All Activity

Sounds like a fantastic Canna Moms event! The recap highlights important discussions about parental rights and cannabis. It's great to see a global community connecting and breaking stigmas. Exploring different ways to relax and connect like music or even playing some simple io games together could be fun additions for future events.

A former U.S. Justice Department official argues that the use of medical marijuana by Christians may be biblically justified if cannabis is federally rescheduled, saying in a new paper that “the federal government will inevitably” enact the reform. But consumption of cannabis for recreational purposes would remain “inconsistent” with biblical principles even after rescheduling, he said. The paper in the journal Indiana Health Law Review, titled “Christian Faith and Marijuana Use After Federal Rescheduling,” offers an analysis of how a proposed rule to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) would comport with religious doctrine on the use of certain drugs. It states that “after rescheduling and consistent with biblical principles, people will presumably be able to use it therapeutically just as they use other intoxicants for their legitimate medicinal needs.” That’s not necessarily the case, however. A reclassification of marijuana to Schedule III would not federally legalize the plant. While other Schedule III drugs such as Xanax can be prescribed by doctors, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would need to approve cannabis as a medicine in order for it to be prescribed—and most experts agree there’s a slim chance of that given the agency’s reluctance to approve botanical medications. “The general public probably does not realize that marijuana possession remains a federal crime, even in states that have substantially decriminalized its manufacture, distribution, and use,” the paper from Melvin Otey of Faulkner University says. “For law-abiding persons, marijuana’s status as a Schedule I controlled substance means it cannot be consumed medicinally or recreationally.” “However, there are strong indications that federal authorities will eventually reschedule the hallucinogen,” Otey, who served as a trial attorney in DOJ’s Organized Crime and Racketeering Section from 2000 to 2003 and in the Organized Crime and Gang Section from 2007 to 2014, wrote. He clarified that, in his view, “even after rescheduling, law-abiding people will not be free to use the drug recreationally because it will remain a controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act.” “Moreover, recreational use would be inconsistent with several biblical principles,” it says. “If California’s laws proscribing marijuana were once typical, then perhaps it logically follows that the state’s deregulation was a harbinger of things to come,” the former DOJ official said. He also said that “classical economic theory” lends to the idea that, following legalization, there tend to be “lower prices and easier access, factors that ultimately beget increased consumption.” Despite the study author’s analysis, other research has shown that religious people are significantly less likely to support legalizing marijuana compared to those who identify as atheists and other religiously unaffiliated groups. As far as rescheduling is concerned, President Donald Trump endorsed the reform on the campaign trail ahead of his second term. And he said more recently that a decision on the proposal is imminent, without giving a clear indication of his current position. As Trump continues to weigh the rescheduling proposal, a Democratic congresswoman said this month there’s been more discussion among lawmakers about cannabis reform recently–adding that she’ll “continue to push for” other modest policy changes such as industry banking access. The post Christians Will Be Able To Use Medical Marijuana After Trump ‘Inevitably’ Reschedules It, Former DOJ Official Says In New Religious Analysis appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Good to read the details about the Biz Buzz Sway Blunts and you are having the best solutions for the people in need. By using the best solutions here, https://tylermasonry.com/stone-repair/ we can see how it works and provide us with instant solutions that are hard to get from local services. That's why I am here to learn how you guide us about it.

