All Activity

“You’ve seen countless billboards for Missouri and Oklahoma cannabis businesses, yet you’ve never seen one for an Arkansas dispensary. So you assume Arkansas must not have dispensaries.” By Amanda Strickland, The Source Craft Cannabis I was two sips into a mezcal cocktail at a bar in Bentonville, Arkansas—Walmart’s hometown—when a new friend said the six words that keep me awake at night: “I just drive to Missouri for cannabis.” Because I have no filter, I responded, “You’re killing my business!” She laughed, and I asked the real question: Why would a smart, well-traveled professional drive twenty-five minutes north to spend money at a dispensary chain when there’s a locally owned craft dispensary ten minutes from her house, with better product, better prices and established community give-back programs? The answer: “I didn’t know The Source existed.” Then the follow-up: “Getting a medical marijuana patient card in Arkansas seems hard.” I’ve had this conversation with hundreds of Northwest Arkansans, and my field research has revealed an unfortunate truth: my friend is not an outlier. She is the average Arkansan. Arkansas voters approved a medical-only cannabis program in 2016. Nearly a decade later, many Arkansans, particularly those who live near states with more permissive programs, do not know that Arkansas dispensaries exist. Billboard Advertising: The Ultimate Catch-22 Take a drive in Arkansas, and you’ll get an education in neighboring cannabis programs whether you asked for one or not. Head north on U.S. 65 toward Branson, Missouri, and count the cannabis billboards. Stairway Cannabis, in tie-dye script. Roughly eight more along I-49 between Fayetteville and Bella Vista. Five on the last stretch of I-40 into Memphis. Three around Jonesboro, in the state’s northeast corner, including a purple one for a Missouri brand called Codes promising “your state line dispensary.” Simply driving makes you privy to the deals. A recent weekend special at Stairway’s Branson store: $100 ounces. Oklahoma, with 1,295 dispensaries, has stores along our western border simply named State Line Dispensary, because why be coy? Now I’d like to ask you to count the billboards for Arkansas dispensaries—but you can’t, because there are none. By regulation, an Arkansas dispensary may have three physical signs attached to its building, none bigger than 36 square feet. No billboards allowed. So the human brain does what it’s compelled to do, and it makes an assumption. You’ve seen countless billboards for Missouri and Oklahoma cannabis businesses, yet you’ve never seen one for an Arkansas dispensary. So you assume Arkansas must not have dispensaries, and who could blame you? A Rule Outsmarted By Time When Arkansas built its program from scratch, it was surrounded on every side by prohibition states. Nobody across the line was advertising to us, because there was nobody across the line. Then February 2023 happened. Missouri opened recreational sales to anyone over 21, no residency required, under a state constitutional amendment that says cannabis advertising can be no more restricted than alcohol advertising. If Budweiser can buy the board, so can the dispensary, and “the board” can be anywhere the customers are—including 300 miles inside Arkansas. Our neighbors adapted their cannabis programs; we didn’t. And of course Arkansas’s cannabis advertising rules apply only to Arkansas dispensaries. Dramatic Differences In Barriers To Entry Twenty minutes north of The Source, in Jane, Missouri, population 400, Flora Farms opened a store a third of a mile past the state line in January 2024. It runs 14 registers, roughly nine of every ten license plates in the lot are from Arkansas, and it has become one of Missouri’s highest-grossing dispensaries. High Profile opened up across the street shortly after. So why would an Arkansan choose a dispensary chain in another state over shopping local? They don’t know Arkansas even has a medical marijuana program. In Missouri, the front door only requires a driver’s license. Shopping at an Arkansas dispensary requires a doctor’s visit and fee, a $50 state fee and a card that arrives in about two weeks. The card has to be renewed every year. The impact on Arkansas’s program is staggering. The patient count rose 9 percent this year, to more than 119,000, and revenue fell anyway. More patients in the program, less of their money staying in Arkansas, which means less tax revenue, and fewer breakfasts for Arkansas schoolchildren. (Uunder a 2025 law, tax revenue from Arkansas medical marijuana helps make sure no kids go to school hungry.) The Rule Rewards Whoever Has A Second State Any company operating in Arkansas that also operates in a second state now has a valid loophole for billboard advertising. For example, the CODES billboard in Jonesboro points toward a dispensary in Missouri, while also operating as a brand and a dispensary in Arkansas. Now that’s clever. Any company’s Missouri stores can buy billboards in Arkansas. Its Arkansas stores can’t. The name recognition bears weight either way. That’s legal, and if I had a Missouri license, I’d probably do it too. But I don’t, and neither do the remaining independent operators. A single-state, single-location dispensary has no second state to advertise from. As the industry consolidates, that gap stops being a quirk and becomes a real problem for operators like us. Ask Me How To Buy Local Weed I run a locally owned, single-location cannabis company that offers subsidized health insurance and creative careers, and works alongside more than 15 local nonprofits. It is not threatened by Missouri, or by the other 36 dispensaries in Arkansas. It is threatened by invisibility. The state could fix that with one sentence: if a cannabis ad is allowed to appear in Arkansas, an Arkansas licensee should be allowed to buy the same space. That’s rulemaking, not a constitutional amendment, and nobody who wrote the current rule could have predicted Highway 65 in 2026. Until then, I’ve made it my mission to tell Arkansans they still have the option of shopping at a business that keeps their money local and puts values over profit, which is roughly the speech I gave my friend at the bar that night. Two weeks later, she had her Arkansas medical marijuana card. Not because of me, but because for the first time she had the information she needed to decide where her hard-earned dollars should go. Thanks to her, I got savvy. Since no billboard in Arkansas is allowed to say it, we printed the question on a T-shirt and built a website, howtobuylocalweed.com, to answer it. Ask me how to buy local weed; I’ll point you straight to The Source. Amanda Strickland is CEO of The Source Craft Cannabis, an independent, vertically integrated medical dispensary in Rogers, Arkansas and Director of the documentary Roots & Reefer: The Arkansas Cannabis Story. Photo courtesy of Brian Shamblen. The post Arkansas Bans Billboards For In-State Medical Cannabis Dispensaries While Letting Missouri And Oklahoma Marijuana Companies Advertise On Them (Op-Ed) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Republican and Democratic candidates running for California’s highest elected offices are in agreement that the state’s marijuana legalization law is in need of changes. Fiona Ma, the Democratic Party’s nominee for lieutenant governor, said at a cannabis conference this week that the legal marijuana market is “a complete disaster.” “California was the number one cannabis-producing state in terms of quality and being trusted by the farmers, similar to our wine industry,” she said at the IgniteIt event in Los Angeles. “And now it’s pretty much—it’s almost dead. The legal business is dead.” A big part of the problem, she said, is that taxes are “definitely too high” for the legal industry to compete with unlicensed operators. Ma, who currently serves as California’s treasurer, said she wants to “help spearhead trying to get something back on the ballot to change what is happening” in cannabis. Rather than collect signatures for a voter initiative, which is an expensive endeavor, she is proposing that “we go through the Legislature, get two-thirds of the votes, get the governor to sign the bill, and then it would go on the ballot.” “That’s the cheapest way, but I do need cooperation,” she said, adding that she wants to immediately begin convening a stakeholder working group to identify specific problems and solutions. “I can start convening right now.” Ma outlined a potential route: build an industry-backed proposal, seek two-thirds support in the Legislature and the governor’s signature, then take it to voters. Her goal: avoid an expensive signature-gathering campaign. — IgniteIt Cannabis (@IgniteItNews) October 7, 2026 Earlier this year, Ma held a hearing about cannabis banking issues and called California’s marijuana legalization law a “complete failure,” saying it should be replaced with a new ballot initiative that prioritizes consumers and small businesses. Meanwhile, Steve Hilton, the GOP nominee for California governor, is also highlighting issues with the state’s cannabis system. During a visit to a cannabis business this week he asked what he could do to help the industry if he is elected. A person working there said they are “over-regulated and overtaxed, and so it’s extremely difficult to operate, especially as a small business.” Hilton replied by citing a plan he has to create a new Office of Fun and Freedom. “The point about that is that there’s so many ridiculous things in California that just you know, stupid killjoy bureaucratic rules that don’t serve any purpose make life less fun and less free for no good reason, and less affordable,” he said. “I’m really looking for specific things that we can do to make life more fun and more free. “Therapeutic Alternative” in Sacramento pays $40,000 a year just to be ENDLESSLY inspected by California bureaucrats. Meanwhile, a full decade after legalization, the illicit cannabis market remains LARGER than the legal one. When voters approved Prop 64 in 2016, the point was… pic.twitter.com/S7WoYece3K — Steve Hilton (@SteveHiltonx) October 8, 2026 “When voters approved Prop 64 in 2016, the point was safety and freedom—not to create ANOTHER overtaxed, over-regulated industry,” the GOP candidate said in a social media post. “When I’m governor, I’ll cut the red tape and give small dispensaries some much-needed relief.” In a separate post with another video of the cannabis business owner discussing taxes, Hilton said the effective 38 percent rate it pays on its products is “RIDICULOUS.” “ENOUGH with the fraud,” he said. “ENOUGH with crushing small business.” This Sacramento cannabis dispensary says its products are taxed at a RIDICULOUS 38% rate and is demanding an audit of the money. We looked into it ourselves and found that $350 million meant for substance abuse programs instead went to Democrat voter machines! ENOUGH with the… pic.twitter.com/S8JrjIoQ6I — Steve Hilton (@SteveHiltonx) October 7, 2026 Hilton also spoke at the IgniteIt cannabis event where Ma appeared, calling for greater law enforcement efforts against Chinese-linked illicit marijuana cultivation operations. “It’s really bad, and they’re stealing water. They’re stealing electric,” he said. “And it’s really wrecking local communities.” 62% of cannabis consumed in California comes from illicit sources, including farms operated by cartels and Chinese gangs. ENOUGH. I’ll expand the Highway Patrol into a proper California State Police force to crack down on this crime and protect our LEGAL cannabis industry. From… pic.twitter.com/vYkMCJx7qQ — Steve Hilton (@SteveHiltonx) October 8, 2026 In June, Hilton told Marijuana Moment in an interview that taxes and regulations on cannabis are “too high.” The Republican candidate said at the time that after studying the issue and spending “some time with the industry,” he came to understand that there is a “regulatory burden and a tax burden that is too high.” “The original intent” of legalization was to “bring the industry, as it were, into the open—and you’ve actually seen the illegal industry growing even more since these policies” were implemented, Hilton told Marijuana Moment. “So we’ve got to make a change.” He said he’s “actually in a conversation in great detail with the industry to look at the specific parts of the regulatory and tax burden that need to be changed in order to achieve the goals of legalization, which is a thriving industry that provides a product safely that people want to consume.” Incumbent California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) recently signed a bill to revise packaging and labeling rules for marijuana-infused edibles and beverages. Newsom separately signed a pair of bills revising various state marijuana laws related to product testing, tracking, consumer access to information and cannabinoid content. In August, he signed legislation to more clearly define the types of marijuana packaging and labeling that is prohibited due to appealing to children. Last month, the governor touted the fact that that legal marijuana sales have generated nearly $8.4 billion in tax revenue for the state since voters legalized recreational cannabis in 2016, saying that the money “helps fund programs that benefit Californians, including childcare and early childhood development, youth substance abuse prevention, medical research and environmental