All Activity

“Due to these complaints and a demonstrated inability to verify residency of certain circulators, we have requested all county clerks and their staff review and log circulator information.” By Kyle Pfannenstiel, Idaho Capital Sun Minutes after a local elections office in rural south central Idaho closed last month, a contractor for the group backing a proposed ballot initiative to legalize medical marijuana caught the attention of a county staffer who was trying to leave work. The contractor was trying to deliver signatures of registered voters—in hopes of helping the initiative become the first marijuana legalization initiative to qualify for the ballot in Idaho, which is one of few states where marijuana remains entirely illegal. But it was too late. The employee for the Minidoka County Clerk’s Office didn’t take the roughly 4,000 signatures, which were due by close of business that day: Friday, May 1. But another employee did. Days later, the local elected official who runs that office, Minidoka County Clerk Tonya Page, decided to not count them. The encounter was detailed in a lawsuit that unsuccessfully tried to get a judge to require the county to count the signatures. The group behind the medical marijuana ballot initiative turned in many of its 150,000 signatures gathered by paid signature gatherers as the deadline neared. Even without signatures from Minidoka, the medical marijuana organizers are hopeful—but not sure—that their proposal will end up on November ballots. “We got a very significant number of signatures over the required amount. And based on those numbers, we do feel confident,” Amanda Watson, a Boise-based spokesperson for the Natural Medicine Alliance of Idaho, said in an interview last week. In Idaho, qualifying initiatives for the ballot is hard. In Idaho, the ballot initiative is a form of direct democracy where the voters of Idaho—not the Legislature—decide whether to pass a new law. Two separate groups are hoping to qualify initiatives for the ballot this November: One to legalize medical marijuana, and one to end Idaho’s strict abortion ban. To qualify for the ballot in Idaho, initiatives must clear two hurdles: Organizers must collect valid signatures from 6 percent of registered voters across Idaho, as well as from 6 percent of voters from 18 of Idaho’s 35 legislative districts. Few initiative efforts have cleared that hurdle since the Legislature set the standard in 2013. The Legislature has attempted to raise that threshold significantly since then. The group behind the medical marijuana initiative, which spent $2 million on paid signature gatherers, has announced it gathered 150,000 signatures. That would appear to be more than enough to meet the statewide threshold. But unlike the initiative to end Idaho’s abortion ban, the medical marijuana group hasn’t said if it has cleared the requirements to gather enough signatures in just over half of Idaho’s legislative districts. So far, the medical marijuana initiative hasn’t yet met the legal requirements to qualify for the ballot, Idaho Secretary of State Phil McGrane said in an interview. On the other hand, an initiative to end Idaho’s strict abortion ban and establish reproductive rights seems likely to “have met the threshold,” McGrane said. In about two weeks, it’ll become clear which ballot initiatives Idaho voters will get the chance to decide on in November. Counties will finish their signature verifications on Tuesday. Then groups behind initiatives can turn in their signatures to the Idaho Secretary of State’s Office, which will do the final tally. The abortion initiative organizers, which include 1,100 volunteers, turned in signatures throughout the months they gathered them. For them, the final day to turn in signatures was “pretty quiet,” said Melanie Folwell, who leads the group behind the abortion ballot initiative. “We knew we qualified,” she said. Many signatures gathered for petitions are disqualified later Part of why some ballot initiative organizers turn in signatures early is to get feedback on how their efforts are going. Usually, McGrane said around half of signatures are disqualified for several reasons, such as the person not being a registered voter at the time they signed a petition, or not being registered to vote at that address. The medical marijuana organizers hired private firms that use their own software to verify petition signatures, Watson said. And initiative organizers had planned to submit signatures around the deadline, she said. “We just noted that that was the deadline, and so that’s kind of what we are working toward,” Watson said. Watson said she feels confident that the medical marijuana initiative will qualify for the ballot. But she said she doesn’t know for sure. “We’re not in the business of…guessing what the counties are going to come back with,” Watson said when asked if the initiative qualified enough legislative districts. In Minidoka, a judge found the signatures were turned in late At first, an attorney for the PAC behind the medical marijuana initiative asked the Minidoka County clerk to reconsider her decision to not count the signatures. In a May 18 letter, the attorney, Jeremy Chou, told Page, the county clerk, that the PAC’s contractor says she showed up to the Minidoka County Clerk’s Office a few minutes before the office was set to close. The next day, Page sent Chou—an influential Idaho lobbyist and attorney who represented the Legislature in a lawsuit this year—security footage from the building. “Contrary to the representations contained in your letter, the County’s security camera footage clearly shows (the Natural Medicine Alliance of Idaho’s) representatives arriving in the Minidoka County parking lot at approximately 5:05 p.m. on May 1, 2026—after the statutory filing deadline and after the close of business,” Page wrote in a letter on May 19, when Idaho’s primary elections took place. Two weeks later, the Natural Medicine Alliance of Idaho LLC and PAC sued to try to get a court to require the county to validate the signatures. In the county’s reply, prosecuting attorneys cited the group’s new timeline, which was the same as the county clerk’s: The consultant arrived at 5:05 p.m. But an Idaho judge ruled the signatures were turned in too late to count, rejecting the Natural Medicine Alliance’s claims that the office was still open after its business hours. The judge, W. Reed Cotten, laid out a chain of events in his ruling. After the employee unlocked and opened the front door of the Minidoka County Clerk’s Office, they told the contractor that the office was closed. Then they closed the door. Another employee, who was leaving for the day, opened the door and talked with the contractor, who insisted on dropping off the signatures. “Fearing escalating a potentially contentious situation and seeking to resolve the matter as quickly as possible, this employee agreed to take the petitions, but informed the contractor that the petitions will still be late,” the judge wrote in his June 18 ruling. In an interview last week, the Minidoka County clerk said that signatures for ballot initiatives tend to trickle in—not