana is necessary to resolve the critical questions of public health and safety, such as learning the impact of marijuana on developing brains and formulating methods to test marijuana impairment in drivers,” the pair said in the letter.

They’ve asked Sessions for a commitment that the DEA will resolve the 25 pending applications by August 11.

 

[Baron23]

wrt to Jeff Sessions:

Dr. Sanjay Gupta to Jeff Sessions: Medical marijuana could save many addicted to opioids
By Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN Chief Medical Correspondent

Updated 8:25 AM ET, Tue April 24, 2018


Dear Honorable Jeff Sessions,
I feel obligated to share the results of my five-year-long investigation into the medical benefits of the cannabis plant. Before I started this worldwide, in-depth investigation, I was not particularly impressed by the results of medical marijuana research, but a few years later, as I started to dedicate time with patients and scientists in various countries, I came to a different conclusion.

Not only can cannabis work for a variety of conditions such as epilepsy, multiple sclerosis and pain, sometimes, it is the only thing that works. I changed my mind, and I am certain you can, as well. It is time for safe and regulated medical marijuana to be made available nationally. I realize this is an unconventional way to reach you, but your office declined numerous requests for an interview, and as a journalist, a doctor and a citizen, I felt it imperative to make sure you had access to our findings.

Mr. Sessions, there is an added urgency, as we are in the middle of a deadly opioid epidemic that has been described as the worst self-inflicted epidemic in the history of our country.

The drug overdose scourge claimed about 68,000 US lives in 2017, just over 45,000 of them from opioids alone. Every day, 115 Americans die from opioid overdoses. It has fueled a decline in an entire country's life expectancy and will be remembered as a sad and tragic chapter in our collective history.
These are desperate times, and while some may consider making medical marijuana widely available to be a desperate measure, the evidence has become increasingly clear of the important role cannabis can have.

We have seen real-world clues of medical marijuana's benefits. Researchers from the Rand Corp., supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, conducted "the most detailed examination of medical marijuana and opioid deaths to date" and found something few initially expected. The analysis showed an approximately 20% decline in opioid overdose deaths between 1999 and 2010 in states with legalized medical marijuana and functioning dispensaries.
It's not the first time this association between medical marijuana and opioid overdose has been found. Though it is too early to draw a cause-effect relationship, these data suggest that medicinal marijuana could save up to 10,000 lives every year.

The science of weed
Cannabis and its compounds show potential to save lives in three important ways.

Cannabis can help treat pain, reducing the initial need for opioids. Cannabis is also effective at easing opioid withdrawal symptoms, much like it does for cancer patients, ill from chemotherapy side effects. Finally, and perhaps most important, the compounds found in cannabis can heal the diseased addict's brain, helping them break the cycle of addiction.

Mr. Sessions, there is no other known substance that can accomplish all this. If we had to start from scratch and design a medicine to help lead us out of the opioid epidemic, it would likely look very much like cannabis.

A better, and safer, way to treat pain
The consensus is clear: Cannabis can effectively treat pain. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine arrived at this conclusion last year after what it described as the "most comprehensive studies of recent research" on the health effects of cannabis.

Furthermore, opioids target the breathing centers in the brain, putting their users at real risk of dying from overdose. In stark contrast, with cannabis, there is virtually no risk of overdose or sudden death. Even more remarkable, cannabis treats pain in a way opioids cannot. Though both drugs target receptors that interfere with pain signals to the brain, cannabis does something more: It targets another receptor that decreases inflammation -- and does it fast.

I have seen this firsthand. All over the country, I have met patients who have weaned themselves off opioids using cannabis. Ten years ago, attorney Marc Schechter developed a sudden painful condition known as transverse myelitis, an inflammation of the spinal cord. After visiting doctors in several states, he was prescribed opioids and, according to our calculations, consumed approximately 40,000 pills over the next decade. Despite that, his pain scores remained an eight out of 10. He also suffered significant side effects from the pain medication, including nausea, lethargy and depression.

Desperate and out of options, Schechter saw Dr. Mark Wallace, head of University of California, San Diego Health's Center for Pain Medicine, where he was recommended cannabis. Minutes after he took it for the first time, Schechter's pain was reduced to a score of two out of 10, with hardly any side effects. One dose of cannabis had provided relief that 40,000 pills over 10 years could not.

Using marijuana to get off opioids
For Schechter, as with so many others, the seemingly insurmountable barrier to ending his opioid use was the terrible withdrawal symptoms he suffered each time he tried. When a patient stops opioids, their pain is often magnified, accompanied by rapid heart rate, persistent nausea and vomiting, excessive sweating, anorexia and terrible anxiety.

Here again, cannabis is proven to offer relief. As many know, there is longstanding evidence that cannabis helps chemotherapy-induced symptoms in cancer patients, and those symptoms are very similar to opioid withdrawal. In fact, for some patients, cannabis is the only agent that subdues nausea while increasing appetite.

Why we can't 'just say no' to opioids
Finally, when someone is addicted to opioids, they are often described as having a brain disease. Yasmin Hurd, director of the Addiction Institute at Mount Sinai in New York City, showed me what this looks like in autopsy specimens of those who had overdosed on opioids. Within the prefrontal cortex of the brain, she found damage to the glutamatergic system, which makes it difficult for neural signals to be transmitted. This is an area of the brain responsible for judgment, decision-making, learning and memory.

Hurd told me that when an individual's brain is "fundamentally changed" and diseased in this manner, they lose the ability to regulate opioid consumption, unable to quit despite their best efforts -- unable to "just say no."

