All Activity

“If there are folks that want to legalize marijuana, then they can introduce that bill, we will talk about that.” By Brandon Kingdollar, NC Newsline On their last day before heading home for nearly a month, North Carolina senators voted to ban most cannabis products currently being sold in the state. The version of House Bill 328 the Senate approved would ban all intoxicating hemp products in North Carolina. Intoxicating hemp products are defined as any with a total THC content of more than 0.4 milligrams. THC is the compound responsible for the psychoactive effects of cannabis. Hemp business owners have said that limit would ban nearly all products on the market. The bill would also ban the sale of any hemp consumables to anyone under 21, and ban xylazine and synthetic kratom, two other emerging substances that have prompted health concerns. Natural kratom sales would also be limited to people 21 and over. It’s the latest action in a back-and-forth between the state House and Senate over what regulatory scheme to impose on substances that have become extremely prevalent in the past few years. Highly potent kratom and hemp derivatives can be found on the shelves of nearly any gas station or vape shop in the state. The House had already packed up when senators voted to pass the bill. But Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger (R-Rockingham) said the crisis posed by these substances was too pressing to wait until lawmakers return at the end of July. “The personal loss that has occurred across the state of North Carolina as a result of these products is such that we just could not and should not delay any further,” Berger told members of the media after session Thursday. “We have gotten to such a point where doing nothing was not an option.” The lack of regulation around hemp derivatives, which hit the market en masse after federal regulations allowed them to be sold in 2018, has sparked bipartisan concern, reflected in the 43-6 vote to pass the bill in the Senate. Sen. Paul Lowe (D-Forsyth) said on the floor that he supports the bill because the hemp industry is in dire need of regulation. “Some of these products that are sold in these stores, they come from other countries, they can’t even be sold in the country that they come from,” Lowe said. “I have no problem voting this bill at all, because I don’t think this stuff is safe.” The state’s child fatality task force reported in 2025 that there has been a 600 percent increase in emergency room visits for minors related to cannabis since 2019. Rep. Jimmy Dixon (R-Duplin) cited the case of a 14-year-old hospitalized after purchasing an intoxicating hemp product when the House debated its own version of the bill last month. Senate Democratic Leader Sydney Batch (D-Wake) said she primarily supported the bill because of its restrictions on “gas station drugs that are really harming our constituents,” such as kratom, which has led to its own increase in health emergencies. She was more skeptical about its approach to hemp, raising concerns that it could ensnare non-intoxicating products that have legitimate medical uses. “What I hope that we can do is move forward, with regards to the next month that we’re not going to be here, to sit down, give them our ideas, see if they can incorporate it in a conference report that addresses a lot of North Carolina farmers who are growing hemp so that they don’t go bankrupt,” Batch said. The bill follows a federal ban on intoxicating hemp products that was enacted as part of the Farm Bill last year, but which has not yet taken effect. Hemp industry lobbyists have since rallied to overturn the ban before it takes effect in November. Those efforts appear to be paying off—in a letter to Congress last month, the Trump administration urged Congress to reverse itself and keep these hemp products legal. Berger said passing a ban at the state level ensures North Carolinians will be protected regardless of what the federal government does. “What we have put in place—or what we’re trying to put in place, hopefully the House will pass the conference report—is a ban on intoxicating hemp products,” he said. “And if the feds decide that they don’t want to do that as we go forward, North Carolina would still have a ban on intoxicating products.” He left the door open to the relaxation of some restrictions in the future. “If there are folks that want to legalize marijuana, then they can introduce that bill, we will talk about that,” Berger said. “If there are folks that want a specific regulatory scheme of some sort on some of these things that would allow folks over 21 to purchase them, let them introduce a bill and let’s see about it.” The Senate version of the bill goes further than the House version, which would have set an age limit of 21 years old for hemp-derived consumables but otherwise left the market undisturbed, by banning a large swath of hemp-derived products currently being sold. The Senate also requires consumers to be 21 for the products that remain legal. Even proponents of loosening restrictions on marijuana supported the bill. Sen. Bill Rabon (R-Brunswick), the architect of the bill that nearly succeeded in legalizing medical marijuana in North Carolina, delivered a fiery rebuke of the hemp products being sold all across the state on Friday. “I’ve had the epiphany that the big players and the people who want to make the money can’t make the money they want to make, can’t prey upon the people whom they want to prey upon, in a regulated product way,” Rabon said. “So if that’s the case, we have to do away with all of it. There’s no other option.” The House will have the opportunity to take up the Senate’s version of the bill when they return to session on July 27. It is unclear whether they will agree to do so. This story was first published by NC Newsline. The post North Carolina Senate Passes Bill To Restrict Hemp THC And Kratom Products appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Thanks a ton to get writing this sort of superb posting! I uncovered your web blog ideal for this demands. Contained in the grapefruit excellent plus handy discussions. Keep up to date favorable deliver the results! slot88 gacor

