Law The Cannabis Chronicles - Misc Cannabis News

[momofthegoons]

NORML Slams Proposed Changes to Federal Drug Testing Rules to Permit Hair Follicle Analysis

The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is proposing amending workplace drug testing guidelines to permit federal employers to analyze employees’ hair for the presence of illicit drug use.

The proposed rule change, posted in the Federal Register on September 10, seeks to allow federal agencies to collect and test hair specimens as part of pre-employment and/or random drug screenings.

NORML’s Deputy Director Paul Armentano strongly criticized the proposal, acknowledging that hair testing technology may yield disparate results from person to person based on hair color, skin color, and several other variables – such as exposure to high humidity or second-hand environmental exposure.

He said: “It is mind-boggling that the federal government is revisiting this half-baked proposal now. Given the heightened awareness surrounding the need for social and racial equity, the idea of proposing a testing procedure that will inherently deny more people of color opportunities than it would others who have engaged in exactly the same activities is beyond tone deaf and counterproductive.”

Hair follicle testing is well established to possesses limited probative value, which is why it has never gained a particularly strong foothold in the general workplace. Federal authorities have also rejected the inclusion of hair follicle testing in the federal workplace drug testing guidelines on multiple occasions dating back decades. The newly proposed rules explicitly recognize the technology’s many limitations, acknowledging that “a positive hair test alone, without corroborating evidence, may be vulnerable to legal challenge.”

If the plan is adopted, HHS estimates that hair follicle testing will be some eight-times more expensive than traditional urinalysis, and that it will likely only be utilized in “approximately one percent of the 275,000 specimens tested per year.”

The federal Register is accepting public comments on the proposed plan until November 9, 2020. Written comments may be submitted here.

 

[Baron23]

Legislating THC in Food


As laws for cannabis use change, so do the laws that govern the particular cannabinoids that make up the plant, namely CBD and THC, and how and where they are used. Whereas CBD has already been regulated differently in many places, THC is often left with no regulation at all when it comes to use in edible products.
It has become more commonplace for CBD to be separated from the rest of the cannabis plant, and regulated differently, with the main reason being that since it contains no psychoactive properties, it shouldn’t be treated the same as substances that are psychoactive. With more recreational markets opening, and more food-based products hitting the market, the question of how THC is legislated in food is becoming more of a question.
First let’s take a look at CBD
CBD, or cannabidiol, is often separated from the rest of the cannabis plant, and this gives it the ability to be used in places where the entire cannabis plant cannot be. When dealing with CBD in food, this is how it’s currently regulated:
US – When it comes to the US there’s the ages old fight between federal and state governments. CBD is not legal to market as a food product or dietary supplement by the FDA. On the other hand, individual states also have the ability to hold their own regulation standards. As such, Florida, for example, added as part of its hemp program in January of 2020, that all parts of the hemp plant are allowed in food. The new law makes the stipulation that all manufacturers, processers, packers, holders, preparers or vendors must have a food permit, the process of which and enforcement of, are done through the Florida Department of Agriculture. Other states that have made legislation to allow CBD in food are: Colorado, Indiana, Illinois, and Texas, with California possibly on the way.
EU – According to regulation 2015/2283, CBD is considered a novel food with not enough consumption history to be legal as of yet. As such, it is forbidden to be marketed as a food product or supplement without proper authorization. This hasn’t done much to stop the flow of CBD products onto store shelves. The whole thing is, of course, confusing as the EU roundly allows cannabis plants to be grown so long as the THC content doesn’t go above .2%.
However, at the same time, food and drinks made from it, fall under the Novel Food regulation. Truth be told, there isn’t a legal standing for the Novel Foods act, but it’s generally used as law by member states. A recent application by the company Cannabis Pharma to produce a supplement for adults containing a daily intake of up to 130mg, could propel CBD to a ‘permitted food/ingredient’ status on the novel food list soon.
Canada – Canada makes it a bit easier. As a country that has already legalized the whole of the cannabis plant – high THC or low – and as a country which already puts cannabis in food, CBD is a perfectly legal additive. It didn’t start out like this though, with the initial legalization still keeping cannabis foods illegal. As of an update to the Cannabis Act in 2019, cannabis products can be used in food legally.



Australia – In 2018, both federal and local health officials decided the buying and selling of hemp products for food is legal. In order for it to be legal though, the products must contain less than .005% THC.
In all of the places mentioned, there is already legalization, a push toward it, or laws very close to it. It’s not surprising that CBD would be accepted into food products, but it’s also not surprising that in many places this would not be the case. So, let’s take it up a notch.
Regulating THC in food
As laws loosen relating to cannabis, CBD has shown up in more and more places, often no longer sharing the same legislation as the cannabis plant as a whole. This has been made possible by the lack of psychoactive properties in CBD, which has gotten it removed from a narcotics drug classification in many places. However, THC is still generally considered a narcotic. It’s also a main part of the marijuana plant that has become increasingly popular to put in food. So, what are the laws governing THC in food?
US – It probably goes without saying that according to the US federal government, it’s 100% illegal to use THC in a food product. However, for anyone who bought in a dispensary lately knows there’s no shortage of cannabis edibles. Every recreational state allows the purchase of cannabis edibles, and many medical states do as well.
EU – In the EU, THC can be found legally in industrial hemp which must have a max of .2% by law. Some hemp is grown for food products under regulation number 1307/20131, which allows for hemp with the accepted THC amount to be used in this way. Apart from this, no actual legislation exists regarding THC and food, meaning individual member countries can implement their own laws.
Italy is an example of this. In January of this year, it’s Ministry of Health confirmed THC is now permitted in food so long as the concentration coming from seeds and seed flower is no more than 2mg/kg which converts to about .0002%, and oil coming from seeds to have no more than 5mg/kg which equals about .0005%. While this is an impressive move simply considering and allowing THC, in reality it only allows trace amounts. This sort of legislation is quite different than legislation allowing for high-THC food products.
Germany is another example. In 1996 it lifted its ban on industrial hemp so long as it remained low-THC. Germany has been allowing limited THC in products for quite some time, with the current max level being 10-100 times lower than in the 1990’s making for negligible, trace amounts.
Canada – Like the US free states, Canada allows for high-THC edibles. It is regulated by this table which shows the max amount to be 10mg per package.
Australia & New Zealand – In Australia, cannabis is technically still federally illegal (except in Canberra). In New Zealand there’s actually a referendum (though non-binding) coming up next month to see if the people want to legalize recreational cannabis. However, both countries came together in 2017 to come up with the Food Regulation System priorities for 2017-2021. As part of this, low-THC hemp seeds can be used as food, and in food.
Conclusion
These are just some of the examples of where and how in the world THC shows up in food products. Obviously recreational markets see the most THC in edibles, but even non-legal countries have found ways to get THC in food, albeit in very small, pretty much negligible amounts.
Of course, just a few years ago, the only way to get THC in your food was to leach out the THC from the plant into hot butter (generally in your own home kitchen laboratory), and then bake up some nice cookies. At this rate, in another few years, ‘special cookies’ might end up on the menus of standard restaurants the world over.

 

[momofthegoons]

NORML Files Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court Challenging Cannabis’ Schedule I Prohibited Status Under Federal Law

The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), Empire State NORML, the New York City Cannabis Industry Association (NYCCIA), the Hudson Valley Cannabis Industry Association (HVCIA), and the New York City Cannabis Bar have filed a Friend-Of-The-Court Brief with the United States Supreme Court in the case of Washington v. Barr – which challenges the constitutionality of cannabis’ Schedule I prohibited status under federal law.

