All Activity

KOITOTO adalah layanan premium situs toto togel dan bandar togel online terpopuler tahun 2026 yang menghadirkan pengalaman bermain terbaik serta menjamin keamanan dan kenyamanan maksimal di setiap permainan koi toto

Our Dwarka Call Girls believes that every client deserves a premium experience that is based on trust, professionalism, and quality service. When you deal with us, we will strive to create an environment that is smooth, comfortable, and memorable; and we will work hard to ensure that you are satisfied from the very beginning to the very end of your experience with us.

Vermont’s governor has signed legislation that will allow adults over the age of 21 to legally possess twice as much marijuana as they could previously, enable interstate cannabis commerce and make other changes to rules for licensed businesses. Gov. Phil Scott (R) on Friday announced that he approved the large-scale cannabis regulatory reform bill, S. 278, which passed both chambers of the legislature last month. One of the main impacts of the new law for consumers is that it doubles the prior legal possession limit to up to two ounces of marijuana or 10 grams of hashish. The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (D), also allows the governor to enter into compacts with other states for cross-border cannabis trade. The legislative text notes that there is a “shifting federal posture on regulated cannabis markets” and says it is “the intent of the General Assembly to prepare for the possibility of regional or interstate cannabis markets.” A provision says that such agreements could only move forward if federal law is amended to allow for interstate transfer of cannabis, if a federal law is enacted that blocks use of agency funds to prevent such transfers, if the U.S. Department of Justice issues a memo allowing or tolerating such activity or if the state attorney general certifies that entering into interstate marijuana commerce agreements “will not result in significant legal risk to this State based on review of federal judicial decisions and administrative action.” — 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. — The bill signed by the governor also creates a pilot program for cannabis events at which businesses could sell products but where cannabis consumption would not be allowed. The legislation additionally says that housing rental agreements cannot prohibit tenants from “possessing cannabis or cannabis products within the rental premises or using cannabis or cannabis products within a dwelling unit, except that a rental agreement may prohibit the use of lighted cannabis or cannabis products intended for inhalation within the rental premises.” It also eliminates the vertically integrated license type and reduces licensing fees for cannabis cultivation businesses, among other technical changes to current statute. Earlier versions of the bill would have altered potency restrictions for cannabis products, reduced taxes and allowed on-site consumption licenses and delivery services, but those provisions were removed during the legislative process prior to final passage. In 2018, Scott signed a bill to legalize marijuana possession and home cultivation and then allowed subsequent legislation to legalize commercial cannabis sales to take effect without his signature in 2020. Photo courtesy of Mike Latimer. The post Vermont Governor Signs Bill To Double Legal Marijuana Possession Limit And Allow Interstate Commerce appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Privacy is everything, especially in a bustling metro like Delhi. That's why our Escort Service in Delhi guarantees 100% discretion from your first call to the final goodbye. We never share your personal details with anyone. Every companion is trained to respect your boundaries and prioritize your comfort. We offer flexible packages — hourly, overnight, or even multiple days. Our team is available 24/7 to answer your questions and guide you through the process. Whether you're a first-time client or a regular gentleman, we make everything simple, safe, and satisfying. Book now and experience the best that Delhi has to offer. Your secret is safe with us. Always.

click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here

click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here click here

KOITOTO adalah layanan premium situs toto togel dan bandar togel online terpopuler tahun 2026 yang menghadirkan pengalaman bermain terbaik serta menjamin keamanan dan kenyamanan maksimal di setiap permainan koitoto

Excellent article. Very interesting to read. I really love to read such a nice article. Thanks! keep rocking. togel online

Awesome article, it was exceptionally helpful! I simply began in this and I'm becoming more acquainted with it better! Cheers, keep doing awesome! gurutoto

A Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) judge has issued an initial order laying out basic rules for a hearing about the Trump administration’s cannabis rescheduling process that is set to start later this month. Chief Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Derek Julius signed the 12-page order on Thursday, setting initial timelines for designated parties that will be participating—which under a separate announcement from DEA this week only includes opponents of cannabis reform. Julius noted that the government, “as the proponent of the proposed rule, has the burden of proof” in defending moving marijuana to Schedule III. Officials will need to file notices of appearances for government representatives by no later than Monday, he said. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche in April issued an order that immediately reclassified state-licensed medical cannabis, as well as marijuana products approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III. Under a separate order the acting attorning general signed, the upcoming hearing will consider more comprehensively moving marijuana to Schedule III. “Importantly, the scope of this hearing is not to discuss the rescheduling of medical products approved by the Food and Drug Administration that contain marijuana and of medical marijuana products already regulated by the states, which has already occurred,” the ALJ said in the new order. “Accordingly, no evidence or testimony will be received on that matter. The narrow issue in this matter is whether the remainder of marijuana, as defined in the CSA, should be transferred from its current place on schedule I of the list of controlled substances to schedule III.” The hearing will be held at a DEA facility in Arlington, Virginia and will begin on June 29 and last through July 15, Julius said. Representatives of designated parties must appear in person, while called witnesses can appear either in person or by video teleconference. The proceedings will “not be televised, livestreamed, or broadcasted in any way,” the judge said, though members of the public can attend in person due to “national public interest in this issue.” “With the exception of the function of the court reporter, permission is explicitly withheld from any attendee to use any video or audio recording device at any time while inside the courtroom or the adjoining lobby area,” Julius wrote. The order lays out a process for how each participant will present its case and how the government and interested parties can cross-examine one another: Each Designated Party will have an assigned day on which they will present their case-in-chief. Each Designated Party will be allotted fifteen (15) minutes for their opening statement. Opening statements will be given at the start of a Designated Party’s case-in-chief. Each Designated Party may present up to two (2) witnesses. Each witness may testify on direct examination for no more than two (2) hours. Should a Designated Party elect to present only one witness, that witness may testify on direct examination for up to four (4) hours. Each Interested Party may cross-examine (each of) the Government’s witness(es) for no more than one (1) hour. The Government may cross-examine each of the Interested Parties’ witnesses for no more than one (1) hour. At the conclusion of all of cross examination of a particular witness, the party calling the witness may redirect for no more than one (1) hour. Interested Parties will not be permitted to cross examine one another’s witnesses. Designated Parties will not be permitted to voir dire proposed expert witnesses prior to testimony. All expert determinations will be made following the hearing and objections to expert qualifications should be made in writing. Witnesses will not be permitted to be in the courtroom before or after their testimony. Objections to evidence or testimony will be heard during the hearing and should be made orally. When objecting, counsel will cite the rule for their objection and the reason for their objection, the proponent of the evidence or testimony may briefly respond, I will rule on the objection and the hearing will continue without further discussion. See 21 C.F.R. § 1316.60. Rebuttal testimony, if any, will be limited. The undersigned will make determinations regarding rebuttal testimony during the hearing as they arise. Time will not be allotted for closing arguments. Each party will be given an opportunity to file post-hearing briefs in accordance with 21 C.F.R. § 1316.64. More instructions on this will be provided at the conclusion of the hearing. Unless otherwise noted, Designated Parties may not surrender time in one area in exchange for more time in another area (e.g., a party may not forgo redirect in exchange for more time in its direct). Only one representative from a Designated Party may address the tribunal at a time. “Using the information provided by the Designated Parties…no later than June 24, 2026, this tribunal will issue a detailed hearing schedule outlining the times in which each party will present its case via a subsequent order,” the ALJ said, adding that by the same day designated parties need to “file a brief prehearing statement, not to exceed twenty-five (25) pages.” By the following day, they will need to “exchange their proposed exhibits with one another and shall file their noticed and proposed exhibits,” Julius ordered. Under the earlier action by DEA Administrator Terrance Cole, the invited participants in the hearing are: National Drug & Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA) Tennessee Bureau of Investigation Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) The States of Nebraska, Idaho, Indiana, and Louisiana DUID Victim Voices Kenneth Finn, MD Phillip A. Drum, PharmD All of the organizations, individuals and officials have expressed opposition to marijuana reform, and some have filed litigation in an attempt to block cannabis rescheduling specifically. No reform supporters who expressed intent to participate have been invited. According to several rejection letters Marijuana Moment has seen from cannabis reform supporters, DEA said they do not meet the definition of an “interested person” to participate because they are not “adversely affected or aggrieved by any rule or proposed rule issuable.” In one such letter to the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), Cole wrote that the agency “concludes that you have not demonstrated you are adversely affected or aggrieved by the promulgation of a proposed rule transferring marijuana, as listed in 21 CFR 1308.11(d)(23), marijuana extracts, as defined in 21 CFR 1308.11(d)(58), and naturally derived delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinols from schedule I t o schedule III of the CSA, as proposed in the” notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). “Indeed, you state that DPA supports removing marijuana from schedule I and ‘does not oppose’ the transfer of marijuana to schedule III. Further, any conceivable harm that DPA claims it would suffer from the NPRM would exist regardless of whether marijuana is transferred to schedule III or remained in schedule I. In other words, DPA is not adversely affected or aggrieved by the promulgation of the proposed rule to transfer marijuana to schedule III. Because DPA has failed to sufficiently demonstrate that it is adversely affected or aggrieved by the proposed rule itself, DEA concludes that DPA is not an ‘interested person.'” “Accordingly, DEA denies your request to participate in the hearing,” Cole told DPA. In order to be considered for participation in the hearing, parties needed to file requests articulating their interest in the proceeding, the objections or issues they wish to be heard on and their position on those issues. “The purpose of the hearing is to ‘receiv[e] factual evidence and expert opinion regarding’ whether marijuana should be transferred to schedule III of the list of controlled substances,” Blanche’s initial notice, filed in April, said. The attorney general will also select an administrative law judge (ALJ) to oversee the proceedings. “The ALJ’s authorities include the power to hold conferences to simplify or determine the issues in the hearing or to consider other matters that may aid in the expeditious disposition of the hearing; require parties to state their position in writing; sign and issue subpoenas to compel the production of documents and materials to the extent necessary to conduct the hearing; examine witnesses and direct witnesses to testify; receive, rule on, exclude, or limit evidence; rule on procedural items; and take any action permitted by the presiding officer under DEA’s hearing procedures and the” Administrative Procedures Act, Blanche wrote. A prior hearing process on the marijuana rescheduling process that was initiated by the Biden administration stalled last year amid litigation over alleged improper communications and witness selection. The current marijuana rescheduling process is being challenged with several lawsuits that have been consolidated by a federal appeals court. Those pieces of litigation against the cannabis reform have been filed by state attorneys general, marijuana legalization opponents and a cannabis-focused biopharmaceutical corporation. Meanwhile, the already-enacted rescheduling of state-licensed medical cannabis is already having broad impacts. The Congressional Research Service published a report on the current cannabis rescheduling move explaining that certified patients who possess medical marijuana from state-licensed dispensaries now have certain protections under Schedule III. “The order appears to authorize end users to possess marijuana for medical use without a CSA-compliant prescription,” it says. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has posted a draft update to a gun purchase form to acknowledge the federally legal status of medical marijuana under rescheduling. The revised section in question notably says that only “use or possession of marijuana for recreational purposes” is federally prohibited, leaving out the prior form’s mention of medical cannabis. The U.S. Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) said they plan to issue new tax guidance for the marijuana industry following rescheduling. The reform will benefit state-licensed marijuana businesses by allowing them to take federal tax deductions they’re currently barred from under an IRS code known as 280E that doesn’t apply to Schedule III substances. Even DEA, which has long opposed cannabis legalization and was accused of stalling the rescheduling process initiative by the Biden administration, has launched a registration process for state-legal marijuana businesses to take advantage of federal benefits that come with the reform. The Department of Transportation, on the other hand, issued guidance saying that use of state-legal medical cannabis is still no excuse for a positive drug test by truck drivers, pilots and other safety-sensitive workers. A congressional committee recently voted to block federal officials from taking further steps to carry out cannabis rescheduling. Photo elements courtesy of rawpixel and Philip Steffan. The post DEA Judge Issues Order Laying Out Process For Marijuana Rescheduling Hearing Starting This Month appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

