Law The Cannabis Chronicles - Misc Cannabis News

[momofthegoons]

Since this article is about Virginia and Maryland I put it here....

Virginia Lawmakers Pass Bills To Ban Searches Based On Marijuana Odor​

The governor will decide the fate of the bills.

Lawmakers in Virginia have passed two bills that prohibit law enforcement officers from conducting warrantless searches based solely on the odor of marijuana. The measures, Senate Bill 5029 and House Bill 5058, have been approved by both legislative bodies and await the signature of Democratic. Gov. Ralph Northam to become law.
Earlier this year, Virginia decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana by limiting penalties to a civil fine of $25. Jenn Michelle Pedini, the development director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) and the executive director of the group’s Virginia branch, said in a release on Monday that the two bills continue the state’s reform efforts, but more still needs to be done.
“While this will certainly decrease non-essential interactions between law enforcement and otherwise law-abiding Virginians, it is only by legalizing the responsible use of cannabis by adults that the Commonwealth can end its failed experiment with prohibition and begin repairing the decades of damage,” Pedini said.
According to the text of the bills, “no law-enforcement officer may lawfully search or seize any person, place, or thing solely on the basis of the odor of marijuana and no evidence discovered or obtained as a result of such unlawful search or seizure shall be admissible in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding.” Other provisions of the legislation limit the power of police to issue summonses for minor traffic offenses.

Advocates for the bills argue that police have long used the smell of cannabis, real or otherwise, as pretense for conducting warrantless searches. Attorney Todd Zinicola said that the courts are insulated from the extent of the abuse of power.
“The problem is judges only see the cases where someone got charged with possession of marijuana or some other offense,” Zinicola said. “But a countless number of times, people get searched, are kept on the side of the road for hours, and police find nothing and they leave. It’s traumatizing.”

Searches Based On Smell Of Pot Also Banned In Maryland​

In 2019, an appeals court in neighboring Maryland ruled that the odor of marijuana does not constitute probable cause for a search. That ruling was upheld this year on a subsequent appeal.
“Earlier this year, Maryland’s highest court unanimously decided that law enforcement may not rely on the odor of marijuana as justification to perform a warrantless search of a person or to make an arrest,” said NORML’s Pedinini last month. “It’s time that Virginia does the same.”
“While there is much more work to be done surrounding criminal justice and cannabis policy, these bills are important steps the Commonwealth can and should immediately take,” she added. “Prohibiting law enforcement searches based solely on the odor of marijuana will greatly reduce non-essential interactions between police and otherwise law-abiding members of the public.”
Senate Bill 5029 was passed in August by a vote of 21 to 15 in the Senate. Chelsea Higgs Wise, the executive director of pro-legalization nonprofit Marijuana Justice, said at the time that the bill would help address the racial inequities prevalent in the enforcement of drug laws.
“This is a small but important step to decriminalizing Black and brown bodies of being targeted by this longtime policing tool, which was really created by politicizing the war on drugs,” Higgs Wise said.

 

[momofthegoons]

Military Veterans Group Asks Federal Court To Hear Marijuana Case Challenging DEA Classification​

A major military veterans group is urging a federal court to take up a case challenging the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) restrictive classification of marijuana.

The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), an advocate for expanding cannabis research, said in an amicus brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit last week that the current scheduling status of marijuana under federal law is inhibiting studies that could demonstrate the plant’s therapeutic potential in the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

This comes one week after a coalition of scientists and veterans—including Sue Sisley of the Scottsdale Research Institute and the Battlefield Foundation—submitted a plaintiffs’ brief to the court, outlining the history of cannabis criminalization and arguing that DEA’s justification for keeping marijuana in Schedule I is unconstitutional. They want the court to force DEA to reconsider its decision to reject a 2020 petition calling for rescheduling.

“Medical marijuana holds promise for treatment-resistant post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but randomized controlled studies with real-world medical marijuana are necessary to determine the efficacy and safety of medical marijuana as a PTSD treatment,” the veterans group said in their new filing. “A significant percentage of combat veterans develop PTSD, and suicide is more frequent among veterans suffering PTSD. Consequently, the prevention or delay of clinical research into medical marijuana as a safe and effective treatment has a direct impact on IAVA’s constituency.”



IAVA said that the Schedule I status of cannabis “prevents the [U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs] and private practitioners from studying the efficacy, benefits and risks of medical marijuana and thus harms veterans’ health and welfare.” Further, it “keeps life-saving treatment away from veterans suffering with PTSD who reside in states where medical marijuana is not available or where medical marijuana is available, but cannot be afforded.”



Travis Horr, director of government affairs for IAVA, told Marijuana Moment that the group’s members “have made it clear that they support research done on the use of cannabis as a treatment option.”

“It is for these reasons that IAVA believes it is crucial to remove cannabis as a schedule I drug, to allow this research to be done and potentially provide much-needed relief for veterans,” he said.

In its filing with the federal court, group cited a survey it conducted that shows 20 percent of veteran respondents reported using cannabis or cannabinoids for therapeutic purposes, and they reason that’s partly because nearly half of veterans say that federally approved medications available to them are ineffective.

“Veterans suffering from PTSD, their loved ones, and America as a whole can only benefit from knowing more about the safety and efficacy of medical marijuana as a treatment for PTSD. If the treatment is safe and effective, more veterans will find relief from a debilitating disorder. If the treatment is not safe or effective, then veterans will stop self-medicating with and doctors will stop prescribing medical marijuana for PTSD, and scientists can turn their focus to other potential treatments or cures.”

IAVA also referenced a report released earlier this year by a federal commission that was responsible for issuing recommendations to improve mental health treatment for veterans. That report similarly observed that cannabis, as well as certain psychedelics, could hold significant therapeutic potential—but the plant’s legal status “precludes VA from conducting research on their efficacy.”

“The United States of America is morally compelled to address injuries—both physical and psychological—veterans suffer as a result of their military service,” the IAVA brief states. “There is overwhelming evidence that PTSD is a severe injury suffered by a significant percentage of veterans and that veterans with PTSD are more likely to take their own lives than veterans with no such psychological injury.”

“Our country should be doing everything it can as quickly as it can to find treatments for PTSD and help prevent veteran suicide, including properly interpreting the Controlled Substance Act so as to not impose unwarranted barriers to research,” it continues. “Both the executive and legislative branches of government have made the prevention of veteran suicide and related medical research national priorities, and yet the DEA continues to insist on a Catch 22 that effectively prevents approved clinical research study of medical marijuana as a PTSD treatment.”

The group also said DEA restrictions on cannabis means that researchers have been unable to access marijuana that reflects what’s available in state commercial markets. That’s also an issue that would be addressed legislatively under a bill that cleared a House committee last month.



“Without such clinical studies, veterans who live in states where medical marijuana is not available as a treatment for PTSD cannot obtain the treatment, and veterans who can obtain the treatment in states where it is legal do so at their own personal expense, without coordination with their VA medical teams, and without any scientific evidence to establish the promise of the efficacy and safety of the treatment,” IAVA said.

This isn’t the first time that this group of scientists and veterans has taken the feds to court over their marijuana decisions.

The plaintiffs were also successful in forcing DEA to issue an update on the status of applications to become federally authorized cannabis manufacturers for research purposes and then got the Justice Department to hand over a “secret” memo that DEA allegedly used to justify a delay in deciding on those proposals.

Meanwhile, DEA could also become involved in a separate U.S. Supreme Court case challenging its marijuana scheduling actions.

In a petition filed in July and formally docketed for a private conference at the high court on Friday, a group of patients and advocates asked the justices to take up their case challenging the constitutionality of federal cannabis prohibition. This comes after a series of rulings in lower courts since the original lawsuit was filed in 2017.

Seven members of Congress and a slew of marijuana reform groups submitted legal documents last month urging the court to take up the case.

Separately, a federal court recently ruled that California regulators must comply with a DEA subpoena demanding information about marijuana businesses that they are investigating.

Read IAVA’s amicus brief on the marijuana scheduling case by following title link and scrolling to the bottom of the article.

 

[momofthegoons]

Harris And Pence Clash On Marijuana And Drug Enforcement During VP Debate​

Marijuana and drug enforcement was a topic of contention during Wednesday’s vice presidential debate between Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) and incumbent Vice President Mike Pence (R).

During a segment on race and the criminal justice system, Harris said that if elected, she and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden “will decriminalize marijuana and we will expunge the records of those who have been convicted of marijuana.”

She also pledged that their administration would take steps to track police who abuse their positions and to ban private prisons and cash bail.

Later, while he didn’t directly weigh in on the issue of marijuana reform, Pence attacked Harris’s drug enforcement record as a prosecutor.

“When you were when you were [district attorney] in San Francisco, when you left office, African Americans were 19 times more likely to be prosecuted for minor drug offenses than whites and Hispanics,” he said. “When you were attorney general of California, you increased report the disproportionate incarceration of blacks in California. You did nothing on criminal justice reform in California.”

The vice president also claimed his Democratic opponent “didn’t lift a finger to pass” criminal justice reform legislation signed into law by President Donald Trump.

Harris is the lead Senate sponsor of a bill to federally legalize marijuana and fund programs to repair the harms of the war on drugs, but didn’t publicly endorse ending cannabis prohibition until 2018. She previously campaigned against a ballot measure to enact legalization in California in 2010 and as a prosecutor enforced marijuana and drug criminalization laws.

Pence, as a member of the House, voted consistently against floor amendments to protect state medical cannabis programs from federal interference. In August, he criticized Democrats for including language to increase marijuana businesses’ access to banking services in coronavirus relief legislation.

“In the House of Representatives, I heard the other day that the bill that they passed actually mentions marijuana more than it mentions jobs,”he said. “The American people don’t want some pork barrel bill coming out of the Congress when we’ve got real needs from working families.”

President Trump, when asked, has voiced support for letting states enact their own marijuana policies without federal interference, though his administration has taken a number of hostile anti-cannabis actions that stop short of a full-scale crackdown.

