All Activity

“Opposing a workable regulatory structure because it is not comprehensive cannabis reform risks repeating the very piecemeal approach the cannabis sector has spent years criticizing.” By Dawson Hobbs, Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America The cannabis industry has spent years asking Congress for something more durable than prohibition, enforcement discretion and state-by-state improvisation. That is why cannabis stakeholders should seriously consider the Beverage Regulatory Parity Act even if they have been skeptical of hemp-derived THC products or worry that new federal rules could further complicate marijuana’s uneven treatment. That concern is understandable. For state-licensed cannabis operators, it can feel backwards to watch hemp-derived THC beverages seek a federal regulatory pathway while marijuana remains federally illegal and licensed cannabis businesses remain locked out of ordinary banking, interstate commerce, tax treatment and mainstream retail channels. But Congress is not choosing between comprehensive cannabis reform and a hemp beverage bill. It is choosing whether a product category that is already being sold and consumed will remain unregulated, face an ineffective federal ban or be properly regulated and taxed. The Beverage Regulatory Parity Act, introduced by Reps. Beth Van Duyne (R-TX) and Greg Landsman (D-OH), would create that pathway for a narrow category: low-dose, hemp-derived THC beverages. The important policy move is not simply that the bill would allow these products to remain available. It is recognizing them as intoxicating adult beverages, not as agriculture products, wellness items or novelty goods. That distinction matters. A beverage with intoxicating THC should be subject to adult-beverage rules: age restrictions, accurate labeling, product testing, accountable distribution, advertising standards, tax collection and meaningful enforcement across the supply chain. The 2018 Farm Bill legalized hemp as an agricultural crop, opening the door for hemp fiber, grain, CBD and other uses. Some intoxicating derivatives raise significant public safety and regulatory concerns and should be heavily regulated or restricted. Hemp-derived THC beverages are different: the finished product is bought, sold and consumed like an adult beverage, and America already has a system that can be applied to them. Some responsible hemp businesses are already trying to fill the regulatory gap with voluntary lab testing, transparent potency information and following responsible marketing practices. But voluntary best practices are not a substitute for consistent rules. They protect consumers only unevenly, and they leave compliant companies competing against products that may not meet the same standards. For the cannabis industry, the relevant question should not be whether hemp beverages arrived through the same legal pathway as state-licensed cannabis. They did not. The better question is whether leaving these products outside a workable federal framework advances the industry’s long-term interests. It does not. A market without clear potency standards, age restrictions, product testing, label requirements, responsible distribution, trade-practice rules or meaningful federal enforcement does not strengthen cannabis policy. It gives opponents of cannabis reform an easier argument: that intoxicating cannabinoid products cannot be responsibly integrated into the economy outside prohibition. The Beverage Regulatory Parity Act is also not a shortcut around broader cannabis reform. It does not address core issues such as 280E business tax parity, marijuana descheduling or harmonizing state cannabis licensing systems. Nor does it address every competitive concern raised by operators who have spent years complying with costly state regulations while hemp-derived beverages found shelf space in conventional retail. Those concerns deserve to be taken seriously. But opposing a workable regulatory structure because it is not comprehensive cannabis reform risks repeating the very piecemeal approach the cannabis sector has spent years criticizing. In 2023, Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America (WSWA) publicly supported federal legalization and regulation of adult-use cannabis because federal inaction and fragmented policy were producing a de facto national market without adequate rules for product safety, trade practices, interstate sales or enforcement. Hemp beverages now present a narrower version of the same problem. Congress can establish a clear framework for an intoxicating cannabinoid product category or allow the market to be shaped by loopholes, bans and uneven enforcement. That is why the regulatory functions of the beverage alcohol system are relevant, even for those who do not believe cannabis policy should simply copy alcohol policy. The model is not just about who sells a product. It is about licensing accountable actors, separating supply-chain functions, maintaining records and inspections, reviewing labels, restricting youth-oriented marketing, collecting excise taxes, policing unfair trade practices, preserving state authority and ensuring hemp beverages are appropriately dosed. The bill limits potency to 5 mg of THC per serving, creating a narrow band of products available to responsible adults. Those tools are well suited to products that can cause intoxication and impairment. They are poorly matched to hemp as a crop, but highly relevant to a shelf-stable beverage containing intoxicating THC. The market already exists. The question is whether it will be governed by consistent rules. There should be common ground on the answer: states should have the authority to allow (or prohibit) intoxicating THC beverages for adults 21 and over, provided those products are tightly regulated and subject to standards that consumers, regulators and responsible businesses can understand. The alternative is more confusion, more enforcement whiplash and more evidence for those who argue that cannabinoid products cannot be responsibly integrated into the economy. Pushing an existing market back into the shadows would not eliminate demand, improve product safety or resolve the contradictions in federal cannabis law. It would leave consumers with fewer lawful options and responsible businesses with no clear path forward. The hemp plant will remain legal, and those who don’t care about responsibility or public safety will still use it to make intoxicating products. Only the most responsible actors will exit the marketplace. Supporting the Beverage Regulatory Parity Act is not an endorsement of unequal treatment between hemp and marijuana. It is a recognition that federal regulation is better than prohibition, and that low-dose, hemp-derived intoxicating beverages are an appropriate place to draw a clear line. Not hemp agriculture, not unregulated THC and not a substitute for comprehensive cannabis reform, but a distinct low-dose adult beverage category with rules that match the product. Dawson Hobbs is executive vice president of government affairs for Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America (WSWA), where he leads the association’s state, federal and regulatory efforts, championing policies that preserve the three-tier system and promote responsible alcohol regulation. The post The Cannabis Industry Should Join Us In Supporting Hemp Drink Regulation Over Prohibition, Alcohol Industry Lobbyist Says (Op-Ed) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

