All Activity

We create intimate moments where your fantasy meets physical reality. Through trustworthy touch, our Independent Escorts In Delhi guide you toward powerful orgasm and lasting pleasure. Every encounter feels authentic and unforgettable.

We very much live up to your satisfaction, which is our reputation. All companions are carefully selected. Our Escort Service in Dwarka only works with ladies that are dedicated to excellence. With that quality control, you can be sure that you are always treated the best – not sometimes, but always!

Finding the perfect match to accompany you, for dinner or a little event, has gotten so much easier now. Everything is handled with professionalism, making sure your comfort stays the main thing, all evening long. It is no wonder then that many folks count on Vip Escorts Delhi for their social companionship needs, kind of day to day and more.

Managing multiple orders simultaneously by arranging reminder tickets in chronological order is a crucial skill for a good player papa's freezeria.

Really a great addition. I have read this marvelous post. Thanks for sharing information about it. I really like that. Thanks so lot for your convene. koitoto

It was wondering if I could use this write-up on my other website, I will link it back to your website though.Great Thanks. koitoto

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has selected participants for a hearing about the Trump administration’s cannabis rescheduling process that is set to start later this month—and only opponents of the reform have been invited to take part. On Thursday, DEA began notifying parties who had expressed intent to participate that they have been invited to do so, and also sending rejection letters to those who are not being invited. The invited participants are: National Drug & Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA) Tennessee Bureau of Investigation Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) The States of Nebraska, Idaho, Indiana, and Louisiana DUID Victim Voices Kenneth Finn, MD Phillip A. Drum, PharmD All of the organizations, individuals and officials have expressed opposition to marijuana reform, and some have filed litigation in an attempt to block cannabis rescheduling specifically. No reform supporters who expressed intent to participate have been invited. According to several rejection letters Marijuana Moment has seen from cannabis reform supporters, DEA said they do not meet the definition of an “interested person” to participate because they are not “adversely affected or aggrieved by any rule or proposed rule issuable.” In one such letter to the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), DEA Administrator Terrance Cole wrote that the agency “concludes that you have not demonstrated you are adversely affected or aggrieved by the promulgation of a proposed rule transferring marijuana, as listed in 21 CFR 1308.11(d)(23), marijuana extracts, as defined in 21 CFR 1308.11(d)(58), and naturally derived delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinols from schedule I t o schedule III of the CSA, as proposed in the” notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). “Indeed, you state that DPA supports removing marijuana from schedule I and ‘does not oppose’ the transfer of marijuana to schedule III. Further, any conceivable harm that DPA claims it would suffer from the NPRM would exist regardless of whether marijuana is transferred to schedule III or remained in schedule I. In other words, DPA is not adversely affected or aggrieved by the promulgation of the proposed rule to transfer marijuana to schedule III. Because DPA has failed to sufficiently demonstrate that it is adversely affected or aggrieved by the proposed rule itself, DEA concludes that DPA is not an ‘interested person.'” “Accordingly, DEA denies your request to participate in the hearing,” Cole told DPA. Cat Packer, DPA’s director of drug markets and legal regulation, told Marijuana Moment after receiving the notice of denial to participate that “rescheduling would leave federal marijuana criminalization largely intact and falls short of what the public has demanded.” “More than 70 percent of public comments submitted on the proposed rule supported decriminalization, yet many of the patients, consumers, families, small businesses and individuals who have borne the consequences of prohibition—including arrest, incarceration, family separation, housing barriers, immigration consequences, and lost economic opportunity—have been excluded from meaningful participation in these proceedings,” she said. “The people who have carried the burden of marijuana prohibition deserve more than a seat at the table—they should be at the center of the conversation, helping shape the policies that affect their lives, families and communities.” Michael Bronstein, president of the American Trade Association for Cannabis & Hemp (ATACH), similarly said his group is “deeply disappointed that not a single supporter of cannabis rescheduling was selected.” “The upcoming rescheduling hearing will now strictly include prohibitionist parties that oppose President Trump’s position on rescheduling. It will now be solely up to the Drug Enforcement Administration to defend its rule,” he said. SAM President Kevin Sabet, meanwhile, said his prohibitionist group is “grateful for the opportunity to make our case” at the hearing. “Rescheduling marijuana would be the greatest drug policy mistake in a generation,” he argued in a statement. “SAM looks forward to presenting the science, the data, and the public health stakes that demonstrate why rescheduling should be rejected.” The hearing, which will be overseen by a DEA administrative law judge, will begin on June 29 and is set to conclude no later than July 15. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche in April issued an order that immediately reclassified state-licensed medical cannabis, as well as marijuana products approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III. Under a separate order the acting attorning general signed, the upcoming hearing will consider more comprehensively moving marijuana to Schedule III. In order to be considered for participation in the hearing, parties needed to file requests articulating their interest in the proceeding, the objections or issues they wish to be heard on and their position on those issues. “The purpose of the hearing is to ‘receiv[e] factual evidence and expert opinion regarding’ whether marijuana should be transferred to schedule III of the list of controlled substances,” Blanche’s initial notice, filed in April, said. The attorney general will also select an administrative law judge (ALJ) to oversee the proceedings. “The ALJ’s authorities include the power to hold conferences to simplify or determine the issues in the hearing or to consider other matters that may aid in the expeditious disposition of the hearing; require parties to state their position in writing; sign and issue subpoenas to compel the production of documents and materials to the extent necessary to conduct the hearing; examine witnesses and direct witnesses to testify; receive, rule on, exclude, or limit evidence; rule on procedural items; and take any action permitted by the presiding officer under DEA’s hearing procedures and the” Administrative Procedures Act, Blanche wrote. A prior hearing process on the marijuana rescheduling process that was initiated by the Biden administration stalled last year amid litigation over alleged improper communications and witness selection. The current marijuana rescheduling process is being challenged with several lawsuits that have been consolidated by a federal appeals court. Those pieces of litigation against the cannabis reform have been filed by state attorneys general, marijuana legalization opponents and a cannabis-focused biopharmaceutical corporation. Meanwhile, the already-enacted rescheduling of state-licensed medical cannabis is already having broad impacts. The Congressional Research Service published a report on the current cannabis rescheduling move explaining that certified patients who possess medical marijuana from state-licensed dispensaries now have certain protections under Schedule III. “The order appears to authorize end users to possess marijuana for medical use without a CSA-compliant prescription,” it says. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has posted a draft update to a gun purchase form to acknowledge the federally legal status of medical marijuana under rescheduling. The revised section in question notably says that only “use or possession of marijuana for recreational purposes” is federally prohibited, leaving out the prior form’s mention of medical cannabis. The U.S. Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) said they plan to issue new tax guidance for the marijuana industry following rescheduling. The reform will benefit state-licensed marijuana businesses by allowing them to take federal tax deductions they’re currently barred from under an IRS code known as 280E that doesn’t apply to Schedule III substances. Even DEA, which has long opposed cannabis legalization and was accused of stalling the rescheduling process initiative by the Biden administration, has launched a registration process for state-legal marijuana businesses to take advantage of federal benefits that come with the reform. The Department of Transportation, on the other hand, issued guidance saying that use of state-legal medical cannabis is still no excuse for a positive drug test by truck drivers, pilots and other safety-sensitive workers. A congressional committee recently voted to block federal officials from taking further steps to carry out cannabis rescheduling. Read DEA’s rescheduling hearing denial letter to the Drug Policy Alliance below: The post DEA Picks Participants For Marijuana Rescheduling Hearing This Month, And Only Opponents Are Invited appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“We support the emergence of a recreational adult-use market, but not at the cost of small mom-and-pop businesses that started in hemp.” By Barbara Biddle, Cannabis Small Business Association For more than eight years, I have built my business one customer at a time, pouring in my savings, my time and countless sacrifices to create something that supports my family, employs Virginians and strengthens our local economy. This week, I learned that much of it is likely to become illegal on August 15. Virginia’s new marijuana compromise, announced this week, sets recreational sales to begin in July 2027 and eliminates what state leaders call the “25-to-1 hemp loophole.” At first glance, the change looks technical—a new definition of hemp. In reality, it renders roughly 80 percent of the products currently legal in Virginia illegal overnight. For hundreds of small businesses and the thousands of people they employ, that is not a minor amendment. It is an extinction event with a date attached. Here is the part that should give every Virginian pause. Hemp products with more than two milligrams of THC become illegal on August 15, 2026. But the legal retail marijuana market does not open until July 2027. That leaves an eleven-month gap in which there is no legal, regulated place to buy these products at all. Businesses like mine are being shut down nearly a year before the market meant to replace us even exists. For anyone following this for the first time, the 25-to-1 ratio is not a loophole; it is the foundation of Virginia’s legal hemp market. Under current law, retail hemp is capped at two milligrams of total THC per package unless it meets a 25-to-1 ratio of CBD to THC. That ratio is what allows the full-spectrum CBD oils, tinctures and softgels that Virginians rely on for sleep, pain and recovery to exist on the shelf at all. Eliminate it, and a flat two-milligram cap takes its place, with no room for these products. It has been suggested that these products were sold outside a robust regulatory framework. That is not accurate. Since 2023, Virginia hemp has operated under one of the strictest frameworks in the country: mandatory testing, packaging and labeling standards, age restrictions limiting sales to those 21 and older and registration and licensing requirements. We were told there was a path to compliance. We followed it—signing leases, hiring employees and building long-term plans around those rules. Now, after years of operating under them, the rules change again in a way that makes compliance impossible for much of the industry. The economic consequences are staggering. Last year alone, my business contributed more than $30,000 in Virginia sales tax, not counting payroll, income and other state and local taxes. If my experience is even remotely representative of Virginia’s roughly 1,400 licensed hemp retailers, the commonwealth stands to lose more than $42 million a year in sales tax revenue alone. As the state prepares for a future marijuana market, shutting off an existing stream of revenue before the new one operates makes little sense. Why drain the hemp revenue river before the marijuana revenue river has begun to flow? The change is being framed as a matter of consumer safety. But consider what actually happens on August 15 under the new deal reached by Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) and lawmakers. The Virginians who rely on these products—many of them seniors, veterans and parents seeking alternatives to conventional pharmaceuticals—do not simply stop seeking them. With no legal source for eleven months, many will turn to unregulated, out-of-state online sellers. The predictable result is a stronger illicit market and a weaker legal one, which is the opposite of consumer protection. The most troubling consequence is what this does to non-intoxicating wellness products. The 2018 federal Farm Bill was inspired in part by stories like that of Charlotte Figi, the young epilepsy patient whose response to hemp-derived CBD helped reveal the therapeutic potential of non-intoxicating cannabis. Full-spectrum CBD oils, softgels and tinctures have become essential to countless Virginians. They are not being used to get high. They are used to sleep, to manage discomfort, to support recovery—and many of the people buying them have no interest in visiting a secured marijuana dispensary, nor are future dispensaries likely to stock low-margin wellness products when their focus is THC. By regulating products on total package content rather than realistic serving sizes, the new definition effectively bans products that are legal and widely used across the country. Most hemp products contain multiple servings; a standard CBD tincture may contain 15 or more. Applying a strict per-package limit to products designed for daily wellness use is not a regulation. It is prohibition dressed up as policy. Virginia still has time to get the transition right. Our policymakers need to take the time to revisit this definition in a way that makes sense for existing businesses that have invested in regulations the government promised would be put in place to create sustainability. We support the emergence of a recreational adult-use market, but not at the cost of small mom-and-pop businesses that started in hemp. Good policy should solve problems, not create new ones. Right now, a single date on the calendar threatens hundreds of small businesses, millions in tax revenue and the wellness products countless Virginians depend on. I hope our leaders choose to fix it. Barbara Biddle is the owner of District Hemp Botanicals and serves as president of the Cannabis Small Business Association. The post Virginia Just Set An August Deadline That Will Wipe Out Hemp Businesses—Eleven Months Before The Legal Marijuana Market Opens (Op-Ed) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

