All Activity

“Given the evolving policy environment around us, what does this mean for our state’s cannabis policy framework?” By Claire Fiddian-Green, Richard M. Fairbanks Foundation via Indiana Capital Chronicle Indiana’s cannabis policy has recently become a subject of increasing scrutiny. While our state’s cannabis laws are among the most restrictive in the nation, three of our four neighboring states have legalized adult-use cannabis, and the federal government has indicated interest in relaxing federal cannabis laws. This context means that, even with Indiana’s restrictive policies, cannabis is accessible to most Hoosiers. According to two new reports from RAND, commissioned by the Richard M. Fairbanks Foundation, 44 percent of Indiana residents live within 50 miles of a licensed dispensary in another state, and 96 percent live within 100 miles. Additionally, another key reality requires us to carefully consider Indiana’s current policy framework: intoxicating hemp products, which can contain the same psychoactive compound as marijuana, are widely available at gas stations, convenience stores and grocery stores across the state—with limited oversight. The Hoosier state does not exist in a vacuum: our health and economic outcomes are already influenced by the regulatory and enforcement decisions made by the federal government and neighboring states, and that will only continue. Evaluating the options and costs For Indiana, this raises a critical question. Given the evolving policy environment around us, what does this mean for our state’s cannabis policy framework? As Indiana considers this, we can learn from what other U.S. states—and even other countries—have done well and where they’ve run into pitfalls. Whether current policies remain intact or change, Indiana leaders should seize the chance to carefully study data and assess policy options, as the consequences of any decision will likely be significant. Rather than recommending a particular policy design, the RAND reports describe various approaches to cannabis regulation and the potential tradeoffs of different choices. For example, Indiana could consider maintaining the status quo of prohibition, reducing criminal penalties for possession, legalizing medical cannabis or legalizing a recreational adult-use market. RAND further describes 14 policy considerations that are relevant to establishing legal markets—each of which could influence the state’s public health and economic outcomes in various ways. The fact is, cannabis use in Indiana has more than doubled over the past decade, with growth especially pronounced among adults 26 and over. In total, RAND estimates the 1.3 million Hoosiers who used cannabis in 2024 spent approximately $1.8 billion on marijuana products. At the same time, Indiana recorded over 13,000 cannabis-related arrests in 2024, with over 90 percent for possession and more than 75 percent in connection with non-cannabis charges. The state spends an estimated $10 million to $20 million annually on cannabis law enforcement. While changes to cannabis policy, including legalization, could reduce these costs, they would not eliminate them entirely. After significant start-up costs, the state’s cost to regulate and oversee an adult-use market could be in the low tens of millions of dollars annually, potentially exceeding any cost savings from reduced criminal justice expenditures. Legalizing adult-use recreational cannabis is estimated to generate about $180 million in annual state revenue, roughly 1 percent of the state’s general fund. Notably, this estimate is far lower than some have suggested. For a point of comparison, in 2025, cigarette and alcohol taxes brought in a combined $385 million, according to the Indiana Department of Revenue. As the policy landscape evolves, a range of factors must be considered, including industry trends and pressures of the legal market, the persistence of illegal markets, the rise of intoxicating hemp products, and the potential for national legalization, all of which make conversations about Indiana’s cannabis policy more complex and nuanced. As Indiana considers the optimal framework for cannabis regulation, it is critical our state takes a thoughtful, data-informed approach. The decisions leaders make today will carry ripple effects for Hoosiers—and other states across the U.S. Claire Fiddian-Green is president and CEO of the Richard M. Fairbanks Foundation. This piece was first published by Indiana Capital Chronicle. The post As Surrounding States Legalize Marijuana, Indiana Officials Need A Data-Informed Approach To Reforming Laws (Op-Ed) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

A powerful congressional committee is allowing a psychedelics-focused amendment to a major military bill to proceed to a floor vote in the House of Representatives—but it is also blocking other cannabis- and drug-related proposals from advancing. The House Rules Committee on Monday considered the amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2027, allowing one that would extend a psychedelics research effort at the Department of Defense (DOD) for an additional six years to move forward. Sponsored by Reps. Morgan Luttrell (R-TX), Jack Bergman (R-MI), Derrick Van Orden (R-WI), Mike Ezell (R-MS), Troy Carter (D-LA) and Morgan McGarvey (D-KY), Lou Correa (DCA), Seth Moulton (D-MA), Sarah Elfreth (D MD) and Michael Rulli(R-OH), the amendment seeks to include language in the bill expanding DOD studies on psychedelics that were first authorized under the earlier 