All Activity

I’m going to read this. I’ll be sure to come back. thanks for sharing. and also This article gives the light in which we can observe the reality. this is very nice one and gives indepth information. thanks for this nice article... elasty filler

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

Thanks so much for sharing this awesome info! I am looking forward to see more postsby you! situs bola alexistogel

I have read all the comments and suggestions posted by the visitors for this article are very fine,We will wait for your next article so only.Thanks! wooden baby walker

Your work is truly appreciated round the clock and the globe. It is incredibly a comprehensive and helpful blog. AK 게임 도메인

You there, this is really good post here. Thanks for taking the time to post such valuable information. Quality content is what always gets the visitors coming. hptoto link alternatif

This is my first time i visit here. I found so many interesting stuff in your blog especially its discussion. From the tons of comments on your articles, I guess I am not the only one having all the enjoyment here keep up the good work wooden baby walker

This type of message always inspiring and I prefer to read quality content, so happy to find good place to many here in the post, the writing is just great, thanks for the post. AK 게임

“We’re not saying Alabama’s not going to do this. We certainly are going to do this, but if you receive it without objection, it’s scheduled immediately.” By Anna Barrett, Alabama Reflector The governing body of the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH) Thursday voted to object to a federal rescheduling of marijuana after state health officials said they needed more time to determine how to implement it. Dr. Scott Harris, Alabama’s top health official, told members of the State Committee of Public Health that the state “fully intends” to implement the change. “We’re not saying Alabama’s not going to do this,” Harris told the committee. “We certainly are going to do this, but if you receive it without objection, it’s scheduled immediately. If you do nothing, it’s scheduled within 30 days. I’m going to ask you to take the third option, which is to object. Then we just have a little bit of time to figure this out with all of our other stakeholders.” The committee vote was unanimous. Brian Hale, ADPH’s chief legal officer, said during the meeting the objection would trigger a public comment period. That period would last 30 to 60 days. “The objection is simply to allow more time for input into the implications of this rescheduling,” Hale said. ‘There’ll be a public hearing scheduled, we’ll see comments that way, and then we’ll talk to other stakeholders, licensing boards and others that may be affected to see what their input may be.” In April, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) moved marijuana from Schedule I—the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) list of drugs with the greatest potential for abuse and least legitimate use—to Schedule III, with drugs considered to have a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence, according to DEA. The order followed an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in December instructing the DOJ to move towards rescheduling. Former President Joe Biden instructed the DOJ to reschedule the drug in 2024, but hearings on the move were canceled in early 2025. The federal order applies to state-licensed medical marijuana products in the states that allow medicinal use of the drug. The move means those businesses can deduct business expenses from their federal taxes and researchers have access to state-legal products. As a Schedule I drug, only cannabis grown in a federal facility could be studied, severely limiting the supply available to researchers. Alabama has a medical cannabis program passed by the Legislature in 2021. A Montgomery dispensary said last week that it expects to make medical marijuana available to patients soon. A message seeking comment from Vince Schilleci, the owner of the dispensary, was left Thursday afternoon. Harris said that rescheduling would not be in violation of state law, but after talking with the Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission (AMCC), he was unsure how the rescheduling would impact the program. “We have been working really hard to try to figure out what the implications of this are. There are a number of things that don’t exactly conflict with state law or other rules, but they require some thinking to figure out how to implement,” Harris said. Justin Aday, general counsel for the AMCC, said in a phone interview that the commission does not foresee any immediate impact of the federal rescheduling or the delay of rescheduling at the state level. “We certainly understand the committee and their desire to collect additional information about exactly what the implication is of the federal rescheduling and what the implication would be, depending on where medical cannabis is scheduled at the state level,” Aday said. “We will certainly participate in that process as needed, and provide whatever information we can.” This story was first published by Alabama Reflector. The post Alabama Officials Move To Delay Automatic Rescheduling Of Marijuana Under State Law Following Trump’s Federal Move appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

I high appreciate this post. It’s hard to find the good from the bad sometimes, but I think you’ve nailed it! would you mind updating your blog with more information? 강남달토

