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

U.S. House Approves Marijuana Banking Bill For Fourth Time, Setting Up Senate Consideration


The U.S. House of Representatives on Monday approved a bill to protect banks that service state-legal marijuana businesses from being penalized by federal regulators.

After receiving an initial voice vote earlier in the afternoon, members passed the legislation by a final recorded vote of 321-101.

The legislation, which was reintroduced by Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) and a long bipartisan list of cosponsors last month, was taken up under a process known as suspension of the rules, which does not allow for amendments and requires a 2/3rd supermajority to pass.



“The fact is that people in states and localities across the country are voting to approve some level of cannabis use, and we need these cannabis businesses and employees to have access to checking accounts, payroll accounts, lines of credit, credit cards and more,” Perlmutter said on the House floor. “This will improve transparency and accountability, and help law enforcement root out illegal transactions to prevent tax evasion, money laundering and other white collar crime. But most importantly, this will reduce the risk of violent crime in our communities.”

Because marijuana businesses are largely precluded from accessing traditional financial institutions and have to operate on a mostly cash-only basis, that makes them targets of crime—a point that advocates, regulators and banking representatives have emphasized.

“Even if you are opposed to the legalization of cannabis, you should support this bill,” Perlmutter added. “American voters have spoken and continue to speak—and the fact is, you can’t put the genie back in the bottle. Prohibition is over.”

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), co-chair of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, said “it’s time for us to address this inconsistency, it’s time for us to pass, again, the SAFE Banking Act and it’s time for us to move forward with legalization on the federal level.”

“I appreciate us being at this point—a critical first step along the path to full legalization, which I’m confident will happen this Congress, and not a moment too soon,” the congressman said.



Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) spoke in opposition to the legislation, stating that “regardless of your position on this bill, I do think the fact remains that cannabis is a prohibited substance under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act—and let me further state, by enacting this legislation, we’re effectively kneecapping law enforcement enforcement and legalizing money laundering.”

But in a sign of the bipartisan nature of this reform, Rep. David Joyce (R-OH) took to the floor to defend the legislation. He said “I’m proud to help lead this common sense and overdue effort.”

“At a time when small businesses are just beginning to recover from the economic destruction caused by COVID-19, the federal government should be supporting them, not standing in their way,” he said.

McHenry was the only lawmaker to rise against the bill on the floor, yielding all additional opposition time to other Republican members who actually spoke in support of it.

Watch the floor debate on the marijuana banking bill by following title link and scrolling to video at the end of the article.
 
Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) spoke in opposition to the legislation, stating that “regardless of your position on this bill, I do think the fact remains that cannabis is a prohibited substance under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act—and let me further state, by enacting this legislation, we’re effectively kneecapping law enforcement enforcement and legalizing money laundering.”
Well, he's off my xmas card list, for sure! :naughty2:
 

U.S. Marijuana Consumption Has Risen 56% Since 2018, New Survey Shows


Multi-state operator Cresco Labs (OTC:CRLBF) reported Friday that a survey conducted by its Sunnyside dispensary unit, in collaboration with data specialist YouGov, indicated a significant rise in U.S. marijuana consumption recently.


The survey, in which nearly 5,000 Americans were polled about their cannabis habits, showed that roughly 25% of them have consumed marijuana over the preceding year -- 56% higher than the 16% of a similar poll taken in 2018.


Other findings from the survey show that 43% of people aged 65 and above tried cannabis, for the first time in their lives, in the past year. By a slightly higher percentage (44%), people with children under 18 also consumed it for the first time. Another finding is that men and women consume equally as often.


A person standing behind jars of marijuana.

IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES.

Numerous factors are at play here. Aside from the obvious ones -- the steadily increasing number of states that have legalized recreational sale and consumption, the search for boredom relief during the coronavirus pandemic -- U.S. consumers have become more accepting of marijuana and the culture that accompanies it. The stigma around weed is melting away.

These findings, of course, will serve as morale boosters to both marijuana consumers and the companies that serve them -- like Cresco Labs. The company quoted its senior vice president of customer experience Cris Rivera as saying that "the industry is ready to meet these new consumers to introduce them to its precisely dosed lab-tested products, safe and professional packaging, and welcoming retail locations."

But it'll take more than that to convince investors to put money into the typically loss-making pot industry. On Tuesday, despite the encouraging findings, Cresco Labs saw its stock price drop by 6.1%, while the S&P 500 index slumped by only 0.7%.
 

Biden Press Secretary Misstates Marijuana Rescheduling’s Impact For Federal Prisoners Who Want Clemency


White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said on Wednesday that President Joe Biden’s campaign pledge to release federal inmates with marijuana convictions will start with modestly rescheduling cannabis—a proposal that advocates say wouldn’t actually accomplish what she’s suggesting.

During a briefing, the official was pressed on marijuana clemency for the second day in a row. New York Post reporter Steven Nelson said Psaki’s previous response didn’t offer a “firm answer” as to whether Biden still intends to push for the release of those serving time over non-violent cannabis offenses and asked if the president will “honor his commitment to release everyone in prison for marijuana.”

“Well I think what I did yesterday is reiterate what his position on marijuana was— decriminalizing or rescheduling and certainly legalizing medical marijuana,” she said. “What you’re asking me is a legal question. Now we’re in government, and so I had to follow up with our legal team and I don’t have any additional information quite yet.”



The reporter pushed back, noting that moving cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule II under the Controlled Substances Act, as Biden is proposing, wouldn’t facilitate mass clemency given that being convicted for crimes related to drugs in that slightly lower category—which currently includes cocaine—also carries significant penalties.

“It addresses things moving forward, though, which is important and important to many advocates,” Psaki argued.

But advocates don’t really see it that way. For one, they support descheduling marijuana entirely. But when it comes to the relationship between scheduling and sentencing, moving cannabis to Schedule II would in no way fulfill Biden’s 2019 campaign pledge, when he said, “I think everyone—anyone who has a record—should be let out of jail, their records expunged, be completely zeroed out” for marijuana convictions.



Nelson replied flatly: “There are people in prison for marijuana who were asking President Biden to honor his pledge to release them. Should they expect to be released or are they going to serve life in prison for marijuana?”

“Well, again, I think I’ve stated very clearly what the president’s position is,” Psaki said. “What you’re asking me as a legal question. I point you to the Department of Justice, and if there’s anything more we can provide from here, I’m happy to provide it.”

