All Activity

A coalition of transportation and safety organizations say they have “serious safety concerns” surrounding the Trump administration’s move to federally reschedule marijuana. Led by the American Trucking Associations, the groups sent a letter on Monday urging federal officials to take steps to ensure that truck drivers, pilots, transit operators and other safety-sensitive workers will continue to be tested for cannabis. “Unless the necessary steps are taken to preserve employers’ ability to test safety‑sensitive transportation workers for marijuana, this change could have significant consequences for the safety of the traveling public and the entire transportation sector,” they wrote to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Administrator Terrance Cole, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy. The organizations said they understand that federal officials are proceeding with rescheduling with “urgency” under an executive order from President Donald Trump, they are “deeply concerned that the current process has not adequately accounted for the impact on transportation safety or the agencies charged with protecting the traveling public” and they want agencies to “work together” during an ongoing cannabis rescheduling hearing and rulemaking process to address those concerns. In May, the Department of Transportation (DOT) issued new guidance saying that truck drivers, airline pilots and other safety-sensitive workers still cannot use medical marijuana without punishment despite the Trump administration’s move to reschedule it. “Marijuana use is not compatible with safety-sensitive functions,” the department said. Medical review officers (MROs) who receive drug test results indicating cannabis consumption cannot deem them to be negative for illegal substance use, even when an employee says it was the result of state-licensed medical marijuana, it said. “Currently, there is no instance when the MRO could verify a laboratory-confirmed marijuana positive drug test result as ‘negative’ when an employee claims the positive was caused by a State licensed marijuana product,” DOT said, explaining that even after rescheduling, medical marijuana dispensed in accordance with state law “does not constitute” a drug that has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The transportation groups said in the new letter that DOT’s drug testing program “depends on Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs and HHS‑certified laboratories.” “Although DOT has expressed its intent to continue testing for marijuana, a commitment we deeply appreciate, it is unclear whether DOT will retain the ability to rely on HHS procedures and certifications following the rescheduling,” they wrote. “Without that alignment, DOT may maintain the authority to test but lack the scientific and procedural infrastructure to do so.” “Practically, this would mean truck and bus drivers, pilots, flight attendants, air traffic controllers, air mechanics, rail operating personnel, dispatchers and signal personnel, transit operators, and pipeline workers could continue performing safety-critical, high-risk duties without any reliable means of confirming they are not actively using marijuana. Furthermore, because no validated test exists to measure real‑time marijuana impairment, transportation safety relies heavily on controlled‑substance testing to identify recent use and prevent potentially impaired individuals from performing safety‑sensitive duties. Rescheduling could create legal or regulatory gaps that weaken the existing drug testing framework upon which regulated employers rely. Absent clear guidance, these employers will face immediate compliance uncertainty, with direct repercussions for public safety. This concern is shared by the National Transportation Safety Board, which has warned that any final rule must not compromise marijuana testing for safety‑sensitive transportation employees.” “Regardless of the broader policy goals of rescheduling, the federal government should not proceed without a clear plan to preserve transportation drug‑testing programs and mitigate the risks of increased and unchecked impairment on our roadway, railroads, public transit systems, pipelines, airspace, and maritime corridors,” the letter says. The organizations are specifically asking federal officials to: Safeguard marijuana testing for all safety‑sensitive transportation workers over the long term; Affirm the authority of DOT‑regulated employers to conduct such testing; Ensure HHS laboratory certification and testing guidelines remain available and aligned with DOT’s safety mission; and Establish a coordinated federal strategy to address the transportation‑safety implications of rescheduling. “The traveling public and the workers who keep our transportation system functioning safely deserve a process that ensures these safeguards remain firmly in place before any final action is taken,” the letter says. Earlier this month, the House Appropriations Committee adopted a provision directing federal officials to continue requiring government employees and safety-sensitive workers such as truck drivers and airline pilots to be drug tested for marijuana, “regardless of any future changes to the legal status or scheduling.” The followed a press conference organized by prohibitionist groups and a drug testing industry association where two Republican lawmakers joined their call for a “carve-out” to marijuana rescheduling by affirming that safety-sensitive transportation workers could still be penalized for testing positive for THC. The lawmakers and prohibitionist activists argued that moving marijuana to Schedule III would mean a 1986 executive order on the federal workforce that President Ronald Reagan signed defining illegal drugs as Schedule I and II drugs under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) would be effectively nullified when it comes to cannabis use by truck drivers, airline pilots and other workers regulated by DOT. Last October, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy suggested President Donald Trump was “getting pressure” to reschedule cannabis—arguing that marijuana is “really addictive” and saying that policy reform around the issue sends a “dangerous” message. “At a time when culture is pushing and celebrating the use of marijuana, we’re not talking about the risk,” Duffy said. The post Transportation Groups Warn Feds Of Marijuana Rescheduling’s ‘Consequences’ For Drug Testing Of Truck Drivers And Pilots appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