It is no surprise, then, that abstinence-only programs have pitiful results when it comes to opioid addiction. Even the current gold standard of medication-assisted treatment, which is far more effective, still relies on less-addictive opioids such as methadone and buprenorphine. That continued opioid use, Hurd worries, can cause ongoing disruption to the glutamatergic system, never allowing the brain to fully heal. It may help explain the tragic tales of those who succeed in stopping opioids for a short time, only to relapse again and again.

This is precisely why Hurd started to look to other substances to help and settled on nonpsychoactive cannabidiol or CBD, one of the primary components in cannabis. Hurd and her team discovered that CBD actually helped "restructure and normalize" the brain at the "cellular level, at the molecular level." It was CBD that healed the glutamatergic system and improved the workings of the brain's frontal lobes.

This new science sheds lights on stories like the one I heard from Doug Campbell of Yarmouth, Maine. He told me he had been in and out of drug rehab 32 times over 25 years, with no success. But soon after starting cannabis, he no longer has "craving, desire and has not thought about (opioids) at all, period."
For the past 40 years, we have been told that cannabis turns the brain into a fried egg, and now there is scientific evidence that it can do just the opposite, as it did for Campbell. It can heal the brain when nothing else does.

I know it sounds too good to be true. I initially thought so, as well. Make no mistake, though: Marc Schechter and Doug Campbell are emblematic of thousands of patients who have successfully traded their pills for a plant.

These patients often live in the shadows, afraid to come forward to share their stories. They fear stigma. They fear prosecution. They fear that someone will take away what they believe is a lifesaving medication.

Where do we go from here?
Mr. Sessions, Dr. Mark Wallace has invited you to spend a day seeing these patients in his San Diego clinic and witness their outcomes for yourself. Dr. Dustin Sulak could do the same for you in Portland, Maine, as could Dr. Sue Sisley in Phoenix. Staci Gruber in Boston could show you the brain scans of those who tried cannabis for the first time and were then able to quit opioids. Dr. Julie Holland in New York City could walk you through the latest research. All over the country, you will find the scientists who write the books and papers, advance the science and grow our collective knowledge. These are the women and men to whom you should listen. They are the ones, free of rhetoric and conjecture, full of facts and truth, who are our best chance at halting the deadly opioid epidemic.

Making medicinal marijuana available should come with certain obligations and mandates, just as with any other medicine. It should be regulated to ensure its safety, free of contamination and consistent in dosing. It should be kept out of the hands of children, pregnant women and those who are at risk for worse side effects. Any responsible person wants to make sure this is a medicine that helps people, not harms.
Recently, your fellow conservative John Boehner changed his mind after being "unalterably opposed" to marijuana in the past. If you do the same, Mr. Attorney General, thousands of lives could be improved and saved. There is no time to lose.

 

[momofthegoons]

@Baron23 I can't believe I beat you to this one.... and can't believe my eyes!

Sessions Admits There ‘May Well Be Some Benefits From Medical Marijuana’

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions acknowledged before a key Senate panel on Wednesday that “there may well be some benefits from medical marijuana” and that it is “perfectly appropriate to study” cannabis.

But Sessions was also quick to dismiss a mounting body of evidence that legal marijuana access is associated with reduced opioid issues.

Acknowledging that he has seen some research indicating lower overdose deaths in states that allow cannabis in some form and that “science is very important,” the attorney general said he doesn’t “believe that will be sustained in the long run.”

Sessions also indicated that the federal government would soon take steps to license more entities to legally grow marijuana for research.

“We are moving forward and we will add fairly soon, I believe, the paperwork and reviews will be completed and we will add additional suppliers of marijuana under the controlled circumstances,” he said during an appearance before the Senate Appropriations Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations Subcommittee.

In 2016, the Drug Enforcement Administration enacted a new policy intended to license more research cultivators, and he agency has reportedly since received at least 25 applications to participate in the new program. But it has not yet acted on any of them and, according to the Washington Post, that is because top Justice Department officials have stepped in to prevent DEA from approving any proposals.

In his answers, Sessions indicated that he thought opening up research could put the U.S. at risk of violating international drug treaties.

The “treaty requires certain controls in that process,” he said, adding that in his view, the “previous proposal violated that treaty.”

Sessions was responding to a line of questioning from U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI), who said that “we’re all evolving on this issue, some quicker than others.”

There are “good civil rights reasons for decriminalizing and pursing a federalist approach around this,” the senator added.

Sessions did not offer a specific timeline for releasing a revised research cultivation approval process.

And despite acknowledging cannabis’s medical potential, he said he takes issue with the way it is currently consumed.

“Medical marijuana, as one physician told me, ‘whoever heard of taking a medicine when you have no idea how much medicine you’re taking and ingesting it in the fashion that it is, which is in itself unhealthy?'” Sessions said.

Advocates welcomed Session’s admission that marijuana can help patients, but said that the Justice Department needed to act on allowing research as well as make broader policy changes sooner rather than later.

“Over two million registered medical marijuana patients throughout the legal markets can attest to the attorney general’s newfound revelation,” NORML Political Director Justin Strekal told Marijuana Moment in an interview. “What we need is better research on consumer grade marijuana and lawful protections for legal markets, not further deliberation from the DoJ.”

Later in the Senate hearing, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) cited a resolution approved by Alaska state lawmakers urging the federal government to respect local marijuana laws. She also attempted to elicit a commitment from the attorney general not to oppose congressional efforts to reform federal cannabis laws.

“I can’t make a commitment about what position we would take at this time, until we know what’s exactly involved,” he replied.

Sessions said, however, that “our priorities are fentanyl, heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine. People are dying by massive amounts as a result of those drugs. We have very few, almost zero, virtually zero small marijuana cases. But if they are a big deal and illegally acting, and violating federal law, our agents may work that case.”

