|
Sponsored by |
|---|
|
|
-
Need help navigating the forum? Find out how to use our features here.
-
Did you know we have lots of smilies for you to use?
Law The Cannabis Chronicles - Misc Cannabis News
- Thread starter CarolKing
- Start date
GOP Senator Asks USDA To Delay Hemp Regulation Until Industry Can Help Revise Rules
Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO) is joining several of his colleagues in calling on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to delay the implementation of proposed hemp rules, citing concerns about certain restrictive policies the federal agency has put forward in an interim proposal.
The senator sent a letter to Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue on Tuesday, urging the department to hold off on a final rule until it is able to consult with stakeholders and state regulators “to ensure workable rules that allow the industry to thrive.”
“The United States is now poised to transition from being a world-leading hemp importer to a world-leading hemp producer,” Gardner wrote. “I have worked with my colleagues and state officials to share with the USDA Colorado’s hemp experience, encourage greater flexibility for farmers, and encourage innovation of the industry.”
“I appreciate your leadership to the nation’s farmers throughout this extraordinary challenging time. Given these challenges, it is hard to overlook the great promise that the industrial hemp industry could provide to farmers if regulation is done in the proper manner. I encourage you to delay the final implementation of the [interim final rule] and work directly with state regulators and the industry to ensure workable rules that allow the industry to thrive.”
While Gardner didn’t specify which proposed regulations he views as inflexible and problematic, industry representatives have generally expressed concerns about requirements that labs that test hemp be registered with the Drug Enforcement Administration and that law enforcement be involved in disposal of the crop if it contains excess THC, among other issues.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) earlier this month wrote to Perdue, similarly asking that USDA delay issuing final regulations for the crop until 2022 and allowing states to continue operating under the 2014 Farm Bill hemp pilot program in the meantime.
As it stands, the earlier pilot program is set to expire on October 31. The minority leader isn’t alone in requesting an extension, as state agriculture departments and a major hemp industry group made a similar request to both Congress and USDA this month.
Two senators representing Oregon recently expressed concerns with the secretary that USDA appears positioned to reinstate the two aforementioned provisions of its interim final rule that stakeholders view as untenable.
As USDA works to finalize their regulations, which they intend to complete by October 2021, the department has been systematically approving hemp plans proposed by individual states, territories and tribes. The most recent approvals were for Maryland and the Lower Sioux Indian Community.
Six states that submitted hemp regulatory plans to USDA are being asked to make revisions and resubmit before they’re approved.
To read Gardner’s letter to Perdue on hemp regulations follow title link and scroll to bottom of article.
Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO) is joining several of his colleagues in calling on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to delay the implementation of proposed hemp rules, citing concerns about certain restrictive policies the federal agency has put forward in an interim proposal.
The senator sent a letter to Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue on Tuesday, urging the department to hold off on a final rule until it is able to consult with stakeholders and state regulators “to ensure workable rules that allow the industry to thrive.”
“The United States is now poised to transition from being a world-leading hemp importer to a world-leading hemp producer,” Gardner wrote. “I have worked with my colleagues and state officials to share with the USDA Colorado’s hemp experience, encourage greater flexibility for farmers, and encourage innovation of the industry.”
“I appreciate your leadership to the nation’s farmers throughout this extraordinary challenging time. Given these challenges, it is hard to overlook the great promise that the industrial hemp industry could provide to farmers if regulation is done in the proper manner. I encourage you to delay the final implementation of the [interim final rule] and work directly with state regulators and the industry to ensure workable rules that allow the industry to thrive.”
While Gardner didn’t specify which proposed regulations he views as inflexible and problematic, industry representatives have generally expressed concerns about requirements that labs that test hemp be registered with the Drug Enforcement Administration and that law enforcement be involved in disposal of the crop if it contains excess THC, among other issues.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) earlier this month wrote to Perdue, similarly asking that USDA delay issuing final regulations for the crop until 2022 and allowing states to continue operating under the 2014 Farm Bill hemp pilot program in the meantime.
As it stands, the earlier pilot program is set to expire on October 31. The minority leader isn’t alone in requesting an extension, as state agriculture departments and a major hemp industry group made a similar request to both Congress and USDA this month.
Two senators representing Oregon recently expressed concerns with the secretary that USDA appears positioned to reinstate the two aforementioned provisions of its interim final rule that stakeholders view as untenable.
As USDA works to finalize their regulations, which they intend to complete by October 2021, the department has been systematically approving hemp plans proposed by individual states, territories and tribes. The most recent approvals were for Maryland and the Lower Sioux Indian Community.
Six states that submitted hemp regulatory plans to USDA are being asked to make revisions and resubmit before they’re approved.
To read Gardner’s letter to Perdue on hemp regulations follow title link and scroll to bottom of article.
Baron23
Well-Known Member
Oh, still my beating fucking heart. Not sure I can stand the excitement. Oh, they are going to decrim at the Fed level. And just how many people have been busted by the Feds for MJ (I mean, less than a ship load trying to come into the country). Almost all busts are state and local under state and local laws.
And, not to put too fine a point on it, Harris is full of shit, IMO. From the heartless former hard line drug prosecutor..."the times have changed". What has changed is that Harris now wants to be VP of the USA. And Biden is no better having been a key mover and shaker in creating the war on drugs and the zero tolerance policies and mandatory sentences that went with it.
Oh....but NOW they have seen the light.
I'm with @bulllee ....I hate mendacious, venal politicians which is just about every damn one of them.
Kamala Harris Says Biden Admin Will Decriminalize Cannabis
Kamala Harris, Joe Biden’s pick for the second half of the Democratic presidential ticket, said in their first joint interview that the Biden-Harris Administration will pursue a national policy of cannabis decriminalization.
The Biden Administration would pursue policies to decriminalize cannabis possession and enact some police reforms, said Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) — Joe Biden’s pick for vice president — in an interview yesterday with ABC News.
During the interview, Sen. Harris was pressed about her prosecutorial and pro-law enforcement background. She said that the Black Lives Matter movement, which was once again spearheaded into the global spotlight following the May 25 police murder of George Floyd, has changed the conversation and is an important “counterforce” to the American status quo. She described plans to investigate police departments with a “history” and “pattern” of discrimination, and said the ticket will pursue a “policy that is going to be about decriminalizing marijuana.”
The Biden campaign said in May that his “Plan for Black America” included cannabis decriminalization policies and the expungement of cannabis convictions.
Meanwhile, a task force comprised of members from the Biden campaign and from Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (D-VT) presidential campaign sought to soothe tension between Biden and the party’s more progressive wings. That coalition ultimately embraced cannabis decriminalization reforms but — like Biden himself, who until last year said he still considered cannabis to be a gateway drug — stopped short of endorsing full legalization.
Since being elected to the Senate, Sen. Harris sponsored the 2018 MORE Act, or Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act, which would have federally legalized cannabis and reinvested the proceeds into supporting over-policed communities.
“Times have changed — marijuana should not be a crime,” she said then. “We need to start regulating marijuana, and expunge marijuana convictions from the records of millions of Americans so they can get on with their lives.”
And, not to put too fine a point on it, Harris is full of shit, IMO. From the heartless former hard line drug prosecutor..."the times have changed". What has changed is that Harris now wants to be VP of the USA. And Biden is no better having been a key mover and shaker in creating the war on drugs and the zero tolerance policies and mandatory sentences that went with it.
Oh....but NOW they have seen the light.
I'm with @bulllee ....I hate mendacious, venal politicians which is just about every damn one of them.
Kamala Harris Says Biden Admin Will Decriminalize Cannabis
Kamala Harris, Joe Biden’s pick for the second half of the Democratic presidential ticket, said in their first joint interview that the Biden-Harris Administration will pursue a national policy of cannabis decriminalization.
The Biden Administration would pursue policies to decriminalize cannabis possession and enact some police reforms, said Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) — Joe Biden’s pick for vice president — in an interview yesterday with ABC News.
During the interview, Sen. Harris was pressed about her prosecutorial and pro-law enforcement background. She said that the Black Lives Matter movement, which was once again spearheaded into the global spotlight following the May 25 police murder of George Floyd, has changed the conversation and is an important “counterforce” to the American status quo. She described plans to investigate police departments with a “history” and “pattern” of discrimination, and said the ticket will pursue a “policy that is going to be about decriminalizing marijuana.”
The Biden campaign said in May that his “Plan for Black America” included cannabis decriminalization policies and the expungement of cannabis convictions.
Meanwhile, a task force comprised of members from the Biden campaign and from Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (D-VT) presidential campaign sought to soothe tension between Biden and the party’s more progressive wings. That coalition ultimately embraced cannabis decriminalization reforms but — like Biden himself, who until last year said he still considered cannabis to be a gateway drug — stopped short of endorsing full legalization.
Since being elected to the Senate, Sen. Harris sponsored the 2018 MORE Act, or Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act, which would have federally legalized cannabis and reinvested the proceeds into supporting over-policed communities.
“Times have changed — marijuana should not be a crime,” she said then. “We need to start regulating marijuana, and expunge marijuana convictions from the records of millions of Americans so they can get on with their lives.”
Last edited:
House set to vote on marijuana legalization
The vote is expected sometime in September
The House will vote on legalizing marijuana next month.
States would still have to vote to legalize the drug. Marijuana is already legal in 11 states.
The MORE Act would remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act and erase some cannabis criminal records. The vote will come during the September work period, according to an email Majority Whip Jim Clyburn’s (D-S.C.) office that was sent to members Friday.
The email also asked members to indicate if they would support the MORE Act by Sept. 3.
Why is this important? Neither chamber of Congress has ever voted on removing marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act.
“A floor vote on the bill would be the greatest federal cannabis reform accomplishment in over 50 years,” said Randal Meyer of the Global Alliance for Cannabis Commerce.
What’s the background? Cannabis is a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, which was signed into law in 1970. Drugs that are classified as Schedule I are defined as having a high potential for abuse and no medical benefit. Removing marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act would mean it is no longer illegal at the federal level, but it would not immediately legalize its sale in every state. State and federal agencies would still need to create rules and regulations for the production, marketing and sale of cannabis products, and some states may not allow sales even if the federal ban was removed.
This bill, H.R. 3884 (116), was introduced by House Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) last fall and passed the House Judiciary Committee by a vote of 24-10 in November. Reps Matt Gaetz (Fla.) and Tom McClintock (Calif.) were the only Republicans on the committee to vote for the bill.
“Of course I intend to vote yes on the bill," McClintock said on Friday. "With respect to timing, I do find it ironic that the only small businesses the Democrats seem to be worried about is cannabis shops, but I would support this bill whenever it is brought to a vote."
Negotiations between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the White House on a new coronavirus relief bill have gone nowhere in recent weeks.
The MORE Act is not the only bill that would remove cannabis from the CSA, but because it expunges records and creates funding for grants to benefit people who have been negatively impacted by criminal enforcement, this bill has garnered the most support from Democrat leadership and legalization advocates.
"As people across the country protest racial injustices, there’s even greater urgency for Congress to seize this historic opportunity and finally align our cannabis laws with what the majority of Americans support, while ensuring restorative justice,” said Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), a longtime champion of marijuana legalization.
Does this mean cannabis will be legal? No, the odds of this bill passing in the Senate are still very slim, given the opposition of Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. During this week’s Republicans National Convention, speakers criticized Democrats for purportedly prioritizing marijuana sales during the pandemic over more important services like health care and religious gatherings.
Last November, Nadler dismissed concerns about the Senate's potential inaction. “I don’t think it’s a good idea to say the Senate won’t take this bill so we shouldn’t pass this bill,” Nadler said. “To do [so] is to say the Senate rules the roost and the House doesn’t matter.”
The bill's lead sponsor in the Senate is Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.,) the Democratic nominee for vice president.
The vote is expected sometime in September
The House will vote on legalizing marijuana next month.
States would still have to vote to legalize the drug. Marijuana is already legal in 11 states.
The MORE Act would remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act and erase some cannabis criminal records. The vote will come during the September work period, according to an email Majority Whip Jim Clyburn’s (D-S.C.) office that was sent to members Friday.
The email also asked members to indicate if they would support the MORE Act by Sept. 3.
Why is this important? Neither chamber of Congress has ever voted on removing marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act.
“A floor vote on the bill would be the greatest federal cannabis reform accomplishment in over 50 years,” said Randal Meyer of the Global Alliance for Cannabis Commerce.
What’s the background? Cannabis is a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, which was signed into law in 1970. Drugs that are classified as Schedule I are defined as having a high potential for abuse and no medical benefit. Removing marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act would mean it is no longer illegal at the federal level, but it would not immediately legalize its sale in every state. State and federal agencies would still need to create rules and regulations for the production, marketing and sale of cannabis products, and some states may not allow sales even if the federal ban was removed.
This bill, H.R. 3884 (116), was introduced by House Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) last fall and passed the House Judiciary Committee by a vote of 24-10 in November. Reps Matt Gaetz (Fla.) and Tom McClintock (Calif.) were the only Republicans on the committee to vote for the bill.
“Of course I intend to vote yes on the bill," McClintock said on Friday. "With respect to timing, I do find it ironic that the only small businesses the Democrats seem to be worried about is cannabis shops, but I would support this bill whenever it is brought to a vote."
Negotiations between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the White House on a new coronavirus relief bill have gone nowhere in recent weeks.
The MORE Act is not the only bill that would remove cannabis from the CSA, but because it expunges records and creates funding for grants to benefit people who have been negatively impacted by criminal enforcement, this bill has garnered the most support from Democrat leadership and legalization advocates.
"As people across the country protest racial injustices, there’s even greater urgency for Congress to seize this historic opportunity and finally align our cannabis laws with what the majority of Americans support, while ensuring restorative justice,” said Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), a longtime champion of marijuana legalization.
Does this mean cannabis will be legal? No, the odds of this bill passing in the Senate are still very slim, given the opposition of Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. During this week’s Republicans National Convention, speakers criticized Democrats for purportedly prioritizing marijuana sales during the pandemic over more important services like health care and religious gatherings.
Last November, Nadler dismissed concerns about the Senate's potential inaction. “I don’t think it’s a good idea to say the Senate won’t take this bill so we shouldn’t pass this bill,” Nadler said. “To do [so] is to say the Senate rules the roost and the House doesn’t matter.”
The bill's lead sponsor in the Senate is Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.,) the Democratic nominee for vice president.
bulllee
Well-Known Member
Never will get through the senate, and if, if it does who's gonna sign it into law ? Biden ?
Or the Trumpster ? 
Depending on which way the wind blows ! Too much political baggage for career politicians. The need for new blood in the congress is what's needed to legalize. 
Bcbud
Cannabis enthusiast
Study Finds Medical Cannabis Improves Seniors’ Quality Of Life | High Times
Another study in support of seniors who use cannabis has been published.
hightimes.com
Baron23
Well-Known Member
Lets anyone think that I am just critical of Biden and Harris' hypocrisy and political expediency on the subject of MJ legalization (which I am...but not "just"), here we are four years after Trump made all kinds of nicey-nicey words about MJ legalization during the campaign but has done ZERO about it since.
Have I mentioned that I hate politicians? haha
Donald Trump Could Legalize Marijuana Next Month (But It Would Mean Crediting Kamala Harris)
President Donald Trump is afraid of marijuana. He said so himself: In a campaign appearance in Wisconsin earlier this month, the president cracked a nervous “joke” with former Gov. Scott Walker, suggesting that cannabis-related ballot initiatives drove Democratic Party-minded voters to the polls.
One easy way to dispel those fears, and take the weed issue away from Joe Biden and the Democrats, would be to legalize cannabis nationwide. That would be historic, that would be momentous.
