Sponsored by

VGoodiez 420EDC
  • Welcome to VaporAsylum! Please take a moment to read our RULES and introduce yourself here.
  • Need help navigating the forum? Find out how to use our features here.
  • Did you know we have lots of smilies for you to use?

Law The Cannabis Chronicles - Misc Cannabis News

Chinese Gangs Overtaking US Weed Market, CCP Connection Raises Alarms


Chinese Gangs' Illicit Weed Farms Surge Across US, Challenging Mexican Cartels; CCP Connection Sparks Concerns.​


Chinese gangs are behind THOUSANDS of illegal weed farms across the US - sparking fears that CCP could become new cannabis kingpins.


Chinese gangs have set up thousands of illicit weed farms across the US as they begin to challenge Mexican cartels for supremacy as America's cannabis kingpins.


Authorities in Oklahoma, Oregon, California, New Mexico and Maine have all been battling a surge in Chinese weed farms, with some thought to be linked to criminal gangs known as 'triads'.


The spread is seemingly uncontainable, with police in Penobscot County, Maine, last week arresting three Chinese nationals at a weed farm and seizing 40 pounds of the drug alongside $4,700 in cash.


It is thought to be one of around 270 illegal weed farms worth more than $4billion that have sprung up across the state since it legalized the drug in 2020.


Local law enforcement has carried out multiple busts already this year.


Meanwhile, around 2,000 'suspicious' marijuana plants in Oklahoma have been linked to China, accounting for two thirds of weed farms under surveillance, state narcotics police told Politico.


Earlier this month, a Chinese ringleader was sentenced to life in prison after pleading guilty to fatally shooting four people at an illegal medical marijuana operation in Oklahoma.


Mexican cartels have long dominated the market for illegal weed in the US, but officials are now warning that Chinese funding for such operations is skyrocketing.


It is not known whether the money is coming from groups connected to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), but experts have pointed out that triads are usually only allowed to operate if they agree to act as informal 'enforcers' for the government.


Last year, a Homeland Security memo leaked to the Daily Caller attributed the growth to Asian Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs), with one official raising the possibility that profits are being funneled back to Beijing.


Chinese immigrant workers have alleged they were lured to northern New Mexico under false pretenses and forced to work 14 hours a day at an illegal marijuana plant backed with funds from a China-based energy giant, according to a lawsuit filed last year.


The operation was shut down by police in 2020, but those behind it upped sticks to Oklahoma - taking many of their workers with them - before that farm was also busted in 2022.


The crackdown in Southern and Western states has been put forward as one reason for the explosion in weed farms in Maine.


For several years, Maine residents have spoken out about a surge in marijuana-odor filled homes popping up across the state, including near daycares and schools.


The Chinese owners, who speak little to no English, have allegedly earned a notorious reputation throughout Maine for spending thousands on cultivating equipment, namely by demanding items from their phones.


Homes that have been identified as part of the extensive statewide apparatus appear to be found in everyday sleepy suburbs, yet are said to have been plaguing their neighborhoods as a strong marijuana smell emanates even from a distance away and are fitted with extensive electrical upgrades.


Experts estimate that a standard 2,500 square foot home can produce upwards of $3million of marijuana every year.


Some of the profits are allegedly sent directly back to China, while some of the ill-gotten gains remain in the US to keep up criminal activities.


According to an investigation by Maine Wire into 100 of the identified sites, they were all purchased since marijuana was legalized, by single Chinese adults primarily from New York and Massachusetts.


Although the homes are allegedly filed under the single names, many are tied together by factors such as car registrations - indicating they may be connected and controlled by an umbrella organization.


Neighbors say it has become a near-monthly sight to see a van with New York or Massachusetts plates arrive at the pot-filled homes.


In January, Maine authorities raided an illegal Chinese-run marijuana operation in the aptly-named town of China in Kennebec County.


The Chinese-owned growing plants have emerged at a time when the marijuana industry is skyrocketing in the US, opening up million-dollar revenue streams for many - including the Amish community who were detailed in a DailyMail.comView attachment 52294 investigation last year.


Nationwide, Homeland Security has reportedly found a total of 749 properties linked to Asian TCOs, indicating Maine has become a particular hotbed for CCP activity.


It comes amid growing frustration at the failure of law enforcement to crack down on the illicit operations, with Homeland Security allegedly pleading with Maine police to help them gather intel on the properties in September.


'There are hundreds of these operations occurring throughout the state,' Penobscot County Sheriff Troy Morton told the Daily Caller at the time.


'It's upsetting to those who live near these operations, and even those who are following Maine laws and procedures.'


Those Morton was referencing, particularly Maine's law-abiding weed industry, say the infiltration of 'Triad weed' has been a disaster.


'When I say they function like a mafia, it is absolutely true,' a person inside the legal industry told the Maine Wire. 'They have a very intricate network.'


Many in the legal weed industry say they have been forced to become extremely selective to avoid using the Chinese-grown marijuana, as it is often found to contain harmful chemicals including pesticides.


The harmful elements to the product is another example of the struggle law enforcement have had in clamping down on the illegal marijuana grown by illegal immigrants.


'Regardless of where the individuals are from, the true problem involves conflicting state and federal laws,' Morton said. 'We also have little to no oversight, allowing for criminal activity to occur at a high degree.'
SOURCE, please! Not taking this at face value

Also suspicious (sort of) re: rescheduling
I’m a Free Like Tomatoes guy, see no point in half-measures
 
SOURCE, please! Not taking this at face value
Yo my friend, there is a link in the title of the thread...that's why its orange colored....follow it to the source.
 
Is anybody with two brain cells to rub together actually surprised at this??? Anti-drug warfar is the DEA's rice bowl and WTF thought they would move on any aspect of cannabis legalization without being pulled to it by their short hairs. And this is the problem with letting un-elected bureaucracies make policy.

DEA and HHS Criticized for Inadequate Implementation of Cannabis Research Act


Congressmen ‘Deeply Troubled’ by DEA and HHS Implementation of Cannabis Research Act.​


The US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have come under fire from lawmakers for their ‘unacceptable’ implementation of a cannabis research act.


US representatives Earl Blumenauer and Andy Harris, who co-sponsored the ‘Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act’, which was passed into law in December 2022, have accused the regulators of failing to enact the bill’s core aspects.


The act was intended to remove barriers encountered by researchers intending to study cannabis, and streamline the process of having such research approved by the federal government.


Despite being passed with bipartisan support, the DEA and HHS have failed to provide a report detailing the federal barriers to research by the December 02, 2023, deadline as directed by the bill.


Furthermore, in a letter penned to the heads of both regulatory bodies, the congressmen argue that they are routinely failing to respond to research requests within the timelines stipulated by law.


According to the act, the Attorney General has no more than 60 days to approve an application or request additional information.


However, the congressmen point out that: “More than 150 pending research applications for studies into cannabis and related products have yet to receive an approval or denial … and many more researchers are excluded through the US Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) licensing process, which has not been adequately updated.”


“We are deeply troubled by recent reporting that the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act is not being implemented in line with congressional intent. It is unacceptable that researchers continue to face harmful barriers to cannabis research after Congress expressly encouraged research into this substance,” the pair continued.


Noting the number of barriers that still exist, Blumenauer and Harris say this shows ‘ineffective implementation’ of the act and have called on the DEA and HHS to respond to a number of questions regarding the overdue report and what action is being taken to process applications.
 
Just goes to show you that you can find something to agree on with just about anybody.

"“And I inhaled – I did inhale,” Harris told co-host Charlamagne Tha God in a reference to former President Bill Clinton’s infamous “didn’t inhale” response to a similar question while he was campaigning in 1992."

Yeah, and exactly who believed Bill then or now? LOL


Harris says it’s absurd and unfair that marijuana is treated more seriously than fentanyl under federal law


Washington CNN —

Vice President Kamala Harris said Friday that it is “absurd” and “patently unfair” that marijuana is treated the same as heroin and other Schedule I drugs – and more seriously than fentanyl – under federal law.


“Marijuana is considered as dangerous as heroin and more dangerous than fentanyl, which is absurd, not to mention patently unfair,” Harris said during a roundtable on the administration’s plans for cannabis reform. “I’m sure DEA is working as quickly as possible and will continue to do so and we look forward to the product of their work.”


The comments came at the roundtable at the White House as the Biden administration hopes that promoting changes long sought by criminal justice advocates will help build enthusiasm among Black voters, younger voters and a wider array of core Democratic constituencies.



Harris has been traveling the country to rouse the Democratic base about the prospect of voting for her and President Joe Biden a second time, including making appeals to younger voters.


The administration began the process of reconsidering how marijuana is treated under federal law just before the midterms in 2022. Biden pardoned all prior federal offenses for simple marijuana possession and encouraged all governors to pardon state offenses. The same year, Biden asked US Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and the attorney general to begin the administrative process of reviewing how marijuana is scheduled under federal law.


The vice president met with musician Fat Joe and Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear - and alluded to her own role in what she described as an unequal criminal justice system.


“I believe that the promise of America includes equal justice under the law. And for too many, our criminal justice system has failed to live up to that core principle,” said Harris, who started her political career as a prosecutor in California.


“And I say that with full knowledge of how this system has worked, including my experience as a prosecutor,” she added.


The group attending the roundtable included people who have received pardons for marijuana-related convictions.


Biden mentioned cannabis reform in his State of the Union address last week.


“No one should be jailed for simply using or have it on their record,” Biden said in his address last week.


Harris repeated similar sentiments on Friday: “I believe – I think we all at this table believe – nobody should have to go to jail for smoking weed,” she said.


“And what we need to do is recognize that far too many people have been sent to jail for simple marijuana possession,” Harris added while acknowledging how the enforcement of cannabis-related laws have disproportionately impacted people of color.


Harris’ own feelings on marijuana reform have evolved in line with her career.


In a 2019 interview
1710628744444.png
with “The Breakfast Club,” Harris admitted to using cannabis in college: “And I inhaled – I did inhale,” Harris told co-host Charlamagne Tha God in a reference to former President Bill Clinton’s infamous “didn’t inhale” response to a similar question while he was campaigning in 1992.


But as San Francisco’s district attorney from 2004 to 2011, Harris oversaw scores of marijuana convictions and she opposed a failed 2010 effort that would have legalized marijuana in California, the Los Angeles Times reported
1710628744472.png
.