 

[Baron23]

I can't believe I beat you to this one.... and can't believe my eyes!

hehehe...that's because I have actually been a bit busy with life and will be so and out of town for the next two weeks.

So, I hereby deputize you as the Deputy "Baron 23" Clipping Service Director. Clip away, Mom....clip away! LOL

 

[Baron23]

He's not wrong about this....the laws are on the books and laws are made, amended, or recinded by Congress who hasn't done squat during both Dem and Rep administrations.

I do NOT believe that this situation justifies all of Sessions completely inaccurate statements nor his saber rattling that has scared the industry and community so. THAT is NOT required by law.

But if you want to look to the origins of the conflict between state and Fed law....look to those do nothing politicians who are only concerned with feathering their own bed and their own political ambitions.

Hate defending anything about ole' El Jeffe....but on this one he is, in fact, correct.


Sessions evades question on marijuana enforcement, says Congress should change laws

Attorney General Jeff Sessions ducked questions from Senate Republicans and Democrats Wednesday about his plans to enforce federal marijuana laws in states that have legalized or decriminalized the drug, telling lawmakers to change the federal laws if they are concerned.

“The federal government has passed some laws on marijuana that I’m not able to remove from the books, ” he said during an appearance before the Senate Appropriations Committee. “Congress — you — have passed them. They are on the books.”

In January, Mr. Sessions rescinded an Obama-era policy of not interfering with marijuana-friendly state laws, leaving it up to state prosecutors how aggressively they want to pursue such cases.

Several states have decriminalized or legalized marijuana, but it remains illegal under federal law, creating a clash between federal and state law.

The decision has created confusion in states that have marijuana-friendly laws. Licensed marijuana growers and federal prosecutors are unclear what the rules are and which laws should be enforced.

Despite efforts by senators to get some clarification, Mr. Sessions would not provide it.

“Our priorities are fentanyl, heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine,” he said. “People are dying by massive amounts as a result of those drugs. We have very few, almost zero, virtually zero small marijuana cases. But if they are a big deal and illegally acting and violating federal law, our agents may work that case.”

 

[Baron23]

The Jeff Sessions cannabis crackdown has arrived—and it’s awesome

This isn’t the cannabis crackdown Jeff Sessions envisioned. Back in the early days of 2017, when the newly ensconced attorney general had the cannabis industry popping Xanax and praying twice on Sunday, Sessions loved to talk smack about legal marijuana. “Good people don’t smoke marijuana,” he once declared. “We have too much of a tolerance for drug use,” he told an audience of cops last year. “We need to say, as Nancy Reagan said, ‘Just say no.’ There’s no excuse for this, it’s not recreational. Lives are at stake, and we’re not going to worry about being fashionable.”

With Obama gone, he assured us, things would change. No more hippies smoking doobies in church. The rule of law was returning to America.

So here we are, almost 18 months later, and the Department of Justice is finally laying the wood to the marijuana growers. They’re cracking down hard. People are going to jail.

And the legal, regulated cannabis industry is benefitting.

Consider:

• Last month in California, the US Attorney for the Eastern District of California oversaw one of the largest marijuana operations in recent history. On April 3 and 4, hundreds of federal and local law enforcement agents raided 74 houses in the Sacramento region, breaking up a network of illegal cannabis growers financed by dark money from China.
• Last week in Washington State, the US Attorney for Western Washington arrested several illegal, unlicensed cannabis growers also financed by suspicious money transfers from China.
• Yesterday in Sacramento, federal and state authorities announced a joint effort to target illegal cannabis grows, with $2.5 million in federal money backing the effort.

The upshot: The US Department of Justice is enforcing the legalization rules and regulations established in the nine legal cannabis states.

McGregor Scott, right, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California, accompanied by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, discusses a federal-state program to crack down on illegal cannabis grows on Tuesday, May 29, 2018.

Feds Helping the Industry

The feds are shoring up the state-legal cannabis system. They’re arresting those who violate cannabis licensing laws, thereby protecting the financial investment and hard work put in by the entrepreneurs who follow state law. They’re also protecting the more than 150,000 jobs supported by the legal cannabis industry.

McGregor Scott, the US attorney for inland California (basically from Bakersfield north to the Oregon border), addressed the reality of the situation at a press conference announcing the $2.5 million project yesterday. “The reality of the situation is there is so much black market marijuana in California that we could use all of our resources going after just the black market and never get there,” Scott said. “So for right now, our priorities are to focus on what have been historically our federal law enforcement priorities: interstate trafficking, organized crime, and the federal public lands.”

That’s not a bitter-holdout policy from an Obama appointee. McGregor Scott was vetted by Jeff Sessions and appointed last year by President Trump.

Common Sense Enforcement

Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes, who stopped by the Leafly office for an interview yesterday, praised the federal raids on the Chinese grow operation.

“This is exactly the kind of enforcement action that the federal government should undertake,” he said. “In Washington state, we now have a highly regulated system as an alternative to prohibition. That’s precisely when criminal enforcement—to reinforce the regulatory system—makes sense.”

Holmes has been a pioneer in the decriminalization of cannabis. Shortly after taking office in 2009, he ordered his office to stop prosecuting low-level marijuana offenses (including actions that still send tens of thousands to court in New York every year). That policy ultimately set the stage for the statewide passage of adult-use legalization in 2012 with Initiative 502, which he cosponsored.

When a Chinese-based crime syndicate sets up shop throughout an entire region, as this one allegedly did, a single town or city doesn’t have the resources to take it down. “This isn’t only interstate in scope, it’s international,” said Holmes. It’s the kind of case that federal law enforcement agencies were established to handle.