And would be something the president could do before Election Day.
President Donald Trump could absolutely legalize marijuana before Election Day, but it would require ... [+] some serious Senate cooperation
Once business in Congress resumes in September, the House of Representatives plans to vote on a wide-ranging bill called the MORE Act, according to a leaked e-mail blast U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-South Carolina) first reported on by Marijuana Moment on Friday.
One of several marijuana reform measures in Congress, the MORE Act would remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act and allow for a lawful nationwide marijuana industry. (Other, more conservative reform focused on allowing cannabis businesses to access banks has already passed the House.)
If Clyburn is right, and the House holds a vote on the MORE Act during the September work period, the bill is likely to be approved, given the Democratic majority and a handful of cannabis-friendly Republicans.
Then, if a similar bill in the Senate is also called for hearings, gets a vote, and gets approved, legalization could end up on the president’s desk fairly quickly. Maybe even before the first presidential debate on Sept. 29!
That’s how it could happen. That’s the theory. So what about practice?
That’s all up to the Senate... and it would also require Trump and the Republicans to give credit to Sen. Kamala Harris (D-California), Biden’s vice-presidential nominee.
Harris is the sponsor of the Senate version of the MORE Act. Thus, the president legalizing marijuana in this scenario would also grant some kind of win for a political opponent.
That presents quite the trade-off, and that’s why it’s probably not going to happen—even if it would quantifiably help the president.
WASHINGTON, DC - AUGUST 27: Democratic Vice Presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA.), ... [+] delivers remarks during a campaign event on August 27, 2020 in Washington, DC. Harris discussed President Donald Trump's failure to handle the COVID-19 pandemic and protect working families from the economic fallout prior to the last night of the Republican National Convention. (Photo by Michael A. McCoy/Getty Images)
Only a handful of states have marijuana reform on their ballots in November, and none of them—New Jersey, Arizona, Montana, Nebraska, Mississippi, and South Dakota—are swing states, meaning marijuana by itself is unlikely to swing the election.
However, many other swing stages have active cannabis industries, with many undecided voters—like Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. These are the states that decide most every election. And according to recent polls, in these states, Biden and Trump are very close—with Trump a few points behind in Florida.
Cannabis reform remains popular with a majority of Americans of all political persuasions, including members of both the Republican and Democratic coalitions who may be feeling left out, like libertarians upset with Trump’s big-government moves, and leftists unhappy with the Democrats’ embrace of centrism.
So weed absolutely could influence the election—and if a hanging chad or three was enough to give the White House to George W. Bush in 2000, cannabis reform absolutely has potential to tip the scales in 2020.
All that said, Trump can do nothing unless the Senate does a lot: call either Harris’s MORE Act or their version of the SAFE Banking Act for a committee hearing, pass it, call it again for a floor vote and pass that, too. That would be a remarkable show of cooperative bipartisanship that would be popular with a majority of Americans, who would in turn be encouraged to see their government function.
And so that’s why legalization during Trump’s first term almost certainly will not happen.
The consensus on the Hill is that the Senate is unlikely to bother calling either the MORE Act or its less-ambitious marijuana-reform counterpart, the SAFE Banking Act, for even a committee hearing. But even if the Senate does as expected, and does nothing, the House’s impending consideration and possible approval of the MORE Act is still significant.
“Democrats have a really important opportunity to pass a comprehensive bill that addresses marijuana reform at a time when millions of people are taking to the streets to challenge the status quo,” said Queen Adesuyi, policy manager for the Drug Policy Alliance, one of the advocacy groups backing the MORE Act.
As for the Senate, well, they “have trouble even hearing marijuana issues, so we have a lot of work to do,” Adesuyi said. “But right now there’s an opportunity in the House to make history.”
Have I mentioned that I hate politicians? haha
Donald Trump Could Legalize Marijuana Next Month (But It Would Mean Crediting Kamala Harris)
President Donald Trump is afraid of marijuana. He said so himself: In a campaign appearance in Wisconsin earlier this month, the president cracked a nervous “joke” with former Gov. Scott Walker, suggesting that cannabis-related ballot initiatives drove Democratic Party-minded voters to the polls.
One easy way to dispel those fears, and take the weed issue away from Joe Biden and the Democrats, would be to legalize cannabis nationwide. That would be historic, that would be momentous.
And would be something the president could do before Election Day.
President Donald Trump could absolutely legalize marijuana before Election Day, but it would require ... [+] some serious Senate cooperation
Once business in Congress resumes in September, the House of Representatives plans to vote on a wide-ranging bill called the MORE Act, according to a leaked e-mail blast U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-South Carolina) first reported on by Marijuana Moment on Friday.
One of several marijuana reform measures in Congress, the MORE Act would remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act and allow for a lawful nationwide marijuana industry. (Other, more conservative reform focused on allowing cannabis businesses to access banks has already passed the House.)
If Clyburn is right, and the House holds a vote on the MORE Act during the September work period, the bill is likely to be approved, given the Democratic majority and a handful of cannabis-friendly Republicans.
Then, if a similar bill in the Senate is also called for hearings, gets a vote, and gets approved, legalization could end up on the president’s desk fairly quickly. Maybe even before the first presidential debate on Sept. 29!
That’s how it could happen. That’s the theory. So what about practice?
That’s all up to the Senate... and it would also require Trump and the Republicans to give credit to Sen. Kamala Harris (D-California), Biden’s vice-presidential nominee.
Harris is the sponsor of the Senate version of the MORE Act. Thus, the president legalizing marijuana in this scenario would also grant some kind of win for a political opponent.
That presents quite the trade-off, and that’s why it’s probably not going to happen—even if it would quantifiably help the president.
WASHINGTON, DC - AUGUST 27: Democratic Vice Presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA.), ... [+] delivers remarks during a campaign event on August 27, 2020 in Washington, DC. Harris discussed President Donald Trump's failure to handle the COVID-19 pandemic and protect working families from the economic fallout prior to the last night of the Republican National Convention. (Photo by Michael A. McCoy/Getty Images)
Only a handful of states have marijuana reform on their ballots in November, and none of them—New Jersey, Arizona, Montana, Nebraska, Mississippi, and South Dakota—are swing states, meaning marijuana by itself is unlikely to swing the election.
However, many other swing stages have active cannabis industries, with many undecided voters—like Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. These are the states that decide most every election. And according to recent polls, in these states, Biden and Trump are very close—with Trump a few points behind in Florida.
Cannabis reform remains popular with a majority of Americans of all political persuasions, including members of both the Republican and Democratic coalitions who may be feeling left out, like libertarians upset with Trump’s big-government moves, and leftists unhappy with the Democrats’ embrace of centrism.
So weed absolutely could influence the election—and if a hanging chad or three was enough to give the White House to George W. Bush in 2000, cannabis reform absolutely has potential to tip the scales in 2020.
All that said, Trump can do nothing unless the Senate does a lot: call either Harris’s MORE Act or their version of the SAFE Banking Act for a committee hearing, pass it, call it again for a floor vote and pass that, too. That would be a remarkable show of cooperative bipartisanship that would be popular with a majority of Americans, who would in turn be encouraged to see their government function.
And so that’s why legalization during Trump’s first term almost certainly will not happen.
The consensus on the Hill is that the Senate is unlikely to bother calling either the MORE Act or its less-ambitious marijuana-reform counterpart, the SAFE Banking Act, for even a committee hearing. But even if the Senate does as expected, and does nothing, the House’s impending consideration and possible approval of the MORE Act is still significant.
“Democrats have a really important opportunity to pass a comprehensive bill that addresses marijuana reform at a time when millions of people are taking to the streets to challenge the status quo,” said Queen Adesuyi, policy manager for the Drug Policy Alliance, one of the advocacy groups backing the MORE Act.
As for the Senate, well, they “have trouble even hearing marijuana issues, so we have a lot of work to do,” Adesuyi said. “But right now there’s an opportunity in the House to make history.”
CarolKing
Always in search of the perfect vaporizer
CULTURE
President Carter Talks About His Son Smoking Marijuana At The White House With Willie Nelson
Published
4 hours ago
on
September 1, 2020
By
Kyle Jaeger
“When Willie Nelson wrote his autobiography, he confessed that he smoked pot in the White House and he says that his companion was one of the servants of the White House,” Carter said, as CelebStoner first reported. “It actually was one of my sons.”
Watch the trailer for “Jimmy Carter: Rock & Roll President” below:
In his 1988 book, Nelson described “sitting on the roof of the White House in Washington, DC, late at night with a beer in one hand and a fat Austin Torpedo in the other. ”
“My companion on the roof was pointing out to me the sights and layout of how the streets run in Washington,” he wrote, being coy about who he was with. “I let the weed cover me with a pleasing cloud… I guess the roof of the White House is the safest place to smoke dope.”
It was later revealed that the 1978 cannabis session on top of the executive mansion involved first son Chip Carter.
“Getting stoned on the roof of the White House, you can’t help but turn inward,” Nelson wrote in a subsequent 2015 book. “Certain philosophical questions come to mind, like… How the fuck did I get here?”
During his time in office, Carter spoke in favor of decriminalizing marijuana possession and replacing criminal penalties with civil fines. But he was not able to get that policy change enacted.
“Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself,” he said in 1977, adding that marijuana sales should still be strictly criminalized.
Under his administration, the Compassionate Investigational New Drug was established, providing select patients suffering from certain conditions with access to marijuana joints produced with federal authorization.
In 2011, Carter wrote an op-ed for The New York Times that criticized the drug war and stated that U.S. drug policies “are more punitive and counterproductive than in other democracies, and have brought about an explosion in prison populations.”
He also said the following year that he was “in favor” of state efforts to legalize and regulate cannabis. He told a CNN interviewer at the time that “we can watch and see what happens in the state of Washington for instance, around Seattle, and let the American government and let the American people see does it cause a serious problem or not.”
But in 2013, he reversed that position, saying he opposed legalization.
“I do not favor legalization. We must do everything we can to discourage marijuana use, as we do now with tobacco and excessive drinking,” Carter said, according to the prohibitionist group Smart Approaches To Marijuana. “We have to prevent making marijuana smoking from becoming attractive to young people, which is, I’m sure, what the producers of marijuana…are going to try and do.”
“I hope that Colorado and Washington, as you authorize the use of marijuana, will set up very strict experiments to ascertain how we can avoid the use of marijuana,” he added. “There should be no advertising for marijuana in any circumstances and no driving under the influence. We need to avoid the use of marijuana, particularly among young people.”
The new documentary, “Jimmy Carter: Rock & Roll President,” will roll out with limited theatrical showing beginning on September 9, followed by a physical release a month later. It will then air on CNN on January 3, 2021.
Photo courtesy of Martin Alonso.
Elephant Will Be Given CBD To Treat Stress After Death Of Companion, Zoo Says
Published
6 days ago
on
August 26, 2020
By
Kyle Jaeger
A zoo in Poland announced it will give CBD to an elephant in hopes of alleviating stress she’s experienced since one of her companions died.
The African elephant, named Fredzia, has expressed signs of distress and depression since the elder of the herd, Erna, passed in March. Agnieszka Czujkowska, head of the zoo’s rehabilitation department, said this represents an opportunity to experiment with the non-intoxicating cannabinoid.
Veterinarians have already completed the first stage of the study, collecting baseline blood, saliva and feces samples to test for the hormone cortisol, which is associated with stress.
The plan is to mix CBD oil with Fredzia’s food and continue to monitor her cortisol levels to see if the oil really can help treat her anxiety and stress.
“This is the experiment. Then we know for sure [if the oil] is working or not,” Czujkowska told BBC, adding that the CBD is “not very potent” so the “only side effect will be some behavioral changes.”
In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration has yet to issue final rules for hemp and CBD that would allow for the marketing of the cannabinoid in animal feed. But there’s similar interest among researchers about its medical utility for animals.
A team based in Texas is actively collecting data on the effects of CBD in horses. They’re working to determine whether it can alleviate stress, inflammation and obsessive compulsive behavior.
A study published last year found that dogs with epilepsy experience considerably fewer seizures when treated with CBD oil.
Photo courtesy of wal_172619 on Pixabay.
Marijuana Moment is made possible with support from readers. If you rely on our cannabis advocacy journalism to stay informed, please consider a monthly Patreon pledge.
CONTINUE READING
CULTURE
Poll Reveals Which Sports Fans Use Marijuana And CBD The Most And Least
Published
2 weeks ago
on
August 21, 2020
By
Kyle Jaeger
Fans of e-sports, the UFC and racing are the most likely to use marijuana or CBD, according to a survey released on Friday. The least cannabis-friendly sports fans are those who watch baseball, golf and football.
The poll, conducted by Morning Consult, breaks down how common cannabis consumption is among 14 groups of self-identified sports fans.
For e-sports, 35 percent of fans said that they smoke or ingest marijuana often or sometimes, while 29 percent said they used CBD products. By contrast, 20 percent of MLB fans said they consume marijuana and 17 percent said the same about CBD. The chart below does not include responses where individuals said they “rarely” use the substances.
The survey involved 1,269 U.S. participants and was conducted from August 13-15.
Interestingly, while golf enthusiasts are among the least frequent cannabis consumers, the PGA is one of only two leagues that allows CBD sponsorships, according to Morning Consult. The other is IndyCar racing. No leagues included in the survey permit marijuana sponsorships, though all allow alcohol and gambling marketing.
“Despite marijuana being legal in 11 states, its classification as an illegal Schedule I drug by the United States government is a non-starter for the leagues,” Morning Consult said. “While some properties might be reluctant to associate with marijuana regardless of its legal status, the quick rush of leagues and teams to do business with betting companies following the Supreme Court’s 2018 reversal of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act showed how quickly taboos can change.”
This new poll comes as many professional sports leagues are looking at internal marijuana and CBD policies for players.
Earlier this year, the MLB announced that players would not longer be tested for cannabis, though they’re barred from being sponsored by marijuana companies.
The head of the NBA’s players union joined the board of a major marijuana company in June at the same time reports surfaced that players will not be tested for cannabis and other recreational drugs, at least on a temporary basis.
The World Anti Doping Agency said in 2017 that athletes can use CBD, and it also recently increased its allowable limit on THC metabolites.
The NFL also made the decision to end suspensions for positive drug tests as well as limiting the testing window.
Over at PGA, the association warned players last year that some CBD products may contain THC, which is still prohibited by the league.
CONTINUE READING
CULTURE
Seth Rogen’s Advice On Ending COVID: ‘Smoke Weed And Watch Movies’
Published
2 weeks ago
on
August 17, 2020
By
Kyle Jaeger
Actor Seth Rogen is urging young people to stay home and smoke marijuana rather than risk spreading the coronavirus by going out—and he’s getting praise for his recommendation from a top Canadian politician.
After British Columbia Premier John Horgan put out a call for Rogen and fellow Canadian actor Ryan Reynolds to use their influence to discourage risky behavior amid the pandemic, the comedian tweeted a message urging young people to practice social distancing while consuming cannabis.
“Please do not go out to parties and BBQs and other large gatherings! The COVID is still out there!” Rogen said. “It’s more fun to hang out alone and smoke weed and watch movies and TV shows anyway! Do that instead! Thank you!”
Horgan quoted the tweet and thanked the actor, linking to the province’s COVID-19 information website that also encourages people not to “pass around drinks, smokes, tokes, and vapes.”
“Now is not the time for sharing anything that’s been in your mouth,” the site from British Columbia’s provincial health officer states.
But while Rogen’s general recommendation was well taken by the top B.C. elected official, some cannabis enthusiasts have argued that people should consider refraining from smoking it and instead consume using alternative methods given the potential additional risk to the lungs at a time when the virus that targets the respiratory system is spreading.
