All Activity

“Other states as well should learn from Michigan’s experience, rather than repeat the same economic misstep the next time they face a budget shortfall.” By Hirsh Jain, Verdant Strategies In an effort to raise short-term revenue, Michigan recently adopted a cannabis tax structure that is already proving economically counterproductive and strategically shortsighted. For years, Michigan was widely regarded as one of the most successful legal cannabis markets in the United States. The explanation was simple. Michigan, wisely, had adopted one of the lowest cannabis tax rates in the country. The state imposed a 10 percent adult-use excise tax, shared between the state and local governments, plus the standard 6 percent sales tax, for a total effective rate of 16 percent. By comparison, California’s cannabis tax burden was more than twice as high, even approaching 40 percent in some cities. The contrast was notable because both California and Michigan share deep medical cannabis histories. California became the first state in the nation to legalize medical cannabis in 1996. Michigan later developed one of the most robust caregiver-based medical cannabis markets in the country during the 2000s and 2010s. Both states built strong cultural and policy foundations around the idea that cannabis is medicine. When adult-use legalization arrived, however, the two states moved in different directions. Michigan largely maintained the view that cannabis should be treated more like medicine than vice. It adopted a moderate tax structure that kept legal prices competitive. California, by contrast, layered on heavy taxes and regulatory costs that treated cannabis more like a luxury or vice product than a therapeutic good. Predictable results followed. Michigan’s fairly modest taxes helped draw consumers out of the illicit market and into licensed stores. Legal sales climbed rapidly, reaching roughly $3.3 billion annually in a state with just 10 million residents. California’s market has hovered around just $4 billion in recent years, despite having nearly four times the population. On a per capita basis, Michigan became one of the strongest adult-use cannabis markets in America, while California became the weakest, largely driven by tax policy. In July 2025, industry analytics firm Headset remarked, “What is so shocking about Michigan keeping pace with California sales is the difference in population. With a population of 10 million, Michigan is at the point of usurping America’s largest state, California, which has a population of nearly 40 million.” Cannabis became a major engine of employment in Michigan. According to industry recruiting firm Vangst, 47,000 Michiganders worked in the industry in 2024, incredibly representing almost 1 percent of the entire state’s workforce. Even more striking, Crain’s Detroit Business reported that cannabis accounted for an astonishing 52 percent of Michigan’s net private-sector job growth from 2018 through 2024. During a period when many of Michigan’s traditional manufacturing industries struggled and wage growth stalled for many workers, cannabis was the state’s most consistent source of job growth. Then the tax structure changed. Effective January 1, 2026, Michigan imposed a new 24 percent wholesale cannabis tax. This more than doubled the effective tax burden on operators at a critical point in the supply chain. The consequences were immediate. According to New Cannabis Ventures, Michigan’s legal cannabis market generated just $226 million in sales in January 2026, the lowest monthly total since late 2022. Sales fell by a sharp 16 percent from December 2025, the month before the tax took effect, and were 8 percent lower than January 2025. The situation may worsen in the months ahead. Many Michigan dispensaries stocked up on inventory in late 2025, before the tax took effect, and are still selling product that was not subject to the new wholesale tax. And even that temporary workaround came with tradeoffs. As retail analytics firm Happy Cabbage noted, high-demand products were often in limited supply in late 2025, while lower-demand items were readily available. As a result, purchasing decisions increasingly reflected what suppliers had on hand rather than what customers were most likely to buy. The full impact of the tax increase will become clearer in the coming months, as more newly taxed inventory reaches store shelves and higher costs are passed on to consumers. But already the effect on the industry has been sobering. In January alone, several sizable Michigan operators announced cultivation shutdowns, retail consolidations, and workforce reductions, citing collapsing margins following the tax increase. Higher Love Cannabis announced layoffs for 61 of its 213 employees, explaining that the cuts were necessary to withstand the new tax. C3 Industries said it would close its Webberville cultivation facility and lay off 62 employees, noting that it had warned lawmakers of this outcome if the wholesale tax were enacted. PinCanna placed its operations up for sale, citing the new wholesale tax as the reason. The owner of The Greenhouse predicted that as many as 30 percent of Michigan dispensaries could close within the next year because of the tax increase. This tax increase is rapidly destabilizing perhaps the most dynamic job-creating industry in Michigan’s recent history. It is an unmistakable reminder that cannabis does not operate in a closed legal market. It competes directly with a resilient illicit market that faces no excise taxes, no compliance costs and no regulatory burden. That illicit market has operated for decades and can quickly absorb consumers if the legal price gap becomes too wide. When policymakers raise cannabis taxes, the notion that they are simply adjusting revenue projections is an intellectual fantasy. In reality, they are shifting market share and economic resources to a highly unscrupulous, often-violent illicit market. Michigan’s earlier success showed that moderate taxation can expand the legal market and grow revenue organically. Its recent shift suggests that aggressive taxation can quickly reverse that progress. It is critical that other states take note of what is happening in Michigan right now. In recent months, states like Maine, Maryland and Minnesota have also increased their cannabis tax rates in an effort to plug various unrelated revenue gaps. But whether policymakers in these states appreciate it or not yet, those decisions will simply reduce legal sales and strengthen illicit operators. In fact, California learned this lesson in the third quarter of 2025, when it raised its already high cannabis excise tax from 15 percent to 19 percent. Legal sales fell 5 percent from the previous quarter, dropping to their lowest quarterly level in more than five years and prompting the state to quickly reverse course and restore the tax rate to 15 percent. Michigan failed to heed this clear economic lesson. Beyond its economic consequences, overtaxing cannabis runs counter to the spirit and logic of federal rescheduling. If cannabis is formally recognized at the federal level as having accepted medical use under Schedule III, states with long medical cannabis histories should pause and reconsider whether their tax policy properly reflects and honors their own legacies. Michigan and California were pioneers in recognizing cannabis as medicine, creating the conditions for a dramatic change in national attitudes that the current push for rescheduling reflects. Taxing cannabis at rates that exceed those applied to alcohol and tobacco, products which kill hundreds of thousands of Americans each year, betrays that pioneering medical legacy. If the lessons of rescheduling are taken seriously, both Michigan and California should reexamine their punitive tax structures in light of their own histories. And states such as Pennsylvania and Virginia, which may vote in 2026 to create new adult-use markets, also face a clear choice. They can pursue illusory short-term fiscal gains through heavy taxation and risk repeating Michigan’s recent mistakes. Or they can design competitive tax structures that support stable businesses, protect jobs and align policy with the growing recognition of cannabis as medicine. Michigan’s tax experiment is still unfolding, but the early signs are concerning. The state still has time to change course, as California did, albeit modestly. For the sake of its citizens, tens of thousands of cannabis workers, and the legal market it built, Michigan’s lawmakers should reverse this tax increase. Other states as well should learn from Michigan’s experience, rather than repeat the same economic misstep the next time they face a budget shortfall. Hirsh Jain is the Director of Market Intelligence at Verdant Strategies, a financial services and solutions company that provides tax planning and accounting services to many of the nation’s leading cannabis brands and retailers. He is also a principal at Los Angeles-based consulting firm Ananda Strategy. The post Michigan’s Marijuana Tax Experiment Should Be An Urgent Warning To Other States (Op-Ed) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Senior residents in Arizona independent living communities could soon see a different kind of care service available in their neighborhoods: Kiosks allowing them to view and buy marijuana products from licensed dispensaries. The retailer Life Is Chill and cannabis technology company LoveBud announced on Thursday that they were partnering for the launch of the novel initiative, which will involve deploying the kiosks in participating senior living communities that residents can use to learn