All Activity

“Trump himself has never called for relaxing federal controls on adult-use marijuana.” By Robert A. Mikos, Vanderbilt University Law School Last month, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) wrapped up hearings on a long-delayed Biden Administration proposal to reschedule all marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The agency’s proposed rule would move the drug from Schedule I, the most tightly controlled, to Schedule III, alongside drugs like ketamine. The proposal now under review by an administrative law judge is much broader than the rescheduling action then-Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche took earlier this spring. In April, Blanche issued an order immediately moving all state-licensed medical marijuana to Schedule III. (He claimed the CSA’s treaty exception clause empowered him to bypass the statute’s cumbersome rulemaking standards and procedures which the DEA is now following.) But unlike the rescheduling rule DEA is currently considering, Blanche’s rescheduling order applied only to medical marijuana. It left all non-medical marijuana, including state-licensed recreational (i.e., adult-use) marijuana, on Schedule I. Adult-use marijuana is ascendant in the 24 states that have legalized both medical and recreational marijuana. In Colorado, for example, adult-use marijuana accounted for nearly 90 percent of the state’s $1.3 billion marijuana market in 2025, up from 66 percent a decade earlier. Hence, the lion’s share of the state-licensed marijuana industry and its customers will reap no benefit from rescheduling unless and until the DEA finalizes the Biden rule. But there are several reasons to suspect that the Trump administration DEA will not follow through with that broader rule. First, Trump himself has never called for relaxing federal controls on adult-use marijuana. While he did press the attorney general to reschedule medical marijuana back in December 2025, likely prompting Blanche’s April order, the president has issued no similar exhortation to reschedule adult-use marijuana. Furthermore, many senior Republican leaders oppose rescheduling any marijuana. DEA thus faces no pressure from the president or his allies to go beyond what the attorney general has already done. Second, if the Trump administration really wanted to reschedule adult-use marijuana, it could have done so already. Blanche gave no plausible legal reason for limiting his April rescheduling order to medical marijuana. He claimed his hands were tied because, in his view, international drug control treaties require the United States to prohibit the non-medical use of marijuana. But this excuse is specious, because producing, distributing and possessing controlled substances for non-medical purposes is prohibited irrespective of where they are scheduled. Rescheduling would confer some limited benefits on suppliers and consumers of adult-use marijuana, but it would not legalize any non-medical use of the drug. For example, ketamine is on Schedule III, but as the tragic Matthew Perry case illustrates, distributing that drug for non-medical purposes remains a serious federal crime. In similar fashion, the production, distribution and possession of marijuana outside of legitimate medical channels would have remained criminal under the CSA even if Blanche had moved all marijuana onto Schedule III in his order. Indeed, just two years ago, the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), “the attorney general’s lawyer,” concluded that the United States could reschedule all marijuana, not just medical, without violating any of our obligations under drug control treaties. While Blanche cited the OLC opinion favorably in his April order, he gave no reason for rejecting OLC’s conclusion that rescheduling adult-use marijuana would also be lawful. Blanche’s failure to explain the limitation he imposed suggests that he (or Trump) did not want to reschedule adult-use marijuana in the first instance. Blanche’s supposed deference to drug control treaties appears all the more disingenuous, given Trump’s generally dismissive attitude toward international law. Third, if international law really does bar the attorney general from rescheduling adult-use marijuana, then it would bar DEA from doing so as well. In the past, DEA has insisted it could not move marijuana (even medical) below Schedule II or possibly even Schedule I, because doing so would violate the same treaty obligations Blanche invoked in his recent order. Although OLC tried to put this excuse to rest in 2024, Blanche has seemingly revived it, at least as applied to adult-use marijuana. In so doing, he likely signed the death warrant for DEA’s current proposal to broaden the scope of his narrow rescheduling order. In short, DEA’s proposal to reschedule all marijuana may never become law under the current administration. The Trump administration has shown little support for adult-use marijuana in the past, and Trump’s new attorney general–who has final say over all DEA decisions—has told the agency, in effect, that it may go no further than what he has already done: reschedule only medical marijuana. Even though the DEA went through the motion of holding hearings on its proposal—and appears to have defended rescheduling against some other attacks—there is no guarantee the agency or its boss (Blanche) will ever adopt the Biden-era proposal. Robert A. Mikos is the LaRoche Family Chair in Law at Vanderbilt University Law School and is the author of the casebook Marijuana Law, Policy and Authority. The post Why DEA’s Marijuana Rescheduling Proposal May Be DOA Under The Trump Administration (Op-Ed) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“They reported decreases in depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms; improved life satisfaction; and improved mental wellbeing.” By Jack Gorsline, Psychedelic State(s) of America Oregon’s state-regulated psilocybin program has maintained a strong safety record while delivering measurable mental health improvements. But an impending financial crisis threatens to dismantle the nation’s first legal psilocybin market. A longitudinal cohort study published on Wednesday in JAMA Network Open found that supervised psilocybin sessions at licensed community wellness centers are safe and clinically effective. Yet these findings arrive as state regulators consider steep fee increases that industry insiders warn could shutter the entire system. The Open Psychedelic Evaluation Nexus (OPEN) cohort study received federal funding from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). Led by Dr. Todd Korthuis of Oregon Health & Science University, the research provides the first rigorous real-world evaluation of Oregon’s psilocybin framework. Between November 2024 and March 2026, researchers tracked 346 clients across 24 of the state’s 26 active licensed service centers, representing 92 percent of active facilities statewide. The study retained 90.2 percent of participants at the three-month mark, giving researchers representative data from operational facilities rather than a sterilized clinical trial. “In this cohort study, people receiving state-regulated psilocybin services in Oregon experienced few safety events, high satisfaction with services, and overall improvements in mental health, wellbeing, and life satisfaction in the 3 months following a psilocybin experience,” the study authors wrote. At the three-month follow-up, participants reported sharp declines in moderate-to-severe psychiatric symptoms. Depression rates dropped from 42.2 percent at baseline to 16.5 percent. Anxiety prevalence fell from 45.1 percent to 13.2 percent and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms decreased from 48 percent to 16.8 percent. The data also documented distinct socioeconomic barriers to access. The clientele accessing Oregon’s centers is largely affluent, white, and formally educated: 86.7 percent identified as white, 76.6 percent held at least a bachelor’s degree (including 41.2 percent with a master’s or doctorate), and 29 percent reported household incomes exceeding $200,000. Among the 346 participants, 97.5 percent praised the quality of care, and 81 percent considered the session worth the financial investment, though 32.1 percent noted that the cost was a financial strain. If regulators double licensing fees, operators will likely pass those costs along to clients, further restricting access to the wealthiest participants. The study also recorded a critical safety benchmark: zero participants reported unwanted physical touch or sexual contact from facilitators, showing that state-mandated training and codes of conduct have effectively safeguarded client boundaries. Many participants entered service centers for spiritual development, recreation or personal growth rather than a formal psychiatric diagnosis. “While many participants did not seek services specifically to address mental health, they reported decreases in depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms; improved life satisfaction; and improved mental wellbeing that met the threshold for statistical significance,” the researchers wrote. Serious adverse events were rare, but the data revealed a distinct risk profile. Only four participants, or 1.2 percent of the cohort, experienced serious behavioral reactions that required emergency department care or hospital medical attention. All four shared the same characteristics: they were psychedelic-naive, had pre-existing vulnerabilities including high baseline PTSD or depression and received moderate to high doses between 25 and 50 milligrams. Demonstrating the complexity of defining harm in psychedelic facilitation, three of those four participants still rated their session as highly meaningful, and two said their personal goals were met. The study also exposed a major regulatory reporting gap. Facilitators reported only one of those four serious reactions to the state during the session. For two of the severe cases, facilitators recorded zero adverse reactions on the session day. Because Oregon mandates reporting only for safety incidents occurring within three days of a session, researchers cautioned that current state rules obscure adverse events like persistent anxiety or severe insomnia that emerge in subsequent weeks. Despite these clinical outcomes, the program faces severe budgetary strain. Confronting funding shortfalls, the Oregon Health Authority proposed changes on June 26 that would double licensing fees for service centers, facilitators, and manufacturers. The agency also plans to merge the Oregon Psilocybin Services section into the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program by September 1 to reduce overhead costs. Industry advocates argue that the fee hikes will decimate the market rather than fix agency deficits. Sam Chapman, founder and executive director of the Center for Psychedelic Policy, said the state’s plan will drive license holders away. “The opposite is true,” Chapman argued in an exclusive interview with Psychedelic State(s) of America, asserting that Oregon’s financial distress stems from treating psilocybin facilitation like commercial cannabis rather than a specialized service. “The fee-based licensure model is simply not sustainable,” Chapman explained. “A primary downside of being first is that we lacked a custom playbook, so regulators leaned on cannabis structures. But those frameworks rely on selling physical retail products, which fundamentally differs from psilocybin’s model. The product here is the service itself, making the current infrastructure inappropriate.” For independent facilitators on the ground, the impact of this flawed regulatory structure goes beyond policy: it directly threatens client access and affordability. “This is just going to trickle downhill to the clients who are seeking these services,” said Amy Charlesworth, a military veteran and independent licensed psilocybin facilitator in Oregon, in an interview with Psychedelic State(s) of America. “You’re probably looking at the new average being around $2,000 to $3,000 for a single psilocybin session, which is completely unrealistic and not economical. This is probably going to drive a lot more closures and drive underground operations to be what people lean on to get accessible services for psilocybin therapies.” Beyond the looming regulatory fee increases and existing socioeconomic barriers, the OHA is embroiled in an ongoing civil lawsuit over physical access to care. Facilitators sued the state in 2024, alleging that the requirement to administer psilocybin exclusively at licensed centers violates the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by excluding homebound and terminally ill patients. Addressing industry claims that the litigation is exacerbating the program’s financial deficits, plaintiffs’ attorney Kathryn Tucker argued that the OHA brought these expenses upon itself. “[T]he State is obliged to follow federal disability rights law, the ADA. It could have avoided this suit, and served its citizens, by complying,” Tucker stated. “Instead, it dug its heels in and made the cost of defense as great as possible, first by filing repeated motions to dismiss, seeking to avoid the merits of what its obligations are under the ADA. These efforts were rejected by the court.” With the case now at the merits stage and awaiting oral arguments, Tucker emphasized that a plaintiff victory would ultimately help, rather than hinder, the state’s pioneering system. “[I]f successful our case will greatly expand the market for psilocybin services, benefitting manufacturers and facilitators economically, aiding the financial viability of the program,” she noted. “Most importantly, suffering homebound disabled and dying folk will be able to access care and possibly resolve debilitating anxiety and depression.” With public rulemaking hearings beginning this September, licensed operators and advocates have a narrow window to secure legislative funding fixes before the scheduled 2027 fee increases take full effect. This article was produced by Psychedelic State(s) of America—a nonprofit-sponsored news organization dedicated to rigorous independent psychedelic journalism. Subscribe to PSA online and Follow PSA on Instagram, LinkedIn, Twitter/X and Facebook. Learn more about PSA and donate to the PSA Media Fund here. Photo courtesy of Mark Groeneveld. The post Oregon’s Psilocybin Program Helps People Improve Mental Health, Federally Funded Study Published By American Medical Association Shows appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Full-spectrum cannabis oil is associated with “favorable perceived quality of life and sleep satisfaction,” according to a new study of medical marijuana patients. Higher concentrations and longer treatments also seemed to produce “higher odds of better outcomes.” Researchers at State University of Montes Claros conducted a cross-sectional observational survey involving 71 medical patients enrolled in Brazil’s medical marijuana program. Respondents included people who use marijuana for psychological conditions (37 percent), neurological disorders (21 percent) and chronic musculoskeletal pain (11 percent) that can contribute to sleep issues. The study, published in the journal Frontiers in Pharmacology, found that the use of cannabis oil with a 3:1 THC-to-CBD ratio was linked to “positive correlations” between the “psychological domains of quality of life and sleep satisfaction.” About half of patients reported using marijuana-derived preparations with concentrations of 6 percent, followed by 9 percent (20 percent of patients) and 3 percent (14 percent of patients). The participants were monitored by medical professionals throughout the treatment, with laboratory reviews and assessments of “medication concentration adequacy,” for example. Notably, the researchers determined that higher cannabis oil concentrations and longer treatment durations were associated with “higher odds of better outcomes.” “In a real-world clinical context, supervised use of full-spectrum medical Cannabis oil was associated with favorable patient-reported perceptions of quality of life and sleep, consistent with perceived effectiveness,” the study said. “These findings highlight the need for longitudinal studies with pre-treatment baseline assessment.” To analyze the impact of medical marijuana, patients completed a version of the World Health Organization Quality of Life questionnaire that asked about “physical, psychological, social relations and environment domains,” as well as an equivalent to the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index to determine “subjective and objective sleep components” over four weeks before the test was administered. “A key finding was the relationship between sleep and wellbeing as an integrating axis, evidenced by the positive correlation between psychological domains [of the life quality survey] and sleep satisfaction,” the study authors said. “Consistent with prior evidence, systematic reviews and scoping reviews on cannabinoids and sleep indicate that subjective improvements are frequent but inconsistent, varying substantially according to population, metabolite, dose, ratio of cannabinoids, and route of administration.” The study findings are “consistent with the hypothesis that cannabinoid interventions may influence wellbeing through direct and indirect pathways (sleep, relaxation, anxiety reduction, and symptom modulation), beyond the primary control of a target symptom,” they wrote. “In summary, the results suggest that, in supervised clinical practice, patients using full-spectrum THC and CBD rich oil reported favorable perceived quality of life and sleep satisfaction. However, given the cross-sectional design and the absence of pre-treatment assessment, these findings reflect self-reported perceptions rather than evidence of treatment efficacy, and causal interpretation is not warranted. Future longitudinal studies, with pre-treatment assessment, systematic follow-up, and more detailed product characterization, are needed to clarify mechanisms, responding subgroups, and the risk-benefit balance of prolonged use, especially in products with higher THC content.” The study reaffirms some of the best-studied health impacts of cannabis. That is, it has been shown to hels people sleep and feel physical and psychological symptom relief. For example, research published earlier this summer found that a cup of tea infused with marijuana before going to bed can lead to a better night’s sleep and an overall improved sense of happiness in life. “The results demonstrated a statistically significant increase in happiness levels between pre-experimental and post-experimental groups, indicating that cannabis-infused tea had a positive effect on participants’ well-being,” the study, published in the Journal of Health Science and Medical Research, found. A study of adults who drink cannabis-infused beverages that was published earlier this year, for example, found evidence of a “substitution effect,” with a significant majority of participants reporting reduced alcohol use after incorporating cannabinoid drinks into their routines. It also identified improvements in overall wellbeing and sleep, as well as reductions in pain, stress, depression and anxiety. A survey from the American Academy of Sleep Medicine found that about 2 in 3 Americans who use marijuana say it improves their sleep. Separate research involving more than 3,500 patients showed that using medical marijuana appears to help people reduce the use of medications, including sleeping aids. They also experience far fewer negative side effects after switching to cannabis from prescription drugs. A 2025 study on the use of medical marijuana by older patients—age 50 and above—concluded that “cannabis seemed to be a safe and effective treatment” for sleep disorders, pain and other conditions. About 16 percent of Americans aged 21 and older say they use cannabis as a sleep aid, according to a separate industry-backed survey from last year. That makes marijuana more popular for sleep than prescription sleep aids (12 percent) or alcohol (11 percent), but still not quite as common as using supplements (26 percent) or over-the-counter sleep aids (19 percent). A pair of 2024 studies found that both older medical marijuana patients as well as people with fibromyalgia reported that cannabis improved their sleep. A different study that year from the retirement group AARP found that marijuana use by older people in the U.S. has nearly doubled, with better sleep as among the most frequently cited reasons. Another industry-backed survey last year found that an oral CBD solution effectively treated mild to moderate anxiety, as well as associated depression and poor sleep quality, with no serious adverse events observed. A study published in 2024, meanwhile, found that using marijuana before sleep has minimal if any effect on a range of performance measures the next day, including simulated driving, cognitive and psychomotor function tasks, subjective effects and mood. In 2023, a federally funded study found that people with anxiety experienced better quality sleep on days when they used marijuana compared to days when they used alcohol or nothing at all. Separate studies in 2019, meanwhile, found that fewer people purchased over-the-counter (OTC) sleep medications when they had legal access to cannabis and that many adult-use consumers at the time said they used marijuana for the same reasons medical cannabis patients did: to help with pain and sleep. The post Medical Marijuana Improves Sleep Satisfaction And Boosts Quality Of Life, Study Shows appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