The number of medical cannabis patients licensed for homegrow has increased by more than 1,000 percent over four years. By Makenzie Huber, South Dakota Searchlight A South Dakota Health Department official told lawmakers Monday that the number of medical marijuana patients in the state who are licensed to grow medical cannabis at home has grown by more than 1,000 percent over the past four years. Whitney Brunner, administrator of the state’s medical cannabis program, told the legislative Medical Marijuana Oversight Committee during a meeting at the Capitol in Pierre that the number of home cultivators grew from 61 in fiscal year 2022 to 715 in fiscal year 2026—an increase of 1,072 percent. Medical marijuana has been legal in South Dakota since 2021, but recreational marijuana use remains prohibited. Home cultivators may not grow more than two flowering cannabis plants and two non-flowering cannabis plants, according to state law. Patients can add a home cultivation license to their medical marijuana card for $20. Applicants must submit a photo of the grow room, a photo of the lock on the door and a diagram of the grow location. Brunner said those diagrams are often hand-drawn and lack detail. “The lack of regulation in this area is a bit concerning for us,” Brunner told lawmakers. Source: South Dakota Department of Health; Made with Flourish Brunner said she doesn’t want to assume home cultivators are abusing the licenses, but said the department is considering tighter regulation. “We have looked into if there is anything more that can be done, but I think that’s a greater conversation to be had,” Brunner said. “It does present some legal and safety considerations if we were to attempt to regulate this further.” Brunner did not say if new regulation would require legislation. Committee member Sen. John Carley, R-Rapid City, told South Dakota Searchlight after the meeting that lawmakers hope to learn more. “We were glad the department had more information,” Carley said. “Many of us will be looking at that exact item and will come back to that concern next meeting.” The rise in home cultivation comes amid growth in the overall program. At the end of June, there were 19,375 medical marijuana cardholders in South Dakota—a 30.5 percent increase from 14,843 last fiscal year. “We did experience a true spike in early fiscal year 2026 but, by fall, that number had started to level off,” Brunner said, adding that the number of cardholders in the state “remained fairly stable” most of the year. Most cardholders are in their 30s and 40s, according to department data, and more than 70 percent report severe debilitating pain as a reason for their cannabis use. This story was first published by South Dakota Searchlight. Photo courtesy of Chris Wallis // Side Pocket Images. The post South Dakota Sees Surge In Patients Growing Medical Marijuana At Home appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Participants in a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) hearing on the Trump administration’s marijuana rescheduling proposal have filed their final briefs in the proceedings—setting up the judge overseeing the matter to issue his recommendation on the reform. DEA, which is charged with defending the proposed move of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III, said in its brief that “marijuana no longer fits the statutory requirements for Schedule I because it has a currently accepted medical use within the United States and it has an accepted safety for its use under medical supervision.” The agency noted that under the law it must give “significant deference” to an “extensive ten-month study on the scientific and medical properties” of cannabis conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which recommended rescheduling. “Currently there are over 30,000 practitioners treating more than six million patients in 43 U.S. jurisdictions,” DEA said. “Such practices demonstrate that there is no longer a lack of accepted safety for use of marijuana under medical supervision, and as such, marijuana does not fulfill the requirements of being a Schedule I substance.” It also said that there is “substantial evidence sufficient to show that marijuana’s abuse and dependency profiles better align with Schedule III substances than Schedule II” or Schedule I. “The vast majority of individuals who use marijuana do so in a manner that does not result in dangers to themselves or to their communities.” The drug agency said there is “no merit” to arguments made by reform opponents who participated in the hearing that a new two-part test federal officials used to analyze cannabis improperly departs from a former five-part test. DEA also said that several witnesses for opposition parties “supported the therapeutic use of marijuana in certain instances” during their testimony. “Dr. Bertha Madras (Madras), the addiction expert presented by SAM, testified that there is scientific evidence of marijuana’s efficacy for neuropathic pain patients, although she believes that the science is weak. Dr. Kenneth Finn, also a pain management physician, admitted that he previously recommended marijuana for his pain patients and currently believes that there is likely a therapeutic benefit to marijuana. His concern is mainly with the dosing and quality controls for the substance.” Opponents also “have not offered sufficient fact or expert testimony to rebut HHS’ findings that marijuana” has a currently accepted medical use (CAMU), the agency said. “The evidence proffered by the Opposed Parties boils down simply to the fact that Schedule III marijuana poses employment and enforcement difficulties, the same as any other controlled substance in Schedules II – V.” DEA also argued that several opposition witnesses “lacked necessary reliability and credibility and should be afforded no weight”—also saying that some of them ignored the judge’s instructions for sequestration by reading transcripts of the testimony tendered prior to their appearances, leading to their own testimony being “irreparably tainted.” In conclusion, DEA asked the judge overseeing the hearing to “expeditiously recommend” that marijuana be transferred from Schedule I to Schedule III. A joint brief submitted by the prohibitionist organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and the states of Idaho, Indiana and Nebraska began by noting that DEA and HHS have previously considered rescheduling marijuana at least nine times, and that “on each occasion, after reviewing the available scientific evidence and applying the criteria specified by the Controlled Substances Act, the Government determined that marijuana must remain in Schedule I because it (i) has a high risk of abuse, (ii) has no currently accepted medical use, and (iii) cannot be used safely under medical supervision.” The argued that those decisions can only be reversed if DEA can show that cannabis has a risk of abuse that is lower than relevant comparator drugs, has a use in medical treatment that is accepted by established medical authorities and can be used safely under medical supervision with relatively limited dependency risks. But the hearing showed that “all the evidence is to the contrary,” they said. “So the Government now proposes to reschedule marijuana not based on the facts, but rather based on new and different standards—standards that are not found in the Controlled Substances Act, that run contrary to previous HHS and DEA practices, and that were devised solely for purposes of this rescheduling,” SAM and the states said, referring to the new two-part analysis used to evaluate cannabis. “This Tribunal should reject the Government’s attempt to supplant the standards of the Controlled Substances Act and decades of agency precedent with newfound standards dreamt up only for this proceeding. Under the established legal standards, the evidence points in only one direction: Marijuana must remain in Schedule I.” In 2024, the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) said the prior five-part test was “impermissibly narrow” and said the two-part review “is sufficient to establish that a drug has CAMU even if the drug has not been approved by FDA and would not satisfy DEA’s five-part test.” DEA has since embraced the new approach to evaluating cannabis for CAMU and it has been used to subsequently evaluate other substances. A separate brief from the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) argues that the fact the proposed cannabis rescheduling rule was issued by the attorney general instead of the DEA administrator is “enough” is enough to consider the proposal “deficient and keep marijuana in Schedule I.” TBI also claimed that rescheduling “fares no better on the merits,” saying the evaluation neglected to consider issues such as diversion of state-licensed cannabis, “marijuana-related violent crime” and traffic fatalities from impaired drivers. A brief from the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA), which represents members of the drug testing industry, expressed concerns that “if the transfer of marijuana to Schedule III is finalized, the authority of the Federal government to test for it will end.” “Important safety and critical security personnel the federal government would no longer be subject to testing, including air traffic controllers, Secret Service, and Federal employees with security clearances. The list of DOT safety sensitive employees who perform commercial transportation duties in the private sector, in who would no longer be subject to marijuana testing would include: airline pilots, airline mechanics, locomotive engineers, school bus drivers, truck drivers, transit operators, Coast Guard mariners, and pipeline operators.” “The prevention and deterrence that the American public has encountered for almost years would be lost if marijuana is moved to Schedule III,” NDASA said. A brief from DUID Victim Voices and Kenneth Finn begins with an anecdote about a memorial to people who have died from fentanyl that is displayed at DEA headquarters in Virginia, where the rescheduling hearing was held: “Every day, walking through DEA Headquarters, the participants in this hearing passed a beautiful tribute to the faces of those killed by fentanyl. While the gesture is sincere and touching, it cannot be ignored that those faces are, in part, the product of the agency’s own documented failures: opiate production quotas set too high for too long, and inadequate and delayed action against major distributors shipping suspicious volumes of opioids. The same wall of faces could just as easily be assembled for the many and growing memorial roll of young people whose minds and lives have been destroyed by marijuana… The agency now, through this proceeding, has an opportunity to limit the number of faces that will one day have to be added to that wall, rather than later acknowledge and pay homage to those fellow citizens we lost, again, due to institutional inaction in the face of a clear and present danger.” DUID and Finn argue that DEA “failed to carry its burden” to demonstrate that marijuana has medical value—saying that its “rescheduling endeavor depends entirely on a novel analytical framework that has never been subjected to notice-and-comment rulemaking, lacks any foundation in prior agency practice, and was engineered to reach a predetermined outcome.” The drug agency also used “fundamentally flawed” comparator methodology, “relying on substances that are pharmacologically distinct from marijuana—including alcohol, which is not a controlled substance and is not typically used as a CSA scheduling comparator,” they said. The brief additionally claimed that DEA “systematically ignored or underweighted the grave safety and public health consequences of marijuana abuse—including psychosis, schizophrenia, suicidality, cardiovascular harms, impaired driving, diversion, and devastating workplace and transportation safety consequences.” A brief from Phillip Drum, a pharmacist and an emergency medicine and pediatric physician, said that “marijuana, with its 300+ ‘active’ ingredients as claimed by the marijuana industry, is not a medicine”—which he called a “fraudulent statement.” “The States are simply not regulating and protecting the public with their current practices in place. Dosages for various formulations are unknown,” the brief said. “Currently, marijuana is the active ingredient in: tampons, condoms, intravaginal suppositories, inhalers, topical creams or ointments, rectal suppositories, sublingual applications, lip balms, oral gummies, chips, candies, cereals, sodas or alcohol-infused products, and smoked versions including: dabs, waxes, joints or bong hits.” “The harms are paramount, and are being minimized and use has been normalized by the media and popular vote making marijuana out to be as both a recreational drug and a ‘medicine,’ thus making it seem safer to the public at large,” Drum’s brief says. DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julius will now consider the final briefs and testimony delivered during the hearing and issue a recommendation on cannabis’s scheduling status. The final decision will ultimately be up to the DEA administrator, however. During the hearing, DEA officials charged with defending the cannabis rescheduling proposal highlighted testimony on marijuana’s medical benefits and its relative safety compared to other substances such as alcohol and opioids. That included appearances from a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scientist and a medical doctor from New Hampshire who detailed how medical marijuana provides relief to pain patients and can serve as an alternative to opioids. Meanwhile, lawyers and witnesses for parties who are oppose marijuana rescheduling and participated in the hearing put significant focus on the alleged harms of cannabis use as well as criticism of recently adopted changes to an analysis used to determine whether drugs have accepted medical value. DEA Administrator Terrance Cole invited only organizations and people who oppose marijuana reform to join the hearing as designated participants—telling supporters that they do not meet the definition of an “interested person” to participate because they are not “adversely affected or aggrieved by any rule or proposed rule issuable.” Opposition parties that participated include Smart Approaches to Marijuana, National Drug & Alcohol Screening Association, Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, DUID Victim Voices, Kenneth Finn, Phillip A. Drum and the states of Idaho, Indiana and Nebraska. Ahead of the hearing’s start, marijuana reform activists held a press conference outside DEA headquarters to highlight how they feel the have been “shut out” of the process—criticizing the fact that no supporters of reform were invited to participate and that the proceedings were not livestreamed despite officials’ vows of “transparency.” Marijuana Moment sent requests to Julius, the DEA judge, and to Cole, the DEA administrator, requesting they reverse a decision to prohibit the public from tuning into the cannabis hearing via livestream. A congressman and other journalists later joined in that request. — Marijuana Moment’s journalism is made possible by readers like you who value this work enough to support us with monthly pledges on Patreon. If you rely on our reporting to stay informed about key cannabis developments, please help us keep doing this by becoming a sustaining subscriber today. Backing us at the $25/month level also gets you access to our Bill Tracker so you won’t miss any important marijuana legislation in your state. — Attorney General Todd Blanche in April issued an order that immediately reclassified state-licensed medical cannabis, as well as marijuana products approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III. Under a separate order the acting attorney general signed, the hearing is being held to consider more comprehensively moving marijuana to Schedule III. A prior hearing process on the marijuana rescheduling process that was initiated by the Biden administration stalled last year amid litigation over alleged improper communications and witness selection. The current marijuana rescheduling process is being challenged with several lawsuits that have been consolidated by a federal appeals court. Those pieces of litigation against the cannabis reform have been filed by state attorneys general, marijuana legalization opponents and a cannabis-focused biopharmaceutical corporation. Meanwhile, the already-enacted rescheduling of state-licensed medical cannabis is already having broad impacts. The Congressional Research Service published a report on the current cannabis rescheduling move explaining that certified patients who possess medical marijuana from state-licensed dispensaries now have certain protections under Schedule III. “The order appears to authorize end users to possess marijuana for medical use without a CSA-compliant prescription,” it says. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has posted a draft update to a gun purchase form to acknowledge the federally legal status of medical marijuana under rescheduling. The revised section in question notably says that only “use or possession of marijuana for recreational purposes” is federally prohibited, leaving out the prior form’s mention of medical cannabis. The U.S. Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) said they plan to issue new tax guidance for the marijuana industry following rescheduling. The reform will benefit state-licensed marijuana businesses by allowing them to take federal tax deductions they’re currently barred from under an IRS code known as 280E that doesn’t apply to Schedule III substances. Even DEA, which has long opposed cannabis legalization and was accused of stalling the rescheduling process initiative by the Biden administration, has launched a registration process for state-legal marijuana businesses to take advantage of federal benefits that come with the reform. The Department of Transportation, on the other hand, issued guidance saying that use of state-legal medical cannabis is still no excuse for a positive drug test by truck drivers, pilots and other safety-sensitive workers. The Department of War issued a memo making clear that marijuana use by military service members and civilian employees of the department remains prohibited, even under federal cannabis rescheduling. A congressional committee recently voted to block federal officials from taking further steps to carry out cannabis rescheduling, though bipartisan lawmakers told Marijuana Moment they don’t believe that provision will be enacted into law. Read the final briefs in the DEA marijuana rescheduling hearing below: The post DEA And Anti-Marijuana Groups File Final Briefs In Hearing On Trump Administration Rescheduling Proposal appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