States have generated more than $28.4 billion in tax revenue from recreational marijuana sales since the first markets launched over a decade ago, a new report from a top pro-legalization advocacy group shows. Some states, it points out, are now generating more revenue from legal cannabis than from alcohol. The Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) analysis also shows that in 2025 alone, adult-use cannabis sales generated more than $4.5 billion for states’ public coffers—the highest-ever total in a single year since the first recreational legalization laws were approved by voters in 2012 and topping 2024’s haul of $4.4 billion in state marijuana tax revenue. Last year, the report says, seven states each collected more than $200 million in adult-use marijuana taxes—with three of those generating more than half a billion dollars in recreational cannabis revenue. California alone collected over $1 billion in marijuana money to fund government programs and services in 2025. “At a time when pressure is building on state budgets, adult-use cannabis taxes are providing relief,” Adam J. Smith, MPP’s executive director, said in a press release. “Legal adult-use markets have become powerful economic engines, creating thousands of new jobs and small business opportunities across the country. While economic growth and state revenues aren’t the primary reasons for legalizing adult-use cannabis, the positive financial impact is undeniable.” “That said, it is important to keep in mind that overtaxing legal cannabis can be self-defeating, driving consumers back to the unregulated, unsafe and untaxed illicit market, which is bad for state budgets and for public health and safety,” he said. “More importantly, ending prohibition has spared hundreds of thousands of individuals the trauma of arrest and incarceration, while data shows teen cannabis use rates have actually decreased in most legal states.” — Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments. Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access. — The new adult-use-focused analysis does not account for additional revenue that states have collected from medical marijuana sales, cannabis business application and licensing fees or income taxes generated by industry workers. It also excludes taxes paid to the federal and municipal governments. Here are the 2025 state-by-state totals: California — $1,049,136,426 Illinois — $552,644,272 Michigan — $507,275,129 Washington — $495,814,160 Massachusetts — $290,599,658 Arizona — $246,722,756 Colorado — $220,884,560 Nevada — $157,913,273 Oregon — $143,680,856 Missouri — $137,437,293 Ohio — $130,636,503 Maryland — $90,396,740 New Jersey — $78,475,863 Montana — $74,570,927 New Mexico — $74,570,927 Maine — $43,407,406 Connecticut — $41,856,403 New York — $173,363,400 Vermont — $29,663,047 Alaska — $25,354,627 Rhode Island — $17,308,477 Delaware — $3,112,599 (sales launched in August 2025) Minnesota — $2,001,026 (estimate, sales launched in September 2025) “With states facing federal cuts and strained budgets, legalizing and taxing cannabis for adults helps lessen the pain. Taxes on a single product cannot solve all of a state’s financial challenges. But it helps tremendously,” the MPP report says. “In several states, cannabis tax revenue brings in more than alcohol taxes. In states with mature markets, adult-use cannabis taxes often amount to 0.25% to 1.5% of the entire state budget.” “States with legal, adult-use cannabis sales have allocated tax revenues to a variety of needs, including their General Funds and specific services and programs. Cannabis taxes have provided funding for Medicaid, education, school construction, housing, roads, early literacy, bullying prevention, behavioral health, alcohol and drug treatment, veterans’ services, conservation, job training, conviction expungement expenses, and reinvestment in communities that have been disproportionately affected by the war on cannabis, among many others.” A separate economic analysis released on Thursday by Vangst and Whitney Economics found that, for the first time since state recreational marijuana markets launched in 2014, the industry saw a year-over-year decline in national revenue from cannabis sales in 2025. The post States Have Generated Over $28 Billion In Recreational Marijuana Tax Revenue Since The First Legalization Laws Took Effect, Report Shows appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously sided with a man who was prosecuted for possessing a gun while being a regular consumer of marijuana, ruling that the government’s actions violate the Second Amendment. The opinion authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch is narrow in scope and does not entirely strike down the federal law known as 922(g)(3) that prohibits people who illegally consume controlled substances from possessing or purchasing firearms. But it does say that as applied to the man in the current case, Ali Danial Hemani, it is unconstitutional to automatically bar people from lawful gun ownership just because they happen to use marijuana occasionally. It also says that the broad ban and the government’s effort to defend it are “at odds with” the Trump administration’s move to federally reschedule cannabis. The government “asks us to conclude that anyone who regularly uses marijuana is categorically violent and dangerous without any further showing,” the opinion says. “All based on little more than its current say-so, one at odds with its own regulatory actions. And affording the government that kind of ‘broad power to designate any group as dangerous and thereby disqualify its members from having a gun’ would risk allowing it to ‘quickly swallow’ the Second Amendment.” The court’s opinion in U.S. vs. Hemani does not address “efforts to ban addicts, or those presently intoxicated, from possessing a firearm,” it says. “We do not address other prophylactic laws Congress might adopt after determining that users of a particular drug pose a special risk of misusing firearms. We do not address 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(1)’s provision disarming individuals convicted of felonies (often including drug-related ones).” “We do not even address whether the government could bring a prosecution under §922(g)(3) accompanied by individualized proof that the defendant’s use of marijuana (or any other drug) renders him a danger to himself or others. Or proof that a certain drug always renders its users dangerous because of its potency or for some other reason. None of those issues is before us and we do not pass on them either way.” “All that is before us is one, if surely ambitious, theory. The government maintains that it may automatically strip Mr. Hemani of his Second Amendment right to possess a firearm because he uses marijuana a few times a week,” Gorsuch wrote. “More than that, because he possessed a gun despite this prohibition, the government insists it may imprison him for up to 15 years and disarm him for life.” “According to the government, none of this turns on how much marijuana Mr. Hemani uses or what effect it has on him. It makes no difference either if he keeps a firearm only in his home for selfdefense, never misuses a gun while intoxicated, and never poses a danger to himself or others as a result of his marijuana use. The only thing the government must show, it says, is that an individual like Mr. Hemani regularly uses any amount of any controlled substance.” The court’s opinion details recent large-scale federal policy changes concerning marijuana, and how they undermine the broad statute seeking to strip cannabis consumers of their Second Amendment rights. “As this case came to us, marijuana was listed on Schedule I—a schedule reserved for drugs with ‘a high potential for abuse’ with ‘no currently accepted medical use.’ But after we heard oral argument, the government moved some marijuana products to Schedule III, a schedule that applies to drugs with a lower potential for dependence and abuse and for which a ‘currently accepted medical use’ exists. Years before that, too, the Department of Justice issued a memorandum directing federal prosecutors nationwide to curtail their enforcement efforts against marijuana users even while all marijuana products remained on Schedule I. Seismic changes followed that memorandum. While marijuana use largely remained unlawful under federal law, the number of federal offenders sentenced for possession of marijuana dwindled. And most States responded by legalizing marijuana use to one degree or another as a matter of state law. As a result, some surveys suggest there now may be more adults in this country who regularly use marijuana than consume alcohol. Whatever one thinks of these developments, the federal government has not just tolerated them; it helped fuel them. All of which leaves it awkwardly positioned to suggest that the millions of Americans who now regularly use marijuana are categorically and unusually dangerous.” “In these circumstances, marijuana use today is like alcohol use at the founding,” the opinion says. “It is widespread and increasingly considered socially acceptable in many quarters. And from a practical standpoint, law enforcement widely tolerates the use of marijuana.” Six other justices signed onto Gorsuch’s majority opinion, and three separate concurring opinions were also issued. The court heard arguments in the case in March, with the Trump administration urging the justices to uphold the ban on gun possession by marijuana users. The federal government has consistently maintained its position that the law appropriately disarms marijuana users who, they claim, are uniquely dangerous. To meet a strict Supreme Court standard for firearm laws, the Department of Justice has also drawn sometimes eyebrow-raising comparisons between cannabis consumers and the mentally ill and habitual drunkards to establish a historical analogue that aligns with the country’s founding era. “Those laws, the government contends, demonstrate a tradition of firearm regulation consistent with its effort to disarm any regular user of any controlled substance without any further showing. But the government’s analogy fails under every measure it asks us to consider,” the court’s opinion issued on Thursday says. “The historical laws on which it relies targeted different kinds of people, did so for different reasons, and operated in different ways. And faced with all these shortcomings in the government’s submission, we cannot say it has carried its conceded burden of showing its prosecution of Mr. Hemani complies with the Second Amendment.” A concurring opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito that was joined by Justice Elena Kagan highlights the “mismatch” between the historical analogues and how marijuana use is increasingly mainstream today. “The mismatch between the Government’s historical analogues and the theory on which the Government defends the constitutionality of §922(g)(3) as applied to respondent is clear. All that we know about respondent’s marijuana use is that he used the drug about every other day. We do not know how much he used, the strength of the marijuana he used, how many times he used it on the days in question, the time of day when he used it, where he used it, or the degree to which this use affected his ability to exercise judgment and perform daily tasks responsibly. As a result, the Government has failed to show that a marijuana user like respondent is incapacitated in a way analogous to the habitual drunkards that the Government’s analogues regulated. Marijuana consumption is increasingly common in this country. Many States have legalized its use and sale, and although possession of the drug remains a federal crime, very few persons are convicted of that offense each year. The Government has largely tolerated the production and sale of marijuana when done in accord with state law, and it has allowed a multi-billion-dollar marijuana business to develop. For its part, Congress has restricted the use of appropriated funds to prevent States from implementing laws that allow the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana, or to prosecute certain parties.” Trump administration Solicitor General D. John Sauer, for his part, told the Supreme Court in a brief that people who use illegal drugs “pose a greater danger” than those who drink alcohol. In a separate filing for the case, the Justice Department also emphasized that “the question presented is the subject of a multi-sided and