All Activity

One amendment would remove a requirement for product labels to list medical cannabis as a Schedule I controlled substance in light of federal rescheduling. By Zach Wendling, Nebraska Examiner People wishing to weigh in on the latest regulations for the Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission can do so in person Thursday or by sending in written comments by the end of the day. The public hearing begins at 1 p.m. Thursday at the State Office Building in downtown Lincoln. It will run for up to three hours, or until there are no additional speakers, whichever comes first. Speakers will be limited to three minutes, or two minutes if many people wish to speak. Written comments can be sent by email (mcc.contact@nebraska.gov) or mail (Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission, PO Box 95046, Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-5046) by 11:59 p.m. Thursday. In-person speakers are strongly encouraged to bring written copies, too. Gov. Jim Pillen (R) and Attorney General Mike Hilgers (R) signed off on the commission’s previous regulations this summer. They took permanent effect July 6. “Participants are encouraged to review the proposed amendments before the hearing and focus their comments on specific provisions they would like the commission to consider changing, clarifying, adding or removing,” the commission website states. “Comments regarding the proposed fee schedule are also welcome.” All comments must be reviewed before the commission can sign off on the regulations and forward them to the governor and attorney general, which delays the process into 2027. The commission has said it won’t license more establishments until the next round of regulations is approved, which again will require approval from the executive branch officials. Both Pillen and Hilgers are up for reelection next month. Proposed amendments The latest proposal offers a few distinct changes, the largest of which is a proposed fee structure for applicants—a $5,000 application fee, annual license and renewal fees based on type (between $10,000 and $28,500), a $1,500 relocation fee and a $13,000 fee for participation in the state’s seed-to-sale inventory tracking system. Dispensaries would also need to pay a $250 fee to license a new product, plus a $100 renewal fee. Currently, there are no fees under the program. Sales taxes are currently prohibited. The latest amendments would also merge transporter licenses with product manufacturers, so transportation would be an optional certification. Other notable changes: Removing a label that would list medical cannabis as a “Schedule I” controlled substance. In May, the federal government downgraded state-licensed medical cannabis from a Schedule I drug to a Schedule III drug. Allowing disenrollment of healthcare practitioners who voluntarily choose to participate in the program if the practitioner fails to maintain a medical license in good standing. Requiring healthcare practitioners to attest when an in-person appointment occurs before they issue a recommendation for medical cannabis. Attesting whether a provider knows whether a patient is pregnant before recommending medical cannabis. If the provider in the future learns a patient is pregnant, they must alert the commission. At the commission’s August meeting, Commissioner Jim Elworth of Nebraska City called the changes as a whole “significant” because they would help “streamline” the process. He cited a small change to the definition of cultivator and the potential expanded responsibilities of manufacturers. He had said that despite “insinuations” and, “frankly, the rudeness during the public comment period,” commissioners had visited a potential manufacturer, “taken his recommendations to heart” and made certain changes based on conversations, “These regulations are 70-some pages, and they’re tight at this point,” Elworth said. “We are hoping that they will be approved as soon as possible and you will see that they make a difference in how this process works.” Current state of regulations The current medical cannabis regulations call for the state to: Establish a “Recommending Health Care Practitioner” directory and require patients who want to access Nebraska-licensed dispensaries to go through one of the in-state providers. Cap cultivators at no more than 1,250 flowering plants at one time. Restrict purchases of medical cannabis to 5 ounces of medical cannabis in 30 days, of which no more than 5 grams can be delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) from the same dispensary. Delta-9 THC is the part of cannabis most associated with a “high.” Allow no more than 12 medical cannabis dispensaries statewide, arranged by judicial district. That would mean one dispensary each in Douglas County (584,526 residents), Lancaster County (322,608 residents), Sarpy/Cass counties (217,202 residents) and Buffalo/Hall counties (112,979 residents), according to 2020 census data. Prohibit the sale of smoking or vaping products and edibles of any kind. Current state law allows possession of up to 5 ounces of medical cannabis with the written recommendation of any healthcare practitioner. Advocates have repeatedly expressed concern that the regulations could hurt the program’s ultimate success. This includes the Legislature’s failure this spring to pass protections for health care providers who wish to recommend medical cannabis. The commission’s next regular meeting is 1 p.m. Oct. 19 at the State Office Building in Lincoln. This story was first published by Nebraska Examiner. Photo courtesy of Mike Latimer. The post Nebraska Officials Consider Changes To Medical Marijuana Rules appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“By virtue of our law, the Medical Psilocybin Act, we have given people the legal right to access this plant medicine.” By Jack Gorsline, Psychedelic State(s) of America Medical providers, military veterans, legal experts and the primary legislative author of New Mexico’s Medical Psilocybin Act delivered a unified rebuke to the New Mexico Department of Health during an October 2 public rulemaking hearing, warning that newly added administrative mandates threaten to make the state’s landmark psychedelic therapy program inaccessible to its most vulnerable residents. The two-hour hybrid hearing centered on proposed rule 7.35.3 NMAC and amendments to 7.35.2 NMAC, which establish the clinical, licensing and operational framework for the state-regulated program created under 2025 Senate Bill 219. With the health department accelerating the program’s launch to December 2026 (a full year ahead of the statutory deadline), stakeholders testified before Hearing Officer Craig Erickson and agency General Counsel Mr. Woodward that the draft regulations copy outdated restrictions from the state’s nearly 20-year-old medical cannabis program. Across roughly 80 written public comment submissions and hours of oral testimony, speakers argued that the proposed prescriber gateways, landlord consent requirements and rigid staffing ratios exceed statutory authority, invite discrimination lawsuits and jeopardize health insurance coverage. The regulatory clash marks a sharp reversal from the optimism seen in March, when Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) signed a state budget allocating a pioneering $630,000 to the Medical Psilocybin Treatment Equity Fund alongside $300,000 for University of New Mexico clinical research into end-of-life anxiety. Financed in part by state oil and gas trust fund revenues, that appropriation was hailed as a global first for state-subsidized psychedelic healthcare and followed intense lobbying by many of the same clinicians, lawmakers and advocacy groups who are now warning that the Department of Health’s draft rules could undermine the program before it launches. When the equity funding passed, State Sen. Jeff Steinborn, D-Las Cruces, and Healing Advocacy Fund New Mexico Director of Strategic Support Denali Wilson praised the investment as proof that ability to pay would not become a barrier to care, though Las Cruces nonprofit founder Deborah Thorne of Sol Tryp cautioned that the fund’s real-world reach would depend on keeping clinical delivery costs manageable. A primary point of contention in the draft rules is the department’s proposed creation of a “certifying clinician” role. In oral testimony and a joint written filing from the Healing Advocacy Fund, the Psychedelic Mental Health Access Alliance and the Rudick Law Group, advocates argued that requiring an in-person exam with a prescriber violates the plain language of the Medical Psilocybin Act, which requires only that a licensed, permitted provider confirm a qualifying condition, such as treatment-resistant depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance use disorder or end-of-life distress. “The certifying clinician requirement…goes beyond what was anticipated in the statute,” Wilson testified. “We urge a model that preserves safety without a prescriber gateway. The Medical Psilocybin Act requires only that a patient have a qualifying condition, which any licensed provider authorized to diagnose can confirm.” While the state’s medical cannabis statute required a prescribing clinician to authorize patients to possess an otherwise illegal substance on their own, medical psilocybin is administered strictly during supervised sessions at approved locations. Because psilocybin patients never possess the medicine outside of a supervised setting, requiring patient identification cards and a 30-day state review creates an unnecessary bottleneck, delays urgent care and establishes a state database of sensitive mental health records vulnerable to data breaches. Practical day-of-session safeguards, such as urinalysis to screen for unknown pregnancy or poly-intoxication, were recommended instead. Chris Peskuski, a Marine Corps veteran in Albuquerque, Heroic Hearts Project Ambassador and a peer facilitator on the University of New Mexico’s psilocybin study for PTSD, urged the department to drop the controlled substance registration and patient application mandates, bring physicians in only when screening flags real medical risk, and allow individual sessions with a single licensed practitioner. “Under our laws, licensed clinicians deliver every treatment. And these rules put a licensed behavioral health provider in the room for every dose. That’s more clinical oversight than Oregon or Colorado required. Yet at the front door, these rules turn away from all of that and toward our medical cannabis program,” Peskuski testified. “Under these rules, nobody gets in without a prescriber’s signature, a recent in-person exam, and up to 30 days waiting on state approval. That gate doesn’t add safety…” he said. “Dangling access just out of reach is an insult to the veterans and first responders who need it. It will leave them coping in unhealthy ways. They survived combat, and the calls nobody else would take. Some won’t survive the wait.” Bernalillo County firefighter Paul Walton, executive director of Firefighters for Plant Medicine, added that compounding hurdles cause first responders struggling with trauma to abandon treatment altogether. Dr. Lida Fatemi, an internal medicine and hospice physician at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine, also criticized the in-person exam mandate, noting that Medicare permits hospice recertification via telehealth and that an in-person rule locks out rural, tribal and homebound patients. Wilson also warned that the certifying clinician design and proposed provider supervision rules create severe insurance and malpractice liabilities, despite earlier verbal reassurances from the New Mexico Health Care Authority. “A medical encounter whose only purpose is program entry lacks independent medical necessity, which is the requirement for billing insurance,” Wilson testified. “And that is going to invite claims denials and clawbacks over time, which is a serious long-tail liability problem.” If the department retains the prescriber role, Wilson urged officials to recruit naturopathic doctors, doctors of oriental medicine, acupuncturists and chiropractors, who hold prescriptive authority in New Mexico, to help offset severe physician shortages. Additionally, she warned that placing non-clinical facilitators under the formal supervision of licensed practitioners could pull facilitators under New Mexico’s Medical Malpractice Act without granting them access to malpractice coverage, while giving insurers grounds to reject claims rendered in part by unlicensed staff. Advocates recommended replacing the supervisory structure with an independent care-coordination model. As highlighted in coverage by the Santa Fe Reporter, the fiercest backlash of the hearing centered on provisions requiring written property owner permission before a patient can receive in-home care or before a healing center can operate in a leased commercial building. Steinborn, the primary sponsor of the Medical Psilocybin Act, testified during the hearing that giving landlords veto power over state-authorized healthcare subverts the law. “I am totally opposed to the landlord sign-off for homebound patients,” Steinborn said. “By virtue of our law, the Medical Psilocybin Act, we have given people the legal right to access this plant medicine. And I believe it’s totally inappropriate to subordinate that right, that individual right that we have given people, to a landlord. It forces someone to violate their right to their medical privacy in order to receive that care.” Steinborn also urged the department to remove the landlord consent mandate for commercial healing centers and shorten the 30-day patient paperwork review to a week or two. End-of-life advocates, including advisory board End-of-Life Committee Chair Dr. Larry Leeman, Taos hospice nurse Jennifer Johnson and End of Life Options New Mexico board members Barak Wolff and Dr. Lance Chilton, noted that unlike cannabis, psilocybin produces no smoke or residue, and requiring landlord signatures places “unnecessary and deleterious burdens” on dying patients. Attorney Brett Phelps, speaking for the Psychedelic Bar Association’s New Mexico Working Group, testified that forcing tenants to disclose medical treatment collides with fair housing laws and could trigger direct lawsuits against the state. Disability Rights New Mexico also submitted legal analysis opposing the rule, while advocates noted that similar litigation in Oregon has already cost regulators hundreds of thousands of dollars. Psilocybin advisory board chair Ian Dunn, the sole Gen Z representative involved in developing the program, told officials that the rule creates two classes of patients: “Those who own property can make decisions for themselves. Those who do not must ask someone else.” Speakers also criticized session staffing ratios and training gaps that could rapidly deplete the Treatment Equity Fund. Requiring both a practitioner and a facilitator at individual sessions doubles bedside costs, Johnson said, while Dr. Maria Feeney noted that group rules requiring five staff members for eight patients defeat the cost-saving purpose of group therapy. Furthermore, Steinborn, Leeman and Wilson urged the state to mandate specific minimum hours in the 75-hour curriculum for end-of-life care, trauma-informed care, suicidality screening and managing challenging experiences, while Indigenous healers and local educators (including Patricio Dominguez, Equity Committee Chair DezBaa’, Dr. Courtney Hale and Cheyenne medicine woman Sage Romanos) called on the state to honor traditional curanderismo and Indigenous lineages rather than outsourcing training to out-of-state corporations. Amid the widespread pushback over patient entry bottlenecks and property owner mandates, several clinical educators and mental health practitioners praised the New Mexico Department of Health for establishing rigorous training, supervision and workforce transition standards. During oral testimony, Changa Institute founder and CEO Lisa Ginsburg applauded regulators for prioritizing patient safety and creating a reciprocity pathway that allows accredited out-of-state programs to help train New Mexico’s initial cohort of providers. Dr. Janice Phelps, founder of the California Institute of Integral Studies’s psychedelic therapies certification program, similarly commended the state’s clinical standards, arguing that relying on robust provider training is the best way to guarantee safety while loosening administrative barriers to access. In written comments included in the department’s exhibit binder, Santa Fe licensed mental health counselor Danielle Leonard urged the agency to retain three core provisions: requiring licensed therapists to serve as practitioners, maintaining graduated clinical practicum standards and mandating at least 10 hours of no-cost, post-graduation mentoring. Because psilocybin sessions bring trauma and grief to the surface, Leonard wrote, “these provisions mean that New Mexicans in this program will be cared for by clinicians who are well trained, well supported, and accountable.” Similarly, Dr. Patricia Singh, an Albuquerque licensed professional clinical counselor and executive director of the outpatient substance use clinic A New Awakening, commended the department’s “thoughtful, clinically responsible regulatory framework,” specifically endorsing the transitional 40-hour practicum pathway for experienced applicants alongside temporary “other approved locations” to expand rural access. As regulators review the October 2 record, 16 advocacy and clinical organizations have petitioned House Appropriations and Finance Committee Chair Rep. Nathan P. Small, D-Las Cruces, in a community letter to appropriate an additional $500,000 for the Treatment Equity Fund, allocate $500,000 for University of New Mexico palliative research and extend $1.5 million in previously appropriated development and research funds through fiscal year 2027. The regulatory debate comes as the New Mexico Department of Health’s Center for Medical Cannabis and Psilocybin moves forward with supply-side licensing, recently issuing the state’s first medical psilocybin producer permit to Sacred Alto Spores ahead of the program’s accelerated end-of-year launch. This article was produced in partnership with Psychedelic State(s) of America—a nonprofit-sponsored news organization dedicated to rigorous independent psychedelic journalism. Subscribe to PSA online and Follow PSA on Instagram, LinkedIn, Twitter/X and Facebook. Learn more about PSA and donate to the PSA Media Fund here. Photo courtesy of Mark Groeneveld. The post Proposed New Mexico Psilocybin Rules Get Pushback From Lawmakers And Advocates appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

A Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) judge overseeing a hearing on the Trump administration’s marijuana rescheduling proposal is ordering the agency to respond to opponents’ request for a new round of testimony and discovery in the proceedings. The dispute concerns a recently released federal watchdog report that found there are “gaps” in the government’s process for evaluating controlled substances. DEA said in a brief filed last week that it is fine with including the document in the hearing record, as opponents have pushed for, but it does not want any further briefings on the matter. Opponents of the reform, meanwhile, are pushing to further delay a decision in the proceedings by asking the judge to order a new round of testimony and discovery. DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julius on Wednesday issued an order directing the agency to reply to the opposition motion by October 21. “Having received a new substantive motion, I will once again order a response and allow time for filing,” he said, specifying that DEA’s brief should be no more than 10 pages long. “This matter remains STAYED to allow time for a response and to allow time for the tribunal to consider the pending motions,” the judge said. Julius separately granted opposing parties’ motion to file a brief responding to DEA’s most recent filing in the case while saying that “I have not yet ruled on the Motion to Admit GAO Report and RESERVE ruling on that motion pending additional responses.” Opponents of cannabis rescheduling are asking that the recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on drug scheduling be included in the record, and Julius last month paused the proceedings and ordered DEA to weigh in on whether the document should be made a part of the process. DEA’s most recent brief argues that it defers to the judge on whether the GAO report should be included in the record, but it opposes opponents’ request for additional briefings to be ordered concerning what the report’s findings mean for cannabis rescheduling. Those opponents have “mischaracterized the GAO Report and its impact” on the marijuana rescheduling process, the agency said, adding that it “does not present any new evidence salient to the issue before this Tribunal.” That report found, among other things that DEA “does not have any policies or procedures regarding how its staff are to conduct evaluations or schedule substances” and the Food and Drug Administration within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) “does not have policies or procedures specifying how its staff are to conduct evaluations or develop scheduling recommendations for substances.” DEA said, however, that the GAO report merely identified “gaps in the memorialization of rescheduling process, not any flaws in the rescheduling process itself.” Until recently, the only expected remaining step in the proceedings had been for Julius to issue his own recommendation on marijuana rescheduling to the DEA administrator, who would then make a final determination on the policy. But last month the judge granted the motion for a stay filed by the National Drug and Alcohol Association (NDASA), DUID Victim Voices and Kenneth Finn, M.D.—parties opposed to cannabis rescheduling that participated in the hearing and who now want the GAO report included as part of the record. Other parties in the hearing were “permitted, but not required” to file briefs on whether the GAO report should be included in the marijuana rescheduling hearing record. Prohibitionist organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and the states of Idaho, Indiana and Nebraska filed a joint brief on Tuesday arguing that the GAO report is “competent, relevant, and material evidence to proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law that directly bear on the Rescheduling determination before the Tribunal.” The National Drug & Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA), DUID Victim Voices, and Kenneth Finn also filed a separate joint brief on Monday, arguing that “additional briefing is necessary because this dispute goes beyond whether the Report is admissible—it concerns what the Report means and why it matters.” The opponents’ brief also calls attention to their arguments that a new two-part test federal officials used to analyze cannabis improperly departs from a former five-part test. “The Report’s findings bear directly on whether the agencies used a consistent, reviewable method here. It gives no reason for the change from the five-factor CAMU test to the two-part version,” it says. “That unexplained change matters because the hearing record shows that FDA began its work before the two-part test existed, was directed to use it, and never completed a five-factor analysis.” “The Government cannot rely on an unexplained change in method to establish its desired Schedule III findings,” the opponents argue. “It also cannot admit it lacks established procedures for making findings on rescheduling that are required by law and then insist those deficiencies are immaterial.” In 2024, the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) said the prior five-part test was “impermissibly narrow” and said the two-part review “is sufficient to establish” that a drug has a currently accepted medical use. NDASA, DUID and Finn also filed a separate motion on Monday asking the DEA judge to order a “narrow reopening of the hearing for limited discovery and testimony tied to the Report, the agency-process gaps it identified, and why those gaps matter to marijuana rescheduling.: They are requesting authority to “serve narrowly tailored document requests and to seek testimony limited to” certain specific subjects. “The requested discovery is necessary and proportionate. It targets the process facts GAO identified, the factual disputes the Government created in its response, and the issues the Government restricted during the hearing,” the motion says. “It does not seek a broad reopening, a new merits case, or duplicative testimony already taken. Limited discovery is therefore proportional to the issues the Report and the Government’s response have placed before the tribunal.” It remains to be seen whether Julius will order additional briefings on the GAO report and whether he will take the more far-reaching step of reopening testimony and discovery. 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 he signed, the DEA hearing was held in June and July to consider more comprehensively moving marijuana to Schedule III. “The Government is not putting forth any evidence to suggest that marijuana is not dangerous. All controlled substances by definition are dangerous,” James Schwartz, a DEA attorney, said on the opening day of the hearing, according to the transcript. “That is why they are scheduled in the first place. However, controlled substances must be evaluated by the risks they pose balanced with the medical use they provide.” “The proposed rule, the supporting documents, and the Government witnesses will establish that marijuana has a currently accepted medical use,” he said. “With that determination, marijuana can no longer remain in Schedule I.” Meanwhile, DEA and parties that participated in the marijuana rescheduling hearing laid out their arguments in final briefs. The federal agency, which was charged with defending the proposed rescheduling move, said in its brief that “marijuana no longer fits the statutory requirements for Schedule I because it has a currently accepted medical use within the United States and it has an accepted safety for its use under medical supervision.” The agency noted that under the law it must give “significant deference” to an “extensive ten-month study on the scientific and medical properties” of cannabis conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which recommended rescheduling. “Currently there are over 30,000 practitioners treating more than six million patients in 43 U.S. jurisdictions,” DEA said. “Such practices demonstrate that there is no longer a lack of accepted safety for use of marijuana under medical supervision, and as such, marijuana does not fulfill the requirements of being a Schedule I substance.” It also said that there is “substantial evidence sufficient to show that marijuana’s abuse and dependency profiles better align with Schedule III substances than Schedule II” or Schedule I. “The vast majority of individuals who use marijuana do so in a manner that does not result in dangers to themselves or to their communities.” In conclusion, DEA asked the judge overseeing the hearing to “expeditiously recommend” that marijuana be transferred from Schedule I to Schedule III. During the hearing, DEA officials charged with defending the cannabis rescheduling proposal highlighted testimony on marijuana’s medical benefits and its relative safety compared to other substances such as alcohol and opioids. That included appearances from a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scientist and a medical doctor from New Hampshire who detailed how medical marijuana provides relief to pain patients and can serve as an alternative to opioids. Meanwhile, lawyers and witnesses for parties who are oppose marijuana rescheduling and participated in the hearing put significant focus on the alleged harms of cannabis use as well as criticism of recently adopted changes to an analysis used to determine whether drugs have accepted medical value. DEA invited only organizations and people who oppose marijuana reform to join the hearing as designated participants—telling supporters that 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.” Ahead of the hearing’s start, marijuana reform activists held a press conference outside DEA headquarters to highlight how they feel the have been “shut out” of the process—criticizing the fact that no supporters of reform were invited to participate and that the proceedings were not livestreamed despite officials’ vows of “transparency.” Marijuana Moment sent requests to Julius, the DEA judge, and to Cole, the DEA administrator, requesting they reverse a decision to prohibit the public from tuning into the cannabis hearing via livestream. A congressman and other journalists later joined in that request. — Marijuana Moment’s journalism is made possible by readers like you who value this work enough to support us with monthly pledges on Patreon. If you rely on our reporting to stay informed about key cannabis developments, please help us keep doing this by becoming a sustaining subscriber today. Backing us at the $25/month level also gets you access to our Bill Tracker so you won’t miss any important marijuana legislation in your state. — 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. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently rejected a drug testing industry association and a pharmaceutical company’s request to block the Trump administration from moving forward with cannabis rescheduling while the litigation is considered. The parties have jointly filed a proposed briefing schedule for the legal dispute. A congressional committee recently voted to block federal officials from taking further steps to carry out cannabis rescheduling, though bipartisan lawmakers told Marijuana Moment they don’t believe that provision will be enacted into law. Read the order in marijuana rescheduling hearing below: The post DEA Judge Orders Agency To Address Marijuana Rescheduling Opponents’ Request For New Testimony And Document Discovery appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