This is usually a superb posting, With thanks to get allowing people this review. Continue to keep writing. slot gacor

Democratic voters in Massachusetts strongly oppose a measure on the November ballot to roll back the state’s marijuana legalization law. The new survey of Democratic primary voters from the Suffolk University Political Research Center and The Boston Globe asked, “In November, voters will be asked whether they support keeping or repealing the state law that legalized recreational marijuana sales. If the election were today, would you vote to keep or repeal the law?” An overwhelming majority of 79 percent said they would prefer to keep the state’s current cannabis laws intact, 16 percent said they want to repeal recreational sales and 4 percent were undecided. There was supermajority support for maintaining marijuana legalization as-is among every age, racial, gender and geographic group polled. While the poll, which was conducted from August 13-16, only included voters who are likely to vote in the Democratic primary on September 1, Democrats outnumber Republicans among registered voters in the state, so the result indicates that marijuana opponents have a lot of ground to make up if they hope to pass the prohibitionist ballot measure in November. Last month, state officials issued a final determination that the initiative—which would repeal laws allowing the regulated commercial sales of recreational cannabis and home cultivation while maintaining legal possession and continuing the medical marijuana system—will appear on ballot this fall. While the latest survey results provide some comfort to cannabis reform supporters, advocates are not resting. A coalition of Massachusetts marijuana business leaders, healthcare professionals and other advocates have launched a campaign to defeat the measure. The Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) recently issued a warning that passage of the legalization rollback measure would have “disastrous political and economic consequences for legal cannabis markets everywhere.” “Even a too-close victory would spook markets and incentivize a rash of similar initiatives in states around the country, each costing millions to try and defeat,” the group said. After the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s Office determined that organizers for the anti-cannabis proposal had turned in enough valid signatures to put the measure before voters, a marijuana reform advocate filed an objection with the State Ballot Law Commission claiming that various signatures were not genuine, obtained through fraudulent means or were not “signed substantially as registered.” The body rejected the challenge to the legal marijuana rollback measure, however, clearing it to go before voters to decide. In June, the campaign behind the anti-legalization ballot measure fired a signature gatherer it says was shown appearing to engage in “wholly unacceptable” conduct in a recent video. As Marijuana Moment reported, a man petitioning for the Massachusetts initiative as well as a similar anti-cannabis proposal in Maine was depicted in recent social media posts seeming to argue that voters who support legal marijuana access should sign the petitions in order to advance or protect reform. The campaign later said it has “zero tolerance for any circulation tactics that would mislead petition signers.” “The identified canvasser was immediately terminated, in coordination with our vendor, upon being made aware of the alleged conduct,” the group said. “The conduct apparent in the video would be wholly unacceptable and does not reflect how this campaign operates. We demand honesty, transparency and professionalism from everyone associated with our effort.” A video posted to Reddit of the signature gatherer shows the man collecting signatures outside a retail store in Massachusetts next to a sign that says “keep cannabis legal.” When confronted by a marijuana reform supporter who recorded the petitioner’s interactions with voters, he appeared to be trying to convince them that it is important to qualify the anti-cannabis measure for the ballot in order to then defeat it. “This is what we’re fighting against right here. That’s why we vote no,” he said. “If we can get this to the ballot right here, we vote no.” The person who captured the video pointed out that Massachusetts voters already approved marijuana legalization years ago, and that the only way it could be imminently repealed is if the new ballot measure qualified for the November election. If the initiative does not get enough signatures to go before voters, the state’s laws will remain the same. “It’s my job,” the petitioner insisted, however. “I know what I’m talking about.” “It’s a group of rich folks from out of state that want to basically take marijuana to when it was a medical marijuana card,” he said. “We don’t want that to happen.” The same man also appeared to also be gathering signatures for a separate measure in Maine that would similarly repeal laws allowing regulated adult-use marijuana sales and home cultivation rights for adults while keeping possession legal and adding new testing requirements for medical cannabis. A staffer for the prohibitionist organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), whose affiliated group SAM Action is largely funding the anti-cannabis ballot campaigns in both states, declined to comment about the petitioner’s conduct when reached by Marijuana Moment. The campaigns have previously been accused of misleading petitioning tactics. In Massachusetts, some voters reported that the campaign used fake cover letters for other ballot measures on unrelated issues like affordable housing and same-day voter registration during the first round of petitioning. Legal cannabis supporters filed an earlier formal complaint about the prohibitionist effort’s tactics, but the State Ballot Law Commission rejected the challenge. The measure also faced a legal challenge from cannabis industry operatives who argued it contains “impermissibly unrelated subjects,” and that the state attorney general’s official summary is “misleading and deficient.” The state Supreme Judicial Court heard oral arguments on the litigation challenging the anti-marijuana initiative but it ultimately ruled against the lawsuit. Photo courtesy of Mike Latimer. The post Massachusetts Democratic Voters Strongly Oppose Ballot Measure To Roll Back Marijuana Legalization, Poll Shows appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

it is certainly wonderful along with meanful. it is certainly neat web site. Backlinks is incredibly valuable issue. you've got genuinely made it easier for some people whom pay a visit to web site and still provide these people usefull data. Voco TV

The world of Panchsheel Park Escorts welcomes gentlemen seeking genuine connections and passionate moments. These beautiful girl combine captivating personalities with physical allure, offering experiences that ensure complete satisfaction. When booking, choose agencies with transparent pricing, verified photos, and positive client feedback. This diligence ensures you get true value for your money, along with the sensual satisfaction and memorable moments you desire.

A new Department of Justice rule intended to help restore gun rights to people who have been barred from possessing firearms contains provisions that will block officials from denying applications over the use of marijuana or convictions for cannabis-related activity. The Federal Firearm Rights Restoration policy, announced on Monday, allows people who have been stripped of their Second Amendment rights to apply to have them restored. The rule says that those applications will likely be denied, however, if the person is an “unlawful user of, or addicted to, a controlled substance” or has a state or federal felony conviction within the last 10 years involving “manufacture, import, export, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled substance.” It also allows the attorney general to consider whether the applicant is “likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety,” with one factor being their “past or present use or abuse of controlled substances.” But the rule specifies that the definition of the term controlled substance “does not include marijuana” and that being an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance “excludes those whose only unlawful use of or addiction to a controlled substance consists of the use of or addiction to marijuana.” DOJ explained in a Federal Register filing that the cannabis exemption comes “in recognition of” a recent Supreme Court decision that found the government’s efforts to criminalize possession of firearms for marijuana consumers through a statute known as 922(g)(3) to be unconstitutional. The department also cited “the many comments received regarding use of marijuana” that it received during the rulemaking process, noting that they “focused almost exclusively on marijuana users and argued that regular marijuana use does not render the user dangerous to the public.” “Another presumptive disqualifier that commenters asked the Department to remove was that pertaining to drug use. Comments on this topic focused primarily on marijuana use. Some commenters believed that no public safety rationale justifies presumptively disqualifying users of controlled substances, particularly marijuana users. They pointed to post-Bruen jurisprudence emphasizing the historic tradition of disarming primarily those persons found to be dangerous, and also to the fact that nearly two-thirds of states have legalized marijuana. Some commenters also observed that if casual alcohol users are able to have their rights restored without overcoming a presumptive disqualification, then marijuana users should not be subject to such a presumption. On the other side of the issue, commenters who believed drug use was appropriately categorized as a presumptive disqualifier varied between those supporting a permanent ban and those endorsing some pathway to relief for former drug users, while one commenter opined that ‘all applicants should submit current drug test results.” DOJ acknowledged that making changes with respect to people “addicted to” and not just users of marijuana goes beyond the facts at issue in the recent Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Hemani, but said that it is “necessary to improve the administrability of the restoration process. “Whether an individual is a marijuana ‘user’ or a marijuana ‘addict’ is a highly fact-specific inquiry, and the Department would struggle to differentiate between the two on the basis of the kind of evidence likely to be submitted with an application for restoration. Further, attempting to collect and evaluate additional information to accurately differentiate between marijuana ‘users’ and marijuana ‘addicts’ would require time and resources that would defeat the administrability benefits of imposing a presumption of disqualification in the first place. Given these considerations, the Department has determined that excluding both marijuana users and marijuana addicts from §§ 107.10(g)(13)–(14) and 107.50(c) best balances the relevant policy considerations.” Kostas Moros, director of legal research and education for the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), told Marijuana Moment that while his group is still considering the full implications of the new filing, it is “pleased to see the DOJ acknowledge the recent Hemani ruling and adapt the rule to it, which will help a large number of affected people get their gun rights back.” From the Final Rule text. " 'Controlled substance' has the meaning given the term in 27 CFR 4 78.11, except that it does not include marijuana." " 'Unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" has the meaning given this term in 27 CFR 478.11, except that it… pic.twitter.com/xquFx5L7hx — SAF (@2AFDN) August 17, 2026 The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (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, 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 recently concluded testimony. 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, after which it said it will be issuing guidance on cannabis consumers’ Second Amendment rights “soon.” “Paired with likely changes from the ATF on Form 4473 for firearms purchasers who use marijuana, the massive injustice of denied Second Amendment rights for mere casual use of marijuana will soon be in the dustbin of history,” Moros of SAF told Marijuana Moment on Monday. When it comes to users of other federal controlled substances beyond marijuana, DOJ said in the filing that “individuals prohibited from owning firearms based on drug use or addiction are among the class of persons who can take themselves out of the prohibited category simply by ending their unlawful conduct and avoiding additional drug-related conduct for a period of time—thus disrupting the ‘pattern.’ of drug use.” “[I]ndividuals prohibited on the basis of drug use or addiction can regain the right to possess a firearm, assuming no other prohibitors apply to them, by abstaining from ongoing drug use and allowing 12 months to pass,” it said. Blanche, in a press release about the new rights restoration rule, said that “the Second Amendment is not a second-class right, and the federal government should not permanently deprive Americans of a constitutional right without regard to whether they pose a danger to public safety.” “This rule establishes a rigorous, commonsense process that protects the public while giving deserving Americans a real path to restoration,” he said. The Supreme Court, in the majority opinion in the Hemani case, said that the broad ban on marijuana consumers’ gun rights 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 said. “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 separately 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 was 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 New DOJ Rule Makes It Easier For Marijuana Users To Regain Their Gun Rights appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