recovery.” California’s top cannabis regulator spoke recently about how the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) hasn’t been cooperative in answering questions about the implications of the Trump administration’s rescheduling move. DCC Director Clint Kellum said that there have been “national-level efforts” to contact DEA in conjunction with cannabis regulators from other states, but they “just really haven’t seen any sort of interest on that front, unfortunately.” The post California GOP And Democratic Candidates Agree That Marijuana Law Needs An Overhaul appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“We are here trying to get back the business that they stole from us.” By Rebecca Rivas, Missouri Independent A St. Louis jury awarded $10 million Tuesday to three plaintiffs in a sprawling ownership battle over six Missouri cannabis licenses involving more than 20 businesses and individuals. Over a week of testimony, jurors heard about a tangled series of business agreements and allegations that partners went behind one another’s backs to secure competing deals. The case hinged on whether the plaintiffs in the case—AJO MO LLC, Hi-Rise LLC and DMS Facility Management LLC—lawfully acquired a company through a transaction that would have made them majority owners of a cannabis cultivation and manufacturing facility in Waynesville that also included 40 percent stake in four Heya dispensaries. Missouri cannabis regulators recognized AJO and Hi-Rise as the owners of the Waynesville facility licenses in May 2024. However, the state hasn’t approved the disputed ownership changes involving the four Heya dispensaries while a series of lawsuits played out. The jurors sided with plaintiffs on counts of breach of contract and tortuous interference, awarding them a total of $10 million. “We’re pleased the jury decided in our favor and awarded appropriate damages,” Peter Barden, spokesman for the plaintiffs, told The Independent after the verdict. The decision may not end the company’s struggles for AJO and Hi-Rise. As jurors deliberated inside the Mel Carnahan Courthouse in St. Louis last week, Missouri cannabis regulators filed proposed rules that would change how the state handles the kinds of complicated ownership arrangements exposed during the trial. The proposed rules would give regulators new authority when someone with a history of specified violations is found to be “exercising a controlling influence” over a facility. It would lead to a fine of up to $100,000 or suspension or revocation of a license, according to the rules. That could be significant for AJO, which owns 50 percent of Delta Extraction, a marijuana manufacturing company whose license the state revoked in November 2023 after it became the center of a massive product recall. AJO LLC told The Independent last year it was only a passive investor in Delta Extraction, where it owns 50 percent. However, court documents and testimony in that case contradict that characterization. St. Louis Judge Michael Noble barred defense attorneys from telling jurors about Delta Extraction’s license revocation and AJO’s connection to the company. The proposed state rules include a detailed list of offenses that include selling or distributing unregulated THC, fraudulently using an agent identification card, tampering with or falsifying video recordings and refusing to cooperate with a department investigation. Amy Moore, director of the Missouri Division of Cannabis Regulation, which oversees the marijuana program, explained earlier this year the aim of the rules. “What we are saying in the rule is if a year from now [if the rules are approved] we look at your ownership,” Moore told The Independent at the time, “and we see you have someone exercising a controlling influence that you know has done these things, then that is a violation.” With regards to the proposed regulations, Barden said: “We’re reviewing the proposed regulations to determine how they may impact our ownership structure if implemented.” The Case The case grew out of a partnership between Eric Kirberg and Scott Sterling, who began working together around 2018 on Missouri medical marijuana license applications. When they didn’t win licenses of their own, they did what many others did at the time: they offered to build and run facilities for license winners in exchange for equity. Kirberg, a contractor, built out a cultivation and manufacturing facility in Waynesville, and Sterling, a cannabis executive, ran operations as CEO. In return, their company got 9.9 percent of the entity holding the licenses and an option to buy the rest from its owner, 1913 Holdings. They did the same with four Heya dispensaries and secured 40 percent equity. The two set up three companies, called the Delphi entities, to hold the ownership stakes, the management contracts and the Waynesville property. Sterling resigned in October 2021 as CEO but retained his equity in the parent company. Soon after, Delphi defaulted on a loan Kirberg had personally guaranteed. In May 2022, AJO and Hi-Rise paid about $6.9 million to the lender and acquired the Delphi company that owned the Waynesville facility and property, plus an option to buy 95 percent of the Delphi company that held everything else. That included the 9.9 percent stake in the Waynesville license and the 40 percent share of the Heya dispensaries. Sterling was not a party to the deal and says he never consented to it. Just before closing arguments, Noble ruled that the option to purchase agreement — which was a major part of the plaintiffs’ case—was never executed. AJO and Hi-Rise instead ultimately obtained control of the Waynesville licenses through a separate deal with 1913 Holdings to secure 90.1 percent of the Waynesville licenses, while Kirberg retained 6.9 percent and Sterling 3 percent of the licenses. “They couldn’t sue for breach of contract,” defense attorney Jeffrey Lowe told The Independent. “It’s not until it was exercised was it going to be an enforceable contract, so they didn’t have that.” In March 2023, Kirberg and Sterling sold their Delphi interests to one of the defendants, TMSKirk, whose principals were then running Heya. The defendants argue Heya had a right of first refusal over Delphi’s dispensary stake that took priority over the AJO and Hi-Rise option, which defendants argued was never executed. “We are here trying to get back the business that they stole from us,” Lowe said in his closing statement. The plaintiffs successfully argued they were harmed by the defendants. “This has been a saga for four years now,” Ampleman said in his closing arguments. “You have the opportunity to make a definitive statement on who was in the right and who was in the wrong.” Lowe said the defense plans to file a post-trial motion arguing, among other things, that Noble’s ruling removing the option agreement from the case immediately before closing arguments created confusion about what remained for jurors to decide. ‘Own the car’ The trial also highlighted a broader issue Missouri regulators are attempting to address: The companies recognized by the state as owners of a cannabis license are not always the same people or companies effectively controlling the business. One of the defendants, Tim Schlesinger, an owner of TMSKirk, testified last week that he believes under Missouri law, people can buy a cannabis company and operate it without the state’s approval. “So you can own the car before you get it licensed at the DMV,” he said. He explained how while state regulators may have an owner down on paper, another company could be filing tax returns, taking all the revenue and acting as the owner. And this occurs with many cannabis companies, Schlesinger said, including Good Day Farm cannabis company who purchased one of the Heya dispensaries involved in the case. “They are managing it; they’re running it; they’re branded with it,” he said. “The bank accounts are in their names.” The Division of Cannabis Regulation did not respond to a request for comment on Schlesinger’s characterization. AJO and Hi-Rise also operated the Waynesville facility before the state approved their ownership change. These dealings make it difficult for the public and even employees to understand who owns certain dispensaries. The new rules won’t necessarily make those relationships more transparent, but they will make it easier for companies to change ownership by streamlining the approval process. Currently when a cannabis facility wants to make a change in ownership that’s more than 50 percent, it has to submit a business-change application and get pre-approval to do so. That process can drag on anywhere from six months to a year, Moore said earlier this year. Instead, every licensee would submit a report annually that outlines the ownership percentage for each entity or individual. Licensees must still seek pre-approval if they’re adding a new owner or an individual who has 10% or more interest, or they’re fully transferring their licenses to another entity. A state audit released earlier this year found that the division took an average of 165 days to approve or deny business ownership change requests from submission to final action, based on data the auditor reviewed from 2020 through 2023. The annual review requirement will also offer an opportunity for regulators to catch rule-breakers in ownership or management positions. Under the proposed rules, regulators can deny ownership applications if “any owner or manager of the applicant entity who exercises a controlling influence over the license’s management, policies, or decision-making” had previously broken specific rules. That provision could create additional scrutiny for companies connected to previously revoked licenses. When the state approved the license change for AJO and Hi-Rise in May 2024, Delta’s appeal of its license revocation was still pending. The final verdict didn’t come down until nine months later. “The totality of the circumstances at the time, including the nature of the ownership change, was not sufficient cause to deny the change,” division spokeswoman Lisa Cox said. Cox also said the state’s administrative rules currently do not prohibit individuals who have had a license revoked from acquiring another license. The proposed rules would give regulators greater authority to consider that history. The proposed amendments will be published in the November 2 issue of the Missouri Register, which can be found on the Missouri Secretary of State’s website. Public comments will be accepted from November 2 through December 2. This story was first published by Missouri Independent. The post Missouri Jury Awards $10 Million In Marijuana Business Ownership Dispute appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

The two U.S. senators who represent Massachusetts are opposing an initiative on the November ballot that seeks to roll back the state’s cannabis legalization law. In interviews with Marijuana Moment, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) said 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.” “I understand that we don’t have all the right answers on cannabis yet, but repeal of the statute doesn’t seem like a move to put us in a better place,” she said. “There are improvements we could make, but repeal is not one of them.” 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.” “Obviously we can always be talking about additional safety-related issues, but the polling shows that 75 percent of people in the state want to keep it on the books,” Markey said. “I support keeping it on the books and overwhelmingly so do the people of Massachusetts.” Warren and Markey’s comments 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. Earlier this week, Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) 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 new poll released last week 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 plan nedto 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 LCB contributed reporting from Washington, D.C. The post Warren And Markey Oppose Massachusetts Ballot Measure To Roll Back Marijuana Legalization appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Marijuana regulators in Washington State are moving forward with creating a process to allow marijuana businesses to document their participation in the medical cannabis market in order to ease their access to benefits that come with the Trump administration’s partial rescheduling move. Under an order issued by Attorney General Todd Blanche in April, marijuana products regulated by a state medical cannabis license immediately moved from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III, as did any marijuana products that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). While an administrative hearing is considering broader marijuana rescheduling, Washington businesses in the meantime have no way to verify their medical cannabis-specific activities, and state Liquor and Cannabis Board (LCB) officials said in June that rescheduling cannabis on the federal level “does not appear to apply” to businesses in Washington. But LCB on Wednesday unanimously voted to accept a rulemaking petition from The Cannabis Alliance and Caitlein Ryan that seeks to create a process allowing marijuana businesses to “request verification of their regulatory status and activities authorized under [medical cannabis laws] for use