NORML gave that advice in a post in March, saying that “because COVID-19 is a respiratory illness, some of you may wish to limit or avoid their exposure to combustive smoke — as this can put undue stress and strain on the lungs.”
“Alternative delivery devices, such as vaporizer heating devices can significantly mitigate combustive smoke exposure, and of course, the use of edibles or tinctures can eliminate smoke exposure entirely,” the group wrote to supporters.
Rogen, who co-owns the cannabis company Houseplant, has been known to leverage his celebrity for advocacy purposes in the past. For example, he released a PSA last year that promoted expungements efforts and highlighted issues that stem from having a criminal record.
On a more casual note, Rogen and Snoop Dogg offered advice to first-time cannabis consumers last year in a joint appearance on Howard Stern’s show, emphasizing the need to take it slow in the beginning.
Rogen also became an outspoken activist for research into Alzheimer’s after he witnessed his mother-in-law develop the disease.
In 2014, he opened his testimony before a Senate committee hearing on Alzheimer’s research by joking that he wasn’t there to discuss the topic some might expect: marijuana.
President Carter Talks About His Son Smoking Marijuana At The White House With Willie Nelson
Published
4 hours ago
on
September 1, 2020
By
Kyle Jaeger
- In a new documentary being released this month, Former President Jimmy Carter (D) discusses the time his son smoked marijuana at the White House with musician Willie Nelson during his administration.
“When Willie Nelson wrote his autobiography, he confessed that he smoked pot in the White House and he says that his companion was one of the servants of the White House,” Carter said, as CelebStoner first reported. “It actually was one of my sons.”
Watch the trailer for “Jimmy Carter: Rock & Roll President” below:
In his 1988 book, Nelson described “sitting on the roof of the White House in Washington, DC, late at night with a beer in one hand and a fat Austin Torpedo in the other. ”
“My companion on the roof was pointing out to me the sights and layout of how the streets run in Washington,” he wrote, being coy about who he was with. “I let the weed cover me with a pleasing cloud… I guess the roof of the White House is the safest place to smoke dope.”
It was later revealed that the 1978 cannabis session on top of the executive mansion involved first son Chip Carter.
“Getting stoned on the roof of the White House, you can’t help but turn inward,” Nelson wrote in a subsequent 2015 book. “Certain philosophical questions come to mind, like… How the fuck did I get here?”
During his time in office, Carter spoke in favor of decriminalizing marijuana possession and replacing criminal penalties with civil fines. But he was not able to get that policy change enacted.
“Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself,” he said in 1977, adding that marijuana sales should still be strictly criminalized.
Under his administration, the Compassionate Investigational New Drug was established, providing select patients suffering from certain conditions with access to marijuana joints produced with federal authorization.
In 2011, Carter wrote an op-ed for The New York Times that criticized the drug war and stated that U.S. drug policies “are more punitive and counterproductive than in other democracies, and have brought about an explosion in prison populations.”
He also said the following year that he was “in favor” of state efforts to legalize and regulate cannabis. He told a CNN interviewer at the time that “we can watch and see what happens in the state of Washington for instance, around Seattle, and let the American government and let the American people see does it cause a serious problem or not.”
But in 2013, he reversed that position, saying he opposed legalization.
“I do not favor legalization. We must do everything we can to discourage marijuana use, as we do now with tobacco and excessive drinking,” Carter said, according to the prohibitionist group Smart Approaches To Marijuana. “We have to prevent making marijuana smoking from becoming attractive to young people, which is, I’m sure, what the producers of marijuana…are going to try and do.”
“I hope that Colorado and Washington, as you authorize the use of marijuana, will set up very strict experiments to ascertain how we can avoid the use of marijuana,” he added. “There should be no advertising for marijuana in any circumstances and no driving under the influence. We need to avoid the use of marijuana, particularly among young people.”
The new documentary, “Jimmy Carter: Rock & Roll President,” will roll out with limited theatrical showing beginning on September 9, followed by a physical release a month later. It will then air on CNN on January 3, 2021.
Photo courtesy of Martin Alonso.
Elephant Will Be Given CBD To Treat Stress After Death Of Companion, Zoo Says
Published
6 days ago
on
August 26, 2020
By
Kyle Jaeger
A zoo in Poland announced it will give CBD to an elephant in hopes of alleviating stress she’s experienced since one of her companions died.
The African elephant, named Fredzia, has expressed signs of distress and depression since the elder of the herd, Erna, passed in March. Agnieszka Czujkowska, head of the zoo’s rehabilitation department, said this represents an opportunity to experiment with the non-intoxicating cannabinoid.
Veterinarians have already completed the first stage of the study, collecting baseline blood, saliva and feces samples to test for the hormone cortisol, which is associated with stress.
The plan is to mix CBD oil with Fredzia’s food and continue to monitor her cortisol levels to see if the oil really can help treat her anxiety and stress.
“This is the experiment. Then we know for sure [if the oil] is working or not,” Czujkowska told BBC, adding that the CBD is “not very potent” so the “only side effect will be some behavioral changes.”
The Warsaw Zoo said it doesn’t expect the study to be completed for at least two years. If successful, however, they plan to expand the treatment to other animals such as rhinos and bears.
In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration has yet to issue final rules for hemp and CBD that would allow for the marketing of the cannabinoid in animal feed. But there’s similar interest among researchers about its medical utility for animals.
A team based in Texas is actively collecting data on the effects of CBD in horses. They’re working to determine whether it can alleviate stress, inflammation and obsessive compulsive behavior.
A study published last year found that dogs with epilepsy experience considerably fewer seizures when treated with CBD oil.
Photo courtesy of wal_172619 on Pixabay.
Marijuana Moment is made possible with support from readers. If you rely on our cannabis advocacy journalism to stay informed, please consider a monthly Patreon pledge.
CONTINUE READING
CULTURE
Poll Reveals Which Sports Fans Use Marijuana And CBD The Most And Least
Published
2 weeks ago
on
August 21, 2020
By
Kyle Jaeger
Fans of e-sports, the UFC and racing are the most likely to use marijuana or CBD, according to a survey released on Friday. The least cannabis-friendly sports fans are those who watch baseball, golf and football.
The poll, conducted by Morning Consult, breaks down how common cannabis consumption is among 14 groups of self-identified sports fans.
For e-sports, 35 percent of fans said that they smoke or ingest marijuana often or sometimes, while 29 percent said they used CBD products. By contrast, 20 percent of MLB fans said they consume marijuana and 17 percent said the same about CBD. The chart below does not include responses where individuals said they “rarely” use the substances.
The survey involved 1,269 U.S. participants and was conducted from August 13-15.
Interestingly, while golf enthusiasts are among the least frequent cannabis consumers, the PGA is one of only two leagues that allows CBD sponsorships, according to Morning Consult. The other is IndyCar racing. No leagues included in the survey permit marijuana sponsorships, though all allow alcohol and gambling marketing.
“Despite marijuana being legal in 11 states, its classification as an illegal Schedule I drug by the United States government is a non-starter for the leagues,” Morning Consult said. “While some properties might be reluctant to associate with marijuana regardless of its legal status, the quick rush of leagues and teams to do business with betting companies following the Supreme Court’s 2018 reversal of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act showed how quickly taboos can change.”
This new poll comes as many professional sports leagues are looking at internal marijuana and CBD policies for players.
Earlier this year, the MLB announced that players would not longer be tested for cannabis, though they’re barred from being sponsored by marijuana companies.
The head of the NBA’s players union joined the board of a major marijuana company in June at the same time reports surfaced that players will not be tested for cannabis and other recreational drugs, at least on a temporary basis.
The World Anti Doping Agency said in 2017 that athletes can use CBD, and it also recently increased its allowable limit on THC metabolites.
The NFL also made the decision to end suspensions for positive drug tests as well as limiting the testing window.
Over at PGA, the association warned players last year that some CBD products may contain THC, which is still prohibited by the league.
CONTINUE READING
CULTURE
Seth Rogen’s Advice On Ending COVID: ‘Smoke Weed And Watch Movies’
Published
2 weeks ago
on
August 17, 2020
By
Kyle Jaeger
Actor Seth Rogen is urging young people to stay home and smoke marijuana rather than risk spreading the coronavirus by going out—and he’s getting praise for his recommendation from a top Canadian politician.
After British Columbia Premier John Horgan put out a call for Rogen and fellow Canadian actor Ryan Reynolds to use their influence to discourage risky behavior amid the pandemic, the comedian tweeted a message urging young people to practice social distancing while consuming cannabis.
“Please do not go out to parties and BBQs and other large gatherings! The COVID is still out there!” Rogen said. “It’s more fun to hang out alone and smoke weed and watch movies and TV shows anyway! Do that instead! Thank you!”
Horgan quoted the tweet and thanked the actor, linking to the province’s COVID-19 information website that also encourages people not to “pass around drinks, smokes, tokes, and vapes.”
“Now is not the time for sharing anything that’s been in your mouth,” the site from British Columbia’s provincial health officer states.
But while Rogen’s general recommendation was well taken by the top B.C. elected official, some cannabis enthusiasts have argued that people should consider refraining from smoking it and instead consume using alternative methods given the potential additional risk to the lungs at a time when the virus that targets the respiratory system is spreading.
NORML gave that advice in a post in March, saying that “because COVID-19 is a respiratory illness, some of you may wish to limit or avoid their exposure to combustive smoke — as this can put undue stress and strain on the lungs.”
“Alternative delivery devices, such as vaporizer heating devices can significantly mitigate combustive smoke exposure, and of course, the use of edibles or tinctures can eliminate smoke exposure entirely,” the group wrote to supporters.
Rogen, who co-owns the cannabis company Houseplant, has been known to leverage his celebrity for advocacy purposes in the past. For example, he released a PSA last year that promoted expungements efforts and highlighted issues that stem from having a criminal record.
On a more casual note, Rogen and Snoop Dogg offered advice to first-time cannabis consumers last year in a joint appearance on Howard Stern’s show, emphasizing the need to take it slow in the beginning.
Rogen also became an outspoken activist for research into Alzheimer’s after he witnessed his mother-in-law develop the disease.
In 2014, he opened his testimony before a Senate committee hearing on Alzheimer’s research by joking that he wasn’t there to discuss the topic some might expect: marijuana.
Baron23
Well-Known Member
Is Trump Willing To Lose the Election for Marijuana Prohibition?
Recently, the excellent website, MarijuanaMoment.com, carried two articles by Kyle Jaeger, their Los Angeles-based associate editor, "Trump Voices Concern That Putting Marijuana On The Ballot Makes Republicans Lose" and "Biden's Marijuana Decriminalization Plan Is 'Meaningless', says Democratic Congressman"; that really makes me wonder if Trump is willing to lose the election to maintain marijuana prohibition. (Or is Biden?)
Jaeger reported that on a campaign visit to Wisconsin, Trump "urged Republicans not to place marijuana legalization initiatives on state ballots out of concern that it will increase Democratic turnout in elections . . . and that he blames marijuana legalization efforts on former Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's (R) defeat in the 2018 election."
"The next time you run please don't put marijuana on the ballot at the same time you're running," Trump said, directing his advice to Walker, who was in the crowd. "You brought out like a million people that nobody ever knew were coming out."
Given Trump's rather blatant efforts to suppress voter turnout, it is all the more significant that he would recognize the impact of having marijuana as an issue in this election.
Of course, Walker, a prohibitionist, did not put them on the ballot, so the voters had to do it to go around the Republicans, who may well have lost as a result. Previously, Trump has expressed his support "for allowing states to set their own cannabis policies, going so far as to say he "really" supports bipartisan legislation to codify the rights of states to implement marijuana programs without fear of federal interference."
And now, Newsweek is reporting that "60 percent of Republicans say they support the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act, or MORE Act, which was introduced by Harris in the Senate . . . ."
However, Trump has filled many staff positions with prohibitionists, most significantly, Attorney General Bill Barr and Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows. Plus, he is courting militant police unions, which are generally headed by rabid prohibitionists but don't really represent the majority of the police. Recently, he was endorsed by the New York City police union, even though he is expected to lose to Biden in both the city and the state by a wide margin.
To make things more confusing, Biden, a longtime Drug Warrior, says he is against "legalization" but favors a position that a leading legalization advocate, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Biden supporter, finds "meaningless", given that legalization is already supported by a large majority of the American people.
Ironically, (Tragically? Absurdly?) Blumenauer also acknowledged that he was having trouble getting support from the Congressional Black Caucus (Lock My People Up?) who seem to think that black people will kill themselves with crack cocaine if white people legalize marijuana.
I know that from personal experience. When I was National Director of NORML I was accused of supporting genocide because I wanted then to stop arresting People of Color for marijuana possession. Let me make very clear that I trust People of Color with their freedom, but, given our very limited resources, we abandoned efforts to recruit in Communities of Color. I would joke that NORML was the whitest organization that I had ever belonged to that didn't have a golf course. And it was. No joke.
So, it is still what it is. To paraphrase Michelle Obama.
As Westworld.com recently reported, "Colorado has the least disproportionate rate when you compare marijuana arrests for white and black people in the country, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, but it's still far from equal.
"The ACLU's recent report examines arrests of both whites and blacks for marijuana possession from 2010 to 2018, compiling data across the country, and comparing statistics for every 100,000 people. The conclusion? Black people were about four times more likely to be arrested for possessing marijuana than white people.
"Montana and Kentucky had the most disparate rates, with over nine black people arrested for marijuana possession for every white person. (That ratio is particularly startling for Montana, which has a tiny African-American population.) Illinois, West Virginia, and Iowa all had arrest ratios of over seven to one, according to the report. (Florida and Washington, D.C., were not included in the report.)"
So, if Trump reads the polls, he might be able to beat Biden. Or will Biden listen to Harris?
Recently, the excellent website, MarijuanaMoment.com, carried two articles by Kyle Jaeger, their Los Angeles-based associate editor, "Trump Voices Concern That Putting Marijuana On The Ballot Makes Republicans Lose" and "Biden's Marijuana Decriminalization Plan Is 'Meaningless', says Democratic Congressman"; that really makes me wonder if Trump is willing to lose the election to maintain marijuana prohibition. (Or is Biden?)
Jaeger reported that on a campaign visit to Wisconsin, Trump "urged Republicans not to place marijuana legalization initiatives on state ballots out of concern that it will increase Democratic turnout in elections . . . and that he blames marijuana legalization efforts on former Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's (R) defeat in the 2018 election."
"The next time you run please don't put marijuana on the ballot at the same time you're running," Trump said, directing his advice to Walker, who was in the crowd. "You brought out like a million people that nobody ever knew were coming out."
Given Trump's rather blatant efforts to suppress voter turnout, it is all the more significant that he would recognize the impact of having marijuana as an issue in this election.
Of course, Walker, a prohibitionist, did not put them on the ballot, so the voters had to do it to go around the Republicans, who may well have lost as a result. Previously, Trump has expressed his support "for allowing states to set their own cannabis policies, going so far as to say he "really" supports bipartisan legislation to codify the rights of states to implement marijuana programs without fear of federal interference."
And now, Newsweek is reporting that "60 percent of Republicans say they support the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act, or MORE Act, which was introduced by Harris in the Senate . . . ."
However, Trump has filled many staff positions with prohibitionists, most significantly, Attorney General Bill Barr and Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows. Plus, he is courting militant police unions, which are generally headed by rabid prohibitionists but don't really represent the majority of the police. Recently, he was endorsed by the New York City police union, even though he is expected to lose to Biden in both the city and the state by a wide margin.