“The state welcomes it,” Holmes said of the federal action. “The city welcomes it. The county welcomes it. And in my office, we are undertaking a number of civil forfeitures related to this case.”

“This really was a lawless operation,” he added. “It was designed to take advantage of a state that’s trying to advance policy. They were undermining our state’s industry. This is exactly the kind of operation that we need to undertake, if for no other reason than to help eliminate illegal and unfair competition to those who have invested in this industry.”

 

[herbivore21]

Attorney General Jeff Sessions ducked questions from Senate Republicans and Democrats Wednesday about his plans to enforce federal marijuana laws in states that have legalized or decriminalized the drug, telling lawmakers to change the federal laws if they are concerned.

I agree with you my friend; he is right, strictly speaking. By the same token, I hope that those lawmakers will kindly oblige his suggestion and change federal laws!

 

[Baron23]

Gee, Jeffey....can't understand why anybody would leave you and your andiluvian views on MJ out of a reasonable discussion over states and individual rights. As you have pointed out on many occassions, your job is to enforce the law, not ignore or modify it. So leave these discussions on the law to those whose job it is....which does not include YOU.


Jeff Sessions Laments He Was Left Out Of White House Marijuana Talks

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said on Friday that he missed the invite to recent meetings between President Donald Trump and Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO) concerning marijuana legislation.

In an interview with Colorado Public Radio, the top cop at the Justice Department was asked whether he was involved in conversations between Trump and Gardner, during which the president reportedly voiced support for legislative efforts to protect states that have legalized from federal interference.

“I was not a participant in the meetings he had at the White House, so I don’t know details of that except that it remains clear that the Cole memo has been withdrawn and the impact of that is essentially to make clear that we are not guaranteeing—and cannot guarantee—persons who use or distribute marijuana are protected from federal prosecution. I don’t think that’s appropriate for me to, in effect, violate or neuter federal marijuana laws.”

The interview touched on several issues stemming from conflicting state and federal cannabis laws, including his decision to rescind the Cole memo, his personal views on marijuana use and whether he believed that marijuana can be used as a substitute for opioids. You can listen to the full interview here.

But as cannabis reform legislation introduced by Gardner and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) this week picks up steam, the apparent lack of communication between the White House and Sessions on the issue is striking. Trump didn’t just tell Gardner that he supported the STATES Act in a private conversation; on Friday, he also told reporters that he “really” supports the effort and “probably will end up supporting [the bill].”

See video of Trump’s comments:



The STATES Act would amend the Controlled Substances Act in order to grant states where marijuana is legal federal protection and also free up banks to work with cannabis businesses in those states.

Sessions said that he expected the bill to be examined and potentially taken up by Congress, but that until then, federal prohibition remains the law of the land and so he was unable to assure legal users and businesses that they would be exempt from any “consequences” under current federal law.

 

[Baron23]

Ah, ole' Jeffe's problems couldn't happen to a more deserving fellow.

I almost rather wish that he does try to initiate some sort of draconian roll back of legal MJ as that would be the end of this antediluvian dinosaur in public office. His retirement would be beneficial to the entire country, IMO. Alabama...call him home!! haha


Jeff Sessions Struggles to Get Planned Marijuana Crackdown Going
Attorney general vowed to toughen federal enforcement of the drug, but he doesn’t have support from Trump or Congress

Attorney General Jeff Sessions vowed to use federal law to get tough on marijuana, announcing in January he was ending Obama-era protections for the nascent pot industry in states where it is legal. Six months into his mission, he is largely going it alone.

Mr. Sessions’ own prosecutors have yet to bring federal charges against pot businesses that are abiding by state law. And fellow Republicans in Congress, with support from President Donald Trump, are promoting several bills that would protect or even expand the legal pot trade.

As a result, Mr. Sessions, an unabashed drug warrior, has struggled to make his anti-marijuana agenda a reality, a notable contrast with the success he has had in toughening law-and-order policies in other criminal justice areas.

Marijuana advocates say Mr. Sessions’ approach, in seeking to spur a crackdown on the legal marijuana market, has largely backfired. It has catalyzed bipartisan support for research, they say, and for action to improve the young industry’s access to banks, which have been generally unwilling to accept proceeds from pot sales.

Uneven Approach
A growing number of states are legalizing marijuana use, but it remains illegal under federal law.

Underlining the pushback, Sen. Cory Gardner, (R., Colo.) on Thursday joined Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) in introducing a bill that essentially would allow states to pass their own marijuana laws without interference from the federal government.

Mr. Trump on Friday reiterated his support for Mr. Gardner, saying “I know exactly what he’s doing, we’re looking at it, but I probably will end up supporting that, yes.”

The dynamic highlights the unusual state of the nation’s marijuana laws. More states are legalizing marijuana use for medical or even recreational purposes as many parts of society take a more tolerant view of pot, creating a cadre of supporters from both parties. Yet the drug remains illegal under federal law, posing a challenge for U.S. officials in deciding how to pursue it.

President Barack Obama’s administration took a largely hands-off approach to states that had legalized marijuana. Mr. Sessions initially showed determination to overhaul those policies, blaming marijuana for helping fuel the opioid abuse crisis and for causing spikes in violence.

The Justice Department declined to comment. Mr. Sessions, however, recently told members of Congress that the department is now emphasizing the pursuit of more dangerous drugs.

Pressed on marijuana enforcement at a hearing, he said, “I have felt it not appropriate for me to somehow give a safe harbor or protection to areas around the country where it still remains a violation of federal law.” But he added, “The threats that we’re focused on in the Department of Justice are fentanyl, heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine, prescription abuses in large amounts [that] lead to addiction and death. Those are clearly where we’re moving.”

