All Activity

Hemp companies have filed lawsuits challenging the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) determination that a cannabinoid produced synthetically from components of the cannabis plant is federally illegal. DEA issued a rule last month saying that while it had already considered hexahydrocannabinol (HHC) to be a Schedule I illegal substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the agency will now giving the compound its own unique drug code for classification. HHC can be found in trace amounts in cannabis plants but is also synthesized by hydrogenating cannabidiol (CBD). It’s sometimes sprayed on cannabis flowers that are low in delta-9 THC, the most well-known psychoactive component of marijuana, and its psychoactive effects are reportedly similar. While the 2018 Farm Bill federally legalized hemp and its derivatives with less than .3 percent delta-9 THC on a dry-weight basis, DEA says that only applies to naturally occurring, and not synthetic, cannabinoids. As such, it is the agency’s position that HHC does not fall under the definition of legal hemp. But that interpretation of federal statute is now being challenged in two separate lawsuits that say the agency’s decision is “unlawful.” One case, filed by Bluestar Operations, LLC before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, cites a prior ruling in that jurisdiction that found the hemp-derived cannabinoid THC-O-acetate is federally legal despite DEA’s claim to the contrary. “Congress intentionally employed expansive statutory language and did not prohibit cannabinoids subjected to ordinary extraction, refinement, conversion, hydrogenation, distillation, or similar manufacturing processes commonly utilized throughout the hemp industry,” the complaint says. DEA’s move “conflicts with the plain text, structure, and purpose of the 2018 Farm Bill and unlawfully inserts limitations Congress neither intended, nor enacted,” it says. The agency’s action has “already caused immediate and concrete harm to the Petitioner, including substantial compliance costs, business uncertainty, reputational harm, disruption of commercial relationships, and interference with ongoing operations.” “Congress, not executive agencies like the DEA, defines the scope of federal criminal liability. The DEA lacks authority to narrow Congress’s legalization of hemp cannabinoids through interpretive construction unsupported by statutory text.” The other new suit was brought by IHC Investments, Inc. in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which previously ruled that the federal legalization of hemp through the 2018 Farm Bill removed restrictions on a wide range of molecules produced by the cannabis plant—including the psychoactive cannabinoid delta-8 THC. The petition says that “DEA effectively, and thus unlawfully, attempts to expand federal criminal liability through administrative interpretation, unsupported by the plain statutory text of the enabling legislation.” “Congress did not prohibit converted cannabinoids, hydrogenated cannabinoids, or cannabinoids subjected to ordinary commercial processing techniques,” the complaint says. “Congress did not clearly authorize the DEA to criminalize broad categories of hemp-derived cannabinoids through administrative interpretation.” Both petitions argue that DEA’s move last month violates the major questions doctrine, a precedent holding that if an agency seeks to decide an issue of major national significance, that action needs to be supported by clear congressional authorization. The agency’s ban of HHC “carries enormous economic and political significance affecting a nationwide hemp industry involving billions of dollars in commerce,” the litigation brought by Bluestar says. David Sergi, the attorney leading the new Ninth Circuit case for IHC Investments, said in a press release that the litigation is a “coordinated defense of the rule of law and the stability of the American hemp industry. “The DEA is attempting to redefine federal law through administrative fiat, causing immediate and irreparable harm to businesses operating in reliance upon the 2018 Farm Bill,” he said. “These lawsuits in two different circuits demonstrate that the threat from the DEA’s unlawful overreach is national in scope.” DEA, for its part, said in the rule it filed last month that “only tetrahydrocannabinols in or derived from the cannabis plant—not synthetic tetrahydrocannabinols—are excluded from control as ‘tetrahydrocannabinols in hemp.'” “To clarify further, tetrahydrocannabinols produced through chemical conversion, even when hemp derived are considered synthetically produced for purposes of the CSA, do not qualify as ‘tetrahydrocannabinols in hemp’ under” the 2018 Farm Bill, the agency said. The Federal Register notice wasn’t the first time that DEA addressed the legal status of HHC. In a 2023 letter, Terrance Boos, chief of DEA’s Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section, wrote that HHC “does not occur naturally in the cannabis plant and can only be obtained synthetically, and therefore does not fall under the definition of hemp.” The new filing signed by DEA Administrator Terrance Cole said that “this rule does not affect the continuing status of hexahydrocannabinol as a schedule I controlled substance in any way.” “This action, as an administrative matter, establishes a separate, specific listing for hexahydrocannabinol in schedule I of the CSA and assigns a DEA drug code for this substance,” it said. “This action will allow DEA to establish an aggregate production quota and grant individual manufacturing and procurement quotas to DEA-registered manufacturers of hexahydrocannabinol, who had previously been granted individual quotas for such purposes under the drug code for tetrahydrocannabinols.” The DEA notice cited a move last year by an international drug control body to add HHC to Schedule II of the United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971—but the document doesn’t note that when the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) took the action, the U.S. was the only country to abstain from the vote. DEA said that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) “concurs with the direct listing and drug code assignment of hexahydrocannabinol in the CSA.” Meanwhile, under provisions of a large-scale spending bill signed by President Donald Trump late last year, the federal definition of legal hemp is set to change in November. Unless that language is altered or its effective date is delayed, as some lawmakers are pushing for, only hemp products with up to 0.4 milligrams of total THC per container will remain legal after November 12. At the same time, however, the Trump administration is moving to more broadly reschedule marijuana under federal law. Read the new hemp industry lawsuits against DEA’s HHC rule below: The post Hemp Companies Sue DEA, Challenging Agency’s Claim That Synthetic Cannabis Compound HHC Is Federally Banned appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

