All Activity

The governor of Kentucky says that the state’s efforts to get medical cannabis dispensaries open is now past the “halfway mark” to becoming “fully operational.” Gov. Andy Beshear (D) noted at a press briefing on Thursday that he recently attended the ribbon cutting ceremony for a medical marijuana cultivation business, saying it is “just the latest example of how we’ve kept our promise to Kentuckians” to provide legal access to patients in need. The governor, who signed medical cannabis legalization legislation in 2023 that took effect at the beginning of last year, said he is “proud” that the state is “moving forward in every step of the process.” “So far, more than 25,209 Kentuckians have been approved for medical cannabis cards,” he said. “We now have over 490 practitioners registered to issue certifications. And we have 41 businesses up and running. That includes 11 cultivators, two safety compliance facilities, five processors and 23 dispensaries. Those numbers will continue to grow.” The increasing access to medical marijuana means that “more Kentuckians won’t have to turn to addictive opioids” and will be able to “deal with chronic conditions, will get the relief they deserve, will be able to to address the PTSD that they may have gotten while serving our country.” With the Blue Sage Dispensary planning to open in Lebanon on Friday, Beshear said, the state will be “over the halfway mark of Kentucky becoming fully operational when it comes to dispensaries.” “Medical cannabis is helping our people in need live fuller lives with less pain,” the governor said. “It is a win-win.” Beshear signed an executive order in June to broaden the list of health conditions that make patients eligible to legally obtain medical cannabis. But days later, House Majority Whip Jason Nemes (R) asked Attorney General Russell Coleman (R) to ensure that state agencies “not cooperate” with the governor’s marijuana directive, which he called “unlawful.” “Any organization, any licensee, that participates in this unlawful expansion should be prosecuted,” Nemes said during a legislative committee hearing. “This is not the way forward.” The governor pushed back, however, saying that the GOP lawmaker exhibited a “complete lack of humanity.” “It’s helping a lot of people, and I was really surprised to see an attack from one lawmaker who called on the attorney general to prosecute people dying of a terminal illness for securing medical cannabis,” Beshear said. “I mean, that’s a complete lack of humanity. It is really low. I mean, an individual with ALS, you want to prosecute? That is certainly not leadership, and even for that individual, is a new record low.” After the legislature declined to take him up on a suggestion to expand the qualifying condition list this session, the governor used his authority to make it so patients with 15 additional health disorders—including Parkinson’s disease, HIV/AIDS, sickle cell anemia, fibromyalgia, arthritis and glaucoma—can also be certified for medical marijuana access. Beshear also rescinded an earlier executive order he issued in 2022 through which he offered to provide pardons for any patients who got into trouble for possessing medical cannabis that they purchased at a legal dispensary in a neighboring state. The more recent executive order on qualifying conditions is a follow up to a medical marijuana legalization law Beshear signed in 2023. The state’s first medical cannabis dispensary opened in December of last year. The governor in February announced that cannabis gummies are available for purchase in the state’s licensed dispensaries. Beshear in January said he’s “not satisfied” with the time it’s taken to launch the state’s medical marijuana program—but that he anticipates the pace of patient access would “pick up significantly” in 2026. In recognition of the delayed implementation, he signed an executive order to waive renewal fees for patients who get their cards so that they don’t get charged again before retailers open. Beshear separately announced last year that the state had launched a new online directory that lets people see where medical cannabis dispensaries will be opening near them. He emphasized that the state has been working to deliver access to patients “at the earliest possible date,” and that involved expediting the licensing process. Last year, the governor also ceremonially awarded the commonwealth’s first medical marijuana cards. During the November 2024 election, Kentucky also saw more than 100 cities and counties approve local ordinances to allow medical cannabis businesses in their jurisdictions. The governor said the election results demonstrate that “the jury is no longer out” on the issue that is clearly supported by voters across partisan and geographical lines. Meanwhile, legislature’s Interim Joint Committee on Health Services held a hearing last month on a proposal to allow terminally ill patients to use medical marijuana in hospitals. The post Kentucky’s Medical Marijuana Program Is ‘Halfway’ To Becoming ‘Fully Operational,’ Governor Says appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“This study suggests a beneficial impact of psychedelic decriminalization on the people who use them.” By Jack Gorsline, Psychedelic State(s) of America A newly published community survey of individuals who use psychedelics suggests that local decriminalization efforts are overwhelmingly associated with perceived improvements in safety, therapeutic access and psychosocial wellbeing, directly countering historical fears that such policies might destabilize communities. The study, titled “Perceptions of Psychedelic Decriminalization: Findings from a Community Survey of People Who Use Psychedelics,” was authored by Daniel J. Kruger, Julie Barron and Larry Norris, and published in the peer-reviewed journal Social Sciences. It captures a snapshot of the “third psychedelic era,” a period defined by the revival of institutional research, massive pharmaceutical investment and a growing grassroots movement aimed at decriminalizing naturally occurring psychedelics at the municipal and state levels. “This research is one step toward better understanding what decriminalization looks like for the people and communities directly experiencing it—and whether the policies we are advocating for are actually helping create the positive community outcomes,” said Co-Author Julie Barron in an exclusive statement provided to Psychedelic State(s) of America about the findings of the study Surveying 163 individuals living in areas that have enacted decriminalization policies, including cities in California, Colorado and Michigan, the researchers’ survey concluded that the policy changes yielded largely positive outcomes for the community. “In decriminalized zones, most (84.0%) of 163 survey participants reported feeling improvements in one of the following areas because of decriminalization: legal risks, social acceptance, substance availability, substance safety, diversity of available products and overall substance quality,” the authors wrote in the study. In stark contrast to warnings from opponents of drug policy reform, the survey found that only 5.5 percent of participants reported worsened conditions in any of those categories. Furthermore, not a single participant reported that legal risks had worsened following decriminalization. “This study suggests a beneficial impact of psychedelic decriminalization on the people who use them.” The benefits extended deeply into the realm of therapeutic and mental health outcomes. Nearly 75 percent of respondents reported decriminalization-related improvements regarding psychedelic therapy, citing better social acceptance, availability and diversity of services. “Most public health headlines focus on the risks of psychedelics, but these findings show how decriminalization can benefit a community as well,” said Larry Norris, a co-author of the study and Co-Founder of Decriminalize Nature. “Some clinical practitioners and legalization lobbyists write off decriminalization as the ‘wild west,’ or ‘not viable’ as if it’s a competition,” Norris added. “That attitude attempts to disempower community based healing and forces a cost-prohibitive gatekeeper mentality.” “Despite their best efforts to muddy the waters, decriminalization is not a competitor with psychedelic assisted psychotherapy,” he said. Beyond access to the substances themselves, decriminalization appears to have a profound ripple effect on daily life. Following the implementation of decriminalization policies, 72.4 percent of participants reported improvements in overarching life conditions. Specifically, about half of the respondents reported improvements in stress, anxiety, worry and connection to their community. More than a third reported improvements in depressive symptoms, family relationships and other interpersonal relationships. About a quarter cited better physical health and working conditions, while one in five reported improvements related to addiction and financial status. Only 2.5 percent of participants reported declines in any category of life conditions. Notably, more than 27 percent of participants reported that they had either stopped taking or reduced their use of traditional pharmaceutical medications due to psychedelic decriminalization. The researchers identified social acceptance as one of the most pronounced and consistent areas of change, noting its critical role in overall health and wellbeing. “The rapid growth of psychedelic use in naturalistic settings underscores the existence of a parallel trajectory of experimentation and knowledge production operating independently of formal clinical research,” the study authors observed, highlighting how grassroots and legacy communities have continued to steward psychedelic use outside of regulated medical frameworks. The survey also documented notable shifts in how individuals source their psychedelics. While sourcing from friends remained the most common method at approximately 54 percent, participants reported significant increases in purchasing from in-person retail dispensaries, growing or harvesting substances themselves, buying online and working with underground therapists or healthcare professionals. The authors cautioned, however, that currently operating psychedelic storefronts are generally not authorized under existing decriminalization policies, which typically do not permit commercial sales. Consequently, these unregulated markets introduce additional risks. Roughly one-fifth of participants reported being scammed when attempting to purchase psychedelic substances, though the majority of these incidents—53.5 percent—occurred prior to decriminalization. In qualitative responses, participants emphasized that decriminalization provided immense relief from legal anxiety. Many described feeling safer, more protected and less worried about arrest or employment consequences. This reduction in fear often translated into lower stress and a greater willingness to explore psychedelics for healing. However, not all feedback was entirely positive. A smaller subset of respondents expressed critical or ambivalent perspectives, raising concerns about the potential over-legislation and corporatization of psychedelics. These individuals voiced fears that pharmaceutical or corporate interests could dominate the emerging field, potentially marginalizing sacred, community-based practices and legacy healers. To address these equity concerns, many participants urged policymakers to center the voices of Indigenous communities, people of color and those most harmed by the historical “War on Drugs.” When asked for policy suggestions, respondents overwhelmingly supported expanding decriminalization and legalization, with many advocating for adult-use availability, home cultivation and retail access. They also emphasized the need for better quality control, third-party drug checking, clear labeling, and expanded access to guided psychedelic-assisted therapy. The researchers acknowledged several limitations in their study. The data relied on self-reported perceptions and utilized a convenience sample that heavily represented individuals already connected to psychedelic communities. The demographic makeup was predominantly white (78.5 percent) and highly educated, with the vast majority of participants being frequent, experienced users of substances like psilocybin, cannabis, MDMA and LSD. Because of the cross-sectional design of the survey, the researchers noted that their methodology precludes definitive attributions of causality, and they called for longitudinal studies to assess how perceptions and outcomes change over time as policy models mature. “It was very difficult to find usable information about post-decriminalization areas,” said Barron—who is the founder of the Michigan Psychedelic Society. “Some information is available through Poison Control…but we were looking for something else.” “We had a hard time tracking emergency-room data and 911 calls for service” Barron continued, “because these incidents are not labeled specifically as psychedelic-related. They are generally categorized more broadly as drug-related or involving dangerous drugs.” “Until we have better systems in place for specifically labeling and tracking plant medicines and psychedelics,” Barron concluded, “we need to ask psychedelic users themselves about their experiences and have them report on what they were experiencing.” Despite these limitations, the authors concluded that their findings present a compelling case for rethinking drug laws. “Overall, the data suggests that