That i taken aback when using the exploration everyone intended to get this to selected present astounding. Terrific process! แทงบอล 0.5 คือ

A bipartisan coalition of members of Congress are pressing President Donald Trump and key members of his Cabinet for additional guidance on how the partial rescheduling of marijuana will affect cannabis businesses and consumers. Among other things, they want to know whether there are plans for Medicare to cover medical cannabis. The administration’s marijuana rescheduling move “marks a significant step in establishing a federal framework for certain state-licensed medical marijuana entities to register and comply” with the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), Reps. Dina Titus (D-NV), David Joyce (D-OH), Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Greg Steube (R-FL) wrote in the letter, sent on Tuesday. “We appreciate this development and the progress it reflects toward greater clarity in federal policy,” the lawmakers wrote to Trump, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Attorney General Todd Blanche. “As implementation moves forward, additional guidance would be helpful on several practical questions, including worker protections, patient rights, healthcare coverage, privacy safeguards, home cultivation, and the operation of the new DEA registration system.” Blanche in April issued an order that immediately reclassified state-licensed medical cannabis, as well as marijuana products approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III. Under a separate order the acting attorney general signed, a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) hearing is considering more comprehensively moving marijuana to Schedule III. As the rescheduling of certain marijuana products moves forward, it is vital that all affected stakeholders understand how the new federal policy will impact them. That is why I am urging the Administration to release additional guidance. pic.twitter.com/9hZtoNfE1P — Dina Titus (@repdinatitus) August 18, 2026 Titus, Joyce and Omar are three of the co-chairs of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus. Together with Steube, they are laying out several specific questions about the rescheduling move’s implications: How will the order affect patients currently participating in state medical marijuana programs? Is medical marijuana cultivated by a patient or their registered caregiver in accordance with state law currently considered a Schedule I or Schedule III substance? Does the DOJ anticipate coordination with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services regarding Medicare coverage or reimbursement considerations for Schedule III medical marijuana products? Please describe how, if at all, the framework addresses health insurance reimbursement or coverage for marijuana-based treatments for patients operating in compliance with state medical marijuana laws. How will the order apply to operators who participate in both medical and adult-use marijuana markets? For example, certain states have a single license that covers both medical and adult use and other states have a dual license that covers both activities. Specifically, will such entities remain eligible for federal tax treatment changes associated with Schedule III status, including relief from Internal Revenue Code Section 280E? How will DEA registration and compliance with Schedule III obligations be expected to affect federal enforcement posture with respect to businesses, healthcare providers, workers, and patients? How does the Department anticipate federal enforcement will be handled for businesses that do not register with the DEA, and for patients who obtain medical marijuana from state-licensed businesses that are not registered under the federal framework? What information will be required to obtain and maintain DEA registration, and how will the DEA use that information? What safeguards will be in place to prevent misuse of this information? The lawmakers are asking for answers to their questions by September 30. “We appreciate the establishment of a Schedule III framework for certain marijuana-related products under the Controlled Substances Act,” they wrote. “As implementation proceeds, we look forward to continued engagement and await your timely guidance to ensure clarity and consistency across all affected stakeholders.” In April, DEA launched a system for medical cannabis businesses to register for federal protections in line with Schedule III status. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services earlier this year launched an initiative to cover up to $500 worth of hemp-derived products each year for eligible Medicare patients. The program focuses largely on CBD but also allows products to have up to 3 milligrams of total THC per serving. A federal judge granted the government’s motion to dismiss marijuana legalization opponents’ lawsuit challenging the initiative, but that is being appealed. The post Bipartisan Lawmakers Press Trump For Marijuana Rescheduling Guidance—Including Whether Medicare Will Cover Medical Cannabis appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

