All Activity

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

This is my first visit to your web journal! We are a group of volunteers and new activities in the same specialty. Website gave us helpful data to work. เว็บแทงบอลออนไลน์

I am impressed. I don't think Ive met anyone who knows as much about this subject as you do. You are truly well informed and very intelligent. You wrote something that people could understand and made the subject intriguing for everyone. Really, great blog you have got here. สมัครแทงบอล

Terrific put up, attended on top not to mention saved your web sites. I just can’t hang around to study further because of most people. สมัครแทงบอล

Wow, this event sounds amazing! It's great to see the Oregon cannabis industry coming together. Speaking of community and challenges, it reminds me of the slope game 2. Just like navigating the slopes in the game, the cannabis industry is all about overcoming obstacles and finding the right path to success.

A powerful congressional committee is blocking amendments to prevent a scheduled federal ban on hemp THC products from taking effect in November. The House Rules Committee on Monday determined that several separate proposals will not be allowed to advance to floor votes. One proposal, from Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY), would have kept many hemp products legal that are currently set to be recriminalized this year, add labeling requirements and institute new taxes on sales, among other regulatory reforms. Another amendment, from Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC) and Jim Baird (R-IN), would have simply delayed the planned recriminalization of hemp THC products for an additional two years. A third measure, from Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), would have similarly enacted a delay, but only for one year. A fourth proposal, from Rep. James Comer (R-KY) and Fry, sought to prevent federal officials from spending any funds to enforce sections of last year’s annual agriculture appropriations bill that significantly narrowed the scope of what constitutes federally legal hemp. The amendment was withdrawn, however, before the panel had a chance to decide on it. 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, Trump signed new spending 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. Barr’s 25-page amendment, titled the Lawful Hemp Protection Act, would have changed the definition of legal hemp again to allow concentrations of up to 1 percent delta-9 THC on a dry-weight basis, “measured on the finished consumer product and not on raw, floral material or any work-in-process material, including an unfinished hemp ingredient.” Cannabinoids that are not capable of being naturally produced by a cannabis plant or that are synthesized or manufactured from any starting material other than hemp would not have been part of the revised definition of a legal hemp product. “Many Americans, including veterans and seniors, rely on consumer hemp products for wellness,” the legislation’s findings section says. “Ensuring that such products are consistently manufactured, accurately labeled, and domestically sourced is essential to maintaining public trust and protecting consumers. Clear provenance standards and the elimination of deceptive or look-alike products promote responsible industry growth, protect consumers, and reinforce confidence in lawful hemp commerce.” “Protecting minors and preventing children’s access to hemp products is central to the public interest and to the long-term credibility of the hemp industry. Strong age-control measures are necessary to prevent misuse and safeguard public health. Within 18 months of the proposal’s enactment, the secretary of health and human services would have had to “establish for each cannabinoid present in a hemp-derived consumable product a maximum allowable amount of such cannabinoid per serving of such product.” Those limits would have needed to be updated at least once every five years or “as soon as scientific evidence warrants reconsideration.” The legislation also proposed to set out labeling requirements for hemp-derived consumer products, including displaying per-serving and per-package THC content, as well as a statement specifying that they are only for people over the age of 21. Consumable hemp products would also have needed to include this text: “GOVERNMENT WARNING: (1) According to the Surgeon General, women should not consume hemp products during pregnancy because of the risk of birth defects. (2) Consumption of hemp products impairs your ability to drive a car or operate machinery and may cause health problems.” The labeling and maximum cannabinoid content provisions would have only applied to “products introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce on or after the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment” of the legislation. Sales of hemp-derived consumable products would have been subject an “in-person or virtual” age verification requirement to ensure customers are 21 or older, with a civil penalty of up $1,000 per violation and the threat of permit or registration revocation for “repeated or willful violations.” For most consumable hemp products sold in interstate commerce, excluding beverages, there would have been a user fee of 5 percent of the retail sale price. It would have been collected by retailers at the point of sale and remitted quarterly to the Treasury Department’s Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), with revenue earmarked to support hemp regulation and enforcement, consumer protection activities and assistance for state agencies. With respect to hemp drinks, there would have been a federal tax of 5 cents per milligram of THC in each beverage, with the tax determined as of the time of removal for consumption or sale from the premises of the producer. One percent of the revenue from hemp beverages would have gone to the Highway Trust Fund to support state-level enforcement, training and testing technologies related to standards on zero-tolerance for impaired driving. Within a year of the the law’s enactment, TTB would have needed to establish a three-tier system for hemp-derived beverages sold in interstate commerce, modeled on the current distribution framework for alcohol. The first tier would have included manufacturers, the second tier would have been for distributors and wholesalers and the third tier would have covered retailers. No entity could have held a permit or registration in more than one tier at a time, nor a “direct or indirect interest” in permittees or registrants in more than one tier—a separation the legislation said would be “strictly maintained.” Within 180 days of enactment, TTB would have needed to establish a mandatory retailer registration and licensing system for all people engaged in the sale of hemp-derived beverages in interstate commerce, and covered retailers would have needed to register within 30 days of the system’s launch. Hemp products would have been considered “adulterated” if they exceed the maximum allowable cannabinoid content established by the secretary of health and human services, if they don’t comply with packaging rules or if they are “not derived exclusively from hemp cultivated in the