Law The Cannabis Chronicles - Misc Cannabis News

[Baron23]

Well, while I'm a long time, rabid, advocate for MJ legalization, I rather agree that at this point in time, Congress' priorities are a bit skewed.

Let's talk real politics here....this is going to pass in Pelosi's House and will never see the light of day in the Senate during this Congressional session. Ain't happening.

So, with COVID stimulus and other really critical, open, and highly contentious items pending like the annual fucking budget, is a show boat vote (cause it ain't becoming law this sessions) really the best application for House efforts. I don't think so.

So why...well, it goes to one stated of addressing "systematic racism" which seems to be the justification du jour for...well, just about anything.

So, the bill won't pass but the optics (which is the same as smoke and mirrors or for appearance sake only) are good for a segment of Congress and IMO that is why this is getting a vote.

GOP leaders lay into Pelosi for marijuana legalization bill while COVID-19 relief remains uncertain​

The GOP is at odds with what the majority of the country support, marijuana legalization​

Republican lawmakers condemned House Speaker Nancy Pelosi after Democratic leadership announced that a bill to federally legalize marijuana will hit the House floor Wednesday.


House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said the chamber will be considering multiple bills, including the Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, and voting will take place Wednesday through Friday.

Another bill that will be reviewed, seeks to ban breeding and private ownership of big cats, which were featured in the Netflix docuseries “Tiger King” earlier this year.


But Republican’s, many of whom are staunch critics of marijuana legalization despite it being legal in many of their states, took to Twitter to accuse Pelosi, D-Calif., of prioritizing “cannabis and cats” over finding a bipartisan coronavirus relief bill.

“This week, your House Democrat majority is tackling the tough issues by holding a vote on legalizing pot and banning tiger ownership,” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy wrote Monday on Twitter. “Nothing for small businesses. Nothing for re-opening schools. Nothing on battling the pandemic. Just cannabis and cats.”

Though while the House will not be voting on COVID-19 relief funding this week, the speaker said she spoke with Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin about the “bipartisan progress” that has been made in finding a solution, which attempts the marry both the Democrats and Republican’s stubborn demands.

A coronavirus stimulus package has been held up for months largely because Democrats are seeking a roughly $2.2 trillion package, while Republicans do not want to spend more than $500 billion on aid, which is an impasse that has resulted in the rejection of several relief packages from both sides of the aisle.


After speaking with President-elect Joe Biden, Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have said it is a priority to get a stimulus package passed during Congress’ lame-duck session.

“Secretary Mnuchin said he would be reviewing the proposal Leader Schumer and I made to Leader McConnell and Leader McCarthy last night and the bipartisan Senate proposal unveiled today,” Pelosi said in a statement Tuesday night. “Additional COVID relief is long overdue and must be passed in this lame duck session."

The decision to vote on the MORE Act is not as unexpected as some Republican lawmakers apparently believe it to be, as it was on the chamber's docket in September.


But some centrist-Democratic lawmakers feared that passing the federal legalization of weed prior to the election, when COVID-19 legislation had failed, may play badly with voters, the Marijuana Movement reported earlier this year.

“The MORE Act remains a critical component of House Democrats’ plan for addressing systemic racism and advancing criminal justice reform, and we are committed to bringing it to the Floor for a vote before the end of the year,” Hoyer said in a statement, according to the publication. “Right now, the House is focused relentlessly on securing agreement to stave off a damaging government shutdown and continuing to do its job addressing the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Though congressional Republicans largely remain opposed to legalizing marijuana, two staunchly conservative states voted to legalize the plant for medical use on Election Day.


Mississippi and South Dakota passed legislation that permits the medicinal use of marijuana, joining 34 other states.


But South Dakota also joined Arizona, New Jersey and Montana in allowing adults to possess marijuana for recreational use – making 15 states that now permit possession, reported USA Today.

And despite congressional GOP qualms with the drug, a Gallup poll released just after the election found the 68 percent of Americans actually support legalizing marijuana, a two percent increase from last year.

 

[Baron23]

And on this subject

​

Democratic Congressman Criticizes Planned Marijuana Legalization Vote, Joining GOP Members​

A Democratic congressman on Tuesday joined his GOP colleagues in criticizing a planned House vote on a bill to federally legalize marijuana.


Rep. Conor Lamb (D-PA) weighed in on the chamber’s pending action this week on the Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, writing that lawmakers “should be working every minute to get a deal done [on coronavirus relief] & get money to people who need it.”


“Instead, the House is voting on a piecemeal marijuana bill that won’t become law?” he said. “Decriminalizing marijuana is an important issue that should be taken seriously & done the right way. This isn’t the right way.”


“Right now, an American is dying every minute, people are going broke, & nursing homes are still too vulnerable,” he added. “We should be focused on nothing else.”


While more than two dozen Republican legislators have recently condemned House leadership for advancing cannabis reform before passing another COVID-19 bill, no other Democratic member has publicly questioned the decision so far.


But it’s not entirely surprising that this criticism is coming from Lamb. While he’s previously cosponsored modest reform legislation to promote research into medical cannabis for veterans and allow banks to service state-legal marijuana businesses, he’s voted against bipartisan measures to protect state cannabis programs from federal intervention two years in a row.


The congressman did say during his campaign in 2018 that he supports medical cannabis legalization, however.


Months after Lamb’s election victory, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) commented on the popularity of cannabis reform in his district, noting that the issue had more support among local voters there than both the president and tax reform did, according to a poll.


“In that district—is that stunning?” she said.


But Lamb evidently is not moved by the will of his constituents or the supermajority of Democratic voters in general. He’s instead decided to publicly align himself with those across the aisle when it comes to voting on the MORE Act. Marijuana Moment reached out to the congressman’s office for clarification about his concerns with the bill, but representatives did not immediately respond.


There were certain centrist Democrats who also took issue with advancing the bill when the House first announced plans to hold a vote in the chamber in September. There were concerns about the optics of approving marijuana reform before passing another COVID-19 relief bill, and they convinced leadership to postpone the vote. That said, several of those same lawmakers ended up losing their seats on the same Election Day as voters in conservative states approved marijuana legalization ballot measures, calling into question their strategic thinking on the politics of cannabis.


The House Rules Committee is now set to take up the MORE Act on Wednesday to prepare it for floor action. The panel will decide which submitted amendments can be made in order for floor action, which could then come as soon as Thursday. The most notable proposed change in an amendment filed by leadership concerns the tax structure of the bill.


Where Lamb ultimately falls when the bill comes up for a floor vote is uncertain. But the decision will come in the backdrop of a concerted push from top Democratic officials in his state to pass legalization.


Gov. Tom Wolf (D) and Lt. Gov. John Fetterman (D) have repeatedly called on lawmakers to enact the policy change, arguing that the reform could generate tax revenue to support the state’s economic recovery from the coronavirus pandemic and that ending criminalization is necessary for social justice.

 

[Baron23]

What I would like to know is why one reasonably small agency is out making national policy? Hmmm? Where are our elected representatives in whom we invested the authority to actually make law and policy? Hmmm? Drug war is DEA's rice bowl. If you don't like that term, how about the fox guarding the hen house. They should execute policy and have absolute no authority over the nature of that policy.

Now remember, Sched 1 means no medical use.....even though the FDA has approved cannabis based drug(s) for prescription in this country.

DEA needs to be brought to heel.....

DEA Asks Federal Court To Dismiss Marijuana Rescheduling Lawsuit—Again​

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is again asking a federal court to reject a case calling for a review of its decision not to reclassify marijuana under federal law.

In a brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Monday, the federal agency asserted that the suit is invalid because the plaintiffs in the case weren’t the ones to make the ultimately rejected rescheduling request in the first place and, they claimed, the petition lacked merit in any case.

Scientists and veterans sued the federal agency in May, arguing that the legal basis DEA has used to justify keeping cannabis in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act is unconstitutional. They asked for a review of its decisions to reject rescheduling petitions in 2020, 2016 and 1992.

DEA asked the court to dismiss the suit, but that request was rejected in August. It was “denied without prejudice to renewing the arguments in the answering brief,” the judges said.

Now in its answering brief, the agency repeated several arguments attempting to make the case that the court should drop the case. They stated that the petitioners don’t have standing to pursue the suit, they failed to exhaust administrative options and the 2020 petition for rescheduling that’s in question was correctly decided when DEA denied it.

But these are effectively the same claims that the agency made when the court previously denied their request for a dismissal, attorneys representing the petitioners told Marijuana Moment. And that indicates that DEA might not have a strong defense against the lawsuit.

“I’m just going to say we feel really good about our position right now. On the first half of their brief, that’s largely what they wrote before. Some of its verbatim actually, they didn’t change anything,” Matt Zorn, a lawyer representing the Scottsdale Research Institute (SRI), said, adding that the rest are “just different flavors of the same arguments.”

“At base, they’re just complaining that we are appealing the decision.”

Shane Pennington, who is also working on the case, emphasized that DEA submitted arguments in their response that “the court has seen and rejected already, so that feels pretty good.”

Further, they said, the agency largely declined to argue against the merits of the case.

“To us, if you read our briefs, and you look at all the arguments we made, it makes us feel like maybe the reason is because they apparently don’t have a lot to say in response to those merits arguments,” Pennington said.

Petitioners have raised questions about DEA’s reliance on scheduling standards that they feel are arbitrary and misinterpret federal law. In particular, they are seeking reviews of the agency’s claims that marijuana must be strictly scheduled because, the government has claimed, it has no currently accepted medical value and has not been proven to be safe.

