Law The Cannabis Chronicles - Misc Cannabis News

[Baron23]

Praise the lord and pass the butter beans. I love this article, written in a bipartisan manner, but a couple of actually members of the House of Representatives. (with emphasis on that last word....)

Congress must catch up to voters on marijuana issue
By Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) and David Joyce (R-Ohio) — 07/18/18 12:15 PM EDT 189
The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

It’s not a matter of ‘if’ but ‘when’ the federal prohibition on marijuana will end in this country. If there is one thing about American democracy, it is that truth and common sense eventually prevail.

Poll after poll has shown that legalization of marijuana is an issue on which voters of all stripes agree, with progress being made every day around the country.

A change to our outdated cannabis laws is long overdue. Politicians who view this issue as “taboo” or dismiss it as “reefer madness” do so at their peril. Voters are motivated on this issue. Candidates should be encouraged to fully embrace marijuana policy reform. Otherwise, according to recent surveys, voters say they are likely to come out to the polls this fall and in future elections to hold their representatives accountable, on this particular issue.
To no one’s surprise, Congress is woefully behind the public on this issue, and we are quickly reaching the tipping point that will force members of Congress to catch up or be held accountable by the voters.

This is why we have joined with Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) to introduce the STATES Act, which will get the federal government out of the way and let states decide for themselves the best way to regulate marijuana.

Limiting the ability of states, territories and tribes to regulate marijuana on their own terms results in serious costs to local economies, diminishing access to pain relief and contributing to a broken criminal justice system.

Voters are increasingly making their voices heard on this issue; they want to see change.

New polling data from political strategist Celinda Lake looked at the top battleground districts across the U.S. and found 60 percent of likely voters, from all sides of the political spectrum, favor the legalization of marijuana. Support for medical cannabis is even higher in those districts, with 79 percent of voters in favor of allowing patients access with a doctor’s prescription.

Perhaps most telling in these battleground districts is that nearly half of the voters say they would be more likely to vote for a candidate running for elected office if he or she supports legalizing the use of marijuana.

In light of this clear public opinion, 47 states currently have laws permitting or decriminalizing marijuana or marijuana-based products - and Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam and a number of tribes have similar laws.

As more states, territories and tribes thoughtfully consider updates to marijuana regulations, often through voter-initiated referendums, it is critical that Congress take immediate steps to safeguard their right to do so by passing the STATES Act.

State legal industries are effectively operating in violation of Federal law. Despite the Department of Justice generally exercising its discretion and allowing state legal markets to operate, the fact that cannabis remains a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, along with heroin and ecstasy, creates major regulatory issues for business. It also goes against not just public opinion, but smart policy and sound science.

The STATES Act will finally exempt marijuana from this classification and defer to state laws, thereby allowing state-sanctioned marijuana businesses access to federally insured banks and other important services often taken for granted by other industries.

Soon enough “reefer madness” will become the truly historic relic that it is. The few out-of-touch elected officials and candidates who hang on to that outdated and false notion will be left behind by the times and voters.

It’s time for Congress to get in the game and represent the will of the people to end the failed prohibition of marijuana.

Blumenauer is a member of the Ways and Means Committee and Joyce is a member of the Appropriations Committee.

 

[Baron23]

Yep, just what we need...adulterants on our alternative meds. Super (sigh). Glad this was killed in CO but I'm sure it will raise its head time and time again in other states.

A New York company wants to use molecular DNA tags to track legal cannabis

The New York-based Applied DNA Sciences wants to differentiate between state-compliant and illicit market cannabis by spraying DNA tracking tags on the plants, but some advocates are concerned about regulatory overreach and safety.

Despite some marijuana being “legal” for medical and adult use in many parts of the United States, the vast majority of the cannabis still being produced and consumed is “illegal.” One company, Applied DNA Sciences, is now seeking to stake a claim in the cannabis industry by providing supply chain tracking through spraying a molecular DNA tag onto the buds themselves.

Applied DNA Sciences says that they’re seeking to provide law enforcement and regulators with a way of determining exactly which buds were grown legally and which weren’t — and they are already working with state governments to require the use of their tracking system.

From Cotton to Cannabis
The New York-based firm got its start by working in various other fields to apply unique molecular identification tags to agricultural products (or DNA-enabled ink that can be sprayed on packaging). It’s board and advisory board are made up of professionals and former executives from some of the world’s largest corporations, such as GlaxoSmithKline and PepsiCo, as well as influential ties to government agencies and players.

The most comparable product to cannabis they have had success with is cotton. Because of this success, Applied DNA Sciences has been looking at getting into the cannabis space for the last couple years, but have made a more concerted effort just in the last nine months.

“Cannabis just seemed like something that should be revised and the reason we kinda got excited about it was we already have proven to the world and industry that we know how to tag cotton,” says Gordon Hope Jr., the company’s director of security solutions.

“The growth rates in the industry were obviously attractive,” Hope adds.

Hope spent much of his career prior to working with Applied DNA Sciences at the security firm Honeywell, a multinational corporation that has ongoing regular contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense.

Hope says that in the company’s work with the cotton industry, they were able to uncover bad actors passing their products off as something they were not and have worked with retailers like Costco and Bed, Bath & Beyond to ensure the quality and veracity of what is on the shelves.

How Molecular Tracking Spray Works
After harvest, a grower would apply Applied DNA Science’s patented technology, a “CertainT SigNature” molecular tag by spraying it on the buds themselves. A unique DNA tag, which the company builds with a few lines of scrambled DNA code derived from plants, would then stay on the plant. The company says it will stick to the plant “through UV radiation, heat, cold, vibration, abrasion and other extreme environmental conditions.”

In order to read the DNA tag, the company’s own testing equipment (called SigNify) must be used. The equipment can not only locate the tag as proof the cannabis was legally produced, but also to identify the producer themselves.

“When a sample is placed in the SigNify, the device uses a polymerase chain reaction [which amplifies a certain code by reproducing it thousands of times] to reproduce the tags for easy identification,” Matt Allyn writes for Popular Mechanics. “Because the contents of the tags are secure — Applied DNA employees can access only portions of them — they can’t be copied. Which means counterfeits can’t be made, and fewer illegal products can make it into a legal system.”

DNA in and of itself is not inherently dangerous to consume — humans do it every day. Whenever a human consumes a plant or an animal, they are consuming the DNA found in every single cell as well. Phylos Bioscience co-founder and CEO Mowgli Holmes confirms that the molecular tags are not unsafe for human digestion.

Co-founder and chief innovation officer at Phylos, Nishan Karassik, adds that although he does see a use for this for growers trying to authenticate and protect their own varieties, he doesn’t like the idea of tracking for law enforcement.

“The industry instead needs to use market forces and equal regulatory rules and the problem of diversion or smuggling solves itself,” Karassik says. “We are moving in this direction too slowly in the states, but much more rapidly worldwide.”

What About Existing Seed-to-Sale Systems?
Hope says he does think molecular tagging will replace seed-to-sale tracking that is already required in legal states, but rather, he thinks it will complement it. Applied DNA Sciences already is working with a seed-to-sale software partner, Theracann International, to expand their complementary services into the cannabis industry around the globe.

“I don’t care which company sells whatever it is, once that tag [the RFID tag currently used in many state seed-to-sale tracking programs] comes off the cannabis, the rest of it is a wing and a prayer,” says Hope. “There is no way to prove provenance or that the black market products didn’t get substituted… That is where the value comes in — we molecularly tag the actual products. They can be repackaged over and over, but that is the value.”

He says they have met with cultivators and were not surprised to find out that their main concern was adding in yet another expense to an already heavily regulated (and costly) system. But, he says there are two reasons these cultivators would want to do it anyway: brand protection and proof of compliance.

“This is a vehicle that allows any regulatory system — whether it be a country or a state — to at least prove that everything they claim they are doing, they are doing. We think it is very very important,” Hope said. “Cultivators may look at it as an added cost, some may look at it as brand protection.”

Hope says they will be presenting directly to the cannabis industry for the first time this week at the National Cannabis Industry Association conference in San Jose, California.

Lobbying for Exclusivity
Earlier this year, advocates and cannabis consumer groups successfully lobbied against the passage of Colorado’s SB 279, which would have required molecular tagging in the legal industry statewide. The controversial bill proposed by Sen. Kent Lambert was killed unanimously by the Senate Finance Committee after two attempts to get it through in 2018.

“[Sen. Lambert] was very supportive of a system like this, I talked to him and said we would move forward with ours,” Hope says.

Hope says he had one-on-one conversations with Sen. Lambert at the time he was proposing the bills and that the main problem preventing the passage was pushback from people in Colorado who were uneducated about the technology and its safety and “didn’t understand what the legislation was attempting to do.”

Larisa Bolivar, the executive director of the Cannabis Consumers Coalition — a Colorado-based non-profit working to represent patients and adult use consumers, says she personally wouldn’t consume cannabis that had any additives sprayed on it.

“The thought of it alone — whether it’s safe or not — just the thought of an additive when we are trying to reduce additives is a turn off to me,” Bolivar says. “It is unnecessary. I personally will not consume cannabis that has additives on it.”

Bolivar testified against Lambert’s bill and says her position on such bills will not change. She also points to the support from legislators and some legal companies as “profit protectionism.”

“It’s protectionist. The whole regulatory scheme around cannabis has been [profit] protectionist,” she says. “I can definitely tell a lot of the pressure [in Colorado] was from law enforcement, and again this points to the irrelevance of it. What needs to happen is cannabis needs to be legalized in other states and federally. That’s how you resolve the issue of black market cannabis competing with regulated cannabis, not adding chemicals to track a plant that is smoked and eaten.”

Hope says that while Applied DNA Sciences did not “directly” lobby for Lambert’s bill in Colorado, the company “did all the grassroots work ourselves” in the states where they’ve talked to legislators, and adds that right now the company is considering different lobbyist proposals. Hope was initially somewhat evasive in answering the question of whether or not the company has or plans to lobby for exclusive contracts in states, and potentially the entire country, should federal law change.