decriminalization was perceived as being associated with reduced legal risk, improved safety and therapeutic access, and enhanced psychosocial wellbeing, with minimal reports of worsening conditions or widespread initiation of use, suggesting it functioned more as a harm-reduction and community-health strategy than as a permissive drug policy,” the researchers wrote. Ultimately, the study suggests that ending the threat of criminal penalties for personal possession and use is a critical step toward a healthier society. “Decriminalizing psychedelics represents a rational, evidence-informed recalibration of drug policy that prioritizes health, equity, and safety,” the study concluded. For leaders of legacy psychedelic institutions, like Ismail Ali, Co-Executive Director of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), combatting cultural stigma surrounding psychedelics has long been a cornerstone priority as part of a multigenerational and multifaceted drug policy reform effort. In a statement provided exclusively to Psychedelic State(s) of America, Ali commented that, “the findings of this study reinforce how legal exposure shapes the entire environment around psychedelic use, separate from anything about the substances themselves… [and] shows how removing criminal penalties is essential to reduce social stigma, invite community education, and mitigate personal risk.” “However” Ali further noted, “this study also reveals the limitations of decriminalization as a policy solution—and make the case for it to be one of multiple approaches that complement one another.” “A comprehensive public health approach includes elements that go further than decriminalization can take us; safer supply, a well-resourced safety net, professional training, and accessible treatment infrastructure all require affirmative legal protection and investment,” Ali said. “All in all,” he concluded, “the findings of this study are consistent with what our movement has argued for years: reducing the criminal-legal exposure of psychedelic use changes people’s lives before a single policy ever touches quality control, insurance, or institutions.” This article was produced by Psychedelic State(s) of America—a nonprofit-sponsored news organization dedicated to rigorous independent psychedelic journalism. Subscribe to PSA online and Follow PSA on Instagram, LinkedIn, Twitter/X and Facebook. Learn more about PSA and donate to the PSA Media Fund here. Photo elements courtesy of carlosemmaskype and Apollo. The post Decriminalizing Psychedelics Improves Safety And Wellbeing, Study Concludes appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

A federal appeals court has laid out the schedule for a lawsuit brought by a coalition of anti-marijuana groups and a cannabis-focused biopharmaceutical corporation that are challenging the Trump administration’s initiative to cover up to $500 worth of hemp-derived products each year for eligible Medicare patients. In May, Judge Trevor N. McFadden dismissed the challenge to the program that’s implemented by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) that focuses largely on CBD but also allows a certain amount of THC in products. The opponents of the CBD Medicare effort then asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to reconsider the decision. On Wednesday, the appeals court issued an order setting the schedule for briefs in the case: Appellants’ Brief: October 5 Appellees’ Brief: November 4 Appellants’ Reply Brief: November 25 Deferred Appendix: December 2 Final Briefs: December 16 “All issues and arguments must be raised by appellants in the opening brief,” the order signed by Clifton B. Cislak, the court’s clerk, says. “The court ordinarily will not consider issues and arguments raised for the first time in the reply brief.” An attachment to the order notes that the case “may be set for oral argument,” with details to follow in a separate order if the court does schedule a hearing. McFadden, the lower court judge who first heard the case, ruled that prohibitionist groups and activists, led by Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), as well as a cannabis-focused biopharmaceutical corporation MMJ International Holdings and its subsidiaries, “have not established standing to bring this case.” “Each claims an injury too abstract or too remote to open the courtroom doors,” he said. “At the outset, the Court notes that it need not tackle the bulk of questions that Plaintiffs raise in their motions,” McFadden wrote. “That is because Plaintiffs’ case suffers from a fatal flaw: the failure to establish Article III standing to bring their claims. The Court addresses only this jurisdictional hole and will dismiss the entire suit and deny Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction as moot.” In April, lawyers for Health and Human Services Sec. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and CMS Director Mehmet Oz filed a brief arguing that the anti-cannabis organizations that filed the suit against the Medicare hemp coverage policy do not have standing to bring the case. “No organizational Plaintiff shows enough for an injury-in-fact,” McFadden said in his ruling. “All claim that they diverted resources in response to the BEI’s implementation, but none established that such resource diversion ‘interfered’ with its core activities or prevented it from ‘pursuing its true purpose.’” When it comes to the company MMJ and its subsidiaries, the judge said it is “not a direct and current competitor with anyone selling hemp to Medicare beneficiaries.” “In short, MMJ has no product on the Medicare-beneficiary market and no sense of when it may,” he said. Duane Boise, CEO of MMJ International Holdings, said in a press release on Thursday that “no court has ruled that CMS followed the law.” “A court ruled that we were not allowed to ask,” he said. “We were told we are not a competitor because we have no product on the market. We have no product on the market because we followed the federal process. That is the question we are putting to the D.C. Circuit.” Outside of the challenge to the CMS hemp program, SAM, MMJ and others filed separate lawsuits challenging the Trump administration’s move to federally reschedule marijuana. Beyond the advocacy organizations, the hemp CMS case involves individual plaintiffs, including anti-marijuana lawyer David Evans, who claims he had standing to challenge the new Substance Access Beneficiary Engagement Incentive (BEI) as a Medicare recipient—but the federal agencies reject that argument. “If Evans’s worst-case-scenario—his doctor recommends hemp to him—came true, Evans would lack a concrete harm,” McFadden wrote. “In sum, no matter the theory, Plaintiffs have failed to establish an Article III injury from the BEI’s implementation,” the judge said. “The use and regulation of hemp are important matters, and Plaintiffs understandably have strong views on these topics. But while they may not like the BEI, they have not been injured by it. The case will thus be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Previously, McFadden had rejected the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order to halt the program from launching on April 1. Notably, the government’s motion to dismiss the case says it was prepared in part by Matthew Zorn, a lawyer for HHS who before taking on the federal job led numerous cases suing government agencies on behalf of plaintiffs seeking marijuana and drug policy reform. The CMS initiative comes after President Donald Trump signed an executive order in December calling on the attorney general to finalize a rule federally rescheduling marijuana, which is now underway, that also contained components to “improve access” to full-spectrum CBD products. Under the program, inhalable preparations are not allowed, and products can contain no more than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC by dry weight and can have up to 3 milligrams of total THC per serving. The THC limit could potentially change if a law the president signed late last year takes effect as scheduled this November. That policy would strictly limit the types of cannabis products that are currently permitted under the 2018 Farm Bill that Trump signed in his first term, expressly prohibiting hemp derivatives containing more than 0.4 milligrams of total THC per container. The White House has called on Congress to take action to amend the planned ban to maintain legal access to hemp-derived full-spectrum CBD products. Oz, the CMS director, recently pressed senators to support provisions to delay the effective date of the hemp product ban in order to provide more time to craft a regulatory structure as an alternative to prohibition. Keeping the ban on schedule “would undo significant gains that have been made to make clinically-appropriate full-spectrum hemp-derived CBD accessible to the senior citizens and individuals with disabilities that rely on the Medicare program for their healthcare,” Oz wrote in a letter. In a brief in the CMS hemp lawsuit, federal agencies noted that “CMS does not pay for hemp products under the BEI.” “The participating provider furnishes eligible products at its own cost, subject to the $500 annual cap per beneficiary. The BEI operates within the shared-savings framework that defines the underlying models. If a provider’s investment in beneficiary engagement reduces the beneficiary’s total cost of care, the provider and CMS share in the resulting savings. If it does not, the provider absorbs the loss. No new federal appropriation is involved. No new entitlement is created. The BEI is, at its core, a decision by willing providers that a particular intervention can reduce downstream claims.” A bipartisan group of members of Congress recently sent a letter to Trump and other federal officials pressing for guidance on whether medical cannabis would be covered by Medicare. Meanwhile, the White House Office of Management and Budget held a series of meetings this year about a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) CBD products enforcement policy. FDA also issued guidance making clear that it does not intend to interfere with implementation of the Medicare hemp-derived products coverage plan. CMS separately finalized a rule that will allow coverage of some hemp products as specialized, non-primarily health-related benefits through Medicare Advantage plans. Read the order on the briefing schedule for the lawsuit challenging the Medicare hemp program below: Photo courtesy of Kimzy Nanney. The post Federal Appeals Court Sets Schedule For Lawsuit Challenging Medicare Hemp Coverage Program appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“Cannabis-related treatment admissions are largely driven by the criminal justice system.” By Paul Armentano, NORML While the mainstream media—The New York Times in particular—is sounding the alarm about a purported rise in the prevalence of problematic cannabis use, newly released federal data undercutting this narrative has largely gone unreported. How Is Problematic Use Defined? Problematic cannabis use, typically referred to as cannabis use disorder, is defined as a pattern of cannabis use behaviors leading to physical, social or occupational difficulties—but not necessarily addiction. People are defined as suffering from cannabis use disorder (CUD) if they meet two out of 11 possible criteria. Notably, these diagnostic criteria have been revised on multiple occasions during the past four decades, making comparisons with previous years’ data murky at best. Included among the current criteria are “withdrawal” and “tolerance”—two experiences that are typically associated with more habitual use. Importantly, no exceptions to these criteria are made for the tens of millions of patients who regularly consume cannabis for therapeutic purposes, almost all of whom are improperly classified under the current standards. By contrast, patients taking opioids medically are not classified as suffering from ‘opioid use disorder,’ even if they meet both criteria. Are more Americans consuming cannabis products? Yes. Surveys frequently show that a greater percentage of adults, but not more young people, are choosing cannabis products. But does this mean that more people than ever are struggling to manage their cannabis consumption? Not necessarily. Federal Data Tells A Different Story Despite the purported increase in CUD, questions about its real-world significance are raised by the federal government’s own substance abuse treatment data. According to report published last month by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the percentage of Americans seeking drug treatment for marijuana has declined steadily for the last half-decade—falling approximately 20 percent between 2020 and 2024. By contrast, more than four times as many people are admitted to treatment annually for alcohol use disorder. (The latter finding, apparently, is not worthy of mainstream news coverage—especially from the New York Times, which recently lamented the fact that fewer Americans are socializing with alcohol.) The Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) data further reveals that cannabis-related treatment admissions are largely driven by the criminal justice system. Specifically, cannabis-related drug treatment admissions are highest in jurisdictions where cannabis possession remains illegal and where marijuana-related arrests are most prevalent—namely Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, and Texas. (In 2025, police in those states made over 70,000 marijuana possession arrests—approximately 