Clemency was just one cannabis-related topic that the press secretary was asked about a day earlier, on the unofficial marijuana holiday 4/20. The statement that arguably generated the most attention, however, was when she said the president’s position on legalization is at odds with comprehensive reform proposals that congressional leaders are working on, signaling that he might not sign the legislation even if it’s sent to his desk.

The noncommittal response comes at a time when there’s a concerted push in both chambers of Congress to seize the opportunity they have with Democratic control to pass legalization legislation.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) have been working on a bill on their side. The majority leader told Marijuana Moment on Monday that he’s working to push the president in a pro-legalization direction as they draft the measure.

Schumer said last week that the legislation will be introduced and placed on the floor “soon.”

On the House side, Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) said recently that he plans to reintroduced his legalization bill, the Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, which cleared the chamber last year but did not advance in the Senate under GOP control.
 
Lies, lies and more lies.
Those people will die in federal before the Harris admin does shit.
 

Rep. Blumenauer 'confident' Biden will 'stay out of the way' on marijuana legalization


Long-time marijuana legalization advocate Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D., Oreg.) is optimistic about the chances of ending the federal prohibition of marijuana now that Democrats control both chambers of Congress.

On Monday, the House passed the SAFE Banking Act with support from both Republican and Democratic lawmakers. The bill would ensure legitimate cannabis businesses have access to banking services. The House has passed the bill several times in the past, but it previously stalled in the Senate when it was controlled by Republicans.

"It's the difference between night and day," said Blumenauer in an interview with Yahoo Finance Live. "We had more progress in the last Congress than ever before with the MORE Act, with my research bill, with the SAFE Banking Act — but it all went to Mitch McConnell's hospice in the Senate. Now, we are in an entirely different dynamic." (The MORE Act, passed by the House in December, ends the federal prohibition of marijuana; the Senate hasn't taken up the bill yet.)

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) is working on a comprehensive marijuana reform package with Sen. Cory Booker (D., N.J.) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Oreg.) — which will include ending the federal prohibition.

UNITED STATES - SEPTEMBER 11: Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., arrives for the House Democrats caucus meeting in the Capitol on Wednesday, Sept. 11, 2019. (Photo By Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., arrives for the House Democrats caucus meeting in the Capitol on Wednesday, Sept. 11, 2019. (Photo By Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

"My thinking on this issue has evolved. A number of states, including very recently my home state of New York, have legalized the recreational use of marijuana for adults and those experiments by and large have been a success. The doom and gloom predictions made when states like Colorado or Oregon went forward and decriminalized and legalized never occurred," said Schumer on the Senate floor on Tuesday. "The American people are sending a clear message that they want this policy changed."

The bill the senators are working on will also include restorative justice measures, public health provisions and proposals for taxes and regulations. Schumer said he's hopeful by the "unofficial" 4/20 holiday next year, Congress will have made progress on "addressing the massive over-criminalization of marijuana in a meaningful and comprehensive way."

Blumenauer told Yahoo Finance having Schumer, Wyden and Booker working on the issue is a boost to reform efforts. He's confident the SAFE Banking Act will can make it through the Senate, even though Democrats only have the majority with Vice President Kamala Harris' tie-breaking vote.

"Having those three people and the fact that this is not going to be bottled up," said Blumenauer. "If it gets to the floor, it'll pass."


"I think that's likewise what will happen with research and ultimately with legalization. You've watched this last year result in a tidal wave. We've had more states on the state level that have approved, public opinion is strong. I've been working on this literally for 50 years," he added. "The stars are aligned for being able to move this forward — and I think finally enacted into law.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D., Ohio), Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, told reporters earlier this year he would want to see sentencing reforms included with the SAFE Banking Act — but Blumenauer argues there's no need to make the banking bill a comprehensive reform package.

"We are committed to the MORE Act — which is comprehensive, and strongly support things like restorative justice — but this is a fundamental public safety issue. I mean, in my community, we've had over 100 robberies and including one fatality, and this is happening around the country. It's a public safety issue," said Blumenauer.

Blumenauer makes the case that incremental changes, like giving legitimate cannabis businesses access to banking services, will build momentum for eventual legalization.

"We get people on the record and people paying attention to the issue and mobilizing the vast array of people who support it," said Blumenauer. "We're on the verge of major initiatives."

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki on Tuesday declined to say whether President Biden would sign a federal legalization bill if it made it to his desk — noting that the president supports decriminalization at a federal level, allowing cannabis research, expunging prior convictions and legalizing medicinal marijuana.

A food truck sits outside the Sunnyside Cannabis Dispensary as customers wait in line to buy marijuana, on January 1, 2020 in Chicago, Illinois. - On the first day of 2020, recreational marijuana  became legal in Illinois, which joins 10 other US states with legal use of recreational marijuana. (Photo by KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / AFP) (Photo by KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI/AFP via Getty Images)

A food truck sits outside the Sunnyside Cannabis Dispensary as customers wait in line to buy marijuana, on January 1, 2020 in Chicago, Illinois. (Photo by KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / AFP)
"I just have outlined what his position is, which isn’t the same as what the House and Senate have proposed, but they have not yet passed a bill," said Psaki in the press briefing.

Schumer told Politico this month the Senate would move on legalization with or without Biden's support.

"It'll be legalized by Congress," said Blumenauer. "I think Mr. Biden is looking at some of his criminal justice activities in the past a little differently, but all we need for the federal government to do is stay out of the way — and I'm confident that he will do that."
 

Analysis: How This Week’s Marijuana Banking Vote Changed From Earlier 2019 House Action


In a clear sign of the bipartisan support that marijuana reform enjoys in this Congress, more than half of Republicans joined a unanimous Democratic caucus in voting for of a bill on Monday to protect banks that service state-legal cannabis businesses.


This is the fourth time that the chamber has cleared the proposal in some form since 2019. But as lawmakers move to enact broader legalization, this week’s vote serves as another signal that interest in changing federal marijuana laws—even if that’s through a more modest vehicle—is growing within Congress.


Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) is the chief sponsor of the the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act, which cleared the body in a 321-101 vote, including 106 GOP members. He said following its passage that he was “thrilled to see overwhelming support once again” for “bipartisan, commonsense legislation.”


