All Activity

Texas’s incoming Democratic lieutenant governor says there are a number of different options for how the state can move forward with enacting cannabis reform now that she and other members of her party won key victories in last week’s midterm elections. In an interview with MS NOW on Saturday, Lt. Gov.-elect Vikki Goodwin (D) noted that she and voters “had a lot of conversations on the campaign trail” about the hemp THC product ban that incumbent Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R), who she defeated at the ballot, pushed in the legislature. “Now we have an opportunity to make sure that we’re supporting small businesses that are in the hemp industry and supporting the veterans and people that use that those products to manage their pain, PTSD and so many other things,” she said. When the host asked Goodwin about the opportunity for broader marijuana legalization in Texas, the incoming lieutenant governor said that “we still have to have a lot of conversations about that.” “There’s differing opinions even within the industry,” she said. “There’s been conversations about, do we expand our TCUP, the Texas Compassionate Use Program, which is medicinal marijuana, or do we legalize it altogether? So we still need to have conversations about that.” In a separate interview with WFAA-TV, Goodwin reiterated that she is “not in favor of a THC ban” along the lines of the one that Patrick got through the legislature last session but which was subsequently vetoed by Gov. Greg Abbott (R). Following that veto, however, state agencies advanced restrictive rules that effectively banned many hemp products and which are currently being challenged in court. “I think that we should have the Department of State Health Services unwind the rules that they put in place because that’s legislative,” the lieutenant governor-elect said. “They changed the law through those rules, and they don’t have the authority to do that.” Goodwin specifically thanked members of the hemp industry during her victory speech on election night last week, including the Hemp Business Council. During the campaign, Goodwin made clear that she supports marijuana reform—including by hosting a “Legalize It” rally and organizing cannabis-focused phonebanking efforts. She also claimed that Patrick pushed to ban hemp THC products in order to benefit alcohol companies, which happen to be among his substantial campaign contributors. “We’ve seen the lieutenant governor take hundreds of thousands of dollars from the alcohol industry, and that’s what drove the policy around the ban on THC,” she said. “I am in favor of treating THC like alcohol. A part of my healthcare plan is taxing THC like we do alcohol and cigarettes and use that for healthcare.” Gov.-elect Gina Hinojosa (D) has said she wants to let Texas voters decide on marijuana legalization via a legislative ballot referendum. A strong bipartisan majority of Texans support legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana, according to recent polling. Separately last week, voters in Houston approved a ballot initiative to make misdemeanor marijuana possession the “lowest possible enforcement priority” for local police while also banning no-knock warrants. Meanwhile, Sen.-elect James Talarico (D-TX) has said he wants to parter with President Donald Trump to federally legalize marijuana. The post Incoming Texas Lieutenant Governor Discusses Options For Cannabis Reform, Including Full Legalization Or Medical Expansion appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“Lawmakers have a new opportunity and a bipartisan path forward to regulate all THC products in the state and finally deliver the reform voters want and voted for.” By Kevin Caldwell, Marijuana Policy Project As we look back at last week’s recent election and prepare for the 2027 session, one question keeps popping up: why does North Carolina remain the Mid-Atlantic outlier on cannabis policy? Nearly the entire region has established a medical cannabis program or legalized adult-use cannabis. Nationwide, 24 states have ended cannabis prohibition, meaning 54 percent of Americans now live in legalization states. With over a decade of real-world data, we now can see what happens after prohibition ends. Opponents often speak of a world where cannabis doesn’t exist if the law forbids it. Simply spoken, that is a moot point and completely based in a fantasy world that is not pertinent. Cannabis has been—and will continue to be—a part of North Carolina culture. The real question isn’t whether cannabis exists, but whether state legislators choose to regulate it and reap the benefits that accompany cannabis policy reform, or continue the failed policy of prohibition. Senator Bill Rabon (R) guided the North Carolina Compassionate Care Act, a bill to legalize medical cannabis, through the state Senate three separate times—in 2022, 2023 and again in 2024, when the Senate attempted to attach the language to a consumable hemp bill. Despite decisive 36-10 votes in both 2023 and 2024, the state House of Representatives consistently refused to even consider the legislation. Instead, the House utilized a private caucus vote to determine which bills would reach the floor, leaving medical cannabis reportedly just one vote short. As a result, patients suffering from serious medical conditions were denied access to safe, lab-tested products, while untested and unregulated hemp-derived THC products were widely available in North Carolina. Patients with debilitating medical conditions should never have to rely on unregulated products. Following last week’s midterm elections, however, the landscape of the General Assembly has shifted. With Democrats having won a majority in the House of Representatives, lawmakers have a new opportunity and a bipartisan path forward to regulate all THC products in the state and finally deliver the reform voters want and voted for. Before the end of the year, Governor Josh Stein’s (D) North Carolina Advisory Council on Cannabis will be presenting their findings to a legislature that looks a lot different than what many expected it to look like prior to the election. The council has done the legwork, and now the General Assembly gets to decide how the state moves forward. Meanwhile, regional pressure is mounting. The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians already operates an adult-use dispensary within the borders of North Carolina, and Virginia will soon be opening many adult-use dispensaries within a quick drive from many North Carolinians. Now is the time for the Tarheel State to legalize, tax and regulate cannabis for many reasons, including to protect the kids. One of the most compelling findings after more than a decade of adult-use legalization is that youth consumption drops in states that have ended prohibition. In every state that has legalized adult-use cannabis, there has been a significant reduction in youth usage post-legalization. For example, cannabis use by high school-aged teens is down nearly 30% since legalization in Nevada, nearly 50 percent in Michigan and nearly 60 percent in Arizona. In North Carolina, youth usage has already dropped in the past few years, and it is a logical assumption that it will continue to drop after legalization as it has in so many states. In fact, North Carolina should be celebrating that it has seen a 50 percent decrease in youth use since 2013, but with legalization, we can lower that number even further. Keeping regulated cannabis behind the counter—supported by an exceptional record of licensed businesses refusing sales to minors—works. Consider Massachusetts, where voters recently faced a ballot initiative to roll back cannabis legalization after a decade. Voters rejected that measure by a 3-1 margin, a nearly 20 point increase in support compared to when legalization passed in 2016. Notably, not a single law enforcement organization supported ending adult-use sales or home grow rights. Regulation simply works better than prohibition. As a society, we do not ban products for adults simply because they are unfit for children. Whether dealing with alcohol, nicotine or high-fructose corn syrup, strict regulations and public health education allow us to protect youth while respecting adult choice. Legalization also boosts local economies. Under prohibition, the social and law-enforcement costs of cannabis consumption fall entirely on taxpayers. By contrast, legal markets generate tax revenues that directly benefit local communities, funding essential public infrastructure, public safety and health education. While the concern that legalization will allow large corporations to dominate the local market is valid, it is also why we must act now. To build a thriving, equitable industry, North Carolina must successfully integrate the illicit market and the hemp market to a legal market before federal prohibition ends, at which point interstate commerce would favor established corporate giants. The debate is no longer about whether cannabis should be available—that reality was settled decades ago. Legalizing adult-use cannabis in 2027 will protect our youth, generate vital tax revenue, and give North Carolina entrepreneurs the opportunity to lead one of the fastest growing segments of the modern American economy. It is time for North Carolina to stop falling for prohibitionist propaganda and start protecting its own growers, consumers and future. Voters elected a new General Assembly in this election and now we have the opportunity to act in an expeditious manner on this issue. We have seen that under the right circumstances, legislatures can implement legalization quickly. North Carolina has the opportunity to show other states how to integrate medical cannabis, adult-use legalization and consumable hemp into one well-regulated framework, and it’s time they make it happen. Kevin Caldwell is senior manager of legislative affairs for the Marijuana Policy Project. The post North Carolina Has A Chance To Finally Legalize Marijuana After Last Week’s Elections (Op-Ed) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Missouri regulators are warning marijuana businesses not to ship or receive cannabis products over state lines—even if they get permission from federal officials under the Trump administration’s rescheduling reform. “The recent federal rescheduling of state licensed medical marijuana does not replace Missouri’s medical marijuana regulatory program,” the state Department of Health & Senior Services’s (DHSS) Division of Cannabis Regulation (DCR) said in a guidance document published last week. “Instead, it adds federal requirements on top of the existing state framework, creating a dual layer system in which licensees must comply with both Missouri regulations and applicable federal obligations, if the licensee chooses to register with” the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Current state law “does not authorize import, export, or interstate commerce of regulated cannabis,” the DCR guidance cautioned. “While licensees may receive such authorization via the federal registration process, exercising that authority will not be possible until Missouri updates its rules and infrastructure to align with federal changes.” Regulators said that they consider moving Missouri-regulated cannabis products outside the authorized system to be illegal diversion, while bringing marijuana from outside regulated businesses