All Activity

“If the industry we created now argues that THC is safe in a dispensary but dangerous in a liquor store, voters and policymakers will reasonably conclude we were never serious.” By Aaron Smith, Third Rail Advisory Chris Lindsey and I both spent years at the Marijuana Policy Project before going on to help build the legal cannabis industry. I strongly disagree with the support he voiced in a recent Marijuana Moment op-ed for the pending federal hemp ban, both from a principled policy perspective and as a political strategy. Start with where we agree: we need parity. Having one set of laws for hemp-derived THC and another for the identical molecule derived from marijuana is untenable and absurd policy. But the answer is not to push one product back into the darkness of prohibition. The cannabis industry should use this moment to advance federal regulations that work for marijuana and hemp alike. For decades, reformers have made one central case: Cannabis and its active compounds are far safer than alcohol and many over-the-counter drugs, and the law should treat them accordingly. If the industry we created now argues that THC is safe in a dispensary but dangerous in a liquor store, voters and policymakers will reasonably conclude we were never serious. The science isn’t complicated. Delta-9 THC and THCa from a hemp plant are chemically identical to delta-9 THC and THCa from a marijuana plant. Hemp is cannabis. Lindsey’s argument only works by lumping naturally occurring plant THC and THCa together with chemically converted cannabinoids like delta-8 THC and HHC. Converted compounds deserve further study and distinct rules. THC that is chemically identical regardless of its source deserves parity, backed by the remedy we have always proposed: testing standards, accurate labels, age gates and penalties for bad actors. Now consider the system Lindsey and his current organization, the American Trade Association for Cannabis and Hemp, understandably wants to protect. The overly restrictive state models in place today are the product of political compromises made to achieve incremental change. They are not the ultimate policy destination. These programs were also designed to exist alongside federal prohibition, and it shows: limited licenses, heavy taxes, no interstate commerce, banking challenges and a federal tax code that still treats licensed operators as drug traffickers. Those systems are largely failing. Licensed businesses are closing across mature markets, illicit sales still undercut legal ones and small businesses are hit hardest. Alcohol is sold in grocery stores, gas stations, restaurants, airplanes, amusement parks and dozens of other settings. There is no reason adult THC products should not be available alongside alcohol wherever it is sold. The hemp market already shows this works: a tested product on a shelf, at a price people will pay, available to adults in nearly every state. That market is not perfect. Untested products and inconsistent labeling are real problems. The answer is not a ban, it’s regulation. Set a federal floor for testing, labeling, dosage and age verification, and apply the same rules to the same molecule regardless of which plant it came from. Lindsey also raises something that should stay central to this movement: repairing the damage of prohibition. Expungement, reinvestment and real opportunity for the people enforcement hit hardest belong in the next phase of reform, but a ban does nothing to help them. If anything, it creates new offenders and leaves in place the taxes and barriers that are crushing equity licensees. I have worked alongside cannabis operators for years, and I am sympathetic to people who invested everything in businesses built to fit the current model and now see it disrupted by federally legal hemp. But disruption here is progress for the plant, and a unique opportunity to advance rational public policy. The licensed industry would be better served shaping those federal rules than lobbying to eliminate the category. One approach many already support is to limit dosage and product type for anything sold outside dispensaries, so that low-dose THC beverages and edibles are available alongside alcohol while smokables, vapes and higher-potency products stay in licensed dispensaries. Federally legal THC expands access to millions of adults and patients who would otherwise be unlikely to try cannabis, either because their state does not allow it or because they don’t feel comfortable visiting a dispensary. A THC seltzer in the wine aisle or at a craft brewery is a lot more approachable. That is a vastly larger consumer base, more customers for dispensaries over time and better public health outcomes as people substitute cannabis for alcohol and other more harmful substances. It’s only natural for licensed businesses to try to eliminate competition from companies that found another way in. But it’s short-sighted, and it has put parts of the industry on the same side of this fight as the country’s leading prohibitionist groups. That alliance should trouble anyone who supports legal cannabis. It’s also an unwise political strategy. Some seem to believe that once Congress closes the hemp loophole, it will turn its attention to descheduling cannabis. That is not how Congress works. Congress either ignores an issue for years or hastily puts out a fire, and once the hemp fire is out, the pressure to act on cannabis goes with it. A ban does not clear the path to legalization. It hands the movement’s opponents a win they can point to for a decade. We can end federal prohibition with rules that work for state licensees and hemp businesses alike. Getting there requires the cannabis industry to unite around that program and come to the table with the already powerful coalition of hemp and alcohol interests engaged on this issue, rather than joining prohibitionists to preserve a broken status quo. Fairness means lowering the barriers on licensed operators, not raising them on everyone else. Lindsey and I spent our careers in a movement built on one idea: prohibition fails and regulation works. That idea does not change because the THC came from a hemp field instead of a licensed grow. Prohibition was never the path to legalization. It is not the path now, either. Aaron Smith is the founder of Third Rail Advisory and co-founder, board member and former CEO of the National Cannabis Industry Association. He previously served as California policy director for the Marijuana Policy Project. The post Marijuana Businesses Fighting To Ban Hemp THC Products Are Being Short-Sighted (Op-Ed) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Almost as many people are using marijuana to help them quit smoking cigarettes as are using prescription nicotine cessation aids, according to a new study conducted by officials with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and other institutions. The research, however, raises questions about potential side effects experienced by people who are using cannabis to quit tobacco products. The study involved analyzing a survey of 2,804 U.S. adults who smoke cigarettes, vape nicotine e-cigarettes or use both. “Among those attempting to quit cigarettes, the use of cannabis for cessation was nearly as popular as the use of prescription cessation aids, with products including THC accounting for most of the cannabis use,” the paper, published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, said. Specifically, 9 percent of respondents said they were using cannabis to quit cigarettes, while 9.4 percent are using prescription medications. “Among those attempting to quit vaping, using any cannabis product as a cessation aid, primarily products with THC, was the third most popular cessation strategy, following quitting cold turkey and using another recreational nicotine product,” the study found. For both people trying to quit smoking cigarettes and those attempting to stop vaping nicotine, “cannabis was more popular than behavioral health interventions” and “more popular than over-the-counter nicotine replacement therapy and prescription cessation aids for those attempting to quit vaping,” the researchers at the San Francisco VA Health Care System, University of California and New York University wrote. “THC is a popular tobacco cessation aid, with use surpassing that of evidence-based interventions.” Although using marijuana appears to be a popular strategy for people trying to quit nicotine, the researchers also highlighted some concerns. People who used THC products to quit cigarettes “reported greater severity of nicotine withdrawal symptoms, including feeling upset, thinking about food, troubled sleep, feeling restless, and trouble concentrating,” the study said. “Those who used THC to try to quit vaping reported more trouble concentrating.” The results come as other evidence shows people are increasingly taking up marijuana as an alternative to cigarettes and, in some cases, alcohol. A Gallup poll released this year, for example, found that a record-high number of U.S. adults now smoke marijuana while cigarette smoking is at an all-time low. An analysis of federal National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) data published last year showed that more Americans now use marijuana than smoke cigarettes amid shifting perceptions of harm of the two substances. More recent NSDUH data showed that Americans are now more likely to use marijuana nearly every day than they are to smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol on a daily basis. Gallup has also previously published results in the finding that American adults are more likely to smoke marijuana than tobacco cigarettes. A recent study found that people who consume cannabis-infused THC beverages end up drinking less alcohol. Meanwhile, a study published this year by the American Medical Association (AMA) fund that just one dose of psilocybin combined with therapy is associated with “significantly increased long-term abstinence” from cigarettes compared to nicotine patches. The post Marijuana Is A Popular Tool For People Trying To Quit Smoking Cigarettes, Rivaling Prescription Nicotine Cessation Medications, Study Shows appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

The Democratic Party’s nominee for Iowa governor is continuing to call for marijuana legalization, saying in a debate with his GOP opponent that the reform would make law enforcement’s job easier while also raising revenue to help fund education. “If we tax cannabis the way we tax alcohol and treat it the way we treat alcohol, that would be a positive move for the state’s budget,” Rob Sand said during Wednesday’s debate. “I also think it would be a positive move for law enforcement—taking some of the burden off of their backs,” the Democratic gubernatorial candidate said. “Every time I talk to police officers, they’d rather deal with someone who was using cannabis than someone who was drunk.” “And look, these are both dangerous drugs,” Sand said. “The bottom line is, we don’t want to be throwing people in prison just for using them.” Later in the debate, Sand was asked how he would pay for a proposed 5 percent increase in supplemental state aid to schools in his first year in office. He replied that part of the solution is to legalize marijuana. “If we legalize cannabis and treated like alcohol, the first year we’re probably seeing $50 million,” Sand said. “But in years after that it will be over $100 million.” Republican gubernatorial nominee Zach Lahn did not address marijuana during the debate. He reportedly opposes legalizing cannabis but doesn’t appear to have spoken extensively about the issue. The Democratic candidate, meanwhile, has repeatedly highlighted his support for legalizing marijuana on the campaign trail. Sand said last month that legalizing marijuana is a “no-brainer” move to help forestall a “fiscal time bomb” in Iowa that could otherwise lead to cuts in funding for education and public safety in the state. “I think we should treat it the way we treat alcohol. That seems like a no-brainer to me, right?” the Democratic gubernatorial nominee, who is currently the state auditor, said at a town hall event. “Alcohol is a dangerous drug. You shouldn’t abuse it. Also, we’re not going to throw you in prison for having a beer,” Sand said. “Why is it any different for marijuana? It is a dangerous drug. You shouldn’t abuse it. We shouldn’t be throwing people in prison just for using it.” Sand also spoke about his support for legalizing marijuana at an earlier event in August, saying that he thinks cannabis should be legalized and treated like alcohol, even if he thinks it’s “dangerous.” “Marijuana is a dangerous drug,” he said at the time. “You shouldn’t abuse it, but we also shouldn’t throw people in prison just for using it. We should treat it the way we treat alcohol. Alcohol is a dangerous drug. You shouldn’t abuse it, but we don’t throw you in prison just for having a beer when you get home.” The Democratic gubernatorial candidate said that Iowa is “spending perfectly good tax dollars to lock people up” for marijuana while people who want to use it are driving across the border to purchase it in other states. “They’re spending their money in Illinois, or they’re spending it in Missouri. And then they’re driving back without their money,” Sand said. “The money stays there, and the tax dollars stay there.” Sand also recently praised President Donald Trump’s administration for taking steps to federally reschedule cannabis. “I’m someone who has always been willing to call the good ‘good,'” he said. “I was really glad to see the Trump administration move towards making marijuana more accessible for medical purposes. I’m a believer that it should be treated the way we treat alcohol. And so when they did it, I said, ‘Good for them.'” Josh Turek, the Democratic nominee in a U.S. Senate race in Iowa, said last month that cannabis’s longtime restrictive Schedule I status is “ridiculous.” Marijuana “should be legalized and regulated, and let’s tax it,” he said. Meanwhile, Iowa regulators are circulating proposed rules changes to remove the residency requirement for patients in the state’s medical cannabis program while also ensuring that military veterans qualify for reduced registration fees. The residency-focused part of the regulatory change from the state Department of Health and Human Services is meant to comply with provisions of a bill that Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) signed into law in June. In addition to allowing out-of-state residents to register in the medical cannabis program if they have a certification from an Iowa healthcare provider legislation, that legislation also doubles the number of medical cannabis dispensaries that are allowed to operate in the state. — Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments. Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access. — The Iowa Medical Cannabidiol Board, which oversees the state’s medical marijuana program, recommended in a 2023 report that the state allow more licenses “in an effort to provide Iowans with greater geographical access to medical cannabis products.” Under the program, patients with certain conditions can obtain cannabis products containing no more than at 4.5 grams of THC every 90 days. Flower and smoking are not allowed. Healthcare practitioners can allow greater amounts of THC for patients who are terminally ill or who have experience with the program and for whom the provider believes 4.5 grams is not enough. Separately this session, Iowa lawmakers considered a bill to create a state-regulated therapeutic psilocybin program for patients with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Last year, the governor vetoed earlier legislation that would have allowed doctors in the state to immediately prescribe a synthetic form of psilocybin in the event of federal approval of the psychedelic substance by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), arguing that it “surrenders state authority to make an informed determination about classification to federal officials.” The post Police Would Rather Deal With People High On Marijuana Than Drunk On Alcohol, Iowa Governor Candidate Says appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“You’ve done quite the job once again in stacking the committee with anti-cannabis individuals from out of state.” By Meghan O’Brien, South Dakota Searchlight Supporters of South Dakota’s medical marijuana industry clashed with a state oversight committee Tuesday about speakers invited to address the group. The Medical Marijuana Oversight Committee is led by state lawmakers and also includes representatives of healthcare professions, a medical marijuana patient and law enforcement. Ned Horsted, who operates 605 Cannabis in southeastern South Dakota, told the committee he was frustrated by the choice of speakers invited to make presentations Tuesday. They included a Harvard professor and Colorado doctor who opposed the federal government’s recent downgrading of medicinal marijuana to a less dangerous class of drugs, and a founder of a nonprofit that says it’s “taking on Big Marijuana.” Similar clashes have occurred at past committee meetings. During this year’s legislative session, the state House approved a bill that would have eliminated the committee, but the bill failed in the state Senate. Horsted referenced some of that history in his comments Tuesday. “You’ve done quite the job once again in stacking the committee with anti-cannabis individuals from out of state,” said Horsted. “The agendas produced by this committee show evidence of a two-year war on patients, industry and, at times, the Department of Health.” Rep. Josephine Garcia, R-Watertown, chairs the committee alongside co-chair Sen. John Carley, R-Piedmont. Both lawmakers lost their primary races in June. Garcia, who has co-sponsored unsuccessful legislation to repeal medical marijuana, said Tuesday she believes the committee has “done a very good job” in aligning with what state law requires of it, including recommending legislation regarding patient access to medical cannabis. Meeting attendees, “whether they’re from here or not,” have helped the committee meet its goals regarding medical marijuana, Garcia said. “The bottom line is the people of South Dakota want it, and we need to make it right, to where it’s safe,” she said. “We learn from our other states. We learn how to not make the same mistake.” South Dakota’s medical marijuana program began in 2021 after voters authorized it in 2020. There are 20,040 patient cards issued in the state to people with qualifying medical conditions. This story was first published by South Dakota Searchlight. Photo courtesy of Philip Steffan. The post South Dakota Lawmakers Accused Of Rigging Marijuana Committee Meeting With Opponent Testimony appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