Here’s an analysis on the latest House vote on the SAFE Banking Act:


Five members who voted on the bill the last time it was on the floor as standalone legislation changed their vote from “nay” to “yea,” compared to three who opposed the measure this round after supporting it in 2019.


“Nay” to “Yea” flips​


  • Rep. Terri Sewell (D-AL)
  • Rep. Austin Scott (R-GA)
  • Rep. Jack Bergman (R-MI)
  • Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-SD)
  • Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN)

“Yea” to “Nay” flips​


  • Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA)
  • Rep. Charles Fleishmann (R-TN)
  • Rep. Lance Gooden (R-TX)

Significantly more freshmen members of the House who didn’t have the chance to vote on the SAFE Banking Act three years ago voted in favor of the bill this week (46) compared those new lawmakers who voted against it (18). Among those freshman “yea” votes were 30 Republicans—another example of how the issue’s bipartisan nature seems to increase on a generational basis. As more younger members come into Congress, it stands to reason that support for marijuana reform across the board will continue to increase.


Eighteen former members of Congress who voted against the bill in 2019 have since left Congress. By contrast, 49 lawmakers who approved the legislation that year have since retired, lost their reelection bids or passed away. Four additional members who are still in Congress and voted “yea” last time did not participate in this year’s vote.


There were 53 legislators who voted against the proposal who represent states that either have adult-use marijuana markets or comprehensive medical cannabis programs. All of those members who effectively said that businesses run by constituents in their states don’t deserve access to bank accounts are Republicans. (The following analysis doesn’t include those states that have only limited or CBD-only programs.)


GOP members who voted “no” representing legal states:​


  • Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-AR)
  • Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ)
  • Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ)
  • Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ)
  • Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA)
  • Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA)
  • Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA)
  • Rep. Michelle Steel (R-CA)
  • Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO)
  • Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO)
  • Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL)
  • Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL)
  • Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL)
  • Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL)
  • Rep. Daniel Webster (R-FL)
  • Rep. Neal Dunn (R-FL)
  • Rep. John Rutherford (R-FL)
  • Rep. Scott Franklin (R-FL)
  • Rep. Darin LaHood (R-IL)
  • Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL)
  • Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA)
  • Rep. Garret Graves (R-LA)
  • Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA)
  • Rep. Julia Letlow (R-LA)
  • Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD)
  • Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI)
  • Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-MI)
  • Rep. John Moolenaar (R-MI)
  • Rep. Lisa McClain (R-MI)
  • Rep. Michelle Fischbach (R-MN)
  • Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO)
  • Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO)
  • Rep. Ann Wagner (R-MO)
  • Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO)
  • Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-MS)
  • Rep. Trent Kelly (R-MS)
  • Rep. Michael Guest (R-MS)
  • Rep. Matthew Rosendale (R-MT)
  • Rep. Christopher Smith (R-NJ)
  • Rep. Yvette Herrell (R-NM)
  • Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH)
  • Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH)
  • Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH)
  • Rep. Robert Latta (R-OH)
  • Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH)
  • Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK)
  • Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK)
  • Rep. Cliff Bentz (R-OR)
  • Rep. John Joyce (R-PA)
  • Rep. Chris Steward (R-UT)
  • Rep. Robert Whittman (R-VA)
  • Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA)
  • Rep. Bob Good (R-VA)

In 2019, there were 41 GOP members who opposed the SAFE Banking Act despite representing states with businesses and constituents who could benefit from the reform. The higher number this year isn’t a product of waning support as much as it is a reflection of how the successful legalization movement has continued to spread to more states.


But while it’s clear that the legislation is largely non-controversial this session, there are some political dynamics at play within the legalization movement that could affect whether the standalone legislation advances through the Senate and makes it to the president’s desk.


(For analysis on how the 2019 vote compared to 2014, when the House voted on a similar but more limited appropriations amendment aimed at preventing the Treasury Department from penalizing banks that service cannabis businesses, read more here).


A companion version of the bill was refiled in the Senate days after the House reintroduced it, and its sponsor Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) said Congress can “start with the SAFE Banking Act” before enacting more comprehensive reform.


That said, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) told Marijuana Moment on Monday that he’s concerned that passing the banking legislation first could undermine support for broader legislation that he’s working on to end federal cannabis prohibition. Instead, he reasoned, the protections for financial institutions should be incorporated into a federal legalization bill.


In any case, the banking vote in the House was a hot topic among lawmakers this week, with numerous members discussing the action on social media.
 

Don’t Expect Senate Marijuana Banking Vote Any Time Soon, Key Chairman Says


A key Senate chairman is tempering expectations about a vote in his panel on a bill to protect banks that work with state-legal marijuana businesses from being penalized by federal regulators.

While the House approved the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act this week along largely bipartisan lines, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Sherrod Brown (D-OH) said the proposal hasn’t won his support just yet “because I think we need to look at a number of things.”

Meanwhile, the bill’s House sponsor, Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO), says he’s open to changing the proposal in a way that’s amenable to the chairman if that helps to move it forward.

Brown told Cleveland.com that he’s been in talks with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on the issue “and will see where it goes.”

Schumer told Marijuana Moment this week that he doesn’t think it is wise for the Senate to pass cannabis banking legislation before tackling more comprehensive reform, because the more modest proposal would likely attract Republican members and undermine efforts to get support for the broader legalization legislation he’s working on.

In any case, Brown isn’t necessarily ruling out a vote on the SAFE Banking Act, sponsored by Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Steve Daines (R-MT). But he says his panel has other priorities.

“This committee’s been too much about Wall Street and not enough about housing, not enough about rural and urban affairs and people’s everyday economic lives, and that’s my focus,” Brown said. “I will look at this seriously. We’re not ready to move on it.”

The senator said in February that he’s “willing” to advance marijuana banking reform, “but with it needs to come sentencing reform.”

That said, he didn’t provide details in his latest comments about what particular reforms he’d want to include, saying “I’m not a lawyer and I want to understand that part better and make sure we do it right.”

“We’ll probably get one good shot at this and I want to do it right,” he said.

Perlmutter, meanwhile, says he’s open to doing what it takes to get the bill approved this Congress, and he told KOA News Radio that while he’s been “overly optimistic” in the past, he’s confident the SAFE Banking Act will pass this session.

Asked about the prospect of adding criminal justice reform provisions to the legislation as Brown said he wants, the congressman said “that’s all great.”

“Make it a bigger bill,” he said. “Do whatever—just do something.”

