Law The Cannabis Chronicles - Misc Cannabis News

[Baron23]

"which is seen as the biggest step towards federal legalization in more than half a century."

I continue to believe that rescheduling is utter BS and this is NOT a big step toward legalization. To be federally legal you would have to have a Dr prescription (good luck with that) and then find a FDA/DEA authorized pharmacy that carries weed (good luck with that also).

To me, rescheduling just provides partisan campaign talking points and does zippo to actually make access to cannabis Federally legal.

And, with the process described below...I'd be luck to still be alive by the time this process is brought to conclusion.

Cheers

Update on the DEA's efforts to reschedule Cannabis​

DEA Moves Forward with Cannabis Rescheduling Amid Public Comment and Legal Challenges.​

As readers of this column know, earlier this year the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) finally acted on President Biden's call to reschedule cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which is seen as the biggest step towards federal legalization in more than half a century. We previously summarized these changes and their potential implications in our September 2023, opens new tab and May 2024, opens new tab articles.


Although the process — which the DEA is pursuing via a rulemaking — will not be completed before the Presidential Election in November (which may bring a shift in priorities at the DEA), it is worthwhile to provide an update on the current status of these efforts.


Current status of rescheduling and next steps


Since the announcement in April 2024 that it had agreed with the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) earlier recommendation to reschedule cannabis, the DEA opened a 60-day public comment period for the public to weigh in on the proposed rule. That window closed on July 22, 2024. Close to 43,000 comments were submitted from an array of stakeholders, including anti-legalization activists, cannabis industry advocates, state cannabis regulators, medical professionals, researchers, and law enforcement officials.


Barely a month later, on Aug. 27, the DEA announced that it will hold a hearing before an administrative law judge on the cannabis rescheduling proposal — a process effectively resembling a trial that could take months, if not years, to complete. The hearing is currently set for Dec. 2, 2024, after the election.


Stakeholders interested in speaking at the hearing, have until Sept. 25, 2024, to register their request in accordance with the Notice of Hearing, opens new tab. The length of the hearing will depend on how many parties are permitted to testify. Considering the tens of thousands of comments received, this could be a fairly large number.


Once the hearing is completed, the presiding administrative law judge will write and file a report on the testimony provided. Then, the DEA still needs to review the report and write its final rulemaking, which must take into consideration all relevant materials presented during the public comment period.


It must also address significant issues raised in the comments and provide a reasoned explanation for its decisions. Once that is completed, the final rulemaking will be published in the Federal Register. It is entirely possible that the final rulemaking could face legal challenges prior to its effective date (which, at a minimum, will be 30 days following publication). Alternatively, the DEA may feel the need to reopen the public comment period based on new information received during the hearing, which would result in further delays.


Growing support for rescheduling and legalization


While the rescheduling proposal grinds its way through the administrative review process, research continues to bolster the case for rescheduling, showing the efficacy of cannabis in treating chronic pain, epilepsy, and other conditions, and suggesting a lower risk of abuse than previously assumed — points highlighted by federal health regulators as part of their recommendation to reschedule cannabis.


For example, a recent study, opens new tab published in the journal PLoS One found that patients with chronic health conditions, including anxiety, depression, or chronic pain, saw significant improvements in their overall quality of life during the first three months of medical cannabis use.


There has also been a notable increase in bipartisan support for rescheduling cannabis, reflecting broader societal changes. As we've noted in previous articles, a growing number of lawmakers, medical professionals, and advocacy groups have voiced their support, pressuring the DEA to act.


Indeed, a recent analysis, opens new tab of the public comments conducted by cannabis data firm Headset highlights this fact. Headset's analysis found that 92.45% of the comments were in favor of reclassifying cannabis under federal law, while only 7.55% of responses were against reclassification.


Ongoing challenges and uncertainties


Despite the potential benefits, several challenges persist, including regulatory hurdles, complex implementation logistics, and continued opposition from certain law enforcement groups and conservative lawmakers.


