Law The Cannabis Chronicles - Misc Cannabis News

[Baron23]

New poll shows majority of Americans consider weed morally acceptable


The majority of Americans believe that smoking marijuana is more morally acceptable than a range of other issues, including abortion, gay and lesbian relations, and wearing fur, according to a new Gallup poll.

Indicative of the growing acceptance of marijuana use, 70% of the respondents in the Gallup survey released this week said they believe smoking cannabis is okay, while only 28% said they feel it is morally unacceptable.

When it comes to political ideology, support for marijuana among liberals was reported at 83% as opposed to 51% among conservatives.

Among the 21 issues presented to respondents as part of the poll, 13 were considered morally acceptable by a majority of Americans. Birth control and drinking alcohol were among the most widely accepted, followed by divorce at 77% and sex outside of marriage at 72.%. Seventy-one percent said gambling is acceptable.

Among the most divisive issues were the death penalty, with a record low of 54% saying it is morally acceptable, animal fur, doctor-assisted suicide, and abortion.
At the bottom of the list were polygamy, suicide, the cloning of humans and finally, with the least amount of support among Americans, were affairs (just 9% said they are acceptable).

Eight issues were deemed acceptable by a majority of respondents among both liberals and conservatives: birth control, divorce, sex outside of marriage, drinking alcohol, smoking marijuana, having a baby outside of marriage, animal testing, and gambling.

Over 1,000 adults living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia participated in the survey.

“Over Gallup’s two decades of measurement, Americans’ views have changed the most on gay or lesbian relations, having a baby outside of marriage, sex between an unmarried man and woman, divorce, and human embryonic stem cell research. Moral acceptance of each of these issues has grown by double digits since the early 2000s,” Gallup said.

In 2018, a different Gallup poll found that 66% of Americans support the legalization of marijuana – a new record. The figure is in stark contrast with the results of a similar Gallup poll conducted in 1969. Back then, only 12% of Americans said they supported legalizing weed, just one year before the United States passed the Controlled Substances Act, which classifies cannabis as a Schedule I drug along with heroin.

Support for marijuana among Americans started picking up in 2000, while a majority of Americans sided with cannabis legalization for the first time in 2013.

 

[momofthegoons]

Bipartisan Senators File Marijuana And CBD Research Amendment To Defense Spending Bill

A bipartisan group of lawmakers is trying to attach marijuana and CBD research language to a large-scale defense spending bill that’s on the Senate floor this week.

Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Brian Schatz (D-HI) introduced the amendment, which would promote studies into cannabis and its derivatives, provide protections for doctors that discuss marijuana with their patients and encourage the development of Food and Drug Administration-approved drugs based on cannabinoids.

The senators are seeking to include the proposal—titled the Cannabidiol and Marihuana Research Expansion Act—in the annual renewal of the National Defense Authorization Act.

The amendment, which is mostly identical to a standalone bill of the same name that the Senate trio introduced last year, would streamline the process of applying to become a federally authorized marijuana manufacturer for research purposes or becoming registered to study cannabis.

The attorney general would be given a 60-day deadline to either approve applications or request supplemental information from applicants. The bill would also create an expedited pathway for researchers who request larger quantities of Schedule I drugs under already approved investigations.

These changes would address an ongoing concern among advocates and scientists, who have expressed frustration that there is currently just one cannabis cultivation facility that can provide material for studies. The qualify of the products the manufacturer produces has been widely questioned, with one study finding that its marijuana is chemically more similar to hemp than commercially available cannabis.

Further, the amendment contains a provision that would encourage the development of FDA-approved drugs derived from marijuana. Part of that involves requiring the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to approve applications to be manufacturers of these drugs. Manufacturers would also be allowed to import cannabis materials to facilitate research into the plant’s therapeutic potential.

DEA said last year that it is taking steps on its own to increase the number of licensed cannabis cultivation facilities, but it said doing so required new rulemaking. A public comment period on its most recent proposal ended last month.

Finally, the amendment stipulates that it “shall not be a violation of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) for a State-licensed physician to discuss” the risk and benefits of marijuana and cannabis-derived products with patients. Last year’s standalone version of the bill stated more broadly that it “shall not be unlawful” for doctors to have such conversations. It’s not clear why the language was revised to more narrowly protect physicians from penalties under the CSA alone.

In any case, federal courts have already ruled that discussing and recommending medical cannabis is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment.

“Many parents have had success treating their children with CBD oil, particularly for intractable epilepsy, but there are still too many unknowns when it comes to the medical use of marijuana and its compounds,” Feinstein said when the original bill was filed last year. “Current regulations make medical marijuana research difficult and stifles the development of new treatments.”

Justin Strekal, political director of NORML, told Marijuana Moment that “it is encouraging that Senator Feinstein is interested in engaging in marijuana policy reform,” but “there are much more substantive efforts that could be addressed than a narrow research amendment.”

“It’s my hope that I can soon refer to the senator as a supporter of ending federal marijuana criminalization,” he said.

The standalone bill the amendment is modeled on has been endorsed by mainstream medical organizations like American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, American Psychological Association and American Society of Addiction Medicine, as well as pro-legalization groups such as Americans for Safe Access, Multidisciplinary Association of Psychedelic Studies and NORML.

“The medical community agrees that we need more research to learn about marijuana’s potential health benefits, but our federal laws today are standing in the way of that inquiry,” Schatz said last June. “Our bill will remove excessive barriers that make it difficult for researchers to study the effectiveness and safety of marijuana, and hopefully, give patients more treatment options.”

It’s unclear if the newly filed measure will actually be considered on the Senate floor. As of last week, more than 400 amendments to the defense spending bill have already been introduced, and leaders will have to decide which ones warrant spending the body’s limited time on.

On the House side last year, lawmakers filed an amendment to the appropriations legislation that would allow military branches to issue waivers to service members who admit to cannabis consumption when applying to reenlist. It was approved in committee but did not make it into the enacted version of the legislation.

 

[Baron23]

Personally, I advocate for 21. I started at 14 and regret some of the impacts of MJ on my choices at that time in life. I do actually regret not doing other things at that stage in my life in favor of being a "head" and I don't think it helped me at all at that age. Just my hindsight on my own personal experience.


What’s the best minimum legal age for cannabis?


Minimum legal age varies for all kinds of grownup things. Alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis can be 18, 19 or 21, depending on state, province or territory.
Learning to drive is between 14 and 16, with agricultural states tending to allow driving at a younger age. The age of consent is 16 in most US states and throughout Canada. At 18, you can vote and even run for political office in both countries.
When it comes to legal cannabis, the random collection of ages across North America is curious. Every US state that allows recreational cannabis sales requires customers to be at least 21 years old. In Canada the minimum age is 19, except in Alberta (where it’s 18) and Québec (which started at 18 but raised it to 21 earlier this year).
In most jurisdictions, medical marijuana is legal for people age 18 and older, with a doctor’s recommendation.
What difference does it really make if someone is 18, 19 or 21? A research team at Memorial University in Newfoundland, Canada, recently investigated the question.
Instead of looking at the immediate health and safety of young adults, they assessed later life outcomes—namely educational attainment, lifetime cigarette smoking habits, and general physical and mental health.
In their study, the Memorial University team concluded that the ideal minimum legal age for cannabis was 19.
Looking at long-term effects
While age 19 tracks with minimum legal age in most Canadian provinces and territories, the study’s lead author, Hai Van Nguyen, says his team’s study wasn’t about questioning or confirming current regulations. It was about measuring the impact of a long-prohibited substance that has not been well evaluated, and the long-term effects of its use in early adulthood.
“We don’t take satisfaction from whether our findings support or contradict the current minimum legal age in most provinces,” he said. “We believe our findings can help inform the debate on minimum legal age in Canada, as well as inform policymakers in other jurisdictions that are looking to legalize non-medical cannabis such as Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, Luxembourg and several US states.”
Medical groups like 21
Who else influences policymakers? Health organizations, for one. While the American Academy of Pediatrics declined to comment on the study, a spokesperson did point Leafly to its policy statement on cannabis:

“Given the data supporting the negative health and brain development effects of marijuana in children and adolescents, ages 0 through 21 years, the AAP is opposed to marijuana use in this population.”

