All Activity

“Florida doesn’t need to wait for Washington to show what responsible regulation looks like.” By Dani Baranowski, Florida Hemp Beverage Coalition In Umatilla, Florida, my grandmother’s friends unwind over a game of spades with a low-dose THC drink in hand. My friends in their thirties are reaching for the same drinks for different reasons. Some are cutting back on alcohol, and some have quit booze entirely but still want to go out and have a good time. They’re not alone. From The Villages to Tampa Bay to Miami, Florida adults are picking up hemp beverages at neighborhood stores, restaurants and bars, under the legal framework state legislators put in place in 2019. NielsenIQ found that 28 percent of U.S. adults have tried a cannabis-infused drink, and 50 percent say they’re interested in trying one. Whatever their reasons, all of them should be free to choose these drinks when they meet the state’s testing and labeling rules, and are held to Florida’s safety standards. What most of them don’t know is that Washington is about to take that choice away. In November of last year, Congress rewrote the federal definition of hemp inside a spending bill. Starting on December 11, any finished hemp-derived products with more than 0.4 milligrams of THC per container will no longer count as legal hemp. Even a drink containing two to five milligrams would exceed that limit. That’s a ban on nearly the entire category—not just a crackdown on bad products. Part of the issue is who lawmakers are hearing from. They aren’t hearing from older adults who make up the fastest growing demographic of new THC consumers. They’re hearing about the worst players in the market, and those concerns are fair. Chemically synthesized cannabinoids, high-potency products, cartoon packaging and stores that never check ID are real problems. Products designed to appeal to kids have no place in this market, and businesses that ignore the rules shouldn’t be allowed to operate in Florida—period. But you don’t fix bad actors by punishing everyone who plays by the rules. Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) made the same point in 2024, when he vetoed a state hemp crackdown he said would impose “debilitating regulatory burdens on small businesses.” The economic stakes are serious, and few states have more on the line than Florida. Whitney Economics’s 2026 analysis models Florida’s broader hemp market, of which beverages are one part, at about $4 billion a year, second only to Texas. It estimates roughly 39,000 Florida jobs across nearly 5,800 businesses, from farms and manufacturers to distributors and more than 4,600 retailers. Nationally, the analysis projects the federal restrictions could wipe out $28.3 billion in retail sales. In St. Petersburg, small business owners Caitlyn and Michael Smith built Herban Flow, a shop for those looking for alcohol alternatives, with hemp THC making up roughly 80 percent of their sales. They have announced one store closing and their downtown location to follow. On the supplier side, I have friends who have lost their jobs and livelihoods. Distributors, bars, restaurants and small brands are making tough decisions right now with no idea what the rules will be in a few weeks. Florida can’t fix the federal problem alone. Our congressional delegation should push for a federal framework that keeps low-dose hemp beverages legal with strong consumer protections. But Florida doesn’t need to wait for Washington to show what responsible regulation looks like. No state is better positioned to lead. We have one of the country’s biggest hospitality and tourism economies. Florida’s bars, restaurants and retailers already know how to check IDs, train staff and follow the rules for selling adult beverages. Florida already requires hemp products to be sold only to adults 21 and over by permitted businesses, with testing, clear labels and packaging that isn’t designed to attract children. The next step is clear standards written specifically for beverages: potency and serving-size limits that match how people actually drink them, accountability for manufacturers, distributors and retailers and enough resources for regulators to enforce the rules. Those rules also have to work in the real world. A restaurant manager or corner-store owner should know which products are allowed, what paperwork to keep and what to do if a product is recalled. A server should know how much THC is in a drink, and customers should trust what they’re ordering before it reaches the table. That’s what responsible regulation looks like. Prohibition isn’t the right move. Banning something adults want has never made demand disappear. If legitimate Florida businesses are pushed out, people may buy untested products potentially from other countries or illicit markets, from sellers with no labels, no ID checks and no one accountable. That’s why Natalie Kato and I founded the Florida Hemp Beverage Coalition: to give the responsible businesses, hospitality operators, distributors and consumers in this category one voice. Our goal is a Florida-first framework for hemp beverages that other states can follow. It’s also why I created Highspitality, an online certification that trains bars and restaurants to serve THC beverages responsibly. Florida has a chance to write the rules other states copy: rules that protect kids, hold businesses accountable and trust adults to make their own choices. Floridians don’t need Washington deciding what we drink. We need clear, enforceable standards and leaders in Tallahassee and Congress willing to stand up for us. Dani Baranowski is executive director of the Florida Hemp Beverage Coalition. She is head of sales at Lorea, a female-led, Florida based hemp beverage company, and creator of Highspitality, THC Safe Service Training for bars and restaurants. The post Florida Should Regulate Hemp THC Drinks To Show The Rest Of The Country That Legalization Is Better Than Prohibition (Op-Ed) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