Originally filed in 2017 by a legal team that includes New York attorney Michael Hiller, NORML Legal Committee member and Board Member Joseph Bondy and Empire State NORML Director David Holland, the lawsuit contends that the federal government “does not believe, and upon information and belief never has believed” that cannabis meets the requirements for a Schedule I designation under the Controlled Substances Act. It further argues that current administrative mechanisms in place to allow for the reconsideration of cannabis Schedule I classification are “illusory.”


Lawyers for the Justice Department previously argued for a dismissal of the suit, which they were granted by a federal court judge in 2018, opining, “There is no fundamental right to use marijuana, for medical purposes or otherwise.”

In its amicus brief filed this week, NORML Legal Committee member David Holland, Esq., argues that the federal scheduling of cannabis is unconstitutional because all three branches of government have promoted laws and policies in direct conflict with its Schedule I status.

Holland said: “The Brief exposes a fundamental paradox – if cannabis is federally illegal for all purposes, and the three coordinate branches of federal government have acted to allow for cannabis businesses, then the federal government is nullifying its own law. Simply put, under the Constitution, something cannot be illegal and legal at the same time especially when it comes to state laws that conflict with federal laws. The only resolution to this constitutional conflict is for the Supreme Court to invoke the doctrine of estoppel to prevent the federal government from reversing course and retroactively penalizing that which it has protected in fostering state cannabis programs and effectively legalizing it.”

He added: “Federal precedent exists for the Court to invoke the doctrine and Attorney General William Barr has testified before Congress about his belief that it would be fundamentally unfair to penalize those who in good faith relied upon those government statements and policies because it would violate Due Process. Due Process and fairness are the very heart of the reasoning for the Court to invoke the doctrine of estoppel.”

Plaintiffs in the suit include a former NFL football player, a disabled military veterans, two children with severe movement disorders, and the non-profit group, the Cannabis Cultural Association. Plaintiffs argue that federal prohibition violates their civil and constitutional liberties, including their right to freely travel within the United States. They also argue that the federal prohibition of cannabis is “grounded in discrimination and [is] applied in a discriminatory manner.”

The full text of NORML’s brief is available here.

 

[momofthegoons]

Congressional Lawmakers Ask Supreme Court To Hear Marijuana Lawsuit Against DEA

Seven members of Congress and a slew of marijuana reform groups have submitted legal documents urging the U.S. Supreme Court to take up a lawsuit against the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) refusal to change the federal classification of cannabis.

In an amicus brief filed on Tuesday, the lawmakers sided with the plaintiffs and said the prohibition of marijuana is unconstitutional and should be resolved by the Court. The Schedule I status of cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act “creates an unconstitutional framework that unfairly burdens their constituents,” the brief states.

The original lawsuit against DEA was filed in 2017 by a coalition of medical cannabis patients and activists, including Alexis Bortell and former NFL player Marvin Washington. It was rejected in a series of rulings by lower courts, but attorneys for the plaintiffs said those decisions made it clear their only source of acceptable relief would come from the Supreme Court.

That’s because both a U.S. District Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit previously determined that advocates would have to first seek administrative relief through existing channels such as a petition asking DEA directly to reclassify cannabis. But the plaintiffs said they wouldn’t go that route because they believe the request would be denied by DEA and because the agency would, at best, reclassify marijuana as a Schedule II drug, which they say could create additional harms in terms of patient access to the plant.

It’s not clear whether the Supreme Court will take the case, but the batch of amicus briefs could give added weight to the case, particularly when members of Congress are calling for action. The nine justices are scheduled to discuss whether to grant a hearing during a private October 9 conference.

“The submission of an amicus brief by seven members of Congress is significant, not only because it adds legitimacy to our petition, but more importantly, because it provides critical support for one of the central points of our appeal—that the only realistic means of resolving the issue of legalization is through the courts,” Michael Hiller, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, told Marijuana Moment.

The lawmakers wrote that because “many states have legalized medicinal (and recreational) uses of cannabis, the continued rigid federal criminalization of any cannabis use creates a system that infringes on Constitutional rights—the right to interstate travel, to participate in civic life, to contract and engage in interstate commerce, to make life-saving and life-sustaining medical decisions without government intervention, and to make decisions guided by a clear, nationally-consistent regulatory scheme.”

“This Court must take action to remedy the unconstitutional system that has unfairly burdened Petitioners and similarly-situated patients who lawfully use medical marijuana under the supervision of a physician and pursuant to state law. While a legislative solution is theoretically possible, various unsuccessful Congressional attempts to deschedule marijuana have made clear that legislative action is made practically impossible by complicated political realities. Because the current federal scheme violates federal law and infringes on Constitutional rights, the Court should grant certiorari to resolve this matter.”

Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), Jared Huffman (D-CA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Alan Lowenthal (D-CA), Mark Pocan (D-WI) and Jamie Raskin (D-MD) each signed the amicus brief.

That makes the language of the filing as it concerns “complicated political realities” preventing legislative change somewhat curious, as Blumenauer and Lee are cochairs of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus and have expressed confidence that a bill to federally legalize marijuana that’s due for a House vote next week will pass. Blumenauer went so far as to say on Tuesday that he feels it even stands a chance of clearing the GOP-controlled Senate.

If the legislation does advance through at least one chamber of Congress prior to the justices’ discussion of the case next month, that could undermine the legal argument that the courts are the only place where advocates stand a reasonable chance of forcing a change to marijuana’s federal scheduling.

Additional briefs in support of the lawsuit have been filed by NORML, International Cannabis Bar Association, National Cannabis Industry Association, Arcview Group, Last Prisoner Project, Americans for Safe Access, Minority Cannabis Business Association and others.

“The submission of nine amicus briefs from 19 organizations, two leading experts in cannabis science, and seven members of Congress reinforces our arguments,” Hiller said. “Today, 70 percent of American jurisdictions maintain some form of legalization. We believe that the issue is fully ripe for determination by the Supreme Court and remain hopeful that the Justices will see fit to grant cert.”

The Justice Department, in a short filing on Monday, declined an opportunity to respond to the petition.

“In my experience, the federal government generally waives its opposition to cert petitions, and it would have been quite unusual for the federal government not to have done so here,” Hiller said. “Consequently, we were not the least bit surprised that the federal government waived its opposition.”

DEA has on numerous past occasions denied petitions to change marijuana’s status under the CSA, most recently in 2016.

The current case isn’t the only cannabis-related lawsuit DEA has faced in recent years. Scientists sued the agency last year, alleging that it had deliberately delayed approving additional marijuana manufacturers for research purposes despite pledging to expand the number of those facilities in 2016.

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.

Separately, a federal court recently ruled that California regulators must comply with a DEA subpoena demanding information about marijuana businesses that they are investigating.

Read the lawmakers’ amicus brief on the marijuana lawsuit against DEA by following title link and scrolling to the bottom of the article.

 

[momofthegoons]

Well. Of course she does....

Martha Stewart Has Her Own Line Of CBD Products That Taste Like Meyer Lemon And Blood Orange

Martha Stewart can truly do it all. Whether it's mastering new recipes or the art of the thirst trap, we simply must bow down. And her latest venture has already created a lot of buzz because let's face it, we could all use an excuse to chill the hell out. The lifestyle maven has just launched her own line of CBD products and, of course, they look and taste amazing.

She teamed up with Canopy Growth Corporation to create a namesake line of CBDwellness gummies, soft gels, and oil drops, all of which are inspired by some of Martha's favorite recipes and ingredients. If you've ever tried to choke down the ropey taste of traditional CBD oil (guilty!), these will look like heaven to you. Plus, they have the signature Martha Stewart look that you'll be happy to display.