it is certainly wonderful along with meanful. it is certainly neat web site. Backlinks is incredibly valuable issue. you've got genuinely made it easier for some people whom pay a visit to web site and still provide these people usefull data. slot online

DEA & hemp company battle over HHC in federal court; TX Dems bash GOP candidate’s marijuana stance; Yale study on cannabis tax revenue 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… Hold on, just one second before you read today’s news. Have you thought about giving some financial support to Marijuana Moment? If so, today would be a great day to contribute. We’re planning our reporting for the coming months and it would really help to know what kind of support we can count on. Check us out on Patreon and sign up to give $25/month today: https://www.patreon.com/marijuanamoment / TOP THINGS TO KNOW The Georgia Access to Medical Cannabis Commission is proposing new rules that will allow medical cannabis delivery—including via the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) and private carriers like FedEx and UPS, a change officials say is made possible by the Trump administration’s move to federally reschedule marijuana. A hemp company filed a federal court brief pushing back on the Drug Enforcement Administration’s stance that the synthetic cannabinoid hexahydrocannabinol (HHC) is an illegal Schedule I substance—with attorneys also sending a letter saying the agency’s action on a related petition undermines its arguments in the lawsuit. The Texas Democratic Party is calling out Republican Senate candidate Ken Paxton, currently the state’s attorney general, for dodging a cannabis question—and Joe Rogan is warning the GOP that they will turn the state blue by pushing too hard to crack down on the availability of THC products. “Kids will turn on you if you tell them they can’t smoke weed. They know weed’s not killing anybody.” A new Yale University analysis projects that federal marijuana legalization would generate $57.9 billion in new tax revenue over a decade—and that the total could reach $111.3 billion if all remaining states were to also legalize cannabis. Virginia hemp businesses are calling on lawmakers to convene a special session to “address the gap in access” to products after a federal judge declined to block enforcement of new THC restrictions. South Carolina lawmakers are allowing hemp THC products to stay legal and largely unregulated until at least next year by declining to pass legislation on the issue before adjourning for the rest of 2026. / FEDERAL The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Housing and Urban Development launched a toolkit on combating addiction and homelessness. Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins discussed ongoing efforts to source ibogaine for use in research. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) said that “voters across the country have made it clear they want cannabis legalized, and Trump’s half measures aren’t fooling anyone.” Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY) said his hemp regulation bill is a “work in progress.” / STATES Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey (D) issued an emergency order restricting the sale of kratom. The Virginia legislature’s Joint Commission to Oversee the Transition of the Commonwealth into a Cannabis Retail Market met. Illinois regulators published guidance on hemp vapes. The Maryland Department of Service and Equity Management is recommending changes to the state’s cannabis social equity infrastructure. New York regulators posted a reminder that marijuana businesses must submit an annual report tracking energy, water and waste data by August 31. Vermont regulators are hosting several cannabis working group meetings over the coming month. — Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments. Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access. — / INTERNATIONAL Victoria, Australia lawmakers rejected a proposal to put a cannabis legalization referendum on the ballot. / SCIENCE & HEALTH A study found that “prevalence of past-year and past-month cannabis use among adults in California remained largely stable across the eight-year study period spanning the onset of retail availability of non-medical cannabis products.” A study found that “most Δ9-THC edibles marketed as ‘hemp’ appear infeasible to manufacture using cannabis material containing ≤0.3% Δ9-THC by dry weight without exceeding the available product mass, even under highly conservative assumptions” and so “most appear to depend on marijuana as an ingredient, which has substantial regulatory and public health implications.” / ADVOCACY, OPINION & ANALYSIS Americans for Tax Reform published a post criticizing “excessive and onerous” marijuana taxes in Michigan. / BUSINESS IM Cannabis Corp. is selling I.M.C. Holdings Ltd. to Slil.com Holding Ltd. / CULTURE Matthew McConaughey credited the Janet Jackson song “That’s the Way Love Goes” with his decision to stop smoking marijuana after he listened to it 24 times in a row while high and missed his own birthday party. Make sure to subscribe to get Marijuana Moment’s daily dispatch in your inbox. Get our daily newsletter. Email address: Leave this field empty if you're human: The post USPS could deliver medical cannabis under rescheduling, state officials say (Newsletter: August 18, 2026) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

129. Psychedelics for Seniors: Aging & What's Next A live Salon panel on psychedelics after 60: set and setting, medication interactions, integration circles, and what aging can offer instead of loss. Episode Summary The psychedelic renaissance gets covered like a young person's story, executives microdosing before board meetings, twenty somethings on retreats. But the fastest growing population interested in this medicine right now is confronting retirement, widowhood, the death of parents, the question of legacy. This episode is a live Salon recording built around psychedelics for seniors, with filmmaker Scott Paul Wright, writer Abbie Rosner, and naturopathic physician Dr. Emily Whinkin. We get into set and setting, medication contraindications, ketamine versus psilocybin, and what integration actually looks like once the journey is over. Abbie's research on 36 older adults turns up something worth sitting with: most of them called later life the happiest, most meaningful stretch they've had. Key Takeaways Set and setting, not age, is the biggest predictor of a safe psychedelic experience. Older adults often prepare better than younger users because they're less inclined to wing it. If you're on an SSRI or SNRI, expect a blunted psychedelic experience. The evidence on whether that blunting reduces therapeutic benefit is still mixed. Ketamine and psilocybin are distinct molecules with different legal statuses and safety histories. Neither is automatically the safer choice for an older nervous system. Integration circles are becoming clinical infrastructure, not a nice extra. Isolation among older adults carries measurable health costs, including a documented rise in dementia risk. The questions shift with age. Younger clients tend to ask what can I fix. Older clients tend to ask what my legacy is and how I can give back. Timestamps [00:00] Welcome and introductions at Town Hall Seattle [00:01] Scott Wright on his first journey at 68 and how the documentary began [00:02] Why older adults report fewer bad trips: preparation and set and setting [00:04] Contraindications, health history, and working with SSRIs and SNRIs [00:06] Ketamine versus psilocybin: different molecules, different legal paths [00:08] Meaning making in later life and what psychedelics surface [00:10] What integration actually is, and why the work starts after the journey [00:13] Integration circles as community and clinical infrastructure [00:17] The questions older adults ask that younger clients don't [00:18] Aging, elderhood, and the Buddhist "three messengers" [00:20] Intergenerational journeys and psychedelics within families Guest Abbie Rosner is a writer and cultural observer exploring how the modern psychedelic renaissance is reshaping our understanding of aging—individually and collectively. Psychedelics and the Counter Culture of Aging | website ELDEREVOLUTION on Substack Dr. Emily Whinkin (she/they) is a naturopathic physician and integrative mental health specialist blending psychedelic and entheogenic medicine with mental, reproductive, and generative health. Dr. Whinkin is licensed in Oregon and Washington, provides global consultation, and is dedicated to research, education, and individualized integrative mental health. emilywhinkin.com Scott Paul Wright is a filmmaker and screenwriter based in Paris and New Orleans. He took his first psychedelic journey at age 68 – resulting in his new documentary – The Next Chapter, which is now in post-production and scheduled for release in June 2026. The Next Chapter documentary Resources Psychedelic Salon at Town Hall Seattle - 2026-27 Schedule Follow April on Substack Visit aprilpride.com Original Substack post: https://aprilpride.substack.com/psychedelics-for-seniors-aging-salon Hosted by April Pride IG: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@aprilpridecreates YouTube: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠youtube.com/@aprilpridecreates Get full access to APRIL PRIDE at aprilpride.substack.com/subscribeCatch the full episode here

Looking for unforgettable pleasure in the city? Gurugram Escorts offers stunning companions who know exactly how to satisfy your deepest cravings. Whether you desire a romantic evening or wild passion, these beauties deliver beyond expectations. Simply browse profiles, select your dream girl, and book discreetly. Experience premium intimacy that leaves you breathless and completely fulfilled tonight.

