Law The Cannabis Chronicles - Misc Cannabis News

[Baron23]

This article is, IMO, a Biden campaign advert and is not at all actual news or analysis.

"“Any drug that is between Schedule 2 and Schedule 5 can be prescribed when appropriate by a licensed provider who has a (Drug Enforcement Administration) registration, like I do. For a full Schedule 1, there is no approved medical use. So this change would allow providers, clinicians across the country to be able to prescribe marijuana as a schedule 3 drug,” said Dr. Gupta."

Here is the BS.....nobody with a medical license is going to "prescribe" an once of good weed for you and no pharmacies are going to be stocking MJ flower. And its still going to be illegal to grow or possess MJ outside of a prescription and its still going to be illegal to sell MJ outside of being a DEA/FDA controlled pharmacy.

If you can't tell the reason behind the sudden interest of the Biden admin on MJ issues then I have a bridge to sell you.

White House's drug czar on the benefits of shifting Marijuana to a Schedule 3 drug​

National Drug Control Policy Director Discusses Marijuana Reclassification Efforts.​

Dr. Rahul Gupta, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, talks about the changes in marijuana science over the past half-century.


The Department of Justice recently announced that the next step for rescheduling marijuana has taken place.


Marijuana has historically been classified as a Schedule 1 drug — those with no medical use and a high potential for abuse.


The Biden administration is working to move marijuana to a Schedule 3 drug, those that have a medical use and moderate to low potential for abuse.


WGCU's Cary Barbor spoke to Dr. Rahul Gupta, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, to get more detail on this change.


“Schedule 1, where marijuana currently resides, is one that is defined by having no medical benefit and high risk for addiction. It is in the company of drugs like heroin, LSD and ecstasy,” said Dr. Gupta.


“It's been quite a bit of science that has developed over the last few years, certainly since more than a half-century ago when those placements happened, that show us that this may not be where it belongs. So the move to Schedule 3, where there are recognizable medical benefits to a substance, is one that is a recommendation based on science and evidence.


"It does make sense to make sure that we're pursuing science and evidence when it comes to medications and use those medications for Americans with chronic illnesses, chronic pain, diseases like cancer. It also allows us to expand on the research and development both for users as well as for new drugs potential in the future for other ailments. And then finally, too many lives have been upended because of our failed approach to marijuana over the past more than a half-century. And that's why, back in 2022, President Biden had requested that Department of Justice and Health and Human Services services conduct this review.”


Dr. Gupta went on to explain that Biden has pardoned some people who were in prison on federal marijuana-related charges. A pardon for state charges locally would only be possible if Florida changes its laws.


If marijuana is moved from Schedule 1 to Schedule 3, it can be prescribed by a licensed provider.


“Any drug that is between Schedule 2 and Schedule 5 can be prescribed when appropriate by a licensed provider who has a (Drug Enforcement Administration) registration, like I do. For a full Schedule 1, there is no approved medical use. So this change would allow providers, clinicians across the country to be able to prescribe marijuana as a schedule 3 drug,” said Dr. Gupta.


Gupta goes on to say that research has shown that there are proper medical uses of marijuana.


“One of the things that we have to focus is the science. But today, the science takes us in a direction that there are some medical uses of marijuana. We must allow Americans to take advantage of that, for example, those who are suffering from chronic pain, other chronic illnesses, cancer, this may be something of a better option for them,” he said.


“At the same time, we must understand that for children whose brains are still developing, up to the age of 22 to 25, it's important that any illicit substance, whether it be marijuana or others, not interfere in the development of the brain. So prevention for young people of any drugs is still important and key.


"But at the same time, allowing us to be able to have appropriate science-based categorization of drugs that can help Americans is important. Of course, the increasing concentrations of THC and others are something that concerns all of us. And one way to address that is by having it as Schedule 3.”


Categorizing marijuana as a Schedule 3 drug, he says, will allow for more research.


A 60-day public comment period will begin soon, after which the Department of Justice will make a final scheduling determination.

 

[Baron23]

Biden Drug Czar Says Marijuana Rescheduling Is ‘Based On Science And Evidence’ But Misstates Impact On Prescription Access

The Biden administration’s drug czar said this week that the Justice Department’s recommendation to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) is one “based on science and evidence,” adding that the change will ease research restrictions around the use of cannabis to treat “chronic illnesses, chronic pain and diseases like cancer.” But he appears to have oversimplified what the change will mean for legal prescription access to medical marijuana.


“It’s been quite a bit of science that has developed over the last few years, certainly since more than a half century ago when those placements happened, that show us that this may not be where it belongs,” Rahul Gupta, the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), said in comments to WGCU, referring to cannabis’s current Schedule I status.


“So the move to Schedule III, where there are recognizable medical benefits to a substance, is one that is a recommendation based on science and evidence,” he added. “It does make sense to make sure that we’re pursuing science and evidence when it comes to medications and use those medications for Americans with chronic illnesses, chronic pain, diseases like cancer.”


It appears the drug czar may have oversimplified the process of accessing medical marijuana once the rescheduling move takes place, however, suggesting that the change itself could make cannabis federally legally available to patients.


“Any drug that is between Schedule II and Schedule V can be prescribed when appropriate by a licensed provider who has a DEA registration, like I do,” Gupta told WGCU. “For a full Schedule I, there is no approved medical use. So this change would allow providers, clinicians across the country to be able to prescribe marijuana as a Schedule III drug.”







A report published by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) earlier this month disagrees. It says further action from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would be needed before marijuana products become available by prescription.


“If marijuana were moved from Schedule I to Schedule III, it could in theory be dispensed and used by prescription for medical purposes,” the report from congressional researchers says. “However, prescription drugs must be approved by FDA. Although FDA has approved some drugs derived from or related to cannabis, marijuana itself is not an FDA-approved drug.”


CRS has also noted that rescheduling would not legalize cannabis or bring state-regulated markets—including medical marijuana systems—“into compliance” with federal law.


Broadly, Gupta in the recent interview positioned Schedule III as a middle ground between making marijuana legally available to medical patients while preventing drug use by young people.


“Today, the science takes us in a direction that there are some medical uses of marijuana. We must allow Americans to take advantage of that, for example, those who are suffering from chronic pain, other chronic illnesses, cancer, this may be something of a better option for them,” he said. “At the same time, we must understand that for children whose brains are still developing, up to the age of 22 to 25, it’s important that any illicit substance, whether it be marijuana or others, not interfere in the development of the brain.”


“Prevention for young people of any drugs is still important and key,” he continued. “But at the same time, allowing us to be able to have appropriate science-based categorization of drugs that can help Americans is important. Of course, the increasing concentrations of THC and others are something that concerns all of us. And one way to address that is by having it as Schedule III.”


Gupta also said that “too many lives have been upended because of our failed approach to marijuana over the past more than a half century.”


“That’s why, back in 2022, President Biden had requested that Department of Justice and Health and Human Services services conduct this review,” he said.


Biden administration officials have been touting the president’s actions on cannabis since 2022, including rounds of pardons he’s granted to people with past drug-related federal convictions. Vice President Kamala Harris last month, for example, reiterated at an event last month she doesn’t believe “people should have to go to jail for smoking weed.”


“We have issued—as an administration with President Biden’s leadership—more pardons and commutations than any recent administration at this point in their term,” she said. “For example, on marijuana: We have pardoned all people for federal convictions for simple marijuana possession.”


Advocates have been encouraged to see the administration continue to grant and promote clemency for people criminalized over drugs, but they’ve also emphasized that thousands of people remain incarcerated over federal marijuana offenses.


In March, 36 members of Congress implored Biden to grant clemency to all Americans currently in federal prison over non-violent cannabis convictions by commuting their sentences, pointing out that the pardons he’s issued to date for simple possession cases did not release a single person from incarceration.


A former drug czar who served under President Barack Obama recently took a sharply different position on marijuana rescheduling than Gupta. Former ONDCP Director Gil Kerlikowske recently said that cannabis is “not medicine” and that rescheduling was “all Big Cannabis.”


“This isn’t people my age that are just old hippies that want to open up a pot shop somewhere” Kerlikowske said on the podcast of former U.S. Rep. Mary Bono (R). “This is a huge business like Big Tobacco. Absolutely.”


Meanwhile, the proposed rule to federally reschedule marijuana was officially posted last week, kicking off a public comment period that’s expected to elicit a major response from supporters and opponents of cannabis reform.


Marijuana reform advocates and stakeholders have made clear that they intend to leverage the opportunity, with some planning to support the reclassification while others intend to call for descheduling cannabis altogether. Prohibitionists are expected to oppose the incremental policy change and seek to keep marijuana in Schedule I, and there’s also a looming threat of litigation.


While DOJ will take all public comments submitted by July 22 into consideration as it weighs the reform, it said in the notice that one of the topics its especially interested in hearing about is the “unique economic impacts” of the rescheduling proposal given that state-level legalization has created a “multibillion dollar industry” that stands to benefit from possible federal tax relief under the reform.


When Biden announced the administration’s rescheduling action last week, he described it as consistent with his belief that nobody should be jailed over cannabis possession. As a statutory matter, that wouldn’t necessarily apply with simple rescheduling because it’d remain federally illegal. But the White House has not publicly commented on the economic impacts of the incremental reform.


On Capitol Hill, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and colleagues have reintroduced legislation to federally legalize cannabis and impose certain regulations. The bill’s prospects are dubious in the current divided Congress, however.


Meanwhile, the top Democrat in the U.S. House said that the Biden administration’s move to reschedule marijuana is a “step in the right direction,” but it should be followed up with congressional action such as passing the legalization bill Schumer filed.


In a recent interview with Fox News, former DEA Administrator Asa Hutchinson said it “absolutely looks like” the agency will follow through with moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the CSA.


Biden has separately issued two rounds of mass pardons for people who’ve committed federal marijuana possession offenses. Again, a Schedule III reclassification would not legalize cannabis or free people still incarcerated over cannabis.


During his run for the presidency, Biden pledged to move cannabis to Schedule II—a stricter category compared to what’s been proposed by his administration

 

[Baron23]

Feds Begin Accepting Marijuana Rescheduling Comments, With Key Reform Groups Previewing How They Plan To Influence The Process​

The Biden administration’s proposed rule to federally reschedule marijuana has officially been posted, kicking off a public comment period that’s expected to elicit a major response from supporters and opponents of cannabis reform alike.


