All Activity

May possibly fairly recently up and running an important web log, the data one offer you on this web site contains given a hand to all of us substantially. Bless you designed for your current precious time & get the job done. 성인 PC방 처벌

Excellent article. Very interesting to read. I really love to read such a nice article. Thanks! keep rocking. toto macau If more people that write articles involved themselves with writing great content like you, more readers would be interested in their writings. I have learned too many things from your article. judi bola

I actually came out on your site when concentrating on just simply marginally submits. Awesome technique for upcoming, I'll be book-marking right away stop a person's entire rises. 성인 PC방 허가

i never know the use of adobe shadow until i saw this post. thank you for this! this is very helpful. toto macau I’ve been surfing online more than 5 hours today, yet I never found any interesting article like yours without a doubt. It’s pretty worth enough for me. Thanks... toto slot

An individual's song is certainly impressive. You will have certain rather qualified musicians and artists. That i like everyone one of the best for results. 성피연합

Basically When i understand the item this morning although I did many thought processes concerning this and today I need to to learn to read the item all over again mainly because it is quite well written. 성인 PC방 벌금

That is thus gorgeous and also imaginative. I recently really like the particular shades and also anyone who receives that inside the email will probably be beaming. taruhan bola World of warcraft! What precisely tabs opener the place has long been in my situation. Considerably preferred, bookmarked as their favorite, That i can’t look forward to even more! taruhan bola That is thus gorgeous and also imaginative. I recently really like the particular shades and also anyone who receives that inside the email will probably be beaming. live macau That is thus gorgeous and also imaginative. I recently really like the particular shades and also anyone who receives that inside the email will probably be beaming. result macau That is thus gorgeous and also imaginative. I recently really like the particular shades and also anyone who receives that inside the email will probably be beaming. situs toto That is thus gorgeous and also imaginative. I recently really like the particular shades and also anyone who receives that inside the email will probably be beaming. toto 4D That is thus gorgeous and also imaginative. I recently really like the particular shades and also anyone who receives that inside the email will probably be beaming. depo 5k That is thus gorgeous and also imaginative. I recently really like the particular shades and also anyone who receives that inside the email will probably be beaming. judi bola

Online is definitely bogged all the way down by using bogus blogs and forums devoid of serious principles although the posting appeared to be brilliant plus definitely worth a learn. Thanks a ton to get spreading the following with me. 성인 PC방 매매

She was the kind of dangerous that makes your heart race and your body ache for more. My Chandni Chowk Escort was bold, beautiful, and breathtakingly erotic. We explored desires I never knew existed. Escort Service in Chandni Chowk brings a whole new level of passion that leaves you completely addicted and craving more.

Discover why Escort Hazrat Nizamuddin are the best choice for erotic companionship. Our escorts in Hazrat Nizamuddin are a perfect blend of beauty and expertise. The Hazrat Nizamuddin escort service ensures your privacy is protected. This premier Hazrat Nizamuddin escort service delivers an exceptional experience. Your perfect Hazrat Nizamuddin escort is waiting to satisfy you completely.हेलो

I am happy to find this post very useful for me, as it contains lot of information. I always prefer to read the quality content and this thing I found in you post. Thanks for sharing. 성인 피시방

Searching for a beautiful Janakpuri Escort to accompany you during your stay or evening out? We provide an elite platform where you can connect with charming professionals who are skilled at ensuring every moment is delightful and stress-free. Our focus is entirely on your comfort and happiness, providing a high-class service that stands out from the rest. Take the next step toward a truly rewarding encounter by reaching out to our friendly team for booking details.

Very nice article, I enjoyed reading your post, very nice share, I want to twit this to my followers. Thanks!. 성인 피시방 매매

Our stunning and lovely escorts in Govindpuri are ready to join you. They look forward to meeting you and discussing your services with you. Each Escort Service in Govindpuri arrives with complete privacy guaranteed. There is no need for you to stress over anything. We aim to provide you with a secure experience in which all your details remain private.

Your work is very good and I appreciate you and hopping for some more informative posts. Thank you for sharing great information to us. 성인 PC방 매출 Your work is very good and I appreciate you and hopping for some more informative posts. Thank you for sharing great information to us. koitoto

