All Activity

A coalition of Massachusetts marijuana business leaders, healthcare professionals and other advocates have launched a campaign to defeat an initiative to roll back that state’s cannabis legalization law that is expected to appear on the November ballot. The Stop the Repeal Campaign held a press conference on Thursday to announce the effort to urge voters to reject the proposal, which would repeal laws allowing the regulated commercial sales of recreational marijuana while maintaining legal possession and continuing the medical cannabis system. “Repealing recreational cannabis laws in Massachusetts will not only take us backwards—it will negatively impact our communities that are already struggling with budget shortfalls and locally owned small businesses that have invested their life savings into building their legal businesses that create jobs and support local economies,” Ryan Dominguez, chair of the campaign said. “Since legalization, the cannabis industry has brought in close to $2 billion in state and local revenue, generating hundreds of millions of dollars annually in support of public health, public safety, and many other wide-reaching community investments,” he said. “We look forward to standing alongside our allies as we educate voters on what this ballot initiative actually does and fight back against out-of-state special interest groups pushing this regressive policy.” Fitchburg Mayor Sam Squailia also spoke at Thursday’s press conference. “At a time when state and local governments are already facing significant budget pressures, repealing recreational cannabis laws would be a costly mistake,” she said in support of the campaign. “Legal cannabis generates critical revenue that communities like Fitchburg rely on to fund our schools, improve transportation, and support essential services. “Recriminalizing adult-use cannabis would not only turn back the clock on sensible policy, it would blow a hole in state and municipal budgets at a moment when we simply cannot afford it,” Squailia said. “Our residents deserve investments in our communities, not cuts to the programs they depend on every day.” The campaign has highlighted the fact that Massachusetts has generated more than $2 billion in tax revenue from legal marijuana sales and has over 700 licensed business that support at least 20,000 jobs in the state. A safe, regulated, and legal cannabis industry is vital for Massachusetts. Tomorrow, a powerful coalition, including public health experts, doctors, and local mayors, will be gathering to make their voices heard and protect the progress we've made. https://t.co/IRu1HVawBo pic.twitter.com/gtNchPXQoV — Marijuana Policy Project (@MarijuanaPolicy) June 24, 2026 Earlier this month, the campaign behind the legalization rollback measure, the Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts, fired a signature gatherer it says was shown appearing to engage in “wholly unacceptable” conduct in a recent video. As Marijuana Moment reported, a man petitioning for the Massachusetts initiative as well as a similar anti-cannabis proposal in Maine was depicted in recent social media posts seeming to argue that voters who support legal marijuana access should sign the petitions in order to advance or protect reform. The campaign later said it has “zero tolerance for any circulation tactics that would mislead petition signers.” “The identified canvasser was immediately terminated, in coordination with our vendor, upon being made aware of the alleged conduct,” the group said. “The conduct apparent in the video would be wholly unacceptable and does not reflect how this campaign operates. We demand honesty, transparency and professionalism from everyone associated with our effort.” A video posted to Reddit of the signature gatherer shows the man collecting signatures outside a retail store in Massachusetts next to a sign that says “keep cannabis legal.” When confronted by a marijuana reform supporter who recorded the petitioner’s interactions with voters, he appeared to be trying to convince them that it is important to qualify the anti-cannabis measure for the ballot in order to then defeat it. “This is what we’re fighting against right here. That’s why we vote no,” he said. “If we can get this to the ballot right here, we vote no.” The person who captured the video pointed out that Massachusetts voters already approved marijuana legalization years ago, and that the only way it could be imminently repealed is if the new ballot measure qualified for the November election. If the initiative does not get enough signatures to go before voters, the state’s laws will remain the same. “It’s my job,” the petitioner insisted, however. “I know what I’m talking about.” “It’s a group of rich folks from out of state that want to basically take marijuana to when it was a medical marijuana card,” he said. “We don’t want that to happen.” The same man also appeared to also be gathering signatures for a separate measure in Maine that would similarly repeal laws allowing regulated adult-use marijuana sales and home cultivation rights for adults while keeping possession legal and adding new testing requirements for medical cannabis. A staffer for the prohibitionist organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), whose affiliated group SAM Action is largely funding the anti-cannabis ballot campaigns in both states, declined to comment about the petitioner’s conduct when reached by Marijuana Moment. The campaigns have previously been accused of misleading petitioning tactics. In Massachusetts, some voters reported that the campaign used fake cover letters for other ballot measures on unrelated issues like affordable housing and same-day voter registration. Legal cannabis supporters filed a formal complaint about the prohibitionist effort’s tactics, but the State Ballot Law Commission rejected the challenge. Under state law, Massachusetts ballot campaigns must turn in signatures in two waves. After the first submission, the legislature gets a chance to enact proposed ballot measures after organizers submit an initial round of petitions. Lawmakers last month declined to act on the anti-marijuana measure, however, and now organizers need to submit additional 12,429 certified signatures by July 1 to make the November ballot. The measure faced a legal challenge from cannabis industry operatives who argued it contains “impermissibly unrelated subjects,” and that the state attorney general’s official summary is “misleading and deficient.” The state Supreme Judicial Court heard oral arguments on the litigation challenging the anti-marijuana initiative but it ultimately ruled against the challenge. Photo courtesy of Mike Latimer. The post Massachusetts Advocates Launch Campaign To Defeat Marijuana Legalization Rollback Ballot Initiative appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

A bipartisan coalition of U.S. senators have filed a bill to protect banks from being punished for providing financial services to marijuana businesses. The Secure and Fair Enforcement Banking (SAFE) Act is intended to ease the cannabis industry’s access to financial services, which have been difficult to obtain for some businesses in the sector under ongoing federal prohibition. Led by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and cosponsored by Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Steve Daines (R-MT), the newly refiled measure comes days ahead of the start of a hearing on the Trump administration’s move to reschedule marijuana under federal law. Earlier iterations of the banking legislation have been introduced in past sessions of Congress, and while versions have been approved by the House of Representatives on several occasions, the reform has never been enacted into law. The Senate Banking Committee approved a cannabis banking measure in 2023 but it was not subsequently taken up on the floor and died at the end of the 118th Congress. — 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. — Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), who currently chairs the banking panel, said last month that the fact that marijuana remains illegal at the federal level while more states legalize it has created a “quandary” for cannabis businesses and banks that wish to serve them. Even though Scott has opposed the cannabis banking reform in the past, he said that the bill would “allow for the banking question to be solved by making it legal to bank it,” Scott said. “What you don’t want is to have a situation where you have these cash rooms where you have hundreds of thousands of dollars cash sitting in a location. Everyone knows you can’t bank it and therefore the criminal activity is much higher in these places.” Beyond banking access for businesses, the new bill, S.4942, also contains provisions to ensure that marijuana industry workers can get access to federally backed mortgage loans. Read the full the cannabis banking bill below: The post Bipartisan Senators File Marijuana Banking Bill As Trump’s Rescheduling Move Advances appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

New Hampshire lawmakers and advocates are pushing to override the governor’s veto of a bill to let medical cannabis companies grow marijuana in greenhouses. Supporters say the proposal will make cannabis more affordable and available for patients, and it passed the Senate and House of Representatives in voice votes this session—but Gov. Kelly Ayotte (R) vetoed it this month. “I do not support expanding the cultivation of marijuana in our state,” the governor said. But now, bipartisan lawmakers are pushing back, with some saying they plan to vote to override the governor’s action. “I disagree with the governor’s decision to veto SB 468,” Sen. Howard Pearl (R), the lead sponsor of the legislation, told Marijuana Moment. “This bipartisan bill would have provided a practical way to lower costs for patients with serious medical conditions while maintaining the rigorous oversight and safeguards that have made New Hampshire’s Therapeutic Cannabis Program successful.” “At a time when affordability remains a significant challenge for many families, we should be looking for responsible ways to expand access to treatment and ease financial burdens,” he said. Sen. Tara Reardon (D) similarly said she is “disappointed” in the governor’s action, which she said will result in “denying cost-saving measures for more than 17,000 veterans and patients across New Hampshire who rely on medical cannabis as an important component of their physician-recommended care.” “I hope my Senate colleagues will join me in voting to override the veto and pass the bill into law,” she told Marijuana Moment. The two lawmakers also recently authored an op-ed together in The Concord Monitor, arguing that New Hampshire’s medical cannabis program “is at a disadvantage compared to neighboring states, all of which allow greenhouse cultivation and benefit from lower prices.” The legislation says that “each alternative treatment center registered under this section may request authorization to operate a greenhouse cultivation location, at the same or at a different location than its existing cultivation location, in order to reduce energy costs and provide lower prices for registered qualifying patients.” The only person to testify against the bill this session was a former state lawmaker who now serves as chair of the prohibitionist organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana NH. — 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. — Ayotte has separately threatened to veto any marijuana legalization bill that reaches her desk. The governor said last year that her position on the reform would not change even as the federal government moved forward with rescheduling the plant. “I understand that the governor doesn’t support legalization, but vetoing a few secure greenhouses? It’s hard to understand how this is even controversial,” Matt Simon, Matt Simon, director of public and government relations at the medical marijuana provider GraniteLeaf Cannabis, told Marijuana Moment. “Our team is just trying to improve efficiency so we can make therapeutic cannabis more affordable for patients.” (Disclosure: Simon supports Marijuana Moment’s work via a monthly pledge on Patreon.) In 2024, then-Gov. Chris Sununu (R) vetoed a similar proposal to allow cannabis businesses to cultivate in greenhouses. The House had enough votes to override that action, but the Senate did not. Photo courtesy of Chris Wallis // Side Pocket Images. The post New Hampshire Lawmakers Push To Override Governor’s Veto Of Medical Marijuana Greenhouse Cultivation Bill appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Welcome to Aerocity's most exclusive adult entertainment destination, where every encounter is crafted to exceed your wildest expectations. Our Escort Aerocity service offers a diverse selection of stunning companions who are masters in the art of pleasure. Each girl is carefully selected, verified, and trained to provide an experience that goes beyond the ordinary. Whether you need a dinner date, a travel companion, or a private evening of passion, our companions are ready to fulfill your every desire. With competitive pricing and complete discretion, we make luxury accessible to everyone. Call now and make your fantasy a reality in Aerocity.

Welcome to CTNYT, your trusted destination for premium companionship services in Jaipur. We are dedicated to connecting clients with elegant, sophisticated, and discreet companions who value professionalism, privacy, and respect. Our platform focuses on providing a seamless experience with verified profiles, personalized assistance, and complete confidentiality. Whether you are visiting Jaipur for business, leisure, social events, or simply seeking quality companionship, CTNYT offers a carefully curated selection of companions to suit different preferences. Our commitment to discretion, reliability, and customer satisfaction has helped us build a reputation as a trusted platform in the industry. If you are searching for High profile escorts in Jaipur, CTNYT strives to provide a premium and professional experience while maintaining the highest standards of privacy and client care.