Biden differs with Harris in that he opposes legalizing marijuana but backs decriminalizing possession, expunging past records, modestly rescheduling the drug under federal law, letting states set their own laws and legalizing medical cannabis.

Since becoming Biden’s running mate, however, Harris has focused her public marijuana comments on the narrower issue of decriminalization and expunging records, and has not gone further by discussing full legalization or her own legislation that would enact the more far-reaching change.

On Wednesday, Harris appeared uneasy about her prosecutorial record being called out, similar to her performance during a Democratic primary debate last year when Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) went after her cannabis enforcement history and the senator declined to substantively respond.

During the Wednesday exchange, she demanded time to respond to Pence’s comments but seemed to only reiterate points she had already made, which moderator Susan Page of USA Today noted before moving on to the next question.

 

[momofthegoons]

Which Congressional Cannabis Act Could Have the Most Substantial Impact?​

Of the fifty pieces of cannabis legislation that have been introduced, two in particular stand out.

Nearly 50 pieces of cannabis legislation have been introduced during the 2019-2020 legislative session of the U.S. Congress. These various bills, amendments, resolutions and laws represent a busy year for marijuana activity on Capitol Hill. While many have been introduced, much remains the same. With only the House of Representatives appearing remotely close to voting on anything, cannabis regulations aren’t likely to move at all before Election Day 2020.

That said, several pieces of legislation could advance rules in critical areas from law enforcement to access. Sources tell High Times that of the proposed pieces of legislation, two stand out among the rest for their ability to influence America.

The SAFE Banking Act​

H.R.1595, better known as the Secure And Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act of 2019, was for some time in 2020, the most discussed and likely to pass piece of legislation cannabis has seen in ages.

If passed, the bill would provide protections to banks, allowing institutions to work with the cannabis industry without fear of federal repercussions. The bill provides assurance to marijuana and hemp operators who continually face rejections from banks. Even when accepted as a customer, numerous operators have found their accounts shut down once the bank became aware of the operator’s business.


Hans Enriquez, CEO of Dazed Inc. cannabis brand, stated that the SAFE Banking Act would be the most substantial piece of legislation for the industry. Enriquez highlighted the cannabis industry’s ability to bank like any other industry as the most substantial bill aspect.

While stating that the act alone won’t remedy every issue, Enriquez notes that lawmakers appear open to reform beyond banking. Discussing activity in his company’s home state of Texas, Enriquez said: “I believe some Republicans are beginning to see the writing on the wall in the form of tax dollars.”

Enriquez cited Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller’s recent show of support for expanding the medical program as a possible indicator of things to come soon enough.

The MORE Act​

H.R.3884, also known as the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act of 2019, has received its share of considerable buzz. Much of the discussion focused on the bill’s wide-reaching effects on the market and U.S. citizens. If passed, the MORE Act would expunge federal cannabis offenses while providing additional protection to individuals who consume cannabis while seeking federal public benefits.

The bill would also ensure that individuals were not denied immigration law protections due to cannabis use in its current form. Beyond criminal justice reform, the act would impose a 5% federal cannabis tax, make banking accessible to the industry and establish a fund for programs in communities most affected by the drug war, among various other changes the bill would provide.

Michael Wheeler, vice president of policy initiatives for California-based brand Flow Kana, said the passage of the MORE Act would be the end of federal prohibition. “The MORE Act will have a significant impact on the cannabis industry resulting from the cascade of decriminalization that occurs as cannabis is removed from the Controlled Substances Act.”

Wheeler stated the House passing the MORE Act would serve as Congress viewing cannabis as a critical component to the ongoing criminal justice reform initiatives taking place across the country.

If passed, the VP said the industry must understand it has to rise to the occasion alongside lawmakers. “Perhaps most importantly, the cannabis industry must comprehend that Congress expects, through the MORE Act, that growth and expansion of the cannabis industry must be an engine for social justice and social equity goals.”

Liz Westbrook, a government relations senior advisor at the firm Buchanan Ingersoll and Rooney, also views the MORE Act as the most significant piece of marijuana legislation in motion today. “MORE would federally deschedule cannabis, which would be just about the biggest thing you could do to appease all factions of the cannabis industry from medical to adult use,” said Westbrook.

The act gained the support of Democrats in the House of Representatives, culminating in an August announcement that the House would vote on the bill when the legislative session resumed in September. As the day approached, the act continued to gain momentum, garnering growing support across the aisle. However, as the vote came closer to a head, vulnerable Democrats began to fret over the bill, leading to in-fighting over the bill’s potential risk. On September 19, a week before the vote, moderate concern won out as the bill’s vote was punted to the lame duck session after the November election.

Even if delayed, the MORE Act’s passage remains likely in the House, if it ever comes to a vote. However, most see the vote as historic but nothing else. The bill is all but certain to never reach a vote in the current Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell serves as an ardent opponent of marijuana reform.

Other Acts Worth Watching​

Dozens of bills sit in various stages of progress on Capitol Hill. Morgan Fox, media relations director for the National Cannabis Industry Association, noted that bills aimed at research and Veteran access show some signs of progress.

“These would all be positive steps forward, but the MORE Act is by far the most comprehensive of these and would do the most for both the industry and the people who have been disproportionately harmed by prohibition,” Fox said.

Like all other respondents to this article, Fox agreed that no singular act is enough to address the robust concerns in the cannabis space and the affected areas it touches. He said, “I don’t think we can say that [the MORE Act] would adequately address the problems faced by the industry or impacted communities, since there is still a lot of work to be done on the state level and at the federal regulatory level, but it would be a huge step in the right direction.”

Those looking to advance the MORE, SAFE Banking or other cannabis acts are encouraged to call their elected officials, as well as considering joining local or national advocacy groups.

 

[momofthegoons]

​

Supreme Court Declines To Hear Marijuana Case Challenging DEA’s Restrictive Classification​

The U.S. Supreme Court announced on Tuesday that it will not hear a case challenging the constitutionality of federal marijuana prohibition.

A coalition of medical cannabis advocates, including former NFL player Marvin Washington, young patient Alexis Bortell and military veteran Jose Belen, initially filed a lawsuit against the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in 2017. But while the case has gradually moved through the judiciary, the decision by the high court represents a sound defeat for the challenge.

The justices met to discuss this and other pending matters last week. Activists were hopeful that their arguments—combined with the support they received from advocacy groups and members of Congress—would compel the Supreme Court to take up their suit. But the justices ultimately listed it among the cases that they are declining to take up.

That’s not especially surprising given the small percentage of cases that the high court accepts, but it’s a major setback for the activists nonetheless.

“While not surprising, as less than one percent of all petitions to the Supreme Court get a hearing, it is still very disappointing, as we been fighting for this case for over three years now,” Sebastien Cotte, whose son Jagger was a plaintiff in the case, told Marijuana Moment.

“However, we must not forget that this case has been groundbreaking on so many levels. Not only a did federal judge say on record that looking at Alexis, Jagger and Jose that it is undeniable that cannabis has medical properties, but we also believe that this case moved the needle closer to descheduling of cannabis by bringing extra awareness to the unfairness of the current classification of cannabis,” he said. “We are confident our case will help another case down the road achieve the ultimate goal, as everyone knows that it is not a question of if cannabis will be descheduled, but when.”

The case was rejected in a series of rulings by lower courts, but attorneys for the plaintiffs said those decisions made it clear their only source of acceptable relief would come from the Supreme Court.

That’s because both a U.S. District Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit previously determined that advocates would have to first seek administrative relief through existing channels such as a petition asking DEA directly to reclassify cannabis.

The plaintiffs said they wouldn’t go that route because they believe the request would be denied by DEA and because the agency would, at best, reclassify marijuana as a Schedule II drug, which they say could create additional harms in terms of patient access to the plant.

Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), Jared Huffman (D-CA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Alan Lowenthal (D-CA), Mark Pocan (D-WI) and Jamie Raskin (D-MD) each signed an amicus brief in support of the lawsuit last month, stating that the Schedule I status of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) “creates an unconstitutional framework that unfairly burdens their constituents.”

“Disappointed with the High Court’s decision not to hear the case of cannabis medical patients and address unjust and unconstitutional federal drug laws,” Blumenauer told Marijuana Moment after the justices’ decision was announced. “As we continue the fight in the halls of Congress, it’s more important than ever that we pass the MORE Act, our bipartisan legislation to legalize marijuana and end the failed war on drugs that has hurt so many.”

Additional briefs in support of the lawsuit were filed by NORML, International Cannabis Bar Association, National Cannabis Industry Association, Arcview Group, Last Prisoner Project, Americans for Safe Access, Minority Cannabis Business Association and others.

DEA has on numerous past occasions denied petitions to change marijuana’s status under the CSA.

“For every Brown v. Board of Education, there are dozens of earlier, lesser-known legal battles which set the stage for eventual changes in the law to right the wrongs of the past and the problems of the present,” said Michael Hiller of Hiller, PC, the pro bono lead counsel in the case. “Regrettably, today’s decision falls into the latter category, not the former.”

“We will continue our fight for legalization until the laws criminalizing cannabis are eradicated,” he said. “This is a civil and human rights issue which, sooner or later, must and will be addressed.”

This latest case isn’t the only cannabis-related lawsuit DEA has faced in recent years.

Lawyers representing a group of scientists and military veterans filed a comprehensive brief in federal court earlier this month, outlining their case challenging decisions about the classification of marijuana made by the agency. A week later, a major military veterans group urged the court to take up that case.

The plaintiffs initially filed that lawsuit against the federal agency in May, contending that DEA’s justification for maintaining a Schedule I status for cannabis is unconstitutional. DEA attempted to quash the case by filing a motion to dismiss, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected that request in August.

The plaintiffs also sued the agency last year in a separate case, alleging that it had deliberately delayed approving additional marijuana manufacturers for research purposes despite pledging to expand the number of those facilities in 2016.

A court mandated that DEA take steps to make good on its promise, and that suit was dropped after DEA provided a status update.

In March, DEA finally unveiled a revised rule change proposal that it said was necessary due to the high volume of applicants and to address potential complications related to international treaties to which the U.S. is a party.