into the market is prohibited as inversion. “Missouri regulations do not yet include a framework either for import or export of cannabis or for transport of cannabis across state lines,” they said. “DHSS will issue further guidance when rules and infrastructure are updated to operationalize any federal changes in this area, if applicable.” “Avoid any import, export, interstate commerce, or other activity removing Missouri-regulated product from the regulated system until Missouri rules are updated.” In the meantime, state-licensed marijuana businesses must continue to abide by product tracking standards, testing rules and facility visitor access requirements, regulators said. “Missouri licensees must continue operating exactly as they do today under state authority,” the guidance said. “Federal registration is dependent on maintaining state licensure. Therefore, where any potential conflict arises between state and federal expectations, it is imperative licensees work with the Department to ensure they remain in compliance with laws and regulations governing their state license.” In April, Attorney General Todd Blanche issued an order immediately moving marijuana products regulated by a state medical cannabis license from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III, along with marijuana products that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Days later, the agency began accepting registrations from medical cannabis dispensaries with a new form. Last month, DEA granted an initial batch of federal registrations to more than 900 medical cannabis businesses. DEA also recently launched new specialized registration forms for additional types of state-licensed medical marijuana businesses such as manufacturers, distributors and analytical labs. A DEA hearing that recently concluded testimony is considering broader marijuana rescheduling beyond medical cannabis. Photo courtesy of Carlos Gracia. The post Missouri Officials Warn Marijuana Businesses That Interstate Commerce Is Not Allowed, Even Under Federal Rescheduling appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is moving to dramatically increase the amount of certain psychedelics that can be legally produced in the U.S. next year for medical, scientific, research and industrial purposes while saying it will be issuing a separate proposal to reflect marijuana production quotas in light of the Trump administration’s rescheduling move. The agency on Monday filed a draft Federal Register notice laying out proposal 2027 annual production quotas (APQs) for Schedule I and II substances. “DEA is proposing higher APQs than the 2026 proposed revised APQs for the following schedule I controlled substances: 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) and ibogaine to support manufacturing activities related to the increased level of research and clinical trials being conducted with these substances for potential treatment of conditions including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression,” the filing says. For ibogaine, DEA is proposing an especially large increase in legal production—from 210 grams this year to 12,002 grams in 2027. The agency is proposing to boost MDMA production from 12,000 grams in 2026 to 33,296 grams next year. DEA said the move “aligns with” executive orders issued by President Donald Trump, including one focused on booting research on and access to psychedelics that he signed in April. Although not mentioned in the narrative of the new Federal Register filing, the agency is also proposing to increase legal production of the psychedelic psilocybin from 50,000 grams this year to 60,000 grams next year and its related chemical psilocyn from 80,000 grams in 2026 to 93,600 grams in 2027. When it comes to marijuana, DEA is proposing to keep production of it and related cannabinoids for Schedule I purposes at existing 2026 levels of 6,675,000 grams of cannabis, 1,000,000 grams of marijuana extract, 1,523,040 grams of delta-9-THC and 1,166,130 grams of all other THC. That said, the agency noted in the Federal Register filing that state-licensed medical cannabis and medical marijuana products approved by the Food and Drug Administration have been moved to Schedule III under an order signed earlier this year by Attorney General Todd Blanche. Accordingly, DEA assigned new unique drug codes for newly rescheduled marijuana and cannabinoids. “DEA is currently in the process of registering the manufacturers and distributors who will be handling the substances that have been moved to schedule III under the CSA as outlined in the final rule,” it said. “Concurrently, DEA is assessing data sources and methodologies to determine the most reliable and relevant datasets for the estimation of the United States’ legitimate need and production requirements” for rescheduled marijuana and cannabinoids. As such, the new filing only reflects marijuana-related quota levels for cannabis that remains in Schedule I for research purposes. “A separate notice will be published in the Federal Register once the proposed APQs for the schedule III substances…are determined,” it said. A separate hearing is underway to consider the process of moving non-medical marijuana to Schedule III as well. Once the new Federal Register notice on production quotas is formally published on Wednesday the agency will accept public comments on the proposal for a period of 30 days. Image element courtesy of Kristie Gianopulos. The post DEA Boosts Psychedelic Production Quotas For 2027 While Previewing Separate Marijuana Proposal Under Rescheduling appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“At a time when the nation struggles to find common ground, the exceptional support for legalizing cannabis is where shared purpose can begin.” By Adam Rosenberg, National Cannabis Industry Association Americans just elected a new Congress after years of bitter partisan division that has left families, businesses and communities uncertain about their future. Few issues are more universally supported, and offer lawmakers a better place to start working together again, than cannabis reform. Cannabis, particularly legal access to medical cannabis, has the unusual power to unite Americans across geographic, ideological and political lines. Nearly 90 percent of the country supports legalizing cannabis for at least medical use, a level of agreement unmatched by almost any other policy question in modern history. That consensus already reaches across Pennsylvania Avenue where President Donald Trump ordered cannabis to be rescheduled last December, aligning him with the incoming Democratic majority in Congress. At a time when the nation struggles to find common ground, the exceptional support for legalizing cannabis is where shared purpose can begin. Voters across the spectrum rejected prohibition Tuesday’s results showed both blue and red states are moving out of prohibition and into regulated markets with prohibitionist lawmakers increasingly being voted out. In Massachusetts, 10 years after a ballot initiative legalized adult-use cannabis with 54 percent, nearly 76 percent rejected a ballot question to repeal it. Support grew by more than 20 points after a decade of real-world experience. In Idaho, voters rejected a constitutional amendment that would have stripped them of the right to legalize cannabis through ballot initiatives. In Texas, Attorney General Ken Paxton’s (R) defeat was another rebuke of prohibitionist policy. The message from voters to lawmakers is clear: Americans prefer the outcomes of regulation over prohibition. The people federal policy leaves behind Through more than a decade in the cannabis industry, I have seen the diversity of people it serves, including cancer patients managing pain and regaining appetites lost to chemotherapy, parents easing their children’s seizures and veterans recovering from PTSD and traumatic injuries. It also supports tens of thousands of businesses and raises billions of dollars per year in taxes that are invested into local communities. Despite progress in the rescheduling process, federal law still treats most cannabis as a Schedule I substance, alongside heroin and under harsher restrictions than methamphetamine. That outdated approach inhibits research, limits access and leaves most of the roughly $100 billion in annual cannabis sales with criminal organizations rather than tax-paying American businesses. More than 50 million Americans will use cannabis this year, including around 4 million registered medical patients, despite more than half a century in the most restrictive federal classification. It has long since been time for federal policy to align with this reality to protect public health, keep communities safe and deliver the economic benefits to American communities instead of the illicit market. Regulation delivers what both parties want Even lawmakers who publicly disagree about cannabis share the same stated goals: keeping intoxicating products away from minors, safer communities and fewer overdose deaths. Data from maturing state markets demonstrates that regulation advances every one of those causes. Strict age verification and packaging standards keep products away from minors. Legal access undercuts criminal networks and frees law enforcement to focus on violent crimes. Expanded research and safe access offer alternatives to opioids, helping reduce overdose deaths. Federal policy that legitimizes licensed operators, already strictly regulated under state law, would stabilize an industry that currently supports more than 425,000 American workers. Lawmakers from both parties have backed cannabis legislation on banking, research, states’ rights and criminal justice reform. The new Congress has an opportunity to convert these bipartisan talking points into action. What the new Congress should do The new Congress can draw clear lines that let the industry operate like any other business through clarity on taxes, banking and access to capital, while defining the role of state markets. As rescheduling and the federal hemp definition play out, Congress must also resolve the contradictions between state and federal law. That includes reconciling state medical programs with DEA registration, addressing states that issue dual licenses and fixing a glaring conflict: state social equity programs were built to support victims of the drug war, yet DEA rules make many of those same individuals ineligible for the new federal licenses. A foundation for rebuilding trust Virtually every American family knows someone affected by cannabis policy, through a loved one’s health, the safety of their neighborhood or the strength of their local economy. Reform is about replacing a failed system with one grounded in science that saves lives, protects communities, and supports economic prosperity. The broader payoff is restoring trust that our lawmakers can find a path to meaningful progress. Voters have made their position known, and cannabis reform can be the first step toward a more collaborative Washington. Adam Rosenberg is Chairman of the Board of the National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA) and Partner at Vlasic Bioscience, with extensive experience spanning the entire cannabinoid supply chain, investment, education, and regulatory policy. The post Cannabis Can Be The Issue That Unites A Divided Federal Government (Op-Ed) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