A GOP Texas senator who led an ultimately unsuccessful push to ban consumable hemp products with THC during the regular legislative session and two special sessions this year is now imploring state agencies to adopt restrictions on cannabis that he says would align the state with federal law. In a pair of letters sent to the Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA) and the Department of State Health Services (DSHS), Sen. Charles Perry (R) requested what he described as “narrowly tailored” changes to the state’s hemp laws. Specifically, he wants the crop and its derivatives to be tested for total THC content—including THCA—rather than just delta-9 THC, to determine legal status. The senator said the proposed revisions “are designed to find common ground on this issue” after the governor vetoed one of his outright ban bills and lawmakers failed to pass other versions. “Here’s the truth: we have debated what types of products should or should not be sold in this state, and I have no doubt that debate will continue in the 90th Legislative Session,” Perry said in a press release, “but no one should have any problem with the state complying with regulations adopted under [the federal 2018 Farm Bill].” Texas rules leave loopholes letting marijuana pose as hemp. I’ve asked state agencies to align with federal THC standards: https://t.co/JsoPPcxc59 #TxLege pic.twitter.com/vAMtSiyHAe — Sen. Charles Perry (@electcharles) September 22, 2025 “To the THC retailers that testified countless times during the 89th Legislative Session that they simply wanted to sell products that ‘comply with federal law,’ well here’s your opportunity to do just that,” he said. “At a minimum, Texas has an obligation to ensure consumable hemp products only contain hemp, as that term is defined by the USDA.” The letters to TDA and DSHS are largely identical, but they depart in a section outlining specific administrative policies Perry wants the agencies to respectively adopt within their jurisdiction. Perry said that, despite state hemp laws stipulating the need for compliance with federal regulations, Texas “continues to ignore the sale of this cannabis flower at local head shops that would be illegal to harvest as hemp in all 50 states.” “This cannabis flower is not hemp—it is marijuana, pure and simple,” he said. “The same applies for any cannabis concentrate extracted from such cannabis flower, which itself qualifies as either marijuana extract or tetrahydrocannabinols, as such terms are used in the Texas Schedules of Controlled Substances—once again, these substances are not hemp.” By federal statute, hemp is defined as cannabis containing no more than 0.3 percent THC by dry weight. It does not carve out an exception for flower or extracts. In his letter to the state agriculture department, the senator requested that it update the definition of hemp, ensure that THC levels are tested for both delta-9 THC and THCA and revise testing requirements. The ask is similar for DSHS, with additional requests for definitional changes for what constitutes “smoking” and measurements of uncertainty for THC testing. “The widespread and easy availability of illegal marijuana products, masquerading as ‘legal hemp’ is an ‘imminent peril to the public health, safety, or welfare’ of this state,” the letters say. The letters urge the departments to “engage in emergency rulemaking to ensure (1) that the Texas Hemp Program rules are at a minimum, as stringent as those required by the USDA of every state plan in the United States, especially regarding Total THC, and (2) that bad actors in the State of Texas are clearly prohibited from exploiting purported ‘loopholes’ in current rules to circumvent the Texas Controlled Substances Act. Texas law should be crystal clear—cannabis flower that exceeds 0.3 percent Total THC is Marijuana.” — 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. — While Gov. Greg Abbott (R) vetoed legislation championed by Perry and the lieutenant governor to ban all hemp products containing THC, he did sign an executive order earlier this month to set age limits to prevent youth access. The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) quickly adopted changes to the state’s hemp laws this week consistent with the governor’s order, making it so people under the age of 21 will no longer be permitted to purchase consumable hemp products. Meanwhile, a recent survey from a GOP pollster affiliated with President Donald Trump found that Texas Democratic and Republican voters are unified in their opposition to the hemp ban proposal. The post Texas GOP Senator Pushes State Agencies To Adopt More Restrictive Hemp Rules After His THC Ban Bills Failed appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“After engaging with stakeholders and hearing a lot of thoughtful discussion between stakeholders and also the council, I have come to the conclusion that there is not a pathway at this time or a consensus to move forward on this.” By Rebecca Rivas, Missouri Independent A St. Louis County, Missouri bill aimed at preventing intoxicating cannabis products from being sold outside of dispensaries is dead, after meeting heavy resistance from retailers and distributors. St. Louis County Councilwoman Lisa Clancy, the bill sponsor, dropped the bill during the council’s Tuesday meeting. “After engaging with stakeholders and hearing a lot of thoughtful discussion between stakeholders and also the council, I have come to the conclusion that there is not a pathway at this time or a consensus to move forward on this,” Clancy said during the meeting. Clancy said she’s hopeful state legislators will address the “very serious public health and safety issues” when they reconvene in January. State law prohibits marijuana products from being sold outside of dispensaries. However, thousands of gas stations and other stores statewide currently sell THC products—such as gummies, beverages and vapes—that get people high the same way that marijuana does. The difference, producers say, is that the products are made from hemp. Lab and cannabis experts testified last week before the council that there’s no way to ensure these products aren’t made from black-market marijuana without a track-and-track system like the one that’s required for regulated marijuana. While some liquor stores—including Total Wine—have self-imposed age restrictions on purchasing the beverages, there’s no government agency regulating the products—and that includes who can buy them. For the past three years, Missouri lawmakers have debated legislation that would put all THC products under the same regulatory framework as marijuana. The proposals were met by fierce opposition, particularly from associations representing convenience stores, hemp companies and veterans. This past spring, Republican state Sen. Nick Schroer of Defiance offered a proposal that carved out an exception for low-dose THC beverages, which have been sold in Missouri’s bars and liquor stores for seven years. It still required things like high-dose gummies, THCA flower and vapes to only be sold in marijuana dispensaries. Schroer’s bill was filibustered by state Sen. Karla May and other St. Louis Democratic senators, who argued that it would create a monopoly for the marijuana industry and harm small businesses. Hemp naturally has very little THC, the intoxicating component mostly associated with marijuana. But that potency can be increased with some science. While marijuana, from seed to final product, is governed by a state regulatory regime, intoxicating hemp products have been completely unregulated by any governmental agency since 2018—when Congress passed a Farm Bill that legalized hemp. If enacted, Clancy’s bill would’ve effectively banned those products in Missouri’s largest county. Clancy dropped the bill just before another council member was going to offer a substitute draft. Earlier in the day, the Missouri Cannabis Trade Association urged Clancy and other council members to drop the bill. “We appreciate the efforts of local elected officials in St. Louis County to prevent more area kids from buying and using these unregulated products,” said Andrew Mullins, executive director of MoCannTrade, “but it is becoming clearer