“Would we support it? Sure, it would make sense,” Hope said, when asked about the potential of lobbying for state contracts. “That is like asking us, ‘Do we want to do something that would be good for our business?’ Well yeah, of course. Yes, we think it is a good thing to do, but the deeper question is, does it have social benefit for the people who [consume cannabis]? Forget the selfish reasons of us wanting to see it happen. There is an underpinning of a real need here as this industry starts to grow and it is not being addressed.”

Hope added that he admits that Applied DNA Sciences is “going to have to work” to get the state to see the value of molecular DNA tracking for cannabis plants.

“I think it is going to come from a state or country position first and then we will do pilots with those states or countries that want to work with us and move it forward,” he said. “I think the United States would be smart to get something like this, if only for quality control and nothing else.”

 

[Baron23]

Americans say marijuana, vaping less harmful than tobacco

Americans see each of four tobacco-based products -- cigarettes, chewing tobacco, cigars and pipes -- as being much more harmful to people who use them than marijuana and e-cigarettes, commonly known as vaping.

The July 1-11 Gallup poll found that Americans view all six of the products tested as harmful to varying degrees. Majorities of Americans say cigarettes (82%), chewing tobacco (71%), cigars (56%) and pipes (52%) are all veryharmful, while fewer say the same of vaping (38%) and marijuana (27%).

Yet, when the somewhat harmful responses are factored in, all six products are considered harmful by majorities of Americans, with nearly all Americans viewing cigarettes (96%) and chewing tobacco (94%) this way. Seventy-three percent regard vaping as very or somewhat harmful, and 56% say the same about marijuana.

The poll marked the first time Gallup has tested the harmfulness of these products, apart from cigarettes', which has been measured annually since 2002, with the exception of 2009. There has been no significant variation in opinions over that time, as Americans have been in nearly universal agreement that cigarettes are very or somewhat harmful to users.

Of Six Products, Cigarettes and Marijuana Used Most Often
Gallup research has found that Americans' use of cigarettes has fallen by half since the 1980s, when an average of 32% of adults said they had smoked a cigarette in the past week. Still, compared with the other products measured, cigarettes are used the most often by U.S. adults, with 13% reporting regular use and 7% occasional. The next most frequently used item on the list is marijuana, with 5% saying they use it regularly and 8% occasionally.

The other products tested -- vaping, cigars, chewing tobacco and pipes -- are each used either occasionally or regularly by less than 10% of Americans.

Gallup previously asked about frequency of use of four of the six products in 1996 -- cigarettes, pipes, cigars and chewing tobacco. Of the four, cigarettes are the only product that have shown a change in usage, with the percentage of regular users eight points lower this year than in 1996.

Bottom Line
The two most commonly used products of the six tested by Gallup -- cigarettes and marijuana -- are considered by the public to be the most and least harmful to users, respectively. Cigarette use continues to decline as nearly all Americans agree on the dangers of smoking and government regulation of the tobacco industry has increased in recent years. At the same time, marijuana legalization, both for medical and recreational uses, is on the rise and is broadly supported by Americans. As regulations tighten on cigarettes and loosen on marijuana, marijuana users could outnumber cigarette smokers in the U.S. Likewise, the public's perception of vaping as a less harmful alternative to cigarettes may lead to increased usage of vaping.

 

[Baron23]

Has the U.S. reached a ‘tipping point’ in marijuana legalization?

Has the U.S. reached the “tipping point” in marijuana legalization? That’s what one CNN commentator said happened last month when, on June 26, Oklahoma adopted medical marijuana through a ballot initiative — making it the 30th state to do so, as you can see in the figure below.

It’s true that a lot was unusual about the Oklahoma initiative. The state approved medical marijuana with roughly 57 percent of the vote — despite the fact that the ballot measure was held in a conservative state, during a primary — when only the most committed party members tend to vote — rather than during a general election, is more permissive than many comparable laws, and was opposed by statewide Republican leaders.

So was Oklahoma’s new law indeed a tipping point? Research on policy diffusion suggests that as neighboring states, provinces, or countries adopt a policy, the pressure for adoption increases among lagging jurisdictions. And in addition to the many states, the nation’s northern neighbor Canada legalized recreational use nationwide on June 19.

The answer may lie in the pathway ahead for further expansion of marijuana liberalization. Let’s examine how that might go.

our previous research, we found that five states legalizing medical marijuana via ballot initiatives between 1996 and 1999 helped legitimize the effort — and, beginning in 2000, a handful of legislatures followed suit.

Direct democracy is one important way that advocates successfully force the issue in some states — either through successful initiatives, as in Oklahoma, or through the threat of an initiative campaign, as in Ohio, where the legislature quickly passed a medical marijuana law to head off a 2016 initiative sponsored by Marijuana Policy Project.

As a result, as fewer and fewer of the remaining 20 states without any legal marijuana use have mechanisms for such direct referendums, it becomes less and less likely that those states will liberalize cannabis policy. In that sense, perhaps Oklahoma is not a tipping point.

The federal government’s position may shift as public opinion shifts

Somewhat like the rapid shift in public opinion toward same-sex marriage, opinions about marijuana have been changing rapidly. Overall support has swung from 25 percent in 1996 to 64 percent in 2018. Also, 2018 marked the first time that Gallup found a slim majority of Republicans (51 percent) supporting marijuana legalization. As a result, members of Congress have introduced several proposals to liberalize marijuana policy and passed a limit on the Department of Justice’s discretion in enforcing federal marijuana laws.

The limitation was prompted when, in January 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions instructed all U.S. attorneys to enforce the federal prohibition on marijuana possession and use. His memo may have backfired. As a result, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) introduced a bill — which President Trump has said he’s likely to support — that would give state marijuana laws priority over federal marijuana prohibitions. And since Warren and Gardner have titled the bill “Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States” or the STATES Act, congressional Republicans may find that they can use states’ rights arguments to maintain their conservative credentials while supporting marijuana liberalization.

[Is marijuana decriminalization possible in the Middle East?]

So far, medical and recreational marijuana have progressed through state popular initiatives and legislation. But Congress could sponsor incremental changes or even take marijuana off the schedule of nationally controlled substances — encouraging the lagging states to follow along.

The shifting narrative on medical marijuana

Direct democracy has furthered marijuana liberalization, assisted by changes in how advocates frame the issue.

Journalists and advocates have been drawing attention to recent research that shows the potential of medical cannabis to treat conditions like PTSD, epilepsy and opioid addiction. This type of coverage serves to lift the stigma on marijuana use by presenting conditions and patients that are more relatable and sympathetic than treatment for other conditions, or than recreational use.

One of us, Lee Hannah, recently conducted a content analysis of news articles about medical marijuana stories by The Washington Post from 1995 (a year prior to California adopting the first program) to 2017 to determine whether this narrative shift was being seen in news coverage. Hannah searched the newspaper archives and counted how many articles about medical marijuana were paired with specific medical conditions.

In the period from 1995 to 1999, The Washington Post ran 56 articles about medical marijuana that associated it with cancer, 73 articles that mentioned HIV/AIDS and only 7 articles associating medical marijuana with opioid addiction, epilepsy or PTSD. That relative emphasis has flipped in the last five years. The Post continued to make the connection to cancer, in 71 articles, but only 31 articles included HIV/AIDS. Meanwhile, The Post ran 195 articles that connected medical cannabis to opioid addiction (71), epilepsy (83) or PTSD (41). The results were similar when analyzing coverage in the New York Times.

Some observers argue that evidence so far suggests other policy approaches are more successful than medical marijuana in treating opioid addiction. But if interest groups can successfully persuade citizens that medical cannabis could help diminish the opioid crisis, conservative voters and state legislatures may be persuaded to make it available.

This association is not lost on lawmakers either. When former Republican Speaker of the House John A. Boehner announced his joining the board of Acreage Holdings, a cannabis corporation, he said “I’m convinced de-scheduling [removing the federal prohibition] the drug is needed so we can do research, help our veterans, and reverse the opioid epidemic ravaging our communities.” Note the emphasis on veterans and opioids.

What to expect

Whether Oklahoma’s new law is indeed a tipping point, changing public opinion and industry pressures seem to be pushing the federal government and the remaining states to make marijuana available for medical use — and probably, from there, recreational use as well.

 

[momofthegoons]

How the tech behind bitcoin could safeguard marijuana sales data

Not everyone's a fan of 'blockchain' encryption, but the cannabis industry is eyeing it for protection.

Workers tend medical marijuana plants at Canopy Growth Corporation's Tweed facility in Smiths Falls, Ont. Some experts are recommending the government take a look at using blockchain technology in the cannabis space. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)

The technology that powers bitcoin could be deployed to track the flow of legal product in Canada's marijuana market without compromising the privacy of its customers.

The Cannabis Act authorizes Health Canada to implement a national tracking system for marijuana — following the journey from seed to sale — to protect the integrity of the legal market.

The challenge is to keep that information confidential in an age of widespread hacking.

Bitcoin's cryptocurrency data is secured through blockchain technology — a decentralized way of storing information using blocks of verified data that build on each other in a linear way, like links in a chain.

The need to store sensitive information
Because of the various stages of verification and the encryption used in a blockchain, it's almost impossible for a single user to alter, hack or remove information from the sequence. That's why it could be valuable to the cannabis industry as the Oct. 17 legalization date nears.

• Most of blockchain's benefits don't come from blockchain, Bank of Canada staffer says

• ANALYSIS
  How blockchain, the technology behind bitcoin, could change your life

As C-45, the government's marijuana legalization bill, slowly made its way through the two chambers of Parliament, questions abounded regarding the drug's regulation and how sales would be monitored.

The government is demanding record-keeping to "help prevent diversion of cannabis; that is, the movement of both legal cannabis to the illegal market and illegal cannabis to the legal market," a spokesperson for Health Canada said in an email.

Any company authorized to operate in the cannabis industry, whether provincially or federally, will be required to file a monthly report detailing how much marijuana it grew, harvested, sold, destroyed, used for research purposes or lost to theft.