Lawyers for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) on Monday highlighted testimony on marijuana’s medical benefits and its relative safety compared to other substances such as alcohol and opioids on the opening day of a hearing on the Trump administration’s cannabis rescheduling proposal. While the proceedings were not livestreamed to the public in line with requests from Marijuana Moment, a congressman and others, Marijuana Moment spoke to several people who were in the room for Monday’s hearing to get a sense of how the testimony is going. According to those sources, DEA lawyer James J Schwartz began by noting that the government is formally the proponent of the proposed rule to move cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III—noting that the hearing is “not about recreational use of marijuana” and is about “regulation, not legalization.” “The government is not putting forth any evidence to suggest marijuana is not dangerous. All controlled substances are dangerous, he said. “However, controlled substances must be evaluated by risks they pose, balanced by medical benefits they provide.” Dominic Chiapperino, who serves as director of the controlled substance staff with the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and is one of DEA’s two witnesses, provided testimony about how federal health officials formed their recommendation in support of rescheduling cannabis. They used a new two-part test that reform opponents have argued improperly departs from an earlier analysis, though the DEA lawyer said the hearing is not about that dispute—and Chiapperino said the new test is now considered “every time” a new analysis on a drug is undertaken. The FDA official said the agency compared marijuana to alcohol, opioids and other substances when conducting its scheduling analysis, finding that day-to-day harms for marijuana were generally lower than all or most of those comparators. Cannabis is tied to fewer overdose deaths than comparator substances, Chiapperino said, and that when marijuana is mentioned in case reports involving deaths, the fatalities are usually attributed to secondary events like accidents or self-imposed harm. Marijuana’s potential for overdose deaths is “much lower” than other Schedule I drugs as well as Schedule II opioids, the FDA official said. With respect to withdrawal for regular users, Chiapperino testified that cannabis has similar symptoms to those for tobacco, including irritability—but that alcohol has a “more several withdrawal syndrome” that can include seizure and death. Also on Monday, lawyers for some of the anti-rescheduling parties had an opportunity to cross-examine Chiapperino. Kevin Sabet, president and CEO of the prohibitionist organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana, which was also invited to participate in the hearing, said in a video posted to social media that seeing the government argue on behalf of cannabis’s medical uses and relatively low harms is “surreal”—claiming that “they’re just lying through their teeth.” The DEA is in the “super awkward position of arguing the opposite of what it’s been arguing for the last 50 years, the opposite of opposite of what the science says, the opposite of where the evidence is,” he said, “which, of course, is that marijuana is more harmful, not less harmful than we thought it was—the government’s trying to argue the opposite.” In summary, so far the government is repeating its improper comparison of marijuana with alcohol, heroin, and other opioids. And doubling down on the new, unprecedented two-part test for currently accepted medical use that erases a century's work in defining medicine in this… — Smart Approaches to Marijuana (@learnaboutsam) June 29, 2026 On Tuesday, other opponents of rescheduling will get a chance to cross-examine the FDA official, and the government’s second witness, Corey Burchman, a medical doctor from New Hampshire, will begin his testimony. DEA previewed in a filing last week that he will provide testimony about how “medical marijuana provides a medical benefit to pain patients.” On Monday, a DEA lawyer said during his opening remarks of the hearing that Burchman would “describe real-world impacts of treatment of pain with marijuana instead of opioids” based on his experience with both and will discuss how he has “personally transitioned patients from opioids to marijuana for their pain.” The witness will also provide testimony on the differences between cannabis and opioids when it comes to withdrawal and overdose potential, he said. Ahead of the hearing’s start, marijuana reform activists held a press conference outside DEA headquarters to highlight how they feel the have been “shut out” of the process—criticizing the fact that no supporters of reform were invited to participate and that the proceedings are not being livestreamed despite officials’ vows of “transparency.” DEA Administrator Terrance Cole invited only organizations and people who oppose marijuana reform to join the hearing as designated participants—telling supporters that they do not meet the definition of an “interested person” to participate because they are not “adversely affected or aggrieved by any rule or proposed rule issuable.” Last week, Marijuana Moment sent requests to DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julius and to Cole, the DEA administrator, requesting they reverse a decision to prohibit the public from tuning into the cannabis hearing via livestream. A congressman and other journalists later joined in that request. — Marijuana Moment’s journalism is made possible by readers like you who value this work enough to support us with monthly pledges on Patreon. If you rely on our reporting to stay informed about key cannabis developments, please help us keep doing this by becoming a sustaining subscriber today. Backing us at the $25/month level also gets you access to our Bill Tracker so you won’t miss any important marijuana legislation in your state. — Rescheduling opponents that are participating in the hearing filed statements last week previewing the anti-marijuana arguments they intend to make during the proceedings. The hearing is set to conclude no later than July 15. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche in April issued an order that immediately reclassified state-licensed medical cannabis, as well as marijuana products approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III. Under a separate order the acting attorney general signed, the upcoming hearing will consider more comprehensively moving marijuana to Schedule III. A prior hearing process on the marijuana rescheduling process that was initiated by the Biden administration stalled last year amid litigation over alleged improper communications and witness selection. The current marijuana rescheduling process is being challenged with several lawsuits that have been consolidated by a federal appeals court. Those pieces of litigation against the cannabis reform have been filed by state attorneys general, marijuana legalization opponents and a cannabis-focused biopharmaceutical corporation. Meanwhile, the already-enacted rescheduling of state-licensed medical cannabis is already having broad impacts. The Congressional Research Service published a report on the current cannabis rescheduling move explaining that certified patients who possess medical marijuana from state-licensed dispensaries now have certain protections under Schedule III. “The order appears to authorize end users to possess marijuana for medical use without a CSA-compliant prescription,” it says. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has posted a draft update to a gun purchase form to acknowledge the federally legal status of medical marijuana under rescheduling. The revised section in question notably says that only “use or possession of marijuana for recreational purposes” is federally prohibited, leaving out the prior form’s mention of medical cannabis. The U.S. Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) said they plan to issue new tax guidance for the marijuana industry following rescheduling. The reform will benefit state-licensed marijuana businesses by allowing them to take federal tax deductions they’re currently barred from under an IRS code known as 280E that doesn’t apply to Schedule III substances. Even DEA, which has long opposed cannabis legalization and was accused of stalling the rescheduling process initiative by the Biden administration, has launched a registration process for state-legal marijuana businesses to take advantage of federal benefits that come with the reform. The Department of Transportation, on the other hand, issued guidance saying that use of state-legal medical cannabis is still no excuse for a positive drug test by truck drivers, pilots and other safety-sensitive workers. A congressional committee recently voted to block federal officials from taking further steps to carry out cannabis rescheduling, though bipartisan lawmakers told Marijuana Moment they don’t believe that provision will be enacted into law. Photo courtesy of Carlos Gracia. The post DEA And FDA Highlight How Marijuana Is Safer Than Alcohol And Opioids During Rescheduling Hearing’s Opening Day appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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