A Republican senator’s efforts to craft regulations to keep hemp THC products federally legal is being called out in a new 30-second ad from a dark money group that doesn’t disclose its donors. Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-MT) “wants to keep THC drinks on our shelves—not in the dispensary—at the convenience store, next to soft drinks,” a narrator says in the advertisement. “Some pack 100 milligrams of THC—40 times the recommended starter dose—even sending children to the ER,” the spot, which is from a new 501(c)(4) group called NADP Action Fund, claims. Hemp derivatives with less than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC on a dry-weight basis were federally legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill that President Donald Trump signed during his first term in office. But late last year, the president signed new legislation containing provisions that redefined hemp to make it so only products with 0.4 milligrams of total THC per container would remain legal after November 12. Now, however, under provisions included in a funding bill Trump signed last month, the effective date of the ban for most products is being pushed back to December 11 to give lawmakers more time to craft regulations for hemp derivatives. There is a carve-out, however, to allow the recriminalization on November 12 of synthetic cannabinoids “that are not capable of being naturally produced by a Cannabis sativa L. plant.” Sheehy is one of a handful of lawmakers who are working on legislation to regulate hemp THC products as an alternative to prohibition. The GOP senator has been collaborating with Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) on a yet-to-be filed bill that would call off the ban and lay out rules for the hemp market. “Congress closed the loophole that let shady companies put them there,” the new ad, which was first noted by Politico, says. “Now Sheehy is working with shady companies to keep it open. Call Senator Sheehy. Tell him close the hand loophole and protect our kids.” It’s not clear who is behind NADP Action Fund, the group that took out the new ad, or even what the acronym in its name stands for. Its attacking Sheehy for wanting to “keep THC drinks on our shelves—not in the dispensary” made some hemp industry sources that Marijuana Moment spoke to suspect the group may be affiliated with state-licensed marijuana businesses, some of which see the federally legal hemp industry as a form of competition that unfairly has access to interstate commerce. Several marijuana industry sources, however, said they did not know who was behind the ad, with some saying they suspected it came from prohibitionist groups that want to ban both intoxicating hemp products and marijuana. Sheehy, for his part, said in a video posted to social media after the Senate voted to delay the forthcoming federal recriminalization of hemp THC products last month that his home state of Montana has an “an incredibly strong hemp industry” and that he and other lawmakers have “fought hard to make sure that hemp-derived beverages and those pain management products that are so important for our seniors and veterans remain legal.” The senator posted the video after meeting with members of the hemp industry. “We’re standing here supporting this industry because it’s critical to our farmers and it’s critical to our veterans and seniors. Our veterans and seniors for too long have been pushed to use opioids and alcohol for pain management, and hemp-derived beverages have provided a very healthy and easily accessible alternative,” he said. “We’re trying to regulate the industry so that only adults can access these beverages, they are FDA approved and healthy and, most importantly, they’re an alternative for folks to use besides the opioids and besides alcohol.” The Republican senator previously cited hemp legislation as an area where Republicans and Democrats can work together in an otherwise “hyperpartisan time.” “When we have an actual profitable crop that there’s genuine free market demand for that crop, and we have the ability to grow that crop in America and sell it profitably with free market enterprise reigning, and it’s not even government subsidized—it’s silly not to let that thrive,” Sheehy said during a meeting with members of Hemp Industry & Farmers of America (HIFA). Meanwhile, the hemp product issue has proved controversial within the cannabis reform movement. The Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) last week sent an action alert asking its supporters to pressure Congress to reverse the scheduled ban on hemp THC products and institute a system of regulations for all cannabinoids as an alternative to criminalization. A former MPP staffer who now works for the American Trade Association for Cannabis and Hemp (ATACH), pushed back in an op-ed for Marijuana Moment, however, arguing that “the charade of hemp intoxicants must end” and that “sneaking in the back door with synthetic drugs nobody asked for is not the path to legalization.” The post GOP Senator Attacked Over Push To Keep Hemp THC Products Legal In New Ad From Dark Money Group appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

This particular papers fabulous, and My spouse and i enjoy each of the perform that you have placed into this. I’m sure that you will be making a really useful place. I has been additionally pleased. Good perform! olxtoto link

Talarico on marijuana legalization; Boston mayor: Keep cannabis sales legal; Former MPP staffer slams org’s hemp stance; NE medical marijuana rules 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 A Drug Enforcement Administration judge is ordering the agency to respond to marijuana rescheduling opponents’ request to reopen a hearing on the proposal for additional testimony and document discovery—saying “this matter remains STAYED to allow time for a response and to allow time for the tribunal to consider the pending motions.” Texas Democratic U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico said he will work to federally legalize marijuana if he wins next month’s election. “Texans aren’t going to stop smoking weed because politicians in Austin or D.C. told them not to… In the Senate, I’ll support legalizing marijuana for adults—regulating and imposing taxes on its sales to support public safety and health programs.” Boston, Massachusetts Mayor Michelle Wu (D) opposes a measure on the state’s November ballot to roll back marijuana legalization—saying that legal cannabis “has created new businesses and jobs and generated state and local revenue to support substance use recovery and public health programs.” The American Trade Association for Cannabis and Hemp’s Chris Lindsey, who used to work at the Marijuana Policy Project, authored a new Marijuana Moment op-ed criticizing his former organization’s push to keep hemp THC products federally legal. “The charade of hemp intoxicants must end. Sneaking in the back door with synthetic drugs nobody asked for is not the path to legalization.” The chair of the Oklahoma House Alcohol, Tobacco and Controlled Substances Committee said lawmakers should stop altering medical cannabis rules so frequently and “give the industry a break and give it time to show us if the changes we made are beneficial.” The Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission will hold a hearing on Thursday to consider proposed changes to medical marijuana rules—including removing a requirement for product labels to list medical cannabis as a Schedule I controlled substance in light of federal rescheduling. The New Mexico Department of Health’s proposed changes to medical psilocybin rules are getting pushback—including from the state senator who sponsored the bill that created the legal psychedelic therapy program. / FEDERAL Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY) posted photos of himself visiting a hemp business, saying, “We need to save Kentucky’s hemp industry and protect the farmers who built it. I’m leading the charge to establish clear rules of the road, protect consumers, and keep hemp products out of the hands of children.” / STATES Nebraska Democratic gubernatorial candidate Lynne Walz, a former state senator, said that if elected she would “sign an executive order that gets that across so that people who need medical marijuana can go and get a prescription from their doctor and start accessing that.” An Idaho representative urged voters to approve a proposed constitutional amendment on the November ballot to block themselves from ever being able to legalize marijuana. Colorado regulators issued a health and safety advisory about marijuana products with pesticides above acceptable limits. Maine regulators issued an advisory about medical cannabis products with unsafe levels of microbial contaminants, yeast and mold. Oklahoma regulators published guidance about changes to rules for medical cannabis processors and dispensaries. New Jersey regulators published information about cannabis use by older adults. Minnesota regulators sent a newsletter with various cannabis updates. — 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 Baltimore, Maryland officials pledged to crack down on illicit cannabis sales following a media investigation. / INTERNATIONAL Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum denied a journalist’s claim that she uses marijuana. / SCIENCE & HEALTH A study found that “adjunctive purified CBD was associated with sustained seizure reduction and good long-term tolerability in children with treatment-resistant” non-self-limited focal epilepsies. A review concluded that “when administered in controlled clinical settings with structured psychological support, psilocybin produces rapid and sustained reductions in depression and anxiety, particularly in advanced cancer” and “also facilitates meaningful psychological experiences associated with improved spiritual well-being, reduced fear of death, and greater illness acceptance.” / ADVOCACY, OPINION & ANALYSIS The Cannabis Media Council published updated cannabis advertising guidelines. Make sure to subscribe to get Marijuana Moment’s daily dispatch in your inbox. Get our daily newsletter. Email address: Leave this field empty if you're human: The post DEA ordered to reply to cannabis opponents’ push for more rescheduling testimony (Newsletter: October 15, 2026) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

I wanted to thank you for this great read!! I definitely enjoying every little bit of it I have you bookmarked to check out new stuff you post. olxtoto

Very informative post! There is a lot of information here that can help any business get started with a successful social networking campaign. buy high purity reference standards online