United States, processed within the United States, and finished, packaged, and labeled within the United States,” the legislation said. The proposal made clear that states, territories and Indian tribes could have enacted hemp product laws that are more stringent that the federal requirements under the bill, but it also said that they could not interfere with the “passage and delivery of a hemp-derived consumable product through the borders” of their jurisdictions. One section of the measure would have required the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to publish a list of all cannabinoids known to the agency to be capable of being naturally produced by a Cannabis sativa L. plant, as reflected in peer reviewed literature, as well as a list of all tetrahydrocannabinol class cannabinoids known to the agency to be naturally occurring in the plant, within 90 days. A hemp-derived consumable product would have been defined under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to include ingestibles, beverages, oral tinctures, sublinguals, capsules, tablets, inhalables, topicals and transdermals—all considered to be food for the purposes of the law. The legislation also contained a provision addressing hemp products covered under Medicare: “Notwithstanding any other provision…, any hemp-derived consumable product (as defined in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321), as amended…) that is approved, authorized, or covered under Medicare Advantage Special Supplemental Benefits for the Chronically Ill (SSBCI) or Beneficiary Engagement and Incentives (BEI) under a program administered under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.), including any model tests implemented under section 1115A of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1315a) and applied under such title XVIII, shall be administered and governed exclusively under the applicable CMS system, process, or program until such date that model tests are completed.” The Trump administration launched a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) program in April to cover up to $500 worth of hemp-derived products each year for eligible Medicare patients. A federal judge last week granted the government’s motion to dismiss marijuana legalization opponents’ lawsuit challenging the initiative. Under a provision of Barr’s proposal, states would have been at risk of losing out on certain federal funds if they do not address hemp-impaired driving using the “same field sobriety evaluation standards and protocols that law enforcement officers apply to determine impairment caused by lawfully prescribed pharmaceutical substances, including opioids, benzodiazepines, and other controlled medications” or subject hemp-impaired drivers to the “same penalties, fines, license suspensions, and other sanctions as apply to driving under the influence of alcohol or other impairing substances.” Industry advocates have been eagerly anticipating a standalone bill from Barr on the issue, but it’s not clear when that will be formally introduced. The congressman spoke at a meeting with hemp industry operators last month and previewed his hemp regulation bill—saying it faces opposition from a coalition of strange bedfellows including sectors of the alcohol industry, marijuana businesses and cannabis legalization opponents. Separately, White House officials recently provided Barr’s office with feedback on hemp regulatory legislation. In April, Vince Haley, director of the White House Domestic Policy Council and James Braid, assistant to the president for legislative affairs, sent hemp policy suggestions to the congressman’s office. “We appreciate your work to advance the policy of” an executive order Trump signed in December that included provisions seeking to protect Americans’ access to CBD products, the staffers wrote in a letter to the congressman. “We are transmitting for your consideration draft legislative text and comments to address the statutory definition of final hemp-derived cannabinoid products in order to allow Americans to benefit from access to appropriate full-spectrum CBD products while preserving the Congress’s intent to restrict the sale of products that pose serious health risks,” the White House officials said, according to a social media post containing a screenshot of the letter. “We are available for discussion and further technical assistance.” Trump himself recently pushed congressional lawmakers to take action to amend the currently scheduled hemp ban, which he suggested threatens to federally recriminalize full-spectrum CBD products. “I am calling on Congress to update the Law to ensure that Americans can continue to access the full-spectrum CBD products they have come to rely on, and that help them, while preserving Congress’s intent to restrict the sale of products that pose Health risks,” the president said in a Truth Social post on the same day his administration announced it is moving forward to reschedule marijuana. “We must get this done RIGHT and FAST, especially for those who saw that CBD helps them,” he said. “Plus, I am told it will also help our GREAT FARMERS, who we love, and will always be there for.” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said recently that it will be an “uphill path” to avert the scheduled federal recriminalization of hemp THC products this year. Leaders of the advocacy organization Marijuana Policy Project similarly said that they think it will be difficult to avert the ban on hemp THC products before November, though they left open the possibility that there could be a carve-out for beverages or some reforms to THC limits. The House of Representatives recently passed a Farm Bill with provisions aimed at aiding industrial hemp producers—but without any language to delay or alter the federal recriminalization of hemp THC products that’s scheduled to take effect in November. Barr had filed a similar hemp regulation amendment to that legislation but withdrew it ahead of a Rules Committee meeting, for unknown reasons. The Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America (WSWA) said the House’s failure to include provisions to delay or alter the ban on hemp THC products was a “missed opportunity.” “A ban will not remove these products from the market—it will push consumers toward unregulated, online channels with no age verification, no product standards and no accountability,” Dawson Hobbs, executive vice president of government affairs for WSWA said. Meanwhile, the White House Office of Management and Budget recently held a series of meetings about a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) CBD products enforcement policy. FDA also issued guidance making clear that it does not intend to interfere with implementation of the Medicare hemp-derived products coverage plan. CMS separately finalized a rule that will allow coverage of some hemp products as specialized, non-primarily health-related benefits through Medicare Advantage plans. Major retailer Target, meanwhile, recently moved to expand its sales of hemp THC drinks into more states. The post Amendments To Keep Hemp THC Products Federally Legal Won’t Get Votes After Congressional Committee Blocks Them appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