Federally legalizing marijuana would generate $57.9 billion in new tax revenue over a decade, according to a new Yale University analysis—and additional states also moving to legalize cannabis would nearly double that haul. The report, from the university’s Budget Lab, notes that the “cannabis market has grown into a substantial economic sector” but caveats that there is an “unusual degree of uncertainty” about the fiscal projections, however, given the “complicated legal context” of marijuana. “Marijuana presents an appealing target for taxation,” the Yale analysis says, noting that it is considered by many policymakers to be “socially undesirable”—as is the case with alcohol and cigarettes. “A tax levied specifically on marijuana could serve the dual purposes of discouraging use and raising revenue, thereby funding new public spending or replacing taxes on socially desirable activities like work or savings,” it says. Researchers projected that if cannabis were federally rescheduled and an excise tax of $0.00625 per mg of THC were applied, a gram of marijuana would be taxed at $1.31. “At an average price of $8.59 per gram of marijuana, this tax would amount to about a 15% increase in the tax-inclusive price,” the report says. The tax would result in $57.9 billion in new revenue over the course of ten years, the researchers project, If all remaining states were to also legalize marijuana in their jurisdictions, the total haul would be $111.3 billion over a decade. Potential Revenue from Federal Excise Tax on Marijuana Products Revenue ($ billions) from $0.00625/mg THC excise tax 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 26-35 36-45 46-55 Scenario 1: No New States Legalize 0.0 5.5 5.7 5.9 6.2 6.4 6.7 6.9 7.2 7.5 57.9 92.3 134.0 Scenario 2: All States Legalize 0.0 10.5 11.0 11.4 11.8 12.3 12.8 13.3 13.8 14.4 111.3 177.7 258.5 Via Yale University’s Budget Lab, assuming a January 1, 2027, enactment date. The Yale report bases its estimates on existing state tax revenue to determine that the recreational marijuana market was about $25 billion in 2024 “We project that, if the market continues to grow without federal legalization or any new states legalizing, the market will reach nearly $40 billion in 2035,” it says. “The medical segment, while more established, represents the smaller share of total activity at only about 20 percent. As such, the medical marijuana segment accounts for between $5 and $8 billion in sales each year from 2024-2035.” Uncertainties underlying the revenue estimates include how much illicit activity would convert to the regulated market under legalization, as well as the effect of taxes on consumer purchases. Legalization would also cause some cannabis workers who are not currently paying income and/or payroll taxes to begin doing so. “Federal legalization would likely generate income and payroll tax revenue beyond that collected through the excise tax. Workers in the illicit cannabis economy—cultivators, trimmers, distributors, and retail-facing sellers—currently earn income that is neither reported to the IRS nor subject to FICA withholding, because their employers have no lawful basis for establishing formal employment relationships at the federal level. Federal legalization would bifurcate this formerly invisible workforce into two distinct categories for tax purposes. Employees absorbed into licensed, formally structured cannabis firms—the multistate operators, vertically integrated cultivators, and dispensary chains that already operate in the state-legal market—would receive W-2 wages, generating both the employer and employee shares of FICA taxes as well as federal income tax withholding.” People who own cannabis businesses would also enter into the tax system and be subject to self-employment taxes or federal income tax on net profit—”income streams that are currently entirely outside the federal tax base,” the report says. “Federal legalization could result in a large-scale transfer of economic activity from the untaxed underground economy into the tax-compliant legal market,” the analysis says. “This shift holds implications for income and payroll tax revenue that is analytically distinct from, and additive to, the excise tax revenues. The scale of the illicit market that would be subject to this transition is substantial.” Another piece of uncertainty that researchers did not attempt to account for in their calculations stems from the fact that federally legal marijuana businesses would be able to take advantage of tax deductions and credits that they are not eligible for in light of cannabis’s Schedule I status under the law known as 280E. Despite the uncertainty, the report says, federal legalization would undoubtedly lead to new revenue. “Federal legalization, by eliminating federal restrictions on banking access, interstate commerce, and formal employment relationships for many illicit operators, would reduce the structural advantages that sustain the black market and pull a meaningful share of that activity into the regulated economy,” the analysis says. A separately recently published federal report from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that states where marijuana is legal have generated nearly $15 billion in tax revenue from legal cannabis sales since late 2021. Another report from the advocacy group the Marijuana Policy Project found that states have generated more than $28.4 billion in tax revenue from recreational marijuana sales since the first markets launched over a decade ago. Meanwhile, an additional economic analysis released 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 Marijuana Could Generate $111 Billion In Tax Revenue Over A Decade If Legalized Federally And In All 50 States, Yale Report Shows appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