An Idaho medical marijuana campaign has announced that it submitted county-verified petitions for its proposed legalization initiative to state officials for a final review to determine whether the measure can appear on the November ballot. The press release from the Natural Medical Alliance of Idaho (NMAI), however, did not specify whether the already-completed county-level review indicates that they submitted enough valid signatures in a sufficient number of counties to qualify for ballot access, and a spokesperson did respond to Marijuana Moment’s request for clarification. To be certified for the ballot, the team needs to submit signatures from at least 6 percent of registered voters as of the state’s last general election, which currently amounts to 70,725. They also need to meet that 6 percent threshold in at least 18 of the state’s 35 legislative districts. While the campaign submitted more than 150,000 total signatures in May, there have been some recent indications that there could be an issue meeting the county-level requirement. A judge ruled last month that signatures in Minidoka County were turned in too late to be counted. Separately, some petitions for the medical cannabis measure throughout the state are at risk of being thrown out due to the possibility they may have been collected by out-of-state circulators. “Now that the initiative is in the Secretary of State’s hands, we are focused on seeing that process through carefully and completely as they perform their review,” the update that NMAI sent on Thursday says. “We will continue to work with their office and share updates on the status of the initiative as we have them.” “It is worth saying who we are. NMAI is not a large organization or a political machine,” the group said. “It began with a few people, the friends and family of a remarkable Idaho pediatrician who passed after a brave and difficult battle with brain cancer, whose wish was that others who are suffering would have a better, natural alternative to opioids. They are the ones who carried her vision forward and set out to bring this question to the voters of Idaho.” “Through this effort, more than 150,000 signatures were collected in every corner of Idaho and polling found 83 percent of voters in Idaho support a medical cannabis program. Throughout this process, the people of Idaho showed up. They shared their support with friends and neighbors, they worked on this effort in good faith, they donated, and they volunteered. An effort of this scale requires specialized help, and so NMAI entrusted the signature-gathering work to professional outside contractors engaged for that purpose, relying on their expertise and their representations to meet the standards Idaho law requires.” Regardless of whether the measure ultimately makes the ballot this year, NMAI said that “Idahoans support this.” “That support and the turnout of thousands and thousands of Idahoans is what carried this effort,” the campaign’s update said. “It is the people of Idaho who have given us confidence and who have touched our hearts.” Meanwhile, voters this year will see a different kind of cannabis proposal on the ballot: A constitutional amendment that the legislature approved to make it so only lawmakers could legalize marijuana or other controlled substances—preventing the reform from being enacted by voters via a ballot initiative. While NMAI has pursued ballot access for the legalization measure, Idaho lawmakers have also pushed back in other ways. Both the Senate and House of Representatives passed a resolution this session urging voters to “reject” the medical marijuana petition. The measure, sponsored by the Senate State Affairs Committee, claims that cannabis legalization in other states has led to a host of harms, including “increased cartel activity, development of black market marijuana production, human trafficking, and increased crime rates” as well as “increased rates of serious health issues,” environmental harms and “safety concerns on job sites.” It argues that the marijuana initiative would not only increase costs to the state but that its list of approved medical conditions is “so broad that almost anyone could qualify.” “The Idaho Medical Cannabis Act lacks safeguards to such an extent that it would effectively legalize widespread recreational use of marijuana,” the resolution claims. “The legalization of marijuana would have devastating impacts on Idaho children and their families… The Legislature urges the citizens of Idaho to reject any effort to bring the Idaho Medical Cannabis Act to the ballot.” A statement of purpose filed with the legislation says it “addresses the devastating impact that legalizing marijuana has had on other states” and “identifies the significant problems” with the ballot initiative. Contrary to the claims made about marijuana reform in the legislative resolution, advocates often point to data showing that legalizing and regulating cannabis diminishes the size of the illegal market and has not led to increases in youth use. Meanwhile, NMAI recently released an analysis showing that Idaho could see more than $100 million worth of medical marijuana sold on an annual basis and up to $28 million in new yearly revenue for state coffers if voters approve the legalization initiative. The Idaho Medical Cannabis Act, which NMAI unveiled last October, would provide patients with qualifying conditions access to marijuana from a limited number of dispensaries and provide a regulatory framework for the market. Here are the main provisions of the Idaho Medical Cannabis Act: Health practitioners would be able to recommend medical cannabis to patients with conditions that include, but are not limited to, cancer, anxiety and acute pain. Medical marijuana patients or their designated caregiver could purchase up to 113 grams of smokeable cannabis, or 20 grams of THC extract for vaping, per month. The state would be start by issuing three vertically integrated cannabis business licenses, after which point it could license up to six total. Marijuana would be reclassified under state law as a Schedule II, rather than Schedule I, controlled substance. State and local law enforcement would be barred from assisting in federal drug enforcement activities related to the state-legal cannabis program. There would be anti-discrimination protections for those who use or sell marijuana in compliance from state law, preventing adverse actions by employers, landlords and educational institutions. It does not appear that there would be any equity-centered reforms, nor would the initiative provide for a home grow option. “We believe Idahoans deserve access to legal, compassionate, natural care right here at home,” NMAI’s website says. “Our mission is to give patients a legal pathway to natural medicine that can ease suffering and restore dignity without the fear of addiction.” “The Idaho Medical Cannabis Act is our first step forward. It creates a safe, tightly regulated medical program that allows qualified Idahoans to seek medical cannabis treatment with a valid diagnosis from a healthcare provider,” it says. “It supports Idaho agriculture, generates tax revenue to reinvest locally, and ensures that patients can find natural relief.” The campaign in February also released the results of a statewide poll showing that 83 percent of likely voters back medical cannabis legalization, including 74 percent of Republicans, 95 percent of Democrats and 92 percent of independents. Asked how they would vote if the current medical cannabis legalization does appear on the November ballot, 76 percent of respondents said “yes.” Of that cohort, 50 percent said they would “definitively” vote yes, and just 21 percent said they’d vote “no.” After the medical cannabis initiative was unveiled last year, a separate campaign that launched in 2024, Kind Idaho, told supporters that it would be suspending its own signature gathering for a ballot initiative to legalize the personal possession and cultivation of marijuana by adults. Kind Idaho previously introduced medical marijuana ballot measures intended to go before voters in both the 2022 and 2024 elections, but the efforts proved unsuccessful. — 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. — Legislators separately held a hearing last year to discuss a bill to enact medical cannabis legalization legislatively, but there hasn’t been meaningful action on the issue in the months since. Idaho Gov. Brad Little (R) last year signed legislation setting a $300 mandatory minimum fine for marijuana possession. A prior version of the proposal, which did not pass, would have set a $420 mandatory minimum fine for possessing cannabis. Photo courtesy of Max Pixel. The post Idaho Medical Marijuana Campaign Submits Ballot Signatures For Final Review By State Officials Following County Verification appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Officials in the Cayman Islands have published a report on options for marijuana reform following voters’ approval last year of a referendum supporting cannabis decriminalization. The self-governing British territory’s Law Reform Commission (LRC) on Wednesday issued a discussion paper titled, “Cannabis Reform: Options for a Harm Minimisation Framework”—and they are accepting public comments on its findings through September 1. The document lays out a range of model policies to build on the territory’s existing medical cannabis law while analyzing benefits and drawbacks of each—ultimately concluding that decriminalizing possession and consumption without allowing retail access and marketing “would be most likely to reduce the negative impacts of prohibition while mitigating the risks of reform.” The commission notes that “cannabis has deep historical, cultural and religious roots across the Caribbean” and was “grown and used freely long before it was prohibited.” Prohibition, it said, “is a relatively recent development, which occurred without the benefit of scientific evidence about the harm or beneficial properties of cannabis.” “There is a broad consensus that the prohibition of cannabis has been generally ineffective in deterring its use.” “Even if prohibition deters or suppresses cannabis use to some extent, it is important to evaluate any benefits of prohibition against its negative impacts,” the report notes. “The negative impacts of prohibition include health impacts, socioeconomic impacts and criminal justice impacts.” “Aside from its inefficacy in preventing harm by deterring use, prohibition has the potential to exacerbate the negative health impacts of cannabis use. There is no regulation of the quality and potency of cannabis, and users have no way of knowing precisely what they are consuming. Users are also less likely to seek help for cannabis dependency if they fear prosecution. In addition, prohibition results in the allocation of resources to enforcement that could otherwise be directed to public health initiatives such as treatment programmes and interventions to prevent the uptake of cannabis by young people… Prohibition also has negative socioeconomic impacts, such as its disproportionate criminal justice impact. Minor cannabis offences are more likely to be enforced against individuals with low socioeconomic status, even though cannabis use is prevalent across all demographics. Such convictions exacerbate inequality by reducing employment prospects, disrupting family units and generally hindering socioeconomic mobility.” The report weighs various options for cannabis policies—including decriminalization, strict legalization, liberal legalization and hybrid legal regulation. Despite acknowledging that simple decriminalization “does little to combat the illegal market,” it raises concerns that broader commercial legalization could lead to an increase in problematic cannabis use. “Accordingly, the Commission holds the view that any reform should be limited to decriminalising the consumption and possession of small amounts of cannabis, while the importation, production, distribution and sale of cannabis should remain illegal,” the report concludes. It also said, however, that the commission “does not discount the possibility of developing a legal supply model at some point in the future,” saying that for now it is recommending “a cautious, incremental approach to reform focused on harm minimisation.” “Developing an effective regulatory framework for full legalisation is a highly complex and challenging task for any jurisdiction, let alone a small jurisdiction. This complexity is significantly exacerbated by the difficulties and risks associated with providing banking services to cannabis businesses. It is also essential that the health system be sufficiently resourced to respond to the medical implications of a potentially significant increase in consumption that may result from legalising supply.” The document provides an overview of the cannabis laws of other jurisdictions in the Caribbean and elsewhere in the world, as well as international treaties that have served as a roadblock to some countries’ reform efforts. “The Commission considers that legalising the production and trade of recreational cannabis would be problematic under the UN Conventions and that assent to such reforms would likely be refused by the United Kingdom,” it says. The report, the creation of which was directed by the Cayman Islands Cabinet, lays out a series of specific questions that the commission wants feedback on: Do you think that the importation, production, distribution and sale of cannabis should remain illegal? Do you think that the home cultivation of a limited number of cannabis plants for personal consumption should be decriminalised? Do you think that consumption and possession of cannabis should be decriminalised for minors under the age of 18? Do you think that cannabis consumption should only be permitted in private residential dwellings? If the consumption and possession of small amounts of cannabis is decriminalised, do you think administrative penalties should apply, or no penalties at all? If consumption and possession of cannabis by minors is not decriminalised, do you think that criminal penalties should be replaced with administrative penalties? Do you think that decriminalisation should be limited to dried cannabis and not extend to cannabis resin and other cannabis products? Do you agree with a possession limit of 30 grams of dried cannabis and 150 grams of ‘wet’ or harvested cannabis? Do you agree with a cultivation limit of up to four cannabis plants per household? Do you think that historic minor cannabis convictions should be expunged? Comments on the paper can be submitted electronically to cilawreform@gov.ky or can be submitted in written form to the Director of the Law Reform Commission, 5th Floor Government Administration Building, Portfolio of Legal Affairs, 133 Elgin Avenue, George Town, Grand Cayman, P.O. Box 136, Grand Cayman KY1-9000. The non-binding referendum that voters approved in April 2025 was intended to inform the discussions within the Cayman Islands government on whether to decriminalize personal possession and use. Voters at were asked on the ballot whether they “support the decriminalisation of the consumption and possession of small amounts of cannabis.” The measure was approved 56 percent to 36 percent, with another 8 percent of ballots being rejected. Medical marijuana was legalized in the Cayman Islands in 2017. In 2018, the heads of 19 Caribbean nations agreed to “review marijuana’s current status with a view to reclassification,” noting “human and religious rights” issues stemming from criminalization as well as “the economic benefits to be derived” from legalization. Photo courtesy of Brian Shamblen. The post Cayman Islands Government Commission Lays Out Options For Marijuana Reform Following Voters’ Passage Of Decriminalization Referendum appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

My parents have been using this knee pain oil regularly and they’ve noticed a big difference in mobility.

By providing consistent customer service, honest communication, and a customer-first experience, we have earned the trust of each of our Escort in Aerocity clients.