About 2 in 3 Americans who use marijuana say it improves their sleep, according to a new survey from the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM). The poll asked 2,003 American adults about their cannabis use and its sleep impacts. Overall, about 33 percent of respondents said marijuana makes their quality of sleep “significantly” or “slightly” better, compared to 11 percent who said it has “no impact” and 8 percent who reported significantly or slightly worse sleep outcomes. The remaining 47 percent said they don’t use cannabis at all. Consolidating the results to include only self-reported cannabis consumers, about 64 percent said using marijuana improved their sleep either significantly (35 percent) or slightly (29 percent). By contrast, 21 percent of cannabis users said it had no impact, while a total of 16 percent said it worsened sleep. The survey further found that respondents between the ages of 25 and 44 were most likely to find marijuana improved their sleep, and older Americans were generally less likely to report using cannabis in the first place. Men were more likely than women to say that using marijuana helps them sleep better. “While many states now allow the recreational and medical use of marijuana, its impact on sleep is multi-faceted,” Kannan Ramar, former president of AASM, said in a press release. He added that cannabis can be linked to “daytime sleepiness” and conditions such as sleep disruption. “Sleep is essential to health, so it is important to talk to a healthcare professional about any ongoing sleep concerns,” he said. “Sleep specialists can provide evidence-based treatments for anyone who has insomnia or another sleep disorder.” Does marijuana help or hurt sleep? The answer may not be as simple as you think. New survey results from the AASM found that one-third of adults report sleeping better when using marijuana, while others report no impact or even worse sleep. Explore what the latest data reveal… — American Academy of Sleep Medicine (@AASMorg) June 1, 2026 The poll—which was conducted from June 5-13, 2025 and had a +/-2 percentage point margin of error—is far from the first to indicate that marijuana can effectively help people with sleep issues. For example, using medical marijuana appears to help people reduce the use of medications, including sleeping aids, according to a recent study involving more than 3,500 patients. They also experience far fewer negative side effects after switching to cannabis from prescription drugs. Another study that looked at adults who drink cannabis-infused beverages also found improvements in overall wellbeing and sleep, as well as reductions in pain, stress, depression and anxiety. A 2025 study on the use of medical marijuana by older patients—age 50 and above—concluded that “cannabis seemed to be a safe and effective treatment” for sleep disorders, pain and other conditions. About 16 percent of Americans aged 21 and older say they use cannabis as a sleep aid, according to a separate industry-backed survey from last year. That makes marijuana more popular for sleep than prescription sleep aids (12 percent) or alcohol (11 percent), but still not quite as common as using supplements (26 percent) or over-the-counter sleep aids (19 percent). A pair of 2024 studies found that both older medical marijuana patients as well as people with fibromyalgia reported that cannabis improved their sleep. A different study that year from the retirement group AARP found that marijuana use by older people in the U.S. has nearly doubled, with better sleep as among the most frequently cited reasons. Another industry-backed survey last year found that an oral CBD solution effectively treated mild to moderate anxiety, as well as associated depression and poor sleep quality, with no serious adverse events observed. A study published in 2024, meanwhile, found that using marijuana before sleep has minimal if any effect on a range of performance measures the next day, including simulated driving, cognitive and psychomotor function tasks, subjective effects and mood. In 2023, a federally funded study found that people with anxiety experienced better quality sleep on days when they used marijuana compared to days when they used alcohol or nothing at all. Separate studies in 2019, meanwhile, found that fewer people purchased over-the-counter (OTC) sleep medications when they had legal access to cannabis and that many adult-use consumers at the time said they used marijuana for the same reasons medical cannabis patients did: to help with pain and sleep. The post 2 In 3 Americans Who Use Marijuana Say It Helps Them Sleep Better, New Survey Shows appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Admiring the time and effort you put into your blog and detailed information you offer!.. your muscleshop

I think this is an informative post and it is very useful and knowledgeable. therefore, I would like to thank you for the efforts you have made in writing this article. hptoto link

I wanted to thank you for this excellent read!! I definitely loved every little bit of it. I have you bookmarked your site to check out the new stuff you post. olxtoto resmi

Took me time to read all the comments, but I really enjoyed the article. It proved to be Very helpful to me and I am sure to all the commenters here! It’s always nice when you can not only be informed, but also entertained! เว็บแทงบอลออนไลน์

Louisiana’s governor says he signed a bill that threatens to send people to jail for up to one year if they smoke marijuana within 2,000 feet of a school property—including a college campus— because he is “tired” of smelling cannabis at football games. “Like most of you, I’m tired of going to our college and high school campuses and being inundated with the smell of marijuana,” he said in a video posted to social media. “And I’m tired of seeing drugs littering our high school and college campuses, hurting our students.” “These drugs take away from the family-friendly environments that our colleges are supposed to be, especially on game days,” the governor said. The legislation from Rep. Gabe Firment (R) that Landry signed last month applies to people who violate drug laws “while smoking, vaping, or otherwise abusing such controlled dangerous substance while on any property used for school purposes by any school, within two thousand feet of any such property, or while on a school bus.” The bill “takes a massive step toward protecting our families and children in Louisiana on those campuses,” the governor argued in his new video that was posted on Friday. “This bill will place strong penalties on those caught smoking and vaping marijuana or using any other illegal drugs while in a drug-free school zone,” he said. Drugs have no place on our high school and college campuses. Thanks to Representative @FirmentGabe’s bill, those who are caught with illegal drugs on these campuses will face strong penalties. We are bringing back the greatness of these family-friendly environments—… pic.twitter.com/BZFIjQaRWo — Governor Jeff Landry (@LAGovJeffLandry) May 29, 2026 Landry’s staff previously testified in favor of the measure at a committee hearing. Firment told senators at a House committee hearing that his bill “strengthens enforcement of Louisiana drug-free school zone laws by creating a clear behavior-based offense, so that when someone is openly smoking or vaping illegal drug in the school zone, law enforcement can act and prosecutors can prove the case.” “For marijuana, the bill establishes a clear and consistent penalty—up to a year in jail and $1,000 fine, ensuring that violations in school zones result in real, enforceable consequences,” he said. Sen. Rick Edmonds (R) argued on the Senate floor ahead of last month’s final vote that the bill, HB 568, “strengthens enforcement of Louisiana drug school zone law by adding a behavior-based trigger for violations and clarifying the penalty structure.” “The bill does not change what’s legal. It gives law enforcement a practical tool [and] ensures consistent consequences in school zones,” he said. Kevin Caldwell, Southeast legislative manager for the pro-legalization Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), said the group is “disappointed to see this deeply flawed legislation become law with the signature of Gov. Jeff Landry.” “His personal lobbying efforts forced many legislators to vote for a bill they know will have profound negative life altering consequences for potentially thousands of Louisianans,” Caldwell told Marijuana Moment. “His solution to every perceived problem has been a return to incarceration. These failed policies of the past should remain in the past.” “No child in Louisiana will be any safer after this legislation goes into effect,” he said. “But historical data clearly shows who will bear the brunt of this policy. The governor and legislature are seriously out of touch with the people of Louisiana.” In 2021, then-Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) signed a bill decriminalizing marijuana by removing the threat of jail time for possessing up to 14 grams. — 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. — Meanwhile, a Louisiana Senate bill to let patients with terminal and irreversible conditions use medical marijuana in hospitals is also on Landry’s desk for final action. Separate legislation to create a psychedelic-assisted therapy pilot program, using opioid settlement dollars to fund clinical trials aimed at developing alternative treatments such as psilocybin, ibogaine and MDMA was also sent to the governor this session. A lawmaker recently filed a proposal that would create a new state task force to “study and develop findings and recommendations regarding the potential legalization of recreational marijuana.” Another lawmaker also introduced a bill to create an adult-use marijuana legalization pilot program in the state to determine whether the reform should eventually be expanded and permanently codified. Rep. Candace Newell (D)—who has long championed legislation to end cannabis criminalization and filed a similar legal marijuana pilot program measure last session—is sponsoring what’s titled the “Adult-Use Cannabis Pilot Program Regulation and Enforcement Act.” Getting the bill across the finish line could prove complicated in the conservative legislature, however. Newell’s earlier version of the pilot program legislation didn’t advance to enactment last year, and lawmakers that session also rejected other marijuana reform proposals such as one that would have established a tax system to prepare the eventual legalization of adult-use cannabis. The post Louisiana Governor Is ‘Tired’ Of ‘Being Inundated With The Smell Of Marijuana’ At Football Games, So He Signed A Bill To Jail People For It appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Superbly written article, if only all bloggers offered the same content as you, the internet would be a far better place.. เว็บแทงบอลออนไลน์