65 percent of the national total.) Via SAMHSA. In these jurisdictions, judges often offer defendants the choice of attending a substance abuse treatment program in lieu of fail time. This is the case regardless of whether the defendant exhibits signs of problematic cannabis use or not. By contrast, states where cannabis is legal and possession arrests are minimal, like Massachusetts and Washington, have among the lowest number of marijuana-related treatment admissions. The Bottom Line Of course, none of this is to say that cannabis cannot be misused or abused. Marijuana is a mood-altering substance that has long been understood to possess some level of dependence liability. However, it’s similarly been understood that those who consume cannabis are far less likely to become dependent upon it as compared to those who consume either alcohol or tobacco. Further, the longer one waits prior to trying cannabis, the lower this risk becomes. Like those latter substances, cannabis should be regulated and sold exclusively at licensed establishments to patrons of proper age. Public service campaigns should also be prominent educating consumers to its known risks while also discouraging abuse. Such regulations and programs are now the norm in 24 U.S. states, and these policies are widely popular and successful. That’s because they keep marijuana out of the hands of young people while providing adults with safe, above-ground access to lab-tested products. Regardless of the recent flurry of alarmist headlines, nothing in the latest federal data changes this reality. Paul Armentano is the Deputy Director for NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. The post Drug Treatment Admissions For Marijuana Are Highest In States Where It Remains Illegal, New Federal Report Shows (Op-Ed) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Virginia hemp businesses that say they are harmed by the state’s newly enacted restrictions on THC products are pushing a legislative cannabis committee to hold a hearing on the issue. The Cannabis Small Business Association (CSBA), which represents hemp companies, is asking the legislature’s Joint Commission to Oversee the Transition of the Commonwealth into a Cannabis Retail Market to convene a “dedicated” meeting on the “consequences” of the new policy. When lawmakers and the governor passed budget legislation this year, it included provisions that will legalize recreational marijuana sales while also narrowing the scope of legal hemp products in the state. Specifically, the definition of what constitutes a legal hemp product was revised by removing a provision from prior law that allowed those containing more than 2 milligrams of total THC per package if they also had a ratio of CBD to THC that is 25:1 or more. By removing the CBD-THC ratio allowance, hemp products with more than 2 milligrams of THC are no longer legal. The restrictions took effect on August 15, nearly 11 months before the state’s newly approved retail marijuana sales market is set to launch on July 1, 2027. Several hemp companies filed a lawsuit to block the product restrictions from taking effect, but a federal judge denied their request to pause the policy while the overall litigation proceeds. The legislature’s cannabis commission is largely focused on issues related to the launch of the state’s adult-use marijuana market, but CSBA said on Tuesday that it wants members “to hear directly from affected Virginia hemp businesses, consumers and families, independent experts, medical cannabis operators and the Cannabis Control Authority so lawmakers have a complete public record before determining what comes next.” Sen. Lashrecse Aird (D), who chairs the panel, declined to comment on CSBA’s request for a hearing on hemp when reached via text message by Marijuana Moment. Del. Paul Krizek (D), the commission’s vice chair, told Marijuana Moment in an email that he was on vacation and didn’t have a comment, but referred to Aird’s comments at the panel’s most recent meeting about her agenda for the final scheduled hearings of the panel before the next legislative session. “The intent is to focus on health and safety, public health awareness and enforcement in particular during the September meeting,” Aird had said at a meeting this month. “These are the topics we will spend the remainder of the interim focused on ahead of 2027.” Aird and Krizek sponsored the Senate and House of Delegates versions, respectively, of standalone marijuana sales legalization legislation that was later adopted into the budget in amended form. CSBA noted in its call for a hearing on hemp issues that Krizek told The Fredericksburg Free Press last week that “I only have heard about this recently, but I am hopeful that their business model will work without the need to include intoxicating hemp.” Barbara Biddle, president of CSBA, said that hemp businesses aren’t “asking policymakers to take our word for it.” “We’re asking them to hear the evidence,” she said. “Bring the businesses, families, scientists, regulators and other stakeholders to the same table and have this conversation publicly.” Biddle and CSBA previously called on the full legislature to hold a special session to revise the hemp product restrictions. The lawsuit filed by seven hemp businesses—Northern Virginia Hemp and Agriculture, Redfern Hemp Co., District Hemp Botanicals, Pure Elkton Manufacturing, Cypress Hemp II, Wellness Warriors and Simply Hemp—said that the new restrictions “transform a legalized hemp product into an illegal and penalized substance.” The overall cannabis provisions of the budget legislation “conferred exclusive commercial opportunities upon state-licensed marijuana operators,” it claimed. “These entities are authorized to market, distribute, and profit from high-potency THC products, whereas substantially similar, lower-potency hemp products in Plaintiffs’ inventory are subject to enhanced restrictions… In effect, it removed Hemp from the same retail marketplace now occupied exclusively by recreational marijuana.” As a result, the hemp businesses have “suffered substantial losses” without being compensated by the state, which the suit said constitutes a violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the government from taking private property for public use without providing just compensation. The filing said the businesses will be forced to terminate employees and reduce or suspend operations or face potential criminal charges, arguing that they “have experienced significant financial loss and should receive just compensation and an injunction to stop enforcement of the statutory amendment.” Allowing recreational marijuana sales to launch while cracking down on hemp products that have existed in the market for years “creates an arbitrary divide between identical chemical compounds based solely on source or retail channel, rather than public safety,” the suit said. “If a 3mg THC beverage is banned on a hemp retailer’s shelf for ‘public safety,’ but a 3mg THC beverage is completely legal and deemed safe if purchased at a state-licensed marijuana dispensary, the distinction is not based on the public safety, but on economic protectionism,” it said, alleging violations of due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. “By replacing federal agricultural standards with economic policies that weaponize the authority to eliminate a distinct, federally compliant market, the path is cleared for a state-monopolized retail marijuana regime scheduled for 2027. Specifically, the Commonwealth has legalized and commercialized the marijuana industry as a whole but selectively singled out and dismantled the independent hemp industry. This contradicts the Commonwealth’s ‘public safety’ rationale in the new Hemp Prohibition which claims independent hemp products pose an intolerable threat to public health while the Commonwealth simultaneously permits and promotes a state-run marijuana marketplace distributing the chemical compounds at significantly higher potencies.” “The Commonwealth cannot rationally maintain that 2.1 milligrams of THC in a hemp beverage sold by a licensed Virginia hemp business threatens public health, while materially higher doses of the same compound sold through a state-licensed dispensary do not,” the complaint said. Meanwhile, federal hemp laws are also in flux. Hemp derivatives with less than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC on a dry-weight basis were federally legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill that President Donald Trump signed during his first term in office. But late last year, the president signed new legislation containing provisions that will redefine hemp to make it so only products with 0.4 milligrams of total THC per container will remain legal after November 12. Bipartisan lawmakers in the House and the Senate have introduced or are informally circulating various proposal to delay, alter or prevent the forthcoming hemp product ban, and the White House has also called for reforms on the issue. That includes a key spending bill passed by the Senate that has provisions to delay the new prohibition on many, but not all, hemp THC products. The post Virginia Hemp Businesses Want Lawmakers To Hold Hearing On New THC Product Limits appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Feds urge states to prep for psychedelic approval; IA governor candidate on marijuana; Cannabis R & D tax credit 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… Free to read (but not free to produce)! We’re proud of our newsletter and the reporting we publish at Marijuana Moment, and we’re happy to provide it for free. But it takes a lot of work and resources to make this happen. If you value Marijuana Moment, invest in our success on Patreon so we can expand our coverage and more readers can benefit: https://www.patreon.com/marijuanamoment / TOP THINGS TO KNOW The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is proposing to add a new marijuana question to an annual federal health survey that would ask how often people use cannabis and whether they are doing so for specific medical reasons or if it’s just “for fun or to get high.” The federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration published a report recommending that states start planning “now” for Food and Drug Administration approval of psychedelic medicines—”including any Medicaid coverage obligations.” Iowa Democratic gubernatorial candidate Rob Sand explained why he supports legalizing marijuana and treating it like alcohol—even if he thinks cannabis is a “dangerous” drug. Fox Rothschild LLP’s Meeren Amin, William Bogot and Douglas W. Charnas explain in a new Marijuana Moment op-ed how some cannabis companies will be eligible for a federal research and development tax credit under rescheduling—but caution that they “should consider various pitfalls to ensure not only legal compliance, but to maximize potential benefits.” / FEDERAL Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins discussed the Trump administration’s efforts to study the potential therapeutic benefits of psychedelics. A federal judge rejected the Department of Homeland Security’s effort to evade a lawsuit filed by a job applicant who claims she was improperly discriminated against due to religious ayahuasca use. The Drug Enforcement Administration will host an event targeted at teens about how the agency operates on September 19. / STATES California’s attorney general touted enforcement against unlicensed cannabis businesses. A Pennsylvania senator discussed his bill to restrict hemp products. A Maryland delegate spoke about how cannabis tax revenue is being used to support reentry programs. Michigan regulators suspended a hemp business’s license over alleged violations. The Rhode Island Cannabis Control Commission will meet on Friday. The Alaska Marijuana Control Board Laboratory Testing Working Group will meet on Friday. Ohio regulators will hold a hearing on proposed changes to hemp rules on September 30. — Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments. Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access. — / INTERNATIONAL The World Health Organization published an updated report on nonmedical cannabis use. St. Maarten Prime Minister Luc Mercelina urged lawmakers to slow down with considering cannabis legalization. / SCIENCE & HEALTH A study found that medical cannabis “may be a useful treatment option for conditions, including chronic pain, anxiety and PTSD, where other treatments have not been successful.” A study found that “psilocybin services, delivered within these regulated frameworks, is associated with improvements in mental health in real world populations.” / ADVOCACY, OPINION & ANALYSIS A New York State AFL-CIO official defended a bill to create a new Cannabis Wage Board from industry criticism. / BUSINESS JARS Cannabis is acquiring Sonoran Roots. InterCure Ltd. reached a final settlement with the Israeli Tax Authorities and Compensation Fund regarding its claim for indirect damages resulting from the October 7, 2023 attacks and the subsequent war. Make sure to subscribe to get Marijuana Moment’s daily dispatch in your inbox. Get our daily newsletter. Email address: Leave this field empty if you're human: Photo courtesy of Mike Latimer. The post CDC wants medical cannabis question on federal health survey (Newsletter: August 27, 2026) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

myroyaldreamapk gives visitors a convenient place to learn about Royal Dream and its related APK versions. The information is presented in a simple and accessible way.