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

“For many retailers, intoxicating hemp beverages have become an important emerging product category that helps drive consumer traffic and offset declining sales in traditional alcohol products.” By Sophie Nieto-Muñoz, New Jersey Monitor A state Senate committee advanced legislation Thursday aimed at loosening restrictions on the sale of intoxicating hemp beverages, including by allowing liquor stores to sell wine bottle-sized containers of THC drinks, until new federal limits take effect in November. The measure, sponsored by Senate President Nick Scutari (D-Union), would allow those bottles to contain up to 200 milligrams of total THC, the chemical compound in marijuana and hemp that can make people feel high. That’s 40 times higher than current limits placed on THC drinks sold in cannabis dispensaries, one critic noted. “The provision that allows 200 milligrams of THC in a 750-milliliter bottle is irresponsible from a public health and youth access standpoint,” said Susanna Puntel of the American Trade Association for Cannabis and Hemp. She added, “It’s exponentially higher than any state allows. And it will actually reduce tax revenue.” THC limits on beverages sold in cannabis dispensaries are now 5 milligrams per container. The Legislature has repeatedly revisited New Jersey’s intoxicating hemp beverage rules, all through bills sponsored by Scutari. In January, then-Gov. Phil Murphy (D) signed a sweeping bill aimed at banning intoxicating hemp products in places like gas stations and bodegas over concerns that kids were buying them. That law also restricted hemp sales to licensed liquor stores and cannabis dispensaries while capping THC content at a maximum of 10 milligrams per container. The compliance deadline was set for April 13. In March, Gov. Mikie Sherrill (D) signed another bill pushing the compliance deadline to May 31, requiring resealable packaging for hemp beverages in containers exceeding 10 milligrams, and removing a requirement that stores must keep hemp-derived beverages in places only accessed by employees. States across the country have struggled to regulate the hemp market in light of federal laws that, in 2018, inadvertently legalized intoxicating hemp products like THCA and delta-8, and then, in 2025, closed that loophole by amending the definition of hemp to limit it to a total THC concentration of 0.3 percent. That definition goes into effect November 12. After that, New Jersey’s cannabis regulators will treat intoxicating hemp products similar to traditional marijuana products and restrict sales to licensed retailers. The latest bill proposes more changes, like a 10 percent margin of error in THC concentration that would allow big bottles to contain up to 220 milligrams. The bill would also allow certain bars to sell hemp beverages for off-premises consumption if they’re in their original containers. Supporters of the legislation argued that the new measure would give licensed liquor store retailers a workable path until the November deadline. Mahi Patel of the Garden State Liquor Retailers Association said hemp beverages have become an important revenue stream for small, family-owned stores struggling amid shifting alcohol consumption trends and high inflation. She said the legislation “strikes the appropriate balance between responsible regulation and operational flexibility for licensed retailers.” “For many retailers, intoxicating hemp beverages have become an important emerging product category that helps drive consumer traffic and offset declining sales in traditional alcohol products,” she said. But Andrew Caggiano, chief of police in Montville and the president of the New Jersey State Association of Chiefs of Police, called the bill “deeply flawed and operationally irresponsible.” He said New Jersey still lacks reliable roadside THC testing technology and drug recognition experts, and he’s worried that the high dosage level can lead to accidental overconsumption and more impaired driving. “We are urging you not to pass this bill,” Caggiano said. “Public safety should not be secondary to rapid commercialization.” Another section of the bill seeks to streamline licensing for medical cannabis dispensaries seeking to add adult-use retail licenses, potentially allowing them to begin those operations without additional municipal review. For years, business owners have lamented that the slow permitting processing, including permission from municipalities, has made it harder to open dispensaries. The bill passed Thursday 8-1, with Sen. Kristin Corrado (R-Passaic) voting no and Sen. Mike Testa (R-Cumberland) abstaining. The measure also advanced out of the Assembly this week by a 47-20 vote, with Republicans largely voting no. This story was first published by New Jersey Monitor. The post New Jersey Lawmakers Approve Bill To Allow Large-Size Hemp THC Drinks To Be Sold In Liquor Stores appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Very good points you wrote here..Great stuff...I think you've made some truly interesting points.Keep up the good work. koi toto

The post is written in very a good manner and it contains many useful information for me. koi toto

I’m going to read this. I’ll be sure to come back. thanks for sharing. and also This article gives the light in which we can observe the reality. this is very nice one and gives indepth information. thanks for this nice article... koi toto

One thing I noticed with Drive Mad is how satisfying the progression feels. Later stages become more complex without overwhelming new players too early, which keeps the experience balanced

A federal judge has granted the government’s motion to dismiss marijuana legalization opponents’ lawsuit challenging a new Trump administration initiative to cover up to $500 worth of hemp-derived products each year for eligible Medicare patients. The program being implemented by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) focuses largely on CBD but also allows a certain amount of THC in products. Judge Trevor N. McFadden ruled on Friday that prohibitionist groups and activists, led by Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), as well as a cannabis-focused biopharmaceutical corporation MMJ International Holdings and its subsidiaries, “have not established standing to bring this case.” “Each claims an injury too abstract or too remote to open the courtroom doors,” he said. “At the outset, the Court notes that it need not tackle the bulk of questions that Plaintiffs raise in their motions,” McFadden wrote. “That is because Plaintiffs’ case suffers from a fatal flaw: the failure to establish Article III standing to bring their claims. The Court addresses only this jurisdictional hole and will dismiss the entire suit and deny Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction as moot.” In April, lawyers for Health and Human Services Sec. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and CMS Director Mehmet Oz filed a brief saying that the anti-cannabis organizations that filed the suit against the Medicare hemp coverage policy do not have standing to bring the case. The judge has now agreed. “No organizational Plaintiff shows enough for an injury-in-fact,” McFadden said. “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.'” When it comes to the company MMJ and its subsidiaries, the judge said it 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. Beyond the advocacy organizations, the case involves individual plaintiffs, including anti-marijuana lawyer David Evans, who claims he had standing to challenge the new Substance Access Beneficiary Engagement Incentive (BEI) 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.” SAM, for its part, is pushing back on the dismissal and says it might appeal. “We fundamentally disagree with the court’s decision today. All parties demonstrated substantial injury that exceeds the threshold required by Article III,” SAM President and CEO Kevin Sabet said. “We are currently reviewing all our options, including an appeal. We will not rest until we ensure America’s seniors are safe from these false medical claims and the harms of dangerous marijuana products.” Smart Approaches to Marijuana's statement concerning the court's ruling on the challenge to the CMS BEI program. pic.twitter.com/AXpl50bLku — Smart Approaches to Marijuana (@learnaboutsam) May 22, 2026 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 federal agencies noted in a brief in the lawsuit 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.” Meanwhile, the White House Office of Management and Budget recently held a series of meetings 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 judge’s order dismissing the lawsuit challenging the Medicare hemp program below: Photo courtesy of Kimzy Nanney. The post Federal Judge Dismisses Anti-Marijuana Groups’ Lawsuit Challenging Medicare Hemp Coverage Program appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Alaska lawmakers this week passed legislation that will shield people’s marijuana conviction records from being publicly released in certain circumstances. The cannabis provisions are included in a large package of criminal justice legislation that cleared the Senate in a 20-0 vote on Tuesday and was approved by the House of Representatives 39-1 on Wednesday. HB 239 now heads to the desk of Gov. Mike Dunleavy (R). If enacted into law, the bill will make it so people who were convicted of possessing less than an ounce of marijuana while over 21 years of age at the time of the offense can request that their records not be released. The protections only apply to people who were not convicted of any other criminal charges in the relevant case. The requirement for someone to proactively request that their records not be released in order for them to remain sealed will be sunsetted on January 1, 2028. The cannabis reform that is now part of the omnibus criminal justice legislation heading to the governor was originally introduced as a standalone bill, HB 81 from Rep. David Nelson (R). “In 2014, the state of Alaska voted to legalize the cultivation, sale, and recreational use of marijuana for adults. Despite this change in state law, some Alaskans remain blocked from employment, housing, volunteering, licensing, and other opportunities,” Nelson said in a sponsor statement about the bill. “Hardworking Alaskans could automatically be denied a chance because of previous low level marijuana convictions and employers are potentially deprived of skilled labor in an increasingly dwindling labor market.” “The State cannot afford to pass on skilled labor simply because low level misdemeanors are hindering some Alaskans from pursuing those positions or from finding housing closer to better opportunities,” he said. “This bill will help individuals keep portions of their record confidential while still allowing government agencies access for background and statistical information. Hardworking Alaskans must be given a chance to find redemption for small mistakes and be given the opportunity to make an economic impact like any other citizen.” Karen O’Keefe, state policies director for the Marijuana Policy Project, told Marijuana Moment that “for too many Alaskans, past convictions for conduct that is now legal continue to close the door on opportunities, making it harder to secure housing, an education, jobs, and professional licensing.” “We’re pleased that Alaska legislators have recognized that it’s wrong to impose an economic life sentence for outdated low-level possession convictions,” she said. Separately in Alaska, a government task force recommended earlier this year that the state move forward with plans to provide regulated access to psychedelics if the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorizes the medical use of substances like psilocybin and MDMA. An activist campaign, meanwhile, announced in December that it failed to collect enough signatures to put an initiative to legalize certain psychedelics such as psilocybin and DMT on the state’s 2026 ballot—but activists emphasized that the “work is far from over” as they shift focus to placing the reform measure before voters in 2028. The post Alaska Bill To Let People Seal Their Marijuana Convictions Heads To Governor appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