If you are looking for more information about flat rate locksmith Las Vegas check that right away. togel

One amendment would remove a requirement for product labels to list medical cannabis as a Schedule I controlled substance in light of federal rescheduling. By Zach Wendling, Nebraska Examiner People wishing to weigh in on the latest regulations for the Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission can do so in person Thursday or by sending in written comments by the end of the day. The public hearing begins at 1 p.m. Thursday at the State Office Building in downtown Lincoln. It will run for up to three hours, or until there are no additional speakers, whichever comes first. Speakers will be limited to three minutes, or two minutes if many people wish to speak. Written comments can be sent by email (mcc.contact@nebraska.gov) or mail (Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission, PO Box 95046, Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-5046) by 11:59 p.m. Thursday. In-person speakers are strongly encouraged to bring written copies, too. Gov. Jim Pillen (R) and Attorney General Mike Hilgers (R) signed off on the commission’s previous regulations this summer. They took permanent effect July 6. “Participants are encouraged to review the proposed amendments before the hearing and focus their comments on specific provisions they would like the commission to consider changing, clarifying, adding or removing,” the commission website states. “Comments regarding the proposed fee schedule are also welcome.” All comments must be reviewed before the commission can sign off on the regulations and forward them to the governor and attorney general, which delays the process into 2027. The commission has said it won’t license more establishments until the next round of regulations is approved, which again will require approval from the executive branch officials. Both Pillen and Hilgers are up for reelection next month. Proposed amendments The latest proposal offers a few distinct changes, the largest of which is a proposed fee structure for applicants—a $5,000 application fee, annual license and renewal fees based on type (between $10,000 and $28,500), a $1,500 relocation fee and a $13,000 fee for participation in the state’s seed-to-sale inventory tracking system. Dispensaries would also need to pay a $250 fee to license a new product, plus a $100 renewal fee. Currently, there are no fees under the program. Sales taxes are currently prohibited. The latest amendments would also merge transporter licenses with product manufacturers, so transportation would be an optional certification. Other notable changes: Removing a label that would list medical cannabis as a “Schedule I” controlled substance. In May, the federal government downgraded state-licensed medical cannabis from a Schedule I drug to a Schedule III drug. Allowing disenrollment of healthcare practitioners who voluntarily choose to participate in the program if the practitioner fails to maintain a medical license in good standing. Requiring healthcare practitioners to attest when an in-person appointment occurs before they issue a recommendation for medical cannabis. Attesting whether a provider knows whether a patient is pregnant before recommending medical cannabis. If the provider in the future learns a patient is pregnant, they must alert the commission. At the commission’s August meeting, Commissioner Jim Elworth of Nebraska City called the changes as a whole “significant” because they would help “streamline” the process. He cited a small change to the definition of cultivator and the potential expanded responsibilities of manufacturers. He had said that despite “insinuations” and, “frankly, the rudeness during the public comment period,” commissioners had visited a potential manufacturer, “taken his recommendations to heart” and made certain changes based on conversations, “These regulations are 70-some pages, and they’re tight at this point,” Elworth said. “We are hoping that they will be approved as soon as possible and you will see that they make a difference in how this process works.” Current state of regulations The current medical cannabis regulations call for the state to: Establish a “Recommending Health Care Practitioner” directory and require patients who want to access Nebraska-licensed dispensaries to go through one of the in-state providers. Cap cultivators at no more than 1,250 flowering plants at one time. Restrict purchases of medical cannabis to 5 ounces of medical cannabis in 30 days, of which no more than 5 grams can be delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) from the same dispensary. Delta-9 THC is the part of cannabis most associated with a “high.” Allow no more than 12 medical cannabis dispensaries statewide, arranged by judicial district. That would mean one dispensary each in Douglas County (584,526 residents), Lancaster County (322,608 residents), Sarpy/Cass counties (217,202 residents) and Buffalo/Hall counties (112,979 residents), according to 2020 census data. Prohibit the sale of smoking or vaping products and edibles of any kind. Current state law allows possession of up to 5 ounces of medical cannabis with the written recommendation of any healthcare practitioner. Advocates have repeatedly expressed concern that the regulations could hurt the program’s ultimate success. This includes the Legislature’s failure this spring to pass protections for health care providers who wish to recommend medical cannabis. The commission’s next regular meeting is 1 p.m. Oct. 19 at the State Office Building in Lincoln. This story was first published by Nebraska Examiner. Photo courtesy of Mike Latimer. The post Nebraska Officials Consider Changes To Medical Marijuana Rules appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“By virtue of our law, the Medical Psilocybin Act, we have given people the legal right to access this plant medicine.” By Jack Gorsline, Psychedelic State(s) of America Medical providers, military veterans, legal experts and the primary legislative author of New Mexico’s Medical Psilocybin Act delivered a unified rebuke to the New Mexico Department of Health during an October 2 public rulemaking hearing, warning that newly added administrative mandates threaten to make the state’s landmark psychedelic therapy program inaccessible to its most vulnerable residents. The two-hour hybrid hearing centered on proposed rule 7.35.3 NMAC and amendments to 7.35.2 NMAC, which establish the clinical, licensing and operational framework for the state-regulated program created under 2025 Senate Bill 219. With the health department accelerating the program’s launch to December 2026 (a full year ahead of the statutory deadline), stakeholders testified before Hearing Officer Craig Erickson and agency General Counsel Mr. Woodward that the draft regulations copy outdated restrictions from the state’s nearly 20-year-old medical cannabis program. Across roughly 80 written public comment submissions and hours of oral testimony, speakers argued that the proposed prescriber gateways, landlord consent requirements and rigid staffing ratios exceed statutory authority, invite discrimination lawsuits and jeopardize health insurance coverage. The regulatory clash marks a sharp reversal from the optimism seen in March, when Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) signed a state budget allocating a pioneering $630,000 to the Medical Psilocybin Treatment Equity Fund alongside $300,000 for University of New Mexico clinical research into end-of-life anxiety. Financed in part by state oil and gas trust fund revenues, that appropriation was hailed as a global first for state-subsidized psychedelic healthcare and followed intense lobbying by many of the same clinicians, lawmakers and advocacy groups who are now warning that the Department of Health’s draft rules could undermine the program before it launches. When the equity funding passed, State Sen. Jeff Steinborn, D-Las Cruces, and Healing Advocacy Fund New Mexico Director of Strategic Support Denali Wilson praised the investment as proof that ability to pay would not become a barrier to care, though Las Cruces nonprofit founder Deborah Thorne of Sol Tryp cautioned that the fund’s real-world reach would depend on keeping clinical delivery costs manageable. A primary point of contention in the draft rules is the department’s proposed creation of a “certifying clinician” role. In oral testimony and a joint written filing from the Healing Advocacy Fund, the Psychedelic Mental Health Access Alliance and the Rudick Law Group, advocates argued that requiring an in-person exam with a prescriber violates the plain language of the Medical Psilocybin Act, which requires only that a licensed, permitted provider confirm a qualifying condition, such as treatment-resistant depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance use disorder or end-of-life distress. “The certifying clinician requirement…goes beyond what was anticipated in the statute,” Wilson testified. “We urge a model that preserves safety without a prescriber gateway. The Medical Psilocybin Act requires only that a patient have a qualifying condition, which any licensed provider authorized to diagnose can confirm.” While the state’s medical cannabis statute required a prescribing clinician to authorize patients to possess an otherwise illegal substance on their own, medical psilocybin is administered strictly during supervised sessions at approved locations. Because psilocybin patients never possess the medicine outside of a supervised setting, requiring patient identification cards and a 30-day state review creates an unnecessary bottleneck, delays urgent care and establishes a state database of sensitive mental health records vulnerable to data breaches. Practical day-of-session safeguards, such as urinalysis to screen for unknown pregnancy or poly-intoxication, were recommended instead. Chris Peskuski, a Marine Corps veteran in Albuquerque, Heroic Hearts Project Ambassador and a peer facilitator on the University of New Mexico’s psilocybin study for PTSD, urged the department to drop the controlled substance registration and patient application mandates, bring physicians in only when screening flags real medical risk, and allow individual sessions with a single licensed practitioner. “Under our laws, licensed clinicians deliver every treatment. And these rules put a licensed behavioral health provider in the room for every dose. That’s more clinical oversight than Oregon or Colorado required. Yet at the front door, these rules turn away from all of that and toward our medical cannabis program,” Peskuski testified. “Under these rules, nobody gets in without a prescriber’s signature, a recent in-person exam, and up to 30 days waiting on state approval. That gate doesn’t add safety…” he said. “Dangling access just out of reach is an insult to the veterans and first responders who need it. It will leave them coping in unhealthy ways. They survived combat, and the calls nobody else would take. Some won’t survive the wait.” Bernalillo County firefighter Paul Walton, executive director of Firefighters for Plant Medicine, added that compounding hurdles cause first responders struggling with trauma to abandon treatment altogether. Dr. Lida Fatemi, an internal medicine and hospice physician at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine, also criticized the in-person exam mandate, noting that Medicare permits hospice recertification via telehealth and that an in-person rule locks out rural, tribal and homebound patients. Wilson also warned that the certifying clinician design and proposed provider supervision rules create severe insurance and malpractice liabilities, despite earlier verbal reassurances from the New Mexico Health Care Authority. “A medical encounter whose only purpose is program entry lacks independent medical necessity, which is the requirement for billing insurance,” Wilson testified. “And that is going to invite claims denials and clawbacks over time, which is a serious long-tail liability problem.” If the department retains the prescriber role, Wilson urged officials to recruit naturopathic doctors, doctors of oriental medicine, acupuncturists and chiropractors, who hold prescriptive authority in New Mexico, to help offset severe physician shortages. Additionally, she warned that placing non-clinical facilitators under the formal supervision of licensed practitioners could pull facilitators under New Mexico’s Medical Malpractice Act without granting them access to malpractice coverage, while giving insurers grounds to reject claims rendered in part by unlicensed staff. Advocates recommended replacing the supervisory structure with an independent care-coordination model. As highlighted in coverage by the Santa Fe Reporter, the fiercest backlash of the hearing centered on provisions requiring written property owner permission before a patient can receive in-home care or before a healing center can operate in a leased commercial building. Steinborn, the primary sponsor of the Medical Psilocybin Act, testified during the hearing that giving landlords veto power over state-authorized healthcare subverts the law. “I am totally opposed to the landlord sign-off for homebound patients,” Steinborn said. “By virtue of our law, the Medical Psilocybin Act, we have given people the legal right to access this plant medicine. And I believe it’s totally inappropriate to subordinate that right, that individual right that we have given people, to a landlord. It forces someone to violate their right to their medical privacy in order to receive that care.” Steinborn also urged the department to remove the landlord consent mandate for commercial healing centers and shorten the 30-day patient paperwork review to a week or two. End-of-life advocates, including advisory board End-of-Life Committee Chair Dr. Larry Leeman, Taos hospice nurse Jennifer Johnson and End of Life Options New Mexico board members Barak Wolff and Dr. Lance Chilton, noted that unlike cannabis, psilocybin produces no smoke or residue, and requiring landlord signatures places “unnecessary and deleterious burdens” on dying patients. Attorney Brett Phelps, speaking for the Psychedelic Bar Association’s New Mexico Working Group, testified that forcing tenants to disclose medical treatment collides with fair housing laws and could trigger direct lawsuits against the state. Disability Rights New Mexico also submitted legal analysis opposing the rule, while advocates noted that similar litigation in Oregon has already cost regulators hundreds of thousands of dollars. Psilocybin advisory board chair Ian Dunn, the sole Gen Z representative involved in developing the program, told officials that the rule creates two classes of patients: “Those who own property can make decisions for themselves. Those who do not must ask someone else.” Speakers also criticized session staffing ratios and training gaps that could rapidly deplete the Treatment Equity Fund. Requiring both a practitioner and a facilitator at individual sessions doubles bedside costs, Johnson said, while Dr. Maria Feeney noted that group rules requiring five staff members for eight patients defeat the cost-saving purpose of group therapy. Furthermore, Steinborn, Leeman and Wilson urged the state to mandate specific minimum hours in the 75-hour curriculum for end-of-life care, trauma-informed care, suicidality screening and managing challenging experiences, while Indigenous healers and local educators (including Patricio Dominguez, Equity Committee Chair DezBaa’, Dr. Courtney Hale and Cheyenne medicine woman Sage Romanos) called on the state to honor traditional curanderismo and Indigenous lineages rather than outsourcing training to out-of-state corporations. Amid the widespread pushback over patient entry bottlenecks and property owner mandates, several clinical educators and mental health practitioners praised the New Mexico Department of Health for establishing rigorous training, supervision and workforce transition standards. During oral testimony, Changa Institute founder and CEO Lisa Ginsburg applauded regulators for prioritizing patient safety and creating a reciprocity pathway that allows accredited out-of-state programs to help train New Mexico’s initial cohort of providers. Dr. Janice Phelps, founder of the California Institute of Integral Studies’s psychedelic therapies certification program, similarly commended the state’s clinical standards, arguing that relying on robust provider training is the best way to guarantee safety while loosening administrative barriers to access. In written comments included in the department’s exhibit binder, Santa Fe licensed mental health counselor Danielle Leonard urged the agency to retain three core provisions: requiring licensed therapists to serve as practitioners, maintaining graduated clinical practicum standards and mandating at least 10 hours of no-cost, post-graduation mentoring. Because psilocybin sessions bring trauma and grief to the surface, Leonard wrote, “these provisions mean that New Mexicans in this program will be cared for by clinicians who are well trained, well supported, and accountable.” Similarly, Dr. Patricia Singh, an Albuquerque licensed professional clinical counselor and executive director of the outpatient substance use clinic A New Awakening, commended the department’s “thoughtful, clinically responsible regulatory framework,” specifically endorsing the transitional 40-hour practicum pathway for experienced applicants alongside temporary “other approved locations” to expand rural access. As regulators review the October 2 record, 16 advocacy and clinical organizations have petitioned House Appropriations and Finance Committee Chair Rep. Nathan P. Small, D-Las Cruces, in a community letter to appropriate an additional $500,000 for the Treatment Equity Fund, allocate $500,000 for University of New Mexico palliative research and extend $1.5 million in previously appropriated development and research funds through fiscal year 2027. The regulatory debate comes as the New Mexico Department of Health’s Center for Medical Cannabis and Psilocybin moves forward with supply-side licensing, recently issuing the state’s first medical psilocybin producer permit to Sacred Alto Spores ahead of the program’s accelerated end-of-year launch. This article was produced in partnership with Psychedelic State(s) of America—a nonprofit-sponsored news organization dedicated to rigorous independent psychedelic journalism. Subscribe to PSA online and Follow PSA on Instagram, LinkedIn, Twitter/X and Facebook. Learn more about PSA and donate to the PSA Media Fund here. Photo courtesy of Mark Groeneveld. The post Proposed New Mexico Psilocybin Rules Get Pushback From Lawmakers And Advocates appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

A Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) judge overseeing a hearing on the Trump administration’s marijuana rescheduling proposal is ordering the agency to respond to opponents’ request for a new round of testimony and discovery in the proceedings. The dispute concerns a recently released federal watchdog report that found there are “gaps” in the government’s process for evaluating controlled substances. DEA said in a brief filed last week that it is fine with including the document in the hearing record, as opponents have pushed for, but it does not want any further briefings on the matter. Opponents of the reform, meanwhile, are pushing to further delay a decision in the proceedings by asking the judge to order a new round of testimony and discovery. DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julius on Wednesday issued an order directing the agency to reply to the opposition motion by October 21. “Having received a new substantive motion, I will once again order a response and allow time for filing,” he said, specifying that DEA’s brief should be no more than 10 pages long. “This matter remains STAYED to allow time for a response and to allow time for the tribunal to consider the pending motions,” the judge said. Julius separately granted opposing parties’ motion to file a brief responding to DEA’s most recent filing in the case while saying that “I have not yet ruled on the Motion to Admit GAO Report and RESERVE ruling on that motion pending additional responses.” Opponents of cannabis rescheduling are asking that the recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on drug scheduling be included in the record, and Julius last month paused the proceedings and ordered DEA to weigh in on whether the document should be made a part of the process. DEA’s most recent brief argues that it defers to the judge on whether the GAO report should be included in the record, but it opposes opponents’ request for additional briefings to be ordered concerning what the report’s findings mean for cannabis rescheduling. Those opponents have “mischaracterized the GAO Report and its impact” on the marijuana rescheduling process, the agency said, adding that it “does not present any new evidence salient to the issue before this Tribunal.” That report found, among other things that DEA “does not have any policies or procedures regarding how its staff are to conduct evaluations or schedule substances” and the Food and Drug Administration within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) “does not have policies or procedures specifying how its staff are to conduct evaluations or develop scheduling recommendations for substances.” DEA said, however, that the GAO report merely identified “gaps in the memorialization of rescheduling process, not any flaws in the rescheduling process itself.” Until recently, the only expected remaining step in the proceedings had been for Julius to issue his own recommendation on marijuana rescheduling to the DEA administrator, who would then make a final determination on the policy. But last month the judge granted the motion for a stay filed by the National Drug and Alcohol Association (NDASA), DUID Victim Voices and Kenneth Finn, M.D.—parties opposed to cannabis rescheduling that participated in the hearing and who now want the GAO report included as part of the record. Other parties in the hearing were “permitted, but not required” to file briefs on whether the GAO report should be included in the marijuana rescheduling hearing record. Prohibitionist organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and the states of Idaho, Indiana and Nebraska filed a joint brief on Tuesday arguing that the GAO report is “competent, relevant, and material evidence to proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law that directly bear on the Rescheduling determination before the Tribunal.” The National Drug & Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA), DUID Victim Voices, and Kenneth Finn also filed a separate joint brief on Monday, arguing that “additional briefing is necessary because this dispute goes beyond whether the Report is admissible—it concerns what the Report means and why it matters.” The opponents’ brief also calls attention to their arguments that a new two-part test federal officials used to analyze cannabis improperly departs from a former five-part test. “The Report’s findings bear directly on whether the agencies used a consistent, reviewable method here. It gives no reason for the change from the five-factor CAMU test to the two-part version,” it says. “That unexplained change matters because the hearing record shows that FDA began its work before the two-part test existed, was directed to use it, and never completed a five-factor analysis.” “The Government cannot rely on an unexplained change in method to establish its desired Schedule III findings,” the opponents argue. “It also cannot admit it lacks established procedures for making findings on rescheduling that are required by law and then insist those deficiencies are immaterial.” 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 a currently accepted medical use. NDASA, DUID and Finn also filed a separate motion on Monday asking the DEA judge to order a “narrow reopening of the hearing for limited discovery and testimony tied to the Report, the agency-process gaps it identified, and why those gaps matter to marijuana rescheduling.: They are requesting authority to “serve narrowly tailored document requests and to seek testimony limited to” certain specific subjects. “The requested discovery is necessary and proportionate. It targets the process facts GAO identified, the factual disputes the Government created in its response, and the issues the Government restricted during the hearing,” the motion says. “It does not seek a broad reopening, a new merits case, or duplicative testimony already taken. Limited discovery is therefore proportional to the issues the Report and the Government’s response have placed before the tribunal.” It remains to be seen whether Julius will order additional briefings on the GAO report and whether he will take the more far-reaching step of reopening testimony and discovery. 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 he signed, the DEA hearing was held in June and July to consider more comprehensively moving marijuana to Schedule III. “The Government is not putting forth any evidence to suggest that marijuana is not dangerous. All controlled substances by definition are dangerous,” James Schwartz, a DEA attorney, said on the opening day of the hearing, according to the transcript. “That is why they are scheduled in the first place. However, controlled substances must be evaluated by the risks they pose balanced with the medical use they provide.” “The proposed rule, the supporting documents, and the Government witnesses will establish that marijuana has a currently accepted medical use,” he said. “With that determination, marijuana can no longer remain in Schedule I.” Meanwhile, DEA and parties that participated in the marijuana rescheduling hearing laid out their arguments in final briefs. The federal agency, which was charged with defending the proposed rescheduling move, 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.” In conclusion, DEA asked the judge overseeing the hearing to “expeditiously recommend” that marijuana be transferred from Schedule I to Schedule III. 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 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.” 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. — 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. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently rejected a drug testing industry association and a pharmaceutical company’s request to block the Trump administration from moving forward with cannabis rescheduling while the litigation is considered. The parties have jointly filed a proposed briefing schedule for the legal dispute. 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 order in marijuana rescheduling hearing below: The post DEA Judge Orders Agency To Address Marijuana Rescheduling Opponents’ Request For New Testimony And Document Discovery appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