2024 NDAA. That program, signed into law by then-President Joe Biden, directed DOD to establish a process by which active duty service members with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or traumatic brain injury could participate in clinical trials involving psilocybin, MDMA, ibogaine, 5-MeO-DMT and “qualified plant-based alternative therapies.” As enacted, it only required the secretary of defense to issue updated reports on progress within one year of the law passing and then annually for three years after that. The new amendment would replace “three years” in the law with “nine years.” It also specifies that DOD would have to “extend the performance of research conducted using funding awarded under this section to September 30, 2033.” The previously enacted legislation, which was also championed by Luttrell, set aside $10 million to fund the military psychedelic studies. Earlier this month, the House Armed Services Committee approved its version of NDAA and an attached report that calls on military officials to pay greater attention to potential “access pathways” to psychedelic therapies for servicemembers. Citing a psychedelics executive order signed by President Donald Trump in April, the panel urged DOD leaders to “remain informed of lawful research and access pathways relevant to post-traumatic stress disorder and other serious mental health conditions affecting servicemembers during post-deployment and transition periods, and members of the Reserve Components and National Guard who also serve as first responders.” That includes studies on “psilocybin-containing investigational products, including naturally derived whole-mushroom formulations administered in structured therapeutic settings,” the report that the panel approved to be attached to NDAA says. The panel is directing the secretary of defense to issue a report by February 1, 2027 that assesses data on such trials, along with an assessment of “legal and regulatory requirements for expanded access,” including under Trump’s psychedelics executive order as well as a Right to Try law the president signed during his first term in office. The secretary’s report would also need to include a “proposed timeline for potential pilot activities or expanded clinical research beginning in fiscal year 2027, and for any broader implementation thereafter.” Lawmakers also used last year’s NDAA to push DOD for a “progress report” on the ongoing psychedelic therapy clinical trials. — 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. — Another proposed amendment to the current NDAA from Reps. Dave Joyce (R-OH) and Dina Titus (D-NV), would have expanded waivers for military recruits who’ve tested positive for marijuana—but the Rules Committee is not allowing it to advance. The amendment acknowledges that the Army and Navy have already “taken positive steps in their work to design and implement a waiver system that permits potential enlistees into the Armed Forces to reapply for enlistment following a positive toxicology test for tetrahydrocannabinol.” It calls on the Air Force, Space Force and Marine Corps to follow through, especially “given the ongoing recruitment and retention challenges undermining the Armed Forces readiness goals.” A similar measure filed by Joyce and Titus, who are co-chairs of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, was passed by the House of Representatives last year but was not enacted into law. The current measure would have required those military branches to “develop and implement their own permanent waiver system commensurate with the process employed by the Army and Navy.” It says that the secretary of defense “shall develop a program through which to provide waivers for potential enlistees into the Armed Forces who were not permitted to enlist following a positive toxicology test for tetrahydrocannabinol so that such potential enlistees are permitted to reapply for enlistment.” Further, the Department of Defense would have been required to “assess the feasibility of contacting” prospective enlistees who were previously rejected over cannabis and, “to the extent feasible, develop a plan to contact such potential enlistees.” Within 180 days of enactment, the defense secretary would have needed to submit a report to the congressional committees of jurisdiction with a “plan to create, disseminate, and use a clear definition that highlights that all waivered recruits are qualified and eligible to enlist in the Armed Forces, even if they do not meet every enlistment standard, and that existing standards of enlistment allow for waivers.” In April, the Army enacted a new policy making it so recruits will no longer need to obtain a waiver to enlist if they have a single conviction for possessing marijuana or drug paraphernalia on their records. Another drug policy amendment to NDAA that was blocked, from Reps. Madeleine Dean (D-PA) and Nancy Mace (R-SC), would have allowed doctors to administer Schedule I drugs such as certain psychedelics to patients with life-threatening conditions by expanding on the country’s “right to try” law. The policy creates an exception within the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) that gives qualified patients access to potential therapies that haven’t yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The Dean-Mace proposal is similar to a standalone bill the bipartisan duo filed in Congress late last year. The lawmakers noted when filing the earlier bill that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has designated