Law The Cannabis Chronicles - Misc Cannabis News

[Baron23]

​

Senators Vote To Expand Medical Marijuana Access For Military Veterans In Key Committee​

A powerful Senate committee on Wednesday approved an amendment that’s meant to promote military veterans’ access to medical marijuana by allowing doctors at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to issue cannabis recommendations in legal states.

The measure, sponsored by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), passed in the Senate Appropriations Committee on a voice vote. It would further prohibit VA from interfering with, or denying services to, veterans who participate in a state-legal medical cannabis program

“We have now 36 states that have medical cannabis, and our veterans want to know from their VA doctor what their thoughts are on the pros and cons or appropriate role or challenges of this particular strategy for treating a variety of issues, including PTSD,” Merkley said. “I think it’s really important that we not force our veterans to be unable to discuss this issue with their doctors.”

Here’s the text of the amendment, which is now part of a bill to fund the VA for Fiscal Year 2022:

SEC. ___ None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Veterans Affairs in this Act may be used in a manner that would—

(1) interfere with the ability of a veteran to participate in a medicinal marijuana program approved by a State;

(2) deny any services from the Department to a veteran who is participating in such a program;

or (3) limit or interfere with the ability of a health care provider of the Department to make appropriate recommendations, fill out forms, or take steps to comply with such a program.

The senator introduced a similar proposal in 2018 that also cleared the Appropriations Committee.

Reps. Conor Lamb (D-PA) and Peter Meijer (R-MI) filed a bill—titled the Fully Informed Veteran Act—in May that would simply allow VA doctors to provide basic information and resources about state-legal cannabis programs to veterans.

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

Also in April, a bipartisan coalition of congressional lawmakers reintroduced legislation that would federally legalize medical marijuana for military veterans.

A large-scale spending bill that passed the House last week includes report language that says federal health agencies should pursue research into the therapeutic potential of psychedelics for military veterans suffering from a host of mental health conditions.

It also acknowledges that VA has clarified that veterans are eligible for home loan benefitseven if they work in a state-legal marijuana industry. However, it expresses disappointment that VA hasn’t taken further action to communicate this policy to lenders and borrowers and directs the department to improve its communication and report back to Congress on its progress within 180 days of the enactment of the legislation

Rep. Katherine Clark (D-MA) and other lawmakers have pressed VA on difficulties some veterans have faced in securing the benefit, with at least one constituent telling Clark that they were denied a home loan because of their work in the state-legal cannabis market. That prompted the congresswoman to circulate a sign-on letter and introduce an amendment to resolve the problem.

Clark’s amendment to address the problem was approved by the House as part of a previous defense spending bill—though leaders in the chamber agreed to scrap it after the Senate didn’t include it in its version of the legislation.

The report also notes “progress” that VA has made when it comes to marijuana research. However, advocates have been critical of the agency in this respect. For example, VA offered written testimony recently opposing the bill expand clinical trials into the therapeutic potential of cannabis for military veterans with PTSD and chronic pain.

Read the text of the Senate Appropriations Committee amendment on veterans and marijuana by following title link and scrolling to the bottom of the article.

The House on several occasions has approved legislation to allow VA doctors to issue medical marijuana recommendations to their patients, but it has never been enacted into law. Some lawmakers have expressed concern that, even if the VA funding provision were added, government physicians could still be penalized by the Justice Department if they filled out cannabis forms while the substance remains a federally prohibited.

Multiple pieces of veterans- and marijuana-specific legislation have been introduced this Congress.

Yeah, but beyond a committee vote it ain't happening any time soon, IMO.

 

[Baron23]

"One of the progressive stances most neglected by the Biden administration is that cannabis laws should be reformed."

I vehemently disagree with this assertion that MJ legalization is a "progressive stance" with "progressive" being defined as the agenda the far left wing of the Democrat party, which is its common usage in today's political environment.

Biden Fails Cannabis​

Last year progressive voters were told that, despite the clear evidence that Joe Biden was a left-of-Reagan centrist, modern political pressures from the Democratic party would push the candidate to the left once he was in office, finally aligning him with populist principles. That prediction has proven faulty—even by the most forgiving of standards. And one of the progressive stances most neglected by the Biden administration is that cannabis laws should be reformed.
Even before he became the Democratic nominee, expectations were low that Biden would be friendly toward marijuana. Halfhearted concessions and promises made during the campaign trail concerning the decriminalization of cannabis were taken with a grain of salt by many, and political junkies were reluctant to take these as evidence that Biden—who called weed a “gateway drug” as recently as 2019—was coming around on the issue. It seems they were right to be cautious.

“Push Him Left”​

In late October of last year, right-wing pundits were pawing the ground and grinding their teeth as they told conservative voters that President Biden would shift from his centrist position to the far left, inevitably turning the nation into a communist death camp. To seemingly confirm their fears, Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) told a group of Democrat congresswomen known as “The Squad” that it was their duty “to make sure that Biden becomes the most progressive president since FDR.”
The Fox News and Newsmax talking heads haven’t been raising the alarm as much these days. Biden has been in the Oval Office for over half a year now, and the threat that he would move further to the left has clearly evaporated. Biden—who campaigned on promises that he would halt new oil and gas drilling operations on federal land—is on track to exceed the number of drilling operations approved by President Donald Trump last year. Promises made by Biden to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour were seemingly sabotaged by the president himself a few months later when he told reporters, “I don’t think it’s going to survive,” before talks had even concluded.
Progressives have completely given up on the fantasy, and the gears behind the machine to push Biden left have ground to a halt.



Sanders himself seems to have given up on his orders to The Squad. In a recent interview on the podcast “Krystal, Kyle and Friends,” the senator painted a picture of the president as a proven hero rather than a work in progress and defended what appears to be Biden’s lack of commitment to progressive policies. “Don’t think that [Biden] can snap his fingers—no matter what he may or may not believe—and make things happen,” he told Krystal Ball.
“There are certain things he could do, though, through executive action,” she responded. “For example, canceling student debt, legalizing marijuana.” “Yes,” conceded Sanders. “Yep. Yep.”

No Time For Pot Reform​

In April reporters held Vice President Kamala Harris’ feet to the fire on promises made during the campaign that the administration would decriminalize cannabis by rescheduling the drug and expunging criminal marijuana charges.
“Honestly, right now, we’ve been focused on getting people food, helping them stay in their apartments or in their homes, getting kids back to school, getting shots into arms,” she said. “That has been all-consuming.”
Last month two Republican lawmakers—Reps. Dave Joyce (R-Ohio) and Don Young (R-AK)—sent a letter to the president asking that he stand by his campaign promises and reclassify cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act. “As a Schedule I substance, cannabis is not accepted for medical use on the federal level, which has caused significant research restrictions and continues to thwart the treatment of a wide range of patients, including those suffering from cancer as well as veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and people living with Multiple Sclerosis and seizure disorders,” wrote the legislators. The strangeness of seeing conservatives ask the president to be more progressive has largely gone ignored by the media.

Firing White House Staff​

If Biden’s opposition to cannabis reform was still in question, he confirmed it in March when a number of White House staffers were asked to resign or were forced to work remotely because of prior cannabis use. Five staffers were let go, presumably for cannabis use, and several others were sent to work from home.
This would have been business as usual, but the administration had made waves announcing that it would no longer disqualify staff applicants based solely on past cannabis use. When confronted about the firings, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki told reporters that no one was fired over infrequent cannabis use in the last year or any usage from years before. She also said that the administration had indeed eased restrictions and that many staffers were employed who would have previously been ineligible. Nevertheless, she failed to adequately explain the five resignations or the number of staffers that were forced to work remotely.

Opposed to Schumer’s Bill​

More recently, the president has again pushed back against a major attempt to reform marijuana laws. Last month House Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) released a draft of the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act, a federal bill that would decriminalize cannabis, expunge cannabis criminal records, tax the sale of the drug and give states the power to decide whether to legalize locally.
Unfortunately, pundits say the bill is unlikely to pass in its current form, and Schumer even said he doesn’t think he has enough votes to see it succeed. To make matters even more hopeless, Biden doubled down on his opposition to legalization following the release of the draft bill. When asked to comment on the proposal, Psaki told reporters, “I have spoken in the past about the president’s views on marijuana. Nothing has changed. There’s no new endorsements of legislation to report today.”
With the president’s history as a rabidly anti-pot, law-and-order Democrat and his current blunders in addressing progressive concerns, it looks likely that the U.S. will have to wait at least another four years before we see solid cannabis law reform—despite what voters were promised during the election.

