All Activity

A national group representing Black police officers is joining with Massachusetts law enforcement officials in urging voters in the state to reject a ballot measure that would roll back the state’s marijuana legalization law. The National Association of Black Law Enforcement Officers (NABLEO) on Monday announced its endorsement for the No On 8 campaign as a group of more than 50 current and former law enforcement officials separately signed an open letter opposing the anti-cannabis initiative on Tuesday’s ballot. “A return to the prohibition and criminalizing of cannabis commerce will only increase demands on already over-burdened law enforcement resources and raise serious questions regarding enforcement priorities, consumer safety and the effective use of public resources,” NABLEO Chairman Lieutenant Charles Wilson (Ret.) said. Meanwhile, current and former police officials from Massachusetts and other states signed a letter arguing that “repealing legal, regulated sales would not eliminate demand for marijuana or meaningfully reduce its consumption” and would instead “only strip the market of the licensing, testing and accountability the current regulatory system provides, pushing transactions toward sellers with no age checks, no product standards, and no legal responsibility to consumers or the state.” “Many of us spent our careers enforcing marijuana laws,” the letter, signed by former Massachusetts State Trooper Karen Hawkes, former Assistant Attorney General John Amabile, former Massachusetts Juvenile Court First Justice Jay D. Blitzman and former Brockton Police Department Detective Kenneth Williams, among others, said. “We know firsthand what that system cost: resources diverted away from violent crime and toward low-level cannabis offenses, lack of visibility into an unregulated market, and no tools to hold sellers accountable when something went wrong.” “The 2016 vote to legalize and regulate marijuana changed that. A decade later, the evidence shows the current system is working. There is no good reason to go back… Recriminalizing nonmedical cannabis sales would pull police, prosecutors, courts and correctional resources back into enforcement against activity that licensed businesses in Massachusetts have been conducting safely and legally for years. These resources are better spent on issues like violence, impaired driving, illegal sales to minors and organized drug trafficking.” Two retired police officers with the group Law Enforcement Action Partnership separately authored an op-ed urging Massachusetts voters to reject the anti-marijuana ballot measure, arguing that “police already face considerable demands on their time and resources, and renewed cannabis enforcement would add to that burden.” Stop the Repeal Chairperson Ryan Dominguez said in a press release on Monday that Massachusetts has “one of the most strict enforcement laws in the country that keep cannabis sales within a regulated and age-gated system with product testing from seed to sale.” “We should not be pushing consumers toward sellers with no age checks, product standards or oversight,” he said. “We are grateful to have the support of the National Association of Black Law Enforcement Officers in helping us to defeat this damaging ballot question that threatens public safety.” The law enforcement officials’ opposition to Question 8—which would repeal laws allowing the regulated commercial sales of recreational cannabis and home cultivation while maintaining legal possession and continuing the medical marijuana system—comes as a number of prominent elected officials are also speaking out against the measure. Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey (D) and GOP challenger Mike Minogue both recently said they support keeping marijuana sales legal, for example. Last month, more than 50 state lawmakers said they will be voting against the anti-marijuana ballot measure. That includes the House speaker and Senate president. U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) both recently told Marijuana Moment that they will be voting against the anti-cannabis measure. “We could make improvements in the operations but legalizing cannabis is better than continuing an unregulated, underground market,” Warren said. “So I’m opposed to the repeal. I’m voting no on the ballot to repeal.” Markey, for his part, said the state’s marijuana legalization law that voters approved in 2016 continues to enjoy “overwhelming support.” “We’ve had debate,” he said. “The voters are satisfied at this moment with the experience that the state has had with it… I support keeping it on the books and overwhelmingly so do the people of Massachusetts.” Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) also recently urged voters to reject the measure, saying that “keeping marijuana legal in Massachusetts is both economic justice and racial justice policy.” Boston’s mayor also said she is voting against the initiative to roll back marijuana legalization. The City Council in Worcester—the state’s second-most populous municipality—passed a resolution urging voters to reject the anti-cannabis initiative. Broken Lizard, the comedy troupe behind films such as Super Troopers and Beerfest, recently launched a video ad that explains how Massachusetts residents who want to keep cannabis sales legal should vote on the measure given its confusing wording and path to the ballot. The Massachusetts House of Representatives recently passed a bill to increase military veterans’ access to medical marijuana by allowing them to receive patient cards without having to get a doctor’s recommendation and adding additional qualifying conditions. The post Police Groups Urge Massachusetts Voters To Keep Cannabis Sales Legal By Rejecting Ballot Measure appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

The American Medical Association (AMA) is urging federal officials to uphold “known and widely accepted scientific and clinical standards for testing safety and efficacy” of botanical drug products—including cannabis, kratom and other plant-derived substances—warning that political and commercial interests should not circumvent the standard approval process. It also says a “special schedule” should be developed to support research on marijuana’s “potential medical utility.” The physicians’ group sent a letter to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) last week, arguing that “social and economic concerns and disputes should not be permitted to play a part” in the agency’s decision-making process on regulations for botanical drugs. “The AMA believes that political considerations or conflicts of interest should not be allowed to overrule scientific evidence in making policy decisions,” the letter to Grace R. Graham, FDA’s deputy commissioner for policy, legislation and international affairs, said. “These principles are particularly important in light of the growing use and public health harms related to a wide range of botanicals, including kratom, cannabis, kava, kanna, and other botanicals that are increasingly used by consumers for specious health claims made by their manufacturers or influencers.” AMA said in the letter, which was sent in response to a request for information about botanical drug products that FDA launched in September, that it was “pleased” to see recent moves by federal agencies to use emergency powers to schedule kratom-related compounds. When it comes to marijuana, AMA said it supports “adequate and well-controlled studies” of cannabinoids “in patients who have serious conditions for which preclinical, anecdotal, or animal model evidence suggests possible efficacy and the application of such results to the understanding and treatment of disease.” High-quality clinical trials and postmarket safety monitoring are essential. The AMA is urging the FDA to uphold rigorous, evidence-based standards and resist political considerations, conflicts of interest and commercial pressure that could put patients and the public at risk.… — AMA (@AmerMedicalAssn) October 30, 2026 While the doctors’ organization said in the letter that “cannabis is a dangerous drug and as such is a serious public health concern,” it also believes “there is a clear role for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the DEA, and the FDA to develop a special schedule and implement administrative procedures to facilitate grant applications and the conduct of well-designed clinical research involving cannabis and its potential medical utility.” In particular, the letter said AMA supports: Disseminating specific information for researchers on the development of safeguards for cannabis clinical research protocols and the development of a model informed consent form for institutional review board evaluation; Sufficient funding to support such clinical research and access for qualified investigators to adequate supplies of cannabis for clinical research purposes; and Confirming that cannabis of various and consistent strengths and/or placebo will be supplied by the National Institute on Drug Abuse to investigators registered with the DEA who are conducting bona fide clinical research studies that receive FDA approval, regardless of whether or not the NIH is the primary source of grant support. “The FDA approval process for drugs containing cannabis or other botanicals should not be short-circuited or circumvented merely because of anecdotal support or growing public use,” AMA cautioned. “Manufacturers increasingly tout their products as ‘botanical’ while—as the DEA emergency scheduling action demonstrates—their products are incredibly dangerous, synthesized drugs that pose imminent public health threats to consumers.” “While the AMA supports innovation in drug design and development, we also urge extreme caution about deviating from known and widely accepted scientific and clinical standards for testing safety and efficacy. In a time where social influencers, rogue telehealth companies, and ‘botanical health’ companies ply consumers with promises of cures from ‘natural’ products, the AMA urges FDA to continue to rely on time-tested quality and research standards that have protected American consumers for decades. The lack of standardization by manufacturers for consumer products has resulted in a dangerous, buyer-beware marketplace. Whether it is a product containing kratom, cannabis, or other botanicals, the AMA strongly recommends that the substance—and its derivatives—be regulated by the FDA, and that its safety and efficacy be determined through clinical trials before it can be marketed or prescribed as treatment for any condition.” AMA President Willie Underwood III said in a press release about the letter to FDA that “as botanical manufacturers develop increasingly potent products in everything from gummies and powders to oils and injections, consumers are becoming the real-world guinea pigs—and suffering tragic consequences, including dependence, substance use disorders, overdose, and death.” “Calling something ‘natural’ doesn’t make it safe,” he said. “We need science, not social media hype, to determine what belongs in our medicine cabinets.” Earlier this year, the AMA’ House of Delegates adopted two marijuana-related resolutions—one that advocates for a ban on flavored cannabis vaping products and another that recognizes the risks and potential therapeutic benefits of use among older adults. Those measures were the latest in a line of drug policy-related resolutions the body has advanced in recent years that oppose commercial marijuana legalization while backing expungement of cannabis records and supporting broad drug decriminalization, among stances on other issues. In 2024, for example, AMA delegates adopted a resolution endorsing broad drug decriminalization. The group’s delegates in 2022 voted to amend its policy position on marijuana—which continues to oppose legalization—to support the expungement of past cannabis convictions in states that have legalized the plant. In 2023, AMA members adopted resolutions advocating for psychedelics research, opposing the criminalization of kratom, calling for an end to the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine and supporting the continued inclusion of marijuana metabolites in employment-based drug tests. The post AMA Raises Concerns About Marijuana, Kratom And Other Botanical Drugs While Pushing ‘Special Schedule’ To Support Research appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