The same scientists behind the original case filed another suit against DEA, claiming that the agency used a “secret” document to justify its delay of approving manufacturer applications.

That was born out when the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel document was released in April as part of a settlement in the case, revealing, among other things, that the agency feels that its current licensing structure for cannabis cultivation has been in violation of international treaties for decades.

Separately, a federal court recently ruled that California regulators must comply with a DEA subpoena demanding information about marijuana businesses that they are investigating.

 

[Baron23]

Cannabis Legalization Measures On The Ballot In 5 States​

The 33 states with some form of legal cannabis could gain additional company this election season as voters in five states consider ballot measures to legalize marijuana. Three states will see initiatives to legalize recreational marijuana, another will decide on the medicinal use of cannabis, while the fifth will consider separate measures for both.

Arizona, Montana, New Jersey To Decide On Adult-Use Pot​

Voters in three states will vote on measures to legalize recreational marijuana. In Arizona, Proposition 207, the Smart and Safe Act, will be on the ballot. If passed, the initiative would allow adults 21 and older to possess, consume, or transfer up to one ounce of cannabis. Home cultivation of up to six plants per adult or 12 plants per household with more than one adult would be permitted. Prop. 207 would also create a regulatory system for the commercial production and sale of cannabis products, including social equity provisions to help ensure a cannabis industry that is representative of the community. The initiative also allows for the expungement of past convictions for marijuana offenses. The measure would generate an estimated $300 million in taxes yearly, which would be used to help fund community colleges, public health, transportation, and public safety.
In New Jersey, a two-year attempt by lawmakers to legalize the recreational use of cannabis by adults failed to gain enough support to pass in the legislature. Instead, voters will see Question 1, which if passed would amend the state’s constitution to legalize the recreational use of marijuana by those 21 and older. The measure authorizes the state’s existing medical marijuana overseer, the Cannabis Regulatory Commission, to regulate the new adult-use market. Detailed regulations would be created by the agency and the state legislature after passage of the ballot measure.



Montana voters will see two cannabis measures on their ballot for the November election. The first, Initiative 190, would legalize the possession and sale of small amounts of marijuana for adult use, establish a regulatory system to license cannabis businesses, and levy a 20% tax on recreational purchases. New Approach Montana, the group behind both ballot measures, estimates that taxes on retail sales of cannabis in the state would generate $236 million in new revenue for the public coffers by 2026. The second measure, Constitutional Initiative 118, would amend the state’s constitution so that the legislature could set the legal age to purchase cannabis at 21. Currently, the constitution guarantees all rights of an adult, except for the purchase of alcohol, to all persons 18 years and up.

Medical Marijuana On Mississippi’s Ballot​

Voters in Mississippi will have the chance to legalize the medicinal use of cannabis with Initiative 65, which qualified for the ballot via a citizen’s petition supported by Medical Marijuana 2020. If passed, the measure would allow physicians to recommend cannabis as a treatment for patients with one or more of 22 qualifying medical conditions such as cancer, multiple sclerosis, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The initiative also establishes a 7% tax on medical marijuana products and creates a regulatory system for administering the program.
Confusing the issue is Initiative 65A, which was placed on the ballot by the legislature as an alternative to the citizen’s initiative. The more restrictive measure would only allow non-smokable forms of cannabis for all patients except those with a terminal illness. Initiative 65A also requires all medical marijuana products to be of pharmaceutical quality and would allow state lawmakers to create the rules and regulations governing the program.

South Dakota Considers Both Recreational And Medical​

Two cannabis measures will also be on the ballot in South Dakota, where voters will decide on legalizing recreational cannabis and medical marijuana separately. Initiated Measure 26 directs the South Dakota Department of Health to establish a registration system for patients with qualifying health conditions, including those that cause severe pain, seizures, muscle spasms, or nausea. The measure allows registered patients to possess up to three ounces of cannabis and establishes a regulatory and taxation framework for the production of commercial medical cannabis.
Also on the ballot is Amendment A, which would legalize the use of cannabis by adults 21 and up. Possession of up to one ounce of marijuana and cultivation of up to three cannabis plants would also be permitted by the measure. The state Department of Revenue would be responsible for licensing commercial marijuana businesses and establishing regulations to govern their operation. Sales of non-medical cannabis would be taxed at a rate of 15%, with half of the proceeds going to South Dakota public schools and the remainder to the state’s general fund. Both ballot measures are supported by South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws.

Get Out And Vote!​

Election day on November 3 is quickly approaching, and early voting has already begun in some states. To help inform voters about the cannabis legalization measures up for consideration this November, wholesale cannabis marketplace LeafLink has created an information guide that outlines the initiatives in each state. Ryan G. Smith, the CEO and co-founder of LeaLink, told High Times that this year’s election “is shaping up to be one of the most important of our lifetime, and that includes the ways in which it will influence the future of the cannabis industry.”
“There are some key cannabis regulations on state ballots this year, such as adult-use legalization in Arizona and New Jersey, and we wanted to let people know just how crucial it is that they go out and vote!” Smith wrote in an email. “We published “Cannabis on the 2020 Ballot” as a way to educate the industry and supporters of the cannabis community so they feel confident as they cast their votes this year.”
Voter registration is still open in some states, but you’ll have to hurry. To register to vote or check your registration, visit the Cannabis Voter Project online.
Don’t forget to vote on November 3!

 

[momofthegoons]

​

USDA Approves Hemp Plans For Six Additional States And Three Indian Tribes​

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has signed off on hemp plans for six additional states and three Indian tribes this month, with a new batch of approvals coming on Friday.

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New Mexico, Oklahoma and South Dakota each had their regulatory proposals accepted within the past two weeks, as did the Comanche Nation, the San Carlos Apache Tribe of Arizona and the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma.

That raises the total number of approved plans to 69.

USDA has been signing off on hemp proposals on a rolling basis over the past year. Last month, it accepted plans from Utah and the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians.

“USDA continues to receive and review hemp production plans from states and Indian tribes,” the agency said in two notices.

The South Dakota Department of Agriculture (SDDA) has received final approval by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for the South Dakota Industrial Hemp Plan.
Press release: https://t.co/aMQvL7dqs1
USDA Approved plan: https://t.co/VLxpb8JQrFpic.twitter.com/OOFcuHH4zH
— SD Dept of Ag (@SDAgriculture) October 16, 2020

Illinois and Oklahoma were among a group of states that USDA had asked to revise and resubmit their initial proposals in August.

While the agency released an interim final rule for a domestic hemp production program last year, industry stakeholders and lawmakers have expressed concerns about certain policies it views as excessively restrictive.

USDA closed an extended public comment period on its proposed hemp regulations earlier this month. Its initial round saw more than 4,600 submissions, but it said last month that it was reopening the feedback period in response to intense pushback from stakeholders on its original proposal.

The federal Small Business Administration (SBA) said last month that the new 30-day comment window is too short and asked USDA to push it back, and it also issued a series of recommended changes to the interim final rule on hemp, which it says threaten to “stifle” the industry and benefit big firms over smaller companies.

All told, it appears that USDA is taking seriously the feedback it’s received and may be willing to make certain accommodations on these particular policies. The department’s rule for hemp is set to take effect on October 31, 2021.

In July, two senators representing Oregon sent a letter to Perdue, expressing concern that hemp testing requirements that were temporarily lifted will be reinstated in the agency’s final rule. They made a series of requests for policy changes.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) wrote to Perdue in August, asking that USDA delay issuing final regulations for the crop until 2022 and allow states to continue operating under the 2014 Farm Bill hemp pilot program in the meantime.

Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO) also called on USDA to delay the implementation of proposed hemp rules, citing concerns about certain restrictive policies the federal agency has put forward in the interim proposal.

The earlier pilot program was initially set to expire on October 31, but it was extended to September 2021 through a congressional continuing resolution that the president signed late last month.

The senators weren’t alone in requesting an extension, as state agriculture departments and a major hemp industry group made a similar request to both Congress and USDA in August.

Perdue has said on several occasions that DEA influenced certain rules, adding that the narcotics agency wasn’t pleased with the overall legalization of hemp.

Amid the coronavirus pandemic, hemp industry associations pushed for farmers to be able to access to certain COVID-19 relief loans—a request that Congress granted in the most recent round of coronavirus legislation.

While USDA previously said that hemp farmers are specifically ineligible for its Coronavirus Food Assistance Program, that decision was reversed last month. While the department initially said it would not even reevaluate the crop’s eligibility based on new evidence, it removed that language shortly after Marijuana Moment reported on the exclusion.

Two members of Congress representing New York also wrote a letter to Perdue in June, asking that the agency extend access to that program to hemp farmers.

Hemp farmers approved to produce the crop do stand to benefit from other federal loan programs, however. The department released guidelines for processing loans for the industry in May.

Meanwhile, USDA announced last week that it is planning to distribute a national survey to gain insights from thousands of hemp businesses that could inform its approach to regulating the industry.

 

[Baron23]

I generally don't do hemp articles as I'm neither a farmer nor a textile manufacturer. Hemp is just not important to me.

But suing the DEA is important to me and I applaud any and all people who make those bastard's lives miserable.

Sue early, sue often! haha

Hemp Litigation: DEA Sued Again​

The hemp industry contends the Interim Final Rule is unlawful because it exceeds the DEA’s authority and violates the Agricultural Improvement Act, among other things.
The Canna Law Blog has been writing about the Drug Enforcement Agency’s (DEA) interim final rule (IFR) on hemp since its August publication in the Federal Register:Most recently, Nathalie Bougenies wrote about a petition for review against the DEA filed by the Hemp Industries Association and RE Botanicals in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (the “D.C. Circuit”). Why the fuss? As Nathalie explained, the IFR:

suggests that in-process hemp shall be treated as a schedule I controlled substance during any point at which its THC concentration exceeds 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis. ‘Any point’ includes even fleetingly during the processing phase and includes situations where the THC percentage is brought back into legal compliance for the finished product.