A coalition of Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate are pushing President Donald Trump to commute the sentences of people who are still serving time in federal prison for marijuana. The move, they say, is a logical next step now that his administration is moving to reschedule cannabis. “The inclusion of marijuana in the Controlled Substances Act has resulted in tens of millions of people being sent to county, state, and federal prisons over the last several decades,” the letter sent on Friday says, noting that polling shows strong support for cannabis reform among voters. Trump has already “recognized this disconnect between the science and policy” by issuing an executive order directing federal officials to move marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III, the letter, led by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Rep. Steven Horsford (D-NV), says. “However, rescheduling marijuana does not provide relief for anyone currently in federal prison from a marijuana conviction,” they and 26 other House and Senate colleagues wrote. “As president, you have a unique opportunity to use your constitutional authority and issue a categorical commutation to address this continuing injustice.” The letter to Trump and his pardon czar, Alice Marie Johnson, says that people convicted for cannabis “face disproportionately long sentences,” noting that U.S. Sentencing Commission data indicates about 3,000 people are “still federally incarcerated for marijuana trafficking offenses, with hundreds, perhaps thousands serving harsh mandatory minimum sentences of 5 years or longer.” “Too many people are serving way too long for marijuana-associated offenses,” the lawmakers wrote, adding that cannabis laws have been enforced in a racially disparate manner. “This means precious time away from loved ones and families separated for years, and in some cases even decades, due to our country’s antiquated laws around marijuana. However, thousands of people continue to be federally incarcerated for marijuana-related offenses, an activity that most states, in some form, have legalized. The letter argues that releasing marijuana prisoners can help the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) deal with capacity issues stemming from overcrowding and understaffing. “While it won’t solve the structural issues that have led us here, we believe that commuting the sentences of people with marijuana offenses would both address the overly harsh sentences while simultaneously allowing BOP to focus resources where they are needed most,” says the letter, which was also signed by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Ed Markey (D-MA), along with Reps. Troy Carter (D-LA), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ), Jared Huffman (D-CA), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Dan Goldman (D-NY), Dwight Evans (D-PA), Alexandria Ocassio-Cortez (D-NY), Dina Titus (D-NV), Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), among others. The lawmakers also asked the president to ensure that people who are serving “unjust marijuana sentences” be provided with “support services to ensure they have a successful reentry after years of incarceration.” Meanwhile in Congress, a pair of Republican lawmakers teamed up with anti-marijuana groups this week to push for a “carve-out” to ensure that safety-sensitive workers continue to be tested and punished for cannabis use. Last week, the House of Representatives passed a bipartisan amendment to allow military veterans receive medical cannabis recommendations from their Department of Veterans Affairs doctors. Separately, he House Appropriations Committee approved a bill last week containing provisions that would block Department of Justice officials from taking further steps to reschedule cannabis while continuing to protect state medical marijuana laws from federal interference. A report attached to that legislation also directs federal officials to take enforcement action against unregulated cannabinoid products that “threaten consumer safety.” That panel also recently approved another spending bill and an attached report that expresses concerns about health risks from cannabis-derived products, while also encouraging research into the therapeutic benefits of psychedelics. The full House also recently passed a Farm Bill with provisions aimed at aiding industrial hemp producers—but without any language to delay or alter the federal recriminalization of hemp THC products that’s scheduled to take effect later this year. A new report from the Congressional Research Service details the scope and limitations of the federal marijuana rescheduling move. The post Democratic Lawmakers Push Trump To Release Federal Marijuana Prisoners As A Follow-Up To Rescheduling appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Two GOP congressional lawmakers are joining prohibitionist organizations in their call for a “carve-out” to the Trump administration’s medical marijuana rescheduling action by affirming that safety-sensitive transportation workers could still be penalized for testing positive for THC. At a press conference outside the Capitol on Thursday, anti-cannabis Reps. Andy Harris (R-MD) and Pete Sessions (R-TX)—along with representatives of Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA)—criticized the move to reclassify medical cannabis dispensed to patients under state laws as a Schedule III drug. The congressmen and prohibitionist activists argued that the policy change means a 1986 executive order on the federal workforce that President Ronald Reagan signed defining illegal drugs as Schedule I and II drugs under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) would be effectively nullified when it comes to marijuana use by truck drivers, airline pilots and other workers regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). To that end, the lawmakers said they intend to introduce a bill to codify a “carve-out” to the rescheduling rule to ensure that DOT-certified drivers continue to be tested for cannabis. That’s despite the fact that DOT itself recently clarified that its drug testing policies are not affected by the Schedule III reclassification. “Look, we understand there are a lot of Americans who feel that it’s perfectly all right to have medical marijuana—recreational marijuana—without realizing what the implications of that are,” Harris said on Thursday. Rescheduling “will have to have some kind of testing guidelines to make certain that those people who function within the economy in safety-related professions” can be tested, he said. “The American public should be certain that that person is not under the influence of marijuana, because it slipped through a regulatory crack.” “That’s in fact what we need to deal with,” he said. “Congress needs to make certain that, if and when marijuana is rescheduled, that we make certain we can test—and, again, this is to provide certainty to the American public that someone who is using marijuana is not operating something that makes the public unsafe. it’s just that simple.” The congressman’s “if and when” aside alluded to the fact that rescheduling of marijuana beyond state-sanctioned medical cannabis will be evaluated under an expedited administrative hearing process beginning next month. “I think the American public will agree that that’s a clear red line that needs to be drawn,” Harris said, thanking NDASA “for bringing this to the attention of the American people, because it is a critically important issue, and, again, I believe when the American public understands it, they will firmly stand with us to say, ‘No, this testing has to occur.'” We are grateful to stand beside Reps. @PeteSessions, @RepAndyHarrisMD, and