She called for an end to the federal government’s ban on medical cannabis in 2015, stopping short of complete legalization.
 
Last edited:
And more Kamala....I guess she has finally found her issue...after 3 years. lol

Kamala Harris Says ‘We Need To Legalize Marijuana’ For First Time Since Joining Biden Ticket, Signaling Potential Shift Ahead Of Election

For the first time since joining the ticket as President Joe Biden’s running mate in 2020, Vice President Kamala Harris has called for the legalization of marijuana—signaling a possible shift in the administration’s platform heading into the November elections. Harris told a room of cannabis pardon recipients at the White House on Friday that “we need to legalize marijuana,” a participant in the meeting has revealed.


Harris had already made news earlier in the day, calling on the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to reschedule cannabis “as quickly as possible” in public opening remarks before the closed-door roundtable with the clemency beneficiaries. But sitting below a portrait of Teddy Roosevelt after the media was cleared out of the West Wing’s Roosevelt Room, the vice president raised her hands in the air and called for an end to federal cannabis prohibition, a longtime activist and pardon recipient who attended the event tells Marijuana Moment.


“Saying those words out loud—saying it in the Roosevelt Room—it did feel very meaningful,” said New Jersey-based advocate Chris Goldstein, who recently received a pardon certificate from DOJ after being formally forgiven for a 2014 cannabis possession case stemming from a protest advocating for federal marijuana policy reform. “It wasn’t lost on anyone there.”


Harris sponsored a marijuana legalization bill while serving as a U.S. senator and ran on the issue during her unsuccessful 2020 Democratic presidential primary campaign, but she has not publicly called for the broad reform since signing on as Biden’s running mate later that year.


Instead, during that general election campaign and while servicing as vice president she has embraced Biden’s more limited platform that focuses on ending the incarceration of people for using marijuana and providing pardons for certain cannabis offenses.


Goldstein was one of three pardon recipients who joined the vice president—in addition to Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear (D), rapper Fat Joe and others—for Friday’s White House roundtable discussion on the Biden administration’s cannabis clemency efforts.


“The greatest thing about the meeting today was it did not feel like a one-time event. Everything about today—and there were some words expressed about doing more things like this—the White House wants to engage on this policy consistently. That’s clemency, criminal justice, marijuana legalization,” Goldstein told Marijuana Moment on Friday after the meeting. “They want to be right in it, and right now the White House has an important role to play and they’re doing it.”


The vice president’s call for legalization—albeit only behind closed doors and out of earshot of the press, for now—represents a meaningful development for the administration. Harris didn’t speak on behalf of the president, but throughout their first term, neither Harris nor Biden has embraced the increasingly bipartisan policy of ending federal cannabis prohibition. In fact, the White House has said at points that the president’s position against federal legalization hasn’t changed and he was only willing to associate himself with yet-unfulfilled campaign pledges to decriminalize marijuana, allow medical cannabis and release people currently incarcerated over the plant.


None of that has happened to date. But as was highlighted at the White House event, the president has pardoned thousands of people who’ve committed federal cannabis possession offenses. And he additionally directed federal agencies to carry out a review into marijuana scheduling.


In the public-facing portion of Friday’s meeting, Harris said strongly that DEA must reschedule marijuana “as quickly as possible,” calling it “absurd” and “patently unfair” that cannabis is still classified in the same category as heroin. She said she looked forward to the completion of the review, which has involved the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommending to DEA that it move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).


“We need to have a resolution based on their findings and their assessment,” she said. “This issue is stark when one considers the fact that on the schedule currently, marijuana is considered as dangerous as heroin. Marijuana is considered as dangerous as heroin and more dangerous than fentanyl—which is absurd, not to mention patently unfair.”


Moving marijuana to Schedule III would not federally legalize marijuana, however. And the vice president recognized that reality in remarks to the group of invited guests.


The White House’s internal media team recorded the closed-door portions of the roundtable meeting, Goldstein said, but it has not yet released any materials, including Harris’s remarks on legalization. Marijuana Moment reached out to vice president’s office for comment, but a representative was not immediately available.


“We’ve seen the vice president really taking a lot of good, strong positions lately—and and I think that’s a good one to take. It’s not a new one for her,” Goldstein said, referencing Harris’s vocal support for legalization during her time in the Senate, where she sponsored a comprehensive reform bill, as well as on the campaign trail competing for the 2020 Democratic nomination against the current president.







A look at Harris’s career shows she has a complex cannabis legacy. Before embracing legalization, she enforced criminalization and proactively opposed a 2010 cannabis legalization ballot initiative as a San Francisco prosecutor and later as California’s attorney general. But her position has shifted dramatically over the years.


While the purpose of Friday’s meeting was focused on the president’s clemency action—which he historically touted in his State of the Union address last week—the event seems to be the latest signal that the administration is hoping to appeal to voters ahead of the November election by promoting an issue with bipartisan popularity, especially among critical young voters.


The president’s mention of his marijuana pardons and administrative scheduling review directive during last week’s speech before a joint session of Congress was a key acknowledgement to that end. And it was well-received, evidenced in part by the massive social media response it elicited.


That said, the president did again misstate the scope of his administrative actions on marijuana, falsely asserting that he expunged thousands of records when, in fact, a pardon does not clear a person’s record. His mistaken belief could end up causing legal issues for recipients, too, as he not only continues to insist that those cases are sealed but also claimed this week that those who received clemency no longer need to disclose their arrests or convictions on official forms, contrary to the law.


In any case, it appears that the vice president is being cast as the messenger on the administration’s marijuana policy heading into the election, which could serve both top executives well.


For example, a recent poll that showed how Biden’s marijuana moves stand to benefit him in November. The survey found the president’s favorability spiked after people were made aware of the possibility that cannabis could be rescheduled under the Biden-initiated review.


Harris, for her part, also faced criticism last month after sharing a video where she claimed the administration had “changed federal marijuana policy.” Again, while Biden has issued thousands of simple possession pardons and directed the ongoing review into federal cannabis scheduling, the law itself has not changed at this point, and campaign pledges to decriminalize marijuana have yet gone unfulfilled.


The vice president’s video also showed a map with incorrect information on which states have legalized cannabis to date.


Whether DEA accepts the HHS recommendation is yet to be seen. And while many expect an announcement will happen before the election, the timeline is uncertain. HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra defended his agency’s rescheduling recommendation during a Senate committee hearing on Thursday and later told cannabis lobbyist Don Murphy that he should pay DEA a visit and “knock on their door” for answers about the timing of their decision.


Certain DEA officials are reportedly resisting the Biden administration’s rescheduling push, disputing the HHS findings on marijuana’s safety profile and medical potential, according to unnamed sources who spoke with The Wall Street Journal.


The Biden administration was recently pressed to reschedule marijuana by two coalitions representing military veterans and law enforcement—including a group that counts DEA Administrator Anne Milgram among its members.


On the president’s pardon action, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), co-chair of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, told Marijuana Moment last month that the clemency should be “extended all the way out, and any unintended or intended consequences of the war on drugs should be dealt with to repair the damage.”


Former Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO), however, told Marijuana Moment that he’s been “very pleased” with Biden’s clemency actions, arguing that the president has “taken some pretty, in my opinion, bold steps.”


Meanwhile, the U.S. Army recently clarified in a branch-wide notice that marijuana possession violations under the military drug code weren’t eligible under the president’s pardons. Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) called it a “mistake” to exclude military from the relief.


Also, the governor of Massachusetts announced on Wednesday that she is moving to pardon “hundreds of thousands” of people with misdemeanor marijuana convictions on their records, in line with Biden’s push for state-level clemency.
 
Personally I think this is a waste of whatever the lawyer's fees are going to be as I don't see this flying at all.

New Cannabis Lawsuit Filed Against Federal Government


After a Massachusetts-based cannabis lawsuit was dismissed in January, the companies decided to introduce a new court filing.


Last year in October, a group of cannabis companies filed a federal lawsuit claiming that a federal ban on cannabis is unconstitutional, but the suit was dismissed in January. On Friday, March 15, a new federal lawsuit was filed in court as Canna Provisions, Inc. et al v. Garland.


The case is represented by Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, is pursuing the rights of Verano Holdings Corp, Canna Provisions Inc., Wiseacre Farm Inc., and Gyasi Sellers, who owns a delivery service—all of which operate cannabis businesses in Massachusetts. The plaintiffs claim that the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) has hindered their businesses and prevents them from accessing legal, reliable banking services, and requires that they operate under constant threat of federal prosecution.


The new lawsuit claims that the intention behind the CSA was to prevent illegal cannabis from being moved across state lines, but now that so many states have implemented cannabis laws, legislators are no longer trying to enforce that. “Dozens of states have implemented programs to legalize and regulate medical or adult use marijuana,” the lawsuit stated, and continued on to explain that this has led to “safe, regulated, and local access to marijuana” for consumers, while also having “reduced illicit interstate commerce, as customers switch to purchasing state-regulated marijuana over illicit interstate marijuana.”


“The ground-shaking shifts in marijuana regulation… together with the nation’s long history of marijuana cultivation and use prior to the CSA, demonstrate the widely-held understanding that Plaintiffs’ marijuana activities implicate a liberty interest that requires protection,” the lawsuit continued. “Today, almost every state permits some form of marijuana that is illegal under federal law, and the majority of the nation’s population lives in states where both medical and adult-use marijuana is legal.”


Both the dismissed lawsuit and the newly filed lawsuit hinges on the 2005 court case Gonzales v. Raich in order to demonstrate how the CSA is outdated. “The federal criminal prohibition on intrastate marijuana remains in place, an unjustified vestige of a long-abandoned policy,” the 2023 lawsuit stated. “This unjustified intrusion of federal power harms Plaintiffs, threatens the communities they serve, and lacks any rational purpose.”


In January, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) called the original lawsuit a “transparent entreaty.” “Neither Plaintiffs’ contention that they are harmed by other federal laws and policies whose constitutionality is not challenged here, nor Plaintiffs’ allegations that some third parties have independently chosen not to transact with them, suffice to provide Plaintiffs with standing to challenge the CSA,” wrote the DOJ.