This was really an interesting topic and I kinda agree with what you have mentioned here! situs toto Pretty good post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed reading your blog posts. Any way I'll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you post again soon. Big thanks for the useful info. bandar togel

A federal health agency has published a new report on recent advances in psychedelic medicine, along with recommendations for state policymakers on how to prepare for formal approval of drugs like psilocybin and MDMA. It also notes how the Schedule I status of many psychedelics has hampered scientific studies on their effects for decades. “Psychedelic-assisted therapy is moving from research settings toward clinical practice faster than most observers anticipated even 5 years ago,” the report published on Wednesday by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) says. The document says that substances such as psilocybin, LSD and MDMA “show potential in clinical studies for treating depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and substance use disorders,” though it cautions that the evidence base “remains uneven and important methodological limitations persist.” The SAMHSA report notes that President Donald Trump issued an executive order aimed at expanding and expediting research on the potential therapeutic benefits of psychedelics in April with an eye toward federal approval of psychedelic medications by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). State officials should “consider planning now for the fiscal, legal, and operational implications of potential FDA-approved psychedelic therapies, including any Medicaid coverage obligations,” it says. They should also work toward “developing oversight frameworks, including credentialing standards, safety protocols, informed consent processes, and complaint mechanisms proactively, before psychedelic therapies are formally made available for state system service recipients,” the SAMHSA report recommends. “States should engage with the federal regulatory process and coordinate across agencies so that relevant decision-makers in states are informed and prepared when psychedelic policy proposals arise.” One methodological issue with most psychedelic research to date, the paper notes, is that clinical trials have largely excluded people with serious mental illness, low incomes and complex trauma histories—”precisely the populations that state mental health systems primarily serve.” The SAMHSA paper provides an overview of the traditional and cultural use of psychedelics, as well as their legal status in the U.S., noting that their placement in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) meant that “clinical research into psychedelics was substantially limited” for decades. “This classification was viewed by many as a response to cultural panic surrounding recreational drug use in the 1960s rather than a science-based assessment,” it says. Research has picked up in recent years, however, and FDA has granted “breakthrough therapy” status to several psychedelics, including psilocybin, MDMA and a 5-MeO-DMT formulation. If any psychedelics are approved by FDA, key questions will arise about coverage through Medicaid and other programs—both for the drug itself as well as therapeutic sessions that can last for several hours. “State Medicaid agencies could theoretically cover the drug but not the associated services. Such an arrangement would create a dilemma because the evidence for benefit appears inseparable from the therapeutic framework,” the report says. “Prescribing psilocybin or other psychedelics for unsupervised home use is not supported by the current evidence.” But “if states are required to cover both the medication and therapeutic services, the budgetary implications are substantial,” the SAMHSA analysis notes. In any case, the federal overview says that regardless of whether states approve or cover any psychedelic medicines or services, “access and use are already happening.” “The question is not whether individuals in a particular state will use psychedelics, but whether they will do so in regulated, safe contexts or in underground networks,” it says. This has implications for what information to gather, what public health communications to develop, and what policies to put in place proactively.” The report also says that an ongoing “fundamental legal tension is that federal and state laws may not align.” “A state that permits psychedelic-assisted therapy outside of FDA-approval or authorized right-to-try expanded access creates a situation in which the state is facilitating conduct that remains federally criminal. This is not unprecedented (medical cannabis states face similar tensions), but it represents a real legal risk. State attorney general offices may be able to provide guidance on whether prescribers can legally administer Schedule I compounds under state law even when federal law prohibits them.” Whatever happens at the federal level, psychedelics are unlikely to recede from public attention,” it says. “The science will continue to accumulate, and state agencies will face questions from service recipients, their families, providers, legislators, and others.” “State mental health directors do not need to become advocates for psychedelic-assisted therapy, but they must be informed. The evidence base, the regulatory momentum, and the budget implications are all substantive enough to warrant serious attention now. The most prudent course is to stay informed, engage with the evidence critically, prepare for the possibility that FDA-approved psychedelic therapies may arrive soon, and think carefully about how these therapies might fit into the broader mission of serving people with mental health conditions and substance use disorders, including individuals with serious mental illness. These decisions are likely to come whether or not states are ready for them, and it will be easier to develop informed positions in advance than to react under pressure.” Last month, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) announced a partnership to collaborate on research and development of psychedelic medicines to treat people struggling with serious mental health conditions. Separately, FDA issued finalized guidance to help researchers studying the therapeutic benefits of psychedelics navigate the “unique challenges” of such investigations. The agency also announced it will be holding a public hearing on psychedelic therapy issues in September. Previously, FDA and HHS in April announced steps that they say will help with “accelerating” therapeutic access to psychedelics for patients dealing with serious mental health conditions. In May, a bipartisan coalition of 32 members of Congress sent a letter urging FDA to expedite ongoing reviews of psychedelic therapies. Lawmakers recently filed a new bill that would require the Department of Defense (DOD) to evaluate how ongoing research on the therapeutic benefits of psilocybin could help members of the military. A separate recently introduced bipartisan measure is intended to codify Trump’s psychedelics executive order into law. An amendment adopted as part of the National Defense Authorization Act would extend a psychedelics research effort at DOD for an additional six years. The post States Should Start Planning Now For FDA Approval Of Psychedelics, Federal Report Says appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“Cannabis companies should consider various pitfalls to ensure not only legal compliance, but to maximize potential benefits.” By Meeren Amin, William Bogot and Douglas W. Charnas, Fox Rothschild LLP With rescheduling of medicinal marijuana and potential relief coming for recreational use, cannabis companies should be aware of tax benefits available to the industry. One such incentive for companies not subject to Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 280E—which blocks tax benefits to entities that sell Schedule I and II substances—is the IRC § 41 R&D (research and development) tax credit. The R&D tax credit provides a dollar-for-dollar reduction of tax owed for qualifying companies. It is not industry specific and can be claimed by a qualifying company in any sector, including cannabis. The R&D tax credit was enacted in 1981 to incentivize U.S. companies to increase R&D activity. For years the credit was extended temporarily by Congress at the end of each calendar year. However, in 2015, Congress made it permanent. And then in 2025, lawmakers breathed even more life into the credit by eliminating the requirement that R&D expenditures be amortized over a five-year period. Now, with IRC § 280E on the chopping block as cannabis moves toward Schedule III status, certain companies in the industry can claim the credit that others have taken advantage of for years. Having said that, careful planning is required when considering the R&D tax credit. Cannabis companies should consider various pitfalls to ensure not only legal compliance, but to maximize potential benefits. Pitfall #1: Thinking you don’t qualify for the credit because you don’t do research in a laboratory. The R&D tax credit is not industry specific. Instead, to qualify for the credit, a company must meet each part of a four-part test: A company needs to develop a new or improved product, process, software, technique, formula or invention. Practically, this means that many cannabis companies can qualify by developing a new or improved product. The research needs to eliminate uncertainty about a product’s capability, method or appropriate design. Often, research will qualify by means of having uncertainty as to a product’s ultimate design. The research must involve a process of experimentation. This does not need to be in a laboratory, but instead simply requires evaluating alternatives through system trial and error. The research must be technological in nature, in that it requires the use of principles of hard science. This formulaic approach to determining qualification for the credit allows companies in many industries—from pharmaceutical companies to architectural firms—to claim the R&D tax credit. Cannabis companies involved in breeding, cultivation, growing, extraction and product development could potentially qualify for the credit if they meet the four-part test and do not fall under any applicable exclusions. Pitfall #2: Not maintaining proper records of research activities and expenditures. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) commonly attacks R&D credit claims for a lack of substantiation. Taxpayers have the burden to prove they are entitled to the credit, so they must adequately substantiate their claims. Cannabis companies that qualify can claim the tax credit on qualified wages or supply costs. However, companies must have evidence of wages and supply costs to claim the R&D tax credit. Evidence of supply costs includes receipts of goods and logs showing how supplies are used in the research process. Since supplies that are later sold to customers would not qualify for the credit, cannabis companies need to track how research supplies are used. Evidence of wages usually requires detailed activity logs. Most small and mid-sized operators do not require employees to keep a log of activities, but to be able to withstand IRS scrutiny, companies should require employees involved in research to track their time using a consistent methodology. Maintaining detailed records or R&D activities is difficult for rapidly growing businesses. While granular level records may not be necessary, it is important for cannabis companies to consult with their tax advisors on the level of detail needed and how to implement tracking systems. Pitfall #3: Relying on unscrupulous or shady promoters of R&D tax credits. The R&D tax credit is complicated and can be overwhelming. There are a number of reliable firms that can determine qualification, draft a study and calculate the credit. Unfortunately, there are a large number of firms that do not perform the necessary due diligence and are not credible. These firms sometimes charge large contingency fees and make guarantees about eligibility. Their calculations are often greatly overstated for the purpose of generating high fees. These firms may seem credible but can be overly aggressive in their approach. With the emergence of the cannabis companies as potential new credit claimants, these companies will likely be aggressive in their pitch. However, poor work on the front end can lead to adverse determinations by the IRS. Cannabis companies need to properly vet the firms they hire to conduct R&D studies and then have those studies reviewed by a third party. Credit experts can analyze the work done by firms to help strengthen the front-end studies. Companies that are not careful face the risk of losing the credit, while also owing promoters huge fees. Pitfall #4: Not separating non-IRC § 280E and IRC § 280E activities. As of now, only state-licensed medical marijuana is not subject to IRC § 280E and thus eligible for the R&D tax credit. That means research related to recreational use marijuana is not eligible for the R&D tax credit. This makes it difficult for most eligible companies who are involved in both medicinal and recreational uses, as they need to separate their research activities relating to the two. This may be almost impossible for vertically integrated companies. But other companies can use entity structuring to help allocate costs and ensure segregation of qualifying and non-qualifying research activities. The R&D tax credit is a very powerful incentive that certain cannabis companies can now claim. However, it is a major area of focus for the IRS due to the complexity of the credit and the aggressive positions pushed by certain promoters. While this may cause concern to companies seeking to claim the credit, careful due diligence and reliance on advisors can help businesses ensure that their credit claims are well supported. Meeren Amin is a partner in the Taxation & Wealth Planning Department at Fox Rothschild. William Bogot is co-chair of the Cannabis Law Practice at Fox Rothschild. Douglas W. Charnas is counsel in the Taxation & Wealth Planning Department at Fox Rothschild. Photo courtesy of National Institute of Standards and Technology. The post How Cannabis Companies Can Take Advantage Of The Research And Development Tax Credit Under Federal Rescheduling (Op-Ed) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

The Democratic Party’s nominee to be the next governor of Iowa is explaining why he thinks marijuana should be legalized and treated like alcohol, even if he thinks it’s “dangerous.” Legalizing and taxing cannabis can be part of solving the state’s $1.3 annual budget deficit, Rob Sand, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee, said at a town hall in Dubuque on Monday. “Marijuana is a dangerous drug,” he said. “You shouldn’t abuse it, but we also shouldn’t throw people in prison just for using it. We should treat it the way we treat alcohol. Alcohol is a dangerous drug. You shouldn’t abuse it, but we don’t throw you in prison just for having a beer when you get home.” Sand, who is currently Iowa’s state auditor, then went through a list of common objections to legalizing cannabis and detailed how he would explain his support for the reform to people who voice those concerns. For people who say they don’t want to smell marijuana, the candidate would say, “Me neither. No smoking in public.” “That’s a pretty simple rule to have,” he said. “Just like alcohol, you can’t be drinking it out in public, can you?” In response to people who express concerns about kids getting access to THC-infused gummies and candy, Sand would say, “That’s a good point too. Let’s ban things that are colorful and look like candy and any kind of colorful marketing that looks like it’s aimed towards kids, just like we do with alcohol.” “You guys remember Joe Camel? R.I.P. Joe Camel, right?” he said, referring to the former cigarette mascot the that R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company stopped using in response to claims he appealed to children. “We’ve done this with cigarettes. We’ve done this with alcohol. We should do this with marijuana. We don’t want kids to be mistaken.” For those who say that modern marijuana is more potent than the cannabis they smoked in the 1960s and 70s, Sand would say, “Okay, I take your word for it. I have never used it myself.” “But how do we handle that with alcohol? Every single can of beer you buy, you can see the alcohol content by volume,” he said,.”Hard liquor, you can see the alcohol content by volume. So we handle it by taking care of it, making it clear what you’re getting into.” The Democratic gubernatorial candidate said that Iowa is “spending perfectly good tax dollars to lock people up” for marijuana while people who want to use it are driving across the border to purchase it in other states. “They’re spending their money in Illinois, or they’re spending it in Missouri. And then they’re driving back without their money,” Sand said. “The money stays there, and the tax dollars stay there.” “So again, it’s dangerous,” he concluded. “You shouldn’t