New Hampshire’s Republican governor and her Democratic opponent clashed over the issue of marijuana legalization at a debate, with the incumbent citing the challenger’s previous work as a lobbyist for a pharmaceutical company that manufactured opioids. Gov. Kelly Ayotte (R) has made her opposition to legalizing marijuana clear in several recent interviews and speeches. Cinde Warmington, the Democrat running against her in Tuesday’s election, supports cannabis legalization. The two were asked about the issue at a debate on Thursday. Warmington said New Hampshire is the “Live Free Or Die” state, arguing that its residents “have made it perfectly clear that they want access to this product, which they can drive over state lines and purchase—and which they are doing, and they are paying enormous amounts of taxes in those states to access this product.” “This is a product that they should be able to purchase here in our state, properly regulated and taxed,” the Democrat who previously served on the New Hampshire Executive Council said. “Other states are doing this, and they’re doing it safely. And we can do it here in our state as well.” Ayotte replied that she is “not surprised that an opioid lobbyist would want to legalize recreation marijuana in this state, but I care deeply about our children.” Over two decades ago, Warmington worked on behalf of Purdue Pharma to oppose New Hampshire state legislation to place restrictions on the prescribing of OxyContin. “If you look at the research that has been done, the clinical data, unfortunately, the marijuana, the recreation marijuana, the commercial marijuana, the big marijuana—if you think about your parents or the marijuana when you were young, it’s so much higher in strength, and it’s causing addiction, especially in our young people and our young adults,” the governor said at the debate. “I’m concerned about the mental health of our young people in this state,” she said. “In fact, the scientific research that has been done on this is showing that is increasing mental illness, including schizophrenia and psychosis.” “So when we think about our quality of life here in New Hampshire, I do not think it’s the right direction,” the governor argued. “Go to a state where they’ve legalized marijuana. You walk down the street, and that’s all you smell is marijuana. It’s not good for our quality of life. It’s not good for our children or their mental health.” Warmington then said Ayotte is “just making this up.” “We’re not talking about selling cannabis products in our state to children. We’re talking about about adult use, and adults in our state—in the Live Free Or Die State—have made this decision,” she said. “Even the last governor had to acknowledge that the people of New Hampshire have made this decision,” Warmington said, referring to former Gov. Chris Sununu (R) who after opposing marijuana legalization for years proposed legislation to replace prohibition with state-controlled dispensaries that did not ultimately pass. “They want this product. They’re traveling across state lines in order to access it. We should be offering this product in our state,” the Democratic gubernatorial candidate said. “It should be properly taxed and regulated. There’s also a safety issue with people buying a product on the street as well.” The governor chimed in again, saying that “when you legalize a product, you send a very, very different message to our young people—and that’s a huge problem if we want to impact mental health in this state, and we want to protect our quality of life.” New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Ray Buckley told Marijuana Moment after the debate that “while every other New England state has moved forward with marijuana legalization, Kelly Ayotte is still stuck giving Granite Staters a bizarre lecture about peer pressure.” The debate “made it clear that Ayotte would rather invent a boogeyman she calls ‘the BIG marijuana’ than explain why New Hampshire continues to leave millions in potential revenue on the table,” he said. Count how many times Kelly says "the" marijuana #NHPolitics pic.twitter.com/quIDWrzrFB — NH Democratic Party (@NHDems) October 30, 2026 Ayotte separately said at a recent forum that the issue of cannabis represents a “big difference'” between her and Warmington. “I don’t think that legalizing cannabis improves our quality of life,” she said. “I know often the argument is made, ‘well, there’s all of our neighbors are that way. Why shouldn’t we take this revenue?,'” she said. “I never say, ‘Oh, our neighbors are doing it, so we should do it.’ I think about my own children. I tell them, ‘Your friends are doing it, you’re doing it.'” “That’s not really a good standard,” Ayotte said. “We need to make sure we’re looking at our own quality of life and what is the right thing to do for New Hampshire. And when you legalize something, it does send a different message to our young people. So I worry about that and our quality of life. So this is just something we differ on, and I do not think that that revenue is one that comes without a deep cost for New Hampshire.” The governor also discussed her opposition to legalizing marijuana at an earlier debate with Warmington last month, arguing that cannabis revenue “comes at a huge cost.” “It comes at the cost of the mental health of our young people. It comes at the cost of our quality of life,” she said. “I don’t think following because our neighbors do something, we should do it. We have the same discussion with our kids, right? If if Johnny jumps off the bridge, are you going to jump off the bridge with it?” Warmington, on the other hand, said during the debate that “I support the the sale and legalization of cannabis as an additional revenue source in our state.” “I think it is really odd that we are sending our citizenry over state lines and paying millions and millions—tens of millions—of dollars to our neighboring state in taxes when that revenue should be here in our state,” she said. Warmington has previously discussed her support for legalizing marijuana, including at a town hall event last month when she said that “there is no reason why the citizens of New Hampshire should be driving across state borders to pay taxes to Massachusetts, Vermont and Maine to purchase a product that they obviously have stated that they want to have access to in our state.” Ayotte, for her part, recently vetoed legislation to allow businesses in the state’s existing medical cannabis program to cultivate in greenhouses. Her veto was overridden by lawmakers, however, and now the medical marijuana cultivation measure has become law despite her objections. In June, Warmington criticized Ayotte’s veto of the medical marijuana proposal. “Come on, Kelly. Shouldn’t we be trying to make health care more affordable for Granite Staters, not less?” said in a video posted to social media. “This bill would have made medical cannabis more affordable and more accessible to Granite Staters who really need it, and she vetoed it,” Warmington said. “But honestly, this is what we’ve come to expect from Kelly Ayotte. Look what she did to the Medicaid premiums. She increased them by up to $270 a month on the most vulnerable Granite Staters. She increased prescription co-pays when other costs are already going through the roof.” “New Hampshire deserves a governor who will fight to make sure we have lower health care costs and that health care is more accessible,” the Democratic candidate, who previously served as a member of the New Hampshire Executive Council, said. “That’s the bottom line.” In a veto statement on the medical marijuana greenhouse bill, the governor simply said, “I do not support expanding the cultivation of marijuana in our 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. — Ayotte has separately threatened to veto any marijuana legalization bill that reaches her desk. The governor said last year that her position on the reform would not change even as the federal government moved forward with rescheduling the plant. Photo courtesy of Philip Steffan. The post New Hampshire GOP Governor Bashes Democratic Challenger’s Marijuana Legalization Support, Calling Her An ‘Opioid Lobbyist’ appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is apparently so worried about a Democratic blue wave in this week’s midterm elections that he is suggesting tricking liberal voters into not showing up at the polls with a ruse about free marijuana brownies. While the GOP senator said Republicans should call their like-minded friends and relatives to encourage them to vote on Tuesday, they might want to take a different approach with certain liberal family members. “Your crazy Uncle Louis, who has a tattoo of Chairman Mao on his left buttocks, call him and say, ‘Louis, be sure to vote next Wednesday,” Cruz joked. “And all day Tuesday, they have free marijuana brownies at the YMCA.” Of course, Election Day is on Tuesday—so Cruz appears to be suggesting that Republican voters can trick their Democratic-leaning relatives into not voting by pretending they don’t need to show up to the polls until the next day and can instead indulge in free cannabis edibles on the day they in fact need to be casting their ballots. The comments, made on Friday at an event in support of Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS), come as polling continues to show Democrats poised to retake a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives and potentially the Senate as well. Cruz, for his part, has made a number of cannabis-related comments in the past. In a 2018 debate, he said that he thinks marijuana legalization “ought to be up to the states.” “I think Colorado can decide one way,” he said. “I think Texas can decide another.” In 2024, however, he suggested that the marijuana rescheduling proposal that was initiated by the then-Biden administration could lead to more people dying in car crashes from impaired driving. At the same time, Cruz has also been critical of recommended federal guidance on alcohol consumption. During an interview with Newsmax late last year, the senator drank a beer on camera and said federal health officials “can kiss my ass” if they decided to move forward with a plan to reduce the recommended maximum consumption of alcohol to two drinks per week. “What is it with liberals and wanting to control every damn aspect of your life?” said Cruz, who himself supports government bans on abortion and trans-affirming healthcare. “If they want us to drink two beers a week, frankly they can kiss my ass.” Cruz laid into a Biden judicial nominee during a 2022 Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing, asserting that the judge had been a “partisan advocate for causes,” including “legalizing potent strains of marijuana.” Last year, Cruz was one of just two Republicans who joined about two dozen Democrats in a failed attempt to keep alive a spending bill amendment to prevent a ban on hemp products containing THC. “I have long believed that the regulation of hemp and marijuana products should rest with each individual state,” the senator said following the vote. “Reasonable minds can disagree, and a blanket federal prohibition disempowers the voters in each of the fifty States.” “A one-size-fits-all federal standard will undoubtedly create unintended consequences that harm consumers,” he said. “There is a vital need to protect children by, at a minimum, requiring that purchasers be 21 and prohibiting synthetics and dangerous foreign imports marketed to kids.” The post Ted Cruz Jokes About Tricking Democrats Into Not Voting By Offering Them Free Marijuana Brownies appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“For the first time, the federal government is recognizing and registering the medical cannabis dispensaries that patients fought to establish. This is a tremendous victory for patient access and an opportunity to build on 30 years of progress.” By Steph Sherer, Americans for Safe Access On Friday, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is moving forward with federal registrations for more than 900 state-licensed medical cannabis dispensaries across seven states. This marks a major implementation milestone under the attorney general’s order establishing a federal regulatory pathway for qualifying state medical cannabis activities under Schedule III. For medical cannabis patients, this is a historic achievement as we approach the 30th anniversary of California’s Proposition 215, the nation’s first statewide medical cannabis law. The federal government is now formally recognizing and registering the dispensaries that patients fought to establish, bringing decades of patient advocacy and state medical cannabis programs into a new era of federal recognition. Here are 10 things patients, caregivers, healthcare professionals, cannabis providers and policymakers should know about this announcement. 1. This Is A Historic Victory For Medical Cannabis Patients. For the first time, DEA is registering state-licensed medical cannabis dispensaries under a federal framework that recognizes qualifying medical cannabis activity. Thirty years ago, patients turned to state governments to establish access to cannabis medicines because federal policy would not recognize their medical use. Today, the federal government is beginning to regulate those same state-established access systems. This progress builds on decades of patient advocacy, state policy development and efforts to establish standards for safe medical cannabis access. 2. More Than 900 Dispensaries Are Included In The First Round Of Federal Registrations. The initial registrations cover dispensaries in Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia. The announcement’s scale is especially encouraging. Based on available state data, these seven states collectively have roughly 1,100 medical cannabis dispensing locations, although licensing structures and reporting methods differ. Florida alone has nearly 800 dispensing locations, and Mississippi has approximately 175 to 200 licensed or operating dispensaries. We do not yet know how many dispensaries applied, how many applications remain pending or how federal registrations correspond to individual state locations. Nevertheless, the announcement suggests substantial participation in the new federal framework. An important distinction is that six of the seven states have medical-only cannabis programs. Virginia permits adult-use possession but has not yet implemented adult-use retail sales. This means the initial registrations do not yet tell us how DEA will handle dispensaries in states with established dual medical and adult-use licensing systems. These registrations do not represent 900 newly opened dispensaries. They represent federal recognition of qualifying dispensaries operating under state medical cannabis systems. 3. Qualifying Medical Cannabis Is Now Being Regulated Under Schedule III. The attorney general’s order established Schedule III controls for certain qualifying medical cannabis products and activities, creating a federal pathway for state-licensed medical cannabis businesses to register with DEA. This represents a major change from the federal framework that historically treated state medical cannabis activity as Schedule I activity. However, the order does not move all cannabis into Schedule III. Cannabis activities outside its scope remain subject to Schedule I controls, and the broader federal rescheduling proceeding remains separate. Federal registration also does not authorize adult-use cannabis sales. 4. State Medical Cannabis Programs Are Becoming Part Of The Federal Regulatory System. One of the most significant aspects of this development is that federal regulators are building on existing state medical cannabis programs rather than requiring patients and states to abandon the systems they have established. Dispensaries must meet federal registration requirements in addition to applicable state requirements, including DEA’s pre-registration investigation and federal security, inventory and recordkeeping controls. Federal regulators are also reviewing applications from medical cannabis manufacturers and distributors, which are essential to maintaining the supply chains patients depend on. The continued recognition of state medical cannabis systems provides an opportunity to strengthen oversight while preserving established patient access. 5. Patients Should Maintain Their Medical Cannabis Documentation And Enrollment. The federal registration announcement does not eliminate state medical cannabis requirements or automatically enroll patients in a federal program. Patients should continue following the requirements of their state’s medical cannabis program, including maintaining applicable patient identification cards, healthcare provider certifications and other documentation. Patients who currently obtain their medicines through adult-use dispensaries should pay particular attention to whether their state offers a separate medical cannabis pathway. Maintaining medical documentation may become increasingly important as states distinguish federally qualifying medical cannabis activity from adult-use activity. 6. Federal Recognition Strengthens Opportunities To Advance Patients’ Rights. For decades, patients have faced discrimination involving employment, housing, healthcare and other essential services because they use cannabis medicines recommended by their healthcare providers. The new federal framework creates opportunities to challenge outdated policies and seek clarification of federal patient protections. However, federal registration does not automatically guarantee workplace accommodations, hospital access, housing protections or other rights. Americans for Safe Access has expanded its Patients’ Rights Campaign to the federal level to help patients understand changing laws, assert applicable protections, request individualized consideration, and document discrimination. 7. Important Barriers To Patient Access Remain. Federal dispensary registration is a significant achievement, but it does not automatically establish a nationwide medical cannabis program. Patients may still face different eligibility requirements, product availability, costs and legal protections depending on where they live. The announcement does not automatically authorize interstate transportation of cannabis, require insurance coverage or resolve restrictions affecting patients in federal housing, workplaces or healthcare facilities. These issues require additional federal guidance, state implementation, and, in some cases, congressional action. 8. The Next Challenge Is Implementing Federal Registration In States With Both Medical And Adult-Use Cannabis Programs. Six of the seven states included in the initial announcement have medical-only cannabis programs. Virginia has legalized adult-use possession, but retail sales have not yet begun. The next major test will be how federal registration works in states where medical and adult-use cannabis are regulated together or where patients rely on dispensaries holding both types of licenses. These states may need additional procedures to identify qualifying medical cannabis transactions, verify patient status and distinguish medical activity from adult-use activity. DOJ and DEA cannot directly change state licensing laws, but they can provide federal guidance and work with state regulators to identify compliant pathways for existing medical cannabis operators. States may also need to modify their licensing systems or regulations to accommodate federal requirements. ASA has already provided states with recommendations for preparing medical cannabis programs for federal regulation, preserving medical cannabis supply chains, supporting DEA registration and protecting patients during the transition. 9. Federal Registration Is Progress, But Congress Still Needs To Establish A National Medical Cannabis Program. DEA registration creates an important regulatory pathway, but it does not resolve every issue involved in integrating medical cannabis into the U.S. healthcare system. Americans for Safe Access has proposed the Medical Cannabis & Cannabinoid Act (MCCA) to build on this progress through a comprehensive national medical cannabis framework. The MCCA would establish a new Schedule VI for cannabis and cannabinoids and create an Office of Medical Cannabis and Cannabinoid Control within the Department of Health and Human Services. This framework would address patient access, product safety, research, healthcare integration, and patient protections, building on lessons learned from state medical cannabis programs. 10. The Next Congress Will Play A Critical Role In What Happens Next. With the midterm elections on Tuesday, DOJ’s announcement underscores the significance of federal medical cannabis policy for the next Congress. Federal agencies have begun implementing a new regulatory framework, but Congress will have opportunities to address outstanding questions involving patient protections, national access, healthcare integration and oversight of federal implementation. Through ASA’s Compassionate Candidate Campaign, candidates from every political party are invited to publicly commit to supporting comprehensive medical cannabis legislation and using congressional oversight to advance meaningful patient protections. The actions of the next Congress will determine how the progress achieved through rescheduling and registration translates into long-term healthcare policy. 30 Years Of Patient Progress And A New Era Of Federal Recognition For the first time, the federal government is recognizing and registering the medical cannabis dispensaries that patients fought to establish. This is a tremendous victory for patient access and an opportunity to build on 30 years of progress. Today’s announcement marks a historic achievement in the effort to bring medical cannabis into federal policy. It demonstrates that a federal regulatory framework can build on the program’s patients, healthcare professionals and states have spent decades creating. As we approach the 30th anniversary of California’s Proposition 215, there is reason for optimism about the future of medical cannabis in America. Federal recognition is advancing, new opportunities for patient protections are emerging and a foundation exists for building a comprehensive national medical cannabis program. The next phase is about building on this progress, protecting the access patients have established and making the benefits of federal recognition available to more patients across the country. Steph Sherer is the founder and executive director of Americans for Safe Access. The post What Does The Federal Government’s Registration Of 900+ Medical Cannabis Dispensaries Mean For Patients? (Op-Ed) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