that it’s Missouri state government that needs to lead the way on this public safety issue.” Mullins asked the council to withdraw the measure and join the association in Jefferson City to lobby for regulations. “While a patchwork of regulations and bans across Missouri’s 114 counties is certainly better than the current wild west reality,” he said, “it wouldn’t give parents, teachers and law enforcement the peace of mind they need to hold the bad actors selling and making these products accountable.” Clancy said if the state fails to take action again next year, then the council “may re-evaluate and reconsider.” “I’m hopeful that the state will pick this up and their session this coming winter,” she said. “I think all of us on the council will be watching it carefully.” This story was first published by Missouri Independent. The post Bill To Restrict Intoxicating Hemp Products To Only Marijuana Dispensaries In St. Louis County, Missouri Dies Without A Vote appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Alaska activists have officially launched a signature drive to place an initiative on the 2026 ballot to legalize certain psychedelics such as psilocybin and DMT. About a month after the lieutenant governor’s office certified the measure for circulation, a combination of volunteer and paid petitioners for the Alaska Natural Medicine campaign got to work last week after receiving initiative booklets from the state. With a requirement to collect 35,000 signatures, advocates are “working hard to make that happen as we get into the fall season here,” David Karabelnikoff, Alaska policy advisor and member of the steering committee for the campaign, told Marijuana Moment on Monday. Having personally collected signatures over the past week, Karabelnikoff said he’s “found support from, surprisingly, a wide variety of people.” That even included a “long-time member” of Narcotics Anonymous, which counsels people on a general principle of abstinence from drugs. There’s a “whole variety of cross-sections of people that are willing to give the voters a chance to make the decision on this at the election ballot box,” Karabelnikoff said. “And I think that plant medicine and natural medicines are kind of a cross-cutting topic.” “We found support from from both conservative people as well as progressives or liberals,” he said. “Alaska has a unique balance—also with this really strong libertarian spirit up here, where, if you’re staying in your own lane and not hurting anyone, then we kind of feel like the government should stay out of our business.” A policy outline from the campaign explains the proposal as “building off of” Colorado’s voter-approved 2022 Natural Medicine Health Act, under which facilitators recently administered the state’s first legal dose of psilocybin. In addition to establishing a licensed psychedelics industry in the state, the Alaska measure would legalize non-commercial use, cultivation and sharing of DMT, non-peyote mescaline, psilocybin and psilocin among adults 21 and older under a so-called “grow, gather, gift” model popular among psychedelic reform proponents. The measure “shifts away from a restrictive healing center model, allowing individual practitioners to provide [natural medicine] in their offices and at-home facilitation, increasing accessibility in rural communities” that are common in Alaska, the organizers’ policy outline says. Cultivation would need to take place in a space no larger that 12 feet by 12 feet and remain out of public view, and growers would be required to take reasonable steps to prevent access by minors. Transfers of psychedelics between adults, meanwhile, would need to occur without any form of payment. Public consumption of the substances would be forbidden, subject to a civil fine of up to $100. On the commercial side, Alaska would license healing centers—where certified facilitators would supervise psychedelic administration—as well as testing labs, cultivation facilities, product manufacturers, handlers and other related businesses. The application round for licenses would need to begin no later than July 1, 2028. Facilities would need to be majority Alaska-owned, with at least half of ownership held by residents of the state. Traditional healers would also be protected under the proposed initiative for “ceremonial, spiritual, or cultural use of plant medicines” through legal exemptions to state drug laws. They would not need to hold a state license, the proposal says, “but must be certified or credentialed as a traditional practitioner.” The system would be overseen by a Natural Medicine Control Board a “regulatory and quasi-judicial agency” that would be housed within the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development. It would include members from the public safety and public health sectors, as well as someone from a rural area, a representative of the natural medicine industry, an Alaska Native traditional healer, a professional practitioner of psychedelic-assisted therapy and someone either from the general public or the natural medicine industry. A separate Natural Medicine Advisory Committee consisting of 15 members would make recommendations around the program. That body would include mental heath professionals, natural medicine therapists or researchers, tribal representatives, a physician, a military veteran, a first responder, healthcare experts and others. As for traditional use, the measure would also create a Traditional Use Council to develop best practices and educational materials around Indigenous-based psychedelic use and harm reduction principles. That would include a separate credentialing or certification process that “may include consideration of lineage, apprenticeship, community recognition, and cultural practice, rather than formal clinical or academic training.” The state Department of Law conducted an analysis on the legality of the proposal, including with respect to federal law. Attorney General Treg Taylor (R) said that the measure would no more conflict with federal policy than the state’s existing marijuana legalization law does. “While the [Controlled Substances Act] strictly prohibits the manufacture, distribution, and possession of marijuana, we found no controlling authority sufficient to declare the initiative unconstitutional on its face,” he said of the prior cannabis initiative. “The same reasoning holds true when applied to” the psychedelics measure, Taylor said. “We see no significant distinction based on the type of Schedule 1 substance at the center of the initiative application. Questions of federal enforcement (or lack thereof) and pre-emption when a state enacts divergent drug control laws remain largely unresolved. To the extent [the psychedelics measure’ presents pre-emption and enforcement concerns, Alaska’s marijuana regulatory scheme currently implicates those same legal 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. — A poll last year found that nearly half (49.4 percent) of Alaska adults would support a ballot measure to more broadly remove criminal penalties for using substances such as psilocybin mushrooms. That support rose markedly—to nearly two thirds (65 percent)—when participants were told that Alaska has high rates of mental illnesses that could potentially be treated with psychedelics. Last year, Alaska lawmakers passed legislation to create a state task force to study how to license and regulate psychedelic-assisted therapy. The measure took effect without the signature of Gov. Mike Dunleavy (R). So far two other states have facilitated psychedelics programs that are fully operational. Oregon voters legalized therapeutic psilocybin in 2020, and Colorado’s program was passed at the ballot box in 2022, with the state’s governor signing legislation a year later to create the regulatory framework for the program. Separately in Alaska, a federal judge ruled in June that state officials did not violate the constitution when restricting intoxicating hemp products in 2023. Photo elements courtesy of carlosemmaskype and Apollo. The post Alaska Psychedelics Campaign Launches Signature Drive To Put Legalization Measure On 2026 Ballot appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

