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

"Maher—who denies alignment with any party"​

Really?....hahaha...queue the laugh track



Bill Maher thinks Republicans will ‘steal’ pot legalization


Time is ticking, and political commentators are starting to wonder about the president’s inaction on cannabis reform—an issue with high support among Democrats. And since Democrats are currently in control of the White House and Congress, it’s on them to push a bill to the finish line.

During a June 3 “Overtime” segment on YouTube, the Real Time with Bill Maher host read an audience-submitted question to his guest, former Attorney General Eric Holder, about why President Joe Biden hasn’t pushed for the federal legalization of pot. After all, decriminalization of cannabis at the federal level was one of President Biden’s promises on the election trail.

Maher—who denies alignment with any party—said that dealing with the issue would be “dealing with reality,” and it would also bring political benefit. But if Democrats continue to fail to legalize cannabis at the federal level, Maher thinks Republicans will take up the slack.

“Republicans are gonna steal the issue. I think eventually,” Maher told Holder. “I mean, someone like John Boehner works for a marijuana company now. I mean, it could be one of those freedom issues. And, of course, Republicans smoke lots of pot too.”
“Not enough,” Holder said to instant laughter in the audience.

“They need to mellow out just a little more.”

Some Republicans have used cannabis as a freedom issue. Politico reported on leaders who are joining the fold, viewing cannabis “through the prism of states’ rights, personal freedom, job creation and tax revenue.”

In a survey, conducted by Pew Research Center from April 5-11, 2021, the majority—72%—of Democrats said cannabis should be legal for medical and recreational purposes versus 47% of Republicans. Only among “conservative” Republicans, the majority of people surveyed said they aren’t in favor of legalizing cannabis for both medical and recreational purposes. While it’s less popular among Republicans, there are some leaders launching their own bills such as Congresswoman Nancy Mace, with her States Reform Act.

Maher pointed out the recent push for social equity measures transforming the industry slowly, but it is an issue Republicans aren’t onboard with. It’s the social equity provisions that are one of the few dividing points when it comes to cannabis bills. On the other hand, leaders like Senator Cory Booker believe social equity provisions are critical for any cannabis reform bill.

“Now I understand the impetus to want to, like, for example, if you’re gonna have new businesses that are legal in the marijuana field, yeah, they probably should go to the people who suffered the most during the drug war,” Maher said.

“Republicans, of course, are saying this is a deal-breaker.”

Maher acknowledged that leaders are not aligning with certain details on the issue, but didn’t exactly provide a full solution.
“What do you want, half a loaf? If they said okay, no equity, is it better to have the law passed or changed or is it better to hold out for equity?” Maher asked.
“It’s better to have the law changed,” Holder responded.

“And as I said, deal with the societal reality that we have and, you know, and try to make it as equitable as you possibly can, but I wouldn’t want to stop the movement that I think makes sense for the sake of equity.”

Maher serves on the advisory board with NORML and is a longtime known advocate for cannabis, and is known for slamming religion and political correctness in general. Maher was in the same room as High Times this past May, when the political talk show host made an appearance at Woody Harrelson’s grand opening of The Woods in West Hollywood.
 
"Vice President Kamala Harris, for her part, said last year that the Biden administration isn’t focused on following through on its marijuana reform pledges because it’s too overwhelmed with other issues."​


You can internally formulate your own comment on this ^^.


White House Intern Applicants Will Be Asked About Marijuana, Biden Administration Clarifies


Despite repeated calls to stop penalizing staffers for being honest about past marijuana use, the Biden administration made clear on Monday that people who want to even intern at the White House will be required to disclose prior drug use—including any cannabis consumption that was legal under state law—and they could be denied eligibility over it.


Intern applicants who advance through the hiring process will have to fill out a security clearance form, according to a new FAQ for the White House Internship Program.


Information submitted through that form that “could affect eligibility” includes past drug use—”including marijuana, regardless of whether the marijuana use was permitted under state law,” the FAQ, posted on the White House website this week, says.


Early in his administration, the Biden White House came under sharp criticism over reports that staffers were being terminated or otherwise penalized for admitting to using marijuana as part of a background check process.


The newly posted FAQ’s clarification on cannabis reaffirms that the White House under Biden continues to view prior marijuana use as grounds for ineligibility to work in the executive branch, even at the intern level.


Marijuana Moment reached out to the White House for comment, but a representative did not immediately respond.


President Joe Biden has long opposed the legalization of cannabis. Minutes after Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and colleagues unveiled a much-anticipated draft marijuana legalization bill last year, then-White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki reiterated that the president hasn’t changed his position on maintaining federal prohibition.


During his presidential campaign in 2020, Biden did run on a pledge to enact modest reforms such as decriminalizing cannabis possession, expunging prior records and respecting the rights of states to set their own laws. Since taking office, however, his administration has not made progress on any of those promises and has instead fired its own White House staffers over marijuana and sought to extend a budget provision that has blocked Washington, D.C. from legalizing cannabis sales.


Psaki previously attempted to minimize the fallout of the White House personnel policy, without much success, and her office also stressed that nobody was fired for “marijuana usage from years ago,” nor has anyone been terminated “due to casual or infrequent use during the prior 12 months.” However, she consistently declined to speak to the extent to which staff have been suspended or placed in a remote work program because they were honest about their history with marijuana on the federal background check form.


For what it’s worth, a poll released in January found that more than half of Americans feel that Biden made little to no progress on his campaign pledge to decriminalize marijuana during his first year in office—and most people also aren’t betting on him doing more to advance the reform in 2022.


Biden did take some by surprise by suggesting that international sports rules on marijuana may need to be reevaluated after a star U.S. runner was suspended following a positive cannabis test. But that’s a far cry from endorsing comprehensive reform.


Advocates also celebrated a move by the administration earlier this year when Biden granted clemency to dozens of people with non-violent federal drug convictions on their records.


Biden has received about a dozen letters from lawmakers, advocates, celebrities and people impacted by criminalization to do something about the people who remain behind federal bars over cannabis. After months of inaction, some members of Congress like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) have even sent follow-up letters demanding a response.


Among those pushing for reform is Weldon Angelos, who received a president pardon from Trump in 2020 and has since become a key advocate for criminal justice reform who has worked with both the Trump and Biden administration of furthering relief.


A report published by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) last year affirmed that the president has it within his power to grant mass pardons for cannabis offenses. It also said that the administration can move to federally legalize cannabis without waiting for lawmakers to act.


Vice President Kamala Harris, for her part, said last year that the Biden administration isn’t focused on following through on its marijuana reform pledges because it’s too overwhelmed with other issues.
 
Imagine my shock.....

State Department Says Marijuana Reform Helps Address Religious Discrimination In Other Countries, While Ignoring U.S. Policy


A new U.S. State Department report on religious discrimination across the world looks at how marijuana laws in various countries either respect or violate the rights of certain believers to practice their faiths.

But although the federal government is again making it a point in the latest edition of the annual report to outline ongoing cannabis-related discrimination in some foreign countries, the new 2021 Report on International Religious Freedom continues to decline to recognize ongoing marijuana prohibition laws that remain on the books in the U.S.

“The report is designed to spotlight examples of government and societal action that typify and illuminate issues reported in each country,” a description of the report says. “Specific inclusions or omissions should not be interpreted as a signal that a particular case is of greater or lesser importance to the U.S. government, or that a case is the only available example. Rather, the goal is to shed light on the nature, scope, and severity of actions impacting religious freedom through illustrative examples.”

The latest State Department document, published early this month, discusses cannabis policies in about a dozen nations and how they intersect with religious liberties, including by noting that a growing movement toward legalization and decriminalization is helping to reduce discrimination that has been prevalent in the past.

Here’s a breakdown of what the report found:

Antigua and Barbuda

A recent policy decriminalizing cannabis “recognizes the government’s responsibility to uphold the religious rights of persons of the Hindu and Rastafarian faiths,” the State Department said.

“The law allows these persons to apply for a special religious license to cultivate the plant within their private dwelling, use the plant for religious purposes within their private dwelling or within their approved place of worship, and transport the plant between their private dwelling and approved place of worship,” it continues. “The special religious license, however, does not permit any commercial or financial transaction involving any part of the cannabis plant.”

Bahamas

Rastafarians in the Bahamas “continued to state the government violated their constitutional right to religious freedom by prohibiting the legal use of marijuana in ceremonial rituals and detaining community members for using it,” according to the report.

“The previous government had advanced, but not passed, legislation to permit limited use of marijuana, including for religious purposes,” it says. “The new administration of Prime Minister Philip Davis had not stated by year’s end whether it would reintroduce this or a similar bill. In October the government began reviewing expungement applications from individuals convicted of possession.”

Barbados

Rastafarian in Barbados fought hard for reform and successfully helped usher in an era of decriminalization that makes possession of up to 14 grams of cannabis a non-criminal offense, the U.S. government noted.

“In March, with the stated intention of making better use of police and court resources, among other reasons, the government decriminalized the personal possession and use of up to 14 grams of marijuana, a change in the law that the Rastafarian community supported,” the State Department said. “According to media, Attorney General Dale Marshall said that cannabis possession of 14 grams or fewer would result in a fine rather than criminal charges.”

Belize

The report on Belize cites significant pushback to efforts to legalize marijuana in the country, particularly from the National Evangelical Association of Belize (NEAB). The organization characterized the reform proposal as “shockingly offensive.”

The Belize Council of Churches (BCC) also resisted the policy change. NEAB, for its part, said that the push for legalization was financially motivated.

“On July 2, the government introduced a bill to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act, which would authorize the legalization of marijuana,” the report says. “The bill sought to establish a provision for the licensing and registration of enterprises operating in the cannabis industry that would allow persons to cultivate, process, distribute, and deliver cannabis for adult use.”

“In October, the NEAB stated it was ‘deeply concerned’ that government involvement in the marijuana business meant the official promotion of marijuana use and development. NEAB officials said they had been voicing their concerns to the Minister of Home Affairs and New Growth Industries Kareem Musa but were still waiting for a formal meeting. The BCC also expressed concern that the government did not “seek and consider input on important moral and societal issues.”

“The BCC said that legalizing the cultivation and distribution of marijuana would encourage widespread use of the drug, causing effects on the human body, particularly young people, and was ‘not a path civil society should choose to take,'” the department said. “In response, Minister Musa said the bill was intended to regulate an already existing industry and, after meeting with the BCC, he said that requirements in the law would prevent the easy accessibility of marijuana to minors. At year’s end, the bill remained pending before parliament.”

Dominica

In Dominica, “Rastafarians continued to press the government to legalize marijuana use,” the report says.

“In October 2020, parliament decriminalized the possession of up to 28 grams of marijuana to individuals 18 years and above for personal religious use,” it notes. “Representatives of the Rastafarian community said authorities did not enforce the law against using marijuana when the community used it in its religious rites.”

Guyana

The government of Guyana put forward legislation last year to “remove custodial sentences for the possession of fewer than 30 grams of cannabis and remove fines for using cannabis.” But after being transmitted to a select legislative committee, it has so far stalled.

“According to media, representatives of the Rastafarian community continued to state a law criminalizing the possession of 15 grams or more of marijuana infringed on their religious practices,” the report says, citing a Rastafarian leader who said that “to deny me the holy herb for my sacrament is to deny me my human rights.”

“The Guyana Rastafari Council continued to petition the government to legalize the use of small amounts of marijuana for religious purposes, holding regular protests in front of the office of the Attorney General,” the State Department said. “In October, the general secretary of the council told media that authorities had conducted raids on their places of worship to seize marijuana.”

“A Rastafarian member of the IROG said he did not believe that the measures taken by the government to introduce but not pass legislation were sufficient and asked for international support to lobby the government,” it continued.

Jamaica

One of the countries most commonly associated with cannabis, Jamaica still struggles with restrictive policies, the report notes.