As it stands, the banking legislation has 33 cosponsors, plus Merkley, which means more than a third of the chamber is already formally signed on.

The vote in the House on Monday marked the fourth time the chamber has approved the SAFE Banking Act. Lawmakers passed it as a standalone bill in 2019 and then twice more as part of coronavirus relief legislation. At no point did the measure move forward in the Senate under Republican control last session, however.

The legislation would ensure that financial institutions could take on cannabis business clients without facing federal penalties. Fear of sanctions has kept many banks and credit unions from working with the industry, forcing marijuana firms to operate on a cash basis that makes them targets of crime and creates complications for financial regulators.

After it passed the House last Congress, advocates and stakeholders closely watched for any action to come out of the Senate Banking Committee, where it was referred after being transmitted to the chamber. But then-Chairman Mike Crapo (R-ID) did not hold a hearing on the proposal, despite talk of negotiations taking place regarding certain provisions.

Crapo said he opposed the reform proposal, but he signaled that he might be more amenable if it included certain provisions viewed as untenable to the industry, including a two percent THC potency limit on products in order for cannabis businesses to qualify to access financial services as well as blocking banking services for operators that sell high-potency vaping devices or edibles that could appeal to children.

When legislative leaders announced that the SAFE Banking Act was getting a House vote in 2019, there was pushback from some advocates who felt that Congress should have prioritized comprehensive reform to legalize marijuana and promote social equity, rather than start with a measure viewed as primarily friendly to industry interests.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), co-chair of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus and an original cosponsor of the bill, said last month that the plan is to pass the banking reform first this session because it “is a public safety crisis now,” and it’s “distinct—as we’ve heard from some of my colleagues—distinct from how they feel about comprehensive reform.”

Meanwhile, congressional lawmakers are simultaneously preparing to introduce legislation to end federal cannabis prohibition.

Schumer, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) are in the process of crafting a legalization bill, and they’ve already met with advocates to get feedback on how best to approach the policy change.

Schumer said last week that the legislation will be introduced and placed on the floor “soon.”

On the House side, Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) said recently that he plans to reintroduced his legalization bill, the Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, which cleared the chamber last year but did not advance in the Senate under GOP control.
 
Crapo said he opposed the reform proposal, but he signaled that he might be more amenable if it included certain provisions viewed as untenable to the industry, including a two percent THC potency limit on products in order for cannabis businesses to qualify
Who is this clown?
 
Image
What do we talk about when we talk about cannabis?
Kenzi Riboulet-Zemouli and his team of researchers spoke to people in nearly 200 countries over five years. What they found could have implications for the future of global cannabis policy.
By Sam Riches

Alternate text
Kenzi Riboulet-Zemouli is an independent researcher based in Barcelona. Photo courtesy Kenzi Riboulet-Zemouli
In December of last year, the United Nations made a historic announcement.

After six decades of being grouped alongside what are considered to be the world's most dangerous drugs, cannabis and cannabis resin were removed from Schedule IVof the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. Cannabis resin is defined as "separated resin, whether crude or purified, obtained from the cannabis plant," according to an Expert Committee on Drug Dependence document.

The matter was decided in a close vote, 27-25 with one abstention, by the Commission on Narcotic Drugs. Before the vote, member states reviewed a number of recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO), which had conducted research on the matter for several years.

Closely following that work was Kenzi Riboulet-Zemouli, an independent researcher of drug policy.

“This is a huge, historic victory for us, we couldn’t hope for more,” Riboulet-Zemouli told the New York Times following the vote.

In parallel with the WHO research, Riboulet-Zemouli and a team of international researchers conducted their own work, pouring over scholarly research, clinical data, and international documents concerning cannabis policy and scheduling, and more. Throughout that process, something became clear.

Inconsistencies in cannabis terminology were abundant, and many widely used terms were also scientifically imprecise. This finding became the basis for Cannabis Ontologies I, a study published in the journal Drug Science, Policy and Law.

“The lack of clarity is comprehensive,” the paper states, “for patients, physicians, and regulators.”

Speaking to The GrowthOp from Barcelona, Riboulet-Zemouli says he was surprised how few people were following the work of the WHO as it engaged in one of the largest advances in international cannabis policy in 60 years.

“We felt it was a duty to provide them with accurate, diverse, internationally balanced information,” he says. For five years, his team engaged with the WHO and UN entities, as well as pharmacologists, epidemiologists, lawyers, bureaucrats, and more, acting as vectors of knowledge across a variety of disciplines and nearly 200 countries. They were not paid by the WHO for their efforts and, as an independent researcher, Riboulet-Zemouli relies on crowdfunding to finance the majority of his work.

He predicts that following five years of rigorous research, it will take another five years to disseminate the information. The inconsistencies with cannabis terminology became the starting point as it was one of the largest findings of their research, he says. More than three years of work went into the study.

“One of the main things that was appearing evident to us was the difficulty to match words with concepts and then with an actual product in real life. And sometimes, you have an alignment of one product, one concept, and one word, which is very clear for one particular stakeholder, but one of these three elements can be very different for another stakeholder or another person in another country,” he says. “Finding common ground for discussion was sometimes the major part of the challenge.”

He hypothesizes that the inconsistencies could stem from prohibition, with restrictions on cannabis information limiting the ability of jurisdictions and global organizations to share resources. As cannabis legalization begins to unfold on a global scale, these discrepancies are becoming more glaring.

Riboulet-Zemouli offers a few examples in the study. While appearing relatively innocuous on the surface, they illustrate just how widespread the problem is.

Take, for example, THC, the most famous cannabinoid in the plant. Around the world, it is interchangeably called ‘THC’, ‘delta-9-THC’, and ‘dronabinol,’ despite all these terms referring to different chemical entities. Or how about oil? Hemp seed oil, or hemp oil, or cannabis seed oil refer to the non-psychoactive fatty oil obtained from seeds, but oil can also refer to cannabis extracts and concentrates, such as hash oil, or butane honey, or Rick Simpson oil.

“The current increase in innovation and diversification in production, distribution, and transformation of ‘cannabis’ into medical, pharmaceutical, nutraceuticals, food, cosmetic, and adult-use products will only accentuate that tendency to confusion,” the paper states.

These are just a few examples but these inconsistencies can lead to issues with cannabis policy, Riboulet-Zemouli argues, as policies are expected to be grounded in science and consensual customs.