I appreciate this article for the well-researched content and excellent wording. I got so interested in this material that I couldn’t stop reading. Your blog is really impressive. link slot I have read your article couple of times because your views are on my own for the most part. It is great content for every reader. kikototo alternatif I am constantly surprised by the amount of information accessible on this subject. What you presented was well researched and well written to get your stand on this over to all your readers. Thanks a lot my dear. slot 4d I went to this website, and I believe that you have a plenty of excellent information, I have saved your site to my bookmarks. togel online If more people that write articles involved themselves with writing great content like you, more readers would be interested in their writings. I have learned too many things from your article. maxwin gacor

Go green with bamboo toilet tissue that is eco-friendly and sustainable. It is made from bamboo, a renewable resource that grows quickly. Strong, soft, and biodegradable, it provides comfort and supports the planet with every bathroom roll used. Bamboo Toilet Tissue

Fine Posting, We're an important believer around writing commentary for web pages so that you can allow the site freelancers realise that they’ve increased a little something valuable so that you can the ether! trucks for sale

The Justice Department is telling the U.S. Supreme Court that “significant disagreement” about the federal ban on gun possession by marijuana consumers among numerous appeals courts has led to a situation where the justices should step in and provide clarity for the country. The comments came in a new filing in a case that DOJ is asking the Supreme Court to reject due to recent procedural developments, though it wants the justices to take up a separate case on the issue while holding on to others for later action. “In short, seven courts of appeals—the Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits— have recently issued decisions concerning as-applied Second Amendment challenges to Section 922(g)(3),” the filing says, referring to the federal law that precludes people from owning firearms if they’re deemed to be an unlawful user of cannabis or other illegal drugs, “and each court has resolved that challenge by applying a somewhat different constitutional test.” “Those decisions confirm that the question presented recurs frequently, has generated significant disagreement in the courts of appeals, and warrants this Court’s review,” U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the Monday brief. The government’s filing in U.S. v. Baxter asks the justices to reject that case, a stance also shared by lawyers for the respondent, Keshon Daveon Baxter, whose conviction for being unlawful user of a controlled substance in possession of a firearm was reinstated by a district court after previously being remanded back from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. “If the Eighth Circuit affirms that decision, the vacatur of petitioner’s original conviction would be harmless,” Sauer’s filing says. “And if the court reverses, the government could, if appropriate, file a new petition for a writ of certiorari.” For now, DOJ said the court should instead take up the separate case of U.S. v. Hemani, which involves a person convicted of possessing a firearm while using cannabis and cocaine and participating in illicit drug sales. “In its reply brief in Hemani, the government explained that the question presented had generated a multi-sided circuit conflict: The Seventh Circuit had upheld Section 922(g)(3) in a decision that predated NYSRPA v. Bruen, but the Third, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits, each applying different tests, had issued decisions since Bruen concluding that the statute violates the Second Amendment in many of its applications,” the brief says, referring to a major 2022 case that struck down a New York gun control law. “Since then, the Seventh Circuit has rejected the government’s contention that its pre-Bruen decision upholding Section 922(g)(3) remains good law.” “Taking a fresh look at the relevant history, however, the court determined that ‘historical laws that kept guns out of the hands of the intoxicated and the mentally ill are sufficiently analogous to § 922(g)(3)’s proscription of firearms possession by active and persistent drug users,'” the filing says. “Other courts of appeals, too, have issued decisions concerning as-applied challenges to Section 922(g)(3).” While arguing that justices should move forward with the Hemani case now, DOJ said the court “should also hold other pending petitions concerning as-applied challenges to Section 922(g)(3).” “But the Court need not hold the petition in this case,” it said, referring to the Baxter case. On Wednesday, dockets for several pending cases on the marijuana and guns issue were updated to note that the justices are set to discuss them in a closed-door meeting on October 10. With respect to the Justice Department’s commentary on the diverging opinions among courts on the gun and cannabis issue, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit last month sided with a federal district court that dismissed an indictment against Jared Michael Harrison, who was charged in Oklahoma in 2022 after police discovered cannabis and a handgun in his vehicle during a traffic stop. The case has now been remanded to that lower court, which determined that the current statute banning “unlawful” users of marijuana from possessing firearms violates the Second Amendment of the Constitution. The lower court largely based his initial decision on an interpretation of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in which the justices generally created a higher standard for policies that seek to impose restrictions on gun rights. The ruling states that any such restrictions must be consistent with the historical context of the Second Amendment’s original 1791 ratification. The historical analogues that the Justice Department relied on to make the case that the ban is consistent included references to antiquated case law preventing Catholics, loyalists, slaves and Indians from having guns. The circuit court, for its part, said that “the government must show non-intoxicated marijuana users pose a risk of future danger” to support the current policy. “This inquiry, which may involve fact finding, is best suited for the district court.” This opinion comes nearly a year after the Tenth Circuit heard oral arguments in the case, with judges questioning not only the firearms prohibition itself but also whether it was within the scope of the appeals panel’s power to review the underlying lower court’s decision. Ultimately, they determined that they did possess that authority. Meanwhile, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh District, judges recently ruled in favor of medical cannabis patients who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights to possess firearms. In the background of these developments, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering a series of cases challenging the gun ban for people who use marijuana. As a recent report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) explained the current legal landscape, a growing number of federal courts are now “finding constitutional problems in the application of at least some parts” of the firearms prohibition. In a recent ruling, a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated a defendant’s conviction and remanded the case back to a district court, noting that a retrial before a jury may be necessary to determine whether cannabis in fact caused the defendant to be dangerous or pose a credible threat to others. The opinion appears to differ from a recent Third Circuit ruling in that the new decision says that not every application of 922(g)(3) “require[s] an individualized factual determination,” explaining that such determinations wouldn’t be necessary if the government could demonstrate that a particular drug made an entire class of users dangerous. By contrast, the Third Circuit recently said in a published opinion that district courts must make “individualized judgments” to determine whether 922(g)(3) is constitutional as applied to particular defendants. — 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. — Earlier this year, a federal judge in Rhode Island ruled that the ban was unconstitutional as applied to two defendants, writing that the government failed to establish that the “sweeping” prohibition against gun ownership by marijuana users was grounded in historical precedent. A federal judge in El Paso separately ruled late last year that the government’s ongoing ban on gun ownership by habitual marijuana users is unconstitutional in the case of a defendant who earlier pleaded guilty to the criminal charge. The court allowed the man to withdraw the plea and ordered that the indictment against him be dismissed. Another panel of judges, on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, heard oral arguments in November in the government’s appeal of a district court ruling that deemed the gun ban unconstitutional. In a number of the ongoing cases, DOJ has argued that the prohibition on gun ownership by marijuana users is also supported by the Rahimi decision that upheld the government’s ability to limit the Second Amendment rights of people with domestic violence restraining orders. DOJ has made such arguments, for example, in favor of the firearms ban in a case in a case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In that matter, a group of Florida medical cannabis patients contends that their Second Amendment rights are being violated because they cannot lawfully buy firearms so long as they are using cannabis as medicine, despite acting in compliance with state law. DOJ under former President Joe Biden consistently argued that medical marijuana patients who possess firearms “endanger public safety,” “pose a greater risk of suicide” and are more likely to commit crimes “to fund their drug habit.” It remains unclear how the Trump administration will approach the cases. At a NRA conference in 2023, Trump suggested there might be a link between the use of “genetically engineered” marijuana and mass shootings. He listed a number of controversial and unproven factors that he said at the time he would direct the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to investigate as possibly causing the ongoing scourge of mass shooting afflicting the country. “We have to look at whether common psychiatric drugs, as well as genetically engineered cannabis and other narcotics, are causing psychotic breaks” that lead to gun violence, he said. DOJ has claimed in multiple federal cases over the past several years that the statute banning cannabis consumers from owning or possessing guns is constitutional because it’s consistent with the nation’s history of disarming “dangerous” individuals. In 2023, for example, the Justice Department told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that historical precedent “comfortably” supports the restriction. Cannabis consumers with guns pose a unique danger to society, the Biden administration claimed, in part because they’re “unlikely” to store their weapon properly. Last year, Biden’s son Hunter was convicted by a federal jury of violating statute by buying and possessing a gun while an active user of crack cocaine. Two Republican congressmen challenged the basis of that conviction, with one pointing out that there are “millions of marijuana users” who own guns but should not be prosecuted. The situation has caused confusion among medical marijuana patients, state lawmakers and advocacy groups, among others. The National Rifle Association’s (NRA) lobbying arm said recently that the court rulings on the cannabis and guns issue have “led to a confusing regulatory landscape” that have impacted Americans’ Second Amendment rights. “Marijuana use is no longer limited to the domain of indigenous religious customs or youth-oriented counterculture and now includes a wide variety of people who use it for medicinal or recreational reasons,” said the advocacy group, which does not have an official stance on cannabis policy generally. “Many of these individuals are otherwise law-abiding and productive members of their communities and want to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.” Meanwhile, some states have passed their own laws either further restricting or attempting to preserve gun rights as they relate to marijuana. Recently a Pennsylvania lawmaker introduced a bill meant to remove state barriers to medical marijuana patients carrying firearms. Colorado activists also attempted to qualify an initiative for November’s ballot that would have protected the Second Amendment rights of marijuana consumers in that state, but the campaign’s signature-gathering drive ultimately fell short. As 2024 drew to a close, the ATF issued a warning to Kentucky residents that, if they choose to participate in the state’s medical marijuana program that’s set to launch imminently, they will be prohibited from buying or possessing firearms under federal law. The official said that while people who already own firearms aren’t “expected to” turn them over if they become state-legal cannabis patients, those who “wish to follow federal law and not be in violation of it” must “make the decision to divest themselves of those firearms.” Since then, bipartisan state lawmakers have introduced legislation that would urge Kentucky’s representatives in Congress to amend federal law to clarify that users of medical marijuana may legally possess firearms, though no action has since been taken on that bill. Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear (D) said in January that he supported the legislature’s effort to urge the state’s congressional delegation to call for federal reforms to protect the Second Amendment rights of medical marijuana patients, but the governor added that he’d like to see even more sweeping change on the federal level. “I think the right way to deal with that is not just to focus on that issue, but to change the schedule of marijuana,” Beshear said at a press conference. “What we need to change is the overall marijuana policy by the federal government.” Photo elements courtesy of rawpixel and Philip Steffan. The post Trump DOJ Notes ‘Significant Disagreement’ On Marijuana Consumer Gun Ban In New Supreme Court Filing appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Chepauk Escorts | Coimbatore Escorts | Connaught Place Escorts | Dehradun Escorts | Delhi Escorts | Dwarka Escorts | Ecr Escorts | Egmore Escorts | Electronic City Escorts | Girinagar Escorts | Goa Escorts | Guindy Escorts | Gurgaon Escorts | Guwahati Escorts