abuse it, but I think we should just treat it the way we treat alcohol.” Sand’s campaign website says that “establishing an adult-use cannabis industry in Iowa would also create thousands of full-time and part-time jobs as well as entrepreneurship and investment opportunities for Iowans and Iowa small businesses, and also support Iowa farmers.” It also says he would “reverse the prohibition of sales of consumable hemp products” that incumbent Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) signed into law in 2024. “We should reverse that law to allow sales of hemp and THC beverage products while ensuring oversight and regulation over those products by hemp producers selling their products through cannabis retailers,” it says. Republican gubernatorial nominee Zach Lahn reportedly opposes legalizing cannabis but doesn’t appear to have spoken extensively about the issue. Meanwhile, Sand’s comments in support of legalizing marijuana at the town hall this week come as Iowa regulators are circulating proposed rules changes to remove the residency requirement for patients in the state’s medical cannabis program while also ensuring that military veterans qualify for reduced registration fees. The residency-focused part of the regulatory change from the state Department of Health and Human Services is meant to comply with provisions of a bill that Reynolds signed into law in June. In addition to allowing out-of-state residents to register in the medical cannabis program if they have a certification from an Iowa healthcare provider legislation, that legislation also doubles the number of medical cannabis dispensaries that are allowed to operate in the state. Regulators said in the new rule filing that removing the residency requirement is expected to “primarily impact qualified Nebraska residents since Nebraska is the only bordering state that does not currently have an operational medical or adult-use cannabis program.” “Although Nebraska has taken steps to establish a medical cannabidiol program, implementation has experienced significant delays and setbacks,” the regulatory explanation says. Beyond the residency change that is part of the bill the governor signed this year, the new rule change also restores regulatory language that was “inadvertently removed during the 2023 Red Tape Review process” that allowed proof of military veteran status to be used to qualify for a reduced patient application fee of $25 instead of the standard $100. Under prior law, Iowa’s limited medical marijuana program allowed only five dispensaries. That has doubled to 10 under HF 990, which the governor signed. — Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments. Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access. — The Iowa Medical Cannabidiol Board, which oversees the state’s medical marijuana program, recommended in a 2023 report that the state allow more licenses “in an effort to provide Iowans with greater geographical access to medical cannabis products.” Under the program, patients with certain conditions can obtain cannabis products containing no more than at 4.5 grams of THC every 90 days. Flower and smoking are not allowed. Healthcare practitioners can allow greater amounts of THC for patients who are terminally ill or who have experience with the program and for whom the provider believes 4.5 grams is not enough. Separately this session, Iowa lawmakers considered a bill to create a state-regulated therapeutic psilocybin program for patients with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Last year, the governor vetoed earlier legislation that would have allowed doctors in the state to immediately prescribe a synthetic form of psilocybin in the event of federal approval of the psychedelic substance by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), arguing that it “surrenders state authority to make an informed determination about classification to federal officials.” The post Iowa Democratic Governor Candidate Explains Why Marijuana Should Be Legalized Even If It’s ‘Dangerous’ appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Why settle for ordinary when you can have extraordinary? A Sainik Farm Escort is bold, confident, and knows exactly what you crave. She is unapologetically sensual and ready to fulfill your wildest fantasies. Her touch is electric, her presence intoxicating. She offers intimate encounters and romantic dates. Book a Sainik Farm Escort today and let the passion ignite.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is proposing to add a new question to an annual health survey that would ask how often people use marijuana and whether they are doing so for specific medical reasons or if it is just “for fun or to get high.” The agency’s proposed 2028 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) would include a query that asks, “Do you currently use marijuana every day, most days, some days, or not at all?” Respondents can choose “every day,” “most days,” “some days” or “not at all,” and the question caveats that people should not include “CBD only products” when thinking about their answer to the question. People who indicate that they do use marijuana on at least some days would see a follow-up question that asks, “For what reason or reasons do you use marijuana?” They can select from: For fun or to get high Pain relief Nausea Anxiety, stress, or other mental health Help with sleep Other medical reasons The federal health agency’s interest in people’s medical use of cannabis comes as the Trump administration is moving forward with the process of rescheduling marijuana. 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, a hearing is considering more comprehensively moving marijuana to Schedule III. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), which is charged with defending the proposed rescheduling move, said in its final hearing brief filed last week that “marijuana no longer fits the statutory requirements for Schedule I because it has a currently accepted medical use within the United States and it has an accepted safety for its use under medical supervision.” The agency noted that under the law it must give “significant deference” to an “extensive ten-month study on the scientific and medical properties” of cannabis conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which recommended rescheduling. “Currently there are over 30,000 practitioners treating more than six million patients in 43 U.S. jurisdictions,” DEA said. “Such practices demonstrate that there is no longer a lack of accepted safety for use of marijuana under medical supervision, and as such, marijuana does not fulfill the requirements of being a Schedule I substance.” It also said that there is “substantial evidence sufficient to show that marijuana’s abuse and dependency profiles better align with Schedule III substances than Schedule II” or Schedule I. “The vast majority of individuals who use marijuana do so in a manner that does not result in dangers to themselves or to their communities.” In conclusion, DEA asked the judge overseeing the hearing to “expeditiously recommend” that marijuana be transferred from Schedule I to Schedule III. — 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. — Meanwhile, CDC is accepting public comments on the marijuana question and other aspects of its proposed 2028 survey redesign through October 20, CDC said on its website—though a Federal Register notice says that comments “must be received on or before October 19.” The previous 2024 version and current 2026 edition of CDC’s NHIS include a question that reads, “During the past 30 days, how often did you use marijuana or CBD products to help you fall asleep or stay asleep?” A CDC report on the 2024 results showed that 3.7 percent of adults used marijuana or CBD products as sleep aids. The draft 2028 NHIS that is being circulated by CDC does not include the question about CBD and sleep. The post CDC Wants To Add New Question About Marijuana’s Medical Benefits To Federal Health Survey appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

FBI’s updated marijuana arrest data; TX Dems slam GOP over hemp THC ban; New IL medical cannabis conditions; Problematic use & prohibition 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 The Drug Enforcement Administration released the full official transcript of a hearing on the Trump administration’s cannabis rescheduling proposal—showing government lawyers making the case that “marijuana can no longer remain in Schedule I.” New Federal Bureau of Investigation data shows that more than 200,000 people were arrested for marijuana in the U.S. last year—with 92 percent of cannabis busts stemming from possession alone. Texas Democratic lieutenant governor candidate Vikki Goodwin and the Bexar County Democratic Party are suggesting that Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) pushed to crack down on hemp THC products to benefit his campaign donors in the alcohol industry. The Illinois Department of Public Health added sickle cell disease and polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome with chronic pain as new medical cannabis qualifying conditions. The Cato Institute’s Jeffrey Singer argues in a new Marijuana Moment op-ed that reports of increases in problematic cannabis use don’t justify a return to criminalization. “We should judge legalization against the real-world alternative of prohibition, with its illicit markets, criminal penalties and unreliable product information.” / FEDERAL National Institute on Drug Abuse Director Nora Volkow said federal marijuana rescheduling will reduce barriers to research but expressed concerns that “as more states legalize cannabis use across states, access has increased, with greater dispensary density and proximity to homes linked with increased use among adults.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that police cannot use a home’s proximity to alleged sales of illegal drugs to justify a search. / STATES An Illinois representative is being accused of inappropriately using marijuana while performing official duties. Maryland’s comptroller announced that the state collected more than $28 million in adult-use cannabis sales tax revenue in the second quarter of the year. Florida regulators are proposing changes to rules on medical cannabis advertising and marketing. Massachusetts regulators will begin accepting applications for the cannabis social equity program on September 1. Vermont cannabis regulators are inviting one-on-one meetings with members of the public. Michigan regulators published a monthly report on disciplinary actions against marijuana businesses. California regulators sent updates on various cannabis issues. — 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 Former Baldwin Park and Compton, California City Council members were sentenced to federal prison over convictions related to bribes for marijuana business permits. / INTERNATIONAL A St. Maarten lawmaker criticized the government’s marijuana regulatory framework. / SCIENCE & HEALTH A study found that a cannabis-infused polyherbal African traditional medicine “demonstrated antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activities and selective antibacterial effects against planktonic bacteria in vitro.” A review concluded that cannabis sativa “extracts and phytocannabinoids exhibit cytotoxic and mechanistic effects in cervical cancer cell lines.” / ADVOCACY, OPINION & ANALYSIS The International Cannabis Bar Association announced new board of directors members. / BUSINESS Lawyers for Curaleaf reportedly told a journalist that answers to his questions were “privileged and confidential” while also being “on the record.” Jushi settled a lawsuit with a former employee who sued over alleged age discrimination. / CULTURE Wiz Khalifa’s cannabis brand is launching a line of THC beverages. Make sure to subscribe to get Marijuana Moment’s daily dispatch in your inbox. Get our daily newsletter. Email address: Leave this field empty if you're human: Photo courtesy of Mike Latimer. The post DEA releases cannabis rescheduling hearing transcript (Newsletter: August 26, 2026) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Illinois officials have added two new qualifying conditions for the state’s medical marijuana program. The Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) announced on Tuesday that patients with sickle cell disease and polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome (PMOS) with chronic pain can now qualify for legal access to medical cannabis, with a doctor’s recommendation. IDPH Director Dr. Sameer Vohra approved the conditions following a review by the Medical Cannabis Advisory Board. “Medical cannabis can provide relief for people living with certain debilitating conditions,” he said. “IDPH reviews petitions carefully using expert opinion and the most up to date evidence to make decisions that best serve Illinois residents. We look forward to working with our medical providers to ensure safe, appropriate access for individuals struggling with these newly approved conditions.” With the two new additions, Illinois now has 58 medical cannabis qualifying conditions. The move comes about two weeks after the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR) posted a new form that recreational marijuana dispensaries can file in order to get permission to begin selling medical cannabis, which is taxed at a much lower rate than adult-use products. The expanded opportunity for marijuana businesses comes as part of omnibus cannabis legislation that was passed by lawmakers and signed into law by Gov. JB Pritzker (D) this session. The law also doubles the amount of marijuana that adults can legally possess, allows drive-thrus and curbside pickups at dispensaries and lets them stay open for longer hours of operation, among other changes. “Any adult use dispensary holding an active license in good standing may opt-in for a medical dispensary license,” IDFPR said in previously issued guidance about changes made by the new cannabis omnibus legislation. “This medical dispensary license will allow the dispensary to sell cannabis to medical cannabis patients at the medical tax rate up to the medical patient’s allotment.” The medical cannabis sales option for adult-use businesses is part of SB 3222, which was approved by the legislature and signed by Pritzker in June. As enacted into law, the measure also allows residents of the state who are over 21 years of age to possess up to 60 grams of marijuana flower—double the amount in prior law. They are also able to have up to 10 grams of cannabis concentrates and infused products with up to 1,000 mg of THC—also double the earlier limit. Possession amounts for adult non-residents are also doubled under the bill and are generally set at half of what residents can carry. Additionally, people with past convictions for possession of up to 60 grams of marijuana are now able to have those records expunged—double the previous cutoff allowing only those with convictions for up to 30 grams to be eligible. The legislation also recriminalizes hemp THC products with more than 0.4 milligrams of THC per container, in line with a federal ban that is set to take effect in November. The state’s list of medical marijuana qualifying conditions is also being expanded to add female orgasmic disorder, endometriosis, ovarian cysts and uterine fibroids. The governor held a signing ceremony for the legislation at a marijuana dispensary, saying he is “proud that Illinois continues to lead the nation in showing what thoughtful, balanced cannabis policy can achieve.” In 2019, Pritzker signed the state’s initial marijuana legalization policy into law. The post Illinois Adds Two New Medical Marijuana Qualifying Conditions appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