come through in a large batch. “We’ve never had this issue before,” Page said. Idaho’s top election official urged medical marijuana group to turn in signatures early About a month before signatures were due, the Idaho secretary of state also urged the medical marijuana organizers to turn in their signatures early. McGrane said he’d seen news reports that said organizers “collected tens of thousands of signatures.” By the end of March, only about 10,200 had been turned in, and less than half of those were verified, McGrane wrote in a letter to the Natural Medicine Alliance’s attorney. “While the submission deadline is May 1st, delivering a large volume on that final day would create significant time constraints and administrative burden for Idaho’s county clerks,” he wrote. He noted that the final two-month window in which county clerks can verify signatures overlaps with Idaho’s primary election, which county clerks also manage. McGrane wrote that he recognized that the state’s laws don’t require organizers to turn in signatures early, but he encouraged it—for easing the demand on election officials, and for initiative organizers themselves. “This will also give you a better idea of the progress of your initiative efforts,” McGrane wrote. Asked why organizers waited after Idaho’s top election official asked them to file the signatures early, Watson said they already had planned to submit them around the submission deadline. The group says it collected signatures in all 44 counties. “We’re still within the law… And we’ve had a good working relationship with the Secretary of State’s Office. So it was communicated that we were likely just going to follow what we perceived to be the appropriate way to turn in,” Watson said. In Boise, Ada County Clerk Trent Tripple said medical marijuana organizers dropped off nearly 6,000 pages of signatures on the due date. “We’ve been working nonstop,” Tripple said in an interview. Idaho Secretary of State’s Office says some signatures could be thrown out without more proof Some signatures for the medical marijuana initiative could also be thrown out. This month, Deputy Secretary of State Matthew Reiber in a letter told the Natural Medicine Alliance it needed to verify whether some signature gatherers lived in Idaho. If signature gatherers aren’t Idaho residents, and at least 18 years old, the signatures they gathered won’t count. That’s another requirement in Idaho law, which the Legislature added in 1999. Only six states require ballot initiative signature gatherers to live in the state where they are collecting signatures, according to Ballotpedia. The letter—which the Sun obtained through a records request—was following up on several complaints about the initiative that the Secretary of State’s Office received. “Due to these complaints and a demonstrated inability to verify residency of certain circulators, we have requested all county clerks and their staff review and log circulator information,” Reiber wrote. The Natural Medicine Alliance has until Tuesday to provide proof of residency for those petition gatherers, according to the letter. Watson, said the group “will work with the Secretary of State’s office to collect any information requested.” This story was first published by Idaho Capital Sun. Photo courtesy of Philip Steffan. The post Idaho Medical Marijuana Ballot Campaign Hits Snags Over Signatures appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Virginia lawmakers have formally passed a budget bill that includes provisions to legalize recreational marijuana sales. On Monday, the Senate and House of Delegates adopted Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s (D) proposed amendments to the legislation that they had given initial approval to last week. Because lawmakers accepted her suggested changes in full, the measure has now been formally enacted into law and doesn’t require any further action from the governor. Spanberger’s amendments, submitted on Friday, did not include alterations to provisions to legalize adult-use cannabis sales. Nor did they address the concerns of advocates who had urged her to cancel out a section that will dramatically increase penalties for public consumption of cannabis—which they say will be enforced in a racially discriminatory manner based on new state data they obtained. The budget bill contains provisions that advocates generally support to legalize recreational marijuana sales—but it will also increase the current $25 fine for using cannabis in a public place by 900 percent to $250—a spike that advocates are calling a “poverty penalty.” A coalition of advocacy groups led by Marijuana Justice last week released new enforcement stats that they obtained through the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that they say “proves that legalization has not ended racially biased marijuana policing” in the state. An analysis of the state information shows that since noncommercial cannabis legalization took effect in Virginia in 2021, 185 white people and 179 Black people have been charged with public consumption—meaning that, based on the state’s population, Black people are more than three times more likely than white people to face such marijuana charges. Spanberger did not alter the penalty increase in her proposed amendments, however, nor did she suggest any changes to the marijuana section of the bill. Marijuana Justice and other groups like the ACLU of Virginia, National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, Marijuana Policy Project, Drug Policy Alliance and Latino Cannabis Alliance, among others, recently sent a letter urging lawmakers and the governor not to boost the cannabis penalty, saying it will “deepen racial and economic disparities.” “Higher fines and penalties for low-level marijuana offenses are not neutral,” the organizations wrote in a letter to Spanberger and legislators. “They are enforced disproportionately against Black and brown communities, create debt that low-income people cannot afford and can trigger cascading harms in immigration, housing, education and employment.” Spanberger last month vetoed a previous measure to legalize recreational cannabis sales after lawmakers rejected her proposed amendments to the plan. She later negotiated with Sen. Lashrecse Aird (D) and Del. Paul Krizek (D), who sponsored the earlier measure, on a compromise deal that was included in the budget legislation that passed this week. The new plan differs significantly in several ways from the earlier legislation. For example, it sets the launch date for recreational marijuana sales at July 1, 2027, which is what Spanberger proposed in contrast to the January 1 date in what lawmakers had passed. It also sets the legal public marijuana possession and per-transaction purchase limit at 2 ounces, an increase from the current legal limit of one ounce. The legislation lawmakers passed earlier this year would have allowed adults to possess up to 2.5 ounces. The bill also cedes to Spanberger on language to increase a marijuana excise tax from 6 percent to 8 percent after two years of legal sales. By way of compromise, the new agreement will make public