“The [Jamaica Defense Force] generally continued to refuse acceptance of Rastafarians into its ranks,” the State Department said. “The JDF previously noted it did not discriminate based on religion or denomination, but it stated that the force’s strict codes of conduct regarding hair length and the prohibition of marijuana use among its members were the obstacles to Rastafarian participation in the force.”

However, “Rastafarians continued to report wider societal acceptance, despite continued negative stereotyping and stigma associated with their wearing locs and smoking marijuana.”

Malawi

“Rastafarians continued to object to laws making the use and possession of cannabis a criminal offense in the country, stating its use was a part of their religious doctrine,” the report says.

Saint Kitts and Nevis

The State Department report says that the law of Saint Kitts and Nevis “permits the private use of marijuana away from public places, including for religious activities, as well as in registered places of worship for members of the Rastafarian faith.”

Saint Lucia

In Saint Lucia, Rastafarian representatives have said that the government’s move to decriminalize possession of up to 30 grams of marijuana represented “a welcome step.” However, “Rastafarians called for further action, such as legalizing cannabis production or expunging criminal records of those previously convicted.”

The report cites comments from Prime Minister Pierre, who apologized for the past policy of criminalization and said that the modest policy change “is the first step of many as we seek to create a medicinal and recreational cannabis industry and decriminalize the use of cannabis.”

“Rastafarians in Saint Lucia will be able to practice their religion without fear of flouting our country’s law,” the prime minister said.

The State Department report noted that “some Rastafarians stated the law’s focus on possession was illogical because production remained illegal, while other Rastafarian community members stressed the potential economic gains from legal, large-scale cannabis production.”

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

“Rastafarians said they were increasingly accepted in society, and overall, the country’s citizens were becoming more tolerant of their way of life, including in their use of cannabis,” the report notes. “Possession and use of two ounces or fewer of marijuana is permitted, including for religious sacraments.”

“In March, the government publicly stated that marijuana use and possession of 56 grams (two ounces) or fewer was now decriminalized,” it continued. “During the year, the Medical Cannabis Authority reported it granted some licenses to ‘traditional cultivators,’ including members of the Rastafarian community.”

“Observers said there was widespread and increasing use of cannabis on the country’s main island, which they believed suggested broader societal acceptance of its use.”

Trinidad and Tobago

Rastafarians in Trinidad and Tobago say that “the government continued to prohibit the production, sale, and consumption of marijuana, although they did not report any arrests or fines of their members during the year.”

“Rastafarians said this prohibition under the country’s law was an infringement on their religious freedom to access cannabis, which they said was a core component of their religious practices,” the report says.

United States​

The State Department report again does not discuss domestic cannabis policy or its discriminatory effects on marijuana consumers, even as U.S. courts have continually rejected cases arguing that religious exceptions should be made to the country’s cannabis criminalization laws that result in hundreds of thousands of arrests every year.
 
No kidding.... :shakehead: Wonder how long it took for them to figure this out LOL

Congressional Researchers Say Marijuana Legalization Movement Is Undermining Mexican Cartel Profits


As more U.S. states move to legalize marijuana in some form—and neighboring Canada’s cannabis market matures—demand for illicit marijuana from Mexico continues to drop, a newly updated report from Congress’s research arm says.

The language from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) report is largely consistent with an earlier version it released in 2020, but it further underscores how the international drug trade is shifting as the legalization movement expands.

“U.S. seizures of imported marijuana began to decline in 2019,” the CRS analysis says, citing the State Department’s 2022 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report. “Authorities are projecting a continued decline in U.S. demand for Mexican marijuana because drugs ‘other than marijuana’ will likely dominate the cross border traffic.”

Part of the reason, as CRS previously explained in the 2020 report that has since been updated, is “due to legalized medical and nonmedical/recreational cannabis in many U.S. states and Canada, reducing its value as part of Mexican trafficking organizations’ portfolio.”

It further notes that Mexico’s Congress is taking steps to legalize marijuana as well.

The CRS report raises questions about why violence in the Mexican drug trade has persisted as cartels have increasingly moved away from plant-based drugs like cannabis and opium, to synthetic substances. The implications of this trade shift “remain unclear,” it says.

“Changes in the illegal drug markets in the United States and Canada from marijuana legalization; increased demand for opioids, especially synthetic opioids; and changing patterns of use of methamphetamine and other drugs have contributed to the [drug trafficking organizations’] continuing evolution. The cartels’ broad reach and control of large territories inside Mexico, as well as their production of illicit drugs, has been termed ‘alarming’ by the U.S. State Department.”

As part of its Fiscal Year 2023 performance budget summary submitted to Congress earlier this year, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) also acknowledged that as more marijuana is being produced domestically in the U.S., it’s undermining illicit cannabis trafficking from Mexico.

In that report, the agency talked about shifting trends in cannabis production, as well as its own efforts to support cannabis research, including by breaking the decades-long federal monopoly on authorized cultivation.

DEA didn’t explicitly say that more Americans are buying marijuana from state-regulated businesses as the legalization movement has continued to expand, but it did say that “Mexican marijuana has largely been supplanted by domestic-produced marijuana,” even if that country “remains the most significant foreign source for marijuana.”

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

With respect to trends in marijuana enforcement overall, data from the FBI that was released in late 2020 showed that, for the first time in four years, cannabis arrests declined nationally.

However, FBI’s system of reporting state and local marijuana arrests may be seriously flawed, and a local Maryland official with extensive drug policy experience recently asked the Justice Department Office of the Inspector General to launch a formal investigation into the matter.

Meanwhile, federal prosecutions over marijuana dropped again in 2021, with fewer than 1,000 people charged in cannabis trafficking cases, according to a recent report from the federal U.S. Sentencing Commission (USCC). It’s yet another sign that the plant is becoming a lower enforcement priority as the legalization movement scores wins in more states.

This represents a continuation of a trend that’s been playing out in recent years, especially as more states have move to legalize cannabis and federal officials have seemingly adopted policies placing less emphasis on going after people over marijuana. In 2020, USCC documented 1,118 cannabis cases.

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

What Would Happen If Cannabis is Changed to Schedule 2?

Would this change help push legalization forward?


As ridiculous as it seems in the year 2022, cannabis is still federally considered a Schedule 1 drug, having “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.” Given that 38 individual states have passed laws recognizing marijuana as a medical treatment since the previous millennium, this stance seems extra suspect.

Both Republican and Democratic administrations have failed to completely deschedule marijuana like they have with hemp or even decriminalize it. However, there have been attempts for some type of compromise. One being considered is rescheduling cannabis as a Schedule 2 drug.

So, how would things change with cannabis as a Schedule 2 drug? What positive and negative effects would this have? And is pushing to consider cannabis as a Schedule 2 drug worth it?

Join WikiLeaf as we delve into these issues, starting with how marijuana ended up as a Schedule 1 drug in the first place.

Marijuana and the Controlled Substances Act

Cannabis was made functionally illegal in 1937 despite doctors at the time saying it had medical uses. Thirty-three years later, Richard Nixon passed the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 and listed marijuana a Schedule 1 drug in order to legally punish his perceived enemies (anti-war liberals and African Americans) and turn the public against them. As his former aid John Ehrlichman would later admit “ [by] criminalizing [marijuana] heavily, we could…arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

antimarijuana.jpg

Marijuana remains a schedule 1 drug after Richard Nixon declared the War on Drugs, vilifying cannabis use.

Despite this public admission, over three decades of medical marijuana laws, and the fact that it’s considered medically impossible to overdose on marijuana, it remains a Schedule 1 drug up to this day. This affects federal drug sentencing guidelines, banking regulations, and medical research. In contrast, Schedule 2 drugs like Synthetic opioids(including fentanyl) caused 56,516 overdose deaths in 2020 alone and ruined countless more lives through addiction.

Yet, listing cannabis as a Schedule 2 drug might not make things much better, and could potentially make things worse.

Benefits of Cannabis as Schedule 2 Drug

Schedule 2 drugs like cocaine, oxycontin, and adderall are still considered to have “a high potential for abuse” as well as mental and physical addiction. However, they also may have some medical benefit, which means they can be researched using federal funds, and approved for prescription by the FDA.

Listing cannabis as a Schedule 2 drug would lower some of the bureaucratic hurdles to federal research. The vast majority of federal cannabis research is currently being done at one farm in Mississippi. Though that is slowly changing as more research is permitted, with cannabis as a Schedule 2 drug, a greater number of researchers would be able to receive more funding for more studies much faster, and gain access to different strains from different suppliers.

However, according to the Brookings Institute, listing cannabis as a Schedule 2 drug will not be the change many would imagine. A stack of research papers all titled “Marijuana Has Medical Benefits, and Should Be Federally Legalized (Duh)” will not be placed on every politician’s desk, leading them to unanimously pass the “Whoops (Our Bad)” Law that legalizes weed federally.

Instead, cannabis as a Schedule 2 drug might result in the FDA possibly approving some type of synthetic, THC-based pharmaceutical treatment years down the line that may or may not be as effective as current forms of medical cannabis.

Banking and Cannabis as a Schedule 2 Drug

One would hope listing cannabis as a Schedule 2 Drug might at least change banking regulations, giving marijuana businesses access to federal credit. After all, the makers of Schedule 2 drugs like Oxycontin and Adderall have access to banking, stock market trading, and interstate commerce

We reached out to Paul Armentano, The Deputy Director and scientific expert at NORML (The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws). According to Paul “Reclassifying cannabis from Schedule 1, like heroin, to Schedule 2, like cocaine, would not address the existing state/federal conflict…States do not have the legal flexibility or authority to establish their own regulatory policies on Schedule 2 substances.”

Only the FDA can approve a Schedule 2 drug, which can only be obtained at a licensed pharmacy with a prescription. Because of this, every state’s current marijuana laws wouldn’t meet Schedule 2’s drug requirements.

“In short, I would not predict that rescheduling alone would permit banking access to these state-licensed entities because their activities would still be in violation of federal law.”

Downsides of Cannabis as a Schedule 2 Drug

According to Morgan Fox, NORML’s Political Director, listing cannabis as a Schedule 2 Drug would cause more harm than good. Recreational cannabis would be unaffected, but “Every state would need to completely rework their medical marijuana system…at insane costs to the state…Every state dispensary, and every associated business, would have to apply for a pharmacy license as well as (notoriously uncooperative) DEA approval to be in compliance. “There’s no net benefit [to listing cannabis as a Schedule 2 drug] and in fact it would slow everything down at the federal level.”

Descheduling Cannabis is The Answer

Instead of listing cannabis as a Schedule 2 drug, a compromise that helps basically no one and reverses progress, NORML and many others argue that cannabis should simply be descheduled, meaning it is removed from the Controlled Substances Act altogether and regulated more like alcohol or tobacco. This would give cannabis businesses access to federal credit and banking, open up private research opportunities with federal oversight, and still retain the rights of states to control their own cannabis laws.

Frequently Asked Questions

What’s the Difference Between a Schedule 1 and 2 Drug?​

A Schedule 1 drug (like heroin or cannabis) has “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse” and are all federally illegal. A Schedule 2 drug (like cocaine or oxycontin) has “a high potential for abuse…potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence,” but some accepted medical use. If they’re FDA approved, they can be legally possessed via a valid prescription and obtained at a pharmacy.

Is Cannabis Completely Legal in Canada?​

Cannabis is federally legal in Canada, which means it can be possessed and purchased from licensed distributors based on limits set by each province. Cannabis companies also have access to federal credit and can be listed on the stock exchange. However, it’s still illegal to grow or purchase it if you’re underage or unlicensed.

What’s the Difference Between a Schedule 2 and 3 Drug?​

A Schedule 2 drug (like cocaine or oxycontin) has “a high potential for abuse, with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence,” but some accepted medical use. If they’re FDA approved, they can be legally possessed via a valid prescription and obtained at a pharmacy.

A Schedule 3 drug (like ketamine or anabolic steroids) have a “moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence” but still require a prescription.