They also argue that another statutory policy DEA says necessitates marijuana being strictly controlled is unconstitutional.

In its past denials of rescheduling petitions, the agency has asserted that marijuana can only be placed in either Schedule I or II. But the plaintiffs said in an earlier filing that the statute justifying that determination is “an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority” that “violates core separation of powers principles” by granting the attorney general authority to schedule drugs on his or her discretion based on an interpretation of international treaty obligations.

This isn’t the first time that SRI has taken the feds to court over their marijuana decisions.

The institute, which is among several dozen applicants to become a federally authorized manufacturer of cannabis for research purposes, successfully forced DEA to issue an update on the status of their application processing 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.

In a separate lawsuit against DEA, medical cannabis patients challenging the federal prohibition of marijuana asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take their case after a series of rulings in lower courts since the original lawsuit was filed in 2017. The high court said in October that it would not be taking up that case, however.

 

[Baron23]

Follow the link to see the many twitter screen shots with the quotes from various politicians....if you can find that level of interest. To me, its just more political posturing so I didn't take the time to snip and paste all of the twitter shots.

GOP Lawmakers Slam Marijuana Legalization Vote Planned In Congress This Week​

Numerous Republican members of Congress are blasting House Democrats over a planned vote on a bill to federally legalize marijuana this week, dismissing the significance of the issue and arguing that it’s an inappropriate time to take it up.


Specifically, most critics of the vote are saying that the House shouldn’t take action on the Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act until additional coronavirus relief is passed.


The seemingly coordinated messaging from GOP members is familiar, as minority party members issued the same criticism when House leadership announced their intention to vote on the MORE Act in December.


There was an earlier push to take action on the bill in September, but that plan was postponed following pushback from certain centrist Democrats who worried about the optics of advancing cannabis reform before passing another COVID-19 relief bill. It should also be noted that several of those same lawmakers ended up losing their seats on the same Election Day as voters in conservative states approved marijuana legalization ballot measures, calling into question their strategic thinking on the politics of cannabis.


In any case, House Democrats did pass coronavirus legislation—on two occasions—that included provisions to protect banks that service state-legal marijuana businesses from being penalized by federal regulators. Republicans also sharply criticized that, asserting that it was not germane.


Advocates expressed frustration over the decision to delay the initially planned vote on the MORE Act, but leadership promised that it would be brought up before the year’s end. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) announced last month that the chamber would consider the bill in December, and it was included in the schedule for this week.


The House Rules Committee took up the MORE Act on Wednesday to prepare it for floor action. Debate will start on the bill on Thursday, with a vote expected on Friday.


But despite this movement—and the fact that a majority of Americans support marijuana legalization—several dozen Republican lawmakers and incoming members have attempted to shame Democrats for pursuing the reform at this time.

 

[momofthegoons]

Another Scientist Sues DEA To Cultivate Marijuana For Research Purposes​

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is facing yet another lawsuit over its marijuana policy—with a scientist now urging a federal court to compel the agency to grant his application to produce cannabis for research purposes.

In a filing submitted to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Wednesday, a longtime marijuana researcher backed by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) called on DEA to either approve his application to be a federally registered marijuana cultivator or at least take action on the request so he can appeal if denied.

It’s been four years since Lyle Craker of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst submitted the application without hearing back from DEA. And that’s not an unfamiliar story, as the agency has yet to decide on more than 30 proposals to grow cannabis for research purposes in the timeframe.

That’s despite the fact that DEA announced in 2016 that it would begin the process of approving additional marijuana cultivators. Currently, there’s just one, at the University of Mississippi, that has held a monopoly on federally authorized cannabis cultivation.

Researchers and lawmakers have argued that the quality of the plant grown at that facility is inadequate. Indeed, a study found that its cannabis is more chemically similar to hemp than marijuana sold in state-legal commercial markets.

“The medicinal use of marijuana is a public health issue that is vital to the wellbeing, health, and safety of millions of Americans,” the suit states, adding that while the government continues to maintain that cannabis does not have therapeutic value, it has roadblocked research that could prove otherwise.

Craker first applied to be registered as a DEA-approved marijuana manufacturer in 2001 but was ultimately denied because, the agency said at the time, it did not have the authority to approve additional processors beyond the University of Mississippi facility. They changed their tune in 2016, however, and the doctor resubmitted an application.

“Had Dr. Craker’s initial application in 2001 been processed appropriately, marijuana medicines would now be available through pharmacies, regardless of state law, with the strict safety protocols and dosing regularity people with compromised immune systems and serious illnesses need,” MAPS Executive Direct Rick Doblin said in a press release. “It’s hard to imagine the scope of suffering that people have had to endure because politics and fear trump science for prohibition-minded officials like the Attorney General.”

The new suit states that “DEA has unreasonably and unlawfully failed to act on Dr. Craker’s second application.”

In a separate legal challenge against DEA, the Scottsdale Research Institute (SRI) alleged that the agency has been deliberately using delay tactics to avoid approving additional marijuana manufacturers.

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 that original case filed another suit against DEA in March, 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.

Despite the fact that DEA says it is in the process of rulemaking to accept additional cultivators, this latest suit “seeks a declaratory judgement that DEA is required to process applications submitted prior to promulgation” of its proposed rules.

“MAPS has been dismantling onerous barriers to cannabis research on behalf of scientists who could neither conduct good research under the [National Institute on Drug Abuse] monopoly nor criticize it for fear their other research would be threatened,” Sue Sisley of SRI, said. “The only way to create a level playing field for cannabis medicines is to finally allow access to real-world flower that represents the diverse varieties that are readily available throughout the nation’s regulated markets.”

In another recent case, the agency asked a federal court to reject a case calling for a review of its decision not to reclassify marijuana under federal law.

In a brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Monday, DEA asserted that that suit is invalid because the plaintiffs in the case weren’t the ones to make the ultimately rejected rescheduling request in the first place and, the agency claimed, the petition lacked merit in any case.

Scientists and veterans in that case sued the federal agency in May, arguing that the legal basis DEA has used to justify keeping cannabis in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act is unconstitutional. They asked for a review of its decisions to reject rescheduling petitions in 2020, 2016 and 1992.

DEA asked the court to dismiss the suit, but that request was rejected in August. It was “denied without prejudice to renewing the arguments in the answering brief,” the judges said.

Read this latest suit against DEA over marijuana cultivation by following title link and scrolling to the bottom of the article.

 

[momofthegoons]

House Approves Federal Marijuana Legalization Bill In Historic Vote​

The U.S. House of Representatives approved a bill to federally legalize marijuana in a historic vote on Friday.

It’s the day that cannabis reform advocates have been building toward for years—a full floor vote to end prohibition in a chamber of Congress.

Under the Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, cannabis would be federally descheduled and those with prior convictions would have their records expunged. The descheduling provisions would be retroactive, too.

Despite the unprecedented House victory for reformers, few believe the legislation stands a chance in the Republican-controlled Senate, at least before the end of the current Congress early next month. Vice President-elect Kamala Harris (D-CA) is the lead sponsor of the Senate companion version of the bill.

Ahead of the bill’s passage, debate on the floor largely consisted of Democrats making the case that the reform will help to right the wrongs of the racist war on drugs, and Republicans arguing that legalization would cause harms to children and public safety and that now is not the right time to consider the issue in any case.

“Across this nation, thousands of men and women have suffered needlessly from the federal criminalization of marijuana, particularly in communities of color and have borne the burden of collateral consequences for those ensnared in criminal legal systems that have damaged our society across generations,” Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) said in her opening remarks. “This is unacceptable and we must change our laws. It is time for Congress to catch up with the reforms that states are enacting.”

The Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act is comprehensive legislation to decriminalize marijuana at the federal level, reassess marijuana convictions, and invest in local communities. #MOREAct
— Sheila Jackson Lee (@JacksonLeeTX18) December 4, 2020

This critical bill rights the wrongs of the War on Drugs by expunging federal marijuana convictions, reinvesting in communities of color, and promoting equitable participation in the legal marijuana industry.
— Sheila Jackson Lee (@JacksonLeeTX18) December 4, 2020

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), the sole GOP cosponsor of the legislation, said that while he feels the bill is “flawed,” he is voting for it “because the federal government has lied to the people of this country about marijuana for a generation.

“We have seen a generation, particularly of black and brown youth, locked up for offenses that not should have not resulted in any incarceration whatsoever,” he said.

The federal government has lied to the people of this country about marijuana for a generation.
I’m voting for the MORE Act. pic.twitter.com/suH497s54Y
— Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) December 4, 2020

The fourth-ranking Democrat in the House, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), said cannabis criminalization represents “a stain on our democracy,” emphasizing ongoing racial disparities in enforcement despite the fact that black and white people use marijuana at roughly the same rates.

Congressional Cannabis Caucus Co-chair Barbara Lee (D-CA) said the MORE Act “is an important racial justice measure” and “the product of years of work by so many activists and advocates and young people—and it’s long overdue.”

“It’s time to end these unjust laws which has shattered the lives of so many young people of color,” she said.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), another Cannabis Caucus co-chair and longtime marijuana reform advocate, gave an impassioned speech in support of the bill.

Today, the House takes a major step forward in ending the failed war on drugs.#EndCannabisProhibition
— Earl Blumenauer (@repblumenauer) December 4, 2020

“We’re not rushing to legalize marijuana,” he said. “The American people have all ready done that. We’re here because Congress has failed to deal with the disastrous war on drugs and do its part for the over 50 million regular marijuana users [who live in] every one of your districts.”