two psychedelics, MDMA and psilocybin, as breakthrough therapies for the treatment of serious mental health conditions. Yet the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) currently has no pathway to authorize physicians to administer the drugs despite the broader right to try policy, they said. To address that, the new legislation would amend current statute to allow DEA to register and authorize doctors to administer the novel therapeutics. In 2024, the House passed a version of NDAA that would have prevented drug testing for marijuana as a condition of enlistment in the military or for commission as an officer. But it was not included in the final version that was signed into law following bicameral negotiations with the Senate. Lawmakers have also previously considered amendments to address restrictive military policies prohibiting service members from using hemp products. Last month, for example, the Army published a post reminding soldiers of its “zero-tolerance” policy for all forms of cannabis and its derivatives—including hair care products and lotions made from hemp. Last year, a memo to Air Force personnel in Massachusetts warned that not only marijuana but also hemp-derived cannabinoids, including CBD and delta-8 THC, are prohibited on military bases and related properties. In 2022, the Air Force expressed concern that even using CBD-infused hand sanitizer or hemp granola could inadvertently compromise “military readiness.” After its initial 2019 announcement, DOD more broadly reaffirmed that CBD is off limits to service members in notices published in 2020. The Navy, for its part, issued an initial notice in 2018 informing ranks that they’re barred from using CBD and hemp products no matter their legality. Then in 2020 it released an update explaining why it enacted the rule change. The Coast Guard said that sailors can’t use marijuana or visit state-legal dispensaries. Separately, a general in 2022 said that the Air Force and Space Force were reviewing marijuana policies and considering a “common sense” change that could give potential recruits a pass if they test positive for cannabis. Image element courtesy of Kristie Gianopulos. The post Congressional Committee Allows Military Psychedelics Amendment To Advance But Blocks Marijuana Testing Proposal For Recruits appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

A new poll of marijuana consumers shows they are overwhelmingly more likely to want to dine at restaurants that offer cannabis-derived THC drinks as an alternative to alcohol. The new survey, conducted by cannabis telehealth platform NuggMD, found that 54 percent of people who use marijuana and live in state-legal markets would be much more likely to visit a local restaurant that offered THC beverages. Another 23 percent said they are somewhat more likely to dine there, while 21 percent said it would have no effect on their decision and 3 percent said they would be less likely to become a patron. “While most cannabis consumers prefer to use regular flower in the comfort of their own home, our polling does reflect a clear openness to social consumption,” Andrew Graham, head of communications for NuggMD, told Marijuana Moment. “For example, a separate poll from last year found most cannabis consumers say they have either high or moderate interest in dispensaries that double as cafes, social clubs, or wellness hubs.” The poll comes shortly after the Texas steakhouse chain Logan’s Roadhouse announced it would begin testing three THC-infused cocktails at 14 of its locations. “Beverage strikes me as the most appropriate ingestion format for social consumption, and that’s probably why both independent restaurants and chains like Logan’s Roadhouse are trying it out,” Graham said. “It’s clearly popular with consumers and the margins are probably on par with liquor.” “The problem is the looming re-criminalization of hemp THC that’s currently set to go into effect in November, which would pull these products off of shelves and menus,” he said, referring to a new law to change the federal definition of legal hemp products. “Allowing that ban to go into effect would be a mistake that harms both businesses and consumers.” Q: “A restaurant chain recently announced it will begin selling non-alcoholic, hemp THC beverages to adults at select locations. If a restaurant near you offered THC beverages, how would it affect your likelihood of visiting?” n: % Much more likely to visit 470 53.8% Somewhat more likely to visit 199 22.8% No effect 182 20.8% Less likely to visit 22 2.5% The NuggMD poll involved interviews with 873 cannabis consumers who live in state-legal markets from June 18-21 and has a margin of error of 3.32 percentage points. The National Restaurant Association, which represents the industry, recently sent a letter urging congressional leaders to delay the federal recriminalization of hemp THC beverages that is scheduled to take effect later this year and replace it with a regulatory framework that “ensures consumer safety while meeting growing market demand” for the products as an alternative to alcohol. Hemp derivatives with less than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC on a dry-weight basis were federally legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill that President Donald Trump signed during his first term in office. But late last year, he signed new legislation containing provisions that will redefine hemp to make it so only products with 0.4 milligrams of total THC per container will remain legal