For example, the House Appropriations Committee recently approved an amendment to a funding bill that would essentially block the current Administration's ongoing efforts to reschedule cannabis and ease restrictions on the drug under federal law. Under the amendment approved by the Republican-led committee, the Department of Justice would be blocked from spending federal funds to reschedule or (de-schedule) cannabis under federal law. U.S. Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT 3rd District) introduced an amendment to remove the provisions seeking to block rescheduling, but the committee defeated the proposal by a vote of 20-30.


Moreover, given the slow pace of the rescheduling process, there is a risk that the incoming Presidential Administration could change course or otherwise insert themselves in the process. It seems unlikely that a Harris Administration would significantly change course, as rescheduling cannabis during her first term in office would be a significant achievement, leaving the possibility for further reform in a second term.


For Donald Trump, the possibilities are less clear, as the former President's position on cannabis keeps changing. Most recently, in a Sept. 8, 2024, Truth Social post, opens new tab, Trump expressed support for a ballot initiative in his home state of Florida that would legalize cannabis for adults (although he stopped short of formally endorsing the measure). However, if he once again chooses a conservative attorney general along the lines of Jeff Sessions, that could pose significant challenges.


In addition, the complexities of aligning federal policy with state-level cannabis regulations remain a significant challenge. While rescheduling could streamline research and access, Schedule III drugs are regulated (and tested) more stringently than cannabis under many existing state laws (saying nothing of the unlicensed, but often tolerated, market). Many cannabis advocates are also concerned with the long-term implications for smaller players who cannot compete with well-financed new entrants from the pharmaceutical, tobacco, and alcohol markets.


Finally, while rescheduling would bring some immediate relief to participants in the state-legal medical and recreational cannabis programs by taking cannabis out of the exclusion of Internal Revenue Code Section 280E (which precludes tax deductions for trafficking in Schedule I and Schedule II substances, but not Schedule III), Congressional action is still needed overall to bring federal cannabis policy in line with state policy.


For example, a recent Legal Sidebar, opens new tab published by the Congressional Research Service concluded that rescheduling cannabis is unlikely by itself to eliminate the legal risks of financial institutions serving cannabis businesses and is, thus, not likely to increase most state-legal cannabis companies' access to financial services without other legal changes.


Conclusion


The DEA's efforts to reschedule cannabis mark a significant shift in federal drug policy. While reclassification represents a move towards aligning federal policy with contemporary scientific understanding, public sentiment and, to some extent, state laws, it also introduces new complexities and challenges.


As the DEA finalizes its review, stakeholders from across the political spectrum are closely monitoring developments. The outcome of this process will likely have profound implications for cannabis research, medical access, and regulatory frameworks, shaping the future of cannabis policy in the United States.

 

[Baron23]

Wait....say it ain't so....a politician not delivering on a campaign promise....I'm gobsmacked. Just gobsmacked.

Biden is the ultimate lame duck and I don't think this is actually ever going to happen....but I'm often wrong. lol

Biden Faces Growing Pressure to Deliver on Cannabis Clemency Promises​

Biden promised no jail time for weed, he's running out of time to pardon cannabis convicts.​

With the president's decision to drop out of the race, he has effectively begun a longer lame-duck period, which is historically when most presidential clemency grants have occurred.


For most of U.S. history, presidents since George Washington have been unwavering in the use of their clemency power. They understood their actions not only as a way to remedy overly harsh sentences but also to help restore public faith in the justice system.


President Joe Biden now has a chance to use his clemency powers to secure – and, in some ways, correct ‒ his legacy on criminal justice reform.


The Biden administration has made it clear that cannabis reform, especially as a racial justice issue, is a priority and one that will energize the electorate. Nevertheless, the president has only granted 1.4% of submitted clemency petitions.

Biden has not freed anyone in prison for cannabis crimes​

Despite positive use of his clemency powers like providing record relief to almost 13,000 people with his expanded categorical pardons for cannabis possession, President Biden has failed to release a single person in prison for cannabis via commutation.