“It’s time for Congress to step up and do its part,” he said. “We need to catch up with the rest of the American people.”

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) repeated the GOP criticism of Democratic priorities with this vote and slammed the tax provisions of the MORE Act.

“This bill—it’s not enough just to legalize marijuana. They want taxpayers to pay for it,” he said of Democrats. “This bill sets up a grant program. This is the marijuana business infrastructure bill.”

Prior to the vote on final passage, the House considered a motion to recommit—the minority party’s only tool to amend the bill—from Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ) to add language clarifying that “an employer may test an employee or applicant for cannabis use to ensure workplace and public safety.” That proposal was rejected by a tally of 218 to 174, with one member voting present.

“In the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic House Democrats are rushing to pass a sweeping marijuana legalization bill without considering the unintended consequences the legislation will have on workplace and public safety,” she said. The vote on the motion will occur after the vote on passage.

“Wars are costly, and the war on marijuana is no exception,” Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) said. “The costs of the war on marijuana have disproportionately fell on the backs of blacks and Latinos.”

Rep. Lou Correa (D-CA) noted that “than half of all Americans live in a state where cannabis is legal” and said Congress should “align federal cannabis laws with the will of the people. Let’s take full advantage of the medical benefits of cannabis.”

The #MOREAct:
Reverses decades of discriminatory cannabis policies
Helps our veterans access alternative medications
Creates jobs and economic opportunity
Let’s pass the More Act! pic.twitter.com/WZMIQn6Mnh
— Rep. Lou Correa (@RepLouCorrea) December 4, 2020

He also thanked House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), the bill’s sponsor, for including one of his proposals to require a study of the benefits of medical cannabis for veterans in an adopted manager’s amendment.

“For far too long, we have treated marijuana as a criminal justice problem instead of as a matter of personal choice and public health,” Nadler, who was not present for the debate, said in a written statement.

America's marijuana laws disproportionately harm individuals and communities of color, leading to convictions that damage job prospects and the ability to vote. As the legal marijuana industry grows, Congress has a responsibility to ensure our policies are equitable & inclusive.
— Rep. Nadler (@RepJerryNadler) December 4, 2020

“Whatever one’s views are on the use of marijuana for recreational or medicinal use, the policy of arrests, prosecution, and incarceration at the Federal level has proven unwise and unjust,” he said.

Today, the House votes on my bill, the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act. I'm proud of this historic bill—which federally decriminalizes marijuana, expunges marijuana convictions, and makes local investments—and the difference it'll make. #WeWantMORE pic.twitter.com/M6ERXXK9oR
— Rep. Nadler (@RepJerryNadler) December 4, 2020

“The bottom line is, this vote is about freedom,” Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) said. “It’s about freedom of choice for every American to make their own decisions for themselves without fear of the government coming and arresting them.”

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) voiced opposition to the legislation and inaccurately claimed that voters in his state “barely” approved a measure to legalize marijuana during last month’s election. In fact, it passed 60-40 percent—a point Blumenauer later clarified.

The chairwoman of the House Small Business Committee, Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-NY), said the bill “will restore justice to our most marginalized communities and it will boost our economy.” She added that “communities of color have disproportionately suffered from the so-called war on drugs” and they “have also been locked out of traditional capital markets.”

“That is why the MORE Act is the best legislation to advance progress on this issue,” she said.

The MORE Act takes a stand for our marginalized communities, decriminalizing cannabis and incentivizing the expunging of low level possession records. Today, I spoke in support of this bill, and of creating equal opportunities. (2/2) https://t.co/qko8NYJHRa
— Rep. Nydia Velazquez (@NydiaVelazquez) December 4, 2020

It’s been about a year since the legislation cleared the Judiciary Committee. Advocates have been pushing for a floor vote ever since, and leadership initially said that would take place in September. But certain centrist Democrats urged a delay, citing concerns about the optics of advancing the reform before passing another round of coronavirus relief.

Many states have legalized marijuana. It’s now time for us to remove the criminal prohibitions against marijuana at the federal level. #WeWantMORE pic.twitter.com/fiKnVHR7Yo
— House Judiciary Dems (@HouseJudiciary) December 4, 2020

Our federal cannabis policies have been rooted in the past for far too long. As states continue to modernize how we regulate cannabis, Congress has a responsibility to ensure that our policies are fair, equitable, and inclusive. #EndCannabisProhibition
— House Judiciary Dems (@HouseJudiciary) December 4, 2020

Leadership agreed but promised a floor vote before the year’s end. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) recently announced that the action would take place this week, and the procedural rules for floor consideration were approved in committee on Wednesday. The House began preliminary debate and accepted the rule—which closed the bill to further amendments—on Thursday.

GOP lawmakers have repeatedly hit House leadership after plans of the vote on the MORE Act were announced. While many have lashed out on Twitter, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) took to the floor of his chamber to condemn the move on Thursday, sarcastically mocking Democrats for “spending this week on pressing issues like marijuana.”

One House Democrat, Rep. Conor Lamb (D-PA), echoed the GOP criticism, saying that this “isn’t the right way” to advance reform and arguing that lawmakers should instead be focused on COVID-19 relief.

Before coming to the floor, the legislation was revised in a Rules Committee Print, transmitted from Nadler’s Judiciary panel, and further modified in a manager’s amendment he filed. Most of the revisions were technical in nature, though there was one significant change as it relates to the proposed tax structure for marijuana.

There is no reason for cannabis to be classified as a federally scheduled substance under the Controlled Substances Act. The MORE Act deschedules cannabis, allowing states to establish their own marijuana regulations and providing medical marijuana access to veterans in need.
— Rep. Nadler (@RepJerryNadler) December 4, 2020

As now structured, the MORE Act would make it so cannabis would be federally taxed at five percent for the first two years after implementation and then increased by one percent each year until reaching eight percent. After five years, taxes would be applied to marijuana products based on weight rather than price.

The bill would also create a pathway for resentencing for those incarcerated for marijuana offenses, as well as protect immigrants from being denied citizenship over cannabis and prevent federal agencies from denying public benefits or security clearances due to its use.

A new Cannabis Justice Office under the Justice Department would be responsible for distributing funds providing loans for small cannabis businesses owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. The bill also seeks to minimize barriers to licensing and employment in the legal industry.

It would also establish a Community Reinvestment Grant Program. Tax dollars appropriated to that program would go to job training, legal aid for criminal and civil cases such as those concerning marijuana-related expungements, literacy programs and youth recreation and mentoring services, among other programs.

In new changes that some reform advocates take exception to, the legislation also stipulates that the heads of the Transportation Department and Coast Guard may continue to include marijuana in drug testing programs for safety-sensitive positions and clarifies that the expungement provisions only apply to “non-violent marijuana offenders” and bars so-called “kingpins” from obtaining expungements.

Advocates were optimistic about the bill’s advancement through the House, but it should be noted that its prospects in the GOP-controlled Senate this session are dim. McConnell is a champion of the hemp industry but staunchly opposes further marijuana reform.

Still, the historic nature of a vote by a chamber of Congress to legalize marijuana is hard to overstate. While the House has on two previous occasions approved amendments to shield all state marijuana laws from federal interference (which later died in the Senate), never before has legislation to formally remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act advanced on Capitol Hill.

Legalization advocates heralded the vote as a watershed moment for the movement.

Justin Stekal, political director of NORML, said this “is a historic day for marijuana policy in the United States.”

“This vote marks the first time in 50 years that a chamber of Congress has ever revisited the classification of cannabis as a federally controlled and prohibited substance, and it marks the first time in 24 years—when California became the first state defy the federal government on the issue of marijuana prohibition—that Congress has sought to close the widening chasm between state and federal marijuana policies,” he said. “By establishing this new trajectory for federal policy, we expect that more states will revisit and amend the archaic criminalization of cannabis, establish regulated consumer marketplaces, and direct law enforcement to cease the practice of arresting over half a million Americans annually for marijuana-related violations—arrests which disproportionately fall upon those on people of color and those on the lower end of the economic spectrum.”

Aaron Smith, chief executive officer of the National Cannabis Industry Association said that “the symbolic and historical importance of the MORE Act passing in the House cannot be overstated.”

“This vote stands as a rebuke of failed and harmful prohibition policies, and represents a growing understanding of their racially and economically disparate impacts,” he said. “Americans are increasingly ready to see cannabis legal for adults and sensibly regulated, which they showed through their representatives today and at the ballot box last month.”

Steve Fox, a strategic advisor to the Cannabis Trade Federation, said it is “a day of celebration for everyone who has worked to end cannabis prohibition over the past 25 years. All of those efforts have built toward this day.”

The passage of the legalization legislation could send a strong signal to the incoming presidential administration, and it sets the stage for similar action in 2021—especially if Democrats win control of the Senate after two runoff elections in Georgia next month.

Given President-elect Joe Biden’s former approach to championing punitive anti-drug legislation as a senator and his ongoing obstinance on marijuana legalization at a time when polls show that a clear majority of Americans favor the policy change, there remains some skepticism about his willingness to make good on his campaign promises to achieve more modest reforms he has endorsed, such as decriminalizing possession and expunging records.

A transition document the incoming Biden-Harris administration released this month left out mention of those cannabis pledges. While Harris is sponsoring the MORE Act, she’s indicated that she would not necessarily push the president-elect to adopt a pro-legalization position.

That said, the president-elect has conceded that his work on punitive anti-drug legislation during his time in Congress was a “mistake.”