What are the 4 Types of Drugs?​

Depressants (Alcohol, Marijuana, etc.), Stimulants (Cocaine, Meth, etc.), Hallucinogens (LSD, Mushrooms, etc.), and Opioids (Heroin, Oxycontin, etc.)
 

What Would Happen If Cannabis is Changed to Schedule 2?

Would this change help push legalization forward?


As ridiculous as it seems in the year 2022, cannabis is still federally considered a Schedule 1 drug, having “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.” Given that 38 individual states have passed laws recognizing marijuana as a medical treatment since the previous millennium, this stance seems extra suspect.

Both Republican and Democratic administrations have failed to completely deschedule marijuana like they have with hemp or even decriminalize it. However, there have been attempts for some type of compromise. One being considered is rescheduling cannabis as a Schedule 2 drug.

So, how would things change with cannabis as a Schedule 2 drug? What positive and negative effects would this have? And is pushing to consider cannabis as a Schedule 2 drug worth it?

Join WikiLeaf as we delve into these issues, starting with how marijuana ended up as a Schedule 1 drug in the first place.

Marijuana and the Controlled Substances Act

Cannabis was made functionally illegal in 1937 despite doctors at the time saying it had medical uses. Thirty-three years later, Richard Nixon passed the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 and listed marijuana a Schedule 1 drug in order to legally punish his perceived enemies (anti-war liberals and African Americans) and turn the public against them. As his former aid John Ehrlichman would later admit “ [by] criminalizing [marijuana] heavily, we could…arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

View attachment 37710
Marijuana remains a schedule 1 drug after Richard Nixon declared the War on Drugs, vilifying cannabis use.

Despite this public admission, over three decades of medical marijuana laws, and the fact that it’s considered medically impossible to overdose on marijuana, it remains a Schedule 1 drug up to this day. This affects federal drug sentencing guidelines, banking regulations, and medical research. In contrast, Schedule 2 drugs like Synthetic opioids(including fentanyl) caused 56,516 overdose deaths in 2020 alone and ruined countless more lives through addiction.

Yet, listing cannabis as a Schedule 2 drug might not make things much better, and could potentially make things worse.

Benefits of Cannabis as Schedule 2 Drug

Schedule 2 drugs like cocaine, oxycontin, and adderall are still considered to have “a high potential for abuse” as well as mental and physical addiction. However, they also may have some medical benefit, which means they can be researched using federal funds, and approved for prescription by the FDA.

Listing cannabis as a Schedule 2 drug would lower some of the bureaucratic hurdles to federal research. The vast majority of federal cannabis research is currently being done at one farm in Mississippi. Though that is slowly changing as more research is permitted, with cannabis as a Schedule 2 drug, a greater number of researchers would be able to receive more funding for more studies much faster, and gain access to different strains from different suppliers.

However, according to the Brookings Institute, listing cannabis as a Schedule 2 drug will not be the change many would imagine. A stack of research papers all titled “Marijuana Has Medical Benefits, and Should Be Federally Legalized (Duh)” will not be placed on every politician’s desk, leading them to unanimously pass the “Whoops (Our Bad)” Law that legalizes weed federally.

Instead, cannabis as a Schedule 2 drug might result in the FDA possibly approving some type of synthetic, THC-based pharmaceutical treatment years down the line that may or may not be as effective as current forms of medical cannabis.

Banking and Cannabis as a Schedule 2 Drug

One would hope listing cannabis as a Schedule 2 Drug might at least change banking regulations, giving marijuana businesses access to federal credit. After all, the makers of Schedule 2 drugs like Oxycontin and Adderall have access to banking, stock market trading, and interstate commerce

We reached out to Paul Armentano, The Deputy Director and scientific expert at NORML (The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws). According to Paul “Reclassifying cannabis from Schedule 1, like heroin, to Schedule 2, like cocaine, would not address the existing state/federal conflict…States do not have the legal flexibility or authority to establish their own regulatory policies on Schedule 2 substances.”

Only the FDA can approve a Schedule 2 drug, which can only be obtained at a licensed pharmacy with a prescription. Because of this, every state’s current marijuana laws wouldn’t meet Schedule 2’s drug requirements.



Downsides of Cannabis as a Schedule 2 Drug

According to Morgan Fox, NORML’s Political Director, listing cannabis as a Schedule 2 Drug would cause more harm than good. Recreational cannabis would be unaffected, but “Every state would need to completely rework their medical marijuana system…at insane costs to the state…Every state dispensary, and every associated business, would have to apply for a pharmacy license as well as (notoriously uncooperative) DEA approval to be in compliance. “There’s no net benefit [to listing cannabis as a Schedule 2 drug] and in fact it would slow everything down at the federal level.”

Descheduling Cannabis is The Answer

Instead of listing cannabis as a Schedule 2 drug, a compromise that helps basically no one and reverses progress, NORML and many others argue that cannabis should simply be descheduled, meaning it is removed from the Controlled Substances Act altogether and regulated more like alcohol or tobacco. This would give cannabis businesses access to federal credit and banking, open up private research opportunities with federal oversight, and still retain the rights of states to control their own cannabis laws.

Frequently Asked Questions

What’s the Difference Between a Schedule 1 and 2 Drug?​

A Schedule 1 drug (like heroin or cannabis) has “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse” and are all federally illegal. A Schedule 2 drug (like cocaine or oxycontin) has “a high potential for abuse…potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence,” but some accepted medical use. If they’re FDA approved, they can be legally possessed via a valid prescription and obtained at a pharmacy.

Is Cannabis Completely Legal in Canada?​

Cannabis is federally legal in Canada, which means it can be possessed and purchased from licensed distributors based on limits set by each province. Cannabis companies also have access to federal credit and can be listed on the stock exchange. However, it’s still illegal to grow or purchase it if you’re underage or unlicensed.

What’s the Difference Between a Schedule 2 and 3 Drug?​

A Schedule 2 drug (like cocaine or oxycontin) has “a high potential for abuse, with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence,” but some accepted medical use. If they’re FDA approved, they can be legally possessed via a valid prescription and obtained at a pharmacy.

A Schedule 3 drug (like ketamine or anabolic steroids) have a “moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence” but still require a prescription.

What are the 4 Types of Drugs?​

Depressants (Alcohol, Marijuana, etc.), Stimulants (Cocaine, Meth, etc.), Hallucinogens (LSD, Mushrooms, etc.), and Opioids (Heroin, Oxycontin, etc.)
Yeah, I don't think Schedule 2 is the answer. Schedule 1 is utterly insane and one has to question the mental capacity of the DEA to continue to maintain this categorization as well as that of the US Attorney General for whom the DEA works.

While 2 would free up research a good bit, its still maintains cannabis as a highly illegal drug (with 'prescriptions' an exception???), denies industry normal banking, will still put people in jail for growing/distributing, and would put it in the hands of fucking Phizer and its ilk. Personally, I would rather see it stay where it is until our professional money grubbing political class pops its collective head out of its collective ass....incl the cold drug warrior in chief on PA Ave.
 
So, Garland....the DEA works for....yes, that's right....YOU. And, its the DEA who maintains its categorization as a Schedule 1 drug...based on more cowardice by the FDA who KNOWS that assertions that cannabis has no legitimate medical use is utter fucking nonsense as the FDA has approved...for example, Marinol. So, simply tell the DEA to not expend on single sou on cannabis law enforcement....NOT ONE FUCKING SOU.

No....he will not do this.

The mendacity in Washington DC is breathtaking.


Department of justice no longer interested in marijuana crimes in America?


Attorney General Merrick Garland said that Department of Justice resources are not put to the best use prosecuting marijuana-related offenses whether or not states have cannabis legalization laws on the books.​

Could the DOJ make some waves with a cannabis reform announcement soon? According to Seeking Alpha and Marijuana Moment, Attorney General Merrick Garland clarified the department’s stance on prosecuting cannabis crimes in legal and non-legal states. He says the department’s resources are better spent on violent crimes and actions that harm society more than cannabis.
Seeking Alpha summarized Garland’s released interview:
  • Attorney General Merrick Garland said that Department of Justice resources are not put to the best use prosecuting marijuana-related offenses whether or not states have cannabis legalization laws on the books.
  • Garland, who appeared before a Senate subcommittee in April where marijuana issues were brought up, made the comments as part of written responses to Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii). Marijuana Moment first reported Garland’s responses.
  • Garland noted that the department’s resources are better spent on “violent crimes and other crimes that cause societal harm and endanger our communities.”
  • The attorney general also indicated that DOJ may be tackling marijuana issues more generally soon.

“The Department is examining a range of issues that relate to marijuana and its production, sale, and use, and we intend to address these issues in the days ahead.”
 
IMO, this ain't going to go nowhere. But, its a nice gesture.


Senate Committee Votes To Let People Who’ve Used Marijuana Work For CIA, NSA And Other Intelligence Agencies


A key Senate committee approved a measure this week that would prohibit the federal government from denying people the security clearances they need to work at intelligence agencies simply because they’ve used marijuana.
The measure from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) cleared the Senate Intelligence Committee on a voice vote on Wednesday. It is now attached to the Intelligence Authorization Act, which must still move through both chambers before potentially heading to the president’s desk.
If enacted, it would mark a significant development in federal cannabis workplace policies, affecting agencies such as the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and National Security Agency (NSA).
“I applaud the committee for including my provisions, in particular an amendment ensuring that past cannabis use will not disqualify intelligence community applicants from serving their country,” Wyden, who is also working with leadership on a bill to federally legalize cannabis, said in a press release on Thursday. “It’s a common-sense change to ensure the IC can recruit the most capable people possible.”


The cannabis amendment was approved by the committee in an unanimous vote, The Wall Street Journal first reported.
Staff with Wyden’s office told Marijuana Moment that the Intelligence Committee’s rules restrict how the text of legislation within its jurisdiction can be released. It may be a number of weeks before the provisions of the new cannabis amendment are publicly available.
But the brief description of the measure is fairly straightforward, seeking to resolve a hiring policy that lawmakers and even past heads of the intelligence community have described as problematic.
The senator’s press release says the proposal would prohibit “denial of a security clearance to IC personnel based solely on past use of cannabis.”
It also suggests that he is prepared to push for even broader changes that would allow people who currently use marijuana to work in the intelligence community instead of just aiding people who have consumed in the past.
“Senator Wyden will continue to fight to ensure that ongoing cannabis use is not the basis for denying or losing a clearance,” the release says.
Barring people from receiving security clearances just for being honest about prior marijuana use significantly decreases the pool of potential applicants for critical roles, especially considering that a majority of Americans have tried cannabis at least once and more states have moved to legalize the plant for medical or recreational use.
Prior to the House vote to pass a federal marijuana legalization bill in April, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) filed an amendment to 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.” But that measure was narrowly defeated in a floor vote.
Late last year, the director of national intelligence (DNI) issued a memo saying 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.
A spokesperson in the DNI’s office told Marijuana Moment at the time that “increased legalization of marijuana use at state and local levels has prompted questions on how the federal government treats an individual’s involvement with marijuana to determine eligibility for national security positions or access to classified information.”
Meanwhile, FBI updated its hiring policies in 2020 to make it so candidates are only automatically disqualified from joining the agency if they admit to having used marijuana within one year of applying. Previously, prospective employees of the agency could not have used cannabis within the past three years.
Former FBI Director James Comey in 2014 suggested that he wanted to loosen the agency’s employment policies as it concerns marijuana, as potential skilled workers were being passed over due to the requirement.
“I have to hire a great work force to compete with those cyber criminals and some of those kids want to smoke weed on the way to the interview,” he said at the time.
Also, in 2020, CIA said that it doesn’t necessarily believe using illegal drugs makes you a bad person.
For its part, the Drug Enforcement Administration continues to enforce its policy of automatically disqualifying applicants who’ve used marijuana in the prior three years before applying.
Federal agencies have taken different approaches to employment policies with the ever-changing marijuana landscape in the U.S.
For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently reminded its workers that they are prohibited from using marijuana—or directly investing in the industry—regardless of state law and changes in “social norms” around cannabis.
The White House recently made clear that people who want to even intern at the president’s office will be required to disclose prior drug use—including any cannabis consumption that was legal under state law—and they could be denied eligibility over it.
Still, the White House Office of Personnel Management (OPM) separately issued a memo to federal agencies that says admitting to past marijuana use should not automatically disqualify people from being employed in the federal government.
The Biden administration previously found itself facing criticism after reports surfaced that it had fired its own White House staffers over marijuana.
Then-Press Secretary Jen Psaki attempted to minimize the fallout of the White House personnel policy, without much success, and her office also stressed that nobody was fired for “marijuana usage from years ago,” nor has anyone been terminated “due to casual or infrequent use during the prior 12 months.”
However, she consistently declined to speak to the extent to which staff have been suspended or placed in a remote work program because they were honest about their history with marijuana on the federal background check form.
In May, a congressman sent a letter to the head of the U.S. Department of Transportation, stating that the agency’s policies on drug testing truckers and other commercial drivers for marijuana are unnecessarily costing people their jobs and contributing to supply chain issues.
Relatedly, a top Wells Fargo analyst said in February that there’s one main reason for rising costs and worker shortages in the transportation sector: federal marijuana criminalization and resulting drug testing mandates that persist even as more states enact legalization.
Meanwhile, in April, a top federal health agency proposed changes to drug testing policies for federal workers to clarify that having a doctor’s recommendation for medical marijuana or any other Schedule I drug is not a valid excuse for a positive drug test.
Also earlier this year, a coalition of more than two dozen congressional Democrats filed bill on promoting workplace investment to combat climate change, and they said they want to boost the workforce nationwide by protecting people in legal marijuana states from being penalized due to federal drug testing policies.
 
