Sponsored by

VGoodiez 420EDC
  • Welcome to VaporAsylum! Please take a moment to read our RULES and introduce yourself here.
  • 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

Marijuana testing for truck drivers is becoming a leading cause of the growing national trucker shortage, expert says


While the grueling lifestyle and aging workforce has led to a national shortage of truck drivers, a Wells Fargo executive believes there's another issue exacerbating the labor crunch — marijuana testing.

According to Chris Harvey, Wells Fargo's head of equity strategy, drug screenings paired with the nature of the job — which often requires truckers to spend weeks-on-end away from home — has led many truck drivers to leave the industry. Harvey said the issue will "continue to push that price even higher," worsening a surge in transportation costs that have left consumers facing price hikes and shortages.

"It's really about drug testing," Harvey said, speaking at an industry conference on Wednesday. "We've legalized marijuana in some states but, obviously, not all ... What we've done is we're excluding a significant portion of that trucker industry."

The role of marijuana testing in employee screening has been under debate in recent years, especially as the labor shortage continues to place more power in the hands of workers. At the same time, marijuana use has become more accepted: Last year, a Gallup poll of consumer habits found that 49% of US adults have used the drug at least once. To date, 37 states have legalized the use of cannabis for medical purposes, while 18 have cleared the substance for recreational use.

But, in recent years, the trucking industry's drug policies have become even more stringent. Truck drivers are randomly drug tested on a quarterly basis, as well as in the event of an accident or traffic ticket, according to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Drivers that test positive are immediately removed from driving commercial motor vehicles, per the FMCSA.

In 2020, the trucking industry implemented a law that required all truck drivers who had failed a drug test to be listed in a federal database so that other trucking companies would avoid hiring the drivers. Previously, drivers could theoretically move to a new company that would not have knowledge of the positive drug test.

The law has impacted nearly 110,000 truckers, about 56% of which were reported for marijuana use, according to government datafrom December 2021. These 60,000 drivers who tested positive for marijuana use in the past two years could help plug the shortage of about 80,000 truckers that the American Trucking Association has reported.

Since the database was launched, more than 6.4 million queries have been conducted on the site as of late December, as all employers must consult the database before they approve a new driver. As of December, more than 81,000 drivers were "prohibited" from work — over 75% of which had not begun the lengthy reassessment process required before they can return to duty.
 
there's another issue exacerbating the labor crunch — marijuana testing.
Yes, and as always....no matter who is in charge is seems...our government works against itself and our interests. "Fix the supply chain issues" and "run truckers who have used MJ out of the industry while still allowing them access to alcohol and narcotics" and do it at the same time. Brilliant. Just fucking brilliant.
 

NCAA announces more lenient policies for cannabis use among college athletes


These new policies are the latest in a wave of changes the NCAA has made since the 2020-21 academic and athletic seasons.​

The NCAA is loosening its policies as they pertain to THC levels and positive marijuana tests for student-athletes, according to a statement the organization released on Friday.

The current amount of allowable THC has been 35 nanograms per milliliter. Effective immediately, that will be raised to 150 nanograms per milliliter, per the release.
An NCAA student-athlete may test positive for marijuana three times and not lose eligibility. Though if a student-athlete tests positive, the school must provide a “management plan and education” for the player.

In addition, and perhaps more importantly, student-athletes who are part of the NCAA would no longer automatically lose their eligibility to play following a positive marijuana test under rules that are being recommended by a key committee, according to the statement, reported by Saturday Tradition.

If the student-athlete continues to follow the plan and is in compliance, they may test positive two more times without repercussions of lost eligibility. If the student-athlete is not in compliance and tests positive, a consequence of lost eligibility for a portion of the season is possible.

“Reconsidering the NCAA approach to cannabis testing and management is consistent with feedback from membership on how to better support and educate student-athletes in a society with rapidly evolving public health and cultural views regarding cannabis use,” NCAA chief medical officer Dr. Brian Hainline said in a statement.
“Marijuana is not considered a performance-enhancing substance, but it remains important for member schools to engage student-athletes regarding substance use prevention and provide management and support when appropriate.”

These new policies are the latest in a wave of changes the NCAA has made since the 2020-21 academic and athletic seasons.
 

Get ready for the Northeast to become cannabis country


New Jersey is likely to start sales first, but New York is poised to become the nation’s weed capital.​

The Northeast is poised to transform the U.S. cannabis industry — and make New York City the nation’s weed capital.
New York, New Jersey and Connecticut — with a combined population of 33 million — are scrambling to open recreational markets in the coming months. Millions of other East Coast residents in neighboring states will suddenly find themselves within an easy drive of legal weed.
After years of taking a back seat to the West Coast, many industry observers believe that New York City will become the center of the cannabis industry. And the city’s outsized influence could be the long-sought catalyst for federal leaders to pursue a national legalization approach.
“New York is going to be Amsterdam on steroids,” said Jeanne Sullivan, a longtime New York-based cannabis investor, citing the tens of millions of tourists who flock to the city every year.
Despite the liberal leanings of East Coast states, the region has lagged on cannabis because many do not allow citizens to place initiatives on the ballot. Most states that have liberalized their cannabis laws have done so through voter-led efforts.
But last year, New York and Connecticut passed legalization legislation, while New Jersey lawmakers approved a legal cannabis framework, carrying out a 2020 ballot measure allowing adult use.
Though the federal government continues to classify marijuana as an illegal drug with no medical uses, there are now 18 states nationwide that have embraced recreational legalization, representing nearly half the country’s population. Another 19 have enacted comprehensive medical programs.
Even staunchly conservative states like South Dakota and Mississippi have passed legalization referendums in recent years as statehouses drive the action without Washington’s help. The burgeoning industry took in $25 billion last year, with sales slated to top $40 billion by 2025.
Now, cannabis companies across the nation see the potentially multibillion-dollar tri-state market as a new engine of growth. Earlier this month, multistate operator Verano Holdings scooped up a New York license by acquiring Goodness Growth for $413 million. And two multistate operators — Ascend Wellness and MedMen — are locked in a contentious legal battle over a deal to acquire a New York license.
“Never before have I seen this great mass of new people that haven’t invested in cannabis [before] that are now looking” to enter the sector, Sullivan said, noting that New York City is the center of the finance, fashion and advertising sectors. “All those [industries] are already thinking of great ways to play.”

Garden State gets the jump​

Before a single recreational-use shop opens in Manhattan, Northeast customers will likely flock to weed stores in the Garden State. New Jersey is poised to launch cannabis sales to anyone at least 21 years old well before its neighboring states.
Though the state blew a Feb. 22 deadline for launching its adult-use marketplace, Gov. Phil Murphy recently said that medical dispensaries could start selling to recreational customers “within weeks.”
That almost certainly means New Jersey will get a jump on seizing market share — and initial tax revenue from recreational sales. Upstate New Yorkers, for instance, have long crossed the border into Massachusetts to buy cannabis. Soon, city residents could stream across the Hudson River to shop at dispensaries.



Cannabis Regulatory Commission Executive Director Jeff Brown described the cannabis market as operating on two “tracks” — existing medical operators looking to phase in recreational sales, and brand new recreational businesses entering the industry. Retail applications for new dispensaries are slated to open in mid-March.
One big concern still weighs on regulators: Will there be enough product and access to continue serving medical customers who rely on cannabis for treatment?
“There are some [medical dispensaries] that are still very crowded,” said Brown.
“We hear it at every commission meeting we have. There’s generally at least one patient who’s talking about having to wait in lines at dispensaries to get served. Protecting patients is paramount in launching this market.”
Medical dispensaries insist they can supply both customer bases and have been adamant about starting recreational sales as soon as possible. Applications for new dispensaries are expected to begin in mid-March.
Another major focus for state regulators as the industry opens up: making sure people who were disproportionately targeted by past criminal enforcement are able to benefit from the fledgling industry.
Despite these lingering concerns, New Jersey is far ahead of New York. Nearly a year after Albany lawmakers legalized adult-use cannabis, New York is still months away from launching what will likely become the country’s second-largest recreational marijuana market, behind only California.
New York Office of Cannabis Management Executive Director Chris Alexander said the state could begin licensing activities by the end of the year, several months behind the original expected start date.
New York cannabis leaders say they’re not concerned by the competition posed by New Jersey and Connecticut. Instead, they’re focused on fulfilling the law’s social equity goals, which was a major focus of lawmakers in crafting the bill.
“I’m not paying any mind to anybody. We have too much work to do here,” Alexander said.
“I don’t feel any pressure from the other states moving. I think it’s great that those markets are getting off the ground, but we have to just focus on what we have to do here.”