The governor of Kentucky announced on Friday that medical marijuana dispensaries are now open across all 11 licensing regions of the state following the opening of Sunnyside Dispensary in Floyd County this week. “Kentuckians suffering from PTSD, cancer, terminal illnesses, sickle cell anemia and more deserve a safe, non-addictive option for relief, and medical cannabis provides that,” Gov. Andy Beshear (D) said. “With this week’s opening of Sunnyside Dispensary, we now have dispensaries open in all 11 licensing regions throughout the commonwealth,” he said. “Every step of this process has put patients first, and I’m proud of the progress we’ve made.” The state now has 26 medical cannabis dispensaries open and serving patients and a total of 46 medical marijuana businesses operating across the legal supply chain, the governor’s office said. More than 28,000 patients have been approved to participate in the program, and there are more than 500 registered medical practitioners who can recommend cannabis. Today, Gov. Andy Beshear announced that medical cannabis is now available across all 11 of Kentucky’s dispensary licensing regions following the opening of Sunnyside Dispensary in Floyd County. Read more: https://t.co/lFvh4y2QK1 pic.twitter.com/jp7djLtFdi — Governor Andy Beshear (@GovAndyBeshear) October 16, 2026 Beshear said in August that the state’s efforts to get medical cannabis dispensaries open was past the “halfway mark” to becoming “fully operational.” The governor, who signed medical cannabis legalization legislation in 2023 that took effect at the beginning of last year, said he is “proud” that the state is “moving forward in every step of the process.” He also recently said that hemp is “important” to Kentucky, urging voters not to reelect any members of Congress who are seeking to ban it. Beshear signed an executive order in June to broaden the list of health conditions that make patients eligible to legally obtain medical cannabis. But days later, House Majority Whip Jason Nemes (R) asked Attorney General Russell Coleman (R) to ensure that state agencies “not cooperate” with the governor’s marijuana directive, which he called “unlawful.” “Any organization, any licensee, that participates in this unlawful expansion should be prosecuted,” Nemes said during a legislative committee hearing. “This is not the way forward.” The governor pushed back, however, saying that the GOP lawmaker exhibited a “complete lack of humanity.” “It’s helping a lot of people, and I was really surprised to see an attack from one lawmaker who called on the attorney general to prosecute people dying of a terminal illness for securing medical cannabis,” Beshear said. “I mean, that’s a complete lack of humanity. It is really low. I mean, an individual with ALS, you want to prosecute? That is certainly not leadership, and even for that individual, is a new record low.” After the legislature declined to take him up on a suggestion to expand the qualifying condition list this session, the governor used his authority to make it so patients with 15 additional health disorders—including Parkinson’s disease, HIV/AIDS, sickle cell anemia, fibromyalgia, arthritis and glaucoma—can also be certified for medical marijuana access. Beshear also rescinded an earlier executive order he issued in 2022 through which he offered to provide pardons for any patients who got into trouble for possessing medical cannabis that they purchased at a legal dispensary in a neighboring state. The more recent executive order on qualifying conditions is a follow up to a medical marijuana legalization law Beshear signed in 2023. The state’s first medical cannabis dispensary opened in December of last year. The governor in February announced that cannabis gummies are available for purchase in the state’s licensed dispensaries. Beshear in January said he’s “not satisfied” with the time it’s taken to launch the state’s medical marijuana program—but that he anticipates the pace of patient access would “pick up significantly” in 2026. In recognition of the delayed implementation, he signed an executive order to waive renewal fees for patients who get their cards so that they don’t get charged again before retailers open. Beshear separately announced last year that the state had launched a new online directory that lets people see where medical cannabis dispensaries will be opening near them. He emphasized that the state has been working to deliver access to patients “at the earliest possible date,” and that involved expediting the licensing process. Last year, the governor also ceremonially awarded the commonwealth’s first medical marijuana cards. During the November 2024 election, Kentucky also saw more than 100 cities and counties approve local ordinances to allow medical cannabis businesses in their jurisdictions. The governor said the election results demonstrate that “the jury is no longer out” on the issue that is clearly supported by voters across partisan and geographical lines. Meanwhile, legislature’s Interim Joint Committee on Health Services held a hearing in July on a proposal to allow terminally ill patients to use medical marijuana in hospitals. The post Kentucky Now Has Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Open In Every Region Of The State, Governor Announces appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