consumption of marijuana punishable by a civil penalty of $250—a significant increase from the $25 in current law but less harsh than the class 4 criminal misdemeanor the governor sought in her proposed changes to the previous bill. Lawmakers passed the initial cannabis sales bills in March, but the governor then suggested changes to the legalization proposal—including delaying the start date for sales by six months, increasing taxes and instituting new criminal penalties for cannabis consumers. The legislature in April declined to take up the amendments during a one-day reconvened session, however, effectively rejecting them. Spanberger then issued a veto. Spanberger said this month that she was having “really productive” and “incredible” conversations with lawmakers about crafting a compromise approach to legalizing adult-use cannabis sales, and Marijuana Moment previously reported on the ongoing talks. The governor, meanwhile, has tried to publicly explain her veto—including by saying it is her view that “taking a little bit longer” to launch the market is not something she sees as “negative” because it is more important to get the details right than to do it fast. A recent survey found that bipartisan majorities of Virginia voters wanted Spanberger to sign the cannabis legislation into law, and that they specifically disagreed with her desire to slow the launch timeline for legal sales. The governor recently acknowledged in a separate interview that “a lot of people are not pleased” with her veto of the cannabis legislation. “Friends and family are displeased as well,” she said. Spanberger has repeatedly responded to criticism of her cannabis amendments from the bill sponsors and advocates by saying the suggested changes came after she spoke to the leaders of other states that have already implemented adult-use marijuana markets. A spokesperson for Spanberger declined to name any other governors she talked to about cannabis in response to a question from Marijuana Moment, however. The governor separately sought to explain her veto in an earlier interview, reiterating that she supports launching a legal cannabis market but worried about what she called a “rushed timeline” and “far more stores across Virginia” than she thinks are appropriate. Personal marijuana possession and home cultivation of marijuana has been legal in Virginia since 2021, but then-Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) twice vetoed bills to provide consumers with a way to legally purchase regulated adult-use cannabis. Here are the key details of the new cannabis plan in the budget and how it compares to legislation that Spanberger vetoed—SB 542 and HB 642—as well as her previously proposed amendments to those measures: Adults will be able to purchase up to 2 ounces of marijuana in a single transaction, or up to an equivalent amount of other cannabis products as determined by regulators. That will represent an increase from the limit in current law of 1 ounce. Lawmakers previously proposed setting the amount at 2.5 ounces and the governor only wanted 2 ounces. Legal sales can begin on July 1, 2027. Lawmakers previously set the date for January 1, 2027, but the governor wanted it pushed back to July 1. There will be an excise tax of 6 percent on cannabis sales as well as a 5.3 percent retail sales and use tax, and municipalities will be allowed to set an additional local tax of up to 3.5 percent. Starting on July 1, 2029, the state excise tax will increase to 8 percent, in line with the governor’s previously proposed amendments. Revenue will be distributed to the Cannabis Equity Reinvestment Fund, early childhood education, the Department of Behavioral & Developmental Health Services and public health initiatives. The earlier measure passed by lawmakers would have allocated specific percentages to each, but the new language doesn’t specify what portion of revenue will go to each program. The governor, in her amendments, wanted to put all revenue into the general fund while earmarking it “for purposes such as early childhood education, behavioral health, public health awareness, prevention, treatment, and recovery services, workforce development, reentry, indigent criminal defense, and targeted reinvestment in historically disadvantaged communities.” Her amendment also sought to eliminate support for the Cannabis Equity Reinvestment Fund. The Virginia Cannabis Control Authority will oversee licensing and regulation of the new industry, and will also take on oversight of hemp, which is currently under the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. The body will be governed by a five-member board of directors appointed by the governor, whereas the bill previously passed by lawmakers contemplated a seven-member body with four appointed by the governor, two appointed by the speaker of the House and one appointed by the Senate Rules Committee. The definition of what constitutes a legal hemp product will be narrowed by removing a provision from current law that allows those containing more than 2 milligrams of total THC per package if they also have a ratio of CBD to THC that is 25:1 or more. Up to 350 retail marijuana stores will be allowed to be licensed to operate across the state, the same number that lawmakers had approved and greater than the 200 the governor had proposed. Local governments will not be able to opt of allowing marijuana businesses to operate in their area. Delivery services will be allowed. Serving sizes will be capped at 10 milligrams THC, with no more than 100 mg THC per package. Public use of marijuana will be a civil violation punishable by a $250 fine. That is ten times more than the $25 fine under current law, but less harsh than the class 4 criminal misdemeanor crime the governor had proposed. Possession of cannabis by people under the age of 21 will be punishable by a $25 fine and mandatory participation in a substance abuse treatment or education program or both. The governor had suggested treating underage possession as a class 1 misdemeanor, punishable with a mandatory minimum fine of $500 or 50 hours of community service, as well as the suspension of drivers licenses for at least six months. Existing medical cannabis operators can enter the adult-use market if they pay a $10 million licensing conversion fee. Cannabis businesses will have to establish labor peace agreements with workers. A legislative commission will be directed to study adding on-site consumption licenses and microbusiness cannabis event permits that would allow licensees to conduct sales at venues like farmers markets or pop-up locations. That provision was also included in the earlier legislation lawmakers passed but was suggested for deletion by the governor. Meanwhile, the governor signed several other reform bills this session—including measures to provide resentencing relief for people with past cannabis convictions, protect the parental rights of marijuana consumers and allow patients to access medical cannabis in hospitals. The post Virginia Lawmakers Give Final Approval To Marijuana Sales Legalization As Part Of Budget appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