"Relevant security measures have been taken and requisite precautions have been implemented to safeguard cannabis-related data," the Health Canada spokesperson said, adding that individual employees will be given specific training and will only be given the level of access to the database required for their positions.

But at a time when hacking fears have gripped election agencies and social media titans like Facebook, a cannabis tracking system looks especially vulnerable — especially when many predict the cannabis market will bring in up to $7 billion in sales next year.

Companies working with blockchain in the private sector say they see the potential for its use in the public sphere. The federal government agreed to some extent and has taken a preliminary look at using the technology.

Ottawa considered using blockchain
"Blockchain was considered, along with several other options, as a potential solution to track movements of cannabis throughout the supply chain," Health Canada said.

However, the tracking system won't be launched on blockchain initially. Health Canada said the system made famous by Bitcoin could be a tool for the future, once there is a more established government standard for using blockchain.

That's not stopping companies from touting its merits, or continuing to pitch it to Ottawa.

Blockchain is "critical in this industry," said Mark Lozzi, CEO of PointChain. His company is working to develop blockchains for both cannabis companies and banks handling cannabis-related accounts, while also promoting the technology to government.

By using blockchain, "the regulators won't be looking for a needle in a haystack" when searching for data breaches or signs of hacking, as the chain makes such problems immediately identifiable, he said.

"We're going to be a lot more secure than anything that is not on the blockchain."

The unknowns of blockchain
One of the benefits of blockchain is that its security doesn't rest solely on one point or person, but on hundreds of nodes in the system that verify each transaction, said Matt Gold, a lawyer working with blockchain.

Despite the arguments for its use, the technology isn't without risks. Because it's relatively new, blockchain's weak points are largely unknown at this point, said one expert.

"What we don't know, we don't know," said Karen Eltis, a technologies and privacy policy professor at the University of Ottawa. "You have this immutable record-keeping that fosters trust, but when that goes wrong …

"So no one has cheated yet, which is the good part. But when someone does, it will all collapse."

Technologies like blockchain evolve quickly, making it hard for governments to enact legislation to keep up. Currently, there's no set plan for oversight or regulation of blockchain-style technology — meaning there are no proven solutions for potential problems with the technology. That makes it challenging for a government to adopt it in its current form.

Lozzi acknowledged that a lack of public understanding of blockchain's implications, good and bad, has been a challenge for his company.

Even with the potential risks, Eltis said the federal government should take a closer look at blockchain as a policy tool.

"Blockchain has tremendous use," she said. "It's important to have a really sober look at it."

 

[Baron23]

New bill aims to protect employees in legal states from being punished for consuming cannabis

A new bipartisan bill would allow federal employees in legal states to consume cannabis without worrying about getting fired for failing a drug test, writes Calvin Hughes & Joseph Misulonas.

Last Thursday, The Fairness in Federal Drug Testing Under State Laws Act was introduced by Congressmen Charlie Crist (D-FL) and Drew Ferguson (R-GA). If passed, the new bill would prevent federal employees from being punished for failing a cannabis test, and it would prevent employers from denying employment to job candidates who use cannabis privately, reports Tom Angell of Marijuana Moment.

However, employees can still face repercussions if there is “probable cause to believe that the individual is under the influence of marijuana” at the workplace. So smoking up on the job would still be banned, but having a puff after work would no longer be grounds for disciplinary action for federal employees living in states that have repealed cannabis prohibition.

One other caveat: the bill doesn't cover employees or job applicants for positions that involve “top secret clearance or access to a highly sensitive program.” So you could say the new rules would impose a "green ceiling" on aspiring federal employees because it limits certain areas of their career development.

 

[Baron23]

Black Lawmakers: Marijuana Decrim Is ‘Must-Do’ In First 100 Days of Democratic Congress

The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) included ending the federal prohibition of marijuana in a list of 10 “must-do policies” to “address issues hurting both communities of color and rural communities” that the 48-member group released on Friday.

Number four on the list is “Ending the War on Drugs,” which includes these bullet points:

*Decriminalize the use and possession of marijuana allowing states to make their own decisions and end federal prohibition and related law enforcement of marijuana.

*Remove marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act and create a “Community Reinvestment Fund” to invest in communities most impacted by the War on Drugs, for programs such as job training, reentry, community centers, and more.

*Retroactively eliminate mandatory minimums for federal drug offenses and require the Attorney General to reinstitute the Smart on Crime directive and pass codifying legislation.

*Instruct the U.S. Sentencing Commission to amend the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines accordingly.

“If Democrats take back the House next Congress, CBC would insist that they pass these policies within the first 100 days,” a press release from the caucus says.

Political watchers believe that Democrats have a good chance of regaining the majority of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives in the November midterm elections. The new Congress will be seated in January.

“Here’s the reality: If we want to truly help people of color, women, those in rural communities, workers, the poor, and others, then we have to put people in charge who share those values,” CBC Chairman Cedric L. Richmond (D-LA) said in a statement about the list.

Analyses have consistently shown that while people of color use cannabis at roughly the same rate as whites, they are much more likely to be arrested, convicted and incarcerated for marijuana offenses.

Last month, CBC released a separate position statement calling for broad cannabis reforms, including “automatic expungement for those convicted of misdemeanors for marijuana-related offenses, and an easy path to expungement for those previously convicted of felonies for marijuana-related offenses.”

And in May, leaders of the caucus included cannabis descheduling as a provision of the sweeping 1,227-page Jobs and Justice Act, a bill intended to “increase the upward social mobility of Black families, and help ensure equal protection under the law.”

Other moves on the CBC’s new “must-do” list include banning private prisons, increasing access to affordable housing, gun safety reforms, health care expansion and the protections of voting rights.

 

[Baron23]

"Organizations weighing in on marijuana issues spent $20 million in the first half of 2018, more than triple the $6 million spent during the same period a year earlier,"
​

Well, its a move in the right direction but $20M is peanuts in Wash, DC lobby terms.

Want proof the fight for legal weed is really heating up in Washington? Check this out.


Organizations weighing in on marijuana issues spent $20 million in the first half of 2018, more than triple the $6 million spent during the same period a year earlier, according to an analysis by NJ Cannabis Insider of second-quarter lobbying reports filed with the Clerk of the House.

The increase illustrates the activity on Capitol Hill as several bills have been introduced to remove the federal prohibition against marijuana, or to block Washington from interfering with states that have legalized cannabis.

One bill garnering attention is the bipartisan Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States or STATES, Act, which was introduced by by U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Cory Gardner, R-Colo., and Reps. David Joyce, R-Ohio, and Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore.

"You actually saw a big bipartisan bill in both the House and the Senate," Blumenauer said. "People are talking about it big time."

The measure has attracted eight Senate co-sponsors, including Cory Booker of New Jersey, who also has introduced separate legislation to remove the federal prohibition against the drug. In the House, 22 lawmakers have signed on as co-sponsors.

Groups do not have to disclose how much they spend on particular issues; the figures represent the total expenses for each group that reported that marijuana is one of the issues they're lobbying on.

The number of organizations lobbying on marijuana has increased as well. There were 35 groups that reported lobbying from April 1 to June 30, a 59 percent increase over the 22 organizations registered during the same period in 2017.

Among those weighing in as Congress considers legislation are: the Indiana Farm Bureau; Property Casualty Insurers Assn.; the American Medical Association; and the conservative advocacy group Heritage Action for America.

The National Cannabis Industry Association, the trade group for the legal marijuana industry, increased its lobbying to $280,000 during the first half of the year, up 47 percent over the $191,000 it spent during the same period a year ago

 

[Baron23]

Civil Asset Forfeiture is just policing for profit. Its just Government taking your personal property with little to no due process and putting the financial burden of legally proving they deserve their assets back on the individual citizen. It is a total abortion of democracy and the rule of law, IMO. IMO, its completely at odds with our American values and principals. I post this because this type of seizure came out of the so called War on Drugs and is often used in prosecuting that war. Our US AG (that would be the distinguished gentleman from Alabama, Jeff Sessions....see Mom, no name calling! LOL) has reinvigorated this type of forfeiture because it appears that there is no bankrupt, anti-libertarian policy he won't resurrect. (Mom, again, no name calling but it wasn't easy! LOL).

Follow the link to another related article speaking to the national implications of this court ruling: Federal Court Finds Albuquerque’s Civil Forfeiture Program Unconstitutional


Judge tosses out vehicle seizure law (civil asset forfeiture)

Albuquerque’s controversial vehicle-seizure program is likely to undergo changes after a U.S. district judge ruled that the program is unconstitutional, according to attorneys for a woman who filed a lawsuit against the city.

The city for years has allowed police to take cars from anyone arrested on suspicion of a second or subsequent drunken-driving offense, or someone arrested for driving on a revoked license. The vehicles were seized regardless of whether the driver was the owner.

U.S. District Judge James Browning’s 105-page opinion, filed over the weekend, found problems with the city’s policy of making vehicle owners prove their innocence when their car was seized after being driven by someone else.

And the judge said it was improper that the money the city collected from the program was used to pay the salaries of employees who work in the program.

“The forfeiture program … violates procedural due process, because owners have to prove that their cars are not subject to civil forfeiture,” Browning wrote.

The city probably will have to change its ordinance to bring its program in line with the judge’s ruling, said Robert Everett Johnson, an attorney for the Institute for Justice, which worked on the case.

“If the city were to continue operating the (seizure) program the way it’s run now, that would be like saying ‘I triple-dog dare you’ to the court,” he said.

Mayor Tim Keller’s administration previously said it would give vehicle owners who weren’t driving when their cars were seized more protections than the previous city administration. But no changes have been made in the law.

“This ruling confirms our concerns with the past approach and the need to protect the constitutional rights of people in our community,” Alicia Manzano, a spokeswoman for the Mayor’s Office, said in a statement. “At the Mayor’s direction, the City’s Legal department has been working to update the program, including limiting it to cases where there has been a conviction based on the new state law.