“The potential bias implied by weak lexica, a non-scientific nomenclature, and numerous sociocultural terminological variants, might hinder efficient decisions in the field of Cannabis policy making,” the paper states, adding that the need to establish definitions, categories, limits, and boundaries between the different products, preparations, and substances derived from cannabis has become more urgent following the WHO’s assessment.

AFP_1TO71A%20Cropped.jpg
FILE – In this file photo taken on September 04, 2018, The “Palais des Nations”, which houses the United Nations Offices, is seen at the end of the flag-lined front lawn in Geneva. Photo AFP via Getty Images
Beyond these issues, however, the inconsistencies in terminology can lead to problems that are not always apparent. Riboulet-Zemouli says the fact that the WHO took so long before undergoing its series of reviews is one of these invisible impacts.

“The lack of clarity in terms of language, and the difficulty to address the topic, or to start addressing the topic for researchers or for institutions, is a major, major impact,” he says.

Even for general cannabis consumers, confusion around terminology can be a problem. The continued and widespread use of ‘indica’ and ‘sativa’ as differentiators between cannabis products is one example.

Indica and sativa, which have “shown to have no actual correlation with phytochemical specificities of the different plant varieties” is something that is likely hampering the ability of patients to understand how different products affect them, while also impacting how physicians prescribe products, Riboulet-Zemouli says.

As more products come on the market, and more jurisdictions around the world liberalize their cannabis laws, patients and cannabis consumers may struggle with access based on some of these inconsistencies.

“With no harmonized language, it's very difficult to understand what kind of product you might need to prescribe or to be prescribed, and replicating access to that product also becomes an issue in different parts of the world,” Riboulet-Zemouli explains.

“It might be already difficult to find an adequate product with one provider, one dispensary, let's say, and imagine if you move to another place with a different system of access and also a different language, with different terms used to describe the different products without necessarily the same markers that you're used to,” he says. “The challenges are just everywhere.”

There are more 1,200 documented names just for the plant alone and advocates have argued that an unintended consequence of legalization is that it can flatten and standardize the vibrant language that has sprung up around cannabis.

Riboulet-Zemouli says the diversity of language is a positive thing but there are implications to consider.

“I just regret that in addition to the diversity [of language] we don't have a dictionary of translation,” he says, something that can render disparate global terms into one common language. “A bit like we have with species, with systematics and biomarkers,” he says, before offering the example of a cat.

“You can call a cat a cat, whatever you want to call it in your actual language, or have different words for cats, depending on if it's a fat cat, or a beautiful cat, or whatever. But you know it has its own scientific binomial theory of names.”

His issue is not with what he calls utilitarian language, but the lack of tools to discuss cannabis beyond that scope.

“Everybody uses the language that is useful for them from a particular perspective and point of view, it's okay to use utilitarian language, it's not a problem per se, the problem is not having the ability to go beyond this utilitarian aspect of language,” he explains.

“We miss this translation tool that allows us to navigate the different terms. We don't need to change the terms, we need a tool to understand the terms that people use,” he says.

The second part of the study, which proposes a way forward for cannabis terminology and cannabinoids terminology, in particular, is set to publish this year.

Riboulet-Zemouli says the implications of the UN’s removal of cannabis from Schedule IV will become more evident in the years ahead, as more countries change their approach to cannabis. Both Switzerland and Morocco, for instance, are revising their cannabis laws following the UN’s decision. And more changes are likely on the way.

The research being undertaken by Riboulet-Zemouli and his team is part of an effort to fill in missing pieces of information and give a complete picture and understanding of cannabis, he says, at a time when the global perception of the plant is beginning to shift.

“These are the missing pieces that we say, ‘Okay, if nobody researched it in the past then we will have to do it,’ because it's important for this to be known, to be understood, and to have the full picture.”
For feedback and tips, you can reach me at sriches@postmedia.com. Thanks for reading!
 

Cannabis Could Be Grown At U.S. Botanic Garden Under Congressional Lawmakers’ Request


The U.S. Botanic Garden in Washington, D.C. could for the first time in history include cannabis as part of its national plant collection if three Democrats in Congress get their way.

In a letter sent last week to the institution, Reps. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) requested that the garden include hemp in its display, noting that the low-THC version of cannabis is now federally legal and has myriad uses in food, medicine and industry.

Noting that hemp is also used to produce CBD, they suggested that “the plants might ideally be located in the ‘medicinal plants’ part of the Botanic Garden.”

“Given that hemp is legal and enjoys national, bipartisan support, now is an appropriate time for the Botanic Garden to display hemp plants,” the lawmakers wrote in the letter, which was sent on the unofficial marijuana holiday 4/20. “We understand that the display of the hemp plants would be the first time the Botanic Garden would display cannabis in its collection.”



The group stressed in their letter that while marijuana remains federally illegal, cannabis plants with less than 0.3 percent THC are classified as hemp, which Congress legalized through the 2018 farm bill. And despite decades of prohibition, they pointed out, hemp has played an important role in U.S. history.

“Hemp has a long history of cultivation in the U.S. Hemp was grown by most of the Founders, and in 2018, George Washington’s Mount Vernon Estate harvested its first hemp crop since 1799,” they wrote. “All ships in every war prior to World War II had ropes and sails made from hemp grown in the U.S. Until the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, which was found to be unconstitutional in 1969, hemp was a major agricultural commodity in the U.S.”

Since hemp was legalized federally, the market has “grown exponentially,” the lawmakers said, estimating the hemp market would be worth $26.6 billion by 2025.

While the recent request is specific to displaying low-THC hemp plants, lawmakers also hinted that further reform could make high-THC marijuana next on the list.

“While this request is specific to displaying hemp plants,” they wrote, “we note that more states and the federal government are beginning to legalize various forms of cannabis classified as marijuana.”

The lawmakers asked for a response from the executive director of the Botanic Garden by May 4.

At the federal level, Senate Democrats have indicated they plan to introduce a bill to legalize marijuana. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who has been talking up the forthcoming legislation in recent months, recently said the proposal’s language would be unveiled “in a few weeks.”

Given the difficulty of securing 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster for standalone legislation, advocates are urging leadership to pursue the policy change through a process known as budget reconciliation that would require a simple majority of 51 votes for a broader, must-pass package.

The majority leader told Marijuana Moment in an interview last week that one thing they want to avoid is to enact a policy change that’s temporary, such as attaching amendments to appropriations legislation. Schumer said their “first goal is not to settle for just partial measures.”