With his decision to drop his bid for reelection, the president has effectively begun a longer lame-duck period, which is historically when most presidential clemency grants have occurred.


To truly make an impact that will secure his legacy – and sway voters – the president needs to take further action to release the estimated 3,000 individuals still incarcerated in our federal prison system for cannabis.


In other words, it’s time for President Biden to keep his promise that “no one should be jailed for using or possessing marijuana.”


Clemency is popular:

• 84% of registered voters support the release of people serving time for crimes that are no longer considered illegal under the law, according to poll commissioned by the ACLU.
• A Data for Progress survey of likely voters found that 72% approve of President Biden’s pardons for nonviolent offenses.
• 62% support their governor pardoning state-level convictions for similar cannabis offenses, according to a YouGov.com poll.

This is evidenced by the positive reception to governors using their clemency powers, like the historic action that Maryland Gov. Wes Moore took in June to pardon more than 175,000 cannabis possession and paraphernalia charges.


Yet other Marylanders like Jonathan Wall, who has been incarcerated since 2020 on federal cannabis charges, can only get that type of clemency relief from the president.


While there may be political concerns perceived to limit President Biden’s ability to grant commutations before Election Day, even then-President Donald Trump granted a few just weeks before the 2020 presidential election. In his four White House years, he granted commutations to 16 people for 27 cannabis offenses, some of whom were released from prison.


While President Biden has granted clemency to almost 13,000, he has only pardoned 11 individuals, who had already served time, and commuted the sentences of five convicted of nonviolent drug offenses.

We've sent Biden a list of individuals who deserve clemency​

With a historically gridlocked Congress, we know lasting change requires legislation. However, in the absence of durable reform, President Biden can serve as the north star for justice.


It’s also worth noting that every nominee on both political parties' presidential tickets hails from a state with some form of legalized cannabis: former President Trump's New York, Vice President Kamala Harris' California, Republican Sen. JD Vance's Ohio and Democratic Gov. Tim Walz's Minnesota.


If President Biden is looking for the next batch of candidates for clemency, he has already been sent a list of deserving individuals, almost half of whom identify as Black, and whose petitions are sitting with the Office of the Pardon Attorney.


Many of these candidates have sat in prison cells for decades, or even for life, convicted of an activity that is no longer a crime, while thousands of others build business and create wealth doing the same thing.


All of these deserving individuals could be released by President Biden with a simple stroke of a pen, should he choose to act.


But he must act soon, because time is running out. Now is the time for President Biden to secure his legacy on cannabis, and on criminal justice reform.

 

[Baron23]

Federal Appeals Court Schedules Oral Argument In Case Seeking To Overturn U.S. Marijuana Prohibition​

A federal appeals court has scheduled oral arguments for a case challenging the U.S. government's ban on marijuana for December 5, just three days after a separate hearing on the Biden administration’s proposed reclassification of marijuana.​

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit released a scheduling notice for the lawsuit on Wednesday, stating that the arguments will take place at 9:30 a.m. in a Boston courthouse. The court clerk also mentioned that live audio access to these arguments will be available to the public and emphasized that the case would not be postponed or delayed unless for serious reasons.

The lawsuit, brought to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Western Division, involves multi-state operator Verano Holdings Corp. and Massachusetts-based cannabis companies Canna Provisions and Wiseacre Farm, along with Treevit CEO Gyasi Sellers. These parties contend that the government's ongoing ban on marijuana is unconstitutional.

The companies argue in their appeal that over recent decades, Congress has "abandoned the notion that federal control of state-regulated marijuana is vital."

“Congress has ceased its efforts to eradicate marijuana and has explicitly exempted it from federal enforcement under certain conditions,” states the companies’ opening brief, citing a congressional budget provision that prohibits federal funds from being used to interfere with state-legal medical marijuana, as well as the decision by federal lawmakers to permit marijuana legalization in the District of Columbia.