In 2019, US Surgeon General Jerome Adams released his own advisory on cannabis use. Adams focused on concerns about the effect of cannabis use on the developing brain, and he concluded with a “nationwide call to action” on cannabis safety for young people. Adams didn’t get into specifics on age, but expressed concern about cannabis use while the brain continues to develop into a person’s mid-20s.
The science is still emerging
That being said, the science around early cannabis use and brain development is still evolving.
Health experts cite THC exposure in adolescents causes changes to the brain’s folding patterns, decreased neural connectivity, thinning of the cortex and lower white matter, among other symptoms. However, one recent study suggests any changes to brain structure caused by cannabis use in adolescence cleared up by the time subjects were in their 30s.
Another ongoing study in the Saguenay region of Quebec took MRI scans of over 1,000 adolescent brains in 2002, and the same subjects are currently being re-evaluated as adults—results pending.
Why not make it 25?
If the serious nature of brain health is such a risk, why not just make cannabis illegal until a person’s mid-20s?
In an ideal world, sure—and in this ideal world underage kids never go looking for cannabis from illicit sources, either. In the real world, though, policymakers have to weigh human nature’s penchant for the forbidden with appropriate rules and consequences. In an ideal world, alcohol would also be outlawed for health reasons, but we all know how Prohibition worked out.
Prior to the Oct. 2018 opening of legal cannabis sales in Canada, a government task force took a hard look at the best-legal-age question. That group found that the higher the minimum legal age, the more likely adolescents will seek out unregulated sources, risking both consumption of potentially more dangerous products and also incarceration.
Canada took its cue from alcohol
As health groups pushed for minimum legal ages of 21 and even 25, Canada’s Cannabis Act ultimately left it up to individual provinces and territories to set a minimum age. Most ended up following the rule already in place for alcohol: 19.
Douglas Berman, law professor at Ohio State University and executive director of the college’s Drug Enforcement and Policy Center, underscores the individual and community harm that comes with arrests at a young age, “and the collateral consequences of possibly having a conviction and everything that flows from that.”
While sensitive to the science suggesting THC may have long-term negative effects on the developing brain, Berman points out that the federal minimum legal drinking age was largely based on driving and road safety, not brain health.
On that note: The US federally increased the minimum legal drinking age to age 21 in 1984. Before then, the minimum age varied from state to state, anywhere between ages 18 and 21. Prior to 1970 in Canada, the minimum legal drinking age was 21, but was then lowered. The countries essentially swapped.
A holistic approach to the minimum age
Nguyen’s study, which landed at age 19 overall for cannabis, revealed different outcomes for different ages:

• A minimum legal age (MLA) of 18 was associated with good general physical health.
• An MLA of 19 correlated with no cigarette smoking and good mental health.
• Under an MLA of 21, results showed higher educational attainment.

Do those small differences in age matter? Yes and no, says the study’s lead author.
“I think one way to look at the three-year difference between MLAs for general health (18) and for educational attainment (21) is that it suggests setting an MLA involves a tradeoff and requires a holistic view to balance different goals,” says Nguyen.
He points out that the pattern of higher education in young adults who first consume cannabis after age 21 is consistent with the medical community’s concerns about cognitive impairment on the developing brain “which in turn might adversely affect education attainment later on.”
Different factors go into ‘health’
Years of post-secondary education isn’t the only measure of overall health, however. And that’s not a goal, or an attainable path, for everyone. That’s why Nguyen’s study placed equal weight on mental health, general health, and cigarette smoking prevalence in addition to education, which all contribute to lifelong individual health.
“If we are willing to give equal weight to all these four outcomes,” he says, “then the overall optimal MLA should be 19, which is the average of these four individual MLAs for these outcomes.”
Maybe a graduated system: Low THC at age 18
From a legal standpoint, Ohio State University law professor Berman says he wonders if a solution to cannabis minimum legal age could be found in a graduated system, mimicking an outdated Ohio state law whereby 21 was the minimum age for wine and liquor, but lower-alcohol beer was accessible to 18-year-olds.
“I think it’s interesting to imagine THC potency limits paired to different age groups, and if that could be a way to unfold policy,” Berman says. “So, younger people would have legal and safe access to low-THC products that would still get them where they want to get to. And then, OK, you’ve hit 25 and your brain has stopped developing, we’ll let you have access to some higher levels.”
Berman recognizes this idea isn’t perfect, and could be a challenge for the commercial industry. But he says at least this theory incorporates some of the emerging brain science, while recognizing that young people are accessing cannabis anyway—legal or not.
Watching Québec closely
Nguyen says his study will continue as more data becomes available. He’s next focusing on Québec’s recent cannabis minimum legal age increase from 18 to 21. “It’s important to study if this higher MLA will translate into better outcomes for youth as the Québec government expected,” he says.
Berman is also watching the changing legal landscape, and says the different age threshold between Canada and the US allows both countries to learn from each other’s experiences and move forward based on evidence.
“I’m sure people will be debating whether this harm or that consequence is a result of this policy or that policy,” he says. “But being open-minded and nimble about how we approach legalization is where, in my own thinking, best practices come out.”

 

[Baron23]

Will Joe Biden Change His Position On Legalizing Cannabis?



As nationwide protests focus the country's attention on racial issues, marijuana legalization–and how it ties to social justice–is moving to centerstage.
Marijuana legalization is intrinsically tied to social justice.
However, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has maintained his opposition to making cannabis legal. Some hope that could change as more people become aware of the impact that the War on Drugs has had on people of color.
Even as he enjoys an early lead in election polls, people within his own party hope Biden will change his stance. That includes people working on his campaign who have made their support of cannabis legalization public. But any cannabis entrepreneur or investor considering the odds of Biden changing his mind need to look at the full picture of political realities.
First and foremost is the primary vote itself. Despite the fact his opponents took much more progressive stances on marijuana, Biden won.
As Vox noted: “The issue, apparently, wasn’t a major priority for Democratic voters during the primary. Biden still walked away with the most delegates to become the presumptive nominee. With a coronavirus pandemic and recession still underway, perhaps Biden is hoping the same will hold up in the general election, too.”
What, exactly, is Biden’s position on the legalization of cannabis?
It’s easy to feel confused about where Biden stands on making weed legal. His own verbal gaffes are part of the problem. Late last year, he called cannabis a gateway drug, then reversed that position. At one point he said he favored legalization, but later it became apparent he simply misspoke.
Officially, his position is to decriminalize cannabis. That’s already been done in many states. He has said it “makes no sense,” for people to, “go to jail for marijuana.” Biden also wants more research done to find out if cannabis has an impact as he says, “long term on the development of the brain.”
But outside of gaffes, he stops far short of calling for making cannabis federally legal.
Despite his current position, there are many reasons for Biden to support legalization.
Primary voting aside, there are many reasons for Biden to change his stance. They include the following:
Most of Biden’s opponents in the Democratic primary favored legalization. Sen. Bernie Sanders even went as far as to vow that he would legalize marijuana in his first 100 days in office via executive order, and he finished second behind Biden in the voting. Sen. Cory Booker filed a legalization bill backed by most candidates, including Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris. Biden has put the latter two on his shortlist for Vice President candidates.

 

[Bcbud]

Biden-Sanders Task Force Gets Heated About Marijuana Legalization

The Fresh Toast - The task force is split on whether to include cannabis reform among its recommendations to Joe Biden for the upcoming election. - Cannabis

thefreshtoast.com

 

[ataxian]

Will Joe Biden Change His Position On Legalizing Cannabis?



As nationwide protests focus the country's attention on racial issues, marijuana legalization–and how it ties to social justice–is moving to centerstage.
Marijuana legalization is intrinsically tied to social justice.
However, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has maintained his opposition to making cannabis legal. Some hope that could change as more people become aware of the impact that the War on Drugs has had on people of color.
Even as he enjoys an early lead in election polls, people within his own party hope Biden will change his stance. That includes people working on his campaign who have made their support of cannabis legalization public. But any cannabis entrepreneur or investor considering the odds of Biden changing his mind need to look at the full picture of political realities.
First and foremost is the primary vote itself. Despite the fact his opponents took much more progressive stances on marijuana, Biden won.
As Vox noted: “The issue, apparently, wasn’t a major priority for Democratic voters during the primary. Biden still walked away with the most delegates to become the presumptive nominee. With a coronavirus pandemic and recession still underway, perhaps Biden is hoping the same will hold up in the general election, too.”
What, exactly, is Biden’s position on the legalization of cannabis?
It’s easy to feel confused about where Biden stands on making weed legal. His own verbal gaffes are part of the problem. Late last year, he called cannabis a gateway drug, then reversed that position. At one point he said he favored legalization, but later it became apparent he simply misspoke.
Officially, his position is to decriminalize cannabis. That’s already been done in many states. He has said it “makes no sense,” for people to, “go to jail for marijuana.” Biden also wants more research done to find out if cannabis has an impact as he says, “long term on the development of the brain.”
But outside of gaffes, he stops far short of calling for making cannabis federally legal.
Despite his current position, there are many reasons for Biden to support legalization.
Primary voting aside, there are many reasons for Biden to change his stance. They include the following:
Most of Biden’s opponents in the Democratic primary favored legalization. Sen. Bernie Sanders even went as far as to vow that he would legalize marijuana in his first 100 days in office via executive order, and he finished second behind Biden in the voting. Sen. Cory Booker filed a legalization bill backed by most candidates, including Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris. Biden has put the latter two on his shortlist for Vice President candidates.