growing circuit conflict.” In asking the court to take up the dispute, the solicitor general also noted that the defendant is a joint American and Pakistani citizen with alleged ties to Iranian entities hostile to the U.S., putting him on the FBI’s radar. In December, attorneys general for 19 states and Washington, D.C. filed their own brief siding with the federal government in the Hemani case, insisting that justices should maintain the current § 922(g)(3) statute. The governor of Colorado, whose attorney general was among that group, subsequently said he didn’t think his state should have taken that position. Also in December, Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and 21 other prohibitionist groups filed a brief urging justices to uphold the constitutionality of the federal gun ban for people who use cannabis—which they claim is associated with violence and psychosis. SAM decried the ruling on Thursday, with the group’s CEO, Kevin Sabet, saying the court sent the message that “today’s highly potent marijuana and guns go together just fine.” “They do not,” he said. “The research could not be more glaring: combining supercharged marijuana with firearms endangers families, law enforcement, and communities… We are working now with our allies in Congress to strengthen protections against more marijuana-induced violence, consistent with today’s narrow ruling.” On the other side of the debate, civil rights groups—including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), whose attorneys are among those representing Hemani—and gun organizations such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) have argued that the current policy represents a misguided categorical infringement of Second Amendment rights for a population that uses a substance that’s been legalized in a majority of states and is now being partially federally reclassified. “Today’s unanimous 9-0 decision makes it clear that the government cannot make it crime for people to own a gun, which the Supreme Court has held is a fundamental constitutional right, simply because they use marijuana,” Cecillia Wang, legal director at the ACLU, said in a press release about Thursday’s ruling. “With nearly half of Americans reporting marijuana use at some point in their lives, this ruling protects the rights of millions and curbs the government’s ability to impose arbitrary and discriminatory penalties,” she said. “The court has sent a strong message that the government cannot criminalize the conduct of large numbers of people by making categorical and unfounded assumptions about whether they are dangerous.” Meanwhile, the Biden administration was evidently concerned about potential legal liability in federal cases for people convicted of violating gun laws simply by being a cannabis consumer who possessed a firearm, documents obtained by Marijuana Moment show. The previously unpublished 2024 guidance from former President Joe Biden’s Justice Department generally cautioned U.S. attorneys to use discretion in prosecuting federal cannabis cases, particularly for offenses that qualified people for pardons during his term. But one section seems especially relevant as the Supreme Court takes on a case challenging the constitutionality of the current federal gun statute. In interviews with Marijuana Moment, several Republican senators shared their views on the federal ban on gun possession by people who use marijuana—with one saying that if alcohol drinkers can lawfully buy and use firearms, the same standard should apply to cannabis consumers. The ruling comes amid several key federal developments on cannabis and firearms. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in May posted a proposed revised version of Form 4473, which must be filled out by anyone purchasing a gun from a federally licensed firearms dealer, to acknowledge the federally legal status of medical marijuana under the Trump administration’s recent move to reschedule the drug. The change is likely due to the fact that in April, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche issued an order that immediately moved marijuana products regulated by a state medical cannabis license to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), and similarly rescheduled marijuana products that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). A hearing to consider broader cannabis rescheduling is scheduled for this month. Sauer, the solicitor general, sent the justices a letter in April arguing that the Trump administration’s move to federally reschedule marijuana should not impact their decision in the Hemani case. Separately in April, Blanche had suggested that the Trump administration may soon stop aggressively defending 922(g)(3), the federal law that criminalizes gun possession by people who consume marijuana and other illegal drugs. ATF also moved earlier this year to loosen rules that bar people who consume marijuana and other illegal drugs from being able to lawfully purchase and possess guns by making it so fewer people would be affected. The interim final rule from ATF, which is currently open for public comment through June 30, seeks to update the definition of “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” under an existing policy that has been interpreted to deny Second Amendment rights to people who have used illegal substances a single time within the past year. The post Supreme Court Upholds Marijuana Users’ Gun Rights, Rejecting Trump DOJ Arguments In Major Second Amendment Case appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Officials with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) have begun conducting on-site inspections at marijuana businesses that have registered for federal protections in line with the Trump administration’s cannabis rescheduling process. The Mississippi Medical Marijuana Association (3MA) told Marijuana Moment that two of its members were visited by federal officials last week after they filled out a DEA registration form for medical marijuana dispensaries. “They were told that they were among the first in the country to be visited,” Henry Crisler, director of 3MA, said. “Both dispensaries were visited by 5-6 representatives, and the general tone was collaborative/inquisitive.” “It seems that the DEA is taking a very slow/curious approach to the entire deal,” he said. “They had a lot of questions regarding general practices.” DEA agents spent about six hours at High Street Dispensary in Jackson, Mississippi, owner David Fowler said. The officials were “very cordial” and “did not come in overbearing,” he told Marijuana Moment. “I’m not threatened. It’s just another set of eyes and ears, except it’s at the federal level—really not different than the state side of it.” Fowler said he gave the agents a full tour of his facility, and that they had a lot of questions for him—such as why the dispensary stays open so late on certain days and why he stocks such a wide variety of different products for patients to choose from. He described the DEA officials as “new to this whole process too,” saying they had an attitude of “we’re gonna work on it together.” “Overall I think as a business it’s going to be very beneficial for us to be able to get the tax breaks that we need to be successful, just like any other business,” Fowler said, referring to the fact that Schedule III status will allow the operation to deduct expenses from its taxes that it cannot take advantage of under Schedule I status. Legally Rooted in Meridian also received a visit from DEA, according to 3MA. “They requested a good bit of documentation from both dispensaries,” Crisler said. “They did not provide either with a comprehensive list, but instead made requests during the visit for different documents.” 3MA compiled a list of some of the documentation that DEA is requesting from the businesses that were visited and provided it to Marijuana Moment: • Documentation on any license transfers/ownership changes since the license was issued • Any communication to/from regulators regarding fines, violations, etc. • List of all owners of the license, their contact information, SSN, and any other businesses that the owners have interest in, regardless of medical marijuana affiliation • Narrative of the business history (how the business was started, what motivated owners to start the business) • List of ALL products in inventory (must provide a complete list of inventory to DEA every 2 years) • List of all vendors that dispensary purchases from • Description of ordering process • Narrative of how the dispensary determines what products to buy • Narrative of the patient dispensary process (intake, purchasing, tracking) • METRC purchase history • Narrative of how sales records are stored • Training documents • Documentation of all employee records • Complete security plan, including the names/version of hardware and software used within the dispensary • A sign must be displayed outside of the dispensary stating that the facility is under 24 hour surveillance Marijuana Moment reached out to DEA to find out more about how many inspections the agency has carried out so far, and which states those actions have occurred in, but a representative was not immediately available. The agency launched its initial registration form for dispensaries in April, days after Acting Attorney General Blanche issued an order immediately moving marijuana products regulated by a state medical cannabis license from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III, along with marijuana products that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). A hearing starting later this month will consider broader marijuana rescheduling. DEA also said it will soon be rolling out new forms for additional types of state-licensed medical marijuana businesses beyond dispensaries, such as manufacturers, distributors and laboratories. The currently available registration form for state-licensed medical marijuana dispensaries asks for information about their processes for storage, ordering, dispensing, inventory, maintenance of records and other aspects of their businesses. The application asks about specific details about security measures such as vaults, safes, secure storage rooms, access controls, alarm systems and on-site security personnel. Applicants can choose whether they are requesting to handle marijuana, marijuana extracts or naturally derived delta-9 THC. While only medical marijuana is currently being moved to Schedule III, the application also asks potential registrants whether their firms handle or dispense recreational marijuana. The DEA application also asks businesses to submit information about their state cannabis licenses and to answer questions about criminal and disciplinary histories. It also asks: “Has anyone who will be involved in the ownership or operation of the firm previously manufactured, distributed, and/or dispensed any controlled substance without a DEA registration authorizing such activity?” Presumably, every currently operational state-legal cannabis business has key personnel who have done so, since medical marijuana was, until recently, a Schedule I controlled substance that DEA did not broadly authorize manufacturing, distribution and dispensation of. Applicants must additionally list suppliers from which they intend to procure marijuana, and to disclose whether they anticipate repackaging or relabeling cannabis products. They also need to provide lists of individuals with the business that are anticipated to have “access to controlled substances,” including their dates of birth, social security numbers, criminal histories related to drugs. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) said they plan to issue new tax guidance for the marijuana industry following the rescheduling announcement. Rescheduling will benefit state-licensed marijuana businesses by allowing them to take federal tax deductions they’re currently barred from under an IRS code known as 280E that doesn’t apply to Schedule III substances. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) also recently posted a draft update to gun purchase form to acknowledge the federally legal status of medical marijuana under rescheduling. The Congressional Research Service published a report on the marijuana rescheduling move’s scope and limitations. The post DEA Begins On-Site Inspections At Marijuana Businesses That Applied For Federal Protections Under Trump’s Rescheduling Move appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