As Virginia’s governor weighs changes to budget legislation that lawmakers approved this week, marijuana reform advocates are urging her to cancel out a section that would dramatically increase penalties for public consumption of cannabis—which they say will be enforced in a racially discriminatory manner based on new data they have obtained. The budget bill passed by the legislature contains provisions that advocates generally support to legalize recreational marijuana sales—but it would also increase the current $25 fine for using cannabis in a public place by 900 percent to $250—a spike that advocates are calling a “poverty penalty.” A coalition of advocacy groups led by Marijuana Justice on Wednesday released new enforcement stats that they obtained through the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that they say “proves that legalization has not ended racially biased marijuana policing” in the state. The advocates gave the data to Christopher Newport University’s Center for Crime, Equity and Justice Research and Policy, which conducted an analysis. The state information shows that since noncommercial cannabis legalization took effect in Virginia in 2021, 185 white people and 179 Black people have been charged with public consumption. “When analyzing these totals against the overall racial breakdown in Virginia, it is clear that Black individuals are disproportionately more likely to be charged for public consumption of marijuana than white individuals,” the university center said. “Specifically, Black individuals are approximately 3.29 times more likely to be charged than white individuals.” “If representation were perfectly proportional to the state’s population, the expected breakdown would be approximately 255 white individuals and 75 Black individuals,” the analysis said. Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) has already said she will be using her authority to send back proposed amendments for lawmakers to consider ahead of a July 1 budget deadline. That likely includes technical fixes to the marijuana sections, such as removing question marks that were left in the legislation as passed—but advocates also want her to make the substantive change of rescinding the public use fine increase. Chelsea Higgs Wise, executive director of Marijuana Justice, said that the state’s previously enacted law legalizing cannabis possession “was meant to stop the disproportionate targeting of Black communities, yet the state’s own FOIA data tells a different story.” The penalty increase under the approved legislation will not take effect until July 1 of next year, raising the possibility that lawmakers could pass legislation next session to rescind it. But “postponing harm is not the same as preventing it, and we reject it outright,” Wise told Marijuana Moment. “Delaying a 900 percent fine increase until 2027 does not change its impact. This remains a poverty penalty. Address this now, not later.” “With the data in hand, Governor Spanberger should do the right thing and be an advocate for Black community members by striking the increase from the budget,” she said. Marijuana Justice and other groups like the ACLU of Virginia, National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, Marijuana Policy Project, Drug Policy Alliance and Latino Cannabis Alliance, among others, recently sent a letter urging lawmakers and the governor not to boost the cannabis penalty, saying it would “deepen racial and economic disparities.” “Higher fines and penalties for low-level marijuana offenses are not neutral,” the organizations wrote in a letter to Spanberger and legislators. “They are enforced disproportionately against Black and brown communities, create debt that low-income people cannot afford and can trigger cascading harms in immigration, housing, education and employment.” “Virginia should not recreate over-policing and over-incarceration through fines and fees when the stated goal of legalization is public health, equity, repair and reducing criminalization,” they said. The new letter, which was also signed by Parabola Center for Law and Policy, Nolef Turns Inc., Justice Forward Virginia, New Virginia Majority and Virginia NORML, along with other groups, calls on state officials to: Maintain the $25 civil fine for public consumption. Reject any proposals that raise fines or add criminal penalties for low-level marijuana use. Center racial equity and harm reduction in all cannabis policies. Ensure legalization reduces over-policing and over-incarceration instead of recreating them through fines and fees. Ensure policy is based on data rather than creating punitive policy first and looking for justification later. “These steps will help Virginia move toward real legalization that repairs past harms, prioritizes public health, protects vulnerable communities and keeps people out of the criminal legal system,” the letter says. “They also align with concerns raised by legislative leaders that expanding criminal penalties would repeat the very harm legalization was intended to address.” Drug Policy Alliance separately launched an online action alert that Virginia residents can use to send messages urging the governor and lawmakers to pull back the proposed cannabis penalty increase. Spanberger last month vetoed a previous measure to legalize recreational cannabis sales after lawmakers rejected her proposed amendments to the plan. She later negotiated with Sen. Lashrecse Aird (D) and Del. Paul Krizek (D), who sponsored the earlier measure, on a compromise deal that was included in the budget legislation that passed this week. The new plan differs significantly in several ways from the earlier legislation. For example, it sets the launch date for recreational marijuana sales at July 1, 2027, which is what Spanberger proposed in contrast to the January 1 date in what lawmakers had passed. It also sets the legal public marijuana possession and per-transaction purchase limit at 2 ounces, an increase from the current legal limit of one ounce. The legislation lawmakers passed earlier this year would have allowed adults to possess up to 2.5 ounces. The bill also cedes to Spanberger on language to increase a marijuana excise tax from 6 percent to 8 percent after two years of legal sales. By way of compromise, the new agreement would make public consumption of marijuana punishable by a civil penalty of $250—a significant increase from the $25 in current law but less harsh than the class 4 criminal misdemeanor the governor sought in her proposed changes to the previous bill. Lawmakers passed the initial cannabis sales bills in March, but the governor then suggested changes to the legalization proposal—including delaying the start date for sales by six months, increasing taxes and instituting new criminal penalties for cannabis consumers. The legislature in April declined to take up the amendments during a one-day reconvened session, however, effectively rejecting them. Spanberger then issued a veto. Spanberger said this month that she was having “really productive” and “incredible” conversations with lawmakers about crafting a compromise approach to legalizing adult-use cannabis sales, and Marijuana Moment previously reported on the ongoing talks. The governor, meanwhile, has tried to publicly explain her veto—including by saying it is her view that “taking a little bit longer” to launch the market is not something she sees as “negative” because it is more important to get the details right than to do it fast. A recent survey found that bipartisan majorities of Virginia voters wanted Spanberger to sign the cannabis legislation into law, and that they specifically disagreed with her desire to slow the launch timeline for legal sales. The governor recently acknowledged in a separate interview that “a lot of people are not pleased” with her veto of the cannabis legislation. “Friends and family are displeased as well,” she said. Spanberger has repeatedly responded to criticism of her cannabis amendments from the bill sponsors and advocates by saying the suggested changes came after she spoke to the leaders of other states that have already implemented adult-use marijuana markets. A spokesperson for Spanberger declined to name any other governors she talked to about cannabis in response to a question from Marijuana Moment, however. The governor separately sought to explain her veto in an earlier interview, reiterating that she supports launching a legal cannabis market but worried about what she called a “rushed timeline” and “far more stores across Virginia” than she thinks are appropriate. Personal marijuana possession and home cultivation of marijuana has been legal in Virginia since 2021, but then-Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) twice vetoed bills to provide consumers with a way to legally purchase regulated adult-use cannabis. Here are the key details of the new cannabis plan in the budget and how it compares to legislation that Spanberger vetoed—SB 542 and HB 642—as well as her previously proposed amendments to those measures: Adults would be able to purchase up to 2 ounces of marijuana in a single transaction, or up to an equivalent amount of other cannabis products as determined by regulators. That would represent an increase from the limit in current law of 1 ounce. Lawmakers previously proposed setting the amount at 2.5 ounces and the governor only wanted 2 ounces. Legal sales could begin on July 1, 2027. Lawmakers previously set the date for January 1, 2027, but the governor wanted it pushed back to July 1. There would be an excise tax of 6 percent on cannabis sales as well as a 5.3 percent retail sales and use tax, and municipalities would be allowed to set an additional local tax of up to 3.5 percent. Starting on July 1, 2029, the state excise tax would increase to 8 percent, in line with the governor’s previously proposed amendments. Revenue would be distributed to the Cannabis Equity Reinvestment Fund, early childhood education, the Department of Behavioral & Developmental Health Services and public health initiatives. The earlier measure passed by lawmakers would have allocated specific percentages to each, but the new language doesn’t specify what portion of revenue will go to each program. The governor, in her amendments, wanted to put all revenue into the general fund while earmarking it “for purposes such as early childhood education, behavioral health, public health awareness, prevention, treatment, and recovery services, workforce development, reentry, indigent criminal defense, and targeted reinvestment in historically disadvantaged communities.” Her amendment also sought to eliminate support for the Cannabis Equity Reinvestment Fund. The Virginia Cannabis Control Authority would oversee licensing and regulation of the new industry, and will also take on oversight of hemp, which is currently under the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. The body would be governed by a five-member board of directors appointed by the governor, whereas the bill previously passed by lawmakers contemplated a seven-member body with four appointed by the governor, two appointed by the speaker of the House and one appointed by the Senate Rules Committee. The definition of what constitutes a legal hemp product would be narrowed by removing a provision from current law that allows those containing more than 2 milligrams of total THC per package if they also have a ratio of CBD to THC that is 25:1 or more. Up to 350 retail marijuana stores would be allowed to be licensed to operate across the state, the same number that lawmakers had approved and greater than the 200 the governor had proposed. Local governments would not be able to opt of allowing marijuana businesses to operate in their area. Delivery services would be allowed. Serving sizes would be capped at 10 milligrams THC, with no more than 100 mg THC per package. Public use of marijuana would be a civil violation punishable by a $250 fine. That is ten times more than the $25 fine under current law, but less harsh than the class 4 criminal misdemeanor crime the governor had proposed. Possession of cannabis by people under the age of 21 would be punishable by a $25 fine and mandatory participation in a substance abuse treatment or education program or both. The governor had suggested treating underage possession as a class 1 misdemeanor, punishable with a mandatory minimum fine of $500 or 50 hours of community service, as well as the suspension of drivers licenses for at least six months. Existing medical cannabis operators could enter the adult-use market if they pay a $10 million licensing conversion fee. Cannabis businesses would have to establish labor peace agreements with workers. A legislative commission would be directed to study adding on-site consumption licenses and microbusiness cannabis event permits that would allow licensees to conduct sales at venues like farmers markets or pop-up locations. That provision was also included in the earlier legislation lawmakers passed but was suggested for deletion by the governor. Meanwhile, the governor signed several other reform bills this session—including measures to provide resentencing relief for people with past cannabis convictions, protect the parental rights of marijuana consumers and allow patients to access medical cannabis in hospitals. Read the analysis on Virginia marijuana penalty enforcement below: The post Marijuana Reform Advocates Push Virginia Governor To Remove Public Consumption Penalty Increase From Legalization Bill appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