Each product is naturally flavored, made in the USA with hemp-derived CBD isolate, and is beloved by Martha herself, which is truly the only stamp of approval I ever need. In a release, Martha said she particularly prides herself on the flavors, which closely resemble "the French confections, pâte de fruits, rather than the sticky, overly sweet versions you might find elsewhere." Of course she had to throw a little shade in there. It's Martha! And with CBD products that taste like Meyer lemon, kumquat, and blood orange, we get why.

You can find the full range here, but for some product examples, you can get a 30-count container of gummies for $34.99, softgels for $44.99, and a container of oil drops for $44.99.

 

[Baron23]

All politics, all the time.

So, they want to NOT vote on MJ legalization as they feel this would be a detriment to their reelection to the public trough. So, after the election, do they THEN support a bill that they always wanted to support but that they didn't think would fly with their constituents?

By the way, that is not a "pivot" or "and evolving position".....its lying to get reelected and they ALL do it.

These folks all have great strength in their conviction....that conviction being that they want to be back in office for another term.

If I here "pivot" one more time to excuse politician venality I'm going to heave.


House vote on marijuana legalization bill postponed after backlash from moderate lawmakers


Democrats in the House of Representatives postponed a planned vote next week on marijuana legalization following a backlash from moderate Democrats.
The legislation, the MORE Act, would legalize marijuana at the federal level and expunge some marijuana-related criminal records, though it left the decision on the sale of marijuana up to the states.
According to a senior Democratic aide, lawmakers in tough re-election contests wanted the House to first pass COVID-19 relief before acting on marijuana legalization.
Another senior Democratic aide said a group of moderate Democrats had made the case to party leadership that they wanted to focus on legislation other than pot legalization given the risks posed at the ballot box – and their argument won over party leaders.
The MORE Act would probably not come up until after the election, according to twoaides.



House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said in a statement the House would pass the MORE Act "later this autumn," but right now, "the House is focused relentlessly on securing agreement to stave off a damaging government shutdown and continuing to do its job addressing the COVID-19 pandemic."
Congress has a just few weeks left in its scheduled session to pass COVID-19 legislation and bills to keep the government funded. The House is scheduled to stay in session until Oct. 2, though Pelosi promised the body would remain in session until a deal is brokered on COVID-19 relief. The Senate is scheduled to stay until Oct. 9. After they leave, the two chambers are not scheduled to return until after Election Day.
Coronavirus stimulus plans:What we know about the negotiations between Congress and the Trump White House
Pelosi and the Trump administration came to an informal deal earlier this month that would extend government funding at the current operating levels. It’s still unclear how long the bills will extend to, and whether there will be any other legislation attached to the funding bills. Leaders on both sides of the aisle have said they do not want to add COVID-19 relief funding to the spending bills.
The government will shut down on Sept. 30 unless Congress passes a continuing resolution and the president signs off. Hoyer, D-Md., announced Thursday the House would consider stopgap government funding legislation next week.
Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., told reporters Thursday talks over government funding were “going quite well.”
“I don't think anybody wants to be responsible for shutting down the government on the eve of an election in the middle of a pandemic, so it's a rare outbreak of common sense on both sides,” he said, though he acknowledged there was still disagreement over extending government funding through December, or until February or March, when a new Congress would be sworn in.
Cole said the spending bill could be a “vehicle” for other legislation like COVID-19 relief if all sides came to an agreement.
Advocates were disappointed by the delay of the marijuana legislation.
Maritza Perez, director of the office of national affairs at the Drug Policy Alliance, a group advocating for the decriminalization of drugs, said in a statement the delay meant "justice delayed for millions of Black, Latinx, Indigenous and low-income individuals disproportionately impacted by our country's racist marijuana laws. We cannot continue to force these communities to wait for a 'politically convenient' moment while they continue to be robbed of employment opportunities, housing, education, other government programs, and even their children or immigration status."
An ACLU report analyzing marijuana-related arrests from 2010 to 2018 found that Black people were 3.64 times more likely than white people to be arrested for marijuana possession.

 

[momofthegoons]

Really? That’s what seized cannabis is worth?

It’s not clear what the rules are when it comes to determining how much cannabis or marijuana plants are actually worth “on the street.”

It seems that determining the value of cannabis seized by police is all about potential, with a bit of PR mixed in.

Estimating what a pot seizure is “worth” appears to be a fairly fluid, some might say slippery. Just consider these recent examples from around the world (all reported values have been converted to Canadian dollars): more than 870 marijuana plants worth $870,000 in Ontario; 1,740 kg of cannabis valued at about $10.6 million in Buffalo; 480 kg of marijuana worth $36,000 in India; and 2,426 cannabis plants worth more than $850,000 in the U.K.

Perhaps most intriguing, though, was the two stolen plants in Oklahoma that were valued at U.S. $3,000. The owners said the plants were taken from the background where they were being grown, although the Ardmore Police Department noted there was no evidence to suggest how the suspect or suspects entered the area, according to The Daily Ardmoreite.

(Medical cannabis is legal in Oklahoma to treat certain conditions, as is consumption at home. Without a medical licence, possessing more than about 40 grams of cannabis can result in a misdemeanour charge and penalty, but no jail time).

Exactly what an individual plant will yield each year can vary wildly based on many factors, including the strain being grown, if grown indoors or outdoors and how light is being used, suggests I Love Growing Marijuana. If all things go swimmingly, annual production could be about 420 grams, or just under a pound, the site notes.

Citing figures from Statistics Canada, CBC reported earlier this year that the average price of legal cannabis in this country was $10.30 per gram in the final quarter of 2019. That compares to an average price of $7.43 per gram in 2017, $8.09 in 2016 and $8.50 in 2015 — all before weed was recreational legalized two years ago.

Several factors are likely to be considered when police release estimates, including if the figure represents retail or street value, as well as the weed’s origin and availability in the market where it is being sold. “The price will vary with the demand, quantity, quality, region, the relationship between the buyer and seller and other variables,” notes the report, Measuring Illicit Cannabis Seizures in Canada.

“As several consulted experts have indicated, the reported value of seized cannabis is generally inaccurate, unless the cannabis was seized as part of an undercover operation,” states the report. “Similar to purchasing a used car, the price of cannabis is only valid at the point of the exchange and average general market prices may not necessarily be representative of any given seizure,” it adds.

Similar to licit markets, “drug prices are moderated according to relative supply and demand. Previous studies have shown that drops in cannabis prices have been associated with increases in supply,” Public Safety Canada points out.

The confusion can be seen with two recent busts — one in legalized Canada and one in still-illicit New York state. Canada Border Services Agency notedthat a seizure of over 1,400 kilograms of suspected cannabis had an estimated value of more than $10.8 million, which would equate to about $7,714 per kilogram or $7.71 per gram. Compare that to another seizure by U.S. Customs and Border Protection in in Buffalo, N.Y. involving about 1,740 kg of weed valued at more than $10 million, which would translate to $5,747 per kilogram or $5.75 per gram.

Some people suggest estimates are overblown, whether that’s because of a lack of understanding of contributing factors or because bigger numbers make for splashier PR and prosecutorial heft.

Following a 2016 seizure of 247 pounds (112 kg) of weed in Pennsylvania, one reader scoffed at the sheriff’s estimate that it was worth US$2 million ($2.64 million). “There is no way that 247 lbs is worth anywhere near ($2) million dollars. Weed costs about $50 per eighth-ounce on the street. If you split that 247 lbs into 31,616 individual units and sold them for $50 each you’d only have $1.58 million…. $750,000 tops in its bulk form.”

Of course, quality is a factor. Local weed might pale in comparison to “super high-octane product coming out of Canada,” a spokesperson for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency suggested in the article, adding that the latter could fetch US$5,000 to US$7,000 ($6,600 to $9,240) a pound.