A bipartisan group of members of Congress have filed an amendment to a large-scale military bill that would extend a psychedelics research effort at the Department of Defense (DOD) for an additional six years. Reps. Morgan Luttrell (R-TX), Jack Bergman (R-MI), Derrick Van Orden (R-WI), Mike Ezell (R-MS), Troy Carter (D-LA) and Morgan McGarvey (D-KY) are proposing to amend the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2027 to include language expanding DOD studies on psychedelics that were first authorized under the earlier 2024 NDAA. That program, signed into law by then-President Joe Biden, directed DOD to establish a process by which active duty service members with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or traumatic brain injury could participate in clinical trials involving psilocybin, MDMA, ibogaine, 5-MeO-DMT and “qualified plant-based alternative therapies.” As enacted, it only required the secretary of defense to issue updated reports on progress within one year of the law passing and then annually for three years after that. The new amendment would replace “three years” in the law with “nine years.” It also specifies that DOD would have to “extend the performance of research conducted using funding awarded under this section to September 30, 2033.” The previously enacted legislation, which was also championed by Luttrell, set aside $10 million to fund the military psychedelic studies. Lawmakers also used last year’s NDAA to push DOD for a “progress report” on the ongoing psychedelic therapy clinical trials. The House Rules Committee is expected to meet later this month to determine which submitted amendments to the current NDAA may proceed to floor votes. — 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. — Earlier this month, the House Armed Services Committee approved its version of NDAA and an attached report that calls on military officials to pay greater attention to potential “access pathways” to psychedelic therapies for servicemembers. Citing a psychedelics executive order signed by President Donald Trump in April, the panel urged DOD leaders to “remain informed of lawful research and access pathways relevant to post-traumatic stress disorder and other serious mental health conditions affecting servicemembers during post-deployment and transition periods, and members of the Reserve Components and National Guard who also serve as first responders.” That includes studies on “psilocybin-containing investigational products, including naturally derived whole-mushroom formulations administered in structured therapeutic settings,” the report that the panel approved to be attached to NDAA says. The panel is directing the secretary of defense to issue a report by February 1, 2027 that assesses data on such trials, along with an assessment of “legal and regulatory requirements for expanded access,” including under Trump’s psychedelics executive order as well as a Right to Try law the president signed during his first term in office. The secretary’s report would also need to include a “proposed timeline for potential pilot activities or expanded clinical research beginning in fiscal year 2027, and for any broader implementation thereafter.” “Assessment of Emerging Clinical Research for Treatment-Resistant PTSD The committee recognizes the importance of federally lawful clinical research, expanded access, and right-to-try pathways for investigational treatments addressing serious mental illness, including post-traumatic stress disorder. These pathways may include recent State-enabled support for Food and Drug Administration-regulated studies of psilocybin-containing investigational products, including naturally derived whole-mushroom formulations administered in structured therapeutic settings, consistent with applicable Federal law, Right to Try, expanded access authorities, Drug Enforcement Administration requirements, and the April 18, 2026 Presidential Executive Order titled ‘Accelerating Medical Treatments for Serious Mental Illness.’ The committee encourages the Department of Defense to remain informed of lawful research and access pathways relevant to post-traumatic stress disorder and other serious mental health conditions affecting servicemembers during post-deployment and transition periods, and members of the Reserve Components and National Guard who also serve as first responders. The committee commends the rigorous, ethical clinical research conducted in accordance with federal law and force health protection standards to evaluate emerging treatments for service-connected mental health conditions where existing therapies have proven insufficient. The committee further believes that careful Department of Defense review of safety, dosing, and feasibility data is appropriate to inform future Department force health protection policy, medical readiness planning, and continuity of care during military-to-civilian transition. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than February 1, 2027, assessing the data from the Phase I Passage and Phase II Fortitude Trials and its potential applicability to active-duty, reserve, and transitioning servicemembers. The report shall include the following: (1) a summary of the Phase I Passage Trial safety, dosing, and adverse event data reviewed and analyzed by the Department for applicability to active-duty, reserve/guard, and transitioning servicemember populations; (2) implications for force health protection, medical readiness, and suicide prevention strategies, including identification of any gaps in existing treatment options for active-duty, reserve/guard, and transitioning servicemembers; (3) legal and regulatory requirements for expanded access, Right to Try, or other federally lawful pathways involving investigational Schedule I treatments, including coordination with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the applicability of the 18 April 2026 Presidential Executive Order ‘Accelerating Medical Treatments for Serious Mental Illness’ to treatment-resistant PTSD and associated comorbidities, including elevated suicide risk during post-deployment and transition periods; (4) considerations for ensuring continuity of care for servicemembers transitioning from the Department of Defense to the Veterans Health Administration, to include eligibility criteria, clinical treatment oversight, informed consent, safety monitoring, and adverse event reporting; and (5) proposed timeline for potential pilot activities or expanded clinical research beginning in fiscal year 2027, and for any broader implementation thereafter, as appropriate.” Lawmakers have used past years’ versions of NDAA to advance reforms on marijuana use and drug testing in the military. The post Bipartisan Lawmakers Seek To Extend Military Psychedelics Research Program Until 2033 appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