Given these developments, the brief argues that “the CSA’s prohibition on state-regulated marijuana cannot be justified today.”

 

[Baron23]

Rescheduling Cannabis: Are We Entering A New Era?​

This article examines what rescheduling cannabis would involve, the implications for various sectors, and the potential roadblocks that could arise along the way.​

The rescheduling of cannabis has become a hotly debated issue at the intersection of science, medicine, and policy in the US. For decades, cannabis has been classified as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of 1970. This categorization places it alongside substances such as heroin, indicating a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use. As a result, cannabis research has been heavily restricted, and its medical applications have remained largely underexplored. However, mounting evidence of the plant’s therapeutic benefits, coupled with a shift in public opinion, has driven renewed discussions on reclassifying cannabis to a lower schedule. This article examines what rescheduling cannabis would involve, the implications for various sectors, and the potential roadblocks that could arise along the way.

What Does Rescheduling Cannabis Mean?​

Rescheduling cannabis means changing its classification within the CSA, which organizes drugs into five schedules based on their medical value, abuse potential, and safety profile. Schedule I is the most restrictive, denoting substances with no accepted medical use and a high risk of abuse. Moving cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule II or III, for example, would reflect a recognition of its medical utility while still maintaining regulatory controls to prevent misuse.


In contrast to rescheduling, de-scheduling would involve removing cannabis from the CSA entirely, effectively treating it similarly to substances like alcohol or tobacco, which are regulated under different frameworks. While full de-scheduling has been advocated by some, rescheduling appears to be a more politically feasible approach, maintaining federal oversight while allowing for greater flexibility in research and medical application.

When Will Rescheduling Happen?​

Several significant developments predicted that momentum was building toward rescheduling cannabis. In recent years, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved Epidiolex, a cannabis-derived drug used to treat certain forms of epilepsy, signaling a shift in how the federal government views cannabis-based therapies. In 2023, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommended rescheduling cannabis to Schedule III, propelling the discussion forward. By May of 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register to initiate rulemaking for the rescheduling of cannabis. While there is no set timeline for rescheduling, experts predict that the shift could happen within the year, especially given the increasing pressure from states that have legalized cannabis for medical or recreational use. However, political factors, including opposition from some lawmakers and advocacy groups, could still delay the process.

Benefits of Rescheduling​

Rescheduling cannabis could unlock numerous benefits for various stakeholders, particularly in the realms of medical research, healthcare, and public policy.


1. Expanded Medical Research


One of the most significant advantages of rescheduling cannabis is the potential for expanded scientific research. As a Schedule I drug, cannabis is subject to strict regulatory controls that have made it difficult for researchers to study its potential therapeutic effects. The current classification requires researchers to obtain special licenses, navigate bureaucratic red tape, and source cannabis from limited, government-approved suppliers, all of which have stifled progress.


Moving cannabis to a less restrictive schedule would lower some of these barriers, allowing scientists to explore its potential in treating a range of conditions, from chronic pain and anxiety to multiple sclerosis and cancer-related symptoms. Rescheduling would also facilitate clinical trials, providing a clearer understanding of cannabis's efficacy, dosage, and long-term effects.


2. Increased Patient Access


For patients, particularly those in states where medical cannabis is not yet legal, rescheduling could improve access to cannabis-based treatments. A reclassification to Schedule II or III would make cannabis eligible for prescription under federal law, allowing doctors to prescribe it in a controlled and regulated manner. This could benefit patients suffering from conditions for which conventional treatments have proven inadequate or have significant side effects.


Rescheduling could also pave the way for insurance coverage of cannabis-based medications, making these treatments more affordable for patients who currently rely on expensive out-of-pocket purchases through state-licensed dispensaries.