On the House side, Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) said recently that he plans to reintroduce his legalization bill, the Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, which cleared the chamber last year but did not advance in the Senate under GOP control.

Another factor that’s frustrating advocates is a more long-term concern: President Joe Biden opposes federal legalization, and his press secretary on Tuesday wouldn’t say whether he would sign or veto a reform bill if it’s sent to his desk. She did note, however, that his position is at odds with the proposals that congressional leaders are working on.

Read the lawmakers’ full letter on hemp in the Botanic Garden by following title link and scrolling to the bottom of the article.
 

Advocates Float New Strategy To Pass Marijuana Legalization In Senate, With Democratic Support In Question


As Senate leaders work to draft a bill to federally legalize marijuana, there’s an elephant in the room: even with Democrats in control of the chamber, the votes might not be there to enact comprehensive reform.

Recognizing the potential challenges of mustering 60 votes to overcome a filibuster for standalone legislation on the floor, advocates are urging leadership to pursue the policy change through a process known as budget reconciliation that would require a simple majority of 51 votes for a broader, must-pass package.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who is spearheading the legalization push in his chamber, didn’t rule out that possibility at a press conference last week.

Asked whether senators might try to incorporate the cannabis proposal into reconciliation, he said “you will hear in a few weeks the legislation that’ll answer” that question.

“This is an option the Marijuana Justice Coalition shared” with the majority leader, Maritza Perez, director of the office of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance, told Marijuana Moment. “The way we see it, a must-pass bill is the only vehicle that can ensure we pass a marijuana justice bill in this Senate.”

Chris Lindsey, director of government relations for the Marijuana Policy Project, told Marijuana Moment that it’s clear “Leader Schumer is taking seriously his commitment to see legalization happen at the federal level, and address the ongoing harm from prohibition.”

“We have no doubt he is looking at all vehicles that can accomplish reform,” he said.

But while going the reconciliation route might seem like a simple workaround that would relieve pressure to garner Republican supporters, the legislative process is complex, with a series of rules that limit what kind of measures can be enacted under the procedure in the first place.

The so-called Byrd rule determines whether a given proposal is an “extraneous matter” that’s not germane to the budget process. There are several criterion that are used to make that determination, including whether the legislation would add to the deficit beyond a 10-year “budget window.”

If a senator opposed to legalization wanted to block the marijuana language from being included in the broader package based on this procedural rule, they would have to raise a point of order. The Senate Parliamentarian would then make a determination, in consultation with the presiding officer of the chamber. If they deemed the language in violation of the Byrd rule, it would be stricken from the reconciliation bill.

Assuming that the forthcoming legalization measure survives a challenge under those reconciliation limitations, it’s possible it will face a separate hurdle. Under the process, any member can introduce an amendment, and they must all be considered on the floor in a lengthy process known as “vote-a-rama.”

That means, if a senator opposed to marijuana reform chooses to, they could force a vote on an amendment calling for the legalization language to be stripped, which would then require a simple majority to defeat it. That might sound easy enough given that Democrats now hold the majority, but there’s yet another complication: some members of the party have signaled that they’re not on board with federal legalization.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NJ), for example, told Politico last week that she doesn’t support legalization and that “we’re in the middle of an opioid epidemic, and the research that I’ve seen suggests that that is a way that more people get into drugs.” Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) said he thinks legalization would “cause more problems than it solves.” Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV), Bob Casey (D-PA) and Mark Kelly (D-AZ) all told the outlet that they remain undecided on the issue.

What’s more, a number of other Democratic senators such as Sens. Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) told Business Insider in March that they hadn’t looked closely enough at the issue of federal legalization to say how they would vote. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), a longtime opponent of legalization who in recent years came around to sponsoring some reform legislation, represents another question mark for Democratic leaders.

Losing any single one of those lawmakers would jeopardize the bill even it only 50 votes are required, with Vice President Kamala Harris as the tie-breaker. For any Democrat legalization loses, Schumer would have to pick up a Republican to get back to 50.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) supports cannabis reform and said he is “one of the possible gets” this session, though he questioned why his Democratic colleagues haven’t reached out to him on the issue—and his libertarian leanings could give him pause about supporting any proposal to tax marijuana and use the proceeds to repair the harms of the war on drugs.

Put simply, if senators move to incorporate legalization into a budget package via reconciliation, things could get messy—but it may be their only possible path to success given the alternative standalone route and the 60-vote threshold to end a filibuster.

Meanwhile, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) said on Tuesday that he’s “pretty confident that we could get the 50 votes of the Democrats” for broad cannabis reform, but also seemed to suggest that the bill might actually be brought to the floor under regular order and would need to overcome a filibuster.

“We’ve got to pick up another 10 votes. Now, the good news is, is that there are Republican bright red states that have legalized marijuana,” he said at a 4/20 event hosted by the ACLU of New Jersey. “And that should give us some advantage in trying to cobble together the kind of majority that we need.
.. I’m going to do everything I can to cobble together the 60 votes necessary.
 Unless of course, we somehow get rid of the filibuster, which would be wonderful.”


Justin Strekal, political director for NORML, told Marijuana Moment that no senators’ vote should be taken for granted and that supporters need to make it clear that they expect their elected officials to represent their views no matter how cannabis reform proceeds to the floor.

“As all procedural possibilities are explored, one thing is certain: far too many U.S. senators believe it to be acceptable to arrest and incarcerate Americans for marijuana possession,” he said. “Now is the time for each and every supporter of cannabis policy reform to contact their elected officials and make it clear that they will be watching.”

Democrats were cleared by the Senate parliamentarian to do another reconciliation bill this year and seem poised to pursue the option in the coming months—but cannabis isn’t the only issue that could be attached to the procedurally complicated legislation.

Drug pricing, immigration reform, climate policy and other issues are all on the table as Democrats step up their push to deliver wins on infrastructure and jobs before the midterms. House Budget Chairman John Yarmuth (D-KY) said the upcoming reconciliation package will be tantamount to a “kitchen sink” approach—throwing everything in. As such, advocates say cannabis should be included.

Despite the possible challenges, legalization advocate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) told The Washington Post that he’s open to using reconciliation to enact the reform. However, “there are a whole lot of questions out there” and “it’s a little bit more complicated” procedurally.