$3 million licensing fee​

Connecticut regulators also say they’re focused on the importance of meeting social equity goals, rather than launching the market as soon as possible.
The state Department of Consumer Protection opened applications for two types of licenses this month and will issue them through a lottery. State officials say that launching the adult-use market by the end of 2022 is a realistic possibility.
“I’m not competing with other states,” said Connecticut DCP Commissioner Michelle Seagull.
“We want to do it right. We want to make sure the social equity goals that are really embedded throughout the legislation … have an opportunity to really play out the way the statute intends.”
Aspiring cannabis growers in Connecticut are dreaming about the day that they’ll be able to sell their crops to dispensaries in New York City. Until then, some entrepreneurs are locating their businesses along the highways that ferry commuters to New York City and Boston, said Luis Vega, the founder of a Connecticut hemp farm who is preparing to apply for an adult-use cultivation license.
Vega and Jason Ortiz, both longtime cannabis advocates in the state, are planning to apply for a type of social equity cultivator license that comes with a hefty $3 million price tag. Even as they move forward, both criticized such a high-cost barrier for a license geared toward disadvantaged communities.
But Andrea Comer, deputy commissioner for the DPC and chair of the Social Equity Council, said there’s a reason:
“Some of that money is going to go back to be reinvested in communities, which I think is hugely important.”
 

Public polling on marijuana is more complicated than you may realize


Earlier this year, Emerson College polling confirmed that Americans' views on marijuana legalization are more diverse than has previously been reported. The poll found that when presented with the real-world scenario of different policy choices, 62% of Americans favored policies other than the full legalization of the drug. In the wake of this poll, and defeats of legalization bills in South Dakota and Virginia in February, it is clear there are widespread concerns about Big Pot.

The Emerson poll included four policy options: illegality, decriminalization of low-level use, legalization for medicinal purposes only and the full legalization of the sale, cultivation and personal use of marijuana.

Remarkably, most polls on marijuana do not take this nuanced approach, opting instead to provide only two options—illegality or full legalization. Such polls deeply distort the actual views of the public. For instance, when only presented with a binary choice, Gallup found that 77% of 18-to-34-year-olds indicated their support for the legalization of marijuana. However, when given additional options, Emerson's poll found that this demographic's support for legalization dropped from a nearly four-fifths majority to a mere 43% plurality––with a 57% majority rejecting full legalization. Given that this demographic maintains the most favorable view of marijuana overall, these results demonstrate that a much greater percentage of Americans reject the full legalization of the drug.

Not surprisingly, Big Pot and those who lobby for the legalization of marijuana continue to gloss over findings that reveal their movement lacks widespread support, and that a majority of Americans oppose their efforts. The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), a pro-legalization operation, maintains a database of national and state-level polls regarding marijuana. This self-proclaimed "clearinghouse for marijuana-related information," however, omitted the findings from Emerson College. There's little wonder why.

The Emerson College poll also suggested that voters in states that have fully legalized marijuana are experiencing some buyer's remorse. For instance, nine of the 12 states in the Census' West region––ranging from California to Colorado and Washington to Alaska––have legalized marijuana for recreational use. Despite the seeming popularity of legalization, less than 40% of voters in this region remain in favor of this policy.

The poll also cast doubt on one of the leading arguments trotted out by Big Pot and pro-marijuana activists: the idea that legalization will advance broader racial equity. Emerson's poll found that only 31% of African Americans support the full legalization of marijuana, and more than twice as many—69%—do not favor it.

Emerson also conducted two identical state-level polls in Maryland and New Hampshire. In Maryland, twice as many Hispanics favor keeping marijuana illegal than do those who favor full legalization—35% and 17%, respectively. And in New Hampshire, four times as many African Americans favor keeping marijuana illegal than do those who favor full legalization—42% and 10.5%, respectively.

One's opinion about marijuana also correlates with his or her civic engagement, more broadly. Among Marylanders who did not vote in the 2020 presidential election, 67% favored the full legalization of marijuana. But among those who did vote, regardless of who they voted for, this number dropped to 44%.

A binary choice Rasmussen poll found 54% of Republicans support legalization. But the Emerson poll found only 27% of Republicans support the full legalization of marijuana. Moreover, only 41% of Democrats support the same.

Only 29% of Americans 65 or older were found to favor the full legalization of marijuana—the least supportive of all age groups. Additionally, the Census reported voter turnout was highest among 65-to-74-year-olds, with 76% having voted in the 2020 presidential election. Put two and two together, and it is no surprise why state-level, non-medical marijuana legalization attempts consistently fail.

The marijuana industry regularly touts polls that rely on the binary choice of either illegality or full-on legalization. When Americans are provided with additional options, such as decriminalization and legalization for medicinal purposes only, they voice their preference for more nuanced, middle-ground options. Public opinion should inform public policy. Policymakers must reject the full legalization of marijuana in favor of a safer, fairer, more effective approach to marijuana that more accurately represents the views of their constituents.
 
Cannabis Is The Top Job Creator In America Right Now — Here Are The Stats

2021 was the fifth year in a row the cannabis industry saw an annual job growth rate higher than 27%, with a 33% increase in cannabis jobs in just a single year.​

By Nicolas Jose Rodriguez

Can you guess how many people are employed by the U.S. cannabis industry? The numbers might surprise you.

Leafly’s annual Cannabis Jobs Report, created in partnership with Whitney Economics, a global leader in cannabis and hemp business consulting and economic research, shows that America’s cannabis industry sold nearly $25 billion in products and created more than 100,000 new jobs in 2021.


According to the report, there are 428,059 full-time equivalent jobs supported by the legal cannabis industry in the U.S. Furthermore, America’s 11 operating adult-use markets and 27 medical marijuanastates combined sold just under $25 billion worth of cannabis products — more than $6 billion from the previous year.

The report forecasts that total employment potential in a mature US legal cannabis market could potentially reach 1.5 to 1.75 million workers, nearly 4 times as many workers as in this year’s report.


“Since 2014, when the nation’s first adult-use cannabis stores opened, the industry has created hundreds of thousands of new American jobs – and there are still plenty more yet to be created. We know the potential cannabis has as both an economic driver and force for good, and it’s heartening to see employment numbers continue to reflect this strong growth,” said Leafly CEO Yoko Miyashita.

“Leafly is proud to step up and fill the gap created by a lack of federal reporting, and to advocate for federal legalization that’s equitable and accessible to all communities,” Miyashita added. “During this midterm election year, it’s essential our elected officials recognize the reality that cannabis is a leading, homegrown American industry, and help us achieve our goal of an inclusive and profitable cannabis industry for all.”


Most Powerful Job Creator in America​

Leafly told Benzinga that this year’s 2021 report demonstrates that cannabis continues to be the most powerful job creator in America. “2021 was the fifth year in a row the cannabis industry saw an annual job growth rate higher than 27%, with a 33% increase in cannabis jobs in just a single year.

“To put that in perspective, employment in business and financial occupations is only projected to grow 8% through the decade. With states like New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut expected to open their first adult-use cannabis stores within the next 18 months, America’s cannabis job creation boom is expected to continue through at least 2025,” noted Leafly “There has never been a better time to land a job in the legal cannabis industry.”

The Leafly Jobs Report found that nationwide cannabis sales increased 33% in 2021, while “the investment capital that fled the cannabis space in early 2020 has largely returned, giving companies the money needed to increase payroll.” However, the report also noted that there are not enough applicants for the industry.

Key Findings From The Jobs Report​

  • 2021 marked the first year that cannabis job creation hit six figures. After adding 32,700 jobs in 2019 and 77,300 jobs in 2020, the industry added 107,059 new jobs in 2021.
  • The United States now has three times as many cannabis workers as dentists.
  • There are more people employed in the cannabis industry than there are hairstylists, barbers and cosmetologists combined.
  • As of 2022, three out of four Americans now live in a state where medical cannabis is legal.
  • The total cannabis sales figure in this year’s report—$25 billion—represents only about 25% of the total potential US cannabis market.
  • By 2025, America’s total annual legal cannabis revenue is forecast to be closer to $45 billion, which is still less than half the total potential market.
  • Last year, America’s legal cannabis industry created more than 280 new jobs per day.
 

More Banks Report Working With Marijuana Businesses As Pressure Builds To Pass On Congress To Pass Reform Bill


The number of banks that report working with marijuana businesses ticked up again near the end of 2021, according to newly released federal data.

It’s not clear if the increase is related to congressional moves to pass a bipartisan cannabis banking reform bill, but the figures from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) signal that financial institutions continue to feel more comfortable servicing businesses in state-legal markets.