A new poll shows that a strong majority of North Carolina adults support legalizing marijuana—both for recreational and medical purposes—including majorities of Republicans, Democrats and independents. The new poll released on Friday, conducted by SurveyUSA for WRAL and WSOC, found that 63 percent of respondents want to legalize recreational marijuana. Twenty-six percent said adult-use cannabis should remain against the law and another 11 percent said they are not sure. The is majority support for broad recreational marijuana legalization across party lines, with 73 percent of Democrats, 52 percent of Republicans and 65 percent of independents on board. There is also backing for the reform across all age groups, except for people over 65, who are spilt 42 percent to 42 percent. “Opposition to legalization does not exceed 44% and does not outweigh support for legalization among any demographic subgroup,” the polling memo says. Meanwhile, a separate question in the survey shows that there is even stronger support in the state for medical cannabis. Seventy-four percent said it should be legalized, 15 percent said it should stay prohibited and 11 percent said they aren’t sure. Like with recreational legalization, medical use enjoys support across partisan lines, with 83 percent of Democrats, 65 percent of Republicans and 75 percent of independents favoring the reform. The more limited reform is supported by respondents of all ages, including those over 65. “Majorities in all parts of the state and among all demographic subgroups favor legalization of medical marijuana,” SurveyUSA’s analysis says. Ken Alper, the president of SurveyUSA, said that North Carolina voters have seen how “society hasn’t collapsed” in other states that have legalized marijuana and are “much more comfortable with it than they would have been 10 or 20 years ago.” A separate poll released last month by Elon University similarly showed that North Carolinians support legalizing medical and recreational marijuana, and that they also want to keep THC-infused hemp products like seltzers and gummies legal in the state. The latest survey involved interview with 900 North Carolina adults between October 7 and 11. The results of the latest poll come as a North Carolina government commission that was appointed by the governor is preparing to issue recommendations on how the state should transition from broad cannabis prohibition to a system of regulations. The North Carolina Advisory Council on Cannabis, which Gov. Josh Stein (D) convened last year, has been holding an ongoing series of meetings, including via subcommittees focused on specific aspects of marijuana reform. The body’s Market and Regulatory Subcommittee recently discussed the possibility of a model where the “state exclusively controls the retail channel while private businesses remain responsible for cultivation, manufacturing/processing, and wholesale distribution.” Meanwhile, the governor is continuing to pressure the GOP-controlled legislature for marijuana reform. In August, Stein called on lawmakers to legalize and regulate cannabis in a way that “protects kids” while lawmakers this week are considering a bill to restrict hemp THC products. In a social media post he noted that lawmakers are considering legislation that “aims to eliminate the Wild West that is North Carolina’s THC market.” The governor has repeatedly called on lawmakers to broadly legalize and regulate cannabis, though GOP legislative leaders have been more interested in focusing on the narrower hemp issue. A bill to restrict hemp and kratom products that was recently approved by the Senate now awaits potential action in the House. Meanwhile, lawmakers in North Carolina have been considering legislation to legalize medical cannabis for the last several sessions—with the Senate approving several proposals and the House refusing to follow suit. North Carolina’s Senate president pro tempore recently said that lawmakers will take a more serious look at legalizing medical marijuana following the Trump administration’s move to reschedule cannabis at the federal level. — 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 governor-appointed cannabis commission in North Carolina issued a report in April initially recommending that the state move away from a criminalization-based approach to the plant and toward a system of “robust” regulations that provide for adults’ legal access to THC products. The North Carolina Advisory Council on Cannabis, which Stein convened last year, said that the current “absence of regulation for North Carolina’s intoxicating cannabis market raises numerous concerns,” noting that hemp products are readily available yet largely unregulated and that marijuana remains prohibited altogether in the state, even for medical use. “Compared to regulated marijuana frameworks in other states, this environment presents identifiable risks,” the interim report says. “While some operators voluntarily implement consumer protection protocols, these safeguards are not required under state law.” Stein, for his part, thanked the group for its “expertise, hard work, and thoughtful deliberation” in a press release and reiterated his support for legalizing marijuana. Members are tasked with developing and submitting initial recommendations on a “comprehensive cannabis policy, including any proposed legislation,” with a final report due by December 31 of this year. During his time as the state’s attorney general, Stein led a separate task force under then-Gov. Roy Cooper (D) that examined racial injustice issues and ultimately recommended decriminalizing marijuana and studying broader legalization in response to racially disparate enforcement trends. A tribe in North Carolina, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, launched the state’s first marijuana dispensary in 2024—despite the protests of certain Republican congressional lawmakers. Democratic lawmakers recently filed legislation to allow voters to decide whether to legalize marijuana for personal or medical use at the ballot box this November—though Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger (R) said the bill is unlikely to advance. Meanwhile, bipartisan North Carolina lawmakers have been stepping up the push for psychedelics reform legislation. The post North Carolinians Support Legalizing Marijuana, Including Majorities Of Republicans And Democrats, Poll Shows appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