Call Girls Ahmedabad | Call Girls Andheri | Call Girls Bangalore | Call Girls Chennai | Call Girls Delhi | Call Girls Goa | Call Girls Gurgaon | Call Girls Hyderabad | Call Girls Indore | Call Girls Jaipur | Call Girls Jodhpur | Call Girls Juhu | Call Girls Kolkata | Call Girls Lucknow | Call Girls Manali | Call Girls Mumbai | Call Girls Nashik | Call Girls Noida | Call Girls Patna | Call Girls Ranchi | Call Girls Ajmer | Call Girls Udaipur | Call Girls Coimbatore

They really are on their own. They are not available through any other escort service. Don't wait, then. Give us a call right now to experience Call Girls in Chennai.

Thanks For sharing this Superb article.I use this Article to show my assignment in college.it is useful For me Great Work. 방이동노래방

I haven’t any word to appreciate this post.....Really i am impressed from this post....the person who create this post it was a great human..thanks for shared this with us. pusat togel Superbly written article, if only all bloggers offered the same content as you, the internet would be a far better place.. togel 4d I went over this website and I believe you have a lot of wonderful information, saved to my bookmarks agen toto macau Thank you so much as you have been willing to share information with us. We will forever admire all you have done here because you have made my work as easy as ABC. bandar toto I purchased a solar-powered water pump for my small farm, and it’s both eco-friendly and cost-effective. Renewable energy really makes a difference. situs gacor I was amazed at how easy it was to install a booster water pump. It only took a couple of hours, and the results were great. togel online

German youth marijuana use drops after legalization; Vets push CA gov on psychedelic research bill; TX hemp rules; Rescheduling 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 Former Vice President Kamala Harris wrote in her new book that Joe Rogan “lied” when he said she “didn’t want to talk about marijuana legalization” on his podcast, claiming that her team in fact included cannabis in a list of “suggested topics that might interest Rogan’s audience.” Germany’s Federal Institute for Public Health published a new study showing that teen marijuana use has decreased since the country enacted a cannabis legalization law, even as consumption by young adults increased. The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission adopted emergency rules to ban the sale of consumable hemp products to people under the age of 21 in line with an executive order signed by Gov. Greg Abbott (R). Veterans Exploring Treatment Solutions is pushing California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) to sign a bill aimed at expediting research on whether marijuana and psychedelics can be utilized “to treat opioid use disorders, traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other mental health conditions fueling the disproportionate incidence of suicide among California veterans.” Vicente LLP’s Shawn Hauser explains in a new Marijuana Moment op-ed what federal cannabis rescheduling would mean for the hemp industry—and what it would not mean. Minnesota municipalities are testing the limits of how much they can restrict marijuana businesses under state law, teeing up courts or the legislature to clarify the situation. / FEDERAL The Drug Enforcement Administration touted a crackdown on vapes containing substances such as synthetic cannabinoids, synthetic cathinones and 7-OH. The National Institute of Standards and Technology is hosting a workshop about cannabis breathalyzer technology on Wednesday and Thursday. Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) tweeted, “Trump eagerly advances the war on drugs, except when he does not, such as by pardoning a fellow crypto enthusiast to free him from a life sentence for drug distribution.” / STATES Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) is supporting legislation to extend the expiration date on conditional medical cannabis business licenses from two years to three years. The chair of the Georgia House Agriculture and Consumer Affairs Committee discussed efforts to expand medical cannabis access. New York regulators sent guidance about a plan to fully implement a marijuana tracking system by the end of the year. Washington State regulators sent guidance about changes to rules on marijuana business ownership interest. California regulators sent an update on various cannabis issues. Vermont regulators will consider cannabis zoning and equity issues 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 Cook County, Illinois officials launched an advising program for cannabis industry entrepreneurs. / INTERNATIONAL The International Criminal Court detailed crimes against humanity charges against former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte alleging his involvement in dozens of killings in the nation’s bloody “war on drugs.” Berlin, Germany officials are pushing for stricter rules on marijuana-impaired driving. / SCIENCE & HEALTH A case study concluded that “cannabinoid therapies have shown promise in managing sleep disorders and may represent a viable alternative for treating narcolepsy.” A study found that “making [MDMA-assisted therapy] available for PTSD treatment in Ukraine is likely to be cost-effective or cost-saving, while substantially improving health outcomes.” / BUSINESS Mamedica announced a £4.5 million funding round led by Casa Verde. WM Technology Inc. is facing a proposed class action lawsuit alleging it knowingly allowed unlicensed businesses to advertise on its platform. atai Life Sciences was awarded a grant worth up to $11.4 million by the National Institute on Drug Abuse to fund optimization and early-stage development of its 5-HT2A/2C receptor agonists with non-hallucinogenic potential for opioid use disorder. / CULTURE Former basketball player Matt Barnes spoke about the time he and his teammates smoked marijuana with Woody Harrelson. 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 Brian Shamblen. The post Kamala Harris wanted to discuss cannabis with Joe Rogan, she says (Newsletter: September 24, 2025) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