In an unusual move by a Republican senator against his own party’s attorney general, Mr. Gardner blocked nominees for Justice Department jobs after Mr. Sessions announced he was undoing the Obama administration’s approach.

Mr. Gardner stood down after receiving assurances that Mr. Trump would support protections for pot-legal states like Colorado, essentially undermining Mr. Sessions on the issue. “If they’ve voted to have a legal industry, then it would allow them to continue forward without violating any federal law,” Mr. Gardner said of the bill he co-authored with Ms. Warren.

House Republicans are also supporting a number of other marijuana-related measures. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R., Fla.) is pushing his colleagues to allow more marijuana research, which he hopes will pave the way to rescheduling pot—that is, categorizing it with less dangerous drugs on the Drug Enforcement Administration’s list of illicit substances.

Supporters of relaxing marijuana drug laws cheer the recent developments. “It was terrific,” said Don Murphy, director of federal policy for the Marijuana Policy Project, said of Mr. Sessions’ threat to the industry. “It moved this issue to a burner.”

Pot foes caution it is too soon to judge the impact of Mr. Sessions’ changes.

“It’s not a win for Jeff Sessions, but at the end of the day he still directs the department and could have the DEA close marijuana businesses,” said Kevin Sabet, president and CEO of the antipot group Smart Approaches to Marijuana.

The marijuana landscape contrasts notably with Mr. Sessions’ success in his broader law-and-order and antidrug push. He has rolled back Obama era policies that showed leniency to lower-level drug offenders, for example, instead urging prosecutors to seek the toughest punishments possible in most cases.

Mr. Sessions’ January marijuana policy left federal prosecutors to decide what resources to devote to marijuana crimes, stirring fear among dispensary owners that raids and arrests were imminent. Instead, many U.S. attorneys continued to use their limited manpower to target unusually brazen marijuana operations that are also illegal under state law, such as sprawling marijuana growers on federal lands or gangs that peddle pot along with other drugs.

Billy Williams, Oregon’s U.S. attorney, for example, is targeting the trafficking of marijuana across state lines, organized crime and businesses that supply pot to minors. This in many ways resembles the policy that prevailed under the Obama administration, which urged states to tightly regulate marijuana and keep it from crossing state lines to avoid federal scrutiny.

“I’m not making any blanket statements that we wouldn’t prosecute anyone,” Mr. Williams said. “It’s a case-by-case basis.”

Colorado’s U.S. attorney, Bob Troyer, is aggressively prosecuting drug traffickers who grow pot on federal lands, which is against both state and federal law. But his office hasn’t brought charges against dispensaries that comply with the state’s regulations.

“We never would give anyone immunity for violating federal law,” Mr. Troyer said. “As those threats evolve and change, something else could rise to the top priority level.”

 

[Baron23]

"When we talk about marijuana, we need to make clear that whether we legalize it or not, that it is not a good thing to consume. I think there's universal belief that it's particularly dangerous."​

The only place that there is a universal belief that its not "a good thing to consume" is between ole' Jeffe's fucking ears.

"it's just not a healthy thing."​

And....who exactly gives a flying fuck what Jeff Sessions thinks is healthy or not. I mean, we still are a country of free adults, right? And Ole' Jeffe ain't my doctor, right?

Now look at this picture below and tell me if you have every seen more of a lipless tight ass than he.

Now, the one thing he is right about is that his job is to enforce laws, he is no longer in the Senate and has no role in making or changing law. This mess of a prohibition lies firmly at the feet of our elected representatives....all of them. For decades they have been ignoring this situation and putting American's in jail for yet another victimless crime. The only reason many are behind current legalization efforts is positioning for mid-term elections. Remember, if you think an American politician's actions are self-serving....well, the chances are very high that you are right.

I almost rather hope that Sessions launches an ill conceived war on legal MJ as it will end his tenure as AG which is a very good thing, I believe. Hell, he's worse than Ashcroft.


Sessions: US Will Enforce Federal Drug Laws Despite Gardner-Trump Marijuana Deal

Earlier this spring, Republican Sen. Cory Gardner said President Trump promised to support legislation that would protect Colorado’s marijuana industry. That pledge was a salve to the industry after Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded a memo in January that had kept federal law enforcement from interfering in states like Colorado.

Now, Sessions tells Colorado Matters that, despite the apparent Gardner-Trump deal, he was never told by the president to back off.

"We respect Colorado and its laws like we do other states. And we enforce federal law around the country,” said Sessions, who is Denver and scheduled to speak Friday at the Western Conservative Summit. “We were not ordered to do anything other than the policies that we intend to carry out nationally."

On Thursday, Gardner and Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren introduced a bill that would make pot sales legal under federal law. Friday morning, President Trump said he would "probably end up supporting that."

Sessions said he’ll keep an eye on Congress’ actions. But in the meantime, he intends to enforce current statutes.

“It remains clear that the Cole Memo has been withdrawn,” Sessions said. “And the impact of that is to essentially make clear that we are not guaranteeing, and cannot guarantee, persons who use or distribute marijuana are protected from federal prosecution. I don't think that's appropriate for me to, in effect, violate or neuter federal marijuana law.”

Interview Highlights
On the uses of marijuana:

“I don't think the substance, personally, is a good, healthy thing. … When we talk about marijuana, we need to make clear that whether we legalize it or not, that it is not a good thing to consume. I think there's universal belief that it's particularly dangerous. There may be some medical uses for it in proper doses. But, fundamentally, it's just not a healthy thing. And particularly not healthy for young people. It does impact their developing brains and can be a permanent damage to those brains.”

