Law The Cannabis Chronicles - Misc Cannabis News

[Baron23]

Will Weed Ever Be Federally Legal In The US? What The Experts Say​

Legalizing weed on a federal level would open doors to many more opportunities for company owners. However, some are not overly convinced that any federal laws will be changed in the coming year.
Many states have already passed laws and legislation to legally allow the sale and use of marijuana. The question is whether the U.S. will federally legalize the drug.
With a recent poll from November 2020, 68% of American residents support the federal legalization of marijuana. Making marijuana legal across the country is something that many are hoping for, but the legalization does not have the support of politicians. Based on this same poll, less than half of conservatives and Republicans support federally legalizing marijuana.

Photo by matt_benoit/Getty Images

The owners and founders of major cannabis brands featured at AskGrowers have weighed in on this important question. The CEO at Fox Hollow Flora says federal laws will come about in 2022, backed up by a statement from Lisa Tollner, co-founder of Sensi Products, who states that Democrats are currently working on new legislation. She is right! Two Democratic senators along with Majority Leader Chuck Schumer have said they will be pushing to pass legislation this year and this would end a lengthy federal prohibition.
Supporters of cannabis reform have stated some strong reasons why legalization should occur. These include:

• Medical benefits of cannabis
• Potential tax revenue
• Regulation would make cannabis use safer

The Founder of Mindful Earth, KellyBenson, supports legalization but believes if it does happen, it will be for “financial/economic reasons rather than health.” She thinks that the lack of cannabis education and misuse will stall any legalization based on medical benefits. Dee Dee Taylor from 502 Hemp is not convinced any federal marijuana legalization will occur soon; however, she does state, “I do believe more and more states will make it legal though and force congress to take it off the DEA’s absurd schedule I list.”
For marijuana to be removed from this list, there are many steps needed. Lawmakers will have to change finance laws that allow banks to profit from credit cards issued to dispensaries. There will also have to be a single-subject bill that would remove marijuana from the list and allow for medical treatment studies and research to be conducted. If these two things fall into place, it would be possible to revise current criminal codes and move forward with federal legalization of weed, moving marijuana from the Schedule I list to a Schedule III list.

Photo by FatCamera/Getty Images

While many in the cannabis industry are hopeful for changes to current laws, there are many political hurdles in place. The CEO and co-founder of HumboldtApothecary, GillianLevy, believes that there will be no federal legalization of weed in the coming year. She believes “More likely it will be decriminalized, at least in the near future.” The House Democrats show great support for the decriminalization of marijuana and this is also supported by the current President in his Plan for Black America.
By decriminalizing this drug, there would be an end to interference by the government in terms of cannabis research. It would also make marijuana accessible for medical purposes and would allow veterans to receive medical marijuana prescriptions from the VA for the first time ever. But, when will weed become federally legal? That answer remains unclear. Decriminalization on a federal level would be a huge step in a positive direction, but bipartisan support is required.
Those that strongly believe that the federal government will legalize marijuana will be happy to learn of the latest federal marijuana news. Existing cannabis companies and their founders, including Robert Miller from Purefectionary, AaronPuryear from OakCity Hemp, and Rahul Lavingia from Stoned Genie, all support federal legalization and are hopeful for changes in 2021 or 2022.
Chuck Schumer is set to move ahead with changes to federal laws with or without support from President Biden. Schumer supports decimalization federally and plans to introduce legislation soon. When asked about this legislation, he stated he is personally supportive of legalization, and this bill that is being introduced will head that way. This bill would also include provisions to expunge any marijuana convictions from any criminal record.

Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Until federal laws change, users and cannabis growers will continue to abide by state laws. With many states already allowing sales and use of medical and recreational marijuana, the industry continues to grow. The CEO of Bonsai Cultivation, Tom Stevenson, thinks weed will be legal federally, but the rollout will be slow. “States have the tax revenue, and they are not going to be quick to give it up.”
Legalizing weed on a federal level would open the doors to many more opportunities for company owners. However, some are not overly convinced that any federal laws will be changed in the coming year.
Zach Romey from Robhots and BrandonDorsky from Fruit Slabs both believe there will be legal weed on a federal level, but it will not happen for a few years. Robert Miller, owner of Purfectionery, provided his answer to the federal legalization, stating that “Yes, and hopefully within the next few years.”
It will be a slow process, but this latest bill to be introduced will provide a great start to paving the road for federally legalized marijuana in the near future.

 

[momofthegoons]

Bill To Federally Legalize Marijuana Reintroduced In Congress As Senate Prepares Separate Measure​

A bill to federally legalize marijuana and promote social equity in the industry was reintroduced in the House on Friday.

The legislation, sponsored by Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), was filed with a number of changes compared to the version that was approved by the chamber last year.

The bill—which would remove marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), allow people with cannabis convictions to have their records expunged and create a federal tax on marijuana with the revenue going to support community reinvestment and other programs—comes as Senate leadership is preparing to introduce a separate reform proposal with similar objectives.

The Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act passed the House but did not advance in the Senate under GOP control. But this time around, advocates are optimistic that the policy change could be enacted now that Democrats run both chambers and the White House, and as more states are moving to enact legalization.

“Since I introduced the MORE Act last Congress, numerous states across the nation, including my home state of New York, have moved to legalize marijuana. Our federal laws must keep up with this pace,” Nadler said. “I’m proud to reintroduce the MORE Act to decriminalize marijuana at the federal level, remove the needless burden of marijuana convictions on so many Americans, and invest in communities that have been disproportionately harmed by the War on Drugs.”

As Marijuana Moment exclusively reported last week, the new version of the MORE Act does not include language that was added just before last year’s House floor vote that would have prevented people with previous cannabis convictions from obtaining federal permits to operate marijuana businesses. That was a contentious provision that appeared at the last minute and which advocates strongly opposed.

And whereas the the prior version of the MORE Act contained language to help economically disadvantaged people enter the legal marijuana market, that language was revised to extend Small Business Administration (SBA) aid—such as loans, financial literacy programs and job training—to help people who have been harmed by the war on drugs pursue business opportunities in any industry, not just cannabis.

Many of the other key provisions of the bill remain the same as in the version that cleared the House last year, including language to create a pathway for resentencing for those incarcerated for marijuana offenses, protect immigrants from being denied citizenship over cannabis and prevent federal agencies from denying public benefits or security clearance due to its use.

Advocates are encouraged by the new revisions to the bill, but there are still additional components they hope to see changed as it goes through the legislative process. For example, they also took issue with provisions added to the MORE Act prior to last year’s vote that would have stipulated that cannabis can still be included in drug testing programs for federal workers.

“With the majority of Americans in favor of marijuana legalization for adult use, and the way in which communities of color have been devastated by prohibition finally being widely acknowledged, prioritizing marijuana reform that begins to undo this harm and give back to those communities should be a no-brainer,” Queen Adesuyi, policy manager for the Drug Policy Alliance’s (DPA) Office of National Affairs, said.

“We are grateful that not only was this bill reintroduced so early in the session, but that the exclusionary language that ended up getting added in through the political process last year was removed,” she said. “This bill is meant to comprehensively address the widespread harms of prohibition, and it is impossible to do that if we are still leaving those that have already paid the steepest price out. We urge House Leadership to bring this bill to the floor without delay.”

It’s been two months since Nadler first announced his intent to reintroduce the MORE Act, which would federally deschedule marijuana on a retroactive basis and allow those with prior cannabis convictions to have their records expunged.

Maritza Perez, director of DPA’s Office of National Affairs, said it’s “clear, by the overwhelming extent to which they passed the MORE Act last session, that the House understands this for the urgent racial and social justice issue it is.”

“Our communities that have borne the brunt of marijuana prohibition have waited long enough for justice,” she said. “We urge House leadership to move swiftly to bring the bill back to the floor this session, so that we can continue the momentum and move a marijuana justice bill in the Senate as well.”

Meanwhile, Senate leadership is also preparing to file legalization legislation that’s anticipated to include similar social equity components.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) have been working on the bill in recent months, and Wyden said recently that it will be introduced “very soon.”

“When the MORE Act was approved by the House of Representatives in the previous session, Congress demonstrated in no uncertain terms that the days of federal marijuana prohibition are numbered,” NORML Political Director Justin Strekal said. “While Senate Majority Leader Schumer and Senators Booker and Wyden continue to solicit feedback for their forthcoming legislation in the upper chamber, the House is preparing to once again advance criminal justice-focused legislation that will bring our failed prohibitionist policies to an end while also ensuring that those Americans who are saddled with the consequences of a marijuana conviction can have their records cleared.”

Schumer has said that the proposal they’re working on will “ensure restorative justice, public health and implement responsible taxes and regulations.” He also made a point in March to say that it will specifically seek to restrict the ability of large alcohol and tobacco companies to overtake the industry.

Instead, it will prioritize small businesses, particularly those owned by people from communities most impacted by prohibition, and focus on “justice, justice, justice—as well as freedom,” he said.

On the House side, a bill to protect banks that service state-legal cannabis businesses from being penalized by federal regulators has already been approved this session. The chamber cleared marijuana banking legislation three times last Congress, only to see it die in the Senate, which at the time was under Republican control.

Separately, a proposal to federally deschedule marijuana that does not include social equity components was recently filed by a pair of Republican congressmen.

“Last year, we saw more progress toward cannabis legalization than ever before. This has been driven by unprecedented reforms at the state level,” Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) said. “Now, Congress must deal with the problems created by the failed federal policy of prohibition. With a strong base of support in the House and in the Senate, the table is set. It’s past time that we stop federal interference with cannabis banking and research, as well as the terrible pattern of selective enforcement that has devastated communities of color. The MORE Act will help address all of these problems and more.”

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) said that “during the last year, people across the country have seen how injustice impacts communities of color—from police brutality to the COVID-19 pandemic.”

“The War on Drugs is no exception. We must deliver justice to those most impacted by America’s racist and discriminatory cannabis laws,” she said.