about and order marijuana products for delivery. “We are launching something Arizona has not seen yet, a kiosk experience that makes ordering simple when ordering from licensed dispensaries,” James Watkins, CEO of LoveBud, said in a press release. “This creates a clear revenue opportunity for smaller dispensaries and gives customers a guided way to place orders with confidence.” With a focus on education, the kiosks are meant to help seniors make informed decisions about their cannabis purchases, while helping facilitate access through the delivery service that can be especially useful to residents without means of transportation to dispensaries. Dana Lillestol, Life Is Chill’s senior education advocate, said the kiosk model “can improve access and education for older adults who want a straightforward, guided experience.” “When people can review clear product information at the point of ordering and choose delivery, it can remove common barriers and support more informed decisions,” she said. Not all independent senior living communities in Arizona will be involved in the rollout—but for those that do permit marijuana for their senior residents and incorporate the kiosks, the new initiative could help improve access while providing information about what types of products could best suit a given senior. — 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. — Meanwhile in Arizona, senators recently approved a pair of measures that would make the act of creating “excessive” amounts of marijuana smoke or odor a criminal nuisance punishable by jail time, even if the person is using cannabis in compliance with state law in their own homes. Also in the state, anti-cannabis activists are working to put an initiative on the state’s November ballot that would significantly roll back its voter-approved marijuana legalization law. A GOP congressional lawmaker said recently he’d like to see his state take that action—but he also acknowledged that President Donald Trump’s recent federal rescheduling order could complicate that prohibitionist push. Under the proposal, possession would remain lawful if voters chose to enact the initiative—and Arizona’s medical marijuana program would remain intact—but the commercial market for recreational cannabis that’s evolved since voters approved an adult-use legalization measure in 2020 would be quashed. A findings section on the latest initiative states that “the proliferation of marijuana establishments and recreational marijuana sales in this state have produced unintended consequences and negative effects relating to the public health, safety, and welfare of Arizonans, including increased marijuana use among children, environmental concerns, increased demands for water resources, public nuisances, market instability, and illicit market activities.” “Arizona’s legal marijuana sales have declined for two consecutive years, resulting in less tax revenue for this state, while some patients have relied on recreational use of marijuana instead of utilizing the benefits of this state’s medical marijuana program,” it says. The initiative would also instruct the legislature to make conforming changes by amending existing statute as it relates to the commercial industry, including tax and advertising rules. In order to make the ballot, the campaign will need to collect 255,949 valid signatures by July 2. If the proposal goes to voters and is approved, it would take effect in January 2028. It remains to be seen if there will be an appetite for repeal among voters, as 60 percent of the electorate approved legalization at the ballot in 2020. What’s more a poll from last year found majority support for medical cannabis legalization (86 percent), adult-use legalization (69 percent) and banking reform (78 percent). The post Marijuana Kiosks For Seniors Are Coming To Independent Living Communities Across Arizona appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Missouri lawmakers have approved legislation aimed at expanding therapeutic access to and research on psychedelics such as psilocybin and ibogaine for adults and military veterans. On Wednesday, members of the House Emerging Issues Committee passed two psychedelics proposals—combining two psilocybin- and two ibogaine-focused bills from Reps. Matthew Overcast (R) and Rep. Richard West (R)—that would take a series of steps to fund psychedelics studies, prepare for federal approval of novel therapeutics and create regulated psilocybin programs through which the substance could be administered to eligible patients. The ibogaine measures as introduced by both lawmakers were identical, but there were certain differences in the psilocybin bills that were merged. The final text of the merged legislation hasn’t been released yet, however, so it’s currently unclear what made it in the deal. Here’s an overview of all four of the Missouri psychedelics bills that were taken up in committee: HB 2817 (Overcast) and HB 2961 (West) As introduced, the Veterans Mental Health Innovation Act—identical versions of which were filed by both Overcast and West—would create a state fund to support federal Food and Drug Administration- (FDA) approved clinical trials exploring the therapeutic potential of ibogaine for opioid misuse disorder and other serious neurological conditions. The Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) would be responsible for awarding grants for the psychedelics research, with money appropriated by the legislature and outside sources through a Ibogaine Study Fund. DHSS would award the grants to Missouri entities with specific neurological and neurosurgical capabilities, provide cardiac health services, are able to match funding they receive from the state and partner with an institution that has submitted an investigational new drug application to FDA seeking breakthrough therapy status. Under the legislation, there would also be an Ibogaine Intellectual Property Fund, which would be supported by revenue from patents and licensing fees associated with the clinical trials. That revenue would go toward assistance for military veterans and other at-risk populations. If FDA eventually grants approval to an ibogaine medication, the Missouri bill stipulates that only licensed physicians would be able to prescribe the novel therapy. And people seeking the treatment would still need to receive it in a medically supervised environment. The proposal would make it so the DHSS grant application process would need to begin before November 1. HB 1717 (West) The bill as introduced aims to expand upon the state’s existing right-to-try law by allowing veterans 21 and older receive psilocybin treatment for mental health conditions including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depressive disorder, substance misuse disorder and end-of-life care. Prospective patients would need to enroll in a psilocybin study, with documentation from a physician affirming that they have a qualifying condition, and receive the psychedelic treatment in a medically supervised environment. There would also be a 150mg cap on the amount of psilocybin analyte that a patient could receive in a given year. Patients and facilitators would be protected against criminal and civil enforcement action for participating in the program, and it would be prohibited to disclose information about participants to federal authorities. The legislation also calls for $2 million to be appropriated for psilocybin research grants to support the psychedelic treatment. Further, the legislation would revise the definition of an “investigational drug” under state statute to remove language that exempts Schedule I substances from the right-to-try policy. Finally, the measure would require the state Department of Mental Health (DMH) to partner with a university or FDA-affiliated research institute to carry out a study into the medical potential of psilocybin for psilocybin and other alternative therapeutics, with a final report due to the legislature within one year of enactment. HB 1643 (Overcast) Similar to West’s HB 1717, the bill as filed is meant to provide regulated therapeutic access to psilocybin—though that access would be available to all adults 21 and older (not just veterans) and it would not require enrollment in a psychedelics study in order to receive the alternative treatment. Adults would still have to demonstrate that they’ve been diagnosed with a qualifying medical condition—PTSD, major depressive disorder, substance misuse disorder or a terminal illness—and they’d still be limited to 150mg of psilocybin analyte on an annual basis. Also, the legislation would expand the state’s right-to-try law by including Schedule I substances like many psychedelics in the definition of an investigational drug. Manufacturers of such investigational drugs would need to register their products with DHSS, and the department would be required to publish a registry of those organizations by November 1. — 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. — West also sponsored a bill last session to provide therapeutic access to psilocybin for military veterans that ultimately wasn’t enacted into law. The passage of the bills through committee this session comes months after bipartisan and bicameral Missouri legislators pre-filed a series of drug policy reform proposals that range from providing early release for people incarcerated for certain cannabis-related convictions to promoting access to alternative therapies such as psilocybin. The post Missouri Lawmakers Approve Psychedelics Bills To Expand Access To And Research On Psilocybin And Ibogaine appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