The mayor of the largest city in Massachusetts says she is voting against an initiative on the November ballot that seeks to roll back the state’s cannabis legalization law. “A decade ago, I was proud to be among the few elected officials who supported the ballot question to legalize cannabis and end decades of criminalization and its disproportionate impact on marginalized communities,” Boston Mayor Michelle Wu (D) said on Wednesday. “Since then, legalization has created new businesses and jobs and generated state and local revenue to support substance use recovery and public health programs,” she said in a press release sent by the Stop the Repeal campaign that’s working to defeat the anti-marijuana measure. “I am voting No on 8 to protect that progress, not turn back the clock.” The campaign’s release notes that Boston “has one of the most robust cannabis equity programs in the nation, which helps to support individuals and communities disproportionately affected by the War on Drugs in achieving success within Boston’s cannabis industry.” The city has more than 40 adult-use marijuana retailers, including 18 that participate in the equity program, eight economic empowerment participants and four that hold diverse business enterprise status, the campaign said—adding that Boston generated more than $9.7 million in local cannabis tax revenue in fiscal years 2022-2025 and expects to earn another $3.6 million in fiscal year 2026. “Massachusetts not only has a legal adult-use cannabis system in place that prioritizes public health and consumer safety, but also allocates millions in cannabis tax revenue towards supporting entrepreneurs who were directly impacted by the War on Drugs,” Ryan Dominguez, chair of the Stop the Repeal campaign, said. “We are grateful to have the support of Mayor Michelle Wu in defeating this damaging ballot question, helping to support local Boston businesses, jobs, and public health and safety programs,” he said. Wu’s newly announced position represents the latest high-profile endorsement for the campaign to defeat Question 8—which would repeal laws allowing the regulated commercial sales of recreational cannabis and home cultivation while maintaining legal possession and continuing the medical marijuana system. U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) both recently told Marijuana Moment that they will be voting against the anti-cannabis measure. “We could make improvements in the operations but legalizing cannabis is better than continuing an unregulated, underground market,” Warren said. “So I’m opposed to the repeal. I’m voting no on the ballot to repeal.” Markey, for his part, said the state’s marijuana legalization law that voters approved in 2016 continues to enjoy “overwhelming support.” “We’ve had debate,” he said. “The voters are satisfied at this moment with the experience that the state has had with it… I support keeping it on the books and overwhelmingly so do the people of Massachusetts.” Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) also recently urged voters to reject the measure, saying that “keeping marijuana legal in Massachusetts is both economic justice and racial justice policy.” Gov. Maura Healey (D) similarly said recently that she opposes the anti-cannabis initiative, saying that “we’ve got to keep recreational marijuana here in Massachusetts.” “It’s an important industry, the cannabis industry,” the governor said. “And I hope the voters keep cannabis.” Meanwhile, a recent poll released shows that most Massachusetts voters oppose the ballot measure to roll back marijuana legalization. The survey, published by CommonWealth Beacon and conducted by MassINC Polling Group (MPG), shows that 61 percent of likely voters oppose the initiative. Just 27 percent of respondents said they favor the anti-cannabis ballot measure, while 11 percent are undecided and 1 percent responded that they would prefer not to state their opinion. A separate poll released last month by The University of New Hampshire, showed that nearly three-quarters (71 percent) of respondents planned to vote against the anti-cannabis measure, while just 24 percent planned to support it. Another survey released in August found that Massachusetts voters opposed the marijuana legalization repeal measure, 55 percent to 33 percent. Competing campaigns working to pass and defeat the legalization rollback have launched a series of ads trying to convince voters of their respective positions. The prohibitionist campaign’s ads focus on the dangers of marijuana-impaired driving, while the campaign seeking to keep cannabis sales legal is highlighting the public health and safety harms of sending consumers back to the unregulated market. The Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission, which regulates the legal industry, announced last month that the state has surpassed $10 billion in adult-use cannabis purchases since the market launched in 2018. CCC Chair Chris Harding told Marijuana Moment that he can’t comment directly on the initiative and that the commission does not take positions on pending ballot questions or legislation, but he said that, in general, “repeal of the adult-use industry could eliminate thousands of jobs, hundreds of businesses and billions in tax revenue.” Meanwhile, a top labor union—the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Massachusetts State Council—is urging voters to reject the cannabis legalization rollback initiative. While the latest survey results provide some comfort to cannabis reform supporters, advocates are not resting. A coalition of Massachusetts marijuana business leaders, healthcare professionals and other advocates have launched a campaign to defeat the measure. The Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) recently issued a warning that passage of the legalization rollback measure would have “disastrous political and economic consequences for legal cannabis markets everywhere.” “Even a too-close victory would spook markets and incentivize a rash of similar initiatives in states around the country, each costing millions to try and defeat,” the group said. After the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s Office determined that organizers for the anti-cannabis proposal had turned in enough valid signatures to put the measure before voters, a marijuana reform advocate filed an objection with the State Ballot Law Commission claiming that various signatures were not genuine, obtained through fraudulent means or were not “signed substantially as registered.” The body rejected the challenge to the legal marijuana rollback measure, however, clearing it to go before voters to decide. In June, the campaign behind the anti-legalization ballot measure fired a signature gatherer it says was shown appearing to engage in “wholly unacceptable” conduct in a recent video. As Marijuana Moment reported, a man petitioning for the Massachusetts initiative as well as a similar anti-cannabis proposal in Maine was depicted in recent social media posts seeming to argue that voters who support legal marijuana access should sign the petitions in order to advance or protect reform. The campaign later said it has “zero tolerance for any circulation tactics that would mislead petition signers.” “The identified canvasser was immediately terminated, in coordination with our vendor, upon being made aware of the alleged conduct,” the group said. “The conduct apparent in the video would be wholly unacceptable and does not reflect how this campaign operates. We demand honesty, transparency and professionalism from everyone associated with our effort.” A video posted to Reddit of the signature gatherer shows the man collecting signatures outside a retail store in Massachusetts next to a sign that says “keep cannabis legal.” When confronted by a marijuana reform supporter who recorded the petitioner’s interactions with voters, he appeared to be trying to convince them that it is important to qualify the anti-cannabis measure for the ballot in order to then defeat it. “This is what we’re fighting against right here. That’s why we vote no,” he said. “If we can get this to the ballot right here, we vote no.” The person who captured the video pointed out that Massachusetts voters already approved marijuana legalization years ago, and that the only way it could be imminently repealed is if the new ballot measure qualified for the November election. If the initiative does not get enough signatures to go before voters, the state’s laws will remain the same. “It’s my job,” the petitioner insisted, however. “I know what I’m talking about.” “It’s a group of rich folks from out of state that want to basically take marijuana to when it was a medical marijuana card,” he said. “We don’t want that to happen.” The same man also appeared to also be gathering signatures for a separate measure in Maine that would similarly repeal laws allowing regulated adult-use marijuana sales and home cultivation rights for adults while keeping possession legal and adding new testing requirements for medical cannabis. A staffer for the prohibitionist organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), whose affiliated group SAM Action is largely funding the anti-cannabis ballot campaigns in both states, declined to comment about the petitioner’s conduct when reached by Marijuana Moment. The campaigns have previously been accused of misleading petitioning tactics. In Massachusetts, some voters reported that the campaign used fake cover letters for other ballot measures on unrelated issues like affordable housing and same-day voter registration during the first round of petitioning. Legal cannabis supporters filed an earlier formal complaint about the prohibitionist effort’s tactics, but the State Ballot Law Commission rejected the challenge. The measure also faced a legal challenge from cannabis industry operatives who argued it contains “impermissibly unrelated subjects,” and that the state attorney general’s official summary is “misleading and deficient.” The state Supreme Judicial Court heard oral arguments on the litigation challenging the anti-marijuana initiative but it ultimately ruled against the lawsuit. The governor of Massachusetts last month filed legislation proposing to increase military veterans’ access to medical marijuana by allowing them to receive patient cards without having to get a doctor’s recommendation. The post Boston Mayor Opposes Massachusetts Ballot Measure To Roll Back Marijuana Legalization appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“Let’s see what shakes out from the things that we’ve done the first six years. Give the industry a break and give it time to show us if the changes we made are beneficial.” By Emma Murphy, Oklahoma Voice The Oklahoma Legislature should hit pause on further regulating the state’s medical marijuana industry to allow recent laws to take full effect, one legislator said Tuesday. Rep. T.J. Marti, R-Broken Arrow, said lawmakers have created enough cannabis laws since voters first legalized medical marijuana in 2018, and everyone would benefit from waiting to pass any additional regulations. Marti has taken the lead on various marijuana regulatory bills over the past few years and currently chairs the House Alcohol, Tobacco and Controlled Substances Committee. “I’ve been saying let’s see what shakes out from the things that we’ve done the first six years,” he said. “Give the industry a break and give it time to show us if the changes we made are beneficial.” Still, House lawmakers heard from medical marijuana patients and industry advocates, laboratory testing businesses and the state’s regulatory agency at an interim study on Tuesday. They proposed over a dozen more ways the industry could be further regulated amid mistrust in cannabis testing and safety. The Legislature has retroactively passed regulations since voters approved legalization of the industry. The medical marijuana industry needs to work together to say what it needs from lawmakers, Marti said, because conflicting solutions are being proposed. “We need you guys to come together with things that the industry wants help with solutions,” he said. “And we have a lot of offers today. I’m guessing if I posted, ‘This is what we’re going to take up this year,’ there would be at least 50 percent hate out there for all of these issues. So again, that’s not normal across any other industry, other than maybe oil and gas.” Mistrust in medical marijuana testing Marion McNabb, a cannabis and policy researcher, said a recent report on Oklahoma’s medical marijuana industry revealed that 30 percent of surveyed patients have some level of distrust in the accuracy of laboratory testing in Oklahoma. The surveyed business owners also said there’s a lack of transparency and communication on requirements and that testing can be unreliable, she said. Currently, the state relies on about a dozen independent labs to confirm safety and quality of marijuana products. Rep. Jacob Rosecrants, D-Norman, said he thinks the Legislature needs to focus further regulation on expanding test labs’ capabilities to identify pesticides and other hazardous substances through new technology and approved methodology. Rosecrants, who hosted the interim study, also said the state needs to prepare itself for the federal government’s change in its classification of marijuana. These priorities could also potentially be achieved through the administrative rules process, he said. “We’ve got to get a hold of what we’re ingesting,” Rosecrants said. “Plus, not only have I spoken to patients that have ingested or smoked something that made them sick, it happened to me too.” Rosecrants said his constituents are questioning why it’s taken the Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority so long to get its quality assurance lab fully up and running. Barrett Brown, the chief administrative officer for the agency, said the lab is operational but still awaiting accreditation for certain testing capabilities. The lab is intended to regulate the independent, licensed testing facilities. Suggestions on improving marijuana testing ranged from aligning testing criteria with existing national standards to targeting families of compounds when testing marijuana rather than listing out every harmful pesticide in state law. Gillian Schauer, executive director of the Cannabis Regulators Association, said the testing model in Oklahoma is high stakes because products are only tested at the end of the process, so failing a test means losing high quantities of a marijuana product. Testing ends up being the only marker of whether or not something is safe, she said. “There’s pressure on labs to falsify things, there’s pressure from licensees sometimes to try to get something through because they don’t want to lose the inventory,” Schauer said. “And this creates, again, some incentives that can be misaligned. We need better methods.” This story was first published by Oklahoma Voice. Photo courtesy of Chris Wallis // Side Pocket Images. The post Oklahoma Should Stop Changing Medical Marijuana Rules So Frequently, Lawmaker Says appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