About a week after President Joe Biden and the Justice Department both confirmed that they are seeking to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the rule was published in the Federal Register on Tuesday.


That initiates a 60-day public comment period, after which point there may be an administrative hearing to receive additional input before the rule is potentially finalized.


Marijuana reform advocates and stakeholders have made clear that they intend to leverage the opportunity, with some planning to support the reclassification while others intend to call for descheduling cannabis altogether. Prohibitionists are expected to oppose the incremental policy change and seek to keep marijuana in Schedule I, and there’s also a looming threat of litigation.


While DOJ will take all public comments submitted by July 22 into consideration as it weighs the reform, it said in the notice that one of the topics its especially interested in hearing about is the “unique economic impacts” of the rescheduling proposal given that state-level legalization has created a “multibillion dollar industry” that stands to benefit from possible federal tax relief under the reform.


DOJ said “marijuana is subject to a number of State laws that have allowed a multibillion dollar industry to develop,” and the department “acknowledges that there may be large impacts related to Federal taxes and research and development investment for the pharmaceutical industry, among other things.”


More broadly, the Federal Register notice says that “DOJ is seeking comment on the practical consequences of rescheduling marijuana into schedule III under the relevant statutory frameworks.”


When Biden announced the administration’s rescheduling action last week, he described it as consistent with his belief that nobody should be jailed over cannabis possession. As a statutory matter, that wouldn’t necessarily apply with simple rescheduling because it’d remain federally illegal. But the White House has not publicly commented on the economic impacts of the incremental reform.


On the one hand, many advocates have welcomed the rescheduling determination, given that it represents the first time in over 50 years that the federal government has recognized the medical value and relatively low abuse potential of a plant that’s been legalized in some form in the vast majority of states.


On the other hand, activists have emphasized that rescheduling does not federally legalize marijuana or provide corrective relief to people who’ve been criminalized over it. And, of course, prohibitionists have urged DEA to keep marijuana in Schedule I and are expected to litigate if the agency moves forward with the incremental reform.


Key cannabis reform groups previewed their comment strategy to Marijuana Moment.


NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano said his organization “is in a unique position to mobilize interested parties to provide their perspectives throughout the public comment period.”


“In particular, I think it is important that the voices of both physicians and patients are heard and considered, as the Justice Department clearly weighed the widespread acceptance of medical cannabis among those in the medical community and among those residing in medical use states in making their decision to reclassify,” he said.


“In addition, NORML will be submitting our own comprehensive comments substantiating the evidentiary record that cannabis possesses accepted medical utility and comparatively low dependence liability,” Armentano said. “We will also be addressing a number of the issues raised by opponents, as well as the DEA, with respect to cannabis’ impact on public health and making it clear that such concerns do not warrant continuing to classify cannabis as a Schedule I substance.”


“While NORML ultimately favors descheduling rather than rescheduling, we also understand that reclassification is associated both symbolic and tangible benefits to the cannabis community, both in the short-term and in the long-term,” he said.


Cat Packer, director of drug markets and legal regulation at the Drug Policy Alliance, told Marijuana Moment that “it’s critically important that individuals and communities adversely and disproportionately impacted by cannabis criminalization and those that support federal marijuana decriminalization, make their voices heard in the public comment process.”


“While rescheduling would continue federal marijuana criminalization, this public comment period provides an unprecedented opportunity for the public to demonstrate to federal leaders that rescheduling is not enough and to reiterate the public’s support for reforms beyond rescheduling, including legalization,” she said.


“Even cannabis industry participants, who would benefit from Schedule III’s tax relief, have an opportunity to leverage this public comment process to bring attention to the harms of federal criminalization, those impacted and to advocate for reforms that would acknowledge, end and address the harms of criminalization and shift the federal government towards a federal framework that better promotes public health, public safety, equity and the will of the American people,” Packer said.


Organizations that represent the interests of the marijuana industry are also planning to make their voices heard in the comment process.


David Culver, senior vice president of public affairs, for the U.S. Cannabis Council, told Marijuana Moment that the group will be submitting a comment on the proposed rule “shortly.”


“We plan to survey the far-reaching benefits of moving cannabis to Schedule III and highlight the rigor behind the scientific and legal analyses underpinning the shift,” he said. “And we’ll take the opportunity to thank President Biden and his administration for implementing the most significant cannabis reform in American history.”


Adam Goers, co-chair of the Coalition for Cannabis Scheduling Reform, said that the rescheduling proposal “is built upon a foundation of unassailable scientific evidence,” adding that his organization will “use the public comment period to expand upon the overwhelming scientific case for Schedule III.”


Prohibitionist organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) told its supporters in a recent email blast that it is “working with an esteemed law firm specializing in administrative law to craft the strongest challenge possible.”


“Together, we are working on our comment and content strategy which we will then ask you to help us with,” the group said. “This is a long game and we will have one shot to present our best arguments. It is better to put forth the strongest possible comment than to submit something quickly, so we do not anticipate having final guidance for you by Tuesday. But we are working overtime to equip you as soon as possible and hope to have it soon after the 60-day period begins.”


SAM previously launched a fundraising effort in support of its plans to challenge the cannabis rescheduling move, including through potential litigation.


DEA Administrator Anne Milgram has acknowledged the possibility of an administrative hearing to gain further input on the decision before its finalized. Requests that a public hearing be held must be submitted by June 20.


The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has also weighed in on the rescheduling development, saying in a report that while it was “likely” that DEA would enact the policy change, that would not bring state markets into compliance with federal law. It added that Congress still has the authority to address the federal-state cannabis policy gap “before or after” that reform is enacted.


To that end, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and colleagues have reintroduced legislation to federally legalize cannabis and impose certain regulations. The bill’s prospects are dubious in the current divided Congress, however.


Meanwhile, the top Democrat in the U.S. House said that the Biden administration’s move to reschedule marijuana is a “step in the right direction,” but it should be followed up with congressional action such as passing the legalization bill Schumer filed.


In a recent interview with Fox News, former DEA Administrator Asa Hutchinson said it “absolutely looks like” the agency will follow through with moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the CSA.


Biden has separately issued two rounds of mass pardons for people who’ve committed federal marijuana possession offenses. Again, a Schedule III reclassification would not legalize cannabis or free people still incarcerated over cannabis.


It should also be noted that, during his run for the presidency, Biden pledged to move cannabis to Schedule II—a stricter category compared to what’s been proposed by his administration.

 

[Baron23]

Biden Decries a 'Failed Approach to Marijuana' but Sticks With It​

Posted May 22, 2024 on Reason

Rescheduling does not resolve the conflict between federal pot prohibition and state rejection of that policy.​

For half a century, critics have argued that marijuana does not belong in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, a category that is supposedly reserved for drugs with a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical applications that cannot be used safely even under a doctor's supervision. Last week, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) finally agreed, implicitly admitting that the federal government has been lying about marijuana for decades.


"This is monumental," President Joe Biden declared. That is true insofar as monuments look impressive but otherwise do not accomplish much.


Biden is trying to motivate younger voters whose turnout could be crucial to his reelection. But those voters overwhelmingly favor marijuana legalization, and the DOJ proposal falls far short of accomplishing that.


The proposed rule, which will be subject to 60 days of public comment before it is finalized, would move marijuana to Schedule III, which includes prescription drugs such as ketamine, Tylenol with codeine, and anabolic steroids. But that does not mean marijuana will be legally available as a medicine, which would require regulatory approval of specific cannabis-based products.


Trump hush money trial enters new phase after defense rests without testimony from former president.


With marijuana in Schedule III, state-licensed cannabis suppliers will remain criminal enterprises under federal law, albeit subject to less severe penalties. Although an annually renewed congressional spending rider bars the DOJ from interfering with state medical marijuana programs, prosecutorial discretion is the only protection for businesses that serve recreational consumers.


The federally illegal status of state-approved marijuana businesses discourages financial institutions from serving them, since doing so could invite potentially devastating criminal, civil, and regulatory consequences. Moving marijuana to Schedule III will not solve that problem either.


Biden portrays rescheduling as "an important move toward reversing longstanding inequities" caused by the federal government's "failed approach to marijuana." But it will not "decriminalize the use of marijuana," as he promised to do during his 2020 presidential campaign: Simple possession, even for medical purposes, will remain a federal offense punishable by a minimum $1,000 fine and up to a year in jail.


Although Biden decries the "needless barriers to housing, employment, and educational opportunities" created by marijuana convictions, rescheduling will not eliminate those. Nor do his pardons for people convicted of simple marijuana possession under federal law: Although Biden claims he is "expunging thousands of convictions," that is not true, because presidential pardons do not expunge criminal records.


Rescheduling, even combined with clemency, also does not lift the various legal disabilities associated with marijuana convictions, cannabis consumption, or participation in the cannabis industry. Those include loss of Second Amendment rights (a policy that Biden defends) and ineligibility for admission, legal residence, and citizenship under immigration law.


What does rescheduling accomplish? In practical terms, the two main benefits of moving marijuana to Schedule III are fewer regulatory barriers to medical research and a financial boon to state-licensed cannabis suppliers, who will no longer be barred from deducting standard business expenses when they file their federal tax returns.


That is not nothing. Abandoning the pretense that marijuana meets the criteria for Schedule I also represents progress of a sort.


That reversal, however, comes at a time when 38 states have legalized medical use of marijuana, two dozen have taken the further step of legalizing recreational use, and seven out of 10 Americans oppose pot prohibition. In this context, admitting what most of us already knew is a pitifully inadequate concession.


Rescheduling and clemency fail to address today's central cannabis issue: the conflict between a federal government that is maintaining a scientifically dubious, morally bankrupt policy and states that have decisively rejected it. And Biden, despite his pose as a longtime drug warrior who has seen the error of his ways, is a big part of that problem.


The president, citing old-timey "gateway drug" concerns, has steadfastly resisted attempts to resolve this conflict by repealing the federal ban on marijuana. Even while condemning the injustice inflicted by a "failed approach to marijuana," he is sticking with it.

 

[Baron23]

DEA Publishes Proposed Rules To Reschedule Marijuana​

Posted May 22, 2024 on Forbes

The path toward the federal rescheduling of marijuana takes a step forward with the DEA's publication of proposed rules open to comments.​

The Drug Enforcement Administration published yesterday proposed rules in the U.S. Federal Register to reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act.