NDASA as we advocate for the marijuana safety carve out on Capitol Hill. Without Congressional action, truckers and pilots won’t be tested for THC under Schedule III. We need change NOW! pic.twitter.com/Z4QDea971A — Smart Approaches to Marijuana (@learnaboutsam) May 21, 2026 Prior to the administrative rescheduling action, Harris argued in December that the president didn’t have the authority to unilaterally reschedule marijuana via executive order. But while lawmakers could overrule any move to enact the reform, he still acknowledged that it would be a “heavy lift” in the Republican-controlled Congress. Sessions, for his part, echoed his colleague’s points, asserting that the situation they’re raising “is more than just a red alert on behalf of public safety—it is a re-enunciation that marijuana is an addictive, dangerous product that impacts not only children but anyone who uses it.” “The marijuana issue is not going to go away, because safety—safety for children, safety for women and safety for those who operate in public transportation area—are affected by this,” he said. “Andy Harris and I have for many years spoken about not just the psychosis and the dangers to mental health, but we have spoken about the dangers of people who use it in their everyday lives,” Sessions said. “Today is more than a chance for us to say we need to make sure public safety is okay. We need to make sure that we impact federal law.” “Too many states have moved forward on this issue and have thousands of people who are residents of their states who use marijuana on a regular basis, who interact with the public and who do so in a public way of public transportation—school busses, public busses that take place, and also trains and airplanes,” he said. “I disagree with the reclassification. As Elton John said, our fascination in America with marijuana is one of the most disappointing things that he has ever seen America do. This fascination with marijuana, I think, is done to help support drug cartels and people who want to addict this country—not only our children, but the future of this country. It impacts employment, impacts workers and impacts our ability to think straight. So I’m pleased to be with you today and join in to make sure that the American people understand that Congress must act, must make sure that those people who are involved in public transportation…are included in the testing process.” Again, while the congressmen and their allies remarked on the situation as if the rescheduling action is automatically upending DOT safety and drug testing guidelines, the department itself has affirmed that’s not the case. “Marijuana use is not compatible with safety-sensitive functions,” the agency said in a notice this month. “Currently, there is no instance when [medical review officers] could verify a laboratory-confirmed marijuana positive drug test result as ‘negative’ when an employee claims the positive was caused by a State licensed marijuana product.” Regardless, DOT’s former director of the Office of Drug & Alcohol Policy & Compliance, Patrice Kelly, also participated in the press conference to promote the call for a codified “safety carve-out,” arguing that the department’s “regulated testing for marijuana is about to end” with congressional intervention. “The safety carve-out would also continue marijuana testing and deterrence for federal employees, such as air traffic controllers, such as those who carry guns and those who are entrusted with our national secrets through their security clearances,” Kelly said. If the administration moves to fully reschedule marijuana, she said, “there is a solution for those of us who recognize what is happening—and for those of us who are not yet aware.” “The solution is an immediate and clear safety carve-out that preserves the status quo by granting [the Department of Health and Human Services] authority to continue to test for and certify laboratories to test for marijuana,” Kelly said. “The safety carve-out also must preserve marijuana testing and, thereby, deterrence for federal employees—especially air traffic controllers and all commercial transportation safety-sensitive employees currently under the drug testing regulations of the U.S. DOT and the Coast Guard.” “Transportation safety is a fundamental right of every person in this nation. Transportation safety impacts our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Transportation safety is a non-partisan issue. It is a necessity in urban, suburban and rural areas. Think of school busses, airline flights, ferry boats, liquid natural gas operators [and] tractor trailers on the roadway next to your car next time you drive on the highway… Please ask your congressional members and U.S. senators to support the safety carve-out now.” While a bill has not been formally introduced, a NDASA representative speaking at Thursday’s event suggested a draft version is currently being circulated among lawmakers. Meanwhile, although it is widely accepted that safety-sensitive transportation workers should not perform their jobs under the influence of marijuana or other substances, legalization supporters point out that cannabis metabolites can stay in a person’s system for weeks after use and still be detected on drug tests even when there is no impairment. SAM and NDASA’s partnership in the call-to-action isn’t especially surprising. The two leading anti-marijuana organizations separately joined together for a lawsuit challenging the federal cannabis rescheduling action announced by the Department of Justice last month—using a law firm at which a former Trump administration attorney general is a partner. DOT, for its part, has stood out among federal agencies for its stance that rescheduling marijuana doesn’t change much for its policies. In December, when President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing the Department of Justice to complete the process of rescheduling cannabis “in the most expeditious manner,” the transportation agency posted an advisory saying that all safety-sensitive workers must still comply with federal drug testing requirements. At the time, DOT didn’t quite specify what would change if marijuana was ultimately rescheduled, but the department’s latest notice makes clear its view that state-legal medical cannabis under Schedule III is still no excuse for a positive drug test despite the Trump administration’s federal change. Last October, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy suggested Trump was “getting pressure” to reschedule cannabis—arguing that marijuana is “really addictive” and saying that policy reform around the issue sends a “dangerous” message. “At a time when culture is pushing and celebrating the use of marijuana, we’re not talking about the risk,” Duffy said. Then-Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieig said in 2024 that placing cannabis in Schedule III wouldn’t affect drug testing policies for commercial truckers, noting that the department specifically lists marijuana as substance to screen. “Our understanding of the rescheduling of marijuana from Schedule I to schedule III is that it would not alter DOT’s marijuana testing requirements with respect to the regulated community,” the Biden administration official said. “For private individuals who are performing safety-sensitive functions subject to drug testing, marijuana is identified by name, not by reference to one of those classes. So even if it moves in its classification, we do not believe that that would have a direct impact on that authority.” The post GOP Lawmakers And Anti-Marijuana Groups Want Rescheduling ‘Carve-Out’ To Codify THC Testing Rules For Safety-Sensitive Workers appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