“There was no discussion of the lasting harms of marijuana criminalization itself—the arrests, convictions, incarceration and collateral consequences that continue to affect individuals, families and communities.” By Cat Packer, Drug Policy Alliance At 7:15 Monday morning, I was standing outside the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)’s headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, waiting to attend one of the most consequential federal marijuana proceedings in decades: the DEA’s hearing on whether marijuana should be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Although the Drug Policy Alliance, where I work, sought permission to participate as an interested party, DEA denied our request, along with those submitted by organizations including NORML, Marijuana Policy Project, Cannabis Regulators of Color Coalition, Latino Cannabis Alliance, Law Enforcement Action Partnership, Doctors for Drug Policy Reform, the Parabola Center for Law & Policy, Supernova Women and Students for Sensible Drug Policy. Many of these organizations have spent decades at the forefront of marijuana reform that addresses the harms of criminalization, prioritizes health, and delivers legalization that puts communities first–but were notably excluded from participation in the hearing. Instead, the DEA designated just seven parties to participate—and every one of them opposes rescheduling. The hearing wasn’t scheduled to begin until 9:00 a.m.—but members of the public were admitted on a first-come, first-served basis, and only a handful at a time. There was no livestream. No video broadcast. No public audio feed. If you wanted to know what was happening inside the hearing room, you had to be there. For the first two days, I was. On the third day, I was denied entry after being told the administrative law judge had barred public attendees after 8:50 a.m.—a restriction that had not been publicly disclosed. Most people simply don’t have the time, flexibility or financial resources to attend a hearing like this in person. I recognize that I am fortunate to have a job that gave me the opportunity to do so. I believed it was important to attend—not only to better understand the proceeding firsthand, but also to help explain to the public what this hearing is and what it means. From the outset, DEA framed the proceedings as advancing “regulation, not legalization.” But regulation and legalization are not competing goals—they are complementary responsibilities. By refusing to acknowledge that most Americans have embraced marijuana legalization and by excluding many of the voices that helped make those reforms possible, the hearing failed to address the central questions Americans have about the future of marijuana policy. After spending two days inside the hearing room—and being denied access on the third—three observations stood out. My first observation was: This conversation is being shaped by a narrow set of voices—those of DEA and of opponents of marijuana reform. On one side of the room sat the federal government, represented by DEA and its legal counsel, defending its proposal to move marijuana to Schedule III. On the other side, sat the legal counsel of the seven designated participants selected by DEA—every one of whom opposes rescheduling. That matters because beyond DEA, these parties are the only ones permitted to present witnesses, introduce evidence and cross-examine the government’s experts. Their testimony—and the testimony they challenge—will help shape the administrative record the administrative law judge will review before making a recommendation to DEA. When many of the stakeholders most directly affected by federal marijuana policy are excluded from participating, the record inevitably reflects a narrower range of perspectives. That became especially clear as the testimony unfolded. Dr. Dominic Chiapperino, Director of the Controlled Substances Section at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), shared testimony that was generally limited to FDA’s scientific and medical review—the process used to determine marijuana’s currently accepted medical use, abuse potential and the methodology supporting the recommendation to reschedule marijuana. The government’s second witness, Dr. Corey Burchman, shifted the discussion from scientific analysis to clinical practice. Drawing on his experience treating patients, he described helping many patients transition from opioids to cannabis and discussed the relative risks of opioid use and marijuana. These issues are important and deserve thoughtful consideration. But so do the perspectives that weren’t represented. There was no discussion of the lasting harms of marijuana criminalization itself—the arrests, convictions, incarceration and collateral consequences that continue to affect individuals, families and communities. There was no discussion of the racial disparities that have characterized marijuana enforcement for decades, the Nixon-era Shafer Commission’s recommendation against criminalizing personal marijuana possession or the lessons learned from the dozens of states that have legalized and regulated marijuana. If we are evaluating marijuana’s place under federal law, we should also evaluate these issues and the consequences of the federal policies that have governed it for more than half a century. Questions around marijuana criminalization and the social and financial cost of enforcement are central to evaluating whether the current system serves the public interest. My second observation was: This hearing is about marijuana. Not medical vs. adult use. Much of the recent public discussion surrounding these proceedings has focused on what rescheduling might mean for adult-use cannabis. But from the outset, government counsel made clear that, in DEA’s view, “this is not about recreational cannabis. This is about regulation, not legalization.” But what’s important about an acknowledgement that this isn’t about ‘recreational,’ in part, is the reality that the CSA does not distinguish between “medical marijuana” and “recreational marijuana.” It regulates “marihuana” as a single defined substance, and this hearing is considering whether that substance—as defined in the CSA—should move from Schedule I to Schedule III. There is one important exception. Earlier this year, DEA finalized a separate rule moving FDA-approved marijuana medications and marijuana produced by qualifying state-licensed medical marijuana operators into Schedule III. Those decisions are already final and are not being reconsidered here. Everything else that falls within the federal definition of marijuana remains in Schedule I and criminalized under federal law. My third observation was: This hearing matters—but it fails to consider or address the biggest questions facing marijuana reform. This hearing is only one step in the administrative process. Every question asked and every answer given becomes part of the official record. Once the hearing concludes, the administrative law judge will compile that record and issue a recommended decision to DEA. The agency will then determine whether to issue a final rule, and whatever decision it reaches will almost certainly face judicial review. In other words, this hearing matters—but it is not the final word. That brings me back to the government’s opening statement: that this proceeding is “about regulation, not legalization.” The American people have repeatedly made clear that they are ready to move beyond marijuana criminalization. They also expect thoughtful regulation that protects public health, supports scientific research, creates clear rules for legitimate businesses, draws on the lessons learned by states and begins repairing the harms created by decades of prohibition. Legalization and regulation are not mutually exclusive. Nor do they have to be competing goals. They should be complementary responsibilities. Rescheduling may change marijuana’s status under federal law, but it will not end federal criminalization, resolve the conflict between federal and state law or create the comprehensive regulatory framework the country increasingly needs and expects. Those are questions that only Congress can answer. That is why, regardless of how DEA ultimately rules, Congress should advance comprehensive marijuana reform through legislation such as the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act and the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act (CAOA). Ending federal marijuana criminalization, supporting state-regulated systems, restoring rights, releasing those still incarcerated for marijuana offenses and beginning to repair the harms of prohibition are not separate from the conversation about regulation—they are essential to it. I won’t be able to attend the remainder of the hearing in person. Like most members of the public—and like the many organizations and experts denied the opportunity to participate as designated parties—I will be waiting to see what ultimately comes from a process that has been both exclusionary and lacking in transparency. What I already know, however, is this: if we want a marijuana policy that protects public health, advances evidence-based regulation, addresses the harms of prohibition, and reflects the will of the American people, we need both legalization and regulation. Cat Packer is the director of drug markets & legal regulation at the Drug Policy Alliance and a distinguished cannabis policy practitioner in residence at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Drug Enforcement and Policy Center. From 2017 through 2022, Packer served as the first executive director of the City of Los Angeles Department of Cannabis Regulation. The post Inside The DEA’s Marijuana Rescheduling Hearing: What I Saw, Who Was Missing And Why It Matters (Op-Ed) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

IL gov touts new marijuana reforms; Poll: Americans back SCOTUS cannabis & gun rights ruling; Study: Terpenes & entourage effect 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 Department of Justice filed a brief opposing a drug testing industry group and a pharmaceutical company’s motion to pause cannabis rescheduling—pointing out that they have “pocketbook interests served by keeping all marijuana in schedule I.” Congress “did not enact the CSA to provide drug screeners with a permanent source of income for testing marijuana.” The House of Representatives passed a bill that would require online platforms to take steps to prevent minors’ access to potentially sensitive content—including advertisements for cannabis products and certain other drugs and services. Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D) held a signing ceremony at a marijuana dispensary for a cannabis omnibus bill that doubles legal possession limits, allows drive-thrus and curbside pickups, significantly restricts hemp THC products and makes other changes to rules for how licensed businesses can operate. A new poll found that 55 percent of Americans agree with the Supreme Court’s decision upholding gun rights of people who use marijuana—with majority support among Republicans, Democrats and independents. Researchers behind a new marijuana study said their findings “refute early, overly broad interpretations of a generalized ‘entourage effect,’ replacing them with terpene-specific mechanistically based framework.” “Our findings support a shift from non-specific ‘full-spectrum’/ ‘whole-plant’ preparations, toward rationally designed, cannabinoid products enriched with selected terpenes. Such formulations may potentially leverage specific terpene–THC interactions, either synergistic or additive, to target distinct therapeutic needs.” The Rhode Island Cannabis Control Commission is asking a federal judge to remove a preliminary injunction on business licensing now that residency requirements targeted in litigation have been removed. / FEDERAL The Drug Enforcement Administration is moving to temporarily place 7-OH and three related substances into Schedule I. The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis published an analysis of hemp market dynamics. Rep. Troy Carter (D-LA) tweeted, “As the legal cannabis industry grows, it’s important that we develop pathways to prepare students from diverse backgrounds to meaningfully participate. I’m proud to have introduced the EDUCATE Act with @repdinatitus to empower minority students to explore and study jobs in cultivation, research, business, and policy sectors of the legal marijuana market.” / STATES Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey (D) held a ceremonial swearing in for members of the Cannabis Control Commission. A Delaware representative sent a press release about the legislature’s move to override Gov. Matt Meyer’s (D) veto of a bill to limit county zoning restrictions on marijuana businesses. The North Carolina Supreme Court rejected requests to reconsider cases on whether police can use the smell of marijuana as the basis for searches. Arizona regulators announced a recall of marijuana products with failed testing records for aspergillus. Colorado regulators issued a health and safety bulletin about cannabis vaporization devices with pesticides. Washington State regulators approved changes to rules on cannabis business license fees. Winners of the California State Fair cannabis awards were announced. Ohio officials sent a reminder to use cannabis safely and responsibly when celebrating the Fourth of July. — 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, Minnesota officials discussed plans to open a city-owned marijuana dispensary. / INTERNATIONAL French officials filed rules on reimbursement of cannabis-based medications. / SCIENCE & HEALTH A review concluded that “cannabinoids may be a promising treatment option for pain in [sickle cell disease] and has the potential to reduce inflammation as well.” A study found that “acute and chronic low dose oral CBD administration attenuated anxiety-like behavior in rats.” / BUSINESS Vireo Growth Inc. entered an agreement to acquire, jointly with Vive Penn, LLC., FarmX, LLC d/b/a PhytoNatural. The co-founder of Ivy Hall was found guilty of a scheme involving leasing jets to a Mexican cocaine trafficker. 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 DOJ slams ‘pocketbook interests’ opposing cannabis rescheduling (Newsletter: July 3, 2026) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