Schumer isn’t alone in drafting the reform legislation this session. He’s teamed up with Booker and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) to get the job done. The majority leader said the bill will be released “shortly” and put to the floor “soon.”

The majority leader told Marijuana Moment in an interview last week that one thing they want to avoid is to enact a policy change that’s temporary, such as attaching amendments to appropriations legislation. Schumer said their “first goal is not to settle for just partial measures.”

On the House side, Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) said recently that he plans to reintroduce his legalization bill, the Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, which cleared the chamber last year but did not advance in the Senate under GOP control.

Another factor that’s frustrating advocates is a more long-term concern: President Joe Biden opposes federal legalization, and his press secretary on Tuesday wouldn’t say whether he would sign or veto a reform bill if it’s sent to his desk. She did note, however, that his position is at odds with the proposals that congressional leaders are working on.
 

Bipartisan Lawmakers Want Federal Protections For Marijuana States In Next Spending Bill


A bipartisan coalition of dozens of congressional lawmakers on Thursday sent a letter urging leaders of a key committee to include provisions protecting all state, territory and tribal marijuana programs from federal interference in upcoming annual spending legislation when it is introduced.

The sign-on letter—led by Congressional Cannabis Caucus co-chairs Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Barbara Lee (D-CA), along with Reps. Tom McClintock (R-CA) and Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC)—notes the growing number of states that have legalized cannabis for medical or recreational purposes and argues that the Department of Justice should be barred from enforcing prohibition against citizens who comply with those local policies.

“Most of these [legalization] laws were decided by ballot initiatives,” the lawmakers said. “We believe that the federal government should not interfere with these programs and the will of the citizens of these states.”

To that end, the group is asking leadership in a powerful House Appropriations subcommittee to include a rider in the base bill of forthcoming spending legislation that would prevent the Justice Department from using its funds to intervene in legal, adult-use marijuana markets. They also said that an existing amendment to protect medical cannabis states should be renewed, as it has annually since 2014.

The House has approved spending bills with the broader language for the past two years, but because they weren’t attached to the base bill, they had to be introduced and voted on as amendments. That’s what the lawmakers are asking to avoid this round by including the protections from the start when the measure is first introduced.

To date, the Senate has not followed suit in approving the broad rider, and the adult-use protections have not made it into final legislation that has been signed into law.

When it comes to the narrower medical cannabis-focused protections, those have been attached to the base bill in both chambers—a sign of the non-controversial nature of the policy at this point.

Unlike the language of past years’ amendments, the provisions the House legislators are requesting this time do not explicitly list the states and territories with medical or recreational cannabis laws on the books that would benefit from the protection.

Instead, here’s the simpler language the legislators want to see incorporated into the appropriations legislation:

“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 in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used to enforce federal prohibitions involving the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of marijuana for medical purposes that are permitted by the laws of the state, the District of Columbia, or U.S. territory where the act was committed, or to prevent states, the District of Columbia, or U.S. territories from implementing their own laws that permit the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of marijuana for medical purposes.”

The letter also urges appropriators to include a new section specifying that the Justice Department can’t use its funds to prevent Indian tribes from enacting or implementing marijuana legalization. The House has approved tribal-focused amendments for the past two years, though those too did not make it into law due to the Senate winning out in bicameral negotiations.

“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.”

“We appreciate the difficult task before you and appreciate your consideration of our request,” the lawmakers wrote in the new letter.

Among the 44 total signatories are Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrod Nadler (D-NY) and Small Business Committee Chairwoman Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), along with Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), Ilhan Oman (D-MN), Ken Buck (R-CO), Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Ro Kanna (D-CA) and Dina Titus (D-NV), in addition to dozens of others.

If the requested language is adopted, it stands to reason that it will make it through the House as part of the large-scale funding legislation. But what makes 2021 different is that Democrats have a new majority in the Senate, meaning the more comprehensive provision covering states with recreational laws has a greater chance of being incorporated into the final package that’s delivered to the president.

Under GOP control, only the medical cannabis protections have been attached to the final appropriations legislation.

But in an interview with Marijuana Moment last week, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) indicated that he’s not interested in having his chamber pursue the temporary rider that needs to be renewed annually. He wants a permanent solution and will soon release a bill to end federal cannabis prohibition altogether.

“Our first goal is not to settle for just partial measures, even though that, obviously if we went to legalization, that would sort of be part of it,” he said. “We’re first going to try to get as large a piece of legislation as we can.”

That proposal may be pursued through a process known as budget reconciliation, adding it to a larger package in order to avoid having to overcome a filibuster that requires 60 votes. Even so, getting all Democrats on board with legalization is already proving challenging, as some members have signaled that they’re not in favor of the reform and other remain on the fence.

On the House side, Nadler said recently that he plans to reintroduced his legalization bill, the Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, which cleared the chamber last year but did not advance in the Senate under GOP control.

Read the congressional letter on protecting all state, territory and tribal marijuana programs from federal interference by following title link and scrolling to the bottom of the article.
 

GOP Lawmakers File Another Marijuana Research Bill For Military Veterans


A pair of Republican lawmakers on Friday introduced a congressional bill meant to promote research into the medical potential of marijuana for military veterans.

This is the latest piece of legislation focused on cannabis and veterans that’s been filed this Congress. It comes one day after a bipartisan Senate bill was introduced—and on the same day that House members are set to file companion legislation—to require the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to conduct clinical trials into marijuana for the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and chronic pain in the population.

Similarly, the new proposal from Reps. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA) and Nancy Mace (R-SC) would give VA a research mandate. The Veterans Cannabis Analysis, Research, and Effectiveness (CARE) Act states that the department “shall conduct and support research relating to the efficacy and safety of forms of cannabis” for chronic pain, PTSD and “other conditions the Secretary determines appropriate.”



“For too long, veterans with mental or physical ailments have either gone untreated or have been prescribed addictive prescription medication that have caused their health to further deteriorate,” Miller-Meeks said in a press release. “We need to give veterans and their doctors more access to effective treatments, not fewer.”

The legislation specifies that the studies must involve plants and extracts, at least three varieties of cannabis with different concentrations of THC and CBD and “varying methods of cannabis delivery, including topical application, combustable and non-combustable inhalation, and ingestion.”

VA would first have to submit a research plan to House and Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committees and make any requests to support the studies. Over the course of five years after the bill is enacted, VA must send annual reports on its progress to the panels.