For his part, Blumenauer told Marijuana Moment in August that “the Biden administration and a Biden Department of Justice would be a constructive player” in advancing legalization.

Meanwhile, the Congressional Research Service released an analysis of the MORE Act last month, finding that the bill’s passage could “reverse” the current cannabis policy gap that exists between states and the federal government.

 

[momofthegoons]

Feds Want Help Finding Evidence On Marijuana And Kratom’s Role In Treating Pain​

A federal health agency is conducting a review of studies to learn if marijuana and kratom could potentially treat chronic pain with fewer side effects than opioids.

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) is asking the public to help identify research that specifically looks at the risks and benefits of cannabinoids and kratom, a type of plant known for its analgesic effects. The agency said the rise in opioid prescriptions and overdoses necessitates exploring plant-based alternatives.

The public is invited to submit studies on how these substances impact chronic pain until the January 4 deadline.

“Some data suggest that cannabinoids may have analgesic properties, though research in this area is mixed,” AHRQ, which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services, said in a notice, adding that THC “has demonstrated analgesic properties, though its psychoactive effects and abuse potential increase its risk and suitability as an analgesic.”

Other ingredients in marijuana like CBD, CBG and CBC “may also have some analgesic or anti-inflammatory properties and are not thought to be psychoactive or addictive, but these cannabinoids may not be as potent as THC,” the agency said.

AHRQ said that a prior review of research into alternative pain treatments including cannabis found “too little evidence to draw meaningful conclusions on either benefits or harms,” but that analysis did not investigate other plant-based compounds (PBC) like kratom.

The federal agency also made a notable admission about the consequences of marijuana prohibition and the potential benefits of state-level legalization.

“Although some PBCs thought to reduce pain are currently classified as Schedule I by the Drug Enforcement Administration, the recent legalization of cannabis by several states may lead to more, and higher quality, research on them,” AHRQ said. “Initiatives to develop and study alternative interventions for chronic pain are expected to contribute to this increase in research on PBCs, specifically for pain.”

There are four main questions that AHRQ is hoping to answer with its living systematic review:

1. In adults with chronic pain, what are the benefits of cannabinoids?

2. In adults with chronic pain, what are the harms of cannabinoids?

3. In adults with chronic pain, what are the benefits of kratom or other plant-based substances for treatment of chronic pain?

4. In adults with chronic pain, what are the harms of kratom or other plant-based substances for treatment of chronic pain?

Earlier this year, AHRQ also announced that it was reviewing studies into the opioid alternatives for treating acute pain and migraines, including marijuana.

The agency has made other cannabis-related requests in the past, soliciting scientific information about the potential use of cannabinoids in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, for example.

Separately the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) received hundreds of public comments on marijuana and kratom after asking for input on input on “individual stakeholder’s values and preferences related to pain and pain management options.”

 

[Baron23]

House Approves Federal Marijuana Legalization Bill In Historic Vote​

The U.S. House of Representatives approved a bill to federally legalize marijuana in a historic vote on Friday.

It’s the day that cannabis reform advocates have been building toward for years—a full floor vote to end prohibition in a chamber of Congress.

Under the Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, cannabis would be federally descheduled and those with prior convictions would have their records expunged. The descheduling provisions would be retroactive, too.

Despite the unprecedented House victory for reformers, few believe the legislation stands a chance in the Republican-controlled Senate, at least before the end of the current Congress early next month. Vice President-elect Kamala Harris (D-CA) is the lead sponsor of the Senate companion version of the bill.

Ahead of the bill’s passage, debate on the floor largely consisted of Democrats making the case that the reform will help to right the wrongs of the racist war on drugs, and Republicans arguing that legalization would cause harms to children and public safety and that now is not the right time to consider the issue in any case.

“Across this nation, thousands of men and women have suffered needlessly from the federal criminalization of marijuana, particularly in communities of color and have borne the burden of collateral consequences for those ensnared in criminal legal systems that have damaged our society across generations,” Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) said in her opening remarks. “This is unacceptable and we must change our laws. It is time for Congress to catch up with the reforms that states are enacting.”









Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), the sole GOP cosponsor of the legislation, said that while he feels the bill is “flawed,” he is voting for it “because the federal government has lied to the people of this country about marijuana for a generation.

“We have seen a generation, particularly of black and brown youth, locked up for offenses that not should have not resulted in any incarceration whatsoever,” he said.





The fourth-ranking Democrat in the House, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), said cannabis criminalization represents “a stain on our democracy,” emphasizing ongoing racial disparities in enforcement despite the fact that black and white people use marijuana at roughly the same rates.

Congressional Cannabis Caucus Co-chair Barbara Lee (D-CA) said the MORE Act “is an important racial justice measure” and “the product of years of work by so many activists and advocates and young people—and it’s long overdue.”

“It’s time to end these unjust laws which has shattered the lives of so many young people of color,” she said.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), another Cannabis Caucus co-chair and longtime marijuana reform advocate, gave an impassioned speech in support of the bill.





“We’re not rushing to legalize marijuana,” he said. “The American people have all ready done that. We’re here because Congress has failed to deal with the disastrous war on drugs and do its part for the over 50 million regular marijuana users [who live in] every one of your districts.”

“It’s time for Congress to step up and do its part,” he said. “We need to catch up with the rest of the American people.”

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) repeated the GOP criticism of Democratic priorities with this vote and slammed the tax provisions of the MORE Act.

“This bill—it’s not enough just to legalize marijuana. They want taxpayers to pay for it,” he said of Democrats. “This bill sets up a grant program. This is the marijuana business infrastructure bill.”

Prior to the vote on final passage, the House considered a motion to recommit—the minority party’s only tool to amend the bill—from Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ) to add language clarifying that “an employer may test an employee or applicant for cannabis use to ensure workplace and public safety.” That proposal was rejected by a tally of 218 to 174, with one member voting present.

“In the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic House Democrats are rushing to pass a sweeping marijuana legalization bill without considering the unintended consequences the legislation will have on workplace and public safety,” she said. The vote on the motion will occur after the vote on passage.

“Wars are costly, and the war on marijuana is no exception,” Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) said. “The costs of the war on marijuana have disproportionately fell on the backs of blacks and Latinos.”

Rep. Lou Correa (D-CA) noted that “than half of all Americans live in a state where cannabis is legal” and said Congress should “align federal cannabis laws with the will of the people. Let’s take full advantage of the medical benefits of cannabis.”





He also thanked House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), the bill’s sponsor, for including one of his proposals to require a study of the benefits of medical cannabis for veterans in an adopted manager’s amendment.

“For far too long, we have treated marijuana as a criminal justice problem instead of as a matter of personal choice and public health,” Nadler, who was not present for the debate, said in a written statement.





“Whatever one’s views are on the use of marijuana for recreational or medicinal use, the policy of arrests, prosecution, and incarceration at the Federal level has proven unwise and unjust,” he said.





“The bottom line is, this vote is about freedom,” Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) said. “It’s about freedom of choice for every American to make their own decisions for themselves without fear of the government coming and arresting them.”

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) voiced opposition to the legislation and inaccurately claimed that voters in his state “barely” approved a measure to legalize marijuana during last month’s election. In fact, it passed 60-40 percent—a point Blumenauer later clarified.

The chairwoman of the House Small Business Committee, Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-NY), said the bill “will restore justice to our most marginalized communities and it will boost our economy.” She added that “communities of color have disproportionately suffered from the so-called war on drugs” and they “have also been locked out of traditional capital markets.”

“That is why the MORE Act is the best legislation to advance progress on this issue,” she said.





It’s been about a year since the legislation cleared the Judiciary Committee. Advocates have been pushing for a floor vote ever since, and leadership initially said that would take place in September. But certain centrist Democrats urged a delay, citing concerns about the optics of advancing the reform before passing another round of coronavirus relief.









Leadership agreed but promised a floor vote before the year’s end. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) recently announced that the action would take place this week, and the procedural rules for floor consideration were approved in committee on Wednesday. The House began preliminary debate and accepted the rule—which closed the bill to further amendments—on Thursday.

GOP lawmakers have repeatedly hit House leadership after plans of the vote on the MORE Act were announced. While many have lashed out on Twitter, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) took to the floor of his chamber to condemn the move on Thursday, sarcastically mocking Democrats for “spending this week on pressing issues like marijuana.”

One House Democrat, Rep. Conor Lamb (D-PA), echoed the GOP criticism, saying that this “isn’t the right way” to advance reform and arguing that lawmakers should instead be focused on COVID-19 relief.

Before coming to the floor, the legislation was revised in a Rules Committee Print, transmitted from Nadler’s Judiciary panel, and further modified in a manager’s amendment he filed. Most of the revisions were technical in nature, though there was one significant change as it relates to the proposed tax structure for marijuana.





As now structured, the MORE Act would make it so cannabis would be federally taxed at five percent for the first two years after implementation and then increased by one percent each year until reaching eight percent. After five years, taxes would be applied to marijuana products based on weight rather than price.

The bill would also create a pathway for resentencing for those incarcerated for marijuana offenses, as well as protect immigrants from being denied citizenship over cannabis and prevent federal agencies from denying public benefits or security clearances due to its use.

A new Cannabis Justice Office under the Justice Department would be responsible for distributing funds providing loans for small cannabis businesses owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. The bill also seeks to minimize barriers to licensing and employment in the legal industry.

It would also establish a Community Reinvestment Grant Program. Tax dollars appropriated to that program would go to job training, legal aid for criminal and civil cases such as those concerning marijuana-related expungements, literacy programs and youth recreation and mentoring services, among other programs.