in governmental, regulatory, financial, research, insurance, litigation, or other lawful purposes, including federal registration processes.” The board’s acceptance of the petition in a 3-0 vote comes despite a recommendation from agency staff to reject it. “Licensees seeking banking, federal registration, research participation, or insurance coverage have no access to structured, state-issued documentation of their regulatory status,” the now-accepted petition for rulemaking says. “The absence of a state verification process may also prevent licensees from demonstrating their state regulatory status when seeking protections, rights, or registrations available under federal law. As federal cannabis law evolves, a standardized verification process ensures licensees have access to accurate state-issued documentation while leaving federal legal determinations to the appropriate federal agency. Staff had argued that state officials would have difficulty verifying a business’s medical cannabis activities and would need to “rely on self-reporting by the licensees themselves,” also expressing concerns that implementing a new certification process could “produce significant administrative and staffing burdens.” Certifying medical cannabis activities would additionally “not prohibit a licensee from engaging in recreational cannabis production, processing, or sales,” the staff recommendation said. As such, a certificate “very likely would not conform to federal medical cannabis standards or assist the licensee with qualifying for the federal cannabis registration program the requested rule petition is seeking to accommodate.” LCB member Pete Holmes said during the meeting before the vote that while he acknowledged the staff’s “very real resource and other concerns,” he felt it was appropriate to accept the petition and include it in the state’s “broader effort” to cooperate with the federal government on cannabis and other issues. That said, Holmes also sought to lower expectations that state officials can significantly improve the “precarious nature of our industry amid all of these economic, legal and political times” by accepting the petition. “If you believe that we, the LCB, can inject certainty into any federal program managed under this federal administration, I think you’re simply being unrealistic,” he said. “The petition doesn’t propose a magic bullet, and I’m not sure what will come of it.” Ahead of Wednesday’s meeting, The Cannabis Alliance organized supporters to submit comments to the board in support of the proposal, noting that the staff’s rejection recommendation offered “no alternative process to address the documentation gap” for marijuana businesses. “We are asking the Board to preserve the petition’s purpose and work with stakeholders on practical details. It does not have to adopt every provision of our suggested language to move forward,” the group said. LCB officials will now move ahead with the process of actually creating rules to allow the medical cannabis business certification process. In the previously issued guidance memo in June, LCB said that “Washington does not license medical cannabis producers, processors, or retailers.” “Instead, Washington has a single recreational market and within that market producers/processors may manufacture [Department of Health]-compliant products, and certain retailers may sell DOH-compliant products to all adult patients and designated providers,” it explained. “Because of this, Washington’s cannabis licensees do not appear to qualify as ‘state medical marijuana licensee[s]’ and therefore may not be eligible to register under the Final Rule,” the agency said, referring to a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) registration process for state-legal marijuana businesses to take advantage of federal benefits that come with the reform. That said, LCB is “not taking a position to prevent licensees from applying for federal registration if they choose,” the guidance continued. “If any licensee does apply for federal registration, we would be interested in learning about their experience and any federal determination.” Nonetheless, “based on our analysis, federal rescheduling in its current form does not appear to apply to Washington’s cannabis licensees due to the statutory framework predominately regulating recreational cannabis,” LCB said. Washington isn’t the only state moving to reform its own marijuana rules in light of the federal rescheduling process. In California, regulators recently adopted emergency rules changes for the state’s marijuana licensing process that are intended to make it easier for businesses to qualify for benefits in line with the Trump administration’s recent move to federally reschedule medical cannabis. Meanwhile, top marijuana regulators from a growing number of states are complaining that federal officials are not providing enough—or any—guidance about federal rescheduling. The post Washington Officials Take Steps To Make It Easier For Medical Marijuana Businesses To Access Federal Rescheduling Benefits appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

The Democratic Party’s nominee for Iowa governor is heaping praise on the Republican president of the United States for taking steps to update federal marijuana policies. Rob Sand, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate in Iowa, was asked at an event on Wednesday about areas of bipartisanship where he can work with President Donald Trump’s administration. “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.'” Under an order issued by Attorney General Todd Blanche in April, marijuana products regulated by a state medical cannabis license immediately moved from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III, as did any marijuana products that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). An administrative hearing is considering broader marijuana rescheduling. Sand, who has often discussed his support for broader cannabis legalization on the campaign trail, said on Wednesday that “nobody has a monopoly on good ideas.” “Nobody has a monopoly on bad ideas either,” he said. “And if we’re willing to just work with people and focus our work on whether or not what they’re doing is good, then we can get all kinds of all kinds of things done.” “I don’t care what the name of the president is. I don’t care care what their party is,” Sand said. “What I care about is what is it they want to do—is it good for Iowa? Great, let’s do it, and I’ll give them all the credit that’s due.” Sand said last month that legalizing marijuana is a “no-brainer” move to help ward off 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.” Republican gubernatorial nominee Zach Lahn reportedly opposes legalizing cannabis but doesn’t appear to have spoken extensively about the issue. Josh Turek, the Democratic nominee in a U.S. Senate race, 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 Reynolds 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. Regulators said in the new rule filing that removing the residency requirement is expected to “primarily impact qualified Nebraska residents since Nebraska is the only bordering state that does not currently have an operational medical or adult-use cannabis program.” “Although Nebraska has taken steps to establish a medical cannabidiol program, implementation has experienced significant delays and setbacks,” the regulatory explanation says. Beyond the residency change that is part of the bill the governor signed this year, the new rule change also restores regulatory language that was “inadvertently removed during the 2023 Red Tape Review process” that allowed proof of military veteran status to be used to qualify for a reduced patient application fee of $25 instead of the standard $100. Under prior law, Iowa’s limited medical marijuana program allowed only five dispensaries. That has doubled to 10 under HF 990, which the governor signed. — 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.” Photo courtesy of Max Pixel. The post Iowa Democratic Gubernatorial Candidate Praises Trump For Rescheduling Marijuana appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Many thanks with regard to supplying current improvements concerning the issue, We anticipate study much more. visabet88

MA anti-marijuana initiative ads; Brittney Griner on legalization; Poll: Cannabis helps people cut alcohol drinking; ID anti-cannabis ballot measure 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 Top marijuana regulators in a growing number of states are complaining that federal officials aren’t answering their questions or providing guidance about the Trump administration’s cannabis rescheduling move. “Really it’s past time and high time for DEA to communicate with state regulators like us here in Georgia to better understand the programs and these requirements.” The Massachusetts campaign working to pass a ballot initiative to roll back the state’s marijuana legalization law launched two new ads focused on impaired driving. Basketball player Brittney Griner, who was incarcerated in Russia over cannabis vapes, said all 50 U.S. states should legalize the “booming business” of marijuana—adding that it has “benefits” for “people that are dealing with different illnesses” and has fewer side effects than many prescription drugs. “A lot of the pain pills that they want you to take and use have so many side effects and so much just takes you out of your character. And for me, with all the injuries I’ve had, it’s helped me with being able to still be functional.” A new poll shows that two-thirds of people who use marijuana say it has helped them to reduce their alcohol drinking—including nearly a third who say they have “completely replaced alcohol with cannabis.” An Idaho senator is defending a proposed constitutional amendment on the November ballot to block voters from ever being able to legalize marijuana, saying its aim is to “prevent special interests from convincing people to pass legislation that would give money to those special interest groups.” / FEDERAL The U.S. Supreme Court declined to grant the government’s request to hear a case on gun rights for a man convicted of possessing methamphetamine. The Drug Enforcement Administration denied a company’s application for registration as a bulk manufacturer of marijuana, citing the fact that its “parent company and sister company have been engaged in the manufacture of marijuana for sale in the recreational market.” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) tweeted, “All Kratom is deadly it should NOT be sold at gas stations/vape stores/ANYWHERE Admin needs 2 put out final 7OH rule NOW Kratom is killing our kids BEWARE of special interest snake oil.” / STATES Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) signed a bill to require officials to develop and distribute a notice on the effects of cannabis, hemp and nicotine products to schools. Texas Democratic lieutenant governor candidate Vikki Goodwin discussed her views on cannabis. New Jersey regulators are facing a federal lawsuit over marijuana industry labor rules. New Ohio marijuana product size, THC potency and purchase limit rules took effect. Oklahoma regulators are conducting a survey of credentialed medical cannabis business employees. Florida’s medical cannabis program now has nearly 1 million patients. Maryland regulators published the results of a survey of marijuana micro processor businesses. — Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments. Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access. — / LOCAL The Los Angeles, California City Council delayed the deadline for marijuana businesses to remit unpaid taxes. A San Antonio, Texas firefighter was suspended after testing positive for cannabis. / INTERNATIONAL Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet discussed his opposition to legalizing cannabis cultivation. The UK’s patient safety commissioner issued a warning about the need for safeguards around medical cannabis prescribing. / SCIENCE & HEALTH A study found that “CBD treatment was associated with clinically meaningful seizure reduction and acceptable tolerability in this real-world cohort of adults with drug-resistant developmental and epileptic encephalopathies.” A study suggested that “psilocybin therapy may be safe, tolerable, and preliminarily efficacious for treating depression in” bipolar II disorder. / ADVOCACY, OPINION & ANALYSIS The Texas Hemp Business Council published a voter guide for the upcoming elections. / BUSINESS Trulieve Cannabis Corp. fully repaid approximately $65 million in mortgage notes. Aurora Cannabis Inc. again urged shareholders to take no action on an unsolicited acquisition bid from Curaleaf Holdings, Inc. A member of the SNDL Inc. board of directors resigned. / CULTURE Howie Mandel and Bill Maher spoke about their use of cannabis. Make sure to subscribe to get Marijuana Moment’s daily dispatch in your inbox. Get our daily newsletter. Email address: Leave this field empty if you're human: Photo courtesy of Chris Wallis // Side Pocket Images. The post State officials push DEA for cannabis rescheduling guidance (Newsletter: October 8, 2026) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Quality and discretion are hard to find, but the Top Escort Service in Delhi delivered exceptionally on all fronts, ensuring absolute satisfaction and wonderful memories.