A hemp company is pushing back on a recent court filing from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) about the agency’s stance that a cannabinoid produced synthetically from components of the cannabis plant is federally illegal—saying that its denial of another business’s petition on the issue undermines the arguments the government is making in ongoing litigation. DEA issued a rule in May saying that while it had already considered hexahydrocannabinol (HHC) to be a Schedule I illegal substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the agency will now giving the compound its own unique drug code for classification. Two hemp companies filed separate lawsuits challenging the move, however, and last week DEA filed a brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in response to one of them—arguing that the company, Bluestar Operations, LLC, does not have standing to bring the case and, even if it did, it would fail on the merits. The agency essentially said it has considered HHC to be illegal for decades and that assigning the code does is “a technical change that has no substantive effect on HHC’s status as a schedule I substance.” “All the rule does is assign a tracking code to HHC to facilitate DEA’s administration of the CSA,” the brief said, adding that because the change “imposes no new obligations or liabilities,” Bluestar has not “identified any injury traceable to the rule that can be remedied in this proceeding.” Bluestar, in a reply brief filed on Thursday, said DEA’s filing provided “no substantive answer to the merits” of its case. “The DEA Rule, according to the Respondents, is something both simultaneously important enough to warrant publication in the Code of Federal Regulations yet sufficiently inconsequential that no one it reaches may be heard to challenge it,” lawyers for the company wrote. “Both cannot be true. That strategy fails on its own terms, and cannot rescue the DEA Rule which is unlawful on the merits.” DEA’s position, Bluestar said in the filing, is that the company’s “injuries flow from the ‘preexisting’ status of HHC rather than from the DEA Rule.” But the agency “cannot have it both ways,” it said. “If HHC was already unambiguously a Schedule I substance, then no new agency action was necessary.” The Bluestar filing also said that DEA’s argument that HHC is not “part of” the hemp plant contradicts the 2018 Farm Bill’s definition of hemp as including “all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers” as well as the agency’s own “fifty-year practice of treating plant-elaborated compounds as retaining their botanical lineage.” The drug agency’s brief last week also pointed to forthcoming planned changes in the legal status of hemp products. Hemp derivatives with less than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC on a dry-weight basis were federally legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill that President Donald Trump signed during his first term in office. But late last year, the president signed new legislation containing provisions that will redefine hemp to make it so only products with 0.4 milligrams of total THC per container will remain legal after November 12. As such, DEA said that the legal theory behind Bluestar’s case “will soon be overtaken by events.” The scheduled recriminalization of many hemp products “will defeat whatever remains of Bluestar’s claims,” it argued. That said, Senate recently approved a funding bill that includes a provision to delay the effective date of the hemp product ban until December 11—a move that was supported by the White House. While that change has not yet been approved by the House of Representatives or enacted into law, industry supports believe it could give them more time to convince Congress to enact a regulatory structure for hemp products as an alternative to broad prohibition. The new Bluestar brief pushed back on DEA’s citation of the potential change in hemp products’ federally legal status, saying that “the 2025 amendment is prospective—it is not yet in effect, and cannot retroactively supply a limitation the language of the 2018 Farm Bill never contained.” “If anything, the 2025 amendment underscores that under current law—the only law governing the DEA Rule—hemp-derived HHC is lawful hemp,” the company’s lawyers wrote. Separately, a lawyer for Bluestar sent a letter to the Fourth Circuit’s clerk on Saturday to notify the court of what he called a “dispositive development bearing directly” on DEA’s “defensive argument that Bluestar has failed to exhaust its remedies through a petition for rulemaking.” The agency’s brief last week had said the “appropriate” course for the company was to file an administrative petition to reschedule HHC rather than file the current lawsuit. But what DEA “did not disclose to the Court was the critical fact that another HHC manufacturer pursued that very route on June 18, 2026,” J. Gregory Troutman of Troutman Law Office, PLLC wrote in the letter on behalf of Bluestar. “That petition made the same core procedural and substantive arguments that Bluestar makes here, including parallel constitutional arguments.” Troutman noted that “a mere 17 hours after Bluestar filed” its initial reply brief, “DEA transmitted its denial of this parallel administrative petition.” “The short temporal gap between Bluestar’s Reply brief and the DEA’s denial of a parallel administrative petition on the same issues cannot be a coincidence,” the lawyer wrote. “It infers futility vis-à-vis the Respondents’ exhaustion of remedies argument and negates their standing traceability, redressability and mootness arguments. It also confirms the Petitioners’ closed-door/moving-target defenses, infers that the DEA manufactured its defenses and further confirms the basis for granting relief here.” Meanwhile, the appeals court considering Bluestar’s challenge in June denied the company’s request for a stay on the drug code rule pending resolution of the litigation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is considering a separate similar case brought by the hemp company IHC Investments, Inc., which also filed the rescheduling petition that Bluestar’s lawyer noted in his letter to the Fourth Circuit. Both suits say the agency’s decision is “unlawful.” In earlier briefs filed in June, DEA has said that each petitioner “fails to meet any of the factors required to show that a stay pending review would be warranted.” HHC can be found in trace amounts in cannabis plants but is also synthesized by hydrogenating cannabidiol (CBD). It’s sometimes sprayed on cannabis flowers that are low in delta-9 THC, the most well-known psychoactive component of marijuana, and its psychoactive effects are reportedly similar. While the 2018 Farm Bill federally legalized hemp and its derivatives with less than .3 percent delta-9 THC on a dry-weight basis, DEA says that only applies to naturally occurring, and not synthetic, cannabinoids. As such, it is the agency’s position that HHC does not fall under the definition of legal hemp. The Bluestar case cited a prior ruling in the Fourth Circuit that found the hemp-derived cannabinoid THC-O-acetate is federally legal despite DEA’s claim to the contrary. “Congress intentionally employed expansive statutory language and did not prohibit cannabinoids subjected to ordinary extraction, refinement, conversion, hydrogenation, distillation, or similar manufacturing processes commonly utilized throughout the hemp industry,” the complaint said. DEA’s move “conflicts with the plain text, structure, and purpose of the 2018 Farm Bill and unlawfully inserts limitations Congress neither intended, nor enacted,” it said. The agency’s action has “already caused immediate and concrete harm to the Petitioner, including substantial compliance costs, business uncertainty, reputational harm, disruption of commercial relationships, and interference with ongoing operations.” “Congress, not executive agencies like the DEA, defines the scope of federal criminal liability. The DEA lacks authority to narrow Congress’s legalization of hemp cannabinoids through interpretive construction unsupported by statutory text.” The IHC Investments case cited a prior Ninth Circuit ruling that the federal legalization of hemp through the 2018 Farm Bill removed restrictions on a wide range of molecules produced by the cannabis plant—including the psychoactive cannabinoid delta-8 THC. The petition said that “DEA effectively, and thus unlawfully, attempts to expand federal criminal liability through administrative interpretation, unsupported by the plain statutory text of the enabling legislation.” “Congress did not prohibit converted cannabinoids, hydrogenated cannabinoids, or cannabinoids subjected to ordinary commercial processing techniques,” the complaint said. “Congress did not clearly authorize the DEA to criminalize broad categories of hemp-derived cannabinoids through administrative interpretation.” Both petitions argued that DEA’s move violates the major questions doctrine, a precedent holding that if an agency seeks to decide an issue of major national significance, that action needs to be supported by clear congressional authorization. The agency’s ban of HHC “carries enormous economic and political significance affecting a nationwide hemp industry involving billions of dollars in commerce,” the litigation brought by Bluestar said. DEA, for its part, said in the HHC rule it filed that “only tetrahydrocannabinols in or derived from the cannabis plant—not synthetic tetrahydrocannabinols—are excluded from control as ‘tetrahydrocannabinols in hemp.'” “To clarify further, tetrahydrocannabinols produced through chemical conversion, even when hemp derived are considered synthetically produced for purposes of the CSA, do not qualify as ‘tetrahydrocannabinols in hemp’ under” the 2018 Farm Bill, the agency said. The Federal Register notice wasn’t the first time that DEA addressed the legal status of HHC. In a 2023 letter, Terrance Boos, chief of DEA’s Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section, wrote that HHC “does not occur naturally in the cannabis plant and can only be obtained synthetically, and therefore does not fall under the definition of hemp.” The recent filing signed by DEA Administrator Terrance Cole said that “this rule does not affect the continuing status of hexahydrocannabinol as a schedule I controlled substance in any way.” “This action, as an administrative matter, establishes a separate, specific listing for hexahydrocannabinol in schedule I of the CSA and assigns a DEA drug code for this substance,” it said. “This action will allow DEA to establish an aggregate production quota and grant individual manufacturing and procurement quotas to DEA-registered manufacturers of hexahydrocannabinol, who had previously been granted individual quotas for such purposes under the drug code for tetrahydrocannabinols.” The DEA notice cited a move last year by an international drug control body to add HHC to Schedule II of the United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971—but the document doesn’t note that when the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) took the action, the U.S. was the only country to abstain from the vote. DEA said that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) “concurs with the direct listing and drug code assignment of hexahydrocannabinol in the CSA.” Read the filing and letter in the HHC lawsuit below: The post Hemp Company Pushes Back On DEA Claim That Synthetic Cannabis Compound HHC Is Illegal appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“The judge himself acknowledged that this was rushed legislation, leading to complications and unintended consequences.” By Samantha Willis, Virginia Mercury A federal judge in Roanoke on Friday declined seven Virginia hemp business owners’ request to eliminate a new regulation that removes an exception to the state’s limit of 2 milligrams of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) per product package. The new standard took effect August 15. The entrepreneurs had asked the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia in Roanoke for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to block the rule stemming from the state budget lawmakers passed and Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) signed in late June. They said the removal of the 25-to-1 ratio, which allowed hemp products to exceed the 2 mg THC limit if they contained 25 times as much cannabidiol (CBD), would devastate their businesses, cause severe financial strains and undermine Virginia’s small business owners. The court found that the plaintiffs did not prove that the new standard would significantly harm their businesses, and determined that the new rule was created in the public’s best interest. “Because Plaintiffs have not demonstrated either a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable injury if HB 30 becomes effective, and because the balance of equities and the public interest weigh in favor of Defendants, the Motions for Preliminary Injunction…and Temporary Restraining Order…are DENIED,” Judge Robert S. Ballou wrote on Aug. 14. The plaintiffs and other hemp industry representatives reacted quickly, expressing disappointment in the judgment, requesting lawmakers discuss the matter in a special legislative session and asking authorities to pause the new law. “We are incredibly disappointed with today’s news. The judge himself acknowledged that this was rushed legislation, leading to complications and unintended consequences,” Barbara Biddle, president of the Cannabis Small Business Association and owner of District Hemp Botanicals, said in a statement. “We are calling on legislators to convene a special session to address the gap in access for consumers, protect businesses from bankruptcy and reinstate the previous definition of hemp.” Biddle added: “We’re also asking the Virginia Cannabis Control Authority, Office of the Attorney General and local law enforcement to consider halting enforcement of the redefinition until legislators are able to resolve this issue.” Travis Lane, owner of Northern Virginia Hemp & Agriculture LLC, placed blame for the new standard squarely on Spanberger and her administration. “If Virginia small businesses are pushed toward bankruptcy while a new state-regulated cannabis market is being built for 2027, voters deserve to remember who made that choice, and our elected leaders still have an opportunity to change it,” Lane said in a statement. Spanberger has not commented on the ruling but earlier this month, her spokesperson said gaps between the state’s marijuana and hemp laws created dangerous conditions. “For years, untested and highly-intoxicating products have flooded Virginia with little oversight, inadequate protections for kids and teenagers and few tools for law enforcement to address the illicit market—all because of a loophole in state law that bad faith actors have exploited and pushed the limit of its intended use,” the spokesperson said. He added that the state’s adult-use cannabis market, slated to open next year, will streamline the industries, shore up safety and create new opportunities for small businesses owners. This story was first published by Virginia Mercury. Photo courtesy of Philip Steffan. The post Virginia Hemp Businesses Push Lawmakers For Special Session After Judge Declines To Block New THC Product Restrictions appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“With THC drinks, it’s different from alcohol that you can smell or smokable marijuana that you can smell.” By Skylar Laird, South Carolina Daily Gazette The official death knell of two