3. Standardized Regulation and Quality Control


Rescheduling cannabis would likely lead to greater standardization and quality control in the production and distribution of cannabis-based products. Currently, the patchwork of state regulations results in inconsistent product quality and safety standards, with some states imposing rigorous testing requirements and others lacking comprehensive oversight. A shift to a lower schedule would bring cannabis more in line with other pharmaceuticals, ensuring that products meet federal safety, potency, and labeling requirements.

Potential Drawbacks of Rescheduling​

While the rescheduling of cannabis offers many potential benefits, it is not without challenges. Some concerns include regulatory complexities, commercialization risks, and public health implications.





1. Regulatory Hurdles


Rescheduling cannabis would introduce new regulatory challenges, particularly in aligning federal and state laws. While federal rescheduling could make cannabis available for medical purposes nationwide, it may conflict with existing state-level recreational cannabis laws. States that have fully legalized cannabis could face challenges in reconciling their regulatory frameworks with new federal controls. Additionally, federal agencies like the FDA would need to establish guidelines for the approval, marketing, and distribution of cannabis-based drugs, which could be a lengthy and contentious process.


2. Risks of Commercialization


Rescheduling could open the door to increased commercialization of cannabis, raising concerns about corporate control, product pricing, and the potential for profit-driven motives to overshadow public health interests. Large pharmaceutical companies may dominate the market, potentially squeezing out smaller businesses and local growers. Additionally, there is concern that aggressive marketing tactics could lead to an increase in recreational use, especially among vulnerable populations, despite tighter controls under rescheduling.


3. Public Health Concerns


Some public health experts warn that rescheduling cannabis could lead to unintended consequences, such as increased use among adolescents and the general population. While a lower schedule would allow for more research on the therapeutic benefits of cannabis, it could also result in the perception that cannabis is safer than it truly is, especially for recreational use. As with alcohol and tobacco, there is a risk that rescheduling could normalize cannabis consumption, potentially leading to increased dependency and misuse.

Can Rescheduling Be Blocked?​

Despite the growing support for rescheduling, there remain political and legal hurdles that could block or delay the process. Some members of Congress, law enforcement agencies, and anti-drug advocacy groups oppose any move to reclassify cannabis, arguing that it could lead to increased substance abuse and complicate efforts to regulate other illicit drugs. Additionally, some industries, such as pharmaceuticals and alcohol, may resist cannabis rescheduling due to concerns about competition.


Legal challenges could also emerge, particularly in relation to state-federal conflicts. States with strict cannabis laws or outright prohibitions may seek to challenge federal rescheduling, further complicating the landscape. Moreover, public opinion remains divided, with some segments of the population still associating cannabis with criminal activity and moral decay.

Next Steps​

The DEA accepted public comment and requests for hearing participation until September 30, 2024. The hearing is set for December 2, 2024. After the completion of the hearing and public comment period, the DEA will assess all of the information that has been gathered and finalize a ruling. The final rule will be submitted in a report to Congress. Congress will then have 60 days to review the rule. This could advance or delay the rule depending on Congress.

Conclusion​

The rescheduling of cannabis marks a turning point in the way society, science, and the law approach this complex substance. While the shift is likely to unlock vast opportunities for medical research and patient care, it also comes with its own set of challenges. As the federal government inches closer to reclassification, stakeholders in healthcare, law, and public policy will need to navigate the benefits and risks of a new era in cannabis regulation. Whether rescheduling happens smoothly or is met with opposition, it will undoubtedly reshape the landscape of cannabis research and its role in modern medicine. A full review of the background, current state, and updates on cannabis rescheduling can be found in the Federal Register (1).

 

[Baron23]

I'm posting this for humor. Christie has ZERO idea what Trump will do, Trump has ZERO to do with Christie, and IMO this is just Christie trying to stay more relevant that just from appearances on The View.

Now, would I like to see MJ totally descheduled....of course I would. Do I think moving it to schedule III, which still requires a prescription and be available via a pharmacy, as a flawed and highly problematic non-solution...yes I do. Do I have any idea at all what Trump and the GOP will do on this subject...nope, not a clue.