Most people who use cannabis say it has either completely eliminated or greatly decreased their alcohol drinking, according to a new poll. The survey of marijuana consumers, conducted by cannabis telehealth platform NuggMD and released to mark the month of “Sober October” in which many people seek to cut back on drinking, found that 31.5 percent of respondents said they have “completely replaced alcohol with cannabis.” Another 25.8 percent said that marijuana has “greatly decreased my alcohol consumption” and 8.5 percent said it has “somewhat decreased my alcohol consumption.” In all, two-thirds of cannabis consumers (65.8 percent) say that marijuana has helped them to completely eliminate or at least somewhat decrease their alcohol use. Meanwhile, 9.8 percent said cannabis has “not changed my alcohol consumption,” 2.1 percent said it has “somewhat increased my alcohol consumption” and 2.7 percent said it has “greatly increased my alcohol consumption.” The survey involved interviews with a representative sample of 1,005 cannabis consumers in state-legal markets between September 24-26 and has a margin of error of +/- 3.09 percentage points. The results are the latest in a series of recent market analyses, surveys and studies indicating that the cannabis sector, as well as the growing marijuana legalization movement, have proved to be a disruptive force for the alcohol industry. A study published in August, for example, showed that most people who consume cannabis THC beverages end up drinking less alcohol. Two-thirds of participants (65 percent) said they drank less alcohol during the research period while they were consuming THC beverages. Fifty-six percent said they would consider using cannabis drinks “as a regular replacement for alcohol,” 53 percent reported a decreased craving for alcohol and 47 percent said they now prefer the THC beverage they tested over their usual alcoholic drink. A survey released last year showed that four in five adults who drink cannabis-infused beverages say they’ve reduced their alcohol intake—and more than a fifth have quit drinking alcohol altogether. That survey was released shortly after a leading alcohol industry group added a company that makes THC-infused drinks to its membership roster for the first time, further signaling the cultural shift. This also comes at a time when younger Americans are increasingly using cannabis-infused beverages as a substitute for alcohol—with one in three millennials and Gen Z workers choosing THC drinks over booze for after-work activities like happy hours, according to a new poll of 1,000 young professionals. A poll released last year found that a majority of Americans believe marijuana represents a “healthier option” than alcohol—and most also expect cannabis to be legal in all 50 states within the next five years. The post Marijuana Is Helping People To Completely Eliminate Or Reduce Their Alcohol Drinking, New Poll For Sober October Shows appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“We just want to prevent special interests from convincing people to pass legislation that would give money to those special interest groups.” By Clark Corbin, Idaho Capital Sun Idahoans voting in November’s general election will decide whether to give the Idaho Legislature the sole power to regulate marijuana and other drugs—and eliminate their right to bring a citizen-led ballot initiative to do so. Currently, there are two ways in Idaho that marijuana, medical cannabis or other drugs can be legalized and regulated. First, the Idaho Legislature could pass a law to legalize it. Second, Idaho voters could legalize it by passing a ballot initiative. Who gets to decide is a big part of the debate over House Joint Resolution 4, or HJR 4 for short. House Joint Resolution 4 is a proposed amendment to the Idaho Constitution that would give the Idaho Legislature the sole authority and power to legalize marijuana (including medical marijuana), narcotics and other psychoactive substances. If a simple majority of voters vote “yes” for House Joint Resolution 4, Idahoans would not be allowed to bring a ballot initiative forward to legalize marijuana, medical cannabis, narcotics or other psychoactive substances. If voters vote “no” and don’t approve HJR 4, there would be no changes to the Idaho Constitution. That means Idahoans would still be able to use the ballot initiative process to legalize marijuana, narcotics or other psychoactive substances. Voters in several of Idaho’s neighboring states, including Washington, Oregon, Montana and Nevada, used ballot initiatives to legalize marijuana in those states. People have tried to do the same in Idaho. But so far, each effort has failed to meet the signature-gathering requirements to qualify for an election, the Idaho Capital Sun previously reported. Passing HJR 4 would mean Idahoans voluntarily give up rights to ballot initiative process, Idaho constitutional scholar says David Adler, president of the nonprofit Alturas Institute in Idaho Falls, says passing HJR 4 would mean voters are agreeing to give up their own rights and freedoms. Adler has taught courses on government and the Constitution at all three of Idaho’s public universities and has spoken about HJR 4 this fall. “The more I speak on it, the more I realize people generally are of the belief that this is about regulating marijuana and they don’t understand that it has a far broader impact on their ability to resort to the initiative to exercise their rights,” Adler said. “Really, HJR 4 asks Idahoans to surrender both their rights and their powers to shape their future,” Adler said. He said a ballot initiative is a tool of democracy that the public has used to improve the state since the 1930s. Different ballot initiatives in Idaho have created the nonpartisan Idaho Fish and Game Commission, regulated dredge mining to protect clean water and created sunshine and transparency laws that provide for the disclosure of campaign finance reports and lobbying activity, Adler said Idaho voters should not give that power up permanently when nobody knows what future medical discoveries could come from drugs or psychoactive substances, Adler said, adding that coffee and tea are considered psychoactive substances. HJR 4 is also another example of the Idaho Legislature trying to restrict access to ballot initiatives or make the requirements to qualify a ballot initiative more difficult, Adler said. Idaho legislators says HJR 4 protects Idaho from special interests trying to force legalization Almost all Republicans in the Idaho Legislature support HJR 4 and oppose the legalization of recreational or medical marijuana. Sen. Scott Grow, a Republican from Eagle who co-sponsored HJR 4, said the constitutional amendment is necessary to ensure that special interest groups don’t run expensive political campaigns designed to manipulate the public into legalizing drugs at the ballot box. “When ballot initiatives run for marijuana or other psychoactive drugs like they did in Oregon, there is a lot of money that comes in on the pro side to legalize the drugs because special interests are trying to make money selling the drugs,” Grow said. “It is difficult to get money to fight it, and that’s the same thing we are seeing with HJR 4. It is difficult to get money to make the public aware of what it is because there is no money to be made by those of us pushing HJR 4,” he said. “We’re just trying to help the citizens understand that the status quo is the Legislature has the power currently. We just want to prevent special interests from convincing people to pass legislation that would give money to those special interest groups.” Grow said passing HJR 4 does not grant any additional power to the Idaho Legislature, which already has the ability to regulate and legalize drugs. Grow said the public has the opportunity to participate and make its voice heard through the committee and public hearing process in the Idaho House of Representatives and Idaho Senate. “I would say the citizens have the full opportunity to be involved in the process,” Grow said. Republicans in the Idaho Legislature introduced and adopted HJR 4 during the 2025 legislative session. With near unanimous Republican support and opposition from Democrats, HJR 4 passed 58-10 in the Idaho House of Representatives and 29-6 in the Idaho Senate. This story was first published by Idaho Capital Sun. Photo courtesy of Philip Steffan. The post Idaho Senator Defends Proposal To Prevent Voters From Being Able To Legalize Marijuana appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Brittney Griner, the professional basketball player who was previously incarcerated in Russia over possession of marijuana, says it’s time for cannabis to be legalized across the U.S., citing its role as a safer alternative to painkillers that athletes are commonly prescribed. “At this point, I feel like all 50 states…just might as well” legalize marijuana, she said in an interview with Into The Mix, a podcast published by the ice cream company Ben & Jerry’s. “It’s a booming business. It’s bringing jobs into communities, bringing revenue into states. States legalize it, and you see the revenue that starts coming in behind it.” The WNBA player also said cannabis has “benefits” for “people that are dealing with different illnesses and different things that are affecting their life”—with fewer side effects than many prescription drugs. “I’ll speak for me. A lot of the pain pills that they want you to take and use have so many side effects and so much just takes you out of your character,” Griner said. “And for me, with all the injuries I’ve had, it’s helped me with being able to still be functional.” Griner spent nearly 10 months in Russian jail after being caught at an airport with cannabis vapes that she used medically in accordance with Arizona state law. She was ultimately freed as part of a prisoner swap orchestrated by the Biden administration. On the Ben & Jerry’s podcast, Griner spoke about the difficulties she experienced while behind bars in Russia, saying that people who are incarcerated in the U.S. also often face undignified and unsanitary conditions. “These are the conditions that you would think would be not in our country, but they are definitely in our country,” she said. “And there’s people that are locked up on nonviolent cannabis charges in states where it’s been reversed, decriminalized, and they’re forced to be in these conditions.” “No one should have to go through that,” Griner said. “And when I started to take a deeper dive into our judicial system and our prison system, I was just like, this is something that has to change. We have to figure out a way to to do something, bring awareness.” “I’m trying so hard with my team to get people that are incarcerated right now on nonviolent cannabis charges where it is decriminalized out, because it’s a booming business and they’re going to make that money.” Griner pulled out of an appearance at a cannabis event last year after discovering what she felt was a threatening message in her hotel room. Conference attendees had hoped to hear from the basketball star about the nature of her incarceration in Russia, which helped fuel international debate about cannabis prohibition laws domestically and abroad. The WNBA, meanwhile, officially removed marijuana from its prohibited substances list earlier this year while also laying out rules for how players can invest in and promote cannabis companies. Image element courtesy of Lorie Shaull/Wikimedia. The post All 50 States Should Legalize The ‘Booming Business’ Of Marijuana, Brittney Griner Says appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