The Democratic candidate running to represent Texas in the U.S. Senate in next month’s elections says he will work to federally legalize marijuana if he wins the race. “Like prohibition, bans don’t work,” James Talarico, who currently serves as a state representative, said in response to a question from The Texas Tribune about how Congress should regulate hemp-derived THC products. “Texans aren’t going to stop smoking weed because politicians in Austin or D.C. told them not to,” he said. “People will still use THC, but instead of getting it safely from regulated, local small businesses, they’ll get it from the black market, from the drug cartels. Talarico said that “Texans use THC to lessen anxiety, seniors use it to manage chronic pain, and veterans use it to treat PTSD,” and that bans “make people’s lives harder, not easier.” “In the Senate, I’ll support legalizing marijuana for adults—regulating and imposing taxes on its sales to support public safety and health programs,” he said. Talarico’s Republican opponent for the Senate seat, Ken Paxton, did not respond to the Tribune’s questionnaire, but he has filed lawsuits to block several Texas cities from implementing local voter-approved laws to decriminalize marijuana in his capacity as state attorney general. His office has also defended state hemp THC product restrictions from litigation. The Texas Democratic Party recently called out Paxton for refusing to answer a question about cannabis policy after he was recently shown in a video posted to X being asked what his thoughts are on the “state’s THC ban.” “I don’t know the details of it, but let’s talk later,” he replied before quickly stepping away. Democrats pounced on Paxton’s inability to answer the cannabis question, saying in a press release that he appeared to be “in a panic” when being pressed about the “incredibly unpopular” THC ban before proceeding to “run away” from the questioner. “Ken Paxton is a coward who runs from questions because he has no answers for his wildly unpopular positions,” Texas Democratic Party Spokesperson Ryan Martin said. “Paxton knows Texans hate this THC ban he has pushed onto people with his nanny-state agenda.” Meanwhile, Talarico’s new comments to the Tribune aren’t the first time he has voiced support for cannabis reform. In an interview with The Breakfast Club in August, the Democratic candidate said that keeping marijuana illegal while also moving to restrict hemp THC products is an “insane” form of “corruption.” “Think about what industries are most worried about THC products being readily available: Big Beer, Big Tobacco, right? And so they were the ones pushing this THC ban because it hurts their bottom line,” he said. “And a lot of research shows that THC—cannabis—these products are safer and less addictive than than beer or tobacco.” “And so to me, this is a prime example of what corruption looks like when you’ve got big industries buying politicians and pushing bills that harm people, but benefit them financially,” Talarico said. He has also suggested that Paxton supports banning cannabis in order to aid his political donors in the alcohol and tobacco industries. “People are outraged across the state, and it’s not any one political party,” Talarico said of recently enacted state restrictions on hemp products in an interview with KTSM-TV. “It’s people across the spectrum.” “It doesn’t make any sense until you follow the money and realize that it is big beer and big tobacco that are funding the politicians, like Ken Paxton, who turned around and banned these safe THC products in order to enrich the big beer and a big tobacco lobby,” Talarico said. While Talarico’s suggestion that Paxton’s actions were undertaken to support any specific business can’t be verified, campaign finance records reviewed by Marijuana Moment show that Paxton has accepted more than $500,000 in political donations from the alcohol industry while using the power of his office to crack down on cannabis. Podcaster Joe Rogan, who lives in and operates a comedy club in Austin, has suggested that taking anti-cannabis actions is a political risk for Republicans. “They’ve done the THC thing,” he said. “Here’s what Texas doesn’t understand. You will fuck this place up and you will turn the whole thing blue.” “Kids will turn on you if you tell them they can’t smoke weed,” Rogan said. “They know weed’s not killing anybody.” Meanwhile, voters in Houston will decide on an initiative to make misdemeanor marijuana possession the “lowest possible enforcement priority” for local police on the November ballot. Ted Brown, the Libertarian candidate for the Texas U.S. Senate seat, told the Tribune that “there should be no federal regulation of any cannabis or hemp products.” “I would remove cannabis from the Drug Enforcement Administration Schedule of Controlled Substances and have no federal marijuana laws whatsoever,” he said. “I also want to repeal Texas’ prohibitions against adult cannabis use, as adults should be able to ingest any substances they want to without government permission. Anyone ever convicted of a federal or state marijuana offense should have their record expunged. No one should ever have been arrested for a plant.” Image element courtesy of Antonioaesparza. The post Talarico Says He’ll Work To Federally Legalize Marijuana If Elected To The Senate appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“The charade of hemp intoxicants must end. Sneaking in the back door with synthetic drugs nobody asked for is not the path to legalization.” By Chris Lindsey, American Trade Association for Cannabis and Hemp Last week, the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) asked its supporters to urge Congress to keep intoxicating hemp products on the market. I read the group’s action alert with more than professional interest. I spent nearly a decade on MPP’s staff, helping pass medical and adult-use cannabis and decriminalization laws throughout the country. I am proud of that work. That is why MPP’s latest campaign troubles me. It asks Congress to protect synthetic THC products and THCa flower that bypasses the state regulatory programs MPP built, and it leaves behind the people those programs were meant to serve. In Illinois, that work took six years and three laws: medical access in 2013, decriminalization in 2016 and a legalization law in 2019 that went back and cleared the records of people already convicted. By its own count, MPP led the way on 15 medical cannabis laws and played a leading role in 14 of the 24 adult-use states. Those states adopted its model of licensing, testing, tracking and taxation—and businesses agreed to build within it. Those programs have since generated tens of billions of dollars in state tax revenue, served millions of patients and led to the normalization of cannabis. MPP’s alert says the era of a dual system for hemp and cannabis needs to end. I agree, and THC should be treated as THC. The real question is why MPP would undermine its advocacy on regulation by supporting the unregulated intoxicating hemp charade now known as “gas station weed” over the regulated systems MPP built. MPP calls the coming federal changes prohibition. On December 11, intoxicating hemp such as THCa flower will be treated as what it is: marijuana. Synthetic THC derivatives will be treated as what they are: designer drugs. THC regulation will play by the same rules state-licensed cannabis and hemp businesses have followed for more than a decade. Fairness is all those businesses have ever asked for, and it’s what sensible regulation requires. MPP says the changes to federal hemp laws are detrimental to people in prohibition states. Yet by MPP’s own count, more than 300 million Americans already live in states with medical cannabis programs, and most prohibition states never chose hemp intoxicants. They arrived through a federal loophole, without a state vote. Nor are these products what they claim to be. MPP names THCa flower and delta-8 among the products it wants protected. THCa flower is marijuana by another name, designed to confuse people into thinking it’s different. Delta-8, HHC, THCP and whatever comes next are lab-made versions of THC, produced because actual hemp contains so little natural delta-9. We need real legalization. States that want legal cannabis can have it through the front door, the one MPP spent 30 years building. What troubles me most is what the alert leaves out. It mentions the failed war on cannabis once and it says nothing about the people that war left behind. At one time, that was the focus at MPP. When I helped write the Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act in Illinois, its equity provisions were the point. The law cleared hundreds of thousands of records through automatic expungement and pardons, created social equity licensing and sent a quarter of cannabis tax revenue to communities harmed by uneven enforcement. MPP itself called those efforts the law’s most historic aspect. Hemp legislation has offered nothing close. Of the hundreds of hemp bills filed since 2019, our review found that only one hemp-only bill tried to address equity, and it largely borrowed from Illinois’s cannabis law. The need for reform around cannabis laws has not gone away. Police issued more than 200,000 cannabis charges last year by MPP’s own count, many of which involved arrest. Some argue hemp products reduced criminal charges in prohibition states, yet FBI data shows those 26 states still reported 186,581 cannabis charges in 2025. Texas, one of the states MPP staff pointed to, led the nation with more than 29,000 charges. Where hemp actually did lower arrests, MPP’s own staff said it was partly because crime labs were overwhelmed. An arrest that is avoided because a lab is backlogged changes nothing about the broken system and clears no one’s record. The licensed cannabis and hemp businesses my current organization—the American Trade Association for Cannabis and Hemp (ATACH)—represents carry those commitments at a real cost. They operate inside demanding state systems MPP helped design. When Illinois launched adult-use sales, the first licensees paid into a fund to bring new social equity businesses into the market, and many incubated those businesses themselves. In New Jersey, licensed cultivators pay a Social Equity Excise Fee. Most states that have legalized for adults paired it with some form of social equity, from clearing records to equity licensing to reinvesting tax revenue in harmed communities. That is the price of admission to a legal market and these businesses choose to pay it. Intoxicating hemp competes for the same customers while contributing nothing, using a business model that depends on avoiding regulation. Consumers are left with untested, lab-made products. Last October, MPP Executive Director Adam Smith asked the licensed cannabis industry to invest in independent advocacy, arguing that a legal, well-regulated industry is the best antidote to dangerous, unregulated markets. He was right. The charade of hemp intoxicants must end. Sneaking in the back door with synthetic drugs nobody asked for is not the path to legalization. Federal policy must be built on the foundation that already works: the state systems that regulate cannabis, with their testing, age limits, accountable businesses and commitment to repair. MPP taught a generation of advocates, me among them, that ending prohibition means building something better in its place. That is still the right mission. MPP should return to it. Chris Lindsey is vice president of policy and state advocacy at the American Trade Association for Cannabis and Hemp. While at the Marijuana Policy Project, he helped pass Illinois’s 2013 medical cannabis law, drafted and helped pass the state’s decriminalization law and helped write the 2019 Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act, in addition to work on similar laws in over a dozen other states. The post Former Staffer At Top Marijuana Policy Group Criticizes Its Push To Keep Hemp THC Products Legal (Op-Ed) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

KS gov candidate: Legalize marijuana; SD AG: Rescheduling doesn’t impact medical program; NFL-funded study on cannabis stigma; Hemp THC drinks 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… Your good deed for the day: donate to an independent publisher like Marijuana Moment and ensure that as many voters as possible have access to the most in-depth cannabis reporting out there. Support our work at https://www.patreon.com/marijuanamoment / TOP THINGS TO KNOW The Drug Enforcement Administration filed a brief saying it is fine with reopening the marijuana rescheduling hearing record to include a government report that’s critical of the federal drug review process—but it doesn’t want additional briefings on the matter, even as opponents filed a new brief seeking to further delay a decision by more broadly reopening testimony and document discovery. Kansas Democratic gubernatorial candidate Cindy Holscher, currently a state senator, said the state should legalize marijuana—and she’s criticizing her Republican opponent, Senate President Ty Masterson (R), for blocking medical cannabis legislation. South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley (R) issued a legal opinion finding that “the federal rescheduling of marijuana will likely have a negligible impact on South Dakota’s medical-marijuana program.” A new study funded by the National Football League found that long-held anti-marijuana attitudes in sports leagues are “evolving” as social trends are “driving more openness to cannabis” as an alternative to opioids for treating athletes’ pain—but ongoing stigma is creating trust issues that make it harder for medical staff to do their jobs. “Medical professionals, particularly younger or research-focused staff, are increasingly seeing cannabis as a safer or more effective option than alcohol, opioids, or other prescription drugs.” Former National Football League player Micah Hyde argues in a new Marijuana Moment op-ed that Congress should regulate—instead of ban—hemp THC drinks like the ones his company produces. “Hemp beverages deserve the same kind of framework alcoholic beverages do. What I don’t believe is that the only two choices are an unregulated market or eliminating these products as a whole.” NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano argues in a new Marijuana Moment op-ed that a proposed constitutional amendment on Idaho’s November ballot to block voters from ever being able to legalize cannabis is “anti-democracy.” “Public support for legalization is greater today than at nearly any time in our nation’s history. This reality has Idaho lawmakers, and Republicans especially, running scared.” / FEDERAL The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up the case of a man challenging a loss of gun rights over a marijuana cultivation conviction. The State Department and Treasury Department sanctioned people and entities that are allegedly tied to a drug cartel. / STATES A Pennsylvania senator posted a video about her forthcoming bill to regulate hemp THC products. South Dakota regulators posted proposed changes to medical cannabis rules. Minnesota regulators published guidance about high-medical-need cannabis products. Oklahoma’s top medical cannabis regulator authored an op-ed about ongoing efforts to oversee the legal industry. Illinois’s top marijuana regulator spoke about a recently enacted expansion to the state’s medical cannabis program. 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. — / INTERNATIONAL A Romanian lawmaker withdrew his name from a bill to decriminalize drug possession. / SCIENCE & HEALTH A study found that “THC exerts broad immunomodulatory effects characterized by suppression of inflammatory and type I interferon responses while promoting cellular stress-adaptation pathways.” A study found that “CBD was associated with sustained effectiveness and good tolerability in adults with [Lennox–Gastaut Syndrome], with high retention and improvement in seizure and other clinically meaningful outcomes.” / ADVOCACY, OPINION & ANALYSIS The Marijuana Policy Project published a voter guide for Pennsylvania’s upcoming elections. / BUSINESS Montana retailers have sold nearly a quarter of a billion dollars worth of legal marijuana products so far this year. / CULTURE Football player Jameson Williams successfully got a fine for a cannabis-smoking celebration gesture he made during a game rescinded, arguing that marijuana is legal in some states. 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: Photo courtesy of Chris Wallis // Side Pocket Images. The post New DEA & opponent briefs in cannabis rescheduling hearing (Newsletter: October 14, 2026) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Discretion and privacy are absolute priorities for anyone seeking high-end adult companionship today. Choosing a reputable VIP Escorts Service in Dwarka guarantees complete confidentiality from start to finish. Clients appreciate the secure booking process and the professional demeanor maintained throughout every single interaction.