DEA rescheduling hearing brief; Hemp tariff bill in Congress; Alcohol lobbyists’ anti-hemp work; NH & KS candidates on marijuana Subscribe to receive Marijuana Moment’s newsletter in your inbox every weekday morning. It’s the best way to make sure you know which cannabis stories are shaping the day. Get our daily newsletter. Email address: Leave this field empty if you're human: Your support makes Marijuana Moment possible… BREAKING: Journalism is often consumed for free, but costs money to produce! While this newsletter is proudly sent without cost to you, our ability to send it each day depends on the financial support of readers who can afford to give it. So if you’ve got a few dollars to spare each month and believe in the work we do, please consider joining us on Patreon today. https://www.patreon.com/marijuanamoment / TOP THINGS TO KNOW Attorney General Todd Blanche announced that the Drug Enforcement Administration has granted federal registration and protections to more than 900 medical cannabis dispensaries across the U.S. in line with the Trump administration’s rescheduling move. The Drug Enforcement Administration said it cannot grant federal registration and protections to medical cannabis businesses in states with dual-use licenses that also allow recreational marijuana or in states that let patients access medical cannabis with self-certifications. The Drug Enforcement Administration issued guidance saying that medical marijuana businesses that want to receive federal registration and protections have until late November to begin sourcing cannabis only from and to other companies that have also been granted or applied for registration in a timely fashion. The Drug Enforcement Administration filed a brief arguing that the Trump administration’s proposal to reschedule marijuana is not undermined by a recently published federal watchdog agency report that found “gaps” in the government’s process for evaluating controlled substances. “The Government respectfully requests that the Court give the GAO Report no weight.” The Drug Enforcement Administration posted a list showing that nearly 7,000 medical cannabis businesses have applied for federal protections under the Trump administration’s marijuana rescheduling move. Rep. Val Hoyle (D-OR) filed a new bill to impose a substantial tariff on hemp being imported into the U.S. from China while also adding new testing requirements for cannabinoid products that are coming into the country. Lobbyists for major alcohol companies encouraged attorneys general from states across the country to press Congress to keep the federal recriminalization of hemp THC products on track, according to a new report based on emails obtained via public records requests. New Hampshire Gov. Kelly Ayotte (R) reiterated her opposition to marijuana legalization ahead of Election Day—saying that “I don’t think that legalizing cannabis improves our quality of life” and that the revenue it generates comes at a “deep cost.” Kansas Democratic gubernatorial candidate Cindy Holscher said the Trump administration’s federal marijuana rescheduling move boosts efforts to legalize medical cannabis in the state. “I think there’s some things that look a little differently now with the federal-level rescheduling. That does create a little bit of a difference of attitude among some of my peers.” A Missouri Division of Cannabis Regulation podcast highlighted marijuana businesses’ confusion about taking advantage of tax relief that comes with federal rescheduling while agencies still haven’t published guidance on the issue. Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission officials announced that two more medical marijuana dispensaries are set to open this week, and that regulators are stepping up efforts to educate doctors about the program. Former police officers Diane Goldstein and Karen Hawkes argue in a new op-ed that Massachusetts voters should reject a measure to roll back marijuana legalization on the November ballot. “Police already face considerable demands on their time and resources, and renewed cannabis enforcement would add to that burden.” / FEDERAL The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published a report on oral fluid drug testing program case studies. New Hampshire U.S. Senate candidates Rep. Chris Pappas (D-NH) and former Sen. John E. Sununu (R-NH) discussed their views on marijuana during a debate. / STATES Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) tweeted, “a Halloween safety reminder: Keep cannabis gummies and suckers far away from Halloween candy. Not every gummy is for goblins!” California Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton appeared on a cannabis podcast. South Carolina Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jermaine Johnson discussed his support for legalizing medical cannabis. Texas Democratic lieutenant governor candidate Vikki Goodwin, currently a state representative, said Republicans’ moves to crack down on cannabis “didn’t seem like a very good political move when so many people are buying these products.” Pennsylvania’s attorney general touted enforcement actions against allegedly illegal sales of cannabis products at gas stations and convenience stores. A Virginia senator is asking the Committee on Privileges and Elections to investigate federal marijuana-related criminal allegations against the Senate president pro tempore. A Wisconsin senator authored an op-ed arguing that it’s time for the state to legalize marijuana. A former New Hampshire representative authored an op-ed criticizing Democratic gubernatorial candidate Cinde Warmington’s support for legalizing marijuana. A New York appeals court rejected a challenge to the state’s marijuana social equity business program. Several Oklahoma marijuana laws took effect, including measures classifying THC as a Schedule I substance, changing medical cannabis patient employment protections and enacting new labeling requirements. Tennessee regulators said an email appearing to announce that they lifted restrictions on hemp products was “fraudulent.” New Jersey regulators delayed an annual review of a cannabis social equity tax and took action on marijuana business issues. The North Carolina Advisory Council on Cannabis met. Georgia regulators will consider medical cannabis business licensing on Wednesday. — Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments. Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access. — / LOCAL Portsmouth, Virginia’s police chief said he is the unnamed senior law enforcement official mentioned in a federal indictment of the state Senate president pro tempore who warned her to stop allegedly illegally selling marijuana. / SCIENCE & HEALTH A study of rats found that “acute ingestion of CBD has prosexual effects, mainly manifested in sexual motivation, which were particularly evident in the sexually inhibited male rats.” A review concluded that “reductions in anhedonia…were consistently observed following psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy wherein two randomized clinical trials reported greater improvements in anhedonia relative to control or comparator groups.” / ADVOCACY, OPINION & ANALYSIS The National Sheriffs Association, National Narcotics Officers’ Associations’ Coalition, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association and other groups sent a letter asking the Drug Enforcement Administration and Food and Drug Administration to permanently place the entire kratom plant and its preparations and analogues in Schedule I. / BUSINESS MariMed Inc. shareholders approved a proposed reverse stock split. Illinois retailers sold $118.6 million worth of legal recreational marijuana products in September. / CULTURE Bill Maher reacted to President Donald Trump calling him a “major pothead.” 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: Photo courtesy of Carlos Gracia. The post Feds grant protections to 900+ cannabis businesses—with major exceptions (Newsletter: November 2, 2026) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

