Law The Cannabis Chronicles - Misc Cannabis News

[momofthegoons]

​

Feds Announce Plan To Continue Marijuana Manufacturing Monopoly, At Least For Now​

The federal monopoly on growing marijuana for research would continue under a contract extension published by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) last week.

In a “pre-solicitation non-competitive” notice, the federal agency announced its intent to award a “award a sole source modification” contract to the University of Mississippi—the only facility in the country that’s been authorized to manufacture cannabis products for use in studies since the late 1960s.

The problem, as far as researchers are concerned, is that the quality of the government’s marijuana is inadequate. In fact, a study found that the cannabis it produces is more chemically similar to hemp than marijuana that’s available in state-legal commercial markets. That raises questions about the real-world applicability of studies that rely on NIDA’s supply.

The proposal would extend the university’s contract from March 2021 to 2022, “with a potential option for an additional 12 months.”

The new filing comes as the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has delayed plans to license additional cannabis manufacturers to supply researchers.

“Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements,” NIDA said in the new notice. That one supplier will continue to be the University of Mississippi, as the agency stipulated that it will not be “providing for full and open competition” in determining who gets to grow the only federally approved cannabis for use in research.

NIDA, whose director conceded that marijuana’s Schedule I status impedes research in congressional hearing last year, said the latest decision to limit its search is based on “market research.”

“This synopsis is not a request for competitive proposals,” the notice says. “However, interested parties may identify their interest and capability to respond to this notice.”

Any responses must be received by December 22.

DEA announced four years ago that it would be expanding the number of marijuana manufacturers for research, but it has yet to act on any of the dozens of applications that it’s received.

One of those applicants, Lyle Craker of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, recently filed a federal lawsuit that urges the court to order 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.

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 agency has not yet finalized and enacted the new policy yet, however, leaving existing applicants in limbo.

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.

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, 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.

In a positive development for reform advocates and researchers, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill last week that’s designed to streamline cannabis studies, in part by allowing scientists to access marijuana from state-legal dispensaries and mandating DEA to approve additional research cultivators within a set timeline.

 

[momofthegoons]

Feds Announce $350K Grant To Develop Method To Distinguish Hemp And Marijuana​

The Department of Justice is issuing a different federal agency a grant to help to develop a method of differentiating hemp and marijuana.

After hemp was federally legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill, laboratories have been increasingly tasked with determining whether cannabis seized by law enforcement contains THC in excess of 0.3 percent, classifying it as still-illegal marijuana in the eyes of the law.

However, “most forensic laboratories are currently lacking reliable extraction protocols and analytical methods for this purpose,” the DOJ’s National Institute of Justice said in the grant notice published last week.

To that end, the agency is awarding $350,000 to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which is part of the Commerce Department, to support efforts to “provide forensic laboratories with the necessary analytical tools to confidently make these measurements through simple, robust, and cost-effective analytical methods.”

“After method completion, this proposal includes a technology transfer focus from NIST to the federal, state, and local forensic laboratories through standard operating procedures, training modules, webinars, and scientific publications,” the notice states.

NIST has partnered with the Maryland State Police (MSP) and Montgomery County Police Department crime labs to obtain 125 cannabis samples to conduct the analyses.

“NIST will use the collaboration with MSP to allow for a critical evaluation of the new analytical methods to ensure their applicability to meet forensic laboratory needs,” the notice says.

Last year, the Drug Enforcement Administration similarly announced that it was seeking a device to “provide specificity to distinguish between hemp and marijuana” since the former crop was legalized.

The complications resulting from hemp legalization is especially apparent in Texas, where marijuana possession arrests fell almost 30 percent from 2018 to 2019 following the state-level legalization of the non-intoxicating cannabis crop.

Prosecutors in the state have dismissed hundreds of low-level cannabis cases since hemp was legalized. And officials announced in February that labs wouldn’t be performing testing in misdemeanor cases, with the Department of Public Safety saying it “will not have the capacity to accept those.”

NIST announced in July that it was launching a cannabis testing program to help ensure that the products people purchase from retailers and dispensaries are accurately labeled.

While the initial focus of the Cannabis Quality Assurance (CannaQAP) program will be on hemp-derived oils like CBD, officials said it’s possible they will expand the program to test marijuana flower, concentrates and edibles—a notable step for a federal agency while the intoxicating version of cannabis remains prohibited.

 

[momofthegoons]

​

Founder Of Anti-Marijuana Group Lobbies Biden To Nominate Him For White House Drug Czar​

Former Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), a cofounder of the nation’s leading marijuana prohibitionist group, is mounting a public campaign to convince President-elect Joe Biden to appoint him to lead a key federal drug policy agency.

Kennedy, who helped start Smart Approaches To Marijuana (SAM), authored an open letter to the Biden-Harris transition team making the case that he is the best person to lead the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP).

The letter decries cannabis legalization and the “dangers of today’s higher potency consumption options and a rapidly evolving for-profit industry” but points out that Kennedy agrees with Biden’s “position in support of marijuana decriminalization.”

“Like him I support expanded research and expungement as priorities,” the former congressman added.

In contrast with many potential nominees under serious consideration for administration posts who tend to avoid even commenting on their potential appointments when asked, Kennedy is taking the unusual approach of trying to publicly rally supporters and making the case that he should be nominated.

While Biden opposes adult-use cannabis legalization, regardless of the supermajority support for the policy change among Democrats, it’s possible that the former congressman’s reputation as a staunch prohibitionist associated with SAM could hamper his chances of being nominated. Activists have strongly pushed the former vice president to select cabinet officials who embrace progressive policies, and this pick could ruffle feathers.

That said, Kennedy, who worked during his time in Congress to pass legislation for parity in insurance coverage for mental health and drug addiction issues, has a litany of supporters backing his potential nomination to lead an agency that Biden himself championed the creation of during his time in the Senate. That includes the CEO of the American Psychological Association, a former U.S. Surgeon General and a former ONDCP head.

Prior to launching SAM, Kennedy voted in favor of a spending bill rider to protect state medical cannabis programs from federal intervention all seven times that it came up to the House floor while he was in office. But he did not proactively cosponsor any notable marijuana reform legislation.

Kennedy is pitching himself as the right selection for drug czar in part based on his personal experience with substance misuse issues, and he would represent a departure from former law enforcement-based ONDCP heads.

“I have no shame in saying it: I believe I could do better than anyone else,” he told STAT News, adding that he views the coronavirus pandemic as a “historic turning point for mental health and addiction.”

“There’s a major distinction between commercialization of a new big tobacco industry and decriminalizing marijuana and ensuring that people aren’t incarcerated because of it,” he told the news outlet.

To be sure, legalization advocates would not be encouraged by having a SAM co-founder leading the office given its historical role in lobbying against marijuana reform.

ONDCP has faced serious proposed budget cuts under the Trump administration, though Congress has refused to go along with the idea. That said, the agency was downgraded during the Obama administration from its former Cabinet-level status and in recent years has seem to command less influence in shaping the legalization debate than it once did.

That said, the drug czar’s office still plays a key role in facilitating drug policy across multiple departments and effectively sets the tone of the administrative position on these issues.

In a new action alert released this week, NORML is advocating for the abolition of the drug czar role entirely and is asking supporters to write to the incoming administration to end the office. But “at a minimum” Biden shouldn’t select Kennedy, a pre-written letter states.

“There is no place in the Biden administration for policy leaders who cling to these outdated viewpoints,” the group said. “It’s time to do as you promised and to move away from the failed drug war policies of the past. You promised to do so and we expect you to follow through on your pledge.”

Grant Smith, deputy director of national affairs at the Drug Policy Alliance, told Marijuana Moment that “it’s really critical that, to the extent there is a drug czar, that they have a public health background, really understand the nuances of public health and what and what reality is like on the ground for people on the front lines.”

“This country is facing an unprecedented overdose crisis—and that being exacerbated by the pandemic and economic downturn,” he said. “We’ve had decades of a very punitive approach to drugs and we have a president-elect who has campaigned on promises to reorient drug policy away from punitive approaches such as arresting people who use drugs.”

He said the next ONDCP director should be a person who can appreciate the negative impacts of drug criminalization.

Another controversial component of a potential Kennedy nomination concerns his nonprofit, The Kennedy Forum, which is partly funded by pharmaceutical companies and addiction treatment centers that have a stake in decisions he would make as ONDCP director, according to Politico.

There are notable differences in how the Kennedy family more broadly has come to approach marijuana policy. Amy Kennedy, Patrick’s wife, for example, broke with SAM during her unsuccessful run for Congress this year by supporting rescheduling cannabis under federal law. The organization has maintained that the modest reform is “neither necessary nor desirable.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Joe Kennedy III (D-MA) also lost his run to unseat Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) after pivoting to a pro-legalization stance in 2018. He had formerly aligned himself with a staunchly prohibitionist position that included voting against even limited amendments to protect people using CBD medical cannabis from federal arrest.

Marijuana Moment reached out to SAM for comment on Patrick Kennedy’s bid for ONDCP director, but a representative declined to comment. A spokesperson for Kennedy’s office was not immediately available.

It’s not immediately clear whether the Biden transition team is taking Kennedy seriously as a potential ONDCP director nominee in light of his unorthodox public agitation campaign for the role. However, he’s not the only viable candidate in the run. Other prospective picks include former American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) Board President Kelly Clark and former Obama administration addiction policy official Westley Clark, among others.

ASAM has historically resisted marijuana reform efforts and aligned itself with prohibitionists, but it recently adopted a new policy position in favor of protecting people who use cannabis in compliance with state laws from being punished by the federal government.