The Republican chair of a key House committee says a proposed amendment to a large-scale agriculture bill that would delay a hemp THC ban by a year isn’t relevant to the legislation, casting doubt on the prospects that it will get a vote in the panel next week. Shortly after Rep. Jim Baird (R-IN) submitted the amendment—which supporters say is necessary to give farmers more time to prepare and stakeholders more time to negotiate a long-term deal on potential regulations for hemp products—House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn Thompson (R-PA) reportedly said he doesn’t think the proposal is germane to the 2026 Farm Bill that’s scheduled for a markup on Tuesday. If that’s the position of the chair, as CQ reported, it’s unlikely the amendment will receive a vote in the panel. Thompson “doesn’t think the amendment is germane, making it unlikely that Baird could offer the provision for a vote at the markup despite bipartisan backing,” the outlet reported. “The House Energy and Commerce Committee has jurisdiction over the Food and Drug Administration, which is responsible for regulating hemp products when they reach the market. The Agriculture Department only has control over the plant.” CQ said that Baird has acknowledged his amendment is unlikely to succeed in being attached to the 2026 Farm Bill. His office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Marijuana Moment. The hemp sector has been sounding the alarm about the cannabinoid ban that was included in broader spending legislation President Donald Trump signed into law last year. They argue that the redefinition of what constitutes federally legal hemp—which is currently set to take effect in November— would effectively upend the market that’s emerged since the crop was legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill during the president’s first term. Here’s the summary of the Baird amendment: “This amendment would delay the redefining of hemp by 1 year in section 781 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agency Appropriations Act of 2026.” Delaying the THC ban by a year would serve as a temporary bridge for the industry as it works to convince Congress to regulate—rather than recriminalize—hemp products, and it’s a shorter delay than Baird is working to secure through separate standalone legislation he filed this session that would put a pause on the policy change for two years to give stakeholders more time to navigate the issue. Since 2018, cannabis products have been considered legal hemp if they contain less than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC on a dry weight basis. The provisions set to take effect later this year specify that, within one year of enactment, the weight will apply to total THC—including delta-8 and other isomers. It will also include “any other cannabinoids that have similar effects (or are marketed to have similar effects) on humans or animals as a tetrahydrocannabinol (as determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services).” The new definition of legal hemp will additionally ban “any intermediate hemp-derived cannabinoid products which are marketed or sold as a final product or directly to an end consumer for personal or household use” as well as products containing cannabinoids that are synthesized or manufactured outside of the cannabis plant or not capable of being naturally produced by it. Legal hemp products will be limited to a total of 0.4 milligrams per container of total THC or any other cannabinoids with similar effects. Within 90 days of the bill’s enactment, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other agencies were supposed to publish list of “all cannabinoids known to FDA to be capable of being naturally produced by a Cannabis sativa L. plant, as reflected in peer reviewed literature,” “all tetrahydrocannabinol class cannabinoids known to the agency to be naturally occurring in the plant” and “all other known cannabinoids with similar effects to, or marketed to have similar effects to, tetrahyrocannabinol class cannabinoids.” However, FDA appears to have missed that deadline. A spokesperson told Marijuana Moment earlier this month that the lists would be posted in the Federal Register when they’re available. Lawmakers from across the aisle have been raising concerns about the potential consequences of the hemp redefinition, which would eradicate most consumable cannabinoid products that have become commonplace in states across the U.S., including those where marijuana hasn’t been legalized. Rep. James Comer (R-KY) and Kentucky Agriculture Commissioner Jonathan Shell are among the critics of the ban, and they sent a letter to Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) last week imploring him to use his influence to avert the recriminalization, at least on a temporary basis, by supporting the proposed implementation delay. While McConnell championed hemp legalization under the 2018 Farm Bill, however, the former Senate majority leader has supported unraveling the hemp THC market that he’s described as an unintended consequences of the broader agriculture legislation. — 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. — Meanwhile, last month, major alcohol retailers came together to encourage Congress to delay the enactment of the law Trump signed that will federally recriminalize hemp-derived THC beverages and other products. The coalition says it wants to apply the same regulatory structure that governs beverage alcohol producers, distributors and merchants to hemp drinks “to ensure safe, transparent access.” Other alcohol industry groups such as Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America have also backed regulating hemp products instead of prohibiting them. Photo courtesy of Brendan Cleak. The post Amendment To Delay Hemp THC Ban Won’t Get A Vote At Farm Bill Hearing, Key GOP Congressional Committee Chair Signals appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“We don’t want to go back to the Wild, Wild West and have 10,000 licenses out there. We wanna put a number on that so we can keep them in compliance.” By Emma Murphy, Oklahoma Voice Oklahoma House lawmakers on Wednesday sent two bills to the Senate extending a moratorium on medical marijuana licenses and limiting the number of grow licenses. House Bills 3143 and 3144 would extend an existing moratorium on all new marijuana business licenses to August 1, 2028, and limit the number of grow licenses to 2,500, respectively. The current moratorium on new licenses expires August 1. There are currently 2,164 licensed grows in Oklahoma, according to a dashboard posted by the Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority. There are 686 processors, 1,421 dispensaries and 58 transporters licensed in Oklahoma. Extending the moratorium Rep. Tim Turner, R-Kinta, said the extended moratorium in House Bill 3143 is only for new licenses. Current medical marijuana businesses in good standing with OMMA could open new locations with their existing licenses, he said. He said the moratorium will help control the black market side and keep the medical marijuana industry medical, not recreational. Rep. Jared Deck, D-Norman, said one of his constituents was worried they wouldn’t be able to expand their existing business into new parts of the industry, like growing. Businesses are able to sell their current licenses to other business owners who are interested in the industry or expansion, said Rep. Scott Fetgatter, R-Okmulgee. The bill heads to the Senate with a vote of 82-8. Limiting medical marijuana grows House Bill 3144 limits the number of licensed medical marijuana grows in the state to 2,500, more than currently exist. Rep. Rusty Cornwell, R-Vinitia, said this bill goes “hand in hand” with House Bill 3143. “We anticipate the moratorium to lift at some point,” he said. “When that happens we don’t want to go back to the Wild, Wild West and have 10,000 licenses out there. We wanna put a number on that so we can keep them in compliance.” The House approved the measure with a vote of 82-15. Medical marijuana was approved by voters in 2018 through a state question, and lawmakers have been attempting to regulate the industry in the years since. This story was first published by Oklahoma Voice. The post Oklahoma Lawmakers Vote To Extend Medical Marijuana Business License Moratorium appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Texas voters say they disapprove of how state leaders and lawmakers have handled marijuana and THC policy issues, according to a new poll that comes amid a primary election where people will get the chance to make their voices heard on cannabis legalization at the ballot. The Texas Politics Project survey, released on Monday, asked registered voters about a variety of policy issues—from abortion rights to border security to cannabis laws—and how they feel officials are managing them. Efforts to legalize marijuana in Texas have consistently stalled in the conservative legislature, and state statute continues to impose strict penalties on those who possess, cultivate or sell cannabis outside of the limited medical marijuana program. Last year also saw tension within the legislature over the regulation of hemp products containing THC, with the GOP governor ultimately vetoing a bill that stakeholders say threatened to eradicate the cannabinoid market. All told, a plurality of voters in the state (40 percent) said they disapprove of how their elected officials have approached marijuana and THC laws, according to the survey. Just 29 percent said they approve of how cannabis issues have been handled, while 31 percent said they didn’t have an opinion one way or another. The poll didn’t give respondents specific examples of marijuana or hemp policy matters that have gone before the legislature, so it’s not clear exactly why voters approved or disapproved on how they’ve been handled. But it does reveal partisan divides on the question. Democrats were the most likely to say they disapprove (60 percent) of how legislators and the administration have approached cannabis laws, while 16 percent said they approved and 24 percent selected “neither” approve nor disapprove. By contrast, most Republicans (42 percent) said they approve of how officials have managed marijuana and THC issues, compared to 24 percent who disapproved and 33 percent said they were neutral. Among independent voters, 42 percent disapproved, 14 percent approved and 43 percent said “neither.” Via Texas Politics Project. The 72nd Texas Politics Project survey involved interviews with 1,300 registered voters from February 2-16, with a +/- 2.72 percentage point margin of error. The poll is also being released as voters head to the polls for the state’s primary election. And voters who select a Democratic ballot can weigh in on a non-binding proposition asking about their positions on legalizing cannabis and expunging past convictions. The yes or no question on Democratic primary ballots reads: “Texas should legalize cannabis for adults and automatically expunge criminal records for past low-level cannabis offenses.” — 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 result of the voting on Democrats’ marijuana question will not on its own change any cannabis laws, but they could send a signal to lawmakers about popular support for reform. For what it’s worth, a poll released last year found that a plurality of Texas voters want the state’s marijuana laws to be made “less strict.” And among the legislative items lawmakers considered during recent special sessions, voters say a proposal to address hemp regulations was among the least important. In the background, officials with the Department of Public Safety (DPS) in December conditionally approved nine new medical marijuana business licenses in December as part of a law that’s being implemented to significantly expand the state’s cannabis program. The department will issue conditional licenses to three additional dispensaries by April 2026. This represents a major change to the program, as there are currently only three dispensaries licensed to operate in Texas. DPS in October adopted additional rules to increase the number of licensed dispensaries, establishing security requirements for “satellite” locations and authorizing the revocation of licenses for certain violations. The Department of State Health Services (DSHS) also recently finalized rules allowing doctors to recommend new qualifying conditions for cannabis patients and creating standards for allowable low-THC inhalation devices. Meanwhile, bipartisan Texas lawmakers say the stage is set to advance legislation next session establishing regulations for hemp THC products, with growing understanding among their colleagues that prohibition fails to effectively address concerns about the cannabis market. In the interim, Texas regulators have taken a series of steps to enact rules around consumable hemp products over recent month, which began after Gov. Greg Abbott (R) vetoed a bill last year that would’ve effectively eradicated the state’s hemp market. In late December, meanwhile, the Department of State Health Services (DSHS) released a set of proposed rules to regulate the state’s hemp market—including provisions related to age-gating, licensing fees, testing requirements, packaging restrictions and more in response to an executive order the governor signed in September. Image element courtesy of AnonMoos. The post Texas Voters Disapprove Of How State Officials Are Handling Marijuana And THC Laws, Poll Shows appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