The Supreme Court’s recent decision to uphold the gun rights of a man who uses marijuana is already impacting the cases of other cannabis consumers who have been prosecuted for possessing firearms. Earlier this month, the nine justices unanimously ruled that the government’s efforts to criminalize possession of guns for cannabis consumers is an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. Now, the impact of the decision is being extended to other people with similar cases. On Monday, the Supreme Court rejected the government’s previously filed petitions challenging lower court rulings that had sided with people who were prosecuted for possessing guns while also being cannabis consumers. One case, that of Patrick Daniels, involved a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which found that the Second Amendment precludes the government from making it illegal for someone is not “under an impairing influence” while possessing a firearm to otherwise have guns. The government had asked the Supreme Court to overturn that ruling, but the justices have now said they won’t be taking up the case in light of their decision in U.S. v. Hemani earlier this month. Similarly, the government had also appealed Kindle Terrell Sam’s case to the Supreme Court from the Fifth Circuit, but that too is now being denied by the justices. Also on Monday, the Supreme Court remanded the case of Erik Matthew Harris, who lost in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and had appealed to the justices, back to lower courts for “further consideration” in light of the Hemani ruling upholding cannabis consumers’ gun rights. Kostas Moros, director of legal research and education for the Second Amendment Foundation, noted the implications of the Hemani case for other marijuana consumers. “The Supreme Court’s orders list further confirms what it ruled in Hemani,” he told Marijuana Moment. “While many questions remain to be answered, recreational use of marijuana alone, without more, is not a constitutionally acceptable reason to deny Second Amendment rights.” Meanwhile, the federal agency that regulates guns says it is planning to provide guidance in the wake of the court ruling on the Second Amendment rights of people who use marijuana. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) noted the court’s unanimous ruling in a social media post, saying it is “reviewing the decision and assessing its impact.” “Additional guidance will be provided soon,” the agency said. ATF is responsible for carrying out the federal law known as 922(g)(3) that prohibits people who illegally consume controlled substances from possessing or purchasing firearms and has now been partially struck down when it comes to cannabis consumers who otherwise show no signs of posing a threat of violence. The court, in the majority opinion, said that the broad ban and the government’s effort to defend it are “at odds with” the Trump administration’s move to federally reschedule cannabis. The government “asks us to conclude that anyone who regularly uses marijuana is categorically violent and dangerous without any further showing,” the opinion says. “All based on little more than its current say-so, one at odds with its own regulatory actions. And affording the government that kind of ‘broad power to designate any group as dangerous and thereby disqualify its members from having a gun’ would risk allowing it to ‘quickly swallow’ the Second Amendment.” ATF in May posted a proposed revised version of Form 4473, which must be filled out by anyone purchasing a gun from a federally licensed firearms dealer, to acknowledge the federally legal status of medical marijuana under the Trump administration’s recent move to reschedule the drug. The change is likely due to the fact that in April, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche issued an order that immediately moved marijuana products regulated by a state medical cannabis license to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), and similarly rescheduled marijuana products that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). A hearing to consider broader cannabis rescheduling is scheduled for this month. Advocates expect that ATF will need to issue further changes to the gun purchase form in the wake of the court’s ruling in U.S. v. Hemani, the case it decided this month. ATF also moved earlier this year to loosen rules that bar people who consume marijuana and other illegal drugs from being able to lawfully purchase and possess guns by making it so fewer people would be affected. The interim final rule from ATF, which is currently open for public comment through June 30, seeks to update the definition of “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” under an existing policy that has been interpreted to deny Second Amendment rights to people who have used illegal substances a single time within the past year. The Supreme Court heard arguments in the Hemani case in March, with the Trump administration urging the justices to uphold the ban on gun possession by marijuana users. The federal government has consistently maintained its position that the law appropriately disarms marijuana users who, they claim, are uniquely dangerous. To meet a strict Supreme Court standard for firearm laws, the Department of Justice has also drawn sometimes eyebrow-raising comparisons between cannabis consumers and the mentally ill and habitual drunkards to establish a historical analogue that aligns with the country’s founding era. “Those laws, the government contends, demonstrate a tradition of firearm regulation consistent with its effort to disarm any regular user of any controlled substance without any further showing. But the government’s analogy fails under every measure it asks us to consider,” the court’s opinion issued on Thursday says. “The historical laws on which it relies targeted different kinds of people, did so for different reasons, and operated in different ways. And faced with all these shortcomings in the government’s submission, we cannot say it has carried its conceded burden of showing its prosecution of Mr. Hemani complies with the Second Amendment.” Trump administration Solicitor General D. John Sauer, for his part, told the Supreme Court in a brief that people who use illegal drugs “pose a greater danger” than those who drink alcohol. In a separate filing for the case, the Justice Department also emphasized that “the question presented is the subject of a multi-sided and growing circuit conflict.” In asking the court to take up the dispute, the solicitor general also noted that the defendant is a joint American and Pakistani citizen with alleged ties to Iranian entities hostile to the U.S., putting him on the FBI’s radar. In December, attorneys general for 19 states and Washington, D.C. filed their own brief siding with the federal government in the Hemani case, insisting that justices should maintain the current § 922(g)(3) statute. The governor of Colorado, whose attorney general was among that group, subsequently said he didn’t think his state should