So will the DEA start raiding hemp processors? Who knows, but the implications are not good and led to the hemp industry making a concerted effort against the IFR. One such effort is the petition for review, which contends the IFR is unlawful because it exceeds the DEA’s authority, violates the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018, and contends that the DEA violated the regulations governing the promulgation of rules set forth in the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”).
This week, the hemp industry opened a new front against the DEA and the IFR. On October 12, Petitioners in the D.C. Circuit filed a separate lawsuit against the DEA in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. This is the “trial court” for Washington D.C. as opposed to the appellate court, the D.C. Circuit, in which the petition for review was filed. (Email me if you’d like a copy of the Complaint).
Although the lawsuit and petition overlap, the lawsuit seeks relief different from the petition for review as well as injunctive relief that is not available through the petition for review. In the lawsuit, where Petitioners are now “Plaintiffs,” they seek:

1. A declaration that the definition of hemp in Section 1639o, includes “intermediate hemp material” (IHM) and “waste hemp material” (WHM).

Section 1639o is the law that defines hemp. The Complaint describes IHM and WHM as “two necessary and inevitable byproducts of hemp processing.” More specifically, it describes IHM as the output from the evaporation of oil, “which contain concentrated levels of cannabinoids, because all other parts of the plan have been stripped away.” This by-product, say Plaintiffs, is not added to, or used as an ingredient in, any consumer product. Instead it is refined into extracts or isolates containing not more than .3% Δ9-THC. As for WHM, the Complaint describes that as another “output from evaporation” when a processor is creating isolates of specific cannabinoids.

Photo by Bloomberg Creative/Getty Images
Broadly, the legal argument is as follows:

By defining hemp, inclusive of derivatives and extracts, based on its Δ9-THC concentration on a dry weight basis, and by removing THC in hemp from control, Congress removed hemp-derived materials from the CSA that do not contain more than 0.3% Δ9-THC at points when Δ9-THC can be measured on a dry weight basis.” (emphasis added).

So once material is hemp (i.e. passes testing, and including IHM and WHM) it remains hemp through processing even if there are temporary moments where the Δ9-THC concentration of the IHM or WHM may exceed .3%. And since hemp is not a controlled substance, neither are IHM or WHM.

1. A declaration that the THC in IHM and WHM is not a controlled substance.

The argument here is straightforward. The 2018 Farm Bill amended the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) Schedule I to read that “Tetrahydrocannabinols, except for tetrahydrocannabinols in hemp (as defined under [Section 1639o]).” Consequently, the argument goes, Congress removed all THC in hemp from the CSA. And since IHM and WHM are hemp-derived materials which contain THC, the THC in those materials is not a controlled substance.
The third claim for declaratory relief is similar to the Petition for Review as it asks the Court to declare that the DEA lacks independent authority to regulate any aspect of hemp production, including IHM and WHM.
And finally, the Complaint seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief in the form of an order that enjoins the DEA from enforcing the CSA as to IHM and WHM and from classifying IHM or WHM as Schedule I substances. The claim for injunctive relief is important in at least two respects. First because Plaintiffs seek to stop the DEA from trying to “fix” the interim final rules, if the Court finds that certain aspects are problematic. And second because the Plaintiffs have the opportunity to seek preliminary injunctive relief before a trial which may not happen for more than a year.
The claim for injunctive relief also is important because the petition for review, filed in the appellate court, is not the forum to seek injunctive relief in the first instance. So by bringing a claim for injunctive relief in district court, Hemp Industries Association and RE Botanicals have the ability to try and prevent the DEA from enforcing the IFR on a much quicker timetable.
The public comment period on the DEA’s new rule is open until October 20, 2020. We encourage all stakeholders in the hemp industry to submit comments against the DEA’s interim final rule. You can submit your comment at this link.

 

[momofthegoons]

​

Top Senate Democrat Includes Marijuana Banking Protections In New Coronavirus Relief Bill​

The top Democrat in the Senate introduced a coronavirus relief bill on Monday that contains provisions to protect banks that service state-legal marijuana businesses from being penalized by federal regulators.

As Congress and the White House continue to negotiate details of a potential COVID-19 relief deal, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) seemed to take a page from a recently passed House version that also includes language of the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act.

It’s unclear whether the Trump administration or Republican-controlled Senate will be amenable to including cannabis provisions in any package that has a chance of being enacted, but advocates view Schumer’s move in the meantime as a positive signal that Democrats will continue to press the issue.

If lawmakers hope to pass the next round of coronavirus relief ahead of the election, time is running out to strike a deal. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin have been actively attempting to find common ground on COVID-19 aid, but it remains to be seen whether they will reach an agreement that can be approved by both chambers and signed by the president.

The cannabis banking language has twice appeared in House-passed COVID-19 proposals, and the chamber has approved it both times. That said, it hasn’t advanced without controversy, as multiple Republican lawmakers and White House officials have criticized its inclusion, arguing that it is not germane to the issue at hand.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) in particular has been a vocal opponent of the measure, though he’s largely tailored his criticism to certain provisions of the SAFE Banking Act that require industry diversity reporting.

Democrats and reform advocates have defended adding the marijuana-related components to a coronavirus bill, stressing that it would mitigate the spread of the virus by giving cannabis businesses access to the banking system and minimizing cash-only transactions. It could would also increase access to financial institutions in a way that could give small businesses access to needed capital, they say.

Senate Republicans did not add cannabis banking language to their own version of COVID relief legislation filed in July.

But Democratic leaders in both chambers are evidently willing to keep up the fight, and the House even highlighted the diversity component in a summary of its legislation. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said in July that she agrees that the banking measure is an appropriate component of the bill.

In July, bipartisan treasurers from 15 states and one territory sent a letter to congressional leadership, urging the inclusion of the SAFE Banking Act in any COVID-19 legislation that’s sent to the president’s desk. Following GOP attacks on the House proposal, a group of Democratic state treasurers renewed that call.

The House last year approved the standalone SAFE Banking Act. For months, the legislation has gone without action in the Senate Banking Committee, where negotiations have been ongoing.

Where the newly filed Senate COVID-19 bill goes from here is uncertain—but its introduction gives some reason to believe that Schumer sees a potential path forward. It also signals that the cannabis issue, including broader legislation to end federal prohibition, is poised to advance in 2021 if Democrats win control of the chamber in next month’s elections.

A Pelosi aide said on Monday that she would decide by the end of Tuesday whether the negotiations with the Trump administration can lead to a relief package that could be passed before Election Day, but the speaker shifted that deadline to the end of the week in an interview with Bloomberg.

 

[momofthegoons]

State And Local Marijuana Regulators Demand Congress Prioritize Federal Legalization Bill​

A coalition of state and local marijuana regulators sent a letter to House leadership on Wednesday, demanding that they prioritize a marijuana legalization bill that’s expected to get a floor vote following the election.

The letter, which is being supported by the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), says that regulators “need comprehensive support in their individual and collective efforts to more responsibly and equitably manage challenges and develop solutions associated with cannabis and cannabis policy.”

They said the Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act represents a solution, and they urged legislators to vote in favor of it when it comes up for a vote.

Enacting the reform “would ensure that the federal government is a partner to state and municipal regulators both in our collective responsibility to serve our community through the reform of failed cannabis policies and in our collective responsibility to recognize and correct injustices,” they wrote, adding that criminalization has created “widespread” harms that disproportionately impact communities of color.

“As such, our attempts to eliminate these harms must be systemic and comprehensive and will require collective leadership at every level of government and collaboration amongst both the public and private sectors in order to achieve outcomes by centering equity in cannabis policy development, reform and implementation,” they wrote.

Nine regulators from Los Angeles, Oakland, Portland, Sacramento, San Francisco, Massachusetts and Illinois signed the letter.

“For those of us who manage state and municipal cannabis policies, and for those individuals who have been and continue to be impacted by cannabis policy, the need for comprehensive federal reform is clear and urgent,” the letter states. “Existing federal prohibition policies are antithetical to our collective responsibility to promote policies that are based in science, compassion and harm reduction.”

Leadership initially signaled that a floor vote on the MORE Act would happen in September, but following pushback from certain centrist Democrats who worried about the optics of advancing marijuana reform before another coronavirus relief package, it was postponed until after the election.

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) subsequently made a commitment that the body would bring up the bill sometime “later this autumn.” While advocates were disappointed by the delay, they’re confident the MORE Act will clear the chamber with some bipartisan support when it’s ultimately scheduled for action.

Rep. Don Young (R-AK) said last month that he was “confident” it would pass the House.

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), the sole GOP cosponsor on the bill, also said that he would be voting “yes” on the MORE Act, though he expressed criticism about a provision that would impose a federal excise tax on marijuana sales to be reinvested in communities most impacted by the drug war, calling them “reparations.”

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) said “I intend to vote yes on the bill” in an interview with Politico.

McClintock, along with Gaetz, voted for the MORE Act when it was marked up by the Judiciary Committee last year.

“These regulators know first-hand the complications of regulating a substance that remains illegal at the federal level and the harms imposed as a result on communities of color and low-income people,” Maritza Perez, director of national affairs at DPA, said in a press release. “They also understand that creating a safe and equitable industry, which the MORE Act does, provides a historic opportunity to begin repairing the extensive damage prohibition has caused over the last 50 years.”

Prior to the vote’s postponement, DPA and more than 120 other civil rights and drug policy reform groups such as the ACLU and NAACP sent a letter to House leadership emphasizing the need to pass the MORE Act to promote social justice.

Read the latest letter from the regulators on cannabis reform by following title link and scrolling to the bottom of the article.

 

[momofthegoons]

Addiction Medicine Doctors Group With Prohibitionist Roots Embraces Federal Marijuana Reforms​

A medical association focused on combatting drug addiction that has historically resisted marijuana reform efforts and aligned itself with prohibitionists has adopted a new policy position in favor of protecting people who use cannabis in compliance with state laws from being punished by the federal government. It’s also backing the rescheduling of medical marijuana.