The governor of Kentucky has signed an executive order to expand the list of health conditions that make patients eligible for medical marijuana—adding that he thinks “it’s time” for broader cannabis decriminalization. At a press conference on Tuesday, Gov. Andy Beshear (D) announced that he was taking executive action to “clarify” that the current law permitting medical cannabis in the treatment of maladies such as chronic pain and nausea means patients whose specific conditions involve those symptoms can also access the alternative medicine. After the legislature declined to take him up on a suggestion to expand the qualifying condition list this session, Beshear said he’s using 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. The Office of Medical Cannabis (OCM) is being tasked with updating the list to “clarify what’s already in that law,” he said. “Too much is at risk to just stand by and let the law’s lack of clarity leave Kentuckians without relief,” the governor said. “So today I’m taking action by signing an executive order.” “This is what the law is meant to do. And the emergency regulation will help people that already qualify, but don’t know that they do, sign up if they’re looking for an alternative,” he said. “It’s going to help people reclaim their lives through a safe, non-addictive treatment.” The executive order is a follow up to a medical cannabis legalization law Beshear signed in 2023, with a program that launched at the beginning of last year. Since then, the state has licensed 32 medical cannabis businesses. There are about 500 medical professionals who can now recommend medical marijuana, and nearly 24,000 Kentuckians are currently participating in the program. The governor said his new order would allow more than 400,000 additional people in the state to potentially qualify for medical cannabis access. “Steps like the one we’ve taken today will help directly improve the lives of Kentuckians across our Commonwealth,” Beshear said. “It’s a work we should focus on daily, rather than the political games that seem to have become routine. I want Kentuckians to know we’re listening. We’re ready to show up and deliver results to make life just a little bit better.” Asked whether he anticipates the state attorney general will push back on the use of executive authority to expand the medical marijuana law, Beshear shrugged off the suggestion, while insisting that the action simply provides clarity around the statute that’s already in effect. A person with sickle cell anemia is likely to experience pain, for example; and if pain currently counts as a qualifying condition, the governor reasoned that the overarching disorder is intrinsically covered. Today I took executive action to make Kentucky law more clear when it comes to qualifying conditions for medical cannabis. Now, 15 additional conditions are recognized, including sickle cell anemia, ALS, Crohn’s disease, Parkinson’s and more. Read more: https://t.co/c9w2KCzCV7 pic.twitter.com/RHd1qMHQ0f — Governor Andy Beshear (@GovAndyBeshear) June 2, 2026 He also cited the results of a recent study from researchers at the University of Kentucky that linked the availability of regulated medical marijuana dispensaries to lower rates of opioid overdoses. The governor was additionally asked to weigh in on the Trump administration’s recent push to reschedule medical cannabis from state-authorized sources, which may be expanded depending on the outcome of an administrative hearing process. He said he supports the effort, just as he did under the prior Biden administration. But he maintains that the law should be further reformed. “In the very least, [rescheduling] will allow a lot more research, and that is a good thing in any form of medicine,” he said. “I also think it’s time for decriminalization. Nobody should be going to jail just because of marijuana—though I think we’re going to see a lot less of that when folks who are just looking for pain relief that suffer from one of these conditions can now legally secure it with the medical treatment that they need.” Meanwhile, in addition to urging the legislature to go through the process of expanding the medical marijuana qualifying conditions list, Beshear in February also announced that cannabis gummies are available for purchase in the state’s licensed dispensaries. The governor in January also 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. The state’s first medical cannabis dispensary opened in December of last year. The governor, who has long championed cannabis reform, previewed the market launch that month, while making the case that medical marijuana will help thousands of patients find an alternative to opioids for pain management. He made much of crossing a 15,000 patient registration milestone in late October, but that’s evidently grown meaningfully in recent months. Beshear previously acknowledged that “it’s taken longer than we would have liked” to stand up the industry since he signed medical marijuana legalization into law in 2023. In recognition of that 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. And another order he signed providing protections for qualified patients who obtain medical marijuana outside of Kentucky “will stay in place.” 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. Meanwhile, the governor sent a letter to Kentucky’s congressional delegation last year, “urging them to take decisive action to protect the constitutional rights of our law abiding medical cannabis patients” by repealing the federal ban on gun possession by people who use marijuana. That came after bipartisan Kentucky senators filed legislation that similarly called on the state’s federal representatives to take corrective action, which Beshear said he supports but would like to see even more sweeping change on the federal level. The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) warned Kentucky residents in 2024 that, if they choose to participate in the state’s medical marijuana program, they will be prohibited from buying or possessing firearms under federal law. 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. The post Kentucky Governor Expands Medical Marijuana For 15 New Qualifying Conditions, While Saying ‘It’s Time’ For Broader Decriminalization appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Hemp companies have filed lawsuits challenging the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) determination that a cannabinoid produced synthetically from components of the cannabis plant is federally illegal. DEA issued a rule last month saying that while it had already considered hexahydrocannabinol (HHC) to be a Schedule I illegal substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the agency will now giving the compound its own unique drug code for classification. HHC can be found in trace amounts in cannabis plants but is also synthesized by hydrogenating cannabidiol (CBD). It’s sometimes sprayed on cannabis flowers that are low in delta-9 THC, the most well-known psychoactive component of marijuana, and its psychoactive effects are reportedly similar. While the 2018 Farm Bill federally legalized hemp and its derivatives with less than .3 percent delta-9 THC on a dry-weight basis, DEA says that only applies to naturally occurring, and not synthetic, cannabinoids. As such, it is the agency’s position that HHC does not fall under the definition of legal hemp. But that interpretation of federal statute is now being challenged in two separate lawsuits that say the agency’s decision is “unlawful.” One case, filed by Bluestar Operations, LLC before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, cites a prior ruling in that jurisdiction that found the hemp-derived cannabinoid THC-O-acetate is federally legal despite DEA’s claim to the contrary. “Congress intentionally employed expansive statutory language and did not prohibit cannabinoids subjected to ordinary extraction, refinement, conversion, hydrogenation, distillation, or similar manufacturing processes commonly utilized throughout the hemp industry,” the complaint says. DEA’s move “conflicts with the plain text, structure, and purpose of the 2018 Farm Bill and unlawfully inserts limitations Congress neither intended, nor enacted,” it says. The agency’s action has “already caused immediate and concrete harm to the Petitioner, including substantial compliance costs, business uncertainty, reputational harm, disruption of commercial relationships, and interference with ongoing operations.” “Congress, not executive agencies like the DEA, defines the scope of federal criminal liability. The DEA lacks authority to narrow Congress’s legalization of hemp cannabinoids through interpretive construction unsupported by statutory text.” The other new suit was brought by IHC Investments, Inc. in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which previously ruled that the federal legalization of hemp through the 2018 Farm Bill removed restrictions on a wide range of molecules produced by the cannabis plant—including the psychoactive cannabinoid delta-8 THC. The petition says that “DEA effectively, and thus unlawfully, attempts to expand federal criminal liability through administrative interpretation, unsupported by the plain statutory text of the enabling legislation.” “Congress did not prohibit converted cannabinoids, hydrogenated cannabinoids, or cannabinoids subjected to ordinary commercial processing techniques,” the complaint says. “Congress did not clearly authorize the DEA to criminalize broad categories of hemp-derived cannabinoids through administrative interpretation.” Both petitions argue that DEA’s move last month violates the major questions doctrine, a precedent holding that if an agency seeks to decide an issue of major national significance, that action needs to be supported by clear congressional authorization. The agency’s ban of HHC “carries enormous economic and political significance affecting a nationwide hemp industry involving billions of dollars in commerce,” the litigation brought by Bluestar says. David Sergi, the attorney leading the new Ninth Circuit case for IHC Investments, said in a press release that the litigation is a “coordinated defense of the rule of law and the stability of the American hemp industry. “The DEA is attempting to redefine federal law through administrative fiat, causing immediate and irreparable harm to businesses operating in reliance upon the 2018 Farm Bill,” he said. “These lawsuits in two different circuits demonstrate that the threat from the DEA’s unlawful overreach is national in scope.” DEA, for its part, said in the rule it filed last month that “only tetrahydrocannabinols in or derived from the cannabis plant—not synthetic tetrahydrocannabinols—are excluded from control as ‘tetrahydrocannabinols in hemp.'” “To clarify further, tetrahydrocannabinols produced through chemical conversion, even when hemp derived are considered synthetically produced for purposes of the CSA, do not qualify as ‘tetrahydrocannabinols in hemp’ under” the 2018 Farm Bill, the agency said. The Federal Register notice wasn’t the first time that DEA addressed the legal status of HHC. In a 2023 letter, Terrance Boos, chief of DEA’s Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section, wrote that HHC “does not occur naturally in the cannabis plant and can only be obtained synthetically, and therefore does not fall under the definition of hemp.” The new filing signed by DEA Administrator Terrance Cole said that “this rule does not affect the continuing status of hexahydrocannabinol as a schedule I controlled substance in any way.” “This action, as an administrative matter, establishes a separate, specific listing for hexahydrocannabinol in schedule I of the CSA and assigns a DEA drug code for this substance,” it said. “This action will allow DEA to establish an aggregate production quota and grant individual manufacturing and procurement quotas to DEA-registered manufacturers of hexahydrocannabinol, who had previously been granted individual quotas for such purposes under the drug code for tetrahydrocannabinols.” The DEA notice cited a move last year by an international drug control body to add HHC to Schedule II of the United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971—but the document doesn’t note that when the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) took the action, the U.S. was the only country to abstain from the vote. DEA said that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) “concurs with the direct listing and drug code assignment of hexahydrocannabinol in the CSA.” Meanwhile, under provisions of a large-scale spending bill signed by President Donald Trump late last year, the federal definition of legal hemp is set to change in November. Unless that language is altered or its effective date is delayed, as some lawmakers are pushing for, only hemp products with up to 0.4 milligrams of total THC per container will remain legal after November 12. At the same time, however, the Trump administration is moving to more broadly reschedule marijuana under federal law. Read the new hemp industry lawsuits against DEA’s HHC rule below: The post Hemp Companies Sue DEA, Challenging Agency’s Claim That Synthetic Cannabis Compound HHC Is Federally Banned appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