DOJ rule eases marijuana user gun rights restoration; MA legalization rollback poll; Alcohol industry op-ed on hemp drinks 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 Marijuana Moment obtained all final briefs filed by parties in the Drug Enforcement Administration’s cannabis rescheduling hearing—with DEA pointing out that the opposition’s own witnesses “supported the therapeutic use of marijuana in certain instances” and anti-reform groups expressing concerns about process, public health and safety. “The vast majority of individuals who use marijuana do so in a manner that does not result in dangers to themselves or to their communities.” The Department of Justice adopted a new rule to help people restore their gun rights that contains provisions that will block officials from denying applications over the use of marijuana or any cannabis convictions. A poll of Massachusetts likely Democratic primary voters shows that they overwhelmingly oppose a measure to roll back the state’s marijuana legalization law on the November ballot, 79 percent to 16 percent. Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America’s Dawson Hobbs argues in a new Marijuana Moment op-ed that the cannabis industry should support a new bill in Congress to regulate hemp THC drinks instead of ban them. “Pushing an existing market back into the shadows would not eliminate demand, improve product safety or resolve the contradictions in federal cannabis law… It gives opponents of cannabis reform an easier argument: that intoxicating cannabinoid products cannot be responsibly integrated into the economy outside prohibition.” A federal judge dissolved an order that blocked the Rhode Island Cannabis Control Commission from awarding marijuana business licenses now that changes to state law have mooted litigation challenging the process. The administrator of South Dakota’s medical cannabis program told lawmakers that the number of patients who are registered to legally grow their own marijuana at home has increased by more than 1,000 percent over the past four years. / FEDERAL President Donald Trump announced that the University of Miami gave the federal government its 1994 ibogaine Investigational New Drug application, which he described as a “Historic Gift” that will “give everyone direct access to the foundational FDA authorization to accelerate its development as a medical treatment in the U.S.” The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Division of Laboratory Sciences cited its work on metals in hemp cigarettes and cannabis exposures in children in an annual report. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration tweeted, “There are no federal standards for the content, purity, or potency of most CBD products. Some may contain ingredients not listed on the label, including synthetic compounds, pesticides, or other impurities.” Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) tweeted, “Intoxicating hemp products — often called ‘gas station weed’ — are widely available and accessible to children. These dangerous products should NEVER be sold to children. I’m leading the fight in Congress to put an end to the sale of these products. This is a serious public health and safety issue, and Congress must act.” The House bill to protect people from being evicted from public housing over marijuana use got one new cosponsor for a total of two. / STATES Illinois regulators filed proposed rules on outdoor cannabis cultivation. Oklahoma medical cannabis regulators issued a response to an audit of their operations. Massachusetts marijuana regulators are seeking $7.9 million in additional funding. Washington, D.C. regulators launched a new streamlined medical cannabis patient and caregiver registration portal. Ohio officials are encouraging families to have conversations with students about informed cannabis decisions, responsible alcohol use and smart financial habits as the school year begins. California regulators sent updates on various cannabis issues. Maryland regulators will host a webinar about the cannabis regulatory process on August 25. New York regulators will host a webinar about cannabis education for community based organizations on August 27. — 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 Nepal Prime Minister Balendra Shah received a briefing about Gandaki Province’s move to allow cannabis cultivation from its chief minister. / SCIENCE & HEALTH A review concluded that “CBD may offer therapeutic benefits in a range of conditions, including Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, anxiety disorders, and epilepsy” and that “emerging data also support its potential use as an adjunctive therapy for COVID-19.” A review concluded that “psychedelics offer a potential in treating core symptoms of” neurodevelopmental disorders and that “preclinical and clinical evidence is still limited but highly promising.” / ADVOCACY, OPINION & ANALYSIS The Boston Globe editorial board cautioned municipalities to carefully heed restrictions on how they can apply community impact fees on marijuana businesses. / BUSINESS Curaleaf Holdings, Inc. formally launched its bid to purchase all of the issued and outstanding common shares of Aurora Cannabis Inc. Cresco Labs is being sued by Palomar Excess & Surplus Insurance Co., which is seeking a court declaration that it need not provide coverage to defend the company against two proposed class action lawsuits alleging misleading marketing of cannabis products. Trulieve Cannabis Corp. rang the closing bell at the New York Stock Exchange. 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 Final briefs filed in cannabis rescheduling hearing (Newsletter: August 19, 2026) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

No doubt this is an excellent post I got a lot of knowledge after reading good luck. Theme of blog is excellent there is almost everything to read, Brilliant post. bandar slot

I have read your article, it is very informative and helpful for me.I admire the valuable information you offer in your articles. Thanks for posting it.. togel online

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

“Defendants are free to implement the law as they see fit, including accepting applications, holding a lottery, and issuing adult-use recreational and social equity cannabis licenses.” By Christopher Shea, Rhode Island Current A federal court order that blocked Rhode Island regulators from awarding cannabis retail licenses is now lifted, clearing the way for a new application process already underway. U.S. District Court Judge Melissa DuBose on Friday dissolved the preliminary injunction she issued against the Rhode Island Cannabis Control Commission on April 8 now that the state’s 2022 Cannabis Act Act no longer requires all retail license holders to be majority-owned by Rhode Island residents. “Defendants are free to implement the law as they see fit, including accepting applications, holding a lottery, and issuing adult-use recreational and social equity cannabis licenses,” DuBose, a Biden appointee, wrote. DuBose indicated in a July 22 order she would grant the state’s motion to dissolve the April ruling once the three lawsuits challenging Rhode Island’s residency requirements were kicked down from Boston’s appellate court, which happened August 11. Under the new law signed by Gov. Dan McKee (D) on June 10, applicants are defined as a person or a business who has “made an application for issuance of a license or certificate to own or engage in a cannabis business.” The amended Cannabis Act voided the original application process, and the Cannabis Control Commission opened a new one on August 7. Online submissions for the state’s three license types will be accepted through Monday, November 23. “The General Assembly’s passage of SB 3313 removed provisions deemed likely to violate the Constitution and because of that, the controversy at issue in the preliminary injunction is no longer immediate or real,” DuBose wrote. The legal challenges began in May 2024, when California cannabis entrepreneur Justyna Jensen sued the Cannabis Control Commission in U.S. District Court in Providence, arguing Rhode Island’s residency requirement for licenses under the original Cannabis Act violated interstate commerce protection. That same month, Florida resident John Kenney filed a second federal lawsuit against the commission objecting to the residency requirement. A California resident filed a third lawsuit on similar grounds on November 24, 2025. DuBose initially dismissed the complaints in February 2025 since two were filed before the commission enacted the state’s inaugural cannabis regulations in May 2025. But the cases were revived in December by Boston’s federal appeals court, which demanded DuBose rule based on the merits of the cases. Her April ruling barred the Cannabis Control Commission from holding a lottery to award licenses and reviewing the 97 license applications submitted for 20 new retail cannabis licenses. Because of the state’s recent changes, regulators filed a motion in late June to dissolve DuBose’s preliminary injunction arguing the complaints against the residency requirement were moot. Kenney and his attorneys supported the state’s request. Jensen and her legal team opposed it, claiming the new law still disadvantaged out-of-state applicants because they would have to secure property in Rhode Island on a short timeline in order to qualify for a retail license. DuBose was unpersuaded by Jensen’s argument. “She has had years, not months, to scour the Rhode Island market in search of a suitable property,” DuBose wrote in Friday’s ruling. “She has also had at least four months to search for property since this court entered its injunction.” Jeffrey Jensen, Justyna’s husband and attorney, did not immediately respond to request for comment Monday. Charon Rose, spokesperson for the Cannabis Control Commission, said the agency welcomed DuBose’s decision to dissolve the injunction but declined to comment further amid the ongoing litigation. No applications for adult-use retail licenses have been submitted as of Monday afternoon, Rose confirmed in an email. The commission has received 32 interest forms from prospective social equity applicants, with 13 applying for initial screening for the license type reserved for people adversely affected by the war on drugs. Social equity businesses must be majority owned by one or more people who can show they were disproportionately impacted by criminal enforcement of past prohibitions, including being arrested or having a family member who was. The certification process will remain open through September 11. This story was first published by Rhode Island Current. The post Federal Judge Lifts Block On Rhode Island Marijuana Business Licensing Process appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“Opposing a workable regulatory structure because it is not comprehensive cannabis reform risks repeating the very piecemeal approach the cannabis sector has spent years criticizing.” By Dawson Hobbs, Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America The cannabis industry has spent years asking Congress for something more durable than prohibition, enforcement discretion and state-by-state improvisation. That is why cannabis stakeholders should seriously consider the Beverage Regulatory Parity Act even if they have been skeptical of hemp-derived THC products or worry that new federal rules could further complicate marijuana’s uneven treatment. That concern is understandable. For state-licensed cannabis operators, it can feel backwards to watch hemp-derived THC beverages seek a federal regulatory pathway while marijuana remains federally illegal and licensed cannabis businesses remain locked out of ordinary banking, interstate commerce, tax treatment and mainstream retail channels. But Congress is not choosing between comprehensive cannabis reform and a hemp beverage bill. It is choosing whether a product category that is already being sold and consumed will remain unregulated, face an ineffective federal ban or be properly regulated and taxed. The Beverage Regulatory Parity Act, introduced by Reps. Beth Van Duyne (R-TX) and Greg Landsman (D-OH), would create that pathway for a narrow category: low-dose, hemp-derived THC beverages. The important policy move is not simply that the bill would allow these products to remain available. It is recognizing them as intoxicating adult beverages, not as agriculture products, wellness items or novelty goods. That distinction matters. A beverage with intoxicating THC should be subject to adult-beverage rules: age restrictions, accurate labeling, product testing, accountable distribution, advertising standards, tax collection and meaningful enforcement across the supply chain. The 2018 Farm Bill legalized hemp as an agricultural crop, opening the door for hemp fiber, grain, CBD and other uses. Some intoxicating derivatives raise significant public safety and regulatory concerns and should be heavily regulated or restricted. Hemp-derived THC beverages are different: the finished product is bought, sold and consumed like an adult beverage, and America already has a system that can be applied to them. Some responsible hemp businesses are already trying to fill the regulatory gap with voluntary lab testing, transparent potency information and following responsible marketing practices. But voluntary best practices are not a substitute for consistent rules. They protect consumers only unevenly, and they leave compliant companies competing against products that may not meet the same standards. For the cannabis industry, the relevant question should not be whether hemp beverages arrived through the same legal pathway as state-licensed cannabis. They did not. The better question is whether leaving these products outside a workable federal framework advances the industry’s long-term interests. It does not. A market without clear potency standards, age restrictions, product testing, label requirements, responsible distribution, trade-practice rules or meaningful federal enforcement does not strengthen cannabis policy. It gives opponents of cannabis reform an easier argument: that intoxicating cannabinoid products cannot be responsibly integrated into the economy outside prohibition. The Beverage Regulatory Parity Act is also not a shortcut around broader cannabis reform. It does not address core issues such as 280E business tax parity, marijuana descheduling or harmonizing state cannabis licensing systems. Nor does it address every competitive concern raised by operators who have spent years complying with costly state regulations while hemp-derived beverages found shelf space in conventional retail. Those concerns deserve to be taken seriously. But opposing a workable regulatory structure because it is not comprehensive cannabis reform risks repeating the very piecemeal approach the cannabis sector has spent years criticizing. In 2023, Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America (WSWA) publicly supported federal legalization and regulation of adult-use cannabis because federal inaction and fragmented policy were producing a de facto national market without adequate rules for product safety, trade practices, interstate sales or enforcement. Hemp beverages now present a narrower version of the same problem. Congress can establish a clear framework for an intoxicating cannabinoid product category or allow the market to be shaped by loopholes, bans and uneven enforcement. That is why the regulatory functions of the beverage alcohol system are relevant, even for those who do not believe cannabis policy should simply copy alcohol policy. The model is not just about who sells a product. It is about licensing accountable actors, separating supply-chain functions, maintaining records and inspections, reviewing labels, restricting youth-oriented marketing, collecting excise taxes, policing unfair trade practices, preserving state authority and ensuring hemp beverages are appropriately dosed. The bill limits potency to 5 mg of THC per serving, creating a narrow band of products available to responsible adults. Those tools are well suited to products that can cause intoxication and impairment. They are poorly matched to hemp as a crop, but highly relevant to a shelf-stable beverage containing intoxicating THC. The market already exists. The question is whether it will be governed by consistent rules. There should be common ground on the answer: states should have the authority to allow (or prohibit) intoxicating THC beverages for adults 21 and over, provided those products are tightly regulated and subject to standards that consumers, regulators and responsible businesses can understand. The alternative is more confusion, more enforcement whiplash and more evidence for those who argue that cannabinoid products cannot be responsibly integrated into the economy. Pushing an existing market back into the shadows would not eliminate demand, improve product safety or resolve the contradictions in federal cannabis law. It would leave consumers with fewer lawful options and responsible businesses with no clear path forward. The hemp plant will remain legal, and those who don’t care about responsibility or public safety will still use it to make intoxicating products. Only the most responsible actors will exit the marketplace. Supporting the Beverage Regulatory Parity Act is not an endorsement of unequal treatment between hemp and marijuana. It is a recognition that federal regulation is better than prohibition, and that low-dose, hemp-derived intoxicating beverages are an appropriate place to draw a clear line. Not hemp agriculture, not unregulated THC and not a substitute for comprehensive cannabis reform, but a distinct low-dose adult beverage category with rules that match the product. Dawson Hobbs is executive vice president of government affairs for Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America (WSWA), where he leads the association’s state, federal and regulatory efforts, championing policies that preserve the three-tier system and promote responsible alcohol regulation. The post The Cannabis Industry Should Join Us In Supporting Hemp Drink Regulation Over Prohibition, Alcohol Industry Lobbyist Says (Op-Ed) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