More than 50 Massachusetts state lawmakers are joining together to oppose an initiative on the November ballot to roll back the state’s marijuana legalization law. House Speaker Ronald Mariano (D) and Senate President Karen Spilka (D) are among the 62 Democrats and Republicans who announced their support for keeping recreational cannabis sales legal in the state on Friday. “I’m voting no on Question 8 because recriminalizing cannabis would bring back an unsafe and untaxed black market as well as enforcement that has historically been targeted disproportionately at Black and Brown communities,” Sen. Liz Miranda (D) said. “The legalization of cannabis carried the promise to begin to remediate the harm that was caused by prohibition, over-policing, and incarceration for cannabis related offenses—undoing legalization now and shutting down these businesses would only double that harm.” Sen. Barry Finegold (D) said that he supports Massachusetts’s “400+ legal and regulated cannabis retailers, the people they employ, and $250 million in tax revenue they generate” and that “this is no time to be shutting down businesses and erecting barriers to entrepreneurial investment.” The legal cannabis industry “protects the public from adulterated, unsafe street cannabis products,” Sen. Will Brownsberger (D) said. “And it reduces the illegal marketing of cannabis and all the attendant violence and criminal justice harms that go along with illicit markets. Going back to prohibition would be a huge mistake.” Sen. Pat Jehlen (D) said that repealing voter-approved marijuana legalization would “take us back to dominance by the unregulated black market.” Ryan Dominguez, chair of the Stop the Repeal campaign, said “repealing recreational cannabis laws will not only take us backwards to restrictive policies that promote dangerous, unregulated illicit markets, it would negatively impact our communities that are already struggling with the impacts from serious budget shortfalls, which many of our legislative leaders have seen first hand. “Losing $2 billion in state and local revenue along with the funding from the Marijuana Regulation Fund will cause further pains on already strained budgets, and impact public health programs and investments in law enforcement and public safety,” he said. The full list of 62 lawmakers opposing Question 8 is below: Speaker Ronald Mariano (D) Senate President Karen Spilka (D) State Representative Lindsay Sabadosa (D) State Representative Patricia Duffy (D) State Representative Dawne Shand (D) State Representative James Arena-DeRosa (D) State Representative Michelle Badger (D) State Representative Mike Connolly (D) State Representative Lisa Field (D) State Representative Dennis Gallagher (D) State Representative Carmine Gentile (D) State Representative Natalie Higgins (D) State Representative Russell Holmes (D) State Representative Tara Hong (D) State Representative Kristin Kassner (D) State Representative Kathleen LaNatra (D) State Representative David LeBoeuf (D) State Representative Jack Lewis (D) State Representative David Linsky (D) State Representative Kate Lipper-Garabedian (D) State Representative