By valuing seizures of a wholesale amount as if it would only be sold in very small amounts is also likely to produce a bigger figure, Reason reported in 2012.

With the different considerations and motivations, understanding the value of weed seizures will likely prove challenging for some time yet.

But if you want to get high with the help of your friends, the Price of Weedwebsite notes that it crowdsources “the street value of marijuana from the most accurate source possible: you, the consumer. Help by anonymously submitting data on the latest transaction you’ve made.”

No word on if that is based on legal, (or not) supplies.

 

[Bcbud]

Willoughby Police Celebrates “Drug” Trafficking Arrest ($100 in Cash and 4 Baggies of Weed) - International Highlife

You can't make this shit up... It feels like there is no week passing without some police department having the urge to post one of their arrests on social media. The result is always the same; 95% of the comments are roasting the coppers. It's no different this time around. The announcement of...

internationalhighlife.com

 

[momofthegoons]

Hemp Advocates Secure Major Win In New House Government Funding Measure

Hemp industry stakeholders are celebrating the introduction of a House of Representatives funding bill that would extend a 2014 pilot program for the crop until 2021.

While the 2018 Farm Bill more broadly legalized hemp, it required the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to develop regulations for the market—and many farmers and processors have expressed concern about certain proposed rules. Industry groups, lawmakers and producers have been asking USDA to extend the earlier, 2014 Farm Bill pilot program, which they consider to be more flexible.

That program is set to expire on October 31. But if the new continuing resolution to keep the government funded and avoid a shutdown is approved, it would stay in effect until at least September 2021, also pushing back the implementation of USDA’s interim final rule on hemp and its derivatives.

Here’s the text of the hemp provision in the new funding bill:

“SEC. 122. Section 7605(b) of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (7 U.S.C. 5940 note; Public Law 115–334) is amended by striking ‘the date that is 1 year after the date on which the Secretary establishes a plan under section 297C of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946’ and inserting ‘September 30, 2021.'”

Stakeholders would then have more time to push USDA to adopt changes before it finalizes its hemp rules under the 2018 bill. They’ve said that testing and disposal requirements, as well as limitations on THC content, are particularly concerning provisions that threaten to inhibit the industry’s growth.

“We are very excited to see this language added into the House’s continuing resolution, and we will be enlisting our grassroots army behind an advocacy campaign to urge the Senate to concur,” Jonathan Miller, general counsel at the U.S. Hemp Roundtable, told Marijuana Moment. “This is a critical step to ensure full flexibility for hemp farmers as the USDA irons out its final rule during these difficult economic circumstances.”

Earlier this month, USDA reopened a public comment period for 30 days on its interim final rule (IFR) for the crop, soliciting public input on a series of specific provisions. The federal Small Business Administration recently asked the agency to extend that window by another 30 days.

“We see this as a positive development for hemp farmers across the country,” Patrick Atagi, board chairman of the National Industrial Hemp Council (NIHC), said in a press release. “The hemp industry isn’t any different from other facets of our economy that have been adversely affected by COVID. We’ve continued to tell Congress that a global pandemic has made it increasingly difficult for states to meet and develop plans to be submitted to the USDA for approval before the expiration of the pilot program.”

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) said the new legislation “provides USDA and the states another year to work together on any challenges with the USDA’s proposed regulations.”

“Colorado is proud to be a national leader in the hemp industry and the continuation of this program will help support our local farmers and ranchers who are the foundation of this industry in our state,” he said. “I welcome the extension of the 2014 Farm Bill in the Continuing Resolution because it provides Colorado with additional time to engage stakeholders and federal agencies before finalizing our State’s hemp plan with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.”

It remains to be seen whether the Senate will introduce identical language. Senate Republicans and the White House have already voiced general opposition to the proposed continuing resolution in general, without discussing the specific hemp provision. That said, a coalition of hemp associations wrote to Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO) last week, imploring him to advocate for an extension of the 2014 pilot program and also delay implementation of USDA’s IFR.

“As you are aware, stakeholders throughout Colorado (and nationwide), including both government and industry, continue to voice their numerous concerns related to several untenable standards contained in the USDA IFR,” the letter, led by led by Vicente Sederberg LLP and Hoban Law Group, states.

“To this end, Colorado is one of a number of states which has delayed the promulgation of a state plan in accordance with the 2018 Farm Bill, to allow Colorado’s hemp industry to remain in operation in accordance with the 2014 Farm Bill for at least the 2020 season, while USDA and its sister agencies are afforded the opportunity to meaningfully address the industry’s stated concerns,” it continues.

The letter was also signed by Buscher Law, Colorado Hemp Industries Association, National Cannabis Industry Association, Hemp Industries Association and Functional Remedies, LLC.

“I think it’s an important protection for the hemp industry to allow them to operate under a state regulated program, while there’s more time to address the problematic provisions under the federal IFR,” Shawn Hauser of Vicente Sederberg LLP told Marijuana Moment. “Especially given the difficulty and transitioning operations with the challenges of COVID and the time and work that needs to be done to address the federal rules, it’s important that these state programs be able to continue, and this is going to allow the hemp industry to succeed.”

Last month Gardner called on USDA to delay the implementation of the proposed hemp rules, citing concerns about certain restrictive policies that stakeholders oppose.

While Senate leadership might not be amenable to the House proposal overall, it’s still the case the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is a strong advocate for hemp and has made much of his alliance with the industry throughout his reelection campaign.

Pressure is on to get a continuing resolution approved, as the deadline to keep the government funded is in less than 10 days, at the end of this month.

For USDA’s part, it does seem to be taking seriously the feedback it’s received and may be willing to make certain accommodations on these particular policies. At the same time, it’s been in the process of approving hemp regulatory proposals—or requesting resubmissions with edits—from states that are moving ahead despite ongoing concerns about the 2018 provisions.

Certain states like North Carolina and Rhode Island have notified USDA that they intend to continue operating under the 2014 pilot program.

In July, two senators representing Oregon sent a letter to Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue, 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.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) last month wrote to 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.

State agriculture departments and a NIHC made a similar request to both Congress and USDA last month.

Perdue has said on several occasions that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) influenced certain rules, adding that the narcotics agency wasn’t pleased with the overall legalization of hemp.

Separately, USDA announced last week that it is expanding its coronavirus relief program for farmers—and this time around, hemp cultivators are eligible for benefits.

Earlier this month, DEA released proposed rules to comply with USDA’s hemp rules. However, some industry players suspect that they’re really setting the stage to crack down on the newly legal market.

Read the letter the hemp groups sent to Gardner by following title link and scrolling to the bottom of the article.

 

[momofthegoons]

New Marijuana Coalition Unveils Plan To Legalize Interstate Cannabis Commerce

A coalition of advocacy groups and marijuana businesses have unveiled a unique plan to legalize interstate cannabis commerce regardless of ongoing federal prohibition.

The Alliance for Sensible Markets campaign will be pushing governors from legal and likely soon-to-be legal marijuana states to enter into an interstate compact—a constitutionally recognized agreement between two or more states—establishing a framework for cannabis to be transported and marketed across state lines.

Such an arrangement hasn’t been tried before for marijuana, but if the new effort succeeds in getting at least two states to sign on, the compact would then be transmitted to Congress, where lawmakers would have the choice to codify the agreement. It could be passed as standalone legislation or attached as an amendment or rider to a broader bill.



Perhaps the best example of an interstate compact is the Port Authority, which was created in 1921 to regulate regional transportation and infrastructure in New York and New Jersey. Those two states are actually being targeted by the Alliance for Sensible Markets, despite not having legalization on the books just yet. California and Oregon are the two other states the campaign hopes to bring on board.