The number of medical cannabis patients licensed for homegrow has increased by more than 1,000 percent over four years. By Makenzie Huber, South Dakota Searchlight A South Dakota Health Department official told lawmakers Monday that the number of medical marijuana patients in the state who are licensed to grow medical cannabis at home has grown by more than 1,000 percent over the past four years. Whitney Brunner, administrator of the state’s medical cannabis program, told the legislative Medical Marijuana Oversight Committee during a meeting at the Capitol in Pierre that the number of home cultivators grew from 61 in fiscal year 2022 to 715 in fiscal year 2026—an increase of 1,072 percent. Medical marijuana has been legal in South Dakota since 2021, but recreational marijuana use remains prohibited. Home cultivators may not grow more than two flowering cannabis plants and two non-flowering cannabis plants, according to state law. Patients can add a home cultivation license to their medical marijuana card for $20. Applicants must submit a photo of the grow room, a photo of the lock on the door and a diagram of the grow location. Brunner said those diagrams are often hand-drawn and lack detail. “The lack of regulation in this area is a bit concerning for us,” Brunner told lawmakers. Source: South Dakota Department of Health; Made with Flourish Brunner said she doesn’t want to assume home cultivators are abusing the licenses, but said the department is considering tighter regulation. “We have looked into if there is anything more that can be done, but I think that’s a greater conversation to be had,” Brunner said. “It does present some legal and safety considerations if we were to attempt to regulate this further.” Brunner did not say if new regulation would require legislation. Committee member Sen. John Carley, R-Rapid City, told South Dakota Searchlight after the meeting that lawmakers hope to learn more. “We were glad the department had more information,” Carley said. “Many of us will be looking at that exact item and will come back to that concern next meeting.” The rise in home cultivation comes amid growth in the overall program. At the end of June, there were 19,375 medical marijuana cardholders in South Dakota—a 30.5 percent increase from 14,843 last fiscal year. “We did experience a true spike in early fiscal year 2026 but, by fall, that number had started to level off,” Brunner said, adding that the number of cardholders in the state “remained fairly stable” most of the year. Most cardholders are in their 30s and 40s, according to department data, and more than 70 percent report severe debilitating pain as a reason for their cannabis use. This story was first published by South Dakota Searchlight. Photo courtesy of Chris Wallis // Side Pocket Images. The post South Dakota Sees Surge In Patients Growing Medical Marijuana At Home appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Participants in a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) hearing on the Trump administration’s marijuana rescheduling proposal have filed their final briefs in the proceedings—setting up the judge overseeing the matter to issue his recommendation on the reform. DEA, which is charged with defending the proposed move of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III, said in its brief that “marijuana no longer fits the statutory requirements for Schedule I because it has a currently accepted medical use within the United States and it has an accepted safety for its use under medical supervision.” The agency noted that under the law it must give “significant deference” to an “extensive ten-month study on the scientific and medical properties” of cannabis conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which recommended rescheduling. “Currently there are over 30,000 practitioners treating more than six million patients in 43 U.S. jurisdictions,” DEA said. “Such practices demonstrate that there is no longer a lack of accepted safety for use of marijuana under medical supervision, and as such, marijuana does not fulfill the requirements of being a Schedule I substance.” It also said that there is “substantial evidence sufficient to show that marijuana’s abuse and dependency profiles better align with Schedule III substances than Schedule II” or Schedule I. “The vast majority of individuals who use marijuana do so in a manner that does not result in dangers to themselves or to their communities.” The drug agency said there is “no merit” to arguments made by reform opponents who participated in the hearing that a new two-part test federal officials used to analyze cannabis improperly departs from a former five-part test. DEA also said that several witnesses for opposition parties “supported the therapeutic use of marijuana in certain instances” during their testimony. “Dr. Bertha Madras (Madras), the addiction expert presented by SAM, testified that there is scientific evidence of marijuana’s efficacy for neuropathic pain patients, although she believes that the science is weak. Dr. Kenneth Finn, also a pain management physician, admitted that he previously recommended marijuana for his pain patients and currently believes that there is likely a therapeutic benefit to marijuana. His concern is mainly with the dosing and quality controls for the substance.” Opponents also “have not offered sufficient fact or expert testimony to rebut HHS’ findings that marijuana” has a currently accepted medical use (CAMU), the agency said. “The evidence proffered by the Opposed Parties boils down simply to the fact that Schedule III marijuana poses employment and enforcement difficulties, the same as any other controlled substance in Schedules II – V.” DEA also argued that several opposition witnesses “lacked necessary reliability and credibility and should be afforded no weight”—also saying that some of them ignored the judge’s instructions for sequestration by reading transcripts of the testimony tendered prior to their appearances, leading to their own testimony being “irreparably tainted.” In conclusion, DEA asked the judge overseeing the hearing to “expeditiously recommend” that marijuana be transferred from Schedule I to Schedule III. A joint brief submitted by the prohibitionist organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and the states of Idaho, Indiana and Nebraska began by noting that DEA and HHS have previously considered rescheduling marijuana at least nine times, and that “on each occasion, after reviewing the available scientific evidence and applying the criteria specified by the Controlled Substances Act, the Government determined that marijuana must remain in Schedule I because it (i) has a high risk of abuse, (ii) has no currently accepted medical use, and (iii) cannot be used safely under medical supervision.” The argued that those decisions can only be reversed if DEA can show that cannabis has a risk of abuse that is lower than relevant comparator drugs, has a use in medical treatment that is accepted by established medical authorities and can be used safely under medical supervision with relatively limited dependency risks. But the hearing showed that “all the evidence is to the contrary,” they said. “So the Government now proposes to reschedule marijuana not based on the facts, but rather based on new and different standards—standards that are not found in the Controlled Substances Act, that run contrary to previous HHS and DEA practices, and that were devised solely for purposes of this rescheduling,” SAM and the states said, referring to the new two-part analysis used to evaluate cannabis. “This Tribunal should reject the Government’s attempt to supplant the standards of the Controlled Substances Act and decades of agency precedent with newfound standards dreamt up only for this proceeding. Under the established legal standards, the evidence points in only one direction: Marijuana must remain in Schedule I.” In 2024, the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) said the prior five-part test was “impermissibly narrow” and said the two-part review “is sufficient to establish that a drug has CAMU even if the drug has not been approved by FDA and would not satisfy DEA’s five-part test.” DEA has since embraced the new approach to evaluating cannabis for CAMU and it has been used to subsequently evaluate other substances. A separate brief from the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) argues that the fact the proposed cannabis rescheduling rule was issued by the attorney general instead of the DEA administrator is “enough” is enough to consider the proposal “deficient and keep marijuana in Schedule I.” TBI also claimed that rescheduling “fares no better on the merits,” saying the evaluation neglected to consider issues such as diversion of state-licensed cannabis, “marijuana-related violent crime” and traffic fatalities from impaired drivers. A brief from the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA), which represents members of the drug testing industry, expressed concerns that “if the transfer of marijuana to Schedule III is finalized, the authority of the Federal government to test for it will end.” “Important safety and critical security personnel the federal government would no longer be subject to testing, including air traffic controllers, Secret Service, and Federal employees with security clearances. The list of DOT safety sensitive employees who perform commercial transportation duties in the private sector, in who would no longer be subject to marijuana testing would include: airline pilots, airline mechanics, locomotive engineers, school bus drivers, truck drivers, transit operators, Coast Guard mariners, and pipeline operators.” “The prevention and deterrence that the American public has encountered for almost years would be lost if marijuana is moved to Schedule III,” NDASA said. A brief from DUID Victim Voices and Kenneth Finn begins with an anecdote about a memorial to people who have died from fentanyl that is displayed at DEA headquarters in Virginia, where the rescheduling hearing was held: “Every day, walking through DEA Headquarters, the participants in this hearing passed a beautiful tribute to the faces of those killed by fentanyl. While the gesture is sincere and touching, it cannot be ignored that those faces are, in part, the product of the agency’s own documented failures: opiate production quotas set too high for too long, and inadequate and delayed action against major distributors shipping suspicious volumes of opioids. The same wall of faces could just as easily be assembled for the many and growing memorial roll of young people whose minds and lives have been destroyed by marijuana… The agency now, through this proceeding, has an opportunity to limit the number of faces that will one day have to be added to that wall, rather than later acknowledge and pay homage to those fellow citizens we lost, again, due to institutional inaction in the face of a clear and present danger.” DUID and Finn argue that DEA “failed to carry its burden” to demonstrate that marijuana has medical value—saying that its “rescheduling endeavor depends entirely on a novel analytical framework that has never been subjected to notice-and-comment rulemaking, lacks any foundation in prior agency practice, and was engineered to reach a predetermined outcome.” The drug agency also used “fundamentally flawed” comparator methodology, “relying on substances that are pharmacologically distinct from marijuana—including alcohol, which is not a controlled substance and is not typically used as a CSA scheduling comparator,” they said. The brief additionally claimed that DEA “systematically ignored or underweighted the grave safety and public health consequences of marijuana abuse—including psychosis, schizophrenia, suicidality, cardiovascular harms, impaired driving, diversion, and devastating workplace and transportation safety consequences.” A brief from Phillip Drum, a pharmacist and an emergency medicine and pediatric physician, said that “marijuana, with its 300+ ‘active’ ingredients as claimed by the marijuana industry, is not a medicine”—which he called a “fraudulent statement.” “The States are simply not regulating and protecting the public with their current practices in place. Dosages for various formulations are unknown,” the brief said. “Currently, marijuana is the active ingredient in: tampons, condoms, intravaginal suppositories, inhalers, topical creams or ointments, rectal suppositories, sublingual applications, lip balms, oral gummies, chips, candies, cereals, sodas or alcohol-infused products, and smoked versions including: dabs, waxes, joints or bong hits.” “The harms are paramount, and are being minimized and use has been normalized by the media and popular vote making marijuana out to be as both a recreational drug and a ‘medicine,’ thus making it seem safer to the public at large,” Drum’s brief says. DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julius will now consider the final briefs and testimony delivered during the hearing and issue a recommendation on cannabis’s scheduling status. The final decision will ultimately be up to the DEA administrator, however. During the hearing, DEA officials charged with defending the cannabis rescheduling proposal highlighted testimony on marijuana’s medical benefits and its relative safety compared to other substances such as alcohol and opioids. That included appearances from a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scientist and a medical doctor from New Hampshire who detailed how medical marijuana provides relief to pain patients and can serve as an alternative to opioids. Meanwhile, lawyers and witnesses for parties who are oppose marijuana rescheduling and participated in the hearing put significant focus on the alleged harms of cannabis use as well as criticism of recently adopted changes to an analysis used to determine whether drugs have accepted medical value. DEA Administrator Terrance Cole invited only organizations and people who oppose marijuana reform to join the hearing as designated participants—telling supporters that they do not meet the definition of an “interested person” to participate because they are not “adversely affected or aggrieved by any rule or proposed rule issuable.” Opposition parties that participated include Smart Approaches to Marijuana, National Drug & Alcohol Screening Association, Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, DUID Victim Voices, Kenneth Finn, Phillip A. Drum and the states of Idaho, Indiana and Nebraska. Ahead of the hearing’s start, marijuana reform activists held a press conference outside DEA headquarters to highlight how they feel the have been “shut out” of the process—criticizing the fact that no supporters of reform were invited to participate and that the proceedings were not livestreamed despite officials’ vows of “transparency.” Marijuana Moment sent requests to Julius, the DEA judge, and to Cole, the DEA administrator, requesting they reverse a decision to prohibit the public from tuning into the cannabis hearing via livestream. A congressman and other journalists later joined in that request. — Marijuana Moment’s journalism is made possible by readers like you who value this work enough to support us with monthly pledges on Patreon. If you rely on our reporting to stay informed about key cannabis developments, please help us keep doing this by becoming a sustaining subscriber today. Backing us at the $25/month level also gets you access to our Bill Tracker so you won’t miss any important marijuana legislation in your state. — Attorney General Todd Blanche in April issued an order that immediately reclassified state-licensed medical cannabis, as well as marijuana products approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III. Under a separate order the acting attorney general signed, the hearing is being held to consider more comprehensively moving marijuana to Schedule III. A prior hearing process on the marijuana rescheduling process that was initiated by the Biden administration stalled last year amid litigation over alleged improper communications and witness selection. The current marijuana rescheduling process is being challenged with several lawsuits that have been consolidated by a federal appeals court. Those pieces of litigation against the cannabis reform have been filed by state attorneys general, marijuana legalization opponents and a cannabis-focused biopharmaceutical corporation. Meanwhile, the already-enacted rescheduling of state-licensed medical cannabis is already having broad impacts. The Congressional Research Service published a report on the current cannabis rescheduling move explaining that certified patients who possess medical marijuana from state-licensed dispensaries now have certain protections under Schedule III. “The order appears to authorize end users to possess marijuana for medical use without a CSA-compliant prescription,” it says. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has posted a draft update to a gun purchase form to acknowledge the federally legal status of medical marijuana under rescheduling. The revised section in question notably says that only “use or possession of marijuana for recreational purposes” is federally prohibited, leaving out the prior form’s mention of medical cannabis. The U.S. Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) said they plan to issue new tax guidance for the marijuana industry following rescheduling. The reform will benefit state-licensed marijuana businesses by allowing them to take federal tax deductions they’re currently barred from under an IRS code known as 280E that doesn’t apply to Schedule III substances. Even DEA, which has long opposed cannabis legalization and was accused of stalling the rescheduling process initiative by the Biden administration, has launched a registration process for state-legal marijuana businesses to take advantage of federal benefits that come with the reform. The Department of Transportation, on the other hand, issued guidance saying that use of state-legal medical cannabis is still no excuse for a positive drug test by truck drivers, pilots and other safety-sensitive workers. The Department of War issued a memo making clear that marijuana use by military service members and civilian employees of the department remains prohibited, even under federal cannabis rescheduling. A congressional committee recently voted to block federal officials from taking further steps to carry out cannabis rescheduling, though bipartisan lawmakers told Marijuana Moment they don’t believe that provision will be enacted into law. Read the final briefs in the DEA marijuana rescheduling hearing below: The post DEA And Anti-Marijuana Groups File Final Briefs In Hearing On Trump Administration Rescheduling Proposal appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