The mayor of the largest city in Massachusetts says she is voting against an initiative on the November ballot that seeks to roll back the state’s cannabis legalization law. “A decade ago, I was proud to be among the few elected officials who supported the ballot question to legalize cannabis and end decades of criminalization and its disproportionate impact on marginalized communities,” Boston Mayor Michelle Wu (D) said on Wednesday. “Since then, legalization has created new businesses and jobs and generated state and local revenue to support substance use recovery and public health programs,” she said in a press release sent by the Stop the Repeal campaign that’s working to defeat the anti-marijuana measure. “I am voting No on 8 to protect that progress, not turn back the clock.” The campaign’s release notes that Boston “has one of the most robust cannabis equity programs in the nation, which helps to support individuals and communities disproportionately affected by the War on Drugs in achieving success within Boston’s cannabis industry.” The city has more than 40 adult-use marijuana retailers, including 18 that participate in the equity program, eight economic empowerment participants and four that hold diverse business enterprise status, the campaign said—adding that Boston generated more than $9.7 million in local cannabis tax revenue in fiscal years 2022-2025 and expects to earn another $3.6 million in fiscal year 2026. “Massachusetts not only has a legal adult-use cannabis system in place that prioritizes public health and consumer safety, but also allocates millions in cannabis tax revenue towards supporting entrepreneurs who were directly impacted by the War on Drugs,” Ryan Dominguez, chair of the Stop the Repeal campaign, said. “We are grateful to have the support of Mayor Michelle Wu in defeating this damaging ballot question, helping to support local Boston businesses, jobs, and public health and safety programs,” he said. Wu’s newly announced position represents the latest high-profile endorsement for the campaign to defeat Question 8—which would repeal laws allowing the regulated commercial sales of recreational cannabis and home cultivation while maintaining legal possession and continuing the medical marijuana system. U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) both recently told Marijuana Moment that they will be voting against the anti-cannabis measure. “We could make improvements in the operations but legalizing cannabis is better than continuing an unregulated, underground market,” Warren said. “So I’m opposed to the repeal. I’m voting no on the ballot to repeal.” Markey, for his part, said the state’s marijuana legalization law that voters approved in 2016 continues to enjoy “overwhelming support.” “We’ve had debate,” he said. “The voters are satisfied at this moment with the experience that the state has had with it… I support keeping it on the books and overwhelmingly so do the people of Massachusetts.” Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) also recently urged voters to reject the measure, saying that “keeping marijuana legal in Massachusetts is both economic justice and racial justice policy.” Gov. Maura Healey (D) similarly said recently that she opposes the anti-cannabis initiative, saying that “we’ve got to keep recreational marijuana here in Massachusetts.” “It’s an important industry, the cannabis industry,” the governor said. “And I hope the voters keep cannabis.” Meanwhile, a recent poll released shows that most Massachusetts voters oppose the ballot measure to roll back marijuana legalization. The survey, published by CommonWealth Beacon and conducted by MassINC Polling Group (MPG), shows that 61 percent of likely voters oppose the initiative. Just 27 percent of respondents said they favor the anti-cannabis ballot measure, while 11 percent are undecided and 1 percent responded that they would prefer not to state their opinion. A separate poll released last month by The University of New Hampshire, showed that nearly three-quarters (71 percent) of respondents planned to vote against the anti-cannabis measure, while just 24 percent planned to support it. Another survey released in August found that Massachusetts voters opposed the marijuana legalization repeal measure, 55 percent to 33 percent. Competing campaigns working to pass and defeat the legalization rollback have launched a series of ads trying to convince voters of their respective positions. The prohibitionist campaign’s ads focus on the dangers of marijuana-impaired driving, while the campaign seeking to keep cannabis sales legal is highlighting the public health and safety harms of sending consumers back to the unregulated market. The Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission, which regulates the legal industry, announced last month that the state has surpassed $10 billion in adult-use cannabis purchases since the market launched in 2018. CCC Chair Chris Harding told Marijuana Moment that he can’t comment directly on the initiative and that the commission does not take positions on pending ballot questions or legislation, but he said that, in general, “repeal of the adult-use industry could eliminate thousands of jobs, hundreds of businesses and billions in tax revenue.” Meanwhile, a top labor union—the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Massachusetts State Council—is urging voters to reject the cannabis legalization rollback initiative. 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. The governor of Massachusetts last month filed legislation proposing to increase military veterans’ access to medical marijuana by allowing them to receive patient cards without having to get a doctor’s recommendation. The post Boston Mayor Opposes Massachusetts Ballot Measure To Roll Back Marijuana Legalization appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“Let’s see what shakes out from the things that we’ve done the first six years. Give the industry a break and give it time to show us if the changes we made are beneficial.” By Emma Murphy, Oklahoma Voice The Oklahoma Legislature should hit pause on further regulating the state’s medical marijuana industry to allow recent laws to take full effect, one legislator said Tuesday. Rep. T.J. Marti, R-Broken Arrow, said lawmakers have created enough cannabis laws since voters first legalized medical marijuana in 2018, and everyone would benefit from waiting to pass any additional regulations. Marti has taken the lead on various marijuana regulatory bills over the past few years and currently chairs the House Alcohol, Tobacco and Controlled Substances Committee. “I’ve been saying let’s see what shakes out from the things that we’ve done the first six years,” he said. “Give the industry a break and give it time to show us if the changes we made are beneficial.” Still, House lawmakers heard from medical marijuana patients and industry advocates, laboratory testing businesses and the state’s regulatory agency at an interim study on Tuesday. They proposed over a dozen more ways the industry could be further regulated amid mistrust in cannabis testing and safety. The Legislature has retroactively passed regulations since voters approved legalization of the industry. The medical marijuana industry needs to work together to say what it needs from lawmakers, Marti said, because conflicting solutions are being proposed. “We need you guys to come together with things that the industry wants help with solutions,” he said. “And we have a lot of offers today. I’m guessing if I posted, ‘This is what we’re going to take up this year,’ there would be at least 50 percent hate out there for all of these issues. So again, that’s not normal across any other industry, other than maybe oil and gas.” Mistrust in medical marijuana testing Marion McNabb, a cannabis and policy researcher, said a recent report on Oklahoma’s medical marijuana industry revealed that 30 percent of surveyed patients have some level of distrust in the accuracy of laboratory testing in Oklahoma. The surveyed business owners also said there’s a lack of transparency and communication on requirements and that testing can be unreliable, she said. Currently, the state relies on about a dozen independent labs to confirm safety and quality of marijuana products. Rep. Jacob Rosecrants, D-Norman, said he thinks the Legislature needs to focus further regulation on expanding test labs’ capabilities to identify pesticides and other hazardous substances through new technology and approved methodology. Rosecrants, who hosted the interim study, also said the state needs to prepare itself for the federal government’s change in its classification of marijuana. These priorities could also potentially be achieved through the administrative rules process, he said. “We’ve got to get a hold of what we’re ingesting,” Rosecrants said. “Plus, not only have I spoken to patients that have ingested or smoked something that made them sick, it happened to me too.” Rosecrants said his constituents are questioning why it’s taken the Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority so long to get its quality assurance lab fully up and running. Barrett Brown, the chief administrative officer for the agency, said the lab is operational but still awaiting accreditation for certain testing capabilities. The lab is intended to regulate the independent, licensed testing facilities. Suggestions on improving marijuana testing ranged from aligning testing criteria with existing national standards to targeting families of compounds when testing marijuana rather than listing out every harmful pesticide in state law. Gillian Schauer, executive director of the Cannabis Regulators Association, said the testing model in Oklahoma is high stakes because products are only tested at the end of the process, so failing a test means losing high quantities of a marijuana product. Testing ends up being the only marker of whether or not something is safe, she said. “There’s pressure on labs to falsify things, there’s pressure from licensees sometimes to try to get something through because they don’t want to lose the inventory,” Schauer said. “And this creates, again, some incentives that can be misaligned. We need better methods.” This story was first published by Oklahoma Voice. Photo courtesy of Chris Wallis // Side Pocket Images. The post Oklahoma Should Stop Changing Medical Marijuana Rules So Frequently, Lawmaker Says appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

The Democratic candidate running to represent Texas in the U.S. Senate in next month’s elections says he will work to federally legalize marijuana if he wins the race. “Like prohibition, bans don’t work,” James Talarico, who currently serves as a state representative, said in response to a question from The Texas Tribune about how Congress should regulate hemp-derived THC products. “Texans aren’t going to stop smoking weed because politicians in Austin or D.C. told them not to,” he said. “People will still use THC, but instead of getting it safely from regulated, local small businesses, they’ll get it from the black market, from the drug cartels. Talarico said that “Texans use THC to lessen anxiety, seniors use it to manage chronic pain, and veterans use it to treat PTSD,” and that bans “make people’s lives harder, not easier.” “In the Senate, I’ll support legalizing marijuana for adults—regulating and imposing taxes on its sales to support public safety and health programs,” he said. Talarico’s Republican opponent for the Senate seat, Ken Paxton, did not respond to the Tribune’s questionnaire, but he has filed lawsuits to block several Texas cities from implementing local voter-approved laws to decriminalize marijuana in his capacity as state attorney general. His office has also defended state hemp THC product restrictions from litigation. The Texas Democratic Party recently called out Paxton for refusing to answer a question about cannabis policy after he was recently shown in a video posted to X 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. Democrats 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. “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.” Meanwhile, Talarico’s new comments to the Tribune aren’t the first time he has voiced support for cannabis reform. In an interview with The Breakfast Club in August, 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. He has also suggested that Paxton supports banning cannabis in order to aid his political donors in the alcohol and tobacco industries. “People are outraged across the state, and it’s not any one political party,” Talarico said of recently enacted state restrictions on hemp products in an interview with KTSM-TV. “It’s people across the spectrum.” “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 said. While Talarico’s suggestion that Paxton’s actions were undertaken to support any specific business can’t be verified, campaign finance records reviewed by Marijuana Moment show that Paxton has accepted more than $500,000 in political donations from the alcohol industry while using the power of his office to crack down on cannabis. Podcaster Joe Rogan, who lives in and operates a comedy club in Austin, has suggested that taking anti-cannabis actions is a political risk for Republicans. “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, 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. Ted Brown, the Libertarian candidate for the Texas U.S. Senate seat, told the Tribune that “there should be no federal regulation of any cannabis or hemp products.” “I would remove cannabis from the Drug Enforcement Administration Schedule of Controlled Substances and have no federal marijuana laws whatsoever,” he said. “I also want to repeal Texas’ prohibitions against adult cannabis use, as adults should be able to ingest any substances they want to without government permission. Anyone ever convicted of a federal or state marijuana offense should have their record expunged. No one should ever have been arrested for a plant.” Image element courtesy of Antonioaesparza. The post Talarico Says He’ll Work To Federally Legalize Marijuana If Elected To The Senate appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“The charade of hemp intoxicants must end. Sneaking in the back door with synthetic drugs nobody asked for is not the path to legalization.” By Chris Lindsey, American Trade Association for Cannabis and Hemp Last week, the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) asked its supporters to urge Congress to keep intoxicating hemp products on the market. I read the group’s action alert with more than professional interest. I spent nearly a decade on MPP’s staff, helping pass medical and adult-use cannabis and decriminalization laws throughout the country. I am proud of that work. That is why MPP’s latest campaign troubles me. It asks Congress to protect synthetic THC products and THCa flower that bypasses the state regulatory programs MPP built, and it leaves behind the people those programs were meant to serve. In Illinois, that work took six years and three laws: medical access in 2013, decriminalization in 2016 and a legalization law in 2019 that went back and cleared the records of people already convicted. By its own count, MPP led the way on 15 medical cannabis laws and played a leading role in 14 of the 24 adult-use states. Those states adopted its model of licensing, testing, tracking and taxation—and businesses agreed to build within it. Those programs have since generated tens of billions of dollars in state tax revenue, served millions of patients and led to the normalization of cannabis. MPP’s alert says the era of a dual system for hemp and cannabis needs to end. I agree, and THC should be treated as THC. The real question is why MPP would undermine its advocacy on regulation by supporting the unregulated intoxicating hemp charade now known as “gas station weed” over the regulated systems MPP built. MPP calls the coming federal changes prohibition. On December 11, intoxicating hemp such as THCa flower will be treated as what it is: marijuana. Synthetic THC derivatives will be treated as what they are: designer drugs. THC regulation will play by the same rules state-licensed cannabis and hemp businesses have followed for more than a decade. Fairness is all those businesses have ever asked for, and it’s what sensible regulation requires. MPP says the changes to federal hemp laws are detrimental to people in prohibition states. Yet by MPP’s own count, more than 300 million Americans already live in states with medical cannabis programs, and most prohibition states never chose hemp intoxicants. They arrived through a federal loophole, without a state vote. Nor are these products what they claim to be. MPP names THCa flower and delta-8 among the products it wants protected. THCa flower is marijuana by another name, designed to confuse people into thinking it’s different. Delta-8, HHC, THCP and whatever comes next are lab-made versions of THC, produced because actual hemp contains so little natural delta-9. We need real legalization. States that want legal cannabis can have it through the front door, the one MPP spent 30 years building. What troubles me most is what the alert leaves out. It mentions the failed war on cannabis once and it says nothing about the people that war left behind. At one time, that was the focus at MPP. When I helped write the Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act in Illinois, its equity provisions were the point. The law cleared hundreds of thousands of records through automatic expungement and pardons, created social equity licensing and sent a quarter of cannabis tax revenue to communities harmed by uneven enforcement. MPP itself called those efforts the law’s most historic aspect. Hemp legislation has offered nothing close. Of the hundreds of hemp bills filed since 2019, our review found that only one hemp-only bill tried to address equity, and it largely borrowed from Illinois’s cannabis law. The need for reform around cannabis laws has not gone away. Police issued more than 200,000 cannabis charges last year by MPP’s own count, many of which involved arrest. Some argue hemp products reduced criminal charges in prohibition states, yet FBI data shows those 26 states still reported 186,581 cannabis charges in 2025. Texas, one of the states MPP staff pointed to, led the nation with more than 29,000 charges. Where hemp actually did lower arrests, MPP’s own staff said it was partly because crime labs were overwhelmed. An arrest that is avoided because a lab is backlogged changes nothing about the broken system and clears no one’s record. The licensed cannabis and hemp businesses my current organization—the American Trade Association for Cannabis and Hemp (ATACH)—represents carry those commitments at a real cost. They operate inside demanding state systems MPP helped design. When Illinois launched adult-use sales, the first licensees paid into a fund to bring new social equity businesses into the market, and many incubated those businesses themselves. In New Jersey, licensed cultivators pay a Social Equity Excise Fee. Most states that have legalized for adults paired it with some form of social equity, from clearing records to equity licensing to reinvesting tax revenue in harmed communities. That is the price of admission to a legal market and these businesses choose to pay it. Intoxicating hemp competes for the same customers while contributing nothing, using a business model that depends on avoiding regulation. Consumers are left with untested, lab-made products. Last October, MPP Executive Director Adam Smith asked the licensed cannabis industry to invest in independent advocacy, arguing that a legal, well-regulated industry is the best antidote to dangerous, unregulated markets. He was right. The charade of hemp intoxicants must end. Sneaking in the back door with synthetic drugs nobody asked for is not the path to legalization. Federal policy must be built on the foundation that already works: the state systems that regulate cannabis, with their testing, age limits, accountable businesses and commitment to repair. MPP taught a generation of advocates, me among them, that ending prohibition means building something better in its place. That is still the right mission. MPP should return to it. Chris Lindsey is vice president of policy and state advocacy at the American Trade Association for Cannabis and Hemp. While at the Marijuana Policy Project, he helped pass Illinois’s 2013 medical cannabis law, drafted and helped pass the state’s decriminalization law and helped write the 2019 Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act, in addition to work on similar laws in over a dozen other states. The post Former Staffer At Top Marijuana Policy Group Criticizes Its Push To Keep Hemp THC Products Legal (Op-Ed) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