 

[momofthegoons]

​

Feds And California Governor Exploring Rules For Medical Marijuana Use In Hospitals​

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the governor of California’s office are looking into whether hospitals and other healthcare facilities in legal marijuana states can allow terminally ill patients to use medical cannabis without jeopardizing federal funding. The moves come in response to a request from a state lawmaker who is pursuing legislation on the issue.

California Sen. Ben Hueso (D) is sponsoring a bill meant to codify that California hospitals can permit such treatment. And after he sent letters to state and federal officials last monthinquiring about cannabis access for patients, he’s received calls from representatives of both HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra and Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) ensuring that their offices were looking into the matter, according to a local media outlet.

Confusion about possible federal funding implications for permitting marijuana consumption in health facilities led pro-legalization Newsom to veto a prior bill meant to address the issue in 2019.

Hueso’s legislation was partly inspired by the experience of a father whose son died from cancer and was initially denied access to cannabis at a California hospital. Jim Bartell did eventually find a facility that agreed to allow the treatment, and he recounted that his son’s quality of life improved dramatically in those last days.

“He would sleep through the night and wake up pain-free,” Bartell told The Southern California Record. “He was talking, texting his friends and asking them to visit him. During his last two and a half weeks, he met with dozens of visitors and he spent an hour every day talking to his son just the two of them.”

Motivated to give other families the same right to cannabis access for their loved ones, he helped craft the Compassionate Access to Medical Cannabis Act, which is being carried by Hueso.

The senator received a letter from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) several months ago stating that there are no federal regulations in place that specifically address this issue and that it isn’t aware of any cases where funding has been pulled because a hospital allows patients to use medical cannabis.

“Our correspondence from CMS reaffirmed for us, and the state agencies, that we do not have to fear federal penalties in regards to cannabis use by terminally-ill patients in hospitals,” Bartell told Marijuana Moment.

Meanwhile, the senator’s letter to Becerra on the need for further clarification on federal policy seems to be catching the attention of officials.

A staffer in the Hueso’s office told the Southern California Record that he “got a call from [HHS Secretary] Becerra’s office, acknowledging the letter and saying they were looking into it.”

“He also got a call from the governor’s office, acknowledging that they’d received a letter and had forwarded it to several people in the governor’s administration,” the staffer said.

The senator’s bill to resolve the issue in California already passed the full Senate and one Assembly committee this session. It’s now awaiting action on the Assembly floor before potentially being sent to Newsom’s desk.

“We are very confident that this law will be in place next year to aid patients and families in California,” Bartell told Marijuana Moment.

“Ryan’s Law would require that hospitals and certain types of healthcare facilities in the State of California allow a terminally-ill patient to use medical cannabis for treatment and/or pain relief,” Hueso wrote in the July letter to state and federal officials. “Currently, whether or not medical cannabis is permitted is left up to hospital policy, and this creates issues for patients and their families who seek alternative, more natural medication options in their final days.”

Hospitals that receive [Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)] accreditation are generally expected to comply with local, state and federal laws in order to qualify for certain reimbursements. And so because marijuana remains federally illegal, “many healthcare facilities have adopted policies prohibiting cannabis on their grounds out of a perceived risk of losing federal funding if they were to allow it.”

But the senator said the letter he got from CMS provides assurance that healthcare facilities aren’t at risk of losing federal funds for allowing cannabis use by patients. Additionally, because the Justice Department has been barred under annually renewed spending legislation from using its funds to interfere in the implementation of state-level medical marijuana programs, he said, “we believe the risk of federal intervention is little to none.”

Becerra, while previously serving as California attorney general and as a member of Congress, demonstrated a track record of supporting marijuana law reform.

A cannabis advisor for Newsom did not respond to Marijuana Moment’s request for comment for this story.

 

[momofthegoons]

Congress Should Protect Small Marijuana Businesses From Big Tobacco Takeover, Colorado Attorney General Says​

The attorney general of Colorado on Wednesday sent a letter urging congressional leaders to ensure that small marijuana businesses are protected from being overtaken by Big Tobacco and other major industries as federal cannabis reform legislation advances.

Attorney General Phil Weiser (D) wrote that his state is “heartened” to see efforts on Capitol Hill to end federal cannabis prohibition and create a regulatory framework that still empowers states to make their own policy decisions. But he expressed concerns about large corporations potentially gobbling up the industry if preventative steps aren’t taken.

Weiser specifically discussed the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act (CAOA), a bill to federally deschedule marijuana and promote social equity that’s being sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ). The trio has asked for public input on the proposal.

“I submit this letter in response to requests for comments to that proposed law and request that the Congress engage with the states when designing a federal regulatory system that protects public health and safety,” Weiser said.

Ensuring that small businesses are empowered to participate in the marijuana industry is a major priority, the attorney general argued. And, therefore, the official said a national market should be rolled out in thoughtful way to prevent large corporations from overtaking the industry.

“If a national market is not rolled-out carefully and in stages, large companies, particularly existing tobacco-focused companies, will be able to move into new markets immediately, displacing and pushing out smaller players,” he wrote.

Schumer, for his part, has emphasized that his bill will specifically seek to restrict the abilityof large alcohol and tobacco companies to overtake the industry.

“Without phased implementation, we are concerned these businesses will be pushed out of the market thus diminishing the social equity principles behind any federal market rollout,” Weiser said in the letter to congressional leaders. “In short, the federal regulatory framework will have considerable impact on state public policy goals—including equity and competition—and those impacts should be considered carefully and managed appropriately before a federal framework takes hold.”

“A regulatory model that applies appropriate federal health and safety standards to protect consumers engaged in interstate commerce, while preserving the states’ role in the regulation and control of distribution outlets, will provide the strongest possible protections against known and unknown risks associated with legalization. Our model of cooperative federalism is flexible enough to respect the role of states to continue to experiment as laboratories of democracy while also safeguarding the federal government’s interest in regulating a national marketplace.”

Shaleen Title, CEO of the Parabola Center and a former Massachusetts cannabis regulator who has focused on ensuring small businesses owned by people from communities targeted by the drug war can compete in the industry, applauded Weiser’s comments.

“Federal regulation should ensure that every state takes equity as seriously as Colorado did with the legislation signed by the governor this year,” she told Marijuana Moment, referring to a bill that gives aid to equity businesses. “Otherwise, we’re just choosing between the current oligopolies or new ones ruled by Big Tobacco—the public doesn’t want either of them.”

Also in the letter to Congress, Weiser listed three main benefits of state-level legalization: 1) ending prohibition reduces incarceration and helps addresses racial disparities in the criminal justice system, 2) regulating and taxing marijuana generates significant revenue for states and 3) providing a lawful source of marijuana disrupts the illicit market and promotes consumer safety.

Weiser stressed that legal cannabis states have “institutional knowledge,” and federal lawmakers should “capitalize on long-standing principles of cooperative federalism” as they move forward with reform.

“We appreciate the CAOA’s efforts to preserve the integrity of state cannabis laws while simultaneously providing a path for responsible federal regulation of the cannabis industry,” he said. “Given the states’ institutional knowledge, we encourage the adoption of a regulatory framework that designates the states as the primary regulatory authority.”

“While the CAOA contains elements of cooperative federalism, we strongly encourage Congress to more carefully consider the preemptive effects of any national regulations and the potential resulting disruption to state markets,” the attorney general wrote.

One potential disruption concerns the proposed federal tax on state marijuana sales. Weiser said adding too high a federal tax could put pressure on states to reduce their own taxes, which would “reduce the revenue states currently rely on to implement various social equity and education programs related to cannabis.”

“Consequently, we encourage Congress to take time to consider how different measures would impact states and how federal programs can best be designed to work in tandem—not at cross-purposes—with state programs,” the letter says.

The attorney general also noted that while states have seen significant benefits from implementing regulatory schemes for cannabis, research into the plant and its effects on consumers has lagged. Getting the federal government on board with reform could help support research efforts.

“Enhanced federal cooperation could resolve challenges, expand opportunities, and provide valuable oversight during a transition to interstate commerce,” he wrote.

“We also support the development of regulatory best practices across intrastate markets which can be valuable in providing guidance for interstate markets in manufacturing, testing, and marketing,” Weiser continued. “With guidance from federal authorities and sponsored research, the federal government can work to protect consumers from misleading advertising or from health risks associated with dangerous additives or undisclosed risks of use.”

Weiser concluded by saying that state attorneys general, and his office in particular, are ready and willing to support lawmakers in crafting federal reform legislation that takes into account all of these opportunities and challenges.

Weiser has previously led letters to Congress voicing support for bipartisan legislation to protect banks that service state-legal marijuana businesses. That effort was noted in this latest letter to lawmakers on broader reform.

Read Weiser’s letter to congressional lawmakers on federal marijuana reform legislation by following title link and scrolling to the bottom of the article.

 

[momofthegoons]

Colorado Governor Urges Senators To Pass Marijuana Banking And Tax Reform Before Tackling Legalization​

The governor of Colorado on Friday sent a letter to the Senate sponsors of a federal marijuana legalization bill, urging them to pass incremental cannabis banking and tax reform first before moving forward with the comprehensive legislation to end prohibition.

Gov. Jared Polis (D) is supportive of the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act (CAOA)—a bill to deschedule marijuana and promote social equity that’s being sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ). But he insisted that there are more modest and practical steps that should be taken first to support state-legal markets and protect businesses.

“I am thrilled that you are bringing forward a long-term, comprehensive solution that deschedules cannabis while enhancing social equity pathways,” the governor wrote. “I hope that you will first focus your efforts on the two biggest barriers to the success of the cannabis industry: banking and IRS Code Section 280E.”

That latter statute has precluded state-legal marijuana businesses from making federal tax deductions that are available to other traditional industries.

Polis said the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act, which has passed in the U.S. House of Representatives on several occasions, “has more bipartisan support than ever before and can be passed in the short-term as you continue to work on the details of the CAOA.”

The senators behind the CAOA recognize that banking reform has an easier path to passage, but they’ve insisted on prioritizing the legalization bill first, in part to avoid jeopardizing support for broader reform from on-the-fence members. Some advocates have also protested putting the SAFE Banking Act to a vote first, as it’s viewed as primarily friendly to the industry without concrete social equity provisions.

Booker said in July that he “will lay myself down” to block any other senators who seek to pass marijuana banking legislation before the body approves comprehensive cannabis reform

But Polis said that passing the banking bill is an important public safety issue because existing cannabis businesses operate on a largely cash-only basis. That makes them “targets for crime” and put them at a disadvantage “compared to other legal businesses by being unable to open bank accounts or obtain loans at reasonable rates.”

“The cannabis industry is simply too large to be prohibited from banking opportunities, and the Senate must remedy this harm by bringing this measure up for a vote in the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs immediately,” the governor wrote.

“Similarly, the cannabis industry has been stymied by 280E, which prevents these businesses from taking business-related deductions associated with the sale of cannabis,” he continued. “Congress must swiftly act to pass any measure, a number of which have been introduced in past sessions, to make an exception for legal cannabis businesses from 280E. While the CAOA would address this issue by descheduling cannabis, a narrow measure focused on relieving cannabis businesses from the detrimental effects of 280E would expeditiously solve this problem.”

“Congress has the power and traction to address these inequities in the near-term while continuing to refine the CAOA, and I encourage you to efficiently take any opportunity to pass legislation concerning banking or 280E,” he said.

The letter is responsive to a public comment request from the senators on the draft legalization legislation. The comment period ends on September 1.

With regard to the legalization bill, Polis urged the senators to rethink the high tax rate that would be created by the draft legislation.

“It is critical that the tax level is not so cost prohibitive that it undermines the federal legal cannabis systems both already in place and being developed in emerging regulated cannabis states,” he wrote.

That’s a key point given that Colorado voters will see a measure on their ballots this November that would further raise state marijuana taxes to fund education programs.

The governor also wants to make sure that states be “empowered to retain their regulatory authorities” over most aspects of the cannabis trade.

“It is clear from the discussion draft that you are deeply considering the multifaceted aspects of this issue,” Polis concluded. “As a pioneer and leader in cannabis regulation, I would like to offer our state’s support and decade long leadership as you work to resolve challenging problems concerning taxes, regulatory overlay, enforcement, and more.”

This letter comes days after the attorney general of Colorado sent a separate message urging congressional leaders to ensure that small marijuana businesses are protected from being overtaken by Big Tobacco and other major industries as federal cannabis reform legislation advances.

Attorney General Phil Weiser (D) wrote that his state is “heartened” to see efforts on Capitol Hill to end federal cannabis prohibition and create a regulatory framework that still empowers states to make their own policy decisions. But he expressed concerns about large corporations potentially gobbling up the industry if preventative steps aren’t taken.

Schumer, for his part, has emphasized that his bill will specifically seek to restrict the ability of large alcohol and tobacco companies to overtake the industry.

Weiser concluded by saying that state attorneys general, and his office in particular, are ready and willing to support lawmakers in crafting federal reform legislation that takes into account all of these opportunities and challenges.

Weiser has previously led letters to Congress voicing support for bipartisan legislation to protect banks that service state-legal marijuana businesses. That effort was noted in this latest letter to lawmakers on broader reform.

Polis, for his part, has been a leader on marijuana issues dating back to when he was in Congress. Since becoming governor, he has signed numerous cannabis bills into law concerning equity and industry assistance.

Earlier this month he held a press conference at a hemp field to announce that the state’s hemp plan won federal approval.

Also this month he made a number of marijuana-related comments at an appearance with the creators of the TV show South Park.

Read Polis’s letter to the marijuana legalization bill sponsors by following title link and scrolling to the bottom of the article.

 

[Baron23]

IMO, blaming the filibuster in the Senate as the reason why Fed legalization has not happened is a purposeful red herring and ignores the facts on the ground.

That's all I'm going to say about it. Cheers

What Is Preventing Cannabis Legalization In The US?​

Cannabis legalization in some form or another is legal nearly everywhere in the U.S. As of August 2021:

• Medical marijuana is legal in 36 states, 4 territories, and in the US Capitol, Washington DC. An additional 12 states have legalized the medical use of CBD derived from marijuana.
• Adult use marijuana is legal in 19 states, 2 territories and Washington DC.
• Recent poll by Pew Research Center shows that 91% of Americans support some form of legalization with 31% supporting medical use only and 60% supporting medical and recreational.

Recently, Democratic Senators Chuck Schumer and Cory Booker circulated a draft bill to legalize marijuana in the Senate. The Democrats control the House while the Senate is split 50/50 between Republicans and Democrats. However, the tiebreaker is Democratic Vice President, Kamala Harris.

At this point, cannabis is ubiquitous, popular, and the party that most openly supports cannabis legalization controls the legislative and executive branch of the Federal government. So why does cannabis legalization seem distant?

According to Forbes, Schumer said at a recent press conference that, “We don’t have the votes necessary at this point. But we have a large majority of our caucus for it. We’re going to show it to the others and say, ‘Well, what don’t you like? What do you like? And we’ll see if we can get the support.’ We’re going to put our muscle behind it, all our effort behind it, and we’re going to get this done ASAP.”


It may seem perplexing as to why the Senate’s top Democrat is concerned about getting enough votes to move his proposed draft bill forward. Senate rules require just a simple majority to pass a bill, but procedural steps along the way require a supermajority of 60 votes to end debate on bills. This brings us to what makes Sen. Schumer state that he does not currently “have the votes” for his proposed cannabis legislation: the filibuster.

A filibuster is long-established tool (dating back to ancient Rome) that allows a lawmaker to slow down or block other lawmaker’s bill, resolution, or amendment from getting a vote by talking as long as they want. The debate can theoretically go on forever, blocking any final vote and essentially killing the bill, resolution, or amendment from advancing.

 

[momofthegoons]

​

Court Dismisses DEA Marijuana Rescheduling Case, But Judge Says Cannabis Reclassification May Be Coming Anyway​

A federal appeals court has dismissed a petition to require the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to reevaluate marijuana’s scheduling under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA)—but one judge said in a concurring opinion that the agency may soon be forced to consider a policy change anyway based on a misinterpretation of the medical value of cannabis.

In a ruling filed on Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that scientists and military veterans seeking the scheduling review had failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and, therefore, it dismissed the case without weighing in on the merits.

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—received oral arguments in June and largely centers on DEA’s 2020 denial of a one-page marijuana 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 appealed that decision, asking the court to order DEA to initiate a formal rulemaking process, which would involve expert testimony and public comment. They said that the agency’s summary dismissal of past rescheduling petitions has not only been unconstitutional but also prevented important research into the drug’s medical potential.

But in the new ruling, the three-judge panel held that “petitioners failed to exhaust their administrative remedies with the DEA.” And while “the CSA does not, in terms, require exhaustion of administrative remedies, the panel agreed with [an earlier court ruling] that the text and structure of the CSA show that Congress sought to favor administrative decision-making that required exhaustion under the CSA,” the opinion says.

“Petitioners seek to bypass the normal administrative process by seeking review of the DEA’s response to [Stephen Zyszkiewicz’s] petition and then seeking to make arguments never advanced by Zyszkiewicz. Nothing prevents Petitioners from filing a petition of their own before the DEA, raising the arguments they seek to raise before us now. Because Petitioners have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies with the DEA, their petition for judicial review is dismissed.”

The Ninth Circuit judges did reject a DEA argument that the plaintiffs lacked standing based on the fact that they were petitioning a rescheduling request filed separately by someone who wasn’t party to the latest suit and only suffered a “generalized grievance,” however.

“While it is undoubtedly true that the interests of third parties would be affected by a rescheduling of cannabis, this fact does not diminish Petitioners’ direct and particularized interest in rescheduling,” the panel found.

Moving forward, attorneys for the plaintiffs have a number of options at their disposal. That includes petitioning for a panel rehearing or even an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The petitioners 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.

Justice Department lawyer Daniel Aguilar, who represented the federal government at the oral argument in June, insisted that the court should dismiss the case and allow the group to file their own DEA rescheduling petition.

Judges Paul Watford concurred with the latest ruling, but he did notably say in a concurring opinion that, “in an appropriate case, the Drug Enforcement Administration may well be obliged to initiate a reclassification proceeding for marijuana, given the strength of petitioners’ arguments that the agency has misinterpreted the controlling statute by concluding that marijuana ‘has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.'”

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.

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

Read the full Ninth Circuit ruling in the DEA marijuana case by following title link and scrolling to the bottom of the article.

 

[momofthegoons]

​

House Committee Orders Pentagon To Review Racially Discriminatory Drug Testing Of Military Personnel​

A key House committee on Wednesday approved a large-scale defense spending bill that includes report language voicing concern about racial disparities in military drug testing practices and ordering the Pentagon to conduct a review of the issue.

Unlike in past sessions, however, lawmakers did not file an amendment requiring the secretary of defense to issue regulations clarifying that military branches can grant reenlistment waivers to service members who have committed a single low-level marijuana offense.

It’s not clear why Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), who has consistently championed that cannabis measure, declined to introduce it in committee, but it’s possible it could be raised as an amendment later when the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) moves to the House floor. The congressman’s office did not respond several inquiries from Marijuana Moment.

In any case, the language on drug testing from Rep. Anthony Brown (D-MD) was approved by the House Armed Services Committee as part of an en bloc package of amendments to NDAA concerning issues related to military personnel.

The report provision says that lawmakers are “aware of data collected by the [Department of Defense] regarding demographics of the drug testing and evaluation programs of the Armed Forces,” and a 2020 analysis of that data reveals troubling trends.

“The committee is concerned with the racial disparities found in the report regarding random drug test selection, including significant over representation in the random drug test selection of non-commissioned officers and field grade officers and a consistent and statistically relevant over representation of Black service members overall from fiscal year 2015 to fiscal year 2019. The committee further notes a higher positive test rate amongst service members of color and a standard course of action upon a positive test to administratively separate such personnel.”

To address the issue, members directed the defense secretary to work with military branch heads on a report looking at the possibility of standardizing demographic reporting of drug testing activity, including the demographic makeup of those who are randomly screened and the results and investigations that follow.

The department would have until March 1, 2022 to produce the report. What remains to be seen is whether the Senate will approve similar language in its version of NDAA. If not, the question will be whether House negotiators will push for its inclusion in the final conference report.

In other recent congressional cannabis policy moves related to the military, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved an amendment last month that’s meant to promote military veterans’ access to medical marijuana by allowing doctors at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to issue cannabis recommendations in legal states.

The measure, sponsored by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), would further prohibit VA from interfering with, or denying services to, veterans who participate in a state-legal medical cannabis program.

Multiple pieces of veterans- and marijuana-specific legislation have also been introduced this Congress.

Reps. Conor Lamb (D-PA) and Peter Meijer (R-MI) filed a bill—titled the Fully Informed Veteran Act—in May that would simply allow VA doctors to provide basic information and resources about state-legal cannabis programs to veterans.

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

Also in April, a bipartisan coalition of congressional lawmakers reintroduced legislation that would federally legalize medical marijuana for military veterans.

This session, the House approved a spending bill that includes report language saying federal health agencies should pursue research into the therapeutic potential of psychedelics for military veterans suffering from a host of mental health conditions.

It also acknowledges that VA has clarified that veterans are eligible for home loan benefitseven if they work in a state-legal marijuana industry. However, it expresses disappointment that VA hasn’t taken further action to communicate this policy to lenders and borrowers and directs the department to improve its communication and report back to Congress on its progress within 180 days of the enactment of the legislation.

Separately, a Navy veteran who was deported to Jamaica over a marijuana conviction has recently been allowed to return to the country following a concerted push for relief by members of Congress.

Read the full report language on military drug testing below:

Amendment to H.R. 4350 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022

Offered by: Mr. Brown of Maryland

In the appropriate place in the report to accompany H.R. 4350, insert the following new Directive Report Language:

Demographics of Drug Testing and Evaluation Programs

The committee is aware of data collected by the Department regarding demographics of the drug testing and evaluation programs of the Armed Forces, including as set forth in the report of the Inspector General of the Air Force titled “Report of Inquiry (S8918P), Independent Racial Disparity Review,” and dated December 2020. The committee is concerned with the racial disparities found in the report regarding random drug test selection, including significant over representation in the random drug test selection of non-commissioned officers and field grade officers and a consistent and statistically relevant over representation of Black service members overall from fiscal year 2015 to fiscal year 2019. The committee further notes a higher positive test rate amongst service members of color and a standard course of action upon a positive test to administratively separate such personnel.

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretaries of the military departments, to provide a report to the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2022, on the feasibility of implementing standard demographic reporting of the drug testing and evaluation programs of each armed force, to include collecting demographics on random test selection, availability for random testing, results of random testing, referrals to investigation, and any other relevant stages of the testing and evaluation program; changes to the program necessary to implement such data collection; impediments to implementing such changes; potential options for mitigating such impediments; and a schedule, including specific milestones, in which the establishment of such standard demographic reporting could be executed.

 

[bulllee]

Apple’s new cannabis app rules benefit MJ businesses, but Google a holdout​

Published 7 hours ago | By Solomon Israel

(This story has been updated to correct the titles of Weedmaps’ Justin Dean and Caliva’s Dennis O’Malley.)
Cannabis delivery and technology companies say that Apple’s recent decision to let iPhone apps process marijuana transactions is already bringing benefits after these businesses launched new apps for Apple’s iOS smartphone operating system.
Upsides of the change to Apple’s App Store rules for cannabis companies and marijuana tech platforms include:

• Seamless ordering and purchasing, because cannabis consumers can perform transactions within apps instead of having to complete them via a mobile web browser.
• Greater willingness for online shoppers to actually purchase cannabis.
• Improved customer engagement.
• An early increase in orders.

“For the consumer who is looking specifically to find cannabis and purchase cannabis … now they can go to the Apple (App) Store and look for an app to find and purchase weed, whereas before that was not available,” said Justin Dean, chief technology officer of WM Technology, the parent company of the cannabis dispensary directory and advertising platform Weedmaps.
Weedmaps is among the companies now offering an updated iPhone app.
Apple’s App Store Review Guidelines, updated June 7, ban “facilitating the sale of controlled substances” but make an exception for “licensed or otherwise legal cannabis dispensaries.”
“Apps that facilitate the legal sale of cannabis must be geo-restricted to the corresponding legal jurisdiction,” the guidelines note.
However, the Google Play Store – Google’s equivalent to Apple’s App Store for Android OS smartphones – in 2019 banned apps that facilitate cannabis sales in 2019.
The ban on “apps that facilitate the sale of marijuana or marijuana products, regardless of legality” remains in effect. It forbids in-app cannabis orders, apps that arrange marijuana delivery or pickup as well as in-app sales of THC products such as CBD oils containing THC.
New iPhone cannabis apps
San Francisco-based cannabis delivery platform Eaze claimed first place in the race to launch a “full-functional cannabis delivery” iPhone app in early July.
Eaze’s previous iPhone app allowed consumers to view products, but it required transactions to be completed through a mobile web browser, according to Elizabeth Ashford, Eaze’s vice president of communications and public affairs.
That “was always an unsatisfactory experience for customers, because websites are hard to navigate on your phone if you’re trying to complete a purchase,” she said.
Ashford noted that California state assembly member Evan Low, whose district includes the Silicon Valley, wrote Apple CEO Tim Cook in 2019 to encourage a change to Apple’s cannabis app rules, arguing that the policy gave “inadvertent support for illegal (cannabis) suppliers.”
Since the company reversed course, Low said in a statement to MJBizDaily that he was “thankful that Apple made this change in policy because these apps should help reduce the sale of cannabis on the black market.”
Now, Ashford said, in-app cannabis commerce “encourages conversion” from simply browsing the app to actually making purchases as well as encouraging repeat purchases.
WM Technology’s Dean said the in-app ordering in Weedmaps’ iPhone app provides “a very seamless and intuitive experience.”
“You can find and order cannabis directly from within the app itself, from licensed dispensaries,” he said.
“It looks similar to purchasing online as you would expect from other shopping experiences, whether that be food or groceries or whatnot.”
Apple does not take a cut of those in-app transactions, Dean said.
Measurable benefits to in-app transactions
San Jose, California-based cannabis firm The Parent Company launched its new Caliva cannabis pickup and delivery iPhone app with transactional functionality in July.
Caliva’s previous app was “information only” and lacked “shoppable features,” said Dennis O’Malley, chief operating officer of The Parent Co. and president of Caliva.
O’Malley said the improved app gives iPhone users the choice to opt into notifications, allowing for a closer relationship with customers.
“What we’re seeing is, in addition to an increase in engagement (with) our app, we’re seeing an increase in engagement of our loyalty program, Caliva Club.”
After launching the new app, “very quickly, we saw that 9% of our online transactions are happening through our mobile app,” he said.
Conversion rates to purchases increased by more than 25% compared to Caliva’s web browser conversion rate on mobile and other devices, O’Malley added.
Eaze said its new, shoppable app has resulted in a 7% increase in total first deliveries and that iPhone app users are now 50% more likely to make a purchase than before.
The updated Weedmaps iPhone app was released Aug. 9, and Dean said early results showed the total volume of orders placed from both the app and the company’s website increased by more than 10% in most regions.
Weedmaps said its app now allows in-app cannabis orders in 15 states plus Puerto Rico and Ontario, Canada.
Will Google follow?
Apple’s iOS controlled 56% of U.S. smartphone operating system market share in the first half of 2021, according to Massachusetts-based market intelligence firm International Data Corporation (IDC).
The remaining 44% was controlled by Google’s Android OS.
Apple did not respond to MJBizDaily’s requests to explain the impetus behind relaxing its cannabis app rules.
Likewise, Google did not answer inquiries regarding whether it might review its in-app marijuana transaction policy in light of Apple’s move.
Both technology companies care about how apps on their platforms are used to complete purchases “because they have a family-friendly storefront, and it’s always been about maintaining those values,” said Daniel Bader, a smartphone industry journalist and editor in chief of Android Central.
“By and large, the (app) stores want to be perceived as a curated selection of high-quality apps that adhere to the basic moral and legal structures of the countries in which they operate,” he said.
In terms of cannabis, Bader believes Apple “sees the writing on the wall.”
“(President) Joe Biden is in power. … There’s a very good chance that marijuana will be federally legal by the time his term ends.
“And I think Apple has basically weighed the upside and downside of making these apps available to people in (legal cannabis) jurisdictions.”
When Google Play banned apps facilitating cannabis sales in 2019, Bader observed, fewer states had legalized marijuana.
Other marijuana-related concerns might still be standing in the way of change at Google, Bader added.
First, phones running Google’s Android OS tend to be cheaper than iPhones and are therefore more likely to be used by children.
“It’s possible that they’re not doing this because they know that the demographics are different … and that more kids may just have free access to the (Google) Play Store,” he said.
Also, Google remains under “intense regulatory scrutiny” regarding anti-competitive practices in the U.S.
“This has nothing to do with that,” Bader said.
“But Google may not want to ruffle any feathers in Washington by enabling people to find cannabis, even if it’s legal in certain jurisdictions, if it’s not yet federally legal.”
Ryan Reith, an IDC vice president who oversees mobile device research, speculated that Google will eventually follow Apple’s lead.
“I’m a believer that the federal government will actually regulate (cannabis), somewhat like Canada has,” he said.
“There’s no question in my mind that Google – if they haven’t already, at that point – (will) approve this and allow it.”
If and when Google changes its marijuana app policies, companies with new iPhone cannabis apps are raring to update their Android apps.
“When Android shifts to go do that, we will absolutely be ready,” The Parent Co.’s O’Malley said.
WM Technology’s Dean said Weedmaps would want to relaunch its Android app “as soon as possible.”
“In general, we would want to create the same holistic in-app experience for our consumers and industry, similar to the iOS app.”
Solomon Israel can be reached at solomon.israel@mjbizdaily.com.

 

[CarolKing]

Amazon's answer to delivery driver shortage: Pot smokers

The e-commerce giant is advising truck fleet operators to advertise they don’t screen for marijuana use, saying it will boost the number of candidates.

www.latimes.com

Amazon.com Inc. has a solution for a potentially crippling shortage of delivery drivers: Recruit pot smokers.

The company is advising its delivery partners — the mom-and-pops that operate the ubiquitous blue Amazon vans — to prominently advertise that they don’t screen applicants for marijuana use, according to correspondence reviewed by Bloomberg and interviews with four business owners.

 

[Baron23]

WADA to review cannabis ban for athletes​

An advisory group to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) will review whether cannabis should remain a banned substance, a move that comes after American track and field star Sha’Carri Richardson missed the Tokyo Games after testing positive for it.

The scientific review will be initiated next year, WADA said on Tuesday. Cannabis is currently prohibited in competition and will continue to be in 2022, the agency added. (PHOTO BY PATRICK SMITH/GETTY IMAGES)

Richardson tested positive for a chemical found in cannabis during the U.S. Olympic Track & Field trials in June, which wiped out her trial results. She was also hit with a one-month suspension.

The 21-year-old, who had been seen as a top contender in the 100 meters, has said she used cannabis to help cope with the death of her mother.
The suspension sparked an outpouring of sympathy and calls for a review of anti-doping rules, including by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency.

 

[momofthegoons]

U.S. House Approves Marijuana Banking Reform As Part Of Defense Spending Bill​

The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday approved an amendment to protect banks that service state-legal marijuana businesses from being penalized by federal regulators. It passed on a voice vote, and no member requested a roll call. The measure is now attached to large-scale defense spending legislation.

This action comes hours after the House Rules Committee made in order the amendmentfrom Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) for floor consideration. It was one of numerous drug policy proposals that lawmakers had hoped to attach to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).



“This will strengthen the security of our financial system in our country by keeping bad actors like foreign cartels out of the cannabis industry. But most importantly, this amendment will reduce the risk of violent crime in our communities,” Perlmutter said on the floor ahead of the vote. “By dealing in all cash, these businesses and their employees become targets for robberies, assaults, burglaries and more.”

“This is a public safety and a national security matter—very germane to the issues at hand, dealing with foreign cartels and particularly the cash that is developed by this business that leads to crime,” he added.

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL) said he considers the proposal to be a “fine piece of legislation,” but argued that it’s more appropriate as standalone legislation, rather than as an add-on to NDAA.

“I think what [Perlmutter is] trying to accomplish is admirable and should be accomplished, but not in the National Defense Authorization Act,” he said.

But Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH) made the case for including the cannabis reform in the national security bill.

“I think the reason it was ruled germane by the parliamentarian is the cartels control the drug trade in the United States. And while most states have made some legal form for marijuana, the cartels still dominate the market,” he said. “And part of the reason is the cash is in the black market. Legal operations in many states cannot be banked… This is preventing us from stopping the cartels.”

Rep. Lou Correa (D-CA) also rose in support of the amendment, saying that “cannabis customers and businesses are law-abiding citizens and entities, yet they have to pay their employees, their bills and their federal taxes with cash. It just does not make sense.”

This marks the fifth time in recent years that the the House has passed the cannabis banking reform, which has enjoyed broad support both as standalone legislation and while being tucked in as provisions of broader legislation. But while advocates support the proposal, some have made clear that they want to see more comprehensive changes to marijuana laws advance first, complicating the process.

Some lawmakers—particularly on the Senate side where a legalization bill from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is being finalized—have insisted the banking issue should be tackled by holistically ending marijuana prohibition. They argue that it is inappropriate to pass what is seen as an industry-focused reform that helps businesses and investors while leaving unaddressed the harms of decades of racially disparate prohibition enforcement that should be addressed with equity-focused legalization.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), who is helping Schumer alongside Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) to produce a final legalization bill has said he would proactively work to block any senators who attempt to get marijuana banking reform passedbefore enacting social justice-focused legalization legislation.

Additionally, Schumer argued in an interview with Marijuana Moment that passing the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act first could jeopardize support for broader reform. The thinking is that Republicans and moderate Democrats who are on the fence about a bolder policy change might be less inclined to vote for it if they have an opportunity to pass the more modest financial services fix instead.

Meanwhile, although the cannabis banking legislation is not directly connected to defense-related issues, it’s likely Perlmutter and other supporters see the must-pass NDAA as a potential vehicle for the reform that could make its way through the Senate, whereas all prior House-passed cannabis banking legislation has stalled to date.

At an initial meeting of the Rules Committee about NDAA on Monday, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith (D-WA), who is managing the bill, acknowledged that while some members might consider certain amendments “superfluous” to defense spending matters, the annual legislation has been used as a vehicle to advance non-germane legislation in the past. He added, though, that doing so has historically required the issues at hand to have broad bipartisan support in order to survive the House-Senate conference committee process.

He didn’t specifically cite the cannabis banking proposal, but Perlmutter himself said earlier in the hearing that “whether something is superfluous is always in the eyes of the beholder,” signaling that he feels his measure’s germaneness in this context is up for interpretation.

Smith said that “whatever superfluous items the Rules Committee decides to put in order and get attached to this bill, we go to conference, and in conference, we work in a bipartisan fashion.”

“We’re not going to pull one over on anybody here. We’re going to have to work with committees of jurisdiction—not just the chairs, but the ranking members as well—to come to some agreement on those before we go forward,” he said. “So if you see an item that you consider to be superfluous being added to the bill, don’t freak out.”

The chair’s comments about needing support from leaders of committees of jurisdiction raise questions about whether the amendment stands a chance in conference with the Senate following House approval. Not only did House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Patrick McHenry (R-SC) vote against the standalone SAFE Banking Act this year and in 2019, but on the Senate side, even Banking Committee Chairman Sherrod Brown (D-OH) has been generally unenthusiastic about advancing the reform.

On the flip side, House Finance Services Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) is a supporter of the banking reform and brought it through her panel last Congress. Senate Banking Committee Ranking Member Pat Toomey (R-PA), for his part, has previously voiced support for advancing the SAFE Banking Act.

It’s been four months since the House last approved the bipartisan marijuana banking bill—but because companion legislation has stalled in the Senate, Perlmutter is getting impatient.

The congressman said that he appreciates that Senate leadership is pushing for a more comprehensive end to federal marijuana prohibition—and he agrees with Booker that promoting social equity is an important objective—but he feels the SAFE Banking Act is urgently needed to address public safety issues resulting from the industry’s lack of access to traditional financial institutions.

Some of the strongest proponents for broad reform like Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) voted in favor of the SAFE Banking Act in April despite the body yet having taken up a legalization measure this session.

 

[arb]

Weird how the focus is on getting the banks that sweet,sweet green and not freeing the slaves...........yet once again.

 

[bulllee]

More States Now Allow Cannabis with Workers’ Compensation Plan​

Dan Kingston 9 hours ago Cannabis News

A growing number of states now permit eligible patients to be reimbursed for their medical cannabis-related costs through their workers’ compensation insurance (WCI) plans, according to an analysis of state policies conducted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
Researchers affiliated with the federal agency assessed rules and regulations in 36 states permitting medical cannabis access. They identified six states – Connecticut, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, and New York – that explicitly allow for employees to have their medical cannabis expenses reimbursed. In three of those states – New Hampshire, New Jersey, and New York – reimbursements were ordered by the courts earlier this year.
By contrast, authors identified six states where workers’ compensation insurance is expressly prohibited from reimbursing medical marijuana-related costs: Maine, Massachusetts, Florida, North Dakota, Ohio, and Washington.
In all other jurisdictions, the law is either silent on the issue or states that insurers are “not required” to reimburse employees who are injured on the job for the costs related to their use of medical cannabis. Arizona could potentially allow medical marijuana through WCI plans.

“For millions of patients, cannabis is a legitimate therapeutic option,” sand NORML. “More and more, our laws and regulations are recognizing this fact and evolving their policies accordingly.”

Authors said that they expected the number of states permitting marijuana-related compensation to increase in the coming years “as more workers petition state courts and administrative agencies for cannabis WCI reimbursement.”

 

[bulllee]

Why some weed businesses don’t want federal legalization​

By Natalie Fertig 2 hrs ag
https://web.whatsapp.com/send?text=http://a.msn.com/00/en-us/AAOPx5V?ocid=sw

Cannabis entrepreneurs spent decades longing for Washington’s blessing — but now a vocal corner of the industry is afraid federal marijuana legalization poses an existential threat.

© Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has thrown his weight behind cannabis decriminalization, producing a draft bill this summer that would regulate a nationwide industry and force siloed state markets to interact with each other.
Two in three Americans live in a state that has approved the sale of recreational weed. What has evolved in the policy gap with federal law over the past decade is a patchwork of state-sanctioned fiefdoms where cannabis markets have largely developed locally and extend just to the border.

But the prospect of lifting all federal prohibitions has some business owners, regulators and lawmakers afraid doing so too quickly will invite industry behemoths to eat up small companies and push minority-owned firms out altogether.
“It's going to open up a tidal wave of large operators ... sucking up all the capital in the capital markets and essentially rendering social equity participants unable to even get funded,” said Aaron Goines, co-owner of Emerald Turtle, a social equity-owned cannabis delivery company in Massachusetts. “In general for social equity, I think it would be a disaster at this point for federal legalization to occur.”
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has thrown his weight behind cannabis decriminalization, producing a draft bill this summer that would regulate a nationwide industry and force siloed state markets to interact with each other. Tearing down those walls would open up new business opportunities and unlock more traditional banking tools for an industry that has long been forced to primarily use cash. However, it could immediately expose every existing state market to a frenzy of national competitors and disrupt hard-fought local policies, a combination of fears that have started to muddle the industry's approach to federal legalization.
Struggling cannabis farmers in Oregon could suddenly ship their products anywhere in the country — including places such as Alaska and Massachusetts, where they would likely undercut the prices local growers typically fetch. The tightly controlled and expensive medical marijuana programs in Florida and Pennsylvania could be forced to compete with cheaper out-of-state products. And major national companies could pour into Washington state and Maine and buy up or push out small businesses.
Many states are trying to put guardrails up around their marijuana markets: Maine and Washington are intentionally limiting the industry to help protect small businesses. Others have created licensing requirements that intentionally help communities hurt by the war on drugs, including Massachusetts, which exclusively awarded cannabis delivery licenses to equity applicants in the state for three years.
“If you look at the states, it's really clear that it's always the smallest businesses and the most marginalized groups that suffer the most when you introduce this kind of chaos,” said former Massachusetts cannabis commissioner Shaleen Title, who now heads up the Parabola Center, a cannabis policy think tank.

State patchwork quilt​

Cannabis is the only industry in America’s history that has been legalized in 37 states (for recreational or medical use) without having permission from the federal government to operate.
And since interstate commerce is overseen by the feds, each market has developed to sustain every aspect of growth, production, distribution and sale because goods can’t cross state lines. Cannabis is being cultivated in states where it does not naturally grow well or cheaply, rather than importing it from places where it flourishes, such as California and Oregon.
It would be as if every state had to grow and process their own oranges because they couldn’t ship juice in from Florida.
The big question for small businesses in these siloed markets is what happens when those hard borders suddenly disappear.
“If the [Schumer] bill is passed, with that current language there that really doesn't give the states the authority they need to keep their markets intact, then I think we see a race to the bottom,” said Jeremy Unruh, vice president of regulatory and public affairs at PharmaCann, a multistate operator with facilities in New York, Illinois, Ohio and Massachusetts.

Video: Why starting a marijuana business is so hard (Business Insider)


Pause
Current Time 0:40
/
Duration 13:33
Loaded: 12.55%


Unmute
0

LQ
Captions
Fullscreen
Why starting a marijuana business is so hard
Click to expand

Unruh believes large-scale cultivators will flock to states with cheap energy, looser labor and environmental standards, lower taxes and fees, and good outdoor growing conditions. Then they will export their cheap, mass-produced cannabis to the rest of the country.
“You will see a dramatic shift of the economic opportunities that states like Colorado and Washington have enjoyed ... to places like Mississippi and Georgia and New Mexico that have lower labor standards, lower environmental standards,” Unruh said.
And for dispensary owners, producers and delivery companies, the removal of state borders will also immediately change where capital is coming from and who it goes to. Some states have residency requirements for funding, licensing or both — meaning that out of state capital is completely outlawed or must be invested in locally owned businesses. Others have limited licenses only to equity applicants, intending to open opportunities in the marijuana industry to those who faced disproportionate criminal enforcement around the drug.
Washington state, for example, has residency requirements and license caps in hopes of maintaining a mom and pop style market. Ian Karl Eisenberg, founder of dispensary chain Uncle Ike's Pot Shop in Seattle, says Washington businesses will be unable to compete for market share if borders fall and residency requirements are scrapped.
“Some people are wanting to keep [the state’s industry] small, organic, mom and pop businesses. Which is nice, but it's not reality,” said Eisenberg. “When we do open up, there won't be any big players here. It'll be big players from other places — like, God forbid, Portland — coming in and just buying us up.”
But laws like these could be deemed as limiting or burdensome to interstate commerce under the dormant commerce clause — an implied constitutional prohibition on states enacting laws that discriminate against imported products.
“Once the dormant commerce clause is active, social equity programs are going to become vulnerable,” said Robert Mikos, a professor at Vanderbilt Law School. Mikos says courts could strike down portions of current state regulations — like residency requirements or labeling regulations — under the argument that they burden interstate commerce.
“That's something that's flown under the radar, because it's not in the text of [Schumer’s cannabis bill] or any other federal proposal,” Mikos explained during a panel hosted by law firm Perkins Coie earlier this month.
Worry about federal legalization is not ubiquitous. Chris Fevry is the co-founder of Your Green Package, a majority minority-owned Massachusetts-based delivery service. He says he is more concerned about growers he knows in the industry than his own business.
“I think competition is definitely a good thing,” he said. “The downside is the smaller players will get crushed.”
In Oregon, where licenses are abundant and there are hundreds of operators of every size, growers are anxious for interstate trade to begin. The state amended its cannabis regulations two years ago to allow interstate commerce the second the federal government permits it.
And in other states like Florida, industry advocates point out, the licensing structure favors larger companies over small businesses. Small operators, equity licensees and consumers in those markets would likely benefit from a more open market.
“It would be a shame [that] in order to protect nascent social equity experiments in some states, [it would] come at the cost of would-be entrepreneurs and consumer access in other states,” said Justin Strekal, political director at the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

What’s next​

Some lawmakers, regulators and business owners want the federal government to write stronger protections for state market regulations into any bill that decriminalizes marijuana. In comments submitted earlier this month on Schumer’s cannabis bill, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, called for the federal government to allow state markets to continue with the structures they have created in the vacuum caused by no federal oversight.
Some industry officials and advocates — such as Title and Unruh — are requesting immediate descheduling and expunging of records paired with a phased-in approach to interstate commerce.
“We're not talking about stopping interstate commerce. We're talking about simply flipping the default, so that those existing state regulations remain valid until Congress says otherwise,” Unruh explained.
Under such a plan, states such as Oregon and New York could potentially enter into an agreement where Oregon exports cannabis to New York. Or a state like Iowa could throw open the doors to any state that will allow its producers to export. But the borders will not be immediately dismantled, giving smaller businesses the time to adapt and survive.
Oregon’s desire to have open markets, however, could pose a hurdle to any restrictions on interstate commerce in federal legislation — in the form of powerful Senate Finance Chair Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), one of the architects of the Senate decriminalization proposal.
In the meantime, some states are proactively changing their regulations to make their cannabis industry more nationally competitive. Colorado, the oldest adult-use market, initially put regulations in place that made it harder to grow cannabis outdoors then indoors. But this past summer, Colorado lawmakers passed a new bill loosening some of the regulations on outdoor grows — and indicated that the impetus was to make Colorado's market more competitive when federal legalization takes hold.
“There are winners and losers in capitalism. And it is not our position to pick winners and losers,” said Strekal. “And by restricting interstate trade, you are picking the currently established players as the winners.”

 

[momofthegoons]

Federal Marijuana Legalization Vote Expected In House Committee On Thursday​

A key House committee plans to vote on a bill to federally legalize marijuana on Thursday.

The Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act will be taken up by the House Judiciary Committee, which is chaired by the legislation’s sponsor, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY). Members were scheduled to debate and vote on the measure on Wednesday, but consideration of unrelated business ran long and the cannabis legislative action was pushed back a day.

The development comes one week after the full House voted in favor of a defense spending bill that includes an amendment that would protect banks that service state-legal cannabis businesses from being penalized by federal regulators.

While the legislation has largely stayed intact compared to the prior version that passed the chamber last year in a historic vote, there were some modest revisions that were incorporated upon its reintroduction in May.

The panel on Thursday could make additional changes before moving the measure forward.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), for example, said in a tweet on Tuesday evening that he intends to force a vote on removing the bill’s tax provisions as well as grant funds it would create to help repair the harms of the war on drugs. A libertarian-leaning lawmaker, he backs the general idea of ending cannabis prohibition but is not in favor of creating new government programs.



Nadler’s cannabis legislation passed the House last year but did not advance in the Senate under GOP control. This time around, advocates are optimistic that something like the chairman’s bill could be enacted now that Democrats run both chambers and the White House, and as more states are moving to enact legalization.

The legislation 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.

It also contains language to create a pathway for resentencing for those incarcerated for cannabis offenses, protect immigrants from being denied citizenship over marijuana and prevent federal agencies from denying public benefits or security clearance due to its use.

There’s been some contention between advocates and stakeholders on which reform should come first: the bipartisan banking legislation that’s cleared the House in some form five times now or the comprehensive legalization bill that passed the chamber for the first time late last year.

Legalization advocates do want to see legislation from Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) become enacted, as there are public safety problems caused by all-cash businesses and it would take an important step toward normalizing the growing industry. But social equity-minded activists argue that advancing the incremental reform first would mainly benefit large marijuana businesses without addressing the harms of cannabis criminalization.

The fate of the banking proposal will likely be decided in conference with the Senate, which has not included the policy change in its National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and where key lawmakers have insisted that they will push for broader reform before allowing the incremental change to be enacted.

Separately, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (R-OR) and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) are also leading the charge on a legalization bill in their chamber. But weeks after a public comment period on a draft version of the proposal closed, finalized text has yet to be formally filed—and it’s far from certain that Schumer will be able to find enough votes to advance the comprehensive reform through his chamber.

It should be noted that President Joe Biden remains firmly opposed to adult-use marijuana legalization. While he supports more modest reforms such as decriminalizing cannabis, expunging prior records and letting states set their own marijuana policies, there’s an open question about whether he would be moved to sign a broad bill like the MORE Act or the Senate legalization legislation should such a proposal reach his desk.

With respect to the MORE Act, the latest version 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 legislation 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.

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.

The current version of the MORE Act has 74 cosponsors.

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

 

[momofthegoons]

Chuck Schumer Says Key Senators Have ‘Agreement’ Not To Advance Marijuana Banking Reform Before Legalization​

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) says he and colleagues working to advance a federal marijuana legalization bill have an “agreement” that the body will not take up cannabis banking legislation until more comprehensive reform advances.

That said, he’s open to exploring an alternative way of advancing banking reform if lawmakers are able to incorporate social equity provisions of legalization—such as expungements for prior cannabis convictions—into separate defense policy legislation that the chamber will be taking up soon.

Whether either proposal would be embraced by President Joe Biden if they were sent to his desk is yet to be seen, but Schumer said he’s going lobbying him “heavily” on legalization.

The majority leader made the new comments in an interview on Drug Policy Alliance founder Ethan Nadelmann’s podcast Psychoactive that was released on Thursday. Schumer said there is consensus between him, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) on blocking legislation that would simply protect financial institutions that work with state-legal cannabis businesses until a social equity-focused legalization bill moves forward.

The discussion got at the heart of a debate that’s been ongoing among advocates and industry stakeholders.

On the one hand, there’s bipartisan legislation called the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act that stands a strong chance of passage in Congress. It’s been approved by the U.S. House of Representatives five times now, most recently as an amendment to a defense spending bill last week.

On the other hand, there’s a draft proposal to holistically end federal marijuana prohibition that Schumer is sponsoring. And on the House side, the Judiciary Committee on Thursday is expected to approve a separate legalization measure from Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY).

“Why not let [banking reform] move forward while the long-term process of the legalization bill needs to work itself through?” Nadelmann asked.

“Senators Booker, Wyden and I have come to agreement that if we let [the banking bill] out, it’ll make it much harder and take longer to pass comprehensive reform,” Schumer replied. “We certainly want the provisions, similar to the SAFE Banking Act, in our bill. But to get more moderate people—to get some Republicans, to get the financial services industry—behind a comprehensive bill is the way to go. It’s the right thing to do.”

While the senator has previously expressed reluctance to advancing marijuana banking reform first—including in an interview with Marijuana Moment in April—these latest comments about an “agreement” to block the financial services reform put the situation in starkest terms yet.

“All the pain that’s been suffered by so many people for so long will not be alleviated because banks can now do some funding of the growing and processing of marijuana,” he added. “We think that the quickest way to get it all done is to do it together. If you let just the banking provisions pass, it’ll make it much harder to get more Republicans and more conservatives on the bill.”

“We’re trying to create a coalition for comprehensive reform and don’t want to pick one off.”

In other words, if there was any uncertainty about the senators’ legislative priorities for marijuana, the majority leader says a line has been drawn in the sand: Legalization first.

At the same time, however, Schumer did not rule out incorporating some cannabis reform proposals into the Senate’s version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) if other justice-focused provisions can be added as well. That legislation is where SAFE Banking sponsor Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) managed to attach his banking amendment in the House, but it lacks many of the social equity provisions that advocates want to see.

Nadelmann asked the majority leader if it would make sense to add things such as expungements on top of banking to sweeten the deal.

“Look, everything should be explored, and if people in the Senate can add some things on, that would make it more of a palliative. But again, I don’t want to bargain against myself here,” Schumer replied. “We need comprehensive reform. That’s what we need.”

Schumer recognized that freeing up banks to work with marijuana businesses without being penalized by federal regulators would have some equity implications, enabling some disadvantaged communities to obtain access to capital needed to participate in the market.

However, he stressed that “water goes downhill,” and most of the benefits would go to “fat cat, more well-to-do people, so you’ve got to be really careful about that.”

“I’m not arguing against the specifics. I’m just telling you that it’s my view that, if we are in range of getting comprehensive reform and we’re making great progress,” the Senate should leverage that opportunity to enact a broad policy change.

“Remember, as majority leader, I can determine what’s put on the floor,” he added. “[Then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)] said he’d never put a legalization or decriminalization bill on the floor. I will when we get the votes and build the coalition, and the [SAFE Banking Act] will be part of that coalition.”

Nadelmann pressed Schumer about ongoing reluctance among certain members of his own party, including Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Jon Tester (D-MT), to embrace legalization.

Schumer replied by stressing that the proposal won’t pass “unless we get bipartisan support,” but he also noted that as the legalization movement has spread to states of all political leanings, there’s a greater chance that former opponents could back reform this round.

Another obstacle to broad reform is Biden, who supports modest proposals such as decriminalizing cannabis possession and letting states set their own marijuana policies, but remains opposed to adult-use legalization. Asked whether he’s had discussions with the White House about his legislation, Schumer said Biden has been “preoccupied with a lot of stuff, but I am going to lobby him heavily on this issue. And, you know, I’ve had a few conversations, but not many—but it will increase.”

In a brief aside, Schumer was asked if he ever smoked cannabis in his youth. The majority leader said “no, I never smoked marijuana myself.”

“But you know, I believe that just because I didn’t, people should make their choices and not have the government, particularly in a crazy legal system and criminal justice system, impose it,” he said, adding that he was “in the minority” of his peers in college who didn’t indulge.

Nadelmann also recently hosted a newsmaking conversation with National Institute on Drug Abuse Director Nora Volkow on his podcast. During that episode, the official acknowledged that marijuana legalization has not led to increased youth use despite her prior fears, and she spoke about the therapeutic potential of certain psychedelics that have long been deemed “dangerous” under federal law.

 

[bulllee]

Chuck Schumer Says Key Senators Have ‘Agreement’ Not To Advance Marijuana Banking Reform Before Legalization​

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) says he and colleagues working to advance a federal marijuana legalization bill have an “agreement” that the body will not take up cannabis banking legislation until more comprehensive reform advances.

That said, he’s open to exploring an alternative way of advancing banking reform if lawmakers are able to incorporate social equity provisions of legalization—such as expungements for prior cannabis convictions—into separate defense policy legislation that the chamber will be taking up soon.

Whether either proposal would be embraced by President Joe Biden if they were sent to his desk is yet to be seen, but Schumer said he’s going lobbying him “heavily” on legalization.

The majority leader made the new comments in an interview on Drug Policy Alliance founder Ethan Nadelmann’s podcast Psychoactive that was released on Thursday. Schumer said there is consensus between him, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) on blocking legislation that would simply protect financial institutions that work with state-legal cannabis businesses until a social equity-focused legalization bill moves forward.

The discussion got at the heart of a debate that’s been ongoing among advocates and industry stakeholders.

On the one hand, there’s bipartisan legislation called the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act that stands a strong chance of passage in Congress. It’s been approved by the U.S. House of Representatives five times now, most recently as an amendment to a defense spending bill last week.

On the other hand, there’s a draft proposal to holistically end federal marijuana prohibition that Schumer is sponsoring. And on the House side, the Judiciary Committee on Thursday is expected to approve a separate legalization measure from Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY).

“Why not let [banking reform] move forward while the long-term process of the legalization bill needs to work itself through?” Nadelmann asked.

“Senators Booker, Wyden and I have come to agreement that if we let [the banking bill] out, it’ll make it much harder and take longer to pass comprehensive reform,” Schumer replied. “We certainly want the provisions, similar to the SAFE Banking Act, in our bill. But to get more moderate people—to get some Republicans, to get the financial services industry—behind a comprehensive bill is the way to go. It’s the right thing to do.”

While the senator has previously expressed reluctance to advancing marijuana banking reform first—including in an interview with Marijuana Moment in April—these latest comments about an “agreement” to block the financial services reform put the situation in starkest terms yet.

“All the pain that’s been suffered by so many people for so long will not be alleviated because banks can now do some funding of the growing and processing of marijuana,” he added. “We think that the quickest way to get it all done is to do it together. If you let just the banking provisions pass, it’ll make it much harder to get more Republicans and more conservatives on the bill.”


In other words, if there was any uncertainty about the senators’ legislative priorities for marijuana, the majority leader says a line has been drawn in the sand: Legalization first.

At the same time, however, Schumer did not rule out incorporating some cannabis reform proposals into the Senate’s version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) if other justice-focused provisions can be added as well. That legislation is where SAFE Banking sponsor Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) managed to attach his banking amendment in the House, but it lacks many of the social equity provisions that advocates want to see.

Nadelmann asked the majority leader if it would make sense to add things such as expungements on top of banking to sweeten the deal.

“Look, everything should be explored, and if people in the Senate can add some things on, that would make it more of a palliative. But again, I don’t want to bargain against myself here,” Schumer replied. “We need comprehensive reform. That’s what we need.”

Schumer recognized that freeing up banks to work with marijuana businesses without being penalized by federal regulators would have some equity implications, enabling some disadvantaged communities to obtain access to capital needed to participate in the market.

However, he stressed that “water goes downhill,” and most of the benefits would go to “fat cat, more well-to-do people, so you’ve got to be really careful about that.”

“I’m not arguing against the specifics. I’m just telling you that it’s my view that, if we are in range of getting comprehensive reform and we’re making great progress,” the Senate should leverage that opportunity to enact a broad policy change.

“Remember, as majority leader, I can determine what’s put on the floor,” he added. “[Then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)] said he’d never put a legalization or decriminalization bill on the floor. I will when we get the votes and build the coalition, and the [SAFE Banking Act] will be part of that coalition.”

Nadelmann pressed Schumer about ongoing reluctance among certain members of his own party, including Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Jon Tester (D-MT), to embrace legalization.

Schumer replied by stressing that the proposal won’t pass “unless we get bipartisan support,” but he also noted that as the legalization movement has spread to states of all political leanings, there’s a greater chance that former opponents could back reform this round.

Another obstacle to broad reform is Biden, who supports modest proposals such as decriminalizing cannabis possession and letting states set their own marijuana policies, but remains opposed to adult-use legalization. Asked whether he’s had discussions with the White House about his legislation, Schumer said Biden has been “preoccupied with a lot of stuff, but I am going to lobby him heavily on this issue. And, you know, I’ve had a few conversations, but not many—but it will increase.”

In a brief aside, Schumer was asked if he ever smoked cannabis in his youth. The majority leader said “no, I never smoked marijuana myself.”

“But you know, I believe that just because I didn’t, people should make their choices and not have the government, particularly in a crazy legal system and criminal justice system, impose it,” he said, adding that he was “in the minority” of his peers in college who didn’t indulge.

Nadelmann also recently hosted a newsmaking conversation with National Institute on Drug Abuse Director Nora Volkow on his podcast. During that episode, the official acknowledged that marijuana legalization has not led to increased youth use despite her prior fears, and she spoke about the therapeutic potential of certain psychedelics that have long been deemed “dangerous” under federal law.

I don't trust Schumer, or anyone in Washington for that matter. They're gonna fuck it all up and tax it to death. As of now in Arizona your paying 24% in tax for recreational weed, how much more do you think the feds want ? The growers will pass on any other costs directly to the consumer . The medical people on disability are being forced to buy more expensive meds. What other medicine is taxed like weed ?

 

[arb]

Plant a seed and quit funding these corrupt thieves?

 

[Bcbud]

Most Affected: Jonathan Wall Will Serve Nearly Two Years Before His First Day in Court For Cannabis

Jonathan Wall, a Maryland native, faces a minimum of 10 years in federal prison over conspiracy charges of distributing cannabis as a first-time offender.

hightimes.com

10 years to life for cannabis in 2021 , this is crazy.