This is usually a superb posting, With thanks to get allowing people this review. Continue to keep writing. slot gacor

Democratic voters in Massachusetts strongly oppose a measure on the November ballot to roll back the state’s marijuana legalization law. The new survey of Democratic primary voters from the Suffolk University Political Research Center and The Boston Globe asked, “In November, voters will be asked whether they support keeping or repealing the state law that legalized recreational marijuana sales. If the election were today, would you vote to keep or repeal the law?” An overwhelming majority of 79 percent said they would prefer to keep the state’s current cannabis laws intact, 16 percent said they want to repeal recreational sales and 4 percent were undecided. There was supermajority support for maintaining marijuana legalization as-is among every age, racial, gender and geographic group polled. While the poll, which was conducted from August 13-16, only included voters who are likely to vote in the Democratic primary on September 1, Democrats outnumber Republicans among registered voters in the state, so the result indicates that marijuana opponents have a lot of ground to make up if they hope to pass the prohibitionist ballot measure in November. Last month, state officials issued a final determination that 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—will appear on ballot this fall. 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. Photo courtesy of Mike Latimer. The post Massachusetts Democratic Voters Strongly Oppose Ballot Measure To Roll Back Marijuana Legalization, Poll Shows appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

it is certainly wonderful along with meanful. it is certainly neat web site. Backlinks is incredibly valuable issue. you've got genuinely made it easier for some people whom pay a visit to web site and still provide these people usefull data. Voco TV

The world of Panchsheel Park Escorts welcomes gentlemen seeking genuine connections and passionate moments. These beautiful girl combine captivating personalities with physical allure, offering experiences that ensure complete satisfaction. When booking, choose agencies with transparent pricing, verified photos, and positive client feedback. This diligence ensures you get true value for your money, along with the sensual satisfaction and memorable moments you desire.