About 2 in 3 Americans who use marijuana say it improves their sleep, according to a new survey from the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM). The poll asked 2,003 American adults about their cannabis use and its sleep impacts. Overall, about 33 percent of respondents said marijuana makes their quality of sleep “significantly” or “slightly” better, compared to 11 percent who said it has “no impact” and 8 percent who reported significantly or slightly worse sleep outcomes. The remaining 47 percent said they don’t use cannabis at all. Consolidating the results to include only self-reported cannabis consumers, about 64 percent said using marijuana improved their sleep either significantly (35 percent) or slightly (29 percent). By contrast, 21 percent of cannabis users said it had no impact, while a total of 16 percent said it worsened sleep. The survey further found that respondents between the ages of 25 and 44 were most likely to find marijuana improved their sleep, and older Americans were generally less likely to report using cannabis in the first place. Men were more likely than women to say that using marijuana helps them sleep better. “While many states now allow the recreational and medical use of marijuana, its impact on sleep is multi-faceted,” Kannan Ramar, former president of AASM, said in a press release. He added that cannabis can be linked to “daytime sleepiness” and conditions such as sleep disruption. “Sleep is essential to health, so it is important to talk to a healthcare professional about any ongoing sleep concerns,” he said. “Sleep specialists can provide evidence-based treatments for anyone who has insomnia or another sleep disorder.” Does marijuana help or hurt sleep? The answer may not be as simple as you think. New survey results from the AASM found that one-third of adults report sleeping better when using marijuana, while others report no impact or even worse sleep. Explore what the latest data reveal… — American Academy of Sleep Medicine (@AASMorg) June 1, 2026 The poll—which was conducted from June 5-13, 2025 and had a +/-2 percentage point margin of error—is far from the first to indicate that marijuana can effectively help people with sleep issues. For example, using medical marijuana appears to help people reduce the use of medications, including sleeping aids, according to a recent study involving more than 3,500 patients. They also experience far fewer negative side effects after switching to cannabis from prescription drugs. Another study that looked at adults who drink cannabis-infused beverages also found improvements in overall wellbeing and sleep, as well as reductions in pain, stress, depression and anxiety. A 2025 study on the use of medical marijuana by older patients—age 50 and above—concluded that “cannabis seemed to be a safe and effective treatment” for sleep disorders, pain and other conditions. About 16 percent of Americans aged 21 and older say they use cannabis as a sleep aid, according to a separate industry-backed survey from last year. That makes marijuana more popular for sleep than prescription sleep aids (12 percent) or alcohol (11 percent), but still not quite as common as using supplements (26 percent) or over-the-counter sleep aids (19 percent). A pair of 2024 studies found that both older medical marijuana patients as well as people with fibromyalgia reported that cannabis improved their sleep. A different study that year from the retirement group AARP found that marijuana use by older people in the U.S. has nearly doubled, with better sleep as among the most frequently cited reasons. Another industry-backed survey last year found that an oral CBD solution effectively treated mild to moderate anxiety, as well as associated depression and poor sleep quality, with no serious adverse events observed. A study published in 2024, meanwhile, found that using marijuana before sleep has minimal if any effect on a range of performance measures the next day, including simulated driving, cognitive and psychomotor function tasks, subjective effects and mood. In 2023, a federally funded study found that people with anxiety experienced better quality sleep on days when they used marijuana compared to days when they used alcohol or nothing at all. Separate studies in 2019, meanwhile, found that fewer people purchased over-the-counter (OTC) sleep medications when they had legal access to cannabis and that many adult-use consumers at the time said they used marijuana for the same reasons medical cannabis patients did: to help with pain and sleep. The post 2 In 3 Americans Who Use Marijuana Say It Helps Them Sleep Better, New Survey Shows appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Admiring the time and effort you put into your blog and detailed information you offer!.. your muscleshop