KS gov candidate: Legalize marijuana; SD AG: Rescheduling doesn’t impact medical program; NFL-funded study on cannabis stigma; Hemp THC drinks op-ed Subscribe to receive Marijuana Moment’s newsletter in your inbox every weekday morning. It’s the best way to make sure you know which cannabis stories are shaping the day. Get our daily newsletter. Email address: Leave this field empty if you're human: Your support makes Marijuana Moment possible… Your good deed for the day: donate to an independent publisher like Marijuana Moment and ensure that as many voters as possible have access to the most in-depth cannabis reporting out there. Support our work at https://www.patreon.com/marijuanamoment / TOP THINGS TO KNOW The Drug Enforcement Administration filed a brief saying it is fine with reopening the marijuana rescheduling hearing record to include a government report that’s critical of the federal drug review process—but it doesn’t want additional briefings on the matter, even as opponents filed a new brief seeking to further delay a decision by more broadly reopening testimony and document discovery. Kansas Democratic gubernatorial candidate Cindy Holscher, currently a state senator, said the state should legalize marijuana—and she’s criticizing her Republican opponent, Senate President Ty Masterson (R), for blocking medical cannabis legislation. South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley (R) issued a legal opinion finding that “the federal rescheduling of marijuana will likely have a negligible impact on South Dakota’s medical-marijuana program.” A new study funded by the National Football League found that long-held anti-marijuana attitudes in sports leagues are “evolving” as social trends are “driving more openness to cannabis” as an alternative to opioids for treating athletes’ pain—but ongoing stigma is creating trust issues that make it harder for medical staff to do their jobs. “Medical professionals, particularly younger or research-focused staff, are increasingly seeing cannabis as a safer or more effective option than alcohol, opioids, or other prescription drugs.” Former National Football League player Micah Hyde argues in a new Marijuana Moment op-ed that Congress should regulate—instead of ban—hemp THC drinks like the ones his company produces. “Hemp beverages deserve the same kind of framework alcoholic beverages do. What I don’t believe is that the only two choices are an unregulated market or eliminating these products as a whole.” NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano argues in a new Marijuana Moment op-ed that a proposed constitutional amendment on Idaho’s November ballot to block voters from ever being able to legalize cannabis is “anti-democracy.” “Public support for legalization is greater today than at nearly any time in our nation’s history. This reality has Idaho lawmakers, and Republicans especially, running scared.” / FEDERAL The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up the case of a man challenging a loss of gun rights over a marijuana cultivation conviction. The State Department and Treasury Department sanctioned people and entities that are allegedly tied to a drug cartel. / STATES A Pennsylvania senator posted a video about her forthcoming bill to regulate hemp THC products. South Dakota regulators posted proposed changes to medical cannabis rules. Minnesota regulators published guidance about high-medical-need cannabis products. Oklahoma’s top medical cannabis regulator authored an op-ed about ongoing efforts to oversee the legal industry. Illinois’s top marijuana regulator spoke about a recently enacted expansion to the state’s medical cannabis program. California regulators sent updates on various cannabis issues. — 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 A Romanian lawmaker withdrew his name from a bill to decriminalize drug possession. / SCIENCE & HEALTH A study found that “THC exerts broad immunomodulatory effects characterized by suppression of inflammatory and type I interferon responses while promoting cellular stress-adaptation pathways.” A study found that “CBD was associated with sustained effectiveness and good tolerability in adults with [Lennox–Gastaut Syndrome], with high retention and improvement in seizure and other clinically meaningful outcomes.” / ADVOCACY, OPINION & ANALYSIS The Marijuana Policy Project published a voter guide for Pennsylvania’s upcoming elections. / BUSINESS Montana retailers have sold nearly a quarter of a billion dollars worth of legal marijuana products so far this year. / CULTURE Football player Jameson Williams successfully got a fine for a cannabis-smoking celebration gesture he made during a game rescinded, arguing that marijuana is legal in some states. Make sure to subscribe to get Marijuana Moment’s daily dispatch in your inbox. Get our daily newsletter. Email address: Leave this field empty if you're human: Photo courtesy of Chris Wallis // Side Pocket Images. The post New DEA & opponent briefs in cannabis rescheduling hearing (Newsletter: October 14, 2026) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Discretion and privacy are absolute priorities for anyone seeking high-end adult companionship today. Choosing a reputable VIP Escorts Service in Dwarka guarantees complete confidentiality from start to finish. Clients appreciate the secure booking process and the professional demeanor maintained throughout every single interaction.

There are a lot of blogs over the Internet. But I can surely say that your blog is amazing in all. It has all the qualities that a perfect blog should have. bolagila