Read the full text of the new version of the MORE Act by following title link and scrolling to the bottom of the article.

 

[arb]

Bill To Federally Legalize Marijuana Reintroduced In Congress As Senate Prepares Separate Measure​

A bill to federally legalize marijuana and promote social equity in the industry was reintroduced in the House on Friday.

The legislation, sponsored by Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), was filed with a number of changes compared to the version that was approved by the chamber last year.

The bill—which would remove marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), allow people with cannabis convictions to have their records expunged and create a federal tax on marijuana with the revenue going to support community reinvestment and other programs—comes as Senate leadership is preparing to introduce a separate reform proposal with similar objectives.

The Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act passed the House but did not advance in the Senate under GOP control. But this time around, advocates are optimistic that the policy change could be enacted now that Democrats run both chambers and the White House, and as more states are moving to enact legalization.

“Since I introduced the MORE Act last Congress, numerous states across the nation, including my home state of New York, have moved to legalize marijuana. Our federal laws must keep up with this pace,” Nadler said. “I’m proud to reintroduce the MORE Act to decriminalize marijuana at the federal level, remove the needless burden of marijuana convictions on so many Americans, and invest in communities that have been disproportionately harmed by the War on Drugs.”

As Marijuana Moment exclusively reported last week, the new version of the MORE Act does not include language that was added just before last year’s House floor vote that would have prevented people with previous cannabis convictions from obtaining federal permits to operate marijuana businesses. That was a contentious provision that appeared at the last minute and which advocates strongly opposed.

And whereas the the prior version of the MORE Act contained language to help economically disadvantaged people enter the legal marijuana market, that language was revised to extend Small Business Administration (SBA) aid—such as loans, financial literacy programs and job training—to help people who have been harmed by the war on drugs pursue business opportunities in any industry, not just cannabis.

Many of the other key provisions of the bill remain the same as in the version that cleared the House last year, including language to create a pathway for resentencing for those incarcerated for marijuana offenses, protect immigrants from being denied citizenship over cannabis and prevent federal agencies from denying public benefits or security clearance due to its use.

Advocates are encouraged by the new revisions to the bill, but there are still additional components they hope to see changed as it goes through the legislative process. For example, they also took issue with provisions added to the MORE Act prior to last year’s vote that would have stipulated that cannabis can still be included in drug testing programs for federal workers.

“With the majority of Americans in favor of marijuana legalization for adult use, and the way in which communities of color have been devastated by prohibition finally being widely acknowledged, prioritizing marijuana reform that begins to undo this harm and give back to those communities should be a no-brainer,” Queen Adesuyi, policy manager for the Drug Policy Alliance’s (DPA) Office of National Affairs, said.

“We are grateful that not only was this bill reintroduced so early in the session, but that the exclusionary language that ended up getting added in through the political process last year was removed,” she said. “This bill is meant to comprehensively address the widespread harms of prohibition, and it is impossible to do that if we are still leaving those that have already paid the steepest price out. We urge House Leadership to bring this bill to the floor without delay.”

It’s been two months since Nadler first announced his intent to reintroduce the MORE Act, which would federally deschedule marijuana on a retroactive basis and allow those with prior cannabis convictions to have their records expunged.

Maritza Perez, director of DPA’s Office of National Affairs, said it’s “clear, by the overwhelming extent to which they passed the MORE Act last session, that the House understands this for the urgent racial and social justice issue it is.”

“Our communities that have borne the brunt of marijuana prohibition have waited long enough for justice,” she said. “We urge House leadership to move swiftly to bring the bill back to the floor this session, so that we can continue the momentum and move a marijuana justice bill in the Senate as well.”

Meanwhile, Senate leadership is also preparing to file legalization legislation that’s anticipated to include similar social equity components.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) have been working on the bill in recent months, and Wyden said recently that it will be introduced “very soon.”

“When the MORE Act was approved by the House of Representatives in the previous session, Congress demonstrated in no uncertain terms that the days of federal marijuana prohibition are numbered,” NORML Political Director Justin Strekal said. “While Senate Majority Leader Schumer and Senators Booker and Wyden continue to solicit feedback for their forthcoming legislation in the upper chamber, the House is preparing to once again advance criminal justice-focused legislation that will bring our failed prohibitionist policies to an end while also ensuring that those Americans who are saddled with the consequences of a marijuana conviction can have their records cleared.”

Schumer has said that the proposal they’re working on will “ensure restorative justice, public health and implement responsible taxes and regulations.” He also made a point in March to say that it will specifically seek to restrict the ability of large alcohol and tobacco companies to overtake the industry.

Instead, it will prioritize small businesses, particularly those owned by people from communities most impacted by prohibition, and focus on “justice, justice, justice—as well as freedom,” he said.

On the House side, a bill to protect banks that service state-legal cannabis businesses from being penalized by federal regulators has already been approved this session. The chamber cleared marijuana banking legislation three times last Congress, only to see it die in the Senate, which at the time was under Republican control.

Separately, a proposal to federally deschedule marijuana that does not include social equity components was recently filed by a pair of Republican congressmen.

“Last year, we saw more progress toward cannabis legalization than ever before. This has been driven by unprecedented reforms at the state level,” Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) said. “Now, Congress must deal with the problems created by the failed federal policy of prohibition. With a strong base of support in the House and in the Senate, the table is set. It’s past time that we stop federal interference with cannabis banking and research, as well as the terrible pattern of selective enforcement that has devastated communities of color. The MORE Act will help address all of these problems and more.”

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) said that “during the last year, people across the country have seen how injustice impacts communities of color—from police brutality to the COVID-19 pandemic.”

“The War on Drugs is no exception. We must deliver justice to those most impacted by America’s racist and discriminatory cannabis laws,” she said.

Read the full text of the new version of the MORE Act by following title link and scrolling to the bottom of the article.

The more act is disgusting and should never be implemented imo.

 

[momofthegoons]

Amazon To Stop Testing Many Workers For Marijuana And Will Lobby Congress For Federal Legalization​

Amazon said on Tuesday that it will stop drug testing many of its workers for marijuana and will instead “treat it the same as alcohol use.” It is also formally joining the movement in support of cannabis legalization and will actively lobby Congress in support of legislation to end federal prohibition.

“In the past, like many employers, we’ve disqualified people from working at Amazon if they tested positive for marijuana use,” Amazon said in an update posted to its company news site. “However, given where state laws are moving across the U.S., we’ve changed course.”

Amazon will now “no longer include marijuana in our comprehensive drug screening program for any positions not regulated by the Department of Transportation, and will instead treat it the same as alcohol use.” It will continue to do impairment checks on the job and will test for all drugs, including cannabis and alcohol, after any incident.

The move by one of the U.S.’s largest employers will lead to a significant reduction on the number of workers in the country who face the prospect of being fired simply for using cannabis at home while not on the clock.

In addition to instituting the workplace policy shift, Amazon says it will also lobby Congress to pass a bill to federally legalize marijuana that was introduced last week by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)

“Because we know that this issue is bigger than Amazon, our public policy team will be actively supporting The Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act of 2021 (MORE Act)—federal legislation that would legalize marijuana at the federal level, expunge criminal records, and invest in impacted communities,” the company’s post says. “We hope that other employers will join us, and that policymakers will act swiftly to pass this law.”

In recent years, Amazon has faced lawsuits from workers who were fired for using medical cannabis in accordance with state law.

 

[momofthegoons]

​

Military Veterans Could Discuss State Marijuana Programs With VA Doctors Under New Bipartisan Congressional Bill​

A bipartisan duo introduced a congressional bill on Friday that would make clear that U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) doctors can discuss state-legal marijuana programs with veterans.

Reps. Conor Lamb (D-PA) and Peter Meijer (R-MI) filed the legislation—titled the Fully Informed Veteran Act—which would allowing VA doctors to provide basic information and resources about state-legal cannabis programs to veterans.

As far as veteran and marijuana-specific legislation is concerned, this is an especially modest reform.

The VA secretary “shall authorize physicians and other health care providers of the Veterans Health Administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide to veterans who are residents of States with State-approved marijuana programs information regarding the participation of such veterans in such programs,” the text states.

“Information” is defined as “informational materials, Internet website, and relevant contact information for State-approved marijuana program.”

The legislation would not allow VA physicians to actually issue recommendations to veterans to participate in those state programs, however.

Under current VA administrative policies, the department’s doctors are currently allowed to discuss cannabis with patients and document their usage in medical records, and those veteran patients are already shielded from losing their benefits for marijuana use—but the new bill would enshrine into law a more basic policy on providing information about cannabis programs for those who live in areas where it’s legal.

This comes as several bills to end federal cannabis prohibition are being drafted and introduced this session. Most recently, a measure that cleared the U.S. House of Representatives last year to legalize marijuana and promote social equity was refiled by Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY).

While Lamb is sponsoring this veterans-focused medical cannabis legislation, it remains to be seen where he would come down on that broader reform given that he was among very few Democratic lawmakers who voted against the Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act last Congress.

The issue will almost certainly come into the fold if Lamb enters the race to represent Pennsylvania in the U.S. Senate—a move he is reportedly seriously considering.

Not only is legalization popular among Pennsylvania voters, according to polling, but the state’s lieutenant governor, John Fetterman (D), is a strong advocate for ending prohibition and is already campaigning for the Senate seat on a pro-legalization platform. If Lamb enters the race, his vote against broad cannabis reform in Congress would like be a topic of contention.

But as a former Marine, Lamb has focused his marijuana reform agenda on veterans-related policy changes. And he’s not alone this session.

A pair of Republican lawmakers introduced a congressional bill in April that’s meant to promote research into the medical potential of marijuana for military veterans.

That was filed one day after a bipartisan Senate bill was introduced—and on the same day that House members filed companion legislation—to require VA to conduct clinical trials into marijuana for the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and chronic pain in the population.

Last year, the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee approved a prior version of that bill, as well as a separate proposal to allow VA doctors to issue medical cannabis recommendations to their patients in states where it’s legal, but they did not advance to the floor.