“In that former model, not only did it not allow for the potency but also the delivery methods that many of those patients are interested in consuming.” By Alander Rocha, Georgia Recorder A new state law that took effect Wednesday fundamentally changed Georgia’s medical cannabis program. The new law, named “Putting Georgia’s Patients First Act,” significantly eases barriers that advocates and physicians said have hindered access to medical cannabis and hampered interest for patients. Georgia lawmakers first opened the door to medical cannabis in 2015 and created what has been called the state’s low THC oil program ever since. Under the bipartisan measure passed during the 2026 legislative session, Georgia’s program will have a new straightforward name–medical cannabis–and new rules. Gary Long, the CEO of Botanical Sciences, a Georgia-based company that grows, processes and sells its products in its five dispensaries, with a sixth opening late summer in Augusta, said the new law “modernizes the state’s program and brings it in line with other states.” “We’ve been in that ‘low THC oil’ place, and it has limited the interest of the people that are out there,” said Long, who predicted the new changes could triple the number of patients by mid-2027. As of Tuesday, there were nearly 36,600 active patients enrolled. “In that former model, not only did it not allow for the potency but also the delivery methods that many of those patients are interested in consuming,” he added. Under the new law, Georgia will drop the “low THC” label, which capped products at a 5 percent THC limit, and adopt a milligram system, which allows patients to buy up to 12,000 milligrams of product at a time. The new law also allows patients over 21 to purchase oil and products for dry herb vaporization. Smoking cannabis is still prohibited by state law. The new law also adds new qualifying conditions, such as lupus and irritable bowel disease, and it gets rid of the requirement that certain conditions, like cancer and AIDS, must be “severe or end stage” to qualify. And coupled with April’s rescheduling of medical cannabis on the federal level, which allowed independent pharmacies to then start selling medical cannabis products, the state’s new law will ease access by allowing pharmacies that were previously prohibited from selling products due to being within a certain distance from schools and places of worship to participate in the program. The new law also decreases that distance for dispensaries, bringing them in line with stores that sell alcoholic drinks. Dr. Tiffanni Forbes, an internal medicine physician and certified cannabis doctor based in Fayetteville, said she’s most excited about the rebranding of the program that does away with the “low THC” name and the caps based on percentage. She said the old system led to confusion among patients who are used to medications being dosed in milligrams. “People got very confused about what to take, how to take it, is this potent, is this not so potent, so we’re doing away with all of that,” Forbes said. “There will be certain things that are more potent based upon how much THC versus others, but you don’t also have this percentage sitting here, which means really nothing to us. It was just how the law was written.” While the new law is seen as a win for increased access to medical cannabis, advocates said the work is not finished. Yolanda Bennett, who is a patient herself and has advocated for the program’s expansion over the years as the co-head of the Georgia Medical Cannabis Society, an organization that advocates for medical cannabis access and educates patients, said she was excited about the changes. But she also said advocacy in the next lawmaking session will focus on pushing for insurance coverage, protecting patients who live in public housing and overturning restrictions on consuming medical cannabis outside a patient’s home. “I realized that consistency and advocacy do work when you have legislators that are listening, and since we were a part of moving the needle with this, it really and truly feels pretty good, even though I know that we have a long way to go. I want to make sure that the legislators know that this is not the finish line, and you shouldn’t forget about the patients, because this is a start,” Bennett said. Steph Sherer, founder and president of Americans for Safe Access, a national organization advocating for federal policy to make medical cannabis safer and more accessible, said that advocates hope the rescheduling of medical cannabis will lead to federal changes and more uniform laws across the country. “Now that registered medical cannabis patients have a stronger basis to assert protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act and other civil rights laws and do not have to fear losing their jobs, homes, healthcare or basic rights, we expect a groundswell of advocacy demanding equal access nationwide,” Sherer said. This story was first published by Georgia Recorder. The post Georgia’s Newly Expanded Medical Marijuana Law Could Triple The Number Of Registered Patients Within A Year appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

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

This unique is a fantastic put up I just spotted using show it again. Suggest whatever I wanted to ascertain optimism through forthcoming you are likely to remain for the purpose of showing this terrific put up. tape in hair extensions

Thank you so much meant for ad an extremely terrific report! I recently found your blog post perfect for my best necessities. It contains terrific together with practical articles or blog posts. Stick to beneficial financial job! human hair extensions

Your own songs is actually incredible. You've a few really gifted designers. We desire a person the very best associated with achievement. slot

Thanks for a wonderful share. Your article has proved your hard work and experience you have got in this field. Brilliant .i love it reading. situs slot88

Great Publish, I'm a large believer within publishing remarks upon websites in order to allow weblog authors realize that they’ve additional some thing beneficial in order to the internet! slot gacor

Positive site, where did u come up with the information on this posting?I have read a few of the articles on your website now, and I really like your style. Thanks a million and please keep up the effective work. slot88

Thanks a lot for the purpose of rendering up to date update versions about the challenge, I just await read through further. slot88 gacor

This seems amazing to see this kind of educational as well as distinctive content articles in your web sites. 성인 PC방 처벌

I really like your writing style, great information, thankyou for posting. 성피 Thanks so much for this information. I have to let you know I concur on several of the points you make here and others may require some further review, but I can see your viewpoint. 성피

Hello, this weekend is good for me, since this time i am reading this enormous informative article here at my home. 63C

Very efficiently written information. It will be beneficial to anybody who utilizes it, including me. Keep up the good work. For sure i will check out more posts. This site seems to get a good amount of visitors. 62Q

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.