Cheers

Chris Christie Says Trump Will Remove Federal Restrictions On Marijuana, Find 'Sweet Spot' For Crypto Regulation​

"The U.S. government has got to get its act together and decide what it really thinks on this issue," says​

In an exclusive conversation with Benzinga Cannabis facilitated by Covers.com, Christie outlines his perspectives on the future of cannabis regulation and cryptocurrency adoption, framing both within a broader trend of deregulation he expects to see under Trump's leadership. As the country moves forward, Christie believes cannabis and crypto are poised to experience significant changes though each industry will need to navigate its own unique challenges.

Christie On Cannabis: ‘Trump Will Attempt To Deschedule’​

Christie begins by tackling the complexities surrounding cannabis regulation, a topic he's been openly conservative about throughout his political career. Although he's traditionally opposed to federal legalization, Christie notes a potential shift under President-elect Donald Trump. "What I suspect he would really like to do is get it downgraded by the DEA so that it’s not illegal," Christie says. Cannabis remains a Schedule I substance, making it federally illegal despite a growing wave of state-level legalization. For Christie, the legal status presents an obstacle for the industry, particularly regarding banking and financial services. "The trouble the cannabis industry has now is that a lot of people still won't do business with them, because the proceeds are tainted by the fact they are created through a drug that is illegal in the United States."


Christie suggests that descheduling cannabis—removing it from the DEA's list of controlled substances—could provide a workable solution. By changing its classification, he believes, the federal government could make way for legitimate business operations without directly endorsing legalization. "What I think Trump will attempt to do, which I don't favor, is change marijuana to a non-scheduled drug that wouldn’t be illegal, and then banks and other institutions would be more free to do business with cannabis store owners and entrepreneurs," he says. This stance marks a shift in Christie's approach, where he appears to reconcile his conservative views on cannabis with a pragmatic view of the industry's needs.

 

[Baron23]

This guy is not the first researcher to sue the DEA over this type of issue. IIRC, in the other suit I am aware of, the researcher was a woman. No idea what happened to that case.

Researcher Sues DEA Over Marijuana Rescheduling Process​

A researcher has filed a lawsuit against the Drug Enforcement Administration, accusing the agency of multiple legal violations in its process of marijuana rescheduling.​

David Heldreth, researcher and CEO of psychedelic research and development company Panacea Plant Sciences, filed a complaint last week in the U.S. District Court for Western Washington against the Department of Justice, Attorney General Merrick Garland, the DEA, its Administrator Anne Milgram, and DEA Judge John J. Mulrooney II.


Heldreth alleges multiple violations in the DEA’s recent marijuana scheduling process and seeks injunctive and declaratory relief.


The process to reschedule marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act began in 2022 when President Joe Biden directed federal agencies to reconsider marijuana’s classification.


Marijuana is currently classified as a Schedule I drug, indicating no accepted medical use and high abuse potential. Rescheduling it to Schedule III would recognize its medical uses and lower abuse potential, similar to drugs like ketamine and anabolic steroids, which have moderate to low dependence risks.


This change would also remove marijuana from Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code, which currently prohibits businesses involved in the cultivation, production, or sale of Schedule I drugs from deducting operating expenses for tax purposes.


In April 2024, the DEA agreed with the Department of Health and Human Services’ recommendation to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III, easing restrictions on the marijuana industry.


Following this, the DEA opened a 62-day public comment period, which closed on July 22, and received around 43,000 comments from diverse stakeholders, including cannabis advocates, medical professionals, and law enforcement officials.

 

[Baron23]

FFS....good god I hate the tight ass prohibitionists...particularly prohibitionist politicians who are, IMO, almost all of which are total and complete hypocrites. Wanna bet how many of these oh-so virtuous prohibitionists drink like fish while washing down a few mood altering pharmaceuticals?