“Our nation’s historically punitive approach to cannabis possession and use has caused harms related to arrest and incarceration, which disproportionately impact low-income communities and persons of color, contributing to racial injustice,” the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) said in its new statement.

ASAM made 24 specific marijuana-related recommendations following a board of directors vote that was formalized this month. While some of the proposals are consistent with the organization’s prior policy stances, its embrace of specific federal reforms stands out.

One provision even appears to come close to endorsing the aims of bipartisan legislation—the Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States (STATES) Act—that is vehemently opposed by prohibitionist groups that the addiction doctors association has closely partnered with in the past.

In fact, the language of the ASAM recommendation closely mirrors a summary of the bill that was included in a press release from its sponsor, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), last year.

ASAM:
Amend federal law “so that—as long as states and tribes comply with substantial public health protections—its provisions no longer apply to any person acting in compliance with state or tribal laws relating to the manufacture, production, possession, distribution, dispensation, administration, or delivery of cannabis for non-medical purposes.”

Warren:
Amend federal law “so that—as long as states and tribal nations comply with a few basic protections—its provisions no longer apply to any person acting in compliance with State or tribal laws relating to the manufacture, production, possession, distribution, dispensation, administration, or delivery of marijuana.”

The language is identical, but for the replacement of Warren’s “a few basic protections” with “substantial public health protections” (which are undefined) and using “cannabis for non-medical purposes” instead of “marijuana.”

When it comes to its separate medical cannabis rescheduling recommendation, ASAM doesn’t specify which classification it feels marijuana should be placed under after being removed from its current Schedule I status; rather, it simply states that it should be changed “to promote more clinical research and [Food and Drug Administration] oversight typical of other medications.”

ASAM, which was founded in 1954 and says it represents more than 6,000 physicians, clinicians and associated professionals in the field of addiction medicine, has previously adopted policy positions focused promoting research into cannabis—and it’s supported congressional legislation to that end. But the new recommendations are notable given the direct call for changes to the drug’s classification under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and carve-outs to protect people following state marijuana laws.

In 2014, the group’s then-president, Stuart Gitlow, signed a letter circulated by prohibitionist organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) that asked federal officials to resist pressure to reschedule cannabis under the CSA.

Whereas that letter argued that “rescheduling marijuana is not necessary to facilitate research,” the new ASAM position statement cites the reclassification move as a step needed to “promote more clinical research.”

Gitlow also signed onto a separate SAM letter opposing the Obama administration’s 2013 move to direct federal prosecutors to generally not interfere with state marijuana legalization laws—the aim of the STATES Act that the group’s new position paper adopts language from.

That same year, he sent a letter on ASAM letterhead to senators saying that the organization “supports the enforcement of federal laws that discourage the growth and distribution of marijuana.”

Gitlow, after leaving the organization’s presidency, went so far as to cheer then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s revocation of the Obama-era cannabis policy in 2018.

But ASAM’s new leadership is singing a different tune.

“Today’s public policy statement recognizes that our country’s historically punitive approach to cannabis use has caused significant harms—especially to persons of color, who are disproportionately arrested and incarcerated for cannabis possession and use,” Paul H. Earley, president of ASAM, said in a press release. “We must safeguard against the potential harms of cannabis use such as cannabis use disorder, while also recognizing that criminalization is not a constructive way to promote public health.”

While the new ASAM policy position clearly acknowledges the medical uses of cannabis and suggests enacting federal policy changes to accommodate it, the group didn’t always do so.

In 2011, its then-president, Louis E. Baxter, said, “We do not recognize this as a ‘medication,’ having not gone through an official FDA-approval process”—making sure to use scare quotes around “medication.”

In 2012 ASAM published a white paper urging physicians to oppose local reform initiatives, but as more states legalized cannabis for medical or recreational purposes, the group appeared to start taking a more public health-focused stance with its policy positions. For example, in 2015, it adopted a pro-decriminalization position, suggesting that people face civil penalties instead of incarceration for simple possession—though it also said that penalty should be coupled with “mandated referral to clinical assessment, educational activities, and, when indicated, formal treatment for addiction or other substance-related disorders.”

The new policy stance, in contrast, says that under decriminalization, “civil fines and fees should be eliminated whenever possible.” It also suggests a “range of non-mandatory civil penalties to enforce restrictions such as age, place of use, quantity limits” such as referral for clinical assessments or education, but that “there should be no mandatory minimum penalties, which disproportionately punish people of limited means.”

ASAM, while stopping short of embracing any form of legal and regulated cannabis system—saying it has “concerns regarding commercial models of legalization”—is also calling for “automatic expungement for past minor cannabis-related convictions, so that hundreds of thousands of people—disproportionately people of color—do not remain marginalized for prior offenses.”

The group also has suggestions for states that enact marijuana legalization, such as restricting advertising, mandating plain packaging for cannabis products, conducting quality control testing, limiting potency, allowing localities to regulate businesses and earmarking tax revenue for treatment and prevention efforts.

The new ASAM document also calls for FDA regulation of medical cannabis products, while saying that doctors who recommend unregulated medical marijuana preparations to patients should report it to prescription drug monitoring programs. The group also suggests that in most cases “pregnant women should have a choice whether or not to provide consent for cannabis testing including during labor and delivery.”

Again, however, the most significant recommendation from ASAM concerns federal protections for people who comply with state marijuana laws. It’s a position not shared by major prohibitionist groups like SAM that have routinely promoted ASAM’s onetime ardent anti-cannabis policies.

SAM removed some mentions of ASAM’s prior position from its website since the addiction group’s new stance was adopted this month.

SAM President Kevin Sabet played down the addiction doctors group’s policy announcement when contacted by Marijuana Moment, saying it won’t change the “longtime partnership” between the two organizations and arguing that ASAM’s “new position is in large part consistent with SAM’s positions of non-criminal penalties and public health practices.”

“ASAM calls for the non-enforcement of the CSA in states that adopt significant public health guidelines—but no state has done that, and no current federal marijuana bills being proposed provide for this,” he said. “In fact, a member of the ASAM writing committee told us that if states do not follow these guidelines, the ‘federal government can go after them, not for allowing marijuana but for doing it in dangerous and non acceptable way.'”

Sabet, who did not name the writing committee member he quoted, said his group was in the process of uploading ASAM’s new guidance to its website and that he sees “very little inconsistency between the positions of ASAM and SAM.”

While SAM has historically led efforts to opposed the rescheduling of marijuana, including the letter that ASAM’s former president signed, several years ago it pivoted to calling for the creation of a new special federal category for marijuana in order to bolster research. “Rescheduling is not necessary to do research,” Sabet said in his statement to Marijuana Moment, but conceded that “it would simply make it easier to do.”

Despite SAM’s efforts to frame the new ASAM’s policy as being in line with its own advocacy for largely maintaining the status quo of federal marijuana prohibition, the health group is clear that large-scale changes are needed even as it maintains concerns about commercialization and addiction.

“Our current approach to cannabis use has not only caused confusion about the health harms and potential benefits of cannabis use, but it has caused real harm, both to health of those using poorly regulated cannabis products and to the overall wellbeing of those arrested or incarcerated for cannabis-related offenses,” Earley, ASAM’s president, said. “Without opening the floodgates to a for-profit, commercial cannabis industry to flourish, our country must change course and adopt evidence-based cannabis policies that protect and promote public health, including the ones we recommend today.”

Read ASAM’s full report and recommendations for cannabis policy by following title link and scrolling to the bottom of the article.

 

[momofthegoons]

Everything You Need to Know About the 2020 Cannabis Ballot Initiatives​

Arizona, Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey, and South Dakota will vote on whether to legalize cannabis

Cannabis reform may be stalled at the federal level, but the number of states that have legalized it in some capacity continues to grow. Heading into the 2020 election, 33 of them and the District of Columbia permit medicinal use. Eleven of these states, as well as D.C., have also legalized recreational use. On November 3rd, four more states — Arizona, Montana, New Jersey, and South Dakota — will vote on initiatives that would legalize recreational cannabis, while a fifth — Mississippi — will decide whether to allow doctors to recommend it to patients.

Polling indicates the measures will pass in all five states.

This shouldn’t be surprising. A Pew Research Center study conducted last September found that 67 percent of Americans feel cannabis should be legal, while 91 percent feel it should at least be legal for medicinal purposes. The issue is no longer just a liberal hobbyhorse, either. A majority of Republicans also believe cannabis should be legal, and as more conservative states continue to vote accordingly, it’s going be harder and harder for federal legislators to rationalize opposing reform at the federal level.

“Most lawmakers are going to respond for their constituents,” Steven Hawkins, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project, tells Rolling Stone. “That’s why the work [we do] around changing laws at the state level is really part and parcel of how we will win at the federal level. Every state that passes adult use means you’re going to gain members of Congress, you’re going to gain two U.S. senators. Even if they don’t become champions, they’re not going to vote no for something their constituents have come to embrace.”

The House of Representatives was set to vote on a federal decriminalization bill, dubbed the MORE Act, in September, but the vote was delayed until after the election. Though the bill would probably not have made it through the Republican-controlled Senate, it’s beginning to feel like it’s only a matter of time before the MORE Act or a similar piece of legislation is going to garner broad bipartisan support. This year’s ballot initiatives should help move the needle, as it’s looking like come November 3rd a few more Republican senators are going to find themselves representing constituencies that support legalization. More are sure to follow.

Here’s everything you need to know about which states are voting to legalize cannabis this cycle:
​

ARIZONA​

Recreational or medicinal? Recreational. Medicinal cannabis has been legal in Arizona since 2011.

What are the details? Proposition 207: The Smart and Safe Arizona Act would legalize the sale and possession of cannabis for adult use (21 and over). Residents would be allowed to possess up to one ounce of cannabis and five grams of THC concentrate, and to grow up to six cannabis plants in a household. Prop 207 would also allow people to apply to have their criminal records expunged for certain cannabis-related crimes.

What else? Cannabis products would be taxed like cigarettes or alcohol, with a 16 percent excise tax on top of the state’s 5.6 percent sales tax.