I think this is an informative post and it is very useful and knowledgeable. therefore, I would like to thank you for the efforts you have made in writing this article. hptoto link

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

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

Louisiana’s governor says he signed a bill that threatens to send people to jail for up to one year if they smoke marijuana within 2,000 feet of a school property—including a college campus— because he is “tired” of smelling cannabis at football games. “Like most of you, I’m tired of going to our college and high school campuses and being inundated with the smell of marijuana,” he said in a video posted to social media. “And I’m tired of seeing drugs littering our high school and college campuses, hurting our students.” “These drugs take away from the family-friendly environments that our colleges are supposed to be, especially on game days,” the governor said. The legislation from Rep. Gabe Firment (R) that Landry signed last month applies to people who violate drug laws “while smoking, vaping, or otherwise abusing such controlled dangerous substance while on any property used for school purposes by any school, within two thousand feet of any such property, or while on a school bus.” The bill “takes a massive step toward protecting our families and children in Louisiana on those campuses,” the governor argued in his new video that was posted on Friday. “This bill will place strong penalties on those caught smoking and vaping marijuana or using any other illegal drugs while in a drug-free school zone,” he said. Drugs have no place on our high school and college campuses. Thanks to Representative @FirmentGabe’s bill, those who are caught with illegal drugs on these campuses will face strong penalties. We are bringing back the greatness of these family-friendly environments—… pic.twitter.com/BZFIjQaRWo — Governor Jeff Landry (@LAGovJeffLandry) May 29, 2026 Landry’s staff previously testified in favor of the measure at a committee hearing. Firment told senators at a House committee hearing that his bill “strengthens enforcement of Louisiana drug-free school zone laws by creating a clear behavior-based offense, so that when someone is openly smoking or vaping illegal drug in the school zone, law enforcement can act and prosecutors can prove the case.” “For marijuana, the bill establishes a clear and consistent penalty—up to a year in jail and $1,000 fine, ensuring that violations in school zones result in real, enforceable consequences,” he said. Sen. Rick Edmonds (R) argued on the Senate floor ahead of last month’s final vote that the bill, HB 568, “strengthens enforcement of Louisiana drug school zone law by adding a behavior-based trigger for violations and clarifying the penalty structure.” “The bill does not change what’s legal. It gives law enforcement a practical tool [and] ensures consistent consequences in school zones,” he said. Kevin Caldwell, Southeast legislative manager for the pro-legalization Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), said the group is “disappointed to see this deeply flawed legislation become law with the signature of Gov. Jeff Landry.” “His personal lobbying efforts forced many legislators to vote for a bill they know will have profound negative life altering consequences for potentially thousands of Louisianans,” Caldwell told Marijuana Moment. “His solution to every perceived problem has been a return to incarceration. These failed policies of the past should remain in the past.” “No child in Louisiana will be any safer after this legislation goes into effect,” he said. “But historical data clearly shows who will bear the brunt of this policy. The governor and legislature are seriously out of touch with the people of Louisiana.” In 2021, then-Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) signed a bill decriminalizing marijuana by removing the threat of jail time for possessing up to 14 grams. — 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, a Louisiana Senate bill to let patients with terminal and irreversible conditions use medical marijuana in hospitals is also on Landry’s desk for final action. Separate legislation to create a psychedelic-assisted therapy pilot program, using opioid settlement dollars to fund clinical trials aimed at developing alternative treatments such as psilocybin, ibogaine and MDMA was also sent to the governor this session. A lawmaker recently filed a proposal that would create a new state task force to “study and develop findings and recommendations regarding the potential legalization of recreational marijuana.” Another lawmaker also introduced a bill to create an adult-use marijuana legalization pilot program in the state to determine whether the reform should eventually be expanded and permanently codified. Rep. Candace Newell (D)—who has long championed legislation to end cannabis criminalization and filed a similar legal marijuana pilot program measure last session—is sponsoring what’s titled the “Adult-Use Cannabis Pilot Program Regulation and Enforcement Act.” Getting the bill across the finish line could prove complicated in the conservative legislature, however. Newell’s earlier version of the pilot program legislation didn’t advance to enactment last year, and lawmakers that session also rejected other marijuana reform proposals such as one that would have established a tax system to prepare the eventual legalization of adult-use cannabis. The post Louisiana Governor Is ‘Tired’ Of ‘Being Inundated With The Smell Of Marijuana’ At Football Games, So He Signed A Bill To Jail People For It appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Superbly written article, if only all bloggers offered the same content as you, the internet would be a far better place.. เว็บแทงบอลออนไลน์

This is my first visit to your web journal! We are a group of volunteers and new activities in the same specialty. Website gave us helpful data to work. เว็บแทงบอลออนไลน์