To make things more confusing, Biden, a longtime Drug Warrior, says he is against "legalization" but favors a position that a leading legalization advocate, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Biden supporter, finds "meaningless", given that legalization is already supported by a large majority of the American people.
Ironically, (Tragically? Absurdly?) Blumenauer also acknowledged that he was having trouble getting support from the Congressional Black Caucus (Lock My People Up?) who seem to think that black people will kill themselves with crack cocaine if white people legalize marijuana.
I know that from personal experience. When I was National Director of NORML I was accused of supporting genocide because I wanted then to stop arresting People of Color for marijuana possession. Let me make very clear that I trust People of Color with their freedom, but, given our very limited resources, we abandoned efforts to recruit in Communities of Color. I would joke that NORML was the whitest organization that I had ever belonged to that didn't have a golf course. And it was. No joke.
So, it is still what it is. To paraphrase Michelle Obama.
As Westworld.com recently reported, "Colorado has the least disproportionate rate when you compare marijuana arrests for white and black people in the country, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, but it's still far from equal.
"The ACLU's recent report examines arrests of both whites and blacks for marijuana possession from 2010 to 2018, compiling data across the country, and comparing statistics for every 100,000 people. The conclusion? Black people were about four times more likely to be arrested for possessing marijuana than white people.
"Montana and Kentucky had the most disparate rates, with over nine black people arrested for marijuana possession for every white person. (That ratio is particularly startling for Montana, which has a tiny African-American population.) Illinois, West Virginia, and Iowa all had arrest ratios of over seven to one, according to the report. (Florida and Washington, D.C., were not included in the report.)"
So, if Trump reads the polls, he might be able to beat Biden. Or will Biden listen to Harris?
GOP Congressman Will Vote Yes On Marijuana Legalization Bill Despite ‘Reparations’ Concerns
A Republican congressman says he will be a “yes” vote on a bill to federally legalize marijuana that the House of Representatives is set to take up this month. But he also argued that certain social equity provisions—which he described as “reparations”—go too far and will make the legislation unpalatable to the GOP-controlled Senate.
Advocates celebrated the recent announcement from House leadership that the chamber will vote on the Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) is the sole GOP cosponsor on the bill, and he said in a podcast released on Tuesday that while he supports the proposal in principle, a component that would distribute a portion of cannabis tax revenue to communities most impacted by the war on drugs amounts to “reparations,” and he views that as untenable.
“I believe in cannabis reform in this country. The federal government has lied to the American people for a generation about cannabis,” the congressman said on the latest episode of the “Hot Takes with Matt Gaetz” podcast. “What are we going to do about it? The MORE Act.”
Gaetz applauded the main provisions of the bill, namely removing marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act and ending federal prohibition. He said he’s also in support of a proposal to provide expungements for prior cannabis convictions, recognizing racial disparities in marijuana-related arrests.
“I think the war on drugs was uniquely harmful to urban communities, to communities of color, and I think that some restorative justice for people that saw just extended convictions or that are currently serving extended time in prison ought to be visited through legislation, so I support that,” the congressman said.
However, there’s a third element that he said is “doing a little too much.” The MORE Act would establish a five percent excise tax on cannabis sales, revenue from which would be reinvested in communities disproportionately impacted by the drug war.
“They’ve got money generated from marijuana taxes and revenue essentially being used as reparations for communities of color,” he said. “And I just don’t think that that is the way that we ought to stand up industries in this country, that they have to owe some debt to a particular community.”
“I get it, I mean a lot of folks in the Congressional Black Caucus, they see marijuana as a substance that ended up with a lot of black kids getting thrown in jail and now a bunch of white people getting rich off of it, and they resent that. But that is no reason to create this whole system of redirecting funds as reparations when really that could fund more research into better medical applications.”
The GOP congressman added that he thought some of the federal cannabis tax revenue could instead “fund distribution that would allow more people who need marijuana as medicine to be able to receive it.”
Despite his concerns with some of the MORE Act’s provisions, Gaetz said “those frustrating elements of the reparations are less troubling to me than the status quo on marijuana, which is indefensible really.”
Gaetz might be the only Republican cosponsor of the bill, but he’s not the only GOP member who’s gone on the record to say he’ll vote for it. Both he and Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) voted in favor of the proposal when it was marked up in the House Judiciary Committee last year, and they both intend to follow suit on the floor.
“Of course I intend to vote yes on the bill,” McClintock told Politico last week. “With respect to timing, I do find it ironic that the only small businesses the Democrats seem to be worried about is cannabis shops, but I would support this bill whenever it is brought to a vote.”
Gaetz, in the new podcast, argued that more modest cannabis reform legislation could pass both chambers of Congress be signed by the president. The Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States (STATES) Act would simply allow states to set their own marijuana policies without fear of federal intervention, though it wouldn’t formally deschedule cannabis or address past harms of the war on drugs.
“Instead of doing all the restorative justice and all of the reparations, it just does essentially the work of getting rid of the federal government’s role in this process,” he said. “That this will largely be a state-based decision. If a state does allow for marijuana under a medical platform or even under an adult-use use platform, they would have the opportunity to do so without being in like a direct conflict with current federal law on marijuana.”
“So we’ll take a vote on the MORE Act,” Gaetz said. “I am disappointed that we can’t get a vote on the STATES Act because I think that enjoys far broader support and could actually go into law, but yet again, it looks like [House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)] and the Democrats would rather have the issue than have the progress.”
If the House approves the bill, there will still be an open question about whether the Senate would follow suit. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is a strong advocate for hemp, but he’s maintained steadfast opposition to broader marijuana reform. That said, he did hold closed-door meetings with industry representatives last year.
It’s possible the House action could spur the Senate to take up the STATES Act, however. That bipartisan bill is sponsored by Sens. Cory Gardner (R-CO) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).
Gardner could use that legislative win as he trails behind former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) in his reelection race. And to Gaetz’s point, President Trump has expressed support for the proposal.
The vote on the MORE Act will not be the first time the House has taken up cannabis reform on the floor this Congress.
The chamber approved a coronavirus relief package in May that includes provisions to protect banks that service state-legal marijuana businesses from being penalized by federal regulators. It also approved the standalone Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act last year.
Advocates were disappointed after lawmakers declined to include marijuana legalization as part of a recent policing reform bill the House passed. Several legislators made the case that it was an appropriate vehicle for the policy change, as ending cannabis criminalization would minimize police interactions.
A Republican congressman says he will be a “yes” vote on a bill to federally legalize marijuana that the House of Representatives is set to take up this month. But he also argued that certain social equity provisions—which he described as “reparations”—go too far and will make the legislation unpalatable to the GOP-controlled Senate.
Advocates celebrated the recent announcement from House leadership that the chamber will vote on the Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) is the sole GOP cosponsor on the bill, and he said in a podcast released on Tuesday that while he supports the proposal in principle, a component that would distribute a portion of cannabis tax revenue to communities most impacted by the war on drugs amounts to “reparations,” and he views that as untenable.
“I believe in cannabis reform in this country. The federal government has lied to the American people for a generation about cannabis,” the congressman said on the latest episode of the “Hot Takes with Matt Gaetz” podcast. “What are we going to do about it? The MORE Act.”
Gaetz applauded the main provisions of the bill, namely removing marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act and ending federal prohibition. He said he’s also in support of a proposal to provide expungements for prior cannabis convictions, recognizing racial disparities in marijuana-related arrests.
“I think the war on drugs was uniquely harmful to urban communities, to communities of color, and I think that some restorative justice for people that saw just extended convictions or that are currently serving extended time in prison ought to be visited through legislation, so I support that,” the congressman said.
However, there’s a third element that he said is “doing a little too much.” The MORE Act would establish a five percent excise tax on cannabis sales, revenue from which would be reinvested in communities disproportionately impacted by the drug war.
“They’ve got money generated from marijuana taxes and revenue essentially being used as reparations for communities of color,” he said. “And I just don’t think that that is the way that we ought to stand up industries in this country, that they have to owe some debt to a particular community.”
“I get it, I mean a lot of folks in the Congressional Black Caucus, they see marijuana as a substance that ended up with a lot of black kids getting thrown in jail and now a bunch of white people getting rich off of it, and they resent that. But that is no reason to create this whole system of redirecting funds as reparations when really that could fund more research into better medical applications.”
The GOP congressman added that he thought some of the federal cannabis tax revenue could instead “fund distribution that would allow more people who need marijuana as medicine to be able to receive it.”
Despite his concerns with some of the MORE Act’s provisions, Gaetz said “those frustrating elements of the reparations are less troubling to me than the status quo on marijuana, which is indefensible really.”
Gaetz might be the only Republican cosponsor of the bill, but he’s not the only GOP member who’s gone on the record to say he’ll vote for it. Both he and Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) voted in favor of the proposal when it was marked up in the House Judiciary Committee last year, and they both intend to follow suit on the floor.
“Of course I intend to vote yes on the bill,” McClintock told Politico last week. “With respect to timing, I do find it ironic that the only small businesses the Democrats seem to be worried about is cannabis shops, but I would support this bill whenever it is brought to a vote.”
Gaetz, in the new podcast, argued that more modest cannabis reform legislation could pass both chambers of Congress be signed by the president. The Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States (STATES) Act would simply allow states to set their own marijuana policies without fear of federal intervention, though it wouldn’t formally deschedule cannabis or address past harms of the war on drugs.
“Instead of doing all the restorative justice and all of the reparations, it just does essentially the work of getting rid of the federal government’s role in this process,” he said. “That this will largely be a state-based decision. If a state does allow for marijuana under a medical platform or even under an adult-use use platform, they would have the opportunity to do so without being in like a direct conflict with current federal law on marijuana.”
“So we’ll take a vote on the MORE Act,” Gaetz said. “I am disappointed that we can’t get a vote on the STATES Act because I think that enjoys far broader support and could actually go into law, but yet again, it looks like [House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)] and the Democrats would rather have the issue than have the progress.”
If the House approves the bill, there will still be an open question about whether the Senate would follow suit. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is a strong advocate for hemp, but he’s maintained steadfast opposition to broader marijuana reform. That said, he did hold closed-door meetings with industry representatives last year.
It’s possible the House action could spur the Senate to take up the STATES Act, however. That bipartisan bill is sponsored by Sens. Cory Gardner (R-CO) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).
Gardner could use that legislative win as he trails behind former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) in his reelection race. And to Gaetz’s point, President Trump has expressed support for the proposal.
The vote on the MORE Act will not be the first time the House has taken up cannabis reform on the floor this Congress.
The chamber approved a coronavirus relief package in May that includes provisions to protect banks that service state-legal marijuana businesses from being penalized by federal regulators. It also approved the standalone Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act last year.
Advocates were disappointed after lawmakers declined to include marijuana legalization as part of a recent policing reform bill the House passed. Several legislators made the case that it was an appropriate vehicle for the policy change, as ending cannabis criminalization would minimize police interactions.
Baron23
Well-Known Member
Where Do Biden and Trump Stand on Cannabis Legalization?
These days, it is pretty clear that Americans are finally ready to end federal cannabis prohibition. Eleven states and Washington, D.C., have already legalized the plant for recreational use, and more than half of the country lives in a state with some form of medical marijuana law on the books. In the latest national opinion polls released by both Pew and Gallup, more than two-thirds of Americans said they were ready to see cannabis legalized across the country. In Congress, a bill to fully legalize weed has more than 70 co-sponsors and could see a full House vote before the year is up.
But with the 2020 presidential election just months away, the future of marijuana legalization will likely rest on the shoulders of whoever is sitting in the Oval Office come January. So how do Donald Trump and Joe Biden feel about legalizing weed? Let’s take a look.
Donald Trump’s quiet war on cannabis
When Donald Trump ran for president in 2016, state-specific cannabis industry insiders and weed investors had high hopes for the candidate, who professed a love for small government and regulatory rollbacks. After the election, those lofty expectations quickly turned into pipe dreams. And while the president himself has said very little about cannabis during his time in office, Trump did not waste time taking his first steps toward continuing pot prohibition. Before he was even sworn in, Trump announced Alabama senator Jeff Sessions, a longtime outspoken anti-cannabis advocate, as his appointee for attorney general. Once in office, Sessions quickly removed protections for state-legal cannabis industries, cracking the door open for the possibility of DEA raids and other federal marijuana enforcement on weed businesses in Oregon, Washington, Colorado, and other green rush states.
In February 2017, then-White House press secretary Sean Spicer continued the new administration’s hostile attitude towards weed. Speaking to a pool of reporters, Spicer announced that he expected to see “greater enforcement” of federal cannabis laws in states with recreational pot laws on the books. In his remarks, the former Dancing With the Stars contestant said that he spoke for the president and baselessly tied marijuana use to the opioid epidemic, drawing a blurry line between medical and recreational marijuana state laws.
“The president understands the pain and suffering that many people go through who are facing, especially terminal diseases, and the comfort that some of these drugs, including medical marijuana, can bring to them,” Spicer told reporters. He said that there is a “big difference” between medical use and recreational use, which the Department of Justice would explore further.
Despite the administrative warnings and media posturing, the DEA did not raid dispensaries in Denver or Portland in 2017 or 2018. Before long, both Sessions and Spicer were ousted from the White House. In 2018, Trump told a reporter from the Washington Examiner that he supports the rights of individual states to determine their cannabis laws, but continued his ambivalence towards federal reform.
“We’re going to see what’s going on. It’s a very big subject, and right now we are allowing states to make that decision,” Trump said. “A lot of states are making that decision, but we’re allowing states to make that decision.”
But in the year since that statement, Trump hired avowed marijuana opponents Mark Meadows and Kayleigh McEnany as chief of staff and press secretary, respectively. Additionally, Surgeon General Jerome Adams held a televised press conference decrying the supposed dangers of cannabis. As recently as February of this year, an official from Trump’s re-election campaign told a Las Vegas news anchor that the president remains vehemently opposed to federal legalization.
“I think what the president is looking at is this from a standpoint of a parent of a young person to make sure that we keep our kids away from drugs,” Marc Lotter, director of strategic communications for the Trump 2020 campaign, told Las Vegas CBS affiliate KLAS-TV. “They need to be kept illegal. That is the federal policy.”
In June, Trump’s new chief of staff laughed at a reporter’s question about the president’s stance on cannabis legalization and brushed off previous reports that Trump would support Colorado Senator Cory Gardner’s push to protect state-legal weed industries.
During his first four years in office, Trump has been brashly outspoken about everything from nuclear war to his TV personality preferences. While his relative silence on cannabis legalization was initially viewed as tacit approval from some corners of the culture, it should be abundantly clear now that Trump has no interest in either interfering in state-specific cannabis laws or finally ending federal prohibition. As with so many other segments of American life and public policy, it appears Trump would rather sit back and watch than actively engage in governing the country’s cultural shift on cannabis.
Joe Biden’s stubborn stance on weed
Unlike Trump, who first entered politics about five years ago, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has gone on record about weed for decades. Unfortunately for legalization supporters, Biden has stood firmly against total cannabis law reform for his entire career in public service. And while he has bent his prohibitionist mindset during the current election push to support nationwide marijuana decriminalization, Biden has remained staunchly opposed to total federal legalization.
While serving as a Delaware senator in the 1970s and ’80s, Biden was a vocal cannabis detractor and advocate of policy shifts that helped create the War on Drugs, including the creation of a “Drug Czar” position in the White House cabinet. In 1982, Biden criticized the Reagan administration for being too weak on narcotics enforcement.
“Their commitment is minuscule in terms of dollars,” Biden said.