I’m sharing this with my friends. Looking forward to more posts! Edmonton, Furnace & Carpet Cleaners

Legalizing marijuana in Pennsylvania under the governor’s latest budget plan could bring in nearly half a billion dollars in annual revenue by 2028, according to a new analysis from the state’s Independent Fiscal Office (IFO) that estimates a significantly larger cash windfall compared to projections from Gov. Josh Shapiro’s (D) own office. With a proposed 20 percent wholesale cannabis excise tax, 6 percent state sales tax for retail and licensing fees, IFO said Shapiro’s legalization plan that he unveiled earlier this month would generate $140 million in tax revenue in the first year of implementation from 2027-2028 and increase to $432 million by 2030-2031. That’s a much higher revenue estimate than what the governor’s office put forward in the latest executive budget. According to that analysis, legalization would generate about $36.9 million in tax dollars in its first year from a 20 percent wholesale tax on marijuana—rising gradually to $223.8 million by 2030-2031. Of course, the projections assume the legislature advances adult-use legalization in line with the governor’s budget request and sales begin on January 1, 2027. It remains to be seen whether lawmakers will follow through on the reform this year, but it wouldn’t be the first time marijuana legalization stalled out in the state if they don’t act this session. Under Shapiro’s plan, revenue from cannabis sales would go toward small business loans, restorative justice programs, the state Department of Agriculture, state police and the Department of Revenue—with any remaining tax and fee dollars going to the general fund. “The tax revenue estimate is based on the annual average dollar amount of recreational marijuana sales per adult (age 21 to 65) from comparable states and applied to Pennsylvania’s population,” IFO said in its analysis. “Because marijuana remains illegal under federal law, all marijuana sold in Pennsylvania must be grown in state (no imports).” IFO legal recreational marijuana estimate $589 million lower than Executive Budget in FY 26-27 (lower fees) but ~$80 million higher in future years (higher tax revenues). See: https://t.co/wwprjfqk6E pic.twitter.com/VpcrwWnkWv — Independent Fiscal Office (@ind_fisc_office) February 19, 2026 “For FY 2028-29, the analysis estimates $450 million of new taxes and fees from the proposal,” it says. “Because the new tax replaces deficit-financed spending (i.e., not new state spending that would have a positive offsetting economic impact), it results in a negative impact on other tax revenues such as income and sales tax.” There would be seven rounds of licensing opportunities beginning on July 1 under Shapiro’s plan. Existing medical cannabis dispensaries would be eligible to apply for a conversion license in the first round if they pay a $25 million initial fee. The annual renewal fee would be $500,000, and licensees could vertically integrate to grow, process and sell marijuana products. Due to the high cost of that conversion license, IFO said it only expects four medical cannabis businesses would expand their operations. First-time farmer/grower licenses would come with a $1,000 initial fee, and applications would open on October 1. Starting January 1, 2027, grower, processor, dispensary and microbusiness applications would open, with a $25,000 initial fee. “The initial license fee ($25 million) imposed on existing medical marijuana dispensaries that seek to sell recreational marijuana is much higher than other states. For example, the maximum license fee in other states include: Connecticut ($3 million), Maryland ($2 million), Ohio ($180,000) and New Jersey ($50,000). With an initial fee of $25 million, the estimate assumes that only four existing medical marijuana dispensaries would expand to the Pennsylvania recreational marijuana market and each dispensary would open five retail locations (assumed maximum allowed).” The IFO report also notes that taxes and fees from legal cannabis sales would offset revenue from the state sales tax by $8.7 million, personal income tax by $2.5 million and all other taxes—including tobacco, alcohol and gaming) by $2.8 million. Analysts also noted that certain studies have found that cannabis use “is much more prevalent for lower-income groups,” and so the marijuana taxes would be “regressive.” That said, “there is insufficient data to allocate the new tax to specific income groups.” Meanwhile, this month, a coalition of drug policy and civil liberties organizations urged Shapiro to play a leadership role in convening legislative leaders to get the job done on cannabis legalization this session. In a letter led by the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) and sent to the governor, the coalition noted that legalization has consistently made it into Shapiro’s budget requests, “reflecting both sound fiscal policy and the clear will of the people of the Commonwealth.” Pennsylvania House Democratic lawmakers have separately called on the GOP-controlled Senate to come to the table and pass a bill to legalize marijuana. At a press conference earlier this month, three Democratic members of the House who have championed adult-use legalization stressed the need to move on reform, laying blame for inaction on the Senate where even supporters of the policy change have so far been unable to deliver on the issue. Reps. Rick Krajewski (D) and Dan Frankel (D), who sponsored a bill to legalize with state-run shops that advanced through the House last year, said they understand that the novel regulatory approach they envisioned may be “controversial” to some members, but that’s all the more reason for the Senate to bring their own ideas to the conversation to finally enact the reform. House Speaker Joanna McClinton (D) said in December that legalizing marijuana is one way to create a “very important” revenue source for the state—and that it’s an achievable reform if only legislators could find “the will to do it.” Bipartisan Pennsylvania lawmakers who’ve been working to enact adult-use legalization over recent sessions without success so far have also recently said that President Donald Trump’s federal marijuana rescheduling order could grease the wheels in 2026. For what it’s worth, another top GOP senator—Sen. Scott Martin (R), chair of the chamber’s Appropriations Committee—said in December that he was skeptical about the prospects of enacting legalization in the 2026 session, in part because of the federal classification of cannabis that’s now expected to change. Of course, marijuana would still be federally illegal under Schedule III, so it’s unclear if a simple loosening of the law would move the needle enough from his perspective. — 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. — A top aide to Pennsylvania’s governor said in September that lawmakers should stop introducing new competing legalization bills and instead focus on building consensus on the issue—while emphasizing that any measure that advances needs to contain equity provisions if the governor is going to sign it into law. Sen. Dan Laughlin (R), for his part, said in August that the House “needs to pass the language in my bill and send it to my committee” after which point he “can negotiate with the Senate and the governor.” The senator separately said recently that supporters are “picking up votes” to enact the reform this session. Meanwhile, bipartisan Pennsylvania senators in October introduced a bill that would allow terminally ill patients to use of medical marijuana in hospitals. Separately, the leading Republican candidate in the race to become the next governor of Pennsylvania dodged a question about her stance on legalizing marijuana—saying she doesn’t have a “policy position” on the issue and arguing that the sitting governor’s proposal for reform “way, way overstated” potential revenue. The candidate, Pennsylvania Treasurer Stacy Garrity (R), pointed to neighboring Ohio, which launched its own adult-use cannabis market this year, saying “they generated about $115 million in revenue.” And while the populations of both states are relatively comparable, Shapiro’s budget projected $536.5 million in cannabis revenue in the first fiscal year of implementation. She did, however, say that if Pennsylvania moves forward on enacting the reform, she’ll “make sure that it’s banked appropriately.” Meanwhile, a Pennsylvania Democratic senator recently said that federal marijuana rescheduling would be “very influential” in advancing legalization in his state, giving “political cover” to GOP members on the fence about reform. Polls have shown bipartisan support for legalization among voters, but the reform has consistently stalled in the legislature, due largely to GOP opposition. But not all Republican members are against the policy change—and one recently said she felt her party should seize the “opportunity to snatch” the issue from Democrats. Photo courtesy of Philip Steffan. The post Legalizing Marijuana In Pennsylvania Would Generate Almost Half A Billion Dollars In Revenue By 2028 Under Governor’s Plan, State Analysis Finds appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

You will be permitted to posting companies, yet not one-way links, except in cases where they can be permitted plus for issue. ppc management london