The decision by Virginia’s governor to veto legislation to legalize recreational marijuana sales is overwhelmingly unpopular with voters, according to a new poll. The survey, conducted earlier this month days ahead of Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s (D) move to kill the cannabis regulation bill, found that 70 percent of voters either strongly (53 percent) or somewhat (17 percent) agreed that she should allow the legislation to become law. Just 13 percent strongly disagreed and 7 percent somewhat disagreed, while 11 percent were undecided. Support for legalization was substantial across party lines, with a total of 70 percent of Democrats, 64 percent of Republicans and 74 percent of independents agreeing that the governor should not stand in the way of the marijuana bill taking effect. A separate question asked specifically whether Spanberger should sign or veto the cannabis reform, with 65 percent of voters saying she should sign it into law and just 16 percent hoping she would end up vetoing it. An additional 19 percent were undecided. Again, there was majority support from each partisan group of voters. “This just makes it all the more clear that legal retail cannabis isn’t a fringe issue anymore,” Del. Paul Krizek (D), who sponsored the House version of the now-vetoed cannabis legislation. “It’s mainstream public policy backed by overwhelming public support.” Lawmakers passed the cannabis sales bills in March, but the governor then suggested changes to the legalization proposal—including delaying the start date for sales by six months, increasing taxes and instituting new criminal penalties for cannabis consumers. The legislature last month declined to take up the amendments during a one-day reconvened session, however, effectively rejecting them. Spanberger then issued a veto on Tuesday. The new survey, which was conducted by Public Policy Polling and obtained by Marijuana Moment, also suggested that Spanberger could have picked up greater support from voters by signing the bill. A total of 38 percent said they would view her either much more or somewhat more favorably had she done so. Only a combined 11 percent would have viewed her less favorably for signing legal cannabis sales into law. Forty-two percent said the governor’s decision on the marijuana legislation wouldn’t make a difference in their view of her, however. When prompted with the fact that cannabis possession is already legal in Virginia but adults currently have no place to legally buy it, a total of 78 percent of respondents said they either strongly or somewhat agree that “adults over 21 should have places to purchase cannabis that are legal and strictly regulated.” JM Pedini, development director for the advocacy group NORML and executive director for Virginia NORML, told Marijuana Moment that “broad bipartisan support for a regulated retail cannabis market has been remarkably consistent for years, and her vetoes place Governor Spanberger firmly on the wrong side of both public opinion and public safety.” “Virginians can already see the consequences of the failed approach embraced by Republican former Governor Glenn Youngkin, who also vetoed regulated sales in favor of allowing an unregulated THC market to explode across the Commonwealth,” Pedini said. “Voters understand that preserving this unregulated market is not a serious public safety strategy.” A total of 75 percent of voters agreed in the poll that the state “should not delay in implementing a program to strictly regulate” cannabis products. Asked specifically when the legal cannabis market should launch, 54 percent said it should happen as soon as possible, 9 percent opted for sometime this call and 7 percent chose sometime in 2027. Another 15 percent said they never want regulated marijuana sales in the state. The answers to the questions on timing are significant, given the governor’s move to delay the launch of legal marijuana sales in the amendments she proposed to the legislation. In an interview earlier this week, Spanberger explained her veto of the cannabis bill—saying she supports the overall reform but took issue with some of the details in the proposal that lawmakers sent her, including what she called a “rushed timeline” to launch the legal cannabis market and “far more stores across Virginia” than she thinks are appropriate. Jason Blanchette, president of the Virginia Cannabis Association, said in response to the poll results that it’s “time to get this legislation across the finish line.” “For over five years, stakeholders and legislators alike have been working tirelessly to an end goal of a best practice, age-gated and safe regulated adult-use cannabis market,” he told Marijuana Moment. “Kicking this legislative can further down the road only emboldens illegal cartels, vape shops and gas stations to double down on diminishing Virginia’s citizens health and public safety.” A separate question in the poll found that when given a choice, 70 percent of respondents “would rather have a regulated cannabis market in my community” and 11 percent “would rather have the current unregulated status quo.” The survey also showed broad concern about the availability of unregulated cannabis in Virginia, including through smoke and vape shops that sell hemp-derived cannabinoid products Sixty-seven percent of voters said that have seen an increase in such retail outlets in their areas over the last few years, and a total of 87 percent either strongly or somewhat agreeing that “products with intoxicants such as THC should only be sold at strictly regulated, age-restricted storefronts.” Asked whether current “aggressive enforcement efforts to prevent the sale of cannabis and cannabis-like products by retailers across the state” have been effective, 44 percent said they were either somewhat or very effective, while only 28 percent said they were somewhat or very effective. Another 30 percent weren’t sure. In response to a separate question about whether it is “important to protect kids from being able to purchase cannabis and similar intoxicating products,” 88 percent strongly agreed and another 8 percent somewhat agreed. Trent Woloveck, chief strategy officer with the cannabis company Jushi, said Spanberger’s veto “preserves the unregulated cannabis marketplace that Virginia