There are so many interesting girl games available online, and each one brings a different experience. Free browser games make it simple to discover new hobbies and enjoy creative challenges.

I liked that the explanations did not feel overly complicated, which typing games free the main points much easier to understand.

“Police already face considerable demands on their time and resources, and renewed cannabis enforcement would add to that burden.” by Diane Goldstein and Karen Hawkes, Law Enforcement Action Partnership via CommonWealth Beacon Ten years ago, Massachusetts voters made a clear choice about how the state should approach marijuana. After decades of policy defined by prohibition, their 2016 vote on a ballot question created a legal, regulated retail market for cannabis. For those of us in law enforcement, the vote prompted serious reflection. Many of us had spent our careers enforcing cannabis laws. But to what end? The question was not simply whether marijuana carried risks, but whether prohibition was an effective or appropriate response to those risks. We also had to consider the consequences of criminalizing conduct involving consenting adults. A hard look at the evidence and our own experience pointed toward a different approach. Legalization provided an alternative to prohibition, allowing adults to obtain cannabis through lawful businesses while reducing the need for criminal enforcement. With fewer resources devoted to low-level cannabis offenses, police could concentrate on more serious threats to public safety. In the decade since, Massachusetts has established a regulated market that provides adults with legal access to cannabis, subject to testing and consumer safeguards. But now voters are being asked to revisit that decision through Question 8, a ballot measure that would repeal the state’s adult-use cannabis retail system and move policy back toward prohibition. There appears to be little appetite among many in law enforcement for returning to the enforcement practices of the past. In conversations with current and former officers, we’ve heard a consistent concern: Police already face considerable demands on their time and resources, and renewed cannabis enforcement would add to that burden. That isn’t to say law enforcement has no concerns about cannabis use or the current market. Impaired driving, sales to minors, and unsafe products are legitimate public safety issues. But criminalizing cannabis commerce is not the same as addressing those harms. Renewed enforcement of cannabis prohibition could divert already limited law-enforcement resources from investigating violent crime, combating human trafficking and protecting vulnerable members of our communities. A regulated retail market provides consumers with information and safeguards that can be difficult to ensure when transactions occur outside an established oversight system. According to figures cited by the campaign, 84 percent of Massachusetts cannabis consumers obtained their cannabis through legal channels in 2023, compared with approximately 61 percent in 2019. This shift suggests that many consumers have chosen the regulated market when given the opportunity. Three issues deserve particular attention in this debate: youth use, impaired driving and product safety. Each presents genuine challenges, and each calls for thoughtful public policy rather than a return to blanket prohibition. When it comes to protecting young people, Massachusetts has seen a substantial decline in reported cannabis use among public high school students. According to figures attributed to the state’s Youth Health Survey, past-30-day use fell from 30.2 percent in 2019 to 13 percent in 2025. Although this decline cannot necessarily be attributed to legalization, it challenges the assumption that a legal adult-use market inevitably leads to increased adolescent consumption. Licensed retailers are required to verify government-issued identification, providing one means of limiting sales to minors. Education, prevention and treatment remain essential, and revenue from legal cannabis sales helps support public health initiatives. Eliminating that revenue would create additional funding challenges. Impaired driving is also a serious concern. Cannabis can impair judgment and driving ability, and operating a vehicle while impaired remains illegal regardless of how marijuana is obtained. Repealing legal retail sales would not eliminate consumption or the possibility of impaired driving. Regulation currently provides opportunities for consumer warnings, public awareness campaigns, and law enforcement training. Massachusetts has dedicated nearly $5 million to campaigns addressing responsible consumption, impaired driving and related safety concerns. Product safety offers another reason to preserve effective consumer protections. Licensed cannabis products are subject to testing, potency and ingredient labeling, child-resistant packaging and tracking requirements. When a problem arises, regulators can trace products, investigate concerns and take corrective action. These protections help consumers make informed choices and provide mechanisms for responding to unsafe products. The challenge is to maintain appropriate standards without relying unnecessarily on criminal penalties. The work isn’t finished. We can continue improving consumer protections, public education, and efforts to prevent impaired driving. But criminalizing cannabis commerce is not the same as protecting the public. Law enforcement resources are better directed toward conduct that causes genuine harm rather than consensual transactions between adults. A decade ago, Massachusetts voters chose a different approach to cannabis policy. Whatever improvements may still be needed, returning to prohibition would raise serious questions about enforcement priorities, consumer safety, and the effective use of public resources. Those are questions voters deserve to consider carefully as they approach Question 8. Dianne Goldstein is a retired California police lieutenant and executive director of the Law Enforcement Action Partnership. Karen Hawkes is a retired Massachusetts state trooper. This article first appeared on CommonWealth Beacon and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. The post Massachusetts Voters Should Keep Marijuana Sales Legal, Retired Cops Say (Op-Ed) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Today, I was just browsing along and came upon your blog. Just wanted to say good blog and this article helped me a lot, due to which I have found exactly I was looking. 0DTE

This is such a great resource that you are providing and you give it away for free. I love seeing blog that understand the value of providing a quality resource for free. iptv sverige

Relating to a short time ago begun a good webpage, the info everyone deliver on this website has got improved my family dramatically. Kudos meant for your whole point in time & job. sterlina oro

Efficiently written information. It will be profitable to anybody who utilizes it, counting me. Keep up the good work. For certain I will review out more posts day in and day out. 0DTE

Pretty nice post. I just stumbled upon your weblog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed browsing your blog posts. After all I’ll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you write again soon! options flow