The governor of Virginia is continuing to try to explain her veto last month of legislation to legalize recreational marijuana sales—including by saying it is her view that “taking a little bit longer” to launch the market is not something she sees as “negative” because it is more important to get the details right than to do it fast. “If I’m going to be responsible for a monumental consequential change to how we do one type of business in Virginia, then do it right,” Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) said in an interview with Cardinal News that was published on Friday. “The devil’s in the details.” “The fact that we’re going to be talking a little bit longer about how do you set up a retail cannabis market correctly—I don’t see that as something that is a negative,” she said. “Do people want me to sign a bill or do people want me to get it right, and as the person doing the implementing, what’s most important to me is get it right.” Lawmakers passed the cannabis sales bills in March, but the governor then suggested changes to the legalization proposal—including delaying the start date for sales by six months, increasing taxes and instituting new criminal penalties for cannabis consumers. The legislature in April declined to take up the amendments during a one-day reconvened session, however, effectively rejecting them. Spanberger then issued a veto. “Not only did it not give the state enough time to set up for success, but also establishes so many licenses that you can’t sort of tiptoe into, OK, let’s start with X number of licenses and then you’re going to rush the regulatory framework,” the governor said in the new interview. “Where’s the time to hire any of the law enforcement? We’re going to create an entire new law enforcement agency. When do we get them ready? When do they learn the laws that they’re enforcing when the regulators haven’t even built out their framework? When do you apply for your license? If you are able to open your doors as a store come January, when do you get your license? You walk back from that.” Spanberger believes that the delay will ultimately be good for businesses, and especially for ensuring that the market isn’t cornered by small number of large players. “There are still a lot of regulatory pieces of how do you make sure we’re expanding the market so it isn’t only the people who are already part of the medical legal market, so they don’t automatically dominate the entirety of the market,” she said. “These are also businesses: You don’t want to have failed businesses. If you’re flooding the market without any real understanding of what retail interest might be—opening up a full number of licenses at maximum capacity without a full understanding—you’re basically putting people in a place where if they one day say, I might want to have a retail cannabis shop, like move now or you might miss that chance. So now they’re starting to open a business they know potentially nothing about, without any regulatory framework to dig into, potentially bringing all of their personal capital to bear to try and fund this.” “I’m responsible for getting it right,” Spanberger said. “And if I were to sign a bill that I don’t think sets us up to get it right, then a year and a half from now, it’s headline after headline about, whether it’s like, somebody who lost their shirt because they started this business and they were set up for failure or a public health issue or confusion within the law enforcement community and that is all on me.” The governor also raised concerns about “challenges” on the federal level for marijuana businesses. “And then you deal with the issues that, from a lending perspective at the federal level, there’s still real challenges with getting your money in the banking system,” she said. “All of these things need to be figured out, and the biggest problem in all of this is there’s no time to get it right. And when you’re doing something so consequential that has major public safety implications, you’ve got to do it right.” As she has in past interviews since issuing the cannabis veto, Spanberger said her action was informed by discussions she had about the issue with governors of other states that have enacted legalization. “Not all experiences are created equal,” she said. There are states who did things that they wish they hadn’t, and we should be endeavoring to learn from whether it’s called their mistakes or the best practices that they’ve sort of led us to. That’s what we as Virginians would want to do.” The governor additional said she has “respect” for the “tremendous amount of work” that lawmakers did in crafting the now-vetoed cannabis sales legislation. “Their role is to put forth a bill,” she said. “In the process we have in Virginia, the governor has the option of signing, vetoing or amending. And if I wasn’t supposed to take that option of amending seriously, it wouldn’t be an option in our process… I should utilize it because it’s a responsibility that I use it.” “I wrote amendments. They are welcome to take up my amendments. The thing about it is like, there was a bill I would have signed, and they passed by all my amendments. That is fully their prerogative. But it is incorrect to say, ‘My goodness, she said she supported this. Now she won’t sign a bill.’ No, I won’t sign that bill, and you won’t even consider my amendments. That creates a space where now we have to potentially go back to the discussion table—which is fine, right, and that’s the reality of it. There is a bill I would have signed. They didn’t want that, but I’m not going to sign just any bill because they don’t want to have a conversation about amendments, and I think that is the tension. And it is wholly the legislature’s prerogative to reject, to accept or even to pass by my amendments. But it was also wholly the prerogative of the governor to say these amendments are so consequential and important to me… Maybe it’s a different story if they had taken up the amendments…. People agree with me, they don’t disagree with me. That’s a different discussion, right?” Meanwhile, top lawmakers are openly discussing the possibility of including provisions to legalize adult-use cannabis sales in still-outstanding budget legislation that they are due to pass by July 1. “I wouldn’t say that the cannabis retail market is totally dead yet for this year,” Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell (D) said recently. Lawmakers are scheduled to reconvene this month to tackle the budget. If they finalize that legislation close to the July 1 deadline, it could effectively force the governor to quickly sign any deal, even if she doesn’t like its provisions, in order to avoid a potential shutdown of the state government. Spanberger, for her part, pushed back on the idea that lawmakers would put marijuana in the budget as a tactic to force her to sign it. “The idea that we, that members of the General Assembly would be holding