Law The Cannabis Chronicles - Misc Cannabis News

[Baron23]

I watched a new NETFLIX series with APPLEGATE love it.
Very ESOTERIC!

@ClearBlueLou several wife’s?
Really?

I don’t think he meant at one time, my brother.



Just got back in town. On a phone. Will catch up w everybody when u get my feet back on the ground. But I do want to wish you and everybody else here a wonderful and safe holiday tomorrow.

Yes, I’m real high. Haha.

 

[Madri-Gal]

I don’t think he meant at one time, my brother.



Just got back in town. On a phone. Will catch up w everybody when u get my feet back on the ground. But I do want to wish you and everybody else here a wonderful and safe holiday tomorrow.

Yes, I’m real high. Haha.

Good for you, @Baron23 . Welcome back.

 

[ClearBlueLou]

You are a treasure @ataxian.
@ClearBlueLou, this is why the law must change for everyone, so everyone has the chance to connect with cannabis and each other. Why am I not living in a hippie house?

Goodness! How many wives do you have? Never mind. They are all lucky to have you.

Kind of you to say, Madri-Gal...I’m in my third marriage, and I think I don’t have to make the same mistake again...none are/were bad people, I’ve just made bad decisions as to who would be a good partner.

Hippie houses went the way of the dodo by the mid-70s, near as I can tell. Not the best place, maybe, for long-term ongoing life plans, but I believe they would suit the (nearly) retired to a tee...provided they don’t eat each other’s groceries, don’t hog the bathrooms, don’t keep others awake, and actually participate in keeping house and yard clean enough to live in.

 

[Madri-Gal]

Kind of you to say, Madri-Gal...I’m in my third marriage, and I think I don’t have to make the same mistake again...none are/were bad people, I’ve just made bad decisions as to who would be a good partner.

Hippie houses went the way of the dodo by the mid-70s, near as I can tell. Not the best place, maybe, for long-term ongoing life plans, but I believe they would suit the (nearly) retired to a tee...provided they don’t eat each other’s groceries, don’t hog the bathrooms, don’t keep others awake, and actually participate in keeping house and yard clean enough to live in.

Some ideas are probably better in theory than life, hippie houses included. It is a nice idea, though.

 

[Baron23]

Ok, back on topic.....this article doesn't surprise me as its been my observation that our self-entitled professional political class seems less responsive to their electorate's desires than ever before. Representative democracy doesn't seem like a concept that they fully grasp and certainly not one that they honor. They need to go, IMO.

Don't expect quick U.S. marijuana legalization based on polls showing support

You might look around and think that the legalization of marijuana in the U.S. is right around the corner. Thirty-three states have already legalized medical cannabis. Ten states have legalized recreational pot, with another big state -- Illinois -- on the way to doing so.

Then there are the surveys -- lots of them -- that reflect solid support among Americans for legalizing marijuana. Gallup, Pew Research Center, and Quinnipiac surveys from last year showed more than 60% of respondents expressing support for marijuana legalization. Surveys conducted by Boston University, CBS News, and Fox News were in the same ballpark, with support for legalizing pot ranging between 55% and 59%.

But don't expect quick U.S. marijuana legalization based on these surveys. There's a big gotcha that the surveys don't reveal.

What the surveys don't say
While survey after survey shows that a majority of Americans are in favor of U.S. legalization of pot, those surveys don't indicate how intense that support is. But other surveys provide clues. And it's not good news for anyone thinking that a groundswell of public support will lead to marijuana legalization quickly.

In January, the Pew Research Center announced the results of a survey that identified what Americans' top priorities for Washington, D.C., are in 2019. Improving the economy took the top spot, with 70% of respondents listing it as a top priority. Reducing healthcare costs followed as a close No. 2.

Where did legalizing marijuana rank among the public's 2019 priorities according to the Pew Research Center survey? It didn't show up at all.

CNN conducted a survey in March to find out what issues Americans ranked high on the list in deciding whom they'd support for president in the 2020 election. Marijuana legalization did register on this -- with an underwhelming 2% ranking it as a significant priority.

Although the majority of Americans support legalizing pot, many of them don't appear to see it as a significant issue for the country. This is borne out by a Gallup poll conducted in February in which U.S. residents were asked to identify the top problems that the country faces. Poor government leadership, immigration, and healthcare ranked as the top responses. Marijuana legalization didn't make the list.

Political dynamics
You've probably heard the expression that "the squeaky wheel gets the grease." This old saying is true in politics. Issues that people care about (and complain about) the most tend to receive the most attention from politicians. Legalizing marijuana doesn't seem to be a very squeaky wheel right now.

This is especially true for Republicans, who tend to support marijuana legalization at lower levels than do Democrats and independents. And it could present a bigger hurdle to U.S. marijuana legalization than you might think.

Legislation is already being advanced in both houses of the U.S. Congress to change federal laws to recognize the authority of individual states to enforce their own marijuana laws. The votes appear to be in place for passage in the House of Representatives and in the Senate.

However, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and gets to pick which bills come before the committee. The bill to change U.S. marijuana laws must first clear Sen. Graham's committee, and he hasn't been a big fan of legalizing pot but has been supportive of medical cannabis.

As the Senate majority leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R.-Ky., ultimately decides which bills get voted on by the full Senate. Sen. McConnell was a key proponent of legalizing hemp in the U.S.

But his support for the hemp industry in his home state of Kentucky could squelch the chances of marijuana legalization at the federal level as long as he leads the Senate. Even with many GOP senators representing states that have legalized marijuana in some form, there's not likely to be a tremendous amount of pressure on Sen. McConnell from his own party to allow marijuana legalization to move forward in the Senate.

So could the GOP lose control of the Senate in the 2020 elections, clearing the way for U.S. marijuana legalization in 2021? Maybe. Republicans will defend 22 seats compared to only 12 seats for Democrats. But only two of the GOP's Senate seats are in states that leaned Democrat in the last two presidential elections. In addition, Democrats have a difficult task in holding on to the seat in Alabama currently held by Doug Jones.

Investing in the meantime
Despite significant levels of support among Americans for legalizing pot, the lack of intensity in that support could doom efforts to change federal laws in the near future. In the meantime, though, the U.S. cannabis industry continues to grow rapidly anyway. Investors who wait for federal laws to change could miss out on that growth.

Probably the best investing opportunities are in stocks that should perform well even if it takes a while for changes to U.S. federal marijuana policy. Two that should fit the bill are Canopy Growth (NYSE:CGC) and Scotts Miracle-Gro (NYSE:SMG).