There are a lot of blogs over the Internet. But I can surely say that your blog is amazing in all. It has all the qualities that a perfect blog should have. bolagila

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) says it has no problem with reopening the record for a hearing on the Trump administration’s marijuana rescheduling proposal to include a federal watchdog report that found there are “gaps” in the government’s process for evaluating controlled substances—though it doesn’t want further briefings on the matter. Opponents of the reform, meanwhile, are pushing to further delay a decision in the proceedings by asking the judge to order a new round of testimony and discovery. Opponents of cannabis rescheduling had asked that the recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on drug scheduling be included in the record, and DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julius last month paused the proceedings and ordered DEA to weigh in on whether the document should be made a part of the process. DEA’s newly filed brief argues that it defers to the judge on whether the GAO report should be included in the record, but it opposes opponents’ request for additional briefings to be ordered concerning what the report’s findings mean for cannabis rescheduling. Those opponents have “mischaracterized the GAO Report and its impact” on the marijuana rescheduling process, the agency said, adding that it “does not present any new evidence salient to the issue before this Tribunal.” That report found, among other things that DEA “does not have any policies or procedures regarding how its staff are to conduct evaluations or schedule substances” and the Food and Drug Administration within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) “does not have policies or procedures specifying how its staff are to conduct evaluations or develop scheduling recommendations for substances.” DEA said, however, that the GAO report merely identified “gaps in the memorialization of rescheduling process, not any flaws in the rescheduling process itself.” “Rather, the Report issued a recommendation that DEA and FDA ‘fill gaps’ in their written policies surrounding the process of rescheduling. This recommendation is immaterial to the actual scientific processes and analysis these agencies used. More importantly, the GAO makes no critical finding as to the actual scientific processes and analyses used by FDA and DEA in scheduling controlled substances and makes no recommendations as to other scientific processes and analyses that FDA and DEA should use in determining what schedule to place a substance. Moreover, the GAO Report does not ever opine on FDA’s ultimate conclusion that marijuana should be transferred to Schedule III. While the Government defers to this Tribunal as to whether the GAO Report should be late admitted into evidence, the Government asserts that any briefing on the GAO Report – a document that has no bearing on the ultimate issue of whether marijuana should be transferred to Schedule III – is unnecessary.” “When a document’s meaning is clear, the court need not allow additional argument to interpret the document,” DEA said in the brief that was filed on Friday but obtained by Marijuana Moment on Tuesday, urging the judge not to further delay his rescheduling recommendation by allowing additional briefings from parties. Until now, the only expected remaining step in the proceedings had been for Julius to issue his own recommendation on marijuana rescheduling to the DEA administrator, who would then make a final determination on the policy. But last month the judge granted the motion for a stay filed by the National Drug and Alcohol Association (NDASA), DUID Victim Voices and Kenneth Finn, M.D.—parties opposed to cannabis rescheduling that participated in the hearing and who now want the GAO report included as part of the record. Other parties in the hearing were “permitted, but not required” to file briefs on whether the GAO report should be included in the marijuana rescheduling hearing record. Prohibitionist organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and the states of Idaho, Indiana and Nebraska filed a joint brief on Tuesday arguing that the GAO report is “competent, relevant, and material evidence to proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law that directly bear on the Rescheduling determination before the Tribunal.” “The Tribunal should also request supplemental briefing from the parties to address whether HHS’s lack of internal written policies contributed to an evaluation of marijuana that departed from prior agency practice,” the brief said. The National Drug & Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA), DUID Victim Voices, and Kenneth Finn also filed a separate joint brief on Monday, arguing that “additional briefing is necessary because this dispute goes beyond whether the Report is admissible—it concerns what the Report means and why it matters.” “The Government contends that the findings concern documentation rather than the analysis itself and that they do not affect the proposed rescheduling. The Government then accuses Interested Parties of ‘mischaracterizing’ the Report. Neither of the Government’s characterizations is true. The Report plainly found that DEA lacks written policies or procedures assigning roles, responsibilities, and procedures for collecting and analyzing data, conducting eight-factor analyses, determining schedule placement, considering HHS recommendations, and making final scheduling decisions. It also found that FDA lacks procedures for eight-factor analyses and scheduling recommendations and lacks criteria for determining ‘potential for abuse,’ including ‘abuse potential relative to other substances.’ Those findings go well beyond documentation and concern the governing process, including the standards and responsibilities that produce the agency’s legally required findings.” The opponents’ brief also calls attention to their arguments that a new two-part test federal officials used to analyze cannabis improperly departs from a former five-part test. “The Report’s findings bear directly on whether the agencies used a consistent, reviewable method here. It gives no reason for the change from the five-factor CAMU test to the two-part version,” it says. “That unexplained change matters because the hearing record shows that FDA began its work before the two-part test existed, was directed to use it, and never completed a five-factor analysis.” “The Government cannot rely on an unexplained change in method to establish its desired Schedule III findings,” the opponents argue. “It also cannot admit it lacks established procedures for making findings on rescheduling that are required by law and then insist those deficiencies are immaterial.” In 2024, the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) said the prior five-part test was “impermissibly narrow” and said the two-part review “is sufficient to establish” that a drug has a currently accepted medical use. NDASA, DUID and Finn also filed a separate motion on Monday asking the DEA judge to order a “narrow reopening of the hearing for limited discovery and testimony tied to the Report, the agency-process gaps it identified, and why those gaps matter to marijuana rescheduling.: They are requesting authority to “serve narrowly tailored document requests and to seek testimony limited to” certain specific subjects: (1) Who selected, recommended, directed, drafted, or approved the July 2023 two-part CAMU test for marijuana; when that occurred; and what records or other information explain why HHS used that test after FDA’s evaluation had begun. (2) Who prepared or materially revised the Part 1 and Part 2 CAMU language in the HHS recommendation; and what role DEA, FDA, HHS, NIH, OLC, and outside participants played in such preparation or material revision. (3) Why the 2023 HHS evaluation did not address mental-health effects, psychosis, schizophrenia, the gateway effect, high-potency products, cardiovascular disease, pregnancy and prenatal exposure, diversion, pediatric use, geriatric use, or other public-health evidence in the same manner as earlier marijuana evaluations and the hearing record. (4) What written or unwritten criteria FDA used for “potential for abuse,” “relative potential for abuse,” and the Schedule III comparison required by 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(3)(A). (5) What policies, procedures, memoranda, training materials, role assignments, agency communications, written responses, and technical comments GAO reviewed or requested regarding eight-factor analyses, schedule placement, consideration of HHS recommendations, and final scheduling decisions. “The requested discovery is necessary and proportionate. It targets the process facts GAO identified, the factual disputes the Government created in its response, and the issues the Government restricted during the hearing,” the motion says. “It does not seek a broad reopening, a new merits case, or duplicative testimony already taken. Limited discovery is therefore proportional to the issues the Report and the Government’s response have placed before the tribunal.” It remains to be seen whether Julius will order additional briefings on the GAO report and whether he will take the more far-reaching step of reopening testimony and discovery. 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 he signed, the DEA hearing was held in June and July to consider more comprehensively moving marijuana to Schedule III. “The Government is not putting forth any evidence to suggest that marijuana is not dangerous. All controlled substances by definition are dangerous,” James Schwartz, a DEA attorney, said on the opening day of the hearing, according to the transcript. “That is why they are scheduled in the first place. However, controlled substances must be evaluated by the risks they pose balanced with the medical use they provide.” “The proposed rule, the supporting documents, and the Government witnesses will establish that marijuana has a currently accepted medical use,” he said. “With that determination, marijuana can no longer remain in Schedule I.” Meanwhile, DEA and parties that participated in the marijuana rescheduling hearing laid out their arguments in final briefs. The federal agency, which was charged with defending the proposed rescheduling move, said in its brief that “marijuana no longer fits the statutory requirements for Schedule I because it has a currently accepted medical use within the United States and it has an accepted safety for its use under medical supervision.” The agency noted that under the law it must give “significant deference” to an “extensive ten-month study on the scientific and medical properties” of cannabis conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which recommended rescheduling. “Currently there are over 30,000 practitioners treating more than six million patients in 43 U.S. jurisdictions,” DEA said. “Such practices demonstrate that there is no longer a lack of accepted safety for use of marijuana under medical supervision, and as such, marijuana does not fulfill the requirements of being a Schedule I substance.” It also said that there is “substantial evidence sufficient to show that marijuana’s abuse and dependency profiles better align with Schedule III substances than Schedule II” or Schedule I. “The vast majority of individuals who use marijuana do so in a manner that does not result in dangers to themselves or to their communities.” In conclusion, DEA asked the judge overseeing the hearing to “expeditiously recommend” that marijuana be transferred from Schedule I to Schedule III. During the hearing, DEA officials charged with defending the cannabis rescheduling proposal highlighted testimony on marijuana’s medical benefits and its relative safety compared to other substances such as alcohol and opioids. That included appearances from a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scientist and a medical doctor from New Hampshire who detailed how medical marijuana provides relief to pain patients and can serve as an alternative to opioids. Meanwhile, lawyers and witnesses for parties who are oppose marijuana rescheduling and participated in the hearing put significant focus on the alleged harms of cannabis use as well as criticism of recently adopted changes to an analysis used to determine whether drugs have accepted medical value. DEA invited only organizations and people who oppose marijuana reform to join the hearing as designated participants—telling supporters that 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.” Ahead of the hearing’s start, marijuana reform activists held a press conference outside DEA headquarters to highlight how they feel the have been “shut out” of the process—criticizing the fact that no supporters of reform were invited to participate and that the proceedings were not livestreamed despite officials’ vows of “transparency.” Marijuana Moment sent requests to Julius, the DEA judge, and to Cole, the DEA administrator, requesting they reverse a decision to prohibit the public from tuning into the cannabis hearing via livestream. A congressman and other journalists later joined in that request. — Marijuana Moment’s journalism is made possible by readers like you who value this work enough to support us with monthly pledges on Patreon. If you rely on our reporting to stay informed about key cannabis developments, please help us keep doing this by becoming a sustaining subscriber today. Backing us at the $25/month level also gets you access to our Bill Tracker so you won’t miss any important marijuana legislation in your state. — 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. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently rejected a drug testing industry association and a pharmaceutical company’s request to block the Trump administration from moving forward with cannabis rescheduling while the litigation is considered. The parties have jointly filed a proposed briefing schedule for the legal dispute. A congressional committee recently voted to block federal officials from taking further steps to carry out cannabis rescheduling, though bipartisan lawmakers told Marijuana Moment they don’t believe that provision will be enacted into law. Read the briefs in marijuana rescheduling hearing below: The post DEA Is OK With Including New Report In Marijuana Rescheduling Hearing As Opponents Seek More Testimony And Document Discovery appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“Hemp beverages deserve the same kind of framework alcoholic beverages do. What I don’t believe is that the only two choices are an unregulated market or eliminating these products as a whole.” By Micah Hyde, Former NFL Player Alcohol has been around through many stages of my life. It’s been there at celebrations, dinners, countless nights out, college parties, game days, wins and losses. Like many, I drank socially, but one thing always remained true: I hated the way it made me feel, especially the morning after. I spent 12 years in the National Football League (NFL), and as my career went on, that tradeoff made less and less sense. After a game, my body and mind had already been through enough. I was sore, tired and focused on recovering so I could do it all over again days later. It was depleting mentally, physically and emotionally. Adding a night of drinking only to feel even worse the next morning never appealed to me, and it was never worth it. Toward the end of my career, I started looking for another option and eventually found low-dose hemp products. I could relax, enjoy a buzz with my friends and still wake up feeling like myself the next day, ready to perform. The problem was that I still wanted the experience of cracking open an ice cold beer, and that is where the idea of Hyde’s Hail Mary was born. I wanted to create something that felt familiar, something I could have while watching a game, sitting around with friends or unwinding after a long day, without alcohol. Federal rules don’t allow THC to simply be added to beer, so I had to work with formulators to develop a malt-forward shandy that could deliver that same kind of experience in a completely different and better way. I retired from the NFL in 2025 (Go Bills) and launched Hyde’s Hail Mary that August. My name may be on the can, but I am not just the face of the company. Building this brand has meant learning every part of the business, which I can honestly say I’ve enjoyed. From the formulation, lab testing and compliance to the QR codes printed on every can, I’m learning it all. I spent my football career obsessing over details because every detail mattered, and I’ve brought that same mentality into my business. In fact, I can no longer look at a can sitting on a table without thinking about all that went into getting it there. Today, Hail Mary has four flavors on shelves in Louisiana, Texas, Illinois, Wisconsin and New York. Our Apple Shandy, a flavor my wife developed, won a silver award at the LA Spirits Awards in our very first year. During home games, you can find our team outside of Highmark Stadium amongst the best fans in the world, handing out samples in a city that means everything to me and my family. One of the biggest surprises has been understanding who our customers really are. When we launched, I assumed we’d be targeting people in their twenties. To my surprise, a large part of our customer base stands between 35 and 55. Many are parents, and men and women buy the product at nearly the same rate. They are not necessarily looking to party, though maybe some are. A lot of them are looking for the same thing I was: a way to unwind and enjoy something at the end of the day while still feeling good the next morning, and they keep coming back. That is why what’s happening in Washington, D.C. matters beyond belief. Unless Congress acts, a new federal definition of hemp is scheduled to take effect on December 11. Among other changes, hemp-derived cannabinoids containing more than 0.4 milligrams of total THC per container will no longer fall within the federal definition of hemp. For beverages like Hyde’s Hail Mary, a product I take so much pride in, that would eliminate the product entirely. The uncertainty is already affecting small businesses like mine. Two distribution opportunities we spent months developing fell apart this year because distributors simply don’t know how this is going to play out. I don’t blame them, but it is absolutely unfortunate. That uncertainty affects every decision we make, and matter of fact, it affects everything. Beverages have expiration dates, and we can’t manufacture unlimited inventory and leave it sitting in a warehouse while we wait for Washington to decide whether we will legally be able to sell. Our best-selling flavor is nearly sold out, and right now I have to think carefully about how much more we can produce. I understand why lawmakers want rules and regulations around this industry, and I want rules, too. I believe hemp beverages should be regulated and sold only to adults 21 and over. Products should be independently tested and clearly labeled and they should be produced and sold by companies willing to follow real standards with integrity. I would happily support reasonable limits on the amount of THC permitted in a beverage, including a 10 milligram per container cap. We already sell through licensed dispensaries in New York, and I have seen firsthand that a regulated system with testing, age checks and real oversight works. Hemp beverages deserve the same kind of framework alcoholic beverages do. What I don’t believe is that the only two choices are an unregulated market or eliminating these products as a whole. There is a responsible middle ground. Adults should be able to choose a properly tested and clearly labeled low-dose hemp beverage just as they would an alcoholic one. These drinks have changed the way I experience the game I spent most of my life playing. I can go to a game, have something in hand, enjoy the atmosphere and stay completely present for the one thing I came to see: football. I can watch plays develop and enjoy the game without feeling like alcohol has to be a part of the experience, and I know plenty of people who want the same. For me, Hail Mary started with a pretty simple question about why there wasn’t something better for people who wanted to unwind without alcohol, so I built it. To every reader who enjoys hemp beverages, I invite you to visit the Hemp Beverage Alliance action center to tell Congress in a single sentence why you support safe, regulated sales. What Congress does next will determine whether businesses like Hyde’s Hail Mary get the chance to keep going. Micah Hyde, the founder of Hyde’s Hail Mary, is a former National Football League Player. The post Congress Should Regulate Hemp THC Drinks Like Alcohol Instead Of Banning Them, Former NFL Player Says (Op-Ed) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