For the first time since state recreational marijuana markets launched in 2014, the industry saw a year-over-year decline in national revenue from cannabis sales in 2025, according to a new economic report. But that trend could soon reverse as state laws evolve, businesses adapt and federal rescheduling potentially creates new opportunities. In 2025, however, the U.S. Cannabis Jobs Report from Vangst and Whitney Economics found that the market contracted—with $29.1 billion in marijuana sales nationally, a lower total than the prior year even as more states enacted legalization. As the industry has maturated, price compression drove down wholesale prices, while oversupply persisted. That might have been welcome news for consumers who generally had to spend less on cannabis, but it put a “squeeze on operators absorbing rising costs for fuel, utilities and services,” the analysis found. “In-store checkout data indicates that the number of items in a consumer’s basket, in most states, remained about the same or slightly increased over the past year,” the report says. “At the same time the transaction value—the total cost of goods in the basket—remained steady or decreased.” Meanwhile, cannabis sector jobs declined modestly by 2.7 percent last year, according to the report. But as of early 2026, the marijuana industry employed 412,500 U.S. workers. Despite the broader job decline in 2025, six state cannabis industries did have job growth in the double digits. That includes more recently opened markets such as New York, which added 16,160 jobs last year, reaching 28,660. New York is “now the nation’s third-largest cannabis employer—driven by new retail licenses and stepped-up enforcement against unlicensed shops,” the report found. Additionally, Maryland’s marijuana industry jobs grew by more than 3,500, while Ohio saw nearly 2,600 new cannabis workers last year. That helped to offset losses in states like California and Michigan that have older markets that have seen growing pains. Regardless of the job losses in California, the state still remained the top marijuana employer in the U.S., with 57,500 workers, the report says. “Nearly all of 2025’s job losses came from mature or near-mature markets. Revenue growth rates have slowed,” the report said. “Most of their consumer participation has been captured. Illinois was particularly impacted by high sales taxes that pushed consumers and jobs—out of the legal market or led them to purchase in adjacent states.” “We expect labor demand to continue its decline in the cultivation sector, as state regulators tighten licenses and shrink harvest capacity to bring supply and demand into balance. At the same time, we forecast a rise in demand for skilled workers in the manufacturing sector, as processed products continue to gain favor among consumers. Retail staff demand will remain strong and steady. We expect most retailers to maintain a steady overall headcount while continually hiring in response to internal employee churn.” Whitney Economics said its analysis indicates that there will be a return to revenue growth in 2026 as labor demand shifts from cultivation to manufacturing, while retail hiring is expected to remain stable. The report also notes the possibility that the Trump administration’s move to federally reschedule medical marijuana—and possibly cannabis more broadly through a hearing that’s set to begin this month—could further impact market trends, and it projects that the U.S. marijuana industry will generate $30.5 billion in revenue this year, rising to $33 billion in 2027 and $43.3 billion by 2030. However, the authors made clear that it’s “too early to tell” how exactly federal reform will influence economic conditions for the industry. Of course, rescheduling could help marijuana businesses with their bottom lines as far as tax relief is concerned, as businesses marketing Schedule III drugs are able to claim federal tax deductions that have been unavailable to them under an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) code known as 280E. “Ask five cannabis lawyers to predict the fallout and you’re likely to get five very different answers. Over the past decade we’ve learned through hard experience that rules and regulations are paramount,” the economic analysis said. “A state can vote to legalize adult use, but the size of a market and its rates of expansion are entirely dependent on the regulatory framework established by state officials.” “We expect a similar dynamic with regard to Schedule III,” it said. “It will take months if not years for federal regulators to establish rules around Schedule III cannabis, and more time after that for state regulators to create their own rules that fit with, or work around, the new federal situation.” Karson Humiston, CEO of Vangst, said in a press release that “behind every one of these 412,500 jobs is a real person building a career in cannabis.” “As the market matures, operators can’t afford to over-hire or guess on comp anymore—this data gives them the benchmarks to hire smart and build teams that last,” she said. Beau Whitney, chief economist of Whitney Economics, echoed that point and said “data and insights are critical for operators, investors and policy makers to leverage in order to make informed decisions.” “Knowing where the market is headed will enable businesses to not only know their bottom line, but also take proactive steps to remain ahead of the curve and position themselves for future successes,” he said. The year 2025 may have been the first time that revenue dropped nationally in the marijuana market post-legalization launch, but Vangst and Whitney Economics separately reported on job losses in the industry in last year’s annual cannabis industry report. Jobs in the U.S. legal marijuana industry fell roughly 3.4 percent percent between 2023 and 2024, the analysis found. “That marked the largest nationwide downturn in cannabis employment since the project began tracking full-time equivalent jobs in the sector in 2017. The post Legal Marijuana Revenue Declined For The First Time In 2025, But Rescheduling Could Reverse The Trend, Industry Analysis Finds appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