In response to this, the new lawsuit added text alleging that Congress was trying to prevent interstate cannabis. “Congress was intent on eradicating interstate marijuana, and the factual circumstances that existed in 2005 supported the Government’s position that banning intrastate marijuana was necessary for achieving that goal,” the lawsuit stated. “That legislative and factual landscape no longer exists. It has changed in the proceeding 18 years in ways that even the most ardent advocates of marijuana reform in 2005 would never have imagined possible.”


Law 360 spoke with Joshua Schiller of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, who explained that the newest litigation more directly challenges the Gonzales v. Raich case. He explained that the government has made recent movements contradicting the policy since October 2023.


One of the plaintiffs, Verano Holdings Corp, is a multi-state operator. While its business spans multiple states, Schiller explained the importance of its inclusion. “We like having a multistate operator just to show a different business, to show a different story about a different business,” Schiller told Law 360. “And even though it’s a multistate operator, each of its markets are intrastate. They’re not even allowed to bring a seed [across state lines].”


The news outlet inquired about why there was no mention of tax code Section 280E, which is a tax policy that prevents deductions and credits from being utilized by “illegal” businesses. “It’s a different case,” Schiller said. “That’s not to say [280E] is not punitive and damaging and therefore unfair. But it’s not the harm we’re seeking to redress. It’s a separate harm that would have to be litigated in a separate case.”


The timing of this case aligns with the recent shifts in federal policy. Last August, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) called on the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to reclassify cannabis as a Schedule III substance. NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano responded to the announcement with hesitance. “It will be very interesting to see how DEA responds to this recommendation, given the agency’s historic opposition to any potential change in cannabis’ categorization under federal law,” said Armentano. “Further, for decades, the agency has utilized its own five-factor criteria for assessing cannabis’ placement in the CSA—criteria that as recently as 2016, the agency claimed that cannabis failed to meet. Since the agency has final say over any rescheduling decision, it is safe to say that this process still remains far from over.”


It’s been approximately seven months since that HHS recommendation. Although there hasn’t been any updates from the DEA regarding the recommendation, Vice President Kamala Harris recently held a roundtable conversation about cannabis reform, alongside rapper Fat Joe, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, and more. “I cannot emphasize enough that they need to get to it as quickly as possible, and we need to have a resolution based on their findings and their assessment,” Harris said.
 
LOL I do recognize that in the country as a whole, and on this forum in particular, people are entitled to have (and indeed have) differing political views. Also, I try hard to respect Mom's no politics rules although that does get a bit cloudy when posting about government actions wrt to legalization.

So, all I'll say is that this headline statement is hilarious as well as ludicrous on the face of it.

Now, personally I don't give a crap about "social justice activists" and their views. But as I have commented on a number of times in other articles, rescheduling will cause more problems than it solves, which is addressed also in the later part of the article below. I agree they should removed cannabis from the CSA schedules altogether or leave it as it is.

Schedule I....yeah, and FDA approval process, FDA certification of cannabis growing/processing company plants, prescriptions from your doctor who needs to agree to write them, and drug stores that agree to carry cannabis products to fulfill said prescriptions. IMO, this is the height of ignorant stupidity with lots of easily anticipatable unintended consequences.

Biden Says He’s ‘Taking Care’ Of Federal Cannabis Laws


Activists Argue Biden's Rescheduling Plan Won't Address Cannabis Injustices.​


Biden may have reaffirmed his commitment to federal marijuana policy reform, but simply rescheduling won’t help those who have been most harmed by prohibition, say activists.


Whilst at a campaign event in Wisconsin on Wednesday, the President responded to a sign held by a cannabis activist stating “no one should be jailed,” to assure them he was “taking care of that.”


But campaigners claim that the only way for Biden to “fulfill his promise” is for cannabis to be removed entirely from the Controlled Substances Act.


It comes as Vice President Kamala Harris told a roundtable discussion on Friday, March 15, attended by a number of Presidential pardon recipients, that the DEA needs to reschedule “as quickly as possible”.


Following a HHS review, instructed in October 2022 by President Biden, which recommended marijuana be moved to a Schedule III drug, the Drug Enforcement Administration confirmed it was conducting its own evaluation in January.


But behind closed doors, the VP reportedly went one step further, stating “we need to legalize marijuana”, Chris Goldstein, regional coordinator for NORML and one of those in attendance, told Marijuana Moment.


In a newsletter distributed by NORML ahead of the event, Goldstein said that he intended to use his time with Harris to “bring further awareness to the Presidential pardon process and to emphasize the need for further federal action, such as descheduling cannabis.”


With a decision from the DEA expected any day, Goldstein is among lawyers, regulators, health professionals and advocates who are highlighting the need for full descheduling.


Is Rescheduling Enough?​


Both President Biden and Vice President Harris pledged to federally decriminalize marijuana on the 2020 campaign trail. But some are concerned that their actions haven’t gone far enough to achieve this.


From a regulatory perspective, moving marijuana to Schedule III would see the substance classed in a lower risk category, alongside the likes of Tylenol with codeine and anabolic steroids, as well as acknowledgement of its “currently accepted medical use.”


However, other than potential tax benefits for businesses, it’s not fully clear what the impact of this would be on individuals—if any at all.


Marijuana would still be classed as a controlled drug under the CSA and therefore people would still be criminalized and prosecuted for its use.


And while it could potentially be prescribed for medical use under Schedule III, products would first need to obtain FDA approval.


“President Biden, particularly during his 2020 election campaign, and largely when communicating to Black and brown communities, promised a decriminalization of marijuana use and expungement of records,” says Cat Packer, director of Drug Markets and Legal Regulation at the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), and vice chair of the Cannabis Regulators of Color Coalition, during a video interview.


“Rescheduling marijuana as Schedule III would continue the very criminalization that Biden said that he would end.


“My concern is that this is going to be sold as a victory for all—and particularly a victory for Black and brown communities—when in reality, these are going to be the very communities that are left behind.”


‘Criminalization Is A Racial Equity Issue’​


Black and brown communities have been disproportionately affected by criminalization since the ‘War on Drugs’ began.


“We know based on the data that Black and brown individuals are almost four times as likely to be convicted for cannabis use despite equal rates of usage across those demographic lines,” says Sarah Gersten, executive director and General Counsel of The Last Prisoner Project (LPP), in a phone interview.


“Unfortunately, we still have hundreds of thousands of arrests for just simple possession of marijuana today. Despite the vast majority of states legalizing it and despite the federal government looking to change their position on cannabis policy, this is still happening to hundreds of thousands of people every year.”


In fact, according to figures cited by Diane Goldstein of LEAP (Law Enforcement Action Partnership) during a recent press conference held by the DPA of the 11.8 million arrests for drug-related offenses since 2011, arrests for simple possession of cannabis account for approximately 35% of all drug arrests—and make up a total of 16.5% of all arrests in the U.S.


Even President Biden, on the campaign trail, acknowledged that while Black and brown people use marijuana at similar rates, they are disproportionately arrested, prosecuted and convicted, Packer highlighted.


“Black and brown communities expect and demand more because we know that the Biden administration knows that marijuana criminalization is a racial equity issue,” she said.


“But personal acknowledgement is not the same as systemic change and the Administration's rhetoric simply doesn't match the reality.”


The Racist Roots Of Prohibition​


During the 1930s, Harry J Anslinger, who served as the Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) for more than 30 years, popularized the term “marijuana” to emphasize a foreign connection to what was described as the new “devil weed.”


But it was President Nixon who officially declared the ‘War on Drugs’ in June 1971 when he described drug use as “public enemy number one” and increased federal funding to ramp up law enforcement efforts.


Years later, John Ehrlichman, assistant to President Nixon for Domestic Affairs from 1969 to 1973 would be quoted as saying: “You want to know what this [war on drugs] was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people.


“We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”


And yet on Thursday, February 1, the first day of Black History Month, the DEA shared a “throwback Thursday” post on X, celebrating President Nixon and the role he played in the establishment of the DEA.


The post read: “#TBT On Dec. 14, 1970, at the White House, the International Narcotic Enforcement Officers’ Association presented President Nixon with a ‘certificate of special honor’ in recognition of the outstanding loyalty and contribution to support narcotic law enforcement. #DEAHistory”


Despite thousands of outraged comments from followers, the post was still live at the time of going to press.


“It signals a real disconnect between the promises made, the intention behind those promises, and the willingness of the federal government to even acknowledge the harms,” says Packer.


“[Biden] said he wanted to end the failed policy, to right those wrongs, but we can't right wrongs if we can't even acknowledge them—and we're actually celebrating them.”


The DEA did not respond to our request for comment.


‘No One Should Go To Jail For Smoking Weed’​


As for Biden’s promise that “no one should have to go to jail for smoking weed”, while he has issued a number pardons, these have been limited in scope and impact, according to Gersten, as they only relate to possession offenses—of which there are very few at a federal level.


This was echoed during the briefing by Keeda Haynes, federal policy analyst at the National Council of Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls, who served over four years in federal prison for a marijuana-related offense.


“It should be noted that not a single person has been released from prison because of a pardon by President Biden,” she said.


“A vast majority of those incarcerated at the federal level are not charged with simple possession, but are charged with more complex marijuana offenses that carry higher criminal penalties.”


Earlier this week, 36 House members, including Rep Barbara Lee and Rep. Earl Blumenauer, sent a letter to the President calling for clemency for those who are incarcerated in federal prison for nonviolent marijuana charges.


Campaigners are calling for the pardons to be expanded beyond possession charges, and for the expungement of criminal records, something which rescheduling wouldn’t achieve, Haynes pointed out.


Nor would it restore access to rights such as food, housing, employment, or education for those who are currently denied it due to past convictions.


“Collateral consequences for drug-related offenses—which can include disenfranchisement, barring individuals from public benefit programmes and housing discrimination— don't end when you get a pardon. These legal barriers will follow you for the rest of your life,” said Haynes.


Despite the fact that the majority of U.S citizens now live in a state where cannabis is decriminalized, since 2003, ICE has deported over 45,000 immigrants whose most serious offense was marijuana possession.


“Removing marijuana from the CSA is the only way we can stop the detention and deportation of non-citizens for marijuana activity,” said advocate Alejandra Pablos, who has been fighting her own deportation case for over a decade.


“It's the only way we can put an end to family separation and the suffering faced by immigrant communities.”