Another nice gesture that I predict is DOA.



Bipartisan Bill To Expand Medical Marijuana Access For Military Veterans Refiled In Congress

A bipartisan bill to provide military veterans with access to medical marijuana was reintroduced in Congress on Thursday.


Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Brian Mast (R-FL), co-chairs of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, are the chief sponsors of the Veterans Equal Access Act. The measure has been introduced several times in recent years with bipartisan support but has yet to be enacted.


The legislation is narrowly tailored, simply allowing doctors at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to recommend medical marijuana to their patients in states where it’s legal. The sponsors recently urged colleagues to sign on to the legislation in a letter circulated to congressional offices.


Blumenauer acknowledges that some in Congress might not be ready to join the majority of Americans who support legalization, but said the incremental veterans reform is an example of legislation that could be enacted sooner rather than later.


“I think the prospects have never been better,” Blumenauer told Marijuana Moment in a phone interview on Thursday. “This is one where there’s overwhelming bipartisan support.”


“We have ill treated our veterans,” the congressman said. “There was a time when we passed out opioids to them like Tic Tacs while we denied them the ability to use their VA doctor to be able to deal with medical cannabis, which would have been safer and more effective.”



Marijuana Moment is tracking more than 1,500 cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.




The reform, which is identical to committee-approved versions from past years and also cosponsored by Cannabis Caucus co-chair Rep. Dave Joyce (R-OH), was previously pursued through the appropriations process as an amendment.


But lawmakers have shifted gears to focus on the standalone bill following pushback from VA, which has consistently opposed modest marijuana reform proposals that relate to the department.


Mast, for his part, is a disabled veteran himself who was selected to co-chair the caucus after a prior GOP leader, Rep. Don Young (R-AK), passed away.


The Veterans Equal Access Act is an especially concise bill that would provide a modest but impactful reform for the veteran community.


It states that the secretary of VA must “authorize physicians and other health care providers employed” by the department to 1) “provide recommendations and opinions to veterans who are residents of states with state marijuana programs regarding the participation of veterans in such state marijuana programs” and 2) “complete forms reflecting such recommendations and opinions.”


VA doctors are currently allowed to discuss medical cannabis with patients, but they’re not specifically authorized to issue recommendations, even in states that have legalized the plant for medical or recreational use.


“This is something where the drumbeat is stronger,” Blumenauer said. “There’s a certain political potency—which I think people need to rediscover. People need to be more engaged politically. That’s part of what needs to happen.”


The Congressional Budget Office conducted a fiscal analysis of an earlier version of the bill in 2020, finding that it would not cost the government anything to implement.


Separately, there have reportedly been high-level talks in both chambers about advancing a package of incremental cannabis reform bills this year, including marijuana policy that pertains to veterans. It’s yet to be seen if that potential package would feature this veterans measure in particular.


The new standalone veterans bill has the support of several major cannabis and veterans advocacy groups, including Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IVAV), AMVETS, Veterans Cannabis Coalition, NORML, Drug Policy Alliance, Council for Federal Cannabis Regulation, U.S. Cannabis Council, Better Organizing to Win Legalization and National Cannabis Industry Association.


VA, meanwhile, has consistently testified against even modest bills aimed at encouraging it to conduct more research on the potential medical benefits of cannabis for military veterans.


The department also recently made clear that it won’t provide support for treatment involving marijuana as part of a new grants program aimed at preventing veteran suicide.


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 in March 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.


Separately, military veterans would be “encouraged” to discuss medical marijuana treatment without the fear of losing federal benefits under a bill sponsored by Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA).


The main thrust of that 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.
 
"Congressional Leaders".....an oxymoron if ever there was one.

Marijuana Banking Reform Will Not be Enacted As Part Of Manufacturing Bill, Congressional Leaders Agree


Marijuana banking reform will not be included in a large-scale manufacturing bill that’s being negotiated in a bicameral conference committee, congressional leaders from both parties have agreed.

In the interest of getting the larger legislation passed more expediently before the August recess, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) met this week to scale the bill down.

That included ceding to a Republican demand to keep the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act out of the legislation, Punchbowl News first reported on Thursday.

It was never a guarantee that the cannabis banking bill would make it into the America COMPETES/USICA conference report, despite the House including it in its version before heading to conference. Schumer, for his part, has repeatedly suggested he is uncomfortable moving the narrow financial reform ahead of broader justice-focused cannabis legalization, and his office had tempered expectations about the possibility of SAFE being enacted through the manufacturing bill early on in the bicameral talks.

Lead SAFE Banking Act sponsor Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) reacted strongly to the news that bicameral leaders had agreed to keep his legislation from advancing yet again.

“The Senate continues to ignore the public safety risk of forcing cannabis businesses to deal in all cash,” he told Marijuana Moment. “In the wake of the Senate’s inaction, people continue to be killed, businesses continue to be robbed, and employees and business owners in the cannabis industry continue to be excluded from the financial system.”




The news that an agreement has been made at the highest levels of congressional leadership is a source of serious frustration for supportive lawmakers, stakeholders and advocates.

“I just am appalled at the lack of urgency here,” Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) said in a phone interview with Marijuana Moment on Thursday. “There are some who feel this can wait—that we need to have more agreement on some of the restorative justice pieces [of cannabis reform], for instance.”

“I am making, as forcefully as I can, the [argument] that the very people they care about most—who’ve been discriminated against, who’ve been jailed, who’ve been denied economic opportunity—these are the people that are on the front lines that are paying the price for the failure to pass the SAFE Banking Act,” he said.

The congressman stressed that “if you are a minority entrepreneur in this cannabis space, you don’t have the extra money because it’s expensive to do business on an all-cash basis” under the status quo.

What’s more, he said, “the robberies and the shootings and killings take place for people who are on the front lines” of the industry. “These are the people who are at risk—not some higher up in some big international cannabis company. No, it’s the mom and pop, it’s the black entrepreneur that’s struggling to be able to make his or her way in this emerging industry, and they’re paying the price.”

Now Perlmutter and supporters will in all likelihood need to pursue a different vehicle for the reform, which has passed the House in some form six times at this point, although the congressman said he will keep pushing to include it in the current legislation despite leaders’ decision.

“I will continue to push for SAFE Banking to be included in COMPETES, other legislative vehicles, or for the Senate to finally take up the standalone version of the bill which has been sitting in the Senate for three and a half years,“ Perlmutter said.




One possibility would be to include the legislation is a package of incremental reforms that is apparently being discussed as an alternative to a comprehensive legalization bill that Schumer and colleagues are finalizing.

It could also potentially get a ride in the latest version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The House included cannabis banking provisions in its version of that bill last year, but could not reach an agreement with the Senate to enact it as part of the final package. The House Armed Services Committee marked up the 2023 version of NDAA on Wednesday, and it is possible that SAFE Banking could be added as a floor amendment once more.

“We will work on every single avenue. And anything that’s moving, where we have a chance…we will dive into that,” Blumenauer told Marijuana Moment. “I’m working hand in glove with my friend Ed Perlmutter. If there’s an opportunity to put something on the floor for a vote, we’ll do that.”

The congressman said that if the SAFE Banking Act were put to the floor as a standalone proposal, he predicts that it would “easily” meet and exceed the 60-vote threshold needed to pass the Senate.

But in any case, the lack of SAFE Banking in America COMPETES is a setback for supporters, especially considering the number of lawmakers from both chambers who insisted that the issue is a priority and vowed to push for its inclusion.

America COMPETES conferees such as House Financial Services Committee Maxine Waters (D-CA), Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and the third-highest-ranking Democratic member in the Senate, Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), were especially vocal about getting the reform accomplished through the manufacturing bill.

The conference committee on the America COMPETES Act held its first meeting on that bill last month, with multiple appointed conferees urging the body to attach the SAFE Banking Act language in the interest of economic competitiveness and public safety.

The standalone Senate version of the SAFE Banking Act currently has 42 cosponsors, including nine Republicans.

That reluctance on the Senate side to advance the issue was also the subject of a letter that Perlmutter sent to leadership last month.

In a previous statement to Marijuana Moment, Perlmutter pointed out that “more than two-thirds of the conferees have already voted for or cosponsored the SAFE Banking Act.”

The congressman has even made a point to talk about enacting the reform legislation during committee hearings on ostensibly unrelated or wider-ranging legislation, like at a recent House Rules Committee hearing.

Despite recently saying that he’s “confident” that the Senate will take up his bill this session, Perlmutter 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.

Additionally, nearly a quarter of all senators sent a bipartisan letter this month urging that cannabis banking be included in the final bill.

Congress has been facing pressure on multiple fronts to get the marijuana banking bill across the finish line with America COMPETES.

That includes pressure from the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS), banking associations representing all 50 states and one U.S. territory and the Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA).

Outside of the direct financial sector, an organization representing mayors from across the U.S. adopted a resolution last week imploring Congress to pass a bill to safeguard banks that work with state-legal marijuana businesses from federal penalties.

The GOP Senate sponsor of the banking bill recently released an ad that features the CEO of the Montana Bankers Association explaining what he sees as the benefits of the incremental reform legislation.

Separately, a coalition of marijuana advocacy groups recently launched a campaign meant to promote education about the need for the incremental reform, highlighting what they see as the social and economic equity advantages of freeing up businesses in the industry to access traditional financial services.

Last month, a coalition of cannabis regulators representing 40 U.S. states and territories separately explained to Congress what the current lack of access to traditional financial services means—not just for the businesses and the programs they oversee, but for the regulators navigating this federal-state conflict themselves.

The non-partisan Cannabis Regulators Association (CANNRA), which doesn’t take a stand on legalization itself, sent a letter to congressional leaders, outlining areas of concern for their states’ respective marijuana markets under the status quo of federal prohibition.

But not everyone is accepting the idea that SAFE Banking alone will provide the relief and resources to disadvantaged communities that proponents are arguing it will.

Cannabis Regulators of Color Coalition has also weighed in on the cannabis banking conundrum, arguing in a Marijuana Moment op-ed that the SAFE Banking Act is insufficient. The group says advocates should push to add provisions to the bill providing interim safeguards for Community Financial Depository Institutions (CFDIs) and Minority Depository Institutions (MDIs), as well as measures to prevent predatory lending and promote loan availability for people from disadvantaged communities.