 

[momofthegoons]

Rand Paul Files Bill To Increase Hemp THC Limit And Address Other Industry Concerns​

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Tuesday introduced a bill that would triple the concentration of THC that can be in legal hemp plants and address multiple other concerns the industry has expressed about proposed federal regulations for the crop.

Hemp and its derivatives were legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) quickly got to work developing rules for the market. But industry stakeholders have strongly protested certain restrictive regulations that they say could inhibit the sector’s growth.

Paul’s new Hemp Economic Mobilization Plan (HEMP) Act aims to resolve those problems by codifying four specific rules for the industry.

Perhaps the most common complaint that lawmakers have heard from hemp businesses is that hemp is federally defined as containing no more than 0.3 percent THC. They say that’s too low, and so the bill would increase that threshold to one percent.

It would also address potential problems with testing requirements under USDA’s proposed regulations. The agency said hemp processors would get a 15-day window to test the crop’s flower to ensure that the THC concentration is within the allowed limits. But testing flower can be onerous and farmers have said it would stretch their resources thin, not to mention that the plant’s THC is significantly impacted by environmental factors.

To fix that issue, the senator is pushing for final hemp products themselves to be tested, rather than the initial flower from the plant.

The legislation also calls for the establishment of a “seed certificate” to accompany hemp in transport. There have been instances where law enforcement has seized the legal crop, believing it to be illicit marijuana, and so processors would carry a certificate stipulating that the hemp that they’re transporting contains the lawful THC limit.

Finally, the bill would create a definition for the margin of error when it comes to THC testing. While the current interim final rule for hemp gives the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) discretion in determining that margin, Paul is proposing “using 0.075 percent as the standard MU, giving farmers and processors the certainty they have requested,” according to a one-page overview of the measure.

“For years, I’ve led the fight in Washington to restore one of Kentucky’s most historically vital crops by legalizing industrial hemp,” the senator said in a press release. “We achieved a hard-won victory, but there is still work to do to prevent the federal government from weighing down our farmers with unnecessary bureaucratic micromanaging.”



“My legislation will help this growing industry reach its full economic potential, and I am proud the bill has strong support all the way from local Kentucky farmers and activists to national groups, including the American Farm Bureau Federation,” he said.

As USDA works to finalize rules for the industry, it has approved nearly 70 state and tribal regulatory hemp proposals and recently awarded an advocacy group $200,000 to support America’s international hemp trade.

In October, USDA closed an extended public comment period on its proposed hemp regulations after temporarily reopening the feedback period due to strong pushback from stakeholders, many of whom said the policies were too restrictive. An initial comment round saw more than 4,600 submissions.

Due to the concerns, Congress approved a continuing resolution that extends a current hemp pilot program established in 2014 through September 2021. That program, which many in the industry feel is more flexible than USDA’s proposed rules, was initially set to expire in October.

The department announced in October that it is planning to distribute a national survey to gain insights from thousands of hemp businesses that could inform its approach to regulating the industry.

Also that month, USDA issued and then rescinded guidance on providing federal loans for hemp processors.

Several members of Congress sent a letter to USDA and other federal agencies last month, telling them to better coordinate their hemp policies.

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

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

While Paul’s legislation seeks to resolve problems in law enforcement identification of hemp versus marijuana, the Department of Justice is also issuing another federal agency a grant to help to develop a method of differentiating the cannabis crops.

It’s not clear whether the senator’s bill will advance with the limited time left in this session, but it stands to reason that it would have bipartisan support if a new version came up next year.

“We appreciate Sen. Paul’s leadership and support for hemp farmers in Kentucky and across the United States,” Vote Hemp President Eric Steenstra said. “The HEMP Act makes critical improvements that will better allow farmers to successfully grow and profit from hemp.”

Kentucky Hemp Association President Tate Hall and Vice President Jana Groda said in a joint statement that the HEMP Act “will help farmers, processors and retailers in our young hemp industry.”

“We believe that loosening up some important interstate business requirements are a much-needed step toward more prosperous times in the hemp economy,” they said.

Read Sen. Rand Paul’s HEMP Act by following title link and scrolling to the bottom of the article.

 

[Bcbud]

B.C.-based Tilray now the world’s largest cannabis company after merger - All About Cannabis in Canada

Tilray-Aphria merger boosts combined companies’ manufacturing, marketing and distribution clout

www.canadianevergreen.com

 

[momofthegoons]

Feds Crack Down On ‘Deceptively Marketed’ CBD Products​

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced on Thursday that it launched the first law enforcement crackdown on “deceptive” claims being made about CBD products. The new action involves complaints against six companies.

As part of “Operation CBDeceit,” FTC is mandating that the firms and personnel associated with them stop making a “wide range of scientifically unsupported claims” about their products’ ability to treat medical conditions. Some of the companies will also have to pay monetary judgements.

Companies made unsupported claims that their oils, balms, gummies, coffee, and other goods could treat serious diseases such as cancer and diabetes. 2/10
— FTC (@FTC) December 17, 2020

“The six settlements announced today send a clear message to the burgeoning CBD industry: Don’t make spurious health claims that are unsupported by medical science,” Andrew Smith, Director of FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in a press release. “Otherwise, don’t be surprised if you hear from the FTC.”

FTC is requiring each of the companies and individuals behind them, to stop making such unsupported health claims immediately, and several will pay monetary judgments to the agency. 4/10
— FTC (@FTC) December 17, 2020

The companies targeted in the new action are Bionatrol Health, LLC; Epichouse LLC (First Class Herbalist CBD); CBD Meds, Inc.; HempmeCBD; Reef Industries, Inc. and Steves Distributing, LLC.

FTC, in conjunction with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has previously warned or sued other companies about claims related to CBD products.

FTC announced settlements with the following companies:
•CBD Meds, Inc.
•HempmeCBD
•Reef Industries, Inc.
•Steves Distributing, LLC
•Bionatrol Health, LLC
•Epichouse LLC (First Class Herbalist CBD)
6/10
— FTC (@FTC) December 17, 2020

In April, the two agencies sent a letter to a company run by a former professional football player, warning the firm to stop claiming its cannabidiol products could prevent or cure coronavirus infections.


“The big news about Operation CBDeceit is that the sweep shouldn’t come as big news to members of the CBD industry,” the agency said in a blog post. “To date, the FTC has sent multiple letters to businesses warning them about making questionable disease-related representations for CBD products and has taken law enforcement action against others.”

“The message to marketers has been consistent: The same substantiation principles the FTC has applied to health claims for close to 50 years apply to similar claims for CBD products,” the post says. “Companies that represent expressly or by implication that what they sell can prevent, treat, or cure serious medical conditions will be held to the highest substantiation standards and marketers can expect careful scrutiny of those promises.”

FTC commissioners approved the new complaints and related consent orders against each company by unanimous votes of 5-0. The agency will publish descriptions of the consent agreements in the Federal Register, after which point public comments will be accepted for 30 days. FTC will then will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final.

Avoid being cheated by a “miracle” CBD cure. Considering alternative medical treatments containing CBD? Before you act:
Find out more about miracle cure claims at https://t.co/jHf8bj2f9y
10/10 pic.twitter.com/OHKnZCipji
— FTC (@FTC) December 17, 2020

The new FTC enforcement actions come as FDA is still formulating regulations for the legal marketing of CBD products, a process that began when Congress legalized hemp and its derivatives through the 2018 Farm Bill.

 

[momofthegoons]

​

DEA Issues Final Rule For Licensing More Growers Of Marijuana For Research​

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) on Thursday revealed a long-awaited final rule aimed at expanding the number of authorized growers of marijuana to be used in scientific research.

In a notice set to be formally published in the Federal Register on Friday, the agency said it made “minor modifications” from the initial proposed rule on licensing cannabis manufacturers it released in March.

DEA responded to numerous public comments it received since then, breaking them down into eight categories: application process and criteria; quality of marijuana; federal agency obligations pertaining to cannabis controls; the meaning of ‘medical cannabis;’ security costs and requirements applicable to the manufacture of marijuana; harvest; cost, pricing and fees of marijuana for DEA registrants and comments outside of the agency’s scope.

The release of these finalized regulations comes as both the House and Senate have recently passed bills to promote marijuana research. The goal of those pieces of legislation is similarly to streamline the process for researchers and expand access to cannabis for studies while mandating the DEA license additional growers by specific deadlines.

The House legislation contains a key provision that would allow scientists to access cannabis from state-legal dispensaries so that they can study products that are actually being used by consumers in commercial markets. In DEA’s new filing, the agency pushed back against public comments that suggested researchers be able to obtain dispensary marijuana.

Overall, DEA has maintained throughout the rulemaking process for licensing additional growers that it will have sole ownership over any marijuana that’s cultivated for research purposes.

That’s a fundamental change from current policy. As it stands, a single facility at the University of Mississippi is authorized to grow cannabis through a contract with the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and DEA does not maintain ownership over its products.

But DEA now asserts that in order to comply with international law, it must institute a practice of “taking possession of marihuana crops after harvest and maintaining the exclusive right of importing, exporting, wholesale trading, and maintaining stocks of marihuana and its resin.”

That’s based on an interpretation of the Single Convention by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which determined in April that DEA has been violating the international treaty by managing the cannabis program in coordination with two other agencies when it needs to be the sole agency.