Canopy Growth is a major player in the Canadian adult-use recreational marijuana markets. It's also a leader in fast-growing international medical cannabis markets. In addition, the company is building a large-scale hemp production facility in New York state and seems likely to expand into hemp markets in other U.S. states. Canopy Growth would be quick to move into the U.S. marijuana market should federal laws change, but the company should be able to deliver plenty of growth in other ways in the meantime.

Scotts Miracle-Gro has emerged as the leading supplier to the U.S. cannabis industry. The company's Hawthorne Gardening subsidiary sells hydroponics, lighting systems, ventilation systems, and other products to marijuana growers. Scotts stock would no doubt skyrocket if U.S. marijuana laws changed. However, the company should still perform quite well regardless thanks to its cannabis-focused business and its introduction of new organic lawn and garden products.

Other stocks could be winners as well. That gotcha with surveys showing support for marijuana legalization doesn't have to be a gotcha for investors.

 

[ClearBlueLou]

Some ideas are probably better in theory than life, hippie houses included. It is a nice idea, though.

Most of them just “happened” - students, street people, young professionals...for the long term, planning and ownership and agreements are crucial. Maybe we’ll make it over that hump one day soon

Ok, back on topic.....this article doesn't surprise me as its been my observation that our self-entitled professional political class seems less responsive to their electorate's desires than ever before. Representative democracy doesn't seem like a concept that they fully grasp and certainly not one that they honor. They need to go, IMO.

Don't expect quick U.S. marijuana legalization based on polls showing support

You might look around and think that the legalization of marijuana in the U.S. is right around the corner. Thirty-three states have already legalized medical cannabis. Ten states have legalized recreational pot, with another big state -- Illinois -- on the way to doing so.

Then there are the surveys -- lots of them -- that reflect solid support among Americans for legalizing marijuana. Gallup, Pew Research Center, and Quinnipiac surveys from last year showed more than 60% of respondents expressing support for marijuana legalization. Surveys conducted by Boston University, CBS News, and Fox News were in the same ballpark, with support for legalizing pot ranging between 55% and 59%.

But don't expect quick U.S. marijuana legalization based on these surveys. There's a big gotcha that the surveys don't reveal.

What the surveys don't say
While survey after survey shows that a majority of Americans are in favor of U.S. legalization of pot, those surveys don't indicate how intense that support is. But other surveys provide clues. And it's not good news for anyone thinking that a groundswell of public support will lead to marijuana legalization quickly.

In January, the Pew Research Center announced the results of a survey that identified what Americans' top priorities for Washington, D.C., are in 2019. Improving the economy took the top spot, with 70% of respondents listing it as a top priority. Reducing healthcare costs followed as a close No. 2.

Where did legalizing marijuana rank among the public's 2019 priorities according to the Pew Research Center survey? It didn't show up at all.

CNN conducted a survey in March to find out what issues Americans ranked high on the list in deciding whom they'd support for president in the 2020 election. Marijuana legalization did register on this -- with an underwhelming 2% ranking it as a significant priority.

Although the majority of Americans support legalizing pot, many of them don't appear to see it as a significant issue for the country. This is borne out by a Gallup poll conducted in February in which U.S. residents were asked to identify the top problems that the country faces. Poor government leadership, immigration, and healthcare ranked as the top responses. Marijuana legalization didn't make the list.

Political dynamics
You've probably heard the expression that "the squeaky wheel gets the grease." This old saying is true in politics. Issues that people care about (and complain about) the most tend to receive the most attention from politicians. Legalizing marijuana doesn't seem to be a very squeaky wheel right now.

This is especially true for Republicans, who tend to support marijuana legalization at lower levels than do Democrats and independents. And it could present a bigger hurdle to U.S. marijuana legalization than you might think.

Legislation is already being advanced in both houses of the U.S. Congress to change federal laws to recognize the authority of individual states to enforce their own marijuana laws. The votes appear to be in place for passage in the House of Representatives and in the Senate.

However, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and gets to pick which bills come before the committee. The bill to change U.S. marijuana laws must first clear Sen. Graham's committee, and he hasn't been a big fan of legalizing pot but has been supportive of medical cannabis.

As the Senate majority leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R.-Ky., ultimately decides which bills get voted on by the full Senate. Sen. McConnell was a key proponent of legalizing hemp in the U.S.

But his support for the hemp industry in his home state of Kentucky could squelch the chances of marijuana legalization at the federal level as long as he leads the Senate. Even with many GOP senators representing states that have legalized marijuana in some form, there's not likely to be a tremendous amount of pressure on Sen. McConnell from his own party to allow marijuana legalization to move forward in the Senate.

So could the GOP lose control of the Senate in the 2020 elections, clearing the way for U.S. marijuana legalization in 2021? Maybe. Republicans will defend 22 seats compared to only 12 seats for Democrats. But only two of the GOP's Senate seats are in states that leaned Democrat in the last two presidential elections. In addition, Democrats have a difficult task in holding on to the seat in Alabama currently held by Doug Jones.

Investing in the meantime
Despite significant levels of support among Americans for legalizing pot, the lack of intensity in that support could doom efforts to change federal laws in the near future. In the meantime, though, the U.S. cannabis industry continues to grow rapidly anyway. Investors who wait for federal laws to change could miss out on that growth.

Probably the best investing opportunities are in stocks that should perform well even if it takes a while for changes to U.S. federal marijuana policy. Two that should fit the bill are Canopy Growth (NYSE:CGC) and Scotts Miracle-Gro (NYSE:SMG).

Canopy Growth is a major player in the Canadian adult-use recreational marijuana markets. It's also a leader in fast-growing international medical cannabis markets. In addition, the company is building a large-scale hemp production facility in New York state and seems likely to expand into hemp markets in other U.S. states. Canopy Growth would be quick to move into the U.S. marijuana market should federal laws change, but the company should be able to deliver plenty of growth in other ways in the meantime.

Scotts Miracle-Gro has emerged as the leading supplier to the U.S. cannabis industry. The company's Hawthorne Gardening subsidiary sells hydroponics, lighting systems, ventilation systems, and other products to marijuana growers. Scotts stock would no doubt skyrocket if U.S. marijuana laws changed. However, the company should still perform quite well regardless thanks to its cannabis-focused business and its introduction of new organic lawn and garden products.

Other stocks could be winners as well. That gotcha with surveys showing support for marijuana legalization doesn't have to be a gotcha for investors.

Stock plays in the cannabis space make me itch: straight-up power-grabs, no thought for the street-level market, I have no confidence that Big Weed is going to get cannabis users where they / we want to be - or even help the effort. Business ethics being what they are, they *might* not screw us while we watch...but then again, they just might

 

[CarolKing]

https://www.patreon.com/marijuanamoment
/ TOP THINGS TO KNOW

The Congressional Budget Office issued a score for the marijuana banking bill that’s expected to hit the House floor soon. By 2029, banks and credit unions would see deposits jump by $2.1 billion and $350 million, respectively, CBO estimated. The office also projected that the measure would end up saving the government money after some initial implementation costs.