As cannabis legalization started to take hold and Biden’s political star rose in the 2000s, the senator’s opinions on pot did not waver. During his 2008 presidential campaign, Biden said that he would not use federal forces to interdict in state-legal medical marijuana businesses, but in the same breath rejected the idea that cannabis was a reasonable medication for chronic pain.
“We have not devoted nearly enough science or time to deal with the pain management and chronic pain management that exists,” Biden said. “There’s got to be a better answer than marijuana. There’s got to be a better answer than that. There’s got to be a better way for a humane society to figure out how to deal with that problem."
In the 13 years since Biden made that assertion, medical cannabis has remained illegal at the federal level, but rampant prescriptions for opioid painkillers have sparked the worst drug crisis in American history.
While Biden served as Barack Obama’s vice president from 2009 to 2017, his harsh views on pot began to drift further away from the American public’s growing acceptance of legal weed. In 2010, Biden regurgitated the long-debunked “Gateway Theory” that claims cannabis use leads to hard drug addiction. In 2014, Biden told a reporter from Time, “Our policy for our administration is still not legalization, and that is [and] continues to be our policy.
This year, with his place on top of the 2020 Democratic ticket secured, Biden has eased his prohibitionist mindset at least partially. Biden’s official policy outlines calls for nationwide cannabis decriminalization and rescheduling, which would turn all minor marijuana offenses across the country into ticketable offenses instead of criminal charges. Biden also supports a plan to allocate federal funds to help states expunge existing minor cannabis crimes from people’s records. Even in the face of those seemingly progressive policy points—which are certainly more 420-friendly than Trump’s stance (or lack thereof)—Biden and his surrogates have continuously reiterated his opposition to full-scale legalization.
“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, told The Atlantic in July. “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.”
Whether Biden realizes it or not, a focus on longitudinal scientific studies has been a long-bemoaned catch-22 in the world of weed, with most research initiatives either hindered or completely blocked by federal prohibition. And while Biden and his advisors have examined past data, cannabis advocacy groups like the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) say the campaign has not reached out to hear their arguments in support of legalization.
With only a few months left until the election, Biden’s latest move brought Senator Kamala Harris on as the vice-presidential yin to his yang. Harris, a former California attorney general, recently changed her prohibitionist tune and has come around as a vocal supporter of federal cannabis legalization. Still, it is unclear if Harris will be able to push Biden further towards legalization if their ticket prevails in November
These days, it is pretty clear that Americans are finally ready to end federal cannabis prohibition. Eleven states and Washington, D.C., have already legalized the plant for recreational use, and more than half of the country lives in a state with some form of medical marijuana law on the books. In the latest national opinion polls released by both Pew and Gallup, more than two-thirds of Americans said they were ready to see cannabis legalized across the country. In Congress, a bill to fully legalize weed has more than 70 co-sponsors and could see a full House vote before the year is up.
But with the 2020 presidential election just months away, the future of marijuana legalization will likely rest on the shoulders of whoever is sitting in the Oval Office come January. So how do Donald Trump and Joe Biden feel about legalizing weed? Let’s take a look.
Donald Trump’s quiet war on cannabis
When Donald Trump ran for president in 2016, state-specific cannabis industry insiders and weed investors had high hopes for the candidate, who professed a love for small government and regulatory rollbacks. After the election, those lofty expectations quickly turned into pipe dreams. And while the president himself has said very little about cannabis during his time in office, Trump did not waste time taking his first steps toward continuing pot prohibition. Before he was even sworn in, Trump announced Alabama senator Jeff Sessions, a longtime outspoken anti-cannabis advocate, as his appointee for attorney general. Once in office, Sessions quickly removed protections for state-legal cannabis industries, cracking the door open for the possibility of DEA raids and other federal marijuana enforcement on weed businesses in Oregon, Washington, Colorado, and other green rush states.
In February 2017, then-White House press secretary Sean Spicer continued the new administration’s hostile attitude towards weed. Speaking to a pool of reporters, Spicer announced that he expected to see “greater enforcement” of federal cannabis laws in states with recreational pot laws on the books. In his remarks, the former Dancing With the Stars contestant said that he spoke for the president and baselessly tied marijuana use to the opioid epidemic, drawing a blurry line between medical and recreational marijuana state laws.
“The president understands the pain and suffering that many people go through who are facing, especially terminal diseases, and the comfort that some of these drugs, including medical marijuana, can bring to them,” Spicer told reporters. He said that there is a “big difference” between medical use and recreational use, which the Department of Justice would explore further.
Despite the administrative warnings and media posturing, the DEA did not raid dispensaries in Denver or Portland in 2017 or 2018. Before long, both Sessions and Spicer were ousted from the White House. In 2018, Trump told a reporter from the Washington Examiner that he supports the rights of individual states to determine their cannabis laws, but continued his ambivalence towards federal reform.
“We’re going to see what’s going on. It’s a very big subject, and right now we are allowing states to make that decision,” Trump said. “A lot of states are making that decision, but we’re allowing states to make that decision.”
But in the year since that statement, Trump hired avowed marijuana opponents Mark Meadows and Kayleigh McEnany as chief of staff and press secretary, respectively. Additionally, Surgeon General Jerome Adams held a televised press conference decrying the supposed dangers of cannabis. As recently as February of this year, an official from Trump’s re-election campaign told a Las Vegas news anchor that the president remains vehemently opposed to federal legalization.
“I think what the president is looking at is this from a standpoint of a parent of a young person to make sure that we keep our kids away from drugs,” Marc Lotter, director of strategic communications for the Trump 2020 campaign, told Las Vegas CBS affiliate KLAS-TV. “They need to be kept illegal. That is the federal policy.”
In June, Trump’s new chief of staff laughed at a reporter’s question about the president’s stance on cannabis legalization and brushed off previous reports that Trump would support Colorado Senator Cory Gardner’s push to protect state-legal weed industries.
During his first four years in office, Trump has been brashly outspoken about everything from nuclear war to his TV personality preferences. While his relative silence on cannabis legalization was initially viewed as tacit approval from some corners of the culture, it should be abundantly clear now that Trump has no interest in either interfering in state-specific cannabis laws or finally ending federal prohibition. As with so many other segments of American life and public policy, it appears Trump would rather sit back and watch than actively engage in governing the country’s cultural shift on cannabis.
Joe Biden’s stubborn stance on weed
Unlike Trump, who first entered politics about five years ago, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has gone on record about weed for decades. Unfortunately for legalization supporters, Biden has stood firmly against total cannabis law reform for his entire career in public service. And while he has bent his prohibitionist mindset during the current election push to support nationwide marijuana decriminalization, Biden has remained staunchly opposed to total federal legalization.
While serving as a Delaware senator in the 1970s and ’80s, Biden was a vocal cannabis detractor and advocate of policy shifts that helped create the War on Drugs, including the creation of a “Drug Czar” position in the White House cabinet. In 1982, Biden criticized the Reagan administration for being too weak on narcotics enforcement.
“Their commitment is minuscule in terms of dollars,” Biden said.
As cannabis legalization started to take hold and Biden’s political star rose in the 2000s, the senator’s opinions on pot did not waver. During his 2008 presidential campaign, Biden said that he would not use federal forces to interdict in state-legal medical marijuana businesses, but in the same breath rejected the idea that cannabis was a reasonable medication for chronic pain.
“We have not devoted nearly enough science or time to deal with the pain management and chronic pain management that exists,” Biden said. “There’s got to be a better answer than marijuana. There’s got to be a better answer than that. There’s got to be a better way for a humane society to figure out how to deal with that problem."
In the 13 years since Biden made that assertion, medical cannabis has remained illegal at the federal level, but rampant prescriptions for opioid painkillers have sparked the worst drug crisis in American history.
While Biden served as Barack Obama’s vice president from 2009 to 2017, his harsh views on pot began to drift further away from the American public’s growing acceptance of legal weed. In 2010, Biden regurgitated the long-debunked “Gateway Theory” that claims cannabis use leads to hard drug addiction. In 2014, Biden told a reporter from Time, “Our policy for our administration is still not legalization, and that is [and] continues to be our policy.
This year, with his place on top of the 2020 Democratic ticket secured, Biden has eased his prohibitionist mindset at least partially. Biden’s official policy outlines calls for nationwide cannabis decriminalization and rescheduling, which would turn all minor marijuana offenses across the country into ticketable offenses instead of criminal charges. Biden also supports a plan to allocate federal funds to help states expunge existing minor cannabis crimes from people’s records. Even in the face of those seemingly progressive policy points—which are certainly more 420-friendly than Trump’s stance (or lack thereof)—Biden and his surrogates have continuously reiterated his opposition to full-scale legalization.
“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, told The Atlantic in July. “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.”
Whether Biden realizes it or not, a focus on longitudinal scientific studies has been a long-bemoaned catch-22 in the world of weed, with most research initiatives either hindered or completely blocked by federal prohibition. And while Biden and his advisors have examined past data, cannabis advocacy groups like the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) say the campaign has not reached out to hear their arguments in support of legalization.
With only a few months left until the election, Biden’s latest move brought Senator Kamala Harris on as the vice-presidential yin to his yang. Harris, a former California attorney general, recently changed her prohibitionist tune and has come around as a vocal supporter of federal cannabis legalization. Still, it is unclear if Harris will be able to push Biden further towards legalization if their ticket prevails in November
Baron23
Well-Known Member
What to Know About the MORE Act, the Bill That Would Deschedule Cannabis
And why legalization advocates are so excited about it.
In a historic move, the House of Representatives is set to vote this month on the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, Politico reports. The bill would deschedule cannabis (marijuana), and therefore decriminalize it at the federal level. Unfortunately, the bill doesn't have the best chances of making it through Congress due to Republican opposition in the Senate. But the fact that it has made it this far—and that it will actually be voted on—is a big deal.
Thanks to the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, drugs in the U.S. are classified by “schedules” based on their potential for abuse, how much we know about their effects, and any medical value they have, the Drug Enforcement Agency explains. Currently cannabis is in Schedule I, the most restrictive classification, meaning that the government believes it has a high potential for abuse and no medical value.
The original decision to put cannabis in Schedule I was steeped in racism and xenophobia far more than scientific evidence. And, based on what we've learned about cannabis and its potential medical uses in the past several decades, we know that's not necessarily an accurate assessment of the evidence. But the current scheduling still causes harm, especially for Black and brown people, and restricts the amount of research we can do with cannabis. So advocates have been working toward descheduling cannabis—which would put it in a less restrictive schedule or remove it from scheduling entirely—for a long time now.
The MORE Act, which was sponsored in the Senate by vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris, would remove cannabis from scheduling and, well, more. The bill would also take some measures to address the harms that cannabis prohibition has caused. It would expunge and seal previous nonviolent federal cannabis-related arrests and convictions for those who are not currently serving their sentences. Those who are currently serving sentences for federal cannabis arrests or convictions would have the opportunity to have their sentences reviewed and, possibly, have their records expunged and sentences vacated.
It would also create a community reinvestment grant program that would fund job training, health education, youth mentoring programs, and legal aid “for individuals most adversely impacted” by the war on drugs. Additionally, the bill would establish a cannabis justice office to ensure the implementation of those programs.
Descheduling cannabis at the federal level would effectively decriminalize it across the country, but individual states would still have the power to legalize it (or not) on their own. Passing this bill would not mean that weed would suddenly become legal everywhere, but it does mean that those states that have legalized cannabis for medical or recreational (adult) use don't have to worry about the federal government interfering with their legal cannabis practices.
“Passage of the MORE Act is essential in order to truly right the wrongs of federal marijuana criminalization, and to once and for all allow the majority of states that have legalized cannabis for either medical or adult-use to embrace these policies free from the threat of undue federal prosecution or interference,” Paul Armentano, deputy director of NORML, said in a statement.
Although the MORE Act may never become law, it shows just how much public and political opinion has changed on the subject of cannabis legalization—and marks an important step forward in addressing the past and ongoing harms of the war on drugs, which continue to disproportionately affect communities of color.
“We believe that the responsible regulation and control of marijuana will be more beneficial to society and the public’s health than prohibiting and criminalizing it,” reads an open letter organized by the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) and signed by 16 organizations and more than 100 individuals, including epidemiologists and public health experts.
“What makes the MORE Act absolutely essential is that it will help communities avoid the very real harms they face daily due to the criminalization and enforcement of our marijuana laws—particularly Black, Latinx, Indigenous, and low-income communities," Danielle Ompad, Ph.D., associate dean for education and associate professor of epidemiology at the NYU School of Global Public Health, who also signed the DPA letter, said in a statement. “Federal prohibition is an utter failure, and has only served to worsen public and community health. We have waited far too long and it is essential that Congress act now.”
And why legalization advocates are so excited about it.
In a historic move, the House of Representatives is set to vote this month on the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, Politico reports. The bill would deschedule cannabis (marijuana), and therefore decriminalize it at the federal level. Unfortunately, the bill doesn't have the best chances of making it through Congress due to Republican opposition in the Senate. But the fact that it has made it this far—and that it will actually be voted on—is a big deal.
Thanks to the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, drugs in the U.S. are classified by “schedules” based on their potential for abuse, how much we know about their effects, and any medical value they have, the Drug Enforcement Agency explains. Currently cannabis is in Schedule I, the most restrictive classification, meaning that the government believes it has a high potential for abuse and no medical value.
The original decision to put cannabis in Schedule I was steeped in racism and xenophobia far more than scientific evidence. And, based on what we've learned about cannabis and its potential medical uses in the past several decades, we know that's not necessarily an accurate assessment of the evidence. But the current scheduling still causes harm, especially for Black and brown people, and restricts the amount of research we can do with cannabis. So advocates have been working toward descheduling cannabis—which would put it in a less restrictive schedule or remove it from scheduling entirely—for a long time now.
The MORE Act, which was sponsored in the Senate by vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris, would remove cannabis from scheduling and, well, more. The bill would also take some measures to address the harms that cannabis prohibition has caused. It would expunge and seal previous nonviolent federal cannabis-related arrests and convictions for those who are not currently serving their sentences. Those who are currently serving sentences for federal cannabis arrests or convictions would have the opportunity to have their sentences reviewed and, possibly, have their records expunged and sentences vacated.
It would also create a community reinvestment grant program that would fund job training, health education, youth mentoring programs, and legal aid “for individuals most adversely impacted” by the war on drugs. Additionally, the bill would establish a cannabis justice office to ensure the implementation of those programs.
Descheduling cannabis at the federal level would effectively decriminalize it across the country, but individual states would still have the power to legalize it (or not) on their own. Passing this bill would not mean that weed would suddenly become legal everywhere, but it does mean that those states that have legalized cannabis for medical or recreational (adult) use don't have to worry about the federal government interfering with their legal cannabis practices.
“Passage of the MORE Act is essential in order to truly right the wrongs of federal marijuana criminalization, and to once and for all allow the majority of states that have legalized cannabis for either medical or adult-use to embrace these policies free from the threat of undue federal prosecution or interference,” Paul Armentano, deputy director of NORML, said in a statement.
Although the MORE Act may never become law, it shows just how much public and political opinion has changed on the subject of cannabis legalization—and marks an important step forward in addressing the past and ongoing harms of the war on drugs, which continue to disproportionately affect communities of color.
“We believe that the responsible regulation and control of marijuana will be more beneficial to society and the public’s health than prohibiting and criminalizing it,” reads an open letter organized by the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) and signed by 16 organizations and more than 100 individuals, including epidemiologists and public health experts.