Meijer, the Republican cosponsor of Lamb’s latest proposal is also an original sponsor of the VA Medical Cannabis Research Act.

In April, a bipartisan coalition of congressional lawmakers also reintroduced bills that would federally legalize medical cannabis for military veterans.

That bill is being sponsored by Reps. Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Dave Joyce (R-OH), both co-chairs of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, in the House, along with nine other original cosponsors. On the Senate side, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) is leading the proposal, and he’s joined by five other lawmakers, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

The Veterans Medical Marijuana Safe Harbor Act would temporarily allow veterans to legally possess and use cannabis under federal law, as recommended by doctors in accordance with state law. Physicians with VA would also be allowed for the first time to issue such recommendations. Further, it would require VA to study the therapeutic potential of marijuana for pain and reducing opioid misuse.

The House and Senate have both previously approved annual spending bills containing riders blocking VA from punishing doctors for writing medical marijuana recommendations, but no such legislation has yet been enacted into law.

Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL) in January introduced a proposal aimed at ensuring that military veterans aren’t penalized for using medical cannabis in compliance with state law. It would also codify that VA doctors are allowed to discuss the risks and benefits of marijuana with their patients.

Meanwhile, congressional leaders are working to end federal marijuana prohibition altogether.

In addition to the House’s MORE Act from Chairman Nadler, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) are in the process of crafting a comprehensive legalization bill, and Schumer said it would be placed on the floor “soon.”

Read the text of the Fully Informed Veteran Act by following title link and scrolling to the bottom of the article.

 

[arb]

Amazon To Stop Testing Many Workers For Marijuana And Will Lobby Congress For Federal Legalization​

Amazon said on Tuesday that it will stop drug testing many of its workers for marijuana and will instead “treat it the same as alcohol use.” It is also formally joining the movement in support of cannabis legalization and will actively lobby Congress in support of legislation to end federal prohibition.

“In the past, like many employers, we’ve disqualified people from working at Amazon if they tested positive for marijuana use,” Amazon said in an update posted to its company news site. “However, given where state laws are moving across the U.S., we’ve changed course.”

Amazon will now “no longer include marijuana in our comprehensive drug screening program for any positions not regulated by the Department of Transportation, and will instead treat it the same as alcohol use.” It will continue to do impairment checks on the job and will test for all drugs, including cannabis and alcohol, after any incident.

The move by one of the U.S.’s largest employers will lead to a significant reduction on the number of workers in the country who face the prospect of being fired simply for using cannabis at home while not on the clock.

In addition to instituting the workplace policy shift, Amazon says it will also lobby Congress to pass a bill to federally legalize marijuana that was introduced last week by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)

“Because we know that this issue is bigger than Amazon, our public policy team will be actively supporting The Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act of 2021 (MORE Act)—federal legislation that would legalize marijuana at the federal level, expunge criminal records, and invest in impacted communities,” the company’s post says. “We hope that other employers will join us, and that policymakers will act swiftly to pass this law.”

In recent years, Amazon has faced lawsuits from workers who were fired for using medical cannabis in accordance with state law.

Godamn.....actual progress.

 

[Baron23]

State by State Cannabis Legislation – What’s Legal Now and Where?​

Throughout the country, cannabis regulations are changing every day. Some areas are experiencing more dramatic legislative upgrades than others, but every little step forward still counts. At the moment, there are 5 states that come to mind because, one, they are making big moves, or two, they are conservative states that most people were expecting would hold on to prohibition for much longer.​

This week we’re focusing on the East Coast and Deep South, with updates from Connecticut, Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama

---

Connecticut​

Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont (D), along with other state lawmakers, just reached a compromise on an adult-use cannabis bill that will likely be implemented in late spring of 2022. The bill would finally lay the groundwork for retail sales to launch in the state. According to estimates from MJBizDaily, the Connecticut recreational market could exceed $250 million in sales in just the first year, and reach a total of roughly $725 million by the fourth year.
Senate Bill 1118 has only just been drafted, however, and it still needs to a pass votes in both the House of Representatives and Senate. Opponents may still try to interfere, which could result in Gov. Lamont calling a special session on the issue this summer. It’s hard to say whether that will also delay the launch of recreational sales or not.
One of the major points in this agreement is offering priority licensing status to social equity applicants. According to the bill text, to qualify as a social equity applicant, the individual will need to have spent the last five out of ten years living in a “disproportionately impacted area, as defined by a jobless rate above 10% or a historically high drug conviction rate. Municipalities would be limited to one marijuana retailer and one micro-cultivator per 25,000 residents until July 1, 2024.”

Tennessee​

Tennessee is a relatively conservative state, but the influx of new residents from blue states along the east and west coasts might be having an impact already. Last month, Republican Governor Bill Lee passed a limited medical cannabis bill that would lead to many changes in the way businesses operate within the state.
Once implemented, the bill will legalize possession of CBD oil containing up to 0.9 percent THC for approved medical patients. This is three times higher than the federal government’s cutoff of 0.3 percent. Additionally, the enacted bill would expand on the current list of qualifying conditions by adding the following diseases and disorders: Alzheimer’s disease, ALS, cancer, inflammatory bowel syndrome, multiple sclerosis, HIV/AIDS and sickle cell disease.



People would need to keep proof of their medical conditions with them at any time they are in possession of the cannabis oil. Additionally, there is still nowhere to legally purchase these products in the state. So, although it will be legal to possess now, it will have to be obtained illegally or out of state. Further legislation will be needed to regulate the manufacture and distribution of cannabis products.

Louisiana ​

Louisiana’s medical cannabis program has faced harsh criticism from industry advocates for making it nearly impossible for patients to access product. Over regulation combined with high prices, limited cultivation licenses (only 2 issued statewide) meant that patients numbers were extremely low, and as such, so were profits.
However, the program should see a major jump in registration starting next year, when House Bill 391 is enacted and dispensaries will be permitted to sell smokable flower. In many established markets, flower accounts for roughly 50 percent of total sales and recent surveys show the demand for smokables is high in Louisiana.
As is standard, patients will have a purchasing limit, although it will fairly lenient allowing up to 2.5 ounces (70 grams) every 14 days. Qualifying conditions include cancer, positive status for HIV, AIDS, cachexia or wasting syndrome, seizure disorders, epilepsy, spasticity, Crohn’s disease, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, Parkinson’s disease, severe muscle spasms, intractable pain, post traumatic disorder, and some symptoms associated with autism spectrum disorder.

Cannabis Legislation – Alabama​

Last month, Governor Kay Ivey officially signed into law the medical marijuana bill that we’ve been tracking, making Alabama the 37th state in the U.S. to legalize medical cannabis. Patients with qualifying health conditions – which include cancer, depression, epilepsy, panic disorder, chronic pain, or any chronic illness – will be permitted to register for the state’s medical program.
After signing Senate Bill 46, Gov. Ivey released this statement: “Signing SB 46 is an important first step. I would like to again thank Sen. Tim Melson and Rep. Mike Ball for their hard work over the last few years and their willingness to address the legitimate concerns. This is certainly a sensitive and emotional issue and something that is continually being studied.”
“On the state level,” he added, “we have had a study group that has looked closely at this issue, and I am interested in the potential good medical cannabis can have for those with chronic illnesses or what it can do to improve the quality of life of those in their final days.”

Mississippi​

Interestingly, Mississippi is really where it all began, considering that University of Mississippi won the very first grant to cultivate and study medical cannabis back in 1968. Despite that, the laws for consumers have been less than progressive until recently.
Last week, Senate lawmakers discussed the potential of medical cannabis legalization within the state, but unless Governor Tate Reeves (R) calls a special session. It still seems promising that changes will happen before the end of the year, with Reeves telling Biloxi TV station WLOX that it is “imperative that a medical marijuana law be passed to support the will of the voters.”
The initiate is business friendly but also gives some power to municipalities should they want to utilize zoning restrictions to opt of medical cannabis programs. There is also some opposition to the proposed purchasing limits of 2.5 ounces every 14 days, which some conservatives say is “too generous” and should be lowered.

Cannabis Legislation – Final Thoughts​

Progressive legislation has also been moving forward in states which have already legalized or decriminalized cannabis, such as Nevada and New Mexico. There have also been notable changes in some of the nation’s strictest states, like Wyoming, Texas, Idaho and Kansas.

 

[Baron23]

Federal Appeals Court Hears Marijuana Rescheduling Arguments In Case Against DEA​

Attorneys for a group of scientists and military veterans seeking to force the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to formally reconsider marijuana’s restrictive federal classification made their case on Thursday to a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Questions from judges, however, focused less on the challenge’s merits than the procedural questions it raises.

“This is a really odd case,” Judge William Fletcher said at the beginning of the oral arguments, which lasted roughly 30 minutes. While the lawsuit hinges on DEA’s rejection of a cannabis rescheduling petition last year, the judge noted, the veterans and researchers now suing DEA weren’t party to that petition.

“Your clients filed no petition. You appeal the denial of somebody else’s petition,” he said. “Somehow that doesn’t strike me as reasonable to allow somebody to come in this way, without themselves having filed a petition. To piggyback on the denial of such an odd, abbreviated petition just doesn’t fit with the way the administrative process is supposed to work.”

The lawsuit—filed last year by cannabis researcher Sue Sisley of the Scottsdale Research Institute, the Battlefield Foundation and veterans Lorenzo Sullivan and Gary Hess—centers largely on the DEA’s 2020 denial of a one-page cannabis rescheduling petition filed by a separate individual. In its response, the agency argued that marijuana has no currently accepted medical value.

Lawyers for the group are appealing that decision, asking the court to order DEA to initiate a formal rulemaking process, which would involve expert testimony and public comment. They say DEA’s summary dismissal of past rescheduling petitions has not only been unconstitutional but also prevented important research into the drug’s medical potential.