Trump surgeon general pick on psychedelics; Marijuana industry disappointed about SOTU; VA medical cannabis in hospitals; Cannabis prisoners op-ed 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… Hold on, just one second before you read today’s news. Have you thought about giving some financial support to Marijuana Moment? If so, today would be a great day to contribute. We’re planning our reporting for the coming months and it would really help to know what kind of support we can count on. Check us out on Patreon and sign up to give $25/month today: https://www.patreon.com/marijuanamoment / TOP THINGS TO KNOW Casey Means, President Donald Trump’s nominee for surgeon general, said she wouldn’t recommend that other people use psilocybin like she has—but added that she supports “exciting” research being done on psychedelics’ therapeutic potential. An American Civil Liberties Union Official gave Marijuana Moment a preview of the arguments the organization’s lawyers plan to make to the Supreme Court next week in a case challenging the federal ban on gun possession by cannabis consumers. The National Cannabis Industry Association’s chairman said President Donald Trump “missed an opportunity” to talk about marijuana reform in his State of the Union address—saying, “The industry has heard promises before, including support for rescheduling. What’s missing is delivery.” The Virginia House of Delegates passed a bill to allow medical cannabis use in hospitals and create a new state working group to publish guidelines on the issue. The Last Prisoner Project’s Stephanie Shepard argues in a new Marijuana Moment op-ed for Black History Month that rescheduling cannabis “does not free a single person from prison, clear a single criminal record or repair the racial harm created by decades of cannabis prohibition.” The Nebraska legislature’s Health and Human Services Committee approved a bill to protect doctors who recommend medical cannabis from civil, criminal or disciplinary action. An Indiana bill to ban intoxicating and synthetic hemp-derived products died as a key legislative deadline passed. / FEDERAL The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy launched a new ad “to raise public awareness for the grave threat that illicit drugs pose to human life.” The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up a case challenging Maryland’s cannabis social equity business licensing rules. The House bill to direct the Department of Veterans Affairs to study psychedelics got one new cosponsor for a total of three. / STATES Kansas lawmakers held a press conference to promote bills to legalize recreational and medical marijuana. Colorado lawmakers are considering several cannabis reform bills this session. A Nebraska court began a criminal trial of a notary accused of misconduct in relation to medical cannabis legalization ballot initiative petitions. Missouri regulators published draft changes to cannabis business rules. Guam regulators approved the territory’s first two cannabis business licenses. The U.S. Virgin Islands Cannabis Advisory Board approved changes to regulations. California’s top marijuana regulator discussed his plans for overseeing the industry. Oregon regulators sent a newsletter with updates about the psilocybin services program. The Tennessee Medical Cannabis Commission will meet on Monday and Tuesday. The New York Cannabis Advisory Board will meet on Tuesday. — 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. — / INTERNATIONAL The Welsh Conservative Party leader is criticizing Plaid Cymru’s support for drug decriminalization. / SCIENCE & HEALTH A study found that “anxiety significantly decreased over the study period in both flower and edibles groups” and that “CBD-dominant edibles were associated with less anxiety over time in this naturalistic study.” A study’s results “experimental support for the traditional use of C. sativa roots in [gastrointestinal] disorders and indicate their potential as a non-psychoactive source of bioactive constituents.” / ADVOCACY, OPINION & ANALYSIS The National Cannabis Industry Association announced new board of directors members, / BUSINESS Decibel Cannabis Company Inc. is selling its property in Creston, British Columbia. Leading Retirement Solutions published a cannabis industry retirement report. 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 ACLU previews cannabis & guns arguments for Supreme Court (Newsletter: February 26, 2026) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Excellent list — the server comparison tools simplified my decision. Side-by-side stats like drop rates and population were priceless. Real votes added the final confirmation. slot online Excellent job curating trustworthy private servers with community-backed rankings. This is the definitive place to discover servers that value fairness and player activity. Real votes make all the difference when choosing where to play. slot gacor Helpful — I valued the transparency on player complaint resolution timelines. Quick, fair resolution processes prevent toxic situations from escalating. Real votes showed which teams are responsive. slot online Personalized latex fashion like this feels very exclusive. The fit, shine, and design options sound amazing. Full-size customization ensures confidence. Global delivery within 20 days is great service. rtp live slot gacor Excellent list — the server comparison tools simplified my decision. Side-by-side stats like drop rates and population were priceless. Real votes added the final confirmation. togel online Excellent job curating trustworthy private servers with community-backed rankings. This is the definitive place to discover servers that value fairness and player activity. Real votes make all the difference when choosing where to play. slot online

We continuously strive to expand the escorts service concept in Lodhi Road to make it more accessible and affordable for everyone seeking premium elite Escorts Service in Lodhi Road. Furthermore, we prioritize the privacy of our clients above all else. Our Lodhi Road escort models originate from respectable backgrounds in society and understand how to maintain the confidentiality of those who seek their company.

Great article Lot's of information to Read...Great Man Keep Posting and update to People..Thanks แทงบอลเต็ง

Thanks for a very interesting blog. What else may I get that kind of info written in such a perfect approach? I’ve a undertaking that I am simply now operating on, and I have been at the look out for such info. แทงบอลเต็ง

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… แทงบอลเต็ง

Exploring dark, atmospheric environments is one of my favorite aspects of horror games fnaf. The attention to detail in the settings, from creepy abandoned houses to haunted forests, really enhances the overall experience and makes me feel like I’m part of the story.

“Another example of why we should be a unicameral Legislature.” By Leslie Bonilla Muniz and Tom Davies, Indiana Capital Chronicle A ban on intoxicating and synthetic hemp-derived products died Monday after Indiana House lawmakers failed to call it down ahead of a second reading deadline. Senate Bill 250 would have mirrored a recent federal law that was designed to close a so-called loophole allowing potent delta-8, THCA and other cannabinoid products to proliferate. Sen. Aaron Freeman, R-Indianapolis, was openly critical of his colleagues across the hall for killing his bill. All he would say: “Another example of why we should be a unicameral Legislature.” The hemp measure previously passed the Senate in a 35-13 vote. Rep. Garrett Bascom, the bill’s sponsor in the House, said although he wouldn’t speak for other members, he felt there weren’t enough votes to pass it through his chamber this year. He didn’t offer any specific sticking points, but hoped to try again. The language could be amended into another bill in conference committee. The proposal also would have laid out a regulatory scheme for any low-potency, field-grown products—although industry representatives testified no customers would want them. This story was first published by Indiana Capital Chronicle. Unrelated content excised. The post Indiana Bill To Ben Hemp THC Products Dies As Key Deadline Passes appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

President Donald Trump’s pick to serve as U.S. surgeon general says that, while she wouldn’t recommend that Americans experiment with psychedelics like she has, there’s “exciting” research indicating that substances such as psilocybin can effectively treat serious mental health conditions that she would continue to follow if confirmed for the job. During a confirmation hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP) Committee on Wednesday, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) pressed the nominee for surgeon general, Casey Means, on a section of a book she wrote that described an experience using psilocybin and how that helped her emotionally process news of her mother’s diagnosis with a terminal illness. Collins said she was concerned about Means’s suggestion that other people may benefit from using the federally illicit substances, and the senator asked whether she stood by that message and how she would communicate with the American people about the use of controlled substances if confirmed as surgeon general. “This is a very important question, and I would start by just saying that I believe what I would say as a private citizen is, in many cases, different than what I would say as a public health official joining a team where the purpose of this role is to communicate absolutely the best evidence-based science to the American people to keep them safe, thriving and healthy,” Means said. “And when it comes to psychedelic therapy for mental health issues, I think the science is still emerging—and so it would certainly not be a recommendation to the American people to do that, under under no circumstances,” she said. However, the nominee said she does “believe that there is exciting work being done in this area that needs to continue on psychedelic therapies for PTSD and veterans for mental health issues.” .@SenatorCollins to Surgeon General nominee Dr. Casey Means: "In your book…you urge readers to consider psilocybin-assisted therapy…Do you stand by what you said?" Means: "The science is still emerging…There is exciting work being done in this area that needs to continue." pic.twitter.com/1XyebRxSyV — CSPAN (@cspan) February 25, 2026 “Some of the researchers who are doing this work have said it’s some of the most promising and exciting of their entire careers, so I look forward to following that,” she said. “But to be very clear: Under no circumstances would I recommend that to the American people in this role. Our illicit drug use problem in our country is monumental and severe, and I I look forward to working with you on on these issues that are so important.” In a follow-up, Collins asked Means what she meant in her book, “Good Energy,” when she described hearing an “internal voice” advising her to prepare for something, motivating her to take psilocybin just one week before the nominee learned about her mother’s diagnosis. “In that passage of the book, I’m referring to my mother’s passing, which happened. She got a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer about a week after after that experience, and in my meditations and prayers at that time, I was having a deep sense that something ominous was coming, so that’s what that’s referring to,” Means said. “I think when I speak of spirituality—and I do believe Americans are ready to hear about spirituality as it pertains to medicine; 80 percent of Americans are spiritual or religious—there’s amazing evidence coming out…that spirituality has a large impact on health outcomes.” “So certainly that’s a personal anecdote,” she said. “But, again, I’m committed to to sharing only the best solid science with Americans on how to be healthy.” For context, here’s a passage of Means’s 2024 book that discusses psilocybin: “If you feel called, I also encourage you to explore intentional, guided psilocybin therapy. Strong scientific evidence suggests that this psychedelic therapy can be one of the most meaningful experiences of life for some people, as they have been for me. If the word psychedelics makes you cringe, I used to be in your position. I spent my childhood and young adult life being extremely judgmental about the use of any type of drug. But I became interested in plant medicine and psychedelics after learning more about their extensive traditional use, analyzing the groundbreaking research… Our brains are profoundly suffering in modern society right now, and I believe that anything that can safely increase neuroplasticity and ground us in more gratitude, awe, connection, and a sense of cosmic safety should be taken very seriously.” In several blog posts on her website, Means has also talked about “plant medicine,” specifically psilocybin, as one of “the modalities I’ve gone deepest in,” in addition to therapy, reading, writing, yoga and more. The Wall Street Journal reported in 2024 that the nominee’s brother, Calley, “had a vision of dedicating his life to reforming healthcare after a high dose of the psychedelic drug psilocybin.” Despite her advocacy for psychedelic medicine, however, the prospective surgeon general has expressed opposition to marijuana, saying in her book that people who use cannabis, as well as tobacco products, should “stop these completely.” “They will hurt your mitochondria and vastly diminish your ability to make Good Energy,” she said. In another blog post, she reiterated her position that marijuana is among the addictions she views as reflecting “our spiritual emptiness,” preventing people from “being able to go within, connect with God, and experience the bliss that come from this.” Means apparently doesn’t view the cannabis plant as all bad, however, as she described hemp in her book as among the “best plant-based sources” of nutrition—including protein, omega-3, antioxidants and fiber. She also shared recipes featuring hemp seed, including a “Southwestern Tofu Scramble” and “Creamy Cauliflower and Celery Root Puree.” If confirmed, Means wouldn’t be the only Trump administration official who’s embrace psychedelics medicine. She’d join several others—including U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Secretary Doug Collins, Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Marty Makary—to that end. Meanwhile, support for legalizing the use of psychedelics might relatively low today, according to a new survey from the RAND Corporation, but public opinion on the issue seems be closely following in the footsteps of the marijuana reform movement before the first states started enacting cannabis legalization. Image courtesy of CostaPPR. The post Trump’s Surgeon General Pick Says She Doesn’t Recommend People Use Psychedelics Like She Has—But Will Follow ‘Exciting’ Research appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