A coalition of marijuana reform and social justice organizations are calling on Virginia’s governor and lawmakers to remove provisions to significantly increase fines for public consumption from recreational cannabis sales legalization legislation that’s expected to be voted on next week. Under current law, using cannabis in public is a civil violation punishable by a $25 fine. Under a new compromise to legalize adult-use marijuana sales through budget legislation that was negotiated by Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) and key lawmakers, however, the fine would be increased by 900 percent to $250. That is generating pushback from groups like the ACLU of Virginia, Marijuana Justice, National Organization the Reform of Marijuana Laws, Marijuana Policy Project, Drug Policy Alliance and Latino Cannabis Alliance, among others, who say the penalty spike would “deepen racial and economic disparities.” “Higher fines and penalties for low-level marijuana offenses are not neutral,” the organizations wrote in a letter to Spanberger and legislators on Thursday. “They are enforced disproportionately against Black and brown communities, create debt that low-income people cannot afford and can trigger cascading harms in immigration, housing, education and employment.” “Virginia should not recreate over-policing and over-incarceration through fines and fees when the stated goal of legalization is public health, equity, repair and reducing criminalization,” they said. The Virginia Senate is set to vote on the overall budget including the cannabis provisions on Monday, and the House of Delegates is expected to do so soon after. The new letter, which was also signed by Parabola Center for Law and Policy, Nolef Turns Inc., Justice Forward Virginia, New Virginia Majority and Virginia NORML, along with other groups, calls on state officials to: Maintain the $25 civil fine for public consumption. Reject any proposals that raise fines or add criminal penalties for low-level marijuana use. Center racial equity and harm reduction in all cannabis policies. Ensure legalization reduces over-policing and over-incarceration instead of recreating them through fines and fees. Ensure policy is based on data rather than creating punitive policy first and looking for justification later. “These steps will help Virginia move toward real legalization that repairs past harms, prioritizes public health, protects vulnerable communities and keeps people out of the criminal legal system,” the letter says. “They also align with concerns raised by legislative leaders that expanding criminal penalties would repeat the very harm legalization was intended to address.” Drug Policy Alliance separately launched an online action alert that Virginia residents can use to send messages urging the governor and lawmakers to pull back the proposed cannabis penalty increase. Spanberger last month vetoed a previous proposal to legalize recreational cannabis sales after lawmakers rejected her proposed amendments to the plan. She has since been negotiating with Sen. Lashrecse Aird (D) and Del. Paul Krizek (D), who sponsored the earlier measure, and earlier this week the officials announced that they had reached a compromise deal that they believe can pass as part of the budget ahead of a July 1 deadline. The new plan differs significantly in several ways from the earlier legislation. For example, it sets the launch date for recreational marijuana sales at July 1, 2027, which is what Spanberger proposed in contrast to the January 1 date in what lawmakers had passed. It also sets the legal public marijuana possession and per-transaction purchase limit at 2 ounces, an increase from the current legal limit of one ounce. The legislation lawmakers passed earlier this year would have allowed adults to possess up to 2.5 ounces. The bill also cedes to Spanberger on language to increase a marijuana excise tax from 6 percent to 8 percent after two years of legal sales. By way of compromise, the new agreement would make public consumption of marijuana punishable by a civil penalty of $250—a significant increase from the $25 in current law but less harsh than the class 4 criminal misdemeanor the governor sought in her proposed changes to the previous bill. The penalty increase would not take effect until July 1 of next year, however, raising the possibility that lawmakers could pass legislation next session to rescind it. Lawmakers passed the initial cannabis sales bills in March, but the governor then suggested changes to the legalization proposal—including delaying the start date for sales by six months, increasing taxes and instituting new criminal penalties for cannabis consumers. The legislature in April declined to take up the amendments during a one-day reconvened session, however, effectively rejecting them. Spanberger then issued a veto. Spanberger said last week that she was having “really productive” and “incredible” conversations with lawmakers about crafting a compromise approach to legalizing adult-use cannabis sales, and Marijuana Moment previously reported on the ongoing talks. Following Spanberger’s veto, top lawmakers have been openly discussing the possibility of including provisions to legalize adult-use cannabis sales in still-outstanding budget legislation that they are due to pass by July 1. The effort to keep the issue alive was a topic of discussion at the first meeting of the legislature’s Joint Commission to Oversee the Transition of the Commonwealth into a Cannabis Retail Market since the governor’s move to kill the previous proposal to regulate adult-use marijuana sales. The governor, meanwhile, has tried publicly explain her veto—including by saying it is her view that “taking a little bit longer” to launch the market is not something she sees as “negative” because it is more important to get the details right than to do it fast. A recent survey found that bipartisan majorities of Virginia voters wanted Spanberger to sign the cannabis legislation into law, and that they specifically disagreed with her desire to slow the launch timeline for legal sales. The governor recently acknowledged in a separate interview that “a lot of people are not pleased” with her veto of the cannabis legislation. “Friends and family are displeased as well,” she said. Spanberger has repeatedly responded to criticism of her cannabis amendments from the bill sponsors and advocates by saying the suggested changes came after she spoke to the leaders of other states that have already implemented adult-use marijuana markets. A spokesperson for Spanberger declined to name any other governors she talked to about cannabis in response to a question from Marijuana Moment, however. The governor separately recently sought to explain her veto in an earlier interview, reiterating that she supports launching a legal cannabis market but worried about what she called a “rushed timeline” and “far more stores across Virginia” than she thinks are appropriate. Prior to vetoing the cannabis commerce bill, the governor did sign separate legislation to provide resentencing relief for people with past cannabis convictions. Personal marijuana possession and home cultivation of marijuana has been legal in Virginia since 2021, but then-Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) twice vetoed bills to provide consumers with a way to legally purchase regulated adult-use cannabis. Aird and Krizek, the sponsors of the legalization bills, had urged colleagues to vote against the governor’s amendments—even if that meant risking a veto from Spanberger when the legislation returned to her desk. Here are the key details of the new cannabis plan and how it compares to legislation that Spanberger vetoed—SB 542 and HB 642—as well as her previously proposed amendments to those measures: Adults would be able to purchase up to 2 ounces of marijuana in a single transaction, or up to an equivalent amount of other cannabis products as determined by regulators. That would represent an increase from the limit in current law of 1 ounce. Lawmakers previously proposed setting the amount at 2.5 ounces and the governor only wanted 2 ounces. Legal sales could begin on July 1, 2027. Lawmakers previously set the date for January 1, 2027, but the governor wanted it pushed back to July 1. There would be an excise tax of 6 percent on cannabis sales as well as a 5.3 percent retail sales and use tax, and municipalities would be allowed to set an additional local tax of up to 3.5 percent. Starting on July 1, 2029, the state excise tax would increase to 8 percent, in line with the governor’s previously proposed amendments. Revenue would be distributed to the Cannabis Equity Reinvestment Fund, early childhood education, the Department of Behavioral & Developmental Health Services and public health initiatives. The earlier measure passed by lawmakers would have allocated specific percentages to each, but the new language doesn’t specify what portion of revenue will go to each program. The governor, in her amendments, wanted to put all revenue into the general fund while earmarking it “for purposes such as early childhood education, behavioral health, public health awareness, prevention, treatment, and recovery services, workforce development, reentry, indigent criminal defense, and targeted reinvestment in historically disadvantaged communities.” Her amendment also sought to eliminate support for the Cannabis Equity Reinvestment Fund. The Virginia Cannabis Control Authority would oversee licensing and regulation of the new industry, and will also take on oversight of hemp, which is currently under the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. The body would be governed by a five-member board of directors appointed by the governor, whereas the bill previously