Jay Livingstone (D) State Representative Christopher Markey (D) State Representative Joseph McKenna (R) State Representative John Moran (D) State Representative Brian Murray (D) State Representative Tram Nguyen (D) State Representative James O’Day (D) State Representative Steven Ouellette (R) State Representative Steven Owens (D) State Representative Alice Peisch (D) State Representative Angelo Puppolo Jr. (D) State Representative David Robertson (D) State Representative Jeffrey Roy (D) State Representative Alan Silvia (D) State Representative Andrew Tarr (D) State Representative Erika Uyterhoeven (D) State Representative Marcus Vaughn (R) State Representative William “Bill” MacGregor (D) State Representative James Arciero (D) State Representative Samantha Montaño (D) State Representative Bud Williams (D) State Representative John Mahoney (D) State Representative Andy Vargas (D) State Representative Christine Barber (D) State Representative Hannah Bowen (D) State Senator William Brownsberger (D) State Senator Paul Feeney (D) State Senator Adam Gomez (D) State Senator Liz Miranda (D) State Senator Julian Cyr (D) State Senator Jason Lewis (D) State Senator Jacob Oliveira (D) State Senator Rebecca Rausch (D) State Senator Patricia Jehlen (D) State Senator Michael Moore (D) State Senator Jo Comerford (D) State Senator Dylan Fernandes (D) State Senator Barry Finegold (D) State Senator Jamie Eldridge (D) State Senator Robyn Kennedy (D) State Senator Vanna Howard (D) State Senator Mike Rush (D) State Senator Pavel Payano (D) “Since voters made it clear ten years ago that they wanted a legal adult-use cannabis market, hundreds of business owners have poured life savings into building legitimate businesses and supporting thousands of jobs,” Sen. Dylan Fernandes (D) said. “We have a responsibility to build on what works, address what needs improvement and continue to protect the public through smart regulation. Reversing course does the opposite and will force people back into an illicit market compromising public health and safety.” Rep. Jay Livingtonstone (D) said that “voters in 2016 made a clear choice to replace restrictive policies with a safe, regulated cannabis market and that plan has worked.” “Adult-use retail sales of cannabis reached over $8 billion in Massachusetts and the state has collected $1.58 billion and local governments collected $300 million in revenue,” he said. “This funding has supported public health programs, investments in communities, law enforcement and public safety, as well as regulatory oversight.” The lawmakers represent the latest high-profile endorsements 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.” Boston’s mayor also said she is voting against the initiative to roll back marijuana legalization. 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 did not get enough signatures to go before voters, the state’s laws would remain the same. 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 Dozens Of Massachusetts Lawmakers Urge Voters To Keep Marijuana Sales Legal By Rejecting Measure On November Ballot appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