The Virginia House of Delegates has passed a bill to allow patients to use medical marijuana in hospitals. While both the House and Senate earlier this month approved differing versions of the cannabis legislation, the sponsors of those bills have agreed on a compromise approach which cleared the House in a 97-1 vote on Tuesday. As amended, SB 332 from Sen. Barbara Favola (D) would build upon existing state law protecting health professionals at hospices, nursing homes and assisted living facilities that aid terminally ill patients in utilizing medical cannabis treatment from punishment by adding hospitals to the statute. It would also create a new working group under the Department of Health to “discuss the implementation process for providing cannabis products to patients within medical care facilities.” “The work group shall assess any available federal guidance or proposed regulations on the use of cannabis products or changes to the schedule for cannabis products under the federal Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.) as well as interaction with applicable state laws,” the bill says. Its members would include representatives of the Virginia Hospital & Health Care Association and the Virginia Health Care Association, as well as health care providers and palliative, hospice, and hospital volunteers familiar with issues associated with providing care to individuals experiencing chronic illness. The bill directs the working group to submit a report to key legislative committees including “written guidelines for the use of medical cannabis within medical care facilities and the safe operations of medical care facilities” by November 1. The House version of the proposal, HB 75 from Del. Karen Keys-Gamarra (D), is scheduled for action before the Senate Committee on Education and Health on Thursday. Lawmakers in multiple states are advancing similar bills meant to provide patients with access to medical marijuana in health care facilities, with legislators across the U.S. making the case this month for a policy change they say is necessary to ensure patients have a full range of cannabis treatment options at their disposal. Meanwhile, the advancement of the Virginia legislation comes as lawmakers are also considering bills to legalize recreational marijuana sales and provide resentencing relief for people with prior cannabis convictions. The post Virginia House Passes Bill To Allow Medical Marijuana Use In Hospitals appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“Rescheduling…does not free a single person from prison, clear a single criminal record or repair the racial harm created by decades of cannabis prohibition.” By Stephanie Shepard, Last Prisoner Project Every Black History Month, we are asked to reflect on how far our country has come, and to honor progress, resilience and the long fight for racial justice. That history includes not only landmark civil rights victories, but also the policies that followed them, including the war on drugs, which for decades has been used to police, punish and destabilize Black communities under the guise of public safety. This year, that reflection comes at a moment of real movement on cannabis policy. President Donald Trump’s decision to move forward with rescheduling marijuana under federal law signals a long-overdue acknowledgment that cannabis never belonged alongside the most dangerous substances in our criminal code, a classification that helped justify decades of racially disproportionate arrests, prosecutions and prison sentences. That step deserves credit. But it also demands honesty. Rescheduling may shift policy going forward, but it does nothing for the people still living with the consequences of the past. It does not free a single person from prison, clear a single criminal record or repair the racial harm created by decades of cannabis prohibition. I know this firsthand. More than a decade ago, I was sentenced to ten years in federal prison for a first-time, nonviolent cannabis offense. I lost nearly a decade of my life for conduct that is now legal in much of the country. When I came home, cannabis storefronts were opening across the country, investors were getting rich and politicians were patting themselves on the back for “ending prohibition.” Meanwhile, people like me were expected to quietly rebuild our lives while thousands of others remained behind bars. That contradiction sits at the heart of cannabis policy in America today. The war on drugs has always been a racial justice issue. For decades, Black and Brown communities were disproportionately targeted, policed, prosecuted and incarcerated for cannabis, despite similar usage rates across racial lines. Black Americans are still more than three times as likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than white Americans. Those arrests led to convictions, lengthy prison sentences and lifelong barriers to housing, employment, education and voting. Today, cannabis is a multibillion-dollar industry. States collect tax revenue, companies go public and politicians celebrate “progress.” But tens of thousands of people remain incarcerated for cannabis-related conduct, and millions more live with the collateral consequences of past convictions. Legalization has created opportunity for some, while leaving behind the very communities that paid the highest price for prohibition. That is why reform cannot stop at rescheduling or legalization alone. If we are serious about justice, cannabis reform must include retroactive relief for those serving sentences that would never be imposed today. It must include automatic expungement of criminal records that continue to lock people out of jobs, housing and education. And it must include meaningful reentry support so that people coming home are not punished again for surviving incarceration. At Last Prisoner Project, a national nonprofit dedicated to freeing people incarcerated for cannabis offenses and repairing the harms of cannabis criminalization, I work every day with people who have been waiting years, sometimes decades, for relief. Our organization provides direct legal representation to those still behind bars, supports families separated by incarceration and helps people returning home access housing, employment and other critical resources. Almost every day, I hear from mothers who missed their children growing up, from fathers who have watched the world change through prison walls and from people who were punished not for violence, but for participating in an underground economy created by prohibition itself. Their lives were shaped by laws that lawmakers now openly admit were wrong, yet they remain trapped by their consequences. I believe we can do better, because I have seen what justice looks like when it finally arrives. I have watched people walk out of prison after decades and reunite with their families. I have seen records cleared, doors reopened and futures restored. That work does not happen on its own. Organizations like Last Prisoner Project depend on public support, and on partnership from the legal cannabis industry itself, to provide legal representation, support families separated by incarceration, help people returning home rebuild their lives and push for the policy changes needed to end these injustices for good. As companies profit from a legal market built on the end of prohibition, they have both the opportunity and the responsibility to help repair the harm prohibition caused. As we reflect this month on freedom, resilience and progress, we should remember that the fight for racial justice did not end with the passage of a bill or the opening of a dispensary. It continues wherever people remain incarcerated and excluded for conduct that society has legalized, normalized and turned into profit. Stephanie Shepard is executive director of the Last Prisoner Project, a nonprofit dedicated to freeing those incarcerated for cannabis offenses and repairing the harms of cannabis criminalization. She served nearly ten years in federal prison for a first-time, nonviolent cannabis offense. The post This Black History Month, Simply Rescheduling Marijuana Isn’t Enough While Cannabis Prisoners Remain Behind Bars appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