She added: “In my community in Arizona, we see so many people who are facing life-altering immigration and criminal justice punishments for marijuana activity. The President has said no one should be in jail just for possessing marijuana. Well, no one should be deported either.”


A Backward Step For Medical Access?​


According to Dr Rachel Knox, board chair of the Association for Cannabis Health Equity and Medicine, classifying cannabis as a Schedule III, would also be detrimental to the millions of patients relying on it for medicinal use in states across the U.S.


While 38 states have now legalized medical cannabis, any cannabis-derived products would have to go through the FDA approval process in order to be legally prescribed.


“Proponents proclaim it a boon to research, patient access and public health, but this couldn't be farther from the truth,” Knox told members of the press during the briefing.


“The Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act signed into law on December 2, 2022 already removed many of the existing barriers to research. Only descheduling can facilitate the comprehensive real-world, plant-based research needed to accelerate the investigation of cannabis safety and efficacy and across the wide range of product forms and uses for at least six million registered patients in our country.”


She added: “Scheduled III will not serve these patients, absent state access whether that's a medical only programme or adult-use, would subject patients to the FDA's lengthy approval process for what would likely amount to a limited number of isolated compounds rather than the whole-plant preparations which patients currently use now and find effective.”


‘Deschedule Or Do Nothing’​


With the Vice President’s comments at Friday’s roundtable raising hopes for an end to federal marijuana prohibition, advocates will be watching the White House closely to see if the administration will make good on its promise of decriminalizing, or continue to use it as rhetoric to win votes.


“Rescheduling marijuana without further action would fail to deliver on President Biden's promises to Black and brown communities, and risks leaving the very individuals and communities that have borne the brunt of cannabis criminalization behind,” says Packer.


When the DEA announcement does eventually come, it is expected that there will be a public comment process where individuals and organizations will have the opportunity to submit feedback.


The DPA and others are urging members of the public to use this as an opportunity to highlight the fact that not only would rescheduling not fulfill Biden’s promises and fall short of campaigners' hard-fought efforts, but it could remove any drive for further reforms, potentially undoing progress made in recent decades.


“Dispelling the myths surrounding rescheduling is paramount,” Dasheeda Dawson, chair of the Cannabis Regulators of Color Coalition, told the media.


“Contrary to popular belief, rescheduling would not increase access to medical cannabis, or pave the way for nationwide decriminalization. Instead, it would further entrench bureaucratic barriers, and limit research and access opportunities to channels that are already historically excluding Black and brown communities.”


She added: “We cannot afford to backtrack on the progress we've made. Deschedule or do nothing, so we can at least continue our efforts at the state and local level to improve the lives of our constituents, but also better inform comprehensive federal reform to fully decriminalize the plant.”
 
1711038841730.jpeg



FDA says Marijuana has a legitimate medicinal purpose


As a Schedule 1 drug, marijuana is currently in the same category as some of the hardest drugs, like heroin and LSD.


The FDA released a report saying that marijuana does have a legitimate use for medical purposes and recommended the US Drug Enforcement Agency to change its classification from Schedule 1 to Schedule 3.


“The definition of a schedule 1 drug says it has no health benefits to it, and, so, obviously, there’s been plenty of research that has documented the multitudes of ways that cannabis can be helpful,” said Dr. David Berger with Wholistic ReLeaf.


Though not all in the medical community agree, many people swear by the medicinal effects of marijuana to help treat symptoms of cancer, anxiety, PTSD and epilepsy.


“It’s no longer appropriate to say that there’s no medical benefit when there are hundreds if not thousands of medical studies that show the opposite,” explained Dr. Berger.


As a Schedule 1 drug, marijuana is in the same category as some of the hardest drugs like heroin and LSD, which means it’s classified as being more dangerous than fentanyl and methamphetamine.


“What happens after this is the federal government has more decisions to make as to what they’re going to do next,” said Dr. Berger.


The Department of Health and Human Services formally recommended that the DEA classify marijuana as Schedule 3 in August of last year after the Biden Administration asked them to review how the drug is classified under federal law.


Earlier this year, Senate Democrats urged Biden to deschedule the drug entirely, meaning you would not need a doctor’s authorization to use marijuana.
 
I've personally been very clear on my views on this subject....and I agree with Mr. Greene utterly.



Pennsylvania Prosecutor Argues Federal Gun Ban For Medical Marijuana Users ‘Is Unconstitutional, Full Stop’ In New Court Brief


Plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit over the Second Amendment rights of medical marijuana cardholders—including a local prosecutor in Pennsylvania who is himself a cannabis patient—filed a fresh brief in their case on Tuesday, arguing that the “deprivation of Second Amendment rights for merely using a medicinal substance has no basis in this nation’s history or tradition and is unconstitutional, full stop.”

The underlying suit was filed in January by Pennsylvania’s Warren County District Attorney Robert Greene, along with advocacy group the Second Amendment Foundation and a U.S. military veteran who was recommended medical marijuana but has not registered as a patient because it would deny him the right to possess a firearm.

The latest filing, in support of a motion for a preliminary injunction that would prevent the government from enforcing the federal gun ban while the overall case is considered, comes as U.S. Supreme Court weighs whether to take up a separate case over the constitutionality of the law.

A New Poll Finds That Floridians Want Legal Marijuana

“Simply put, throughout this nation’s history, there was no tradition of limiting an individual’s Second Amendment rights by virtue of their use of marijuana—let alone their use of alcohol, an intoxicant widely known and used by the American populace,” says the new brief, filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Plaintiffs are asking the court to prevent the government from enforcing legal restrictions around cannabis and guns, including those “which prohibit firearms purchases and possession by persons who use marijuana or other controlled substances,” according to the Bellevue, Washington-based Second Amendment Foundation (SAF).

“Individuals are placed in the untenable situation of having to choose whether to use a medicine recommended to them by a doctor to treat their symptoms at the expense of their Second Amendment rights or exercise their rights at the detriment of their health,” Adam Kraut, the group’s executive director, said in a press release. “Having to make such a choice is simply wrong and we look forward to vindicating the rights of those affected.”

“It is long past the time for this restriction to be challenged,” added the SAF’s founder and executive vice president, Alan M. Gottlieb. “Our lawsuit raises very legitimate issues for a growing number of law-abiding citizens whose Second Amendment rights are unquestionably and arbitrarily infringed upon. The restriction lacks any direct or analogous historical support, as required by the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen ruling.”

In addition to the 2022 case (NY State Rifle and Pistol Assn. v. Bruen), which invalidated a New York state law requiring applicants for concealed carry permits to demonstrate proper cause, lawyers for the plaintiffs also point to Supreme Court rulings such as D.C. v. Heller, which held in 2008 that the Second Amendment entails an individual right to possess firearms, and 2010’s McDonald v. Chicago.

In the mid-1800s, some states—including Kansas, Missouri and Wisconsin—did prohibit people from carrying firearms while intoxicated, the brief says. But plaintiffs in the case “are not challenging potential prohibitions on carrying firearms while intoxicated, but the total bar on their ability to even possess firearms and ammunition for merely using a ‘controlled substance’ at some point in time that is not necessarily contemporaneous with their physical possession of a firearm.”

The new filingView attachment 52661 quotes a federal appeals court ruling that opined, “Throughout American history, laws have regulated the combination of guns and intoxicating substances. But at no point in the 18th or 19th century did the government disarm individuals who uses drugs or alcohol at one time from possessing guns at another.”

The lawsuit names U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, as well as the heads of the FBI and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), as defendants. The suit represents what the lead attorney for the plaintiffs believes to be the first civil, rather than criminal, challenge to the federal statute barring gun ownership by cannabis users.

Participation by Greene, who has been a district attorney since 2013, is especially notable. The complaint states that the local prosecutor “intends to lawfully purchase, possess, and utilize firearms and ammunition so that he may exercise his constitutional right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and all other lawful purposes.” But he’s barred from doing so under federal statute because of his status as a state-certified medical cannabis patient.
 

Three In Five Americans Want Congress To Pass Marijuana Banking Reform, American Bankers Associations Poll Finds Amid Renewed Push

A new poll from the American Bankers Association (ABA) shows that roughly three out of five Americans support allowing marijuana industry access to the banking system—a finding that comes amid a renewed push for reform among congressional leaders.


On Thursday, ABA released the survey that found 63 percent of Americans back cannabis businesses banking access, compared to just 17 percent who are opposed.


“Americans have made it clear that Congress should resolve the ongoing conflict between state and federal law on cannabis banking issues by passing legislation that will enhance public safety, tax collection and transparency,” ABA President Rob Nichols said in a press release.

Cannabis sales hit record high in Michigan

The association has commissioned several polls looking at the issue in recent years. Compared to last year, this latest data shows a significant uptick in support for legislation such as the Secure and Fair Enforcement Regulation (SAFER) Banking Act that would protect financial institutions that service state-licensed cannabis businesses from being penalized by federal regulators.


ABA asked
1711388892862.png
respondents two similar questions for this new survey, both showing 63 percent overall support for cannabis banking reform:




“Do you support or oppose allowing cannabis businesses to access traditional banking services, like a checking account or business loan, in states where cannabis is now legal?”


  • Strongly support: 37%
  • Somewhat support: 26%
  • Somewhat oppose: 9%
  • Strongly oppose: 9%
  • Don’t know/no opinion: 19%


“Do you support or oppose Congress passing legislation that allows cannabis businesses to have access to banking services and financial products (like checking accounts and business loans) in states where cannabis is legal?”


  • Strongly support: 36%
  • Somewhat support: 27%
  • Somewhat oppose: 8%
  • Strongly oppose: 9%
  • Don’t know/no opinion: 20%







A prior ABA survey, in 2022, found 66 percent of people either strongly (37 percent) or somewhat (29 percent) supported marijuana banking reform, while 16 percent either strongly (8 percent) or somewhat (8 percent) opposed it. Nineteen percent of respondents last year said they didn’t know or didn’t have an opinion.


A separate ABA poll earlier in 2022 found that 68 percent of respondents felt Capitol Hill should act.


This latest survey is being released amid growing pressure on Congress to act on the SAFER Banking Act, which cleared the Senate Banking Committee last September, now that lawmakers are finalizing appropriations legislation for the current fiscal year.



On Friday, for example, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) asked people to show their support for the marijuana banking bill by signing an online petition.