It is the kind of information I have been trying to find. Thank you for writing this information. It has proved utmost beneficial for me. mpo800 link Your blog is too much amazing. I have found with ease what I was looking. Moreover, the content quality is awesome. Thanks for the nudge! toto slot I wish more authors of this type of content would take the time you did to research and write so well. I am very impressed with your vision and insight. slot gacor Awesome article! I want people to know just how good this information is in your article. It’s interesting, compelling content. Your views are much like my own concerning this subject. data keluaran sgp Friend, this web site might be fabolous, i just like it. statistik togel sgp terbaru

We’ve created a “spontaneous discount” for bookings made within the next hour. Our Call Girls Near The Acura Bmk Hotel Gurugram rewards impulsiveness. Desire struck? Don’t overthink it. Book now, save money, and have a companion at your door before you change your mind.

This particular is usually apparently essential and moreover outstanding truth along with for sure fair-minded and moreover admittedly useful My business is looking to find in advance designed for this specific useful stuffs… koitoto

SC GOP gov candidates on medical marijuana; Study: Legal medical cannabis reduces worker absences; IL market concentration report Subscribe to receive Marijuana Moment’s newsletter in your inbox every weekday morning. It’s the best way to make sure you know which cannabis stories are shaping the day. Get our daily newsletter. Email address: Leave this field empty if you're human: Your support makes Marijuana Moment possible… Free to read (but not free to produce)! We’re proud of our newsletter and the reporting we publish at Marijuana Moment, and we’re happy to provide it for free. But it takes a lot of work and resources to make this happen. If you value Marijuana Moment, invest in our success on Patreon so we can expand our coverage and more readers can benefit: https://www.patreon.com/marijuanamoment / TOP THINGS TO KNOW South Carolina Republican gubernatorial candidates said they are open to signing a bill to legalize medical cannabis, with one contender during a debate citing the Trump administration’s move to federally reschedule marijuana. The National Restaurant Association is calling on Congress to delay the federal recriminalization of hemp THC beverages and replace it with a regulatory framework that “ensures consumer safety while meeting growing market demand” for the products as an alternative to alcohol. A new study found a “statistically significant and quantitatively meaningful effect of medical cannabis laws in the United States on reducing health-related workplace absenteeism”—with the effects “concentrated in occupations and industries in which chronic pain, physical strain, and job-related stress are plausibly important determinants of missed work.” “Medical cannabis laws appear to reduce sickness absence in settings where therapeutic use is likely to be most relevant.. Our results are consistent with a therapeutic channel through which medical cannabis access improves symptom management and reduces sickness absence.” Hedy Yang of the Parabola Center for Law and Policy authored a Marijuana Moment op-ed about a new report exposing a “corporate takeover” in Illinois’s cannabis market that puts most profits in the hands of a few companies despite the “promise of equity and opportunity.” “Specific policy choices produced this concentration. Illinois engineered the conditions, and the market followed.” The Michigan Senate Regulatory Affairs Committee held a hearing on a bill to set a cap on marijuana business licenses—including new provisions to create barriers to obtaining a license for operators with outstanding tax debts. / FEDERAL The Department of Justice is asking a federal court to halt Evanston, Illinois’s marijuana revenue-funded reparations program for Black residents. The Drug Enforcement Administration Museum posted a video about a refractometer in its collection. / STATES Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) discussed negotiations to craft a compromise on legislation to legalize recreational marijuana sales. Florida lawmakers sent Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) a budget bill containing a provision to block medical cannabis marketing restrictions. The North Carolina Supreme Court is being asked to hold new oral arguments in cases concerning the ability of police to conduct searches based on the smell of marijuana. Maine regulators issued an advisory about medical cannabis vapes with unsafe levels of pesticides. Maryland’s comptroller reported that the state collected $26 million in adult-use cannabis sales tax revenue in the first quarter of the year. Massachusetts regulators posted data about cannabis delivery services. Michigan regulators are conducting a survey about cannabis resources on their website. California regulators sent updates on various cannabis issues. — Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments. Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access. — / LOCAL The Missoula, Montana City Council voted to extend a moratorium on new marijuana dispensary licenses. / INTERNATIONAL Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer published an analysis of cost savings from a proposal to lower the maximum reimbursement rate for medical cannabis for military veterans. / SCIENCE & HEALTH A study of military veterans found that “decreased cannabis use was associated with worsening PTSD symptoms, reduced quality of life, and decreased satisfaction with concentration” and that “greater cannabis consumption was positively associated with better mental health outcomes.” A review concluded that psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy “shows promise for reducing anxiety across primary diagnoses.” / ADVOCACY, OPINION & ANALYSIS Prohibitionist organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana launched an online “Coin-Operated Drug Policy Machine” game that it says tracks how “marijuana, tobacco, and gambling interests flowed to Trump-aligned PACs.” / BUSINESS Glass House Brands Inc. segregated its dual-use marijuana business from its medical cannabis business and applied to trade on the New York Stock Exchange. High Tide Inc. secured credit approval for a loan agreement in respect of new senior secured credit facilities in the principal amount of C$40 million. Make sure to subscribe to get Marijuana Moment’s daily dispatch in your inbox. Get our daily newsletter. Email address: Leave this field empty if you're human: The post Restaurant lobby asks Congress to stop hemp THC drink ban (Newsletter: June 18, 2026) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Very efficiently written information. It will be beneficial to anybody who utilizes it, including me. Keep up the good work. For sure i will check out more posts. This site seems to get a good amount of visitors. แทงบอล