"The rescheduling rule “fails to provide adequate science and data to support moving marijuana to schedule III"

How the fuck would Thune know? Did he do a peer review of the science? I mean, his entire work career has been in government (yeah, a lifelong parasite) so what..that's now good qualifications for a science reviewer (FFS!).

Hey, Thune...this one's for you:

Newly Elected Republican Senate Majority Leader Opposes Marijuana Legalization, Rescheduling And Industry Banking Access​

Senate Republicans on Wednesday elected a new majority leader who not only opposes legalizing marijuana but has also called for a reversal of the Biden administration’s plan to reschedule cannabis and has criticized Democrats for working to increase the industry’s access to banking services.​

Thune, who defeated Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Rick Scott (R-FL) in an election for the leadership slot, joined other GOP lawmakers in a letter in July challenging the current administration’s marijuana rescheduling push, urging that the policy proposal be trashed.

The rescheduling rule “fails to provide adequate science and data to support moving marijuana to schedule III and should not have been signed or published,” the letter Thune signed says, calling it “irresponsible” for federal health officials to “make this determination when emerging research shows that there are significant health concerns associated with marijuana use.”

The letter details Thune’s and other Republican lawmakers’ concerns about marijuana’s health effects, suggesting that there is a “clear association between cannabis use and psychosis, anxiety, cognitive failures, respiratory adverse events, cancer, cardiovascular outcomes and gastrointestinal disorders.”

It also claims that “sexual disfunction was twice as high in men who used marijuana” and that “marijuana use among veterans with PTSD was associated with worse PTSD symptoms, more violent behavior, and alcohol use.”



Beyond criticizing cannabis use and policy reform, the letter Thune signed further calls into question whether marijuana has any medical value.

“Medical marijuana dispensaries sell edibles and vapes that come in flavors like passion raspberry, blueberry calm, wild cherry, and sour apple,” it says. “Pretending that these products are medicine that can treat health conditions is doing a disservice to Americans.”

“It remains the case that marijuana has no currently accepted medical use,” Thune and his Republican colleague wrote. “The fact that states have labeled marijuana as ‘medicine’ does not change the nature of the drug… We urge you to withdraw this proposal and maintain marijuana as a schedule I drug.”



Separately, as Senate Democrats moved to advance a marijuana legalization bill in 2021, Thune said that cannabis reform is “something we’ll probably have to grapple with here.” But he’s consistently opposed even modest proposals to allow marijuana industry banking.

Earlier this year, Thune said attaching cannabis banking legislation to an aviation bill would be “a non-starter,” noting that Republican opposition to the idea is “very strong.”

He called the then-Democratic-controlled House’s proposal to include marijuana banking reform in a large-scale coronavirus relief bill “crazy stuff” in 2020, complaining in a floor speech that the text of the underlying legislation mentions “cannabis” more times than “jobs.”

 

[Baron23]

"The president-elect’s attorney general pick was one of the most pro-cannabis lawmakers on Capitol Hill."

This ^^ goes under the category of "who would have thunk?" This may really belong in the weird cannabis news subforum....but screw it, its here.

This industry is high on the thought of Matt Gaetz as attorney general​

The president-elect’s attorney general pick was one of the most pro-cannabis lawmakers on Capitol Hill.


There’s one group that’s thrilled with Donald Trump’s embattled pick for attorney general: weed companies.

Trump’s first administration took an adversarial approach to cannabis policy, and the industry worried a second term could roll back the few advances made during the Biden administration or target cannabis users and companies once again.

But then came Matt Gaetz.

Few lawmakers on Capitol Hill have taken a more pro-cannabis stance than Gaetz, and his selection has left the weed industry feeling like it’s Christmas morning.

“He’s very vocal on this issue, and he’s on our side,” said Boris Jordan, CEO of Curaleaf, the largest cannabis company in America. “Sometimes it takes an unpleasant person to get something radical done.”