“The City’s legal team will analyze the impact the ruling will have,” she said. “Meanwhile, APD is focusing efforts on effectively combating drunk driving by doubling the number of traffic stops and increasing DWI checkpoints and saturation patrols.”

Under the current ordinance, owners who were not driving would be faced with fines, fees and administrative hearings to get their cars back. The city often would agree to release the vehicle for thousands of dollars and a boot agreement.

The judge’s ruling came in a case brought by Arlene Harjo, an Albuquerque woman who lent her Nissan Versa to her son, who then took her car to Clovis without permission and was arrested on suspicion of drunken driving, according to court filings.

The city demanded that Harjo pay it $4,000 and agree to have her car booted for 18 months before it would release it to her, according to the lawsuit.

The city has since returned her vehicle.

Browning found the program unconstitutional, partly because it required vehicle owners to prove their innocence after their cars were taken.

“The City of Albuquerque’s interest, however, in keeping the car after the initial seizure is not all that great when confronted with an innocent owner or an owner not involved in the DWI, because there is little to no evidence that the car is dangerous in that owner’s hands – at least the car is no more dangerous than a car is in anyone’s hands,” he wrote.

Browning also took issue with the way the city used funds from the seizures and forfeitures to pay salaries of employees who worked in the program. He said the funds should go to the city’s general fund, then be appropriated for seizure program operations.

Johnson said Browning’s ruling could affect municipalities around the country that run vehicle seizure programs similar to the one in Albuquerque.

A few cities in New Mexico – including Santa Fe – also have vehicle seizure programs.

Brad Cates, a New Mexico attorney who worked on the case, said Albuquerque needs to provide innocent owners a quick way to get their vehicles back if they were seized when being driven by somebody else.

Cates said Albuquerque also needs to have proceeds from forfeitures and seizures go to the general fund instead of directly to employees who work in the program.

“None of us involved in the case want drunken drivers on the streets,” he said. “But there’s a right, constitutional way to do” vehicle seizures.

In March, Browning ruled that Albuquerque’s vehicle seizure program was not in line with New Mexico forfeiture laws, which were changed in 2015 to prohibit municipalities from benefiting financially over civil forfeiture actions. New Mexico law does allow for criminal forfeiture.

Browning didn’t take action against any New Mexico programs, saying he wanted state courts to first rule on ongoing litigation.

Browning’s recent ruling found broader constitutional problems with the way Albuquerque seizes vehicles.

“Civil forfeiture is one of the most serious assaults on private property rights in the nation today,” attorney Robert Frommer, who is also an attorney for the Institute for Justice, said in a statement. “For decades, civil forfeiture has lured officials away from impartial enforcement of the law and toward policing for profit. Today’s ruling striking down Albuquerque’s forfeiture program is a major step towards ending forfeiture across not only New Mexico, but throughout the United States.”

 

[Baron23]

"President Donald Trump said he likely will support a congressional effort to end the federal ban on cannabis."​

Only problem is that is for today and on any given other day he's likely to support....well, almost anything. I would rather see him, Ryan, and the House Whip (guy who was shot...forget his name) twisting arms to get the bill passed rather than just making comments to reporters.....and I have not seen that at all. Just my view, I guess.


Trump says he is likely to support ending federal ban on marijuana

Yesterday, President Donald Trump said he likely will support a congressional effort to end the federal ban on cannabis. I think we can all agree that this would be a major step that would reshape the pot industry and end the threat of a Justice Department crackdown.

Trump made his comments to a bunch of reporters Friday morning before he boarded a helicopter on his way to the G-7 summit in Canada. His remarks came the day after the bipartisan group of lawmakers proposed its measure.

One of the lead sponsors is Senator Cory Gardner. “I support Sen. Gardner,” Trump said when asked about the bill. “I know exactly what he’s doing. We’re looking at it. But I probably will end up supporting that, yes.”

The legislative proposal, which is also supported by Senator Elizabeth Warren would reshape the legal cannabis landscape.

California and eight other states, as well as Washington, D.C., have legalized recreational use of cannabis. An additional 20 states permit marijuana for medical use. But even as states legalize, cannabis has remained a risky and unstable business because cannabis is still illegal on a federal level. Concerns about federal law enforcement seizures have inhibited most lenders from working with weed businesses making their life a lot harder. Also, a lot of investors are still very cautious to work with cannabis firms. Further, you can’t imagine how hard it is to find a credit card processor when you want to sell CBD products in your online shop.

A lifting of the federal prohibition would be a great step to create uniform testing and regulatory standards for cannabis, and potentially free scientists to pursue research into the many medical uses of the plant.

Trump said he is likely to support the federal legalization effort despite a warning against it from the coalition of narcotics officer groups.

“We urge you to see through the smoke screen and reject attempts to encourage more drug use in America,” they wrote in a letter to Trump on Thursday.

 

[momofthegoons]

WEED LEGALIZATION IS ON A ROLL—WILL CANADA, U.S. AND MEXICO LAUNCH A LEGAL MARIJUANA MARKET?

As more and more North American governments move on from the “war on drugs” mentality of preceding decades, some politicians and activists suggest that a cross-border market for legal marijuana products could soon become a reality.

With Canada’s June decision to legalize recreational Cannabis, Mexico’s new government giving serious consideration to legalizing drugs and more and more U.S. states legalizing the plant for adult use, including the largest state economy and population of California last year, the vast majority of North Americans may soon have access to legal marijuana.

At the same time, as Donald Trump’s Attorney General Jeff Sessions has made clear, cannabis still remains completely illegal from the perspective of the U.S. federal government. But despite the serious road-blocks created by federal prohibitions, Congressman Earl Blumenauer, a Democrat from Oregon, who co-founded the bipartisan Congressional Cannabis Caucus in 2017, told Newsweek that he sees a legal cross-border North American market as “not just possible” but “probable.”

If Mexico decides to legalize, as the incoming government has suggested it may do, this would make recreational cannabis legal along the entire length of North America’s Pacific Coast, with Canada and the states of California, Washington, Oregon and Alaska all having already moved to legalize.

“In the course of the next decade, I think there will be a North American cannabis market,” Blumenauer said, adding that there are certain things the government needs to work toward now to make this a reality.

Blumenauer pointed out one federal policy in particular that he hopes can be changed through legislation.

“Somebody who admits to a border guard that they’ve used marijuana, even if it’s medical marijuana, can be barred from coming into the United States for life,” the congressman explained.

"That’s insane,” he added.

Following Canada’s decision to legalize and regulate recreational marijuana in June, immigration lawyer Len Saunders went on national television to warn Canadians about the U.S. federal policy. “It’s basically black and white,” he told CTV News.

The lawyer also warned that U.S. border agents may begin asking the question more frequently when Canada’s new marijuana legislation comes into effect in October. Saunders pointed out however, that anyone can refuse to answer the question. The individual may be denied entry to the country as a result, but it will only be for that day and not a permanent ban.

Marijuana smoke lingers around from people smoking weed on Parliament Hill on 4/20 in Ottawa, Ontario, on April 20, 2017. LARS HAGBERG/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

Prior to Ottawa’s official decision, conservative Canadian senators met with Sessions and other U.S. officials to discuss their government’s plans to legalize. After the meeting, Canadian Senator Claude Carignan told VICE News that the U.S. officials suggested legalization could cause more problems for Canadians at the border.

However, Hannah Hetzer, senior international policy manager at Drug Policy Alliance told Newsweek following Canada’s decision that the U.S. will soon face pressure from its neighbors to reform its federal policies.

“With the U.S. neighbors on both sides moving to reform marijuana laws on a national level, it just builds the pressure,” Hetzer said, also arguing it would be “hypocritical” of the U.S. to take a strong stance against Canada due to the growing number of states that have moved to legalize for recreational and medical use.

As of this month, it is legal for adults to use cannabis products in nine U.S. states as well as in the nation’s capital, Washington, D.C. At the beginning of July, Vermont officially became the ninth state to implement legal recreational marijuana, also becoming the first state to do so through legislation as opposed to ballot measures. Thirty-one states have also approved cannabis for medicinal use, with another dozen states that allow use of the plant for specific medical conditions. And several states have ballot measures coming up later this year.

Activists march along Reforma Avenue in Mexico City on May 6, 2017, demanding the de-penalization of marijuana. YURI CORTEZ/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

“We’re going to see, I’m quite confident, medical marijuana will be legalized in Utah and Missouri this year. [Recreational marijuana] is on the ballot in Michigan. It’s on the ballot in North Dakota,” Blumenauer told Newsweek, saying that the federal government is “still frozen in time” with its complete prohibition stance.

“We have now an $8 billion national industry,” the congressman pointed out. “There are well over a million who have legal access to medical marijuana, the recreational adult use market is growing and we need in Congress to continue working to try and reign in the Jeff Sessions overreach,” he said.

Canada’s legal market is already a multi-billion dollar industry as well, with only growth expected following recreational legalization. Last year, cannabis stocks were also among Canada’s best performing. Canopy Growth and Aurora Cannabis are the top publicly traded marijuana companies, and those who invested in them a year ago have “easily reaped bitcoin-like returns,” Canada’s Global News reported last month.

Beyond the economic benefits, however, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promoted legalization as a way to crack down on crime and end the black market. “It’s been too easy for our kids to get marijuana—and for criminals to reap the profits. Today, we change that,” the Canadian leader tweeted following Ottawa’s June decision.

Mexico’s new government has cited similar concerns. According to incoming Interior Minister Olga Sanchez Cordero, President-elect Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who will officially take office on December 1, has given her a free hand to do “whatever is necessary to restore peace” in Mexico, which has been racked by drug-related violence for years, including legalizing drugs.

“On the subject of decriminalizing drugs, Andres Manuel told me, and I quote: 'Carte blanche…Let's open up the debate,’” Cordero said.

As Blumenauer pointed out, a “fairly robust” black market still exists in the U.S. as well, although state-level legalization has worked to erode this problem. However, the congressman said that the illicit market continues to funnel “significant sums” to Mexican drug cartels.

“Being able to have a robust legal market that regulates and taxes cannabis is the quickest way to choke off that black market and the support it gives to other criminal activity,” he said.