Here’s an overview of some of the most notable responses and regulatory amendments in the new DEA filing:

-Many commenters argued that DEA should not disqualify applicants who’ve grown marijuana in compliance with state law. The agency responded that it is statutorily bound to consider instances where an applicant violated federal law—something that all state-legal marijuana cultivation businesses do—and it would continue to do so. “While the DEA Administrator has discretion to weigh the statutory factors and any one factor need not be dispositive, an applicant’s prior compliance with Federal law is a relevant consideration when determining whether to grant an application for registration,” the notice states.

-Relatedly, the agency responded to comments pushing it to factor in an applicant’s ability to produce “high quality” marijuana and their past experience cultivating the plant. It simply said that applicants are judged based on public interest and compliance with international treaties. “Under those factors, DEA will consider the applicant’s ‘past experience in the manufacture of controlled substances’ and its ‘promotion of technical advances in the art of manufacturing these substances.’”

-DEA also said it would not be allowing researchers to obtain marijuana products from state-legal cannabis businesses. It cited international treaty obligations and federal statutes, as well as public safety considerations. The agency also said that extending that access is “unnecessary” since it will be expanding the number of DEA-registered manufacturers.

-Since DEA first announced in 2016 that it would be expanding the number of marijuana cultivators, it received more than 30 applications but has yet to act on them. (This has led to several lawsuits, with scientists pushing the courts to mandate that the agency respond.) DEA said in the final rule that it would be prioritizing those applications before moving on to review new ones.

-The agency rejected pushback on the proposed rule’s provisions that specifically exempt it from liability for marijuana that’s damaged or destroyed under its possession. But DEA stressed that it only handles cannabis for a short time and it will maintain the statute of non-liability in order to “avoid costly and unnecessary disputes.”

-There were comments challenging DEA’s interpretation of international policies and what they mean as far as restrictions on cannabis research are concerned. The agency said it “acknowledges some may disagree with these legal conclusions, but DEA is bound by the law as [the Justice Department] and DEA understand it.” It said that questions about whether international treaties or the Controlled Substances Act controls of marijuana should be amended or abandoned “are beyond the scope of this rulemaking and DEA’s authority.”

-One of the allegations DEA has faced since announcing its intent to expand manufacturing facilities in 2016 is that it used a “secret” internal Justice Department memo to justify delaying additional application approvals. The agency said that DOJ reviewed its 2016 statement and concluded that rules would need to be changed in order to make those approvals. It “has acted as expeditiously as possible to amend its policies,” the notice states.

-Several commenters made the argument that DEA should relinquish control of the marijuana growers program and give that responsibility to an agency such as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, Food and Drug Administration or U.S. Department of Agriculture. The agency said it works in concert with those other government entities and would continue to do so, but it is statutorily obligated to maintain sole control.

-DEA said it would not be taking special steps to “ensure diversity and inclusion of minority applicants.” The agency said it “gives all applicants equal treatment regardless of the gender, race, socioeconomic status, or disabled status of the applicant.”

-DEA said that multiple factors mean that it cannot significantly streamline the process of approving applications to become cannabis manufacturers for studies, despite the multiple requests it received. However, it did pledge to provide notice that an application was received within 90 days of its accepted filing.

While the final rule clears up some uncertainty about the DEA’s perspective on advancing marijuana research as Congress moves forward with its own plans, advocates have already taken issue with several of the agency’s responses to the comments.

“Time and time again, the DEA has proven itself full of empty promises when it comes to the issue of facilitating clinical cannabis research in the United States,” Paul Armentano, deputy director of NORML, told Marijuana Moment. “This history of inaction is why Congress needs to enact legislative reforms.”

He added that the bill recently passed by the House would end “the DEA’s longstanding fiefdom” by allowing scientists to study cannabis products available in state-licensed dispensaries, whereas the agency’s new proposal shows it is “not willing to make the sort of substantive changes necessary to provide U.S. scientists with the tools they need to adequately do their job.”

Without a clear directive from Congress, Armentano said, “there is little reason to believe that the DEA will ever act in a manner that will facilitate the changes necessary to put science first and politics second.”

Corey Cox, a senior associate attorney at Vincente Sederberg LLP, shares that perspective.

“My primary takeaway from this is it just really emphasizes the importance of pursuing legislative reforms through Congress—that the existing framework of the [Controlled Substances Act], as interpreted and implemented by the DEA, is really incompatible with the types of reforms that many stakeholders seem to be seeking through this rulemaking process,” he said.

“I think for members of Congress that are maybe on the fence, this really shows that the existing statutory framework—the CSA, the DEA’s interpretation of the CSA, the rules they promulgated pursuant to that act—are really incompatible with some of the goals and objectives Congress seems to be pursuing through these research bills,” he said.

This story has been updated to include additional details and commentary on the final rule.

Read the DEA final rule on expanding marijuana research follow title link and scroll to the bottom of the article.

 

[momofthegoons]

​

New Congressional Bill Pressures States To Expunge Drug Convictions​

Just two weeks into his short term in the House, a congressman who stepped in to fill the seat of the late Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) has filed a bill to expunge all federal records for people with non-violent drug convictions and also put pressure on state and local governments to do the same.

Rep. Kwanza Hall (D-GA), a former Atlanta City Councilman who successfully sponsored a local marijuana decriminalization measure in 2017, introduced the legislation on Wednesday. Text of the bill isn’t available yet, but the congressman briefly described the proposal in a floor speech.

He said the bill “would expunge all records of nonviolent offenders impacted by the ‘war on drugs’ and other various crime bills for any state and local government that is the recipient of federal crime dollars.”

Watch Hall discuss his drug conviction expungements bill by following title link and scrolling to video.

That latter provision is notable, as expungements legislation that’s been introduced in Congress generally only extends to people with federal drug convictions or provides funds to states to help with any such efforts they choose to launch. Hall’s legislation would take it a step further, presumably by punishing state and local governments that don’t clear past drug conviction records by withholding federal funds from those jurisdictions.

But with about a month left before the end of the session, at which point Hall’s short term will expire, it’s unlikely the bill will advance.

In any case, this isn’t Hall’s first dip into drug policy reform. As noted, he previously sponsored an Atlanta ordinance that removed the threat of jail time for possession of one ounce or less of cannabis. Instead, the penalty for that offense in Atlanta was made to be a maximum $75 fine.

“While this is a significant step forward for all of Atlanta—and especially parents who fear their children may be jailed for what used to be an unjust marijuana law—it was also just a common-sense reform,” he said at the time.

“I don’t smoke weed, but I think this is one thing I had to stand up on,” he said in an interview before the vote. “We don’t need to see people’s live go up in smoke.”

Hall also participated in a policy summit that the Minority Cannabis Business Association hosted in Atlanta in 2017.

Earlier this month, the new congressman celebrated the House passage of a bill to federally legalize marijuana—one of his first votes after being sworn in on Capitol Hill.

Hall’s congressional office did not respond to Marijuana Moment’s request for a copy of his new bill, and the Library of Congress has not yet posted it.

 

[Baron23]

​

DEA Issues Final Rule For Licensing More Growers Of Marijuana For Research​

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) on Thursday revealed a long-awaited final rule aimed at expanding the number of authorized growers of marijuana to be used in scientific research.

In a notice set to be formally published in the Federal Register on Friday, the agency said it made “minor modifications” from the initial proposed rule on licensing cannabis manufacturers it released in March.

DEA responded to numerous public comments it received since then, breaking them down into eight categories: application process and criteria; quality of marijuana; federal agency obligations pertaining to cannabis controls; the meaning of ‘medical cannabis;’ security costs and requirements applicable to the manufacture of marijuana; harvest; cost, pricing and fees of marijuana for DEA registrants and comments outside of the agency’s scope.

The release of these finalized regulations comes as both the House and Senate have recently passed bills to promote marijuana research. The goal of those pieces of legislation is similarly to streamline the process for researchers and expand access to cannabis for studies while mandating the DEA license additional growers by specific deadlines.

The House legislation contains a key provision that would allow scientists to access cannabis from state-legal dispensaries so that they can study products that are actually being used by consumers in commercial markets. In DEA’s new filing, the agency pushed back against public comments that suggested researchers be able to obtain dispensary marijuana.

Overall, DEA has maintained throughout the rulemaking process for licensing additional growers that it will have sole ownership over any marijuana that’s cultivated for research purposes.

That’s a fundamental change from current policy. As it stands, a single facility at the University of Mississippi is authorized to grow cannabis through a contract with the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and DEA does not maintain ownership over its products.

But DEA now asserts that in order to comply with international law, it must institute a practice of “taking possession of marihuana crops after harvest and maintaining the exclusive right of importing, exporting, wholesale trading, and maintaining stocks of marihuana and its resin.”

That’s based on an interpretation of the Single Convention by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which determined in April that DEA has been violating the international treaty by managing the cannabis program in coordination with two other agencies when it needs to be the sole agency.

Here’s an overview of some of the most notable responses and regulatory amendments in the new DEA filing:

-Many commenters argued that DEA should not disqualify applicants who’ve grown marijuana in compliance with state law. The agency responded that it is statutorily bound to consider instances where an applicant violated federal law—something that all state-legal marijuana cultivation businesses do—and it would continue to do so. “While the DEA Administrator has discretion to weigh the statutory factors and any one factor need not be dispositive, an applicant’s prior compliance with Federal law is a relevant consideration when determining whether to grant an application for registration,” the notice states.

-Relatedly, the agency responded to comments pushing it to factor in an applicant’s ability to produce “high quality” marijuana and their past experience cultivating the plant. It simply said that applicants are judged based on public interest and compliance with international treaties. “Under those factors, DEA will consider the applicant’s ‘past experience in the manufacture of controlled substances’ and its ‘promotion of technical advances in the art of manufacturing these substances.’”