Members of Congress are working on legislation to remove barriers to Small Business Administration assistance for the marijuana industry. Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) pressed an SBA official on the issue at a recent hearing.

At a House Armed Services Committee hearing, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) criticized Department of Veterans Affairs officials for effectively blocking participation in research that can demonstrate medical cannabis’s benefits for military veterans.

A C-SPAN caller had a novel idea for using cannabis to solve the nuclear crisis.

• “We could spray a marijuana-Prozac or peace-happy-friendly chemical mist over sites in Iran and North Korea, where they’re working to produce nuclear weapons. And the mist would cause the workers…to chill out.”

/ FEDERAL

The Department of Justice carried out large-scale cannabis enforcement actions in Colorado, with the state’s U.S. attorney saying the state “has become the epicenter of black market marijuana in the United States” and a Drug Enforcement Administration special agent adding, “Unfortunately Colorado is no longer known for its beautiful mountains and scenery. Now it is known for marijuana and other illegal manufacturing and distribution of controlled substances.”

Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) tweeted, “Federal banking laws were designed to prevent illicit activity & help law enforcement do their jobs. These laws need to be applied to legitimate marijuana businesses to improve transparency, accountability.”

The House bill to deschedule marijuana and provide funding for expungements got three new cosponsors, for a total of 35.

 

[momofthegoons]

https://www.marijuanamoment.net/tsa...RK-KHIvCwGPTVnNJ8_ZoLftVUMrBgwKCA158clR-l8K0o
TSA Updates Marijuana Rules To Allow Hemp-Derived CBD On Flights

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) updated its policy on cannabis over the Memorial Day weekend, changing the medical marijuana section of its “What Can I Bring?” webpage from reading “no” to “yes” (with “special instructions”).

Specifically, the agency is clarifying that hemp-derived CBD products may now be carried on planes under certain circumstances.

Previously, TSA made no distinction between marijuana and hemp-derived preparations and warned on its website that cannabis products cannot be taken as carry-on items or in checked bags. But since the 2018 Farm Bill federally legalized hemp and its derivatives, that’s no longer the case.

Now the agency’s webpage specifies that possession of “certain” cannabis products are illegal under federal law, and TSA agents are required to report suspected violations such as possession of “certain” products to law enforcement.

Here’s the new policy as it appears on TSA’s website:

Via TSA.

“Products/medications that contain hemp-derived CBD or are approved by the FDA are legal as long as it is produced within the regulations defined by the law under the Agriculture Improvement Act 2018,” a new section states.

Here’s what the TSA policy looked like prior to the update:

Via TSA.

It’s not clear how the agency plans to enforce the new policy, unless it intends to train agents to test CBD preparations for the presence of THC and maintain a database of products that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

A TSA spokesperson told Marijuana Moment in an email that the policy change was spurred by FDA’s approval of a cannabis-derived anti-seizure medication, Epidiolex.

“TSA was made aware of an FDA-approved drug that contains CBD oil for children who experience seizures from pediatric epilepsy,” the spokesperson wrote. “To avoid confusion as to whether families can travel with this drug, TSA immediately updated TSA.gov once we became aware of the issue.”

But FDA approved the CBD prescription drug nearly a year ago—calling into question the notion that TSA acted “immediately.”

And the representative was not immediately able to comment on part of the TSA website update that now references the broader legalization of hemp-derived CBD under the Farm Bill, which was enacted in December.

The rest of the TSA page on cannabis mostly retains language from the earlier version. The agency’s efforts are “focused on security and are designed to detect potential threats to aviation and passengers,” it says, so it doesn’t use resources to seek out illicit drugs.

However, “if any illegal substance is discovered during security screening, TSA will refer the matter to a law enforcement officer.”

TSA has gone back-and-forth on its marijuana policy as more states opt to legalize the plant for medical or adult use. In April 2017, the agency took advocates by surprise after it updated the medical marijuana section of the “What Can I Bring?” page to include a green “yes,” indicating that medical cannabis was permitted in carry ons or checked bags.

“TSA security officers do not search for marijuana or other drugs,” the page said at the time. “In the event a substance that appears to be marijuana is observed during security screening, TSA will refer the matter to a law enforcement officer.”

But shortly after the page started attracting press attention, TSA temporarily removed the medical cannabis section and tweeted that a “mistake was made in the database.”



The agency later posted an updated version of the page, which specified that marijuana was not in fact allowed on planes.

“Whether or not marijuana is considered legal under local laws is not relevant to TSA screening because TSA is governed by federal law,” TSA wrote. “Federal law provides no basis to treat medical marijuana any differently than non-medical marijuana.”

But with the legalization of industrial hemp and its derivatives, multiple federal agencies are now revisiting their policies to clarify what is and isn’t allowed.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office released a memo earlier this month stipulating that certain hemp products may qualify for registered trademarks. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau said in April that CBD cannot currently be added to alcoholic beverages, as the FDA has yet to release updated guidelines on adding hemp-derived products into the food supply.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has told industry stakeholders that they are allowed to import hemp seeds from other countries, and the agency also said it was accepting intellectual property protection applications.

Both the FDA and the USDA are in the process of developing broader regulatory guidelines for hemp and its derivatives, with the FDA set to hold a public hearing on the issue this Friday.

 

[Baron23]

Bipartisan Lawmakers Ask Trump Administration To End Anti-Marijuana Immigration Policy
Several dozen members of Congress asked the heads of the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security on Wednesday to rescind a policy barring immigrants from gaining citizenship if they work in the state-legal marijuana industry.

In a bipartisan letter with 43 House signatories, the lawmakers reiterated their opposition to a recent memo released by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). That document clarified that the agency considered naturalization applicants who’ve been employed in the cannabis market morally unfit for citizenship.

“As you know, over 30 states and the District of Columbia have legalized cannabis for medical or recreational purposes,” the lawmakers wrote. “Hence, implementing a policy that targets naturalization applicants based solely on their lawful employment in this industry creates conflicts of law with over two-thirds of American states and territories.”

The letter, led by Reps. Joe Neguse (D-CO), Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Kelly Armstrong (R-ND), called for the “rescission of this policy and—at the very minimum—clarification on the process as it stands.”

“In Colorado, the cannabis market is legal and legitimate, employing thousands of employees and bringing in nearly $6 billion annually in sales,” Neguse said in a press release. “It’s time that we end the conflict between state and federal laws to ensure that individuals working in the cannabis industry are not penalized for that work.”

“Thirty-four states throughout the country have some form of legalized marijuana. The federal government is penalizing people for working in a legal industry in those states. That’s terrible public policy,” Armstrong added. “With this bipartisan letter, we’re urging DHS and DOJ to respect the settled expectations on cannabis.”