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) says it has no problem with reopening the record for a hearing on the Trump administration’s marijuana rescheduling proposal to include a federal watchdog report that found there are “gaps” in the government’s process for evaluating controlled substances—though it doesn’t want further briefings on the matter. Opponents of the reform, meanwhile, are pushing to further delay a decision in the proceedings by asking the judge to order a new round of testimony and discovery. Opponents of cannabis rescheduling had asked that the recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on drug scheduling be included in the record, and DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julius last month paused the proceedings and ordered DEA to weigh in on whether the document should be made a part of the process. DEA’s newly filed brief argues that it defers to the judge on whether the GAO report should be included in the record, but it opposes opponents’ request for additional briefings to be ordered concerning what the report’s findings mean for cannabis rescheduling. Those opponents have “mischaracterized the GAO Report and its impact” on the marijuana rescheduling process, the agency said, adding that it “does not present any new evidence salient to the issue before this Tribunal.” That report found, among other things that DEA “does not have any policies or procedures regarding how its staff are to conduct evaluations or schedule substances” and the Food and Drug Administration within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) “does not have policies or procedures specifying how its staff are to conduct evaluations or develop scheduling recommendations for substances.” DEA said, however, that the GAO report merely identified “gaps in the memorialization of rescheduling process, not any flaws in the rescheduling process itself.” “Rather, the Report issued a recommendation that DEA and FDA ‘fill gaps’ in their written policies surrounding the process of rescheduling. This recommendation is immaterial to the actual scientific processes and analysis these agencies used. More importantly, the GAO makes no critical finding as to the actual scientific processes and analyses used by FDA and DEA in scheduling controlled substances and makes no recommendations as to other scientific processes and analyses that FDA and DEA should use in determining what schedule to place a substance. Moreover, the GAO Report does not ever opine on FDA’s ultimate conclusion that marijuana should be transferred to Schedule III. While the Government defers to this Tribunal as to whether the GAO Report should be late admitted into evidence, the Government asserts that any briefing on the GAO Report – a document that has no bearing on the ultimate issue of whether marijuana should be transferred to Schedule III – is unnecessary.” “When a document’s meaning is clear, the court need not allow additional argument to interpret the document,” DEA said in the brief that was filed on Friday but obtained by Marijuana Moment on Tuesday, urging the judge not to further delay his rescheduling recommendation by allowing additional briefings from parties. Until now, the only expected remaining step in the proceedings had been for Julius to issue his own recommendation on marijuana rescheduling to the DEA administrator, who would then make a final determination on the policy. But last month the judge granted the motion for a stay filed by the National Drug and Alcohol Association (NDASA), DUID Victim Voices and Kenneth Finn, M.D.—parties opposed to cannabis rescheduling that participated in the hearing and who now want the GAO report included as part of the record. Other parties in the hearing were “permitted, but not required” to file briefs on whether the GAO report should be included in the marijuana rescheduling hearing record. Prohibitionist organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and the states of Idaho, Indiana and Nebraska filed a joint brief on Tuesday arguing that the GAO report is “competent, relevant, and material evidence to proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law that directly bear on the Rescheduling determination before the Tribunal.” “The Tribunal should also request supplemental briefing from the parties to address whether HHS’s lack of internal written policies contributed to an evaluation of marijuana that departed from prior agency practice,” the brief said. The National Drug & Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA), DUID Victim Voices, and Kenneth Finn also filed a separate joint brief on Monday, arguing that “additional briefing is necessary because this dispute goes beyond whether the Report is admissible—it concerns what the Report means and why it matters.” “The Government contends that the findings concern documentation rather than the analysis itself and that they do not affect the proposed rescheduling. The Government then accuses Interested Parties of ‘mischaracterizing’ the Report. Neither of the Government’s characterizations is true. The Report plainly found that DEA lacks written policies or procedures assigning roles, responsibilities, and procedures for collecting and analyzing data, conducting eight-factor analyses, determining schedule placement, considering HHS recommendations, and making final scheduling decisions. It also found that FDA lacks procedures for eight-factor analyses and scheduling recommendations and lacks criteria for determining ‘potential for abuse,’ including ‘abuse potential relative to other substances.’ Those findings go well beyond documentation and concern the governing process, including the standards and responsibilities that produce the agency’s legally required findings.” The opponents’ brief also calls attention to their arguments that a new two-part test federal officials used to analyze cannabis improperly departs from a former five-part test. “The Report’s findings bear directly on whether the agencies used a consistent, reviewable method here. It gives no reason for the change from the five-factor CAMU test to the two-part version,” it says. “That unexplained change matters because the hearing record shows that FDA began its work before the two-part test existed, was directed to use it, and never completed a five-factor analysis.” “The Government cannot rely on an unexplained change in method to establish its desired Schedule III findings,” the opponents argue. “It also cannot admit it lacks established procedures for making findings on rescheduling that are required by law and then insist those deficiencies are immaterial.” 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 a currently accepted medical use. NDASA, DUID and Finn also filed a separate motion on Monday asking the DEA judge to order a “narrow reopening of the hearing for limited discovery and testimony tied to the Report, the agency-process gaps it identified, and why those gaps matter to marijuana rescheduling.: They are requesting authority to “serve narrowly tailored document requests and to seek testimony limited to” certain specific subjects: (1) Who selected, recommended, directed, drafted, or approved the July 2023 two-part CAMU test for marijuana; when that occurred; and what records or other information explain why HHS used that test after FDA’s evaluation had begun. (2) Who prepared or materially revised the Part 1 and Part 2 CAMU language in the HHS recommendation; and what role DEA, FDA, HHS, NIH, OLC, and outside participants played in such preparation or material revision. (3) Why the 2023 HHS evaluation did not address mental-health effects, psychosis, schizophrenia, the gateway effect, high-potency products, cardiovascular disease, pregnancy and prenatal exposure, diversion, pediatric use, geriatric use, or other public-health evidence in the same manner as earlier marijuana evaluations and the hearing record. (4) What written or unwritten criteria FDA used for “potential for abuse,” “relative potential for abuse,” and the Schedule III comparison required by 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(3)(A). (5) What policies, procedures, memoranda, training materials, role assignments, agency communications, written responses, and technical comments GAO reviewed or requested regarding eight-factor analyses, schedule placement, consideration of HHS recommendations, and final scheduling decisions. “The requested discovery is necessary and proportionate. It targets the process facts GAO identified, the factual disputes the Government created in its response, and the issues the Government restricted during the hearing,” the motion says. “It does not seek a broad reopening, a new merits case, or duplicative testimony already taken. Limited discovery is therefore proportional to the issues the Report and the Government’s response have placed before the tribunal.” It remains to be seen whether Julius will order additional briefings on the GAO report and whether he will take the more far-reaching step of reopening testimony and discovery. 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 he signed, the DEA hearing was held in June and July to consider more comprehensively moving marijuana to Schedule III. “The Government is not putting forth any evidence to suggest that marijuana is not dangerous. All controlled substances by definition are dangerous,” James Schwartz, a DEA attorney, said on the opening day of the hearing, according to the transcript. “That is why they are scheduled in the first place. However, controlled substances must be evaluated by the risks they pose balanced with the medical use they provide.” “The proposed rule, the supporting documents, and the Government witnesses will establish that marijuana has a currently accepted medical use,” he said. “With that determination, marijuana can no longer remain in Schedule I.” Meanwhile, DEA and parties that participated in the marijuana rescheduling hearing laid out their arguments in final briefs. The federal agency, which was charged with defending the proposed rescheduling move, 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.” In conclusion, DEA asked the judge overseeing the hearing to “expeditiously recommend” that marijuana be transferred from Schedule I to Schedule III. 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 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.” 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. — 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. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently rejected a drug testing industry association and a pharmaceutical company’s request to block the Trump administration from moving forward with cannabis rescheduling while the litigation is considered. The parties have jointly filed a proposed briefing schedule for the legal dispute. 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 briefs in marijuana rescheduling hearing below: The post DEA Is OK With Including New Report In Marijuana Rescheduling Hearing As Opponents Seek More Testimony And Document Discovery appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“Hemp beverages deserve the same kind of framework alcoholic beverages do. What I don’t believe is that the only two choices are an unregulated market or eliminating these products as a whole.” By Micah Hyde, Former NFL Player Alcohol has been around through many stages of my life. It’s been there at celebrations, dinners, countless nights out, college parties, game days, wins and losses. Like many, I drank socially, but one thing always remained true: I hated the way it made me feel, especially the morning after. I spent 12 years in the National Football League (NFL), and as my career went on, that tradeoff made less and less sense. After a game, my body and mind had already been through enough. I was sore, tired and focused on recovering so I could do it all over again days later. It was depleting mentally, physically and emotionally. Adding a night of drinking only to feel even worse the next morning never appealed to me, and it was never worth it. Toward the end of my career, I started looking for another option and eventually found low-dose hemp products. I could relax, enjoy a buzz with my friends and still wake up feeling like myself the next day, ready to perform. The problem was that I still wanted the experience of cracking open an ice cold beer, and that is where the idea of Hyde’s Hail Mary was born. I wanted to create something that felt familiar, something I could have while watching a game, sitting around with friends or unwinding after a long day, without alcohol. Federal rules don’t allow THC to simply be added to beer, so I had to work with formulators to develop a malt-forward shandy that could deliver that same kind of experience in a completely different and better way. I retired from the NFL in 2025 (Go Bills) and launched Hyde’s Hail Mary that August. My name may be on the can, but I am not just the face of the company. Building this brand has meant learning every part of the business, which I can honestly say I’ve enjoyed. From the formulation, lab testing and compliance to the QR codes printed on every can, I’m learning it all. I spent my football career obsessing over details because every detail mattered, and I’ve brought that same mentality into my business. In fact, I can no longer look at a can sitting on a table without thinking about all that went into getting it there. Today, Hail Mary has four flavors on shelves in Louisiana, Texas, Illinois, Wisconsin and New York. Our Apple Shandy, a flavor my wife developed, won a silver award at the LA Spirits Awards in our very first year. During home games, you can find our team outside of Highmark Stadium amongst the best fans in the world, handing out samples in a city that means everything to me and my family. One of the biggest surprises has been understanding who our customers really are. When we launched, I assumed we’d be targeting people in their twenties. To my surprise, a large part of our customer base stands between 35 and 55. Many are parents, and men and women buy the product at nearly the same rate. They are not necessarily looking to party, though maybe some are. A lot of them are looking for the same thing I was: a way to unwind and enjoy something at the end of the day while still feeling good the next morning, and they keep coming back. That is why what’s happening in Washington, D.C. matters beyond belief. Unless Congress acts, a new federal definition of hemp is scheduled to take effect on December 11. Among other changes, hemp-derived cannabinoids containing more than 0.4 milligrams of total THC per container will no longer fall within the federal definition of hemp. For beverages like Hyde’s Hail Mary, a product I take so much pride in, that would eliminate the product entirely. The uncertainty is already affecting small businesses like mine. Two distribution opportunities we spent months developing fell apart this year because distributors simply don’t know how this is going to play out. I don’t blame them, but it is absolutely unfortunate. That uncertainty affects every decision we make, and matter of fact, it affects everything. Beverages have expiration dates, and we can’t manufacture unlimited inventory and leave it sitting in a warehouse while we wait for Washington to decide whether we will legally be able to sell. Our best-selling flavor is nearly sold out, and right now I have to think carefully about how much more we can produce. I understand why lawmakers want rules and regulations around this industry, and I want rules, too. I believe hemp beverages should be regulated and sold only to adults 21 and over. Products should be independently tested and clearly labeled and they should be produced and sold by companies willing to follow real standards with integrity. I would happily support reasonable limits on the amount of THC permitted in a beverage, including a 10 milligram per container cap. We already sell through licensed dispensaries in New York, and I have seen firsthand that a regulated system with testing, age checks and real oversight works. Hemp beverages deserve the same kind of framework alcoholic beverages do. What I don’t believe is that the only two choices are an unregulated market or eliminating these products as a whole. There is a responsible middle ground. Adults should be able to choose a properly tested and clearly labeled low-dose hemp beverage just as they would an alcoholic one. These drinks have changed the way I experience the game I spent most of my life playing. I can go to a game, have something in hand, enjoy the atmosphere and stay completely present for the one thing I came to see: football. I can watch plays develop and enjoy the game without feeling like alcohol has to be a part of the experience, and I know plenty of people who want the same. For me, Hail Mary started with a pretty simple question about why there wasn’t something better for people who wanted to unwind without alcohol, so I built it. To every reader who enjoys hemp beverages, I invite you to visit the Hemp Beverage Alliance action center to tell Congress in a single sentence why you support safe, regulated sales. What Congress does next will determine whether businesses like Hyde’s Hail Mary get the chance to keep going. Micah Hyde, the founder of Hyde’s Hail Mary, is a former National Football League Player. The post Congress Should Regulate Hemp THC Drinks Like Alcohol Instead Of Banning Them, Former NFL Player Says (Op-Ed) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