“We’ve also been doing some other educational work with the physicians…making sure that they’re comfortable with the patient registry and the different requirements under the law.” By Anna Barrett, Alabama Reflector Two medical cannabis dispensaries are expected to open next week, bringing the total to five statewide, Alabama officials announced Thursday. Justin Aday, general counsel for the Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission, said one of the dispensaries will open in Bessemer and will be the third location of Callie’s Apothecary, the first medical cannabis dispensary to open in the state. It has operating locations in Montgomery and Talladega. Aday said the other dispensary is expected to open in Birmingham next week, the second location of Bama Bloom. It has an operating location in Athens and a third planned in Etowah County. “Altogether we have those two dispensary licensees that are operating. We have five cultivators who are operating, two processors are operating, two secure transporters and then of course the one state testing lab that we have,” Aday said. He projected the three open dispensaries would generate $130,000 to $140,000 in revenue in October. “The past two months, we’ve had a little over $120,000 monthly revenue, which is pretty good for a new market,” Sam Blakemore, chair of the commission said. The commission has awarded dispensary licenses to three companies, who can have three locations each. One license has yet to be awarded due to litigation, but there will be twelve dispensaries across the state under that license once all are awarded and operational. The third dispensary licensee, RJK Holdings, has locations planned in Oxford, Mobile and Daphne. “It’s been fully briefed. It’s before the court of civil appeals, and the court could issue a ruling on merits at any time,” said Mark Wilkerson, an attorney with the commission. At the program’s full capacity, it can also award five integrated facility licenses—businesses that can cultivate, process and dispense medical cannabis—which will bring the dispensary count up to 37. Litigation is still pending for those licensees, and the commission is far from awarding those licenses, Wilkerson said. The Alabama medical cannabis law, enacted in 2021, allows registered physicians to recommend cannabis for about 15 medical conditions, including cancer, depression, Parkinson’s Disease, PTSD, sickle-cell anemia, chronic pain and terminal diseases. People who suffer from the qualifying conditions must get approval from their physician and enter the patient registry in order to buy products at a dispensary. The approved product forms are restricted to tablets, tinctures, patches, oils and gel cubes (only peach flavor), with raw plant material and smokable forms remaining prohibited. As of Thursday, there are 83 physicians certified to recommend medical cannabis to patients in Alabama, according to the Alabama Board of Medical Examiners. Aday said 62 are registered with the AMCC, and the commission is “making contact” with the remaining physicians to ensure they get registered. “We’ve also been doing some other educational work with the physicians, and we will have another webinar next week for the physicians that the Board of Medical Examiners has approved, going through just the process, making sure that they’re comfortable with the patient registry and the different requirements under the law,” Aday said. He said more than 2,300 medical cannabis cards have been issued. John McMillan, director of the commission, also announced his intent to retire. Blakemore appointed several commissioners, and himself, to a transition committee to search for a replacement. “I think we’re going to open it up to all resumes from wherever we can find them, and we’re going to work with the personnel department to narrow it down,” Blakemore said. The transition committee will report its progress at the commission’s December meeting. This story was first published by Alabama Reflector. The post More Alabama Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Are Set To Open This Week, Officials Announce appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“They’re all very anxious to see if relief is on the way and if we’re going to see that guidance from the IRS that basically directs what they can do.” By Rebecca Rivas, Missouri Independent Missouri marijuana businesses had reason to celebrate in April when the federal officials moved medical marijuana into a less restrictive category of controlled substances. The federal order could also set marijuana companies on a path to substantial federal tax savings. For years, federal law has prevented many cannabis businesses from deducting ordinary expenses—including employee salaries, rent and other costs—when calculating their federal taxes. But months after the change, Missouri businesses still don’t know exactly how to claim those savings, especially if they sell both medical and recreational marijuana. That uncertainty was a key topic this month on the Missouri Division of Cannabis Regulation’s DCR OutLoud podcast, where leaders of the Missouri Cannabis Trade Association said they’re waiting for federal tax officials to explain how the new rules will work. “Not only is the cannabis industry here in Missouri one of the most regulated industries, but it’s also one of the most taxed,” said Andrew Mullins, executive director of the association. The federal tax rule at the center of the debate is known as Section 280E. It generally prevents businesses that sell certain federally prohibited drugs from deducting everyday business expenses. This prohibition results in an effective income tax rate on marijuana businesses of as high as 80 percent, compared to the standard federal corporate rate of 21 percent. Missouri already allows licensed marijuana businesses to deduct those expenses on their state income tax returns, but the federal restriction has remained in place. The April order moved marijuana regulated under state medical licenses into Schedule III but left recreational marijuana in Schedule I. That leaves businesses that sell both types of cannabis with a difficult question: How much of their spending can they deduct? “Certainly they’re all very anxious to see if relief is on the way and if we’re going to see that guidance from the IRS that basically directs what they can do…” Mullins said. In late September, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service listed Section 280E guidance among their priorities for the coming fiscal year, which runs through September 2027. But the list includes more than 100 other tasks. Amy Moore, director of the Missouri Division of Cannabis Regulation, said the federal order creates a particular challenge for states such as Missouri, where many businesses handle medical and recreational sales under the same license. “In our state, the difference between medical and just adult-use consumer product really only comes into play at that moment of sale when a particular tax rate is applied,” Moore said on the podcast. “But that [Department of Justice] order seems to be really organized around medical marijuana.” Drew Lammert, chair of the trade association’s government affairs committee, said businesses may have to make their own decisions about how to divide expenses between medical and recreational sales while they wait for federal guidance. Lammert is also the co-founder of High Fidelity Brands, where he says medical marijuana sales make up only 10 percent of the company’s business. “We are excited, but there’s also those questions of the unknowns,” he said, “and what does that mean for the 90 percent of adult use sales out there.” Separating the weed Missouri issues what it calls “comprehensive licenses,” allowing businesses to serve both medical marijuana patients and recreational customers. At cultivation facilities, plants also aren’t separated into medical and recreational categories as they grow. “That is the beauty of the comprehensive license,” Lammert said. “There’s a lot of burden taken away with trying to track two separate systems, medical versus adult use.” That arrangement makes operating a business simpler. But it could make the new federal tax rules harder to apply. If a company grows the same plants, uses the same staff and operates out of the same buildings to supply both medical patients and recreational customers, it must determine which costs belong to its medical business—the part that may qualify for federal tax deductions. “At retail, it’s simple,” Lammert said. “The person is either purchasing as a medical patient or purchasing as an adult-use consumer. But it gets a little more complicated when you go upstream to manufacturers and cultivators.” Lammert said his team has considered using the percentage of dispensary sales made to medical patients to estimate how much of the company’s growing and manufacturing costs should count toward its medical business. “These are just some of the things that I think we’re going to have to figure out if we don’t get any further distinction or guidance as to how comprehensive licenses are going to be handled under this new rescheduling order,” he said. Moore said she had heard another possible approach: using the medical share of sales across Missouri’s entire cannabis market to determine how much of each company’s expenses qualify. “I imagine that some licensees that have a higher percentage of medical would not be particularly satisfied with that,” she said. “I certainly don’t have any answers on how this is going to go.” The financial stakes could be substantial, Lammert said. “If all of a sudden our businesses are allowed to take those standard business deductions,” he said, “I can write off the 30 people we have at our corporate headquarters and all those salaries. The lease on our corporate office, all that now becomes deductible.” Preparing for tax season without answers The Treasury Department and IRS said in April that they expect the rescheduling order to have “significant positive tax consequences” for medical marijuana businesses. But Kevin Jednachowski, chief value officer of the Denver-based Mindtrix Accounting firm, told The Independent this month that companies need more than the federal order to file their tax returns—and it’s unclear when the IRS will get to the items on its to-do list. “Items slip,” Jednachowski wrote in a blog post on his website. “Some never get issued. The guidance, when it comes, may be narrower than the statements that preceded it.” Until federal officials explain how the new rules work, cannabis companies must decide how to plan for their tax bills. “Here is where the uncertainty turns into dollars,” he said. “If you are a C corporation, your last 2026 estimated payment is due Dec. 15.” If companies underpay, they’ll owe penalties and interest on top of the tax. But if they overpay, they might not see that money back from the IRS for a while. “There is no clean answer, and we are not going to pretend there is one,” Jednachowski said. “The position most operators can defend is to pay estimates on a basis you can support today, and document why.” Jednachowski recommends that businesses prepare three estimates of what they might owe in 2026. The first would assume nothing has changed and that the business receives no tax relief. The second would estimate the savings from medical marijuana sales, using a reasonable method to divide costs between medical and recreational operations. The third would calculate the largest tax savings the company could reasonably justify. Comparing those estimates would help companies understand how much money they might owe under different outcomes. “For many operators that gap is large enough to affect payroll, vendor terms, or a planned build-out,” he said. “Know how big the gap is today. Do not discover it in March.” He also recommends that companies start keeping detailed records of the costs tied to their medical operations, including employee time, facilities, inventory and fees. They should document how they divide shared expenses and keep the information supporting those decisions. That way, if federal officials eventually set different rules, businesses can adjust their calculations and explain how they arrived at their original figures. “If new guidance prescribes a different approach, you can adjust and show why,” he said. “If it doesn’t, you already have a documented position. Almost every scenario depends on being able to say which dollars belong to which side of the business.” This story was first published by Missouri Independent. Photo courtesy of Chris Wallis // Side Pocket Images. The post Marijuana Businesses Face Tax Uncertainty While Awaiting Federal Rescheduling Guidance appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Choosing between different listings requires attention to detail rather than relying on short descriptions. Escort in Paschim Vihar can help adults explore relevant local profiles and understand the information presented. Verifying details and confirming arrangements directly can support clearer expectations and informed choices.