As of September 30, 2021, there were 755 banks and credit unions that had filed requisite reports saying they were actively serving cannabis clients. Thats up from 706 in the previous quarter and from a previous peak of 747 in late 2019.

Screen-Shot-2022-03-02-at-8.11.35-AM.png


While there’s 2014 FinCEN guidance in place meant to help financial institutions navigate the space, lawmakers want to enact clear, statutory protections. And that would be accomplished through bipartisan legislation known as the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act that’s cleared the House in some form six times now.

Until then, there’s still reluctance within the banking sector when it comes to servicing businesses that work with a Schedule I controlled substance, and that’s reflected in the relatively low number of depository institutions that actually follow the guidance and take on cannabis clients.

The year 2020 saw a significant and consistent drop in the number of banks and credit unions that reported having marijuana accounts, but those figures began to stabilize last year.

“Short-term declines in the number of depository institutions actively providing banking services to marijuana-related businesses (MRBs) may be explained by filers exceeding the 90 day follow-on Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) filing timeframe,” FinCEN said in its latest quarterly report on cannabis banking data. “Several filers take 180 days or more to file a continuing activity report. After 90 days, a depository institution is no longer counted as providing banking services until a new guidance-related SAR is received.”

Past reports from the agency had noted that it stopped including hemp-only businesses in its quarterly reports since the crop was federally legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill, which could account for at least some of the drop depicted in earlier data, but that language does not appear in this latest report.

Also, FinCEN, which is part of the Treasury Department, didn’t mention the potential impact of the coronavirus pandemic on marijuana banking trends this time.

As of the end of September 2021, there were 533 banks and 202 credit unions reporting active marijuana clients, according to the federal agency.

Screen-Shot-2022-03-02-at-8.11.26-AM.png


While the SAFE Banking Act has enjoyed strong bipartisan support in the House, it’s stalled in the Senate under both Republican and Democratic control. Senate leadership has insisted that comprehensive legalization should advance first, though Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has more recently signaled openness to passing a banking bill if certain equity provisions are attached.

For his part, Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO), sponsor of the SAFE Banking Act, says he’s “confident” that the opposite chamber will finally take up the reform before he retires at the end of the session.

Meanwhile, some Republicans are scratching their heads about how Democrats have so far failed to pass the modest banking reform with majorities in both chambers and control of the White House, too. For example, Rep. Rand Paul (R-KY) criticized his Democratic colleagues over the issue in December.

In the interim, federal financial regulator Rodney Hood—a board member and former chairman of the federal National Credit Union Administration (NCUA)—recently said that marijuana legalization is not a question of “if” but “when,” and he’s again offering advice on how to navigate the federal-state conflict that has left many banks reluctant to work with cannabis businesses.
 

Cannabis is a 'no show' in State of the Union


President Joe Biden began his first State of the Union Address laying out the numerous ways that he is working to support the people of war-torn Ukraine. He went on to describe his triumphs in turning around the economy post-pandemic and then rattled off several issues that he says need to be dealt with like crime, infrastructure, childcare, opioid abuse, veterans care, even going so far as to cure cancer, but the one element that was sorely lacking from the speech – cannabis.



Don’t get me wrong, I did not ever expect Biden to announce the legalization of cannabis or even announce his willingness to finally maintain his campaign promises of decriminalizing pot or releasing those in federal prison for non-violent marijuana offenses. However, I would like President Biden to open his eyes and recognize that cannabis is the one plant that could actually help with all the problems he described.
First, President Biden wants Congress to pass his infrastructure plan to provide us with better roads, bridges, and jobs, who wouldn’t want that? Why don’t we build the next generation of infrastructure in this country with hemp? The hemp industry is ready to take its place on our roads, in our textiles, and in job markets with its inclusion in the 2018 Farm Bill. It’s time for the President to take this industry to the next level, clean up the muddy regulations and provide the industry with the super sites that are necessary to scale up and make it a reality. Let this booming space provide the materials you seek and put American workers back to work.
Like so many other Americans, President Biden would like to see us finally conquer the crippling epidemic of opioid abuse, however, he continues to ignore the amazing potential of medical cannabis. According to the Journal of American Medical Association, researchers have seen a 25% drop in opioid abuse where medical marijuana was legalized. This was not a stat baked up in the back of some hotboxing van, read the report, President Biden, please!!!
Study after study has shown that medical cannabis helps with pain relief and for our warfighters, it has gone a long way to help with PTSD. President Biden needs to look at the research of Dr. Sue Sisley who has dedicated her life to advocating for veterans’ access to cannabis. Her work is providing relief to our veterans who have not been able to find that care at the VA. But even her hands are tied when it comes to being held back by red tape at the DEA and less than ideal government-issued cannabis for her research.
He rounded out his speech talking about finding the cure for cancer. I can’t claim that cannabis cures cancer, but I know researchers who have done amazing work in the space like Mara Gordon. She has seen tumors in children disappear and others go into remission for years. We all know friends who have used cannabis to help a loved one with a better quality of life when their time had come. Right now, these stories remain, just stories in the President’s mind. I would implore the researchers that he turns to take on this inspiring mission of curing cancer to look to cannabis as a possibility.
For the past 7 years, I have had the privilege of being a part of this industry, nay, this community, and every day I learn some new ways that this amazing plant can impact our lives. It is way overdue for the President to step out of his Reefer Madness mindset and learn about what this plant can do or at least do what he promised in his campaign. God Bless America and God Bless Cannabis.
 
So, exactly what prodigious level of intelligence does it take to; 1) be in Russia at this point in time...wow and; 2) take a fucking cart to KGB Putin's Russia?
 

Biden Administration May Deny Security Clearance to Weed Investors

Want to work for the Biden administration? Then think twice about putting your money in that cannabis business.

Investing in a cannabis company could jeopardize an individual’s application to work under President Joe Biden, according to a new report this week.

Politico obtained a document detailing the Biden administration’s new employee conduct guidelines, reporting on Wednesday that the rules could “potentially deny security clearance to individuals who have invested in companies that are involved in the marijuana business.”

“Eligibility may be negatively impacted if an individual knowingly and directly invests in stocks or business ventures that specifically pertain to marijuana growers and retailers,” the document said. “Decisions to willfully invest in such activity could reflect questionable judgment and an unwillingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.”

The Biden administration has taken a relatively lax approach toward past cannabis use among employees; a White House official said last year that the “Biden White House has been more permissive than past administrations on past marijuana use.”

But there have also been reminders of the continued federal prohibition of cannabis. Last year, news broke that the White House fired dozens of staffers for previous use of cannabis.

The firings prompted a concerned letter to Biden from several Democrats in Congress, who said they were “dismayed to learn that several White House staffers were reportedly suspended, put on probation or asked to resign after honestly disclosing past cannabis use.”

“We ask that you clarify your employment suitability policies, remove past cannabis use as a potential disqualifier, and apply these policies with consistency and fairness,” the lawmakers wrote in the letter. “Cannabis is legal for either medical or adult use in 36 states, with more than 50 percent of the adult population having used cannabis in their lifetimes.

This number is bound to rise as states across the country legalize through voter initiatives. Just last year, cannabis was legalized in five new states through ballot initiatives, and many more states are currently working on legislation to legalize cannabis. The American people are demanding a change to punitive and harsh cannabis laws that have always been unequally applied.”

The Biden administration pushed back on the reports, telling CNBC at the time that “no staffers have been fired due to pot use from ‘years ago’ or from ‘casual or infrequent use’ in the past 12 months.”

According to CNBC, “President Donald Trump’s White House, for instance, did not allow any past marijuana use over the prior year, and Obama’s required no pot use for the previous six months, according to the official,” while the Biden administration claims that its new policy “has allowed around a dozen White House staff to continue serving in the administration who would not have been permitted under prior administrations’ policies.”

Polls show that a majority of the public––including an overwhelming majority of Democrats––supports an end to pot prohibition.

Biden, however, has long resisted the idea of outright legalization. During the 2020 presidential campaign, Biden said that he backed the decriminalization of weed, but not an end to prohibition.

The position has put Biden at odds with his party, including Vice President Kamala Harris, who has admitted to smoking marijuana in the past and has said that she is in favor of legalization.

In their letter to Biden last year, the Democratic lawmakers alluded to both Harris’ and Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg’s admitted past use.

“Those in the upper ranks of your administration won’t face consequences for their cannabis use, and nor should they, but the same standard should be applied across the administration,” the letter said.

A poll last year among cannabis industry executives found a relatively bearish outlook toward legalization under Biden. Sixty-two percent said they don’t believe the current administration supports cannabis, while 41 percent said that federal legalization is still at least five years away.
 