A great content material as well as great layout. Your website deserves all of the positive feedback it’s been getting. I will be back soon for further quality contents. sengtoto slot

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is continuing to point out the that Food and Drug Administration (FDA) still hasn’t fulfilled a legal mandate to publish a list of known cannabinoids and guidance on hemp product containers as federal laws for the crop and its derivatives are set to change in a way that stakeholders argue will upend the existing market. Hemp industry operatives have said that the agency’s failure to follow through on what lawmakers directed will make it harder to comply with the law. Hemp derivatives with less than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC on a dry-weight basis were federally legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill that President Donald Trump signed during his first term in office. But late last year, the president signed new legislation containing provisions that redefined hemp to make it so only products with 0.4 milligrams of total THC per container would remain legal after November 12. Now, however, under provisions included in a funding bill Trump signed in September, the effective date of the ban for most products is being pushed back to December 11 to give lawmakers more time to craft regulations for hemp derivatives. There is a carve-out, however, to allow the recriminalization on November 12 of synthetic cannabinoids “that are not capable of being naturally produced by a Cannabis sativa L. plant.” Last year’s spending measure also included separate provisions directing FDA and other relevant agencies to study the cannabinoid marketplace and develop lists of cannabis components as well as issue guidance on hemp product containers for serving sizes. Specifically, after the bill was signed, FDA was given 90 days to publish 1) a list of “all cannabinoids known to FDA to be capable of being naturally produced” by cannabis 2) a list of “all tetrahydrocannabinol class cannabinoids known to the agency to be naturally occurring in the plant” and 3) a list of “all other know cannabinoids with similar effects to, or marketed to have similar effects to, tetrahyrocannabinol class cannabinoids.” Further, the agency was tasked with providing “additional information and specificity about the term ‘container’” with respect to hemp product THC serving sizes on the same 90-day timeline. In the bill, the term is defined as “the innermost wrapping, packaging, or vessel in direct contact with a final hemp-derived cannabinoid product in which the final hemp-derived cannabinoid product is enclosed for retail sale to consumers, such as a jar, bottle, bag, box, packet, can, carton, or cartridge.” The lists and information was due nearly nine months ago, on February 10, but FDA did not follow through by the deadline—and still hasn’t published the required information. Now, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) is noting in a report published late last month that “the Hemp Definition Amendment also directs the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), within 90 days of enactment, to publish” the guidance, but that “as of the date of the publication of this Legal Sidebar, FDA has not published any of these items.” This is at least the third time that CRS has called out FDA for failing to meet the congressionally mandated deadline. Marijuana Moment has sent several requests to FDA for an update on its plans to publish the required guidance and any reaction to CRS’s report, but representatives have not replied. A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), of which FDA is a component, told Marijuana Moment earlier this year that it was the agency’s intention to provide the lists in time and that they would be published in the Federal Register. However, that’s yet to materialize—and officials did not provide clarification when asked for an update. That causes complications for the hemp product industry. “It is difficult to comply with the law while key definitions are still in question,” Jim Higdon, cofounder and chief communications officer of Cornbread Hemp, told Marijuana Moment in August, the last time CRS noted FDA’s delay. “Without knowing the definition of container or exact list of cannabinoids that are covered by the ban, how does one comply?” Lawmakers from both parties have filed several bills to create regulations for hemp THC products, but none of those proposals have gained traction with congressional leadership. The post FDA Is 9 Months Late In Publishing Legally Mandated Hemp Guidance, And Congressional Researchers Are Calling The Agency Out appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

I know your expertise on this. I must say we should have an online discussion on this. Writing only comments will close the discussion straight away! And will restrict the benefits from this information. coloksgp

MA medical marijuana expansion; American Indian group wants rescheduling changes; KY lt gov talks medical cannabis; TX hemp court hearing canceled Subscribe to receive Marijuana Moment’s newsletter in your inbox every weekday morning. It’s the best way to make sure you know which cannabis stories are shaping the day. Get our daily newsletter. Email address: Leave this field empty if you're human: Your support makes Marijuana Moment possible… BREAKING: Journalism is often consumed for free, but costs money to produce! While this newsletter is proudly sent without cost to you, our ability to send it each day depends on the financial support of readers who can afford to give it. So if you’ve got a few dollars to spare each month and believe in the work we do, please consider joining us on Patreon today. https://www.patreon.com/marijuanamoment / TOP THINGS TO KNOW The Drug Enforcement Administration and marijuana rescheduling opponents filed what are expected to be the final briefs in a hearing on the Trump administration’s proposal to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III before an agency judge issues a recommendation on the reform. The Massachusetts Senate approved an amended version of a House-passed bill to let military veterans get medical cannabis without a doctor’s recommendation and to add PTSD, chronic pain and opioid use disorder as qualifying conditions. Kentucky Lt. Gov. Jacqueline Coleman (D) announced that the state has reached a new “milestone” of more than 30,000 medical cannabis cardholders—adding that regulators are now “more than halfway finished in our buildout of approved businesses.” The National Congress of American Indians adopted a resolution saying the Trump administration “failed to engage” in consultation with tribes when crafting its plan to reschedule marijuana and should amend the order on the reform or adopt a new one to ensure that tribally regulated cannabis is covered. Project Champion’s Gretchen Gailey argues in a new Marijuana Moment op-ed that the defeat of a Massachusetts ballot measure to roll back legalization shows that “when this industry comes together, we can make a difference.” “For too long, cannabis businesses, advocates, veterans, patients and policymakers have operated in separate corners of the same fight. We have allowed disagreements over business models, regulations, personalities and competing interests to divide us. Meanwhile, those who want to roll back progress have had no problem organizing around a common objective.” The Texas 15th Court of Appeals canceled scheduled oral arguments in a case challenging hemp THC product restrictions after voters replaced all three Republican justices with Democrats. Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway (R) filed legal actions against businesses accused of unlawfully selling unlicensed cannabis products as a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit challenging the state’s new hemp THC restrictions. A Virginia Republican senator filed a resolution calling for the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections to investigate and potentially recommend the expulsion of the body’s president pro tempore, who is facing federal marijuana and fraud charges. / FEDERAL The Drug Enforcement Administration is moving to place the hallucinogen 3-CMC in Schedule I. Rep. James Gallagher (R-CA) discussed his concerns about illicit marijuana cultivation operations. The House bill to direct the Department of Veterans Affairs to study medical cannabis got one new cosponsor for a total of five. / STATES Michigan regulators announced a recall of cannabis products that may have caused digestive distress. Illinois regulators are being sued over hemp THC product restrictions. California regulators are moving to readopt emergency rules allowing marijuana businesses to change the license designations. Florida regulators filed proposed rules on medical cannabis delivery devices. Maryland regulators published guidance about hemp testing laboratory qualifications. Oregon regulators published updated health statements about the impact of marijuana use. — Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments. Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access. — / LOCAL Voters in Michigan municipalities decided on ballot measures to expand or restrict marijuana businesses’ ability to operate. Voters in Oregon municipalities decided on local ballot measures on marijuana and psilocybin. San Antonio, Texas City Council members are pushing for a municipal study on the economic potential of marijuana legalization. / INTERNATIONAL Canadian officials are proposing to streamline the country’s system of excise duty stamps for cannabis. / SCIENCE & HEALTH A study found that “the practice of cannabis consumption dates back at least 2800 years.” A study found that “adjunctive Cannabis oil contributed to improved pruritus control in dogs with atopic dermatitis.” / ADVOCACY, OPINION & ANALYSIS Focus on the Family published an article about the defeat of anti-marijuana ballot measures in Idaho and Massachusetts. / BUSINESS Cresco Labs Inc. reported quarterly net revenue of $172.8 million and a net loss of $14.5 million. Canopy Growth Corporation reported quarterly revenue of C$99.5 million and a net loss of C$40.7 million. Cronos Group Inc. reported quarterly net revenue of $63.5 million. Illinois dispensaries sold $14.6 million worth of products in October. / CULTURE The Princeton Review published its annual list of the top cannabis-friendly colleges. Make sure to subscribe to get Marijuana Moment’s daily dispatch in your inbox. Get our daily newsletter. Email address: Leave this field empty if you're human: The post DEA files final brief in cannabis rescheduling hearing (Newsletter: November 9, 2026) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Explore a rich and diverse collection of cooking-themed games. Come and enjoy these fantastic graphics on papa's freezeria

Explore several strategies to maximize your output while taking charge of your very own virtual bakery. A simple concept becomes a fun challenge of forethought and patience in cookie clicker 1.