While the Department of Justice announced on Friday that it has given federal registration and protections to more than 900 medical cannabis businesses across the U.S., it is also refusing to extend such approvals to cannabis operators in certain states. According to an order DEA officials sent to a marijuana business in Minnesota, the agency “cannot permit any applicant operating under” the state’s law to have access to federal protections that come with the Trump administration’s federal cannabis rescheduling move. Specifically, DEA told In-Dispensary in Minneapolis that the state’s “dual-purpose marijuana license, permitting both medical and non-medical dispensing falls outside the recent promulgated definition of ‘state medical license'” in federal policy. “For DEA to sanction or bestow the imprimatur of legitimacy upon such conduct by granting a registration would be inconsistent with the [Controlled Substances Act] as well as United States’ treaty obligations,” the order to show cause that was signed by Cheri Oz, assistant administrator of DEA’s Diversion Control Division, says. Minnesota’s “state regime fails to provide ‘robust protections’ against diversion, as non-medical use of marijuana remains prohibited under federal law,” the document, which was first reported by The Minnesota Star-Tribune, says. DOJ announced on Friday that more than 900 medical cannabis businesses have been approved, and they are all located in the states of Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia. Each of those states only permits medical cannabis while recreational marijuana remains prohibited—with the exception of Virginia, which passed legislation to legalize adult-use marijuana sales this year but has not yet initiated licensing. “By allowing the dispensing of marijuana for non-medical purposes concomitant with and under the same state license as dispensing for medical purposes, the State of Minnesota’s regime not only lacks ‘robust protections against diversion,’ but also lacks the capacity to achieve the public interest objectives underlying the CSA’s registration framework,” the order to In-Dispensary says. “Registering an applicant with the state authority to dispense a controlled substance for non-medical purposes—constituting per se diversion under the CSA—would violate federal law and promote such other conduct which may threaten the public health and safety,” the agency said. DEA also said it cannot grant registration to marijuana businesses in Minnesota because state law allows dispensing of medical cannabis to some patients without written certifications from doctors. Specifically, the state lets military veterans access medical marijuana “who merely submit their veteran identification and an attestation that the veteran has been diagnosed with a qualifying medical condition,” DEA said. The federal agency’s order additionally says it cannot register the Minneapolis dispensary because Minnesota’s law “permits dispensaries to dispense synthetic marijuana products,” referring to hemp-derived cannabinoids. The document says In-Dispensary can file a request for a hearing to dispute the decision within 30 days. It can alternatively submit a “corrective action plan.” The Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management told the Star-Tribune that DEA’s order “does not impact the state law that authorizes Minnesota’s medical cannabis and adult-use cannabis programs.” “Medical cannabis remains available to patients in the state,” it said. “Minnesota is committed to fostering an equitable cannabis industry that prioritizes public health and safety, consumer confidence, and market integrity, and we believe our regulatory program can serve as a model for other states.” That said, if marijuana businesses in states that permit dual-licensing for medical and adult-use cannabis are not able to access federal registration, they may miss out on benefits and protections that come with rescheduling. Meanwhile, however, a DEA hearing that recently concluded testimony is considering broader marijuana rescheduling beyond medical cannabis. That said, there are no written certifications from doctors under state recreational marijuana programs—so it’s unclear if and how adult-use businesses could receive federal registration status even if broader rescheduling is adopted, given DEA’s stance on Minnesota’s law allowing veterans to access medical cannabis without such certifications. Read DEA’s order to the Minnesota marijuana business below: Photo courtesy of Philip Steffan. The post DEA Refuses To Approve Marijuana Businesses In States That Allow Dual Medical And Recreational Licensing appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has issued new guidance warning that medical marijuana businesses that want to receive federal registration and protections under the Trump administration’s rescheduling reform have until late November to begin sourcing cannabis only from and to other companies that have also been granted or applied for registration in a timely fashion. “If a Timely Applicant or DEA registrant engages in schedule III medical marijuana activities with someone other than a Timely Applicant or DEA registrant, such conduct could be potential grounds for denial of a Timely Applicant’s application or revocation of a certificate of registration, respectively,” the four-page document says. It was published on Friday in conjunction with a Department of Justice announcement that DEA has issued federal registrations to more than 900 medical marijuana dispensaries in states across the U.S. in line with the process of federally rescheduling cannabis. “Timely Applicants and registrants therefore should take adequate steps to confirm the status of all entities with which they will conduct schedule III medical marijuana activities,” the DEA guidance says, going on to outline due diligence steps that businesses should take to maintain compliance. Those include: Obtaining from Timely Applicants (if dispensers) a copy of the “Marijuana Dispensary Information Submission” confirmation received from DEA at the time of application submission and verifying the Timely Applicant’s document control number (DCN) via the DEA Diversion Control Website; Obtaining from Timely Applicants (if manufacturers or distributors) a copy of the submission confirmation provided by DEA at the time of application submission and verifying the Timely Applicant’s DCN via the DEA Diversion Control Website; Obtaining from DEA registrants a copy of the registrant’s DEA certificate of registration; • Obtaining a copy of the entity’s relevant state license and verifying its status is active; and Maintaining records of all due diligence conducted. DEA said it recognizes that some states require licensed medical cannabis businesses to send marijuana to state-licensed third-party laboratories for testing, which “can help protect public safety and prevent unlawful products from entering the market.” Because not all medical marijuana businesses seeking federal registration have access to DEA-registered analytical laboratories, the agency said it “does not intend to penalize registrants and Timely Applicants for sending de minimis quantities of schedule III medical marijuana to a laboratory that is not DEA-registered to conduct analytical testing of schedule III medical marijuana, provided that (1) the analytical laboratory is located in the same state, and (2) the Timely Applicant/registrant retains detailed records of all such distributions.” “This exercise of the Administrator’s discretion applies only when the use of a DEA-registered laboratory would violate state law,” the guidance says. “Specifically, it applies only to the extent that either (1) no entities anywhere in the United States are registered with DEA to conduct analytical testing of schedule III medical marijuana, or (2) state law prohibits the Timely Applicant/registrant from sending schedule III medical marijuana to an analytical laboratory in a different state, and no entities in the Timely Applicant/registrant’s state are registered with DEA to conduct analytical testing of schedule III medical marijuana.” DEA is cautioning that the discretion “does not permit Timely Applicants and registrants to receive schedule III medical marijuana from non-DEA-registered analytical laboratories.” The agency said it “recognizes Timely Applicants may require additional time to verify the status of their existing trading partners as Timely Applicants or registrants and to make necessary adjustments to their supply chain to comply with this information.” As such, they are “expected to complete these activities and establish compliant supply chains ” by no later than November 29. “Timely Dispenser Applicants and Timely Distributor Applicants may continue to possess, dispense, and distribute existing inventories of schedule III medical marijuana acquired prior to the issuance of this information, including inventory previously obtained from entities that do not qualify as Timely Applicants or DEA registrants,” the guidance says. “Such inventory may continue to be used in otherwise authorized activities.” In April, Attorney General Todd Blanche issued an order immediately moving marijuana products regulated by a state medical cannabis license from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III, along with marijuana products that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Within days, DEA began accepting registrations from medical cannabis dispensaries with a new form, giving expedited processing to those who applied within a 60-day window. Earlier this month, the agency launched new specialized registration forms for additional types of state-licensed medical marijuana businesses such as manufacturers, distributors and analytical labs. DEA announced on Friday that nearly 7,000 medical marijuana businesses have already applied for federal protections under rescheduling. Meanwhile, a process considering the federal rescheduling of non-medical marijuana is underway. The post DEA Warns Medical Marijuana Businesses To Only Obtain Products From Federally Registered Companies appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