Part of the logic in choosing these states is that California and Oregon are considered producer states with high volumes of marijuana whereas New York and New Jersey are more traditionally consumer states, where the climate is less friendly to large-scale, outdoor cultivation.

By opening a market that would allow for interstate commerce, it would “immediately increase valuations significantly for thousands of farms and businesses on the West Coast, which will spur investment expansion and jobs,” Adam Smith, founder and president of the Alliance for Sensible Markets, told Marijuana Moment. “And in consumer states—states that don’t traditionally grow their own cannabis—we have seen the length of time it takes to get state-siloed production industries up and running and supply chains stable.”

“Let’s set up the industry in the newly legalizing states in a way that reflects reality and reflects what the future of this industry is so we can actually grow the industry without wiping a whole bunch of people out,” he said.

Oregon’s governor has already given a signal that she’d be on board, signing a bill last year that would allow marijuana to be imported and exported from other states if federal law or policy provides for it. Activists had hoped to get similar legislation enacted in California this year, but the coronavirus pandemic derailed that.

Smith says the group’s pitch to governors is simple: “We’re in the midst of a historic recession and jobs crisis, right? I believe that there is no other industry in the U.S. private sector that is as poised to help the recovery.”

“With this policy change, immediately across producer states, you will see valuations for thousands of farms and businesses increased by multiples, which will spur an immediate wave of investment expansion and job creation. On the east coast in the consumer states, legalizing cannabis with interstate commerce, will mean that they can get industries up and running and stable in six-to-18 months, rather than three years or five years or seven years, spurring an immediate wave of investment, business formation and tens of thousands of jobs just when the states need them. We are looking to partner with the governors and be their partners in economic recovery.”

Groups involved in the campaign include the Minority Cannabis Business Association (MCBA), New York City Cannabis Industry Association, Craft Cannabis Alliance, Global Alliance for Cannabis Commerce and approximately 50 others organizations and companies.

“State siloed cannabis industries concentrate power in the hands of a relatively few large players,” MCBA President Jason Ortiz told Marijuana Moment. “Interstate commerce opens pathways to success and economic opportunity for thousands of smaller businesses, setting the framework for a more diverse and equitable industry.”

Genine Coleman, executive director of the Origins Council, said interstate commerce “will help thousands of farms and businesses, but it will be a real game changer for legacy growing regions in California and Oregon where most of America’s cannabis has always been grown.”

The group’s goal is to draft a proposed agreement by December and get at least two governors to sign on by March 2021.

As it stands, transporting cannabis across state lines is strictly prohibited under current federal law. The Justice Department described such activity as an enforcement priority even under a now-rescinded Obama-era memo intended to generally respect state marijuana policies. Nonetheless, Smith is confident that the economic benefits of the reform will have bipartisan appeal in Congress.

Two lawmakers who’ve already set the groundwork for the policy change are Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR). Shortly after Oregon Gov. Kate Brown (D) signed the interstate commerce bill, the legislators filed a bill that would similarly allow for such activity, preventing the Justice Department from interfering in states that have affirmative agreements to sell marijuana across state lines.

And, for what it’s worth, governors in the Northeast have discussed at length the necessity of developing coordinated legalization plans, though it’s not clear whether they had any explicit talk of state-to-state commerce. The broader talks could indicate that they’d be amenable to entering into an interstate compact, however

 

[Baron23]

"but action on the measure was shelved in part due to a deadlock in Congress over the next round of COVID-19 economic stimulus."​

​

Baloney....its all about the election and what goes on the record before the voting.

House delays historic vote to decriminalize marijuana until after election


A bill seeking to decriminalize marijuana at the federal level, which was originally scheduled for a vote in Congress Monday, must now wait until after the November general election.
The House originally expected to pass the measure, the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, this week but action on the measure was shelved in part due to a deadlock in Congress over the next round of COVID-19 economic stimulus.
The MORE Act would, for the first time, decriminalize marijuana by removing it from the federal government's list of controlled substances that are illegal to possess.
The law would remove federal penalties on marijuana, expunge criminal records related to marijuana and create a 5% federal sales tax on the sale of marijuana to fund community programs that benefit persons previously convicted of drug offenses.
Both President Donald Trump and former President Barack Obama have elected not to enforce federal prohibitions on marijuana in states that have chosen to legalize it for recreational or medical use, such as California, Colorado and Washington.
Former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions broke with Trump on the issue, favoring the enforcement of federal laws against marijuana, but the president supported efforts to decriminalize the drug.
There are still federal barriers, however, that create obstacles for marijuana businesses, including provisions that make it difficult for them to secure bank loans.
Cannabis remains a Schedule I drug in the United States, which means it's illegal to use, possess and sale. All illicit drugs, such as cocaine and heroin, are in Schedule I classification.
The legislation would fully deschedule marijuana -- as opposed to rescheduling the substance in another classification, like prescription opioids -- and tetrahydrocannabinols, except for tetrahydrocannabinols in hemp.
The MORE Act has been sponsored by 86 Democrats and Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida. Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-Calif., told USA Today earlier this month he was sure the bill would pass, as it had "probably unanimous" Democratic support and "considerable Republican support."
Nadler, however was unsure how the bill might fare in the Senate -- as a measure introduced last year by Democratic vice presidential candidate and California Sen. Kamala Harris failed to receive traction in the Republican-controlled chamber.
House Democratic leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said in a statement the House would take up a vote on the MORE Act "later this autumn," citing higher priorities and a short window of time before Congress recesses again in October until after the presidential election.
In addition to a new COVID-19 stimulus deal, Congress also must avert a federal shutdown before government funding runs out on Sept. 30.
"The House is focused relentlessly on securing an agreement to stave off a damaging government shutdown and continuing to do its job addressing the COVID-19 pandemic," Hoyer said.
Reps. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., and Barbara Lee, D-Calif., co-chairs of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, said a vote on the decriminalization measure will take place before the end of the year.
"The leadership has now given an ironclad commitment that the House will consider the bill this fall," they said in a statement.

 

[CarolKing]

Is the U.S. Getting on Board With Marijuana Legalization? | The Motley Fool

Yes, but expect legalization efforts for recreational use to proceed unevenly from state to state.

www.fool.com

With companies like Aurora Cannabis (NYSE:ACB), Canopy Growth (NYSE:CGC), and Tilray (NASDAQ:TLRY) catching the attention of investors and consumers alike, it's no surprise that marijuana legalization is a hot issue in the U.S. According to a report by Grandview Research, the U.S. market for cannabis was worth $11.3 billion in 2018, with an expected growth rate of 14.5% per year through 2025 -- but that might be contingent on further loosening of prohibition laws.

As of 2018, 21 states have debated legislation that would legalize recreational use of marijuana, and 33 states have already legalized some forms of cannabis for either recreational or medicinal use.

Presently, marijuana is fully legal for recreational use in only 11 of those states. With the exception of Vermont, jurisdictions with legalized recreational cannabis also provision for the commercialization of cannabis products for adults. Fully legalized marijuana remains uncommon in the United States, even if it's significantly more common than it was 10 years ago.

IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES.
2020 may see pivotal victories for legalization
In 2020, a handful of states will vote on full or partial legalization via referendum, including Arizona, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, and South Dakota. It's reasonable to suspect that at least a couple of these political efforts will fall short, but legalization proponents shouldn't despair.
Many of the states that eventually legalized recreational cannabis via referendum had to try more than once before succeeding, as is typified by California's failed ballot initiative in 2010. But cannabis investors will be pleased to learn that no state that decriminalized or legalized recreational use has repealed it, despite several different attempts via ballot measures. Thus, the country looks like it's on track for legalization to make progress this election cycle, even if there's still a long way to go.

Even as states move to reform their cannabis laws, federal regulatory bodies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are prohibited by federal law from participating in quality control or consumer safety efforts.