Schumer told Marijuana Moment earlier this month that the bill remains a “very high priority” for the Senate, and members are having “very productive” bicameral talks to reach a final agreement.


Senate Banking Committee Chairman Sherrod Brown (D-OH) also said on Thursday that passing the SAFER Banking Act off the floor is a “high priority.” However, he also recently said in a separate interview that advancing the legislation is complicated by current House dynamics.


House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-MN) separately said during an ABA summit on Tuesday that he wants to see the SAFER Banking Act move.



He said that, “for whatever reason, the federal government has been slow” to act on the incremental reform that he supports even though he doesn’t identify as “a marijuana guy.”


One key factor that’s kept the bill from the Senate floor is disagreement over mostly non-cannabis provisions dealing with broader banking regulations, primarily those contained in Section 10 of the legislation.


Bicameral negotiations have been ongoing, however, and recent reporting suggests that a final deal could be just over the horizon.


The Democratic Senate sponsor of the SAFER Banking Act, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), told Marijuana Moment this month that the legislation is “gaining momentum” as lawmakers work to bring it to the floor and pass it “this year.”


The office of the Republican SAFER Banking prime sponsor, Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT), separately told Marijuana Moment that “conversations have been productive and Senator Daines is working to get the bill across the finish line.”
 
Doing nothing for there and a half years then suddenly seeing the light on this issue as a result of election polls is the very definition of pandering for votes.


Biden, at risk with young voters, is racing to shift Marijuana policy


Biden Administration's Incremental Approach to Cannabis Reform Sparks Debate and Hope.


Vice President Kamala Harris looked up from prepared remarks in the White House’s ornate Roosevelt Room this month to make sure the reporters in the room could hear her clearly: “Nobody should have to go to jail for smoking weed.”


Harris’ “marijuana reform roundtable” was a striking reminder of how the politics have shifted for a onetime prosecutor raised in the “Just Say No” era of zero-tolerance drug enforcement. As President Biden seeks badly needed support from young people, his administration is banking on cannabis policy as a potential draw.


Biden made similar comments to Harris’ in this month’s State of the Union address — though the 81-year-old president used the term “marijuana” instead of “weed.” The administration is highlighting its decision to grant clemency for pot possession as it races to have cannabis reclassified under the Controlled Substances Act before Biden faces voters in November.


“What’s good about this issue is it’s clean and it’s clear and it cuts through,” said Celinda Lake, one of Biden’s 2020 pollsters who also works for the Coalition for Cannabis Scheduling Reform, an industry group, along with Democratic organizations supporting Biden’s reelection. “And it’s hard to get voters’ attention in this cynical environment.”


The challenge is significant. Biden is viewed favorably by only 31% of people ages 18 through 29, much worse than he fares with other age groups, according to a recent Economist/YouGov poll. Though he leads former President Trump by 21 percentage points in that age group, he needs a high turnout to repeat his 2020 formula. Biden’s age probably has played a role in alienating a group that is both essential for Democrats and historically harder to galvanize than older voters, who more consistently show up at the polls.


What’s more, the biggest step Biden is taking is incremental and not in his full control. The president wants regulators to move marijuana from a Schedule I classification under the Controlled Substances Act — the most restrictive category of drugs that also includes heroin — to Schedule III, a still highly regulated group of drugs that includes anabolic steroids.


That decision is now under review by the Drug Enforcement Administration, which has historically resisted looser drug laws and usually taken many years to review such rule changes within the law, which has been in effect since 1971.


Even if the DEA agrees, it will not mean marijuana is legal at the national level, something that frustrates some cannabis advocates.


“In the year 2024, it’s fair to expect more from a Democratic president,” said Matthew Schweich, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project, a nonprofit trying to loosen laws at the local, state and federal levels.


Schweich said he worries about Trump returning to office but believes Biden has done the “absolute bare minimum,” missing a political opportunity to push for legalization in Congress and to advocate for the complete removal of marijuana from the controlled substances list, which Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) and 11 other Democratic senators urged in a January letter to the DEA.


Trump, whose administration threatened federal enforcement against localities and states that had legalized marijuana, is unlikely to attract support from legalization advocates.


Polling that Lake has done for the industry shows even the incremental step Biden is seeking could boost his approval by as much as 9 percentage points with younger voters in battleground states. But it’s hardly certain how that would play out.


A campaign aide, who would speak only on condition of anonymity, said marijuana policy is one of a number of issues the campaign believes will motivate young people — important but not as prominent as top-tier concerns including college affordability, reproductive rights, the economy, climate and healthcare.


The campaign cautions against treating young people as a monolith, noting that they care about a variety of issues and tend to see connections between them. Democrats, through a variety of methods including social media influencers and a newly launched campus outreach program, are trying to make the broader case to young people that Biden is fighting for equity and change while Trump is looking backward.


They note that young voters proved critical not only in Biden’s 2020 election but also in the 2022 midterm elections, when concerns over democracy and abortion rights helped the party perform better than expected.


Overall support for legalization is now at 70%, the highest recorded by Gallup, which began polling the question in 1969, when just 12% of Americans favored legalizing marijuana. The substance is legal in 24 states and Washington, D.C., for adults, and a total of 38 have made it legal for medical use, according to the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, a legalization advocacy group.


The administration has pitched its marijuana agenda as part of its broader efforts to change other criminal sentencing laws and to improve job and business opportunities for people who have spent time in jail or prison.


Lake argues the two efforts combined could help Biden with Black men, another group where he has lost significant support since winning election in 2020.


Padilla said he still gets asked about marijuana regulations regularly, even though California was the first state to pass a medical-use law in 1996. “It resonates with a lot of people,” he said.


In practical terms, reclassifying marijuana changes little. Federal penalties would remain the same, though the Justice Department has for decades treated most marijuana crimes as low-priority prosecutions. It would remain illegal to transport pot across state lines, meaning access to banks and financial markets will remain a hurdle, even for companies operating in states that have legalized pot.


The biggest difference is that scientists and doctors could more easily study the drug for medical uses, something that is now practically banned. Such a change could open the door for greater acceptance. It also would lower tax burdens for the industry in states where it is legal, by allowing deductions for ordinary business expenses that are currently prohibited by the Internal Revenue Service.


Other potential changes are less certain. Banks and credit card issuers, for instance, would not immediately lift restrictions on marijuana transactions, though that could come if regulators in the Treasury Department decide to take up the issue, according to Shane Pennington, an attorney specializing in the Controlled Substances Act who has industry clients.


Biden proposed reviewing marijuana’s status in October 2022, a process that usually takes an average of more than nine years, Pennington said. The Department of Health and Human Services recommended Schedule III in August, the first step toward a change. A DEA spokesperson, in an email, said the agency would not discuss the issue while it is under review.


“It often takes a very long time, but we’re in unprecedented territory here” because the order came directly from the president, Pennington said.


Harris, in her roundtable discussion on marjuana reform, showed her impatience.


“I cannot emphasize enough that they need to get to it as quickly as possible, and we need to have a resolution based on their findings and their assessment,” she said.


The rushed nature of the process could expose the administration’s actions — which are almost certain to draw lawsuits — to further scrutiny.


Kevin A. Sabet, a former marijuana policy advisor in the Obama administration who heads an anti-legalization group, noted that Biden’s Health and Human Services Department released its preliminary recommendation at 4:20 p.m., slang for weed smoking time, underscoring the political nature of a normally button-down regulatory process. He argued that the decision was poorly crafted and could run afoul of U.S. treaty obligations.


But Sabet also agrees with advocates that Biden could have gone further.


“I think what the president wants to do is reap some of the benefits of the guy who’s embracing all this stuff without actually becoming in favor of legalization,” said Sabet, who heads the group Smart Approaches to Marijuana.
 
Doing nothing for there and a half years then suddenly seeing the light on this issue as a result of election polls is the very definition of pandering for votes.
If you recall, during the last election he promised to legalize it in his first month in office. You couldn’t go on YouTube without seeing a vid of him saying it.
 
Bipartisan Majorities Want Congress To Pass Bill Protecting States’ Rights To Legalize Marijuana, Poll Of Voters In Three States Finds


A strong majority of voters—including more than 60 percent of Republicans—support congressional legislation to protect states’ rights to set their own marijuana laws, according to a new poll of three states.


The survey, commissioned by the Coalition for Cannabis Policy, Education, and Regulation (CPEAR), focused on Missouri, Ohio and Wyoming. It asked voters 21 and older about their views on the Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States (STATES) Act.


The bill, which is being led by Rep. Dave Joyce (R-OH) in the House, enjoys 72 percent support in Wyoming, 67 percent in Missouri and 61 percent in Ohio. Democrats were generally the most supportive, but the poll also found a majority of Republicans back it in each state: Missouri (62 percent), Ohio (60 percent) and Wyoming (65 percent).

Vice President Kamala Harris holds roundtable on marijuana policies

“It is no surprise that this recent poll proves even further that the federal government should respect the will of the states when it comes to cannabis reform,” Joyce told Marijuana Moment on Tuesday.


“With almost all 50 states adopting some form of cannabis reform, it is time to pass legislation like my bill, the STATES Act, to ensure each state has the right to determine for itself the best approach to cannabis within its borders,” the congressman said.



Screen-Shot-2024-03-26-at-9.49.28-AM.png

Via CPEAR.


The survey, first reported
1711555096770.png
by The Washington Examiner, also found that lawmakers who support the STATES Act could see a favorability bump among voters, with 53 percent of Wyoming voters, 38 percent of Ohio voters and 36 percent of Missouri voters saying they’d be more likely to support a congressional candidate who backs the reform.


That also includes 31 percent of Missouri Republicans, 31 percent of Ohio Republicans and 51 percent of Wyoming Republicans.


“The polling speaks for itself,” CPEAR Executive Director Andrew Freedman said in a press release on Tuesday. “In three key GOP constituencies, voters prioritize states’ rights and the ability to enact policies that align with their interest.”


“Through the STATES Act, voters find commonsense and practical policies allowing states to choose their cannabis policies while not committing a federal crime,” he said
1711555096803.png
. “Congress needs to heed the will of the people and pass this bipartisan legislation now.”



The survey also asked respondents about the reasons why they back the cannabis legislation.