Matt Zorn, one of the lawyers for the petitioners, told Marijuana Moment on Friday that he is “pleased that we got our day in court.”

“All a litigant can ask for is the opportunity to brief their case and explain their case to the judges—and judges had legitimate concerns,” he said. “I thought we addressed those concerns, and I think we presented a real problem for them. Despite the quote-unquote odd procedural posture, I do think it’s proper.”

“Our hope is that the panel reaches the merits, because there frankly really isn’t that much dispute that what’s going on here is wrong,” he added. “That’s the bottom line takeaway. Nobody’s really disputing that the agency’s interpretation of ‘no currently accepted medical use’ is wrong. What we’re arguing about whether or not we should be the ones to bring it to a court’s attention.”

At the arguments on Thursday, Zorn told the judges that it is “a well-established principle of administrative law that even if you miss the notice and comment period, you might have the ability to come in and challenge a rule.”

“The fact of the matter is these petitions generally take a really long time. This is a pure legal issue. It’s ripe for decision… My clients are suffering injuries from the failure to engage in rulemaking,” he said.

The plaintiffs initially filed their lawsuit, Sisley v. DEA, against the federal agency in May of last year, contending that DEA’s justification for maintaining a Schedule I status for cannabis violates the Constitution on numerous grounds. DEA attempted to dismiss the case, but the Ninth Circuit rejected that request in August.

During oral arguments, Zorn pointed to a number of cases as precedent to justify why his clients should be allowed to challenge DEA’s denial of the petition, most notably Massachusetts v. EPA, in which that state challenged the denial of a petition filed by another party. But judges pointed out that no case he cited clearly states who can and can’t rightfully appeal such an agency decision.

“Neither side is really citing case law that is directly on point here,” Zorn acknowledged. “I have not found any statute that is anything like this.”
Justice Department lawyer Daniel Aguilar, who represented the federal government at the oral argument, insisted that the court should dismiss the case and allow the group to file their own DEA rescheduling petition.

But the Ninth Circuit judges were similarly skeptical of the government’s stance. Aguilar argued that in Massachusetts v. EPA, for example, Massachusetts was allowed to appeal a denial of a petition it wasn’t a party to because of its special status as a U.S. state. To back up his position, he pointed to part of an opinion by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Judge Fletcher, however, seemed to correct Aguilar on his interpretation. “The sovereign stuff that Justice Kennedy writes in that opinion goes entirely to whether or not it has a cognizable injury,” he said. “It really is not talking about whether or not Massachusetts has the right to appeal the denial of somebody else’s petition.”
The Ninth Circuit panel also included Judges Paul Watford and Daniel Collins.

Separate from the issue of standing, lawyers for the scientists and veterans have have raised questions about DEA’s reliance on scheduling standards that they feel are arbitrary and misinterpret federal law. To support that claim, they pointed to a federal memo from 1972.

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 case also argue that government’s practice of granting the attorney general authority to schedule drugs based on his or her interpretation of international treaty obligations constitutes an “unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority.”

When the World Health Organization (WHO) schedules drugs under international treaties, Zorn argued, “the United States automatically has to do the same thing. The attorney general has no choice.”

The arrangement unconstitutionally vests power in WHO and the attorney general’s office, he said, rather than keeping it with Congress.
Sisley, the lawsuit’s lead plaintiff and president of the Scottsdale Research Institute (SRI), is a DEA-licensed researcher focused on investigating the therapeutic potential of cannabis for veterans. She’s sought to become a federally authorized marijuana manufacturer so that her facility can produce higher quality products for studies.

SRI has already taken the feds to court over past marijuana decisions, with results to show for it. The institute 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 those proposals.
“What has been animating all of these lawsuits is that we can’t get the research done,” Zorn told Marijuana Moment last year, shortly after the current challenge was filed in district court. “The ideal result is that we stop filing lawsuits and the administration decides it wants to support cannabis research. But until that happens, we’ll be in the courts.”

Last month, Sisley and SRI received preliminary approval from DEA to be one of the first new federally authorized cultivators of cannabis for research.

 

[Baron23]

"our current president doesn’t have the best track-record when it comes to cannabis legislation"


Doesn't have the best track record? WTF...how much could they whitewash this? Biden was a key architect of the War on Drugs and draconian prison sentencing for same.

As Katie Couric related from a friend of hers...."there is no journalism anymore, just advocacy". A sentiment I agree with regarding all news media outlets of any stripe.

Conservative Cannabis: Legalization Gaining Republican Support​

These days Americans are more divided than ever: republican vs democrat, conservative vs liberal, different views on healthcare and pandemic response, and numerous other economic and social issues prevail – there is one thing that nearly everyone seems to agree on though, cannabis legalization.​

It’s a commonly held assumption that democrats favor cannabis (to an extent) and conservative republicans don’t, and traditionally that’s been true. But ballot initiates in numerous different red states show that republicans and independent conservatives are coming around on legalization issues. It’s one of the few topics that seems to garner support across the board, regardless of which side of the political line you’re looking at.

“The prevailing wisdom has been that a conservative administration would be less receptive, but I think cannabis legalization is now inevitable on its own kinetic energy,” said Sturges Karban, chief executive officer of cannabis logistics company ManifestSeven. “While federal legalization was a political ‘third rail’ as recently as 2016, it now looks as though 2021 will be a turning point for the industry.”

The world of cannabis is always evolving, especially when it comes to regulations. To learn more about cannabis legislation, make sure to subscribe to The CBD Flowers Weekly Newsletter, where you will get all the latest news as well as access to exclusive deals on flowers and other products.

---

“People are just much less afraid of marijuana”​

This year, we have a lot of action in unexpected states. With cannabis use becoming increasingly prevalent around the world, especially following all the changes brought on by COVID-19, it seems that new legislation at the federal level is inevitable. There are quite a few republican states that already have very lax rules regarding cannabis, and some numerous swing states that have legalized it completely.
Currently, 16 states and Washington D.C. have fully legalized adult-use cannabis, 37 states have implemented some type of medical cannabis program, and 46 states have “decriminalized” cannabis to some extent. A survey of 500 New Jersey voters, conducted by legal firm Branch Eichler LLC, found that a higher-than-expected number of republicans support adult-use cannabis – 75% of democrats and 52% of republicans.
“People are just much less afraid of marijuana than they used to be,” said John Fanburg, who co-chairs the cannabis practice at the New Jersey-based law firm that conducted the poll. He attributes that to the state’s “successful medical program, which has grown from 20,000 participants three years ago to 90,000, removing the stigma of marijuana for thousands of people on both sides of the political aisle.”

Red States Considering Cannabis​

Conservative states have been a bit slower to adapt to the changing times, however, there seems to be a major shift in viewpoints over the last few months with numerous cannabis-related bills being introduced in these areas. One of the most notable being Texas. Within the last month, the Texas senate approved several bills for cannabis decriminalization, as well as to expand the existing medical industry, lower the penalty on THC concentrates, and to force the study of psychedelics.
Last month, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee passed a limited medical cannabis bill that would raise the cutoff for THC in hemp products to 0.9%, three times higher than the federal limit. Also, a handful of new disorders would be added to the state’s list of qualifying medical conditions for cannabis use. Louisiana just passed House Bill 391 which will allow dispensaries to sell smokable flower products, while allowing patients to buy up to 2.5 ounces every 14 days.

Last month, Governor Kay Ivey officially signed into law the medical marijuana bill that we’ve been tracking, making Alabama the 37th state in the U.S. to legalize medical cannabis; and there have also been notable changes in Wyoming, Idaho, Mississippi, and Kansas.

“The conservative states are empirical evidence that there’s enough demand and support at the grassroots level that the issue of cannabis is agnostic to party,” Karban said. “How do you ignore that if you’re in Washington? As bipartisan support for legalization grows in states across the country, there’s increased likelihood of change at the federal level, too.”

What’s up with Biden?​

Although blue is known for being the “forward-thinking” party, with most democratic politicians showing some level of support for fair marijuana reform, our current president doesn’t have the best track-record when it comes to cannabis legislation and the subsequent social equity issues that come par for the course with drug prohibition. In the 1980s, Biden was actually very committed to the war on drugs, with a heavy focus on cannabis, helping draft numerous pieces of legislation that would keep low-level, non-violent drug offenders incarcerated for years to come.

As of 2010, his opinions hadn’t changed much and he can be quoted saying, “There’s a difference between sending someone to jail for a few ounces [of marijuana] and legalizing. The punishment should fit the crime. But I think legalization is a mistake. I still believe [marijuana] is a gateway drug.” So far, that’s roughly 30 years of Biden against cannabis.

Fast forward another decade and Joe Biden is the 46th president of the United States, during a time when cannabis legalization is an incredibly polarizing topic on many fronts: economic, social, and health institutions all have a major stake in the industry. At the very least it seems Biden has accepted that cannabis legalization is inevitable, and even mentioned that he thinks “it is at the point where it has to be, basically, legalized.”

However, he maintains his stance in favor of decriminalization over full legalization. But as we already know from watching the many states that have tried it already, decriminalization is a completely pointless step in between prohibition and legalization that allows for too much “interpretation” of the law.
In his latest move. In March of this year, at least five members of the Biden administration had their employment terminated, and dozen more were forced to “resign” for admitting to past marijuana use. This is move is right on the heels of an announcement made just one month prior, in February, in which the Biden Administration stated that past marijuana use would not disqualify someone from employment with the federal government.

Final Thoughts of Cannabis in Conservative States​

Note that I’m a moderate, sometimes I align with conservative ideals and sometimes I lean liberal, so this is NOT an attempt to push people towards a republican vote. On the contrary, this shows that even in a world meant to divide us, there are still some topics that have the power to bring people together. When it comes to cannabis legalization, the overwhelming majority of Americans are tired of prohibition and ready for progress.

I can personally attest to this. Having been raised blue California where cannabis has been legal in some fashion since the 90s, and currently living in Indiana, one of the most cannabis-restrictive states in the nation – everyone I have met so far in both states support legalization. Either they consume cannabis products themselves, or they just don’t care if other people do.