In new changes that some reform advocates take exception to, the legislation also stipulates that the heads of the Transportation Department and Coast Guard may continue to include marijuana in drug testing programs for safety-sensitive positions and clarifies that the expungement provisions only apply to “non-violent marijuana offenders” and bars so-called “kingpins” from obtaining expungements.

Advocates were optimistic about the bill’s advancement through the House, but it should be noted that its prospects in the GOP-controlled Senate this session are dim. McConnell is a champion of the hemp industry but staunchly opposes further marijuana reform.

Still, the historic nature of a vote by a chamber of Congress to legalize marijuana is hard to overstate. While the House has on two previous occasions approved amendments to shield all state marijuana laws from federal interference (which later died in the Senate), never before has legislation to formally remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act advanced on Capitol Hill.

Legalization advocates heralded the vote as a watershed moment for the movement.

Justin Stekal, political director of NORML, said this “is a historic day for marijuana policy in the United States.”

“This vote marks the first time in 50 years that a chamber of Congress has ever revisited the classification of cannabis as a federally controlled and prohibited substance, and it marks the first time in 24 years—when California became the first state defy the federal government on the issue of marijuana prohibition—that Congress has sought to close the widening chasm between state and federal marijuana policies,” he said. “By establishing this new trajectory for federal policy, we expect that more states will revisit and amend the archaic criminalization of cannabis, establish regulated consumer marketplaces, and direct law enforcement to cease the practice of arresting over half a million Americans annually for marijuana-related violations—arrests which disproportionately fall upon those on people of color and those on the lower end of the economic spectrum.”

Aaron Smith, chief executive officer of the National Cannabis Industry Association said that “the symbolic and historical importance of the MORE Act passing in the House cannot be overstated.”

“This vote stands as a rebuke of failed and harmful prohibition policies, and represents a growing understanding of their racially and economically disparate impacts,” he said. “Americans are increasingly ready to see cannabis legal for adults and sensibly regulated, which they showed through their representatives today and at the ballot box last month.”

Steve Fox, a strategic advisor to the Cannabis Trade Federation, said it is “a day of celebration for everyone who has worked to end cannabis prohibition over the past 25 years. All of those efforts have built toward this day.”

The passage of the legalization legislation could send a strong signal to the incoming presidential administration, and it sets the stage for similar action in 2021—especially if Democrats win control of the Senate after two runoff elections in Georgia next month.

Given President-elect Joe Biden’s former approach to championing punitive anti-drug legislation as a senator and his ongoing obstinance on marijuana legalization at a time when polls show that a clear majority of Americans favor the policy change, there remains some skepticism about his willingness to make good on his campaign promises to achieve more modest reforms he has endorsed, such as decriminalizing possession and expunging records.

A transition document the incoming Biden-Harris administration released this month left out mention of those cannabis pledges. While Harris is sponsoring the MORE Act, she’s indicated that she would not necessarily push the president-elect to adopt a pro-legalization position.

That said, the president-elect has conceded that his work on punitive anti-drug legislation during his time in Congress was a “mistake.”

For his part, Blumenauer told Marijuana Moment in August that “the Biden administration and a Biden Department of Justice would be a constructive player” in advancing legalization.

Meanwhile, the Congressional Research Service released an analysis of the MORE Act last month, finding that the bill’s passage could “reverse” the current cannabis policy gap that exists between states and the federal government.

But I’ll still bet this is just for show and to give a bone to the left wing. I don’t think it has a prayer or a chance of becoming law anytime soon...but I would be very happy to be wrong.

 

[Bcbud]

The runoffs in Georgia could be the deciding factor in fixing this wrong.

 

[Baron23]

The runoffs in Georgia could be the deciding factor in fixing this wrong.

The runoff in Georgia could be the the deciding factor in a lot of things and what is wrong or what is right depends on your personal views.

Cheers

 

[momofthegoons]

NBA Players Won’t Be Tested For Marijuana Next Year As League Weighs Permanent Change​

The NBA is extending its policy of not randomly drug testing players for marijuana for the 2020-2021 season amid the coronavirus pandemic. And insiders suspect that the relaxed cannabis rules will continue indefinitely.

Marijuana testing was first suspended earlier this year as players finished out their season in the so-called “bubble” arena in Orlando. But as first reported by freelance journalist Ben Dowsett on Thursday, the league and the players’ union have agreed to maintain that policy, at least for the next season.

Sources say this decision is largely based on COVID safety – just another way of limiting unnecessary contacts.
However, there's also significant expectation from many in the league that the entire marijuana testing program is on the way out in the near future.
— Ben Dowsett (@Ben_Dowsett) December 3, 2020

“Due to the unusual circumstances in conjunction with the pandemic, we have agreed with the NBPA to suspend random testing for marijuana for the 2020-21 season and focus our random testing program on performance-enhancing products and drugs of abuse,” an NBA spokesperson said.

(Bass cont): "…and focus our random testing program on performance-enhancing products and drugs of abuse."
— Ben Dowsett (@Ben_Dowsett) December 4, 2020

But pressure has been mounting on the league to end testing for marijuana permanently.

Michele Roberts, the head of the National Basketball Players Association (NBPA) who also joined the board of the major cannabis company Cresco Labs this year, predicted in a recent interview that the formal change could come as early as “next season.”

“We’re not going to expose our players to unnecessary risks,” she told Dowsett in a piece for GQ. “And it is not necessary to know whether our players are positive for marijuana.”

NBA Commissioner Adam Silver hasn’t ruled out adopting new policies on marijuana testing, but he’s said that the league needs to proceed carefully so as not to send a wrong message to young people. He’s also voiced support for exploring the medical potential of cannabis.

“At the end of the day, I think we all agree that, whether or not marijuana is a legal substance, just like with alcohol, you still have to teach young people how to use a substance like that appropriately and responsibly and so it doesn’t overwhelm your life,” he said. “So, it’s a complicated issue.”

While NBA won’t be subjecting players to random drug testing for THC, they will continue to test “for cause” cases where players have histories of substance use, for example.

Important clarification here, per source: The NBA's random marijuana testing program will not run for 20-21, as reported below. However, testing FOR CAUSE – that is, past offenders or those who have given reasonable cause to suspect use – will continue. https://t.co/repVxFL2Ri
— Ben Dowsett (@Ben_Dowsett) December 4, 2020

If NBA does ultimately end marijuana testing, it would be another example of evolving drug policies within national sports leagues. Earlier this year, the MLB announced that players would not longer be tested for cannabis, though they’re barred from being sponsored by marijuana companies.

The NFL also made the decision to end suspensions for positive drug tests as well as limiting the testing window.

 

[Baron23]

Cannabis got a big win in Congress, but legal weed isn't around the corner​

Cannabis just had a victory in Congress. But the industry and its supporters may not want to get too excited just yet.
The US House of Representatives on Friday passed a bill to end the federal prohibition on cannabis. But the historic vote on the landmark legislation -- which if put into law would be momentous for the emerging multibillion-dollar cannabis industry and broader social justice movements -- ultimately is largely symbolic.


Four more states just legalized recreational weed. Here's how long you'll have to wait to buy it
For now, the House is likely to be the last stop on the line for the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act of 2019 (MORE Act), which would effectively legalize cannabis by removing marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act and creating a shared federal-state control of cannabis programs -- although it does not force states to legalize. The bill also would reduce barriers to research, solve current banking and tax woes, expunge some cannabis offenses and further diversify efforts in the industry.
Although public sentiment for cannabis legalization has grown, not all in Congress -- notably Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell -- feel the same.
"I would give it less than a snowball's chance of passage in the Senate," said drug policy expert John Hudak, the deputy director of the Center for Effective Public Management at the Brookings Institution think tank.

Any bill not signed into law by the time Congress adjourns on January 3 will have to be reintroduced, so that most likely will be the fate for the MORE Act or any other prominent cannabis-centric legislation, said Jodi Avergun, a former US Drug Enforcement Administration chief of staff who is now a partner at Cadwalader and chair of the law firm's white collar defense and investigations group.
"In my view, more than anything, the House wanted to show the incoming Biden administration that it is serious about cannabis reform and that it expects the administration to advance the ball on legalization or descheduling," Avergun told CNN Business. "Folks were disappointed that Biden's transition documents did not reiterate the cannabis loosening pledges he made during the campaign. Maybe this is a subtle statement that the House did not forget what Biden had promised during the campaign."

However, while industry advocates hailed the passage of the bill, not all were pleased with some last-minute revisions that they say watered down the criminal justice and social equity provisions of the bill, including narrowing where tax dollars can be appropriated and who would be eligible for records expungement, said Maritza Perez, director of the office of national affairs at the Drug Policy Alliance.
"While we recognize and celebrate the historic nature of today's vote, we know we need to put in significant work in the next Congress to build a bill that fully aligns with our principles," she said in a statement.