The Department of Justice is urging a federal court to reject marijuana opponents’ request to pause the Trump administration’s cannabis rescheduling proposal from moving forward amid overall litigation challenging the reform. The government brief argues that the drug testing industry association and pharmaceutical company seeking to block rescheduling have “pocketbook interests served by keeping all marijuana in schedule I.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is currently weighing three separate lawsuits against moving cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III that have since been consolidated. One suit is led by prohibitionist organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA), who claim they are “aggrieved” by the reform. Another comes from a coalition of anti-marijuana activists, substance misuse professionals, doctors and a cannabis-focused biopharmaceutical corporation. A third challenge was filed by the attorneys general of Indiana, Nebraska and Louisiana—though the later state later withdrew from the suit. Two of the entities involved in the litigation—NDASA and cannabis-focused biopharmaceutical corporation MMJ International Holdings—filed a separate motion asking the court to place a stay on rescheduling while the broader challenge is considered. DOJ on Thursday issued a response to that request, arguing that the court should not pause cannabis reform because, it says, NDASA and MMJ do not have standing to bring the challenge and have “not demonstrated a likelihood of success” of the overall litigation. “Petitioners come nowhere near satisfying the demanding standard for that extraordinary relief.” The government brief says that NDASA, which represents drug testing companies, has only cited “generalized speculation about how the rescheduling order might affect the drug-testing industry rather than particularized allegations about how the order has affected specific members of the association.” The group argued that under rescheduling its members will face lost revenue from fewer employers drug testing for marijuana and “higher costs” required to determine “whether positive results reflect state-licensed medical use.” But DOJ says that isn’t the government’s problem. “Moreover, the future injuries that NDASA fears would be caused either by the decisions of clients to stop testing for marijuana entirely, or the joint decision of its members and their clients for the drug screener to bear the increased costs of testing. Petitioners have not shown that it is ‘predictable,’ rather than merely ‘speculative,’ that third-party employer-clients will choose to stop testing for illegal marijuana use. And any increased costs to drug screeners from their clients’ continued testing would be traceable to their voluntary billing decisions, not the rescheduling order.” Similarly, the government brief says that MMJ also has not established standing to pursue its petition for review, noting that it is “not a current market competitor” and has two Investigational New Drug applications pending with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) without having any products that have completed the clinical trial process. “Petitioners fail to establish Article III standing—the association fails to identify concrete harm to any of its individual members, and the pharmaceutical company fails to demonstrate competitor standing when it has not yet produced an authorized product to compete in the marketplace. Nor do petitioners’ asserted injuries fall within the CSA’s zone of interests. Congress enacted the CSA to ensure the proper regulation of substances for research and medical use—it did not enact the CSA to provide drug screeners with a permanent source of income for testing marijuana, nor did it enact the law to protect ‘market opportunities’ for the creation of ‘cannabinoid-based drugs.'” The DOJ filing argues that the drug testing group and pharmaceutical company are not “suitable challengers” to the marijuana rescheduling move. “The intended beneficiaries of the CSA are thus the American public and scientists and medical practitioners seeking legitimate access to controlled substances for research and patient treatment. Petitioners are not the intended beneficiaries of the CSA, nor do their interests systemically align with those beneficiaries. Petitioners invoke the interests of (1) drug screeners in avoiding loss of business and increased costs; (2) employers in avoiding the costs of revising drug-testing protocols; and (3) a pharmaceutical company (MMJ) in preventing market competition. Petitioners thus invoke pocketbook interests served by keeping all marijuana in schedule I.” Earlier this week, two medical marijuana companies filed a motion to intervene in the rescheduling lawsuit by joining the side of the government and opposing the litigation from prohibitionists. The developments in the litigation come as DEA this week began an administrative hearing on the marijuana rescheduling proposal in which government witnesses and lawyers are highlighting the medical uses and relative safety of cannabis while opponents are challenging the process by which officials developed the recommendation for the reform. Under an action announced by Acting 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). The ongoing hearing is considering broader cannabis rescheduling, including for recreational products. The suit from SAM and NDASA challenging rescheduling was signed by attorneys at Torridon Law PLCC, where former U.S. Attorney General William Barr, led DOJ during Trump’s first term in office, is a partner. SAM had announced in January that it was hiring Barr’s firm to legally combat cannabis rescheduling after Tump signed an executive order directing officials to complete the process expeditiously. Meanwhile, the House Appropriations Committee voted to block federal officials from taking further steps to carry out cannabis rescheduling. Bipartisan lawmakers told Marijuana Moment, however, that they don’t expect the legislative effort to block rescheduling to succeed. Separately, SAM, MMJ and other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking to block a Trump administration program to cover certain hemp-derived products through Medicare. That case was dismissed by a federal judge in May, but that decision is being appealed. Read DOJ’s full brief in the marijuana rescheduling lawsuit below: The post DOJ Marijuana Lawsuit Filing Cites Drug Testing Industry And Pharma Company ‘Pocketbook Interests’ In Opposing Rescheduling appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“We’re hopeful that once we get the go-ahead with the appropriate people that we can get the process moving again.” By Christopher Shea, Rhode Island Current Now that Rhode Island has eliminated the residency requirement for recreational pot shop owners, the state’s Cannabis Control Commission is asking a federal judge to undo the court order that halted its first round of applications. Gov. Dan McKee (D) on June 10 signed a pair of bills to undo a provision in the original 2022 Rhode Island Cannabis Act that required cannabis retailers be majority-owned by Rhode Island resident. The new law voids the original application process and kickstarts a new one. Under the new law, applicants are defined as a person or a business who has “made an application for issuance of a license or certificate to own or engage in a cannabis business.” The legislation also removes any Rhode Island references in the eligibility criteria for applying for one of six social equity licenses, which are reserved for those adversely affected by the war on drugs. Now businesses must be majority owned by one or more people who can show they were disproportionally impacted by criminal enforcement of past prohibitions, including being arrested or having a family member who was. Those changes, the state’s legal team argues, should be enough to undo the April 8 preliminary injunction imposed by U.S. District Judge Melissa DuBose, blocking regulators from holding the lottery they were planning to hold in May to award licenses. DuBose also stopped regulators from continuing to screen and review any of the retail license applications that had been submitted by the December 29, 2025, deadline. DuBose’s ruling came as she considered three lawsuits challenging the state’s original requirement that all recreation pot shop license holders had to be majority-owned by Rhode Island residents. The Cannabis Control Commission on Friday filed a motion requesting DuBose dissolve the preliminary injunction. “The goals of this court’s preliminary injunction have now been made permanent by the General Assembly’s legislative action,” state attorneys wrote in their motion. “Thus, this court’s preliminary injunction is now moot and essentially a legal nullity.” The legislation signed into law by McKee directs the Cannabis Control Commission to open a new license application process within 60 days, which would be Aug. 10. Charon Rose, a spokesperson for the commission said staff are still planning their next steps. “We’re hopeful that once we get the go-ahead with the appropriate people that we can get the process moving again,” she said. Around 100 applications are still in limbo, with many continuing to pay rent on storefronts they may not even be able to open. While they may not be able to get their rent payments back, the new cannabis law allows any would-be shop owners who applied the first time for a license to be refunded any fees paid to the commission. All prospective retailers are required to pay an application fee of $7,500 and a yearly $30,000 licensing fee. Fees were waived for the first year for approved social equity applicants. No refunds have been issued as of Monday, Rose confirmed. This story was first published by Rhode Island Current. The post Rhode Island Marijuana Officials Ask Judge To Remove Block On Business Licenses Now That Rules Targeted By Lawsuit Have Changed appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

It is truly inspiring to see Tokeativity and The Floret Coalition actively working to dismantle systemic inequality. Supporting organizations like the Equitable Giving Circle is a vital step toward real economic justice. While navigating the complex haze seas codes of industry reform, efforts like these remind us that community-led action is the most effective way to foster lasting, equitable change for BIPOC communities.