In March, Armstrong came out against another immigration policy stipulating that immigrants convicted of simple marijuana possession could be deported.

In the letter, lawmakers cited past statements from Attorney General William Barr, who has made repeated promises not to use Justice Department resources to crack down on state-legal cannabis operations. In light of those comments, the House members ask that “both DOJ and DHS act to rectify this policy as it relates to naturalization and disruption to a reliant state interest as referenced by Attorney General Barr.”

Other issues with the policy change, identified by the bipartisan group, include uncertainty surrounding the application process and the enforcement of the “good moral character” requirement. The letter also references recent cases out of Colorado where immigrants were denied citizenship due to their involvement in the state’s legal industry and were questionably required to sign affidavits affirming their employment.

“Give the foregoing, it bears mentioning that the DHS guidance—which requires long held admission standards be upheld—arguably is not being implemented correctly by USCIS. Moreover, the guidance itself is fatally flawed, as it provides no cogent basis for the agency’s apparent conclusion that lawful employment in a state-licensed industry could be treated as a negative factor in establishing good moral character and places a negative burden upon the individuals against a non-existent discretionary element.”

Besides retracting or clarifying the USCIS policy memo, the lawmakers asked for “additional guidance and the departments’ legal basis for construing employment in the lawful cannabis industry as a negative factor for establishing good moral character in the naturalization process.”

Neguse and three other congressional Democrats from Colorado sent a similar letter to the same officials at the earlier this month.

Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV) also addressed the issue during a congressional hearing last week, imploring the acting head of the Department of Homeland Security to revisit the policy.

“Obviously there’s a difference of viewpoint in the enforcement of marijuana laws between the federal and some of the emerging state jurisdictions,” the official said in response. “But it’s something that I’ll look at.”

Read lawmakers’ new letter on the anti-marijuana immigration policy below:

Read it here: https://www.scribd.com/embeds/41186...ons=false&access_key=key-dj7uTgcdZa1VDwfJ7xsW

 

[Baron23]

This goes directly to the case of the truck drivers of a long distance hemp load transiting Idaho and being arrested for same. The idiot prosecutor in this case refused to drop the charges and apparently doesn't understand that interstate commerce (including trucking) falls under the authority of the Federal Gov which legalized hemp.

This prosecutor's case doesn't, to my mind, stand a chance but in the meantime it will most likely go to trial and then be appealed to Federal courts who, IMO, should severely slap this prosecutor's pee-pee.


States Can’t Block Legal Hemp Shipments Within Their Borders, USDA Says

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) said on Tuesday that hemp can be transported across state lines—even through states that haven’t enacted laws allowing the crop’s production—and that the descheduling of the plant and its derivatives under the 2018 Farm Bill are already in effect because they are self-executing and do not require further action by federal agencies.

In a four-point legal opinion issued by the agency, USDA specified that hemp has been removed from the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), states and Indian tribes may not prohibit the interstate transportation of lawfully marketed hemp products—including those that fall under the more limited research-focused provisions of the previous 2014 Farm Bill—and that restrictions on participation in the hemp industry apply for individuals with felony drug convictions.

The USDA Office of the General Counsel said that while states and Indian tribes can still control the production of hemp in their respective jurisdictions, interstate commerce must be permitted following the implementation of the agency’s hemp regulations.

In the meantime, before any businesses can begin planting, harvesting and processing hemp crops under the new Farm Bill’s provisions, however, the USDA must first enact implementing regulations and then approve state-submitted regulatory plans.

“It is also important to emphasize that the 2018 Farm Bill does not affect or modify the authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services or Commissioner of Food and Drugs to regulate hemp under applicable U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) laws,” the agency added, perhaps referring to confusion that has surrounded the question of including hemp-derived CBD in food products and dietary supplements. “USDA expects to issue regulations implementing new hemp production authorities in 2019.”

The memo also indicates that people with felony drug convictions—who would otherwise be prohibited from participating in the legal hemp industry for 10 years—are exempted from the ban if their participation began following the passage of the 2014 version of the agriculture legislation but prior to the enactment of the broader 2018 bill.

Another notable aspect of the memo concerns THC derived from hemp.

“Congress has removed hemp from Schedule I and removed it entirely from the CSA,” USDA wrote. “In other words, hemp is no longer a controlled substance. Also, by amending Schedule I to exclude THC in hemp, Congress has likewise removed THC in hemp from the CSA.”

The 2018 Farm Bill definition of hemp stipulates that a cannabis crop must not contain more than 0.3 percent THC to qualify. THC derived from marijuana remains federally prohibited.

The agriculture bill shifted regulatory responsibility for hemp from the Justice Department to USDA. As such, USDA noted in its legal opinion that “this decontrolling of hemp (and THC in hemp) is self-executing.”

“Although the CSA implementing regulations must be updated to reflect the 2018 Farm Bill amendments to the CSA, neither the publication of those updated regulations nor any other action is necessary to execute this removal,” USDA wrote. In other words, the Justice Department doesn’t have to update its guidance on hemp and its derivatives for the policies to be in effect.

These are some of the most concrete updates that the USDA has offered since the 2018 Farm Bill was signed into law in December 2018. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue has indicated that his department wouldn’t be expediting the rulemaking process, but he said that hemp regulations would be implemented ahead of the 2020 planting season.

One of the more consequential takeaways from the legal opinion for industry stakeholders concerns interstate transportation of hemp and its derivatives. USDA explained that a provision of the agriculture legislation “preempts State law to the extent that State law prohibits the interstate transportation or shipment of hemp that has been produced in accordance with” the Farm Bill.

Hemp produced under the 2014 version of the bill also qualifies for the interstate transportation protection, USDA further explained.

A separate memo released on Tuesday clarifies that Indian tribes can continue to engage with states that authorize hemp pilot programs for research purposes but that they, unlike states, cannot themselves authorize hemp research programs.

That second memo doesn’t touch on the 2018 version of the bill, but it states that the “law remains unchanged in that Indian tribes, individuals, and entities located in States that do no permit hemp production are ineligible to participate in the growing or cultivation of hemp under the 2014 Farm Bill program.”

Read memo here: https://www.scribd.com/embeds/41175...l81YeAbOPMKcFOA8kmL&show_recommendations=true

 

[Baron23]

OK to smoke, not to grow? States with legal cannabis wrestle with homegrown pot

Illinois lawmakers working to legalize recreational marijuana have hit a potential snag that other states have wrestled with: whether to allow people to grow a few pot plants for personal use.

The 10 states that have legalized recreational marijuana have different "home grow" rules, with Michigan allowing individuals to grow as many as 12 plants and Washington state not allowing them to grow any.