I don’t know what he’ll do actually?
His wife is a doctor influenced by big pharmaceutical business.
The wife is the Queen or DIVA in some situation’s!

 

[Baron23]

Enormous Tax Revenue Is Exactly Why The Feds Won’t Legalize Cannabis


A tax code provision means the federal government profits more from state-by-state legalization than any nationwide model.
Marijuana legalization has been touted as a possible solution to the American economy, which has faced an uphill battle toward recovery following the coronavirus pandemic. While legalizing marijuana won’t fix every financial woe, the added tax revenue generated through legal cannabis sales and licensing could provide a helpful boost.
In states where cannabis is illegal for adult-use, lawmakers have already pushed cannabis reform legislation with this mindset. Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham expressed regret in April that New Mexico had not legalized recreational cannabis before the pandemic. Her reason? The state would have an additional $100 million in its budget and recent projections show New Mexico will have a $100 million budget deficit in the upcoming fiscal year.



Bipartisan legislators in New York and Pennsylvania have taken similar stances, seeing legal cannabis as a quick salve to economic wounds.
“It’s not enough to say the state doesn’t have money. We have to find it,” said New York state Sen. Jessica Ramos. “I believe legalizing marijuana can help.”
Read enough of these statements, and it’s easy to assume this line of thinking working its way to the White House. But that’s unlikely to happen anytime soon and it has nothing to do with Attorney General William Barr’s recent persecution of cannabis companies or Donald Trump doubling down on anti-marijuana rhetoric ahead of the election.
It’s about the money. Put simply, the federal government may not have a similar incentive as lawmakers do at the state level. As recently pointed out by The Motely Fool, the tax code contains a provision called 280E. It involves businesses that profit from drugs listed in the Controlled Substances Act, and creates a strange tension between cannabis businesses and illegality.

Photo by Esther Kelleter/Getty Images
The provision states “[n]o deduction or credit shall be allowed for any amount paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business if such trade or business (or the activities which comprise such trade or business) consists of trafficking in controlled substances (within the meaning of schedule I and II of the Controlled Substances Act) which is prohibited by Federal law or the law of any State in which such trade or business is conducted.”
Cannabis is a Schedule I drug. That means marijuana businesses cannot take tax deductions and savings like other corporations, excluding the cost of goods sold. That amounts to a whole lot of money paid to the feds in taxes. Estimates suggest cannabis companies could pay up to a 70% tax rate as a result of this provision. State governments may gain money from legal cannabis, but the feds would actually lose money should prohibition end — possibly $5 billion over a 10-year period.
Adding a special marijuana sales tax or some other sin tax to cannabis wouldn’t make up for that lost revenue. The current model where cannabis is kind of legal, but kind of not benefits the federal government more financially than if cannabis was totally legal or totally illegal. Considering Democratic nominee Joe Biden isn’t bullish on legalizing either, the status quo will likely remain no matter who is elected President this year.

 

[momofthegoons]

Congress Votes To Let Researchers Study Marijuana From Dispensaries

The House of Representatives approved legislation on Wednesday aimed at finally letting researchers study marijuana purchased from businesses in state-legal markets instead of only letting them use government-grown cannabis, as is the case under current law.

The intent of the provision, tucked into a 2,000-plus-page infrastructure bill, is to allow the interstate distribution of such products even to scientists in jurisdictions that have not yet legalized marijuana.

While the main components of the INVEST in America Act concern funding for highway and transportation projects, the legislation as introduced also contains a separate section that would require legal marijuana states—and only those states—to consider methods of educating people about and discouraging impaired driving from cannabis.

Several lawmakers filed additional cannabis-related amendments in committee. Most were either withdrawn, defeated or never formally debated, but a wide-ranging marijuana measure that was recently filed by the chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee was successfully attached.

The provision calls for the Department of Transportation to consult with the attorney general and Department of Health and Human Services to develop a report with recommendations on providing researchers with access to “samples and strains of marijuana and products containing marijuana lawfully being offered to patients or consumers” in legal states.

The report should also explore “establishing a national clearinghouse to collect and distribute samples and strains of marijuana for scientific research,” and that would include cannabis from state-legal markets. Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), sponsor of the main bill as well as the manager’s amendment the new marijuana language is part of, further wants the report to outline ways to provide researchers in states that haven’t legalized marijuana with access to cannabis from such a clearinghouse to study impaired driving.

Finally, the measure states that the report, which would be due two years after the bill’s enactment, should analyze “statutory and regulatory barriers to the conduct of scientific research and the establishment of a national clearinghouse for purposes of facilitating research on marijuana-impaired driving.”

Some of these components deal directly with transportation, but others seem to address broader issues in cannabis research that advocates and scientists have repeatedly identified as problematic. As it stands, researchers can only access marijuana from a single federally authorized manufacturing facility, and the quality of the products it produces has been criticized. At least one study found that its marijuana is chemically closer to hemp than what’s actually available to consumers in commercial markets.

The Drug Enforcement Administration is taking steps on its own to increase the number of licensed cannabis cultivation facilities beyond the current sole source at the University of Mississippi, but the process has seen long delays. A public comment period on its most recent proposal ended in May. However, even if the federal government does license additional research cultivation facilities, that still wouldn’t resolve the problem of scientists’ lack of access to marijuana from state marketplaces.

“There is a growing awareness among the public, politicians, and especially among those within the scientific community that the current regulations unduly limiting researchers’ ability to access and clinically study real-world cannabis products is both illogical and counterproductive,” NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano told Marijuana Moment. “It makes zero sense that tens of millions of Americans can now readily purchase and consume these products, but that scientists cannot access these same products for the purpose of studying their effects on human subjects in the course of a controlled trial.”

The other cannabis provision that was included in the base bill has not been well-received by reform advocates.

Under the legislation, a section of current law requiring that states establish highway safety programs would be amended to add a section stipulating that states “which have legalized medicinal or recreational marijuana shall consider programs in addition to the programs…to educate drivers on the risks associated with marijuana-impaired driving and to reduce injuries and deaths resulting from individuals driving motor vehicles while impaired by marijuana.”

While advocates are supportive of measures to reduce impaired driving, some have raised issues with the implication that legalizing cannabis increases the risk of people driving while under the influence. Research isn’t settled on that subject.

A congressional research body said in a report last year that concerns expressed by lawmakers that cannabis legalization will make the roads more dangerous might not be totally founded. In fact, the experts tasked by the House and Senate with looking into the issue found that evidence about cannabis’s ability to impair driving is currently inconclusive.

Beside that contention, the legislation seems to neglect to take into account that cannabis-impaired driving isn’t exclusive to legal states and that public education could be beneficial across all states regardless of their individual marijuana policies.

Despite pushback from advocates, no lawmakers filed amendments to strike the language or revise it to apply to all states instead of just ones that have ended prohibition.

Hundreds of other amendments were filed on the legislation, both in the Transportation Committee and for potential floor action, with several others dealing with cannabis that didn’t make the cut.

That includes one calling for studies into the effects of cannabis on driving and the development of an “objective standard for measuring marijuana impairment.” Another would establish a grant program for research into marijuana-impaired driving. Both of those were withdrawn during the Transportation Committee hearing on the bill last month.

Another amendment contained a section that would require the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to “carry out a collaborative research effort to study the effect that marijuana has on driving and research ways to detect and reduce incidences of driving under the influence of marijuana.” It was defeated in a 25-35 vote.

There was also an amendment filed that called for the creation of a pilot program to promote education about the risks of impaired driving from prescription and over-the-counter drugs. The sponsor never ended up formally offering it.

In the House Rules Committee, which held a hearing last week to prepare the bill for floor action, an amendment was offered to make it so the Transportation Department would “establish a program to provide grants on a competitive basis to States to educate the public on the dangers of drug-impaired driving.” The measure wasn’t made in order, however.

The panel did advance another drug-related measure that would create “a pilot program to provide funding to states to incorporate wastewater testing for drugs at municipal wastewater treatment plants and to develop public health interventions to respond to the findings.”