The attitude toward cannabis these days is much more laissez-faire, and rightfully so. At its worst, cannabis a harmless substance that induces a mild psychoactive high. At its best, we have a powerful, therapeutic plant that can be used to treat a myriad of different conditions, greatly improving ones quality of life. To legalize seems like the only logical option at this point, regardless of what political party one supports.

 

[momofthegoons]

Marijuana Equity Advocates Propose Changes To Federal Legalization Bill To Stop Big Business Takeover​

Civil rights groups are pushing for a vote on a bill to federally legalize marijuana to take place in the U.S. House of Representatives this month—but some activists who have experience in the state-level regulatory space are now proposing changes to the legislation to ensure that the market is equitable and empowers communities that have been most impacted by prohibition to benefit from the new industry.

Without the modifications, they say, legal cannabis sales could end up in the hands of a few large corporations—”putting most small cultivators and retailers out of business.”

The equity advocates have submitted a pair of alternative amendments of the Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, which cleared the House last year and was recently refiled by Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY). The proposals come from the Parabola Center, a newly established organization that is working to inform legalization legislation federally and at the state-level with the intent of promoting social justice-centered reforms.

The new suggested amendments were shared exclusively with Marijuana Moment and are being sent to cannabis reform champions in the House and Senate for consideration on Thursday.

In principle, there’s broad agreement on the legislation, Parabola Center’s Shaleen Title, a former Massachusetts cannabis regulator, told Marijuana Moment. But in practice, there’s a sense among some advocates that federally descheduling cannabis without rigorous regulations will not have the intended impact for disproportionately impacted communities.

“We hope this project inspires the mass movement that legalized marijuana to become more proactive and intentional in deciding what the national marijuana marketplace will look like,” Title said.

In order to achieve equity, the advocates say there must also be a conversation around how to prevent large corporations—more specifically Big Tobacco and Big Alcohol—from dominating the market once the restraints of federal prohibition are lifted. There’s a sense of urgency to address that aspect of the reform, with companies like Amazon now lobbying in favor of the MORE Act, for example.

A summary of the proposed amendments from the Parabola Center says that the MORE Act’s sponsors “deserve full credit for their determination to address” equity-focused reforms, but expresses concern that the federal government is not yet ready to effectively oversee a national marijuana market, noting that its “experience with cannabis until now has been exclusively limited to interdiction and prosecution predominantly targeting Black and Latino communities.”

The advocates say the government “needs time to develop the tools and skills to regulate marijuana in a way that repairs the harms of the war on drugs” and points out that states are also struggling to oversee the industry “in an equitable way.”

Regulating marijuana isn’t just a matter of applying existing rules for alcohol and tobacco, Parabola says.

“While superficial similarities exist, to equate the prohibition and regulation of alcohol to that of cannabis is legally and historically inaccurate. It is not a sound basis for detailed cannabis policy,” their summary states. “Neither alcohol nor tobacco regulations have been developed to repair damage on the scale of that caused by the war on drugs. Further, neither of those regulatory models are ideal. As a country, we are still trying to undo the public health damage of letting Big Tobacco run wild.”

“Ultimately, if we are serious about creating a fair and equitable national industry, we must allow the federal government to develop its own core competency in cannabis regulation and prevent the domination of the market by a small number of corporations in the meantime.”

As introduced in Congress, the MORE Act would deschedule cannabis and take steps to promote equity in the industry. That includes by providing for expungements of prior marijuana convictions and reinvesting cannabis tax dollars into disproportionately impacted communities.

However, the descheduling component could inadvertently undermine the the social justice goals of the bill if steps aren’t taken to prevent the corporate consolidation of the industry, Parabola says. There’s a “high likelihood that such removal will result in a handful of national cannabis firms rapidly dominating the market and putting most small cultivators and retailers out of business,” according to the summary.

In other words, advocates see room for improvement, and they’re pushing for the incorporation of one of two proposed regulatory approaches to federal reform.

The first would give additional power to the Office of Cannabis Justice (OCJ) established under the MORE Act, letting the autonomous Justice Department body that would be created by the legislation dictate marijuana permitting. As drafted, that authority would be given to the Treasury Department.

The office would “regulate interstate commerce and enforce anti-cartel restrictions, preventing the creation of a national oligopoly similar to the state-level oligopolies that currently exist,” the summary states.

Federal funding could also be withheld from states that fail to meet certain racial justice benchmark standards under the revised plan.

The second, separate Parabola proposal is being described as a “cooperative federalism approach” that would end the federal criminalization of personal possession, cultivation and social sharing under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA)—but it would not formally deschedule marijuana and would allow states to continue operating under the broader status quo of prohibition.

States that have legal markets could fully opt out of CSA enforcement if they meet certain criteria, specifically tied to racial justice objectives.

The purpose of that approach is to “protect individual cannabis consumers from federal arrest and prosecution while allowing states to continue to experiment with different types of equitable commercial markets.”

Asked why the group proposed two options for lawmakers, Title said they “thought it would be valuable to illustrate that there’s a whole spectrum of regulatory approaches between prohibition and descheduling that doesn’t protect state programs.”

“Those are the approaches we see discussed most often, but they essentially represent a police free-for-all versus a corporate free-for-all, both bad choices in our view,” she said.

Here’s a closer look at the details of each proposal:

Approach 1​

-Under this plan, OCJ would regulate marijuana permitting, and no person or corporation would be able to own more than five cannabis licenses in order to support small business participation in the industry.

-While the MORE Act was amended this Congress to exclude a section barring market participation by people with former felony convictions, advocates recommend replacing that language. The proposal says that except for offenses based on marijuana sales, there should be “mandatory disqualification of applicants who have violated the RICO Act or engaged in substantial fraud, abusive labor practices, human trafficking, slavery, intentional failure to pay wages, substantial harm to public health, the environment or an endangered species, terroristic actions, money laundering, misappropriation of public funds, and/or public corruption.”

-OCJ would have authority over regulating interstate commerce and would be required to study state markets to develop the best approach. The proposal says that could take the form of regional compacts allowing for limited interstate commerce between certain states or allowing only equity businesses to sell cannabis across state lines.

-Federal funds could be withheld from states that fail to meet “racial justice benchmarks,” and portions of federal tax revenue could go to states that are meeting those standards.

Approach 2​

-As with the original MORE Act, this approach would not preempt state law. Personal possession, cultivation and social sharing would be federally legalized while marijuana remains a controlled substance.

-For states that follow certain federal guidelines for cannabis regulation, the plant would only be legal within their borders. Interstate commerce would not be permitted under this approach.

-The proposers say this will “allow state governments to continue their experimentation while giving the federal government time to understand those models and develop its own evidence-based cannabis policies.”

“The key is that both approaches eliminate federal penalties for consumers and patients using cannabis, but they don’t open the doors to corporate consolidation we wouldn’t be able to take back,” Title said. “It’s important not to conflate consumer/patient rights with corporate profits. One is an immediate need and one isn’t.”

Separately, a federal prisoner who received clemency for his cannabis conviction from President Donald Trump recently wrote to members of Congress about how the MORE Act’s resentencing and expungement provisions could leave some impacted people without the relief that lawmakers intend.

These proposals also come as Senate leadership continues to work on their own version of legalization legislation, which Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has repeatedly said will be introduced “soon.”

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR), who is also working the bill alongside Schumer and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), also said to expect a filing “very soon.”

Schumer has said that the proposal they’re working on will “ensure restorative justice, public health and implement responsible taxes and regulations.” He also made a point in March to say that it will specifically seek to restrict the ability of large alcohol and tobacco companies to overtake the industry.

Instead, it will prioritize small businesses, particularly those owned by people from communities most impacted by prohibition, and focus on “justice, justice, justice—as well as freedom,” he said.

Read the summary of the advocates’ MORE Act proposals and the text of the amendments by following title link and scrolling to the bottom of the article.

 

[momofthegoons]

​

Congressional Democrats Defy Biden By Scrapping D.C. Marijuana Sales Ban​

President Joe Biden wants to keep blocking Washington, D.C. from implementing marijuana sales. But on Wednesday, leaders of a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee released a wide-ranging spending bill would lift that ban, in addition to protecting banks that service state-legal cannabis businesses.

Despite the president specifically maintaining a rider barring D.C. from using its tax dollars to legalize marijuana commerce in his budget proposal last month, the legislation from House Appropriations Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) Subcommittee Chairman Mike Quigley (D-IL) would remove that barrier.

The proposal, which covers annual funding for various federal agencies, also contains language that would protect banks from being penalized by federal regulators simply for working with cannabis companies that operate in accordance with state laws. Biden’s budget request did not weigh in on that issue, nor has he commented on standalone legislation that cleared the House for the fourth time this year to provide the same protections.

But the exclusion of the D.C. provision from the Fiscal Year 2022 FSGG appropriations bill, which will be voted on in subcommittee on Thursday and then taken up by the full Appropriations panel on Tuesday, could set the stage for conflict between lawmakers and the president. The Biden administration has already disappointed advocates by declining to take meaningful action on cannabis reform as promised on the campaign trail, and his inclusion of the D.C. rider was seen as an outright hostile act.

The District’s mayor said in April that local officials are prepared to move forward with implementing a legal system of recreational cannabis sales in the nation’s capital just as soon as they can get over the final “hurdle” of congressional interference.

After the Biden budget was released, Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) told Marijuana Moment that she’s “very disappointed” over the decision, especially considering that fact that he’s voiced support for D.C. statehood.

The ongoing blockade is the result of an amendment that was first added by Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) when Republicans controlled the House and has since been continued in annual appropriations legislation. The House on several occasions has since passed spending bills that do not include the cannabis ban, but it has been included in final enacted legislation because the Senate under GOP control insisted on reinserting it.