This is my first visit to your web journal! We are a group of volunteers and new activities in the same specialty. Website gave us helpful data to work. เว็บแทงบอลออนไลน์

The governor of Virginia is continuing to try to explain her veto last month of legislation to legalize recreational marijuana sales—including by saying it is her view that “taking a little bit longer” to launch the market is not something she sees as “negative” because it is more important to get the details right than to do it fast. “If I’m going to be responsible for a monumental consequential change to how we do one type of business in Virginia, then do it right,” Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) said in an interview with Cardinal News that was published on Friday. “The devil’s in the details.” “The fact that we’re going to be talking a little bit longer about how do you set up a retail cannabis market correctly—I don’t see that as something that is a negative,” she said. “Do people want me to sign a bill or do people want me to get it right, and as the person doing the implementing, what’s most important to me is get it right.” Lawmakers passed the cannabis sales bills in March, but the governor then suggested changes to the legalization proposal—including delaying the start date for sales by six months, increasing taxes and instituting new criminal penalties for cannabis consumers. The legislature in April declined to take up the amendments during a one-day reconvened session, however, effectively rejecting them. Spanberger then issued a veto. “Not only did it not give the state enough time to set up for success, but also establishes so many licenses that you can’t sort of tiptoe into, OK, let’s start with X number of licenses and then you’re going to rush the regulatory framework,” the governor said in the new interview. “Where’s the time to hire any of the law enforcement? We’re going to create an entire new law enforcement agency. When do we get them ready? When do they learn the laws that they’re enforcing when the regulators haven’t even built out their framework? When do you apply for your license? If you are able to open your doors as a store come January, when do you get your license? You walk back from that.” Spanberger believes that the delay will ultimately be good for businesses, and especially for ensuring that the market isn’t cornered by small number of large players. “There are still a lot of regulatory pieces of how do you make sure we’re expanding the market so it isn’t only the people who are already part of the medical legal market, so they don’t automatically dominate the entirety of the market,” she said. “These are also businesses: You don’t want to have failed businesses. If you’re flooding the market without any real understanding of what retail interest might be—opening up a full number of licenses at maximum capacity without a full understanding—you’re basically putting people in a place where if they one day say, I might want to have a retail cannabis shop, like move now or you might miss that chance. So now they’re starting to open a business they know potentially nothing about, without any regulatory framework to dig into, potentially bringing all of their personal capital to bear to try and fund this.” “I’m responsible for getting it right,” Spanberger said. “And if I were to sign a bill that I don’t think sets us up to get it right, then a year and a half from now, it’s headline after headline about, whether it’s like, somebody who lost their shirt because they started this business and they were set up for failure or a public health issue or confusion within the law enforcement community and that is all on me.” The governor also raised concerns about “challenges” on the federal level for marijuana businesses. “And then you deal with the issues that, from a lending perspective at the federal level, there’s still real challenges with getting your money in the banking system,” she said. “All of these things need to be figured out, and the biggest problem in all of this is there’s no time to get it right. And when you’re doing something so consequential that has major public safety implications, you’ve got to do it right.” As she has in past interviews since issuing the cannabis veto, Spanberger said her action was informed by discussions she had about the issue with governors of other states that have enacted legalization. “Not all experiences are created equal,” she said. There are states who did things that they wish they hadn’t, and we should be endeavoring to learn from whether it’s called their mistakes or the best practices that they’ve sort of led us to. That’s what we as Virginians would want to do.” The governor additional said she has “respect” for the “tremendous amount of work” that lawmakers did in crafting the now-vetoed cannabis sales legislation. “Their role is to put forth a bill,” she said. “In the process we have in Virginia, the governor has the option of signing, vetoing or amending. And if I wasn’t supposed to take that option of amending seriously, it wouldn’t be an option in our process… I should utilize it because it’s a responsibility that I use it.” “I wrote amendments. They are welcome to take up my amendments. The thing about it is like, there was a bill I would have signed, and they passed by all my amendments. That is fully their prerogative. But it is incorrect to say, ‘My goodness, she said she supported this. Now she won’t sign a bill.’ No, I won’t sign that bill, and you won’t even consider my amendments. That creates a space where now we have to potentially go back to the discussion table—which is fine, right, and that’s the reality of it. There is a bill I would have signed. They didn’t want that, but I’m not going to sign just any bill because they don’t want to have a conversation about amendments, and I think that is the tension. And it is wholly the legislature’s prerogative to reject, to accept or even to pass by my amendments. But it was also wholly the prerogative of the governor to say these amendments are so consequential and important to me… Maybe it’s a different story if they had taken up the amendments…. People agree with me, they don’t disagree with me. That’s a different discussion, right?” Meanwhile, top lawmakers are openly discussing the possibility of including provisions to legalize adult-use cannabis sales in still-outstanding budget legislation that they are due to pass by July 1. “I wouldn’t say that the cannabis retail market is totally dead yet for this year,” Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell (D) said recently. Lawmakers are scheduled to reconvene this month to tackle the budget. If they finalize that legislation close to the July 1 deadline, it could effectively force the governor to quickly sign any deal, even if she doesn’t like its provisions, in order to avoid a potential shutdown of the state government. Spanberger, for her part, pushed back on the idea that lawmakers would put marijuana in the budget as a tactic to force her to sign it. “The idea that we, that members of the General Assembly would be holding localities and their budgets in this purgatory space so that they can try and jam me with a budget is two things: one, kind of an outrageous possibility, and two, broadly something that most legislators I have spoken to wholly oppose,” she told The Richmond Times-Dispatch. A recent survey found that bipartisan majorities of Virginia voters wanted Spanberger to sign the cannabis legislation into law, and that they specifically disagreed with her desire to slow the launch timeline for legal sales. The governor recently acknowledged in an interview that “a lot of people are not pleased” with her veto of the cannabis legislation. “Friends and family are displeased as well,” she said. Spanberger has repeatedly responded to criticism of her cannabis amendments from the bill sponsors and advocates by saying the suggested changes came after she spoke to the leaders of other states that have already implemented adult-use marijuana markets. A spokesperson for Spanberger was not able to name any other governors she talked to about cannabis in response to a question from Marijuana Moment last week, however. The governor separately recently sought to explain her veto in an earlier interview last week, reiterating that she supports launching a legal cannabis market but worried about what she called a “rushed timeline” and “far more stores across Virginia” than she thinks are appropriate. Prior to vetoing the cannabis commerce bill, the governor did sign separate legislation to provide resentencing relief for people with past cannabis convictions. Personal marijuana possession and home cultivation of marijuana has been legal in Virginia since 2021, but then-Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) twice vetoed bills to provide consumers with a way to legally purchase regulated adult-use cannabis. Sen. Lashrecse Aird (D), and Del. Paul Krizek (D), the sponsors of the legalization bills, had urged colleagues to vote against the governor’s amendments last month—even if that meant risking a veto from Spanberger when the legislation returned to her desk, which has now occurred. Here are the other key details of the cannabis bills—SB 542 and HB 642—as approved by lawmakers and with the governor’s suggested amendments: Lawmakers voted to allow adults to be able to purchase up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana in a single transaction, or up to an equivalent amount of other cannabis products as determined by regulators. That would represent an increase from the limit in current law of 1 ounce. The governor, however, wanted the amount increased to only 2 ounces. Under the legislature’s plan, legal sales could begin on January 1, 2027, but the governor proposed to push that back to July 1, 2027. Lawmakers voted to impose an excise tax of 6 percent on cannabis sales as well as a 5.3 percent retail sales and use tax, while allowing municipalities to set an additional local tax of up to 3.5 percent. The governor’s plan was largely the same, though it would have increased the excise tax to 8 percent starting on July 1, 2029. Under the legislation as approved by lawmakers, revenue would have been distributed to the Cannabis Equity Reinvestment Fund (30 percent), early childhood education (40 percent), the Department of Behavioral & Developmental Health Services (25 percent) and public health initiatives (5 percent). The governor, however, wanted to put all revenue into the general fund while earmarking it “for purposes such as early childhood education, behavioral health, public health awareness, prevention, treatment, and recovery services, workforce development, reentry, indigent criminal defense, and targeted reinvestment in historically disadvantaged communities.” The Virginia Cannabis Control Authority would have overseen licensing and regulation of the new industry, and would have also taken on oversight of hemp, which is currently under the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Local governments could not have opted out of allowing marijuana businesses to operate in their area. Delivery services would have been allowed. Serving sizes would have been capped at 10 milligrams THC, with no more than 100 mg THC per package. The governor proposed to make public marijuana use a class 4 criminal misdemeanor instead of civil violation punishable by a $25 fine as under current law. She also wanted to make possessing cannabis by people under the age of 21 a class 1 misdemeanor, punishable with a mandatory minimum fine of $500 or 50 hours of community service, as well as the suspension of drivers licenses for at least six months. Illegally selling or distributing 50 pounds or more of marijuana would have been a class 2 felony punishable by life in prison. The governor sought to eliminate support for the Cannabis Equity Reinvestment Fund. Existing medical cannabis operators could have entered the adult-use market if they pay a licensing conversion fee that was set at $10 million. Cannabis businesses would have had to establish labor peace agreements with workers. As passed by lawmakers, the bill would have directed a legislative commission to study adding on-site consumption licenses and microbusiness cannabis event permits that would allow licensees to conduct sales at venues like farmers markets or pop-up locations, but the governor proposed to remove that language. A coalition of cannabis reform organizations sent the governor a letter this month urging her not to veto the sales legalization legislation even though her amendments were rejected. “Together, these bills address the real issues surrounding cannabis in the Commonwealth today: an already-existing, unregulated marijuana market operating openly across the state while consumers, communities, and law enforcement are left without the protections of a legal framework,” the groups wrote. “Let’s be clear: these bills do not create a marijuana market in Virginia. That market already exists,” the letter said. “What these bills do is replace today’s predatory and unaccountable illicit operators with a regulated marketplace, enforceable rules, oversight, product safeguards, age verification, and the strict consumer safety standards already in use for Virginia medical cannabis.” The letter was signed by Virginia NORML, Marijuana Justice, Virginia Cannabis Association, Marijuana Policy Project and other groups. Separately, a coalition of hemp businesses that joined with a major alcohol retailer in asking Spanberger to veto the marijuana bill before she did so said the move presents an “opportunity” to craft better cannabis policy. Meanwhile, the governor signed several other reform bills last month—including measures to protect the parental rights of marijuana consumers and allow patients to access medical cannabis in hospitals. The post Delaying Marijuana Sales In Virginia Isn’t A ‘Negative,’ Governor Says After Vetoing The Reform appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