IA gov candidate: Legalize marijuana; Study: Cannabis as nicotine cessation aid; Hemp THC ban & marijuana biz 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 Sen. Tim Sheehy’s (R-MT) push to keep hemp THC products legal is being called out in a new attack ad from a dark money group that says he “wants to keep THC drinks on our shelves—not in the dispensary—at the convenience store, next to soft drinks.” Iowa Democratic gubernatorial candidate Rob Sand discussed his support for legalizing marijuana during a debate with his GOP opponent—saying that the reform would make law enforcement’s job easier while also raising revenue to help fund education. A new study conducted by researchers at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs found that “among those attempting to quit cigarettes, the use of cannabis for cessation was nearly as popular as the use of prescription cessation aids.” “THC is a popular tobacco cessation aid, with use surpassing that of evidence-based interventions.” Third Rail Advisory’s Aaron Smith argues in a new Marijuana Moment op-ed that it is an “unwise political strategy” for the state-licensed cannabis industry to support the federal recriminalization of hemp THC products. “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,” Smith, who founded the National Cannabis Industry Association and previously worked for the Marijuana Policy Project, wrote. “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.” The South Dakota legislature’s Medical Marijuana Oversight Committee is being accused by reform supporters of stacking its latest meeting with testimony from anti-cannabis speakers. / FEDERAL The State Department noted that medical cannabis is one of Malta’s “emerging medical sectors” in a report on the country’s investment climate. Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY) said hemp farmers want “to be viewed as a responsible and mature industry that will have a future.” / STATES Iowa Democratic gubernatorial candidate Rob Sand discussed his support for legalizing cannabis as a way to address a budget deficit. Texas Democratic lieutenant governor candidate Vikki Goodwin discussed her support for legalizing cannabis. Nebraska’s attorney general said that cannabis issues have “hardly come up at all” in conversations with voters. Oklahoma representatives hosted an interim study meeting about the effects of THC and kratom product marketing on children. The Arizona Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit that claimed state officials, including Gov. Katie Hobbs (D) and her chief of staff, illegally awarded a marijuana dispensary license outside of established deadlines. Illinois regulators published guidance on changes to hemp product rules. Colorado regulators published guidance about facilitators handing and dispensing psychedelics without a required license. Idaho regulators will hold a hearing about hemp rules on Tuesday. — 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’s mayor signed a bill to crack down on shops that repeatedly sell unlicensed cannabis or other illegal products. The New Castle County, Delaware Council rejected a proposal to bring local marijuana zoning rules into accordance with a new state law. / INTERNATIONAL Sint Maarten’s minister of public health, social development and labor said consideration of cannabis legislation needs to focus on mental health instead of economic opportunities. / SCIENCE & HEALTH A study found that “1% topical CBD oil may reduce pain intensity in individuals with myofascial pain and was well tolerated without observable skin sensitization.” A study of rats found that “in situ delivery of cannabidiol-loaded GelMA sponge attenuates cerebral edema and neuroinflammation in traumatic brain injury.” / ADVOCACY, OPINION & ANALYSIS The Houston Chronicle editorial board is urging voters to approve a local measure on the November ballot to deprioritize marijuana arrests. No Dangerous Intoxicating Products is a newly registered group conducting federal lobbying activities and held an event on Capitol Hill this week. / BUSINESS Cronos Group Inc. completed its acquisition of CanAdelaar B.V. Aurora Cannabis Inc. is reiterating its recommendation that shareholders reject an unsolicited acquisition bid from Curaleaf Holdings, Inc., saying it is “carefully evaluating strategic alternatives with the goal of delivering greater value.” / CULTURE Michael Douglas said Danny DeVito once ate cannabis joints to hide the evidence when the two were pulled over by police. 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 Dark money ads slam GOP senator’s hemp stance (Newsletter: October 16, 2026) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

My friends recommended that I try a Model Delhi Escorts Service during my business trip, and I was genuinely impressed by their punctuality and sophistication.

Wow, it's inspiring to read about all those milestones from 2018! It's amazing how far the cannabis community has come curve rush. I can totally relate to the hustle of trying to break through in such a dynamic industry. Celebrating these achievements really fuels my motivation! Here’s to more wins ahead!

Whether planning a social outing or a relaxing evening, it is helpful to choose arrangements with transparent details and mutual respect. Escorts Green Park offers a relevant starting point for exploring local adult companionship options.

The evening unfolded slowly until Call Girls Service in New Delhi entered the picture and everything became more intense. Shared glances turned into tender then passionate contact that built to a satisfying release for both of us.

I love how Bowman, Blumenauer, and Lee are continuing to push for justice in cannabis. It’s so vital to have these conversations within the community! Thank you for sharing this insightful update let's keep advocating for meaningful reform, equal rights, and a fairer future for everyone. Looking ahead to 2048 classic, I hope we’ll see even greater progress toward cannabis justice, inclusive policies, and lasting positive change!

“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