More than half of Americans live in a state where recreational cannabis is legal, but the industry is hampered by the lack of federal legalization and regulations. Companies face challenges accessing banking services, high federal tax rates and a ban on interstate commerce, some of which the DOJ has the power to address.

The Biden administration began a process two years ago to lessen federal restrictions on marijuana, and the Trump administration will either shepherd it over the finish line or derail it. The attorney general is key in that process, and the industry was hoping for someone who would not be as combative to the weed industry as attorneys general Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr were in the last Trump administration.


“That bodes well for the industry and understanding that a solution needs to be brought to bear,” former GOP Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner, who championed federal cannabis policy changes during his time on Capitol Hill, said on Friday. Gardner met with Gaetz about cannabis policy during their time in Congress, and said he was “very knowledgeable [and] understood the issues at stake.”


Cannabis stocks shot up immediately after Gaetz’s nomination was announced on Wednesday, a sign of the industry’s optimism that he could bring about much-needed policy changes. It’s a surprising development for an industry disappointed by lawmakers in Washington, D.C. after high hopes that 2020’s Democratic trifecta would bring progress.

Recreational cannabis legalization enjoys support among more than 60 percent of the country, including about half of Republicans. But despite bipartisan support on Capitol Hill for piecemeal legislation to help the cannabis industry access banking services more easily — including backing from Majority Leader Chuck Schumer — only a research bill has passed during four years of Democratic Senate control.


Trump changed the game when he came out strongly in favor of Florida’s marijuana legalization referendum — which ultimately failed — during this election cycle, and the weed world has been waiting to see if his appointees would reflect that stance.

“The choice of Gaetz signals to me and many of my colleagues that [Trump is] going to follow through on his campaign promises,” said David Culver of the U.S. Cannabis Council, a trade group. “[Gaetz has] been involved in all the major pieces of cannabis reform that have surfaced over the years.”

The reaction of cannabis advocates in the criminal justice reform space — who uniformly requested anonymity to candidly discuss their views of Gaetz’s nomination — was less enthusiastic.

The cannabis advocacy world, which leans strongly progressive, has a long-standing aversion to Gaetz, originating with his guest to the 2018 State of the Union — a man accused of denying the holocaust and promoting white nationalism.

“It’s horrible but great at the same damn time,” texted one legalization advocate, who wished to remain anonymous because they may need to work with Gaetz in the future. “We are gonna get EVERYTHING we want.”

A number of these advocates told POLITICO as far back as 2019 that they would not answer questions about Gaetz’s involvement in the policy space. And two advocates and one former Hill staffer told POLITICO this week that they stopped meeting with Gaetz and his staff about cannabis policy after the Department of Justice launched a sex trafficking investigation into Gaetz. (The investigation has since been dropped, though a House ethics probe into the matter continued. Gaetz has denied the allegations.)

They could not deny, however, that Gaetz voted for and introduced legislation on cannabis policy — including amendments to allow use of cannabis products by active military members. And most of those same advocates are now acknowledging the likelihood of working with Gaetz if he is confirmed as AG because of what he could do for their issue.

“He’s no longer one of 435 … he’s in a very prominent role,” one legalization advocate explained. “A lot of this is very, very bad but in the narrow scope of drug policy, there might be room for making things better.”

Of course, Gaetz still faces a very difficult confirmation battle. Anti-legalization groups, meanwhile, are pointing to Gaetz’s vote against recreational legalization in Florida as a sign he may not be as amenable to the industry as widely believed.


Lawmakers question Gaetz's confirmability as attorney general


Gaetz told POLITICO in April that he was concerned with the Florida measure because “it is done in the constitution, which becomes very rigid and difficult to change.”


If Gaetz is confirmed, the industry is optimistic that he could do more than just shepherd through rescheduling. Reinstating Obama-era protections for the cannabis industry and beginning the process for full decriminalization are two steps some hope Gaetz would push for if he takes the role atop the DOJ.


“That was the first good piece of news I got for cannabis in three years,” Jordan said of Gaetz’s nomination.