Supreme Court asked to resolve federal drug law v. state medical marijuana laws debate

The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to address whether the federal drug law that criminalizes possession of marijuana invalidates state orders requiring employers and their workers’ compensation insurers to pay for medical marijuana prescriptions for employees injured on the job.

However, before it fully takes on the question, the high court has asked the Solicitor General, who represents the federal government before the high court, for guidance in light of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution that gives federal statutes primacy over state laws.

Five state supreme courts have addressed whether the reimbursement of medical marijuana costs is permissible, with two ruling yes and three ruling no. The Supreme Court is being asked to resolve this split in authority.

Under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the manufacture, distribution or possession of marijuana is a criminal offense, with the exception of when the drug is part of a Food and Drug Administration research study.

The Supreme Court’s involvement is related to two cases from Minnesota — Bierbach v. Diggers Polaris and State Auto/United Fire & Casualty, and Musta v. Mendota Heights Dental Center — in which injured employees challenged their employers and their insurers for refusing to reimburse them for their medical marijuana prescriptions. Musta suffered a neck injury in her work at a medical facility; Bierbach was injured in an accident while working for an all-terrain vehicle dealer.
Minnesota authorized the use of marijuana for medical purposes in 2014. Under the state’s medical marijuana act, the Minnesota Department of Health administers a program that permits certain registered patients to possess marijuana for medical purposes.



Under Minnesota’s workers’ compensation statute, if an employee sustains an injury at work, “[t]he employer shall furnish any medical … treatment, including … medicines … as may reasonably be required at the time of the injury and any time thereafter to cure and relieve from the effects of the injury.” Minnesota’s Workers’ Compensation Appeals Court ruled in Bierbach’s favor that the employer and insurer were required to reimburse him because the prescribed medical marijuana was a reasonable treatment for the workers’ injuries.

But the insurer and employer appealed and a divided Minnesota Supreme Court ruled the opposite, finding that the CSA preempts the Minnesota workers’ compensation court’s order mandating reimbursement.

lg.php

Minnesota’s high court adopted the same reasoning in both the Bierbach and Musta opinions, finding that the reimbursement could expose the employer and insurer to criminal liability. The court reasoned that the CSA preempted an order “obligat[ing] an employer to reimburse an employee for the cost of medical cannabis because compliance with that order would expose the employer to criminal liability under federal law for aiding and abetting … unlawful possession of cannabis.”
After he lost before the Minnesota Supreme Court, Bierbach petitioned for a writ of certiorari for the Supreme Court to review the judgment in his case. In his petition, Bierbach offers several arguments to counter the opinion that the policy of reimbursement is in conflict with the CSA.

First, he says the federal and state laws are not irreconcilable. “A reimbursement order under Minnesota’s workers’ compensation law does not require the employer to possess, manufacture, or distribute marijuana in contravention of the CSA. And the Act does not prohibit an employer or insurer from reimbursing an employee for his purchase of medical marijuana,” Bierbach argues.

He dismisses the “aiding and abetting” argument, noting that the marijuana possession is complete by the time of reimbursement and contending that the employer and insurer are merely complying with a reimbursement order. At most, they are “only incidentally” facilitating the possession.

Bierbach further notes that Congress has several times passed appropriations bills with riders that bar the Department of Justice from enforcing federal marijuana laws in connection with medical marijuana programs that comply with state law. This, Bierbach believes, shows that Congress has chosen to “tolerate” the tension between state medical cannabis laws and the CSA.

Finally, he argues that the CSA has no role in regulating insurance.

Thirty-seven states have legalized medical marijuana, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Of these states, six have cannabis reimbursement under workers’ comp, with four of them doing so based on a state court decision, according to the American Journal of Industrial Medicine. Another six prohibit workers’ comp reimbursement, while other states do not require it or are silent on the issue.

However, the future policy in states may now be subject to change if the Supreme Court enters the fray.

Four state supreme courts in addition to Minnesota’s have issued conflicting decisions regarding the question of federal preemption. The supreme courts of Maine and Minnesota have held — over dissents — that the CSA preempts an order under their states’ workers’ compensation laws requiring reimbursement for medical marijuana. But the supreme courts of New Hampshire and New Jersey have reached the opposite conclusion with respect to their states’ medical marijuana laws.
The Supreme Court has not indicated the Solicitor General’s deadline for submitting its brief. It typically takes months.
 
"If President Biden feels this way, why does he happily accept campaign donations from individuals in the cannabis industry?”

Ah, because all of our professional political class are money grubbing hypocrites? Perhaps?



Why is President Biden accepting cannabis donations while banning cannabis investments?


If President Biden feels this way, why does he happily accept campaign donations from individuals in the cannabis industry?​


In response to new guidance from the Biden Administration’s Director of National Intelligence, Avril Haines, which states that security clearances may be denied to individuals who invest in legal cannabis securities, U.S. Cannabis Council CEO Steven Hawkins issued the following statement:

“I am deeply disappointed by the Biden Administration’s further stigmatization of America’s rapidly-growing cannabis industry. The new guidance represents a de facto ban on legal cannabis investments for the nearly three million Americans with active security clearances, not to mention hundreds of thousands of current and prospective applicants.” (originally appeared on Benzinga)


Booming Market Creating Much-Needed Jobs And Revenue​


“The US legal cannabis market surpassed $25 billion last year and is a job-creation engine, now supporting roughly 430,000 American jobs. Medical cannabis is legal in 37 states plus DC, and 18 states have legalized adult use of cannabis. What’s more, an overwhelming majority of Americans now support legalizing and regulating adult use of cannabis, and support for medical cannabis has reached 91%. In other words, the train has left the station, and the Biden Administration is quickly being left behind.”


Why Is Biden Accepting Cannabis Campaign Money?​


“The guidance from Director Haines says that investing in the burgeoning cannabis securities market ‘could reflect questionable judgment and an unwillingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.’ This is frankly offensive and wrongheaded. It also begs the question: If President Biden feels this way, why does he happily accept campaign donations from individuals in the cannabis industry?”


Election Campaign Pledges Long Forgotten​


“During the 2020 election, President Biden pledged to decriminalize cannabis and issue pardons to free non-violent cannabis offenders and expunge cannabis offenses. We are still hopeful that the President will deliver on these promises, but we are discouraged by his unforced errors on personnel. An evolution on the issue is overdue.”


Let’s Legalize And All Benefit​


“We share President Biden’s commitment to promoting public safety and criminal justice. Legalizing and regulating cannabis would go far in advancing both. I hope President Biden understands that criminals are the only people benefiting from the Schedule I status quo, including the gangs and cartels that fuel the nation’s estimated $65 billion illicit market.”
 

Congressman Pledges To Be A ‘Real Pest’ Until Senate Passes His Marijuana Banking Bill


Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) says that he intends to continue to put significant pressure on his Senate colleagues to advance a bill protecting banks that work with state-legal marijuana businesses as he prepares for retirement from Congress.

Speaking at an event hosted by the American Bankers Association (ABA) on Tuesday, the sponsor of the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act was pressed on the measure’s prospects after it’s cleared the House six times now in some form without any action in the Senate under either Republican or Democratic control.

“I will continue to be a real pest, and persistent in getting this done,” Perlmutter told ABA executive vice president for congressional relations and political affairs James Ballantine, stressing the public safety concerns that have emerged like robberies of state-legal marijuana retailers who are currently forced to operate on a largely cash-only basis.



It’s not just your run-of-the-mill robberies that the cash-intensive industry faces, either, Perlmutter said. He referenced instances where police have allegedly targeted armored cars“filled with cash from medical dispensaries” and seized the dollars, which “seemed to [have] a little bit of help by the federal government—FBI in one instance, the DEA and another—even though was all perfectly legal at the time.”

The congressman took the ABA official through the timeline of the SAFE Banking Act and how the notion of such cannabis reform was first laughed off by his colleagues years ago. But as the issue gained momentum, he’s faced different obstacles. With the GOP in control of the Senate last session, key lawmakers blocked hearings because they felt it was too broad; with Democrats now in control, they tell him it’s too narrow.

Following the bipartisan House passage of the banking bill, Perlmutter said he naively expected it “to sail through the Senate, which is always a bad assumption, because nothing sails through the Senate.”

But he’s taken pains to build support, including from current Senate leadership that has insisted on enacting comprehensive legalization with firm equity provisions in place before advancing a bill viewed as friendly to the industry.

Despite recently saying that he’s “confident” that the Senate will take up his bill this session, the congressman recognized that while he’s supportive of revisions related to criminal justice reform, taxation, research and other issues, he knows that “as we expand this thing, then we start losing votes, particularly Republican votes and we got enough votes in the Senate to do it” as is.