More than 200,000 people were arrested for possessing marijuana in the U.S. last year, according to the FBI’s latest annual crime report, and another 17,000 were booked for allegedly selling or growing cannabis. Those figures likely understate the true number of people busted for marijuana, however, given inconsistencies in the federal data and questions about the agency’s changing methodology from recent years, as well as the fact that about 13 percent of state and local law enforcement agencies did not contribute data for 2025. The full 2025 data set is based on more than 13 million criminal offenses reported to the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, which is used to document and analyze national crime trends. The report covers 96,2 percent of the U.S. population, FBI said. This latest data shows that cannabis-related offenses increased year over year, jumping to 200,960 marijuana possession busts in 2025 from 187,792 in the year prior, and to 17,192 sales or manufacturing arrests from 16,244 in 2024. All told, marijuana busts accounted for a quarter of all drug arrests in 2025—more than for any other specifically listed substance—with 92 percent of cannabis incidents stemming from possession alone. Despite the uptick in marijuana arrests from 2024 to 2025, advocates note that busts have been trending overall downward in recent years, which they attribute largely to the success of the expanding state-level legalization movement. “While the number of marijuana-related arrests has trended downward for the better part of the past decade, in large part due to 24 states legalizing and regulating cannabis for adults, it is clear that marijuana-related prosecutions still remain a primary driver of drug war enforcement in the United States,” Paul Armentano, deputy director for NORML, said. “Hundreds of thousands of Americans continue to be arrested annually for low-level cannabis-related violations even though a majority of voters no longer believe that the responsible use of marijuana by adults should be a crime.” “The criminalization of cannabis and the prosecution of those who possess it and consume it is a terribly destructive policy that disrupts lives and has lasting consequences,” he said. “Low-level marijuana offenders, many of them younger, poor and people of color, should not be saddled with an arrest, a criminal record and with the lifelong penalties and stigma associated with it for engaging in behavior that is legally regulated in nearly half the states in this country.” Because not all agencies provide complete data for the reporting periods, FBI has explained that the bureau calculates estimated crime numbers, essentially extrapolating “by following a standard estimation procedure using the data provided.” In terms of total reported arrests for a category labelled “drug/narcotic,” for example, FBI said there were 858,852 arrests. At the same time, frustrations over FBI’s inconsistent data reporting on cannabis and other drug arrest trends have persisted. Various sections of the report provide different numbers for seemingly similar categories of offenses. One FBI table says that there were 1,492,005 “Drug/Narcotic Offenses” in 2025. Another uses the figure for 1,656,774 under the same heading. A third puts the total at 1,958,377. Another section says there were 845,031 arrests for drug abuse violations in 2025, accounting for about 11 percent of the approximately 7.5 million estimated arrests nationwide. Other FBI tables say, inconsistently, that there were 754,497 or 768,170 drug abuse violations in 2025. The FBI data also attempts to show trends over time, indicating that there were 1,157,129 drug offenses charged in 2016 and 645,512 drug offenses charged in 2025—a reduction of about 44 percent, though it’s not clear how much of the change is due to the agency’s shifting methodology for reporting arrests and how much is due to actual changes in enforcement practices and state drug laws over the past decade. In terms of controlled substances seized in 2024, the agency said were 408,688 marijuana seizures and 5,378 hashish seizures out of 1,122,990 total drug seizures, representing about 37 percent of enforcement actions. FBI’s arrest data is widely relied on by lawmakers, researchers and media to understand and contextualize law enforcement trends. Any inconsistencies influence not just the public’s understanding of crime and law enforcement, but also potentially how policy is crafted and implemented. Apparent errors in FBI marijuana were pointed out to the bureau in May 2022, when a longtime drug reformer and former congressional staffer, Eric Sterling, claimed to have discovered that a Maryland police department was reporting cannabis possession citations issued under the state’s decriminalization law at the time as arrests as part of a data-sharing partnership with FBI. Since other state and local law enforcement agencies appear to not be reporting cannabis citations as arrests, Sterling reasoned, the inconsistent practice could significantly alter FBI’s annual reports—making it harder to draw reasonable policy conclusions from the data. In 2023—about 14 months after Sterling sent the inquiry—the office finally replied. Rather than address the apparent problem, however, the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General’s investigations division said it had “determined that the matters that you raised are more appropriate for review by another office within the DOJ” and referred the inquiry to FBI’s own inspection division. FBI’s cannabis enforcement reporting is also compromised by the fact that local and state police are not required to share data to inform the agency’s annual report, meaning it offers an incomplete overview of national law enforcement activities. The agency itself says that certain data may not be comparable to previous years because of different levels of participation over time. — Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments. Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access. — The new FBI arrest data comes at the Trump administration is moving forward with the process of federally rescheduling marijuana. 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, a hearing is considering more comprehensively moving marijuana to Schedule III. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), which is charged with defending the proposed rescheduling move, said in its final brief filed last week that “marijuana no longer fits the statutory requirements for Schedule I because it has a currently accepted medical use within the United States and it has an accepted safety for its use under medical supervision.” The agency noted that under the law it must give “significant deference” to an “extensive ten-month study on the scientific and medical properties” of cannabis conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which recommended rescheduling. “Currently there are over 30,000 practitioners treating more than six million patients in 43 U.S. jurisdictions,” DEA said. “Such practices demonstrate that there is no longer a lack of accepted safety for use of marijuana under medical supervision, and as such, marijuana does not fulfill the requirements of being a Schedule I substance.” It also said that there is “substantial evidence sufficient to show that marijuana’s abuse and dependency profiles better align with Schedule III substances than Schedule II” or Schedule I. “The vast majority of individuals who use marijuana do so in a manner that does not result in dangers to themselves or to their communities.” In conclusion, DEA asked the judge overseeing the hearing to “expeditiously recommend” that marijuana be transferred from Schedule I to Schedule III. The post More Than 200,000 People Were Arrested For Marijuana Possession In The U.S. Last Year, FBI Data Shows appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

The full official transcript of a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) hearing on the Trump administration’s marijuana rescheduling proposal has now been made available to the public. The release of the day-by-day record of the cannabis rescheduling proceedings comes after DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julius ordered that dozens of mostly small and technical changes be made to an initial draft. The full transcript runs 2,533 pages for the full 11 days of the proceedings and reveals DEA’s effort to advocate on behalf of the move to reschedule marijuana as well as opponents’ attempts to undermine it. “The Government is not putting forth any evidence to suggest that marijuana is not dangerous. All controlled substances by definition are dangerous,” James Schwartz, a DEA attorney, said on the opening day of the hearing, according to the transcript. “That is why they are scheduled in the first place. However, controlled substances must be evaluated by the risks they pose balanced with the medical use they provide.” “The proposed rule, the supporting documents, and the Government witnesses will establish that marijuana has a currently accepted medical use,” he said. “With that determination, marijuana can no longer remain in Schedule I.” Julius, the DEA judge, said at the closing of the last day of the proceedings that the tribunal “understands the strong views held by many on all sides of the issues involved in this matter and is very grateful for the professionalism demonstrated by counsel and the parties throughout this hearing.” “In making a recommended decision on the proposed rescheduling of marijuana, I give my solemn promise to counsel, the designated parties, and the public that I will thoroughly consider and evaluate all the evidence presented at this hearing,” the judge said. Meanwhile, DEA and parties that participated in the marijuana rescheduling hearing filed their final briefs of the proceedings last week. The federal agency, which is charged with defending the proposed move of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III, said in its brief that “marijuana no longer fits the statutory requirements for Schedule I because it has a currently accepted medical use within the United States and it has an accepted safety for its use under medical supervision.” The agency noted that under the law it must give “significant deference” to an “extensive ten-month study on the scientific and medical properties” of cannabis conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which recommended rescheduling. “Currently there are over 30,000 practitioners treating more than six million patients in 43 U.S. jurisdictions,” DEA said. “Such practices demonstrate that there is no longer a lack of accepted safety for use of marijuana under medical supervision, and as such, marijuana does not fulfill the requirements of being a Schedule I substance.” It also said that there is “substantial evidence sufficient to show that marijuana’s abuse and dependency profiles better align with Schedule III substances than Schedule II” or Schedule I. “The vast majority of individuals who use marijuana do so in a manner that does not result in dangers to themselves or to their communities.” In conclusion, DEA asked the judge overseeing the hearing to “expeditiously recommend” that marijuana be transferred from Schedule I to Schedule III. Opponents of cannabis reform—including the SAM; the states of Idaho, Indiana and Nebraska; TBI; National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA) and others—also filed briefs. The anti-rescheduling entities argued that a new two-part test federal officials used to analyze cannabis improperly departs from a former five-part test, that marijuana does not have accepted medical value and that the reform would undermine drug testing of safety-sensitive workers, among other things. In 2024, the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) said the prior five-part test was “impermissibly narrow” and said the two-part review “is sufficient to establish that a drug has CAMU even if the drug has not been approved by FDA and would not satisfy DEA’s five-part test.” DEA has since embraced the new approach to evaluating cannabis for CAMU and it has been used to subsequently evaluate other substances. Julius, the DEA judge, will now consider the final briefs and testimony delivered during the hearing and issue a recommendation on cannabis’s scheduling status. The final decision will ultimately be up to the DEA administrator, however. During the hearing, DEA officials charged with defending the cannabis rescheduling proposal highlighted testimony on marijuana’s medical benefits and its relative safety compared to other substances such as alcohol and opioids. That included appearances from a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scientist and a medical doctor from New Hampshire who detailed how medical marijuana provides relief to pain patients and can serve as an alternative to opioids. Meanwhile, lawyers and witnesses for parties who are oppose marijuana rescheduling and participated in the hearing put significant focus on the alleged harms of cannabis use as well as criticism of recently adopted changes to an analysis used to determine whether drugs have accepted medical value. DEA Administrator Terrance Cole invited only organizations and people who oppose marijuana reform to join the hearing as designated participants—telling supporters that they do not meet the definition of an “interested person” to participate because they are not “adversely affected or aggrieved by any rule or proposed rule issuable.” Opposition parties that participated include Smart Approaches to Marijuana, National Drug & Alcohol Screening Association, Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, DUID Victim Voices, Kenneth Finn, Phillip A. Drum and the states of Idaho, Indiana and Nebraska. Ahead of the hearing’s start, marijuana reform activists held a press conference outside DEA headquarters to highlight how they feel the have been “shut out” of the process—criticizing the fact that no supporters of reform were invited to participate and that the proceedings were not livestreamed despite officials’ vows of “transparency.” Marijuana Moment sent requests to Julius, the DEA judge, and to Cole, the DEA administrator, requesting they reverse a decision to prohibit the public from tuning into the cannabis hearing via livestream. A congressman and other journalists later joined in that request. — Marijuana Moment’s journalism is made possible by readers like you who value this work enough to support us with monthly pledges on Patreon. If you rely on our reporting to stay informed about key cannabis developments, please help us keep doing this by becoming a sustaining subscriber today. Backing us at the $25/month level also gets you access to our Bill Tracker so you won’t miss any important marijuana legislation in your state. — Attorney General Todd Blanche in April issued an order that immediately reclassified state-licensed medical cannabis, as well as marijuana products approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III. Under a separate order the acting attorney general signed, the hearing is being held to consider more comprehensively moving marijuana to Schedule III. A prior hearing process on the marijuana rescheduling process that was initiated by the Biden administration stalled last year amid litigation over alleged improper communications and witness selection. The current marijuana rescheduling process is being challenged with several lawsuits that have been consolidated by a federal appeals court. Those pieces of litigation against the cannabis reform have been filed by state attorneys general, marijuana legalization opponents and a cannabis-focused biopharmaceutical corporation. Meanwhile, the already-enacted rescheduling of state-licensed medical cannabis is already having broad impacts. The Congressional Research Service published a report on the current cannabis rescheduling move explaining that certified patients who possess medical marijuana from state-licensed dispensaries now have certain protections under Schedule III. “The order appears to authorize end users to possess marijuana for medical use without a CSA-compliant prescription,” it says. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has posted a draft update to a gun purchase form to acknowledge the federally legal status of medical marijuana under rescheduling. The revised section in question notably says that only “use or possession of marijuana for recreational purposes” is federally prohibited, leaving out the prior form’s mention of medical cannabis. The U.S. Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) said they plan to issue new tax guidance for the marijuana industry following rescheduling. The reform will benefit state-licensed marijuana businesses by allowing them to take federal tax deductions they’re currently barred from under an IRS code known as 280E that doesn’t apply to Schedule III substances. Even DEA, which has long opposed cannabis legalization and was accused of stalling the rescheduling process initiative by the Biden administration, has launched a registration process for state-legal marijuana businesses to take advantage of federal benefits that come with the reform. The Department of Transportation, on the other hand, issued guidance saying that use of state-legal medical cannabis is still no excuse for a positive drug test by truck drivers, pilots and other safety-sensitive workers. The Department of War issued a memo making clear that marijuana use by military service members and civilian employees of the department remains prohibited, even under federal cannabis rescheduling. A congressional committee recently voted to block federal officials from taking further steps to carry out cannabis rescheduling, though bipartisan lawmakers told Marijuana Moment they don’t believe that provision will be enacted into law. Photo courtesy of Mike Latimer. The post DEA Releases Full Marijuana Rescheduling Hearing Transcript As Judge Prepares To Issue His Recommendation appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Confidence transforms ordinary encounters into extraordinary memories that last. Panchsheel Park Escorts Agency appreciate clients who communicate desires clearly and respectfully always. They respond better to polite requests than demanding attitudes during sessions. These women are professionals deserving courtesy and kindness from you. Treat them well and they exceed expectations generously every time. Mutual appreciation creates the most satisfying experiences for everyone involved together.