South Dakota’s attorney general says the Trump administration’s move to reschedule medical marijuana will have little effect on the state’s medical cannabis program, concluding that federal rules provide a pathway for state-licensed businesses to continue operating with the necessary registrations. The opinion, published on Tuesday by Attorney General Marty Jackley (R), comes as officials in states across the U.S. work to understand the implications of the major shift in federal marijuana policy—and after some South Dakota lawmakers sought to repeal the state’s medical cannabis program in light of federal rescheduling. “Because current Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) administrative rules permit state medical-marijuana facilities to continue operating with proper federal and state registration, the federal rescheduling of marijuana will likely have a negligible impact on South Dakota’s medical-marijuana program,” the attorney general wrote. “The federal rescheduling of marijuana does not preempt South Dakota’s medical-marijuana program because Congress has not expressly preempted state action, it has not totally occupied the field of marijuana regulation, and South Dakota’s medical-marijuana law does not conflict with the federal scheduling,” he said. “In fact, under DEA’s April 2026 rule, an existing manufacturer, distributor, or dispensary operating under a valid state license may now do so in compliance with federal law if they register with the DEA.” Under an order issued by Attorney General Todd Blanche in April, marijuana products regulated by a state medical cannabis license immediately moved from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III, as did any marijuana products that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). An administrative hearing is considering broader marijuana rescheduling. Jackley’s new opinion, which was requested by lawmakers who serve on the legislature’s Medical Marijuana Oversight Committee, said the state has “faced a somewhat analogous situation previously” with respect to federal hemp legalization. It pointed out that a court agreed that police powers are traditionally reserved to states and that a “no preemption” clause in the federal legislation that legalized hemp eliminated any potential for preemption. “Similarly, federal rules currently permit actors in the state medical-marijuana industry to continue to function so long as they obtain the proper federal and state credentials,” the South Dakota attorney general wrote. “Because federal law accommodates the state’s medical-marijuana program, state law does not conflict with dispensing of Schedule III marijuana or cannabinoid medication under federal law.” @SDAttorneyGen Marty Jackley: At the request of a state Senator, I have issued an official opinion stating that the federal rescheduling of marijuana as a Schedule III controlled substance will NOT impact South Dakota’s Medical Marijuana program.https://t.co/g5g1zBs0J1 pic.twitter.com/nJxU0RYZxo — SD Attorney General Marty Jackley (@SDAttorneyGen) October 13, 2026 South Dakota doesn’t currently schedule marijuana as a controlled substance under state law, though it does criminalize possession and distribution outside of the medical cannabis program. “If South Dakota were to choose to reschedule marijuana to a Schedule III controlled substance, then the general rules regarding Schedule III substances would apply to marijuana as with any other Schedule III substance,” Jackley said. “But this action would have to be taken by either the Legislature or the voters, independent from the rescheduling of marijuana federally.” Lawmakers had laid out six potential options of future state cannabis policy actions in their request to the attorney general, and he replied that “none of them would be excluded by current federal or state law” but that it would be up to the legislature and voters to decide which, if any, to pursue. “Changes to marijuana’s scheduling by the federal government were accompanied by an explicit pathway through which participants in state medical-marijuana programs may be registered with the federal government and continue to operate,” Jackley said. “Because federal law explicitly permits state medical-marijuana programs, South Dakota’s program may continue to operate as it has without impact from marijuana’s federal rescheduling to a Schedule III controlled substance. The attorney general’s opinion comes after South Dakota lawmakers weighed legislation this session on federal rescheduling’s impact—including one bill that would have repealed the state’s medical marijuana law 90 days after the attorney general certified that cannabis had been federally rescheduled to Schedule III. Meanwhile, South Dakota regulators have voiced uncertainty about how federal marijuana rescheduling will work in conjunction with the state’s law. State medical cannabis program administrator Whitney Brunner told lawmakers in August that officials had received little federal guidance beyond requests for information. The post Federal Marijuana Rescheduling Will Have ‘Negligible Impact’ On South Dakota’s Medical Cannabis Program, Attorney General Says appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Long-held anti-marijuana attitudes in sports leagues are “evolving” as social trends are “driving more openness to cannabis” as an alternative to opioids for treating athletes’ pain—but ongoing stigma creates trust issues that makes it harder for medical staff to do their jobs, according to a new study funded by the National Football League (NFL). “Negative perceptions and longstanding stigma continue to shape how cannabis use is viewed among athletes, medical staff, and society, making open discussion difficult,” the study, published this week in the journal Sports Health, said. However, “medical professionals, particularly younger or research-focused staff, are increasingly seeing cannabis as a safer or more effective option than alcohol, opioids, or other prescription drugs.” The qualitative research, which was partially funded by the joint pain management committee overseen by the NFL and the NFL Players Association, involved interviews with 10 medical staff from professional and collegiate leagues. That includes the NFL as well as the National Basketball Association (NBA), Major League Baseball (MLB), National Hockey League (NHL), National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and others. Interviewees largely said they feel “unqualified” to assist athletes on cannabis issues due to “limited education and experience,” the researchers at the University of Saskatchewan and University of Regina in Canada wrote. “Targeted cannabinoid education, destigmatization, and clearer league policies are essential to optimize athlete care and harm reduction as cannabis use grows in elite sport.” Athletic medical professionals also reported “ongoing confusion and anxiety about legal status, league policies, and compliance requirements related to cannabinoids” which “discourage open communication and appropriate athlete support.” Due to uncertainty about the rapidly changing legal and policy landscape on the issue, “many staff avoid advising on cannabis altogether,” the study said. Meanwhile, the researchers noted that “alcohol remains widely accepted and normalized in sports culture, in contrast with the strict controls on cannabis.” “Many recognize that, despite health risks, alcohol is encouraged while cannabis remains taboo.” Decades of anti-drug campaigns and institutional messages has left many athletes and staff in fear being “judged, punished, or jeopardizing their positions in sport” over marijuana—and drug testing for cannabis “adds to the stigma,” the study said. While cannabis remains “largely taboo” in sports, social trends and the growing legalization movement has played a role in reducing the stigma—”with younger and research-oriented medical staff adopting more open, health-centered perspectives,” the researchers noted. “Shifts in cannabis laws have fostered openness and curiosity. Legalization encourages staff and athletes to discuss cannabis use more freely and increases inquiries, as staff feel more able to address the topic,” they said. “Direct exposure to cannabis, seeing its effects on patients, and changes in legal status are leading to gradually more positive perceptions.” More athletes are gravitating toward cannabis for both recreational and medical use in recent years, the study noted. “Athletes prefer cannabis for perceived benefits over alcohol, such as fewer negative side effects and less disruption to training,” it said. “Medical staff report athletes seek cannabis to manage pain, inflammation, anxiety, and sleep problems.” “Athletes are increasingly initiating discussions with staff about cannabis, focusing on its therapeutic effects and compliance with league rules.” Athletic physicians, trainers, nutritionists and mental health professionals are also opening up to the benefits of marijuana as an alternative medical treatment. “Medical staff increasingly perceive cannabis as safer than opioids or certain prescription drugs, especially in sports,” the researchers said. “Long-term medication risks, including opioid addiction, have made staff more open to alternatives.” The researchers highlighted a number of specific comments made during their interviews with athletic medical staff: “Every team is sponsored by alcohol, yet as soon as you mention cannabis it’s a big no, no.” “I would think it [cannabis] is safer, I would 100% think it’s safer [than opioids]. Again, not because I have enough knowledge of cannabis, but I have enough knowledge of the dangers of opioids.” “The education that I’ve received on it [cannabis] has been pretty much nothing, so anything helping to educate myself and the performance department on it would be beneficial.” “I have my master’s degree, and we didn’t touch it [cannabis education]. Never talked about it.” “I think if there is a course that is provided, I would definitely love to sign up for that, just to get more knowledge.” “They are so petrified to even mention it [cannabis] to their doctor because they’re worried about the ramifications.” “I think the guys have a tough time talking to me about it [cannabis], because they’re not really sure what or how I’m gonna react.” “There’s been some pretty positive benefits [from using cannabinoids], and…it’s been something that has helped them” “It [cannabis] is, I would say, not openly discussed, still pretty taboo.” “There’s some hesitation or fear because I’m contracted through the organization that they don’t know where that information is going.” In conclusion, the researchers said the findings of the study “identify a considerable lack of knowledge about cannabis use by medical personnel working with athletes in elite level sports and underscore the pressing need for targeted education and policy alignment.” The paper noted that major sports leagues have changed their policies in recent years to remove strict punishments for cannabis use. Most recently, for example, the Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA) this year removed marijuana from its prohibited substances list while also laying out rules for how players can invest in and promote cannabis companies. A previous NFL-funded study by the same research team focused on athletes’ views on cannabis in sports, finding that many feel they aren’t getting adequate information about cannabis from their teams’ and leagues’ health officials due to ongoing stigma around the issue. “Elite contact sport athletes use cannabis intentionally for recreational, therapeutic, and recovery purposes but face systemic barriers related to misinformation, stigma, and inconsistent policy guidance,” that study said. “As cannabis legality expands, this potential knowledge gap impairs athletes’ ability to make informed decisions about cannabis for health and performance. Lack of knowledge increases exposure to unregulated products, and may cause athletes to overlook potential therapeutic benefits.” The researchers behind the new study also previously published a study in 2024 that highlighted the growing acceptability of medical cannabis in sports, while also underscoring the obstacles to marijuana research caused by ongoing federal prohibition. NFL and the league’s players union in recent years have put a focus on funding research related to cannabis and athletes. In 2022, for example, they authorized $1 million in grants for a pair of studies looking into the efficacy of marijuana and its components in managing football players’ pain and providing neuroprotection from concussions. The league and the players union also awarded funding to support research on the therapeutic benefits of CBD as a pain treatment alternative to opioids for players with concussions. The NFL reached an agreement with its players union in 2024 to further reform its marijuana policies, significantly reducing fines for positive tests while increasing the allowable THC threshold for players. About four years after NFL ended the practice of suspending players over cannabis or other drugs as part of a collective bargaining agreement, the league again revised its Substances of Abuse Policy and Performance Enhancing Substances Policy. NBA, for its part, removed marijuana from the banned substances list for players in 2023, and it also freed them up to invest in and promote cannabis companies. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) in 2024 voted to remove marijuana from its banned substances list for Division I players. The reform builds on a 2022 change that increased the allowable THC threshold for college athletes, aligning NCAA’s rules with those of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). The head of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) blasted the “unfair” ban on marijuana for athletes competing in international sport events, including the Olympics that were underway in Paris at the time of the comments. USADA CEO Travis Tygart said it was “disappointing” that WADA has maintained the cannabis prohibition based on what he considers a misguided justification. WADA did carry out a review into its marijuana policy at the request of USADA and the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) following the controversial suspension of U.S. runner Sha’Carri Richardson, who was barred from participating in the Olympics in 2021 after she tested positive for THC. Richardson said she used cannabis to cope with the recent passing of her mother. While UFC announced in late 2023 that it was formally removing marijuana from its modified banned substances list for athletes, the league notified participants that the reform didn’t apply under California State Athletic Commission (CSAC) rules. UFC advised fighters that they could be subject to a $100 fine by CSAS if they tested over 150 nanograms of THC per milliliter ahead of the UFC 298 event that took place in February. Image element courtesy of Marco Verch. The post Anti-Marijuana Attitudes In Sports Are Easing Up, But Ongoing Stigma Makes Athletic Trainers’ Jobs Harder, NFL-Funded Study Shows appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“Idaho lawmakers know that they can no longer make a rational case for the state’s prohibitive and punitive marijuana policies.” By Paul Armentano, NORML Regardless of one’s views on marijuana, Idahoans must reject HJR 4 this November. House Joint Resolution 4 seeks to amend the state constitution so that voters no longer have any say in determining Idaho’s drug policies. That’s not anti-marijuana, that’s anti-democracy. HJR 4 mandates, “Only the legislature of the state of Idaho shall have power and authority to legalize…marijuana or other psychoactive substances.” The message behind this resolution cannot be clearer. State officials don’t trust voters to do their bidding on the marijuana issue. Lawmakers’ apprehensions are well deserved. They understand that their “reefer madness” views are out of step with most Idahoans. For example, nearly 70 percent of Idahoans said in a poll that “the use of marijuana for medical purposes should be made legal.” Yet, despite this popular support, most lawmakers would rather stick their collective heads in the sand. That is why they are seeking to remove voters from the equation permanently. For decades, voters have been far ahead of their elected officials on matters pertaining to the legalization of marijuana for medical and adult-use purposes. Many of the 41 states with legal medical cannabis access did so by voter initiative. Ditto the 24 states where marijuana is legal for adults. In short, politicians dragged their feet and voters took matters into their own hands. Those voters don’t regret their decisions. No state has ever repealed its marijuana legalization laws. In fact, public support for legalization is greater today than at nearly any time in our nation’s history. This reality has Idaho lawmakers, and Republicans especially, running scared. They know that their antiquated views on cannabis are unpopular with voters. But rather than evolve their views to align with those of their constituents, they’d rather eliminate voters from the democratic process altogether In a healthy democracy, those with competing visions on public policy vie for voters’ support. They seek to persuade and influence the electorate by making sound arguments and by providing hard evidence. But Idaho lawmakers know that they can no longer make a rational case for the state’s prohibitive and punitive marijuana policies—policies that are out-of-step not only with most other states, but also with most Idahoans. As a result, they are asking Idahoans to relinquish one of the most fundamental powers they have in a free society: their power to vote. Whether or not one personally supports or opposes cannabis legalization, these undemocratic tactics ought to cause Idahoans—and, quite frankly, all voters—deep concern. Paul Armentano is the Deputy Director for NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. The post Idaho Ballot Measure To Block Voters From Legalizing Marijuana Is Anti-Democracy (Op-Ed) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