White House pushes Congress on “fair treatment” for hemp; New fed report tracks state marijuana revenue; Poll: Pennsylvania voters back legalization Subscribe to receive Marijuana Moment’s newsletter in your inbox every weekday morning. It’s the best way to make sure you know which cannabis stories are shaping the day. Get our daily newsletter. Email address: Leave this field empty if you're human: Your support makes Marijuana Moment possible… Hold on, just one second before you read today’s news. Have you thought about giving some financial support to Marijuana Moment? If so, today would be a great day to contribute. We’re planning our reporting for the coming months and it would really help to know what kind of support we can count on. Check us out on Patreon and sign up to give $25/month today: https://www.patreon.com/marijuanamoment / TOP THINGS TO KNOW The White House sent a letter asking Congress to “ensure the fair treatment of hemp products” by “at a minimum” delaying a broad recriminalization law set to take effect in November—and citing a recent amendment that would’ve kept THC products legal while adding regulations. The Drug Enforcement Administration is resisting testimony during the marijuana rescheduling hearing set to start next week from an agency official linked to a report on the harms of cannabis use—and the prohibitionist organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana is seeking to select the DEA pharmacologist as its own witness. A Drug Enforcement Administration judge issued an order setting a detailed schedule for the marijuana rescheduling hearing starting next week—including when the designated participants can cross-examine the government’s witness and vice versa. The U.S. Census Bureau published an updated federal report showing that states have generated nearly $15 billion in marijuana tax revenue over the last almost five years. A new poll shows that three out of four Pennsylvania voters support legalizing marijuana—and that the largest share blame Republican lawmakers for the lack of progress on cannabis reform. U.S. Olympian and former Ironman 70.3 World Champion Joanna Zeiger writes in a new Marijuana Moment op-ed about how medical cannabis helps her deal with the effects of a cycling accident and how federal rescheduling can “help pave the way for more rational healthcare policies.” The Missouri State Highway Patrol said that “hundreds of thousands” of marijuana offenses may still exist on criminal records despite a deadline to clear them—though a court said there’s “no evidence to back up that estimate.” / FEDERAL Customs and Border Protection included stats about marijuana seizures in a list of “drug interdictions that save lives.” The Drug Enforcement Administration reportedly allowed hundreds of thousands of fentanyl pills to hit the streets of New Mexico. / STATES Wisconsin Democratic gubernatorial candidate Kelda Roys, currently a state senator, said she wants to legalize marijuana and use revenue to fund early childhood education, an initiative she calls “get baked for babies.” Tennessee lawmakers discussed the impact of federal marijuana rescheduling on state cannabis reform. Guam regulators approved the territory’s first permit to operate a cannabis establishment. Hawaii officials will begin enforcing hemp product restrictions on July 1. Oregon regulators are accepting applications to serve on a psilocybin testing rules advisory committee. The Colorado Hemp Advisory Committee will meet on Thursday. Michigan regulators will hold a hearing about proposed changes to marijuana rules on July 23. — 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 Los Angeles, California officials sent a newsletter with various cannabis updates. / INTERNATIONAL The Irish legislature’s Joint Committee on Drugs Use recommended decriminalizing all drugs. / SCIENCE & HEALTH A study suggested that “legalization of recreational marijuana does not significantly change the rate of children presenting to the [emergency department] with positive drug screens.” A study of rats found that “cannabinoid-based interventions demonstrate significant therapeutic promise for [phantom limb pain], showing efficacy as both early and delayed treatments.” / ADVOCACY, OPINION & ANALYSIS A survey of military veterans found that 54 percent support the Department of Veterans Affairs providing or paying for psilocybin-assisted therapy and that 45 percent support it providing or paying for MDMA-assisted therapy if approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The Virginian-Pilot editorial board celebrated the passage of legislation to legalize recreational marijuana sales but criticized it being included in the budget. / BUSINESS Curaleaf International launched a medical cannabis training platform forUK healthcare professionals. / CULTURE Olympic skier Bode Miller was arrested for possessing psilocybin mushrooms. Make sure to subscribe to get Marijuana Moment’s daily dispatch in your inbox. Get our daily newsletter. Email address: Leave this field empty if you're human: Photo courtesy of Chris Wallis // Side Pocket Images. The post DEA’s interesting cannabis testimony stance for rescheduling hearing (Newsletter: June 25, 2026) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

This sounds like an amazing initiative! It's so inspiring to see businesses like Canna Bella Lux not only succeed but also genuinely uplift marginalized communities. Speaking of efficiency, I've found that using tools like a CPS test helps me stay sharp and focused throughout the day, especially when multitasking.

Girl games encourage creativity by letting players design outfits, create stunning makeovers, and explore colorful worlds filled with endless possibilities.

The layout makes it effortless to find my favorite Granny titles, and the way the site highlights the series shows that they know exactly what their audience wants. At the same time, there is this wonderful sense of discovery when I scroll down and find games I have never heard of before.

The White House is pressing Congress to take action to prevent the broad federal recriminalization of hemp products that’s set to take effect later this year. The push comes as part of a request to lawmakers for supplemental funding to address costs associated with the administration’s attacks on Iran and “other critical needs” such as responding to an Ebola outbreak in Africa. “Furthermore, the Administration requests additional authorities that it strongly supports,” White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought wrote to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) on Wednesday. “These authorities include revising the Federal regulation of hemp to ensure the fair treatment of hemp products in a manner consistent with Amendment #54 offered to H.R. 8646 in the House Rules Committee, or, at minimum, an extension of implementation of the regulatory framework put in place by Section 781 of Public Law 119-37,” he said. The amendment Vought referenced was filed by Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY) that would have kept many hemp products legal that are currently set to be recriminalized this year, add labeling requirements and institute new taxes on sales, among other regulatory reforms. It was blocked from receiving a House floor vote by the Rules Committee, however. Barr is also preparing to file standalone legislation on the issue and has said it faces opposition from a coalition of strange bedfellows including sectors of the alcohol industry, marijuana businesses and cannabis legalization opponents. An attachment to the letter that the White House letter sent to Congress this week notes that the hemp-related request “would update the statutory definition of final hemp-derived cannabinoid products to allow Americans to benefit from access to appropriate full-spectrum CBD products while preserving the Congress’s intent to restrict the sale of products that pose serious health risks.” The administration used similar hemp language earlier this month in a statement of administration policy on the agriculture funding bill that Barr’s earlier amendment was blocked from being attached to. Jonathan Miller, general counsel of the U.S. Hemp Roundtable, told Marijuana Moment that the group is “excited to see the president take such a strong public stance in favor of replacing the hemp ban with a strong regulatory framework, or at a minimum, securing an extension of the hemp ban moratorium to give Congress more time to develop regulations.” “This is an important step to honoring Congress’s promise to help farmers and consumers,” he said. 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 Trump signed during his first term in office. But late last year, he signed new legislation containing provisions that will redefine hemp to make it so only products with 0.4 milligrams of total THC per container will remain legal after November 12. In April, the president himself urged congressional lawmakers to again redefine hemp to avoid recriminalization of full-spectrum CBD products. “I am calling on Congress to update the Law to ensure that Americans can continue to access the full-spectrum CBD products they have come to rely on, and that help them, while preserving Congress’s intent to restrict the sale of products that pose Health risks,” Trump said in a Truth Social post on the same day his administration announced it is moving forward with rescheduling marijuana. “We must get this done RIGHT and FAST, especially for those who saw that CBD helps them,” he said. “Plus, I am told it will also help our GREAT FARMERS, who we love, and will always be there for.” Industry advocates say that the law as enacted last year not only threatens to prohibit intoxicating and synthetic cannabinoid products but also stands to remove popular full-spectrum CBD products that many Americans use therapeutically from the market. “ONE in FIVE adults used it in the past year, and many say it improved their chronic pain enormously,” the president said in his social media post, adding that hemp-derived CBD “has made a HUGE difference for so many people.” He also referenced a new initiative the administration launched in April to cover up to $500 worth of hemp-derived products each year for eligible Medicare patients. The program being implemented by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) focuses largely on CBD but also allows products to have up to 3 milligrams of total THC per serving. “In December, I signed a very important Executive Order calling for Research and Innovation for Hemp-derived CBD,” Trump said. “Our wonderful Dr. Mehmet Oz moved fast to follow the directive in the Executive Order, and launched a model for some Seniors earlier this month. But more must be done!” “Please get it done, and SOON,” the president said in reference to a congressional fix for the broad recriminalization set to take effect in November. “Thank you for your attention to this matter!” It’s not clear how far Trump wants to scale back the scope of the scheduled federal restrictions on hemp products and what kinds of revised THC rules and limitations he would prefer to sign into law. Separately, White House officials recently provided a congressman’s office with feedback on hemp regulatory legislation. In April, Vince Haley, director of the White House Domestic Policy Council and James Braid, assistant to the president for legislative affairs, sent hemp policy suggestions to Barr. “We appreciate your work to advance the policy of” an executive order Trump signed in December that included provisions seeking to protect Americans’ access to CBD products, the staffers wrote in a letter to the congressman. “We are transmitting for your consideration draft legislative text and comments to address the statutory definition of final hemp-derived cannabinoid products in order to allow Americans to benefit from access to appropriate full-spectrum CBD products while preserving the Congress’s intent to restrict the sale of products that pose serious health risks,” the White House officials said, according to a social media post containing a screenshot of the letter. “We are available for discussion and further technical assistance.” Separately, anti-marijuana organizations filed a lawsuit suit against the Medicare hemp CBD coverage policy—but a judge dismissed the case last month, ruling that they don’t have standing. Lawyers for Health and Human Services Sec. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and CMS Director Mehmet Oz had filed a brief asking that the case be dismissed. The White House Office of Management and Budget has also held a series of meetings about a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) CBD products enforcement policy. FDA issued guidance making clear that it does not intend to interfere with implementation of the Medicare hemp-derived products coverage plan. CMS separately finalized a rule that will allow coverage of some hemp products as specialized, non-primarily health-related benefits through Medicare Advantage plans. As hemp products have become more popular with consumers, some large brands are attempting to get in on action. Major retailer Target, for example, is expanding its participation in the hemp-derived THC beverage market. Last year, the company began a pilot program involving sales of cannabis drinks at 10 select stores in Minnesota. That apparently went well, and now the company has obtained licenses from Minnesota regulators to sell lower-potency hemp edible products—including THC drinks—at all 72 of its stores in the state. The National Restaurant Association, which represents the industry, recently sent a letter urging congressional leaders to delay the federal recriminalization of hemp THC beverages that is scheduled to take effect later this year and replace it with a regulatory framework that “ensures consumer safety while meeting growing market demand” for the products as an alternative to alcohol. A U.S. Department of Agriculture report published in April shows that farmers in the U.S. grew three-quarters of a billion dollars worth of hemp crops in 2025—a 64 percent increase from the prior year. Read the White House letter to Congress below: The post White House Pushes Congress To Ensure ‘Fair Treatment Of Hemp Products’ By Calling Off Broad Recriminalization Law Set For November appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

A Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) judge has issued an order laying out the schedule for a hearing on the Trump administration’s move to reschedule cannabis that is set to start next week. Under a previous decision by the DEA administrator, only opponents of the reform are being invited to participate. “Pursuant to the Preliminary Order issued by this tribunal on June 18, 2026, the Designated Parties have timely submitted their availability for the hearing window,” DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Derek Julius wrote on Wednesday. “This tribunal has given due consideration to each Designated Party’s availability and has concluded that the following schedule will be best suited.” The overall schedule for presentations by the parties is as follows: The Government: June 29, 2026 National Drug & Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA): July 2, 2026 Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM): July 6, 2026 DUID Victim Voices: July 7, 2026 Kenneth Finn, M.D.: July 8, 2026 Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI): July 10, 2026 Phillip A. Drum, PharmD: July 13, 2026 States of Nebraska, Idaho, Indiana, and Louisiana (The States): July 14, 2026 The document goes on to provide a detailed day-by-day, hour-by-hour schedule for when the parties will present their cases and when the designated participants can cross-examine the government’s witness and vice versa. “While this schedule is meant to serve as a detailed guide for the hearing, parties may conclude examinations early or forgo cross or redirect examinations,” Julis’s order says in a footnote. “To the extent that a party concludes with its examination prior to the end of their scheduled time or forgoes examination, the hearing will proceed ahead of schedule to the next item for that day—provided that a Designated Party will not be required to begin its case-in-chief on a different date than the one assigned above,” it says. “The ALJ will make other scheduling advancement determinations on a day-to-day basis as needed.” Meanwhile, DEA is resisting a prohibitionist group’s request for an agency official to testify about the harms of marijuana during the hearing. The DEA pharmacologist was previously an official witness for an earlier, subsequently cancelled hearing on marijuana rescheduling during the Biden administration. During that time, she submitted into the record a report that attempts to link cannabis consumption to psychosis, depression and impaired cognitive functioning. The prohibitionist organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana is attempting to call her for testimony during the current proceedings, but the agency is resisting that. DEA is technically the proponent of the proposed marijuana rescheduling rule and will fill the role of defending it during the hearing, though some cannabis reform supporters are skeptical it will effectively do so given the agency’s long history of defending strict prohibition. DEA’s seeming reluctance to ease the way for testimony from the official who that might focus on the potential harms of cannabis could give reform supporters some comfort, however—though it remains to be seen how agency personnel it does put forth to partake in the hearing speak to marijuana’s effects and the need for federal scheduling reform. To that end, Marijuana Moment this seek sent a latter asking the DEA judge overseeing the proceedings to reconsider his decision to prohibit livestreaming of the hearing. The ALJ last week issued a preliminary order laying out rules and timelines for the marijuana rescheduling proceedings—simultaneously recognizing that “national public interest in this issue predicates towards a policy of transparency” while also determining that “the hearing will not be televised, livestreamed, or broadcasted in any way.” As a result, people who wish to observe the historic cannabis reform process must attend in person in Arlington, Virginia under the judge’s order. In a letter sent to Julius on Tuesday, Marijuana Moment counsel Joseph A. Bondy noted that DEA permitted livestreaming of an earlier, subsequently cancelled hearing process on the proposal to move cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III that took place during the Biden administration. “That prior determination was correct. The public-interest rationale for contemporaneous access has not diminished,” Bondy wrote. “If DEA believes safety, witness-management, or operational concerns now require a more restrictive access regime, those concerns should be identified and addressed through narrow conditions rather than a categorical ban.” “Limited physical seating in Arlington is not a meaningful substitute for livestreaming. Marijuana Moment, like many members of the press and public who follow federal cannabis policy nationally, cannot rely on a handful of available seats as a practical means of observing and reporting on the hearing. That is precisely why DEA’s prior livestreaming directive mattered: it allowed those physically outside the courtroom to observe the proceeding without disrupting the hearing, burdening security, or conferring party status on anyone.” “In a proceeding of this public significance, and in light of DEA’s prior livestreaming directive, a public hearing is not meaningfully public if access depends on the happenstance of limited physical attendance,” Marijuana Moment’s attorney wrote to the DEA judge. “Delayed access to transcripts is no substitute for contemporaneous observation. The press reports events as they unfold. The public evaluates government action in real time. And in a proceeding of this magnitude, transparency is not a courtesy. It is a safeguard.” “For a substantial public audience seeking serious coverage of federal cannabis policy, Marijuana Moment is an important channel through which public understanding of this proceeding occurs.” — 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. — DEA last week announced that it had selected participants for the marijuana rescheduling hearing—and only opponents of the reform have been invited to take part, some of whom have filed litigation in an attempt to block the reform. No reform supporters who expressed intent to participate were invited. The hearing will begin on June 29 and is set to conclude no later than July 15. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche in April issued an order that immediately reclassified state-licensed medical cannabis, as well as marijuana products approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III. Under a separate order the acting attorney general signed, the upcoming hearing will consider more comprehensively moving marijuana to Schedule III. In order to be considered for participation in the hearing, parties needed to file requests articulating their interest in the proceeding, the objections or issues they wish to be heard on and their position on those issues. “The purpose of the hearing is to ‘receiv[e] factual evidence and expert opinion regarding’ whether marijuana should be transferred to schedule III of the list of controlled substances,” Blanche’s initial notice, filed in April, said. The attorney general also selected an administrative law judge (ALJ) to oversee the proceedings. “The ALJ’s authorities include the power to hold conferences to simplify or determine the issues in the hearing or to consider other matters that may aid in the expeditious disposition of the hearing; require parties to state their position in writing; sign and issue subpoenas to compel the production of documents and materials to the extent necessary to conduct the hearing; examine witnesses and direct witnesses to testify; receive, rule on, exclude, or limit evidence; rule on procedural items; and take any action permitted by the presiding officer under DEA’s hearing procedures and the” Administrative Procedures Act, Blanche wrote. A prior hearing process on the marijuana rescheduling process that was initiated by the Biden administration stalled last year amid litigation over alleged improper communications and witness selection. The current marijuana rescheduling process is being challenged with several lawsuits that have been consolidated by a federal appeals court. Those pieces of litigation against the cannabis reform have been filed by state attorneys general, marijuana legalization opponents and a cannabis-focused biopharmaceutical corporation. Meanwhile, the already-enacted rescheduling of state-licensed medical cannabis is already having broad impacts. The Congressional Research Service published a report on the current cannabis rescheduling move explaining that certified patients who possess medical marijuana from state-licensed dispensaries now have certain protections under Schedule III. “The order appears to authorize end users to possess marijuana for medical use without a CSA-compliant prescription,” it says. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has posted a draft update to a gun purchase form to acknowledge the federally legal status of medical marijuana under rescheduling. The revised section in question notably says that only “use or possession of marijuana for recreational purposes” is federally prohibited, leaving out the prior form’s mention of medical cannabis. The U.S. Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) said they plan to issue new tax guidance for the marijuana industry following rescheduling. The reform will benefit state-licensed marijuana businesses by allowing them to take federal tax deductions they’re currently barred from under an IRS code known as 280E that doesn’t apply to Schedule III substances. Even DEA, which has long opposed cannabis legalization and was accused of stalling the rescheduling process initiative by the Biden administration, has launched a registration process for state-legal marijuana businesses to take advantage of federal benefits that come with the reform. The Department of Transportation, on the other hand, issued guidance saying that use of state-legal medical cannabis is still no excuse for a positive drug test by truck drivers, pilots and other safety-sensitive workers. A congressional committee recently voted to block federal officials from taking further steps to carry out cannabis rescheduling. Read the judge’s order on the schedule for the marijuana hearing below: Photo courtesy of Mike Latimer. The post DEA Judge Sets Testimony Schedule For Marijuana Rescheduling Hearing Starting Next Week appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“Rescheduling will not answer every question overnight, but it will make it easier. It may also help pave the way for more rational healthcare policies.” By Joanna Zeiger, Canna Research Foundation As an Olympian and Ironman 70.3 World Champion, cannabis was something we were warned about. It was a banned substance, a potential career-ending mistake and certainly not medicine. I avoided it wholesale and conversations around it were taboo. That was in the early 2000s—yet much of today’s debate around rescheduling mirrors the same misconceptions that were dominant then. I have spent much of my professional life studying it to fight that false narrative. For eight years, I worked at the Institute for Behavioral Genetics (IBG) at the University of Colorado Boulder conducting marijuana research in adolescents and young adults, focusing on risk, misuse and negative outcomes. Then a cycling accident changed everything. In 2009, I suffered a devastating crash that left me with chronic pain, nausea, loss of appetite and severe sleep disruption from a clavicle and multiple rib fractures. Years were spent pursuing conventional treatments. Some provided temporary relief. None restored my quality of life. Medical cannabis was suggested. I resisted in part because of the athletic stigma but also fear, not to mention the irony of being a cannabis researcher who was reluctant to use it. Eventually, desperation outweighed embarrassment. When Colorado’s adult-use dispensaries opened in 2014, I walked into one and explained my symptoms. I left with cannabis-infused gummies and transdermal patches. Nobody explained dosing. Nobody told me to cut the patch into smaller pieces so I put on an entire patch. The result was memorable. I got far higher than intended but for the first time in a long time, I slept. That experience taught me an important lesson that still applies today: cannabis is not as simple as taking a pill. Patients need education and guidance. They need evidence-based recommendations. Most importantly, they need healthcare providers who are comfortable having these conversations. More than a decade later, I am still learning. Cannabis has helped restore my appetite. I sleep consistently. My chronic illnesses are more manageable. Has it eliminated my pain? No. But it has reduced my suffering. As both a patient and an epidemiologist, that distinction matters. Today, through the Canna Research Foundation that I founded, I study cannabis use and focus on understanding how people use cannabis, their experience and how healthcare providers communicate with patients about this medicine. When we conducted one of the first large studies of cannabis use among athletes, we found something that challenged common assumptions. Athletes were using cannabis but not to gain a competitive advantage. They were using it to manage pain, improve sleep, stimulate appetite, reduce anxiety and recover from the physical and emotional demands of training and competition. The question became whether we were willing to conduct the research necessary to help them make informed decisions. The same is true for patients. We recently completed a study among patients with rheumatologic conditions. Many reported that cannabis reduced their suffering. That’s a powerful concept that traditional clinical endpoints often miss. We measure pain scores, disease activity and medication use—but patients care about something broader: Can they sleep and eat? Can they spend time with their families? Can they participate in life despite chronic illness? For many patients, cannabis appears to help answer those questions. That does not mean cannabis is a cure-all nor is it risk free. Some people experience anxiety, dizziness or problematic use. Some individuals should not use cannabis at all. Responsible use matters. Education matters. Regulation matters. But choice matters too. Patients deserve access to evidence-based information and the freedom to work with their healthcare providers to determine whether cannabis is appropriate for their situation. Unfortunately, much of the public conversation has been driven by misconceptions. Rescheduling cannabis is not legalization. It is not an endorsement of recreational cannabis use. You still can’t go to your local pharmacy and purchase it. What rescheduling and a new pilot program to allow cannabis access to Medicare patients acknowledges is a reality that millions of patients and healthcare providers already understand: cannabis has medical uses and deserves to be studied accordingly. For researchers, the current federal framework creates enormous barriers. Conducting cannabis research requires navigating layers of regulatory complexity that do not exist for many other substances. These barriers slow scientific progress and limit our ability to answer basic questions about dosing, effectiveness, safety, drug interactions and long-term outcomes. Both advocates and skeptics should want more research. Patients deserve better answers than trial and error. Physicians deserve evidence they can trust. Policymakers deserve data instead of assumptions. Rescheduling will not answer every question overnight, but it will make it easier. It may also help pave the way for more rational healthcare policies. Today, patients frequently pay out of pocket for cannabis products while insurance programs, including Medicaid, often cover medications with greater side-effect burdens. Better research creates the foundation for better policy, better clinical guidance, and ultimately better patient care. The novel program recently created under the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) establishes an opening for that research and encourages education and engagement with the medical and research community. That will be key to better serving patients and developing the real world evidence necessary to bring this field of medicine forward. When I first entered this field, I saw cannabis primarily as a subject of concern. Today, I see something more nuanced. I see a substance that carries both risks and benefits. I see patients who deserve better information and physicians who need more education. And I see a scientific field that has been constrained for decades by stigma and regulatory barriers. Most of all, I see people whose lives may improve when they are given access to accurate information and the freedom to make informed decisions. That’s not a political position. It’s a public health one. Dr. Joanna Zeiger, a U.S. Olympian and former Ironman 70.3 World Champion, is the founder and CEO of the Canna Research Foundation and serves on the board of directors of the National Compassionate Care Council. The post As An Olympian, Cannabis Use Was Forbidden. Now I Spend My Career Studying It. (Op-Ed) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