South Dakota’s attorney general says the Trump administration’s move to reschedule medical marijuana will have little effect on the state’s medical cannabis program, concluding that federal rules provide a pathway for state-licensed businesses to continue operating with the necessary registrations. The opinion, published on Tuesday by Attorney General Marty Jackley (R), comes as officials in states across the U.S. work to understand the implications of the major shift in federal marijuana policy—and after some South Dakota lawmakers sought to repeal the state’s medical cannabis program in light of federal rescheduling. “Because current Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) administrative rules permit state medical-marijuana facilities to continue operating with proper federal and state registration, the federal rescheduling of marijuana will likely have a negligible impact on South Dakota’s medical-marijuana program,” the attorney general wrote. “The federal rescheduling of marijuana does not preempt South Dakota’s medical-marijuana program because Congress has not expressly preempted state action, it has not totally occupied the field of marijuana regulation, and South Dakota’s medical-marijuana law does not conflict with the federal scheduling,” he said. “In fact, under DEA’s April 2026 rule, an existing manufacturer, distributor, or dispensary operating under a valid state license may now do so in compliance with federal law if they register with the DEA.” Under an order issued by Attorney General Todd Blanche in April, marijuana products regulated by a state medical cannabis license immediately moved from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III, as did any marijuana products that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). An administrative hearing is considering broader marijuana rescheduling. Jackley’s new opinion, which was requested by lawmakers who serve on the legislature’s Medical Marijuana Oversight Committee, said the state has “faced a somewhat analogous situation previously” with respect to federal hemp legalization. It pointed out that a court agreed that police powers are traditionally reserved to states and that a “no preemption” clause in the federal legislation that legalized hemp eliminated any potential for preemption. “Similarly, federal rules currently permit actors in the state medical-marijuana industry to continue to function so long as they obtain the proper federal and state credentials,” the South Dakota attorney general wrote. “Because federal law accommodates the state’s medical-marijuana program, state law does not conflict with dispensing of Schedule III marijuana or cannabinoid medication under federal law.” @SDAttorneyGen Marty Jackley: At the request of a state Senator, I have issued an official opinion stating that the federal rescheduling of marijuana as a Schedule III controlled substance will NOT impact South Dakota’s Medical Marijuana program.https://t.co/g5g1zBs0J1 pic.twitter.com/nJxU0RYZxo — SD Attorney General Marty Jackley (@SDAttorneyGen) October 13, 2026 South Dakota doesn’t currently schedule marijuana as a controlled substance under state law, though it does criminalize possession and distribution outside of the medical cannabis program. “If South Dakota were to choose to reschedule marijuana to a Schedule III controlled substance, then the general rules regarding Schedule III substances would apply to marijuana as with any other Schedule III substance,” Jackley said. “But this action would have to be taken by either the Legislature or the voters, independent from the rescheduling of marijuana federally.” Lawmakers had laid out six potential options of future state cannabis policy actions in their request to the attorney general, and he replied that “none of them would be excluded by current federal or state law” but that it would be up to the legislature and voters to decide which, if any, to pursue. “Changes to marijuana’s scheduling by the federal government were accompanied by an explicit pathway through which participants in state medical-marijuana programs may be registered with the federal government and continue to operate,” Jackley said. “Because federal law explicitly permits state medical-marijuana programs, South Dakota’s program may continue to operate as it has without impact from marijuana’s federal rescheduling to a Schedule III controlled substance. The attorney general’s opinion comes after South Dakota lawmakers weighed legislation this session on federal rescheduling’s impact—including one bill that would have repealed the state’s medical marijuana law 90 days after the attorney general certified that cannabis had been federally rescheduled to Schedule III. Meanwhile, South Dakota regulators have voiced uncertainty about how federal marijuana rescheduling will work in conjunction with the state’s law. State medical cannabis program administrator Whitney Brunner told lawmakers in August that officials had received little federal guidance beyond requests for information. The post Federal Marijuana Rescheduling Will Have ‘Negligible Impact’ On South Dakota’s Medical Cannabis Program, Attorney General Says appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Long-held anti-marijuana attitudes in sports leagues are “evolving” as social trends are “driving more openness to cannabis” as an alternative to opioids for treating athletes’ pain—but ongoing stigma creates trust issues that makes it harder for medical staff to do their jobs, according to a new study funded by the National Football League (NFL). “Negative perceptions and longstanding stigma continue to shape how cannabis use is viewed among athletes, medical staff, and society, making open discussion difficult,” the study, published this week in the journal Sports Health, said. However, “medical professionals, particularly younger or research-focused staff, are increasingly seeing cannabis as a safer or more effective option than alcohol, opioids, or other prescription drugs.” The qualitative research, which was partially funded by the joint pain management committee overseen by the NFL and the NFL Players Association, involved interviews with 10 medical staff from professional and collegiate leagues. That includes the NFL as well as the National Basketball Association (NBA), Major League Baseball (MLB), National Hockey League (NHL), National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and others. Interviewees largely said they feel “unqualified” to assist athletes on cannabis issues due to “limited education and experience,” the researchers at the University of Saskatchewan and University of Regina in Canada wrote. “Targeted cannabinoid education, destigmatization, and clearer league policies are essential to optimize athlete care and harm reduction as cannabis use grows in elite sport.” Athletic medical professionals also reported “ongoing confusion and anxiety about legal status, league policies, and compliance requirements related to cannabinoids” which “discourage open communication and appropriate athlete support.” Due to uncertainty about the rapidly changing legal and policy landscape on the issue, “many staff avoid advising on cannabis altogether,” the study said. Meanwhile, the researchers noted that “alcohol remains widely accepted and normalized in sports culture, in contrast with the strict controls on cannabis.” “Many recognize that, despite health risks, alcohol is encouraged while cannabis remains taboo.” Decades of anti-drug campaigns and institutional messages has left many athletes and staff in fear being “judged, punished, or jeopardizing their positions in sport” over marijuana—and drug testing for cannabis “adds to the stigma,” the study said. While cannabis remains “largely taboo” in sports, social trends and the growing legalization movement has played a role in reducing the stigma—”with younger and research-oriented medical staff adopting more open, health-centered perspectives,” the researchers noted. “Shifts in cannabis laws have fostered openness and curiosity. Legalization encourages staff and athletes to discuss cannabis use more freely and increases inquiries, as staff feel more able to address the topic,” they said. “Direct exposure to cannabis, seeing its effects on patients, and changes in legal status are leading to gradually more positive perceptions.” More athletes are gravitating toward cannabis for both recreational and medical use in recent years, the study noted. “Athletes prefer cannabis for perceived benefits over alcohol, such as fewer negative side effects and less disruption to training,” it said. “Medical staff report athletes seek cannabis to manage pain, inflammation, anxiety, and sleep problems.” “Athletes are increasingly initiating discussions with staff about cannabis, focusing on its therapeutic effects and compliance with league rules.” Athletic physicians, trainers, nutritionists and mental health professionals are also opening up to the benefits of marijuana as an alternative medical treatment. “Medical staff increasingly perceive cannabis as safer than opioids or certain prescription drugs, especially in sports,” the researchers said. “Long-term medication risks, including opioid addiction, have made staff more open to alternatives.” The researchers highlighted a number of specific comments made during their interviews with athletic medical staff: “Every team is sponsored by alcohol, yet as soon as you mention cannabis it’s a big no, no.” “I would think it [cannabis] is safer, I would 100% think it’s safer [than opioids]. Again, not because I have enough knowledge of cannabis, but I have enough knowledge of the dangers of opioids.” “The education that I’ve received on it [cannabis] has been pretty much nothing, so anything helping to educate myself and the performance department on it would be beneficial.” “I have my master’s degree, and we didn’t touch it [cannabis education]. Never talked about it.” “I think if there is a course that is provided, I would definitely love to sign up for that, just to get more knowledge.” “They are so petrified to even mention it [cannabis] to their doctor because they’re worried about the ramifications.” “I think the guys have a tough time talking to me about it [cannabis], because they’re not really sure what or how I’m gonna react.” “There’s been some pretty positive benefits [from using cannabinoids], and…it’s been something that has helped them” “It [cannabis] is, I would say, not openly discussed, still pretty taboo.” “There’s some hesitation or fear because I’m contracted through the organization that they don’t know where that information is going.” In conclusion, the researchers said the findings of the study “identify a considerable lack of knowledge about cannabis use by medical personnel working with athletes in elite level sports and underscore the pressing need for targeted education and policy alignment.” The paper noted that major sports leagues have changed their policies in recent years to remove strict punishments for cannabis use. Most recently, for example, the Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA) this year removed marijuana from its prohibited substances list while also laying out rules for how players can invest in and promote cannabis companies. A previous NFL-funded study by the same research team focused on athletes’ views on cannabis in sports, finding that many feel they aren’t getting adequate information about cannabis from their teams’ and leagues’ health officials due to ongoing stigma around the issue. “Elite contact sport athletes use cannabis intentionally for recreational, therapeutic, and recovery purposes but face systemic barriers related to misinformation, stigma, and inconsistent policy guidance,” that study said. “As cannabis legality expands, this potential knowledge gap impairs athletes’ ability to make informed decisions about cannabis for health and performance. Lack of knowledge increases exposure to unregulated products, and may cause athletes to overlook potential therapeutic benefits.” The researchers behind the new study also previously published a study in 2024 that highlighted the growing acceptability of medical cannabis in sports, while also underscoring the obstacles to marijuana research caused by ongoing federal prohibition. NFL and the league’s players union in recent years have put a focus on funding research related to cannabis and athletes. In 2022, for example, they authorized $1 million in grants for a pair of studies looking into the efficacy of marijuana and its components in managing football players’ pain and providing neuroprotection from concussions. The league and the players union also awarded funding to support research on the therapeutic benefits of CBD as a pain treatment alternative to opioids for players with concussions. The NFL reached an agreement with its players union in 2024 to further reform its marijuana policies, significantly reducing fines for positive tests while increasing the allowable THC threshold for players. About four years after NFL ended the practice of suspending players over cannabis or other drugs as part of a collective bargaining agreement, the league again revised its Substances of Abuse Policy and Performance Enhancing Substances Policy. NBA, for its part, removed marijuana from the banned substances list for players in 2023, and it also freed them up to invest in and promote cannabis companies. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) in 2024 voted to remove marijuana from its banned substances list for Division I players. The reform builds on a 2022 change that increased the allowable THC threshold for college athletes, aligning NCAA’s rules with those of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). The head of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) blasted the “unfair” ban on marijuana for athletes competing in international sport events, including the Olympics that were underway in Paris at the time of the comments. USADA CEO Travis Tygart said it was “disappointing” that WADA has maintained the cannabis prohibition based on what he considers a misguided justification. WADA did carry out a review into its marijuana policy at the request of USADA and the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) following the controversial suspension of U.S. runner Sha’Carri Richardson, who was barred from participating in the Olympics in 2021 after she tested positive for THC. Richardson said she used cannabis to cope with the recent passing of her mother. While UFC announced in late 2023 that it was formally removing marijuana from its modified banned substances list for athletes, the league notified participants that the reform didn’t apply under California State Athletic Commission (CSAC) rules. UFC advised fighters that they could be subject to a $100 fine by CSAS if they tested over 150 nanograms of THC per milliliter ahead of the UFC 298 event that took place in February. Image element courtesy of Marco Verch. The post Anti-Marijuana Attitudes In Sports Are Easing Up, But Ongoing Stigma Makes Athletic Trainers’ Jobs Harder, NFL-Funded Study Shows appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“Idaho lawmakers know that they can no longer make a rational case for the state’s prohibitive and punitive marijuana policies.” By Paul Armentano, NORML Regardless of one’s views on marijuana, Idahoans must reject HJR 4 this November. House Joint Resolution 4 seeks to amend the state constitution so that voters no longer have any say in determining Idaho’s drug policies. That’s not anti-marijuana, that’s anti-democracy. HJR 4 mandates, “Only the legislature of the state of Idaho shall have power and authority to legalize…marijuana or other psychoactive substances.” The message behind this resolution cannot be clearer. State officials don’t trust voters to do their bidding on the marijuana issue. Lawmakers’ apprehensions are well deserved. They understand that their “reefer madness” views are out of step with most Idahoans. For example, nearly 70 percent of Idahoans said in a poll that “the use of marijuana for medical purposes should be made legal.” Yet, despite this popular support, most lawmakers would rather stick their collective heads in the sand. That is why they are seeking to remove voters from the equation permanently. For decades, voters have been far ahead of their elected officials on matters pertaining to the legalization of marijuana for medical and adult-use purposes. Many of the 41 states with legal medical cannabis access did so by voter initiative. Ditto the 24 states where marijuana is legal for adults. In short, politicians dragged their feet and voters took matters into their own hands. Those voters don’t regret their decisions. No state has ever repealed its marijuana legalization laws. In fact, public support for legalization is greater today than at nearly any time in our nation’s history. This reality has Idaho lawmakers, and Republicans especially, running scared. They know that their antiquated views on cannabis are unpopular with voters. But rather than evolve their views to align with those of their constituents, they’d rather eliminate voters from the democratic process altogether In a healthy democracy, those with competing visions on public policy vie for voters’ support. They seek to persuade and influence the electorate by making sound arguments and by providing hard evidence. But Idaho lawmakers know that they can no longer make a rational case for the state’s prohibitive and punitive marijuana policies—policies that are out-of-step not only with most other states, but also with most Idahoans. As a result, they are asking Idahoans to relinquish one of the most fundamental powers they have in a free society: their power to vote. Whether or not one personally supports or opposes cannabis legalization, these undemocratic tactics ought to cause Idahoans—and, quite frankly, all voters—deep concern. Paul Armentano is the Deputy Director for NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. The post Idaho Ballot Measure To Block Voters From Legalizing Marijuana Is Anti-Democracy (Op-Ed) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net