Meanwhile, the governor, attorney general and other top officials in Washington State sent a letter to congressional leaders last month, again emphasizing the urgent need to pass marijuana banking reform as a public safety imperative.

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.
 

U.S. Supreme Court rejects cases seeking workers’ comp for medical cannabis


The Supreme Court declined to hear two cases challenging Minnesota’s denial of workers’ compensation for medical pot used to treat work-related injuries.​

The United States Supreme Court on Tuesday denied petitions to hear two cases challenging Minnesota’s refusal to allow coverage for medical cannabis through the state’s workers’ compensation program. In both cases, workers sought a review of the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision finding that the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) supersedes state law, resulting in a denial of coverage for medicinal cannabis for the employees’ work-related injuries.
The Supreme Court invited the U.S. Department of Justice to file a brief in the case before making a decision. In its response, the Justice Department agreed with the Minnesota court that the CSA does preempt state law. But attorneys with the Justice Department also argued that the states have not adequately addressed the issue of federal preeminence and urged the Supreme Court to reserve judgment on evolving law.
The case was not the first time a state court had ruled on workers’ compensation coverage for medical pot. In 2014, the New Mexico Court of Appeals approved the reimbursement of claims for medicinal cannabis for work-related injuries. But rulings on similar cases in Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York and Minnesota have not been consistent. Courts in New Hampshire, New York, and New Jersey found that state law was not in conflict with the CSA and authorized workers’ compensation claims for medical cannabis. But in Maine, Massachusetts, and Minnesota, judges have ruled that federal law takes precedence.

Is the SCOTUS decision bad news?​

Attorney Anne Davis, the co-founder of Bennabis Health, a company specializing in affordable medical cannabis access for patients, says that the Supreme Court’s decision to decline to hear the cases is not necessarily a negative outcome for patients.



“While I would’ve loved a decision by the federal government mandating that cannabis is in fact a covered benefit, [the court] deferring to the states could be good in the grand scheme of the industry,” Davis writes in an email to High Times. “The more that the Supreme Court defers to states’ rights, I think the more it helps our growing industry. If the federal government takes the hands-off approach and leaves it to states’ rights, that allows the cannabis industry to grow and expand.”
With states taking the lead on pot reform, Davis believes federal legislation that permits cannabis trade between the states would create the most favorable climate for the industry.
“The problem we’re left to deal with is interstate commerce,” said Davis.
“If we can somehow navigate that, then I think state rights having control over the cannabis industry is a much better option than the federal government rescheduling and allowing big Pharma to take control.”
Some advocates for cannabis policy reform had hoped the Supreme Court would weigh in on the Minnesota cases following comments from Justice Clarence Thomas last year indicating he believes the federal prohibition on pot no longer makes sense with so many states passing legislation in conflict with federal law.
“A prohibition on intrastate use or cultivation of marijuana may no longer be necessary or proper to support the federal government’s piecemeal approach,” he wrote.

Unanswered questions​

Commentating on a case the Supreme Court declined to hear in which a Colorado cannabis dispensary challenged federal policy denying standard business deductions for weed companies, Thomas said that a 2005 high court ruling upholding the federal prohibition on cannabis possession may be out of date.
“Federal policies of the past 16 years have greatly undermined its reasoning,” he continued.
“The federal government’s current approach is a half-in, half-out regime that simultaneously tolerates and forbids local use of marijuana.”
This week’s action by the U.S. Supreme Court leaves many unanswered questions about the viability of workers’ compensation coverage for medical cannabis. In an analysis of the denial to grant the petitions, The National Law Review wrote that the “Supreme Court’s decision to remain on the sidelines of the debate over marijuana legalization is disappointing to many who were hoping to see the high court help to break the logjam in Congress. The decision also leaves in place the clear conflict over workers’ compensation reimbursement of medical cannabis in state court decisions and facilitates the potential for further conflict as this issue continues to percolate throughout the country.”
 

White House Deflects Question About Denying Security Clearances Over Past Marijuana Use Following Senate Action


It doesn’t appear that the White House is eager to weigh in on a proposal advancing in Congress to stop denying people security clearances over past marijuana use.

During a press briefing on Thursday, National Security Council (NSC) Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby was asked about an amendment that the Senate Intelligence Committee adopted as part of a broader bill to revise the cannabis-related guidelines for intelligence community workers at agencies like CIA and NSA.

The amendment from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) isn’t a novel concept. Even top intelligence officials have complained about how hiring and security clearance policies related to marijuana have created staffing complications, as people can be denied such clearance just because they admit to past cannabis use as part of the background check process.

But asked by a reporter if the administration has “a position” on the issue, Kirby demurred.

“You’re going to have to let me take that question, sir. I don’t have anything for you on that,” Kirby, who is a retired Navy rear admiral and former Pentagon spokesman, said before quickly calling on another reporter.

Wyden’s amendment to the Intelligence Authorization Act was adopted unanimously by the committee. The text hasn’t been released yet—and the full bill must still pass through both chambers of Congress before potentially heading to the president’s desk—but the senator described it as “a common-sense change to ensure the IC can recruit the most capable people possible.”

The White House has faced significant criticism over relative inaction on the cannabis reform front. Early in the Biden administration, reports that staff had been terminated or otherwise punished because of their own admissions about previous marijuana use drew the ire of advocates.

There was some hope among advocates that a president who campaigned on reforms like decriminalization and rescheduling would at least abstain from punishing people who were honest about doing something that a majority of American adults, and past presidents and the sitting vice president, have done.

In February, the White House Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued a memo to federal agencies that says admitting to past marijuana use should not automatically disqualify people from being employed in the federal government.

But even so, the administration more recently made clear that people who want to even intern at the president’s office will be required to disclose prior drug use—including any cannabis consumption that was legal under state law—and they could be denied eligibility over it.

Wyden’s amendment is more targeted, applying to intelligence agencies, but even that appears to be something that the White House is either ignorant to or unwilling to take a stand one way or the other.

Marijuana Moment reached out to the White House for comment, but a representative did not respond by the time of publication.

With respect to the earlier reports about the administration taking adverse action against staff who said they used marijuana in the past, then-Press Secretary Jen Psaki attempted to minimize the fallout over the personnel policy, without much success, and her office also stressed that nobody was fired for “marijuana usage from years ago,” nor has anyone been terminated “due to casual or infrequent use during the prior 12 months.”

However, she consistently declined to speak to the extent to which staff have been suspended or placed in a remote work program because they were honest about their history with marijuana on the federal background check form.

A press release from Wyden’s office on the amendment says that the proposal would prohibit “denial of a security clearance to IC personnel based solely on past use of cannabis.” It also suggests that he is prepared to push for even broader changes that would allow people who currently use marijuana to work in the intelligence community instead of just aiding people who have consumed in the past.

“Senator Wyden will continue to fight to ensure that ongoing cannabis use is not the basis for denying or losing a clearance,” the release says.

Barring people from receiving security clearances just for being honest about prior marijuana use significantly decreases the pool of potential applicants for critical roles, especially considering that a majority of Americans have tried cannabis at least once and more states have moved to legalize the plant for medical or recreational use.

Prior to the House vote to pass a federal marijuana legalization bill in April, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) filed an amendment to 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.” But that measure was narrowly defeated in a floor vote.

Late last year, the director of national intelligence (DNI) issued a memo saying 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.

A spokesperson in the DNI’s office told Marijuana Moment at the time that “increased legalization of marijuana use at state and local levels has prompted questions on how the federal government treats an individual’s involvement with marijuana to determine eligibility for national security positions or access to classified information.”

Meanwhile, FBI updated its hiring policies in 2020 to make it so candidates are only automatically disqualified from joining the agency if they admit to having used marijuana within one year of applying. Previously, prospective employees of the agency could not have used cannabis within the past three years.

Former FBI Director James Comey in 2014 suggested that he wanted to loosen the agency’s employment policies as it concerns marijuana, as potential skilled workers were being passed over due to the requirement.

“I have to hire a great work force to compete with those cyber criminals and some of those kids want to smoke weed on the way to the interview,” he said at the time.

Also, in 2020, CIA said that it doesn’t necessarily believe using illegal drugs makes you a bad person.

For its part, the Drug Enforcement Administration continues to enforce its policy of automatically disqualifying applicants who’ve used marijuana in the prior three years before applying.

Federal agencies have taken different approaches to employment policies with the ever-changing marijuana landscape in the U.S.

For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently reminded its workers that they are prohibited from using marijuana—or directly investing in the industry—regardless of state law and changes in “social norms” around cannabis.

In May, a congressman sent a letter to the head of the U.S. Department of Transportation, stating that the agency’s policies on drug testing truckers and other commercial drivers for marijuana are unnecessarily costing people their jobs and contributing to supply chain issues.

Relatedly, a top Wells Fargo analyst said in February that there’s one main reason for rising costs and worker shortages in the transportation sector: federal marijuana criminalization and resulting drug testing mandates that persist even as more states enact legalization.

Meanwhile, in April, a top federal health agency proposed changes to drug testing policies for federal workers to clarify that having a doctor’s recommendation for medical marijuana or any other Schedule I drug is not a valid excuse for a positive drug test.

Also earlier this year, a coalition of more than two dozen congressional Democrats filed bill on promoting workplace investment to combat climate change, and they said they want to boost the workforce nationwide by protecting people in legal marijuana states from being penalized due to federal drug testing policies.
 
"Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer doesn’t have the votes to pass a sweeping marijuana decriminalization bill"

And he never did although he insisted on comprehensive, all in one, legislation and stifled incremental legislation that would provide some good if not all good. He took an all or nothing approach and in fact legislation that adopts his position was never sent to committee much less the floor for a vote. I'm not even sure its written in final form.

Make of that what you will.



Democrats are looking for a weed deal


As this Congress enters its final months, lawmakers warm to the idea of cannabis banking “plus.”​

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer doesn’t have the votes to pass a sweeping marijuana decriminalization bill — despite repeatedly touting his support for ending federal prohibition.
That realization is leading Senate Democrats to look for a compromise on weed.
In interviews with more than a dozen lawmakers, staffers, advocates and lobbyists, all agreed that in recent weeks the tone has changed on Capitol Hill. Senators previously opposed to anything but a major marijuana decriminalization bill are slowly warming to another option: adding provisions to a broadly supported bill that would allow financial institutions to offer banking services to the cannabis industry, called the SAFE Banking Act.
The change in approach is driven in part by the fact that the clock is ticking on Democratic control of Congress — experts say the House will likely flip in November, and the Senate could join it. Despite the often-bipartisan nature of cannabis legislation, it does not enjoy strong support from GOP leadership in either chamber. So lawmakers involved in weed policy are looking more seriously at what they can accomplish in the last six months of this Congress.
“There’s a greater sense of urgency,” said Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), who has been trying to shepherd cannabis legislation through Congress for decades.
“I think there’s a broader base of support.”

Tentative negotiations​

Every lawmaker and staffer who spoke with POLITICO for this story said that there is, as of yet, no tangible legislative plan. Most described the conversations as merely testing the waters on what might be possible later on in the year.
Discussions have happened or are scheduled between Schumer and weed-friendly Republicans such as Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Rep. Dave Joyce (R-Ohio). But Joyce told POLITICO earlier this month that his conversation with Schumer did not include any formal strategy or legislative plans. Right now, most of these talks are among Senate Democrats, who eventually want to agree on something they can propose to Republicans.
Some hope that a deal on cannabis — an issue that enjoys support from both sides of the aisle — could also ride the Senate’s current bipartisan wave. Democrats and Republicans in the upper chamber have recently reached agreements on thorny issues like gun control and insulin pricing.
“The discussion is about using SAFE as the nucleus of the thing, and [to] add some provisions that will be acceptable to Democrats and Republicans in the Senate,” said Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.), the cosponsor of the bill in the House.