Moving by inches​

Still, Friday's action is considered a significant win for both legalization advocates and the advancement of the legal cannabis industry.
It also was the first time that a chamber of Congress has voted on a standalone cannabis bill.
"We move by inches," Chris Walsh, CEO and president of industry trade publication Marijuana Business Daily, said in an interview. "Each inch is significant in an of itself, but they have to add up together before you get to the big win."
While the federal needle may be advancing tick by tick, at the state level the cannabis industry has grown by leaps and bounds in recent years -- and 2020 has certainly been a significant one for the industry.
In the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic, cannabis businesses were deemed "essential" in many states and allowed to stay open to serve medical patients and recreational customers. Sales continued to climb and set new records in mature markets such as Colorado.
In November, cannabis legalization measures succeeded in a clean sweep at the ballot box, with voters approving recreational cannabis proposals in Arizona, Montana, New Jersey and South Dakota and medical cannabis measures in South Dakota and Mississippi. Now, all but three US states have legalized the medical use of cannabis and 15 states have passed adult-use measures.
The US cannabis industry is expected to post north of $19 billion in sales this year, according to projections from the Brightfield Group, a cannabis industry market research firm.
It's a far cry from eight years ago when only 18 states had medical marijuana laws in place, voters in Colorado and Washington state were the first to OK recreational cannabis programs, and CBD and edibles were not part of the common lexicon.
"When you've got a growing number of states going green in some way or another, that's what pushes federal change," said Walsh, of Marijuana Business Daily.
Earlier this week, the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs removed cannabis from its schedule of dangerous drugs, a move that could accelerate global medical cannabis research and legalization efforts. That decision could affect how the US DEA approaches cannabis, Avergun said.

 

[Baron23]

Nothing startling here except THIS IS FROM THE NATIONAL REVIEW. And I thought pigs would fly when Oklahoma legalized. haha

Yes, the Feds Should Decriminalize Marijuana ​

We generally favor deferring to tradition, but the fact that Republicans have been wrong on marijuana for a very long time is no reason for them to keep being wrong.

And Republicans have it very wrong on marijuana — or all but five of them do: The House has passed a marijuana-decriminalization bill largely along partisan lines, with only five Republicans voting in support of the measure, while only six Democrats opposed it. The bill is expected to die in Mitch McConnell’s Senate.

It shouldn’t.

The current federal position on marijuana is the wrong one, both as a matter of federalist principle and as a matter of intelligent policy.

With various marijuana-liberalization programs working their way through the states (Oregon has decriminalized personal possession of most other drugs as well), there now exists a patchwork of marijuana laws across the country. Three cheers for the patchwork: This is a large, complex, and diverse country, and sometimes a political patchwork is the right alternative to enforced national homogeneity. The states have decided to go their own separate ways on this issue, Americans already have shown themselves perfectly capable of navigating a world in which Colorado and Florida have different marijuana laws, and federal law should recognize that reality.

Most ordinary crime is policed at the state level, and the interstate-commerce rationale for federal marijuana prohibition has always been weak. While there will remain a federal role when it comes to such considerations as international smuggling and interstate trade, the question of the sale and consumption of marijuana within states is a matter for the states. Republicans who say they believe in federalism should consider acting like it. The same vague interstate-commerce argument that empowers federal marijuana prohibition necessarily empowers federal mischief of many other kinds.

Current federal law puts many marijuana sellers and buyers in the position of being federal outlaws while transacting business that is, as a matter of state law, entirely legal. The Obama administration attempted to finesse this conundrum with the policy spelled out in the so-called Cole memo, in which the federal government committed itself to ignoring its own laws in states in which marijuana had been legalized; the Trump administration rescinded that policy; liberalizers have expressed some hope that the Biden administration might reinstate it. That kind of chaotic adhocracy is typical of our contemporary political dysfunction, and Congress should settle this as a matter of statute rather than having policy swing back and forth via administrative fiat every time the White House changes hands. It is the job of the lawmakers to make law, and Congress ought to do its job rather than punting to whomever happens to be in the top job at the Justice Department.

Drug abuse and drug addiction impose serious personal and social costs, as indeed does a great deal of casual drug use. We have seen this not only in the case of prohibited drugs such as marijuana but also in the case of generally legal drugs such as alcohol and some pain medications. The question is not whether we are in favor of marijuana use or against it, but rather is whether current policy is genuinely in the public interest. It isn’t. Marijuana prohibition creates a vastly profitable criminal enterprise that causes far more damage, including loss of life — at home and abroad — than marijuana consumption itself does or would even if use became more widespread. Prohibition makes petty criminals out of most Americans — the majority of Americans smoke marijuana at some point in life — and in the process acclimates both individuals and institutions to low-grade criminality. It results in needless incarceration and in criminal convictions that can severely circumscribe a person’s opportunities for advancement and prosperity. It creates opportunities for selective enforcement and prosecution. The so-called war on drugs has contributed mightily to the militarization of many local police forces, to the normalization of invasive domestic surveillance, and to heavy-handedness in policing. That is a high price to pay for a policy that is — this is worth remembering — almost entirely ineffective in preventing the widespread use of marijuana and the commerce attached to it.

The recent House bill is imperfect. Removing marijuana from the list of federally controlled substances is a good policy, and vacating the convictions of certain low-level federal drug offenders is the right policy, too, albeit one that should be implemented with caution. But this being the United States — and this being a Democratic bill — there is an excise tax attached, which is the wrong policy in that it would in one sense expand the federal footprint in the marijuana trade rather than reduce it. Those who cry, “Legalize it and tax it!” have it half right, but only half. The bill is also larded up with patronage spending in the form of small-business and community-group grants that would distribute those federal marijuana-tax funds to political clients. Our national experience with the role of state and local governments in casino gambling should have taught us that there is a world of difference between sensible reform and making government a revenue-seeking partner in a pestilential business.

As a matter of pure political calculation, Republicans might note that marijuana reform is very popular among constituencies they need to court, and that marijuana initiatives did very well on Election Day in such conservative states as Montana and South Dakota. In fact, every single marijuana-liberalization proposal that was on the ballot in November passed, from New Jersey to Mississippi.

The all-encompassing war on drugs has been a lost cause for decades, and Republican voters know it — Republican elected officials should admit as much, too.

 

[Baron23]

"But for now, the good ol’ white guys prevail, and Christians have righteous morality straight from the Bible on their side."

I've had it with this racist shit about white people, a whole 30% of the world's population, being the cause of every ill existent.

And how's this for shit journalism and failure to research the subject:

- Who was the source of major opposition to legalization in NJ....oh, black clergy who fear the impact of drugs (not necessarily a valid fear wrt to MJ, IMO) on their community

- Who was the source of major opposition to legalization in Washington, DC....oh, black clergy for the same reason

- AND, who is the source of major opposition to legalization in the deep south....well, clergy...both white and black.

So, to The Fresh Toast who authored this article...a big fuck you.

Why Southern States Are Still Pushing Back On Marijuana Legalization​

The South may be quietly adjusting to the new legalization landscape. But for now, the good ol’ white guys prevail, and Christians have righteous morality straight from the Bible on their side.
As of the November elections, there are now 15 states and the District of Columbia who have legalized adult use. There are some 36 states that enacted or voted to enact medical marijuana laws.
In the years leading up to this November, voters decided affirmatively on 28 separate ballot measures legalizing cannabis (18 measures legalizing medical marijuana, 10 measures legalizing adult use), according to National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML).
This amazing progress in the U.S. began with a soundly defeated voter initiative on November 7, 1972 in California, finally leading to legalization of medical marijuana in California in 1996.
The 2020 legalization progress in the U.S. comes as Mexico joins Canada to completely legalize medical and adult-use marijuana.
That’s nearly 50 years of marijuana legalization efforts that now includes entire countries.
But late to the legalization party over the years have been the U.S. southern states, specifically Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia.
Why? Blame God, the Bible, and the Christian ethics that pervade state legislatures. It’s the South’s old-school good-ol’-boys God-knows-all network that continues to hold up or minimize or otherwise confuse legalization efforts in these states.
Mississippi legalized medical marijuana this November under Initiative 65, but did so under a cloud of a “cynical effort to misdirect voters” with a similar-sounding but much more restrictive measure (Measure 65A) put on the ballot by the state legislature, by the same state lawmakers who for decades had refused to ever seriously address the issue. There have been more than 20 medical marijuana bills that have been blocked in the last decade or so in Mississippi.
The author of Measure 65A is State Representative Trey Lamar, a staunch Baptist.
And take a look at comments from one of Alabama’s elected officials, U.S. Representative Bradley Byrne, who wants jail time for possession and is against medical use: “In a country as rich and as prosperous as America, why is life expectancy going down?” said Byrne. “It’s because of suicide, alcohol abuse and drug abuse. People doing things that literally result in their own death.
“How in the world does that happen in our country? It’s because we’ve taken God out of the center of our lives. And when you try to take God out of the center of your life, you’ll keep trying to stick something else in there but nothing else will fill it — no drug, no alcohol, no power, no wealth, nothing will fill that hole.”

Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-AL) Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Georgia U.S. Representative Virginia Foxx said that drug addiction is one of the largest challenges in this country, and that she “will continue to oppose any effort to make it easier for people to grow and use drugs.”
In North Carolina, U.S. Representative Ted Budd commented on the SAFE Banking Act with the usual propaganda about marijuana, citing problems with lowered IQ and serious mental illness from consuming marijuana, along with the all-time favorite of anti-marijuana crusaders—the sudden rise of marijuana-impaired car accidents.
The South Carolina Medical Cannabis Therapeutic Research Treatment Act, which was signed into law in June, 2014, was very restrictive, allowing only CBD oil for treatment of epilepsy in children. The good news is that it eventually cleared the House with a vote of 92-5. On January 10, 2017, State Senator Tom Davis and fellow Republican Representative Peter McCoy introduced the South Carolina Compassionate Care Act, a comprehensive medical cannabis bill, that would allow seriously ill patients with debilitating medical conditions to obtain state ID cards to allow them to access medical cannabis from a state regulated dispensary.
But the bill hit major resistance from law enforcement. Then there was God. “South Carolina tends to be more evangelical, more Protestant than other states,” Davis said during an Americans for Safe Access conference. “They get involved in more social issues and politics than other states. The issue of marijuana is wrapped up in the thinking ‘Is this a proper lifestyle? Are you making a proper moral choices? Is this something that we are introducing into our society that is going to lead to an erosion of values?’” he said. “All of those things are very real in South Carolina. You have to respect those concerns.”