passed by lawmakers contemplated a seven-member body with four appointed by the governor, two appointed by the speaker of the House and one appointed by the Senate Rules Committee. The definition of what constitutes a legal hemp product would be narrowed by removing a provision from current law that allows those containing more than 2 milligrams of total THC per package if they also have a ratio of CBD to THC that is 25:1 or more. Up to 350 retail marijuana stores would be allowed to be licensed to operate across the state, the same number that lawmakers had approved and greater than the 200 the governor had proposed. Local governments would not be able to out of allowing marijuana businesses to operate in their area. Delivery services would be allowed. Serving sizes would be capped at 10 milligrams THC, with no more than 100 mg THC per package. Public use of marijuana would be a civil violation punishable by a $250 fine. That is ten times more than the $25 fine under current law, but less harsh than than the class 4 criminal misdemeanor crime the governor had proposed. Possession of cannabis by people under the age of 21 would be punishable by a $25 fine and mandatory participation in a substance abuse treatment or education program or both. The governor had suggested treating underage possession as a class 1 misdemeanor, punishable with a mandatory minimum fine of $500 or 50 hours of community service, as well as the suspension of drivers licenses for at least six months. Existing medical cannabis operators could enter the adult-use market if they pay a $10 million licensing conversion fee. Cannabis businesses would have to establish labor peace agreements with workers. A legislative commission would be directed to study adding on-site consumption licenses and microbusiness cannabis event permits that would allow licensees to conduct sales at venues like farmers markets or pop-up locations. That provision was also included in the earlier legislation lawmakers passed but was suggested for deletion by the governor. Marijuana reform advocates cheered the fact that a legal sales deal is coming together, but they expressed concerns about some of the penalty increases in the bill. “This compromise represents a meaningful step toward bringing Virginia’s cannabis laws in line with public opinion and moving the commonwealth closer to a marketplace that consumers have long demanded,” JM Pedini, development director for the advocacy group NORML and executive director for Virginia NORML, said. “Although NORML has deep concerns about provisions in the bill to increase the civil penalty for public cannabis consumption, we are encouraged by other areas of broader agreement. This bill establishes a consumer-friendly regulated marketplace, improves public safety and provides clear rules for everyone involved.” Meanwhile, the governor signed several other reform bills this session—including measures to protect the parental rights of marijuana consumers and allow patients to access medical cannabis in hospitals. Read the full letter about the proposed Virginia marijuana penalty increase below: The post Advocacy Groups Push Back Against Virginia Proposal To Increase Public Marijuana Use Fines In Sales Legalization Measure appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Rates of marijuana use among Colorado teens continued to decline in 2025—and youth are also reporting significantly lower levels of access to cannabis—according to a biennial survey from state health officials. The findings from the Healthy Kids Colorado Survey (HKCS) seem to support a longstanding argument from reform advocates who’ve maintained that regulating marijuana sales and imposing age-related restrictions is a more effective strategy to prevent youth use compared to imposing criminal prohibition on adults. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), which oversees the survey, found that 9.7 percent of high school students in the state reported past-30 day marijuana use—a meaningful reduction compared to the 12.8 percent usage rate youth reported in 2023. Notably, current teen marijuana use rates have declined 56 percent decrease since 2011, which was the year before Colorado voters approved recreational legalization. “Trend analysis shows significant decreases in marijuana use over the past 10 years,” CDPHE said. Also, Colorado high school students are notably less likely to have used cannabis in the past 30 days than the national average of 17 percent, according to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Youth Risk Behavior Survey. The Colorado survey also asked middle school students about cannabis use, and a similar trend was observed last year, with just 1.5 percent of those in grades 6-8 reporting past-30 day marijuana consumption. That’s down from 3 percent in 2023 and 5.1 percent in 2013. Lifetime cannabis usage has also continued to fall among Colorado youth in grades 6-12, the HKCS found. “We are extremely pleased to see the rate of cannabis use among teens in Colorado continues to decline and remains lower than the national average,” Chuck Smith, CEO of Colorado Leads, an alliance of cannabis business leaders, said in a press release. “More than a decade after legalization, Colorado continues to demonstrate that a well-regulated cannabis market can successfully reduce underage access and protect public health.” According to the Colorado survey, 33.5 percent of youth respondents said they felt it would be “sort of easy or very easy to get marijuana if they wanted,” which marks a 39 percent decrease from 2013. “While these long-term trends are promising, we recognize the importance of remaining vigilant and continuing to work alongside other stakeholders to sustain this progress,” Smith said. “Colorado’s legal cannabis industry remains firmly committed to preventing youth access, as evidenced by consistently high compliance rates for age verification and refusing sales to minors. Together, we will continue building on the success of a regulatory framework that is delivering the outcomes it was designed to achieve.” The Colorado data adds to a growing body of research demonstrating that, contrary to talking points from prohibitionists, legalizing and regulating cannabis doesn’t lead to increased underage use or access. Rather, it consistently seems to have the opposite effect, as evidenced by the Colorado experience. Creating a regulatory framework for cannabis where licensed retailers must check IDs and implement other security mechanisms to prevent unlawful diversions seems to have to be a more effective policy than prohibition, under which illicit suppliers’ products are untested and where age-gating isn’t a strictly enforced regulation. “These findings are consistent with those from other adult-use legal states, which show steep declines in marijuana use by young people following the adoption of regulated, age-restricted markets,” NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano said of the Colorado survey. “These results bought to reassure lawmakers that cannabis access can be legally regulated in a manner that is safe, effective, and that does not inadvertently impact young people’s habits.” Outside of Colorado, cannabis consumption by middle and high school students in Minnesota post-legalization is also lower now than it has ever been over the past decade, according to recently published state data. A federally funded study out of Canada that was released earlier this year also found that that youth marijuana use rates declined after the country legalized cannabis. German officials similarly released a separate report on their country’s experience with legalizing marijuana nationwide that showed that fears from opponents about youth use, traffic safety and more have so far proved largely unfounded. Last year, U.S. federal health data also indicated that while past-year marijuana use overall has climbed in recent years, the rise has been “driven by increases…among adults 26 years or older.” As for younger Americans, rates of both past-year use and cannabis use disorder, by contrast, “remained stable among adolescents and young adults between 2021 and 2024.” Across the U.S., research suggests that marijuana use by young people has generally fallen in states that legalize the drug for adults. A report from the advocacy group Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), for example, found that youth marijuana use declined in 19 out of 21 states that legalized adult-use marijuana—with teen cannabis consumption down an average of 35 percent in the earliest states to legalize. Another U.S. study reported a “significant decrease” in youth marijuana use from 2011 to 2021—a period in which more than a dozen states legalized marijuana for adults—detailing lower rates of both lifetime and past-month use by high-school students nationwide. A separate federal report concluded that cannabis consumption among minors—defined as people 12 to 20 years of age—fell slightly between 2022 and 2023. Separately, a research letter published by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in 2024 said there’s no evidence that states’ adoption of laws to legalize and regulate marijuana for adults have led to an increase in youth use of cannabis. Another JAMA-published study similarly found that neither legalization nor the opening of retail stores led to increases in youth cannabis use. In 2023, meanwhile, a U.S. health official said that teen marijuana use has not increased “even as state legalization has proliferated across the country.” Photo courtesy of Philip Steffan. The post Fewer Colorado Teens Are Using Marijuana Now Than Before Legalization, State Study Shows, Refuting Opponents’ Core Argument appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