“This would allow public health departments to monitor drug consumption and detect new drug use more quickly and in a more specific geographic region than methods currently in use while preserving individual privacy,” the text of the measure, which was approved by a voice vote in a bloc along with other amendments on the House floor, states.

The overall infrastructure bill was approved by a vote of 233-188. It’s not clear if the Senate will include cannabis provisions in any related legislation it takes up this year.

Read the text of the manager’s amendment on expanding marijuana research and access to state-legal cannabis products below:

SEC. 3014. REPORT ON MARIJUANA RESEARCH.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, and make publicly available on the Department of Transportation website, a report and recommendations on—

(1) increasing and improving access, for scientific researchers studying impairment while driving under the influence of marijuana, to samples and strains of marijuana and products containing marijuana lawfully being offered to patients or consumers in a State on a retail basis;

(2) establishing a national clearinghouse to collect and distribute samples and strains of marijuana for scientific research that includes marijuana and products containing marijuana lawfully available to patients or consumers in a State on a retail basis;

(3) facilitating access, for scientific researchers located in States that have not legalized marijuana for medical or recreational use, to samples and strains of marijuana and products containing marijuana from such clearinghouse for purposes of research on marijuana-impaired driving; and

(4) identifying Federal statutory and regulatory barriers to the conduct of scientific research and the establishment of a national clearinghouse for purposes of facilitating research on marijuana-impaired driving.

(b) DEFINITION OF MARIJUANA.—In this section, the term ‘‘marijuana’’ has the meaning given such term in section 4008 of the FAST Act (Public Law 114–94).

 

[Baron23]

Congress Votes To Let Researchers Study Marijuana From Dispensaries

The House of Representatives approved legislation on Wednesday aimed at finally letting researchers study marijuana purchased from businesses in state-legal markets instead of only letting them use government-grown cannabis, as is the case under current law.

The intent of the provision, tucked into a 2,000-plus-page infrastructure bill, is to allow the interstate distribution of such products even to scientists in jurisdictions that have not yet legalized marijuana.

While the main components of the INVEST in America Act concern funding for highway and transportation projects, the legislation as introduced also contains a separate section that would require legal marijuana states—and only those states—to consider methods of educating people about and discouraging impaired driving from cannabis.

Several lawmakers filed additional cannabis-related amendments in committee. Most were either withdrawn, defeated or never formally debated, but a wide-ranging marijuana measure that was recently filed by the chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee was successfully attached.

The provision calls for the Department of Transportation to consult with the attorney general and Department of Health and Human Services to develop a report with recommendations on providing researchers with access to “samples and strains of marijuana and products containing marijuana lawfully being offered to patients or consumers” in legal states.

The report should also explore “establishing a national clearinghouse to collect and distribute samples and strains of marijuana for scientific research,” and that would include cannabis from state-legal markets. Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), sponsor of the main bill as well as the manager’s amendment the new marijuana language is part of, further wants the report to outline ways to provide researchers in states that haven’t legalized marijuana with access to cannabis from such a clearinghouse to study impaired driving.

Finally, the measure states that the report, which would be due two years after the bill’s enactment, should analyze “statutory and regulatory barriers to the conduct of scientific research and the establishment of a national clearinghouse for purposes of facilitating research on marijuana-impaired driving.”

Some of these components deal directly with transportation, but others seem to address broader issues in cannabis research that advocates and scientists have repeatedly identified as problematic. As it stands, researchers can only access marijuana from a single federally authorized manufacturing facility, and the quality of the products it produces has been criticized. At least one study found that its marijuana is chemically closer to hemp than what’s actually available to consumers in commercial markets.

The Drug Enforcement Administration is taking steps on its own to increase the number of licensed cannabis cultivation facilities beyond the current sole source at the University of Mississippi, but the process has seen long delays. A public comment period on its most recent proposal ended in May. However, even if the federal government does license additional research cultivation facilities, that still wouldn’t resolve the problem of scientists’ lack of access to marijuana from state marketplaces.

“There is a growing awareness among the public, politicians, and especially among those within the scientific community that the current regulations unduly limiting researchers’ ability to access and clinically study real-world cannabis products is both illogical and counterproductive,” NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano told Marijuana Moment. “It makes zero sense that tens of millions of Americans can now readily purchase and consume these products, but that scientists cannot access these same products for the purpose of studying their effects on human subjects in the course of a controlled trial.”

The other cannabis provision that was included in the base bill has not been well-received by reform advocates.

Under the legislation, a section of current law requiring that states establish highway safety programs would be amended to add a section stipulating that states “which have legalized medicinal or recreational marijuana shall consider programs in addition to the programs…to educate drivers on the risks associated with marijuana-impaired driving and to reduce injuries and deaths resulting from individuals driving motor vehicles while impaired by marijuana.”

While advocates are supportive of measures to reduce impaired driving, some have raised issues with the implication that legalizing cannabis increases the risk of people driving while under the influence. Research isn’t settled on that subject.

A congressional research body said in a report last year that concerns expressed by lawmakers that cannabis legalization will make the roads more dangerous might not be totally founded. In fact, the experts tasked by the House and Senate with looking into the issue found that evidence about cannabis’s ability to impair driving is currently inconclusive.

Beside that contention, the legislation seems to neglect to take into account that cannabis-impaired driving isn’t exclusive to legal states and that public education could be beneficial across all states regardless of their individual marijuana policies.

Despite pushback from advocates, no lawmakers filed amendments to strike the language or revise it to apply to all states instead of just ones that have ended prohibition.

Hundreds of other amendments were filed on the legislation, both in the Transportation Committee and for potential floor action, with several others dealing with cannabis that didn’t make the cut.

That includes one calling for studies into the effects of cannabis on driving and the development of an “objective standard for measuring marijuana impairment.” Another would establish a grant program for research into marijuana-impaired driving. Both of those were withdrawn during the Transportation Committee hearing on the bill last month.

Another amendment contained a section that would require the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to “carry out a collaborative research effort to study the effect that marijuana has on driving and research ways to detect and reduce incidences of driving under the influence of marijuana.” It was defeated in a 25-35 vote.

There was also an amendment filed that called for the creation of a pilot program to promote education about the risks of impaired driving from prescription and over-the-counter drugs. The sponsor never ended up formally offering it.

In the House Rules Committee, which held a hearing last week to prepare the bill for floor action, an amendment was offered to make it so the Transportation Department would “establish a program to provide grants on a competitive basis to States to educate the public on the dangers of drug-impaired driving.” The measure wasn’t made in order, however.

The panel did advance another drug-related measure that would create “a pilot program to provide funding to states to incorporate wastewater testing for drugs at municipal wastewater treatment plants and to develop public health interventions to respond to the findings.”

“This would allow public health departments to monitor drug consumption and detect new drug use more quickly and in a more specific geographic region than methods currently in use while preserving individual privacy,” the text of the measure, which was approved by a voice vote in a bloc along with other amendments on the House floor, states.

The overall infrastructure bill was approved by a vote of 233-188. It’s not clear if the Senate will include cannabis provisions in any related legislation it takes up this year.

Read the text of the manager’s amendment on expanding marijuana research and access to state-legal cannabis products below:

SEC. 3014. REPORT ON MARIJUANA RESEARCH.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, and make publicly available on the Department of Transportation website, a report and recommendations on—

(1) increasing and improving access, for scientific researchers studying impairment while driving under the influence of marijuana, to samples and strains of marijuana and products containing marijuana lawfully being offered to patients or consumers in a State on a retail basis;

(2) establishing a national clearinghouse to collect and distribute samples and strains of marijuana for scientific research that includes marijuana and products containing marijuana lawfully available to patients or consumers in a State on a retail basis;

(3) facilitating access, for scientific researchers located in States that have not legalized marijuana for medical or recreational use, to samples and strains of marijuana and products containing marijuana from such clearinghouse for purposes of research on marijuana-impaired driving; and

(4) identifying Federal statutory and regulatory barriers to the conduct of scientific research and the establishment of a national clearinghouse for purposes of facilitating research on marijuana-impaired driving.

(b) DEFINITION OF MARIJUANA.—In this section, the term ‘‘marijuana’’ has the meaning given such term in section 4008 of the FAST Act (Public Law 114–94).

While it may be touted as an infrastructure bill, and while it does contain a lot for infrastructure, it also contains an lot of unrelated dream list items from the party that unilaterally wrote it and I doubt seriously if it will make it past the Senate in any like its current form. I have no crystal ball, this is just my prediction.

 

[Bcbud]

The Uncertain Impact Cannabis Has on COVID-19 Highlights Need for Rescheduling | High Times

Medical professionals and industry leaders agree: we need to conduct more research on cannabis.

hightimes.com

 

[Baron23]

The Marijuana Superweapon Biden Refuses to Use


Legalizing marijuana is extremely popular. So why won’t Joe Biden embrace the idea?