voters overwhelmingly want replaced with a safe, regulated system.” “Virginians want regulation, consumer protections and enforcement, not billions of dollars in unregulated intoxicating products continuing to be sold through smoke and vape shops in their neighborhoods across the Commonwealth,” he told Marijuana Moment. The poll involved interviews with 594 Virginia voters on May 5 and 6. Spanberger has repeatedly responded to criticism of her cannabis amendments from the bill sponsors and advocates by saying the suggested changes came after she spoke to the leaders of other states that have already implemented adult-use marijuana markets. Prior to vetoing the cannabis commerce bill, the governor did sign separate legislation to provide resentencing relief for people with past cannabis convictions. Personal marijuana possession and home cultivation of marijuana has been legal in Virginia since 2021, but then-Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) twice vetoed bills to provide consumers with a way to legally purchase regulated adult-use cannabis. Krizek and Sen. Lashrecse Aird (D), the sponsors of the legalization bills, had urged colleagues to vote against the governor’s amendments last month—even if that meant risking a veto from Spanberger when the legislation returned to her desk, which has now occurred. Lawmakers will now have to start the push for reform over again with new bills in the 2027 session. Here are the other key details of the cannabis bills—SB 542 and HB 642—as approved by lawmakers and with the governor’s suggested amendments: Lawmakers voted to allow adults to be able to purchase up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana in a single transaction, or up to an equivalent amount of other cannabis products as determined by regulators. That would represent an increase from the limit in current law of 1 ounce. The governor, however, wanted the amount increased to only 2 ounces. Under the legislature’s plan, legal sales could begin on January 1, 2027, but the governor proposed to push that back to July 1, 2027. Lawmakers voted to impose an excise tax of 6 percent on cannabis sales as well as a 5.3 percent retail sales and use tax, while allowing municipalities to set an additional local tax of up to 3.5 percent. The governor’s plan was largely the same, though it would have increased the excise tax to 8 percent starting on July 1, 2029. Under the legislation as approved by lawmakers, revenue would have been distributed to the Cannabis Equity Reinvestment Fund (30 percent), early childhood education (40 percent), the Department of Behavioral & Developmental Health Services (25 percent) and public health initiatives (5 percent). The governor, however, wanted to put all revenue into the general fund while earmarking it “for purposes such as early childhood education, behavioral health, public health awareness, prevention, treatment, and recovery services, workforce development, reentry, indigent criminal defense, and targeted reinvestment in historically disadvantaged communities.” The Virginia Cannabis Control Authority would have overseen licensing and regulation of the new industry, and would have also taken on oversight of hemp, which is currently under the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Local governments could not have opted out of allowing marijuana businesses to operate in their area. Delivery services would have been allowed. Serving sizes would have been capped at 10 milligrams THC, with no more than 100 mg THC per package. The governor proposed to make public marijuana use a class 4 criminal misdemeanor instead of civil violation punishable by a $25 fine as under current law. She also wanted to make possessing cannabis by people under the age of 21 a class 1 misdemeanor, punishable with a mandatory minimum fine of $500 or 50 hours of community service, as well as the suspension of drivers licenses for at least six months. Illegally selling or distributing 50 pounds or more of marijuana would have been a class 2 felony punishable by life in prison. The governor sought to eliminate support for the Cannabis Equity Reinvestment Fund. Existing medical cannabis operators could have entered the adult-use market if they pay a licensing conversion fee that was set at $10 million. Cannabis businesses would have had to establish labor peace agreements with workers. As passed by lawmakers, the bill would have directed a legislative commission to study adding on-site consumption licenses and microbusiness cannabis event permits that would allow licensees to conduct sales at venues like farmers markets or pop-up locations, but the governor proposed to remove that language. A coalition of cannabis reform organizations sent the governor a letter this month urging her not to veto the sales legalization legislation even though her amendments were rejected. “Together, these bills address the real issues surrounding cannabis in the Commonwealth today: an already-existing, unregulated marijuana market operating openly across the state while consumers, communities, and law enforcement are left without the protections of a legal framework,” the groups wrote. “Let’s be clear: these bills do not create a marijuana market in Virginia. That market already exists,” the letter said. “What these bills do is replace today’s predatory and unaccountable illicit operators with a regulated marketplace, enforceable rules, oversight, product safeguards, age verification, and the strict consumer safety standards already in use for Virginia medical cannabis.” The letter was signed by Virginia NORML, Marijuana Justice, Virginia Cannabis Association, Marijuana Policy Project and other groups. Separately, a coalition of hemp businesses that joined with a major alcohol retailer in asking Spanberger to veto the marijuana bill before she did so said the move presents an “opportunity” to craft better cannabis policy. Meanwhile, the governor signed several other reform bills last month—including measures to protect the parental rights of marijuana consumers and allow patients to access medical cannabis in hospitals. Read the full Virginia marijuana poll below: The post Virginia Governor’s Marijuana Veto Is Very Unpopular With Voters, New Poll Shows appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