DID YOU KNOW? "As of July 1, 2015, Oregonians can home grow of up to four plants per residence, regardless of how many people live in the residence. Four adults in one residence does not mean 16 plants. The limit is four per residence," according to the State of Oregon.

The differences reflect how states view the competing arguments about home cultivation: Opponents say it fuels the black market sale of the drug while proponents argue that if businesses can sell it, they should be able to grow it.

"We don't say anywhere in this country that people aren't allowed to have a small craft brew at their house if they want to, and I think the same rules should apply here," said Kris Krane, president the Phoenix-based cannabis business 4Front Ventures.

Legalization legislation from two Chicago Democrats - state Sen. Heather Steans and state Rep. Kelly Cassidy - has a much better chance of passing this year because of the November election of Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker, who campaigned on legalizing recreational marijuana.

But pushback over policing homegrown pot forced Steans to jettison her original plan allowing cultivation for personal use before a Senate committee endorsed the legislation Wednesday. The bill moving to the Senate floor allows only medical-marijuana patients to grow at home.

Steve Stelter, who heads the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police, said law enforcement would be hard-pressed to monitor compliance in people's homes.

"We're not going to walk up to a house and peek in the windows everywhere. How are we going to know?" asked Stelter, who heads the police force in the Chicago suburb of Westchester.

The home grow issue is often overshadowed by other aspects of legalization, such as who gets lucrative dispensary licenses and what should be done about people's past pot-related convictions. But the issue resonates with users looking to save money and to take charge of what they put in their body.

In Vermont, Bernie Barriere is allowed to tend to two mature plants in a Bennington basement. He said he can grow higher quality and less expensive cannabis for his health and wellness than he can buy.

"You get to pick and choose your own ingredients," Barriere said recently while watering the plants. "You get to be in control. You get to craft some amazing flower."

There is little dispute that illicit markets have been an issue in states with legal pot, with much of the supply shipped to other states where it is still illegal to sell. People disagree, though, on the role of homegrown marijuana in illegal markets.

Some industry analysts say high tax rates and shortages of legal supply are more likely drivers of illicit sales than home growers staying within state-sanctioned limits.

"They're not contributing substantially to the illicit market. They may be yielding a few ounces per growth cycle, so that would be a few ounces every three to four months, and they may be sharing some of that yield with their friends," said John Kagia, chief knowledge officer for the cannabis market research and data analysis firm New Frontier Data.

Other law enforcement officials say allowing homegrown marijuana encourages larger, illegal operations.

George Brauchler, district attorney for Denver's southern and eastern suburbs, made that argument during a recent news conference announcing the seizure of more than 80,000 plants during raids of 247 area homes and eight businesses. He said Colorado is becoming "the Wild West of weed."

Drug Enforcement Agency records show it was involved in more than 80 residential seizures during the first four months of this year in Colorado, with most of them involving hundreds of plants. The annual seizure numbers are significantly higher than before Colorado's legalization.

State law allows up to 12 marijuana plants per residence for personal use.

Maine recently reduced its home grow limit from six to three plants amid concerns about black market sales.

In Illinois, Steans' amendment would allow home grow only for patients eligible to use marijuana to relieve pain or other symptoms of debilitating illnesses, which they're not allowed to do under the state's six-year-old medical marijuana law. It would limit cultivation to five plants per household, regardless of the number of eligible patients living there.

She acknowledged that the change is a concession to law enforcement in order to win approval for the measure, but she noted that many lawmakers have concerns about product safety, as well as illegal sales.

"One of the reasons we're going to tax-and-regulate is to make sure you're not getting product that's got issues," Steans said. "By limiting that (home grow) significantly, you reduce the problems."

The same home grow dynamics could play out in New York next month if legalization supporters can recapture momentum on what appears to be a stalled proposal there.

A legalization proposal this year from Gov. Andrew Cuomo would limit home cultivation to medical marijuana users and designated caregivers, who would be allowed up to four plants. Competing legislation from key lawmakers would allow adults to grow up to six plants per residence, a limit in line with legal states like California and Massachusetts.

Either proposal could help Britta Kuo, a medical marijuana user from Schenectady, New York, who regularly buys a $150 tincture with a high level of CBD, a marijuana and hemp derivative that doesn't cause a high, to help alleviate the effects of her brain cancer and resulting epilepsy. She said it's a high price for a five- to 10-day supply and she wants to home grow, as it's important for her to have control over what she's consuming.

"It's way too expensive for me to go get something that's essential for me to feel good throughout my cancer and my epilepsy," Kuo said.

 

[momofthegoons]

To view the court's full opinion, follow the link in the title and scroll to the bottom of the article.

Federal Court Orders DEA To ‘Promptly’ Consider Marijuana Rescheduling…Or Else

A federal appeals court gave medical cannabis patients and reform advocates a small but significant procedural victory on Thursday, ruling that it would hold open a case challenging the scheduling status of marijuana under federal law.

In essence, the court is putting the federal government on notice that it must “promptly” make a decision on marijuana rescheduling so that those who rely on its medical benefits don’t unduly suffer.

A group of patients and advocates filed a lawsuit against the Justice Department in a U.S. District Court in 2017, alleging that the Schedule I status of cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) poses serious health risks and unfair economic disadvantages.

The court dismissed the case last year, siding with the government in its scheduling determination and shooting down each of the plaintiffs’ claims. It also argued that the plaintiffs should have first pursued reform through an administrative process, seeking relief from the federal agencies responsible for drug scheduling, before pursuing judicial action.

Now, in a new opinion on an appeal filed by patients and their supporters, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has agreed that they took the issue to the judicial branch prematurely when they should have exhausted their administrative options—but the court also determined that unique circumstances apply, particularly as it concerns the two children plaintiffs who argued that federal law jeopardizes their health and creates legal uncertainty.

“[W]e are troubled by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)’s history of dilatory proceedings,” U.S. Circuit Judge Guido Calabresi wrote for the majority. “Accordingly, while we concur with the District Court’s ruling, we do not dismiss the case, but rather hold it in abeyance and retain jurisdiction in this panel to take whatever action might become appropriate if the DEA does not act with adequate dispatch.”

In other words, the appeals panel could have simply upheld the lower court ruling and dismissed the case, but instead it will keep the matter open so that it can take action if DEA fails to appropriately consider a change to marijuana’s legal status within a reasonable amount of time.

The case is “unusual,” the court wrote, because “among the Plaintiffs are individuals who plausibly allege that the current scheduling of marijuana poses a serious, life‐or‐death threat to their health.”

“Taking the facts as alleged, and, accordingly, taking the supposed benefits some Plaintiffs have experienced from marijuana as true as well, we—like the District Court below—are struck by the transformative effects this drug has assertedly had on some Plaintiffs’ lives. As a result, we are troubled by the uncertainty under which Plaintiffs must currently live.”