-DEA also said it would not be allowing researchers to obtain marijuana products from state-legal cannabis businesses. It cited international treaty obligations and federal statutes, as well as public safety considerations. The agency also said that extending that access is “unnecessary” since it will be expanding the number of DEA-registered manufacturers.

-Since DEA first announced in 2016 that it would be expanding the number of marijuana cultivators, it received more than 30 applications but has yet to act on them. (This has led to several lawsuits, with scientists pushing the courts to mandate that the agency respond.) DEA said in the final rule that it would be prioritizing those applications before moving on to review new ones.

-The agency rejected pushback on the proposed rule’s provisions that specifically exempt it from liability for marijuana that’s damaged or destroyed under its possession. But DEA stressed that it only handles cannabis for a short time and it will maintain the statute of non-liability in order to “avoid costly and unnecessary disputes.”

-There were comments challenging DEA’s interpretation of international policies and what they mean as far as restrictions on cannabis research are concerned. The agency said it “acknowledges some may disagree with these legal conclusions, but DEA is bound by the law as [the Justice Department] and DEA understand it.” It said that questions about whether international treaties or the Controlled Substances Act controls of marijuana should be amended or abandoned “are beyond the scope of this rulemaking and DEA’s authority.”

-One of the allegations DEA has faced since announcing its intent to expand manufacturing facilities in 2016 is that it used a “secret” internal Justice Department memo to justify delaying additional application approvals. The agency said that DOJ reviewed its 2016 statement and concluded that rules would need to be changed in order to make those approvals. It “has acted as expeditiously as possible to amend its policies,” the notice states.

-Several commenters made the argument that DEA should relinquish control of the marijuana growers program and give that responsibility to an agency such as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, Food and Drug Administration or U.S. Department of Agriculture. The agency said it works in concert with those other government entities and would continue to do so, but it is statutorily obligated to maintain sole control.

-DEA said it would not be taking special steps to “ensure diversity and inclusion of minority applicants.” The agency said it “gives all applicants equal treatment regardless of the gender, race, socioeconomic status, or disabled status of the applicant.”

-DEA said that multiple factors mean that it cannot significantly streamline the process of approving applications to become cannabis manufacturers for studies, despite the multiple requests it received. However, it did pledge to provide notice that an application was received within 90 days of its accepted filing.

While the final rule clears up some uncertainty about the DEA’s perspective on advancing marijuana research as Congress moves forward with its own plans, advocates have already taken issue with several of the agency’s responses to the comments.

“Time and time again, the DEA has proven itself full of empty promises when it comes to the issue of facilitating clinical cannabis research in the United States,” Paul Armentano, deputy director of NORML, told Marijuana Moment. “This history of inaction is why Congress needs to enact legislative reforms.”

He added that the bill recently passed by the House would end “the DEA’s longstanding fiefdom” by allowing scientists to study cannabis products available in state-licensed dispensaries, whereas the agency’s new proposal shows it is “not willing to make the sort of substantive changes necessary to provide U.S. scientists with the tools they need to adequately do their job.”

Without a clear directive from Congress, Armentano said, “there is little reason to believe that the DEA will ever act in a manner that will facilitate the changes necessary to put science first and politics second.”

Corey Cox, a senior associate attorney at Vincente Sederberg LLP, shares that perspective.

“My primary takeaway from this is it just really emphasizes the importance of pursuing legislative reforms through Congress—that the existing framework of the [Controlled Substances Act], as interpreted and implemented by the DEA, is really incompatible with the types of reforms that many stakeholders seem to be seeking through this rulemaking process,” he said.

“I think for members of Congress that are maybe on the fence, this really shows that the existing statutory framework—the CSA, the DEA’s interpretation of the CSA, the rules they promulgated pursuant to that act—are really incompatible with some of the goals and objectives Congress seems to be pursuing through these research bills,” he said.

This story has been updated to include additional details and commentary on the final rule.

Read the DEA final rule on expanding marijuana research follow title link and scroll to the bottom of the article.

I’m preaching to the choir but please understand that drug wars are the DEA’s rice bowl and like all government bureaucracies, defending its turf is job number one.

The criticism should be directed at our feckless professional political class who have authority over the DEA and who have done nothing.

I love that the DEA thinks four years to publish a rule change is them working “ as expeditiously as possible” and in my experience working with Federal bureaucracies I find this to be; 1) typical and; 2) one of the many reasons I oppose giving government more authority.

I suspect that most who think the government is the answer to every problem have never tried to work with these people nor watched the incredible waste of time and money all the while accomplishing very little if anything.

 

[Baron23]

Once again, the DEA is NOT an independent agency but serves at the direction of the executive branch and are subject to laws passed by Congress and signed by the President.

Who cares what the DEA wants. What I want to know is why our elected political leaders are letting this agency run rogue and not pulling them up short by the leash. Eh?

DEA Hit With Another Lawsuit From Scientists Seeking to Research Cannabis​

The time is nigh for the DEA to cooperate in ensuring that medical marijuana research can move forward. Finally.
On December 3, 2020, MAPS (the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies) issued a press release regarding a lawsuit filed against the DEA and the Attorney General to “compel issuance of licenses to manufacture marijuana for clinical trials and potential FDA approval.” We have written about MAPS and its 35 years of advocacy and engagement with DEA before, and we are big fans of the nonprofit.
The announcement of this lawsuit comes on the heels of the United Nations Commission for Narcotic Drugs (CND) voting to accept the World Health Organization’s (WHO) recommendation to remove cannabis and cannabis resin for medicinal purposes from Schedule IV of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. The U.S. had already confirmed it would support the WHO recommendation and published a statement about its rationale for the vote:



“The vote of the United States to remove cannabis and cannabis resin from Schedule IV of the Single Convention while retaining them in Schedule I is consistent with the science demonstrating that while a safe and effective cannabis-derived therapeutic has been developed, cannabis itself continues to pose significant risks to public health and should continue to be controlled under the international drug control conventions. Further, this action has the potential to stimulate global research into the therapeutic potential and public health effects of cannabis, and to attract additional investigators to the field, including those who may have been deterred by the Schedule IV status of cannabis.”
In MAPS’ announcement of the lawsuit, it points out that “[e]fforts to conduct meaningful research into cannabis medicines have been blocked for decades; the continued obstruction is causing suffering for people with serious conditions,” which indicates the timeliness of this lawsuit in relation to the CND’s recent vote. According to MAPS and the lawsuit, the DEA has failed to process more than thirty outstanding applications to develop cannabis for research purposes for more than four years despite administrative guidance. The press release outlines the nature of the lawsuit as follows:
“Nearly 20 years after Dr. Lyle Craker of the University of Massachusetts – Amherst first applied for a license to develop a consistent, reliable pharmaceutical cannabis product to address the needs of patients with serious illnesses. Despite broad public support for legal, regulated access to medical marijuana, as well as new DEA policy pronouncements and an opinion by the U.S. Department of Justice that the Agency refused to publicly disclose, the DEA has continued to prevent the processing of license applications in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act and contravention of its own administrative guidance. Dr. Craker, supported by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts to compel the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to end their delay and process marijuana producer and manufacturer license applications thereby allowing sanctioned scientific research toward a viable medical cannabis pharmaceutical product to proceed.”

Photo by CasarsaGuru/Getty Images
Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), manufacturers of all Schedule I controlled substances, including marijuana, must be licensed by the DEA. Currently, and since 1968, the only federal license issued to provide cannabis for clinical research purposes belongs to the University of Mississippi and is supervised by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).
According to the lawsuit, and widely discussed opinion throughout the industry, the marijuana provided by the University of Mississippi and NIDA is unfit for clinical research due to “poor quality, unstable supply, and limited variability that in no way emulates the types of cannabis currently available through either state-regulated markets or informal markets where regulated supply is unavailable.”
In addition, this limited, poor quality supply of marijuana is only for permitted use in research and not in commercial sales, meaning it cannot be used in FDA-regulated Phase 3 studies which must be conducted with the exact drug, manufactured under Good Manufacturing Processes, that would be marketed.
The goal in compelling the DEA to process these outstanding license applications is to allow for additional research into the potential medical benefits and uses of marijuana – something that in the U.S. has undeniably become an issue with bi-partisan support, yet remains mindbogglingly difficult to achieve through government channels. The results of the November election approving cannabis legalization measures across the board in the U.S., coupled with the CND’s vote to remove medicinal cannabis from Schedule IV, indicates that the time is nigh for the DEA to cooperate in ensuring that medical marijuana research can move forward. Finally.

 

[momofthegoons]

Congressional Funding Bill Restores Financial Aid For Students With Drug Convictions, And Has Other Marijuana Provisions​

Students would no longer be disqualified from receiving federal financial aid over past drug convictions under a large-scale, bipartisan spending bill introduced in Congress that’s expected to receive floor votes on Monday.

While the main function of the omnibus bill is to keep the government funded through September 2021 and provide assistance amid the coronavirus pandemic, the proposal finally eliminates a question on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) that prompts students to disclose prior drug offenses.

The new appropriations and COVID relief legislation also contains a number of other cannabis-related provisions such as the extension of a longstanding rider protecting state-legal medical marijuana programs from federal interference and a ban on Washington, D.C. legalizing recreational sales. Meanwhile, despite a push from the marijuana and financial services industries, it does not contain any language to shield banks that service cannabis businesses from being penalized by regulators. Importantly, it also extends a 2014 pilot program for hemp until 2022—a win for stakeholders who have been concerned about its expiration.