“What makes the MORE Act absolutely essential is that it will help communities avoid the very real harms they face daily due to the criminalization and enforcement of our marijuana laws—particularly Black, Latinx, Indigenous, and low-income communities," Danielle Ompad, Ph.D., associate dean for education and associate professor of epidemiology at the NYU School of Global Public Health, who also signed the DPA letter, said in a statement. “Federal prohibition is an utter failure, and has only served to worsen public and community health. We have waited far too long and it is essential that Congress act now.”
Marijuana Research Bill Scheduled For Key Congressional Vote Next Week, Committee Announces
A bipartisan bill to promote and streamline marijuana research has been scheduled for a House committee vote next week.
The Energy and Commerce Committee announced late on Friday that it will mark up the Medical Marijuana Research Act, which would accomplish two goals: First, it would establish a simplified registration process for researchers interested in studying cannabis, in part by reducing approval wait times, minimizing costly security requirements and eliminating additional layers of protocol review.
Second, it would allow certified scientists to obtain research-grade cannabis from private manufacturers. That could resolve an issue identified by researchers and lawmakers, who complain that marijuana produced at the only existing federally authorized facility at the University of Mississippi is difficult to access and is chemically closer to hemp than cannabis available on the commercial market.
Under the bill, which will get a committee vote on Wednesday, there would be no limit on the number of entities that can be registered to cultivate marijuana for research purposes. It would also require the Department of Health and Human Services to submit a report to Congress within five years after enactment to overview the results of federal cannabis studies and recommend whether they warrant marijuana’s rescheduling under federal law.
The upcoming markup isn’t the only congressional marijuana vote that advocates are following. House leadership recently announced that there will be a floor vote on a comprehensive cannabis legalization bill later this month.
The more limited marijuana research bill is being led by the unlikely duo of pro-legalization Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and prohibitionist Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD. It will be subject to amendments during the committee markup, so its provisions could change.
During an Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health hearing in January—which was requested by four GOP lawmakers last year—federal health and drug officials, including from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), acknowledged that the current supply of cannabis for research purposes is inadequate and that scientists should be able to access a wider range of marijuana products.
In addition to the Blumenauer-Harris research legislation, the panel also looked at several other marijuana reform bills during that meeting, including two to federally legalize the plant.
DEA said four years ago that it would be taking steps to expand the number of federally authorized cannabis manufacturers, but it has not yet acted on applications.
“Legislative action is necessary in this arena because the DEA has proven time and time again that it is not an honest broker in this process,” Paul Armentano, deputy director of NORML, told Marijuana Moment. “Despite pledging over four years ago to expand the pool of federal licensees permitted to provide cannabis for clinical research, the agency has steadfastly refused to do so—leaving scientists with woefully inadequate supplies and varieties of cannabis and cannabis products available for human studies.”
“The reality that most high-schoolers have easier access to cannabis than do our nation’s top scientists is the height of absurdity and an indictment of the current system,” he said.
Last year, scientists sued the agency, alleging that it had deliberately delayed approving additional marijuana manufacturers for research purposes despite its earlier pledge.
A court mandated that DEA take steps to make good on its promise, and that case was dropped after DEA provided a status update.
In March, DEA finally unveiled a revised rule change proposal that it said was necessary due to the high volume of applicants and to address potential complications related to international treaties to which the U.S. is a party.
The scientists behind the original case filed another suit against DEA, claiming that the agency used a “secret” document to justify its delay of approving manufacturer applications.
That was born out when the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel document was released in April as part of a settlement in the case, revealing, among other things, that the agency feels that its current licensing structure for cannabis cultivation has been in violation of international treaties for decades.
But the bill scheduled for committee action next week stipulates that international treaty obligations “shall not be construed to prohibit, or impose additional restrictions upon, research involving marijuana, or the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of marijuana, that is conducted in accordance with the Controlled Substances Act, this Act, and the amendments made by this Act.”
The legislation has drawn support from a broad array of organizations on both sides of the legalization debate, including Smart Approaches to Marijuana, American Psychological Association, Marijuana Policy Project and American Academy of Neurology.
USDA Reopens Public Comment Period On Hemp Rules Following Intense Industry Pushback
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced on Friday that it is reopening a public comment period on hemp regulations following months of intense pushback from stakeholders on its original proposal.
While the federal agency already received more than 4,600 comments during the initial comment period that closed in January, it is now encouraging “additional input on several topics identified by commenters.” This seems to a sign that USDA is willing to provide more flexible regulations, as many interested parties—from industry operators to members of Congress—have requested.
USDA listed 12 areas where they’re especially seeking additional feedback, including several that industry representatives have identified as very consequential. Here are the titles, as listed in the department’s new Federal Register notice:
1. Measurement of Uncertainty for Sampling
2. Liquid Chromatography Factor, 0.877
3. Disposal and Remediation of Non-Compliant Plants
4. Negligence
5. Interstate Commerce
6. 15-day Harvest Window
7. Hemp seedlings, microgreens, and clones
8. Hemp breeding and research
9. Sampling Methodology – Flower vs. Whole Plant
10. Sampling Methodology – Homogenous Composition, Frequency, and Volume
11. Sampling Agents
12. DEA Laboratory Registration
This is a welcome development as far as stakeholders are concerned, giving hope that USDA could ultimately revise some of the more onerous restrictions that they’ve indicated could hamper the industry’s potential.
For example, producers have argued that the proposed rule mandating that hemp be tested only at DEA-certified laboratories will have an unnecessary bottlenecking effect and they should be able to have a wider range of labs to use. That was one policy USDA temporarily lifted earlier this year, and now it wants to hear from the public on whether it “should be permanently removed.”
Another rule that USDA paused due to feedback concerns disposal and remediation of non-compliant hemp that contains excess THC. The agency’s Interim Final Rule stipulated that so-called “hot hemp” must be eradicated under law enforcement supervision. Farmers have complained about that restriction and said they should be allowed to remediate the crop using a number of techniques. USDA wants to hear more about that proposed alternative.
The department is also open to amending the 15-day testing window and is requesting information about why many industry participants feel a 30-day window would be more appropriate, as many said during the past comment period.
Jonathan Miller, general counsel at the U.S. Hemp Roundtable, told Marijuana Moment that the group is “hopeful” that after this comment period, USDA will arrive at a “final rule that hemp farmers and the industry can embrace.”
This new USDA announcement reopening the comment period marks the latest example of the federal government asking the public and stakeholders to weigh in on key cannabis issues.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is still in the process of developing regulations for hemp-derived CBD products, and it indefinitely reopened its own comment period on the topic.
DEA recently filed its own set of rules to comply with hemp’s legalization, but advocates suspect that they are intended to undermine the industry.
All told, it appears that USDA is taking seriously the feedback it’s received and may be willing to make certain accommodations on these particular policies. The notice reopening the comment period will be formally published in the Federal Register on Tuesday. The window to individuals to provide input will then last for 30 days, though October 8.
The department’s rule for hemp, when finalized, is set to take effect on October 31, 2021.
In July, two senators representing Oregon sent a letter to the head of USDA, expressing concern that hemp testing requirements that were temporarily lifted will be reinstated in the agency’s final rule. They made a series of requests for policy changes.
Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO) called on USDA to delay the implementation of proposed hemp rules, citing concerns about certain restrictive policies the federal agency has put forward in the interim proposal.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) last month wrote to Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue, similarly asking that USDA delay issuing final regulations for the crop until 2022 and allow states to continue operating under the 2014 Farm Bill hemp pilot program in the meantime.
As it stands, the earlier pilot program is set to expire on October 31. The senators aren’t alone in requesting an extension, as state agriculture departments and a major hemp industry group made a similar request to both Congress and USDA this month.
Perdue has said on several occasions that DEA influenced certain rules, adding that the narcotics agency wasn’t pleased with the overall legalization of hemp.
Amid the coronavirus pandemic, hemp industry associations pushed for farmers to be able to access to certain COVID-19 relief loans—a request that Congress granted in the most recent round of coronavirus legislation.
However, USDA has previously said that hemp farmers are specifically ineligible for its Coronavirus Food Assistance Program. While the department initially said it would not reevaluate the crop’s eligibility based on new evidence, it removed that language shortly after Marijuana Moment reported on the exclusion.
Two members of Congress representing New York also wrote a letter to Perdue in June, asking that the agency extend access to that program to hemp farmers.
Hemp farmers approved to produce the crop do stand to benefit from other federal loan programs, however. The department recently released guidelines for processing loans for the industry.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced on Friday that it is reopening a public comment period on hemp regulations following months of intense pushback from stakeholders on its original proposal.
While the federal agency already received more than 4,600 comments during the initial comment period that closed in January, it is now encouraging “additional input on several topics identified by commenters.” This seems to a sign that USDA is willing to provide more flexible regulations, as many interested parties—from industry operators to members of Congress—have requested.
USDA listed 12 areas where they’re especially seeking additional feedback, including several that industry representatives have identified as very consequential. Here are the titles, as listed in the department’s new Federal Register notice:
1. Measurement of Uncertainty for Sampling
2. Liquid Chromatography Factor, 0.877
3. Disposal and Remediation of Non-Compliant Plants
4. Negligence
5. Interstate Commerce
6. 15-day Harvest Window
7. Hemp seedlings, microgreens, and clones
8. Hemp breeding and research
9. Sampling Methodology – Flower vs. Whole Plant
10. Sampling Methodology – Homogenous Composition, Frequency, and Volume
11. Sampling Agents
12. DEA Laboratory Registration
This is a welcome development as far as stakeholders are concerned, giving hope that USDA could ultimately revise some of the more onerous restrictions that they’ve indicated could hamper the industry’s potential.
For example, producers have argued that the proposed rule mandating that hemp be tested only at DEA-certified laboratories will have an unnecessary bottlenecking effect and they should be able to have a wider range of labs to use. That was one policy USDA temporarily lifted earlier this year, and now it wants to hear from the public on whether it “should be permanently removed.”
Another rule that USDA paused due to feedback concerns disposal and remediation of non-compliant hemp that contains excess THC. The agency’s Interim Final Rule stipulated that so-called “hot hemp” must be eradicated under law enforcement supervision. Farmers have complained about that restriction and said they should be allowed to remediate the crop using a number of techniques. USDA wants to hear more about that proposed alternative.
The department is also open to amending the 15-day testing window and is requesting information about why many industry participants feel a 30-day window would be more appropriate, as many said during the past comment period.
Jonathan Miller, general counsel at the U.S. Hemp Roundtable, told Marijuana Moment that the group is “hopeful” that after this comment period, USDA will arrive at a “final rule that hemp farmers and the industry can embrace.”
This new USDA announcement reopening the comment period marks the latest example of the federal government asking the public and stakeholders to weigh in on key cannabis issues.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is still in the process of developing regulations for hemp-derived CBD products, and it indefinitely reopened its own comment period on the topic.
DEA recently filed its own set of rules to comply with hemp’s legalization, but advocates suspect that they are intended to undermine the industry.
All told, it appears that USDA is taking seriously the feedback it’s received and may be willing to make certain accommodations on these particular policies. The notice reopening the comment period will be formally published in the Federal Register on Tuesday. The window to individuals to provide input will then last for 30 days, though October 8.
The department’s rule for hemp, when finalized, is set to take effect on October 31, 2021.
In July, two senators representing Oregon sent a letter to the head of USDA, expressing concern that hemp testing requirements that were temporarily lifted will be reinstated in the agency’s final rule. They made a series of requests for policy changes.
Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO) called on USDA to delay the implementation of proposed hemp rules, citing concerns about certain restrictive policies the federal agency has put forward in the interim proposal.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) last month wrote to Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue, similarly asking that USDA delay issuing final regulations for the crop until 2022 and allow states to continue operating under the 2014 Farm Bill hemp pilot program in the meantime.
As it stands, the earlier pilot program is set to expire on October 31. The senators aren’t alone in requesting an extension, as state agriculture departments and a major hemp industry group made a similar request to both Congress and USDA this month.
Perdue has said on several occasions that DEA influenced certain rules, adding that the narcotics agency wasn’t pleased with the overall legalization of hemp.
Amid the coronavirus pandemic, hemp industry associations pushed for farmers to be able to access to certain COVID-19 relief loans—a request that Congress granted in the most recent round of coronavirus legislation.
However, USDA has previously said that hemp farmers are specifically ineligible for its Coronavirus Food Assistance Program. While the department initially said it would not reevaluate the crop’s eligibility based on new evidence, it removed that language shortly after Marijuana Moment reported on the exclusion.
Two members of Congress representing New York also wrote a letter to Perdue in June, asking that the agency extend access to that program to hemp farmers.
Hemp farmers approved to produce the crop do stand to benefit from other federal loan programs, however. The department recently released guidelines for processing loans for the industry.
CarolKing
Always in search of the perfect vaporizer
© Getty
America’s next president will face an unprecedented array of challenges, chief among them an economy in ruins and an ugly social divide.
Having served in government for nearly three decades, including as Senate Majority Leader, I know that there’s no silver bullet that can magically solve all of these problems.
However, I’ve also learned that progress comes from unexpected places and that states often see the future before the federal government.
Legalizing cannabis — as 40 states have already done for either medical or recreational purposes— can’t cure all that ails America. Still, for the next president, it can help drive progress on multiple critical issues.
“When we all start to be able to lift our heads from this Covid experience, we are going to be faced with a scenario where a lot of jobs have gone away, a lot of economic development impact has disappeared,” said Charlie Bachtell, CEO of Cresco Labs. “How are we going to bring that back? I think cannabis has to be part of that discussion.”
According to Cowen estimates, the U.S. cannabis market is worth approximately $56 billion in 2020 with about 90% of sales going untaxed in the illegal market.
“One of the programs by the federal government right after the Great Depression was to focus on tax revenue generation,” said Curaleaf Executive Chairman Boris Jordan. “They lifted prohibition on alcohol and therefore started to tax it -- and it became a major revenue generator for both the federal and the local governments around the country.”
Jordan said governments will be looking for ways to generate revenue, as was the case after the Great Depression, and cannabis “is a significant revenue generator.”
‘Essential businesses’
As the global coronavirus pandemic brought most U.S. businesses to a near halt in March, cannabis dispensaries were designated as essential in 8 of the 11 states where adult-use is legal.
Sales have also surged. According to Cowen, weekly sales in March topped $134 million in California, Washington, Nevada, and Colorado, a 17% increase from the weekly average in 2019. In the second half of March, the average purchase also increased by 47%. Cannabis investor Matt Hawkins says the data makes the best case for legalization.
Congressional Bill Would Allow CBD And Other Hemp Compounds To Be Sold As Dietary Supplements
A pair of congressmen on Friday introduced bipartisan legislation to allow cannabidiol (CBD) and other hemp-derived compounds to be marketed and sold as dietary supplements—a change that could clear up legal confusion at retailers across the country.
The proposal, sponsored by Reps. Kurt Schrader (D-OR) and Morgan Griffith (R-VA), is part of an ongoing effort by the federal government to find a path forward on hemp and its derivatives after they were broadly legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill.
The new bill would make clear that Congress wants to see federally regulated CBD and other hemp products made available to American consumers.
“Hemp was historically an important crop for Virginia farmers, and dietary supplements made from it do not possess dangerous addictive qualities,” Griffith said in a press release. “Nevertheless, the current state of regulation creates confusion about its legal uses. I joined this bipartisan bill to provide certainty for hemp farmers that their crop may find legal uses.”
While the 2018 agricultural legislation allowed the production and sale of hemp under state-approved programs, the federal regulatory framework for products derived from the low-THC version of the cannabis plant has lagged, frustrating businesses and law enforcement. In a letter sent last year to the head of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), bipartisan lawmakers complained that the agency’s “current regulatory posture on CBD has created significant regulatory and legal uncertainty for participants in this quickly evolving industry.”