PA GOP lieutenant governor candidate: Legal marijuana “catastrophic”; DOJ psilocybin rescheduling letter; Tariffs’ impacts on cannabis biz 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 Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) spoke about why she vetoed legislation to legalize recreational marijuana sales—saying she supports the overall reform but had concerns about a “rushed timeline” and “aggressively” too many dispensaries across the state. Pennsylvania Republican lieutenant governor nominee Jason Richey said legalizing marijuana would be “catastrophic”—arguing it would increase the size of the illegal market, undermine job creation and harm public health. “Employers don’t want to come to the state because they don’t want a workforce on drugs. DUI, or impaired driving up, mental health up, ER visits up. I mean, who wants that?” An attorney for a doctor who filed a seemingly stalled petition to reschedule psilocybin sent a letter saying the Department of Justice should “promptly move forward” with the reform in light of President Donald Trump’s psychedelics executive order. Justin Leiby, who conducts an annual survey of businesses for the Illinois Cannabis Regulation Oversight Office, argues in a new Marijuana Moment op-ed that the cost increase from tariffs “erases most of the benefit from 280E penalty relief”—with the impact hitting hardest on certain sectors of the industry. / FEDERAL The Drug Enforcement Administration took enforcement action against unlicensed marijuana dispensaries in New York. National Institute on Drug Abuse Director Nora Volkow discussed the therapeutic potential of psychedelics and her visit to an ibogaine clinic. The National Transportation Safety Board published a report on drug use trends in aviation that shows an increase in positive marijuana tests. The Congressional Research Service included an analysis of hemp laws in a report about the Farm Bill. The House bill to repeal a law requiring the White House drug czar to oppose marijuana legalization got one new cosponsor for a total of two. / STATES Maryland Gov. Wes Moore (D) discussed his mass marijuana pardons in a speech at a Center for American Progress conference. Illinois lawmakers filed legislation to revise various cannabis rules. A Virginia criticized Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s (D) veto of legislation to legalize recreational marijuana sales. A Montana representative was charged with aggravated driving under the influence, with a police officer saying he “instantly smelled fresh and burnt marijuana” upon opening the door of her car. The Indiana Supreme Court suspended a judge without pay for 60 days after finding he “committed judicial misconduct by ingesting marijuana over a four-month period, causing his impairment at a county council meeting and his otherwise erratic and agitated demeanor.” Washington State regulators are taking steps to implement legislation allowing cannabis producer businesses to form cooperatives and agricultural associations. Minnesota regulators suspended testing operations at a cannabis lab for allegedly failing to address “security and testing requirements.” Delaware’s top cannabis regulator discussed pending legislation to limit THC drink sales to liquor and marijuana stores and microbreweries. New Jersey regulators published a post on oversight of hemp THC products. Missouri regulators posted a new episode of their marijuana podcast. Oregon regulators are accepting applications to serve on a psilocybin services Rules Advisory Committee. / LOCAL Boston, Massachusetts officials will celebrate Cannabis Empowerment Week from June 15 to 21. / SCIENCE & HEALTH A study found that “a quarter of the patients with arthritis already used cannabis, and many patients regarded cannabis as an effective pain treatment option.” A review concluded that “psilocybin-assisted therapy appears to be a promising investigational approach for depressive disorders, with rapid onset and possible medium-term benefit in some patients.” / ADVOCACY, OPINION & ANALYSIS The Virginian-Pilot editorial board said Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s (D) veto of a marijuana sales legalization bill is “astounding.” / BUSINESS Jushi is pausing a planned expansion of operations in Virginia in light of Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s (D) veto of legislation to legalize recreational marijuana sales. New Mexico retailers have sold more than $2.2 billion worth of legal marijuana products since recreational sales launched in 2022. / CULTURE Wiz Khalifa has been put on Romanian police’s wanted list stemming from a conviction related to his allegedly smoking marijuana on stage during a concert in the country. Make sure to subscribe to get Marijuana Moment’s daily dispatch in your inbox. Get our daily newsletter. Email address: Leave this field empty if you're human: Photo courtesy of Mike Latimer. The post Virginia governor explains cannabis bill veto (Newsletter: May 22, 2026) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