I think this is an informative post and it is very useful and knowledgeable. therefore, I would like to thank you for the efforts you have made in writing this article. แทงบอลเต็ง

GOP congressman: Legal marijuana “the worst thing”; CA AG on cannabis & tribes; PA legalization boost from federal reform; LA psychedelics bill to gov Subscribe to receive Marijuana Moment’s newsletter in your inbox every weekday morning. It’s the best way to make sure you know which cannabis stories are shaping the day. Get our daily newsletter. Email address: Leave this field empty if you're human: Your support makes Marijuana Moment possible… BREAKING: Journalism is often consumed for free, but costs money to produce! While this newsletter is proudly sent without cost to you, our ability to send it each day depends on the financial support of readers who can afford to give it. So if you’ve got a few dollars to spare each month and believe in the work we do, please consider joining us on Patreon today. https://www.patreon.com/marijuanamoment / TOP THINGS TO KNOW President Donald Trump and federal officials are facing another lawsuit seeking to stop marijuana rescheduling—this one from a coalition of prohibitionist activists, substance misuse professionals, doctors and a cannabis-focused biopharmaceutical corporation. Rep. Mike Flood (R-NE) claimed that people who live in places that have legalized marijuana tell him “it’s the worst thing they’ve ever seen happen.” He was responding to a constituent who pressed about his opposition to reform, asking, “Why do you want medical cannabis patients like myself and so many others in this room to die?” Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill (R) withdrew from participating in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s move to federally reschedule marijuana that she had initially jointly filed with the attorneys general of Indiana and Nebraska. California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) issued an opinion finding that Indian tribes cannot engage in marijuana commerce with legal businesses without getting their own cannabis licenses from state officials—a determination that comes as a bill on the issue is advancing in the legislature. A Pennsylvania senator said the Trump administration’s marijuana rescheduling move is “politically good” for efforts to legalize cannabis in the state because it could “create a permission structure for Republicans” to embrace the reform. It “creates political cover for Republicans who may want to move forward.” Louisiana lawmakers sent Gov. Jeff Landry (R) a bill to create a psychedelic-assisted therapy pilot program, using opioid settlement dollars to fund clinical trials aimed at developing alternative treatments such as psilocybin, ibogaine and MDMA. / FEDERAL Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY) discussed his hemp regulation legislation with an industry group. Oklahoma Republican congressional candidate Kelly Walsh currently works at a cannabis testing laboratory. / STATES Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) is proposing a significant tax increase on medical cannabis sales. Oklahoma’s attorney general touted enforcement actions against unlicensed marijuana operations. Illinois lawmakers sent Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) legislation to amend various cannabis rules. Vermont lawmakers sent Gov. Phil Scott (R) a bill to change various marijuana rules. Michigan representatives sent a press release about their ibogaine research bill. California regulators are proposing changes to rules on cannabis pesticide testing requirements. New York regulators posted new cannabis resources for military veterans. Washington State regulators will consider changes to cannabis rules on Wednesday. Colorado regulators will hold a hearing on proposed changes to marijuana tax rules on June 30. / LOCAL Los Angeles, California regulators sent a newsletter with various cannabis updates. / INTERNATIONAL A Nepalese lawmaker is pushing the government to legalize cannabis. / SCIENCE & HEALTH A study suggested that “CBD is associated with protective effects against disuse-related muscle atrophy, accompanied by reductions in oxidative stress markers, alterations in proteolytic pathways, and changes in mitochondrial-related markers.” A study of patients with pediatric epilepsy found that “cannabidiol treatment was associated with sustained improvements across multiple measures.” / BUSINESS STIIIZY’s cartridges do not infringe PAX Lab’s patents, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection ruled. Vireo Growth Inc. is consolidating subordinate voting shares, multiple voting shares and super voting shares at a ratio of 30-for-1. Verano Holdings Corp. announced a 1-for-5 reverse stock split. Massachusetts retailers sold $23 million worth of adult-use marijuana products over Patriots’ Day weekend, which coincided with 4/20. 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 Trump sued over cannabis rescheduling (Newsletter: June 2, 2026) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