Meanwhile, a series of reports attached to the legislation contain discussion of hemp and CBD regulations and adding questions about marijuana edibles and flavored vaping products as part of a federal youth drug use survey, among other topics.

For the most part, this bill represents a continuation of past marijuana statutes that have been annually renewed through the appropriations process. But the financial aid reform is a significant victory for advocates who have been working for decades to quash the drug conviction question, which they argue is racially discriminatory and unnecessarily punitive when it comes to access to education.

Buried in the 5,593-page legislation is a subtle and easily overlooked change that doesn’t explicitly reference the FAFSA language. It simply strikes the subsection of the Higher Education Act that sets that drug-related eligibility standard.

Rachel Wissner, co-interim executive director of Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), told Marijuana Moment that the group “was founded in 1998 in large part as a response to remove the Aid Elimination Penalty.”

“This amendment has denied federal financial aid to hundreds of thousands of students, particularly burdening students of color from communities marginalized by the War on Drugs,” she said. “Over the last two decades, we have been fighting alongside other drug policy reform and education organizations to scale back the penalty.”

“Now that the penalty has fully been repealed, SSDP looks forward to the opportunity to work with Congress and the new administration on broader drug policy reform that ensure those who have been most harmed by the war on drugs are not left behind,” she added. “We celebrate that Congress has finally accepted that a drug conviction does not mean that someone should be denied access to higher education.”

Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) championed the reform in bipartisan negotiations and said in a press release that “every single person in this country should be able to access and afford a quality higher education—and today we move substantially closer to that goal.”

“I’m incredibly pleased that these students will finally be able to access aid and begin and continue their education,” the senator, who also helped secure language to restore Pell Grant eligibility for incarcerated students, said.

Grant Smith, deputy director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance, said that these reforms “represent a major victory for students who have been unfairly deterred from pursuing higher education.”

“No one should be denied access to education because of a criminal record,” he said. “For more than twenty years, these policies have punished students who rely on federal aid to attend college and disproportionately harmed Black and Brown people targeted by drug enforcement.”

Beyond the education policy change, the spending bill also retains language that prevents the Justice Department from using its funds to interfere in state-legal medical cannabis programs. The measure has been part of federal law since 2014 and the new version was updated to add South Dakota to the list of states that are protected since voters there approved a medical marijuana reform initiative last month.

However, negotiators declined to adopt broader language from House-passed appropriations legislation that would have extended those protections to all state and tribal cannabis programs, including those for adult use.

There are a few other disappointments for advocates in the new bill as well. For example, a rider that prevents D.C. from using its local tax dollars to implement retail marijuana sales was kept in the text. The proposal also maintains language stipulating that federal dollars cannot be spent on “any activity that promotes the legalization of any drug or other substance in Schedule I.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) attempted to get that provision nixed through an amendment to spending legislation last year, but the House rejected the proposed reform in a floor vote.

Another setback for reform allies concerns the COVID-19 portions of the omnibus bill. The House on two occasions included in their versions of relief legislation language that would protect banks that service state-legal cannabis businesses from being penalized by federal regulators. But despite passing both times, it was not added to the final bicameral bill. And more limited marijuana banking language that the House passed as part of its version of an annual spending bill was also not included.

Earlier this year, the House inserted language into its version of spending legislation that would have provided protections against universities losing funding for studying cannabis, but that did not make it into the final appropriations bill.

Additionally, the new large-scale legislation does not make any mention of extending coronavirus relief benefits to the marijuana industry through the Paycheck Protection Program, despite months of industry appeals for fair and equal access to the funds.

A couple of sections of the bill do continue protections for the hemp market, however. They prevent the Justice Department from using its funds to interfere with the hemp pilot program detailed in the 2014 Farm Bill or lawful research into the crop.

A report on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) spending provisions touches on various issues with USDA’s proposed hemp regulations that businesses have been flagging, including restrictive testing protocols and the limited THC content negligence threshold.

The bipartisan negotiators directed USDA “to ensure that any final rule is based on science, is in accordance with underlying law, and will ensure a fair and reasonable regulatory framework for commercial hemp production in the United States.”

FDA is receiving $5 million to support its regulatory activities with respect to CBD, and the report states that the agency must work with the White House to issue “policy guidance in a timely manner regarding enforcement discretion.”

“When appropriate, FDA is encouraged to ensure that any future regulatory activity does not discourage the development of new drugs,” the report says. “The agreement also encourages FDA to partner with an academic institution to expand sampling studies of CBD products currently on the market.”

USDA would have to “study the usage and impacts of energy and water in hemp cultivation” and report back with its recommendations, communicate with stakeholders about research opportunities for the crop, partner with eligible research institutions on studies into hemp germplasm and “provide access to guaranteed loans for hemp producers and businesses” through the agency’s

Further, an agreed-upon report for the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies spending legislation notes that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has developed technology capable of rapidly differentiating hemp and marijuana, and it encourages the agency to continue to work with state and local partners to makes those tools more widely available for law enforcement purposes.

DEA is also required to report “on its efforts to interdict illicit vaping cartridges containing THC” within 180 days of the enactment of this bill.

A separate report for U.S. Department of Health and Human Resources funding states that the National Institute on Drug Abuse is advised to include “questions on consumption of flavored marijuana vapes and marijuana edibles flavored to appeal to adolescents in the [annual Monitoring the Future] survey.”

Prior to the release of the bill that was negotiated by House and Senate leaders, legislators in the latter chamber released several wide-ranging spending bills and related reports for the 2021 fiscal year that include a variety of provisions related to marijuana and hemp.

The new report language seems to incorporate the Senate Appropriations Committee’s prior criticism of USDA’s proposed hemp rules as it concerned THC limits.

The House version of spending legislation that the chamber approved in July was much more far-reaching. It additionally contained provisions to loosen rules on marijuana business access to banking services, expand cannabis research, regulate the hemp and CBD industries and give D.C. the ability to legalize recreational sales.

Read the spending bill’s marijuana and hemp provisions below:

SEC. 531. None of the funds made available under this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to any of the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, or with respect to the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, or Puerto Rico, to prevent any of them from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.

SEC. 809. (a) None of the Federal funds contained in this Act may be used to enact or carry out any law, rule, or regulation to legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the possession, use, or distribution of any schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) or any tetrahydrocannabinols derivative.

(b) No funds available for obligation or expenditure by the District of Columbia government under any authority may be used to enact any law, rule, or regulation to legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the possession, use, or distribution of any schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) or any tetrahydrocannabinols derivative for recreational purposes.

SEC. 530. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used in contravention of section 7606 (‘‘Legitimacy of Industrial Hemp Research’’) of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–79) by the Department of Justice or the Drug Enforcement Administration.

SEC. 744. None of the funds made available by this Act or any other Act may be used—(1) in contravention of section 7606 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 5940), subtitle G of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, or section 10114 of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018; or (2) to prohibit the transportation, processing, sale, or use of hemp, or seeds of such plant, that is grown or cultivated in accordance with subsection section 7606 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 or Sub-title G of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, within or outside the State in which the hemp is grown or cultivated.

SEC. 509. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for any activity that promotes the legalization of any drug or other substance included in schedule I of the schedules of controlled substances established under section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act except for normal and recognized executive-congressional communications.

(b) The limitation in subsection (a) shall not apply when there is significant medical evidence of a therapeutic advantage to the use of such drug or other substance or that federally sponsored clinical trials are being conducted to determine therapeutic advantage.

Read the cannabis-related report language on the spending bills below:

Hemp Testing Technology- DEA has developed field testing kits that can distinguish between hemp and marijuana on-the-spot. DEA is directed to continue to work to ensure State and local law enforcement have access to this field test technology so they can more efficiently conduct their drug interdiction efforts at the local level. DEA is further directed to report back, not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, and not less than every 6 months thereafter, until such time as testing kits are deployed to State and local law enforcement in the field.
…
Illegal Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) Vaping Products- DEA is directed to report, not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, on its efforts to interdict illicit vaping cartridges containing THC. This report shall assess how and to what extent such products are being marketed to children.
Within the increases provided for food safety activities, the agreement provides $5,000,000 for Regulatory Activities Associated with Cannabis and Cannabis Derivatives…
…
As previously noted, the agreement provides $5,000,000 to support regulatory activities, including developing policy, and for FDA to continue to perform its existing regulatory responsibilities, including review of product applications, inspections, enforcement, and targeted research for cannabis-derived substances, such as cannabidiol (CBD). To provide more clarity to industry and the public, FDA is directed to work with OMB on issuing policy guidance in a timely manner regarding enforcement discretion. When appropriate, FDA is encouraged to ensure that any future regulatory activity does not discourage the development of new drugs. The agreement also encourages FDA to partner with an academic institution to expand sampling studies of CBD products currently on the market.
…
The agreement is aware of concerns that the interim final rule entitled “Establishment of a Domestic Hemp Production Program” published by the Department in the Federal Register on October 31, 2019 (84 Fed. Reg. 58522) may create compliance challenges for the regulated community by using sampling and testing protocols that require too short a timeframe between testing and harvest, failing to provide a lack of alternative to the use of Drug Enforcement Administration registered laboratories, requiring the conversion of THCA into delta-9 THC, requiring a sampling of only flowering tops, and establishing an inflexible negligence threshold of 0.5 percent. The agreement directs USDA to ensure that any final rule is based on science, is in accordance with underlying law, and will ensure a fair and reasonable regulatory framework for commercial hemp production in the United States. In addition, the agreement encourages the Secretary to utilize the current research at the Agricultural Research Service and the Land-Grant Universities partnering with the National Institute of Food and Agriculture to guide the hemp sampling and testing protocols.