There’s “no evidence of these claims was presented to the circuit court,” judges said. By Rebecca Rivas, Missouri Independent Missouri courts were supposed to automatically erase eligible marijuana misdemeanors from criminal records by June 8, 2023, six months after voters legalized recreational marijuana. But in a recent St. Louis case, the Missouri State Highway Patrol told an appellate court that “hundreds of thousands” of marijuana offenses may still exist on criminal records that should have been cleared. The patrol offered no evidence to back up that estimate, the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District noted in an April opinion. But the case exposed a practical problem with Missouri’s marijuana expungement process: If a court missed an eligible case, it remains unclear what the person is supposed to do about it. So far, the answers are inconsistent. People whose cases were missed have been told to ask a circuit clerk to fix the issue administratively, file a regular expungement petition or pursue a writ of mandamus. None has emerged as a clearly established statewide remedy. The appeal involved a St. Louis man identified in court records as D.S., who sought to expunge a 2003 misdemeanor marijuana conviction through a court petition intended for incarcerated individuals. A St. Louis County circuit judge granted the marijuana expungement. The patrol did not argue that the marijuana offense was ineligible. Instead, it argued that the court had no authority to grant the request through that kind of petition because the constitutional amendment required misdemeanor marijuana expungements to happen “automatically.” Only incarcerated people with eligible marijuana offenses, the patrol argued, had to petition a court. Allowing such petitions, the patrol argued, would open the floodgates to “hundreds of thousands” of offenses that court clerks have missed and cause “an immense burden” on state courts. The case itself is a sealed record but the court’s April opinion is a public record, and the appellate judges summarized the patrol’s argument in a footnote. “While MSHP claims hundreds of thousands of offenses exist that should have been automatically expunged and predicts that allowing persons entitled for automatic expungement to petition would place an immense burden on Missouri courts,” the footnote states, “no evidence of these claims was presented to the circuit court.” After the underlying case was closed June 4, the highway patrol said it could comment on the litigation. In an email to The Independent, Capt. Scott White, a spokesman for the highway patrol, said estimates of “potentially eligible offenses were based on the broad language of the constitutional amendment” and based on the agency’s records in its Central Repository. The Central Repository is where the highway patrol maintains criminal history records reported by law enforcement agencies and courts throughout the state. It now also updates these records when marijuana cases are expunged. White said the patrol “has no concerns with the petition process when it is conducted in accordance with the amendment’s requirements.” While the judges agreed with the patrol that “the circuit court exceeded its authority in hearing the petition,” they ultimately sided with the man because the courts were obligated to expunge the man’s misdemeanor by June 8, 2023—the deadline set in the constitutional amendment. Lee Camp, an attorney with ArchCity Defenders law firm and who represented D.S., said the ruling is already having repercussions. His organization has been approached by several people whose records should have been expunged but weren’t. Some have since filed petitions in St. Louis County, and their cases have been dismissed due to the appellate court ruling. John O’Sullivan, spokesman for the St. Louis County court where the expungement occurred, said that’s because the court is interpreting the appellate decision to require that petition to proceed under Missouri’s regular criminal expungement law—not the marijuana amendment’s petition process. Camp said that interpretation is concerning because under state law the county cites, people can only expunge three misdemeanors in their lifetime. “I appreciate St. Louis County is trying to clarify a process,” Camp said, “but there’s no way ArchCity could advise any of our clients to burn these statutory expungements on these things.” The appellate judges agreed and wrote D.S. “should not have to use one of the three expungements permitted for misdemeanors when the circuit court was directed by the Missouri Constitution to expunge the conviction at issue.” The D.S. case shows, Camp said, the courts have not demonstrated that they have completed expungements. He believes the next step is for citizens to file a writ of mandamus, which would order public officials to complete tasks mandated by law. Camp added, “This is a mess.” ‘Reach out to your circuit clerk’ The case raises questions about what people are supposed to do if the clerk’s office hasn’t expunged an eligible marijuana judgment. “If someone feels as if they should have gotten an automatic expungement for a marijuana judgement and did not, they may reach out to the St. Louis County Circuit Clerk’s office,” O’Sullivan said. O’Sullivan added if the clerk’s office reviews the case file and finds it should have received an automatic expungement, “they will work to get the charge expunged and there would be no need for someone to file a petition.” If someone still wants to file a petition in a misdemeanor marijuana case, O’Sullivan said the appellate ruling states people need to file it like a regular expungement for a criminal case, and “not the constitutional amendment as that deals with incarcerated individuals.” Missouri courts have expunged about 155,000 marijuana cases since voters approved the 2022 constitutional amendment to legalize recreational cannabis, according to data compiled by Missouri’s state courts system. The state court system estimates that about 334,000 cases have been reviewed—which would mean the counties expunged 46 percent of the cases they reviewed. But clerks say the number of cases reviewed is higher because the paper records reviewed and deemed ineligible weren’t documented. Courts were mandated, as part of the amendment, to search their files for eligible marijuana-related charges and then make it as if they never existed on people’s records. But what should people do if court clerks missed their case? Saline County Circuit Clerk Becky Uhlich, who serves as first vice president of the Missouri Circuit Clerk Association, said she would advise people to contact the clerk for the county court. “Please reach out to your circuit clerk, bring it to their attention, and let them investigate why it wasn’t automatically expunged,’” she said. In 2023, Uhlich said the court clerks received lists with thousands of potential eligible offenses from the Office of State Courts Administrator. “Computers generated those reports,” she said. “Computers are not always accurate in those things.” The lists didn’t include people who were under 21 at the time of the arrest or paper files, which largely end around 2014. For paper records, court clerks have to read summaries for every single criminal record. The turnaround was also fast, given the amendment passed on Dec. 8, 2022 and the court clerks had six months to complete the task. There wasn’t a specific year courts needed to search back to outlined in the constitution, clerks have previously told The Independent. However, Uhlich and others have suggested it’s 1971, which was the first marijuana-related drug statutes, based on information the state administrator provided to court clerks. “This was new territory,” she said. “I was really blessed because I was able to hire someone who had previous knowledge and we met our deadline, but I can’t say that that was the case for every county.” Joel Currier, spokesman for St. Louis circuit court, said their clerks are continuing to review cases for eligibility. “Of the thousands of cases that must be reviewed by a limited number of available clerks, it’s possible either some cases have been missed or that they’re still awaiting to be reviewed,” Currier said. “Anyone who believes they still may have a case eligible for automatic expungement may contact the St. Louis Circuit Clerk’s Office to inquire and our clerks will work to review them as quickly as possible.” This type of variation from county to county concerns Camp and the ArchCity Defenders, a legal advocacy organization. “It’s not just about getting the expungement order itself,” Camp said. “It’s really what it means if you’re in the category of people who have not received that mandatory expungement order. That means you’re not enjoying the same privileges as someone that two years ago received automatic expungement in a different circuit.” The lack of expungement, Camp said, could be the difference between receiving employment, housing and benefits opportunities. Hundreds of thousands of cases Dan Viets, an attorney, Missouri NORML coordinator and chair of the advisory board of the 2022 marijuana legalization campaign, estimated last year that hundreds of thousands of marijuana cases may still be on people’s records—in agreement with the highway patrol. His estimate, he said, was based on FBI crime statistics showing more than 16,600 marijuana arrests in 2018, though not all law enforcement agencies report their statistics to the FBI. A conservative estimate of 20,000 marijuana arrests per year, Viets argued, would mean that the 140,000 expungements so far “represent only about seven years of such arrests.” While he still believes that there are many older cases that haven’t been expunged, Viets said he’s taken a step back from his initial claim last year—largely because the courts haven’t seen a mass number of people petitioning for expungements. That’s why he disagrees with the highway patrol’s claim in the D.S. case that the courts would be overwhelmed if everyone was allowed to petition for a marijuana misdemeanor expungement. “It has not happened,” Viets said. “That’s the most persuasive evidence…and we defense attorneys have been filing petitions for expungement since that time.” Viets also strongly disagrees that circuit courts exceeded their authority to hear D.S.’ petition. Viets has filed a few dozen petitions for clients whose records weren’t automatically cleared. “It’s just not reasonable to deny people access to the courts,” Viets said. He also called the part in the decision about the circuit court’s authority “mere dicta,” or statements made by a judge in a legal opinion that weren’t necessary to resolve the case and aren’t binding. The legally binding part of the decision, Viets said, was that the appellate judges found the circuit court’s decision to hear the petition “harmless,” since they were obligated to do it two years ago. What’s also not written in the Constitution, he said, is people’s right to file a writ of mandamus. It’s something he’s thought about doing to ensure courts complete the marijuana expungements, especially the ones that didn’t search through criminal records past the 1980s and some municipal courts. “We didn’t say, ‘Yes, you have a right to file a writ of mandamus,’ in the language of [the marijuana constitutional amendment],” said Viets, who helped write the language, “but by God, due process requires that every citizen has the right to file for a writ of mandamus.” This story was first published by Missouri Independent. Photo elements courtesy of rawpixel and Philip Steffan. The post ‘Hundreds Of Thousands’ Of Missouri Marijuana Conviction Records May Still Exist Despite Deadline To Clear Them, Police Say appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is resisting a prohibitionist group’s request for an agency official to testify about the harms of marijuana during a hearing on the Trump administration’s move to reschedule cannabis that is scheduled to start next week. The organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), which opposes the proposed reform, wants Luli Akinfiresoye, a pharmacologist in the DEA Diversion Control Division’s Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section, to testify during the proceedings. Akinfiresoye was previously an official DEA witness for an earlier, subsequently cancelled hearing on marijuana rescheduling during the Biden administration. During that time, she submitted into the record a report that attempts to link cannabis consumption to psychosis, depression and impaired cognitive functioning. It also says there is “great concern” about use of non-federally-approved medical marijuana products under state laws, arguing it could have “unpredictable and unintended consequences.” However, “The Government does not intend to identify Dr. Akinfiresoye as witness for our case in chief,” during the current proceedings, DEA attorney James J. Schwartz wrote in an email to SAM this week, prompting the group to seek to subpoena the DEA pharmacologist as its own witness in the hearing. The prohibitionist group is one of seven parties that have been invited to participate in the hearing, while no reform supporters who requested to take part are being allowed to do so. DEA told SAM that if it wants to call the agency pharmacologist as a witness, it will need to submit a request under specific rules known as Touhy regulations, and also that the information it wants to uncover in the hearing may be shielded under the Privacy Act. If that is the case, “the information may not be disclosed without prior written consent of those identified in documents who are protected by the Privacy Act, or pursuant to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction and signed by a Judge,” Amber Porter, section chief in DEA’s Office of Chief Counsel, wrote to an attorney at Torridon Law PLLC, which is representing SAM. “Please also be aware that one or more privileges, such as the law enforcement privilege, may bar release of the information you seek.” The DEA report linked to Akinfiresoye’s prior testimony says that “cannabis impairs a wide range of psychomotor skills, including motor coordination, divided attention, and complex task performance.” “Furthermore, chronic use of cannabis can impair cognitive functioning, affecting the organization and integration of complex information, as well as impair attention and memory processes,” it says. “Prolonged use may lead to greater and potentially irreversible impairment, which could impact daily life functions. Chronic users may develop a dependence syndrome characterized by a loss of control over cannabis use.” “Long-term cannabis smoking can also cause epithelial injury to the trachea and major bronchi, leading to airway inflammation, impaired pulmonary defenses, and a higher prevalence of chronic and acute bronchitis symptoms. Additionally, cannabis use can exacerbate schizophrenia in affected individuals.” The report also discusses state medical marijuana laws, raising concerns about patients’ use of cannabis to treat conditions for which it hasn’t received federal approval: “State programs have legalized cannabis for a variety of medical conditions, such as (but not limited to) chronic pain, glaucoma, anxiety, and as an antiemetic in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea. However, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the use of unapproved cannabis and/or unapproved cannabis-derived products to treat a number of medical conditions including, AIDS wasting, epilepsy, neuropathic pain, spasticity associated with multiple sclerosis, and cancer and chemotherapy-induced nausea is of great concern. FDA notes that its drug approval process involves a careful evaluation for safety, efficacy, quality, and monitoring once approved for marketing. The use of unapproved cannabis and cannabis-derived products can have unpredictable and unintended consequences, including serious safety risks. Furthermore, there has been no FDA review of data from rigorous clinical trials to support safety and efficacy of the unapproved products for the various therapeutic uses for which they are being used.” DEA is technically the proponent of the proposed marijuana rescheduling rule and will fill the role of defending it during the hearing, though some cannabis reform supporters are skeptical it will effectively do so given the agency’s long history of defending strict prohibition. DEA’s seeming reluctance to ease the way for testimony from Akinfiresoye that might focus on the potential harms of cannabis could give reform supporters some comfort, however—though it remains to be seen how agency personnel it does put forth to partake in the hearing speak to marijuana’s effects and the need for federal scheduling reform. To that end, Marijuana Moment this seek sent a latter asking the DEA judge overseeing the proceedings to reconsider his decision to prohibit livestreaming of the hearing. Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julis last week issued a preliminary order laying out rules and timelines for the marijuana rescheduling proceedings—simultaneously recognizing that “national public interest in this issue predicates towards a policy of transparency” while also determining that “the hearing will not be televised, livestreamed, or broadcasted in any way.” As a result, people who wish to observe the historic cannabis reform process must attend in person in Arlington, Virginia under the judge’s order. In a letter sent to Julius on Tuesday, Marijuana Moment counsel Joseph A. Bondy noted that DEA permitted livestreaming of an earlier, subsequently cancelled hearing process on the proposal to move cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III that took place during the Biden administration. “That prior determination was correct. The public-interest rationale for contemporaneous access has not diminished,” Bondy wrote. “If DEA believes safety, witness-management, or operational concerns now require a more restrictive access regime, those concerns should be identified and addressed through narrow conditions rather than a categorical ban.” “Limited physical seating in Arlington is not a meaningful substitute for livestreaming. Marijuana Moment, like many members of the press and public who follow federal cannabis policy nationally, cannot rely on a handful of available seats as a practical means of observing and reporting on the hearing. That is precisely why DEA’s prior livestreaming directive mattered: it allowed those physically outside the courtroom to observe the proceeding without disrupting the hearing, burdening security, or conferring party status on anyone.” “In a proceeding of this public significance, and in light of DEA’s prior livestreaming directive, a public hearing is not meaningfully public if access depends on the happenstance of limited physical attendance,” Marijuana Moment’s attorney wrote to the DEA judge. “Delayed access to transcripts is no substitute for contemporaneous observation. The press reports events as they unfold. The public evaluates government action in real time. And in a proceeding of this magnitude, transparency is not a courtesy. It is a safeguard.” “For a substantial public audience seeking serious coverage of federal cannabis policy, Marijuana Moment is an important channel through which public understanding of this proceeding occurs.” — 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. — DEA last week announced that it had selected participants for the marijuana rescheduling hearing—and only opponents of the reform have been invited to take part, some of whom have filed litigation in an attempt to block the reform. No reform supporters who expressed intent to participate were invited. The hearing will begin on June 29 and is set to conclude no later than July 15. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche in April issued an order that immediately reclassified state-licensed medical cannabis, as well as marijuana products approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III. Under a separate order the acting attorney general signed, the upcoming hearing will consider more comprehensively moving marijuana to Schedule III. In order to be considered for participation in the hearing, parties needed to file requests articulating their interest in the proceeding, the objections or issues they wish to be heard on and their position on those issues. “The purpose of the hearing is to ‘receiv[e] factual evidence and expert opinion regarding’ whether marijuana should be transferred to schedule III of the list of controlled substances,” Blanche’s initial notice, filed in April, said. The attorney general also selected an administrative law judge (ALJ) to oversee the proceedings. “The ALJ’s authorities include the power to hold conferences to simplify or determine the issues in the hearing or to consider other matters that may aid in the expeditious disposition of the hearing; require parties to state their position in writing; sign and issue subpoenas to compel the production of documents and materials to the extent necessary to conduct the hearing; examine witnesses and direct witnesses to testify; receive, rule on, exclude, or limit evidence; rule on procedural items; and take any action permitted by the presiding officer under DEA’s hearing procedures and the” Administrative Procedures Act, Blanche wrote. A prior hearing process on the marijuana rescheduling process that was initiated by the Biden administration stalled last year amid litigation over alleged improper communications and witness selection. The current marijuana rescheduling process is being challenged with several lawsuits that have been consolidated by a federal appeals court. Those pieces of litigation against the cannabis reform have been filed by state attorneys general, marijuana legalization opponents and a cannabis-focused biopharmaceutical corporation. Meanwhile, the already-enacted rescheduling of state-licensed medical cannabis is already having broad impacts. The Congressional Research Service published a report on the current cannabis rescheduling move explaining that certified patients who possess medical marijuana from state-licensed dispensaries now have certain protections under Schedule III. “The order appears to authorize end users to possess marijuana for medical use without a CSA-compliant prescription,” it says. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has posted a draft update to a gun purchase form to acknowledge the federally legal status of medical marijuana under rescheduling. The revised section in question notably says that only “use or possession of marijuana for recreational purposes” is federally prohibited, leaving out the prior form’s mention of medical cannabis. The U.S. Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) said they plan to issue new tax guidance for the marijuana industry following rescheduling. The reform will benefit state-licensed marijuana businesses by allowing them to take federal tax deductions they’re currently barred from under an IRS code known as 280E that doesn’t apply to Schedule III substances. Even DEA, which has long opposed cannabis legalization and was accused of stalling the rescheduling process initiative by the Biden administration, has launched a registration process for state-legal marijuana businesses to take advantage of federal benefits that come with the reform. The Department of Transportation, on the other hand, issued guidance saying that use of state-legal medical cannabis is still no excuse for a positive drug test by truck drivers, pilots and other safety-sensitive workers. A congressional committee recently voted to block federal officials from taking further steps to carry out cannabis rescheduling. Read the filings on SAM’s request for the DEA officials to testify below: The post DEA Resists Testimony From Agency Official Linked To Report On Marijuana’s Harms During Rescheduling Hearing appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