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

Wow, cool post. I'd like to write like this too - taking time and real hard work to make a great article... but I put things off too much and never seem to get started. Thanks though. 수원호빠

hi was just seeing if you minded a comment. i like your website and the thme you picked is super. I will be back. 방이동노래방

Texas officials have quickly adopted changes to the state’s hemp laws, consistent with the governor’s recent executive order, making it so people under the age of 21 will no longer be permitted to purchase consumable hemp products. The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) issued an emergency rule that took effect on Tuesday, stipulating that no businesses licensed under the agency may sell cannabis to those under 21. Doing so will now result in an automatic license or permit cancellation. Failing to check IDs to ensure that a patron is of age will also carry the penalty of an automatic license cancellation. “This emergency adoption is necessary to help prevent minors from accessing and using consumable hemp products (CHP) that will negatively impact the minors’ health, which in turn negatively impacts the general welfare and public safety,” TABC said in a notice. And while it was just two weeks ago that Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed an executive order laying out new rules for the hemp market, the agency said that the rules are being adopted on an “emergency basis” and take effect immediately “because an imminent peril to the public health, safety, or welfare requires adoption on fewer than 30 days’ notice.” “The harms associated with cannabis/THC use by minors are well documented,” it said. State statute says emergency rules can only be effective for up to 180 days, and TACB said it ‘intends to propose these or similar rules under the normal rulemaking process and will consider any additional action necessary in the event unforeseen issues arise with the adopted sections. Future rulemaking may also provide additional guidance.” While the rules are actively in effect, the agency noted that it will begin enforcement on October 1. The Texas Cannabis Collective, which strongly resisted recent proposals in the legislature to ban hemp with any amount of THC, said the TABC action “follows Governor Abbott’s decisive steps earlier this year” when he vetoed a Senate bill to recriminalize consumable cannabinoid products. Meanwhile, Texas officials have separately taken another step toward implementing a law to significantly expand the state’s medical marijuana program—proposing rules to to let physicians recommend new qualifying conditions for cannabis and to create standards for allowable inhalation devices in line with legislation enacted by lawmakers and the governor earlier this year. Last month, the Department of Public Safety (DPS) also posted a set of additional rules in the Register to increase the number of licensed medical marijuana dispensaries in Texas under the recently enacted legislation. DPS will ultimately be issuing 12 new licenses for dispensaries across the state. Currently there are only three. The additional licensees will go through a competitive process, with officials prioritizing Texas’s public health regions to optimize access. The first round of licenses will be awarded to nine of 139 applicants who submitted their forms during an earlier application window in 2023. DPS will select those nine licensees on December 1. The 2023 applicants that didn’t receive a license, as well as any new prospective licensees, will have another shot at getting their license during a second round where awardees will be announced on April 1, 2026. DPS has separately previewed future rulemaking to comply with the medical marijuana expansion law. That includes proposals to establish “security requirements for dispensing organization satellite locations if approved by the department,” creating rules to revoke licenses for dispensaries that fail to dispense cannabis within two years of a license issuance and setting a timeline for “reviewing and taking action on dispensing organization licenses.” — 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. — In Texas, another bill, HB 195, introduced by Rep. Jessica González (D), would have legalized marijuana for people 21 and older, allowing possession of up to 2.5 ounces of cannabis, with no more than 15 grams of that amount being in concentrated form—but it did not advance. Image element courtesy of AnonMoos. The post New Texas Emergency Rules Ban Hemp Sales To People Under 21 In Line With Governor’s Executive Order appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Former Vice President Kamala Harris says Joe Rogan “lied” when he claimed she refused to talk about marijuana with him—writing in a newly published book that her 2024 presidential campaign specifically pitched a conversation about cannabis despite the podcaster saying her team resisted the issue. In her book “107 Days,” the title of which is a reference to the limited time she had to campaign for the presidency after former President Joe Biden bowed out of the race, Harris discussed the controversy over plans to join Rogan on his podcast in the run-up to Election Day last year. Shortly after the election that cemented President Donald Trump’s second term, Rogan alleged that Harris “didn’t want to talk about marijuana legalization” when she was invited on the show. Rogan, who ultimately endorsed Trump shortly before the election, said he thought the alleged refusal to discuss cannabis “was hilarious.” But according to Harris, the opposite was true. The then-vice president’s team “suggested topics that might interest Rogan’s audience such as cannabis, social media censorship, and crypto,” Harris wrote in the book, which was published on Tuesday. “Rogan’s team said they just wanted to discuss the economy, immigration and abortion.” In the months since the botched interview scheduling, Rogan “has lied on his show, claiming we pushed for tight topic restrictions,” and he “even claimed that the very topics we had suggested were ones we’d refused to discuss,” Harris said. No interview ultimately materialized due to scheduling conflicts and Rogan’s unwillingness to do the podcast remotely outside of his studio in Austin, the former vice president said. And on a day that the Democratic candidate’s team pitched in October of last year, she said she was advised that Rogan was taking a “personal day,” only later to learn that he was interviewing Trump that day. But Harris’s account of the events as it relates to marijuana conflicts with Rogan’s. On the episode of his podcast where he addressed the Harris interview controversy, comedian Adrienne Iapalucci asked Rogan why the then-vice president wouldn’t want to talk about marijuana. After all, Harris had reaffirmed her support for cannabis legalization on the campaign trail, sponsored a bill to end federal prohibition during her time in the Senate and would presumably benefit from highlighting her advocacy for the bipartisan issue in the run-up to the election. The campaign’s contention, Rogan said, was “because of her prosecuting record” in California. Harris has faced criticism over her role as a San Francisco district attorney and state attorney general, with opponents frequently pointing to data on cannabis arrests that took place under her leadership. “She put a lot of people in jail for weed—1,500 apparently,” the podcaster said. Marijuana Moment reached out to Rogan’s team for comment, but a representative was not immediately available. Harris also briefly addressed that issue in her new book, saying her prosecutorial record “had been mischaracterized.” “When I became a district attorney, this country was in an even worse place than it is now on criminal justice. I was one of the first elected progressive district attorneys, looking for ways to keep nonviolent offenders out of jail rather than put them in it,” she wrote. “I didn’t seek jail time for simple marijuana offenses.” During the campaign, Trump had also gone after Harris over her prosecutorial record on marijuana, claiming that she put “thousands and thousands of Black people in jail” for cannabis offenses—but the full record of her time in office is more nuanced. Data from the San Francisco District Attorney’s office that was featured in an investigative report from the Bay Area News Group showed that there were 1,956 convictions for misdemeanor and felony marijuana offenses from 2004 and 2010 when Harris led the office. But the number of people who were actually sent to state prison was 45. That said, it’s unclear how many people were sent to county jail, so the total figure may be higher. Harris received criticism from the cannabis reform community over a video her office posted in early 2024 that prematurely claimed the Biden administration had “changed” federal marijuana policies. Trump, for his part, endorsed federal rescheduling of cannabis as well as an ultimately failed Florida marijuana legalization ballot measure in the weeks before Election Day last year. Since he took office, however, the marijuana rescheduling process initiated under the Biden administration has remained stalled—though the president has suggested a decision on the matter will come within weeks. Image element courtesy of Joe Rogan. The post Kamala Harris Says Joe Rogan ‘Lied’ About Her Willingness To Discuss Marijuana On His Podcast appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