“In an open-ended question, 35 percent of Missouri voters, 35 percent of Ohio voters, and 39 percent of Wyoming voters who support the STATES Act say they do so because it protects states’ rights to decide locally–more than any other reason,” CPEAR, whose membership includes large tobacco and alcohol companies, said. “Other reasons mentioned for support include general support for cannabis legalization, being good for the economy, and allowing individual freedom of choice.”



“Our surveys show that in these states, voters believe that when it comes to cannabis, giving states more control is key. Voters across party and other key demographic groups support allowing states—not the federal government—to decide cannabis policy in their own state. In fact, a candidate’s support for the STATES Act, which allows states to make their own decisions about cannabis policy, attracts voter support in Missouri, Ohio, and Wyoming”


CPEAR added that “the STATES Act can be an ideal landing place for Republican lawmakers, as it reaffirms the fundamental conservative principle of states’ rights while supporting important federal guardrails like preventing underage use and addressing concerns from law enforcement.”


Screen-Shot-2024-03-26-at-9.49.36-AM.png

Via CPEAR.


Supporting marijuana reform isn’t just a potential boon for GOP legislators, however. There’s growing recognition that the issue holds weight for lawmakers across the spectrum, and even the Biden administration seems increasingly aware of that fact.


To that point, an unnamed Biden campaign aide told
1711555096832.png
The Los Angeles Times recently that marijuana reform is one of several issues they hope to leverage to attract younger voters who will be critical to the president’s reelection bid this November. However, the aide said it’s not being prioritized as highly as other issues such as college affordability, reproductive rights and climate change.



Other recent examples of the administration’s recognition of cannabis policy as an important issue include President Joe Biden’s promotion of his marijuana pardons and scheduling review directive during his State of the Union address this month and Vice President Kamala Harris hosting pardon recipients for a roundtable event at the White House, where she said behind closed doors that “we need to legalize marijuana.”


Meanwhile, going back to the focus of the new CPEAR poll, under the bipartisan House bill as revised for the current session, the STATES 2.0 Act would amend the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to undo federal criminalization of people acting in compliance with state cannabis programs, as well as those operated by Indian tribes.


It would also authorize interstate marijuana commerce and calls for a currently unspecified federal tax on cannabis sales to support regulations and enforcement.



There hasn’t much significant talk about advancing the STATES Act since its reintroduction last December. Instead, the focus has been on a more limited bipartisan bill to protect banks that work with state-legal marijuana businesses.


Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) told Marijuana Moment earlier this month that the Secure and Fair Enforcement Regulation (SAFER) Banking Act remains a “very high priority” for the Senate, and members are having “very productive” bicameral talks to reach a final agreement.


A poll released by the American Bankers Association (ABA) last week shows that roughly three out of five Americans support allowing marijuana industry access to the banking system.
 
Personally, I think the USA should tell this asshole to go fuck himself, close the border utterly, and have him keep his psychopath cartels and killer drugs in Mexico where he can give them all the "hugs" he wants.



Mexican President Says Country Won’t Combat Cartels on Orders From U.S.


Mexico's President Asserts Sovereignty, Rejects US Drug Policy Interference.​


The president of Mexico issued a defiant message to the United States last week, saying that the country will not fight the powerful drug cartels on the orders from his neighbor to the north.


At a conference last week, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, Mexico’s president since 2018, said, “We are not going to act as policemen for any foreign government,” as quoted by the Associated Press. “Mexico First. Our home comes first.”


As the Associated Press noted, López Obrador has, in previous years, “laid out various justifications for his ‘hugs, not bullets’ policy of avoiding clashes with the cartels.”


“In the past he has said ‘you cannot fight violence with violence,’ and on other occasions he has argued the government has to address ‘the causes’ of drug cartel violence, ascribing them to poverty or a lack of opportunities,” the AP reported, adding that “López Obrador’s view — like many of his policies — harkens back to the 1970s, a period when many officials believed that Mexican cartels selling drugs to gringos was a U.S. issue, not a Mexican one.”


On Friday, the president “basically argued that drugs were a U.S. problem, not a Mexican one,” and he “offered to help limit the flow of drugs into the United States, but only, he said, on humanitarian grounds,” according to the Associated Press.


“Of course we are going to cooperate in fighting drugs, above all because it has become a very sensitive, very sad humanitarian issue, because a lot of young people are dying in the United States because of fentanyl,” the president said. Over 70,000 Americans die annually because of synthetic opioids like fentanyl, which are mainly made in Mexico from precursor chemicals smuggled in from China,” López Obrador said.


In February, The New York Times reported that United States “law enforcement officials spent years looking into allegations that allies of” López Obrador “met with and took millions of dollars from drug cartels after he took office.”


The Times, citing U.S. records and three people familiar with the matter, said that the previously unreported inquiry “uncovered information pointing to potential links between powerful cartel operatives and Mexican advisers and officials close to the president while he governed the country.”


“But the United States never opened a formal investigation into Mr. López Obrador, and the officials involved ultimately shelved the inquiry. They concluded that the U.S. government had little appetite to pursue allegations against the leader of one of America’s top allies, said the three people familiar with the case, who were not authorized to speak publicly,” the Times reported at the time.


“Much of the information collected by U.S. officials came from informants whose accounts can be difficult to corroborate and sometimes end up being incorrect. The investigators obtained the information while looking into the activities of drug cartels, and it was not clear how much of what the informants told them was independently confirmed. For example, records show that the investigators were told by an informant that one of Mr. López Obrador’s closest confidants met with Ismael Zambada García, a top leader of the Sinaloa drug cartel, before his victory in the 2018 presidential election. A different source told them that after the president was elected, a founder of the notoriously violent Zetas cartel paid $4 million to two of Mr. López Obrador’s allies in the hope of being released from prison. Investigators obtained information from a third source suggesting that drug cartels were in possession of videos of the president’s sons picking up drug money, records show.”


López Obrador, responding to The New York Times’ reporting, vehemently denied the allegations and called on the United States to clear up the matter.


“It’s all completely false,” López Obrador said in February. “The U.S. government is going to have to address this.”


He even suggested that the report could damage Mexico’s relationship with the U.S.


“Does this diminish the trust the Mexican government has in the United States?” Mr. López Obrador said, as quoted by the Times. “Time will tell.”


A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Justice said there was no investigation into the Mexican president at the time.


The Associated Press, in its report on Lopez Obrador’s latest comments, has a rundown on his relatively lax view toward the cartels:


“López Obrador has argued before against ‘demonizing’ the drug cartels, and has encouraged leaders of the Catholic church to try to negotiate peace pacts between warring gangs. Explaining why he has ordered the army not to attack cartel gunmen, López Obrador said in 2022 ‘we also take care of the lives of the gang members, they are human beings.’ He has also sometimes appeared not to take the violence issue seriously. In June 2023, he said of one drug gang that had abducted 14 police officers: ‘I’m going to tell on you to your fathers and grandfathers,’ suggesting they should get a good spanking. Asked about those comments at the time, residents of one town in the western Mexico state of Michoacan who have lived under drug cartel control for years reacted with disgust and disbelief.”
 

Cannabis Legalization Support Surges to 88%

Public Opinion Shift: 88% of Americans Support Marijuana Legalization, Poll Shows.


  1. An overwhelming 88% of Americans support legalization for either medical or recreational purposes, reflecting a national shift towards marijuana reform.
  2. The majority views legalization as beneficial for local economies and the fairness of the criminal justice system, showcasing widespread belief in its positive societal impacts.
  3. Despite political and demographic divides, support for legalization spans across age groups and party lines, indicating a broad consensus on the issue.
This week’s release of Pew Research Center poll reveals a significant shift in American public opinion towards marijuana legalization. An astounding 88% of respondents advocate for legalization, either for medical purposes, recreational use, or both. This consensus crosses demographic and political divides, indicating a broad-based movement towards reforming marijuana laws in the United States.


Legalization enjoys majority support across different age groups and political affiliations, with 57% of Americans favoring full legalization for both medical and adult use. The remaining 31% support legalization strictly for medical purposes, leaving a mere 11% in favor of complete prohibition. This data signifies a major cultural and political shift, reflecting growing recognition of the benefits associated with marijuana reform.


Political affiliation plays a role in attitudes towards legalization, with 72% of Democrats supporting full legalization compared to 42% of Republicans. However, when considering legalization for at least medical purposes, bipartisan support emerges, with 82% of Republicans and 94% of Democrats in favor. This indicates a consensus on the medicinal benefits of cannabis, transcending traditional partisan perspectives.


The poll also explores public opinions on the effects of recreational marijuana legalization. A majority believes that legalization positively impacts local economies and contributes to a fairer criminal justice system. This sentiment is crucial, as it highlights the economic and social justice implications of legalization, beyond mere drug policy reform.


Opinions diverge on the “gateway drug” theory and community safety. A significant portion of respondents see no impact of legalization on the use of other drugs or on community safety, suggesting a nuanced understanding of its effects. This complexity reflects the ongoing debate within society about the broader implications of legalization.


Age and partisan differences persist, with older adults and conservative Republicans generally showing less support for full legalization. However, these groups still largely support medical legalization, indicating that resistance to complete prohibition spans generations and political ideologies.


In the context of recent polling data and the increasing number of states legalizing marijuana, it’s clear that public opinion is steadily moving away from prohibition. This trend is reinforced by statements from organizations like NORML, which emphasize the success of legalization policies and the political risk for officials who oppose reform.


Furthermore, the presence of marijuana dispensaries in 80% of American counties signifies the normalization of cannabis in daily life. The clustering of dispensaries near state borders with stricter cannabis laws underscores the demand for regulated marijuana across state lines.
 

DEA Officials Discuss Marijuana Scheduling Timeline, Seeking To ‘Correct Misperceptions’ That Decisions Are Made In A ‘Shroud Of Secrecy’

A Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) official says the agency wants to “correct misperceptions” that its drug scheduling review process is done in a “shroud of secrecy” as it works to reach a final decision on possibly reclassifying marijuana. He also said it sometimes takes up to six months for DEA to complete its analysis of health officials’ recommendations—which is just about how long it has now been since the agency began its current cannabis assessment.


In the latest episode of the agency’s “Prevention Profiles: Take Five” series, DEA Senior Prevention Program Manager Rich Lucey spoke with DEA pharmacologist Buki Ebeigbe about the scheduling process and specifically how it relates to the ongoing cannabis review—marking the first time that officials with the agency have discussed its current analysis of marijuana’s Schedule I status publicly in any depth.