It’s inspiring to see someone like Chiara Juster dedicating so much time and expertise to advocating for plant medicine and supporting the community. Her legal work sounds incredibly impactful, especially in such a rapidly evolving space. Stories like this remind me how important it is to build supportive networks—kind of like how communities such as Football Bros bring people together around shared passions.

The idea thinks wonderful you just read this sort of helpful along with exclusive content on the internet sites. Mystic Fortune Deluxe Certainly great, remarkable, fact-filled tips these. Ones own content articles Be required to fail, thinking that obviously is true these on top of that. One normally generate an intriguing browse. On earth do you enlighten So i'm shocked?: )#) Compete the great articles and reviews. bandar bola It again has the opinion fantastic to study many of these instructive not to mention specific content pieces within your ınternet sites. situs slot Pleasant write-up, it is an incredibly trendy blog site that you've got in this article, sustain the favorable do the job, will likely be returning. agen bola Pleasant write-up, it is an incredibly trendy blog site that you've got in this article, sustain the favorable do the job, will likely be returning. slot online

“We are doing our best to create the right regulatory scheme to be able to adequately enforce the market.” By Ben Solis, Michigan Advance The Michigan Senate is refocusing its marijuana industry license cap legislation to include new barriers to obtaining a license for growers, processors or dispensary operators with outstanding industry-related tax debt—a move that would help shore up the industry as it deals with a new 24 percent wholesale tax. The Michigan Senate Regulatory Affairs Committee on Wednesday heard a second round of testimony on recent changes to Senate Bill 597, a bill proposing new caps on state marijuana industry licenses. The hearing comes nearly a year after the bill was introduced and was the subject of a first hearing in October 2025. Sponsored by Sen. Sam Singh (D-East Lansing), SB 597 would cap licenses for marijuana retailers and wholesalers to one license per 10,000 residents in a municipality beginning January 1, 2026. The move would be similar to how the state regulates liquor sales, Singh said last year. SB 597 is also part of a larger package. Senate Bills 599–602 aim to create a regulatory framework for consumable hemp products in Michigan. That portion was mainly sponsored by Sen. Dayna Polehanki (D-Livonia), and was introduced as a way to regulate intoxicating products made from hemp, including Delta-8 and other synthesized cannabinoids, which are sold in Michigan gas stations, convenience stores and online marketplaces. Those pieces were advanced out of the Democratic-controlled Senate late last year, and now sit in the GOP-led House. The license cap piece is still being worked out by the Senate. Singh’s testimony on Wednesday served to refresh the committee’s memory on the legislation, and to go over the details of the newly adopted language of the bill. One of the biggest changes requires licensees to have paid all state taxes when seeking another license. That would require a potential licensee to pay back the base tax owed, fees and tax penalties. Singh said the change would align the marijuana industry with the way liquor licenses are controlled and regulated in Michigan. The senator said that one issue currently facing the Cannabis Regulatory Agency is that it has no ability to deny an applicant for a new license if that applicant held a previous license, but closed it while still owing various state industry taxes, including a required excise tax. Under the current regulatory framework, a licensee could potentially close their existing license and that tax debt wouldn’t follow them as they seek a new license—with the CRA lacking a mechanism to halt that process due to the outstanding tax owed. Singh said that was more important than ever considering how the Legislature added a new 24 percent wholesale tax into its 2025-26 budget deal. The Legislature implemented the tax with an estimated $420 million annually for road funding. The industry is currently fighting that tax in court, as its stakeholders argue the tax will generate less revenue than projected from the wholesale marijuana tax. Recent reporting indicates the industry’s struggles have been further exacerbated with tax revenues falling short of expectations, according to The Gander. “Now that we have a 24 percent wholesale tax, I could see this becoming more and more of an issue,” Singh said. “If we want to make sure that that is a stable revenue, which again, we might be a little bit low on that revenue to begin with, we need to make sure that these protections are there.” The updated language has a provision to put a moratorium on new grower licenses, but allows current growers to build out and get an additional license to expand. Singh said this was also done for market stabilization. Another change addresses product returns. “We heard from the wholesale community that currently, right now, within law, there is not a policy on how you return product,” Singh said. “What we’ve been hearing from wholesalers is that some people are returning product weeks upon weeks, and even months, after they have received it. So they’ve asked us to find a way to sort of deal with the return product. What our bill basically does is that you have up to three days to return the product, and it has to be in its original wrappings and original containers.” The committee did not take further action on the bill. Following the hearing, Michigan Advance asked Singh if the changes were an admittance that the state’s new wholesale tax wasn’t creating the kind of revenue the Senate and House had hoped for. Singh said it was not a reaction to the ongoing issues with the tax. “We’ve been working on this, these sets of issues, since April of last year. When you have an initiative that is passed by the voters, there’s oftentimes things that they never thought about, especially on the regulatory side, the enforcement side,” Singh said. “We are doing our best to create the right regulatory scheme to be able to adequately enforce the market, ensure that the product is safe for those who are going to use the product, but at the same time make sure that everyone’s paying their taxes.” As to whether the bill would help make sure more licensees are paying the appropriate tax, Singh said the Legislature, the state and its marijuana industry counterparts will have to wait and see. “I always share my personal concerns that that tax was probably higher than it should have been. I think there could have been a combination, an increase on the retail side with the excise tax, and then maybe a smaller wholesale tax,” Singh said. “But at this point in time, I think it’s premature to gauge where we’re going to be at. I think after a couple more quarters, we’ll get a strong sense of what that revenue is going to look like as we go forward.” This story was first published by Michigan Advance. The post Michigan Lawmakers Take Up Bill To Cap Marijuana Business Licenses As Industry Reels From Tax Increase appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“On Illinois dispensary shelves, a crowd of brands hides a shrinking set of owners, and the state’s rules are speeding the squeeze.” By Hedy Yang, Parabola Center for Law and Policy Illinois built its adult-use cannabis market on a promise of equity and opportunity. Six years in, 264 brands compete on dispensary shelves across the state. But those brands answer to far fewer owners, and a few incumbents capture nearly 79 cents of every dollar in statewide revenue. For a new report, Parabola Center analyzed 16 quarters of Headset retail data (2022–2025), mapping every active brand in Illinois to the company that controls it. Where ownership was ambiguous, we credited the smaller operator, so if anything these figures understate concentration. Specific policy choices produced this concentration. Illinois engineered the conditions, and the market followed. When adult-use sales began in 2020, only Illinois’s existing medical cultivation centers could supply the market. Craft growers faced years of administrative delays, handing incumbents a roughly two-year head start that hardened into a lasting advantage. The market only looks like it’s diversifying. The number of active brands has climbed steadily, but those brands belong to fewer and fewer owners. Active parent companies peaked at 91 in early 2025 and fell to 79 by year’s end. This is the “illusion of choice” that runs through many U.S. consumer markets, alcohol included. What looks like a wave of independent brands is mostly incumbents extending their reach, their interests aligned rather than opposed. In Q4 2025, MSOs (multi-state operators, vertically integrated firms spanning cultivation, processing, and retail) sold 42 percent of units while capturing 69 percent of statewide revenue. Independent operators (Illinois craft growers and small brands) sold 27 percent of units but took in only 8.1 percent of revenue. This gap is structural, written into the licensing rules. Illinois offers no standalone extraction license. The right to turn raw cannabis into concentrate belongs to the state’s incumbent cultivation centers and to craft growers, whose canopy is capped at 14,000 square feet against the 210,000 a cultivation center can run. Infusers, the one manufacturing license open to most newcomers, cannot extract at all and must buy concentrate from the same incumbents they compete with. That is how edibles, concentrates, and cartridges end up controlled at the source. Of 89 craft grower licenses issued, only 21 are operating. Together, at their legal maximum, those 21 are permitted less canopy than one and a half cultivation centers. The same imbalance shapes the flower market. Wholesale flower is a commodity, and prices have fallen nearly 40 percent since 2022. MSOs absorb this drop through their margins on concentrates and vapes. Independents are left effectively locked into flower. And it may get worse. Concentration is rising again. The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, the standard measure of market concentration, fell year over year for 10 straight quarters. It hit its low in late 2024 and has since risen, posting its first year-over-year increase in Q3 2025. The four largest companies controlled 45 percent of the market at that low point; a year later they controlled 47 percent. Q4 2025 was the first quarter on record with more brands leaving than entering. Some of this is an ordinary shakeout after oversupply. But the pain need not fall so unevenly. It does because independents are penned into flower, the category that oversupply hit hardest, while license rules block any move elsewhere. The retail figures understate the problem. The real chokepoint sits in cultivation and extraction capacity, controlled by a few incumbents and invisible in any brand count. Parabola’s findings echo the state’s own Adult-Use Cannabis Industry Disparity Study from July 2024. The state promoted the study as proof Illinois has the most diverse cannabis industry in the country, and on license ownership, that may have been true at the time. Minority- and women-owned businesses hold most dispensary, craft grower and infuser licenses. But owning a license is not the same as capturing value. The same study found minority- and women-owned dispensaries earned just 12.5 percent of revenue while holding 59 percent of licenses. It flagged thin financing for equity businesses and weak data collection, and it urged the state to consolidate its fragmented oversight. This corporate takeover was not inevitable. Lawmakers built it one choice at a time, each tilting toward the largest operators, which means the same lawmakers can level the field. Our report lays out how. The state must do three things. First, create a standalone extraction license and lift the canopy cap on craft growers, so independents can make high-margin concentrates and vapes instead of buying them from competitors. Second, consolidate regulatory oversight into a single agency, so fragmented authority stops favoring large incumbents. Third, mandate parent-company disclosure on product labels, so brand diversity can no longer hide ownership. Consumers and independent operators have already paid for Illinois’s years of inaction. With these steps, Illinois can reverse course and finally build the diverse, competitive market its own equity goals were always meant to deliver. Hedy Yang is an Economic Research Fellow at Parabola Center for Law and Policy, where she researches corporate concentration in cannabis markets. She has previously studied antitrust policy and corporate power at the American Economic Liberties Project. The post How Illinois Marijuana Rules Built A Marketplace Controlled By A Few, Despite Promises Of Equity And Opportunity (Op-Ed) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