Will it pass? We’ll see, although it’s looking good.

Though Arizonans voted against legalization 51-48 in 2016, a poll released this summer found that 62 percent of Arizonans support legalization, compared to 32 percent who oppose it. But in September a Monmouth University poll found that only 51 percent of registered voters support Prop 207, while 41 percent opposed it. Another poll conducted later in September found that 57 percent of voters support the measure, while 38 percent oppose it.

MISSISSIPPI​

Recreational or medicinal? Medicinal.

What are the details? Initiative 65 allows for cannabis to be prescribed to treat a variety of conditions, from cancer to Chrohn’s disease to intractable nausea. Also on the ballot is Initiative 65A, an alternative bill that restricts the use of medicinal cannabis to the terminally ill.

What else? Mississippi is one of the most conservative states in America, and its legislature was none too pleased when Initiative 65 qualified for a spot on the ballot this November. This led lawmakers to drum up Initiative 65A, a vague but substantially more restrictive measure they hope will siphon support from Initiative 65.

Will it pass? Probably. Recent polling shows that 81 percent of residents support medicinal cannabis, including 76 percent of Republicans. When respondents were given the choice between Initiative 65 and Initiative 65A, 52 percent said they’d vote for Initiative 65, compared to just 23 percent who preferred Initiative 65A. The research firm that conducted the poll concluded that Initiative 65 “stands a strong chance of passage.”

MONTANA​

Recreational or medicinal? Recreational. Voters approved a medicinal cannabis measure in 2004, and then an expansion in 2016.

What are the details? Montana I-190 would allow for the sale and possession of cannabis for adult use. Residents would be permitted to have up to four cannabis plants and up to four seedlings in their home. I-190 would also allow for anyone serving a prison sentence for cannabis-related offenses that would be decriminalized by the measure to request re-sentencing or expungement.

A second measure, CI-118, would establish that I-190 would only apply to adults 21 and over. Should I-190 pass and CI-118 be voted down, anyone 18 and older would be able to legally purchase and use recreational cannabis.

A 20 percent tax would be levied on all recreational cannabis products.

What else? The bill is not without its opponents in the traditionally conservative state.

On October 16th, anti-legalization group Wrong For Montana petitioned the state’s Supreme Court to remove I-190 from the ballot, arguing that the bill, which holds that the state allocate half of the revenue generated from cannabis sales to environmental conservation programs, violates state law. “According to the Montana constitution, Article III, Section IV, you cannot allocate the revenue from an initiative, as funds must be allocated from the general fund by the Montana Legislature,” Wrong For Montana’s Steve Zabawa told local station KGVO.

New Approach Montana, the pro-legalization advocacy group responsible for the initiatives making their way onto the ballot, told Marijuana Moment that the measures “were filed in January, have already been vetted and approved by the Montana attorney general,” adding that “the opposition campaign has been spreading misinformation across Montana for weeks, and this lawsuit announcement is just the latest chapter.”

That’s not all. Days later, Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney Kurt Alme posted a statement to the Justice Department’s website outlining a host dubious claims about the effects of cannabis, including that it leads to an increase in “traffic fatalities,” that it is addictive, that it leads to methamphetamine use, and more. “Fellow Montanans, let’s be sure we take a close look at these proposals before voting on CI-118 and I-190,” he concluded.

As Paul Armentamo, deputy director of NORML, explained to Marijuana Moment, Alme’s scare tactics are only just that, and ultimately don’t hold any real weight with the public. “Were the alleged ill effects of legalization as significant or pervasive as the U.S. attorney opines, the real-world ramifications would be readily apparent, and public support would be heading in just the opposite direction,” he said. “But this has not been the case.”

Will it pass? Despite all the opposition, signs are pointing to yes. A recent poll by Montana State University found that 49 percent of likely voters support I-190, while only 39 percent oppose it.

NEW JERSEY​

Recreational or medicinal? Recreational. New Jersey legalized cannabis for medicinal use in 2010.

What are the details? New Jersey Public Question 1 would legalize the sale and possession of cannabis for adult use (21 and over). Details about possession limits would be hashed out after passage by the state’s Cannabis Regulatory Commission, which was established in 2019 when the state revamped its medical cannabis program.

What else? Cannabis products would only be taxed at the 6.625 percent state sales tax rate, although local governments would have the option of slapping on an additional 2 percent. Recreational cannabis figures to be a boon for the state’s economy considering its proximity to New York and Pennsylvania, which have yet to pass legalization measures. The low tax rate should help New Jersey dispensaries compete against the area’s robust black market.

Will it pass? Almost certainly. Though a ballot measure to legalize cannabis failed to pass in 2018, recent polling found that 65 percent of voters are in favor of Public Question 1, while just 29 percent are opposed.

SOUTH DAKOTA​

Recreational or medicinal? Both.

What are the details? Two legalization measures will be on the ballot in South Dakota. South Dakota Initiated Measure 26 would allow physicians to prescribe cannabis to registered patients in order to treat a number of conditions. Constitutional Amendment A would allow for recreational adult use (21 and over).

As the Marijuana Policy Project points out, South Dakota currently has some of the nation’s harshest possession laws. The state even has an “internal possession” law, meaning if someone simply tests positive for cannabis, even if it was consumed in a state where it is legal, you still can be held criminally liable for possession in South Dakota.

What else? In the off chance that Constitutional Amendment A passes but Initiated Measure 26 does not, the former requires the creation of a medicinal cannabis program.

Will it pass? Probably. A poll released in September suggests that a majority of South Dakotans support both measures, with 70 percent of respondents saying they planned to vote for Initiated Measure 26, and 60 percent saying they planned to vote for Constitutional Amendment A. The poll was commissioned the state Chamber of Commerce, which opposes legalization, and conducted by No Way On A, a group that, as its name implies, opposes Constitutional Amendment A.

 

[Baron23]

​

Top Senate Democrat Includes Marijuana Banking Protections In New Coronavirus Relief Bill​

The top Democrat in the Senate introduced a coronavirus relief bill on Monday that contains provisions to protect banks that service state-legal marijuana businesses from being penalized by federal regulators.

As Congress and the White House continue to negotiate details of a potential COVID-19 relief deal, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) seemed to take a page from a recently passed House version that also includes language of the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act.

It’s unclear whether the Trump administration or Republican-controlled Senate will be amenable to including cannabis provisions in any package that has a chance of being enacted, but advocates view Schumer’s move in the meantime as a positive signal that Democrats will continue to press the issue.

If lawmakers hope to pass the next round of coronavirus relief ahead of the election, time is running out to strike a deal. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin have been actively attempting to find common ground on COVID-19 aid, but it remains to be seen whether they will reach an agreement that can be approved by both chambers and signed by the president.

The cannabis banking language has twice appeared in House-passed COVID-19 proposals, and the chamber has approved it both times. That said, it hasn’t advanced without controversy, as multiple Republican lawmakers and White House officials have criticized its inclusion, arguing that it is not germane to the issue at hand.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) in particular has been a vocal opponent of the measure, though he’s largely tailored his criticism to certain provisions of the SAFE Banking Act that require industry diversity reporting.

Democrats and reform advocates have defended adding the marijuana-related components to a coronavirus bill, stressing that it would mitigate the spread of the virus by giving cannabis businesses access to the banking system and minimizing cash-only transactions. It could would also increase access to financial institutions in a way that could give small businesses access to needed capital, they say.

Senate Republicans did not add cannabis banking language to their own version of COVID relief legislation filed in July.

But Democratic leaders in both chambers are evidently willing to keep up the fight, and the House even highlighted the diversity component in a summary of its legislation. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said in July that she agrees that the banking measure is an appropriate component of the bill.

In July, bipartisan treasurers from 15 states and one territory sent a letter to congressional leadership, urging the inclusion of the SAFE Banking Act in any COVID-19 legislation that’s sent to the president’s desk. Following GOP attacks on the House proposal, a group of Democratic state treasurers renewed that call.

The House last year approved the standalone SAFE Banking Act. For months, the legislation has gone without action in the Senate Banking Committee, where negotiations have been ongoing.

Where the newly filed Senate COVID-19 bill goes from here is uncertain—but its introduction gives some reason to believe that Schumer sees a potential path forward. It also signals that the cannabis issue, including broader legislation to end federal prohibition, is poised to advance in 2021 if Democrats win control of the chamber in next month’s elections.

A Pelosi aide said on Monday that she would decide by the end of Tuesday whether the negotiations with the Trump administration can lead to a relief package that could be passed before Election Day, but the speaker shifted that deadline to the end of the week in an interview with Bloomberg.

It is a time honored, but IMO absolutely wrong, tradition to attach a "rider" of some legislative initiative, that cannot muster sufficient support on its own to pass, to a much more important bill. Basically, trying to jam it down the throats of Congress in general.

Now, I'm all about MJ legalization but I'm even more a fan of representative democracy and IMO "riders" like this one have no place in a democratic rule of law.

If you can get the votes....which represents the will of the people who elected them...fine.

If not, try again another day but save your back door maneuvering.

A lot of pork, pet projects, and really incredibly bad ideas have become law by attaching them to must-pass legislation.

 

[momofthegoons]

Schools And NCAA Could Ban Marijuana Sponsorships Under Bill To Let Student Athletes Monetize Their Success​

A new bipartisan congressional bill aimed at helping student athletes monetize their success contains a provision that would let colleges and intercollegiate organizations block them from making sponsorship deals with marijuana businesses.

While the legislation would address a longstanding controversy over inequitable payment to college athletes, drug policy reform advocates are disappointed to see the legislation perpetuate anti-cannabis policies despite the growing, state-level legalization movement.

The Student Athlete Level Playing Field Act, introduced by Rep. Anthony Gonzalez (R-OH) and seven other original cosponsors, would make it so colleges and associations like the NCAA could not prohibit students from being involved in intercollegiate athletics if they’ve entered into sponsorship agreements.

However, it stipulates that the exception would not apply if the sponsorship is from a “seller or dispensary of a controlled substance, including marijuana.”