The governor of Illinois hosted a signing ceremony at a dispensary for a bill that doubles the amount of marijuana that adults can legally possess, significantly restricts hemp THC products and makes other changes to rules for how licensed businesses can operate. While Gov. JB Pritzker (D) gave formal approval to the legislation last month, he held an event on Thursday at the SWAY Cannabis Dispensary in Chicago to celebrate the reforms it enacted. “I’m proud that Illinois continues to lead the nation in showing what thoughtful, balanced cannabis policy can achieve,” he said. “When we legalized cannabis, we recognize that we couldn’t simply create a new industry while ignoring the racist, unequal policies that came before it. More than just rectifying the mistakes of our past, we needed to build an engine for growth and opportunity,” the governor said. “We paired legalization with expungements, with restorative justice investments and the strongest cannabis social equity licensing program anywhere in the country. That commitment has produced real results.” “Today, Illinois has the most diverse cannabis industry in America, because we made equity a fundamental part of what we are building. It’s not an afterthought, it’s central.” “This new law builds on that success by creating additional opportunities for social equity entrepreneurs reducing unnecessary financial burdens that box out smaller operators and helping more businesses succeed in a highly competitive industry,” Pritzker said. “We’re streamlining licensing and administrative processes, reducing duplicative requirements, improving coordination across state agencies and giving regulators better tools to enforce the law, while making compliance easier for responsible businesses.” “Our legislation is good for the safety of our children, it is good for the health of medical cannabis users, it is good for the strength and vitality and social equity of our cannabis industry and of our state,” he said. The governor said being able to hold the signing ceremony at a cannabis business with a social equity license “means an awful lot.” “It means we’ve made a ton of progress already, and now we’re poised for even more,” he said. “This is an incredible, diverse small business—so are so many others in this industry, and they make up a thriving and vibrant cannabis industry that was created just six years ago when Illinois legalized adult use cannabis.” A new report from the Parabola Center for Law and Policy, however, raises questions about how equitable Illinois’s cannabis market really is despite the governor’s claims. Hedy Yang, a fellow with the group, called out a “corporate takeover” of the state’s cannabis industry in a recent Marijuana Moment op-ed. “Six years in, 264 brands compete on dispensary shelves across the state. But those brands answer to far fewer owners, and a few incumbents capture nearly 79 cents of every dollar in statewide revenue,” she wrote. As enacted into law, SB 3222 allows residents of the state who are over 21 years of age to possess up to 60 grams of marijuana flower—double the amount in prior law. They are also able to have up to 10 grams of cannabis concentrates and infused products with up to 1,000 mg of THC—also double the earlier limit. Possession amounts for adult non-residents are also doubled under the bill. People with past convictions for possession of up to 60 grams of marijuana will now be able to have those records expunged—double the previous cutoff allowing only those with convictions for up to 30 grams to be eligible. The legislation also recriminalizes hemp THC products with more than 0.4 milligrams of THC per container, in line with a federal ban that is set to take effect in November. At Thursday’s signing ceremony, the governor touted those provisions, saying that intoxicating hemp products have proliferated under a “federal loophole”—arguing that they create “real risks to the public, especially for our kids.” Illinois has the most diverse and equitable cannabis industry in the nation — as the industry evolves, our laws must too. Today, we strengthen protections for children, expand patients’ access, advance further social equity, and operate our regulatory system more efficiently. pic.twitter.com/vL9TvUc5ch — Governor JB Pritzker (@GovPritzker) July 2, 2026 Among other changes, the bill also allows drive-thrus and curbside pickup at dispensaries, permits them to stay open until 2 a.m. and makes it so medical cannabis certifications can be issued via telehealth. Canopy limits for craft cannabis cultivators will be expanded form 5,000 to 14,000 square feet, and the new law loosens some security requirements for marijuana businesses while also waiving or reducing fees for smaller operators. In 2019, Pritzker signed the state’s initial marijuana legalization policy into law. While the broader restrictions on hemp products take effect in the state on November 12 in conjunction with the similar federal move, sales to people under 21 are prohibited immediately, The legislation separately allows all marijuana dispensaries to register to sell medical cannabis specifically. The list of medical marijuana qualifying conditions is also being expanded to add female orgasmic disorder, endometriosis, ovarian cysts and uterine fibroids. “Today’s bill signing is another example of Illinois leading with both purpose and responsibility,” Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton (D) said. “SB 3222 strengthens consumer protections, expands access for patients, and reinforces our commitment to an equitable cannabis industry where public safety and opportunity go hand in hand. This law helps ensure our policies continue to reflect the needs of Illinois families and communities.” The post Illinois Governor Celebrates Passage Of Marijuana Bill By Hosting Signing Ceremony At A Dispensary appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed a bill aimed at protecting children online that could create complications for advertisers trying to promote legal marijuana and other regulated substances. Lawmakers voted 267-117 on Monday to approve the Kids Internet and Digital Safety (KIDS) Act, sponsored by Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY). The measure previously cleared the House Energy and Commerce Committee and one of its subcommittees. A Senate companion bill, meanwhile, awaits action. Under the legislation as approved by the House, online platforms would be prohibited from facilitating the “advertising of narcotic drugs, cannabis products, tobacco products, gambling, or alcohol to a user of or visitor to the covered platform who the provider knows is a minor.” The provision around drug use lists the “distribution, sale, or use of narcotic drugs, tobacco products, cannabis products, gambling, or alcohol” as risks that platforms would need to actively guard minors against. One section that was in prior iterations of the bill that seems to have been omitted from this latest version had stipulated that video streaming platforms would be required “to employ measures that safeguard against serving advertising for narcotic drugs, cannabis products, tobacco products, gambling, or alcohol directly to the account or profile of an individual that the service knows is a minor.” It’s unclear why that language was left out of the latest measure, H.R. 7757. Online platforms covered under the legislation include those that are publicly available for use, allow the creation of searchable usernames that can be followed, facilitate the “sharing and access to user-generated content,” is designed to promote engagement and uses user information to target advertising. “Congress has spent years searching for how to best protect children and teens online, and today’s overwhelming bipartisan vote indicates that we have found our solution,” Guthrie, the bill’s sponsor and the chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said in a joint statement with Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ), the panel’s ranking member. “The KIDS Act creates strong protections with new rules for design features, default settings, and kids’ privacy.” Few in the public policy space oppose the overall intent of the legislation, but some say its broad and potentially vague requirements could be difficult in practice. Shoshana Weismann, a fellow at the free-market R Street Institute, told Marijuana Moment last year when the Senate version was filed that the measure could ultimately block wide swaths of online advertising that are accessible by minors—even if the ads don’t target children, as the bill’s proponent’s suggest. “The problem is that the knowledge standard here is so loose,” she said, pointing to the bill’s definition of knowledge by platforms that they’re serving content to underage users. After last year’s Senate passage of the earlier measure—titled the “Kids Online Safety Act” (KOSA)—Jenna Leventoff, ACLU’s senior policy council and director of the civil right’s group’s national political advocacy division, said she was skeptical the legislation would pass constitutional muster. A number of states have attempted to adopt similar bills, Leventoff pointed out, and “in almost every case, a court has evaluated those laws and determined that they are likely to be unconstitutional.” “It’s extremely likely that KOSA is unconstitutional,” she said at the time,” and it makes me wonder why Congress is trying to enact something that won’t hold up in a court of law.” At the state level in 2024, Colorado’s Senate passed a bill similarly aimed at protecting minors from drug and other controversial content. But the proposal—which was later put on hold indefinitely by a House committee—drew fire from advocates such as Weismann at R Street Institute. She and other critics pointed out at the time that the bill could ban content around over-the-counter cough syrup and even, potentially, the Colorado governor’s social media posts in favor of the state’s legal psychedelics industry. Under existing regulations, states that have legalized have generally seen less cannabis consumption among young people compared to states where marijuana remains illegal, according to multiple studies. During a webinar in January, federal officials discussed the results of the latest Monitoring the Future (MTF) survey—which is supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and conducted every year for decades by the University of Michigan. Youth marijuana use is stable amid the state legalization movement, despite prohibitionist claims to the contrary, they said. And beyond that, more students are actually saying it’s harder to access cannabis and that they disapprove of occasional use. — 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. — To reform advocates, the results of the survey reinforce the idea that creating a regulatory framework for cannabis where licensed retailers must check IDs and implement other security mechanisms to prevent unlawful diversion is a far more effective policy than prohibition, with illicit suppliers whose products may be untested and where age-gating isn’t a strictly enforced regulation. To that point, a separate federally funded study out of Canada that was released last year found that that youth marijuana use rates actually declined after the country legalized cannabis. The study was released about three months after German officials released a separate report on their country’s experience with legalizing marijuana nationwide. Back in July, federal health data also indicated that while past-year marijuana use in the U.S. overall has climbed in recent years, the rise has been “driven by increases…among adults 26 years or older.” As for younger Americans, rates of both past-year use and cannabis use disorder, by contrast, “remained stable among adolescents and young adults between 2021 and 2024.” Across the U.S., research suggests that marijuana use by young people has generally fallen in states that legalize the drug for adults. A report from the advocacy group Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), for example, found that youth marijuana use declined in 19 out of 21 states that legalized adult-use marijuana—with teen cannabis consumption down an average of 35 percent in the earliest states to legalize. The report cited data from a series of national and state-level youth surveys, including the annual MTF survey. Another survey from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) last year also showed a decline in the proportion of high-school students reporting past-month marijuana use over the past decade, as dozens of states moved to legalize cannabis. The post House Passes Youth Safety Bill That Could Complicate Marijuana Businesses’ Online Outreach appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Most Americans agree with the Supreme Court’s recent decision to uphold the gun rights of people who use marijuana—and that includes majority support across party lines—according to a new poll Earlier this month, the nine justices unanimously ruled that the government’s efforts to criminalize possession of firearms for cannabis consumers is an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. The new survey conducted on Friday by YouGov found that 55 percent of U.S. adults either strongly or somewhat approve of the ruling, which was described to respondents as determining that “people who occasionally use marijuana cannot automatically be banned from owning a firearm solely because of their marijuana use.” Just 26 percent disagree with the decision. Among Republicans, support for the court’s ruling on cannabis consumers’ gun rights stands at 58 percent. Fifty-two percent of Democrats approve, as do 56 percent of independents. % who approve | disapprove of the Supreme Court ruling that people who occasionally use marijuana cannot automatically be banned from owning a firearm solely because of their marijuana use U.S. adults 55% | 26% Democrats 52% | 29% Independents 56% | 23% Republicans 58% | 25%… pic.twitter.com/L7CiIxwFCn — YouGov America (@YouGovAmerica) June 26, 2026 The poll comes as the Supreme Court has already started applying its finding in the case to those involving other cannabis consumers who were prosecuted for possessing firearms. Meanwhile, a 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 Most Americans Support Supreme Court Decision Upholding Marijuana Users’ Gun Rights, Poll Shows appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