Americans for Safe Access rally / Photo by David McNew/Getty Images)
Davis has had to ride a fine line in the state among lawmakers and evangelicals, even after a recent poll showed that only 18.8% of South Carolina residents are opposed to any form of marijuana legalization, medical or otherwise. The first senate subcommittee meeting discussing the Compassionate Care Act took place on Wednesday, February 27, 2019, where Davis, the subcommittee chairman, said that he wanted a “tightly-defined medical cannabis bill that empowers physicians to allow patient use of cannabis for specific debilitating conditions when empirical evidence substantiates the benefits.”
He wants to ensure that the bill is clearly a medical bill in terms of substance as well as optics, and is “not a precursor to adult use.” All good. But the state doesn’t have a citizen initiative process, and the bill has yet to receive a vote in either the state House or Senate.
Virginia is probably one of the more progressive Southern states when it comes to marijuana legalization, with the Attorney General Mark Herring, U.S. Senator Tim Kaine, U.S. Representative Elaine Luria, State Senator Jennifer McClellan, State Senator Joe Morrissey and a host of other elected government officials all for legalizing, taxing and regulating marijuana. Most other officials in Virginia are in favor of at least decriminalizing marijuana, which happened earlier this year.
In a move that surprised some marijuana proponents, given Virginia’s harsh history with marijuana arrests and convictions over the years, Governor Ralph Northam announced the findings of a his administration’s report on marijuana on November 30 following the state’s decriminalization legislation passed by the General Assembly earlier this year. “We will advance new laws to make sure that our Commonwealth legalizes marijuana the right way,” he was quoted as saying in a press release about the report.
Louisiana is one of the less active Southern states working on legalizing. Voters approved medical marijuana in 2016, but it took three years for regulators to approve the state’s first dispensaries. Governor Bel Edwards continues to oppose legalizing and regulating adult use, even though 55 percent of Louisiana residents support legalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana for recreational use, according to the 2019 Louisiana Survey published by the Louisiana State University.
There are other areas of the country that are out of step with the legalization movement, such as Kansas, where highway patrol is known to target cars with Colorado plates for canine searches.
But the South is slowly coming around after years of deep denials, in part because of growing popularity of medical marijuana as a healing herb, which is more in line with Christian ethics.
There is still the argument by some Christians that legalizing marijuana is a sign of moral decline in the U.S., according to a study, which is a belief that still clearly plays out in the legalization efforts in the South. Some evangelicals even believe that the Bible prohibits consuming marijuana, and it’s a sin if you do.
Still, you can’t argue with the fact that two-thirds of Americans say the use of marijuana should be legal, which is a steady increase over the past decade, according to a Pew Research Center survey. The share of U.S. adults who oppose legalization has fallen from 52 percent in 2010 to 32 percent today.
The South may be quietly adjusting to this new legalization landscape. But for now, the good ol’ white guys prevail, and Christians have righteous morality straight from the Bible on their side.

 

[Bcbud]

It is not Mitch McConnell’s Senate it is chosen by the people.

 

[Baron23]

While this is long overdue, and while a "no" vote would indeed undermine anti-MJ politician's bleat that there is not enough research to legalize, I still do believe that this is for show just like the MORE act vote as there is no way in this VERY lame duck session that the Senate will even take it up much less pass it.

House Will Vote On Marijuana Research Bill Allowing Scientists To Study Dispensary Cannabis This Week​

For the second time this month, the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on a federal marijuana reform bill—this one promoting research into the plant and allowing scientists to study cannabis from state-legal businesses for the first time.

After the chamber approved a comprehensive bill to federally legalize marijuana on Friday, leadership announced that members would be taking up the Medical Marijuana Research Act, bipartisan legislation that advanced out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee in September.

The bill, which has been slightly revised in the months since, will be considered under a procedure known as suspension of the rules, meaning there will be no further amendments and it will require a two-thirds majority to pass. Given the bipartisan nature of the legislation, sponsored by the unlikely duo of pro-legalization Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and prohibitionist Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD), it’s expected to get that support.

As the proposal was originally drafted, it would have made it so researchers could access marijuana from additional federally approved private manufacturers. But an amendment in the nature of a substitute was approved in committee that included the component expanding access to state-legal dispensaries.

The bill would also make it so there would be no limit on the number of entities that can be registered to cultivate marijuana for research purposes. Additionally, it would require HHS to submit a report to Congress within five years after enactment to overview the results of federal cannabis studies and recommend whether they warrant marijuana’s rescheduling under federal law.

There’s been bipartisan agreement that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has stymied valuable cannabis research by failing to approve additional marijuana manufacturers, despite earlier pledges to do so. The agency would be mandated to approve cultivation applications for study purposes within one year of the legislation’s enactment.

The version coming to the floor has been revised from the committee-approved draft to make it so the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and attorney general would be required to create a process for marijuana manufacturers and distributors to supply researchers with cannabis from dispensaries. They will have one year after enactment to develop that procedure, and must start meeting to work on it within 60 days of the bill’s passage.

HHS would still be mandated to issue “guidance related to the use of marijuana from State authorized marijuana programs” within 180 days as in the prior version of the bill, but language stipulating that the guidance must include “necessary quality or production standards for marijuana intended for use in medical research” was removed.

In general, the legislation would also establish a simplified registration process for researchers interested in studying cannabis, in part by reducing approval wait times, minimizing costly security requirements and eliminating additional layers of protocol review.

Another provision that was deleted from the latest version said HHS “shall ensure that a qualified marijuana researcher is in compliance with guidance issued by the Food and Drug Administration related to botanical drug development.”

In determining public interest in conducting a particular study, a line was added to expand the criterion to include “such other conduct which may threaten the public health and safety.”

In addition to registering growers to produce cannabis to supply directly to researchers, the bill also now allows products to be used for “subsequent downstream manufacture by a duly registered manufacturer for the ultimate and exclusive use by qualified marijuana researchers for research.”

Another technical change removes the modifier “medical” to describe the kind of marijuana research that is authorized under the legislation, presumably allowing cultivators to produce cannabis for additional kinds of studies.

House leadership initially put the marijuana research bill on the floor schedule for September, but it was removed and a staffer for the House majority leader told Marijuana Moment that its placement on the schedule was a clerical error. Now it’s expected to get a vote as early as Wednesday.

In July, the House approved separate legislation that also called for letting researchers study marijuana purchased from businesses in state-legal markets instead of only letting them use government-grown cannabis. The intent of that provision, tucked into a 2,000-plus-page infrastructure bill, was to allow the interstate distribution of such products even to scientists in jurisdictions that have not yet legalized marijuana.

During an Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health hearing in January—which was requested by four GOP lawmakers last year—federal health and drug officials, including from DEA, acknowledged that the current supply of cannabis for research purposes is inadequate and that scientists should be able to access a wider range of marijuana products.

DEA said four years ago that it would be taking steps to expand the number of federally authorized cannabis manufacturers, but it has not yet acted on applications.

Last year, scientists sued the agency, alleging that it had deliberately delayed approving additional marijuana manufacturers for research purposes despite its earlier pledge.

A court mandated that DEA take steps to make good on its promise, and that case 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 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.

Another scientist recently filed a lawsuit against DEA, urging a federal court to compel the agency to grant his application to produce cannabis for research purposes.

 

[Baron23]

Can Cannabis Interstate Commerce Be A Shortcut To Federal Legalization?​

After an initial burst of celebration over last week’s House approval of the MORE Act, landmark legislation that would decriminalize marijuana at the federal level, the hard realization that getting the bill past the finish line and signed into law is an unlikely proposition is beginning to set in. Even some cannabis activists aren’t sure the bill is the right path to legalization, and getting the measure a fair hearing in the Senate while Mitch McConnell is at the reins isn’t at all likely.

With that reality in mind, a new group aimed at establishing a legal framework for cannabis interstate commerce was formed in September. Dubbed the Alliance for Sensible Markets, the group of activists and industry representatives has two primary goals. First, the group is working to bring two or more states with legal marijuana together to join in an interstate compact outlining the parameters for legal cannabis commerce between them. Secondly, a path to federal approval of the plan would have to be determined and executed. Paired with a federal policy that would permit state-legal cannabis businesses to operate without interference, interstate cannabis commerce could be a more politically viable path to many of the goals of full legalization.

The Flaws Of A Fragmented Market​

Adam Smith, the founder and president of the alliance, said in a telephone interview that the current system of regulated cannabis trade, with each state that has legalized pot operating its own siloed market of production, manufacturing, distribution, and sales, is unsustainable. And in the real world, it’s also a system that is unworkable.