A campaign working to pass an initiative on the November ballot that would roll back the state’s marijuana legalization law has launched its first set of ads. The two new spots from the Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts both put a focus on impaired driving. “From bus stops to public parks, marijuana smoke is impossible to escape. But it’s not just public spaces,” the first ad says. “Forty-two percent of drivers in fatal crashes test positive for THC.” “Put the brakes on commercial sales,” it says. “Vote yes on Question 8.” The second new ad says that “this isn’t about what adults do in their own homes.” “Forty-two percent of drivers in fatal crashes test positive for THC,” it says. “Put the brakes on commercial sales. Vote yes on Question 8.” While most people on both sides of the legalization debate discourage driving after consuming marijuana, reform activists would dispute the framing of the prohibitionist campaign’s new ads. Because cannabis metabolites can stay in consumers’ systems for weeks after their last use, there is no way to tell many of the drivers in fatal crashes cited by the ads were actually under the influence at the time of their accidents. In any case, the campaign behind the initiative on next month’s ballot—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—is hammering home their message with the new spots. “Voters were told legalization would be tightly controlled and that the harms would stay contained. That is not what happened,” Wendy Wakeman, a spokesperson for the campaign, told MassLive, which first reported on the new ads. “When 42 percent of drivers killed in accidents are testing positive for THC, this is no longer a private choice,” she said. “It is a public safety problem. Question 8 puts the brakes on the for-profit recreational market that puts high-potency products on every corner.” MassLive also reported that the prohibitionist campaign has raised $3.5 million and spent $2.7 million, according to campaign finance reports. Meanwhile, the opposing campaign to defeat the legalization rollback measure and allow adult-use cannabis sales to continue has recently received some high-profile endorsements. This week, Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) 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 this weekend 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.” A new poll released last week shows that most Massachusetts voters oppose the ballot measure to roll back marijuana legalization, in line with the governor’s views. 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 plan to vote against the anti-cannabis measure, while just 24 percent plan to support it. Another survey released in August found that Massachusetts voters oppose the marijuana legalization repeal measure, 55 percent to 33 percent. 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 campaign recently rolled out two TV ads urging voters to reject the rollback initiative and keep marijuana sales legal. 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 Massachusetts Anti-Marijuana Ballot Campaign Launches New Ads Focused On Impaired Driving appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Thanks for a wonderful share. Your article has proved your hard work and experience you have got in this field. Brilliant .i love it reading. bandar slot gacor

Top marijuana regulators from a growing number of states are complaining that federal officials are not providing enough—or any—guidance about the Trump administration’s move to federally reschedule cannabis. Moving marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III is the biggest change to federal cannabis policy in decades, and state officials say they could use help understanding its implications for business registration, taxes and packaging requirements for cannabis products. Last week, for example, Georgia regulators approved a number of changes to state medical cannabis rules, including one concerning safety and warning label requirements for products. The federal marijuana rescheduling order included a provision specifying that medical marijuana is subject to a federal rule requiring labels to include a “clear, concise warning that it is a crime to transfer the drug to any person other than the patient.” Andrew Turnage, executive director of the Georgia Access to Medical Cannabis Commission (GMCC), said at the meeting last week that he and his staff have attempted to coordinate with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to ensure that the new state rules are in accordance with the federal requirement, to no avail. “We want to do our best to align the state’s required language to align with that federal language. This will actually help licensees to not have to duplicate language or produce additional labeling on their products,” he said. “We did reach out to the DEA regarding this requirement. The DEA indicated that they were not able to comment on the proposed rule language, so we were not able to get that correct guidance.” While Turnage said he is “not trying to throw shade” at regional DEA officials in Atlanta and Savannah who have “always been professional and positive” in their communications, leadership at the federal agency needs to do a better job of providing guidance to states on cannabis issues. “Really it’s past time and high time for DEA to communicate with state regulators like us here in Georgia to better understand the programs and these requirements,” the state official said. “We certainly need guidance from the federal government. It is not possible to make our regulations better and suited to this DEA registration process without that communication.” “So we hope that DEA leadership will evolve in their view towards state regulatory programs,” Turnage said. “What they’re doing with DEA registration is directly contingent on our state programs through that rescheduling order.” At a separate meeting in Vermont last week, officials from that state similarly expressed frustration with DEA’s lack of communication on the implications of federal marijuana rescheduling. James Pepper, chair of the Vermont Cannabis Control Board (CCB), said that an association representing state marijuana regulators from across the country compiled a list of key questions for DEA but has received “radio silence” in response. “We’ve been in contact with our regional office, and they’ve been great partners, but they don’t have any more answers,” Pepper said. “It seems like a lot is being decided at headquarters and not being transmitted out consistently to the various regional offices, or they just haven’t thought about all these things yet.” Julie Hulburd, a CCB commissioner, said that “for us as a state agency to understand how to regulate in this particular environment or all of the future environments that could happen, we’re going to need information from the federal government.” “We need guidance from the tax department. We need guidance from the DEA on how all these things are rolling out,” she said. “We don’t have any of that yet. Everyone’s still sort of in the figure it out mode.” The comments from the Georgia and Vermont officials come shortly after California’s top cannabis regulator similarly said that DEA hasn’t shown “any sort of interest” in providing marijuana rescheduling guidance being requested by states. “We have received no formal updates from DEA headquarters on implementation guidance of the order,” California Department of Cannabis Control Director Clint Kellum said at a meeting of the Cannabis Advisory Committee last month. “We have been trying to communicate with DEA headquarters to get a better understanding of what their expectations rule set will be for operators under the guidance,” he said. “Unfortunately, to date, we have not been offered any information on that front.” Gillian Schauer, executive director of the Cannabis Regulators Association, which represents officials overseeing the legal marijuana market in states across the U.S., recently wrote in an op-ed for Marijuana Moment that DEA has “not meaningfully engaged” states about the cannabis rescheduling process, even though its implementation will “depend heavily on state regulatory systems.” “States need federal guidance on planned implementation to give them time to adjust laws and regulations and to give operators time to adjust their operations to meet federal requirements,” she wrote. In April, Attorney General Todd Blanche issued an order immediately moving marijuana products regulated by a state medical cannabis license from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III, along with marijuana products that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). A DEA hearing that recently concluded testimony is considering broader marijuana rescheduling. Meanwhile, DEA launched forms for cannabis businesses to register for federal protections in line with rescheduling. Kellum, of DCC in California, said that “other states are starting to see DEA inspections” of marijuana businesses that registered, but that the federal agency has been “focused more in areas with clear state medical cannabis programs than mixed states like ourselves.” “There appears to be some regional variation in the approach to those inspections and some of their questions,” he said, in line with reporting from Marijuana Moment showing that DEA officials are posing differing sets of follow-up questions to cannabis business from state to state. Photo courtesy of Mike Latimer. The post It’s ‘High Time’ For DEA To Answer Questions About Marijuana Rescheduling, State Officials Say appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Congresswoman urges “no” vote on anti-marijuana MA initiative; Fed court brief in CBD Medicare challenge; Latinos in cannabis op-ed Subscribe to receive Marijuana Moment’s newsletter in your inbox every weekday morning. It’s the best way to make sure you know which cannabis stories are shaping the day. Get our daily newsletter. Email address: Leave this field empty if you're human: Your support makes Marijuana Moment possible… Your good deed for the day: donate to an independent publisher like Marijuana Moment and ensure that as many voters as possible have access to the most in-depth cannabis reporting out there. Support our work at https://www.patreon.com/marijuanamoment / TOP THINGS TO KNOW The Drug Enforcement Administration launched new specialized forms for medical cannabis manufacturers, distributors and testing labs that want to register for federal protections in line with the Trump administration’s marijuana rescheduling move. A coalition of anti-marijuana groups and a pharmaceutical company filed a brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in their challenge to a federal program covering hemp CBD products under Medicare. Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) is urging Massachusetts voters to reject a ballot initiative to roll back marijuana legalization, saying that keeping cannabis sales legal is “both economic justice and racial justice policy.” The Latino Cannabis Alliance’s Ishaq Ali argues in a new Marijuana Moment op-ed that Latinos are the “backbone” of the legal cannabis industry and that “continuing down the path of aggressive and over-punitive immigration policies poses a direct threat to the future of this industry.” Bipartisan Tennessee lawmakers pushed back on state police claims that marijuana is a “dangerous drug” that is associated with violent crime during a committee hearing on medical cannabis legalization legislation. / FEDERAL The National Institutes of Health is funding new research on airborne mold, allergen and other hazards at cannabis facilities that could contribute to worker illnesses. Sen. Susan Collins (R-NE) tweeted, “The proliferation of illicit drugs continues to be a major problem facing Maine’s communities, and illegal marijuana grow houses operated by Chinese nationals are part of a broader network of illicit drug activity contributing to this problem. We must continue working across all levels of government to shut down these illegal operations and hold those responsible accountable.” / STATES Iowa Democratic gubernatorial candidate Rob Sand discussed his support for legalizing marijuana. Florida’s attorney general claimed that the diversion of Medicaid funds to campaign against a marijuana legalization ballot initiative was “entirely legal.” Oklahoma lawmakers are conducting an interim study of abandoned medical cannabis grow sites. A Pennsylvania senator discussed her forthcoming bill to regulate hemp products. Vermont regulators approved draft procedures for cannabis events. Minnesota officials are conducting a survey on proposed competency standards for potentially adding a new occupation in the legal cannabis industry. New York cannabis regulators are inviting people to express interest in joining a new Social and Economic Equity Cultivation Working Group. New Jersey regulators suspended a marijuana business license over alleged violations. California regulators sent updates on various cannabis issues. Mississippi officials discussed medical cannabis on a podcast. — Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments. Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access. — / INTERNATIONAL Albanian officials adopted new cannabis tracking rules. Ukrainian officials announced the country’s first dispensing of a medical cannabis product via an electronic prescription. / SCIENCE & HEALTH A study found “preliminary evidence that oral [cannabinoid-based medicinal products] may represent a safe and effective adjunct therapy for managing pain and related symptoms in women with endometriosis.” A study found “growing interest in hemp for wastewater treatment.” / ADVOCACY, OPINION & ANALYSIS The Marijuana Policy Project published a voter guide on Texas’s upcoming elections. / BUSINESS Aurora Cannabis Inc. continued to push back against a revised unsolicited acquisition offer from Curaleaf Holdings, Inc. Spherex is acquiring two cultivation facilities in Colorado from The Cannabist Company and its affiliates. Trulieve discharged wastewater without a required permit, according to Florida officials. 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 New DEA cannabis business registration forms (Newsletter: October 7, 2026) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

For anyone seeking top-tier luxury and sophistication, the Model Delhi Escorts Service stands out as the most reliable and premium option available today.

Aviator is a great option for those who enjoy fast and simple online gaming. With straightforward gameplay and an exciting format, each round can bring something different. It is easy to get started and explore the game at your own pace. If you want to discover more about Aviator, visit: https://aviatorzm.com/

“In the state of Tennessee, marijuana is the number one drug associated with criminal activity, including violent crime.” By Adam Friedman, Tennessee Lookout ​Tennessee lawmakers held hearings to discuss implementing a limited medical marijuana program, but the state’s top law enforcement group remains the most vocal opposition. Representatives from the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, TBI, emerged as the strongest opponents, stating there were no circumstances in which they thought medical marijuana should be allowed in Tennessee. “Marijuana is in fact a dangerous drug, whose use poses a significant threat to public safety, and whose cultivation poses a threat to the environment,” said Erica Stephens, a TBI agent working on the bureau’s Dangerous Drugs Task Force, to lawmakers during the hearing. “In the state of Tennessee, marijuana is the number one drug associated with criminal activity, including violent crime.” Several lawmakers, including Republicans and the lone Democrat on the committee, appeared skeptical of Stephens’s testimony. State Sen. London Lamar, a Memphis Democrat, said the correlation between marijuana use and violent crime was “inaccurate,” citing statistics that showed overdose deaths related to pot were virtually nonexistant. “Crime is an issue for all of us,” Lamar said. “California and Colorado have significantly lower violent crime rates than Tennessee. We are a state that has no legal marijuana program, and we have some of the highest violent crime rates in the country.” ​Lawmakers held nearly six hours of hearings last week to discuss the program, with much of the discussion focused on how Tennessee should address marijuana use considering it is either fully legalized or legal for medical use in 41 other states, and widely available on the black market. TBI and other law enforcement representatives repeatedly brought up Oklahoma’s medical marijuana program as the most prominent failure of a medical program. Sen. Ferrell ​Haile, a Gallatin Republican, said during the hearing that Oklahoma’s program, which included smokable products, was “nowhere near comparable” to the program Tennessee lawmakers were studying. ​“It’s apples to oranges,” Haile said. The bureau’s adamant opposition appeared to rankle several lawmakers. State Sen. Todd Gardenhire, a Chattanooga Republican, told committee members that law enforcement’s testimony had “drifted” the conversation away from what was important. “This is a way to keep people from having to go to the illicit market,” Gardenhire said. “It’s a way to get them the help they need in a legal way.” After the federal government reclassified marijuana as having potential medical benefits in April. Tennessee lawmakers agreed to hear recommendations from the state’s cannabis commission on creating a limited medical marijuana program that doesn’t include smokable products and is only obtainable for a narrow set of conditions. ​The state cannabis commission is proposing allowing medical marijuana for those suffering from Alzheimer’s, ALS, cancer, Crohn’s disease, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, HIV/AIDS and sickle cell disease. Over the past decade, medical and legal marijuana programs have swept across the nation as the federal government has let states decide how to regulate the product. Most of Tennessee’s neighboring states have either legal or medical marijuana programs. This proliferation has made enforcing a state ban difficult, as many Tennesseans can drive across state borders to places where they can legally buy it. For several years, Tennessee’s legalization of hemp-derived cannabinoid products served as a loophole to the state’s marijuana laws. But lawmakers banned smokable hemp products, all but killing the market in July. Christina Flatt, a Nashville pharmacist, said during the hearing that Tennessee’s potential medical marijuana program doesn’t go far enough and should include medical conditions like post-traumatic stress disorder for veterans and hospice patients. “Cannabis has medical value, and the United States government recognizes it,” Flatt said. This story was first published by Tennessee Lookout. The post Tennessee Lawmakers Push Back On Police Claims About Marijuana’s Danger And Connection To Violence appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has launched new specialized registration forms for additional types of state-licensed medical marijuana businesses beyond dispensaries that want to take advantage of federal protections in line with the Trump administration’s cannabis rescheduling process. The agency began accepting registrations from medical cannabis dispensaries with a new form in April, and other types of businesses in the state-legal medical marijuana supply chain have been able to apply using a standardized federal form for months. But now, DEA now has specific registration links for medical marijuana manufacturers, distributors and analytical labs—a change it first previewed was coming in May. Businesses that fill out the new version of DEA Form 225 must answer whether they will be handling medical and/or recreational marijuana, and provide their state licensing information. They also need to specify if they will be working with marijuana, marijuana extract and/or naturally derived delta-9 THC in a cannabis product subject to a state medical license or a Food and Drug Administration-approved product. They must also answer questions about the criminal and disciplinary history of the business and key personnel. The nonrefundable application fee is $3,699 for medical marijuana manufacturers, $1,850 for distributors and $296 for testing labs, Cannabis Business Times, which previously noted the new forms, reported. Previously, dispensaries could fill out a specialized form during a 60-day window for expedited consideration. Dispensaries that still want to register can now use the standard DEA Form 224 to do so. The launch of the new forms comes as DEA personnel are conducting inspections of medical marijuana dispensaries that previously applied for registration. One such business owner told Marijuana Moment recently that she plans to fight a decision by DEA that she says could force her to fire two good employees if she wants to register for protections under rescheduling. Nicole Huff, CEO of the Wildflower Medical Dispensary in Aberdeen, shared with Marijuana Moment correspondence that a DEA official sent about the two workers in question, who have past felony convictions. As a result of those criminal records, the business must either fire the employees, withdraw its application for federal protections, seek a waiver while becoming ineligible for expedited processing or go before an agency judge. Huff told Marijuana Moment that she will take the issue before a DEA judge. Industry sources say the way the agency has been carrying out inspections varies between DEA’s regional offices throughout the country. In June, Mississippi medical cannabis businesses spoke to Marijuana Moment about being visited by DEA officials, who told them they were among the first in the country to be seen for inspection under the registration process. In August, Marijuana Moment obtained a list of 26 questions that DEA officials are sending to medical cannabis businesses in Colorado as part of the consideration of their applications for registration. Those questions differ in many cases from ones being asked of Mississippi operators. The agency launched its initial registration form for dispensaries in April, days after Attorney General Todd Blanche issued an order immediately moving marijuana products regulated by a state medical cannabis license from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III, along with marijuana products that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). A DEA hearing that recently concluded testimony is considering broader marijuana rescheduling. Photo courtesy of Philip Steffan. The post DEA Launches New Registration Forms For Medical Marijuana Manufacturers, Distributors And Testing Labs appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“Continuing down the path of aggressive and over-punitive immigration policies poses a direct threat to the future of this industry.” By Ishaq Ali, Latino Cannabis Alliance Behind the sleek tech-adjacent branding and modern marketing of today’s cannabis industry lies a far older, unvarnished truth: cannabis is, at its heart, an agricultural product and Latinos are the majority of the agricultural labor, making up a staggering 92 percent of California’s overall agricultural workforce and 77 percent of the U.S. agricultural workforce. The cannabis industry mirrors this demographic reality; Latinos are the largest ethnic group of workers in the legally regulated cannabis sector at 38 percent, a figure that surges to 56–65 percent in cultivation-specific roles. If we do not regulate cannabis with the Latino community in mind or immigration implications included, we miss critical aspects about how the sector can be developed and more importantly who works in that sector. Continuing down the path of aggressive and over-punitive immigration policies poses a direct threat to the future of this industry. To avoid these pitfalls, it is imperative that Latino voices are properly represented in data and policy. At a ‘legacy industry’ retreat in 2023, a panel of California cannabis regulators were asked whether they