An organization that represents the restaurant industry is calling on Congress to delay the federal recriminalization of hemp THC beverages that is scheduled to take effect later this year and replace it with a regulatory framework that “ensures consumer safety while meeting growing market demand” for the products as an alternative to alcohol. The National Restaurant Association sent a letter to leadership in the Senate and House of Representatives outlining its support for keeping hemp THC beverages legal with “durable” federal regulations that include age verification, quality control, labeling requirements and impairment standards while also allowing states and localities to set tailored rules for their markets—”similar to that of alcoholic beverages.” Sean Kennedy, chief advocacy officer for the organization, said in a press release that “consumers have made it clear that they want hemp-derived THC beverages.” “The only question is whether Washington will create a way they can enjoy them safely or if they will allow a thriving market supporting small business owners to disappear because they wouldn’t create a sensible regulatory framework,” he said. The restaurant association cited internal research showing that 5 percent of restaurants that serve alcohol currently also offer hemp drinks, and that 26 percent of all restaurants are interested in offering them under a regulatory framework, which it said represents a potential market of $1.6 billion annually. “Consumer demand for THC beverages is driven by a shift in drinking habits, particularly among younger diners whose lifestyles are diverging from traditional beverage alcohol,” Kennedy said. “For operators—especially those running high-volume beverage venues—these products offer an alternative for guests who want a social drinking experience without alcohol.” The restaurant group is asking Congress to delay the ban for two years, which it says would “provide the predictability operators need, particularly multi-unit and franchised brands navigating varied state approaches, while the existing state-regulated market for low-dose products continues and Congress develops a national framework.” “The restaurant industry’s highest priority is the safety of our customers, and our workforce is well-positioned to serve these products responsibly,” the letter to the top Democratic and Republican leaders of the House and Senate says. “Operators selling alcohol beverages have established training and impairment management practices that could be adapted for serving hemp-derived THC beverages.” “For many operators, particularly high-volume beverage venues, these products serve as alcohol alternatives for guests wanting to participate in social settings. For consumers whose lifestyles are diverging from traditional beverage alcohol preferences, restaurants want the ability to meet that demand in a safe and regulated market.” Hemp derivatives with less than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC on a dry-weight basis were federally legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill that President Donald Trump signed during his first term in office. But late last year, he signed new legislation containing provisions that will redefine hemp to make it so only products with 0.4 milligrams of total THC per container will remain legal after November 12. “Time is short,” Kennedy said. “We urge Congress to act now: delay implementation and commit to the deliberate, safety-focused regulatory process which this emerging market deserves.” As Marijuana Moment reported earlier this week, a Republican congresswoman is circulating draft legislation that would keep hemp THC beverages legal under federal law, creating a carve-out from the broad recriminalization of products derived from the crop that is set to take effect later this year. The Hemp-Derived Beverage Regulatory Clarity Act from Rep. Beth Van Duyne (R-TX), in its current form, would allow adults over 21 to purchase and consume hemp THC drinks with up to 5 milligrams of delta-9 THC per serving. It would also impose a federal tax of 10 cents per milligram of any hemp-derived cannabinoid contained within such beverages. The circulation of the new draft legislation and the restaurant group’s push comes as the White House is separately making it clear that Trump wants Congress to take action to amend the law that threatens to federally recriminalize hemp-derived products. The administration “welcomes the opportunity to work with the Congress to, at a minimum, update the statutory definition of final hemp-derived cannabinoid products to allow Americans to benefit from access to appropriate full-spectrum CBD products,” the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) said this month, “while preserving the Congress’s intent to restrict the sale of products that pose serious health risks.” The call to avert a broad prohibition on hemp CBD products was included in a statement of administration policy about an annual agriculture spending bill that passed the House of Representatives. Several lawmakers had filed amendments to that legislation to keep hemp products legal, but each was either blocked by the House Rules Committee from advancing to a floor vote or withdrawn by its sponsor. “The Administration supports advancement of this legislation, but looks forward to addressing its concerns prior to enactment,” OMB said in its statement of administration policy. “The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress to provide more input as the bill’s legislative process unfolds.” In April, the president himself urged congressional lawmakers to again redefine hemp to avoid recriminalization of full-spectrum CBD products. “I am calling on Congress to update the Law to ensure that Americans can continue to access the full-spectrum CBD products they have come to rely on, and that help them, while preserving Congress’s intent to restrict the sale of products that pose Health risks,” Trump said in a Truth Social post on the same day his administration announced it is moving forward with rescheduling marijuana. “We must get this done RIGHT and FAST, especially for those who saw that CBD helps them,” he said. “Plus, I am told it will also help our GREAT FARMERS, who we love, and will always be there for.” Industry advocates say that the law as enacted last year not only threatens to prohibit intoxicating and synthetic cannabinoid products but also stands to remove popular full-spectrum CBD products that many Americans use therapeutically from the market. “ONE in FIVE adults used it in the past year, and many say it improved their chronic pain enormously,” the president said in his social media post, adding that hemp-derived CBD “has made a HUGE difference for so many people.” He also referenced a new initiative the administration launched in April to cover up to $500 worth of hemp-derived products each year for eligible Medicare patients. The program being implemented by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) focuses largely on CBD but also allows products to have up to 3 milligrams of total THC per serving. “In December, I signed a very important Executive Order calling for Research and Innovation for Hemp-derived CBD,” Trump said. “Our wonderful Dr. Mehmet Oz moved fast to follow the directive in the Executive Order, and launched a model for some Seniors earlier this month. But more must be done!” “Please get it done, and SOON,” the president said in reference to a congressional fix for the broad recriminalization set to take effect in November. “Thank you for your attention to this matter!” It’s not clear how far Trump wants to scale back the scope of the scheduled federal restrictions on hemp products and what kinds of revised THC rules and limitations he would prefer to sign into law. Separately, White House officials recently provided a congressman’s office with feedback on hemp regulatory legislation. In April, Vince Haley, director of the White House Domestic Policy Council and James Braid, assistant to the president for legislative affairs, sent hemp policy suggestions to Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY). “We appreciate your work to advance the policy of” an executive order Trump signed in December that included provisions seeking to protect Americans’ access to CBD products, the staffers wrote in a letter to the congressman. “We are transmitting for your consideration draft legislative text and comments to address the statutory definition of final hemp-derived cannabinoid products in order to allow Americans to benefit from access to appropriate full-spectrum CBD products while preserving the Congress’s intent to restrict the sale of products that pose serious health risks,” the White House officials said, according to a social media post containing a screenshot of the letter. “We are available for discussion and further technical assistance.” Separately, anti-marijuana organizations filed a lawsuit suit against the Medicare hemp CBD coverage policy—but a judge dismissed the case last month, ruling that they don’t have standing. Lawyers for Health and Human Services Sec. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and CMS Director Mehmet Oz had filed a brief asking that the case be dismissed. The White House Office of Management and Budget has also held a series of meetings about a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) CBD products enforcement policy. FDA issued guidance making clear that it does not intend to interfere with implementation of the Medicare hemp-derived products coverage plan. CMS separately finalized a rule that will allow coverage of some hemp products as specialized, non-primarily health-related benefits through Medicare Advantage plans. As hemp products have become more popular with consumers, some large brands are attempting to get in on action. Major retailer Target, for example, is expanding its participation in the hemp-derived THC beverage market. Last year, the company began a pilot program involving sales of cannabis drinks at 10 select stores in Minnesota. That apparently went well, and now the company has obtained licenses from Minnesota regulators to sell lower-potency hemp edible products—including THC drinks—at all 72 of its stores in the state. A U.S. Department of Agriculture report published in April shows that farmers in the U.S. grew three-quarters of a billion dollars worth of hemp crops in 2025—a 64 percent increase from the prior year. The post Major Restaurant Lobby Group Pushes Congress To Keep Hemp THC Drinks Legal As An Alternative To Alcohol appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Legalizing medical marijuana appears to be associated with reduced rates of employees missing work—particularly in trades like manufacturing and agriculture where workers are more likely to experience symptoms such as pain that cannabis can help treat—according to a new study. Researchers at the University of Southern Maine and University of Georgia looked at the potential impact of state-level marijuana reform on workplace absenteeism, analyzing federal data from the U.S. Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics from 1990 to 2025. The study, published in the Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, found that, overall, legalizing medical cannabis is linked to a 6.9 percent decrease in rates of employees calling out of work due to illness, injury or other medical issues. Notably, the study—which involved a total dataset covering more than 20 million workers between the ages of 18 and 61—assessed the relationship between cannabis policy and workplace absenteeism for different types of work and industries. “The absenteeism-reducing effects of medical cannabis decriminalization are concentrated in occupations and industries in which chronic pain, physical strain, and job-related stress are plausibly important determinants of missed work,” the study said. “Medical cannabis laws appear to reduce sickness absence in settings where therapeutic use is likely to be most relevant.” “This study identifies a statistically significant and quantitatively meaningful effect of medical cannabis laws in the United States on reducing health-related workplace absenteeism.” It found the manual laborers missed work 39 percent less, followed by reduced absenteeism from industrial machine operators (33 percent), health-service workers (32 percent), farm workers (18 percent), food preparation employees (10 percent) and construction workers (10 percent). The industry-by-industry analysis linked medical cannabis legalization to 31 percent fewer sick or injured days in the durable goods manufacturing sector and 16 percent for nondurable goods manufacturing. Absenteeism decreased on average 16 percent for the agriculture industry, 9 percent for construction and 8 percent for business services. “The most substantial reductions” were “observed in occupations and industries that involve physical demands and repetitive strains of work,” the study authors said. “Our results are consistent with a therapeutic channel through which medical cannabis access improves symptom management and reduces sickness absence.” Aside from medical cannabis policies, study found “no significant effect of recreational cannabis legalization on health-related workplace absenteeism.” “Although the estimated effect of recreational cannabis decriminalization was positive, it was not measured with sufficient precision to achieve statistical significance,” it said. Meanwhile, research published last year on marijuana legalization’s effect on workers’ compensation found that while the policy change was associated with a “gradual increase” in workers’ comp claims, the average cost per claim in fact fell after the policy change—as did patient use of prescription drugs, especially opioids and other painkillers. In 2021, a separate study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that adult-use cannabis legalization was associated with an increase in workforce productivity and decrease in workplace injuries. Those researchers looked at the impact of recreational cannabis legalization on workers’ compensation claims among older adults, observing declines in such filings “both in terms of the propensity to receive benefits and benefit amount” in states that have enacted the policy change. They further identified “complementary declines in non-traumatic workplace injury rates and the incidence of work-limiting disabilities” in legal states. “We offer evidence that the primary driver of these reductions [in workers’ compensation] is an improvement in work capacity, likely due to access to an additional form of pain management therapy,” says the earlier study, which received funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). A 2020 study, meanwhile, found that legalizing medical marijuana led to fewer and cheaper workers’ compensation claims. Researchers from the University of Cincinnati Ash Blue College and Temple University concluded that permitting medical cannabis “can allow workers to better manage symptoms associated with workplace injuries and illnesses and, in turn, reduce need for [workers’ compensation].” Earlier this month, a congressional committee approved a bill containing a provision to block federal workers’ compensation programs from covering medical marijuana—even in light of the Trump administration’s move to reschedule cannabis. In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up a pair of cases concerning workers’ compensation for medical marijuana. Other research from 2023 into employee marijuana use found that workers who used the drug off the clock were no more likely to experience workplace injuries compared to those who didn’t consume cannabis at all. However, people who indulged during work hours are nearly twice as likely to be involved in a workplace incident than both non-users and off-duty users. Separately, a 2024 analysis of five years’ worth of federal health survey data by researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that employees in the food service and hospitality industries were some of the most common consumers of marijuana among U.S. workers. People in arts, design, entertainment, sports and media occupations also reported comparatively high rates of past-month cannabis use, as did workers in construction and extraction. Among those least likely to report marijuana use, meanwhile, were law enforcement, health care providers and workers in libraries and education. The post Fewer Employees Skip Work Days Where Medical Marijuana Is Legal, Especially For Manual Labor Jobs, Study Shows appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

I’m encouraged while using surpassing along with preachy list that you just adorn such minor timing. Google Ads Agency London

this can be awesome plus meanful. this can be interesting site. Leading is rather handy element. you may have seriously made it simpler for many people who seem to take a look at site and give these folks usefull information and facts. Google Ads Agency London