Democratic political consultants dream of issues like marijuana legalization. Democrats are overwhelmingly in favor of it, polls show. So are independents. A majority of Republicans favor it now too. It motivates progressives, young people, and Black Americans to vote. Put it on the ballot, and it’s proved a sure way to boost turnout for supportive politicians. It’s popular in key presidential-election states, including Michigan, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Florida, Arizona, and Virginia. There’s no clear political downside—although marijuana legalization motivates its supporters, it doesn’t motivate its opponents. For the Democratic presidential nominee, the upsides of supporting it would include energizing a very committed group of single-issue voters and making a major move toward criminal-justice reform and the Bernie Sanders agenda.
Joe Biden won’t inhale.

Democrats eager for Biden to support legalization have theories about why he won’t. His aides insist they’re all wrong. It’s not, they say, because he’s from a generation scared by Reefer Madness. It’s not, they say, because he spent a career in Washington pushing for mandatory minimum sentencing and other changes to drug laws. It’s definitely not, according to people who have discussed the policy with him, because he’s a teetotaler whose father battled alcoholism and whose son has fought addiction, and who’s had gateway-drug anxieties drilled into him.

With legalization seeming such an obvious political win, all that’s stopping Biden, current and former aides say, is public health. He’s read the studies, or at least, summaries of the studies (campaign aides pointed me to this one). He wants to see more. He’s looking for something definitive to assure him that legalizing won’t lead to serious mental or physical problems, in teens or adults.

America appears to be moving on without him, and so are the future leaders of his party.

If Biden really has his eyes on public health, he should think about how many Black people end up in jail for marijuana sale and possession, argues Jackson, Mississippi, Mayor Chokwe Lumumba—a young Black progressive who oversaw local decriminalization in his city in 2018. Biden should also think about how an illicit, unregulated market is leading to the drug being laced with other chemicals, and the health effects of that, Lumumba told me. If Biden thinks marijuana is addictive, he said, then he should explain what makes it worse than alcohol, caffeine, and nicotine. Legalization is a necessary part of criminal-justice reform, Lumumba said. “I would encourage him and his campaign more broadly to do more research on some of the finer points,” he added.

Alternatively, John Fetterman, the lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania, says Biden should think about how legalization could raise tax revenue in the post-pandemic economy of state budget deficits. “What better time than now to have that conversation?” Fetterman told me. Before the coronavirus outbreak, Fetterman spent a year traveling his state, including areas that mostly voted for Trump in 2016, proselytizing “commonsense” legalization. There’s even more reason to agree with him now, he said. “It’s the ultimate policy and financial low-hanging fruit,” he said. “If you’re not moved by the gross racial disparities, what state doesn’t need a couple hundred million more in revenue at this point?”

Amid the criticism that Biden hasn’t taken a definitive stance on legalization, it’s easy to lose track of how far ahead he is of any other major-party presidential nominee in history in terms of changing marijuana policy. He’d decriminalize use, which would mean fines instead of jail time, and move to expunge records for using. He’d remove federal enforcement in states that have legalized the drug. That’s further, by far, than Donald Trump, or Barack Obama, has gone. Biden would move marijuana off as a Schedule 1 narcotic, the same category as heroin, but would not take it off the illegal-drugs schedule entirely, so that federal law would treat it the way it does alcohol or nicotine.

John Morgan, a Florida Biden donor and a major proponent of legalization in his state, is a proud user of marijuana, and told me he knows many Democrats and Republicans who are too. He’s been able to get Ron DeSantis, his state’s Republican governor and a big Trump ally, on board with legalization. Morgan said that when he broached the issue briefly with Biden last year ahead of hosting a fundraiser for him, the candidate responded, “‘I know where you are on this.’ I just took it to be as You know where I am on this.”

Erik Altieri, the executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, a pro-legalization lobbying group, told me that although his organization heard from several of the other leading Democratic presidential campaigns last year, it never got a call from the Biden team.

Biden’s resistance is particularly frustrating for those who remember how he was a pioneer in standing up for legalizing same-sex marriage, the biggest recent issue on which laws suddenly flipped to catch up to changing views. Maybe, one person who’s spoken with Biden theorized, the difference is that he knew gay people, but believes—almost certainly falsely—that he doesn’t know people who regularly use marijuana.

That’s a bad guess too, Biden aides told me.

“As science ends up with more conclusive evidence regarding the impact of marijuana, I think he would look at that data. But he’s being asked to make a decision right now. This is where the science guides him,” Stef Feldman, Biden’s policy director, explained to me. “When he looked to put down his position on marijuana in writing for the purposes of the campaign, he asked for an update on where science was today. He didn’t ask for an update on what views and science said 20 years ago. He wanted to know what was the best information we know now. And that is what he made his decision on.”

This can seem both perfectly reasonable and a ridiculous excuse. There isn’t some conclusive study about health effects that Biden is ignoring, but one is also not likely to emerge anytime soon. And though they insist this is all about health, other ripples from legalization are on the minds of institutionalists like Biden and his close advisers: trade deals that require both sides to keep marijuana illegal would have to be rewritten, half a century of American pressure on other countries about their drug policies would be reversed, and hard-line police unions would have to be convinced that he wasn’t just giving in to stoners.

Realistically, marijuana isn’t a priority right now for the campaign. Legalization is at once too small an issue for Biden’s tiny team to focus on and too large an issue to take a stand on without fuller vetting. And it comes with a frustration among people close to Biden, who point out that liberals talk about trusting science on everything from climate change to wearing masks—and, notably, wanted vaping restricted because the health effects were unclear—but are willing to let that standard slide here because they want marijuana to be legal.

Biden’s compromise: going right to the edge of legalization, while appointing a criminal-justice task force for his campaign whose members have each supported at least some approach to legalization. But that sort of signaling doesn’t get people to the polls. “Being cute is fine. Being bold is motivating,” Ben Wessel, the director of NextGen America, a group focused on boosting political involvement among younger voters, told me.

“If Biden said he wants to legalize marijuana tomorrow, it would help him get reluctant young voters off the fence and come home to vote for Biden—especially Bernie [Sanders] supporters, especially young people of color who have been screwed by a criminal-justice system that treats them unfairly on marijuana issues,” Wessel told me. Publicly supporting marijuana legalization would be an easy, attention-grabbing move, and might help many Sanders diehards get past the fact that he’s not where they want him to be on the rest of their candidate’s democratic-socialist agenda.

Altieri, the pro-marijuana lobbyist, said coming up with a legalization policy wouldn’t take much work: Sanders had one, as did Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Andrew Yang. Or Biden could check in with Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, who wrote a legalization bill based on the argument that legalization is essential to the criminal-justice-reform conversation. Altieri is not impressed with how little Biden has moved so far. “Where he’s at now would have been maybe a bold stance in 1988. It’s not much of one in 2020,” he told me.

In 2018, top Democrats credited a legalization ballot initiative in Michigan with boosting turnout and producing the biggest blue wave in the country—winning races for governor, Senate, attorney general, and secretary of state, along with flipping two congressional seats and multiple state-legislature seats. A ballot initiative is expected for the fall in Arizona, New Jersey, South Dakota, and possibly Montana. Anyone who believes—hopefully, or out of cynical political calculation—that Biden will announce some big change in his thinking, aides told me, will be disappointed.

Just do it, Fetterman said: Do it, if only to secure Pennsylvania’s electoral votes and get that much closer to the White House. “If Joe Biden’s account tweeted out ‘Legal. Weed.,’ it would get a million likes in the first two hours. I guarantee it. And no one’s going to accuse Uncle Joe of being a pothead,” Fetterman told me. “If you think weed is the devil’s tobacco, you ain’t voting for Biden anyway.”