Though the regulatory landscape could soon change—FDA earlier this year reopened a public comment period around how CBD should be regulated, and last month the agency submitted draft enforcement guidelines to the White House—the new bill from Schrader and Griffith would make clear that Congress wants to see action on CBD and other hemp products sooner rather than later.
The legislation, titled the “Hemp and Hemp-Derived CBD Consumer Protection and Market Stabilization Act of 2020,” would mandate that “cannabidiol derived from hemp, and any other ingredient derived from hemp shall be lawful under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) as a dietary ingredient in a dietary supplement.”
Hemp-derived dietary products would still be required to comply with federal requirements on packaging and labeling under the proposal, as well as FDA rules regarding new dietary ingredients.
Industry advocates, who have pushed hard to clear a federal path for hemp-derived CBD, say the measure would boost consumer confidence in CBD products and help businesses that poured money into hemp production early, expecting markets to open quickly.
After the 2018 Farm Bill’s passage, thousands of farmers and small businesses invested in what was widely seen as a CBD boom, the U.S. Hemp Roundtable, an industry group, said in a press release on Friday. “However, public announcements by the FDA questioning the legality of ingestible hemp-derived products have hindered the progress of the industry and put at risk the livelihoods of many hemp farmers. Not only did the lack of clarity spell economic disaster, but also resulted in a lack of regulations around quality, leaving consumers unprotected,” the organization said.
“Enabling CBD to be lawfully marketed as dietary supplements and mandating that manufacturers comply with the entire existing regulatory framework for dietary supplements would create immense confidence in hemp and CBD products, and would provide great opportunity for hemp farmers across the nation,” added Jonathan Miller, the organization’s general counsel. He predicted the market for products extracted from hemp would exceed $10 billion within a few years.
The group is asking supporters to encourage Congress to pass the legislation.
It’s not the first time such a bill has been introduced. A different group of bipartisan lawmakers introduced a similar measure in January that would have included CBD in the definition of dietary supplements under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The House, however, hasn’t held any hearings or votes vote on the proposal.
Separately on Friday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced that it will reopen a public comment period on hemp production and testing, seeking additional feedback on topic areas such as interstate commerce, breeding and testing methodology. The public comment period first closed in January, but the agency said the initial round of more than 4,600 comments identified a handful of crucial issues. Industry advocates hope the agency’s decision to seek further input could mean revisions to some of the agency’s more onerous restrictions, such as one that requires hemp be tested only at laboratories certified by the Drug Enforcement Administration, which critics have warned could create a production bottleneck.
Miller at the U.S. Hemp Roundtable told Marijuana Moment that the group is “hopeful” that after the new comment period, USDA will arrive at a “final rule that hemp farmers and industry can embrace.”
To view the bill, follow title link and scroll to the bottom of the article.
A pair of congressmen on Friday introduced bipartisan legislation to allow cannabidiol (CBD) and other hemp-derived compounds to be marketed and sold as dietary supplements—a change that could clear up legal confusion at retailers across the country.
The proposal, sponsored by Reps. Kurt Schrader (D-OR) and Morgan Griffith (R-VA), is part of an ongoing effort by the federal government to find a path forward on hemp and its derivatives after they were broadly legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill.
The new bill would make clear that Congress wants to see federally regulated CBD and other hemp products made available to American consumers.
“Hemp was historically an important crop for Virginia farmers, and dietary supplements made from it do not possess dangerous addictive qualities,” Griffith said in a press release. “Nevertheless, the current state of regulation creates confusion about its legal uses. I joined this bipartisan bill to provide certainty for hemp farmers that their crop may find legal uses.”
While the 2018 agricultural legislation allowed the production and sale of hemp under state-approved programs, the federal regulatory framework for products derived from the low-THC version of the cannabis plant has lagged, frustrating businesses and law enforcement. In a letter sent last year to the head of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), bipartisan lawmakers complained that the agency’s “current regulatory posture on CBD has created significant regulatory and legal uncertainty for participants in this quickly evolving industry.”
Though the regulatory landscape could soon change—FDA earlier this year reopened a public comment period around how CBD should be regulated, and last month the agency submitted draft enforcement guidelines to the White House—the new bill from Schrader and Griffith would make clear that Congress wants to see action on CBD and other hemp products sooner rather than later.
The legislation, titled the “Hemp and Hemp-Derived CBD Consumer Protection and Market Stabilization Act of 2020,” would mandate that “cannabidiol derived from hemp, and any other ingredient derived from hemp shall be lawful under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) as a dietary ingredient in a dietary supplement.”
Hemp-derived dietary products would still be required to comply with federal requirements on packaging and labeling under the proposal, as well as FDA rules regarding new dietary ingredients.
Industry advocates, who have pushed hard to clear a federal path for hemp-derived CBD, say the measure would boost consumer confidence in CBD products and help businesses that poured money into hemp production early, expecting markets to open quickly.
After the 2018 Farm Bill’s passage, thousands of farmers and small businesses invested in what was widely seen as a CBD boom, the U.S. Hemp Roundtable, an industry group, said in a press release on Friday. “However, public announcements by the FDA questioning the legality of ingestible hemp-derived products have hindered the progress of the industry and put at risk the livelihoods of many hemp farmers. Not only did the lack of clarity spell economic disaster, but also resulted in a lack of regulations around quality, leaving consumers unprotected,” the organization said.
“Enabling CBD to be lawfully marketed as dietary supplements and mandating that manufacturers comply with the entire existing regulatory framework for dietary supplements would create immense confidence in hemp and CBD products, and would provide great opportunity for hemp farmers across the nation,” added Jonathan Miller, the organization’s general counsel. He predicted the market for products extracted from hemp would exceed $10 billion within a few years.
The group is asking supporters to encourage Congress to pass the legislation.
It’s not the first time such a bill has been introduced. A different group of bipartisan lawmakers introduced a similar measure in January that would have included CBD in the definition of dietary supplements under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The House, however, hasn’t held any hearings or votes vote on the proposal.
Separately on Friday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced that it will reopen a public comment period on hemp production and testing, seeking additional feedback on topic areas such as interstate commerce, breeding and testing methodology. The public comment period first closed in January, but the agency said the initial round of more than 4,600 comments identified a handful of crucial issues. Industry advocates hope the agency’s decision to seek further input could mean revisions to some of the agency’s more onerous restrictions, such as one that requires hemp be tested only at laboratories certified by the Drug Enforcement Administration, which critics have warned could create a production bottleneck.
Miller at the U.S. Hemp Roundtable told Marijuana Moment that the group is “hopeful” that after the new comment period, USDA will arrive at a “final rule that hemp farmers and industry can embrace.”
To view the bill, follow title link and scroll to the bottom of the article.
CarolKing
Always in search of the perfect vaporizer
- Study: THC Persists in Blood for Extended Periods of Time Post-Abstinence
- BY NORML
- POSTED ON SEPTEMBER 10, 2020
Investigators affiliated with the University of British Columbia performed a systematic review of the relevant literature assessing residual THC plasma levels in frequent cannabis consumers.
Authors reported: “n all studies where participants were observed for over a day, blood THC [levels] in some participants remained detectable during several days of abstinence,” with some subjects continuing to test positive for up to 30 days. Some subjects also demonstrated a so-called “double hump” pattern “where their THC levels rose toward the end of the week after an initial decline.”
Researchers concluded, “
The studies in our review consistently demonstrate that positive blood THC levels, even levels over 2ng/ml, do not necessarily indicate recent cannabis use in frequent cannabis users.”
The study’s findings have implications for traffic safety laws, as several US states impose either per se or zero-tolerant per se laws that criminalize the operation of a vehicle by a driver solely based upon the detection of trace levels of THC in one’s blood. NORML opposes the imposition of per se limits for cannabis because the presence of THC in blood, especially at low levels, is not a consistent predictor of either recent use or impairment of performance.
Full text of the study, “Residual blood THC levels in frequent cannabis users after over four hours of abstinence,” appears in Drug and Alcohol Dependence. Additional information is available from the NORML fact sheet, “Marijuana and Psychomotor Performance.”
Database Reveals U.S. Cannabis Research Focuses on Harms Rather Than Benefits
We’re all curious about how much money is pushed towards cannabis research. But what about how this research progresses specific sectors of the industry?
For most, the allotment of resources to research cannabis for its potential therapeutic benefits is the obvious choice. Considering the severe side effects of many pharmaceuticals that could be replaced by medical cannabis—specifically, opioids—should be enticing enough to demand most cannabis research funding be allocated towards the therapeutics branch of the cannabis industry’s advancement.
But this isn’t the case.
Science reports that between 2000 and 2018, cannabis research funding projects in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom—totaling around $1.56 billion—directs around half of this funding towards understanding the plant’s potential harms.
The Research
Jim Hudson, a consultant for government organizations and medical research charities, performed the first quantitative analysis to understand which research is best funded. He claims that the areas with the most funding are the ones most likely to progress.
Hudson categorized 3,269 grants from 50 funders to uncover where cannabis research is focused, publishing the broad findings on his website to explain how research funding works.
“The government’s budget is a political statement about what we value as a society,” Daniel Mallinson, a cannabis policy researcher at Pennsylvania State University, Harrisburg, told Science after reviewing Hudson’s funding analysis. “The fact that most of the cannabis money is going to drug abuse and probably to cannabis use disorder versus medical purposes—that says something.”
This data confirms where government grants to cannabis research really go—towards research focusing on the harms instead of uncovering the benefits.
Even with this being the case, the overall state of cannabis research funding in the U.S. is rising.
Science reported that in the U.S., we’ve gone from less than $30.2 million in 2000 to exceed $143 million in 2018. While the funds allocated towards analyzing cannabis medical treatments has grown, the portion of funding spent on cannabis harm research is growing faster.
The analysis also highlights some legal hurdles that come with cannabis research. $34 million spent on cannabis medical treatment research was primarily put towards analyzing cannabinoids rather than the plant.
This could primarily be the result of practicality since it’s typically easier to work with the isolated cannabis compounds and make regulated doses than using the whole plant, psychoactive compounds (THC) and all. However, in the U.S., government permission to use the entire plant for research purposes isn’t so easy to obtain.
At this point, the only legal producer of cannabis for scientists in the U.S. is the University of Mississippi. This is problematic because the cannabis that’s grown there isn’t as potent as the flower that’s distributed for recreational purposes.
Limitations and Obstacles to Overcome
While the analysis doesn’t paint a complete picture of cannabis research worldwide, it showcases public data from several countries. However, it omits some key players in this elevated research.
Five years ago, Newsweek Magazine did a feature on Israeli scientist, Dr. Raphael Mechoulam—the man who first fully synthesized tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) after a police officer gave him an 11-pound bag of confiscated Lebanese hashish. Since then, Dr. Mechoulam and his colleagues were also the first to decode the exact structure of cannabidiol (CBD). Yet even with Israel’s researchers significantly contributing to cannabis research, the country hasn’t been featured in the data.
The analysis is also somewhat limited as it doesn’t differentiate between the funds for outside scientists and the institute’s own researchers. Also, it doesn’t take the private research funding increase we’ve seen in recent years.
For instance, Harvard Medical School’s International Phytomedicines and Medical Cannabis Institutehas been provided funding from Atlas Biotechnologies—a Canadian cannabis producer—along with other companies.
Other examples exist, which is why Hudson would like to expand this list of included countries and funders. However, the main issue here is that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) perpetuates funding limitations for therapeutic cannabis research.
Since the DEA still has cannabis listed as a Schedule I drug, it’s deemed a substance with high potential for abuse and no evidence of medical benefits. But the restrictions on the research that would highlight the evidence of medical benefits continue to bottleneck funding and progress in this research field.
We’re all curious about how much money is pushed towards cannabis research. But what about how this research progresses specific sectors of the industry?
For most, the allotment of resources to research cannabis for its potential therapeutic benefits is the obvious choice. Considering the severe side effects of many pharmaceuticals that could be replaced by medical cannabis—specifically, opioids—should be enticing enough to demand most cannabis research funding be allocated towards the therapeutics branch of the cannabis industry’s advancement.
But this isn’t the case.
Science reports that between 2000 and 2018, cannabis research funding projects in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom—totaling around $1.56 billion—directs around half of this funding towards understanding the plant’s potential harms.
The Research
Jim Hudson, a consultant for government organizations and medical research charities, performed the first quantitative analysis to understand which research is best funded. He claims that the areas with the most funding are the ones most likely to progress.
Hudson categorized 3,269 grants from 50 funders to uncover where cannabis research is focused, publishing the broad findings on his website to explain how research funding works.
“The government’s budget is a political statement about what we value as a society,” Daniel Mallinson, a cannabis policy researcher at Pennsylvania State University, Harrisburg, told Science after reviewing Hudson’s funding analysis. “The fact that most of the cannabis money is going to drug abuse and probably to cannabis use disorder versus medical purposes—that says something.”
This data confirms where government grants to cannabis research really go—towards research focusing on the harms instead of uncovering the benefits.
Even with this being the case, the overall state of cannabis research funding in the U.S. is rising.
Science reported that in the U.S., we’ve gone from less than $30.2 million in 2000 to exceed $143 million in 2018. While the funds allocated towards analyzing cannabis medical treatments has grown, the portion of funding spent on cannabis harm research is growing faster.
The analysis also highlights some legal hurdles that come with cannabis research. $34 million spent on cannabis medical treatment research was primarily put towards analyzing cannabinoids rather than the plant.
This could primarily be the result of practicality since it’s typically easier to work with the isolated cannabis compounds and make regulated doses than using the whole plant, psychoactive compounds (THC) and all. However, in the U.S., government permission to use the entire plant for research purposes isn’t so easy to obtain.
At this point, the only legal producer of cannabis for scientists in the U.S. is the University of Mississippi. This is problematic because the cannabis that’s grown there isn’t as potent as the flower that’s distributed for recreational purposes.
Limitations and Obstacles to Overcome
While the analysis doesn’t paint a complete picture of cannabis research worldwide, it showcases public data from several countries. However, it omits some key players in this elevated research.
Five years ago, Newsweek Magazine did a feature on Israeli scientist, Dr. Raphael Mechoulam—the man who first fully synthesized tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) after a police officer gave him an 11-pound bag of confiscated Lebanese hashish. Since then, Dr. Mechoulam and his colleagues were also the first to decode the exact structure of cannabidiol (CBD). Yet even with Israel’s researchers significantly contributing to cannabis research, the country hasn’t been featured in the data.
The analysis is also somewhat limited as it doesn’t differentiate between the funds for outside scientists and the institute’s own researchers. Also, it doesn’t take the private research funding increase we’ve seen in recent years.
For instance, Harvard Medical School’s International Phytomedicines and Medical Cannabis Institutehas been provided funding from Atlas Biotechnologies—a Canadian cannabis producer—along with other companies.
Other examples exist, which is why Hudson would like to expand this list of included countries and funders. However, the main issue here is that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) perpetuates funding limitations for therapeutic cannabis research.
Since the DEA still has cannabis listed as a Schedule I drug, it’s deemed a substance with high potential for abuse and no evidence of medical benefits. But the restrictions on the research that would highlight the evidence of medical benefits continue to bottleneck funding and progress in this research field.
Baron23
Well-Known Member
States plow forward with pot, with or without Congress
November ballot measures could result in over a third of Americans having access to legal weed.
Roughly 1 in 3 Americans could have access to legal recreational marijuana if voters approve state ballot initiatives this November.