This means that as legalization advances, state governments need to build new infrastructure to make sure that their cannabis regulations are locally enforceable, thereby introducing a large amount of overhead to the legalization process. It may also make it harder for international cannabis companiesto compete in the U.S. because they'll need to deal with many different sets of regulations rather than just one.

Medicinal use and decriminalization aren't the same as legalization
Full nationwide cannabis legalization is still a distant goal, and there are many cases where progress has been incremental rather than transformational. Sixteen states have decriminalized recreational marijuana use without implementing full legalization for recreational purposes.
In these states, cannabis products are only sold for medicinal use, which is strictly controlled. In places like Idaho and Indiana, medicinal use is so tightly regulated that medicinal products from jurisdictions like California might not be legal. This is a concern for cannabis investors because it means businesses would need to make different products for these jurisdictions if they wanted to compete.

Similarly, many states haven't committed to full decriminalization despite allowing for limited medicinal use. In Alabama, non-medical marijuana possession is a misdemeanor for first-time offenders and a felony for subsequent violations, so its "decriminalized" status is a bit of a misnomer. In contrast, Georgia's laws tightly control the THC content of medicinal marijuana while formally forbidding any recreational use, but cities including Atlanta and Savannah have proceeded to decriminalize it anyway, creating precarious pockets of opportunity that businesses are hesitant to exploit.

Finally, there's the issue of the federal government's approach to cannabis policy. Right now, there's no way to reconcile the fact that at the federal level, recreational cannabis is still fully illegal, even if state governments like New Hampshire's claim to have nullified the federal prohibition.
State-level initiatives aside, Congress was initially scheduled to vote on a legalization bill called the MORE Act this week, but with an upcoming battle over Supreme Court nominees looming, the vote will likely be delayed until after the 2020 election.

 

[Bcbud]

Definitely a back burner item considering the wealth of much more pressing issues.

 

[CarolKing]

It’s harder for states that don’t have the referendum system of government to legalize or get to vote for medical cannabis. The citizens are dependent on their lawmakers to decide for them. Not always a good plan.

 

[momofthegoons]

Democrats Remove Marijuana Research Bill From House Floor Schedule After Briefly Listing Possible Vote

On Friday afternoon, a bipartisan bill to promote marijuana research was included in a list of legislation that was “scheduled for consideration” on the House floor next week. But hours later, it was removed.

“It was just an error,” a spokesperson for House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) told Marijuana Moment. “It’s not scheduled for next week.”

This is the second cannabis-related scheduling complication to occur within the House this month. The chamber’s leadership had previously announced plans to hold a vote on a comprehensive federal cannabis legalization bill this week, but that action was postponed following pushback from certain centrist Democratic members.

The Medical Marijuana Research Act that was mistakenly included in the list of bills to be taken up next week cleared the House Energy and Commerce Committee earlier this month in a voice vote. The crux of the proposal is to streamline studies, and one notable mechanism through which it would do that is to let researchers obtain cannabis from dispensaries in legal states—a significant departure from current policy that restricts scientists to using marijuana grown under federal authorization.

That could resolve an issue identified by researchers and lawmakers, who complain that marijuana produced at the only existing authorized facility at the University of Mississippi is difficult to access and is chemically closer to hemp than cannabis available on the commercial market.

It’s not clear whether that provision will be a sticking point for members who oppose broader marijuana reform if it does eventually get a floor vote. As initially listed on the House’s weekly calendar, the bill would have been considered under a process known as suspension of the rules, under which it could advance on an expedited basis with no amendments allowed and which requires at least a two-thirds majority to pass.

The legislation would also 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.

As it was originally drafted, the bill would have made it so researchers could access marijuana from additional federally approved private manufacturers. But an amendment in the nature of a substitute was approved in committee, also via a voice vote, that included the component expanding access to state-legal dispensaries.

In July, the House approved separate legislation that also called for letting researchers study marijuana purchased from businesses in state-legal markets instead of only letting them use government-grown cannabis. The intent of that provision, tucked into a 2,000-plus-page infrastructure bill, was to allow the interstate distribution of such products even to scientists in jurisdictions that have not yet legalized marijuana.

The revised research-focused proposal that the House is poised take up next week also stipulates that nothing about the legislation precludes the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary from enforcing Food and Drug Administration restrictions on the method of administration of marijuana, the dosage or number of patients involved in approved studies.

The bill would also make it so there would be no limit on the number of entities that can be registered to cultivate marijuana for research purposes. Additionally, it would require HHS 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.

While the floor announcement would have represented a positive development for advocates, there’s still frustration over the postponement of a vote on the federal descheduling bill—the Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act. Certain centrist Democrats reportedly convinced leadership to delay the action, citing concerns about the optics of advancing cannabis reform without first passing another round of coronavirus relief.

The research legislation is being led by the unlikely duo of pro-legalization Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and prohibitionist Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD).

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 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.

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.

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 committee-approved bill states 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.

 

[Baron23]

How Trump and Biden Will Affect the Cannabis Industry​

When election day finally arrives, on Nov. 3, 2020, it will decide more than the fate of the economy. At that time, we’ll also get a good idea of whether the returning President Trump or newly minted President Biden will stand behind the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act—a proposed legal mandate which prohibits federal regulators from criminally or financially penalizing banks that provide services to legitimate marijuana or hemp-based businesses.
Each candidate holds differing views of this legislation, and neither has formally endorsed it. Joe Biden appears to favor a hands-off federal approach to cannabis firms, while Donald Trump’s camp also wants to skip all the puff-puff and just take a pass.

What is the SAFE Banking Act?​

Members of Congress from states where marijuana has been legalized for medical or recreational purposes have long pushed to empower cannabis firms to enjoy widespread access to banking services. Despite being passed by a landslide in the House of Representatives on Sept. 25, 2019 with bipartisan support from most Democrats and dozens of Republicans, the SAFE Banking Act is currently sitting in limbo with the Senate.
Hoping to spur progress, in May 2020, the Democrat-led House of Representatives followed up on its initial efforts by weaving the SAFE Banking Act’s provisions into the $3 trillion Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions (HEROES) Act that it introduced to provide added COVID-19 stimulus. However, federal relief talks between Democrats and the Republican-led Senate have since stalled, putting the SAFE Banking Act’s future—at least, as currently written—in jeopardy.
That’s a problem for cannabis-based businesses, as the SAFE Banking Act effectively provides basic protections that allow for these companies to do business with banks all around the US. Passing it would enable cannabis companies to enjoy access to standard financial tools like checking and savings accounts, lines of credit, and loans, which many other types of firms rely on every single day. Certain states are empowering select banks or credit unions to offer services, temporarily helping to meet some companies’ present financial needs. But at the national level, marijuana still remains an illegal Schedule 1 substance, potentially exposing many financial institutions to criminal or financial penalties if they choose to offer services to organizations that promote its sale and distribution.

Why the candidates’ positions matter​

In addition to forcing many marijuana-based firms to primarily deal in cash (a major security risk), current legal circumstances also prohibit such organizations from obtaining loans or accessing lines of credit that can fuel company growth. Similarly, present federal laws leave banks in an uncomfortable spot, uncertain whether they’ll face prosecution and enforcement for supporting cannabis firms, which are often local and community-driven businesses. Marijuana companies have likewise been barred from receiving federal assistance such as PPP loans and other benefits provided in the CARES Act. This has served to deprive them of financial relief, despite ongoing uncertainty and continuing economic concerns.