The Trump administration has issued federal registrations to hundreds of medical marijuana dispensaries in states across the U.S. in line with the process of federally rescheduling cannabis, Attorney General Todd Blanche has announced. “The American people deserve access to the best medical treatments in the world,” the attorney general said on Friday. “The regulated distribution of medical marijuana by the applicants that have been granted registration by the Drug Enforcement Administration will help ensure broader access to chronic pain treatment and the safety of the American people.” “The Department of Justice will continue prosecuting illegal marijuana trafficking and related criminal activity in accordance with federal law,” he added. The Department of Justice said the registrations “mark the first phase of implementing” marijuana rescheduling. The initial registrations include more than 900 dispensaries in Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia. The first batch of registrations is being granted to businesses that submitted their applications during a 60-period for expedited consideration. DEA separately announced on Friday that nearly 7,000 medical marijuana businesses have already applied for federal protections under rescheduling. The agency began accepting registrations from medical cannabis dispensaries with a new form in April, days after Attorney General Todd Blanche issued an order immediately moving marijuana products regulated by a state medical cannabis license from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III, along with marijuana products that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Earlier this month, DEA launched new specialized registration forms for additional types of state-licensed medical marijuana businesses such as manufacturers, distributors and analytical labs. A DEA hearing that recently concluded testimony is considering broader marijuana rescheduling beyond medical cannabis. “State licensure alone does not automatically grant federal registration,” DOJ said on Friday. “Registered dispensaries will be subject to applicable federal requirements, including security, recordkeeping, inventory controls, and other safeguards governing the handling of controlled substances.” DEA will continue processing dispensary applications and issuing registrations “through a phased registration process,” the department said, while also beginning to consider registration applications from medical cannabis manufacturers and distributors, which require additional review such as facility inspections, production controls and quota determinations. The post DEA Officially Grants Federal Registration And Protections To More Than 900 Medical Marijuana Dispensaries appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Alcohol industry lobbyists have pushed top state law enforcement officials to pressure Congress in support of keeping the federal recriminalization of hemp THC products on track, according to a new report. Politico on Thursday reported it had obtained a “collection of emails” in which lobbyists for major alcohol companies such as Anheuser-Busch, Molson Coors and Diageo urged state attorneys general to sign a letter that asked Congress not to reverse course on the scheduled hemp product ban. “There are a couple fringe U.S. Senators who would like to extend the loophole by another year in the CR being debated this weekend on Capitol Hill,” Todd Kranda, a partner at the firm Kelsch, Ruff, Kranda, Nagle and Ludwig, wrote in a July email to North Dakota’s attorney general, referring to a continuing resolution to fund the government, the outlet reported. Kranda said in the email that he was working on behalf of Anheuser-Busch, Politico reported, adding that it and other similar emails were “obtained by a hemp industry representative through public records requests and shared” with the outlet. In August, North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley (R) joined a bipartisan coalition of 34 other state and territory attorneys general in sending a letter asking federal lawmakers to reject “any effort to delay, repeal, suspend, or weaken” the hemp ban and ensure it “takes effect as enacted and remains in place thereafter.” 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, the president signed new legislation containing provisions that redefined hemp to make it so only products with 0.4 milligrams of total THC per container would remain legal after November 12. Now, however, under provisions included in a funding bill Trump signed last month, the effective date of the ban for most products is being pushed back to December 11 to give lawmakers more time to craft regulations for hemp derivatives. There is a carve-out, however, to allow the recriminalization on November 12 of synthetic cannabinoids “that are not capable of being naturally produced by a Cannabis sativa L. plant.” Meanwhile, a Republican congressman is raising the possibility that provisions to reverse the still-planned federal recriminalization of hemp THC products could be included in a broader budget reconciliation bill during the lame-duck session of Congress following next week’s midterm elections. “I think we need to get my THC regulatory bill passed, and if we could get that into a reconciliation bill before the 11th of December, that’d be fabulous,” Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA) told Roll Call this week, referring to the current date by which hemp THC products are set to become federally illegal again. Earlier this year, Griffith and Rep. Marc Veasey (D-TX) filed the Hemp Enforcement, Modernization, and Protection (HEMP) Act, which would keep hemp products legal and enact new regulations on the market. The GOP lawmaker also told Roll Call that he thought provisions of his legislation could be “combined with a measure related to taxes on hemp-derived products,” such as a beverage-focused bill from Rep. Beth Van Duyne (R-TX) that would keep hemp THC drinks legal while taxing and regulating them like alcohol. Griffith acknowledged that certain other Republican lawmakers such as Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) and Sen. Ted Budd (R-NC) “just want to stop” intoxicating hemp products, but he argued that “if we don’t do something before that December 11 deadline, that it’s going to create all kinds of issues.” “So, now the question becomes: Do you want to have good products that are third-party tested, that [have] a restriction on the age of purchase, that has all this other stuff? Some of the states are doing that,” he said. “But if you’re going to look at it from a federal level, I don’t think we can stop it.” Herb Light, a company that makes low-dose THC beverages, recently launched a promotion that lets customers who are purchasing a 12-pack of THC drinks add a six-pack for their congressional lawmakers. The company says it will handle delivery to lawmakers and will include a letter urging support for a pending bill in Congress to keep hemp THC drinks federally legal under a new system of regulations. Members of Congress are debating how and whether the crop’s derivatives should be regulated as an alternative to prohibition. Several Republican lawmakers recently spoke to Marijuana Moment about the kinds of rules they would like to see enacted to keep hemp THC products legal. A number of lawmakers from both chambers and both parties have filed or are circulating a growing number of bills to prevent the scheduled federal recriminalization of hemp THC drinks and other products. Until now, none of those proposals have gained traction with congressional leaders. In addition to the bills from Griffith and Van Duyne, Rep. James Comer (R-KY), who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is circulating legislation that would delay a planned federal ban on hemp THC products and institute some regulations—including packaging requirements, testing rules and age limits. Separately, Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY), filed a lengthier proposal to prevent the federal recriminalization of hemp THC products and put in place a number of regulations for manufacturing, labeling, sales and taxation of hemp-derived products, including an age limit of 21. Trump and White House officials repeatedly pressed Congress to delay, alter or reverse the ban in recent months. In a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) in June, for example, White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought said the Trump administration wants lawmakers to “ensure the fair treatment of hemp products”—specifically citing Barr’s earlier amendment to keep many hemp products legal while adding regulations and taxes. 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 in June, “while preserving the Congress’s intent to restrict the sale of products that pose serious health risks.” Also 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. “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.” Some members of the alcohol industry have also urged Congress to regulate, rather than ban, hemp products. The National Restaurant Association recently sent a letter urging congressional leaders to delay the federal recriminalization of hemp THC beverages and replace it with a regulatory framework that “ensures consumer safety while meeting growing market demand” for the products as an alternative to alcohol. Major retailer Target, meanwhile, recently moved to expand its sales of hemp THC drinks into more states. Meanwhile, the hemp product issue has proved controversial within the cannabis reform movement. The Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) recently sent an action alert asking its supporters to pressure Congress to reverse the scheduled ban on hemp THC products and institute a system of regulations for all cannabinoids as an alternative to criminalization. A former MPP staffer who now works for the American Trade Association for Cannabis and Hemp (ATACH), pushed back in an op-ed for Marijuana Moment, however, arguing that “the charade of hemp intoxicants must end” and that “sneaking in the back door with synthetic drugs nobody asked for is not the path to legalization.” The post Alcohol Lobbyists Encouraged Law Enforcement Officials To Push For Federal Hemp Crackdown, Report Says appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has released information about state-licensed medical marijuana business that have applied in a timely fashion for federal protections that come with the Trump administration’s move to partially reschedule cannabis. An agency webpage formally launched on Friday says the list—which details the states included in applicants’ business addresses, as well as whether they are dispensaries, manufacturers or distributors—will be updated on a daily basis. It shows that more than 4,000 dispensaries, more than 700 distributors and more than 2,000 manufacturers have applied, for a total of 6,983. The list does not include the names of the companies behind each applicant location, however. “This list is current as of the date included in the file,” the DEA page says. “This list may change as Timely Applicants are granted DEA registrations, withdraw their applications for DEA registration, or are no longer considered Timely Applicants for any other reason.” There are at least 43 states, along with Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico, represented on the list—with Oklahoma having the most individual entries (2,442), followed by Florida (812) and California (771). State Dispensaries Distributors Manufacturers Total Alabama 1 0 2 3 Arizona 100 24 44 168 Arkansas 38 4 11 53 California 491 82 198 771 Colorado 89 17 35 141 Connecticut 38 3 9 50 Delaware 5 0 2 7 District of Columbia 24 1 5 30 Florida 748 19 45 812 Georgia 60 2 5 67 Hawaii 14 0 3 17 Illinois 59 6 17 82 Iowa 2 1 1 4 Kansas 2 0 0 2 Kentucky 31 8 15 54 Louisiana 27 3 4 34 Maine 148 45 127 320 Maryland 90 21 31 142 Massachusetts 62 12 35 109 Michigan 25 6 25 56 Minnesota 26 1 3 30 Mississippi 97 5 28 130 Missouri 156 18 35 209 Montana 6 1 3 10 Nebraska 2 0 1 3 Nevada 81 10 28 119 New Hampshire 7 2 5 14 New Jersey 40 4 16 60 New Mexico 77 5 14 96 New York 40 10 23 73 North Dakota 8 1 2 11 Ohio 125 8 27 160 Oklahoma 939 345 1,158 2,442 Oregon 26 2 9 37 Pennsylvania 181 12 34 227 Puerto Rico 114 2 10 126 Rhode Island 4 0 1 5 South Dakota 43 2 10 55 Texas 4 2 3 9 Utah 14 5 9 28 Vermont 7 2 3 12 Virginia 24 1 6 31 Washington 74 12 22 108 West Virginia 48 6 12 66 Total 4,197 710 2,076 6,983 DEA had initially posted the webpage on Wednesday but then deleted it following publication of a Marijuana Moment article before putting it back online on Thursday. By “timely” applicants, it appears DEA is referring to medical marijuana businesses that applied within a 60-day window of the initial rescheduling announcement to receive expedited consideration. “To facilitate a prompt transition, the Administrator is directed to process applications submitted within 60 days of publication within six months, and early applicants may lawfully operate under their state-issued licenses during the pendency of review,” the rescheduling rule issued in April said. Days later, DEA began accepting registrations from medical cannabis dispensaries with a new form. Earlier this month, the agency launched new specialized registration forms for additional types of state-licensed medical marijuana businesses such as manufacturers, distributors and analytical labs. Businesses that fill out the new version of DEA Form 225 for manufacturers, distributors and analytical labs must answer whether they will be handling medical and/or recreational marijuana, and provide their state licensing information. They also need to specify if they will be working with marijuana, marijuana extract and/or naturally derived delta-9 THC in a cannabis product subject to a state medical license or a Food and Drug Administration-approved product. They must also answer questions about the criminal and disciplinary history of the business and key personnel. Previously, dispensaries could fill out a specialized form during the 60-day window for expedited consideration. Dispensaries that still want to register can now use the standard DEA Form 224 to do so. Meanwhile, DEA personnel are conducting inspections of medical marijuana dispensaries that previously applied for registration. One such business owner told Marijuana Moment recently that she plans to fight a decision by DEA that she says could force her to fire two good employees if she wants to register for protections under rescheduling. Nicole Huff, CEO of the Wildflower Medical Dispensary in Aberdeen, shared with Marijuana Moment correspondence that a DEA official sent about the two workers in question, who have past felony convictions. As a result of those criminal records, the business must either fire the employees, withdraw its application for federal protections, seek a waiver while becoming ineligible for expedited processing or go before an agency judge. Huff told said she will take the issue before a DEA judge. Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) recently criticized the policy, telling Marijuana Moment that it is “really problematic” and “ridiculous.” “I think there should be for these nonviolent offenders who are convicted of crimes that are now legal, that we should be expunging records,” he said. “If you are a person that believes in justice, that believes in economic opportunity, fairness under the law—if you believe in economic growth, if you’re a pro-growth person—these are all things that help create jobs, build economy, keep people out of jail,” Booker said. “It’s just smart policy.” Industry sources say the way the agency has been carrying out inspections varies between DEA’s regional offices throughout the country. In June, Mississippi medical cannabis businesses spoke to Marijuana Moment about being visited by DEA officials, who told them they were among the first in the country to be seen for inspection under the registration process. In August, Marijuana Moment obtained a list of 26 questions that DEA officials are sending to medical cannabis businesses in Colorado as part of the consideration of their applications for registration. Those questions differ in many cases from ones being asked of Mississippi operators. The agency launched its initial registration form for dispensaries in April, days after Attorney General Todd Blanche issued an order immediately moving marijuana products regulated by a state medical cannabis license from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III, along with marijuana products that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). A DEA hearing that recently concluded testimony is considering broader marijuana rescheduling. The post Nearly 7,000 Marijuana Businesses Have Applied For Federal Protections Under Trump’s Rescheduling Move, New DEA List Shows appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