localities and their budgets in this purgatory space so that they can try and jam me with a budget is two things: one, kind of an outrageous possibility, and two, broadly something that most legislators I have spoken to wholly oppose,” she told The Richmond Times-Dispatch. A recent survey found that bipartisan majorities of Virginia voters wanted Spanberger to sign the cannabis legislation into law, and that they specifically disagreed with her desire to slow the launch timeline for legal sales. The governor recently acknowledged in an interview that “a lot of people are not pleased” with her veto of the cannabis legislation. “Friends and family are displeased as well,” she said. Spanberger has repeatedly responded to criticism of her cannabis amendments from the bill sponsors and advocates by saying the suggested changes came after she spoke to the leaders of other states that have already implemented adult-use marijuana markets. A spokesperson for Spanberger was not able to name any other governors she talked to about cannabis in response to a question from Marijuana Moment last week, however. The governor separately recently sought to explain her veto in an earlier interview last week, reiterating that she supports launching a legal cannabis market but worried about what she called a “rushed timeline” and “far more stores across Virginia” than she thinks are appropriate. Prior to vetoing the cannabis commerce bill, the governor did sign separate legislation to provide resentencing relief for people with past cannabis convictions. Personal marijuana possession and home cultivation of marijuana has been legal in Virginia since 2021, but then-Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) twice vetoed bills to provide consumers with a way to legally purchase regulated adult-use cannabis. Sen. Lashrecse Aird (D), and Del. Paul Krizek (D), the sponsors of the legalization bills, had urged colleagues to vote against the governor’s amendments last month—even if that meant risking a veto from Spanberger when the legislation returned to her desk, which has now occurred. Here are the other key details of the cannabis bills—SB 542 and HB 642—as approved by lawmakers and with the governor’s suggested amendments: Lawmakers voted to allow adults to be able to purchase up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana in a single transaction, or up to an equivalent amount of other cannabis products as determined by regulators. That would represent an increase from the limit in current law of 1 ounce. The governor, however, wanted the amount increased to only 2 ounces. Under the legislature’s plan, legal sales could begin on January 1, 2027, but the governor proposed to push that back to July 1, 2027. Lawmakers voted to impose an excise tax of 6 percent on cannabis sales as well as a 5.3 percent retail sales and use tax, while allowing municipalities to set an additional local tax of up to 3.5 percent. The governor’s plan was largely the same, though it would have increased the excise tax to 8 percent starting on July 1, 2029. Under the legislation as approved by lawmakers, revenue would have been distributed to the Cannabis Equity Reinvestment Fund (30 percent), early childhood education (40 percent), the Department of Behavioral & Developmental Health Services (25 percent) and public health initiatives (5 percent). The governor, however, wanted to put all revenue into the general fund while earmarking it “for purposes such as early childhood education, behavioral health, public health awareness, prevention, treatment, and recovery services, workforce development, reentry, indigent criminal defense, and targeted reinvestment in historically disadvantaged communities.” The Virginia Cannabis Control Authority would have overseen licensing and regulation of the new industry, and would have also taken on oversight of hemp, which is currently under the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Local governments could not have opted out of allowing marijuana businesses to operate in their area. Delivery services would have been allowed. Serving sizes would have been capped at 10 milligrams THC, with no more than 100 mg THC per package. The governor proposed to make public marijuana use a class 4 criminal misdemeanor instead of civil violation punishable by a $25 fine as under current law. She also wanted to make possessing cannabis by people under the age of 21 a class 1 misdemeanor, punishable with a mandatory minimum fine of $500 or 50 hours of community service, as well as the suspension of drivers licenses for at least six months. Illegally selling or distributing 50 pounds or more of marijuana would have been a class 2 felony punishable by life in prison. The governor sought to eliminate support for the Cannabis Equity Reinvestment Fund. Existing medical cannabis operators could have entered the adult-use market if they pay a licensing conversion fee that was set at $10 million. Cannabis businesses would have had to establish labor peace agreements with workers. As passed by lawmakers, the bill would have directed a legislative commission to study adding on-site consumption licenses and microbusiness cannabis event permits that would allow licensees to conduct sales at venues like farmers markets or pop-up locations, but the governor proposed to remove that language. A coalition of cannabis reform organizations sent the governor a letter this month urging her not to veto the sales legalization legislation even though her amendments were rejected. “Together, these bills address the real issues surrounding cannabis in the Commonwealth today: an already-existing, unregulated marijuana market operating openly across the state while consumers, communities, and law enforcement are left without the protections of a legal framework,” the groups wrote. “Let’s be clear: these bills do not create a marijuana market in Virginia. That market already exists,” the letter said. “What these bills do is replace today’s predatory and unaccountable illicit operators with a regulated marketplace, enforceable rules, oversight, product safeguards, age verification, and the strict consumer safety standards already in use for Virginia medical cannabis.” The letter was signed by Virginia NORML, Marijuana Justice, Virginia Cannabis Association, Marijuana Policy Project and other groups. Separately, a coalition of hemp businesses that joined with a major alcohol retailer in asking Spanberger to veto the marijuana bill before she did so said the move presents an “opportunity” to craft better cannabis policy. Meanwhile, the governor signed several other reform bills last month—including measures to protect the parental rights of marijuana consumers and allow patients to access medical cannabis in hospitals. The post Delaying Marijuana Sales In Virginia Isn’t A ‘Negative,’ Governor Says After Vetoing The Reform appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