Student drug policy reform advocates took exception to the cannabis provision.

“Student-athletes are professionals and deserve the right to earn funding from any legal service they deem fit. As young professionals, they can determine for themselves if an endorsement is going to hurt or help their career,” Luis Montoya, co-interim executive director of Students for Sensible Drug Policy, told Marijuana Moment. “These restrictions are not based in any science, and in particular ignore community re-investment efforts by the cannabis industry. Banning student-athletes from accepting endorsements from an industry that wants to reinvest in local communities only limits the opportunities afforded to these young professionals.”

The bill, filed last month, would also allow actions against students who get endorsement deals with alcohol, tobacco, adult entertainment or gambling companies.

Meanwhile, for lead bill sponsor Gonzalez, this particular provision seems to depart from his overall record on cannabis reform.

The congressman voted in favor of spending bill riders to protect all state, territory and tribal marijuana programs from federal intervention in 2019 and this year.

In other education-related drug policy developments, a separate House bill filed last year would repeal a federal law punishing college students who are convicted of drug offenses by stripping them of their financial aid. That reform cleared the Education & Labor Committeeas part of a broader college affordability bill, but it has not advanced further.

In any case, Gonzalez touted his new legislation, arguing in a press release that it “delivers meaningful reforms and will make a difference in the lives of student athletes of all levels of competition across the country.”

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), an original cosponsor, said the measure “is a civil rights issue.”

“For far too long college athletes across the country—many of whom are people of color—have been denied the basic right to control their name, image and likeness,” he said. “What we wanted to do from the outset was come to a bipartisan consensus that puts forth a national framework that gives college athletes the same rights every other American in the country is already afforded.”

But while the congressman acknowledged racially disparate policies in college sports, it’s also the case that the war on drugs has disproportionately impacted African Americans and Latinos. Reform advocates who support cannabis legalization have emphasized the need to create opportunities for people from communities harmed by prohibition enforcement to participate in the newly legal marijuana market.

And so while the athletics bill seeks to make a seemingly benign exemption for allowing marijuana-related sponsorships, the policy also makes it so students of color who’ve been most negatively affected by these college policies are unable to benefit from endorsement deals with an industry that advocates are hoping can play a proactive role in fostering racial equity.

Earlier this year, Major League Baseball clarified that players can consume cannabis without being disciplined, but moved to ban them from entering sponsorship deals with marijuana companies.

 

[momofthegoons]

​

State Medical Societies Team Up To Condemn Marijuana Legalization Efforts Amid COVID​

A coalition of state medical societies has issued a joint statement criticizing efforts to legalize marijuana.

The medical societies of Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania said on Friday that while they appreciate the economic challenges that states have faced as a consequence of the coronavirus pandemic, they’re urging against legalization as a means of addressing the issue.

“Legalization continues to present serious public health concerns,” they argued. “Legalization continues to be considered across many states.”

They pointed specifically to the adult-use legalization referendum that New Jersey voters will decide on during Tuesday’s election and recent statements from New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D), who recently signaled he will again include the policy change in his annual budget proposal next year.

State Medical Societies Concerned with State Governments’ Efforts to Legalize Recreational #Marijuana https://t.co/QSYw4ItRz4 @MSNJ1766@PAMEDSociety @MedSocDel @OhioMedicine#MSSNY
— Medical Society NY (@mssnytweet) October 30, 2020

“We appreciate the enormous challenges state policymakers face to address burgeoning budget deficits, but we strongly believe that further detailed research must be undertaken and assessed regarding the effects legalization of cannabis will have on important public health markers, such as emergency department visits and hospitalizations, impaired driving arrests, and the prevalence of psychiatric and addiction disorders,” the medical societies’ statement says.

The coalition also claimed that federal data shows “despite best efforts of states to limit the purchase of legal marijuana to adults, it has also led to a troubling increase in youth use,” citing an earlier National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) states report.

But while the statement asserts that cannabis consumption “by youth aged 12-17 is up in ‘legal’ states while declining in non-legal states,” the groups seem to be generally observing that marijuana use has historically been higher in states that have legalized, even before the policy change was enacted. In fact, a recent NSDUH report found mixed trends in legal and non-legal states, with some past month use data points for the age group declining and others increasing slightly.

Overall, reports of past-month cannabis use among those 12-17 remained stable from 2017 to 2018, the federally funded survey found—and they’re significantly lower than in the years prior to when the first states began legalizing for adult use.

Prior studies have also found that fewer adolescents in the largest metropolitan county in Washington state reported past-month cannabis consumption following legalization. And in California, cannabis consumption among junior high and high school students similarly fell post-legalization.

“We are very concerned that the long-term public health costs associated with hospitalizations and treatment for psychiatric/addictive disorders could significantly outweigh any revenues that these states anticipate would be received from the legalization of cannabis,” the medical societies said.

State medical societies, including PAMED, express concern with state governments' efforts to legalize recreational marijuana: https://t.co/5I26Jx2c5w | @mssnytweet@MSNJ1766 @CSMSNews @OhioMedicine@MedSocDel pic.twitter.com/HZzyHPuS7A
— PA Medical Society (@PAMEDSociety) November 2, 2020

Of course, the economic benefits of tax revenue generated from cannabis sales is only one reason that policymakers have pursued legalization. In both New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania, for example, the governors have stressed that the reform is a necessary move to promote social equity and right the wrongs of the drug war.

“We’ll build an industry, it would be a revenue-generator,” New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy said in an interview about the state’s legalization referendum last week. “I think at first it would be modest, but ultimately will grow, I think, into several hundred million dollars in the state budget. Along with social justice, that’s a pretty good, winning combination.”

Cuomo similarly said last month that there “are a lot of reasons to get [legalization] done, but one of the benefits is it also brings in revenue.”

“There’s much more that needs to be done to reverse the decades of injustice, and we need to start by decriminalizing cannabis and legalizing it for adult use,” Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf said around the same time. “The majority of Pennsylvanians support legalizing cannabis for adult use, and it’s a needed step toward restorative justice.”

But the medical societies did not touch on those components of reform. They focused largely on the COVID-19 crisis and said the public health emergency underscores the need to reject legalization.

“We are in the midst of a world-wide pandemic and we already know that smoking or vaping marijuana can increase patient risk for more severe complications from COVID-19,” they said. “Additionally, there are concerns about the secondary effects on adults and young people from COVID-19 regarding the increased rates of addiction due to the stress of isolation, boredom and decreased access to recovery resources.”

“The cost to the public health system from cannabis use will likely far outweigh any revenues that states secure by legalizing marijuana,” the statement continues. “We must proceed cautiously and pay close attention to the public health impacts in states where legalization has occurred.”

Beyond New Jersey, four other states will be voting on some form of cannabis legalization on Tuesday: Arizona (recreational), Mississippi (medical), Montana (recreational) and South Dakota (medical and recreational).

The Mississippi State Medical Association and American Medical Association have been circulating a sample ballot that instructs voters on how to reject the activist-led medical cannabis measure in that state.

While the state medical societies are taking a strong stance against legalization, the American Society of Addiction Medicine—which has historically resisted marijuana reform efforts and aligned itself with prohibitionists—recently adopted a new policy position in favor of protecting people who use and sell cannabis in compliance with state laws from being punished by the federal government.

 

[Cuckfumbustion]

Live Marijuana Election Results (US)​

LSS, All the measures passed and the Initiative No. 65 for MS passed. So Cannabis and Psilocybin won the election. Oregon decrimed all drugs, So that social experiment has started.

 

[Bcbud]

Cannabis Ballot Initiatives Win Big on 2020 Election Night

Five states passed new cannabis measures in yesterday’s election, with Oregon going one step further by decriminalizing all drugs.

cannabisnow.com

 

[Baron23]

Now, I'm proud of NJ (no, I don't live there) for finally getting across the finish line for rec legal MJ.

But, I saw in today's news that the NJ legislators and the current Governor have passed and signed a law to eliminate all single use bags including paper...you know, the shit that we can recycle....actually, the shit that has already been recycled into grocery bags and can be recycled again.....ALL single use bags no matter their material.

I guess if you go to Mickey D's in NJ after this law takes place, you will have to put your Big Mac in your back pocket and try to get the order of fries in your front one.

And the idiocy in the name of virtue signalling goes on and on and on.

Clean Sweep For Cannabis In 2020 Elections​

The nation may not know who is president on election day, but the people have spoken when it comes to cannabis legislation. Arizona, Montana, New Jersey, and South Dakota have all legalized marijuana for adults 21 and older, as voters in each state approved their respective ballot initiatives at the ballot box. The Garden State has gone green as the closely watched state of New Jersey approved adult-use cannabis.

New Jersey​

“Today, New Jerseyans voted overwhelmingly to legalize cannabis for adult use. This is a vital first step for shifting away from punitive cannabis prohibition and toward a regulated market that prioritizes racial and social justice,” said ACLU-NJ Campaign Strategist, Ami Kachalia, on behalf of New Jersey United for Marijuana Reform (NJUMR). “Now, we call on New Jersey legislators and the Governor to implement the vision of cannabis legalization that voters have pushed forward – one that begins to repair the harms of marijuana prohibition and creates an accessible and inclusive new cannabis industry. In determining the details of implementation, lawmakers must include expungement, community reinvestment, and meaningful opportunities for those most harmed by unjust enforcement of marijuana laws to enter into the industry.”
NORML Executive Director Erik Altieri said: “Garden State voters spoke resoundingly. They are demanding their lawmakers end the failed policy of marijuana criminalization, and instead pursue a more sensible path of regulation and legalization. “Law enforcement in New Jersey arrests more citizens each year for minor marijuana violations than almost any other state in the nation. By moving to end this fiscally wasteful and morally repugnant policy, state officials will now be able to prioritize law enforcement resources toward combating more serious criminal activities, better respect the personal freedom and civil liberties of their citizens, end the racist application of marijuana prohibition laws against communities of color, and direct new tax revenues toward important social programs such as education and infrastructure development.”