I wanted to thank you for this excellent read!! I definitely loved every little bit of it. I have you bookmarked your site to check out the new stuff you post. แทงบอลเต็ง

When you use a genuine service, you will be able to provide instructions, share materials and choose the formatting style. สมัครแทงบอล

I am impressed. I don't think Ive met anyone who knows as much about this subject as you do. You are truly well informed and very intelligent. You wrote something that people could understand and made the subject intriguing for everyone. Really, great blog you have got here. เว็บแทงบอล

I would like to say that this blog really convinced me to do it! Thanks, very good post. เว็บแทงบอล

This is very smart, really an intelligent idea. This is my first time in your blog and I really love it. Thanks for this awesome post. audit services hong kong

The attorney general of Louisiana has withdrawn from participation in a lawsuit she initially joined that seeks to challenge the federal cannabis rescheduling action announced by President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice in April. The case, brought last month by Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill (R) and the attorneys general of Indiana and Nebraska, claims the officials will “show that this agency action fails to comport with the requirements” of federal law, “was improperly promulgated and was otherwise procedurally improper,” “exceeds or is inconsistent with pertinent authority” and “ultimately, that this agency action is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law.” “Petitioners thus ask that this Court declare unlawful and vacate this final agency action,” the filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit says. But on Friday, Murrill filed a motion saying that “Petitioner State of Louisiana respectfully moves under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), as applied through Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 20, to dismiss Louisiana as a petitioner in this proceeding.” “This motion seeks dismissal of Louisiana only. Respondents do not oppose this motion,” it said. “Louisiana thus respectfully requests that the Court dismiss Louisiana only from this proceeding, with each party to bear its own costs.” It is not clear why Murrill first joined, and then days later withdrew from, the case. Representatives from the attorney general’s office did not immediately respond to Marijuana Moment’s request for comment for this story. Last week the court consolidated the state attorneys generals’ complaint with a separate suit that was filed earlier last month by prohibitionist organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA). Also last week, a coalition of anti-marijuana activists, substance misuse professionals, doctors and a cannabis-focused biopharmaceutical corporation filed an additional lawsuit seeking to challenge the Trump administration’s marijuana rescheduling move. Under an action announced by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche in April, marijuana products regulated by a state medical cannabis license immediately moved from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III, as did any marijuana products that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). An administrative hearing scheduled for this month will consider broader cannabis rescheduling, including for recreational products. “The AG Rescheduling Order violates the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 to 559, and section 201 of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. § 811, exceeds the statutory authority of the Attorney General under the CSA, and is otherwise arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with law,” SAM and NDASA’s brief two-page petition challenging the rescheduling action claimed. It was signed by attorneys at Torridon Law PLCC, where former U.S. Attorney General William Barr, led DOJ during Trump’s first term in office, is a partner. SAM had announced in January that it was hiring Barr’s firm to legally combat cannabis rescheduling after Tump signed an executive order directing officials to complete the process expeditiously. Named defendants in both now-consolidated suits are the Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Blanche and DEA Administrator Terrance Cole. A federal judge last month dismissed separate litigation SAM brought to challenge a new Trump administration initiative to cover up to $500 worth of hemp-derived products each year for eligible Medicare patients Meanwhile, a House committee last month voted to block federal officials from taking further steps to carry out cannabis rescheduling. Read Louisiana’s motion to withdraw from the marijuana rescheduling lawsuit below: The post Louisiana Attorney General Withdraws From Lawsuit Against Trump Administration’s Marijuana Rescheduling Move appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

The Trump administration’s move to federally reschedule marijuana is being challenged with yet another lawsuit, and this one includes the president himself in the list of defendants. The latest litigation was filed by a coalition of anti-marijuana activists, substance misuse professionals, doctors and a cannabis-focused biopharmaceutical corporation. “The Final Order was issued without prior notice-and-comment rulemaking…, without a formal hearing on the record…, without consultation of the recommendation of the Department of Health and Human Services (‘HHS’) on rescheduling, without consideration of the administrative process regarding rescheduling that was already in progress, and without compliance with” procedural requirements, the suit claims. Under an order issued by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche in April, marijuana products regulated by a state medical cannabis license immediately moved from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III, as did any marijuana products that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). An administrative hearing scheduled for this month will consider broader cannabis rescheduling, including for recreational products. Each party in the new suit—filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Thursday—says they are “aggrieved” by the federal cannabis reform “because each has suffered or will imminently suffer a concrete and particularized injury in fact that is fairly traceable to the Final Order and redressable by a favorable decision of this Court.” The plaintiffs are New Directions Addiction Recovery Services, Cannabis Industry Victims Educating Litigators, MMJ International Holdings and two individual medical doctors. The litigation—which lists President Donald Trump, the Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Blanche and DEA Administrator Terrance Cole as defendants—says it seeks to elucidate issues such as: Whether the Final Order is unlawful because it creates a hybrid schedule not authorized by Congress or Section 811(d), by placing marijuana in Schedule III while simultaneously imposing Schedule I- and II-style regulatory requirements (quotas, import-export permits, enhanced registration) that are not characteristic of Schedule III, effectively creating a regulatory framework that Congress never enacted. Whether the Final Order is arbitrary and capricious under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) because the agency failed to adequately consider marijuana’s well-documented health risks—including the well-documented harms of cannabis use, such as the onset and exacerbation of serious mental health disorders (including psychosis, bipolar, PTSD, depression, and anxiety) impaired adolescent neurological development, prenatal exposure risks, respiratory damage, drugged driving fatalities, cannabis use disorder, and cardiovascular harm—which DEA’s own scientific review in the Administrative Hearing extensively documented but which the Final Order failed to meaningfully address or reconcile with prior agency findings. Whether the Final Order is arbitrary and capricious because the agency failed to provide [Food and Drug Administration]-quality indication, dosing, risk-benefit, delivery, and monitoring systems and guidance and other information to physicians that is required to properly prescribe marijuana to patients. Whether the Final Order violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause by creating a novel, condition-based scheduling framework that treats chemically identical marijuana products differently based solely on whether they are covered by a state medical marijuana license or FDA approval, without rational basis in the CSA’s statutory structure. They plaintiffs want the court to issue a stay on the effectiveness of DOJ’s cannabis rescheduling order pending further review; declare it to be “unlawful, arbitrary and capricious, ultra vires, in excess of statutory authority, issued without observance of procedure required by law, and in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States”; vacate and set it aside entirely and award reasonable attorneys’ fees to the petitioners. Americans Against Legalizing Marijuana (AALM) noted the new suit in a press release, saying it challenges “one of the most haphazard and legally indefensible drug-policy actions in modern American history.” “This administration is trying to declare marijuana medicine by political decree instead of scientific proof,” AALM President Carla Lowe said. “If this order stands, it will fundamentally corrupt the integrity of the FDA approval process and the Controlled Substances Act itself.” Last month, three Republican state attorneys general filed a separate lawsuit challenging federal cannabis rescheduling move before same appeals court. The court consolidated the Indiana, Nebraska and Louisiana attorneys generals’ complaint with a separate suit that was filed earlier last month by prohibitionist organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA). That complaint was signed by attorneys at Torridon Law PLCC, where former U.S. Attorney General William Barr, led DOJ during Trump’s first term in office, is a partner. SAM had announced in January that it was hiring Barr’s firm to legally combat cannabis rescheduling after Tump signed an executive order directing officials to complete the process expeditiously. A federal judge last month dismissed separate litigation SAM brought to challenge a new Trump administration initiative to cover up to $500 worth of hemp-derived products each year for eligible Medicare patients Meanwhile, a House committee recently voted to block federal officials from taking further steps to carry out cannabis rescheduling. Read the full new marijuana rescheduling lawsuit below: Photo elements courtesy of rawpixel and Philip Steffan. The post Trump Is Being Sued For Rescheduling Marijuana By Doctors And A Pharmaceutical Company Who Are ‘Aggrieved’ By The Move appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