“It’s at its very early stages.”
They’re calling the potential package “SAFE Plus,” a term coined by Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, the Democratic co-lead sponsor of the weed banking bill.
The most looming question is how to thread the needle between Republicans who want the banking bill to pass on its own and Democrats who won’t vote for it unless it comes with added criminal justice or social equity provisions.
Montana Sen. Steve Daines, the Republican co-lead sponsor of the banking legislation, has consistently opposed adding anything to the bill. New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), a key Democratic player in the cannabis discussion, meanwhile, won’t support a bill that only helps the industry and does not do anything meaningful for people hurt by the war on drugs.
Right now, ideas are swirling, with one cannabis industry lobbyist describing the discussions as “mushy.” Joyce and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) have a bill that would give states financial assistance in expunging cannabis-related nonviolent records. Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) is pushing a bill that would allow cannabis companies to access Small Business Administration programs. Sens. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) have a VA medical research bill. Sullivan is also reportedly taking on the deceased Alaska Rep. Don Young’s bill that would allow marijuana users to own a gun. With so many options, it’s uncertain exactly what is under serious consideration.
“I’m hoping that we can put a package together that can receive wide bipartisan support,” said Rosen, though she couldn’t say exactly what form that would take.
“I know that SAFE banking has wide support,” she said — adding that so do her efforts to expand access to SBA programs.

Decriminalization impasse​

When Democrats took control of the Senate, Schumer teamed up with Booker and Ron Wyden of Oregon to craft comprehensive decriminalization legislation that would tax and regulate the new industry, expunge some records and provide programs and financial assistance for those who had been harmed by America’s cannabis laws in the past. That bill, however, has not been introduced yet — and does not currently have the votes to pass when it it.
Meanwhile, pressure is growing from other Democrats: Sen. Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Patty Murray (Wash.) — the No. 2 and 3 leaders in the caucus — are both SAFE cosponsors. Murray declared it a priority after three people were killed during dispensary break-ins in Washington earlier this year.
“Schumer has changed from a more defensive posture against something smaller that would take away from comprehensive reform, and is now interested in what could get done by the end of the year,” one Senate Democratic staffer with knowledge of the conversations told POLITICO, speaking on background to protect sensitive negotiations.
The outlook even for SAFE in a GOP-led Congress is dismal. House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) — who would likely chair the committee if Republicans take back the House — voted against it both times it passed the House. SAFE may not even receive a hearing in either chamber under Republican leadership, let alone a floor vote. That is motivation enough for both Republicans who support cannabis banking and Democrats who want comprehensive legislation to find a middle ground.

Eyeing lame duck​

Currently, Democrats are still waiting for the Schumer-Booker-Wyden cannabis bill, and any tangible discussions on a SAFE Plus package won’t come until after that. The SAFE Banking Act was included in the House version of a massive China competition bill, but negotiators have dropped it from consideration for the final package.
If the current momentum continues, Democrats plan to come up with something they could get behind, present it to Republicans, and then work from there. Timelines on when this might happen abound, but lame duck is mentioned most commonly — though not by the bill’s lead sponsor.
“There’s going to be 1,000 things to do in lame duck,” Merkley said.
“If we can get an agreement and move forward before we’re to that point, I sure would like to.”
 
I neither believe the Fed government nor do I trust any assurances of privacy or anonymity of data. Today's voluntary participation and protection of privacy is tomorrow's broad registry of users for law enforcement and other purposes (such as firearm background check violations by med MJ users as just one example).

Any protections described in this article are not provisions of legislation and therefore semi-permanent and are only promises from yet another Fed bureaucracy who may change their mind at any time. Yeah, it will end up in the courts but in the meantime it is entirely possible for the Fed goverment to use this data against state level legal MJ users.

Not until cannabis is fully legalized would I even consider participating in this crap.




What a national medical marijuana registry could mean for those on the list


This large registry can provide information about how well medical marijuana works for all sorts of conditions, and also track trends and usage.​

The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) has applied to create a national database of medical marijuana users in order to understand more about marijuana and how it is used to treat medical conditions in America. This would be the most broad registry of its kind, and could help generate significant new data on the subject.
It is only natural, however, that a medical marijuana patient may see this new registry and feel a bit uneasy. Sure, many states with medical marijuana programs have their own registry, but there has never been a registry pool with such a variety of potential uses in existence like the one NIDA plans to create. This begs the question: If you currently use medical marijuana, what does this mean for your future?

This database could cover a broad range of medical cannabis users, but individuals have no need to worry about their medical privacy in this matter. For one, this database involves an application process and is voluntary. According to NIDA’s request for application (RFA), it “seeks applications to develop and maintain a medicinal cannabis use registry to assess the medical conditions reported as reasons for using medicinal cannabis, how and what products are being used, and the associated medical outcomes.”

Further, medical marijuana records are protected by HIPAA, which federally protects medical patient’s right to privacy. Since medical marijuana is not federally legal, there is sometimes concern that HIPAA regulations may not apply to medical marijuana. According to The Compliance Group,“HIPAA does in fact apply to the medical marijuana industry.”

While there are no reasons to worry about privacy with this proposed database, there may be a cause for concern in regards to how one can acquire and maintain a medical marijuana card in the future. One of the objectives of this national registry is to understand how and why people gain access to medical marijuana as a nation.

According to Benzinga, “With this move, NIDA intends to address the issue of heterogeneity of conditions for which patients can request a medical cannabis card, considering that rules vary from state to state.” This research could potentially streamline access to medical marijuana, or it may also suggest making it more specific regulations in regards to obtaining a medical marijuana card — only time will tell.

There are, however, several potential benefits to a database of this kind.. For example, NIDA points out the need for significantly more data and research on medical marijuana in order to know more about its potential benefits for major health issues like opioid addiction.

According to the RFA, “some studies indicated that chronic prescription opioid use decreases after cannabis use, while others show no changes in opioid medication use.” We have previously reported on physicians’ need for further information to understand how marijuana impacts certain things like opioid addiction. While clinical trials remain difficult due to the federal prohibition on marijuana, a database of this scope could provide valuable insight into the medical benefits of cannabis in regards to pain and addiction.

This large registry can provide information about how well medical marijuana works for all sorts of conditions, and also track trends and usage. While targeted clinical studies may provide better results, this is certainly an effective approach in the meantime while the Federal Government continues to take its time deciding the fate of cannabis on a national level.

The goal, it seems, is to unite the data that is available across the majority of states where medical marijuana is widely used. It’s as if the information is all there, only it’s compartmentalized in individual states, and not providing its maximum effectiveness. Or as NIDA wrote, “As many patients are already using cannabis products for medicinal applications, it is important to identify the evidence that exists and as it evolves, and to harmonize and coordinate this information to maximize the potential benefits to patients while minimizing harmful effects,” NIDA
 

State Marijuana Protections Not Included In Justice Department Funding Bill, Despite Lawmakers’ Pleas

https://www.marijuanamoment.net/sta...rtment-funding-bill-despite-lawmakers-pleas/#

A much-anticipated Congressional spending bill does not currently include provisions to protect all state, territory and tribal marijuana programs from Justice Department interference, despite pleas from dozens of bipartisan lawmakers.

There were high hopes that such language could be attached to the base bill for the Fiscal Year 2023 appropriations for Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) as introduced by congressional leaders. But that didn’t pan out, meaning lawmakers will again need to make their case for the protections’ inclusion as amendments—either in committee or on the House floor, as in past years.

Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Tom McClintock (R-CA), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) and Barbara Lee (D-CA), along with 44 of their colleagues, recently sent a letter calling on the chairman and ranking member of an appropriations subcommittee to address the issue through the must-pass legislation.
The text released on Tuesday didn’t include the sweeping protections, however. Instead, it simply maintained an existing rider preventing the Justice Department from using its appropriated federal funds to interfere in the implementation of state medical cannabis programs only, not extending those protections to all state marijuana programs including recreational laws.

SEC. 531. None of the funds made available under this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to any of the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, or with respect to the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, or Puerto Rico, to prevent any of them from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.
That more limited language has been annually renewed in federal law each year since 2014.

The new CJS appropriations measure also again includes in the base bill language prohibiting the Justice Department from using its federal funds to interfere in state industrial hemp programs.

SEC. 530. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used in contravention of section 7606 (“Legitimacy of Industrial Hemp Research”) of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–79) by the Department of Justice or the Drug Enforcement Administration.

(A separate appropriations bill covering the Department of the Interior released on Monday does include tribal cannabis provisions written into the base measure, but advocates hoped to also see similar protections included in the Justice Department funding legislation.)

Here’s the main new sections that the lawmakers had requested be included in the CJS bill:
“None of the funds made available by this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to any of the States, the District of Columbia, or U.S. territories to prevent any of them from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of marijuana.”
“None of the funds made available by this Act to the Department of Justice may be used to prevent any Indian tribe (as such term is defined in section 4 of the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304)) from enacting or implementing tribal laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of marijuana.”

Those protections ultimately didn’t make it into the base bill as unveiled on Tuesday, though. That means that congressional supporters will have to fight for its inclusion through the amendment process as the CJS appropriations legislation advances.

In 2019 and 2020, the House attached the sweeping state and tribal protections to its version of the appropriations legislation as amendments adopted on the floor, but they’ve yet to be incorporated into any final package enacted into law. CJS legislation didn’t end up making it to the floor in 2021, but supporters had planned an amendment that year as well.

Lawmakers have argued that the language should be included in the original bill as introduced by leaders, circumventing the need for a floor vote, in light of the large number of states enacting legalization and growing bipartisan support for reform.

Blumenauer testified before the subcommittee during a members day in April, describing his request for the inclusion of the cannabis language as his “top priority” in the bill this year.

“States from coast to coast—across the political spectrum, red and blue have—have taken meaningful action to end prohibitory policies and allow the development of both adult use and medical marijuana programs,” the congressman said. “The federal government should not interfere with these programs and the will of the voters.”
For the 2023 Fiscal Year, congressional leaders have already proposed a number of marijuana policy changes in separate recently released spending legislation for various agencies, including protections for immigrants who use cannabis, freeing up marijuana-related advertising and providing the industry with access to the banking system. There are also provisions concerning hemp.

Those are parts of Fiscal Year 2023 spending bills for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) and U.S. Agriculture Department (USDA).

For the Interior appropriations base bill that was released this week, there’s already a section on tribal marijuana protections (with some new caveats that have raised questions about tribes potentially being held to a different standard than states).

In a related development, a Senate committee held a listening session on Friday that explored cannabis issues for Native Americans, touching on areas such as tribal sovereignty in the marijuana space, agreements with state governments and taxation.

A coalition of nine U.S. senators also sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland in March, urging him to direct federal prosecutors to not interfere with marijuana legalization policies enacted by Native American tribes.

The CJS bill that lawmakers wanted state and tribal protections attached to is set to come up in subcommittee on Wednesday and go before the full House Appropriations Committee on June 28. After that, it would head to the House floor where additional amendments could be adopted.

Importantly, it remains to be seen whether the Senate will accept any of these House marijuana proposals. Senate appropriators have not yet released their spending bills for FY23, and typically wait until after the House has acted, so it’s not yet clear which cannabis issues will ultimately get reconciled by the two chambers and adopted into law.
 
1656450164253.png


"Maher, whose partners include actor Woody Harrelson and ERBA founders Devon Wheeler and Jay Handal, recently opened The Woods in Hollywood. The business has both a dispensary and a freestanding neighbourhood bar complete with a Zen-like backyard garden and koi pond."

Color me silly but I don't see him rushing to give his dispensary to....well, anyone in a demographic that he thinks is particularly deserving.


Bill Maher: 'It seems fair racial minorities jump the line for weed franchises'


“The drug war has been a horrendous instrument of prejudice and punishment for racial minorities.”​

Long-time talk show host and cannabis retail partner Bill Maher told his Real Time with Bill Maher audience last week that he gets why some people think those affected by the War on Drug should have first dibs on weed retail licences.