This represents a further concrete step forward in changing U.S. marijuana policy, easing industry regulations, and marking the most significant change in national marijuana legislation since 1970.


This proposal initiates a 62-day public comment period, a necessary step in the formal federal rulemaking process.


The DEA, a component of the Department of Justice, will accept public comments until July 22, as stated in Tuesday’s notice, and will consider requests for a public hearing before an administrative law judge until June 20.


If DEA Administrator Anne Milgram decides to hold a hearing, further notice will be published in the Federal Register. However, the DEA's notice doesn't specify how long the agency will review the public comments before finalizing a rule.


The process to reschedule marijuana began in October 2022 when President Joe Biden issued an executive order directing agencies to "expeditiously review" the policy of classifying marijuana.


In August 2023, after reviewing information including data from states with legal cannabis programs, the Department of Health and Human Services determined that "marijuana has a currently accepted use" and recommended reclassifying it as a Schedule 3 drug. In that process, the HHS considered eight factors, including the drug's actual or relative potential for abuse, scientific evidence and its current scientific knowledge, marijuana's history and current pattern of abuse, the scope, duration, and significance of abuse; potential risk there is to the public health, potential addiction, and whether marijuana is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled.


This category includes drugs like anabolic steroids, ketamine, and testosterone, which are legally available and can be obtained through prescription.


In this context, the DEA's notice highlighted that if marijuana is reclassified to Schedule III, the regulatory controls for Schedule III substances, along with existing marijuana-specific requirements and any additional controls to meet U.S. treaty obligations, would apply as appropriate. The manufacture, distribution, dispensing, and possession of marijuana would still be subject to the criminal prohibitions of the CSA. Drugs containing substances defined as "marijuana" under the CSA would also remain subject to the prohibitions in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.


By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Service, and you acknowledge our Privacy Statement. Forbes is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.


The big change for the cannabis industry would be that marijuana listed in Schedule III of the CSA wouldn't be subject to Internal Revenue Service Code Section 280E, which is currently preventing marijuana businesses from taking certain deductions on their federal tax returns.


It's worth highlighting that the rescheduling of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III wouldn't legalize marijuana for adult use. To achieve this, marijuana should be descheduled from the CSA.


The publication of the notice proposing rules for the rescheduling of marijuana follows the DEA's reported plan on April 30 to reclassify marijuana, recognizing its medical uses and acknowledging it has less potential for abuse than some of the nation’s most dangerous drugs and President Biden's official announcement to ease marijuana regulations.


Biden described this move as "monumental," marking a significant step "towards reversing longstanding inequities."

 

[momofthegoons]

Last week, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) finally agreed, implicitly admitting that the federal government has been lying about marijuana for decades.


"This is monumental," President Joe Biden declared.

Sigh...... Biden, the anti-drug warrior and author of the 1994 crime bill regarding 'drugs,' says it's 'monumental' that they have admitted they've been lying? Seriously? With no culpability on his part?

I'm going to leave it at that so that I don't break my own rules......

 

[Baron23]

Sigh...... Biden, the anti-drug warrior and author of the 1994 crime bill regarding 'drugs,' says it's 'monumental' that they have admitted they've been lying? Seriously? With no culpability on his part?

I'm going to leave it at that so that I don't break my own rules......

You got it in one, Mom.

 

[Baron23]

And why are they (the DEA) being asked and not told? Nobody voted for them....they are, in this instance, the epitome of the bureaucratic deep state.

Top Biden Health Official Hints At DEA Resistance To Marijuana Rescheduling Move​

President Joe Biden’s health secretary is suggesting that federal drug enforcement officials are not necessarily on board with the administration’s plan to reschedule marijuana.

Asked about the status of the proposed move of cannabis to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act at a recent event in Sacramento, U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra said his agency “took action” based on available science and evidence, saying that the ball is now in the Department of Justice’s court.

He dodged a follow-up question, however, about rumored pushback against the reform by Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) officials.
Only 1 in 10 Americans Say Marijuana Should Be Illegal.

“We did our job,” Becerra said of the recommendation in an interview with KQED’s Scott Schafer at the CalMatters Ideas Festival on Thursday, adding that DEA “now has the final call to make that happen.”


“Is there resistance in DEA?” Schafer inquired.



“Talk to DEA,” answered Becerra, repeating: “We did our job.”


“I’m gonna take that as a yes,” Schafer replied.


“Our scientists reviewed the evidence,” Becerra responded. “FDA bases its action on the science and the evidence before us. We took action.”


During the interview, Schafer also asked Becerra whether he has “any concerns, as the father of three daughters—three children—you know, about the use of marijuana?”


“I have concerns when they get out and drive a car, or they go out at night and they’re over 21. I have lots of concerns,” Becerra said. “Thank God they’ve got great heads on their shoulders. And on something like cannabis, I think they would continue to have great heads on their shoulders.”


“Look, if my daughters could go out and buy a pint of whiskey or a menthol cigarette—we know what we’re up against,” he continued. “And let’s be real: You can’t incarcerate your way to a solution here. You can regulate it. And if you regulate it the right way, which we’re supposed to do for alcohol and cigarettes and all the rest, then we can manage it. But we have to make a decision.”


“More than half of the states have made a decision that they’d rather regulate this than criminalize it,” Becerra added of medical marijuana. “The U.S. FDA, the scientists, have spoken and said we should deschedule from Schedule I to Schedule III on cannabis.”


Becerra’s handling of the question about “resistance” at DEA comes amid ongoing speculation over the internal politics within the administration on marijuana rescheduling.


Indications that DEA might not be on board came alongside the rescheduling move itself, with the proposed rule in the Federal Register noting several times that the agency believes “additional information” needs to be collected via public comment or a possible administrative hearing could influence the final scheduling decision.



“DEA has not yet made a determination as to its views of the appropriate schedule for marijuana,” the document said.


Adding to questions about a possible disconnect between DOJ and DEA over the proposal is the fact that the attorney general, rather than the DEA administrator, signed the draft rule.


Even before the formal announcement, it had been reported that certain DEA officials had been “at odds” with the Biden administration over the rescheduling push.



A DEA official was also absent last week from a scheduled appearance to discuss marijuana policy and regulatory oversight issues for cannabinoid research.


The moderator of that panel said the DEA representative cancelled at the last moment. DEA did, however, issue a message to attendees that the agency’s “goal is to support researchers as they navigate this registration process” to study Schedule I drugs like cannabis, “and outreach is a key component of their model to provide that support,” according to the moderator.


The proposed rule to federally reschedule marijuana was officially posted last month, kicking off a public comment period that’s expected to elicit a major response from supporters and opponents of cannabis reform.


Marijuana reform advocates and stakeholders have made clear that they intend to leverage the opportunity, with some planning to support the reclassification and others intending to call for descheduling cannabis altogether. Prohibitionists are expected to oppose the incremental policy change and seek to keep marijuana in Schedule I, and there’s also a looming threat of litigation.



While DOJ will take all public comments submitted by July 22 into consideration as it weighs the reform, it said in the notice that one of the topics its especially interested in hearing about is the “unique economic impacts” of the rescheduling proposal given that state-level legalization has created a “multibillion dollar industry” that stands to benefit from possible federal tax relief under the reform.


On Capitol Hill, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and colleagues have reintroduced legislation to federally legalize cannabis and impose certain regulations. The bill’s prospects are dubious in the current divided Congress, however.



Meanwhile, the top Democrat in the U.S. House said that the Biden administration’s move to reschedule marijuana is a “step in the right direction,” but it should be followed up with congressional action such as passing the legalization bill Schumer filed.


In a recent interview with Fox News, former DEA Administrator Asa Hutchinson said it “absolutely looks like” the agency will follow through with moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the CSA.


Biden has separately issued two rounds of mass pardons for people who’ve committed federal marijuana possession offenses. Again, a Schedule III reclassification would not legalize cannabis or free people still incarcerated over cannabis.


During his run for the presidency, Biden pledged to move cannabis to Schedule II—a stricter category compared to what’s been proposed by his administration.

 

[Baron23]

" approved a large-scale defense bill that includes a section to prevent military branches from testing recruits for marijuana as a condition of enlistment has been left intact, despite opposition from the White House."

​

U.S. House Votes To Ban Military From Testing Recruits For Marijuana As A Condition Of Enrollment​

The U.S. House of Representatives has approved a large-scale defense bill that includes a section to prevent military branches from testing recruits for marijuana as a condition of enlistment has been left intact, despite opposition from the White House.


While the House Rules Committee on Tuesday blocked a number of pro- and anti-cannabis amendments from floor consideration, the full chamber’s approval of the underlying bill means the military marijuana screening section, as well as psychedelics report language, is advancing.


The House passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) in a 217-199 vote on Friday.


Because the Rules Committee declined to make in order an amendment that would have eliminated the cannabis testing provision, this language remains intact in the approved legislation:


SEC. 532 PROHIBITION ON CANNABIS TESTING FOR ENLISTMENT OR COMMISSION IN CERTAIN ARMED FORCES.


Subject to subsection (a) of section 504 of chapter 31 of title 10, United States Code, the Secretary of the military department concerned may not require an individual to submit to a test for cannabis as a condition of enlistment of such individual as a member, or the commission of such individual as an officer, of an Armed Force.


The section mirrors a proposed amendment to DOD appropriations legislation last year that was led by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL).


Ahead of the markup on Tuesday, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) put out a statement of administration policy that opposed the NDAA language, asserting that cannabis use is a “military readiness and safety concern.”


“Because Joe Biden was running out of ways to turn off young voters, he decided to oppose any cannabis reform that didn’t enrich big pharma,” Gaetz told Marijuana Moment on Tuesday after the OMB document was posted.


DOD told lawmakers last year that marijuana’s active ingredient delta-9 THC is the most common substance that appears on positive drug tests for active duty military service members. And several military branches have taken steps to loosen cannabis-related restrictions, including issuing waivers for recruits who test positive their first time.


The Rules Committee on Tuesday also rejected proposed amendments to prevent security clearance denials based on past marijuana use and codify that military servicemembers can’t be penalized for using or possessing federally legal hemp products and allow veterans to access state medical marijuana programs and eliminate a VA directive barring the department’s doctors from issuing cannabis recommendations.


While the panel didn’t allow the VA-specific amendment to advance as part of the NDAA, the reform was approved by the House last week as part of appropriations legislation covering Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies (MilConVA).