California’s attorney general says Indian tribes cannot independently engage in marijuana commerce with licensed cannabis businesses without first obtaining their own commercial license from state officials. Assemblymember Anamarie Avila Farias (D) had requested the opinion from Attorney General Rob Bonta’s (D) office as a bill moves through the Assembly to authorize state-licensed marijuana businesses to buy and sell products from operators licensed by tribal governments within California’s borders. That legislation, from Assemblymember Gregg Hart (D), was amended to make it so the governor would be allowed to enter into agreements with federally recognized Indian tribes to engage in intrastate cannabis commerce with state licensees, pending “federal approval or toleration.” It would build upon an existing law that empowers the governor to authorize interstate cannabis commerce, with exports and imports between businesses licensed in California and those licensed in other states, if they meet certain regulatory standards and the activity is sanctioned by the federal government. Bonta’s office has previously determined that no such federal permission exists to allow for such agreements, but advocates have recently raised questions about whether that could change given the Trump administration’s move to reschedule medical marijuana in legal states. In any case, the Hart bill to expand the law with the tribal provisions passed the Assembly in a 77-0 vote last week, sending it to the Senate. And in the interim, the state attorney general’s office on Thursday responded to Avila Farias’s related legal question. “May a federally recognized Indian tribe located exclusively within the exterior boundaries of the State of California conduct intrastate commercial cannabis activity with state licensees off tribal lands without obtaining a commercial cannabis license from the California Department of Cannabis Control, if the tribe has adopted laws substantially comparable to California’s cannabis regulatory framework?” the assemblywoman asked the office. In short, Bonta’s office said, the answer is “No.” “With limited exceptions, California law requires every entity that engages in intrastate commercial cannabis activity with California licensees to hold a license issued by the Department of Cannabis Control,” it said. “To engage in such activity off tribal lands, a tribe must hold a California commercial cannabis license.” “As discussed, cannabis is a controlled substance, and cannabis activity remains illegal outside of the [state regulatory] framework,” the attorney general’s office said. “That framework generally requires all commercial cannabis activity to occur only between California licensees. And a licensee who operates contrary to the law may face civil or criminal penalties. In short, state law does not allow a California cannabis licensee to lawfully conduct commercial cannabis activity with an entity who holds a commercial cannabis license issued by a tribal authority instead of the state.” The opinion also notes that current state law “expressly contemplates tribal participation in the commercial cannabis market as California licensees,” permitting tribes to engage in cannabis commerce with state licensees if they themselves are licensed by DCC. That policy “reinforces our conclusion that tribes without a state license may not engage in commercial cannabis activities.” “For these reasons, we conclude that tribes must obtain a license from the Department of Cannabis Control to engage in commercial cannabis activity with California cannabis licensees off tribal lands,” the opinion concludes. As previously noted, Bonta’s office in 2023 determined that California could put itself and its employees at “significant legal risk” of federal enforcement action if it were to authorize interstate marijuana commerce. The opinion came in response to a request that year from DCC, which sought the attorney general’s assessment of potential liability for permitting interstate commerce under the law Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed in 2022. While DCC argued in its request that the state would not find itself at substantial legal risk for allowing the activity, the attorney general’s opinion said it could not rule out that possibility given the threat of federal preemption under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Asked whether the department planned to request a follow-up review from the state attorney general’s office of the legality of the commerce agreements since President Donald Trump’s Justice Department moved forward with federal rescheduling, a DCC spokesperson told Marijuana Moment that it hasn’t taken such action yet. “Before taking any action related to interstate commerce, we are awaiting definitive guidance from the federal government,” the spokesperson said on Friday. DCC has, however, taken steps to help the state’s marijuana businesses take advantage of federal tax and other benefits under Trump administration’s rescheduling move. Specifically, DCC recently proposed emergency regulations to let businesses with current licenses covering both medical and recreational marijuana secure a secondary license through a streamlined process to separate out the segments of their operations in light of the fact that the federal scheduling change currently only covers medical cannabis. In a prior rescheduling-related cannabis update, DCC announced that cultivation licensees “no longer need to wait until renewal to request a change to their adult-use (A) or medicinal-use (M) designation.” Additionally, DCC no longer requires a new local authorization for requests that change a license to medical designation only or add a medical designation to an existing adult-use designation. Separately, state lawmakers this session are advancing legislation to allow marijuana retailers to offer drive-thru windows to serve customers. Newsom, meanwhile, recently took credit for helping to lead the push for the state to legalize marijuana and discussed his own limited experience with using cannabis. In October, however, the governor vetoed a bill that would have allowed certain marijuana microbusinesses to ship medical cannabis products directly to patients via common carriers like FedEx and UPS, stating that the proposal “would be burdensome and overly complex to administer.” Newsom did sign a bill earlier that month aimed at streamlining research on marijuana and psychedelics. In September, the governor also signed a measure into law to put a pause on a recently enacted tax hike on marijuana products. California officials recently awarded nearly $30 million in grants for marijuana-focused academic research projects. Meanwhile, California isn’t the only state that’s contemplated the possibility of interstate marijuana commerce in recent years. Oregon and Washington State have also passed laws allowing officials to enter into cross-border cannabis trade agreements with other states, although those state laws both require some form of federal reform or guidance to proceed. The post California Indian Tribes Can’t Participate In Statewide Marijuana Industry Without Getting Their Own Licenses, Attorney General Says appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