The most exceptional personal pleasure comes from the impressive Escorts in Alaknanda and their alluring services. Rest assured about your safety and confidentiality.

“Rescheduling removes a major structural penalty, but tariffs will reshape who captures the gains. All else equal, dispensary-heavy companies may emerge as the primary beneficiaries.” By Justin Leiby, Cannabis Research Institute With federal cannabis rescheduling partially underway and the potential end of the 280E tax penalty approaching, how much relief the cannabis industry will experience is an open question. No matter what the future holds, 280E is a significant financial drag on cannabis operators. I run an annual survey of cannabis operators for the Illinois Cannabis Regulation Oversight Office, and in the most recent survey operators estimate that 44 percent of their 2024 operating expenses were nondeductible under 280E, which only applies to Schedule I and Schedule II drugs. Assuming a 21 percent corporate tax rate, this translates into a $92 penalty for every $1,000 spent. Beyond the (hopefully) temporary importance of distinguishing medical versus adult-use operations under the Trump administration’s current process of moving cannabis to Schedule III, the pain of the 280E penalty has not been evenly distributed—and those who suffered the most may reap greater benefits. Smaller operators report more 280E disallowances than larger companies (45 percent vs. 37 percent of operating expenses), as do companies that rely entirely on dispensary operations versus those that don’t (50 percent vs. 43 percent). Comparing The Impacts Of 280E And Tariffs To put the financial impact of rescheduling in context, one should consider that some of the benefits may never hit operators’ bottom lines thanks to the impact of tariffs imposed over the past year. I combine survey responses from Illinois with public financial filings to better understand the relative impacts. Like all businesses, cannabis operators have two types of operating costs: the direct costs of acquiring and producing their products like raw materials (“costs of goods sold”) and the indirect costs of operating the business like rent and insurance (“selling, general, and administrative expenses” or “SG&A”). Tariffs primarily impact the former, larger chunk, while 280E primarily impacts the latter. Together, these costs consume 84 cents of every dollar of revenue that cannabis operators generate, while paying creditors and non-280E taxes consumes another six cents. I estimate a 280E penalty of three cents per dollar by multiplying a 44 percent average disallowance, the 35 percent SG&A percentage, and the 21 percent U.S. corporate tax rate. Given the small profit margins in cannabis, the financial benefit of eliminating the 280E penalty is undeniable. However, this will be partially or completely offset by tariffs increasing input costs like packaging, vape hardware and construction materials. One in six operators reports input cost increases of 20 percent or more and over half report increases of 5 percent or more. In my example, even a modest 5 percent increase erases most of the benefit from 280E penalty relief and an 18 percent increase erases all profits altogether. Variable and Delayed Benefits Much like 280E, the tariff burden falls heavier on some operators than others—in this case, on cultivation and infusion operations that rely on imported packaging products, buildouts and high-tech hardware. One in six cultivation and infusion companies (17 percent) report input cost spikes exceeding 20 percent, while no dispensary-only company reported this impact. Because dispensary-only operators face larger tax distortions from 280E and report smaller impacts from tariffs, they may benefit the most from ending the 280E penalty. Rescheduling Changes The Competitive Landscape Rescheduling removes a major structural penalty, but tariffs will reshape who captures the gains. All else equal, dispensary-heavy companies may emerge as the primary beneficiaries. That said, observations like this should start the discussion rather than settle it. Some benefits of rescheduling won’t materialize immediately, because operators have made long-term strategic choices based on 280E tax constraints and cannot unwind these choices instantly. For instance, in the Illinois survey over half of operators report that 280E led them to cut discretionary investments in product development, research and sustainable technologies required for a market to mature. Similar percentages report moving to leaner staffing models, which can impact everything from safety protocols to customer experience, and modifying facility layouts due to tax considerations, e.g., limiting retail sales space that is harder to deduct. “Who wins” depends on how well operators can adapt to the new landscape. Justin Leiby, PhD, is a professor of accountancy in the Gies College of Business at the University of Illinois and a faculty in residence at the Cannabis Research Institute. His research and teaching focuses on auditing, governance and risk management, and includes extensive collection and analysis of operational and financial data in the cannabis industry. The post Tariffs’ Impact On Some Cannabis Businesses May Erase Any Benefits They See From 280E Tax Relief Under Rescheduling (Op-Ed) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is being put on notice—again—over prolonged delays in processing a petition to reschedule psilocybin from a doctor who wants to use it to treat terminally ill patients, with an updated reminder that President Donald Trump has now made clear his administration’s intent to streamline psychedelic medicine access. In a letter sent to an appellate staffer with the Justice Department’s civil division on Wednesday, an attorney representing Sunil Aggarwal of the AIMS Institute laid out the years-long timeline since a petition was first filed with DEA in 2022 requesting that psilocybin be moved from Schedule I to Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Aggarwal and AIMS have been working since at least 2020 to find a way to legally obtain psilocybin for patients in palliative care, initially seeking to win permission from regulators under state and federal right-to-try (RTT) laws. However, after a dizzying back-and-forth that involved an initial DEA denial of the rescheduling petition, appeals, court hearings and DOJ’s forwarding of the rescheduling petition to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in August 2025, the agency went silent. “We have had no information about the status of the petition since that time, despite a series of inquiries,” attorney Shane Pennington of the law firm Blank Rome LLP wrote in the letter to Daniel Aguilar of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Division on Wednesday. He added that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under HHS has already extensively reviewed relevant scientific data into psilocybin that should, in theory, expedite a resolution in Aggarwal’s petition case. The FDA review ultimately resulted in the agency twice granting breakthrough therapy status to the investigational psychedelic drug, so “it is clear that thorough and careful scrutiny has already occurred,” Pennington said. That makes DOJ’s explanation about the continued petition review delays all the more “perplexing.” “FDA necessarily examined the vast majority of the relevant evidence, data, and scientific literature before it granted multiple Breakthrough designations to psilocybin,” he said. “Any additional data and evidence since that time is consistent with all the prior data and evidence and has been in hands of HHS and FDA since the transmittal from DEA in August of 2025.” What has changed since that time, however, is the fact that the president signed an executive order last month “directing that rescheduling of psychedelic substances be streamlined,” while recognizing that psychedelic substances such as psilocybin “show potential in clinical studies to address serious mental illnesses for patients.” The letter continues to quote from Trump’s order: “Indeed, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted Breakthrough Therapy designation to specific psychedelic drugs, and there are numerous products currently in the clinical trial pipeline for review of safety and efficacy. It is the policy of my Administration to accelerate innovative research models and appropriate drug approvals to increase access to psychedelic drugs that could save lives and reverse the crisis of serious mental illness in America.” “The EO explicitly addresses ‘timely rescheduling,’ and while that section of the EO refers to substances which have completed Phase 3 clinical trials, the intent of the President is clear: investigational drugs with proven value in clinical trials, and which have been granted Breakthrough status, ought be fast tracked for agency action to begin to open access to those in need,” Pennington said. The attorney also noted that FDA “recently granted national priority review vouchers to two companies studying psilocybin to accelerate their path through the drug-approval process,” and so it stands to reason that the agency’s “commitment to its view of the science and data on psilocybin has only strengthened since DEA referred the petition to HHS in August of last year.” “In light of these developments, it is unclear what further analysis could possibly be necessary to make a recommendation on Dr. Aggarwal’s rescheduling petition,” the letter concludes. “Please review this history, and urge your client to promptly move forward.” To Pennington’s point about the administration’s position on psychedelics, HHS Sec. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. said at last month’s executive order signing event that under the president’s order, his department “will accelerate research, approval and access to new mental health treatments, including psychedelic therapies.” “We’re taking this decision, this decisive step, to confront one of the most urgent public health challenges facing our nation, the mental health crisis,” he said. “This executive order will remove legal impediments that block American researchers, scientists, physicians and clinicians from properly studying these medicines and, where appropriate, establishing protocols for their safe therapeutic use.” Kennedy also said recently that the Trump administration is “very anxious” to create a pathway for access to psychedelics therapy and that top officials across federal agencies want to “get it out to the public as quickly as possible.” Read the attorney’s psilocybin rescheduling letter to DOJ below: The post DEA Should ‘Promptly Move Forward’ With Psilocybin Rescheduling In Light Of Trump’s Psychedelics Order, Attorney For Doctor Behind Petition Says appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net