We create intimate moments where your fantasy meets physical reality. Through trustworthy touch, our Independent Escorts In Delhi guide you toward powerful orgasm and lasting pleasure. Every encounter feels authentic and unforgettable.

A federal agency that regulates guns says it is planning to provide guidance in the wake of a Supreme Court decision this week that found the government’s efforts to criminalize possession of firearms for marijuana consumers is unconstitutional. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) noted the court’s unanimous ruling in a social media post on Thursday, saying it is “reviewing the decision and assessing its impact.” “Additional guidance will be provided soon,” the agency said. ATF is responsible for carrying out the federal law known as 922(g)(3) that prohibits people who illegally consume controlled substances from possessing or purchasing firearms and has now been partially struck down when it comes to cannabis consumers who otherwise show no signs of posing a threat of violence. On June 18, the Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Hemani, addressing the federal prohibition on firearm possession by unlawful users of controlled substances. ATF is reviewing the decision and assessing its impact. Additional guidance will be provided soon.… — ATF HQ (@ATFHQ) June 19, 2026 The court, in the majority opinion, said that the broad ban and the government’s effort to defend it are “at odds with” the Trump administration’s move to federally reschedule cannabis. The government “asks us to conclude that anyone who regularly uses marijuana is categorically violent and dangerous without any further showing,” the opinion says. “All based on little more than its current say-so, one at odds with its own regulatory actions. And affording the government that kind of ‘broad power to designate any group as dangerous and thereby disqualify its members from having a gun’ would risk allowing it to ‘quickly swallow’ the Second Amendment.” ATF in May posted a proposed revised version of Form 4473, which must be filled out by anyone purchasing a gun from a federally licensed firearms dealer, to acknowledge the federally legal status of medical marijuana under the Trump administration’s recent move to reschedule the drug. The change is likely due to the fact that in April, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche issued an order that immediately moved marijuana products regulated by a state medical cannabis license to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), and similarly rescheduled marijuana products that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). A hearing to consider broader cannabis rescheduling is scheduled for this month. Advocates expect that ATF will need to issue further changes to the gun purchase form in the wake of the court’s ruling in U.S. v. Hemani, the case it decided this week. ATF also moved earlier this year to loosen rules that bar people who consume marijuana and other illegal drugs from being able to lawfully purchase and possess guns by making it so fewer people would be affected. The interim final rule from ATF, which is currently open for public comment through June 30, seeks to update the definition of “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” under an existing policy that has been interpreted to deny Second Amendment rights to people who have used illegal substances a single time within the past year. The Supreme Court heard arguments in the Hemani case in March, with the Trump administration urging the justices to uphold the ban on gun possession by marijuana users. The federal government has consistently maintained its position that the law appropriately disarms marijuana users who, they claim, are uniquely dangerous. To meet a strict Supreme Court standard for firearm laws, the Department of Justice has also drawn sometimes eyebrow-raising comparisons between cannabis consumers and the mentally ill and habitual drunkards to establish a historical analogue that aligns with the country’s founding era. “Those laws, the government contends, demonstrate a tradition of firearm regulation consistent with its effort to disarm any regular user of any controlled substance without any further showing. But the government’s analogy fails under every measure it asks us to consider,” the court’s opinion issued on Thursday says. “The historical laws on which it relies targeted different kinds of people, did so for different reasons, and operated in different ways. And faced with all these shortcomings in the government’s submission, we cannot say it has carried its conceded burden of showing its prosecution of Mr. Hemani complies with the Second Amendment.” Trump administration Solicitor General D. John Sauer, for his part, told the Supreme Court in a brief that people who use illegal drugs “pose a greater danger” than those who drink alcohol. In a separate filing for the case, the Justice Department also emphasized that “the question presented is the subject of a multi-sided and growing circuit conflict.” In asking the court to take up the dispute, the solicitor general also noted that the defendant is a joint American and Pakistani citizen with alleged ties to Iranian entities hostile to the U.S., putting him on the FBI’s radar. In December, attorneys general for 19 states and Washington, D.C. filed their own brief siding with the federal government in the Hemani case, insisting that justices should maintain the current § 922(g)(3) statute. The governor of Colorado, whose attorney general was among that group, subsequently said he didn’t think his state should have taken that position. Also in December, Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and 21 other prohibitionist groups filed a brief urging justices to uphold the constitutionality of the federal gun ban for people who use cannabis—which they claim is associated with violence and psychosis. On the other side of the debate, civil rights groups—including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), whose attorneys are among those representing Hemani—and gun organizations such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) have argued that the current policy represents a misguided categorical infringement of Second Amendment rights for a population that uses a substance that’s been legalized in a majority of states and is now being partially federally reclassified. Meanwhile, the Biden administration was evidently concerned about potential legal liability in federal cases for people convicted of violating gun laws simply by being a cannabis consumer who possessed a firearm, documents obtained by Marijuana Moment show. The previously unpublished 2024 guidance from former President Joe Biden’s Justice Department generally cautioned U.S. attorneys to use discretion in prosecuting federal cannabis cases, particularly for offenses that qualified people for pardons during his term. But one section seems especially relevant as the Supreme Court takes on a case challenging the constitutionality of the current federal gun statute. In interviews with Marijuana Moment, several Republican senators shared their views on the federal ban on gun possession by people who use marijuana—with one saying that if alcohol drinkers can lawfully buy and use firearms, the same standard should apply to cannabis consumers. Sauer, the solicitor general, sent the justices a letter in April arguing that the Trump administration’s move to federally reschedule marijuana should not impact their decision in the Hemani case. Separately in April, Blanche had suggested that the Trump administration may soon stop aggressively defending 922(g)(3), the federal law that criminalizes gun possession by people who consume marijuana and other illegal drugs. The post ATF Will Issue Updated Guidance On Gun Rights For Marijuana Users ‘Soon’ Following Supreme Court Ruling In Second Amendment Case appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

SCOTUS upholds marijuana user gun rights; State cannabis tax revenue report; Marijuana industry sales totals down last year; VA hemp product ban looms Subscribe to receive Marijuana Moment’s newsletter in your inbox every weekday morning. It’s the best way to make sure you know which cannabis stories are shaping the day. Get our daily newsletter. Email address: Leave this field empty if you're human: Your support makes Marijuana Moment possible… Your good deed for the day: donate to an independent publisher like Marijuana Moment and ensure that as many voters as possible have access to the most in-depth cannabis reporting out there. Support our work at https://www.patreon.com/marijuanamoment / TOP THINGS TO KNOW The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously sided with a man who was prosecuted for possessing a gun while being a consumer of marijuana, ruling that the government’s actions violate the Second Amendment The broad ban and the government’s effort to defend it are “at odds with” the Trump administration’s move to federally reschedule cannabis, the court said. The Drug Enforcement Administration selected participants for this month’s hearing on broad marijuana rescheduling—and only opponents of reform are being invited. The Drug Enforcement Administration has begun on-site inspections at state-licensed cannabis businesses that applied to register for federal protections under the Trump administration’s rescheduling move. A dispensary operator who was visited by DEA for six hours told Marijuana Moment that the agents were “very cordial” and “did not come in overbearing—describing them as “new to this whole process too,” saying they had an attitude of “we’re gonna work on it together.” A new Marijuana Policy Project analysis shows that states have generated more than $28 billion in recreational cannabis tax revenue since the first markets came online—with some states now generating more revenue from legal marijuana than from alcohol. A new report from Vangst and Whitney Economics shows that U.S. legal marijuana sales totals declined for the first time in 2025 amid price compression and oversupply issues—but it projects that the dip could reverse as federal rescheduling potentially creates new opportunities for businesses Meanwhile, the U.S. cannabis industry now employs 412,500 people. Barbara Biddle of the Cannabis Small Business Association argues in a new Marijuana Moment op-ed that the Virginia cannabis compromise reached by the governor and lawmakers will “wipe out” hemp businesses—11 months before recreational cannabis sales launch. “We support the emergence of a recreational adult-use market, but not at the cost of small mom-and-pop businesses that started in hemp.” / FEDERAL The Government Accountability Office published a report concluding that the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy “doesn’t have enough performance data” to support claims that its Drug-Free Communities Support Program is reducing substance use among youth. Illinois U.S. Senate candidate Juliana Stratton, currently the state’s lieutenant governor, said she “would love to see us legalize cannabis on the federal level.” / STATES Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont (D) signed the state’s first tribal cannabis compact with the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe. The Delaware House Health & Human Development approved a Senate-passed bill to decriminalize drug paraphernalia. The Virginia House Democratic Caucus tweeted, “Cannabis should be regulated responsibly! Today @paulkrizek helped introduce a compromise adult-use retail cannabis market that prioritizes the safety and success of entrepreneurs.” West Virginia lawmakers toured a hemp business. A New York senator sent a press release about the passage of his legislation to address inversion of out-of-state marijuana products. Massachusetts regulators adopted changes to rules on marijuana business license ownership caps and daily purchasing limits. A New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory Commission discussed meeting with cannabis regulators from other states. — Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments. Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access. — / LOCAL A federal judge ruled that a lawsuit challenging Mendocino County, California officials’ cannabis raids on Round Valley Indian tribal land can proceed. / INTERNATIONAL France’s health minister said medical cannabis regulations will be published next month. / SCIENCE & HEALTH A study found that “higher cannabis taxes reduce legal cannabis sales but also decrease tax revenues.” A review concluded that “cannabis was effective in the short-term reduction of self-reported baseline symptoms associated with PTSD” but that,” long-term baselines remained seemingly unaffected.” / BUSINESS IM Cannabis Corp. is selling its European-focused assets to Slil.com Holding Ltd. / CULTURE Survivor winner Ethan Zohn spoke about how he pushed unsuccessfully to let contestants on the show use cannabis. 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 Chris Wallis // Side Pocket Images. The post DEA launches cannabis biz inspections & sets rescheduling hearing parties (Newsletter: June 19, 2026) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

We very much live up to your satisfaction, which is our reputation. All companions are carefully selected. Our Escort Service in Dwarka only works with ladies that are dedicated to excellence. With that quality control, you can be sure that you are always treated the best – not sometimes, but always!