after November 12. As Marijuana Moment reported this month, a Republican congresswoman is circulating draft legislation that would keep hemp THC beverages legal under federal law, creating a carve-out from the broad recriminalization of products derived from the crop that is set to take effect later this year. The Hemp-Derived Beverage Regulatory Clarity Act from Rep. Beth Van Duyne (R-TX), in its current form, would allow adults over 21 to purchase and consume hemp THC drinks with up to 5 milligrams of delta-9 THC per serving. It would also impose a federal tax of 10 cents per milligram of any hemp-derived cannabinoid contained within such beverages. The circulation of the new draft legislation and the restaurant group’s push comes as the White House is making it clear that Trump wants Congress to take action to amend the law that threatens to federally recriminalize hemp-derived products. In a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) this month, White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought said the administration wants lawmakers to “ensure the fair treatment of hemp products”—specifically citing legislation that would keep many hemp products legal that are currently set to be recriminalized this year, add labeling requirements and institute new taxes on sales, among other regulatory reforms. The administration “welcomes the opportunity to work with the Congress to, at a minimum, update the statutory definition of final hemp-derived cannabinoid products to allow Americans to benefit from access to appropriate full-spectrum CBD products,” OMB separately said this month, “while preserving the Congress’s intent to restrict the sale of products that pose serious health risks.” The call to avert a broad prohibition on hemp CBD products was included in a statement of administration policy about an annual agriculture spending bill that passed the House of Representatives. Several lawmakers had filed amendments to that legislation to keep hemp products legal, but each was either blocked by the House Rules Committee from advancing to a floor vote or withdrawn by its sponsor. “The Administration supports advancement of this legislation, but looks forward to addressing its concerns prior to enactment,” OMB said in its statement of administration policy. “The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress to provide more input as the bill’s legislative process unfolds.” In April, the president himself urged congressional lawmakers to again redefine hemp to avoid recriminalization of full-spectrum CBD products. “I am calling on Congress to update the Law to ensure that Americans can continue to access the full-spectrum CBD products they have come to rely on, and that help them, while preserving Congress’s intent to restrict the sale of products that pose Health risks,” Trump said in a Truth Social post on the same day his administration announced it is moving forward with rescheduling marijuana. “We must get this done RIGHT and FAST, especially for those who saw that CBD helps them,” he said. “Plus, I am told it will also help our GREAT FARMERS, who we love, and will always be there for.” Industry advocates say that the law as enacted last year not only threatens to prohibit intoxicating and synthetic cannabinoid products but also stands to remove popular full-spectrum CBD products that many Americans use therapeutically from the market. “ONE in FIVE adults used it in the past year, and many say it improved their chronic pain enormously,” the president said in his social media post, adding that hemp-derived CBD “has made a HUGE difference for so many people.” He also referenced a new initiative the administration launched in April to cover up to $500 worth of hemp-derived products each year for eligible Medicare patients. The program being implemented by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) focuses largely on CBD but also allows products to have up to 3 milligrams of total THC per serving. “In December, I signed a very important Executive Order calling for Research and Innovation for Hemp-derived CBD,” Trump said. “Our wonderful Dr. Mehmet Oz moved fast to follow the directive in the Executive Order, and launched a model for some Seniors earlier this month. But more must be done!” “Please get it done, and SOON,” the president said in reference to a congressional fix for the broad recriminalization set to take effect in November. “Thank you for your attention to this matter!” It’s not clear how far Trump wants to scale back the scope of the scheduled federal restrictions on hemp products and what kinds of revised THC rules and limitations he would prefer to sign into law. Separately, White House officials recently provided a congressman’s office with feedback on hemp regulatory legislation. In April, Vince Haley, director of the White House Domestic Policy Council and James Braid, assistant to the president for legislative affairs, sent hemp policy suggestions to Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY). “We appreciate your work to advance the policy of” an executive order Trump signed in December that included provisions seeking to protect Americans’ access to CBD products, the staffers wrote in a letter to the congressman. “We are transmitting for your consideration draft legislative text and comments to address the statutory definition of final hemp-derived cannabinoid products in order to allow Americans to benefit from access to appropriate full-spectrum CBD products while preserving the Congress’s intent to