However, despite growing optimism surrounding the possibility a legal North American marijuana market, Paul Armentano, the deputy director of National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, told Newsweek that in addition to U.S. federal laws, “international treaties—specifically the Single Convention Treaty” are a roadblock. Created in 1961, the treaty aims to fight against the import, export and production of drugs.

An employee with medicinal marijuana plants in the flowering room at Tweed INC. in Smith Falls, Ontario, on December 5, 2016. LARS HAGBERG/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

“America’s leaders would be wise to learn from our neighbors, and from Canada in particular, and similarly replace our archaic and failed marijuana prohibition laws,” Arementano also pointed out.

Mike Collins, deputy director of the Drug Policy Alliance, pointed to challenges as well. “The U.S. is being held back by individuals like Jeff Sessions who live in the 1980s when it comes to drug policy,” he told Newsweek , pointing out that there is growing bipartisan support for legalization.

According to The Washington Post, support for cannabis legalization has risen dramatically from 25 percent in 1996 to 64 percent in 2018. A Gallup poll from this year also found a slim majority (51 percent) of Republicans support recreational legalization.

“This is more and more going to be a political issue,” Blumenauer said. “And I think you’ll see that people who stand in the way are likely to have some consequences at the polls.”

 

[momofthegoons]

Studying the marijuana effect: New bill calls for research where pot is legal

WASHINGTON -- A bipartisan bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives this week looks to use research to better understand what impact legalizing marijuana is having on various communities.

• Bill introduced this week calls for marijuana community study
• Bipartisan bill directs National Academy of Sciences to study the impact of legalizing marijuana
• READ: Marijuana Data Collection Act | Bill Text (.PDF)

"Our bill would authorize a non-partisan, evidence-based report that analyzes current marijuana policies across the country and their effects on our communities," said Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat from Hawaii who sponsored the legislation.

Those who back the bipartisan Marijuana Data Collection Act say it would remove the politics from studying marijuana by commissioning the National Academy of Sciences to issue bi-annual reports.

Among the co-sponsors are Republicans like Florida Reps. Carlos Curbelo and Matt Gaetz, and Democrats like Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke and Florida Reps. Darren Soto and Charlie Crist.

The bill would call for a 10-year arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences to study states that have legalized marijuana programs for the impact on the economy, public health, criminal justice and employment.

The study is meant to look at yearly rates and trends on issues such as:

• Revenue and taxes and how they help state budgets
• The use of medical marijuana in different populations (children, elderly, veterans, etc.)
• The rates of overdoses in those states from opioids and other painkillers (some studies show marijuana use impacts opioid use)
• The rates of arrests related to marijuana, including teenage use, unlawful driving, etc.
• The amount of jobs created, directly and indirectly
• The amount of jobs expected to be created

Currently, 31 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam have legalized medical marijuana. Eight states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana for adult recreational use.

Opposition questions bill's intent
But beyond a shared desire for more research, opposing sides still disagree on the bill’s intent.

"It's very evident that it was written by people who very highly favor legalization and think it's a foregone conclusion," said Will Jones, a communications and outreach associate for Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM).

"We're simply looking at the impact that legalization has on the economy, on crime rates, on housing prices, on everything that it could possibly have an impact on. I'm not sure how that is biased," said Erik Altieri, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), which worked to create the bill.

Jones said his organization doesn't think smoking weed should send you to jail, but they do think legalizing it would create a commercial industry backed by the law that could take advantage of vulnerable users.

But Altieri said proper oversight, through research and legalization, is exactly what's needed to embrace marijuana more responsibly.

The Marijuana Data Collection Act is one of some 65 bills in the House and Senate that looks to reform how marijuana is handled in America.

More states are deciding on their own to legalize or not, but the national debate continues over whether cannabis should still be treated like an equivalent to cocaine.

"To say that industry is the answer to that, we think that's another extreme," Jones said.

"As long as you don't provide a legal, regulated outlet, there will be people that will take advantage of that situation," Altieri said.

Marijuana advocates also want the drug to be removed from the Controlled Substances Act, which places restrictions on top tier drugs.

But opponents, like Attorney General Jeff Sessions, think it should stay.

 

[momofthegoons]

New Federal Employment Protections Bill Introduced For Marijuana Consumers

Today, Congressman Charlie Crist held a press conference to announce the introduction of the Fairness in Federal Drug Testing Under State Laws Act, HR 6589.



The bipartisan bill would explicitly bar federal agencies from discriminating against workers solely because of their status as a cannabis consumer, or due to testing positive for marijuana use on a workplace drug test.

“Medical marijuana is an issue of compassion, and in the veterans’ community, access is even more important as more and more veterans are turning to cannabis to address chronic pain and PTSD. At the same time, the federal government is the largest employer of veterans; however, private cannabis use even in states that have legalized medical marijuana is prohibited in these positions,” said Congressman Charlie Crist (D-FL). “Our bipartisan bill would protect federal employment for those in compliance with their state’s cannabis laws. Because our veterans shouldn’t have to choose between treatment options or job opportunities.”

“The time for the federal government to end the practice of arbitrarily discriminating against current and potential workers for marijuana consumption is now,” said NORML Political Director Justin Strekal. “With 47 states having reformed their cannabis laws to be in direct conflict with the federal Controlled Substances Act, individuals acting in compliance with state law should not be denied the opportunity to serve their country as public servants.”

Enacted in 1986, the Federal Drug-Free Workplace Program made it a condition for employment that all civilian employees at executive branch agencies be prohibited from using federally illegal substances on or off duty. Medical marijuana is currently legal in 31 states, D.C., Puerto Rico, and Guam, and 46 states have some form of medical marijuana law; however, it remains illegal under federal law. Therefore, federal employees can be denied employment or terminated due to testing positive for marijuana metabolites, even if their use is in compliance with state law. This conflict between state and federal laws limits treatment options and federal employment opportunities, particularly impacting veterans who comprise approximately one-third of the federal workforce and whose medical cannabis use to treat chronic pain and PTSD has been found to be double the rate of the general public. A recent American Legion poll found that one in five veterans use marijuana to alleviate a medical condition.

Changes in the legal status of marijuana at the state level have not negatively impacted workplace safety. In fact, a pair of studies from 2016 find that the legalization of medical marijuana access is associated with greater workforce participation and with fewer workplace absences. Most recently, the National Academies of Sciences just-released marijuana and health report found “insufficient evidence” to support an association between cannabis use and occupational accidents or injuries.

In 2018, legislative efforts to reform employment laws were either attempted or successful in California, Florida, New Jersey, and Wisconsin, among others.

Bill Overview:

• The Fairness in Federal Drug Testing Under State Laws Act prohibits marijuana metabolite testing from being used as the sole factor to deny or terminate federal employment for civilian positions at executive branch agencies if the individual is in compliance with the marijuana laws in their state of residence.
• The bill only extends to an individual’s past, private use of cannabis, and does not prohibit probable cause testing if an individual is believed to be impaired at work.
• The bill does not apply to individuals occupying or seeking a position requiring a top-secret clearance.

 

[Baron23]

"This approval serves as a reminder," Scott Gottlieb, the FDA commissioner, said in a statement shortly after the approval, "that advancing sound development programs that properly evaluate active ingredients contained in marijuana can lead to important medical therapies."
​

No, the only thing this reminds me of is that pharma gets to crank the government drug approval program for CBD at a price that costs at least an order of magnitude less than other sourced of CBD.... which is really all that's in....while a lady in Wyoming gets locked up for the CBD she bought in a health food/vitamin store.

No, the only thing that this reminds me of is the graft and corruption inherent in the government/big pharma complex cozy relationship and how this empowers pharma companies to totally rip people off because....."well, its medical".

What a load of horse pucky

(see @momofthegoons....no name calling at all....but it wasn't easy! LOL )

New Marijuana-Based Epilepsy Treatment to Cost $32,500 a Year
GW Pharmaceuticals CEO says the price was set to be in line with other brand-name epilepsy drugs

Follow link to WSJ if you can log in to read it all. Below is another article on same subject from open source:

The drug maker behind the first FDA-approved medication derived from marijuana has revealed how much it'll cost

• On a call with investors this week, GW Pharmaceuticals revealed the price of Epidiolex , its newly-approved, marijuana-based drug for rare forms of epilepsy.
• Designed to treat two rare forms of childhood epilepsy using a marijuana compound called CBD , the drug is the first medication of its kind to get FDA approval .
• The person leading the company's commercialization efforts in the US said the goal is to keep the price of the drug on par with other epilepsy medications.

A marijuana-derived drug that recently became the first of its kind to win federal approval is not going to be cheap.

Called Epidiolex, the drug is designed to treat two rare forms of childhood epilepsy using a cannabis compound called cannabidiol (or CBD) .

On a call with investors this week, British-based GW Pharmaceuticals, who makes the drug, said it would cost roughly $32,500 per year. The medication does not contain THC, the well-known psychoactive component of marijuana responsible for the drug's characteristic high.

Julian Gangolli, who leads GW's commercialization efforts in the US, said the price point would keep Epidiolex in line with other epilepsy drugs and was largely based on feedback from insurance companies. The figure is on the lower end of what analysts projected the drug would cost back in 2016, when they estimated it would range from between $30,000 to $60,000 per year.

Gangolli also said that he expected the wait time to receive the medication — after patients get a prescription from a clinician — to be three weeks, on average. But before any prescriptions for Epidiolex can be written, the Drug Enforcement Administration must reschedule its active ingredient, the marijuana compound CBD.

Currently, CBD is scheduled alongside marijuana as a schedule 1 drug with "no currently accepted medical use." Beginning on June 25 when Epidiolex was approved, the agency had 90 days to reschedule or reclassify it as a schedule 2, 3, 4, or 5 substance.

"We don't have a choice on that," DEA public affairs officer Barbara Carreno told Business Insider in June. "It absolutely has to become Schedule 2, 3, 4, or 5."