The Trump administration’s move to federally reschedule marijuana is “politically good” for efforts to legalize cannabis at the state level in Pennsylvania, a senator says, because it could “create a permission structure for Republicans” to embrace the reform. “I think that Democrats are largely very supportive of legalization. I think that the reticence, where it exists, is largely within Republican, more conservative circles,” Sen. Sharif Street (D) said in an interview published by City & State Pennsylvania on Friday. “The Trump administration—a Republican administration—signaling that it believes it either is or should be rescheduled, depending on how you interpret what he did, certainly creates political cover for Republicans who may want to move forward.” “They can say, ‘Look, even the Trump administration is supportive of rescheduling,'” the Democratic senator said, of his colleagues across the aisle.” So if you are a Pennsylvania state senator in a very red district…it makes it a lot easier for them to advance something that’s commonsense legislation. From that perspective, it’s very helpful politically, because he is signaling to the portion of the population that has been the most resistant that this is a good idea and important.” Under an order issued by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche in April, marijuana products regulated under state medical cannabis programs such as the one that exists in Illinois immediately moved from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III. An administrative hearing later this month will consider this issue of broader marijuana rescheduling. In addition to creating “more access and fewer restrictions” for state-licensed businesses, as well as allowing them to take tax deductions that they are currently barred from under federal law, Street said the Department of Justice’s move will be “politically good” and “could create a permission structure for Republicans who already believe this should be legalized to move forward with the legalization of recreational adult use.” But the state lawmaker also cautioned that the way federal rescheduling is being carried out has “created some irregularities” and falls short of broader reforms that are needed—including full descheduling of cannabis from the CSA. “Is there a statement from the Justice Department committing to do nonprosecutions with respect to certain kinds of banking transactions that existed in previous administrations with respect to safe harbor? Is there a provision in it from the Justice Department that directs the FBI and interstate law enforcement not to enforce if there is transportation across state lines? If those directives exist, we’d have to look at how the banking and financial industry reacts to whatever language they put out, because that would have real-world implications for whether these transactions can truly take place across state lines.” “Politically, I think it’s a good thing. I think operationally, it’s very much yet to be seen,” Street said. “This administration is unpredictable, and it’s unclear what this means in terms of their enforcement. It’s unclear how the banking community, for instance, will trust this as it relates to safe harbor provisions.” As the state level, the lawmaker said he would prefer for the Pennsylvania legislature to move forward with “comprehensive” marijuana legalization as “the right way to go,” but he also backs more incremental reforms that may have more traction with GOP colleagues such as proposals to create a cannabis and hemp regulatory body, to expunge and seal past conviction records and to protect consumers from being charged with driving under the influence when they are not actually impaired. “There are a number of things you could do as standalones,” he said. “I think it’s best that we get it done in a comprehensive bill.” Meanwhile, Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) has repeatedly called on lawmakers to send him a marijuana legalization bill and for the last several years has included the reform in his budget requests to the legislature. The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives passed a bill last year to end prohibition, but the Republican-controlled Senate has not followed suit. Republican gubernatorial nominee Stacy Garrity, who is running against Shapiro, recently pledged to veto a marijuana legalization bill if lawmakers ever sent one to her desk—though she added that she doesn’t think the reform stands a chance of making it that far in the state. “I don’t support legalizing recreational marijuana,” she said. “Recreational marijuana will not end up in the budget. They’re never going to pass it…not as long as Senate Republicans are in control of the Senate.” Her running mate for lieutenant governor, Jason Richey, claimed that legalizing marijuana would be “catastrophic” for the state, arguing it would increase the size of the illegal market, undermine job creation and harm public health. A spokesperson in the governor’s office said the Trump administration’s federal marijuana rescheduling move is an “important step” that “adds support” to his push to legalize cannabis in the state. The governor also used this year’s unofficial cannabis holiday 4/20 as an opportunity to press lawmakers once again to send him a bill to legalize marijuana. “Pennsylvanians who want to buy recreational marijuana are already driving across the border to one of our neighboring states who’ve legalized it,” Shapiro said in a social media post that day. “That’s hundreds of millions in revenue going out of state instead of being spent here in Pennsylvania.” In April, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives passed budget legislation proposed by Shapiro that relies on revenue that would be generated from recreational marijuana sales, which has yet to be legalized in the state. The governor earlier this year, as he has in past years, included cannabis legalization and the resulting expected revenue in his budget request. The $53.2 billion budget legislation, which doesn’t itself include provisions to actually legalize marijuana even as it contemplates allocating money that would result from it, now heads to the Senate for consideration. The House of Representatives last year passed a bill to legalize marijuana and put sales in state-owned dispensaries, but the Republican Senate majority has criticized that plan while also not advancing a cannabis legalization model of its own. Separately this session, lawmakers have advanced a bill to allow terminally ill patients to use medical cannabis in hospitals and other healthcare facilities The legislative developments come as a recent poll shows that seven out of ten Pennsylvania likely voters support legalizing adult-use marijuana—including majority backing for the reform across party lines. When asked whether they “support or oppose the regulation and taxation of legal cannabis for use by adults 21 and older in Pennsylvania,” 69 percent of respondents said yes. Support was strongest from Democrats, at 72 percent, but also includes 67 percent of Republicans and 64 percent of independents. Meanwhile, Shapiro is continuing to pressure on lawmakers to send him a bill to legalize marijuana in the state, saying that doing so would generate new revenue that could be invested in key programs. “While some in Harrisburg claim we can’t afford to make bigger investments in our kids, public safety, and our economy, know this: If we legalized and regulated adult-use cannabis, we’d bring in $1.3 BILLION in revenue for our Commonwealth over the first five years,” the governor said in another recent social media post. “Those are dollars that can be invested back into our people and our communities,” he said. “Stop with the excuses. Let’s get this done.” The state’s Independent Fiscal Office (IFO) reported in February that legalizing cannabis in Pennsylvania would generate nearly half a billion dollars in annual revenue by 2028, an estimate that is a significantly larger cash windfall compared to projections from Shapiro’s own office. With a proposed 20 percent wholesale cannabis excise tax, 6 percent state sales tax for retail and licensing fees, IFO said the governor’s legalization plan would generate $140 million in tax revenue in the first year of implementation from 2027-2028 and increase to $432 million by 2030-2031. That’s a much higher revenue estimate than what the governor’s office put forward in the latest executive budget. According to his office’s analysis, legalization would generate about $36.9 million in tax dollars in its first year from a 20 percent wholesale tax on marijuana—rising gradually to $223.8 million by 2030-2031. In February, a coalition of drug policy and civil liberties organizations urged Shapiro to play a leadership role in convening legislative leaders to get the job done on cannabis legalization this session. The Senate Law and Justice Committee last month amended and approved a bill to create a Cannabis Control Board (CCB) to oversee the state’s medical marijuana program and intoxicating hemp products and that could eventually regulate adult-use cannabis if it is legalized in the state. The post Legalizing Marijuana In Pennsylvania Will Be ‘A Lot Easier’ Now That Trump Federally Rescheduled It, Senator Says appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