A new Department of Justice rule intended to help restore gun rights to people who have been barred from possessing firearms contains provisions that will block officials from denying applications over the use of marijuana or convictions for cannabis-related activity. The Federal Firearm Rights Restoration policy, announced on Monday, allows people who have been stripped of their Second Amendment rights to apply to have them restored. The rule says that those applications will likely be denied, however, if the person is an “unlawful user of, or addicted to, a controlled substance” or has a state or federal felony conviction within the last 10 years involving “manufacture, import, export, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled substance.” It also allows the attorney general to consider whether the applicant is “likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety,” with one factor being their “past or present use or abuse of controlled substances.” But the rule specifies that the definition of the term controlled substance “does not include marijuana” and that being an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance “excludes those whose only unlawful use of or addiction to a controlled substance consists of the use of or addiction to marijuana.” DOJ explained in a Federal Register filing that the cannabis exemption comes “in recognition of” a recent Supreme Court decision that found the government’s efforts to criminalize possession of firearms for marijuana consumers through a statute known as 922(g)(3) to be unconstitutional. The department also cited “the many comments received regarding use of marijuana” that it received during the rulemaking process, noting that they “focused almost exclusively on marijuana users and argued that regular marijuana use does not render the user dangerous to the public.” “Another presumptive disqualifier that commenters asked the Department to remove was that pertaining to drug use. Comments on this topic focused primarily on marijuana use. Some commenters believed that no public safety rationale justifies presumptively disqualifying users of controlled substances, particularly marijuana users. They pointed to post-Bruen jurisprudence emphasizing the historic tradition of disarming primarily those persons found to be dangerous, and also to the fact that nearly two-thirds of states have legalized marijuana. Some commenters also observed that if casual alcohol users are able to have their rights restored without overcoming a presumptive disqualification, then marijuana users should not be subject to such a presumption. On the other side of the issue, commenters who believed drug use was appropriately categorized as a presumptive disqualifier varied between those supporting a permanent ban and those endorsing some pathway to relief for former drug users, while one commenter opined that ‘all applicants should submit current drug test results.” DOJ acknowledged that making changes with respect to people “addicted to” and not just users of marijuana goes beyond the facts at issue in the recent Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Hemani, but said that it is “necessary to improve the administrability of the restoration process. “Whether an individual is a marijuana ‘user’ or a marijuana ‘addict’ is a highly fact-specific inquiry, and the Department would struggle to differentiate between the two on the basis of the kind of evidence likely to be submitted with an application for restoration. Further, attempting to collect and evaluate additional information to accurately differentiate between marijuana ‘users’ and marijuana ‘addicts’ would require time and resources that would defeat the administrability benefits of imposing a presumption of disqualification in the first place. Given these considerations, the Department has determined that excluding both marijuana users and marijuana addicts from §§ 107.10(g)(13)–(14) and 107.50(c) best balances the relevant policy considerations.” Kostas Moros, director of legal research and education for the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), told Marijuana Moment that while his group is still considering the full implications of the new filing, it is “pleased to see the DOJ acknowledge the recent Hemani ruling and adapt the rule to it, which will help a large number of affected people get their gun rights back.” From the Final Rule text. " 'Controlled substance' has the meaning given the term in 27 CFR 4 78.11, except that it does not include marijuana." " 'Unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" has the meaning given this term in 27 CFR 478.11, except that it… pic.twitter.com/xquFx5L7hx — SAF (@2AFDN) August 17, 2026 The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in May posted a proposed revised version of Form 4473, which must be filled out by anyone purchasing a gun from a federally licensed firearms dealer, to acknowledge the federally legal status of medical marijuana under the Trump administration’s recent move to reschedule the drug. The change is likely due to the fact that in April, Attorney General Todd Blanche issued an order that immediately moved marijuana products regulated by a state medical cannabis license to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), and similarly rescheduled marijuana products that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). A hearing to consider broader cannabis rescheduling recently concluded testimony. Advocates expect that ATF will need to issue further changes to the gun purchase form in the wake of the court’s ruling in U.S. v. Hemani, after which it said it will be issuing guidance on cannabis consumers’ Second Amendment rights “soon.” “Paired with likely changes from the ATF on Form 4473 for firearms purchasers who use marijuana, the massive injustice of denied Second Amendment rights for mere casual use of marijuana will soon be in the dustbin of history,” Moros of SAF told Marijuana Moment on Monday. When it comes to users of other federal controlled substances beyond marijuana, DOJ said in the filing that “individuals prohibited from owning firearms based on drug use or addiction are among the class of persons who can take themselves out of the prohibited category simply by ending their unlawful conduct and avoiding additional drug-related conduct for a period of time—thus disrupting the ‘pattern.’ of drug use.” “[I]ndividuals prohibited on the basis of drug use or addiction can regain the right to possess a firearm, assuming no other prohibitors apply to them, by abstaining from ongoing drug use and allowing 12 months to pass,” it said. Blanche, in a press release about the new rights restoration rule, said that “the Second Amendment is not a second-class right, and the federal government should not permanently deprive Americans of a constitutional right without regard to whether they pose a danger to public safety.” “This rule establishes a rigorous, commonsense process that protects the public while giving deserving Americans a real path to restoration,” he said. The Supreme Court, in the majority opinion in the Hemani case, said that the broad ban on marijuana consumers’ gun rights and the government’s effort to defend it are “at odds with” the Trump administration’s move to federally reschedule cannabis. The government “asks us to conclude that anyone who regularly uses marijuana is categorically violent and dangerous without any further showing,” the opinion said. “All based on little more than its current say-so, one at odds with its own regulatory actions. And affording the government that kind of ‘broad power to designate any group as dangerous and thereby disqualify its members from having a gun’ would risk allowing it to ‘quickly swallow’ the Second Amendment.” ATF separately moved earlier this year to loosen rules that bar people who consume marijuana and other illegal drugs from being able to lawfully purchase and possess guns by making it so fewer people would be affected. The interim final rule from ATF, which was open for public comment through June 30, seeks to update the definition of “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” under an existing policy that has been interpreted to deny Second Amendment rights to people who have used illegal substances a single time within the past year. The Supreme Court heard arguments in the Hemani case in March, with the Trump administration urging the justices to uphold the ban on gun possession by marijuana users. The federal government has consistently maintained its position that the law appropriately disarms marijuana users who, they claim, are uniquely dangerous. To meet a strict Supreme Court standard for firearm laws, the Department of Justice has also drawn sometimes eyebrow-raising comparisons between cannabis consumers and the mentally ill and habitual drunkards to establish a historical analogue that aligns with the country’s founding era. “Those laws, the government contends, demonstrate a tradition of firearm regulation consistent with its effort to disarm any regular user of any controlled substance without any further showing. But the government’s analogy fails under every measure it asks us to consider,” the court’s opinion issued on Thursday says. “The historical laws on which it relies targeted different kinds of people, did so for different reasons, and operated in different ways. And faced with all these shortcomings in the government’s submission, we cannot say it has carried its conceded burden of showing its prosecution of Mr. Hemani complies with the Second Amendment.” Trump administration Solicitor General D. John Sauer, for his part, told the Supreme Court in a brief that people who use illegal drugs “pose a greater danger” than those who drink alcohol. In a separate filing for the case, the Justice Department also emphasized that “the question presented is the subject of a multi-sided and growing circuit conflict.” In asking the court to take up the dispute, the solicitor general also noted that the defendant is a joint American and Pakistani citizen with alleged ties to Iranian entities hostile to the U.S., putting him on the FBI’s radar. In December, attorneys general for 19 states and Washington, D.C. filed their own brief siding with the federal government in the Hemani case, insisting that justices should maintain the current § 922(g)(3) statute. The governor of Colorado, whose attorney general was among that group, subsequently said he didn’t think his state should have taken that position. Also in December, Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and 21 other prohibitionist groups filed a brief urging justices to uphold the constitutionality of the federal gun ban for people who use cannabis—which they claim is associated with violence and psychosis. On the other side of the debate, civil rights groups—including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), whose attorneys are among those representing Hemani—and gun organizations such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) have argued that the current policy represents a misguided categorical infringement of Second Amendment rights for a population that uses a substance that’s been legalized in a majority of states and is now being partially federally reclassified. Meanwhile, the Biden administration was evidently concerned about potential legal liability in federal cases for people convicted of violating gun laws simply by being a cannabis consumer who possessed a firearm, documents obtained by Marijuana Moment show. The previously unpublished 2024 guidance from former President Joe Biden’s Justice Department generally cautioned U.S. attorneys to use discretion in prosecuting federal cannabis cases, particularly for offenses that qualified people for pardons during his term. But one section seems especially relevant as the Supreme Court takes on a case challenging the constitutionality of the current federal gun statute. In interviews with Marijuana Moment, several Republican senators shared their views on the federal ban on gun possession by people who use marijuana—with one saying that if alcohol drinkers can lawfully buy and use firearms, the same standard should apply to cannabis consumers. Sauer, the solicitor general, sent the justices a letter in April arguing that the Trump administration’s move to federally reschedule marijuana should not impact their decision in the Hemani case. Separately in April, Blanche had suggested that the Trump administration may soon stop aggressively defending 922(g)(3), the federal law that criminalizes gun possession by people who consume marijuana and other illegal drugs. The post New DOJ Rule Makes It Easier For Marijuana Users To Regain Their Gun Rights appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

it is certainly wonderful along with meanful. it is certainly neat web site. Backlinks is incredibly valuable issue. you've got genuinely made it easier for some people whom pay a visit to web site and still provide these people usefull data. slot online

DEA & hemp company battle over HHC in federal court; TX Dems bash GOP candidate’s marijuana stance; Yale study on cannabis tax revenue Subscribe to receive Marijuana Moment’s newsletter in your inbox every weekday morning. It’s the best way to make sure you know which cannabis stories are shaping the day. Get our daily newsletter. Email address: Leave this field empty if you're human: Your support makes Marijuana Moment possible… Hold on, just one second before you read today’s news. Have you thought about giving some financial support to Marijuana Moment? If so, today would be a great day to contribute. We’re planning our reporting for the coming months and it would really help to know what kind of support we can count on. Check us out on Patreon and sign up to give $25/month today: https://www.patreon.com/marijuanamoment / TOP THINGS TO KNOW The Georgia Access to Medical Cannabis Commission is proposing new rules that will allow medical cannabis delivery—including via the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) and private carriers like FedEx and UPS, a change officials say is made possible by the Trump administration’s move to federally reschedule marijuana. A hemp company filed a federal court brief pushing back on the Drug Enforcement Administration’s stance that the synthetic cannabinoid hexahydrocannabinol (HHC) is an illegal Schedule I substance—with attorneys also sending a letter saying the agency’s action on a related petition undermines its arguments in the lawsuit. The Texas Democratic Party is calling out Republican Senate candidate Ken Paxton, currently the state’s attorney general, for dodging a cannabis question—and Joe Rogan is warning the GOP that they will turn the state blue by pushing too hard to crack down on the availability of THC products. “Kids will turn on you if you tell them they can’t smoke weed. They know weed’s not killing anybody.” A new Yale University analysis projects that federal marijuana legalization would generate $57.9 billion in new tax revenue over a decade—and that the total could reach $111.3 billion if all remaining states were to also legalize cannabis. Virginia hemp businesses are calling on lawmakers to convene a special session to “address the gap in access” to products after a federal judge declined to block enforcement of new THC restrictions. South Carolina lawmakers are allowing hemp THC products to stay legal and largely unregulated until at least next year by declining to pass legislation on the issue before adjourning for the rest of 2026. / FEDERAL The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Housing and Urban Development launched a toolkit on combating addiction and homelessness. Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins discussed ongoing efforts to source ibogaine for use in research. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) said that “voters across the country have made it clear they want cannabis legalized, and Trump’s half measures aren’t fooling anyone.” Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY) said his hemp regulation bill is a “work in progress.” / STATES Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey (D) issued an emergency order restricting the sale of kratom. The Virginia legislature’s Joint Commission to Oversee the Transition of the Commonwealth into a Cannabis Retail Market met. Illinois regulators published guidance on hemp vapes. The Maryland Department of Service and Equity Management is recommending changes to the state’s cannabis social equity infrastructure. New York regulators posted a reminder that marijuana businesses must submit an annual report tracking energy, water and waste data by August 31. Vermont regulators are hosting several cannabis working group meetings over the coming month. — 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 Victoria, Australia lawmakers rejected a proposal to put a cannabis legalization referendum on the ballot. / SCIENCE & HEALTH A study found that “prevalence of past-year and past-month cannabis use among adults in California remained largely stable across the eight-year study period spanning the onset of retail availability of non-medical cannabis products.” A study found that “most Δ9-THC edibles marketed as ‘hemp’ appear infeasible to manufacture using cannabis material containing ≤0.3% Δ9-THC by dry weight without exceeding the available product mass, even under highly conservative assumptions” and so “most appear to depend on marijuana as an ingredient, which has substantial regulatory and public health implications.” / ADVOCACY, OPINION & ANALYSIS Americans for Tax Reform published a post criticizing “excessive and onerous” marijuana taxes in Michigan. / BUSINESS IM Cannabis Corp. is selling I.M.C. Holdings Ltd. to Slil.com Holding Ltd. / CULTURE Matthew McConaughey credited the Janet Jackson song “That’s the Way Love Goes” with his decision to stop smoking marijuana after he listened to it 24 times in a row while high and missed his own birthday party. 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 USPS could deliver medical cannabis under rescheduling, state officials say (Newsletter: August 18, 2026) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