Furthermore, the American Banking Association (ABA) website notes that it “takes no position on the moral issues raised by legalizing marijuana.” At the same time, the organization suggests that “the time has come for Congress and the regulatory agencies to provide greater legal clarity to banks operating in states where marijuana has been legalized for medical or adult use.” In other words, banks looking to lend to legit cannabis clients are operating in a cluster****.
Presidential candidates Trump and Biden, whose presence looms large over the shape of the next administration, theoretically hold both the power and influence to sway future developments in the space. But neither has formally stepped out in favor of the SAFE Banking Act.

Where Trump and Biden sit on the issues​

Democratic leaders maintain that the purpose of the Act (as stated in the Act) is to “increase public safety by ensuring access to financial services to cannabis-related legitimate businesses… and reducing the amount of cash at such businesses.” But Republican leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, remain opposed to including this legislation within coronavirus relief bills. In fact, Vice President Mike Pence’s chief of staff recently dismissed Democratic efforts to bring cannabis banking legislation to the table as part of a “liberal wish list.” All of this has taken place, despite Trump’s public stance to allow marijuana legalization on a state-by-state basis.
At the same time, a joint task force representing the efforts of Joe Biden and Vermont senator Bernie Sanders has largely elected to sidestep the issue, suggesting that states should set their own cannabis laws. In states where use of marijuana is legalized, the Biden administration would essentially not direct the Justice Department to pursue cases against cannabis firms. By proxy, some measure of protection may be extended to service providers (i.e. banks) who do business with the companies.
However, Biden has not confirmed that he will pass the SAFE Banking Act. Rather, he’s suggested that he will elect to pursue the decriminalization of marijuana, not the general legalization of it, as part of his administration’s overall criminal justice priorities. Put simply, if Biden wins, Democratic policy is poised to favor the legalization of medical marijuana, with terms surrounding recreational use left to individual states to determine.
Conversely, a whistleblower recently came forward earlier this summer suggesting that William Barr, Trump’s attorney general, inappropriately launched multiple antitrust investigations into marijuana company deals spurred by his dislike of the cannabis industry. Coupled with the Senate’s lack of action, and current position of White House administrators and aides, this would suggest Donald Trump and his colleagues are, to date, opposed to passing the SAFE Banking Act.

Will the SAFE Banking Act go up in smoke?​

After galvanizing momentum for the SAFE Banking Act, in 2019, it has temporarily stalled. Joe Biden and his vice presidential running mate, former prosecutor Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), have made it clear that they intend to prioritize drug policy reform—albeit to varying individual degrees, depending on offense type—and migrate from a stance of punishment to rehabilitation for drug-related offenders, overall. Meanwhile, while they haven’t attacked many of the changes proposed by the SAFE Banking Act, President Trump and his allies appear to be dismissive of its contents in general, and committed to throwing up roadblocks to its formal adoption into law.
Having already endured its fair share of ups and downs, the legal amendments that the SAFE Banking Act proposes have yet to be jointly ratified by both the House and Senate. Clarity likewise remains hard to come by for financial institutions and cannabis-based businesses alike. Predictably, marijuana reform advocates remain disgruntled at the current state of things, and continue to lobby for change.
With representatives from the House and Senate at a current impasse in talks surrounding coronavirus relief and reform, current odds of the SAFE Banking Act becoming law anytime soon, likewise, remain dubious. Many key political figures still remain ambivalent or opposed—at least as currently written—to its passage, and key Senate officials still hold the power to stall the legislation in its present form. Earlier this year, in fact, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) attempted to amend the Act to bar companies selling enough THC—the psychoactive component of marijuana that gets you high—from accessing financing.
To date, the SAFE Banking Act appears unlikely to pass in 2020. For President Donald Trump and his circle, the reforms it proposes appear to be a non-starter. However, while Biden’s camp has largely tiptoed around the issue, the SAFE Banking Act seems to have a lot of Democratic support.
Currently though, for cannabis-based businesses, it’s hard to say whether the future of marijuana-based financing will involve seeing more legal green in the form of legal tender, or just smoking it.
Don’t forget that you can do your part by visiting Complex’s Pull Up & Vote site—where you can double-check your registration, register to vote if you haven’t, and request a mail-in ballot.

 

[momofthegoons]

House Approves Marijuana Banking Protections For Third Time As Part Of New COVID Bill​

For the third time in just over a year, the House of Representatives has approved legislation that would protect banks that service state-legal marijuana businesses from being penalized by federal regulators.

The text of the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act was included in a wide-ranging coronavirus relief bill that members approved on the floor on Thursday. This is the second time the House inserted the cannabis banking language in COVID-centric legislationthat cleared the chamber after having previously passed it as a standalone bill. While the scope of the latest pandemic relief proposal was generally scaled back in an attempt to make it more palatable to the GOP-controlled Senate, the marijuana provisions remained intact.

The bill, known as The Heroes Act, was approved in a vote of 214-207.

Several Republicans—including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Vice President Mike Pence—have criticized including marijuana components in coronavirus legislation, arguing that it is not germane to the issue at hand. McConnell has specifically targeted most of his criticism at a provision of the SAFE Banking Act that requires industry diversity reporting.

A day before Thursday’s vote, the majority leader took to the floor of his own chamber to complain that the House bill provides “special treatment to the marijuana industry,” stating that the legislation “mentions the word ‘cannabis’ more times than the words ‘job’ or ‘jobs.’”

The Senate did not add cannabis banking language to its own version of COVID relief legislation filed in July.

But Democratic leaders are evidently willing to keep up the fight, and they highlighted the diversity component in a summary of the legislation. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said in July that she agrees that the banking measure is an appropriate component of the bill.

Reform advocates view this as a positive development that could help mitigate the spread of the virus by ending the industry’s reliance on cash transactions. It could would also increase access to financial institutions in a way that could give small businesses access to needed capital, they say.

“The continued inclusion of my SAFE Banking Act in this package is important for the cannabis industry and its workers,” Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO), the lead sponsor of the standalone marijuana financial services legislation, said. “The industry faces an increased public safety risk and public health risk by being forced to make transactions in all-cash. The SAFE Banking Act, which already passed the House with a broad bipartisan vote, will take cash off the streets, enable better social distancing in transactions, and support good-paying jobs in communities across the country when we need them most.”

That said, there’s lingering frustration that House leadership is willing to stand up to GOP opposition for a measure considered industry friendly but decided to postpone a floor vote on a comprehensive legalization bill amid the objections of certain centrist Democratic members who worried about optics. Those legislators convinced leadership to delay the vote until later in fall, likely after the election.

In the past, some activists have made the case that lawmakers should’t approve the SAFE Banking Act until marijuana is descheduled and restorative justice policies are implemented.

In July, bipartisan treasurers from 15 states and one territory sent a letter to congressional leadership, urging the inclusion of the SAFE Banking Act in any COVID-19 legislation that’s sent to the president’s desk. Following GOP attacks on the House proposal, a group of Democratic state treasurers renewed that call.

The House last year approved the standalone SAFE Banking Act. For months, the legislation has gone without action in the Senate Banking Committee, where negotiations have been ongoing.

Meanwhile, Treasury Sec. Steven Mnuchin and congressional leaders have been negotiating the details of a coronavirus aid package. It’s not clear if cannabis banking provisions stand a chance of earning the Trump administration’s support, but approval from the White House would likely help to get the Senate to go along.

 

[momofthegoons]

​

Marijuana Arrests Decline Nationally For First Time In Four Years, FBI Data Shows​

Marijuana arrests in the U.S. declined in 2019 for the first time in four years, a new federal report shows.

While many expected the state-level legalization movement to reduce cannabis arrests as more markets went online, that wasn’t the case in 2016, 2017 or 2018, which each saw slight upticks in marijuana busts year-over-year. But last year there was a notable dip, the data published this week shows.