“The Senate needs to investigate and figure out what’s going on. If we can’t police our own house, what does that say about us as an institution?” By Markus Schmidt, Virginia Mercury Republican state Sen. Bryce Reeves of Spotsylvania wants the Virginia Senate to investigate Democratic Sen. Louise Lucas of Portsmouth and consider expelling her after federal prosecutors accused her of using her legislative influence to benefit a cannabis business she co-owns. Reeves prefiled Senate Resolution 173 on October 30 for the 2027 General Assembly session, which is scheduled to begin in January. The measure would direct the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections to examine allegations behind five federal charges against Lucas, including racketeering, marijuana distribution, money laundering and honest-services fraud conspiracies, and maintaining drug-involved premises. In an interview with The Mercury Thursday, Reeves said the Senate has a responsibility to investigate possible misconduct independently of the criminal proceedings. He said his proposal was motivated by that obligation and his concerns about financial disclosures, rather than personal animosity toward Lucas. “She’s innocent until proven guilty, but there is enough circumstantial evidence, I think, that the Senate needs to investigate and figure out what’s going on,” Reeves said. “If we can’t police our own house, what does that say about us as an institution?” The resolution could set the stage for a separate vote on expulsion, although it acknowledges Lucas’s presumption of innocence and calls for any disciplinary action to be based on committee findings “supported by evidence.” Lucas, who serves as the Senate’s president pro tempore, did not respond to an inquiry from The Mercury seeking comment. Under Reeves’s proposal, the committee would seek recordings, transcripts, financial and ownership records, economic interest disclosures and legislative documents. Senators would examine whether the alleged conduct violated Virginia’s marijuana distribution laws or the General Assembly Conflict of Interests Act. In the interview, Reeves pointed to allegations that Lucas had failed to disclose business interests on required financial filings. He said that her position as the chair of the powerful Senate Finance and Appropriations Committee, which oversees much of the chamber’s work on taxes and spending, made scrutiny particularly important because of the responsibility its members have for the state budget. The resolution singled out two conversations cited in the indictment. In one, Lucas allegedly discussed making past marijuana-related conduct legal. In another, prosecutors allege, she discussed disqualifying a prospective marijuana license applicant until money owed to her was repaid. The resolution calls for reviewing the underlying recordings and other evidence to determine the statements’ authenticity, context and legal significance. It cautions against treating the indictment or statements quoted in it as proof of guilt or a violation of state law. The committee would hold hearings as needed, provide procedural protections and report its findings and recommendations to the Senate. Any proposed disciplinary action would require another resolution specifying the action. Options include reprimand, censure or expulsion. The committee could also recommend referring the matter to the attorney general. Under the Virginia Constitution, expelling a senator requires a two-thirds vote of the chamber’s elected membership—27 votes in the 40-member Senate. Reeves said he expected the panel would probably consider the matter in January and acknowledged that its review may not result in expulsion. “It might not lead to that, maybe she’s not guilty of some of these things. I don’t want to say one way or the other. I’m just saying we need to look at it, that’s our job,” he said. Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell, D-Fairfax, could not be reached for comment Thursday. The federal indictment unsealed October 22 charged Lucas and six others, including relatives and business associates. Prosecutors allege she helped operate a marijuana distribution enterprise, laundered proceeds and used her public office for personal financial gain. One allegation centers on a $750,000 payment Lucas allegedly made in 2022 for an ownership interest in a business tied to another person’s anticipated recreational marijuana license. Prosecutors allege she failed to disclose the interest and used her position in discussions involving the prospective license. None of the allegations have been proven in court. Reeves’s proposal would allow the Senate to examine possible legislative misconduct while the federal criminal case proceeds. Lucas has served in the Senate since 1992 and as president pro tempore since 2020. Following her indictment, Lucas accused federal authorities of trying to intimidate her and vowed to not back down. Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) defended Lucas’s right to present a defense and questioned the timing of the indictment, which came less than two weeks before the midterm elections. Federal authorities have said the investigation began before President Donald Trump returned to office. House Minority Leader Terry Kilgore, R-Scott, called the allegations serious and said they should be resolved in court. The investigation became public in May, when federal agents searched Lucas’s Portsmouth legislative office and cannabis businesses. Prosecutors allege the operation involved The Cannabis Outlet and The CBD Shoppe, businesses connected to Lucas and her associates. The indictment also includes firearms and wire fraud charges against other defendants. Reeves’s resolution would put the matter before the Senate committee responsible for reviewing potential disciplinary action. Any recommendation would go to the full Senate, where Democrats currently hold 21 seats. Reaching the 27 votes required for expulsion would take at least eight Democratic votes if all 19 Republicans supported it. Reeves said he was certain some Democratic colleagues would support action if Lucas were convicted in the criminal case, even if the Senate’s review found no basis for discipline. “Maybe there’s nothing there,” he said. “And then if the court case drags on and eventually she’s convicted, then that’s a whole other deal, right?” Virginia Mercury reporter Shannon Heckt contributed to this story. This story was first published by Virginia Mercury. The post GOP Virginia Senator Wants Investigation Of Top Democrat Accused Of Federal Marijuana And Fraud Charges appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

A very awesome blog post. We are really grateful for your blog post. You will find a lot of approaches after visiting your post. alexistogel login

Thank you so much for such a well-written article. It’s full of insightful information. Your point of view is the best among many without fail.For certain, It is one of the best blogs in my opinion. alexistogel resmi