A new study conducted by German federal health officials shows that rates of marijuana use declined among youth after the country legalized adult-use cannabis last year, contradicting one of the more common prohibitionist arguments against the reform. The Federal Institute for Public Health’s Drug Affinity Study published on Tuesday examined marijuana use trends in 2025, finding that the rate of past-year cannabis consumption for youth aged 12-17 dipped from 6.7 percent to 6.1 percent since the prior survey in 2023. More regular consumption (at least ten times in the past year) also decreased from 1.3 percent to 1.1 percent. Among young adults between the ages of 18 and 25, the study showed a slight uptick in cannabis usage, with past-year consumption increasing from 23.3 percent to 25.6 percent between 2023 and 2025. Germany’s former health minister Karl Lauterbach, who spearheaded the government’s legalization plan, said the results of the research “confirm what the goal of legalization was: through the debate about dangers for children and adolescents, their consumption does not increase or even decreases,” according to a translation. Die Studie würde bestätigen, was Ziel der Legalisierung war: durch die Debatte über Gefahren bei Kindern und Jugendlichen steigt deren Konsum nicht an oder sinkt. Trotzdem müssen die Ergebnisse noch bestätigt werden. Verbote schrecken junge Leute nicht ab https://t.co/CSQF7HwseZ — Prof. Karl Lauterbach (@Karl_Lauterbach) September 23, 2025 “Nevertheless, the results still need to be confirmed,” he said. “Bans do not deter young people.” The study is based on surveys of 7,001 adolescents and young adults from April to July of this year. It was April 2024 when Germany’s legalization law took effect, allowing adults to possess and grow certain amounts of cannabis and social clubs began to open, providing members with legal access to marijuana products. “Our data show that consumption among adolescents has not increased. However, consumption has risen slightly among young adults, particularly among men between 18 and 25 years of age,” Johannes Nießen, acting director of the Federal Institute for Public Health, said in a press release. “We must monitor this development very closely.” The lack of evidence that youth use increased post-legalization is consistent with pro-reform arguments. Advocates have long maintained that providing a regulatory framework for marijuana would mitigate underage access as more adults transition to the legal market. In the U.S., where cannabis is legal in some form in the majority of states but prohibited at the federal level, research has shown similar trends. For example, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration (SAMHSA) in July published data that showed youth cannabis consumption has remained stable amid the state legalization movement. The agency also held a webinar in July in which a Johns Hopkins University researcher acknowledged that while self-reported cannabis consumption by adults has risen as more states have legalized, use by youth has generally remained flat or fallen. A report from the advocacy group Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), for example, found that youth marijuana use declined in 19 out of 21 states that legalized adult-use marijuana—with teen cannabis consumption down an average of 35 percent in the earliest states to legalize. The report cited data from a series of national and state-level youth surveys, including the annual Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey, which is supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). A Canadian government report separately found that daily or near-daily use rates by both adults and youth have held steady over the last six years after the country enacted legalization. Back in Germany, following a pivotal national election earlier this year, political parties that were cooperating to form a new coalition government announced that they would be conducting an “open-ended evaluation” of the country’s marijuana legalization law—meaning that at least for now, officials will allow the policy to stay in place. — 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. — In December, the federal minister for food and agriculture signed off on a plan to allow for research-focused commercial marijuana pilot programs to test legal and regulated access to cannabis for consumers. At the local level, the city of Frankfurt late last year announced plans to move forward with a five-year pilot program that would make cannabis products available to adults more broadly , with the city of Hanford also pursuing a similar plan. A number of other localities have also expressed interest in conducting cannabis sales pilot projects. Despite widespread concern that results of February’s election could spell doom for the legalization law, most Germans— 59 percent of eligible voters —support allowing adults to purchase cannabis from licensed stores. For the previous three years Germans were polled on the issue, support sat at just under 50 percent. But as the country’s marijuana law began being implemented last year, there was a spike in favor of the policy change. Notably, respondents who identified as CDU or CSU—two of the three coalition parties behind the new agreement—were the only political affiliations among which majorities of voters supported rolling back the reform law. German officials last year convened an international conference where leaders were invited to share their experiences with legalizing and regulating marijuana , with a focus on public health and mitigating the illicit market. Representatives from Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Switzerland were invited by German Commissioner for Addiction and Drug Issues Burkhard Blienert to the meeting in Berlin. The countries that participated in the ministerial have varying cannabis policies. Malta, for example, became the first European country to enact cannabis legalization in 2021. Luxembourg followed suit, with the reform officially taking effect in 2023 . Government officials from several countries, including the U.S., also met in Germany in 2023 to discuss international marijuana policy issues as the host nation worked to enact legalization. A group of German lawmakers, as well as Blienert, separately visited the US and toured California cannabis businesses in 2022 to inform their country’s approach to legalization. The visit came after top officials from Germany, Luxembourg, Malta and the Netherlands held their first-of-its-kind meeting to discuss plans and challenges associated with recreational marijuana legalization in 2022. The post Teen Marijuana Use In Germany Declined Following Recreational Legalization, Government Study Shows appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“That becomes a problem, because we’re at the beginning of this industry and this market. Time and money are at a premium.” By Brian Arola, MinnPost Whether it comes from courtrooms or the Capitol, Minnesota’s cannabis laws look in need of clarification in response to wide interpretations by cities. Local governments by law can cap the number of cannabis retailers, place restrictions on where businesses are located and set hours of operation. Prohibition is a step too far. Cities are using the law’s language, or finding areas not addressed by the law, to achieve similar ends, however, raising questions that may end up being hashed out by judges or lawmakers. One court case involving Albert Lea’s denial of a cannabis retail license is ongoing. A rejected applicant for a cultivation business in Silver Bay said he’s considering his legal options. In all, attorney Carol Moss knows of about 20 cities statewide on the “naughty list” for ordinances she sees as contradicting state laws. A common one, said Moss, who monitors cannabis policies statewide at the Edina-based Hellmuth & Johnson law firm, involves buffers imposed between businesses and churches. The law only carves out room for buffers from schools, day cares, residential treatment facilities and certain parks. The state’s Office of Cannabis Management offers guidance on the laws but has no legal authority to compel cities or counties into compliance. This leaves it up to individuals to challenge local ordinances in court. Timing is everything Minnesota’s Court of Appeals can weigh in on the legality of city ordinances, Moss said. The process can be lengthy and costly, pricing most people out of it. “That becomes a problem, because we’re at the beginning of this industry and this market,” she said. “Time and money are at a premium.” Costs have been a barrier preventing Greg Lien from appealing Silver Bay’s rejection of his business application. Lien intended to open a cannabis cultivation business in the North Shore city until he got stonewalled earlier this year. Silver Bay passed an ordinance in January stating it would not issue a registration or license to any retail or other cannabis business, citing a specific part of Minnesota law found under “Minn. Stat. Sec. 342.13(i)” to justify the ban. The section reads: “If a county has one active registration for every 12,500 residents, a city or town within the county is not obligated to register a cannabis business.” Lake County, where Silver Bay is located, has only 10,855 residents. Because another city in the county, Two Harbors, passed an ordinance stating an intention to issue one cannabis business license, Silver Bay appears to have interpreted the law to mean the county satisfied the minimum. Lana Fralich, city administrator in Silver Bay, declined to comment on the city’s ordinance, citing pending litigation. The “active registration” wording in state law is notable here. Two Harbors, and Lake County, seemingly didn’t have any active cannabis business registrations at the time Silver Bay passed the ordinance and denied Lien’s application. Two Harbors ultimately didn’t approve a cannabis retail license until August, meaning Lien may have been the county’s first active registration if Silver Bay hadn’t stopped him. Another consideration is that the part of the law allowing limits on active registrations may not even be referring to cultivation businesses. Above the section setting a minimum number of active registrations per a county’s population, the law refers to caps on retail registrations. Lien believes the city ordinance is in direct conflict with the statute. He interprets the statute to be referring to retail rather than cultivation. Whatever the merits of his case, he hasn’t yet figured out how to make a costly legal fight work. “I’m still trying to find an attorney that I can afford,” he said. Latitude in the law Albert Lea’s city leaders initially characterized their denial of a cannabis retail license during a July public meeting as a stand against state law. Publicly stated reasons shifted afterward to a stance on how cities should have more leeway when considering applicants. A lawsuit filed in the Minnesota Court of Appeals against Albert Lea in August alleges the city council denied Jacob Schlichter’s application for “political reasons.” His plans for Smoking Tree met all statutory criteria, the lawsuit states. Albert Lea’s response in court, dated Sept. 9, denied the council’s actions were political. Denial stemmed from concerns for public safety and Schlichter’s ability to operate in a lawful and respectful manner, according to the city. Schlichter has a misdemeanor conviction involving a minor on his record from 2017, which City Manager Ian Rigg cited as a reason for the council not to reconsider its denial of Schlichter’s application in August. The council’s initial vote against the license, by a 4-3 margin, occurred in late July. Mayor Rich Murray, in August, characterized the denial as a way to protect residents, alleging the governor and Legislature failed to do so in the cannabis law. “Approving this registration remains objectionable by the city based on his refusal to follow lawful instructions,” Murray stated in a press release. “His reaction to the denial was to harass people to the point they sought new restraining orders after a few years of silence. The applicant has publicly stated that he does not have to follow any of the local requirements.” Schlichter did not immediately return a call requesting comment. If city leaders were concerned enough about Schlichter’s past to question his application before the initial denial, no one voiced the sentiment on the record during the July meeting. At that meeting, the mayor bemoaned how the state “rammed” cannabis legalization “down our throats.” Council member Larry Baker explained how his vote was a way to say “no” to the Legislature, saying he was tired of control being taken away. The city manager and city attorney, at the time, told the council it could open itself up to a lawsuit if it blocked the application. Their stance was the city’s hands were tied after the applicant got the OK from the state. These statements before the initial denial could be closely scrutinized in an appeals court, Moss said. She has experience appealing city decisions in appeals courts, where judges consider what reasoning and info a council or committee used when making decisions. “All of that information is going to be used against them,” she said. “ … The evidence he [Schlichter] will have at the court of appeals is pretty significant, that the city council was taking into consideration things that were improper.” Albert Lea ended up approving two other applicants based in New Mexico and Washington. As an aside, the Washington applicant, Cristina Aranguiz, had a role in halting Minnesota’s social equity cannabis retail lottery in late 2024 by filing a lawsuit alleging the process unfairly denied her application. If the issues raised in Albert Lea and Silver Bay aren’t resolved in the courts, legislation could refine the law to rein in the range of interpretations by cities. A spokesperson for Rep. Jessica Hanson, DFL-Burnsville, who co-authored the bill legalizing cannabis, stated that discussions on specific language updates are ongoing. This article first appeared on MinnPost and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. The post Minnesota Cities Test Limits Of How Much They Can Restrict Marijuana Businesses appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