Perlmutter also brought up the fact that Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has addressed the federal-state marijuana banking conflict and “she wants to get this off her plate and get it done.”

But President Joe Biden and his administration have been “a little bit leery and cautious on this subject.” While the president campaigned on modest cannabis reforms such expungements and rescheduling (promises that have yet gone unfulfilled), he’s not specifically weighed in on the banking issue.

“But with respect to being able to normalize, in effect, banking relationships for the dispensary, for the grower, for the shop and owner, for the accountant, for the lawyer who represents the marijuana business or the related business or the bank, I think we’re in good shape on that,” the congressman said.

Ahead of the ABA event, the financial group released a poll that it commissioned showing that a strong majority of Americans support freeing up banks to work with marijuana businesses without facing federal penalties.

Meanwhile, the number of banks that report working with marijuana businesses ticked up again near the end of 2021, according to recently released federal data.

It’s not clear if the increase is related to congressional moves to pass a bipartisan cannabis banking reform bill, but the figures from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) signal that financial institutions continue to feel more comfortable servicing businesses in state-legal markets.

Some Republicans are scratching their heads about how Democrats have so far failed to pass the modest banking reform with majorities in both chambers and control of the White House, too. For example, Rep. Rand Paul (R-KY) criticized his Democratic colleagues over the issue in December.

In the interim, federal financial regulator Rodney Hood—a board member and former chairman of the federal National Credit Union Administration (NCUA)—recently said that marijuana legalization is not a question of “if” but “when,” and he’s again offering advice on how to navigate the federal-state conflict that has left many banks reluctant to work with cannabis businesses.
 

:disgust:

VA Won’t Provide Grants For Marijuana Treatment As Part Of Proposed Veteran Suicide Prevention Initiative


The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is making clear it won’t provide support for treatment involving marijuana as part of a new grants program aimed at preventing veteran suicide

In a notice on a proposed interim final rule for the new Staff Sergeant Parker Gordon Fox Suicide Prevention Grant Program published in the Federal Register on Thursday, VA said the three-year, community-based effort will “provide or coordinate the provision of suicide prevention services to eligible individuals and their families for the purpose of reducing veteran suicide.”

But while many veterans and service organizations representing the community have repeatedly testified to Congress and federal agencies that cannabis represents a potential treatment option for medical conditions that commonly afflict military veterans returning from service, VA, perhaps not surprisingly, is drawing a line in the sand when it comes to supporting treatment regimens involving marijuana.

It’s “important for VA to note that any approaches and treatment practices approved will need to be consistent with applicable Federal law,” the department said in the notice. “For example, the use of grant funds to provide or coordinate the provision of marijuana to eligible individuals and their families will be prohibited, as marijuana is currently illegal under Federal law.”

That’s despite the fact that there is a carve out for prospective grantees providing or coordinating “nontraditional and innovative approaches…including but not limited to complementary or alternative interventions with some evidence for effectiveness of improving mental health or mitigating a risk factor for suicidal thoughts and behavior.”

The interim final rule is set to take effect on April 11, and public comments will continue to be accepted until May 9.

VA’s position on marijuana has been a source of consistent frustration for advocates and veteran service organizations who have been pushing for expanded research into the therapeutic potential of cannabis.

House and Senate committees held joint hearings this month to hear from veterans service organizations (VSOs) about how Congress and the federal government can better serve their constituents, and several of the groups brought up the need to ease restrictions on marijuana.

The testimony echoes what the VSOs have repeatedly raised with lawmakers. The specifics ranged in scope between the various groups, but the overall message was made clear: military veterans uniquely stand to benefit from marijuana treatment and it’s time for Congress to do something about it.

Separately, military veterans would be “encouraged” to discuss medical marijuana treatmentwithout the fear of losing federal benefits under a new bill being sponsored by Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA).

The main thrust of the legislation is to codify existing policies that allow VA doctors to talk about medical cannabis with patients as well as protections for veterans who are candid about their history with marijuana treatment. By doing so, it would enshrine these polices into law so that they could not later be changed administratively by future VA leaders.
 

Bipartisan Congressional Lawmakers Want Biden To Push UN To End International Marijuana Ban


A bipartisan duo of congressional lawmakers filed a resolution on Friday imploring President Joe Biden to wield his influence to get the United Nations (UN) to end the international ban on marijuana by removing the plant from the list of controlled substances in a global drug treaty.

Reps. Nancy Mace (R-SC) and Barbara Lee (D-CA) introduced the measure as UN’s Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) wrapped up meetings for its 65th session this week in Vienna. CND in 2020 adopted a proposal to delete cannabis from Schedule IV of the 1961 Single Convention, but it currently remains in Schedule I, precluding member nations from legalizing the plant.

(Unlike in the U.S., Schedule IV is the strictest international drug category, whereas Schedule I is the most restrictive federal classification).

The concurrent resolution as filed expresses “the sense of Congress that the United States representative to the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs should use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States to seek to de-schedule cannabis from Schedule I of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961.”

The measure also calls on U.S. officials to press the UN to “expunge and forgive penalties relating to cannabis for prior offenders, and treat cannabis as a commodity similar to other agricultural commodities.”

The U.S. representative to CND did support the body’s proposal to move marijuana to Schedule I under international statute, but it did not go so far as to recommend full descheduling.

The new resolution states that the Biden administration should urge the U.S. representative to take a bolder stance on international reform.

“Many countries would deschedule cannabis and reevaluate how cannabis is classified if the UN did so,” Mace said in a press release. “Cannabis has been shown to be effective in the treatment of numerous medical conditions such as epilepsy, PTSD, cancer pain relief, nausea, and chronic and terminal illnesses.”



“Descheduling at the UN would support global research into how cannabis can treat a wide range of ailments and conditions,” the congresswoman, who is sponsoring a GOP-led bill to federally legalize cannabis, said.

Lee, co-chair of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus and long-time champion of marijuana reform, said that research “has shown that cannabis has wide-ranging positive effects on chronic illness treatment.”

“The classification of cannabis as a schedule one drug is outdated, out of touch, and should be addressed not only in the United States, but around the world,” she said. “The United States should be leading the way on cannabis reform on the global stage, and descheduling at the United Nations would be a great start.”

The idea of the president taking a proactive step to end international marijuana prohibition does seem like something of a stretch given his record of championing punitive drug laws as a senator and his continued opposition to domestic cannabis legalization.

While some federal agencies like the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) have cited international treaty obligations in decisions against domestic descheduling, the president has not made that specific argument to defend his personal opposition to adult-use legalization in the country.

With respect to domestic policy, Biden did campaign on moving cannabis to Schedule II under the federal Controlled Substances Act. But he’s yet to take steps to accomplish that or other modest marijuana reform pledges.

Last year, UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) urged a global ban on marijuana advertising—but some advocates viewed that as a sign that the prohibitionist body was coming to terms with the fact that widespread legalization is inevitable.

Separately, late last year, UN’s World Health Organization (WHO) chose not to recommend that kratom be internationally banned following a scientific review—a development celebrated by advocates of the plant, which has been used for therapeutic purposes such as pain management.

Read the text of the bipartisan resolution on international marijuana scheduling
 

Key House Committee Formally Clears Federal Marijuana Legalization Bill For Floor Vote This Week


A key House committee on Wednesday formally advanced a bill to federally legalize marijuana to the floor, making in order a number of amendments and blocking others as part of a final rule. A full chamber vote is expected on Friday.

The House Rules Committee took up the Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, discussing proposed revisions, mostly from GOP lawmakers seeking to insert additional restrictions into the reform measure.

The MORE Act, sponsored by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), would remove marijuana from the list of federally controlled substances, promote equity in the industry and impose a federal tax on marijuana products to fund various initiatives.

At the start of Wednesday’s hearing, Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern (D-MA) said that the legislation would “address our nation’s failed approach to the war on drugs” and “put racial justice at the heart of our nation’s federal cannabis policy.”

He noted racial disparities in marijuana enforcement, emphasizing that “none of us should be OK with a system that treats people differently based on the color of their skin” and “no life should be destroyed by decades of failed policy.”

“It’s past time that we show the moral courage to do something about it,” McGovern said.

In his opening remarks, Nadler said that his legislation would “reverse decades of failed federal policies based on the criminalization of marijuana” and “also take steps to address the heavy toll these policies have taken across the country, particularly amongst communities of color.”

He also addressed the collateral consequences of cannabis convictions, or even arrests, which “can be devastating” and affect a person’s ability to access educational aid, housing opportunities, government assistance and more. Such exclusions have created a “permanent second class status for millions of Americans,” Nadler said.

But Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ), ranking member of a Judiciary subcommittee, argued that “even for those who think that it is a good idea to legalize marijuana, the approach reflected in this bill is shortsighted. He added that “supporters of this bill have not adequately considered the effect of this legislation on the American public and especially on our children.”

The amendments considered in the Rules Committee include proposals to make legalization contingent on the completion of certain studies, bar federal funding to states that permit certain cannabis products, main penalties and limit expungement provisions.

One filed amendment, however, would have far-reaching implications by providing relief for people who have been denied a security clearance over marijuana at any point over the past half-century. Another would lower the proposed tax rate on cannabis in the bill.

When the MORE Act reaches the floor, it will mark the second time in history that cannabis legalization legislation has been taken up by a full chamber of Congress. An earlier version of the bill passed the House in 2020, but stalled in the Senate. Then it passed again this session in the House Judiciary Committee, which is chaired by the bill’s sponsor.

Here’s a rundown of the amendments to the MORE Act that the Rules Committee cleared for floor votes:

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY):
Clarify that protections for immigrants cover “possession or use of cannabis that is no longer prohibited pursuant to this Act or an amendment made by this Act.”

Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ): Provide $10 million for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to conduct research on “technologies and methods that law enforcement may use to determine whether a driver is impaired by marijuana.”

Rep. Conor Lamb (D-PA): Require the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to conduct a study on the “impact of the legalization of recreational cannabis by states on the workplace” and develop “best practices for use by employers that are transitioning their policies related to the use of recreational cannabis, prioritizing the development of best practices for employers engaged in federal infrastructure projects, transportation, public safety and national security.”

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD): Require federal agencies to review security clearance denials going back to 1971 and retroactively make it so cannabis could not be used “as a reason to deny or rescind a security clearance.”

And here’s a list of amendments that were filed but which were blocked from advancing:

Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC):
Require the transportation secretary and attorney general to develop and publish “best practices for the recognition and testing of drivers impaired by marijuana” before any provision of the legalization bill could take effect, according to the text.

Rep. Conor Lamb (D-PA): Mandate that the secretary of education conduct a study on “the impact of the legalization of recreational cannabis by states on schools and school-aged children” and develop “best practices for use by educators and administrators to protect school-aged children from any negative impacts of such legalization.”

Rep. Conor Lamb (D-PA): Maintain enhanced federal penalties for distributing more than five grams of marijuana to a person under the age of 21 and for distributing more than five grams of marijuana within 1,000 feet of a school, college, playground or public housing authority, or within 100 feet of a youth center, public swimming pool or arcade.

Rep. Pete Pete Stauber (R-MN): Make it so immigrants could be deported for driving under the influence of marijuana.

Rep. Tiffany Thomas (R-WI): Create a civil penalty for manufacturing or distributing cannabis products with any “constituent, ingredient or artificial or natural flavor additive (other than marijuana), including a fruit, vanilla, coconut, licorice, cocoa, chocolate, candy, confectionaries, menthol or coffee.”

Rep. Tiffany Thomas (R-WI): Require that marijuana products be sold in packaging that is “designed or constructed to be significantly difficult for children under 5 years of age to open or obtain a toxic or harmful amount of the substance contained therein within a reasonable time and not difficult for normal adults to use properly.” It would also mandate that cannabis products be labeled with a warning that states: “The Surgeon General has determined pregnant women should not use marijuana, which affects the developing fetus, and is associated with adverse outcomes for newborns including lower birth weight, poor cognitive function, hyperactivity and other long-term consequences.”

Rep. Bob Lotta (R-OH): Permanently place fentanyl analogues in Schedule I but also streamline the research process for all drugs in that category—including cannabis and psychedelics—by aligning requirements with those for the less-restricted Schedule II.

Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD): Make it so none of the provisions of the legalization bill could be enacted until various federal bodies perform studies on the impact of legalization and the directors of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and National Institutes of Health certify that, based on the resulting data, “the societal, public safety and public health benefits of enacting the bill outweigh the societal, public safety and public health risks.” The studies they would need to take into account are as follows. A review by the comptroller general of the “societal impact of the legalization by States of adult use of cannabis.” A review by the secretary of health and human services on the “public health impact of legalization of adult use of cannabis.” A review under the secretary of transportation, conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, of data on “cannabis-impaired driving.” The amendment lays out several specific areas each review would need to examine.

Rep. Chris Pappas (D-NH): Clarify that certain people would not be eligible to have their past cannabis convictions expunged, including those who were also convicted of violent crimes, sex offenses, possessing a weapon or involvement with fentanyl.

Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ): Bar federal funds from being sent to any state in which it is legal to see marijuana or THC “in candy, soda, chocolate, ice cream or other kid-friendly food or beverage.

Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ): Bar federal funds from being sent to any state that has legalization marijuana “unless such state offers education campaigns on marijuana impaired driving.”

Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ): Delay the legalization bill from taking effect until the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the secretary of health and human services “can identify what delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol concentration level is considered to cause impairment and intoxication in adults.”

Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX): Require the secretary of health and human services to break down data on the prevalence of substance use disorders mandated under separate legislation into specific categories for “marijuana use disorder,” “methamphetamine use disorder,” and any other specific substance use disorders as determined by the secretary.

Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT): Bar certain federal funds from being sent to any state where it is legal to “sell tetrahydrocannabinol in an alcoholic beverage.”

Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-IN): Delay the legalization bill from taking effect until the attorney general, secretary of health and human services and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration “jointly confirm to Congress that a test for standardized field sobriety testing for marijuana is available for use by law enforcement officers for use in investigations of instances of driving while intoxicated or impaired.”

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC): Reduce the proposed federal tax rate for marijuana sales to three percent.

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC): Withhold federal transportation funding from states allowing people under 21 years of age to legally access marijuana, with an exception for medical cannabis use directed by a doctor.

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC): Ban marijuana ads that are false or misleading, require the secretary of treasury to issue regulations designed to restrict advertising of cannabis to children and withhold federal transportation funding from states allowing people under 21 years of age to legally access marijuana, with an exception for medical cannabis use directed by a doctor.

Most of these were Republican-led and viewed as hostile to the bill’s sponsor and as such weren’t made in order by the Democratic majority.

Of the more notable, reform-friendly amendments, however, was the one filed by Rules Committee member Raskin to create a retroactive review process for those who were denied security clearances over marijuana going back to 1971.

In January, the director of national intelligence (DNI) said that federal employers shouldn’t outright reject security clearance applicants over past use and should use discretion when it comes to those with cannabis investments in their stock portfolios.

Burgess testified in favor of his amendment to on data collection for substance misuse disorders, as well as the Harris amendment on cannabis research requirements, but the panel blocked his motions to clear them for floor action.

Another notable amendment was the tax proposal from Mace, which would lower the rate to align it with the tax provision she included in her own legalization bill.

Pappas, who filed an amendment concerning expungement eligibility, explained his position in a press release before the Rules Committee discussion on the MORE Act began.



“I support decriminalizing marijuana and passing federal reform so that states can make their own decisions about how to regulate these substances,” he said. “But the MORE Act as it’s written is deeply flawed, and it’s unfortunate that the House appears to be rushing to approve the same bill it passed a year ago that has absolutely no chance of becoming law.”

“The amendment I am submitting would explicitly prevent individuals including violent felons, organized crime leadership, or anyone who has been found guilty of trafficking fentanyl from being let out of prison or having their records expunged,” he said. “We must close these loopholes to ensure that this bill achieves reform and corrects injustices that have disproportionately impacted communities of color and low-income communities.”



There has already been one change to the text of the MORE Act when it was filed for floor action this week, which some advocates are cheering, as it seemingly would give additional leeway to businesses that would be required to get a federal permit to operate a marijuana business.

While the earlier version said a permit could be rejected if a prospective business’s premises “are not adequate to protect the revenue” generated from legalization, the new language says the rejection can be made if officials determine the premises “will not be adequate.

It seems like a minor revision, but the practical effect could be to make it so small businesses would have more flexibility to obtain a permit as they take steps to build out their operations while applications are pending.

Following the announcement that the House would again be voting on the MORE Act, the majority and minority leaders of the Judiciary Committee then released a nearly 500-page report on what the legislation would accomplish and outlining arguments for and against the reform.

What would the MORE Act do as drafted?​

Nadler’s MORE Act would deschedule marijuana by removing it from the list of federally banned drugs under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). However, it would not require states to legalize cannabis and would maintain a level of regulatory discretion up to states.

Marijuana products would be subject to a federal excise tax, starting at five percent for the first two years after enactment and rising to eight percent by the fifth year of implementation.