A new poll shows that Pennsylvania voters overwhelmingly support marijuana legalization—and that the largest share put the blame on Republican lawmakers for the fact that the state has not yet enacted the reform. The survey, conducted by Public Policy Polling this month, found that three out of four voters favor legalizing recreational cannabis. When asked whether “adults over 21 should have places to purchase non-medical cannabis products that are legal, and strictly regulated,” 55 percent said they strongly agree and 20 percent somewhat agree. Only 16 percent strongly disagree and 7 percent somewhat disagree, with another 3 percent saying they are unsure. When asked in a separate question whether Pennsylvania should keep the illicit market status quo, or if the state should legalize, regulate and tax non-medical use of cannabis by adults, 68 percent favored reform while just 14 percent said the laws should remain the same. The poll also informed voters that: “In the past 4 years the Pennsylvania Senate has had a bipartisan bill that would legalize and regulate the sale of adult use cannabis products.  A similar bipartisan measure has been introduced in the House. In that same time period, the last two Governors have endorsed the passage of adult use cannabis legislation, yet it has yet to pass.” “Who do you believe is the biggest obstacle when it comes to passing adult use cannabis legislation: the Governor, Democrats in the State Legislature, or Republicans in the State Legislature?” it asked. Forty percent of respondents blamed GOP lawmakers, 12 percent blamed Democrats and 9 percent said the governor was to blame for the lack of progress. The poll results come as a Republican senator is blaming the state’s Democratic governor for the defeat this month of his bill to create a new Cannabis Control Board (CCB) to oversee the state’s medical marijuana program and intoxicating hemp products and that could also one day oversee recreational cannabis if it is legalized. Most GOP senators in the Republican-controlled chamber voted for the legislation from Sen. Dan Laughlin (R), and all but two Democrats opposed it—with even some lawmakers who signed onto the measure as cosponsors ultimately voting against it. Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) “obviously weighed in on the Democratic side of the aisle and asked for a ‘no’ vote over there, successfully,” Sen. Dan Laughlin (R) said after the vote. “I knew it was a risk putting it up for a vote, because there were some discussions going back and forth… I had a little bit of a heads-up, but we chose to roll forward.” The governor’s office confirmed in a statement that he opposes the bill as drafted. “The Shapiro Administration remains supportive of comprehensive cannabis regulation, which would enable a competitive, revenue-generating adult-use market, protect patient access to the current Medical Marijuana Program and rein in hemp-based intoxicant products that are currently unregulated,” Rosie Lapowsky, a spokesperson for the governor, said. “Senate Bill 49 does not substantively advance those goals.” The now-defeated measure would transfer regulatory authority for the state’s existing medical cannabis program from the Department of Health to a new seven-member CCB. The governor would appoint three members—one with law enforcement experience, another with expertise in dealing with addiction and a third with experience in “cannabis matters.” The Senate president pro tempore, Senate minority leader, House speaker and House minority leader would also each get to make one appointment. The body would oversee cannabis permits, enforcement, seed-to-sale tracking, advertising, labeling, testing and other aspects of the legal industry. Moments after the bill’s defeat on the Senate floor, the chamber adopted a motion to reconsider—but it’s not yet clear when or if the legislation will get another vote. The bill would also create new types of medical cannabis permits for warehousing/distribution and third-party transporters, and would require regulars to issue an additional permit to an independent grower/processor. It would additionally add a new requirement for dispensaries to have a physician, pharmacist, physician assistant or certified nurse practitioner available at all times during hours of operation. A new Cannabis Regulation Fund would be established, supported by fees from the program. Forty percent of revenue would fund CCB’s operations, 15 percent would help patients pay for medical marijuana, 10 percent would support drug misuse prevention and treatment, 10 percent would go to local police departments and the remainder would go into the state’s general fund. Laughlin’s legislation would also significantly restrict most hemp THC products, aligning the state with a new federal policy that is set to take effect later this year recriminalizing preparations with total THC content of more than 0.3 percent on a dry-weight basis or more than 0.4 milligrams of THC per container. To the end, the new Pennsylvania poll also asked about the availability of intoxicating cannabinoid products, with 84 percent either strongly or somewhat agreeing that the state should enact a law to prevent their sales to minors and 85 percent favoring sales only at “strictly regulated, age-restricted storefronts.” The new survey involved interviews with 589 Pennsylvania voters on June 16 and 17. Laughlin, who is also sponsoring bipartisan legislation to legalize adult-use marijuana previewed the now-defeated regulatory measure last year, saying that Pennsylvania should take initial steps to make sure the state is “ready to act when legalization becomes law” by establishing a CCB now. In a cosponsorship memo, Laughlin wrote that his bill would “transfer regulatory control of the Medical Marijuana Program to the CCB, ensuring continuity, efficiency, and improved oversight of medical cannabis businesses and patient access.” It would further “establish uniform safety standards to protect consumers from untested and potentially harmful products.” The bill text itself would not enact recreational marijuana legalization on its own. But the description indicates that the sponsor feels the current regulatory regime under the Pennsylvania Department of Health should be replaced with a more targeted agency that would ostensibly be suited to oversee an adult-use market if lawmakers move to end prohibition. “By consolidating oversight under a single regulatory board, we can eliminate inconsistencies, enhance transparency, and provide the structure needed to responsibly manage this industry,” the memo says. The action on the cannabis regulatory bill, SB 49, came shortly after the House of Representatives passed a bill to allow terminally ill patients to use medical cannabis in hospitals and other healthcare facilities. — 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. — It also comes as lawmakers in Pennsylvania continue to consider broader recreational marijuana legalization—a reform that a state senator recently said will be easier to achieve now that the Trump administration has rescheduled cannabis at the federal level. Shapiro has repeatedly called on lawmakers to send him a marijuana legalization bill and for the last several years has included the reform in his budget requests to the legislature. The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives passed a bill last year to end prohibition, but the Republican-controlled Senate has not followed suit. Republican gubernatorial nominee Stacy Garrity, who is running against Shapiro, recently pledged to veto a marijuana legalization bill if lawmakers ever sent one to her desk—though she added that she doesn’t think the reform stands a chance of making it that far in the state. “I don’t support legalizing recreational marijuana,” she said. “Recreational marijuana will not end up in the budget. They’re never going to pass it…not as long as Senate Republicans are in control of the Senate.” Her running mate for lieutenant governor, Jason Richey, claimed that legalizing marijuana would be “catastrophic” for the state, arguing it would increase the size of the illegal market, undermine job creation and harm public health. A spokesperson in the governor’s office said the Trump administration’s federal marijuana rescheduling move is an “important step” that “adds support” to his push to legalize cannabis in the state. The governor also used this year’s unofficial cannabis holiday 4/20 as an opportunity to press lawmakers once again to send him a bill to legalize marijuana. “Pennsylvanians who want to buy recreational marijuana are already driving across the border to one of our neighboring states who’ve legalized it,” Shapiro said in a social media post that day. “That’s hundreds of millions in revenue going out of state instead of being spent here in Pennsylvania.” In April, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives passed budget legislation proposed by Shapiro that relies on revenue that would be generated from recreational marijuana sales, which has yet to be legalized in the state. The governor earlier this year, as he has in past years, included cannabis legalization and the resulting expected revenue in his budget request. The $53.2 billion budget legislation, which doesn’t itself include provisions to actually legalize marijuana even as it contemplates allocating money that would result from it, now heads to the Senate for consideration. The House of Representatives last year passed a bill to legalize marijuana and put sales in state-owned dispensaries, but the Republican Senate majority has criticized that plan while also not advancing a cannabis legalization model of its own. Meanwhile, Shapiro is continuing to pressure on lawmakers to send him a bill to legalize marijuana in the state, saying that doing so would generate new revenue that could be invested in key programs. “While some in Harrisburg claim we can’t afford to make bigger investments in our kids, public safety, and our economy, know this: If we legalized and regulated adult-use cannabis, we’d bring in $1.3 BILLION in revenue for our Commonwealth over the first five years,” the governor said in another recent social media post. “Those are dollars that can be invested back into our people and our communities,” he said. “Stop with the excuses. Let’s get this done.” The state’s Independent Fiscal Office (IFO) reported in February that legalizing cannabis in Pennsylvania would generate nearly half a billion dollars in annual revenue by 2028, an estimate that is a significantly larger cash windfall compared to projections from Shapiro’s own office. With a proposed 20 percent wholesale cannabis excise tax, 6 percent state sales tax for retail and licensing fees, IFO said the governor’s legalization plan would generate $140 million in tax revenue in the first year of implementation from 2027-2028 and increase to $432 million by 2030-2031. That’s a much higher revenue estimate than what the governor’s office put forward in the latest executive budget. According to his office’s analysis, legalization would generate about $36.9 million in tax dollars in its first year from a 20 percent wholesale tax on marijuana—rising gradually to $223.8 million by 2030-2031. In February, a coalition of drug policy and civil liberties organizations urged Shapiro to play a leadership role in convening legislative leaders to get the job done on cannabis legalization this session. Read the full Pennsylvania marijuana poll results below: The post Pennsylvania Voters Strongly Support Legalizing Marijuana—And They Blame Republicans For Blocking Progress, New Poll Shows appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