This is actually the content Now i'm searching for anywhere. Regards for use on your web page, I simply subscribe your blog. They can be a excellent web page. . photo booth rental

Louisiana lawmakers have sent the governor a bill to create a psychedelic-assisted therapy pilot program, using opioid settlement dollars to fund clinical trials aimed at developing alternative treatments such as psilocybin, ibogaine and MDMA. The Senate signed off the final version of the proposal from Sen. Patrick McMath (R) on Friday in a unanimous 35-0 vote and the House of Representatives’s tally to approve it was 97-0 on Sunday. The House last month added MDMA to the scope of the original Senate legislation, and also made technical changes to the text. The Senate objected, however, to what supporters said was an error in the revised version, and members requested that the measure be sent to a bicameral conference committee, where that was resolved before the corrected bill came back to the floor of both chambers for final votes. The psychedelics legislation now heads to the desk of Gov. Jeff Landry (R) for consideration. Rep. Neil Riser (R), who presented the legislation to the House, said previously that the amendment adding MDMA “put us in positive correlation” with a psychedelics executive order recently signed by President Donald Trump “so that we can look at all different alternatives, including those that are beyond ibogaine that were listed it in the executive order.” He discussed psychedelics as a much-needed alternative treatment option for military veterans and others dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), saying that “for every soldier that’s killed in action, five commit suicide when they get home.” “So clearly, the best methodology of treatment that we’ve been using at the [Department of Veterans Affairs] or elsewhere really does not work,” he said. “There’s also the firemen and police officers that suffer from this post-traumatic stress.” Riser told colleagues that “you’ll look back on a lot of pieces of legislation that you voted on and voted for.” “This will be a piece of legislation that you will truly be proud to know that you change people’s lives,” he said. If the legislation is enacted into law, the psychedelics program would be overseen by the Louisiana Department of Health (LDH), which would be responsible for facilitating clinical trials involving substances that hold therapeutic potential. The bill says that eligible participants would include people with opioid use disorders, co-occurring substance use disorders and treatment-resistant neurological or mental health conditions. Any studies would need to go though the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigational drug approval process. Researchers would also need to be permitted by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to conduct trials involving the Schedule I controlled substances. Patients participating in the studies would need to go through mental and physical health screening, and researchers would also be required to develop processes that ensure safety and compliance, with adverse event reporting rules, training and licensing for therapists and policies for tracking and handling the psychedelics. There are also provisions authorizing academic institutions to collaborate in the clinical trials to bolster FDA approval prospects to develop prescription drugs based on psychedelics. Researchers would also be encouraged to collaborate with institutions in other states that have similar programs in place. If a drug is approved and developed as a result of the pilot program clinical trials, there would be a revenue sharing requirement. Under the bill as amended on the House floor, it says that “not less than a two and one-half percent of net sales” would go to the state, though a prior committee amendment had put that amount at 20 percent. Under SB 43 as amended, Louisiana would participate in a national consortium for research and drug development. If a therapy does gain FDA approval, revenue tied to the intellectual property rights of that drug would go to the consortium (except for the portion specifically earmarked for Louisiana). Last year, McMath also sponsored a resolution approved by the full chamber that called for the establishment of a task force to study and make recommendations on the potential therapeutic benefits of psychedelics for veterans. — 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. — Separately, the legislature also recently sent Landry a bill to let patients with terminal and irreversible conditions use medical marijuana in hospitals. At the same time, however, advocates are alarmed that lawmaker passed, and the governor signed, legislation that threatens to send people to jail for up to one year if they smoke marijuana within 2,000 feet of a school property—including a college campus. Separately, a lawmaker recently filed a proposal that would create a new state task force to “study and develop findings and recommendations regarding the potential legalization of recreational marijuana.” Another Louisiana lawmaker, meanwhile, recently introduced a bill to create an adult-use marijuana legalization pilot program in the state to determine whether the reform should eventually be expanded and permanently codified. Rep. Candace Newell (D)—who has long championed legislation to end cannabis criminalization and filed a similar legal marijuana pilot program measure last session—is sponsoring what’s titled the “Adult-Use Cannabis Pilot Program Regulation and Enforcement Act.” Getting the bill across the finish line could prove complicated in the conservative legislature, however. Newell’s earlier version of the pilot program legislation didn’t advance to enactment last year, and lawmakers that session also rejected other marijuana reform proposals such as one that would have established a tax system to prepare the eventual legalization of adult-use cannabis. Photo courtesy of Wikimedia/Mushroom Observer. The post Louisiana Lawmakers Pass Bill To Create Psychedelic Therapy Pilot Program Funded By Opioid Settlement Dollars, Sending It To Governor appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

A Republican member of Congress says that he opposes marijuana legalization, claiming that people who live in states that have enacted the reform have told him it’s “the worst thing they’ve ever seen happen.” Rep. Mike Flood (R-NE) was answering a question from a constituent at town hall meeting on Tuesday who cited his prior opposition to medical marijuana as a Nebraska state lawmaker and asked, “Why do you want medical cannabis patients like myself and so many others in this room to die?” “This goes without saying, but I do not want you to die,” Flood responded. “I have had a long-held opinion that medical marijuana is the next step to everybody using marijuana.” “When I, when I talk to people on the East and West Coast, they tell me it’s the worst thing they’ve ever seen happen in their home state,” the GOP congressman claimed. While he maintains his personal opposition, Flood said he does have a “caveat” to his position. “We had a vote on that. The people decided to do it. That is the law in Nebraska, and it has to be followed,” he said, referring to voters’ approval of a pair of medical cannabis legalization ballot initiatives in 2024. “I disagree with the issue, but the voters voted, and they have voted to approve it.” Still, the lawmaker said he hopes that “someday we see the right thing and maybe reverse course.” “I have met a lot of people that have moved into this district from states like Colorado, because their schools, their communities, their police—they are hurting in places that have expanded marijuana use,” he said. At a separate recent town hall meeting, Flood told another constituent that “weed is not medicine.” “We will regret that vote. We will regret that decision,” he said. “This is not going to be good for children and generations of children…but it is the law, so it should be enforced.” Despite Flood’s articulation of respect for the will of the electorate, state officials in Nebraska have slowed implementation and sought to scale back the scope of the voter-approved reforms. And until recently, the state was left out of the scope of longstanding federal legislation that protects state medical cannabis laws from federal interference. Flood, for his part, signed onto a letter late last year urging President Donald Trump not to federally reschedule marijuana. Crista Eggers, the executive director of Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana, confronted Flood after this week’s town hall, asking, “Are you going to continue opposing it as you did with a letter in December of last year to oppose the federal rescheduling that has now happened?” “If the voters want something that I disagree with, they choose to do it. It should be carried out the way that it was supposed to be carried out without undue delay,” Flood said, according to Nebraska Public Media. “I am going to do nothing on the state level, because it is the law of the land in the state of Nebraska. I am not going to use my advocacy efforts to help reclassify marijuana at the federal level,” Photo courtesy of Philip Steffan. The post Marijuana Legalization Is ‘The Worst Thing’ That’s Ever Happened To States That Enacted It, GOP Congressman Says appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

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