“The House appropriations package thankfully did not follow President Biden’s misguided effort to prohibit D.C. from implementing an adult-use cannabis marketplace,” NORML Political Director Justin Strekal told Marijuana Moment. “In order to provide safe, legal and affordable marijuana to consumers in the nations Capitol, Congress must pass a clean bill.”

The president, for his part, did notably include a separate long-standing rider in his budget proposal that would prevent the Justice Department from using its funds to interfere with the implementation of medical cannabis laws in states, however. President Donald Trump and President Barack Obama each called for ending the policy as part of their budget proposals, but Congress has consistently upheld it regardless.

In 2019 and last year, the House approved an even more expansive amendment that would have provided protections for all state and territory marijuana programs, rather than just medical cannabis systems. But the Senate did not follow suit and the provision was not included in final spending bill sent to Trump’s desk.

On several occasions when Trump signed large-scale annual spending legislation, he attached a statement that said he is empowered to ignore the congressionally approved medical cannabis rider, stating that the administration “will treat this provision consistent with the President’s constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.”

When it comes to banking, the House has not only passed standalone legislation to protect financial institutions from being punished for working with cannabis businesses, but has also included a rider on the topic in previous years’ appropriations bills. While the Senate under Republican control has refused to take up any of those measures, advocates are hopeful that the issue will advance now that the chamber has a Democratic majority.

The current House FSGG bill’s banking language reads:

“SEC. 629. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to penalize a financial institution solely because the institution provides financial services to an entity that is a manufacturer, a producer, or a person that participates in any business or organized activity that involves handling hemp, hemp-derived cannabidiol products, other hemp-derived cannabinoid products, marijuana, marijuana products, or marijuana proceeds, and engages in such activity pursuant to a law established by a State, political subdivision of a State, or Indian Tribe. In this section, the term ‘State’ means each of the several States, the District of Columbia, and any territory or possession of the United States.”

The language would provide limited protections as compared to the more comprehensive standalone legislation on the topic, since it would need to be renewed annually and only applies to the Treasury Department. It provides no restrictions on the Department of Justice, which is covered under a separate appropriations bill, for example.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration is being closely watched by advocates when it comes to any marijuana policy development—especially since the president has maintained an opposition to adult-use legalization even as multiple bills to end federal prohibition are being drafted and introduced.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Biden’s budget did not propose gutting the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) as Trump did. The former president called for a roughly 90 percent cut in the agency’s budget in his proposals, but Congress did not follow suit. Biden helped to establish the drug czar’s office during his time in the Senate.

Biden’s budget also includes $17 million in funding to support industrial hemp production.

The FSGG measure is the first of twelve separate appropriations bills that Congress will take up this year. Advocates will be watching to see how lawmakers in both the House and Senate address cannabis issues in forthcoming spending measures in the coming weeks.

 

[momofthegoons]

VA Continues To Oppose Marijuana Research Bill For Military Veterans Under Biden​

A Senate committee on Wednesday held a hearing on a bill to require the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to conduct clinical trials into the therapeutic potential of marijuana for military veterans with PTSD and chronic pain—but a VA representative said that the Biden administration is opposed to the reform.

The Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee discussed the cannabis proposal, sponsored by Chairman Jon Tester (D-MT) and Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK), at the hearing, along with 20 other veterans-related bills.

While VA officials gave the agency’s perspective on most of the other bills listed at the hearing, they did not orally weigh in on the marijuana measure. Instead, VA offered written testimony in opposition to the proposal.

Despite bipartisan support for giving veterans access to alternative treatment options like cannabis, VA Acting Deputy Under Secretary of Health for Community Care Mark Upton said plainly that the agency “does not support this proposed legislation.”

VA isn’t necessarily opposing cannabis research for veterans overall, but it argued that the proposed legislation is unnecessary because it is “already dedicating resources and research expertise to study the effects of cannabis on conditions affecting veterans.”

The testimony states that “the proposed legislation is redundant to the extent that VA is already examining risks and benefits of cannabis in treating PTSD and chronic pain” and is “not consistent with VA’s practice of ensuring scientific merit as the basis for a randomized clinical trial.”

VA took particular issue with a provision included in the measure that would require it to study “at least seven types of cannabis and their effects on symptoms of PSTD and chronic pain.”

Upton, who was appointed to the role under the Trump administration in 2020 but continues to serve under President Joe Biden, said that directive “is not consistent with the current state of scientific evidence, which suggests that smaller, early phase, controlled clinical trials with a focused set of specific aims are optimal to determine proof of concept for use of cannabis in treating specific conditions.”

“VA has and continues to examine the current clinical evidence regarding use of marijuana for medical purposes and agrees that more research is needed,” he wrote. “VA has utilized the scientific peer review system and is currently supporting a clinical trial of CBD to treat PTSD where CBD is used as an add-on treatment to standard of care psychotherapy. The results from this study should be available next year.”

The cannabis measure that was under consideration at the hearing explicitly requires that VA conduct a series of clinical trials—rather than just one trial as would have been the case under an earlier version was introduced last Congress—and also sets out specific guidelines for researching the effects of several marijuana varieties with various THC and CBD concentrations.

Tester, the committee chairman and the bill’s sponsor, said in opening remarks that the measure “expands research on alternative treatments for veterans who suffer from the seen and unseen wounds of war.”

“A survey conducted by the American Legion tells us 22 percent of veterans who responded already use cannabis to treat a medical condition,” he said. “Our bill will help the VA get the necessary data to fully evaluate this treatment and educate veterans on the outcomes of using medicinal cannabis to treat certain conditions.”

Upton’s written testimony argues that “the scientific peer review system would not favor simultaneously studying seven variants of cannabis and their effects on varying diagnoses without first demonstrating a specific rationale for each of the queries.”

“Progress in cannabis research must start with a scientific query of what is already known for specific diagnostic categories of interest, then moving to next level clinical investigation,” Upton said.

“VA has a history of scientifically driven research and high-quality clinical trials that have advanced Veterans’ and the Nation’s health care. VA’s Office of Research and Development regularly funds clinical trials approved through its expert peer review system, which evaluates studies for scientific merit based upon the rationale, design and feasibility of the study proposal. Such trials already include medical uses of cannabis for conditions that impact Veterans.”

At a 2019 House hearing, VA officials under Trump came out against a series of cannabis bills, including the prior version of the one before the Senate panel on Wednesday.

The VA secretary “shall carry out a series of clinical trials on the effects of medical-grade cannabis on the health outcomes of covered veterans diagnosed with chronic pain and covered veterans diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder,” the text of the current bill states. It lists “required elements” of the trials as well as “optional elements” the department could add.

When it comes to the chronic pain trials, the agency would have to look at the impact of marijuana consumption on osteopathic pain, opioid use and dosage, benzodiazepine use and dosage, alcohol use, inflammation, sleep quality, agitation and quality of life.

For the PTSD-specific studies, VA would examine the extent to which cannabis affects basic symptoms of the condition, the use and dosage of benzodiazepines, alcohol use, mood, anxiety, social functioning, agitation, suicidal ideation and sleep quality.


Optionally, the clinical trials “may include an evaluation of the effects of the use of cannabis to treat chronic pain and post-traumatic stress disorder on” pulmonary function, cardiovascular events, various forms of cancer, intestinal inflammation, motor vehicle accidents, mania, psychosis, cannabinoid hypermesis syndrome, neuropathy or spasticity.

The bill further details specific methodological standards of the clinical trials that would be required. It would, for example, mandate that researchers use “not fewer than seven unique plant cultivars” with specific ratios of THC and CBD. That previous version of the bill in the last Congress only required three different marijuana strains.

The trials will involve “whole plant raw material and extracts.” However, the measure no longer stipulates that “varying methods of cannabis delivery, including combustible and non-combustible inhalation and ingestion” would have to be used as would have been the case under the last version.

Veterans groups voiced support for the cannabis research bill during a second panel at Wednesday’s hearing.

Disabled American Veterans (DAV) said in written testimony to the Senate committee that the organization supports “more comprehensive and scientifically rigorous research by the VA into the therapeutic benefits and risks of cannabis and cannabis-derived products as a possible treatment for service-connected disabled veterans.”

The American Legion, meanwhile, said it “supports efforts to enhance medical cannabis research, urges Congress to remove cannabis from the Schedule I controlled substance list, and believes the DEA should license privately funded medical marijuana production operations in the U.S.”

“Any medical cannabis research legislation should take into consideration clinical trials that track the developing of symptoms related to Cannabis Use Disorder. Enabling safe and efficient cannabis drug development research is vital to providing innovative evidence-based, complementary, and alternative medicine to veterans in the treatment of chronic pain and mental health disorders. It is imperative that VA continue to explore alternative treatments to ensure those suffering from PTSD and chronic pain are provided the best possible care.”

Reps. Lou Correa (D-CA) and Peter Meijer (R-MI) are sponsoring the House companion version of Tester and Sullivan’s bill.

Last year, the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee approved the prior version of the VA Medical Cannabis Research Act, as well as a separate proposal to allow VA doctors to issue medical cannabis recommendations to their patients in states where it’s legal, but they did not advance to the floor.

The Senate under GOP control did not move any standalone marijuana bills in the last session, but with Democrats now in charge of both chambers and the White House, there’s renewed optimism that modest reforms like this latest measure stand a solid chance of becoming law.

In April, a bipartisan coalition of congressional lawmakers reintroduced bills that would federally legalize medical cannabis for military veterans.

Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL) in January introduced a proposal aimed at ensuring that military veterans aren’t penalized for using medical cannabis in compliance with state law. It would also codify that VA doctors are allowed to discuss the risks and benefits of marijuana with their patients.

VA doctors are currently permitted to discuss cannabis with patients and document their usage in medical records, and those veteran patients are already shielded by agency policy from losing their benefits for marijuana use—but the bill would enshrine those policies into federal statute so they could not be administratively changed in the future.

Meanwhile, congressional leaders are working to end federal marijuana prohibition altogether.