“A free society should be capable of learning to live with potentially risky substances without the government banning them.” By Jeffrey A. Singer, Cato Institute As a physician, I don’t dismiss recent reports of increases in problematic cannabis use. But we should avoid letting them trigger another drug-war moral panic. Cannabis use has increased as more states have legalized it for adults. That should surprise no one. When a widely used substance moves from an illicit market to a legal one, some who previously abstained will try it, some occasional users will use it more often and people will be more willing to admit they use it. Yet these recent patterns don’t tell us what cannabis use will look like going forward. History should make us cautious about extrapolating from the early years of legalization. When Americans repealed Prohibition in 1933, alcohol consumption did not immediately settle into the pattern we recognize today. Consumption rose substantially over the following decades, eventually peaked around 1981 and then declined for more than a decade. Today, the share of Americans who report drinking alcohol is at its lowest level since Gallup began tracking it in 1939. Along the way, Americans learned to live with legal alcohol. Knowledge, customs, and social norms evolved around its responsible use. We learned to distinguish drinking from drunkenness. We came to strongly disapprove of drinking and driving and of drinking on the job. People learned to recognize their own limits, and friends and families learned to recognize when someone’s drinking was becoming a problem. None of those norms required us to conclude that, because alcohol can cause addiction, disease, accidents and death, we should prohibit adults from drinking it. Cannabis may be undergoing a similar period of adjustment. As cannabis use becomes normalized, consumers can learn more about dosing, potency, frequency, impairment and their individual responses to the drug. Social norms around responsible use can develop as people gain experience with a substance that, for most of the past century, public policy treated simply as something no one should use. There is already some evidence supporting that possibility. Canada legalized cannabis nationwide in 2018, providing researchers with an unusually useful natural experiment. A prospective study followed 1,428 Ontario adults from immediately before legalization through five years afterward. Overall, cannabis use frequency increased slightly, yet measures of cannabis misuse decreased slightly. Even more interesting, people who used cannabis frequently before legalization showed the largest decreases in both cannabis use and misuse. That doesn’t prove legalization caused those reductions. The researchers themselves caution that factors such as people aging out of problematic patterns of use may partly explain the findings. But the Canadian experience should at least caution us against assuming that an initial increase in use inevitably leads to ever-increasing problematic use. Cannabis is not harmless. Frequent use can be problematic for some people. High-potency products warrant particular attention, as do the risks to adolescents and to people predisposed to psychotic disorders. We should educate people honestly about those risks and discourage them from driving or operating dangerous machinery while impaired by cannabis. But acknowledging those risks does not justify banning adults from using cannabis. Prohibition carries risks of its own. It pushes consumers toward illicit markets, where products may have uncertain potency and contents. It exposes otherwise peaceful people to arrest and criminal penalties. And by reducing an enormously complicated subject to “don’t use drugs,” prohibition can impede the development of the knowledge and social norms that help people make safer choices. We should judge legalization against the real-world alternative of prohibition, with its illicit markets, criminal penalties and unreliable product information. The latest findings about cannabis use should inform consumers, physicians and policymakers. Researchers should continue monitoring cannabis use patterns and identify which patterns of use and which products carry the greatest risks. Public health officials can provide adults with accurate information without exaggerating risks in hopes of frightening them away from using cannabis. Laws should prohibit sales to minors and driving while impaired. Adults routinely make choices that involve risk. Some drink alcohol, some smoke tobacco and some participate in dangerous sports. Respecting their autonomy doesn’t require pretending those choices are harmless. It requires providing them with good information and allowing them to weigh the risks and benefits for themselves. We should treat cannabis the same way. A free society should be capable of learning to live with potentially risky substances without the government banning them. Jeffrey A. Singer, MD practices surgery in Phoenix, Arizona and is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. His latest book is Your Body, Your Health Care (Cato Institute, 2025). The post Reports Of Increases In Problematic Cannabis Use Don’t Mean We Should Return To Prohibition (Op-Ed) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Texas Democrats are calling out a key Republican official for allegedly working to ban hemp THC products in order to benefit alcohol companies, which happen to be among his substantial campaign contributors. During the last legislative session, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R), who oversees the Senate, championed legislation to recriminalize many hemp products. While the bill was ultimately vetoed by Gov. Greg Abbott (R), the governor then issued an executive order on the issue and regulators have since enacted significant restrictions on derivatives from the crop. Now, a key county Democratic Party and Patrick’s opponent for reelection this year are calling attention to the the lieutenant governor’s support from the alcohol industry amid his push to hemp ben products. “We’ve seen the lieutenant governor take hundreds of thousands of dollars from the alcohol industry, and that’s what drove the policy around the ban on THC,” Vikki Goodwin, the Democratic lieutenant governor nominee and current state representative, said last week, according to The Beaumont Enterprise. “I am in favor of treating THC like alcohol,” she said. “A part of my healthcare plan is taxing THC like we do alcohol and cigarettes and use that for healthcare.” Similarly, the Bexar County Democratic Party said in a post on Facebook this weekend that hemp represents a “multi-billion dollar industry with over 14K small business owners and more than 50K employees.” “And the Texas Republicans just wiped them out,” it said. “Why? Could it be because Dan Patrick received $275K in donations from beer distributors and alcohol PACs?” In June Patrick’s campaign committee, Texans for Dan Patrick, reported receiving $275,000 from the alcohol distributor company Silver Eagle Distributors, according to a Texas Ethics Commission filing. Texas Democrats are increasingly using the cannabis issue to bash Republicans as the November elections approach—and are highlighting their opponents’ support from the alcohol industry. Democratic U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico, for example, wants to legalize marijuana and suggested in a recent interview that that his opponent for the seat, state Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) supports banning cannabis in order to aid his political donors in the alcohol and tobacco industries. “It doesn’t make any sense until you follow the money and realize that it is big beer and big tobacco that are funding the politicians, like Ken Paxton, who turned around and banned these safe THC products in order to enrich the big beer and a big tobacco lobby,” Talarico, who currently serves as a state representative, said. In a separate interview, the Democratic candidate said that keeping marijuana illegal while also moving to restrict hemp THC products is an “insane” form of “corruption.” “Think about what industries are most worried about THC products being readily available: Big Beer, Big Tobacco, right? And so they were the ones pushing this THC ban because it hurts their bottom line,” he said. “And a lot of research shows that THC—cannabis—these products are safer and less addictive than than beer or tobacco.” “And so to me, this is a prime example of what corruption looks like when you’ve got big industries buying politicians and pushing bills that harm people, but benefit them financially,” Talarico said. The Texas Democratic Party recently called out Paxton for refusing to answer a question about cannabis policy after he was recently shown in a video posted to X being asked what his thoughts are on the “state’s THC ban.” “I don’t know the details of it, but let’s talk later,” he replied before quickly stepping away. Paxton, in fact, has sued to overturn local voter-approved marijuana decriminalization laws in several cities across Texas. His office has also defended hemp product restrictions in court against lawsuits from the industry. That includes a recently enacted ban on certain hemp-derived THC cannabis products, including those containing delta-8 and delta-10 THC. Now classified as Schedule I drugs under state law, possession is treated as a felony, carrying a punishment of 180 days to two years in prison and fines of up to $10,000. A judge this month declined hemp companies’ request to impose a temporary restraining order on the THC crackdown while the overall litigation is considered. The Texas Democratic Party pounced on Paxton’s inability to answer the cannabis question, saying in a press release that he appeared to be “in a panic” when being pressed about the “incredibly unpopular” THC ban before proceeding to “run away” from the questioner. “Ken Paxton is a coward who runs from questions because he has no answers for his wildly unpopular positions,” Texas Democratic Party Spokesperson Ryan Martin said. “Paxton knows Texans hate this THC ban he has pushed onto people with his nanny-state agenda.” The party’s press release also noted that podcaster Joe Rogan, who lives in and operates a comedy club in Austin, discussed the issue on an episode of his podcast that was posted on Thursday. “They’ve done the THC thing,” he said. “Here’s what Texas doesn’t understand. You will fuck this place up and you will turn the whole thing blue.” “Kids will turn on you if you tell them they can’t smoke weed,” Rogan said. “They know weed’s not killing anybody.” Voters in Houston will decide on an initiative to make misdemeanor marijuana possession the “lowest possible enforcement priority” for local police on the November ballot. Image element courtesy of AnonMoos. The post Texas Democrats Say GOP Lieutenant Governor Pushed For Hemp THC Product Ban To Benefit His Alcohol Industry Donors appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Congressional researchers call out FDA hemp delay; CA marijuana packaging bill to gov; Cannabis workers unionize; OR lawmaker plans edibles rollback 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 The Congressional Research Service is calling out the Food and Drug Administration for being more than six months late to publish lists of hemp-derived cannabinoids and to issue guidance on the term “container” with respect to THC product serving sizes. California lawmakers sent Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) a bill to more clearly define the types of marijuana packaging and labeling that is prohibited for appealing to children. A new Gallup poll shows that more American adults are now smoking marijuana than ever before as tobacco cigarette smoking has hit an all-time low. Cannabis smoking by U.S. adults has more than doubled since 2013. An Oregon senator announced a renewed push to ban marijuana edibles with more than 10 milligrams of THC for 2027 after her bill on the issue fell short of passage this year. Workers at Key Cannabis Dispensary in Springfield, Missouri ratified a collective bargaining agreement—becoming the second cannabis business in the state to secure a union contract. / FEDERAL The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit declined to revisit its decision to uphold a man’s conviction for possessing a gun while being a marijuana consumer. Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA) discussed his support for creating a federal framework for hemp products. / STATES Oklahoma Republican gubernatorial candidate Gentner Drummond, currently the state’s attorney general, reacted to criticism of a bank he owns providing services to state-legal medical cannabis businesses. Louisiana regulators filed changes to rules on medical cannabis use by people under parole supervision. Colorado regulators posted guidance about a new cannabis inventory tracking system contract. New Mexico regulators began accepting applications for medical psilocybin production permits. Arizona officials awarded a $5 million grant to support ibogaine research. Oregon regulators sent a newsletter with various marijuana and psilocybin updates. Massachusetts regulators will host a virtual cannabis social equity program application clinic on Wednesday. — Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments. Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access. — / LOCAL Los Angeles, California officials sent a newsletter with various cannabis updates. / INTERNATIONAL Botswana’s Parliament approved an amendment to an industrial development law to facilitate the legal cannabis industry’s implementation. / SCIENCE & HEALTH A study found that “marijuana can be helpful for symptom control, reducing reliance on opioid pharmaceuticals, and may improve quality of life in patients with” inflammatory bowel disease. A study found that “lifetime and recent psychedelic use were associated with better executive functioning.” / ADVOCACY, OPINION & ANALYSIS The Dallas Morning News editorial board called out Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R), currently a candidate for U.S. Senate, for dodging a question about cannabis laws. / BUSINESS Aurora Cannabis Inc. pushed back on what it called “inaccurate statements” by Curaleaf Holdings, Inc. in support of that company’s unsolicited bid to acquire it, though Curaleaf said that “Aurora’s hollow protests and completely misleading statistics change nothing about reality.” NCS Analytics and CRB Monitor launched a strategic partnership. / CULTURE Halloween: The Game will not be available in Australia due to gameplay involving “illicit drug use that is linked to an incentive or reward.” 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 Cannabis smoking outpaces cigarettes in US, Gallup poll shows (Newsletter: August 25, 2026) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

This is such an encouraging milestone for women founders in this industry. Programs like The Initiative give early-stage teams the structure and investor-readiness that most founders never get access to, and closing that gap has held too many great businesses back. Seeing a cohort built around skill building and funding preparation is exactly the kind of ecosystem support that lifts the whole community. Wishing the first cohort real momentum this year. And on a lighter note, when the workday is over I keep coming back to Orbit Kick as a fun way to reset my head between pitch decks and paperwork.