bills means South Carolina’s laws on driving under the influence won’t get stricter this year, and sales of THC-infused products continue without limitations. Legislators left the Statehouse last week with no plans to come back until the next legislative session begins in January. That killed compromises on DUI laws and THC-infused drinks and gummies, which had been in legislative purgatory for nearly two months. Both bills needed final approval from each chamber to head to the governor’s desk. Compromises worked out by House-Senate panels failed to win approval from the full chambers when legislators briefly returned in June. A proposal intended to strengthen the state’s DUI laws needed supermajority approval to advance. But the 23-13 vote in the Senate fell short, primarily over angst about the THC bill. On the same day, the full House rejected the compromise limiting sales of intoxicating drinks and edibles infused with hemp-derived THC, the compound in marijuana that gives a high. “The debates on those have been intertwined,” Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey told reporters June 25. “So, they’ll probably rise or fall together, and today, they both fell together.” Massey left the door open at the time as to whether senators might try again to get the 31 votes needed on the DUI bill. Several of its backers couldn’t attend the one-day special session in June. The chamber could have taken the bill up again last Tuesday when legislators returned to vote on the state budget. But after some behind-the-scenes conversations, senators decided to wait, giving themselves more time to hammer out a better proposal, Massey told the SC Daily Gazette. This was the second year of a two-year legislative session. Any bill not passed before voters officially approve a new Legislature in November must start over completely in 2027. “We’ll take a shot at it next year,” the Edgefield Republican said. ‘It’s frustrating’ Strengthening the state’s DUI laws was a priority for legislators in both chambers and both parties this year. Both the House and Senate passed versions of the bill unanimously. Supporters of the bill say the state’s existing laws don’t do enough to deter drunken driving or punish those who do it. “It’s frustrating,” Massey said. “We have way too many DUI-related injuries and deaths on our roadways.” The bill was extensive, spanning more than 40 pages and touching on numerous technicalities of the state’s DUI laws. The scope of the proposal may have contributed to some of the concerns about it, since people had more to get upset about, said Rep. Robby Robbins, a member of the negotiating committee. “It is a monumental undertaking,” said the defense attorney from Summerville. “It is just a massive amount of information.” Major changes would have increased the punishment for people suspected of driving under the influence who refuse to take a breathalyzer test, created a mid-level offense for drivers who cause “moderate bodily injury” and made drug screenings easier for police officers. The bill was also meant to make prosecution of DUI cases easier, requiring all cases have an actual prosecutor assigned instead of just the arresting officer, and removing loopholes that get cases tossed out over minor videotaping issues. Until the law changes, South Carolina’s “situation won’t change,” said Stephen Burritt, regional executive director for Mothers Against Drunk Driving. In 2024, the most recent data available, South Carolina had the highest number of deaths caused by drunken driving per 100 million miles driven, according to a study by the national highway department. “We’re just telling ourselves and the people of this state that we’re OK being the worst in drunk driving fatalities,” Burritt said. The compromise also would have set a legal limit for how much THC a person could have in their bloodstream while driving. That came from the separate bill attempting to limit sales of THC products to adults over 21 and where they could be bought. Adding that likely made the compromise tougher to pass, said Sen. Greg Hembree, a member of the negotiating committee. Senators who opposed the THC bill were the same ones in June who voted against moving forward on the DUI bill. The proposal to regulate THC products proved much more controversial. In the House, representatives who wanted to ban the products entirely joined ranks with those who wanted to avoid strict limits on the industry, creating enough opposition to repeatedly thwart proponents’ efforts. The Senate faced a similar challenge. In March, factions opposed to any THC products joined those who wanted minimal restrictions to vote down the bill after two weeks of debate. But enough senators changed their votes the following day to advance the proposal. Next year’s goals on DUIs Legislators in both chambers said they expect strengthening DUI laws to remain a top priority in the coming year. The bigger question is what will end up in the bill that advances next year. One major point of contention will likely be over whether every officer needs to go through training to become a drug recognition expert before arresting someone for driving under the influence of THC. Hembree, a former solicitor, doesn’t think so. The course to become certified is lengthy and expensive, which is why fewer than 200 officers statewide have gone through the process, he said. Instead of giving officers more tools to arrest people for driving under the influence, it could instead become a bigger headache, he said. “It creates another one of those tripwires we’re trying to get rid of,” the Little River Republican said. But the issue became a “pinch point” with the House, Hembree said. Members of the House think officers need that training to make sure they aren’t falsely accusing someone of driving under the influence of drugs, said Rep. Jeff Johnson, also on the negotiating committee. Determining whether a person has been drinking is easier than knowing the signs of being high on THC, he said. “With THC drinks, it’s different from alcohol that you can smell or smokable marijuana that you can smell,” the Conway Republican said. Legislators are going into next year hopeful they can reach a deal even better than the compromise they came up with this year. While this year’s proposal coming so close to the finish line was disappointing, legislators will begin next year with a baseline, potentially allowing them to work out a better proposal, Hembree said. “We start from a good place,” Hembree said. “It’s not like we’re carving it out of granite anymore. We’re putting polish on it.” Next year for THC As for THC drinks and edibles, legislators said they still want to see limitations. While marijuana remains illegal in South Carolina, the industry has flourished due to a loophole in federal law. That means there’s no age restriction on buying the products, which are sold in gas stations, at grocery stores, in restaurants and at vape shops. And there are no restrictions on the products themselves, which can contain high amounts of THC. A clincher in the debate could be federal action on intoxicating hemp products. The spending package that reopened the federal government last fall included a provision setting limits on the amount of THC in hemp products. Proponents said it will close the problematic loophole, while opponents contend the limits will effectively kill the multibillion-dollar industry. The new rules were supposed to take effect in November. But this month, the Senate voted to delay implementation until December. Whether Congress continues to delay the law or allows it to take effect will likely determine what happens in South Carolina, Robbins said. “We’ve got to see what the feds do this fall,” Robbins said. This story was first published by South Carolina Daily Gazette. The post South Carolina Lawmakers Are Letting Hemp THC Products Stay Legal Until At Least Next Year appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Georgia regulators are proposing new rules that will allow medical marijuana to be delivered directly to patients—including via the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) and private carriers like FedEx and UPS. The change, officials with the Georgia Access to Medical Cannabis Commission (GMCC) say, is being made possible by the Trump administration’s move to reclassify medical cannabis, which effectively federally legalizes it. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche in April issued an order that immediately reclassified state-licensed medical cannabis, as well as marijuana products approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III. Under a separate order the acting attorney general signed, a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) hearing is being held to consider more comprehensively moving marijuana to Schedule III. “We think this provides a great pathway. It maintains the same tracking standards that the commission has, and it really leverages the authority in that DEA rescheduling order for state-regulated medical marijuana program,” Andrew Turnage, GMCC’s executive director, said of the new proposed rules in a meeting on Thursday. “Without these regulations, we don’t have guidelines in place for things like delivery. We think it’s really important to put those guardrails in place and establish standards.” He noted that Georgia is a “very large state” and that it has been hard for some patients to easily access the medical cannabis that their doctors have recommended. “Patients in many areas are having to travel two hours or more, either into a congested metropolitan area or around large geographic divides—whether that’s the mountains, the rivers, or the lakes, and it makes it impossible to get east to west across our great state, Turnage said. The GMCC official noted that one of the “greatest values” of the new proposed delivery rules will be getting cannabis to patients in healthcare facilities, including those such as nursing homes where they are permanent residents. “This creates a much more secure transaction for that healthcare facility to be able to make a purchase at our dispensaries and have that shipped and delivered securely to those facilities, without presenting a risk for diversion, without presenting a risk for, frankly, theft, robbery, an attack in the parking lot,” he said. The proposed rules change states that: “Where delivery is performed by the U.S. Postal Service, a common carrier, the Commission, or a common carrier engaged by the Commission, the dispensing licensee shall use certified mail, or a carrier service providing equivalent tracking and proof of delivery, with delivery restricted to, and the signature required of, the patient, caregiver, or healthcare institution employee. No person other than the registered patient, the patient’s caregiver, or the listed healthcare institution employee may sign for or accept such delivery. A dispensing licensee shall record the certified mail receipt, tracking number, or other information evidencing proof of delivery in the Commission-approved tracking system immediately upon completion of delivery.” GMCC will meet on September 16 to receive public feedback on the delivery issue and other proposed rules changes before holding another meeting on September 30 to vote on adopting the reforms. It’s not clear if there will be any federal or state pushback to the idea of medical marijuana being delivered via USPS, or if the private carriers noted in the rules will have any hesitation about participating, given the ongoing evolution of cannabis’s legal status under U.S. law. Officials with USPS, FedEx, UPS and DHL did not immediately respond to Marijuana Moment’s request for comment. This isn’t the first time the state has pushed the envelope of what’s federally acceptable with its medical marijuana program. In 2023, the DEA warned Georgia pharmacies that they could potentially lose their federal registrations if they began dispensing THC products under a provision of state law. Meanwhile, Georgia’s medical cannabis program is seeing a huge influx in the number of registered patients as the state implements a recently enacted law that expands access. The legislation, which Gov. Brian Kemp (R) signed in May and which officially took effect on July 1, adds new qualifying conditions for the program, allows patients to vaporize medical cannabis and changes THC potency limits, among other reforms. Gary Long, the CEO of Botanical Sciences, a Georgia-based medical cannabis company, recently predicted that the expanded law could triple the number of patients by mid-2027. Under the legislation, patients with lupus are allowed to legally access medical marijuana, building on the state’s prior law that allowed certain people with cancer, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s disease, ALS, autism spectrum disorder, intractable pain and other conditions to qualify. The policy, which was sponsored in the legislature by Sen. Matt Brass (R), also removes the requirement for many conditions that the patient’s status be severe or end-stage to be allowed to enter the medical cannabis program. The reform also expands how patients can use medical marijuana. Previously they were able to access oils, tinctures, capsules, lozenges, topicals and transdermal patches—but now vaping is allowed as delivery method for people over 21 years of age, though smoking continues to be prohibited for all patients. The Putting Georgia’s Patients First Act additionally replaces the current 5 percent THC potency cap for medical cannabis products with a limit of 12,000 milligrams of THC that a patient can possess at any one time. “These changes, while meaningful to the affected patients, do not materially alter where Georgia sits in the national landscape on this issue,” Kemp said in a signing statement. “This bill passed with a constitutional majority in both chambers of the General Assembly.” “I, like many of those who expressed opposition to this bill, have reservations about the legalization of recreational cannabis. Many states that have legalized recreational cannabis have come to regret that decision,” he said. “I also recognize that for some patients, medical cannabis provides significant relief to symptoms that would otherwise go untreated or would be treated with even more harmful opioids.” “I do not believe that a well-implemented medical cannabis program must inevitably lead to the legalization of recreational use in Georgia, nor is the question of recreational use anywhere in the bill on my desk for signature,” the governor said. The new law also replaces references to “low THC oil” in current law with “medical cannabis.” — 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 Georgia Access to Medical Cannabis Commission, which oversees the program, also now has a new duty of conducting public awareness activities about “effective uses of medical cannabis and products, including, but not limited to, publishing materials and conducting outreach and public education activities to inform members of the public, law enforcement, and healthcare providers about the medical cannabis program in this state and the potential benefits that medical cannabis and products may have to eligible patients.” Last year, House leaders created a Blue-Ribbon Study Committee on Georgia’s Medical Marijuana and Hemp Policies to examine the state’s cannabis laws. Lawmakers in Georgia have also considered legislation to support research on the therapeutic benefits of psychedelics. The post Medical Marijuana Can Be Delivered In The Mail By USPS Under Trump’s Rescheduling Move, Georgia Officials Say appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