Advocates are pushing for a vote on a federal legalization bill from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) to take place this month.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is also in the process of drafting a bill to end federal cannabis prohibition, which he’s repeatedly said would be introduced “soon.” Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR), who is also working the bill alongside Schumer and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), said to expect a filing “very soon.”

Read VA’s written testimony on the marijuana research bill for veterans by following title link and scrolling to the bottom of the article.

 

[arb]

Wow.............pretty cool they wanna make it legal for themselves.

 

[momofthegoons]

House Committee Approves Marijuana Protections For Banking And D.C.​

A House subcommittee on Thursday approved a large-scale funding bill that includes provisions protecting banks from being punished for working with marijuana businesses and allowing Washington, D.C. to legalize cannabis sales.

The move by congressional Democrats to let the District of Columbia set its own marijuana policies is in contrast with a budget released last month by President Joe Biden, which proposed continuing the longstanding Republican-led rider that has prevented the city from spending its own money to regulate adult-use cannabis commerce.

The banking-related provision is less far-reaching than more robust standalone bills the House has passed on four occasions, but would still provide some protections to banks that work with state-legal marijuana operators.

Both measures are attached to a bill to fund various federal agencies for Fiscal Year 2022 that was approved by the House Appropriations Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) Subcommittee in a voice vote. The full House Appropriations Committee is scheduled to take up the legislation on Tuesday.

In a press release, the panel called the rider blocking local D.C. marijuana policymaking an “objectionable” measure that “undermine home rule.”

Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) said in a press release that she’s “very pleased the bill respects D.C.’s right to self-government by allowing D.C. to spend its local funds as it sees fit, including on…recreational marijuana commercialization.”

“With Democrats controlling the White House, House and Senate,” she said, “we have the best opportunity in over a decade to enact a spending bill with no anti-home-rule riders, as this D.C. appropriations bill does and as I requested.”

After the Biden budget was released, Norton told Marijuana Moment that she was “very disappointed” over the decision, especially considering that fact that he’s voiced support for D.C. statehood.

The exclusion of the D.C. provision from the Fiscal Year 2022 FSGG appropriations bill could set the stage for conflict between lawmakers and the president. The Biden administration has already disappointed advocates by declining to take meaningful action on cannabis reform as promised on the campaign trail, and his inclusion of the D.C. rider was seen as an outright hostile act.

The District’s mayor said in April that local officials are prepared to move forward with implementing a legal system of recreational cannabis sales in the nation’s capital just as soon as they can get over the final “hurdle” of congressional interference.

The ongoing blockade is the result of an amendment that was first added by Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) when Republicans controlled the House and has since been continued in annual appropriations legislation. The House on several occasions has since passed spending bills that do not include the cannabis ban, but it has been included in final enacted legislation because the Senate under GOP control insisted on reinserting it.

The president did notably include a separate long-standing rider in his budget proposal that would prevent the Justice Department from using its funds to interfere with the implementation of medical cannabis laws in states, however. President Donald Trump and President Barack Obama each called for ending the policy as part of their budget proposals, but Congress has consistently upheld it regardless.

In 2019 and last year, the House approved an even more expansive amendment that would have provided protections for all state and territory marijuana programs, rather than just medical cannabis systems. But the Senate did not follow suit and the provision was not included in final spending bill sent to Trump’s desk.

On several occasions when Trump signed large-scale annual spending legislation, he attached a statement that said he is empowered to ignore the congressionally approved medical cannabis rider, stating that the administration “will treat this provision consistent with the President’s constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.”

When it comes to banking, the House has not only passed standalone legislation to protect financial institutions from being punished for working with cannabis businesses, but has also included a rider on the topic in previous years’ appropriations bills. While the Senate under Republican control has refused to take up any of those measures, advocates are hopeful that the issue will advance now that the chamber has a Democratic majority.

The current House FSGG bill’s banking language reads:

“SEC. 629. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to penalize a financial institution solely because the institution provides financial services to an entity that is a manufacturer, a producer, or a person that participates in any business or organized activity that involves handling hemp, hemp-derived cannabidiol products, other hemp-derived cannabinoid products, marijuana, marijuana products, or marijuana proceeds, and engages in such activity pursuant to a law established by a State, political subdivision of a State, or Indian Tribe. In this section, the term ‘State’ means each of the several States, the District of Columbia, and any territory or possession of the United States.”

The language would provide limited protections as compared to the more comprehensive standalone legislation on the topic, since it would need to be renewed annually and only applies to the Treasury Department. It provides no restrictions on the Department of Justice, which is covered under a separate appropriations bill, for example.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration is being closely watched by advocates when it comes to any marijuana policy development—especially since the president has maintained an opposition to adult-use legalization even as multiple bills to end federal prohibition are being drafted and introduced.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Biden’s budget did not propose gutting the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) as Trump did. The former president called for a roughly 90 percent cut in the agency’s budget in his proposals, but Congress did not follow suit. Biden helped to establish the drug czar’s office during his time in the Senate.

Biden’s budget also includes $17 million in funding to support industrial hemp production.

The FSGG measure is the first of twelve separate appropriations bills that Congress will take up this year. Advocates will be watching to see how lawmakers in both the House and Senate address cannabis issues in forthcoming spending measures in the coming weeks.

 

[momofthegoons]

​

United Nations Urges Global Ban On Marijuana Advertising In Novel Regulatory Recommendation​

The United Nations (UN) drug division is urging a global ban on marijuana advertising—but some advocates see that as a sign the prohibitionist body is coming to terms with the fact that widespread legalization is inevitable.

In its 2021 World Drug Report, released on Thursday, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) said that perceptions of the risks of cannabis have decreased substantially among young people as more areas have loosened laws around the plant or legalized it in some form and as THC potency has increased.

But while industry stakeholders may not be inclined to embrace the body’s advice on an outright advertising prohibition, some advocates feel that UN making any kind of regulatory recommendation for marijuana in the first place is a positive development.



In a sense, it reflects a shift away from the panel’s standard policy position that cannabis should simply be prohibited, with UNODC essentially recognizing the growing popularity of reforms and offering advice as more legal markets come online.

The report states that a “comprehensive ban on advertising, promoting and sponsoring cannabis would ensure that public health interests prevail over business interests.”

“Such a ban would need to apply across all jurisdictions,” it says, adding that more “investment is needed for research into the harm that the non-medical use of cannabis poses to health and to better define the range of health conditions for which cannabis products may be an effective treatment.”

UN does not have the authority to enforce such a ban; rather, it serves as a simple policy recommendation that member nations can choose to adopt or ignore.

The report says an advertising ban could be “similar to the provisions” that are in place for tobacco under the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

Steve Rolles, senior policy analyst for the Transform Drug Policy Foundation, told Marijuana Moment that this amounts to “a tacit acknowledgement that the game is up—they aren’t going to turn back the tide” on legalization.

“The fact they are weighing in at all on the regulation debate, and haven’t before, feels significant,” he said. “It feels like a distinctive shift and break with the past.”

Beyond making the advertising ban recommendation, UNODC also described various legal cannabis regulatory frameworks that have taken shape in states across the U.S., as well as in Uruguay and Canada.

Notably, the report says that nearly half of Canadians are now obtaining cannabis from legal retailers, which is “a significantly higher proportion than in 2019 when just under a quarter of past-year cannabis users reported legal storefronts as their usual source for obtaining cannabis.”

“The retail cannabis market in Canada is likely to continue to evolve as jurisdictions adapt their regulatory approaches, as supply chains develop and as cannabis product offerings are diversified,” the body said. “Overall, the implementation of laws permitting the non-medical use of cannabis in Canada is still in its nascent stages, and it may take several years of monitoring to clarify how the cannabis market has evolved and to identify its dynamics and the impact of legalization on public health and safety, among other outcome measures.”

The U.K.-based Rolles, who—unlike many U.S.-based legalization advocates—personally supports an outright ban on cannabis advertising, said that this “is as far as I’m aware the first time they’ve engaged with the regulation debate – i.e. advised on best practice—rather than simply describe or condemn.”

“I’ve had a long running issue with UNODC and [the World Health Organization] not providing best practice guidance for cannabis regulation the way they do for alcohol and tobacco, even though 300 million-plus people live in legal cannabis jurisdictions now,” he said. “It’s so much harder to retrofit sensible regulation into an entrenched corporate market, than to design it sensibly from the start.”

Separately, UN’s Commission on Narcotic Drugs approved a World Health Organization (WHO) recommendation last year to remove marijuana from the most restrictive global scheduling category.

 

[Baron23]

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Slams Feds’ Marijuana Stance As ‘Contradictory’ And ‘Unstable’​

One of the most conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices on Monday denounced the federal government’s inconsistent approach to marijuana policy, suggesting that outright national prohibition may be unconstitutional.


While the court declined to take up a new case related to an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) investigation into tax deductions claimed by a Colorado marijuana dispensary, Justice Clarence Thomas issued a statement that more broadly addressed the federal-state marijuana disconnect.


He specifically discussed a 2005 ruling in Gonzales v. Raich, wherein the court narrowly determined that the federal government could enforce prohibition against cannabis cultivation that took place wholly within California based on its authority to regulate interstate commerce.


“Whatever the merits of Raich when it was decided, federal policies of the past 16 years have greatly undermined its reasoning,” Thomas wrote. “Once comprehensive, the Federal Government’s current approach is a half-in, half-out regime that simultaneously tolerates and forbids local use of marijuana.”


“This contradictory and unstable state of affairs strains basic principles of federalism and conceals traps for the unwary,” he said, adding that “though federal law still flatly forbids the intrastate possession, cultivation, or distribution of marijuana…the Government, post-Raich, has sent mixed signals on its views.”


Case in point: the Justice Department under President Barack Obama twice issued memorandums signaling that the government would tolerate certain marijuana-related activity if it’s lawful in the state where it took place. The so-called Cole memo laid out enforcement priorities for federal prosecutors, signaling that low-level cannabis offenses shouldn’t be pursued.