“I just think it’s important for people to—again, going back to correcting misperceptions and really the issue of transparency and, by us even doing this podcast, just to help people understand the process,” Lucey said. “We don’t want it to necessarily feel as if it’s behind this shroud of secrecy, which I think then lends itself to this idea that it’s a whole arbitrary process.”

How Stronger Cannabis Legalization Messaging Could Sway Young Voters

Transparency has been a key concern for advocates and lawmakers, with DEA declining to say anything publicly beyond confirming that they’ve received the recommendation from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and are now carrying out their own review.


That process is “independent” of the HHS review, Lucey stressed.



That’s right,” Ebeigbe said. “It’s in its process. We’ve received [the HHS analysis], and we’re in the process of writing that recommendation” on cannabis scheduling to DEA Administrator Anne Milgram.


“Once that information is compiled and that document is written—that eight-factor document is written—it’s reviewed through our internal process,” she said, referring to the multi-step analysis the agency is completing on the effects of cannabis. “Ultimately, the administrator will make a decision on where to place it—whether to change it or whether to remove it or whatever.”






Lucey also commented on the complexity of drug scheduling reviews and what that means in terms of timing.



“Right now it’s a ‘wait and see.’ HHS has done their part, and now DEA is doing its part, which is that eight-factor analysis. And that can take anywhere from like three to six months sometimes,” he said. “I mean, it’s not like we’re going to be done in a week. It never happens that way.”


While Lucey was speaking generally about the drug scheduling review process, that timeline is notable. HHS delivered its Schedule III recommendation to DEA last August, meaning it’s been more than six months now that the drug agency has been conducting its own review. And there’s significant pressure to complete its work expeditiously.








Vice President Kamala Harris recently added her voice to that end, urging DEA to finalize its cannabis review “as quickly as possible” and calling it “absurd” and “patently unfair” that marijuana remains in Schedule I alongside drugs such as heroin.


The expectation is that, once DEA completes the review, it will publish its decision in the Federal Register, after which point there will be a public comment period. Asked whether those comments will “play a role” in the possibility of rescheduling, Ebeigbe said “that is an unknown—that is an absolute unknown.”



In any case, she stressed earlier in the interview
1711647436907.png
that “it’s important for the viewers to know that we read every single comment and we have to respond publicly.” She also noted that, after the public comment period, there’s a possibility the agency will schedule a hearing, which individuals can request if they “would like their opinions heard on a larger scale.”


Ebeigbe also broadly defended the scheduling review process, stressing that it is not “arbitrary” and that everything the agency does must be “legally defensible.”



One legal question that may be considered concerns international treaty obligations and whether the U.S. would be out of compliance with United Nations (UN) Single Convention treaties if it moved cannabis to Schedule III—an argument that several conservative lawmakers and prohibitionists have insisted DEA take into account, despite differing opinions among legal experts.


Meanwhile, HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra recently defended his agency’s rescheduling recommendation during a Senate committee hearing and also told cannabis lobbyist Don Murphy that he should pay DEA a visit and “knock on their door” for answers about the timing of their decision.


Certain DEA officials are reportedly resisting the Biden administration’s rescheduling push, disputing the HHS findings on marijuana’s safety profile and medical potential, according to unnamed sources who spoke with The Wall Street Journal.



The Biden administration was also recently pressed to reschedule marijuana by two coalitions representing military veterans and law enforcement—including a group that counts DEA’s Milgram among its members.


Based on a recent poll, President Joe Biden’s cannabis moves stand to benefit him in the election. The survey found the president’s favorability spiked after people were made aware of the possibility that marijuana could be rescheduled under the Biden-initiated review.
 
And more on your government at work....well, sort of at work. sigh


Congressional Lawmakers Push Attorney General To Issue ‘Overdue’ Marijuana Guidance, Saying Ongoing ‘Legal Limbo’ Is “Unacceptable’

It is “unacceptable” that the Department of Justice has yet to reissue federal marijuana enforcement guidance to discourage interference in state cannabis programs, leaving Americans in a “legal limbo” despite promises to update the policy, two Democratic congressional lawmakers said in a new letter to the attorney general.


Writing to Attorney General Merrick Garland on Wednesday, Congressional Cannabis Caucus co-chairs Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Barbara Lee (D-CA) said the department should “correct this oversight and reissue a memo making clear DOJ’s limited resources will not be spent prosecuting those acting in accordance with state or Tribal law.”


It’s been over six years since then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded the previous Obama-era Cole and Wilkinson memos that generally directed prosecutors not to interfere with state and tribal marijuana laws, respectively. And making matters “especially concerning,” it’s been over a year since Garland signaled that updated guidance was forthcoming, they said.

Vice President Kamala Harris holds roundtable on marijuana policies

“While we appreciate the historic steps the Biden-Harris Administration has taken to pardon federal simple possession marijuana offenses and begin the formal review of marijuana’s schedule under the Controlled Substances Act, it is unacceptable that more than half of Americans living in jurisdictions with legal marijuana markets are left in limbo without public guidance to prevent unjust prosecution of those complying with their state’s or Tribe’s regulations,” the lawmakers wrote.


“Law enforcement, state regulators, small businesses, patients, and everyday Americans are caught in the ambiguity of the federal-state gap, made worse by the delay in reissuing the Cole and Wilkinson Memoranda protections,” they said.



Blumenauer and Lee also noted that, for years, they’ve “urged DOJ to act on this commonsense protection,” and they’ve been “consistently disappointed in meetings with agency leadership and DOJ prosecutors on existing policies.”


“As congressional allies in the work to undue the harms of the misguided war on drugs, we request answers on the delays in reissuing these protections:


    • Given President Biden and Vice President Harris’ public position that no one should be incarcerated for marijuana possession, what steps is DOJ taking to ensure state- or Tribe-legal actions are not prosecuted?
    • What is the DOJ’s specific timeline for reissuing the Cole and Wilkinson Memoranda protections?”


“While Congress works to address the impacts of the federal-state gap on cannabis policy, the urgency of issuing public guidance addressing federal prosecution of those who comply with state and Tribe cannabis laws should inform DOJ’s actions,” the letter concludes. “We look forward to your response and to the long overdue reissuing of these critical, fiscally responsible, and common-sense protections.”


When Garland was asked about the issue during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last March, he said that it was “fair to expect” that the updated marijuana policy would be “very close to what was done in the Cole Memorandum.”



At an earlier hearing in June 2022, the attorney general said the Justice Department was still “examining a wide range of issues that relate to marijuana and its production, sale and use, and we intend to address these issues in the days ahead.”


While there’s still no formal guidance in place, the federal policy of non-interference in state cannabis programs has generally persisted over the recent administrations. But advocates want to see the memo reissued nonetheless for added protections.



In the meantime, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is working to complete its review into cannabis scheduling after the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommended moving it from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).


Blumenauer separately laid into HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra last week over the “political malpractice” that is the president’s failure to end marijuana prohibition. The top federal health official promised to deliver that message to the White House, but also deferred responsibility for delays in an ongoing review into cannabis’s scheduling status to DEA.


The congressman, who has pressed DEA to go further than rescheduling and fully remove cannabis from the CSA, emphasized that “we are missing an opportunity for the American people” by not acting on bolder reform.


Lee told Marijuana Moment that she opposes simple rescheduling, arguing that the incremental reform could set the country back “another 50 years” on the path to federal legalization.



At a White House meeting this month with people who received marijuana pardons under President Joe Biden’s proclamations, Vice President Kamala Harris also expressed frustration with how long it is taking to complete the marijuana scheduling review that President Joe Biden directed in 2022 and urged DEA to move “as quickly as possible.”


Meanwhile, Blumenauer is separately seeking answers from HHS over the agency’s reported request for a legal opinion on the implications of possible marijuana rescheduling from the Justice Department.
 
"The American public needs to know that President BIDEN's administration is just feeding the public lip service with no meaningful marijuana policy action."

Sad to say this ^^ seems very true to me.

DEA faces Marijuana Legal Scrutiny


Patients suffer as DEA delays Marijuana clinical trials.​


DEA's mandate is drug diversion, security and to facilitate drug development?


Immediately, MMJ filed for relief in Rhode Island federal court, seeking an order to halt the DEA's unconstitutional actions. The trial focused on the DEA's apparent disregard for Presidential and Congressional marijuana laws.


Despite these developments, Judge Teresa Wallbaum, the DEA ALJ overseeing MMJ Biopharma Cultivation's case, opted to voluntarily stay the proceedings.


In her statement, she remarked, "Considering the unique circumstances and the available facts, a stay seems appropriate. MMJ's challenge to this tribunal's authority under Axon, which permits federal courts to address interlocutory structural challenges, presents a novel issue that complicates assessment of the DEA's likelihood of success."


Furthermore, she cited the Axon court's ruling, emphasizing that subjecting a party to proceedings conducted within an unconstitutional structure could constitute legal harm in itself.


In recent congressional committee sessions, Congressman Blumenauer expressed concerns about delays in medical cannabis treatments and research, labeling such setbacks as politically damaging to the Biden administration, such is the MMJ BioPharma Cultivation's case as an example.


Since December 2018, MMJ BioPharma Cultivation has been awaiting DEA approval to legally cultivate marijuana for research and development for use in FDA clinical trials for conditions such as Multiple Sclerosis and Huntington's Disease. The company claims that its applications have been in limbo with the DEA for over five years, resulting in devastating impacts on its business, including inability to hire employees and loss of projected revenues.


Duane Boise, the company's president, criticized the DEA, stating, "We are dealing with heartless individuals at the DEA who continue to hinder marijuana research and development. MMJ has meticulously followed the law, yet the DEA fails to do the same. Ultimately, it is the patients in need who suffer due to government inaction."


FAILED - BIDENS DEA MARIJUANA POLICY - A DARK SECRET


The American public needs to know that President BIDEN's administration is just feeding the public lip service with no meaningful marijuana policy action. The DEA continues to act in a shroud of secrecy. With six approved DEA growers none are growing any amount of marijuana cultivars for research and development. None can meet the DEA quota requirements and the same old University of Mississippi MUD is all that is available.