This list made it easy to avoid servers with sketchy donation models. I appreciate the clear examples of exploitative offers. Verified rankings helped me steer clear. 성인 PC방 매출 This guide helped me avoid servers with exploit-heavy scripts. Script quality matters more than flashy features. Real player reviews exposed the best-coded servers. koi toto

Another study has found evidence of an “entourage effect” where marijuana compounds work together to achieve results that are more robust than the sum of their parts—but it also says that the effect may be more nuanced than earlier research has indicated. Specifically, researchers at the Open University of Israel determined that different terpenes don’t simply add to the effects of THC. It depends on the type of terpenes involved and the cannabinoid receptors that are targeted. In addition to potentiating THC activation in cannabinoid receptors, some interactions are synergistic. That’s the case when terpenes such as borneol, limonene, sabinene, terpineol, α-pinene and ocimene interact with CB1 receptors and when β-caryophyllene and linalool interacts with CB2 receptors. In other words, the pre-proof study set to be published in the journal Biochemical Pharmacology suggests the entourage effect is more complicated than it’s commonly understood to be. “Terpene mixtures displayed dose-dependent CB1R activation, and several mixtures synergistically enhanced THC responses,” it found. “Together, our findings suggest that cannabis terpenes may act as both partial orthosteric agonists and allosteric modulators at CB1R and CB2R.” “These findings refute early, overly broad interpretations of a generalized ‘entourage effect,’ replacing them with terpene-specific mechanistically based framework.” “These results provide a mechanistic framework for cannabinoid–terpene synergy and highlight the importance of receptor specificity and of formulation design in shaping terpene mediated activation,” the researchers wrote. “These findings stress the need for terpenes selection for formulations tailor for specified medicinal needs.” While the results must still be backed up by future studies, the authors said that, given that terpenes are generally recognized as safe, they “may offer regulatory and safety advantages over synthetic cannabinoid-receptor modulators.” “Future work may elaborate the mechanistic basis of terpene-mediated modulation of cannabinoids activity, using mutagenesis, structural modeling, and allosteric site mapping,” the study says. “In vivo or clinical studies will be essential to validate whether the synergistic and additive interactions observed at the receptor level, translate into enhanced analgesic, anti-inflammatory, or neuroprotective effects.” “Our findings support a shift from non-specific ‘full-spectrum’/ ‘whole-plant’ preparations, toward rationally designed, cannabinoid products enriched with selected terpenes. Such formulations may potentially leverage specific terpene–THC interactions, either synergistic or additive, to target distinct therapeutic needs.” “Overall, our findings provide a mechanistic framework for understanding how terpenes may contribute to the [endocannabinoid system] pharmacology and highlight their potential utility in the development of safer and more efficacious cannabis-based therapeutics,” the study concluded. There’s been growing interest into the entourage effect with cannabis over recent years. In 2024, for example, a review of research into the synergistic effects of the chemical components in cannabis found that terpenes, popularly credited with modulating the experience of cannabis, may indeed be “influencers in the therapeutic benefits of cannabinoids,” though for now that influence “remains unproven.” A separate study published that year in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences said that the “complex interaction between phytocannabinoids and biological systems offers hope for novel treatment approaches,” potentially laying the groundwork for a new era of innovation in cannabis-based medicines. “The plant Cannabis exhibits an effect called the ‘entourage effect’, in which the combined actions of terpenes and phytocannabinoids results in effects that exceed the sum of their separate contributions,” that study found. “This synergy emphasizes how important it is to consider the entire plant when utilizing cannabinoids medicinally as opposed to just concentrating on individual cannabinoids.” A federally funded study published in 2024, meanwhile, found that terpenes could be “potential therapeutics for chronic neuropathic pain,” finding that an injected dose of the compounds produced a “roughly equal” reduction in pain markers when compared to a smaller dose of morphine. Terpenes also appeared to enhance the efficacy of morphine when given in combination. Unlike with morphine, however, none of the studied terpenes produced a meaningful reward response, that research found, indicating that “terpenes could be effective analgesics with no rewarding or dysphoric side effects.” Another study published that year looked at the “collaborative interactions” between cannabinoids, terpenes, flavonoids and other molecules in the plant, concluding that a better understanding of the relationships of various chemical components “is crucial for unraveling cannabis’s complete therapeutic potential.” Other recent research funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) found that a citrusy-smelling terpene in marijuana, D-limonene, could help ease anxiety and paranoia associated with THC. Researchers similarly said the finding could help unlock the maximum therapeutic benefit of THC. A separate study in 2023 found that cannabis products with a more diverse array of natural cannabinoids produced stronger psychoactive experiences in adults, which also lasted longer than the high generated by pure THC. And a 2018 study found that patients suffering from epilepsy experience better health outcomes—with fewer adverse side effects—when they use plant-based CBD extracts compared to “purified” CBD products. Scientist last year also discovered “previously unidentified cannabis compounds” called flavorants that they believe are responsible for the unique aromas of different varieties of marijuana. Previously, many had thought terpenes alone were responsible for various smells produced by the plant. Similar phenomena are also beginning to be recorded around psychedelic plants and fungi. In March, for example, researchers published findings showing that use of full-spectrum psychedelic mushroom extract had a more powerful effect than chemically synthesized psilocybin alone. They said the findings imply that mushrooms, like cannabis, demonstrate an entourage effect. The post Marijuana’s ‘Entourage Effect’ Varies By Terpene And Cannabinoid Receptor, New Study Suggests appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Very interesting blog. Alot of blogs I see these days don't really provide anything that I'm interested in, but I'm most definately interested in this one. Just thought that I would post and let you know. gothic lingerie