 

[bulllee]

The Marijuana Superweapon Biden Refuses to Use


Legalizing marijuana is extremely popular. So why won’t Joe Biden embrace the idea?
Democratic political consultants dream of issues like marijuana legalization. Democrats are overwhelmingly in favor of it, polls show. So are independents. A majority of Republicans favor it now too. It motivates progressives, young people, and Black Americans to vote. Put it on the ballot, and it’s proved a sure way to boost turnout for supportive politicians. It’s popular in key presidential-election states, including Michigan, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Florida, Arizona, and Virginia. There’s no clear political downside—although marijuana legalization motivates its supporters, it doesn’t motivate its opponents. For the Democratic presidential nominee, the upsides of supporting it would include energizing a very committed group of single-issue voters and making a major move toward criminal-justice reform and the Bernie Sanders agenda.
Joe Biden won’t inhale.
Democrats eager for Biden to support legalization have theories about why he won’t. His aides insist they’re all wrong. It’s not, they say, because he’s from a generation scared by Reefer Madness. It’s not, they say, because he spent a career in Washington pushing for mandatory minimum sentencing and other changes to drug laws. It’s definitely not, according to people who have discussed the policy with him, because he’s a teetotaler whose father battled alcoholism and whose son has fought addiction, and who’s had gateway-drug anxieties drilled into him.
With legalization seeming such an obvious political win, all that’s stopping Biden, current and former aides say, is public health. He’s read the studies, or at least, summaries of the studies (campaign aides pointed me to this one). He wants to see more. He’s looking for something definitive to assure him that legalizing won’t lead to serious mental or physical problems, in teens or adults.
America appears to be moving on without him, and so are the future leaders of his party.
If Biden really has his eyes on public health, he should think about how many Black people end up in jail for marijuana sale and possession, argues Jackson, Mississippi, Mayor Chokwe Lumumba—a young Black progressive who oversaw local decriminalization in his city in 2018. Biden should also think about how an illicit, unregulated market is leading to the drug being laced with other chemicals, and the health effects of that, Lumumba told me. If Biden thinks marijuana is addictive, he said, then he should explain what makes it worse than alcohol, caffeine, and nicotine. Legalization is a necessary part of criminal-justice reform, Lumumba said. “I would encourage him and his campaign more broadly to do more research on some of the finer points,” he added.
Alternatively, John Fetterman, the lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania, says Biden should think about how legalization could raise tax revenue in the post-pandemic economy of state budget deficits. “What better time than now to have that conversation?” Fetterman told me. Before the coronavirus outbreak, Fetterman spent a year traveling his state, including areas that mostly voted for Trump in 2016, proselytizing “commonsense” legalization. There’s even more reason to agree with him now, he said. “It’s the ultimate policy and financial low-hanging fruit,” he said. “If you’re not moved by the gross racial disparities, what state doesn’t need a couple hundred million more in revenue at this point?”
Amid the criticism that Biden hasn’t taken a definitive stance on legalization, it’s easy to lose track of how far ahead he is of any other major-party presidential nominee in history in terms of changing marijuana policy. He’d decriminalize use, which would mean fines instead of jail time, and move to expunge records for using. He’d remove federal enforcement in states that have legalized the drug. That’s further, by far, than Donald Trump, or Barack Obama, has gone. Biden would move marijuana off as a Schedule 1 narcotic, the same category as heroin, but would not take it off the illegal-drugs schedule entirely, so that federal law would treat it the way it does alcohol or nicotine.
John Morgan, a Florida Biden donor and a major proponent of legalization in his state, is a proud user of marijuana, and told me he knows many Democrats and Republicans who are too. He’s been able to get Ron DeSantis, his state’s Republican governor and a big Trump ally, on board with legalization. Morgan said that when he broached the issue briefly with Biden last year ahead of hosting a fundraiser for him, the candidate responded, “‘I know where you are on this.’ I just took it to be as You know where I am on this.”
Erik Altieri, the executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, a pro-legalization lobbying group, told me that although his organization heard from several of the other leading Democratic presidential campaigns last year, it never got a call from the Biden team.
Biden’s resistance is particularly frustrating for those who remember how he was a pioneer in standing up for legalizing same-sex marriage, the biggest recent issue on which laws suddenly flipped to catch up to changing views. Maybe, one person who’s spoken with Biden theorized, the difference is that he knew gay people, but believes—almost certainly falsely—that he doesn’t know people who regularly use marijuana.
That’s a bad guess too, Biden aides told me.
“As science ends up with more conclusive evidence regarding the impact of marijuana, I think he would look at that data. But he’s being asked to make a decision right now. This is where the science guides him,” Stef Feldman, Biden’s policy director, explained to me. “When he looked to put down his position on marijuana in writing for the purposes of the campaign, he asked for an update on where science was today. He didn’t ask for an update on what views and science said 20 years ago. He wanted to know what was the best information we know now. And that is what he made his decision on.”
This can seem both perfectly reasonable and a ridiculous excuse. There isn’t some conclusive study about health effects that Biden is ignoring, but one is also not likely to emerge anytime soon. And though they insist this is all about health, other ripples from legalization are on the minds of institutionalists like Biden and his close advisers: trade deals that require both sides to keep marijuana illegal would have to be rewritten, half a century of American pressure on other countries about their drug policies would be reversed, and hard-line police unions would have to be convinced that he wasn’t just giving in to stoners.
Realistically, marijuana isn’t a priority right now for the campaign. Legalization is at once too small an issue for Biden’s tiny team to focus on and too large an issue to take a stand on without fuller vetting. And it comes with a frustration among people close to Biden, who point out that liberals talk about trusting science on everything from climate change to wearing masks—and, notably, wanted vaping restricted because the health effects were unclear—but are willing to let that standard slide here because they want marijuana to be legal.
Biden’s compromise: going right to the edge of legalization, while appointing a criminal-justice task force for his campaign whose members have each supported at least some approach to legalization. But that sort of signaling doesn’t get people to the polls. “Being cute is fine. Being bold is motivating,” Ben Wessel, the director of NextGen America, a group focused on boosting political involvement among younger voters, told me.
“If Biden said he wants to legalize marijuana tomorrow, it would help him get reluctant young voters off the fence and come home to vote for Biden—especially Bernie [Sanders] supporters, especially young people of color who have been screwed by a criminal-justice system that treats them unfairly on marijuana issues,” Wessel told me. Publicly supporting marijuana legalization would be an easy, attention-grabbing move, and might help many Sanders diehards get past the fact that he’s not where they want him to be on the rest of their candidate’s democratic-socialist agenda.
Altieri, the pro-marijuana lobbyist, said coming up with a legalization policy wouldn’t take much work: Sanders had one, as did Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Andrew Yang. Or Biden could check in with Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, who wrote a legalization bill based on the argument that legalization is essential to the criminal-justice-reform conversation. Altieri is not impressed with how little Biden has moved so far. “Where he’s at now would have been maybe a bold stance in 1988. It’s not much of one in 2020,” he told me.
In 2018, top Democrats credited a legalization ballot initiative in Michigan with boosting turnout and producing the biggest blue wave in the country—winning races for governor, Senate, attorney general, and secretary of state, along with flipping two congressional seats and multiple state-legislature seats. A ballot initiative is expected for the fall in Arizona, New Jersey, South Dakota, and possibly Montana. Anyone who believes—hopefully, or out of cynical political calculation—that Biden will announce some big change in his thinking, aides told me, will be disappointed.
Just do it, Fetterman said: Do it, if only to secure Pennsylvania’s electoral votes and get that much closer to the White House. “If Joe Biden’s account tweeted out ‘Legal. Weed.,’ it would get a million likes in the first two hours. I guarantee it. And no one’s going to accuse Uncle Joe of being a pothead,” Fetterman told me. “If you think weed is the devil’s tobacco, you ain’t voting for Biden anyway.”

Excellent read. Thank you @Baron23 . It will be interesting to see whom Biden picks as a running mate.

 

[Baron23]

More states allowing telehealth consults for cannabis authorization


Until recently, the term “telehealth” was known in the medical community, but not the cannabis community.
Since the COVID-19 outbreak sent the country into lockdown, medical marijuana users in many states can now check in with a health care provider by video for authorization, rather than an in-person meeting.

According to MPP.org, 31 states currently allow telemedicine for cannabis patients – 11 of which have temporarily altered their laws as a result of the current coronavirus pandemic.

The following 11 states also allow patients to receive virtual advisement for medical marijuana prescriptions under the stay-at-home/safer-at-home orders put in place across the country: Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Ohio and Rhode Island.

Each state is slightly different in their protocols for telehealth authorization. Some may allow virtual calls for renewals of medical marijuana authorization, but require an in-person visit to a prescribing physician for new patients. Other states may do it the other way around. Washington and Vermont allow renewals to be distributed via telehealth, but new patients must be seen by a prescribing physician.

Washington has actually been ahead of the national curve when it comes to telemedicine in general and with cannabis. Senate Bill 5175, which enabled telehealth for medical marijuana use, was passed in the 2015 session. Telemedicine here does not include audio-only or email-only consultations; the medical provider must meet with the patient via full audio and video technology.

But what happens when the country fully re-opens?

Many liquor and cannabis laws have been temporarily relaxed across the country due to the COVID-19 pandemic, including the ability to pick up orders from a vehicle after placing an order online.