restrict the sale of products that pose serious health risks,” the White House officials said, according to a social media post containing a screenshot of the letter. “We are available for discussion and further technical assistance.” A U.S. Department of Agriculture report published in April shows that farmers in the U.S. grew three-quarters of a billion dollars worth of hemp crops in 2025—a 64 percent increase from the prior year. A previous NuggMD poll found that cannabis consumers are more likely to shop at Target following the major retailer’s decision to start selling hemp-derived THC drinks, In partnership with Marijuana Moment, meanwhile NuggMD has also been conducting quarterly presidential approval tracking polls that record cannabis consumer sentiment about the Trump administration’s actions on the issue. The latest iteration published last month found that Trump has seen a massive swing in support for his administration’s marijuana policy actions from consumers since moving to federally reschedule medical cannabis—with nearly three out of four now having a favorable view The post Cannabis Consumers Are Way More Likely To Dine At Restaurants That Offer THC Drinks As An Alcohol Alternative, Poll Shows appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

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

Every Pennsylvania Democratic senator is joining together in support of a procedural move that aims to increase pressure on Republicans to allow a vote on legalizing marijuana in the state. Led by Sen. Sharif Street (D), the lawmakers filed what is known as a discharge resolution that seeks to bring a bipartisan cannabis legalization bill out of committee, where it is stuck, and onto the floor for a vote. The bill in question is sponsored by Street along with Sen. Dan Laughlin (R), who chairs the Senate Law & Justice Committee but hasn’t called the legislation up for consideration in the panel. The GOP chairman has instead focused on moving a separate bill to create a new Cannabis Control Board to regulate medical marijuana and hemp. That measure failed on the Senate floor earlier this month amid partisan fighting about the best way forward for cannabis in the state. “The people of Pennsylvania deserve a vote on adult-use cannabis,” Street said when introducing the discharge resolution on Monday. “Not next year, not after another study, not after another election. They deserve a vote now.” All 23 members of the Senate Democratic caucus are signed onto the resolution, he noted, though he pointed out that cannabis legalization itself “is no longer a Democratic issue or Republican issue, it is a Pennsylvania issue.” “Cannabis reform has bipartisan support and deserves a bipartisan vote,” he said. “Every one of our neighboring states has moved ahead. Pennsylvanians are crossing state lines every day to purchase legal cannabis in those states, and unfortunately, having to transport it illegally, supporting businesses and generating tax revenue in other places. Our residents spend the money, our neighboring states collect the revenue… Legalization would generate recurring revenue that could help us invest in our public schools, strengthen mass transit, support public community development, improve public safety and reduce structural deficits that challenge the commonwealth year after year. This is not a one-time windfall. It is an ongoing source of revenue that can help us meet our ongoing obligations.” “We believe this issue has been debated long enough,” Street said. “It is time for the Senate to do its job and allow the people’s elected representatives to vote.” Watch Street’s comments, starting around 39:08 into the video below: Discharge resolutions are placed on the Senate calendar but are not automatically brought up for consideration; that is within the discretion of majority leadership. If a resolution is brought up and supported by a majority vote, however, the legislation in question would then be brought out of committee. Republicans currently hold a 27-23 majority in the chamber. “I understand that this discharge resolution does not compel the committee to report the bill,” Street said on Monday. “I understand that it may not force a vote, but it does force a conversation.” “It asks a simple question: if a bipartisan bill has the support of every member of the Senate Democratic caucus, was introduced with a Republican prime sponsor, has the support of the governor, has the support of a majority of Pennsylvanians, and now has demonstrated bipartisan momentum in this chamber, why shouldn’t it at least receive an up or down vote?” “The Senate should not fear debate, we should not fear democracy and we should certainly not fear allowing our colleagues to vote on an issue that has been before this body for a decade,” he said. “The time has come.” The marijuana legalization bill that Street wants to advance, SB 120, would allow adults aged 21 and older to possess up to 30 grams of cannabis flower, 1,000 milligrams of THC in edible products and 5 grams of concentrate. It would also create a process to expunge prior marijuana-related criminal records. If enacted, there would be an 8 percent excise tax on cannabis sales, alongside the state’s regular sales tax of 6 percent. The legislative maneuvering around the bill comes as new poll shows that Pennsylvania voters overwhelmingly support marijuana legalization—and that the largest share put the blame on Republican lawmakers for the fact that the state has not yet enacted the reform. The survey, conducted by Public Policy Polling this month, found that three out of four voters favor legalizing recreational cannabis. When asked whether “adults over 21 should have places to purchase non-medical cannabis products that are legal, and strictly regulated,” 55 percent said they strongly agree and 20 percent somewhat agree. Only 16 percent strongly disagree and 7 percent somewhat disagree, with another 3 percent saying they are unsure. The poll also found that 40 respondents blamed GOP lawmakers for the lack of progress on cannabis, 12 percent blamed Democrats and 9 percent said the governor was to blame. Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) has repeatedly called on lawmakers to send him a marijuana legalization bill and for the last several years has included the reform in his budget requests to the legislature. Republican gubernatorial nominee Stacy Garrity, who is running against Shapiro, recently pledged to veto a marijuana legalization bill if lawmakers ever sent one to her desk—though she added that she doesn’t think the reform stands a chance of making it that far in the state. “I don’t support legalizing recreational marijuana,” she said. “Recreational marijuana will not end up in the budget. They’re never going to pass it…not as long as Senate Republicans are in control of the Senate.” Her running mate for lieutenant governor, Jason Richey, claimed that legalizing marijuana would be “catastrophic” for the state, arguing it would increase the size of the illegal market, undermine job creation and harm public health. In April, the Democrstic-controlled Pennsylvania House of Representatives passed budget legislation proposed by Shapiro that relies on revenue that would be generated from recreational marijuana sales, which has yet to be legalized in the state. The governor earlier this year, as he has in past years, included cannabis legalization and the resulting expected revenue in his budget request. The House last year passed a bill to legalize marijuana and put sales in state-owned dispensaries, but the Republican Senate majority has criticized that plan while also not advancing a cannabis legalization model of its own. The state’s Independent Fiscal Office (IFO) reported in February that legalizing cannabis in Pennsylvania would generate nearly half a billion dollars in annual revenue by 2028, an estimate that is a significantly larger cash windfall compared to projections from Shapiro’s own office. A spokesperson in the governor’s office said the Trump administration’s federal marijuana rescheduling move is an “important step” that “adds support” to his push to legalize cannabis. A GOP senator also said that federal reform will make it easier to legalize marijuana in the state. — 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. — Meanwhile, Laughlin is blaming the governor for the defeat this month of his bill to create a new Cannabis Control Board (CCB) to oversee the state’s medical marijuana program and intoxicating hemp products and that could also one day oversee recreational cannabis if it is legalized. Most GOP senators in the Republican-controlled chamber voted for the legislation from Laughlin, and all but two Democrats opposed it—with even some lawmakers who signed onto the measure as cosponsors ultimately voting against it. The governor “obviously weighed in on the Democratic side of the aisle and asked for a ‘no’ vote over there, successfully,” Laughlin said after the vote. “I knew it was a risk putting it up for a vote, because there were some discussions going back and forth… I had a little bit of a heads-up, but we chose to roll forward.” The governor’s office confirmed in a statement that he opposes the bill as drafted. “The Shapiro Administration remains supportive of comprehensive cannabis regulation, which would enable a competitive, revenue-generating adult-use market, protect patient access to the current Medical Marijuana Program and rein in hemp-based intoxicant products that are currently unregulated,” Rosie Lapowsky, a spokesperson for the governor, said. “Senate Bill 49 does not substantively advance those goals.” The now-defeated measure would transfer regulatory authority for the state’s existing medical cannabis program from the Department of Health to a new seven-member CCB. The body would oversee cannabis permits, enforcement, seed-to-sale tracking, advertising, labeling, testing and other aspects of the legal industry. Moments after the bill’s defeat on the Senate floor, the chamber adopted a motion to reconsider—but it’s not yet clear when or if the legislation will get another vote. Laughlin’s legislation would also significantly restrict most hemp THC products, aligning the state with a new federal policy that is set to take effect later this year recriminalizing preparations with total THC content of more than 0.3 percent on a dry-weight basis or more than 0.4 milligrams of THC per container. The action on the cannabis regulatory bill, SB 49, came shortly after the House of Representatives passed a bill to allow terminally ill patients to use medical cannabis in hospitals and other healthcare facilities. Photo courtesy of Mike Latimer. The post Pennsylvania Democratic Senators Put Pressure On GOP To Allow A Vote On Legalizing Marijuana appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

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