Congressional psychedelics bill; DE lawmakers override gov’s marijuana zoning veto; GA medical cannabis expansion; AZ marijuana penalty bill dies Subscribe to receive Marijuana Moment’s newsletter in your inbox every weekday morning. It’s the best way to make sure you know which cannabis stories are shaping the day. Get our daily newsletter. Email address: Leave this field empty if you're human: Your support makes Marijuana Moment possible… Hold on, just one second before you read today’s news. Have you thought about giving some financial support to Marijuana Moment? If so, today would be a great day to contribute. We’re planning our reporting for the coming months and it would really help to know what kind of support we can count on. Check us out on Patreon and sign up to give $25/month today: https://www.patreon.com/marijuanamoment / TOP THINGS TO KNOW Two medical cannabis companies filed a motion to intervene in ongoing lawsuits challenging the Trump administration’s marijuana rescheduling move—saying they will “suffer direct economic, regulatory and operational harm” if the litigation succeeds in blocking reform. Reps. Morgan Luttrell (R-TX), Lou Correa (D-CA), Jack Bergman (R-MI) and Michael McCaul (R-TX) filed a new bill—called the IBOGAINE Act—that’s intended to codify President Donald Trump’s psychedelics executive order into law and make other reforms. Delaware lawmakers overrode Gov. Matt Meyer’s (D) veto of a bill to block restrictive marijuana business zoning rules in counties. A new Georgia law expanding access to medical cannabis took effect—adding new qualifying conditions for patients, allowing vaping of flower and changing THC potency limits. Brett Schuman and Adam Horowitz of Goodwin Procter LLP argue in a new Marijuana Moment op-ed that the Drug Enforcement Administration inviting only opponents to take part in a rescheduling hearing “may be an encouraging sign for those advocating for the rescheduling of cannabis in a way that will survive the inevitable legal challenge(s) that would follow.” “DEA may be structuring the hearing to best withstand the inevitable legal challenges if the administrative law judge’s recommendation is to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III.” Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen (R) approved medical cannabis regulations, one day after the state attorney general signed off. Hawaii regulators are facing a federal lawsuit challenging hemp product restrictions that are being newly enforced. / FEDERAL Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL) published a blog post about marijuana banking legislation. / STATES Pennsylvania’s House minority leader said conversations about including marijuana legalization in the budget have “fallen off” in recent days. Oregon regulators are combining oversight of medical cannabis and psilocybin services. Rhode Island State Police are being accused of using unreliable and false evidence in a marijuana investigation. Michigan regulators published a report on disciplinary actions taken against marijuana businesses. California regulators sent updates on various cannabis issues. Oklahoma medical cannabis regulators launched a website about their quality assurance laboratory. — 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 A judge issued a restraining order on Haledon, New Jersey officials from hindering a marijuana dispensary from opening. / INTERNATIONAL The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime published its annual World Drug Report, including passages that criticize nations’ moves to reform cannabis policies. An Isle of Man lawmaker is pressing government officials on how much revenue has been generated from medical cannabis sales. / SCIENCE & HEALTH A study found that cannabigerol and cannabichromene induce lung cancer cell death and apoptosis.” A case report “supports the potential role of combined THC-rich and CBD-rich cannabis oils as a safe and effective adjunct in multimodal palliative care for horses with chronic, refractory conditions.” / BUSINESS Flowhub launched a tool allowing clients to connect artificial intelligence services they use to the platform. / CULTURE Seth Rogen talked about smoking marijuana with Paul McCartney and Paul Rudd. 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 businesses intervene in anti-rescheduling lawsuit (Newsletter: July 2, 2026) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

I am thankful to you for sharing this plethora of useful information. I found this resource utmost beneficial for me. Thanks a lot for hard work. 성인피시

Positive site, where did u come up with the information on this posting? I'm pleased I discovered it though, ill be checking back soon to find out what additional posts you include. 성인 피시방 알바

Only aspire to mention ones content can be as incredible. This clarity with your post is superb and that i may think you’re a guru for this issue. High-quality along with your concur permit me to to seize your current give to keep modified by using approaching blog post. Thanks a lot hundreds of along with you should go on the pleasurable get the job done. 성피

An Arizona bill that would have penalized people who create “excessive” amounts of marijuana smoke or odor has died, a relief to advocates who said the proposal amounted to overreach that would have undermined the legalization law voters enacted. The legislation from Sen. J.D. Mesnard (R) did pass the Senate in March, as well as the House Judiciary Committee, but it stalled on the floor despite being endorsed by the chamber’s Republican and Democratic caucuses after there was an objection to it passing on the consent calendar. Lawmakers adjourned the legislative session on June 13 before the proposal could be taken up on the regular calendar, officially killing it for the year. Throughout the measure’s history, lawmakers heard testimony on both sides of the debate, with proponents calling it a necessary update to state statute that will prevent unsolicited exposure to the smell of cannabis and opponents such as Arizona NORML and the ACLU of Arizona arguing that the proposal unnecessarily undermines the will of voters who enacted legalization at the ballot. Mesnard, the bill sponsor, responded to criticism of the proposal, including the possibility that the policy could be subject to litigation if its ultimately enacted into law, during a House committee hearing in March. “I don’t think we should feel paralyzed as policymakers to advance the right policy that’s protecting somebody’s private property rights,” he said. “Someone can litigate anything we do down here, and it is often used as a way to try to paralyze us from decision making. I don’t think it should be in this case.” He also explained to a member of the House panel that the bill would not force local governments to adopt their own rules or take enforcement action. “Some some cities or towns may pursue something, some won’t. This is the backup if they don’t have something,” the senator said. “It’s obviously something that it’s easier to pursue at the local level—and, typically, nuisances are pursued at the local level—so it’s not trying to interfere with what is the most common approach.” A separate companion resolution to put the issue before voters to decide on failed in the Senate, but Mesnard later made a successful motion to reconsider that defeat—though the measure was not brought up again. As introduced, both measures would have added broad criminalization provisions back into the state’s cannabis use laws. But most of that punitive language was revised by the Senate Committee of the Whole. For example, it was changed to provide a clearer definition of “excessive” smoke and remove a reference to making the offense a “crime.” The bill as passed by the Senate, however, would have made it a public nuisance punishable by up to four months in jail and a $750 fine to create “excessive marijuana smoke or odor…if the person’s conduct is intentional or the person knowingly and substantially interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property.” The latest revised definition of excessive cannabis smoke or odor described it as “airborne emissions resulting from the burning, heating or vaporizing of marijuana or marijuana products,” according to a summary of the adopted amendment. Such emissions must also be “detectable by a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities on other private property” and “occur for more than 30 consecutive minutes on a single occasion or on three or more separate days within a 30-day period.” The bill (SB 1725) and resolution (SCR 1048) in their latest form specified that “lawful possession or use of marijuana does not preclude a finding of nuisance, except that a court may consider possession of a valid registry identification card as a mitigating factor,” and they provide that “a person is not liable for committing a private nuisance unless the person has received notice of the interference and fails to abate it within five days.” Under the revised legislation, the affected party would first had to file a compliant with local officials before pursuing action with the state, but only if the municipality has already adopted an ordinance regulating excessive cannabis smoke or odor. A person would have been deemed in violation of the law if a local court issued a written order directing them to “abate excessive marijuana smoke or odor that constitutes a nuance” and that person “knowingly violates or refuses to comply with the order.” Each day of non-compliance after failing to adhere to the order would have been considered a separate offense, and failure to comply would have been a petty offense. — 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. — Separately, marijuana opponents had filed a ballot initiative to roll back legalization in Arizona this year, but that effort was scrapped after the local campaign leader said he has “adjusted my viewpoints on the threat to kids” posed by the legal marijuana industry. Sean Noble, president of the political strategy firm American Encore, told local media that while he launched the campaign due to concerns about marketing of cannabis to children, he has come to realize that marijuana businesses in Arizona have “not done some of the things that I thought they were doing.” “I went into it with a pretty profound belief that it was happening,” Noble said. “I was kind of relying on things that I had seen or read from other people.” “I don’t think that they’re specifically marketing gummies and candies and that kind of thing the way that I was led to believe that they were doing,” he said. “Maybe they’re doing that in other states. But it’s not happening here in Arizona.” A poll from 2024 found ongoing majority support from Arizona likely voters for medical cannabis legalization (86 percent), adult-use legalization (69 percent) and industry banking reform (78 percent). Meanwhile, senior residents in Arizona independent living communities could soon see a different kind of care service available in their neighborhoods: Kiosks allowing them to view and buy marijuana products from licensed dispensaries. The retailer Life Is Chill and cannabis technology company LoveBud announced recently that they were partnering for the launch of the novel initiative, which will involve deploying the kiosks in participating senior living communities that residents can use to learn about and order marijuana products for delivery. The post Arizona Bill To Punish People Over ‘Excessive’ Marijuana Odor Or Smoke Dies As Session Adjourns appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