President Donald Trump delivered a lengthy State of the Union address on Tuesday, touching on a wide range of policy issues he’s championed in the first year of his second term. But to the disappointment of advocates and stakeholders, the president did not take the primetime opportunity to promote his work around marijuana rescheduling. Trump did bring up drugs in the context of militarized enforcement actions targeting alleged traffickers, preventing fentanyl smuggling across the border and the addressing pharmaceutical costs. Yet despite the bipartisan popularity of cannabis reform, he declined to mention a December executive order he issued directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to expeditiously complete the process of moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). That hasn’t happened yet, and the Justice Department has been largely silent on the issue in the weeks since Trump signed the order. Some hoped the president would use the high-profile speech before a joint session of Congress to reiterate his directive to finalize the rulemaking, but the issue was ignored altogether. Adam Rosenberg, chairman of the National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA), said after the speech that the State of the Union represented a “missed an opportunity to highlight a major gap between federal policy and state law.” “Nearly every state has legalized cannabis in some form, yet federal rules continue to create uncertainty for legitimate operators. The industry has heard promises before, including support for rescheduling. What’s missing is delivery,” he said. “Federal inaction continues to punish state-legal businesses with punitive tax treatment and banking barriers, while the illicit market operates without consequence. That imbalance is unsustainable.” Trump during his first term used the annual address to promote his administration’s tough-of-crime drug policy position. But it was his predecessor, former President Joe Biden, who first raised marijuana rescheduling—a process he initiated that led to the Schedule III recommendation—at a State of the Union address. The rulemaking process has dragged on for years now, however, and neither Trump nor the White House have provided any further update. Ahead of Tuesday’s speech, Marijuana Moment asked the White House whether the president planned to bring up cannabis rescheduling, but a spokesperson simply pointed to a statement from Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt the generally described Trump’s intent to discuss the administration’s “many record-breaking accomplishments” and his “ambitious agenda to continue bringing the American Dream back for working people.” A DOJ spokesperson told Marijuana Moment last month, meanwhile, that it had no “comment or updates” to share on the topic. However, an agency official more recently told Salon that “DOJ is working to identify the most expeditious means of executing the EO.” That phrasing is notable, signaling that the department is uncertain about the administrative pathway to finalize rescheduling. The hope among advocates and industry stakeholders was that the process would be more simple, with a final signature on the existing reform proposal that was released following a scientific review initiated under the prior Biden administration. The Justice Department’s relative silence on the issue has left some wondering if the agency is aligned with the White House, which last month separately touted the president’s order as an example of a policy achievement during the first year of his second term. Separately, as the Trump administration works to finalize the rescheduling proposal and prepares to roll out a CBD coverage plan through Medicare under the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the head of that agency, Mehmet Oz, recently raised concerns about non-intoxicating cannabidiol and hemp products overall. Oz said this month that “there are going to be consequences” as more Americans choose marijuana over alcohol—including problems caused by “high-dose hemp and CBD.” Meanwhile, the first-ever White House drug czar recently said that while he loves Trump and “almost everything he does,” that affection doesn’t extend to the pending proposal to federally reschedule marijuana, which he described as a “gateway drug” that’s harming youth. A White House spokesperson defended the administration’s rescheduling push in an earlier interview with Fox News Digital, stating that it’s part of his “pledge to expand medical research into applications of marijuana and cannabidiols.” “The president’s historic action paved the way for the development of promising new treatments for American patients, especially veterans—and the presence of several leaders from law enforcement and veterans groups at the Oval Office signing is indicative of how President Trump continues to push the envelope to support our nation’s heroes,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai said. The rescheduling plan has been met with mixed reactions on Capitol Hill. For example, prohibitionist Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) half-jokingly told Marijuana Moment this month that he felt the Justice Department should “take about 20 years” to finish the rescheduling process. In December, Harris separately said Trump doesn’t have the authority to unilaterally reschedule marijuana via executive order. But while lawmakers could overrule any administrative move to enact the reform, it would be a “heavy lift” in the Republican-controlled Congress, he acknowledged. Another GOP lawmaker on the other side of the debate, Congressional Cannabis Caucus co-chair Rep. Dave Joyce (R-OH), recently told Marijuana Moment that while marijuana rescheduling might not be at the top of the agenda for the Justice Department or White House amid competing interests, he and bipartisan colleagues will be ready when “opportunity does present itself.” Joyce separately said last month that he doesn’t think the attorney general would seek to undermine the president’s executive order to move marijuana to Schedule III despite any personal reservations she may have about the policy change. Former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Trump’s first pick for attorney general this term who ultimately withdrew his nomination, raised eyebrows last week after posting on X that he’s been told the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is actively drafting a rescheduling rule and intended to issue it “ASAP.” There’s some confusion around that point, however, as a rule is already pending before the Justice Department—and a new rule would presumably be subject to additional administrative review and public comment. A Democratic senator told Marijuana Moment earlier this month that it’s “too early to tell” what the implications of Trump’s cannabis order would be—saying that while there are “things that look promising” about it, he is “very concerned about where the DOJ will land.” “The ability of the Trump administration to speak out of both sides of their mouth is staggering,” Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) said. “So I’m just going to wait and see right now. Obviously, there’s things that look promising—to end generations of injustice. I really want to wait and see.” — 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. — Also last month, two GOP senators filed an amendment to block the Trump administration from rescheduling cannabis, but it was not considered on the floor. Meanwhile, last month, DEA said the cannabis rescheduling appeal process “remains pending” despite Trump’s executive order. A recent Congressional Research Service (CRS) report discussed how DOJ could, in theory, reject the president’s directive or delay the process by restarting the scientific review into marijuana. Bondi, the attorney general, separately missed a congressionally mandated deadline last month to issue guidelines for easing barriers to research on Schedule I substances such as marijuana and psychedelics. The post Trump ‘Missed An Opportunity’ To Promote Marijuana Rescheduling During State Of The Union, Industry Leader Says appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“It moves us closer to the day patients can speak openly with their doctors and families like mine can finally see the relief our loved ones have waited so long for.” By Juan Salinas II, Nebraska Examiner The Nebraska Legislature’s Health and Human Services Committee advanced a bill onto the floor that explicitly protects physicians who recommend medical cannabis to patients. The committee on Tuesday voted 5-2 to advance Legislative Bill 933 from State Sen. John Cavanaugh of Omaha. The measure would grant medical practitioners immunity from civil, criminal or disciplinary action for stating that, in the provider’s professional opinion, a patient is likely to receive therapeutic benefit or symptom relief from using cannabis for a medical condition. State Sen. Brian Hardin of Gering, the committee chair, and State Sen. Beau Ballard of Lincoln were the two senators who voted no. Hardin argued the bill might be a Trojan horse. Ballard questioned whether the bill was needed. The committee amended the bill to emphasize that a health care practitioner could still be “subject to civil penalty or disciplinary action” for not properly evaluating the medical condition of a patient. Tuesday’s vote was the latest in a years-long saga over medical cannabis in the state as Nebraska officials have slowed the implementation of two voter-passed laws. Nebraskans voted overwhelmingly to legalize possession of up to 5 ounces of medical cannabis with any health care practitioner’s recommendation in 2024. The law took effect late that year. Patients or caregivers following the state law are immune from state or local criminal penalties. Voters separately created the regulatory Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission, which will eventually license in-state dispensaries, allowing legal sales of the drug in the Cornhusker State. Over the past 15 months, lawmakers and advocates say they are not aware of any in-state providers who have recommended medical cannabis, partially because of concerns about liability and potential risks to licensure, some have said. Cavanaugh’s bill borrows language from last year’s LB 677 from State Sen. Ben Hansen of Blair. Hansen’s more expansive medical cannabis bill sought to give more structure to the Medical Cannabis Commission, including funding. The more comprehensive measure failed, falling short of the 33 votes needed to alter a state law passed by ballot measure. Nebraska also was left off a nearly annual congressional effort to protect states with medical cannabis programs, typically a noncontroversial addition to a federal spending bill that protects 47 other states with at least some form of medical cannabis laws. Crista Eggers of Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana, the group that led two 2024 ballot measures on medical cannabis, said the proposal is a “foundational protection that every medical cannabis program in the country provides so doctors can care for patients without fear.” “Without it, Nebraska risks having a program that fails to function… Advancing LB 933 through committee is only the first step,” Eggers said. “It moves us closer to the day patients can speak openly with their doctors and families like mine can finally see the relief our loved ones have waited so long for.” Now, it’s up to the speaker, John Arch of La Vista, to schedule it. The idea that the bill received bipartisan committee support could increase the pressure on Arch to let the bill reach the floor. Arch’s office said Tuesday that it was too soon for the speaker to set a timeline since the bill just came out of committee. This story was first published by Nebraska Examiner. The post Nebraska Lawmakers Vote To Protect Doctors Who Recommend Medical Marijuana appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