129. Psychedelics for Seniors: Aging & What's Next A live Salon panel on psychedelics after 60: set and setting, medication interactions, integration circles, and what aging can offer instead of loss. Episode Summary The psychedelic renaissance gets covered like a young person's story, executives microdosing before board meetings, twenty somethings on retreats. But the fastest growing population interested in this medicine right now is confronting retirement, widowhood, the death of parents, the question of legacy. This episode is a live Salon recording built around psychedelics for seniors, with filmmaker Scott Paul Wright, writer Abbie Rosner, and naturopathic physician Dr. Emily Whinkin. We get into set and setting, medication contraindications, ketamine versus psilocybin, and what integration actually looks like once the journey is over. Abbie's research on 36 older adults turns up something worth sitting with: most of them called later life the happiest, most meaningful stretch they've had. Key Takeaways Set and setting, not age, is the biggest predictor of a safe psychedelic experience. Older adults often prepare better than younger users because they're less inclined to wing it. If you're on an SSRI or SNRI, expect a blunted psychedelic experience. The evidence on whether that blunting reduces therapeutic benefit is still mixed. Ketamine and psilocybin are distinct molecules with different legal statuses and safety histories. Neither is automatically the safer choice for an older nervous system. Integration circles are becoming clinical infrastructure, not a nice extra. Isolation among older adults carries measurable health costs, including a documented rise in dementia risk. The questions shift with age. Younger clients tend to ask what can I fix. Older clients tend to ask what my legacy is and how I can give back. Timestamps [00:00] Welcome and introductions at Town Hall Seattle [00:01] Scott Wright on his first journey at 68 and how the documentary began [00:02] Why older adults report fewer bad trips: preparation and set and setting [00:04] Contraindications, health history, and working with SSRIs and SNRIs [00:06] Ketamine versus psilocybin: different molecules, different legal paths [00:08] Meaning making in later life and what psychedelics surface [00:10] What integration actually is, and why the work starts after the journey [00:13] Integration circles as community and clinical infrastructure [00:17] The questions older adults ask that younger clients don't [00:18] Aging, elderhood, and the Buddhist "three messengers" [00:20] Intergenerational journeys and psychedelics within families Guest Abbie Rosner is a writer and cultural observer exploring how the modern psychedelic renaissance is reshaping our understanding of aging—individually and collectively. Psychedelics and the Counter Culture of Aging | website ELDEREVOLUTION on Substack Dr. Emily Whinkin (she/they) is a naturopathic physician and integrative mental health specialist blending psychedelic and entheogenic medicine with mental, reproductive, and generative health. Dr. Whinkin is licensed in Oregon and Washington, provides global consultation, and is dedicated to research, education, and individualized integrative mental health. emilywhinkin.com Scott Paul Wright is a filmmaker and screenwriter based in Paris and New Orleans. He took his first psychedelic journey at age 68 – resulting in his new documentary – The Next Chapter, which is now in post-production and scheduled for release in June 2026. The Next Chapter documentary Resources Psychedelic Salon at Town Hall Seattle - 2026-27 Schedule Follow April on Substack Visit aprilpride.com Original Substack post: https://aprilpride.substack.com/psychedelics-for-seniors-aging-salon Hosted by April Pride IG: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@aprilpridecreates YouTube: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠youtube.com/@aprilpridecreates Get full access to APRIL PRIDE at aprilpride.substack.com/subscribeCatch the full episode here

Looking for unforgettable pleasure in the city? Gurugram Escorts offers stunning companions who know exactly how to satisfy your deepest cravings. Whether you desire a romantic evening or wild passion, these beauties deliver beyond expectations. Simply browse profiles, select your dream girl, and book discreetly. Experience premium intimacy that leaves you breathless and completely fulfilled tonight.

Federally legalizing marijuana would generate $57.9 billion in new tax revenue over a decade, according to a new Yale University analysis—and additional states also moving to legalize cannabis would nearly double that haul. The report, from the university’s Budget Lab, notes that the “cannabis market has grown into a substantial economic sector” but caveats that there is an “unusual degree of uncertainty” about the fiscal projections, however, given the “complicated legal context” of marijuana. “Marijuana presents an appealing target for taxation,” the Yale analysis says, noting that it is considered by many policymakers to be “socially undesirable”—as is the case with alcohol and cigarettes. “A tax levied specifically on marijuana could serve the dual purposes of discouraging use and raising revenue, thereby funding new public spending or replacing taxes on socially desirable activities like work or savings,” it says. Researchers projected that if cannabis were federally rescheduled and an excise tax of $0.00625 per mg of THC were applied, a gram of marijuana would be taxed at $1.31. “At an average price of $8.59 per gram of marijuana, this tax would amount to about a 15% increase in the tax-inclusive price,” the report says. The tax would result in $57.9 billion in new revenue over the course of ten years, the researchers project, If all remaining states were to also legalize marijuana in their jurisdictions, the total haul would be $111.3 billion over a decade. Potential Revenue from Federal Excise Tax on Marijuana Products Revenue ($ billions) from $0.00625/mg THC excise tax 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 26-35 36-45 46-55 Scenario 1: No New States Legalize 0.0 5.5 5.7 5.9 6.2 6.4 6.7 6.9 7.2 7.5 57.9 92.3 134.0 Scenario 2: All States Legalize 0.0 10.5 11.0 11.4 11.8 12.3 12.8 13.3 13.8 14.4 111.3 177.7 258.5 Via Yale University’s Budget Lab, assuming a January 1, 2027, enactment date. The Yale report bases its estimates on existing state tax revenue to determine that the recreational marijuana market was about $25 billion in 2024 “We project that, if the market continues to grow without federal legalization or any new states legalizing, the market will reach nearly $40 billion in 2035,” it says. “The medical segment, while more established, represents the smaller share of total activity at only about 20 percent. As such, the medical marijuana segment accounts for between $5 and $8 billion in sales each year from 2024-2035.” Uncertainties underlying the revenue estimates include how much illicit activity would convert to the regulated market under legalization, as well as the effect of taxes on consumer purchases. Legalization would also cause some cannabis workers who are not currently paying income and/or payroll taxes to begin doing so. “Federal legalization would likely generate income and payroll tax revenue beyond that collected through the excise tax. Workers in the illicit cannabis economy—cultivators, trimmers, distributors, and retail-facing sellers—currently earn income that is neither reported to the IRS nor subject to FICA withholding, because their employers have no lawful basis for establishing formal employment relationships at the federal level. Federal legalization would bifurcate this formerly invisible workforce into two distinct categories for tax purposes. Employees absorbed into licensed, formally structured cannabis firms—the multistate operators, vertically integrated cultivators, and dispensary chains that already operate in the state-legal market—would receive W-2 wages, generating both the employer and employee shares of FICA taxes as well as federal income tax withholding.” People who own cannabis businesses would also enter into the tax system and be subject to self-employment taxes or federal income tax on net profit—”income streams that are currently entirely outside the federal tax base,” the report says. “Federal legalization could result in a large-scale transfer of economic activity from the untaxed underground economy into the tax-compliant legal market,” the analysis says. “This shift holds implications for income and payroll tax revenue that is analytically distinct from, and additive to, the excise tax revenues. The scale of the illicit market that would be subject to this transition is substantial.” Another piece of uncertainty that researchers did not attempt to account for in their calculations stems from the fact that federally legal marijuana businesses would be able to take advantage of tax deductions and credits that they are not eligible for in light of cannabis’s Schedule I status under the law known as 280E. Despite the uncertainty, the report says, federal legalization would undoubtedly lead to new revenue. “Federal legalization, by eliminating federal restrictions on banking access, interstate commerce, and formal employment relationships for many illicit operators, would reduce the structural advantages that sustain the black market and pull a meaningful share of that activity into the regulated economy,” the analysis says. A separately recently published federal report from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that states where marijuana is legal have generated nearly $15 billion in tax revenue from legal cannabis sales since late 2021. Another report from the advocacy group the Marijuana Policy Project found that states have generated more than $28.4 billion in tax revenue from recreational marijuana sales since the first markets launched over a decade ago. Meanwhile, an additional economic analysis released by Vangst and Whitney Economics found that, for the first time since state recreational marijuana markets launched in 2014, the industry saw a year-over-year decline in national revenue from cannabis sales in 2025. The post Marijuana Could Generate $111 Billion In Tax Revenue Over A Decade If Legalized Federally And In All 50 States, Yale Report Shows appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