The state attorney general signed off on the medical cannabis rules earlier this week. By Zach Wendling, Nebraska Examiner Nebraska’s medical cannabis regulations will become a permanent fixture of the state regulatory code Monday, five days after Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen (R) gave final approval. Pillen announced Wednesday that he had signed the proposed set of regulations from the Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission. Under state law, the regulations will take the force of law five days after the governor’s signature and after being filed with the Nebraska Secretary of State’s Office. A temporary set of regulations, identical to the now-approved version, had been set to expire July 15. They will be replaced next week. Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers (R), whose statutory duty is to review proposed regulations for legal and constitutional validity, signed off on the medical cannabis regulations Tuesday. He said they “do not clearly violate the state or federal Constitutions on their face.” Pillen did not issue a statement about his approval of the regulations. In September, he rejected a draft set of regulations because they did not yet include a plant limit for licensed cultivators, but much of the rest of the regulations were the same. “If an inclusion of plant population limits for permitted cultivators can be included, I will support the remainder of the proposed emergency regulations to go into effect,” Pillen said in a September 4 letter. “Again, thank you for your work on this matter and answering the call to public service.” Medical cannabis regulators answered Pillen’s request at a September 8 meeting, limiting the state’s four licensed cultivators—the maximum number allowed under the regulations—to grow no more than 1,250 flowering plants at one time. One cultivator has so far passed inspection and has been approved to begin growing. Among other requirements in the regulations: Establishing a “Recommending Health Care Practitioner” directory and requiring patients who want to access Nebraska-licensed dispensaries to go through one of the providers. Restricting purchases of medical cannabis to no more than 5 ounces of medical cannabis in a 30-day period, 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.” Allowing 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. Prohibiting the sale of smoking or vaping products and edibles of any kind. Oral tablets with a “thin layer” of flavoring to make the products swallowable would now be allowed. Pillen and Hilgers, when the voter-approved medical cannabis laws took effect in December 2024, said they both believed “serious issues remain regarding the validity of these [ballot measure] petitions under federal law and the Nebraska Constitution.” In the time since, Pillen has taken a more open stance to the Medical Cannabis Commission than Hilgers, who has continued to oppose federal marijuana rescheduling efforts. His office had also threatened possible legal action against the commission if it issued licenses. When that occurred shortly after October 1 last year, a voter-imposed deadline, no such lawsuit came. The next Medical Cannabis Commission meeting is July 20. This story was first published by Nebraska Examiner. Photo courtesy of Mike Latimer. The post Nebraska Governor Approves Medical Marijuana Regulations appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“All of this stuff would be taken off the shelves. This is almost 90 percent of our product line. It will probably destroy our business.” By Phillip Smith, The American Hemp Monitor Hawaii will crack down on non-compliant hemp and CBD retailers beginning Wednesday as enforcement of a state law passed last year requiring them to register commences. The law went into effect January 1, but the state gave retailers a grace period before beginning enforcement actions. So far, only 50 shops have registered, and other hemp businesses have turned to the federal courts. They are seeking a preliminary injunction to block the state from enforcing the law until the issue can be argued before a judge. “What that’ll do is say, ‘hey, let’s pause the law for a second. Let’s make sure everything’s right, everything’s fair,’ and in our argument, it hasn’t been fair,” said Lance Alyas, one of the plaintiffs in the case and the owner of four hemp and CBD shops. But state Medical Cannabis Control director Andrew Goff retorted that shop owners had sufficient time to prepare. “You had time to change your inventory or pivot from whatever industry you want to go into. And I think we’ve given people enough time for that,” Goff said. Under state law, only products that meet the definition of a “manufactured hemp product” are allowed for sale. Such products must also fully comply with all state regulatory requirements, including, but not limited to, total THC limits, lab testing, restrictions on certain ingredients and child-safety packaging and labeling before they can be sold. Edibles, topicals and beverages are considered “manufactured hemp products” and thus legal (if they meet the other requirements), but vapes, smokeable hemp, and products made with “artificially derived or synthetic cannabinoids,” including those created from CBD, are not. Also, any “manufactured hemp product” whose THC levels exceed those specified by the state is illegal. Allowable THC levels are capped at 1 milligram per serving and 5 milligrams per package. “A lot of those products are meant to be intoxicating,” Goff said. “And products like smokables, vapes, those have never been legal under Hawaii law.” Alyas said he had already removed highly potent synthetic cannabinoid products from his shelves but that he still worried about his remaining product lines. “These are all naturally derived. So there’s nothing synthetic in it. This is flower, for example. We have gummies. These are specifically for sleep. We’ve got smokables like these,” Alyas said. “All of this stuff would be taken off the shelves. This is almost 90 percent of our product line,” he said. “It will probably destroy our business.” The hemp retailers are garnering little sympathy from key politicians, such as Rep. Scot Matayoshi (D), chair of the House Consumer Protection Committee. “If putting these people out of business means getting these products off the streets…that are falling into the hands of kids and that are circumventing our other laws, then they should be out of business,” Matayoshi said. While enforcement begins on Wednesday, it could be halted on Thursday. That is when a federal judge, who could rule immediately, hears the case. This story was first published by The American Hemp Monitor. The post Hawaii Officials Are Facing A Federal Lawsuit Over Newly Enforced Hemp Product Restrictions appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

نحن نمتلك 25 رابط دوفلو ذات جودة عالية من يرغب تبادل باك لينك يرجي التواصل معنا عبر الواتس اب 004917637777797 شيخ روحانيBerlinintim https://www.eljnoub.com https://www.rauhane.net https://www.elso9.com https://www.q8yat.org https://www.s3udy.org

“This may be an encouraging sign for those advocating for the rescheduling of cannabis in a way that will survive the inevitable legal challenge(s) that would follow rescheduling.” By Brett Schuman and Adam Horowitz, Goodwin Procter LLP On Monday, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) began a hearing concerning the potential rescheduling of cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of 1970. DEA recently announced the list of participants invited to speak at the hearing, and all have expressed opposition to rescheduling. Indeed, not a single supporter of rescheduling who sought to participate has been invited to speak. This has, unsurprisingly, been met with skepticism (to put it mildly) from many in the industry. But there is another way to look at DEA’s approach to selection of the participants: this may be an encouraging sign for those advocating for the rescheduling of cannabis in a way that will survive the inevitable legal challenge(s) that would follow rescheduling. As an initial matter, it is worth mentioning that this hearing does not concern the rescheduling of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved products containing cannabis or medical cannabis products that were rescheduled to Schedule III pursuant to the Department of Justice’s April 2026 order; rather, the present hearing concerns only the rescheduling of all cannabis products that currently remain under Schedule I of the CSA. In other words, the outcome of this hearing will have no direct effect on the cannabis products that have already been rescheduled to Schedule III—a separate action that itself is being challenged by opponents in court. For purposes of the hearing that started on June 29, DEA is the party advocating in support of rescheduling and it bears the burden of proving rescheduling is warranted by a preponderance of the evidence. We have some indication from the DEA how it plans to try to carry its burden. First, while DEA listed a pharmacologist who submitted a report linking cannabis to psychosis and cognitive harm as a witness for the 2024 rescheduling hearing, DEA has indicated that it will not be calling this pharmacologist at the June 29 hearing and also that opponents of rescheduling would need to try to subpoena her to compel her testimony. Second, on June 26, DEA revealed the witnesses it will be calling in support of rescheduling—a physician will testify as to the medical benefits of cannabis, and an FDA official will explain how FDA developed its recommendation to move cannabis to Schedule III. The other witnesses permitted to testify and present evidence at the June 29 hearing have all expressed their opposition to rescheduling, and some have already sued DEA over its rescheduling of medical cannabis. DEA probably expects these groups and individuals to sue again challenging any rescheduling of adult-use cannabis. So, by inviting them to be heard at the hearing, DEA may be preserving the defensibility of the administrative process before making any final decision on the proposed rule. While it is yet to be seen whether this plan will be successful, this is not uncommon in regulatory rulemaking and also is a common strategy by judges in court to better protect their decisions on appeal. Under DEA regulations, only “interested persons”—defined as those “adversely affected or aggrieved by any rule or proposed rule issuable”—are required to be allowed to speak at a rule making hearing. In fact, this is the exact basis DEA has cited in its rejection letters to proponents of rescheduling who wished to speak. Because the pending proposed rule would reschedule cannabis to Schedule III, DEA has determined that proponents of rescheduling do not qualify as “interested persons” and therefore are not entitled to speak. Skeptics have pointed out that DEA previously permitted proponents of rescheduling to speak at a 2024 administrative hearing regarding potential. Of course, many proponents of rescheduling thought that hearing was not going to result in a rescheduling recommendation even with proponent participation, so it is hard to understand why proponents think this time it could turn out any worse. Further, the current hearing appears to be applying a different framework for determining whether participation is appropriate, adhering strictly to the definition of “interested person.” While this may be alarming to those unfamiliar with regulatory proceedings, it is not necessarily indicative of any particular outcome. Indeed, this is entirely consistent with an agency seeking to protect its process from later legal challenges. And while some may be concerned that the absence of proponent testimony means the regulatory record supporting a decision to reschedule will be absent, the Department of Health and Human Services’s (HHS) recommendation, DEA’s own analysis the public comments—many of which were submitted by the proponents seeking to speak—are all part of the administrative record if DEA ultimately decided to recommend rescheduling. And that existing record will be supplemented by the testimony of DEA’s two pro-rescheduling witnesses. Because the standard of judicial review for such rulemaking is whether the agency’s decision was “arbitrary and capricious;” in being extraordinarily accommodating of rescheduling opponents, DEA can later demonstrate that it considered all opposition and still found rescheduling to be warranted (if that is DEA’s recommendation). On the other hand, if the DEA granted supporters speaking rights as “interested persons,” despite not meeting the definition of an “interested person” under DEA regulations, that would be providing rescheduling opponents a potential basis to challenge a rescheduling decision. Finally, it is worth noting that the outcome of the hearing will be, at most, a recommendation to the DEA administrator regarding whether to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III. The DEA administrator can accept or reject that recommendation, and the attorney general of the United States could make the ultimate decision whether to reschedule cannabis. So, there are both political and legal components to the rescheduling process. Given the history of court challenges, including the pending challenges to the rescheduling of medical cannabis, DEA may be structuring the hearing to best withstand the inevitable legal challenges if the administrative law judge’s recommendation is to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III. Brett Schuman is a partner at Goodwin Procter LLP and co-chair of the firm’s cannabis practice, where he advises cannabis and hemp operators and investors on regulatory, intellectual property and litigation matters. Adam Horowitz is an associate at Goodwin Procter LLP and a member of the firm’s cannabis practice. Photo courtesy of Philip Steffan. The post DEA Inviting Only Marijuana Opponents To Participate In Rescheduling Hearing Is Actually An ‘Encouraging Sign’ For Supporters (Op-Ed) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net