I think this is an informative post and it is very useful and knowledgeable. therefore, I would like to thank you for the efforts you have made in writing this article. แทงบอลเต็ง

GOP congressman: Legal marijuana “the worst thing”; CA AG on cannabis & tribes; PA legalization boost from federal reform; LA psychedelics bill to gov Subscribe to receive Marijuana Moment’s newsletter in your inbox every weekday morning. It’s the best way to make sure you know which cannabis stories are shaping the day. Get our daily newsletter. Email address: Leave this field empty if you're human: Your support makes Marijuana Moment possible… BREAKING: Journalism is often consumed for free, but costs money to produce! While this newsletter is proudly sent without cost to you, our ability to send it each day depends on the financial support of readers who can afford to give it. So if you’ve got a few dollars to spare each month and believe in the work we do, please consider joining us on Patreon today. https://www.patreon.com/marijuanamoment / TOP THINGS TO KNOW President Donald Trump and federal officials are facing another lawsuit seeking to stop marijuana rescheduling—this one from a coalition of prohibitionist activists, substance misuse professionals, doctors and a cannabis-focused biopharmaceutical corporation. Rep. Mike Flood (R-NE) claimed that people who live in places that have legalized marijuana tell him “it’s the worst thing they’ve ever seen happen.” He was responding to a constituent who pressed about his opposition to reform, asking, “Why do you want medical cannabis patients like myself and so many others in this room to die?” Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill (R) withdrew from participating in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s move to federally reschedule marijuana that she had initially jointly filed with the attorneys general of Indiana and Nebraska. California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) issued an opinion finding that Indian tribes cannot engage in marijuana commerce with legal businesses without getting their own cannabis licenses from state officials—a determination that comes as a bill on the issue is advancing in the legislature. A Pennsylvania senator said the Trump administration’s marijuana rescheduling move is “politically good” for efforts to legalize cannabis in the state because it could “create a permission structure for Republicans” to embrace the reform. It “creates political cover for Republicans who may want to move forward.” Louisiana lawmakers sent Gov. Jeff Landry (R) a bill to create a psychedelic-assisted therapy pilot program, using opioid settlement dollars to fund clinical trials aimed at developing alternative treatments such as psilocybin, ibogaine and MDMA. / FEDERAL Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY) discussed his hemp regulation legislation with an industry group. Oklahoma Republican congressional candidate Kelly Walsh currently works at a cannabis testing laboratory. / STATES Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) is proposing a significant tax increase on medical cannabis sales. Oklahoma’s attorney general touted enforcement actions against unlicensed marijuana operations. Illinois lawmakers sent Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) legislation to amend various cannabis rules. Vermont lawmakers sent Gov. Phil Scott (R) a bill to change various marijuana rules. Michigan representatives sent a press release about their ibogaine research bill. California regulators are proposing changes to rules on cannabis pesticide testing requirements. New York regulators posted new cannabis resources for military veterans. Washington State regulators will consider changes to cannabis rules on Wednesday. Colorado regulators will hold a hearing on proposed changes to marijuana tax rules on June 30. / LOCAL Los Angeles, California regulators sent a newsletter with various cannabis updates. / INTERNATIONAL A Nepalese lawmaker is pushing the government to legalize cannabis. / SCIENCE & HEALTH A study suggested that “CBD is associated with protective effects against disuse-related muscle atrophy, accompanied by reductions in oxidative stress markers, alterations in proteolytic pathways, and changes in mitochondrial-related markers.” A study of patients with pediatric epilepsy found that “cannabidiol treatment was associated with sustained improvements across multiple measures.” / BUSINESS STIIIZY’s cartridges do not infringe PAX Lab’s patents, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection ruled. Vireo Growth Inc. is consolidating subordinate voting shares, multiple voting shares and super voting shares at a ratio of 30-for-1. Verano Holdings Corp. announced a 1-for-5 reverse stock split. Massachusetts retailers sold $23 million worth of adult-use marijuana products over Patriots’ Day weekend, which coincided with 4/20. Make sure to subscribe to get Marijuana Moment’s daily dispatch in your inbox. Get our daily newsletter. Email address: Leave this field empty if you're human: The post Trump sued over cannabis rescheduling (Newsletter: June 2, 2026) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

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

When you use a genuine service, you will be able to provide instructions, share materials and choose the formatting style. สมัครแทงบอล

I am impressed. I don't think Ive met anyone who knows as much about this subject as you do. You are truly well informed and very intelligent. You wrote something that people could understand and made the subject intriguing for everyone. Really, great blog you have got here. เว็บแทงบอล

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

This is very smart, really an intelligent idea. This is my first time in your blog and I really love it. Thanks for this awesome post. audit services hong kong

The attorney general of Louisiana has withdrawn from participation in a lawsuit she initially joined that seeks to challenge the federal cannabis rescheduling action announced by President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice in April. The case, brought last month by Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill (R) and the attorneys general of Indiana and Nebraska, claims the officials will “show that this agency action fails to comport with the requirements” of federal law, “was improperly promulgated and was otherwise procedurally improper,” “exceeds or is inconsistent with pertinent authority” and “ultimately, that this agency action is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law.” “Petitioners thus ask that this Court declare unlawful and vacate this final agency action,” the filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit says. But on Friday, Murrill filed a motion saying that “Petitioner State of Louisiana respectfully moves under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), as applied through Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 20, to dismiss Louisiana as a petitioner in this proceeding.” “This motion seeks dismissal of Louisiana only. Respondents do not oppose this motion,” it said. “Louisiana thus respectfully requests that the Court dismiss Louisiana only from this proceeding, with each party to bear its own costs.” It is not clear why Murrill first joined, and then days later withdrew from, the case. Representatives from the attorney general’s office did not immediately respond to Marijuana Moment’s request for comment for this story. Last week the court consolidated the state attorneys generals’ complaint with a separate suit that was filed earlier last month by prohibitionist organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA). Also last week, a coalition of anti-marijuana activists, substance misuse professionals, doctors and a cannabis-focused biopharmaceutical corporation filed an additional lawsuit seeking to challenge the Trump administration’s marijuana rescheduling move. Under an action announced by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche in April, marijuana products regulated by a state medical cannabis license immediately moved from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III, as did any marijuana products that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). An administrative hearing scheduled for this month will consider broader cannabis rescheduling, including for recreational products. “The AG Rescheduling Order violates the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 to 559, and section 201 of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. § 811, exceeds the statutory authority of the Attorney General under the CSA, and is otherwise arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with law,” SAM and NDASA’s brief two-page petition challenging the rescheduling action claimed. It was signed by attorneys at Torridon Law PLCC, where former U.S. Attorney General William Barr, led DOJ during Trump’s first term in office, is a partner. SAM had announced in January that it was hiring Barr’s firm to legally combat cannabis rescheduling after Tump signed an executive order directing officials to complete the process expeditiously. Named defendants in both now-consolidated suits are the Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Blanche and DEA Administrator Terrance Cole. A federal judge last month dismissed separate litigation SAM brought to challenge a new Trump administration initiative to cover up to $500 worth of hemp-derived products each year for eligible Medicare patients Meanwhile, a House committee last month voted to block federal officials from taking further steps to carry out cannabis rescheduling. Read Louisiana’s motion to withdraw from the marijuana rescheduling lawsuit below: The post Louisiana Attorney General Withdraws From Lawsuit Against Trump Administration’s Marijuana Rescheduling Move appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net