People with chronic lower back pain who don’t respond to traditional therapies such as opioids experience “large, sustained, and statistically robust improvements” when they switch to inhaled cannabis, according to a new study. Researchers at Rabin Medical Center in Israel looked at longitudinal data from 241 patients with treatment-resistant lower back pain from 2020 to 2025. Not only did cannabis “markedly and durably” improve pain symptoms, but that was accompanied by “near-total displacement of opioids, NSAIDs, antidepressants and gabapentinoids,” the study, published in the journal Biomedicines, said. The authors said they chose to research the efficacy of inhaled or vaporized marijuana “because of its rapid onset, on-demand titratability, and patient preference.” The THC content in the cannabis used in the study ranged from 4-22 percent, while CBD concentration ranged from 2-22 percent. “Inhaled cannabis was associated with large, sustained, and statistically robust improvements in pain, disability, and pain interference, accompanied by near-total displacement of opioids, NSAIDs, antidepressants, and gabapentinoids.” “The within-patient benefit-risk profile…supports consideration of cannabis as a potentially clinically meaningful, opioid-sparing option in patients who have failed multimodal conventional therapy, pending confirmation in randomized comparative trials,” the study concluded. Researchers stressed that, while promising, the study should be followed up with “randomized comparative trials of inhaled cannabis versus continued multimodal therapy” to ensure that “causal claims can be made.” “In their absence, and pending such confirmation, these data support consideration of inhaled cannabis as a potentially clinically meaningful, opioid-sparing option for patients who have failed conventional multimodal therapy,” they said. “Concomitant opioid use fell from 100% at baseline to 4.6% at Year 5 (within-patient absolute risk reduction 95.4%).” This is far from the only study supporting the efficacy of marijuana in the treatment of pain—nor is it the first to suggest cannabis can serve as a substitute for conventional therapies such as opioids. In April, for example, a study found that using medical marijuana appears to help people reduce the use of other medications, including opioids, sleeping aids and antidepressants. They also experience far fewer negative side effects after switching to cannabis from prescription drugs, the study involving more than 3,500 patients determined. About one in three Americans who use CBD say they take it as an alternative or supplement to at least one medication—particularly painkillers—according to a federally funded study published in February. Similarly, another recent federally funded study, published by the American Medical Association (AMA), added more evidence that marijuana can serve as an effective substitute for opioids in chronic pain treatment. Other AMA-published research has found that legalizing marijuana for medical or recreational purposes is “significantly associated with reduced opioid use among patients diagnosed with cancer.” A separate paper published last year similarly found that medical marijuana legalization is “associated with significant reductions in opioid prescribing.” In August, meanwhile, Australian researchers published a study showing that marijuana can serve as an effective substitute for opioids in pain management treatment. Another study published last year in the journal Drug and Alcohol Review found that, among drug users who experience chronic pain, daily cannabis use was linked to a higher likelihood of quitting the use of opioids—especially among men. Other research also found that legalizing medical cannabis appeared to significantly reduce monetary payments from opioid manufacturers to doctors who specialize in pain, with authors finding “evidence that this decrease is due to medical marijuana becoming available as a substitute” for prescription painkillers. Further research also showed a decline in fatal opioid overdoses in jurisdictions where marijuana was legalized for adults. That study found a “consistent negative relationship” between legalization and fatal overdoses, with more significant effects in states that legalized cannabis earlier in the opioid crisis. Authors estimated that recreational marijuana legalization “is associated with a decrease of approximately 3.5 deaths per 100,000 individuals.” “Our findings suggest that broadening recreational marijuana access could help address the opioid epidemic,” that report said. “Previous research largely indicates that marijuana (primarily for medical use) can reduce opioid prescriptions, and we find it may also successfully reduce overdose deaths.” Another recently published report into prescription opioid use in Utah following the state’s legalization of medical marijuana found that the availability of legal cannabis both reduced opioid use by patients with chronic pain and helped drive down prescription overdose deaths statewide. Overall, results of the study indicated that “cannabis has a substantial role to play in pain management and the reduction of opioid use,” it said. The post Marijuana Leads To ‘Robust Improvements’ In Lower Back Pain And ‘Near-Total’ Cessation Of Opioids, Study Finds appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

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