A newly updated federal government report shows that states where marijuana is legal have generated nearly $15 billion in tax revenue from legal cannabis sales since late 2021. The U.S. Census Bureau this month issued the latest periodic update to its Cannabis Excise Sales Tax Collections data to include totals from the first quarter of 2026, during which states reported taking in a total of $825.1 million in marijuana tax revenue. Since the agency began tracking the issue in the third quarter of 2021, states have raked in more than $14.8 billion in earnings from cannabis sales, the latest data shows. The new numbers show there has been a dip in state marijuana tax revenue compared to the last quarter of 2025, which saw cannabis earnings of $878.1 million. Individual states reporting the highest dollar amounts from marijuana sales during Q1 of this year were California ($151.9 million), Washington State ($98.9 million), Michigan ($72.5 million), New York ($69.6 million), Illinois ($64.9 million) and Colorado ($53.3 million). The latest updated federally compiled figures also provide a look at which states have brought in the most cannabis revenue over time since the Census Bureau started tracking the issue nearly five years ago. The more than $3.1 billion that California has generated from marijuana sales since late 2021 represents more than a fifth of all cannabis dollars brought into state coffers across the country during that period. Washington State comes in second place, with $2.1 billion, followed by Illinois ($1.3 billion), Colorado $1.3 billion), Michigan ($1.2 billion), Massachusetts ($831.5 million) and Oregon ($777.7 million). The federal data doesn’t include tax earnings from quarters prior to Q3 2021. A separate report published this month by the advocacy group the Marijuana Policy Project found that states have generated more than $28.4 billion in tax revenue from recreational marijuana sales since the first markets launched over a decade ago. While those figures reach back further than the Census Bureau’s do, they don’t account for additional revenue that states have collected from medical marijuana sales, or from cannabis business application and licensing fees. Notably, the Census tracker’s numbers lag behind the real-time market. The agency says figures shown are “based on a calendar quarter and generally represent taxes collected on sales made during the prior quarter (i.e. data released in September 2023 will cover sales during the quarter ended June 30, 2023).” Data is also incomplete. Nevada, for example, did not report any data for Q1 2026 despite providing information for previous quarters. While not every state with legal marijuana has consistently provided data for the national tracker, the project nevertheless represents the federal government’s growing effort to account for the size and scope of the cannabis industry—which despite the growing number of state legalization laws remains generally federally illegal, although the rescheduling reform being implemented by the Trump administration is partially changing that. In 2023, the Census Bureau separately updated its survey of private businesses to better capture marijuana-related economic activity. Together, the tracking and reporting efforts indicate an increasing willingness by the federal government to acknowledge the billions of dollars in annual economic activity generated by an industry that it continues to largely prohibit. The new state tax revenue data used to build the report “result from a complete canvass of all state government agencies,” the bureau said in a methodology note. While it refers to the revenue as “quarterly cannabis excise sales tax collections,” it also says that “taxes” are defined rather broadly. “For this dataset, the concept of ‘taxes’ is comprised of all compulsory contributions exacted by a government for public purposes,” it said. “Tax revenue is further defined to include related penalty and interest receipts of a government but to exclude protested amounts.” The bureau has two separate tax codes for marijuana revenue that it asks states to report, one for taxes on cannabis transactions and another for business license fees. The agency has said its own figures might not align perfectly with state-reported data “because the Census Bureau may be using a different definition of which organizations are covered by the term, ‘state government.’” The bureau’s definition, it explains, “refers not only to the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of a given state, but it also includes agencies, institutions, commissions, and public authorities.” Meanwhile, a separate economic analysis released this month by Vangst and Whitney Economics found that, for the first time since state recreational marijuana markets launched in 2014, the industry saw a year-over-year decline in national revenue from cannabis sales in 2025. The post New Federal Report Tracks Nearly $15 Billion In Marijuana Revenue Collected By States Over The Last Five Years appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

I admire this article for the well-researched content and excellent wording. I got so involved in this material that I couldn’t stop reading. I am impressed with your work and skill. Thank you so much. taxi weybridge to heathrow near me

Many clients prefer Escorts in South Delhi because the companions are stylish, intelligent, and naturally charming. Their warm nature and graceful presence help create an enjoyable experience filled with comfort and relaxation.