I think visiting a showflat is especially helpful for first-time property buyers. The Chuan Grove Residences Showflat could make it easier to understand how different spaces may work together.

The Texas Democratic Party is calling out the Republican candidate in a high-stakes election for a seat to represent the state in the U.S. Senate over his refusal to answer a question about cannabis policy. The party is also pointing to a warning that podcaster Joe Rogan issued to Republicans, saying they will turn the state blue by pushing too hard to crack down on the availability of THC products. State Attorney General Ken Paxton (R), who is the GOP nominee for a Senate seat that’s on the ballot in November, was shown in a video posted to X on Saturday being asked what his thoughts are on the “state’s THC ban.” “I don’t know the details of it, but let’s talk later,” he replied before quickly stepping away. Paxton, in fact, has sued to overturn local voter-approved marijuana decriminalization laws in several cities across Texas. His office has also defended hemp product restrictions in court against lawsuits from the industry. That includes a recently enacted ban on certain hemp-derived THC cannabis products, including those containing delta-8 and delta-10 THC. Now classified as Schedule I drugs under state law, possession is treated as a felony, carrying a punishment of 180 days to two years in prison and fines of up to $10,000. A judge last week declined hemp companies’ request to impose a temporary restraining order on the THC crackdown while the overall litigation is considered. The Texas Democratic Party pounced on Paxton’s inability to answer the cannabis question, saying in a press release that he appeared to be “in a panic” when being pressed about the “incredibly unpopular” THC ban before proceeding to “run away” from the questioner. Q: What's your thoughts on the state's THC ban? KEN PAXTON: Uhm. I don't know the details of it, but let's talk later. (Paxton is currently being sued because he's trying to enforce Texas's ban to the maximum extent possible, so this is a lie!) pic.twitter.com/DmGT6nVcje — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 15, 2026 “Ken Paxton is a coward who runs from questions because he has no answers for his wildly unpopular positions,” Texas Democratic Party Spokesperson Ryan Martin said. “Paxton knows Texans hate this THC ban he has pushed onto people with his nanny-state agenda.” “For Paxton, the state’s top law enforcement officer, to claim he doesn’t ‘know the details’ of the laws is beyond insulting,” he said. “No Comment Ken can dodge questions all he wants, but come November the people will be holding him accountable at the ballot box.” The party’s press release also noted that Rogan, who lives in and operates a comedy club in Austin, discussed the issue on an episode of his podcast that was posted on Thursday. “They’ve done the THC thing,” he said. “Here’s what Texas doesn’t understand. You will fuck this place up and you will turn the whole thing blue.” “Kids will turn on you if you tell them they can’t smoke weed,” Rogan said. “They know weed’s not killing anybody.” Meanwhile, the Democrat in the Senate race, James Talarico, supports legalizing marijuana and suggested in a recent interview that that Paxton supports banning cannabis in order to aid his political donors in the alcohol and tobacco industries. “It doesn’t make any sense until you follow the money and realize that it is big beer and big tobacco that are funding the politicians, like Ken Paxton, who turned around and banned these safe THC products in order to enrich the big beer and a big tobacco lobby,” Talarico, who currently serves as a state representative, said. In a separate interview earlier this month, the Democratic candidate said that keeping marijuana illegal while also moving to restrict hemp THC products is an “insane” form of “corruption.” “Think about what industries are most worried about THC products being readily available: Big Beer, Big Tobacco, right? And so they were the ones pushing this THC ban because it hurts their bottom line,” he said. “And a lot of research shows that THC—cannabis—these products are safer and less addictive than than beer or tobacco.” “And so to me, this is a prime example of what corruption looks like when you’ve got big industries buying politicians and pushing bills that harm people, but benefit them financially,” Talarico said. Voters in Houston will decide on an initiative to make misdemeanor marijuana possession the “lowest possible enforcement priority” for local police on the November ballot. Image element courtesy of AnonMoos. The post Texas Democrats Call Out Paxton For Dodging Cannabis Question As Joe Rogan Warns THC Ban Could Turn The State Blue appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

MA anti-marijuana ballot measure alarm; Study: Legal cannabis boosts agriculture jobs; NC cannabis smell court ruling; HI hemp lawsuit Subscribe to receive Marijuana Moment’s newsletter in your inbox every weekday morning. It’s the best way to make sure you know which cannabis stories are shaping the day. Get our daily newsletter. Email address: Leave this field empty if you're human: Your support makes Marijuana Moment possible… BREAKING: Journalism is often consumed for free, but costs money to produce! While this newsletter is proudly sent without cost to you, our ability to send it each day depends on the financial support of readers who can afford to give it. So if you’ve got a few dollars to spare each month and believe in the work we do, please consider joining us on Patreon today. https://www.patreon.com/marijuanamoment / TOP THINGS TO KNOW Texas Democratic U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico is suggesting that his opponent for the seat, state Attorney General Ken Paxton (R), supports keeping marijuana illegal and banning hemp THC products “in order to enrich the big beer and a big tobacco lobby” that are donating to his campaign. The Marijuana Policy Project is raising the alarm about an initiative on Massachusetts’s November ballot that would roll back the state’s legalization law—saying it would have “disastrous political and economic consequences for legal cannabis markets everywhere.” “Even a too-close victory would spook markets and incentivize a rash of similar initiatives in states around the country, each costing millions to try and defeat.” A new study found that marijuana legalization “significantly increased agricultural employment by approximately 9 percent” in states that enacted the reform—while it had “no statistically significant effect on agricultural wages, all-industry employment, or economy-wide wages.” The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that police can use the smell of cannabis as the basis for a warrantless search. The chair of the Hawaii House Consumer Protection and Commerce Committee denied accusations that a crackdown on hemp products is intended to help medical cannabis businesses—saying that it is meant to protect public health because “there are products that have not been subject to the same rigorous testing that the medical marijuana requires.” / FEDERAL The Drug Enforcement Administration promoted an article about the “many risks of cannabis and high-dose THC.” The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration tweeted, “Marijuana use comes with real risks to health.” Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) tweeted, “Washington is three months from wiping out the hemp industry nationwide. Kentucky already regulates these products with registration rules, age limits and testing standards. We did the work. Congress should let states that got it right keep their own rules.” Rep. Beth Van Duyne (R-TX) tweeted, “This week, I introduced the Beverage Regulatory Parity Act with @RepGregLandsman. Our bipartisan legislation to bring regulatory clarity to hemp-derived beverages, by offering a targeted alternative to establish a three-tier distribution system along with labeling, advertising, and trade-practice rules that have governed alcohol for nearly a century.” The House bill to designate psychedelic therapy centers of excellence got one new cosponsor for a total of 28. / STATES Texas Democratic gubernatorial candidate Gina Hinojosa tweeted, “Texans should know whether the THC gummies they bought last month are legal or whether they’re a felony. Greg Abbott is playing politics with our laws. When I’m governor, I’ll let the people vote.” Florida Democratic gubernatorial candidate David Jolly, a former congressman, said he doesn’t intend to attack Republican contended Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL) over his prior marijuana arrest. A federal judge rejected a request to place a temporary restraining order on Virginia hemp product restrictions. A federal judge dissolved an order blocking Rhode Island marijuana business licensing from moving forward in light of recent changes to state law. New Jersey officials are moving to appeal a federal court ruling against a state requirement that marijuana businesses enter into labor peace agreements. Colorado regulators circulated updated proposed changes to marijuana rules. Georgia regulators are proposing changes to medical cannabis rules. Illinois regulators published guidance about cannabis facility alteration and modification. Massachusetts regulators released an audit of THC potency on cannabis flower product labels, finding that “most samples fell within an accurate range.” Minnesota’s top cannabis regulator said other states are being inspired by its approach to tribal-run marijuana businesses. — 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 Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said many parents today are “a bunch of ex-hippies” that ” were smoking their marijuana, and these assholes are smoking even stronger marijuana.” / INTERNATIONAL The Indian government is reviewing the rules for drug testing of airline pilots after the pilot-in-command of a flight that experienced a sudden 300-foot drop in altitude tested positive for marijuana. A Philippine truth commission on the nation’s bloody “war on drugs” held its first hearing. / SCIENCE & HEALTH A study of people with burning mouth syndrome found that “full spectrum cannabidiol oil improved pain and quality of life with a favorable safety profile.” A review concluded that “cannabinoids provide modest improvements in patient-reported spasticity in [multiple sclerosis], with more consistent effects for THC:CBD extracts.” / ADVOCACY, OPINION & ANALYSIS The Family Research Council tweeted, “Marijuana is not a scrappy, hippy-led grassroots effort anymore. Marijuana is a $38.5 billion industry driven by titans in tobacco, pharmaceutical, and alcohol that has given over 20 million people cannabis disorders and forced us to rethink everything we know about the industry.” / BUSINESS Glass House Brands Inc. reported quarterly net revenue of $47 million and a net loss of $6.7 million. Charlotte’s Web Holdings, Inc. reported quarterly net revenue of $10.9 million and a net loss of $4.1 million. / CULTURE Kristen Stewart and Alia Shawkat spoke about their new stoner comedy film The Wrong Girls. 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 Mike Latimer. The post Senate candidates clash on cannabis (Newsletter: August 17, 2026) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

When your website or blog goes live for the first time, it is exciting. That is until you realize no one but you and your. alexistogel

It's fantastic to see programs like The Initiative focusing on empowering women in the cannabis industry. Supporting these female founders, whether they're crafting edibles or building a brand for the adventurous snow rider , really levels the playing field and fosters innovation.

Thank you for this wonderful article. It provides valuable information in a simple and interesting way. I found it helpful and learned several new things. Keep publishing high-quality content because readers truly benefit from your informative posts. slot demo

Excellent work! This article provides useful insights and explains everything clearly. I appreciate the effort put into writing such high-quality content. Thank you for sharing your knowledge. I look forward to reading more informative posts from your website. slot online

The thought of these glamorous Malviya Nagar Escorts seeking mutual satisfaction is incredibly arousing. I'm captivated by their desire for passionate encounters where both partners experience wild pleasure. Their hunger for something hard and intense matches my own cravings perfectly.