Maher made the comments during the “New Rule” segment on Friday, which focused on how key it is to have a lawyer who fights for client wants and needs.
To illustrate the value of such representation, he kicked off the segment with the Amber Heard-Johnny Depp defamation trial example before segueing into why he believes Democrats are losing ground to Republicans, including citing the flip of a Texas district from blue to red, the Latinx term and student loan relief.
During the segment, Maher, 66, noted that Bernie Sanders (at about 4:42 in clip below) promised during his 2020 run to become the Democratic nominee for president that he would legalize cannabis on his first day as president. Beyond that, the idea would be to have those who suffered most from the drug war be first up to receive retail licences.

“And you know what? I can’t argue with that instinct. The drug war has been a horrendous instrument of prejudice and punishment for racial minorities, so it seems fair that they jump the line for weed franchises the way Indians (Native Americans) did for casinos,” Maher told his studio audience.
Despite his support, the host argued that the approach is “also what’s holding up Republican support for legalizing cannabis nationally,” which he contends “would be good for everybody.”



With regards to legalized cannabis, Sanders’ official website noted that it would be done in the first 100 days with executive action.
Additionally, the prospective nominee noted his government would vacate and expunge all past marijuana-related convictions and ensure that revenue from legal cannabis is reinvested in communities hit hardest by the War on Drugs.

Though Sanders did not win the Democratic nomination back in 2020, the 16-year senator’s take on marijuana seems pretty much the same today.
“Marijuana should be legal nationwide. All marijuana convictions must be expunged. It is absurd that the federal government considers marijuana to be as dangerous as heroin,” he tweeted in April.

About three weeks ago, Maher again cautioned on his HBO show that Democrats could lose the cannabis legalization issue to Republicans, something he maintained could help energize long-time or could-be Democrats to vote.

“Republicans are going to steal the issue, I think, eventually,” adding the narrative could be to make legalization “one of those freedom issues,” the host told guest Eric Holder, who served as the U.S. Attorney General from 2009 to 2015 in the Barack Obama administration.

Asked if he would hold out for equity or get proposed legislation on cannabis passed, Holder responded:
“It’s better to have the law changed. And as I said, deal with the societal reality that we have and, you know, try to make it as equitable as you possibly can.”
An SSRS poll released in April found that 69 per cent of respondents believe cannabis should be legalized for recreational use.
During the show last week, Maher said Democrats must make some hard practical choices.

“Redress the past or reach out to the gettable white voter who says, you know what? I’d like a shot at getting in the pot business. But to do that, I’m going to need a good lawyer who fights for me.”

Maher, whose partners include actor Woody Harrelson and ERBA founders Devon Wheeler and Jay Handal, recently opened The Woods in Hollywood. The business has both a dispensary and a freestanding neighbourhood bar complete with a Zen-like backyard garden and koi pond.
 
woman in pink hoodie smells large cannabis flower over background of cannabis leaves

Yarygin/Shutterstock Mom's Tea & Cannabis/Facebook (Licensed) remix by Jason Reed

Faced with harsh censorship, TikTok cannamoms fight against the stigma around weed and motherhood​

'They’re separating us because they know that we’re louder in numbers.'​

Grace Griffin
Grace Griffin

Internet Culture

Posted on Jul 5, 2022 Updated on Jul 5, 2022, 1:47 pm CDT
When Amanda Rogers had to shutter her daycare because of COVID-19, she started having trouble sleeping. She experienced heightened anxiety and panic attacks as the future of her business became uncertain. In an attempt to mitigate this mounting stress, Rogers turned to cannabis.
Having tried cannabis in her 20s and finding its effects unappealing, Rogers was skeptical. Nevertheless, the Washington state resident took up smoking regularly again in 2020, and she couldn’t believe the health benefits.
“I was medicating. I wasn’t just consuming,” Rogers said.
As a mother to a 10-year-old son and an early childhood educator, Rogers knew that—in the eyes of many—her cannabis use was not conducive to her career in childcare.
“I can’t be the only mom that consumes pretty regularly and owns a business and kicks ass,” she said. “But, in the eyes of a lot of people, especially in childcare, that’s a big ‘no.’”
So, Rogers set out to connect with other “cannamoms” and normalize the use of cannabis to other parents. She started a TikTok account (@momsteaandcannabis) and began creating content. She posts infographics, debunks myths around cannabis and parenting, and shares her own stories all in an attempt to educate and connect with her audience. Since creating the account in late 2020, she’s garnered more than 10,500 followers. However, as her follower count steadily grew, so did the number of penalties TikTok lobbied against her.
TikTok’s community guidelines expressly prohibit, “Content that depicts or promotes drugs, drug consumption, or encourages others to make, use, or trade drugs or other controlled substances.” Cannabis is classified as a Schedule I drug in the United States, grouping it with the likes of heroin, MDMA, and other drugs designated to have a high potential for abuse with no federally-recognized medicinal benefit. While content creators know this not to be true of cannabis, its categorization as a controlled substance allows for bans across social platforms.
TikTok is not the only platform with strict rules around cannabis, but it’s become one of the most vigilant in removing content deemed to violate guidelines. Washington legalized recreational sales and use of cannabis in 2012, and all of Rogers’ posts are legal from a state standpoint.
Still, Rogers’ account has fallen victim to TikTok’s content purges. She says she’s been “shadowbanned” countless times. She’s been left without the ability to comment on others’ posts or live stream on her own account. Rogers cited peers who’ve had accounts shut down entirely and had to turn to backup profiles to continue posting.
In one of TikTok’s recent content sweeps, it banned the hashtag #cannamom. Just weeks ago, a click on the tag would reveal thousands of videos. The hashtag allowed cannamoms to find each other on the platform.
“A hashtag is important because that’s how you group people together,” Rogers said. “They’re separating us because they know that we’re louder in numbers.”
Amanda Leedur from Florida employs hashtags on her posts, too, to connect with other creators. Leedur is also a self-described “cannamom” who’s racked up more than 145,200 followers on the TikTok account (@boringmom420) she created in November 2020.
“I really just want to end the stigma around smoking weed,” she said. “Everyone thinks it’s this terrible thing and you can’t get anything done if you’re a stoner, and it’s not like that at all. It’s how I function.”
Leedur has dealt with her fair share of backlash. She’s received comments from people accusing her of providing a bad influence to her son and encouraging drug use in children.
“I’ve gotten negative comments saying it makes me a bad parent if I’m smoking or if my kid knows about it,” Leedur said. “I want it to be just as normal as other moms drinking at the end of the night.”
TikTok community guidelines seem to side with Leedur’s opponents; even though she stopped smoking on camera, she’s had videos removed and her account locked multiple times just for speaking about marijuana or showing paraphernalia.
“TikTok is hard,” Leedur said. “It doesn’t stop me, though, and I’ll continue to post.”
After TikTok banned #cannamom, some creators sought out other tags, like #cannaparent, in an attempt to revitalize their online communities. Rogers went a different route. Having always been tech-savvy, she built her own app in 2021 called Mom’s Tea and Cannabis where cannamoms can post to, learn from, and engage with each other. She has defined sections for different states and regions of the U.S. so users from the same location can engage with each other.
Rogers said she’s seen firsthand how her new platform builds that community TikTok once fostered. She regaled a story about a woman who posted at a time she was feeling lonely and isolated. Her post solicited a comment from another cannamom feeling similarly. The two Floridians lived close, so they met up to smoke together.
“A week later, [one woman’s] husband contacted me on Facebook,” Rogers said. “He couldn’t thank me enough for getting his wife not only out of bed but out of the house because she found a local friend through my group.”
Consequences handed down from TikTok mirror what those in the cannabis community have perpetually experienced offline. Once COVID safety measures allowed Rogers to try reopening her daycare, she was already immersed in the cannabis community online, and her clients had gotten word. Eight of the nine students Rogers expected to return to her daycare were pulled out by their parents.
“When I opened up again, my fear of what could happen, happened,” Rogers said. “My students and their parents dropped me because of what I do now.”
Cannabis entrepreneur Brooke Westlake lives in Nevada and has faced similar pushback. Westlake founded the Women in Cannabis Expo and has plans underway to open a product testing lab. Westlake is running for Washoe County School Board and said opponents have attempted to frame her cannabis use in a negative light. Westlake, however, touts the medicinal value of the plant despite its classification as a controlled substance.
“I had this major surgery where they removed a large section of my colon,” Westlake said. “Recovery was rough… [Cannabis] is pretty much saving my life at this point.”
Aside from business repercussions, both Rogers and Westlake cited personal ramifications from posting about cannabis. Rogers reported getting into heated debates while attempting to educate family members. Westlake said friends typically support her use of the plant, but many feel uncomfortable or ashamed discussing it openly.
As digital communities waver in the face of social media regulations, offline communities that began online continue to thrive.
This June marks the first annual Mom’s Tea and Cannabis retreat. Ticket holders will experience a weekend of relaxation, infused drinks, and crafts. Rogers is already planning another day-long retreat toward the end of the summer to give parents one last hurrah before school starts up again.
“The whole purpose of the weekend is for you to get to the house Friday, put down your bags, then do whatever the hell you want for the rest of the weekend, no questions asked,” Rogers said.
Westlake hosts regular cannabis expos, uplifting women already in or seeking to enter the industry. She also owns two cannabis apparel brands—Legally Blonde & Blunt and Neon Nite Apparel—that cater products toward women.
“It’s shocking to me when mothers want to consume or need to consume [cannabis] and they’re being told they can’t,” Westlake said. “It’s disappointing that this is the culture we put on people… They should be able to feel just as comfortable as if they were having a glass of wine. There should be no shame at all.”
Whether TikTok likes it or not, cannamoms aren’t slowing down. They’re just finding ways to adapt their message and continue building community on and offline.
 
woman in pink hoodie smells large cannabis flower over background of cannabis leaves

Yarygin/Shutterstock Mom's Tea & Cannabis/Facebook (Licensed) remix by Jason Reed

Faced with harsh censorship, TikTok cannamoms fight against the stigma around weed and motherhood​

'They’re separating us because they know that we’re louder in numbers.'​

Grace Griffin
Grace Griffin
Internet Culture

Posted on Jul 5, 2022 Updated on Jul 5, 2022, 1:47 pm CDT
When Amanda Rogers had to shutter her daycare because of COVID-19, she started having trouble sleeping. She experienced heightened anxiety and panic attacks as the future of her business became uncertain. In an attempt to mitigate this mounting stress, Rogers turned to cannabis.
Having tried cannabis in her 20s and finding its effects unappealing, Rogers was skeptical. Nevertheless, the Washington state resident took up smoking regularly again in 2020, and she couldn’t believe the health benefits.
“I was medicating. I wasn’t just consuming,” Rogers said.
As a mother to a 10-year-old son and an early childhood educator, Rogers knew that—in the eyes of many—her cannabis use was not conducive to her career in childcare.
“I can’t be the only mom that consumes pretty regularly and owns a business and kicks ass,” she said. “But, in the eyes of a lot of people, especially in childcare, that’s a big ‘no.’”
So, Rogers set out to connect with other “cannamoms” and normalize the use of cannabis to other parents. She started a TikTok account (@momsteaandcannabis) and began creating content. She posts infographics, debunks myths around cannabis and parenting, and shares her own stories all in an attempt to educate and connect with her audience. Since creating the account in late 2020, she’s garnered more than 10,500 followers. However, as her follower count steadily grew, so did the number of penalties TikTok lobbied against her.