Meanwhile, the House-approved NDAA report contains several other marijuana-related directives that were included in the proposal as approved by the House Armed Services Committee.


One from Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) added report language for the NDAA that would require DOD to issue a report on how many service members have been discharged due to marijuana.


The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the House Committee on Armed Services and the Senate Committee on Armed Services on the number of servicemembers discharged from service on the sole basis of marijuana use not later than December 1, 2024. The report shall include the total number of servicemembers discharged over the previous ten years, the number discharged by year, and the state or location these service members resided at the time of discharge.


An additional amendment from Rep. Steven Horsford (D-NV) that was adopted by the panel would require a DOD briefing on sentencing for cannabis-related offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.


Briefing on Sentencing of Cannabis-Related Offenses Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice In 2019, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported that some disparities exist in different stages of the military justice process, including at courts-martial. The committee acknowledges and commends the Department for its numerous initiatives to address identified disparities and to reform the Uniform Code of Military Justice, including by implementing sentencing parameters pursuant to section 539E(e) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022. The committee further recognizes that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration has agreed with the Department of Health and Human Services’ recommendation to reschedule Cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act.


To better understand potential disparities in sentencing outcomes for cannabis-related offenses, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretaries of the military services, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than January 31, 2025, on the following:


1) the number of convictions, broken down by service, for cannabis use for the last four fiscal years, disaggregated by time in service, rank/grade, sex, race, and ethnicity;


2) the number of convictions, broken down by service, for cannabis possession for the last four fiscal years, disaggregated by time in service, rank/grade, sex, race, and ethnicity;


3) the number of convictions, broken down by service, for cannabis use and possession, for the last four fiscal years, disaggregated by time in service, rank/grade, sex, race, and ethnicity; and


4) for each of the categories listed above, an assessment of whether any disparities exist based on time in service, rank/grade, sex, race, or ethnicity in the reviewed sentencing of servicemembers, broken down by service.


Mace has also touted a separate amendment that she said “supports states’ rights by incorporating findings from 38 state marijuana programs into research.”


The committee notes that to date, 38 states have implemented state regulatory programs for marijuana and therefore retain a level of knowledge and lessons learned regarding regulations and trends among producers, products, and consumer habits. The committee believes that the Department of Defense program established under Section 723 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 (Public Law 118-31) to study the effectiveness of psychedelic substances and plant-based therapies, including marijuana, in treating post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injuries should incorporate findings and data collected by State-approved marijuana regulatory programs. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than January 31, 2025, on the extent to which the Department is coordinating with States which have regulatory programs for marijuana and incorporating related findings and data collected by State-approved marijuana regulatory programs.


The legislation also includes report language to follow up on provisions in the most recently enacted NDAA that provide funding for DOD-led clinical trials on the therapeutic potential of psychedelics for active duty military service members.


The report language says the committee “wants to ensure the establishment of the program is progressing without impediment,” and calls on DOD to provide Congress with a status update report by January 31, 2025.


Section 723 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 (Public Law 118-31) established a Department of Defense program to study the effectiveness of psychedelic substances and plant-based therapies in treating post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injuries. The committee wants to ensure the establishment of the program is progressing without impediments. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services no later than January 31, 2025, on the following with regards to the progress of the program:


(1) the Department’s process for funding eligible entities;


(2) the Secretary’s selection for lead administrator to carry out the program;


(3) a list and description of the eligible entities that have been selected for the program;


(4) how the Department notified and selected servicemembers to participate in the program;


(5) how many servicemembers have requested participation in the program;


(6) how many servicemembers have been selected for participation in the program;


(7) any issues the Department is encountering establishing the program;


(8) any anticipated delays to implementing the program; and


(9) any other information the Secretary deems relevant.


Rep. Morgan Luttrell (R-TX), a former Navy SEAL with personal experience with psychedelics treatment who championed the underlying amendment, told Marijuana Moment earlier this year that he planned to separately meet with military leadership to collaborate on how to effectively administer the program.


The Senate Armed Services Committee is considering its version of NDAA this week but hasn’t made the text of its proposal publicly available.


Meanwhile, the House Appropriations Committee on Thursday voted to strip marijuana banking protections from a large-scale spending bill.

 

[Baron23]

Well, we have two statements here that don't line up and is the kind of misrepresentation done by news media on both sides of the aisle (when they shouldn't be on any side):

From the title of the article:

"Prohibitionist Group Represented By Former Trump Attorney General"

From the body of the article:

"prohibitionist group represented by a law firm founded by former Attorney General William Barr"

These statements are not equivalent. And by the by, the former general counsel of that notorious right wing organization, Facebook, is also a member of this law firm.

There is no clarity in this article on who exactly in this firm is representing Sabet and SAM.

And....I love it. Fucking Sabet of SAM is spinning himself into the ground in a panic as pretty much nobody actually gives much of shit what he and his group say.

Prohibitionist Group Represented By Former Trump Attorney General Urges DEA To Delay Marijuana Rescheduling Process​

A prohibitionist group represented by a law firm founded by former Attorney General William Barr are asking the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to extend the current public comment period for a marijuana rescheduling proposal, arguing that a delay in the rulemaking process is a matter of “public interest.”


In a request submitted to DEA earlier this month, Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) argued that the 60-day public comment window that opened late last month should be extended by another 30 days, listing four reasons they believe more time is needed to collect feedback.


Notably, the request was submitted on SAM’s behalf by Torridon Law PLLC. That firm was founded by Barr, who led the Justice Department under the Trump administration and who faced criticism after initiating investigations into cannabis industry mergers that were described as improper.

Medical Marijuana Shows Comparable Efficacy to Opioids with Fewer Adverse Events

SAM’s comment to DEA—one of more than 20,000 that have been posted since DEA opened the comment window about a month ago—says DOJ’s proposed rule to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III would be “the most significant relaxation of restrictions on a psychoactive substance in the history” of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).


“It is also a significant reversal of nearly a dozen prior agency decisions rejecting proposals to move marijuana out of Schedule I,” it said. “It is not an overstatement to say that this Proposed Rule may address the most consequential rescheduling decision DEA has ever made. A rule effecting such a sweeping change warrants more than a 60-day comment period for affected stakeholders to gather necessary data to address the Proposed Rule.”



Further, the group said “additional data on the effects that marijuana has on the cognitive development of adolescent users will be particularly important for the DEA’s consideration of the Proposed Rule,” arguing that such information “appears to have been ignored” by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that recommended rescheduling last year following an 11-month scientific review.


“SAM has an interest in providing DEA accurate and up-to-date information on all these issues, but that will take time to compile,” the request says. “Sixty days is not adequate to prepare comprehensive comments addressing all the subject areas in which DEA has asked for additional information.”



The organization also said the rescheduling proposal “raises significant legal questions” because it’s based in part on a “novel test” to determine whether a substance has currently accepted medical use that was “recently invented by HHS and embraced” in a Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel opinion. It also argued that more time is required to consider the legal implications of rescheduling with respect to international treaties to which the U.S. is a party.


SAM officials said at a separate webinar last week that it is weighing “all legal options” to challenge the proposed cannabis move, while encouraging supporters to oppose the pending change.



Finally, SAM asserted in the new comment that “there is no urgency to the rulemaking and DEA should take sufficient time to receive fully considered comments and relevant data.”


“Rushing the comment period will not allow interested parties sufficient time to gather and present the best information available,” it said, adding that earlier this year “DEA granted an extension of time to allow a 120-day comment period on the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking concerning alternatives to destroying narcotics by incineration.”



“If that rule warranted 120 days for comments, one of the most significant rulemakings in the history of the CSA certainly warrants a 30-day extension to allow 90 days for comments,” it says.


Since the government’s rescheduling plan was made public in April, SAM has amplified rumors that DEA officials might oppose the proposed change—rumors that a top Biden administration official appeared to acknowledge this month.


In early May, SAM President Kevin Sabet said he’d heard rumors that DEA Administrator Anne Milgram “did not sign off” on the landmark decision, suggesting that the agency wasn’t on board. As it turned out, Milgram did not put her name on the proposed rescheduling rule, leaving it to Attorney General Merrick Garland to sign the document.



GOP lawmakers in Congress questioned Milgram about the matter during a hearing, but she replied it would be “inappropriate” to comment.


As for what happens next, SAM is holding out hope that DEA could reject the rescheduling recommendation or, alternatively, move marijuana to Schedule II. Sabet pointed to interpretations of international law, for example, that read drug treaties as prohibiting any move outside of Schedules I and II.


While DOJ will take all public comments submitted by July 22 into consideration as it weighs the reform, it said in the notice that one of the topics its especially interested in hearing about is the “unique economic impacts” of the rescheduling proposal given that state-level legalization has created a “multibillion dollar industry” that stands to benefit from possible federal tax relief under the reform.


Indications that DEA might not be on board came alongside the rescheduling move itself, with the proposed rule in the Federal Register noting several times that the agency believes “additional information” needs to be collected via public comment or a possible administrative hearing could influence the final scheduling decision.



“DEA has not yet made a determination as to its views of the appropriate schedule for marijuana,” the document said.


Even before the formal announcement, it had been reported that certain DEA officials had been “at odds” with the Biden administration over the rescheduling push.


Asked about the status of the proposed move of cannabis to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act at a recent event in Sacramento, HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra said his agency made its recommendation based on available science and evidence.


Asked whether there was resistance at DEA, he responded, “Talk to the DEA.”


“Our scientists reviewed the evidence,” Becerra added. “FDA bases its action on the science and the evidence before us. We took action.”

 

[Baron23]

Cannabis and the Second Amendment: A Call for Federal Reform​

Posted June 21, 2024 on Az Central

I use cannabis legally in Arizona for pain relief. Yet the federal government says I cannot purchase or own a firearm.


I got a medical marijuana card in 2016 as a last resort. I was not a pot smoker and never had been.


I had acute hip osteoarthritis. My options were grim. I could either go to a “pain management” clinic, which we all know is code for opioid pill mill, or go another route.


I decided on the latter. Because of my osteoarthritis, I was immediately approved for a MMJ card, which allowed me to legally purchase and consume cannabis for pain relief.


However, because cannabis remains illegal federally, I cannot purchase or own a firearm.


This is outrageous.