There were a total of 545,601 marijuana arrests in 2019—representing 35 percent of all drug arrests—according to FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting program. That’s down from 663,367 the prior year and 659,700 in 2017.

Put another way, police across the country made a cannabis bust every 58 seconds on average last year. Of those arrests, 500,394 (92 percent) were for possession alone.

“A decline in cannabis related arrests is better than seeing an increase for a fourth year in a row, but the amount of these arrests is still abhorrent,” Marijuana Policy Project Executive Director Steve Hawkins told Marijuana Moment. “There is no reason to continue punishing adults for consuming a substance that is less harmful than alcohol. Arresting adult cannabis consumers has a dramatically disproportionate impact on communities of color, is a massive waste of law enforcement officials’ time and resources and does nothing to improve public health or safety.”

Overall, arrests for drug sales, manufacturing and possession amounted to 1,558,862 for the year—approximately 15 percent of all busts reported to FBI from local and state law enforcement agencies. That’s one new drug case every 20 seconds.

Before 2016, the country had seen a consistent decline in marijuana arrests for roughly a decade. It should be noted, however, that not all local police participate in the federal agency’s program, so these figures are not holistic.

Nonetheless, this data shows that American law enforcement carried out more arrests for marijuana alone than for murder, rape, robbery, burglary, fraud and embezzlement combined.

“At a time when a super-majority of Americans support marijuana legalization, law enforcement continues to harass otherwise law abiding citizens at an alarming rate,” NORML Political Director Justin Strekal told Marijuana Moment. “Now is the time for the public to collectively demand that enough is enough: end prohibition and expunge the criminal records to no longer hold people back from achieving their potential.”

While there’s no solitary factor that can explain the recent downward trend in cannabis cases, there are one-off trends that could inform the data. For example, marijuana possession arrests fell almost 30 percent in Texas from 2018 to 2019, and that seems to be connected to the legalization of hemp and resulting difficulties police have had in differentiating the still-illegal version of the cannabis crop from its newly legal non-intoxicating cousin.

At the federal level, prosecutions for marijuana trafficking declined in 2019, and drug possession cases overall saw an even more dramatic decline, according to a report published by the U.S. Sentencing Commission in March.

Federal prosecutions of drug-related crimes increased in 2019, but cases involving marijuana dropped by more than a quarter, according to an end-of-year report released by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts in December.

A study released by the Cato Institute in 2018 found that “state-level marijuana legalization has significantly undercut marijuana smuggling.”

 

[Baron23]

SAFE Banking Act included in Democrats’ new coronavirus stimulus bill​

Democrats attempted to meet Republicans halfway on a new stimulus agreement this week that includes the text of the SAFE Banking Act, a standalone piece of legislation passed by the House of Representatives last year that protects banks that work with cannabis businesses.
Worth $2.2 trillion, the revised HEROES Act to support the U.S. economy that has been devastated by the coronavirus pandemic was unveiled by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Monday.
Back in May, House Dems also included the SAFE Banking Act in their proposed $3 trillion economic relief package, but the bill failed to advance in Congress due to harsh opposition from the GOP and the White House.



Ever since, negotiators have been struggling to find common ground on a new round of stimulus desperately needed by Americans, 11 million of which still haven’t been able to get back to work during the global health crisis.
Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin met on Wednesday to discuss the new proposal, however, the two sides remain far apart on reaching a deal, according to the latest reports, which resulted in House Democrats calling off a planned vote on the updated HEROES Act.
As Republicans in the Senate have been adamant about downsizing previous Democrat-introduced relief bills, whether the SAFE Banking Act will endure as part of the final deal that both parties agree on remains to be seen.
Given current disagreements, some have questioned whether any stimulus deal at all will be passed before the November 3 presidential election.
Commenting on the inclusion of the SAFE Banking Act in the HEROES stimulus package, NORML Political Director Justin Strekal said it was “a positive development.”

“In the majority of states that regulate the marijuana marketplace, cannabis businesses have been deemed essential during this pandemic. Unfortunately, at the federal level, prohibition compounds the problems that this emerging industry faces. Small cannabis businesses in particular are facing tough economic times and access to traditional financial tools will help ensure that they can weather this pandemic,” Strekal added.

Cannabis businesses, although they operate in states where marijuana has been legalized, have been unable to claim any federal support amid the pandemic due to pot’s illegal status at the federal level. As the marijuana industry provides thousands of jobs, several lawmakers have been pushing for cannabis companies to be included in the next stimulus bill.
Marijuana companies in the Western U.S., the site of devastating wildfires this past month, have also been unable to claim federal disaster relief. Consequently, a group of congressmen introduced a bill last week on Capitol Hill that would allow legal weed businesses to qualify for federal disaster relief programs.

 

[momofthegoons]

Marijuana Reform is Stalled in Congress but Passage is Still Possible in 2020​

In late August, various news outlets reported that the House of Representatives was prepared to hold a floor vote on the Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment, and Expungement Act (better known simply as the MORE Act) in September. The vote would mark the first time either chamber of Congress voted to lift the federal prohibition on marijuana since passage of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970.

Then, a week prior to the expected vote, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer announced a change in strategy. While postponing the already planned September vote, he publicly committed to holding a full vote in the House by the end of the year.

”The MORE Act remains a critical component of House Democrats’ plan for addressing systemic racism and advancing criminal justice reform, and we are committed to bringing it to the floor for a vote before the end of the year,” Hoyer said.

So what happened? Who or what is to blame for this delay, and what should cannabis reform supporters do in the meantime?

In short, the toxic partisan nature of Washington, DC in large part doomed the planned September vote. Many Republican lawmakers expressed strong opposition to the vote. They claimed Democrats were ignoring acting on bigger priorities. While this criticism was far more political in nature than it was substantive, it clearly rattled a small but significant number of congressional incumbents locked in tight races who didn’t want to vote on marijuana before enacting another coronavirus stimulus package.

This decision to delay the MORE Act vote came just one day before the release of new survey data showing that the majority of Republican and Democratic voters alike support passage of the bill. A full 70 percent of Democrats and 53 percent of Republicans say they support the measure, according to the Justice Collaborative Institute and Data for Progress. , That’s not an outlier. It’s consistent with polling data compiled earlier this year.

While the delay is disappointing, it changes little. Specifically:

● This delay does not change the fact that the overwhelming majority of voters support ending the federal prohibition of cannabis, including majorities of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans.

● This delay does not change the fact that 33 states and the District of Columbia regulate the production and distribution of medical cannabis in a manner that is inconsistent with federal policy, and that one-out-of-four Americans now reside in jurisdictions where adult-use is legal under state law.

● This delay does not change the fact that voters in several states, including key electoral battleground states, will be taking up – and likely passing -similar state-level marijuana measures on Election Day.

● This delay does not change the fact that the days of federal marijuana criminalization and prohibition are drawing to a close.

Our next steps are fairly straight forward.

First, marijuana policy reform supporters must contribute their efforts and assistance toward passing the pending ballot initiatives in Arizona, Montana, Mississippi, New Jersey, and South Dakota.

Second, citizens must continue to contact their lawmakers and insist that they cosponsor the MORE Act in the House. At the time of the postponement, the bill had 111 congressional cosponsors. Now, just over a week later, that total has ticked up to 114.

Should we fail to do either one of these things, it will be easier for House leadership to find some justification to renege on Leader Hoyer’s recent commitment for a vote this year.

But should we have a strong showing on election night and should we continue to gain additional congressional support in the coming weeks, then 2020 will be the year that we see the first-ever vote to end federal marijuana prohibition.

This will set the stage for the new Congress to continue to build upon our momentum.Depending on the make-up of the Senate, the possibility of ending the federal prohibition on marijuana in the first 100 days of the next administration is still real.