"We've broken the laws of economics. We've said all states have to produce all of their products in-state, whether that's environmentally or economically reasonable,” says Smith. “And so, you end up with the best producing regions on the planet that don't have markets to sell their product in, and giant consumer markets that can't get supply chains up and running to feed their demand. And it turns out that while the prohibition laws are easy to get around, the laws of supply and demand are pretty ironclad," leading to a vast market of illicit cannabis.
The current system requires states with climates favorable to outdoor cannabis cultivation such as California and Oregon to limit production to what can be sold domestically and forces states with less favorable conditions to grow the vast majority of the crop indoors in expensive and sophisticated cultivation operations. As legalization comes to more of these cannabis consumer states, as Smith refers to them, hundreds of millions of dollars will be invested in indoor production facilities as supply slowly ramps up to meet demand. And when federal legalization finally is on the books, which seems inevitable at this point, interstate commerce rules will allow states to import and export pot.

A massive, legal marijuana growing operation, utilizing pop-up hoop nursery construction technology, ... [+]

GETTY IMAGES
“The minute federal legalization does happen, whether that's 2022 or '23 or '24, all of that is going to have to compete with flower and biomass coming from massive outdoor and greenhouse production on the West Coast. None of that is going to be competitive,” Smith says. “We are setting up systems that are doomed to fail when federal legalization happens.”

Cannabis Interstate Commerce To The Rescue​

Instead of allowing that to happen, letting producer states enter into interstate cannabis commerce compacts would permit states like Oregon, which saw a glut of cannabis in 2018, to export some of their crop to consumer states such as New Jersey, where voters approved a recreational cannabis ballot member last month, and New York, which could see legalization as soon as this year if sticking points including social equity provisions can be worked out by lawmakers.
“If you can allow markets to function, New York and New Jersey could get their industry up and running in 6 to 18 months, not three to five to seven years,” explains Smith. “We could move millions of people out of illicit markets years sooner if we allowed normal supply chains to happen, as the supply chains have always happened for cannabis. Cannabis has always come west to east.”
Legislative efforts to launch legal cannabis interstate commerce have already begun. Last year, Democratic Governor Kate Brown of Oregon signed legislation that would allow her state to enter cannabis trade pacts with other states, dependent on federal rules allowing such deals. The Alliance for Sensible Markets is now working to bring at least one consumer state on board. The opportunities such an arrangement would present small businesses could allow for states like New York to initiate meaningful social equity programs while bringing both businesses and consumers out of the unregulated market.

Legal cannabis interstate commerce would allow producing states such as California and Oregon to ... [+]
GETTY

“With this one small change— allowing legal cannabis to go from one legal market to another across these invisible lines— suddenly, you have thousands of small businesses with access to thousands of the best suppliers in the country,” says Smith. “Now, you can build a retail presence that is differentiated. Now, you can build delivery and distribution that has choice, that can go get the best cannabis anywhere at the best prices, instead of everyone being beholden to a few large players.”

Federal Approval Needed​

Once two states have authorized the creation of cannabis commerce pacts, the next step for the Alliance for Sensible Markets is to get the federal government to authorize such partnerships. Last year, House Democrat Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon introduced the State Cannabis Commerce Act, which would protect marijuana operations in legal states from federal interference and permit transfers from one to another. But Smith says that federal authorization could also come as a rider to a must-pass appropriations bill, making it more palatable to Republicans and moderate Democrats. Such a move would also sidestep the need to bring a more sweeping legalization bill such as the MORE Act to Joe Biden, who has indicated a reluctance to sign such a measure when he becomes president.
The Alliance for Sensible Markets has garnered support from notable groups including the Minority Cannabis Business Association, the Humboldt County Growers Alliance and the New York City Cannabis Industry Association, which has lobbied Governor Cuomo’s office to approve the creation of interstate compacts. If the group is successful in bringing at least one producer state and one consumer state together in a compact that gains federal approval, cannabis interstate commerce could be a shortcut to many of the goals of legalization without the political capital such legislation would require.
Smith notes that creating cannabis interstate compacts would be an economic win for both producer and consumer states, where hundreds of millions of dollars would be invested to build the infrastructure for production and retail distribution, respectively. The result would be tens of thousands of jobs at one of the most economically challenging times our nation has ever faced.
"Cannabis can be a real partner in economic recovery if you allow the market to function like markets are meant to work,” Smith insists.

 

[momofthegoons]

Congress Cautions Military Leaders About Marijuana Punishments For Recruits In Defense Bill Report​

The House of Representatives approved a defense spending bill on Tuesday that includes language pushing military leaders to exercise discretion in enforcing marijuana-related penalties against service members.

That said, for the second year in a row, House Democratic leaders have given up in negotiations with the Senate on stronger cannabis reform measures that were included in their chamber’s original version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

One House-passed amendment, sponsored by Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), would have required the secretary of defense to issue regulations clarifying that military branches can grant reenlistment waivers to service members who have committed a single low-level cannabis offense. The Senate didn’t include that component in their NDAA bill, however, and Democratic conferees ended up receding to the other body in the final version.

In a joint explanatory statement on the bill, however, the bicameral conferees included language saying that “the secretaries of the military departments have the authority to allow for enlistment and reenlistment with waivers for cannabis use based on the needs of the military department.”

“The conferees encourage the secretaries of the military departments to use their authority as appropriate to ensure the military departments are not excluding talent from the pool of eligible individuals who volunteer to serve,” they said.

Another House-passed measure that the chamber receded on, championed by Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), would have prohibited the Secretary of Defense from banning service members from possessing or consuming hemp or CBD products that are legal under state and federal law. There was no explanation included in the report about why House leaders didn’t fight for its inclusion in the final bill.

The Department of Defense and various military branches under it have issued several memos stipulating that service members are banned from using CBD, even though the cannabinoid was legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill. Most recently, the Navy explained that it prohibited use of hemp products, including topicals and shampoos, because there’s a risk that the products are mislabeled and contain excess THC.

Gabbard told Marijuana Moment in an interview earlier this year that the military’s anti-hemp policies reflect “a very backward way of viewing these products.”

Despite giving up on the cannabis-focused provisions, it’s not the case that House conferees receded on all of their proposals in the large-scale defense legislation. They gave in on 654 amendments and the Senate receded on 580, according to a keyword search of the document. And while the supplementary note on cannabis reenlistment waivers does signal that there was conversation on the issue, the Democratic-controlled chamber was evidently unable to get the GOP-run Senate side on board with its original language containing the specific policy directive to the defense secretary.

Another drug policy amendment, sponsored by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), that the House receded on after its passage would have prohibited the use of funds for aerial fumigation on drug crops in Colombia, a practice widely criticized by reform and human rights advocates. A note on the measure states that “any Department support for counterdrug activities in Colombia should be compliant with Colombia’s national and local laws and regulations.”

Earlier this year, a bipartisan group of senators attempted to attach marijuana and CBD research language to their version of the appropriations legislation, but that did not pan out.

For last year’s defense bill, House conferees receded on both the military reenlistment waiver proposal and a separate measure the chamber approved to protect veterans from being denied home loans from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs over employment in a state-legal cannabis market.

The Senate is also expected to take up the final version of this year’s NDAA soon. But assuming it gets to the president’s desk, it might face an unusual challenge. President Trump has threatened to veto the legislation because it doesn’t contain a provision making social media companies liable for content posted by users.

That said, lawmakers from both parties have made clear they are prepared to override any veto of the annual defense spending bill.

All of this comes in the shadow of two significant marijuana-related developments in the House. Most notably, the chamber approved a historic bill—the Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act—to federally legalize marijuana last week.

And the House is scheduled to vote on bipartisan legislation as early as Wednesday that would promote research into cannabis, in part by allowing scientists to obtain marijuana from state-legal dispensaries.

 

[Bcbud]

New Poll Finds Majority of Americans In Favor of Expungement For Cannabis Crimes | High Times

More Americans than ever are supportive of expunging the records of those who have been convicted of cannabis-related crimes.

hightimes.com

 

[Baron23]

​

Majority Of Republican Voters Support House-Passed Marijuana Legalization Bill, Poll Finds​

A two-thirds majority of Americans—including 51 percent of Republicans—support a bill to federally legalize marijuana that was approved by the U.S. House of Representatives last week, according to a new poll.


The Morning Consult-Politico survey asked respondents to weigh in on the chamber’s vote, and 66 percent said they backed the legislative action, including 47 percent who said they “strongly support” it.

Via Morning Consult.

But arguably the most interesting result is the majority backing among Republican voters, as only five of the 163 GOP members who voted on the Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act supported it. The bill also only has one Republican cosponsor, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R).

The poll seems to contradict the messaging of many minority party lawmakers ahead of the vote. Numerous members criticized House leadership for even holding a vote on the reform, stating that it was an inappropriate use of time before passing another coronavirus relief bill and that it wouldn’t sit well with constituents.

In a separate question in the new survey, registered voters said they were familiar with the MORE Act vote. Fifty-eight percent said they had “seen, read, or heard” about the House action, demonstrating a significant level of attention to the potential cannabis policy change.

In another general question, 64 percent of voters agreed that “the use of marijuana should be made legal in the United States,” compared to 25 percent who disagreed. Support included 49 percent of Republicans, 73 percent of Democrats and 68 percent of independents.

A separate poll released on Tuesday found that seven in ten Americans support clearing the records of people with non-violent marijuana convictions

The findings for where Americans stands on expungements—which is part of the MORE Act—is roughly equivalent to national support for broader marijuana legalization. A poll published by Gallup last month found that 68 percent of respondents were in favor of legalizing cannabis for adult use, which the firm said is its “highest reading” since it started polling voters on the issue in 1969.


The release of these survey results come shortly 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 Mississippi, Montana and South Dakota.

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.


But he may feel pressure to adopt a more progressive stance given the recent passage of the MORE Act.