I deliberately chose not to risk opioid addiction but instead decided to use a very safe plant medicine. This is a direct violation of my Second Amendment rights.


Who do you think is more dangerous? A 60-year-old wannabe grandma who smokes a bowl of legally acquired weed for health purposes, or some drunk yahoo shooting a gun into the air on the Fourth of July?


Or the mass murderers that have legally acquired their firearms?


It’s beyond time for the federal government to act and fix this unconstitutional bias against MMJ card holders.

Supreme Court Weighs Case Challenging Federal Gun Ban For Marijuana Users, Congressional Researchers Report In Legal Brief​

The legal question over the constitutionality of a federal gun ban for people who use marijuana is now before the U.S. Supreme Court, where justices are expected to decide whether they will hear an appeal of a circuit court ruling that found the restriction violates the Second Amendment.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) noted the pending action in a legal sidebar that was published this month, explaining how three relevant cases are under consideration in the nation’s highest court that could finally settle the issue.

Briefs in one of those cases—United States vs. Daniels—were distributed for a Supreme Court conference this month, where justices were presented with a number of cases that they could choose to hear. The Justice Department had asked the court to hold its petition for a writ of certiorari until it resolved a separate case that justices are actively reviewing because of “overlaps” between the two.

No decision was made in the conference, so it’s unclear if the Supreme Court will ultimately grant the government’s request or not.

The ruling that DOJ is appealing came from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which examined the federal statute known as Section 922(g)(3) that prevents someone who is an “unlawful user” of an illegal drug from buying or possessing firearms. The circuit court found the policy unconstitutional as applied to a man who faced a conviction after admitting to having used cannabis while in possession of a gun.

Multiple courts have taken up the issue, forcing the Justice Department to defend the statute amid a series of challenges across the country. But the Fifth Circuit is currently the highest court to have ruled against the ban, covering jurisdictions in Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas.

A key component of the legal argument against the policy is based on an interpretation of an earlier Supreme Court case, where justices ruled that gun restrictions must be generally consistent with the historical context of the 1791 ratification of the Second Amendment. People challenging the federal statute argued that there’s no appropriate historical analogue, while DOJ has maintained that historical laws depriving guns from certain populations such as the mentally ill and habitually drunk justify its enforcement.

The federal government has now asked the Supreme Court to wait to act on the Daniels case until it decides on a separate issue concerning the constitutionality of a law restricting firearms for people convicted of domestic assault. DOJ says there are legally relevant parallels that could inform the Daniels case.
Congressional researchers gave a summary of the Second Amendment challenges in a new brief this month, laying out the cases before the Supreme Court and briefly describing “considerations for Congress” if lawmakers were to take up the issue.

The Daniels case “has drawn attention because it is one of the few cases holding an existing federal firearm law to be unconstitutional at least as applied and because it could result in Supreme Court involvement,” the CRS report says.

It added that “Section 922(g)(3) has also gained broader public attention because of a recent indictment” against President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, who has been charged with owning a gun while admitting to unlawful use of crack cocaine years ago.

Attorneys for Hunter Biden recently called on the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware to dismiss the case, arguing that prosecutors are applying an unconstitutional statute that would criminalize millions of marijuana consumers acting in compliance with state law if broadly enforced.

Meanwhile, in a separate case in November, the Justice Department told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that historical precedent “comfortably” supports the gun restriction. Cannabis consumers with guns pose a unique danger to society, the Biden administration claimed, in part because they’re “unlikely” to store their weapon properly.

The federal government has repeatedly claimed that historical analogues provide clear support for limiting gun rights for cannabis users. But several federal courts have separately deemed the marijuana-related ban unconstitutional, leading DOJ to appeal in several ongoing cases.

The Justice Department asserted similar points during oral arguments in a separate but related case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in October. That case focuses on the Second Amendment rights of medical cannabis patients in Florida.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma also ruled last year that the ban prohibiting people who use marijuana from possessing firearms is unconstitutional, with the judge stating that the federal government’s justification for upholding the law is “concerning.”

In U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, a judge ruled last April that banning people who use marijuana from possessing firearms is unconstitutional—and it said the same legal principle also applies to the sale and transfer of guns.

In August, meanwhile, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) sent a letter to Arkansas officials saying that the state’s recently enacted law permitting medical cannabis patients to obtain concealed carry gun licenses “creates an unacceptable risk,” and could jeopardize the state’s federally approved alternative firearm licensing policy.

Shortly after Minnesota’s governor signed a legalization bill into law in May, the agency issued a reminder emphasizing that people who use cannabis are barred from possessing and purchases guns and ammunition “until” federal prohibition ends.

In 2020, ATF issued an advisory specifically targeting Michigan that requires gun sellers to conduct federal background checks on all unlicensed gun buyers because it said the state’s cannabis laws had enabled “habitual marijuana users” and other disqualified individuals to obtain firearms illegally.

While people who use cannabis are barred from owning firearms under the statute, a little-notice FBI memo from 2019 that recently surfaced shows that the federal government generally does not consider it a violation of the law for medical cannabis caregivers and growers to have guns.

​

 

[Baron23]

Two things:

1. Who gives a fuck if the DEA is on board or not. They are part of the DOJ which in turn reports to the President in the Executive Branch. Giving the DEA any independent authority over rescheduling or full legalization is like make the fox the guard of the hen house. Of course they will oppose...or at a minimum...drag their feet.

2. "Moore added that the federal marijuana rescheduling move “was a really important step that the Biden administration displayed—because it wasn’t political, it was data-driven.”

This ^^ is complete BS and recent initiatives by the current administration...after over three years of doing nothing and with an election suddenly on the horizon...is nothing but political.

Colorado And Maryland Governors Want Marijuana Rescheduling Finalized ASAP Amid Reports Of DEA Resistance


The governors of Colorado and Maryland say that, as states move forward with marijuana reform, they want the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to finalize the Biden administration’s federal cannabis rescheduling move as quickly as possible.


Amid reports that DEA leadership has pushed back against the Department of Health and Human Services and Justice Department proposal to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) and Maryland Gov. Wes Moore (D) told Marijuana Moment on Friday that, while they can’t speak to the potential internal conflict, they’re urging the administration to move forward expeditiously.


“I don’t think either of us would be the ones to know if there’s some internal matter,” Polis said during the virtual joint event.


But “the sooner this can be completed, the better,” he said.


Moore, who issued a historic mass pardon for over 175,000 marijuana and paraphernalia convictions this week, said he’d “echo” Polis’s call for speediness.


While he hasn’t heard directly about any potential delay in the rescheduling process based on reported DEA opposition, he said that, “from our perspective, I echo that: The quicker the better.”


“Because I know, on the state side, we’re ready to get moving on it,” Moore said.


Both officials during Friday’s event also more broadly commended the Biden administration for moving forward with cannabis rescheduling, though they made clear that this should just be viewed as a positive step in the right direction as they push for broader federal legalization.


“This action from the president is pro-freedom, reduces taxes, helps our economy, improves public safety and supports where over 30 states are with regards to some degree of medical marijuana legalization,” Polis said.


Polis, who has himself granted several rounds of cannabis pardons for thousands of cases, said “governors are really on the front line of cannabis policy,” and so he’s encouraged to see the administrative reform efforts, as well as the work of counterparts like Moore to provide state-level relief.


“But there’s a lot more to be done,” he said, emphasizing the need for Congress to pass bipartisan legislation to protect banks that work with state-legal cannabis businesses, for example.


“Of course, while we applaud President Biden’s work, it is not yet done, and we continue working to move our country and the industry forward,” he said. “Yes, we’re thrilled with the Biden administration and the major action they’re undertaking, and we hope that this finally helps burst the dam of federal action to lead to progress with where 37 states already are with that.”


Moore added that the federal marijuana rescheduling move “was a really important step that the Biden administration displayed—because it wasn’t political, it was data-driven.”


“As we’re moving forward on this issue as a state—and as the federal government continues to move forward on this issue when it comes to the rescheduling of cannabis—we also know that you cannot celebrate the benefits of legalization if you’re not willing to wrestle with the consequences of criminalization,” he said.


Rescheduling is “just the first step. There’s still more to do,” he said. “There’s still more to do on the statewide level. There’s still more to do on the federal level. And while we do applaud the movements that the Biden administration has made on this issue, we just know collectively as a larger country—if we’re listening to our people and we’re following the data—it just shows that there’s more work and more progress that fundamentally needs to be done on this issue.”


When it comes to the DEA’s position on rescheduling, opponents have amplified rumors that agency officials might oppose the proposed change—rumors that a top Biden administration official appeared to acknowledge this month.


In early May, Smart Approaches to Marijuana President Kevin Sabet said he’d heard rumors that DEA Administrator Anne Milgram “did not sign off” on the landmark decision, suggesting that the agency wasn’t on board. As it turned out, Milgram did not put her name on the proposed rescheduling rule, leaving it to Attorney General Merrick Garland to sign the document.


GOP lawmakers in Congress questioned Milgram about the matter during a hearing, but she replied it would be “inappropriate” to comment.


Indications that DEA might not be on board came alongside the rescheduling move itself, with the proposed rule in the Federal Register noting several times that the agency believes “additional information” needs to be collected via public comment or a possible administrative hearing could influence the final scheduling decision.


“DEA has not yet made a determination as to its views of the appropriate schedule for marijuana,” the document said.


Even before the formal announcement, it had been reported that certain DEA officials had been “at odds” with the Biden administration over the rescheduling push.


Asked about the status of the proposed move of cannabis to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act at a recent event in Sacramento, HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra said his agency made its recommendation based on available science and evidence.


Asked whether there was resistance at DEA, he responded, “Talk to the DEA.”


“Our scientists reviewed the evidence,” Becerra added. “FDA bases its action on the science and the evidence before us. We took action.”


Meanwhile, the White House weighed in on the Maryland governor’s pardons on Wednesday. Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said that Biden “commends and welcomes” the clemency, which aligns with his call for state-level action after he issued his own mass pardon for people who’ve committed federal marijuana possession offenses.


Late last month, Biden also discussed his mass marijuana pardons at a rally in Philadelphia, where he finally acknowledged that his clemency actions did not expunge records after he had repeatedly suggested they did.


For his part, Maryland’s governor said he intends to work with lawmakers to facilitate expungements as a follow-up to has pardons.