In addition, the USDA shall develop regulations, within existing authority, that protect the transportation, processing, sale, or use of hemp and in-process hemp extract, that may temporarily exceed a delta-9 THC concentration of 0.3%, including in-process hemp extract that was: (1) produced from hemp that meets the definition of hemp under 7 U.S.C. §16390; (2) cultivated in accordance with subtitle G of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 [7 U.S.C. 16390 et seq.] (as added by section 10113 of the Agriculture Improvement Act of2018) or section 7606 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 [7 U.S.C. 5940]; (3) not packaged as a finished product; and (4) not sold or offered for sale as a finished product to consumers.
…
The agreement encourages the Secretary to study the usage and impacts of energy and water in hemp cultivation and controlled environment agriculture and to make recommendations on best practices and standards in both sectors.
…
The agreement notes statements made by the Department acknowledging the eligibility of researchers participating in hemp pilot programs, as defined by Section 7606 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-79). The agreement directs the Department to work with and inform stakeholders of this eligibility and to support hemp research, as authorized by Section 7606 of the Agricultural Act of2014 (Public Law 113-79) and Subtitle G of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627, 1635-1638).
…
The agreement provides funding increases for…hemp germplasm [and] hemp production systems…
…
The agreement encourages ARS and the Plant Genetics Resources Research Unit to partner with 1890 institutions that have existing institutional capacity on hemp germplasm research, education, and extension capabilities.
…
The agreement recognizes the growing interest for U.S. hemp and hemp-based products for a variety of uses and directs FCA to work with the institutions under its jurisdiction to provide access to guaranteed loans for hemp producers and businesses.

NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE (NIDA)
Flavored THC-The agreement appreciates the important data collected in the annual NIDA-funded Monitoring the Future (MTF) survey. The agreement recommends the inclusion of questions on consumption of flavored marijuana vapes and marijuana edibles flavored to appeal to adolescents in the MTF survey.

 

[Thedev]

Love seeing this kind of trend

https://www.marijuanamoment.net/con...ana-legalization-in-first-six-months-of-2021/

 

[momofthegoons]

Damn..... ​

​

Congressional Ban On Mailing E-Cigarettes Appears To Cover Marijuana Vapes​

The House and Senate passed a large-scale spending bill on Monday that includes a provision to restrict how electronic cigarettes can be sold online and shipped—and it could have an impact on the marijuana industry, too.

The text of the proposal uses an expansive definition of what qualifies as an “electronic nicotine delivery system” that seems to include products that don’t even contain nicotine.

The term “means any electronic device that, through an aerosolized solution, delivers nicotine, flavor, or any other substance to the user inhaling from the device,” the legislation states (with italicized emphasis added).

It’s that last component that could be more broadly interpreted to prevent cannabis vaporizers from being purchased online and mailed by the U.S. Postal Service (USPS). Marijuana and its components such as THC and CBD presumably constitute “other substances,” even if they are not explicitly mentioned in the legislation.

“I agree that this could have a significant effect on cannabis vaping products, even if the intent is clearly to curb nicotine products,” Aaron Smith, chief executive officer for the National Cannabis Industry Association, told Marijuana Moment.

He added that the industry would be taking steps to push lawmakers and regulators to not interpret the newly passed bill’s language as affecting marijuana vaping devices.

“We’re making sure that Congress and the incoming administration understand that it would be a misguided waste of resources to apply this to the already heavily regulated cannabis industry,” Smith said. “In the long run, it’s important that cannabis is de-scheduled so it can be appropriately regulated at the federal level, clearing up ambiguities like this.”

By preventing vape manufacturers and retailers from utilizing USPS to ship their goods, the bill will effectively force them to use more expensive private courier services. The legislation also mandates that an adult over 21 present his or her ID to the courier upon delivery and requires online retailers to comply with rigorous requirements such as registering with the U.S. attorney general, maintaining certain records for five years and presenting state tax administrators with lists of transactions with customers in their jurisdictions, according to Vaping360.

Vaping advocates slammed the sponsors of the ban for the way it is drafted and for its inclusion in the must-pass spending and relief legislation.

“Thanks to their intransigence, the language included in the omnibus is so sloppily drafted that it will also ban the USPS from shipping CBD liquids intended to be vaporized, as well as devices intended for use with THC or other non-nicotine substances,” Gregory Conley, president of the American Vaping Association, said in a press release.

Under the bill, USPS will be required to “promulgate regulations to clarify the applicability of the prohibition on mailing of cigarettes…to electronic nicotine delivery systems” within 120 days.

Democratic legislators pushed back against a Republican attempt to include a flavored marijuana vaping ban in a broader anti-vaping bill that passed the chamber in February. They argued that it doesn’t make sense to prohibit products that are already illegal under federal law.

The vaping device provision is just one part of a multifaceted appropriations bill that is designed to keep the government funded through September 2021 and provide assistance amid the coronavirus pandemic.

The legislation also contains cannabis and drug policy-related provisions such as one to make it so students would no longer be disqualified from receiving federal financial aid over past drug convictions.

Further, it offers protections for state-legal medical cannabis programs and maintains a ban on Washington, D.C. implementing retail marijuana sales. It leaves out House-passed provisions to shield banks that service marijuana businesses from being penalized by regulators.

 

[Baron23]

The term “means any electronic device that, through an aerosolized solution, delivers nicotine, flavor, or any other substance to the user inhaling from the device,” the legislation states

Ah, that definition would include medical nebulizers, right?

Fucking morons in Congress score yet another idiotic fail.

 

[Baron23]

I think that overall this is a good thing, right?​

​

FTC Cannabidiol Claim Crackdown: Operation CBDeceit​

The USA’s Federal Trade Commission has announced its first crackdown on CBD vendors that make deceptive claims about their products.

Operation CBDeceit is already poised to claim a few scalps – its goal being to protect consumers from false, deceptive and misleading health claims regarding cannabidiol (CBD) made in online advertisements, on web sites and social media platforms. Initial action is being taken against half a dozen sellers of CBD products.

According to the FTC, one of those vendors collared claimed its products prevent a wide range of serious conditions including cancer, diabetes and heart disease. The FTC says it is illegal to advertise a product can prevent, treat, or cure disease without competent and reliable scientific evidence to support such claims.

The financial penalties proposed in five of the six cases range from USD $20,000 to $85,000. The proposed administrative orders settling the FTC’s charges also include directions for those vendors to stop making unsupported health claims immediately and prohibits engaging in deceptive advertising in the future.

“The six settlements announced today send a clear message to the burgeoning CBD industry: Don’t make spurious health claims that are unsupported by medical science,” said FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection Director Andrew Smith. “Otherwise, don’t be surprised if you hear from the FTC.”

Previously the FTC has sent warning letters to various cannabidiol vendors over claims being made regarding their cannabidiol products. The letters contained an instruction that the companies involved needed to contact the FTC within 15 days with specifics of how they would address the agency’s concerns. It’s not clear if any of those vendors are among the companies to have had the recently proposed administrative orders made against them.

The USA’s CBD scene has been perceived as somewhat of a wild west situation due to a lack of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation. The FDA is currently evaluating the safety of CBD in what has been a marathon exercise.

“But here’s the thing: It’s not the Wild West,” says the FTC. “In fact, health-related representations for CBD products are subject to the same established requirements of scientific substantiation the FTC has applied for decades to any advertised health claim.”

 

[momofthegoons]

Canopy Growth Says GW Pharma Infringed On CBD Extraction Patent In Federal Lawsuit​

Two of the biggest players in the marijuana space are heading to federal court over a dispute related to an alleged violation of a patent for a cannabis extraction method.

Canopy Growth Corporation, a Canadian-based marijuana company, filed a lawsuit on Tuesday against GW Pharmaceuticals, a UK-based firm that produces the Food and Drug Administration-approved cannabis-derived anti-seizure medication Epidiolex.

The legal action came on the same day that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a new patent to Canopy that gives it broad and exclusive rights to a process of extracting cannabinoids from plant material in the U.S. That issuance is giving Canopy more leverage to pursue litigation and potentially receive damages from GW if the suit plays out in its favor.

Canopy’s original patent—which was issued in 2014 (and initially filed as an international patent application in 2001)—was more narrow and gave companies like GW leeway to adopt their own extraction practices that fall outside the scope of the patent.

That’s not the case anymore, and if the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas sides with the plaintiffs, it could have far-reaching implications for the marijuana industry.

Canopy is claiming that GW’s infringement of a patented extraction method “has been and continues to be willful and deliberate.” Because of this infringement, “Canopy has suffered and continues to suffer damages and irreparable harm,” the suit says.

The looming issue for the industry is that, unless GW is able to prove that the patent is invalid, that could mean Canopy would have exclusive rights to an extraction process that is widely used across the market—leaving any company that relies on this method at risk of litigation.

Canopy’s exclusive rights won’t last indefinitely, of course. The newly issued patent that is the basis of its latest iteration is set to expire in a little under a year and a half. But even in that timeframe, Canopy could profit immensely from exclusivity and it could have a chilling effect on competitors in the interim.

“It really could be a major threat to the extraction industry. Once they know about [the patent], companies might be considered to be willfully infringing the patent, which can potentially triple damages if they are sued,” Larry Sandell, a patent attorney and litigator with Mei & Mark LLP, told Marijuana Moment. “Although there are steps that can be taken to reduce infringement liability risks, CO2 extractors may essentially have this anvil hanging over their head as the business continues on—at least until the patent expires or someone succeeds in knocking it out.”