have taken that position. Also in December, Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and 21 other prohibitionist groups filed a brief urging justices to uphold the constitutionality of the federal gun ban for people who use cannabis—which they claim is associated with violence and psychosis. On the other side of the debate, civil rights groups—including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), whose attorneys are among those representing Hemani—and gun organizations such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) have argued that the current policy represents a misguided categorical infringement of Second Amendment rights for a population that uses a substance that’s been legalized in a majority of states and is now being partially federally reclassified. Meanwhile, the Biden administration was evidently concerned about potential legal liability in federal cases for people convicted of violating gun laws simply by being a cannabis consumer who possessed a firearm, documents obtained by Marijuana Moment show. The previously unpublished 2024 guidance from former President Joe Biden’s Justice Department generally cautioned U.S. attorneys to use discretion in prosecuting federal cannabis cases, particularly for offenses that qualified people for pardons during his term. But one section seems especially relevant as the Supreme Court takes on a case challenging the constitutionality of the current federal gun statute. In interviews with Marijuana Moment, several Republican senators shared their views on the federal ban on gun possession by people who use marijuana—with one saying that if alcohol drinkers can lawfully buy and use firearms, the same standard should apply to cannabis consumers. Sauer, the solicitor general, sent the justices a letter in April arguing that the Trump administration’s move to federally reschedule marijuana should not impact their decision in the Hemani case. Separately in April, Blanche had suggested that the Trump administration may soon stop aggressively defending 922(g)(3), the federal law that criminalizes gun possession by people who consume marijuana and other illegal drugs. The post The Supreme Court’s Ruling On Gun Rights For Marijuana Users Is Already Being Applied To Other Cases appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“These Republican members of Congress appear to be hoping to undermine President Donald Trump’s position…by preserving punitive tax treatment for licensed cannabis businesses, regardless of their classification under federal law.” By Michael Cooper, National Cannabis Industry Association Sometimes you have to wonder what some congressional opponents of cannabis reform are smoking. The continued march of reform at the state level (buoyed by roughly two-thirds of Americans who believe it should be legal) paired with prohibition at the federal level leads to many odd results. Few are more counterproductive than a small group of Republican members of Congress advancing policy that would effectively raise taxes on state-legal cannabis. Indeed, for casual observers of cannabis reform—such as patients and families who rely on medical cannabis—nothing may illustrate the through the looking glass legislative machinations that have slowed reform progress more than the No Deductions for Marijuana Businesses Act whose bill sponsors wrote to Treasury officials this month following recent federal changes to the classification of marijuana. First, the legislation does exactly what its name suggests: it preserves and reinforces the federal tax penalty under Section 280E, which prevents state-legal cannabis businesses from taking ordinary business deductions. Of course, Republicans have long run on lowering taxes for small businesses. That principle has broad support across the political spectrum. Yet this bill would do the opposite for a category of highly regulated, state-legal operators—many of them small businesses already operating on thin margins. Second, the bill runs counter to the federal government’s own recent direction on cannabis policy, with the Trump administration moving medical cannabis into Schedule III where 280E is dropped. The administration is holding a hearing on extending Schedule III to adult use that would come with the same accompanying tax parity. In other words, these Republican members of Congress appear to be hoping to undermine President Donald Trump’s position and the DOJ’s Final Order rescheduling state-regulated medical cannabis by preserving punitive tax treatment for licensed cannabis businesses, regardless of their classification under federal law. Whether one supports broader cannabis reform or not, it is difficult to reconcile acknowledging accepted medical use for cannabis while simultaneously advancing legislation designed to preserve one of the industry’s harshest financial penalties. Third, let’s give these Republicans the most charitable reading possible and assume they truly believe that cannabis should be as tightly controlled a substance as possible and believe it so deeply that they will abandon their normal anti-tax beliefs. The problem is that, even if so, their bill completely undermines their goal. The state-legal cannabis industry targeted by this bill sells age-restricted, taxed and tested products. For example, licensed cannabis dispensaries excel at verifying purchasers’ ages, both anecdotally and in studies. If you care about keeping cannabis out of the hands of minors, promoting the regulated market should be a top priority. Instead, this bill would have the effect of driving up costs for state-regulated cannabis small businesses and will undoubtedly put some out of business. Simultaneously, it’s a windfall for the unregulated illicit market, which largely transacts under the table, avoiding any taxes at all and worse, selling to anyone they chose, including children. Something about cannabis reform makes its opponents do inexplicable things, from attempting to ignore the countless doctors recommending medical cannabis to patients by declaring that the plant has no currently accepted medical use to making Republicans cheer for job-killing, small business tax hikes to sponsoring legislation that would drive Americans into the open arms of dealers of untaxed, untested, unregulated products. At a time when most Americans support legalization and nearly every state has moved away from blanket prohibition, Congress should be focused on strengthening regulated markets—not undermining them. More than three in five Americans are hoping common-sense prevails. Michael Cooper is policy chair for the National Cannabis Industry Association. The post Why Are Republicans Fighting To Raise Taxes On Cannabis Businesses? (Op-Ed) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Seriously sturdy, magnificent, fact-filled information and facts listed here. A person's discussions Never need disappoint, and the unquestionably is valid listed here in addition. You actually continually make a fun learn. Do you convey to I'm just happy?: )#) Keep up to date the nice reports. 성인 PC방 먹튀검증