The proposed rule to federally reschedule marijuana, meanwhile was officially posted last month, kicking off a public comment period that’s expected to elicit a major response from supporters and opponents of cannabis reform. A prohibitionist group is asking the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to extend that comment period by another month.


The White House drug czar, Rahul Gupta, has also discussed the reform move multiple times over the past month, framing it as a “historic” reform that could open the door to cannabis-based drug development. However, he’s also inflated the impact of a Schedule III reclassification, at one point suggesting it would address racial disparities in marijuana enforcement.


The Biden-Harris campaign has also drawn a contrast between the marijuana policy actions of their administration and that of former President Donald Trump, pointing out that DOJ under his administration rescinded federal cannabis enforcement guidance that generally laid out a policy of non-interference with legal marijuana states.

 

[Baron23]

NCAA Votes To Remove Marijuana From Banned Substances List For College Athletes​

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has voted to remove marijuana from its banned substances list for Division I players, effective immediately.
About five months after NCAA’s Division I Council proposed the rule change, the body adopted the policy on Tuesday, emphasizing that cannabis is not a performance enhancing drug and that it should be treated the same way as alcohol.

The reform builds on a 2022 change that increased the allowable THC threshold for college athletes, aligning NCAA’s rules with those of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).

The newly adopted rule, which amends NDAA’s drug testing policies for student sports championships and postseason participation in football, will also be retroactively applied, discontinuing any penalties players are currently facing for a cannabis-related violation.

“The NCAA drug testing program is intended to focus on integrity of competition, and cannabis products do not provide a competitive advantage,” Josh Whitman, chair of the council, said in a press release. “The council’s focus is on policies centered on student-athlete health and well-being rather than punishment for cannabis use.”


“Cannabinoids will be addressed like other non-performance enhancing drugs like alcohol,” NCAA said in a social media post. “NCAA members will focus on harm-reduction strategies problematic cannabis use, centering health of student-athletes.”

This reform follows a preliminary recommendation last June from NCAA’s Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports (CSMAS) that each of the organization’s three governing bodies remove marijuana from the banned substances list. Divisions II and III are yet to vote on the proposal.

Historically, college athletes have been subject to testing during postseason play. Positive tests could mean an entire season of lost eligibility. Officials have said the changes are intended to focus more on problematic use than penalizing players for a single mistake.

In formally recommending the policy shift last September, the NCAA committee said that ending the cannabis ban “acknowledges the ineffectiveness of existing policy (banning, testing and penalizing),” affirms the body’s belief that cannabis is not a “performance-enhancing drug” promotes the “importance of moving toward a harm-reduction strategy.”

“The timing of discussion and adoption of possible legislation is a decision that will be made by each of three NCAA divisional governance structures,” the panel said. “This recommendation is based on extensive study informed by industry and subject matter experts (including doctors, substance misuse experts and membership practitioners).”

Multiple sports organizations have moved to amend their marijuana testing policies for athletes amid the state legalization movement.
For example, the NFL and its players union agreed to end the practice of suspending players over marijuana or other drugs as part of a collective bargaining agreement in 2020.

NFL has committed significant funding to research into whether CBD can serve as an effective opioid alternative, and it’s also explored the therapeutic potential of the non-intoxicating cannabinoid for pain management and neuroprotection from concussions.

The Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) announced in December that it is formally removing marijuana from its newly modified banned substances list for athletes, also building on an earlier reform.

However, ahead of a UFC event in February, a California athletics commission said they could still face penalties under state rules for testing positive for THC over a certain limit, as the state body’s policy is based around WADA guidance.
Nevada sports regulators voted last year to send a proposed regulatory amendment to the governor that would protect athletes from being penalized over using or possessing marijuana in compliance with state law.

While advocates have welcomed these changes, there’s been criticism of WADA over its ongoing cannabis ban. Members of a panel within the agency said in an opinion piece last August that marijuana use by athletes violates the “spirit of sport,” making them unfit role models whose potential impairment could put others at risk.

Advocates strongly urged WADA to enact a reform after U.S. runner Sha’Carri Richardson was suspended from participating in Olympics events due to a positive THC test in 2021.

Following that suspension, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) said that the international rules on marijuana “must change,” the White House and President Joe Biden himself signaled that it was time for new policies and congressional lawmakers amplified that message.

Meanwhile, an NFL player recently sued the league and his former team the Denver Broncos for alleged employment discrimination after he was fined more than half a million dollars for testing positive for THC that he says was caused by his prescribed use of a synthetic cannabinoid.

 

[Baron23]

This article reads as if it was issued by the Biden campaign.

Here is fact for you to consider....Joe Biden has been a rabid anti-drug warrior his entire fucking career, and authored or co-sponsored the most draconian anti-drug laws ever passed in this country resulting in massive increase of prisoners for drug possession, and the only change in his position on this comes....yeah, wait for it...5 months before an election where he is reported to be loosing the votes of younger Americans.

So....you make up your mind. Leadership on MJ issue or pandering for votes?

​

Marijuana ‘Not As Dangerous’ As Previously Thought, Biden Campaign Says As It Promotes Pardons And Rescheduling In New Ads​

The Biden campaign is stepping up its push to draw a contrast between the president’s marijuana policies at those of former President Donald Trump, stressing that cannabis is “not as dangerous as we once believed” on a new campaign page and buying ads promoting his clemency actions.


As the November election approaches, President Joe Biden has increasingly leaned in to the popularity of his mass marijuana pardons and scheduling review that led the Justice Department to recommend moving cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).


A new Biden campaign webpage also highlights those steps, while criticizing Trump and arguing that the former president “made the failed approach [to marijuana] worse.”


“Joe Biden has been clear for a long time that our nation’s marijuana laws are outdated and are failing communities, particularly communities of color,” it says. “When he ran in 2020, Biden promised to fight to ensure that no one is in jail for marijuana possession alone. And since taking office, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have led the most significant federal reform to our nation’s approach to marijuana in history.”

“Donald Trump opposes marijuana reform and, as president, made the failed approach worse,” it says, adding that the Trump administration “threatened federal prosecutions for marijuana in states where cannabis use is legal.”


That appears to be a reference to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s decision to withdraw Obama-era guidance to federal prosecutors that formalized a policy of non-intervention in state cannabis programs. The Biden campaign has repeatedly pointed to that action as an example of the marijuana policy disconnect between the two administrations.

It should be noted, however, that while rescheduling marijuana was among Biden’s 2020 campaign promises, advocates remain frustrated that he’s yet to federally decriminalize cannabis as he also pledged to do.


And while the campaign is criticizing the rescission of the federal marijuana guidance, the Justice Department under Biden has yet to reissue any updated guidance—despite Attorney General Merrick Garland saying in June 2022 that DOJ would be addressing the issue “in the days ahead.”


DOJ’s proposal to reclassify marijuana following a Biden-directed review marks “the biggest potential change in federal drug law in decades,” the campaign says. “The way our justice system has treated marijuana use has harmed individuals, families, and communities for too long. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are leading the charge to reverse long standing injustices and to right historic wrongs.”



The new webpage includes an FAQ that explains the reasoning behind the president’s cannabis clemency efforts, describes the Trump administration’s marijuana record and briefly details what a Schedule III reclassification would mean.


“Trump took no steps whatsoever to reform our country’s approach to marijuana,” the campaign says, while arguing that the decision to rescind the federal guidance empowered prosecutors “to more aggressively enforce federal laws against marijuana consumers and businesses, even in states that have decriminalized its production and sale.”


It’s not clear that Sessions’s rescission of cannabis guidance actually had that effect, but the point stands that its elimination could have theoretically signaled to prosecutors that the Trump administration would support additional enforcement activity.


“Donald Trump has no new ideas for marijuana reform, and you can expect more of the same backward-looking approach if he gets a second term in office,” the campaign says “Reelect Joe Biden to further advance our nation toward a more just future.”

Notably, it also says that research “tells us that marijuana is not as dangerous as we once believed,” which is why the Biden administration is backing a move to reschedule cannabis.


“The process was led by evidence and law and is a measure that criminal justice advocates, members of Congress, and the medical community have sought for years,” it says. “Reclassifying marijuana as a Schedule III drug will remove burdensome long standing barriers to critical research. That could mean more research into the medical benefits of marijuana, including for our veterans and Americans with chronic diseases like cancer.”


In another example of the Biden campaign’s embrace of marijuana reform, it’s recently taken out several digital ads that are promoting the president’s cannabis actions and redirect viewers to the campaign site, according to a search of Google’s ad transparency center.


The ads include ones that say “Weed Is Being Rescheduled” and “Federal Pardons For Possession.”



“Joe believes marijuana laws are outdated and failing communities,” the text of certain ads say.

“Trump Stance On Marijuana – He Thinks Weed Makes You Dumb,” another is titled, an apparent reference to the former president’s claim that cannabis use lowers a person’s IQ.


This comes as the two party presidential frontrunners are set to debate for the first time this election cycle on Thursday, and advocates are hoping to see the candidates pressed on drug policy issues.


How Trump would navigate the issue is less certain, though he’s generally indicated over the past year that he intends to position himself as an anti-drug candidate, proposing extreme policies such as giving the death penalty to people who sell illegal drugs. His record on cannabis specifically is mixed, however, and he’s been known to vacillate on various positions, depending on when he’s asked about the issue.

 

[Baron23]

I'm certainly not panicking. I've expressed many times on this board that there is no way an unelected bureaucracy should be making what is basically criminal law...and I'm talking about the DEA. But, ATF is another one.

Our Congress representatives make $174K/year and for that they goddamn well ought to be the source of any and all laws.

Just my opinion and the original Chevron case was made out of whole cloth and should have been overturned ages ago.

Rescheduling could be at risk after Supreme Court decision​

Panic is setting in over fears rescheduling may not happen after the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron ruling.​

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court threw out the 40-year-old case against Chevron, a move that was celebrated by many in the cannabis industry who thought it would open the door to federal legalization, via lawsuits against the Drug Enforcement Administration.


But now the opposite could happen; existing cannabis operators could be shut down.

Chevron case​

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 40 years ago that federal agencies, specifically the Environmental Protection Agency in the Chevron case, “have the authority to regulate a specific this,” Leah Heise, a partner at Wolf Meyer and a Constellation Advisor at consulting firm Kearney told Green Market Report.


The basis for the ruling was that these agencies deal with issues that are scientifically complex, so they are best equipped to decide the rules. This typically led courts to defer to agency decisions, which made it very difficult to challenge those rules. That decision withstood more than 70 previous attempts to overturn it.