It’s a ruling that sets this case apart from several other attempts to change the federal drug scheduling system through the courts, all of which have so far failed.

“I think what we have here is perhaps the most significant judicial milestone in the war against prohibition,” Joseph A. Bondy, an attorney who has worked pro bono on the case, told Marijuana Moment in a phone interview.

The plaintiffs in the case, which include young cannabis patients and advocates Alexis Bortell and Jagger Cotte, who suffer from rare conditions that they’ve effectively treated with cannabis products, told the court that they were concerned that DEA would “not move quickly enough to afford them adequate relief.”

With that in mind, the court said it would “retain jurisdiction of the case in this panel, for the sole purpose of taking whatever action might become appropriate should the DEA not act with adequate dispatch.” It emphasized, however, that it holds “no view whatever on the merits of Plaintiffs’ case—that is, on whether marijuana should be listed or not.”

“It is conceivable that, in response to a petition from Plaintiffs along the lines advanced before us now, the DEA would reschedule marijuana, rendering the current case moot,” the opinion says. “And if the DEA did not, the administrative process would generate a comprehensive record that would aid in eventual judicial review.”

The court also seemed to acknowledge the plaintiffs’ argument that the scheduling of cannabis may not fulfill its stated objectives—that as our understanding of the benefits and harms of marijuana continue to evolve, they raise questions about “whether the extant regulatory regime continues to advance the CSA’s goals in light of the current state of our knowledge about the drug.”

“It is possible that the current law, though rational once, is now heading towards irrationality; it may even conceivably be that it has gotten there already,” Calabresi wrote. “Courts are not especially good at dealing with situations of this sort by themselves. In such circumstances, dialogue between courts and other law‐defining institutions, like agencies, often works best.”

“A sensible response to our evolving understanding about the effects of marijuana might require creating new policies just as much as changing old ones. This kind of constructive governmental work, mixing adjudication and program‐design, creating policy through the balancing of competing legitimate interests, is not generally best accomplished by federal courts on their own; it is, however, the stock‐in‐trade of administration.”

Sebastien Cotte, a reform advocate and father of Jagger, told Marijuana Moment that the court’s judgement was groundbreaking.

“[K]ids like Jagger and Alexis don’t have time to wait for the government and their endless process,” he said. “We are talking about human lives that are running out of time quickly. So I’m hopeful this could be the game-changing case that every suffering and dying kid and patient in the country needs.”

Throughout the opinion, the court emphasized that the wellness of the plaintiffs, and the success they claimed to have had using cannabis as a treatment option, inspired their novel decision in the case. Calabresi said the court empathized with their situation and said their claims about medical cannabis “are no small things.”

Indeed, the plaintiffs “should not be required to live indefinitely with uncertainty about their access to allegedly life‐saving medication or live in fear that pursuing such medical treatment may subject them or their loved ones to devastating consequences.”

Bondy said he and his team will be working with experts to draft a petition for DEA action on marijuana scheduling over the next few months. While the court didn’t provide a timeline outlining how long the agency has to act on the petition, Bondy said that 180 days seemed reasonable, though that may change.

If the DEA declines to take action or delays its decision—rescheduling petitions typically take about nine years to go through the process, the appeals panel’s opinion noted—then the court has several judicial options at its disposal.

“Those actions could include things like compelling them to act—issuing what’s called a writ of mandamus—sanctioning them, having a hearing or finding at that point that we were correct” in arguing that their situation exempted them from first seeking administrative relief “and hearing us on the merits,” Bondy said.

Here’s more from the court’s conclusion:

“But we exercise our discretion to keep jurisdiction of the case in this panel, to take whatever action may become appropriate if Plaintiffs seek administrative review and the DEA fails to act promptly. And we note that, under the unusual health‐related circumstances of this case, what has counted as appropriate speed in the past may not count as appropriate speed here.

“In doing this, we specify that we are not retaining jurisdiction to review the actions the agency may take. Jurisdiction over those may well lie solely in another circuit. Nor do we intend to retain jurisdiction indefinitely. Unless the Plaintiffs seek agency review and so inform us within six months, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment dismissing this case. (And if only some Plaintiffs seek agency review, we will dismiss the complaint as to those who do not.) But if Plaintiffs do seek agency review, and the agency fails to act with alacrity, Plaintiffs may return directly to us, under our retained jurisdiction.

“To be clear, we repeat that this case remains in our purview only to the extent that the agency does not respond to Plaintiffs with adequate, if deliberate, speed. In other words, we retain jurisdiction exclusively for the purpose of inducing the agency to act promptly.”

Bondy said he felt emboldened by the court’s judgement and that it speaks to success and energy of the broader reform movement.

“We are on the right side of this issue—the advocates, the activists—pursuing things like social equity, the right to medicate yourself with cannabis, the right to travel with cannabis, the right to decide what you’re going do with your body,” he said.

 

[Shredder]

Wow!

 

[momofthegoons]

The USDA Legalized THC - But No One Noticed
It looks as if this is the next cannabis domino to fall.

It slipped under the radar on Thursday, but the United States Department of Agriculture just descheduled tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).


The USDA issued a bulletin on May 28 as a legal opinion for hemp production. It basically authorizes interstate delivery of hemp and legalized THC derived from hemp.


First, let's address the interstate transportation or shipment of hemp.


Up until December 2018, hemp was considered illegal like cannabis, but the 2018 Farm Bill legalized it. However, it still couldn't cross state lines. So, farmers in states where all forms of marijuana were illegal could grow hemp but then had few options to sell their crops. Farmers such as the ones in Kentucky who had pushed Senator Mitch McConnell to get the Farm Bill signed in the first place.


Now they can sell those crops to producers in other states or at least extract the hemp oil and sell that derivative product.


This solves the farmer problem for McConnell who was getting backed into a corner to figure out how to help these individuals sells their hemp crops. Happy Kentucky farmers means reelection.


The second item within this USDA bulletin is the subject of THC, which is the part of the cannabis plant that produces a psychoactive response in the brain or the feeling of getting high. The bulletin was in response to the 2018 Farm Bill and it read, "By amending the definition of marijuana to exclude hemp as defined in AMA 297A, Congress has removed hemp from schedule I and removed it entirely from the CSA (Controlled Substances Act). In other words, hemp is no longer a controlled substance. Also, by amending schedule I to exclude THC in hemp, Congress has likewise removed THC in hemp from the CSA."


Typically, cannabis plants can produce buds or flowers that have a high level of THC. Hemp plants tend to have very little THC in them. However, that doesn't mean there is no THC or that the hemp plants couldn't be modified to contain more THC.