I haven’t any word to appreciate this post.....Really i am impressed from this post....the person who create this post it was a great human..thanks for shared this with us. dewalive

It’s time to for Kansas to legalize marijuana and stop letting other states collect tax revenue by selling cannabis to its residents, the Democratic Party’s nominee for governor in next month’s election says. She is also calling out her Republican opponent for blocking marijuana reform bills in the legislature despite public support. “I believe close to 70 percent of the population is in favor of legalization, but you get a few people once in a while who will say, ‘Well, we don’t want to bring that here,'” Cindy Holscher, who currently serves as a state senator, said in an interview with 12 News. “My response: It’s already here. If you drive along state line in Johnson County, you drive along the border on the southern edge to Oklahoma, and you see the dispensaries—there’s Kansas plates there,” she said. “So it’s already here.” “But what’s happening is we aren’t getting the revenue for it, and we aren’t getting our guardrails in place. We need to do that,” Holscher said. “The revenue that’s projected to come in could help us do things like better funding public education in terms of special ed, could help us in terms of free lunches for kids—making that part of the day. You know there are things that we could do with that money to help build up our critical infrastructure and be better focused on our people.” The Democratic gubernatorial candidate also spoke about marijuana legalization in another interview with The University Daily Kansan, saying that the “good news, or silver lining, in terms of being one of the last states is that we can take the good models that are out there to replicate here.” “And we’ve seen things that don’t work, so we’re in a position to adopt the best situation possible,” she said. Holscher additionally discussed the fiscal impact of cannabis legalization in a separate interview with KMBC 9. “I will tell you I’m a supporter of legalizing cannabis, as well as the bulk of the population of Kansans,” she said. “Anywhere from 65 to 75 percent of Kansans support legalization. That in Missouri has amounted to $255 million in revenue.” Asked how she would get cannabis reform through a Republican-controlled legislature, Holscher said she and allies succeeded in passing a medical cannabis bill through the state House of Representatives in 2021 that went on to die in the Senate—putting blame for the ultimate defeat on her opponent in the governor’s race, Kansas Senate President Ty Masterson (R). “You know, I got it passed in the House a few years ago. Guess who stopped it in the Senate? Ty Masterson,” she said. “The things that people want, the things that people support, he has been stopping.” Later in the interview, Holscher was pressed on how she would succeed in garnering the support of moderate voters while her political opponents tag her as a “radical.” “The things I’m fighting for—Medicaid expansion, legalizing cannabis, funding of our schools, lowering property taxes—those are all things that are supported by anywhere from 65 to 75 percent of the Kansas population, she said. “I’m not extreme. I’m mainstream. You know what’s extreme? The fact that my opponent is pushing back against the things that Kansans overwhelmingly support. Time and time again, Ty Masterson has pushed back against Medicaid expansion, legalizing of cannabis.” Masterson, for his part, said in 2023 that was open to a discussion about a limited medical marijuana program. But in 2024, he appeared less welcoming to the idea, calling medical cannabis legalization a “nonstarter,” suggesting the policy change would lead to a surge in “gang activity” and put kids at risk. Incumbent Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly (D) said last year that it’s time for lawmakers in the state to finally legalize medical marijuana. Polling from last year found that 70 percent of Kansans support legalizing medical marijuana. About six in 10 (59 percent) of respondents also said they supported more broadly legalizing recreational cannabis. After the House of Representatives passed a medical cannabis bill in 2021, it stalled out in the Senate. And while the Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee held numerous hearings on the issue, it voted in 2024 to table a limited medical marijuana pilot program bill. A later effort to revive the medical cannabis bill on the Senate floor ultimately fell short. That measure was filed about a month after the House rejected a Democratic lawmaker’s amendment to a broader drug scheduling bill that would have removed marijuana entirely from the state’s controlled substances law, effectively legalizing it. In 2024, meanwhile, a state legislative panel voted against a proposed recommendation that lawmakers legalize medical cannabis in 2025. The legislature’s Special Committee on Medical Marijuana, charged with consideration of possible pathways for medical cannabis reform, said legalizing medical marijuana was premature and that lawmakers should first wait to see how federal rescheduling and other reform efforts unfold. The post Kansas Should Legalize Marijuana, Democratic Candidate For Governor Says, Criticizing GOP Opponent For Blocking Medical Access appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Superior Place, My organization is a great believer during ad opinions regarding online websites that will let the webpage novelists recognize that they’ve put in an item worthwhile that will the online market place! Lucerne Grand Showflat

Cyberspace is without a doubt bogged downward through fake blogging and no realistic note nevertheless blog post is fabulous and even worthy that browse. Thanks for your time designed for writing it with me at night. Lentor Heights Showflat

I high appreciate this post. It’s hard to find the good from the bad sometimes, but I think you’ve nailed it! would you mind updating your blog with more information? 7meter

WI gov candidate: Legalize marijuana; WA officials invite cannabis comments; Study: Medical marijuana for cancer symptoms; NC hemp industry 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… *Rattling the tip jar* Got a few dollars you can spare to help Marijuana Moment pay our writers, keep our website running and grow into the kind of robust news organization the fast-paced world of drug policy deserves? Join us for $25/month and be a part of our work: https://www.patreon.com/marijuanamoment / TOP THINGS TO KNOW Wisconsin Democratic gubernatorial candidate David Crowley said the state should legalize marijuana to raise revenue that can be used to fund free pre-K and expanded healthcare access. The Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board is accepting public comments on a proposal to create a process allowing marijuana businesses to document their participation in the medical cannabis market in order to ease their access to benefits under federal rescheduling. A new federally funded study found that “most cannabis users reported that it improved their cancer-related symptoms”—including pain, appetite, mood and insomnia—while also serving as a substitute for opioids for nearly a third of them. “Symptom improvement was reported for insomnia (89.7% of users), appetite (85.7%), mood (83.7%), joint pains/stiffness (83.3%), stress/anxiety/depression (81.6%), cancer-related pain (80.7%) and digestive symptoms (67.9%).” Dentons’s Eric P. Berlin and Joanne Caceres argue in a new Marijuana Moment op-ed that while the timeline for an ongoing cannabis rescheduling hearing has “slipped” as opponents seek to insert a critical report into the record, “this is a delay, not a defeat, and the industry should not panic.” “Reports of the marijuana rescheduling proceeding’s death are greatly exaggerated… This is a procedural pause, nothing more.” North Carolina businesses are bracing for the impact of the federal recriminalization of hemp THC products that is set to take effect this year. / FEDERAL The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy published an overview of youth drug use data. / STATES Puerto Rico Gov. Jenniffer González-Colón (R) signed a bill creating exceptions to employment protections for medical cannabis patients in safety-sensitive transportation jobs. A North Carolina representative discussed her views on marijuana and hemp policy. Connecticut regulators published guidance on medical cannabis purchases by out-of-state patients. Oklahoma regulators clarified that a recent email on flavoring and coloring ingredients in medical cannabis production batches was sent in error. Missouri regulators published the latest episode of their cannabis podcast. Nevada regulators will host a cannabis public safety and consumer fair on November 4. — 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 Canadian officials said cannabis was the country’s “fifth most important cash crop” in 2025. The Romanian General Prosecutor’s Office is opposing a bill to decriminalize drug possession. / SCIENCE & HEALTH A study found that “an estimated 23.1% of US adults reported past 12-month cannabis use: 62.6% smoked, 57.6% consumed, 40.1% vaped, 15.2% applied lotion, and 12.4% dabbed, with over half (52.7%) endorsing >1 route of administration.” A study’s findings “suggest the selective effects of cannabidiol on tumour cells and support its potential as a targeted bioactive agent.” / ADVOCACY, OPINION & ANALYSIS ASTM International issued a call for papers about hemp-lime composites for sustainable construction. The Marijuana Policy Project published a Wisconsin voter guide ahead of next month’s elections. 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 Cannabis rescheduling is just paused, not derailed (Newsletter: October 13, 2026) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

They bring fresh energy to every meeting. An Escort Service In Jangpura ensures you never feel rushed or ignored. Our partners focus on intimate conversation and physical chemistry that leads to pleasure. We invite you into a trustworthy world where fantasy comes alive.