It remains to be seen whether Canopy will pursue litigation against other companies that use the extraction process. GW is one of the biggest players, as the pharmaceutical firm that earned the first U.S. federal approval for a cannabis-derived medication.

“The lawsuit asserts that GW manufactures CBD—the active pharmaceutical ingredient in Epidiolex, GW’s leading cannabinoid product—using Canopy Growth’s patented CO2-based extraction process,” Phil Shaer, chief legal officer at Canopy Growth, told Marijuana Moment. “We have no interest in restricting access to Epidiolex, but the company should be fairly compensated for GW’s use of our intellectual property.“

A spokesperson for GW told Marijuana Moment that the company “is aware of the patent infringement lawsuit filed by Canopy Growth.”

“As a policy, we do not comment on any pending litigation except to say that based on our preliminary review of the complaint, we are confident in our position and will vigorously defend against this lawsuit,” they said.

One possibility would be for Canopy to license out its extraction method to other businesses that produce cannabis products.

But that’s not likely to sit well with others in the burgeoning industry. And it could be the case that GW or other companies will challenge the legitimacy of the very patent in question in court.

On a symbolic level, all of this speaks to the growing pains of a corporatizing industry—a fear expressed by some advocates as the market has expanded. And how it shakes out in this case could, at least in the short-term, be of significant consequence to cannabis businesses throughout the country.

Read Canopy’s new patent and suit against GW over a cannabis extraction process by following title link and scrolling to the bottom of the article.

 

[Baron23]

Canopy Growth Says GW Pharma Infringed On CBD Extraction Patent In Federal Lawsuit​

Two of the biggest players in the marijuana space are heading to federal court over a dispute related to an alleged violation of a patent for a cannabis extraction method.

Canopy Growth Corporation, a Canadian-based marijuana company, filed a lawsuit on Tuesday against GW Pharmaceuticals, a UK-based firm that produces the Food and Drug Administration-approved cannabis-derived anti-seizure medication Epidiolex.

The legal action came on the same day that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a new patent to Canopy that gives it broad and exclusive rights to a process of extracting cannabinoids from plant material in the U.S. That issuance is giving Canopy more leverage to pursue litigation and potentially receive damages from GW if the suit plays out in its favor.

Canopy’s original patent—which was issued in 2014 (and initially filed as an international patent application in 2001)—was more narrow and gave companies like GW leeway to adopt their own extraction practices that fall outside the scope of the patent.

That’s not the case anymore, and if the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas sides with the plaintiffs, it could have far-reaching implications for the marijuana industry.

Canopy is claiming that GW’s infringement of a patented extraction method “has been and continues to be willful and deliberate.” Because of this infringement, “Canopy has suffered and continues to suffer damages and irreparable harm,” the suit says.

The looming issue for the industry is that, unless GW is able to prove that the patent is invalid, that could mean Canopy would have exclusive rights to an extraction process that is widely used across the market—leaving any company that relies on this method at risk of litigation.

Canopy’s exclusive rights won’t last indefinitely, of course. The newly issued patent that is the basis of its latest iteration is set to expire in a little under a year and a half. But even in that timeframe, Canopy could profit immensely from exclusivity and it could have a chilling effect on competitors in the interim.

“It really could be a major threat to the extraction industry. Once they know about [the patent], companies might be considered to be willfully infringing the patent, which can potentially triple damages if they are sued,” Larry Sandell, a patent attorney and litigator with Mei & Mark LLP, told Marijuana Moment. “Although there are steps that can be taken to reduce infringement liability risks, CO2 extractors may essentially have this anvil hanging over their head as the business continues on—at least until the patent expires or someone succeeds in knocking it out.”

It remains to be seen whether Canopy will pursue litigation against other companies that use the extraction process. GW is one of the biggest players, as the pharmaceutical firm that earned the first U.S. federal approval for a cannabis-derived medication.

“The lawsuit asserts that GW manufactures CBD—the active pharmaceutical ingredient in Epidiolex, GW’s leading cannabinoid product—using Canopy Growth’s patented CO2-based extraction process,” Phil Shaer, chief legal officer at Canopy Growth, told Marijuana Moment. “We have no interest in restricting access to Epidiolex, but the company should be fairly compensated for GW’s use of our intellectual property.“

A spokesperson for GW told Marijuana Moment that the company “is aware of the patent infringement lawsuit filed by Canopy Growth.”

“As a policy, we do not comment on any pending litigation except to say that based on our preliminary review of the complaint, we are confident in our position and will vigorously defend against this lawsuit,” they said.

One possibility would be for Canopy to license out its extraction method to other businesses that produce cannabis products.

But that’s not likely to sit well with others in the burgeoning industry. And it could be the case that GW or other companies will challenge the legitimacy of the very patent in question in court.

On a symbolic level, all of this speaks to the growing pains of a corporatizing industry—a fear expressed by some advocates as the market has expanded. And how it shakes out in this case could, at least in the short-term, be of significant consequence to cannabis businesses throughout the country.

Read Canopy’s new patent and suit against GW over a cannabis extraction process by following title link and scrolling to the bottom of the article.

Patented....broadly patented???....CO2 extraction. FFS That's like patenting boiling water.

That and the assholes trying to patent cannabis genetics.

The money changers are indeed in Solomon's Cannabis Temple

 

[momofthegoons]

Scientists Cite Obscure Federal Marijuana Memo In Scheduling Case Against DEA​

Attorneys representing scientists and veterans in a case against the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) are again asking a federal court to hear their case challenging marijuana’s federal classification. And a previously undisclosed document cited in their new brief shows that the government has been relying on the same type of arguments for decades to maintain the status quo.

In the latest back-and-forth in the case, plaintiffs filed a response to DEA’s request to dismiss the lawsuit, which centers on the agency’s denial of a petition to consider rescheduling cannabis.

The scientists argued that DEA is wrong in its primary claim that they lack grounds to pursue the court action, and they pointed out that the agency declined in its most recent brief to meaningfully respond to their merit-based arguments.

Therefore, plaintiffs are again asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to grant their “petition for review” of DEA’s rescheduling denial.

“Lacking a meaningful response on the merits, Respondents renew their jurisdictional attack,” the new filing states. “Those arguments all rest on the same mistaken assumption: that Petitioners cannot obtain judicial review of DEA’s final decision denying another’s petition for rulemaking.”

DEA has contended that, because the scientists were not behind the original rescheduling petition that the agency denied, they can’t fight the decision in court. But in their response, plaintiffs say they are directly impacted by that decision and are entitled to judicial review.

“Look, standing is a big deal, and so they have every right to raise it. But when you look at that in combination with the lack of argument they make on the merits, then you start to see that maybe something is going on,” Shane Pennington, one of the attorneys on the case, told Marijuana Moment.

“We wrote 20 pages of arguments in our opening brief, just on the textual problems with a five-part test [on drug scheduling]—the ways that it violates the text of the statute,” he said. “They respond to none of them. They’re wanting to control marijuana in Schedule I based on a standard they aren’t even willing to defend.”

The failure to consider rescheduling means that marijuana will remain in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, inhibiting research into the plant that plaintiffs have been pushing to conduct for years.

Dr. Sue Sisley of the Scottsdale Research Institute (SRI), who is one of the plaintiffs, is a DEA-licensed researcher focused on investigating the therapeutic potential of cannabis for veterans. She’s been seeking to become a federally authorized marijuana manufacturer so that her facility can produce higher quality products for studies.

Sisley “picked up DEA’s gauntlet and threw her entire life behind unearthing the scientific truth about marijuana’s medicinal potential only to find herself ensnared in a Catch-22 of the agency’s making,” the filing says. “Yet, to get this Court to look the other way, Respondents portray her and the other Petitioners as suffering ‘generalized grievances’ unworthy of judicial review.”

The federal government’s reliance on procedural arguments when it comes to cannabis scheduling is a familiar story that goes back almost 50 years, according to a 1972 memo that the attorneys dug up and cited in their new filing.

The Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, a predecessor to DEA, sent a letter to the White House replying to a rescheduling petition to NORML, wherein it similarly referenced statutory obligations to maintain the existing schedule, rather than argue the merits.

“We concluded that the only alternative was to reject the petition,” the letter states. “The Attorney General simply has no powers to grant the petitioner’s request.”

Petitioners in the current case 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.

Read the latest response in the case against DEA and the previously undisclosed government memo by following title link and scrolling to the bottom of the article.

 

[momofthegoons]

The US Finds Itself Embedded in a Federally Legal Cannabis Sandwich​

The United States is set to become sandwiched between two countries that have legalized cannabis on the national level. This comes as Mexico moves ahead with its legislation to federally legalize cannabis for a variety of uses. The United States will thus be stuck between Canada and Mexico’s federally legal cannabis statutes. Will there be an impact on the United States? Currently, the citizens of Canada are free to consume cannabis for both recreational and medicinal purposes thanks to national legalization. Canada’s cannabis legalization has made history as its legalization happened ahead of the rest and it marked the beginning of mobilizing the global cannabis market. When Canada legalized cannabis several years ago, they managed to channel a lot of funds through the Canadian markets since the federal legalization of cannabis made such opportunities viable. Will the federal legalization of cannabis in Mexico have similar opportunities for their markets? Let’s find out.

What is Federal Legalization?​

Federal legalization can be defined as reclassifying something that was previously classified as illicit into something that is no longer illicit but at the level of the governing system. Federal means that it relates to the system of government where the federal government is the head of the house, where the states remain independent but heed the federal government.