'A breakthrough drug for an awful disease'
Epidiolex's approval in June came on the heels of several months of promising research results and a positive preliminary vote from the Food and Drug Administration this spring. Experts are hopeful that the approval will unleash a wave of new interest in the potential medical applications of CBD and other marijuana compounds.

"This approval serves as a reminder," Scott Gottlieb, the FDA commissioner, said in a statement shortly after the approval, "that advancing sound development programs that properly evaluate active ingredients contained in marijuana can lead to important medical therapies."

In three large clinical trials which the FDA considered before giving Epidiolex the official green light, researchers presented strong evidence that the pharmaceutical-grade CBD in the medicine had the power to significantly curb some of the worst symptoms of two of the hardest-to-treat forms of epilepsy, known as Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome .

"This is clearly a breakthrough drug for an awful disease," John Mendelson , a panel member and senior scientist at the Friends Research Institute , said at a public FDA meeting this spring that was called to discuss the scientific merits of the drug.

But although the green light means that patients will soon be able to access Epidiolex with a doctor's prescription, many will also likely turn to less expensive sources of CBD , such as those sold in marijuana dispensaries. Researchers and advocates caution against this, however, with the caveat that it's impossible to verify that what's in those products is actually pharmaceutical-grade CBD.

Gangolli added that with insurance, Epidiolex could be substantially cheaper than dispensary CBD.

"The cost of a co-pay [for Epidiolex] is significantly — or could be significantly — less onerous and burdensome than the cost of the product either over the internet or from dispensary," Gangolli said.

 

[Baron23]

Can Article V federally legalize cannabis?


As the fight for country-wide marijuana legalization gains momentum, lawyers have come up with some innovative ideas for challenging prohibition, such as the landmark Washington V Sessions case, which incubated at a Cannabis Bar Association meeting. Another engaging idea - Article V - was floated by intellectual property attorney, Ms. Karen Bernstein, on behalf of one of her law students, at the Cannabis Law Summit, which took place at the law offices of Duane Morris, LLP.

Article V – a legal precedent set by America’s founding fathers – was brought up by Ms. Bernstein during attorney Dave C. Holland’s lecture on Cannabis Litigation Strategies, as potentially the latest legal avenue to pursue, to challenge the current, federal administration’s predilection for prohibition.

Article V, U.S. Constitution
Article V states, “The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight (1808) shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”

In other words, where two-thirds of the states propose amendments, which need to be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, or a convention as set by Congress for that purpose. In this case, a convention of 34 states would be required, and 38 states would be necessary to ratify it and overturn the current scheduling.

This seems plausible to achieve, considering medical marijuana is already legal in various forms in 30 states, and the District of Columbia, with two more states about to be added. (Colorado, Washington, and Alaska were the first, second and tertiary states, respectively. out of the current eight, to fully legalize recreational use.)

However, is it a topic necessary for further legal scrutiny to predict what would happen where three-fourths of the states ratify, and Congress does not? Article V does not bypass Congress altogether.

“Article V is an interesting idea; however, no state call for a convention has ever worked before. There were not enough votes,” Holland said. “In fact, it is a novel approach for marijuana legalization, but not for the state-based initiatives to try to amend the constitution. Numerous attempts have been made,” he elucidated.

The federal Controlled Substances Act under 21 U.S.C. 801 was passed in 1970 which classified all drugs, and rated them on a schedule of I-V, depending upon their medical utility and the degree to which they can be safely administered by a doctor.

Cannabis was placed in Schedule I, the most restrictive designation, based on three criteria that 1) it has no medical validity, 2) it has a high potential for addiction and abuse, and 3) it cannot be safely researched or administered by a doctor. As such, it was deemed to have no safe or effective use and was relegated to the same classification as PCP and heroin in Schedule I.

Schedule I was only supposed to be a temporary designation for marijuana. The Shaffer Commission was set up in 1970 to look into marijuana, to see if it belonged elsewhere. At the end of their investigation, the Commission did not believe that Schedule I was an appropriate designation for cannabis. However, Congress did nothing to reschedule cannabis based on their investigation.

The CSA has two built-in means by which a drug like Cannabis can be rescheduled. Under 21 USC 811 and 812, the Attorney General of the United States, after all proper review by the DEA/FDA has made a determination about the status, may then reschedule it on his own, believing that it belongs somewhere else.

To date, no Attorney General has exercised that power, and the closest we have seen to that were the guidance memoranda that were issued from 2009-2013 by Deputy Attorneys General Ogden and Cole which gave instruction to the United States Attorneys sitting in districts within a state that legalized cannabis in some form to conserve their prosecutorial resources, and not go after state compliant patients, or distributors.

These guidance memoranda have been repealed or “rolled back” by Attorney General Sessions, but he has not reversed the guidance memo from Cole to FinCEN, which set forth criteria and safeguards for the financial industry to feel secure in banking and taking deposits from cash involved in cannabis transactions. Incidentally, cannabis companies are switching to ancillary blockchain technology companies, such as 420Blockchain.

According to Holland, the other means under the CSA to reschedule cannabis is for an “aggrieved party” to petition the DEA/FDA, seeking reclassification based upon scientific or other evidence of claims which would advance their interests. Under the CSA, the aggrieved party must exhaust this option before seeking redress from litigation in the court system.

Several petitions have been filed since 1976 when NORML first filed, and then litigated, their petition seeking to reschedule. Not only is the petition process inordinately prolonged, up to a decade, because the DEA/FDA do not move quickly to render a determination, but there has been absolutely no movement, or any indication of any policy change concerning cannabis, as the result of any petition.

Noteworthy cases have included NORML’s effort in 1976, where Judge Young stated that cannabis should put in a less restrictive schedule, but was powerless to do so, and in 2012 when the Americans For Safe Access/Coalition to Reschedule Cannabis v. DEA, where scientists sought to reschedule to conduct more research, and in Bryan Krumm v. DEA, which denied him relief in 2016 to permit medical usage for his patients in New Mexico.

Interestingly, exhaustion of the administrative petition remedy has not been a bar to claims of constitutional rights violations brought by criminal defendants in criminal cases. There, because the federal government had commenced the action in the federal court forum, the courts have not precluded challenges to the CSA raised in defense of the charges, even though the CSA does not expressly provide for a remedy under those situations. Claims raised by criminal defendants in those cases have generally been to the power of the federal government to have jurisdiction over someone who is just growing marijuana for their own use, without selling it, as addressed by the US Supreme Court in Gonzalez v. Raich, to nullification of the supremacy of the federal law through the Ogden and Cole Memoranda, which fosters state-based cannabis markets, which was addressed in US v. Canori, to lack of scientific evidence to support the continued Schedule I designation of cannabis, which led to a five day hearing in US v. Pickard.

In these criminal cases, courts have wrestled with the reality that the states have found that there is medical viability for cannabis, and that runs contrary to the rationale for Schedule I status.

Justice Scalia wrote in the Gonzalez v Raich case that he believed that evidence about cannabis may be developed someday that would contradict the lack of medical validity prong of the Schedule I criteria. His instincts proved correct, as a body of anecdotal and other evidence has accumulated which puts that designation in doubt.

Courts have further wrestled with the question of who gets to decide what happens to cannabis’ scheduling, and where it more properly belongs. At the end of five days of expert testimony, the judge in the Pickard case ruled that she did not think it was the province of the courts to make such a decision, which is best left to Congress, which put it there in the first place.

Many courts have since come to the same conclusion, including the Western District of New York, in US v. Green, which concluded that the classification of cannabis is a political question, upon which courts may not rule.

As attorney Hillel Neuer often decries when denouncing the United Nations, Congress scheduling cannabis is, "like voting for an arsonist to be the town’s fire chief."

In 2017, the Washington v. Sessions case commenced litigation in federal court. Five plaintiffs brought a number of claims regarding how their civil rights were violated, due to the continuing Schedule I status of cannabis under the CSA. Their claims related to health concerns. The plaintiffs used cannabis for their wellbeing, and in some cases, for their survival. They had travel claims because they could not commute by airplanes, buses, or interstate highways while in possession of their cannabis-derived medicine. They additionally claimed unlawful impediments to equal opportunities to receive government funding and grants to engage in cannabis-related businesses.

Judge Hellerstein, who heard oral arguments in the case, was clearly swayed by the miraculous beneficial impact that cannabis had on the health of the children plaintiffs. Hellerstein stated that they were ‘living proof’ of the medical validity of marijuana, which undermined that prong of the Schedule I designation.

Nonetheless, while making statements that suggested that the classification of cannabis is a political question, as Pickard and Green found, Judge Hellerstein came up with a quixotic ruling. More specifically, he held that while criminal defendants may advance their constitutional claims directly in court, these five civil litigants were first required to exhaust the administrative petition requirement, before he would have jurisdiction to hear their claims. In other words, while he empathized with the plaintiffs, he still passed the buck.

The plaintiffs in Washington V Sessions have chosen to appeal Judge Hellerstein’s ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York.

Litigation efforts remain an uphill battle, and the petitioning process still remains an exercise in futility. Apparently, the pathway to rescheduling or descheduling cannabis still remains a political question for Congress.

Or is it?

As posited by Karen Bernstein, Esq., at the Cannabis Law Summit in New York City, on behalf of her student’s hypothesis, there may be an opportunity to force the hand of the recalcitrant Congress under Article V of the United States Constitution.

Article V permits two-thirds of the states to call for a Convention of States to put forth proposed amendments to the Constitution. If the proposed amendment is passed by three-fourths of the states as they are comprised in Congress (three-fourths of Congress approves the convention of states proposal), then the Constitution will be amended. This is different from a constitutional convention because the power to summon the convention is being derived by an exercise of state power under Article V and the 10th Amendment, rather than by Congress calling for it in the first instance.

This is an attractive possibility to circumvent the stubbornness of Congress and the courts. To obtain the initial two-thirds support, or for 34 states to call for the conference of states, may not be a long shot. With 30 states having legalized cannabis already, that is presumptively 30 votes in hand. With several more states contemplating legalization, it may not be that far-fetched to solicit and expect an additional four votes that would then constitute the required number for that convention to be called.