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

“The bottom line is: marijuana is legal in Missouri. Great, just comply with the law.” By Rebecca Rivas, Missouri Independent Missouri’s crackdown on intoxicating hemp products is already underway, a week before a new state law threatens to push thousands of businesses out of the market. Attorney General Catherine Hanaway (R) announced four new lawsuits Wednesday against retailers accused of illegally selling marijuana disguised as hemp. That same day, a federal judge dismissed a hemp industry challenge to the law, clearing another obstacle to its November 12 implementation. Now, some hemp business owners hoped to burn their products on the steps of the Missouri Capitol on Veterans Day, one day before the new restrictions take effect. But they were denied a permit because “open flames” are prohibited on Capitol grounds. Hanaway told The Independent in an interview Wednesday that she didn’t need to wait for the new law to go after stores selling what’s known as “THCA flower,” a product that becomes intoxicating when smoked just like marijuana. She said laboratory test results posted on the stores’ own websites show they are selling marijuana without the required state licenses. “The bottom line is: marijuana is legal in Missouri,” Hanaway said. “Great, just comply with the law. We have so many of these shops that are selling it, and some of them very openly and notoriously claiming that they’re selling marijuana.” Hanaway said her concern is that products sold outside Missouri’s licensed marijuana system aren’t subject to the same state testing and safety requirements, potentially exposing consumers to harmful metals or other contaminants. The new law tasks Hanaway’s office—along with the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, the state’s cannabis regulatory agency—with enforcement. The department previously estimated that 40,000 food establishments and smoke shops and 1,800 food manufacturers could potentially be affected by a state ban on intoxicating hemp products, “but the majority of these facilities are at low-risk of requiring investigation.” After November 12, Hanaway’s office will have “more tools at our disposal” to go after law breakers. “You’re going to see more lawsuits,” she said. “The law is stronger and easier for us to enforce.” Under the new law, products containing more than 0.3 percent total THC, including THCA, generally fall outside the state’s definition of hemp. Finished hemp-derived cannabinoid products also face a limit of 0.4 milligrams of THC per container. Intoxicating products that fall under the new restrictions can be sold only through Missouri’s licensed marijuana system. The law establishes Missouri’s first comprehensive restrictions on intoxicating hemp products. Similar bills had been debated since 2023 but failed to pass. In the absence of comparable state oversight, smoke shops have been able to sell intoxicating hemp products containing as much as 1,000 milligrams of THC outside Missouri’s licensed marijuana dispensaries. Under existing federal law, hemp is defined largely by its concentration of delta-9 THC. Missouri’s new law, like pending federal restrictions, takes a broader approach by counting other forms of THC, including THCA. John Grady, a veteran who owns Slaphappy Hemporium in Rosebud, got into hemp farming and retail, he said, because his disabled veterans payments would be put in jeopardy if he was part of the federally illegal marijuana market. Grady and others are planning on protesting Missouri’s law on Veterans Day, November 11, because the federal ban has been delayed until December 11. Congress could end up passing regulations that are less restrictive than Missouri’s law that goes into effect on November 12. His business produces intoxicating hemp beverages, which will remain on the shelves until December 11 under Missouri’s law. “They’ve now taken all of our time and investment and everything away from us,” Grady said, “and we find that untenable. It’s not about safety because they’ve denied regulations for four years straight, and instead they pursued bans. It’s about market protection for campaign contributors.” Case dismissed The muddled definition of hemp and marijuana is at the center of the hemp industry’s lawsuit, filed in July in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The plaintiffs, led by the Missouri Hemp Trade Association, argued the state has created overlapping definitions, under which a product could be classified as legal “hemp” in one part of state law and illegal “marijuana” in another. It leaves businesses unsure what they can legally sell when the law goes into effect and argued the case over House Bill 2641 deserves to be heard in court. Judge M. Douglas Harpool disagreed in his order to dismiss the case Wednesday, concluding the new law has not yet taken effect and its application to the plaintiffs remains uncertain. The plaintiffs included St. Louis-based MNG 2005 Inc., which is the parent company for 55 CBD Kratom stores nationwide; the Missouri Hemp Trade Association; and a Wisconsin-based hemp business, Lifted Liquids Inc. “So much of that order was based on the fact that no enforcement had taken place,” said Craig Katz, government relations and compliance manager for MNG. “Based on that, we’ll have to see what happens on November 12, and what they do in terms of enforcement.” The plaintiffs are assessing their next steps, he said, and whether they want to appeal. One of the four lawsuits Hanaway announced Wednesday targets a CBD Kratom store in St. Louis County, accusing the business of violating Missouri’s consumer protection law by selling marijuana products labeled as hemp. On October 8, the attorney general’s investigators made undercover purchases of two “hemp flower” products from the CBD Kratom Cannabis Dispensary in Des Peres and sent them to a state-licensed lab for testing. The results showed both products exceeded the federal THC limit for hemp, according to the lawsuit. One package stated the delta-9 THC concentration was 0.28 percent on a dry weight basis, but lab results included in the lawsuit showed the concentration was 4 percent—or more than 10 times the legal maximum for hemp products. Katz said the timing of Hanaway’s lawsuit was “curious” because it came a week after the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in the federal case on October 9. The other three stores Hanaway sued are Puffers Choice LLC in Aurora, Herb Depot in Independence and Token THC Dispensary in Rock Port. All four of the petitions begin with a bold statement: “The days of ‘hemp shops’ masquerading as legal marijuana dispensaries are over in Missouri.” Hanaway alleges the stores used “deceptive and unfair tactics” designed to make it difficult for consumers to tell whether they are walking into an unregulated hemp business or a state-licensed marijuana business. “These shops offer intoxicating products that look and smell like marijuana; they refer to those products as cannabis; and they set up their stores to mimic—and even call them—dispensaries,” the lawsuits state. “Just because these drug pushers have a storefront and an LLC does not mean that their activity is legal.” This story was first published by Missouri Independent. The post Missouri Attorney General Cracks Down On Unlicensed Cannabis Sales As Judge Dismisses Challenge To Hemp Restrictions appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“We don’t want to waste the lawyers’ time with an argument if there’s a chance the new court will also want to hear argument.” By Zach Leggio, The Texas Tribune Days after voters ousted all three Republican justices on the 15th Court of Appeals in Tuesday’s election, the court canceled oral arguments for four cases, telling lawyers the case will be reset “at a later date.” The change will leave the cases—including a challenge to state rules limiting the sale of hemp-derived products containing THC—to three Democrats who will take office in early January. The THC regulations, originally set to take effect at the end of March, included child-resistant packaging, a significant increase in licensing fees, new labeling, testing and bookkeeping requirements. The Texas Department of State Health Services rules also codified the legal purchasing age to 21 and increased licensing fees for manufacturers of hemp-derived THC from $258 to $10,000 per facility and retail registrations from $155 to $5,000. Industry leaders said the fees amounted to a ban by forcing businesses to close. Smoke shops briefly pulled the products from shelves as the ban went into effect before a Travis County district judge on April 10 temporarily blocked the rules as a lawsuit by the hemp industry played out in court. The 15th Court of Appeals, which has statewide jurisdiction over challenges to state laws and regulations, was set to hear oral arguments in the case December 8. The cancellation will let current justices deliver opinions on already argued cases, Justice Scott Field told Bloomberg Law. “We know we can’t get the opinion out for cases orally argued before the end of the year so we don’t want to waste the lawyers’ time with an argument if there’s a chance the new court will also want to hear argument,” Field said. There are 39 cases before the outgoing justices that have already presented oral or written arguments and are awaiting opinions. Oral arguments set for December 8 and 9 also were canceled in: The State of Texas vs. Sunrise Community Church Inc., a legal battle around a homeless shelter in South Austin. The attorney general’s office argued the shelter’s proximity to an elementary school makes it a public nuisance. Comptroller Don Huffines and Attorney General Ken Paxton vs. City of Lancaster, a dispute over about $3 million in sales taxes. Huffines and Paxton vs. Dave & Buster’s, which sued to recover $2.58 million that the company believed qualified for tax exemptions. This article first appeared on The Texas Tribune. Photo elements courtesy of rawpixel and Philip Steffan. The post Texas Court Cancels Arguments In Case Challenging Hemp Rules After Democratic Justices Win Election appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Awesome article, it was exceptionally helpful! I simply began in this and I'm becoming more acquainted with it better! Cheers, keep doing awesome! hptoto slot

I wanted to thank you for this great read!! I definitely enjoying every little bit of it I have you bookmarked to check out new stuff you post. private car from Da Nang airport to Hoi An