But with the latest ruling, that deferral can be more readily called into question, Heise said.


“If the federal agency is telling you … you can’t put X amount of CBD inside of a product, well, I’m going to sue the agency, and I’m going to tell the court that they don’t know what they’re talking about,” she said. “And the federal agency can no longer rely on the fact that (it is) supposed to be the expert in overseeing these things.”


At first glance, that could look like a great scenario for cannabis, with the outlaw industry able to tell the government to take a hike. Heise said that if she were advising a corporation or was inside of an MSO or another well-funded company, she’d be very carefully looking at every regulation and statute that applied.


“I’m going to see where I can push the boundaries so that I can put more revenue back into my profits and losses,” she said.

No more Schedule III?​

Because of this, Heise thinks Schedule III is off the table.


“I’m concerned that not only will it be reversed, but that it may not happen because the agency is going to have to be far slower and more meditative about how they’re doing this rulemaking,” she said. “An agency’s goal, anytime they’re issuing regulations, they’re always thinking about the challenges that are coming. What’s their budget to enforce against these challenges? So they’re going to try to be as clear as possible, but I think we’re going to see it be very, very slow.”


Josh Schiller of Boies Schiller, who recently fought to reschedule cannabis agreed saying, “Along with Chevron, I think rescheduling is gone. I think it’ll be canceled.”


Schiller expects that after the Department of Justice’s current public comment period on the proposed rescheduling move is over, one or more anti-cannabis groups will file legal challenges to rescheduling in the conservative-friendly Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals – based in Louisiana – and that such challenges will be upheld based on the Chevron ruling.


“They will file cases, and they’ll say a court should decide whether marijuana is capable of being abused and/or is considered medicinal, and they’ll throw out everything the Biden Administration has done to try to get marijuana reclassified. So that effort, which was supposed to help the industry, will be stayed for a while, if not permanently,” Schiller predicted.


The agencies will be looking to Congress for more guidance on the laws instead of the other way around, much like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration asking Congress for assistance regulating CBD. But that’s no slam dunk either, as the FDA has failed to get any direction from lawmakers.


The ripple effect even hits the banks. Heise said, “Can banks rely on the fact that the federal government has said they won’t prosecute them if they work with cannabis? Will they pull out? Can we as an industry rely on a statement from the Department of Justice that they’re not going to prosecute? I mean, it puts every opinion letter, every opinion memo into question.”

Securities law​

The ruling could also curb the power of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Green Market Report has covered numerous examples of fraudulent players taking advantage of cannabis investors. Often retail investors complain that the punishments for the bad actors are too light, and they never recover their lost investments.


With the Supreme Court limiting the agency’s power, cannabis investors will have nowhere to turn if they get ripped off. It could be open season for con artists in the world of cannabis penny stocks.

 

[Baron23]

What a bunch of fucking assholes. I'm guessing they want offend....well, currently 69% of voters??

Now, this was not a subcommittee but the full appropriation committee. However, I'm not panicking yet as a ton of stuff gets thrown on in committee, doesn't make it to the floor, or doesn't make it during reconciliation with the Senate.

But still...what a bunch of fucking assholes.

House Committee Blocks Biden's Marijuana Rescheduling Efforts​

House Appropriations Committee Approves Amendment to Halt DOJ's Cannabis Rescheduling Plan.​

The House Appropriations Committee on Tuesday approved legislation to block the Biden administration’s ongoing efforts to reschedule marijuana and ease restrictions on the drug under federal law. The Republican-led panel approved an amendment to a funding bill that blocks the Department of Justice from acting on the rescheduling plan, which is currently in the midst of a rulemaking process to move cannabis from Schedule I of the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to the less restrictive Schedule III.


In October 2022, President Joseph Biden called on his administration to initiate a review of the federal government’s prohibition of marijuana. Subsequently, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) formally recommended that cannabis be rescheduled under the CSA in August 2023. The recommendation was based on a review of the science behind the medicinal use of cannabis that supported the change to Schedule III, a classification that includes drugs such as Tylenol with codeine and testosterone.


In January, a federal review of cannabis research by HHS determined that marijuana is eligible for less strict classification under federal drug laws. In the review, researchers with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determined that credible evidence shows that marijuana has legitimate medical uses and fits the criteria for rescheduling under the CSA. Four months later, the Drug Enforcement Administration indicated that it would approve the effort to remove marijuana from Schedule I, a category reserved for drugs with no accepted medical value and a high potential for abuse, and place it under Schedule III. A proposed rule to implement the change is now in a 60-day public comment period.

Amendment Blocks Marijuana Rescheduling​

That process could be stopped in its tracks, however, with Tuesday’s approval of a Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) funding bill by the House Appropriations Committee. Under an amendment approved by the committee, the Department of Justice would be blocked from spending federal funds to reschedule or deschedule marijuana under the CSA. Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro introduced an amendment to remove the provisions to block rescheduling and other unrelated sections of the bill, but the committee defeated the proposal by a vote of 20-30, according to a report from cannabis news source Marijuana Moment.


The GOP-led attempt to prevent the reclassification of marijuana would be a blow to the regulated cannabis industry, which, if rescheduling succeeds, would no longer be subject to provisions of the tax code that deny standard business deductions for companies that sell Schedule I substances. David Craig, chief marketing officer of Missouri licensed cannabis company Illicit Gardens, characterized the House Appropriation Committee’s approval of the amendment as “a disappointing move.”


“Blocking cannabis rescheduling is a significant misstep because it hinders vital research and maintains an outdated and punitive approach to a substance that has proven benefits,” Craig writes in an email. “We’ve seen countless states adopt cannabis programs with significant public support, and federal scheduling remains out of sync with that reality. This decision represents a missed opportunity to modernize cannabis policy in a way that aligns with both current scientific understanding and the will of many states and their citizens.

Committee Rejects Bid To Allow State-Legal Recreational Weed​

The committee also rejected an amendment from California Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee, co-chair of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, that would have prohibited the Justice Department from spending its resources to interfere in state or tribal regulated marijuana programs, including those that legalize recreational cannabis.


“This amendment prevents the federal government from imposing its antiquated cannabis regulations on states, and it’s time that the federal government keep up with the times and stop hindering progress,” said Lee.


Rep. David Joyce, a Republican from Ohio who also co-chairs the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, was the only GOP member of the committee to speak in favor of Lee’s amendment.


“We should be empowering states to regulate the product how they see fit, and this amendment would help just do that,” he said. “The disparity between state and federal policies have created a loophole that has allowed illicit operators to thrive and jeopardize public safety. It’s time to close the loophole, make sure products are safe and out of the hands of youth.”


Pennsylvania Rep. Matt Cartwright, the ranking Democrat on the CJS Appropriations Subcommittee, also called on his fellow lawmakers to back Lee’s amendment, saying that the proposal is “about aligning law enforcement efforts between state and federal entities.”


The funding bill retains language to block the Department of Justice from interfering in state-legal medical marijuana programs that has been included in the legislation for a decade. However, the committee added a new provision that permits federal law enforcement agencies to enforce a federal law that increases penalties for distributing marijuana within 1,000 feet of an elementary or vocational school, college, public housing or playground.

 

[Baron23]

I'm sorry, but politicians (of any stripe) don't "evolve" and don't "pivot". They read the polls and and in a heroic act of self-serving they reverse their previously help positions and pretend like it never happened. I wouldn't let a politician on my property unattended. sigh

How Harris Has Evolved on Marijuana​

Like most Americans, Vice President Kamala Harris has evolved on marijuana.​

In 2010, when she was San Francisco’s district attorney, Harris urged voters to reject a proposed ballot initiative to legalize the adult-use marijuana market. At the time, Harris’ position aligned with that of most California voters, 54 percent of whom ultimately decided against the measure.


But not long after, Harris — and most Americans — changed their stance.


In 2016, Californians reversed course and passed Proposition 64 legalizing marijuana statewide. And in 2019, Harris — then California’s junior U.S. senator — sponsored legislation to end the federal prohibition of cannabis. That same year, Gallup pollsters reported that some two-thirds of Americans believed that “the use of marijuana should be legal” — up from 46 percent in 2010.


Today, public support for legalization stands at 70 percent.


As vice president, Harris has repeatedly stated that Americans should not be incarcerated for marijuana use. She’s championed the Biden administration’s efforts to pardon low-level marijuana offenders and to loosen certain federal cannabis restrictions.


And as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, she’s the first major party candidate to have ever called for the plant’s legalization and regulation.


Harris’ trajectory from marijuana legalization skeptic to proponent mirrors that of many Americans. Like most voters, her views on cannabis softened following the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes. As district attorney of San Francisco, Harris pledged not to prosecute people who either used or sold medical cannabis.


“In my own life, I have had loved ones and close friends who relied on medical marijuana to relieve their suffering and even prolong their lives,” she acknowledged. Many Americans had similar experiences — which is why nearly 20 states approved medical cannabis access between 1996 and 2011, almost all by voter initiative.


But it wasn’t until 2012 that voters gave the green light to outright legalization. That year, voters in Colorado and Washington became the first to approve measures regulating the adult-use cannabis market. By 2016, the total number of legal states had risen to nine.


Today, 24 states — home to more than half of the U.S. population — have legalized marijuana.


How has America reacted to this real-world experiment? For Harris, living in a legal state likely influenced her transition from a one-time critic into a staunch advocate. That’s been the case for many others too. In states like California and Colorado, a greater percentage of voters back legalization now than they did when the laws were initially enacted.


Further, no state has ever repealed its marijuana legalization laws. That’s because these policies are working largely as voters and politicians intended — and because they’re preferable to cannabis criminalization.


State-level legalization has led to a drastic reduction in low-level marijuana arrests and prosecutions. It’s significantly disruptedthe illicit marketplace, and it’s led to the creation of over 400,000 full-time jobs. Taxes from regulated cannabis sales have generated over $20 billion in state revenue. And contrary to some critics’ fears, marijuana legalization and regulation has not led to any increase in cannabis use by young people.


But while Americans’ attitudes have shifted over the years, federal marijuana policies have largely remained static.


In Congress, far too many politicians remain wed to the sort of “Reefer Madness” view that most voters have long since abandoned. Like Harris did, they also need to evolve their views on cannabis to more closely align with current scientific and public consensus. Those who refuse to adapt do so at their own political peril.