With the U.S. Supreme Court set to hear a case next week on the constitutionality of a federal gun ban for marijuana users, attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) are feeling “hopeful” that justices will take their side over the Trump administration’s Justice Department and ultimately declare the current policy unlawful. Oral arguments in the case, U.S. vs. Hemani, are scheduled for Monday. And after years of litigation on the issue in courts across the country, advocates are eager to see the cannabis and firearms issue resolved in their favor with justices agreeing that the statute known as Section 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Brandon Buskey, director of ACLU’s Criminal Law Reform Project, is part of the legal team representing Ali Danial Hemani, who challenged his federal conviction under 922(g)(3) for unlawful possession of a gun as a person who regularly used cannabis. Buskey discussed the case in an interview with Marijuana Moment on Tuesday, detailing how the organization plans to navigate the thorny legal issues that have divided lower courts, what questions it anticipates from the justices and how it is preparing to respond to DOJ’s likely claims. In case after case and filing after filing, DOJ has been steadfast in its position that the federal gun ban is appropriately enforced, insisting that even under the rigorous standards for gun laws that must be applied under recent Supreme Court precedent, restricting firearm rights for cannabis consumers is a public safety imperative. But on the other side of the debate, groups as politically diverse as ACLU and the National Rifle Association (NRA) have maintained that Section 922(g)(3) represents unconstitutional government overreach that ignores basic realities: That is, with cannabis now legal in some form in the vast majority of states—and even the federal government’s long-held prohibitionist policies gradually softening—it’s time to recognize that cannabis users aren’t part of some inherently dangerous caste whose Second Amendment rights must be categorically denied. “We don’t think that there’s any valid basis in history or tradition to justify that prosecution,” Buskey said. The following interview has been lightly edited for clarity. Marijuana Moment: Can you give an overview of the legal arguments ACLU plans to make challenging the current federal gun ban for cannabis users? Brandon Buskey: Our position is very basic and straightforward. It really consists of two parts. The first is that the statute in question prohibits gun possession by people based simply on marijuana use—but is unconstitutionally vague. It does not provide the kind of clarity that the Supreme Court requires of criminal statutes, especially statutes that expose an individual to up to 15 years of imprisonment. And because it doesn’t have that clarity, it lends itself very easily to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, and that’s our first point court in terms of why this law can’t stand. Second, even if we could agree on a definition of unlawful user that would apply to our client, Mr. Hemani, the law does not comport with the Supreme Court’s test for gun rights regulation. On the Second Amendment, the court has made clear that modern gun rights regulations have to fit the history and tradition of firearms regulation, so the government has to be able to point to an analogous type of firearm restriction from around the time of the [country’s] founding in order to prohibit individuals in the present from owning a firearm. Now our position is that that leaves ample room for the government to implement reasonable prohibitions on gun possession that are directly attuned to public safety risks. But this law does not do that. Instead, this law instead imposes a categorical presumption of dangerousness for a whole category of responsible gun owners based simply on their use of a common intoxicant like marijuana. And we don’t think that there’s any valid basis in history or tradition to justify that prosecution. MM: What kind of questions do you expect justices will want to examine in this particular case? And are you confident they’ll be amenable to those arguments ACLU will be raising? BB: We are hopeful that our position will prevail in front of the court. and that’s in part, on the Second Amendment question, because the court has emphasized that the Second Amendment is a fundamental right—and so our position is that, because it is a fundamental right, the government can’t take it away based on these arbitrary definitions of what an unlawful user might be or with prohibitions that don’t have any analogous precedent from the founding era. I suspect the court will have questions teasing out how broad the rule might apply. Does it apply to other types of drugs? Things like that. However, our emphasis will be that our argument is very narrow, and it really is limited to how this law is applied to an individual like Mr. Hemani, for whom the government has only established two basic facts: One, that he is a regular user of marijuana and, two, that he had possession of a weapon that was safely secured at the time it was located. And, because of that, we are confident that the court will will see that our argument is narrow and doesn’t implicate other broader questions—perhaps more difficult questions—that aren’t before the court in this argument. MM: What about DOJ? What are you expecting from the government as you head into oral arguments? BB: We anticipate that the government will have a very difficult time meeting its burden of establishing a historical analog, because it is clear that the government has decided to double down on this analogy—that someone who uses a common intoxicant like marijuana, or potentially someone, in the government’s view, [who uses] an intoxicant like alcohol, can be disarmed and imprisoned for 15 years. In the government’s view, those individuals—based on their regular use—are the equivalent of what was known at the founding as habitual drunkards, individuals who were subject to civil commitment and criminal prosecution because they simply could not could not resist the compulsion to abuse alcohol. That’s going to be a very difficult analogy for for the government to sustain here. And I think it’s one that the general public would be very surprised to hear that the government views users of a substance that is legal to some extent in nearly every state, as habitual drunkards [and] as people who are inherently dangerous simply by use of a common intoxicant like marijuana. MM: This also comes two months after President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the completion of a federal marijuana rescheduling proposal. To what extent do you think that issue will be addressed in this more narrowly focused gun and marijuana case? BB: I think it’s definitely relevant to the questions before the court, certainly, because the law makes it a crime for any unlawful user of a controlled substance to possess a gun. The rescheduling order directed by President Trump doesn’t technically shift the question in this case, because it would still be illegal for unlawful user of a Schedule III drug [to own or possess a] firearm. However, it does, in our view, undermine the government’s position that individuals who use marijuana on some regular basis, although it’s not totally defined, are categorically and presumptively dangerous. The president in that order made clear that there are valid purposes, or valid medical uses of marijuana, and it should be studied more in order to make it available to individuals who might need it for pain relief and other other purposes. And so it really strains credulity for the government to say that, notwithstanding that recognition, it should still be authorized to prosecute, for example, the veteran who is using medical marijuana legally under the laws of his or her state, but also owns a firearm. That individual, despite the president’s proclamation, would not be protected from prosecution under the statute. MM: Most people live in a state where cannabis is legal. Public opinion strongly favors reform over criminalization as it concerns cannabis. How should people understand why it is that DOJ continues to make such sweeping and stigmatizing generalizations about marijuana consumers to support this gun ban? BB: The best way to understand this, perhaps, is the government—under numerous administrations—almost always defends the constitutionality of criminal statutes, even when there are potentially major problems with those statues and even when it’s clear that they are not in step with the consensus of the popular will. So I think that underscores a point that we’re making throughout our brief, which is that it’s really up to Congress to write a clearer law—but I think it’s also up to the Supreme Court to make clear that the government does not have the authority to enforce this law and cannot claim such broad authority under the Second Amendment. And I think, because the executive almost always wants to maintain the power to prosecute in these cases, then the other branches of our government have to come forward and limit that authority. MM: Is there anything else you’d like to add about ACLU’s position on this issue? BB: I would only add that we want to make it very, very clear our position is that gun violence is a real problem. It deserves real solutions. That marijuana use is not purely innocuous. However, the prosecution of our client in this case does not serve public safety and is not in line with the kinds of valid prohibitions on gun possession or gun use that are open to states under the Second Amendment, and that’s why we’re arguing this law simply cannot stand. The post ACLU Attorney ‘Confident’ Supreme Court Will Strike Down Gun Ban For Marijuana Users After Oral Arguments Next Week appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

I used to worry about encountering fake profiles, but then I found a trustworthy agency offering Call Girl In Gurgaon services. They provide a real list of gorgeous, verified companions, from mature, experienced women to fresh, teenage beauties. Their round-the-clock availability means you can book tonight and have a stunning partner delivered to your hotel room, ready to provide endless joy.

With thanks just for offer a very awesome page! I stubled onto a web site ideal for great really needs. Its content has delightful and additionally important reports. Preserve acknowledge that there are succeed! iptv canada