For example, if we look at the state of cannabis legalization in the United States, we would find that several states have legalized cannabis on the premise of their own design but cannabis remains illegal at a federal level. This means that in those states, cannabis may be used according to state regulation but that the federal government has the right to pursue anyone outside of state lines permitting cannabis use.

The federal legalization of cannabis in Canada and (soon-to-be) Mexico means that there is only one set of cannabis regulations that apply to the entire country but this also means that citizens will be allowed to consume cannabis in any state of the country. Federal legalization is better than what the United States has going on- simply due to the fact that federal legalization grants ALL citizens the equal rights and responsibilities of cannabis consumption. In the United States, many citizens often have to cross states if they are looking for cannabis in a legal setting.

Mexico’s Legalization Progress​

Mexico is set to become the largest populated country in the world to legalize cannabis and is also predicted to see the biggest consumer market for cannabis products. Mexico has a population of around 125 million people who will all be benefiting from this big leap towards cannabis legalization. Mexico is currently on track to becoming only the third country to legalize cannabis not only for medical purposes but also for recreational use. Canada and Uruguay are the two other countries that have legalized cannabis for medicinal and recreational purposes, which has set the example for Mexico. Mexico’s Senate has decided to approve the cannabis legalization bill and will be moving forward to creating a legal framework for turning the illicit market into a licit one.

For many years, the Mexican cannabis market has been the center of cartel business but since certain states in the United States have legalized cannabis, the cartels have had to expand their “drug-line” of products. Unfortunately, the effects of the legalization of recreational and medical cannabis on the cartels and organized crime groups are yet to be understood and even established. Much like how any system legalizes, there will be some time before citizens will see products become available as the country solidifies its legal cannabis programs. Mexico still has a lot of work ahead of them before recreational and medical cannabis legalization takes effect nation-wide. Rules must be established and policies must be developed appropriately before citizens can enjoy the federally legal cannabis market as well as before the country can allow companies to invest and open up cannabis operations in Mexico.

Unfortunately, the deadlines associated with Mexico’s plans to federally legalize cannabis by the end of 2020 have hit many obstacles and delays due to the pandemic or other factors. A last-minute petition was accepted by the Supreme Court to delay the vote until April 2021 instead of meeting the 2020 deadline. The delay in plans is certainly disappointing but it is not surprising to find that the pandemic is to blame. Mexico’s plans to legalize cannabis for medical and recreational use will move ahead, albeit a bit delayed.

What Does This Mean for the US?​

The United States has basically lost out on any opportunity to control financial markets and dollar funneling into cannabis industries due to the laissez-faire attitude surrounding cannabis in the Trump Administration. While this may simply seem like an opportunity missed, there’s an underlying impression that the problem is much larger in terms of the global cannabis economy.

With President Biden as the new president, it’s uncertain what the reception will be to Mexico’s nationwide cannabis legalization. However, one thing is for sure, being “sandwiched” between two countries that support federal legalization for both medicinal use and recreational use, will be putting the United States in some questionable spotlight. For a superpower nation who has been on the frontline of many historical movements, the United States is certainly falling way behind and being out-shown by its neighbors on either side.

 

[momofthegoons]

Biden AG Pick Merrick Garland Wants To Defer To DEA On Marijuana Science And Classification​

President-elect Joe Biden is reportedly set to nominate Judge Merrick Garland—who seems to feel that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) should be deferred to when it comes to the science and classification of marijuana—to serve as the next U.S. attorney general.

But according to press reports, he’s also selecting two civil rights activists who embrace cannabis legalization to serve in other top posts at the Justice Department. Together, the picks could have far-reaching implications for marijuana policy.

Garland, who was previously nominated by President Obama to serve on the Supreme Court only to have his nomination blocked by Senate Republicans, hasn’t made his views on cannabis issues especially clear. But his judicial record indicates that he believes in deference to DEA when it comes to drug scheduling. And that could be a problem for efforts to reclassify cannabis given the agency’s strong opposition to such a move for decades.

The principal concern for reform advocates when it comes to Garland’s in a 2012 federal lawsuit case over DEA’s denial of a marijuana rescheduling petition. He was one of three judges on a U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit panel that upheld the denial, and his commentary during the oral arguments suggests he feels DEA is the appropriate agency to weigh cannabis science and set scheduling policy.

In the case, the court was responsible for examining whether DEA had meaningfully considered the therapeutic potential of cannabis before deciding it should remain in its restrictive category. The agency has repeatedly maintained that marijuana should be kept as a Schedule I drug because, it claims, the plant has no proven medical value and a high risk potential.

“Don’t we have to defer to the agency” when it comes to evaluations of research into marijuana’s therapeutic value? Garland asked the attorney representing reform group Americans for Safe Access. “Defer doesn’t mean they win, but defer in the sense of we’re not scientists—they are—to the definition of what is an adequate and well-controlled study.”

Now, that’s not necessarily judgement on whether cannabis has medical value or the appropriateness of its legal classification under federal law. But it does offer a window into Garland’s perspective on deference to DEA at a time when its decision-making on cannabis is again being challenged in court.

In the majority opinion joined by Garland, the court said that “because the agency’s factual findings in this case are supported by substantial evidence and because those factual findings reasonably support the agency’s final decision not to reschedule marijuana, we must uphold the agency action.”

As attorney general, Garland would be in a position to unilaterally initiate a petition to reschedule cannabis. As head of the Justice Department, under which DEA is organized, he would also have considerable influence of the agency’s scheduling and enforcement policies when it comes to marijuana.

Advocates were hopeful that Biden would pick someone who might proactively push for the policy change—such as former Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL), who is on record as saying cannabis should be completely descheduled—but that appears to not have been the case.

It’s still possible that Biden—who himself supports modestly reclassifying marijuana to Schedule II—could be urged to have his administration push for broader reform by some other new administrative picks who are in favor of legalization however.

Former prosecutor and civil rights activist Vanita Gupta, meanwhile, is expected to be chosen to serve as associate attorney general. She favors cannabis legalization and has strongly condemned harsh criminalization policies for non-violent drug offenses.

Gupta currently serves as president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (LCCHR), a position in which she has voiced support for a House-passed bill to federally legalize marijuana and has railed against the injustices of the drug war. Gupta was part of a criminal justice task force organized by Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) prior to the Democratic presidential nomination.

Very big deal. MORE Act passes out of @HouseJudiciary with bipartisan support.
Hope the full House will act soon on this @civilrightsorg-supported legislation. #WeWantMORE https://t.co/AuHn335c4y
— Vanita Gupta (@vanitaguptaCR) November 20, 2019

In March 2018, Gupta said that the Trump administration is “seeking a decidedly punitive approach to America’s drug problem—one that seeks to increase already disproportionate sentences for drug offenses & employ the death penalty.”

“We tried the punitive and overly simplistic approach of the War on Drugs approach 30 years ago, and it failed. That’s why we’re seeing, in states around the country, a bipartisan push to recognize that substance use requires a public health approach,” she said. “We must reject efforts to further politicize this crisis. We cannot just do what feels good, or sounds good. We must take an evidenced-based approach to ending the opioid crisis.”

More recently, Gupta has highlighted the dangers of excessive sentences doled out for crack-related offenses and said while Congress took steps to repair those harms, there are still people stuck in prison—and that’s especially concerning during the coronavirus pandemic.

Her organization has supported that bill and numerous other drug policy reform initiatives, including as part of a collective effort called the Marijuana Justice Coalition. LCCHR was one of more than 100 groups that released a criminal justice plan for the 2020 election calling for the legalization of marijuana and supporting the “dismantling” of the criminalization of other drugs. The group also called for a delay of a House vote on cannabis banking legislation because it said comprehensive reform with a social equity focus should be prioritized.

In April, LCCHR was one of several organizations urging Congress to extend access to federal coronavirus relief to the marijuana industry.

Another positive signal for advocates is Biden’s selection of Kristen Clarke, who is president of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, to lead the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, a role in which Gupta served during the Obama administation.

Clarke also backs cannabis legalization.

BREAKING: The House just passed the #MOREActwhich would END federal marijuana prohibition.
The Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and Expungement Act would remove marijuana from the federal Controlled Substances Act and give states freedom to establish their own cannabis laws.
— Kristen Clarke (@KristenClarkeJD) December 4, 2020

Only 8% of Americans believe that marijuana should be completely illegal.
As more states take steps to legalize, we must address the damage inflicted on Black and brown communities who were disproportionately targeted during our failed War on Drugs. https://t.co/Dyxaq8jw7C
— Kristen Clarke (@KristenClarkeJD) November 16, 2019

Separately, Biden recently selected a nominee for secretary of health and human services (HHS)—California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D)—who is amenable to reform. And in his role, he could help facilitate rescheduling. While the Justice Department plays a key role in marijuana’s federal scheduling, a medical and scientific review by HHS is binding on the attorney general’s subsequent classification decision.

Taken altogether, the Justice Department picks can be viewed as encouraging from an advocacy standpoint. Garland might not be a champion of reform, but he hasn’t taken a stance against legalization and has only defended statutory policies on scheduling.

He certainly can’t be compared to President Trump’s first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, who is firmly opposed to cannabis policy changes and rescinded Obama-era guidance that gave federal prosecutors priorities when it comes to marijuana enforcement.

And of course, regardless of the Justice Department’s position and actions, advocates are more closely following Congress and the executive branch going into 2021. A bill to federally legalize marijuana passed the House last month, and it’s expected to be taken up again in the new session.

The chances of that legislation—and other more modest cannabis reform bills—reaching Biden’s desk this year are significantly higher now that Democrats have reclaimed control of the Senate and maintain power in the House.