Finding the perfect match to accompany you, for dinner or a little event, has gotten so much easier now. Everything is handled with professionalism, making sure your comfort stays the main thing, all evening long. It is no wonder then that many folks count on Vip Escorts Delhi for their social companionship needs, kind of day to day and more.

Managing multiple orders simultaneously by arranging reminder tickets in chronological order is a crucial skill for a good player papa's freezeria.

Really a great addition. I have read this marvelous post. Thanks for sharing information about it. I really like that. Thanks so lot for your convene. koitoto

It was wondering if I could use this write-up on my other website, I will link it back to your website though.Great Thanks. koitoto

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has selected participants for a hearing about the Trump administration’s cannabis rescheduling process that is set to start later this month—and only opponents of the reform have been invited to take part. On Thursday, DEA began notifying parties who had expressed intent to participate that they have been invited to do so, and also sending rejection letters to those who are not being invited. The invited participants are: National Drug & Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA) Tennessee Bureau of Investigation Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) The States of Nebraska, Idaho, Indiana, and Louisiana DUID Victim Voices Kenneth Finn, MD Phillip A. Drum, PharmD All of the organizations, individuals and officials have expressed opposition to marijuana reform, and some have filed litigation in an attempt to block cannabis rescheduling specifically. No reform supporters who expressed intent to participate have been invited. According to several rejection letters Marijuana Moment has seen from cannabis reform supporters, DEA said they do not meet the definition of an “interested person” to participate because they are not “adversely affected or aggrieved by any rule or proposed rule issuable.” In one such letter to the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), DEA Administrator Terrance Cole wrote that the agency “concludes that you have not demonstrated you are adversely affected or aggrieved by the promulgation of a proposed rule transferring marijuana, as listed in 21 CFR 1308.11(d)(23), marijuana extracts, as defined in 21 CFR 1308.11(d)(58), and naturally derived delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinols from schedule I t o schedule III of the CSA, as proposed in the” notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). “Indeed, you state that DPA supports removing marijuana from schedule I and ‘does not oppose’ the transfer of marijuana to schedule III. Further, any conceivable harm that DPA claims it would suffer from the NPRM would exist regardless of whether marijuana is transferred to schedule III or remained in schedule I. In other words, DPA is not adversely affected or aggrieved by the promulgation of the proposed rule to transfer marijuana to schedule III. Because DPA has failed to sufficiently demonstrate that it is adversely affected or aggrieved by the proposed rule itself, DEA concludes that DPA is not an ‘interested person.'” “Accordingly, DEA denies your request to participate in the hearing,” Cole told DPA. Cat Packer, DPA’s director of drug markets and legal regulation, told Marijuana Moment after receiving the notice of denial to participate that “rescheduling would leave federal marijuana criminalization largely intact and falls short of what the public has demanded.” “More than 70 percent of public comments submitted on the proposed rule supported decriminalization, yet many of the patients, consumers, families, small businesses and individuals who have borne the consequences of prohibition—including arrest, incarceration, family separation, housing barriers, immigration consequences, and lost economic opportunity—have been excluded from meaningful participation in these proceedings,” she said. “The people who have carried the burden of marijuana prohibition deserve more than a seat at the table—they should be at the center of the conversation, helping shape the policies that affect their lives, families and communities.” Michael Bronstein, president of the American Trade Association for Cannabis & Hemp (ATACH), similarly said his group is “deeply disappointed that not a single supporter of cannabis rescheduling was selected.” “The upcoming rescheduling hearing will now strictly include prohibitionist parties that oppose President Trump’s position on rescheduling. It will now be solely up to the Drug Enforcement Administration to defend its rule,” he said. SAM President Kevin Sabet, meanwhile, said his prohibitionist group is “grateful for the opportunity to make our case” at the hearing. “Rescheduling marijuana would be the greatest drug policy mistake in a generation,” he argued in a statement. “SAM looks forward to presenting the science, the data, and the public health stakes that demonstrate why rescheduling should be rejected.” The hearing, which will be overseen by a DEA administrative law judge, will begin on June 29 and is set to conclude no later than July 15. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche in April issued an order that immediately reclassified state-licensed medical cannabis, as well as marijuana products approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III. Under a separate order the acting attorning general signed, the upcoming hearing will consider more comprehensively moving marijuana to Schedule III. In order to be considered for participation in the hearing, parties needed to file requests articulating their interest in the proceeding, the objections or issues they wish to be heard on and their position on those issues. “The purpose of the hearing is to ‘receiv[e] factual evidence and expert opinion regarding’ whether marijuana should be transferred to schedule III of the list of controlled substances,” Blanche’s initial notice, filed in April, said. The attorney general will also select an administrative law judge (ALJ) to oversee the proceedings. “The ALJ’s authorities include the power to hold conferences to simplify or determine the issues in the hearing or to consider other matters that may aid in the expeditious disposition of the hearing; require parties to state their position in writing; sign and issue subpoenas to compel the production of documents and materials to the extent necessary to conduct the hearing; examine witnesses and direct witnesses to testify; receive, rule on, exclude, or limit evidence; rule on procedural items; and take any action permitted by the presiding officer under DEA’s hearing procedures and the” Administrative Procedures Act, Blanche wrote. A prior hearing process on the marijuana rescheduling process that was initiated by the Biden administration stalled last year amid litigation over alleged improper communications and witness selection. The current marijuana rescheduling process is being challenged with several lawsuits that have been consolidated by a federal appeals court. Those pieces of litigation against the cannabis reform have been filed by state attorneys general, marijuana legalization opponents and a cannabis-focused biopharmaceutical corporation. Meanwhile, the already-enacted rescheduling of state-licensed medical cannabis is already having broad impacts. The Congressional Research Service published a report on the current cannabis rescheduling move explaining that certified patients who possess medical marijuana from state-licensed dispensaries now have certain protections under Schedule III. “The order appears to authorize end users to possess marijuana for medical use without a CSA-compliant prescription,” it says. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has posted a draft update to a gun purchase form to acknowledge the federally legal status of medical marijuana under rescheduling. The revised section in question notably says that only “use or possession of marijuana for recreational purposes” is federally prohibited, leaving out the prior form’s mention of medical cannabis. The U.S. Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) said they plan to issue new tax guidance for the marijuana industry following rescheduling. The reform will benefit state-licensed marijuana businesses by allowing them to take federal tax deductions they’re currently barred from under an IRS code known as 280E that doesn’t apply to Schedule III substances. Even DEA, which has long opposed cannabis legalization and was accused of stalling the rescheduling process initiative by the Biden administration, has launched a registration process for state-legal marijuana businesses to take advantage of federal benefits that come with the reform. The Department of Transportation, on the other hand, issued guidance saying that use of state-legal medical cannabis is still no excuse for a positive drug test by truck drivers, pilots and other safety-sensitive workers. A congressional committee recently voted to block federal officials from taking further steps to carry out cannabis rescheduling. Read DEA’s rescheduling hearing denial letter to the Drug Policy Alliance below: The post DEA Picks Participants For Marijuana Rescheduling Hearing This Month, And Only Opponents Are Invited appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“We support the emergence of a recreational adult-use market, but not at the cost of small mom-and-pop businesses that started in hemp.” By Barbara Biddle, Cannabis Small Business Association For more than eight years, I have built my business one customer at a time, pouring in my savings, my time and countless sacrifices to create something that supports my family, employs Virginians and strengthens our local economy. This week, I learned that much of it is likely to become illegal on August 15. Virginia’s new marijuana compromise, announced this week, sets recreational sales to begin in July 2027 and eliminates what state leaders call the “25-to-1 hemp loophole.” At first glance, the change looks technical—a new definition of hemp. In reality, it renders roughly 80 percent of the products currently legal in Virginia illegal overnight. For hundreds of small businesses and the thousands of people they employ, that is not a minor amendment. It is an extinction event with a date attached. Here is the part that should give every Virginian pause. Hemp products with more than two milligrams of THC become illegal on August 15, 2026. But the legal retail marijuana market does not open until July 2027. That leaves an eleven-month gap in which there is no legal, regulated place to buy these products at all. Businesses like mine are being shut down nearly a year before the market meant to replace us even exists. For anyone following this for the first time, the 25-to-1 ratio is not a loophole; it is the foundation of Virginia’s legal hemp market. Under current law, retail hemp is capped at two milligrams of total THC per package unless it meets a 25-to-1 ratio of CBD to THC. That ratio is what allows the full-spectrum CBD oils, tinctures and softgels that Virginians rely on for sleep, pain and recovery to exist on the shelf at all. Eliminate it, and a flat two-milligram cap takes its place, with no room for these products. It has been suggested that these products were sold outside a robust regulatory framework. That is not accurate. Since 2023, Virginia hemp has operated under one of the strictest frameworks in the country: mandatory testing, packaging and labeling standards, age restrictions limiting sales to those 21 and older and registration and licensing requirements. We were told there was a path to compliance. We followed it—signing leases, hiring employees and building long-term plans around those rules. Now, after years of operating under them, the rules change again in a way that makes compliance impossible for much of the industry. The economic consequences are staggering. Last year alone, my business contributed more than $30,000 in Virginia sales tax, not counting payroll, income and other state and local taxes. If my experience is even remotely representative of Virginia’s roughly 1,400 licensed hemp retailers, the commonwealth stands to lose more than $42 million a year in sales tax revenue alone. As the state prepares for a future marijuana market, shutting off an existing stream of revenue before the new one operates makes little sense. Why drain the hemp revenue river before the marijuana revenue river has begun to flow? The change is being framed as a matter of consumer safety. But consider what actually happens on August 15 under the new deal reached by Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) and lawmakers. The Virginians who rely on these products—many of them seniors, veterans and parents seeking alternatives to conventional pharmaceuticals—do not simply stop seeking them. With no legal source for eleven months, many will turn to unregulated, out-of-state online sellers. The predictable result is a stronger illicit market and a weaker legal one, which is the opposite of consumer protection. The most troubling consequence is what this does to non-intoxicating wellness products. The 2018 federal Farm Bill was inspired in part by stories like that of Charlotte Figi, the young epilepsy patient whose response to hemp-derived CBD helped reveal the therapeutic potential of non-intoxicating cannabis. Full-spectrum CBD oils, softgels and tinctures have become essential to countless Virginians. They are not being used to get high. They are used to sleep, to manage discomfort, to support recovery—and many of the people buying them have no interest in visiting a secured marijuana dispensary, nor are future dispensaries likely to stock low-margin wellness products when their focus is THC. By regulating products on total package content rather than realistic serving sizes, the new definition effectively bans products that are legal and widely used across the country. Most hemp products contain multiple servings; a standard CBD tincture may contain 15 or more. Applying a strict per-package limit to products designed for daily wellness use is not a regulation. It is prohibition dressed up as policy. Virginia still has time to get the transition right. Our policymakers need to take the time to revisit this definition in a way that makes sense for existing businesses that have invested in regulations the government promised would be put in place to create sustainability. We support the emergence of a recreational adult-use market, but not at the cost of small mom-and-pop businesses that started in hemp. Good policy should solve problems, not create new ones. Right now, a single date on the calendar threatens hundreds of small businesses, millions in tax revenue and the wellness products countless Virginians depend on. I hope our leaders choose to fix it. Barbara Biddle is the owner of District Hemp Botanicals and serves as president of the Cannabis Small Business Association. The post Virginia Just Set An August Deadline That Will Wipe Out Hemp Businesses—Eleven Months Before The Legal Marijuana Market Opens (Op-Ed) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