Further, Thomas noted, Congress has repeatedly approved a spending bill rider that prohibits the Justice Department from using its funds to interfere in the implementation of state-level medical marijuana programs.


“Given all these developments, one can certainly understand why an ordinary person might think that the Federal Government has retreated from its once-absolute ban on marijuana,” he wrote. “One can also perhaps understand why business owners in Colorado…may think that their intrastate marijuana operations will be treated like any other enterprise that is legal under state law.”


While Thomas’s five-page statement itself won’t resolve the problem, it’s remarkable to see a Supreme Court justice—a very conservative one at that—make such a thorough and forceful criticism of federal cannabis policy. In the case at hand, petitioners were seeking to prevent IRS from requiring disclosures of tax deductions that it made for its medical marijuana dispensary business expenses.


“In other words, petitioners have found that the Government’s willingness to often look the other way on marijuana is more episodic than coherent,” Thomas said. “This disjuncture between the Government’s recent laissez-faire policies on marijuana and the actual operation of specific laws is not limited to the tax context.”


The justice also flagged a related consequence of federal prohibition, noting that many state-legal cannabis businesses operate on a largely cash-only basis because of restrictions on using federally backed financial institutions for dealing in a controlled substance. That makes those businesses “understandably enticing to burglars and robbers.”


That’s also a main argument in favor of a congressional bill—the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act—that would protect banks that service state-legal marijuana businesses from being penalized by federal regulators. It’s already passed the House this Congress and may be incorporated into a federal legalization bill that’s being drafted in the Senate.


“I could go on. Suffice it to say, the Federal Government’s current approach to marijuana bears little resemblance to the watertight nationwide prohibition that a closely divided Court found necessary to justify the Government’s blanket prohibition in Raich,” Thomas wrote. “If the Government is now content to allow States to act ‘as laboratories’ ‘and try novel social and economic experiments,’…then it might no longer have authority to intrude on ‘[t]he States’ core police powers…to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens.'”


“A prohibition on intrastate use or cultivation of marijuana may no longer be necessary or proper to support the Federal Government’s piecemeal approach,” the justice concluded.


Though not actionable, advocates view the statement as a welcome recognition of an issue that has rarely been directly addressed by the high court. Last year, justices declined to hear a case challenging the constitutionality of federal marijuana prohibition.


In contrast, Mexico’s Supreme Court in 2018 declared the criminalizing people for personal possession and cultivation of cannabis is unconstitutional and ordered lawmakers to enact a policy change. The body is expected to vote on nullifying prohibition itself on Monday after legislators were unable to legalize by its deadline.

 

[Baron23]

"In Minnesota, two issues have become entwined unexpectedly."

Not at all sure why this was "unexpected". This has been an outstanding issue....protected individual right in the Constitution vs legislation and administration (DEA) regulation. This needs to be settled by SCOTUS who, IMO, have done a great job of cowardly avoiding clarifying a number of similar issues under the Robert's court.

Strange Bedfellows? Medical Marijuana and Gun Rights Activists Unite​

In Minnesota, two issues have become entwined unexpectedly. The first is the drive to exclude medical marijuana from the federal government's list of banned controlled substances. The second is the right for people to get a permit to buy and carry a gun.


The issue revolves around an effort by marijuana advocates to get the state's health leaders to petition the federal Drug Enforcement Administration to grant an exemption for the Minnesota marijuana program from the federal law that makes cannabis illegal.


They've won support for their cause from Republicans. That's because medical marijuana patients could get banned for life from owning a firearm if arrested for marijuana possession under current federal law.






Thomas Gallagher of Republicans Against Marijuana Prohibition - Minnesota said in a press release:" Reducing or eliminating the criminal penalties we're seeing around marijuana is where we have consensus. Let's focus on the people who have small quantities. There is injustice in a trivial amount of marijuana resulting in life-changing punishments like imprisonment, criminal records, and lost jobs and kids."

Minnesota could be a first​

If the proposal is successful, Minnesota will become the first state to appeal to the federal government on behalf of the people in its medical marijuana program (36 states now have legal medical marijuana laws in place).


In Minnesota, more than 35,000 people are currently actively enrolled in the medical marijuana program. State leaders expect that number to multiply in the coming years as the state recently made cannabis flower legal for medical use. Previously, people could only use oils, pills, and liquid.


At the federal level, marijuana remains an illegal drug on par with cocaine and heroin. Under that law, using marijuana prohibits a person from purchasing a firearm. That includes those who use weed to treat medical issues.


"All of those people will be denied the right to get a shotgun in the fall to go hunting," state Rep. Jeremy Munson told the Star Tribune.

More states to follow?​

As more states allow medical marijuana use, tens of thousands of people will face a decision to either own a firearm or use a treatment prescribed to them by a doctor.


Take Minnesota Rep. Rod Hamilton's current situation. He has multiple sclerosis, and both his physician and neurologist have told him that cannabis may help treat his symptoms. But once he enrolled in the program, he was told he could not renew his gun permit because federal law prohibits it.


"In the eyes of the federal government, we're all felons, and it's just tragic," Hamilton told the Star Tribune.


Time is an issue. The special session, which has a primary goal of finding agreement on a new state budget, is expected to end by July 1 at the latest.

 

[CarolKing]

Depends on what state you live in. Laws vary. If you are violent and have a criminal record for severe crimes should be the criteria IMO. Like a protection order for beating your partner - you shouldn’t be able to get a gun.
Also the guns they currently have needs to be taken away.

Why Guns are Off-Limits for Medical Cannabis Patients​

The reason for MMJ patients who have followed their state’s laws in legally obtaining a medical marijuana card to be grouped into the same firearm prohibited status as violent criminals and the mentally ill dates back to the The Gun Control Act of 1968, which prohibits anyone from possessing guns or ammunition if they use or are addicted to cannabis or any other controlled substance.

An open letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) put out in 2011 restated their position that the 1968 still stands regardless of changing societal attitudes about marijuana. The letter says that anyone who uses marijuana, regardless of state law, qualifies as an "unlawful user of" the controlled substance, and is therefore prohibited from owning a gun.

The ATF is responsible for gun restrictions on medical cannabis patients. photo credit

In that same letter, federal officials clarified that possession of a medical marijuana card served as reasonable cause to suspect the card owner of being an unlawful marijuana user, even if that person obtained the card to use marijuana by following the law.

 

[arb]

Zero tolerance for firearms on the same property as cannabis is the standard Leo goes by ime.

 

[momofthegoons]

​

Apple Now Allows Marijuana Businesses On Its App Store, While Google Maintains Ban​

Apple will no longer prohibit marijuana delivery services from being hosted on its App Store—one of the latest pro-cannabis developments to come out of the tech industry.

The policy was updated last month to remove the ban, with some restrictions. A marijuana app must be geo-restricted to jurisdictions where cannabis is legal, and the program must be “submitted by a legal entity that provides the services, and not by an individual developer.”

Here’s what the previous policy said:

“Apps that encourage consumption of tobacco and vape products, illegal drugs, or excessive amounts of alcohol are not permitted on the App Store. Apps that encourage minors to consume any of these substances will be rejected. Facilitating the sale of controlled substances (except for licensed pharmacies), marijuana, or tobacco is not allowed.

The new policy, which was updated on June 7, reads:

“Apps that encourage consumption of tobacco and vape products, illegal drugs, or excessive amounts of alcohol are not permitted on the App Store. Apps that encourage minors to consume any of these substances will be rejected. Facilitating the sale of controlled substances (except for licensed pharmacies and licensed or otherwise legal cannabis dispensaries), or tobacco is not allowed.”

…

“Apps that provide services in highly-regulated fields (such as banking and financial services, healthcare, gambling, legal cannabis use, and air travel) or that require sensitive user information should be submitted by a legal entity that provides the services, and not by an individual developer. Apps that facilitate the legal sale of cannabis must be geo-restricted to the corresponding legal jurisdiction.”

TechCrunch first reported on the new guidelines, and WeedWeek later flagged the marijuana-specific guidance.

In contrast, Google’s Android app hub updated its policy in 2019 to explicitly prohibit programs that connect users with cannabis, no matter whether it is legal in the jurisdiction where the user lives.

“We don’t allow apps that facilitate the sale of marijuana or marijuana products, regardless of legality,” it says, adding that some examples of violations would be “allowing users to order marijuana through an in-app shopping cart feature” or “assisting users in arranging delivery or pick up of marijuana.”

It also says that “facilitating the sale of products containing THC(Tetrahydrocannabinol), including products such as CBD oils containing THC” is against its policies.

Chris Vaughn, CEO of the California delivery service Emjay, told WeedWeek that he believes Apple’s decision was informed by the continuing legalization movement in states like New York, as well as Amazon’s recent announcement that it will no longer be drug testing workers for cannabis in addition to lobbying for a federal legalization bill. He added that he thinks Google will “follow quickly” to update its own policies.

The tech industry has had a strained relationship with the marijuana industry, even as a growing number of states have decided to legalize and regulate the sale of cannabis.

Facebook, which in 2019 showed off its artificial intelligence technology that’s capable of identifying images of marijuana, continues to prohibit the commercial advertising of cannabis products, regardless of the legality of the business under state law.

Noncommercial cannabis news sites such as Marijuana Moment and state regulatory bodies like the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission have also been caught up in the anti-marijuana policy despite the fact that they do not promote or sell cannabis products. In some cases, it appears these organizations have been hidden from appearing in search results—a practice known as “shadowbanning.”

Despite marijuana firms being banned from Google’s app market, some of the company’s top officials seem pretty bullish about loosening cannabis laws. Google co-founder Sergey Brin joked about supplying employees with joints at a post-election meeting in 2016.

“I was asking if we could serve joints outside on the patio, but apparently these things take a little while to take effect,” Brin said, referring to the implementation of California’s cannabis legalization measure. “It was a huge, huge disappointment. I’ve been bemoaning that all week, I’ll be honest with you.”