I really like your take on the issue. I now have a clear idea on what this matter is all about.. walton airport taxi

Marijuana scholarship bill in Congress; AK cannabis record-sealing law takes effect; Study: Medical marijuana for pain; DEA hearing 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… Before you dig into today’s cannabis news, I wanted you to know you can keep this resource free and published daily by subscribing to Marijuana Moment on Patreon. We’re a small independent publication diving deep into the cannabis world and rely on readers like you to keep going. Join us at https://www.patreon.com/marijuanamoment / TOP THINGS TO KNOW Marijuana Moment sent a letter asking a Drug Enforcement Administration judge to reconsider his decision to not allow livestreaming of the hearing on federal cannabis rescheduling that begins next week—citing the judge’s own order that acknowledges that “national public interest in this issue predicates towards a policy of transparency.” Reps. Troy Carter (D-LA) and Dina Titus (D-NV) filed a new bill that would create a marijuana-focused scholarship program for students pursuing careers in cannabis while also funding research on the plant at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic-Serving Institutions. Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy (R) allowed a criminal justice bill containing provisions to let people keep marijuana conviction records confidential to take effect without his signature. A new study from the Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management involving more than 6,000 chronic pain patients in the state’s medical marijuana program found that 55 percent “were able to improve their life enjoyment and pain interference in general activity within 4 months of starting medical cannabis.” “Medical cannabis patients report improvement in pain symptoms after four months.” Jason Ortiz of Last Prisoner Project argues in a new Marijuana Moment op-ed that the Drug Enforcement Administration’s upcoming federal cannabis rescheduling hearing includes the “wrong voices.” “A decision about whether to continue one of the most outdated and destructive drug policies in American history should not exclude the people and advocates most directly affected by it.” The Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission gave approval for a business to start growing the state’s first legal medical marijuana plants and separately voted to begin accepting applications for product manufacturers. / FEDERAL A former U.S. Agency for International Development official authored an op-ed criticizing the Trump administration’s “drug war” tactics. Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) sent a letter urging Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins to expand the Great American Cotton Plan by including hemp and other fibers. / STATES Wisconsin Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mandela Barnes tweeted, “When I’m governor, we’re going to legalize marijuana.” A Connecticut representative reacted to accusations of him having a conflict of interest on cannabis policy. Colorado regulators published guidance about unified marijuana business license applications. Massachusetts regulators sent an update on four internal working groups’ progress toward implementing rules for marijuana social consumption businesses. Rhode Island regulators issued a final medical cannabis business license. Michigan regulators are conducting a survey on cannabis product recalls. California regulators sent updates about various cannabis issues. The U.S. Virgin Islands Cannabis Advisory Board will meet on Thursday. Vermont regulators will host a budtender training on Thursday. — 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. — / SCIENCE & HEALTH A study found that adoption of recreational marijuana legalization “may help to reduce the size of illegal cannabis markets, or there may be shifting law enforcement seizure priorities in those states.” A review concluded that “both naturalistic and therapeutic use [of psychedelics] mitigate the effects of racial trauma.” / ADVOCACY, OPINION & ANALYSIS The Cannabis Council of Canada is suspending its active operations. / BUSINESS Curaleaf Holdings, Inc. shareholders approved several proposals. / CULTURE Seth Rogen discussed his role in normalizing cannabis use. 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 judge pressed to allow cannabis hearing livestream access (Newsletter: June 24, 2026) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

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

Thanks for a wonderful share. Your article has proved your hard work and experience you have got in this field. Brilliant .i love it reading. rail taxi walton near me

If you are a man of distinction and visiting Karol bagh district in Delhi for the first time, you must be looking for the best adult entertainment. We're here to make that happen. Our Escort Service in Karol Bagh are known for their beauty, charm, and their art of entertaining men. Our sexy call girls will bewitch you with their voluptuous figure and captivating presence. Whether it's college kids or celebrity, our offerings are catered to all tastes and preferences. Savor luxury without the hassles and with no price tag!

Marijuana Moment is asking a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) judge to reconsider his decision to prohibit livestraming of a hearing on the Trump administration’s cannabis rescheduling proposal that is scheduled to begin next week and that features only opponents of the reform as invited participants. Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julis last week issued a preliminary order laying out rules and timelines for the marijuana rescheduling proceedings—simultaneously recognizing that “national public interest in this issue predicates towards a policy of transparency” while also determining that “the hearing will not be televised, livestreamed, or broadcasted in any way.” As a result, people who wish to observe the historic cannabis reform process must attend in person in Arlington, Virginia under the judge’s order. In a letter sent to Julius on Tuesday, Marijuana Moment counsel Joseph Bondy noted that DEA permitted livestreaming of an earlier, subsequently cancelled hearing process on the proposal to move cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III that took place during the Biden administration. “That prior determination was correct. The public-interest rationale for contemporaneous access has not diminished,” Bondy wrote. “If DEA believes safety, witness-management, or operational concerns now require a more restrictive access regime, those concerns should be identified and addressed through narrow conditions rather than a categorical ban.” “Limited physical seating in Arlington is not a meaningful substitute for livestreaming. Marijuana Moment, like many members of the press and public who follow federal cannabis policy nationally, cannot rely on a handful of available seats as a practical means of observing and reporting on the hearing. That is precisely why DEA’s prior livestreaming directive mattered: it allowed those physically outside the courtroom to observe the proceeding without disrupting the hearing, burdening security, or conferring party status on anyone.” “In a proceeding of this public significance, and in light of DEA’s prior livestreaming directive, a public hearing is not meaningfully public if access depends on the happenstance of limited physical attendance,” Marijuana Moment’s attorney wrote to the DEA judge. “Delayed access to transcripts is no substitute for contemporaneous observation. The press reports events as they unfold. The public evaluates government action in real time. And in a proceeding of this magnitude, transparency is not a courtesy. It is a safeguard.” “For a substantial public audience seeking serious coverage of federal cannabis policy, Marijuana Moment is an important channel through which public understanding of this proceeding occurs.” The letter makes clear that Marijuana Moment “does not seek to participate as a party, present evidence, examine witnesses, submit proposed findings, or alter the merits schedule” and “seeks only contemporaneous public and press access to an administrative hearing of recognized national public interest.” Bondy requested a response from Julius by Thursday. — 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. — Meanwhile, the attorney is also representing a major cannabis reform organization that is asking DEA to reconsider the decision to exclude it from participating in the hearing as an interested party. The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), which represents the interests of people who use cannabis, filed the “emergency request for reconsideration” on Friday through Bondy, saying that the “public interest will be substantially harmed if the record omits the consumer perspective.” DEA last week announced that it had selected participants for the marijuana rescheduling hearing—and only opponents of the reform have been invited to take part, some of whom have filed litigation in an attempt to block the reform. No reform supporters who expressed intent to participate were invited. “NORML’s exclusion, if not corrected immediately, will deprive NORML and the cannabis consumers it represents of meaningful participation in prehearing procedures, witness presentation, exhibit designation, cross-examination, legal briefing, and any other proceedings necessary to compile a complete record,”Bondy, who serves as chair of NORML’s board of directors, wrote to DEA Administrator Terrance Cole. “The prejudice is immediate. It cannot be cured after the hearing closes.” According to several rejection letters Marijuana Moment has seen from cannabis reform supporters, DEA said 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.” NORML said in its request for reconsideration, however, that “DEA’s denial rests on a mistaken premise: that NORML is not adversely affected or aggrieved by the proposed rule because NORML supports removing marijuana from schedule I and recognizes that schedule III is preferable to schedule I.” “That is not NORML’s position. NORML supports removal from schedule I. But NORML does not concede that schedule III is the correct final federal treatment for marijuana,” Bondy wrote. “NORML’s position is that marijuana should be removed from the CSA schedules and regulated under a cannabis-specific federal framework directed to public health, consumer safety, product integrity, youth prevention, truthful labeling, testing, research access, impaired-driving policy, anti-diversion, state-regulated market realities, and illicit-market displacement.” The attorney wrote that the injury from Schedule III status for marijuana is “not mere ideological disappointment.” “NORML’s members would remain subject to federal controlled-substance status and the legal consequences that flow from it. Adult-use consumers who lawfully participate in state-regulated markets would remain outside coherent federal recognition,” Bondy said. “Schedule III would preserve federal illegality for cannabis activity outside federally authorized medical, research, or registrant channels. It would continue federal-state conflict, public confusion, stigma, collateral consequences, and consumer-safety harms.” The hearing will begin on June 29 and is set to conclude no later than July 15. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche in April issued an order that immediately reclassified state-licensed medical cannabis, as well as marijuana products approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III. Under a separate order the acting attorney general signed, the upcoming hearing will consider more comprehensively moving marijuana to Schedule III. In order to be considered for participation in the hearing, parties needed to file requests articulating their interest in the proceeding, the objections or issues they wish to be heard on and their position on those issues. “The purpose of the hearing is to ‘receiv[e] factual evidence and expert opinion regarding’ whether marijuana should be transferred to schedule III of the list of controlled substances,” Blanche’s initial notice, filed in April, said. The attorney general also selected an administrative law judge (ALJ) to oversee the proceedings. “The ALJ’s authorities include the power to hold conferences to simplify or determine the issues in the hearing or to consider other matters that may aid in the expeditious disposition of the hearing; require parties to state their position in writing; sign and issue subpoenas to compel the production of documents and materials to the extent necessary to conduct the hearing; examine witnesses and direct witnesses to testify; receive, rule on, exclude, or limit evidence; rule on procedural items; and take any action permitted by the presiding officer under DEA’s hearing procedures and the” Administrative Procedures Act, Blanche wrote. A prior hearing process on the marijuana rescheduling process that was initiated by the Biden administration stalled last year amid litigation over alleged improper communications and witness selection. The current marijuana rescheduling process is being challenged with several lawsuits that have been consolidated by a federal appeals court. Those pieces of litigation against the cannabis reform have been filed by state attorneys general, marijuana legalization opponents and a cannabis-focused biopharmaceutical corporation. Meanwhile, the already-enacted rescheduling of state-licensed medical cannabis is already having broad impacts. The Congressional Research Service published a report on the current cannabis rescheduling move explaining that certified patients who possess medical marijuana from state-licensed dispensaries now have certain protections under Schedule III. “The order appears to authorize end users to possess marijuana for medical use without a CSA-compliant prescription,” it says. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has posted a draft update to a gun purchase form to acknowledge the federally legal status of medical marijuana under rescheduling. The revised section in question notably says that only “use or possession of marijuana for recreational purposes” is federally prohibited, leaving out the prior form’s mention of medical cannabis. The U.S. Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) said they plan to issue new tax guidance for the marijuana industry following rescheduling. The reform will benefit state-licensed marijuana businesses by allowing them to take federal tax deductions they’re currently barred from under an IRS code known as 280E that doesn’t apply to Schedule III substances. Even DEA, which has long opposed cannabis legalization and was accused of stalling the rescheduling process initiative by the Biden administration, has launched a registration process for state-legal marijuana businesses to take advantage of federal benefits that come with the reform. The Department of Transportation, on the other hand, issued guidance saying that use of state-legal medical cannabis is still no excuse for a positive drug test by truck drivers, pilots and other safety-sensitive workers. A congressional committee recently voted to block federal officials from taking further steps to carry out cannabis rescheduling. Read the letter to the DEA judge from Marijuana Moment’s attorney below: The post Marijuana Moment Asks DEA Judge To Allow Livestreaming Of Rescheduling Hearing For Transparent Public Access appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net