TikTok’s community guidelines expressly prohibit, “Content that depicts or promotes drugs, drug consumption, or encourages others to make, use, or trade drugs or other controlled substances.” Cannabis is classified as a Schedule I drug in the United States, grouping it with the likes of heroin, MDMA, and other drugs designated to have a high potential for abuse with no federally-recognized medicinal benefit. While content creators know this not to be true of cannabis, its categorization as a controlled substance allows for bans across social platforms.
TikTok is not the only platform with strict rules around cannabis, but it’s become one of the most vigilant in removing content deemed to violate guidelines. Washington legalized recreational sales and use of cannabis in 2012, and all of Rogers’ posts are legal from a state standpoint.
Still, Rogers’ account has fallen victim to TikTok’s content purges. She says she’s been “shadowbanned” countless times. She’s been left without the ability to comment on others’ posts or live stream on her own account. Rogers cited peers who’ve had accounts shut down entirely and had to turn to backup profiles to continue posting.
In one of TikTok’s recent content sweeps, it banned the hashtag #cannamom. Just weeks ago, a click on the tag would reveal thousands of videos. The hashtag allowed cannamoms to find each other on the platform.
“A hashtag is important because that’s how you group people together,” Rogers said. “They’re separating us because they know that we’re louder in numbers.”
Amanda Leedur from Florida employs hashtags on her posts, too, to connect with other creators. Leedur is also a self-described “cannamom” who’s racked up more than 145,200 followers on the TikTok account (@boringmom420) she created in November 2020.
“I really just want to end the stigma around smoking weed,” she said. “Everyone thinks it’s this terrible thing and you can’t get anything done if you’re a stoner, and it’s not like that at all. It’s how I function.”

Leedur has dealt with her fair share of backlash. She’s received comments from people accusing her of providing a bad influence to her son and encouraging drug use in children.
“I’ve gotten negative comments saying it makes me a bad parent if I’m smoking or if my kid knows about it,” Leedur said. “I want it to be just as normal as other moms drinking at the end of the night.”
TikTok community guidelines seem to side with Leedur’s opponents; even though she stopped smoking on camera, she’s had videos removed and her account locked multiple times just for speaking about marijuana or showing paraphernalia.
“TikTok is hard,” Leedur said. “It doesn’t stop me, though, and I’ll continue to post.”
After TikTok banned #cannamom, some creators sought out other tags, like #cannaparent, in an attempt to revitalize their online communities. Rogers went a different route. Having always been tech-savvy, she built her own app in 2021 called Mom’s Tea and Cannabis where cannamoms can post to, learn from, and engage with each other. She has defined sections for different states and regions of the U.S. so users from the same location can engage with each other.
Rogers said she’s seen firsthand how her new platform builds that community TikTok once fostered. She regaled a story about a woman who posted at a time she was feeling lonely and isolated. Her post solicited a comment from another cannamom feeling similarly. The two Floridians lived close, so they met up to smoke together.
“A week later, [one woman’s] husband contacted me on Facebook,” Rogers said. “He couldn’t thank me enough for getting his wife not only out of bed but out of the house because she found a local friend through my group.”
Consequences handed down from TikTok mirror what those in the cannabis community have perpetually experienced offline. Once COVID safety measures allowed Rogers to try reopening her daycare, she was already immersed in the cannabis community online, and her clients had gotten word. Eight of the nine students Rogers expected to return to her daycare were pulled out by their parents.
“When I opened up again, my fear of what could happen, happened,” Rogers said. “My students and their parents dropped me because of what I do now.”
Cannabis entrepreneur Brooke Westlake lives in Nevada and has faced similar pushback. Westlake founded the Women in Cannabis Expo and has plans underway to open a product testing lab. Westlake is running for Washoe County School Board and said opponents have attempted to frame her cannabis use in a negative light. Westlake, however, touts the medicinal value of the plant despite its classification as a controlled substance.
“I had this major surgery where they removed a large section of my colon,” Westlake said. “Recovery was rough… [Cannabis] is pretty much saving my life at this point.”
Aside from business repercussions, both Rogers and Westlake cited personal ramifications from posting about cannabis. Rogers reported getting into heated debates while attempting to educate family members. Westlake said friends typically support her use of the plant, but many feel uncomfortable or ashamed discussing it openly.
As digital communities waver in the face of social media regulations, offline communities that began online continue to thrive.
This June marks the first annual Mom’s Tea and Cannabis retreat. Ticket holders will experience a weekend of relaxation, infused drinks, and crafts. Rogers is already planning another day-long retreat toward the end of the summer to give parents one last hurrah before school starts up again.
“The whole purpose of the weekend is for you to get to the house Friday, put down your bags, then do whatever the hell you want for the rest of the weekend, no questions asked,” Rogers said.
Westlake hosts regular cannabis expos, uplifting women already in or seeking to enter the industry. She also owns two cannabis apparel brands—Legally Blonde & Blunt and Neon Nite Apparel—that cater products toward women.
“It’s shocking to me when mothers want to consume or need to consume [cannabis] and they’re being told they can’t,” Westlake said. “It’s disappointing that this is the culture we put on people… They should be able to feel just as comfortable as if they were having a glass of wine. There should be no shame at all.”
Whether TikTok likes it or not, cannamoms aren’t slowing down. They’re just finding ways to adapt their message and continue building community on and offline.
Fuck big tech and in particular fuck TikTok who, while censoring her for cannabis use had zero problem with dangerous "TikTok challenges" like eating Tide pods. Fucking wankers one and all....and yeah, I spent a career in high tech. They have no more moral high ground than anybody else....less, actually.
 

Senators Klobuchar and Smith, join Booker, Warren, Sanders and others in push on Biden for cannabis legalization

Last week, a group of six U.S. senators urged the Biden administration to use its position and remove cannabis from the list of Schedule 1 substances under federal law. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Ron Wyden (D-ORE), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and Edward J.Markey (D-MA) sent the urging letter on Wednesday, asking the administration to “use its existing authority to (i) deschedule cannabis and (ii) issue pardons to all individuals convicted of nonviolent cannabis-related offenses.” (Benzinga)

U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MIN) and Tina Smith (D-Min), while not being a part of this group that signed and sent the letter to President Biden, Attorney General Merrick Garland, and Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra said they are also backing recreational marijuana legalization and commuting sentences of non-violent offenders, reported Minnesota Reformer.

“I support the legalization of marijuana on the federal level and believe that states should have the right to determine the best approach to marijuana within their borders. We must also take steps to expunge prior non-violent convictions,” Klobuchar stated.

Klobuchar previously ran for president in 2020, and prior to serving the Senate, she was Hennepin County attorney for two terms, in charge of the state’s biggest team of prosecuting lawyers.

Smith seems to be on the same page with all these politicians fighting for the same cause – legalizing the plant. Her spokeswoman, Lexi Byler, stated, “Sen. Smith believes that marijuana should be legalized, and that cannabis should be removed from the nation’s list of illegal controlled substances. She also supports expunging non-violent marijuana convictions.

Letter highlights & recent developments​

In the letter senators sent last week, they wrote, “The Administration’s failure to coordinate a timely review of its cannabis policy is harming thousands of Americans, slowing research, and depriving Americans of their ability to use marijuana for medical or other purposes. We ask that the Biden Administration act quickly to rectify this decade-long injustice harming individuals, especially Black and Brown communities.”

Senators haven’t forgotten to mention growing public support for marijuana legalization, and also the problems communities of color are dealing with due to the “racist and harmful legacy of cannabis policies,” in the U.S.

“The legacy of the war on drugs is pervasive. It is estimated that over 40,000 individuals are still incarcerated for cannabis related offenses,” they wrote.

“A report released by the American Civil Liberties Union in 2020 found that Black individuals were nearly four times as likely to be arrested for cannabis possession even with comparable usage rates amongst individuals of all races. In some states Black individuals were almost 10 times more likely to be arrested for cannabis possession.”

The letter comes on the heels of the Biden administration confirming it will consider safe consumption sites and cannabis decriminalization to address the public health emergency. Nevertheless, this is far from the first time the Biden administration is making promises and no real actions around marijuana reform, and also not the first time the White House is under pressure from all sides on this matter therefore, the need from senators to push harder. Will it work this time? We’ll see.
 
To me, this is a simple forumula....a bureaucratic scheduling of a substance by an executive branch un-elected agency doe NOT trump an enumerated, individual right enshrined in the highest governing document of the land.

Then there is the abject hypocrisy of allowing cold stone alcoholics and people on massively strong, legally prescribed, medication to buy a gun.

"There have been previous efforts in Congress to specifically protect medical cannabis patients against losing their right to purchase and possess guns, but those efforts have not been enacted."​

Along with many other issues...including one riling the country at the present....that our elected and highly paid professional political class has done nothing about....for decades.


Feds Must Defend Historical Rationale Of Banning Guns For Medical Marijuana Patients, Revised Lawsuit Argues After SCOTUS Ruling

A recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning state gun restrictions has raised new questions about the constitutionality of the federal ban on guns for medical marijuana patients—and a lawsuit that a top Florida official filed against the Justice Department over the issue has been revised to make new arguments based on the high court’s latest decision.


In an amended complaint filed in a federal district court on Friday, lawyers for Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried and other plaintiffs cited the SCOTUS ruling, which generally creates a higher standard for jurisdictions that seek to impose restrictions on gun rights. At a high level, the ruling states that any such restrictions must be consistent with the historical context of the Second Amendment’s original 1791 ratification.


According to the plaintiffs, the question now becomes: Is there historical precedent to justify the current federal policy that prohibits people who admit to using cannabis as part of the background check process from purchasing and possessing firearms?


Considering that marijuana prohibition was enacted more than a century years after the ratification of the Second Amendment—and the fact that cannabis was previously prescribed by doctors before the plant was criminalized—the plaintiffs argued that the ban does not hold water under the new ruling.


“Quite simply, there is no historical tradition of denying individuals their Second Amendment rights based solely (or even partially) on the use of marijuana,” the revised filing says.


“In fact, historical evidence shows that marijuana was considered a legitimate and legal form of medicine in England, America, and other western countries through the mid-Nineteenth and early-Twentieth Centuries. It was also discussed and researched for its medical properties in and around the time the Second Amendment was ratified. There was no law or regulation preventing marijuana users from possessing firearms in or around those time periods. Rather, such a ban did not come into existence until around the mid-Twentieth Century.”


DOJ recently recognized that the new SCOTUS ruling meant that the original lawsuit, which was first filed in April and largely focused on the policy basis of the gun restriction, would be amended. So the department requested more time to respond in the case before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida.


Now a judge has set an August 8 deadline for DOJ to respond to the amended filing. The department has already indicated that it plans to file a motion to dismiss, rather than make an argument on the merits of the legal challenge.


Fried, a Democratic gubernatorial candidate in Florida who filed the lawsuit in her capacity as the state’s agriculture commissioner, previously told Marijuana Moment in an interview that the challenge is not about expanding gun rights, per se. It’s a matter of constitutionality that she and other key allies in the gun reform movement feel would bolster public safety in the case goes in their favor.


Specifically, because state-compliant medical cannabis patients are required to fill out a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) form that asks about marijuana use (and answering in the affirmative would render them ineligible for a gun purchase), Fried says that creates an incentive to either lie, buy a gun on the illicit market or simply forgo a constitutional right.


In 2020, ATF issued an advisory specifically targeting Michigan that requires gun sellers to conduct federal background checks on all unlicensed gun buyers because it said the state’s cannabis laws had enabled “habitual marijuana users” and other disqualified individuals to obtain firearms illegally.


Fried brought the lawsuit alongside two medical marijuana patients in the state, as well as Neill Franklin, a retired police officer and former executive director of the Law Enforcement Action Partnership (LEAP) who has declined to use medical cannabis despite its therapeutic value for pain he experiences because of the potential gun rights ramifications.


Another component of the legal challenge is based on a unique interpretation of a congressional spending bill rider known as the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment, which prevents the Justice Department from using federal funds to interfere in the implementation of state medical cannabis programs.


By preventing people like Franklin from using medical marijuana without risking the loss of their right to buy firearms, the federal government is effectively violating that rider by blocking Florida from adding new patients to grow its program, according to the suit.


However, that argument has taken a second seat to the newly revised, SCOTUS-based challenge. Further, the original suit centered on policy rationale for gun restrictions.


While still acknowledged in the amended complaint, it now says that it will only make that case “if the Court determines that the Plaintiffs have misapprehended” the Supreme Court’s holding in its recent case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.


There have been previous efforts in Congress to specifically protect medical cannabis patients against losing their right to purchase and possess guns, but those efforts have not been enacted.
 

Sponsored by

VGoodiez 420EDC
Back
Top