 

[Baron23]

In a word...or three....FUCK THE DEA. What I don't understand is why they are being asked and not told. They work for the DOJ who works for the President who has made all sorts of noise about rescheduling/decriminalization...well, or did so when he was still looking at trying to get reelected.

IMO, someone higher up in the executive branch needs to put a boot up the DEA's ass. The FDA already find in favor....the Attorney General (yeah, Garland) recommended reschedule. So who gives a fuck what a bunch of drug warriors think about their rice bowl getting smaller.

Well, that's my view.

Cheers

Pot stocks fall as US DEA pushes Cannabis reclassification hearing to December​

DEA Postpones Cannabis Reclassification Hearing, Impacting Market and Industry Outlook.​

The Department of Justice, which oversees the DEA, said Attorney General Merrick Garland recommended cannabis be reclassified as a Schedule three drug instead of Schedule one earlier this year. Schedule one is reserved for drugs with a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use.


Shares of cannabis companies sank on Tuesday after the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) postponed its cannabis reclassification hearing to Dec. 2, after the U.S. presidential election.


The Department of Justice, which oversees the DEA, said Attorney General Merrick Garland recommended cannabis be reclassified as a Schedule three drug instead of Schedule one earlier this year. Schedule one is reserved for drugs with a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use.


Shares of Curaleaf and U.S.-listed shares of Canopy Growth fell over 10%, while Illinois-based Verano Holdings was down 12.9%.


The AdvisorShares Pure US Cannabis ETF dipped 9.1%, having fallen as much as 12% earlier in the session.


Canada-listed Green Thumb Industries, Tilray Brands, and Trulieve Cannabis were down 8.6%, 6% and 5% respectively.


"We believe both candidates are likely to let rescheduling advance, though we have more confidence in Kamala Harris than in Donald Trump," said analysts at TD Cowen in a note.

Analysts also noted that the outcome would heavily depend on Trump's choice for key positions such as Attorney General, the director of the DEA, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, should he win.


The HHS' National Survey on Drug Use and Health for 2023 showed that marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug, with 21.8% of people aged 12 or older, or 61.8 million people, reporting use.


Reclassifying marijuana would represent a first step toward narrowing the wide policy chasm between state and federal cannabis laws.


Medical cannabis is legal in 38 states and various U.S. territories, while recreational use is permitted in 24 states and Washington, D.C.; however, it remains federally illegal.


Until then, "the extended wait for rescheduling decisions could maintain the status quo, leaving businesses to navigate a patchwork of state regulations and ongoing federal ambiguity," said Pete Sahani chief executive officer of the cannabis hardware firm, the Blinc Group.

 

[Baron23]

Will wonders never cease. Of course, I believe that ALL politicians do nothing but pander for votes and will "pivot", "evolve", and "refine" their positions in order to flip-flow and say anything/everything to get another vote. Of course, I do hold pretty much all politicians in contempt and would not allow one on my property unattended so there is that.

Cheers

Trump signals backing for Florida Marijuana legalization​

Trump Signals Support for Marijuana Legalization in Florida, Clashing with DeSantis.​

Donald Trump has signalled that he will vote in favour of legalising marijuana for personal use in his home state of Florida, ahead of a ballot on the issue in November.


The Republican presidential nominee wrote on his Truth Social platform that voters are highly likely to approve the measure "whether people like it or not" and therefore "it should be done correctly".


The former US president's stance puts him at odds with other senior Republican figures, including Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who has argued that legalising recreational cannabis use would "be bad for quality of life".


Medicinal marijuana was made legal in Florida in 2016.


Cannabis for both personal and medical use is legal in 24 US states, according to the Pew Research Centre. A further 14 states have legalised medical marijuana.


Trump said: "Someone should not be a criminal in Florida, when this is legal in so many other states.


"We do not need to ruin lives and waste taxpayer dollars arresting adults with personal amounts of it on them."


The proposal is one of a number of amendments Florida residents will vote on in November at the same time as the US chooses its new president. Trump is running against incumbent vice-president and Democratic Party nominee Kamala Harris.


On legalising marijuana for personal use, Trump said that there would need to be rules in place to "prohibit the use of it in public spaces, so we do not smell marijuana everywhere we go, like we do in many of the Democrat-run cities".


Mr DeSantis has claimed that making cannabis legal for recreational use "would turn Florida into San Francisco or Chicago" - both cities in Democrat-run states.


Marijuana was legalised in Illinois 2020 and between January and July this year, cannabis sales reached more that $1bn (£760m), according to state government statistics.


In California, where personal use was legalised in 2016, marijuana sales reached $4.4bn last year.


However, it is not clear how those figures compare to black market sales of cannabis which, according to some, still thrives.


Legalised growers and sellers have to get permits and pay tax, which can prove costly and risk making their cannabis more expensive.


"The black market is very pervasive and it is definitely larger than the legal market," Bill Jones, the head of enforcement for California's Department of Cannabis Control, told US broadcaster NPR earlier this year.


Trump has already caused some confusion about a different amendment that will be on Florida's ballot in November. On Friday he said he would vote against a measure in Florida that would protect abortion rights, after facing backlash from conservative supporters.


Abortion is banned in Florida after six weeks of pregnancy - the amendment proposes expanding that to 24 weeks. Trump had initially signalled support for the proposal.


His campaign later claimed he had not said how he would vote in ballot, simply that he thought that the six week period was "too short". The following day, Trump, whose Mar-a-Lago estate is in Palm Beach, Florida, said he would be voting "no".

 

[Baron23]

This does not surprise me at all. Biden was a anti-drug warrior his entire career until...well, yeah..he read the polls about cannabis. He never really pushed it and was content to just let it languish in bureaucratic hell and the DEA was certainly not motivated to give up anything currently in their portfolio.

And frankly, I think Schedule III will cause more problems than it solves. I mean, are you going to get a prescription from your Dr and take it to CVS to be filled? Yeah, I didn't so...me either.

Federal Marijuana Policy Change Won't Come Until After Election​

Delayed Decision on Marijuana Reclassification Could Impact 2024 Presidential Election.​

A decision on whether to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous drug in the U.S. will not come until after the November presidential election, a timeline that raises the chances it could be a potent political issue in the closely contested race.


The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration last week set a hearing date to take comment on the proposed historic change in federal drug policy for Dec. 2.


The hearing date means a final decision could well come in the next administration. While it is possible it could precede the end of President Joe Biden's term, issuing it before Inauguration Day "would be pretty expedited," said cannabis lawyer Brian Vicente.


That could put a new spotlight on the presidential candidates' positions on marijuana. Vice President Kamala Harris has backed decriminalizing the drug and said it is "absurd" to have it in the DEA's Schedule I category alongside heroin and LSD. The Democrat nominee's position has shifted over the years; she once oversaw the enforcement of cannabis laws and opposed legalized recreational use for adults in California while running for attorney general in 2010.


Former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, signaled support for a Florida legalization measure Saturday, following earlier comments he increasingly agrees people should not be jailed for the drug now legal in multiple states, "whether that's a good thing or a bad thing."


During his run for president in 2016, Trump said he backed medical marijuana and that pot should be left up to the states. But during his first term, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions lifted an Obama-era policy that kept federal authorities from cracking down on the pot trade in states where the drug is legal.


Trump's campaign did not immediately respond to a query about his position on rescheduling the drug.


The Justice Department proposed reclassifying it in May, saying the change would recognize marijuana's medical uses and acknowledge it has less potential for abuse than some of the nation's most dangerous drugs. The proposal, which would not legalize marijuana for recreational use, came after a call for review from Biden, who has called the change "monumental."


The DEA has said it does not yet have a position on whether to go through with the change, stating in a memo it would keep weighing the issue as the federal rulemaking process plays out.


The new classification would be the most significant shift in U.S. drug policy in 50 years and could be a potent political issue, especially with younger voters. But it faces opposition from groups such as Smart Approaches to Marijuana.


Its president, Kevin Sabet, argues there isn't enough data to move cannabis to the less-dangerous Schedule III category, alongside ketamine and some anabolic steroids. The DEA's move to hold the hearing is "a huge win in our fight to have this decision guided by medical science, not politics," he said in a statement, adding that 18 states' attorneys general are backing his opposition.


The hearing sparked some consternation among pot industry players, though little surprise about the DEA decision to hold one.


"While the result ultimately may be better, I think we're so used to seeing delays that it's just a little disappointing," said Stephen Abraham, chief financial officer at The Blinc Group, supplier of cartridges and other hardware used in pot vapes. "Every time you slow down or hold resources from the legal market, it's to the benefit of the illicit market."


The proposal, which was signed by Attorney General Merrick Garland rather than DEA Administrator Anne Milgram, followed a recommendation from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.


Federal drug policy has lagged behind that of many states in recent years, with 38 having already legalized medical marijuana and 24 legalizing its recreational use.


Lawmakers from both major political parties have pushed for the change as marijuana has become increasingly decriminalized and accepted. A Gallup poll last year found 70% of adults support legalization, the highest level yet recorded by the polling firm and more than double the roughly three in 10 who backed it in 2000.


The marijuana industry has also grown quickly, and state-licensed pot companies are keen on rescheduling partly because it could enable them to take federal business-expense tax deductions that aren't available to enterprises involved in "trafficking" any Schedule I or II drug. For some of Vicente's clients, the change would effectively reduce the tax rate from 75% to 25%.


Some legalization advocates also hope rescheduling could help persuade Congress to pass legislation aimed at opening banks' doors to cannabis companies. Currently, the drug's legal status means many federally regulated banks are reluctant to lend to such businesses, or sometimes even provide checking or other basic services.


Rescheduling could also make it easier to research marijuana, since it's difficult to conduct authorized clinical studies on Schedule I substances. Some medical marijuana patient advocates fear that the discussion has already become deeply politicized and that the focus on rescheduling's potential effect on the industry has shifted attention from the people who could benefit.


"It was our hope that we could finally take the next step and create the national medical cannabis program that we need," said Steph Sherer, founder and president of Americans for Safe Access. The organization advocates for putting cannabis in a drug category all its own and for creating a medical cannabis office within DHS.


The immediate effect of rescheduling on the nation's criminal justice system, though, would likely be more muted, since federal prosecutions for simple possession have been fairly rare in recent years.