Given the recent poll figures of more than 90% of those polled supporting medical marijuana, and 60% in favor of the responsible adult use of cannabis, the prospect of getting the three-fourths ratification vote may not seem so far-fetched, according to Holland, in order to be able to legalize cannabis through a constitutional amendment.

Doing so would certainly eliminate much of the uncertainty out there in the medical, business, and banking communities about what may and may not be undertaken concerning cannabis.

Certainly, the plaintiffs in Washington v Sessions would get much-needed relief for the constitutional impairment that they have suffered, due to the irrational Schedule I classification.

However, politics is unpredictable. There may be many strange bedfellows, and orgiastic exuberance of special interest groups, that will each seek to have a say in the language and objectives of any proposed amendment that could be put forth in a convention of states.

It may be, for that reason, that since the founding of our nation, the scores of efforts to call for an Article V state convention to amend the constitution have failed. Not once has an Article V proposal passed muster at the three-fourths approval ratification and adoption phase. Past Article V failures have included efforts to amend the constitution on issues that myriad citizens cared more strongly about than the classification of cannabis.

According to cannabis law expert, and prolific author of works, including Judicial Process In America, and IRS 280 E and its Application to the Cannabis Industry, Bob Carp, pursuing an Article V legal strategy would be an exercise in futility.

“It won’t work, because it requires 26 congressional reps to have a plurality. You would think that the people who did have it, would organize a bipartisan congressional body. However, even if the bill does pass, it still has to go to POTUS’ desk, and he could veto it,” Mr. Carp said.

Perhaps this futility is not entirely unworthy of pursuing. Without such past “futile” efforts, which included petitioning the FDA, litigating against the DEA, and amendment efforts through state-based calls to action, the cannabis dialogue and movement might never have progressed to legalization in 30 states. Specifically, the passage of federal appropriations amendments, which prohibit federal law enforcement from using federal funds to investigate and pursue state-compliant marijuana patients and commercial centers, would not have passed.

Holland remains optimistic. “There really is something to the old adage, ‘nothing ventured, nothing gained,’” he said. “Or, my personal motto as a reformed toker going on 35 years, ‘Time spent wasted was not wasted time.’”

Unfortunately, Article V is not the best precedent for challenging federal prohibition. However, if a national grassroots movement to enact it gets underway, “I Got 5 On It,” by Luniz, will be an appropriate, campaign slogan.

 

[Baron23]

Probably far from over...many levels of appeal in the Fed judiciary.


Medical marijuana user's boss can drug test him, court says


A New Jersey business does not have to waive its requirement for mandatory drug testing for a worker who uses medical marijuana, a federal court has ruled.

Daniel Cotto Jr. of Bridgeton had sued Ardagh Glass citing the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination after the company wouldn't allow him to return to his job unless he submitted to breathalyzer and urine screenings.

Ardagh asked that Cotto's suit be dismissed, an action which was granted by Judge Robert B. Kugler sitting in U.S. District Court in Camden.

"New Jersey law does not require private employers to waive drug tests for users of medical marijuana," Kugler wrote.

The judge also noted "unless expressly provided for by statue, most courts have concluded that the decriminalization of medical marijuana does not shield employees from adverse employment actions."

Cotto said in his suit he had worked for Ardagh in Bridgeton as a forklift operator since February 2011.

When he was hired, he told officials there he was taking Percocet, Gabapentin and using medical marijuana -- all prescribed by a doctor -- to treat pain from a 2007 injury he had suffered, Cotto's suit said.

There was no indication in court documents whether Cotto was required to submit to a drug test at that time.

In early November 2016, according to his suit, he injured himself by hitting his head on the roof of a forklift while working at Ardagh.

He says after a doctor's visit he was told by an Ardagh representative he couldn't return unless he passed a drug test.

Cotto claimed he was told by a company human resources official his medical marijuana use was a "problem."

In August 2017, Cotto was "formally" terminated, his suit says. Cotto filed suit in Superior Court in Cumberland County in September 2017, but the case was later transferred to federal court in Camden at Ardagh's request.




Hopes dimming for legal weed soon?

Gov. Phil Murphy said he wants state lawmakers to legalize marijuana in New Jersey by January. But so far, that's looking uncertain.

Kugler said in his ruling that Cotto was not claiming that Ardagh was discriminating against him based on his disability, but "discriminated against him by refusing to accommodate his use of medical marijuana by waiving a drug test."

The judge wrote "(Cotto) claims that the decriminalization of medical marijuana under the New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act together with the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination compels his employer to provide an accommodation for him, which the court infers can only mean a request that his employer waive the requirement that (Cotto) pass a drug test."

Ardagh argued the state's medical marijuana act "does not mandate employer acceptance -- or, more particularly, to waive a drug test -- of an employee's use of a substance that is illegal under federal law."

While New Jersey's medical marijuana act protects those prescribed the drug from legal penalties, Kugler quoted the law which says it does not "require ... an employer to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in any workplace."

Kugler says he believes other courts would also reach the conclusion that the Law Against Discrimination "does not require an employer to accommodate an employee's use of medical marijuana with a drug test waiver."

"Ardagh Glass is within its rights to refuse to waive a drug test for federally-prohibited narcotics," Kugler wrote.

Kugler also noted New Jersey is an "at-will" employment state meaning "an employer may fire an employee for good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all."

Attorneys for Cotto and Ardagh didn't immediately return email requests for comment.

 

[momofthegoons]

Have we reached a verdict on medical marijuana?
With recreational cannabis on the horizon, implications for health care remain uncertain



The seizures started in 1959, when Terrance Parker was four years old.

‘Grand mals,’ they were called — a term that rose to prominence in the late nineteenth century and loosely translates to ‘a great evil.’

He could tell when they were about to happen. The hairs on the nape of his neck prickled in anticipation. A fear of the known, it was unlike any other, yet he could do little to prevent it.

As the electrical storm raced in his brain, his limbs jerked violently and his consciousness shredded. He would later be placed on an anticonvulsant therapy, and go through medications such as Dilantin, Mysoline, and Librium with little success.

The lobectomies, first performed at the Hospital for Sick Children, or SickKids, at age 14, and then 16, failed to effectively improve his symptoms. Parker’s prognosis appeared bleak.

At least, it did until he was introduced to cannabis by a worker at the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital. He would smoke a joint to get high and receive immediate, albeit brief, relief from the havoc that the seizures wreaked on his body. As he continued to smoke, however, something curious happened.

The seizures stopped.

“After 38 years of this terrible affliction, and hundreds, if not more than a thousand seizures, I can say that it is only with the assistance of marijuana that I have ever been able to fight through the [fear] and stave off an oncoming grand mal,” stated Parker, in a 1997 affidavit after he was arrested for the possession and trafficking of cannabis.

Parker was acquitted of all charges in 2000, after the judge declared his arrest unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated his rights to life, liberty, and security. It was at that moment that Terrance Parker became the first individual in Canada to use marijuana legally, for medical reasons. Regulated medical cannabis later became legal in 2001.

There are many individuals with stories like that of Parker — of discovering hope in this herbaceous flowering plant.

Although controlled clinical trials that determine a direct causal relationship between the use of cannabis and the frequency of seizures have been few and far between, there is mounting anecdotal evidence of its efficacy in treating epilepsy.

Exposure to cannabidiol (CBD), a non-psychoactive component in marijuana, has been linked to the reduction of seizure frequency in pediatric epilepsy and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, a form of severe childhood-onset epilepsy.

Despite evidence being mainly anecdotal, Dr. David Juurlink, Head of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology at Sunnybrook Hospital and Professor in the Faculty of Medicine at U of T, believes a case can be made for the judicious prescription of cannabis.

According to Juurlink, cannabis is particularly useful for patients whose symptoms have improved with its use. It should be prescribed on a case-by-case basis, while also considering other drugs with similar effects.

Meanwhile, high-quality scientific evidence for the therapeutic effects of cannabis in the treatment of symptoms associated with multiple sclerosis (MS) like chronic pain, neuropathic pain, and spasticity — the tightness and stiffness of muscles preventing normal movement — has been well established.

In a 2007 study published in the European Journal of Neurology, 124 individuals with MS and spasticity were given a cannabis-based medicine containing CBD and the primary psychoactive component tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), while 65 individuals were given a placebo for a duration of six weeks. The results of this research gave cannabis the green light.

Studies published in 2004 and 2006 in the Multiple Sclerosis Journal had also found similar results, confirming the growing optimism that cannabis can be used to relieve symptoms associated with MS.

In a 2009 Nature study, researchers used similar methodologies to study the effects of cannabis for neuropathic pain in patients with HIV. The researchers found that the 28 subjects, who completed both placebo and cannabis treatments, experienced greater pain relief when they were treated with cannabis.

But despite what a quick Google search might tell you, cannabis is not a panacea for all diseases and disorders.

Dr. Tony George, Chief of Addictions at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and also Professor in the Department of Psychiatry, found that THC in marijuana actually worsens symptoms of psychosis in patients with schizophrenia, and could induce psychosis in those who have a family history of the disorder.

Surprisingly, isolating certain cannabinoids may have the opposite effect.

“CBD seems to oppose the effects of THC… and [CBD] is being studied for anti-psychotic, anti-depressant, and anti-addictive, and cognitive enhancing effects,” said George. “If that’s true, that could be a very exciting breakthrough in therapeutics in psychiatry, and it may be a potential pain strategy.”

Currently, there is simply not enough evidence to conclude that cannabis can effectively treat a myriad of mood disorders and other debilitating diseases. It has only been proven for a few diseases, and often in isolated cases.

According to George, thus far, there are only indications that cannabinoids have positive effects on post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, or glaucoma, and evidence to support these indications is not substantive.

Yet, preliminary research is promising and may pave the way for its unrestricted use.

With the impending legalization of recreational cannabis, however, there are some concerns over what will become of Health Canada’s medical marijuana program. “The problem is that the current approach by the government is sort of full speed ahead, without doing the due diligence to find out the facts,” said George.