Nobody could be denied federal public benefits based solely on the use or possession of marijuana or past juvenile conviction for a cannabis offense. Federal agencies couldn’t use “past or present cannabis or marijuana use as criteria for granting, denying, or rescinding a security clearance.”

People could not be penalized under federal immigration laws for any cannabis related activity or conviction, whether it occurred before or after the enactment of the legalization legislation.

The bill creates a process for expungements of non-violent federal marijuana convictions.

Tax revenue from cannabis sales would be placed in a new “Opportunity Trust Fund.” Half of those tax dollars would support a “Community Reinvestment Grant Program” under the Justice Department, 10 percent would support substance misuse treatment programs, 40 percent would go to the federal Small Business Administration (SBA) to support implementation and a newly created equitable licensing grant program.

The Community Reinvestment Grant Program would “fund eligible non-profit community organizations to provide a variety of services for individuals adversely impacted by the War on Drugs…to include job training, reentry services, legal aid for civil and criminal cases (including for expungement of cannabis convictions), among others.”

The program would further support funding for substance misuse treatment for people from communities disproportionately impacted by drug criminalization. Those funds would be available for programs offering services to people with substance misuse disorders for any drug, not just cannabis.

While the bill wouldn’t force states to adopt legalization, it would create incentives to promote equity. For example, SBA would facilitate a program to providing licensing grants to states and localities that have moved to expunge records for people with prior marijuana convictions or “taken steps to eliminate violations or other penalties for persons still under State or local criminal supervision for a cannabis-related offense or violation for conduct now lawful under State or local law.”

The bill’s proposed Cannabis Restorative Opportunity Program would provide funds “for loans to assist small business concerns that are owned and controlled by individuals adversely impacted by the War on Drugs in eligible States and localities.”

The comptroller general, in consultation with the head of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), would be required to carry out a study on the demographics of people who have faced federal marijuana convictions, “including information about the age, race, ethnicity, sex, and gender identity.”

The departments of treasury, justice and the SBA would need to “issue or amend any rules, standard operating procedures, and other legal or policy guidance necessary to carry out implementation of the MORE Act” within one year of its enactment.

Marijuana producers and importers would also need to obtain a federal permit. And they would be subject to a $1,000 per year federal tax as well for each premise they operate.

The bill would impose certain packaging and labeling requirements.

It also prescribes penalties for unlawful conduct such as illegal, unlicensed production or importation of cannabis products.

The Treasury secretary would be required to carry out a study “on the characteristics of the cannabis industry, with recommendations to improve the regulation of the industry and related taxes.”

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) would be required to “regularly compile, maintain, and make public data on the demographics” of marijuana business owners and workers.

Workers in “safety sensitive” positions, such as those regulated by the Department of Transportation, could continue to be drug tested for THC and face penalties for unauthorized use. Federal workers would also continue to be subject to existing drug testing policies.

References to “marijuana” or “marihuana” under federal statute would be changed to “cannabis.” It’s unclear if that would also apply to the title of the bill itself.

The move to hold another vote on the cannabis legalization bill comes weeks after congressional Democrats held a closed-to-press session at a party retreat that included a panel that largely centered on the reform legislation.

Insiders expect the MORE Act to pass on the floor this week, though it will likely clear the chamber in largely partisan fashion. A spokesperson for Rep. Matt Gaetz (R), the sole GOP cosponsor of the bill, told Marijuana Moment that he would vote in favor of the legislation again. He was one of five Republican members to vote “yes” on the MORE Act last session.

However, a pro-legalization GOP congressman who serves as co-chair of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, Rep. Dave Joyce (R), is set to vote against it. His office circulated a letter to other Republican offices ahead of the Rules Committee meeting offering resources on navigating cannabis policy issues but expressing opposition to the MORE Act as drafted.

Joyce separately sent a letter to Nadler last month, expressing his willingness to work with the bill sponsor on revisions to build bipartisan support.

Meanwhile, advocates and stakeholders are eagerly awaiting the formal introduction of a separate Senate legalization bill that’s being finalized by Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and colleagues. Schumer recently said the plan is to file that bill—the Cannabis Administration & Opportunity Act (CAOA)—in April.

Also in Congress, a separate bill to tax and regulate marijuana is also in play this session. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) is sponsoring that legislation, and she said in a recent interview that she’s received assurances from Democratic leaders that her States Reform Act will receive a hearing following the MORE Act floor vote.

Meanwhile, on the same day that it was announced that the MORE Act would be heading to the floor again, the Senate unanimously approved a bipartisan bill meant to promote research into marijuana, in part by streamlining the application process for researchers who want to study the plant and to encourage the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to develop cannabis-derived medicines.

Congressional researchers separately released a report recently that details the challenges posed by ongoing federal prohibition and the options that lawmakers have available to address them.
 
I think we have heard this song before...and before...and before. I'll believe it when its signed into law.


House set to pass legislation decriminalizing marijuana


The question remains: Will it all go up in smoke when it heads to the Senate?​

The House is once again poised to pass legislation to decriminalize marijuana at the federal level.

The Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act, known as the MORE Act, would remove marijuana from the controlled substances list, leaving it up to states to set their own laws. It would also release people incarcerated on cannabis-related offenses of less than 30 grams and expunge criminal penalties associated with those who manufacture, distribute and possess it.

"There's so many discussions that have gone on over the years about the use of marijuana or cannabis or whatever. The fact is, it exists. It's being used. We've got to address how it is treated legally," Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday during her weekly press conference.





Congress has tried, unsuccessfully, to pass this type of legislation before. The House passed a version of the same bill in December 2020, but it was stalled in the Senate because then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell never brought it to the floor.

The legislation is an attempt to reverse the harmful effects stemming from the "war on drugs," a global campaign started in the 1970s by former President Richard Nixon with the stated goal of eliminating illegal drug use and trade in the United States. When former President Ronald Reagan took office, he substantially increased the scope of the drug war to focus on criminal punishment rather than rehabilitation and treatment. That drastically increased the number of incarcerated non-violent drug offenders, with a disproportionate impact on communities of color.

"More than anything else, the MORE Act is about ending and reversing decades of failed federal policy that has taken a heavy toll on too many people across this country, with a disproportionate impact on communities of color," Rep. Nadler, D-N.Y., who authored the bill, said in a statement to ABC News.

Black people are almost four times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession compared with their white counterparts despite using it at similar rates, according to a 2020 American Civil Liberties Union report.

"The sentence doesn't really end after we get those folks out of prison," said Stephen Post, campaign strategist at the Last Prisoner Project, a nonprofit advocating for reforming marijuana laws and releasing people incarcerated on marijuana offenses from prison.

"Whether it be denying them federal relief or impeding them from getting licensure for work, all these different laws create further barriers for folks when they're trying to reenter society," he told ABC News.

In an effort to help restore resources to communities adversely impacted by the "war on drugs," the bill also creates a Cannabis Justice Office charged with establishing and carrying out the Community Reinvestment Grant Program. The program would provide legal aid in civil and criminal cases, job training and health education programs, among other community initiatives.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who vowed to make marijuana legislation a priority, is working on a separate bill with Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Cory Booker, D-N.J., that is expected to be introduced in April but would need all Democrats and at least 10 Republicans to pass the Senate.

Though roadblocks remain for federal decriminalization,18 states along with Washington, D.C., have legalized recreational marijuana and 37 states have legalized medical marijuana.
 

House Passes Bipartisan Marijuana Research Bill To Let Scientists Study Dispensary Products, Days After Legalization Vote


The U.S. House of Representatives on Monday approved a bipartisan marijuana research billthat’s meant to streamline studies into cannabis, in part by allowing scientists to access products from state-legal dispensaries.

This comes days after the chamber separately approved a bill to federally legalize marijuanafor the second time in history. And it also follows the Senate’s unanimous approval of a similar cannabis research bill last month.

The Medical Marijuana Research Act, sponsored by the unlikely duo of pro-legalization Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and prohibitionist Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD), passed the House in a 343-75 vote.

“The cannabis laws in this country are broken, including those that deal with the medical research of marijuana,” Blumenauer said in a press release. “America’s growing cannabis industry operates without the benefit of a robust research program. Instead, we are outsourcing research to Israel, the United Kingdom, and Canada to our detriment.”



“One example of this policy failure is our inability to effectively test for cannabis impairment. Employees are failing drug tests, not because they are impaired, but because they used recreational or medical cannabis sometime in the last month,” he said. “This is just one symptom of our shortsighted, illogical, and destructive set of policies.”