On the marijuana industry:

"I can't give them immunity. I can't guarantee that they are free from any consequences from an act that is contrary to United States law. We've got priorities. U.S. Attorneys around the country have heavy demands on them. And the federal government has never prosecuted on any kind of regular basis, small amounts of marijuana. It's just, our priorities are smuggling rings, and more deadly drugs normally."

On whether marijuana can help people addicted to opioids:

"That argument is floated out there. I've not seen scientific results that would back that up. It continues to be said, but we continue to see tremendous amounts of death from these opioids. There's no doubt about it. But it is true that many people addicted to opioids were heavy marijuana users before they became addicted.”

On his relationship with President Trump, who has soured on Sessions:

"The good thing about my relationship with the president is the day-to-day work we do, we are in agreement that we need to end the illegality of our immigration system, we need to bring down the opioid deaths that we've never seen before — 65,000 people dying last year from overdoses — this is something we've never ever seen before. He's declared it a national health crisis, which I agree [with]. He's appointing great judges and we're please to support him in that. So on the great issues of our day it's a great pleasure for me to be able to support the president's agenda."

On why the Department of Justice began separating immigrant parents and children:

“The word has gotten out that if you come to the United States border and enter unlawfully with a child, you have a very high chance of nothing happening to you. …

If you don't prosecute the adults that violate the law, then you are saying 'we have open borders in this country for anyone who brings a child with them to the United States.' And that cannot be. We have to be serious about this. Open borders is a radical policy. And the flow of immigrants into our country with children has increased dramatically. And we have to stop allowing them to enter with no consequence."

 

[Baron23]

I love it....just love it. LOL


Thank you, Jeff Sessions, for inadvertently kickstarting Congress' effort to legalize marijuana


By The Times Editorial Board
Jun 16, 2018 | 4:10 AM

United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions. (Carolyn Kaster / Associated Press)

Good job, Jeff Sessions! It seems the attorney general’s misguided attempts to revive the unpopular and unjust federal war on marijuana may be having the exact opposite effect — prompting a new bipartisan effort in Congress to allow states to legalize cannabis.

Last week Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass) introduced a bill that would essentially end the federal prohibition in states that have chosen to permit medical or recreational marijuana under their own laws. In an unexpected boost for the bill, President Trump said he probably would support it.

The States Act, as it is known, would amend the Controlled Substances Act so that it would no longer be a crime for people to buy or sell marijuana, as long as they were following state laws. It also would extend the right to legalize marijuana to U.S. territories, federally recognized tribes and to Washington, D.C. — where voters passed an initiative to allow adult recreational use of marijuana but Congress has blocked the district from permitting its sale.

It would be ironic if Trump’s irrational anger at the attorney general is what finally pushes the federal government to adopt a rational policy on marijuana

This isn’t the first bill in Congress proposing to ease federal restrictions on marijuana. It is, however, the first that has a chance of passing and the potential support of the president. It’s the most promising effort to date to do away with the contradiction between federal law and the laws passed in recent years by California and other states to move marijuana sales from the black market into a legal, regulated and taxed system. That would be an extraordinary step forward.

And for this, we can thank Sessions.

In January, Sessions rescinded an Obama-era policy memo that outlined a hands-off approach to states that had legalized marijuana. The memo said federal law enforcement agencies should not interfere with states that allowed the commercial sale of marijuana as long as there are were strict regulations in place, including rules to prevent sales to minors and to block criminal enterprises from participating.

Instead, Sessions said, federal prosecutors would have discretion to go after marijuana businesses. That has left the nascent legal market in a legal limbo, making it harder to move pot out of the shadows and into a controlled system.

For instance, it has stymied attempts to provide banking services to the cannabis industry. Because marijuana remains illegal under federal law, banks and financial services companies won’t serve pot companies for fear of being penalized for handling money from drug sales. As a result, companies are forced to do business and pay their taxes in cash, which is hard to track and makes their businesses targets for robberies. That’s dangerous, and it’s bad public policy.

The States Act is designed to counteract the Sessions crackdown, letting states decide if they want to legalize marijuana or not without federal interference. Trump last week said he “probably will end up supporting” the bill, after some hardball tactics by Gardner. The president did say on the campaign trail that legalization should be decided by the states. And it doesn’t hurt that Trump is still mad at Sessions over the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

It would be ironic if Trump’s irrational anger at the attorney general is what finally pushes the federal government to adopt a rational policy on marijuana. Whatever the motivation, Congress ought to take advantage of the moment.

 

[momofthegoons]

While pot polarizes policymakers, lenders are going out of their way to avoid taking a position on whether marijuana should be legal. But they want to see legislation that explicitly protects their industry.
Banks take on Sessions over legalized pot
Lenders see the potential for lucrative business in working with the burgeoning industry.


The nation's banks are taking on Attorney General Jeff Sessions over pot with a big lobbying push to loosen federal restrictions on the surging legalized marijuana industry.

Emboldened by support from both President Donald Trump and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) — two relentless foes on most other issues — top banking trade groups are pressing policymakers to make it easier for their members to serve cannabis businesses that are now legal in states like California and Colorado.


“If we’re not at a turning point, we’re very close to it,” said Cam Fine, the former head of the Independent Community Bankers of America trade association.

Even Jerome Powell, chairman of the Federal Reserve, is pushing for action on the issue.

“This is a very difficult area,” Powell said during a press conference this week. “It puts federally chartered banks in a very difficult situation. It would be great if that could be clarified.”