While a planned House vote on legalizing weed at the federal level is scheduled for later this month, the real action remains in the states. That’s because even if the House measure passes, there’s zero chance the Republican-controlled Senate will take up the bill, which would eliminate federal criminal penalties and erase some past marijuana convictions.
But with the federal government continuing to take a hands-off approach when it comes to cracking down on state-legal markets, five more states could make it legal to buy weed for medical or recreational purposes. The legalization wave could have been much bigger: Organizers in five states saw their efforts derailed in large part due to the pandemic, with Nebraska’s medical campaign the latest blow after losing a legal challenge on Thursday. The other state measures are already set.
The biggest stakes are in New Jersey and Arizona, where polling suggests voters will back recreational sales.
If both measures pass, more than 16 million additional Americans would be living in states where anyone at least 21 years old can buy weed for any reason. That would mean more than 100 million Americans would have access to legal recreational marijuana sales, less than a decade after Colorado and Washington pioneered the modern legalization movement.
South Dakota and Montana could also pass recreational legalization measures this year. The former could become the first state to go from a total ban on weed to legalizing both medical and recreational sales, if voters back a pair of referendums.
Meanwhile, Mississippi voters will decide whether to legalize medical marijuana. Mississippi would join a recent wave of archconservative states — including Oklahoma, Arkansas and Utah — that have embraced medical sales in recent years.
"We’re now working in very red states," said Matthew Schweich, deputy director of pro-legalization advocacy group Marijuana Policy Project. "If we win in Mississippi, Montana and South Dakota … it becomes more difficult for those senators to oppose legislation that allows their home states to implement laws the voters have approved."
If all five states pass their ballot measures, more than two-thirds of federal lawmakers would represent states with legal medical or recreational marijuana markets. Even if only the New Jersey and Arizona measures pass, those votes would add four additional senators and 21 representatives — meaning a quarter of the Senate and a third of the House would represent states with legal adult-use marijuana.
Lawmakers often change their views on cannabis once their state legalizes it, with Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) being the most obvious example. And this year’s ballot measures would bring in some heavyweight lawmakers. New Jersey Democrat Frank Pallone is the House Energy & Commerce chair and South Dakota Republican John Thune is Senate majority whip.
"Every victory on the state level makes the federal-state conflict more untenable than it already is," Schweich said.
The Brookings Institution’s John Hudak points out that marijuana legalization referendums have become routine, no longer seen as exotic or outlandish.
“This is just mainstream public policy,” said Hudak, author of "Marijuana: A Short History". “In the same way that states have votes on tax policy and a variety of other types of issues, this is rapidly becoming just another standard public policy issue.”
Here’s a breakdown of the 2020 marijuana state ballot measures:
New Jersey: Lawmakers in New Jersey already are working on a bill to implement a recreational marijuana ballot question that looks likely to pass. The legislature referred the question to the ballot after an effort to pass a legalization bill narrowly failed last year.
If successful, New Jersey’s market would boast some of the lowest marijuana tax rates in the nation. The state has nearly 9 million residents and is close to major cities including New York and Philadelphia. A legal market would undoubtedly draw consumers from neighboring states and could push others in the region to prioritize legalization over fears of losing tax dollars during a state budget crisis.
Arizona: Four years ago, Arizona voters narrowly defeated a referendum to legalize recreational sales. But they will have an opportunity to reverse course in 2020. Most polling indicates strong support for authorizing taxed, regulated sales. There are more than 250,000 patients enrolled in the state’s medical program — an increase of 150 percent from four years ago. Opponents of the initiative have been badly outspent by the multimillion-dollar, industry-backed legalization campaign. And a legal challenge to the initiative was rebuffed by the courts. If rec sales became reality in Arizona, they would extend a contiguous network of five western states with more than 60 million residents spanning from Canada to Mexico that have full legalization.
But the latest polling data suggests a rapidly tightening contest. Support for legalization is at 46 percent, compared to 45 percent opposition, according to polling from OH Predictive Insights conducted over the last several days.
“Based on the latest numbers, the pro-marijuana folks should put the cork back in the champagne bottle,” said Mike Noble, the polling firm’s managing partner.
MIssissippi: Polling shows strong support for medical marijuana legalization in the state, but activists behind a medical marijuana initiative are contending with challenges on two fronts — campaigning during a pandemic and a competing initiative placed on the ballot by the state legislature.
More than 80 percent of Mississippi voters favor medical marijuana legalization, but they’ll have two measures to choose from when they head to the polls: an activist-driven initiative that collected signatures to make the ballot and one referred by lawmakers that the activists contend is meant to confuse voters and split the vote. Still, a June poll from FM3 Research shows that the activist-led initiative has a 29-percentage-point lead over the alternative.
Montana: Montana, where medical marijuana is already legal, has two measures on the ballot: one to legalize recreational marijuana and another that sets the legal age at 21. Both measures are necessary, but some worry that having two separate initiatives will confuse voters.
Legal marijuana, nonetheless, has the support of a majority of Montanans — 54 percent, according to a February poll from the University of Montana. Pro-legalization group New Approach Montana has raised more than $2.5 million since late June and plans to launch a slew of TV ads in October. The anti-legalization campaign Wrong for Montana, meanwhile, just launched in the last few days.
South Dakota: The state is one of only three remaining states (along with Idaho and Nebraska) that outlaws all forms of cannabis — including use for very specific medical situations such as child seizures. South Dakota will be the first state to put medical and recreational measures on the ballot in the same election. Measure 26 sets up a medical marijuana program, and Amendment A would legalize adult-use marijuana. While it's unusual, Schweich said they put up both measures at the same time because their polling shows support among South Dakotans for both medical and recreational cannabis.
The Republican-led state government is strongly opposed to all things cannabis. Republican Gov. Kristi Noem even vetoed a hemp legalization law passed by the Republican-led legislature last year, but eventually dropped her opposition this year. The adult-use initiative is constitutional — meaning the legislature could not repeal it if it passes in November. The medical initiative, meanwhile, is statutory. The legislature would have the power to repeal or amend that law, but given that statewide support for medical marijuana, it seems less likely they would interfere if voters approve it.
Covid-19 setbacks: Because of the coronavirus crisis, 2020 isn’t quite the banner year for marijuana legalization that advocates hoped for.
The pandemic derailed efforts to put medical marijuana legalization questions before voters in Idaho and North Dakota. Advocates in Nebraska actually collected enough signatures to make the ballot, but the state Supreme Court ordered the Secretary of State to remove the question.
The public health crisis also upended efforts to put recreational legalization on the ballot in Missouri, Arkansas and Oklahoma, while a similar effort in Florida failed before the pandemic hit.
November ballot measures could result in over a third of Americans having access to legal weed.
Roughly 1 in 3 Americans could have access to legal recreational marijuana if voters approve state ballot initiatives this November.
While a planned House vote on legalizing weed at the federal level is scheduled for later this month, the real action remains in the states. That’s because even if the House measure passes, there’s zero chance the Republican-controlled Senate will take up the bill, which would eliminate federal criminal penalties and erase some past marijuana convictions.
But with the federal government continuing to take a hands-off approach when it comes to cracking down on state-legal markets, five more states could make it legal to buy weed for medical or recreational purposes. The legalization wave could have been much bigger: Organizers in five states saw their efforts derailed in large part due to the pandemic, with Nebraska’s medical campaign the latest blow after losing a legal challenge on Thursday. The other state measures are already set.
The biggest stakes are in New Jersey and Arizona, where polling suggests voters will back recreational sales.
If both measures pass, more than 16 million additional Americans would be living in states where anyone at least 21 years old can buy weed for any reason. That would mean more than 100 million Americans would have access to legal recreational marijuana sales, less than a decade after Colorado and Washington pioneered the modern legalization movement.
South Dakota and Montana could also pass recreational legalization measures this year. The former could become the first state to go from a total ban on weed to legalizing both medical and recreational sales, if voters back a pair of referendums.
Meanwhile, Mississippi voters will decide whether to legalize medical marijuana. Mississippi would join a recent wave of archconservative states — including Oklahoma, Arkansas and Utah — that have embraced medical sales in recent years.
"We’re now working in very red states," said Matthew Schweich, deputy director of pro-legalization advocacy group Marijuana Policy Project. "If we win in Mississippi, Montana and South Dakota … it becomes more difficult for those senators to oppose legislation that allows their home states to implement laws the voters have approved."
If all five states pass their ballot measures, more than two-thirds of federal lawmakers would represent states with legal medical or recreational marijuana markets. Even if only the New Jersey and Arizona measures pass, those votes would add four additional senators and 21 representatives — meaning a quarter of the Senate and a third of the House would represent states with legal adult-use marijuana.
Lawmakers often change their views on cannabis once their state legalizes it, with Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) being the most obvious example. And this year’s ballot measures would bring in some heavyweight lawmakers. New Jersey Democrat Frank Pallone is the House Energy & Commerce chair and South Dakota Republican John Thune is Senate majority whip.
"Every victory on the state level makes the federal-state conflict more untenable than it already is," Schweich said.
The Brookings Institution’s John Hudak points out that marijuana legalization referendums have become routine, no longer seen as exotic or outlandish.
“This is just mainstream public policy,” said Hudak, author of "Marijuana: A Short History". “In the same way that states have votes on tax policy and a variety of other types of issues, this is rapidly becoming just another standard public policy issue.”
Here’s a breakdown of the 2020 marijuana state ballot measures:
New Jersey: Lawmakers in New Jersey already are working on a bill to implement a recreational marijuana ballot question that looks likely to pass. The legislature referred the question to the ballot after an effort to pass a legalization bill narrowly failed last year.
If successful, New Jersey’s market would boast some of the lowest marijuana tax rates in the nation. The state has nearly 9 million residents and is close to major cities including New York and Philadelphia. A legal market would undoubtedly draw consumers from neighboring states and could push others in the region to prioritize legalization over fears of losing tax dollars during a state budget crisis.
Arizona: Four years ago, Arizona voters narrowly defeated a referendum to legalize recreational sales. But they will have an opportunity to reverse course in 2020. Most polling indicates strong support for authorizing taxed, regulated sales. There are more than 250,000 patients enrolled in the state’s medical program — an increase of 150 percent from four years ago. Opponents of the initiative have been badly outspent by the multimillion-dollar, industry-backed legalization campaign. And a legal challenge to the initiative was rebuffed by the courts. If rec sales became reality in Arizona, they would extend a contiguous network of five western states with more than 60 million residents spanning from Canada to Mexico that have full legalization.
But the latest polling data suggests a rapidly tightening contest. Support for legalization is at 46 percent, compared to 45 percent opposition, according to polling from OH Predictive Insights conducted over the last several days.
“Based on the latest numbers, the pro-marijuana folks should put the cork back in the champagne bottle,” said Mike Noble, the polling firm’s managing partner.
MIssissippi: Polling shows strong support for medical marijuana legalization in the state, but activists behind a medical marijuana initiative are contending with challenges on two fronts — campaigning during a pandemic and a competing initiative placed on the ballot by the state legislature.
More than 80 percent of Mississippi voters favor medical marijuana legalization, but they’ll have two measures to choose from when they head to the polls: an activist-driven initiative that collected signatures to make the ballot and one referred by lawmakers that the activists contend is meant to confuse voters and split the vote. Still, a June poll from FM3 Research shows that the activist-led initiative has a 29-percentage-point lead over the alternative.
Montana: Montana, where medical marijuana is already legal, has two measures on the ballot: one to legalize recreational marijuana and another that sets the legal age at 21. Both measures are necessary, but some worry that having two separate initiatives will confuse voters.
Legal marijuana, nonetheless, has the support of a majority of Montanans — 54 percent, according to a February poll from the University of Montana. Pro-legalization group New Approach Montana has raised more than $2.5 million since late June and plans to launch a slew of TV ads in October. The anti-legalization campaign Wrong for Montana, meanwhile, just launched in the last few days.
South Dakota: The state is one of only three remaining states (along with Idaho and Nebraska) that outlaws all forms of cannabis — including use for very specific medical situations such as child seizures. South Dakota will be the first state to put medical and recreational measures on the ballot in the same election. Measure 26 sets up a medical marijuana program, and Amendment A would legalize adult-use marijuana. While it's unusual, Schweich said they put up both measures at the same time because their polling shows support among South Dakotans for both medical and recreational cannabis.
The Republican-led state government is strongly opposed to all things cannabis. Republican Gov. Kristi Noem even vetoed a hemp legalization law passed by the Republican-led legislature last year, but eventually dropped her opposition this year. The adult-use initiative is constitutional — meaning the legislature could not repeal it if it passes in November. The medical initiative, meanwhile, is statutory. The legislature would have the power to repeal or amend that law, but given that statewide support for medical marijuana, it seems less likely they would interfere if voters approve it.
Covid-19 setbacks: Because of the coronavirus crisis, 2020 isn’t quite the banner year for marijuana legalization that advocates hoped for.
The pandemic derailed efforts to put medical marijuana legalization questions before voters in Idaho and North Dakota. Advocates in Nebraska actually collected enough signatures to make the ballot, but the state Supreme Court ordered the Secretary of State to remove the question.
The public health crisis also upended efforts to put recreational legalization on the ballot in Missouri, Arkansas and Oklahoma, while a similar effort in Florida failed before the pandemic hit.
Baron23
Well-Known Member
Not to be negative but clearing a committee really is a LONG way from becoming law. But, this encouraging.
Bill to improve medical marijuana research clears House panel
The House Committee on Energy and Commerce approved a bill this week that seeks to improve and accelerate research on medical marijuana in the United States.
The Medical Marijuana Research Act, introduced by Representative Earl Blumenauer, is a bipartisan piece of legislation that tackles the inefficiency of current cannabis research in the country on several fronts.
First, the bill would streamline the elaborate and lengthy process of obtaining a license to conduct cannabis research. Furthermore, it would help provide cannabis researchers with better quality marijuana, a major sticking point in current research efforts.
Researchers in the U.S. currently have access only to cannabis grown at the University of Mississippi and run by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), whose crops have been described as “subpar” by scientists. The only existing federally authorized facility for growing research-grade marijuana also appears to be cultivating cannabis that is more akin to hemp.
The House leadership feels they have the votes to pass the Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, although the fate of this particular bill appears clear as Senate Majority Mitch McConnell has been unrelenting in his opposition to take up cannabis legalization.
Bill to improve medical marijuana research clears House panel
The House Committee on Energy and Commerce approved a bill this week that seeks to improve and accelerate research on medical marijuana in the United States.
The Medical Marijuana Research Act, introduced by Representative Earl Blumenauer, is a bipartisan piece of legislation that tackles the inefficiency of current cannabis research in the country on several fronts.
First, the bill would streamline the elaborate and lengthy process of obtaining a license to conduct cannabis research. Furthermore, it would help provide cannabis researchers with better quality marijuana, a major sticking point in current research efforts.
Researchers in the U.S. currently have access only to cannabis grown at the University of Mississippi and run by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), whose crops have been described as “subpar” by scientists. The only existing federally authorized facility for growing research-grade marijuana also appears to be cultivating cannabis that is more akin to hemp.
Representative Morgan Griffith, who also introduced a bill this week to allow cannabidiol (CBD) and other hemp-derived products to be sold as dietary supplements, put forward an amendment that would provide researchers with access to product sold at dispensaries as well.
The bill’s future remains unclear as no plans have been announced for bringing the legislation to the House for a floor vote. However, the House will vote on a bill to legalize cannabis at the federal level later this month.
The House leadership feels they have the votes to pass the Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, although the fate of this particular bill appears clear as Senate Majority Mitch McConnell has been unrelenting in his opposition to take up cannabis legalization.
|
Sponsored by |
|---|
|
|
|