A Democratic congresswoman has filed a new bill that would impose a substantial tariff on hemp products being imported into the U.S. from China while also adding new testing requirements for cannabinoid products coming into the country. The Protecting American Hemp Farmers Act, filed on Thursday by Rep. Val Hoyle (D-OR), would “impose an additional duty of 50 percent of the customs value of any article originating from China” that is a hemp-derived cannabinoid product or other specified cannabinoid when imported into the U.S.’s customs territory. The legislation directs the U.S. International Trade Commission to add new categories to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule for cannabinoid isolates, cannabinoid distillates, naturally derived cannabinoids, synthetic cannabinoids and chemically altered cannabinoids. The measure defines the term hemp-derived cannabinoid products as meaning “any product containing cannabinoids derived or synthesized from Cannabis sativa L., or any extract, isolate, or derivative thereof, regardless of whether such product meets the definition of hemp” under federal law. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) would be directed under the bill to require “such additional information or certifications from any person importing hemp or related products as may be necessary to ensure that articles subject to the additional tariff…do not evade such tariff through transshipment or other repackaging, blending, or minimal processing in third countries.” CBP would also need to coordinate with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to implement mandatory testing requirements for cannabinoid products being imported into the U.S. for human consumption. The testing would need to measure the presence of: (1) heavy metal content, such as lead, cadmium, mercury, arsenic, molds, and mycotoxins; (2) pesticide residues; (3) microbial contamination; (4) residual solvents; and (5) synthetic byproducts and unknown compounds. CBP and the International Trade Commission would need to publish annual reports that track import data for cannabinoid products disaggregated by country of origin, cannabinoid classification, quantity and customs value. The reports would also need to include information about product testing and the extent to which imports were refused due to the results. The bill comes at a crucial time for the hemp industry. 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, the president signed new legislation containing provisions that redefined hemp to make it so only products with 0.4 milligrams of total THC per container would remain legal after November 12. Now, however, under provisions included in a funding bill Trump signed last month, the effective date of the ban for most products is being pushed back to December 11 to give lawmakers more time to craft regulations for hemp derivatives. There is a carve-out, however, to allow the recriminalization on November 12 of synthetic cannabinoids “that are not capable of being naturally produced by a Cannabis sativa L. plant.” Meanwhile, a Republican congressman is raising the possibility that provisions to reverse the still-planned federal recriminalization of hemp THC products could be included in a broader budget reconciliation bill during the lame-duck session of Congress following next week’s midterm elections. Read the full text of the new hemp bill below: The post Hemp Imports Would Face New Tariffs And Testing Requirements Under Congressional Bill appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

New Hampshire’s Republican governor is continuing to make it clear that she does not support legalizing marijuana as she asks voters to reelect her next week. Gov. Kelly Ayotte (R) said at a forum in Manchester on Sunday that the issue of cannabis represents a “big difference'” between her and Democratic challenger Cinde Warmington, who has consistently highlighted her support for marijuana legalization on the campaign trail ahead of next week’s election. The incumbent governor was asked at the forum whether she views legal marijuana revenue as a way to replace funding that is being cut for education, student sports and after-school programs. While Ayotte said it is “really important that we have a strong education system,” she does not think legalizing cannabis is the solution—citing concerns about addiction, mental health and impaired driving. “I don’t think that legalizing cannabis improves our quality of life,” she said. The governor pushed back against the notion that New Hampshire should catch up to its neighboring states that are legalizing marijuana. “I know often the argument is made, ‘well, there’s all of our neighbors are that way. Why shouldn’t we take this revenue?,'” she said. “I never say, ‘Oh, our neighbors are doing it, so we should do it.’ I think about my own children. I tell them, ‘Your friends are doing it, you’re doing it.'” “That’s not really a good standard,” Ayotte said. “We need to make sure we’re looking at our own quality of life and what is the right thing to do for New Hampshire. And when you legalize something, it does send a different message to our young people. So I worry about that and our quality of life. So this is just something we differ on, and I do not think that that revenue is one that comes without a deep cost for New Hampshire.” Ayotte also discussed her opposition to legalizing marijuana at a debate with Warmington last week, arguing that cannabis revenue “comes at a huge cost.” “It comes at the cost of the mental health of our young people. It comes at the cost of our quality of life,” she said. “I don’t think following because our neighbors do something, we should do it. We have the same discussion with our kids, right? If if Johnny jumps off the bridge, are you going to jump off the bridge with it?” Warmington, on the other hand, said during the debate that “I support the the sale and legalization of cannabis as an additional revenue source in our state.” “I think it is really odd that we are sending our citizenry over state lines and paying millions and millions—tens of millions—of dollars to our neighboring state in taxes when that revenue should be here in our state,” the former New Hampshire Executive Council member said. Warmington has previously discussed her support for legalizing marijuana, including at a town hall event last month when she said that “there is no reason why the citizens of New Hampshire should be driving across state borders to pay taxes to Massachusetts, Vermont and Maine to purchase a product that they obviously have stated that they want to have access to in our state.” Ayotte, for her part, recently vetoed legislation to allow businesses in the state’s existing medical cannabis program to cultivate in greenhouses. Her veto was overridden by lawmakers, however, and now the medical marijuana cultivation measure has become law despite her objections. In June, Warmington criticized Ayotte’s veto of the medical marijuana proposal. “Come on, Kelly. Shouldn’t we be trying to make health care more affordable for Granite Staters, not less?” said in a video posted to social media. “This bill would have made medical cannabis more affordable and more accessible to Granite Staters who really need it, and she vetoed it,” Warmington said. “But honestly, this is what we’ve come to expect from Kelly Ayotte. Look what she did to the Medicaid premiums. She increased them by up to $270 a month on the most vulnerable Granite Staters. She increased prescription co-pays when other costs are already going through the roof.” “New Hampshire deserves a governor who will fight to make sure we have lower health care costs and that health care is more accessible,” the Democratic candidate, who previously served as a member of the New Hampshire Executive Council, said. “That’s the bottom line.” In a veto statement on the medical marijuana greenhouse bill, the governor simply said, “I do not support expanding the cultivation of marijuana in our 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. — Ayotte has separately threatened to veto any marijuana legalization bill that reaches her desk. The governor said last year that her position on the reform would not change even as the federal government moved forward with rescheduling the plant. Photo courtesy of Philip Steffan. The post New Hampshire Should Keep Marijuana Illegal Even As Neighboring States Generate Tax Revenue From It, GOP Governor Says appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

The Democratic candidate running for governor of Kansas says the Trump administration’s move to federally reclassify marijuana eases the path toward legalizing medical cannabis for patients in the state. “I think there’s some things that look a little differently now with the federal-level rescheduling,” Cindy Holscher said in an interview published by KOAM-TV on Thursday. “That does create a little bit of a difference of attitude among some of my peers.” While the Democrat, who currently serves in the state Senate, said that the GOP president’s national cannabis reform is making some of her Republican colleagues in the legislature reconsider their opposition, she said her opponent in the governor’s race is to blame for continuing to block medical marijuana access in Kansas. “I worked on this issue for several years. Actually, got it passed in the House in terms of getting them on board. There was a lot of education that had to be done, but we got it passed in the House,” Holscher said. “But Ty Masterson blocked it in the Senate.” Senate President Ty Masterson (R), the GOP nominee for governor, has taken an inconsistent stance on cannabis over the years, at some points appearing open to considering it but at other times expressing opposition—but never allowing legalization legislation to advance in his chamber. In any case, his Democratic opponent said that Kansas is more ready now than ever to enact cannabis reform in light of federal moves on the issue. “I do feel there’s some difference now, though, with federal rescheduling,” she said. “Additionally, we already have people out there working to educate my peers in the House and the Senate.” Holscher’s latest comments come as a new poll shows that a majority of Kansans support legalizing marijuana for both recreational and medical uses. The latest edition of the annual Kansas Speaks survey, conducted by Fort Hays State University’s Docking Institute of Public Affairs, shows that Kansans back legalization of recreational marijuana by a margin of 58 percent to 21 percent—including majorities of Republicans, Democrats and independents. Support for legalizing medical cannabis is even stronger, at 65 percent to 15 percent. Holscher recently discussed Kansans’ support for marijuana reform in a separate interview. “I believe close to 70 percent of the population is in favor of legalization, but you get a few people once in a while who will say, ‘Well, we don’t want to bring that here,'” she said. “My response: It’s already here. If you drive along state line in Johnson County, you drive along the border on the southern edge to Oklahoma, and you see the dispensaries—there’s Kansas plates there. So it’s already here.” “But what’s happening is we aren’t getting the revenue for it, and we aren’t getting our guardrails in place. We need to do that,” Holscher said. “The revenue that’s projected to come in could help us do things like better funding public education in terms of special ed, could help us in terms of free lunches for kids—making that part of the day. You know there are things that we could do with that money to help build up our critical infrastructure and be better focused on our people.” Asked how she would get cannabis reform through a Republican-controlled legislature, Holscher said she and allies succeeded in passing a medical cannabis bill through the state House of Representatives in 2021 that went on to die in the Senate—putting blame for the ultimate defeat on Masterson. “You know, I got it passed in the House a few years ago. Guess who stopped it in the Senate? Ty Masterson,” she said. “The things that people want, the things that people support, he has been stopping.” Masterson, for his part, said in 2023 that was open to a discussion about a limited medical marijuana program. But in 2024, he appeared less welcoming to the idea, calling medical cannabis legalization a “nonstarter,” suggesting the policy change would lead to a surge in “gang activity” and put kids at risk. Incumbent Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly (D) said last year that it’s time for lawmakers in the state to finally legalize medical marijuana. After the House of Representatives passed a medical cannabis bill in 2021, it stalled out in the Senate. And while the Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee held numerous hearings on the issue, it voted in 2024 to table a limited medical marijuana pilot program bill. A later effort to revive the medical cannabis bill on the Senate floor ultimately fell short. That measure was filed about a month after the House rejected a Democratic lawmaker’s amendment to a broader drug scheduling bill that would have removed marijuana entirely from the state’s controlled substances law, effectively legalizing it. In 2024, meanwhile, a state legislative panel voted against a proposed recommendation that lawmakers legalize medical cannabis in 2025. The legislature’s Special Committee on Medical Marijuana, charged with consideration of possible pathways for medical cannabis reform, said legalizing medical marijuana was premature and that lawmakers should first wait to see how federal rescheduling and other reform efforts unfold. Photo courtesy of Mike Latimer. The post Trump’s Federal Marijuana Rescheduling Move Makes It Easier To Legalize Medical Access In Kansas, Democratic Governor Candidate Says appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net