If these amended rules continue, will telehealth check-ins and authorizations remain available for cannabis and in general?

Organizations such as the Public Health Institute (PHI) have created programs that provide governmental leaders with tools to adopt and implement indefinite policy changes. It has been working to change medical marijuana laws for several years.

In a May 20 article, PHI explored the possibilities of post-COVID-19 telehealth as it relates to marijuana. While it seems likely that some states will return to pre-COVID days as much as possible, it also seems probable that some states will see this as the push they needed to move their medicinal marijuana efforts to a more technologically-driven interface.

This health emergency has also shone a light on the digital divide in ways that haven’t previously been illuminated. It’s possible that states like Washington may permit audio consultations, as some segments of the population may not have access to the necessary tools and technologies for video calls.

In reality, a good portion of citizens may feel uncomfortable resuming previous norms until a vaccine is available, and will want to continue using telehealth checks over in-person meetings for non-emergency medical services.

 

[momofthegoons]

Bipartisan State Treasurers Call For Marijuana Banking Protections In Next Coronavirus Bill

A bipartisan coalition of state treasurers sent a letter to congressional leaders on Wednesday, asking that they include marijuana banking protections in the next piece of coronavirus relief legislation.

The letter, led by Oregon Treasurer Tobias Read, says that the current pandemic has underscored the need to pass the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act, which would protect banks that service the cannabis industry from being penalized by federal regulators.

“This provision would not only address new safety issues created by the COVID-19 crisis, but also those caused by the existing conflict between federal and state cannabis laws,” they said. “The 28,000 cannabis related legitimate businesses and their 243,700 employees, who already faced significant burdens before the pandemic, are now confronting dangerous new obstacles as they attempt to address the changed circumstances. To keep workers, patients and consumers safe, it is essential that we reduce the use of cash by creating access to financial services for these state-licensed businesses.”

The House did include the SAFE Banking Act in its COVID-19 relief bill that it approved in May, but Senate leadership has indicated that the larger bill as such will not advance in the chamber and President Trump said he would veto it. Some Republicans, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), have specifically criticized aspects of the cannabis banking language itself.

The standalone SAFE Banking Act previously passed the House in a largely bipartisan votelast year.

“Lack of access to financial services forces businesses to operate exclusively using cash making these businesses, their employees, and customers targets for violent crime,” the 16 state treasurers wrote to McConnell and other congressional leaders in the new letter. “In many cases, cannabis stores and dispensaries are limiting sales to curbside pickup or delivery, forcing these all-cash transactions to take place outside, without the option of no-contact exchanges.”

The letter explains how the use of cash “is particularly dangerous” for the millions of registered medical cannabis patients” because the virus can live on surfaces, including cash and coin, for extended periods of time.”

“In response to the coronavirus, the international financial community, many major businesses, and even governmental entities have looked for cashless alternatives to financial transactions. However, the overwhelming majority of medical cannabis transactions still involve cash. This is particularly dangerous for medical cannabis caregivers and patients who are already at a higher risk for contracting the virus. Allowing cannabis-related legitimate businesses access to traditional banking could reduce the spread and protect many of the most vulnerable among us.”

The letter goes on to discuss the growing economic impact of the marijuana industry as more states legalize and the importance of securing protections for the financial institutions that service these businesses. It also points out how, despite the fact that many states have deemed cannabis providers as essential, they are ineligible for federal coronavirus-relief loans due to ongoing prohibition.

“With millions of dollars in cash transactions putting employees, patients, and consumers at risk, it is vital that Congress act swiftly to pass this important legislation,” Read said in a press release.

Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO), sponsor of the SAFE Banking Act, said, “I appreciate the ongoing support of the SAFE Banking Act by our nation’s state treasurers.”

“Legitimate cannabis-related businesses and their employees already faced significant burdens before the pandemic, but now they face even greater risk during the COVID-19 crisis,” he said. “The SAFE Banking Act respects states’ rights and allows critical access to the banking system while making our communities safer by reducing the public safety risk associated with all-cash transactions and helping to reduce the spread of the coronavirus through banknotes and coins.”



The congressman said in May that he felt there was a 50-50 chance that his legislation is approved in the Senate through a COVID-19 package.

Treasurers from Alaska, California, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virgin Islands and West Virginia each signed the letter.

Another bipartisan coalition of 34 state attorneys general similarly wrote to Congress in May, urging the passage of coronavirus relief legislation that contains marijuana banking provisions.

As for the standalone cannabis banking bill, it remains pending before the Senate Banking Committee, where negotiations about the details of the proposal are ongoing.

Meanwhile, recent federal data shows that the number of banks and credit unions that are working with marijuana businesses declined slightly in the last quarter. It’s not entirely clear what’s behind that trend, however.

Separately, a House appropriations subcommittee released a spending bill this week that includes a provision that would bar the Treasury Department from using its funds to penalize financial institutions that service the industry if the business client activity is legal under state or tribal law.

 

[Baron23]

Joe Biden’s New Cannabis Policy Proposals Met With Criticism, Disappointment


In a bid to win over still-skeptical progressives, Joe Biden on Wednesday unveiled a set of policy proposals that moved him more closely aligned with his one-time rival, Bernie Sanders. But on the matter of marijuana, the former vice president and presumptive Democratic nominee remains miles away from legalization.

The proposals were detailed in a lengthy document born out of a Biden-Sanders task force that tackled a number of policy issues—from criminal justice to climate change. According to the New York Times, Biden is “expected to adopt many of the recommendations.” The Times noted that some of the recommendations, such as economics and the environment, “include broader and costlier plans than [Biden] has championed so far in his campaign.”


But the Biden and Sanders camps remain at loggerheads over a number of areas, including cannabis policy. Sanders has long championed legalizing marijuana on the federal level, where it remains on the list of banned substances. In unveiling his own comprehensive plan on drug policy last fall, Sanders vowed to “legalize marijuana and end the horrifically destructive war on drugs,” which he said “has disproportionately targeted people of color and ruined the lives of millions of Americans.” Biden has steadfastly resisted legalization, a position he reiterated in a clumsy interview last month on “The Breakfast Club.”

Decriminalization Over Legalization
The policy paper released Wednesday by the Biden campaign falls well short of legalization, too, asserting instead that “Democrats will decriminalize marijuana use and reschedule it through executive action on the federal level,” while also saying they support the “legalization of medical marijuana.” On the matter of recreational legalization, however, the paper says only that “states should be able to make their own decisions,” which is more or less how marijuana policy has operated in the U.S. since 2012, when Colorado and Washington voters passed measures ending the prohibition in their states.

Marijuana is listed as a schedule I drug under the federal Controlled Substances Act, a category that also includes heroin. As defined by the law, schedule I drugs have “ a high potential for abuse,” and “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the U.S.”

The task force reportedly clashed heavily over marijuana. Politico reported that “Sanders’ team argued in private meetings that they should legalize cannabis, but that idea was rejected,” with one member of the task force telling the website that the disagreements over cannabis policy were “huge battles.” As Politico put it: the left “got rolled” on marijuana.

Briahna Joy Gray, who served as Sanders’ press secretary during the 2020 campaign, responded to that report on Wednesday with dismay. “Team Biden is demonstrating a mocking disrespect for voters— denying is even the bare minimum, even when it would help him win,” Gray said on Twitter. “There’s honestly no excuse for it.”
Marijuana advocates were also disappointed. NORML Executive Director Erik Altieri said that the measures outlined by the task force, including the rescheduling of marijuana on the federal level, fell well short.

“It is impractical at best and disingenuous at worst for the Biden campaign to move ahead with these policy proposals,” said Altieri. “Rescheduling of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act would continue to make the federal government the primary dictators of cannabis policy, and would do little if anything to address its criminal status under federal law.”

Altieri continued: ““Rescheduling marijuana is intellectually dishonest. Just as cannabis does not meet the strict criteria of a Schedule I controlled substance, it similarly does not meet the specific criteria that define substances categorized in schedules II through V.”

 

[CarolKing]

Published
2 days ago
on
July 9, 2020
By
Tom Angell

Legalizing marijuana is not among the recommendations made to presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden by a criminal justice task force his campaign created in partnership with former 2020 primary rival Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).
Advocates had held out hope that the panel would push the former vice president to join the majority of U.S. voters—and a supermajority of Democrats—in backing legal cannabis. But, despite the fact that most individual members of the Biden-Sanders group have previously gone on record in favor of legalization on an individual basis, its report mostly reiterates the candidate’s existing marijuana position while adding a few specifics.
“Decriminalize marijuana use and legalize marijuana for medical purposes at the federal level. Allow states to make their own decisions about legalizing recreational use. Automatically expunge all past marijuana convictions for use and possession,” the document, released on Wednesday, says

 

[bulllee]

Joe Biden’s New Cannabis Policy Proposals Met With Criticism, Disappointment


In a bid to win over still-skeptical progressives, Joe Biden on Wednesday unveiled a set of policy proposals that moved him more closely aligned with his one-time rival, Bernie Sanders. But on the matter of marijuana, the former vice president and presumptive Democratic nominee remains miles away from legalization.