“There [are] only about 30,000 or 40,000 people using in a country of 35 million people,” he explained. “I don’t know what the future of medical marijuana is, but if you’re someone who is a patient or family member, or a healthcare professional that’s invested in that, I think there is some reason to be concerned.”

 

[Baron23]

The DEA just changed its tune on marijuana


The federal quota for cannabis production used in medical research will be over 450% higher in 2019.

Big changes are under way right now in our neighbor to the north. Beginning Oct. 17, recreational marijuana will officially go on sale in Canada, making it the first industrialized country in the world to give adult-use weed the green light.

The legalization of marijuana in Canada is expected to generate up to $5 billion in annual sales once the industry is fully up to speed. Though some of this revenue will come from domestic markets, Canadian growers are angling to reap significant rewards from exports since roughly 30 countries having legalized medical cannabis to some degree. However, the United States won't be one of those countries.

The U.S. federal government stymies cannabis progress

Whereas most of the developed world appears to be progressing on their view of cannabis, the U.S. has remained stuck in neutral. Even though Oklahoma recently became the 30th state to have legalized medical marijuana in some capacity, the federal government has held firm on its stance that cannabis is a Schedule I substance.

According to the Controlled Substances Act, that means marijuana is entirely illegal, prone to abuse, and devoid of any recognized medical benefits.

As you can imagine, businesses that deal with marijuana in the U.S. face quite a few disadvantages with this Schedule I classification. For instance, businesses that sell a Schedule I or II substance are unable to take normal corporate income tax deductions, aside from cost of goods. For pot companies, this can lead to an effective corporate income tax rate of between 70% and 90%.

In addition, weed's Schedule I classification has made it virtually impossible for marijuana-based businesses to access basic banking services like a normal company. That means little or no access to loans, lines of credit, and even checking accounts.

But the biggest slap of all might be what the Schedule I classification does to the medical side of the equation. Though researchers would like to conduct tests into the benefits and risks of cannabis, the drug's current scheduling makes getting regulatory approval for those tests difficult. Plus, with just one grow facility in the U.S. at the University of Mississippi, supply is also a serious concern.

Having previously broken its promise, the DEA appears to have changed its tune

The interesting thing here is that changes the Obama administration made in 2016 were designed to rectify researchers' inability to get their hands on federally approved medical cannabis.

The Obama administration set a path by which the National Institute on Drug Abuse would license additional cultivators, ending the University of Mississippi's monopoly on federally grown cannabis, which it's held since 1968. In doing so, the supply for researchers to conduct laboratory and clinical studies should increase.

But that hasn't happened. Despite receiving roughly 25 applications for federal cannabis grow farms last year, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and Attorney General Jeff Sessions have sat on these applications without approving a single one. In fact, the amount of cannabis the DEA requested be grown in 2018, 443,680 grams, is actually a modest decline from what the drug regulatory agency requested be grown in 2017.

The good news is that it appears the DEA is done breaking promises to researchers and the American public. According to a new register filing from the DEA, as reported by Forbes, the regulatory agency is calling for 2,450,000 grams of cannabis next year "to meet the country's medical, scientific, research, industrial, and export needs for the year and for the establishment of reserve stocks." For those of you keeping score at home, that's a 452% year-over-year increase in requested production.

What we don't as of yet know is where this new production will come from. It's possible it could come entirely from the University of Mississippi in order to replace reduced reserves. It's also just as likely that this proposed 2.45 million grams of production implies that Sessions and the DEA plan to approve some of the grow farm applications they've received.

Though Sessions hasn't tipped his hand one way or the other, he's certainly received bipartisan pressure from lawmakers in Washington to boost federally approved output.

The big picture: Marijuana remains stuck in neutral
But when looking at the bigger picture, the U.S. cannabis industry is unlikely to see much in the way of change, even with the DEA requesting additional production for research purposes.

That's because Republicans are still in control of the legislative branch of the federal government, and the GOP has a markedly more negative view of cannabis than Democrats or independents. That makes any chance of a rescheduling or de-scheduling unlikely.

However, there is a wild card that has the potential to incite change at the federal level.

Back on June 25, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved GW Pharmaceuticals' (NASDAQ:GWPH) Epidiolex to treat two rare types of childhood-onset epilepsy known as Dravet syndrome and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. What makes this approval so different from just any other drug approval is that it marked the first time that the FDA OK'd a cannabis-derived drug.

Synthetic versions of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive component of the cannabis plant that gets you "high," have been approved before. But this was the first time a cannabidiol (CBD)-based medicine directly from the cannabis plant was given the green light. CBD is the non-psychoactive cannabinoid best known for its perceived medical benefits.

This is significant because the FDA approval of a cannabis-derived drug contradicts the definition of a Schedule I substance. In essence, a Schedule I substance has no recognized medical benefits -- yet here's this newly approved drug from GW Pharmaceuticals that shows otherwise. This cannabis conundrum may spark a rescheduling of cannabidiol, or perhaps lead to increased discussion of marijuana reform on Capitol Hill.

But make no mistake about it: The hill to climb is steep. Even though the public's opinion has shifted dramatically over the past two decades, the federal government has little reason to consider changing its classification of marijuana.

 

[Baron23]

This article is more about DEA position on this research and its relationship to maintaining schedule 1 status, so here rather than under a medical thread. But please feel free to move it if you think that's best.

US Federal government confirms: Marijuana kills certain cancer cells and could cure brain tumors

It is easy to say that marijuana is close to being legalized by the United States Federal Government. As it stands, marijuana is classified as a Schedule I drug by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). This means that marijuana is one of the most strictly regulated drugs, apparently because it is considered to have “no medicinal value” to the public.

But it has now emerged that the US federal government has admitted that marijuana may in fact serve as a useful treatment for brain tumors, one of the most dangerous type of cancers. Brain tumors can occur at any age, and the exact cause of brain tumors is not clear to researchers.

The most common symptoms of brain tumors include headaches, numbness or tingling in the arms or legs, seizures, memory problems, mood and personality changes, balance and walking problems, nausea and vomiting, changes in speech, vision, or hearing.



This new stand by the Federal Government is said to be based on a major study published in November 2014 by researchers at the St. George’s University of London, that found that marijuana can be an effective drug to fight brain tumors.

The National Institute on Drug Abuse has said in its new revised guidelines that “recent animal studies have shown that marijuana can kill certain cancer cells and reduce the size of others. Evidence from one animal study suggests that extracts from whole-plant marijuana can shrink one of the most serious types of brain tumors. Research in mice showed that these extracts, when used with radiation, increased the cancer-killing effects of the radiation”.

One of the lead researchers of the study, who made the discovery, explained that it is refreshing news that the US government is taking a new stand on marijuana.

Meanwhile, the study has triggered many well-respected personalities across the US to publicly speak their mind about marijuana. In February this year, the new US’s Surgeon General, Dr Vivek Murthy, said that he is optimistic that the US government will stick to its current position on marijuana so that more research can be carried out to fully explore the drug’s benefits, for the benefit of all people.



“We have to see what the science tells us about the efficacy of marijuana. We have some preliminary data that for certain medical conditions and symptoms, marijuana can be helpful. We have to use that data to drive policy-making,” he told CBS This Morning show in an interview.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has also adjusted its official position on marijuana and called for the government to drop its Schedule I status in order to facilitate more research on its effects.

A bill was also recently introduced in the Senate by some senators- Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D.-N.Y.) that would reclassify marijuana as a Schedule II drug, to allow exploration of its medical benefits.



This means that the hard-line stand on marijuana is gradually becoming weakened. The government’s acknowledgement of the study augurs well for advocates for medical marijuana usage. The drug’s Schedule I classification has stifled scientific inquiry into the effects of marijuana (both good and bad) and has resulted in a catch-22: Marijuana is labeled Schedule I because it’s assumed to have no medicinal benefits, but that prevents people from figuring out if it has medical benefits, which then causes it to continue to be classified as a Schedule I drug.

Critics say that because it is labeled as Schedule I, scientists generally cannot acquire funding from anywhere to determine if it has any medicinal benefits to human beings.

Hopefully, with the advent of this revelation, and the initiative taken by some lawmakers to change the traditional stand on marijuana, companies and individuals who can afford to will be willing to sponsor new research into marijuana to determine its efficacy. The government too should make a concerted effort to also sanction in-depth research, to clear the air for the usage of the drug in a well-regulated manner for the benefit of the entire world. After all, if we can turn a “deadly poison” into a boon to the society, why should we not do it?

 

[Baron23]

Analysis shows no change in US crime from medical marijuana legalization

Victoria University of Wellington research shows there has been almost no change to the level of crime in the United States since the legalisation of medical marijuana.

The research, led by Dr. Luke Chu from the School of Economics and Finance and former student Wilbur Townsend, studied national crime rates as well as rates in individual states that have passed medical marijuana laws, and found minor effects.

The exception was California, where violent and property crime reduced by 20 percent between 1996—when medical marijuana was legalised there—and 2013.

The researchers compared before and after data on specific crimes including murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny and motor vehicle theft between states with and without legalised marijuana. Nearly all of the estimated changes in crime rates are close to zero at national and state levels.

California's 20 percent reduction in crime could be due to a range of factors, says Dr. Chu.

"There's no definitive answer as to why. California is a relatively liberal state and was the first U.S. state to legalise medical marijuana.

"Other recent studies have shown that medical marijuana laws cause an increase in heavy marijuana use, but a reduction in other acts including drunk driving, heroin usage and opioid addiction."

Dr. Chu says the findings are comparable to a New Zealand context. "I believe we would be unlikely to see a large surge in crime if it were legalised here."

Previous studies have explored the topic, but with conflicting findings, says Dr. Chu. This study is the first of its kind to examine state-specific effects.

"In addition to traditional regression analysis, we used a technique called synthetic control method to analyse the data. This allows us to take into account pre-law differences in crime trends without making extra assumptions."

The study, led by Wilbur as part of his Honours thesis, was recently published in the Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization.