Law The Cannabis Chronicles - Misc Cannabis News

[Baron23]

Trump Cabinet Member Backs State Marijuana Laws From White House Podium
Despite increasing threats to enforce federal marijuana prohibition from U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a fellow member of the Trump administration’s Cabinet just used the podium in the White House press briefing room to advocate for states’ rights to set their own cannabis laws.

“I thought that Colorado was wrong in allowing for the use of marijuana, which they’ve decided to do. But that’s their call,” Energy Secretary Rick Perry said on Tuesday. “I will defend that right robustly. That ought to be their call.”


Perry, a former Texas governor, was answering a question about the Clean Power Plan, an Obama-era energy policy that requires individual states to meet specific standards on reducing carbon dioxide emissions and which the Trump administration is considering scrapping.

“That’s the beauty of all of this,” he said. “Allow Americans to pick and choose where they want to live, under what types of governments. And we’ll figure it out.”

Criticizing “this idea that we’re gonna have one size fits all out of Washington, D.C.,” Perry said, “One of the reason I came to serve with President Trump was because I knew he believed in that.”

Perry, who repeatedly pledged to defend state marijuana laws during the course of his own failed presidential campaign in 2015, proactively brought up cannabis without prompting in response to the energy policy question.

Earlier in the briefing in response to another question, he called federal intrusion into state affairs “just nonsense” and said, “I happen to believe that the states are laboratories of innovation. They’re innovators just like we have at our national labs.

During his presidential run, Perry consistently voiced support for federalism and the 10th Amendment.

“I don’t agree with those decisions that were made by…the state of Colorado or Washington, but I will defend it to my death, if you will, to allow them to make those decisions,” he said in one radio interview. “I think they will look back and they will find that it was a huge error that they made. But I’m going to stick with the founding fathers rather than picking and choosing which [state laws] I want to defend and which ones I don’t.”

In a Daily Show appearance he said, “If you want to go somewhere where you can smoke medicinal weed, then you ought to be able to do that.”

Trump himself repeatedly said he supported states’ rights to enact their own marijuana laws during the campaign and expressed personal support for medical cannabis, saying he knows people who have benefited from it.

Perry isn’t the only Cabinet member who seems open to marijuana law reform. Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin said on Saturday that state legalization is leading to increased research on cannabis’s potential benefits for military veterans in light of federal roadblocks.

In contrast, Sessions has asked Congress to undo current protections that prevent the Justice Department from interfering with state medical cannabis laws.

Wow...at least Perry has a core value....while he's no MMJ fan, he does recognize Federalism and state's rights and has enough conviction in his views to apply it uniformly, no matter the specific subject at hand. I hesitate to say this about Perry, but his is a principled stand, IMO.

 

[Baron23]

5 Stupidest Things Politicians and Pundits Have Said About Pot in 2017

Politicians and pundits are saying a lot of stupid stuff about marijuana in 2017. Here are five remarkably dumb things that caught our eye.

1. Butch Otter

“Idaho is a virtual island of compliance [with federal pot prohibition] and we are paying the price,” Idaho Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter wrote to President Trump, coming off like a spineless sycophant. Numerous politicians and private business interests alike are pleading with Trump to lay off the burgeoning billion-dollar bud industry. But not Otter, who encouraged the Donald to crack down on legal-cannabis states to prevent the devil’s weed from being imported into potato country.

2. Peter Hitchens

“Marijuana use is a victimless crime—only if you do it on a desert island, quite alone, and nobody loves you.” That shamelessly unsolicited advice came courtesy of Peter Hitchens, conservative journalist and author of biased books like the anti-pot tome The War We Never Fought. Hitchens’s inane comment was part of a longer diatribe, “Stupid Arguments for Drug Legalisation Examined and Refuted,” published on his blog at the anti-weed UK trash tabloid, Daily Mail.

3. Tom Wolf

“We have a $3 billion [state] deficit, so [marijuana legalization] is not going to help,” Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf flippantly declared on radio station KDKA. Wolf was addressing the state auditor general’s report, issued a day earlier, that wisely advocated for the legalization of recreational pot, which would generate at least $200 million annually—the tax revenue from which would surely benefit the cash-strapped Keystone State.

4. Hugh Hewitt

“One [federal] RICO prosecution against one marijuana retailer in one state that has so-called legalization ends this facade,” opined the arch-conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt on his March 9 show, practically begging his guest, US Attorney General Jeff Sessions, to pursue an anti-racketeering strategy to take down legal-pot states. Sessions, a weed-hating drug warrior of long standing, had to inform Hewitt that battling the growing ganja industry is much more complex than a single case.

5. Peter Kilmartin

Rhode Island Governor Peter Kilmartin displayed some twisted logic during a press conference aimed at displaying “united opposition” to a state recreational pot bill sponsored earlier this year, explaining that legal cannabis in Rhode Island wouldn’t eliminate the “black market … all you need to do is look at cigarette sales in the state.” Thus did Kilmartin glibly ignore not only the harms caused by pot prohibition, but also the benefits of regulation.

 

[Baron23]

Congress Showing More Interest Than Ever In Marijuana Bills

Marijuana-related legislation has received more support in Congress this year than ever before.

According to a report from MassRoots, there are now more federal lawmakers supporting marijuana bills, especially those seeking to remedy the banking conundrum for the cannabis industry, than in previous sessions.

One of the proposals, a pot-banking bill introduced earlier this year by Congressman Ed Perlmutter, has managed to secure 47 co-sponsors in 2017 – that is nearly 10 more backers than when Congress ended the session last year.

The second proposal, which was re-submitted in May by Senator Jeff Merkley, has already attracted more co-sponsors in the past few weeks than it did when it was first introduced back in 2014.

Marijuana bills dealing with federal tax laws are also getting more attention. The report shows that several of these measures have more co-sponsors in 2017 than in times past.

Taylor West, deputy director of the National Cannabis Industry Association, says the increase in political support is largely due to lobbyists for the marijuana trade. He says these policy pushers have been in Washington, D.C. for the past several years, working to educate lawmakers over the importance of making changes to these issues.

“The more Congress gets to know the real, responsible entrepreneurs of the cannabis industry, the more support there is for them to be treated fairly and for state laws to be respected,” West said. “Our members embrace their roles as both businesspeople and advocates, and we’ve seen a real spike in energy and excitement around that advocacy work this year. It’s great to see it paying off.”

Sadly, while marijuana banking and tax laws are becoming hot items on Capitol Hill, not much has changed with respect to support for legislation aimed at ending marijuana prohibition. The “Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act,” reintroduced this year by Congressman Jared Polis, currently has only 11 co-sponsors, while the “Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act,” submitted months ago by Representative Thomas Garrett, has 12.

In years past, similar bills have garnered just over 20 co-sponsors. But none of them were given any consideration.

Here's the thing...most people would believe that having a lot of co-sponsors on a bill increases its likelihood of passage, but not necessarily so. Of the 47 legistlators who co-sponsored the bill mentioned above, probably just a few are going to actively work for the bill's passage. For the rest, its really just eye wash. They sign up, they get to say that they co-sponsored, they don't do anything, and the bill never even gets out of subcommittee. That's reality in DC.

 

[Baron23]

Marijuana Opponents Declare Premature Victory, Don’t Understand Legislative Process
In a sign of marijuana opponents’ increasing desperation to distract from the legalization movement’s momentum, a leading prohibitionist organization is preemptively declaring victory in a key federal legislative fight. And that is drawing swift rebuke from members of Congress and activists who better understand the process.

“A proposed government spending bill released today eliminated a provision that has protected the marijuana industry from federal prosecution for violating the Controlled Substances Act,” crowed a Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) press release on Wednesday afternoon.

The provision in question is a rider to spending legislation that prevents the Department of Justice from interfering with state medical cannabis laws. Known as the “Rohrabacher-Farr” (or “Rohrabacher-Blumenauer”) amendment, after its sponsors, it has been enacted into law annually, beginning in Fiscal Year 2015 through the current FY17 which ends on September 30.

SAM and its president, Kevin Sabet, are excited that House Republican leadership didn’t include the amendment in the just-introduced original subcommittee draft of the FY18 Justice Department appropriations bill.

BREAKING: Congress strips provision barring DOJ from spending money to enforce pot laws. This is a big change. https://t.co/HlUjJvdYJo

— Kevin Sabet (@KevinSabet) June 28, 2017​

This is of course far from over, but pot investors have to be freaking out. It is indeed a new day.

— Kevin Sabet (@KevinSabet) June 28, 2017​

But the medical marijuana protections have never been included in the House appropriations subcommittee’s original bills; they have always been added via strong bipartisan amendment votes later in the process on the House floor and/or in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Sabet’s ignorance of legislative history and Congressional procedure spawned immediate pushback from drug policy reform activists who have closely tracked the amendment’s progress over more than a decade.

“The R/F amendment is NEVER in base bill, so hasn’t been ‘stripped,'” the Drug Policy Alliance’s lobbying office, which has been a key player in enacting the amendment in recent years, tweeted. “Nobody is worried – you’re Congressionally clueless, Kevin.”

DPA added: “A ‘new day?’ Actually it’s the same day as the last 3 years when it’s been won on the floor/in committee and made it to final bill.”

Members of Congress also jumped on Sabet’s premature chest-beating.

“SAM clearly doesn’t understand legislative process,” Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), the amendment’s lead co-sponsor this year, tweeted. “SAM’s complete misrepresentation of the legislative process is entirely consistent with their repeated falsehoods about marijuana.”

Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), a lead sponsor of the amendment since it was first considered in 2003, joined Blumenauer in issuing a press release slapping down Sabet’s “false claims.”

“Our amendment has never been in the CJS Subcommittee’s bill. There is no news here,” Blumenauer said in the statement. “We are exactly where we thought we would be in the legislative process and look forward to amending the underlying bill once again this year to make sure medical marijuana programs, and the patients who rely on them, are protected.”

After the bill clears subcommittee and the full House Appropriations Committee, advocates will push to insert the cannabis amendment again through a floor vote. And they have every expectation — based on past votes, newly enacted state laws and the results of key Congressional races — that they will win again if the measure is cleared for consideration.

The full House approved the protections by a vote of 219 to 189 in 2014 and again with an even bigger margin of 242 to 186 in 2015. Since that last vote, states like Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and others have enacted new medical marijuana programs. And in some Congressional districts, pro-reform freshman Republicans were elected to replace retiring prohibitionists.

While there is a chance that the House Rules Committee could continue a relatively recent practice of blocking certain amendments that are perceived as controversial from coming to the floor for votes, advocates believe they will nonetheless get the chance to add the amendment through the Senate Appropriations Committee, where it was approved 21 to 9 in 2015 and 21 to 8 last year.

After being called out for misunderstanding the legislative process by activists and members of Congress, Sabet doubled down, falsely claiming that the amendment was initially passed in late 2015 — even though it was first enacted in 2014 and then omitted from the next year’s base bill before being added in again via overwhelming bipartisan House and Senate votes.

In his continuing arguments, Sabet seems to be focusing on the fact that the medical cannabis protections were continued in omnibus spending legislation enacted last month. In that case, the rider was included in the initial version of the bill, but only because Congress didn’t hold a comprehensive appropriations process this year through which individual department bills were considered but instead wrapped everything into one bill and as a general rule automatically continued most provisions that were included in the previous year’s legislation.

On Thursday, SAM sent a follow-up press release alleging that Blumenauer and Rohrabacher are “funded by illegal marijuana operations selling pot candies to kids.”

The second release also references a letter that they and 42 other House members sent earlier this year asking lead appropriators to continue the medical cannabis language in the FY18 bill.

“Now, like the fox and the sour grapes, they changed their tune once they didn’t get what they wanted,” Sabet said.

But while reformers certainly would’ve liked to have had the rider in the base bill for the first time this year, it wasn’t something they needed. And that it didn’t happen isn’t considered a setback in light of the fact that original Justice Department FY15 and FY16 funding legislation didn’t include the medical marijuana provision either; it was later added via amendments just as advocates expect will happen this year.

In a letter first reported by MassRoots, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, an ardent marijuana opponent, recently asked Congressional leadership to oppose continuing the protections in new legislation. Days later, lawmakers nonetheless included the language in the omnibus bill.

In a related development, Sabet also cheered the release of separate appropriations legislation on Wednesday which covers the District of Columbia. That bill, as in previous years, contains a rider preventing Washington, D.C. from spending its own money to legally regulate marijuana sales despite support from local elected officials. Advocates believe they may have the votes to strip that provision later in the process this year.

The kerfuffle about the marijuana provisions, or lack thereof, in the new spending legislation is part of a series of overconfident messaging that Sabet and SAM have been deploying in recent weeks, often seeming to grasp for whatever they can send a snarky communique about.

For example, after it was announced last week that the Marijuana Policy Project is losing its 22-year-old bank account, SAM sent a press release titled, “PNC Bank Closing Bank Accounts of Major Marijuana Lobby-Industry Group as Potential DOJ Enforcement Looms over Pot Businesses and Companies Who Service Them.”

Sabet even referred to “our friends at PNC” in a tweet.

The prohibitionists have also tried to make a big deal out of the Vermont legislature’s failure to suspend rules during a short legislative session to take final action on a legalization proposal.

Today, Big Marijuana lost:

-their bank account
-Vermont, of all places

What was that about "inevitable"?

— Kevin Sabet (@KevinSabet) June 22, 2017

While lawmakers came just shy last week of enacting a marijuana legalization bill in the first half of Vermont’s current legislative biennium, they have high hopes of getting it over the finish line when the state House and Senate reconvene in January now that there is committed support for a specific legalization plan from Gov. Phil Scott and a majority in both chambers.

Sabet has also spent recent weeks claiming victory in the effort to defeat state legislation that the marijuana policy reform movement had no expectation of passing in 2017 and made virtually no concerted effort to build support for.

For example, he declared New Hampshire’s failure to pass a legalization bill in 2017 as a big loss for cannabis activists, even though major organizations actually focused this legislative session on making New Hampshire the last state in New England to decriminalize marijuana possession, an effort that succeeded (pending a final signature from vocally supportive Gov. Chris Sununu (R)).

.@thehill reports on our big @learnaboutsam win in VT

Leglzn wins '17: 0
Losses: VT, CT, MD, NH, NM, DE,RI (soon!)https://t.co/XQGNZVesyZ

— Kevin Sabet (@KevinSabet) June 22, 2017

And West Virginia legalized medical cannabis this year — something even the most optimistic legalization advocates did not expect.

Meanwhile, Sabet and his colleagues have succeeded in repealing exactly zero of the reform movement’s legalization or medical marijuana gains to date. Since Sabet formed SAM in 2013, the number of states with legal recreational marijuana has quadrupled.

And public support for ending prohibition continues to rise, according to opinion surveys. The most recent Gallup poll found that 60 percent of Americans back legalization, compared to just 48 percent in late 2012 just before SAM began its work.

The momentum doesn’t appear to be slowing anytime soon. In addition to the likelihood that the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer medical cannabis amendment will be approved with strong bipartisan support in Congress again soon, advocates are also looking to advance measures on Capitol Hill concerning marijuana banking, industrial hemp and other matters.

And they have already succeed in qualifying a medical cannabis amendment for Oklahoma’s 2018 ballot and are also working to place similar measures before Missouri and Utah voters, and to qualify a full marijuana legalization initiative in Michigan.

In the meantime, the spending bills concerning the Justice Department and Washington, D.C. will both be considered by relevant appropriations subcommittees on Thursday. Advocates are not expected to push for votes on the marijuana provisions at this stage because they believe they have a better chance later in the process and don’t want to jeopardize those efforts by starting off with losing votes.


I know it would just tear the heart out of @momofthegoons to have to ban me, so I my intention was to withhold comments and characterizations about SAM and this guy Sabet.

But after reading this:
"SAM sent a follow-up press release alleging that Blumenauer and Rohrabacher are “funded by illegal marijuana operations selling pot candies to kids.”

....I take it back...they are complete and utter morons. LOL

 

[momofthegoons]

I know it would just tear the heart out of @momofthegoons to have to ban me, so I my intention was to withhold comments and characterizations about SAM and this guy Sabet.

Lmfao.... it would be the honor of getting the first warning point on the forum. But worry not. I applaud your restraint.

 

[elykpeace]

Haha @Baron23 yeah I also commend you. it's hard .


I think someone negliected to give this Sabet hugs as a child. Having so much disgusting for a healing plant, I think I know what that Sabet fella needs .
A "Jefferson session"


Edit:grammar

 

[Baron23]

Greece legalizes marijuana for medical purposes
Greece has become the latest European country to legalize marijuana for medical purposes.

Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras said last week that doctors will soon be able to prescribe the drug for a variety of medical conditions.

Cannabis is normally prescribed for conditions like muscle spasms, chronic pain, PTSD, epilepsy and cancer.

“From now on, the country is turning its page, as Greece is now included in countries where the delivery of medical cannabis to patients in need is legal.” Mr Tsipras said at a press conference, as reported by the Greek Government Gazette.

Greece is the sixth EU country to take this action after the Czech Republic, Finland, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain have already legalised the drug for medical use.

Details on how the drug will be cultivated and distributed are yet to be clarified by Mr Tsipras' left-wing party.

The Prime Minister also said cannabis would be downgraded from a Table A drug – equivalent to class A in the UK – to a Table B drug, in which category are other drugs like methadone and opium with approved medical values, as reported by Dope Magazine.

The new law could boost the economy, as it allows the creation of a legal drug industry.

In Canada, for example, Deloitte estimated that legalising marijuana would create $23 billion per year, more than the combined sales of beer, wine and spirits.

Greece will soon also be able to import cannabis-based medicines.

It is yet to be seen whether Greece will go further to allow full-scale cannabis legislation, for recreational use as well as medical, joining Portugal, the only other European country to do so.

Greece? Fucking Greece which can't find its economic ass with both hand but they can see the clear logic of MMJ while we are still fighting about it in the USA state by state. FFS.

 

[Baron23]

Data show the typical medical marijuana consumer is upscale, insured and physician-diagnosed

With cannabis legalization across multiple states in the U.S. and other countries around the world, there’s been an explosion of research firms looking into the industry. ArcView Market Research became famous for its market-size predictions, Viridian Capital Advisors acquired notoriety for its Cannabis Deal Tracker and Cannabis Stock Index, and New Frontier Data gained a reputation for its extensive (collaborative) reports.

However, few analysts seem to have focused on the consumer-level to the extent that market researchers usually do in other industries. At least, that was the case not too long ago, when Consumer Research Around Cannabis emerged, claiming to be “the only national research firm providing local consumer-level data for the emerging cannabis market.”

Unlike other firms out there, CRAC offers insights into cannabis users’ consumption habits and other non-marijuana-related conducts, like which cars they drive, how much they make per year, how much their house is worth, what kind of insurance they have, etc.

As the data covers more than 85 markets in the U.S. and Canada, picking a topic and geography to hone into was both easy (in terms of options) and difficult (choices are hard). Looking at some of the information and charts shared by Vice President Jeff Stein, a data set caught Benzinga's eye.

The New York Case
About three months ago, the state of New York finally started permitting the prescription of medical marijuana for the treatment of chronic pain, adding the ailment to a short list that previously included only a few other conditions like epilepsy, HIV, AIDS and multiple sclerosis. Following the policy adjustment, CRAC conducted consumer habits studies in the Buffalo and Albany metro areas, concluding that “an estimated 46,668 adults in the heavily populated Buffalo-Niagara Falls metro area listed the ‘treatment of chronic pain’ as an important reason for their purchase of medicinal marijuana.”

Furthermore, CRAC said, “In the smaller Albany-Schenectady-Troy Capital Region, the number was 28,734 adults, totaling over 75,000 people in just those two metros.”

What’s more interesting, though, is the deeper analysis of the responses, which counter-intuitively revealed that these medical cannabis users seeking relief of chronic pain are “upscale, insured, and visit a variety physicians.”

“This target group is also growing due to the recent changes in state laws, representing a business growth opportunity in New York,” a recent report read.

Check out the figures for adults disclosing the use of cannabis for the treatment of chronic pain in three charts – sorted by income, insurance and physicians visited:

Confirming A Trend
Intrigued by the New York state results, Benzinga reached out to CRAC and asked them to share similar information for other markets in order to find out if the trend of medical marijuana users in legal markets being upscale, insured and physician-diagnosed was confirmed.

“We can’t promise this will be the story in every city we look at because people are very different in each part of the country, but we have seen similar results in several other metro areas,” Stein told Benzinga before sharing the additional data. “When we focus on the medical side of cannabis, it does seem to skew upscale, for the most part.”

However, not every market presented this over-indexing.

"We suspect that Phoenix’s large retiree population has something to do with employment info, and in Denver the maturity of the marijuana market may be suppressing some of the indices since usage is much more common," Stein commented. "An index reflects differences versus the average person in a market, so if it is more likely that the average person is using cannabis in Denver, the indexes will be closer to 100."

Yes, but per ole' Jeffey, dem' MJ users just ain't good people, yeah?

 

[Baron23]

Balkan States Move Toward Medical Marijuana
Three of the Balkan states to emerge from the ashes of Yugoslavia a generation ago are now among the first countries in the ex-communist world to move toward embracing medical marijuana.

Australian firm MGC Pharmaceuticals just announced a deal to distribute its cannabis-derived products in Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia. MGC is partnering with the Slovenian supplier Mikro+Polo to market its phytocannabinoid-derived Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) in the three countries, according to Australia’s Business News.

Perth-based MGC was established three years ago by veterans of the Israeli medical marijuana industry. Late last year, it harvested its first test crop of cannabis in Slovenia and has established a facility in the country’s capital, Ljubljana, where it is isolating cannabidiol (CBD) for use in its products, including a CBD-infused skincare ointment.

MGC’s share price shot up 20 percent after the announcement of the Balkan deal, Australia’s Motley Fool business blog reported.

Last October, Croatia become the first Balkan country to allow patients to legally purchase and use cannabis products to treat serious illnesses—although so far, none are available for doctors to prescribe, according to BalkanInsight.

Regulations issued by the country’s Health Ministry permit each patient to receive up to 0.75 grams of THC per month—presumably in either herbaceous or extract form. However, the law does not allow for cultivation.

Neither Slovenia, nor Bosnia, have taken this step, despite growing pressure, but products derived from MGC’s CBD-heavy strains are now being allowed. And the Slovenian parliament is actually considering an initiative to have cannabis removed from the Schedule I list.

First it was Greece, now its fucking Slovenia. Slovenia FFS!! Meanwhile, our Federal Government (well, the AG) wants to drag us back into the MJ dark ages and states are having endless debates and cynical political/commercial maneuvering. Something is wrong here.

 

[Baron23]

With DEA digging in its heels on “marijuana extracts,” legality of CBD oil on trial in federal courts

Cannabist Special Report: CBD, TBD || Outcome of lawsuit pitting the hemp industry against the DEA could chart a new course for CBD — and a booming new agricultural sector.


By Alicia Wallace, The Cannabist Staff

Cannabidiol is a non-psychoactive cannabis compound touted for its medicinal promise — but marijuana- and hemp-derived extracts rich in CBD and low in intoxicating THC are facing a future yet to be determined.

The Cannabist’s special report “CBD, TBD” explores a regulatory and legal landscape pockmarked by federal-state conflicts, and examines national drug policy, pioneering research efforts and disparate avenues toward the compound’s full legalization. This is the third installment in an ongoing series.

Part I – Forbidden medicine: Caught between a doctor’s CBD advice and federal laws

Part II – How advocates are inspiring congressional action on CBD legalization

There are two wildly different views on how the federal government has classified cannabidiol (CBD) with a new drug code for marijuana extracts:

It was a mere administrative maneuver meant to bring the U.S. in line with international drug control treaties and to better track medical research.

It was the opening salvo in a federal offensive against the emerging American hemp industry.

A proposed final rule notice posted to the Federal Register last December by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration established a Controlled Substances Code Number for “marihuana extracts.” The rule notice, which was finalized in January, maintained that cannabis-derived extracts remain Schedule I substances.

What the DEA saw as innocuous, the hemp industry saw as an existential threat.

Overnight, a pall was cast across an industry pumping out products ranging from hemp seed butter to bio-plastics used in automobiles to CBD oil, a non-psychoactive cannabis compound that has been highly touted for its potential medicinal benefits.

Hysteria and confusion swelled after initial reports erroneously asserted that a scheduling action occurred and that CBD was now illegal and in the crosshairs of the government.

Shortly after the rule was announced, DEA officials told The Cannabist that the new code number would have no effect on the slew of hemp products not intended for human consumption that are already exempt from the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). That included the likes of lotions, shampoos, solvents, ropes, clothing and bird seed, officials said.

As the DEA continued, reiterating that no scheduling action took place, officials told The Cannabist that CBD oil and other extracts derived from marijuana and hemp “have been and will continue to be Schedule I controlled substances.”

Hemp industry lawyers claimed the rule and statements instantly subjected what were presumed lawful operations to DEA registration and drug code assignation, effectively treating their products as controlled. The coding also amounted to the DEA acting outside of its authority by attempting to schedule cannabinoids, or even marijuana extracts, which are not explicitly listed in the Controlled Substances Act, attorneys alleged.

A federal lawsuit filed in January by Denver’s Hoban Law Group on behalf of the Hemp Industries Association, Centuria Natural Foods and RMH Holdings LLC was intended to protect an American agricultural revival, attorney Bob Hoban told The Cannabist.

“The entire industry hinges on this,” Hoban said.

Now it’s up to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to make a decision that could chart a new course for the hemp industry.

Uncertain times, booming business
At least 16 states, including Colorado, have laws allowing cultivation of hemp for research and/or commercial purposes, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

In 2016, the hemp industry notched an estimated $688 million in U.S. sales, setting a new record, according to an analysis by the Hemp Business Journal. Hemp-derived CBD accounted for an estimated $130 million share of that total, the Denver-based trade publication reported.

However, questions have continuously swirled around the legality of the sourcing, manufacturing processes and distribution of the plant’s products and extracts.

Central to the issue are the parts of the cannabis plant that are refined into products. In the CSA, the government defines marijuana as:

“all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin. Such term does not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination.”​

What has been excluded from the CSA definition — mature stalks and unviable seed — is considered to contain only traces of cannabinoids such as psychoactive THC. Foods such as hemp-seed hearts and cooking oil made from seed fall into this category.

Questions arise when hemp plants that are naturally low in THC are used to make CBD oil.

“The uncertainty, frankly, is what has created this industry,” Hoban said. “Economics and business thrive in uncertainty.”

Surviving in uncertainty, however, is another matter.

Hoban said the industry can’t sit on the sidelines assuming state legalization and existing case law will shield producers, retailers and consumers of hemp-derived products.

He noted how companies in Texas and Kentucky had their CBD products seized by state police. He expressed concern that operations by the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol could lead to seizures of CBD oil and other hemp-derived products under the auspices of the DEA’s marijuana extract coding.

CBD oil’s legality has been questioned in places like Orchard Park, New York, where officials for a state-run special care facility said federal law prohibited them from administering doctor-recommended CBD oil for a patient.

“There’s no black and white about this,” Hoban said, and added that the fight in the courts is critical.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco provides a familiar battleground for the DEA and the Hemp Industries Association. Nearly two decades ago, the 9th Circuit set precedents on hemp foods and cannabinoids that play heavily into this year’s case.

In 2003, the court ruled against the DEA’s “Interpretive Rule” banning all naturally occurring THC, including the trace amounts found in hemp seed and oil. In 2004, that same appellate court established bounds on the DEA’s authority related to natural and synthetic THC, according to court records:

The DEA’s Final Rules purport to regulate foodstuffs containing “natural and synthetic THC.” And so they can:  in keeping with the definitions of drugs controlled under Schedule I of the CSA, the Final Rules can regulate foodstuffs containing natural THC if it is contained within marijuana, and can regulate synthetic THC of any kind. But they cannot regulate naturally-occurring THC not contained within or derived from marijuana-i.e., non-psychoactive hemp products-because non-psychoactive hemp is not included in Schedule I. The DEA has no authority to regulate drugs that are not scheduled, and it has not followed procedures required to schedule a substance.​

A decade later, Congress passed the Agricultural Act of 2014, also known as the Farm Bill, which allowed states to set laws on hemp production. The act defined industrial hemp as “the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.”

Under that legislation, a state department of agriculture or university could produce industrial hemp for research purposes, and others could grow the versatile crop under state-sanctioned pilot programs.

Poking the bear
Past circuit court rulings and hemp-friendly federal legislation have offered legal precedent for producers, retailers and consumers of CBD-rich extracts, but they didn’t necessarily provide security or stability to all.

Some advocates for CBD oil in therapeutic and medical applications said they prefer a clear-cut approach — the stakes are far too high for too many people and businesses to solely rely on the courts.

Paige Figi, a Colorado Springs-area mother, credits CBD oil with drastically reducing her daughter Charlotte’s seizures caused by Dravet syndrome, a type of epilepsy. She founded the nonprofit Coalition for Access Now to lobby for CBD laws.

CBD oil’s legality ultimately needs to be decided in the halls of Congress, Figi said.

Figi and Coalition for Access Now are supporting Congressional efforts to exclude CBD — and plants rich in cannabidiol and low in intoxicating THC — from the definition of marijuana in the Controlled Substances Act.

Beyond the need for full federal legality, Figi said she is concerned that continued court battles could ultimately backfire against the entire industry.

The DEA’s enforcement priorities have been elsewhere, she said, noting that agents have mostly taken a hands-off approach toward producers that adhere to state laws and consumer safety standards.

“When you poke the bear, the DEA can come back and say, ‘It’s scheduled … what you’re doing is illegal,'” Figi said.

DEA spokesman Russ Baer did not respond to The Cannabist’s requests for interview about the pending lawsuit and the broader debate involving CBD oil.

Last December, Baer told The Cannabist via email that the new rule on extracts would not change the DEA’s enforcement priorities, which are focused in the widely abused areas of heroin, fentanyl, meth and cocaine.

“DEA will continue to grant research protocol waivers for scientists conducting research with CBD (which is one of many marijuana extracts) and supports additional research so we can follow the science,” he said at the time.

A decision in the 9th Circuit would be legally binding in only a collection of states and territories in the western United States, Hoban said. The 9th Circuit consists of Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon and Washington.

Still, he said, a legal victory in the 9th Circuit would both clarify the DEA’s rule notice in the interim and further set precedent for the future.

“This is the first inning of a very long ballgame,” he said.


See...Slovenia is moving forward while we in the USA have to deal with this kind of idiocy. I'm still wondering how the fuck an enforcement agency (DEA) is allowed to set law and policy. No other enforcement agencies do so, I believe. Lack of clarity in this is one more failure of our ridiculous, self-serving, feather their own bed, Congress.

 

[nosmoking]

I don't know much about this other than whats written in the article, but I would love to see the look on Sessions face when he reads this one!

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/un-calling-worldwide-decriminalization-drug/

 

[Baron23]

Meet President Trump’s Pick for Surgeon General, Dr. Jerome Adams

Over the weekend, President Trump nominated current Indiana Health Commissioner Dr. Jerome Adams to be America’s next Surgeon General. The appointment would make Dr. Adams, a practicing anesthesiologist, the highest ranking doctor in the United States if his nomination is confirmed by the Senate.

Dr. Adams has compiled an impressive medical resume in Indiana, where former Governor Mike Pence appointed him to be the State’s Health Commissioner in 2014. Throughout his career, Adams has shown a penchant for bucking the traditional War on Drugs mentality by embracing new progressive approaches to eradicating the problem.

Shortly after being appointed by Pence, the Indiana Governor leaned on Adams during a rare HIV outbreak in a county near the Kentucky border. The surge in HIV cases was due to a culture of needle sharing in the area, so Adams recommended implementing a needle exchange. Eventually, the idea helped alleviate the issue by getting infected needles off the street and giving people a chance to get connected with the care they so desperately needed.

“It’s only going to work if it allows us to connect people to the resources they need to get clean, to get off drugs and get their infectious diseases appropriately diagnosed and treated,” Adams told the New York Times in a 2015 interview.

Pence, who has a history of treating drugs as a criminal justice issue rather than a healthcare one, had serious concerns with the concept but listened to Adams when the outbreak continued. Pence approved a 30-day emergency needle exchange program before subsequently signing a new law allowing the practice in Indiana going forward in 2015.

Having a Surgeon General in office with a proven impact on some of the more ideological figures in Washington will be crucial in the next four years and beyond, as Americans face a number of growing health crises when you consider the consider the risk factors of our food, our drugs, and our environment.

But the possible next Surgeon General of the United States is focused on prevention as well as reaction, having been outspoken on the issue of prescription painkiller addiction in America — specifically their over-prescription by doctors. Adams testified earlier this year in support of SB 226, a bill that aimed to limit the amount of opioids a physician could prescribe to a first-time user of the powerful painkiller or children under the age of 18. Adams argued that limiting the amount of leftover drugs after pain management has been sufficiently completed could help reduce the number of patients who get addicted to the pills and subsequently turn to dangerous alternatives when the prescription runs dry. Almost 80 percent of surveyed heroin users in the state of Indiana at the time of the survey blamed their addiction on what started as a doctor’s prescription.

“Fixing this problem isn’t as easy as telling doctors to quit prescribing opioids,” Adams said during his statement. “Opioids do have a purpose in pain management when used in moderation. It’s important to also consider pain management techniques that don’t involve addictive drugs.”

If confirmed, Dr. Adams would replace the acting Surgeon General, Sylvia Trent-Adams. Trent-Adams took over the role in late-April, when President Trump relieved Obama administration-holdout Dr. Vivek Murthy, an advocate of medical marijuana’s therapeutic value, of his duties.

 

[grokit]

Scientists Map the Receptor That Makes Weed Work

Add marijuana to humans, and you get some fairly predictable results: euphoria, hunger, introspection, anxiety, and a whole panoply of other effects. Also known as being high. Most of that complicated reaction is thanks to a single cellular structure known as cannabinoid receptor 1. Your body has CB1 receptors lacing the surfaces of cells in the brain, liver, lungs, fat, uterus, and sperm. And whenever your ... friend smokes, dabs, or eats an edible, the tetrahydrocannabinol molecules therein bind to these sites, stimulating the cells to release a cornucopia of chemical signals.

For a long time, scientists thought CB1 receptors worked like lock and key with THC and its chemical cousins—one size fits one. However, new research shows that CB1 receptors are actually quite malleable, stretching to fit a wider range of molecules. That could be useful knowledge as researchers try to synthesize chemicals that mimic the desirable effects of cannabis (such as pain relief) without the side effects (such as anxiety, weight gain, addiction, or federal prosecution).

"People have been using cannabis for a variety of therapeutic indications for centuries ...

https://www.wired.com/story/scientists-map-the-receptor-that-makes-weed-work

 

[Baron23]

DEA Going to the Mat in Federal Courts Over Legality of CBD


Remember just before Christmas, when the DEA quietly adopted a “Final Rule” criminalizing “marihuana extract,” presumably including all extracts from the cannabis plant?

Then, the agency went on to “clarify” that the Final Rule was based on the DEA’s own interpretation that weed extracts derived from mature cannabis or industrial hemp stalks were not illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and, furthermore, the ruling was meant to give priority to researchers.

Confusion and panic reigned across the land, especially from the burgeoning hemp industry, which has been developing countless innovative products, including plastics, and has seen the rise of an agricultural sector that could save the American farm.

And not to mention the fate of CBD extracts for medicinal purposes.

Hemp industry lawyers immediately took to the mat and filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the Hemp Industries Association, Centuria Natural Foods and RMH Holdings LLC, which was intended to protect an American agricultural revival, attorney Bob Hoban told the Cannabist, in a special report.

“The entire industry hinges on this,” Hoban said.

Hoban, managing partner of Hoban Law Group, said that the action is clearly beyond the DEA’s authority.

“This Final Rule serves to threaten hundreds, if not thousands, of growing businesses, with massive economic and industry expansion opportunities, all of which conduct lawful business compliant with existing policy as it is understood and in reliance upon the Federal Government,” Hoban wrote on the firm’s website.

Hoban cautioned that the industry cannot sit on the sidelines, assuming state legalization and existing case law will shield producers, retailers and consumers of hemp-derived products.

It is now up to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to make a decision that could determine the course of the hemp industry, only recently revived after nearly eight decades, thanks to the 2014 Obama Farm Bill.

Although a decision in the 9th Circuit would be legally binding in only a collection of states and territories in the western United States, Hoban explained, it would at least clarify the DEA’s rule notice and set a precedent for the future.

The US Courts of Appeals for the 9th Circuit covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon and Washington.

Hoban called the appeal “the first inning of a very long ballgame.”

Meanwhile, hemp tries to make up for lost time.

A series of hemp pilot programs are underway around the country although they involve barely two percent of American farmers.

Before hemp was prohibited in 1937, that number was 30 percent, and our hemp was consider among the best in the world.

At least 16 states now have laws allowing cultivation of hemp for research and/or commercial purposes, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, and its production is raking in the dough.

The Hemp Business Journal calculated that last year the industry brought in an estimated $688 million in U.S. sales, with hemp-derived CBD accounting for around $130 million of that total.

So, can anyone guess why the DEA wants to put the kibosh on hemp and classify it as a Schedule 1 drug?

No? Neither can we. It seems incredibly counterproductive.

But then, so many decisions and actions taken by the DEA are beyond irrational and inexplicable. Just sayin’.

Of the many very stupid things our Federal Govt has done on the subject of MJ, the DEA positions on CBD and industrial hemp have to be among the most moronic. I just don't see any reasonable rationale for their position.....dump Rosenstein (has a nice ring to it, don't it? LOL)

 

[Baron23]

An even better article on the DEA's abject stupid and illegal actions on CBD and industrial hemp. Fucking ass-hats that they are. "Dump Rosenstein"...now there is a campaign slogan for the decades. LOL

Op-ed: DEA position statement on CBD, hemp and Farm Bill “reckless and illegal”
CW Hemp CEO Joel Stanley: “The DEA’s opinions are needlessly causing panic and fear.”

By Joel Stanley, Special To The Cannabist

Editor’s note: As part of The Cannabist’s special report, “CBD, TBD,” on July 5 we published a statement by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration addressing its policy position on cannabidiol oil. The DEA referenced Charlotte’s Web, a trademarked hemp extract made by CW Hemp. The company’s CEO, Joel Stanley, reached out to The Cannabist to make a statement of his own.

In response to The Cannabist’s ongoing reporting on cannabidiol (CBD), the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration this week released a reckless opinion statement that not only contradicts federal law — its very issuance is also illegal.

The DEA does not make laws, and the agency’s position is merely an opinion, one that, in this case, is actually illegal to enforce. But the statement itself violates the expressed intent of Congress.

The language given by the continuing Appropriations Act of 2017, Sec. 773, explicitly states that federal funds may not be used to:

…prohibit the transportation, processing, sale, or use of industrial hemp that is grown or cultivated in accordance with section 7606 of the Agricultural Act of 2014, within or outside the State in which the industrial hemp is grown or cultivated.

Therefore, the DEA statement itself — because it was made by a federal agency – is not lawful; it constitutes an illegal use of federal funds to prohibit “industrial hemp” that is federally compliant.

The opinions expressed by the DEA in the statement show that the agency is choosing which laws it would like to apply to hemp, CBD, and Charlotte’s Web. In doing so, it ignores laws written in the last few years in favor of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) written in 1971. This is an irresponsible position by a federal law enforcement agency, but even if the CSA were the only applicable statute, it still does not prohibit “hemp” or “CBD.”

Specifically addressing language in the DEA’s statement is important so that the public is aware that the opinion does not impact access to Charlotte’s Web and CBD products.

DEA: “At present, this material is being illegally produced and marketed in the United States in violation of two federal laws: The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).”

Not true: In Sec. 7606 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (a.k.a. the “Farm Bill”) the “Controlled Substances Act” and “any other Federal law” is specifically nonwithstood before defining “industrial hemp” and legalizing its domestic cultivation and marketing for the first time since 1937.

DEA: “Because it is illicitly produced by clandestine manufacturers, its actual content is uncertain and will vary depending on the source of the material.”

Because the statement specifically references Charlotte’s Web in the first sentence, it’s crucial to note that the Charlotte’s Web products are produced in an FDA registered laboratory that is independently certified for cGMP compliance, scoring 98.9% in a recent third party audit.

Furthermore, CW Hemp’s lab has been showcased on many national TV programs as well as online. We have been and continue to be transparent with our customers, partners and regulatory bodies – in fact, we routinely host state officials at our lab.

DEA: “Because ‘Charlotte’s Web’/CBD oil is not an FDA-approved drug: It is a schedule I controlled substance under the CSA …”

Not true: The CSA does not contain the terms “Cannabidiol,” “Cannabinoids” or “Hemp.” In order for these terms to be included in the CSA and officially become law, it would take an act of Congress, passed by the House and Senate, and signed by the President.

DEA: “Because ‘Charlotte’s Web’ is reportedly being administered to pediatric research subjects, the potential dangers are even more pronounced, making compliance with the FDA (investigational New Drug) IND requirement even more crucial.”

Not true: The only research being conducted in the U.S. on Charlotte’s Web is “observational” in nature. This means that researchers are tracking data based on the voluntary use of Charlotte’s Web, at the sole discretion and lone decision of the user. This research is not in violation of the FDCA or any other law.

There are many neurologists in the US that want to study Charlotte’s Web in a clinical setting. However, due to the pharmaceutical monopoly on the movements of Washington D.C. and the FDA, Charlotte’s Web must be clinically researched in other countries.

DEA: “It is important to correct a misconception that some have about the effect of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (which some refer to as the ‘farm bill’) on the legal status of ‘Charlotte’s Web’/CBD oil. Section 7606 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 authorizes institutions of higher education (e.g., universities) and state Departments of Agriculture to grow and cultivate ‘industrial hemp’ (defined under the Act as marijuana with a THC content of 0.3 percent or less) for agricultural research purposes where permitted under state law. However, the Agricultural Act of 2014 does not permit such entities, or anyone else, to produce non-FDA-approved drug products made from cannabis.”

Not true: Charlotte’s Web, and many other domestic hemp products, are cultivated in full compliance with the Farm Bill, under appropriate licensing from respective state departments of agriculture in Colorado and Kentucky. Furthermore, according to the continuing Appropriations Acts of 2016 and 2017, it is the expressed intent of Congress that hemp cultivated in compliance with the Farm Bill be intended for “transportation, processing, and sale.”

It seems the DEA is trying to revert back to 2013, when hundreds of desperate families, failed by their governments and pharmaceuticals, uprooted their lives and moved to Colorado in order to access Charlotte’s Web.

There was once more than 15,000 people on the waiting list for Charlotte’s Web. Now, the hemp laws that ended that waiting list are under attack by this federal agency.

Charlotte’s Web is named after Charlotte Figi, a resilient and revolutionary little girl who was suffering from a treatment-resistant form of epilepsy. Close to death, experimental veterinary drugs were offered as a last option — but her parents preferred to bet on a moonshot.

What we didn’t know when we met Charlotte was that she would change not only our lives, but her bravery would also help thousands of families who now depend on plant-based products like Charlotte’s Web. In many cases, these options are often the final hope for children and adults who, like Charlotte, have exhausted pharmaceutical ones.

The DEA’s opinions are needlessly causing panic and fear amongst this challenged community. Never mind the impact on industry sales — or Charlotte’s Web sales, as the brand was specifically discriminated against in the statement. The potential consequences of its opinions for real families and medically fragile children could be devastating.

Charlotte’s Web is more than a brand or product. It’s a movement of people looking for better solutions that put daughters, sons, mothers, and fathers first; that connect serious science and the power of nature; that understand we are living in precarious times, but fearlessly believe everyone deserves quality of life. In that, our mission at CW Hemp is to protect a community whose members find themselves and their families on their last health option, one that can mean the difference between life and death.

The DEA repeatedly underestimates the resolve of these families and this community to stand up and proactively change laws when the well-being of loved ones is being threatened.

CW Hemp will continue to go above and beyond to remain compliant with federal and state laws. We continue to do so to ensure we remain in a position to fight this fight with all the families that deserve more options. Every day, we receive letters from families telling us they have their loved one back because of Charlotte’s Web, and we will not stop fighting for them. As long as we are able and justified by federal laws, we will continue to help as many people as we can.

(Provided by CW Hemp)
Joel Stanley is CEO of Stanley Brothers, creators of Charlotte’s Web™

 

[Baron23]

Trump Will Cripple States If He Reverses Marijuana Legalization


f President Donald Trump reverses state laws legalizing marijuana, he could cripple if not bankrupt those states.

Last month I gave the keynote address at the Cannabis World Congress Business Expo in New York City. CWCBExpo is the trade show for the cannabis industry. I had the pleasure of meeting thousands of like-minded cannabis activists, and the experience was truly refreshing and inspiring on many levels.

I learned firsthand that those in the legal cannabis industry — whether they're growing hemp, medical marijuana or recreational marijuana in California or Oregon or wherever — have formed a united front. Everyone at the convention was looking to work together to come up with solutions on how to get the federal government to move forward and embrace this industry, which has grown exponentially.

When it comes to economics, let me put the state of marijuana to you in this way: If Trump reverses state law, he'll be crippling if not bankrupting the states that have legalized marijuana. Not only will this action go against the will of the people who voted for legalized marijuana, this action will cause yet another economic collapse. And no, that isn't an exaggeration.

Over half of the states have now legalized marijuana in some way and multiple states are receiving millions, soon to be billions, in tax revenue from this industry. When those states no longer have this tax revenue coming in (tax revenue that is projected to increase steadily each year), where will that money come from?

Think about it this way: The auto industry was bailed out with roughly $80 billion from taxpayer money, but it is still here, and the industry was able to repay taxpayers overtime. We're talking about making a profitable, multibillion-dollar industry go away overnight. Meaning America's president will voluntarily make hundreds of thousands of Americans unemployed overnight. How many will default on their mortgages? How many will declare personal bankruptcy?

A report by New Frontier Data states the marijuana industry is projected to create a quarter of a million jobs by 2020 — that's more jobs than the manufacturing industry, utilities, or government jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Prior to the 2016 election, the marijuana industry, which existed in 25 states at the time, was worth a combined $7.2 billion. Now, this industry is expected to grow at a compounded annual rate of 17 percent, with medical marijuana sales growing from $4.7 billion in 2016 to $13.3 billion in 2020. Adult recreational sales (recreational use is only available in eight states) are expected to go from $2.6 billion in 2016 to $11.2 billion by 2020.

"If Trump reverses state law, he'll be crippling if not bankrupting the states that have legalized marijuana. Not only will this action go against the will of the people who voted for legalized marijuana, this action will cause yet another economic collapse."

Colorado alone has a $1.3 billion marijuana industry and much of the tax money is going toward scholarships so students can go to community colleges for free. This isn't "found money" either. Before marijuana was legal, this money was going to the black market, to the drug cartels. Now it's being used to fund college scholarships. Let that sink in for a minute. In the Denver metro area, marijuana tax dollars are being used for infrastructure. Imagine that. We don't need to rely on false presidential promises to fix our local roads and bridges. The town of Edgewater is spending $1.4 million in marijuana tax revenue to repave streets and replace their city hall with a new building that includes a police station and library.

My point is this: When an entire industry is taken away from states like Colorado, California, Oregon, Washington and so on, how does President Trump expect our nation to recover? It is estimated that California will take in $1 billion from marijuana sales tax once dispensaries start selling recreational marijuana in 2018. The cannabis industry is an industry that is bringing back American farms — which means rural areas which have been struggling finally have the chance to thrive — not just through marijuana but through hemp farming. And don't forget: this is an industry that relies solely on an American work force. The cannabis industry is all-American and comprised of American entrepreneurs, employees, and customers. There's no way to outsource labor to other countries. And unlike all those infuriating stereotypes, this is an industry of educated and informed individuals.

To be successful, American cannabis business owners have to stay up-to-date on new laws and regulations — that means many are spending their time fighting against unjust laws and regulations, all while running a company with their own capital. This entire industry is unable to get a bank loan or set up a bank account due to federal law. When you can't rely on a bank to even store your money, you're wearing more hats than any other small business owner or entrepreneur.

If federal law doesn't change by the time Canada legalizes marijuana nationwide in 2018, just watch our neighbors to the north find a way to get their banking system on board for American cannabis businesses. And get ready for American cannabis businesses to go to Canada, or at least set up a headquarters there. Many are already going to Puerto Rico, where the IRS Tax Code 280E doesn't apply. Don't know what that is? Well, you know how businesses can deduct expenses on their taxes? If you're working with marijuana, you can't deduct anything because of 280E. Of course, there's also Mexico. Our neighbors to the south just legalized medical marijuana, so who knows how many American researchers will be crossing the border to study this plant.

The president doesn't have the power to overturn votes
If someone ran a successful, legal business that could be taken away at any time because President Trump felt like it, then yes, that person would probably consider moving to another country to survive. But that's not what I discussed at the CWCBExpo. I didn't plead with these businesses to make as much money as possible and then use that money to get the hell out before it's too late. That's not the united front the American cannabis industry is after. These are hopeful, optimistic business owners who have watched cannabis laws slowly change in their favor, and they're doing all that they can to work with lawmakers and educate citizens to continue that trend. This American industry is looking not just to make history but to make America a better place for generations to come. Their tax money is making a significant difference in their local communities — how many of us see our taxes directly contribute to anything worthwhile (and by worthwhile I mean schools, roads, libraries — not foreign wars).

The cannabis industry is about innovation as much as it is about fighting against oppression. That's the American way. And it's all of our jobs as American citizens to remind the federal government what that means: When we the people vote to legalize something, we legalize it. The president doesn't have the power to overturn our votes. Our faltering economy needs the American cannabis industry to continue to grow and succeed. It's really that simple. Why we're even debating this is beyond me.

I find this article to be a bit unnecessarily breathless and over emotional, but presented so you can judge for yourself.

 

[Baron23]

Government Pot Is Still Horrible—And You Can Blame This DEA Trick

Last August, the DEA managed a remarkable two-fer: in one fell swoop, the nation’s loyal federal drug police quashed while delivering new hope.

Judging by what’s happened since, the nation’s loyal drug police may also have played us all for fools, all while maintaining the mendacious game of circular logic that’s keeping marijuana federally illegal.

On August 12, 2016, the DEA formally rejected a petition that would have seen marijuana reclassified from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, the official government list of the world’s most dangerous drugs. The reason, acting DEA chief Chuck Rosenberg said at the time, was a lack of scientific evidence demonstrating marijuana had any medical value.

Placing cannabis in Schedule II, as the petition requested, would not have legalized marijuana, but it would have allowed doctors to prescribe the drug. It would also have made marijuana easier for scientists to study—and, presumably, discover the very evidence which, despite almost 50 years of federal prohibition and a DEA monopoly on research-grade cannabis, other researchers have managed to find.

The paucity of hard data on cannabis is near-universally acknowledged.

It’s also annoying that key U.S. senators and members of Congress are ostensibly in charge of the DEA’s budget, which was probably why the DEA softened the blow by announcing that it would also entertain applications from anyone interested in growing research-grade cannabis for the government.

This was a breakthrough. The DEA is going to allow more weed to be grown in the United States! A milestone for drug-policy reform wonks, but also for science.

For almost 50 years, all the marijuana used in American research projects has come from one source—a garden at the University of Mississippi, which has had an exclusive government contract to grow research-ready weed since 1968.

Scientists say the limited supply renders large-scale research impossible.

Scientists also say the monopoly means “research-grade” marijuana is worthless.

As researcher Dr. Sue Sisley complained to PBS in the spring, the Ole Miss marijuana is brown, moldy and looks more like stale catnip left out in the sun than it does cannabis flower sold in recreational dispensaries in five states.

But now, nearly a year after the DEA’s announcement, nothing has changed.

As the Cannifornian reported, Ole Miss is still the only source of government-approved research marijuana. The DEA has received 25 applications from would-be growers—none of whom the agency chose to identify by name—no new grow licenses have been granted. And there’s no word as to when the DEA will grant a new license—if they do at all.

According to experts, the total lack of progress is proof positive that the DEA’s new, accommodating stance was a sham, a front and a hustle.

“They were clearly trying to blunt the impact of the rescheduling denial,” said John Hudak, a marijuana expert at the Brookings Institution.

And there were hints of campaign-level politics: With cannabis legalization on the ballot in five states on Election Day, here was the DEA making a false move toward the reform that a majority of Americans want.

This means that marijuana research is not only effectively stalled in America, it may also be worthless.

The DEA claims that it never turns down a qualified request. That may be true, but it’s a deceptive statement, as it’s also true that it is very difficult to be qualified to study marijuana in the first place.

Labs that handle Schedule I substances are subject to rigorous security requirements, and most government-funded research institutions steer clear from seeking marijuana for fear of risking that funding. As a result, the DEA receives fewer than 15 applications to study marijuana a year, according to a NIDA spokesperson.

And as Sisley revealed, there’s also a fundamental problem with most marijuana research: it’s conducted on cannabis that bears little resemblance to actual, real-world marijuana.

“The levels of THC and CBD in cannabis that is now available to researchers are much lower than those of cannabis sold in dispensaries around the country,” University of California Irvine researcher Dr. Daniele Piomelli told the Cannifornian. “This creates a big problem: how relevant to the real world are the studies we can do now?”

We can provide a short answer: They might not be relevant at all.

Ole Miss’s “high-THC” cannabis tops out at about 13 percent THC. The “high CBD” cannabis has about the same amount of CBD. This is half as strong as some flower found in dispensaries—and doesn’t have anywhere near the same terpenes, or other myriad of cannabinoids.

What does dispensary pot do to your brain and body? Science cannot scientifically say.

Good thing the DEA is here to inform us that marijuana remains a public menace.

You all know my view....heave, ho....Rosenberg must go!

 

[Baron23]

Federal ban on marijuana has created ‘regulatory vacuum’ says new study

Federal ban on marijuana has created ‘regulatory vacuum’ says new study
Reliance on the Controlled Substances Act has led to "patchwork" of state cannabis regs that, if successful, could redefine federal oversight powers

Published: Jul 12, 2017, 7:50 am • Updated: about 5 hours ago Comments (5)

By Alicia Wallace, The Cannabist Staff

U.S. medical marijuana laws are like snowflakes — no two state regulatory regimes are exactly alike.

The “regulatory vacuum” that has resulted from marijuana’s Schedule I status has caused varying state regimes to pile up, according to a new study conducted by Temple University researchers. The resulting “patchwork of regulatory strategies” could redefine federal oversight efforts and hinder full understanding the potential benefits and harms of cannabis for medical uses.

“If we’re serious about marijuana as a therapy, as a drug, if we mean it’s medicine, then we need to do research on it. We need to do trials,” said Scott Burris, director of Temple’s Center for Public Health Law Research. “Until the federal government drops it from Schedule I, we’re going to be (researching) this with our scientific and regulatory hands tied behind our back.”

Disparate state medical marijuana laws should be considered a call to action for the federal government to weigh in on the topic beyond the Controlled Substances Act, he added.

Burris and the researchers behind “Mapping medical marijuana,” published Tuesday in the journal Addiction, delved into regulations of the states that have legalized medical marijuana. The study details the varying approaches critical aspects such as qualifying conditions, patient registration, privacy and civil rights concerns, testing, permitting and labeling.

Of the 28 medical marijuana states, including Washington, D.C.:

• 27 specify qualifying diseases, which vary
• 26 protect patient privacy
• 18 have mandatory product safety testing
• 14 have protections in place to prevent discrimination
• Eight prohibit use in parks
• Five prohibit use on beaches
• One (Montana) bans use at places of worship

“In this new area of health policy, states are again serving as ‘laboratories of democracy,’ but scientists evaluating these laws (have) focused on spillover effects of (medical marijuana) on recreational use and its harms, rather than on the ability of states to effectively regulate marijuana as a medicine,” researchers wrote. “There is tremendous interest in understanding the impact of these laws on the community.”

Related stories

• Op-ed: DEA position statement on CBD, hemp and Farm Bill “reckless and illegal”
• In the DEA’s words: Agency stance on CBD, hemp products and the Farm Bill
• Other Roots: Madeline Martinez a “mover and groover” advocate, entrepreneur and grandma
• Jeff Sessions could have power to unilaterally write federal drug policy, say critics of new bill
• Super-plant hemp poised to fuel the next “Green Rush”

The state data, mined as of Feb. 1, 2017 and going back to the start of 2014, were used to compare state laws with each other as well as to the traditional federal approach for medicine regulation.

What researchers found was a “patchwork of regulatory strategies” not uniformly consistent with the approaches usually taken by the federal government.

“Serious deficiencies in this state efforts would add to the rationale for federal rescheduling and the integration of marijuana into the standard controlled substances and pharmaceutical regulatory framework,” Burris wrote in the report. “If, on the other hand, states are able to successfully manage the safe use and distribution of a new pharmaceutical product, critics of federal oversight of the pharmaceutical industry would have an interesting case study to ponder.”

This could be an opportunity for the states to reinvent the current U.S. Food and Drug Administration paradigm, Burris said, noting that marijuana’s lauded euphoria- or relaxing-inducing attributes might not fit perfectly into the square peg of the FDA processes that carbon copy chemical compositions.

The paper is a friendly reminder that “pretending this isn’t happening is not a productive way to move forward,” Burris said.

“It’s safe to say we’re going to be in a period of negotiation” with state laws and whatever federal approach emerges, he added. “Negotiation is fine. Just putting our heads in the sand is bad.”

The research project was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the Public Health Law Research and Policy Surveillance Programs of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

 

[Baron23]

Ohio senator wants feds to lift prohibition on marijuana

The state senator who helped push through Ohio’s medical marijuana law wants to ask U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the Drug Enforcement Agency and the U.S. Congress to re-classify cannabis.

State Sen. Kenny Yuko, D-Richmond Heights, introduced a resolution in the Ohio Senate on Wednesday that would make a formal request to the feds to drop marijuana from the list of controlled substances.

The resolution, which would have to pass both the Ohio House and Senate, doesn’t carry much clout. It is a mechanism for sending a message on an issue.

Ohio and 28 other states have embraced medical marijuana programs, even though the drug is still considered illegal under federal Controlled Substances Act. The prohibition makes clinical studies about marijuana’s medical benefits more difficult, the resolution said. Likewise, it makes getting health insurance to cover medical marijuana and getting banks to handle financial transactions more difficult, the resolution said.

Ohio’s medical marijuana law, signed by Gov. John Kasich in June 2016, took effect in September.

While the Obama administration took a hands-off approach on medical marijuana in states with well regulated programs, the Trump administration seems to be taking a different stance.

“Drug traffickers already cultivate and distribute marijuana inside the United States under the guise of state medical marijuana laws,” Sessions wrote in a May 1 letter to Congressional leaders.

Under Ohio’s new program, three state agencies — Department of Commerce, Board of Pharmacy and State Medical Board — will oversee regulations for growers, doctors, patients and dispensaries.

State authorities are currently writing rules for processors, testing labs and dispensaries and are considering applications from companies vying for 24 cultivator licenses.

Among applications for cultivator licenses are several companies that want to set up operations in the Miami Valley.

 

[Baron23]

Senators Urge Trump Administration to Consider Cannabis as Opioid Alternative

As the Trump administration works to tackle the nation’s opioid crisis, a pair of US senators have submitted a number of suggested reforms to the White House—including the use of medical cannabis as an alternative to opioid-based painkillers.

“In 2016, more people in Connecticut died from drug overdoses than from homicides, suicides, and car accidents combined.”
Sens. Chris Murphy and Richard Blumenthal
In correspondence sent to the President Trump’s Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis, Sens. Chris Murphy and Richard Blumenthal submitted a number of recommendations, including ideas on how those who are fighting the opioid epidemic can work together more efficiently, and how addiction treatment and prevention programs can be implemented more effectively.

“We write today to submit to you recommendations that we gathered from community leaders from across Connecticut at a recent Opioid Summit,” wrote the senators, who spent much of last week in Connecticut at a summit on the state’s opioid epidemic.

“As you know, the opioid epidemic is devastating communities across the nation and more must be done to combat this crisis,” they told the commission. “In 2016, more people in Connecticut died from drug overdoses than from homicides, suicides, and car accidents combined.” We urge you to use these comments as you develop the interim and final reports for President Trump.”

In the report, the two Democratic lawmakers identify what they feel are some of best way to curb opioid overdoses. Among the recommendations: “exploring alternatives to opioids for pain management, (i.e. medical marijuana).”

“The powerful drug fentanyl was involved in the deaths of 483 people—a staggering 544 percent increase since just a couple of years ago,” the senators note. “In 2016, more people in Connecticut died from drug overdoses than from homicides, suicides, and car accidents combined.”

To date, not one recorded fatality has resulted from a cannabis overdose.

Murphy and Blumenthal also sent Gov. Chris Christie a letter to notify him about the recommendations sent to Trump. Here’s the letter in its entirety:

Dear Governor Christie:

We write today to submit to you recommendations that we gathered from community leaders from across Connecticut at a recent Opioid Summit. As you know, the opioid epidemic is devastating communities across the nation and more must be done to combat this crisis. We urge you to use these comments as you develop the interim and final reports for President Trump.

The Opioid Summit we convened brought together local residents, law enforcement, first responders, treatment providers, and community organizations. Participants heard Dr. James Gill, Connecticut’s Chief Medical Examiner, give a sobering presentation about the state of this crisis in Connecticut. Dr. Gill said that opioids were present in 93 percent of the 917 people who died in 2016 from a drug overdose. The powerful drug fentanyl was involved in the deaths of 483 people – a staggering 544 percent increase since just a couple of years ago. In 2016, more people in Connecticut died from drug overdoses than from homicides, suicides, and car accidents combined. Following Dr. Gill’s presentation, attendees broke into small groups to develop the enclosed recommendations. Your colleague in this effort, Dr. Bertha Madras, closed the Summit with some thoughtful insights on the opioid crisis.

As the administration’s opioid task force continues its work, we want to emphasize and echo comments that you heard during your inaugural meeting in June regarding the role of Medicaid, the federal mental health parity law, and the federal Essential Health Benefits standard. Medicaid is the largest payer for addiction and mental health treatment, and any legislation that cuts billions from it will hurt our efforts to combat this epidemic. Likewise, the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 and the private insurance coverage gains from the Affordable Care Act (ACA) have helped millions of Americans get the care they need. Two experts recently estimated that 2.8 million Americans with a substance use disorder, including about 220,000 with an opioid disorder, would lose some or all of their insurance coverage if the ACA were repealed. We, like most Americans, are opposed to this approach and urge the Trump administration to build on the work of the ACA by making treatment more available to Americans in need.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of these recommendations.

Sincerely,

Christopher S. Murphy

Richard Blumenthal