The proposals were detailed in a lengthy document born out of a Biden-Sanders task force that tackled a number of policy issues—from criminal justice to climate change. According to the New York Times, Biden is “expected to adopt many of the recommendations.” The Times noted that some of the recommendations, such as economics and the environment, “include broader and costlier plans than [Biden] has championed so far in his campaign.”


But the Biden and Sanders camps remain at loggerheads over a number of areas, including cannabis policy. Sanders has long championed legalizing marijuana on the federal level, where it remains on the list of banned substances. In unveiling his own comprehensive plan on drug policy last fall, Sanders vowed to “legalize marijuana and end the horrifically destructive war on drugs,” which he said “has disproportionately targeted people of color and ruined the lives of millions of Americans.” Biden has steadfastly resisted legalization, a position he reiterated in a clumsy interview last month on “The Breakfast Club.”

Decriminalization Over Legalization
The policy paper released Wednesday by the Biden campaign falls well short of legalization, too, asserting instead that “Democrats will decriminalize marijuana use and reschedule it through executive action on the federal level,” while also saying they support the “legalization of medical marijuana.” On the matter of recreational legalization, however, the paper says only that “states should be able to make their own decisions,” which is more or less how marijuana policy has operated in the U.S. since 2012, when Colorado and Washington voters passed measures ending the prohibition in their states.

Marijuana is listed as a schedule I drug under the federal Controlled Substances Act, a category that also includes heroin. As defined by the law, schedule I drugs have “ a high potential for abuse,” and “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the U.S.”

The task force reportedly clashed heavily over marijuana. Politico reported that “Sanders’ team argued in private meetings that they should legalize cannabis, but that idea was rejected,” with one member of the task force telling the website that the disagreements over cannabis policy were “huge battles.” As Politico put it: the left “got rolled” on marijuana.

Briahna Joy Gray, who served as Sanders’ press secretary during the 2020 campaign, responded to that report on Wednesday with dismay. “Team Biden is demonstrating a mocking disrespect for voters— denying is even the bare minimum, even when it would help him win,” Gray said on Twitter. “There’s honestly no excuse for it.”
Marijuana advocates were also disappointed. NORML Executive Director Erik Altieri said that the measures outlined by the task force, including the rescheduling of marijuana on the federal level, fell well short.

“It is impractical at best and disingenuous at worst for the Biden campaign to move ahead with these policy proposals,” said Altieri. “Rescheduling of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act would continue to make the federal government the primary dictators of cannabis policy, and would do little if anything to address its criminal status under federal law.”

Altieri continued: ““Rescheduling marijuana is intellectually dishonest. Just as cannabis does not meet the strict criteria of a Schedule I controlled substance, it similarly does not meet the specific criteria that define substances categorized in schedules II through V.”

Don't believe the dems whitewashing of Biden's stance on marijuana. Biden has always been anti weed. Just look at his past voting record and what he use to say about marijuana not that long ago. So now Biden says it's up to the state to decide. Biden introduced the Comprehensive Narcotics Control Act of 1986. The wide-ranging anti-drug legislation that has helped to jail thousands of people of color. I don't trust either candidate on legalizing marijuana . Trumps too sneaky, and Biden has been anti weed forever. Imho

 

[Bcbud]

New Yorkers encouraged to call 911 if they spot 'marijuana smoking in progress'

“Bill de Blasio's administration thinks cannabis consumption is an actual emergency that warrants urgent police attention."

www.thegrowthop.com

 

[Baron23]

Biden-Sanders Task Force Does Not Recommend Legalizing Marijuana


While the unity task force pushed Biden farther left on cannabis policy, the former Vice President still doesn’t support ending prohibition.
Joe Biden will not change his mind on cannabis anytime soon. A task force formed between Biden and Bernie Sanders, which had prior heated discussions on cannabis, agreed on multiple criminal justice priorities, but marijuana legalization was not among them.
Instead, the official policy recommendations (released Wednesday) for Biden as he embarks on winning the general election as the presumptive Democrat presidential nominee represents a reiteration of his previous cannabis views. He believes in cannabis decriminalization, not legalization. The recommendations, however, supply more details about specific marijuana polices Biden could pursue if elected President.
“Democrats will decriminalize marijuana use and reschedule it through executive action on the federal level,” the document reads. “We will support legalization of medical marijuana, and believe states should be able to make their own decisions about recreational use.”



The task force also recommended it would not launch federal prosecution for matters legal at the state level. The statement is an obvious reference to current Attorney General William Barr, who was accused of inappropriately using Justice Department funds to target the legal cannabis industry.
In addition, the task force document discussed moving cannabis-related crimes out of the criminal justice system and into a supportive, treatment model.
“All past criminal convictions for cannabis use should be automatically expunged,” it reads. “And rather than involving the criminal justice system, Democrats support increased use of drug courts, harm reduction interventions, and treatment diversion programs for those struggling with substance use disorders.”
The task force was filled with acolytes from Sanders and Biden’s respective camps. It did appear, however, the Sanders group was successful in pushing Biden a little further left on cannabis policy in Congress. In its official recommendations on criminal justice reform, the task force focused on ways to reduce incarceration and re-invest in communities disproportionately affected by the War on Drugs.

Photos: Joe Raedle/Staff/Getty Images; Scott Eisen/Stringer/Getty Images
“Lift budget rider blocking DC from taxing and regulating legal marijuana and remove marijuana use from the list of deportable offenses,” read the recommendations. “Encourage states to invest tax revenue from legal marijuana industries to repair damage to Black and brown communities hit hardest by incarceration.”
It’s important to remember these recommendations don’t constitute official platform statements from the Biden campaign. Rather, they represent official positions for Biden and the Democratic party to consider when drafting the party’s 2020 platform. The task force was an attempt to bridge the ideological divide among Democrats — between the party’s more progressive coalition and its traditionalist one. Because Biden and Sanders formed the task force themselves, it’s expected these recommendations carry significant weight to the party.
That, however, does not mean cannabis advocates were supportive of the recommendations.
“It is impractical at best and disingenuous at worst for the Biden campaign to move ahead with these policy proposals,” NORML Executive Director Erik Altieri said in a statement. “Rescheduling of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act would continue to make the federal government the primary dictators of cannabis policy, and would do little if anything to address its criminal status under federal law.”

 

[Baron23]

The U.S. military is rethinking this cannabis policy


The military makes no confusion about its views on marijuana. Despite widespread legalization and rising positive marijuana drug tests for Army soldiers, military service members who confess to consuming cannabis just once are barred from re-enlisting under current law.
But late last Thursday the House Armed Services Committee approved an amendment to its USD$740.5 billion defense policy bill that could grant a second chance to those troops. Rep. Ruben Gallego submitted a proposal alongside the bill that would create a one-time reenlistment waiver for former service members who admitted to cannabis use. Approval would be granted on a case-by-case basis under the provision.
“Smoking pot just once shouldn’t prevent a patriotic American from fighting for our country,” Gallego said in a release. “We need to finally exercise some common sense when it comes to our marijuana policies, and I’m glad my amendment will lead us in that direction.”



Gallego, a Marine Corps combat veteran who served in Iraq, has submitted this proposal for the past couple years. The rider was approved in the 2019 defense spending House bill, but was removed in reconciliation with Senate defense bill.
At the time, Gallego said a conversation with a constituent inspired the provision. After studying in law school, the constituent went to reenlist in the Marine Corps and admitted to using cannabis. The recruiter told him to either lie about smoking marijuana or else forget being reenlisted.
“There’s ample evidence that the social and personal consequences are far worse for alcohol use than for marijuana use—but we wouldn’t be able to assemble even one Marine Corps regiment if we excluded everyone who’s ever had a sip of beer or whiskey,” Gallego previously said.
Gallego’s provision is the only cannabis-related rider on the House bill, but a bipartisan group led by Sen. Diane Feinstein have their own proposal they’d like to attach to the Senate’s defense policy legislation. The amendment would institute requirements into CBD research and provide protections for doctors who discuss cannabis treatment with their patients. It is unclear whether the amendment will make it onto the Senate floor for further discussion or not.