considered cannabis an agricultural product. Not one raised their hand, yet moments earlier, the same panel had unanimously agreed that cannabis is medicine. They readily embraced a clinical framing while rejecting the agricultural reality of a plant that is grown, harvested and cultivated like any other crop, revealing how disconnected they were from the industry they regulate. From early investors treating cannabis like the next tech boom to traditional supply chain professionals acting like it is “just any other consumer packaged good product” that can be scaled with basic business principles, many fundamentally misunderstand the core issue at stake. Cannabis cultivation is agriculture, which means that it must be legislated, regulated and operate as such—including its predominantly Latino workforce. Recently, the Trump administration’s Department of Justice announced the rescheduling of certain medical marijuana products, yet the plant itself remains largely federally illegal. Its success is inextricably linked to the land, the specialized labor of those who tend it and the applicable laws and policies that affect it. The cannabis industry is heavily influenced by an immigrant workforce and the Latino community, especially in California. UCLA Labor Center and UC Berkeley Cannabis Research Center’s Dr. Robert Chlala, who authored a detailed report on California’s cannabis workforce, emphasized in an interview that his research lens was motivated by the fact that the “infrastructure, the ideas and the actual plant and technical knowledge of cannabis was built by people of color and immigrants.” The Human Cost Of Enforcement The intersection of state-legal cannabis and federal immigration enforcement creates an unstable environment for their workforce. Recently we observed a somber landmark for the industry as we remembered the anniversary of the tragic death of Jaime Alanis Garcia in July 2025. Garcia, a 57-year-old farmworker with a ten-year tenure, died from a 30-foot fall during a joint Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) raid at Glass House Farms in Camarillo, California. This is widely regarded as one of the first ICE-related deaths in the U.S. and marked a pivotal moment for the Latino community in California and the broader industry when it brought to light the long-standing, violent relationship between immigration enforcement and cannabis enforcement. This incident highlights a broader issue around the crossover of deportation and cannabis enforcement. Between 2002 and 2020, more than 47,000 people were deported for simple cannabis possession or use according to a report by Human Rights Watch and the Drug Policy Alliance. The Trump administration has continued to label immigrants with simple cannabis possession as “the worst of the worst” and prioritized them for deportation. This current rhetoric around immigration policies pose a direct threat to an already unstable industry. Approximately 8 percent of the legal workforce, and a significantly higher portion of the unlicensed sector, possess cannabis records that subject them to losing both their livelihood and their legal status according to Chlala;s 2o25 study. This legal jeopardy is not limited to people with records; working in the state-legal industry itself jeopardizes a person’s immigration status. Findings From The UCLA Labor Center The 2025 UCLA Labor Center/Cannabis Worker Collaborative report offers a detailed look into these workplace realities. The study highlights several critical areas: A Workforce in the Shadows: While the legal market employs approximately 78,000 workers, the total workforce including the unlicensed sector, exceeds 235,000, leaving over 150,000 workers without any legal protections and more exposure to dangerous conditions. Economic Fragility: Despite being designated “essential workers” during the COVID-19 pandemic, 43 percent of women and 29 percent of men in the industry reported difficulty paying for food or groceries in the past year. Wage Theft and “The Latino Tax”: A massive 63 percent of retail, delivery and cultivation workers reported experiencing wage theft, including late payments and off-the-clock labor. These violations occur at significantly higher rates for Latino and Black workers compared to their peers. Occupational Hazards: Cultivation workers face severe health risks, with 31 percent reporting skin infections and 46 percent suffering from chronic musculoskeletal pain due to intensive labor conditions. Dr. Rob Chlala On Racial And Immigrant Justice Dr. Chlala’s research centered heavily on racial and immigrant justice by utilizing a “worker-researcher” model through which peers helped design the survey, conduct interview and analyze the data. This helped capture more authentic stories from Latino workers who are frequently dismissed in policy debates. The methodology successfully bridged the trust gap, revealing a vibrant, multicultural frontline labor force working beneath a layer of management that often lacks that same diversity. A primary hurdle Chlala identified was the systemic disconnect between cannabis policy and the realities facing Latino communities. As a means to disseminate information and education about cannabis products, healthy use and cultivation, Chlala points to the “Promotora Model,” a community-centered health framework originating in Latin America. He noted that because “cannabis workers are already piloting that [information sharing] in their everyday [lives]” through informal networks, formalizing this peer-led approach can build a protective education system “rooted in a shared sense of identity.” The Latino Cannabis Alliance’s Path Forward The Latino Cannabis Alliance plays a vital role in turning this data into actionable power, ensuring that the workers who built this industry are finally granted the protection, dignity and opportunity they deserve. This is why we recently led a webinar focused on how the cannabis industry can support the immigrant rights movement, and support removing marijuana from the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) by passing the MORE Act. In May of 2026, the Latino Cannabis Alliance took this message to Washington, D.C. and advocated for the passage of the MORE Act. We visited over 16 congressional offices, focusing on prominent members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, to share how marijuana’s placement on the CSA keeps cannabis prohibition as the law of the land, meaning that it can continue to be used as a tool for the punitive immigration enforcement and labor law violations we see today. The MORE Act is the only federal legislation that removes cannabis from the CSA while restoring rights and advancing protections for immigrant and Latino communities, as well as other communities harmed by the war on drugs. The industry is at an inflection point. State legalization assumed that a licensed market could protect itself from federal prohibition. For the workers at the industry’s core, that protection does not exist. As long as cannabis stays in the Controlled Substances Act, a state-legal job, a past possession record or a workplace raid can carry immigration consequences that no state license can undo. Partial rescheduling of medical products does not change that. As such, the stability of California’s cannabis sector and the safety of its immigrant workforce are not separate policy questions. They are the same question. The industry and the immigrant rights movement face the same obstacle, and neither has had the political weight to remove it alone. Ishaq Ali is a founding board member and the Director of Research & Education for the Latino Cannabis Alliance, and a researcher and strategist at the UC Berkeley Cannabis Research Center. He is studying the evolution of cannabis markets, firm ownership, and regulatory impacts in California. Ishaq is also Program Director at the Environmental and Consumer Compliance Organization, leading clean product certification and retail education initiatives. The post The Latino Community Is The Invisible Backbone Of The Cannabis Industry (Op-Ed) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

A coalition of anti-marijuana groups and a cannabis-focused biopharmaceutical corporation have filed a new brief in their lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s initiative to cover up to $500 worth of hemp-derived products each year for eligible Medicare patients. In May, Judge Trevor N. McFadden dismissed the challenge to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) program that focuses largely on CBD but also allows a certain amount of THC in products. The opponents of the CBD Medicare effort then asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to reconsider the decision. In the new brief submitted to the appeals court on Monday, lawyers for Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), Cannabis Industry Victims Educating Litigators (CIVEL), Hillsborough County Anti-Drug Alliance and MMJ International Holdings and its subsidiaries (MMJ) argued that the lower court judge erred in finding that they do not have standing to bring the challenge. While the immediate issue at hand focuses on standing, the brief also argues that the Medicare hemp program itself is “both procedurally defective in its adoption and materially harmful to market competitors, healthcare providers, and elderly Americans.” McFadden had determined that MMJ lacks standing because it has not yet brought a product to the market and is “not a direct and current competitor with anyone selling hemp to Medicare beneficiaries.” “In short, MMJ has no product on the Medicare-beneficiary market and no sense of when it may,” he said. But the new brief argues that the company is “not a speculative future entrant” in the market and has “invested over $10 million across more than eight years, obtained Orphan Drug Designation, submitted IND applications for two cannabinoid therapeutics, and holds a DEA Schedule I analytical-laboratory registration.” Having standing as a competitor “does not require an approved product,” it says. “The government also cannot credibly label MMJ a ‘speculative future entrant’ when the government’s own unreasonable delay of nearly eight years on a bulk-manufacturing application at DEA is the primary cause of MMJ’s pre-approval status. The government should not profit from its own obstruction.” The brief additionally says McFadden, the lower court judge, erred on aspects of procedural standing and organizational standing with respect to the broader pool of plaintiffs. The government’s opening brief before the appeals court is due by November 4. The lower court judge in his ruling said that each plaintiff “claims an injury too abstract or too remote to open the courtroom doors.” In April, lawyers for Health and Human Services Sec. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and CMS Director Mehmet Oz filed a brief arguing that the anti-cannabis organizations that filed the suit against the Medicare hemp coverage policy do not have standing to bring the case against the hemp-focused Substance Access Beneficiary Engagement Incentive (BEI). “No organizational Plaintiff shows enough for an injury-in-fact,” McFadden said in his ruling. “All claim that they diverted resources in response to the BEI’s implementation, but none established that such resource diversion ‘interfered’ with its core activities or prevented it from ‘pursuing its true purpose.’” Outside of the challenge to the CMS hemp program, SAM, MMJ and others filed separate lawsuits challenging the Trump administration’s move to federally reschedule marijuana. Beyond the advocacy organizations and pharmaceutical company, the hemp CMS case involves individual plaintiffs, including anti-marijuana lawyer David Evans, who claims he had standing to challenge the program as a Medicare recipient—but the federal agencies reject that argument. “If Evans’s worst-case-scenario—his doctor recommends hemp to him—came true, Evans would lack a concrete harm,” McFadden wrote. “In sum, no matter the theory, Plaintiffs have failed to establish an Article III injury from the BEI’s implementation,” the judge said. “The use and regulation of hemp are important matters, and Plaintiffs understandably have strong views on these topics. But while they may not like the BEI, they have not been injured by it. The case will thus be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Previously, McFadden had rejected the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order to halt the program from launching on April 1. Notably, the government’s motion to dismiss the case says it was prepared in part by Matthew Zorn, a lawyer for HHS who before taking on the federal job led numerous cases suing government agencies on behalf of plaintiffs seeking marijuana and drug policy reform. The CMS initiative comes after President Donald Trump signed an executive order in December calling on the attorney general to finalize a rule federally rescheduling marijuana, which is now underway, that also contained components to “improve access” to full-spectrum CBD products. Under the program, inhalable preparations are not allowed, and products can contain no more than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC by dry weight and can have up to 3 milligrams of total THC per serving. The THC limit could potentially change if a law the president signed late last year takes effect as scheduled this November. That policy would strictly limit the types of cannabis products that are currently permitted under the 2018 Farm Bill that Trump signed in his first term, expressly prohibiting hemp derivatives containing more than 0.4 milligrams of total THC per container. The White House has called on Congress to take action to amend the planned ban to maintain legal access to hemp-derived full-spectrum CBD products. Oz, the CMS director, recently pressed senators to support provisions to delay the effective date of the hemp product ban in order to provide more time to craft a regulatory structure as an alternative to prohibition. Keeping the ban on schedule “would undo significant gains that have been made to make clinically-appropriate full-spectrum hemp-derived CBD accessible to the senior citizens and individuals with disabilities that rely on the Medicare program for their healthcare,” Oz wrote in a letter. In a brief in the CMS hemp lawsuit, federal agencies noted that “CMS does not pay for hemp products under the BEI.” “The participating provider furnishes eligible products at its own cost, subject to the $500 annual cap per beneficiary. The BEI operates within the shared-savings framework that defines the underlying models. If a provider’s investment in beneficiary engagement reduces the beneficiary’s total cost of care, the provider and CMS share in the resulting savings. If it does not, the provider absorbs the loss. No new federal appropriation is involved. No new entitlement is created. The BEI is, at its core, a decision by willing providers that a particular intervention can reduce downstream claims.” A bipartisan group of members of Congress recently sent a letter to Trump and other federal officials pressing for guidance on whether medical cannabis would be covered by Medicare. Meanwhile, the White House Office of Management and Budget held a series of meetings this year about a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) CBD products enforcement policy. FDA also issued guidance making clear that it does not intend to interfere with implementation of the Medicare hemp-derived products coverage plan. CMS separately finalized a rule that will allow coverage of some hemp products as specialized, non-primarily health-related benefits through Medicare Advantage plans. Read the new brief in the lawsuit challenging the Medicare hemp program below: Photo courtesy of Kimzy Nanney. The post Marijuana Opponents And Pharma Company File Brief Asking Court To Block Trump’s Hemp CBD Medicare Coverage Plan appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

A Democratic congresswoman from Massachusetts is urging voters to defeat an initiative on the November ballot that would roll back the state’s marijuana legalization law. “Cannabis legalization and regulation is positive for small businesses, local communities and restorative justice,” Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) said on Tuesday. “And keeping marijuana legal in Massachusetts is both economic justice and racial justice policy.” “With Black, Hispanic, and other marginalized communities disproportionately ravaged by the War on Drugs, legalizing adult-use cannabis in Massachusetts was designed in part to begin addressing that legacy, through social equity programs, economic opportunities and investments in communities harmed by prohibition,” she said. “Repealing legal adult use would undo this progress and have devastating impacts on the livelihoods of those who have invested their life savings into their businesses, communities and supporting thousands of jobs. “We must vote No on 8.” Gov. Maura Healey (D) similarly said this weekend 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.” A new poll released last week shows that most Massachusetts voters oppose the ballot measure to roll back marijuana legalization, in line with the governor’s views. The survey, published by CommonWealth Beacon and conducted by MassINC Polling Group (MPG), shows that 61 percent of likely voters oppose the initiative—which would repeal laws allowing the regulated commercial sales of recreational cannabis and home cultivation while maintaining legal possession and continuing the medical marijuana system. 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 plan to vote against the anti-cannabis measure, while just 24 percent plan to support it. Another survey released in August found that Massachusetts voters oppose the marijuana legalization repeal measure, 55 percent to 33 percent. Ryan Dominguez, chair of the Stop the Repeal campaign, said on Tuesday that “in the decade since voters made a clear choice to do away with dangerous, unregulated cannabis policies the commonwealth has not only built a system that prioritizes public health and consumer safety, but has had a significant impact on equitable opportunities.” “After legalization, Massachusetts became the first state in the country to create a social equity program that directly supports entrepreneurs who were impacted by the war on drugs. Since the Social Equity Trust Fund was established, it has awarded more than $57 million through more than 400 grants, with an additional $28.8 million this year supporting another 194 projects,” he said. “We are grateful to have the support of Congresswoman Pressley in defeating this damaging ballot question which would push us back to regressive policies that hurt our communities, public health and safety and social equity businesses.” 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 campaign recently rolled out two TV ads urging voters to reject the rollback initiative and keep marijuana sales legal. 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 Congresswoman Says Massachusetts Voters Should Reject Anti-Marijuana Ballot Question appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Fed marijuana tax guidance a “priority”; MA gov urges voters to keep cannabis sales legal; FDA ibogaine RFI; VA FOIA docs & cannabis use disorder oped 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… Free to read (but not free to produce)! We’re proud of our newsletter and the reporting we publish at Marijuana Moment, and we’re happy to provide it for free. But it takes a lot of work and resources to make this happen. If you value Marijuana Moment, invest in our success on Patreon so we can expand our coverage and more readers can benefit: https://www.patreon.com/marijuanamoment / TOP THINGS TO KNOW The Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service said issuing tax guidance for the marijuana industry will be a “priority” for the coming year in light of the Trump administration’s move to federally reschedule cannabis. A newly updated Drug Enforcement Administration report confirms that “no deaths from overdose of marijuana have been reported”—and also more favorably characterizes the growing number of states that are changing their own cannabis laws than the previous edition did. Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey (D) is urging voters to reject an initiative on the November ballot that would roll back the state’s marijuana legalization law—saying, “It’s an important industry, the cannabis industry. And I hope the voters keep cannabis.” The Food and Drug Administration issued a request for information seeking public input on how to design research on the potential therapeutic benefits of the psychedelic ibogaine. Veterans Action Council’s Nate Landau details in a new Marijuana Moment op-ed how documents obtained via the Freedom of Information Act reveal a “central flaw” in how the Department of Veterans Affairs tracks marijuana misuse diagnoses based on changing criteria over time. “What emerges is not simply a story of rising diagnoses, but a deeper set of concerns about how those diagnoses are defined, applied and ultimately used to shape both policy and perception.” / FEDERAL The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service published a report on the growth of hemp fiber production in recent years. The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy announced new members of its Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board. Ohio Democratic congressional candidate Brian Poindexter addressed questions about his past marijuana use. / STATES Former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) discussed his past marijuana arrest. Michigan’s attorney general touted a court ruling finding that a marijuana business violated wetlands protection laws. Connecticut regulators published guidance about palliative cannabis products. Georgia’s top medical cannabis regulator said new medical cannabis delivery rules could take effect before the end of this month. Minnesota’s top marijuana regulator spoke about efforts to oversee the legal industry. California officials are accepting applications for the Cannabis Equity Grants Program for Local Jurisdictions. New York marijuana regulators are conducting a survey about their website. Washington State regulators will consider changes to marijuana rules on Wednesday. — Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments. Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access. — / INTERNATIONAL France’s top drug official defended the country’s prohibition of cannabis in a TV appearance. Uganda’s minister for information, communications technology and national guidance is serving as the acting head of a new cannabis business association. / SCIENCE & HEALTH A study found that full-spectrum high CBD oil “may be useful in the treatment of chronic pain and anxiety.” A study found that “spatial accessibility to cannabis retailers was associated with more frequent adolescent cannabis use early in the post-legalization period, but this relationship weakened as retail outlets became widespread.” / ADVOCACY, OPINION & ANALYSIS The Maryland Association of Counties published an overview of how cannabis revenue is being used to fund community reinvestment. / BUSINESS Curaleaf Holdings, Inc. enhanced its offer to acquire Aurora Cannabis Inc. The owner of Mississippi Green Oil, LLC is facing Securities and Exchange Commission charges of alleged fraud. 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 confirms no cannabis overdose deaths (Newsletter: October 6, 2026) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Download open-source Android apps, games and game tools as APKs. Every file is matched to its developer’s signature and scanned for trackers before it goes up. 2113 Apps