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

a extremely superb webpage. a realy educational in addition to a an extremely superior position. i’m a sucker for the. 피씨천국

Im no expert, but I believe you just made an excellent point. You certainly fully understand what youre speaking about, and I can truly get behind that. 성인 PC방 총판모집 Im no expert, but I believe you just made an excellent point. You certainly fully understand what youre speaking about, and I can truly get behind that. koitoto

Indulge in an exclusive experience with our VIP Escort Service Delhi. We select only the most beautiful and well-groomed women for our clients. They are perfect for social gatherings or private dates, offering intelligent conversation and sensual intimacy that will keep you coming back for more.

Welcome to a world where your deepest desires are fulfilled with elegance, discretion, and absolute professionalism in the heart of Lodhi Colony. Our Escorts Service in Lodhi Colony is designed for gentlemen who demand nothing but the best. Our companions are not just beautiful — they are intelligent, witty, and capable of engaging you in stimulating conversation as well as passionate encounters. With an extensive selection ranging from college sweethearts to high-profile celebrities, we cater to every taste and preference. Our booking process is quick, discreet, and hassle-free. Experience the epitome of adult entertainment in Lodhi Colony.

A coalition of marijuana legalization activists gathered outside Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) headquarters on Monday ahead of the start of a hearing an agency judge is overseeing on the Trump administration’s proposal to reschedule cannabis—criticizing the fact that no supporters of reform were invited to participate and that the proceedings are not being livestreamed despite officials’ vows of “transparency.” Among those who are excluded from the hearing are representatives from groups that have “spent decades advancing sensible cannabis policy,” former federal prisoners who “lived through the worst excesses of prohibition,” medical experts who “dedicated their careers to understanding cannabis and how it can help people” and legal cannabis business owners whose “futures will be shaped by whatever happens inside that hearing room, Kat Murti, executive director for Students for Sensible Drug Policy, said. “Many of them asked to participate in today’s hearing. All of them were denied their expertise, their experiences, their voices, their lives,” she said. “None of that will be heard inside the DEA courtroom.” “Instead, we are forced to hold this press conference on the sidewalk because the people most affected by federal cannabis policy have been shut out of the conversation, and the DEA has handpicked only those who want more criminalization, who feel we aren’t arresting enough people and that prohibition has not gone far enough to participate in their kangaroo court.” DEA Administrator Terrance Cole 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.” The agency itself is serving the role of proponent of the proposal to move cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III, and said in a filing last week that its witness list for the hearing includes a doctor who will provide testimony about how “medical marijuana provides a medical benefit to pain patients.” Some advocates are skeptical, however, that DEA will effectively defend the reform given its long history of opposing changes to prohibitionist approaches to cannabis and other drugs. Robert Rush of the Rights and Reason Project noted at Monday’s press conference that a prior hearing on the marijuana rescheduling proposal was canceled during the Biden administration amid litigation and accusations that DEA improperly colluded with opponents. “We’re standing outside, and it’s only the DEA who are going to stand inside and claim that they’re going to advocate for” reform, he said. “We’ve witnessed what’s gone on for decades and decades with the DEA, and how they’ve treated cannabis—but more importantly, how they’ve treated the people who use cannabis—and we’re supposed to believe that the DEA will advocate, and they will fight for adult use to move off a Schedule I, and they’re going to represent the people here?” “I just don’t think it’s a transparent process,” Rush said. “I don’t think it’s legit, and I think people should really be outraged about the way this process has proceeded.” Last week, Marijuana Moment sent requests to DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julius 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. On Friday, a DEA public affairs official told Marijuana Moment’s attorney, Joseph A. Bondy, that the agency “is in receipt of your inquiry regarding monitoring the marijuana rescheduling hearing in real-time.” “The Court determined in the Preliminary Order that the hearing will not be televised, livestreamed, or broadcasted in any way,” they said. “Consistent with all federal proceedings, the courtroom is open to the public and media for in-person attendance as space allows. Additionally, given national public interest in these proceedings and DEA’s commitment to transparency, a finalized and corrected transcript will be published on DEA.gov following the conclusion of the proceedings.” A transcript after the fact, however, would not help the public follow the proceedings as they unfold. Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) said in his letter to DEA’s Cole on Friday that the marijuana rescheduling process that is underway is “historic.” “I write to request that the hearings be made accessible to the public in real time,” Cohen wrote. “Live streaming technologies have become ubiquitous and a common way Americans interact with the government. In late 2024, when undertaking a similar effort, your agency allowed the proceedings to be livestreamed because of ‘the public interest in this matter’ and followed from your agency’s ‘commitment to conducting a transparent proceeding.’ “I do not see any reason why that rationale wouldn’t hold today, especially regarding such an important and impactful matter,” the congressman wrote. “I have long been an advocate for transparency in court room processes and believe this is a rare opportunity to inform the public about rulemaking and administrative adjudication.” Morgan Fox, political director for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), noted at Monday’s event that his group filed the first petition to reschedule cannabis more than 50 years ago. “Since 1972 when NORML filed the first cannabis rescheduling petition, and over the course of multiple subsequent petitions and years of litigation, the DEA has made it clear that it is vehemently opposed to removing cannabis from Schedule I and will fight to keep it there,” he said. “This hearing is no different, but the DEA is now eschewing any pretense of due process or respect for evidence by only selecting witnesses that share its bias, despite the clear scientific research in support of rescheduling and broadly accepted medical use.” — 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. — Rescheduling opponents that are participating in the hearing filed statements last week previewing the anti-marijuana arguments they intend to make during the proceedings. The hearing is set to conclude no later than July 15. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche in April issued an order that immediately reclassified state-licensed medical cannabis, as well as marijuana products approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III. Under a separate order the acting attorney general signed, the upcoming hearing will consider more comprehensively moving marijuana to Schedule III. A prior hearing process on the marijuana rescheduling process that was initiated by the Biden administration stalled last year amid litigation over alleged improper communications and witness selection. The current marijuana rescheduling process is being challenged with several lawsuits that have been consolidated by a federal appeals court. Those pieces of litigation against the cannabis reform have been filed by state attorneys general, marijuana legalization opponents and a cannabis-focused biopharmaceutical corporation. Meanwhile, the already-enacted rescheduling of state-licensed medical cannabis is already having broad impacts. The Congressional Research Service published a report on the current cannabis rescheduling move explaining that certified patients who possess medical marijuana from state-licensed dispensaries now have certain protections under Schedule III. “The order appears to authorize end users to possess marijuana for medical use without a CSA-compliant prescription,” it says. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has posted a draft update to a gun purchase form to acknowledge the federally legal status of medical marijuana under rescheduling. The revised section in question notably says that only “use or possession of marijuana for recreational purposes” is federally prohibited, leaving out the prior form’s mention of medical cannabis. The U.S. Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) said they plan to issue new tax guidance for the marijuana industry following rescheduling. The reform will benefit state-licensed marijuana businesses by allowing them to take federal tax deductions they’re currently barred from under an IRS code known as 280E that doesn’t apply to Schedule III substances. Even DEA, which has long opposed cannabis legalization and was accused of stalling the rescheduling process initiative by the Biden administration, has launched a registration process for state-legal marijuana businesses to take advantage of federal benefits that come with the reform. The Department of Transportation, on the other hand, issued guidance saying that use of state-legal medical cannabis is still no excuse for a positive drug test by truck drivers, pilots and other safety-sensitive workers. A congressional committee recently voted to block federal officials from taking further steps to carry out cannabis rescheduling, though bipartisan lawmakers told Marijuana Moment they don’t believe that provision will be enacted into law. Photo courtesy of Carlos Gracia. The post Marijuana Activists Say They’re Being ‘Shut Out’ Of DEA’s Rescheduling Hearing That Features Only Legalization Opponents appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