Tim Moynahan an attorney and the company's chair commented "I'm hoping that by both challenging the constitutionality of the DEA system while at the same time giving the DEA a roadmap to correct all of their errors. Someone within the DEA should settle this case particularly since MMJ is vital to completing drugs that we need to help patients suffering from Multiple Sclerosis and Huntington's Disease."


MMJ is represented by Attorney Megan Sheehan of Rhode Island.
 

New Poll Suggests Whom Cannabis Consumers Will Vote For In The 2024 US Elections


Cannabis consumers would vote for the US presidential candidate who endorses pro-cannabis policies, regardless of their party, according to a new poll.


As the 2024 U.S. Presidential election approaches, analyzing voters’ issue priorities is crucial for understanding trends.


Among the issues at stake in the 2024 U.S. presidential election, cannabis may be one to take into account, especially considering that its current legal status is under review and legalization at the state level by nearly half of the U.S. states.


The cannabis telemedicine company NuggMD released a 2024 election poll conducted on 755 regular cannabis consumers between March 25 and April 3. This number represents a small fraction when compared to the more than 48.2 million people estimated to have used cannabis at least once, as reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nevertheless, the poll offers a glimpse into the voting intentions of cannabis consumers for the next elections.


The poll indicates that 59% of cannabis consumers would vote for a presidential candidate who supports pro-cannabis policies like legalization. However, 17% would support such policies only if the candidate is a Democrat, while 10% would do so only if the candidate is a Republican, and 14% would stick to their preferred candidate or party.


Of the 755 respondents, 87% will or are likely to vote in the 2024 elections. Among these, 38% believe that the Democratic party has better ideas for the country, compared to 27% who favor the Republican party, while 35% see both parties as equal.


In terms of cannabis policy, 56% of respondents who are going to vote or are likely to vote think that the Democratic party has better ideas for cannabis policies. Additionally, 43% would vote for U.S. President Joe Biden, while 36% would vote for former President Donald Trump if the two were to be the official candidates for the next elections. In comparison, voter preferences between a generic Democrat and a generic Republican show 38% favoring Democrats, 21% favoring Republicans, 33% indicating indecision, 6% preferring another candidate, and 3% abstaining from voting for president.


This shows a significant change in voter preferences between generic and specific candidates. Although many respondents show openness to various options based on candidates, President Biden has a slight lead over Trump in direct comparison. However, a significant number of voters are undecided or favor alternative candidates, suggesting possible fluctuations in voter sentiment.


Overall, the respondents of this poll show that cannabis is not the only issue they care about (6%), but rather one of several issues (47%) or one of the many issues they care about (38%), highlighting that cannabis is not a top priority in their voting intentions.


In terms of knowledge about cannabis markets and cannabis culture among candidates, 88% of overall respondents believe that candidates need to understand the cannabis markets and culture in order to effectively legislate around it. In fact, 37% of respondents believe that candidates don’t understand the market or the culture at all, while 36% think that candidates understand the market to some degree but not the culture.


This poll also confirms the trend of age as a factor that may impact the upcoming election, with 69% of respondents believing that younger candidates would improve politicians’ understanding of cannabis markets and culture.


While endorsement of cannabis legalization or any pro-cannabis policies may contribute to changing the voting intentions of cannabis consumers, 40% believe Democrats support a “vibrant legal market,” while Republicans aim to “suppress legal use.” However, 29% think that both parties want to suppress the legal use of cannabis.


As most Americans support cannabis legalization, as highlighted by several surveys in recent months, 41% of cannabis consumers in this poll believe, among other reasons, that cannabis hasn’t been federally legalized yet because the legislative process moves slower than public opinion. Additionally, 39% attribute it to interference from anti-legalization interests, and 36% think legislators don’t care about what voters want.


Overall, while this poll on cannabis consumer voters is tiny compared to the estimated cannabis users in the U.S., it sheds light on the voting intentions among this group of people. It highlights that while cannabis may be the single issue for only a small fraction of single-issue voters, it remains relevant for cannabis consumers when they consider a candidate alongside other issues. But most importantly, endorsing a pro-cannabis policy could sway the vote of this group of people, regardless of their party affiliation.
 

Most Americans want legal Pot, but why feds are taking so long to change old rules?


Marijuana remains in an odd legal limbo in the United States, and there's one organization at the center of it: the Drug Enforcement Administration.​


The DEA has for decades held that marijuana is among the most dangerous, highly addictive drugs and has no medical value, despite growing state laws, medical evidence and popular opinion to the contrary. The result: Pot is widely available in some states, heavily criminalized in others − and technically federally illegal everywhere.


The confusion could be cleared up by Congress or the courts intervening, said Carmel Shachar, Harvard School of Law professor and faculty director at the university's Health Law and Policy Clinic. But in the absence of bold congressional action on marijuana, experts and advocates are looking to the DEA to make the next move to change the nation's position on pot.


While many states and physicians have recognized marijuana's potential medical benefits, there are still health risks associated with the substance under study, including a possible increase in risk of heart failure and heart attack. The potency and lack of regulation around marijuana has also led to concerns.


Meanwhile, President Joe Biden has said he's one of the people who disagrees with the DEA's categorization of marijuana. He called for a review in 2022, kicking off a bureaucratic slog that could soon change the status quo. Here's what to know:


The DEA classifies drugs and says pot is the worst kind​


The DEA says marijuana is classified as a "Schedule I" drug under the Controlled Substances Act, alongside heroin, LSD and ecstasy.


The statute classifies drugs from Schedule I to Schedule V based on their potential for abuse, addictiveness and medical use. Schedule I drugs have "high potential for abuse and the potential to create severe psychological and/or physical dependence" and "no currently accepted medical use," the DEA says.


Shachar said, "Cocaine, morphine, and methamphetamines are all Schedule II, meaning they have been determined to have some medical value. It feels very strange to have marijuana be more restricted than these substances."


Putting marijuana in Schedule I also places huge obstacles in the way of doing the kind of research that would be needed to prove there are medical uses, according to Heather Trela, director of operations and a fellow at the Rockefeller Institute of Government out of the State University of New York.


That has created a feedback loop: It's hard to study pot to prove its medical value, because the federal government says it has no medical value.


Why is pot classified as the most dangerous? No good reason, experts say.​


Marijuana has been a Schedule I drug since the statute took effect in 1971, "with very little medical or scientific evidence to demonstrate why it had to be Schedule I," Shachar said.


At the time, it had more to do with "who uses the drug than the drug itself," Trela said.


It was under President Richard Nixon that marijuana was added to the list under the most restricted category – first only provisionally until more of the science could be settled, Trela said.


Yet even when a commission formed by Nixon determined weed shouldn't be criminalized, it remained in Schedule I. Trela said Nixon knew marijuana was a "drug associated with the anti-war protesters, hippies and people of color – none of whom were fans of President Nixon and his agenda."


A top adviser to Nixon, John Ehrlichman, said as much in an interview in 1994 that was published by Harper's Magazine in 2016: "Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."


What could happen next? Will the DEA change its mind?​


The next expected development is considered a small step, advocates say: The DEA is considering reclassifying marijuana as a lower-level controlled substance, but that wouldn't make it legal.


"It's a step in the right direction but, in terms of its practical direction, it's really more symbolic," said Morgan Fox, political director for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, the country's oldest cannabis legalization advocacy group.


In 2022, Biden asked the Department of Health and Human Services to review of how marijuana is classified. Last year, HHS recommended that cannabis be rescheduled as a Schedule III substance, like ketamine, testosterone, anabolic steroids or Tylenol with codeine.


If marijuana is placed on Schedule III instead, it would mean it could be legally prescribed by licensed health care providers and dispensed at licensed pharmacies. It also could help resolve a massive federal tax burden that has been placed on cannabis companies.


"It partially sends a signal that the federal government doesn't think cannabis is the worst of the worst drugs. 'Not as bad as heroin' − that's a good thing for the government to say," said Jay Wexler, a law professor at Boston University who wrote the book "Weed Rules: Blazing the Way to a Just and Joyful Marijuana Policy."


But practically, rescheduling wouldn't have much of an effect on state cannabis programs at all, Wexler said, and "everything states are doing is still a violation of federal law, and anybody who's selling, buying, processing, growing cannabis under these state programs is still in violation of federal law even if it's rescheduled."


The DEA did not give a time frame for if or when an announcement on rescheduling might come when reached by USA TODAY on Wednesday.


What would it take to make marijuana fully legal in the US?​


To eliminate the stark conflict between state and federal laws, marijuana would need to be removed from the Controlled Substances Act list altogether. Experts say there's a chance that could happen eventually, but it's still a long way off.


"I think it's going to take time, but I think we will get there," Trela said.


Just as alcohol and tobacco are not considered controlled substances but are regulated by the federal government and by states, descheduling cannabis could have a similar effect, Wexler said.


A group of Democratic senators – plus Bernie Sanders, who is an independent but joins with Democrats on major issues – wrote a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland and DEA Administrator Anne Milgram last month urging the descheduling of marijuana.


What's taking so long?​


Public support for the legalization of marijuana is at an all-time high, national polling has shown. A Gallup poll in the fall found 70% of Americans support legal weed. In 2022, Pew Research Center found just 10% of Americans believe it should be completely illegal. Thirty percent support medical use only, and 59% supported legalization for medical and recreational use.


That public support has been bumped by Americans seeing firsthand through loved ones and news stories that marijuana can have medical benefits for people with illnesses who can't get relief otherwise, Wexler said.


"Why doesn't that translate into clear political outcomes to deschedule cannabis? I don’t know," Wexler said.


Experts said a combination of factors may be at play, including a desire to move toward full legalization incrementally. Legalization is also up against a number of top-line priorities, and support from the public and lawmakers is not uniform, Trela said.


"There is still a perception by many and belief that this is not where we should be going; the government should not be encouraging drug use, in their minds," Trela said. "We're not that far removed from the stigma of marijuana."


Advocates hope weed will be removed from the Controlled Substances Act altogether someday, but it doesn't look as if marijuana will be legalized on the federal level anytime soon.


Said Wexler, "Rescheduling is a step forward, but it is not nearly enough. And there's no reason to keep cannabis in the Controlled Substances Act."
 

Sponsored by

VGoodiez 420EDC
Back
Top