Bipartisan lawmakers: Blocking rescheduling won’t work; Marijuana reformers rally outside DEA; SCOTUS on cannabis & gun rights; VA legalization 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… Free to read (but not free to produce)! We’re proud of our newsletter and the reporting we publish at Marijuana Moment, and we’re happy to provide it for free. But it takes a lot of work and resources to make this happen. If you value Marijuana Moment, invest in our success on Patreon so we can expand our coverage and more readers can benefit: https://www.patreon.com/marijuanamoment / TOP THINGS TO KNOW Lawyers for the Drug Enforcement Administration and a Food and Drug Administration official highlighted testimony on marijuana’s medical benefits and its relative safety compared to other substances such as alcohol and opioids on the first day of a hearing on cannabis rescheduling. Bipartisan lawmakers told Marijuana Moment that they don’t think efforts in Congress to block the Trump administration’s cannabis rescheduling proposal will succeed as a Drug Enforcement Administration hearing on the reform begins. Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL), who is running for Florida governor, however, said “we’re not going to do recreational” marijuana legalization in the state. Marijuana reform activists held a press conference outside the Drug Enforcement Administration’s hearing on cannabis rescheduling to highlight how supporters are being “shut out” of the process. Meanwhile, DEA is sticking to its refusal to livestream the proceedings despite requests for public access from Marijuana Moment, a congressman and others—yet it is maintaining that it has a “commitment to transparency.” The Supreme Court is applying its ruling on marijuana consumers’ gun rights to other pending cases by rejecting the government’s previously filed appeals of lower court decisions and sending a case from a cannabis user back to a lower court “for further consideration in light of United States v. Hemani.” The Virginia Senate and House of Delegates accepted Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s (D) amendments to a budget bill containing provisions to legalize recreational marijuana sales—meaning that the legislation has now been formally enacted into law without requiring any additional action from the governor. National Cannabis Industry Association Policy Chair Michael Cooper authored a new Marijuana Moment op-ed calling out Republican lawmakers who want to maintain the 280E tax penalty on cannabis businesses even after rescheduling. “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.” An Idaho campaign working to qualify a medical cannabis legalization initiative for the November ballot has hit setbacks as a judge ruled signatures in one county were turned in late—while others are at risk of being thrown out due to the possibility they may have been collected by out-of-state petitioners. / FEDERAL The head of the National Guard Counterdrug Program spoke about how “what once focused primarily on local and state marijuana eradication missions has expanded into disrupting activities and dismantling drug trafficking and transnational criminal organizations.” Rep. Jim Baird (R-IN) tweeted, “I am also grateful that the Trump Administration is calling for fair treatment of our hemp farmers. The hemp provision included in the Continuing Resolution and Appropriations bills passed in November 2025 disrupted planting decisions that had already been made. I appreciate the Trump Administration’s advocacy for greater predictability for farmers in Indiana and across the country.” / STATES Rhode Island Gov. Dan McKee’s (D) reelection campaign is facing a complaint over allegedly improper activity related to fundraising from the cannabis industry. Texas regulators adopted changes to rules on medical cannabis registration. Maryland regulators sent a notice about Drug Enforcement Administration inspections at marijuana dispensaries. New York regulators are accepting abstracts for a medical cannabis symposium in November. The Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board will meet on Wednesday. The Michigan Cannabis Regulatory Agency will hold a public meeting on Thursday. — Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments. Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access. — / INTERNATIONAL Several Mexican elected officials are reportedly offering themselves as informants to U.S. authorities investigating drug cartels. Irish government officials are reportedly not keen to adopt a legislative committee’s recommendation to decriminalize drugs. / SCIENCE & HEALTH A study found that cannabis extracellular vesicle-like nanoparticles “offer a promising natural approach to protect the skin from UVB-induced damage, supporting their potential as bioactive candidates for future skincare or cosmeceutical applications for preventing photoaging and inflammation.” A study of mice found that “cannabidiol reduces atypical absence seizures and epileptic spasms.” / ADVOCACY, OPINION & ANALYSIS The International Cannabis Bar Association joined the call for the Drug Enforcement Administration to livestream an ongoing marijuana rescheduling hearing. / BUSINESS TerrAscend Corp. shareholders are being asked to approve a proposal to consolidate shares in preparation for uplisting to a major U.S. exchange. iAnthus Capital Holdings, Inc. shareholders elected board of directors members. Make sure to subscribe to get Marijuana Moment’s daily dispatch in your inbox. Get our daily newsletter. Email address: Leave this field empty if you're human: The post DEA highlights cannabis’s medical benefits & relative safety in rescheduling hearing (Newsletter: June 30, 2026) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

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