Mark Singleton, the owner of Singleton Investments said, "This removes the argument of .3% THC." He is referring to the designation that hemp-derived CBD is legal as long as there is less than .3% THC. If hemp THC is legal then it doesn't matter whether it is .3% or not.


Let's step back for a moment and review this .3% line in the sand for cannabis.


The .3% level is a designation for which there is little information as to how that number was determined. It is often referred to but there is little documentation as to how regulators arrived at that level.


One historian said that at one time a study was done to determine at which point people got high when consuming cannabis and that .3% was the midrange and thus it stuck. Some people needed less and some didn't get buzzed until it was more than .3%, so the scientists just picked the middle point and called it a day. Random and possibly no longer true.


Anyway, there is some debate now over this USDA bulletin and whether the words "in hemp" mean THC can't be extracted from hemp because then it would no longer be in the plant. Several people have suggested that the phrase hemp-derived products covers hemp extractions even if it includes THC. It's a new bulletin and is sure to be tested very quickly.


Singleton believes that THC derived from hemp will quickly become popular and farmers will set up extraction facilities within their states and begin shipping across state lines. "It solves McConnell's problem. He's got the largest plant extraction facility in the entire country. Located in Kentucky," said Singleton, who says he's on McConnell's speed dial.


If hemp-derived THC is now legal and can cross state lines, it will be close to impossible for law enforcement to determine the difference between cannabis-derived THC and hemp-derived THC. This USDA bulletin could have effectively descheduled cannabis. Singleton believes Congress will be forced to act quickly to legalize cannabis since the USDA has jumped the gun.


In May, New York Representative Hakeem Jeffries and Senator Chuck Schumer introduced a bill, HR2843, in both Houses removing cannabis from the CSA and it included a social justice component. "I believe this bill will have at least 100 co-sponsors by June 15 and has the best chance to get passed," said Singleton. "If the Safe Banking Act doesn't get passed first, then I think this one will. I know the cannabis industry wants the States Rights Act passed, but it's going nowhere. These have the most support."


Indeed, no one in the cannabis industry expected the USDA to be the ones to legalize THC and it looks as if this is the next domino to fall.

 

[momofthegoons]

Ben & Jerry's vows to debut CBD-infused ice cream 'as soon as it's legalized'

It what won't likely come as a shock to anyone even slightly familiar with Ben & Jerry’s, the company has announced they're in favor of legalizing CBD-infused ice creams.

On Thursday, Ben & Jerry’s confirmed that the company is “committed” to providing its customers with cannibiniol-infused offerings "as soon as it's legalized" by the federal government for the use in foods.

“We’re doing this for our fans,” Matthew McCarthy, Ben & Jerry’s CEO, said in a press release. “We’ve listened and brought them everything from Non-Dairy indulgences to on-the-go portions with our Pint Slices. We aspire to love our fans more than they love us and we want to give them what they’re looking for in a fun, Ben & Jerry’s way.”

The ice cream chain intends to make CBD-infused ice cream available once it’s legalized at the federal level. CBD, TBD. (Ben & Jerry’s)

The announcement came one day before the FDA’s first public summit on CBD, during which FDA officials will hear arguments for the legalization of cannibiniol.

“They’ve set a public hearing on the legalization of CBD-infused foods and beverages for May 31st, and we’ve submitted a comment to them in support of legalization,” the company’s announcement reads.

Ben & Jerry’s also vowed to only sustainably-sourced CBD from Vermont, where the company is headquartered.

The legality of CBD products containing trace amounts of THC currently varies from state to state. Cannibiniol, commonly known as CBD, is derived from hemp or cannabis plants and often used in relaxation or pain-relief supplements. Experts say the levels of THC (the cannabinoid most recognized for giving marijuana its psychoactive properties) usually found in commercially available products is far too low to produce a “high” in users.

The FDA, too, has reported on evidence of cannabinoids being effective in treating rare forms of epilepsy. In June 2018, the FDA approved Epidolex, the first medication to contain “a purified drug substance derived from marijuana.”

Thursday’s news from the ice cream chain is not the first time the company has made its stance on the legalization of cannabis-sourced products known. Earlier this year on April 20 (4/20, to be exact), Ben & Jerry’s partnered with a San Francisco-area dispensary to give out pints of ice cream for customers placing delivery orders.

"We have a lot of fun, never being overt, but really playing into the moment of 420," said Jay Curley, the company's global head of integrated marketing.

 

[Madri-Gal]

Ben & Jerry's vows to debut CBD-infused ice cream 'as soon as it's legalized'

It what won't likely come as a shock to anyone even slightly familiar with Ben & Jerry’s, the company has announced they're in favor of legalizing CBD-infused ice creams.

On Thursday, Ben & Jerry’s confirmed that the company is “committed” to providing its customers with cannibiniol-infused offerings "as soon as it's legalized" by the federal government for the use in foods.

“We’re doing this for our fans,” Matthew McCarthy, Ben & Jerry’s CEO, said in a press release. “We’ve listened and brought them everything from Non-Dairy indulgences to on-the-go portions with our Pint Slices. We aspire to love our fans more than they love us and we want to give them what they’re looking for in a fun, Ben & Jerry’s way.”

The ice cream chain intends to make CBD-infused ice cream available once it’s legalized at the federal level. CBD, TBD. (Ben & Jerry’s)

The announcement came one day before the FDA’s first public summit on CBD, during which FDA officials will hear arguments for the legalization of cannibiniol.

“They’ve set a public hearing on the legalization of CBD-infused foods and beverages for May 31st, and we’ve submitted a comment to them in support of legalization,” the company’s announcement reads.

Ben & Jerry’s also vowed to only sustainably-sourced CBD from Vermont, where the company is headquartered.

The legality of CBD products containing trace amounts of THC currently varies from state to state. Cannibiniol, commonly known as CBD, is derived from hemp or cannabis plants and often used in relaxation or pain-relief supplements. Experts say the levels of THC (the cannabinoid most recognized for giving marijuana its psychoactive properties) usually found in commercially available products is far too low to produce a “high” in users.

The FDA, too, has reported on evidence of cannabinoids being effective in treating rare forms of epilepsy. In June 2018, the FDA approved Epidolex, the first medication to contain “a purified drug substance derived from marijuana.”

Thursday’s news from the ice cream chain is not the first time the company has made its stance on the legalization of cannabis-sourced products known. Earlier this year on April 20 (4/20, to be exact), Ben & Jerry’s partnered with a San Francisco-area dispensary to give out pints of ice cream for customers placing delivery orders.

"We have a lot of fun, never being overt, but really playing into the moment of 420," said Jay Curley, the company's global head of integrated marketing.

Do I need more reasons not to not eat ice cream?