Lenders see the potential for lucrative business in working with the industry. So they’re backing proposals that would address conflicts between a growing number of permissive state laws and the longstanding federal ban on the sale of marijuana that has chilled banks’ appetite to offer accounts to pot-related businesses.

The unresolved legal questions have been heightened by Sessions’ public campaign against legalizing marijuana. That’s left many banks on the sidelines and forced pot businesses to carry out transactions in cash, making them a target for theft and violence.

The American Bankers Association believes “the time has come for Congress and the regulatory agencies to provide greater legal clarity to banks operating in states where marijuana has been legalized for medical or adult use,” a spokesman said.

“Those banks, including institutions that have no interest in directly banking marijuana-related businesses, face rising legal and regulatory risks, and ever increasing ambiguity and uncertainty, as the marijuana industry grows,” the spokesman said. The ABA’s membership includes thousands of large and small banks.

The Independent Community Bankers of America, which represents the nation’s smallest lenders, went a step further last week by endorsing for the first time a pot banking bill that would restrict federal regulators from penalizing banks that provide services to marijuana businesses.

The bill by Democratic Reps. Ed Perlmutter of Colorado and Denny Heck of Washington has more than 90 co-sponsors, including 13 Republicans. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) has introduced a companion bill with 17 co-sponsors, including 12 Democrats, four Republicans and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). The Credit Union National Association said Tuesday it also supports the legislation.

The community bank trade association’s decision to back the bill followed a decision by its board in March to get behind marijuana banking legislation, said Aaron Stetter, the group's executive vice president of policy and political operations.

One catalyst for the banks to act more aggressively was Sessions’ decision in January to withdraw Obama-era guidelines that curbed prosecutions of businesses that sold pot in compliance with state law.

“The fear now is the lack of the rules of the road,” Stetter said. “The rescission of the [Justice Department] memo just left too much doubt out there. What banks are always looking for is certainty.”

The move by Sessions also provoked Republican Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado, where recreational marijuana has been legal since 2014. Gardner teamed up with Warren to introduce legislation last week that would carve cannabis businesses out of federal Controlled Substances Act restrictions if they're complying with state or tribal laws that permit the production and distribution of marijuana.

The bill, according to a letter of support from the Credit Union National Association, would give legal protection to financial institutions that accept deposits from and offer credit and payment services to marijuana-related businesses.

The bill’s introduction gave banks’ lobbying effort a fresh dose of star power from Warren, a liberal icon and potential 2020 presidential candidate, and conservative appeal via Gardner, who says it’s a chance to “express that federalism works” and give states the freedom to make their own decisions.

Trump kept the bill in the headlines June 8 when he said he “probably will end up supporting” the legislation — the latest in a series of comments at odds with Sessions and the Justice Department.

“When you have somebody with the national clout of Elizabeth Warren and somebody like Cory Gardner join forces, that sends a very, very strong signal that maybe the time is either here or rapidly approaching that the Congress will start to deal with this issue in a serious way,” said Fine, the former community bank lobbyist.

But the issue continues to polarize policymakers, even though lenders are going out of their way to avoid taking a position on whether marijuana should be legal in the first place. And while momentum is building, bank lobbyists want to see legislation that even more explicitly protects the industry. They also want regulators to come off the sidelines and outline their positions.

Some in the banking industry see the competing bills that have already been introduced as compatible efforts that should be further expanded.

The Trump administration’s position on the issue is inconsistent across the White House and agencies. Though Sessions revoked guidance in January, the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, responsible for combating money laundering, has kept in place its 2014 guidelines clarifying how financial institutions can provide services to marijuana businesses while complying with anti-money laundering rules.

The continuity of the Treasury guidance has provided some degree of certainty to banks. Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are urging the administration to preserve the policy, which also guides how regulators treat banks that provide services to the industry.

Legislation isn’t expected to advance until the next session of Congress, at the earliest. Perlmutter, the Colorado Democrat whose marijuana bill focuses on financial institutions, said his legislation would pass if brought to the floor, but that “several powerful Republican committee chairs” have thwarted his attempts to move it forward.

“We have reached a tipping point on this issue, and I believe it is only a matter of time before we are able to make real progress,” he said.

 

[Baron23]

Well, ole' El Jeffe is a gift that just keeps on giving....sort of like gonorrhea or psoriasis. sigh


Defying Congress, Jeff Sessions Keeps Blocking Medical Marijuana Research
Two years after accepting applications, the DEA has yet to grant licenses to growers.


It's been almost two years since the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) began accepting applications for new growers of research cannabis, and two dozen applicants are still in regulatory limbo.

Since the DEA announced in August 2016 that it would end the federal monopoly on producing cannabis for scientific research in the United States, growers, investors, researchers, applicants, and even members of Congress have sought to understand why a relatively simple licensing review process has stretched on for nearly two years. The answer is pretty straightforward: Attorney General Jeff Sessions, for reasons he has not publicly disclosed, decided to intervene in a process that has historically not involved the attorney general in order to stop the DEA from issuing licenses to growers.


While the Controlled Substances Act gives the attorney general regulatory authority over scheduled drugs, that authority has historically been delegated to the DEA, which is part of the Justice Department. The DEA has a whole division, in fact, dedicated to "investigat[ing] the diversion of controlled pharmaceuticals and listed chemicals from legitimate sources while ensuring an adequate and uninterrupted supply for legitimate medical, commercial, and scientific needs."




Members of Congress are not happy with Sessions' obstruction of the licensing process. In April, Sens. Orrin Hatch (R–Utah) and Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) sent the attorney general a letter in which they asked him to provide the Senate with a timeline for processing applications from potential manufacturers of research marijuana. They also asked the DOJ to update applicants on the review process. Both actions, Hatch and Harris suggested, should be completed by May 15, 2018. Not only did the DOJ miss that deadline, but it doesn't seem interested in playing catch-up.