Our screening process is exhausting by design. We put every RK Puram Escorts Service companion through multiple conversations before they ever appear on our roster. We test for wit, patience, adaptability, and that rare quality of making someone feel instantly at ease. You're not getting a stranger; you're getting someone we've already vetted for human connection.

“I’m hoping that the cannabis industry will take the lead, and they’ll decide they don’t want to be like the tobacco industry.” By Mia Maldonado, Oregon Capital Chronicle Karma Clarke, a Douglas County mother, thought marijuana was harmless in 2014 when she voted in favor of the ballot measure legalizing recreational cannabis in Oregon. She believed that until six years later, when her then-20-year-old son began smoking marijuana regularly. He had played sports and maintained good grades in college, but when he returned home after completing his associate degree, Clarke said her son began acting strangely. He stopped leaving his room, and he lost the ability to perform everyday tasks such as reading a tape measure or answering questions. After several doctor visits, her son was admitted in two different psychiatric hospitalizations. Although his drug tests came back clean, something had switched in his brain, she said. Clarke shared her story of witnessing her son develop a psychotic disorder at a virtual meeting Wednesday, where state Sen. Lisa Reynolds, D-Portland, invited her and public health experts to speak about policy proposals aimed at preventing youth access to cannabis. “I’m hoping that the cannabis industry will take the lead, and they’ll decide they don’t want to be like the tobacco industry and they don’t want to keep denying that there’s a link between their products and people’s lives being ruined,” Clarke said. Reynolds looks to THC caps again, and more warning labels Recreational cannabis has been legal in Oregon for adults 21 and older for more than a decade, but it remains illegal for minors. Still, an estimated 13,000 youth between ages 12 and 18 use cannabis in Oregon, according to Dr. Julia Dilley, a Multnomah County epidemiologist who led a 10-year study looking at cannabis legalization and public health impact in Oregon and Washington. Reynolds, a pediatrician who has served in the Legislature for five years, is seeking to improve cannabis prevention education in schools, cap individual edibles at 10 milligrams of THC and require manufacturers provide more warning labels on their products. Reynolds’s efforts are inspired by her work as a pediatrician, and because she believes her brother’s habitual marijuana use in the ’70s contributed to his severe mental health problems as an adult. Teens using cannabis are at 11 times higher risk of developing a psychotic disorder compared to teens not using cannabis, studies show. “When we talk about the risk of psychosis, this isn’t just what we would call a bad experience while you are actually intoxicated by cannabis,” Reynolds said. “This is a long-term disability.” Additionally, more children are turning up in hospitals after consuming edibles resembling desserts such as brownies or cookies. She spearheaded legislation earlier this year to cap individual edibles at 10 milligrams of THC. Her bill made it past the Oregon Senate, but it died in the committee process on the House side as members received intense pushback from marijuana industry groups. Reynolds said she’ll propose the legislation again, but this time with the help of a lobbyist. The Cannabis Industry Alliance of Oregon did not immediately respond to the Capital Chronicle’s request for comment. Oregon is one of the most loosely regulated marijuana states More than 800 calls since 2025 to the Oregon Poison Center were related to cannabis, said Dilley, the Multnomah County epidemiologist. One-third of those calls were for children younger than 5. Cannabis use among youth is higher in Oregon than it is in Washington because it doesn’t have the same protective measures, she said. Unlike Washington which requires that cannabis manufacturers individually wrap all edibles with a 10 milligram THC cap, Oregon cannabis manufacturers can sell individual edibles with more than 10 milligrams of THC, such as sodas or cookies containing 100 milligrams of THC that are meant to be split into several portions. Both states require an edible package contain no more than 100 milligrams of THC. Unlike Oregon, it’s illegal to grow nonmedical marijuana at home in Washington. Washington also caps the number of retail cannabis outlets and applies a 37 percent sales tax. Oregon’s cannabis sales tax ranges from 17 percent to 20 percent, depending on where it’s bought. Both states require cannabis businesses to be located at least 1,000 feet away from public schools. Washington requires this buffer also apply to private schools, playgrounds, childcare facilities, libraries and other locations, though Oregon localities can establish additional buffers under state law. Oregon does require warning labels on cannabis products related to pregnancy. These labels are working and preventing people from using cannabis during pregnancy, Dilley said, adding that Oregon could go a step further at providing more warning labels about cannabis use contributing to worse mental health outcomes. “These products should not be designed or marketed to appeal to children,” pediatrician Dr. Jill Pearson said. “Yet, time and time again, we are just rep This story was first published by Oregon Capital Chronicle. The post Oregon Lawmaker Announces Push To Ban Marijuana Edibles With More Than 10 Milligrams Of THC appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“We already got our raises. Our [personal time off] is taking effect. Bonuses have been handed out…and job security is in place.” By Rebecca Rivas, Missouri Independent It’s been nearly a month since Key Cannabis Dispensary employees in Springfield ratified their first collective bargaining agreement that includes wage increases, bonuses and additional time off to workers. And employees are feeling pretty high. “Now that the contract has been ratified, we’re rocking and rolling already,” said Sally Powell, a retail associate at Key Cannabis Dispensary. “We already got our raises. Our [personal time off] is taking effect. Bonuses have been handed out…and job security is in place.” Powell was among the employees who in 2022 voted 6-3 to unionize, under the representation of the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 2. The agreement is a milestone in Missouri’s still-young marijuana industry, where dispensaries have proliferated since recreational sales began in 2023 but organized labor has made only limited inroads. The Springfield workers are just the second group of cannabis employees in the state to secure a union contract, and their four-year path to one offers a glimpse at how difficult it can be to turn a successful organizing vote into tangible workplace protections. The delay was partly because the previous owners, Bloom Medicinal, sold the dispensary in January 2024 to Elevate Cannabis. Nico Pento, chief legal officer for Elevate Cannabis, said it was a unique situation because the company was “thrown into the middle” of the unionization process, as part of its acquisition of a few facilities from Bloom. “A lot of what we settled on is not much different than what we do as an organization,” Pento said. “But, I respect the right of everybody to want to be represented by a union if they so choose. I’m happy we could come to an amicable agreement.” While the company has a merit increase system in wages, Pento said this store’s employees were on a hiring freeze during the lengthy collective bargaining process. “We needed to get through the entire [collective bargaining agreement] negotiations before we could make any adjustments to compensation,” Pento said, “so the increases that we gave them were really more of a true-up to get them to where we felt they would have been had they not chosen to unionize.” The ratification bonus was similarly something the company decided was the “right thing to do,” he said. “They had gone over two years without getting a wage increase,” he said, “so we wanted to find a way to properly compensate them for that kind of two-year delay.” Powell said the contract creates more stable scheduling and clearer disciplinary guidelines. One of the most important provisions for Powell were the non-discrimination, anti-harassment and inclusion protections. “With the cannabis industry just being a super inclusive industry as is,” she said, “it’s nice to just have some extra language to protect that. Being gay myself, we have quite a few gender-fluid people in our facility. It’s just been great to be able to be your true self and not have to worry about who you are.” Elevate Cannabis is owned by a group of family and friends based out of the Kansas city area, he said, and the company has 14 dispensaries and two manufacturing and cultivation facilities. It is among the largest cannabis companies in Missouri. Another reason it took so a long time to get a union contract ratified, Pento said, is because the labor negotiation process “is definitely a little old school.” “Everything is in person,” he said. “You’re trading drafts back and forth in person. It’s not like a typical, you know, sale or acquisition where you’re exchanging red lines and can bang it out in a couple weeks.” However, Pento commended the union representative, Saul Guerrero, for being reasonable and easy to communicate with. Chad Price, UFCW Local 2 director of collective bargaining and retail servicing, praised the workers for their hard work and dedication. “We want to welcome them to our union family,” Price said. “Together, we will continue building contracts that improve lives and strengthen our workplaces for years to come.” This story was first published by Missouri Independent. The post Workers At Another Missouri Marijuana Business Secure A Union Contract appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net