“Regulation is what we need. Prohibition is just hilarious regression.” By Trevon Spencer, NC Newsline Chris Karazin started Carolindica with his brother and a friend in 2019, making homemade CBD products in a kitchen while working other jobs to pay the bills. “I didn’t even get a paycheck until three years ago,” Karazin said. Seven years later, the Raleigh-based company has grown into a multi-store hemp business with manufacturing operations and dozens of employees. New customers still walk through Carolindica’s doors every day. Now, a looming change in federal law is forcing Karazin to reconsider the company’s future. Beginning December 11, federal restrictions will sharply narrow which hemp-derived cannabinoid products qualify as legal. Congress approved the new federal regulations in 2025 as part of the tax cut and spending measure known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Under the new law, the only hemp products that will be legal are those with no more than 0.4 milligrams of THC compounds per consumer container, a threshold that could outlaw many products currently sold in stores. The restrictions were originally scheduled to take effect in November, but Congress extended the deadline by a month. One part of the law is still scheduled to take effect on November 12. It excludes products that cannabis plants can’t naturally produce, including synthetic cannabinoids, from the federal definition of hemp, classifying them as marijuana. For Karazin, the impending bans on synthetic cannabinoids and THC mean he’s rethinking the products the company can continue selling, how much inventory to carry and where to invest its money. The federal restrictions follow years of rapid growth in the hemp industry, which proliferated after Congress legalized hemp production in 2018. North Carolina’s market has grown into a roughly $3 billion industry that employs about 16,000 people statewide. But North Carolina hemp businesses are now preparing for the possibility that much of that market could soon disappear. A business built around hemp The federal changes could affect more than intoxicating products such as THC gummies and drinks. CBD products, which contain small amounts of THC and other natural compounds found in hemp, could also exceed the new limit. The potential impact extends across the Triangle’s hemp retail market. A report by Raleigh Dispensaries, which maintains a database of hemp retailers in the region, found that 79 of 82 shops it tracked across seven counties listed at least one product category that would be affected by the restrictions. Jake St. Peter, the founder, said his report suggested more than 90 percent of the shops could be affected by the changes, and he’s been actively tracking how local businesses are preparing for the deadline. “I think this is really going to be a serious blow to these businesses,” he said. Some North Carolina hemp businesses are already closing as a result. Bloom Collective in Raleigh announced its closure on social media by the end of the month, saying new hemp regulations are putting “pressure on small businesses.” Other retailers and farmers began preparing for the federal restrictions last year. Owners of Durham’s Redhead Hemp said the limit could affect all of their inventory, while a Buncombe County farmer said his farm lacked the equipment to shift to THC-free products. For businesses that depend on those products, switching to a different line of merchandise isn’t straightforward. Karazin said Carolindica is exploring supplements, functional mushrooms and other products that could offer alternatives if the restrictions go through as planned. But he said many smaller hemp retailers won’t have the same options. “Most companies are retail, distribution and e-commerce,” he said. “Those types of companies have no way of adapting at all.” The restrictions would reach beyond the products sold on store shelves. Farmers growing hemp for cannabinoid products could lose buyers if manufacturers reduce production. At the same time, merchandisers could have to find new markets for products or ingredients that comply with the federal law. State lawmakers weigh additional restrictions on hemp The federal deadline is not the only regulatory challenge facing North Carolina’s hemp industry. State lawmakers have also debated legislation that would impose the same THC limit on hemp products as under the federal law, and would also ban the sale of even low-level hemp consumables, including CBD products, to people under 21. The state Senate passed the measure last summer, saying it would be a backstop in case Congress decides to revise or delay the new federal law. However, the House declined to take up the proposal during its August session under conflicting pressure from hemp businesses and law enforcement. House Speaker Destin Hall, R-Caldwell, said lawmakers needed more time to consider the issue and could reconsider it after the November elections. Meanwhile, the state’s Advisory Council on Cannabis is moving in a very different direction. The Council was created by Gov. Josh Stein (D), who is in favor of allowing a regulated cannabis market for adults only in North Carolina. The Council is developing recommendations for setting up such a market should legislators decide to allow it. Its final report is due to Stein by the end of the year. A recent poll from researchers at Elon University of over 1,000 North Carolina adults found that 75 percent of respondents were in favor of legalizing cannabis for medical use, while 55 percent were in favor of legalizing it for recreational use. Karazin said he supports regulations including age restrictions, child-resistant packaging and standardized laboratory testing. He’s worried lawmakers will eliminate the entire legal hemp market instead of creating a strong regulatory framework that could allow his business to stay open. “Regulation is what we need,” he said. “Prohibition is just hilarious regression.” This story was first published by NC Newsline. The post North Carolina’s $3 Billion Hemp Industry Braces For Impact Of Scheduled Federal THC Product Ban appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Washington State regulators are accepting public comments on a proposal to a create process allowing marijuana businesses to document their participation in the medical cannabis market in order to ease their access to benefits that come with the Trump administration’s partial rescheduling move. The Liquor and Cannabis Board (LCB) voted last week to move ahead with the plan, which is based on an advocacy group’s petition and comes after state officials said earlier this year that rescheduling cannabis on the federal level “does not appear to apply” to businesses in Washington. Under an order issued by Attorney General Todd Blanche in April, marijuana products regulated by a state medical cannabis license immediately moved from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III, as did any marijuana products that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). While an administrative hearing is considering broader marijuana rescheduling, Washington businesses currently have no way to verify their medical cannabis-specific activities. “Rules on this subject may be needed to consider the development and operation of a certification program for licensees participating in licensed medical cannabis activity in the state,” LCB said in an update after the vote. “This certification would serve to verify information about the regulated status of a cannabis licensee and confirm the extent of the licensee’s participation in existing state-authorized medical cannabis activities for federal registration, banking, insurance, or other lawful purposes.” While board’s vote—which came over the objection of agency staff—is a win for petitioners The Cannabis Alliance and Caitlein Ryan, it is only the beginning of potential rulemaking. “At this stage of the rulemaking process, no proposed language is offered,” LCB said in the Friday update. “Any interested party may comment on this possible rulemaking during the designated comment period.” Stakeholders can weigh in on the potential rulemaking through December 4. LCB said it “may coordinate with the Washington Department of Health and federal authorities such as the Drug Enforcement Administration to determine necessary documentation and verification of state-authorized medical cannabis activities of licensees,” though regulators in a growing number of states have complained that DEA has not been cooperative in providing guidance on complying with the federal marijuana rescheduling process. In a previously issued guidance memo in June, LCB said that “Washington does not license medical cannabis producers, processors, or retailers.” “Instead, Washington has a single recreational market and within that market producers/processors may manufacture [Department of Health]-compliant products, and certain retailers may sell DOH-compliant products to all adult patients and designated providers,” it explained. “Because of this, Washington’s cannabis licensees do not appear to qualify as ‘state medical marijuana licensee[s]’ and therefore may not be eligible to register under the Final Rule,” the agency said, referring to a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) registration process for state-legal marijuana businesses to take advantage of federal benefits that come with the reform. That said, LCB is “not taking a position to prevent licensees from applying for federal registration if they choose,” the guidance continued. “If any licensee does apply for federal registration, we would be interested in learning about their experience and any federal determination.” Nonetheless, “based on our analysis, federal rescheduling in its current form does not appear to apply to Washington’s cannabis licensees due to the statutory framework predominately regulating recreational cannabis,” LCB said. Washington isn’t the only state moving to reform its own marijuana rules in light of the federal rescheduling process. In California, regulators recently adopted emergency rules changes for the state’s marijuana licensing process that are intended to make it easier for businesses to qualify for benefits in line with the Trump administration’s recent move to federally reschedule medical cannabis. Photo courtesy of Chris Wallis // Side Pocket Images. The post Washington Officials Invite Public Comments On Proposal To Make It Easier For Medical Marijuana Businesses To Access Federal Rescheduling Benefits appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

The Democratic Party’s nominee to be the next governor of Wisconsin says the state should legalize marijuana to raise revenue that can be used to fund free pre-kindergarten education and an expansion of healthcare access. David Crowley, who currently serves as the Milwaukee County executive, said last week that in addition to ending tax breaks for billionaires to address fiscal issues, the state should also “look at new revenues and how we grow our economy.” “We want to make sure, one, that we legalize marijuana,” he told a reporter from CBS 58 News. “That will help bring in more dollars throughout the state.” He added that he also wants to form a commission to examine fiscal issues more broadly to “permanently fix our taxing and spending problem” in the state. Meanwhile, one of David Crowley's loftiest plans is free pre-K for every 3-year-old and 4-year-old child. How will he pay for that? -Marijuana legalization -Eliminating tax breaks on the rich -A "blue ribbon commission" on all taxing and spending https://t.co/NVulyN9CR3 pic.twitter.com/g5nqMSyoDN — A.J. Bayatpour (@AJBayatpour) October 9, 2026 Crowley separately told Fox6 News that if elected his administration would need to “continue to have to work with the legislature” on solutions to fund universal pre-K and expanded access to the state’s BadgerCare program. “It’s about looking at the totality of our revenue and spending,” he said. “It’s about bringing in new revenues like the legalization of marijuana, but also making sure that the big corporations who have seen permanent tax cuts in the state of Wisconsin for the past decade and a half, that they start to pay their fair share.” The Democratic gubernatorial candidate also addressed cannabis in another interview with Wisconsin Watch, saying that “it needs to be legalized.” “We don’t have the same opportunities as folks in Minnesota and in Michigan and in Illinois,” he said. “I believe that we should support it, one, because this is a personal health position for those who want to utilize it as an alternative to a prescription drug.” “But I also look at it as an opportunity, right?” Crowley said. “Being able to grow our economy here locally, but also finding a new revenue stream to invest in things like public safety, public education and child care.” Crowley’s Republican opponent in the governor’s race, U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-W), told the outlet that he prefers to “take a go-slow approach” on marijuana “because we’ve seen some states that went straight to it, like I think about Colorado, and they had some real problems as a result of that.” “Think about Oregon, where they adopted full legalization, but then they also legalized other hard drugs. They had to pull back, and so I think those are a lesson to other states that we should take this go-slow approach,” Tiffany argued. “Also, I’ve voted federally for more money to go into research, and I think that research can inform states about what’s the best approach to take in regards to legalization.” Tiffany voted against bills to federally legalize marijuana on the House floor in 2020 and 2022, as well as an amendment in 2020 to shield state recreational cannabis laws from federal interference. He also opposed a bill to increase marijuana businesses’ access to banking services in 2021. That said, the GOP congressman’s gubernatorial campaign website says. “I support legalizing medical marijuana in Wisconsin through a responsible program that gives veterans, those suffering from chronic pain, and other patients access to the treatment they need.” “At the same time, we must have strict age requirements, responsible oversight, and strong protections to keep marijuana out of our schools and away from children,” it says. Meanwhile, a Democratic congressman who represents Wisconsin recently told Marijuana Moment that he thinks the state is poised to legalize cannabis as soon as next year—especially if his party wins control of the legislature in the November elections, but perhaps even if Republicans maintain a majority under new leadership for the 2027 session. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI) said there’s a “really good chance” of legalizing cannabis in Wisconsin in the short term if Democrats can “flip the legislature,” where marijuana reform proposals have stalled under Republican control in recent sessions. Pocan said, however, that he thinks cannabis legislation has a shot even if the GOP stays in control under an expected new leader in the state Assembly who is seen as more friendly to reform than the current speaker of the chamber. Gov. Tony Evers (D) and Democratic lawmakers have pushed to legalize marijuana for recreational and medical purposes for years, but those proposals have been blocked by the legislature’s Republican majority. A limited medical cannabis bill did clear one committee this session, but did not advance further. Crowley said at a forum hosted by a cannabis reform group earlier this year reform supporters “cannot wait until after the governor’s election” to push the issue, arguing that they need to “organize in making this one of the top priorities in this upcoming election.” “If you can’t change minds, you have to change faces,” he said. “I want you all to know that we’re going to work directly with you and make sure that you have a seat at the table, because if you don’t have a seat at the table, that means you’re on it.” Evers, for his part, recently sent a letter calling on the state’s congressional delegation to “prevent mass disruption of the hemp industry” by stopping the planned federal recriminalization of hemp THC products that’s set to take effect later this year. The governor has repeatedly pushed for broader reform—including marijuana legalization in multiple budget requests, for example—but efforts to enact it have consistently stalled out in the Republican-controlled Assembly and Senate even as adult-use markets have come online in neighboring states such as Illinois and Michigan. Evers said last year that if his party can take control of the legislature, the state can “finally” legalize marijuana so that residents don’t have to go to neighboring Illinois to visit its adult-use market. — 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. — Democratic lawmakers filed legislation in the 2026 session to broadly legalize and regulate marijuana, and bipartisan legislation to simply decriminalize cannabis possession was also filed—but neither proposal advanced. A poll released last year by Marquette Law School found that two in three Wisconsin voters support legalizing marijuana. A legislative analysis requested by lawmakers estimated that Wisconsin residents spent more than $121 million on cannabis in Illinois alone in 2022, contributing $36 million in tax revenue to the neighboring state. Meanwhile, the state Department of Revenue released a fiscal estimate of the economic impact of a legalization bill in 2023, projecting that the reform would generate nearly $170 million annually in tax revenue. The post Wisconsin Should Legalize Marijuana To Fund Pre-K And Healthcare Expansion, Democratic Governor Candidate Says appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net