This may be a terrific report, Kudos meant for getting my family this level of detail. Always keep ad. 성인 PC방 매출

As a hearing kicks off this week on the Trump administration’s marijuana rescheduling proposal, efforts in Congress to block officials from carrying out the reform are unlikely to succeed, lawmakers from both parties say. While the House Appropriations Committee last month approved a funding bill containing a provision that, if enacted, would prevent federal officials from taking further steps to carry out cannabis rescheduling, bipartisan legislators told Marijuana Moment that they don’t expect that language to be enacted into law. “I don’t see how they’re going to get it through,” Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL) told Marijuana Moment. “I don’t see how that’s going to happen. I think there’s a bunch of other things that we need to worry on and get focused on. I just don’t see how that’s going to happen.” Asked specifically if he would support a measure to block rescheduling, the congressman said, “No.” Donalds, who is running for the Republican nomination for Florida’s governor, acknowledged his state’s voter-approved medical cannabis program but said he doesn’t support going further to allow adult-use marijuana. “In Florida, we’re not going to do recreational,” he said. “We’re not doing that.” Rep. Lou Correa (D-CA) told Marijuana Moment that “we’ve had a war on drugs for 60, 70 years—not based on science but politics.” “We have people that just—it’s very hard for them to get there,” he told Marijuana Moment. “Why would you unwind a policy where the vast majority of states, the vast majority of the population is accepting cannabis?” “Everybody’s using cannabis,” he said. “What do you want to do, arrest everybody? Is that the solution? What about civil liberties here?” “I think it’s very sad,” Correa said. “Where’s the will of the people? Let people decide.” Rep. Chuck Fleischmann (R-TN) said he has “always been really not a proponent of legalization”—saying that “I don’t smoke, I don’t drink, I’ve never touched marijuana, I don’t even take an aspirin.” “But the whole debate on medical marijuana, I’ve become more flexible over the years because I’ve actually spoken to people who tell me that for whatever malady that they are suffering from that they actually receive relief,” he told Marijuana Moment. “I just don’t want people to suffer if they tell me sincerely—and I’ve no doubt that they’re being sincere—whether it’s with the ill effects of chemotherapy or whatever.” Fleischmann said he is “pleased” that Tennessee hasn’t legalized cannabis, but he admitted that reform has momentum despite his personal opposition. “It is where it is,” he said. “I am not a fan of and will never be a fan of marijuana, but I think I’m not on the winning side of that issue long term, unless the severe ill effects that are out there persuade people to have it come back the other way.” The anti-rescheduling provision that is advancing in Congress reads: “SEC. 591. None of the funds appropriated under this Act or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to reschedule marijuana (as such term is defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)) or to remove marijuana from the schedules established under section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812).” The Appropriations Committee has advanced similar language in the past years as the federal government has weighed marijuana rescheduling, but those provisions were never passed into law. The Department of Justice announced in April that marijuana products regulated by a state medical cannabis license immediately moved to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) from Schedule I, as did any marijuana products that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). An administrative hearing scheduled to begin next month will consider broader cannabis rescheduling. Because the rescheduling of medical cannabis under Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s order took effect immediately, it’s not clear if or how the congressional rider would impact businesses and patients who are covered by that reform. If the language is passed by the full House and Senate and makes it into an appropriations package that President Donald Trump signs into law, however, it could prevent related action on broader marijuana rescheduling from taking place. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), which is serving as the proponent of the rescheduling proposal in the administrative hearing begging on Monday, revealed in a new filing last week that its witness list includes a doctor who will provide testimony about how “medical marijuana provides a medical benefit to pain patients.” Separately last week, marijuana reform opponents filed briefs previewing the arguments they plan to make in the rescheduling hearing—with briefs largely focusing on cannabis’s alleged health and safety harms. Meanwhile, Marijuana Moment sent letters this week asking the DEA judge overseeing the proceedings and the DEA administrator to allow livestreaming of the hearing. The LCB contributed reporting from Washington, D.C. The post Congress Won’t Block Trump’s Marijuana Rescheduling Move, Bipartisan Lawmakers Say As Hearing On Reform Begins appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Thanks a ton to get writing this sort of superb posting! I uncovered your web blog ideal for this demands. Contained in the grapefruit excellent plus handy discussions. Keep up to date favorable deliver the results! 성인 PC방 단속

Great article Lot's of information to Read...Great Man Keep Posting and update to People..Thanks 성인 PC방 총판먹튀 Great article Lot's of information to Read...Great Man Keep Posting and update to People..Thanks koitoto