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone (D-NJ), who managed bills on the floor for the majority on Monday, said that the body’s passage of a federal cannabis legalization bill last week, as well as state-level reforms, “highlight the need for increased research about safety and efficacy of the marijuana products being consumed by millions of Americans.”



“This is an important step towards understanding the positive and negative health effects of the products being frequently consumed by people across our country,” he said.

Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA), a cosponsor of the cannabis research bill, also rose in support.

While acknowledging that members have differing views on broader marijuana reform, he said they have “joined forces to advocate for more research on the use of cannabis products to treat medical conditions.”



Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI), another cosponsor, said that the country has “seen dramatic changes in the legal status of marijuana at the state level, my state included.” She added that the “federal framework for conducting marijuana research is decades old, and has not kept pace with these changes.”

“It is high time we modernize our nation’s federal regulations to facilitate legitimate medical research into the impacts of marijuana,” the congresswoman said.

Harris, meanwhile, said that the bill “makes it easier to do rigorous medical research—the same type of research we expect to be done on any of the drugs that are sold as medicines in this country.”

The legislation would remove barriers for researchers seeking to apply and get approved to study cannabis. It would also set clear deadlines on federal agencies to act on their applications and also make it easier for scientists to modify their research protocols without having to seek federal approval.

Both the House and Senate passed earlier versions of their respective cannabis research billsin late 2020, but nothing ended up getting to then-President Donald Trump’s desk by the end of the last Congress. It remains to be seen whether, following the House’s passage of its version again, the two chambers will be able to negotiate a deal on provisions of unified legislation to send to President Joe Biden.

After Monday’s vote, Blumenauer said he is “prepared to work with my friends in the Senate to reconcile differences between this legislation and the Senate-passed Cannabidiol and Marihuana Research Expansion Act.”

Advocates in support of and against legalization praised the House legislation.

“These common-sense regulatory changes are necessary and long overdue,” Paul Armentano, deputy director of NORML, said in a blog post.

“Currently, the limited variety of cannabis cultivars accessible to federally licensed researchers does not represent the type or quality of cannabis products currently available in legal, statewide markets,” he said. “The reality that nearly one-half of U.S. adults have legal access to these multitude of cannabis products, but our nation’s top scientists do not is the height of absurdity and it is an indictment of the current system.”

Kevin Sabet, president of prohibitionist organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana, said the science reform is “the right approach to marijuana policy.”

“The drug does not have to be legalized and a nationwide industry created just to conduct better research,” he argued.

Congressional researchers separately released a report recently that details the challenges posed by ongoing federal prohibition and the options that lawmakers have available to address them.

Before the House passed the bill on Monday, it was slightly amended to clarify in several sections that it covers marijuana as well as “any derivative, extract, preparation, and compound thereof” and to make other technical changes.

Leadership brought the bipartisan bill forward using a process known as suspension of the rules, under which no further amendments were allowed and a two-thirds supermajority was needed for passage.



Unlike the House proposal, the measure the Senate passed last month would not let researchers study dispensary products, but takes other steps its sponsors say would streamline the investigatory process for scientists and encourage the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to develop cannabis-derived medicines.

The House bill, meanwhile, would additionally mandate that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) license more growers and make it so there would be no limit on the number of additional entities that can be registered to cultivate marijuana for research purposes. It would also require the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (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.



For half a century, researchers have only been able to study marijuana grown at a single federally approved facility at the University of Mississippi, but they have complained that it is difficult to obtain the product and that it is of low quality. Indeed, one study showed that the government cannabis is more similar to hemp than to the marijuana that consumers actually use in the real world.

DEA has taken steps in recent years to approve new cultivators of marijuana to be used in studies, but there has been bipartisan agreement the agency has inhibited cannabis research by being slow to follow through on those applications. Some of the newly approved operations are have only begun to produce their first legal cannabis crops in recent months.

Under the House bill, the agency would be forced to start approving additional cultivation applications for study purposes within one year of the legislation’s enactment.



HHS and the attorney general would be required under the bill to create a process for marijuana manufacturers and distributors to supply researchers with cannabis from dispensaries. They would have one year after enactment to develop that procedure, and would have to start meeting to work on it within 60 days of the bill’s passage.

In general, 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.

Meanwhile, large-scale infrastructure legislation that was signed by Biden in November contains provisions aimed at allowing researchers to study the actual marijuana that consumers are purchasing from state-legal businesses instead of having to use only government-grown cannabis.



National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Director Nora Volkow told Marijuana Moment in an earlier interview that scientists have been unnecessarily limited in the source of cannabisthey’re permitted to study—and it makes sense to enact a policy change that expands their access to products available in state-legal markets.

“Since dispensaries are selling products that are supposedly very specific for certain characteristics—there is not any one plant—without access to that variety and diversity of plant products, researchers cannot advance that question,” she said.
 

Democratic Cannabis Caucus Leaders Say GOP Co-Chair’s Vote Against Legalization Bill Is No Reason For Alarm


The U.S. House of Representatives on Friday voted in favor of a bill to federally legalize marijuana. And while the vote largely fell along partisan lines, there was at least one notable “no” on the Republican side: Rep. Dave Joyce (R-OH), who supports ending prohibition and serves as a co-chair of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus.

But shortly after the vote, the Democratic co-chairs of the panel told Marijuana Moment that there’s no reason for alarm, and the caucus remains committed to finding bipartisan ground on which to advance comprehensive reform.

To be sure, Joyce’s vote didn’t come as a surprise. Not only did his office circulate a letter to other GOP offices ahead of a House Rules Committee hearing on the Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, outlining the reasons for his opposition after attempting to work with the sponsor on revisions, but he also penned an op-ed for Marijuana Moment going into further detail about his stance on the bill ahead of the floor vote. And, Joyce had voted against an earlier version of the legislation the first time it came to the floor in 2020.

Even so, the “no” vote from a leader of Cannabis Caucus raised some questions about the utility of the bipartisan group whose aim is to see past disagreements on other issues while uniting on cannabis reform. Reps. Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) addressed Joyce’s opposition to the MORE Act during a virtual press briefing following the vote.

“First of all, a lot of caucuses have disagreements,” Lee told Marijuana Moment, adding that she co-chairs another caucus where members “disagree” and “try to work through the issues.”

“But we sometimes have to agree to disagree—and, unfortunately, that happened this time,” the congresswoman said. She also said that she spoke with Joyce before the vote and wanted to clarify that there’s no “problem” with the Cannabis Caucus despite one of its co-chairs going against the grain and opposing the only marijuana legalization bill that’s advancing in Congress.

“I understand where David was coming from, but in no way are there any indications from anyone that the Cannabis Caucus, because of this, would be in any jeopardy,” Lee said.

“Hopefully, the public will weigh in,” she said. “And I’m glad the press doing this [to inform the public] so that we can continue to move forward. I don’t think it impairs our work together. It just makes our work a little more difficult because we’ve got to do more educating of our co-chairs of the Cannabis Caucus.”

Blumenauer, for his part, said that there’s a “broad array of proposals dealing with cannabis” and he has “profound respect for David Joyce.”

“He was formerly a prosecutor, and the work that he’s done with us to this point represents, I think, a real awareness and growth with this issue,” the congressman said. “I have no doubt that, as we work forward, people will understand the approach that’s been taken to be able to provide a legal framework to deal with restorative justice—which is such an important issue in cities and states across the country. We’re going to get there.”

“But there’s a broad array of things that we need to work on: medical cannabis research, some economic and tax reforms—there’s no end to the areas that we can work together,” Blumenauer said. “And I appreciate David Joyce’s leadership and the fact that he’s evolved on this issue, and I’d like to continue working with him to evolve a little further.”

Joyce, for his part, said in a statement following the vote that the “political reality” is that the MORE Act will not be enacted as passed in the House.

“With a president who has made clear his unwillingness to fully desechedule cannabis and a Senate majority leader set to roll out his own comprehensive package, no serious legislator, cannabis advocate or industry stakeholder believes the MORE Act has any prospect of becoming law this Congress,” he said.

To that point, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said hours after the House vote in favor of the MORE Act that the president agrees that “our current marijuana laws are not working,” but she declined to say whether he supports the specific legislation.

The Democratic Cannabis Caucus co-chairs, for their part, expressed optimism that the momentum coming out of Friday’s vote will soon lead to comprehensive marijuana reform at the federal level. But they also appeared cognizant of the complex political dynamics at play.

The caucus also lost its other GOP co-chair, Rep. Don Young (R-AK), this month. Several members honored the congressman—who also fought against cannabis criminalization and died at the age of 88 two weeks ago—during Friday’s floor proceedings.
 

Sponsored by

VGoodiez 420EDC
Back
Top