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is reiterating that it doesn’t believe a recently published federal watchdog agency report that found “gaps” in the government’s process for evaluating controlled substances undermines the Trump administration’s proposal to reschedule marijuana. But anti-rescheduling parties that are participating in a hearing on the reform say that procedural shortcomings have irreparably tainted the scientific review that the proposed reclassification is based on. Both sides on Thursday filed what are expected to be the final briefs in the process on before the agency judge overseeing the hearing issues his recommendation on the proposal to the agency’s administrator. Last month, DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julius rejected cannabis rescheduling opponents’ request to reopen the proceedings for additional testimony and document discovery concerning the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report. However, he did allow the report itself to be entered into the record and invited participating parties to file “narrowly tailored” briefs on how much “weight” it should have in the hearing and to what extent it affects marijuana rescheduling. Parties’ initial briefs were filed last week, and they had an opportunity to reply to one another’s submissions by Thursday. DEA’s latest filing reiterates that it believes the judge should give “no weight” to the GAO report in preparing his cannabis rescheduling recommendation—saying that opponents’ arguments “are not supported by the record or law” cited in their own briefs. The agency said that anti-rescheduling parties’ filings have largely repeated claims they already made during the hearing, underscoring what DEA says is the lack of new value brought to the proceedings by the GAO report. “Instead of addressing the probative value of the Report, the Movants are using this process to reargue matters that were debated at the hearing and which this Report provides no new information,” DEA said. “[T]his Report is simply not probative on issues known to the parties prior to the Report’s publication.” The watchdog agency report found, among other things that DEA “does not have any policies or procedures regarding how its staff are to conduct evaluations or schedule substances” and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) “does not have policies or procedures specifying how its staff are to conduct evaluations or develop scheduling recommendations for substances.” DEA said in its new brief that if it is the case that the GAO report’s findings undermine the current recommendation to move marijuana to Schedule III then they should also raise questions about whether a prior 2016 review that left marijuana in Schedule I was “appropriately performed,” as anti-cannabis parties have claimed. “Movants argue that the prior 2016 rescheduling process was appropriately performed, yet the presence or absence of internal written protocols would have impacted marijuana’s prior 2016 rescheduling review as well as the instant rescheduling. Movants cannot have it both ways. There is no indication that the agencies used a different set of internal written guidelines in 2016 than were used in 2023… Thus, the Government’s internal written guidelines for the rescheduling reviews appeared consistent between 2016 to 2023. Thus, Movants’ preference for the 2016 marijuana rescheduling recommendation over the current recommendation is based on an outcome more favorable to their position, not the presence (or absence) of internal written guidelines.” Finally, DEA said anti-reform parties’ argument in recent briefs “fails to consider the voluminous scientific and medical information collected, presented, and examined at the hearing.” Meanwhile, a joint brief filed on Thursday by the National Drug & Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA), DUID Victim Voices and Kenneth Finn—anti-rescheduling parties that initiated the question of inserting the GAO report into the hearing record—argues that the document “provides evidence that the Government’s process was flawed, and cannot carry the burden of proof necessary to warrant rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III.” “Critical and decisive process gaps that affected critical and decisive decision-making—left entirely unexplained—render the Government unable to prove marijuana should be rescheduled,” the anti-reform parties’ brief says. “It follows that before the Government can prove its conclusion, it must first show that the test it applied was justified and appropriate. Ordinarily, that showing is made by pointing to an established procedure adopted in advance so it cannot be shaped to reach a desired result. Procedures developed by a body with the relevant expertise, through a deliberative and open process. Procedures published so anyone can apply them and check the work. Procedures applied consistently across cases, so like matters are treated alike. Here, as noted in the GAO Report, no procedures were adopted in advance; many were devised inside a black box, amid political pressure, and in an ad hoc way specifically for this proceeding; and they departed in critical ways from past rescheduling analyses.” The anti-rescheduling parties acknowledged that “nothing indicates that DEA and FDA used a different set of internal written guidelines in the prior marijuana rescheduling attempts.” “Those prior rulemakings are not at issue, but the sudden change in recommendation still requires explanation,” the brief said. “A deficient process that produces opposite scheduling recommendations demonstrates the fatal flaw GAO identified: without written procedures, the route to this rescheduling proposal is not reproducible, reviewable, or sufficient to carry the Government’s burden of proof.” As they have previously, the opponents argued that a new two-part test federal officials used to analyze cannabis’s accepted medical use improperly departs from a former five-part test. “The Government has never produced any policy, procedure, or underlying basis for its arbitrary, capricious, unexplained, unreasoned, and outcome-determinative two-part test decree. If such procedures or bases existed, the Government could have resolved this issue simply by producing them. It did not, because, as GAO found, they do not exist. What remains is the determinative methodological choice on which the entire decision to reschedule marijuana rested—the selection of the two-part test—and no one knows who ultimately made the choice or why. If the one all-important decision determining this process is unknowable, unquestionable, and unreviewable, what has been the purpose of this exercise? The Government’s hand-waving on this point is telling.” In 2024, the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) said the prior five-part test was “impermissibly narrow” and said the two-part review “is sufficient to establish” that a drug has a currently accepted medical use. Julius, the judge overseeing the proceedings, said last month that some of the information cannabis rescheduling opponents wanted new testimony and discovery about under their broader request to reopen the hearing is “immaterial for the narrow purpose of this hearing” and others “could have been explored” by hearing participants during earlier questioning of witnesses—but he did allow the new round of briefing about the GAO report. DEA said in a previously filed brief that opponents’ request to reopen the hearing was an “obvious fishing expedition based on a Report that is clear on its face.” The agency said in another brief that it was fine with including the GAO document in the hearing record, as opponents have pushed for, but it did not want any further briefings on the matter. Attorney General Todd Blanche in April issued an order that immediately reclassified state-licensed medical cannabis, as well as marijuana products approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III. Under a separate order he signed, the DEA hearing was held in June and July to consider more comprehensively moving marijuana to Schedule III. “The Government is not putting forth any evidence to suggest that marijuana is not dangerous. All controlled substances by definition are dangerous,” James Schwartz, a DEA attorney, said on the opening day of the hearing, according to the transcript. “That is why they are scheduled in the first place. However, controlled substances must be evaluated by the risks they pose balanced with the medical use they provide.” “The proposed rule, the supporting documents, and the Government witnesses will establish that marijuana has a currently accepted medical use,” he said. “With that determination, marijuana can no longer remain in Schedule I.” Meanwhile, DEA and parties that participated in the marijuana rescheduling hearing laid out their arguments in final briefs. The federal agency, which was charged with defending the proposed rescheduling move, said in its brief that “marijuana no longer fits the statutory requirements for Schedule I because it has a currently accepted medical use within the United States and it has an accepted safety for its use under medical supervision.” The agency noted that under the law it must give “significant deference” to an “extensive ten-month study on the scientific and medical properties” of cannabis conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which recommended rescheduling. “Currently there are over 30,000 practitioners treating more than six million patients in 43 U.S. jurisdictions,” DEA said. “Such practices demonstrate that there is no longer a lack of accepted safety for use of marijuana under medical supervision, and as such, marijuana does not fulfill the requirements of being a Schedule I substance.” It also said that there is “substantial evidence sufficient to show that marijuana’s abuse and dependency profiles better align with Schedule III substances than Schedule II” or Schedule I. “The vast majority of individuals who use marijuana do so in a manner that does not result in dangers to themselves or to their communities.” In conclusion, DEA asked the judge overseeing the hearing to “expeditiously recommend” that marijuana be transferred from Schedule I to Schedule III. During the hearing, DEA officials charged with defending the cannabis rescheduling proposal highlighted testimony on marijuana’s medical benefits and its relative safety compared to other substances such as alcohol and opioids. That included appearances from a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scientist and a medical doctor from New Hampshire who detailed how medical marijuana provides relief to pain patients and can serve as an alternative to opioids. Meanwhile, lawyers and witnesses for parties who are oppose marijuana rescheduling and participated in the hearing put significant focus on the alleged harms of cannabis use as well as criticism of recently adopted changes to an analysis used to determine whether drugs have accepted medical value. DEA invited only organizations and people who oppose marijuana reform to join the hearing as designated participants—telling supporters that they do not meet the definition of an “interested person” to participate because they are not “adversely affected or aggrieved by any rule or proposed rule issuable.” Ahead of the hearing’s start, marijuana reform activists held a press conference outside DEA headquarters to highlight how they feel the have been “shut out” of the process—criticizing the fact that no supporters of reform were invited to participate and that the proceedings were not livestreamed despite officials’ vows of “transparency.” Marijuana Moment sent requests to Julius, the DEA judge, and to Cole, the DEA administrator, requesting they reverse a decision to prohibit the public from tuning into the cannabis hearing via livestream. A congressman and other journalists later joined in that request. — Marijuana Moment’s journalism is made possible by readers like you who value this work enough to support us with monthly pledges on Patreon. If you rely on our reporting to stay informed about key cannabis developments, please help us keep doing this by becoming a sustaining subscriber today. Backing us at the $25/month level also gets you access to our Bill Tracker so you won’t miss any important marijuana legislation in your state. — A prior hearing process on the marijuana rescheduling process that was initiated by the Biden administration stalled last year amid litigation over alleged improper communications and witness selection. The current marijuana rescheduling process is being challenged with several lawsuits that have been consolidated by a federal appeals court. Those pieces of litigation against the cannabis reform have been filed by state attorneys general, marijuana legalization opponents and a cannabis-focused biopharmaceutical corporation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently rejected a drug testing industry association and a pharmaceutical company’s request to block the Trump administration from moving forward with cannabis rescheduling while the litigation is considered. The parties have jointly filed a proposed briefing schedule for the legal dispute. A congressional committee recently voted to block federal officials from taking further steps to carry out cannabis rescheduling, though bipartisan lawmakers told Marijuana Moment they don’t believe that provision will be enacted into law. Read the latest briefs in marijuana rescheduling hearing below: The post DEA And Marijuana Rescheduling Opponents File Final Briefs In Hearing Ahead Of Judge’s Decision appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