Sustain the great do the job, When i understand several threads within this web page in addition to I'm sure that a world-wide-web blog site is usually authentic useful possesses bought bags connected with excellent facts. 성인 PC방 총판먹튀

Anti-marijuana groups file initial hearing briefs; Congressman joins Marijuana Moment’s livestream push; VA budget amendments; LA psychedelics 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… BREAKING: Journalism is often consumed for free, but costs money to produce! While this newsletter is proudly sent without cost to you, our ability to send it each day depends on the financial support of readers who can afford to give it. So if you’ve got a few dollars to spare each month and believe in the work we do, please consider joining us on Patreon today. https://www.patreon.com/marijuanamoment / TOP THINGS TO KNOW The Drug Enforcement Administration revealed in a filing that its witness list for the cannabis rescheduling hearing starting on Monday includes a doctor who will give testimony about how “medical marijuana provides a medical benefit to pain patients”—and will also note “patient safety measures utilized in the industry.” The government’s other witness is a Food and Drug Administration official who will describe the process the agency used to develop a rescheduling recommendation. Marijuana reform opponents—including three states—filed new briefs previewing the arguments they plan to make against rescheduling cannabis in the hearing, and the Drug Enforcement Administration reiterated it doesn’t intend to invite any supportive organizations to participate. Marijuana Moment took its request for livestreaming of the cannabis rescheduling hearing directly to Drug Enforcement Administration Administrator Terrance Cole after the agency judge overseeing the proceedings said he won’t consider filings from non-parties to the proceedings. Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), Law360, a New York Times reporter, Cultivated Media and medical cannabis advocates joined Marijuana Moment’s request for the livestream access to the cannabis rescheduling hearing. Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) submitted amendments to a budget bill that includes provisions to legalize recreational marijuana sales—though she didn’t alter the cannabis sections. Lawmakers are set to vote on the proposed changes on Monday. Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry (R) allowed a bill to create a psychedelic-assisted therapy pilot program that will use opioid settlement dollars to fund clinical trials aimed at developing alternative treatments such as psilocybin, ibogaine and MDMA to take effect without his signature. South Carolina lawmakers failed to agree on an approach to restrict hemp THC products, meaning that they will stay broadly legal in the state. The Missouri Division of Cannabis Regulation will begin accepting applications for a third round of cannabis microbusiness licenses next month. / FEDERAL Drug Enforcement Administration Administrator Terrance Cole requested that the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General conduct an independent review of allegations that the agency allowed fentanyl pills to reach the streets. Rep. Dave Joyce (R-OH) discussed his amendment to push the military to launch an expanded waiver program for recruits who test positive for THC. Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV) tweeted, “The SAFE Banking Act is a critical step towards ending outdated federal barriers that put legitimate cannabis businesses at a disadvantage. I am introducing this bill today to protect livelihoods and strengthen an industry that employs over 400,000 Americans.” / STATES Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) appointed a new member to the Cannabis Control Authority. California regulators announced a recall of marijuana products due to incomplete and incorrect regulatory compliance testing. A Texas appeals court rejected a motion requesting reconsideration of a decision to lift a temporary injunction against hemp rules. Hawaii regulators are being sued over hemp rules. Oregon regulators filed proposed changes to psilocybin services rules. Nevada regulators published fair market values for marijuana at wholesale. Minnesota regulators are continuing a listening tour about cannabis. The New York Cannabis Control Board will meet on Thursday. — Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments. Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access. — / LOCAL Osseo, Michigan’s mayor discussed efforts to launch a municipal marijuana dispensary. / SCIENCE & HEALTH A review concluded that “CBD can alleviate arthritic pain in levels comparable to other types of medications with low to no detrimental effects.” A study of rats highlighted “psilocybin’s therapeutic potential in chronic” traumatic brain injury. / ADVOCACY, OPINION & ANALYSIS The Virginia Beer Wholesalers Association, Virginia Craft Brewers Guild, Virginia Spirits Association, Virginia Wineries Association and other groups sent a letter to Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) expressing concerns about a plan to use Alcoholic Beverage Control Authority officials to help oversee the recreational marijuana market. The Brookings Institution published an analysis about use of the term drug “decriminalization.” / BUSINESS Glass House is facing a fine related to an investigation of complaints regarding allegedly underage workers at its facility. Trulieve Cannabis Corp.’s chairman and CEO notified the broker dealer administering her automatic securities disposition plan of her intention to terminate it. Jushi Holdings Inc. shareholders elected board of directors members. 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 DEA previews cannabis rescheduling hearing testimony (Newsletter: June 29, 2026) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

I really like your take on the issue. I now have a clear idea on what this matter is all about.. 성인 PC방 매매

I havent 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. 성인 PC방 매출

I was reading some of your content on this website and I conceive this internet site is really informative ! Keep on putting up. 성인 PC방

I am unable to read articles online very often, but I’m glad I did today. This is very well written and your points are well-expressed. Please, don’t ever stop writing. 성피

She was the perfect storm of elegance and raw passion. My Gandhi Nagar Escorts companion was fierce, seductive, and completely in charge. She made me feel desired, worshipped, and absolutely alive. This is what Escorts in Gandhi Nagar should always feel like – bold, passionate, and dangerously addictive.

Thanks for sharing this initiative! I also use the Coast FIRE Calculator to plan long-term financial goals, and it's a helpful free tool for anyone focused on future financial independence.

Now i'm actually very happy to locate this web site and also would take pleasure in studying beneficial posts published the following. The particular tips with the creator has been great, thank you for your discuss. 성인 PC방 벌금

Very good points you wrote here..Great stuff...I think you've made some truly interesting points.Keep up the good work. 성인 피시방 벌금