A leading veterans group is calling on California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) to sign a bill that would streamline research on marijuana and psychedelics. Veterans Exploring Treatment Solutions (VETS) sent an action alert this week asking its supporters to share their stories about psychedelics therapy in letters to the governor’s office. “VETS is working tirelessly to expand access to psychedelic-assisted therapies for veterans across the country,” the group said. “This year, we proudly sponsored AB 1103, a bill that would cut through red tape and expedite approval for psychedelic research projects at California’s world-class institutions.” “These studies will not only benefit veterans in California but will ripple across the nation, changing lives, advancing science, and offering hope where it’s desperately needed,” it said. “Now, the bill sits on Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk. That’s why your voice is critical.” The alert encourages supporters to tell Newsom’s office, either with a pre-drafted letter or their own anecdotes, to “help ensure this groundbreaking legislation becomes law.” The bill from Assemblymember Christopher Ward (D) would empower the Research Advisory Panel of California (RAPC) to expedite reviews of research proposals for cannabis on marijuana and psychedelics, through January 2028. Under current state law, projects for such controlled substances must be cleared by the panel prior to their application for approval from the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The new measure would also authorize RAPC’s chair to assign two or more members of the body to conduct expedited reviews of research proposals and approve them on behalf of the panel. It would also allow “individual panel members to communicate and consult asynchronously with other individual panel members with complementary core competencies outside of full panel meetings to conduct their individual reviews,” a summary of the legislation states. The overall intent of the bill is to facilitate studies to determine whether marijuana, psychedelics or other Schedule I or Schedule II drugs can be utilized “to treat opioid use disorders, traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other mental health conditions fueling the disproportionate incidence of suicide among California veterans,” the summary says. “Eliminating any and all unnecessary delays in commencing such clinical research in California will save lives,” it says. The bill’s passage comes more than a year after the governor signed separate legislation into law that’s similarly meant to streamline the processing of applications to study psychedelics and marijuana. That legislation from Assemblymember Marie Waldron (R) was meant to help clear a logjam of psychedelics study applications overseen by RAPC. Members had previously decided to suspend their activities because they were prohibited under existing law from publicly disclosing applicants’ trade secrets and other confidential information. To resolve the issue, the bill reauthorized the panel to carry out their duties in closed-door meetings, freeing them up to process the backlog. The new bill now on Newsom’s desk extends the panel’s exemptions from open meetings laws to January 1, 2028. — 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, on Monday the governor signed a bill into law to put a pause on a recently enacted tax hike on marijuana products. California officials are also inviting research proposals for a second round of grants under a program meant to better educate the public on the state’s marijuana law and help policymakers make informed decisions on the issue. In June, the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz) announced the recipients of over $52 million in community reinvestment grants to nonprofits and local health departments, also funded by marijuana tax revenue. That marked the seventh round of cannabis-funded California Community Reinvestment Grants (CalCRG) under the state program. Legalization in California has created a number of new grant programs aimed at addressing the consequences of marijuana prohibition and attempting to nurture a strong, well-regulated legal industry. California’s Supreme Court separately delivered a victory for the state’s marijuana program in June, rescinding a lower court ruling in a case that suggested federal prohibition could be used locally to undermine the cannabis market. The state Supreme Court ruling also came just weeks after California officials unveiled a report on the current status and future of the state’s marijuana market—with independent analysts hired by regulators concluding that the federal prohibition on cannabis that prevents interstate commerce is meaningfully bolstering the illicit market. The governor did sign a bill in 2022 that would have empowered him to enter into interstate cannabis commerce agreements with other legal states, but that power was incumbent upon federal guidance or an assessment from the state attorney general that sanctioned such activity. Meanwhile, a California Senate committee recently declined to advance a bipartisan bill that would have created a psilocybin pilot program for military veterans and former first responders. The post Veterans Group Pushes California Governor To Sign Bill Expediting Marijuana And Psychedelics Research appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“Increased acceptance and understanding could drive greater consumer demand and foster more mainstream integration of hemp-derived products into appropriate regulated frameworks.” By Shawn Hauser, Vicente LLP The Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) pending reclassification of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) marks a historic and long-overdue milestone in U.S. cannabis policy. This shift acknowledges marijuana’s accepted medical use and relatively low potential for abuse, standing as a testament to decades of persistent advocacy and evolving scientific understanding This reclassification also reveals a critical distinction in the federal cannabis landscape: marijuana is striving to reach a less restrictive status, while hemp has already achieved an unscheduled one. Similar commercial THC products are derived from both sources of cannabis, yet their regulatory frameworks and persistent federal challenges remain distinct. To fully grasp the potential impacts of rescheduling, it is crucial to recognize that while both marijuana and hemp are derived from the Cannabis sativa L. plant, their federal legal statuses differ significantly—with marijuana currently completing the complex process to achieve a less restrictive scheduled status—while hemp is already federally unscheduled (a result of congressional action in the 2018 Farm Bill). This means some cannabis “hemp” is already unscheduled and not subject to the restrictive provisions of the CSA at all. Rather, hemp operates under a fundamentally distinct legal framework established by the 2018 Farm Bill. This landmark law federally legalized hemp plants and their derivatives as an agricultural crop (rather than a controlled substance), defining hemp plants as cannabis with less than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC on a dry weight basis. Does the DEA’s Marijuana Rescheduling Affect Hemp’s Legal Status? The DEA’s proposed marijuana rescheduling rule expressly states that it will not affect hemp’s existing federal legal status under the 2018 Farm Bill. It also does not impact the legal status of THC-containing drugs already rescheduled out of Schedule I, such as Marinol or Syndros, nor does it impact the Schedule I status of “previously scheduled synthetic cannabinoids.” In short, moving marijuana to Schedule III does not automatically alter the existing federal legal or regulatory framework for hemp. Hemp cultivation, processing, and sales will continue to be regulated by their own specific federal and state regulations, independent of marijuana’s new classification. However, there are some direct and indirect impacts worth noting. What Are the Direct Legal Differences Between Marijuana and Hemp Under Rescheduling? 1. Marijuana Remains Controlled by DEA, Hemp Remains Unscheduled Despite a move to Schedule III, state-legal marijuana dispensaries and their products will remain federally illegal because Schedule III marijuana products still require Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for lawful interstate commerce. To date, FDA has approved only one cannabis-derived drug (Epidiolex) and three synthetic cannabinoid-based drugs for specific conditions. Hemp, on the other hand, is already descheduled and commonly sold in interstate commerce as a legal agricultural commodity rather than a controlled substance. Despite their different CSA statuses, both hemp and marijuana THC products, even if rescheduled, face legal risk under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), which governs the sale of food, drugs, and cosmetics in interstate commerce. The cannabis industry has largely operated under FDA’s implied risk-based enforcement policy for over a decade, under which FDA has not enforced the FDCA against state-compliant operators and has focused primarily on companies making “egregious medical claims” or posing severe public safety issues with unapproved products. 2. FDA Illegality for Marijuana and Hemp: Why Congressional Action Is Still Needed The FDA has clearly indicated that its existing food and drug regulatory framework is not sufficient for comprehensive cannabinoid regulation and has consistently stated that it needs congressional action to appropriately regulate cannabis. For over a decade, the agency has shown a lack of intent to deploy its resources toward mass enforcement in the cannabis sector. This reinforces that the immediate threat for both hemp and marijuana isn’t from the FDA shutting down state programs, but from the lack of a clear federal regulatory framework. While a Congressional Research Service report emphasizes that hemp-derived CBD might be permitted as a tobacco additive if marijuana is rescheduled and a company pursued this pathway, such products would still be subject to FDA marketing authorization and public health assessments. The FDA is clear that it doesn’t believe its food and drug regulatory framework is sufficient for cannabinoid regulation, and has consistently indicated that it needs congressional action to appropriately regulate cannabis. Some proposed federal regulatory frameworks consider the involvement of other agencies, such as the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), in coordination with FDA, as the appropriate regulatory agency. 3. Synthetic THC remains a Schedule 1 Controlled Substance, but the Definition Remains Unclear. The proposed rule clarifies that synthetically derived THCs (e.g., delta-10-tetrahydrocannabinol) are explicitly excluded from marijuana’s reclassification and remain Schedule I controlled substances. Although the law is clear, and DEA has repeatedly opined that certain synthetic cannabinoids not occurring naturally in the hemp plant are Schedule I substances, the definition of “synthetic” is not detailed in the CSA and is likely to continue to be debated and litigated. The lack of a clear federal definition has forced states to implement their own “patchwork” of regulations and prohibitions, and many state laws are unclear. Establishing safe and regulated production of THC and other cannabinoids produced through synthesis and conversion is a fundamental issue that must be imminently addressed to ensure public safety. 4. Marijuana Extract Definition: A Potential Concern for Hemp Derivatives The DEA’s proposed rule broadly defines “Marijuana Extract” as derived from “any plant of the genus Cannabis” containing greater than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC, “without explicitly exempting hemp-derived extracts. This broad language could potentially bring hemp products that inevitably exceed the 0.3 percent limit during intermediate processing into the DEA’s purview, even if the final product is compliant. Clarifying legal protections for “Work in Progress” (WIP) materials remains a longstanding need. What Are the Indirect Impacts of Marijuana Rescheduling on the Hemp Industry? While the direct legal changes for hemp are minimal, marijuana rescheduling is expected to indirectly generate a positive impact and broader momentum for the entire cannabis sector. These could ultimately benefit the hemp industry and progress towards effective federal regulation for cannabinoid products. Enhanced Legitimacy and Public Perception By moving cannabis out of Schedule I, where it is ludicrously classified as one of the most dangerous and highly abused drugs without any medical use, the federal government officially recognizes its medical utility and lower potential for abuse. This legitimization could be transformative for the medical community and broader public opinion, chipping away at the stubborn stigma associated with all forms of cannabis. The federal government’s acknowledgment of marijuana’s medical use is also reflected in recent congressional support for allowing physicians affiliated with the Department of Veterans Affairs to recommend medical cannabis to qualified patients in regulated jurisdictions. Increased acceptance and understanding could drive greater consumer demand and foster more mainstream integration of hemp-derived products into appropriate regulated frameworks. Increased Capital and Investment in Cannabis The removal of Internal Revenue Code Section 280E for marijuana businesses will free up substantial capital and improve investor sentiment across the cannabis sector. This anticipated influx of investment and a favorable shift in risk analysis can indirectly benefit the hemp industry and empower a unified push for federal legalization. It can also empower investment in research. Spurring Broader Federal Cannabis Policy and Guidance Rescheduling will likely prompt additional federal policy development and guidance for the cannabis industry as a whole. This presents a critical opportunity for hemp and marijuana stakeholders to align and advocate for a clear, effective federal legal framework for all THC-containing products—foods, beverages, supplements, cosmetics and inhalables—while establishing a separate pathway for medical cannabis products intended for treating conditions. Momentum for Comprehensive Cannabis Reform: Call for Congressional Action Rescheduling is a massive incremental step toward the ultimate solution of descheduling marijuana and implementing appropriate regulations. This broader push for comprehensive cannabis reform can energize advocacy efforts to address the fundamental issues plaguing the hemp industry, such as federal finished product regulation and inconsistent regulatory oversight. It strengthens the argument for sensible, science-based cannabis regulation across the board, drawing lessons from state-level experiments with marijuana and hemp oversight. Rescheduling reinforces the imminent needed for congressional action to regulate both medical and adult use THC containing products appropriately for consumer safety. We are already seeing new energy supporting congressional frameworks like the Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States (STATES) 2.0 Act and the Cannabinoid Safety and Regulation Act. Comprehensive Cannabis Reform: The Case for Descheduling and Unified Regulation While marijuana is taking a significant administrative step towards descheduling, hemp is already there. Both industries share the common challenge of navigating a fragmented federal-state regulatory landscape and FDA illegality that urgently requires dedicated congressional action to establish stable, responsible regulations. Only Congress can address the full limitations of rescheduling and provide a comprehensive federal cannabis regulatory model. The significant shift in federal perception and the anticipated injection of capital into the broader cannabis industry create a critical opportunity for the hemp and cannabis stakeholders to organize, engage and advocate for the necessary legislative change. Shawn Hauser is a partner at Vicente LLP, where she co-leads the firm’s Hemp and Cannabinoids practice and advises companies, investors, and governments on the evolving cannabis regulatory landscape. The post What Will Marijuana Rescheduling Mean For Hemp, Which Is Already Fully Descheduled? (Op-Ed) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net