 

[ClearBlueLou]

Disappointed to find that the Schumer/ Jeffries bill contains no text yet.
It’s been logged - a page set up for it - but no contents yet.

 

[Baron23]

Since she is running for national office, I posted this here rather than in Massachusetts thread.

But I don't find this level of exaggeration, flip flop, and self-promotion to be unusual. It seems to be the nature of our entire professional political class these days.


Sen. Elizabeth Warren says she has always supported making recreational marijuana legal, but is that true?

Sen. Elizabeth Warren said she has supported legalization of marijuana since Massachusetts voted to decriminalize the drug in 2008, but a New York Times fact check says this claim is exaggerated.

The Times fact checked a number of Warren’s comments on the trail, as the Massachusetts Senator continues to rise in the polls for the 2020 race for the White House.

At a CNN town hall in April, a student asked Warren about her position on marijuana legalization and her evolution in thought since she was first elected in 2012.

“So, actually, I supported Massachusetts changing its laws on marijuana. Massachusetts had decriminalized at that point and I thought it made a lot more sense for Massachusetts to go ahead and legalize marijuana, and I now support the legalization of marijuana,” Warren said, according to a transcript of the event.

The Times says Warren “overstated” her past support here.

In 2011, during a Senate primary debate at UMass Lowell Warren said she supported medical marijuana legalization, which was a ballot issue that year, but not recreational use, the Times notes.

In April 2012 Warren declined to take a position on that same ballot initiative when asked by the Associated Press. Then in September 2012 she told hosts of Boston’s WTKK-FM she did supportmeical use of marijuana.

“You know, I held my father’s hand while he died of cancer, and it’s really painful when you do something like that up close and personal. My mother was already gone and I was very very close to my father. And it puts me in a position of saying, if there’s something a physician can prescribe that can help someone who’s suffering, I’m in favor of that,” Warren said in that interview, according to Think Progress. “Now, I want to make sure they’ve got the right restrictions. It should be like any other prescription drug. That there’s careful control over it. But I think it’s really hard to watch somebody suffer that you love.”

In 2015, ahead of the Massachusetts ballot initiative that would eventually legalize the drug for recreational use, Warren told the Boston Globe she was “open to it.”

“I think we’ve learned a lot,” Warren said, adding that Massachusetts should study other states that recently legalized marijuana recreationally.

In August 2016, Warren would not commit to voting yes to the ballot question that legalized marijuana in Massachusetts that year in an interview with MassLive.

"What I just said is that I would be open to it because I think that the problem we've got right now in Massachusetts is that we've decriminalized it which makes marijuana available but there's no regulation over it for safety,” she said at the time.

During her run for president, Warren has said repeatedly said she voted yes on the initiative and thinks the country should legalize marijuana.

 

[Baron23]

More on historical revisionist politicians and their ever changing positions.

Presidential Candidate Touts Marijuana Legalization Measure He Opposed To Raise Money On Instagram

The former governor of Colorado is using marijuana legalization to raise money for his 2020 Democratic presidential campaign—even though he opposed ending cannabis prohibition in his state before voters approved it.

In an Instagram story posted on Thursday, John Hickenlooper polled his followers on whether they support descheduling cannabis and said that Colorado promoted social equity in the industry after the state legalized while he was governor.

Via Instagram.

“While I was Governor, Colorado became the first state to legalize marijuana. And we worked to address the social and racial inequities that plague marijuana sentencing,” one slide states.

Via Instagram.

“As President, I will make sure we do what we did in Colorado: Decriminalize marijuana, and put a system in place that allows non-violent, misdemeanor offenders to seal their records,” another adds.

Via Instagram.

The Instagram story ends with Hickenlooper asking followers to donate to his campaign if “this is the kind of action you want to see on the national level.”

Via Instagram.

But the nuances of the candidate’s evolution on cannabis reform didn’t quite fit into the vanishing post series. In particular, while the state did legalize marijuana while he was in office, the movement wasn’t helped in the least by Hickenlooper, who actively campaign against the measure.

His stance has shifted demonstrably after voters approved the measure over his objections, however.

In addition to effectively implementing the measure he initially opposed, Hickenlooper has now gone so far as to voice support for allowing states to decriminalize drugs beyond cannabis.

But his legacy on marijuana reform while governor is further marred by a string of vetos that became fodder for his pro-legalization successor, Gov. Jared Polis (D).

Whereas Hickenlooper vetoed bills to expand the state’s legal market by allowing marijuana “tasting rooms,” home deliveries and by adding autism to the list of conditions that qualify individuals for medical cannabis, Polis signed such legislation within the first six months he’s been in office.

 

[momofthegoons]

Google Play Store Bans Weed Delivery Apps From Performing Transactions

Weed delivery apps have 30 days to update their interface or be banned from the Google Play store. Facebook/Eaze

Google is cracking down on cannabis distributing apps on its Play app store, whether they’re legal or not.

The tech giant is giving “weed facilitating” app developers 30 days to remove the cart feature from their interface or face being kicked off the Play store.


While the move isn’t meant to ban marijuana content from the platform completely—and follows in the footsteps of Apple’s App Store policy—it does come off as a harsh potential punishment for licensed cannabis dispensaries.

“These apps simply need to move the shopping cart flow outside of the app itself to be compliant with this new policy,” a company spokesperson told The Verge.“We’ve been in contact with many of the developers and are working with them to answer any technical questions and help them implement the changes without customer disruption.”

Some of the popular apps that are expected to feel the effect are Weedmaps and Eaze, which expect to have Android orders slashed once in-app ordering is disabled.

Marijuana legalization advocate Cristina Buccola, a New York-based attorney whose law firm focuses on the cannabis industry, told Observer it’s not shocking to see Google ridding its platform of weed transactions. This is especially true “given the sensitivity around banking when it comes to marijuana,” she explained.

Buccola says the decision is a step backwards for the cannabis industry, in which many small businesses rely on digital apps to educate and market to consumers legally. “It’s a shame because we should be working toward a holistic approach to legalizing cannabis, which includes utilizing online tools like Google’s app store.”

David Holland, the executive and legal director of Empire State NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws), says Google’s announcement isn’t so much a statement of morality, but a choice not to be the electronic platform by which people can conduct commercial transactions to obtain cannabis, alcohol or tobacco.

“By removing the shopping cart feature, Google is removing some of the responsibility to monitor and ensure the imposition or collection of sales tax,” Holland said. This alleviates the potential burden of verifying that a Google user is in a legalized state and obtaining cannabis legally.

In turn, Buccola see this decision as a rallying cry for passing legislation to help legitimize the industry in these cases. “This is an opportunity for businesses who do want to be bullish about advocating for the e-commerce of legal marijuana,” Buccola concluded.