Four license applicants I interviewed in late June told me they've received no official updates from either the DEA or the DOJ in months. Applicants who have spoken to congressional offices working on this issue say their contacts are equally frustrated by Sessions' obstruction of the DEA's licensing process.


(Reason obtained the identities of the 26 initial applicants through a Freedom of Information Act request to the DEA. Reason is not identifying which applicants provided information for this story so as not to jeopardize their chances of approval. )


"No 'formal' communication for months," one applicant told me by email. "They do answer questions I've asked, although on a limited basis."


"No formal communication," another told me. "Hoping to hear more soon."


"Just silence," a third applicant told me over email.


The Hatch-Harris letter captures both the widespread support for studying cannabis and the disproportionate power Sessions has to maintain the status quo. "Expanded research has been called for by President Trump's Surgeon General, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the FDA, the CDC, the National Highway Safety Administration, the National Institute of Health, the National Cancer Institute, the National Academies of Sciences, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse," the senators wrote. "In order to facilitate such research, scientists and lawmakers must have timely guidance on whether, when, and how these manufacturers' applications will be resolved."


The rapid pace of marijuana legalization at the state level, meanwhile, might seem to lessen the need for federally licensed growers of research cannabis. Can't researchers just use the myriad cannabis products available in the 30 states that allow recreational or medical use? They cannot.


Researchers who want to test cannabis products in humans must comply with federal regulations governing the handling of Schedule I controlled substances. Those regulations require researchers who would like to use domestically produced marijuana to obtain their material from a federally licensed grower. For decades now, there has been only one such grower: Mahmoud ElSohly at the University of Mississippi, who operates under a contract with the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). The hundreds of researchers who are licensed by the federal government to study marijuana in the U.S. must use material obtained from NIDA, despite credible concerns about quality control and the agency's ability to provide material that reflects the diversity of products available to consumers in medical and recreational dispensaries across the country.


No other field of drug research or development requires that all pharmaceutical companies and academic institutions that would like to source their materials domestically get them from one person chosen by the federal government. To see the impact on the U.S. drug industry, one need look no further than the U.K., which produced Epidiolex, the first marijuana-derived drug to ever be approved by the Food and Drug Administration.


Could GW Pharmaceuticals, the maker of Epidiolex, have brought its drug to market if its research had used cannabis grown at the University of Mississippi? Stephen Schultz, the company's vice president of investor relations, wouldn't speculate. He did say, however, that the U.K.'s cannabis regulations are essential to the company's drug development strategy. "We develop medicines that have a very specific cannabinoid profile," Schultz said. "So it is very important that we be in complete control of creating our medicines, from growing to extracting."


What's more, it won't be possible to get FDA approval for a cannabis-derived medicine made in the United States until new manufacturers are approved, since the material used in Phase III clinical trials must be identical to the material used in the medicine. In other words, NIDA marijuana cannot be used in Phase III trials.


In August 2016, it seemed like the U.S. might finally allow a market for research cannabis. That month, the DEA, which for years had resisted attempts to create such a market, announced that it would begin accepting applications for additional licenses to manufacture research marijuana. "Although no drug product made from marijuana has yet been shown to be safe and effective," the notice in the Federal Register said, the DEA "fully supports expanding research into the potential medical utility of marijuana and its chemical constituents."


Some two dozen entrepreneurs and companies submitted lengthy applications in the months that followed that announcement. Many submitted additional information at the DEA's request. Two applicants told me they'd raised millions in funding, and several others said they'd made intellectual property arrangements with cannabis growers and researchers overseas. Plots of land were scouted and buildings were leased.


But enthusiasm quickly gave way to anxiety after Sessions was confirmed as attorney general in February 2017. That August, anxiety turned to dread when The Washington Post reported that Acting DEA Administrator Chuck Rosenstein had resigned after butting heads with Sessions over research cannabis. Rosenstein was reportedly in favor of approving new licenses, but Sessions brought the review to a screeching halt.


The Washington Post story eventually made its way to Hatch, who asked Sessions at a hearing in October 2017 why the DOJ had yet to license new growers of cannabis for pharmaceutical research. During their brief exchange, Sessions told Hatch it would be "healthy to have some more competition in the supply" of research marijuana, but the DOJ was not going to approve all 26 applicants. I contacted Hatch's office twice for comment but received no response.


Sessions suggested that the DEA lacked the capacity to supervise even a handful of additional cannabis manufacturers. That claim sounds spurious considering that the DEA routinely approves applications to manufacture Schedule I and II substances other than marijuana. The agency approved eight such manufacturing applications in June 2018, seven in May 2018, eight in April 2018, and three in February 2018. (One applicant familiar with the DEA's licensing process told me the cost of supervising additional license holders is probably marginal.)


Senators questioned the attorney general again in April 2018. At that hearing, Sessions came up with another excuse for not allowing the DEA to move forward. This time, he claimed approving additional marijuana growers might violate a United Nations treaty signed by the U.S. This claim is almost certainly not true even under the most literal and conservative reading of that treaty.


One more deadline looms. Hatch and Harris would like to see Sessions act on all outstanding applications, either approving or rejecting them, by August 11, 2018, the two-year anniversary of the DEA's announcement in the Federal Register. By comparison, it took the DOJ less than six months to process the controlled substance manufacturing applications it approved in June, one of which was for making synthetic marijuana.


If Sessions blows the August deadline, he won't just be smiting a crop of would-be cannabis entrepenuers. He will be standing in the way of medical progress and punishing patients and their families in the process.