The Trump administration “failed to engage” in consultation with American Indian tribes as is required under federal law when crafting its plan to reschedule marijuana, according to the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI). As such, the group wants the policy rewritten or supplemented with a new one to ensure that tribally regulated cannabis is covered under the reform. NCAI “demands the DOJ immediately initiate Tribal consultation with Tribes engaged in the cannabis industry to gain insight into the [Controlled Substances Act (CSA)] scheduling of cannabis and cannabis products, and how actions the DOJ takes impact Tribes,” a resolution adopted by the group’s members at its annual convention last month says. While the final order on marijuana rescheduling that was signed by Attorney General Todd Blanche in April immediately moved marijuana products regulated by a state medical cannabis license from Schedule I of the CSA to Schedule III, it “does not specifically mention Tribes or Tribally regulated medical cannabis programs and by its limited terms may not cover Tribal cannabis products, despite the wide-ranging medical cannabis products subject to Tribal licensure,” the resolution, which was previously noted by Vicente LLP, says. The tribal cannabis industry has “grown every year as more Tribes exercise their inherent sovereign authority to regulate cannabis and cannabis products,” the measure adopted by NCAI, which is the oldest and largest national organization of American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments, says. A map created last year by the Indigenous Cannabis Industry Association (ICIA) in collaboration with the law firm Vicente LLP that more than a fourth of Indigenous communities in the continental U.S. are now involved with marijuana or hemp programs. An estimate published last month by HedgeRow Analysis projected that Native American tribes that participate in the legal marijuana market stand to generate more than $2 billion in new revenue every year. Despite growing tribal involvement in the cannabis industry, the NCAI resolution notes that the Trump administration’s Department of Justice “failed to engage in Tribal consultation” as is required by a Clinton-era executive order and claimed that it did not do so because, it claimed, marijuana rescheduling “does not have substantial effects on one or more Indian tribes, despite the scores of Tribes that engaged with the DOJ during the contemplation of the Final Order and that have exercised their sovereignty by regulating and licensing cannabis and cannabis products within their jurisdiction.” The group is calling on DOJ to either amend the existing rescheduling order to include tribally-licensed cannabis products or issue a separate new rule “specifically rescheduling Tribally licensed cannabis and cannabis products from schedule I to schedule III.” “NCAI calls on the DOJ to specifically include Tribes in any further administrative action it contemplates regarding cannabis and cannabis products, regardless of whether it involves the CSA or rescheduling, due to the number of Tribes that are actively engaged in the cannabis industry through the exercise of their inherent sovereign authority,” the resolution says. The post Trump Administration Should Rewrite Marijuana Rescheduling Rule To Include Tribes, American Indian Group Says appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“For too long, cannabis businesses, advocates, veterans, patients and policymakers have operated in separate corners of the same fight. We have allowed disagreements over business models, regulations, personalities and competing interests to divide us.” By Gretchen Gailey, Project Champion Massachusetts voters sent an unmistakable message on Election Day: they are not interested in going backward. By an overwhelming margin of 75 percent to 25 percent, voters rejected Question 8, defeating an effort to dismantle the state’s regulated adult-use cannabis market. To the voters who took the time to learn about the issue, show up at the polls and make their voices heard: thank you. Your vote was about more than preserving a legal marketplace. It was a statement about consumer choice, personal freedom, responsible regulation and the right of communities to benefit from the policies they helped put in place. Ten years after Massachusetts voters approved adult-use legalization, they were asked whether they wanted to undo that decision. They answered decisively. On behalf of Project Champion, I want to recognize Ryan Dominguez and the entire Stop the Repeal campaign for bringing us into this fight. Ryan reached out, and we were proud to answer the call by bringing former NFL running back Ricky Williams to Massachusetts to stand alongside the campaign and help get the word out. Project Champion didn’t have a direct business interest in Massachusetts. We weren’t protecting a dispensary, a cultivation facility or a particular state’s market. But we understood something fundamental: an attack on one part of this industry is an attack on all of us. That is why we showed up. Ricky Williams understood the importance of this fight, too. His own journey has helped change the conversation around cannabis, health and wellness, and the need to move beyond outdated stigma. He used his platform to speak directly to voters about what was at stake—not just for business owners, but for consumers, patients, employees and communities. Our work also took us to Haverhill, where Ricky helped bring attention to local Question 10. That effort, led by local advocates and business owners including Stem Dispensary owner, Caroline Pineau, was about giving communities and consumers another option: a safe, regulated place to responsibly consume cannabis. Haverhill voters narrowly approved the measure, advancing the kind of local control and consumer access that the original intent of Massachusetts’s legalization law envisioned. These victories matter. But perhaps the most important lesson isn’t simply that Question 8 lost. It’s how we got here. When this industry comes together, we can make a difference. For too long, cannabis businesses, advocates, veterans, patients and policymakers have operated in separate corners of the same fight. We have allowed disagreements over business models, regulations, personalities and competing interests to divide us. Meanwhile, those who want to roll back progress have had no problem organizing around a common objective. We should also be clear-eyed about who we are up against. Organizations like Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) are not going away. They are well-funded, well-organized and singularly focused on one objective: ending cannabis legalization and rolling back the progress states have made. They have a clear, consistent message and the resources to pursue it relentlessly. We, on the other hand, represent an industry and a movement with a thousand different perspectives, competing business interests, philosophies and priorities. That diversity is not inherently a weakness; in many ways, it is what makes this movement so broad and powerful. But when we allow those differences to keep us from finding common ground, we make our opponents’ jobs much easier. They don’t need us to agree on everything. They just need us to remain divided. Massachusetts showed what happens when we stop operating in silos. National voices joined local businesses. Athletes stood alongside entrepreneurs. Advocates worked with community leaders. People who might not otherwise have found themselves on the same side of a political fight recognized that the stakes were bigger than any one company or individual. That is the model we need to take nationally. And we need it now. There is a dangerous temptation to look at the progress surrounding federal rescheduling and assume the hardest work is behind us. It isn’t. The recent federal move to issue Schedule III registrations to hundreds of qualifying medical dispensaries is significant, but it also raises serious questions about how this process is being administered, who gets access to its benefits and what happens to the thousands of businesses and workers who remain outside that framework. A limited federal pathway for certain medical cannabis activities is not comprehensive reform. It is not descheduling. It does not resolve the uncertainty facing the broader state-legal industry, and it does not provide the certainty that businesses, employees, patients and consumers need. We should be asking hard questions about transparency, fairness and access. Federal policy cannot create a system in which a select group of businesses benefit while the rest of an industry that helped build this market is left waiting for answers. Nor should anyone assume that the so-called blue wave in Congress guarantees a friendlier environment for cannabis reform. We have been here before. When Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress, the industry still failed to secure meaningful federal legislative progress on priorities such as the SAFE Banking Act and comprehensive cannabis reform. Political alignment is not a substitute for political accountability. We cannot afford to confuse campaign promises or party labels with action. The reality is simple: lawmakers respond when their constituents, businesses and communities show up. They respond when they hear from organized, credible coalitions that represent more than one company’s balance sheet or one narrow segment of the market. That means we cannot become complacent after a victory in Massachusetts. We cannot assume someone else will do the lobbying, make the calls, educate lawmakers or defend the policies that allow this industry to operate. And we cannot afford to show up only when our own businesses are threatened. That is exactly why organizations like Project Champion matter. Our mission is to advocate for the broader industry and the people whose lives are affected by these policies—not just select businesses or special interests. We bring together patients, entrepreneurs, advocates and policymakers around common ground: responsible access, individual freedom, fair regulation and an end to the outdated policies that have held this issue back for decades. Massachusetts reminded us of what is possible when we stand together. It also reminded us of what is at stake when we don’t. To Ryan Dominguez, the Stop the Repeal campaign, Caroline Pineau, the Primitiv Group, Shawn Collins, the local businesses and advocates who did the hard work, and especially the voters of Massachusetts: thank you for showing the country what collective action looks like. Now let’s build on it. The fight isn’t over. In many ways, the next chapter is just beginning. And the only way we win it is together. Gretchen Gailey is the president of Project Champion, a collective of former professional athletes advocating for sensible cannabis and hemp reform. She is a veteran communications strategist and former journalist with over 20 years of media and political experience, now leading national cannabis campaigns and policy efforts. The post The Cannabis Industry Came Together To Stop A Rollback In Massachusetts, But We Must Remain United For The Next Fight (Op-Ed) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Kentucky’s lieutenant governor announced on Thursday that the state’s medical marijuana program has hit “another milestone” by surpassing more than 30,000 registered cardholders—adding that regulators are now “more than halfway finished in our buildout of approved businesses.” “Those are 30,000 Kentuckians with access to safe relief and that is close to home,” Lt. Gov. Jacqueline Coleman (D) said. “These are our neighbors that are suffering from conditions like cancer, PTSD and multiple sclerosis.” “Our administration worked hard to bring medical cannabis to Kentucky, and our hard work paid off,” she said, noting that there are now more than 500 medical practitioners who are approved to recommend marijuana to patients. “So we expect the number of cardholders to keep growing,” the lieutenant governor said. “We’ve been moving forward on every step of the process, and we’ve continued to make progress to ensure that those eligible have access.” Coleman said that with the opening of a new dispensary in Maysville, the state now has 27 operational medical cannabis retailers. “Each new dispensary gives more Kentuckians an option closer to home, making it easier for patients to access the care that they need,” she said. “We now have 47 of 80 approved businesses up and operating, and we will have more opening soon.” Gov. Andy Beshear (D) similarly said last month that the state is “over halfway finished with building out” the medical marijuana program. Earlier in October, Beshear separately celebrated the fact that medical marijuana dispensaries are now open across all 11 licensing regions of the state following the opening of a retailer in Floyd County. The governor said in August that the state’s efforts to get medical cannabis dispensaries open was approaching the “halfway mark” to becoming “fully operational.” He also recently said that hemp is “important” to Kentucky, urging voters not to reelect any members of Congress who are seeking to ban it. Beshear signed an executive order in June to broaden the list of health conditions that make patients eligible to legally obtain medical cannabis. But days later, House Majority Whip Jason Nemes (R) asked Attorney General Russell Coleman (R) to ensure that state agencies “not cooperate” with the governor’s marijuana directive, which he called “unlawful.” “Any organization, any licensee, that participates in this unlawful expansion should be prosecuted,” Nemes said during a legislative committee hearing. “This is not the way forward.” The governor pushed back, however, saying that the GOP lawmaker exhibited a “complete lack of humanity.” “It’s helping a lot of people, and I was really surprised to see an attack from one lawmaker who called on the attorney general to prosecute people dying of a terminal illness for securing medical cannabis,” Beshear said. “I mean, that’s a complete lack of humanity. It is really low. I mean, an individual with ALS, you want to prosecute? That is certainly not leadership, and even for that individual, is a new record low.” After the legislature declined to take him up on a suggestion to expand the qualifying condition list this session, the governor used his authority to make it so patients with 15 additional health disorders—including Parkinson’s disease, HIV/AIDS, sickle cell anemia, fibromyalgia, arthritis and glaucoma—can also be certified for medical marijuana access. Beshear also rescinded an earlier executive order he issued in 2022 through which he offered to provide pardons for any patients who got into trouble for possessing medical cannabis that they purchased at a legal dispensary in a neighboring state. The more recent executive order on qualifying conditions is a follow up to a medical marijuana legalization law Beshear signed in 2023. The state’s first medical cannabis dispensary opened in December of last year. The governor in February announced that cannabis gummies are available for purchase in the state’s licensed dispensaries. Beshear in January said he’s “not satisfied” with the time it’s taken to launch the state’s medical marijuana program—but that he anticipates the pace of patient access would “pick up significantly” in 2026. In recognition of the delayed implementation, he signed an executive order to waive renewal fees for patients who get their cards so that they don’t get charged again before retailers open. Beshear separately announced last year that the state had launched a new online directory that lets people see where medical cannabis dispensaries will be opening near them. He emphasized that the state has been working to deliver access to patients “at the earliest possible date,” and that involved expediting the licensing process. Last year, the governor also ceremonially awarded the commonwealth’s first medical marijuana cards. During the November 2024 election, Kentucky also saw more than 100 cities and counties approve local ordinances to allow medical cannabis businesses in their jurisdictions. The governor said the election results demonstrate that “the jury is no longer out” on the issue that is clearly supported by voters across partisan and geographical lines. Meanwhile, legislature’s Interim Joint Committee on Health Services held a hearing in July on a proposal to allow terminally ill patients to use medical marijuana in hospitals. Photo courtesy of Philip Steffan. The post Kentucky’s Medical Marijuana Program Hits New ‘Milestone’ With 30,000+ Cardholders, Lieutenant Governor Announces appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