States have generated more than $28.4 billion in tax revenue from recreational marijuana sales since the first markets launched over a decade ago, a new report from a top pro-legalization advocacy group shows. Some states, it points out, are now generating more revenue from legal cannabis than from alcohol. The Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) analysis also shows that in 2025 alone, adult-use cannabis sales generated more than $4.5 billion for states’ public coffers—the highest-ever total in a single year since the first recreational legalization laws were approved by voters in 2012 and topping 2024’s haul of $4.4 billion in state marijuana tax revenue. Last year, the report says, seven states each collected more than $200 million in adult-use marijuana taxes—with three of those generating more than half a billion dollars in recreational cannabis revenue. California alone collected over $1 billion in marijuana money to fund government programs and services in 2025. “At a time when pressure is building on state budgets, adult-use cannabis taxes are providing relief,” Adam J. Smith, MPP’s executive director, said in a press release. “Legal adult-use markets have become powerful economic engines, creating thousands of new jobs and small business opportunities across the country. While economic growth and state revenues aren’t the primary reasons for legalizing adult-use cannabis, the positive financial impact is undeniable.” “That said, it is important to keep in mind that overtaxing legal cannabis can be self-defeating, driving consumers back to the unregulated, unsafe and untaxed illicit market, which is bad for state budgets and for public health and safety,” he said. “More importantly, ending prohibition has spared hundreds of thousands of individuals the trauma of arrest and incarceration, while data shows teen cannabis use rates have actually decreased in most legal states.” — 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. — The new adult-use-focused analysis does not account for additional revenue that states have collected from medical marijuana sales, cannabis business application and licensing fees or income taxes generated by industry workers. It also excludes taxes paid to the federal and municipal governments. Here are the 2025 state-by-state totals: California — $1,049,136,426 Illinois — $552,644,272 Michigan — $507,275,129 Washington — $495,814,160 Massachusetts — $290,599,658 Arizona — $246,722,756 Colorado — $220,884,560 Nevada — $157,913,273 Oregon — $143,680,856 Missouri — $137,437,293 Ohio — $130,636,503 Maryland — $90,396,740 New Jersey — $78,475,863 Montana — $74,570,927 New Mexico — $74,570,927 Maine — $43,407,406 Connecticut — $41,856,403 New York — $173,363,400 Vermont — $29,663,047 Alaska — $25,354,627 Rhode Island — $17,308,477 Delaware — $3,112,599 (sales launched in August 2025) Minnesota — $2,001,026 (estimate, sales launched in September 2025) “With states facing federal cuts and strained budgets, legalizing and taxing cannabis for adults helps lessen the pain. Taxes on a single product cannot solve all of a state’s financial challenges. But it helps tremendously,” the MPP report says. “In several states, cannabis tax revenue brings in more than alcohol taxes. In states with mature markets, adult-use cannabis taxes often amount to 0.25% to 1.5% of the entire state budget.” “States with legal, adult-use cannabis sales have allocated tax revenues to a variety of needs, including their General Funds and specific services and programs. Cannabis taxes have provided funding for Medicaid, education, school construction, housing, roads, early literacy, bullying prevention, behavioral health, alcohol and drug treatment, veterans’ services, conservation, job training, conviction expungement expenses, and reinvestment in communities that have been disproportionately affected by the war on cannabis, among many others.” A separate economic analysis released on Thursday by Vangst and Whitney Economics found that, for the first time since state recreational marijuana markets launched in 2014, the industry saw a year-over-year decline in national revenue from cannabis sales in 2025. The post States Have Generated Over $28 Billion In Recreational Marijuana Tax Revenue Since The First Legalization Laws Took Effect, Report Shows appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously sided with a man who was prosecuted for possessing a gun while being a regular consumer of marijuana, ruling that the government’s actions violate the Second Amendment. The opinion authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch is narrow in scope and does not entirely strike down the federal law known as 922(g)(3) that prohibits people who illegally consume controlled substances from possessing or purchasing firearms. But it does say that as applied to the man in the current case, Ali Danial Hemani, it is unconstitutional to automatically bar people from lawful gun ownership just because they happen to use marijuana occasionally. It also says that the broad ban and the government’s effort to defend it are “at odds with” the Trump administration’s move to federally reschedule cannabis. The government “asks us to conclude that anyone who regularly uses marijuana is categorically violent and dangerous without any further showing,” the opinion says. “All based on little more than its current say-so, one at odds with its own regulatory actions. And affording the government that kind of ‘broad power to designate any group as dangerous and thereby disqualify its members from having a gun’ would risk allowing it to ‘quickly swallow’ the Second Amendment.” The court’s opinion in U.S. vs. Hemani does not address “efforts to ban addicts, or those presently intoxicated, from possessing a firearm,” it says. “We do not address other prophylactic laws Congress might adopt after determining that users of a particular drug pose a special risk of misusing firearms. We do not address 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(1)’s provision disarming individuals convicted of felonies (often including drug-related ones).” “We do not even address whether the government could bring a prosecution under §922(g)(3) accompanied by individualized proof that the defendant’s use of marijuana (or any other drug) renders him a danger to himself or others. Or proof that a certain drug always renders its users dangerous because of its potency or for some other reason. None of those issues is before us and we do not pass on them either way.” “All that is before us is one, if surely ambitious, theory. The government maintains that it may automatically strip Mr. Hemani of his Second Amendment right to possess a firearm because he uses marijuana a few times a week,” Gorsuch wrote. “More than that, because he possessed a gun despite this prohibition, the government insists it may imprison him for up to 15 years and disarm him for life.” “According to the government, none of this turns on how much marijuana Mr. Hemani uses or what effect it has on him. It makes no difference either if he keeps a firearm only in his home for selfdefense, never misuses a gun while intoxicated, and never poses a danger to himself or others as a result of his marijuana use. The only thing the government must show, it says, is that an individual like Mr. Hemani regularly uses any amount of any controlled substance.” The court’s opinion details recent large-scale federal policy changes concerning marijuana, and how they undermine the broad statute seeking to strip cannabis consumers of their Second Amendment rights. “As this case came to us, marijuana was listed on Schedule I—a schedule reserved for drugs with ‘a high potential for abuse’ with ‘no currently accepted medical use.’ But after we heard oral argument, the government moved some marijuana products to Schedule III, a schedule that applies to drugs with a lower potential for dependence and abuse and for which a ‘currently accepted medical use’ exists. Years before that, too, the Department of Justice issued a memorandum directing federal prosecutors nationwide to curtail their enforcement efforts against marijuana users even while all marijuana products remained on Schedule I. Seismic changes followed that memorandum. While marijuana use largely remained unlawful under federal law, the number of federal offenders sentenced for possession of marijuana dwindled. And most States responded by legalizing marijuana use to one degree or another as a matter of state law. As a result, some surveys suggest there now may be more adults in this country who regularly use marijuana than consume alcohol. Whatever one thinks of these developments, the federal government has not just tolerated them; it helped fuel them. All of which leaves it awkwardly positioned to suggest that the millions of Americans who now regularly use marijuana are categorically and unusually dangerous.” “In these circumstances, marijuana use today is like alcohol use at the founding,” the opinion says. “It is widespread and increasingly considered socially acceptable in many quarters. And from a practical standpoint, law enforcement widely tolerates the use of marijuana.” Six other justices signed onto Gorsuch’s majority opinion, and three separate concurring opinions were also issued. The court heard arguments in the case in March, with the Trump administration urging the justices to uphold the ban on gun possession by marijuana users. The federal government has consistently maintained its position that the law appropriately disarms marijuana users who, they claim, are uniquely dangerous. To meet a strict Supreme Court standard for firearm laws, the Department of Justice has also drawn sometimes eyebrow-raising comparisons between cannabis consumers and the mentally ill and habitual drunkards to establish a historical analogue that aligns with the country’s founding era. “Those laws, the government contends, demonstrate a tradition of firearm regulation consistent with its effort to disarm any regular user of any controlled substance without any further showing. But the government’s analogy fails under every measure it asks us to consider,” the court’s opinion issued on Thursday says. “The historical laws on which it relies targeted different kinds of people, did so for different reasons, and operated in different ways. And faced with all these shortcomings in the government’s submission, we cannot say it has carried its conceded burden of showing its prosecution of Mr. Hemani complies with the Second Amendment.” A concurring opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito that was joined by Justice Elena Kagan highlights the “mismatch” between the historical analogues and how marijuana use is increasingly mainstream today. “The mismatch between the Government’s historical analogues and the theory on which the Government defends the constitutionality of §922(g)(3) as applied to respondent is clear. All that we know about respondent’s marijuana use is that he used the drug about every other day. We do not know how much he used, the strength of the marijuana he used, how many times he used it on the days in question, the time of day when he used it, where he used it, or the degree to which this use affected his ability to exercise judgment and perform daily tasks responsibly. As a result, the Government has failed to show that a marijuana user like respondent is incapacitated in a way analogous to the habitual drunkards that the Government’s analogues regulated. Marijuana consumption is increasingly common in this country. Many States have legalized its use and sale, and although possession of the drug remains a federal crime, very few persons are convicted of that offense each year. The Government has largely tolerated the production and sale of marijuana when done in accord with state law, and it has allowed a multi-billion-dollar marijuana business to develop. For its part, Congress has restricted the use of appropriated funds to prevent States from implementing laws that allow the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana, or to prosecute certain parties.” Trump administration Solicitor General D. John Sauer, for his part, told the Supreme Court in a brief that people who use illegal drugs “pose a greater danger” than those who drink alcohol. In a separate filing for the case, the Justice Department also emphasized that “the question presented is the subject of a multi-sided and growing circuit conflict.” In asking the court to take up the dispute, the solicitor general also noted that the defendant is a joint American and Pakistani citizen with alleged ties to Iranian entities hostile to the U.S., putting him on the FBI’s radar. In December, attorneys general for 19 states and Washington, D.C. filed their own brief siding with the federal government in the Hemani case, insisting that justices should maintain the current § 922(g)(3) statute. The governor of Colorado, whose attorney general was among that group, subsequently said he didn’t think his state should have taken that position. Also in December, Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and 21 other prohibitionist groups filed a brief urging justices to uphold the constitutionality of the federal gun ban for people who use cannabis—which they claim is associated with violence and psychosis. SAM decried the ruling on Thursday, with the group’s CEO, Kevin Sabet, saying the court sent the message that “today’s highly potent marijuana and guns go together just fine.” “They do not,” he said. “The research could not be more glaring: combining supercharged marijuana with firearms endangers families, law enforcement, and communities… We are working now with our allies in Congress to strengthen protections against more marijuana-induced violence, consistent with today’s narrow ruling.” On the other side of the debate, civil rights groups—including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), whose attorneys are among those representing Hemani—and gun organizations such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) have argued that the current policy represents a misguided categorical infringement of Second Amendment rights for a population that uses a substance that’s been legalized in a majority of states and is now being partially federally reclassified. “Today’s unanimous 9-0 decision makes it clear that the government cannot make it crime for people to own a gun, which the Supreme Court has held is a fundamental constitutional right, simply because they use marijuana,” Cecillia Wang, legal director at the ACLU, said in a press release about Thursday’s ruling. “With nearly half of Americans reporting marijuana use at some point in their lives, this ruling protects the rights of millions and curbs the government’s ability to impose arbitrary and discriminatory penalties,” she said. “The court has sent a strong message that the government cannot criminalize the conduct of large numbers of people by making categorical and unfounded assumptions about whether they are dangerous.” Meanwhile, the Biden administration was evidently concerned about potential legal liability in federal cases for people convicted of violating gun laws simply by being a cannabis consumer who possessed a firearm, documents obtained by Marijuana Moment show. The previously unpublished 2024 guidance from former President Joe Biden’s Justice Department generally cautioned U.S. attorneys to use discretion in prosecuting federal cannabis cases, particularly for offenses that qualified people for pardons during his term. But one section seems especially relevant as the Supreme Court takes on a case challenging the constitutionality of the current federal gun statute. In interviews with Marijuana Moment, several Republican senators shared their views on the federal ban on gun possession by people who use marijuana—with one saying that if alcohol drinkers can lawfully buy and use firearms, the same standard should apply to cannabis consumers. The ruling comes amid several key federal developments on cannabis and firearms. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in May posted a proposed revised version of Form 4473, which must be filled out by anyone purchasing a gun from a federally licensed firearms dealer, to acknowledge the federally legal status of medical marijuana under the Trump administration’s recent move to reschedule the drug. The change is likely due to the fact that in April, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche issued an order that immediately moved marijuana products regulated by a state medical cannabis license to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), and similarly rescheduled marijuana products that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). A hearing to consider broader cannabis rescheduling is scheduled for this month. Sauer, the solicitor general, sent the justices a letter in April arguing that the Trump administration’s move to federally reschedule marijuana should not impact their decision in the Hemani case. Separately in April, Blanche had suggested that the Trump administration may soon stop aggressively defending 922(g)(3), the federal law that criminalizes gun possession by people who consume marijuana and other illegal drugs. ATF also moved earlier this year to loosen rules that bar people who consume marijuana and other illegal drugs from being able to lawfully purchase and possess guns by making it so fewer people would be affected. The interim final rule from ATF, which is currently open for public comment through June 30, seeks to update the definition of “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” under an existing policy that has been interpreted to deny Second Amendment rights to people who have used illegal substances a single time within the past year. The post Supreme Court Upholds Marijuana Users’ Gun Rights, Rejecting Trump DOJ Arguments In Major Second Amendment Case appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net