“Many of our veterans face an invisible, life-long struggle to come to terms with horrifying experiences they endured while protecting the rest of us. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder can impact every aspect of one’s life, and sadly the current treatments can lead to even greater problems for veterans,” Mace said. “Medical cannabis offers another valuable tool for doctors working to help our vets overcome PTSD. To ignore this potential would be a disservice to veterans and their sacrifices for our nation.”

The other veterans-focused marijuana legislation that was introduced in the Senate on Thursday—the VA Medical Cannabis Research Act—explicitly mandates that VA launch a series of clinical trials on medical marijuana for PTSD and chronic pain.

When it comes to the chronic pain trials, the agency would have to look at the impact of marijuana consumption on osteopathic pain, opioid use and dosage, benzodiazepine use and dosage, alcohol use, inflammation, sleep quality, agitation and quality of life.

For the PTSD-specific studies, VA would examine the extent to which cannabis affects basic symptoms of the condition, the use and dosage of benzodiazepines, alcohol use, mood, anxiety, social functioning, agitation, suicidal ideation and sleep quality.

A separate House companion to that Senate bill is also expected to be filed on Friday by Reps. Lou Correa (D-CA) and Peter Meijer (R-MI).

Last year, the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee approved the VA Medical Cannabis Research Act, as well as a separate proposal to allow VA doctors to issue medical cannabis recommendations to their patients in states where it’s legal, but they did not advance to the floor.

Earlier this month, a bipartisan coalition of congressional lawmakers reintroduced bills that would federally legalize medical cannabis for military veterans.

That bill is being sponsored by Reps. Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Dave Joyce (R-OH), both co-chairs of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, in the House, along with nine other original cosponsors. On the Senate side, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) is leading the proposal, and he’s joined by five other lawmakers, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

The Veterans Medical Marijuana Safe Harbor Act would temporarily allow veterans to legally possess and use cannabis under federal law, as recommended by doctors in accordance with state law. Physicians with VA would also be allowed for the first time to issue such recommendations. Further, it would require VA to study the therapeutic potential of marijuana for pain and reducing opioid misuse.

The House and Senate have both previously approved annual spending bills containing riders blocking VA from punishing doctors for writing medical marijuana recommendations, but no such legislation has yet been enacted into law.

Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL) in January introduced a proposal aimed at ensuring that military veterans aren’t penalized for using medical cannabis in compliance with state law. It would also codify that VA doctors are allowed to discuss the risks and benefits of marijuana with their patients.

VA doctors are currently permitted to discuss cannabis with patients and document their usage in medical records, and those veteran patients are already shielded by agency policy from losing their benefits for marijuana use—but the bill would enshrine those policies into federal statute so they could not be administratively changed in the future.

Meanwhile, congressional leaders are working to end federal marijuana prohibition altogether.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) are in the process of crafting a comprehensive legalization bill, and Schumer said it would be placed on the floor “soon.”

On the House side, Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) said recently that he plans to reintroduced his legalization bill, the Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, which cleared the chamber last year but did not advance in the Senate under GOP control.

Read the new marijuana research bill for veterans by following title link and scrolling to the bottom of the article.
 

Feds Announce New Standard THC Dose To Be Used In Marijuana Research, Effective Immediately


A top federal health agency announced on Friday that it has determined the standard dose of THC that should be used for marijuana studies moving forward.

The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) said in a notice to researchers that there is a “new requirement to measure and report results using a standard THC unit in all applicable human subjects’ research,” which is effective immediately. That standard unit is five milligrams of THC.

NIDA said that inconsistencies in measuring and reporting THC exposure “has been a major limitation in studies of cannabis use, making it difficult to compare findings among studies.” Therefore, a “standardized measure of THC in cannabis products is necessary to advance research by providing greater comparability across studies of both its adverse effects and potential medical uses.”

The agency recognized, however, that “the same quantity of THC may have different effects based on route of administration, other product constituents, an individual’s genetic make-up and metabolic factors, prior exposure to cannabis, and other factors.”

But by creating a standard THC dose, it will nonetheless be easier to compare studies that involve THC exposure, which is a “high priority” of NIDA and the National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse.

“It is not the intent of this Notice to prescribe the quantity of THC that is permissible for use in research projects. Indeed, investigators are free to use more or less than 5mg of THC as appropriate for their study,” the notice states. “However, for applicable studies, investigators will be required to report the quantity of THC using the standard unit. Investigators may also report the quantity of THC in other units (e.g., milligrams) as appropriate.”

This comes one year after NIDA, which is part of the National Institutes of Health, first solicited feedback on a proposal to standardize THC content in cannabis research.

The agency said that it carried out “extensive stakeholder input,” along with “consultation with experts in the field,” to arrive at the decision to set the standard unit at 5 mg.

“This guidance will apply to applications where THC is a focus of the research,” the new notice continues. “Applicants are responsible for determining whether use of this standard unit is applicable to their research and for determining best approach to applying it in their research applications. A justification should be provided for research that does not propose to use the standard unit.”

NIDA Director Nora Volkow discussed the importance of establishing a standard THC unit in commentary published in the journal Addiction last year.

Citing research that calls for a five milligram THC standard, Volkow said she agreed with the study’s conclusion despite complicating factors. Those factors include potential issues related to the effect of having cannabis products with the same THC level but different concentrations of other cannabinoids such as CBD.

The complexities in research beyond having a standardized measure of THC “hardly negate the value” of setting one, Volkow said in her commentary. “In fact, having and using such a standard is a prerequisite for comparing the effects of various cannabis products on THC bioavailability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacological effects, which is knowledge fundamental to studies pertaining to medical use of cannabis.”

“Although cannabis remains an illicit substance in the United States, the expanded legalization by states requires us to develop the knowledge base that can help states develop policies to minimize risk from cannabis exposures, such as limits on the THC content of cannabis products,” she said.

Volkow has been vocal about the importance of streamlining and improving research into cannabis, and she’s laid partial blame for the the lack of studies on marijuana’s restrictive federal classification.
 
YEP= THC , that illicit compound ... more tests and more NIDA needed for THC as they have yet to do anything after 45 /50- years of sole control of that compound ... they only sponsor like 2% of their research to actual medical study .. and that gets outsourced ... America only looks at smoke ( marijuana)
 

Sponsored by

VGoodiez 420EDC
Back
Top