South Dakota​

South Dakota also passed a medical marijuana initiative and became the first state in American history to enact both policies on the same day. The Marijuana Policy Project was instrumental in the Montana and South Dakota campaigns. “This historic set of victories will place even greater pressure on Congress to address the glaring and untenable conflicts between state and federal laws when it comes to cannabis legalization,” said Steve Hawkins, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project. “A few years ago, nobody would have predicted that South Dakota would legalize marijuana before New York,” said Matthew Schweich, deputy director of the Marijuana Policy Project and one of the leaders of the South Dakota campaign. “But that’s the power of the ballot initiative process.”
“South Dakotans sent an unequivocal message in support of allowing patients the ability to legally access it under the advice of their physician,” stated NORML Executive Director Erik Altieri. “When operational, this program will provide lab-tested medical cannabis products to thousands of South Dakotans who can benefit from them. These patients cannot wait, and voters were right to take action to make this access a reality.”

Montana​

Montana voters have approved two complementary ballot initiatives that legalize, regulate, and tax marijuana for adults 21 and over. “By legalizing marijuana, Montanans have adopted a policy that is good for public health, good for public safety, and good for public finances,” said Ted Dick, New Approach Montana campaign manager, and co-founder. “The initiatives will free up law enforcement to focus on serious crime, as Montana ends the practice of arresting otherwise law-abiding adults for personal use of marijuana. At the same time, 118 and 190 will expand access to medical marijuana for many patients, including veterans, and provide a new funding source for important state programs.”
Initiative 190, which establishes state laws to legalize, regulate, and tax marijuana, was approved by an initially reported margin of 57%-43%. Constitutional Initiative 118, which amends the state constitution to allow state law to set a minimum legal age of 21 for marijuana, was approved by a margin of 58%-42%. “This is the culmination of a two-year campaign and belongs to the people of Montana,” said New Approach co-founder and political director Pepper Petersen. “During that time, we heard from thousands of Montanans who were demanding commonsense marijuana policy for our state. Now, thanks to their effort and their votes, we have that.”

Mississippi​

Mississippi voters approved a constitutional ballot initiative to establish a medical marijuana program for patients with debilitating conditions. Initiative 65, which provides for a state-regulated marijuana access system for qualified patients. Voters rejected a far more restrictive effort placed on the ballot by the legislature, Measure 65A.
NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano said: “Initiative 65 puts the needs and interests of patients first. This was a grassroots effort to provide patients with access to a treatment option that patients already enjoy in 34 other states and in the District of Columbia. By contrast, Measure 65A was a cynical effort by lawmakers to misdirect voters. The same state lawmakers that for decades had refused to ever seriously address the issue were the ones behind 65A, and voters wisely rejected their campaign.”
“It is great to see that the tides of change are continuing to flow across the country and now they have come to Mississippi,” said Steve Hawkins, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project, which was founded in 1995 and has played a central role in eight state-level legalization victories over the past eight years. “As we saw in Utah in 2018, and as we see in Mississippi this year, medical marijuana can pass in any state in the country.”
“From the Badlands to the Jersey Shore, and from the Grand Canyon to Big Sky Country, Americans across the country have embraced the idea that marijuana legalization is the policy decision that best serves the interests of public health, public safety, and, most importantly, justice,” said Schweich, deputy director of the Marijuana Policy Project and one of the leaders of the Montana and South Dakota campaigns.
“With the passage of these initiatives, one-third of the population now lives in jurisdictions that have legalized cannabis for adult use, and 70% of all states have embraced cannabis for medical use. The federal government is out of step with a clear national trend toward legalization,” said Hawkins. “Regardless of who controls the White House, the House, and the Senate, we should demand landmark federal marijuana reform in 2021. This is not a partisan issue. And with more Republican Senators representing states with medical marijuana and legal marijuana for adults, we’re hopeful that marijuana reform can serve as an opportunity for bipartisan cooperation.”

 

[Baron23]

What You Need To Know About The Possible Historic U.N. Vote On Cannabis​

The United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) is slated to vote on cannabis recommendations from the World Health Organization (WHO) on Dec. 2.
The vote casts a decision on a series of recommendations for THC and CBD products, including pharmaceutical cannabis products like Marinol, Syndros and Sativex.
If passed, the effects could be significant for consumers and the global industry.

What’s In The Recommendations?​

Among its recommendations, the WHO calls for all forms of THC to be removed from the drug convention of 1961, placing it with cannabis in Schedule 1, the least restrictive classification by UN standards. Meanwhile, pharmaceutical cannabis medications would be placed in Schedule 3.
The vote among the 53 participating member states was delayed in March 2020 but was delayed — the second instance.
After being introduced by the WHO in January 2019, the first decision to delay came down in February 2019 when several member nations, including the United States requested more time for consideration.
Despite the delays, Jessica Steinberg, a University of Oxford PhD student in socio-legal studies with a speciality in cannabis activism, believes the vote will occur this time around.
Steinberg, a UN delegate at the Commission of Narcotic Drugs, calls the first-time evaluation and consultation of cannabis historic.
She highlighted the CBD parameters of particular interest. "As if agreed upon, it would be the first cannabinoid to not be included in the treaties and would welcome global trade flows," Steinberg stated.



The CBD is also of interest as it is a separate vote from the other recommendations. A simple majority is needed for it to pass.
That said, the vote is anything but assured to pass. Steinberg said it faces a myriad of issues ranging from socioeconomics to legal and bureaucratic hurdles among the member nations.
“There is no certainty attached to a positive outcome of the vote at present,” she said.

The Possible Impact On The Global Cannabis Market​

There is hope that scheduled the vote could sway regulators to allow for amended laws and expanded lab analysis.
Garrett Bain, president of EcoGen BioSciences, said the vote symbolizes the progress legalization and destigmatization efforts have come.
"More importantly, a vote that deschedules cannabis or allows for "medical use" would send a global message on the positive shift towards cannabis acceptance, which could have rippling effects on countries and states that remain adamantly against it," he added.
Grace Kaucic, Senior Communications Manager for Bluebird Botanicals, said regulations aren't the only change. Research could benefit as well.
"It would also open the door for more extensive research on cannabis and its derivatives, and may even pave the way for other potentially therapeutic drugs like psychedelics to be used for medicinal purposes," Kaucic said.
The non-binding decision won't force a global market shift, but its framework is likely to influence regulations in key governing bodies, including the European Union and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
However, Steinberg cautions that the result doesn’t always lead to a favorable outcome.
"A vote might lead to more clarity, but it could also lead to more restrictive national frameworks.”

Any Impact On The U.S.?​

Steinberg stressed that the result of UN vote should not be confused with the complex nature of America's own cannabis lawmaking.
“The two are interconnected, yet do not inherently imply causation of the former,” she said.
“Cannabis has been a politicized substance for over a century, that has yet to change,” said Steinberg, noting that current political and social circumstances like the pandemic and the economy all play their part.

 

[momofthegoons]

​

Seven In Ten Americans Support Marijuana Legalization, New Gallup Poll Shows​

Nearly seven in 10 Americans now support legalizing marijuana nationwide, according to a Gallup poll released on Monday.

Overall, 68 percent of respondents said they favor legalizing cannabis for adult use, which is “Gallup’s highest reading” since the firm started polling voters on the issue, it said. Last year, the survey found 66 percent support for legalization.

In 1969, only 12 percent of Americans favored legalizing marijuana. Today’s level of support is double what it was in 2000.

The new poll shows majority backing for the policy change across all age demographics for the first time. However, support among Republicans dipped slightly compared to last year, from 51 to 48 percent.

Meanwhile, 83 percent of Democrats and 72 percent of independents said they back legalization, which Gallup says is the highest level of support it has ever recorded for those political groups.

The release of the survey results comes one week after voters in five states approved initiatives to legalize cannabis for medical or recreational purposes. That includes reform wins in traditionally conservative states such as Montana and South Dakota.

“Majorities of most demographic subgroups of Americans support legalizing marijuana, including by gender, age, education and household income,” Gallup, which conducted the survey of 1,035 adults from September 30 to October 15, said.

Despite the overwhelming support for the policy change among Democrats, President-elect Joe Biden has so far only backed more modest reforms such as decriminalizing possession and expunging prior cannabis convictions.

Meanwhile, it’s not clear why there was a small reduction in support from those who identify as Republican following years of increases. That said, Democratic lawmakers have increasingly attempted to own the issue, which could help explain why fewer conservatives are willing to openly back the policy.

There’s also a margin of error of +/- four percentage points in the survey, which could account for the small amount of movement reported among the political demographic.

“Since 2012, when Colorado and Washington became the first states to legalize recreational marijuana, there has been a slow trickle of states that have followed suit,” Gallup said. “Over that period, Americans’ support for marijuana legalization has risen 20 points to a record-high 68 percent.”

The firm also referenced a separate survey it conducted earlier this year that showed that about 70 percent of Americans view smoking cannabis to be a morally acceptable activity. That’s higher than their views on the morality of issues such as gay relationships, medical testing of animals, the death penalty and abortion.

That said, the new poll found that Americans who more regularly attend religious services are less likely to support legalizing marijuana.

“The trajectory of the public’s support for the legalization of marijuana has coincided with an increasing number of states approving it,” Gallup said. “It is not entirely clear whether the shift in public opinion has caused the change in many state laws or vice versa. Given recent trends, more states are likely to legalize recreational marijuana in the future. Considering the high level of public support for such a measure, a change in federal policy could even occur.”

Lawmakers and advocates have similarly made the case that the 2020 election results for cannabis reform will bolster federal reform efforts, regardless of the political makeup of Congress or the presidency.

“This is what voters want. They’re not partisan issues, it’s an opportunity for Republicans to be able to make progress in their red states and bring people together at a time of division,” Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) told Marijuana Moment on Thursday. “I think you’re going to watch people understand what just happened last night, and it is a continuation of progress that’s been going on since 1996. I think it’s going to be much easier [to pass reform] in the new Congress, with Republicans and Democrats, both in the House and Senate.”