The Massachusetts Senate has passed a bill containing provisions aimed at increasing military veterans’ access to medical marijuana and adding new qualifying conditions to the state’s medical cannabis program is advancing in the legislature. The Senate approved an amend version of the House-passed measure on Thursday by a vote of 35 to 4, sending the legislation back to its originating chamber for reconciliation on recent changes. The large-scale supplemental budget bill touches on a number of issues, including one section that would potentially allow veterans to receive a state medical cannabis card without having to get a recommendation from a doctor. The initial version of the legislation was filed by Gov. Maura Healey (D), though some provisions of her initial proposal were amended or removed by the House of Representatives last month and were further changed by the Senate. If the two chambers agree on a final version it would then go back to the governor’s desk to be signed into law. Because the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) continues to prohibit its providers from filling out medical marijuana recommendation forms, many of their veteran patients are forced to either seek outside, often expensive physician consultations or go without legal access to medical cannabis. But under the legislation that is now advancing, veterans in Massachusetts would be able to become registered medical marijuana patients by providing state officials with “official documentation from the Veterans Administration indicating a diagnosis of a debilitating medical condition; provided, however, that the [Cannabis Control Commission (CCC)] shall not require a written or electronic certification from a healthcare professional.” In other words, VA doctors wouldn’t have to specifically recommend medical cannabis in order to help their patients get legal access and could instead just diagnose them with a qualifying condition under the state’s law. That latter clause of the provision in its current form is a change from Healey’s initial proposal, which had more simply read that veterans under statute could use VA diagnosis documentation to get medical marijuana “without the need for a written or electronic certification from a healthcare professional”—without any reference to CCC. The bill as approved by the House and the Senate also adds post-traumatic stress disorder, opioid use disorder and “a medical condition that produces chronic pain” to the definition of a “debilitating medical condition” that could qualify patents for medical cannabis. The version that was filed by the governor did not include opioid use disorder. While veterans and other adults over the age of 21 are already able to buy recreational marijuana in Massachusetts, medical cannabis purchases are exempt from sales, excise and municipal taxes that apply in the adult-use market. Medical patients also have higher purchase limits than adult-use consumers, and have access to higher potency products than are allowed in the recreational market. — 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. — Massachusetts voters this week rejected a ballot initiative that would have rolled back the state’s marijuana legalization law. In April, Healey signed legislation to double the legal marijuana possession limit for adults and revise the regulatory framework for the state’s adult-use cannabis market. In 2024, the governor approved a military veterans-focused bill that includes provisions to create a psychedelics working group to study and make recommendations about the potential therapeutic benefits of substances like psilocybin and MDMA. The post Massachusetts Senate Passes Bill To Let Military Veterans Get Medical Marijuana Without A Doctor’s Recommendation appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

WI lawmakers talk marijuana legalization; MD first responder medical cannabis protections; Election results & marijuana op-ed Subscribe to receive Marijuana Moment’s newsletter in your inbox every weekday morning. It’s the best way to make sure you know which cannabis stories are shaping the day. Get our daily newsletter. Email address: Leave this field empty if you're human: Your support makes Marijuana Moment possible… 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 Congressional Cannabis Caucus Co-chair Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV) and longtime GOP operative Roger Stone both spoke to Marijuana Moment about the opportunity for bipartisan cooperation on federal legalization and other reforms following the midterm elections. “Let’s see if they now will decriminalize marijuana at a minimum and deschedule at a maximum. I would urge President Trump to sign such legislation.” Wisconsin’s expected incoming Assembly speaker and Senate Democratic Caucus chair both said the state will legalize marijuana under the legislature’s new Democratic majority. “We know that legalization of marijuana is very popular in the state of Wisconsin, and we intend to listen to the voters of Wisconsin.” Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D), Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton (D) and U.S. Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) published a congressional agenda calling for the federal recriminalization of hemp THC products to take effect without additional delay and telling lawmakers to “not further regulate or legalize intoxicating hemp.” “Continued sales also undercut Illinois’ licensed cannabis businesses and the social equity businesses at the core of its cannabis industry.” The Maryland Cannabis Administration is establishing a process allowing firefighters and paramedics who work in the state but live out-of-state to qualify for protections under a new law that shields first responders from being penalized over their lawful use of medical marijuana. LeafLink’s Rodney Holcombe argues in a new Marijuana Moment op-ed that while this week’s election “didn’t legalize cannabis in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Texas, North Carolina or Georgia,” it “changed the political conditions under which those decisions will be made.” “It’s an opportunity we can’t let slip by. We must redouble our efforts to end prohibition, protect existing markets and build new markets that deliver public health, safety and economic benefits to their communities… Changes in Washington may have also created opportunities to renew federal reform, including potential bipartisan action between the incoming Congress and the White House.” Texas’s election results—which saw Democrats win races for governor and lieutenant governor, as well as a majority in the House of Representatives—boost the chances for marijuana and hemp THC product reform in the state, advocates say. / FEDERAL Former Drug Enforcement Administration Administrator Asa Hutchinson authored an op-ed urging Congress not to further delay the federal recriminalization of hemp THC products. / STATES Missouri’s attorney general filed lawsuits against retailers for allegedly selling illegal marijuana products as legal hemp and falsely marketing themselves as licensed dispensaries. Washington State regulators filed proposed changes to rules on marijuana business financial interest agreements and cannabis producer associations and cooperatives. New York regulators began accepting applications for cannabis nursery business licenses. Minnesota regulators are accepting hemp business license applications. New Jersey regulators sent cannabis-related updates for local officials. The Iowa Medical Cannabidiol Board will meet on Friday. — Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments. Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access. — / LOCAL Voters in Colorado municipalities decided on marijuana tax ballot measures. Niles Township, Michigan voters rejected a ballot measure that would have allowed marijuana businesses to operate. / INTERNATIONAL The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that CBD-based food products cannot be certified as organic. / SCIENCE & HEALTH A review concluded that “cannabinoids may reduce pain and improve sleep quality in some rheumatic diseases.” A study suggested that “a neutral cannabinoid-rich C. sativa extract can mitigate [ultraviolet B]-induced oxidative stress.” / ADVOCACY, OPINION & ANALYSIS The American Psychological Association is considering a petition to create a new Division of Psychedelic Science and Practice. / BUSINESS Green Thumb Industries Inc. reported quarterly net revenue of $324.4 million and a net loss of $4.8 million. Trulieve Cannabis Corp. reported quarterly revenue of $230.2 million. Aurora Cannabis Inc. reported quarterly net revenue of C$86 million and a net loss of C$21.1 million. 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 Bipartisan cooperation could boost federal cannabis reform (Newsletter: November 6, 2026) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net