A hemp company is pushing back on a recent court filing from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) about the agency’s stance that a cannabinoid produced synthetically from components of the cannabis plant is federally illegal—saying that its denial of another business’s petition on the issue undermines the arguments the government is making in ongoing litigation. DEA issued a rule in May saying that while it had already considered hexahydrocannabinol (HHC) to be a Schedule I illegal substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the agency will now giving the compound its own unique drug code for classification. Two hemp companies filed separate lawsuits challenging the move, however, and last week DEA filed a brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in response to one of them—arguing that the company, Bluestar Operations, LLC, does not have standing to bring the case and, even if it did, it would fail on the merits. The agency essentially said it has considered HHC to be illegal for decades and that assigning the code does is “a technical change that has no substantive effect on HHC’s status as a schedule I substance.” “All the rule does is assign a tracking code to HHC to facilitate DEA’s administration of the CSA,” the brief said, adding that because the change “imposes no new obligations or liabilities,” Bluestar has not “identified any injury traceable to the rule that can be remedied in this proceeding.” Bluestar, in a reply brief filed on Thursday, said DEA’s filing provided “no substantive answer to the merits” of its case. “The DEA Rule, according to the Respondents, is something both simultaneously important enough to warrant publication in the Code of Federal Regulations yet sufficiently inconsequential that no one it reaches may be heard to challenge it,” lawyers for the company wrote. “Both cannot be true. That strategy fails on its own terms, and cannot rescue the DEA Rule which is unlawful on the merits.” DEA’s position, Bluestar said in the filing, is that the company’s “injuries flow from the ‘preexisting’ status of HHC rather than from the DEA Rule.” But the agency “cannot have it both ways,” it said. “If HHC was already unambiguously a Schedule I substance, then no new agency action was necessary.” The Bluestar filing also said that DEA’s argument that HHC is not “part of” the hemp plant contradicts the 2018 Farm Bill’s definition of hemp as including “all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers” as well as the agency’s own “fifty-year practice of treating plant-elaborated compounds as retaining their botanical lineage.” The drug agency’s brief last week also pointed to forthcoming planned changes in the legal status of hemp products. Hemp derivatives with less than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC on a dry-weight basis were federally legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill that President Donald Trump signed during his first term in office. But late last year, the president signed new legislation containing provisions that will redefine hemp to make it so only products with 0.4 milligrams of total THC per container will remain legal after November 12. As such, DEA said that the legal theory behind Bluestar’s case “will soon be overtaken by events.” The scheduled recriminalization of many hemp products “will defeat whatever remains of Bluestar’s claims,” it argued. That said, Senate recently approved a funding bill that includes a provision to delay the effective date of the hemp product ban until December 11—a move that was supported by the White House. While that change has not yet been approved by the House of Representatives or enacted into law, industry supports believe it could give them more time to convince Congress to enact a regulatory structure for hemp products as an alternative to broad prohibition. The new Bluestar brief pushed back on DEA’s citation of the potential change in hemp products’ federally legal status, saying that “the 2025 amendment is prospective—it is not yet in effect, and cannot retroactively supply a limitation the language of the 2018 Farm Bill never contained.” “If anything, the 2025 amendment underscores that under current law—the only law governing the DEA Rule—hemp-derived HHC is lawful hemp,” the company’s lawyers wrote. Separately, a lawyer for Bluestar sent a letter to the Fourth Circuit’s clerk on Saturday to notify the court of what he called a “dispositive development bearing directly” on DEA’s “defensive argument that Bluestar has failed to exhaust its remedies through a petition for rulemaking.” The agency’s brief last week had said the “appropriate” course for the company was to file an administrative petition to reschedule HHC rather than file the current lawsuit. But what DEA “did not disclose to the Court was the critical fact that another HHC manufacturer pursued that very route on June 18, 2026,” J. Gregory Troutman of Troutman Law Office, PLLC wrote in the letter on behalf of Bluestar. “That petition made the same core procedural and substantive arguments that Bluestar makes here, including parallel constitutional arguments.” Troutman noted that “a mere 17 hours after Bluestar filed” its initial reply brief, “DEA transmitted its denial of this parallel administrative petition.” “The short temporal gap between Bluestar’s Reply brief and the DEA’s denial of a parallel administrative petition on the same issues cannot be a coincidence,” the lawyer wrote. “It infers futility vis-à-vis the Respondents’ exhaustion of remedies argument and negates their standing traceability, redressability and mootness arguments. It also confirms the Petitioners’ closed-door/moving-target defenses, infers that the DEA manufactured its defenses and further confirms the basis for granting relief here.” Meanwhile, the appeals court considering Bluestar’s challenge in June denied the company’s request for a stay on the drug code rule pending resolution of the litigation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is considering a separate similar case brought by the hemp company IHC Investments, Inc., which also filed the rescheduling petition that Bluestar’s lawyer noted in his letter to the Fourth Circuit. Both suits say the agency’s decision is “unlawful.” In earlier briefs filed in June, DEA has said that each petitioner “fails to meet any of the factors required to show that a stay pending review would be warranted.” HHC can be found in trace amounts in cannabis plants but is also synthesized by hydrogenating cannabidiol (CBD). It’s sometimes sprayed on cannabis flowers that are low in delta-9 THC, the most well-known psychoactive component of marijuana, and its psychoactive effects are reportedly similar. While the 2018 Farm Bill federally legalized hemp and its derivatives with less than .3 percent delta-9 THC on a dry-weight basis, DEA says that only applies to naturally occurring, and not synthetic, cannabinoids. As such, it is the agency’s position that HHC does not fall under the definition of legal hemp. The Bluestar case cited a prior ruling in the Fourth Circuit that found the hemp-derived cannabinoid THC-O-acetate is federally legal despite DEA’s claim to the contrary. “Congress intentionally employed expansive statutory language and did not prohibit cannabinoids subjected to ordinary extraction, refinement, conversion, hydrogenation, distillation, or similar manufacturing processes commonly utilized throughout the hemp industry,” the complaint said. DEA’s move “conflicts with the plain text, structure, and purpose of the 2018 Farm Bill and unlawfully inserts limitations Congress neither intended, nor enacted,” it said. The agency’s action has “already caused immediate and concrete harm to the Petitioner, including substantial compliance costs, business uncertainty, reputational harm, disruption of commercial relationships, and interference with ongoing operations.” “Congress, not executive agencies like the DEA, defines the scope of federal criminal liability. The DEA lacks authority to narrow Congress’s legalization of hemp cannabinoids through interpretive construction unsupported by statutory text.” The IHC Investments case cited a prior Ninth Circuit ruling that the federal legalization of hemp through the 2018 Farm Bill removed restrictions on a wide range of molecules produced by the cannabis plant—including the psychoactive cannabinoid delta-8 THC. The petition said that “DEA effectively, and thus unlawfully, attempts to expand federal criminal liability through administrative interpretation, unsupported by the plain statutory text of the enabling legislation.” “Congress did not prohibit converted cannabinoids, hydrogenated cannabinoids, or cannabinoids subjected to ordinary commercial processing techniques,” the complaint said. “Congress did not clearly authorize the DEA to criminalize broad categories of hemp-derived cannabinoids through administrative interpretation.” Both petitions argued that DEA’s move violates the major questions doctrine, a precedent holding that if an agency seeks to decide an issue of major national significance, that action needs to be supported by clear congressional authorization. The agency’s ban of HHC “carries enormous economic and political significance affecting a nationwide hemp industry involving billions of dollars in commerce,” the litigation brought by Bluestar said. DEA, for its part, said in the HHC rule it filed that “only tetrahydrocannabinols in or derived from the cannabis plant—not synthetic tetrahydrocannabinols—are excluded from control as ‘tetrahydrocannabinols in hemp.'” “To clarify further, tetrahydrocannabinols produced through chemical conversion, even when hemp derived are considered synthetically produced for purposes of the CSA, do not qualify as ‘tetrahydrocannabinols in hemp’ under” the 2018 Farm Bill, the agency said. The Federal Register notice wasn’t the first time that DEA addressed the legal status of HHC. In a 2023 letter, Terrance Boos, chief of DEA’s Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section, wrote that HHC “does not occur naturally in the cannabis plant and can only be obtained synthetically, and therefore does not fall under the definition of hemp.” The recent filing signed by DEA Administrator Terrance Cole said that “this rule does not affect the continuing status of hexahydrocannabinol as a schedule I controlled substance in any way.” “This action, as an administrative matter, establishes a separate, specific listing for hexahydrocannabinol in schedule I of the CSA and assigns a DEA drug code for this substance,” it said. “This action will allow DEA to establish an aggregate production quota and grant individual manufacturing and procurement quotas to DEA-registered manufacturers of hexahydrocannabinol, who had previously been granted individual quotas for such purposes under the drug code for tetrahydrocannabinols.” The DEA notice cited a move last year by an international drug control body to add HHC to Schedule II of the United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971—but the document doesn’t note that when the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) took the action, the U.S. was the only country to abstain from the vote. DEA said that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) “concurs with the direct listing and drug code assignment of hexahydrocannabinol in the CSA.” Read the filing and letter in the HHC lawsuit below: The post Hemp Company Pushes Back On DEA Claim That Synthetic Cannabis Compound HHC Is Illegal appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“The judge himself acknowledged that this was rushed legislation, leading to complications and unintended consequences.” By Samantha Willis, Virginia Mercury A federal judge in Roanoke on Friday declined seven Virginia hemp business owners’ request to eliminate a new regulation that removes an exception to the state’s limit of 2 milligrams of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) per product package. The new standard took effect August 15. The entrepreneurs had asked the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia in Roanoke for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to block the rule stemming from the state budget lawmakers passed and Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) signed in late June. They said the removal of the 25-to-1 ratio, which allowed hemp products to exceed the 2 mg THC limit if they contained 25 times as much cannabidiol (CBD), would devastate their businesses, cause severe financial strains and undermine Virginia’s small business owners. The court found that the plaintiffs did not prove that the new standard would significantly harm their businesses, and determined that the new rule was created in the public’s best interest. “Because Plaintiffs have not demonstrated either a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable injury if HB 30 becomes effective, and because the balance of equities and the public interest weigh in favor of Defendants, the Motions for Preliminary Injunction…and Temporary Restraining Order…are DENIED,” Judge Robert S. Ballou wrote on Aug. 14. The plaintiffs and other hemp industry representatives reacted quickly, expressing disappointment in the judgment, requesting lawmakers discuss the matter in a special legislative session and asking authorities to pause the new law. “We are incredibly disappointed with today’s news. The judge himself acknowledged that this was rushed legislation, leading to complications and unintended consequences,” Barbara Biddle, president of the Cannabis Small Business Association and owner of District Hemp Botanicals, said in a statement. “We are calling on legislators to convene a special session to address the gap in access for consumers, protect businesses from bankruptcy and reinstate the previous definition of hemp.” Biddle added: “We’re also asking the Virginia Cannabis Control Authority, Office of the Attorney General and local law enforcement to consider halting enforcement of the redefinition until legislators are able to resolve this issue.” Travis Lane, owner of Northern Virginia Hemp & Agriculture LLC, placed blame for the new standard squarely on Spanberger and her administration. “If Virginia small businesses are pushed toward bankruptcy while a new state-regulated cannabis market is being built for 2027, voters deserve to remember who made that choice, and our elected leaders still have an opportunity to change it,” Lane said in a statement. Spanberger has not commented on the ruling but earlier this month, her spokesperson said gaps between the state’s marijuana and hemp laws created dangerous conditions. “For years, untested and highly-intoxicating products have flooded Virginia with little oversight, inadequate protections for kids and teenagers and few tools for law enforcement to address the illicit market—all because of a loophole in state law that bad faith actors have exploited and pushed the limit of its intended use,” the spokesperson said. He added that the state’s adult-use cannabis market, slated to open next year, will streamline the industries, shore up safety and create new opportunities for small businesses owners. This story was first published by Virginia Mercury. Photo courtesy of Philip Steffan. The post Virginia Hemp Businesses Push Lawmakers For Special Session After Judge Declines To Block New THC Product Restrictions appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net